In some respects, I hate being yet one more voice weighing in on this whole Chick-Fil-A brouhaha. Honestly, I’ve never had their food, mainly because I live in California. While on the East Coast last week, my wife and I saw a few while driving to Monticello and again to Lancaster. We might have given it a try, since we’ve heard about it from some of its fans, but in light of where their profits go, we opted not to do so.
I don’t know if there’s really anything that can be said that hasn’t already been said, but the deafening stupidity in favor of today’s “Appreciation Day” has made me want to clear a few things up. First of all, let me make it clear that I completely accept and appreciate the CEO’s freedom to say whatever the hell he wants to say. I also don’t think that any government official has any right to take away his right to run his business based on what he says and who he supports – although it seems like complaints about that sort of thing are a bit of a tempest in a teapot.
What I want to address is the completely asinine blathering that I’m hearing. In general, the statements are as follows:
“Why are Christians the only ones who aren’t allowed to say how they feel?”
You can say whatever you want. He said what he wanted, didn’t he? Is he in jail? Your freedom of speech doesn’t mean that you get to just say whatever the hell you want and I have to listen to it like what you’re saying isn’t stupid. Plus, I have the freedom to choose where I want to take my business, and I also have the freedom to let everybody know why I’m making the choices that I’m making.
I also would like to point out a couple of things: 1. Not all Christians agree with this bigot. 2. Last I checked, I can’t walk a few blocks without seeing a church of some sort. Christianity is hardly some covert, underground movement.
“The people coming out to the Appreciation Day are supporting freedom.”
No. No. No. NOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!! They are supporting the bigoted and hateful comments of a narrow-minded douchebag who justifies his bigotry with his religion. Do you know who else does that? Fred Phelps, who likes to boycott funerals of soldiers. Is this guy as bad as Phelps? I don’t know. Why don’t you ask some poor gay kid who had to go to a program that tried to make him straight? (Chick-Fil-A supports “ex-gay” organizations.)
“Why are we bigots just for standing up for traditional marriage?”
Because if you took the time to actually learn what traditional marriage is, you’d know that you don’t support that either. Also, when you tell one group of people that they shouldn’t be allowed to do the same thing as another group of people, then YOU ARE A BIGOT.
Man, it’s like asking, “Why am I called a racist just because I think that blacks should have separate drinking fountains? I’m not saying that I hate them or that they’re worse than me. I just don’t think they should be able to use my drinking fountain.”
“Everybody’s a sinner. Hate the sin, love the sinner.”
I’ve already covered this.
I don’t know. Maybe it’s because I’ve been reading this crap all day. Maybe it’s because I quickly drank two beers with dinner. Maybe it’s because some peoples’ heads are so far up their asses that I think that writing this will magically make them yank them out. The stupidity – it’s deafening.
There’s absolutely NO ONE around here who’s been more pro-gay, nor pro-abortion (yes, even mandated abortion for the dependent poor, because I’m a SUPER-liberal) than I.
I am also very, VERY sensitive to anti-gay rhetoric.
I am dead serious about that, as an associate of mine (Richard K out of Jersey City, NJ) was a bisexual man who also happened to be one of the most widely successful and admired fee-for-service (contract) killers ever to grace the American landscape. He worked for criminal enterprises, governments (I know….some will say, “same thing”) and Corporations. He was a true equal opportunity craftsman and a pretty swell, albeit dangerous, even “scary” guy.
He claimed to have killed over 250 people, but I know for a fact that while incarcerated he claimed a number of killings that were done by others. . .quite a number, as a matter of fact.
As I’ve explained to too many people, too many times to count, there ISN’T any widespread “homophobia” in the USA or anywhere else in the world that I know of and I’ve been to Chile and a few other South American garden spots, what was then Rhodesia and to the UAE and Kuwait. I met a prison chief in Chile who used a cattle prod on “prison rapists, NOT so much because he was “anti-gay” but because he found such rapes to be “abhorrent in the eyes of god.” He was a fearsome man and I very much liked and respected him for his extreme sense of discipline. What the vast majority of people take issue with is “feminine” males, because they perceive femininity and genteelness as weakness.
Ergo, Michael Jackson (NOT gay) was made sport of, while “Tiny the Biker-types” (the proverbial “butch” Prison Rapist) is NEVER made sport of at all. People fear the “butch queer,” as much as they’re disgusted by the effeminate (“weak”) male. That’s not “anti-gay”. . .that’s something else altogether.
NO ONE I’ve ever known (and I’ve known a lot of “rough-around-the edges” types) ever took issue with Rich K’s bi-sexuality (“gayness”). Hell, he even carried out a few killings dressed in drag (which was a penchant of his). He was a large, hirsute man and that was decidedly NOT his “best look,” although I’d never have told him that, certainly not to his face.
I’ve perused (that’s skimmed) the comments of Mr Cathy and have pronounced that, Support for the “traditional family Unit” does NOT rise to the level of “anti-gay rhetoric,” because I KNOW for a fact that folks like Rich K (who can unfortunately, no longer speak for himself. . .he died in prison, actually in the secure wing at St. Francis Medical Center in Trenton, New Jersey, on March 5th, 2006. . .of “natural causes”) would have no issue at all with Mr. Cathy and others who support and look to exclusively aid “the traditional family Unit”. . .the Unit, by the way, from which all “LGBTG’s have sprung from. Mr K was every bit as liberal as myself, though neither of us is (was, in his case) the “overly sensitive” type.
There’s absolutely no evidence to suggest that “support exclusively for the “traditional family Unit” is at all a stealth anti-gay campaign.
IF it were, I’d have been all over that!
Howdy Lance,
I suppose I should just copy my comment from the other post.
Here is what I do not understand and I wish someone somewhere would answer: As long as I can remember the Christian community has been using boycott as a method of social pressure. How is that tactic now an infringement on freedom?
My good Sally,
You yourself have focused on boycotts, but the rally DAD posted the photo of was not a response to gays declining to eat fried chicken strips, but rather a response to the novel eruption of not one, but two municipal governments declaring they would use the power of the state to punish an individual for the wrongthinking Lance feels comfortable cataloging against him, above. Lance decides whose values are legitimate, then an alderman puts city muscle selectively behind Lance’s values grading. That is different from a boycott, from merely passively not buying chicken.
