A little over a year ago, John E poked fun at Erin, aka Red Cardigan, for worrying about her “grand drama” and “sense of unjust persecution, now and yet to come” regarding Catholics and gay marriage. He said, “That just strikes me as silly.” Well, the silliness has begun. It just seems they decided to go after Southern Baptists first.
The mayor of Boston is vowing to block Chick-fil-A from opening a restaurant in the city after the company’spresident spoke out publicly against gay marriage.
Mayor Thomas Menino told the Boston Herald on Thursday that he doesn’t want a business in the city “that discriminates against a population.”
Chick-fil-A President Dan Cathy told the Baptist Press this week that his privately owned company is “guilty as charged” in support of what he called the biblical definition of the family.
Of course, he offers no evidence that Chick-fil-A discriminates against anyone for any reason.
True to their usual misinformation form, CNN reported it this way: “Guilty as charged,”, Cathy said when asked about his company’s support of the traditional family unit as opposed to gay marriage. The trouble is Cathy never said anything about gay marriage during the interview.
Now, one would assume — after reading a reference to the “comments of company President Dan Cathy about gay marriage” — that this interview from the Biblical Recorder in North Carolina (which was circulated by Baptist Press) actually included direct quotes from Cathy in which he talks about, well, gay marriage.
In this case, one cannot assume that.
While the story contains tons of material defending traditional Christian teachings on sexuality, the controversial entrepreneur never talks about gay rights or gay marriage. Why? Because he wasn’t asked about those issues in the interview.
Of course, speaking out in support of traditional marriage is worse then calling men heroes.
Not to be outdone, Chicago jumped on the hatred train.
A Chicago alderman wants to kill Chick-fil-A’s plans to build a restaurant in his increasingly trendy Northwest Side ward because the fast-food chain’s top executive vocally opposes gay marriage.
Ald.Proco “Joe” Moreno announced this week that he will block Chick-fil-A’s effort to build its second Chicago store, which would be in the Logan Square neighborhood, following company President Dan Cathy’s remarks last week that he was “guilty as charged” for supporting the biblical definition of marriage as between a man and woman.
in Chicago. Mayor Rahm Emanuel says: “Chick fil-A’s values are not Chicago values. They are not respectful of our residents, our neighbors and our family members.” Emanuel has no problem with hate-monger Louis Farrakahn, Rahm welcomes help from Farrakahn, ignores anti-Semitic remarks.”
One of my favorite bloggers, a Catholic, writes in support of Southern Baptists, “Chick-fil-A: if you’re not sure, this is how fascism works.”
Well, a lively conversation ensued in which it was pretty much agreed upon that if a business willfully inserts itself into a political issue, that’s “one thing” but if a business is forced to declare its political beliefs — and if that declaration can mean the difference between getting a license or not, that’s “something else.”
It’s fascism, actually.
But this Chick-fil-A story is something beyond a demand to declare oneself and face consequences — it’s even worse than that. Apparently the mainstream media has taken it upon itself (perhaps because the owners are Christian?) to define Chick-fil-A’s positions for it.
Instapundit makes a good point: “What I think is funny is that if you have the same view on gay marriage that Obama had when he was elected, now you’re an enemy of humanity or something.”
Eugene Volokh expresses his thoughts.
You may this is silliness, but we’re right on schedule.
In 1933, the Law for the Restoration of the Professional Civil Service banned “non-Aryans” from the civil service.
……
In addition, Jews could not work as lawyers, doctors, or journalists;
It’s always a little different that the time before. Different enough that some people say it’s good> Some say it’ll never happen here. It’ll never happen again. But, it always does and the peoople with their heads in the sand are the ones most surprised.
The real silliness it to continue the strong fascist leanings of the left. Leanings the left has shown throughout history. (When your ideas won’t stand on their own, you have to use force.) The real silliness is to stick your head in the sand and say, “No, it’s not happening here.”
Of course, some people see the silliness of progressives and the lefts.
Wow, thanks for the random shout-out from a year ago, I guess.
Here’s an article that describes how the ACLU is standing up for Chick-Fil-A
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/07/26/politician-plan-to-block-chick-fil-is-unconstitutional-legal-experts-say/
It’s from Fox News, so even DADvocate can trust it.
The real silliness it to continue the strong fascist leanings of the left.
Seeing as how the ACLU has stated that blocking CFA would be wrong, it seems to me that DADvocate is left with the following options:
Claiming that the ACLU is not part of “the left”
Admitting that there is no monolithic bloc that can be identified as “the left”
Admitting the quoted sentence is just (more) meaningless rhetoric
Suggesting that I must be “no fun at parties” for bringing up this point in the first place
or
Ignoring this comment that I’ve made and pretending that he never wrote the quoted sentence
Place your bets, fellow commenters – which do you think it will be?
