Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Fast Food chain under fire from same sex couples

135678

Comments

  • #62
    jaydoxx
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 334 ✭✭jaydoxx


    Corkfeen wrote: »
    I'm gonna have to agree due to the fact that they're not dictators, they must get elected to office and they can't keep their position as long as they want. If they say the company is not welcome that is based on public opinion, otherwise they won't get re-elected to office. T'is as simple as that..

    Technically, hitler was an elected official.

    Technically:pac::pac:


  • #63
    Attabear
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 326 ✭✭Attabear


    jaydoxx wrote: »
    Sorry I should have said they spoke for everyone where they didn't have the right to do so. Unless of course the entire City of Boston is discriminating against Christians and their business' right to freedom of beliefs and values.:p

    When politicians claim to be speaking for the people, they don't literally mean every single person. That's not how democracy works.

    I think.:)

    And fair enough, you have every right to disagree with their pronouncements on this matter.

    I'm just upset I was called a fascist.:)


  • #64
    Corkfeen
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,940 ✭✭✭Corkfeen


    jaydoxx wrote: »
    Technically, hitler was an elected official.

    Technically:pac::pac:

    When exactly did Hitler go for reelection? He was elected as chancellor, not dictator. The odds of dictatorships starting in individual states are zero.... Country wide dictatorship is also extremely unlikely given the fact that individual states differ far too much to have a successful dictatorship.


  • #65
    Attabear
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 326 ✭✭Attabear


    Corkfeen wrote: »
    When exactly did Hitler go for reelection? He was elected as chancellor, not dictator. The odds of dictatorships starting in individual states are zero....

    Are we still talking about chicken?

    If you read the first post and last post of this thread, you'd be stunned.

    I love Boards!


  • #66
    hooradiation
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,922 ✭✭✭hooradiation


    jaydoxx wrote: »
    Sorry I should have said they spoke for everyone where they didn't have the right to do so. Unless of course the entire City of Boston is discriminating against Christians and their business' right to freedom of beliefs and values.:p

    Given the volume of money that has been funnelled into anti-gay lobby groups by Chick-fil-A (and not Dan Cathy himself) claiming that "oh, it's just his opinion" is disingenuous at best .

    Basically as long as the company wants to fund groups who lobby against basic civil rights, then fuck those guys.
    It's not just "opinion" it's lobbying.


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    Kev_2012
    Closed Accounts Posts: 976 ✭✭✭Kev_2012


    What a load of bull****. Why can't he have an opinion? This is what really grinds my gears. Any opinion against gay marriage is "wrong". Opinions aren't fucking wrong, get over ye'reselves. Fuck sake.


  • #68
    Attabear
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 326 ✭✭Attabear


    Kev_2012 wrote: »
    What a load of bull****. Why can't he have an opinion? This is what really grinds my gears. Any opinion against gay marriage is "wrong". Opinions aren't fucking wrong, get over ye'reselves. Fuck sake.

    Opinions can be wrong.

    If I said, in my opinion, the moon landings were a hoax. I would be wrong.


  • #69
    jaydoxx
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 334 ✭✭jaydoxx


    Corkfeen wrote: »
    When exactly did Hitler go for reelection? He was elected as chancellor, not dictator. The odds of dictatorships starting in individual states are zero.... Country wide dictatorship is also extremely unlikely given the fact that individual states differ far too much to have a successful dictatorship.

    ah right thought chancellor was the highest position back then:P
    But out of curiosity why would it be less likely for a single state to start a dictatorship?:)


  • #70
    Attabear
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 326 ✭✭Attabear


    Kev_2012 wrote: »
    What a load of bull****. Why can't he have an opinion? This is what really grinds my gears. Any opinion against gay marriage is "wrong". Opinions aren't fucking wrong, get over ye'reselves. Fuck sake.

    NEVER!!!!


  • #71
    hooradiation
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,922 ✭✭✭hooradiation


    Kev_2012 wrote: »
    What a load of bull****. Why can't he have an opinion? This is what really grinds my gears. Any opinion against gay marriage is "wrong". Opinions aren't fucking wrong, get over ye'reselves. Fuck sake.

