Chick-fil-a Issue Thing

[Winchester]

Eagle Eye and the communists are trying to take over America?

"Eagle Eye and the Communists" would be a great name for a band.

[4588686]

[quote name='ardillacid' timestamp='1343597381' post='2460028']
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.
[/quote]

Where did I say I was worried that homosexuality was going to be recriminalized?

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1343597705' post='2460029']
Eagle Eye and the communists are trying to take over America?

"Eagle Eye and the Communists" would be a great name for a band.
[/quote]


It's actually the title of the novel I've been working on.

[PhuturePriest]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1343590567' post='2459999']
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.
[/quote]

Fair enough. I wouldn't mind if it shut up either.

[ardillacid]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1343599270' post='2460041']
Where did I say I was worried that homosexuality was going to be recriminalized?
[/quote]
Why bring it up then? If you don't think it's remotely possible, then who gives a poo if somebody is donating to their cause? What is the organization that you referred to that is trying to criminalize it? Good Barack Harald flooping Obama, my head hurts.

[Norseman82]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1343593142' post='2460010']
I didn't see natural law anywhere in the text.
[/quote]

It is implied: "fundamental to our very existence and survival". What else could it mean except its natural ordering towarding procreation?

[Papist]

[img]http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/302332_409912009067163_1357615364_n.jpg[/img]

[filius_angelorum]

So, I want to weigh in on this.

I agree with the fundamental distinction between private individuals boycotting a particular restaurant and government officials preventing a business from being able to function in a city. Clearly, when one is exercising their civil rights, one has the right to be protected from persecution by the government, but not necessarily a right to be protected from persecution by individuals, unless those individuals commit criminal acts against you.

However, there IS a shade of grey here. When an elected official expresses a personal opinion, he has a privileged platform, and persecution or criticism by him is going to cause more damage than criticism or persecution by a simply private individual. So the question is whether or not these elected officials expressed opinions as private individuals or were they stating an intent to actually use their governmental power to prevent someone from exercising their rights as free citizens?

The problem is that, usually, when one states that elected officials DO have the right to express their opinions, whether individually, such as the governor, or corporately, as legislatures or administrative departments, especially on social or religious questions, he or she is most often a conservative. We might witness, for example, the conservative move to keep Nativity scenes or the Decalogue up in public buildings. On the other hand, when one believes that government officials and bodies must be more secular and avoid using their privileged platforms to express their convictions, because it might influence the people, one is generally liberal.

In any case, it seems to me that the whole problem is rooted in a false dichotomy. Most liberals and conservatives today believe, in either case, that the source of the privileged position for elected officials comes from the fact that they were [b]elected[/b] to represent the people. Thus, conservatives would argue that an elected persons represents "American Family Values," i.e. the values that most Americans share. Liberals would argue that, since everybody must be left to make their own decisions on these matters, they should not be overly influenced by those who represent the majority. Either way, it is the majority opinion, the consensus of values that ultimately wins the day. I would argue, though, that the right of a particular elected official either to use his office to express his views or not to express his views should [b]not[/b] be based on either his individual rights or his privileged position, but on the [b]correctness[/b]
of those views.

For that we must have some sort of standard for determining the correctness of a particular opinion, not so much to coerce individuals to hold that opinion, but more to serve as a standard language of expression for those who hold political office. In other words, we need a source to reflect a state orthodoxy. It would not have to be an infallible judgement, and in so far as a particular opinion was uncertain, it should be in fact excluded from the rhetoric of elected persons. I would argue for some kind of consensus between religious and social leaders, organized in a hierarchical fashion. Clearly, entertainment should be at the bottom of the hierarchy for participating in this process.

One of the great lies of liberalism is that it promotes an impartial, secular state. A state, however, is not merely a series of institutions or officials that perform particular functions, nor is it merely a geographical entity. After all, what makes California and Arkansas part of the same "state" (or nation, so as not to confuse terms)? Certainly nothing tangible. A nation-state is a metaphysical entity that unites persons who would not necessarily be united by location or circumstance, which means that the state, even at a local level, is held together by a sort of moral religious assent. If the state is secular, then the social institutions, all of which arise from the very existence of this moral entity, will tend also to be secular. Moreover, if the definition of "secular" includes certain particular moral norms, like "Thou shalt not kill," "Thou shalt not convert others unwillingly," "Thou shalt not smoke under the age of 18," or what have you, then those, when applied, will influence the religious beliefs of those who live under a particular state's law. In other words, no state is impartial, and no state is truly secular, if by secular one means existing without reference to the metaphysical.

