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

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Rathji

Was not intended to be as such, I apologize.

No apology necessary if there was no intent.

For the record, I really do believe it is two separate issues, but not so I can make some kind of point.

I won't support the guy's business....we have a brand new one opening up 4 miles from my house August 9th. I won't patronize the establishment. However, I'm also not going to protest the opening of the restaraunt and I don't think that makes me a bigot or a liar either.

BTW...I always think the lego figure in your avatar is carrying a chainsaw for some reason.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by Frankster

One is not exactly free to say what they want, and nor should they. If he is spreading hate, he should not be allowed to say what he wants.
Discriminating against gay people should not be allowed through free speech, in the same way that discriminating against other minorities - whether visible or not.

We do not allow discrimination based on religion, which is a choice. Why do we condone discrimination based on sexual orientation, which for the vast majority of gay people is not a choice?

Speech is different than discrimination. That's why the white supremists are allowed to hold their rally downtown every year, but they can't only hire white people. Similarly, this guy can speak negatively about anyone he wants, but he can't not hire or serve any group.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Nuje

If it were about reproduction, you would have to ban marriage for the sterile. What if one person in a marriage is sterile? You are robbing our society of a fertile person. You can't have that!! You'd also have to put restrictions on birth control, ban vasectomies, etc. These things would have to be written into the laws if reproduction was the issue.

Of course, it's not, so no such rules are in place. The only thing left is disagreeing with the combination of genitals in a particular marriage. I think you can see how ridiculous it sounds to deny someone the right to marriage based on that.

The purpose of government involvement in marrage was to protect the "weaker" sex. It began when there was few work opportunities outside of the home for women and little to no social saftey net. There was also little to no birth control and the natural consequences of the husband/wife relationship was often children. The health issues and the responsibility that comes with children made mothers even more vulnerable and needful.

By getting married a man was saying he was responsible for his bride and any future children they might have. This was basically the same thing that was already being vowed within the various religious cerimonies. When the government got involved they just provided legal documentation.

Over time governments have added to that legal protection some tax and social benefits. Men and women living together in committed sexual relationships has always been seen as benefitial to society. Society therefore has wanted to encourage such relationship or at the very least contribute to their well being.

It is not a right to get married. Rights don't require licences. Rights don't require others to do something for you. That is an entitlement: not a right.

Rights such as freedom of speech or the right to bare arms is something you chose to exercise yourself. Because it is your right others and specifically the government can't stop you.
On a side note, I know gun ownership isn't a right in Canada. It like marriage is licenced.

I don't care to count the number of times this chicken guy and TT has been accused in this thread of wanting to take away homosexually rights. Well you can't take away something nobody has. There is no constitutional clause that I've heard of that makes marriage a right for anybody. There is certainly no scripture that declares it a God given right.

Marriage is an entitlement provided by every State and is given to everyone who meets that States criteria. All States require it to be a relationship between two people. Most States have rules that exclude near relatives from getting a marriage licence. Most States have rules that limit marriage to two people of the opposite sex. States have rules that limits the applicants to being over a certain age. There are probably more limitations I'm not thinking about. The point is that like a tax exemption or credit States and the Fed have a right to set paramiters on an entitlement. They have been doing that since government was begun.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

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.

So remind me: Was it your position that the city of New York had the right to deny a Mosque being built near ground zero?

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

So remind me: Was it your position that the city of New York had the right to deny a Mosque being built near ground zero?

A crappy chicken place is the same as a mosque?

Actually, despite the obvious differences in situation, that is by far the best example this thread has seen, as to why they should allow the Chik-Fil-A to be built (and why I think it eventually might be)

[Regulator75]

Originally Posted by bigpete

You guys know that like 50% of Americans don't support gay marriage, right?

You know that like 50% of Americans can't find the USA on a global map, right?

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Rights don't require licences. Rights don't require others to do something for you. That is an entitlement: not a right.

Rights such as freedom of speech or the right to bare arms is something you chose to exercise yourself. Because it is your right others and specifically the government can't stop you.
On a side note, I know gun ownership isn't a right in Canada. It like marriage is licenced.

The statements that "rights don't require licenses" or "governments can never infringe your rights" are completely incorrect, but that is irrelevant because you're debating the wrong point anyway. The right at issue in this debate is not the right to marriage, it is the right to equality.

As an aside, this illustrates another incorrect statement that you make above: the idea that rights are something that you choose to exercise yourself (obviously one cannot exercise one's right to equality oneself.)

[HPLovecraft]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

So remind me: Was it your position that the city of New York had the right to deny a Mosque being built near ground zero?

