Wednesday, August 1, 2012

Eat at Chick-Fil-A, Give a Lib Hearburn!

It's Chick-Fil-A Day!

I am going to Chick-Fil-A today, and I’m taking the whole family. We’re not doing it to make a stand against gays, which is a scurrilous charge hurled by the inquisitors on the left.

No, we're going there to shout out a big STFU to the petty potentates and little tin horn dictators who look upon their municipalities as their own personal fiefdoms. Go google Chicago’s alderman system. Any one of them sure as hell does have total veto power over what goes on in his or her ward, which probably has something to do with it being the most corrupt city in the nation.

Eating at Chick-Fil-A is a slap in the face to those doctrinaire statists and politically-correct progressives who would tell us what we must think and how we must live.

Free Exercise of Religion

Too many lefty talking points rely on cheap tricks and word-bending rather than logic, reason and an appeal to an easily–understandable philosophy.

One example of this is the use of the phrase Freedom of Worship,” which has no origin other than in the infected minds of progressive propagandists. This fanciful term is employed to plant in the minds of citizens that this right ceases once you cross the temple threshold and enter the public square. “You’re free to worship in the Church or Synagogue, but leave it there!”

That is wrong. Here’s what the First Amendment to the US Constitution says:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. (1st Amendment to the US Constitution)
Government shall not prohibit the free exercise of your religious beliefs and action. Findlaw has commentary on the “Free Exercise of Religion” clause here, and it explains that protecting this right has been a balancing act over the centuries. The salient point is that this right was never understood to be severely circumscribed, but rather, like our other natural rights, it is free flowing and includes your right to put your beliefs into action, so long as you break no civil laws.

All of our natural rights are like that. Laws that ban certain foods or herd and nudge us like cattle go against the concept of the rule of law and are therefore illegitimate and in violation of the spirit of the constitution. 

So Chairman Mao Bloomberg can stick a 16 ounce soda where the sun don’t shine, Rahmboy can get back to presiding over Chicago’s collapse, and maybe Beantown Mayor Menino should take a contemplative walk along the freedom trail to ponder the meaning of its name.

112 comments:

Constitutional Insurgent said...

I don't particulalrly care for Chick-Fil-A food in the first place....but this furor makes as much sense to me the boycott against Target or JC Penney's....just to name a couple of examples.

I think SF's treatment of the freedom of religion is fair, but Christians might want to remember that if/when somebody speaks less than flattering of them - and - advocates legislation to restrict them from enjoying the same liberties and priviliges as other Americans.

Silverfiddle said...

People speak less than flattering of us all the time. Water-Duck's back...

Constitutional Insurgent said...

Have I missed where a national chain has come out against Christianity?

The Debonair Dudes World said...

The fascists on the left are doing everything they can to destroy the American way, America's freedom of choice, and America's freedom of speech freedom. They are trying to destroy a man for expressing his religious, and his political freedoms. The left solution for that is to destroy him and his company to shut him up. It's no longer enough to boycott his business, now they want to stop him from opening up a business where he wants to. So tell me what is it about freedom of religion or freedom of choice that has made you brown shirts so upset? We have seem this happen decades ago. They used the same tactics in Germany, and we went to war to stop it. And now you are using the same extremist ideas right here in America.
What has this Country become? Where has our freedoms gone? We can't open up a business in a big city now if we don't agree with a "Special Group" I was always told that In America we had the right to do whatever we pleased as long as we followed all applicable laws. What happened to those rights?
the party of hope and change is still the party Socialist and Marxist ideas.
The very same groups who fought so hard for their freedom of speech and right to the pursuit of happiness, would now demand the government be involved in silencing someone who's opinion is different from their own. Seems a bit hypocritical to me.
Chick-Fil-A will survive without the help of these Chicago thugs. Rahm Emanuel is a stark-raving idiot. He and Screwy Louie Jew hater Farrakhan make a good pair. And these two Crooks are going to fight Crime?

I thought that Liberals welcomed people of all ideas. Silly me..

Silverfiddle said...

Constitutional:

I was answer this statement of yours:

but Christians might want to remember that if/when somebody speaks less than flattering of them - and - advocates legislation to restrict them from enjoying the same liberties and priviliges as other Americans.

People speak ill of each other all the time, and that includes Christian-bashing. I'm not complaining, just saying that we're used to it.

Constitutional Insurgent said...

SF - I'm not just talking of speaking ill....you didn't address the second half of what I wrote.

If Christians want to engage in orchestrated campaigns of activism and legislation against their fellow Americans, they would do well to consider that the same treatment can easily befall them.

Constitutional Insurgent said...

As an addendum, I know you know this SF, but for anyone else......I think eleted officials speaking out against Chik-Fil-A as some have, is an unprofessional travesty.

Shaw Kenawe said...

President of Chick fil A, Dan Cathy's own words:

"We are very much supportive of the family — the biblical definition of the family unit," he told the Biblical Recorder. On the radio, he observed: "I think we are inviting God's judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at him and say we know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage."

[Wasn't Jerry Falwell's and Pat Robertson's definition of "God's judgment" on gays after 9/11 enough? Does Cathy really believe his Christian God will smite the USofA again for acknowledging civil rights for all Americans?



And this:

The mayor of Boston, a Philadelphia council member and a Chicago alderman, among other politicians, aired threats to keep Chick-fil-A stores out of their jurisdictions, playing to their constituencies being easier since they probably have no legal right to do so, and they know it.

Chick fil A president, Cathy, has every right to detest marriage for all Americans on the basis of his religion. It's a semi-free country, and he has now had his 15 minutes of piety.

Those who disagree with him have every right to not eat at his anti-gay fast food plastic palace.

Mayor Menino walked back his threat; it will not happen. It was intemperate, but heartfelt counter to Cathy's slam at America's gay and lesbian citizens.

Now everyone can get back to feeling morally superior to one another.

conservativesonfire said...

It is freedom of religion not freedom from religion. Why do so many people have such a hard time understanding that?

Ducky's here said...

No Chic-fil-a in town. Guess I can't participate in this silliness.

Hope you meet L'il Ricky Retardo or The Pole Dancer at your local for a photo moment.

jez said...

"It is freedom of religion not freedom from religion. Why do so many people have such a hard time understanding that?"

The latter is a corollary of the former. You cannot have freedom of religion unless you have freedom from religion, unless religions don't conflict which is evidently not the case.

Shaw Kenawe said...

