Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest seicer

Gay / Transgender Rights

Recommended Posts

For the same reason a devout Jew probably wouldn't be well received to teach at an Islamist school. Hatred towards gays is fairly deeply rooted within religious communities, and by extension schools, and I'm conflicted whether or not the government has any busines getting involved in these private matters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But isn't the government (atleast in theory)  just an expression of our values and beliefs?  As a society we have deemed it illegal to discriminate based on a number of reasonings.  This does not, but will include sexual orientation.  If a society deems this unacceptable, then it is fair game for the government to enforce what the society believes.  That is what the government is for.  Thus, in this case, the government has every right to intervene. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But isn't the government (atleast in theory)  just an expression of our values and beliefs?  As a society we have deemed it illegal to discriminate based on a number of reasonings.  This does not, but will include sexual orientation.  If a society deems this unacceptable, then it is fair game for the government to enforce what the society believes.  That is what the government is for.  Thus, in this case, the government has every right to intervene. 

 

That isn't really compatible with the argument that human rights are not in fact given to us by referendum, but are inalienable in the constitutional sense, AKA, they are "given to us by God" or simply exist outside of human law.

 

I'm not saying I agree with an interpretation of that argument that would ban gay rights, but it is a bit...presumptuous to just declare that whatever the government wants to grant us, or take away from us, is valid. But it is a bit strange to think about. To me the whole gay rights argument, just like the racial equality argument, is not really even that interesting. It's really just someone saying:

 

Step 1: I like me for who I am, but you don't

Step 2: I'm going to get enough people on my side to protect me from you

 

To me, that's really all that is going on, despite what one wants to decorate the argument with...be it government, constitutionality, inalienable rights, religion, etc, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the same reason a devout Jew probably wouldn't be well received to teach at an Islamist school. Hatred towards gays is fairly deeply rooted within religious communities, and by extension schools, and I'm conflicted whether or not the government has any busines getting involved in these private matters.

You might have a point if the school only taught Christians who were members of that singular church and only received funding from those members. However, that is not the case. Also, the example you cited (of a Jew working at an Islamist school) is not a fair comparison because in this case it is a Christian teaching at a Christian school. Lastly, there are many Christian Churches that do not harbor a deep seeded hatred of gays, and since students are allowed at that school from all types of different religious and spiritual backgrounds, I don't think that they can make the case for adopting a policy that adheres to just one Christian sects views.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the same reason a devout Jew probably wouldn't be well received to teach at an Islamist school. Hatred towards gays is fairly deeply rooted within religious communities, and by extension schools, and I'm conflicted whether or not the government has any busines getting involved in these private matters.

You might have a point if the school only taught Christians who were members of that singular church and only received funding from those members. However, that is not the case. Also, the example you cited (of a Jew working at an Islamist school) is not a fair comparison because in this case it is a Christian teaching at a Christian school. Lastly, there are many Christian Churches that do not harbor a deep seeded hatred of gays, and since students are allowed at that school from all types of different religious and spiritual backgrounds, I don't think that they can make the case for adopting a policy that adheres to just one Christian sects views.

 

My biggest issue here is the public money.  If you're going to use the First Amendment as a means to discriminate, then you shouldn't be receiving public money at all.  Additionally, I'm not sure if I'd be entirely opposed to such organizations even losing their non-profit status.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The G.O.P.’s Gay Trajectory

 

OVER the past year, the main story line in the push for marriage equality has been the ardor and success with which leading Democratic politicians have taken up the fight. The Democratic governors of New York, Maryland and Washington all promoted and signed same-sex marriage laws, for which President Obama expressed his support last month.

 

But the progress within Republican ranks has also been pivotal, not to mention fascinating. And a compelling character in that subplot just added a new twist to the narrative, one that suggests the rapidly changing political dynamics of this issue and its potential import to a party dogged by an image of being culturally out of touch.

 

That character is Paul E. Singer, 67, a billionaire hedge fund manager who is among the most important Republican donors nationwide. In just one Manhattan fund-raiser last month, he helped to collect more than $5 million for Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/10/opinion/sunday/the-gops-gay-trajectory.html?_r=1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Published: June 27, 2012 3:00 a.m.

 

Group to end ex-gay therapy

 

Associated Press

 

MINNEAPOLIS – The president of the country’s best-known Christian ministry dedicated to helping people repress same-sex attraction is trying to distance the group from the idea that gay people’s sexual orientation can be permanently changed or “cured.”

 

That’s a significant shift for Exodus International, the Orlando-based group that boasts 260 member ministries worldwide ...

