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

[newtogolf]

The photographer could simply claim he's book the day they requested.  There are many ways to not do business with someone you choose not to, it's all about how you go about doing it.  As Golfingdad stated, Hooters doesn't tell girls they didn't get the job because they are fat or flat chested.

Originally Posted by brocks

I usually do a little research before I post about a subject I don't know much about, but I'll make an exception in this case. Knowing nothing about business law, I will bet my house that if you consistently quoted prices ten times as high to black couples as to white couples for essentially identical services, and were reported for it, you would find yourself in legal trouble.

Not that I doubt it happens. Here is a clause from the Alabama State Constitution:

"The legislature shall never pass any law to authorise or legalise any marriage between any white person and a Negro or descendant of a Negro."

Although a ruling by the US Supreme Court has made that unenforceable since 1967, Alabamans proudly retained it in their constitution. As recently as 1998, a bill to have that clause removed was defeated by the legislature. Finally, sane people managed to get a referendum for its removal on the 2000 ballot, which allowed a direct vote by the people. And it passed, although 41% of the voters wanted to retain it.

And as recently as 2011, a reputable poll found that only 40% of Mississippi Republicans wanted interracial marriage to be legal. Since that is not a politically correct view, I suspect the actual numbers are a lot lower.

Being an eternal optimist, I think that opponents of gay marriage will look just as silly within a decade or two.

As I keep trying to explain to my 90-year old mother-in-law, they just want the option for themselves; they are not trying to make it mandatory.

[zeg]

Originally Posted by bamagrad03

Correct, I don't exactly "approve" of gay marriage, but I'm also not so egotistical as to think that my opinion should matter 2 cents worth when it comes to what they can and can't do. Really, I'm indifferent because it doesn't affect me. In the same token, I don't think their wishes to have a specific photographer photograph their wedding should matter 2 cents worth when it comes down to whether or not that person should accept the job.

It is as great as I believe. I've already shown legal precedent. That photographer was forced to pay like $7,000 in restitution and I think went out of business. There needs to be a reconciliation so both sides can have what they want. If the issue is truly what it's being represented as - and gay couples just want to be left alone and be allowed to marry - then conceding the point that folks don't have to violate their religious principles to participate in said marriage shouldn't be a big deal. Conversely, if Christians are truly concerned about erosion of religious freedom in this regard, then they should be more than willing to step aside if allowed the aforementioned concession.

Well, you've shown one example; without addressing whether I think it's a good or bad outcome in that case (I'm honestly not ready to make a judgment on that), there are plenty of examples of unjust legal decisions. I can say with some certainty that even if I decided with 100% certainty that the photographer got screwed, I don't think this would approach the top 10 worst legal judgments I'm aware of.

Additionally, when I say I don't think the risk is as great as you make out, although I think you exaggerate the number that are likely to occur, I don't mean only that. I also mean that I don't think the convenience of not facing such lawsuits is an absolute freedom that trumps the right to legal marriage / unions.

[JetFan1983]

LOL, leave it to Shorty to pour gasoline on a religious topic and then start handing out packets of matches to anyone in the community who will take them. Short, do the world a favor and make a twitter account so you can start typing this stuff to Webb Simpson It's time.

[newtogolf]

I always considered marriage a religious tradition that lost value when legal signficance and financial perks were tied to it.  I agree with you that people cheated in the past and we're open about it today, I was thinking more of the scam marriages like when Kardashian married Humphries just to boost television ratings.

Originally Posted by zeg

I agree with much of this, but you're dead wrong on your assumption that it used to have more sanctity. I'd argue the reverse: it used to be, if you became pregnant while single, you had no choice but to get married and stay that way, whether you were happy or not. People cheated, had kids with other people's spouses, etc, in the past just like they do now. We're just more honest and open about it now.

[bamagrad03]

Quote:

I was thinking more of the scam marriages like when Kardashian

I think we can all agree that Kim Kardashian marrying is more of a threat to marriage than any gay couple could ever be. :)

Quote:

Well, you've shown one example; without addressing whether I think it's a good or bad outcome in that case (I'm honestly not ready to make a judgment on that), there are plenty of examples of unjust legal decisions. I can say with some certainty that even if I decided with 100% certainty that the photographer got screwed, I don't think this would approach the top 10 worst legal judgments I'm aware of.

