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

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

This guy could have been a fricken legend in Boston...and then he decided to open his mouth. I'm all for free speech so he can say what he wants...and as such, since I'm for free speech, I'm going to criticize his ignorant ass as much as I'd like. Why these guys choose to voluntarily out themselves as bigots seems strange to me, but I suppose if I was making millions of dollars I probably wouldn't care if the world thinks I'm a bigot either.

And as always, these freedom loving Libertarians love restricting the freedoms of others for things they don't agree with. They really outta just change their name to Religioustarians.

Please don't classify all libertarians into the same group. Most of us agree with gay marriage.

Otherwise good post.

[sketchyt]

Originally Posted by HELPNEEDED

I am so confused: Why are the anti-gay so anti-gay?

You'd be surprised at how many anti-gay folks are closeted. If not closeted, then curious. The antagonism stems from shame, lack of self-worth/identity, fear of something unfamiliar and trying to suppress all of that.

Just from my personal observation.

[rayne008]

I always got a kick out of Thomas ever since he was mic'd up in that all-star game...
I like how he handled the playoffs and the whole Luongo "I would have made that save thing"...
I thought the white house snub was childish, and this is just infantile...

Now I read a few comments about how he'd fit right in with the canucks...

I've never had much use for Henrik, well because he's a canuck.

However, my respect for the guy has increase 10 fold with they way he acknowledged and took action with the Rypein story.





I don't have much of a point, I just think the comparison is interesting.

[Azure]

Oh, and since when do religious views have anything to do with deciding what should be legal/illegal in society today? I have no problem if someone disagrees with gay marriage, but you can't possibly think that you should be able to push those views on society as a whole.

At least I assumed that is how a 'democracy' should work.

Gay marriage being legal does not affect 90% of the people on this board in any way. Nor does it affect Thomas or the owner of this fast food joint. It should be a non-issue.

[mikey_the_redneck]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

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.

I'm sure a small portion of them might feel that way. Why would a gay employee feel the need to "express themselves openly" at a place of business that serves food? Are you saying that Chick-Fil-A is hiring some gays out of necessity, to avoid looking bad in the public eye? Ha....I think that ship has sailed.

I can't think of a time when I felt uncomfortable by entering a business whose owners political ideals are contrary to mine.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

I'm sure a small portion of them might feel that way. Why would a gay employee feel the need to "express themselves openly" at a place of business that serves food? Are you saying that Chick-Fil-A is hiring some gays out of necessity, to avoid looking bad in the public eye? Ha....I think that ship has sailed.

I can't think of a time when I felt uncomfortable by entering a business whose owners political ideals are contrary to mine.

Yeah, but I have a feeling it would be like you working for the Alberta Human Rights commission.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Azure

Please don't classify all libertarians into the same group. Most of us agree with gay marriage.

Otherwise good post.

He didn't even accurately characterize libertarians. The OP, like many, seems to believe that liberalism requires monolithic state regulation of society. It is precisely the opposite that is true.

I really do believe that someone who is a private business owner should be able completely in accordance with his conscience within the reasonable limits set out by the law, and the constitution.

However, I also completely support consumers boycotting the services of this business owner, and ruining him completely.

In my view, liberal society is a far better regulator of social mores or manners than government.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by peter12

He didn't even accurately characterize libertarians. The OP, like many, seems to believe that liberalism requires monolithic state regulation of society. It is precisely the opposite that is true.

I really do believe that someone who is a private business owner should be able completely in accordance with his conscience within the reasonable limits set out by the law, and the constitution.

However, I also completely support consumers boycotting the services of this business owner, and ruining him completely.

In my view, liberal society is a far better regulator of social mores or manners than government.

I have a hard time coming up with a more demonstrable example of that then constituents in a politicians riding instructing him to bar a bigoted restaurant establishment to open in their community.

Government responding to the will of society.

That's how things are supposed to work, right?

[Coach]

I've made my stance on gay marriage pretty clear in other threads (pro), but the real loser in all of this is Thomas for sure. I have no problem with him having his own opinions (however misguided I believe they are), but I don't like way he's going about the whole process. Using social media as a soapbox to just spout his opinions. I wouldn't like it even if he was pro-gay marriage or whatever the case may be. It just seems so weird to me that a guy would take a leave of absence from (IMO) the greatest profession someone can have just to spew nonsense, no matter what end of the political spectrum he belongs to. If you want to be a politician, retire. If you want to be a hockey player, do that. You can't be both. And as much as people have (and should have) free speech, when you're part of a team dynamic you have to realize how your opinions can effect others preception of you as a person and a teammate/coworker. Maybe thats why he left, just seems sad to me and all I can think is "c***sucker, he was doing so well"

Tim Thomas....you are not a politician, you are a hockey player. And a damn good one at that. Stick to it.

[Huntingwhale]

Tim Thomas is one of the best goalie's I have ever seen. However, the guy is just messed. I tried to stick up for him after the White House debacle, but I think he crossed the line here. Anyone who advocates for anyone to lose rights, regardless of what they believe in, is a doouche.

