Chick-fil-A Fiasco

[Stevinator]

You can buy her a handy mouse that has a little double click button in the corner of the LMB.

or slow the double click speed.


With my parents i found that not doing it for them, and not giving them step by step instructions helped. I tried to make them get the concept of a window, or a browser, the same way they taught me stuff. Give them a basic tour of the OS or program or whatever, them make them think through where things might be, and how to do the thing they want, and they get it faster and figure more stuff out on their own. When i taught my dad how to do online banking, I did it very wrong the first time, basically click by click instructions, then discovered he had exactly how to log in to his internet banking sitting on his desk. *facepalm

Now they're not too bad. mom is pretty good because she will mess around with it until she gets it. dad still wants step by step insturcutions, and much like a pre-programmed robot, has trouble if anything moves. He bought himself an ipad though, and after seeing it do nifty things that he actually could use, he seems to be "getting it". He also stopped asking how to work the iphone his company gave him. I think seeing it on the bigger more "accessible" screen made it somehow less scary.


Anyway, regarding chick fil-a, while I had been avoiding it so i wouldn't get caught in all these protests either way, i heard there was quite the line at the one I occasion. All these people supporting whichever cause have now made it more difficult for me to get my tasty chicken sandwiches, AND I think all this attention only brought more publicity and awareness to the chain. I think the boycott was a miserable failure, both for the *** marriage advocates, and for me, the humble sandwich aficionado.

[KillerAim]

So the Chick-Fil-A owner is some kind of screwhead?

The fact that you (one of the most objective posters on this forum, IMHO) gleaned that opinion from this thread goes a long way to support the reason for jmerv’s diatribe. Chick-fil-A’s owner’s position is the norm for most practicing Christians and it echoes the position held by the largest religious groups in the United States. It is also the position held by the majority of the States. There are (or soon will be) eight States that support same-sex marriages, 31 States that outright ban it, and six States that recognize same-sex civil unions.

About the only way Mr. Cathy differs from many Americans, is that he actually practices what he preaches. Closing on Sundays must cost him dearly, but he does it because he actually follows the precepts of his interpretation of Christianity. My beliefs are entirely different than his, but I respect him more than I do most other people.

Breaking glass? That looks like a picture of Kristallnacht to me….

But what I do know is this. There's no reason to invoke Nazism (in any way) when you're talking about the non-violent political stances taken by the owners of a American chicken restaurant. Bringing Nazi oppression and violence into your argument is ridiculous and offensive.

I would describe it as a little too dramatic, but there are definite parallels between the two situations. Remember, the outrage is not so much about a clash in opinions about same-sex marriage as it is about the fact that government officials have threatened to legal action against a business owner because of his personal religious beliefs. Social shunning or recommending boycotts are one thing, using the power of the Government to punish a person because you believe differently than he does is something very different.

I am pretty certain that the reference to Kristallnacht also came from the fact that the Mayor of Chicago who threatened to use his governmental power to punish Chick-fil-A is Jewish. The inherent irony of the situation seems lost on Mr. Emanuel.

Anyone who supports the position that Gays can't legally marry is morally wrong--I don't care if your church won't do it, but they should be allowed to be legally married….
I don't think the government should kowtow to religious belief

So Government actions that support your interpretation of morality are fine while those that support an interpretation of morality derived from religious beliefs are bad. …. Now maybe some of you will understand why I cringe when someone wants to base laws on what they say “is basic fairness”. “Fairness” cannot be objectively defined. In many situations, what one person believes is “fair” is most likely different than what another person thinks is “fair”. So whose concept of “fairness” triumphs?

Generally speaking, we should let people do what they will as long as they don't negatively affect others. I don't have polling data, but i bet most people would agree that's a good generic statement for how law should work in America (perhaps on your side of the pond too). Few want to say, "well, I think laws should be set up to make sure everyone thinks like me"--but then when you drill down, they do want the laws to tell people how to live.