I'm less concerned with this isolated case, and more concerned about the precedent. A large portion of the gay community is as antagonistic towards the church as many a Christian is known to be to them. Which could lead to gay couples seeking out churches and business owners who are in conflict with their own beliefs - just to harass them in court.

I know many will also marginalize this concern, but it's also been a documented pattern (I believe the couple in the photographer case sought many different photogs until the found one who refused them service) - this is the type of thing I wish to avoid.

And like most things, 99% of gay couples would never take this approach. But that doesn't matter when there's 1% who will.

[newtogolf]

It is indicative of the way marriage is viewed and portrayed by the media in our society today.

Originally Posted by bamagrad03

I think we can all agree that Kim Kardashian marrying is more of a threat to marriage than any gay couple could ever be. :)

[zeg]

Originally Posted by newtogolf

I always considered marriage a religious tradition that lost value when legal signficance and financial perks were tied to it.  I agree with you that people cheated in the past and we're open about it today, I was thinking more of the scam marriages like when Kardashian married Humphries just to boost television ratings.

Fair enough. The rose-colored-glasses syndrome is one of my pet peeves. In many ways the "good old days" weren't so much "good" as just "old."

[Wisguy]

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

A Hooters manager is never going to hire a flat chested ugly girl as a waitress, but he's certainly not going to tell them that's why he didn't hire them ... unless he's an idiot and wants to get sued.

Not necessarily true - one of my classmates worked at Hooters one summer after applying for and not obtaining many more "appropriate" and career-oriented summer positions.  She was probably more intelligent than any person on this board, myself included and while she wasn't ugly, she probably wouldn't make it out of the average range in most guy's estimation.  And, she candidly joked about her job and the irony of someone who admitted in her own words, had "a chest like two peas on a board" working at Hooters.  I suspect the manager thought "long blond hair, nice legs - she'll do."  I'm not sure of the basis for refusing to hire males at such restaurants, though.

If anyone is still hung up on this "sanctity of marriage" issue, go do some research on the current views on marriage in Europe.  In several countries, including Sweden, the majority of couples who cohabitate and have children these days choose not to get married.  As far as I am aware, Sweden is not a den of sin, fornication, infidelity, domestic abuse, abandoned orphans, single parents, etc....

And let's not forget what a wonderful institution marriage can be, that for many hundreds of years it served to shield wife-beaters from legal repercussions and some cops are still reluctant to "get in between a man and his wife."  What a fine and sacred tradition!

An interesting fact about state laws or consitutional amendments that stated that marriage is a between a man and a woman and abrogated any "civil union" status equivalent to married status:  one of the groups most hurt by these laws were heterosexuals.  Civil unions were viewed as a perfect solution for a lot of elderly heterosexual couples who wanted many of the benefits of marriage (tax status, medical decision-making, etc...) without remarrying, which could interfere with their already established estate plans.

Now granted one can hire a lawyer to draft up a will, a health care power of attorney, etc.... to obtain a number of the rights afforded to married couples (but not all - in some states a gay couple cannot both be deemed parents, so if the wrong partner is out of town, the other partner who lovingly cared for a child for a decade may be excluded from the child's hospital room).  But why should a couple be forced to undertake this effort and expense of obtaining basic rights through legal documents, solely because some narrow-minded people have targetted them for discrimination?  Would it be fair for law enforcement to say "OK, you're blue-eyed and don't have a civil rights permit?  Terrific! That means I can arrest you without probable cause and need not comply with any of the established Constitutional rights afforded to non-blue-eyed persons.  You don't like it?  Well, you could have gone to the trouble and expense of hiring a lawyer to draft a permit for you and that would have given you most of the rights that other citizens have."

Here's another little fact:  a certain rather well-known country in history had laws that discriminated against homosexuals.  It was called Nazi Germany.

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by bamagrad03

I'm less concerned with this isolated case, and more concerned about the precedent. A large portion of the gay community is as antagonistic towards the church as many a Christian is known to be to them. Which could lead to gay couples seeking out churches and business owners who are in conflict with their own beliefs - just to harass them in court.

I know many will also marginalize this concern, but it's also been a documented pattern (I believe the couple in the photographer case sought many different photogs until the found one who refused them service) - this is the type of thing I wish to avoid.

