[JFrame]

Originally Posted by Kentak

This isn't complicated. It's a privately owned business and the prez has taken a personal political stand--as is his right.

Others, who agree or disagree, can choose to either give or withhold their patronage as they wish--as is their right.

What's the problem?

Yeah -- as I mentioned earlier, I'm still trying to figure out what the flap is about.


.

[UtahGlocker]

Originally Posted by whoflungdo

And the owner of chikfila isn't attempting to enforce opposition through government mandate...he's attempting to preserve the definition of marriage...

The owner of CFA has donated millions of dollars to groups actively trying to pass laws to prevent government recognition of SSM. I think people are more upset over that than that he is personally opposed to it..

Originally Posted by whoflungdo

equal protection doesn't fly either..civil unions take care of that

There are more than 1000 benefits of marriage due to Federal regulation alone. None of those apply to civil unions. Separate is NOT equal.

Originally Posted by whoflungdo

right now the definition of marriage is between a man and a woman. That's why the SC was right to strike down the interracial law

In the past the definition of marriage included polygamy in the Old Testament, required submission of women, same race only and more. In many places it includes same-sex couples today. The changes have become more and more inclusive in recognition of equality.

Originally Posted by whoflungdo

If anyone is trying to force their will on others it's the groups trying to force others to accept their definition of marriage. The next step is to force religious organizations to perform "marriages" they don't agree with

Expecting the governement to treat all citizens equally is NOT forcing anybody to do anything. If you're against SSM, then you won't be forced to marry someone of the same sex. Forcing religious organizations to perform SSM would be a violation of first amendment rights, just as preventing them from performing SSM is a violation of first amendment rights.

[UtahGlocker]

Originally Posted by Kingarthurhk

It is okay to say homosexuality is wrong and that you belief it is wrong.

Absolutely. You have every right to say and believe whatever you want.

Originally Posted by Kingarthurhk

It is interesting that homosexuals demand freedom while trying to aborogate the First Amendment.

I might have missed something, but I haven't seen any LGBT groups trying to pass laws to limit first amendment freedoms. It is those opposed to SSM that are trying to pass laws to limit the rights of fellow citizens.

[whoflungdo]

Originally Posted by UtahGlocker

The owner of CFA has donated millions of dollars to groups actively trying to pass laws to prevent government recognition of SSM. I think people are more upset over that than that he is personally opposed to it..

That's the owner, not the organization...now you are changing the argument...

Originally Posted by UtahGlocker

There are more than 1000 benefits of marriage due to Federal regulation alone. None of those apply to civil unions. Separate is NOT equal.

Then you shouldn't have a problem coming up with 10 or so...

Originally Posted by UtahGlocker

In the past the definition of marriage included polygamy in the Old Testament, required submission of women, same race only and more. In many places it includes same-sex couples today. The changes have become more and more inclusive in recognition of equality.

Changing the argument again..we are talking solely about the legal definition of marriage..

Originally Posted by UtahGlocker

Expecting the governement to treat all citizens equally is NOT forcing anybody to do anything. If you're against SSM, then you won't be forced to marry someone of the same sex. Forcing religious organizations to perform SSM would be a violation of first amendment rights, just as preventing them from performing SSM is a violation of first amendment rights.

You want me to believe a government you think is violating civil rights won't violate 1st amendment rights? Which is it? If civil rights are being violated as you suggest, 1st amendment rights isn't much of a stretch.

[UtahGlocker]

Originally Posted by whoflungdo

That's the owner, not the organization...now you are changing the argument...

The articles I have read indicate they were corporate donations.

Originally Posted by whoflungdo

Then you shouldn't have a problem coming up with 10 or so...