A truly libertarian way of looking at the situation. Too bad you don’t practice what you preach. Remember, you supported forcing business to put product labels on their goods even though 40% of the businesses were already doing that. You also ardently support forcing Catholic businesses to violate their own beliefs when it came to included contraceptives in their insurance packages. In both cases you argued for the Government interfering in non-coerced agreements between people because they didn’t act the way you wanted them to.

How about taking a truly libertarian position? There is no need for the Government to get involved in marriages at all. They can be handled by contract law.

There is only one reason that the Government gets involved in these types of agreements -- people want the Government to socially engineer our Society by encouraging certain acts and by discouraging others. Tax breaks, mandated insurance coverage for families (no matter what their size), etc., all have been all introduced to encourage Society to act a certain way. If you believe that this type of social engineering is a proper Governmental function (I certainly do not!), then you should accept the will of the people. Mr. Emanuel is doing exactly what you want him to do; albeit in a lot less subtle way then you are used to.

[BobCox2]

Yeah, it's just a silly variant of chicken filet. It makes more sense with the illiterate cow ad campaign "EET MOR CHIKIN!!".

I Always thought they were a Hindu Business from the Ad's
<****** class="restrain" title="YouTube video player" width="640" height="390" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/JnFW5epcynI?wmode=opaque" frameborder="0">
False Advertising?

[krischan]

I think Bobcox is adding wrong apostrophs on purpose since I made fun of using it for the word "Mar's" in his Mars thread

[stillman]

But you do nothing about the random capitalized words. Where are your principles?

[krischan]

I think I do, by not mentioning them as being made on purpose

[Stevinator]

Killer, I know this wasn't directed at me, but the tide is definitely turning on *** marriage. I saw polls that actually made it a majority opinion, and (although the poll I'm thinking about is now old data), those that oppose it are generally older. Your point is well heeded that while i disagree with him, it is true that at least he is at least "authentic". I'll give him credit for that, and for you for bringing it up.

So Government actions that support your interpretation of morality are fine while those that support an interpretation of morality derived from religious beliefs are bad.

No, I fiercely disagree with him politically, but both intended to continue to purchase lunch from him (until i heard the lines were long), and was adamantly against Mayor Rahm and Alderman Moreno's action against him. It seems we are on the same page there. You are arguing against Jmerv's strawman.

Careful that you don't make the same mistake Jmerv did. He didn't like my *** marriage opinion, so he decided I MUST support Rahm and cronies. You of all people (as one of the most ardently libertarian posters) should realize that politics is more than red vs blue.

A truly libertarian way of looking at the situation. Too bad you don’t practice what you preach. Remember, you supported forcing business to put product labels on their goods even though 40% of the businesses were already doing that. You also ardently support forcing Catholic businesses to violate their own beliefs when it came to included contraceptives in their insurance packages. In both cases you argued for the Government interfering in non-coerced agreements between people because they didn’t act the way you wanted them to.

Yes, and those labels are a consumer protection that I still think is useful, appropriate and your own link said that the majority of consumers used them and even changed their mind about whether they should buy something because of them (or something similar). I stand behind that.

As far a the catholics go, I did defend obamacare (not ardently support--mostly just got annoyed because Jmerv kept saying i said things I didn't) in the sense I said the catholics don't have to pay for the health insurance, just offer it. So I thought their complaint was dumb, and a distraction from the real problems in healthcare.

As for removing government from marriages, it would require a herculean effort. Marital status has crept into all sorts of laws involving the tax code, property rights etc. I would support the effort, but it would require re-writing a lot of laws. Until then, as long as their are long lists of rights and benefits granted to married people, that we are not letting *** couples have, we're not being fair.

It is true though, this is a mess of our own making.
http://people.howstuffworks.com/marriage1.htm

[KillerAim]

Anyone who supports the position that Gays can't legally marry is morally wrong--I don't care if your church won't do it, but they should be allowed to be legally married….
I don't think the government should kowtow to religious belief

So Government actions that support your interpretation of morality are fine while those that support an interpretation of morality derived from religious beliefs are bad.

No, I fiercely disagree with him politically, but both intended to continue to purchase lunch from him (until i heard the lines were long), and was adamantly against Mayor Rahm and Alderman Moreno's action against him. It seems we are on the same page there. You are arguing against Jmerv's strawman.

