Fast Food chain under fire from same sex couples

Lelantos · 04-08-2012 06:32PM

TheJak01 wrote: »

MagicMarker wrote: »

You think saying "gays are not real people" and "god is not real" are equally ignorant things to say?

Are you fúcking kidding me?

There's no doubt that the first post was awful, and it deserved every bit of the ban it received. However, to come out and say god doesn't exist is equally ignorant and hurtful to billions of people around the world, all of whom live their lives I accordance to the laws of their religions. Is telling a gay person who has dedicated his life to equality that he is not a real person worse than telling somebody that has pledged their life to god that he doesn't exist? I personally think not, you are offending an entire lifestyle with both of those statements.

Personally I think that the religious person might even have slightly more reason to come out with a statement like that. The banned poster stated that he believed gay people were not gods children, a view that's taken from many interpretations of the bible. It's not a view I condone, but at the same time, it is something he believe to be true, and he has a legitimate reason to believe so. By the beliefs of many religions being gay will lead to you not reaching salvation and might mean damnation, clearly showing the being gay is a bad thing, or at least as far as anybody strongly following the religion is concerned. On the other hand, we still have nothing but theory that there is no devine being. Therefore there's no legitimate backing for the statement. Yes, I concede, the religious person is basing their statement on something we also have no proof of being true, but it's a basis none the less.

Both statements are wrong, and I personally think they should be given the same treatment. Both offend a huge number of people, and while a majority here are more inclined to get offended by the original statement, I don't think it really means the second can be ignored. Both do the same thing, and in my mind, in a similar severity.

On to the topic at hand. The CEO of this company is entitled to hold any views he wants, to support and donate money to any lobbying group he wants, provided of course he is not breaking the law. At the same time, everybody has a right to protest, but I dont really see the point. It's silly to think he will change his views, or resign, as he has done absolutely nothing wrong. If they don't agree with those running the company, they don't need to go there and buy chicken, but I really don't see what they are trying to achieve. The cathy family is entitled to run their company in any way they choose, and provided they do not discrimate actively, there is no reason why people should expect them to change anything they are doing. In my opinion this protest all comes down to a group that believes everybody should come into their way of thinking and anybody who doesn't is suddenly some sort of criminal. I am not a supporter of gay marriage, yet would not discrimate against gays. I believe they are equally as human as you and I, but I believe marriage is between a man and woman. A gay couple should be entitled to the same civil status as a heterosexual couple, but I will always believe that marriage is, by simple principal and definition, only between a man and a woman. Just as in politics I would support groups that are trying to promote my opinion. Its a view many lgbt rights groups would disagree with, and fair enough, but I'd hate if I was getting slated as a business man for my opinion, when I have done absolutely nothing wrong.

Out of interest actually. Id like to ask people where the distinction is between those that are trying to get Gay marriage legalised and those who don't. Just because it's the general consensus, doesn't mean people don't have the right to lobby against it. I have the right to support groups that will try bring my opinion into practice, in this case, just as I have the right to support fine Gael for their economic policies, or sign a petition to stop an incinerator being built near my home. Just because this is a controversial topic doesn't stop me having the right to lobby my views and try promote my opinions. We all do it, voting being just one of the many examples. Now why should we exclude somebody from this practice because he's against gay marriage? If there was a vote about gay marriage in this country, there'd be a lot of people who would vote against it. We wouldn't boycott their shops and call them swine for doing so would we? Every cause needs somebody in a position of power to promote it, doesnt mean he's any more evil than those who would vote against gay marriage in an election.

Unfortunately, your argument holds no water once you mention religion & all the good it does in people's lives. Firstly, there are no gods & the sooner people finally accept that, the sooner we can get on & try to create a hate free world. Don't forget, the chic fil a ceo is doing this as its against gods laws from a 2000yo fairytale book. Any arguement that people make on the basis of this book are fundamentally flawed & incorrect

Manic Moran · 04-08-2012 06:35PM

Most cities can deny permits for any reason they like, especially if a nearby neighborhood organization is opposed to it for various reasons.