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

But what about this?:

Faith Healing or Child Abuse?
A Wisconsin mother who believes in "divine healing" was convicted Friday of reckless homicide for allowing her 11-year-old daughter Madeline to die of untreated diabetes by praying for her instead of seeking medical treatment...a Minnesota mother and her cancer-stricken 13-year-old son Daniel have gone into hiding, trying to evade court-ordered chemotherapy which the boy says conflicts with his stated preference for "natural healing" methods favored by a Missouri-based religious group.

How far should a mother go to protect her child's religious beliefs, or her own? Does any parent have a right to put a child's health at risk for religious convictions? Does any child have that right? Should the government intervene in those cases?


"All of these recent cases are complex because they require the legal system to reconcile a variety of interests," Shawn Francis Peters, religion teacher at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and author of "When Prayer Fails: Faith Healing, Children and the Law," wrote in an On Faith guest column last year.

"Treasuring religious liberty, most Americans recoil at infringements on the faith-based practices that help to define our religious lives. And, too, we generally believe that parents should have wide latitude in directing the upbringing of their children. But those sentiments are challenged when the physical and emotional welfare of children - the most vulnerable members of our society - is at risk."

The U.S. Supreme Court seems clear about how these conflicts should be resolved. As Georgetown/On Faith blogger and professor Michael Kessler explains elsewhere on this site, U.S. law clearly allows adults to make similar religious-based decisions for themselves -- but not for their children. Kessler quotes the U.S. Supreme Court's 1944 ruling in Prince v. Massachusetts:
"The right to practice religion freely does not include the right to expose the community or the child to communicable disease or the latter to ill-health or death . . . Parents may be free to become martyrs themselves. But it does not follow they are free, in identical circumstances, to make martyrs of their children before they have reached the age of full and legal discretion when they can make that choice for themselves."
But as Kessler points out, many states have exemptions for religious grounds from child abuse statutes. In those states, a parent can't be charged with neglect for withholding medical treatment. The American Academy of Pediatrics and other groups have criticized of these laws."

SOURCE

Sam Huntington said...

@SF … I apologize for the length of this comment.

Here’s what I find extraordinary. Dozens of Americans vocally objected to a New York City imam’s plan to construct a mosque two blocks away from ground zero. They based their objection on the belief that this imam had ties to terrorists. When this happened, the left supported the imam based on the constitutionally protected right of religious freedom.

However, when a restaurant owner, while speaking to a religious periodical, stated that he supports the traditional and biblical view of marriage, the left goes bonkers and cannot be mollified. This makes no sense. Does the left support religious freedom, or not?

Personally, I agree with SF and Finntann that while Mr. Cathy is entitled to his opinion, he was foolish to embroil his free enterprise system into the insanity surrounding the gay-rights issue. I use the word insanity because it only took one editorial in the LA Times to send out hundreds of flamers to protest at Chick-fil-A restaurants. Apparently, there is no shortage of idiots in this country no matter what their politics.

Now let us wonder about the remedy for Cathy’s heinous offense —for daring to speak out about his religious convictions: Shall we rip out his tongue, or is there a more mature reaction? Maybe, we could simply boycott his product. Conversely, should we all grab our pitchforks and burn down Shaw’s house because she defends Menino and Emanuel, or could we instead go to the nearest Chick-fil-A and pig out?

The underlying objection to what transpired here remains valid. Every single American who loves his or her Constitutional freedoms should rebel whenever elected officials threaten the use of government power to punish any citizen for daring to exercise their rights. We protect speech in this country —never more vociferously than speech we find offensive. What is the remedy for this offense? The left wants us to accept Menino’s insincere apology, but we are not mollified because we are now aware of how these “government officials” think. How they think is inimical to a free America; these people have no business being “elected officials.”

Silverfiddle said...

@ COnstitutional: If Christians want to engage in orchestrated campaigns of activism and legislation against their fellow Americans, they would do well to consider that the same treatment can easily befall them.

Indeed! We agree. I am not railing against those who want to boycott and protect Chick-Fil-A.

Like you, I am in firm opposition to government thought police tactics.

Steve said...

He has a right to open his mouth and prove he's stupid.
You open your mouth and prove your stupid everyday.
There would not be an issue if this idiot wasn't trying to "tell us what we must think and how we must live."
He's the one telling the world they should not be gay simply because HIS religious beliefs say it is a sin.
Kind of a stupid move for a businessman to chase away customers by declaring a personal belief, that has nothing to do with his chicken business.
So enjoy your lunch and pretend you are not supporting homophobia.
It's natural for you to voice your hate, stupidity, and hypocrisy.
One of your natural (God given) rights to be a hate filled bigot. Express it, so the world can know what hate filled bigots you and your God are.

Constitutional Insurgent said...

@Sam - I agree with the gist of your post, but we also have elected officials who use the pulpit of their office to restrict liberties and privileges of American citizens based on religion.

Not much difference in my estimation.

Shaw Kenawe said...

If we're going to have a discussion on this subject, can we at least stick to facts and not lie about what people say here.

Huntington has already done so. Here are my exact words on this thread and nowhere do I DEFEND Menino or Emmanuel.

Here is what I quoted and what I wrote:

"The mayor of Boston, a Philadelphia council member and a Chicago alderman, among other politicians, aired threats to keep Chick-fil-A stores out of their jurisdictions, playing to their constituencies being easier since they probably have no legal right to do so, and they know it."

"THEY HAVE NO LEGAL RIGHT TO DO SO, AND THEY KNOW IT."

That's not a defense of what happened, it's a statement of fact.


"Mayor Menino walked back his threat; it will not happen. It was intemperate, but heartfelt counter to Cathy's slam at America's gay and lesbian citizens."

I stand by that criticism of Menino. He and others should NEVER have even hinted at not allowing that chicken place to set up business in Boston or other cities.

"Whether or not you agree with its stance, the fast food chain has brought this controversy on itself. Chick-fil-A has had a longstanding opposition to LGBT rights, and over the years the Cathy family, its WinShape Foundation and other associates have donated millions of dollars to anti-gay groups such as Exodus International, Focus on the Family and the Family Research Council. Yes, that’s right, Exodus International, which is “Proclaiming Freedom from Homosexuality since 1976.”

"Exodus International, the county's best-known Christian ministry devoted to helping people suppress gay urges through the power of prayer, is distancing itself from the idea that a person's sexual orientation can be permanently changed or "cured."

It's a significant shift for the 36-year-old group, which has traditionally offered to help Christians rid themselves of gayness through prayer and the sort of "reparative" counseling made famous by Marcus Bachmann's Bachmann & Associates."

Cathy has the God given AND Constitutional right to hate gays and their right to marry each other.

And we have the right to boycott his Chick A Cholesterol Emporium.