I think MarchHare made it pretty clear he was talking about businesses (the repeated use of the word business being the key, there). The NY mosque is a community centre; Chick-Fil-A is a business.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

So remind me: Was it your position that the city of New York had the right to deny a Mosque being built near ground zero?

Here's a link to the constitution of the United States:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/

Go find the section where it says that the government cannot prevent the free exercise of religion. Now go find the section where it says the government cannot prevent a private business from operating in a particular area.

I think you'll have much better luck with one of those two tasks...

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Marriage is an entitlement provided by every State and is given to everyone who meets that States criteria. All States require it to be a relationship between two people. Most States have rules that exclude near relatives from getting a marriage licence. Most States have rules that limit marriage to two people of the opposite sex. States have rules that limits the applicants to being over a certain age. There are probably more limitations I'm not thinking about. The point is that like a tax exemption or credit States and the Fed have a right to set paramiters on an entitlement. They have been doing that since government was begun.

I don't disagree with that, but it's just that it goes against the perspective I could have sworn you've held in the past, that marriage is, as the Bible defines it, between a man and a woman. Instead, now it is whatever the legislative body in question defines it as. So you're okay with gay marriage, as long as the ceremony is performed in a state that recognizes it then? That's actually surprisingly reasonable. Glad we can finally dispense with the whole biblical definition debate.

But this debate clearly isn't simply about entitlements. Legislative bodies and courts don't make decisions about the application of entitlements on a whim; they look at the values of their populace and their interpretation of constitutional rights, and that should drive their decisions (obviously, it doesn't always).

If I understand you, you're saying that gay-marriage opponents are arguing against the application of a certain entitlement, thus avoiding stepping on anyone's rights. But that's just shifting the debate down a level and hiding behind semantics.

Let's take driving, as an extreme example. Say a particular state wanted to deny drivers' licenses to all women, claiming that driving is not a right, it's an entitlement, so they are constitutionally allowed to take it away. But an unequal application of driving entitlements would be a violation of women's rights to equality. They can claim all they want that they're denying an entitlement, not a right, but the denial of an entitlement is still a case of violation of rights in that instance.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Makarov

The statements that "rights don't require licenses" or "governments can never infringe your rights" are completely incorrect, but that is irrelevant because you're debating the wrong point anyway. The right at issue in this debate is not the right to marriage, it is the right to equality.

As an aside, this illustrates another incorrect statement that you make above: the idea that rights are something that you choose to exercise yourself (obviously one cannot exercise one's right to equality oneself.)

Actually equality is something formed from within oneself. President Lincoln freed the black slaves back in the 19th century. It took Martin Luther King in the late 20th century to show them that they needed to claim that equality for themselves. Hopefully early in the 21st century more of them will figure out that they must claim that American dream of prosperity for themselves. The Democrats can't provide them with prosperity by taxing the rich. That is just their con.

Homosexuals have equal protection under the law. That doesn't entitle them to automatic inclusion in every program, entitlement, exemption, ect. the government provides its citizens. They like everyone else they must meet the criteria. Like everyone else all programs don't apply to them. In most of the 50 states marriage doesn't apply to them.

[puckluck2]

Don't know if this has been mentioned...

Don perry the head of chick-fil-a dies

http://www.calgarysun.com/2012/07/27...-dies-suddenly

[Senator Clay Davis]

A sign from God?

Chick-fil-A's Vice President of Public Relations Don Perry died "suddenly" Friday morning, the company confirmed. Perry was based in the Atlanta area and worked in Chick-fil-A's corporate communications department.

Perry's death comes amid controversy this week over comments that Chick-fil-A's CEO Dan Cathy made against gay marriage. Cathy told the Baptist Press that he was "guilty as charged" for supporting "the biblical definition of the family unit."

In response to the backlash, conservative commentator Mike Huckabee organized a Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day , calling on people who support the company's Christian values to eat at Chick-fil-A next Wednesday.

"Let's affirm a business that operates on Christian principles and whose executives are willing to take a stand for the Godly values we espouse by simply showing up and eating at Chick-Fil-A on Wednesday, August 1," Huckabee wrote on the Facebook page created for the event.
So far nearly 300,000 people have signed on to attend the event.

Here is the full statement from Chick-fil-A on Perry's death:
"We are saddened to report the news to you that our dear friend Don Perry, vice president of public relations, passed away suddenly this morning.

Don was a member of our Chick-fil-A family for nearly 29 years. For many of you in the media, he was the spokesperson for Chick-fil-A. He was a well-respected and well-liked media executive in the Atlanta and University of Georgia communities, and we will all miss him.
Our thoughts and prayers are with his family."