1. Joint parental rights of children
2. Joint adoption
3. Status as "next-of-kin" for hospital visits and medical decisions
4. Right to make a decision about the disposal of loved ones remains
5. Immigration and residency for partners from other countries
6. Crime victims recovery benefits
7. Domestic violence protection orders
8. Judicial protections and immunity
9. Automatic inheritance in the absence of a will
10. Public safety officers death benefits
11. Spousal veterans benefits
12. Social Security
13. Medicare
14. Joint filing of tax returns
15. Wrongful death benefits for surviving partner and children
16. Bereavement or sick leave to care for partner or children
17. Child support
18. Joint Insurance Plans
19. Tax credits including: Child tax credit, Hope and lifetime learning credits
20. Deferred Compensation for pension and IRAs
21. Estate and gift tax benefits
22. Welfare and public assistance
23. Joint housing for elderly
24. Credit protection
25. Medical care for survivors and dependents of certain veterans

Originally Posted by whoflungdo

Changing the argument again..we are talking solely about the legal definition of marriage..

I'm not changing the argument, just pointing out that the "legal" definition has changed throughout history. In fact, it is the rush of anti-gay groups to pass NEW laws restricting marriage that is the problem.

Originally Posted by whoflungdo

You want me to believe a government you think is violating civil rights won't violate 1st amendment rights? Which is it? If civil rights are being violated as you suggest, 1st amendment rights isn't much of a stretch.

Unfortunately, rights are violated all of the time. Sorting it out is what the judicial system is all about. Never the less, no religious group has been forced to perform marriage ceremonies in the States where SSM has been legal for years and I haven't heard anybody asking for it.

[whoflungdo]

Originally Posted by UtahGlocker

The articles I have read indicate they were corporate donations.

1. Joint parental rights of children
2. Joint adoption
3. Status as "next-of-kin" for hospital visits and medical decisions
4. Right to make a decision about the disposal of loved ones remains
5. Immigration and residency for partners from other countries
6. Crime victims recovery benefits
7. Domestic violence protection orders
8. Judicial protections and immunity
9. Automatic inheritance in the absence of a will
10. Public safety officers death benefits
11. Spousal veterans benefits
12. Social Security
13. Medicare
14. Joint filing of tax returns
15. Wrongful death benefits for surviving partner and children
16. Bereavement or sick leave to care for partner or children
17. Child support
18. Joint Insurance Plans
19. Tax credits including: Child tax credit, Hope and lifetime learning credits
20. Deferred Compensation for pension and IRAs
21. Estate and gift tax benefits
22. Welfare and public assistance
23. Joint housing for elderly
24. Credit protection
25. Medical care for survivors and dependents of certain veterans

I'm not changing the argument, just pointing out that the "legal" definition has changed throughout history. In fact, it is the rush of anti-gay groups to pass NEW laws restricting marriage that is the problem.



Unfortunately, rights are violated all of the time. Sorting it out is what the judicial system is all about. Never the less, no religious group has been forced to perform marriage ceremonies in the States where SSM has been legal for years and I haven't heard anybody asking for it.

You and I will just have to agree to disagree on this subject..I do appreciate the calm, rational discussion without anger, name calling, and ad hominem attacks..

[G17Jake]

The Mayor Of Boston Has Vowed To Block Chick-Fil-A From Entering The City

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/the-m...#ixzz21GNg2xCf

[G29Reload]

Originally Posted by UtahGlocker

1. Joint parental rights of children
2. Joint adoption
3. Status as "next-of-kin" for hospital visits and medical decisions
4. Right to make a decision about the disposal of loved ones remains
5. Immigration and residency for partners from other countries
6. Crime victims recovery benefits
7. Domestic violence protection orders
8. Judicial protections and immunity
9. Automatic inheritance in the absence of a will
10. Public safety officers death benefits
11. Spousal veterans benefits
12. Social Security
13. Medicare
14. Joint filing of tax returns
15. Wrongful death benefits for surviving partner and children
16. Bereavement or sick leave to care for partner or children
17. Child support
18. Joint Insurance Plans
19. Tax credits including: Child tax credit, Hope and lifetime learning credits
20. Deferred Compensation for pension and IRAs
21. Estate and gift tax benefits
22. Welfare and public assistance
23. Joint housing for elderly
24. Credit protection
25. Medical care for survivors and dependents of certain veterans

There isn't a thing on this list that isnt' covered by some other legal device. Certainly nothing on here justifies attempting to redefine what marriage is to justify someone elses social agenda.

