Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Maryland > Washington, DC suburbs in Maryland
 [Register]
Washington, DC suburbs in Maryland Calvert County, Charles County, Montgomery County, and Prince George's County
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-23-2012, 11:40 AM
 
Location: DMV
10,125 posts, read 14,017,720 times
Reputation: 3222

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by InvaderBryce View Post
And his opinion started off a firestorm. Now, had he not said anything, none of this would be happening. Mr. Cathy should've already known that something like this would result in a polarizing response from the American populace.
That's not true at all. The media was just waiting for something to jump on. Any small incident would have likely been blown out of proportion. The fact that the media tried to make this a news story shows that. His stance on gay marriage is not news. Even with that said, it doesn't make distorting the facts right. I honestly can respect those that disagree with his views and take them for what it is, but I get irritated with individuals who try to add on to what is being stated. We can't read that man's mind, there is nothing in what he said or has done publicly that indicates that he hates gays as it is being portrayed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-23-2012, 01:03 PM
 
Location: Salisbury, MD
575 posts, read 556,259 times
Reputation: 183
Quote:
Originally Posted by pgtitans View Post
That's not true at all. The media was just waiting for something to jump on. Any small incident would have likely been blown out of proportion. The fact that the media tried to make this a news story shows that. His stance on gay marriage is not news. Even with that said, it doesn't make distorting the facts right. I honestly can respect those that disagree with his views and take them for what it is, but I get irritated with individuals who try to add on to what is being stated. We can't read that man's mind, there is nothing in what he said or has done publicly that indicates that he hates gays as it is being portrayed.
Nobody said he hated gays. All I'm saying is that he should've known before hand that his comments were going to create a giant ***** storm.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-23-2012, 01:44 PM
 
Location: The Port City is rising.
8,868 posts, read 12,591,325 times
Reputation: 2605
Quote:
Originally Posted by pgtitans View Post
That is just the media taking poetic license and making a story out of something that really shouldn't have ever become one. Let me ask you, if you are married, depending on type of marriage that you have, let's just say hypothetically you are homosexual. Does that fact that you would have a homosexual marriage mean you hate heterosexual marriages or does it mean that you wanted and had a preference for homosexual marriage?.
If someone like that donated money to an organization that wanted to ban heterosexual marriage, I would say it would be a reasonable deduction that they hated heterosexual marriages.

CFA donated to the Family Research Council

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


"In February 2010 the Family Research Council's Senior Researcher for Policy Studies, Peter Sprigg, stated on NBC's Hardball that gay behavior should be outlawed and that "criminal sanctions against homosexual behavior" should be enforced.[28] In May that same year, Sprigg publicly suggested that repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy would encourage molestation of heterosexual service members.[29] In November FRC President Tony Perkins was asked about Sprigg's comments regarding the criminalization of same-sex behavior: he responded that criminalizing homosexuality is not a goal of the Family Research Council.[30][31] Perkins repeated the FRC’s association of gay men with pedophilia, saying that "If you look at the American College of Pediatricians, they say the research is overwhelming that homosexuality poses a danger to children."[30][31] The opinions expressed by Perkins are contradicted by mainstream social science research on same-sex parenting,[32] and on the likelihood of child molestation by homosexuals and bisexuals, which has been found to be no higher than child molestation by heterosexuals.[32][33] Some scientists whose work is cited by the American College of Pediatricians - a small conservative organization which was formed when the American Academy of Pediatrics endorsed adoption by same-sex couples - have said that it has distorted and misrepresented their work.[34]"
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-23-2012, 01:48 PM
 
Location: Alaska
3,146 posts, read 4,126,383 times
Reputation: 5471
Quote:
Originally Posted by pgtitans View Post
My point has more to do with culture, religion aside since you brought up the point about the US having "Christian oppressive laws". In other countries they see things far worse. Saudi arabia is another one. We are blessed to be in this nation and for us to have an opportunity to express ourselves, but if you think those laws are really that oppressive here, I challenge you to go to another country and to do what they are trying to do. That's my point. We have freedoms that we would never have here. I'm sure you may not like every law, none of us will, but to say that we have anything oppressive is just a complete lack of perspective.