    Opinions are not sacred, nor does holding one protect you from being disagreed with and ridiculed.

    This has been another episode of "Basic things you should have learned in primary school, but apparently didn't"


  • Advertisement
  • #72
    Kev_2012
    Closed Accounts Posts: 976 ✭✭✭Kev_2012


    Attabear wrote: »
    Opinions can be wrong.

    If I said, in my opinion, the moon landings were a hoax. I would be wrong.

    No, opinions aren't right or wrong in fact. Look it up.

    Who is it up to say whether something is morally right or wrong? Nobody's, that's where opinions come into the equation.

    Vegetarians think it's wrong to eat meat for example, they aren't right or wrong, but that's their opinion.

    I'm not going to go along and stage a protest against vegetarians because I don't agree with what they think am I?

    This is just a prime example of political correctness gone insane, and people are becoming afraid to speak their own mind because of it. The world is turning into a bunch of fake people who only say and think what the world wants them to think. Sounds like a sh!t world to me!


  • #73
    ratracer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,596 ✭✭✭ratracer


    Attabear wrote: »
    Opinions can be wrong.

    If I said, in my opinion, the moon landings were a hoax. I would be wrong.

    No you wouldn't be wrong, moon landings were a work of fiction.....


  • #74
    Attabear
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 326 ✭✭Attabear


    Kev_2012 wrote: »
    No, opinions aren't right or wrong in fact. Look it up.

    In my opinion, you're wrong.


  • #75
    jaydoxx
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 334 ✭✭jaydoxx


    hooradiation wrote: »
    Given the volume of money that has been funnelled into anti-gay lobby groups by Chick-fil-A (and not Dan Cathy himself) claiming that "oh, it's just his opinion" is disingenuous at best .

    Basically as long as the company wants to fund groups who lobby against basic civil rights, then fuck those guys.
    It's not just "opinion" it's lobbying.

    Look i'm not supporting their opinions but they are entitled to have their concerns heard as a special interest group. And as long as the current model of government protects the practice of lobbying, they should continue to do so.

    It's a pile of bull****, but its reality.


  • #76
    Corkfeen
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,940 ✭✭✭Corkfeen


    jaydoxx wrote: »
    ah right thought chancellor was the highest position back then:P
    But out of curiosity why would it be less likely for a single state to start a dictatorship?:)

    I'm not sure if you're bull****ting at this point. Hitler was appointed by Hindenburg, Hinderburg as president at the time was technically more powerful but Hitler's eventual move to power was as a result of Hindenburg's ill health and economic woes. Either way parties had input before the dictatorship and the word of either the president or chancellor was not absolute.

    Every other state in America would be opposed to it and most people in states recognise themselves as American, not Californian or whatever state they come from. So the mayors and governors would simply be removed from office if they were idiotic enough to think that becoming an individual dictatorship would be a good idea... :pac:


  • #77
    Attabear
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 326 ✭✭Attabear


    ratracer wrote: »
    No you wouldn't be wrong, moon landings were a work of fiction.....

    Do you have a newsletter I could subscribe to?


  • #78
    jaydoxx
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 334 ✭✭jaydoxx


    Corkfeen wrote: »
    I'm not sure if you're bull****ting at this point. Hitler was appointed by Hindenburg, Hinderburg as president at the time was technically more powerful but Hitler's eventual move to power was as a result of Hindenburg's ill health and economic woes. Either way parties had input before the dictatorship and the word of either the president or chancellor was not absolute.

    Every other state in America would be opposed to it and most people in states recognise themselves as American, not Californian. So the mayors and governors would simply be removed from office if they idiotic to think that become an individual dictatorship would be a good idea... :pac:

    No bull****, just should've listened more in history ahaha

    I always thought you just said "oh btw bitches i'm running the country now" and had enough guns to quell any rebels to become a dictator. Or is that autocracy?:p


  • #79
    Kev_2012
    Closed Accounts Posts: 976 ✭✭✭Kev_2012


    hooradiation wrote: »
    Opinions are not sacred, nor does holding one protect you from being disagreed with and ridiculed.

