Chick Fil A and boycott (fast food, legal, Jesus, dollars)

[hammertime33]

Originally Posted by daminos

Civil rights are allowances created by the government. Government can only curtail freedom, not provide it.

Sure, you could probably frame any civil law as the curtailing of a "freedom" if you take an extremely liberal view of what "freedom" means. I could argue that civil driving laws take away my freedom to drive around blindfolded at 150 mph in a car who's engine produces 170dB sounds and runs off a chemical cell that emits chlorine gas as exhaust. That might be a type of "freedom," but it's not one of the inalienable freedoms that our country holds sacrosanct and our Constitution is designed to protect.

Through civil laws, our governments can and do provide certain things to people (benefits, privileges, protections, and responsibilities) - things that are collectively called civil rights. They're generally designed to provide things that are good and that people want, and often times they must take into account some sort of balancing of rights (zoning laws for instance). That's the system our founders created. We elect representatives to craft laws for our benefit within the framework of a Supreme law (the Constitutional) that outlines our inalienable rights. Sure, it's not perfect, but they did throw in an independent judiciary that cleans up most of the problems (even if it takes decades).

Nonetheless, which rights are you talking about specifically? What can you not do as a gay couple that a heterosexual couple can do? I bet you in every instance it is the government that is curtailing your rights.

First let's look at gay couples that actually can contract a civil marriage in their state but are nonetheless still treated unequally under the law thanks to DOMA. Consider two couples here in New York: one a same-sex married couple, one an opposite-sex married couple.


•If a member the straight marriage is foreign, he is entitled to a spousal immigration visa. If a member of the gay marriage is foreign, he is not, and is subject to deportation.

•If a member of each marriage is in the military, the straight one will get paid more - he gets a family housing bonus the gay family is denied. Also, whereas the straight spouse can shop at the base commissary and PX, the gay spouse cannot (he's banned).

•If one member of each marriage owns a business and employs his spouse, the gay man pays higher taxes. He has to pay unemployment insurance tax on his spouses wages whereas the straight man is exempt from paying that tax on his wife's wages.

•If one member of each marriage dies, the straight survivor is entitled to social security survivor benefits. The gay survivor is not.

•If one member of each marriage dies, the straight survivor does not have to pay any estate tax on any marital property or even on any inherited non-marital property. The gay survivor must pay estate taxes on any and all property that belonged to his husband - I'd say even marital property, but in the eyes of the law even legally married gay couples can't have joint marital property.

However, most gay couple in the US can't get married though. They're treated even more unequally under the law. For instance, if you're married in, oh, Mississippi, and your wife is brutally murdered, you can sue her murderer for wrongful death. Gay people in Mississippi do not have that right - a gay person cannot sue for wrongful death even if he and his husband had been "married" for 60 years since under the law unmarried partners are not considered family members.


And lastly, I'll just point out that you can get married without any government influence or input of permission whatsoever. Simply gather your families, go to your church, get married, and then call yourself married for as long as you're together. You certainly have every right not to contract a civil marriage and to leave the government out of your marriage entirely. Civil marriage is an option the government provides for couples who want to combine themselves into a joint legal entity and take advantage of the joint rights made available to them in that arrangement.

[daminos]

Originally Posted by hammertime33

Sure, you could probably frame any civil law as the curtailing of a "freedom" if you take an extremely liberal view of what "freedom" means. I could argue that civil driving laws take away my freedom to drive around blindfolded at 150 mph in a car who's engine produces 170dB sounds and runs off a chemical cell that emits chlorine gas as exhaust. That might be a type of "freedom," but it's not one of the inalienable freedoms that our country holds sacrosanct and our Constitution is designed to protect.

The difference with this argument is that if I were to drive as you suggest, I most certainly will get into an accident which would be harmful to someone else. Same with the exhaust. Getting married does no harm to no one. Thus, this argument is not valid.

Originally Posted by hammertime33

Through civil laws, our governments can and do provide certain things to people (benefits, privileges, protections, and responsibilities) - things that are collectively called civil rights. They're generally designed to provide things that are good and that people want, and often times they must take into account some sort of balancing of rights (zoning laws for instance). That's the system our founders created. We elect representatives to craft laws for our benefit within the framework of a Supreme law (the Constitutional) that outlines our inalienable rights. Sure, it's not perfect, but they did throw in an independent judiciary that cleans up most of the problems (even if it takes decades).

The government providing "certain things" is antithetical to freedom. The government can't provide anything that is not given to it by people first. I mean that in what you say benefits and privileges. What privileges? That just sounds creepy. And what protections are you talking about? And responsibilities? That is creepy too. What responsibilities?