H. M. Stuart
Alexandria
My good H.M.
What you say may be a good description of DADvocate’s post, although I do not think it that simple. I think CFA Appreciation Day is partially a reaction to those government official’s declarations but mostly more of the same playing-the-victim against those horrible liberals trying to destroy families and force their lack-of-values down their good Christian throats.
This was more of a general post in response to the many articles (and FB comments from relatives) I’ve read this week about how gay-supporters boycotting CFA is an infringement of free-speech rights.
Cheers,
Sally
To quote Fonzi: Exactamundo.
“This was more of a general post in response to the many articles (and FB comments from relatives) I’ve read this week about how gay-supporters boycotting CFA is an infringement of free-speech rights. ”
Hm. Hollywood studios blacklisted communists in the 1940ies and 50ies, and this is still considered one of the worst civil rights abuses of the century. And surely we all know that being a communist is far worse than not believing in gay marriage.
“I’ve read this week about how gay-supporters boycotting CFA is an infringement of free-speech rights.” (MS)
.
.
That’s, of course, NOT what this so-called “Chic-Fil-A Activism” is about at all.
The ENTIRE controversy was over a few government “wannabe tyrants” sought to use coercive state power to attempt to harm people whom they perceived had the effrontery to disagree with them.
That’s pseudo-tyranny (and America deserves much better tyranny than that)…AND it’s NOT as though the Left-wing hasn’t bathed in this muck before and very recently to boot; (SEE: http://professional.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444464304577537233908744496.html?_nocache=1343917516441&user=welcome&mg=id-wsj&mg=reno-wsj). . .the Obama administration seeking to harm yet another decent, hardworking American (Frank VanderSloot) for merely donating to the political candidate of his choice is both unprecedented and appalling.
LCJ and you are at least two people on record here as accepting (via silence on that) if not outrightly supporting that governmental suppression of political beliefs you oppose, which effectively forfeits your rights to object if/when that should occur in the reverse.
I’ve been and remain a registered Democrat and spring from generations of Tammany Hall Dems who furiously and bravely fought against the true “Progressives” (Corporatists), the fetid Fiorello LaGuardia and the ruthlessly incompetent John V Lindsay – Republican scumbags who helped make “liberalism” a dirty word by their actions – but I find myself wishing for nothing but the worst for ALL “Progressives” both Dem & GOP. IF enough slime is cast over the Democratic “Progressives,” perhaps Tammany can reclaim its Party once again.
JMK,
I do not think that a mayor or the government should be able to ban a business for its owners political action. (I also don’t think the ban will actually come to pass or be enforceable).
That said, I just don’t believe that this issue is why all those people are out at the CFA. I think that for most people (yourself perhaps not included) this is something to rally behind as a way of continuing to show support for the general agenda of anti-gay rights.
Sigh. Allow me to quote myself from the second paragraph of my post:
“I just don’t believe that this issue is why all those people are out at the CFA. I think that for most people (yourself perhaps not included) this is something to rally behind as a way of continuing to show support for the general agenda of anti-gay rights.” (MS)
.
.
Not at all, Sally.
Again it is mere OPINION that opposition to gay marriage, gay marriage, etc is “bigoted.”
It is NOT.
Now, I will acknowledge that I am entirely morally flexible (I won’t go into my history of how I rejected Catholicism at age 7 and subsequently the underpinnings of Western morality by age 11, after finding Nietzsche’s “The Antichrist”), suffice to say, I find it nearly impossible to accept ANY set “right” or “wrong.”
That is, in a tyrannical (Communist, Socialist) environment, I’d almost certainly aspire (I AM ashamed to say) to be the next Lavrentiy Beria. Better to “disappear others in the middle of the night” then to be disappeared myself.
Likewise, in a Sharia-based society, I’d happily and enthusiastically embrace the stoning of adulterers, rape victims (for “not sufficiently resisting”), gays, and the other targets of the fundamentalist Muslim rulers. . .I’d be among the first to throw my fellow Westerners who’d oppose such things (dissent) under the proverbial bus for “Crimes against Islam” under such a regime. Again, it’s better be stoning others rather than be stoned one’s self. . .and for what, standing up for some “principle” that I don’t really value all that much?
Personally, I’ve never been able to put principle over. . .ANYTHING, because as a NY City “liberal” I’ve never really embraced any “principles,” because I don’t embrace the idea of any set “right & wrong.” ALL “morality” is relative.
Like I’ve said, I’ve known and respected tons of gay and bisexual people over the years, BUT have witnessed little if ANYTHING that rises to the level of an actual “anti-gay” agenda among most Americans.
As I’ve noted a number of times, while almost EVERYONE seems to have a very natural antipathy for “effeminate/feminine males,” there is rarely expressed ANY such antipathy for the “butch” football locker room or prison predator gay, or “top.” NONE of the “top” gays I’ve ever known cared much at all about gay marriage, gay adoption, etc., but maybe that was because many were what insensitive people might call “thugs.”
I will admit that I am quite ambivalent about the natural antipathy the vast majority of people (including myself) have toward “effeminate males,” because that aversion and revulsion toward weakness does appear to be innate to the human condition.
That viewpoint almost certainly stems from the human condition that historically, male weakness puts everyone depending on that male at risk. It’s a bias that seems geared to making it “NOT an OPTION to refuse to “man up” or “be a man” for males.”
First of all, let me make it clear that I completely accept and appreciate the CEO’s freedom to say whatever the hell he wants to say. I also don’t think that any government official has any right to take away his right to run his business based on what he says and who he supports. . .although it seems like complaints about that sort of thing are a bit of a tempest in a teapot.” (LCJ)
.
.
No, you VERY CLEARLY dismissed the legitimate concerns of those who stood up and rightfully smacked down these spineless government officials by supporting Chic-Fil-A.
This WAS NOT a response to the non-existent pro-gay rights “boycott,” but to the obvious and criminal overreach by numerous government officials.
What EVERY last one of those public officials proved is that they (very much like ME) have absolutely NO “principles,” NO “convictions”. . .NO adherence to ANY “moral principles” whatsoever.
