Chick-fil-A digging themselves a hole

[1001001]

There are two that I know of in our area.

And I agree with you. I don't share this man's anti-gay opinion, since that's all it is.But I'm not going to let a difference of opinion control what I do. I love Chick-a-fill and will continue to eat there no matter what he thinks.

I think you misunderstood me?

I said I would not eat there, and that people who get all worked up about gay marriage (who cares?) puzzle me.

No I didn't. People who get all worked up over it puzzle me too.

Hmm... I still don't think we agreeing here. Maybe I am misunderstanding you, not the other way around?

You said you would continue to patronize the business. I said I would not.

To clarify further: when I say I "don't care", I mean that the idea of same-sex marriage doesn't bother me. What two consenting adults do with their private lives is none of my business. I have no right and no desire to tell people what their family should look like, who they should love, etc.

And that's what puzzles me. Same sex marriage has no effect on me whatsoever. I don't need to "defend" my marriage (20 years to the same woman) from this concept. People get so angry about it, but why? I am reminded of one of my favorite quotes from Thomas Jefferson:

"But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."

This is brilliant stuff. Same-sex marriage neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. And people who go out of their way to harass homosexuals, to actually give money for the purpose of denying them equality, well...I just think there's something seriously wrong with them. And I don't want to participate.

For example, despite his multiple requests, I did not allow my son to join the Boy Scouts. I do not want to give money to people/organizations that openly discriminate against homosexuals. That's what America is all about, right? We vote with our feet. We vote with our dollars.

That list now includes Chick-fil-A (not that I've ever eaten at one before).

 

[Locutus of Bored]

(and I'm just talking about the last decade here) when men could be arrested just for being gay, .

I'm calling BS on this one.

Can you site at least three examples in the 1990s in the U.S. where people were arrested for "just being gay"?

No, I can't find three examples. How about four instead?

Kentucky v. Wasson

Jeffery Wasson was arrested and charged with solicitation of same sex sodomy as the result of an undercover sting operation conducted by the Lexington police. The police drove to a selected area and conversed with men to see if they would be solicited for sex. An undercover officer taped approximately 20 minutes of a conversation with Wasson. Near the end of the conversation Wasson invited the officer to come home with him. When prodded for details, Wasson suggested sexual activities that violated the Kentucky statute prohibiting homosexual activity. In its recitation of the facts, the Kentucky Supreme Court noted that there "was no suggestion that sexual activity would occur anyplace other than in the privacy of Wasson's home. The sexual activity was intended to have been between consenting adults. No money was offered or solicited."

Lawrence v. Texas (which eventually made it to the US Supreme Court and made sodomy laws in the US unconstitutional).

On September 17, 1998, John Lawrence,[10][11] a gay 55-year old medical technologist, was hosting two gay acquaintances, Tyron Garner,[12] age 31, and Robert Eubanks,[13] 40, at his apartment on the outskirts of Houston, Texas. Lawrence and Eubanks had been friends for more than 20 years. Garner and Eubanks had a tempestuous on-again off-again romantic relationship since 1990. Lacking transportation home, the couple were preparing to spend the night. Eubanks, who had been drinking heavily, left to purchase a soda from a nearby vending machine. Apparently outraged that Lawrence had been flirting with Garner, he called police and reported "a black male going crazy with a gun" at Lawrence's apartment.[14]

Four Harris County sheriff's deputies responded within minutes and Eubanks pointed them to the apartment. They entered the unlocked apartment toward 11 p.m. with their weapons drawn. In accordance with police procedures, the first to arrive, Joseph Quinn, took the lead both in approaching the scene and in later determining what charges to bring, if any. He had a reputation for aggressive enforcement. He later reported seeing Lawrence and Garner having anal sex in the bedroom. A second officer reported seeing them engaged in oral sex, and two others did not report seeing the pair having sex. Lawrence proved uncooperative and disrespectful, repeatedly challenging the police for entering his home. Quinn had discretionary authority to charge them for a variety of offenses and then to arrest them or not. When Quinn considered charging them with having sex in violation of state law, he had to get an Assistant District Attorney to check to the statutes to be certain they covered sexual activity inside a residence. He was told that Texas's anti-sodomy statute, the "Homosexual Conduct" law, made it a Class C misdemeanor if someone "engages in deviate sexual intercourse with another individual of the same sex".[15] The statute, Chapter 21, Sec. 21.06 of the Texas Penal Code, had been adopted in 1973 when the state revised its criminal code to end its proscription on heterosexual anal and oral intercourse.[16]