 

Full article here: http://journalgazette.net/article/20120627/NEWS03/306279970/0/SEARCH

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We had a very sucessfull Chick-Fil-A Appreciation Day here in Dayton:

 

Local Chick-fil-A restaurants packed over recent controversy

 

Customers inundated local Chick-fil-A restaurants Wednesday as part of a nationwide call for support of the company’s president and his published and broadcast views on marriage.

 

The strong turnout was urged by conservative former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee and spurred by supporters through social media.

 

...this article talks about the location in the northern suburbs, but one near me on SR 725 was just packed!...I neve saw anything lke it....there was a line of cars all the way down SR 725 waiting to turn into the drive through (I was on my way home and was wondering why the traffic tie-up) and people were parking at the nearby Walgreens, an office park, and a shopping center and walking to the place.  People driving by were blowing there horns.  It was like an impromptu political ralley.

 

Since I live within walking distance of this place I took my bike out to this mess, and just leisurly tooled around the waiting cars just to see the faces of the people, to see what they looked like.  They looked like everyone else.  Which is kind of scary in its own way...the average Joe and Jane...comes out of the woodwork and show what they REALLY think of you.  That these people would go through so much hassle just to show they support discrimination and prejudice.

 

Makes you realize how far we have to go.  I felt pretty alone out there.

 

And I thought about my recent trip to Chicago, and how their mayor said that opening a new Chick-Fil-A might not be a good business decision since Chicagoans don't support their values and the place would be empty.

 

(it would be empty anyway because there's a lot of good street food in Chicago and you dont need this kind of stuff...there is excatley one Chick-fil-a in the city, and the franchise owners or manager went out of their way to distance themselves from corporate)

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Too bad about the company's position as stated through its President.  I will respect its rights as a. Private business to hold such views and will exercise my right as a private citizen to not patronize any business which takes such a stance against societal progress.  I wish nothing but the worst for them moving forward.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

And I thought about my recent trip to Chicago, and how their mayor said that opening a new Chick-Fil-A might not be a good business decision since Chicagoans don't support their values and the place would be empty.

 

 

I wonder how many people were motivated by Chicago Alderman Moreno and the mayor of Boston's comments to stop them from opening. In my opinion that kind of response was an abuse of power, and ultimately counterproductive.   

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It might be an abuse of power if their statements had any legal effect. As they do not, it is hard to see the statements as an assault on free speech.

 

I didn't say anything about free speech. But come on....Chicago...an Alderman says "you're not opening here."  We both know what that means.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The stated point by many of the people participating was about free speech being threatened, which I just don't see a legitimate case for.

 

It's hard to watch a massive call to arms which at its core is about affirming the second class status of relationships like mine. I hope all reasonable people can recognize that. It really is hurtful. Not only do these people hold the opinion, but they are willing to go out of their way to make it clear, or to convince themselves that they are making some broader point (i.e. about free speech) in demonstrating their support. They are so moved as if the issue has some profound a affect on them, which of course it doesn't, but it does have a profound affect on me and my life. And for that they are willing to spend time and money to lash out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think in the long run they will only be hurting themselves. College kids, teens and mall rats are the core focus groups of these types of food joints and they want to get them hooked early and have a life long customer.  Now they just look like a stodgy old fashioned company, not hip and cool.  It will ultimately hurt the brands "cool factor" in the end IMO.

 

Not to mention that growth for most of these companies that used to be suburban and mall oriented has turned to urban areas.  This won't go over well in most progressive urban areas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The stated point by many of the people participating was about free speech being threatened, which I just don't see a legitimate case for.

 

Oh I see what you're saying. Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been really frustrated by this extremely odd Chick-Fil-A movement.  I simply cannot understand how so many people can openly support a company based on their stance against gay rights.  It does not compute in my brain.  Sure, most of the people said they were there to support "free speech", but that's just nonsense.  No one's right to free speech is in jeopardy.  Gay marriage / equality is such a clear cut civil rights issue in my eyes that I look at these people like they're in Alabama in the 60s protesting the integration of the schools.  I just don't get it.  How can they be so proud of their bigotry?  It's like they're not even embarrassed...

 

I thought this blog was a really good response to this issue from a gay man.

 

This isn’t about mutual tolerance because there’s nothing mutual about it. If we agree to disagree on this issue, you walk away a full member of this society and I don’t. There is no “live and let live” on this issue because Dan Cathy is spending millions to very specifically NOT let me live. I’m not trying to do that to him.

http://www.owldolatrous.com/?p=288

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just came across this quote and it kinda sums up my stance on this.