[Anomaly]

What's the big deal? Marriage has many different meanings beyond a strictly legal definition. It's silly for people to argue that government should have anything to do with defining or protecting or even messing with emotional/spiritual aspects of marriage.

If two or twenty people (or creatures) want to form a domestic partnership to share domicile, property, or hospital visitation rights, that's fine. Why does the Government need to do anything with defining a social construct like 'Marriage'? All the Government needs to be doing is recognizing religious or philosophical 'Marriages' as meeting the legal standards of a domestic partnership. Government needs to get the hell out of Churches/Temples/Mosques/Pagodas.

[filius_angelorum]

Well, Anomaly, since you did not read or understand my post, let me reiterate. (A) Social institutions, like corporations, schools, professional organizations, charitable causes, etc. are formed on the basis of society, which includes the state; (B) if the state does NOT define a social construct like marriage, then it will be giving tacit approval to other social constructs, to the detriment of those religions who believe that monogamous marriage is the best familial situation; (C) even "domestic partnership" would be a social construct, and such a construct could have definite consequences on personal relationships, e.g. adoptions, child custody, education, etc.

As for the government getting "in" to Churches/Temples/Mosques/Pagodas (although I'm not sure why these four places are considered similar, except from a secularist point of view), the problem is not the government getting "in", but the Churches being shut out of the state.

Our country is merely progressing through the stages of liberalism--at a slower rate, of course, because our system of government is less democratic--but with more debate, and probably, with a more violent conclusion. The next stage is a malevolent neglect of religious sentiments, then denunciation, then prohibition.

[Anomaly]

I read your post. I chose to ignore it and post my opinion.

Being innovative is one of my superpowers.

[PhuturePriest]

[quote name='filius_angelorum' timestamp='1343669599' post='2460276']
Well, Anomaly, since you did not read or understand my post, let me reiterate. (A) Social institutions, like corporations, schools, professional organizations, charitable causes, etc. are formed on the basis of society, which includes the state; (B) if the state does NOT define a social construct like marriage, then it will be giving tacit approval to other social constructs, to the detriment of those religions who believe that monogamous marriage is the best familial situation; © even "domestic partnership" would be a social construct, and such a construct could have definite consequences on personal relationships, e.g. adoptions, child custody, education, etc.

As for the government getting "in" to Churches/Temples/Mosques/Pagodas (although I'm not sure why these four places are considered similar, except from a secularist point of view), the problem is not the government getting "in", but the Churches being shut out of the state.

Our country is merely progressing through the stages of liberalism--at a slower rate, of course, because our system of government is less democratic--but with more debate, and probably, with a more violent conclusion. The next stage is a malevolent neglect of religious sentiments, then denunciation, then prohibition.
[/quote]

Who cares about Chic-Fil-A and why don't we post about the real story at hand? Filius was back for a little bit!

[Socrates]

[quote name='Marie-Therese' timestamp='1343454902' post='2459672']
[font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]What got me most, however, was this repeated use of the word "socialist/socialism" in your comments. You seem to lack a real understanding of what that means. Socialism is born of a conservative ideology, not a liberal one. It means that the government owns and operates the means of production. It does not mean that the government is overly involved in your affairs. That might be an extrapolation of the concept, but it's an incorrect one. If you want to make an argument about government being too involved in the affairs of private citizens, then that's fine, but call it what it is. Semantics matter. What you're referring to is totalitarianism. Socialism is an economic theory. Thus, when you continue to make the statement that "it's the socialists" then you have to understand why I cannot take your comments seriously. I can assure you that socialism was not, in any way, a driving force behind a bunch of gay people deciding to boycott a chicken sandwich joint for their disagreement with gay marriage. [/font]
[/quote]
Sorry, but your assertion that "s[font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]ocialism is born of a conservative ideology" is quite simply false.[/font]