Quinn decided to charge Lawrence and Garner with having "deviate sex" and to arrest them. His decision was likely driven by Lawrence's verbal abuse, along with some combination of his negative response to homosexuality, the fact that Lawrence was white and Garner was black, and the false gun report. In the separate arrest reports he filed for each, he wrote that he had seen the arrestee "engaged in deviate sexual conduct namely, anal sex, with another man".[17] Lawrence and Garner were held in jail overnight. At a hearing the next day, they plead not guilty to a charge of "homosexual conduct". They were released toward midnight.[18] Eubanks pleaded no contest to charges of filing a false police report. He was sentenced to 30 days in jail but released early.[19]

City of Topeka v. Movsovitz

This is a challenge to both a state and a city law which prohibit sodomy but only when the couple involved is lesbian or gay. The Defendant, Max Movsovitz, was the victim of a police sting. After talking with an undercover officer for some time, he agreed (at the officer's suggestion) to participate in an act of oral sex. The City agrees that had the officer been a woman, no crime would have been committed. The trial court denied our motion to dismiss the case on the basis that the law violates equal protection. The law was ruled constitutional by the Kansas Court of Appeals. On July 14, 1998, Max was told that the Kansas Supreme Court would not hear Movsovitz's appeal.

In 1996 the ACLU of Missouri, with the assistance of volunteer attorney Robert Payne of Springfield, MO, is representing a gay man who was charged in an undercover operation by the Joplin police force with violating the city's "mashing" ordinance; the ordinance defines "mashing" as the use of words or acts "to annoy or attract the attention of any person by any suggestive act or word." From newspaper reports, as many as thirty gay men were charged with "mashing" in Joplin in April.

http://www.glapn.org/sodomylaws/usa/missouri/missouri.htm

Learn something:
http://www.glapn.org/sodomylaws/usa/usa.htm

So, will KT not respond to this post or will he find some excuse to say these people weren't actually arrested because they were gay? You make the call!

 

[Locutus of Bored]

In the United States we routinely deny civil rights to pedophiles and rapists to list but 2 examples.

If you believe that denial of rights is okay for people who commit certain sexual acts, then denial of civil rights to those who actually commit homosexual acts is more than reasonable.

And to Peacemaker, you're not a bibical scholar of any kind (if you are, provide proof) so what when you lecture on what the Bible means, it has no relevance.

The only reason people listen to you regarding that is that you are "preaching" to the liberal echo champer at the TrekBBS.

After further review and discussion, this post earned you an infraction for trolling. Comparing consensual homosexual sex to rape and child molestation is way out of line, and you've made other trolling comments as the thread went on.

Comments to PM.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

National Chik-fil-A Day! August 1st!! Let your belief's take a bite!

http://money.msn.com/business-news/article.aspx?feed=AP&date=20120726&id=15381183

mmmmmm nuggets and waffle fries.....

Fine. Eat all you want. The rest of us will give our money to pro gay rights organizations. Your kind is dying off. Maybe the Chik-fil-a will help you die off sooner.

I kind of doubt that. Ironically, some day most gays will probably be born to conservative Catholics, Southern Baptists and other more fundamentalist Christian groups.

Once somebody develops a prenatal screening test, lots of demographics will choose to abort, even though everyone will claim they'd be thrilled to have a gay baby. Overall numbers will decline until a generation or two later when people like Sarah Palin are the only ones still having gay babies, with virtually none at all born in Europe, Asia, or the Middle East. Then liberals will notice all the gays seem to be conservative Baptist Republicans and decide they're all evil, and gays will be a persecuted minority concentrated only in Texas, the Deep South, and Alaska.

It shouldn't take a science-fiction writer to project how it will unfold.

Also after review and discussion, this gets an infraction for trolling as well, in concert with your joke here. Not everyone knows you and understands your brand of humor, and it's often used to provoke as much as it is to amuse.

Comments to PM.

 

[Knight Templar]

(and I'm just talking about the last decade here) when men could be arrested just for being gay, .

I'm calling BS on this one.

Can you site at least three examples in the 1990s in the U.S. where people were arrested for "just being gay"?

No, I can't find three examples. How about four instead?

City of Topeka v. Movsovitz

This is a challenge to both a state and a city law which prohibit sodomy but only when the couple involved is lesbian or gay. The Defendant, Max Movsovitz, was the victim of a police sting. After talking with an undercover officer for some time, he agreed (at the officer's suggestion) to participate in an act of oral sex. The City agrees that had the officer been a woman, no crime would have been committed. The trial court denied our motion to dismiss the case on the basis that the law violates equal protection. The law was ruled constitutional by the Kansas Court of Appeals. On July 14, 1998, Max was told that the Kansas Supreme Court would not hear Movsovitz's appeal.

