"Popular fast food chain Chick-fil-A has reportedly been barred from opening a new location in the San Antonio, Texas, airport.
The San Antonio City Council on Thursday voted 6-4 to pass a new concessions agreement that excludes Chick-fil-A, citing the company’s anti-LGBTQ donations and history."
https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing ... anti-lbgtq
Personally, I am horrified by this. If you don't like what a restaurant chain does then don't eat there. When a government official uses his power to prevent a restaurant from opening then that goes of against fundamental American values of neutrality and the separation of church and state.
For debate: Is banning Chick-fil-A because of the company’s anti-LGBTQ donations and history and acceptable practice?
No Chick-fil-A
Moderator: Moderators
-
RightReason
- Under Probation
- Posts: 1569
- Joined: Sat May 20, 2017 6:26 pm
- Been thanked: 16 times
Post #31
[Replying to Bust Nak]
So, as your example you use a wishy washy politician who use to take one stance andthen changed his view when it was politically expedient for him to do so. Great example. I’m not sure what point you think it makes. Yes, Obama, as well as Bill and Hillary Clinton all use to support marriage between a man and a woman – as did 99% of the world. Of course, they all got a pass at being labeled anti-LBGT bigots— because the culture was not yet engulfed in the whole politically incorrect/label every disagreement as hate speech yet.
Had Obama or Bill or Hillary maintained such a view in today’s culture (which they no longer do, because it does not politically serve them to do so. They know they would be smeared today if they do not wave the rainbow flag) They would be called hateful bigots, just like the rest of us. Because it isn’t about their actions/behaviors. Just like your position isn’t about actual/real harmful discrimination – you just like to pretend it is. It is about the intolerance of the left. It is about the easy way to not have to actually have a conversation or hearing the ideas/beliefs of others. Your position is one of shutting down conversation and silencing others by simply labeling them hateful bigots because by your “standards� their position is discriminatory toward the LBGT Community. But when pushed and asked what behavior/actions are being engaged in that are harmful and hateful to the LBGT community, we get, “Well, person X donated money to a group that asks her members to sign a voluntary purity pledge and they gave money to a group that believes individuals should be able to seek the therapy and counseling of their choice if they so desire�. Gasp! What monsters!
Under your worldview, a guy who feels like a girl can seek counseling that helps him “come to terms� with being a girl, but he could not seek counseling with the intent of helping him “come to terms� with being a boy. Yeah, that makes sense.
Wow! That is even worse! Now you are usurping the expertise of psychologists and therapists familiar with this kind of thing – insisting they are not free to help their clients in the direction their client is asking to be helped. Seems like you are getting in the way of the patient/doctor relationship.
You didn’t read the Wikipedia info. A person was completely free to not sign the petition. And everyone was free not to join a group whose precepts are something they don’t agree with.
Every Sunday at mass at recite the Apostle’s Creed. It says things like . . . I believe in Baptism, I believe in the Communion of Saints, etc. I am not forced to recite this creed during mass, but why the heck would I want to be a member of this Church if I did not accept their precepts?
Let’s say there was a group that thought taking recreational drugs was wrong and their mission was to inform others about the dangers of drugs. Would they not be more than free to ask members of their group to make pledges to not use drugs? I mean no one has to join this group if they don’t have a problem with using drugs. It’s completely voluntary. Drug users don’t get to claim the existence of this group hurts their feelings and that they actually think this group is hateful and discriminatory against them and then label everyone in the group or anyone who supports the group as bigots guilty of hateful discrimination.
I think we discriminate all the time and there isn’t anything inherently wrong in doing so. So, if you are simply trying to suggest any kind of discrimination is de facto wrong, it is you who must be completely oblivious to how the world works.
All boys schools are permitted to not admit girls. Bars discriminate against those who are not 21 yet. Non smokers get discounts on their health insurance. Colleges discriminate against those who don’t meet their academic requirements. Many clubs/groups have members sign commitment letters to the groups beliefs/goals and mission. Nothing inherently wrong in discrimination.
I have continually been trying to say that groups/clubs/organizations are perfectly allowed to issue pledges or belief statements. If you don’t like or agree with a certain groups goals/objectives/beliefs don’t join them.
No. And neither does Chick-Fil-A the topic if this thread and THE POINT of our conversation. Chick-Fil-A has not only never been found guilty of not hiring or firing or not serving someone based on his/her sexuality, they also have made formal claims/pledges guaranteeing they would never do so. But that isn’t enough for you. They are not allowed to NOT hang a rainbow flag. They are not allowed to support marriage between a man and a woman. Therein lies their crime according to you. Like I said before Boo hoo!
Your position is one big nothing burger!
If Chick-Fil-A were guilty of this you would have a valid complaint. Of course they aren’t. So you don’t.
Plenty? Where do you live? And if there were, then that would be wrong. But you don’t just get to call pro-life activists hateful bigots guilty of hate speech and discrimination because you don’t agree with their position. This hypothetical you keep referring to is exactly what you are doing with Chick-Fil-A. It’s like Chick-Fil-A doesn’t do any of those bad things you are complaining about and you are like, “Yeah, well, if they did that would be horrible!�
Except when they are, which is the overwhelming majority of the time. Ironically enough, you, like we often see from left leaning main stream media, wish those who disagree with you were these horrible hateful people. So much so we get those in desperate attempts to push certain narratives like we saw in the Covington Catholic story, regardless of the actual facts.
