Tim Thomas Stands with Chick-Fil-A (i.e. against gay marriage)

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Titan

To summarize:

The owner of Chick Fil A is an ardent opponent of gay marriage. It is his opinion which he is entitled to.

Chicago wants to prevent CFA from opening because of the views of its owner. An idea we may agree with but at odds with the constitution as I understand it, unless they want to prevent certain people from eating in their restaurant.

I'm for gay marriage and gay rights, however the concept of not allowing a business to set up shop in a city solely because of the opinions and/or beliefs of the ownership is absolutely backwards. I don't understand how people are saluting what Chicago's trying to do here (I get that many are against the opinions of Chick-a-fila, of which I'm on your side here). The less sanctimonious municipal governments are about things the better. It's simply not their job to be the moral police. Anyways judging from shifting public opinion it looks like Chick-a-fila might be taking on a losing proposition vis-a-vis endearing themselves to their future customers. Let that be their consequence of their opinions.

[Senator Clay Davis]

It'd be kinda strange for a guy to be supporting a restaurant that opposes gay marriage if he's for gay marriage himself. You can claim 1st ammendment rights, but would he then go say he supports groups like the KKK and the Black Panthers because they too are protected by the 1st ammendment? Doubtful.

[mikey_the_redneck]

Originally Posted by Reaper

No, I think the stance is: "If you're going to be a bigot then we don't want your business to set up shop here."
Yes, that Mayor is such a bully standing up for equal rights.
No, its not too bad. Bigots should be exposed for what they are and I think public shamings are exactly what is in order in this case.

I think this is being overblown as usual. A case can be made that Rahm Emanuel is discriminating against the religious belief of Mr. Cathy.

I'm willing to bet that Chick-Fil-A:

-does not deny service to gays
-alot of gays probably like Chick-Fil-A
-Chick-Fil-A probably has a number of gays working in some of their chains.

Yeah ....I can just feel the hatred...

If Chick-Fil-A was a member of the CPUSA and supported gun confiscation they would be welcome to Chicago with open arms!

[squiggs96]

Originally Posted by diane_phaneuf

Strombone ‏@strombone1
Hey guys remember 2y ago in the Stanley Cup Final when people thought I was the crazy goalie?Well I still might be, but NOT the craziest one

I know it's rumoured to be 7uongo, but what are the odds it is actually him? Some of his tweets are quite out there, which leads me to believe yes, but others seem way too much like a parody account. I'm still on the fence about it.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

It'd be kinda strange for a guy to be supporting a restaurant that opposes gay marriage if he's for gay marriage himself. You can claim 1st ammendment rights, but would he then go say he supports groups like the KKK and the Black Panthers because they too are protected by the 1st ammendment? Doubtful.

I would love to see Tim Thomas come out in support of the Black Panthers.

They should make a pay per view event it, I would gladly shell out the cash to watch that and it might help with his financial situation.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

I think this is being overblown as usual. A case can be made that Rahm Emanuel is discriminating against the religious belief of Mr. Cathy.

I'm willing to bet that Chick-Fil-A:

-does not deny service to gays
-alot of gays probably like Chick-Fil-A
-Chick-Fil-A probably has a number of gays working in some of their chains.

Yeah ....I can just feel the hatred...

If Chick-Fil-A was a member of the CPUSA and supported gun confiscation they would be welcome to Chicago with open arms!

I bet most of those won't be correct for the foreseeable future.

[afc wimbledon]

nm

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Thor

I like the first part of this response because the poster makes a point of noting that the consistent element in the Leviticus passage has to do with "mixing" inappropriately. The Genesis 1 creation account is very much a story of the divine organization and compartmentalization of the cosmos, and the correct ordering of everything in defiant contravention of the "chaos" from which the world was created. Thus, in this context, homosexual activity is an attempted abrogation of God's creation precisely because it defies the predetermined coital boundaries.

However, I think he is completely wrong about the law in Leviticus serving as protection for men in a culture of honour and shame. Certainly, sexual intercourse was normally conceived as an expression and symbol of dominance and ownership, but this was not the purpose for this rule here. The fact that it is described as abominable quite clearly demonstrates that the issue is cultic, and that the problem is retaining God's honour and favour.

[getbak]

Originally Posted by squiggs96

I know it's rumoured to be 7uongo, but what are the odds it is actually him? Some of his tweets are quite out there, which leads me to believe yes, but others seem way too much like a parody account. I'm still on the fence about it.

A couple of months ago, he tweeted a photo from a Marlins game, where Luongo was in attendance. During the World Series of Poker, he was tweeting about the experience and how he was doing, including photos. If it's not Roberto, it's probably his brother (who was also in the WSOP) posing as Roberto (and presumably with his approval).

[nik-]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

If the gov't of Chicago denies them zoning because of the speech of the company and its founder, that's a completely different thing, and would be protected by the 1st amendment.

Actually, no it wouldn't

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by HPLovecraft

...Having convictions doesn't warrant anyone respect, and I don't know where the idea came from that just believing in something means you should be respected (though I have a hunch). The content of the belief, and the justification that the individual has for believing it, are all far more important qualities to be considered when determining whether someone deserves respect for something they do or do not believe.

I love this post.

You are echoing something here that has been bothering me for a long time now, and that is how twisted our own collective perception of the value of "conviction" on the one hand, coupled with our disdain for "compromise" on the other has become. I would be very interested myself to see why that is, but invariably we celebrate single-mindedness almost beyond question. "Sticking to your guns" has become an unassailable virtue—was this a product of religious persecution that the Christian Church has incorporated into its own propaganda? Even today, Christian missionaries and converts in highly saturated Muslim countries are championed for their bravery in the face of almost certain torture and death.

