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

[GaijinGolfer]

You gotta love someone who uses the words, "value based organization" to describe a company who supports hate.

[bamagrad03]

Quote:

But isn't this the point?  As with civil rights / race 'debates' in the 60's, this *is* bigotry.  Is there a grey area for nuance there?  The anti-gay-marriage side certainly can't say, "You disagree with my opinion? Well, you're a hateful bigot."  What?  I guess "Well, you're a progressive, bleeding-heart liberal who cares about social justice!" just doesn't have quite the right ring to it...

No. There are many nuances between the extreme of being a hateful bigot and opposing gay marriage. We are talking about one single issue as it relates to something that's long been deemed religiously directed. And that's the problem. Everyone wants to equate support for traditional marriage to denying someone access to a restroom based on the color of their skin. "You support traditional marriage - why do you hate gay people?" That's so absurd.

Millions of Christians support civil unions for gay people but fear legalizing gay marriage will lead to an erosion of their religious freedoms. And it's a fair concern. In every state where gay marriage has been legalized, immediately following were countless lawsuits against churches and private citizens who wished to not participate in or perform gay marriage ceremonies. Does that mean people "hate" gay folks? Or does it mean that they feel their religious convictions should be protected so they aren't sued to be forced to perform a ceremony or make a wedding cake for a gay couple?

And I think it's unrealistic to be faced with only one of two options: "either you are willing to abandon your religious convictions, or you hate gay people" That's so unfair. And it shuts down dialogue. Especially when, no matter how much you love everyone equally, your stance on ONE solitary issue reduces you down to being equal with people who thought it was OK to unleash dogs on civil rights marchers, force people to sit at the back of a bus, disallow them from eating in their lunchroom or attending the same schools.

Personally, I don't think the government has any business in marriage at all. They should issue civil unions - gay, straight, whatever. And all couples then would have equal protection under the law, could have whatever marriage ceremony they wish, and both equal protection clauses and free exercise clauses remain unscathed. But to many, that makes me a 'hateful bigot.' Which in and of itself is a very poignant commentary on where we've landed as a nation.

As an aside, I'll add that the same wild swings of assigning character traits to the opposition is something that plagues both sides.

[GaijinGolfer]

Originally Posted by bamagrad03

Personally, I don't think the government has any business in marriage at all.

Just as religion should have no bearing on political policy.  You know, that whole seperation of church and state thing.  The problem you have is that people are allowing their views and opinions to be shaped by a book that was written 2,000 years ago and has been twisted and use by the church to control people and mold the world into what they think it should be.  I have no time and little patience for people who are so small-minded.

[bamagrad03]

Originally Posted by GaijinGolfer

Just as religion should have no bearing on political policy.  You know, that whole seperation of church and state thing.  The problem you have is that people are allowing their views and opinions to be shaped by a book that was written 2,000 years ago and has been twisted and use by the church to control people and mold the world into what they think it should be.  I have no time and little patience for people who are so small-minded.

I agree, religion has no place in politics. None(and I'm deeply religious). But I also believe people should have the right to practice religion under the freedoms granted to them by the free exercise clause.

The government has no business in marriage. Period. They should set standard guidelines for qualification of legal rights with civil unions. And determining factors for said rights should not include sexuality. That way, your marriage is symbolic to you, personally. And separate from your tax protections or hospital visitation rights, etc.

[Clambake]

As a citizen of the US, Dan Cathy has the right to express whatever views he wishes.    However, as a business leader he should recognize that in doing so he is essentially speaking not as Dan Cathy the citizen but as a spokesperson for Chick Fil A, and therefore his position will be given much different weight than if any average person said the same thing.   Smart executives learn to keep their private lives private.

It bothers me that there are those (not here in TST but in general across the country) who are turning this into a First Amendment issue.    This is NOT an issue of abridging free speech.   Mr. Cathy has the right to speak freely, and there are no laws here preventing him from doing so.    But free speech doesn't mean that there are consequences to expressing beliefs.    The recent case of the Marine who spoke openly against Obama and said he would not follow orders from Obama that he didn't believe in was an example of a totally twisted Free Speech defense; he was certainly free to express those opinions, but such expression had consequences with his employer who had the right to dismiss him.     Similarly, backlash against Cathy's comments have nothing to do with free speech.