    This has been another episode of "Basic things you should have learned in primary school, but apparently didn't"

    Hahaha round of applause for the smartar$e.

    I know that. People can disagree with opinions, but people overreacting like this is insane. Just get on with it and differ about their opinion on the matter. Why should that man change his beliefs because of a majority? What he is saying isn't illegal or harming people.

    Scientology has 8 million followers, I think it's a ridiculous "religion", but I'm not going to hold a big protest in Limerick if they opened a church here.

    People are getting far too sensitive about things.
    Attabear wrote: »
    In my opinion, you're wrong.

    Fair enough, although the definition of an opinion is fact and not itself an opinion. Just though I'd clear the air there.


  • #80
    hooradiation
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,922 ✭✭✭hooradiation


    jaydoxx wrote: »
    Look i'm not supporting their opinions but they are entitled to have their concerns heard as a special interest group. And as long as the current model of government protects the practice of lobbying, they should continue to do so.

    It's a pile of bull****, but its reality.

    This can't be both ways, either it's the cranky president of a fast food company who thinks America is "inviting gods judgement" - because after Indian genocide, slavery, segregation and nine police academy movies somehow not invoking gods judgement, this is what's going to really tick him off - and as such it really is "just his opinion" no matter how stupid and wrong that opinion is or he's using his company to fund lobby groups in which case he can't really hide behind that excuse because at that point it's not "just his opinion".
    He is seeking to shape the political landscape to suit his views with the money from his business, so, frankly, fuck him.


  • #81
    hooradiation
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,922 ✭✭✭hooradiation


    Kev_2012 wrote: »
    I know that. People can disagree with opinions, but people overreacting like this is insane. Just get on with it and differ about their opinion on the matter. Why should that man change his beliefs because of a majority? What he is saying isn't illegal or harming people.

    Given his company has funded lobby groups who work to deny two consenting adults the right to get married, I'd say it is.


  • Advertisement
  • #82
    jaydoxx
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 334 ✭✭jaydoxx


    Kev_2012 wrote: »
    I know that. People can disagree with opinions, but people overreacting like this is insane. Just get on with it and differ about their opinion on the matter. Why should that man change his beliefs because of a majority? What he is saying isn't illegal or harming people.

    Scientology has 8 million followers, I think it's a ridiculous "religion", but I'm not going to hold a big protest in Limerick if they opened a church here.

    People are getting far too sensitive about things.

    People are going to protest, the franchise will probably increase revenue in the bible belt and incur losses in the metropolitan branches. The point is people who may not have known can now make informed decisions about where they spend their money. After all would you want to give profits to someone who actively tried to take your rights?:rolleyes:

    And I would recommend you do protest a church of scientology in your area:pac:
    hooradiation wrote: »
    This can't be both ways, either it's the cranky president of a fast food company who thinks America is "inviting gods judgement" - because after Indian genocide, slavery, segregation and nine police academy movies somehow not invoking gods judgement, this is what's going to really tick him off - and as such it really is "just his opinion" no matter how stupid and wrong that opinion is or he's using his company to fund lobby groups in which case he can't really hide behind that excuse because at that point it's not "just his opinion".
    He is seeking to shape the political landscape to suit his views with the money from his business, so, frankly, fuck him.

    Correct me if I'm wrong, because I'm no expert here, but his opinion is based on his religious beliefs and that's exactly why lobbying exists isn't it? For special interest groups to express themselves in a political setting.

    Again please correct me if i'm way off in thinking that:p


  • #83
    Attabear
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 326 ✭✭Attabear


    Kev_2012 wrote: »
    Hahaha round of applause for the smartar$e.

    I know that. People can disagree with opinions, but people overreacting like this is insane. Just get on with it and differ about their opinion on the matter. Why should that man change his beliefs because of a majority? What he is saying isn't illegal or harming people.

    Scientology has 8 million followers, I think it's a ridiculous "religion", but I'm not going to hold a big protest in Limerick if they opened a church here.

    People are getting far too sensitive about things.



    Fair enough, although the definition of an opinion is fact and not itself an opinion. Just though I'd clear the air there.