A white Catholic boy wearing a MAGA hat – well surely he was a racist being disrespectful to a Native American. The world ran with the story they wanted to tell. Until OOPS!! Looks like the racist bigots in this story were the Black Hebrew Nationalists and the Native American, who were the one’s harassing the young boys.
It’s funny you can’t see yourself doing the very same thing in your position regarding Chick-Fil-A.
The owner’s are white Christians who believe marriage should be between a man and a woman, therefore, in your view they are hateful anti-LBGT bigots – yeah, let’s run with that story, despite evidence showing any such thing.
If you are referring to abortion clinic protests, that is so rare. There are crazy’s on all sides. I can show the opposite where you had the pro choice politician who got in the face of the peaceful pro life protesters just a couple of weeks ago! Now that was harassment.
Or, if you are referring to what Nathan Phillips, the Native American, did to Nick Sandman at the March for Life a few months ago, you’re right it should be considered harassment.
Decidedly by you! First, one would need to define anti-LBGT. You have labeled these groups as anti-LGBT. What constitutes anti-LGBT? Like I said, you think believing same sex relations are immoral is anti-LGBT. Gee, a bit of a Catch 22.
Your last comment is so telling. It proves my point all along. We are now at the point that anyone who considers themselves pro traditional marriage, that automatically makes them bigots guilty of anti-LBGT discrimination. <sigh>
RightReason wrote:
I know you think and keep trying to insist it is not your premise, but I think I have adequately described your position. Others reading the thread can make up their own mind.
Sounds like I need to bring up Obama again? Supported marriage between a man and a woman (not entirely sure if he went as far as to believe deviations from "union between a man and a woman" are immoral,) yet not guilty of discrimination. You've yet to acknowledge my counter-example, yet you double down on your straw man. I am sure readers would not be kind to your interpretation of my position.
So, as your example you use a wishy washy politician who use to take one stance andthen changed his view when it was politically expedient for him to do so. Great example. I’m not sure what point you think it makes. Yes, Obama, as well as Bill and Hillary Clinton all use to support marriage between a man and a woman – as did 99% of the world. Of course, they all got a pass at being labeled anti-LBGT bigots— because the culture was not yet engulfed in the whole politically incorrect/label every disagreement as hate speech yet.
Had Obama or Bill or Hillary maintained such a view in today’s culture (which they no longer do, because it does not politically serve them to do so. They know they would be smeared today if they do not wave the rainbow flag) They would be called hateful bigots, just like the rest of us. Because it isn’t about their actions/behaviors. Just like your position isn’t about actual/real harmful discrimination – you just like to pretend it is. It is about the intolerance of the left. It is about the easy way to not have to actually have a conversation or hearing the ideas/beliefs of others. Your position is one of shutting down conversation and silencing others by simply labeling them hateful bigots because by your “standards� their position is discriminatory toward the LBGT Community. But when pushed and asked what behavior/actions are being engaged in that are harmful and hateful to the LBGT community, we get, “Well, person X donated money to a group that asks her members to sign a voluntary purity pledge and they gave money to a group that believes individuals should be able to seek the therapy and counseling of their choice if they so desire�. Gasp! What monsters!
If I am gay and I want to seek a therapist who will help me change my desire for same sex relations, that is not anti-gay. It would be pro-gay. It would be helping me, a gay person, get the kind of counseling I desire. But under your position, any therapist who would be willing to work with me would be banned from doing so. Yikes. Sounds pretty totalitarian.Why are you jumping to this strange conclusion that I am some how against people seeking to alter their sexual desires, when all I said is gay conversation therapy is anti-LGBT?
Under your worldview, a guy who feels like a girl can seek counseling that helps him “come to terms� with being a girl, but he could not seek counseling with the intent of helping him “come to terms� with being a boy. Yeah, that makes sense.
In case it's not clear to you, and I think I need to make this challenge more explicit: this says nothing about those who are seeking to change their sexuality, it reflects only on those who provide these so called therapy.
Wow! That is even worse! Now you are usurping the expertise of psychologists and therapists familiar with this kind of thing – insisting they are not free to help their clients in the direction their client is asking to be helped. Seems like you are getting in the way of the patient/doctor relationship.
You haven’t demonstrated any discriminatory business practices. Purity pledges are voluntary and some would see as a beautiful thing.
It's not voluntary though. People in leadership positions are required to take the pledge.
You didn’t read the Wikipedia info. A person was completely free to not sign the petition. And everyone was free not to join a group whose precepts are something they don’t agree with.
Every Sunday at mass at recite the Apostle’s Creed. It says things like . . . I believe in Baptism, I believe in the Communion of Saints, etc. I am not forced to recite this creed during mass, but why the heck would I want to be a member of this Church if I did not accept their precepts?
Let’s say there was a group that thought taking recreational drugs was wrong and their mission was to inform others about the dangers of drugs. Would they not be more than free to ask members of their group to make pledges to not use drugs? I mean no one has to join this group if they don’t have a problem with using drugs. It’s completely voluntary. Drug users don’t get to claim the existence of this group hurts their feelings and that they actually think this group is hateful and discriminatory against them and then label everyone in the group or anyone who supports the group as bigots guilty of hateful discrimination.
