Chick-fil-A & free speech under attack

Politicians have no right to attack private citizens for their opinions, and it is absolute tyranny for them to interfere with a legal business in retaliation for the political beliefs of its owners. That is why the mayors of Chicago and Boston are way out of line in their attacks on Chick-fil-A.

Shame on politicians in Chicago and Boston. These are the tactics of totalitarians who hate free speech that differs from their own.

I hope that liberals, independents and conservatives can join me in condemning the frontal assault on free speech by government power. You don't have to agree with the opinions of Chick-fil-A owners. You can personally deplore them. You can boycott their products and you can try to convict others to join you. You can do all these things as a private citizen. But if you use political power to further these goals, you are violating your honor and you are - by the true definition - a tyrant.

Maybe the brave politicians in Chicago and Boston can organize mobs to break all the windows at Chick-fil-A. They can instruct their police to stand by as it is going on. Sound familiar?

Posted by Christine & John at July 26, 2012 6:50 PM
Comments
Comment #349327

Yup, you’re right, tyranny in action. Rahm Emanuel bans a business while Chicago enjoys the third highest sales tax in the nation, unemployment is the nation’s third worst and it’s crime rate is near the top in the nation.

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 26, 2012 7:26 PM
Comment #349328

“Family Research Council President Tony Perkins asked rhetorically on Twitter, “Could you imagine the outrage if a mayor in TX decided to block a Starbucks from opening in her town b/c of their support of SSM [same-sex marriage]?”

The same week the Chick-fil-A controversy broke, the video gaming company Electronic Arts (EA) signed onto a legal brief opposing the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as between a man and a woman. Just this year, General Mills, Target, JC Penney and Nabisco all have taken actions in support of gay marriage.

But…that’s OK cause this administration considers that correct political speech. Hypocrites and Marxists are leading this country to our doom.

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 26, 2012 7:41 PM
Comment #349330

Royal

It is interesting, but also despicable the way that many of our leaders, including our president, not only choose to disregard laws but actually persecute those who follow them.

Rahm has decided not to properly enforce immigration laws, for example, but has decided to enforce a law that does not exist against a legitimate restaurant chain.

Tyranny in its original sense described leaders who disregarded laws and traditions to expand their personal power.

Posted by: C&J at July 26, 2012 10:00 PM
Comment #349333

I’m not a big fan of Chick-fil-a but I made a point to stop by for lunch twice in the last three days. Have you heard about the girl from Greece who got kicked out of the Olympics because of her political views on immigration. Some deemed her views as…wait for it…it’s ghastly…racist! This girl’s world has been crushed because the left controls free speech. Everyone should read “The Fountainhead”, this isn’t a new concept they are using.

Posted by: Matthew at July 27, 2012 12:02 AM
Comment #349336

We must all remember: Obama was “against same sex marriage, before he was for it”.

Everything Obama does is calculated to gather votes. The problem with lying is that sooner or later the lies catch up with you.

C&J, you are correct, Obama is hitting Romney with one thing after another for the purpose of tryig to keep him opff his message and on his heels. The best thing Romney can do is stay on subject. These accusations will fade as fast as they are brought up.

This is interesting, Obama said he was taken out of context on his July 13th “you didn’t build that speech”; but in accordance with my claim that Obama’s speeches are calculated:

Obama and Warren’s “narrative is cribbed almost verbatim from the narrative of George Lakoff, a progressive linguistics activist and Professor at Berkeley. Like Warren, Lakoff was one of the academics who helped frame how the Occupy Wall Street movement presented itself. Lakoff’s writings and theories seek to transform progressive politics and he is a frequent speaker on how progressives can reframe the political debate.

Lakoff developed a linguistic narrative that progressives needed to counter conservatives by focusing on the role of government in enabling individual success, a narrative in which no person became successful on his or her own:

“Nobody makes a dollar in this country in business without using the common wealth…. The idea that there’s a self-made man, that’s there’s a self-made millionaire is false, it is absolutely false, and that is the thing that Obama missed…. Without this you don’t have those roads, you don’t have that internet, you don’t have the banking system, etc.”

Read how Lakoff framed the issue in a publication several years ago, then listen to the Obama and Warren speeches, they are not identical but very close substantively and linguistically (emphasis mine):

“There is no such thing as a self-made man. Every businessman has used the vast American infrastructure, which the taxpayers paid for, to make his money. He did not make his money alone. He used taxpayer infrastructure. He got rich on what other taxpayers had paid for: the banking system, the Federal Reserve, the Treasury and Commerce Departments, and the judicial system, where nine-tenths of cases involve corporate law. These taxpayer investments support companies and wealthy investors. There are no self-made men! The wealthy have gotten rich using what previous taxpayers have paid for. They owe the taxpayers of this country a great deal and should be paying it back.”

Last March a diarist at Daily Kos noted the similarity of Warren’s famous factory owner speech and Lakoff’s formulation:

“This passage and the argument surrounding it sound extremely similar to something we’ve been hearing recently and for the first time in a long time (and this book came out in 2004)…”

The “something” to which the Daily Kos diarist was referring was the very same video of Warren’s speech posted at the top of this post.

The approach of Elizabeth Warren and Barack Obama is a cribbed narrative of the progressive movement which seeks to realign our individual-centered political dialogue around the individual’s indebtedness to the government.”

http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/07/obama-and-warren-cribbed-build-it-narrative-from-progressive-berkeley-professor/

So it appears Obama knew exactly what he was saying and it had been prepared by Lakoff. Nothing dne by accident.

Posted by: Frank at July 27, 2012 12:43 AM
Comment #349337

I can only assume SD and the other rabid liberals who “contribute” to this blog are too busy to have chimed in yet on why a totally private business that espouses Christian values should be persecuted and demonized as a matter of course.

I have written infrequently, though my readership of this blog has not slowed, because it feels like a pointless showdown. Sadly, I feel that SD’s views are becoming so mainstream that catastrophe is the only wake up call left for America.

I wish we had a chick-fil-a up here in Alaska. There is a thriving Christian community up here that would speak volumes with their dollars to support a company with the juevos to take a Christian stand.

God bless those of you who spent a few dollars at your local Chick Fil A to show them the support they deserve.

Posted by: Yukon Jake at July 27, 2012 3:22 AM
Comment #349352

It is the truth that people are getting Real Real
of our society nowadays. Especially in China, it is not easy to survive, say nothing about living satisfied and happy.
We have so many things to worry about, such as house, food, traffic, health, etc.
Too many people every day worry about meals and some basic living foundations, so that they becaome lack of sense of safety. in inner heart, we feel that the world is not safety. because of poverty, or other unfair things. China is a so large country, so complicated people and culture.
No doubt that people are getting Real Real. This is the consequence of times.

Posted by: vivian at July 27, 2012 4:55 AM
Comment #349355

Yukon

Re our liberal friends - They will come. They will be ashamed of the fascist tactics of progressive politicians and they will will be unable to argue the points of the bans. So they will call names. They will then move to claim past times when others have attacked speech. There will be some references to the war on terrorism. After that, they will say how terrible it is to be against gay marriage and try to move the argument in that direction. It is the similar to the Obama misdirection on the economy. Finally, one of them will say that this is all BS, and add some vulgarity. At that point we know that we have won the argument, although not changed their minds.

What a liberal SHOULD say is - “Yes, progressive politicians in Boston and Chicago were wrong to use the power of government against a legitimate business acting within the law.” They can then explain why they think the politicians involved abandoned their values. Let’s wait for that.

Posted by: C&J at July 27, 2012 6:49 AM
Comment #349356

C&J: “They will come. They will be ashamed of the fascist tactics of progressive politicians and they will will be unable to argue the points of the bans. So they will call names.”

I’m not ashamed of the tactics though I don’t agree with them. I just find it hilarious how you’re using this to attack liberals as though liberals aren’t already out condemning these actions. Here’s a couple of articles listing some liberals who have been vocal against this:

* Conservatives and Liberals Defend Chick-fil-A

* Liberal Media Supporting Chick-fil-A

I had not heard of this story until now. The list will grow. There’s a reason why neither action in Chicago or Boston will be carried out. The public just doesn’t support such upfront things right or left. So nice work trying to pin liberals into a corner over actions we mostly don’t support or agree with.

Frank: “So it appears Obama knew exactly what he was saying and it had been prepared by Lakoff. Nothing done by accident.”

I’ve been a fan of Lakoff for years. As soon as I saw what Obama said I thought of Lakoff. The right frames all the time. Why is it bad when the left does it?

I think you miss the point though about Obama’s context. Obama meant what he said. Your side is just lying about what he said. It’s a ridiculous lie and it lives on at places like this site.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at July 27, 2012 8:00 AM
Comment #349357

Re name calling. A ‘que guapo!’ moment when a Chicago poli calls out a restaurant chain as ‘not being worthy, respecting, lacking morale’, etc. This, as the last two guv’s of that state have been imprisoned, mob/drug kingpins party on and the city has over 150k ‘gang members’ out partying nightly.

And, the Corpocracy say, Amen!

Posted by: Roy Ellis at July 27, 2012 8:14 AM
Comment #349360

I am ashamed that Menino and Emanuel would adopt such tactics. I’ve never seen a Chik-fil-a in my life and I have no plans to ever visit one, but their owners have the right to support whatever organizations that they want. The proper weapon to use against them is the boycott, not some arbitrary application of governmental coercion.

Posted by: Warped Reality at July 27, 2012 10:37 AM
Comment #349362

Oh man our conservative friends all revved up with no place to go. No one to take their anger, at this perceived injustice, out on. Well guys I think you been deceived by this Chickfila guy. He was just drumming up business. Go start a fight in the NE and Chicago where you have few if any sites and the bible belters stand behind you where your 1600 stores are at, in the bible belt. He is laughing all the way to the bank. So are the gay activist groups that see the donations coming in.


I hope that liberals, independents and conservatives can join me in condemning the frontal assault on free speech by government power.

What frontal assault C&J? No one has denied the man his right to speak. These mayors and alderman have simply expressed a desire to stop the company from violating discrimination laws in their cities. Well and pandering for the gay votes.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Latest-News-Wires/2012/0727/Chick-fil-A-Culture-war-in-a-chicken-sandwich

Posted by: j2t2 at July 27, 2012 10:55 AM
Comment #349363

Supporting the view of traditional marriage is not “violating discrimination laws.”

Would love to see Chick Fil A bankrupt every city who denies they have the right to hold whatever view they want.

Posted by: kctim at July 27, 2012 11:06 AM
Comment #349365

Frank: “So it appears Obama knew exactly what he was saying and it had been prepared by Lakoff. Nothing done by accident.”

I’ve been a fan of Lakoff for years. As soon as I saw what Obama said I thought of Lakoff. The right frames all the time. Why is it bad when the left does it?” Adam Ducker

Why… because Obama and the left have been working overtime to do damage control; trying to convince the American people that what he said on July 13th was not really what he meant. His comments were that the American entrepreneur did not create his own business; that it was done by the help of government.

Lakoff framed this very line and use of words in 2004. It is by the use of words that thought is framed:

“Author George Lakoff has become a key advisor to the Democratic party, helping them develop their message and frame the political debate.

In this book Lakoff explains how conservatives think, and how to counter their arguments. He outlines in detail the traditional American values that progressives hold, but are often unable to articulate. Lakoff also breaks down the ways in which conservatives have framed the issues, and provides examples of how progressives can reframe the debate.”

http://www.chelseagreen.com/bookstore/item/elephant

“Its proximate roots lay in Elizabeth Warren’s famous diatribe this past September.
Now come William Jacobson and Chris Bray to trace Warren’s diatribe back to left-wing Berkeley professor George Lakoff. Lakoff holds himself out as a “cognitive linguist.” Bray describes him as a “hapless totalitarian clown.”
Lakoff has pursued the thesis is that what prevents the left from dominating American politics is cloaking socialism in the right lingo. It’s all a matter of salesmanship. In The Little Blue Book Lakoff commends Warren’s lingo, which Obama has now test marketed on a national stage.”

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/07/george-lakoff-built-it.php?tsize=large

So Elizabeth Warren was the first to try to use Lakoff’s theory and make the claim that Capitalism is not the work of the individual entrepreneur, but rather the work of government and socialist policies. To which Obama either followed the same theory or plagiarized himself by quoting Warren almost word for word:

“Massachusetts Senate candidate and Wall Street “Enemy #1” Elizabeth Warren was caught on video last month decrying the GOP’s charge that Democrats are engaging in “class warfare.”
“I hear all this, you know, ‘Well, this is class warfare, this is whatever,’” Warren said. “No. There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own. Nobody.
She goes on to describe how the “social contract” helps everyone.
“You built a factory out there? Good for you. But I want to be clear: you moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for; you hired workers the rest of us paid to educate; you were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn’t have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory, and hire someone to protect against this, because of the work the rest of us did.”


http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-09-21/politics/30183649_1_factory-social-contract-class-warfare-charge#ixzz21ppMHh00

In Lakoff’s bio at Berkley, he even makes the claim that it is by the use of linguistics that Democrats have moved away from being called by their true name Democrat Socialists, to Progressives. There have been many liberals on WB who have questioned the Right’s understanding of the word Socialism. C&J has even said he did not believe Obama was a Socialist; but Socialist he is.

Adam Ducker’s admittance of understanding the work of Lakoff, means that he understands the word game. If Obama and the left are trying to step back from his July 13th claims; it is either because this is really what Obama says and believes and they are doing damage control; or Obama does not believe these things, but is trying to subliminally make Americans believe that government is really the author of all business success. In either situation, it has backfired. The claim of Lakoff is that conservatives have been controlling the word game for years. We can see this in Adam Ducker’s comment:

“I’ve been a fan of Lakoff for years. As soon as I saw what Obama said I thought of Lakoff. The right frames all the time. Why is it bad when the left does it?”

If it is true that Conservatives have been doing it for years; then it was an unknown truth to the public. But, Obama and Warren’s use of Lakoff’s theory has opened the flood gates to question everything Obama says.

Example: Obama and his press secretary, after being questioned about classified info being released from the WH, were outraged and said no classified material was released from the WH. But the real question is, did Obama de-classify (since he has the power to do so), before it was released from the WH? So it becomes a word game.

We can now see the word game being played in all Democrat claims, even the outrage of the left toward Chic-fil-A.

Posted by: Frank at July 27, 2012 11:22 AM
Comment #349366

States, counties, and municipalities “interfere” with free enterprise all the time. They routinely prevent businesses such as WalMart and other big box stores, fast food outlets, liquor stores, and strip clubs from plying their trades within certain areas. There are local zoning ordinances, dry counties, state prohibitions against billboards, and so on, all of which can be considered political and/or religious, but none of which are termed tyrannical.

Posted by: phx8 at July 27, 2012 11:30 AM
Comment #349367

Warped Reality, you are now seeing the core beliefs and tactics of the Democrat Party. Rahm Emmanuel is from the same Chicago style politics as Obama.

Re/Chick-fil-A laughing all the way to the bank; this statement is another attempt to shift the blame to an evil corporation, rather than pay attention to the words of hateful Mayors.

