Chik-Fil-A and tolerance

[dies-l]

Actually, that is overly simplistic. The South pretty much knew that, had they not seceded, that they would be able to keep their slaves. The issue was over whether or not new states would be allowed to have slavery. And that is only from the South's point of view.

Lincoln's main purpose in the Civil War was to hold the union together. If Lincoln could have ended the war with a peace treaty, he would have been happy to allow the South to keep their slaves -- that wasn't even an issue.

Weighing in on this new sidetrack: while Lincoln's motives may have been far from purely idealistic, it is abundantly clear that the central issue from the South's perspective was the right of the States to allow their citizens to own slaves.

 

[BleedingHeart]

Actually, that is overly simplistic. The South pretty much knew that, had they not seceded, that they would be able to keep their slaves. The issue was over whether or not new states would be allowed to have slavery. And that is only from the South's point of view.

So the Confederates were just selfish then? Big surprise there.

 

[Tomas de Torquemada]

I would say it was the fault of both sides. I believe the cost of over 600,000 american lives was terrible and tragic and could of been avoided. I think the best way they could of handled it is, as Ron Paul said, for the government to buy all the slaves and free them or something of that nature. The Civil War led to extreme suffering for Northerns, Southerns, and freed slaves alike many years after the Civil War. It was just a terrible time in American history.

libertarians lol.


The civil war was necessary to determine whether or not we would say "The United States is" or "The United States are". It was about slavery, but the question of secession needed to be settled. Otherwise, just as we had a divine mandate to secede from britain, why could not a state secede from the union? Or a man from a state?

America was founded by traitors, and the revolution needed to end. The civil war ended it.

 

[Creech]

Weighing in on this new sidetrack: while Lincoln's motives may have been far from purely idealistic, it is abundantly clear that the central issue from the South's perspective was the right of the States to allow their citizens to own slaves.

I would say it was more then just slavery. They wanted self determination for Southerns and did not want "yankees" or minorities influencing the South. It was not really white supremacy, but more like Southern supremacy in the South.

 

[Creech]

libertarians lol.


The civil war was necessary to determine whether or not we would say "The United States is" or "The United States are". It was about slavery, but the question of secession needed to be settled. Otherwise, just as we had a divine mandate to secede from britain, why could not a state secede from the union? Or a man from a state?

America was founded by traitors, and the revolution needed to end. The civil war ended it.

Since America's founding and up until around the late 1800s, people had a lot of loyalty to the states. Even in Northern states like New York, they refused to join the United States until states rights were guaranteed. The States created the federal government, not the other way around. Also, Southerners have their own history, culture, heritage, etc. If we force them to belong in a Union, is it really freedom? Or occupation?

 

[dies-l]

I would say it was more then just slavery. They wanted self determination for Southerns and did not want "yankees" or minorities influencing the South. It was not really white supremacy, but more like Southern supremacy in the South.

Meh. I disagree, but I already figured that I would disagree with you. You and I have very different perspectives on race relations in America. Although it's tempting, I won't try to impute motives on your part, in part because this medium is a very poor one for trying to determine such things.

 

[MachZer0]

Well you for one, as evidenced by:



(Until this post, I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt . . . ., but any doubt has been extinguished).

The very notion of rights is that one person's interests (that which we call a right) need trump another person's interests (that which we call a privilege). The difference is that I see a person's having a reasonable opportunity to support himself and his family as a right and a person having the ability to mollify their silly prejudices, irrational fears, and biases as a privilege. You seem to disagree.

Nice try, but my post favors everyone's rights, not just the ones the government deems worthy

 

[SimplyMe]

Weighing in on this new sidetrack: while Lincoln's motives may have been far from purely idealistic, it is abundantly clear that the central issue from the South's perspective was the right of the States to allow their citizens to own slaves.

Again, the South's right to own slaves was not at issue. Southerner's knew that Lincoln was not going to take their slaves away. The issue was to allow the South to "export" slavery into the western territories and, as they became states, to choose if they wanted to allow slavery.

