Chick-fil-a For Lunch Today

You gotta love how “tolerant” and “open-minded” the left is when it comes to choice.  They have no problem accepting and even celebrating the most prurient activities.  In the name of freedom of expression and artistic license they spout offensive, obscene, and hateful ideas.  But, let someone express an opinion that disagrees with them, they find that censorship and oppression suit them just fine.

I have held off on commenting on the non-story that is Chick-fil-a’s stance in opposition to gay marriage.  Who cares?  They have the freedom to hold whatever opinion they want.  If you don’t like it, you have the freedom to eat somewhere else.  You don’t have the right to use the power of government to silence their ideas or deny them legal access to the marketplace.

Liberals say that they are all about the freedom to be anything you want… as long as what you aspire to be is not based upon a traditional lifestyle or guided by conservative Judeo-Christian values.  Get over your hateful, bigoted selves.  If you oppose an idea, stand in opposition to it.  Don’t try to deny the freedoms of those whose ideas you disagree with.

They have the right to their beliefs.  You have the right to shop elsewhere.  They have the right to run their business in accordance with the values they espouse.  You have the right to be offended if you wish.  You do not have the right to deny them their rights.

The left should also take a moment to examine those whom they raise up as examples to others.  They should examine the values in their own ranks.  There is plenty there to be outraged by.

For myself, I think that for lunch today, I will “eat mor chikin” .

(Pics are just a few amongst the many floating around on Facebook.)

About these ads

8 responses to “Chick-fil-a For Lunch Today

  1. Always makes me wonder how liberals always say how fair and open minded they are until you don’t think the same way as they. Then they claim you are a bigot or they are just plain evil and venomous and physically brutal. Just sayin’

  2. I’m sorry, but I have to call BS. Tolerance does not mean standing by while someone else denounces your right to exist. Speech does not include donating millions to groups that work to secure legislation. Agree or disagree with Dan Cathy as you like, but it is intellectually dishonest (or woefully ignorant) to label those who differ with him as intolerant or against free speech.

    • When the mayor of Chicago says that the business is not welcome to expand in his city, he is using the power of government to eforce his beliefs on another… taking away their right to express their oppinion by denying them equal access to the marketplace. He then has anti-Semite, racist, hate-monger Farakahn in as an exemplar of their (leftist) ideology, I call BS right back.

      Liberals can push books PROMOTING gay lifestyles to elementary school children and that is OK. But, a business that for over half-a-century has been open about their Christian values and principles dares to restate them publicly, censorship and demonization are suddenly OK? I call that Hypocrisy of the highest order… and this is no isolated incident.

      The current kerfluffle (over gay marriage) is just another in a long line of such bullying from the left. When you punnish someone for their beliefs or speech, that IS intollerance. You don’t have to be on any particular side of the issue to recognize the unconstitutional and unconsionable nature of the behavior of the left. Let all voices be heard nd let the war be won on ideas and at the ballot box… not at the barrel of a government gun.

  3. First, please stop behaving like the left and mangling ideas together to create an undebatable morass. Yes, Farakahn is bigot. Yes, the mayor is a hypocrite. That doesn’t make every decision he makes bad, nor does it mean I support Louie F. Your attempts to bundle those together to reinforce your argument are disingenuous. If you simply prefer “winning” the argument over debating the issue on it’s merits, consider it done as I won’t debate you or anyone else Bill Maher style.

    Back to the subject at hand. Again, you (and others) keep repeating the mantra that Chik-Fil-A has been punished for ” beliefs or speech”. That is untrue. Chik-fil-a is being targeted because of ACTIONS. And whether your agree with the idea that they should be a protected class or not, to say that any group facing openly discriminatory action is “intolerant” for defending themselves is patently ridiculous.

    Bottom line, the argument is this: Should homosexual marriage be recognized by law? The “pro” argument is an equal protection argument. The “con” argument is a biblical argument. Now, with all the noise stripped away, tell me that the group seeking not to be denied equal protection is being “intolerant” and the group seeking to give Judeo-Christian beliefs the power of law is being “tolerant”.

    Sorry my friend, the Republicans need to look back at the Civil Rights Act of ’64, examine the parallels, and realize they are on the wrong side of this argument. Limited government doesn’t just mean limited in financial respects, but elbow deep in people’s personal lives. And until the Republicans remember that and go back to their roots.

    • I would ask that you describe the “actions” taken by the corporation that descrminate. If they had violated the civil rights of anyone, how quickly do you think the DoJ would slap them down? Don’t you think that Democrat legislators would be pressing for prosecution anytime they were in range of a microphone? If Chick-fil-a violates the law then use the law to punnish them. You don’t violate the law to punnish an idea.