As a friend of mine would say, “None of them has a hair on their ass, if they can’t stand up for what they believe.” I guess they all be “smooth-asses, or maybe Mennonites after all.
Seriously IF opposing gay marriage, etc., really WERE “bigoted,” then these guys are all craven cowards for failing to legitimately oppose such bigotry with the full force of their offices!
FACT is, they apparently agree with ME! They KNOW that such views DO NOT rise to the level of “bigotry,” any more than opposition to the segregation of “disparate impact” rulings, race/gender preferences rises to the level of “racism”/bigotry.
IF there are ANY elected officials who truly believe that either of those viewpoints is immoral and actually “bigoted,” then it SHOULD BE incumbent upon them to use the full weight of government to silence such “bigots.” Their backing down in the wake of this full-throated backlash shows them to be either craven cowards, OR surreptitious supporters of the views they claimed to oppose.
I’ve said many times that, I WELCOME ANY politician to make it a crime to oppose segregated standards, “disparate impact rulings” and race/gender preferences because I KNOW that I can and have made arguments AGAINST such segregation that none of them can refute. In that regard, I KNOW that those SAME sort of spineless legislators can be counted on to back down and with enough pressure, actually kiss our asses, apologizing for misconstruing anti-segregation as “bigotry.”
Their hasty retreat on THIS issue only emboldens me even more on that particular score.
Look, even YOU have backed off the view that opposition to gay marriage rises to the level of bigotry!
ANYONE who actually believes that a given viewpoint really amounts to “advancing bigotry,” SHOULD have the courage of their convictions and not only support governmental action AGAINST such “bigotry,” BUT demand it!
Right here, with your backing away from that position, you’ve effectively implied that, either you really DON’T believe opposition to gay marriage, etc., rises to the level of bigotry, OR (even worse) that you don’t believe that “blatant bigotry” is worthy of being condemned, even shut down (criminalized) by government.
For the record, I DO believe that outright bigotry (ie. support for segregated standards) SHOULD BE criminalized, at least to some extent.
IF I believed that opposition to gay marriage WAS “bigotry” I’d be more than outraged at these craven public officials who’ve beat a hasty retreat in the face of some support for such bigotry, as real, actual bigotry SHOULD BE ostracized, criminalized and shut down. . .shouldn’t it?
Sooo, JMK, you’re admitting you wouldn’t put principle over anything and are “morally flexible”. So we should take seriously your points of view on anything why?
“Sooo, JMK, you’re admitting you wouldn’t put principle over anything and are “morally flexible”. So we should take seriously your points of view on anything why?” (T)
.
.
Moral flexibility is a NECESSARY survival trait.
I could adapt as easily to a Sharia-based Theocracy in which adulterers, gays, and others were routinely stoned to death, as I could a communist dictatorship. . .just show me “where my bread is buttered” and shall go there.
Like ALL “liberals” everywhere, I am grounded in a complete “moral relativism.”
I am always made suspicious by those who CLAIM to be “liberal” and yet cling to “morality,” BUT ONLY when they see it benefiting their own positions. THAT’S not moral relativism, that’s moral cowardice, and it’s easy to smell the difference.
On this issue at hand, the very public officials who took a stand against this guy (Mr Cathy) have cut and run and abandoned those who’d support such government action to ridicule.
Some friends!
Don’t kid yourself. We refuse to be victims of piss ants like you.
Wait, who is the pissant?
I addressed this in my second paragraph, H.M. I do not support that kind of a thing at all.
I think that I was pretty specific about the things that I was criticizing.
My good Lance,
This
is what the officials in the two cities in question were initially taking state action against: delegitimized values inappropriate for their respective cities.
Your values and beliefs were deemed legitimate and worthy of state protection; Cathy’s were deemed outlaw.
H. M. Stuart
Alexandria
A few points:
1. Have these statements made by various leaders actually been put into effect? Serious question. It’s one thing for them to do some political grandstanding. It’s another to actually do something that makes a difference. Honest question here.
2. My beliefs are deemed legitimate and worthy of state protection? I didn’t realize that gay people now had the right to marry nation-wide.
3. This whole thing is a separate argument, one in which I have indicated I will be on your side. But do you really think that this “Appreciation Day” is about that? Every comment I read was from people touting the “values” of Chick-Fil-A.
This just in (from the Herald.com): Menino has backtracked.
“I can’t do that. That would be interference to his rights to go there,” Menino said, referring to company president Dan Cathy, who drew the mayor’s wrath by going public with his views against same-sex marriage.
My good Lance,
I quoted your values and beliefs. I’ll quote them again:
According to you, Cathy’s beliefs simply in and of themselves have no legitimacy. You don’t come to this randomly and suddenly, you’re a militant atheist who finds religion itself illegitimate, notwithstanding that it actually has a bit more cultural tenure than you do.
This is what the CFA folks are protesting in their appreciation of CFA: the fact not only that their somewhat age old beliefs have suddenly been deemed no more than disposable horseshit by thirty-somethings who fill their time instead reading comics and drinking beer, but also that the state would, even for a moment, raise its fist to unilaterally implement that thirty-something’s casual dismissal of the fundamental values they and their ancestors have always lived their lives by.
H. M. Stuart
Alexandria
Militant? Because I write the occasional blog post and sometimes get into debates? That’s about the extent of my “militant” atheism. If only Al Quaeda could adopt my militant strategies.
And again, as for what they are protesting, I made specific rebuttals to arguments that I have heard. Am I dismissive of their long-held beliefs? Yes. So what? Just because something’s been around a long time, that makes it right?
Just because something’s been around a long time, that makes it right?
My good Lance,
Being around a long time gives things the cultural ballast that they have been that way for a long time for a reason, a better reason than things which have long since gone by the wayside, and apparently gays never marrying nor – unlike regular slave rebellions century in and century out – never even voicing an interest in doing so has convinced everyone, gays included, that, until very, very recently, yes, gays not marrying was indeed right and the proper way of the world.