Here you seem to be conceding that discriminatory business practices are by de facto guilty of discrimination? You are just denying that such things have happened. Would you like to ament your rejection of my premise with this caveat?
I think we discriminate all the time and there isn’t anything inherently wrong in doing so. So, if you are simply trying to suggest any kind of discrimination is de facto wrong, it is you who must be completely oblivious to how the world works.
All boys schools are permitted to not admit girls. Bars discriminate against those who are not 21 yet. Non smokers get discounts on their health insurance. Colleges discriminate against those who don’t meet their academic requirements. Many clubs/groups have members sign commitment letters to the groups beliefs/goals and mission. Nothing inherently wrong in discrimination.
I have continually been trying to say that groups/clubs/organizations are perfectly allowed to issue pledges or belief statements. If you don’t like or agree with a certain groups goals/objectives/beliefs don’t join them.
You might not think abortion is a right, but are you trying to tell me that you are okay with firing people based on their sexuality?
No. And neither does Chick-Fil-A the topic if this thread and THE POINT of our conversation. Chick-Fil-A has not only never been found guilty of not hiring or firing or not serving someone based on his/her sexuality, they also have made formal claims/pledges guaranteeing they would never do so. But that isn’t enough for you. They are not allowed to NOT hang a rainbow flag. They are not allowed to support marriage between a man and a woman. Therein lies their crime according to you. Like I said before Boo hoo!
Your position is one big nothing burger!
To use your pro life argument. Are there any pro life group are lobbying to allow businesses to dig into a person's medical history and fire them if they have had an abortion? If so then you would have a valid comparison.
If Chick-Fil-A were guilty of this you would have a valid complaint. Of course they aren’t. So you don’t.
Quote:
Funny, that you seriously cannot see the other side. There is no intimidation or harassment involved in quietly standing outside of an abortion clinic praying the Rosary.
Except they are plenty of instances where they are not merely quietly standing outside of an abortion clinic praying the Rosary.
Plenty? Where do you live? And if there were, then that would be wrong. But you don’t just get to call pro-life activists hateful bigots guilty of hate speech and discrimination because you don’t agree with their position. This hypothetical you keep referring to is exactly what you are doing with Chick-Fil-A. It’s like Chick-Fil-A doesn’t do any of those bad things you are complaining about and you are like, “Yeah, well, if they did that would be horrible!�
You say that only because you are under the impression / trying to paint the picture that these so called "quiet protests" are exactly that. The problem is they aren't always quiet.
Except when they are, which is the overwhelming majority of the time. Ironically enough, you, like we often see from left leaning main stream media, wish those who disagree with you were these horrible hateful people. So much so we get those in desperate attempts to push certain narratives like we saw in the Covington Catholic story, regardless of the actual facts.
A white Catholic boy wearing a MAGA hat – well surely he was a racist being disrespectful to a Native American. The world ran with the story they wanted to tell. Until OOPS!! Looks like the racist bigots in this story were the Black Hebrew Nationalists and the Native American, who were the one’s harassing the young boys.
It’s funny you can’t see yourself doing the very same thing in your position regarding Chick-Fil-A.
The owner’s are white Christians who believe marriage should be between a man and a woman, therefore, in your view they are hateful anti-LBGT bigots – yeah, let’s run with that story, despite evidence showing any such thing.
Quote:
Sure. Actions that others are in their rights to do and cannot have their private businesses put out of business by merely exercising their first amendment rights of free speech. THAT is the true HARASSMENT and INTIMIDATION in this scenario. All because their protest bothers your sensitivity.
Getting in someone face, usually involving physically blocking someone, as they enter or leave is more than just mere offence to ones sensitivity.
If you are referring to abortion clinic protests, that is so rare. There are crazy’s on all sides. I can show the opposite where you had the pro choice politician who got in the face of the peaceful pro life protesters just a couple of weeks ago! Now that was harassment.
Or, if you are referring to what Nathan Phillips, the Native American, did to Nick Sandman at the March for Life a few months ago, you’re right it should be considered harassment.
Legal and within their rights does not meant they are guilty of absolutely no wrong doing, funding anti-LGBT groups is decidedly wrong.
Decidedly by you! First, one would need to define anti-LBGT. You have labeled these groups as anti-LGBT. What constitutes anti-LGBT? Like I said, you think believing same sex relations are immoral is anti-LGBT. Gee, a bit of a Catch 22.
Your last comment is so telling. It proves my point all along. We are now at the point that anyone who considers themselves pro traditional marriage, that automatically makes them bigots guilty of anti-LBGT discrimination. <sigh>
-
Bust Nak
- Savant
- Posts: 9856
- Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
- Location: Planet Earth
- Has thanked: 189 times
- Been thanked: 266 times
Post #32
Obama evoked the "marriage is the union between a man and a woman" thing in 2008 during his presidential campaign. That's well into the "politically incorrect" age.RightReason wrote: So, as your example you use a wishy washy politician who use to take one stance andthen changed his view when it was politically expedient for him to do so. Great example. I’m not sure what point you think it makes. Yes, Obama, as well as Bill and Hillary Clinton all use to support marriage between a man and a woman – as did 99% of the world. Of course, they all got a pass at being labeled anti-LBGT bigots— because the culture was not yet engulfed in the whole politically incorrect/label every disagreement as hate speech yet.