 

[dies-l]

Nice try, but my post favors everyone's rights, not just the ones the government deems worthy

Oh well. That's simply absurd, but I also know that it would be equally absurd for me to think you're willing to see that.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I would say it was more then just slavery. They wanted self determination for Southerns and did not want "yankees" or minorities influencing the South. It was not really white supremacy, but more like Southern supremacy in the South.

Perhaps, but slavery was certainly the key issue that set it off.

So the Southerners wanted Southern supremacy in the South. What was wrong with the system that was already in place? Why were they so dissatisfied with being part of the Union?

 

[Tomas de Torquemada]

the civil war is way more interesting than chik-fil-a.

It definitely was our most romantic war. Being a cavalry officer I think would have been an smashing good time. Ride around blowing up trains, camping outside, seizing goods from the local countryside. It would be like being a legal and respected vagabond. Well, legal at least. Sort of.

Its too depressing to root for the north in that war, at least for the common soliders. Just getting torn up in meat grinders.

 

[psalms 91]

I would agree that if a qualified person for the job I am offering is an ultra conservative right wing person, then I am morally (and, if the views stem from a religious persuasion, legally) obligated to give that person an equal shot at being hired. Their livelihood depends upon employers being willing to hire them despite their views, unless their views directly impede their ability to the job they would be hired for.

I don't understand how that equates to an obligation to spend my leisure time with people I disagree with. Personally, I have close friends who are ultra liberal, ultra conservative and everywhere in between. But, I know that my liberal friends probably don't want to hang out with my conservative friends and vice versa. Nobody's livelihood is at stake if my conservative friends choose not to invite my liberal friends to join their round of golf.

But isnt that discrimination if they are not included as it seems people look at things, by the way I dont disagree with you, just making a point that civikl rights as legislated was grossly unfair

 

[Fobulous]

I am not sure why the media would label Chic-Fil-A intolerant. To me it is just his opinion. He didn't say that he thinks the gay and lesbians should be put on an island or should be killed off or they are going to Hell.. what was so bad about what he said.. also. didn't he say this during an interview with a Christian publication?? Isn't this totally appropriate for the occasion? It's not like he mentions during an interview with MSNBC or even FOXnews... Is my thinking way off?

 

[Defensor Fidei]

I am not sure why the media would label Chic-Fil-A intolerant. To me it is just his opinion. He didn't say that he thinks the gay and lesbians should be put on an island or should be killed off or they are going to Hell.. what was so bad about what he said.. also. didn't he say this during an interview with a Christian publication?? Isn't this totally appropriate for the occasion? It's not like he mentions during an interview with MSNBC or even FOXnews... Is my thinking way off?

The issue is that Chick-Fil-A has spent millions of dollars funding anti-gay hate groups which work to deny equal rights, dignity, and even the right to live to LGBTQ people.

If Cathy can't separate his personal beliefs from his business, why should anyone else? Going along with this whole "Chick-Fil-A Appreciation Day" thing only further entangled Chick-Fil-A as a combatant in the culture wars, trying to force the company president's views upon everyone else.

 

[MachZer0]

The issue is that Chick-Fil-A has spent millions of dollars funding anti-gay hate groups which work to deny equal rights, dignity, and even the right to live to LGBTQ people.

If Cathy can't separate his personal beliefs from his business, why should anyone else? Going along with this whole "Chick-Fil-A Appreciation Day" thing only further entangled Chick-Fil-A as a combatant in the culture wars, trying to force the company president's views upon everyone else.

Can you name the hate groups Cathy donates to, the hate groups that work to deny homosexuals the right to live specifically?

 

[RedDead1981]

It was posted earlier in the thread, I think.

 

[MachZer0]

It was posted earlier in the thread, I think.

There was no group posted that Cathy donates to that wants to deny homosexuals the right to live.

 

[Grizzly]

 

[MachZer0]

Thank you God for creating a universe we can explore

 

[TLK Valentine]

Thank you God for creating a universe we can explore

And for keeping some of your more loopy followers out of our way so we can explore it.