    Depends what you mean by opinion.:)


  • #84
    Colmustard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,836 ✭✭✭Colmustard


    He can have any opinion he likes, but if he is a business owner catering for the public he cant say a law biding section of the community is unwellcome in that business, that is discrimination fullstop.


  • #85
    Links234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,944 ✭✭✭✭Links234


    I have to laugh at the "personal opinion" claims every time someone from the religious right in America mouths off. Sure, that's just like your opinion maaan... great, well its not your opinion I care about, its what your doing I care about. Like, donating millions to hate groups. That's the issue here, and its crazy that this whole thing can be so skewed and spun to be made out to be about this guys "personal opinion"


  • #86
    Corkfeen
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,940 ✭✭✭Corkfeen


    jaydoxx wrote: »

    Correct me if I'm wrong, because I'm no expert here, but his opinion is based on his religious beliefs and that's exactly why lobbying exists isn't it? For special interest groups to express themselves in a political setting.

    Again please correct me if i'm way off in thinking that:p

    The issue I have with these particular lobby groups is that their lobbying is based on a book . I can even understand to a degree abortion lobby groups even though I don't agree with any of their opinions. But Anti-Same sex marriage lobby groups is religions believing that they have the right to dictate the civil rights and equality of the individual based on an ancient religious text. Their objections are not in anyway legitimate and plenty of false-truths are used by them. If there was efforts to make all churches to have same sex marriages, I could actually understand them lobbying against that. But that is not the situation.

    To use an example, Mormons at one point believed black people had the mark of Cain so did not deserve the same rights as everyone else. I don't think they should have a right to lobby against black rights though because their religion doesn't support it.

    They should be allowed to hold opinions but shouldn't influence policy outcomes if it limits the rights of an individual unnecessarily .


  • #87
    jaydoxx
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 334 ✭✭jaydoxx


    Corkfeen wrote: »
    The issue I have with these particular lobby groups is that their lobbying is based on a book . I can even understand to a degree abortion lobby groups even though I don't agree with any of their opinions. But Anti-Same sex marriage lobby groups is religions believing that they have the right to dictate the civil rights and equality of the individual based on an ancient religious text. Their objections are not in anyway legitimate and plenty of false-truths are used by them. If there was efforts to make all churches to have same sex marriages, I could actually understand them lobbying against that. But that is not the situation.

    To use an example, Mormons at one point believed black people had the mark of Cain so did not deserve the same rights as everyone else. I don't think they should have a right to lobby against black rights though because their religion doesn't support it.

    They should be allowed to hold opinions but shouldn't influence policy outcomes if it limits the rights of an individual unnecessarily .

    That's a perfectly sound argument, I guess I just feel sorry for their stupid ignorance:p
    But I still think that it was wrong for the mayor of chicago to say what he did.


  • #88
    walrusgumble
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,062 ✭✭✭walrusgumble


    bluewolf wrote: »
    they're officially designated hate groups, i think that is pushing it
    he is entitled to support them and the rest of us are entitled to have a problem with him

    So, the rest of the people are also entitled to have a problem with fags shoving their relationship status down people's throats by standing outside the restaurants ?


    There is a lot of waffle of "equality".

    Equality requires you to treat like for like, and things that are not the same, different to each other. A married hetrosexual couple are not the same as homosexual couples, can never be the same either.


    mod:
    Banned.


  • #89
    walrusgumble
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,062 ✭✭✭walrusgumble


    Corkfeen wrote: »
    The issue I have with these particular lobby groups is that their lobbying is based on a book . I can even understand to a degree abortion lobby groups even though I don't agree with any of their opinions. But Anti-Same sex marriage lobby groups is religions believing that they have the right to dictate the civil rights and equality of the individual based on an ancient religious text. Their objections are not in anyway legitimate and plenty of false-truths are used by them. If there was efforts to make all churches to have same sex marriages, I could actually understand them lobbying against that. But that is not the situation.

    To use an example, Mormons at one point believed black people had the mark of Cain so did not deserve the same rights as everyone else. I don't think they should have a right to lobby against black rights though because their religion doesn't support it.

