PDA

View Full Version : What should we learn from last weeks support of Chick-fil-A



FlaGator
08-06-2012, 01:30 PM
Interesting article... speaking 'truth to power' as the libs are so fond of saying.

What can we learn from last week’s demonstration? Or rather, of what can we be reminded, since I expect that most of the readers here already recognize these four principles from the past?

First, the fascists are the progressive activists. They want a country—and in The Episcopal Church, a denomination—that bullies others into silence, forces others to support them with their money, redefines morality, and forces redefinitions of words, without protest from those who don’t want that. If they ever gain the power, they’ll make laws that won’t allow you to voice your opinion, support what you believe, build your own businesses, claim any social power or credibility, and refuse to support what you do not believe in. If they could, they’d send you to prison for refusing to support their agenda.

I think many—many—more Americans recognize this today than they did two weeks ago. These people are not “tolerant.” They’re bullies, they hate those who do not support their agenda, and they will do all in their power to hurt you, try to embarrass you and silence you, and force you to capitulate on your values and your morality.

This is who they are—and that’s demonstrable from the actions and the on-the-record statements of the last several weeks.

Second, no surprise, but the supporters of traditional marriage are in the large majority. We all know this—including, I should add, the gay activists.

Remember, their rhetoric is designed to imply that the vast majority of Americans are in support of redefining marriage to include one particular, currently-faddish-amongst-progressives, sexual attraction. They spend a lot of time and money cultivating the “inevitability” meme, so as to discourage organized resistance.

As I pointed out in a recent post:

“...what gay marriage activists want to foster—in fact, a time-honored tradition on the part of liberal activists—is the perception of “inevitability” which, if such inevitability is accepted, means that opponents will cease the effort of resistance. But there’s a big difference between attempting to promulgate the vision of “inevitability” and that inevitability actually being reality. Gay marriage approval is not inevitable at all, and I don’t think Americans are buying it either.”
Only—it’s not inevitable (http://www.standfirminfaith.com/?/sf/page/28870). Not at all (http://www.standfirminfaith.com/?/sf/page/28868). And their supporters are not in the majority—not even close.
So it may be time for them to wheel back from that line of rhetorical spin and return to their “pity us, give us a few bones, we’re being oppressed by a cruel majority of bigots” meme.
Which brings me to point three.


Read the whole article here (http://www.standfirminfaith.com/?/sf/page/29246)

NJCardFan
08-06-2012, 11:41 PM
The actions of Wednesday not only heartened the majority of American citizens, they deflated the tiny minority of progressive activists—and I think that’s one reason why The Great Kiss-In was such a flop. When people recognize just how outnumbered they are, it’s harder to get them out there engaged in childish demonstrations.

They—and their willing allies in the media—will certainly make every effort to discount and “forget” what happened on Wednesday.

This is the best part of this article as it speaks volumes.

Novaheart
08-07-2012, 10:56 AM
Interesting article... speaking 'truth to power' as the libs are so fond of saying.


Read the whole article here (http://www.standfirminfaith.com/?/sf/page/29246)

Do you honestly believe that nationwide equal rights for gay people, including same sex marriage is not inevitable? I'd say that if you do, then you haven't been paying attention. Gay people are being legally married in the US. It's only a matter of time before the Supreme Court says that if a state recognizes heterosexual marriages performed in another state then they have to recognize homosexual marriages performed in another state. It's only a matter of time before the military starts treating gay spouses as equals to heterosexual spouses. I'd say that if you don't think that will happen, then you are deluding yourself.

I will also note that it appears that you are, as I said, not actually an Episcopalian but part of some breakaway sect.

noonwitch
08-07-2012, 11:00 AM
I think we've learned that if a restaurant's food is good, people really don't care about the politics of the company's CEO.

Molon Labe
08-07-2012, 11:16 AM
Do you honestly believe that nationwide equal rights for gay people, including same sex marriage is not inevitable? I'd say that if you do, then you haven't been paying attention. Gay people are being legally married in the US. It's only a matter of time before the Supreme Court says that if a state recognizes heterosexual marriages performed in another state then they have to recognize homosexual marriages performed in another state. It's only a matter of time before the military starts treating gay spouses as equals to heterosexual spouses. I'd say that if you don't think that will happen, then you are deluding yourself.