I’ll take “A” – Claiming that the ACLU is not part of “the left”
The ACLU has definite liberal/progressive leanings, but they haven’t gone off the edge yet. I disagree with their position on gun control, and some of their positions on religion. But, I’ve yet to hear of them supporting discrimination based on opinion.
The ACLU has also defended the rights of the KKK. Doesn’t sound like a group strictly interested in pushing a left wing agenda.
It’s also easy to say “there is no monolithic bloc that can be identified as “the left”” Currently, it’s more of a loose coalition. But, it’s getting stronger every day.
Of course, by your response, you show, once again, your predilection for picking one sentence out of a hundred or so and trying to make some sort of irrelevant point using it. Be a good boy and go put your head back in the sand.
Now really, does that last sentence add anything to the conversation?
That would be like me suggesting that you are a scared little old man who sees lefties hiding under the bed and are afraid they are going to get you.
Did that add anything to the conversation? No, it didn’t.
Bigoted comments towards old men, how courageous. I may be old, 61, but hardly little, 6′ 3″ and 245 lbs. I’ve been hoping to find a leftist under my bed so I can pound the hell out of him. On the other hand, I feel little compared to my youngest son, whom I can easily hide behind.
Oh please – you started with the insults and now that I have responded in kind, you have gathered up your skirts and started playing the “look at how mean he is being to me” victim card.
Can’t accept responsibility for your own words. How sad. You’re not mean, you’re pathetic. The man who an only discuss one sentence at a time or correct spelling. I’m just having a little fun while on vacation. You’ll have to come up with something better than skirts, you homophobe.
Did I miss something? Bloomberg is a Republican, yes?
My good Sara,
Yes.
While you were whiling away the hours in a Big Gulp soda cup, Mayor Bloomberg was proposing to ban them:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-lisa-young/public-hearing-on-sugary-_b_1700248.html
Our good DAD was no doubt expressing the chagrin I’m sure we all feel at your imminent homelessness.
H. M. Stuart
Alexandria
Yeah I know. And I think it’s ridiculous. But the man ran as a Republican and now, apparently, calls himself an Independent. But as soon as he does something Republicans/Conservatives don’t like suddenly he represents the Left? How does that make any sense?
I’m not saying he represents the left. Others may be. I would have included him in my original post if I considered him left. I once described him as having totalitarian thirsts, but totalitarianism isn’t necessarily left or right.
Bloomberg’s been an independent for 5 years. You’ve apparently missed alot.
Bloomberg now considers himself an independent. I wouldn’t be surprised if both parties refused him membership. He modestly describes himself as a “Philanthropist, and independent leader on national issues.” As you can see here, he’s decided to begin forcing people to follow his dietary guidelines.
He considers the NYPD his own army. He also said the police should say, “‘We’re going to go on strike. We’re not going to protect you. Unless you, the public, through your legislature, do what’s required to keep us safe.” (Who are the scared little old men, JohnE? I’m asking to be left the hell alone. I can take care of myself.) Indeed, Bloomberg’s comments may have been illegal
I dunno, who are the good boys with their heads in the sand?
Thanks. No insult meant to you. I understood your point from a year ago. I just believe that there are few limits to what some people will do, especially in the name of what is “good” and “right.”
I don’t know where to put Michael Bloomberg on the political scale, but there’s little doubt he doesn’t respect our rights or that his powers should be limited. They just released the 911 call tape that lead to the uncovering of the NYPD’s operations in New Jersey. The guy’s a dictator wanna be.
Why is it so hard to understand that our system does not allow government to institute rules limiting speech in its various forms but that individuals are fully free to object to and boycott if so inclined speech by other individuals. The cities proposing legislation limiting Chick Fil A from their jurisdictions are pretty clearly not in compliance with that basic tenet of our Constitution. On the other hand, those who object to the statement from the CEO of the company can feel free to object and encourage boycotting.
Neither of the groups are engaging in activities that can rightfully be characterized as fascism. Interjecting this type characterization simply serves to further polarize the discussion and make reasonable discussion more difficult. Should the cities be successful in passing ordinances prohibiting Chick FilA from coming in, I have no doubt that the ink will not be fully dry before courts overrule them. It might be of worth to point out that few cities have sufficient income at this point to allow for the silliness of banning businesses that have silly opinions. I note that the Chick Fil A CEO rapidly recognized the business side of that and apologized for his statement. One can hardly make sense of a business that alienates 10 to 15 percent of potential customers.
Didn’t sound like an apology as much as a clarification.
