June 2019

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            

« Lost | Main | What might have been »

Jul 26, 2012

Comments

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

Spag

Oh yeah, and it's amazing how many people will boycott a restaurant because of the political views of its owner, but will still buy products made in China or petroleum from the Middle East. The worst thing a person can do these days isn't slave/child labor, denying women's rights, or even executing homosexuals. It's opposing same-sex marriage.

justcorbly

Frog, you are evading the point: Why should I cut Mr CEO any more slack for saying something I find offensive just because he claims to say it based on religious convictions than I would cut someone slack 40 years ago for telling me the Bible said black are inferior to whites?

I don't see the difference.

People have a right to believe anything they choose to believe. But, speech and behavior are not belief. It's none of my business what the CEO thinks about gays or why he thinks that. How he spends his money and how he positions his corporation are different matters. He has no claim to religious protection when he speaks or acts on matters that are essentially political.

Would *you* cut anyone some slack who works for gay marriage based on their own religious beliefs? There are millions of them in this country. If not, then you are really saying that you want the Constitution to only protect the religious freedom of people you agree with.

Roch

"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." -- Polifrog

You are right, there is a difference, you slog along with diverseness that is grounded in confusion that allows you to rationalize the disenfranchisement of others who do not share your conservative orthodoxy.

Assailing people for reserving rights to themselves while denying others and then doing just that, in the same comment, no less, on the matter of civil unions, is astoundingly hypocritical. "But he's a liberal," doesn't absolve you, it's merely that rationalization you condemn in others.

Ed Cone

Nice of Jeff Bezos to give us another reference point, although his seems to be a personal gift.

Still, as with CfA, anyone who wants to boycott Amazon over this has that right, and it would be wrong for a mayor to block Amazon from doing business because of the CEO's beliefs and opinions.

polifrog

Justcorbly--

I evade nothing. All are free to choose not to engage in commerce with Chick-Fil-A for one's personal moral reasons. I have no problem with that.

I do, however, have a problem with the same individuals supporting law that forces others to engage in commerce that those others find immoral. ObamaCare - abortifacients and contraception.

What is it in liberal orthodoxy that allows liberals, progressives ... democrats to rationalize limiting Catholic choice in what they fund while reserving the right for themselve? As I have suggested previously, I believe liberals consider their liberal morality more moral than the morality of others.

It is for this reason liberals have so little tolerance for individuals like the CEO of Chick-Fil-A. Simply put liberals feel morally superior to others and, hence, feel free to use government to bully even the pious - damn freedom of religion.

Apparently liberal morality is even superior to the Constitution and the rule of law.

A dangerous gang indeed.

Liv

I hate to say it, but it's time for companies to start taking responsibility for their actions, and in this day in age, their stance on gays is criminal (or should be). If they can't accept the responsibility of running a company for ALL Americans, without discrimination, prejudice, and xenophobia then it is time for the company to disappear.

Ed Cone

"...liberals have so little tolerance for individuals like the CEO of Chick-Fil-A."

Given the broad group that has criticized the mayors, this band of intolerant liberals would seem to be a small one, and one that doesn't include (so far as I can tell) anyone on this thread.

Mick

Liv,

What has CfA actually done that fits your descriptions above?

Sean

the chick-hate-teh-gays discrimination is more nuanced and dare i say, marketing genius/evil. when pressed, dan cathy said they hire and serve gays... but their hiring practices and patron makeup isn't why people are upset.

creating a national chick-fil-a day, to show support of traditional marriage, is one part of the uproar. the proclamation projects multiple messages simultaneously:

1. it positions the company in the roots of it's religious tradition (nothing wrong with that in and of itself)
2. it presents clear subtext that non-traditional marriage is either wrong, immoral or not worth supporting (AKA fuck off gays and the people who support family or close friends who are gay)
3. it creates a hard separation between his current and potential customer base along the lines of being pro or anti gay marriage

for every person who stops patronizing chick-fil-a, cathy is banking on anti-gay marriage (traditional marriage) supporters to rally behind his company. so not only is the company the posterchild for eating less cows, but the new martyr for the traditional marriage cause.

add that to the *millions* of dollars donated to groups with a clear bent to oppose gay marriage and you get a sense of the uproar.

but hey, all of this is fair game -- the company and the ceo can donate what they want to whom they want. they have the right to "speak" freely... but that doesn't mean that some free speech doesn't come at a cost.

maybe cathy has run the numbers and decided that their stance is actually a smart business decision. maybe he's shooting from his moralistic hip. either way, people are going to respond either in support or opposition. smart mayors will deal with the issue with words, not actions; the action of protesting should be, and will be, left to the people.

designation

@Mick

Chik-fil-A's corporate policies have long been a subject of investigation, reporting and court cases as evidenced by that librul rag known as Forbes.

http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2007/0723/080.html

The LGBT community has long known Cathy-corp to be anti-equality. Earlier this year, several drag queens dig a performance peice that still makes me laugh out loud.