Silverfiddle said...

Constitutional: You keep poking at this, and I didn't want to turn this into a discussion of gay marriage, but here goes:

Our marriage laws are grounded in antiquity and tradition. Gay marriage would have been an entirely foreign concept to our founders. That doesn't make it right or wrong--it just is.

It is debatable whether maintaining state-sanctioned marriage as one man and one woman is "Denying a right."

Indeed we all have the same rights that apply equally to all. Groups do not have rights--individuals do.

If you support state-sanctioned gay marriage, how can you not also condone polygamy?

I say this not to argue for or against--you already know my stand: Let the people decide on state-sponsored marriage, and keep the state out of the churches.

Law stems from custom and our current laws apply to all equally.

Shaw: Did you read the Findlaw link? You're bringing no new information. Of course the right of religious practice is not absolute. We can't throw virgins in volcanos, and the state came down quite forcefully against polygamy.

Constitutional Insurgent said...

SF - I'm not positing a debate on gay marriage, I'm saying that as elected officals have used their office to condemn a private business who makes a stand on religious grounds....so too have elected officials used their office to advocate for legislation that restricts the liberties and privileges [not rights, though that too is debatable].

One side of this issue is being protrayed as incorrect and unprofessional, and rightly so. The others side isn't.

Silverfiddle said...

Constitutional:

Give me a concrete example of what you're talking about, I'm thinking I'll probably agree with you.

I believe in limited government, and don't believe governments should be in the advocacy business.

Jack Camwell said...

I'm still at a loss, and honestly waiting for a valid explanation from liberals, as to why the hell Rahm Emanuel was allowed to bar that private business from expanding in Chicago based on the religious beliefs of the owner.

Apparently, America is a place where you can only do business if your political/religious views fall in line with that of your local government.

Why haven't liberals cried against such an injustice? If the roles were reversed, if a conservative mayor barred a private business from expansion in his city because the owner believed that gay marriage is okay, I guaran-fucking-tee that every blue dog moron would be standing on top of every possible soap box decrying that mayor for being corrupt.

They would be the first to try to champion the claims of the 1st Amendment.

But not here. "Freedom of thought," and words like "liberty," are just punch-lines to them. To them, they're antiquated words from a completely different era.

And before any liberals start questioning my objectivity, I want to remind everyone that I FIERCELY advocate for gay rights and the legalization of same-sex marriage. So keep your "oh you're just a right-wing Christian nut" comments to yourselves.

Jack Camwell said...

The funny/sad part about all of this is that this whole stupidity has done only one thing for me: it reminded me how much I love their waffle fries, especially when they're covered in melted cheese.

Thanks to the Dummocrats, though, apparently I'll be branded a bigot if I go and eat at a Chick Fil-A. Also, I might have to see a bunch of dudes kissing each other. Although I don't think homosexuality is wrong or a sin, dude-on-dude action still makes my stomach a bit queasy. Now, if the kiss-ins involved really good looking lesbians . . . well, we can't all be pure in heart now can we?

=)

Constitutional Insurgent said...

SF - Do you really need examples of elected officials making statements regarding how homosexuals enjoying the same rights, privileges and protections as any other American citizen will 'lead to the downfall of our nation'....'is an 'an active effort to desecrate a sacrament of the church'....and criminalizing certain sexual acts?

They're not hard to find, and I can certainly post some, but surely you've seen them as well as I have. As much as the comments by Merino and Rahm were out of line...so too are statements by those elected to serve the AMERICAN people; statements by intent and design, that disparage fellow citizens [not to mention legislation].

Which is more damaging to the ideals of a society of liberty and freedom: those few directed at Chik-Fil-A.....or those directed at an entire subset of the population?

Mark Adams said...

Rev. Charles Lyons of the Armitage Baptist Church in Chicago lambasted Rahm Emanuel and his Alterman Sunday...

"If the thought police come to Armitage Baptist Church, we will meet them at the door respectfully, unflinchingly, willing to die on this hill, holding a copy of the Sacred Scriptures in one hand and a copy of the U.S. Constitution in the other."

Bold statement!

Z said...

Mr Cathy can say anything he wants, and anybody can eat there or not eat there......they hire gay employees, they feed gay customers.

SF, let us know how it goes. I'm curious to see how many people your shop gets. We don't have any here in LA..

Sam Huntington said...

Shaw wrote: “Mayor Menino walked back his threat; it will not happen. It was intemperate, but heartfelt counter to Cathy's slam at America's gay and lesbian citizens.”

Sam wrote: “The left wants us to accept Menino’s insincere apology, but we are not mollified because we are now aware of how these “government officials” think. How they think is inimical to a free America; these people have no business being “elected officials.”

IMO, Shaw defends Menino and Emanuel when she claims that Menino only made a “heartfelt counter,” and when she indicates satisfaction with Menino’s insincere apology.

KP said...

My views line up with Jack's. I strongly favor gay rights but am disheartened by left leaning political threats. As well, the insinuation that if I go to Chik Fil A I am supporting homophobia is flat out wrong.

If I go to Chik Fil A it will be in support of Chik Fil A ownership in my community.

The local franchise owner is Brent Baillio. His business makes under $100,000 a year and their hours are 6:30am to 10:00pm. He is the kind of guy that takes a risk and then likely works 12hr days, seven days a week, to make it work. That's work ethic.

I didn't even know there was a Chik Fil A in my neighborhood but I did a search and found Brent's place this morning. I called them and spoke to some of the crew; young, polite workers. I told them I would be in today for the first time. And I will. I checked out their menu on their web site. They have charbroiled chicken fruit salad; perfect for a post workout meal.

Jack Whyte said...

Unless the American people demand a high standard from their elected officials, there won’t be any high standards. Politicians speak directly to their constituents, no matter what forum they choose. Rep. Dicky Dipschitz from Kansas may look into an ABC News camera, but he’s speaking directly to the people who elected him, and presumably, will reelect him ad nauseam. If that constituency consists of a massive amount of gay people, he’ll defend the LGBT point of view. If most of his constituents are Southern Baptists, he’ll support that point of view. So how can voters have confidence in people who demonstrate no personal convictions?

Silverfiddle said...

Constitutional:

There is a difference between a politician expressing an opinion, which they all have a right to do, and a politician vowing to break the law and deny a business owner the same shot as everyone else because the business owner doesn't mouth proper orthodoxy.

As I previously stated, our concept of marriage is the status quo and rooted in antiquity and custom, as is all western law handed us from England. That doesn't make it right or wrong, but saying it is a denial of rights is debatable, as is whether the law should be changed.