Damn that Iggy is one fast ninja.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Actually equality is something formed from within oneself. President Lincoln freed the black slaves back in the 19th century. It took Martin Luther King in the late 20th century to show them that they needed to claim that equality for themselves. Hopefully early in the 21st century more of them will figure out that they must claim that American dream of prosperity for themselves. The Democrats can't provide them with prosperity by taxing the rich. That is just their con.

Wow. So slavery was the slaves' fault? They just hadn't thought to form equality for themselves?

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Homosexuals have equal protection under the law. That doesn't entitle them to automatic inclusion in every program, entitlement, exemption, ect. the government provides its citizens. They like everyone else they must meet the criteria. Like everyone else all programs don't apply to them. In most of the 50 states marriage doesn't apply to them.

It should entitle them to the same entitlements as other people unless there is a justifiable reason to exclude them. That reason (to exclude them) cannot be simply based on their gender, race, religion, sexuality, or other deeply personal, not reasonably changeable characteristics. This is the law in Canada. If that is not the law in the United States, I'm thankful that I don't live in the United States.

[Thor]

Originally Posted by Iginla

Don't know if this has been mentioned...

Don perry the head of chick-fil-a dies

http://www.calgarysun.com/2012/07/27...-dies-suddenly

Im not a mean person, but lol irony.

[Resolute 14]

"Crap. How am I going to get the company out of this mess? A screw it, I'll leave the problem for someone else."

Hell of an exit strategy there.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by octothorp

I don't disagree with that, but it's just that it goes against the perspective I could have sworn you've held in the past, that marriage is, as the Bible defines it, between a man and a woman. Instead, now it is whatever the legislative body in question defines it as. So you're okay with gay marriage, as long as the ceremony is performed in a state that recognizes it then? That's actually surprisingly reasonable. Glad we can finally dispense with the whole biblical definition debate.

Marriage as the Bible defines it is between a man and a women. Legislative bodies do continue to redefine it or else there would be no debate. As a Christian I am offended by a legislative body redefining the christian institution of marriage as something other than the union of a man and a women. If they see the need to provide legal protections and privileges to homosexual couples I would like them to use another term separate from marriage. I actually see a benefit in providing some legal contractual protection for homosexual couples.

Originally Posted by octothorp

But this debate clearly isn't simply about entitlements. Legislative bodies and courts don't make decisions about the application of entitlements on a whim; they look at the values of their populace and their interpretation of constitutional rights, and that should drive their decisions (obviously, it doesn't always).

If I understand you, you're saying that gay-marriage opponents are arguing against the application of a certain entitlement, thus avoiding stepping on anyone's rights. But that's just shifting the debate down a level and hiding behind semantics.

Let's take driving, as an extreme example. Say a particular state wanted to deny drivers' licenses to all women, claiming that driving is not a right, it's an entitlement, so they are constitutionally allowed to take it away. But an unequal application of driving entitlements would be a violation of women's rights to equality. They can claim all they want that they're denying an entitlement, not a right, but the denial of an entitlement is still a case of violation of rights in that instance.

Interesting example. A better one would involve something that already is targeted to benefit one segment of society and another group wants that same benefit. In most States homosexual unions have never been provided for. Nothing is being taken away.

But, using your example the State would have to demonstrate that providing the licence to drive for men benefits society in ways that don't equally apply to women. The licence represents a level of training and testing that both sexes
can achieve. Hard to exclude either.

Again marriage became a concern of the governments because of the desire to protect women and their offspring from becomimg destitute. It expanded over time to include tax and other benefits designed to help marriage prosper. This was because society seen and presumably still sees a benefit in the institution.

I don't see a special benefit to society in a same sex union. They could benefit each other but, I'm not sure why society should be interested in them either way. There is nothing wrong with being single either. People can be and remain very happy in that state but, it niether benefits or harms society.

[Thor]

I don't see a special benefit to society in a same sex union. They could benefit each other but, I'm not sure why society should be interested in them either way. There is nothing wrong with being single either. People can be and remain very happy in that state but, it niether benefits or harms society.

Wait, so marriages are only to benefit society?

Oh yeah, like the female astronaut who was with her same partner for 40 yrs receives no benefits, no hospital visitation rights, no spousal benefits...

Yep people can remain very happy in that state.

By the way, do you have the courage to discuss the bible quotes you give for your beliefs of your bigotry, or you deep down know you have no leg to stand on when quoting the bible...

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

As a Christian I am offended by a legislative body redefining the christian institution of marriage as something other than the union of a man and a women.

Perhaps this is nitpicking, but you don't actually believe that marriage is a christian institution, do you?

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Makarov

Perhaps this is nitpicking, but you don't actually believe that marriage is a christian institution, do you?

Yes he does.