Enjoy it here http://youtu.be/sO-msplukrw

The mainstream media's sudden interest in this bigoted corporation -- from its policies to its bully puplit -- is to me an interesting commentary on the mainstream media more than anything else.


Ed Cone

"for every person who stops patronizing chick-fil-a, cathy is banking on anti-gay marriage (traditional marriage) supporters to rally behind his company."

I wonder if that's true. Maybe he is. Maybe he believes what he believes so strongly he's willing to take the hit.

If the company confined itself to its traditional markets in the South, the economic impact might be limited. But expanding into other parts of the country would seem to represent more risk, especially if this controversy is the first thing potential new customers hear about the brand.

Spag

So a company is allowed to be pro-gay and join the chorus of those who claim religious opposition to homosexuality is bigotry, but a company cannot be in opposition to homosexuality.

In other words, it's okay to be intolerant of religious beliefs but not okay to be intolerant of homosexuality.

For the record, I am not pro-religion or anti-gay but I am anti double standards and bullshit.

Spag

Why wasn't there an uproar over Replacements Ltd. and their PAC?

Roch

Seriously? I remain amazed that a lawyer, of all people, seems incapable of appreciating, much less distinguishing, even, the difference between efforts to secure greater equality and efforts to keep people marginalized. Truly astoundingly spectacular.

Ed Cone

Companies can do what they please, and so can customers and potential customers.

In fact, the main "you can't do that" theme of this thread is directed at the mayors who overstepped in their opposition to CfA.

Replacements did get some pushback for it's A1 stance.

Spag

I know a lot of lawyers who support the First Amendment and respect the right of religious people to live according to their beliefs even if others disagree with them.

I am actually in agreement with Ed on this one for the most part. Boycotts rarely work in the long run. I can almost guarantee that some of the self-righteous here haven't had their last CFA meal. Limbaugh is still on the radio, people still buy Oreos, and Replacements still sells dishes.
I do try to avoid Smithfield products because I think they are blatant and unremorseful about hog waste pollution.

Ed Cone

"I do try to avoid..."

I think that's where a lot of people end up on this kind of stuff. We make decisions for a lot of reasons, and it's not like that incremental order of waffle fries is going to make or break the company anyway.

But I'd guess that kind of less-than-maximal effort can pretty powerful if it's widespread enough.

Andrew Brod

"I do try to avoid Smithfield products because I think they are blatant and unremorseful about hog waste pollution."

For the record, I am not pro or con on hog waste, but I am against double standards and bullshit... or rather hogshit.

So apparently it's okay to be intolerant of hog waste. What about being intolerant of hog farmers?

justcorbly

>>"What is it in liberal orthodoxy that allows liberals, progressives ... democrats to rationalize limiting Catholic choice in what they fund …"

What this has to do with Chick-Fil-A is beyond me. But, wasn't it Jesus who said, "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's"?

We are a civil society, not a religious society. We allow all persons to believe what they wish to believe. That same freedom does not extend to behavior. When someone holds to a belief that they feel compels them to behave in a way contrary to civil standards, e.g., the law, then they must be prepared to accept the cost of challenging those norms.

If some Catholics feel that enrolling in an insurance scheme that gives other people the ability to pay for medicine and care, at their expense, that they believe is wrong, somehow represents an attack on their religious freedoms, then I have to say I think they see their religious freedoms as encompassing the right to control the behavior of others.

Spag

It's not hogwaste, it's how Smithfield deals with it.

polifrog

Ed:

Given the broad group that has criticized the mayors, this band of intolerant liberals would seem to be a small one, and one that doesn't include (so far as I can tell) anyone on this thread.


