Chic-Fil-A whats going on here?

nocones wrote: I think he wanted to clear that up because we all are pretty sure your definition of Marriage does not include same sex couples. I think Most of society agrees with your benifits of marriage. I know I do. That said I feel that those benifits to society still exist when Mom and Dad in the family are in fact Dad and Dad or Mom and Mom. Do you not feel this is the case? Do you feel that same sex couples are incapable of raising balanced contributing members of society and providing strong stable pillars of comunity?

I'm going to begin by saying that I would have to do some research to give you a fully reasoned out sort of answer that is backed by anything. This is sort of speculation from my background.

I feel that same sex couples are capable of competently raising a child, just as a single mom or a single dad is capable. I do think that heterosexual couples are more capable of such a feat. And raising children well is a difficult feat, no matter who's doing the raising.

The most immediate thought is that a heterosexual couple is usually the biological parents. In the prospective adoption meetings my wife and I have been told over and over again by the social workers that an adopted child is "special needs" simply by fact that he's adopted.

The second immediate thought, that applies to all heterosexual couples, is that the children are usually given different sorts of attention and role-modeling by the mother and the father. The male role-model tends to encourage discipline, but also adventure. Fathers are more likely to model appropriate risk-taking. Mothers tend to model compassion and communication. Plus, their working together to accomplish a common goal in life shows how two obviously very different people with different modes of cognition and expression can work together. I think it would wind up being more difficult for children to relate to men (and manhood) if raised by a single mother or two mothers. I think it would also be more difficult for children to relate to women if raised by two fathers. There's a balance in a heterosexual couple that doesn't exist in the same way in a homosexual couple.

Mitchell wrote: Does anyone find it peculiar that our most respected political spokespersons are Hollywood entertainers and fast food CEOs?

No, I find it completely par for the course.

Bobzilla wrote: That's exactly what you're saying. Here's what I'm saying: Telling someone that doesn't believe in gay marriage (also known to be in a straight relationship) that they cannot open a business because they believe in straight relationships is the same as telling a gay person they can't open a business because they believe in gay relationships. It's still sexual discrimination. It's just not in the way it is typically seen up to this point. Same as my comment about black on white racism. It's still racism.

You missed a crucial step. The gay person would have to be advocating against straight relationships in order for the situations to be equivalent. That's what I'm saying.

PHeller wrote:

carguy123 wrote: And then there's the minor problem of how do you prove you are gay? 2 people of the same sex could just say they are married to get the extra monies. There are just so many ways to bilk the system and cost us even more.

How many straight folks do you know who are married just so they can go bang other people and still benefit financially? Very few. Could you exploit marriage for financial benefit? Sure, lots of people do, we call them gold diggers.

There's something fairly widespread in the senior community: shacking up instead of marriage. That's because Social Security bennies get cut if you get hitched. So it's better financially to live in sin.

dculberson wrote:

Bobzilla wrote: That's exactly what you're saying. Here's what I'm saying: Telling someone that doesn't believe in gay marriage (also known to be in a straight relationship) that they cannot open a business because they believe in straight relationships is the same as telling a gay person they can't open a business because they believe in gay relationships. It's still sexual discrimination. It's just not in the way it is typically seen up to this point. Same as my comment about black on white racism. It's still racism.

You missed a crucial step. The gay person would have to be advocating against straight relationships in order for the situations to be equivalent. That's what I'm saying.

OK, fine. I actually know a few "militant gays" that are very...um.... anti-straight. So there you go. An anti-straight gay person is denied a business becausethey are anti-straight and ONLY cater to gays. Same as here... actually not really. Did you read the actual quote from the COO? It's not exactly inflamatory. It just states what THEIR personal beliefs are about straight relationships. No different than a gay person talking about their opinions about gay relationships.

z31maniac wrote:

Cone_Junky wrote: At least CFA is taking the high road-

It's funny that they are blatantly lying about this.

Way to stay classy, CFA. Kinda like all the folks that go to church on Sunday, listen to the sermon, and then cuss at each other as they try to speed out of the church parking lot. IF you're going to talk it, you gotta walk it too.

orphancars wrote:

z31maniac wrote:

Cone_Junky wrote: At least CFA is taking the high road-

It's funny that they are blatantly lying about this.

Way to stay classy, CFA. Kinda like all the folks that go to church on Sunday, listen to the sermon, and then cuss at each other as they try to speed out of the church parking lot. IF you're going to talk it, you gotta walk it too.

Yes, because telling a white lie to not try to intentionally destroy someone's business is so "unchristian". I think it was VERY classy that they decided to NOT drag Jim Henson Puppets through the mud on this issue and let it go. I think they did a good job of "being the bigger man" in this case and not making a big hairy unnecessary deal with it.

In reply to Bobzilla:

What mud? Henson who ended the relationship because of CFA's homophobic views. And that is already well publicized, which only makes CFA's lies a little sadder.

nocones wrote: Please try to not make this a discussion about Homosexual marriage, Religion, or Partisan politics. In this situation it happens to be a fairly hot button issue at the core of this but I wish to discuss only the side of the government bodies potential oversteping of bounds. Good luck with that I know. I'm guessing I probably just started a thread that will get closed.

Hey, remember this part of the original post?

I'm saying we probably reached the point of diminishing returns and it's time to close this before some people come to blows. All they are doing is just rehashing their prejudices at this point.

Mehh its actually stayed pretty civil and people tried for 2-3 pages and I think answered the origional question well. If people want to continue the all things considered decent dialogue about gay marriage I'm not going to ask to close the thread.