[font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]Socialism was never considered "conservative," nor had anything to do with a conservative ideology. Karl Marx, the most influential of the various nineteenth century socialist thinkers, was pretty much the polar opposite of conservative, but even the less revolutionary "reformist" socialists wanted a radical restructuring of society, and could hardly be considered "conservative." Certainly, if you read Pius XI's encyclical [i]Quadragesimo Anno[/i], you'll note that the socialism he strongly condemned saying "no one can be at the same time a sincere Catholic and a true socialist" was far from a conservative ideology.[/font]

[font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]. . . Unless you want to redefine anything that seeks to expand the powers of the state as [i]ipso facto[/i] "conservative." But that would be far a far more inaccurate and false use of words than eagle_eye's use of the words "liberal" and "socialist" which got your dander up so much in the first place.[/font]

Besides, the meanings of terms like "liberal" and "conservative" are themselves rather inexact, and can mean different things in different places and times. While you might object to the use of "liberal" to refer to anything other than classical liberalism, EE was using the words in the common modern American parlance, which makes sense given that he's a contemporary American writing specifically about contemporary American politics.

It looks to me like you're simply playing semantic games here. As I pointed out before, it's undeniable that the modern left is an alliance of a sexually libertinism and socialistic-leaning welfare statism, and that the whole "gay rights"/"gay marriage" agenda is an integral facet of modern leftism/"liberalism"/whatever-you-want-to-call-it.

It appears that you're trying to exonerate "liberals" from any blame regarding the whole promotion of state-supported sexual immorality, and shift blame to conservatives.
Either that, or your just engaging in pointless semantic quarreling for its own sake.

Edited July 30, 2012 by Socrates

[Socrates]

[quote name='Marie-Therese' timestamp='1343455558' post='2459680']
If such laws exist in America, please point me toward them. There would be sufficient grounds to take those laws to the Supreme Court as violations of the First Amendment regarding free exercise. Outside the US, such laws might exist, but I speak specifically of the US here.
[/quote]
The problem is that once courts being ruling officially that "gay marriage" is in fact a "right," it opens a whole can of worms regarding freedom of conscience and practice of one's religion, as well as other issues.

If I recall correctly, courts have ruled, for instance, that Christian wedding photography businesses and such must extend their services to homosexual "weddings" against their conscience. Also, in states where "gay marriage" is is recognized by the state (such as Massachussetts), public schools are forced to teach homosexuality as a "normal" lifestyle as early as first grade, and that students
attending public schools cannot be exempt from those classes.
The HHS contraception mandate (though not involving homosexuality) should serve as evidence that the federal government and courts will not necessarily respect the rights of the citizenry to freedom of conscience and religious practice.

In Canada and other countries, speech against homosexual is indeed outlawed, and punishable by hefty fines. Yes, we have the first amendment in America, but you are naive if you really think that we can presume that the freedoms guaranteed in that amendment, or any of the freedoms enumerated in the bill of rights can be taken for granted, and that they will always be respected by the courts, rather than ignored, or twisted, when they stand in the way of certain political agendas.

[Amory]

[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][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][/font][/color]
[color=#000000][font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][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][/font][/color]
[color=#000000][font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][i]These convictions must be reversed.[/i][/font][/color]
[color=#000000][font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][i]It is so ordered.[/i][/font][/color]
[/quote]

[size=4]That's all fine and good, but I see no evidence that an average, educated American in 1967--much less any of the members of the Warren Court--would have considered a union between one man and another, or between one woman and another, to constitute a "marriage." If I currently had access to an American dictionary from the 1960s, I would bet that its definition of marriage would specify it as a union between two members of the opposite sex.

Even now, [i]Merriam-Webster[/i]'s first definition of marriage is, "[/size][color=#000000][font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=3]the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law."[/size][/font][/color] I doubt the definition has become less inclusive over the last 45 years.

[Anomaly]

[quote]you're just engaging in pointless semantic quarreling for its own sake.
[/quote]I tell my wife that ALL the time.

She still never concedes her point