Chick-fil-a Issue Thing

[Winchester]

[quote name='FuturePriest387' timestamp='1343576360' post='2459939']
I highly doubt the writers of the Constitution would approve of gay marriage. Two of them were Catholic and all the rest were Protestants, plus at the time nobody was really accepting of it.
[/quote]
That doesn't mean they'd think the Federal government should stick its nose into the issue.

[4588686]

[quote name='ardillacid' timestamp='1343581333' post='2459959']
Who is attempting to criminalize homosexuality? This isn't Nigeria, Bud. Maybe have a friend proof read your drunk posts before posting...
[/quote]

Actually one of the founders of the organizations said on national tv that he would support reinstating anti-Sodomy laws. If you think that there aren't people in this country who think that the state has a right, and perhaps even an interest, in making homosexual activity illegal then you are naive. One of those persons is a guy on the Supreme Court names Scalia. How do we know that he feels this way? Because he said so in his opinions. And come on down to my neck of the woods sometime and you'll find more than a few people who find the idea of dealing with the homos by putting them a jail more than a bit overly-generous.

Also, you are thinking of Uganda, not Nigeria.

Edited July 29, 2012 by Hasan

[Ash Wednesday]

I've never had the opportunity to try Chik-fil-a but now I'd love to eat there the next time I'm in the states simply because the way people describe the food it sounds so darn good. Sadly my home state of WA does not have one. My only hope is an airport somewhere.

[4588686]

[quote name='FuturePriest387' timestamp='1343576360' post='2459939']
I highly doubt the writers of the Constitution would approve of gay marriage. Two of them were Catholic and all the rest were Protestants, plus at the time nobody was really accepting of it.
[/quote]

And most of them wouldn't approve of interracial marriage, or women voting, or you voting, since you don't own landed property, of Catholics voting or holding office. As I've said before, the framers of the constitution did not have a single intentionality. They disagreed on exactly what the constitution meant. Also, the constitution has changed considerably since they wrote the original draft. Hence why there are now more than 10 Amendments. Prior to the 14th Amendment there would be no constitution protection for gay, or interracial, marriage.

[Norseman82]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1343536617' post='2459887']
In America, marriage is a civil right.

[url="http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/388/1/case.html"]http://supreme.justi...388/1/case.html[/url]



[b] [i]II[/i][/b]


[color=#000000][font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=4][i]These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. [b]The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.[/b][/i][/size][/font][/color]
[color=#000000][font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=4][i][b]Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, [url="http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/316/535/case.html"]316 U. S. 535[/url], [url="http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/316/535/case.html#541"]316 U. S. 541[/url] (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, [url="http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/125/190/case.html"]125 U. S. 190[/url] (1888).[/b] To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual, and cannot be infringed by the State.[/i][/size][/font][/color]
[color=#000000][font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=4][i]These convictions must be reversed.[/i][/size][/font][/color]
[color=#000000][font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=4][i]It is so ordered.[/i][/size][/font][/color]
[/quote]

In this case the court is recognizing that the right to marriage is a civil right based on the fact that it is a right under [b]natural law[/b]. But the same natural law also recognizes that marriage is by nature heterosexual.

Edited July 29, 2012 by Norseman82

[Norseman82]

[quote name='missionseeker' timestamp='1343522492' post='2459840']
Eating somewhere does NOT make a person a bigot. Oreven wrong.[/quote]

"Bigot" is a word that bullies on the left use to shut down a debate when they realize they cannot win by legitimate means.

Edited July 29, 2012 by Norseman82

[PhuturePriest]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1343586827' post='2459970']
That doesn't mean they'd think the Federal government should stick its nose into the issue.
[/quote]

Well, even if you are right, I still support the traditional family and I am against legalizing gay marriage. I don't mind if you think differently.

[Winchester]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1343588715' post='2459985']
And most of them wouldn't approve of interracial marriage, or women voting, or you voting, since you don't own landed property, of Catholics voting or holding office. As I've said before, the framers of the constitution did not have a single intentionality. They disagreed on exactly what the constitution meant. Also, the constitution has changed considerably since they wrote the original draft. Hence why there are now more than 10 Amendments. Prior to the 14th Amendment there would be no constitution protection for gay, or interracial, marriage.
[/quote]
If they'd followed the damned thing, it wouldn't matter. This is where that whole strictly enumerated powers thing would serve the alleged advocates of civil liberties.

[Winchester]

[quote name='FuturePriest387' timestamp='1343589635' post='2459995']
[s]Well, even if [/s]you are right,[s] I still support the traditional family and I am against legalizing gay marriage. I don't mind if you think differently.[/s]
[/quote]

I'm talking about the Federal government's powers, so I am right.

The Pope is our marriage authority, insofar as he is the Steward of the Church. I don't want the Federal government to "legalize gay marriage". I want it to shut the floopy up about marriage.

[BigJon16]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1343341938' post='2459147']
The big problem, as I see it isn't that so-called "gay rights" and other private groups and such are organizing boycotts.
While obviously, I'm 100% against the reasons for this particular boycott, I have absolutely no problem with boycotts in principle. In a free society and free market, consumers are free to choose to do business with or avoid business with whatever companies they want for whatever reason.
If gays, liberals, and other degenerates want to boycott Chick-fil-A, that's their own problem.
I'll simply increase my resolve to follow the advice of those goofy cows and "Eat mor chiken"! Yum!


The big issue is that the mayors of Boston and Chicago blocking Chick-Fil-A from their cities because of the owners' personal religious and moral beliefs and donations to Christian organizations that hold these religious and moral beliefs. That's anti-Christian bigotry pure and simple by public officials. If mayors of cities were to similarly block businesses from their cities because of their owner's devout Muslim beliefs, the reaction from the bleedin' hearts would be entirely different.