Careful that you don't make the same mistake Jmerv did. He didn't like my *** marriage opinion, so he decided I MUST support Rahm and cronies. You of all people (as one of the most ardently libertarian posters) should realize that politics is more than red vs blue.

If a mistake was made, it was on your part. I made no reference to Rahm or Moreno.

Please re-read the sequence of quotes. You’ll notice that I was strictly responding to things that you said in this thread about morality. You appear to have no problem with government kowtowing to your belief system, but you object to it kowtowing to a belief system derived from religion. I just want you to justify that stance. What makes a belief system based on religion any worse that a belief system that is derived outside of religion? Do you believe that religious people would actually agree with you but go along with their church’s views out of fear, stupidity, or brainwashing?

Along that line you said:

Opponents though, their reasoning is religious based, when you drill down on it. Or it's just the "yucky" factor.

Well, I’m about as anti-organized religion as you can get and I’m against federally recognized same-sex marriages (i.e. benefits). How do people like me fit into your world view?

Yes, and those labels are a consumer protection that I still think is useful, appropriate and your own link said that the majority of consumers used them and even changed their mind about whether they should buy something because of them (or something similar). I stand behind that.

How is the fact that you believe that the outcome of the Government’s interference was beneficial to some people pertinent this discussion?

You argued that “Generally speaking, we should let people do what they will as long as they don't negatively affect others”. You didn’t argue that “Generally speaking, we should let people do what they will as long as they don't negatively affect others, but not if we believe that making them do something (or not do something ) will benefit Society as a whole”.

As for removing government from marriages, it would require a herculean effort. Marital status has crept into all sorts of laws involving the tax code, property rights etc. I would support the effort, but it would require re-writing a lot of laws. Until then, as long as their are long lists of rights and benefits granted to married people, that we are not letting *** couples have, we're not being fair.

So what about people who believe in polyandry? Or people who don’t ever want to marry? How are adding same-sex marriage benefits to governmental benefits that are already bestowed on traditional marriages fair to them?

If you believe that Government should be in the business of social engineering, then the concept of fairness or morality doesn’t come into play. How can you talk about fairness when the whole idea of social engineering is to reward some people for taking certain actions at the expense of us all? Also, the question that should always be asked when it comes social engineering is, "Who gets to decide what actions are beneficial (and therefore, should be rewarded) and which actions are harmful (and therefore, should be penalized?)".

[jmervyn]

Killer, I know this wasn't directed at me, but the tide is definitely turning on *** marriage. I saw polls that actually made it a majority opinion, and (although the poll I'm thinking about is now old data), those that oppose it are generally older.

There's a world of diff between caring about and supporting. You're conflating the two.

Careful that you don't make the same mistake Jmerv did. He didn't like my *** marriage opinion, so he decided I MUST support Rahm and cronies. You of all people (as one of the most ardently libertarian posters) should realize that politics is more than red vs blue.

More BS from your corner. Killer is in the right, and he needs to knock that crap off. Your "damming with faint praise" of the Christian stance is what I found extraorinarily repulsive.

As far a the catholics go, I did defend obamacare (not ardently support--mostly just got annoyed because Jmerv kept saying i said things I didn't) in the sense I said the catholics don't have to pay for the health insurance, just offer it.

The mind boggles. So you somehow think that by offering abortion, Catholics aren't supporting abortion?

EDIT - OOPS, missed some more sneers directed generally at me:

Sure Jmerv says that *** marriage is "less stable", but really, traditional marriage isn't all that stable when 50% end in divorce, and I bet that number is a lot higher when there are no kids involved. Not that being "less stable" is a reason to stop it anyway. What if I told him we didn't want to recognize his marriage because people on the coasts are more likely to divorce?

Strawman aside, the reason marriage is unstable is that people like yourself demand it be so. Your preference for "hook up culture" is precisely <WHY> marriage is no longer "till death do you part"; there's no legal or social rationale for it if your significant other is more or less a carnival ride.

