GSO/Guilford Pols

October 2014

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
      1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31  

« Lost | Main | What might have been »

Jul 26, 2012

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341cc33e53ef017616bf33d8970c

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Eat les chikin:

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Roch

Yes, that's stupid if not dangerous.

prell

Disgusting. Not Chick-fil-A, but the fact that the mayor of Chicago appears to be more concerned with keeping a chain restaurant out of his city, as opposed to doing more to address the ridiculous gang war that has resulted in 300 deaths in seven months. The mayor of Kabul is shaking his head in disgust.

polifrog
I don't want to make even small contributions to that funding stream.

It is right that that choice is available to you and it is appropriate for you to act on your belief if you so choose, but it sad that when the federal government acts similarly to Rahm Emanuel and attempts to bigfoot religious choice in the matter of abortifacients and funding abortion you are no where to be found in defending their choice to not "make even small contributions to that funding stream."

I suppose some people prefer to divide Americans between those who deserve to act on their beliefs and those who's beliefs simply do not matter. This sort of double standard strikes me as not only disrespectful toward diversity, but divisive.

Divisive individuals like yourself who seek to impose your brand of morality on everyone else by arguing that others can not act on their beliefs who you can make it difficult for a diverse citizenry to stand united. Your soft intolerance for others is insufferable.

But let's take this a step further. What is the common thread that ties such intolerant and divisive individuals together? Liberalism.

Truly, the post above exemplifies how liberalism and the liberals that make up progressive thinking in America and who band together under the Democrat party weaken our nation by dividing it against itself and by deliberately not embracing our nation's diversity through tolerance for others.

polifrog

Error on aisle three...

Divisive individuals like yourself who seek to impose your brand of morality on everyone else by arguing that others can not act on their beliefs while you can make it difficult for a diverse citizenry to stand united. Your soft intolerance for others is insufferable.

Sean

get off your soapbox, frog, it's not the same thing. there are a TON of things my tax contributions pay for that i vehemently oppose (#1 = our war machine). we don't directly control where our tax dollars go, but we can control where the rest of our money is spent.

Bill Yaner

The link talks about anti-gay "hate groups" being funded by Chick-Fil-A, which is what I think Ed was referring to as being within that "funding stream. But looking at these organizations - none of which I know anything about - is it fair to characterize their stance as hate filled?

Marriage & Family Legacy Fund: $994,199
Fellowship Of Christian Athletes: $480,000
National Christian Foundation: $240,000
Focus On The Family: $12,500
Eagle Forum: $5,000
Exodus International: $1,000
Family Research Council: $1,000

designation

The absurdity of perceived majority victimization rears its head.

It must be, oh... any day of the week.

If only TEH GAY minority had the SCARY POWER ascribed, civil equality would have arrived a long time ago.

David Wharton

Bill Y: no, not fair. I had the same take. Remember, by the "hate" standard the HuffPo uses in this piece, President Obama was himself a hater until just a few months ago.

polifrog

Sean:

we don't directly control where our tax dollars go, but we can control where the rest of our money is spent.


Excusing divisive and intolerant behavior as having been sanctified by governance is no excuse.

Ed Cone

I'm not a big fan of the term "hate group" -- not saying there's no such thing, but it's easy to derail into conversations about who, beyond a few clear examples, truly qualifies.

Still, the article doesn't paint all the groups with the same brush ("anti-gay organizations and hate groups").

Also, comparing Obama's pathetic temporizing on the issue to the work of the Marriage and Family Foundation (much less the "ex-gay" ministry) seems off to me.

All of which is bean-plating of the first order, unlike the part about the First Amendment and mayoral overreach.

James

This is a place where I'm a 100% free-marketer. A consumer boycott is the perfect response to Chick's boneheaded political position.

That said, I'd also support any legal government action that could be taken. If Chick discriminates in its employment practices, it should bear the brunt of any official sanctions that may apply. For example, I would oppose allowing the company to sell its products in venues that are owned by taxpayers, such as the Dean Dome.

Chick can have any philosophy it wants. But it should not expect to have a free ride to profits in contracts with public agencies, organizations, or institutions of higher education.

Andrew Brod

"Chick-fil-A’s values are not Chicago values."

I know and love Chicago, and I know what Chicago values are. Those values are approximated quite well by a tidy payment to the local alderman. What surprises me is how public the shake-down is.

polifrog

I do not believe I over analyze at all, Ed.

On the one hand you defend your right to not "make even small contributions to that funding stream."

While not defending the same right of others.