“The Chick-fil-A culture and service tradition in our restaurants is to treat every person with honor, dignity and respect regardless of their belief, race, creed, sexual orientation or gender,” the company said in a statement released by its corporate headquarters in Atlanta in response to “the situation Chick-fil-A is currently dealing with.”
“We will continue this tradition in the over 1,600 restaurants run by independent owner/operators.”
You are right about the courts. There is already case law to that effect cited by Volokh. Frankly, I feel no kneed to be concliatory twowards those who want to rob us of our freedom. The mispelled words are for the amusement of JohnEeeee.
BTW – Here’s the entire published interview, show me where Cathy says anything about gay marriage. But, horror or horrors, he supports the traditional Christian view of the family. I guess we’ll all be required to suck up to the gay rights crowd whenever we say something. “I enjoy drinking beer, and hope gays get to drink as much beer as they wish.” “I like to take old fashion family vacations, and hope gays get to take vacations too.”
“That morphed into a marriage program in conjunction with national marriage ministries,” Cathy added.
Some have opposed the company’s support of the traditional family. “Well, guilty as charged,” said Cathy when asked about the company’s position.
“We are very much supportive of the family — the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that.
“We operate as a family business … our restaurants are typically led by families; some are single. We want to do anything we possibly can to strengthen families. We are very much committed to that,” Cathy emphasized.
Chicago should not ban CFA because of what its CEO said, but because its chicken sucks. This would also not be fascism. I wish people would not use this word unless they want to use it properly.
Steve
No. They should not be making value judgements on quality of the food. They should make assessments of whether the food is prepared in such a manner as to be safe from contamination by biological or chemical poisons. They have no valid reason to assess political or personal positions of owners of businesses or whether the food is tasty or not.
I wouldn’t say its chicken sucks, but I find it average. I rarely eat at one because none are convenient to where I live or work. Their shakes, ice cream cones and sweet tea are excellent however. My kids like it, but mostly, like Antoine, they seem to like the waffle fries. Wendy’s is my favorite national fast food. When I visit Knoxville, I love to hit Buddy’s Barbecue, real hickory smoked barbecue for the price of eating at McDonalds.
As I’ve said elsewhere, I rarely eat chicken, so my behavior is unaffected.
I do think that the whole thing has been one of the silliest, stupidest tempests in a teapot that has blown up in awhile. I haven’t commented about this over at Rod’s blog, because he’s more hysterical than usual with issues regarding teh gay agenda. The CEO of Chik-Fil-A is free to support anything he wants; customers are free to oppose or support him, buy or boycott. What’s the problem? I can’t even get too worked up over the Newsweek brouhaha. James O’Keefe has been doing the exact same kind of “gotcha” journalism against liberal targets for years–where’s the outrage over him?
I’m just not seeing a fascist, Christian-hating, gay-promoting Homosexual Agenda SS smashing our institutions, driving Christians to the catacombs, and bringing about the Apocalypse (right after turning our children into effete catamites). I could be wrong, but I’m not losing sleep over it….
There’s plenty of Christian-hating going on. Ask Rosie O’Donnell. I must admit, it’s mostly hatred of conservative/evangelical Christians, often by other Christians. The other stuff is debatable. Go read some “liberal” blogs.
The stuff on many “liberal” blogs–like that on many “conservative” blogs–is often paranoid, hysterical hoohah. I tend to avoid both. There is a not-insignificant amount of “Christian-hating” (as there is of many other kinds of hating)–but that’s a long, long way from destruction of Christianity or driving Christians to the catacombs or (as John E. felicitously put it elsewhere) Kristallnacht. If you note, I said I don’t expect such hatred as exists to be “smashing our institutions, driving Christians to the catacombs, and bringing about the Apocalypse”, etc., anytime soon.
Especially when 80% of the nation identifies as Christian.
And that’s what I don’t get about posts like Erin’s and now DADvocate’s – the idea that if Christians don’t have total and undisputed control over social norms, then it must be the case that The Other will soon be driving them into the streets and burning their homes.
It reeks of paranoia and apocalyptic fears.
the idea that if Christians don’t have total and undisputed control over social norms
Just making it up, again? I didn’t say that and I don’t want that. I huge percentage of Christians disagree with my views of Christiantiy. In deed, as I’ve said many time, I believe in separation of church and state, which the mayors of Boston and Chicago apparently don’t. Nor, believe in freedom of speech. But, cointinue to live in your fantasy land of scared old men dancing around in skirts to your delight.
Yeah right, DAD. Who is the one who titled a post “How long until Southern Baptists are chased from America”?
Since you claim to be big and strong, maybe you should go to Louisiana and protect the Cajun Coward from the boogielibs.
I do think that the whole thing has been one of the silliest, stupidest tempests in a teapot that has blown up in awhile.
Agreed!