I think that a necessary component to that world view is the idea that gays are in some way lesser than straight people.
I’m far from an expert on Mormon history, but my understanding is that the prejudice against Mormons in the 19th century was pretty extreme - just from glancing at Wikipedia, I note the existence of a Mormon Extermination Order. I’m not sure if this is the best analogy you can use to make your case.
I wouldn’t say it myself, but I don’t think I’d correct someone else if they said it. Like I posted up thread, I don’t see how one can take the position that SSM is a bad idea without necessarily thinking that there’s something bad about homosexuality itself.
Exactly. It’s not like Chick-Fil-A is uncomfortable with gay marriage but otherwise supports gay people. They actually received a 0 from the Human Rights Campaign’s Corporate Equality Index, which means they don’t offer any protection or benefits for it’s gay employees. For comparison, McDonald’s has a 75, Wendy’s has a 30, Burger King has a 55.
That would be fucking fabulous. Can straight people come? Please? I actually won’t buy anything, I’ll just hang out with yinz? I promise to wear rainbows.
You could call it the “Chik-fil-GAY” Campaign.
I’ve seen elsewhere online that Cathy supporters (presumably mostly religious conservatives) are encouraging people to express their support by going to their local Chick-Fil-As on August 1. It’s entertaining to imagine them arriving only to find the place full of butch bikers and drag queens.
Not following you here. I grant that many, maybe most, of those opposed to SSM are motivated by religion. So what? They can be so motivated and also believe that it is “a greater benefit to society to keep marriage between one man and one woman”. In fact, of those who oppose SSM and are devout, I’d say the over 99.9% believe that. Do you disagree?
I’m calling you out. How, EXACTLY, would society be negatively impacted if gay people were allowed to enjoy the same protections of marriage that straight people do?
I can’t think of any arguments that logically come to this conclusion.
Either this is religiously based, (in which case we should leave it to the churches to decide who to marry, and leave the state out of it completely; Either the state issues licenses to everyone, or nobody at all since we have separation of church and state.)or you simply view homosexuals as second-class citizens unworthy of the same rights and recognitions of heterosexuals.
You can call out whomever you want. But if you want to have a discussion on the pros and cons of SSM as it pertains society, I suggest you start a new thread on it. So, to stay on point, do you think that the actions’ of the mayors who have said that they will block store openings is right: Morally? Constitutionally?
It is his words coupled with the actions of the company that has donated millions to Christian “family” groups that actively campaign against SS marriage.
it seems abundantly clear in this portion of his response
“I think we are inviting God’s judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at Him and say ‘we know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage’ and I pray God’s mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we have the audacity to define what marriage is about,”
I noticed that he didn’t see the inherent arrogance in assuming he knows what God thinks.
Nothing about SSM poses any threat to what they see as the traditional family unit. Nothing about SSM prevents them from encouraging and that type of family unit. What their efforts essentially mean is that they encourage families by trying to legally prevent certain people from being recognized as families. Nice huh?
There are a lot of variations in the modern family unit. I wager there has always been. It seems foolish to hold up what they perceive as the ideal as some justification to deny certain citizens the right to have have a legally recognized family.
Personally I’m tired of opposition to SSM being held up as just someone’s perfectly valid opinion on the subject. It’s not valid. At this point there are no rational reasonable fact based arguments in opposition to SSM. All people have left are their knee jerk emotional reactions and religious dogma built on generations of religious indoctrination. No need to demonize people for having flaws. We all do. But there’s good reason to call them out for publicly defending the indefensible.
Why yes. After generations of being demonized from pulpits all over the country and even recent examples of pastors suggesting they should be killed or sealed off in an electrified fence, how dare they attack those poor souls who simply want to deny them full equality.
Conservative Christians don’t hate gays. They just want them to know their place.
To stay on topic though, I’ve got no ethical qualm with blocking store openings. Legally speaking, I couldn’t comment accurately as I am not a lawyer; I suppose they should look to their town charters to see what the rules and regulations are for denying permits.
I’m very doubtful that the anti-Chik-fil-A measures will stand up in court, and even if they do, I am not sure it’s the right way to handle this. If the President of the company is an asshole, don’t do business with the company.
Well, I don’t practice a religion, but I think the Christians would say theta they want to save people who sin from hell: whether they be people who are gay, people who are adulterers, people who have sex prior to marriage, etc. The last of which was mentioned in one of the links provided.
The question is not that gay people don’t have a legitimate beef with Cathay’s position, note the right to boycott him. But in doing so are they stating that they are against Christianity as a whole…against all Christians? For what they believe? That goes into thought-crime territory, does it not?
I find it quite ironic/comical, that gays would even attempt to use a tactic like this, since it is the very type of thing that was used against them for decades. It was ugly and wrong then. It is ugly and wrong now.
And as far as the mayors who have opened their dumb yaps on this. perhaps they’d be happier being mayors in a place like Iran or Yemen, where trying to impose their personal beliefs onto others doesn’t run into that annoying thing called the U.S. Constitution.
That is exactly what blocking openings or denying permits is. The cities concerned have decided not to do business with the company. There is nothing in the law that grants a business the right to operate wherever they like, as far as I know. (IANAL)