That is obviously being renegotiated now, but those whose traditions have not embraced gay marriage for millennia are not going to meekly have their foundational cultural values casually dismissed because doing so in 2012 is now the in thing to do – unlike in 1982, when it wasn’t. Nor should any sane person expect them to.
H. M. Stuart
Alexandria
My good H.M.
meekly have their foundational cultural values casually dismissed
Casually dismissed? Through 50 years of activism? Through Stonewall and the emergence of AIDS and Laramie? Nothing casual going on here.
Nor should any sane person expect them to.
Sometimes change is too hard for people even when everyone around this is doing it (witness old folks who still say “negro”.) I didn’t really expect my (now passed on) grandmother to really be accepting of my dad being out (she said being a vegetarian was “against god”). But I sure as hell expect my 20-year old cousins to.
Social change isn’t always gradual – sometimes it comes in a huge wave of realization that just because something has always been doesn’t make it right. In those time I think we can and should expect our fellow human beings to be open to new ideas instead of clinging to the past, particularly if the old ways cause harm.
My good Sally,
It is difficult to understand exactly what you are saying here. You do realize when I say “meekly have their foundational cultural values casually dismissed” I am referring to the CFA Christians who believe marriage should not apply to gay unions, the way it has not for recorded history, not to the gays. Even so, your response seems a bit non sequitur; feel free to elaborate.
A different way of putting the same thing would be to say that the CFA folks are chagrined that their profound religious moral values, until very, very recently also held by society at large, including most gays, to be profound religious moral values, have suddenly become dismissable by a large, active portion of society as nothing more than obnoxious bad habits they should rid themselves of as soon as possible.
An analogy of a similar devaluation of values might go something like this. Leaving aside for the sake of current argument the phenomena of individual patriarchal domination of women, for many societies for many years a woman’s sex, the vagina between her legs, has been regarded at large as sacrosanctly belonging solely to the woman herself, to be used solely at her discretion. This would be a similar, foundational, life directing value. Now, let us say hypothetically, within a generation that value becomes turned on its head and free love, specifically free vagina on demand, becomes the moral value which replaces it. What sort of despicable pariahs do holdouts against this new moral landscape then become, those who continue to insist that not only theirs, but all vaginas are properly absolutely private parts of their respective individuals and not public commodities that anyone passing can partake of, like public drinking fountains? Are those holdouts against free vagina for any now “douchebags” because mass society at large has made a 180 degree values turn within only a few decades?
For some reason people seem to think dispossessing others of deeply held, dig-in-like-a-tick religious/moral/foundational values should be nothing more that a bit of haranguing and shrill consciousness raising, and then they become surprised when the blowback against the implicit insult inherent in those glib attempts (really, douchebags and bagettes, how important could your stupid, fucking, dismissable moral marriage/private vagina values really be?) ends up being violently antagonistic.
H. M. Stuart
Alexandria
My good H.M.
I mention Stonewall, etc. because equality is something the gay community has been fighting for for many years. They are not unaware of the challenges and opposition.
The phrase “casually dismissed” implies that gay rights supporters don’t understand what huge changes they are asking for (demanding!) – that we expect people to just change their minds about everything and suddenly become gay-loving liberals. I hope for that but I don’t expect it. I know people will continue to preach that being gay is wrong, sinful, etc. Gay rights was a hard sell 50 or even 30 years ago – most people didn’t know anyone who was gay (or out anyway). It was unknown and frightening. Then it was “I have a gay friend” (or sibling). Then it was “My kid is gay.” Now it’s “My parent is gay.” It is nearly impossible to not know some gay people. And guess what, society has not collapsed. If I am dismissive of anything it is this ridiculous idea that other people having rights somehow lessens one’s own rights. Civil rights are not a zero-sum game. If you have a child whom you love very much then you have a second child, you don’t then love the first child less. A second group of people having civil rights doesn’t diminish the first group’s rights. A gay person being able to visit his/her loved one in the hospital doesn’t keep a straight person from being able to visit his/her loved one in the hospital.
The “obnoxious bad habit” isn’t continuing to abide by one’s own faith and its social practices, it is demanding that everyone else live the way you do while declaring your way of life is at risk.
Don’t really have anything to say about all the vagina stuff. :-)
My good Sally,
You find yourself here because you intervened in my response to Lance and his casual dismissal of those with deeply held religious values as bigoted.
You need not elaborate the obvious with me, and I carry water for neither camp.
H. M. Stuart
Alexandria
I didn’t mean YOU, I meant the universal “you”. A syntax problem I have yet to adequately solve.
P.S. In a weird confluence of events, as I was reading your comments, I simultaneously got into a humorous FB exchange about vaginas resulting in the most excellent realization that the words Vagina Dentata work very well in place of the Disney song Hakuna Matata.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejEVczA8PLU
Now get that out of your head.
“….the rally DAD posted the photo of was not a response to gays declining to eat fried chicken strips, but rather a response to the novel eruption of not one, but two municipal governments declaring they would use the power of the state to punish an individual for the wrongthinking Lance feels comfortable cataloging against him, above. Lance decides whose values are legitimate, then an alderman puts city muscle selectively behind Lance’s values grading. That is different from a boycott, from merely passively not buying chicken.” (HMS)
.
.
That’s the extent of this controversy in a nutshell.
IF it weren’t for uncivil and illegitimate (rogue?) government action, none of this would’ve been an issue.
Funny thing, Obama had exactly same view about gay marriage only a few months ago, and I don’t remember him being called a bigot for this. Weird.
When are you going to admit that you have a crush on Obama, H-A?
And Obama’s position was bigoted. But I don’t know of him donating his money to anti-gay organizations though.
“And Obama’s position was bigoted.”
Was Obama a bigot a few months ago? You called the people from the restaraunts “bigots” – why can’t you say that Obama was also a bigot?
“But I don’t know of him donating his money to anti-gay organizations though.”
And that means he was not a bigot?
Fair enough, H-A. Yes, he was a bigot. Happy now?
The thing with Obama is that there is some indication that he was once in favor of gay marriage (in other words, before he ran for President) but changed his position so he could get elected? I’m not sure if this makes it better or worse though.
But I point out where he put his money because there are degrees of bigotry. For instance, I don’t think that the guy from Chick-Fil-A is as bad as Fred Phelps, for instance.