That's the difference. Now, show me where a mayor has told a gay-owned business it can't come into his city, and I'll agree with you.

Always On Watch said...

It's so much trouble and physical strain to take Mr. AOW there for a meal.

However, I see that, right now, Chick-Fil-A has a peach milkshake, a summer offering that will soon expire.

IF I can get anywhere near the place (I know so many people who will be going to Chick-Fil-A today!), I'm going to haul out to Chick-Fil-A this afternoon and pick up one of those milkshakes for Mr. AOW. I may also purchase a sandwich for him. Unfortunately, I myself cannot eat any of their offerings (I checked the nutrition chart online -- sodium count).

Jersey McJones said...

Did any of these cities actually ban or otherwise punish Chick-fil-A?

JMJ

Shaw Kenawe said...

Constitutional Insurgent gets it right, IMO.

Ducky's here said...

@Sam Huntington - When this happened, the left supported the imam based on the constitutionally protected right of religious freedom.

----------
Again, I ask you to point to any serious support on the left for Menino's or Emmanuel's position.
Any indication of damages to Chic-fi-a?

Crap or get off the pot.

Shaw Kenawe said...

"Again, I ask you to point to any serious support on the left for Menino's or Emmanuel's position.
Any indication of damages to Chic-fi-a?"

"Again, I ask you to point to any serious support on the left for Menino's or Emmanuel's position.
Any indication of damages to Chic-fi-a?"

Good gizzards! Don't ask such questions. These folks seem to want to feel victimized even though nothing happened.

Everyone just go out and eat at Chik-A-fila, whatever it is--and enjoy your sodium rich meal!

KP said...

@Shaw, "Constitutional Insurgent gets it right, IMO"

He does have it right, but it's a little like the exchanges I have read about who has embarrassed or snubbed Great Britain more, Romney or Obama.

Perhaps these positions issues should be addressed one at a time because there are both legitimate.

On my way to my local Chik Fil A for a healthy chicken fruit plate!

Silverfiddle said...

Shaw and Ducky:

You are looking cross-eyed at this through your lefty lenses.

I am not accusing the left of anything, but perhaps my use of "progressive" gave a false impression.

Anyone who advocates using an interventionist government to push an agenda is a progressive, in my own opinion.

I am not attacking the left nor alleging that they were cheering o these petty potentates.

I am attacking statism and the improper wielding of the power of the state. Yes, Republicans can and do it to, but in this instance it was democrats.

And Ducky, no, Chick-Fil-A was not materially harmed by these idiots, but their words are so un-American, they should be condemned by all, and I do give props to you and Shaw for saying they were wrong.

And Shaw, again, stop looking at us through your lefty lenses.

No conservative has claimed victim status over this; that is a tactic of the left, not the right.

When dictator wanna-be's start talking like this, liberty lovers of all stripes should be ringing alarm bells and calling them on it. That is what we're doing.

Shaw Kenawe said...

"And Shaw, again, stop looking at us through your lefty lenses."

I will.

I promise.

As soon as you stop looking at me through your rightie lenses.

Ducky's here said...

And Shaw, again, stop looking at us through your lefty lenses.

----
Irony you can cut with a knife.

Steve said...

"Law stems from custom"

Custom and culture has changed-troglodytes like you are trying to stop that change and bring us back to the 18th century.

"It is debatable whether maintaining state-sanctioned marriage as one man and one woman is "Denying a right.""

The State has no business being involved in marriage, it's a religious ceremony. Why are you pushing your religion on everyone else?

"Groups do not have rights--individuals do."

Ever heard of "Citizens United?" The Supreme Court has ruled groups do have rights. There are other groups that have rights, but I'll let you figure that out.

"I believe in limited government"

Then why insist that marriage be defined by the State? In ANY way.

How was lunch? Did you yell hate at the protesting gays?

Sam Huntington said...

Again, I ask you to point to any serious support on the left for Menino's or Emmanuel's position. Any indication of damages to Chic-fi-a? Crap or get off the pot.

Gad, Ducky … there is no reason for you to keep reminding us of how dense you are.

Constitutional Insurgent said...

SF - "That doesn't make it right or wrong, but saying it is a denial of rights is debatable, as is whether the law should be changed."

You keep inserting "rights" where I had been writing "privileges and liberties". Marriage itself is not an enumerated right.

You know I'm fully on board with the TWO cases of elected officials making statements from their office that everyone knows would be illegal if they ever attempted to enact them.

But I can't get terribly tweaked over that when we have many more elected officials speaking [and legislating] from their offices of liberty and freedom in the same breath where they seek to deny the same to others.

Silverfiddle said...

Shaw imputed the motive of victimhood to us, which is untrue. I am supposing it was born of an innate victimhood culture of the left, hence my lefty lenses comment.

Now on to Steve:

"The State has no business being involved in marriage, it's a religious ceremony. Why are you pushing your religion on everyone else?"

The state has no business? Then tell that to all those court houses that are demanding blood tests and other documentation before allowing you to get married.

A religious ceremony? Tell that to all those people who get married by a civic official because they don't want a religious ceremony.

And you need to go read the Citizens United ruling and tell us where in that ruling rights were granted to groups.

See this also

Like shooting fish in a barrel...

Silverfiddle said...

Constitutional: OK. What privilege is being denied gays that is not denied heteros?

Steve said...

I won't tell them that, the State has no business being involved in such a personal decision, and I'm surprised you would think that given your small government, stay out of personal lives philosophy.
So again your hypocrisy shows. Government stay out, except if it's something YOU think ALL others should adhere to because of YOUR religious beliefs.
The State demanding your blood just because you want to get married?
Your cries for less State involvement in citizens lives, is a hypocritical stand.
Customs and traditions have changed. Try and keep up.
I forgot you troglodytes think a corporation is an individual. Such thoughts lack even basic rational thinking.

Constitutional Insurgent said...

Come on SF...you can do better than that.

Aside from the litany of historical liberties denied and legal restrictions on what one could do within the bounds of intimacy [these acts being committed by homo-s and hetero-s alike]...you know fully that I'm speaking of the inability [in most places] to enter into a committed and legal contractual arrangement, based on biological attraction and emotion.

This restriction of course, being based not on any effect on anyone else's liberties...but being based on a belief in an unprovable deity - replete with the tautology of 'the gays' heralding the downfall of our society...shaking our fist at said unprovable deity...and somehow causing grievous harm to innocent straight marriage everywhere.

Do you really want to keep the government invested with the power to dictate such restrictions on individual citizens?