 

My solution is to defend the right of Chick-Fil-A's owner to hold ANY opinion he wishes, condemn the moves made by certain governments to kick them out of town, and criticize anyone who speaks against complete equality regardless of sexuality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see no difference in the owner of a large company using his/her power to influence public policy by donating to anti gay groups (or anti anything groups), and elected officials using their power to also influence public policy on behalf of the constituents they represent.  To me it is a level playing field.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see no difference in the owner of a large company using his power to influence public policy by donating to anti gay groups, and elected officials using their power to also influence public policy on behalf of the constituents they represent.  To me it is a level playing field.

 

It's not the same, and seeing it as a level playing field doesn't justify it.

 

Listen, if a majority of churchy constituents didn't like a business because the owner donated to gay rights causes and the mayor says "I'll throw them out of town," you know that's just completely wrong. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^^ and ^^^^

 

I think their point is that, by preventing a business from opening because of political speech (contributions to what I will call hate groups), "the other side" (rather than a couple local politicians around the country) is intent on not "letting live" or intent on shutting down political speech they disagree with.

 

The logic is then to symbolically and indirectly contribute money to hate groups, in defiance of "the other side", punishing gays for the behavior of the mayor of Boston and an alderman in Chicago.

 

It's a primal scream in the culture war, with no regard for the true meaning or collateral damage to innocent victims (gay people who just want equal rights).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see no difference in the owner of a large company using his power to influence public policy by donating to anti gay groups, and elected officials using their power to also influence public policy on behalf of the constituents they represent.  To me it is a level playing field.

 

It's not the same, and seeing it as a level playing field doesn't justify it.

 

Listen, if a majority of churchy constituents didn't like a business because the owner donated to gay rights causes and the mayor says "I'll throw them out of town," you know that's just completely wrong.

 

Can you point out the "throw them out of town" part, because that is what I'm not seeing. I see rhetoric, which is fine, not policy, which would not be fine.

 

Just how are these businesses going to be prevented from opening?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been really frustrated by this extremely odd Chick-Fil-A movement.  I simply cannot understand how so many people can openly support a company based on their stance against gay rights.  It does not compute in my brain.  Sure, most of the people said they were there to support "free speech", but that's just nonsense.  No one's right to free speech is in jeopardy.  Gay marriage / equality is such a clear cut civil rights issue in my eyes that I look at these people like they're in Alabama in the 60s protesting the integration of the schools.  I just don't get it.  How can they be so proud of their bigotry?  It's like they're not even embarrassed...

 

I thought this blog was a really good response to this issue from a gay man.

 

This isn’t about mutual tolerance because there’s nothing mutual about it. If we agree to disagree on this issue, you walk away a full member of this society and I don’t. There is no “live and let live” on this issue because Dan Cathy is spending millions to very specifically NOT let me live. I’m not trying to do that to him.

http://www.owldolatrous.com/?p=288

 

I’m pretty sure most people support the company because they think the boycott is stupid; that’s my general stance.  The owner of the company believes marriage, as it is currently defined by the laws of 44 states, should remain as is, and donates a small percentage of his profits to a group who has the same belief. It’s not like they’re discriminating against homosexuals in their restaurants. 

 

If people are going to start boycotting every company who has shareholders that take political stances different than theirs, then our entire economy is going to be a shitshow.

 

For someone like me, who isn’t religious at all, supports every state’s right to set their own marriage laws (btw I voted against Ohio’s ban in 2004 was it?), all this “boycott” is doing is making me crave Chik-Fil-A.  It’s been almost a year since the last time I had it, when Tower Place Mall in Cincy all but closed, but I’ve been dying for a spicy chicken and waffle fries all week.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^A "boycott" of any business because that business donates significant amounts to causes that you strongly disagree with is one of the least stupid things I can think of.  It's the only way to have any kind of impact. 

 

People have a right and in some ways an obligation to vote with their dollars.  People that support Chick-Fil-A's stated causes will buy mor chikin.  People like myself will not frequent their restaurants for the time being.  I don't understand how this is "stupid"...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^ I don't boycott every company whose management/ ownership have beliefs different from my own...but in most cases I don't know what those beliefs are as they keep them to themselves. When one publicly comes out and proclaims their stand, particularly on what is a strongly polarizing issue, they open themselves up to this type of reaction.

 

Frankly, his stance doesn't surprise me given the company's strong religious underpinnings, but his decision to flaunt this one position, and do so, candidly, in an arrogant and smug manner, was the tipping point for me. As much as I love(d) Chik-fil-a, I can't in good conscience support an organization that promotes the suppression of a basic right on a subset of our population.

