balladofwindfishes
Member
it's not fundamentally different, it's just different wording?
How can you respect gay people but then be against them having equal rights under the law...
the answer is you can't
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
CFA response to anti-gay alleg. "Guilty as charged." Do NOT gloat about eating at CFA
- Thread starter RBH
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
it's not fundamentally different, it's just different wording?
How can you respect gay people but then be against them having equal rights under the law...
the answer is you can't
it's not fundamentally different, it's just different wording?
How can you respect gay people but then be against them having equal rights under the law...
the answer is you can't
I added this as an edit to my last post, but most people don't look back to read - so I'll just copy and paste...
That might be a dubious example, but assume said company does not provide money to groups that are anti-gay and is not actively campaigning against gay rights. Yeah, I'd agree that CFA providing money to anti-gay-rights groups (if that's what they're doing) to be pretty scummy, BUT if that wasn't going on and all CFA did was make a statement that they aren't for gay marriage because of their beliefs, then I don't see the big deal. In that case, they wouldn't be linked to groups that were actively seeking to suppress gay rights, and therefore I wouldn't consider them to be anti-gay. You might not like what they believe in, but at the very least - that's all it is - a difference of beliefs/opinions and nothing more.
So yeah, if CFA says, "We're against gay marriage" and then goes out and provides money to anti-gay-rights groups - that's one thing. And I think it's different thing if CFA was saying "We're against gay marriage" (because of what we base our beliefs on), but wasn't supporting or providing money to groups/causes that are against gay rights.
Might as well say, "I respect women, but don't think they should be allowed to vote."it's not fundamentally different, it's just different wording?
How can you respect gay people but then be against them having equal rights under the law...
the answer is you can't
LyleLanley
Banned
Might as well say, "I respect women, but don't think they should be allowed to vote."
It's right out of the bigots handbook.
NathanMcMahon
Banned
I added this as an edit to my last post, but most people don't look back to read - so I'll just copy and paste...
That might be a dubious example, but assume said company does not provide money to groups that are anti-gay and is not actively campaigning against gay rights. Yeah, I'd agree that CFA providing money to anti-gay-rights groups (if that's what they're doing) to be pretty scummy, BUT if that wasn't going on and all CFA did was make a statement that they aren't for gay marriage because of their beliefs, then I don't see the big deal. In that case, they wouldn't be linked to groups that were actively seeking to suppress gay rights, and therefore I wouldn't consider them to be anti-gay. You might not like what they believe in, but at the very least - that's all it is - a difference of beliefs/opinions and nothing more.
that is a hypothetical that has nothing to do with the reality at this moment, and whether they give money or not, they are bigoted against homosexuals if they think they don't deserve the same rights as everyone else. they are still second classing citizens.
...Might as well say, "I respect women, but don't think they should be allowed to vote."
I added this as an edit to my last post, but most people don't look back to read - so I'll just copy and paste...
That might be a dubious example, but assume said company does not provide money to groups that are anti-gay and is not actively campaigning against gay rights. Yeah, I'd agree that CFA providing money to anti-gay-rights groups (if that's what they're doing) to be pretty scummy, BUT if that wasn't going on and all CFA did was make a statement that they aren't for gay marriage because of their beliefs, then I don't see the big deal. In that case, they wouldn't be linked to groups that were actively seeking to suppress gay rights, and therefore I wouldn't consider them to be anti-gay. You might not like what they believe in, but at the very least - that's all it is - a difference of beliefs/opinions and nothing more.
It wouldn't change the nature of the person who said it, who would still very clearly be bigoted towards gay people. There is no state where you are against gay marriage but somehow not being bigoted towards them. It's an objective observation.
That said, sure. Were this ownership not shoveling money into a vile organization to actually promote this bigotry, this situation would be significantly less terrible since a corporation would not be actively funding hate. Unfortunately that's not the case.
Jason's Ultimatum
Member
but his son Dan runs it day to day as CEO.It's a great American story that is being smeared by vicious hate speech and intolerant bigotry from the left.
