Webb Simpson and Stewart Cink Show their Support for Chick-fil-A

[rustyredcab]

Originally Posted by Wisguy

{...}

The thing that religious people forget

{...{

Narrow that wide paintbrush again Wiseguy. You tried at first with the example of the nice couple you know. But it is hard not to keep talking like "religious people" are a monolithic group. Millions of us are are welcoming of all no matter who you are or where you are on life's journey.

[bamagrad03]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

OK, fair enough.  (I am going to assume for the sake of your argument that the guys wanted t-shirts with obscenities or graphic pornography on them and not just, say, shirts with a rainbow flag)

No, they wanted him to print shirts for the gay pride parade. He had printed numerous shirts before for gay folks, gladly. But he didn't want to be associated with a parade that celebrated homosexuality. Not because they were gay, but rather the subject matter of what they wanted to print. Yet, you see nothing wrong with a court forcing him to print those shirts.

I find that, beyond astonishing.

Quote:

Like I said before though, it still does not change the fact that this has nothing to do with gay marriage being legal.  Gay people are protected as a group from discrimination already, so nothing will change, other than potentially adding a few wedding based businesses to the list of people able to discriminate against gays.

Everyone in the world is in a protected group. Does that mean because they're gay they can sic the thought police on everyone who happens to choose to not participate in their celebrations? Really? It has everything to do with gay marriage being legal. Because that's what tends to open up lawsuits, New Mexico case excepted. If gay marriage isn't legal, then gay couples have less legal authority to sue churches in a court of law.

And if you're telling me it should be legal for a government to force a private business to photograph a gay commitment ceremony - something that isn't even of legal backing - just because the people in it happen to be gay, I'm calling bull mess. If that's the case then, if I want to have a commitment ceremony to my coffee table or my uncle pete, then EVERY vendor I come across has to be willing to participate, because if not, I'm gonna sue them for discriminating against a heterosexual. (This is obviously an exaggeration to prove a point. I in no way equate coffee table love with gay marriage or straight marriage)

[x129]

There are 2 questions about the business discrimination

a) Are you ok with a sign that says "No Coloureds?"

b) Do you feel that being gay falls in the same category

Most people would be against a) today. The debate about if gays is a protected category is a lot more up in the air. In these cases you could argue it doesn't matter much. If the only pharmacy in 100 miles will not fill your prescription because the pharmacist doesn't agree with your world view, it seems a lot more serious.

What do you think would be the response if a christian group brought a sign to a printer and the guy refused saying he doesn't support christianity? It would be pretty much the same as what happened.  People would get worked up. Of course discriminating against the overwhelming majority tends to put most guys out of business in a hurry.

Originally Posted by iacas

I agree that as a business I should be able to opt out of doing just about whatever I want. Maybe I run a restaurant and don't want to allow kids inside (this is happening). Or maybe I want to say "no shirt, no shoes, no service." Oh, that's happened too.

Maybe I don't want to teach a golfer because he's a major jerk with bad BO.

I think New Mexico (or whatever) got it wrong. I don't care what their reason was: I don't think you can force someone to photograph your whatever. I don't care if the reason was "no, because I don't like the shoes you are wearing right now."

Dan Cathy's free to do with his money and his freedom of speech what he wants. I'm free, whether I support gay rights or not, to eat his chicken or not.

P.S. I didn't read about the t-shirt guy except one post above, but I think he should be free to print whatever he wants - or to NOT print whatever he wants. It's his business, and thus, his property. I've never heard of a RIGHT to demand that someone else work for you or use their property for you. Again if he didn't want to print-t-shirts because the guy's name had a "Q" in it and he didn't like the letter Q then I say that's good for him.

P.P.S. This is kind of close, I realize, to saying that business owners are ALLOWED to discriminate. Don't like the color purple? Refuse to print a purple t-shirt? It'll hurt your business, probably, but if that's how you want to do it, then I say go ahead - discriminate against anyone who wants a purple t-shirt. Purple t-shirt fans don't have a "right" to make you do work for them, to demand that you do something that you don't want to do. And what about a guy who gives friends-and-family discounts. Is he discriminating against non-friends-and-familiy? Should everyone just get that super-awesome rate because doing otherwise is "discriminating" against someone? Please. Common sense is sorely lacking if people can be forced to do business they don't want to do. These aren't "public" facilities - like a library, schooling, getting a driver's license, whatever.

[bamagrad03]

Quote:

There are 2 questions about the business discrimination

a) Are you ok with a sign that says "No Coloureds?"

b) Do you feel that being gay falls in the same category

Please. This is completely different, and frankly, I'm tired of the comparisons. Is Chick-Fil-A standing out in front of their building doing sexual preference screenings? In both cases (the printer and the photographer) I've proven that there's no proverbial "no gays" sign hanging out in front. They're doing business with gays frequently.

