Muppets dump Chick-fil-a

[Transhuman Proteus]

I know. I'm goddamned sick and tired of religious people trying to hijack the word. They do not get to dictate how the government uses legal terms.

Maybe I am not explaining it right. He would happily perform same sex marriages. He is teyong to get government out of the defining marriage business and give it to the individuals involved.

The people who perform the marriage? Or the people who are getting married?

Either way it would be messy and foolish, it is much smoother in function to have one catch all term for this type union, and marriage works perfectly (and the whining of anti-marriage equality folks isn't a reason against).

"I'm pro civil rights, just not for people I don't like".

Then you're not pro-civil rights, Einstein.

can't say that. because as the government as society evolves, there will come a topic that you will not condone. after Same Sex couples are accepted, what's the next social issue to be fought for... Beastility? Pedophillia? if you're not for the next fight for rights... would that make you not pro civil rights?

I'm pretty sure you can, just because there are topics you wont condone doesn't automatically make you against civil rights - the topic itself defines that. Civil rights pretty do much do no harm, in fact they do less as people face less discrimination etc. Allowing as many of them as possible does not mean we will move on to fighting for a right to do harm (which both of them can be considered), and refusing for a right to do harm will not be a case of someone being against civil rights.

[Ethel mermania]

Huh? A couple in a civil union by his definition would be entittled to the same set of benifits as a married couple today. (Off topic: I'm ok with same sex marriage. And so is he).

So you're just in favour of handing the word over to the christians? Yeah. I'm sorry but NOBODY should be in favour of this.

But yeah. You want a the contract form without religious undertones? We have that. It's called marriage. If you want a "religious marriage" go to a church.

You are aware that in most states same sex couples can not get married. So the reality you claim does not exist.

His plan would let same sex marriages happen via justice of the peaces, or ministers who are OK marrying same sex couples. anglican priests would have no qualms about performing a marriage rite for same sex couples, Reform rabbi's as well. It hands the definition of marriage to the couple in question, they determine whether to marry or not.

[Vareiln]

Damn good for the Muppets.

[Zeriabo]

I find it odd how all these people are offended by this guy, the chain hires people from all walks of life and all of any sexual orientation, this guy can't do a thing about that.

[Transhuman Proteus]

So you're just in favour of handing the word over to the christians? Yeah. I'm sorry but NOBODY should be in favour of this.

But yeah. You want a the contract form without religious undertones? We have that. It's called marriage. If you want a "religious marriage" go to a church.

You are aware that in most states same sex couples can not get married. So the reality you claim does not exist.

His plan would let same sex marriages happen via justice of the peaces, or ministers who are OK marrying same sex couples. anglican priests would have no qualms about performing a marriage rite for same sex couples, Reform rabbi's as well. It hands the definition of marriage to the couple in question, they determine whether to marry or not.

Are there a lot of couples that want to be in a legal union that ticks all the current boxes for what would be considered a marriage, but don't want it to be called a marriage?

It just seems unwieldy and with little value. But then again... if it happened could it be retroactive? Could all the couples already married could change the word "married" to "civil unioned" if they wanted?

[Lialoth]

You are aware that in most states same sex couples can not get married. So the reality you claim does not exist.

His plan would let same sex marriages happen via justice of the peaces, or ministers who are OK marrying same sex couples. anglican priests would have no qualms about performing a marriage rite for same sex couples, Reform rabbi's as well. It hands the definition of marriage to the couple in question, they determine whether to marry or not.

Yep, and in the developed world same-sex couples CAN get married. Honestly, what you're suggesting now is to change... nothing other than allow homosexuals to marry. So I'm confused.

[Ethel mermania]

You are aware that in most states same sex couples can not get married. So the reality you claim does not exist.

His plan would let same sex marriages happen via justice of the peaces, or ministers who are OK marrying same sex couples. anglican priests would have no qualms about performing a marriage rite for same sex couples, Reform rabbi's as well. It hands the definition of marriage to the couple in question, they determine whether to marry or not.

Are there a lot of couples that want to be in a legal union that ticks all the current boxes for what would be considered a marriage, but don't want it to be called a marriage?