I have to wonder why christians are so evil, you never see buddists doing **** like this. I mean when you see more people lined up infront of a chic-a-fils than any homeless shelter it makes you wonder how these people think they are going to heaven above someone else, you really think god would want a bunch of *******s in heaven with him? Also assuming he does, what kind of righteously god has such ****ty values, worse values than those shown by elementary school children?

Dunno you pompous Christians disgust me, for those that believe in equality and helping the needy youre cool with me.

You are right, it was a bit of a broad statement. I dont hate all Christians, just those that follow the unethical teachings of the bible. I mean the bible says a lot of messed up stuff, yet they dwell on a passage that would make society a better and equal place. The way I see it believe whatever you want, but such a large grouping of people should either work on not being prejudiced or they should accept mine and other peoples hate.

I can't decide whether Turnip is conducting an outstanding example of self-parody, or is really just that monstrously stupid and hateful. Perhaps he wants to share some notes with the folks who just killed the Ambassador?

I was about to come in here and berate Steve for continuing to provide excuses for the increasingly unhinged Jmerv to make long, rambling posts accusing everyone and their mother of being godless, communist hatemongers if they don't follow every word that a middle-eastern goat-herder slammed down on a page 2000 years ago about eating shellfish or wearing clothes of mixed fibers, but then I read his parody and all is forgiven . . . for now.

Hey, Driveby, how's it hangin'? Do the GW fascists talk about me still? Given your post, I'm thinking "yes"...

**** Going back even further ****

Anyone who supports the position that Gays can't legally marry is morally wrong--I don't care if your church won't do it

Yes, we've indeed been over it previously, which is why your continuing blatant dishonesty is so annoying. Queers can marry. In church. Your demand is for Federal creation of yet another "protected class" and Federal persecution of churches which don't agree to provide the rite to that class, even against their conscience. That was shown yet again to be the underlying theme to this entire conflict just a little while ago.

This is not an opinion, it is the definition of the word irrational.

Nice cover-up for your ongoing bigotry. Weren't you trying to play the "but it's in the dictionary!" game previously?

I'd also like to note that some people claim to have actual contact with god. I would not include these people in the irrational claim. So again, not all christians.

Calling you a liar, which you've just demonstrated <again> (and in the same paragraph, even), is not an opinion, it is the definition of the word. Either all Christians are insane by virtue of their belief system, or your playing at definitions is simply an attempt to hide your intolerant bigotry against them.

[Stevinator]

There's a world of diff between caring about and supporting. You're conflating the two.

I suppose that's true. While i'm pretty adamant about allowing *** marriage, it's not an issue that changes my vote. There are so many more important things to be concerned with. I think that's the problem. The people who would vote exclusively on that are probably mostly hyper-religious folk.

More BS from your corner. Killer is in the right, and he needs to knock that crap off. Your "damming with faint praise" of the Christian stance is what I found extraorinarily repulsive.

I know, it hurts your brain when I embrace fairness over partisan BS. I have many opinions about how the country should be run, and in this case, freedom trumps my annoyance with kooky religious people.

The mind boggles. So you somehow think that by offering abortion, Catholics aren't supporting abortion?

They can have whatever opinion they want, they're not paying for anything, and they shouldn't be able to dictate these types of things to their employees.

I will grant that you had a great point about it being dumb that prescriptions have to be covered at all. That subsidy to the drug company raises the price of drugs for everyone.

Strawman aside, the reason marriage is unstable is that people like yourself demand it be so. Your preference for "hook up culture" is precisely <WHY> marriage is no longer "till death do you part"; there's no legal or social rationale for it if your significant other is more or less a carnival ride.

That's interesting. I don't see my SOs as that at all. I think everyone wants to find someone that they could be with forever, but it doesn't always work out that way. If I had had to marry the first girl I slept with, it probably would have ended in disaster. It's not about hooking up, it's about trying to find someone who you can be with. You have this image of some Jerk frat boy, and I think those types are not the norm.

Besides, what's your solution? Outlaw divorce? Go back to women being barefoot and skirted, as property of their men? You can't possibly stand for that. I'm almost sure you don't think that.