And like most things, 99% of gay couples would never take this approach. But that doesn't matter when there's 1% who will.

But that won't change when gay marriage becomes legal, will it?  The views of the church aren't going to change, and therefore the views of that portion of the gay community towards the church aren't going to change either.

I think your argument is more of an argument for fixing the legal system (getting rid of frlivilous lawsuits) than it is for preventing gay marriage.  The type of person you are referring to, one that just goes around trying to harass people and sue them is not called 'gay,' they are called a**holes.  They ARE gay a**holes out there sure, but there are also a**holes in every other community as well.

[NM Golf]

First off, while I would plant myself well on the right on most issues, gay marriage is not one of them. With all the craziness going on around me I could not care less about gay marriage. If a person is lucky enough to find another soul in this rather screwed up world who they want to spend the rest of their life with then good for them. Personally, I am not just a huge fan of marriage, and why should heterosexuals have to be the only people to suffer through it!

The problem with this whole mess is people don't seem to be able to disagree anymore. First, you have the religious people who just know they are correct and have god on their side so everyone else is an idiot. Then you have the "enlightened ones" who consider themselves as highly intelligent, see anyone with any  religious beliefs at all as naive, and believe everyone else is an idiot. Every time one side says something the other has to get pissed and demonstrate against it.

Geez people, isn't it okay for someone else to not like gay marriage? Is it really necessary for gay people to go to their neighborhood Chic Fil A and have a kiss in just because of what the CEO believes. Is it going to change his mind?

[Shorty]

Originally Posted by JetFan1983

LOL, leave it to Shorty to pour gasoline on a religious topic and then start handing out packets of matches to anyone in the community who will take them. Short, do the world a favor and make a twitter account so you can start typing this stuff to Webb Simpson  It's time.

Poor old Webb was merely expressing his like for the food at a certain "restaurant" chain. Terrible how people read stuff into it. It was just like him tweeting about liking his 7 iron. How is that wrong?

And as for our good mate, the "deeply religious" Stewart Cink, he was just praising a "values based" company. What 's wrong with that?

Gawd----Can you imagine being a fly on the wall when Badds, Cink, Fowler, Simpson and B. Watson are together!!??

[rustyredcab]

A wedding photography business is a business. And businesses in the US can not discriminate against people based on the race, creed, age, or sexual orientation and I'm sure a few other things. The business is not a religious institution. You can discriminate if you are a religious institution in some situations. So, you can hire only men to be Pastors if you still discriminate against women as part of your religion.

But a business can not tell blacks to sit in the back of the restaurant, or refuse to sell a house to a jew, not serve someone simply because they are old, or refuse to offer your services because they are gay. Even if the business owner thinks he read it in the Bible. If you are a "church" you can do lots of those things. So there is little chance of religious groups having to offer their services to gay couples. Now if the take federal money...

And, for what it is worth, the article sited earlier about the photography company refusing a gay couple, the company was refusing to photograph their commitment ceremony not their wedding. Same sex marriage and even civil unions are not allowed in New Mexico. But, even in New Mexico, a business can not discriminate against gays, or blacks, or jews, or atheists, or the Irish, or old people...

AND, there are lots of us Christians who belong to Churches that are open and affirming to people of all sexual orientations. We are not some fridge group. My Church is part of The United Church of Christ. We've been here a long time. We were the Pilgrims. We stand for social justice, led the fight to abolish slavery, ordained our first female pastor in the 1800's, and are an open, Christian, progressive, beacon of light in an often fundamentalist night sky. I, for one, wish the other Christians posting about their interpretation of what it is to be Christian, would not speak as if they are speaking for me and the millions like me.

Same sex marriage is coming. Our grandchildren will not be able to imagine the resistance some of their relatives had to this civil right. There may still be people who oppose same sex marriage but it will be a very small group that oppose marriage equality. People may try and teach their children not to eat lima beans but, almost no one will be trying to ban lima beans. And your grandchildren will say, "So that's what happened to Chick-Fil-A."

[bamagrad03]

Quote:

A wedding photography business is a business. And businesses in the US can not discriminate against people based on the race, creed, age, or sexual orientation and I'm sure a few other things.

So, would you deem it fair that the government force that same photographer to photograph a wedding of two people who had sexual proclivities of any kind? In every attempt to keep this post family friendly, I won't expound with examples. But I don't see how you can make this rule unless it covers ALL sexual tendencies or none. Since it is impossible to define a normal for sexuality, I lean towards "none."

