Chick-fil-A

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Barcham

They would suffice but they are also prohibited by the same laws that prohibit same sex 'marriage'. What's important is equality under the law for same sex and traditional partnerships, not whatever term you choose to describe the life partnership between two consenting adults.

Exactly. It's right there in the Preamble of the Declaration of Independence:

Originally Posted by United States Declaration of Independence

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

This is the very stuff the country was founded upon, for crying out loud!

Of course, that didn't stop the Constitution from excluding slaves from being equal. Thomas Day wrote: "If there be an object truly ridiculous in nature, it is an American patriot, signing resolutions of independency with the one hand, and with the other brandishing a whip over his affrighted slaves." It took until 1865 for the 13th Amendment to be added and slavery to be abolished. Here we are in 2012, nearly 150 years later, and all are STILL not equal in the eyes of the law.

[colchar]

Originally Posted by Scooter2112

Ehhh...probably all true.



Ideological speculation.

Find a reputable news source. Not a blog.

Is the NY Times good enough for you?


"The Baptist family that owns Chick-fil-A, a fast-food chain based in Atlanta, has for years given millions of dollars to organizations fighting same-sex marriage and supporting heterosexual ones."


http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/26/us...-a-widens.html

[Daniel]

Originally Posted by Barcham

Maybe you can explain to me what marriage is exactly then, leaving out anything to do with religion. From what I can gather, including what has been explained to me by gay friends and acquiantances, what the gay community wants are the same rights that heterosexual couples are guaranteed under the law. This includes health benefits, spousal benefits and survivor benefits and whatever other benefits granted to hetero couples. As not all hetero unions are made in the church but they all have the same legal standing, I don't think it's too much to ask.

Every single one of those benefits you are speaking of can be obtained by legal contracts straight, gay or whatever.

Now "Marriage" in and of it's self is a religion thing and really never had any business mixed up in sectarian legalities in the first place... It's Religion.

As for the fight for gay rights bunch I know many of them and know them well... It's Religion.

[colchar]

Originally Posted by BillB1960

Sorry, that's tenuous at best

No, it is not tenuous and any claim that it is is rather silly.

and frankly the 1st Amendment trumps all that nonsense anyway.

If they (their owners) are free to promote hate then others are free to speak out against them for doing so.

[BillB1960]

Originally Posted by colchar

No, it is not tenuous and any claim that it is is rather silly.




If they (their owners) are free to promote hate then others are free to speak out against them for doing so.

Did anyone say that "others" couldn't? The only ones trying to shut anyone up are the politicians who want to punish the business for having an owner who exercised his right to free speech.

[Scooter2112]

promote hate

Oy vey...


Discourse - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

[GuitarToneFreak]

Originally Posted by Scooter2112

Oy vey...


Discourse - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

The way I read it, it's a hateful cause.

If it were dealing with interracial marriage, and the money went to causes that tried to ban interracial marriage and only supported same race marriage - wouldn't that be a hateful cause?

Same thing here, only we're not dealing with race.

[Barcham]

Originally Posted by Daniel

Every single one of those benefits you are speaking of can be obtained by legal contracts straight, gay or whatever.
....

Really? So you are telling me that each and every state will legally support rights of succession of gay couples? That all insurance companies will recognize gay unions? That gay civil unions are available in and legally recognized by every state in the US?

I don't think so.

[SKATTERBRANE]

I have had my Fil A' this Chick thread.

[Boleskinehouse]

Chick do a salt. Chick do a gay salt.

[Mattyboy]

Gerbil-fil-A

the politically correct kind.

[PraXis]

[KSG_Standard]

Originally Posted by northernguitarguy

No, but I'm POSITIVE many gluttons like to eat there. Just curious how people select which 'sins' to focus on. And irony, I love the irony.

Gluttony and several other of the "seven deadly sins" aren't biblical. They were interpolated or created by a Catholic monk in the 4th century. I enjoy irony too...I'm also amused to a certain extent when people promote ideas that are incorrect and do so without researching what they're talking about.

[Daniel]

Originally Posted by Barcham

Really? So you are telling me that each and every state will legally support rights of succession of gay couples? That all insurance companies will recognize gay unions? That gay civil unions are available in and legally recognized by every state in the US?

I don't think so.

Yes indeed but these couples want recognition rather than just dealing with it as a legal partnership.

[Daniel]

Oh hey... Long story of how I'm privy I wont cover here but:

This news just in.

A small contingent of gay marriage proponents are kicking around the idea of a cross burning in front of the Chick Fil A local to me.

If it wasn't so... ****in crazy I'd be laughing.

[KSG_Standard]

Originally Posted by Barcham

...Religious based institutions have no business in any political arena. Separation of church and state, remember?

I remember. The phrase comes from a private letter from Thomas Jefferson to the president of the Danbury Baptists...The constitution says:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Originally, the amendments were interpreted to mean things that the federal gov't couldn't do or were prohibited from doing. The supreme court incorporated SOME of the amendments to include prohibitions on state and local governments. Though oddly enough, they chose not to incorporate all the amendments...the second amendment for example.

