Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Do you feel this way when you purchase gas from the OPEC controlled gas stations. They torture and kill homosexuals. Don't hear much about this. I'm sick and tired of all this PC bull****. If it fits your agenda your for it, but if you need gas you forget about it. I'm not stopping eating at places or buying gas because I don't agree with the owners thoughts or leanings. Who cares.
Young people today are much more open about who can get married. They think it's no biggie.
Gay marriage was nowhere just 10 years ago. It's been OK'd by several states since then. It'll be normal 10 years from now.
Gays in the military, who've always been serving & dying for the U.S. by the way, was a big deal before and now it's not. Women fighting on the front lines soon won't be unusual either.
Interracial marriage was banned in some states until the late 60s for "religious" and whatever idiotic reasons too. The USSC unanimously shot it down in Loving v. Virginia.
First there is a difference between Christian beliefs on homosexuality and sex outside of marriage. Christ said nothing about homosexuality just as today the Catholic Church does not condemn homosexuality. It condemns ANY sex that takes place outside of marriage. As for the definition of a marriage: marriages exist on multiple levels.
1. A civil contract between two consenting adults, (of opposite genders in some states and of any gender pairing in others)
2. A religious sacrament the definition of which is left to the authority of the religious leaders. (Hence polygamy in Islam)
3. a Mutual agreement between two individuals, not necessarily recognized by church or state but only between those two individuals. (handfastings for example.)
Now, the marriage can exist in more than one of these areas, or only in one. Should the head of Chick-fil-a elect to donate to organizations that support a specific definition of marriage so what?
Does chick-fil-a discriminate in terms of employing people of all races, genders, creeds, sexual preferences?
Does chick-fil-a bar homosexuals from eating in their restaurants?
Does chick-fil-a ask potential employees to identify their sexual preference?
Does chick-fil-a create a separate environment for homosexuals in their restaurants?
Has the CEO of chick-fil-a or any chick-fil-a employee called for the extermination of homosexuals? (since someone earlier was so quick to use the Hitler reference)
The answer to all of these questions is no.
The solutions are simple:
If you disagree with the Christian focus of the restaurant, don't eat there.
If you don't like the owner's beliefs, don't eat there.
If you don't like chicken, don't eat there.
If you would rather your money be spent at a place that will make donations to organizations and ideas you support, don't eat there.
If enough people agree with you and take their money elsewhere, the free market will do its work and before long, the restaurant will have no money to donate to anything and will go out of business.
Claiming that a CEO is bigoted intolerant and then acting in just as intolerant a manner to attempt to deprive him of his own first amendment rights is the epitome of hypocrisy.
Are you implying that people should Reason in their day-to-day decision making? Rather than mysticism/emotionalism? Because I don't think I can tolerate that.
Do you feel this way when you purchase gas from the OPEC controlled gas stations. They torture and kill homosexuals. Don't hear much about this. I'm sick and tired of all this PC bull****. If it fits your agenda your for it, but if you need gas you forget about it. I'm not stopping eating at places or buying gas because I don't agree with the owners thoughts or leanings. Who cares.
Do you feel this way when you purchase gas from the OPEC controlled gas stations. They torture and kill homosexuals. Don't hear much about this. I'm sick and tired of all this PC bull****. If it fits your agenda your for it, but if you need gas you forget about it. I'm not stopping eating at places or buying gas because I don't agree with the owners thoughts or leanings. Who cares.
Most oil companies get their petroleum from OPEC nations, but those OPEC nations do not own Exxon-Mobil, or Chevron, or Phillips, or Shell, or Marathon, or any other company running gas stations in my neck of the woods--with the exception of Citgo. Other than oil from the Northern Slope or other areas of the US, or from Canada, most oil companies have little choice but to obtain their petroleum from Saudi Arabia, the Emirates, and other OPEC nations.
No matter how much I abhor most of the policies of the Arab nations, they do not directly control gas stations in the US. And, when I receive my dividend checks from the petroleum companies whose stock I hold, that money is coming from US-based corporations, not from an Arab sheik.
The only time that I do exercise personal choice in my gasoline purchases is through my avoidance of Citgo stations. The Venezuelan government, which is hostile to the US and which is an OPEC member, controls Citgo and derives huge profits from that oil company, so I will not buy gas or oil of the Citgo brand.
Other than the case of Citgo, Lukoil (which is a Russian company), Shell (Holland) and Pemex (limited to Mexico) I don't know of any gas brands in North America that are owned/controlled by a particular nation, and, to my knowledge, there are no gas stations in the US other than Citgo that are "controlled by OPEC nations".
Last edited by Retriever; 07-30-2012 at 09:34 AM..
The intent of my OP really was not to discuss the issue of gay marriage, but more or less highlight the issue as it relates to corporate "speech" that has become a more paramount issue since the SC decided on the case of Citizens United vs. FEC. While corporations are "not people" in the sense that they have all of the same rights as people, it did find that corporations enjoy the same First Amdendment rights as citizens. It also clarified that "spending money" was analagous to the exercise of free speech and now allows virtually unlimited corporate spending on elections via proxies such as charitable groups and PAC's.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nichevo
Enough with the inflammatory rhetoric. Stick with the facts:
The issue of single sex marriage is currently a states rights issue as the Federal Government is no longer enforcing nor defending challenges to DOMA.