Make sense?
What you seem to fail (perhaps WANT NOT) to understand Lance, is that ALL hate is equally evil.
The Russian hatred of the Germans at the end of WWII (glorified in the “Rape of Berlin”) was every bit as evil and verboten as was the nazi hatred of the Jews.
There are no “degrees” of hate. There aren’t some “good hates” (ie. hating rapists, bigots, or homophobes) or “bad hates” (hating bluebirds, marigolds, or gays, for instance) there is merely hatred.
A hater is a hater.
The primary lesson of WW II was that “THIS (the nazi atrocities) could happen ANYWHERE,” because that’s the nature of mankind. In fact the Croats were so cruel to their Serbian neighbors, that Hitler’s own SS complained to Berlin that the Croats cruelty sickened THEM! That lesson was brilliantly put forth in Jerzy Kosinki’s excellent novel The Painted Bird (http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_1/185-6737087-2890701?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=the+painted+bird). . .well worth reading.
That lesson has only been amplified in recent years – the Hutus being able to so easily be enveloped in a baseless ethnic hatred for the Tutsis is one recent example. EVERYONE is able to rationalize their hatred out of greed/envy, mistrust, difference.
You seem to believe that it’s OK to revile Mr Cathy (whom you believe to be a homophobe), BUT that appears to run counter to your dismissive attitude over governmental overreach in this case. After all, applying your own standards, since Mr Cathy hasn’t killed any gays or acted on that hatred to seek to suppress them, that could probably be easily dismissed with your own words about that amounting to “a tempest in a teapot.”
For in your view (at least on the governmental overreaches), UNLESS actual repressions are in place, it’s no big deal. . .BUT that must apply for BOTH sides, as we can’t hold one side to a higher standard than the other (that’s NOT a matter of opinion, that is foundational to any discussion).
Hitler reviled the “greedy, Capitalist Jew.” He saw them as “parasites,” NOT “the founders of the feast,” which they were!
The OWS protesters see Capitalists (Jewish and not) in the SAME way, and with an equally revolting hatred.
The Jews of nazi-era Europe WERE an insular community and it made them ripe for claims that THEY were steeped in bigotry for others and overly religious, which made them easy targets for hate.
You seem to rationalize your own hatred and bigotry against those you see as religious (I’ve shown you why I find YOU entirely faith-based) in much the same way those who targeted the Jews did – by making them a group worthy of hate and derision (at least in YOUR eyes); “…the bigoted and hateful comments of a narrow-minded douchebag who justifies his bigotry with his religion.”
There is no “reasonable hate” nor any “unreasonable hate” – ALL hate is equally unreasonable. Being “intolerant” of the perceived “intolerant” is STILL intolerance.
Of course, it IS possible that I’m taking your sentiments too straightforward, that is, perhaps it’s your frustration in being unable to articulate a clear, reasonable argument as to why, for instance, gay marriage is so vitally important, or even WHY those who disagree with you are wrong, bigoted and intolerant.
You’ve never made an affirmative argument in that regard – “…the bigoted and hateful comments of a narrow-minded douchebag who justifies his bigotry with his religion.” – DOES NOT count as an “affirmative argument” for your views.
JMK, as always I’m tempted to respond to you point for point, but you twist my words around so much, and you clearly ignore some things that I’ve written, that I just don’t see the point. This is why I usually just ignore you.
If I had this exact same problem with other people, then I’d have to face the fact that the problem is probably me. Considering that I have seen others express this exact same complaint to YOU, then I’m going to feel comfortable in assuming that the problem is you.
And just in case you think I’m not being specific, let me give you just one example that illustrates what you do. Twice in this thread, you insist that I have indicated that I’m okay with the government taking action against Chick-Fil-A even though I clearly stated in the second paragraph of my original post that I am NOT okay with that.
For me to respond to you would be to have to go through every statement you make about me and clear up what I’m actually saying. The result would be you writing another long response where you don’t address anything that I actually wrote.
To quote the last line of The Bridge on the River Kwai: “Madness! Madness!”
“Twice in this thread, you insist that I have indicated that I’m okay with the government taking action against Chick-Fil-A even though I clearly stated in the second paragraph of my original post that I am NOT okay with that.” (LCJ)
.
.
“I also don’t think that any government official has any right to take away his right to run his business based on what he says and who he supports – although it seems like complaints about that sort of thing are a bit of a tempest in a teapot.” (LCJ)
That dismissive attitude makes it VERY clear that you ARE OK with exactly that, so long as it is inline with your own views.
There is NO issue over any “boycott.”
There have been no reports of ANY organized boycott of Chic-Fil-A by any gay-rights supporters.
There HAVE BEEN widespread reports of various public officials dabbling in tyranny – seeking to suppress views they don’t agree with via the coercive powers of government. THAT is what apparently generated the response that you and some others seem to have a problem with.
Does that rise to the level of “Obama’s Enemies List”? (http://professional.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444464304577537233908744496.html?_nocache=1343917516441&user=welcome&mg=id-wsj&mg=reno-wsj) It’s the SAME EXACT sort of thing – using governmental authority to punish opposing views. That’s positively Stalinesque, but, of course, on an amateur scale here in the U.S. (We NEED a better class of tyrant around here)
The ENTIRE response (supporting Chic-Fil_A) is a response to governmental abuse, an abuse that you dismiss entirely even as you claim to “disagree” with that.
No. No. No. NOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!! They are supporting the bigoted and hateful comments of a narrow-minded douchebag who justifies his bigotry with his religion.
Keep repeating the lie. Keep repeating the lie. Keep repeating the lie.
Cathy said he supported traditional marriage. Show me where he said something else.
But, again, the open-minded, tolerant left wing haters choose to infer what fits their narrative and hate filled belief system. And, of course, you’ve shown many times your hatred of religion, so your position is not surprise. Your mind was made up before this ever happened.
Keep repeating the lie. Keep repeating the lie. Keep repeating the lie.
Cathy’s comments about “supporting traditional marriage” came when asked about the anti-gay causes that he donates to – one of them being one of those “ex-gay” organizations.