Chik-fil-A does not need advertisement; they have a good product and is very popular among Evangelical Christians.

Posted by: Frank at July 27, 2012 11:31 AM
Comment #349375
Politicians have no right to attack private citizens for their opinions,

Rightwing Politicians do this to people on the Left all the damn time.

and it is absolute tyranny for them to interfere with a legal business in retaliation for the political beliefs of its owners.

Oh, you mean like Planned Parenthood for example? Or other abortion clinics all over this nation? You know, like the one that deceased OBGYN Dr. George Tiller ran before he was publicly demonized for years and years on end, and then finally murdered by a Rightwing Religious Fanatic?

Screw Chik-Fil-Hate and their “Christian” Fascistic Intolerance. Hate Sandwiches taste like bile, and who wants to eat there or support their fanaticism when they can cross the street and eat something made by people who have more love and caring in their hearts for all of their customers?
And, screw all of you Rightwing hypocrites who are constantly screaming about the speck in your brother’s eye, without ever considering gigantic plank in your own.

Posted by: Adrienne at July 27, 2012 1:13 PM
Comment #349376
Supporting the view of traditional marriage is not “violating discrimination laws.”

Agreed kctim. Opening a business and discriminating such as Cracker Barrel is known for is however.

Would love to see Chick Fil A bankrupt every city who denies they have the right to hold whatever view they want.

Probably wouldn’t even get that far kctim. Through the building process the politicians would credit themselves with bringing jobs to town. Both sides are gaining from this “tyranny”.

As I said this is just free publicity for Chick fil a and the gay groups fighting back and forth.

Re/Chick-fil-A laughing all the way to the bank; this statement is another attempt to shift the blame to an evil corporation, rather than pay attention to the words of hateful Mayors.

Frank evangelicals are holding an appreciation day for chick fil a soon, do you think that business will decrease? Most of his stores are in the bible belt. It is all bluster on both sides.

Chik-fil-A does not need advertisement; they have a good product and is very popular among Evangelical Christians.

Yet they advertise during the super bowl?

Posted by: j2t2 at July 27, 2012 1:17 PM
Comment #349377

Frank: “Adam Ducker’s admittance of understanding the work of Lakoff, means that he understands the word game.”

I own the book Don’t Think of an Elephant and I recommend every liberal I know read it. I love the book. It’s a nice short read and liberals will come out of it realizing how conservatives have defined the terms of the debate and rigged it so liberals can’t win.

“If it is true that Conservatives have been doing it for years; then it was an unknown truth to the public.”

Actually that’s Lakoff’s point. The left and the right don’t even know it’s happened but it has. That’s why it’s so important for liberals to take note.

Of course I’m sure you think folks like Frank Luntz don’t count but his work has been framing the debate for years on the right. His leaked memos, his Fox News appearances, his focus groups? It works.

Seeing Warren and President Obama take steps to break apart these frames and reframe them their way obviously is very alarming to you and others on the right. Good. There’s more to come.

“If Obama and the left are trying to step back from his July 13th claims…”

It’s not stepping back to point out the right has lied about what Obama said. It’s just not.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at July 27, 2012 1:19 PM
Comment #349378
Warped Reality, you are now seeing the core beliefs and tactics of the Democrat Party.

The Democrat party exists only in the imaginations of conservatives. The tactics proposed by Emanuel and Menino are usually typical of the Right. I am reminded of when conservatives sought to prevent American Muslims from constructing a building in lower Manhattan a couple of years ago.

Posted by: Warped Reality at July 27, 2012 1:20 PM
Comment #349379

Adrienne

That is a clear example of the hate that is spewed by th left/progressive/socialist/humanist group. It caries no weight. It has no integrity. Why am I even writing this to a foolish person who has no morals?

Maranatha

Posted by: tom humes at July 27, 2012 1:43 PM
Comment #349381

Adrienne, why is supporting traditional marriage “hate?”

J2, government discrimination against personal beliefs has NOTHING in common with anything CB was claimed to have done in the 90s.

I don’t see it going to court either, but I read a story yesterday about a city in CA, of course, where they were going to try and revoke a permit they had already approved. It was on a progressive site so I have to look for facts, but they were all cheering because the Councilman or whatever that was trying to do it was gay.
THAT would be a very valid case to bring.

Posted by: kctim at July 27, 2012 1:57 PM
Comment #349387

If cities are now asking about political/religious beliefs before issuing a permit to do business, will it be much longer before they will be dictating ever more political correctness?

We are all aware that liberals despise certain parts of our founding documents. They consider those documents outdated and not adequate for today’s governing. They knowingly, or unknowingly are promoting Marxism and Tyranny under the guise of “new rights” not found in our Constitution.

For many liberals, the “Welfare Clause” is reason enough for the redistribution of the wealth of others. The OWS fiasco attempted to further this idea and has failed miserably.

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 27, 2012 2:58 PM
Comment #349388

Traditional Marriage? You mean, the assigned marriages of children as a form of property exchange between families? Who is defending that?

Or do you mean the Traditional Marriage that prevented white and black people to marry?

Or do you mean the Traditional Marriage that prevents people of the same sex to have the same legal rights as heterosexuals do?

You’ll have to be a little clearer on what Traditional Marriage you are talking about…

Posted by: Rhinehold at July 27, 2012 3:00 PM
Comment #349389
J2, government discrimination against personal beliefs has NOTHING in common with anything CB was claimed to have done in the 90s.

I was actually referring to Chick Fil A should they discriminate in their hiring practices or against their customers as CB did.

We are all aware that liberals despise certain parts of our founding documents.

I know I certainly do Royal. The 3/5ths of a person thing and the landed gentry only can vote as well as the Senators being selected by the states comes to mind. Fortunately they have been corrected.

Posted by: j2t2 at July 27, 2012 3:23 PM
Comment #349393

“Warped Reality, you are now seeing the core beliefs and tactics of the Democrat Party.”

The Democrat party exists only in the imaginations of conservatives. The tactics proposed by Emanuel and Menino are usually typical of the Right. I am reminded of when conservatives sought to prevent American Muslims from constructing a building in lower Manhattan a couple of years ago.”

Posted by: Warped Reality at July 27, 2012 1:20 PM

Warped Reality; the lawsuits brought to block the Muslim Mosque in Manhattan, were brought by NY Firefighter Timothy Brown, with the support of the American Freedom Defense Initiative; both of which are not part of mainstream Republican Conservative groups.

The AFDI is a Jewish/Islamic supported group who is tryng to stop Islamic Terrorism. SION is a part of AFDI and the members of their board are diverse:

“The SION Board of Advisers also includes Oskar Freysinger, a Swiss Parliamentarian and member of the Swiss People’s Party (SVP), who won international renown for his leadership of the successful campaign against the construction of minarets in Switzerland; Cliff Kincaid, editor of the Accuracy in Media (AIM) and a leader of the struggle to keep the jihadist propaganda network Al-Jazeera off American airwaves; Dr. Ashraf Rameleh, President of Voice of the Copts, an international organization standing up for the human rights of Coptic Christians and all religious minorities against religious bigotry and intolerance; Dr. Ali Sina, the renowned ex-Muslim author and founder of FaithFreedom.org; Dr. Wafa Sultan, the ex-Muslim human rights activist and author; the German pro-freedom activist Stefan Herre of Politically Incorrect; the Israeli author Dr. Mordechai Kedar; the Hindu human rights activist Babu Suseelan; and Anders Gravers of Stop Islamisation of Europe (SIOE); and Canadian publisher and free speech defender Ezra Levant.”

http://freedomdefense.typepad.com/

So as you can see, your claim against conservatives is incorrect.

Posted by: Frank at July 27, 2012 4:09 PM
Comment #349394

I know I certainly do Royal. The 3/5ths of a person thing and the landed gentry only can vote as well as the Senators being selected by the states comes to mind. Fortunately they have been corrected.
Posted by: j2t2 at July 27, 2012 3:23

Despite the snarky remark j2, I am sure you realize that without those provisions we would not have had the founding documents at all. Conservatives are not against compromise in forming new legislation, but we are against any compromise that reduces us to Marxist Tyranny.

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 27, 2012 4:26 PM
Comment #349395

j2t2:

I was actually referring to Chick Fil A should they discriminate in their hiring practices or against their customers as CB did.

Chik-fil-hate does discriminate, and the owner has clearly stated his willingness to fire any employee who “has been sinful.”

Also, here’s a list with some of the ways the company has actively funded and worked to discriminate against LGBT folks.

Posted by: Adrienne at July 27, 2012 4:32 PM
Comment #349396
That is a clear example of the hate that is spewed by th left/progressive/socialist/humanist group. It caries no weight. It has no integrity. Why am I even writing this to a foolish person who has no morals?

That is a clear example of the hate that is spewed by you hatefilled Fascist Phony-Christian Monsters. Nothing you people say carries any weight. You have no integrity. I am paraphrasing a foolish person who has no morals.

Adrienne, why is supporting traditional marriage “hate?”

People are free to personally support any damn thing they like in this nation, but when they raise mountains of money and work to actively discriminate against people and withhold full civil and legal rights to people based on their prejudice and bigotry, it’s hate — no matter whether they try to stick a religious label on it, or not.

Posted by: Adrienne at July 27, 2012 4:43 PM
Comment #349397
Despite the snarky remark j2, I am sure you realize that without those provisions we would not have had the founding documents at all.

Snarky begats snarky Royal. Trying to tell us liberals despise certain parts of the constitution while seeing certain conservatives calling for the repeal of several amendments to the constitution is rather snarkey isn’t it?

Yes I do realize the constitution was a compromise made by many founding fathers. They realized it was the best the could do at the time and it was better than the articles of confederation.


Conservatives are not against compromise in forming new legislation, but we are against any compromise that reduces us to Marxist Tyranny.

And anything the Obama and the dems try to so is considered marxist tyranny right Royal? The fascist tyranny of the conservatives is so much better than compromise, right?

Posted by: j2t2 at July 27, 2012 4:47 PM
Comment #349398

Royal Flush: “Despite the snarky remark j2, I am sure you realize that without those provisions we would not have had the founding documents at all.”

You mean to say is the document is imperfect? That perhaps it reflects some deep flaws in American culture from that time?

Posted by: Adam Ducker at July 27, 2012 5:02 PM
Comment #349399

It appears C&J were dead on. I believe we could possibly consider C&J a prophet:

“Yukon

Re our liberal friends - They will come. They will be ashamed of the fascist tactics of progressive politicians and they will be unable to argue the points of the bans. So they will call names. They will then move to claim past times when others have attacked speech. There will be some references to the war on terrorism. After that, they will say how terrible it is to be against gay marriage and try to move the argument in that direction. It is the similar to the Obama misdirection on the economy. Finally, one of them will say that this is all BS. At that point we know that we have won the argument, although not changed their minds.

What a liberal SHOULD say is - “Yes, progressive politicians in Boston and Chicago were wrong to use the power of government against a legitimate business acting within the law.” They can then explain why they think the politicians involved abandoned their values. Let’s wait for that.

Posted by: C&J at July 27, 2012 6:49 AM

Let’s look at some of the comments:

1.“Ashamed of progressives and unable to argue points”:

a. Warped Reality, “I am ashamed that Menino and Emanuel would adopt such tactics.”

2. “Call names and blame others for same thing”:

a. phx8, “States, counties, and municipalities “interfere” with free enterprise all the time.” Everyone does it…

b. Adrienne, “Rightwing Politicians do this to people on the Left all the damn time.”

c. j2t2, “Opening a business and discriminating such as Cracker Barrel is known for is however.”

3. “References to war on terrorism”:

4. “move argument to be against gay marriage”:

5. “All BS”:

Feel free to add comments to the list as needed, but I might add one C&J:

6. “Pure hate and vitriol”:

a. Adrienne, “Oh, you mean like Planned Parenthood for example? Or other abortion clinics all over this nation? You know, like the one that deceased OBGYN Dr. George Tiller ran before he was publicly demonized for years and years on end, and then finally murdered by a Rightwing Religious Fanatic?

Screw Chik-Fil-Hate and their “Christian” Fascistic Intolerance. Hate Sandwiches taste like bile, and who wants to eat there or support their fanaticism when they can cross the street and eat something made by people who have more love and caring in their hearts for all of their customers?

And, screw all of you Rightwing hypocrites who are constantly screaming about the speck in your brother’s eye, without ever considering gigantic plank in your own.”

Boys, how would you like to wake up to that mouth every morning? I wonder how many husbands she has gone through? Honey, can you get me a cup of coffee? “Screw you; get it yourself, you fascist, POS”.

Posted by: Billinflorida at July 27, 2012 5:03 PM
Comment #349400

Adrienne…thank you very much for the link to the Forbes article about Chick-fil-a. It was very uplifting to read about a company that actually has values and treats their employees with respect and dignity. With an employee turn-over rate well below the average for like businesses, one could surmise that their employees appreciate the working environment.

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 27, 2012 5:03 PM
Comment #349403

You mean to say is the document is imperfect? That perhaps it reflects some deep flaws in American culture from that time?
Posted by: Adam Ducker at July 27, 2012 5:02 PM

What Adam refers to as “flaws” represent compromise to achieve our Democratic Republic. I read libs referring to a lack of compromise all the time.

Adrienne…I am worried about your health. Perhaps you should consult a doctor.

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 27, 2012 5:16 PM
Comment #349405
Boys, how would you like to wake up to that mouth every morning?

You’re such a misogynist asshole — no woman in her right mind would ever want to live with that.

I wonder how many husbands she has gone through? Honey, can you get me a cup of coffee? “Screw you; get it yourself, you fascist, POS”.

I’ve lived with the same wonderful man for 26 years. We love and respect each other completely.

Adrienne…I am worried about your health. Perhaps you should consult a doctor.

I’m doing quite well, thanks. But I worry over the sanity of all you gay-hating phony-Christians. Perhaps you should consult a psychiatrist.

Posted by: Adrienne at July 27, 2012 5:31 PM
Comment #349407

Royal, I also read he entire link and found it a great way to select employees. I think Chick-fil-A has a great organization.

Adrienne, I didn’t read anything about firing anyone who “has been sinful.”

Royal, I would bet $10 that Adrienne did not read the Forbes link; she simply copied and pasted from Thinkprogress, her second link.


Posted by: Frank at July 27, 2012 5:36 PM
Comment #349408

Does Adrienne fit the profile of someone who does something like Mr. Holmes has done?

Just wonderin’

Maranatha

Posted by: tom humes at July 27, 2012 5:38 PM
Comment #349409
It was very uplifting to read about a company that actually has values and treats their employees with respect and dignity.

People with moral values don’t discriminate. People with moral values don’t withhold respect or treat others as though they aren’t worthy of fair, equal and dignified treatment simply because they’re gay.
The Chik-fil-hate does those things and tries to act like they’re holier-than-thou, but it’s more than clear that they are phony-Christians.

Posted by: Adrienne at July 27, 2012 5:39 PM
Comment #349410
The 3/5ths of a person thing and the landed gentry only can vote as well as the Senators being selected by the states comes to mind. Fortunately they have been corrected.