I do not believe this to be the case. There is a currently ongoing issue of a firearms store here in the San Francisco area, that the locals aren't so fond of the idea. However, there is no legal reason for the denial, it meets all the appropriate zoning, location and security requirements, so like it or not, the store is going in.

There are exceptions, but they have to be supported by actual logic. For example, setting up, say, an Ikea 'here' would cause massive traffic snarls and negatively affect the operation of the city, or setting up a refinery 'there' would result in pollution and health effects. I don't think 'we disagree with the owner's philosophical views' is sufficient grounds to deny a business permit in the US.

Firstly, there are no gods

I am a God.

NTM

Lelantos · 04-08-2012 06:44PM

Manic Moran wrote: »

Most cities can deny permits for any reason they like, especially if a nearby neighborhood organization is opposed to it for various reasons.

I do not believe this to be the case. There is a currently ongoing issue of a firearms store here in the San Francisco area, that the locals aren't so fond of the idea. However, there is no legal reason for the denial, it meets all the appropriate zoning, location and security requirements, so like it or not, the store is going in.

There are exceptions, but they have to be supported by actual logic. For example, setting up, say, an Ikea 'here' would cause massive traffic snarls and negatively affect the operation of the city, or setting up a refinery 'there' would result in pollution and health effects. I don't think 'we disagree with the owner's philosophical views' is sufficient grounds to deny a business permit in the US.

Firstly, there are no gods

I am a God.

NTM

Maybe I'm wrong & we're all gods?
Must write my own 10 commandments!

EZ24GET · 04-08-2012 06:58PM

Lelantos wrote: »

Unfortunately, your argument holds no water once you mention religion & all the good it does in people's lives. Firstly, there are no gods & the sooner people finally accept that, the sooner we can get on & try to create a hate free world. Don't forget, the chic fil a ceo is doing this as its against gods laws from a 2000yo fairytale book. Any arguement that people make on the basis of this book are fundamentally flawed & incorrect

Well that shows me you haven't read or failed to understand the Bible, I don't care really and I will support your right to your opinion but at the same time I am glad you aren't in charge.

The problem doesn't really come from the teaching of the Bible it comes from men. (and I mean men as a race not a gender) Man bends laws and interprets them to his advantage and has through the ages. That's a whole different thread topic though.

Fact is 1st amendment states that no religion will be forced upon the citizen nor prevented by government and we all have the right of free speech and peaceable assembly.

Like it or not it's freedom OF religion not freedom From religion. I think everyone (except maybe the graffiti artist ) is operating within their rights.
1st amendment also guarantees a right to bring forth problems to the government to redress. So you can attempt to ban business (usually porn shops but chicken shops if you wish) Does not mean the ruling will be in your favor (usually isn't)

Turtwig · 04-08-2012 07:02PM

TheJak01 wrote: »

There's no doubt that the first post was awful, and it deserved every bit of the ban it received. However, to come out and say god doesn't exist is equally ignorant and hurtful to billions of people around the world, all of whom live their lives I accordance to the laws of their religions. Is telling a gay person who has dedicated his life to equality that he is not a real person worse than telling somebody that has pledged their life to god that he doesn't exist? I personally think not, you are offending an entire lifestyle with both of those statements.
.

Gay people aren't even afforded equal rights because of myopic traditionalist based views. Religious people in almost every facet of society are given special privileges for no other reason than they happen to be religious people. Say God doesn't exist, or gays aren't real is completely missing the point. Even if I offend every religious person alive today that doesn't change the fact that they usually have full and often over protected status in society. Case in point, why should religious beliefs be respected? Because. . .. because...something pathetically circular. Gay people on the other hand are barely even recognised by some countries. In Ireland, the refusal to allows gays the right to marriage is essentially the state endorsing discrimination over of a group of humans because of their sexual orientation. You claim you don't discriminate gays, yet you agree with denying them the same right to marriage. On what basis?

