Chik Fellatio

Hey, Stuck-in-the-mud, we're not that far apart. I too will defend to the death Dan Cathy's right to say what he wants because that is the meaning of free speech. If Dan Cathy can't say what he wants, then maybe I can't either, and where would the world be without my opinions? OMG, what a nightmare scenario! ha ha ha

However... you knew it was coming... It's what Dan Cathy does behind the scenes that is anti-American and pointy-hatted. That's what most people don't understand and it is what came to light because of this big CFA fiasco. He is donating large sums of money (from the profits of CFA) to organizations that are working counter to the founding principles of this country (separation of church and state) that are actively pushing a religious anti-gay agenda with the state and federal legislative bodies. It's not enough for these people to have their own opinions, express them, and live their lives according to their values... they feel the need to push their views onto others and work to deprive people of different beliefs of equal rights. They share many common traits with the Taliban.

L4L Originally Posted by Lust4xxxLife

I agree... we're not that far apart when it comes to individual liberties. In your first paragraph, we're completely aligned.

But everything you said after "however..." sucks! LOL.

Kidding aside, let me get back when I've got more time. Let's see if we can't move your needle a lil more towards libertarianism.

ex: the 1st Ammendment wasn't meant to preclude churches from influencing government... it was meant to be the other way around. That any special interest lobbies government sucks. I'm sure you don't mean to imply everyone else can do it... but if churches do, then that's un American?

If they'd like to trade in their special tax status, let them do what they want.

If they'd like to trade in their special tax status, let them do what they want. Originally Posted by slowmover

Good point. Your King should give them the same tax burden as, say, Media Matters, or, i don't know... MoveOn.whatevertheycallthemsel vesnow.com

Oh wait. That wasn't a good point at all was it?

ex: the 1st Ammendment wasn't meant to preclude churches from influencing government... it was meant to be the other way around. That any special interest lobbies government sucks. I'm sure you don't mean to imply everyone else can do it... but if churches do, then that's un American? Originally Posted by Stuck in the mud

BINGO.

Unless you are willing to reject all lobbying of government by any group, you cannot state that religious groups (churches, clubs, cults, you name it) are bad for pushing their ideas yet someone like say PETA is just fine in pushing their agenda.

Anyone pushing to have "government" recognition of their marriage if they are not one man and one woman is seeking special accommodation. Marriage is inherently a religious institution, legally (and in my mind, incorrectly the only one) recognized by government as a valid civil contract.

Easy fix, government recognizes (and enforces through CIVIL court) all civil contracts and endorses none. But I don't begrudge one bit someone with religious beliefs using their holdings, private or company controlled, pushing an agenda. It's the same concept as those who exercise their legal right to use the tax law to benefit them. Tax "loopholes" aren't wrong or illegal. You want to pay more in taxes, go for it.

Sorry, but those who believe gay marriage is not correct, even from a religious standpoint, aren't going to be on the wrong side of history. I hope the future holds no barriers to civil unions / contracts, but changing the historical definition of marriage as a religious union of a man and a woman by attempting to leverage the government to step in is the wrong step to take.

Thanks for this post. I will personally be stopping by CFA first thing in the AM for a Chicken Breakfast Burrito or two and a Yogurt Parfait, and pretend its August 1st all over again. Maybe I'll have Rachel taking my order if I'm lucky.

Chick-Fil-A upper echelon = Taliban???
I love these political posts to know exactly who the misguided Liberals on here are.

Very interesting thread and the comments are all well supported. Being the parent of a gay child has been challenging for me. Wonderful person, respectful, intelligent and college educated; I have come to accept that my child is gay and there is nothing I can do to change that. I have met the partner and the partner has all the same qualities as my child does. I enjoy being around them.

The whole CFA was upsetting to me. Our family has enjoyed going there for years. Now they might as well put up a Not Welcome sign. Fine with me, however their stance does little to comfort me that this is a very hard topic to discuss

Very interesting thread and the comments are all well supported. Being the parent of a gay child has been challenging for me. Wonderful person, respectful, intelligent and college educated; I have come to accept that my child is gay and there is nothing I can do to change that. I have met the partner and the partner has all the same qualities as my child does. I enjoy being around them.

The whole CFA was upsetting to me. Our family has enjoyed going there for years. Now they might as well put up a Not Welcome sign. Fine with me, however their stance does little to comfort me that this is a very hard topic to discuss Originally Posted by Jazzplayer

Thanks for sharing. Adolescence is no picnic. Been through it both as a parent and a child. Finding your place, your value, your reason for being in this world is a tough thing at age. At least it was for me. I can only imagine...