Now, compare the above to the TWO examples we have of threats abuse of political power. Menino and Rahm's utter lapse of professionalism and ethics does not absolve the other side of the larger issue.

Two politicians thoroughly stepped on their cranks; any boycott against Chik-Fil-A will blow over just as other boycotts from the left and the right have.

Ducky's here said...

@Sam Huntington -- Gad, Ducky … there is no reason for you to keep reminding us of how dense you are.

---------

Again, I ask you to point to any serious support on the left for Menino's or Emmanuel's position. Any indication of damages to Chic-fil-a?

Your answer was unsatisfactory.

Silverfiddle said...

Steve:

You need to go google my previous posts on gay marriage. I am for the state getting out of it completely.

I was merely proving your stupid statement wrong, which it was.

Constitutional: You know where I stand on this. You know I am not defending sodomy laws or any of that.

We are all treated equally under the law. One man may marry one woman, and one woman may marry one man.

As you and I have discussed previously, I wish the state would get out of it completely.

Steve said...

That is not equality.
That you think so (an old Republiscum talking point no longer used) just shows your hate towards anyone different than you.
Again, how can you agree that the government should take your blood and charge you a fee, to participate in a religious ceremony?
Don't give me there are civil ceremonies, there should not be!
If you haven't noticed America, it's people, it's culture, it's traditions have changed in 230 years, even in 50 years.
Laws should reflect the people and their culture, which is different NOW.

KP said...

I just came from one of the four Chik Fil A's in San Diego. It was 2:00pm (hardly luch hour) and there are over 150 people waiting in line to purchase food and they wrap around the building and into the parking lot. As well, there are over 50 cars in line for drive thru, some with multiple people, and that line goes out the parking lot onto a very large four lane blvd. It was quiet and well behaved.

This doesn't count the people like myself who came to support Chik Fil A (the local business entity) or oppose comments by those similar to Menino and Rham but could not stay for over an hour.

Likie many issues, when those in leadership positions get unreasonable (see Menino and Rham), reasonable people react in direct and decisive ways, often in large numbers. I am guessing the people in line are are motivated and likely to vote.

It is interesting how elections and momentum can pivot so quickly from "you didn't build that" to Romney's act with the Brits, to a perceived assault on small business owners of franchised restaurants. You don't have to be Repub or Dem, left or right, to disagree with comments from Rham and Menino.

BTW, it is the same at all four stores in San Diego according to radio interviews.

Constitutional Insurgent said...

SF - And I still respect your opinion and your position.

"We are all treated equally under the law."

Sure, unless you happen to be born gay, then sucks to be you.

I didn't mean to belabor the point, but I'm always searching for logic on this issue that goes anywhere beyond a) Because the Bible says so, and b) Because we've always done it this way.

Jersey McJones said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Silverfiddle said...

OK Steve, now you're just shouting and not listening. Go back and read my comments. I am for the state getting out of it. The constitution doesn't even mention marriage.

Constitutional: OK, I understand your argument. It's an Equal protections/14th Amendment one?

If so, I see your point.

My point is that free speech is a natural right,not conferred by the state. You can't vote it away and the state can regulate in only in the narrowest of circumstances.

Marriage is not a fundamental right but rather, to use your words, a privilege or liberty granted by the state, and as such is subject to the whims of the state and the voters.

For this reason, the two issues (a city refusing to allow a business because of the owner's views, and lawmakers voting against gay marriage) are fundamentally different.

Legal Marriage (as opposed to the ecclesiastical variety), being a contractual invention of the state, is subject to votes of legislatures and the people.

So, for this reason, I understand people who argue for gay marriage based upon the 14th Amendment, although it is far from decided whether denial of gay marriage is indeed a violation of the Equal Protection clause.

I guess it will get to the supreme court soon enough.

Steve: Look at how Constitutional Insurgent debate and learn something about intelligence and civility.

We disagree, but I respect his opinion because it is well-reasoned and stated cogently.

Jersey McJones said...

Well, Ducky, I guess NO ONE HERE can answer those two questions... Has anyone actually accomplished anything beyond besmirching Chick-fil-A? Is there any significant movement from the Left against Chick-fil-A?

NO and NO.

And everyone here knows it... whining like spoiled toddlers about nothing.

They have to know, unless they are stupid, the Left will not tolerate that sort of government action against the owners of a private company spending money on what they choose, as long as it's legal.

If the money is spent in ways that are annoying and backwards, as are Mr. Cathy's bucks, then whatever.

Point it out in the press. If people want to continue to eat there, then whatever.

If a politician wants to chime in, then fine.

The public forum is the public forum. It is what it is, in practice and law.

Mr. Cathy chose to engage in the public forum. So, he shouldn't be surprised if representatives of the public speak against him.

Anything beyond that? No. The vast majority of liberals and conservatives agree on this.

And Silver, if you're reading, it is VERY sleazy to assert otherwise.

We DO agree.

JMJ

Ducky's here said...

No and No and Jersey wins the large kewpie doll !!

KP said...

As JMJ says, Chik Fil A will not be harmed. In fact, a knee jerk reaction by a couple of silly politicians in a direct effort to harm them was rebuked by almost everyone on nthe left and right. In fact, those misguided comments will likely result in the largest cash receipts for Chik Fil A franchises all across the country.

Ducky's here said...

That's the irony, KP.

As a result of Menino's grandstanding, if CFA wants to go through with opening an outlet at Faneuil Market, the skids are greased.

There was absolutely no support for his position.

Jack Camwell said...

So we're just ignoring what Rahm Emanuel did? Is that what's going on here?

Steve said...

KP said,

"This doesn't count the people like myself who came to support Chik"

What are you supporting? His right to say being gay is a sin, same sex marriage should be illegal, his chicken is great? What is it you want?

No State official has denied him anything. If politicians want to disagree with what he said, that's fine.

By your reports this controversy has boosted his business. Maybe he said it on purpose to get publicity and boost his business. Times are bad and people do all sorts of scurrilous things (cons) to get money.

Sound outrageous? Americans have been known to do worse things for money.

Ducky's here said...

Chick-Fil-A To Sponsor Gay Pride Fest In Nashua, New Hampshire

----
Well, that's New England for you.

Steve said...

Take your civility crap and shove. I tried that with you, you are the uncivil one.

viburnum said...

SF: "I am for the state getting out of it. The constitution doesn't even mention marriage."

I'm with you and Finn. Lets call any sort of contractual cohabitation a 'civil union', and enforce the contracts like any other. Let the various denominations sort out who they're going to 'marry', and let those of us who don't give a hirsute rodent's posterior who is sleeping with who have some peace and quiet.