It just seems unwieldy and with little value. But then again... if it happened could it be retroactive? Could all the couples already married could change the word "married" to "civil unioned" if they wanted?

Surprisingly in new york and new jersey quite a few hetrosexual coupkes have gone the civil union route. The one thing I don't understand real well, is what is the effect of this on divorce. How do you disolve a civil union? I also don't know how in new york, the same sex marrige laws effect civil unions.

[Dempublicents1]

I find it odd how all these people are offended by this guy, the chain hires people from all walks of life and all of any sexual orientation, this guy can't do a thing about that.

Actually, he can. And does. The corporate policies on hiring generally weed out anyone who is not his brand of Christian, especially in managerial positions. They tell you even before an interview that they are only looking for candidates who want to work at a "Christ-centered" organization. People wishing to open new franchises must disclose their marital status, church attendance, involvement with charitable organizations, etc.

But then, even that isn't the biggest thing that people are protesting. Most people are protesting the millions of dollars CFA gives every year to anti-LGBT organizations that support and lobby for discrimination against the LGBT community, abuse gay teenagers, and even provide some support to laws in other countries that make being homosexual punishable by death.

[Ethel mermania]

You are aware that in most states same sex couples can not get married. So the reality you claim does not exist.

His plan would let same sex marriages happen via justice of the peaces, or ministers who are OK marrying same sex couples. anglican priests would have no qualms about performing a marriage rite for same sex couples, Reform rabbi's as well. It hands the definition of marriage to the couple in question, they determine whether to marry or not.

Yep, and in the developed world same-sex couples CAN get married. Honestly, what you're suggesting now is to change... nothing other than allow homosexuals to marry. So I'm confused.

He is trying to take the religious arguement against gay marriage out of the equation. If catholics don't want to marry same sex couples, don't marry them. If aglicans are willing to marry same sex couples let them. The state has no say eitherway. Again I don't know if its a good idea or not, I am trying to see other opinions.

I should probably try and see if I can find his paper on line and start a topic.

[Dempublicents1]

He is trying to take the religious arguement against gay marriage out of the equation. If catholics don't want to marry same sex couples, don't marry them. If aglicans are willing to marry same sex couples let them. The state has no say eitherway. Again I don't know if its a good idea or not, I am trying to see other opinions.

I should probably try and see if I can find his paper on line and start a topic.

Here's the thing, churches can already refuse to perform any marriage ceremony they want. Take Catholics for example. The Catholic church does not recognize divorce. This means that the Catholic church refuses to perform ceremonies for anyone who has been divorced, even though those people can legally marry. They also won't perform a marriage ceremony unless one or both of the people getting married is Catholic, even though non-Catholics can certainly get married legally and at other churches. Some churches won't perform a marriage ceremony if both people aren't members of their church. Some won't perform it if the two people have already had premarital sex. Some won't perform it if the couple is interracial or of the wrong race. And so on.

Churches can already refuse to perform ceremonies for marriages that are perfectly legal and can already choose to perform ceremonies for marriages that are not legally recognized. The only reason that the churches are involved in the debate over same-sex marriage is that they want to deny the legal protections to same-sex couples, not because they cannot stick to their own religious definitions of marriage.

[JuNii]

He is trying to take the religious arguement against gay marriage out of the equation. If catholics don't want to marry same sex couples, don't marry them. If aglicans are willing to marry same sex couples let them. The state has no say eitherway. Again I don't know if its a good idea or not, I am trying to see other opinions.

I should probably try and see if I can find his paper on line and start a topic.

Here's the thing, churches can already refuse to perform any marriage ceremony they want. Take Catholics for example. The Catholic church does not recognize divorce. This means that the Catholic church refuses to perform ceremonies for anyone who has been divorced, even though those people can legally marry. They also won't perform a marriage ceremony unless one or both of the people getting married is Catholic, even though non-Catholics can certainly get married legally and at other churches. Some churches won't perform a marriage ceremony if both people aren't members of their church. Some won't perform it if the two people have already had premarital sex. Some won't perform it if the couple is interracial or of the wrong race. And so on.

Churches can already refuse to perform ceremonies for marriages that are perfectly legal and can already choose to perform ceremonies for marriages that are not legally recognized. The only reason that the churches are involved in the debate over same-sex marriage is that they want to deny the legal protections to same-sex couples, not because they cannot stick to their own religious definitions of marriage.

