Thread: Chick-fil-A

Originally Posted by gssixgun

I liked Santorum's remark to this the best" Why are the people screaming the loudest for tolerance, so intolerant when somebody disagrees with their beliefs" and I really don't like Santorum all that much but the man has a point...

I agree - but a friend of mine brought up a good point today to me as well. "Since when do CEO's expose their beliefs? They have code for that. Words like we embrace family values."

He's got a point. When you are a CEO - you are an "agent" of the company.

Just another thought... I still maintain that government has no place enforcing "individuals" morals, but as an agent of the company I have to admit I am a bit torn.

EDIT - the government enforces morals every day... sorry dumb thing to say. I don't think the gov has any place telling someone what to believe.

Originally Posted by earcutter

He's got a point. When you are a CEO - you are an "agent" of the company.

And his very public ant-gay stance has been really good for the company's profits. However as we all know the society has been evolving, so another generation or two and I bet we won't be hearing much of the same rhetoric.
Sexual orientation is not a protected class, but I wouldn't be surprised if it becomes.

I just don't really have a dog in this fight, Can't really decide which group is showing more hatred, nor do I really care Sad isn't it

Originally Posted by gugi

And his very public ant-gay stance has been really good for the company's profits. However as we all know the society has been evolving, so another generation or two and I bet we won't be hearing much of the same rhetoric.
Sexual orientation is not a protected class, but I wouldn't be surprised if it becomes.

I am not so sure being against gay Marriage is the same as being Anti-Gay somehow that doesn't sound quite fair

It's true, there's a difference between them. But being anti gay has no legal implications, being anti gay marriage though is denying particular legal status to other people.

As a side note I find it rather inexplicable, since in USA marriage is essentially a joke. I can become clergy over the internet in the next few minites and afterwards I can legally marry people.

If marriage has anything to do with god, which is the argument of the anti-gay-marriage people, the separation between state and church should mean that any god, not just the christian one, can set up the rules on marriage and the government should treat them all the same.

Of course, the political reality is very different - most people would love to use the government to force their beliefs on others.

Originally Posted by gugi

It's true, there's a difference between them. But being anti gay has no legal implications, being anti gay marriage though is denying particular legal status to other people.

Not totally true, being Anti-Gay can actually have the same legal ramifications as being Anti- any Minority

As to Marriage vs Civil Union it looks like the real difference is in each states ratification of the laws.



When it comes to Gays and Religion I am not aware of any mainstream religion that accepts them... Trying to think here but none are coming to mind

Originally Posted by gugi

It's true, there's a difference between them. But being anti gay has no legal implications, being anti gay marriage though is denying particular legal status to other people.
If marriage has anything to do with god, which is the argument of the anti-gay-marriage people, the separation between state and church should mean that any god, not just the christian one, can set up the rules on marriage and the government should treat them all the same.
Of course, the political reality is very different - most people would love to use the government to force their beliefs on others.

I've been staying out of this one because it is one of those "hot topic" issues that no solution can ever satisfy everyone.
Gugi made astute points (which I condensed for the sake of brevity) that spur me to share a lesson a poly sci prof taught to me as an undergrad:
In the U.S.A. the difference between civil rights and civil liberties is decided on the basis of ownership. The gov't. owns your civil rights, i.e. right to vote, right to hold various licenses, right to political speech, right to firearm ownership, right to trial by jury etc. Only the gov't. can grant these rights to you, and as such can expand or limit them at its discretion or whim.
Conversely, the individual owns their civil liberties. For example, these include religious beliefs (or the lack thereof) and thought. As the State cannot in reality control thought, these are wholly owned by the individual.
Just some insights I thought I'd share.

These arguments are interesting in a way. There are so many genuine things to get upset about.
One mind boggling example is asset forfeiture.
When government is the looter - The Washington Post

Yet the number 1 thing that is bound to get everybody's attention are the various 'family value' issues such as gay marriage, abortion and things like that.
In the grand scheme of things from a governmental pov, these don't matter, yet everybody focuses on those things.
Meanwhile, the politicians sit back comfortable in the knowledge that the same people will keep voting for the same parties, come hell or high water.

The CEO is laughing all the way to the bank with all of the free advertising.

A local radio talk show host penned this letter, pretty much sums up how I feel. Give it a look.



Subject: Opening a business in Chicago

Message:
Hello: I'm very interested in opening a business in your beautiful city and have a couple of questions and requests.

If it's not too much trouble, could you please send me the official list of political and social opinions that I must hold in order to open a business in Chicago.

It's recently become clear that merely expressing an "incorrect" opinion could lead to me being barred from doing business there...or at least having to fight Mayor Emanuel’s disapproval every step of the way. It's hard enough to start a business and create jobs without that kind of resistance!

I'm sure you understand. I would just try to guess which opinions the government requires that I hold, but in a recent case, you folks made clear that an opinion held by half of Americans was completely unacceptable. Guessing which other opinions the government doesn't permit would be tough! In the case I alluded to (involving the folks from Chick-fil-A) the "illegal" opinion was the same one held by the President of the United States until very recently.

Perhaps you could put out a "government-approved beliefs" newsletter on a regular basis so no one engaged in unacceptable speech or thought. Those who repeatedly expressed views contrary to the government could be given special training and re-education so that they wouldn't make silly mistakes anymore!

Again, thanks for your assistance. I look forward to being in compliance with all acceptable beliefs so that I will be permitted to earn a living.

Regards,
Joe Getty

Read more: Joe Getty's Letter to Politicians About Not Allowing Chic-fil-A In Their Cities | In Case You Missed It - Armstrong & Getty