Chick-fil-a Issue Thing

[Marie-Therese]

Part 2:




[size=4][font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif][color=#222222][quote]I listed two choices. One was a limited constitutional government as literally stipulated. The other is a big expansive government with a liberal interpretation of the Constitution. Where are the other political poles in this nation?[/quote][/color]

[color=#222222]Nice try. That is not what happened. This is EXACTLY what you said:[/color]

[color=#222222][quote][/color][color=#282828]At the end of the day, this nation is pulled one of two ways. We go to the side of socialist ideology, or we go to conservative ideology. And today, we are being dangerously dragged to the socialist end. [/quote][/color]

[color=#282828]One of two ways. That tends to indicate an either/or scenario. I simply stated that such a dichotomy of one or the other doesn't exist. As for your last question, I challenge you to do some research. I'm going to let you gain your own answer there. Suffice it to say that there are more viewpoints in American politics than the scenario you posited here.[/color]

[color=#222222][quote]One of these governments will control and dictate the beliefs as said by people in businesses by using political pressure to only allow for one-way expression of ideas. The other allows for people to hold their personal beliefs and does not prosecute for such or limit their business options.[/quote][/color]

[color=#222222]Oh, EE. I don't want to sound condescending here but, are you really that naive? It's never in the interest of government to allow people to truly be free. If you think that you are in a free country right now, I'd challenge you to think again. That's why I keep saying that this "liberal v. conservative" mindset is wrong. Both of those groups want to take your freedoms away from you, they're just going about it in different ways.[/color]

[color=#222222]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.


[quote]I don't appreciate this false attack. I don't believe I condemned humanizing. If I did, please quote me so I can correct myself. I believe I only said that humanizing doesn't change the facts of a situation.[/quote][/color]

[color=#222222]Never said you condemned humanizing, whatever that means. You're the one who tossed that word out there. The only thing I ever said was that this was a simple matter of two disparate viewpoints. You're the one who tried to spin that on me as though I'm some dredlocked tie-dyed Kumbayah singing idiot for refusing to take a simple issue and convolute it with machinations that aren't there. Are people going to try to use Chik-Fil-A as a stooge? Of course, because that's easy. That does not, however, a conspiracy make. Liberal, socialist, or otherwise. Like I said before, people want what they want, and they do what they do as a means to get what they want. Gay people want to get married. Chik-Fil-A is a public representation of what they feel opposes them. This is really, really not complicated.

[quote]Good Christian conservatives don't sell out their faith and become parrots of the government, or sit silently by, and watch their faith get trampled.[/quote][/color]

[color=#222222]...OK? Did someone disagree with you? I never said I didn't support Chik-Fil-A. I said I didn't care because all I wanted was just to eat the freaking chicken. I don't like politics mixing in my food. I don't want someone trying to pin me as a homophobe because I like a chicken sandwich, and in the same fashion I wouldn't want someone trying to judge my heart or religion by the fact that I would eat the hell out of a rainbow oreo. And I think that you could've stopped at "good Christian" because I consider the term conservative to be as loaded and useless as the term liberal.



[quote]If you can bring real facts and arguments against my points, I'll respond. However, I am not going to continue this yelling match any longer than necessary.
[/quote][/color]

[color=#222222]If you're yelling, you're the only one doing so. Someone taking you to task for your choice of words, and expressing disagreement, doesn't make a confrontation. If you got your dander up, sorry. As for facts and arguments, tl;dr read the post.[/color][/font][/size]

[Amppax]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1343440169' post='2459546']
Now you die, Mr. Bond.
[/quote]

I'll take it. James Bond? I'm moving up in the world.

