Muppets dump Chick-fil-a

[Prussia-Steinbach]

He doesn't. He opposes people of the same sex marrying.

Which is opposing equal marriage rights. "He doesn't oppose equal rights, he just wants 'them darkies' to use a different fountain from us normal people."

1. No one ever said the word "darkies."

2. If you replace that word with "homosexuals," he never said he wouldn't ue the same fountain as one.

[Northern Dominus]

Which is opposing equal marriage rights. "He doesn't oppose equal rights, he just wants 'them darkies' to use a different fountain from us normal people."

1. No one ever said the word "darkies."

2. If you replace that word with "homosexuals," he never said he wouldn't ue the same fountain as one.

The point is the same arguments used to marginalize and denigrate LGBT humans are fundamentally the same as the one used to marginalize and denigrate African-Americans rather openly for hundreds of years.

[Lialoth]

1. No one ever said the word "darkies."

2. If you replace that word with "homosexuals," he never said he wouldn't ue the same fountain as one.

I'm aware. It's just a comparison. "I don't oppose equal rights, I just don't want them homos to be able to marry."

It's still in favour of denying rights to some people. Ergo against equal rights. But let's let him defend himself, rather than you speaking on his behalf. He's a big boy now.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

1. No one ever said the word "darkies."

2. If you replace that word with "homosexuals," he never said he wouldn't ue the same fountain as one.

I'm aware. It's just a comparison. "I don't oppose equal rights, I just don't want them homos to be able to marry."

It's still in favour of denying rights to some people. Ergo against equal rights. But let's let him defend himself, rather than you speaking on his behalf. He's a big boy now.

He didn't say homosexuals couldn't marry. No one can marry someone of the same sex - not just homosexuals.

[Cannot think of a name]

I'm aware. It's just a comparison. "I don't oppose equal rights, I just don't want them homos to be able to marry."

It's still in favour of denying rights to some people. Ergo against equal rights. But let's let him defend himself, rather than you speaking on his behalf. He's a big boy now.

He didn't say homosexuals couldn't marry. No one can marry someone of the same sex - not just homosexuals.

How do you make that argument with a straight face?

[Farnhamia]

I'm aware. It's just a comparison. "I don't oppose equal rights, I just don't want them homos to be able to marry."

It's still in favour of denying rights to some people. Ergo against equal rights. But let's let him defend himself, rather than you speaking on his behalf. He's a big boy now.

He didn't say homosexuals couldn't marry. No one can marry someone of the same sex - not just homosexuals.

And that makes it so much better. A straight person can marry any drunk off the street in Vegas that they met 15 minutes ago, but I can't marry the woman I've dedicated myself to for probably more years than the CEO of Chik-Fil-A has been an adult. I feel so much better now.

[Lialoth]

He didn't say homosexuals couldn't marry. No one can marry someone of the same sex - not just homosexuals.

I particularly love this argument. Here's how I look at same-sex marriage.

You have four unmarried people. Bob, John, Mary and Sue (I suck at naming things).

Bob can marry Mary or Sue. John can marry Mary or Sue.
Mary can marry Bob or John. Sue can marry Bob or John.
Rudimentary stuff so far, right?

Except...

Bob and John have a right that Mary doesn't have. Either one is legally able to marry Sue.
Mary and Sue have a right that Bob doesn't have. Either one is legally able to marry John.

But with that aside?

"'Them darkies' have the same rights everybody does. Everyone has the right to drink from fountains attached to their race."

[Gauthier]

Which is opposing equal marriage rights. "He doesn't oppose equal rights, he just wants 'them darkies' to use a different fountain from us normal people."

1. No one ever said the word "darkies."

2. If you replace that word with "homosexuals," he never said he wouldn't ue the same fountain as one.

1. Discrimination isn't limited to race.

2. You obviously miss the point of segregated drinking facilities. The ones set aside for minorities tended to be inferior in many ways to the one set aside for the priviliged.

[Samuraikoku]

He didn't say homosexuals couldn't marry. No one can marry someone of the same sex - not just homosexuals.

In essence, they can't marry.

[Raeyh]

1. No one ever said the word "darkies."

2. If you replace that word with "homosexuals," he never said he wouldn't ue the same fountain as one.

1. Discrimination isn't limited to race.

2. You obviously miss the point of segregated drinking facilities. The ones set aside for minorities tended to be inferior in many ways to the one set aside for the priviliged.

The difference is that everyone needs to drink to survive, but marriage isn't necessary. It's like complaining about not being let into a gentleman's club when you aren't a gentleman.

[Samuraikoku]

And that makes it so much better. A straight person can marry any drunk off the street in Vegas that they met 15 minutes ago, but I can't marry the woman I've dedicated myself to for probably more years than the CEO of Chik-Fil-A has been an adult. I feel so much better now.

[Farnhamia]

And that makes it so much better. A straight person can marry any drunk off the street in Vegas that they met 15 minutes ago, but I can't marry the woman I've dedicated myself to for probably more years than the CEO of Chik-Fil-A has been an adult. I feel so much better now.

Oh, you. Thanks.

[Lialoth]

The difference is that everyone needs to drink to survive, but marriage isn't necessary. It's like complaining about not being let into a gentleman's club when you aren't a gentleman.

Except private clubs are a little different from government run institutions, such as marriage.

[Arkinesia]

The Mayor of Boston's reaction was an overreaction as well:

“Chick-fil-A doesn’t belong in Boston. You can’t have a business in the city of Boston that discriminates against a population. We’re an open city, we’re a city that’s at the forefront of inclusion...If they need licenses in the city, it will be very difficult — unless they open up their policies."