On the subject of offence, white people, my ancestors, were once offended at the thought of interracial marriages. But I suppose it would have been best to leave things as they were and not risk offending them.

endabob1 · 04-08-2012 07:11PM

TheJak01 wrote: »

There's no doubt that the first post was awful, and it deserved every bit of the ban it received. However, to come out and say god doesn't exist is equally ignorant and hurtful to billions of people around the world, all of whom live their lives I accordance to the laws of their religions. Is telling a gay person who has dedicated his life to equality that he is not a real person worse than telling somebody that has pledged their life to god that he doesn't exist? I personally think not, you are offending an entire lifestyle with both of those statements..

yes.
Telling someone that he is less than you are because he likes to play hide the sausage with other boys is a million miles worse than telling you that god doesn't exist.
The gay bloke exists I can see him, touch him (if I so desire) your god doesn't exist and unless you can prove to me using actual facts that he does exist your argument, like every other fundamentalist Christian/Muslim/Zion etc.. argument, is essentially just more made up hate filled ignorant sh!t.

Lelantos · 04-08-2012 07:37PM

EZ24GET wrote: »

Lelantos wrote: »

Unfortunately, your argument holds no water once you mention religion & all the good it does in people's lives. Firstly, there are no gods & the sooner people finally accept that, the sooner we can get on & try to create a hate free world. Don't forget, the chic fil a ceo is doing this as its against gods laws from a 2000yo fairytale book. Any arguement that people make on the basis of this book are fundamentally flawed & incorrect

Well that shows me you haven't read or failed to understand the Bible, I don't care really and I will support your right to your opinion but at the same time I am glad you aren't in charge.

The problem doesn't really come from the teaching of the Bible it comes from men. (and I mean men as a race not a gender) Man bends laws and interprets them to his advantage and has through the ages. That's a whole different thread topic though.

Fact is 1st amendment states that no religion will be forced upon the citizen nor prevented by government and we all have the right of free speech and peaceable assembly.

Like it or not it's freedom OF religion not freedom From religion. I think everyone (except maybe the graffiti artist ) is operating within their rights.
1st amendment also guarantees a right to bring forth problems to the government to redress. So you can attempt to ban business (usually porn shops but chicken shops if you wish) Does not mean the ruling will be in your favor (usually isn't)

Religion is forced upon the citizen, just look at the last line of your presidential oath

MadsL · 04-08-2012 08:04PM

"So help me God" is customary, not compulsory.

It is uncertain how many Presidents used a Bible or added the words "So help me God" at the end of the oath, or in their acceptance of the oath, as neither is required by law; unlike many other federal oaths which do include the phrase "So help me God." There is currently debate as to whether or not George Washington, the first president, added the phrase to his acceptance of the oath. All contemporary sources fail to mention Washington as adding a religious codicil to his acceptance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_office_of_the_President_of_the_United_States#.22So_help_me_God.22

Lelantos · 04-08-2012 08:10PM

MadsL wrote: »

"So help me God" is customary, not compulsory.

It is uncertain how many Presidents used a Bible or added the words "So help me God" at the end of the oath, or in their acceptance of the oath, as neither is required by law; unlike many other federal oaths which do include the phrase "So help me God." There is currently debate as to whether or not George Washington, the first president, added the phrase to his acceptance of the oath. All contemporary sources fail to mention Washington as adding a religious codicil to his acceptance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_office_of_the_President_of_the_United_States#.22So_help_me_God.22

But its still there! As it is for the congress, and its compulsary for other official offices.

floggg · 04-08-2012 08:12PM

Omackeral wrote: »

I think they are both ignorant statements, albeit on differing levels. The first one is just sickening and appalling, obviously. However, I think to bluntly state God is not real FACT is a huge slap in the face to those who dedicate their lives to following whichever path they do.

Anyway its a moot point, as I said I dont believe in a supreme being myself. I just feel that it's a potentially offensive comment to make given the many people worldwide who whole heartedly practise and believe in their religions.

