The silent majority flexed its muscles last week in their support for Mr.
Cathy's right to speak freely in a world where many people live in fear of
the oppression of the politically correct police from the left wing. Many of
them justify and even glorify their intolerance and intimidation as a crusade
for what is right.Too bad that we don't see more respect and less hostility
for those with whom we disagree.
I'm with the conservatives on this one; city government should not be
trying to ban his business based on those remarks. While I agree that the
threat of banning Chik fil a by city government is unethical and unwarranted,
your other comparisons are not consistent. First, bringing President
Obama into this argument is a straw man. He's not involved, nor is he a
business. This is not a logical argument or example. Second, Chik
fil-a was not hammered on by an intrusive federal government, this was done at
the city level, which is closer to the scale and scope of government that
conservatives want. Third, I don't think your assertion that
this would never happen to a business supporting same-sex marriage is proven. I
guarantee a vocal business owner supporting same-sex marriage would run into
trouble in some of the conservative small cities in the western US or deep
South. We just haven't seen any on the news.
Very well written letter. Don't you know that those who preach tolerance
the loudest are always the least tolerant? Harry Reid believes people should be
guilty until proven innocent and Kathleen Sebelius doesn't believe in
Freedom of Religion. Emmanuel, Menino and Merino are happy to deny a person the
right to make a living if their beliefs don't align with their own
(alleged) beliefs. It's an upside down world in America in 2012.
This isn't even a controvercy. EVERYONE has condemmed the 2 people that
said anything about chick-fil-a yet this carries on as if anyone were really
trying to force it closed. Things are all in bunches about nothing.
Tolerance is often demanded but seldom returned. Boyd K. Packer.
Why wasn't a protest organized against that Alderman and the Mayor of
Boston? All agreed they went too far, and such a protest would have been joined
by gays and straights alike.
I also agree that those govt's were wrong in trying to limit business based
on the owners personal views.It is so nice to be independent and not
have to toe the party line on every issue.
Once again, comments are aimed at condemning "liberals" for supposedly
supporting homosexual marriage.Not so. Please don't use a
spray gun to paint everyone you think is an awful liberal.Not all of
us support homosexual "marriage." Not by a long shot. In fact, I have
a neighbor who is a flaming homosexual. He fully supports their ideas of
"marriage," but has Romney stickers all over his car and will let you
know without room for doubt of his "conservative" credentials.On the other hand, I have many "liberal" friends who are as disgusted
with the homosexual agenda as I am.If I based all my comments on his
actions, I'd be rightfully enabled to condemn "conservatives" as
supporting homosexual actions of all kinds.
Like the freedom of expression, freedom to marry also belongs to unpopular
groups.All of you who support Dan Cathy's freedom to express
himself and then turn around and deny equal protection (freedom to marry) to
your fellow American Citizens are nothing more than big hypocrites.
This is a good example of the complete hypocrisy of the left wing. The left
claims that the issue of same sex marriage is an issue of equal rights, but what
they really want are rights that are greater than those of anyone else.The left wants to take away the right to speak from anyone who opposes them.
Rather than allowing an open dialogue so the public can make an informed
decision for itself, the left seeks to have only one opinion expressed--its
ownThe left will not hesitate to bully, threaten, and intimate its
opponents into silence. Fortunately, there are still some brave enough to stand
up to this campaign of intimidation.
jcs, all of your comments apply equally to the right wing.
@John Charity Spring;Please provide even ONE good reason why
"the public" should have any say at all in somebody else's
marriage? Please! We want "greater rights"? Really? You
make that claim and then turn right around and tell us that YOU should have the
right to decide if WE can even marry. Such arrogance and hubris is
astonishing!You people are simply unbelievable.
@john charity springs "This is a good example of the complete
hypocrisy of the left wing." really? then why have liberals been condemning
these two mayors from the beginning and why did the ACLU defend Cathy? I
don't see hypocrisy, I see more of the same lies and twisted half truths
coming from people like you and the letter writer trying to twist this into
something it is not.