I will also note that it appears that you are, as I said, not actually an Episcopalian but part of some breakaway sect.


Therein lies the big problem. We allowed "the STATE" to define "marriage". Had it been left to the religious nature of the institutions and not to the "spoils" of what goodies people can get from the government, nobody would be arguing about gay marriage today.

Which begs another issue. If two gays are married and approved by "the STATE", does that make it any more so in Gods eyes?

Nope.

Novaheart
08-07-2012, 11:19 AM
I think we've learned that if a restaurant's food is good, people really don't care about the politics of the company's CEO.

Chick-fil-A's Anti Gay Problem and Potential Future Discrimination Lawsuits

Posted on Aug 4, 2012 12:36am PDT
Chick-fil-A Could Be Jumping Out of the Frying Pan and Into the Fire

Chick-fil-A has created a significant risk for themselves in any future employment discrimination claims based on sexual orientation because it will be hard for them to argue that an anti-gay culture does not exist within the company from the top to bottom.

At-Will Employees May Be Terminated Without Cause But Not For Discriminatory Reasons

Unless you're a member of a Labor Union, or have negotiated an employment contract with your employer, you are probably an at-will employee which means that you or your employer can end the employment relationship at any time, for any reason and with or without notice. In other words, an at-will employer does not have to have "good cause" to terminate an employee.

Judicial interpretation, however, of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 continues to evolve placing sexual orientation into the group of protected class of workers along with other familiar ones including race, sex, and religion. Many states have also passed their own legislation protecting individuals from discrimination based on sexual orientation. This means that adverse employment decisions based on an employee's sexual orientation is unlawful discrimination. Simply put, any adverse employment decision by Chick-fil-A against a gay employee would be illegal. An adverse employment decision could be failing to promote an otherwise qualified gay employee, punitive transfers or shift changes, any kind of discipline or wrongful termination. If the employment action is based in any part on an employee's gay status, it is illegal.

Typically, in an employment discrimination or wrongful termination claim based on protected class, a defendant employer will almost always argue the adverse employment decision was made because of an employee's poor performance and not the fact that the employee was gay, or black or pregnant, or muslim. Discriminated employees have a tough time at trial proving that the employer cultivated a discriminatory environment against a particular protected class. Often times an employer's denial is persuasive, at the Widget Company we would never fire an employee because they are gay. The problem for Chick-fil-A as a result of the current controversy is they've done a lot of the work for a potential plaintiff who may file a claim for discrimination or hostile work environment based on sexual orientation. Chick-fil-A's protestations in the event of future discrimination claims by gay employees, that Chick-fil-A would never discriminate against gay employees could well ring hollow for many jurors. There are a reported 1600 Chick-fil-A restaurants across the country, with thousands of employees. Some of them are gay. What happens when they decide they're no longer going to keep their sexual orientation a private matter?

http://www.angellawpc.com/Portland-Personal-Injury-Blog/2012/August/Chick-fil-As-Anti-Gay-Problem-and-Potential-Futu.aspx

Molon Labe
08-07-2012, 11:23 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LUmoTOujJ7Q


I think we've learned that if a restaurant's food is good, people really don't care about the politics of the company's CEO.

Bailey
08-07-2012, 11:27 AM
Do you honestly believe that nationwide equal rights for gay people, including same sex marriage is not inevitable? I'd say that if you do, then you haven't been paying attention. Gay people are being legally married in the US. It's only a matter of time before the Supreme Court says that if a state recognizes heterosexual marriages performed in another state then they have to recognize homosexual marriages performed in another state. It's only a matter of time before the military starts treating gay spouses as equals to heterosexual spouses. I'd say that if you don't think that will happen, then you are deluding yourself.

I will also note that it appears that you are, as I said, not actually an Episcopalian but part of some breakaway sect.

You already have equal rights but you want special rights, just wish your kind would come out and say it and be honest.