In 1996 the ACLU of Missouri, with the assistance of volunteer attorney Robert Payne of Springfield, MO, is representing a gay man who was charged in an undercover operation by the Joplin police force with violating the city's "mashing" ordinance; the ordinance defines "mashing" as the use of words or acts "to annoy or attract the attention of any person by any suggestive act or word." From newspaper reports, as many as thirty gay men were charged with "mashing" in Joplin in April.

http://www.glapn.org/sodomylaws/usa/missouri/missouri.htm

Learn something:
http://www.glapn.org/sodomylaws/usa/usa.htm

So, will KT not respond to this post or will he find some excuse to say these people weren't actually arrested because they were gay? You make the call!

I knew these laws were on the books until quite recently but I did not know any had actually been enforced since the 70s and 80s.

 

[IndyJones]

I knew these laws were on the books until quite recently but I did not know any had actually been enforced since the 70s and 80s.

Lawrence v Texas was kind of a big deal.

 

[Peacemaker]

(and I'm just talking about the last decade here) when men could be arrested just for being gay, .

I'm calling BS on this one.

Can you site at least three examples in the 1990s in the U.S. where people were arrested for "just being gay"?

No, I can't find three examples. How about four instead?

City of Topeka v. Movsovitz

This is a challenge to both a state and a city law which prohibit sodomy but only when the couple involved is lesbian or gay. The Defendant, Max Movsovitz, was the victim of a police sting. After talking with an undercover officer for some time, he agreed (at the officer's suggestion) to participate in an act of oral sex. The City agrees that had the officer been a woman, no crime would have been committed. The trial court denied our motion to dismiss the case on the basis that the law violates equal protection. The law was ruled constitutional by the Kansas Court of Appeals. On July 14, 1998, Max was told that the Kansas Supreme Court would not hear Movsovitz's appeal.

In 1996 the ACLU of Missouri, with the assistance of volunteer attorney Robert Payne of Springfield, MO, is representing a gay man who was charged in an undercover operation by the Joplin police force with violating the city's "mashing" ordinance; the ordinance defines "mashing" as the use of words or acts "to annoy or attract the attention of any person by any suggestive act or word." From newspaper reports, as many as thirty gay men were charged with "mashing" in Joplin in April.

http://www.glapn.org/sodomylaws/usa/missouri/missouri.htm

Learn something:
http://www.glapn.org/sodomylaws/usa/usa.htm

So, will KT not respond to this post or will he find some excuse to say these people weren't actually arrested because they were gay? You make the call!

This is also a treasure. For details of exactly what happened. The real moneymaker is the independent report. Here's just a few remarks:

The report concluded that patrons of the Eagle were forced to lay face-down on the floor during the Raid in part because of anti-gay prejudice on the part of Raid commander Sgt. John Brock. The report concluded: “By allowing the sexual orientation of the patrons to influence tactical decisions of the Raid, Brock allowed his preconceived notions of a class of persons to dictate the treatment of individuals.” (GT report, pp. 143-144.)

In describing his belief that gay people are more violent than heterosexuals, Brock stated: “In the past I have as a patrol officer handled calls where there are gay couples living in residence where one is mad at the other, and they slash clothes, furniture, anything they can do. They’re very violent.” (GT report, pp. 142-143.) When asked if he thinks “that the gay community is more violent than other citizen groups” Brock replied: “My experience, yes. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, when they’re — when they get mad, they get really mad.”

The report also found that officers made anti-gay remarks both during the Raid itself (GT report. P. 31) and during the investigation that followed, including Officer Jeremy Edwards who described a “man have sex with another man” as being “very violent.” (GT report, p. 179-180)

. And this raid didn't really even involve sex at all. This one done for one reason and one reason only, for those of us, like myself familar with the situation. There are some unspoken items on that site that some of us who are close to the situation know: there were homophobic neighbors who made up stories about the bar and found somebody in the APD to do their bidding - and those people screwed up royally. I remember when this happened, even though I wasn't living there, because two of my best friends at the time lived not far away, and I would visit them on occasion.