I remember several same sex couples suing churches for refusing to perform the ceremony.

[Transhuman Proteus]

Are there a lot of couples that want to be in a legal union that ticks all the current boxes for what would be considered a marriage, but don't want it to be called a marriage?

It just seems unwieldy and with little value. But then again... if it happened could it be retroactive? Could all the couples already married could change the word "married" to "civil unioned" if they wanted?

Surprisingly in new york and new jersey quite a few hetrosexual coupkes have gone the civil union route. The one thing I don't understand real well, is what is the effect of this on divorce. How do you disolve a civil union? I also don't know how in new york, the same sex marrige laws effect civil unions.

Curious.

Here's the thing, churches can already refuse to perform any marriage ceremony they want. Take Catholics for example. The Catholic church does not recognize divorce. This means that the Catholic church refuses to perform ceremonies for anyone who has been divorced, even though those people can legally marry. They also won't perform a marriage ceremony unless one or both of the people getting married is Catholic, even though non-Catholics can certainly get married legally and at other churches. Some churches won't perform a marriage ceremony if both people aren't members of their church. Some won't perform it if the two people have already had premarital sex. Some won't perform it if the couple is interracial or of the wrong race. And so on.

Churches can already refuse to perform ceremonies for marriages that are perfectly legal and can already choose to perform ceremonies for marriages that are not legally recognized. The only reason that the churches are involved in the debate over same-sex marriage is that they want to deny the legal protections to same-sex couples, not because they cannot stick to their own religious definitions of marriage.

I remember several same sex couples suing churches for refusing to perform the ceremony.

Where and when, and how did that go for them?

[Lialoth]

He is trying to take the religious arguement against gay marriage out of the equation. If catholics don't want to marry same sex couples, don't marry them. If aglicans are willing to marry same sex couples let them. The state has no say eitherway. Again I don't know if its a good idea or not, I am trying to see other opinions.

I should probably try and see if I can find his paper on line and start a topic.

The "religious arguments" on the topic are demonstrably nonsense.

[Dempublicents1]

I remember several same sex couples suing churches for refusing to perform the ceremony.

Successfully?

I think there was one case in which a business that happened to be owned by church was sued for discriminatory practices in renting out their space, but I have yet to hear of any successful cases in which a church was forced to provide a religious ceremony to anyone it did not wish to.

As a note, the UK may ultimately become a notable exception to this. However, this is because the Church of England has official ties to the government there.

[Greater Ilanar]

Plenty of Christians do not oppose it.

The brand of fundamentalist Christian evangelist that has taken control of much of the American right is not indicative of huge swathes of Christianity.

Yes, Christianity is an old religion and marriage is one of its fundamental beliefs. For Christians, marriage has always been between one man and one woman. Societies and governments are the ones who have added things like class and race into the equation. Marriage is one of the holiest sacraments and those of us with a spine don't believe in changing our fundamental beliefs just to be accepted by main stream culture.

[Lialoth]

Marriage is one of the holiest sacraments and those of us with a spine don't believe in changing our fundamental beliefs just to be accepted by main stream culture.

Fantastic, but please don't try to deny other people's rights based on your *Cough* beliefs.

[Transhuman Proteus]

Plenty of Christians do not oppose it.

The brand of fundamentalist Christian evangelist that has taken control of much of the American right is not indicative of huge swathes of Christianity.

Yes, Christianity is an old religion and marriage is one of its fundamental beliefs. For Christians, marriage has always been between one man and one woman. Societies and governments are the ones who have added things like class and race into the equation. Marriage is one of the holiest sacraments and those of us with a spine don't believe in changing our fundamental beliefs just to be accepted by main stream culture.

Good for Christianity.

Marriage is older and existed outside Christianity and before Christianity.

Happily most of us don't live in theocracies so their values and rules can't be imposed on the rest of us.

Athiests and the members of every other faith out there can get married, so clearly Christianity no longer has a monopoly on it (in truth they never did).

[Tmutarakhan]

Yep, and in the developed world same-sex couples CAN get married. Honestly, what you're suggesting now is to change... nothing other than allow homosexuals to marry. So I'm confused.