In fact you would go so far as to support forcing others to contribute to the funding of that which runs counter to their beliefs because funding those things would concur with your beliefs.

I wonder what would drive some 50% of Americans to frolic in a well-spring of rights they deny others.

I believe what drives liberals toward the obvious double standards inherent in claiming rights exclusively for themselves is a form of otherism and intolerance toward select Americans. This intolerance ultimately reveals itself in the divisiveness that freely oozes from our current president and in a less focused manner in the ease at which liberals can react with a shrug to religious the religious being denied the choice to not make even small contributions to aparticular funding stream.


HRH

Even though I like the product, I'll boycott Chick-fil-A because of its anti gay stance. I also try not to buy any Koch products, but that's a little bit harder because they're everywhere. If I have a need for more dinnerware, I'll gladly shop Replacements first. It doesn't mean much in the grand scheme of things, but it makes me feel a little better.

Ed Cone

I was responding to DW and BY, Froggie.

polifrog

I was responding to you, Ed.

justcorbly

It's an oddly maladroit move by the mayor.

Crticizing the CEO's assertions, declaring them un-Chicago-like, etc., is fair enough. Going after a local franchise, though, is a mistake. He should have dropped that bit and waved a finger at the company while he declared that Chicago would be watching very closely to ensure that the CEO''s views did not translate into discriminatory hiring practices.

Better yet, stage a news conference with the franchise owner where both of them declare their eternal hatred of discrimination.

Meanwhile, maladroit is also the word I'd apply to the CEO's declarations. Why go on the record with such statements? Plenty of people in this country think religious objections to gays make as much sense of religious objections to short people.

I think boycotts are typically ineffective, but more power to you if you are of that persuasion.

Hugh

frog: "Divisive individuals like yourself who seek to impose your brand of morality on everyone else by arguing that others can not act on their beliefs who you can make it difficult for a diverse citizenry to stand united. Your soft intolerance for others is insufferable. "

Some questions to help me understand.

If I don't like a person or a culture and choose not to associate with either am I being divisive? Do you feel those people have a right to know why I don't like them?

How is ban on civil unions an imposition of morality? The only thing lost is there isn't a piece of paper that says "married" and some government privileges and penalties that go with it.

"a diverse citizenry to stand united" Is not cultural diversity defined differently in different cultures? Who gets to say their definition is what should be the standard for mankind? And why should people in rural SD, ND, NE, KS and WY care about diversity? The populations there are wholly homogenous in one culture. What about Detroit? 82% black, shouldn't that area be diversified with some different culture?

And, there is no such thing as a diverse Islamic Theocracy (see, Iran, Afghanistan, Soon to be Egypt and others) it doesn't exist.

bubba

"Why go on the record with such statements? Plenty of people in this country think religious objections to gays make as much sense of religious objections to short people."

Because it's his right, a move that Menino and Rahmbo would deny him by their potential actions. It won't make a difference politically in those respective dens of inequity, but it will reflect poorly on the "progressive" cause elsewhere. Although as for that, it certainly wouldn't be out of the ordinary, would it?

I hope both of them do something really stupid that results in corrective action being taken.

MojoNixon

(yawn)

polifrog

Hugh:

If I don't like a person or a culture and choose not to associate with either am I being divisive? Do you feel those people have a right to know why I don't like them?

No. One is divisive when they retain for themselves rights they deny others whether that be person, culture or group.

In Ed's case he gleefully supports law that restricts Catholics from not contributing on moral grounds to a flow of money he supports.

Yet today he makes it known that he enjoys exercising that same right (to not contribute to a flow of funds on moral grounds) in regard to Chick-Fil-A that he denying others.

Apparently some people like Ed deserve rights that others do not. That is a divisiveness that is based on otherism and ultimately disenfranchises those individuals Ed does not agree with.

And:

How is ban on civil unions an imposition of morality? The only thing lost is there isn't a piece of paper that says "married" and some government privileges and penalties that go with it.

For 4000 years marriage has been defined as being between one man and one woman. It is a new morality that is being imposed on Americans that is attempting to change that definition. One can not impose that which is already accepted - in this case one man, one woman marriage.

Civil unions would fall under a new definition of marriage and as such forcing society to accept civil unions is an imposition of a new definition of marriage on society. Any degree to which society resists the imposition of civil unions is society simply saying "no" to social authoritarians.

and:

Is not cultural diversity defined differently in different cultures? Who gets to say their definition is what should be the standard for mankind? And why should people in rural SD, ND, NE, KS and WY care about diversity? The populations there are wholly homogenous in one culture. What about Detroit? 82% black, shouldn't that area be diversified with some different culture?