KP said...

@Steve – it looks like you accidentally edited what I said.

You quoted only: "This doesn't count the people like myself who came to support Chik…."

What I really said was: “This doesn't count the people like myself who came to support Chik Fil A (the local business entity) or oppose comments by those similar to Menino and Rham but could not stay for over an hour.”

@Steve said << What are you supporting? His right to say being gay is a sin, same sex marriage should be illegal, his chicken is great? What is it you want? >>

Steve, I think highlights from earlier my posts (highlights below) explain my position. I was commenting on what Cathy said ===>

8/1/12 9:42 AM

"I strongly favor gay rights but am disheartened by left leaning political threats. As well, the insinuation that if I go to Chik Fil A I am supporting homophobia is flat out wrong."

"If I go to Chik Fil A it will be in support of Chik Fil A ownership in my community."

8/1/12 3:27 PM

"This doesn't count the people like myself who came to support Chik Fil A (the local business entity) or oppose comments by those similar to Menino and Rham but could not stay for over an hour."

"Like many issues, when those in leadership positions get unreasonable (see Menino and Rham), reasonable people react in direct and decisive ways, often in large numbers. I am guessing the people in line are are motivated and likely to vote."

<><><><>

It sounds like we are talking about two different issues. I am not sticking up for what Cathy said. I am supporting local franchise owners across the country and opposing Rham and Menino’s comments and those of others who would agree with banning Chik Fil A in certain cities.

Please seek to maintain the context of my posts and messages and I will give you the same respect. And thanks for not cursing me :-)

Ducky's here said...

Lets call any sort of contractual cohabitation a 'civil union'

-----
Why do you get to choose?

In another situation you might be talking about the tyranny of the majority.

KP said...

@ Ducky -- Chick-Fil-A To Sponsor Gay Pride Fest In Nashua, New Hampshire
----
Well, that's New England for you.

<><><><>

Ducky, that is the hardest I have laughed in a couple days. At first I thought it was your comedic talent, but on further review I see it was your due diligence!

Steve said...

I only curse at people who curse at me first. A fair response I believe.

KP said...

@Steve -- that should read I was NOT commenting on what Cathy said ===>

Silverfiddle said...

@ Jersey's ignorant Comment:

Well, Ducky, I guess NO ONE HERE can answer those two questions... Has anyone actually accomplished anything beyond besmirching Chick-fil-A? Is there any significant movement from the Left against Chick-fil-A?

And Ducky's ignorant agreement:


I said this in an earlier comment in this thread:

I am not accusing the left of anything, but perhaps my use of "progressive" gave a false impression.

Anyone who advocates using an interventionist government to push an agenda is a progressive, in my own opinion.

I am not attacking the left nor alleging that they were cheering o these petty potentates.

I am attacking statism and the improper wielding of the power of the state. Yes, Republicans can and do it to, but in this instance it was democrats.

And Ducky, no, Chick-Fil-A was not materially harmed by these idiots, but their words are so un-American, they should be condemned by all, and I do give props to you and Shaw for saying they were wrong.


So return the kewpie doll and exchange it for a pair of eyeglasses for each of you.

I don't get upset with you guys for disagreeing with me (I enjoy the disagreement), it's the arguing in bad faith and the material misstatement. It wrecks your credibility.

Silverfiddle said...

Jersey:
@ Jersey and another ignorant comment:

The vast majority of liberals and conservatives agree on this.

And Silver, if you're reading, it is VERY sleazy to assert otherwise.


Did you read that last paragraph of my earlier comment?

And Ducky, no, Chick-Fil-A was not materially harmed by these idiots, but their words are so un-American, they should be condemned by all, and I do give props to you and Shaw for saying they were wrong.

Now who's sleazy?

KP said...

@Steve - I assume my earlier comments answered your Qs?

viburnum said...

Ducky: "Why do you get to choose?"

Call it whatever. My point was to remove a point of contention by getting government out of it. Which I seem to recall is the purpose of the First Amendment.

Silverfiddle said...

No Ducky, calling all state-sanctioned unions a contract and leaving marriage to a church of one's choice is hardly tyranny of the majority. I maintain that it is a way to respect the rights of all, and allow the greatest exercise of liberty for all.

Z said...

"Is there any significant movement from the Left against Chick-fil-A?"

I'm fairly sure that the KISS INS will be tough days for most Americans to visit Chick-...
I wouldn't drive nearby with my kids if the promised kissing of gays happens in front of it all day long.
And I think most people feel that way.
"Equality Illinois states that at the “kiss-in,” “LGBT supporters will show their disdain for Chick-Fil-A’s policies with public displays of affection in front of their restaurants.”

And guess what if I or others wouldn't eat there on those days? It doesn't mean anybody HATE GAYS.
And, actually? Mr. Cathy doesn't either. Fancy that. Hires them and serves them.
One of us bloggers had a commenter the other day who said his openly gay nephew has worked at a Chick...for a few years...was never made to feel 'less than'...likes it very much.

Ducky's here said...

No Ducky, calling all state-sanctioned unions a contract and leaving marriage to a church of one's choice is hardly tyranny of the majority. I maintain that it is a way to respect the rights of all, and allow the greatest exercise of liberty for all.
-------------------
I see, if you aren't married in a church then you aren't "married"(gay or straight) and certainly no one would take notice.

Do you get separate water fountains also? Separate but equal?

Silverfiddle said...

We just got back from Chick-Fil-A. Garden of the Gods was backed up in both directions. Took us about 45 minutes to get through the drive through, but they really had their stuff together, managing the traffic well in the parking lot. They had 20 people inside working that I could count and five more outside directing traffic and taking orders.

The place was packed with drive-throughs and walk-in line out the door and around the building, but they did a excellent job. It was a very efficient operation.

Congratulation Chick-Fil-A at Garden of the Gods!

Silverfiddle said...

Dim Bulb Ducky:

calling the state union a contract for everybody and the church union a marriage is not separate but equal, but simply equal.

Finntann said...

@Jersey: Did any of these cities actually ban or otherwise punish Chick-fil-A?

So you'd be okay with an elected official saying he wouldn't let any of those 'black' business open in town... so long as he didn't actually do anything.

We know the truth, your head would explode.

@"The public forum is the public forum. It is what it is, in practice and law."

That is not necessarily true. The government itself, the public, and the courts have repeatedly held public officials to higher standards than the general public.

As a private citizen, I can threaten to derail your business permit at the council meeting because I disagree with your political beliefs.

A public official I cannot. Most if not all states have laws on the books governing this very thing. It's called abuse of power, abuse of official capacity, official oppression, etc.