It reminds me of a scene from the movie Braveheart. Strraight away, after William Wallace has been betrayed and arrested, his strongest supporter, Robert the Bruce confronts his father in a rage, knowing that he was responsible for his betrayal. His father calmly explains to him that in order to keep the peace in Scotland, and for the land-owners to save their own necks, Wallace needed to be sacrificed. In his mind, for the greater good of the nation. Then, he says something that I believe is quite instructive:

"Uncompromising men are easy to admire. But it is specifically the ability to compromise that makes one noble."

The statement is set in the movie as a slight against the failed attempts of diplomacy on the part of the Scottish lords, and as a celebration of William Wallace's balls-to-the-wall bravery. But the more I think about it, and the more I reflect on the history of our own civilization—its triumphs and failures—the more I am convinced that he is absolutely correct, and it rings as inconsistent with how we tend to evaluate human motivations and behaviour. "Compromise" has become something of a dirty word in our culture, almost to the point that we prefer rage. How sad. Since in the end, nothing gets done if not for the insightful few who have come to recognize that diplomacy in all things will always trump irrational strength of will.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by nik-

Actually, no it wouldn't

I'm not a constitutional lawyer or anything, but I was pretty sure the gov't can't pass laws that restrict the rights of someone based on their speech. If you can demonstrate that's false I'd be interested in that.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

I...'m willing to bet that Chick-Fil-A:

-does not deny service to gays
-alot of gays probably like Chick-Fil-A
-Chick-Fil-A probably has a number of gays working in some of their chains.

Yeah ....I can just feel the hatred...

Oh, the irony.

With how strongly Chick-Fil-A has come out on this issue, and with how deeply they have entrenched themselves in social conservatism, then I would be willing to bet that:

· While they do not deny service to homosexuals, I would expect that eating at a Chick-Fil-A is probably not as comfortable or enjoyable an experience for these people as would be eating in an establishment in which the ownership does not openly champion their discrimination.
· A lot of homosexuals probably do like Chick-Fil-A, but they are also just as likely to be much more self conscious about their own sexuality upon entering the establishment.
· Yes, there probably are a number of homosexuals working for Chick-Fil-A, but I would also imagine that with their present, outspoken social policy it is likely much more through necessity than anything, and that these people probably do not feel altogether free to express themselves openly. That must make for a great working environment.

So, given the passive aggressive policy of Chik-A-Flik, I would counter that, yes, it would not surprise me at all for homosexuals to literally "feel the hatred" every single time they walk through the door.

[Teh_Bandwagoner]

Meet Chaz! The Intolerant Chick-fil-A Chicken!

http://teamcoco.com/video/highlight-07/26/12

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

I'm not a constitutional lawyer or anything, but I was pretty sure the gov't can't pass laws that restrict the rights of someone based on their speech. If you can demonstrate that's false I'd be interested in that.

The first amendment protects citizens from government censorship or punishment/imprisonment for expressing a particular belief. It doesn't mean that you can't be denied the required licensing or other necessary documents to open a business because you said something that didn't sit well with a particular jurisdiction's elected officials.

Local councils prevent businesses from opening in their areas all the time for many different reasons (e.g. think of the number of towns that have banned Wal-mart). It's not unconstitutional.

[Reaper]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

I think this is being overblown as usual. A case can be made that Rahm Emanuel is discriminating against the religious belief of Mr. Cathy.

I'm willing to bet that Chick-Fil-A:

-does not deny service to gays
-alot of gays probably like Chick-Fil-A
-Chick-Fil-A probably has a number of gays working in some of their chains.

Yeah ....I can just feel the hatred...

When you support the unequal application of rights for people simply because of their sexual orientation you are a bigot. Get used to it. I'm sure you hear it a lot.

[HELPNEEDED]

I am so confused: Why are the anti-gay so anti-gay? How do homosexuals effect anyone else's life? Kinda sad, reminds me of how the blacks or aborignals were treated in the states, as inferiors and animals.

[Rathji]

Many religious people think that gay people being on the earth will do one or more of the following:

a) Cause a great destruction to be brought upon by God, like what happened in Sodom
b) Cause moral decay which might impact them negatively on a personal level
c) Spread the 'gay disease' which again, might impact them or their families/friends.

The basic idea, as I see it, is more or less this:

Christians are God's chosen people on earth and need to/are destined to spread the word of his gospel around the whole world. To do this, since gays obviously can't be Christian (I guess?), they need to convert all the gay people since they have a disease/have been convinced/whatever they are being gay.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

I think this is being overblown as usual. A case can be made that Rahm Emanuel is discriminating against the religious belief of Mr. Cathy.

I'm willing to bet that Chick-Fil-A:

-does not deny service to gays
-alot of gays probably like Chick-Fil-A
-Chick-Fil-A probably has a number of gays working in some of their chains.

Yeah ....I can just feel the hatred...

If Chick-Fil-A was a member of the CPUSA and supported gun confiscation they would be welcome to Chicago with open arms!

Think of it this way and ask yourself if you'd still feel the same way:

Suppose the leaders of a particular business believe that African Americans should not have the right to vote or own land, but:

-they don't deny service to blacks
-black people like their product
-the company employs many black people

Is that acceptable? Do you think people would be right to boycott a business whose CEO publicly expressed such discriminatory views? Would you be opposed to elected officials denying business licenses and other required permits in order to prevent this organization from opening a location in the local area?

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by marchhare

think of it this way and ask yourself if you'd still feel the same way:

Suppose the leaders of a particular business believe that rednecks should not have the right to vote or own land, but:

-they don't deny service to rednecks
-redneck people like their product
-the company employs many redneck people

is that acceptable? Do you think people would be right to boycott a business whose ceo publicly expressed such discriminatory views? Would you be opposed to elected officials denying business licenses and other required permits in order to prevent this organization from opening a location in the local area?

fyp