I'm not seeing an over-reaction. If the city has a policy of equality, they can choose to oppose people who discriminate - just as 'dry' towns can choose to oppose people who want to sell alcohol.

You can't discriminate against a certain chicken chain because they don't agree with you politically.

THAT is a violation of the First Amendment. And considering Chick-fil-A is the world's third-wealthiest chicken chain I'm sure their legal department would be more than happy to sue the City of Boston (and easily win) should the city decide to actually act on this apparent intent to discriminate.

Some might see it as righteous retribution, but a circuit court will see it as an abuse of power.

[Abatael]

The difference is that everyone needs to drink to survive, but marriage isn't necessary. It's like complaining about not being let into a gentleman's club when you aren't a gentleman.

Except private clubs are a little different from government run institutions, such as marriage.

Marriage is a religious institution, not a governmental institution.

[Lialoth]

You can't discriminate against a certain chicken chain because they don't agree with you politically.

THAT is a violation of the First Amendment. And considering Chick-fil-A is the world's third-wealthiest chicken chain I'm sure their legal department would be more than happy to sue the City of Boston (and easily win) should the city decide to actually act on this apparent intent to discriminate.

Some might see it as righteous retribution, but a circuit court will see it as an abuse of power.

From what I read, the city of Boston said that if Chick-fil-A had discriminatory hiring or serving policies (Won't hire or serve known homosexuals in their business) they'd be told to get out. And I'm okay with this. I'm so okay I'm fine.

Marriage is a religious institution, not a governmental institution.

Uh no. It's not. It's run by the government. You know the fanciful ceremony in a church? That's just for show. Far as I care, I classify it as social masturbation. A way to say "Look at my big party, look at all the people I got grouped together. Aren't I just so very impressive?" The real deal, the part that matters, is the legal contract signed at the end.

You can get married outside a church. You can get married without any religious officials present. Marriage isn't a religious affair anymore, we're a secular society.

For that matter, WHAT religion owns it? And if it's a religious affair, why are atheists allowed to get married?

[Unchecked Expansion]

Except private clubs are a little different from government run institutions, such as marriage.

Marriage is a religious institution, not a governmental institution.

Atheists get married all the time. You can have a marriage without the gods, but not without the law.

[Arkinesia]

You can't discriminate against a certain chicken chain because they don't agree with you politically.

THAT is a violation of the First Amendment. And considering Chick-fil-A is the world's third-wealthiest chicken chain I'm sure their legal department would be more than happy to sue the City of Boston (and easily win) should the city decide to actually act on this apparent intent to discriminate.

Some might see it as righteous retribution, but a circuit court will see it as an abuse of power.

From what I read, the city of Boston said that if Chick-fil-A had discriminatory hiring or serving policies (Won't hire or serve known homosexuals in their business) they'd be told to get out. And I'm okay with this. I'm so okay I'm fine.

They have no such policy.

I would know, I worked for an openly gay night manager at Chick-fil-A.

[The Floor Kippers]

Except private clubs are a little different from government run institutions, such as marriage.

Marriage is a religious institution, not a governmental institution.

WAS, not any more. You Can have a non-religious Marriage.

[The Black Forrest]

I'm not seeing an over-reaction. If the city has a policy of equality, they can choose to oppose people who discriminate - just as 'dry' towns can choose to oppose people who want to sell alcohol.

You can't discriminate against a certain chicken chain because they don't agree with you politically.

THAT is a violation of the First Amendment. And considering Chick-fil-A is the world's third-wealthiest chicken chain I'm sure their legal department would be more than happy to sue the City of Boston (and easily win) should the city decide to actually act on this apparent intent to discriminate.

Some might see it as righteous retribution, but a circuit court will see it as an abuse of power.

So businesses deserve more rights?

[Arkinesia]

You can't discriminate against a certain chicken chain because they don't agree with you politically.

THAT is a violation of the First Amendment. And considering Chick-fil-A is the world's third-wealthiest chicken chain I'm sure their legal department would be more than happy to sue the City of Boston (and easily win) should the city decide to actually act on this apparent intent to discriminate.

Some might see it as righteous retribution, but a circuit court will see it as an abuse of power.

So businesses deserve more rights?

Why should any citizen's organization be subject to a suppression of rights that the citizen himself holds?

Is this a country where you're free as long as you don't own a business?

[Gauthier]

Except private clubs are a little different from government run institutions, such as marriage.

Marriage is a religious institution, not a governmental institution.

And yet there are legal government benefits to marriage, such as tax deductions and medical decisions.

[Lialoth]

WAS, not any more. You Can have a non-religious Marriage.

I'm actually glad they managed the religious aspect. Banning same-sex marriage entirely also limits RELIGIOUS FREEDOM.

Great Scott, I'm standing up for RELIGIOUS freedoms now? What's next, me defending the rights of business owners?

Is this a country where you're free as long as you don't own a business?

This is heavy, you just don't get it. The US seems to be more a place where you're free as long as you're rich.

[Gauthier]

So businesses deserve more rights?

Why should any citizen's organization be subject to a suppression of rights that the citizen himself holds?

Is this a country where you're free as long as you don't own a business?

And this in the same country that declares Corporations Are People? Seriously?

[Abatael]

Marriage is a religious institution, not a governmental institution.

Atheists get married all the time. You can have a marriage without the gods, but not without the law.

Marriage is a religious institution, not a governmental institution.

WAS, not any more. You Can have a non-religious Marriage.

Matrimony, in the Christian Western tradition, is a religious institution, because it is believed a sacrament instituted by Christ, who once said to render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and God what is God's. And, anyways, if it's not a religious institution, it's not a governmental institution; it would be a civil institution.