Why would they? As long as they don't act on such beliefs? Because it is all about their actions/behaviors.Had Obama or Bill or Hillary maintained such a view in today’s culture (which they no longer do, because it does not politically serve them to do so. They know they would be smeared today if they do not wave the rainbow flag) They would be called hateful bigots, just like the rest of us.
Oh yeah, because being refused service is just non-harmful; because being restricted from leadership position is just pretended discrimination.Just like your position isn’t about actual/real harmful discrimination – you just like to pretend it is.
The conversation can start when your side stop being intolerant of the LGBT. And stop framing this as left vs right, you know full well there are those on the right who respect the rights and freedom of the LGBT. Through out this conversation you are giving me the impression that you are debating your own impression of a leftist instead of this person in front of this screen, with your "you believe XYZ" despite statements stating the very opposite from me.It is about the intolerance of the left. It is about the easy way to not have to actually have a conversation or hearing the ideas/beliefs of others.
Oh yeah, because work place discrimination is merely a label.Your position is one of shutting down conversation and silencing others by simply labeling them hateful bigots...
Ahuh, you got that much correct. Refusing service, and work place discrimination is by my standard, discriminatory toward the LBGT Community. The question is, why the inconsistence when you seemed to have agreed with that much?because by your “standards� their position is discriminatory toward the LBGT Community.
BUZZ, purity pledge in question is compulsory for leadership position.But when pushed and asked what behavior/actions are being engaged in that are harmful and hateful to the LBGT community, we get, “Well, person X donated money to a group that asks her members to sign a voluntary purity pledge and they gave money to a group that believes individuals should be able to seek the therapy and counseling of their choice if they so desire�. Gasp! What monsters!
Not necessarily, that depends on what the therapy.If I am gay and I want to seek a therapist who will help me change my desire for same sex relations, that is not anti-gay. It would be pro-gay.
Nah, it would be harming you, a gay person, to get the kind of counseling in question.It would be helping me, a gay person, get the kind of counseling I desire.
We have speed limits too, wow, much totalitarian, very oppress.But under your position, any therapist who would be willing to work with me would be banned from doing so. Yikes. Sounds pretty totalitarian.
That's because you've failed to take into account that the specific counseling in question is harmful. If it wasn't harmful, then it would be fine.Under your worldview, a guy who feels like a girl can seek counseling that helps him “come to terms� with being a girl, but he could not seek counseling with the intent of helping him “come to terms� with being a boy. Yeah, that makes sense.
Right you are, but I don't know why on Earth you think there is anything wrong with that. Why wouldn't appeal to the the expertise of psychologists and therapists familiar with this kind of things? They are the ones with the technical knowledge to know what is best for their clients. Going with what the experts says is what a rational person would do.Wow! That is even worse! Now you are usurping the expertise of psychologists and therapists familiar with this kind of thing – insisting they are not free to help their clients in the direction their client is asking to be helped.
And if he doesn't he wouldn't get a leadership position. Read the article you linked to.You didn’t read the Wikipedia info. A person was completely free to not sign the petition.
Again with the reducing of workplace discrimination to a mere disagreement.And everyone was free not to join a group whose precepts are something they don’t agree with.
Depends, if by "member of this Church" you mean an employee of a this organisation that operate as a business, because that would depend on how much they pay and so on.Every Sunday at mass at recite the Apostle’s Creed. It says things like . . . I believe in Baptism, I believe in the Communion of Saints, etc. I am not forced to recite this creed during mass, but why the heck would I want to be a member of this Church if I did not accept their precepts?
a) Drug users is not a protect class. b) It's not clear if you are talking about employment here. If both of these premise are granted, then such a group would indeed be bigots guilty of hateful discrimination.Let’s say there was a group that thought taking recreational drugs was wrong and their mission was to inform others about the dangers of drugs. Would they not be more than free to ask members of their group to make pledges to not use drugs?
Again, we are talking about employment here.Drug users don’t get to claim the existence of this group hurts their feelings
It's obviously I am not suggesting such a thing, let me remind you of my earlier statement "I am discriminatory, intolerant and proudly so."I think we discriminate all the time and there isn’t anything inherently wrong in doing so. So, if you are simply trying to suggest any kind of discrimination is de facto wrong, it is you who must be completely oblivious to how the world works.
Right you are. Which is why you kept trying to speak in general like and not deal with the specifics. The practices in question are wrong, and hence justify restricting where Chi-Fil-A can operate.All boys schools are permitted to not admit girls. Bars discriminate against those who are not 21 yet. Non smokers get discounts on their health insurance. Colleges discriminate against those who don’t meet their academic requirements. Many clubs/groups have members sign commitment letters to the groups beliefs/goals and mission. Nothing inherently wrong in discrimination.
Why stop there?I have continually been trying to say that groups/clubs/organizations are perfectly allowed to issue pledges or belief statements. If you don’t like or agree with a certain groups goals/objectives/beliefs don’t join them.
Then why are you okay with donating to such groups?!No.
Of course not. On top of that, they need to stop funding groups that do the stuff you listed and worse.And neither does Chick-Fil-A the topic if this thread and THE POINT of our conversation. Chick-Fil-A has not only never been found guilty of not hiring or firing or not serving someone based on his/her sexuality, they also have made formal claims/pledges guaranteeing they would never do so. But that isn’t enough for you.