Well nobody take a religious person to task for saying god exists as a statement of fact.

That would seem equally disrespectful to the views of athiests in my mind!

Sappa · 04-08-2012 08:24PM

I really hope we get chick fillet in Ireland,there food is very good in comparison to other fast food outlets.
I used eat there a lot in the states,awesome chicken wrap.

EZ24GET · 04-08-2012 08:28PM

Lelantos wrote: »

Religion is forced upon the citizen, just look at the last line of your presidential oath

I have not taken the presidential oath so not forcing anything on meand if the president in question should proclaim the oath meant nothing to him it would be useless.

In regard to taking religious people to task about the existence of God as far as I can see it happens all the time. I don't personally care if people believe in God or not. My religion tells me the choice is up to them and I should love them all and pray for my enemies. No where in the bible I read does it tell me to hate anyone. Rights are birth given respect is earned.

MadsL · 04-08-2012 08:34PM

Remember "I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth". So help me God used to be there too (and made optional) - that doesn't mean the courts were forcing religion on people, any more than me exclaiming Jesus! at stupid statements.

keano_afc · 04-08-2012 08:42PM

mickydoomsux wrote: »

"Gays" are in fact real.

God, however, isn't.

Which is, of course, just your opinion.

Nodin · 04-08-2012 08:43PM

Omackeral wrote: »

You're just as bad as him if you're gonna go on like that. What's the difference in what you said? Some people take their faith very seriously.

I am 100% sure that you could go out, into town, and - in some pub or other - buy a gay man/woman a drink. I am 100% sure that the same experience cannot be replicated with God.

floggg · 04-08-2012 08:45PM

Couple of things to say on this.

1.I think it's ironic that loads of people criticise the reaction to his comments as interfering with or attempting to stiffle his freedom of speech without realising that same freedom of speech allows the protesters to protest, boycott or do anything else that's not illegal to voice their opposition. Gays have freedom of speech to (at least in some countries).

2. Do you know how many companies in the US are subject to calls for boycotts from right wingers for supporting gay rights or equality? JC Penny are being boycotted just for putting Ellen in an ad. Starbucks, Amazon, Pepsi, General Mills Google and many more have all also been subject of calls for a boycott for supporting gay rights or equality.

Where is your **** storm over that?

How come Mick Huckabee and Sarah Palin didn't stand up for Starbucks right to free speech and to donate to groups of their choice when right wing hate groups tried to boycott them (many of whom probably are supported by Cathy)?

3. Loads of liberals, and even gay liberals, criticised those mayors for saying they would ban chick-fil-a. Those same liberals also criticised conservatives for trying to ban the mosque in NYC that was to be built near ground zero. Liberals are a lot of things, but they are generally consistent.

Funnily enough though, a lot of the right wingers criticising the mayors for saying that were the ones calling for a ban on that mosque. They werent too concerned about abuse of governmnet powers when they were being used in their favour!

4. Can people please stop trying to pass off beliefs that gay people are deviant, unhappy, broken people who require to be cured as a"difference of opinion." For **** sake, really?

If somebody was saying black people are stupid, lazy and inferior, you wouldn't pass it off as "just an opinion." You'd call it racism. Yea, people are entitled to be racist if they wish, but if they try and preach that **** in public they will be quickly called on it. If he was on Primetime saying that

Yet I have to accept people who think I am a "instrinscally disordered" for wanting to pursue a loving consensual relationship as just being their opinion wihtout people calling them on it because apparently there is some sort of doubt or not as to whether or not as a gay person I'm entitled to live my life and love my partner?

Can we call a spade a spade? If somebody thinks that gay people are somehow broken and not entitled to live their life as they see fit, its not that they disagree with gay people, its that they are homophobic.

Yea, they are entitled to be homophobic, to give money to homophobic groups and to spread homophobic speech. But when they do, can we at least call it ****ing homophobia.

Unless of course you do think there is some sort of doubt as to whether or not I'm instrinsically disorder or morally defective?