And they were corrected the RIGHT way, with an amendment to the constitution. It’s a shame that the progressives and conservatives don’t really respect the document anymore…

Posted by: Rhinehold at July 27, 2012 5:40 PM
Comment #349411

I’m doing quite well, thanks. But I worry over the sanity of all you gay-hating phony-Christians. Perhaps you should consult a psychiatrist.
Posted by: Adrienne at July 27

Can you find any posts of mine that would lead you to believe that I hate gays or am a phony Christian?

Congrats on your lasting marriage. We celebrated our 26th anniversary yesterday.

About the only thing I hate is rutabagas.

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 27, 2012 5:41 PM
Comment #349412

“I’ve lived with the same wonderful man for 26 years. We love and respect each other completely.”

Are we talking “girly-man”. I can’t believe a real man would put up with you’re foul mouth. If you talk like this on WB, I can’t even imagine what kind of language you use at home. You are a real credit to liberal socialism.

Posted by: Bilinflorida at July 27, 2012 5:43 PM
Comment #349414
Congrats on your lasting marriage. We celebrated our 26th anniversary yesterday.

Thanks. And congratulations to you too.

Posted by: Adrienne at July 27, 2012 5:52 PM
Comment #349415

People with moral values don’t discriminate. People with moral values don’t withhold respect or treat others as though they aren’t worthy of fair, equal and dignified treatment simply because they’re gay.
The Chik-fil-hate does those things and tries to act like they’re holier-than-thou, but it’s more than clear that they are phony-Christians.
Posted by: Adrienne at July 27, 2012

Adrienne, everyone discriminates. When you chose your husband did you not discriminate against all other men? The same is true with nearly every action of our lives. Choice is not the same as discrimination. Perhaps you should read the article you linked. There is much in Chick fil a to admire that you simply missed or ignored in the Forbes article.

I don’t believe you understand discrimination. I don’t believe you understand Christians either.

Your posts reveal a personality type that is suffering from imagined slights and a frustration rooted in magical thinking.

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 27, 2012 5:56 PM
Comment #349416
I didn’t read anything about firing anyone who “has been sinful.”
From the link:
Family members of prospective operators—children, even—are frequently interviewed so Cathy and his family can learn more about job candidates and their relationships at home. “If a man can’t manage his own life, he can’t manage a business,” says Cathy, who says he would probably fire an employee or terminate an operator who “has been sinful or done something harmful to their family members.”

“Judge not lest ye be judged” clearly doesn’t apply at Chik-fil-hate.

Posted by: Adrienne at July 27, 2012 5:59 PM
Comment #349417

“If a man can’t manage his own life, he can’t manage a business,” says Cathy, who says he would probably fire an employee or terminate an operator who “has been sinful or done something harmful to their family members.”

Can anyone find what is meant by “sinful” in the article. Could it be theft from their employer or some other act frowned upon by the general public?

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 27, 2012 6:07 PM
Comment #349418
I don’t believe you understand discrimination.

Sure I do. Discrimination is what gave birth to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. And when were talking about what Chik-fil-hate we are specifically talking about Title VII of the Act, which prohibits employers from discriminating against job seekers and employees on the basis of race, religion, sex, pregnancy, and national origin.

I don’t believe you understand Christians either.

I don’t believe you understand non-theists and secular humanists.

Your posts reveal a personality type that is suffering from imagined slights and a frustration rooted in magical thinking.

Right back at you.

Posted by: Adrienne at July 27, 2012 6:09 PM
Comment #349419

Adrienne…could you be a little more original in writing rather than simply using my words? I appreciate the flattery of imitation but would really like to read your thoughts…not mine.

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 27, 2012 6:14 PM
Comment #349420

j2t2

Thank you for trying to move the subject to anti-gay behavior and bringing up the irrelevant example of Cracker Barrel. I predicted that my liberal friends would do that when I answered Yukon. Adrienne supplied the vulgarity I predicted and you gave me the distraction.

“simply expressed a desire to stop the company from violating discrimination laws in their cities.” There is no indication that the restaurants have broken any laws. Expressing support for traditional marriage is not illegal. In fact, it is following the Federal law on this issue. I actually support gay marriage and have said so. But I understand that not everyone agrees with me.

Phx8

The politicos in Boston and Chicago are not against Chick-fil-A because of the type of business they are in or the products they sell. They are attacking it only because its leader exercised his right of free speech.

Adrienne
Thank you for the vulgarity. I predicted it up top when talking to Yukon (#349355) and I knew you would come through for me.

Re Planned Parenthood – you are showing exactly the mind-set we say Obama shows. You equate government funding with business activity. Planned Parenthood might not get government funding. That is not the same as trying to ban a legitimate business. Beyond that, critics of Planned Parenthood object to what it DOES. If you oppose ALL chicken restaurants, then you can criticize Chick-fil-A. Otherwise not.

Warped

“The tactics proposed by Emanuel and Menino are usually typical of the Right.” Actually, they are more typical of the left. Campus speech codes and boycotts of businesses are more often left-wing affairs.

Posted by: C&J at July 27, 2012 6:26 PM
Comment #349422
Thank you for the vulgarity.
You’re welcome and I’m glad you enjoyed it. I no longer believe in trying to be polite to people on the right who openly lie and act hypocritically all the time.
Re Planned Parenthood – you are showing exactly the mind-set we say Obama shows. You equate government funding with business activity. Planned Parenthood might not get government funding. That is not the same as trying to ban a legitimate business.

Planned Parenthood is public/private. The right is trying to destroy it. And, I see you have chosen to ignore the other half of what I said earlier — the fact that the right has been trying, often successfully, to drive other privately owned abortion clinics out of business. But that’s got to be different and it just fine with you rightwingers, because you’d rather lie and hypocritically act like that isn’t the exact same thing as what is happening with Chik-fil-hate, but it is.

Beyond that, critics of Planned Parenthood object to what it DOES. If you oppose ALL chicken restaurants, then you can criticize Chick-fil-A. Otherwise not.

Critics of Chik-fil-Hate are objecting to what they DO. As the Forbes article I linked to earlier makes very clear, this is a corporation who has been openly engaging in illegal discrimination against their employees on religious and sexual grounds for a very long time. And now, the owner has very publicly announced his immense pride in the company’s discriminatory stance against gay customers — also on religious and sexual grounds. I hope he will end up being sued repeatedly (if he hasn’t been already) by his employees for the discrimination he’s so proud of, and driven out of business by huge numbers of customers who will now boycott his corporate chain of crappy gay-intolerant fast food.

Posted by: Adrienne at July 27, 2012 7:21 PM
Comment #349423

Adrienne; 46 years in October, and I never use foul language.

Posted by: Billinflorida at July 27, 2012 7:36 PM
Comment #349424

There is a Chick-fil-a about ten miles from my home. They have excellent food and extremely friendly service along with very competitive pricing.

I could not find any reference in the Forbes article that suggested “the owner has very publicly announced his immense pride in the company’s discriminatory stance against gay customers.” I wonder how such a corporate decision would be enforced. Would they ask each customer as they enter the door their sexual preference? That sounds more like a house of ill repute to me, though I don’t visit those. LOL! I can assure you they never ask me anything at the door when I visit Chick-fil-a.

Adrienne…is there a poltergeist operating your computer or does some of this stuff you write really originate in your own mind?

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 27, 2012 7:40 PM
Comment #349425

crappy gay-intolerant fast food.
Posted by: Adrienne at July 27, 2012 7:21

Is that similar to lactose intolerant?

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 27, 2012 7:47 PM
Comment #349426

Adrienne, where do you come up with this stuff? Does it just enter that empty head of yours and then blurt out your mouth.

“As the Forbes article I linked to earlier makes very clear, this is a corporation who has been openly engaging in illegal discrimination against their employees on religious and sexual grounds for a very long time. And now, the owner has very publicly announced his immense pride in the company’s discriminatory stance against gay customers — also on religious and sexual grounds. I hope he will end up being sued repeatedly (if he hasn’t been already) by his employees for the discrimination he’s so proud of, and driven out of business by huge numbers of customers who will now boycott his corporate chain of crappy gay-intolerant fast food.”

I read the article and never read any of your claim. Why are they the second largest Chicken fast food restaurant if the are discriminating against employees and customers? You honestly don’t make any sense.

Posted by: Frank at July 27, 2012 8:03 PM
Comment #349427

Your endorsement of PP, the number one baby killer, is just what I would think you would do. Fifty million babies killed. Just think how ignorant that is. That could be fifty million left wing, progressive, socialist, humanist idiots. You guys have missed the boat on this one. Also think how much easier it would be for Obama to get re-elected if fifty million of same were voting for him. Foolish behavior.

Maranatha

Posted by: tom humes at July 27, 2012 8:09 PM
Comment #349429

Adrienne

“I no longer believe in trying to be polite to people on the right …”

Was there anytime when you believed in being polite to anybody who held opinions different from yours? I recall that you were polite a last week, but perhaps that was an anomaly.

I try to be polite with everybody. I do it for my own integrity, not theirs. It is possible to be take a very strong stand within the bounds of politeness. It just requires a bit more intelligence and thought. I personally like what Oscar Wilde said, “A gentleman is one who never hurts anyone’s feelings … unintentionally.” (He was bisexual BTW).

I find the rude people usually have trouble with others. They find the “everybody is against them”. Of course, if you have trouble with a variety of people, it is good to recall that you are the common denominator.

Posted by: C&J at July 27, 2012 8:23 PM
Comment #349430
I could not find any reference in the Forbes article that suggested “the owner has very publicly announced his immense pride in the company’s discriminatory stance against gay customers.”

Then you either didn’t read it, or you’re lying.

I read the article and never read any of your claim.

Again, either you didn’t read it, or you’re lying.

But I assume both of you must be lying. Because that article reads like a treatise on religious discrimination, and indeed the article even mentions some of the discrimination cases that have been brought by people who worked for the company.

I try to be polite with everybody. I do it for my own integrity, not theirs.

It must be easy for you to maintain politeness, since people on the left aren’t trying to lie to you all the time. I’ve lost all patience and can no longer be unfailingly polite with the avalanche of lies that constantly pour from the mouths of rightwingers everywhere. It disgusts me. So I let you all know exactly what I think — and I do so to be true to my own integrity, not due to the lack of integrity I constantly see from all of you.

Posted by: Adrienne at July 27, 2012 8:48 PM
Comment #349431

You want some “free speech under attack” how about forcing doctors to lie to women?:
Court upholds S.D. law requiring doctors to push misleading abortion-suicide link

Posted by: Adrienne at July 27, 2012 8:54 PM
Comment #349433
Thank you for trying to move the subject to anti-gay behavior and bringing up the irrelevant example of Cracker Barrel. I predicted that my liberal friends would do that when I answered Yukon.

The issue of free speech was solved C&J. It seems there was no violation of this man’s free speech. He is still walking the streets, no charges files against him and evidently no investigation into his speech. No tyranny as you falsely claimed exits. You set up a strawman and then in true savant fashion predicted we wouldn’t fall for your strawman. While that may qualify for prophet to those on the right it is just more conservative movement propaganda to may of us.

The man made comments that offended activist and supporters of gay marriage. He was called on it by these guys using their same right to state their opinion, their free speech rights. The comments in this thread headed in that direction of his anti gay comments. It was the crux of the issue it seems once people calmed down after the “tyranny” nonsense. The CB reference was necessary to show other companies have also used these methods to discriminate in their hiring practices.

Posted by: j2t2 at July 27, 2012 9:39 PM
Comment #349435

C&J,
Maybe you can explain this to me. I don’t get it. The owner of this restaurant chain has the right to free speech. As long as he’s not advocating illegal sexual discrimination or inciting violent acts, it’s just free speech. By the same token, states & counties & municipalities have the right to bar businesses as they see fit. Again, it’s a matter of exercising freedom on the local level of government, as anm exercise of the will of the people. If people in a locality object to the way the local government acts, they are free to elect someone else. As I understand it, everyone- individuals, corporations, governments- gets to exercise their free speech, and by the same token, everyone is subject to consequences of opening their yap.

I don’t care about this Chick-A-Fil or whatever it is called. I would never eat in a place like that. Short of starvation, ain’t gonna happen. The opinions of that CEO are pretty silly, because most people who believe that obviously know nothing whatsoever about the history of marriage, whether Christian or otherwise. Just silly. Never underestimate an American’s knowledge of history. And I don’t like Rahm Emmanual. I’ll be glad when this issue is forgotten. And an Appreciation Day for people who want to show their support for hatred and discrimination? Ugh. Nasty stuff.

This restaurant chain will be out of business in a few years. There is too much competition to engage in stupid political stunts, regardless of the political bent, and there are too many choices for people with the money for franchising fees.

Posted by: phx8 at July 27, 2012 9:47 PM
Comment #349438

tom humes, you are obviously sadly lacking in knowledge along with more than a handful of brain cells!!
You guys (for lack of a more clearly defined definition) must feel pretty strongly that you have control in here, as well as in much of the country. I predict that you are going to be sadly mistaken before long and we will have to listen to you whine and complain even more.
You are nothing but bullies…used to beating people down and then running over them with your ideas and beliefs.
You will probably be dumfounded to discover that people aren’t afraid of you, but just fed up with your mentality and attitudes.

Posted by: jane doe at July 27, 2012 10:06 PM
Comment #349439

phx8, since the owner of the restaurant chain believes God gave him the business and since he believes God continues to bless his company, I find your prediction of it’s demise interesting.

But, no matter, I see the Mayor of Boston has already recanted and Bloomberg agreed with him. Now we only have to wait for Rahm Emanuel to back down; and he will, because he is identified with Obama and will hurt Obama’s re-election chances. I would say, by Monday, Emanuel will change his tune.

It seems as if Obama and his merry band of men, step from one pile of shit to another.

Posted by: Frank at July 27, 2012 10:18 PM
Comment #349441

jane doe, I believe you should have directed that last comment toward Adrienne. She is the one who seems to have the bully complex. But JMHO.

Posted by: Frank at July 27, 2012 10:21 PM
Comment #349442
phx8, since the owner of the restaurant chain believes God gave him the business and since he believes God continues to bless his company, I find your prediction of it’s demise interesting.

Speaking of demise:
Chick-fil-A spokesperson dies from heart attack

Posted by: Adrienne at July 27, 2012 10:54 PM
Comment #349443

Adrienne

The left sometimes stumbles over the truth, but they soon get up, dust themselves off and go again on their way. Since you speak with such passion I assume you actually believe all that. I feel sorry for someone with so much hate in her heart. I will continue to try to be polite to you, nevertheless.

J2t2

People can “call” someone on what he says. Disagreement is a part of free speech. But government officials have no right to misuse the power of their office to threaten someone’s business because they don’t like the way he talks. That is the start of tyranny.

Let’s do the simple turn around that some have mentioned. About half of Americans oppose gay marriage and half agree. What if advocates of gay marriage were threatened by local officials with having their businesses banned? How would you react?

Phx8
“By the same token, states & counties & municipalities have the right to bar businesses as they see fit.” This is where you go wrong. They have no right to bar businesses for arbitrary reasons. This is tyranny. We are a nation of laws, not of uncontrolled emotions.