Bailey
08-07-2012, 11:29 AM
How long before the gays start suing churches for not marrying them? Please dont waste your time telling me it wont happen just like gays said if the got civil unions they'd be happy. No they wont be happy till everyone approves of their filthy lifestyle choices.

NJCardFan
08-07-2012, 11:55 AM
Chick-fil-A's Anti Gay Problem and Potential Future Discrimination Lawsuits


You are such an idiot. OK, I'll play; #1, show me 1 statement by Dan Cathy where he says he's anti gay and #2, I'm still waiting for a name of 1 person, gay or otherwise, that was discriminated against by CFA. I'll wait(of course in vain because you've yet to substantiate any of your baseless claims so far so I shouldn't expect to be different).

Bailey
08-07-2012, 11:58 AM
You are such an idiot. OK, I'll play; #1, show me 1 statement by Dan Cathy where he says he's anti gay and #2, I'm still waiting for a name of 1 person, gay or otherwise, that was discriminated against by CFA. I'll wait(of course in vain because you've yet to substantiate any of your baseless claims so far so I shouldn't expect to be different).

Why he forgets to mention is that every restaurant is privately owned and not run by the corporation, so its going to be hard to prove a company wide conspiracy

FlaGator
08-07-2012, 01:11 PM
Do you honestly believe that nationwide equal rights for gay people, including same sex marriage is not inevitable? I'd say that if you do, then you haven't been paying attention. Gay people are being legally married in the US. It's only a matter of time before the Supreme Court says that if a state recognizes heterosexual marriages performed in another state then they have to recognize homosexual marriages performed in another state. It's only a matter of time before the military starts treating gay spouses as equals to heterosexual spouses. I'd say that if you don't think that will happen, then you are deluding yourself.

I will also note that it appears that you are, as I said, not actually an Episcopalian but part of some breakaway sect.

Wrong again. I have even sat on the Florida Diocese's Communication Committee as a technical consultant for 2 years. The National Church doesn't not dictate the beliefs and practices of our parish. I posted a link to my parishes web site. You could easily look up our parish's affiliation with Diocese using the Diocese's web site (I believe there is a link to on our site).

See, you don't understand how the Episcopal Church operates. The Presiding Bishop can not, to a large degree, dictate at the parish level, only the Diocesan Bishop can do that and our Bishop (John Howard) has no intention of allowing same sex blessings in the Diocese. The liberals in the Diocese aren't too happy about this but that is the way things work. Until this convention parishes could reject priests and lay ministers on the basis of sexual orientation or gender.

I don't believe that same sex marriage across the nation is inevitable, I believe that it is probably but that is not the same thing as being inevitable. Marriage has always been a state's rights issue and I don't think that the SCOTUS will change that anytime soon.

I am far from deluded and I don't believe many social changes be inevitable because what is a social fad today can easily be a forgotten memory tomorrow. That homosexuals should not be discriminated against in housing and employment and all other social rights I support. However, I don't see marriage as a right.

Here is a thought, why don't the movers and shakers of the gay community strive to have civil unions made the law of the land and leave marriage to religion. It would work like this, a marriage via a church would be a civil union (from a legal stand point) but a civil union would not be the same a marriage (from a religious stand point). They both would have basically the same legal standing.

Generation Why?
08-07-2012, 01:48 PM
I think we've learned that if a restaurant's food is good, people really don't care about the politics of the company's CEO.

End. Of. Thread.

LukeEDay
08-07-2012, 02:12 PM
Chick-fil-A's Anti Gay Problem and Potential Future Discrimination Lawsuits

So Chick-Fil-A coming out and saying that they are for traditional marriage is discriminating? O.k When are you going to file a discrimination lawsuit against the other 80% of the country?

I will say it again: The only bigots I see in this whole thing are he people screaming that just because someone believes in traditional marriage they are discriminating.

This is just another way for you gays to shove your lifestyle down our throats. Well, I will say most gays. I know quite a few gays that agree with the 1st amendment and find nothing wrong with what Mr. Cathy said. It is the few that are cry baby boo hoo's about it that ruin it for the rest.

noonwitch
08-07-2012, 02:18 PM
Chick-fil-A's Anti Gay Problem and Potential Future Discrimination Lawsuits

Posted on Aug 4, 2012 12:36am PDT
Chick-fil-A Could Be Jumping Out of the Frying Pan and Into the Fire

Chick-fil-A has created a significant risk for themselves in any future employment discrimination claims based on sexual orientation because it will be hard for them to argue that an anti-gay culture does not exist within the company from the top to bottom.