Who cares if the bible says marriage is between a man and woman? That was in the Old Testament anyways. I guess Thomas agrees then that sex is only for procreation, condoms are evil, and HPV vaccinations are immoral. Thomas is certainly entitled to his beliefs and opinions, but IMO you cross the line when you want to remove RIGHTS from certain groups.

[mikey_the_redneck]

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 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?

I think individuals should have the right to boycott any business they want. I just don't think politicians should be sabotaging private business. What about the 98% of straight Chicago residents that perhaps don't care what Chick-Fil-A thinks about gays and just want some damn chicken?

I think these constant comparisons between the plights of black people and gays are out of place and out of touch with reality. Gay people have never been denied basic rights like voting, property rights, and have never been used as slaves either. I consider those things far more important to liberty than allowing people who can't even have a family to get married. To me, it's a silly wedge issue promoted by the media and the political establishment to divide and atomize Americans.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

I have a hard time coming up with a more demonstrable example of that then constituents in a politicians riding instructing him to bar a bigoted restaurant establishment to open in their community.

Government responding to the will of society.

That's how things are supposed to work, right?

Well, liberal democracy is a distinctly modern subset of democracy. We have constitutions, either formal or organic, that regulate the distance between the individual and government. The language that we use to describe this distance is "rights." Now, this is a pretty contentious aspect of liberal theory, especially since classical definitions of rights are justified insofar that they correspond to things that already occur in nature. Things like, life, liberty, and property. That is, the right to survival, the right to exercise your will, and the right to own things that make you wealthy.

All these things come together to form society; the self-regulating body of free-citizens that is trusted to maintain some semblance of order and freedom without state intrusion. Citizens are expected rule themselves to a large degree, and government, when it is not protecting these rights, can easily turn into a tyrant where inappropriate intrusions actually result in the expropriation of these rights.

It's obvious probably that I lie more on the above side of the argument.

On the other side, you have a fairly evolved recent perspective that states that government must progressively intervene in society to ensure that the egalitarian application of rights. There is some truth to this, as demonstrated by the gay rights movement, and the civil rights movement. Although, personally, I believe that the majority of these great inequalities were actually perpetuated by government, and overturned by society.

Frankly, the will of the people is something very dangerous, and we can't just assume that its sovereignty is automatically a good thing. Government must be prudent in how it responds. In this case, I am not exactly sure how state intervention would do anything but inappropriately violate the rights of this business owner, and set more precedence for similar things to be done in the future.

In short, let the market sort it out. Let this guy be destroyed by an angry base of consumers with money, and good consciences, who decide to cross the street and eat at McDonald's, instead of Chick-Fil-A.

[nik-]

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.

Where was the law passed that restricted his rights? There's a difference between "getting everything you want regardless of how you present yourself" and "being thrown in prison".

[MarchHare]

I consider those things far more important to liberty than allowing people who can't even have a family to get married.

Ignorant comment is ignorant.





Ignoring that, though, what does having children have to do with the right to marry someone you love?

[Azure]

I wonder what the divorce rate is for gay couples with children.

I find it pretty funny when people claim that a gay couple can raise a child in a healthy home when 50% of traditional marriages fail due to divorce, and most of them involve children being torn from either mom or dad.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Ignorant comment is ignorant.

Bigoted comment is Bigoted.

Ignoring that, though, what does having children have to do with the right to marry someone you love?

Because Bouwmeester plays a ton of minutes!

(Basically, it has nothing to do with it).

[octothorp]

Meh, the Mayor of Chicago should just let Chick-Fil-A move in, then make it known that the bylaw department has been instructed that responding to complaints of gay sex up against the windows of certain businesses will not be made a priority.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

...Why would a gay employee feel the need to "express themselves openly" at a place of business that serves food?

Because our nations's constitutions basically provides for individuals to to feel free about who they are regardless of gender, race, or sex. Because "expression" in this instance is not always or even primarily sexual in nature, but might be as simple as knowing that one is not being subjected to any sort of prejudices or biases.

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

...Are you saying that Chick-Fil-A is hiring some gays out of necessity, to avoid looking bad in the public eye? Ha....I think that ship has sailed.

That is not at all what I am saying. I am suggesting that there are likely homosexual employees who do not feel free to quit their job and go and work somewhere else, especially in this economy.

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

I can't think of a time when I felt uncomfortable by entering a business whose owners political ideals are contrary to mine.

What a shock. Do you also happen to qualify as a minority? If you are like me—white, protestant, male—then this probably has much more to do with the fact that Western society is taylor-made for your race, religion, and gender. Could this be part of the reason why you don't experience such discomfort?

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

...Gay people have never been denied basic rights like voting, property rights, and have never been used as slaves either. I consider those things far more important to liberty than allowing people who can't even have a family to get married. To me, it's a silly wedge issue promoted by the media and the political establishment to divide and atomize Americans.

Are you for real? Is this honestly the only function of marriage in our mind? And what by your estimation precisely constitutes a family? Do you not consider my friends without children to conform to the correct definition of a family? Since not a single one of my three children were conceived from biological material originating with my wife or myself, are we then not classified as a family?

You sure do spout a lot of rhetoric without thinking very carefully about the words you are using to do so.

[Traditional_Ale]

Fire Playfair!