Originally Posted by hammertime33

First let's look at gay couples that actually can contract a civil marriage in their state but are nonetheless still treated unequally under the law thanks to DOMA. Consider two couples here in New York: one a same-sex married couple, one an opposite-sex married couple.


•If a member the straight marriage is foreign, he is entitled to a spousal immigration visa. If a member of the gay marriage is foreign, he is not, and is subject to deportation.

•If a member of each marriage is in the military, the straight one will get paid more - he gets a family housing bonus the gay family is denied. Also, whereas the straight spouse can shop at the base commissary and PX, the gay spouse cannot (he's banned).

•If one member of each marriage owns a business and employs his spouse, the gay man pays higher taxes. He has to pay unemployment insurance tax on his spouses wages whereas the straight man is exempt from paying that tax on his wife's wages.

•If one member of each marriage dies, the straight survivor is entitled to social security survivor benefits. The gay survivor is not.

•If one member of each marriage dies, the straight survivor does not have to pay any estate tax on any marital property or even on any inherited non-marital property. The gay survivor must pay estate taxes on any and all property that belonged to his husband - I'd say even marital property, but in the eyes of the law even legally married gay couples can't have joint marital property.

In all of these instances you quote, it is the government that setup the obstacle in the first place. Social security for example. Social security is a government beast. Government creates this monster and then prevents people from distributing YOUR money to whom you chose. The government is not necessary to guarantee your ability to accomplish many of these things. You can do these things yourself within some type of contract with your spouse. Government is not necessary, and in generally an obstacle.

Originally Posted by hammertime33

However, most gay couple in the US can't get married though. They're treated even more unequally under the law. For instance, if you're married in, oh, Mississippi, and your wife is brutally murdered, you can sue her murderer for wrongful death. Gay people in Mississippi do not have that right - a gay person cannot sue for wrongful death even if he and his husband had been "married" for 60 years since under the law unmarried partners are not considered family members.

I don't understand this at all. Murder is murder. Whether you are homosexual or heterosexual. Also, just because government won't give you a license does not mean you can't get married. Just get married! And then setup some type of contracts between you and your spouse.

Originally Posted by hammertime33

And lastly, I'll just point out that you can get married without any government influence or input of permission whatsoever. Simply gather your families, go to your church, get married, and then call yourself married for as long as you're together. You certainly have every right not to contract a civil marriage and to leave the government out of your marriage entirely. Civil marriage is an option the government provides for couples who want to combine themselves into a joint legal entity and take advantage of the joint rights made available to them in that arrangement.

OK. We can agree with this. Except that heterosexuals have the concept of common law marriage that curtails our freedoms. Is that an issue with homosexual marriages?

[Vic 2.0]

Originally Posted by RobinD69

Make a choice to be gay next week....I don't think so, I made my choice when I was 15. Tempted to be gay but chose to be straight.

Originally Posted by cuebald

Then either you are bisexual or a damned liar.

Haha, yeah I thought that was interesting as well. Amazing how many people think participating in homosexual behavior is the same as being gay, itn't it? But of course, I never expect much of an educated opinion from these people

Just another false/unverifiable claim. But apparently, that's what laws are supposed to be based on... guesswork.

[Greatday]

That Chic-Fil-A franchise is safe and secure right where they are.

[daminos]

Originally Posted by hammertime33

Civil marriage is an option the government provides for couples who want to combine themselves into a joint legal entity and take advantage of the joint rights made available to them in that arrangement.

The point I am trying to convey is that government creates these "benefits, privileges, etc." that you that quite correctly state, and then they say that you can only have these things if you are married. My point is, why they hell are they creating these "benefits, privileges, etc." in the first place, and then arbitrarily allowing only people who are licensed to have these government created things in the first place. They have no business doing ANY of these things. We need to abolish MOST of government, and get them out of things like contracts between consenting adults. Just my perspective. I just don't see why we willingly give government consent to enslave us. Fight the power. Question Authority.

[Roaddog]

Well that's very intolerant of her

[bluesjuke]

"Eat mo' chiken'"

[Roaddog]

Just gave them a try, spicy chicken sandwich, pretty good, they sure are not hurting for business. Boycotting is just soo over rated,

[Frank DeForrest]

Ugh another insecure government troll looking to impose their will on an entire population.
I don't think bureaucrats should have any say as to who sets up shop in a given market. It's for the consumers to decide.

[Vic 2.0]

Originally Posted by Roaddog

Just gave them a try, spicy chicken sandwich, pretty good, they sure are not hurting for business. Boycotting is just soo over rated,

I prefer KFC, or a McDonald's Crispy Chicken Club, MMMMMMM