The Eagle Atlanta has been a fixture of Midtown Atlanta for as long as I can remember. It has a reputation for being inclusive, friendly, and a good neighbor to all. In the past, it has gone to the trouble of erecting sound barriers and all sorts of things, and it contributes to the neighborhood behind it, the part of Midtown that runs from Ponce down St. Charles and Piedmont and down to Piedmont Park. One of the nicest, well -to-do neighborhoods in town. It has a zero tolerance policy for drugs and public lewd behavior, despite being, at one time, one of the cruisiest places in town. It has fought prostitution on the corner, and it had such a good reputation that Shirley Franklin's own campaign offices located themselves next door. But some nosy neighbors moved in around the time this happened with an agenda to "clean up Midtown" (eg. remove "those people," which, to them included "teh gays" - and this was a gay "ghetto" at one time. They couldn't find any dirt on the place themselves, so they started making up stories. Tales began circulating about how they would complain about the noise and the Eagle would turn on outside speakers and turn them on them at night, which were, of course, false reports. So, if you want to look for an example of good law abiding gay citizens being oppressed and the po-po being used to do it - the Eagle Atlanta just the last decade is one of the best examples you will ever find.

 

[Peacemaker]

And to Peacemaker, you're not a bibical scholar of any kind (if you are, provide proof) so what when you lecture on what the Bible means, it has no relevance.

Yeah, what were the Apostles credentials, James, Jude, Alexander and Thomas Campbell's?

That's funny coming from somebody from the Stone-Campbell tradition, where the laity rules the churches and preaches, and your pastors have a reputation for just feelin' a callin'.

And, of course, the piece de resistance is that you've just cut off your own legs with respect to articulating what Scripture says. What are your credentials, exactly? Gettin' them thar sins washed away by a Campbellite administrator of baptism hardly counts.

Since you asked, however: I attended an Salem Baptist Christian School from grades 1 -12 (where, I can tell you, I absorbed quite a bit, since we took Bible classes every day, and the last year included some hardcore theology lessons from the Headmaster, so these weren't namby pamby Sunday School material lessons); I have a Religious Studies Minor, Wingate University, 1991 (and for the record, I was 2 classes short of a double major, and I was awarded "Outstanding Religious Studies Minor" that year, 2 years of study at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary thereafter, before i went on to do my master's work proper in public health. I'm capable of reading the NT in Greek - fluently. I have an extensive library, and not one of the works therein is "liberal" by any standard. I served as a staff intern in the Children's, College, and Pastoral Care Ministries respectively for 3 consecutive years at the, at the time, second largest Southern Baptist church in the state of NC. I am also a former contributor at Triablogue. Would you like me to post my licensure, I'll be glad to scan it and post it? In short, my credentials are on a par with those of your very own Alexander Campbell, who, I might add, was reared a Scots-Presbyterian and did not, as you do, look at Presbyterians and think "no true Christian." Dare I say my credentials far outweigh anything you can begin to muster for yourself and in some cases exceed the credentials of a lot of ordained ministers in some churches, so, when you choose to insult my "credentials as you have," KT, you're demonstrating the truth behind the old adage, "You really have no idea who you're talking to, do you?" Be careful you don't wind up being the epitome of the man who keeps mouthing off at a bar and beaten down by the owner who is bigger and stronger and who doesn't tell him who he is while the crowd says "Dude, stay down, just stay down."

 

[VulcanJedi]

)

It's one thing if a restaurant or other chain's owners/CEO's decide to endorse a certain political ideology or stance. It's another thing when the head of that company comes out and says how actively he's against a certain ideology or group of people. And that profits made through the business go to support groups actively trying to curtail the rights of others.

There's a local restaurant to me that makes some of the best BBQ in the city, in fact it won a local contest proclaiming it as the best restaurant chain in the city. Like CFA it's closed on Sundays most likely due to religious reasons. But I've never heard of the owner expressing negative views towards a group of people or donating money to support movements against people. So I'll eat there.

But when I heard how vocal and actively CFA spoke out against homosexuals and homosexual rights I decided to stop eating there. I can't support such ways of thinking.

It'd be one thing if this CEO/owner simply spoke his personal views but he's spoken these views not as himself but in an "official capacity" as operator of the company and the company makes donation to groups wanting to curb the freedoms of homosexuals. Sorry, that's something very different than expressing views.

And, really, I think the ACLU or other groups should investigate the hiring practices of Chick-Fil-A to see if they discriminate against homosexuals or even non-Christians.

The mayors of major cities calling for banning Chic-fil-A sets a troubling precedent.

