Like an outfit called 'loose slots and cheap beer O rama' deserves to
have 20 franchises in the salt lake valley, chick fil A belongs in Boston.
Well good on the ACLU for sticking up for that. There's no excuse for
saying he would deny a permit.
Threatening to use public resources to discriminate against an otherwise lawful
business because you disagree with what that business owner has said about gay
marriage is bone-headed and indefensible. That said, I won't
be eating any more Chick-fil-A sandwiches (not the best I've eaten, but not
the worst) because I don't want the profits generated by my purchase to
fund groups that seek to deny civil rights to American citizens.Threatening to use public resources to bully Chick-fil-A is as wrong as Mr.
Cathy's bullying of gay citizens. We should not tolerate
either form of bullying.
The up-roar over the Chick-fil-A founder has nothing to do with his words, he is
after all entitled to his opinion. The up -roar is not even due to his gloating
about donating "some money " as stated in the story -what he donated was
over $5 million, pocket money to him I'm sure . What is wrong is a group of
wealthy so called Christians pooling their mass wealth trying to change laws to
force their views on everyone. You are entitled to your opinion, but you are not
entitled to legislate what my opinion will be. My God is not prejudice or look
down on those different from the others, he loves everyone.
Well said, Blue. I agree on both points (though I'd only been to
Chick-fil-A once in my life so it's not like my "boycott" of them
would change anything).
If you want to make a statement for or against Gay Marriage, do it on your own
dime. If someone decides that won't patronize Chick-fil-A
because of their stand on gay marriage that is their right. If the same person
is using government money and power to stop them from setting up a restaurant
that is NOT their right. There is a difference between what we do in
the private sphere with our own money and choices and what we do in the public
sphere with public money and power. Yet both sides constantly lose site of this
important point.If the Catholic Church runs a private adoption
agency with their own money they can refuse to place children with Gays (or
Baptists or Mormons for that matter). If they use public money to run the agency
they cannot discriminate. Yet the Deseret News has repeatedly cited the refusal
of the State of Massachusetts to allow the Catholic Church to discriminate
against gays in adoption agencies run with state dollars as an example of an
infringement of religious liberty.You can't have it both ways
I agree Bule, I do have to however I find it fascinating that this author went
out of their way to not acknowledge the ACLU has not just stepped forward with
the statement they have stated their willingness to represent chick fil a in
court. Articles have been running in other papers for a couple of days know
about this fact and yet the DN has not run one whisper of it.
RE: DaveRLAre you opposed to a group of wealthy athiests, or wealthy
liberals, or wealthy "insert any group here" amassing their money to
change laws and force views on everyone? or does your viewpoint
only apply to christians or conservatives or groups disagree with?Everyone is entitled to try influence the creation of laws in this country,
not just specific person or groups, that is the greatness of america, and that
is how system works.Christians have every right to speak out in
public, and help in creation of our laws, they are Americans too.And
the beauty of America is you have the freedom to CHOOSE where you live, so you
can live with like minded people.Do those people not have freedom
and right to do that?The chick-fil-a man stated his beliefs in
traditional marriage and was even willing to back it with his money, BUT he
actually never said a word about gays.
Another example of those seeking tolerence being totally intolerent. I'll
be stopping in for a Chick-fil-A this week.
Blue,Have I missed something in the Chick-Fil-A debate? The CEO
expressing personal opinions opposing gay marriage and contributing funds
accordingly does not strike me as bullying. I can understand that some will
disagree and will stop eating there. But I simply do not see how this is
bullying. Can we not disagree anymore? If you and I disagree on abortion or
immigration or any other hot button issue, is one of us therefore bullying?
It's pretty ironic that people on the left always assume that when fascism
comes to America it will come from the right. It's frighteningly obvious
that in 2012 the thought police are on the left. Be extremely careful who you
support if you truly believe in freedom and liberty.
@ Blue: Very well stated!
I will be eating at chick fila all week. And three times on the day of the GLBT
daverl, I think you've got your story a little backward. The laws are
already clear and established and have been around for centuries. The gay
agenda with it's wealthy supporters are the ones who are trying to change
laws and push their beliefs on that Vast majority.They do not allow for
any opinion other than their own, otherwise, it's hateful or bullying.The accusation works both ways.20 years ago, the gay/lesbian only asked
for tolerance.Now, they want everyone to agree on every issue or the
hatred and outrage begins.Just look at the reaction when once again,
the voters of California defeated gay marriage.
