Chick-fil-A digging themselves a hole

[cooleddie74]

Nobody said it was an obligation. Or a rule. Or, heaven forbid, a law.

Being open minded in hiring practices isn't necessarily a bad thing. Two people with the same skills and qualifications. One's white. One's black. One's straight. One's gay. Sometimes there's not a single thing wrong with going with the black guy or the gay dude considering the past track records of businesses in this country. It won't kill anyone, you know. So yes, "throwing a bone" and being just a tad bit progressive in your hiring practices isn't a detrimental thing when you have to choose between two people with the same resume.

Maybe to someone with deep prejudices who can't shake off a discriminatory mindset, but for a lot of people it's not going to be the end of their business if they hire someone just because it might be the decent thing to do.

 

[Gov Kodos]

The state and local governments don't get to trump the freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution. Bigots do love the states rights argument, don't they?

Not just bigots. Try buying a pistol in New York, Chicago, or San Francisco, a right guaranteed by the Constitution.

Rights of homosexuals are mentioned nowhere in the U.S. constitution.

Rights of gun owners specifically are.

Yet, the rights of homosexuals is what has people up in arms. So to speak.

They can be bought with a license. It is irrelevant, as a gun is a commodity whose possession is a matter of choice. Discrimination against women, blacks, or homosexuals is discrimination based on what they are. That is not a matter of choice. Once again, the bigots showing their true colors. A desire to persecute others.

 

[Knight Templar]

So, to be clear again, and you can answer with a simple yes or no -

You do not support Govt. discrimination.

But you do support open discrimination by small business owners and companies.

I am against govt. discrimination.

I'm for small businee owners, companies, and individuals being free to do what they want WITH THEIR OWN STUFF as long as it causes no direct physical harm to anyone else.

So, it's okay for a business to hire Baptists and Presbyterians, but not members of your own local church. It's okay for a business to hire gays but not straights. It's okay for them to hire men, not women, women not men; blacks not whites; Muslims not Christians, Jews not Christians, etc. etc.

Yes.

I answered roughly the same question above.

 

[Balrog]

I'm for small businee owners, companies, and individuals being free to do what they want WITH THEIR OWN STUFF as long as it causes no direct physical harm to anyone else.

So, small business owners and companies should be allowed openly to discriminate against whatever group or groups of people they wish for whatever reason?

 

[gturner]

Isn't the govt. telling me what type of people to hire, rent to, or provide services to an impediment to my freedom?

You don't have the freedom to discriminate against others. Where do you get that idea from?

There are many things you're not "free to do". This is one of them because it goes against the basic principle of "all people are created equal".

For some reason I don't think I have to explain this to you. You're well aware of how bigoted the thought is. It's just that you don't care.

Actually, you do have the power to discriminate in many areas, and we had to specifically lay out the realms where discrimination won't be allowed, and what types are impermissible (as we did with fair housing laws).

The NFL doesn't allow petit girls to play football. The PGA doesn't allow disabled golfers to ride golf carts. Hooters doesn't hire fat men as waitresses, and nobody hires a woman to play Santa Claus. Some companies refuse to hire smokers, and synagogues tend to be pretty selective about not hiring imams.

But Chick-Fil-A hires gays, has gay managers and gay franchise owners, and they happily serve gays, so they're the ones discriminating - somehow.

 

[The Dominion]

I am against govt. discrimination.

I'm for small businee owners, companies, and individuals being free to do what they want WITH THEIR OWN STUFF as long as it causes no direct physical harm to anyone else.

Discrimination does cause harm to others though, to think otherwise is gross ignorance of the implications. People are not a business' "OWN STUFF"

 

[IndyJones]

Rights of homosexuals are mentioned nowhere in the U.S. constitution.

I am a citizen, and the Constitutions speaks a fair amount about the rights of citizens.

Care to try again?

 

[Knight Templar]

Does anyone really think a local gay rights advocacy group should be forced to hire a member of the Westboro Baptist Church for a clerical position just because they have the fastest typing speed and their office skills kick ass?

 

[Balrog]

Let's suppose for a moment a business owner puts up a sign in his front window that reads, "Help Wanted. Irish Need Not Apply".

That would be alright in your book?

 

[cooleddie74]

So, now gays are the equivalent of Westboro Baptist bigots.

Who's being "forced?!" I never said the word "forced." I said it might be the right and the decent thing to do given the country's past history as well as the fact that both applicants are equally skilled and have roughly similar resumes. But in the end it's your choice.

You're putting words in others' mouths in order to defend your dislike of gay people.

 

[Knight Templar]

Let's suppose for a moment a business owner puts up a sign in his front window that reads, "Help Wanted. Irish Need Not Apply".

That would be alright in your book?

Yes.

And that is the last time I'm answering this question or a similar one so don't bother asking.

 

[gturner]

They [ed. guns] can be bought with a license. It is irrelevant, as a gun is a commodity whose possession is a matter of choice.

And they just wouldn't issue licenses in places like Washington DC, which caused another round of lawsuits and court cases. So how about this. We allow gay marriage, but to do so they have to get a marriage license that nobody in government will ever actually issue. That's the situation "licenses" put many gun owners in.

Discrimination against women, blacks, or homosexuals is discrimination based on what they are. That is not a matter of choice. Once again, the bigots showing their true colors. A desire to persecute others.

But Chik-Fil-A isn't discriminating. They hire gays, they serve gays. Gun owners aren't claiming that nobody should be allowed to donate to Sarah Brady, or that those who do shouldn't be allowed to open a business, or that any person who patronizes a restaurant whose owner donated to Sarah Brady is somehow an evil hater, or that supporting organizations that support calls for more gun control is of itself a violation of the 2nd Amendment.

 

[cooleddie74]

Let's suppose for a moment a business owner puts up a sign in his front window that reads, "Help Wanted. Irish Need Not Apply".

That would be alright in your book?

Yes.

And that is the last time I'm answering this question or a similar one so don't bother asking.

Legally right, though? Or morally right?

Or both?

 

[Gov Kodos]

So, now gays are the equivalent of Westboro Baptist bigots.

Who's being "forced?!" I never said the word "forced." I said it might be the right and the decent thing to do given the country's past history as well as the fact that both applicants are equally skilled and have roughly similar resumes. But in the end it's your choice.

You're putting words in others' mouths in order to defend your dislike of gay people.

Companies are not allowed to discriminate based on religion. If the employee engages in disruptive behavior at the work place, they can be fired. That aside, religion is a matter of choice. Homosexuality is not. KT and his ilk want to discriminate against people for what they are. Such as KT are bigots.

 

[Knight Templar]

Let's suppose for a moment a business owner puts up a sign in his front window that reads, "Help Wanted. Irish Need Not Apply".

That would be alright in your book?

Yes.

And that is the last time I'm answering this question or a similar one so don't bother asking.

Legally right, though? Or morally right?

Or both?

Legally in case it was not clear.

 

[Knight Templar]

Homosexuality is a choice.

No one forces you to have homosexual sex. Aside from instances of rape of course.

 

[Gov Kodos]

Homosexuality is a choice.

No one forces you to have homosexual sex. Aside from instances of rape of course.

So, you are choosing to be heterosexual.

 

[cooleddie74]

Then so is heterosexuality.

We can do this all night if you like.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Homosexuality is a choice.

I think that theory's been shot down.

 

[Knight Templar]

Homosexuality is a choice.

No one forces you to have homosexual sex. Aside from instances of rape of course.

So, you are choosing to be heterosexual.

I've always been attracted to members of the opposite sex exclusively.

But actually deciding to seek out sexual relations with a woman was a choice I made.