What disturbs me more, however, is how such issues get turned into polarizing perspectives on religious beliefs.    As someone else pointed out here, there are certainly millions of Christians who are supportive of same-sex marriage, abortion, etc.      Let's call this for what it really is - religious extremism.      Millions of Muslims believe in peaceful coexistence with nations and people of other beliefs; the tiny minority who feel otherwise and exercise in aggression and terrorism are properly described as Islamist extremists.      Those who take positions such as Mr. Cathy should not be described as Christian when expressing such beliefs as this gives way too much credence to anything they might say - they should be described as a religious extremist and their views should be dismissed and discounted appropriately.

[mdl]

Originally Posted by JetFan1983

The branding team over at chick-fil-a deserves some kind of raise for getting people to associate a better relationship with God by eating their fried chicken.

Totally.  Genius.

And I will forever root against Webb Simpson now (Cink too, but how often will I have to do that on the weekend going forward?)

[bamagrad03]

Quote:

It bothers me that there are those (not here in TST but in general across the country) who are turning this into a First Amendment issue.    This is NOT an issue of abridging free speech.   Mr. Cathy has the right to speak freely, and there are no laws here preventing him from doing so.    But free speech doesn't mean that there are consequences to expressing beliefs.    The recent case of the Marine who spoke openly against Obama and said he would not follow orders from Obama that he didn't believe in was an example of a totally twisted Free Speech defense; he was certainly free to express those opinions, but such expression had consequences with his employer who had the right to dismiss him.     Similarly, backlash against Cathy's comments have nothing to do with free speech.

It goes beyond a first amendment issue when you have government officials in NYC, Boston, and Chicago openly attempting to block CFA from doing business in their cities - based on the opinions of an employee. That's illegal. It's beyond illegal. And when you have the ACLU defending an overtly Christian private business on the matter, you know it's an egregious over-step on said politicians' part.

People aren't mad that CFA is being boycotted. That stuff happens ALL the time. I think folks are well-served to boycott businesses who's company values aren't aligned with their own. But when you have a city council member of NYC using her position in government to try and coerce the President of NYU to kick CFA off campus - then we've got problems.

What I find wildly hypocritical, is when you have guys like Rahm Emanuel using "tough talk" in regards to blocking CFA from his city - yet he campaigned for 2 presidents who opposed gay marriage.

[zeg]

Originally Posted by bamagrad03

No. There are many nuances between the extreme of being a hateful bigot and opposing gay marriage. We are talking about one single issue as it relates to something that's long been deemed religiously directed. And that's the problem. Everyone wants to equate support for traditional marriage to denying someone access to a restroom based on the color of their skin. "You support traditional marriage - why do you hate gay people?" That's so absurd.

Please don't describe that position as "supporting traditional marriage." There is no real opposition to "traditional marriage" at all, so that's a very misleading characterization. And while I do think it's possible to oppose same-sex marriages without being outright "hateful," I dispute that you can do so without being bigoted, and without dehumanizing homosexuals.

Originally Posted by bamagrad03

Millions of Christians support civil unions for gay people but fear legalizing gay marriage will lead to an erosion of their religious freedoms. And it's a fair concern. In every state where gay marriage has been legalized, immediately following were countless lawsuits against churches and private citizens who wished to not participate in or perform gay marriage ceremonies. Does that mean people "hate" gay folks? Or does it mean that they feel their religious convictions should be protected so they aren't sued to be forced to perform a ceremony or make a wedding cake for a gay couple?

Can you provide a reference to these "countless lawsuits?" I am skeptical, not that there have been some lawsuits, but that these are numerous enough to make this a real "fair concern." A price of living in a free society---one that afford the religious freedoms they're afraid will be eroded---is that there will be disagreements and we'll all pay some cost for that. The "religious freedom" not to confront this issue simply cannot trump the basic freedom to choose the person you wish to legally marry.