There's NO group in the world that should be protected to that level. Not minorities, not majorities, not christians. Business owners should have the right to turn down business based on subject matter, irrespective of the person bringing in the material. If a heterosexual person brought in the request for the gay pride parade shirts, and its turned down, are they then discriminating based on heterosexuality? No, of course not.

If I brought a christian themed shirt request to an atheist shirt shop, and they denied it based on moral conviction, I'd have ZERO problem with that. Zero.

Are you saying that all black people and gay people are protected for ANY type of business they want to do, just because they're minority groups? If a black person or gay person walks into a shop and demands someone come film their sex party, are they required by law to do it for fear of discrimination? Of course not. Just like if a white person or straight person made the same request.

Thought police gettin out of hand.

[newtogolf]

People get worked up when they perceive their cause is being slighted.

How about the situation where someone comes in and requests a KKK sign be printed.  Business should have the right to choose who their customers are.  If you don't like my attitude you have the right to not do business with me, the reverse should be true as well.

We just need to move on so that homosexuals have the same rights as guys that like blonds with big boobs.  Who cares what someones sexual preference is (excluding pedophiles) and once gays have the same rights as heterosexuals they should no longer be entitled to any special protections that guys who like blonds with big boobs don't get.

Originally Posted by x129

There are 2 questions about the business discrimination

a) Are you ok with a sign that says "No Coloureds?"

b) Do you feel that being gay falls in the same category

Most people would be against a) today. The debate about if gays is a protected category is a lot more up in the air. In these cases you could argue it doesn't matter much. If the only pharmacy in 100 miles will not fill your prescription because the pharmacist doesn't agree with your world view, it seems a lot more serious.

What do you think would be the response if a christian group brought a sign to a printer and the guy refused saying he doesn't support christianity? It would be pretty much the same as what happened.  People would get worked up. Of course discriminating against the overwhelming majority tends to put most guys out of business in a hurry.

[bamagrad03]

Quote:

How about the situation where someone comes in and requests a KKK sign be printed.  Business should have the right to choose who their customers are.  If you don't like my attitude you have the right to not do business with me, the reverse should be true as well.

All the KKK person has to do is say they were gay, then the business would HAVE to print the signs...[sarcasm, but true]

The market should decide if these companies should remain in business. Just like they should have the right to turn down jobs based on subject matter, the free market has the right to decide not to do business with them.

[rustyredcab]

Originally Posted by bamagrad03

{...}

Everyone in the world is in a protected group. Does that mean because they're gay they can sic the thought police on everyone who happens to choose to not participate in their celebrations? Really? It has everything to do with gay marriage being legal. Because that's what tends to open up lawsuits, New Mexico case excepted. If gay marriage isn't legal, then gay couples have less legal authority to sue churches in a court of law.

And if you're telling me it should be legal for a government to force a private business to photograph a gay commitment ceremony - something that isn't even of legal backing - just because the people in it happen to be gay, I'm calling bull mess. If that's the case then, if I want to have a commitment ceremony to my coffee table or my uncle pete, then EVERY vendor I come across has to be willing to participate, because if not, I'm gonna sue them for discriminating against a heterosexual. (This is obviously an exaggeration to prove a point. I in no way equate coffee table love with gay marriage or straight marriage)

Not legally. There are protected groups and there are not protected groups.

And those groups are protected for some things and not others. CFA can and does discriminate when adding franchisees. They make them attest to support of Christian values and make them promise that they will support a local church. They give preference to married people over single people and it is very difficult to be selected if you've been divorced. They are strongly encouraged to attend couples weekends that teach fundamentalist Christian values. This is all legal and within their rights because they are choosing a partner in business. It would be illegal if they were hiring employees. You can not discriminate based on religious affiliation, or marital status when hiring.

In the same way, you may not discriminate based on sexual orientation. That is current law. That is only one reason any HR person will tell you not to ask the sexual orientation of a candidate during an interview. This is all somewhat unique to the USA. My brother-in-law works here, for an Italian based firm. They ask all kinds of questions that would be illegal here. "Why shouldn't we ask if they are married and have kids?"

As for doing business, you may deny purple tee shirts but not deny black people from buying the same stuff you are selling to other people. Same with gay people. The printer issue I read about in HP indicated that the case turned on if the denial was because of artwork or because of the people asking.