EZ24GET · 04-08-2012 08:48PM

Nodin wrote: »

I am 100% sure that you could go out, into town, and - in some pub or other - buy a gay man/woman a drink. I am 100% sure that the same experience cannot be replicated with God.

And this is proof of what exactly? That you like many others believe only what they can see? I would think that might limit your concept of everything? It's your choice though, you want to see nothing beyond your own limits, fine by me.

Ok just read the post directly above. I am not afraid of homosexuals so I am hot homophobic. I personally don't care what consenting adults do in their bedrooms, but (yep there's always a but...) I don't think I'm encroaching on anyones "rights" if I don't agree with them. I wouldn't even know other peoples orientation except they keep telling me. I have never asked anyone if they were gay or if they thought it was normal or not, nor have I ever asked ifthey were straight. This man was asked a question and answered it truthfully. I'm really content to let everyone decide the morale example that they live by unless they do something to break a law everyone gets to choose their own course.

I am not stupid or ignorant if I choose to believe in God. If you don't doesn't make you right and guess what I'll pray for you. Not because I think you are stupid or ignorant but because I think you're just wrong.

keano_afc · 04-08-2012 08:52PM

Nodin wrote: »

I am 100% sure that you could go out, into town, and - in some pub or other - buy a gay man/woman a drink. I am 100% sure that the same experience cannot be replicated with God.

Well stop the press, thats it. Conclusive proof has been unearthed.

Nodin · 04-08-2012 08:56PM

EZ24GET wrote: »

And this is proof of what exactly? That you like many others believe only what they can see? I would think that might limit your concept of everything? It's your choice though, you want to see nothing beyond your own limits, fine by me.

....when somebodys miraculous cure consists of a leg growing back, "feeling" is replaced with measurable effect and the like, call me.

Sappa · 04-08-2012 09:01PM

If gays wish to embarrass their parents,alienate themselves in society and shagg every thing going let them off.

Nodin · 04-08-2012 09:03PM

Sappa wrote: »

If gays wish to embarrass their parents,alienate themselves in society and shagg every thing going let them off.

More bigoted 19th century nonsense.

This is supposedly a thread roughly concerning gay marriage, so I'm not sure why you are on about "shagg every thing going".

Bannasidhe · 04-08-2012 09:14PM

Sappa wrote: »

If gays wish to embarrass their parents,alienate themselves in society and shagg every thing going let them off.

My mother would be horrified if one of her children made a statement like that. My sister and her husband would take the head off their son if he made a statement like that. My brother and his wife have a lesbian daughter - as parent's they would be horrified that anyone would make a statement like that.

My son would be horrified to hear someone say that. This makes me proud of my son.

mickydoomsux · 04-08-2012 09:25PM

keano_afc wrote: »

Well stop the press, thats it. Conclusive proof has been unearthed.

Every single religion in the world is based on exactly the same amount of proof contained in the post you quoted.

EZ24GET · 04-08-2012 09:51PM

So you demand proof- that is your prerogative. Religion is based on Faith. The belief in things not seen.

Nodin · 04-08-2012 09:58PM

EZ24GET wrote: »

So you demand proof- that is your prerogative. Religion is based on Faith. The belief in things not seen.

......not seen and undetectable. Otherwise ye wouldn't need the "faith" thing.

fkt · 04-08-2012 09:59PM

Sappa wrote: »

If gays wish to embarrass their parents,alienate themselves in society and shagg every thing going let them off.

I'd be more embarrassed as a parent if I thought my son was spending his Saturday nights trying to get a reaction from strangers on the internet

Bajingo · 04-08-2012 10:12PM

The guy gave his opinion on same sex marriages. Fair enough. In response those homosexual couples who disagree with him are going to give their own opinions. Also fair enough.

Freedom of speech works on both sides here OP. No one is telling the man to shoot up.

EZ24GET · 04-08-2012 10:19PM

Nodin wrote: »

......not seen and undetectable. Otherwise ye wouldn't need the "faith" thing.