Note that I don't believe a church or an individual should be successfully sued because they refuse to take part in a marriage they don't agree with. There are some limits, particularly when it comes to equal rights protections of access to public or public-serving "businesses," but these aren't new ground to break: most of them have been faced in the race context.

Originally Posted by bamagrad03

And I think it's unrealistic to be faced with only one of two options: "either you are willing to abandon your religious convictions, or you hate gay people" That's so unfair. And it shuts down dialogue. Especially when, no matter how much you love everyone equally, your stance on ONE solitary issue reduces you down to being equal with people who thought it was OK to unleash dogs on civil rights marchers, force people to sit at the back of a bus, disallow them from eating in their lunchroom or attending the same schools.

Sorry, you can't choose to be judged on all your great features, well except for that ONE solitary issue where you discriminate against people because their private lives and access to civil rights and protections make you feel icky. Because this is very, very much the same as forcing people to the back of the bus, keeping them out of the lunchroom, and in separate schools.

Originally Posted by bamagrad03

Personally, I don't think the government has any business in marriage at all. They should issue civil unions - gay, straight, whatever. And all couples then would have equal protection under the law, could have whatever marriage ceremony they wish, and both equal protection clauses and free exercise clauses remain unscathed. But to many, that makes me a 'hateful bigot.' Which in and of itself is a very poignant commentary on where we've landed as a nation.

As an aside, I'll add that the same wild swings of assigning character traits to the opposition is something that plagues both sides.

Finally, a couple of points we agree on. The government needs to recognize unions because of the myriad obvious situations where families need legal recognition. If they dropped the term marriage, that'd be fine with me.

But, you know, the other side could fix this, too. You could just accept that when the government talks about "marriage," it is talking about a "legal marriage," which is functionally equivalent to a civil union. Are you really saying that your only problem here is that they're using a word that you think is magical? It doesn't make any sense to me that someone would be happy to let couples legally unite, if only they didn't use the same word we like to use.

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by bamagrad03

"You support traditional marriage - why do you hate gay people?" That's so absurd.

Millions of Christians support civil unions for gay people but fear legalizing gay marriage will lead to an erosion of their religious freedoms. And it's a fair concern. In every state where gay marriage has been legalized, immediately following were countless lawsuits against churches and private citizens who wished to not participate in or perform gay marriage ceremonies. Does that mean people "hate" gay folks? Or does it mean that they feel their religious convictions should be protected so they aren't sued to be forced to perform a ceremony or make a wedding cake for a gay couple?

I don't really think it's absurd at all.  And your next paragraph just further confirms why I (and I think a lot of people) feel that way.  Specifically the last part;  "...their religious convictions should be protected so they aren't sued to be forced to ..... make a wedding cake for a gay couple?"

Any way you slice it, that is discrimination.  (If you disagree, substitute black couple in your sentence and read it again)

[14ledo81]

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

I don't really think it's absurd at all.  And your next paragraph just further confirms why I (and I think a lot of people) feel that way.  Specifically the last part;  "...their religious convictions should be protected so they aren't sued to be forced to ..... make a wedding cake for a gay couple?"

Any way you slice it, that is discrimination.  (If you disagree, substitute black couple in your sentence and read it again)

The difference is that most Christians don't feel that it is a sin to be black, but they do believe it is a sin to live a homosexual lifestyle.

[bamagrad03]

Quote:

But, you know, the other side could fix this, too. You could just accept that when the government talks about "marriage," it is talking about a "legal marriage," which is functionally equivalent to a civil union. Are you really saying that your only problem here is that they're using a word that you think is magical? It doesn't make any sense to me that someone would be happy to let couples legally unite, if only they didn't use the same word we like to use.

I have no qualms with that. Honestly, I think marriage is a personal thing. Means so many different things to so many different people, that it's impossible do define it across the board. I just think there should be some separation (also read protection) on the ceremonial aspects of marriage. That's why it makes sense to recategorize the two. Marriage is between you and your partner, civil unions are between you and the government.

Quote:

I don't really think it's absurd at all.  And your next paragraph just further confirms why I (and I think a lot of people) feel that way.  Specifically the last part;  "...their religious convictions should be protected so they aren't sued to be forced to ..... make a wedding cake for a gay couple?"