OMG, the hypocrisy.
Vermillion
Banned
but his son Dan runs it day to day as CEO.It's a great American story that is being smeared by vicious hate speech and intolerant bigotry from the left.
Ironic.
Daydream Sequence
Banned
Might as well say, "I respect women, but don't think they should be allowed to vote."
"Hey, we love our black customers. We just don't want them to marry our white customers. That's all we're saying."
Seriously, f*** that company.
It wouldn't change the nature of the person who said it, who would still very clearly be bigoted towards gay people. There is no state where you are against gay marriage but somehow not being bigoted towards them. It's an objective observation.
Then we have to agree to disagree. Let's say someone says, "I believe gay marriage is wrong because the Bible says so-and-so." Same person also is in support of gay rights. They clearly understand the separation of church and state, and - while you might question their beliefs - they're not bigoted gays and are actually in support of gay marriage (because he/she wants them to have the same rights as everyone else).
LyleLanley
Banned
Then we have to agree to disagree. Let's say someone says, "I believe gay marriage is wrong because the Bible says so-and-so." Same person also is in support of gay rights. They clearly understand the separation of church and state, and while you might question their beliefs - they're not bigoted towards gays or gay marriage.
But they are bigoted.
Mercury Fred
Banned
Then we have to agree to disagree. Let's say someone says, "I believe gay marriage is wrong because the Bible says so-and-so." Same person also is in support of gay rights. They clearly understand the separation of church and state, and while you might question their beliefs - they're not bigoted towards gays or gay marriage.
No, no one has to agree to disagree on this. You're simply wrong.
Daydream Sequence
Banned
Then we have to agree to disagree. Let's say someone says, "I believe gay marriage is wrong because the Bible says so-and-so." Same person also is in support of gay rights. They clearly understand the separation of church and state, and while you might question their beliefs - they're not bigoted towards gays or gay marriage.
The problem with that logic is that I can go into the bible and find a ton of shit they'd disagree with. Should we respect them for only picking and choosing the stuff that suits their narrow little vision for how the world should look?
But they are bigoted.
bigoted - adjective - 1. utterly intolerant of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from their own
The person I just described is none of that.
NathanMcMahon
Banned
Then we have to agree to disagree. Let's say someone says, "I believe gay marriage is wrong because the Bible says so-and-so." Same person also is in support of gay rights. They clearly understand the separation of church and state, and - while you might question their beliefs - they're not bigoted gays and are actually in support of gay marriage (because he/she wants them to have the same rights as everyone else).
Is it willful ignorance on your part or do you just not comprehend it really?
Vermillion
Banned
The problem with that logic is that I can go into the bible and find a ton of shit they'd disagree with. Should we respect them for only picking and choosing the stuff that suits their narrow little vision for how the world should look?
Old Testament? Hardly applicable, no offense.
Mercury Fred
Banned
bigoted - adjective - 1. utterly intolerant of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from their own
The person I just described is none of that.
If the person is against full civil equality for gays then yes, that person is bigoted against gay people.
Vicetrailia
Banned
Then we have to agree to disagree. Let's say someone says, "I believe gay marriage is wrong because the Bible says so-and-so." Same person also is in support of gay rights. They clearly understand the separation of church and state, and - while you might question their beliefs - they're not bigoted gays and are actually in support of gay marriage (because he/she wants them to have the same rights as everyone else).
Why are you lying on their behalf?
NathanMcMahon
Banned
bigoted - adjective - 1. utterly intolerant of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from their own
The person I just described is none of that.
you forgot the rest of it, conveniently I'm sure:
especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance
ANd, if you want to couch what we are saying as bigoted, cool, I can live with that and in fact I'm fucking proud to be bigot of bigots. That's sort of absurd but it's cool.