He is trying to take the religious arguement against gay marriage out of the equation. If catholics don't want to marry same sex couples, don't marry them. If aglicans are willing to marry same sex couples let them. The state has no say eitherway. Again I don't know if its a good idea or not, I am trying to see other opinions.

I should probably try and see if I can find his paper on line and start a topic.

This is already how things are. If a Catholic church doesn't want to marry a couple because one of them was divorced, or an Orthodox rabbi doesn't want to marry a couple because one of them is not a real Jew according to his sect's definitions, nobody is going to make them perform a wedding ceremony that they don't want to. But: we are not allowed to go to a justice of the peace, or to a church which is perfectly willing to hold a same-sex wedding, and get our marriage recognized.

[Tmutarakhan]

Plenty of Christians do not oppose it.

The brand of fundamentalist Christian evangelist that has taken control of much of the American right is not indicative of huge swathes of Christianity.

Yes, Christianity is an old religion and marriage is one of its fundamental beliefs. For Christians, marriage has always been between one man and one woman. Societies and governments are the ones who have added things like class and race into the equation. Marriage is one of the holiest sacraments and those of us with a spine don't believe in changing our fundamental beliefs just to be accepted by main stream culture.

For the first thousand years of its existence, Christianity had no involvement with marriage whatsoever.

[Tmutarakhan]

I remember several same sex couples suing churches for refusing to perform the ceremony.

No you don't.

[Ulvena]

Here's a Venn Diagram: Business on one side and Politics on the other side. There should be no intersection.

If the Muppets dropped Chick Fil-A just because they don't support gay marriage, they're fucking stupid. Chick Fil-A announcing they're anti-gay? Fucking stupid. Do they have the right? Yes. But they're still fucking stupid. Business should work to provide the consumer with goods and services to generate revenue, not to be spokespeople for gay marriage.

[Dempublicents1]

If the Muppets dropped Chick Fil-A just because they don't support gay marriage, they're fucking stupid.

I think there's a big difference between "not supporting gay marriage" and "giving millions of dollars a year to organizations that lobby for legal discrimination against the LGBT community in multiple legal arenas, that support movements to make and keep homosexuality illegal in other countries, and that abuse teenagers." Presumably, the Jim Henson company saw the same distinction.

Business should work to provide the consumer with goods and services to generate revenue, not to be spokespeople for gay marriage.

And you see no business interest in choosing not to be associated with a company that engages in political activities likely to be unpopular to your consumers?

[Ulvena]

If the Muppets dropped Chick Fil-A just because they don't support gay marriage, they're fucking stupid.

1. I think there's a big difference between "not supporting gay marriage" and "giving millions of dollars a year to organizations that lobby for legal discrimination against the LGBT community in multiple legal arenas, that support movements to make and keep homosexuality illegal in other countries, and that abuse teenagers." Presumably, the Jim Henson company saw the same distinction.

Business should work to provide the consumer with goods and services to generate revenue, not to be spokespeople for gay marriage.

2. And you see no business interest in choosing not to be associated with a company that engages in political activities likely to be unpopular to your consumers?

1. Which is fucking stupid. But if it's legal, they CAN do it.

2. I see no business interest in Chick Fil-A saying anything about gay marriage in the first place.

[Dempublicents1]

2. I see no business interest in Chick Fil-A saying anything about gay marriage in the first place.

Neither do I. I also see no business interest in them donating millions of dollars a year to anti-LGBT causes. But they did. And because of that, I do see where other businesses have a legitimate business interest in choosing not to associate with them.

[Everbeek]

1. I think there's a big difference between "not supporting gay marriage" and "giving millions of dollars a year to organizations that lobby for legal discrimination against the LGBT community in multiple legal arenas, that support movements to make and keep homosexuality illegal in other countries, and that abuse teenagers." Presumably, the Jim Henson company saw the same distinction.



2. And you see no business interest in choosing not to be associated with a company that engages in political activities likely to be unpopular to your consumers?

1. Which is fucking stupid. But if it's legal, they CAN do it.

Sure they can. And if people or companies decide they don't want to associate with them anymore or give them any money, they also CAN do that.