Its obvious that neither one of us is going to change our mind on this issue but I do have one my question for you. Are you a liberal and the reason I'm asking is because of your views on a lot of different subjects.

I think the main problem is liberals have the mentality like you have and CFA is conservative company and has a different mentality and needless to say I'm on the conservative side. Originally Posted by Hobbyfun

Thanks for asking. I'm a conservative and have been my whole life, even to the extent of taking time off after high school to work so that I wouldn't have to take hand-outs from my parents or government aid options to go to university.

I have huge respect for the providers here who are running their own businesses and taking care of themselves... and I think the government should keep their nose out of the hobby unless it is to enforce health standards or to protect minors.

I believe in minimal government and regulation but I'm not against all government because sometimes government oversight is a good thing. Too often, I think people confuse bad representation and bad policy with 'government is bad'. For example, education in this country is in a crisis. We're graduating too many poorly educated students from high school. Not because of lack of spending (it's too high, but going to the wrong priorities), but because of terrible governance. We will not solve the education problem without government involvement in some way.

Up until about 20 years ago I was also a Republican... because the Republican Party was the party for conservative values. However, somewhere in the last couple of decades the Republican Party became the party for dummies and special interests (and even more so the Tea Party offshoot). The Republican Party has become the bitch of oil, religion, guns, health insurance companies, etc..

I can't bring myself to be a Democrat though. I like Obama, but he's too weak for the job. He cares too much about his popularity. And the Democratic party is filled with just as many weak representatives and special interests as the Republican Party. Less racist and less religious overall, but no more competent.

Bill Clinton was the best and most intellectual President that we've had in my lifetime. Too bad he was a Democrat and too bad the Republicans can't attract candidates like that. Rhodes Scholars would be a refreshing change from the Bush and Romney frat boys who rode into town on Daddy's coattails.

Bottom line: I am a Conservative without a party that represents me. I am not a Republican, I am not a Democrat, I am not a gun nerd, I am not a religious zealot, I am not an environmental zealot and I believe cows and chickens are our prey for food and skins until they can turn the tables on us.

Hobbyfun - I don't think you're on the conservative side, I think you're on the Republican religious side, which is an entirely different agenda.

If they'd like to trade in their special tax status, let them do what they want. Originally Posted by slowmover

Slowmover, I agree that should be the first step towards more regulatory freedoms for religious organizations. If religions want to operate as businesses (which is what they surely are), then so be it – it's a free country. But no special status.

BINGO.

Unless you are willing to reject all lobbying of government by any group, you cannot state that religious groups (churches, clubs, cults, you name it) are bad for pushing their ideas yet someone like say PETA is just fine in pushing their agenda.

Anyone pushing to have "government" recognition of their marriage if they are not one man and one woman is seeking special accommodation. Marriage is inherently a religious institution, legally (and in my mind, incorrectly the only one) recognized by government as a valid civil contract.

Easy fix, government recognizes (and enforces through CIVIL court) all civil contracts and endorses none. But I don't begrudge one bit someone with religious beliefs using their holdings, private or company controlled, pushing an agenda. It's the same concept as those who exercise their legal right to use the tax law to benefit them. Tax "loopholes" aren't wrong or illegal. You want to pay more in taxes, go for it.

Sorry, but those who believe gay marriage is not correct, even from a religious standpoint, aren't going to be on the wrong side of history. I hope the future holds no barriers to civil unions / contracts, but changing the historical definition of marriage as a religious union of a man and a woman by attempting to leverage the government to step in is the wrong step to take. Originally Posted by Boltfan

No, Boltfan, not bingo. Close, but not bingo, in my opinion.

Yes, the current understanding of 'marriage' should be split into two completely separate entities: civil union (a legal construct with built-in rights and protections for both partners) and an optional religious ceremony that defines whatever additional values that any American individual wishes to live by.

Unlike you, I do object to a group that pushes an agenda with the government that would deprive others of the same rights that the lobbying group already enjoys, and that's what Dan Cathy is doing. That goes against equality for all, which is a founding principle for this nation, is it not? "Gays shouldn't have the same marital rights as we do" is no different to me than "Blacks shouldn't be able to ride at the front of the bus" or "Blacks shouldn't be able to marry Whites".

Thanks for the back-and-forth. Dialog helps lead to resolution.