If I'm considering a stop at a fast-food restaurant, I put Chick-fil-A at the top of the list. Their food is okay. They offer a limited menu, and the quality is better than most of their competitors. Their customer service is what sets them apart. They flat blow every other fast food joint clean outta the water when it comes to respecting the customer and giving them what they want. Heck, I bet they even serve gay people. Their employees are courteous and energetic and even when the restaurants are very busy, the wait times are very short. How many fast food joints have people coming to your table and asking if they can re-fill your drink? Had lunch there today and my kids and I got a free sample of their chocolate chunk cookies. The tables are clean. The bathrooms are clean, and they've got paper towels. Chick-Fil-A gets it. And they get my business.

Maybe it's just a coincidence that the owner is a Christian and is an outspoken supporter of decency and family values. Yeah, maybe.

Why do so many embrace sleaze and seek to destroy anything that is not sleazy?

Otto Maddox wrote: In reply to Bobzilla: What mud? Henson who ended the relationship because of CFA's homophobic views. And that is already well publicized, which only makes CFA's lies a little sadder.

You really think the Christian right that supports CFA wouldn't have created a huge stir on CFA's behalf if CFA actually came out and supported the media's publicization of this event? I'm sure they saw some backlash as it was, but it would have been more organized and more publicized IMO if they didn't do what they did.

I think they did the right thing on this topic, played the "bigger man" part. I know some of you have a hard-on against CFA. great for you. I don't. I don't even like their food (got food poisoning from it before). But I support a business owner who makes his own choices and doesn't bend to other's wills. He will either make it or not on his own merits. That is something that we should ALL acknowledge and appreciate.

I'd rather it be more about whether government officials should have the ability to share their opinion or the opinion of their citizens.

I think its perfectly acceptable for a mayor to represent his/her community when it says "we don't want you here, but we can't legally stop you."

I work in planning. We've got all kinds of bad development. I tell local planning officials that "hey, you can change your ordinance to limit bad development" but in the end, you've got be very proactive and actually give a damn. Too many people don't.

This guy in Chicago, or Boston, or where-ever he was obviously does give a damn, and has every right to protest, even from his office.

YEs, CHicago is the land of decency, peace and tolerance. Wow.... I think I threw up in my mouth a little typing that.

In reply to 1988RedT2:

I agree 100% with your first paragraph. The second not at all. Gays have the same potential to have decency and family values as the rest of us.

Otto Maddox wrote: In reply to 1988RedT2: I agree 100% with your first paragraph. The second not at all. Gays have the same potential to have decency and family values as the rest of us.

That's not what he said or implied at all.

carguy123 wrote:

nocones wrote: Please try to not make this a discussion about Homosexual marriage, Religion, or Partisan politics. In this situation it happens to be a fairly hot button issue at the core of this but I wish to discuss only the side of the government bodies potential oversteping of bounds. Good luck with that I know. I'm guessing I probably just started a thread that will get closed.

Hey, remember this part of the original post? I'm saying we probably reached the point of diminishing returns and it's time to close this before some people come to blows. All they are doing is just rehashing their prejudices at this point.

I thought some of the discussion has been pretty good, myself. But I did miss that part. It is kind of difficult to keep it on topic as intended when it references hot button issues.

Man. This thread went from interesting and funny to full suck in a hurry. I'm going to go berkeley my boyfriend while enjoying a delicious chicken biscuit now.

In reply to poopshovel:

Why don't you go berkeley your delicious chicken biscuit while you enjoy your boyfriend?

sachilles wrote:

Mayor Menino said: Boston Mayor Thomas M. Menino repeated today that he doesn’t want Chick-fil-A in Boston, but he backed away from a threat to actively block the fast-food chain from setting up shop in the city. “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. The mayor added: “I make mistakes all the time. That’s a Menino-ism.”

I bet he got a call from the city attorney.

In reply to poopshovel:

Are you keeping your Muppets?

1988RedT2 wrote: If I'm considering a stop at a fast-food restaurant, I put Chick-fil-A at the top of the list. Their food is okay. They offer a limited menu, and the quality is better than most of their competitors. Their customer service is what sets them apart.

It is fast food not a 5 star restaurant. I really don't care that much about customer service as long as they get the order right and serve half decent food at a decent price of which Chic-Fil-A does neither.

scardeal wrote: ....The second immediate thought, that applies to all heterosexual couples, is that the children are usually given different sorts of attention and role-modeling by the mother and the father. The male role-model tends to encourage discipline, but also adventure. Fathers are more likely to model appropriate risk-taking. Mothers tend to model compassion and communication...

This is actually a very interesting comment you have made. I know you admit not having much exposure to "the other side" and I can completely understand that. I think if you made this comment to most gay couples they would think it is pretty funny. (not trying to make fun of you, it's funny in an innocent kind of way)

From my somewhat limited knowledge of "the gays", it is very common for them to pair up with the personalities you describe above. Anyway, knowledge is a good thing, even if you don't agree with it.

In reply to aircooled:

Apparently he hasn't watched Modern Family.

carguy123 wrote:

Otto Maddox wrote: In reply to 1988RedT2: I agree 100% with your first paragraph. The second not at all. Gays have the same potential to have decency and family values as the rest of us.

That's not what he said or implied at all.

Pretty much comes off as exactly what he said and implied.

What exactly is decent about publicly denouncing others rights and financially supporting those who want to take those rights away? Family values? Also implies that your definition of a family is superior to other's definition of a family.