Cultural diversity needs no defining when all of us are afforded the same rights in equal amounts.

Ed, for example, feels entitled to not fund those who would channel his dollars toward causes he finds immoral. Fine. Yet when others feel the same way, he feels entitled to deny them the right to not fund that which they find immoral. Not fine.

It is only in this way that one can begin to ask which cultural morality is more appropriate. In the Ed example, the cultures clash because Ed feels entitled to express his morality while restricting others from doing the same.

This is a form cultural insensitivity that stems first from not affording others the same rights Ed enjoys.

Ed's divisiveness is grounded in a sense of superiority that allows him to rationalize the disfranchisement of others who do not share his morality.

Of course, Ed may as well be every liberal in America...

prell

"Ed's divisiveness is grounded in a sense of superiority that allows him to rationalize the disfranchisement of others who do not share his morality."

Kind of like how you rationalize the disenfranchisement of homosexuals who don't happen to share your morality?

Hugh

" disenfranchisement of homosexuals"

What's it gonna take, everyone holding hands singing Kubaya and achieving Nirvana to say we have reached diversity?

If gays folks had the marriage equality the seek, do you think they'd suddenly shut up and act like the rest of society who don't walk around flaunting their sexual preference. Would they suddenly be like the rest of us who return insults and jeers over whatever with a hearty FU! or would they continue to seek validation in victim status?

This whole thing is confusing for me.

Collards

I thought it was the Mayor of Boston who wrote the letter?

Ed Cone

We should acknowledge the rights of all Americans, even if we think they won't be grateful enough for our beneficence. It's just the right thing to do.

We could still give a "hearty FU!" to flaunters, victims, and anyone else who isn't "like the rest of us."

prell

"do you think they'd suddenly shut up and act like the rest of society who don't walk around flaunting their sexual preference."

This is the mindset of the modern Republican/conservative.

prell

"the rights of all Americans"

Well, our conservative friends have already informed us that homosexuals have no rights. After all, there is no mention of homosexuals in the Constitution. Some have also informed us that they're not even human beings. But hey, we can always eat with "likeminded friends at Chick-fil-A" with Davenport & Co.

justcorbly

>>"...Because it's his right…"

Well, yeah, but that really isn't an answer. Emanuel had a right to say what he said, too.

Why go out of his way to express an opinion that he ought to have known would start a backlash and garner bad publicity?

Exercising the right to say something doesn't mean that what's said is especially clever. Mr. Mayor and Mr. Chicken both demonstrated that. They can't seek shelter in asertions they didn't know how people would react. That's just an admission of being clueless.

justcorbly

>>"... walk around flaunting their sexual preference."

Good heavens! Are people doing that? We can't have that. Burqas for everyone!! And nightly recitations of Cotton Mather.

polifrog

prell:

After all, there is no mention of homosexuals in the Constitution.


If the equality there should be no mention of any racial of sexual subgroup.

Only the divisive among us demand all manner of racial enumeration and now, apparently, the "keep-the-government-out-of-the-bedroom" crowd desire government to inquire into our individual sexual proclivities.

bubba

"Well, our conservative friends have already informed us that homosexuals have no rights."

Homosexuals have the same rights everyone else has.

polifrog

justcorbly:

Exercising the right to say something doesn't mean that what's said is especially clever. Mr. Mayor and Mr. Chicken both demonstrated that. They can't seek shelter in asertions they didn't know how people would react. That's just an admission of being clueless.


Do they each have a right to speak? Yes. Do their respective jobs influence that freedom. Yes. One more so than the other.

The mayor holds a position as a government official that allows him to create law. The CEO, however, is purely a subject of the law. This difference allows the CEO full access to freedom of speech.

Only to the divisive and intolerant would the CEO's opinions be a problem. He believes what he believes -- so what if it runs afoul liberal orthodoxy -- try tolerance. He creates no law.

Rahm in contrast, intent on infringing on a private display of religious conviction, speaks with the force of government.

This boils down to little more than government bullying the pious.

prell

"Homosexuals have the same rights everyone else has."

O rly?

Roch

Polifrog, above: "One is divisive when they retain for themselves rights they deny others whether that be person, culture or group."

Polifrog, in the same comment: "Civil unions would fall under a new definition of marriage and as such forcing society to accept civil unions is an imposition of a new definition of marriage on society."

Roch

"Ed's divisiveness is grounded in a sense of superiority that allows him to rationalize the disfranchisement of others who do not share his morality." -- Polifrog

And the difference between him and you is... ?

Roch

Apologies, Prell.