Check this out from Kenya:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Kenya

14 years of prison just knowing you are gay and you think this nation is oppressive?

Again, you completely ignored my question to you, how can you say all that when gays work there or the fact that gays still eat there? The man is expressing his opinion on a subject. He never said that he hates these individuals. You are giving what he has done so many misnomers. If I told you that I disagree with smoking and think smokers should smoke outside, am I being bigoted? It's his opinion that is being formed on something that you may not agree with, that homosexuality is not genetic. What I can't stand about situations like this is people get all upset about what is being said but instead of really interpreting what he is saying, you make assumptions and give him labels. He more or less looks at being gay like someone that has sin, not some type of genetic predisposition. If you can't take the time to understand (not necessarily agree) with what he is saying then you will continue to mislabel his points. Again I don't know any businesses that would allow a group of people work with them or be served, if he truly hated them that much. Where are the successful discrimination suits if he is so prejudice?
First, of all, you falsely claimed 5 times in the above boldfaced passages that I said or believe that we have Christian oppresive laws. I re-read this whole thread and I never said anything like that.

Stan4 in the below passage alluded to Christian oppression:

Quote:
Originally Posted by stan4 View Post
First of all, he donates money to anti-gay groups. Like people who exist just to work against gay rights. So that's pretty 'against gays.'

Second of all, christian oppression is written into TONS of laws - you just don't realize it because you're used to it.

I mean, why the hell can't I buy liquor on Sunday...?

As for your 'anti-christian,' no, not patronizing him has nothing to do with christianity, as there are MANY christians who aren't hate-filled aholes.
You stated the following:

Quote:
Originally Posted by pgtitans View Post
What is your definition of anti-gay? Is that what you define or what the media has given you as the definition. If you believe that anti-gay is the fact that he doesn't support their lifestyle, then yes I guess it's accurate, but what is being purported is that he is against everything that they do. Let me ask you, do gays work there? Do gays still get served there? So how can he be considered anti-gay? May be a better terminology is that he disagrees with the lifestyle of gays.

This country was found on Christian's principles. What do you think the Pilgrims did here? What do you think "In God We Trust" really means? How did we know that polygamy was wrong? Stealing? What are the foundations of right and wrong in this nation? If you think it's Christian oppression, then why don't you go to an African nation like Kenya and tell them you are gay and see if you make it back.

But he's a Christian, so by not supporting him, it's like not supporting Christians right? I mean how do you make the leap that supporting traditional marriage is anti-gay? That's just hypocritical because his original statement never was directed at gays. But a protest of his business is an obvious knock on disagreeing with it's CHRISTIAN principles.
To which, I responded:

Quote:
Originally Posted by phlinak View Post
According to the CIA World Factbook, Kenya is 78% Christian (Protestant 45%, Roman Catholic 33%)

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ke.html

So exactly, what point were you trying to make in the above boldfaced sentence?

That Christians are oppressive? Africans are oppressive? African Christians are oppressive?

I believe that what pro-gay marriage supporters are protesting are not Cathy's Christian beliefs but his perceived discriminating and bigoted beliefs as well as his condescending and contemptuous attitude towards homosexuals.
Please note the boldfaced adjectives that I used and also note the three times that I used the word "oppressive" were when I asked what point were you trying to make?

In the future, if you are going to paraphrase me, then please, at the very least, be accurate.

Thank you

Last edited by phlinak; 08-23-2012 at 01:52 PM.. Reason: correction
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-24-2012, 07:49 AM
 
Location: DMV
10,125 posts, read 14,017,720 times
Reputation: 3222
Quote:
Originally Posted by brooklynborndad View Post
If someone like that donated money to an organization that wanted to ban heterosexual marriage, I would say it would be a reasonable deduction that they hated heterosexual marriages.