The seperation of church and state, like the selective incorporation of the bill of rights, is a creation of the supreme court...done by unelected men with lifetime appointments who sometimes choose to insert their own beliefs and interpretations in place of the actual words of the Constitution.

If you believe that the amendments apply to the states and local governments, then the guilty parties in this Chick-fil-A debacle, are the cities of Boston and Chicago...who used the power of gov't to punish free speech and religious freedom. Specifically against the 1st Amendment.

I'm always amazed at how little people actually know.

[GuitarToneFreak]

Originally Posted by KSG_Standard

Gluttony and several other of the "seven deadly sins" aren't biblical. They were interpolated or created by a Catholic monk in the 4th century. I enjoy irony too...I'm also amused to a certain extent when people promote ideas that are incorrect and do so without researching what they're talking about.

[KSG_Standard]

Originally Posted by Barcham

They would suffice but they are also prohibited by the same laws that prohibit same sex 'marriage'. What's important is equality under the law for same sex and traditional partnerships, not whatever term you choose to describe the life partnership between two consenting adults.

Some states already allow same sex civil unions, which offer the same legal protections as traditional marriage...even in those states, the homosexual activists aren't satisfied and want marriage...which was only recently re-defined in the dictionary to include same sex. Marriage has been defined in the West as a union between 1 man and 1 woman, for centuries.

If you want insurance companies to recognize same sex unions, take it up with the insurance companies. Marriage is regulated by States NOT the federal gov't. The 10th amendment to the US Constitution says:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

That means that the federal gov't has nothing to do with the regulation of marriage...marriage is not an enumerated power of the federal gov't. Now if you buy in to the whole selective incorporation scheme that the supremes have given us, then you can use the 14th amendment to allow the feds to get involved. But that seems capricious unless you believe that ALL of the BOR is incorporated. As it stands today, the States and the PEOPLE get to decide those things that aren't enumerated powers of the federal gov't. It's part of our federalism...and it's in the Constitution.

The real solution to the issue it seems to me, is to get gov't out of the marriage game. No tax breaks, no social engineering in the tax code...period. You can live with and love anybody you choose, that's your business.

You're Canadian...what business is it of yours anyway? We're not trying to change Canadian law, culture or tradition...why are you worried about American law, culture and tradition? Go play with your beaver.

[Roberteaux]

Still grinding our molars, are we?

Hell of a thread! Whoo! Daniel!

But now it's time for a chicken-related joke outta Louisiana:

SO... Boudreaux was at the table, consuming his breakfast of coffee and cigarettes as he read the morning paper. His wife, Charmaine, was across the table reading the local section. She began to cluck disapprovingly with her tongue, muttering, "Oh my... oh my... this is terrible!"

Grumpy Boudreaux flaps his paper down to glare at his wife, saying, "Damn it woman-- what are you on about this time?

Charmaine says, "Well... it's the churches... somebody's running around burning down all the churches..."

And Boudreaux says, "Pfft! I always liked Popeye's better anyway!"



There! I feel better now. You may now resume the intense conversations already in progress!

--R

[Malikon]

[LongBeach]

I cant believe how many folks in this country
get all butt-hurt over a fast food joint.

Dont like their opinion, dont eat the jesus chicken!
it's just that easy!

[Roberteaux]

Originally Posted by Malikon

EWWWWWWWWW!

--R

[AXE]

ftgc

[Malikon]

Originally Posted by Roberteaux

EWWWWWWWWW!

--R

Smith and 9th street,...



..hope it was a dog.

[Barcham]

Originally Posted by KSG_Standard

...

I'm always amazed at how little people actually know.

Uhhh...dude, look at my location... I'm from Montreal. You know...Canada? That big expanse of land north of the US? I know that most Americans probably couldn't find Montreal on a map but a country is hard to miss. Your constitution doesn't mean squat to me and it doesn't apply to me, so why would I know it in detail?

[Daniel]

Originally Posted by AXE

ftgc

That was really just like one of my bad acid trips... But with a chicken instead of a duck.

[KSG_Standard]

Originally Posted by Barcham

Uhhh...dude, look at my location... I'm from Montreal. You know...Canada? That big expanse of land north of the US? I know that most Americans probably couldn't find Montreal on a map but a country is hard to miss. Your constitution doesn't mean squat to me and it doesn't apply to me, so why would I know it in detail?

I know where Canada is, been there more than a hundred times...beautiful country. If you don't understand our laws and Constitution then why are you worried about what we do and how we do it? Worry about your own problems...eh?

[AXE]

Buh-Cawk!

[Barcham]

Originally Posted by KSG_Standard

...
You're Canadian...what business is it of yours anyway? We're not trying to change Canadian law, culture or tradition...why are you worried about American law, culture and tradition? Go play with your beaver.

Why shouldn't I be interested in people's human rights wherever they may live? Or is it only Americans who can comment on other countries' politics and human rights infractions?

[KSG_Standard]

Originally Posted by Barcham

Why shouldn't I be interested in people's human rights wherever they may live? Or is it only Americans who can comment on other countries' politics and human rights infractions?

Who defined the institution of marriage as a human right? I don't comment too much on Canadian politics or social issues...How many threads on MLP pertain to Canadian politics anyway?