[DallasBiff]

Basically waving the white flag, but this guy still doesn't get it that the term marriage is between a man and a woman.

[docbnj]

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: Don’t get such a permit”.

[scottjewell]

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: Don’t enter into one. But don’t 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.

[txrefugee]

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.

[PLD]

Yes marriage is between man and women..and ever one knows it even the creepy freaks that are trying to push their filthy life style on us..

[Kozy]

I strongly doubt that CFA has a corporate strategy to capture the gay chicken sandwich market. It won't matter to them whether another gay buys a bag of waffle fries.
The NYT should worry whether Christians stop buying their rag.

[Brookhaven]

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.

[PGR88]

To those for whom same-sex marriage is personally objectionable, their free choice is simple: Don’t enter into one.

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.

[freedumb2003]

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.

[allendale]

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.

[NurdlyPeon]

True individual freedom includes allowing consenting adults to marry the partners they choose, regardless of gender.

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.

[MamaTexan]

I'll give credit to the guy since he does at least recognize it as a 1st Amendment issue, but he loses it here -

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!

LOL!

[kingu]

To those for whom same-sex marriage is personally objectionable, their free choice is simple: Don’t enter into one.

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.

[Red Badger]

If they do, Chick-fil-A is still likely to experience a net loss of business over time as a result of Mr. Cathy’s 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.

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..........

[workerbee]

Chick-fil-A is still likely to experience a net loss of business over time as a result of Mr. Cathy’s 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.

Uh-huh.

Right.

[cicero2k]

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.

[catnipman]

“Chick-fil-A is still likely to experience a net loss of business over time as a result of Mr. Cathy’s statements.”

Exactly. Just like on August 1, right, Steve?

[kcvl]

Steve Salbu

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

[DannyTN]

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.

[baddog 219]

[DaveMSmith]

And we will vote with our feet.

Fine... move to a state that supports your perverted definition of 'marriage'. This is a states rights issue and always will be.