Where is the outcry over the government getting involved in - and banning - the
free expression of smoke shop owners in Centerville?Where is the
outcry over the limiting of areas in which owners of lingerie shops can exercise
their free speech?Where is the outcry over the efforts to ban gay
bars in areas in which straight bars are located?Congress just
passed a law limiting Fred Phelps freedom of speech - where is the outcry over
@ Ranch hand - this is actually a free speech issue and not a gay marriage
issue. It's telling that 3 Democrat mayors tried to bully Dan Cathy and
intimidate him. Their message was loud and clear - "keep your thoughts to
yourself". It backfired on them but it still could make another CEO or
anyone afraid to speak their mind in public. Some people always love to
talk about "equal protection under the law". That is until you make over
a certain amount of money- then your "equal protection" goes out the
window. And what if I wanted to marry my (hypothetical)sister? That's
against the law so I don't have equal protection. What if I want to marry
my first cousin? Sorry - no equal protection there either.
@red state pride Your right those THREE mayors where wrong to use
their power the way they did. however you seem to want to completely ignore that
they where roundly criticized by the left as well as by the right and that the
ACLU actually defended Cathy. As to your comments about sisters and cousins that
failed argument has been addressed thousands of time over the past 20 years and
is hardly worth entertaining yet again.
No gay couple in the world has destroyed my marriage or effected it in any way.
I am more worried about nuts with guns interferring with my right to assemble at
the church, movie or school of my choice.
Re: RanchHand Huntsville, UT"Please provide even ONE good reason why
"the public" should have any say at all in somebody else's
marriage? Please!"The counterfeit of any item always acts to
cheapen the genuine product. There are basic and subtle differences between
those who unite in traditional marriages and those who attempt to imitate them.
Obtaining a marriage license is no different than getting any other license.
There are specific requirements that must be met, and compliance is required to
obtain any kind of license.
@red state pride;It's not just "free speech" - I agree
that Cathy's right to open his business shouldn't be denied. I also
feel that he has a right to spend his money as he pleases; but to spend it
denying others the benefits he enjoys is simply hypocrisy (not to mention
Anti-Christian).You're IN LUCK. In Utah, you CAN marry your
first cousin. Go for it. If you want to marry your sister, you'll have to
go to bat for it, I won't stand in your way.@Rifleman;I asked for a valid reason. Your assumption about something be counterfeit is
just that. An assumption.Perhaps we need to invalidate
"Christianity" in the US as it is a counterfeit of the teachings of
Christ. You can counterfeit following his teachings, but if you don't then
you really aren't (do unto others as you would have them do unto you).You're welcome to believe whatever you want about same-sex
marriages. The fact remains that it does nothing to you.
First. Those in power in local and state governments have no restrictions on
the accepting or denying a business operation within their venue. Other than
the laws that protect the welfare of people such as prohibition of race, color,
creed, and such. Chick-fil-A is a business and cannot claim any exception as a
religion. Second, switching to another venue, Abortion clinics and
the processes that go on within them are legal business operations. People who
do not share their view seem to go to very great lengths to disrupt their
business, even to committing murder. Both are cases of dispute of
@ Rifleman: Before we can determine if something is "counterfeit", we
must first define exactly what the "real" thing is.What
makes a marriage "real"? Is it the love of the two people involved? Is
it their commitment to each other? Is it a willingness to share both good and
bad?Or is the only thing that makes a marriage "real" the
fact that the participants are opposite sex?If marriage is so
mundane that it is the mere joining of two people of the opposite sex, why are
you fighting so hard to preserve it?And if it is not that mundane,
if it truly is something unique and special, why aren't you fighting harder
to protect it? Why aren't you fighting to protect it from those who lie,
cheat, and steal? Why are you not fighting to protect from those who abuse
their partners? What about those who enter into serial marriages or who have
super-short term marriages?If you can share marriage with Brittany
Spears and Newt Gingrich, you can share marriage with same-sex couples.
People are misreading the those of us who oppose Chick Fil A's financial
support for its position opposing non traditional marriage. Chick Fil A can do
what ever they want with their money and "speak their mind" they just
need to be willing to accept the consequences and the negative feedback. They
need to man up, or is that woman up? Stop whining when others object you got
what you paid for.
The Bill or Rights should protect "freedom of speech"; it says nothing
about freedom of "expression". This is a free speech issue. Mr Cathy
has the right to speak his mind.He and any of us can also publicize
our views by print (freedom of the press) and to verbalize our religious beliefs
(freedom of religion). All are First Amendment rights; Congress can make no law
prohibiting the free exercise of religion, or abridging the freedom of speech,
or of the press.
@Gildas and no one is arguing with that so what would be your point? the
mayors where wrong. Cathy has a right to speak his mind and we have the right to
respond with our voices and our wallets.
Re: "All of you who support Dan Cathy's freedom to express himself . .