Twin Lights: "Have I missed something in the Chick-Fil-A debate?"It seems pretty clear. What's to not understand? Mr. Cathy donates
money to groups that favor forcing their personal religious bigotries onto the
public and to the detriment of civil rights for gay citizens. If you support
bullies, I say that makes you a bully, too.Similarly, if a public
official wants to use public resources to threaten an otherwise lawful business
solely on the basis of the personal views of the business' owner,
that's also an indefensible act of bullying, and is even worse because it
is bullying under the cloak of government legitimacy.Judge
Chick-Fil-A by the quality (or lack thereof) of their food. If Mr. Cathy uses
profits from the sale of his sandwiches to support groups that seek to bully
other citizens, call him on it and stop eating his sandwiches. That said, no
mayor should threaten Chic-Fil-A as a business just because its owner holds
beliefs those mayors find repugnant.
@AZRodcenturies? barley two decades land only in certain states et alone
Blue, either we agree with you or we are bullies? Really? Or if we disagree that
is okay as long as we are muzzled. Logic is dead.
Screwdriver, Blue, Twin Lights,+1. This is a definite and troubling
overreaction by city government, it's not as if the owner of Chik-fil-a is
espousing White Supremacy. But his stance does make me far less inclined to give
my personal business to his chain. TRUTH,I find it amusing how
proud you are of such a childish sentiment. Let me know how you feel after
eating fast food all week. Sacrificing your health for a cause, that is indeed
"Are you opposed to a group of wealthy athiests, or wealthy liberals, or
wealthy "insert any group here" amassing their money to change laws and
force views on everyone?"I am opposed to all big money in
politics. That clear enough for you?Union money corrupts.
Corporate money corrupts. And the citizens united ruling put that all on
steroids. I want the bribery out of our govt and I believe that both
sides are much more likely to do a better job.I have yet to see a
conservative who thinks the Citizens United ruling will taint our politics.
AZrods,"The gay agenda with it's wealthy supporters are the ones
who are trying to change laws and push their beliefs on that Vast
majority."Nope, dead wrong on that one. Polls show that not only
do a majority of Americans now feel that gay marriage is acceptable, the
proportion of Americans who feel this way has been increasing greatly over the
last few decades. This is in contrast to abortion, which has not seen a large
increase in public support over the same time period. The reason why so many
states are still able to pass ballot initiatives banning gay marriage is that
the opponents of gay marriage tend to be zealous about it, whereas many citizens
who accept gay marriage don't see it as a big enough issue to go to the
polls over. It's all about voter turnout. Think what you will of those
facts, but if the trend continues, religious conservatives will be on the losing
side of this debate before too long. You already have lost majority public
My last meeting at church ended with the comment... "Eat Mor Chiken" and
an approving chuckle.
There is a huge difference between exercising free speech ("I oppose gay
marriage.") and hate speech ("God hates homosexuals.") It's
too bad the gay community and its most ardent supporters can't tell the
difference. It makes me nervous that people are so quickly condemned for the
slightest politically incorrect comments. It's even worse that some groups
seem far more protected than others in the public discourse. Having said that,
I'm old enough to remember lots of boycotts -- for example, of sponsors of
objectionable programming. There were even a few internet myths -- for example,
against Proctor and Gamble for some made-up reason -- that resulted in boycotts
by ignoramuses who believed the myths. Boycotting isn't new, but the
"culture wars" have gotten ugly.
"20 years ago, the gay/lesbian only asked for tolerance."Yeah! And now they want rights, too?! Appalling!
Liberalism on parade. If you do not agree with us we will put you down. The
Chief of Amazon.com is on the other side of this story. He donated a bunch of
money to the other side of this issue. I have not heard of Conservatives
boycotting Amazon. My vote upon first learning of this so called story was I
went right out and had two Chic-Fil-A sandwiches. I plan on doing the same every
week.So much for liberalism and libera
Elder Dallin H. Oaks gave a talk on September 11, 2011, about truth and
tolerance.Search for the keywords: truth, tolerance, oaks, on
mormonnewsroom.orgEveryone should read this one.
Hutterite,It's more like the mayor of Salt Lake announcing Ben
& Jerry's is not welcome in his city.
This guy is my hero.
Blue,If I support a cause with which others disagree I am then
bullying them?If I support abortion rights, am I bullying those who
find it religiously repugnant? If I oppose abortion, am I bullying those who
favor it?Even strong disagreement on the issues is not bullying in
my view. It is the necessary discourse in which a free society must engage.If folks are outraged at the CEO's statements and donations and vow
to never eat at Chick-Fil-A again, no problem. If others find his views to
their liking and start eating there more regularly, also no problem. That
isn't bullying either. That is the price the organization pays or the
benefit it reaps from its CEO expressing political opinions about hot button
issues. Bullying implies intimidation. We should not devolve into
calling everyone who disagrees with our own political stances as bullies. We
should celebrate the openness of our politics and find comfort in full
participation in the marketplace of ideas and then eat where we want.