Anyhow, kudos for the Chick-fil-A folks for taking an unapologetically Christian public stance and not backing down to political correctness.
[/quote]


I totally agree.



But you missed the point of my devil's advocacy.

Just for a moment switch things around. Lets say the mayor of Boston is really Timothy Dolan. Chick-fil-a-a-baby is a well loved chicken place that unapologetically supports abortion. The extremely Catholic Mayor doesn't want a extremely pro-abortion restaurant in his city jeopardizing the city's fundamental beliefs in the right to life. So he bans the restaurant from the city.


The sides would be flipped and we would be hailing this mayor as a hero, in the same way that the gay rights advocates are currently hailing Menino as a hero.


Im just making an observation. I do not agree with Menino being able to ban Chick-fil-a. And I give uber props to chick-fil-a for standing with its beliefs. Its nice to know that there are still good people in America.



On another note, has anyone seen the letter that Menino sent? Well, here it is:

[img]http://i.imgur.com/VSW8L.png[/img]

In no way does Menino have any right to attempt to ban a company from the city. He is the mayor of Boston sure, but his views do not represent the views of every single person in Boston. What about the entire population of Christians in Boston who are opposed to same-sex-marriage? It makes me want to punch Menino in the face...

[4588686]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1343590348' post='2459998']
If they'd followed the damned thing, it wouldn't matter. This is where that whole strictly enumerated powers thing would serve the alleged advocates of civil liberties.
[/quote]

That claim has absolutely no support in history or in the text of the constitution. The original text leaves no protection for citizens from the illiberal inclinations of state governments. Hence why Catholics couldn't vote in most of the states. Or why blacks couldn't vote. Historically civil rights have expanded exponentially since incorporation occurred.

More importantly, how is the constitution a legitimate document? Taking the criticisms that you levy against the current government and applying them to the constitution, the document is a totally illegitimate bargain by which aristocrats authorized their own power to steal from and brutalize the populace.

Edited July 29, 2012 by Hasan

[4588686]

[quote name='Norseman82' timestamp='1343589090' post='2459991']
In this case the court is recognizing that the right to marriage is a civil right based on the fact that it is a right under [b]natural law[/b]. But the same natural law also recognizes that marriage is by nature heterosexual.
[/quote]

I didn't see natural law anywhere in the text.

[4588686]

[quote name='BigJon16' timestamp='1343591523' post='2460003']
I totally agree.



But you missed the point of my devil's advocacy.

Just for a moment switch things around. Lets say the mayor of Boston is really Timothy Dolan. Chick-fil-a-a-baby is a well loved chicken place that unapologetically supports abortion. The extremely Catholic Mayor doesn't want a extremely pro-abortion restaurant in his city jeopardizing the city's fundamental beliefs in the right to life. So he bans the restaurant from the city.


The sides would be flipped and we would be hailing this mayor as a hero, in the same way that the gay rights advocates are currently hailing Menino as a hero.


Im just making an observation. I do not agree with Menino being able to ban Chick-fil-a. And I give uber props to chick-fil-a for standing with its beliefs. Its nice to know that there are still good people in America.



On another note, has anyone seen the letter that Menino sent? Well, here it is:

[img]http://i.imgur.com/VSW8L.png[/img]

In no way does Menino have any right to attempt to ban a company from the city. He is the mayor of Boston sure, but his views do not represent the views of every single person in Boston. What about the entire population of Christians in Boston who are opposed to same-sex-marriage? It makes me want to punch Menino in the face...
[/quote]

He doesn't. He's blustering. All he actually does is urge them to not build their store because it is inconsistent with Bostonian values. If he tries to actually black them then I hope they sue him.

[Winchester]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1343593064' post='2460008']
That claim has absolutely no support in history or in the text of the constitution. The original text leaves no protection for citizens from the illiberal inclinations of state governments. Hence why Catholics couldn't vote in most of the states. Or why blacks couldn't vote. Historically civil rights have expanded exponentially since incorporation occurred.

More importantly, why do you act like the constitution is a legitimate document? Taking the criticisms that you levy against the current government and applying them to the constitution, the document is a totally illegitimate bargain by which aristocrats authorized their own power to steal from and brutalize the populace.
[/quote]

Federal government. state governments are another matter.

Criticisms against the State as a concept applied to the Constitution would mean the Constitution could not bind anyone who did not consent. As far as the Constitution goes, anyone attaining Federal office is clearly bound to it, and as a matter of practicality, strict constitutionalism is a good tactic for the discerning anarchist.

Rights have also diminished since the doctrine of incorporation has risen.

I do not deny there are people of good will who support statism. Indeed, there may have been some amongst the Framers.

[ardillacid]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1343588078' post='2459980']
Actually one of the founders of the organizations said on national tv that he would support reinstating anti-Sodomy laws. If you think that there aren't people in this country who think that the state has a right, and perhaps even an interest, in making homosexual activity illegal then you are naive. One of those persons is a guy on the Supreme Court names Scalia. How do we know that he feels this way? Because he said so in his opinions. And come on down to my neck of the woods sometime and you'll find more than a few people who find the idea of dealing with the homos by putting them a jail more than a bit overly-generous.

Also, you are thinking of Uganda, not Nigeria.
[/quote]
I am naive, but that's beside the point. And I meant Nigeria.

I never said that there aren't people who think that there should be anti-sodomy laws. There are also people who think that the government shouldn't exist. There are also people who think that the Federal government should own the means of production. Realistically it will never happen.

Shortly after your state passed its gay marriage ban, you said support for gay marriage is increasing. Well, 40% of your state was against that amendment. Yet somehow you are worried about homosexuality being criminalized? Who is being naive now? Your chicken little posts sound like Eagle Eye and the communists taking over America. Sheesh.