Chik-Fil-A and tolerance

[Defensor Fidei]

wow some serious cognitive dissonance you got running bro. The left thought they were going to do a 15 minutes of hate on cathy and remind everyone that saying thoughtcrime out loud will result in your head rolling, but they instead discovered most people find the never ending gay pride parade to be rather tiresome.

Nah, most LGBTQ people and supportive heterosexuals have lives to deal with. Lives that involve things more important to do than flock to a disgusting fast food joint for breakfast, lunch, and dinner just to make a statement of hatred toward our own fellow citizens. One side is motivated by love, the other side by hate; love will always win in the end though.

I do expect we'll get gay marriage in america, however. I expect america to kind of simper along as a combination of late ottoman empire / brazil until some foreign nation gives us a good kick and we schism along cultural lines. It'll be pleasantly ironic for america to suffer the middle easts fate in the 21st century that we inflicted in the 20th, but I also hope I don't have to live through it.

We'll get marriage equality in America, sure, that's a given. Opponents of marriage equality for same-sex couples will look no better than Ku Klux Klansmen to mainstream society within a decade or so.

As for America's fate as a nation and as a global power, that depends on whether the right-wing's policies are able to be defeated in time to salvage this country before it becomes a banana republic.

 

[acropolis]

You'd have to be blind or living under a rock for the last 40 years to think that the US wasn't on the path to accepting gays as equal and normal. Like it or not that's the future of the US, and most of the industrialized world for that matter. Eat all the sandwiches you'd like in the meantime though.

 

[Tomas de Torquemada]

Nah, most LGBTQ people and supportive heterosexuals have lives to deal with. Lives that involve things more important to do than flock to a disgusting fast food joint for breakfast, lunch, and dinner just to make a statement of hatred toward our own fellow citizens. One side is motivated by love, the other side by hate; love will always win in the end though.



We'll get marriage equality in America, sure, that's a given. Opponents of marriage equality for same-sex couples will look no better than Ku Klux Klansmen to mainstream society within a decade or so.

As for America's fate as a nation and as a global power, that depends on whether the right-wing's policies are able to be defeated in time to salvage this country before it becomes a banana republic.

oh, thats the fate of the west in general. Camp of the Saints style cultural and ethnic extinction over about a century or so. But hey, we'll have poofs throwing ridiculous weddings while rome burns. They can have their overpriced pet dog, child or other living fashion accessory carry the ring. It'll be amazing for the legal profession as well.

 

[EdwinWillers]

.. < heavy sigh > ..

 

[Defensor Fidei]

I stand corrected - it's the "old, fat, white, paranoid, persecuted hystericals on the right demographic who love to eat unhealthy fried fast food"

Yeah, that's pretty much what we're up against.

And why it's pretty difficult to take the whole Chick-Fil-A situation seriously. I mean, these are people who voluntarily lower their life expectancy by stuffing themselves full of greasy garbage like Chick-Fil-A.

In Catholic school I was taught that the human body was God's creation to be treated well, and that gluttony was a sin...but apparently these doctrines were rejected by Huckabee & co.

I mean.... just.... wow! Oy... what a setup for a great comeback... but out of... well let's just say "good taste," I'll refrain...

Your comebacks aren't very good, to be honest.

Well, if the sentiments expressed in this post are indicators of what it takes to be on the "right" side of history (whatever that means), color me on whatever the opposite side of that might be.

Yep, you're on the wrong side on history, to remembered alongside the defenders of slavery and segregation. If that makes you proud, I guess there's not much more to say.

 

[Defensor Fidei]

oh, thats the fate of the west in general. Camp of the Saints style cultural and ethnic extinction over about a century or so. But hey, we'll have poofs throwing ridiculous weddings while rome burns. They can have their overpriced pet dog, child or other living fashion accessory carry the ring. It'll be amazing for the legal profession as well.

Ah, well, I prefer to live in reality rather than in a world of racist conspiracy theories.

 

[Tomas de Torquemada]

/shrug, is it still racist if you think the west deserves it?

 

[MachZer0]

...FWIW - this thread was aptly named - "Chick-Fil-A and Tolerance"

Oddly enough, taking a stand for free speech is now deemed by some as an act of intolerance.

 

[TLK Valentine]

/shrug, is it still racist if you think the west deserves it?

Nah, then it's just misanthropic.

 

[Tomas de Torquemada]

The west and humanity are not synomous. Alexander's empire deserved to burn, so did pre-mughal indians, so did the Qing dynasty.

 

[EdwinWillers]

Oddly enough, taking a stand for free speech is now deemed by some as an act of intolerance.

...and exercising it (if you're not on the right side) is deemed by those same "somebodies" (you know, the ones who make us successful) as an act of hatred, or racism, or evidence of "somebody's" concocted phobias.

 

[katautumn]

Yeah, appealing to the old, fat, white demographic who love to eat unhealthy fried fast food is a great long-term strategy for Chick-Fil-A...