Any way you slice it, that is discrimination.  (If you disagree, substitute black couple in your sentence and read it again)

Actually, it's not. Because I personally don't think sexuality should be protected. Gay or straight. Doesn't matter. It is impossible to define a "normal" for sexuality. My normal may be another person's crazy or wicked. Therefore, I don't think we should all be expected to be willing to align ourselves with everyone else's sexuality. Accepting that one has the right to do whatever they please in the bedroom is the common ground everyone should agree on. Others having protection from the government to FORCE someone else to actively be involved is another. If I wanted a gay minister of a gay church to perform my marriage of a heterosexual couple - he or she should have the right to turn it down if they're opposed. (And vice versa) That's all I'm saying.

Quote:

Sorry, you can't choose to be judged on all your great features, well except for that ONE solitary issue where you discriminate against people because their private lives and access to civil rights and protections make you feel icky. Because this is very, very much the same as forcing people to the back of the bus, keeping them out of the lunchroom, and in separate schools.

I've already indicated that I have no desire to limit anyone's civil rights. That's why I said the government has no business in marriage. I also have no desire to limit anyone's religious freedoms. The free exercise clause is outlined in the constitution. Plain as day. So to argue that, because I'm uncomfortable with the erosion of rights outlined in the constitution - I'm a hateful bigot - is patently unfair.

[rustyredcab]

There are more than "two sides."

1. People who think being gay may or may not be wrong but feel it is none of their business what others do and who they marry.

2. People who don't care what happens regarding anti-gay laws or marriage equality. Just a non-issue for them.

3. People who feel strongly that gay people should be allowed to marry as a matter of civil rights or even social justice.

4. People who think being gay is wrong and wish to teach their children that being gay is wrong and would not support their own child having a same sex marriage. But, what other families do is their business. This is much the way some families feel marrying outside the family religion is wrong but do not advocate for a law banning mixed religion marriages.

5. People who believe that gay "behavior" is wrong and that gay people marrying somehow threatens "the sanctity" of "traditional" marriage and who actively work to ban same sex marriage.

I'm sure there are other "sides."

I've never understood why the "sanctity of marriage" folks are not protesting against drive-through wedding chapels and other types of secular weddings that do not treat marriage as sacred. On some level, they must understand that marriage for many is not a religious ceremony. Two people who just met in Vegas can drive-through and get married and stay married for a week. Yet, gay marriage must somehow conform to a set of religious beliefs of a fundamentalist wing of Christianity.

As for Simpson and Cink, I think it is bad practice to dive into the middle of a debate like this without know how much the company supported (still supports?) groups with very aggressively anti-gay agendas. It is one thing to say what you believe and another to support an anti-(fill in the blank) group when you think you might be supporting free speech. This is not about free speech. It is about active support to stop people from having the same rights as other people.

[bamagrad03]

Quote:

As for Simpson and Cink, I think it is bad practice to dive into the middle of a debate like this without know how much the company supported (still supports?) groups with very aggressively anti-gay agendas. It is one thing to say what you believe and another to support an anti-(fill in the blank) group when you think you might be supporting free speech. This is not about free speech. It is about active support to stop people from having the same rights as other people.

It's also about celebrities and athletes needing to keep their mouths shut on political issues, period. When you have sponsors paying your mortgage, you don't have the luxury of blurting out whatever political whim you have that day - when it could potentially adversely affect the perception of your sponsor.

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by bamagrad03

I've already indicated that I have no desire to limit anyone's civil rights. That's why I said the government has no business in marriage. I also have no desire to limit anyone's religious freedoms. The free exercise clause is outlined in the constitution. Plain as day. So to argue that, because I'm uncomfortable with the erosion of rights outlined in the constitution - I'm a hateful bigot - is patently unfair.

So if it has to be one or the other (limiting civil rights vs. limiting religious freedoms) then you choose limiting civil rights?  Got it.

You would rather protect people from a few lawsuits because they don't like gay people than allowing people equal rights.