Yes. That’s hateful. But yeah, I’m the bigoted one here. You and your psychological projection.
My good Lance,
There is no difference between what Cathy chooses to believe and how he legally chooses to legally support those beliefs, unless your position is that those who believe differently from you have a right to do so only so long as their beliefs – but not yours – remain safely and subjectively impotent.
H. M. Stuart
Alexandria
The only thing I’m saying is that with the complete context, Cathy’s comments are bigoted. I stand by that.
My good Lance,
I suspect it will take the 2,000-year-old Christian religion (not to mention it’s multimillenially older Jewish uncle) a bit longer to embrace the decade-old current hot topic of gay marriage than you have the youthful patience for.
Here’s a interesting research topic for any who are interested: closeted or not, for however long they have been closeted, how long have gays themselves been yearning for gay marriage? Surely there must be a canon of literature on the topic, even if only in the form of journals and diaries.
Are the religionists, with at least a long, consistent values tradition opposing it, being beaten up over a topic that has only been of interest to gays themselves within the last several years?
H. M. Stuart
Alexandria
That’s a good question. I think that the marriage issue only came up fairly recently because for the longest time, gays didn’t dare to even come out of the closet. Once they started to get some social acceptance, they felt brave enough to ask for what everybody else has.
Here’s a interesting research topic for any who are interested: closeted or not, for however long they have been closeted, how long have gays themselves been yearning for gay marriage?
I think gay people through-out history have yearned for equality and acceptance but marriage was so unattainable that it wasn’t even on the radar. Now it is potentially attainable so people want what everyone else has.
“The only thing I’m saying is that with the complete context, Cathy’s comments are bigoted. I stand by that.” (LCJ)
.
.
Given that active opposition to gay marriage and gay adoption does NOT rise to the level of “bigotry,” then how could statements that support exclusively “the traditional family unit” be at all “bigoted?”
That doesn’t make any sense at all.
Show me where I accused you of either.
No different that your hatred of religion and the religious. Projection can go both ways. Show me where I’ve “hated” gays or even opposed gay marriage. I believe that a biologically intact family, mother/father/child(ren), is the best environment to raise children and I’ve posted that. Is that too anti-gay for you?
I have a gay sister who helped raise her past partner’s son. She knows my position and her and I are quite close as she is also quite close to fundamentalist brother. I have a brother who died of AIDS. The person I consider the best friend I ever had as an adult was gay. But, I still have my own values that, the best I can, I base on reality.
You try to accuse me of projection. Ha!. You once again show how pathetic you are. You’re hate looking for a place to happen. You’ve consistently been the most hateful person on this blog. Simple.
And you know what? Speaking of “repeating lies”, for anybody who suggests that “supporting traditional marriage” is anything but code for “stop gays from getting married” is only fooling themselves. Support traditional marriage? Fantastic. Don’t marry somebody of the same sex. But when you donate to organizations that ACTIVELY stop gay people from getting married, then this isn’t about supporting anything. It’s about stopping others from having what you have.
I’m sorry you’re all butt-hurt that I’ve insulted your religion. You can never actually address my objections to it though, instead you just have to stick with your insults whenever I point out how full of shit you are.
“Speaking of “repeating lies”, for anybody who suggests that “supporting traditional marriage” is anything but code for “stop gays from getting married” is only fooling themselves.” (LCJ)
.
.
That is pure conjecture on your part.
What’s more, the view that OPPOSITION TO and fiscal support for opposition to gay marriage, gay adoption, etc., rises to the level of “bigotry,” IS also merely an OPINION.
Neither you nor I can declare views we don’t agree with “bigoted.” Neither of us have been appointed to “the morality committee,” nor hired onto “the morality police,” have we?
As an example, I absolutely revile the viewpoint that supports contemporary segregation (race/gender preferences, “disparate impact” rulings, “protected groups,” etc.) , but I recognize that my view of those who support such segregation as “bigots” is also an OPINION. I DO NOT hate those opposed to my support of freedom and who support segregation, I intend (if at all possible) to convince them of the immorality (by their own standards) of their support for segregation.
That’s why I’ve worked hard to make unassailable affirmative arguments against that segregation and in favor of “equality before the law” and true “equality of opportunity” (everyone held to the SAME high standards with special preference for NONE).
Let me just add, Lance, that these people never, ever, ever try to “support traditional marriage” by agitating for stricter divorce laws or abolition of divorce altogether. The Bible Belt has higher rates of divorce, unwed (and teen) pregnancy, abortion, and pornography use than, say Evil Librul New England. I also don’t notice that people like this, if they have the wherewithal to move, are any more inclined to stay near Mom, Dad, and the extended family (as opposed to moving off) than anybody else. As soon as the “traditional family” group starts getting its own act together, I’ll start taking their views on SSM seriously.
“…these people never, ever, ever try to “support traditional marriage” by agitating for stricter divorce laws or abolition of divorce altogether. . .”
.
.
This issue is NOT about gay-rights OR even “supporting traditional Marriage,” it’s clearly about opposition to government overreach!
NO ONE has made the case otherwise and I know I can rely on your NOT being able to do that either.
The FACT is, there was NO organized boycott by ANY pro-gay rights groups to respond to, SO, this entire response was a reaction to perceived government overreach!
AND those craven public officials backing down proves that EVEN THEY don’t have the courage of their convictions. IF they DID truly believe that Mr Cathy’s support for his WinShape Foundation. . .(in which “Mr. Cathy has dedicated his time and resources to many philanthropic causes, focusing on those related to the welfare of needy children. In 1984, Cathy established the WinShape Foundation, named for its mission to shape winners. WinShape Foundation consists of WinShape Homes, WinShape RetreatSM, WinShape MarriageSM, WinShape Camps, WinShape, College Program, WinShape Wilderness and WinShape International. In 2010, the foundation provided roughly $18 million to fund the development of foster homes and summer camp. . .Additionally, Cathy has dedicated his time and resources towards welcoming homeless children into his home and has taught in Sunday school sessions. He has fostered children for over 30 years, and has since taken in nearly 200 foster children through WinShape Homes. WinShape Homes is a long-term foster care program that includes 11 foster homes throughout Alabama, Georgia, and Tennessee.[8][9]“ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S._Truett_Cathy). . .rose to the level of “bigotry” they SHOULD’VE stayed the course and weathered this tempest to “do the right thing” and oppose what they saw as “promoting bigotry!” NONE of them have.