Incorrect. Chick-Fil-A are allowed to hang a rainbow flag. They are allowed to support marriage between a man and a woman.They are not allowed to NOT hang a rainbow flag. They are not allowed to support marriage between a man and a woman.
However they are not allowed to fund groups that present gay conversation, or groups that limit leadership roles from the LGBT, or groups that refuse services to the LGBT.
Well, they are guilty of the equivalent, instead of abortion, it's gay sex. I have a valid complaint.If Chick-Fil-A were guilty of this you would have a valid complaint.
Good, I am glad you accept that much. So kindly stop trying to steer the conversation away from such wrong doing.Plenty? Where do you live? And if there were, then that would be wrong.
Sure, that's why I kept telling you, it's not about beliefs but actions.But you don’t just get to call pro-life activists hateful bigots guilty of hate speech and discrimination because you don’t agree with their position.
I still don't know how you can maintain that. This isn't mere hypothetical, you know this: you've acknowledge the gay conversion therapy thing, you were just defending it as something acceptable.This hypothetical you keep referring to is exactly what you are doing with Chick-Fil-A.
Your argument are all over the place. I specifically says they are wrong because they ARE doing that, where as you are the one who kept alternating from "they aren't doing that" to "even if they did it wouldn't be wrong."It’s like Chick-Fil-A doesn’t do any of those bad things you are complaining about and you are like, “Yeah, well, if they did that would be horrible!�
In this very post you've made suggestion that it's okay to limit people from leadership roles for not signing a pledge, AND claimed that mandatory signing has not occurred.
In those cases, I'd rather them not be there, but such is their rights, its their own time to waste.Except when they are, which is the overwhelming majority of the time.
They have a right to be horrible hateful people though, as you said, I don't have the right to not be offended. As long as they don't cause trouble, they can stay. How horrible and hateful I feel they are, is my own opinion and is irrelevant here.Ironically enough, you, like we often see from left leaning main stream media, wish those who disagree with you were these horrible hateful people.
Right, that did happen. I wish it didn't.So much so we get those in desperate attempts to push certain narratives like we saw in the Covington Catholic story, regardless of the actual facts.
A white Catholic boy wearing a MAGA hat – well surely he was a racist being disrespectful to a Native American. The world ran with the story they wanted to tell. Until OOPS!! Looks like the racist bigots in this story were the Black Hebrew Nationalists and the Native American, who were the one’s harassing the young boys.
That's because the facts are on my side.It’s funny you can’t see yourself doing the very same thing in your position regarding Chick-Fil-A.
Again, I point to the company's tax return, I point to the purity pledge of an organisation they funded, I pointed to an instance where someone was denied service of another organisation they funded.The owner’s are white Christians who believe marriage should be between a man and a woman, therefore, in your view they are hateful anti-LBGT bigots – yeah, let’s run with that story, despite evidence showing any such thing.
Right, I acknowledge that, both with counter protests and Phillips. I won't defend them, yet there you are defending Chick-Fil-A.If you are referring to abortion clinic protests, that is so rare. There are crazy’s on all sides. I can show the opposite where you had the pro choice politician who got in the face of the peaceful pro life protesters just a couple of weeks ago! Now that was harassment.
Workplace discrimination, lobbying against LGBT or refusing services, and by extension, funding of such activities, are the example I gave.Decidedly by you! First, one would need to define anti-LBGT. You have labeled these groups as anti-LGBT. What constitutes anti-LGBT?
Kindly stop trying to reduce this to a mere disagreement. See my examples above of actions with tangible consequences for the LGBT community.Like I said, you think believing same sex relations are immoral is anti-LGBT.
Wait, what? Walk this through with me - having the evidence of actual wrong doing to back my claims, proves you point that it's about their pro traditional marriage stance, how?Your last comment is so telling. It proves my point all along. We are now at the point that anyone who considers themselves pro traditional marriage, that automatically makes them bigots guilty of anti-LBGT discrimination. <sigh>
-
RightReason
- Under Probation
- Posts: 1569
- Joined: Sat May 20, 2017 6:26 pm
- Been thanked: 16 times
Post #33
[Replying to Bust Nak]
Bus Nak, Bust Nak, Bust Nak, still doubling down on your straw man?
Well, looks like quite a few of us recognize bigotry and discrimination is at play – it just happens to be coming from your position. We don’t get to stifle freedom of speech/religion by labeling the group we disagree with as hateful or harmful. That’s thought control and it is attack on our First Amendment rights.
Action is being taken on those who are currently attempting to attack our freedom:
https://www.dailywire.com/news/47515/te ... nk-berrien
Bus Nak, Bust Nak, Bust Nak, still doubling down on your straw man?
Well, looks like quite a few of us recognize bigotry and discrimination is at play – it just happens to be coming from your position. We don’t get to stifle freedom of speech/religion by labeling the group we disagree with as hateful or harmful. That’s thought control and it is attack on our First Amendment rights.
Action is being taken on those who are currently attempting to attack our freedom:
https://www.dailywire.com/news/47515/te ... nk-berrien
-
Bust Nak
- Savant
- Posts: 9856
- Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
- Location: Planet Earth
- Has thanked: 189 times
- Been thanked: 266 times
Post #34
Where is this coming from? This, as far as I can see, is your first accusation of a straw man so I can't see how I am "doubling down." Whose view it is you are accusing me of misrepresenting anyway?RightReason wrote: Bus Nak, Bust Nak, Bust Nak, still doubling down on your straw man?