Here is an example frome the Pennsylvania statutes

§ 5301. Official oppression.

A person acting or purporting to act in an official capacity or taking advantage of such actual or purported capacity commits a misdemeanor of the second degree if, knowing that his conduct is illegal, he:

(1) subjects another to arrest, detention, search, seizure, mistreatment, dispossession, assessment, lien or other infringement of personal or property rights; or

(2) denies or impedes another in the exercise or enjoyment of any right, privilege, power or immunity.

The argument then devolves to whether or not a public official can threaten citizens with illegal action. I use the PA statute since it is directly relevant to Councilman James Kenney.

The question is this: Do Kenney's public comments in his official capacity as well as his threatened condemnation of constitutionally protected speech "Mistreatment" or "Infringement" under the PA statute.

Cheers!

Sam Huntington said...

@SF
It was the same story where I live. I took my family to two restaurants, and both had cars lining up to get in, and people standing in line to get inside. We finally ended up at the local mall food court; same issue there, but easier to access the store. It was actually humorous because while patrons were standing in line to purchase food from Chick-Fil-A, not a single person patronized any of the other food outlets. None. Zip. Nada.

Don Cathy should send a thank you note to the LA Times and Mike Huckabee. He might even consider doing an interview once a year.

Silverfiddle said...

Chick-Fil-A should especially thank the petty potentates and tin horn dictators who rule over the supine fiefdoms of San Fran Sicko, Bean Town, and The Murder Capital of the World Chicago.

Finntann said...

You all are arguing semantics.

Your arguing about whether it is plastic wrap or saran wrap.

Marriage is technically and historically a religious ceremony that the state recognizes. That it is a ceremony recognized by the state is simply a convenience.

Keeping in mind that the minor technicalities vary from state to state...

All marriages in the United States are technically civil unions. The government delegates the power to marry. Who they delegate that power to varies state by state. From ordained ministers, to licensed ministers, to notary publics, to Justices of the Peace, to your friends, or to yourself.

Outside of the religious context, all the officiator does is act on behalf of the state.

Take Mass for example. Out of state clergy need to obtain a certificate of authorization from the Massachusetts Secretary of the Commonwealth before performing the ceremony. Or, for 25$ your mom can get permission to perform the ceremony.

The state, if it so desired, could delegate authority to marry to gardeners if it wanted to. It is a delegated power, illustrated by the fact that even in churches that approve of divorce, you can't go to church to get one.

Really when it comes down to it, what we are arguing about come down to three things about marriage:

1. Reciprocity

2. Employment benefits (i.e. insurance)

3. Tax benefits

Baptism, Confirmation, Eucharist, Pennance, Last Rites... none of these religious cermonies offer any state sanctioned benefits, why should marriage?

Civil Unions for All...

If you want the sacrament, go find a church, leave the state out of it.

Cheers!

FreeThinke said...

What the left supports is not FREEDOM of WORSHIP

But unlimited FREEDOM for WORSE SHIT.

Verily I say unto you, the left stinketh out loud.

~ FreeThinke

FreeThinke said...

LGBT = Let's Go Berserk Together

~ FT

Finntann said...

@The latter is a corollary of the former. You cannot have freedom of religion unless you have freedom from religion, unless religions don't conflict which is evidently not the case.

Not true Jez, I just had a BLT for dinner which is prohibited by the Torah... didn't affect me one bit. Yet my act of eating bacon in no way interfered with Jews who wish to adhere to their faith.

Problems only arise when the state gets involved.

Cheers!

Z said...

Fintann.."So you'd be okay with an elected official saying he wouldn't let any of those 'black' business open in town... so long as he didn't actually do anything."

How do you DO that? MY GOSH.
perfect.

FreeThinke said...

Love and marriage
Love and marriage
Go together like a horse and carriage

Dad was told by mother
You can't have one without the other

Love and marriage
Love and marriage
For the fairies we should all disparage

"Tis abomination
And so, by Gosh is masturbation!

Try, try, try to separate them
It's an illusion

Even when the Church berates them
There's no confusion

Love and marriage
Love and marriage
Even for those who test below average

Should be celebrated
But need not be consecrated

Love and marriage
Love and marriage
Is an institute you can't disparage

Even for the gay folks
To whom their lives are never bad jokes.


~ FreeThinke

Z said...

SF, you know..it's amazing that your Chick-Fil-A was so crowded today in support of free speech and, probably, traditional marriage.

I sometimes think this push-back to American constitutional rights and Christian faith by the leftist secularists is going to cause quite a big reaction...thankfully, except for the nuts who only call themselves Christians, people of true faith are calm and dignified and we won't have what we had, for example, with an OWS or SEIU protest.

Ducky's here said...

@FT - LGBT = Let's Go Berserk Together

-------

This from someone with Walt Whitman as an avatar.

Ducky's here said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ducky's here said...

"A Mississippi congressional candidate said that mayors who oppose Chick-fil-A because of CEO Dan Cathy's views on same-sex marriage "need to be introduced to the Second Amendment."

In a letter to the Biloxi Sun Herald, Ron Williams, a Libertarian candidate running in Mississippi's 4th congressional district, wrote that mayors like Chicago's Rahm Emanuel and Boston's Tom Menino should be removed from office "by whatever means is necessary.""

-----
Nothing like a Libertarian.
Oh wait, this jujyfruit doesn't represent all Libertarians?

Silverfiddle said...

Sure Ducky! Just like (Pick the nuttiest leftist you can think of) represents you and all leftists.

Still playing team sports, I see...

No wonder you have problems keeping up with the adults.

Liberalmann said...

As usual wingnuts skew an issue where someone slams the rights of citizens and a few with narrow and hateful viewpoints point their fingers back at the accusers as being intolerant.

Grung_e_Gene said...

When was the last time you mistook a quick fried chicken breast for a leaf of kale?

Chick-Fil-A is a thief and a Corporat eBully.

Chick-fil-A has threatened Vermont artist Bo Muller-Moore to get him to stop using the phrase "Eat More Kale" because according to their bevy of Corporate criminal lawyers it violates their phrase "Eat Mor Chikin".

Even though the Chick-Fil-A marketing geniuses ripped-off the "Eat More" idea from a Band called the VW Boys and their 1950's era slogan "Eat More Possum".

But, hey all one needs do is say the gay is a sin and the righteous come to their defense. Brilliant Marketing Strategy.

Silverfiddle said...

More ideology team sports from the red team... *yawn*

Some people deserve to live under dictatorships...

Steve said...