Many liberals have been honest about this. The ACLU sided with Chick-fil-A. You should come around to the side of freedom and reject the fascist thinking.

If you choose not to eat there, it is your business. You can try to persuade others. But you try to use the coercive power of government, you are out of line. It is an old fashioned term, but the Constitution specifically prohibits bills of attainder.

Jane
I hope the defense of free speech has not become a right wing issue.


Jane
I hope the defense of free speech has not become a right wing issue.

Posted by: C&J at July 27, 2012 10:55 PM
Comment #349446

C&J,
Governments are answerable to voters. We hold free elections on a routine basis. There’s nothing tyrannical about maintaining community standards as long as those standards don’t violate laws, including laws concerning discrimination.

For the word ‘fascism’ to apply, a government would have to be working WITH a corporation, not AGAINST one.

Frank,
The restaurant business is a tough one. There are too many choices for a person who wants to buy a franchise, to risk their money on a chain that preaches politics. It might work in some parts of the country… but I wouldn’t care to bet my nest egg on it.

Posted by: phx8 at July 27, 2012 11:07 PM
Comment #349449

phx8

In our free country, we believe in majority rule but minority rights. The majority cannot vote to deny the minority or the individual the right to due process and consistent application of law.

The proposed actions of Boston and Chicago did indeed discriminate in an illegal way.

The Chick-fil-A owner advocated a legal position. Do you really want the kind of politics that punishes this?

You are right that the Chicago and Boston mayor were not fascists, but they were tyrants. But in a fascist state, the government controls the corporations. It doesn’t work with them in they way you imply.

Posted by: C&J at July 27, 2012 11:39 PM
Comment #349450

Let’s consider the principle here, put aside the political passions by turning the problem on its head, and see if everyone still feels the same.

Suppose I am the owner of a established business that is legal in my country and state. I make a series of controversial political pronouncements that have nothing to do with my business- let’s just say, a vehement denunciation of a particular religion. Next, I demand the right to open my business in another country in another state, and claim anyone preventing me is restricting my freedom of speech, and in more general terms, behaving in a tyrannical fashion by not letting me conduct my very profitable, taxpaying business. Remember: the business is legal in my county and state.

Now suppose that business is a bordello being run in Clark County, NV; and I want to open a place of business as close as possible to the the Temple in Salt Lake City.

My principles remain the same. SLC would have the right to refuse the establishment of a bordello as a matter of upholding community standards, even though the business is legal elsewhere. This example demonstrates that the free speech issue is actually irrelevant. The owner of the business is free to continue denouncing that religion. Meanwhile, states and counties and cities have the right use the power of government to pass laws in order to uphold those standards, as long as there is no violation of federal law, no exercise of illegal discrimination.

Posted by: phx8 at July 27, 2012 11:50 PM
Comment #349451
Since you speak with such passion I assume you actually believe all that.

Absolutely. I’m a proud Progressive, so what else do you expect? People like me are always going to stand up against inequality and injustice, and be willing to fight on and on for the people getting shut out, or shat upon by the uptight, narrowminded religious (or wealthy-plutocratic) status quo.
And eventually, we WILL triumph as we always do — and all the rightwing gay-hating religious fanatics like Mr. Chik-fil-hate are going to lose. Because this nation isn’t the kind of a place where inequality is meant to stand unchallenged, or where the fanatical prejudices and bigotries of some are going to be allowed to hold other people permanently down. No way — in America we establish Justice, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.

I feel sorry for someone with so much hate in her heart.

Oh there it is — the personal attacks always kick in with you regressives whenever you’re losing an argument (which is often).

About half of Americans oppose gay marriage and half agree.
Incorrect. Support for same sex marriage now enjoys majority support
reject the fascist thinking.

You’re a fine one to talk. You regressives have got the fascist religious crap down pat.

Posted by: Adrienne at July 28, 2012 12:03 AM
Comment #349452

phx8, nail on the head.
The entire premise of this article is a sham.

Posted by: Adrienne at July 28, 2012 12:07 AM
Comment #349453
People can “call” someone on what he says. Disagreement is a part of free speech. But government officials have no right to misuse the power of their office to threaten someone’s business because they don’t like the way he talks. That is the start of tyranny.

Were Emanual to actually follow through on his threat to keep the business out of Chicago then it would be the start of tyranny. But he has already walked the message back. He was sending a message to both sides of the debate. He was doing what politicians do. Just like the CEO was drumming up business for his company. It was all free speech or more precisely hot air IMHO. There was no real threat or attack on free speech.

Posted by: j2t2 at July 28, 2012 12:14 AM
Comment #349454

phx8,
Thought of another example: states with blue laws and dry counties.

Posted by: Adrienne at July 28, 2012 12:25 AM
Comment #349455

Adrienne,
Exactly. Different parts of the country have different standards, and, as long as they do not violate federal law, local standards can be applied. The issue of government tyranny is specious, since governments are put in place by voters, and can be replaced in elections.

No one’s free speech is being violated. However, exercising free speech does not mean that one must be free from all consequences, such as being subjected to boycott, or being prevented from opening businesses in another locality if the nature of the business violates local standards. In this case, promoting an agenda objectionable to that particular community could be a reason to prevent the business from entering that place.

What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. It cuts both ways. In some cases, such as opening a bordello, I think a better line of attack would be arguing for ‘pursuit of happiness.’

Laws surrounding billboard advertising make for an especially tricky situation…

In any case, there’s a good reason businesses usually avoid promoting divisive political agendas, and here we see why.

Posted by: phx8 at July 28, 2012 12:45 AM
Comment #349456

phx8

If the authorities allow other bordellos, they have no right to keep you out on the basis of your beliefs. Similarly, if Chicago bans all chicken restaurants, they can also ban this one. Otherwise they are acting illegally and tyrannous.

You are mixing up the general and the specific. Recall the prohibition against bills of attainder.

Being against gay marriage is not an illegal act. In fact, it is the law of the land since the Defense of Marriage Act.

Adrienne

“Absolutely. I’m a proud Progressive, so what else do you expect? People like me are always going to stand up against inequality and injustice, and be willing to fight on and on for the people getting shut out, or shat upon by the uptight, narrowminded religious (or wealthy-plutocratic) status quo.”

IF you believe this, you are on the wrong side here. In this case, it is we who are standing up against inequality and injustice and fighting for a person who is quite literally being shut out because of his beliefs.

Re feeling sorry for you - I am sincere. I used to be angry and hateful and I know that it hurts. But it is also seductive, so haters don’t want to give up their hate.

Re polls on gay marriage - so you believe that when a majority holds and opinion that must be true? And when a majority opposed gay marriage, what was that?

I personally favor gay marriage and have written such before it was the majority view. But I respect other opinions. I will argue in favor of my point of view, but I will not seek to punish those who disagree with me. In that I am different from you. IMO, better.

J2t2

Re Rahm making a point - he has no right to threaten the coercive power of the state to make a point about his like or dislike of particular points of view. If a cop stops you on the street and threatens to give you a ticket because he doesn’t like the sentiments on your bumper sticker, you obviously would think it okay if he then relents and tells you that he was just making a point.

Posted by: C&J at July 28, 2012 12:48 AM
Comment #349457

j2t2

Does a conservative mayor have the right to ban - or threaten to ban - Starbucks because executives have spoken out in favor or gay marriage?

Posted by: C&J at July 28, 2012 12:53 AM
Comment #349458
Similarly, if Chicago bans all chicken restaurants, they can also ban this one. Otherwise they are acting illegally and tyrannous.

If states can impose blue laws and county governments can impose the dry county bans on all liquor sales, then cities definitely have the right to ban any and all businesses who are clearly discriminating against workers and customers on the basis of things like race, religion, sex, pregnancy, and national origin.

Posted by: Adrienne at July 28, 2012 1:17 AM
Comment #349460

I wonder if the many Chik-fil-hate franchise owners are all in perfect agreement with the bigoted Dan Cathy? I guess it’s entirely possible that Cathy carefully screens every potential owner all about their religion, and their “sinfulness,” and on whether or not they agree with his anti-gay positions?

Because if they don’t agree with his highly public stance on gay discrimination, I imagine many franchise owners might now choose to sue Dan Cathy for shooting his mouth off and destroying their business due to the boycotts that have begun.

IF you believe this, you are on the wrong side here. In this case, it is we who are standing up against inequality and injustice and fighting for a person who is quite literally being shut out because of his beliefs.

Nope. You’re the one who is definitely on the wrong side here. What you’re doing by defending and trying to justify Mr. Chik-fil-hate’s pathetic position is much like defending and justifying separate water fountains for some people, or designating that some folks need to sit at back of the bus, movie theater etc., or not being able to eat at the lunch counter, etc.

Posted by: Adrienne at July 28, 2012 2:43 AM
Comment #349461

Have you guys heard of the ice cream shop in NYC called Big Gay Ice Cream? No I’m not kidding. Andrew Zimmern from the Travel Channel talked about what a great place this is for ice cream. Their logo is a rainbow colored ice cream cone. I guess that’s trendy, cutting edge and what’s “in” these days. Because it’s representing the gay community it’s more than ok, it’s highlighted on the Travel Channel. If you are a business that stands on the opposite side of the issue however, well free speech doesn’t apply to them and how dare they speak their minds. Free speech only applies if you’re pro-gay marriage…right?? Isn’t that what the amendment says?? Oh wait, it doesn’t?

Posted by: BAZ at July 28, 2012 3:43 AM
Comment #349464
Re Rahm making a point - he has no right to threaten the coercive power of the state to make a point about his like or dislike of particular points of view. If a cop stops you on the street and threatens to give you a ticket because he doesn’t like the sentiments on your bumper sticker, you obviously would think it okay if he then relents and tells you that he was just making a point.

A cop giving a ticket because he doesn’t like the bumper sticker on a vehicle has already crossed the line. Taking the ticket back just isn’t reality C&J, but if he did he still crossed the line.

Does a conservative mayor have the right to ban - or threaten to ban - Starbucks because executives have spoken out in favor or gay marriage?

C&J. Conservative politicians have made many, many threats without repercussions from those that agree with them. The opposition groups would have a field day, campaign funds and contributions to these groups would be collected and the spotlight would be on the Starbucks as it was built. In fact it would ensure that Starbucks was built in the mayor’s city. Just like Emanuals comments ensures Chick Fil A will be built in Chicago.

Just because someone is a politician does not mean they have given up their right to free speech. Should Emanual cross the line and actually stop the Chick Fil A company from building in Chicago, solely because of Cathy’s comment, then IMHO we can say “and it is absolute tyranny for them to interfere with a legal business in retaliation for the political beliefs of its owners.”.

Posted by: j2t2 at July 28, 2012 10:58 AM
Comment #349465

Adrienne

Mr. Caty can set the standards for the franchisee’s he wants. If you agree with him you can sign on. If you disagree with him, then you probably will not sign on. As far as customers are concerned, the company is come one come all.

The problem is phx8, j2t2 and Andrienne don’t understand what is going on here. They don’t have the ability to understand the spiritual side of what is happening here. Mr. Caty is doing what he believes is morally correct. You two disagree. Your statements carry you beyond what is logical. As Bobby Blue Bland would sing, “I Pity the Fool”.

Maranatha

Posted by: tom humes at July 28, 2012 11:01 AM
Comment #349466

This proves that it’s not smart business for a business to be involved in a political issue that does not affect their business.

As a business, if a political issue is about zoning law, taxation, etc. then it makes sense to come out in support of or against such issue.

But gay marriage? What has that to do with Chick-fil-A? Do gays not eat chicken?

I don’t condone what Boston and Chicago are doing.

However, speaking as a business owner, Chick-fil-A is just plain dumb for getting involved in an issue that does not affect their business.

Posted by: Joseph Ragsdale at July 28, 2012 11:03 AM
Comment #349468

There are many special leather-based fashion handbags available; nonetheless not all of them possess a comparable quality. Leather-based fashion handbag range, centered upon that produces the true bags to what the substance is planned out of. Getting acceptable handbags is essential in picking your wardrobe.

Posted by: Finding the Best Fashion Handbag at July 28, 2012 11:49 AM
Comment #349480

Adrienne

Why do you think the mayors in Chicago & Boston backed down and why do you think even the venerable liberal ACLU backed Chick-fil-A? If you cannot draw the conclusion, I will do it for you. Because it is illegal.


There is no indication that Chick-fil-A discriminates illegally in its hiring or business practices. If just being against gay marriage is a evidence, then president Obama was discriminating until recently when his views “evolved” to fit his political needs.

This issue was a sucker punch. I knew some of you guys would jump into the trap and I even predicted the way you would do it. I wanted to get you to reveal your regressive views and it worked. I will continue to enjoy letting this go on as long as you are willing to cooperate, but in the spirit of sportsmanship, I am willing to disengage if you are.

Re defending Mr Cathy’s “pathetic position” that I am not doing. I am defending his right to free speech. In fact, in my prediction of how you all would handle this debate, I specifically mentioned how you would try to change the terms of the debate to make it about gay marriage.

Many have called me arrogant on this blog, but don’t I have the right to be a little pleased at how well I can channel opponents. And it work even when I tell them what I am doing?

J2t2

Read my statement - I said THREATENS a ticket, which makes the case parallel to the Boston-Chicago fiasco.

“Just because someone is a politician does not mean they have given up their right to free speech.” It means they do NOT have the right to invoke the power of their office for their personal beliefs.

You and some others here have really staked out some seriously tyrannous positions. While I take some satisfaction in having gotten you to reveal them, I think it is deeply troubling that someone like you would disregard the rule of law in favor of letting political leaders openly use state power to further their personal agendas.

And as we all know, the Mayors backed down because they realized they overstepped. Yet you continue to defend the redoubts they abandoned as indefensible.

Joseph Ragsdale

As a business owner, he may be doing the dumb thing, or at least not the expedient things. But sometimes people do things because they think they are right, not in order to make more money. This is admirable, even if you disagree with the comments or the person making them.

Posted by: C&J at July 28, 2012 12:04 PM
Comment #349481

C&J…enjoyed the trap you set and liberals sprung. Thanks for the fun and consequent revelation of what libs really believe about our constitutional rights, versus their desires.

I live in a dry county in Texas. I have no problem with that and would have no problem if our citizens voted to allow liquor stores. Neighboring counties allow liquor stores and I am fine with that.

However, if my county allowed only those liquor store owners to establish business here who met certain political criteria I would be angry indeed.

Those who would ban certain establishments selling chicken, or anything else, because they disagree with the owners political thoughts are truly tyrannical.

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 28, 2012 12:55 PM
Comment #349484

Joseph Ragsdale: “However, speaking as a business owner, Chick-fil-A is just plain dumb for getting involved in an issue that does not affect their business.”

Hating homosexuality publicly, organizationally, and financially is what the good folks at American Family Association call being Neutral in the Culture War. Note that AFA boycotts Home Depot for
not being similarly neutral.