Yes, we've indeed been over it previously, which is why your continuing blatant dishonesty is so annoying. Queers can marry. In church. Your demand is for Federal creation of yet another "protected class" and Federal persecution of churches which don't agree to provide the rite to that class, even against their conscience.

No, I did not say that. i said I want those marriages to be recognized by the state. You're doing that thing where you tell me what I think about stuff after I've already denounced it thing again.

That was shown yet again to be the underlying theme to this entire conflict just a little while ago.

Link is broken, I suspect the story went to the point above, so don't bother to chase it down.

Nice cover-up for your ongoing bigotry. Weren't you trying to play the "but it's in the dictionary!" game previously?

No bigotry here. I'm not sure why you continue to deny this, I've had this conversation with many many religious folks, and they honestly feel that their belief in god is not based on observable information but a sixth sense of sorts, something which can never be proven logically. Some call it the holy spirit, some God's presence, some describe it as a super-intuition. Whatever it is it makes me uncomfortable. Once you've decided that reason is secondary to this sense/spirit/hunch/whatever, i think you start to fill in gaps of knowledge with "god did it". This makes people less likely to dig deeper for answers (someone posted a great video on how science stops when gaps in knowledge are attributed to god, while you were gone), it makes you easier to manipulate, easier to get you to fight or die for a cause, and much less able to negotiate peace. I think good things happen to societies that value truth and fairness, and justice over those that don't. I don't say well, we should outlaw religion, that would be bigotry, I say we should understand that religion has its place, but it shouldn't be pushed onto others. It shouldn't make public policy and that we should worship with our eyes open to the fact that others might think differently than you. That's the opposite of bigotry. Bigotry is muslims allowing themselves to get riled up about a video they didn't see so that a political faction can attack our embassy. Bigotry is getting so worked up about *** marriage that you don't select a candidate on their merits. How many districts had politicians run on a platform of pro-life, anti-*** marriage and then didn't do a single thing about either issue once elected?

1 When I came to you, brothers, I did not come with eloquence or superior wisdom as I proclaimed to you the testimony about God. 2 For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. 3 I came to you in weakness and fear, and with much trembling. 4 My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit's power, 5 so that your faith might not rest on men's wisdom, but on God's power.
Wisdom From the Spirit
6 We do, however, speak a message of wisdom among the mature, but not the wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing. 7 No, we speak of God's secret wisdom, a wisdom that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began. 8 None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. 9 However, as it is written: "No eye has seen, no ear has heard, no mind has conceived what God has prepared for those who love him"-- 10 but God has revealed it to us by his Spirit. The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God.

Quoted with surrounding text to preserve context. Remember that Paul is not talking to people who witnessed any miracles. He's converting people by telling them to set aside their wisdom, and feel God's power/spirit. It's not bigotry to take a basic tenet of a religion and say i'm not comfortable with it, and that I'm not sure its effect is positive on people. Some people disagree. they say I simply don't yet understand god's power. They say they are very comfortable with this, in fact they embrace this as part of what makes their beleifs real to them. If you can't admit to yourself that your faith is just that, faith (and not rational thought), then I question your motives. How can you claim to believe but turn from faith? Are you saying that God is a provable fact? I'm VERY interested in how you've come to that conclusion.

Calling you a liar, which you've just demonstrated <again> (and in the same paragraph, even), is not an opinion, it is the definition of the word. Either all Christians are insane by virtue of their belief system, or your playing at definitions is simply an attempt to hide your intolerant bigotry against them.

This should go above, but I'll note that while I'm not as familiar with other major religions, this would apply to any that make the faith over reason argument. I don't have a comprehensive list. I'd also like to note that I don't hate Christians, nor have i advocated kicking them out of the country (as you have me).


Edit: I know I have a lot of capitalization issues, I fixed a few, but may have missed some. Don't take offense if I didn't always capitalize God, I also missed the beginning of several sentences. Oh, also I fixed the formatting on the bible quote. Also, changed words that got eaten by word filter.

Edit2: Ha! I didn't capitalize "I" in my edit. Jeez.