Roch

"This whole thing is confusing for me."

I'm sure.

polifrog

Roch:

Polifrog, above: "One is divisive when they retain for themselves rights they deny others whether that be person, culture or group."

Polifrog, in the same comment: "Civil unions would fall under a new definition of marriage and as such forcing society to accept civil unions is an imposition of a new definition of marriage on society."


Your point?

Andrew Brod

That you're being your usual illogical self when you characterize the expansion of rights as an infringement of rights. Like Humpty Dumpty (via Lewis Carroll), you redefine words and concepts as you see fit. It's very creative.

polifrog

Roch:

"Ed's divisiveness is grounded in a sense of superiority that allows him to rationalize the disfranchisement of others who do not share his morality." -- Polifrog

And the difference between him and you is... ?

I do not dabble liberal divisiveness, divisiveness that is grounded in a sense of superiority that allows liberals to rationalize the disfranchisement of others who do not share liberal orthodoxy.

I do not think you can explain why a pious private sector CEO has been targeted for his beliefs without the tool of liberal intolerance.


Andrew Brod

There you go again. Free choice is great... except when it's choosing not to frequent a particular establishment due to its owner's political views. Then it's targeting a pious private-sector CEO.

Any sensible libertarian would say, you don't want to eat at Chick-Fil-A now? Fine. Don't eat at Chick-Fil-A now. But you've got this whole other thing going on. It must be the performance art.

polifrog

Doc, as I said upthread I am fine with individuals choosing to forgo an establishment due to the owner's views.

Ed, for example, feels entitled to not fund those who would channel his dollars toward causes he finds immoral. Fine. Yet when others feel the same way, he feels entitled to deny them the right to not fund that which they find immoral. Not fine.

Rahm, however, is a different bird. Rahm is the context I left out in the statement below. Apologies.

I do not think you can explain why a pious private sector CEO has been targeted for his beliefs without the tool of liberal intolerance.

Roch

Thanks, Andy. Polifrogs hypocrisy self contradictions are readily apparent.

Roch

"I do not think you can explain why a pious private sector CEO has been targeted for his beliefs without the tool of liberal intolerance." -- he whose name must not be reveled

What I cannot explain is how an opponent to gay marriage or even civil unions can, with a straight face (presumably), wag a finger at others for "rationalizing the disfranchisement of others who do not share his morality."

polifrog

You claim a contradiction, Roch, but do not define it. How am I being contradictory?

justcorbly

>>"...government bullying the pious."

First, you're equating "the pious" with those who who have religious objections to the existence of gays. The right does this all the time, i.e., defining words like "pious" and "Christain" to mean only what they want those words to mean. That's arrogant and insulting.

How, precisely, is Emanuel's statement "bullying" anyone?

Within my lifetime, a good number of people went on record saying that no African-American would eat in their restaurants, attend their schools, buy the house next door, etc., etc., because God didn't want that to happen. Did standing up to them amount to bullying the pious?

The CEO made statements that many, many people find offensive and dangerous. He was naive if he expected no blowback. The notion that pushing back somehow represents an attack on piety is nonsense, if for no other reason that many of those who disagree with the CEO's opinion about gays do so for their own religious reasons.

Finally, I don't believe Emanuel is in a position to actually "make law" sans co-conspirators, even in Chicago.

Thomas

I think the Chick-fil-A CEO would not have been discouraged from saying what he did by the possibility of damage to his business. They've long passed up significant revenues by not opening on Sunday. At least he's not hypocritical about it. But, his beliefs on this topic are enough to prevent me from spending any more money at his restaurants, much as I like the food.

Polifog equating choosing to not patronize a business because of the CEO's beliefs with the government trying to prevent businesses from discriminating against women is just unbelievable. I wish I could state the absurdity of this more eloquently, but I'm at a loss for words.

polifrog

justcorbly:

Within my lifetime, a good number of people went on record saying that no African-American would eat in their restaurants, attend their schools, buy the house next door, etc., etc., because God didn't want that to happen. Did standing up to them amount to bullying the pious?

That question would be more appropriately directed toward the democrats that filibustered civil rights legislation.

Sean

ed, is there any way you can reset this blog so that if ANYONE mentions the words conservative, liberal, progressive, righty, lefty, republican or democrat they're banned for life?

Spag

Only the Left would politicize food. Was there a big media and political uproar over the rainbow Oreos?

Mayor McCheese is a liberal but Burger King is on the Right.

We were told during the A1 debate that there were "so many more important issues we could be dealing with" than A1. I suppose this is one of them.

The comments to this entry are closed.