[G29Reload]

Every time I saw an article about CFA doing the right thing I have dinner there. Support them every chance I get.

[Gary W Trott]

Originally Posted by G29Reload

There isn't a thing on this list that isnt' covered by some other legal device. Certainly nothing on here justifies attempting to redefine what marriage is to justify someone elses social agenda.

Exactly...and that's the reason why government should not be in the business of issuing permits that set up a separate contract for couples yet limits which couples can avail themselves of the contract's benefits. Let the churches and other religious and faith based groups worry about what is and is not marriage, and leave the state out of it.

[G29Reload]

Originally Posted by Gary W Trott

Exactly...and that's the reason why government should not be in the business of issuing permits that set up a separate contract for couples yet limits which couples can avail themselves of the contract's benefits.

They don't, and you're confusing issues.

The statement I made is true. There other legal devices available to the affected issues in the list. Anyone can make a will, etc.

Marriage has a specific meaning and its not for you or the government to decide differently, nor should it be re-defined because **** don't like it.

[Al Czervik]

I applaud CFA.
Aside from this issue, CFA is consistent and clean. The employees speak FLUENT ENGLISH, are courteous and don't look like festering pustules. I can't say the same of any other local fast food chains.

[Gary W Trott]

Originally Posted by Al Czervik

I applaud CFA.
Aside from this issue, CFA is consistent and clean. The employees speak FLUENT ENGLISH, are courteous and don't look like festering pustules. I can't say the same of any other local fast food chains.

So what.

[Gary W Trott]

Originally Posted by G29Reload

They don't, and you're confusing issues.

The statement I made is true. There other legal devices available to the affected issues in the list. Anyone can make a will, etc.

Marriage has a specific meaning and its not for you or the government to decide differently, nor should it be re-defined because **** don't like it.

I'm not confusing issues because the whole issue is over the government permits known as "marriage licenses" which grant special treatment to couples under the law. Remove those permits and the whole controversy ends.

[JFrame]

Originally Posted by Al Czervik

I applaud CFA.
Aside from this issue, CFA is consistent and clean. The employees speak FLUENT ENGLISH, are courteous and don't look like festering pustules. I can't say the same of any other local fast food chains.

That was one thing I noticed about the Chic-Fil-A near where I work, when I can actually get in there -- the person behind the counter always speaks clear and understandable English. With the McDonald's and the Subway in the same neighborhood, it's a struggle to place an order, and one can't understand even the simplest comments, like, "With cheese?" Then, they act resentful or put-off when you can't understand their lack of facility for the language and ask them to repeat it.

Of course, if someone comes up and places an order in Spanish, they beam like sunshine and chatter happily away.


.

[countrygun]

Originally Posted by Al Czervik

I applaud CFA.
Aside from this issue, CFA is consistent and clean. The employees speak FLUENT ENGLISH, are courteous and don't look like festering pustules. I can't say the same of any other local fast food chains.

As a result they attract customers who appreciate those things. If they are part of the management's ehtics both business and individual then it seems like the most "Democratic" of situations. Customers are free to vote with their wallets, the owners are free to have their beliefs. Seems to me that it is the business of the owners their employees and the customers. Unfortunately it seems that the motto today is,

"In our new "tolerant" society there is no room for people who don't share the approved "politically correct" beliefs"

[greentriple]

Originally Posted by JFrame

That was one thing I noticed about the Chic-Fil-A near where I work, when I can actually get in there -- the person behind the counter always speaks clear and understandable English. With the McDonald's and the Subway in the same neighborhood, it's a struggle to place an order, and one can't understand even the simplest comments, like, "With cheese?" Then, they act resentful or put-off when you can't understand their lack of facility for the language and ask them to repeat it.

Of course, if someone comes up and places an order in Spanish, they beam like sunshine and chatter happily away.


.