Well, you clearly need to get better at it, since you've failed to recognize bigotry and discrimination from the groups supported by Chick-Fil-A. Which is kinda ironic given your earlier statement on a lack of self-awareness. What is it that Jesus said? Something about specks of sawdust and planks?Well, looks like quite a few of us recognize bigotry and discrimination is at play – it just happens to be coming from your position.
Sure, but that's not very relevant here since we are talking about stifling the livelihood of groups that are actually hateful or harmful, regardless of labels.We don’t get to stifle freedom of speech/religion by labeling the group we disagree with as hateful or harmful.
Again, its not thought control because said thoughts are brought into actual hateful and harmful actions. It's action control, they are free to think same sex marriage immoral; the moment they go after same sex couple, we strike.That’s thought control and it is attack on our First Amendment rights.
Maybe a role reverse will help: "Wow taking action against us just because they don't agree with us? Why are you letting them stifle our freedom of speech/religion against just because we disagree with them? They want to control how we think, just because they don’t like us and it's an attack on our First Amendment rights." Does that sound familiar? It should.Action is being taken on those who are currently attempting to attack our freedom:
https://www.dailywire.com/news/47515/te ... nk-berrien
-
RightReason
- Under Probation
- Posts: 1569
- Joined: Sat May 20, 2017 6:26 pm
- Been thanked: 16 times
Post #35
[Replying to Bust Nak]
Where is this coming from? This, as far as I can see, is your first accusation of a straw man so I can't see how I am "doubling down."
What? From the beginning I have been demonstrating how you are criticizing Chick-Fil-A for the straw man you have created. You claim they have engaged in hateful discriminatory practices based on what you and some LBGT activists label as hateful discriminatory practices. I have pointed out time and time again Chick-Fil-A is not guilty of hiring/firing/mistreating/not serving any LBGT person. Ever! I have also pointed out they are free to spend and donate their money in any way they please. I have also pointed out seeking the therapy of your choice is the individual’s right, whether you like it or not. I also pointed out the freedom we have in this country to form groups/organizations where individuals make voluntary pledges and commitments. Given all this, your position is groundless.
It is an attempt to smear CFA as mistreating/discriminating against the LGBT community with no evidence of them doing so. We call that a baseless assertion, clearly highlighting your discrimination towards them simply because you hold different values/beliefs. By saying they are guilty of discrimination -- according to what you have deemed as discrimination -- is you creating a strawman. Knock him down all you like. I would too. I hate mean, hateful, bigotry. But it won't be CFA you are knocking down because they haven't acted hateful, discriminatory, or violated any hateful discriminatory practices. Good luck in getting those bad guys though . . .
Where is this coming from? This, as far as I can see, is your first accusation of a straw man so I can't see how I am "doubling down."
What? From the beginning I have been demonstrating how you are criticizing Chick-Fil-A for the straw man you have created. You claim they have engaged in hateful discriminatory practices based on what you and some LBGT activists label as hateful discriminatory practices. I have pointed out time and time again Chick-Fil-A is not guilty of hiring/firing/mistreating/not serving any LBGT person. Ever! I have also pointed out they are free to spend and donate their money in any way they please. I have also pointed out seeking the therapy of your choice is the individual’s right, whether you like it or not. I also pointed out the freedom we have in this country to form groups/organizations where individuals make voluntary pledges and commitments. Given all this, your position is groundless.
It is an attempt to smear CFA as mistreating/discriminating against the LGBT community with no evidence of them doing so. We call that a baseless assertion, clearly highlighting your discrimination towards them simply because you hold different values/beliefs. By saying they are guilty of discrimination -- according to what you have deemed as discrimination -- is you creating a strawman. Knock him down all you like. I would too. I hate mean, hateful, bigotry. But it won't be CFA you are knocking down because they haven't acted hateful, discriminatory, or violated any hateful discriminatory practices. Good luck in getting those bad guys though . . .
-
Bust Nak
- Savant
- Posts: 9856
- Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
- Location: Planet Earth
- Has thanked: 189 times
- Been thanked: 266 times
Post #36
But that's not a straw man even if one were to take your words for granted. I've explicitly focuses on how that act, and made it clear I was disregarding what their views are. I cannot be misrepresenting their view, when I am not representing their views at all to begin with.RightReason wrote: What? From the beginning I have been demonstrating how you are criticizing Chick-Fil-A for the straw man you have created.
Secondly, do you really want to go down this route of views and beliefs given their owner's history of anti-LGBT comments?
Does the word "practices" not clue you in that it's not about what they believe, but what they do? Come on, connect the dots, engage with me and not the impression of a leftist in your mind.You claim they have engaged in hateful discriminatory practices based on what you and some LBGT activists label as hateful discriminatory practices.
And I've granted you that much, and pointed out that it's mainly their funding of anti-LBGT groups that's the problem, over and over again. And you have the nerve to call straw man?I have pointed out time and time again Chick-Fil-A is not guilty of hiring/firing/mistreating/not serving any LBGT person. Ever!
This too I have granted you. They are indeed free to spend and donate their money in any way they please, we are merely stopping them from opening in certain locations, as opposed to stopping them from spending and donating their money in any way they please.I have also pointed out they are free to spend and donate their money in any way they please.