IF ANY of those craven public officials truly believed that Mr. Cathy’s philanthropy rose to the level of “blatant bigotry,” then they SHOULD’VE had the courage of their convictions and pressed forward with the full weight of government to stamp out what they believed to be very real “bigotry.”
OBVIOUSLY they DON’T have the courage of their convictions and are not merely “morally flexible,” (as I AM), but outrightly amoral – devoid of any moral principles at all.
Don’t you guys EVER get tired of supporting these so-called “liberal” pols who continually run from an issue and leave you guys twisting in the wind like this?
To me, it just seems downright undignified – like the Generals sounding a private retreat and letting their troops take a damned good beating.
WHY bother?!
WHY even support such people?
” I’m tempted to respond to you point for point, but you twist my words around so much, and you clearly ignore some things that I’ve written, that I just don’t see the point. This is why I usually just ignore you.” (LCJ)
.
.
At least be honest with yourSELF here Lance, you disengage from me because you’re unable to make affirmative arguments in defense of your beliefs.
It’s one thing to have passion for a subject, as I do on the issues of “Equality before the Law” (eradicating separate standards for different groups and eliminating “protected classes”) and “Equality of Opportunity” (applying the SAME standards to ALL regardless of background and getting rid of the fatally flawed judicial abortion known as “disparate impact” rulings) and quite another thing to hate those who disagree and oppose such views. I’ve never (so far as I can recall) stooped to the level of directing personal insults to those who disagree.
I believe I recall that both you and ETH initially disagreed with me over the need to eradicate race/gender preferences, but I never once responded with insults to either of you, nor anyone who might have disagreed with my views on that matter. I wasn’t even tempted to because I could make affirmative arguments for my views, and those opposed have never been able to defend their support for such segregation.
You disengaged from that exchange because you couldn’t defend your position, as you disengaged from a subsequent discussion (on faith-based belief) because you proved that YOU didn’t even understand the basis for science – challenging “established facts” and letting the data lead you wherever it might….“Indeed, science BEGINS where the FACTS end.”
I have no issue at all with your disengaging from discussions in which you cannot defend your positions, but just be honest about that. You disengaged because you COULD NOT make affirmative arguments in defense of your stated beliefs.
I’m STILL waiting on one that would defend the segregated standards brought on by race/gender preferences, “disparate impact” rulings AND “protected groups.”
I personally believe you disengaged from THAT exchange because you actually “came around” on that. FYI, Merit Matters is open to all and can be found online at; http://meritmattersusa.blogspot.com/
JMK, instead of trying to reply to all of the various posts of yours, I just want to make a couple things clear:
1. My comment about the “tempest in a teapot” was to point out that with the exception of some political blustering, there doesn’t seem to be any definite consequences. If Chick-Fil-A is unable to open in a particular city due to what some politician said or did, then I will be against that. As of right now, it just seems like a lot of hot air coming from gay-friendly politicians. If you can show me otherwise, then I will take back the “tempest in a teapot” comment and stand with you against that sort of a thing.
2. That you state that opposition to gay marriage and gay adoption is “not” bigotry is amazing to me, considering how you claim to be sensitive to gay issues and discrimination. (Do I have the second part right? About being sensitive to these things?) I honestly don’t even know how to start convincing you otherwise, but in my mind, that’s the very definition of bigotry.
As for everything else regarding past conversations, go ahead and see it your way. You will no matter what.
That addendum of yours (“although it seems like complaints about that sort of thing are a bit of a tempest in a teapot.”) effectively served to minimize the entire reason for the response by so many Americans.
Fact is, there WAS NO organized pro-gay rights “boycott” of this enterprise to respond to, so it was VERY CLEARLY a response to the unwise actions by a few public officials.
The entire response therefor was one against perceived government OVERREACH, and NOT opposition to gay-marriage as you’ve knowingly falsely assert. Your view that “We should wait until government actually DOES overreach before we react is patently absurd. ONCE government assumes any given power it MUST NOT and CANNOT rightfully be challenged. It’s far TOO LATE to challenge government overreach once its codified into law.
As an example, I vehemently oppose segregated standards (race/gender preferences, “disparate impact rulings,” etc.) BUT should government make clear at some future point in time, that such a viewpoint rises to the level of “blatant bigotry,” I will promptly abandon it as is my perceived duty as a “good citizen.”
Most governments claim the right to do just that – decide if a given viewpoint is verboten. The American government DOES NOT (according to its own Constitution) HAVE such a right, because it was forged as being “subservient to,” and NOT a “leader/controller of” the people.
Now, what would we do IF the U.S. government were to throws off the chains of that Constitution and begin to run amok? I believe that I, as I believe you would as well, would simply knuckle under and do precisely what “Uncle Sugar” says in ALL instances. If it were to start burning books, and then burning dissidents, I think it would prove best. . .and safest to be on the “right side of those flames,” don’t you?
Of course, I strongly oppose such an overreach now, BEFORE any of the dolts in government get any half-witted ideas about doing just that! Afterwards. . .not so much. I’d be busily angling for an “Executioner’s job.” I’ve heard that, “It don’t pay much, but it pays.”
Given that gay marriage and gay adoption were never seen as “big issues” for ANY of the “butch (“top”) gays and bisexuals I’ve known, I absolutely DO NOT see opposition to gay marriage or gay adoption to be at all “bigoted.” AND I DO understand and even sympathize with the natural and primordial antipathy that ALL societies seem to have for “effeminate males,” although I don’t consider that to be a “gay-rights issue.”
However, IF I DID, I’d have the convictions to support actual government action/intervention AGAINST such bigotry. Either something is morally wrong, or it’s NOT. . .or so I’ve been told.
In this case, the public officials in question who’ve beaten a hasty retreat seem to indicate that even they DO NOT see opposition to gay marriage as rising to the level of “bigotry.” I can’t imagine such craven cowardice being tolerated by those who actually DO see such views as “blatant bigotry,” but I could be wrong there too.