At-Will Employees May Be Terminated Without Cause But Not For Discriminatory Reasons

Unless you're a member of a Labor Union, or have negotiated an employment contract with your employer, you are probably an at-will employee which means that you or your employer can end the employment relationship at any time, for any reason and with or without notice. In other words, an at-will employer does not have to have "good cause" to terminate an employee.

Judicial interpretation, however, of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 continues to evolve placing sexual orientation into the group of protected class of workers along with other familiar ones including race, sex, and religion. Many states have also passed their own legislation protecting individuals from discrimination based on sexual orientation. This means that adverse employment decisions based on an employee's sexual orientation is unlawful discrimination. Simply put, any adverse employment decision by Chick-fil-A against a gay employee would be illegal. An adverse employment decision could be failing to promote an otherwise qualified gay employee, punitive transfers or shift changes, any kind of discipline or wrongful termination. If the employment action is based in any part on an employee's gay status, it is illegal.

Typically, in an employment discrimination or wrongful termination claim based on protected class, a defendant employer will almost always argue the adverse employment decision was made because of an employee's poor performance and not the fact that the employee was gay, or black or pregnant, or muslim. Discriminated employees have a tough time at trial proving that the employer cultivated a discriminatory environment against a particular protected class. Often times an employer's denial is persuasive, at the Widget Company we would never fire an employee because they are gay. The problem for Chick-fil-A as a result of the current controversy is they've done a lot of the work for a potential plaintiff who may file a claim for discrimination or hostile work environment based on sexual orientation. Chick-fil-A's protestations in the event of future discrimination claims by gay employees, that Chick-fil-A would never discriminate against gay employees could well ring hollow for many jurors. There are a reported 1600 Chick-fil-A restaurants across the country, with thousands of employees. Some of them are gay. What happens when they decide they're no longer going to keep their sexual orientation a private matter?

http://www.angellawpc.com/Portland-Personal-Injury-Blog/2012/August/Chick-fil-As-Anti-Gay-Problem-and-Potential-Futu.aspx



Still talking potential lawsuits? I guess you still haven't found any real case situations of Chick-Fil-a discriminating against gays, or you would be citing them.

LukeEDay
08-07-2012, 03:43 PM
Still talking potential lawsuits? I guess you still haven't found any real case situations of Chick-Fil-a discriminating against gays, or you would be citing them.

He must have the same source as Harry Reid giving him his information.

m00
08-07-2012, 03:58 PM
Here is a thought, why don't the movers and shakers of the gay community strive to have civil unions made the law of the land and leave marriage to religion. It would work like this, a marriage via a church would be a civil union (from a legal stand point) but a civil union would not be the same a marriage (from a religious stand point). They both would have basically the same legal standing.

But isn't this tantamount to a separate-but-equal argument?

Zathras
08-07-2012, 04:24 PM
One thing we found out is just what a hate filled, bigoted, religion hating crybaby with no facts to back up his lame assed arguments Novaheart really is.

FlaGator
08-07-2012, 04:36 PM
But isn't this tantamount to a separate-but-equal argument?

How is that separate but equal?

Couples in both sets are bound to each other by the law of the land and have the same rights and are under the same laws. Marriage becomes solely a religious ceremony that happens to be recognized as act that defines a civil union. If a particular religion wants to marry same sex couple then they can do so. Christians that believe they cannot morally join same sex couple in matrimony will not be legally obligated to.

Admittedly this is just a tautological difference but it puts and end to the war between both parties because each get what it wants. Christians get to keep their rite untainted and same sex marriage proponents get the equality they say they want with heterosexuals. In fact many heterosexual couples with go the civil union route instead of the religious one.

NJCardFan
08-07-2012, 07:31 PM
I think we've learned that if a restaurant's food is good, people really don't care about the politics of the company's CEO.

End. Of. Thread.