@JoeBlowHere is one conservative that is very uncomfortable with the
Citizens United decision. It is one that I struggle with a great deal. I
believe that the sums of money being spent are having a negative impact on the
country as a whole. I include money from businesses as well as unions and
individuals. At the same time, I see the need for individuals, and
groups of individuals, to have the right to express their viewpoints either
directly or through how they spend their money. Even if money is
not directly or indirectly influencing political decisions, there is a strong
appearance that the influence in there. This appearance is creating a strong
sense of distrust amount the citizens, myself included. Each time a decision is
made that has any question or controversy embedded in it, I question where the
money comes from, who paid for the study or research that influenced the
decision.I do not have the answer. Perhaps if someone funded a
study I would like to conduct, I could arrive at the correct solution.
Oh, how soon we forget the clamor many made when news of an Oreo advertisement
spread across the Internet. Thousands of outraged people demanded a boycott of
the cookie because it was so offensive that they would "support those
gays." It has been a crazy summer on both sides of the issue.
No rights were violated by the ownership saying what they said. The fact of the
matter is the mayor of Boston violated the rights of Chick Fil A.If
the owner wants his beliefs out there, he should be applauded. He is standing up
for what he believes.
emajor, if you believe polls, that's fine. Unfortunately if they poll in a
convenient area of the country then of course they can make a poll agree with
their opinion. But in the real world, every time the gay marriage has been put
to a vote the voice of the people has always chosen against it.Saying that
poor voter turn out was the cause of every loss in every state?Doesn't say much about the strength of conviction of your "vast
majority" does it.Only through corrupt officials with their own
agendas has it ever been changed.I stand with the voice of the people.
@the truth "Everyone is entitled to try influence the creation of laws in
this country, not just specific person or groups, that is the greatness of
america, and that is how system works."First and foremost the
rule of the land is dictated by the most wonderful document ever written, the US
Constitution. Typically, religious groups wants laws enacted which typically
violate the US constitution. Individuals should have every right to practice
their beliefs and live their lives according to their beliefs. In no way
whatsoever should the government interfere with how someone choose to live their
life. Also, looking at it as a war on Christianity is baseless. It is the US
Constitution that allows all forms Christianity (any religion for the matter) to
be practiced in this country, without any interference from the Government.
Remember Hitlers Germany where any one daring to have differing opinions/beliefs
was met with swift governemnt punishments? It would seem there are some in
American who would like it that way.
If a person is against gay marriage because they feel it threatens our society,
they have the right to work for their position. Calling some position a right
does not make it an inherently good idea.
Again we see the gay marriage supporters calling those who disagree with them as
"bigots" and "bullies". Again, I am reminded why I do not
support the legalization of gay marriage.
"You are entitled to your opinion, but you are not entitled to legislate
what my opinion will be."Funny how this statement is interpreted
between the left and the right. Maybe the pro gay crowd could undertake a
clandestine attempt to hire a chick-filet restaurant, that could host or cater
one of their gay wedding ceremonies. When they refuse, the gay crowd could take
Mr. Chick-filet to court and a federal judge could teach (legislate) Mr Chick
Fillet about what "right and wrong" is!We all have the same
rights, is't just that a few segments of our society, think they need
special rights. 15 years ago it was much different and 15 years from now it will
be much different again. Good luck to those who believe in the long held concept
of traditional family, because the left, and the government will find the need
to reeducate and reprogram you!
Sammy: "Blue, either we agree with you or we are bullies? Really?"If you behave like a bully then yes, you are a bully. How is actively
seeking to deny equal rights to gay citizens _not_ a bullying behavior?I'm not trying to silence you. No one is trying to silence you.But your right to say what you believe doesn't prevent me from commenting
that your moral compass malfunctioning if you think it's OK for you to
force your religious bigotries into public policy and expect to be exempt from
vigorous criticism when you try to do so.
@Pete1215 "If a person is against gay marriage because they feel it
threatens our society, they have the right to work for their position."What study or real world observations suggest that gay marriage will
threaten society or are some how more dangerous to society than heterosexual
marriages? There is no decay into lawlessness, or increases in crime, in states
which allow that allow marriages between same sex couple. Laws should only be
created when their is a substantiated case, based on facts and not fear, for the
"It's even worse that some groups seem far more protected than others
in the public discourse."If and when I hear moral attacks toward
me as a straight person used in arguments lobbying for gay rights, I'll
believe what you said to be true. However, I've yet to hear someone say:
"Ugh, what is it with all these heterosexual couples feeling the need to
hold hands in public, just throwing their heterosexuality in my face? I
can't believe my children are exposed to that kind of garbage!" Yet how
many times do we hear the converse?