    They should be allowed to hold opinions but shouldn't influence policy outcomes if it limits the rights of an individual unnecessarily .

    The reasoning for the preference to status quo in Ireland, is not primarily based on religion. Go and read the All Party Oireachtas Report on the Family 2006 (you can find it on the net)


  • #90
    walrusgumble
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,062 ✭✭✭walrusgumble


    hooradiation wrote: »
    Given the volume of money that has been funnelled into anti-gay lobby groups by Chick-fil-A (and not Dan Cathy himself) claiming that "oh, it's just his opinion" is disingenuous at best .

    Basically as long as the company wants to fund groups who lobby against basic civil rights, then fuck those guys.
    It's not just "opinion" it's lobbying.

    What the the basis of this ridiculous notion that civil rights recongises the right of same sex couples to marry? Not even the ECtHR recognises such a right


  • Advertisement
  • #91
    Corkfeen
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,940 ✭✭✭Corkfeen


    walrusgumble wrote: »
    The reasoning for the preference to status quo in Ireland, is not primarily based on religion. Go and read the All Party Oireachtas Report on the Family 2006 (you can find it on the net)
    Lesbian women and gay men have been found to suffer from
    discrimination and prejudice resulting in disadvantage and
    exclusion from full participation in society (Gay and Lesbian
    Equality Network and Nexus Research Co-operative, 1995).
    They also experience poorer mental health because of the
    chronic stress associated with being a member of a
    stigmatised minority group (Meyer, 2003). This situation has
    been recently further exacerbated by the Irish government.
    Through the introduction of the Social Welfare
    (Miscellaneous) Bill 2004, which restricts the definition of
    ‘spouse’ or ‘couple’ to a married couple and to an opposite
    sex cohabiting couple for state welfare schemes, Ireland is
    now in breach of Article 14 (obligation not to discriminate)
    and Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of
    EHCR, and is the only EU country to have introduced
    deliberately discriminatory legislation against lesbians and
    gays for over a decade (Equality Coalition, 2004). Hence,
    legislative amendments are urgently needed to reverse this
    situation and to promote and support their full participation
    in all aspects of society, including legally recognised
    relationships and families.
    Basically that they have the right to recognition in their relationship.

    Irish Council for Civil Liberties:
    However, in Goodwin v United Kingdom and I v United
    Kingdom37 the Court, in a unanimous decision, found that
    the UK was in breach of Articles 8 and 12 of the ECHR. The
    Court found that although the right to marry is subject to the
    national laws of the Contracting States the limitations on it
    must not restrict or reduce the right in such a way or to such
    an extent that the very essence of the right is impaired. The
    Court found that the UK laws, in prohibiting a post-operative
    transsexual from marrying a member of their former gender,
    impaired the very right to marry and was in violation of the
    Convention.
    The rights of the individual are damaged and a well rounded argument again

    Arguments against:
    Church teaching stresses that marriage is exclusively
    between a man and a woman, because this is part of the
    basic structure of the complementarity of the sexes,
    something rooted in creation, and not simply a social or
    cultural construct. It may, in certain circumstances, be in
    the public interest to provide legal protection to the social,
    fiscal and inheritance entitlements of persons who support
    caring relationships which generate dependency, provided
    always that these relationships are recognised as being
    qualitatively different from marriage and that their
    acceptance does not dilute the uniqueness of marriage.
    The church thinks that the government should limit marriage as a result of church teaching.

    Giving ‘gay’ relationships marital status will destroy marriage.
    Homosexual and lesbian pairings are not marriage and never
    can be. It is futile therefore to pretend that they can or
    should be given a special status or treatment equivalent to
    that of marriage …
    The opposing arguments from the document you mention lack any argument. They center entirely around the so called destruction of marriage which divorce was going to do to the country as well. Some other ones that crop up is that they can't carry children.... The vast majority of the opposition in the document were religious or affiliated with religions. At one point, there was a group claiming that you choose your sexuality. So my point still stands. The world isn't going to fall apart as a result, numerous countries already have it and it poses no issue.


Advertisement
Advertisement