CFA part Deux (Page 8)

i didn't say unwed parents were working either.  i think our society is effed up and lack of commitment is one of the reasons.  your sexual orientation doesn't make you automatically capable of commitment, is all.

By your logic above, you shouldn't have a gun now either.  You don't need to hunt for food.  It's grown on a farm and fed to us.  The Government could just put out poison for all the wild game that we think will overgrow the land or put up fences and we can just get rid of the guns.  Have you ever used your gun because you had to?

Note.  My fallacious argument was in-response to yours.  I am a card-carrying gun-toter myself.  But I had to tie your "meant for another time and another place" comment to your current beliefs just as you did for Christians.

Do you know why Barack Obama being the son of a single mother is such a great story? Because being in broken families is not an ideal situation and they usually don't end up going to Harvard and becoming Senators or Presidents.  It's a great story because the majority don't end-up well. 

I'd disagree slightly with meh's comment in-that sex doesn't create families, sex creates babies.  Families take a lot more work.

Kids grow-up better with a father and a mother.  The father should (emphasis here) teach the kids how a man should behave and the mother should teach the kids how a woman should behave.  Where you have a father or mother not around or a father or mother not doing their job, you have problems. 

If someone goes from a crappy family situation to be a good person, they're usually a great person.  As much of a Republican as I am, I think Barack Obama is a great person and a great dad. 

I actually disagree.  The gay community and their supporters as a whole are saying that he "should not" be sharing his opinions and that due to him sharing his opinion he must suffer corporate and financial pain so as to prevent him or any other CEO from ever sharing such opinion again in the future.  It's corporate bullying at its finest.  Do as we say or we will punish you.

It also extends to me personally.  My wife and I did nothing more than post the picture I shared earlier in this thread and I believe my comment was "in case anyone is wondering how the CFA support day is going in Omaha" and my wife said something like "christians coming together to support a great company" and we got hammered on FB.  everything from being called intolerant to bigots and haters.  Apparently many of our friends don't feel we have a right to talk about it either.  

So yes, we absolutely were standing up for free speech for not only Dan Cathy and Chick Fil A but for the 1st Amendment as a whole.  

Just for the record I am a Christian and a republican.

I truly believe in personal freedoms and also what is right because it's the right thing to do. I will use my believes to help others and not to judge or repress them. That is why I am for equal marriage laws for all. We are all sinners and I will not judge others for one sin over another. I try to love and respect my fellow man even when they have different views than I do or live a different life style. In my opinion when people use religion to judge others they really don’t understand the true spirit of the god they follow.

So when I think people are wrong I will ask they why they think it as I have been doing in this thread.

________________

But, there is a difference between disagreement and abridging someone's right free speech.  Cathy, you and your wife, have the right to say exactly as you did.  People have a right to disagree with you, unfortunately it seems some did in a rude manner.  But, these people are not taking away your rights.  This isn't a 1A issue.  Cathy, you and your wife are certainly as free to say the things you did today as you were yesterday. 

Some might feel that Cathy is being treated unfairly or that anyone should be allowed to share any opinion without repercussion, but that's entirely different than someone's right to free speech.

I still don't think anyonen is taking the right away from you to talk about it.  Or CFA.  Sounds like EVERYONE is saying EXACTLY what they want to say.  You have the freedom to speak your mind, and they have the freedom to call you names and tell you shouldn't say it - or try to punish with boycott. 

Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from backlash/repercussions.

Say what you want and they can say you shouldn't be allowed to say it.  But until it become illegal.  Freedom of speech is preserved.

This.

"Kido- Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from backlash/repercussions.

Say what you want and they can say you shouldn't be allowed to say it.  But until it become illegal.  Freedom of speech is preserved."

Very true.  Good point.

What about Chicago saying they weren't going to grant permits for CFA because of their expressions?  Is that a violation of free speech? Asking because I want to know what the argument is there.

It's still the same thing. Chicago politicians aren’t banning the CEO from saying what he believes they want to stop a business from entering their city that can even if it is because of the businesses believes. Blocking city permits is in no way the same as blocking free speech.