This issue is compared to the civil rights movement, but most Americans see the issues as different, no matter how many times we're told they're the same. And even so, in this case the "bigoted" lunch counter owner would be serving the people with a smile, regardless of race or orientation (which Chic-fil-A does). The cause would be trying to prevent the person from having segregated, private meetings with fellow "bigots." We have that right in America. As for giving financially to "pro-bigoted" causes, where has it got them? Even with a constitutional amendment, three presidents in a row against, and numerous votes against, gay marriage wins time and time again.

And, I cannot imagine Captain Picard coming into a society, one without hyperdrive and forcing a human, progressive earth policy upon their fearful, primitive society. People are ignoring the logic and implications of the policy of Star Fleet to stay hands off in regard to culture, religion and custom. Obviously, some folks in our culture are still without hyperdrive. Some still don't even have cell phones or a GPS!(actually, by that logic Chic-fil-A should expect a ban as they are attempting contact with an alien culture: the North)

The president, just four years ago, said virtually the same thing as Dan Cathy. His own former staff member, is now trying to ban a business from the city, for the same SPEECH. In four short years, we've gone from a president who normalized traditional belief, to a president silent in defense of people with the same belief. How did this happen?

And now the Muppets are enemies of Chic-fil-A? Why should the enemies list end there? Many polls show over half the country has the same opinion as Dan Cathy, are they now enemies of Kermit the frog? Even Sesame Street has denied Bert and Ernie are gay. Why? Are they enemies with Kermit? Where does Gonzo fit in all this, wait a minute, shouldn't the American Eagle stay with Chic-fil-A?

We do live in a free society, and gay rights advocates are winning. They have spoken, voted and succeeded. But it seems this success is not enough. Some individuals will not tire until everyone agrees with them.

Is Dan Cathy the only CEO, owner or founder who believes in traditional marriage? Where will it end?

If we only ate at restaurants where we completely agreed with the chef philosophically, we'd all be cooking at home.

 

[IndyJones]

We do live in a free society, and gay rights advocates are winning. They have spoken, voted and succeeded. But it seems this success is not enough. Some individuals will not tire until everyone agrees with them.

There's a whole lot I didn't agree with there, but this section gets to the heart of it, and keeps things pretty simple:

The vast majority of people in these two threads disagree with the CEO, but also think these politicians are wrong. The popular position here isn't that Dan Cathy shouldn't be able to build these restaurants, or to hold whatever beliefs in his heart that he chooses, it's simply that I (and other gays and lesbians) shouldn't have to live by those beliefs as well.

That's the difference. One side has a belief and wants to force the rest of us to abide by it, while the other side just wants people to be able to live by their own beliefs.

And no one, in either of these threads, has answered why people in a free society should have to abide by religious beliefs that they don't agree with. Anyone care to try to explain that to me?

 

[Knight Templar]

That's the difference. One side has a belief and wants to force the rest of us to abide by it, while the other side just wants people to be able to live by their own beliefs.

?

I assume the pro gay rights side is the one you mention that "just wants people to be able to live by their own beliefs"

In that case, wouldn't it be okay for an employer not to have to hire homosexuals or rent to them, et cetera?

 

[nightwind1]

That's the difference. One side has a belief and wants to force the rest of us to abide by it, while the other side just wants people to be able to live by their own beliefs.

?

I assume the pro gay rights side is the one you mention that "just wants people to be able to live by their own beliefs"

In that case, wouldn't it be okay for an employer not to have to hire homosexuals or rent to them, et cetera?

No more than it would be to not hire blacks because they're black, or women because they're women.

But you already knew that, and are being purposely facetious.

 

[Balrog]

That's the difference. One side has a belief and wants to force the rest of us to abide by it, while the other side just wants people to be able to live by their own beliefs.

?

I assume the pro gay rights side is the one you mention that "just wants people to be able to live by their own beliefs"

In that case, wouldn't it be okay for an employer not to have to hire homosexuals or rent to them, et cetera?

In your example, the employer is purposefully discriminating against another group, limiting how they are able to live freely by their own beliefs.

Ever heard the phrase, "Your freedom extends only as far as the end of your nose"? Feel free to think and do as you please, just as long as your freedom doesn't interfere with another's freedom in the process.

 

[Knight Templar]

That's the difference. One side has a belief and wants to force the rest of us to abide by it, while the other side just wants people to be able to live by their own beliefs.

?

I assume the pro gay rights side is the one you mention that "just wants people to be able to live by their own beliefs"

In that case, wouldn't it be okay for an employer not to have to hire homosexuals or rent to them, et cetera?

No more than it would be to not hire blacks because they're black, or women because they're women.