I've granted you this also. I said it's not the person seeking, but people providing the therapy in question that is in the wrong, remember?I have also pointed out seeking the therapy of your choice is the individual’s right, whether you like it or not.
Right you are, that's why involuntary pledges, on the pain of not advancing ones career stands out as particularly immoral.I also pointed out the freedom we have in this country to form groups/organizations where individuals make voluntary pledges and commitments.
See above. Your counter-arguments are red-herrings. It's like you never read my post, why aren't my points sticking?Given all this, your position is groundless.
I've forgotten how many times I've point to their tax return as evidence. Something they are free to do, yes, but don't mistake legality with morality.It is an attempt to smear CFA as mistreating/discriminating against the LGBT community with no evidence of them doing so.
So how do we go about fixing your mistaken preception?We call that a baseless assertion, clearly highlighting your discrimination towards them simply because you hold different values/beliefs.
Again, what they do and what their position is, are two different topics. The straw man fallacy relates to the latter. Learn your fallacies.By saying they are guilty of discrimination -- according to what you have deemed as discrimination -- is you creating a strawman.
And yet there you are, defending CFA.I would too. I hate mean, hateful, bigotry.
Evidence says otherwise. They funded groups that does all these.But it won't be CFA you are knocking down because they haven't acted hateful, discriminatory, or violated any hateful discriminatory practices.
You can help. Join us in fighting the bad guys.Good luck in getting those bad guys though.
-
Tcg
- Savant
- Posts: 8494
- Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2017 5:01 am
- Location: Third Stone
- Has thanked: 2147 times
- Been thanked: 2295 times
Re: No Chick-fil-A
Post #37[Replying to post 1 by bjs]
In a world where there is little good news of our government making a stand for morality, we have great news from Colorado.
Tcg
In a world where there is little good news of our government making a stand for morality, we have great news from Colorado.
- Colorado governor signs gay conversion therapy ban
Therapy that seeks to change minors' sexual orientation or gender identity is now illegal in Colorado. Gov. Jared Polis, the first openly gay man ever elected governor in the U.S., signed the ban into law on Friday.
"Colorado has joined a growing list of states that have banned so-called conversion therapy. It’s a horrific practice that has long been widely-discredited by medical and mental health professionals and has scarred many survivors for life," Polis said in a statement emailed to NBC News. "Today Colorado took an important step forward in recognizing our diversity as a strength. These bills truly underscore the idea that Colorado is a state where everyone can be their true selves and live the life they want.�
https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out ... n-n1012581
Tcg
To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.
- American Atheists
Not believing isn't the same as believing not.
- wiploc
I must assume that knowing is better than not knowing, venturing than not venturing; and that magic and illusion, however rich, however alluring, ultimately weaken the human spirit.
- Irvin D. Yalom
- American Atheists
Not believing isn't the same as believing not.
- wiploc
I must assume that knowing is better than not knowing, venturing than not venturing; and that magic and illusion, however rich, however alluring, ultimately weaken the human spirit.
- Irvin D. Yalom
-
Clownboat
- Savant
- Posts: 9374
- Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 3:42 pm
- Has thanked: 906 times
- Been thanked: 1258 times
Post #38
First of all, that is not his premise. You have created a straw man and I believe the readers of this thread will understand this as well. Let us address it anyway though. I'm just going to change a few words around...RightReason wrote: [Replying to Bust Nak]
I refuse to accept your false premise that a group that supports marriage between a man and a woman and believes same sex relations are immoral is by de facto guilty of discrimination. If those businesses/groups have violated some law, then file charges.
I refuse to accept your false premise that a group that supports inequality between a black men and a white men, and believes that black men are inferior are immoral by de facto guilty of discrimination.
It is you that has an issue with gay sex. That is your issue and your cross to bear though. If you had issues with black men for example, you probably also wouldn't see any issue with my equality analogy above. Hopefully anyone that is not racist can see the hate in it for what it is. Like many do with Chick-fil-A, just not you apparently.
I would think that your support for a group that discriminates would have Jesus rolling in his grave. We will know them by their fruits.
You can give a man a fish and he will be fed for a day, or you can teach a man to pray for fish and he will starve to death.
I blame man for codifying those rules into a book which allowed superstitious people to perpetuate a barbaric practice. Rules that must be followed or face an invisible beings wrath. - KenRU
It is sad that in an age of freedom some people are enslaved by the nomads of old. - Marco
If you are unable to demonstrate that what you believe is true and you absolve yourself of the burden of proof, then what is the purpose of your arguments? - brunumb
I blame man for codifying those rules into a book which allowed superstitious people to perpetuate a barbaric practice. Rules that must be followed or face an invisible beings wrath. - KenRU
It is sad that in an age of freedom some people are enslaved by the nomads of old. - Marco
If you are unable to demonstrate that what you believe is true and you absolve yourself of the burden of proof, then what is the purpose of your arguments? - brunumb
-
RightReason
- Under Probation
- Posts: 1569
- Joined: Sat May 20, 2017 6:26 pm
- Been thanked: 16 times
Post #39
[Replying to post 38 by Clownboat]
Right Reason: I refuse to accept your false premise that a group that supports marriage between a man and a woman and believes same sex relations are immoral is by de facto guilty of discrimination.
If you want to use a better analogy you could use something like this . . .