Is that the people who frequently patronize your local Chick-fil-a? Mine seems to draw in a far more diverse crowd. I once even saw an interracial gay couple at ours. Second, I think you're confusing CFA with KFC. Many sandwiches from CFA aren't fried.

Contrary to what the Chick-Fil-A appreciators might have told themselves, this whole brouhaha over Cathy and Chick-Fil-A was primarily a creation of the paranoid hysteria of the right and its persecution complex.

Really? Because I seem to recall the barrage of anti-CFA posts on my FB wall long before the announcement of a "counter-boycott" with the customer appreciation day. In fact, one of my gay friends on FB had post after post after post railing against Cathy and CFA and was talking about how all the LGBT people in our town needed to go fling poo through the drive-through window in protest.

and I think most LGBTQ people probably have better taste than to be eating fried garbage in the first place.

Wow. Stereotype much? And I'm sure you would assume you'd find a crowd of colored folk at the Popeye's Chicken joint, right? Gay people like fried foods too, you know?

In terms of who will turn out to be on the right side of history, the long-term war is pretty much already won by the pro-equality side. A day of Chick-Fil-A sales won't change that.

Because which states in which the voters decided the fate of same-sex marriage did it pass? Oh, that's right...none of them. Nary a single state has approved same-sex marriage by popular vote. I guess there aren't as many in the pro-gay marriage camp as people like to think there are.

 

[acropolis]

Because which states in which the voters decided the fate of same-sex marriage did it pass? Oh, that's right...none of them. Nary a single state has approved same-sex marriage by popular vote. I guess there aren't as many in the pro-gay marriage camp as people like to think there are.

It's legal in six states so far.

 

[conamer]

It's legal in six states so far.

Not because of votes.

 

[RedDead1981]

Perhaps - but his business definitely is - because he exercised his right to speak freely.

So? He doesn't have freedom from the consequences of his words. He chose to speak. People chose to boycott and protest based on those words. The world turns.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Oddly enough, taking a stand for free speech is now deemed by some as an act of intolerance.

Can you not distinguish between opposition toward free speech and opposition toward the particular content of someone's speech? Delusions of persecution are plentiful it seems among those who like to insist that they represent the majority of "normal" Americans.

 

[dies-l]

So? He doesn't have freedom from the consequences of his words. He chose to speak. People chose to boycott and protest based on those words. The world turns.

No, he doesn't. If others want to express their opinions by not eating at his restaurant or even by organizing boycotts, then that is their right. But, where I take issue is when the powers that be publicly state that they will use their power to deny permits to various municipalities because of Mr. Cathy's statement.

I support Mr Cathy's right to oppose SSM.

I support SSM supporters' right to boycott CFA.

But, as a supporter of the Constitution, I cannot support the various politicians who have made comments to the effect that they will use their power to keep CFA from moving into their communities, solely because of Mr. Cathy's unpopular opinion. That is where this becomes a free speech issue.

(And, FTR, I disagree with Mr. Cathy's position, even though some conservatives will dishonestly continue to insist that Mr. Cathy never actually took a position on that issue).

 

[TLK Valentine]

Not because of votes.

New York.

 

[EdwinWillers]

So? He doesn't have freedom from the consequences of his words. He chose to speak. People chose to boycott and protest based on those words. The world turns.

Technically, the world doesn't turn, it wobbles - which is also the problem with many of these arguments we have here.

Implicit in one's right to speak freely is that those who exercise that right accept the consequences of what they say. And if the homosexual community chooses to boycott this man's business because of what he said about homosexual marriage (and irrespective of the fact that I am a Republican - he did say it) - fine; they have that right and I don't begrudge them it one bit - even if they begrudge it to us.

The problem arises when government officials exercise - not their right to free speech - but the power of their office in an attempt to punish a private citizen for what they say or believe.

So, equally implicit in one's right to speak freely - and if you think about, this is the REASON we have that [Constitutional] right in the first place - is the expectation that we can do so without fear of threat or punishment by our own government.

A government flexing its power to punish a private citizen - OUTSIDE OF THE COURT OF LAW - because of what they say, or because of what they believe, is a completely different animal than other citizens refusing to do business with them on that account.

 

[EdwinWillers]

No, he doesn't. If others want to express their opinions by not eating at his restaurant or even by organizing boycotts, then that is their right. But, where I take issue is when the powers that be publicly state that they will use their power to deny permits to various municipalities because of Mr. Cathy's statement.

I support Mr Cathy's right to oppose SSM.

I support SSM supporters' right to boycott CFA.

But, as a supporter of the Constitution, I cannot support the various politicians who have made comments to the effect that they will use their power to keep CFA from moving into their communities, solely because of Mr. Cathy's unpopular opinion. That is where this becomes a free speech issue.

(And, FTR, I disagree with Mr. Cathy's position, even though some conservatives will dishonestly continue to insist that Mr. Cathy never actually took a position on that issue).