L4L

Thanks for this post. I will personally be stopping by CFA first thing in the AM for a Chicken Breakfast Burrito or two and a Yogurt Parfait, and pretend its August 1st all over again. Maybe I'll have Rachel taking my order if I'm lucky.

Chick-Fil-A upper echelon = Taliban???
I love these political posts to know exactly who the misguided Liberals on here are. Originally Posted by TrailBlazer

If the topic is over your head, or you have nothing of value to add, (I don't know which it is) why not just stay out of it? I'm not a liberal, and you're not a conservative. You are, however, clearly a Republican.

If you want to discuss my Taliban analogy, I'm happy to do so. I'll start with the statement that Taliban = religion-based oppression and deprivation of equal rights for all. Got it? You can follow-up by telling me where my analogy with Dan Cathy and his funding of religious anti-gay organizations and policy lobbying is any different than the Taliban mentality.

If all you have is a dumb comment, don't step up to the plate.

Cheers,

L4L

Very interesting thread and the comments are all well supported. Being the parent of a gay child has been challenging for me. Wonderful person, respectful, intelligent and college educated; I have come to accept that my child is gay and there is nothing I can do to change that. I have met the partner and the partner has all the same qualities as my child does. I enjoy being around them.

The whole CFA was upsetting to me. Our family has enjoyed going there for years. Now they might as well put up a Not Welcome sign. Fine with me, however their stance does little to comfort me that this is a very hard topic to discuss Originally Posted by Jazzplayer

Thanks for sharing. I'm sure your experience makes it easier to grasp the difference between free speech, which Dan Cathy is certainly entitled to, and active effort to oppress the rights of a community of people, which Dan Cathy is certainly doing.

History shows us that visibility and dialog leads the American people to do the right thing. ALWAYS. I'm trying to do my bit to stimulate dialog in this little corner of the world (and corners in the real world) and your post helps.

Over and out for tonight. Will check back in a couple of days after some travel if anyone wants to continue the dialog.

No, Boltfan, not bingo. Close, but not bingo, in my opinion.

Originally Posted by Lust4xxxLife

So you disagree with the quoted comment to which I agreed with the Bingo remark? Why is any organization, religious based or animal rights based or vegan based or vagina based not allowed to petition the government for change or action based upon their views? Separate their views from the right to take action. What is the difference between the KKK and Greenpeace and PETA when it comes to throwing money at the government to petition for laws to change OTHER THAN whether or not you agree with them?

And how do you know Dan Cathy isn't ok with civil unions, but leave marriage alone? (I don't know, and don't care enough to know, but curious if you do know)


Oh and last time I checked, Dan Cathy hasn't beheaded anyone for taking a different position from his and hasn't precluded his female employees from going to school. So yeah, the Taliban comparison is a pretty good way NOT to get your point across.

To say Bill Clinton was the best and most intellectual president give me a break, he was the most corrupt and lying guy we have had in years. He had people murdered in the whitewater deal, he did not have the balls to say he got a BJ from Monica, he went into office with less than $200,000.00 in assets but came out of office eight years later with over 12 million in assets with a job that payed 3.2 million and that was before taxes, can we all say corrupt.

You say your not a Liberal but everything you say is what the Liberal brain dead people think. About the only thing we agree on is the government needs to be down sized. We need to fire everyone of the ass-holes and put most of them in jail.

You still don't get it "I DO NOT HAVE A PROBLEM WITH GAY PEOPLE" I just don't believe they should have the right to rewrite the constitution or make companies change there polices to suite there needs, if you look they are only 4% of our nation but want us to change everything like they were a group of 30 to 40%. Why is such a small percentage of people trying to make everybody change just for them.

A lot of people say you are born gay and I call BULLSHIT, if that was the case then you would not have bi people, they have a choose to be with a man or women and why are they teaching it in school if you were born that way, I think a lot of kids start hanging out with a group of people that are gay and it becomes pier pressure at that point and they turn gay or bi. I had a man that was working for me and was straight as a arrow chasing pussy and saying he did not understand gay thinking, well he started hanging out with a closet gay and then started hanging with that guys friends. After about six mouths he started changing he demeanor and the way he acted, it was like a completely different person every day, within one year he said he was guy.

Point is it was he did not have a lot of friends and when him and that other guy started hanging out together it was him wanting to fit in to that group and he became gay. I knew this kid and his brother and before him and that other guy started hanging out there is no way he was gay bi or whatever you want to call it.

And yes Lust you are a Liberal though and though.

Put down the gun and back away from the Schlitz!