 

He's entitled to his opinion, and to run his company as he sees fit. I'm entitled to start eating KFC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let it be a sh!tshow, it is what "money as speech" is about, which is a central topic in this debate and in the country right now (e.g. Citizens United). Really not sure how you would criticize the boycott but downplay the significance of Cathy's political donation. Definitely inconsistent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^ I don't boycott every company whose management/ ownership have beliefs different from my own...but in most cases I don't know what those beliefs are as they keep them to themselves. When one publicly comes out and proclaims their stand, particularly on what is a strongly polarizing issue, they open themselves up to this type of reaction.

 

Frankly, his stance doesn't surprise me given the company's strong religious underpinnings, but his decision to flaunt this one position, and do so, candidly, in an arrogant and smug manner, was the tipping point for me. As much as I love(d) Chik-fil-a, I can't in good conscience support an organization that promotes the suppression of a basic right on a subset of our population.

 

He's entitled to his opinion, and to run his company as he sees fit. I'm entitled to start eating KFC.

 

It's not really his stating the position, IMO, it's the political donation. It means a portion of the money you spend at the restaurant is going to the cause supported financially by the owner. If more people would participate in these boycotts, our political system would be more democratic. In an ideal capitalist (representative) democracy, this is how things function. It is the possibility of these boycotts which backs the logic behind the Citizens United ruling (which I disagree with in part because we do not live in an ideal/perfect market situation).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interestingly this is what Rahm said:

 

“Chick-fil-A values are not Chicago values,” Emanuel said earlier this week, agreeing with a local alderman’s opposition to the opening of a Chick-fil-A in the city’s 1st Ward. “They disrespect our fellow neighbors and residents… This would be a bad investment, since it would be empty.”

 

...so he sort of hinted that the locals wouldnt patronize it that much due to the prejudicial nature of the CEOs comments.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For someone like me, who isn’t religious at all, supports every state’s right to set their own marriage laws (btw I voted against Ohio’s ban in 2004 was it?), all this “boycott” is doing is making me crave Chik-Fil-A.  It’s been almost a year since the last time I had it, when Tower Place Mall in Cincy all but closed, but I’ve been dying for a spicy chicken and waffle fries all week.

 

I think I used to be on the "state's rights" train for issues like this one.  However rethinking that line a bit, this is out and out discrimination.  Do you support another state's "right" to engage in educational segregation by going back to all white and all black separate but "equal" schools?  If not, why should a state be allowed to discriminate against the marriage equality of all legally-consenting adult couples?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On a related note, are equal rights groups holding some sort of a kiss rally at Chic-Fil-A today?  I think that basically gay couples are going to Chic-Fil-A and kissing each other in protest of the restaurants values.

 

While I sort of understand the idea behind this "rally," I'm not sure I agree that it should actually be held at Chic-Fil-A if they're actually giving the place their business.  Why not hold the rally--in protest--at another high-profile gay-friendly restaurant?  And since there are several of them, why not make it a monthly thing, going to several of them on a select day each month?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I said up thread, the major stupidity I see here is a company that has probably shot itself in the foot as far as expansion/success in major urban markets in North America (whether they are blocked or not)....they just won't be very popular in more liberal East coast, NE midwest, west coast, or Canadian locales at this point going forward.  Possibly alienating younger people and college students too, a core demographic of fast food.  I don't see it as a smart business decision to limit your customer base in any way.  After the short term hoopla dies down, I see the company stagnating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^

I'd find a chain that offers DP benefits or has some sort of anti-discrimination policy or something....it would be more positive, true....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Remember this is a company that voluntary passes on an extra 10-15% of potential revenue because its owner is so religious that he still keeps the restaurants closed on Sunday.  Personally I think that that is also a really dumb business decision, but as with his comments about gay marriage, it's clear that he JDGaF.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On a related note, are equal rights groups holding some sort of a kiss rally at Chic-Fil-A today?  I think that basically gay couples are going to Chic-Fil-A and kissing each other in protest of the restaurants values.

 

While I sort of understand the idea behind this "rally," I'm not sure I agree that it should actually be held at Chic-Fil-A if they're actually giving the place their business.  Why not hold the rally--in protest--at another high-profile gay-friendly restaurant?  And since there are several of them, why not make it a monthly thing, going to several of them on a select day each month?

 

It's pointless, just stick with the boycott, or donate an amount roughly equal to a meal at Chickfila to a gay rights group.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For someone like me, who isn’t religious at all, supports every state’s right to set their own marriage laws (btw I voted against Ohio’s ban in 2004 was it?), all this “boycott” is doing is making me crave Chik-Fil-A.  It’s been almost a year since the last time I had it, when Tower Place Mall in Cincy all but closed, but I’ve been dying for a spicy chicken and waffle fries all week.