I would venture a guess that that is only because it has yet to be sanctioned by our government in the way that ObamaCare has sanctioned forcing the religious to act against their will.

Or as justcorbly said:

We are a civil society, not a religious society. (Liberal governing morality trumps religion. Forget that our rights are inherent to humanity and as such stem from a power greater than the government that the citizens empower.)

We allow all persons to believe what they wish to believe. That same freedom does not extend to behavior. (Government morality allows it to silence the religious.)

When someone holds to a belief that they feel compels them to behave in a way contrary to civil standards, e.g., the law, then they must be prepared to accept the cost of challenging those norms.(The superior nature of liberal morality allows for it to set the norms of society and guide the nations religious heathen to heel at government's atheocratic foot.)

If some Catholics feel that enrolling in an insurance scheme that gives other people the ability to pay for medicine and care, at their expense, that they believe is wrong, somehow represents an attack on their religious freedoms, then I have to say I think they see their religious freedoms as encompassing the right to control the behavior of others. (All your moral are belong to us.)

As you can see, Ed. The reason that there is currently a only a small band of intolerant liberals lending support to those mayors who choose to bully the pious is that such actions have yet to be sanctified by governance in the way that liberal governance has moralized the outright unconstitutional coercion of the religious by way of codified law -- ObamaCare.

It is a dangerous game liberals play when they embrace government as their source of morality rather than simply accepting that government is as amoral as a looking-glass reflecting the morality of its citizens.

Andrew Brod

So you're against "intolerant liberals" who support actions like Emanuel's, but when it's pointed out that there really aren't many liberals who support Emanuel's action, your (apparently straight-faced) response seems to suggest that this just makes your point stronger, because it implies that "governance" hasn't "sanctified" such actions yet.

You really are a dense ball of twine, aren't you?

I took a class in research methods in college. One of the professor's favorite topics was undisprovable hypotheses. He chortled as he pointed them out in news reports and political statements. His favorite example was his Unified Theory of Strawberries, which holds that all human behavior is driven by an insatiable lust for strawberries. But what, you say that your actions aren't driven by a lust for strawberries? Well, that's just because you're repressing your lust for strawberries. It's a foolproof hypothesis!

My professor would be impressed with you.

polifrog

I suppose, Brod, you have a better explanation for why liberals support forcing Catholics to act against their conscience with the nightstick that is ObamaCare while at the same time having not fully rallied around bullying CFA into religious silence via governance.

ObamaCare codified. Rahm's actions not sanctified.

As I said earlier I believe codifying in law what liberals would otherwise find immoral, moralizes for liberals that which would liberals ordinarily find immoral.

Thus, forcing the religious to support an immoral stream of revenue is just fine for liberals. But when government attempts to force the religious to shut up without having first sanctified the nightstick used, well Rahm was forced backtrack from immoral behavior that had yet been moralized via codification.

When government is allowed to become the source of morality, the citizenry loses control over morality.

Sean

spag: "So a company is allowed to be pro-gay and join the chorus of those who claim religious opposition to homosexuality is bigotry, but a company cannot be in opposition to homosexuality.

In other words, it's okay to be intolerant of religious beliefs but not okay to be intolerant of homosexuality.

For the record, I am not pro-religion or anti-gay but I am anti double standards and bullshit."

======

this company is doing more than showing opposition to homosexuality -- they're funding groups that attempt to marginalize homosexual relationships and benefits. they do so under the guise of "supporting traditional marriage," but what the hell does that even mean outside the context of keeping a thumb on gay people who press for rights they feel they deserve? not one church would be *forced* to marry gay people if laws were changed; the very notion of gay marriage is just offensive to the morals of certain churches and their flock.

people using the excuse of defending their religion, when their religion isn't affected by said action, ARE bullshit artists.

Sean

from a recently (non-recognized) married gay friend of mine:

I am not "PROUD" to be gay, because I had nothing to do with it. I am also not ASHAMED to be gay, because I had nothing to do with it. I AM proud to be married to the most incredible person that I know. I AM proud that she stood with me in a very public space and promised to be in this with me for a lifetime. I AM proud of the stance we have taken against all bullying. I will NEVER be convinced that gay people not eating at Chick-fil-A is bullying. Sorry, folks.
Roch

"I suppose, Brod, you have a better explanation for why liberals support forcing Catholics to act against their conscience with the nightstick that is ObamaCare while at the same time having not fully rallied around bullying CFA into religious silence via governance." -- poloifrog

You know what would be more interesting than your speculation about the reasons for your perceived inconsistencies among adumbral liberals? Explaining in a rational way your self-contradictions in decrying citizens losing control of morality to government and your position against gay marriage and civil unions. That I'd like to read, as I have a fascination with knots.

polifrog

Roch:

I have a fascination with knots.