[sacm3bill]

Originally Posted by Wisguy

The CFA owner, Simpson, Cink, etc... have every right to speak their minds about their beliefs.

However, doing so marks them as fools.  Why on earth would any person be dumb enough to limit their source of revenue by angering potential customers and sponsors?  They will have at least twice as many people who will shun them as will gravitate toward them for expressing their hate-filled beliefs.  If I was one of those golfer's sponsors, I would pull the endorsement and would no longer sponsor them based on a) their expression of support for bigotry; and b) being too dumb to represent my business in an appropriate light.

First, you're just guessing - you have no idea whether twice as many might gravitate toward them than shun them. Hasn't gay marriage failed in a lot of states when put to the public vote? Whether rightly or wrongly (i.e., whether that's because the voters were unenlightened bigots or were rational and thoughtful), if the majority of your customer base or fans are against it (or even if it's 50/50), then a CEO or golfer coming out against it is not necessarily a bad business move.

Second, and more importantly, some folks speak their minds and damn the consequences not necessarily because they're stupid, but because they have honesty and integrity. Just a possibility for you to consider.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wisguy

Here's another little fact:  a certain rather well-known country in history had laws that discriminated against homosexuals.  It was called Nazi Germany.

Godwin's Law strikes yet again. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law)

[Dave2512]

Originally Posted by bamagrad03

So, would you deem it fair that the government force that same photographer to photograph a wedding of two people who had sexual proclivities of any kind? In every attempt to keep this post family friendly, I won't expound with examples. But I don't see how you can make this rule unless it covers ALL sexual tendencies or none. Since it is impossible to define a normal for sexuality, I lean towards "none."

Why would they be forced to do anything? It's how they chose to decline them that got them in trouble. I can't see any reason why they had to state their personal beliefs to turn down work.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by rustyredcab

A wedding photography business is a business. And businesses in the US can not discriminate against people based on the race, creed, age, or sexual orientation and I'm sure a few other things. The business is not a religious institution. You can discriminate if you are a religious institution in some situations. So, you can hire only men to be Pastors if you still discriminate against women as part of your religion.

I don't agree with that, New Mexico cases notwithstanding. A wedding photographer can (or should be able to, everywhere except NM) refuse to photograph any wedding they want and for any reason. It's not a public place like a restaurant (which, it should be noted, can ban children).

[zeg]

Originally Posted by bamagrad03

So, would you deem it fair that the government force that same photographer to photograph a wedding of two people who had sexual proclivities of any kind? In every attempt to keep this post family friendly, I won't expound with examples. But I don't see how you can make this rule unless it covers ALL sexual tendencies or none. Since it is impossible to define a normal for sexuality, I lean towards "none."

I wouldn't expect a photographer to concern himself with the "sexual proclivities" of any of his customers. I don't suspect there are many wedding photographers who inquire as to whether their clients partake in any particular sex act, heterosexual or homosexual, as a condition of accepting the engagement.

A same-sex marriage is not about sex any more than an opposite-sex marriage is "about" sex. It's about companionship, sharing of responsibilities, etc.

[mdl]

Originally Posted by bamagrad03

Why does it have to be one or the other? Why can't we grant everyone civil unions and still not infringe upon the constitutional protected right to free exercise? Not one time in this thread have I said I choose to favor one group over another. I've said no favor or consideration should be given to ANYONE based on sexuality - gay or straight. The issue at hand is, non-religious people don't deem religious freedom as an inalienable right. So they're more than quick to dismiss it in favor of gay marriage. I think they're mutually exclusive. You're the one saying it's one or the other.

Wow there are some depressingly small-minded, backwards bigots on this forum.  Having gone to school and learned to dress up your bigotry in marginally modernly accepted language doesn't change anything.

Thinking that gay people having all the same rights (including all federal and state marriage benefits/rights) as straight people infringes on the religious freedoms of Christians is a joke.  Seriously?  Denying those rights is SO OBVIOUSLY the government establishing the religious beliefs of backwards Christians.  It is nothing less than theocracy, exactly the opposite of what all the backwards, bigoted conservatives in this country like to pretend they're so honorably defending by maintaining their hatred and backwardsness (ie, the constitution).