Chick-fil-A is just one more part in the machinery of the American radical Christian right. The majority of Americans are and always have been Christian but that’s not enough for these folks. They use folks like David Barton to revise history to line up with their narrow and insane ideology, elected leaders like Michelle Bachmann to spread fear of other religions or peoples, and businesses like Chick-fil-A or groups like the Boy Scouts to make public stances against things like homosexuality.

The whole point of this is to maintain a constant level of public outrage and resentment and to dupe folks into taking action to further a right wing agenda.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at July 28, 2012 3:08 PM
Comment #349486

I find this post very interesting and I find the left most intolerant of Christian beliefs I also noted that those on the left defend the Muslim’s right to build places of worship in any city; even in NY at the 9/11 ground zero. I’m sure if I left it at this, many liberals would blast me or any other person for even thinking about blocking Muslims from building Mosques in any city.

However, the main reason for attacking Chick-fil-A seems to be because the owner of the corporation has religious convictions against homosexuality. Because of his religious convictions, he has been personally attacked as someone who is less than human, and told he has no right of free speech. Some of the comments on this site, by those on the left, are completely intolerant.

Now to my point; Islam is totally against homosexuality. They consider it to be an abomination before Allah; and in many countries the penalty for homosexuality is death. In January, 2011, Said Jazari was captured entering the US from Mexico. He was the former Imam at a Wahabbi mosque in Montreal, Canada. He was deported from Canada in 2007 for inciting civil unrest and other charges. Jazari’s stand on homosexuality was that He also advocated stoning of homosexuals, whom he branded diseased.

I bring Jazari up only to show a point; he was an Imam, and only one of many Imams in America. Is Jazari a single incident, or is his intolerance of homosexuals symbolic of all Islamic Imams? Since the Islamic faith considers homosexuality a sin, should Islamic Mosques be allowed to build in America’s cities? Or should they be told they can’t build because they are intolerant of homosexuals? I would be willing to bet that there are no Mayors who would say the same things about Muslims as they have about Christians.

Posted by: ACLU at July 28, 2012 4:20 PM
Comment #349490

I’m not sure why you can’t tell the difference between a business that serves people of all religions and hires people and a church (Mosque).

Have you heard of anyone blocking Christian churches from being built? If no one is trying to block a Christian church, who thinks (wrongfully) that homosexuality is a sin, why should we be blocking Mosques, who think (wrongfully) that homosexuality is a sin as well?

Posted by: Rhinehold at July 28, 2012 5:45 PM
Comment #349492

RF,

“However, if my county allowed only those liquor store owners to establish business here who met certain political criteria I would be angry indeed.”

This is totally anecdotal, but…

In the late ’90s I worked a show in Richardson Texas. The crew was put up in Richardson, part of which is in Dallas County, which is wet.
After the set up my tech and I decided to have a steak dinner. Just across the county line in Plano there was a “Steak and Ale”. The “ale” part was misleading as we were told that they couldn’t serve us a beer as Collins County, where Plano is located is a dry county.
We were told that had we a “Licence” apparently available if we were staying at a hotel in Collins County, they could serve us.

Seems to me this is working both ways…

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at July 28, 2012 8:17 PM
Comment #349493

Rocky

Can you email me at tomhumes3050@yahoo.com? This is a totally unrelated matter and having to do with your type of business. Thanks

Tom Humes

Posted by: tom humes at July 28, 2012 8:24 PM
Comment #349497

Rocky

Seems that your problem was solved in a Plano way.

Posted by: C&J at July 28, 2012 10:10 PM
Comment #349499

C&J,

Actually the upshot of the story is that we didn’t get any beer with our meal because our hotel was in Dallas County.

No beer for you.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at July 28, 2012 10:56 PM
Comment #349500
If you are a business that stands on the opposite side of the issue however,

Let’s be clear: the opposite side of the issue is denying people their full civil and legal rights in America.

well free speech doesn’t apply to them and how dare they speak their minds. Free speech only applies if you’re pro-gay marriage…right??

This is not a free speech issue. Mr. Chik-fil-hate freely spoke his mind — and drew national attention to the fact that his business has been discriminating against gay people for years on the basis of religion and sex. By linking gay discrimination and his anti-gay political-religious opinions, the entire chain of fast food restaurants will now suffer the consequences which come as a result of what he said and does. I suspect he will now be frequently sued, by franchise owners and employees, and the business will lose many customers and potential customers.

The problem is phx8, j2t2 and Andrienne don’t understand what is going on here. They don’t have the ability to understand the spiritual side of what is happening here. Mr. Caty is doing what he believes is morally correct.

All of you Fascist Phony-Christians can try to dress up your discrimination as a “spiritual” act, but it’s nothing but lipstick on a pig. No matter how discrimination has ever tried to be justified in America it’s always been just plain-old discrimination and eventually it loses out to the idea of Liberty and Justice for All.

Your statements carry you beyond what is logical.

Phony-Christian arguments are all so incredibly weak. It’s idiocy to claim there is something spiritual about intolerance, and idiocy to believe your religion trumps the idea of Equality For All Americans.

However, speaking as a business owner, Chick-fil-A is just plain dumb for getting involved in an issue that does not affect their business.

It is incredibly dumb — but Religious Fanatics have never been known for being brilliant.

There is no indication that Chick-fil-A discriminates illegally in its hiring or business practices.

You’re lying. There have already been twelve documented court cases brought against Chik-fil-hate’s discriminatory business practices. There are likely many others that have been settled out of court. Just recently another (ongoing) case was brought against Chik-fil-hate by a woman who was fired after receiving job evaluations that were all satisfactory and above. The reason she was fired? Because the franchise owner where she worked told her he wanted her to be “a stay at home mom.”
No doubt you’ll keep denying as you always do in the face of the facts, but there is a clear, well established pattern of sexual and religious discrimination at Chik-fil-hate.

I am defending his right to free speech. In fact, in my prediction of how you all would handle this debate, I specifically mentioned how you would try to change the terms of the debate to make it about gay marriage.

I haven’t changed the terms of the debate at all. Your Mr. Chik-fil-hate’s free speech comments WERE all about gays and gay marriage, and how proud he is to have been giving millions of dollars to organizations that work to deny gay Americans their full civil and legal rights.

Why do you think the mayors in Chicago & Boston backed down and why do you think even the venerable liberal ACLU backed Chick-fil-A? If you cannot draw the conclusion, I will do it for you. Because it is illegal.

Nope, it’s not illegal. It doesn’t matter whether the mayors of Chicago and Boston backed down from their position or not. And it doesn’t matter that the ACLU once again came out in defense of another person’s right to free speech. Those mayors could definitely have blocked Chik-fil-hate in a legal way if they were determined to do so.
City governments in the U.S. have been and are able to legally block all kinds of businesses that they don’t want opening up in their cities.
I know this because I live in Berkeley, and our mayor and city council members have been able to legally block all kinds of stores from opening here. For instance, Berkeley has been able to legally limit the number of fast food outlets and liquor stores that can open in this city, and they’ve legally blocked big box stores entirely. Recently they legally blocked a discount cigarette store from opening. This city also has no strip clubs, so I’m willing to bet that has been somehow legally blocked as well.
Mayors do have the ability to keep things they consider harmful and undesirable out — all they need are few good lawyers advising them of how to go about getting it done.

This issue was a sucker punch.

Don’t flatter yourself. There is nothing unexpected about the way people on the right habitually defend religious fascism and intolerance.

I knew some of you guys would jump into the trap and I even predicted the way you would do it.I wanted to get you to reveal your regressive views and it worked.

LOL. Trap? The entire premise of your article was a sham. Mr. Chik-fil-hate’s free speech was never under attack. He had the freedom to say all the disgusting, intolerant and self-righteous religous crap that he wanted to say, and in the process exposed to many people who didn’t know previously that he’s a weird guy, who runs a weird corporation that has made discrimination a part of doing business for many, many years.
It was his free choice to do that, and while a small number of people who share his religious fanaticism may be applauding him for it, it’s also a fact that he’s permanently lost a whole lot of customers, and permanently ruined his brand name.
No one who is gay, or who has a friend or family member who is gay will ever want to give Chik-fil-hate another nickle, since they’ll now know that if they do, it only helps fund campaigns that further intolerance and hatred against people they love and care about.

Posted by: Adrienne at July 29, 2012 12:38 AM
Comment #349501

Adrienne

Your analysis is just plain biased and bigoted.

You state that you do exactly what you charge others with.

Do you believe that a business who deals with the public is bigoted and biased because they refuse to hire a known rapist?

Do you believe that a kindergarten school is bigoted and biased because the school refuses to hire a child predator?

The questions could continue on to assertain what it is you believe in exactly. But the point can be made here with just these two questions.

A business should be able to hire who they think will do the best job they can. They have a right to set the standards on who should be hired. Nobody else has a right to set those standards.

Maranatha

Posted by: tom humes at July 29, 2012 12:58 AM
Comment #349502

Adrienne

“There have already been twelve documented court cases brought against Chik-fil-hate’s discriminatory business practices.”

You need to document this.

There is evidence that this is a lie.

“We’ve found that since 1988 there have been a dozen lawsuits against Chick-Fil-A or its operators alleging employment discrimination
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which handles discrimination claims told CNBC that being uncomfortable isn’t enough to constitute unlawful harassment.”You’re talking about conduct that is hostile and demeaning and is so severe and pervasive that reasonable people would think ‘ooh, this creates a hostile environment,” said EEOC Assistant Legal Counsel Diana Johnston.
The EEOC has not filed any formal complaints against Chick-Fil-A.”

http://m.cnbc.com/us_news/22114420

Maranatha

Posted by: tom humes at July 29, 2012 1:32 AM
Comment #349504
Your analysis is just plain biased

Sure, biased toward full civil and legal rights for every American.

and bigoted.

I am bigoted against religious intolerance, yes indeed. I think it’s complete insanity. Gay people don’t pose any threat to your existence, life, lifestyle, or beliefs or religion but you crazily act as though they do, and then actively seek to persecute them and deny them rights. It’s clearly nothing but hate, and you aren’t fooling any logical or sensible person by trying to slap a religious label on it.
Jesus said love thy neighbor as you love yourself. He didn’t say love thy neighbor as long as they’re exactly like you. Jesus said if someone offends you to turn the other cheek, not raise millions and millions of dollars to spend on demonizing people and denying them equal rights. Jesus said do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Would you want to be denied rights and demonized and persecuted because of the person you love?
Jesus also said: You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes nor figs from thistles. So every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit. People who claim to be religious but act like thorns and thistles toward gay people are bad fruit.
All of you small minded, small hearted gay haters are clearly Phony-Christians who have never taken any lessons from those bibles you’re constantly thumping.


Do you believe that a business who deals with the public is bigoted and biased because they refuse to hire a known rapist?

Do you believe that a kindergarten school is bigoted and biased because the school refuses to hire a child predator?

I’ve been talking about gay people and so called Christians discrimination and mistreatment of these people. You’re demonizing them by attempting to compare them to rapists and pedophiles — which is completely insane.

The questions could continue on to assertain what it is you believe in exactly. But the point can be made here with just these two questions.

What I believe is that gay people have always existed and that being gay is as normal as being straight. What I also believe is that all human beings deserve to be treated with respect and kindness and generosity. Your two questions show what you believe — that you judge gay people as subhuman and dangerous and criminal.


A business should be able to hire who they think will do the best job they can. They have a right to set the standards on who should be hired. Nobody else has a right to set those standards.

Sorry, but civil rights laws have been passed to protect people from exactly the kind of discrimination that Phony-Christian gay haters display. Businesses can be sued for discriminatory hiring practices and mistreating workers on the job — as demonstrated by the dozen-plus times that the bigoted Mr. Chik-fil-hate has already been taken to court.

You need to document this.

I’ll repeat what I already said to Jack: the twelve court cases were mentioned in the Forbes article I posted earlier, and they give some details about a few of the cases. If you believe they’re making all that up out of whole cloth, you can go take it up with Forbes.
As for the recent court case, here’s a link which includes a link to the lawsuit:
Brenda Honeycutt, Former Chick-Fil-A Employee, Sues Restaurant Over Gender Discrimination

Posted by: Adrienne at July 29, 2012 3:01 AM
Comment #349505

Adrienne…it hsd been said in here before that those steeped in biblical teachings and upbringings, pride in their holier-than-thou attitudes and self descriptions are only one-dimensional. They are only that way in thier own minds, because they can and do, spew the most hate-filled, vile and repugnant crap toward anyone not mimicking their beliefs. It is disgusting to listen to and read their beliefs Just imagine what the world would be like if we were all to be that “loving and caring”…… No thanks ! I’ll take my chances without that.

Posted by: jane doe at July 29, 2012 4:22 AM
Comment #349508

Adrienne

A dozen cases since 1988 is an excellent record. Employees often feel that they are treated unfairly. Sometimes they are. C of C&J works in HR and sees them all the time. Some employees file complaints every year, against different supervisors and co-workers. Every one needs to be taken seriously, but you wonder about people who seem to have trouble wherever they go.

A manager has lots of chances to make mistakes even when he/she is acting legally and ethically. I had a case recently where an employee was going through a nasty divorce. It was affecting her work a little. She came to me and told me more than I wanted to know. I tried to be supportive and told her to take the time she needed to resolve her issues. This is fraught with HR danger. If I ignore the problem, and note her falling productivity, it is unfair. If I pay attention to her problem and cut her some slack to fix it, it is unfair. Management means making decisions and all of them are unfair by some points of view.

I have had/have gay employees. I don’t care about someone’s sexual orientation. I care about the job they do. But some people consider this unfair. If I assign duties w/o regard to this, I may be putting the gay employee in uncomfortable situations. If I assign duties with regard to this, I may be discriminating. Again, there is no safe decision.

What about “dangerous jobs”. If we need something done in a “bad neighborhood” who do we send? Many people have reasons not to go, so do I end up sending only the big-fearless guy. What if I send the fearless woman who is then assaulted? A big question is what is a “bad neighborhood and is our definition biased? The definition sometimes becomes clear only after the fact. You cannot make an uncontroversial decision. That is one reason the boss gets the big bucks.

My old fashioned idea that you come to work to do a job is considered retrograde by many. I am asked to assign people work that they have shown themselves unable to perform because it is “their turn.”

I am not trying to make the personal attack her, but my guess is that you have not been in positions to make these sorts of decisions very often. It is impossible to explain management to those who have not had to do it. I didn’t understand any of these things before I had the experience and I am still learning that things are not what they seem. Ironically, my confidence was higher when I was less experienced and had more “book learning”. The instruction books make it look easy and the policies are clear until you try to use them.

The bottom line is that if you find a few dozen cases in a twenty year period in a big chain, it really doesn’t indicate anything except that they are in business and that they work with people.

Posted by: C&J at July 29, 2012 7:59 AM
Comment #349523

Jane, me too!

Jack,
The record only shows the dozen discrimination cases that ended up in court, not how many the corporation has settled out of court.

I know you like to talk about yourself, but none of what you just related has anything at all to do with this topic.