[PhuturePriest]

[quote name='Marie-Therese' timestamp='1343454757' post='2459670']
[font=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]Oy vey. Posting in 2 posts because it said I quoted too much when I tried to post.[/font]



[font=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]I'm going to step out here and assume, for the sake of discussion, that you believe I'm arguing from a "pro-liberal" viewpoint, and I'll forgive your peevish tone. Truth is, though, you don't know what I'm discussing. And what you said here makes absolutely no sense as a sentence. I'm not parroting anything, unlike some of your posts, which read like Rush Limbaugh show notes. They toe the party line, so to speak. While that'd be fine, if the party line were a solid argument, in this case it just diminishes the strength of what you're trying to argue. Want to make a statement about a culture at odds? That's a good discussion. But you're not making that point. As I said, several times, this is essentially a difference of ideologies between two groups. If you want to call it "liberal v. conservative," to fit it into your worldview, then fine. Go ahead. The fact that those labels are erroneously placed and poorly understood has heavy bearing on my point in general, but I'll give you a pass on not trying to go to that level. [/font]



[font=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]I wasn't yelling or insulting. I made simple observations. You might not have liked them, but that doesn't mean I was yelling or insulting anyone. If I had been insulting you, there would've been little doubt left that that was, in fact, what I was about.[/font]





[font=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]And here is where you go off on a tangent to bring up every perceived assault from liberals on religious liberty. This discussion is not about any of those things, and they don't reinforce your point. You mean there are people who use political grandstanding to attack the Catholic Church, because they don't like what the Church stands for? The Church is GOING to be attacked. She should EXPECT it. Doesn't the Bible mention something about persecution? If you're surprised at the state of current politics, then I'd suggest that you might be missing a few key points about Christianity. Now this does not mean that people should take things lying down, and that isn't my point. It's a discussion that needs having in the public arena, for people to hear these things. [/font]

[font=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]I'd like to take a brief moment here to state something that needs saying. The gay marriage argument is NOT an argument about religious liberty, sorry. Step aside from your personal feelings on the matter and look at it with an impartial and objective eye. One group of people desires to have access to some action/institution/etc. and another group feels that this access is immoral and desires to block it. At no point does the religious liberty of the dissenting group become threatened. No gay "marriage" will ever make a Catholic unable to practice their religion. No law is going to force a Catholic to take part in gay marriage, to perform them, or in any way be involved in them. Religious liberty is about your ability as a person to practice the faith of your choice. It is NOT about the fact that you have dogmatic disagreement with a particular law. If two gay persons have a legal "marriage" it does not in any way make you less able to be Catholic. [/font]




[font=arial,helvetica,sans-serif][color=#000000]If we want to discuss "conspiracy theory" then this is where you start rolling down the cliff. This has nothing to do with Chik-Fil-A. This argument isn't about a restaurant. It's about the power of political posturing. None of these idiots give three cr[/color]aps about a single fast food chain. What they care about is gaining points with voters. [/font]




[font=arial,helvetica,sans-serif][color=#000000]YES!!! YES IT IS!!! This is not a conspiracy. It's called the ordinary course of politics. THIS IS WHAT POLITICS IS. To imagine a conspiracy here is to give credit to the intelligence of people who clearly demonstrate that they have none. They are nothing but average manipulators whose advantage is that those that they manipulate are grossly below average. That's all. The Wizard behind the curtain is just an old man with a machine. People seem to have this desire to ascribe some monumental force working behind the scenes to destroy their particular ideological platform, when the fact is that it's much simpler than that. As I said before, repeatedly, this is not a conspiracy. This is not a complex issue. It's two groups who have opposing viewpoints trying to get their way. I'm not certain what about that makes you so irritated. [/color][/font]
[/quote]

Not to nit-pick your post, but it is made law in places where gay marriage is legal that no Church may refuse to marry a gay couple, so Religious liberty is being attacked when it comes to gay rights. This has been in the news for some Catholic Priests who denied a gay couple, and it will be in the news again. This isn't just a political war for a specific people to be able to marry. It's a religious war that will force people to go against their consciences because allowing gay marriage will not be enough. They will push and push until they can't possibly violate consciences in any other way.

[PhuturePriest]

[img]http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/378333_399338213447475_1467460347_n.jpg[/img]

I already put this in the Lame Board, but this deserves to be here, I think.

[Marie-Therese]

[quote name='FuturePriest387' timestamp='1343455217' post='2459674']
Not to nit-pick your post, but it is made law in places where gay marriage is legal that no Church may refuse to marry a gay couple, so Religious liberty is being attacked when it comes to gay rights. This has been in the news for some Catholic Priests who denied a gay couple, and it will be in the news again. This isn't just a political war for a specific people to be able to marry. It's a religious war that will force people to go against their consciences because allowing gay marriage will not be enough. They will push and push until they can't possibly violate consciences in any other way.
[/quote]

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 name='FuturePriest387' timestamp='1343455294' post='2459676']
[img]http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/378333_399338213447475_1467460347_n.jpg[/img]

I already put this in the Lame Board, but this deserves to be here, I think.
[/quote]

Good show. You get my props here.