But you already knew that, and are being purposely facetious.

That's the difference. One side has a belief and wants to force the rest of us to abide by it, while the other side just wants people to be able to live by their own beliefs.

?

I assume the pro gay rights side is the one you mention that "just wants people to be able to live by their own beliefs"

In that case, wouldn't it be okay for an employer not to have to hire homosexuals or rent to them, et cetera?

In your example, the employer is purposefully discriminating against another group, limiting how they are able to live freely by their own beliefs.

Ever heard the phrase, "Your freedom extends only as far as the end of your nose"? Feel free to think and do as you please, just as long as your freedom doesn't interfere with another's freedom in the process.

In which case you are no longer "letting people live by their own beliefs".

You are using governmental power to dictate how people with one set of beliefs treats other groups of people.

Why isn't that equally as bad as discrimination?

 

[cooleddie74]

Ever heard the phrase, "Your freedom extends only as far as the end of your nose"? Feel free to think and do as you please, just as long as your freedom doesn't interfere with another's freedom in the process.

Religious fundamentalists across the ages have long decided they don't have to follow that rule and they're above it. It's their God-given edict from on high to oppose and defeat what they consider to be immoral and unclean. There's no such thing as THEIR freedoms not interfering with somebody else's.

They're on a holy mission to crush the wicked. The niceties of respecting personal liberty are just an inconvenience.

 

[Knight Templar]

I simply think that freedom means that I should be free to treat other adult Americans citizens however I wish as long as it does not involve basic criminal conduct.

and vice versa.

That is, as long as I do not try to assault, rape, rob, or murder anyone.

I do not think the U.S. federal govt. should have the power to closely regulate the personal and professional relationships between citizens.

State and local govt. perhaps but not the feds.

 

[Gov Kodos]

I assume the pro gay rights side is the one you mention that "just wants people to be able to live by their own beliefs"

In that case, wouldn't it be okay for an employer not to have to hire homosexuals or rent to them, et cetera?

No more than it would be to not hire blacks because they're black, or women because they're women.

But you already knew that, and are being purposely facetious.

I assume the pro gay rights side is the one you mention that "just wants people to be able to live by their own beliefs"

In that case, wouldn't it be okay for an employer not to have to hire homosexuals or rent to them, et cetera?

In your example, the employer is purposefully discriminating against another group, limiting how they are able to live freely by their own beliefs.

Ever heard the phrase, "Your freedom extends only as far as the end of your nose"? Feel free to think and do as you please, just as long as your freedom doesn't interfere with another's freedom in the process.

In which case you are no longer "letting people live by their own beliefs".

You are using governmental power to dictate how people with one set of beliefs treats other groups of people.

Why isn't that equally as bad as discrimination?

The government doesn't exist to further racist, sexist, or homophobic agendas.

 

[Balrog]

You are using governmental power to dictate how people with one set of beliefs treats other groups of people.

Why isn't that equally as bad as discrimination?

"Freedom" doesn't mean "Anything-Goes-Free-For-All".

Again, you have the freedom to think and act as you will, as long as your actions don't impede on another's freedom.

 

[cooleddie74]

State and local govt. perhaps but not the feds.

So state and local politicians should take their precious, limited time as well as spend state and local tax dollars to stand in the way of two adult, consenting people having a relationship?

Saying the feds have no right or place to do something but that those lower on the rungs do doesn't make it any more correct or morally right, especially when we're talking about the private relationships of consenting adults.

Government on ANY level has no right to say what two grown adults do with one another so long as someone isn't being hurt or killed.

 

[Knight Templar]

No more than it would be to not hire blacks because they're black, or women because they're women.

But you already knew that, and are being purposely facetious.

In your example, the employer is purposefully discriminating against another group, limiting how they are able to live freely by their own beliefs.

Ever heard the phrase, "Your freedom extends only as far as the end of your nose"? Feel free to think and do as you please, just as long as your freedom doesn't interfere with another's freedom in the process.

In which case you are no longer "letting people live by their own beliefs".

You are using governmental power to dictate how people with one set of beliefs treats other groups of people.

Why isn't that equally as bad as discrimination?

The government doesn't exist to further racist, sexist, or homophobic agendas.

I'm not saying it should. But it should let people treat each other the way they want.

I'm not saying that the govt. should have something like "whites only" water fountains and restrooms. That would be the govt. using govt. power and authority to further a racial belief or agenda.

At the same time, the govt. should not have the power to tell a small business owner, "you have to consider black and female applicants"