A local hospital run by the Adventists, was sued because they would not hire people who smoked even on their own time. The hospital won because, in part, smokers are not a protected class. They also won because they argued that while smoking is against their religion, it was because smoking violates the values of healthcare -- not religion -- that was the cause of the policy. And in fact, they did not discriminate based on religion. Yet, that same hospital may not discriminate against treating smokers in the ER. They must follow rules of being a hospital. They can not turn people away because simply because they are black, gay, old, married...

And as been said many times, same sex marriage will not change the protected class status of gay people doing business.

[achorripsis]

I love how bama just keeps reaching for those slippery slope fallacies. Has no empirical evidence, just one obscure case which has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE EQUALITY OF RIGHTS. He just excuses discrimination based on bigotry instead of trying to fight it.

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by bamagrad03

No, they wanted him to print shirts for the gay pride parade. He had printed numerous shirts before for gay folks, gladly. But he didn't want to be associated with a parade that celebrated homosexuality. Not because they were gay, but rather the subject matter of what they wanted to print. Yet, you see nothing wrong with a court forcing him to print those shirts.

I find that, beyond astonishing.

Everyone in the world is in a protected group. Does that mean because they're gay they can sic the thought police on everyone who happens to choose to not participate in their celebrations? Really? It has everything to do with gay marriage being legal. Because that's what tends to open up lawsuits, New Mexico case excepted. If gay marriage isn't legal, then gay couples have less legal authority to sue churches in a court of law.

And if you're telling me it should be legal for a government to force a private business to photograph a gay commitment ceremony - something that isn't even of legal backing - just because the people in it happen to be gay, I'm calling bull mess. If that's the case then, if I want to have a commitment ceremony to my coffee table or my uncle pete, then EVERY vendor I come across has to be willing to participate, because if not, I'm gonna sue them for discriminating against a heterosexual. (This is obviously an exaggeration to prove a point. I in no way equate coffee table love with gay marriage or straight marriage)

Actually, I am leaning towards agreeing with you, for the most part, on the first point.  There is no need to be astonished.

But on the second point, I think you are wrong.   Your only example so far of the myriad of lawsuits is in a state that doesn't allow same sex marriage.  So the question still stands; if they can already sue a business in NM for discrimination, how is it going to change things when (not if, when) same sex marriage becomes legal?  And you can't make the jump from a lawsuit against a business to lawsuits against churches (unless you have examples).  We have already discussed how churches have different rules than businesses, and I don't see how that is going to be a problem.  (I mentioned before, I couldn't get married in a Jewish temple, my friend couldn't get married in a mormom temple, and churches have the right to do that and always will)

[rustyredcab]

Originally Posted by bamagrad03

...

The market should decide if these companies should remain in business.

...

Are you too young to recall these arguments being used for not allowing blacks to sit at the lunch counter? Our society has decided that some groups need civil rights protection from some of "the market."

You keep arguing that there is a linkage between gays getting married, your religious freedom, your rights, and new requirements making businesses take jobs that violate their values. There is no linkage. I'm off that merry-go-round.

Best of luck with your upcoming wedding. Really. Marriage is awesome.

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by rustyredcab

Best of luck with your upcoming wedding. Really. Marriage is awesome.

Agreed!!

[bplewis24]

Originally Posted by rustyredcab

Are you too young to recall these arguments being used for not allowing blacks to sit at the lunch counter? Our society has decided that some groups need civil rights protection from some of "the market."

You keep arguing that there is a linkage between gays getting married, your religious freedom, your rights, and new requirements making businesses take jobs that violate their values. There is no linkage. I'm off that merry-go-round.

Yeah, you'll notice that the people with that agenda can't get off that ignorant and completely fabricated argument because it's the only way there can be a seemingly reasonable discussion regarding the topic.  On any logic test, it fails miserably and people like him should be ashamed of themselves.  I get a kick out of all of the idiots proclaiming their religious freedom is in jeopardy and the like.

That's not to even mention all of the little factual details they like to leave out of their anecdotes and "religious freedom" case trials. ;-)

[Wisguy]

Originally Posted by Harmonious

Bigot: "A person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices."

Well, none of those types posting on this thread, are there? Seems those so quick to classify everyone except themselves as bigots had better look in the mirror.

[say with a childish sing-song voice]:  I'M RUBBER, YOU'RE GLUE!  WHATEVER YOU SAY BOUNCES OFF ME AND STICKS TO YOU!

I think that captures the essence of your response, doesn't it?.

Except, as I and several others have said previously, intolerance of bigotry isn't itself bigotry.  Nice try, though.

[Wisguy]

Originally Posted by rustyredcab

Narrow that wide paintbrush again Wiseguy. You tried at first with the example of the nice couple you know. But it is hard not to keep talking like "religious people" are a monolithic group. Millions of us are are welcoming of all no matter who you are or where you are on life's journey.