Chik-fil-hate operates fast food restaurants. They screen their franchise owners and employees through a fanatical-religious lens and forces them to attend evangelical prayer meetings and retreats. Chik-fil-hate goes out of it’s way to denounce gay people and gives millions and millions of dollars to anti-gay organizations that actively demonize people and works to deny gay people their civil and legal rights. Chik-fil-hate owners aren’t above not allowing their female employees to advance, or fires them despite receiving nothing but satisfactory job evaluations because they thought it would be better for them to stop working and be stay-at-home mothers.

Does this sound like it has anything to do with your management style? If not, you’ve gone completely off topic.

I am not trying to make the personal attack her, but my guess is that you have not been in positions to make these sorts of decisions very often. It is impossible to explain management to those who have not had to do it.

And once again you’d be wrong. But it’s clear that the whole point of such remarks is to not address the actual topic, but to instead ignore a real and serious problem with the side benefit of being able to puff yourself up with your own self-importance.

Posted by: Adrienne at July 29, 2012 2:24 PM
Comment #349524

Adrienne writes; “All of you small minded, small hearted gay haters are clearly Phony-Christians who have never taken any lessons from those bibles you’re constantly thumping.”

It is unfortunate you have such a limited understanding of Christians. I don’t believe there is a single Christian writing on WB that hates anyone because they are gay. We believe their practice of gay relationships as being against what the bible teaches. It is entirely possible for a Christian to love the sinner while hating the sin. It is possible for a Christian to love liberals also while hating the political values they espouse.

My church has a married gay bishop with a same-sex partner and we will soon have a blesssing of same-sex unions. While we don’t yet call it a marriage, it is recognized.

I have not left this church yet I disagree with some of its actions. Many Christians are not being blindly led by their leaders and make decisions of faith based upon their own understanding. I wish the same could be said for some practicing liberals.

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 29, 2012 3:41 PM
Comment #349528


Adrienne

“forces them to attend evangelical prayer meetings and retreats.”

That is a lie from the pit of hell. They are not forced to go to retreats nor to attend prayer meetings.

Whereever you got that garbage is a story made up to incite what ever fringe they are targeting.

You should double check your “sources”.

Maranatha

Posted by: tom humes at July 29, 2012 4:50 PM
Comment #349529
It is unfortunate you have such a limited understanding of Christians.

It is unfortunate that Christians think their religion is more important that equal civil and legal rights for all Americans.

I don’t believe there is a single Christian writing on WB that hates anyone because they are gay. We believe their practice of gay relationships as being against what the bible teaches.

Anyone who seeks to deny full civil and legal rights to gay people hates gay people. Slapping the religious label on discrimination doesn’t paper over the hate that would have to be felt to support and enforce such discrimination.

It is entirely possible for a Christian to love the sinner while hating the sin.

Your opinions on what does and does not constitute sin is entirely your own affair, and no one is trying to force being gay, or gay marriage on anyone. This isn’t a religious issue at all.
It’s an issue of equal rights in a nation whose founding declaration stated that all are equal in America, and that all have unalienable rights to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. A nation whose Constitution stated that this nation would establish justice and ensure the blessings of Liberty. It’s about the separation of church and state, so that We the People will all have the freedom to think, and live, and love as we choose without others trying to punish us for our beliefs or for who we are, or for who we love.

It is possible for a Christian to love liberals also while hating the political values they espouse.

No doubt the same is true for liberal Christians to hate the political values of conservatives — to hate the bigotry and intolerance that they constantly display as well.

But Christian values are beside the point.
Freedom and Equality of all our citizens is the entire point.

If everything is allowed to be about religion, that means this nation is sure to become a nation just like Northern Ireland — with rampant discrimination allowed to hold sway everywhere. With constant violent battles being pitched over competing tribes and religious ideals, and allowing ugly dissension to enter every sphere of public and political life.
My own grandfather left Scotland in order to flee discrimination. He wanted to come to this nation because once upon a time in America religion wasn’t being constantly injected into every aspect of life, and work, and government. In contrast he was once a Catholic surrounded by Calvinist Protestants who thought they were free to discriminate, and control everything, and shut people with his Catholic background (he wasn’t even religious!) out of equal opportunities and fair treatment because people of that religion were in the majority.

America isn’t supposed to be about that kind of crap. It’s supposed be about Human Freedom. That fact automatically entails us to show tolerance for every other person who doesn’t happen to agree with our personal views and beliefs. In fact, it is a vital necessity. Discrimination and inequality has no place in this nation, because it goes against literally everything we’re supposed to stand for. Religous fanatics like Mr. Chik-fil-hate and far too many others are clearly too stupid or selfish to grasp this very basic fact.

Posted by: Adrienne at July 29, 2012 5:08 PM
Comment #349530

Tom, I see you STILL haven’t read that Forbes article. It’s there. It’s true.

Posted by: Adrienne at July 29, 2012 5:09 PM
Comment #349531

I will take Mr. Caty’s statement before Forbes.

Maranatha

Posted by: tom humes at July 29, 2012 5:16 PM
Comment #349532

Adrienne, you write as though you believe what Chick Fil A has said is illegal or that its practices are illegal. They are not. Just because you believe they should be doesn’t make it so in this land.

I know you can not imagine having any higher power than government but many of us can and do. Our founders proclaimed that those unalienable rights to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness you cherish came from God, not from men.

You are free to believe in God or not…however our founders did and you can’t change that no matter how hard you try. I follow what God desires as found in my bible. He clearly does not want homosexuality. You may disagree, but you only have your own belief to back it up. I have a much higher authority.

You write…”But Christian values are beside the point.” For you, yes…for me, they are the point.

As an atheist and a liberal I am certain you can’t possibly understand why I place God above government. Just accept that I, and millions like me do; as did our founders.

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 29, 2012 5:33 PM
Comment #349534
I will take Mr. Caty’s statement before Forbes.

His name is Cathy, not Caty, and here’s what his own bio page says about their religious retreats::

In 2003, Truett helped his son and daughter-in-law, Bubba and Cindy, celebrate the opening of WinShape RetreatSM, a high-end retreat and conference facility also located on the Mountain Campus of Berry College. This multi-use facility hosts marriage-enrichment retreats, along with business and church-related conferences, and in summer months, houses WinShape Camp for girls.

Gay people aren’t allowed to attend Chik-fil-hate religious retreats:
gay couples are not welcome to the latest Chick-fil-A-sponsored retreat. One of the emails said, “WinShape Retreat defines marriage from the Biblical standard as being between one man and one woman. Groups/individuals are welcome who offer wholesome, educational conferences and programs that are compatible with Biblical values and WinShape’s purposes.”

The email chain went on to conclude: “We do not accept homosexual couples because of the statement in our contract.”

On the topic of Chik-fil-hate’s mandatory christian prayer meetings:

He says he was fired from his job at a Houston Chick-fil-A restaurant a day after he refused to pray to Jesus Christ during a training session in November 2000.

The lawsuit filed Monday said that an evaluation prepared a week before his firing praised Latif as a “great manager” who knew the “operation side of the business very well.”

Royal Flush,
Your comments prove that you are a gay-hating Phony-Christian who doesn’t appreciate or understand what it actually means to be an American.

Posted by: Adrienne at July 29, 2012 6:12 PM
Comment #349535

Royal Flush, Your comments prove that you are a gay-hating Phony-Christian who doesn’t appreciate or understand what it actually means to be an American.
Posted by: Adrienne at July 29, 2012 6

Weak…very weak. I guess when you have no rebuttal a simple defamation of my character will suffice.

By the way, I don’t hate atheists either. For them I am just sad that all they have to believe in is government. I suspect that is why they want more of it.

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 29, 2012 6:26 PM
Comment #349536

Adrienne provided a link which she prefaced by writing…”On the topic of Chik-fil-hate’s mandatory christian prayer meetings.”

The article says this alleged discrimination occurred in Nov 2000. Hmmm…it only took 12 years for this dude to file suit. Strange…rather strange. I would remind Adrienne that filing a lawsuit proves nothing. Does Adrienne have any other “proof” of discrimination she wishes us to read?

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 29, 2012 6:41 PM
Comment #349538
I guess when you have no rebuttal a simple defamation of my character will suffice.

You gave me no choice but to comment on your character — all you offer is a bunch of your personal views, opinions and beliefs. None of which are not backed up in any way, shape, or form by what the founders used as the basis of American government or ideals.

Christians don’t OWN this country. America, and American government is not yours to utterly control, and We the People are also not yours to utterly control. Unfortunately none of you authoritarian religious fanatics seem to understand this basic fact.

Does Adrienne have any other “proof” of discrimination she wishes us to read?

I think I’ve provided enough proof of Chik-fil-hate’s Fascistic-Phony-Christian business practices that anyone with a firm grasp on logic and common sense could comprehend.

Posted by: Adrienne at July 29, 2012 7:01 PM
Comment #349553

It is rather strange that Adrienne is so supportive of Sodomy. And I am all those words that she claims describe me as a Christian. The whole issue has become convoluted by Adrienne by supporting Sodomy and calling me all those names that do not fit. For Shame.

Maranatha

P.S. You have not given one iota of proof of your claims. You are very good at reading those gross manipulations of language that you feel you must relay as if it is revelation.

Posted by: tom humes at July 29, 2012 8:32 PM
Comment #349556

Adrienne

I bring up experience because people w/o it tend to talk as you do. If you have extensive management experience, frankly I am surprised. But if you have worked long in management, have you never faced a situation where any of the choices you could make would cause trouble for you or someone in your organization? Have you never had a poor performing employee who blamed everyone but himself/herself for the negative outcomes?

I draw on personal experience here to try to understand the situation. I am sorry if that bothers you. But when talking about management you have two sources: learning from books and learning from experience. You need some of both.

When you mention twelve complaints in more than two decades in a firm that employs thousands of semi-skilled workers at relatively low wages, it seems fairly trivial. In your extensive experience in management, have you never pissed anybody off?

Let me tell you that if you expressed the attitudes toward Christians openly in a workplace, you would indeed be highly vulnerable to a lawsuit. So as a manager, you must be much more circumspect.

Posted by: C&J at July 29, 2012 8:59 PM
Comment #349557
But if you have worked long in management, have you never faced a situation where any of the choices you could make would cause trouble for you or someone in your organization?

You’re talking about the garden-variety daily trials and tribulations of managing a business. I’m talking about a business that has INSTITUTIONALIZED DISCRIMINATION as a regular part of hiring, and running their entire corporation. Big, big difference.

I couldn’t continue to work for any company where I’d be expected to consider institutionalized religious or sexual discrimination to be just an aspect of the daily routine at work I have to put up with. I couldn’t continue to work for a company that would require me, whether as part of management, or in any other capacity to put up with religious proselytising/harrassment as a part of doing my job. I couldn’t continue to work for any company that would expect or force me to go to prayer meetings or religious retreats in order to do my job, keep my job, or in order to advance within the company.

Companies who do all of the above deserve to be sued by their employees. Chik-fil-hate is very clearly one such company.

Let me tell you that if you expressed the attitudes toward Christians openly

Religion or lack of religion is a strictly private and personal matter — therefore it’s something that should not become an issue or a problem in the workplace at all — period. Someone wants to wear their religious symbol, whether a cross, star of david, allah pendant, etc. — that’s fine. A person wants to read their bible, torah, koran, etc. or say prayers (silently) on their break or during lunchtime — fine. They want to start judging people based on religion, or lack of religion, or try to start airing their views on religion and/or non-theism while at work — NOT FINE, and NOT ALLOWED. That’s something people have plenty of time to do on their own time, not while on company time.

Posted by: Adrienne at July 29, 2012 9:50 PM
Comment #349562

Adrienne offers much rhetoric. Has she ever sat in a board meeting in a company that has over 1300 stores? Your opinions are just that. They are not fact nor truth. Your comments above have shown much opinion. That is fine if it is just opinion, but don’t blow smoke and try to be influencial in trying to make your opinion truth or factual.

Posted by: tom humes at July 29, 2012 10:55 PM
Comment #349565

Adrienne

“INSTITUTIONALIZED DISCRIMINATION” a dozen cases in more almost twenty five years. Chick-fil-A has 1450 stores with thousands of employees. 12 cases, one less than one every two years, is a nearly perfect record. That must be something like one in 100,000 employees once every two and a half years. And how many of these complaints have been sustained by arbitrators.

Some employees complain and lie about their bosses. When I became manager of more people than I could know well personally, I was surprised and at some of the false stories I would hear about myself. Not all were bad, BTW. I got credit for being a lot smarter than I was and blame for being a lot meaner. People like to look for bigger reasons for things than might be there. In my experience, most of the complaint are just griping and many others are lies or misunderstandings.

Posted by: C&J at July 30, 2012 12:09 AM
Comment #349567
Some employees complain and lie about their bosses.

Jack, You keep going around and around in avoidance of the actual topic here. Institutionalized discrimination against gay people is the topic. There’s no “LIE” in saying that Mr. Chik-fil-hate is a person who hates gay people. He made himself very clear with his recent remarks, just like he’s been clear on that fact by donating millions and millions of dollars to the most loathsome of gay-hater organizations that are out there working to suppress their civil and legal rights.

But I can see you really, really don’t want to talk about that — so I guess we’re done here.

tom humes,
Come now — you and I both know you’re not interested in facts or truth. Over and over you tell me I lie, and when I provide you with solid proof to the contrary, you simply choose to ignore it. Face it — you just love being an Air-headed Cheerleader and Mean Girl for the Christian Fascists.

Posted by: Adrienne at July 30, 2012 1:17 AM
Comment #349571

Adrienne

He is not in favor of gay marriage. That is not the same as hating gay people, except in your mind. You are against many parts of Christianity. Yet I accept your word that you do not hate Christians.

Most of us can make such distinctions.

Re Chick-fil-A - a small number of complaints does not mean that there is a pattern. You claim to have management experience. Such a person would understand that complaints are part of the work and a dozen complaints over more than twenty years is a good record.

Let me to perfectly honest. I know it may sound personal, but it really surprises me that you have management experience. You mean a couple of people maybe in a swing position, right? I can tell people like j2t2 and phx8 have more experience, even when they disagree with me. But your comments on this issue are hard to understand.

Posted by: C&J at July 30, 2012 7:30 AM
Comment #349575
Read my statement - I said THREATENS a ticket, which makes the case parallel to the Boston-Chicago fiasco.

C&J I thought what Emanual did was state the position of the people he represents. He is mayor and he believes the people of Chicago, as a whole, are against the bigotry of the owner of the restaurant. This isn’t the same thing as a police threatening me over a bumper sticker.

“Just because someone is a politician does not mean they have given up their right to free speech.” It means they do NOT have the right to invoke the power of their office for their personal beliefs.

What incantations are you referring to C&J? If he is representing the people of Chicago then it isn’t his personal opinion. What powers did he invoke?

You and some others here have really staked out some seriously tyrannous positions. While I take some satisfaction in having gotten you to reveal them, I think it is deeply troubling that someone like you would disregard the rule of law in favor of letting political leaders openly use state power to further their personal agendas.