It is not solely a matter for the state level. Even with a prohibition on defending the law, it is still in force. Ultimately the individual states have little power beyond extending or not extending state level benefits. If DOMA was overturned it would instantly force gay marriages to be recognized nationwide even in states that did not perform them. This issue does still essentially rest at the federal level.
Quote:
If a state chooses to allow single sex couples to legally engage in a marriage contract, there is nothing chick-fil-a can do about it.
No there isn't anythign C-F-A can do about it directly. However, C-F-A among other corporations has now been given carte blanche to spend their money however they wish. A corporation with the social mission that C-F-A has adopted will invariably be a force in politics and they are at the state level in Georgia. It is very obvious that a corporation has means and resources beyond that of the average citizen to influence the decisions of politicians.
Quote:
Chick-fil-a is not discriminating against homosexuals who eat at their restaurants.
Chick-fil-a is not discriminating against homosexuals who work at their restaurants.
Chick-fil-a's profits are being donated to causes you may or may not support so, do or don't eat there.
To the first two points, such action would be in violation of federal and state law, so they obviously do not do that. The last part is essentially the crux of the issue and reason for the OP. Given the wide ranging ability of corporations to garner political influence via their "speech" vis-a-vis their spending is it not reasonable that fuller disclosure be given over what the purpose of that speech is?
Quote:
Finally, where is it in the Constitution that marriage is a civil right?
It's not. So, it becomes a 10th amendment issue meaning the states themselves have the right to self determination unless/until a Constitutional amendment makes it a federal issue. Want it changed, follow the first amendment's guidance an "petition the government for a redress of grievances." You may find your time far better spent doing that than trying to make the CEO of Chick-fil-a the unholy unification of Frank Perdue and Adolf Hitler.
This is slipping back into the gay marraige debate, which was not the intent, but yes there is in fact constitutional precedent for marriage as a civil right. In the 1967 case Loving vs. Virginia the SC decided that Virginia's anti-miscegenation laws were a violation of the Fourteenth Amendments Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses. The court wrote in their opinion:
Quote:
Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... 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 discrimination. 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.
While this case revolved solely around the issue of mixed race marriages and state laws forbidding them, there is obviously applicable precedent in the case to the issue of same-sex marriage under the same constitutional provisions.
Quote:
The only way this will be resolved is when people stop reacting emotionally and attempting to vilify the other side rather than actually -gasp- talking to them. Stop letting pundits and FB memes put words in your mouth, stop with overused cliches, and stop with the hate spewing intolerance of those with whom you disagree while labeling them intolerant.
it accomplishes nothing.
I agree with all you wrote and it is a major issue these days. People spend more time listening to pundits and chain letters then they do actually researching their own opinions. However, that plays very well into the purpose of my OP, which again was not to debate gay marriage, there are plenty of threads for that.
Essentially, the question I find interesting is that do corporations have an inherent responsibility to disclose their social and political missions if they are so engaged in them? I think they do. The SC has determined that corporations as "groups of individuals" have a right to exercise their freedom of speech via unlimited spending on causes and politicians that they choose to support. I think one can make the case that by spending money (since spending money is a form of speech) individuals are unwittingly supporting the causes of the corporation they are choosing to do business with, hence making a statement via their spending that they did not intend to make.
While the current rhetoic in our nation has basically led to competing values camps "shouting" at one another without discussing the issue and patently dismissing anything the "other side" has to say; this situation is only further inflamed through the actions of non-profit groups and PAC's fueled with corporate money to support candidates and agendas that are favorable to them. If we are going to support the right of corporations to engage in this activity is there at least not somewhat of a precedent that they need to disclose this activity in a more consumable manner so people can make choices over where to spend their dollars.
This discussion is ultimately not about chicken sandwiches or gay marriage, the current statements by C-F-A are simply a perfect example of the root issue. In a nation where people many times vote against their own personal interests do to "value differences" is it not reasonable that the corporations who currently have an extremely lopsided influence on our political process should be forced to disclose their positions so that people are not "voting against themselves" when they spend their money?
maybe more people will eat there now because they don't agree with gay marriage. just saying this might backfire and increase CFA s profits.
Will probably not make a difference. According to recent Gallup polls, Republicans are the ones who want to deny gay rights. So possibly only Republicans will eat there. That alone will keep the Democrats out of Chick-Fil-A. Half of Americans Support Legal Gay Marriage
...." block expansion in their cities or at the very least create a "sunshine law" requiring companies to inform the public of their social positions via the charities and organizations they support......."
That's pretty chilling that an American politician would actually propose something like that.
Pass a social litimus test if you want to open a legitimate business.
I'd like to think we're too smart to allow that in NJ.
Well, aren't you denying Dan Cathy his basic civil rights if he's not free to express his beliefs? If a gay businessman expressed his support of gay marriage in an interview, no one would be up in arms about it like people are because Dan Cathy expressed the opposite. Fair is fair. I will defend Dan Cathy's right to freedom of speech.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
