Chick-fil-A digging themselves a hole

[Misfit Toy]

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.

So you equate being gay - as several of our TrekBBS members are - with pedophilia and rape?? Seriously?

Wow - that's just way, way over the top. You should really reevaluate your posistion - that comment is just plain rude and incredibly offensive, not only to gays but to those of us with gay friends and family members.

 

[Knight Templar]

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.

So you equate being gay - as several of our TrekBBS members are - with pedophilia and rape?? Seriously?

Wow - that's just way, way over the top. You should really reevaluate your posistion - that comment is just plain rude and incredibly offensive, not only to gays but to those of us with gay friends and family members.

You sound surprised.

And why should it make any difference as to how your friends and family members are regarded?

I probably have gay friends and family members and you don't hear me whining about it.

 

[Knight Templar]

The big difference being those are criminal acts victimizing other people.

At one time, various sexual acts that involve consent such as sodomy, adultery, and fornication were criminal acts as well.

Some, such as statuatory rape still are.

Laws change and are always in a state of flux so to speak.

 

[Davros]

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.

So you equate being gay - as several of our TrekBBS members are - with pedophilia and rape?? Seriously?

Wow - that's just way, way over the top. You should really reevaluate your posistion - that comment is just plain rude and incredibly offensive, not only to gays but to those of us with gay friends and family members.

You sound surprised.

And why should it make any difference as to how your friends and family members are regarded?

I probably have gay friends and family members and you don't hear me whining about it.

Not being able to differentiate between a consensual relationship and a violent crime is not a virtue.

The big difference being those are criminal acts victimizing other people.

At one time, various sexual acts that involve consent such as sodomy, adultery, and fornication were criminal acts as well.

Some, such as statuatory rape still are.

Laws change and are always in a state of flux so to speak.

Again you are missing the point of where one thing is a consensual relationship and the other one is a violent crime with a victim.

 

[boobatuba]

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

Can you list any other examples that aren't...you know...criminal behavior?

Because while it's certainly understandable to restrict the rights of criminals, it's hardly the same thing to restrict the rights of people who simply have a different sexual preference.

And, for the record, the civil rights of pedophiles are not restricted in any way until and unless they act on their predispositions.

 

[tomalak301]

In reading this thread, I think it's a clear example of why I'm afraid to identify my religion (And even maybe stay out of these conversations). The reason for that is I am a Catholic, but do believe people who are homosexual have the right to do whatever he/she wants, and we don't have a right to force one ideal on another. That would be like if someone is Jewish and says I'm a bad person for eating Pork, I wouldn't appreciate that because they are imposing their beliefs on other people.

As a Catholic, these discussions always confuse me because I do believe the "message" of the catholic church is sound. I'm always being quoted Leviticus, yet Jesus Christ (Who I believe represents God on earth and never said anything about Homosexuality) preached intolorance and forgiveness, and to lend a helping, and his greatest commandment, "Love One Another as I have Loved You". Yet because my belief is contrary to what the church as a "club" says I get labeled as a bad catholic and a blasphemer.

In terms of Chick-Fil-A, I never eat there but yesterday I was conflicted on this whole issue. On one end, They are in the business to serve, and they can have whatever opinions they want, but those opinions have consequences, and for them as a company to be bigoted towards a specific customer base by donating money towards groups to keep said customer base down is just not good. Because of that, I probably don't have a further reason to eat there, not to mention I can get better chicken elsewhere.

Still, the thing that bothers me the most in this thread is the deep divide between people, almost to the point where it's like a verbal war between a specific religion and this issue, and I refuse to pick a side. I still find the name calling disheartening.

 

[The Dominion]

At one time, various sexual acts that involve consent such as sodomy, adultery, and fornication were criminal acts as well.

Some, such as statuatory rape still are.

Laws change and are always in a state of flux so to speak.

And what is your point? Laws change based on rational reasoning (or at least they should.) That's why those aren't treated as criminal acts anymore, because to treat them as such was illogical and unreasonable.

 

[RandyS]

I've never eaten at a Chick-fil-A before. I don't even know if they're around here.

Now, I most certainly won't.

It's amazing to me that people can get so worked up over something that has no impact on them whatsoever. Who cares what two consenting adults do? It makes no difference to me.

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.

 

[Knight Templar]

And, for the record, the civil rights of pedophiles are not restricted in any way until and unless they act on their predispositions.

Neither are those of homosexuals.

 

[The Dominion]

And, for the record, the civil rights of pedophiles are not restricted in any way until and unless they act on their predispositions.

Neither are those of homosexuals.

But why should homosexual acts be restricted? Pedophilia is a harmful act towards a minor, homosexuality between two consenting adults is no different than a straight relationship. Can't you see the difference?