OK, "most religous people and all that use religion as a basis or excuse for discriminating against groups of people who are different from themselves."    I try to qualify my statements to avoid overgeneralizatoins but you spotted one that escaped me while I was in a rush.

[Wisguy]

Originally Posted by bamagrad03

All the KKK person has to do is say they were gay, then the business would HAVE to print the signs...[sarcasm, but true]

The market should decide if these companies should remain in business. Just like they should have the right to turn down jobs based on subject matter, the free market has the right to decide not to do business with them.

Ah, the all-wise, all-fair, all-just market.  Nothing can go wrong if we simply let individuals do as they wish if the almighty market is there to protect us, right?

Bamagrad, I think you need to stop beating the dead horse of your printing/photography shop analogies.    What's next, the "Them anti-religious folks want people to be able to marry dogs and cats!  We NEED to protect marriage!" argument?

[k-troop]

Originally Posted by newtogolf

the same rights as guys that like blonds with big boobs.

We have been discriminated against for far too long.  WHO IS WITH ME??

This is the most interesting line in this 11-page thread so far.  Who gives a crap about what Chick-fil-A, their owner, or the people who eat their chicken think?  Either you eat the chicken, or you don't--and I don't really care why you chose one vs the other.  Whether to eat the chicken is a question I'll dedicate maybe 20 seconds of thought to, and only when I'm hungry.  BTW, they have some pretty sweet chicken.

[RGoosen]

Who gives a rats behind what some corporate executive thinks about any social issue. If I want to eat a chicken sandwich, I'll do it. As a Christian and a libertarian, people can do what they want. Political correctness makes me want to vomit. Let freedom of speech reign. I wish the over zealous Christians and the overzealous gays would take a laxative. I couldn't get past page 3 of this thread without getting a headache. I think I'll do something more pleasant like watching the replay of day 1 of the PGA championship. :)

[x129]

First off no one has accused Chick-Fil-A of acting illegally. What the boycott is that they chose to employ a guy whose actions may reflect badly on the company. That is why the talk of politicians banning the chain is stupid

It doesn't matter if there is a sign or not other than proving it in a court of law. Denny's didn't have a sign and they were still found to discriminate based on their actions.

An no I am not saying (and have no clue where you got that from) that you can't turn down requests from protected groups.  But if you do a job for one group but are unwilling to do the job for another group because they fall into a protected category, you are probably breaking the law.

Quote:

Please. This is completely different, and frankly, I'm tired of the comparisons. Is Chick-Fil-A standing out in front of their building doing sexual preference screenings? In both cases (the printer and the photographer) I've proven that there's no proverbial "no gays" sign hanging out in front. They're doing business with gays frequently.

There's NO group in the world that should be protected to that level. Not minorities, not majorities, not christians. Business owners should have the right to turn down business based on subject matter, irrespective of the person bringing in the material. If a heterosexual person brought in the request for the gay pride parade shirts, and its turned down, are they then discriminating based on heterosexuality? No, of course not.

If I brought a christian themed shirt request to an atheist shirt shop, and they denied it based on moral conviction, I'd have ZERO problem with that. Zero.

Are you saying that all black people and gay people are protected for ANY type of business they want to do, just because they're minority groups? If a black person or gay person walks into a shop and demands someone come film their sex party, are they required by law to do it for fear of discrimination? Of course not. Just like if a white person or straight person made the same request.

Thought police gettin out of hand.

Being a racist isn't a protected class so you can decide not to do business with them. What you are not allowed to do is say I don't do business with blacks. People can debate if that is a good law or not. It seems to have worked pretty well but it does leave a nasty taste in ones mouth.

If gays had the same rights as guys that like blonds, then we wouldn't need to have this discussion about gay marriage.   The problem is that a lot of people care what other peoples sexual preference is

Originally Posted by newtogolf

People get worked up when they perceive their cause is being slighted.

How about the situation where someone comes in and requests a KKK sign be printed.  Business should have the right to choose who their customers are.  If you don't like my attitude you have the right to not do business with me, the reverse should be true as well.

We just need to move on so that homosexuals have the same rights as guys that like blonds with big boobs.  Who cares what someones sexual preference is (excluding pedophiles) and once gays have the same rights as heterosexuals they should no longer be entitled to any special protections that guys who like blonds with big boobs don't get.

Nope. The store could just say they don't print hate speech. What they can't do is print hate speech for the KKK and then turn around and say no to the Black supremecist group.

Originally Posted by bamagrad03

All the KKK person has to do is say they were gay, then the business would HAVE to print the signs...[sarcasm, but true]

The market should decide if these companies should remain in business. Just like they should have the right to turn down jobs based on subject matter, the free market has the right to decide not to do business with them.