Then we have to agree to disagree. Let's say someone says, "I believe gay marriage is wrong because the Bible says so-and-so." Same person also is in support of gay rights. They clearly understand the separation of church and state, and - while you might question their beliefs - they're not bigoted gays and are actually in support of gay marriage (because he/she wants them to have the same rights as everyone else).
The church has every right not to allow gay people to marry within their constructs. They are actively petitioning the state to not allow these marriages. This is completely independent of their faith. You cannot be against gay marriage without being against gay people. They are not persecuting your religion, you're persecuting their rights by trying to exert influence over the government.
Gay people getting married have nothing to do with the church, and the church would be fully in their rights not to allow a ceremony.
As opposed to all the harping Jesus did about homosexuals in the New Testament? Hint: it's none.Old Testament? Hardly applicable, no offense.
trineo_feo
Member
Old Testament? Hardly applicable, no offense.
But the new testament doesn't speak about homosexuality...
bigoted - adjective - 1. utterly intolerant of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from their own
The person I just described is none of that.
So you think that person could be convinced that the nature of those peoples' existence is not wrong?
Daydream Sequence
Banned
Old Testament? Hardly applicable, no offense.
Ummm, you might want to study the new testament.
Mercury Fred
Banned
Old Testament? Hardly applicable, no offense.
Why even include the old testament when printing bibles?
you forgot the rest of it, conveniently I'm sure:
Are you seriously reading the first line of my post and nothing else?
I said, "Then we have to agree to disagree. Let's say someone says, "I believe gay marriage is wrong because the Bible says so-and-so." Same person also is in support of gay rights. They clearly understand the separation of church and state, and - while you might question their beliefs - they're not bigoted toward gays and are actually in support of gay marriage (because he/she wants them to have the same rights as everyone else)."
That doesn't describe someone who is utterly intolerant or treating someone (or a group) with hatred/intolerance. It's merely someone saying, "This is what I believe because of the Bible, but I want that same person to have all the rights that I do and be treated the same as any other person."
Mercury Fred
Banned
Are you seriously reading the first line of my post and nothing else?
I said, "Then we have to agree to disagree. Let's say someone says, "I believe gay marriage is wrong because the Bible says so-and-so." Same person also is in support of gay rights. They clearly understand the separation of church and state, and - while you might question their beliefs - they're not bigoted gays and are actually in support of gay marriage (because he/she wants them to have the same rights as everyone else)."
That doesn't describe someone who is utterly intolerant or treating someone (or a group) with hatred/intolerance. It's merely someone saying, "This is what I believe because of the Bible, but I want that same person to have all the rights that I do and be treated the same as any other person."
That doesn't work. You can't say that you're in support of full equality for gay people and say that you don't believe that they should be able to marry.
balladofwindfishes
Member
Are you seriously reading the first line of my post and nothing else?
I said, "Then we have to agree to disagree. Let's say someone says, "I believe gay marriage is wrong because the Bible says so-and-so." Same person also is in support of gay rights. They clearly understand the separation of church and state, and - while you might question their beliefs - they're not bigoted toward gays and are actually in support of gay marriage (because he/she wants them to have the same rights as everyone else)."
That doesn't describe someone who is utterly intolerant or treating someone (or a group) with hatred/intolerance. It's merely someone saying, "This is what I believe because of the Bible, but I want that same person to have all the rights that I do and be treated the same as any other person."
you can't be pro gay rights and against gay marriage. It doesn't work that way.
Vermillion
Banned
As opposed to all the harping Jesus did about homosexuals in the New Testament? Hint: it's none.
But the new testament doesn't speak about homosexuality...
Jesus doesn't, but there is mention in Romans 1:26 27
Ummm, you might want to study the new testament.
I'm saying there's not much major there. Whenever people bring up things in the Bible that no one follows, it's usually Old Testament stuff.
Why even include the old testament when printing bibles?
*shrug* Oh, actually I think it was because "the New Testament is the Old revealed" or something. Something something proclaimed Jesus's coming.
That doesn't describe someone who is utterly intolerant or treating someone (or a group) with hatred/intolerance. It's merely someone saying, "This is what I believe because of the Bible, but I want that same person to have all the rights that I do and be treated the same as any other person."