I'd like to know that too.  Boston just "suggested" they not build there.  Last I heard Chicago was refusing to allow them.  That seems overreaching.

ETA: You could never refuse a permit to a business based on the sexual orientation / gender / ethnicity of the owner.  Not sure how this is any different.

Boston (mayor) threatened action on permits but never took action.  But I think at this point it's really a non-issue as both have backed away from actually doing it.

It's perfectly fine to say it, but the action itself is discriminatory IMO.  The kicker though is that saying it gives a reasonable show of intent.  And when it comes to discrimination I don't think you need to show much more than "intent" to get in a little hot water over it.

You guys definitely make a good point and I can actually agree with you in a technical and legal standpoint because he can continue to say what he wants without being arrested.  

However, my point is that the opposing view wants to make the pain so unbearable for him and anyone else who shares and expresses the same viewpoint that they cannot choose to say what they want.  He can still say it, but the consequences will be grave, so in effect their freedom is taken away from them.

I know its a bad analogy, but its like saying I have the freedom to say what I want but you'll shoot me if I say it.  Yes, I do have the freedom to say it, but I really don't because if I say it I will die. 

"Big Appa- Blocking city permits is in no way the same as blocking free speech."

I don't know how it would stack-up in a court.  I guess we may see.

Wikipedia has an interesting point on this:

Restrictions that apply to certain viewpoints but not others face the highest level of scrutiny, and are usually overturned, unless they fall into one of the court's special exceptions. An example of this is found in the United States Supreme Court's decision in Legal Services Corp. v. Velazquez in 2001. In this case, the Court held that government subsidies cannot be used to discriminate against a specific instance of viewpoint advocacy.

I guess we could see the Chick-fil-a v. The City of Chicago in the Supreme Court to decide if Dan Cathy saying his company supports "biblical definition of the family unit" is restrictable speech under the first amendment. 

And that's why we have an obesity problem here...

You mean like if persons were giving large amounts of money to help with the effort to keep gay marriage illegal? You mean when people do things like that?

I know that is a snarky remark but how is using politics to keep your community the way you (you as in the politicians) the way you want it. People use funding to keep politicians in power who are against gay marriage and a city that is for gay marriage’s elected position will block a company who is anti gay marriage from its boundaries. I don’t see how it’s any different.

And again, how is that any different that Million Moms boycotting JC Penny and Ellen Degeneress for their working together? 

There are consequences to any form of speech.  Free speech does not mean free from consequences.  You can't yell fire in a crowded theater when there is none and expect not to get a ticket.  People like to think that the things they say don't matter, but words carry weight and therefore consequences.  You have the right to say what you want.

MLK's speech wasn't popular at the time and those who opposed him sought to shut him up in much worse ways than a kiss-in.  But his right to say it was still protected even though he was shot and killed over it.

It is a very bad analogy. And the over the top nature of your last line prompts me to think of this picture I came across recently.

What I think people keep forgetting w/r/t the first amendment is that the idea behind it is really that in a free and open marketplace of ideas (political, religious, scientific, etc, etc), good ideas will rise and bad ones will fall by their own weight. So you are free to say anything you like - supporting or decrying gay marriage, supporting or decrying the "mixing of races", or school segregation, or higher taxes on one group, or social security for the elderly - whatever. If they are good ideas, they will gain traction. If they are bad, they will go by the dustbin of history as they should. Freedom of speech does not mean anyone has either agree with or even listen to you.

It's images like the one Gearboy posted that makes me realize how stupid some people really are.  The person who created the image that is... not the people depicted in the image.

I'm honestly surprised it was not images of SS troops saluting Hitler...

It is not illegal, no.  But it is also not legal.  Therefore individuals are not afforded the same freedoms and rights as others.  To me that means it is unconstitutional.  Purely my opinion.

You don't think this is a social issue that that will change over time and people will look back and think what was the big deal with allowing gay marriage?

illegal is contrary to or forbidden by law.  I would say it falls under "contrary to"