[PhuturePriest]

[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.

Good show. You get my props here.
[/quote]

Ah. Now I remember why I stopped debating.

Again I have started misusing words in the heat of discussion. "Law" is not the word, rather specific towns have made it illegal. I can't point you to any links, but I do remember hearing about it in the news. In a town not too far from me they made it illegal for this Catholic Church that I go to to decline gay couples from using it for weddings, but this is about all that I can give you. Thanks for giving me the props, though. I never thought I would see the day!

[Norseman82]

[quote name='FuturePriest387' timestamp='1343455899' post='2459682']
Ah. Now I remember why I stopped debating.

Again I have started misusing words in the heat of discussion. "Law" is not the word, rather specific towns have made it illegal. I can't point you to any links, but I do remember hearing about it in the news. In a town not too far from me they made it illegal for this Catholic Church that I go to to decline gay couples from using it for weddings, but this is about all that I can give you. Thanks for giving me the props, though. I never thought I would see the day!
[/quote]

OK, I think you're referring to Church facilities, and I think I have heard of similar concerns.

[Slappo]

[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]

Since when did the United States Constitution hold any precedence over the laws of the country?

Not since before my life time I don't think...

Some sarcasm here of course... but honestly, precedence keeps getting set to ignore the constitution or just interpret it how we feel. Hey, lets put a "tax" on those churches that refuse to participate in homosexual unions or refuse to let them use the facilities....!

Edited July 28, 2012 by Slappo

[4588686]

[quote name='FuturePriest387' timestamp='1343455217' post='2459674']
Not to nit-pick your post, but it is made law in places where gay marriage is legal that no Church may refuse to marry a gay couple, so Religious liberty is being attacked when it comes to gay rights. This has been in the news for some Catholic Priests who denied a gay couple, and it will be in the news again. This isn't just a political war for a specific people to be able to marry. It's a religious war that will force people to go against their consciences because allowing gay marriage will not be enough. They will push and push until they can't possibly violate consciences in any other way.
[/quote]


NNNNNOOOOOTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT TTTTTTTTTRRRRRRRRRRRRUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

[4588686]

[quote name='Slappo' timestamp='1343492484' post='2459738']
Since when did the United States Constitution hold any precedence over the laws of the country?

Not since before my life time I don't think...

Some sarcasm here of course... but honestly, precedence keeps getting set to ignore the constitution or just interpret it how we feel. Hey, lets put a "tax" on those churches that refuse to participate in homosexual unions or refuse to let them use the facilities....!
[/quote]

The constitution is not ignored. The court has been conservative since Warren left so I'm really not sure what you want from the USSC as far as protecting your view of the constitution goes.

[PhuturePriest]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1343496073' post='2459753']
NNNNNOOOOOTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT TTTTTTTTTRRRRRRRRRRRRUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
[/quote]

Leave your terrible spelling out of this.

[MIKolbe]

Going to chic-fil-a...brb

[Papist]

[quote name='MIkolbe' timestamp='1343500270' post='2459780']
Going to chic-fil-a...brb
[/quote]

You bigot!!!!

[Groo the Wanderer]

you get a partial indulgence for every chick fil a sammich consumed with waffle fries. extra if you eat 'em with mayo

[Slappo]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1343496237' post='2459755']
The constitution is not ignored. The court has been conservative since Warren left so I'm really not sure what you want from the USSC as far as protecting your view of the constitution goes.
[/quote]

The constitution and the mindset in which it was enacted does not change over time. The mindset in which the USSC interprets it drastically changes over time. You really think our founding fathers would have been OK with such a large government military, taxation (including double taxation on stock dividends), gun restrictions, LGBT movements, obamacare, EPA rulings, etc? I'm not just talking about bleeding heart liberal croutons either. Our defense budget needs cut into about 1/100th of what it is.