In your opinion undetectable- I see God in lots of things. But sure you don't have to see him at all.

Also this is getting pretty far off topic so not going to keep adding to that result. Everyone have a good and happy night

Nodin · 04-08-2012 10:26PM

EZ24GET wrote: »

In your opinion undetectable- I see God in lots of things. But sure you don't have to see him at all.
........

...if its detectable, then everyone should be able to see it. Thats the difference between objective fact and subjective opinion.

TheJak01 · 04-08-2012 10:29PM

endabob1 wrote: »

yes.
Telling someone that he is less than you are because he likes to play hide the sausage with other boys is a million miles worse than telling you that god doesn't exist.
The gay bloke exists I can see him, touch him (if I so desire) your god doesn't exist and unless you can prove to me using actual facts that he does exist your argument, like every other fundamentalist Christian/Muslim/Zion etc.. argument, is essentially just more made up hate filled ignorant sh!t.

Either way you're undermining somebody's way of life, which I consider to be equally bad in both cases. From a social standpoint it may be more frowned upon to be anti gay in this case, but I certainly believe that an individual would be equally offended in both incidences. Hence, both occurrences should be treated in the same light. You have to treat something like this based on the offence felt by the individual, not that felt by society. And I wholly believe that on that basis both are equally awful, hurtful things to say with neither rhyme nor reason to say it other than out of spite (probably more the case with the second post). Also, my god, I struggle to see on what basis I would be seen to be religious, more somebody that would happily sympathise with somebody that gets offended by a point like that because as somebody that is neither religious (believe in some form of higher power, but certainly not in a form portrayed by any religioun I have encountered) nor homosexual I am not particularly offended by either statement, but at the same time see them as equally hurtful for their respective groups. Of course, that's not something we'll know conclusively unless we find a highly Christian gay commenting here, and even then the opinion is subjective, as different people are offended by different things. I simply think the no god statement is equally offensive and thus it should be treated in the same way, otherwise we're saying "ah sure, it's fine to disrespect people's beliefs, as long as its with the general consensus", ie aren't Christians silly for not believing in god.

Why should be give religion status? Well, maybe shaping the entire of society, it's values and structure in almost every country across the world might have something to do with it. We can't simply disregard such a large part of society, and the thing that had explained how the entire universe functions, entirely, simply because we no have alternative theories on how things happened, and think we no better. Just because we have different ideas now in society, gives us no right to call all religions ignorant. Have a look around you, there are many religious sects becoming more and more progressive as certain peoples ideals have changed. We cannot paint all of religion with the same brush.

Why don't I believe in gay marriage? Simple really. Marriage is between a man and a woman in my view, due to simple definition. This is not an argument based on the rights one receives when they are married, those of course are something everybody are entitled to. My qualm is, why should be change the definition of a word, simply to become more inclusive? Gay coupled should be entitled to the same status as any married couple, but why should we brand them as something they are not? They are not a traditional married couple, there's no reason in my mind why it makes them in any way more equal for them to be able to get a married certificate. Equality is not being able to be able to call yourself the same thing. As much as I might want to be, I am not Jewish by race, as thus can't call myself do. What is important is not what I am able to call myself a Jew, but that I have the same rights, privileges and responsibilities as any Jew. Marriage simply isnt enough of a privilege in my opinion, and it's perfectly viable to give a civil union the same status as any married couple.

I often think now a days people who dont sympathise with gays on a complete level are all treated with the same brush. There are minor things people feel they aren't necessarily entitled to, such as the above, and then there's those that want them all burnt at the stake. Sometimes, just sometimes I feel people want too much equality, and want us all to be the exact same. They are willing to fight for that, which I'd fair enough, but you'd be surprised the number of times I've been described as some kind of gay hating monster for my view on various Internet forums, which quite frankly isn't true, and I think thats a joke. Much ado about nothing in many cases, and things minor things become a huge issue.

Fast Food chain under fire from same sex couples

Comments