Skip to comments.Let Chick-fil-A Fly Free
Posted on 08/02/2012 6:49:37 AM PDT by DallasBiff
And freedom, after all, is at the heart of the controversy over same-sex marriage. True individual freedom includes allowing consenting adults to marry the partners they choose, regardless of gender. To those for whom same-sex marriage is personally objectionable, their free choice is simple: Dont enter into one. But dont impede the freedom of others to do so. As long as Chick-fil-A operates within the boundaries of the law, municipalities and institutions should leave the decision about whether to eat at Chick-fil-A to individual consumers. If they do, Chick-fil-A is still likely to experience a net loss of business over time as a result of Mr. Cathys statements. This is because gay people are the constituency most viscerally, fundamentally and personally affected by the denial of the freedom to marry the consenting adult we choose. We are the ones with the highest personal stakes in sticking out the battle in the long run. And we will vote with our feet.
In the marketplace as in politics, those rare players who place individual freedom ahead of their own personal agendas will get my vote every time.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
But I like his logic when used with different terms: To those for whom concealed-carry permits are personally objectionable, their free choice is simple: Dont get such a permit.
Right, as in this passage:
“True individual freedom includes allowing consenting adults to marry the partners they choose, regardless of gender. To those for whom same-sex marriage is personally objectionable, their free choice is simple: Dont enter into one. But dont impede the freedom of others to do so.”
As if same sex marriage doesn’t have far-reaching implications and ramifications for society, for children, for the future of the family. What if pedophiles were to say, “You don’t like pedophilia? Then don’t engage in it!” Really, people have to learn how to THINK.
Do these sexual deviants really think that the 1.7% of the U.S. population that is thus afflicted will amount to anything when Chick-Fil-A looks at its earnings? Just because the morally-blind msm tells you you are important doesn’t make it so.
The same argument is used for abortion: if you don’t like it, don’t get one.
So Willie Sutton could have argued, If you don’t like my practice of robbing banks, you don’t have to emulate me but don’t interfere with my personal career choices.
To use a sports analogy: never give you opponent bulletin board material. This only (1) gets them mad, (2) gives them something to rally around as a team, and (3) makes them work harder.
The over-the-top response to Cathy’s statements is the political equivalent of bulletin board material.
I like the “vote with their feet”. Let the less than 1% vote with those or with any other parts of their anatomy.
But I sincerely wish “they” would just STFU and get out of our faces!
this argument is rubbish. With same-sex "marriage" you get the whole gay lifestyle shoved down your throat - PC training in schools, demands that your church, your club, your company, your organization serve such marriages, promotion of homosexuals on public media and airways, etc... With same-sex "marriage" it is most definitely all or nothing.
For those who feel the New York Times is a house organ of the Democrat party and don’t want to partake of it’s liberal propaganda, don’t buy it.
My argument to gay “marriage” is simple: ask the question “why 2?” The question to ask to gays who want to “marry” is also simple: “You propose the definition of marriage to be a legal contract between 2:n people of either/any gender?”
We can provide a rationale for Marriage between a man and a woman: it is how progeny are created, progeny create families, families with the parents create social stability, social stability is desirable and is thus recognized and supported by governments.
We have thousands of years of background supporting this thesis and structure.
When the (inevitable) response is “but people get divorced (etc.),” the answer is “people may or may not AVAIL THEMSELVES of the structure, but this is the rationale for the structure.”
We are left with the proposed definition I started with (2-n people, any sex). If the other person accepts the definition, we are left with “OK. marriage doesn’t exist at all then.”
It is irrefutable.
When a significant percentage of the population accepts decadence as the norm, you have a nation in clear decline. If Obama wins in November, then it will be clear that the tipping point has been passed.
In order to do that, you first have to redefine marriage. I have still heard no compelling arguments for doing so. None. Zip. Zilch. Nada.
by the denial of the freedom to marry the consenting adult we choose by the denial of the freedom to marry the consenting adult we choose.
Gays have the same right to marry a person of the opposite sex as everybody else does, so the 'right' is equal.
Using their logic and the current laws, if I had a brother and wanted to marry him and he consented, we should be able to become man and wife.
I know...it's an inherently disgusting thought, but you'd be amazed how presenting THAT little scenario to them grosses THEM out!
Sadly, too difficult these days, thankfully, the premium cable package offers relief from such hardships.
We won't buy it but we do pay for it. Every government funded: library, office, school, etc. is subscribed.
...to ask them if they know what a non-sequitur is. I then give them an example: If A equals B, and B equals C, then X equals Y. Another such example is: if 50% of marriages end in divorce, then we should redefine marriage. I always hammer them on this whole '50%' argument. I always press them to explain it, and I never let them slide around it. Then, I use it to set the meme that their logic is flawed.
I am pretty sure the univerality of that ended back in the nineties. Certainly it has not been true any more for a long time in the prairie states.
Since marriage is only between a man and a woman, there's a bit of a non starter there. That said, let's be more accurate here... By legalizing gay shacking up as being equivalent to marriage, it puts the power of the law behind the union and forces others to recognize it, to act with it. If it was just some title, that would be one thing - I could live with disagreeing over it. But to force others to treat them differently because of it, that is compelled action. And that removes my freedom.