Wrong. Chick-Fil-A's products could cure cancer and moonbat liberals will still not eat there.

AmPat
08-07-2012, 09:23 PM
End. Of. Thread.Not so fast Skippy.


I think we've learned that if a restaurant's food is good, people really don't care about the politics of the company's CEO.
If that is all you learned, you weren't paying attention. The lesson for moonbats and other knuckleheads that act like children and force their agenda down the majority of American's throats, had better be prepared for the monumental smackdown from that population.

Adam Wood
08-07-2012, 10:16 PM
Chick-fil-A's Anti Gay Problem and Potential Future Discrimination Lawsuits

Posted on Aug 4, 2012 12:36am PDT
Chick-fil-A Could Be Jumping Out of the Frying Pan and Into the Fire

Chick-fil-A has created a significant risk for themselves in any future employment discrimination claims based on sexual orientation because it will be hard for them to argue that an anti-gay culture does not exist within the company from the top to bottom.

At-Will Employees May Be Terminated Without Cause But Not For Discriminatory Reasons

Unless you're a member of a Labor Union, or have negotiated an employment contract with your employer, you are probably an at-will employee which means that you or your employer can end the employment relationship at any time, for any reason and with or without notice. In other words, an at-will employer does not have to have "good cause" to terminate an employee.

Judicial interpretation, however, of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 continues to evolve placing sexual orientation into the group of protected class of workers along with other familiar ones including race, sex, and religion. Many states have also passed their own legislation protecting individuals from discrimination based on sexual orientation. This means that adverse employment decisions based on an employee's sexual orientation is unlawful discrimination. Simply put, any adverse employment decision by Chick-fil-A against a gay employee would be illegal. An adverse employment decision could be failing to promote an otherwise qualified gay employee, punitive transfers or shift changes, any kind of discipline or wrongful termination. If the employment action is based in any part on an employee's gay status, it is illegal.

Typically, in an employment discrimination or wrongful termination claim based on protected class, a defendant employer will almost always argue the adverse employment decision was made because of an employee's poor performance and not the fact that the employee was gay, or black or pregnant, or muslim. Discriminated employees have a tough time at trial proving that the employer cultivated a discriminatory environment against a particular protected class. Often times an employer's denial is persuasive, at the Widget Company we would never fire an employee because they are gay. The problem for Chick-fil-A as a result of the current controversy is they've done a lot of the work for a potential plaintiff who may file a claim for discrimination or hostile work environment based on sexual orientation. Chick-fil-A's protestations in the event of future discrimination claims by gay employees, that Chick-fil-A would never discriminate against gay employees could well ring hollow for many jurors. There are a reported 1600 Chick-fil-A restaurants across the country, with thousands of employees. Some of them are gay. What happens when they decide they're no longer going to keep their sexual orientation a private matter?

http://www.angellawpc.com/Portland-Personal-Injury-Blog/2012/August/Chick-fil-As-Anti-Gay-Problem-and-Potential-Futu.aspxWhat BS. All that the Left was able to dig up was all of twelve discrimination suits against CfA over the last sixteen years. Have you any clue how many discrimination suits get filed against similarly-sized employers in the US? Hundreds. Per year.

You've got nothing because you're not going to get anything. CfA, as noted weeeelllllll before this latest kerfluffle came along, is careful to ensure that they do not subject themselves to these frivolous (and 99% of them ARE frivolous) suits just so that some idiotic activist organization can't come along and sue them out of existence, which you no doubt would love to do.

NJCardFan
08-07-2012, 10:50 PM
What BS. All that the Left was able to dig up was all of twelve discrimination suits against CfA over the last sixteen years. Have you any clue how many discrimination suits get filed against similarly-sized employers in the US? Hundreds. Per year.

You've got nothing because you're not going to get anything. CfA, as noted weeeelllllll before this latest kerfluffle came along, is careful to ensure that they do not subject themselves to these frivolous (and 99% of them ARE frivolous) suits just so that some idiotic activist organization can't come along and sue them out of existence, which you no doubt would love to do.

I'd be willing to bet every dollar you have that in all 12 cases, the employee was fired for conduct not involving their sexual orientation.