CFA donated to the Family Research Council

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


"In February 2010 the Family Research Council's Senior Researcher for Policy Studies, Peter Sprigg, stated on NBC's Hardball that gay behavior should be outlawed and that "criminal sanctions against homosexual behavior" should be enforced.[28] In May that same year, Sprigg publicly suggested that repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy would encourage molestation of heterosexual service members.[29] In November FRC President Tony Perkins was asked about Sprigg's comments regarding the criminalization of same-sex behavior: he responded that criminalizing homosexuality is not a goal of the Family Research Council.[30][31] Perkins repeated the FRC’s association of gay men with pedophilia, saying that "If you look at the American College of Pediatricians, they say the research is overwhelming that homosexuality poses a danger to children."[30][31] The opinions expressed by Perkins are contradicted by mainstream social science research on same-sex parenting,[32] and on the likelihood of child molestation by homosexuals and bisexuals, which has been found to be no higher than child molestation by heterosexuals.[32][33] Some scientists whose work is cited by the American College of Pediatricians - a small conservative organization which was formed when the American Academy of Pediatrics endorsed adoption by same-sex couples - have said that it has distorted and misrepresented their work.[34]"
He believes homosexual behavior is wrong, that doesn't equate to hate for those people. That is the problem with that. If he disagree with something that is one thing, but to suggest he hates it, is strong and I think out of touch. Let me ask you do you think Democrats hate Republicans? Of course you will find some who do but overall, just because you disagree, doesn't mean you hate them. Do you think what these organizations are doing is equivalent to what is done to gay people in Kenya? One is expressing their opinion but the other imprison people just for saying or showing signs that they are gay, but that's supposed to both be the same thing, hate?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-24-2012, 08:00 AM
 
Location: DMV
10,125 posts, read 14,017,720 times
Reputation: 3222
Quote:
Originally Posted by phlinak View Post
First, of all, you falsely claimed 5 times in the above boldfaced passages that I said or believe that we have Christian oppresive laws. I re-read this whole thread and I never said anything like that.

Stan4 in the below passage alluded to Christian oppression:



You stated the following:



To which, I responded:



Please note the boldfaced adjectives that I used and also note the three times that I used the word "oppressive" were when I asked what point were you trying to make?

In the future, if you are going to paraphrase me, then please, at the very least, be accurate.

Thank you
The person that made the original comment, you supported his point by pointing out that Kenya, according you and your sources, is 78% Christian. If you didn't agree with that point then why would you go out of your way to point out that it is a predominantly Christian nation, when I wasn't even talking to you? No you weren't the person that brought it up, by you were clearly defending their point which is why I made the response that I did. If you are focused on who I am addressing than what I am addressing then you must not have much of an argument against what I stated and just looking for something to argue about.

Again I ask you what is your proof that he is bigoted and discriminatory when he still hires and serves gay people? There is a difference between hating gays and just disagreeing with them. In what way are the things Kenya do to gays similar to what Dan Cathy does? Do you have any proof that he has fired someone for being gay? Do you have any proof that he refused to serve someone for being gay? I find it funny that I keep asking you the same question over and over again, and rather than addressing the question you try to find something unrelated to pick apart about my argument.

Next time, answer the question instead of creating new arguments. Thank you.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-24-2012, 09:17 AM
 
Location: The Port City is rising.
8,868 posts, read 12,591,325 times
Reputation: 2605
Quote:
Originally Posted by pgtitans View Post
He believes homosexual behavior is wrong, that doesn't equate to hate for those people. That is the problem with that. If he disagree with something that is one thing, but to suggest he hates it, is strong and I think out of touch. Let me ask you do you think Democrats hate Republicans? Of course you will find some who do but overall, just because you disagree, doesn't mean you hate them. Do you think what these organizations are doing is equivalent to what is done to gay people in Kenya? One is expressing their opinion but the other imprison people just for saying or showing signs that they are gay, but that's supposed to both be the same thing, hate?