You are fortunate person to have found an interest in that which can be found in your own mind.

Why do you (presumably) not support mayors attacking CFA for exercising free speech and religion while at the same time you support forcing the religious to act against their conscience?

What makes one more moral than the other?

Furthermore, you claim a self-contradictions on my part but have yet to define that contradiction. What are you asking of me?

Roch

Real slow now...

  • You admonish others for "rationalizing the disfranchisement of others who do not share his morality" but rationalize your disenfranchisement of gay people from marriage as "tradition."
  • You chastise others for "when they retain for themselves rights they deny others whether that be person, culture or group" but, in the same comment, argue for denying equal rights to gay people.
  • You decry "citizens losing control of morality to government" yet support government opposition of civil unions which you objected to above as a "new morality."

Clear?

It's not that hard from here, John, prattle on in denial or confront the fact that you do not adhere to the ideals you demand of others. If you chose the former, you'll understand if I disengage.

polifrog

Are you arguing that government is barring some individuals from marriage?

Roch

I apologize, I have a policy against continuing discussions with people when they detach from reality.

polifrog

I think I understand your confusion, Roch. Allow me to provide the full quote, and answer to Hugh, you reference with a partial quote.


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.

This was an answer to a question regarding the imposition of morality.

How is it that those who seek to change an existing morality claim that that existing morality is an imposition?--- It was already there. Of course it is those who seek a change in morality who are imposing their morality on society.

I am not sure how you misread this as my "disenfranchisement of gay people from marriage as "tradition.""

Curious... What is the source of morality for your belief that homosexual marriage is moral?

polifrog

Roch

I apologize, I have a policy against continuing discussions with people when they detach from reality.


You do realize those individuals effectively showed up at a driver's license office looking for a internet only to choose to be arrested for not leaving when not being provided with that which does not exist.

I believe this goes to the moralizing nature of government for liberals.

Can you imagine another situation in which a group of individuals demand to be licensed for an activity? Most would consider licensing an imposition. Many of these same individuals consider the requirement of a driver's license or other form of identity to vote an imposition. Yet here these folks are demanding the imposition of licensing.

Why?

I believe they wish for government to moralize their choices... to give them a legal stamp of approval. With that they are no longer forced to argue for their own morality, as their choices have been sanctified by government.

I do not feel this is the a proper role for government.

polifrog

I reread this. I swear....


You do realize those individuals effectively showed up at a driver's license office looking for an internet license only to choose to be arrested for not leaving when not being provided with that which does not exist.

bubba

"I apologize, I have a policy against continuing discussions with people when they detach from reality."

Translation: "I no longer talk to myself out loud."

bubba

"I hate to say it, but it's time for companies to start taking responsibility for their actions, and in this day in age, their stance on gays is criminal (or should be)."

Yes, by all means introduce Thought Crime legislation in a second Obama term, where by self-admission, he'll have "more leeway" to further take away the liberties he just hasn't yet gotten around to destroy.

I'm sure it will all be just perfect and dandy when he takes on the supreme legislative and judicial authority in the nation, don't you think?

polifrog

Bubba:

Translation: "I no longer talk to myself out loud."


To be fair, I was attempting to converse with him despite the fact he lied about what I said.

I did not say, as Roch claimes,

You chastise others for "when they retain for themselves rights they deny others whether that be person, culture or group" but, in the same comment, argue for denying equal rights to gay people.

I was, however, arguing the source of moral imposition.

How Roch gets from:

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.

to:

...in the same comment, argue for denying equal rights to gay people.
I don't know.

Perhaps you are right. I suppose I didn't recognize he was talking to himself and made the mistake of responding.

My fault.

bubba

People like him don't have to make sense. It's the behavior that's encouraged here, particularly when we point out their abject absurdities to them.

It happens quite frequently. Logic, common sense, proportion, focus, and accuracy count for nothing in the panoply of "progressive" mythology.

The comments to this entry are closed.