Apache
08-07-2012, 11:05 PM
But isn't this tantamount to a separate-but-equal argument?

whiskey-tango-foxtrot,,,,over?




They want the same "rights' as married people, right?


Keep swallowing the kool-aid there bud....:rolleyes:

m00
08-08-2012, 12:34 AM
whiskey-tango-foxtrot,,,,over?




They want the same "rights' as married people, right?


Keep swallowing the kool-aid there bud....:rolleyes:

Yes. And if you have two sets of rules for different groups of people that are supposed to convey equivalent rights, this is a separate-but-equal situation. It just is. Whether or not you think gays should have equal rights is a different matter (most people on this board would say "no"). But I don't accept civil unions because it's a separate-but-equal proposition. Either they deserve full marriage rights same as heterosexual couples, or they don't. That's where the debate lies in my mind.

Now I'm not judging the merits of the argument that gays or should or shouldn't have equal rights to marriage. All I'm saying is that civil unions is not a legitimate solution. If they deserve equal rights, they deserve marriage as defined by government. If they do not deserve equal rights, then they deserve no recognition for their living situation. A right either exists or it doesn't.

NJCardFan
08-08-2012, 01:04 AM
Yes. And if you have two sets of rules for different groups of people that are supposed to convey equivalent rights, this is a separate-but-equal situation. It just is. Whether or not you think gays should have equal rights is a different matter (most people on this board would say "no"). But I don't accept civil unions because it's a separate-but-equal proposition. Either they deserve full marriage rights same as heterosexual couples, or they don't. That's where the debate lies in my mind.

Now I'm not judging the merits of the argument that gays or should or shouldn't have equal rights to marriage. All I'm saying is that civil unions is not a legitimate solution. If they deserve equal rights, they deserve marriage as defined by government. If they do not deserve equal rights, then they deserve no recognition for their living situation. A right either exists or it doesn't.

If 2 gays go into a willing church and get married, no cops will jump out of the bushes and arrest everyone present. But in case I missed something, locate the amendment in the Constitution that proclaims marriage by anyone is a right. I'll wait.

m00
08-08-2012, 01:08 AM
If 2 gays go into a willing church and get married, no cops will jump out of the bushes and arrest everyone present. But in case I missed something, locate the amendment in the Constitution that proclaims marriage by anyone is a right. I'll wait.

You should re-read my post.

NJCardFan
08-08-2012, 01:10 AM
You should re-read my post.

Still doesn't show me where marriage is a right. Until it does, then gays continue to have the same rights I have, which they do.

NJCardFan
08-08-2012, 01:12 AM
Let me break it down so maybe you'll understand: who has the right to marry someone of the same sex, gays or heterosexuals?

m00
08-08-2012, 01:23 AM
But in case I missed something, locate the amendment in the Constitution that proclaims marriage by anyone is a right. I'll wait.


Still doesn't show me where marriage is a right. Until it does, then gays continue to have the same rights I have, which they do.

...


Whether or not you think gays should have equal rights is a different matter (most people on this board would say "no").


Either they deserve full marriage rights same as heterosexual couples, or they don't.


Now I'm not judging the merits of the argument that gays or should or shouldn't have equal rights to marriage.

Show me where exactly in my post I claimed marriage is a constitutional right? The fact is, there are laws defining marriage between one man and one woman. Specifically, the law grants rights and privileges to heterosexual couples. This is what laws do -- laws afford me all sorts of rights that aren't in the constitution. In other cases, they may restrict and qualify other rights granted by other laws or the US constitution.

I am not judging the merits of whether or not the specific rights conferred by marriage laws ought to be extended to homosexual couples

I am just saying that civil unions make no sense, because either marriage laws either ought to cover gays, or ought to not cover gays. I don't see a moral argument for a middle ground.

I don't know how I can be more clear on this.

Novaheart
08-08-2012, 11:17 AM
If two gays are married and approved by "the STATE", does that make it any more so in Gods eyes?



Which god? Who cares? What difference does it make?

FlaGator
08-08-2012, 12:21 PM
Which god? Who cares? What difference does it make?

People of faith care so that makes a big difference.