. are nothing more than big hypocrites."Hey -- where do you get
off calling me "big?"
No one can invalidate your marriage except you.If it's
threatened that easily you have more problems than others' private lives.
Freedom of speech is a total baloney. Remember the Main Street plaza debate for
several years back? The ACLU, Unitarian Street and the Street Preacher
Fellowship all got together to sue Salt Lake City, demanding the right to
protest on LDS Church property? How many times did these folk all scream and
yell about the First Amendment, only to do a complete 180 when Boyd K. Packer
said something in General Conference they didn't like.Freedom
of speech, freedom of religion. Not if the Thought Police win. @ugottabkidn"I am more worried about nuts with guns
interferring with my right to assemble at the church, movie or school of my
choice."I agree, but if the far left have their way, they will
be the ones who decide what church you're allowed to go to.@RanchHandTell me, do you agree with the seemingly endless
comments I've read online over the years which say that churches that will
not marry same-sex couples should loose their tax-exempt status or suffer other
government sanctions.Now tell me whose trying to force their beliefs
Re: Bebyebe UUU, UT"No one can invalidate your marriage except
you."If you want to get married in Utah you must obtain a
marriage license. Go to your county clerk's office with your future
bride/or groom as the case may be. Yes, there are some restrictions:Marriage Between Relatives:You cannot marry your first cousin, or anyone
related more closely than a first cousin, such as an aunt, uncle, niece, nephew,
parent or child, brother or sister. However, first cousins can marry if both
are over 65, or, if both parties are over 55, if the court finds that they are
unable to reproduce.The following marriages are void in Utah:When one party is married to someone else.When a party is a minor,
unless consent has been given.When a party is divorced, but the decree is
not final.When the parties are of the same sex.Makes perfect
sense to me.
"ONE good reason why "the public" should have any say at all in
somebody else's marriage?" Stupid question or statement
number 1, and the answer is = because "somebody else's", in an in
your face manor, is asking the public to sanction it legally!"to
spend it denying others the benefits he enjoys is simply hypocrisy" Stupid question or statement number 2, and the answer is = We all have
exactly the same rights! The problem it that a certain segment of the population
chooses to be deviant or perverse, and they want the remainder of the population
to accept and sanction their actions, in a public an legal format! Yeah yeah, we all have a nieghbor, friend, relative or aquaintance who is gay,
but that doesn't mean wrong is not wrong, and right is not right. It's
still our duty and our right to stand up for our beliefs!
@ Rifleman: Having a person married to more than 1 person causes issues with
inheritance, power of attorney, medical power of attorney, survivor benefits,
legal responsibility, tax exemptions, and numerous other things. This has all
been explained to you before.Minors, as a general rule, do not have
the mental, emotional, or psychological maturity necessary to make certain
decisions - which is why they are not only prohibited from marrying without
parental consent, but from getting their ears pierced, getting tattoos, seeking
medical care and most medical procedures, opening bank accounts, and signing
contracts (just to name a few things). They are also prohibited from voting or
joining the military.Closely related individuals cannot marry
because of the increased possibility for birth defects.All this has
been discussed with you before.Now stop throwing around red herrings
and provide one reason why same-sex marriage should be on the list of prohibited
Re: Kalindra Salt Lake City, Utah"...provide one reason why same-sex
marriage should be on the list of prohibited marriages"For the
same exact reason why the Federal Government prohibits counterfeit money. Same
sex marriages attempt to duplicate the genuine article, fall short and thus
cheapen the value of the real thing.
@ Rifleman: "Same sex marriages attempt to duplicate the genuine article,
fall short and thus cheapen the value of the real thing."When
you use a thing for the reason for said thing, that is called circular
reasoning.Your argument that same-sex marriage should be prohibited
because it is different and the difference makes it counterfeit and it is
counterfeit because it is different and therefore should be prohibited is
circular reasoning.To use your money example, nickels and dimes are
different - but that difference does not automatically make one of them
counterfeit. Coins are different from bills, American money is different from
Canadian money, etc., etc. - none of that in and of itself makes any of that
money counterfeit.You may not like same-sex marriage, but your
dislike is not enough to make it counterfeit. I don't like the fact that
Brittany Spears was married for 72 hours - that doesn't make it a
counterfeit marriage. I don't like the fact that Edwards and Gingrich
cheated on their wives - but that doesn't make their marriages
counterfeit.You have yet to provide any reason beyond your personal
disagreement - which is not a valid reason.