KP said,

"As well, the insinuation that if I go to Chik Fil A I am supporting homophobia is flat out wrong."

It is not wrong when the company, rightfully, makes large donations to politicians and groups whose stated positions support anti-gay legislation, and they do. All this publicity has revealed Chicks corporate donations. It is your right to support such companies, but don't fool yourself, give them your money and they give a percentage of that to anti-gay causes.

Silverfiddle said...

What anti-gay legislation did these organizations sponsor?

But more importantly, since you brought it up, KP giving his $5 bucks to CFA pales in comparison to Boston mayor deeding over property worth hundreds of thousands to an islamic group who has a board member who can't decide whether to push gay people off of tall structures or to burn them to death.

It also pales in comparison to Chicago mayor Emmanuel embracing the reptilian Jew-hater and gay-hater Louie Farrakkkan.

Thanks for helping us to put it all in perspective!

Liberalmann said...

I'm so sick of the loony right complaining about political correctness when they can support fools who condemn other Americans becasue of their lifestyle with their narrow, hateful points of view.

CFA requires all franchisees to attend prayer meetings and has fired a woman seeking advancement in the company becasue they felt she should be home with her kids. By the standards they require to own a franchise (thousands apply each year and they give less then 100) Rush Limbaugh would be denied.

You all complain about Sharia Law and Islamic Fundamentalism. Well, this Christian Fundamentalism is just as scary.

KP said...

@Steve, I made it very clear that I went to Chik Fil A because:

1) I was protesting Rahm's and similar comments of elected officials

2) the local franchise owner , his family and all the employees don't deserve financial repercussions any more than gays deserve reprecussions of any sort from anyone.

I believe my stance is consistent and fair and does allows me to support both local small business and gay rights.

Liberalmann said...

Shep Smith Blasts Chick Fil A:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/02/shep-smith-chick-fil-a-intolerance_n_1732378.html

Silverfiddle said...

Oh No!

.....................




............. Who's "Shep Smith?"

KP said...

@SF Who's Shemp?!?!

Why I oughtta ...

Shemp (chewing hard on something he thinks is a marshmallow) to Moe "Hey Moe, do marshmallows got pits?"

Moe, "No. They're empty, like your head."

Silverfiddle said...

Nyuk Nyuk Nyuk!

Excellent reference!

I have the complete Three Stooges collection, or at least the first five volumes. I love Shemp and think he takes way too much crap simply because he's not Curly, but Curly Joe is a bridge too far!

My older kids aren't big fans, but my youngest daughter and I laugh the hours away watching those DVDs!

KP said...

They are crazy. I have three brothers; one older by three years and one younger by three years. We did all that stuff to each other, survived and still love one another!

KP said...

I meant I have two brothers, so there were three of us stooges.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g5j8Jioan1w

Finntann said...

@I'm so sick of the loony right complaining about political correctness when they can support fools who condemn other Americans becasue of their lifestyle with their narrow, hateful points of view.

So Stevie... why does the ACLU support the KKK?

KP, it's hopeless, they just can't understand the concept of "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".

Why? Because they themselves are incapable of it. If you disagree with them, all you get is their "narrow, hateful point of view".

Cheers!

Finntann said...

Have you seen the new 'stooges' movie by the Farelly brothers?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z4IoUo_ZJkY

http://www.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi4270759961/

KP said...

@Finntann I saw a movie by the Farelly bros starring Kate Upton and Sofia Vergara. Were the Three Stooges in that one?

Finntann said...

So what are you saying? Sister Bernice was a little distracting?

I thought the movie started well and ended badly, the Jersey Shore part was over the top and the slapstick seemed a bit forced at times. Despite breaking the movie into three "shorts", it felt a little long.

I thought Sean Hayes played Larry well and Will Sasso did a fair cover of Curly, I was somewhat disappointed with Moe.

So is vaudevillian slapstick dead and best left buried?

Z said...

Shep Smith,liberal FOX news show host....and gay.
GEE, I'm SO SURPRISED he blasts Chick-Fil-A!
Thanks libboy....good digging :-)

KP said...

@Finntann Excellent review. I concur on all points.

Leticia said...

It was the Left that through this whole thing out of proportion.

It was supporting FREE SPEECH and CFA's first amendment right.

And enjoying good food in the process.

FreeThinke said...

These Chick-fil-A threads are enough to take away the appetite of decent, kindhearted, fair-minded individuals on both sides of the aisle.

EVERYBODY involved is WRONG. PERIOD!

The entire brouhaha has been a childish, ill-tempered WASTE of TIME and ENERGY.

Have you seen a picture of Mr. Cathy? He and Richard Viguery must be identical twins who were separated at birth. The resemblance is uncanny.

Like him or not Mr. Cathy is perfectly within his rights to express his opinion without fear of censure or censorshit. If he is so opaque and insensitive as not realize -- or care -- that his opinions may be considered hurtful and therefore inflammatory, it's STILL his right to express them. Personally, if I had been in his shoes, I would have kept my thoughts to myself. It's MY opinion that it's never a good idea to stick your fork in an electrical socket.

Imbeciles like Menino, besides being mentally deficient and morally challenged, are out of order and out of bounds. Civic "leaders" have NO right to throw their weight around in an attempt to exercise RESTRAINT of TRADE on the basis of their personal feelings and moral preferences.

Let's Go Berserk Together has been equally stupid in doing the usual leftist thing of staging a massive over-reaction to something that is not, never has been and should not be considered an "offense" in an attempt to USE a PHONY, MANUFACTURED CRISIS to gain even more political leverage.

Really smart people (a very tiny minority, I fear) have chosen to ignore this Media Monster and dismiss it for what it is -- an EMBARRASSINGLY STUPID WASTE of TIME.

~ FreeThinke

Silverfiddle said...

FT: They why are you wasting your time on it?

FreeThinke said...

Why am I here, Kurt?

Because someone with a more balanced sense of perspective than I've been seeing needs to talk some sense into the displays of entrenched prejudice and pointless, outrageous hostility this things has brought out on both sides.

Everything I've said here in two Chick threads and at other blogs is temperate, constructive and makes perfect sense, but people prefer to remain angry and intransigent.

What those on opposite sides on of these quarrels NEVER see is the ugliness and stupidity they perceive in their opponents is a MIRROR IMAGE of their OWN thoughtlessness, lack of consideration, inability to empathize, and ill temper.

My long experience on blogs and websites has very sadly proved that human beings are DIABOLISTS -- they PREFER to be FURIOUS and on the WARPATH. They are just NOT really interested in much else.

It's disheartening.

~ FT