hate speech is not as bad as violent acts, of course (though demonizing a group with words is probably a necessary first step to violent acts) and I am skeptical of the govt banning hate speech. But it seems clear to me that Family Research Council has engaged in hate speech, and Chick Fil A has donated to FRC. I can well understand why, given a limited space for food vendors on UMd campus, many students at UMd might want CFA to not be among them. People who study there and want to keep CFA certainly have the right to advocate for their position - but I do not think that those who want to remove CFA should be seen as opposing CFA just for expressing a differing political opinion.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-24-2012, 09:44 AM
 
Location: DMV
10,125 posts, read 14,017,720 times
Reputation: 3222
Quote:
Originally Posted by brooklynborndad View Post
hate speech is not as bad as violent acts, of course (though demonizing a group with words is probably a necessary first step to violent acts) and I am skeptical of the govt banning hate speech. But it seems clear to me that Family Research Council has engaged in hate speech, and Chick Fil A has donated to FRC. I can well understand why, given a limited space for food vendors on UMd campus, many students at UMd might want CFA to not be among them. People who study there and want to keep CFA certainly have the right to advocate for their position - but I do not think that those who want to remove CFA should be seen as opposing CFA just for expressing a differing political opinion.
I don't disagree. I think they have a right to protest, but I think it is pointless to say they should be removed. Business doesn't work that way. It's all about money. Unless you can justify it by people not spending their money there, their wanting to remove this establishment has no merit. If more people wanted it gone, they wouldn't spend their money there. That is how we deal with business in our country, if we don't like the way they handle things, we let our money speak for us as to how much we support them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-24-2012, 10:01 AM
 
Location: The Port City is rising.
8,868 posts, read 12,591,325 times
Reputation: 2605
Quote:
Originally Posted by pgtitans View Post
I don't disagree. I think they have a right to protest, but I think it is pointless to say they should be removed. Business doesn't work that way. It's all about money. Unless you can justify it by people not spending their money there, their wanting to remove this establishment has no merit. If more people wanted it gone, they wouldn't spend their money there. That is how we deal with business in our country, if we don't like the way they handle things, we let our money speak for us as to how much we support them.

this is not a private commercial landowner or mall, its a University food court. IIUC Universities do not always try to maximize revenues with their food courts, but try to present a set of alternatives that appeal broadly (and look good on admissions tours). A place that attracts a few VERY loyal customers might well work in a mall setting, but might not meet university goals. If students at a University find the presence of a CFA makes them uncomfortable, the Univ may well take that into account. Especially if student protests impact the image of the university among would be applicants. Universities worry about things like that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-24-2012, 10:15 AM
 
Location: DMV
10,125 posts, read 14,017,720 times
Reputation: 3222
Quote:
Originally Posted by brooklynborndad View Post
this is not a private commercial landowner or mall, its a University food court. IIUC Universities do not always try to maximize revenues with their food courts, but try to present a set of alternatives that appeal broadly (and look good on admissions tours). A place that attracts a few VERY loyal customers might well work in a mall setting, but might not meet university goals. If students at a University find the presence of a CFA makes them uncomfortable, the Univ may well take that into account. Especially if student protests impact the image of the university among would be applicants. Universities worry about things like that.
The university is focused on image because it affects their bottom line. You would be crazy to think that the two are mutually exclusive. Just because a certain amount of students decide to protest this establishment, doesn't mean they should react. Do you know how many student protest goes on on a college campus? The university could never react to every last one of them. And as far as the food court not trying to maximize profit, watch this video and look at what the representative of the food court states. If money wasn't an issue she wouldn't talk about how profitable the business is. To think that the food court wouldn't try to maximize profit is just ridiculous to say. If that was the case then they wouldn't need big name business like Chick Fil-A or Taco Bell.

Petition to remove Chick-fil-A at University of Maryland - DC Breaking Local News Weather Sports FOX 5 WTTG

Quote:
"It happens to be one of the more financially successful vendors in the food court," explained Marsha Guenzler Stevens, the director of the Stamp Student Union. "It also is one of our more popular venues. It was the number-one-rated food court purveyor."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2022 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Maryland > Washington, DC suburbs in Maryland
View detailed profiles of:

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top