How is this relevant to any part of the discussion. People have accents, they struggle to learn English, they do the best they can. And yes people relax and feel more comfortable when spoken to in a language they clearly understand.

I wonder if your jingoistic and xenophobic attitude applies to Brits, with very heavy accents as well?


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

[JFrame]

Originally Posted by greentriple

How is this relevant to any part of the discussion. People have accents, they struggle to learn English, they do the best they can. And yes people relax and feel more comfortable when spoken to in a language they clearly understand.

I wonder if your jingoistic and xenophobic attitude applies to Brits, with very heavy accents as well?


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

My -- you are a touchy fellow (or woman), aren't you?

It's relevant to my response to the person I responded to.

So -- it's xenophobic to expect courtesy when you ask a person to repeat something they said, because you didn't understand them the first time? And yes, if a person had a heavy Cockney accent, and I couldn't understand what they said, and I asked them to repeat it, and they got all huffy, I would not appreciate that either.

Somehow, expecting courtesy from someone doesn't seem to fall into the realm of jingoism and xenophobia.


.

[steveksux]

Originally Posted by Woofie

Alienate a part of your customer base. Great move

Alienate a larger part of your customer base is a worse move... Just sayin. If you're going to piss off a group of people, piss off the small disliked minority rather than the popular much larger group.

Also, while I disagree with their stand, I stand up for their right to believe it. If they refuse to serve gay people, that would be a different matter.

Randy

[countrygun]

Originally Posted by greentriple

How is this relevant to any part of the discussion. People have accents, they struggle to learn English, they do the best they can. And yes people relax and feel more comfortable when spoken to in a language they clearly understand.

I wonder if your jingoistic and xenophobic attitude applies to Brits, with very heavy accents as well?


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

I have asked more than one Scot to repeat themself.
If you don't understand what someone says I don't see that as a xenophobic or jingoistic issue at all.

Quite in fact I think your post was an ignorant stereotyping of English speaking people.

In my book that borders on bigotry and almost racism.

[steveksux]

Originally Posted by rgregoryb

chicken wieners would bring them back

Pretty insignificant...

Now turkey sausage would generate some serious buzz...

Randy

[greentriple]

Originally Posted by JFrame

My -- you are a touchy fellow (or woman), aren't you?

It's relevant to my response to the person I responded to.

So -- it's xenophobic to expect courtesy when you ask a person to repeat something they said, because you didn't understand them the first time? And yes, if a person had a heavy Cockney accent, and I couldn't understand what they said, and I asked them to repeat it, and they got all huffy, I would not appreciate that either.

Somehow, expecting courtesy from someone doesn't seem to fall into the realm of jingoism and xenophobia.


.

That's not what you post said. Re-read it.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

[greentriple]

Originally Posted by countrygun

I have asked more than one Scot to repeat themself.
If you don't understand what someone says I don't see that as a xenophobic or jingoistic issue at all.

Quite in fact I think your post was an ignorant stereotyping of English speaking people.

In my book that borders on bigotry and almost racism.

Not true. The poster did not discuss dis courtesy nor a general request to clarify in a moment of incomprehension. He or she focused on a particular group based on their race and their language, and then was offended when Spanish speakers feel more comfortable speaking to others in their own language.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

[JFrame]

Originally Posted by greentriple

That's not what you post said. Re-read it.

Fine -- you just proceed on your merry way with your delusions of mind-reading.

Originally Posted by countrygun

I have asked more than one Scot to repeat themself.
If you don't understand what someone says I don't see that as a xenophobic or jingoistic issue at all.

Quite in fact I think your post was an ignorant stereotyping of English speaking people.

In my book that borders on bigotry and almost racism.

Yup.


.

[countrygun]

Originally Posted by greentriple

Not true. The poster did not discuss dis courtesy nor a general request to clarify in a moment of incomprehension. He or she focused on a particular group based on their race and their language, and then was offended when Spanish speakers feel more comfortable speaking to others in their own language.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

Maybe that is because he was referencing something that ACTUALLY HAPPENED, not a theoretical example.