User Tag List

First 2345614 Last

Results 31 to 40 of 331

  1. #31
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer View Post
    I think the tension was building for awhile, and then Cathy's comments were released a few weeks ago, which seemed to set things off.

    Why did people respond so poorly to his comments? Because it's one thing to say, "I personally don't believe that same-sex marriage is moral, I'm sorry but I just can't, so I need to disagree, and we need to let it go at that," and saying, "Anyone who believe in same-sex unions is immoral and arrogant and a rebel against God and a disgrace to this country and the reason this country is failing."

    See the difference? The first point just focuses on the disagreement but doesn't slander the other side, the other one is an assault upon the moral integrity of the other side and rather hypocritical, since it takes some arrogance to simply slander the moral caliber of someone who disagrees with you.

    I'm not sure I can support "admiration" just because someone stands up for what they think is right. Otherwise I'd be admiring all the white racists and the church in Mississippi that refused to marry a black couple who were faithful attenders and had contributed to the community, etc. I mean, any jerk can "stand up for what they think is right" as a way to bully and attack those whom they treat with disrespect; there has to be more to it than than for me. Maybe if it was hard for Cathy to utter his proclamation, I'd respect him a little more, but he comes off as a guy who actually has no issues saying exactly what he thinks and in offensive ways; it wasn't really a test of moral courage for him to tell the Baptist press how much he hated same-sex marriage and how little he thought of people who supported it. Since it would have been harder for him to keep his mouth shut and speak more respectful, that would have shown more moral caliber to hold his tongue a bit.
    I totally agree with you that the words she used to describe her opposition to same sex marriage were wrong. And that to the extent that she was intentionally trying to inflame the opposition, she should be judged.

    But I feel like @kyuuei and I were addressing the issue from a more "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." perspective.

    I suspect that both @kyuuei and I would agree that the tone of Cathy's declaration was inflammatory. But this tone does nothing to weaken the argument that everyone has the right to let their opinion be known.

  2. #32
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    I totally agree with you that the words she used to describe her opposition to same sex marriage were wrong. And that to the extent that she was intentionally trying to inflame the opposition, she should be judged.
    Well, a side clarification: Cathy is a last name, and the speaker is a man, not a woman.

    But I feel like kyuuei and I were addressing the issue from a more "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." perspective.
    I understand that and agree with it. It's also a stance that has been repeated and argued for numerous times in these discussions, so instead of just repeating it, I chose to clarify a point that the OP honestly seemed confused about. Tone matters. it's the reason some other companies such as Target might get away with donations that Chick-Fil-A is being beaten up for. If the guy hadn't been so obnoxious in his wording, I don't think this situation would have blown up the way it did.
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

  3. #33
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    Yea I've only been paying attention to the broad strokes on this one.

  4. #34
    Nerd King Usurper Edgar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    4,209

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sprinkles View Post
    It's not about what they believe. They can believe whatever they want.

    But first of all, I don't see the point of incorporating it under a corporate name, unless they're doing something with it. If their chicken sandwich tastes the same, and they still sell it to gay people, then there's absolutely no difference and no point.

    The problem is when they use their money to get into politics which is a lot more than practicing religion.
    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    The reaction however is a position taken by an elected official, which consequently serves as an action taken on behalf of an entire city.

    I'm fine with the Mayor making a statement establishing that his views differ from Chik-fil-a's, but the instant that preference of his is used to justify keeping a legal business out of a city, that has every right to be there, I call bullshit.
    Both of those are valid points.

    I do not have a problem with religious fundamentalists running a legal business and selling their chicken wherever they want. I do have a problem with them lobbying (aka bribing) politicians to pass laws that would impose on the religious freedom of others.

    So the important question is - did Chik-Fil-A merely stated their opinion on gay marriage, or did they financially support anti-gay marriage legislation such as Proposition 8? If it's the former, they should be left alone. If it's the latter, I would not deem it an injustice if they were banned from certain cities where the popular opinion demands it (such as West Hollywood, etc).

    Of course, none of this would even be an issue if we had laws against corporations contributing to public campaigns.
    Listen to me, baby, you got to understand, you're old enough to learn the makings of a man.

  5. #35
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    If all lobbying must be treated thusly, not many big companies would be left.

  6. #36
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    4,226

    Default

    Why should corporations be lobbying for and against social issues anyway?

  7. #37
    Nerd King Usurper Edgar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    4,209

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    If all lobbying must be treated thusly, not many big companies would be left.
    What do you base your conclusion on?
    Listen to me, baby, you got to understand, you're old enough to learn the makings of a man.

  8. #38
    Senior Member swordpath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    MBTI
    ISTx
    Posts
    10,552

    Default



    and remember the "hide you wife, hide yo kids, cause they rapin' everybody out here!"? He's got some wisdom on this subject.

    [youtube=LUmoTOujJ7Q]lol[/youtube]

  9. #39
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edgar View Post
    What do you base your conclusion on?
    When I worked at the American Action Network I worked under the head fundraiser doing donor research via FEC.gov, and a few other sites.

    If you were to say that every company (or individual) giving more than the max allowable donation to a given side ($2500) was committing bribery, there wouldn't be many companies left.

    I compiled a spreadsheet for my boss at ANN listing just Florida donors who gave more than $2500, I had about 10,000 entries. This is just on the right, and just the biggest donors, and just Florida.

    If you said anything over $2500 amounted to bribery, there wouldn't be much left.

    Most big corps give to both sides, so they're in with whoever wins.

  10. #40
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,675

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kyuuei View Post
    I admire Chik-Fil-A's standing up for what they think is right. I also think they are wrong, but I appreciate them taking a stance on a position instead of pretending that they're neutral like many other places.

    I don't see why people are just now trying to Ban Chik-Fil-A's from their state.. They've ALWAYS been a Christian-run establishment, and very traditional. It is part of why they received so much business in the first place--they closed on Sundays, they give their employees Religious holidays off, etc. They're very active in their communities as well. It is no surprise that they do not support gay marriage. so why is everyone having a hissy fit over it JUST now?
    Shows that the gay activists have no real boundaries, cant keep eating a sandwich seperate from someones attitude to the thought police, they sure are no example of treating people as they would like to treated themselves.

    Its not like the sandwich bar has said they arent going to serve people who're gay, or people who're friendly with gays, or people who support a state which takes a position on this sort of thing, all of which would be a different more complex matter but the basic point is they are in business serving sandwiches not pushing changes to public opinion. Nope. Its just the opposite view to a number of corporate interests who've sought to capitalise on appearing to support homosexuality.

    Really I dont see how some of this isnt a mirror opposite of the sort of social pressure that these groups have supposedly been against for years. In some ways this should all have been avoidable, now, well now I think that given enough time the people taking a stand like these people will become the liberals natural underdog and the political landscape will change again. Just like racists used to flock to the southern democrats but then set up home as libertarian republicans with the full passage of time.

Similar Threads

  1. The Banned and The Damned
    By Haight in forum Official Decrees
    Replies: 331
    Last Post: 11-30-2017, 07:12 PM
  2. Is there a Rational Ground for Morality?
    By coberst in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 04-14-2009, 04:03 PM
  3. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 04-29-2008, 11:07 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO