CFA part Deux (Page 9)

All I can say is Wow.  Nothing like being cast as anti-gay and stupid.  I thought this was a civil discussion where people could have opinions.  Very classy

A couple of ignorant politicians tried to grandstand for votes.  They've all been subsequently smacked upside the head with the constitution by their aides, and each one has "clarified" their position that Chick Fil A's would not be banned from their communities. 

Political grandstanding aside, no one is infringing on anyone's free speech.  No permits were denied, no one was arrested or fined for their positions.  Even the hippy communists from the ACLU came out against Rahm.  The boycott is not about Cathy's personal beliefs, it is about CFA corporate profits.  CFA (the company, not Cathy) donates $8 million a year to charities that openly campaign against gay marriage initiatives.  Therefore, a tiny portion of every dollar you spend at CFA goes to the fight against gay marriage.   If you cared deep enough about any issue, gay marriage, gun control, abortion, whatever, why would you ever spend a dollar at a business that you know financially supports the fight against your personal viewpoint? It's absolutely CFA's right to donate as they see fit, and it's absolutely the right of the gay community to try to convince friends and family to eat somewhere else.

This boycott has been going on for over a year.  I've never seen picket lines or demonstrations by gays at a Chick Fil A.  As far as I know, they've only ever tried to spread the word of CFA's charitable donations. 

Yes I do.  However to compare people who are supporting a business to those who are actively picketing for segregation is apples to wheelbarrows.

As I've said before I support gay marriage.  I also support CFA's founder's right to not support it.  So that image is saying that I'm one of those "racists"?  Come on...

There were plenty of reports of gay people going to CFA yesterday.  So are they the "Uncle Toms" of the gay world?

I also support his right to say it but I would say the majority of the people that went in to CFA yesterday were more supporting his views than his right to say it. I would agree the pic is a bit over the top but I would say that a pic of people actively picketing gay marriage and actively picketing segregation are the same yes.

You REALLY think after the knock down drag out fights I've had with some of you about guns and Obama that I want your approval?  I could care less.

Years ago I was anti-gay marriage.  After meeting a few gay couples, one who has a child that is raised in a loving environment better than some straight marriages, that we go out to diner with on a weekly basis, I have changed my mind 180 degrees.

I agree with that.  That's not what happened yesterday however.

I think there'll be a lot that break down.  It's tough to write off a place that tastes good.  I wrote off subway because they wanted to charge me 10 cents for extra black olives.  I warned them that if they did that they'd lose a customer for life over 10 cents.  (I ate lunch there about 3 - 4 times a week, at the time).  He did, I told him to open the sandwich back up and load it up with every veggie on the bar, paid for the sandwich, gave him the finger and threw it in the trash immediately and walked out.  I wrote a strongly worded letter to corporate (they responded with some free sandwiches etc... whatever).  It's been 7 years since I set foot in there.

That's the second place I've told I'd never give another penny to.

I'm more careful about what I commit myself to now........  

Your over the top characterization of people who are protesting the public stance that CFA took by boycotting and likening it to being shot if you express your opinion, as I said, reminds me of that photo. It is also over the top, and an imperfect comparison at best. Like your own statement that I bolded above.

ETA - just so there is some clarity on this one point, I did not create the picture. And I am not saying it is "classy", or representative of most peoples views about CFA and the boycott.

Just to be clear, the tone of CoJ has been nothing but civil.

I think it's valid to bring up the larger cultural narrative out there,
and I'm OK with people thinking that me or my thinking is evil.
I just hold them to the standard of having to prove their point.

So far, I haven't seen a single argument out there that proves that it is wrong to believe that marriage is between one man and one woman.

Regarding disagreement, I read a definition once that said that true disagreement is agreeing on all the points and drawing different conclusions.  If that's the case, I don't think we disagree since we don't agree on the points that lead t the conclusions.  That's a very big problem. 

So?

Just like I have yet to see a single argument that does NOT involve religion saying why same sex marriage is wrong and/or will harm "traditional" marriages.

Yes, indeed. Just look at those numbers.

How did we get to where we are?

What does it portend for our future?

Then you must go bonkers when places try to charge you extra for avocado or guacamole. 

I've posted one here a number of times in a number of threads over a number of years.

I don't think so.

This one is different.
It is not about bigotry or hatred or denying rights to human persons.

It is about trying to change the fundamental nature of what marriage is.
That's an impossibility.

It ultimately will fail because it will be seen for what it is, a falsehood. 

OK. Missed that.

I've only eaten there a couple of times a while back.
Maybe I should try it again.  

That is where you and I fundamentally disagree.  It is absolutely denying rights to human persons.  The right to marry.

It was a change in policy at the time and I blew my top because they did not charge extra for anything else (it's still like that today where the franchisee chooses to follow corporate policy).  I wouldn't have threatened the "lose a customer for life" if I had to do it all over again, but I did.  And I've learned my lesson.  If I am nothing else, I am a man of my word. It's 100% principle.

And yes, I do get irritated when places try to charge me extra for anything.  But price is rarely my only consideration on any purchase.

The persons in question currently have the right to marry.

No one has the unfettered right to marry whomever they want.

No one is being denied a human right by laws which hold marriage to be between one man and one woman and nothing else.

Replace homosexual with a different race and that argument falls apart.

And yes, they are being denied a basic civil right as outlined in our constitution by not being able to marry the one they love.  The constitution does not define marriage as between a man and a woman.  Religion does that. 

I've only been here for 3 years but I haven't seen one that didn't involve religion.  That's always been my "gripe" (for lack of a better term), that your posts are always well put and logical (as logical as religion can be) and consistent, but they have always been based on religion or theism at least, not allowing for any buy in to the conversation.  If you're willing to indulge I'd be interested in hearing the non religious based argument one last time.