The little boy who cried wolf. That is what this reminds me of C&J. Seriously “seriously tyrannous positions”? Whilst you pat yourself on the back for outing us lets remember this was nothing more than a soap opera to gain attention for the causes supported by each of the players in this comedy. So I plead guilty at laughing at the soap opera you have created here. Lets call it much ado about …. oh never mind it’s taken. In the mean time C&J your rantings do a disservice to those that face real tyranny and real tyrants. Your exaggerations belittle those that have taken up arms to oppose real tyranny.

Which state power did he use C&J. All he did was use his free speech rights. No secret police, no detaining the man without bail. Nothing but talk. Is free speech the state power you refer to? What criminal act has he committed. Where are those on the front lines that defend us from just such atrocities? Have they charged him with use of tyrannical force as a Mayor?

And as we all know, the Mayors backed down because they realized they overstepped. Yet you continue to defend the redoubts they abandoned as indefensible.

Yes Emanuel did and the show is over. Only the conservative conspiracy theorist left to brag about outing liberal tyranny and claim victim status for the affront to the businessman who uses the bible as hammer on those he doesn’t agree with.

Unless of course the local DA, the state DA or the feds are going to look into criminal charges… oh wait, he didn’t do anything to pick up any charges yet he is a tyrant so rule of law is also an exaggeration….Seriously guys.

Posted by: j2t2 at July 30, 2012 12:10 PM
Comment #349585
He is not in favor of gay marriage. That is not the same as hating gay people, except in your mind.

No, the owner of Chik-fil-hate does hate gay people and wants to deny them their rights as Americans. He said as much in his recent interview that he was “guilty as charged” and he gives millions of dollars to express his hatred of gay people every single year.

As for discrimination against gays in his company, that’s a given and it is not up for debate. The twelve discrimination-based court cases are only one piece of the proof, (and no doubt many, many others have been settled out of court). There is more proof that discrimination is commonplace in the fact that his corporation makes it clear that they want married workers — as both franchise owners and employees. Why does that matter? Because he refuses to acknowledge gay couples as married. Ever. Gay couples also can’t come to his “religious marriage retreats” — not even allowed in the door.
Hence: Institutionalized discrimination against gay people is very clearly spelled out.

Again from the Forbes article:

Loyalty to the company isn’t the only thing that matters to Cathy, who wants married workers, believing they are more industrious and productive. One in three company operators have attended Christian-based relationship-building retreats through WinShape at Berry College in Mount Berry, Ga. The programs include classes on conflict resolution and communication. Family members of prospective operators—children, even—are frequently interviewed so Cathy and his family can learn more about job candidates and their relationships at home. “If a man can’t manage his own life, he can’t manage a business,” says Cathy, who says he would probably fire an employee or terminate an operator who “has been sinful or done something harmful to their family members.”

That article was written back in 2007. In that year at least one in three of his franchise owners was heterosexual, married, and Christian. I’d be willing to bet that number is a whole lot higher now. After all, this guy has really come all the way out of the closet now as a Phony-Christian Fascist Gay-Hater — nationally! He’s such a fanatic about it that he didn’t even care that this meant losing an enormous chunk of his profits; and not just for himself, but for all those hetero, married, Phony-Christian-retreat-attending franchise owners of his.

Aside from the anti-gay stance, the clear religious discrimination this corporation engages in isn’t up for debate either. They’re going out of their way to hire Phony-Christian extremists wherever possible, and they’re attempting to indoctrinate all of their other hires with all those prayer meetings and retreats. It’s not like they hide any of this either, so don’t even waste your time trying to claim there’s no proof!!!

Most of us can make such distinctions.

Well, since you can’t bring yourself to acknowledge any of the distinctions I have been trying to point out to you, and don’t seem able to draw any logical conclusions from the incredibly clear indicators that this is a company engaging in rampant discrimination — especially when they aren’t even trying to hide it — I think you’re really stupid. Or much more likely, simply being dishonest. Again.

I know it may sound personal

Blah, blah, blah. You have to spend so much time on the personal attacks because you can’t face the horrible truth. It’s really obvious that you decided from the beginning that you were going to defend this despicable Chicken-Nazi and that was that.

Posted by: Adrienne at July 30, 2012 4:06 PM
Comment #349587

Adrienne

Let me get this straight. You believe that all Christians are the way describe them over and over again.

You believe that an Assembly of God Church should open the doors to hiring a catholic priest.

You believe that your Forbes article is “gospel truth”.

You believe that “Phony-Christian Fascist Gay-Hater” is an accurate description of millions of Christians.

Is this the truth?

The problem is that whatever you want to call gay advocates is that you see them as the absolute right way to living and yet you curse the light of those who oppose it. You take the attitude that you fully understand millions of people’s minds and how they approach the problems of society. You do not have that ability as has nobody on earth. You evaluate things differently and consider yourself as “I am right, no matter what you think”. You have practiced the ultimate humanist by declaring that you are a god.

I’ll am still praying for you.

Maranatha

Posted by: tom humes at July 30, 2012 4:33 PM
Comment #349589
Let me get this straight. You believe that all Christians are the way describe them over and over again.

You don’t read. I explained why I call gay-haters Phony Christians above. When you ignore the words of Jesus but call yourselves Christians it’s FAKE PIETY.

You believe that an Assembly of God Church should open the doors to hiring a catholic priest.

This was never mentioned. It’s off topic. No answer.

You believe that your Forbes article is “gospel truth”.

Again, you don’t read. Or are you cognitively impaired? I gave you a link to Mr. Chik-fil-A-hole’s bio — which said exactly the same things as the Forbes article.

You believe that “Phony-Christian Fascist Gay-Hater” is an accurate description of millions of Christians.

Correct.

The problem is that whatever you want to call gay advocates is that you see them as the absolute right way to living and yet you curse the light of those who oppose it.

There’s no “light” in hate.

You take the attitude that you fully understand millions of people’s minds and how they approach the problems of society.

These millions can insist they are Christian but it’s a lie since they clearly aren’t following the philosophy of Jesus.
Hatred and discrimination isn’t an “approach” to solving societal problems, instead it is a major cause of those problems.

You do not have that ability as has nobody on earth.

Yes, I do. I see what these people do. I see how these people act. I use my brain and have the ability to understand exactly what’s going on — and it’s so ugly. It also has nothing whatsoever to do with Jesus. Nothing at all.

You evaluate things differently and consider yourself as “I am right, no matter what you think”.

I believe in equal rights for all in America, no matter what you hard-hearted Phony Christian-Fascists think.

You have practiced the ultimate humanist by declaring that you are a god.

Nope, I’m simply an American who fights against bigotry and predjudice.

I’ll am still praying for you.

Save it. I don’t want or need the fake piety of Phony-Christians.

Posted by: Adrienne at July 30, 2012 6:05 PM
Comment #349593

You have shown on your latest writting that you are full of hate. It does not take a rocket scientist to understand your mentality. You claim to know millions of people and their mindset. That is just plain dung.

Maranatha

Posted by: tom humes at July 30, 2012 7:19 PM
Comment #349594

Adrienne

I am defending free speech. I know that is something you claim to love but in fact abhor.

You get to decide who is “phoney Christians”?

Your “Christ” is is the kind of Christianity embodied in the Donatist movement in the early years of Christianity, of course w/o imposing its requirements on yourself. Like them, you set yourself up as the judge of Christian faith. You really have no right to do it.

It is interesting that you can tell what is in a person’s heart w/o ever meeting him.

Re what seems personal - I am just trying to understand you. I do not believe you have extensive management experience, given the way you react to things. This means I have to explain things to you in a different way and cannot appeal to experience.

But I do think you have well adopted the MBA slogan, “often wrong, but never in doubt.”

Posted by: C&J at July 30, 2012 7:33 PM
Comment #349595

Adrienne, I can’t add anything to the comments you’ve made, but I can encourage you to “stay the course” and not let the bunch of bigoted blowhards beat you down!
It absolutely never fails to amaze me that those who spew their deep-rooted Christianity and love of and for god, are the very same ones so filled with hate. Then of course, we have jack, with all his pomposity and bloated ego finding it so easy to proclaim all others’ inability to come close to his level of knowledge/and/or experience. And those coming in behind some of us old-timers trying to claim longevity and ownership gets old. Typical tactics of bullying get old to everyone after a while, and it shows with the loss of several different people who used to be frequent posters, but are now just occasional ones. Too bad…this used to be a fun place to come and have some good debates, but the old neighborhood is suffering from the new wave of haters who have been emboldened by the insurgence of the followers of tea party rifraf and big money controllers. Much the same as we are experiencing from the D C environment……. So, keep it coming because you aren’t getting lost among the rifraf….. ;)

Posted by: jane doe at July 30, 2012 7:58 PM
Comment #349596

It is a sad to read comments by an atheist condemning Christians for what is perceived to be their failings. A Christian understands that all humans sin…all of us. If we didn’t sin we wouldn’t need salvation through Christ.

Since an atheist doesn’t believe in God, who defines the atheist’s sins? Well…of course, they do, and they have none. For them, sin is only found in others, not themselves. They are exempt because they have neither ruler or rule book other than themselves and politicians. Their higher power is government, not God, so if government decrees an action sinful, or not sinful…it must be so.

Adrienne comes to us berating Christians who don’t act like she believes they should. She mistakes Christian Love as acceptance of what many Christians believe is abhorrent to God. We know this because an atheist has told us it is so.

She simply can not accept that some would wish to follow the God of the bible rather than the god of government despite that government being founded upon unalienable rights granted to us by the same God in which she doesn’t believe.

Adrienne argues that if one is a Christian, then one must accept sin as noble and enriching despite Christian teachings to the contrary. Why…because she says so.

In much the same way that SD argues what it is to be a good conservative, Adrienne argues what it is to be a good Christian. SD is not a conservative yet renders his thoughts on how we must act. Adrienne is not a Christian yet renders her thoughts on how we must act.

This is hypocrisy, plain a simple. Simply stated, both SD and Adrienne do not accept what we believe yet demand that what we believe must be modified to fit their conception of what we should believe. If not hypocrisy…then insanity.

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 30, 2012 8:04 PM
Comment #349602

Well what a surprise that it would be one of the biggest blowhards on here to respond first……not !!
It’s fine….take your best shot and then wait for all your followers to come to your support.
I don’t know who you feel has put you, or anyone else for that matter, in charge of how we feel and think. Nobody gives a rats’ patoodie who you believe in or pray to, or that you feel the need to live by an ancient tome that has been lost, found, read, interpreted, lost again and …..well, you get the picture….for eons! By the same token, you don’t have the right to tell us what we should read, or do or anything else. Nobody died and left you in charge of anything or anyone. Your entire behaviour and set of principles totally belies what you continuously try foisting off on some of us.
Get over yourself…

Posted by: jane doe at July 30, 2012 8:53 PM
Comment #349612

Thanks so much, Jane! That’s very nice to know. :^)

You have shown on your latest writting that you are full of hate.

What I am is completely filled with outrage by you so-called Christians who bleat on and on about gay marriage as though gay people having equal footing in the eyes of our government would somehow affect or spoil your supposedly “deep religious faith.” But that claim is a nonsensical pile of horseshit, and increasing numbers of American’s simply aren’t buying it. If gay folks were demanding that they must get married in your churches it would be another story, but that’s not the case. No, what this has to do with is not religious faith, but just plain old-fashioned Jim Crow-style hatred and discrimination — and it’s disgusting.

It does not take a rocket scientist to understand your mentality.

Of course it doesn’t. That’s because quality is a very simple and straightforward concept. Quite unlike the nonsense of so-called religious people claiming that gay marriage would somehow ruin “traditional marriage.”

You claim to know millions of people and their mindset.

Yup. The millions of Phony-Christians who clearly hate gay people and show it by supporting the kind of hate-filled regressive organizations that Mr. Chik-fil-a-hole gives millions of his dollars to.

I am defending free speech. I know that is something you claim to love but in fact abhor

Give it rest. Mr. Chik-fil-hate didn’t get hauled off to jail after making his comments. The man was able to freely and fully express the hatred he feels, and the discrimination he supports.

You get to decide who is “phoney Christians”?

Indeed — anyone can. One doesn’t need be a practicing Christian to be able to see and understand when people yammer on and on, professing their supposed deep faith, yet aren’t in any way following the philosophy of Jesus.
For instance, Jesus said: “Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s”
But that’s not something these Phony-Christians are willing to do, most especially when it comes to gay marriage and civil rights. Gay people want the right to be married in the eyes of our government, and enjoy the exact same civil and legal rights that straight people enjoy. But no, these Phony-Christians claim the right to control the things which are Caesar’s (government) — in spite of the fact that the majority of Americans no longer agree with their stance on gay marriage, and many don’t consider Christianity to be the Boss of America.

Your “Christ” is is the kind of Christianity embodied in the Donatist movement in the early years of Christianity, of course w/o imposing its req Like them, you set yourself up as the judge of Christian faith. You really have no right to do it.

It is interesting that you can tell what is in a person’s heart w/o ever meeting him.

Hilarious. Oh I have no right and how dare I say anything about the special sacred covenant that gives these Phony-Christians the authority to withhold the civil rights of gay people! Typical conservative lopsided response. What you’re saying is that whenever the oppressed (and their supporters) push back and chooses to not validate the bogus authority of the oppressor, it immediately becomes the oppressed (and their supporters) who must be considered hateful and non-tolerant. Rather like claiming that it’s the wife’s fault she got beat and not the wife beater…
It’s hogwash.

Re what seems personal

You know what seems personal to me, Jack? Watching as a huge number of my straight friends got married (and sometimes divorced) over the years, meanwhile some of my gay friends have been happily living together for 20, 25, even 30 years. Some them have even raised up beautiful, smart, well-mannered families full of children. And yet because of the small minded bigotry of Phony-Christians they can’t get married and celebrate their love for each other. Can’t be recognized by our government as worthy of the full civil and legal rights that my husband and I enjoy. That makes me so incredibly sick.

But I do think you have well adopted the MBA slogan, “often wrong, but never in doubt.”

I’m not wrong, nor in any doubt whatsoever on this issue.

Posted by: Adrienne at July 30, 2012 10:05 PM
Comment #349613

Adrienne

“Indeed — anyone can. One doesn’t need be a practicing Christian to be able to see and understand when people yammer on and on, professing their supposed deep faith, yet aren’t in any way following the philosophy of Jesus. “

You really have no idea what you are talking about. You may well argue political points, but your theology is as misinformed as your management theory. There just are more to most things than you can understand but understanding that is beyond your understanding.

But I refer you to your own statement - “I’m not wrong, nor in any doubt whatsoever on this issue.”

I won’t try to explain why I find this so interesting. Most of the other readers don’t need an explanation and it would be wasted on you. If you think about it a year or two maybe you will have some insights about how shallow understanding often leads to profound confidence.

But I am glad that there are liberals out there like you and I am happy to defend that right of free speech for you that you want to deny to others.

Posted by: C&J at July 30, 2012 10:44 PM
Comment #349639

Adrienne

You are flat out wrong. Sodomites do not have rights. Where you get these kinds of ideas are from perverted people who just want to justify their sinful choices. According to your “logic” pedophiles and rapists and murderers should have a right to do their individual “thing” to whoever and whenever.