Given that Civil Ceremonies/Unions for BOTH gays and straights (there were actually slightly MORE straight-couple Civil Ceremonies/Unions than Marriages last year in the USA) the very SAME rights and privileges that a Church marriage does, the opposition to gay marriage DOES NOT appear to deprive gays of any basic “right.” NONE of us, so far as I know, have a right to a Church Wedding (Marriage). A Civil Ceremony is a Civil UNION and NOT a traditional “Religious Marriage”/Church Wedding, ergo, such Civil Ceremonies are LEGALLY the SAME as a Church Wedding/Marriage.
On the other hand, segregated standards (race/gender preferences, “disparate impact rulings” etc.) ALL DO appear to rise to the level of a “taking,” as they leave ALL those NOT classified in a “protected group” as virtual 2nd Class citizens, held to different/segregated standards!
Now supporting that kind of segregation DOES seem to rise to the level of “blatant bigotry” to me and I would support government intervention criminalizing support for such segregation AND I wouldn’t back down or be cowed into retreating from that view no matter how much of a backlash that engendered, although I wouldn’t expect much of a backlash on that at all, given that somewhere around 70% of Americans oppose such preferences/quotas.
AND in light of the political retreat on THIS issue, I have absolutely NO fear that these same public officials would even consider hold their ground if they’d ever find the wherewithal to come out in favor of classifying anti-preferences/anti-segregated standards views as bigoted/”racist.”
There’s a Facebook group and the whole thing where The Muppets pulled their deal with Chick-Fil-A. I don’t know about an organized boycott, but there is certainly a lot of talk about people boycotting. I don’t see why it needs to be “organized”. All you have to do is agree to not eat there and you’re part of the boycott.
And Sarah Palin certainly seemed to think it was about a boycott:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2012/08/02/chick_fil_a_and_free_speech_boycotts_are_not_a_threat_to_the_first_amendment.html
The entire controversy was over a few rogue public officials who over-reacted, before realizing that their actions would’ve violated their oaths of office via governmental overreaching. THAT was the outrage (it outraged as many Democrats as Republicans) a few rogue public officials playfully toying with “abuse of governmental authority.”
This is NOT a Left/Right issue! Across the blogosphere there is near universal condemnation of. . .those rogue public officials!
IF any of these politicians really felt that Mr Cathy’s philanthropy rose to the level of actual bigotry they wouldn’t have backed down over this and abandoned those few stalwart souls who DO STILL seem to believe that Mr Cathy’s WinShape Foundation “through which he’s dedicated his time and resources to numerous philanthropic causes, focused primarily on those related to the welfare of needy children. The WinShape Foundation (founded in 1984), was named for its mission “to shape winners.” The WinShape Foundation consists of WinShape Homes, WinShape RetreatSM, WinShape MarriageSM, WinShape Camps, WinShape, College Program, WinShape Wilderness and WinShape International…in 2010, the foundation provided roughly $18 million to fund the development of foster homes and summer camps. . .Additionally…dedicating his time and resources towards welcoming homeless children into his home and has taught in Sunday school sessions….and fostered children for over 30 years, and has since taken in nearly 200 foster children through WinShape Homes…..WinShape Homes is a long-term foster care program that includes 11 foster homes throughout Alabama, Georgia, and Tennessee” IS a “beard” or “front” for some sort of bigoted views.
That can’t be more than a handful of people nationwide. Just reading about WinShape makes Mr Cathy appear to be a saint on the order of Mother Theresa.
Once AGAIN those who suffered over this aren’t the gays, many of whom who don’t seem to really care much about such issues, but the devout (faith-based) political Leftists who’ve once again been abandoned out in the cold by craven politicians of their own ilk!
One line I saw on a YouTube video was obviously shouted by someone emboldened by these politician’s moral cowardice, as he railed, “We just showed’em no matter how many liberals they might elect, we ain’t gonna LET’em turn government into their weapon.” He sounded positively gleeful.
And why NOT?!
Once again a bunch of Left-wing political hacks have shown why NO ONE respects them. They can ALWAYS be counted on to back down!
EVERY single gay or bisexual male I’ve ever known has reveled in homosexuality’s taboo! Without homosexuality being considered taboo and “deviant” (deviating from the “norm”) it would lose most of its allure, not to mention most of its appeal to the “fashionably chic.”
Me, I don’t have a problem with homosexuality because I don’t have a problem with any form of “deviant sex” – bestiality, necrophilia, group sex, polygamy, etc., but as I’ve noted often, I DO lack what many call a “moral compass,” and at least a few people who’ve known me well have remarked (quite correctly) that I “often seem to have to GUESS at what’s right and wrong.”
While I have no problem with homosexuality, I also respect the fact that most of those I’ve known who are “gay,” also revel in it being NON-mainstream, or “outside the norm.” None that I know have ever WANTED it to be “mainstreamed” or considered “just as normal as…plain vanilla” (as they’re wont to say).
THIS was ALL ABOUT a few rogue politicians who overstepped their bounds and then wisely jumped back, abandoning a few “true believers” in the process. No real harm done – they’re re-election chances are unlikely to be hurt. I mean what are the diehards gonna do…find even more far-out, whacky Leftists to run against these guys?
I highly doubt that.
You know the Joker was the bad guy in The Dark Knight, right?
The Joker character was hideously deranged, and yes “bad” BUT there weren’t any actual “good guys” in that film.
The Bruce Wayne character was a self-styled vigilante.
The Police Chief ran a Department awash in corruption, that was implied to have “come from the top.”
The Mayor was ineffective and probably corrupt and the Prosecutor(?) (Harvey Dent), was every bit as deranged as the Joker.
The entire system was a mess in that film. . .you’d think they were actually imitating real life.
The ONE hopeful message of that entire very dark film was when the passengers on those two Ferry’s prove the Joker’s interview prophecy wrong, by not “eating each other” when the chips are down.
Sadly, that would almost certainly NOT happen in real life – those two boats would be splinters about 2 seconds after they unwrapped those detonators.
BUT what does The Joker have to do with the FACT that the outrage being discussed was primarily due to A few rogue politicians running amok?