 

I think I used to be on the "state's rights" train for issues like this one.  However rethinking that line a bit, this is out and out discrimination.  Do you support another state's "right" to engage in educational segregation by going back to all white and all black separate but "equal" schools?  If not, why should a state be allowed to discriminate against the marriage equality of all legally-consenting adult couples?

 

There are also technicalities that are, in a way, insurmountable by any current reading of the Constitution.  Everyone is allowed the same right: every male is allowed to marry any female, and any female is allowed to marry any male.  It’s different enough from laws that said blacks can’t marry whites, etc. that a new amendment to the Constitution is necessary to make marriage a federal issue.

 

My personal opinion is that marriage should be outlawed entirely at the federal level; that’d be my ideal Amendment. For tax purposes, I agree that filing as a couple with children is important and should remain an option, but the government should have no vested interest in rewarding two people simply because they choose to settle down into a monogamous relationship.  Seriously, why do two people get tax breaks for getting married? It’s silly when you think about it; people get married with no intention of having a family, and families exist outside of marriage. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you point out the "throw them out of town" part, because that is what I'm not seeing. I see rhetoric, which is fine, not policy, which would not be fine.

 

Just how are these businesses going to be prevented from opening?

 

Again, if you want to open a business in Chicago, and the Alderman there opposes you, what are your  chances of getting by? With Chicago being what it is, my guess is that it would be extremely difficult.

 

Chicago's alderman Joe Moreno is joining in the anti-Chick-fil-A fray, saying that if the company does not come up with an anti-discrimination policy, he'll block plans to put a restaurant in his district.

 

THIS is the Chicago we're talking about:

http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2012/02/14/chicago-called-most-corrupt-city-in-nation/

 

Boston mayor’s letter to Chick-fil-A: Stay out of Boston!

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/boston-mayor-letter-chick-fil-menino-dan-cathy-201952237--finance.html

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For someone like me, who isn’t religious at all, supports every state’s right to set their own marriage laws (btw I voted against Ohio’s ban in 2004 was it?), all this “boycott” is doing is making me crave Chik-Fil-A.  It’s been almost a year since the last time I had it, when Tower Place Mall in Cincy all but closed, but I’ve been dying for a spicy chicken and waffle fries all week.

 

I think I used to be on the "state's rights" train for issues like this one.  However rethinking that line a bit, this is out and out discrimination.  Do you support another state's "right" to engage in educational segregation by going back to all white and all black separate but "equal" schools?  If not, why should a state be allowed to discriminate against the marriage equality of all legally-consenting adult couples?

 

There are also technicalities that are, in a way, insurmountable by any current reading of the Constitution.  Everyone is allowed the same right: every male is allowed to marry any female, and any female is allowed to marry any male.  It’s different enough from laws that said blacks can’t marry whites, etc. that a new amendment to the Constitution is necessary to make marriage a federal issue.

 

My personal opinion is that marriage should be outlawed entirely at the federal level; that’d be my ideal Amendment. For tax purposes, I agree that filing as a couple with children is important and should remain an option, but the government should have no vested interest in rewarding two people simply because they choose to settle down into a monogamous relationship.  Seriously, why do two people get tax breaks for getting married? It’s silly when you think about it; people get married with no intention of having a family, and families exist outside of marriage. 

 

 

Gotcha and I mostly agree, though I'd get the government out of the "marriage business" altogether and eliminate all legal advantages.  Or let two consenting adults (same sex or opposite) form partnerships that give them the current legal benefits that marriages receive, and let the religious institutions decide on an individual basis who to recognize.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you point out the "throw them out of town" part, because that is what I'm not seeing. I see rhetoric, which is fine, not policy, which would not be fine.

 

Just how are these businesses going to be prevented from opening?

 

Again, if you want to open a business in Chicago, and the Alderman there opposes you, what are your  chances of getting by? With Chicago being what it is, my guess is that it would be extremely difficult.

 

Chicago's alderman Joe Moreno is joining in the anti-Chick-fil-A fray, saying that if the company does not come up with an anti-discrimination policy, he'll block plans to put a restaurant in his district.

 

THIS is the Chicago we're talking about:

http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2012/02/14/chicago-called-most-corrupt-city-in-nation/

 

Boston mayor’s letter to Chick-fil-A: Stay out of Boston!

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/boston-mayor-letter-chick-fil-menino-dan-cathy-201952237--finance.html

 

 

 

 

Is Chic-Fil-A donating to hate groups?  Can politicians block them from receiving permits based on such donations?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...