Your closed minded pattern of thought about Christians is silly. You do not know very many Christians. Yes there are some who profess to be Christians, but are not. You lump everybody who professes to be a Christian into the category you have described. I cannot speak for others, and neither can you, but I am a Christian and I do not fit the billing you have given others. I know of others who I feel do not fit that description either. Again I cannot speak for them, but by their fruit ye shall know them.

You are just surfing and looking for a reason to confirm your beliefs which need a real examination. Your opinions are one thing and you can have those, but truth is truth and cannot be denied.

Maranatha

Posted by: tom humes at July 31, 2012 10:43 AM
Comment #349643

Liberals wish to reform conservatives and atheists wish to reform Christians. We certainly live in interesting times.

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 31, 2012 2:49 PM
Comment #349645

Royal Flush

2008 Marxist Obama. He wants to transform America.
Isn’t that like reforming America? Just comparin’

Don’t talk to ya much, but keep up the good work.

Maranatha

Posted by: tom humes at July 31, 2012 3:35 PM
Comment #349646

Royal Flush

2008 Marxist Obama. He wants to transform America.
Isn’t that like reforming America? Just comparin’

Don’t talk to ya much, but keep up the good work.

Maranatha

Posted by: tom humes at July 31, 2012 3:38 PM
Comment #349647

tom and flushed…..you are both a couple of the worst examples to be pawning yourself off as christians, all the time trying to convince us that you come close to being able to walk on water. You both are absolutely pathetic!
I would take 100 Adriennes over either one of you. Somewhere along the line most of you have gotten totally f-ed up about right and wrong, good and evil.
I’ll stick with what I have and have had all along….I can go to sleep at night and don’t have to watch over my shoulder…. You are both as full of hate and are so vindictive you just actually are a joke trying to convince anyone otherwise…..terrible advertisement for what you’re trying to sell…..

Posted by: jane doe at July 31, 2012 3:46 PM
Comment #349649

jane doe

“all the time trying to convince us that you come close to being able to walk on water.”

Where did you read that. You might have read that about some high up government official, but I have never, ever laid claim to that, nor have I even given thought to that.

The problem you people have is when you have run out of something to say, you fall back on the old run of the mill crap of hate, ya that’ll git em, they are full of hate. You don’t have any figment of any immagination of how I think or what my heart says.

Now my interpretation of your remarks are consistently full of hate. That is all that comes out of your long fingers on the keyboard. Hate this. Hate that. Hate Christians. Hate the tea party followers. Hate tom humes. Hate Royal Flush. Hate C&J. Hate bill of florida. Hate Frank.
And on it goes. You are paranoid about hate.

I will continue to pray for you also. Jesus really does love you.

Maranatha

Posted by: tom humes at July 31, 2012 4:57 PM
Comment #349651

God Bless you tom and keep writing.

Having an atheist criticize my Christian beliefs and practices means nothing to me since they have no understanding of either. One can not begin to understand what they deny exists. They sometimes speak of Christlike love and yet proudly proclaim their hatred for the very followers of Christ. Atheists tell us what they think our Christian values should be while denying even the existence of our Lord.

Attacks on Christianity and Christians here and abroad is not surprising considering the alluring trap of considering oneself as God with faith in nothing but themselves and politicians who feed their unholy appetites.

By discarding God they feel free to ignore God’s laws. With no moral compass to guide them, only man’s laws, these unfortunate souls are left wandering aimlessly in search of material happiness and hedonistic gratification. They live in the world and for the world with no thought of what follows their own human death.

Tom, join me in praying for these wretched creatures that God will find a way into their hardened hearts. May they experience His love for them.

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 31, 2012 5:06 PM
Comment #349655

Jack:

You really have no idea what you are talking about. You may well argue political points, but your theology is as misinformed as your management theory.

Yes, I know what I’m talking about — I was raised as a Christian, even if I did end up Agnostic. What I’ve said here is not my theology — it’s supposedly their theology — and how I see that aren’t following the philosophical teachings of Jesus at all. But I do find it it pretty funny that the theology you’re telling me is “misinformed” has been nothing other than the words of Jesus — because that’s all I’ve been quoting in this thread!

Speaking of management theory: this nation isn’t managed and run according to the theological dictates of Christianity Incorporated. Religion doesn’t have anything at all to do with why gay people should have the exact same civil and legal rights as any straight person in America. The reason gay people should automatically have equal rights is due to the supposedly “inalienable rights to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness” that all Americans have been told we can claim as our own.

There just are more to most things than you can understand but understanding that is beyond your understanding.

I see that all you’ve got left are the nasty personal remarks and insults — and no doubt that’s because my argument stands on solid ground, while yours (and theirs) has been hollow and empty from the beginning.

Tom Humes:

Sodomites do not have rights. Where you get these kinds of ideas are from perverted people who just want to justify their sinful choices.

Replace the word Sodomite with Slave and Tom Humes becomes just another Southern Plantation owner. Replace the word Sodomite with Jew and Tom Humes becomes just another Nazi Storm Trooper. Replace the word Sodomite with Infidel and Tom Humes becomes just another Taliban Member enforcing Sharia Law.

there are some who profess to be Christians, but are not.

Believe me, it’s crystal clear that you are not.

RF:

Liberals wish to reform conservatives and atheists wish to reform Christians. We certainly live in interesting times.

Nothing new about that, RF. And that’s because conservatism and Christian ideology has always been based upon nonsensical inequality and unfairness, and lots of harsh, unrelenting authoritarianism.

Jane:

I would take 100 Adriennes over either one of you.

Right back at you, Jane! :^D

Posted by: Adrienne at July 31, 2012 5:55 PM
Comment #349656

Jane:

I would take 100 Adriennes over either one of you.


Right back at you, Jane! :^D
Posted by: Adrienne at July 31, 2012

Take her…please. I have never asked to be taken nor do I wish to be.

Liberals wish to reform conservatives and atheists wish to reform Christians. We certainly live in interesting times. Reformation through hate is an exercise only an atheist or liberal would consider effective.

It must really gall atheists to have a national holiday called Christmas. And even more, it must gall them to have money in their pocket which has the motto…”In God We Trust”. Caesars money gives credit to God, imagine that.

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 31, 2012 6:09 PM
Comment #349657

Some former Christians who have lost their faith are among the most notable haters of what they formerly believed in. It reminds me of some smokers who have quit and now believe they have the duty to require all who do smoke to quit as well.

Former Christians…now atheists, are usually miserable folks and as we all know…”misery loves company”.

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 31, 2012 6:21 PM
Comment #349659

Two people are lying in their beds in the same hospital room both with few hours to live.

One person is being ministered to by their pastor who assures them that their love of God and belief in salvation through His son Jesus will soon bring them to eternal joy in heaven.

Lying in the other bed is an atheist who desperately wishes (s)he had faith in something beyond the grave. Many times the atheist heard God’s voice coaxing her/him back to His loving arms but each time the atheist refused to hear. With a heart hardened over decades of denial the path back to God has become so tangled with weeds that it can no longer be seen. Yet, our loving God is there and still willing to offer redemption. Ask, and ye shall receive.

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 31, 2012 6:36 PM
Comment #349660

RF, you don’t sound at all like a Christian, either.

The fact is, Jesus preached about love and caring for everyone — and he never once addressed (or denounced) homosexuality in any of the canonic Gospels. What he did constantly take up as a theme was oppression. Whether it was oppression of the poor by the rich, or oppression of the powerless by the powerful.

I may not go along with all the religous hocus-pocus, but I can respect a great deal of the philosophy that Jesus attempted to impart — this is how I know that people like you and tom humes are not trying to follow what he said.
Not even close.

Posted by: Adrienne at July 31, 2012 6:45 PM
Comment #349661

Jesus proclaimed he came to fulfill the “Law”. The law at that time was the Old Testament.

At the very beginning, Jesus presented the law given on Sinai in light of the New Covenant. Jesus said, “Do not think I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill” (Mt 5:17). Anyone who breaks the least law and teaches others “will be called least in the kingdom of heaven” (Mt 5:17-19

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 31, 2012 6:56 PM
Comment #349662
Two people are lying in their beds in the same hospital room both with few hours to live.

One is a married man who is glad that his wife will by his side until the very end.

The other is a gay man who is alone because he was never allowed by law to marry his longtime domestic partner and the hospital has strict rules which deny entrance to anyone in his type of health emergency from entering the room except for family members. So he dies without the person he loves the most in the world beside him — due to the hard-hearts of Phony-Christians in America.


Posted by: Adrienne at July 31, 2012 6:59 PM
Comment #349663

Change the hospital rules then…not God’s Law.

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 31, 2012 7:01 PM
Comment #349665

Nope. Change the law in the nation, since not everyone is a Christian.

Posted by: Adrienne at July 31, 2012 7:10 PM
Comment #349666

States can change their marriage laws if they have the support of enough citizens. It is obvious that your argument is not about gay marriage, but rahter, against Christian values.

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 31, 2012 7:15 PM
Comment #349667

Adrienne

What you did was take words and substituted words with a different meaning which is about as basless as one can get. What you printed was what you wanted me to say only I did not say it. I have disappointed you and I am not sorry for that.

What RF said about Jesus and the message presented is absolute truth. You cannot deny that. You can print whatever you care to print, but the Bible’s gospel is the truth.

You can come to the saving knowledge of Jesus Christ without reservation. There is nothing there to hold you back. Just accept him for who he is and live for him.

There are many people who claim to be Christians that do not lead a Christian life. We all know them. There are many Christian people who have chose to live for Jesus and obey his commandments. That does not mean anybody is perfect, far from it. But he has forgiven our errors and sins when we go before him.

In Ecclesiastes 12:13 “Fear God and keep His commandments, for this is man’s all. For God will bring every work into judgment, including every secret thing, whether good or evil.”

Where two or more are gathered together, God will hear them. RF and I will be heard by God as we pray.

Maranatha

Posted by: tom humes at July 31, 2012 7:16 PM
Comment #349669

Anywhere in this country a person who is “gay” can have a list of people who can and cannot visit him while he is dying. That is made up and a farce.

Maranatha

Posted by: tom humes at July 31, 2012 7:49 PM
Comment #349670
States can change their marriage laws if they have the support of enough citizens. It is obvious that your argument is not about gay marriage, but rahter, against Christian values.

They already are, thank goodness. But you know, it’s this refusal of so-called Christian extremists to be reasonable that has caused atheism and agnosticism to become the fastest growing (non)religions in America.
You people are insist on trying to make everyone live according to your “values”, while you go out of your way to show nothing but contempt for everyone else’s values.

No one has ever said that you must accept gay marriage in your churches. The sacrament of your marriages cannot be harmed by anyone — unless the churches themselves decide that this is what they want. But marriage happens to be a LEGAL status as well — a status that can only be conferred by the state, and this you feel you also have a right to control — in full-on snarling contempt of people who don’t even share your faith.

It marks the whole lot of you as being mentally childish and f*cked up — and that’s why young people continue in large numbers to abandon your churches and reject you. Because to them you come off like Bad Americans. Uncivil Authoritarians with a complete lack of civic integrity. And what did you expect? People tend to lose respect when others keep proving themselves incapable of demonstrating respect and insisting that only they matter.

But fortunately you are indeed losing ground to people who have better sense and better manners — and you are sure to lose more and more ground as the years pass.

Posted by: Adrienne at July 31, 2012 7:55 PM
Comment #349671
Anywhere in this country a person who is “gay” can have a list of people who can and cannot visit him while he is dying. That is made up and a farce.

Google it assh*le. It happens all the time. Most especially when someone is taken to a Christian hospital in emergency situations.

Posted by: Adrienne at July 31, 2012 7:59 PM
Comment #349672

“assh*le”

well, we both have one of those. What other revelations do you have for us?

Maranatha

Posted by: tom humes at July 31, 2012 8:29 PM
Comment #349673
What other revelations do you have for us?

Chick-Fil-A takes perception dive with fast food eaters

Posted by: Adrienne at July 31, 2012 8:37 PM
Comment #349698

You know, Adrienne….both you and I have been in this “room” far longer than these two jerks. But among all their other argumentative persuasions, denial is one of the biggest and most often one used. They come blasting and blathering their way in here and as a result of that, a large number of our old posters have left in disgust. Funny how they don’t see that the hate and detachment they rant about is coming from their own mouths. And with the level of hate and disregard for other human beings not sharing their beliefs of the antiquated and mutilated “religion” they choose to follow, the most vile, vicious and caustic crap one will ever hear emanates from them consistenly. Obviously they feel free to be selective about what they take from their “learnings”….but feel it necessary to try to fill us with something quite different… They are truly miserable people…tsk!

Posted by: jane doe at July 31, 2012 11:06 PM
Comment #349704

These guys are losing, Jane!

And what’s so ironic is that what they’re actually losing out to is the kind of deep empathy, compassion, caring and love that Jesus encouraged his followers to give to everyone freely and without reservation.

There’s an entire generation of younger people coming right behind these people don’t share the absurd, self-righteous position these guys are choosing to take on this topic. Instead, the younger people are rejecting the kind of brutal intolerance older people dish out (in the name of Jesus) and shake their heads over it.

The kids are why Mr. Chik-fil-hate’s business just took a truly massive nosedive! And did you know that there are college kids all over this country who are signing petitions to get rid of the Chik-fil-hate’s on their campuses?! And that some of them have already won?!

So, negative and nasty as they might be, we just can’t let these guys color our general attitude — instead (and really, as usual) we Progressives just need to keep pushing while looking ahead — because the future is looking incredibly bright and good! :^)

Posted by: Adrienne at August 1, 2012 2:27 AM
Comment #349705

You know Adrienne, I’ve always been fine not feeling I needed to be labeled.. I wasn’t restricted in my beliefs as I grew up, although I was encouraged to keep my eyes and my mind open. I’m sure it’s a possibility that had I not grown up here in California and experienced the more free way of life, I might feel differently, too. But it was the social movements of the times, that I learned so much tolerance and acceptance from, and I just can’t find the negativity in that. These guys carry around a bible in one hand and a crap-load of hate that would choke a horse….and they don’t get how wrong that is..but their minds are shut, the brainwashing has used up all that was there…

Posted by: jane doe at August 1, 2012 2:45 AM
Comment #349745
But you know, it’s this refusal of so-called Christian extremists to be reasonable that has caused atheism and agnosticism to become the fastest growing (non)religions in America.

My feelings as well Adrienne. The evangelicals do much harm with their holier than thou attitude when they reach out to others, even when their over all message is for the most part positive. Extremism in religion is as bad as extremism in politics. Mixing religion with politics has been shown to be destructive in most cases through out history. Yet they continue to grab for political power for their religious beliefs and end up creating what they fear, atheist and agnostics.

Posted by: j2t2 at August 1, 2012 11:26 AM
Comment #349831

Chicago alderman Joe Moreno: Chick-fil-A discrimination ‘disturbing’

Claims Chick-fil-A has been sued 19 times over discrimination.

Posted by: Adrienne at August 2, 2012 12:40 AM
Post a comment