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.

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.

Originally Posted by Bruno

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.

It is the old divide and conquer methodology, divide the people over an issue, the politician picks a side,(does not matter which as long as he can maintain a following) the people choose a political side, while the people are scratching each others eyes out and calling each other names, the politicos enjoy the champagne and oysters along the Potomac. The people are inclined to give them power and money to fight on their behalf, the politic squanders it on himself and/or his cronies.

Thank you for the Post article, it was a very good read, this has been going on since the '80's, when the govt asked for and the people allowed the various levels of govt to seize property belonging to "drug pushers" in order to punish them. It has gone way overboard far too many times, there are numerous cases where someone stayed at someone else's home while possessing contraband and the home being stolen from an innocent bystander, borrowed vehicles have been confiscated, etc. It is a money making scheme.

Originally Posted by mapleleafalumnus

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.

I wasn't going to do anything but just read these posts and enjoy them, but.............I certainly do not agree with your old professor about a couple of things.

The Govt doesn't own our rights the people do and the first 10 ammendments to the constitution (bill of rights) are what the people have and what the govt is prohibited from taking away from us. That doesn't seem to be a concern for our government these days does it? That includes free speech, gun ownership, trial by jury.

There is no constitutional right to vote. There is no right to drive a car on public roads. Various licenses issued by the govt are certainly owned by some form of govt. I agree about the civil liberties for the most part and they are mostly covered in the bill of rights. Again, that doesn't prevent the govt from intruding where they see fit. Over the years there have been suggestions about forming a "Bill of Rights" for the Govt. I seem to recall reading that FDR was in favor of this. No surprise there.

I remember when the ACLU would go to court to fight for gun rights, but I suspect they didn't like it. Can you imagine that today?

Anyway, back to work.

Will N.