Shack up with whomever you want - you do not need my approval or consent. But declare that you are invading marriage and then forcing me to accept it? It isn't going to happen. And to support this freedom, the law will fine and punish those who similarly refuse. Someone walks into a photography studio and says 'I want you to film my gay marriage', you had best drop everything and take this commission, even if they decide they want heavy discounts, lest they turn around and claim that you refused their business because it was a gay marriage. It is not equal rights, it is special rights they claim, superseding any other. You have a right to refuse business, except if someone's gay, then you're committing a crime...
And there's the kernel of why I absolutely object to the corruption of marriage - equality was never the goal. The goal was to use the full force of the government to convert everyone to accept and sanctify their lifestyle. To remove the freedom of choice from everyone else. I refuse.
He certainly has a high opinion of himself and his ilk. I doubt, very seriously, whether a total loss of all homosexual customers would even show up as a point on the profit and loss sheet. Even IF they are 10% (DOUBTFUL) of the general population, how many have a Chick-fil-A near them that they can boycott, since most are in The South? How many eat chicken as opposed to being vegetarians? How many have a 'lifestyle' that allows them to eat fast food as opposed to places like the now defunct 'Elaines'? If the scenes from yesterday didn't convince the butt pirates of the futility of their pissant boycott, I guess they are even more deluded than I thought, and that was pretty deluded..........
When I see a big city mayor retract, backpedal, apologize: then I’ll believe they “get it”.
Until then, the choice of where you eat is now politicized.
A man built a BILLION dollar business. Take that Obama.
Customers peacefully buycotted said business. They did it for a variety of reasons. . Free Speech. Traditional marriage. A show against Tyranny, etc. Even Antoine Dodson showed up to support the employees.
We voted with our wallets, our families, our feet, our time, in the hot blazing sun.
I believe in the halls of Obama land they are scared about November 6th.
“Chick-fil-A is still likely to experience a net loss of business over time as a result of Mr. Cathys statements.”
Exactly. Just like on August 1, right, Steve?
Out & Equal is proud to announce that Steve Salbu, dean and Stephen P. Zelnak chairholder at the Georgia Tech College of Management, will be addressing attendees at the HR Luncheon, sponsored by IBM. He will address the role that multinational companies can take in influencing the experience of international lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender employees, as an extension of both their diversity and business strategies.
The only openly LGBT dean of a leading U.S. business school, Salbu assumed his current role after serving as associate dean for graduate programs at the McCombs School of Business at the University of Texas, where he also served as director of the McCombs School Business Ethics Program and editor-in-chief of the American Business Law Journal. Salbu
What’s stopping them? If they want to call their perverted union a marriage, do so. It’s not about their freedom to enter into a relationship and call it marriage.
It’s about whether the public has to recognize that perverted union as a marriage. It’s about whether governments and businesses have to pay benefits for relationships that are not a traditional family. They are trying to impose their values on the public, they are trying to get the public to demean the meaning of marriage as recognized in the public sector, not vice versa.
“Whats stopping them? If they want to call their perverted union a marriage, do so. Its not about their freedom to enter into a relationship and call it marriage.
Its about whether the public has to recognize that perverted union as a marriage. Its about whether governments and businesses have to pay benefits for relationships that are not a traditional family. They are trying to impose their values on the public, they are trying to get the public to demean the meaning of marriage as recognized in the public sector, not vice versa.”
That’s the clearest and best summation of the entire situation that I have heard (read) to date.
Jeez... that guy looks like he’s getting buggered just sitting there for that picture.
Wait. There're gay chickens?
Why not substitute "number" for "gender" ? Or "species" ?
The problem here is that the homosexuals want to force us to publicly approve of their "choice".
And we don't have to. That's our freedom.
You beat me to it, and well said.
But this statement? "True individual freedom includes allowing consenting adults to marry the partners they choose, regardless of gender"? This is factually wrong.
The right to marreiage is always defined by certain eligibility requirements: the potential marriage partner must be of age, mentally competent, consenting, of the other sex, not within proscribed degrees of blood reltionship (e.g. not their father, mother, brother, sister, etc.), not already married to somebody else (no bigamy, polygamy, etc.), not acting under threat or duress, etc.
Any gay person finding a partner who meets the eligibility requirements, can marry just like anybody else.
As far as I could know such a thing, most homosexual people throughout history married: I have in mind the famous New Hampshire Episcopal cleric, Bishop Gene Robinson, who had a wife and 2 children. I can't call to mind anyone of whatever orientation, who was ever denied the right to marry.
Somebody help me out if I missed something. I'm here to learn.
Fine... move to a state that supports your perverted definition of 'marriage'. This is a states rights issue and always will be.
You could be correct. My mind probably ended back in the nineties. I just remember seeing copies everywhere while at Penn State and at the Carnegie.
I tried to research the NYT gov. subscription stats but can't seem to find any? Curious to know?
Those who follow such people will also be hesitant to eat there, or be branded “haters” (which I guess is the ultimate insult today).
So in some sets, I expect to see a decline. However, Chick-fil-A got a great PR boost. Lots of people ate there yesterday that normally wouldn't. Many will go back.
I would bet on an over increase, at least short term.