 

[boobatuba]

And, for the record, the civil rights of pedophiles are not restricted in any way until and unless they act on their predispositions.

Neither are those of homosexuals.

Yes, they absolutely are. See the hiring practices at Chick-fil-A for a perfect example. You know, the whole reason for this thread.

 

[Davros]

And, for the record, the civil rights of pedophiles are not restricted in any way until and unless they act on their predispositions.

Neither are those of homosexuals.

Marriage ring a bell for you?

 

[Brent]

Let's even say for a second that it is a choice. Does this somehow make it okay to treat homosexuals as lesser citizens? Of course not. To me it really doesn't matter because it's completely not my business who someone loves or has sex with.

In that vein, I vote to make incest legal, I think siblings of adult age should be able to marry. You have to agree with this, else you are saying they are lesser citizens and denying them rights.

Oh wait, is that gross to you? You can't use that as a defense to deny them their rights and treat them as lesser citizens.

See, I can use this defense for a lot of things, where does it stop? People marrying animals?

 

[1001001]

Let's even say for a second that it is a choice. Does this somehow make it okay to treat homosexuals as lesser citizens? Of course not. To me it really doesn't matter because it's completely not my business who someone loves or has sex with.

In that vein, I vote to make incest legal, I think siblings of adult age should be able to marry. You have to agree with this, else you are saying they are lesser citizens and denying them rights.

Oh wait, is that gross to you? You can't use that as a defense to deny them their rights and treat them as lesser citizens.

See, I can use this defense for a lot of things, where does it stop? People marrying animals?

Yes that's our ultimate agenda: people marrying animals. Well played.

Now if we can just find a way for an animal to give consent to a marriage contract, we'll be set!

 

[Avon]

i'm quite worried that some people think the voices in the head of a 2000 year old middle eastern nomad have any relevance to the world today.

you should seek the help of a qualified psychiatrist.

but thats only my opinion.

 

[boobatuba]

In that vein, I vote to make incest legal, I think siblings of adult age should be able to marry. You have to agree with this, else you are saying they are lesser citizens and denying them rights.

Oh wait, is that gross to you? You can't use that as a defense to deny them their rights and treat them as lesser citizens.

See, I can use this defense for a lot of things, where does it stop? People marrying animals?

Yes. It stops when one of the parties can't give legal consent as would be the case for both children and animals.

This isn't that hard, and you're failing miserably to try and justify a position based on nothing but pure bigotry.

 

[IndyJones]

Let's even say for a second that it is a choice. Does this somehow make it okay to treat homosexuals as lesser citizens? Of course not. To me it really doesn't matter because it's completely not my business who someone loves or has sex with.

In that vein, I vote to make incest legal, I think siblings of adult age should be able to marry. You have to agree with this, else you are saying they are lesser citizens and denying them rights.

If they're adults, able to give consent, and take the proper precautions about procreation? Then yeah, it should be legal.

The problem is that in many cases of incest there is coercion, so it's hard to tell if that consent is freely given.

Oh wait, is that gross to you?

Yeah, it kind of is. There are many things that gross me out. But if they happen between consenting adults what right do I have to tell them not to do it? What right do you have?

 

[The Dominion]

Let's even say for a second that it is a choice. Does this somehow make it okay to treat homosexuals as lesser citizens? Of course not. To me it really doesn't matter because it's completely not my business who someone loves or has sex with.

In that vein, I vote to make incest legal, I think siblings of adult age should be able to marry. You have to agree with this, else you are saying they are lesser citizens and denying them rights.

Oh wait, is that gross to you? You can't use that as a defense to deny them their rights and treat them as lesser citizens.

See, I can use this defense for a lot of things, where does it stop? People marrying animals?

Actually, I don't think consensual adult incest should be punished or restricted either (the laws about it differ widely depending on location.) I might think it's gross, but as long as it's not hurting anybody I don't see why it shouldn't be permissible. There is the question of genetics with regards to the offspring however, so it's its own discussion altogether.

The animal thing is a pathetic slippery slope since there is no way to determine both parties are consensual, because you know, animals can't talk.

 

[Misfit Toy]

See, I can use this defense for a lot of things, where does it stop? People marrying animals?

That's a foolish argument and using it makes you look foolish. What about other Christians who see God's word differently than you? Do you assume that your interpretation is the only correct one?

 

[Pingfah]

I find it desperately sad that even after people discover they are directly sponsoring a hate campaign with every bite, they still consider stuffing some chicken down their greasy pie holes to be more important than the civil rights of their fellow countrymen.

It is no wonder obesity is on the rise when people will surrender their moral fibre for a fucking chicken sandwich. What trivial lives they must lead to have such backwards priorities.