      Gay marriage is not the issue here and never was. Christianity is. That is the root of this controversy. Chick-fil-a is being targeted for their beliefs and their willingness to live by them despite the fact that they harm no one. Liberals believe that there should be rules on speech and regulations on its exercise.

      Well, the 1st Amendment doesn’t have a “like” button. I hear plenty on the air and see more on the net that I find distateful, obscene, and even hateful. However, too many people have died to protect that right for me to oppose their right to express their ideas. Fight the message. It has been famously said that “you can’t kill an idea”. I don’t believe that. It takes time to inform and enlighten. Once again the left wants a shortcut to further their ends… all at the expense of our freedoms.

  4. Steve – You have pulled a red-herring (several actually) from your stash and tossed it into the ring. At one time, our government permitted discrimination against “niggers” and other “unwanted” folk. Was it right then because it was legal? Of course not. Recently the DoJ allowed the Black Panthers to intimidate white voters, but did noting. Was it right then because the DoJ failed to act? Of course not. Likewise, the DoJ’s failure to act in this situation does not mean that discrimination is not actually taking place.

    Also, the first amendment is about a person’s right to *speak*. Dan Cathy had his turn, and no one is attempting to deny him that right. What he has been denied is the business of people who he offended with his speech. And unless your copy of The Constitution reads very differently than mine, there is no protection of “sufficient commerce after speaking”. I know you to be an intelligent person, and I know you understand well the difference between speech, action, and commerce. So please stop pretending you don’t.

    • Apparently you don’t read the actual replies I write. This is about the Democrat Mayors of certain cities threatening to refuse to allow Chick-fil-a the ability to do business in their cities for their beliefs. They are the ones proposing to break the law. The company has not and is not advocating breaking the law.

      And by the way, equating opposition to gay marriage as equal to human slavery or racism is pathetic. Marriage is not at right. It is an institution with a historic and cultural foundation. Civil authorities granted these arrangements certain privileges and obligations. Now that civil governments are extending those same privileges and obligations to homosexual couples through civil unions, the only reason to press for “marriage” is as an avenue to redefining the institution as something other that how it was historically and culturally brought about.

      So, this has not been and is not about gay marriage. It is about the abuses of public officials upon private persons and businesses for expressing their constitutionally protected speech. The content NEVER matters.

  5. I did read the replies you wrote. They start as a condemnation of the ‘foolish mayors coalition’, which I support. From there, you evolve into you making the argument directly and that is where we disagree.

    Furthermore, please don’t start with the “you’re equating gay marriage to slavery” argument. That’s a 9th grade argument that plays on emotion and guilt so it can quietly toss logic and reason in the waste bin. That’s the type of useless crap that comes out of a Bill Maher (or the fools coalition). And If that’s the level you wish to debate this at, please say so now so I can engage in something worthwhile. That said…

    Under there law there is no difference between pre-1970 racism and Gay Marriage of today. In both cases, we have created a sub-class of people and denied them the *right* of equal protection under the law. And in this case, we have doubled down and denied them equal protection to make Judeo-Christian values are codified as law. It’s wrong. As I stated before, take this entire debate substitute ‘interracial’ for ‘gay’ and re-read the exact same arguments. Do you STILL say it’s legal and moral? If you do, then we disagree on much more than gay marriage.

    As for the arguments regarding civil unions being unacceptable to the gay community because of an effort to tear down Christian marriage: I’m sorry, but that’s self-serving poppycock rooted in bigotry. What the gay community wants is for the STATE to recognize domestic partnership contracts equally UNDER THE LAW. Anyone who disagrees with that, would do well to revisit Brown vs the Board and logic SCOTUS used therein.

    Also, you stated “Now that civil governments are extending those same..” as if it’s ubiquitous. Not only is that not the case, they are in the vast minority. And they are not recognized across state lines, or by the feds. If your intent was to imply that they already have civil unions available to the, I categorically disagree. We are still practicing “unequal protection” in most of this country.

    Furthermore, Institutions with “a historic and cultural foundation” have been used to justify all manner of human rights violations in this and other countries. The Georgia flag is a recent and relevant example. Because something is “old and trusted” does not make it good.

    Bottom line: The church can make whatever rules it likes and discriminate against whomever it likes. But the STATE, using the power of law, must not discriminate on the basis of gender when it comes to the creation and recognition of legally binding entities. As for the “fools coalition”, we agree wholeheartedly.

    Philip

    P.S. To those reading this – Steve is my friend, and has been for many, many years. The debate (and convictions therein) is real, but any bitterness or vitriol perceived in this exchange is a product of the medium and the familiarity of the participants involved.