Some people believe for man to have sex with an animal is immoral. They see such as disordered sexual behavior. This could be argued in a variety of ways. We could say that we can know via observation that man and animal were not intended to have sexual relations – their body’s don’t really line up, doing so could result in harm or disease, their relationship would always be sterile (they are unable to biologically form families and have offspring), doing so will not bring man happiness/fulfillment.
This analogy is at least also speaking about behavior and specifically sexual behavior at that so it is a much better analogy than comparing judging a person based on the color of his skin equivalent to judging a sexual behavior as moral or immoral based on what we can know and observe about man and his relationship to this world. We could use very similar arguments as why we can know man was not meant to have sexual relations with animals as why man was not meant to have sexual relations with someone of the same sex.
And people that make these arguments should not be guilty of discrimination. Because quite frankly, we use this type of discrimination all the time in making determinations of that which is right/moral and that which is wrong/immoral. We have made many similar discriminatory judgments regarding sexual behavior. We say it is wrong for someone to have sex with someone if they are married to someone else. How dare you make such a judgment! #loveislove. We say it is wrong for a brother and a sister to have sexual relations. How hateful! Who are you to say who a person can love? We say polygamy is wrong, even if all parties consent. You bigot! Heck, as a society we even frown upon and often have laws against doctor/patient and teacher/student relations. You can’t tell someone they aren’t free to love who they want to love! Man/boy groups insist they have the right to engage in sexual relations. They insist it is beneficial and their decision. But we as a society say pedophilia is immoral. And we have the right and obligation to do so.
Via observation and reason we can know what behaviors are rightly ordered, beneficial and in man’s best interest vs. disordered, harmful, and not in man’s best interest.
Right Reason: I refuse to accept your false premise that a group that supports marriage between a man and a woman and believes same sex relations are immoral is by de facto guilty of discrimination.
Your attempt at analogy is extremely poor. First, black people do not like it when people equate racism with differences of belief regarding the morality of homosexual acts. One is the judgment of a person and the other of a behavior.First of all, that is not his premise. You have created a straw man and I believe the readers of this thread will understand this as well. Let us address it anyway though. I'm just going to change a few words around...
I refuse to accept your false premise that a group that supports inequality between a black men and a white men, and believes that black men are inferior are immoral by de facto guilty of discrimination.
It is you that has an issue with gay sex. That is your issue and your cross to bear though. If you had issues with black men for example, you probably also wouldn't see any issue with my equality analogy above.
If you want to use a better analogy you could use something like this . . .
Some people believe for man to have sex with an animal is immoral. They see such as disordered sexual behavior. This could be argued in a variety of ways. We could say that we can know via observation that man and animal were not intended to have sexual relations – their body’s don’t really line up, doing so could result in harm or disease, their relationship would always be sterile (they are unable to biologically form families and have offspring), doing so will not bring man happiness/fulfillment.
This analogy is at least also speaking about behavior and specifically sexual behavior at that so it is a much better analogy than comparing judging a person based on the color of his skin equivalent to judging a sexual behavior as moral or immoral based on what we can know and observe about man and his relationship to this world. We could use very similar arguments as why we can know man was not meant to have sexual relations with animals as why man was not meant to have sexual relations with someone of the same sex.
And people that make these arguments should not be guilty of discrimination. Because quite frankly, we use this type of discrimination all the time in making determinations of that which is right/moral and that which is wrong/immoral. We have made many similar discriminatory judgments regarding sexual behavior. We say it is wrong for someone to have sex with someone if they are married to someone else. How dare you make such a judgment! #loveislove. We say it is wrong for a brother and a sister to have sexual relations. How hateful! Who are you to say who a person can love? We say polygamy is wrong, even if all parties consent. You bigot! Heck, as a society we even frown upon and often have laws against doctor/patient and teacher/student relations. You can’t tell someone they aren’t free to love who they want to love! Man/boy groups insist they have the right to engage in sexual relations. They insist it is beneficial and their decision. But we as a society say pedophilia is immoral. And we have the right and obligation to do so.
Via observation and reason we can know what behaviors are rightly ordered, beneficial and in man’s best interest vs. disordered, harmful, and not in man’s best interest.
-
Bust Nak
- Savant
- Posts: 9856
- Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
- Location: Planet Earth
- Has thanked: 189 times
- Been thanked: 266 times
Post #40
Right, so the guy who oppose interracial marriage are not actually racist because they are not judgmental of a person but of a behavior? As for those black people who don't see the similarities between what they went through, and what they are still going through, and what is happening with gay people, should really re-examine their stance on gay people.RightReason wrote: Your attempt at analogy is extremely poor. First, black people do not like it when people equate racism with differences of belief regarding the morality of homosexual acts. One is the judgment of a person and the other of a behavior.
Or we could do interracial marriage?This analogy is at least also speaking about behavior and specifically sexual behavior at that so it is a much better analogy than comparing judging a person based on the color of his skin equivalent to judging a sexual behavior as moral or immoral based on what we can know and observe about man and his relationship to this world.
Oh yeah, way to go compare gay people with adulators, bestiality, incest and paedophilia. Totally not de facto guilty of discriminatory at all.And people that make these arguments should not be guilty of discrimination. Because quite frankly, we use this type of discrimination all the time in making determinations of that which is right/moral and that which is wrong/immoral...