@BlueThere are many legal implications that will affect religions,
religious people and their freedom of conscience if gay marriage is forced upon
society. For starters, become familiar with the Harvard Journal of Law and
Public Policy: OR FOR POORER? HOW SAME‐SEX MARRIAGETHREATENS
RELIGIOUS LIBERTY, 2007. The D-News has published numerous articles recently
about it also.We fully understand why people would support gay
marriage, we just feel the impacts on freedom of conscience is too great a price
to support the legalization of gay marriage, especially since civil unions were
created to be a compromise. If you are not religious, you might think
otherwise.Resorting to name-calling (and suing doctors,
photographers, etc.) by so many on the pro-gay marriage side shows that those
who support it don't respect or believe in personal liberty, contrary to
their insistence otherwise. As such, it is no wonder why half the nation is
against the legalization of gay marriage. It is so easy to resort to
name-calling, regardless of what side somebody is on, but it accomplishes
nothing but furthering the divide between both sides.
@JoeBlow"I have yet to see a conservative who thinks the Citizens
United ruling will taint our politics."Well here is one
conservative that did not like that ruling and I know many more.I too
would like to see the money and corruption of Unions and Corporations removed
from our politics. Humans are endowed by their creator with the
right to Free Speech.My stance is that a corporation (or union) is CREATED
by government. Therefore I think its speech could be limited by its creator. The
Government.However free speech issues are complicated and I do think there
is some danger in my stance.@BlueNot sure how you could
possibly classify what Dan Cathy did as bullying. He has a right to influence
his world according to his ideology. Certainly there are many on the other side
doing the same. The only bullying I see in this case is from the
leftist politicians. And that Bullying in my opinion was at a criminal level.
In my experience, the left loves to claim intolerance and bullying
but are more often the ones guilty of it.
Just for consideration. With all this supposed agitation going on only 25 people
showed up to protest the opening of the newest Chic A Fil a couple days ago in
Southern California. Want to guess how many supported the restaurant chain and
ate at the new location? Thousands!For Assemblyman Moreno in Chicago
just this for a thought: You and your cohorts in the city have failed to return
Chicago to its greatness. You have no right to say YOU can stop a business from
opening there! Now your actions may just mimick why my father didn't open
his business in the city and moved to the Noth Shore suburbs. Let me put it
plainly: THE CITY GOVERNMENT INCLUDING THE ALDERMAN/WOMAN are CORRUPT!
Blue, take a good look at your two following statements because they clearly
contradict each other:"If you behave like a bully then yes, you
are a bully. How is actively seeking to deny equal rights to gay citizens _not_
a bullying behavior?"I'm not trying to silence you. No one
is trying to silence you."Bullying behavior is fast becoming
illegal in this country. It is wrong and in most cases, illegal. You do not want
us to actively seek a political position that we feel is right. Then you say you
are not trying to silence us. You can't have it both ways. Period!
"I'm not trying to silence you. No one is trying to silence you,"
Bluehahahahahahahahaha! Most outlandish, hilarious comment on this
To "mcdugall" but there are observations that suggest gay marriage will
threaten society.In the article "No Explanation, Gay Marriage
has sent the Netherlands the way of Scandinavia" at the National Review,
they discuss how since they legalized gay marriage they have seen a 2% per year
increase in out of wedlock child birth going on.Now, go to the DN
story "Marriage boosts economic stability in U.S., families" where we
find that "intact families were less likely to have participated in food
stamp programs than cohabitating or single individuals."To
connect the dots, it goes like this. First by legalizing gay marriage, it
lessens the appeal of marriage, thus you get fewer marriages. Fewer marriages
result in more cohabitating couples and single parents. Single parents and
cohabitating couples are more likely to be poor. Increased poverty levels are a
drain on society. Also, cohabitating relationships are more unstable than
married couples (According to the NIH). This means that you have more single
parents. More single parents mean higher crime rates.
Isn't this a lot like people saying that a mosque should not be built in
AZrods,You may be exhibiting some reading comprehension problems. I never
said "vast majority". "Majority" means more than 50%. I never
said voter turnout is the cause for every state, did I? You have no evidence at
all to counter my claim. You didn't address the fact that fervent minority
disdain for gay marriage can trump casual majority support in the polls. It
doesn't mean you have majority support, it means you just get more people
worked up and going to vote. It's telling that you immediately dismiss
polls as biased without having a clue of how they were conducted. You are very
wrong on this one, sorry.
"Let them eat cake... chicken-cake."
I liked Chick-fil-A before but now I love it! Plan on eating there every chance
I get! Great to see someone stand up to the ugly world of political correctness.
The liberal philosophy is simple.Everyone is entitled to their own
opinion, just so long as it agrees with mine.
Support of traditional marriage (in agreement with 80% of the US) has nothing to
do with being against gay rights. A lot of us believe that everyone, including
homosexuals, deserve equal treatment under the law, but believe their deviant
lifestyle is morally wrong. Marriage is mostly a religious ceremony that
happens to also be recognized under the law.