I can't see myself ever understanding this attitude coming from anything other than prejudice. (hateful bigot is a bit harsh, I won't go that far).

[rustyredcab]

Originally Posted by bamagrad03

{...} That's why I said the government has no business in marriage. {...}

But the government is and has been in the business of marriage. Laws are written that give rights and privileges to married people that others do not enjoy. Estate laws. HIPPA laws. Parental rights... Recognition among all states...

Those who have an issue with gays using the word should simply look at how the word does not mean what they think it means for many many people. Those with a narrow view of what marriage is and is not do not get to decide for the others.

The lawsuits from people being forced to bake a cake for a gay couple sound like urban myth. No Pastor is compelled to marry a couple if they don't want to. I know Pastors that require years of meetings and then decide if they think the couple knows what they are doing. The Catholic church as denied millions of couples at the discretion or the local Priest. I'm sure the courthouse Judge can not deny a couple any more than her or she can deny a mixed race couple (Mixed race marriage was not legal everywhere in the US until 1967). Judges are government employees and do not get to use religious freedom as an excuse to deny someone the rights their state, or the US Supreme Court, has given them.

[newtogolf]

Cathy should know as a business owner the number of opportunists out in the world that would take his words and twist them into a political or religious position that would result in a backlash on his business.

As for same sex marriage, I'm neutral, in other words I couldn't care less.  If gay couples want to endure the same legal headaches straight couple do when it comes to divorce, dividing assets, spousal support, then go for it.

Let's be honest, the push for same sex marriage isn't personal it's a financial issue.  I don't hear homesexuals whining about the sanctity of the bond, I hear them tout the tax breaks, health insurance coverage, life insurance, that come with being married.  I'm curious what's to stop two guys or girls that are living together as roommates from going to the justice of the peace and getting hitched so they can leverage the tax breaks, health insurance and all the other benefits that come from being married?

Let's just get rid of this stupid concept of marriage, remove the financial benefits of it and then the guys that want to sleep with animals won't feel excluded either.

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by newtogolf

Let's be honest, the push for same sex marriage isn't personal it's a financial issue.  I don't hear homesexuals whining about the sanctity of the bond, I hear them tout the tax breaks, health insurance coverage, life insurance, that come with being married.  I'm curious what's to stop two guys or girls that are living together as roommates from going to the justice of the peace and getting hitched so they can leverage the tax breaks, health insurance and all the other benefits that come from being married?

You just described the plot of "I Now Pronounce You Chuck & Larry."  Certainly there were people out there who saw that movie and did or tried to do exactly what you said.

I think you are wrong though.  I would have to assume the push for same sex marriage is different to everybody.  For some, it probably is financial (but that is true about hetero couple too), for others its the bond, and to others its simply about equal rights.

Oh, and that movie is pretty good.

[rustyredcab]

Originally Posted by newtogolf

Cathy should know as a business owner the number of opportunists out in the world that would take his words and twist them into a political or religious position that would result in a backlash on his business.

As for same sex marriage, I'm neutral, in other words I couldn't care less.  If gay couples want to endure the same legal headaches straight couple do when it comes to divorce, dividing assets, spousal support, then go for it.

Let's be honest, the push for same sex marriage isn't personal it's a financial issue.  I don't hear homesexuals whining about the sanctity of the bond, I hear them tout the tax breaks, health insurance coverage, life insurance, that come with being married.  I'm curious what's to stop two guys or girls that are living together as roommates from going to the justice of the peace and getting hitched so they can leverage the tax breaks, health insurance and all the other benefits that come from being married?

Let's just get rid of this stupid concept of marriage, remove the financial benefits of it and then the guys that want to sleep with animals won't feel excluded either.

You didn't really just go to the "sleep with animals" comparison did you? Perhaps you should care a bit more.

As for not hearing homosexuals whining about the sanctity of the bond, while I won't say "whining," I would say if you can't hear the wish for a sacred bond, then come listen nearer my Church. I don't know which of my homosexual friends wish to marry, but I know they are all glad that when it is legal in Illinois, they will have a Church that will welcome and celebrate their sacred union.