You think tolerance is offering to support the civil rights of a group of people while simultaneously thinking their existence is morally corrupt? I mean the nature of their intolerance comes from that, not whether or not they actively lobby a government to stifle the rights of said group that they are intolerant of.
Mercury Fred
Banned
*shrug* Oh, actually I think it was because "the New Testament is the Old revealed" or something. Something something proclaimed Jesus's coming.
Ehn, just chop it out, that seems to be what people who follow that sort of thing seem to do anyway.
NathanMcMahon
Banned
Are you seriously reading the first line of my post and nothing else?
I said, "Then we have to agree to disagree. Let's say someone says, "I believe gay marriage is wrong because the Bible says so-and-so." Same person also is in support of gay rights. They clearly understand the separation of church and state, and - while you might question their beliefs - they're not bigoted toward gays and are actually in support of gay marriage (because he/she wants them to have the same rights as everyone else)."
That doesn't describe someone who is utterly intolerant or treating someone (or a group) with hatred/intolerance. It's merely someone saying, "This is what I believe because of the Bible, but I want that same person to have all the rights that I do and be treated the same as any other person."
the mental gymnastics you perform in service of your absurd reasoning must be tiring. keep going though, it's mildy annoying if not entertaining.
you can't be pro gay rights and against gay marriage. It doesn't work that way.
There's a clear difference. Said person is saying, "I don't believe gay marriage is right" (within their belief construct) - BUT that same person is also in support of gay marriage from a legal standpoint, and all other gay rights. I don't see their being an issue with that. At the end of the day, I don't care what someone "believes" - that's up to them. But as long as that person isn't denying my rights or someone else's rights, no harm no foul.
Mercury Fred
Banned
There's a clear difference. Said person is saying, "I don't believe gay marriage is right" (within their belief construct) - BUT that same person is also in support of gay marriage from a legal standpoint, and all other gay rights. I don't see their being an issue with that. At the end of the day, I don't care what someone "believes" - that's up to them. But as long as that person isn't denying my rights or someone else's rights, no harm no foul.
You seem to be painting yourself into a corner here. I think this is what you're talking about, but I can't be sure anymore-- No one gives a toss if churches don't want to marry gay people within their walls. The problem arises when those churches exert their power to deny gay people equality outside of those walls.
you can't be pro gay rights and against gay marriage. It doesn't work that way.
Eh, while I don't agree with ruxtpin's original example being relevant at all, I don't agree with this either.
Personally, I'm against abortions, yet I'm also pro-choice. I'm against cheating/adultery, but I'm not in favor of making it illegal either.
You can hold personal views against something while still wanting it to be legal. I'll never understand someone who has a problem with gay people, but as long as those views do nothing to harm gay rights then I don't particularly care about their views. If they support the right to gay marriage and want to try convincing them not to because they think it's harmful to the gays, then whatever, feel free.
There's a clear difference. Said person is saying, "I don't believe gay marriage is right" (within their belief construct) - BUT that same person is also in support of gay marriage from a legal standpoint, and all other gay rights. I don't see their being an issue with that. At the end of the day, I don't care what someone "believes" - that's up to them. But as long as that person isn't denying my rights or someone else's rights, no harm no foul.
So, a shitty christian?
The problem with what your saying is that there is a large majority of people acting in the name of your faith to suppress the legal standpoint you speak of. If you don't agree with them on this issue, why agree with them on any issue? Is morality that hard of a concept without faith in an oppressive God?
NathanMcMahon
Banned
Eh, while I don't agree with ruxtpin's original example being relevant at all, I don't agree with this either.
Personally, I'm against abortions, yet I'm also pro-choice. I'm against cheating/adultery, but I'm not in favor of making it illegal either.
You can hold personal views against something while still wanting it to be legal. I'll never understand someone who has a problem with gay people, but as long as those views do nothing to harm gay rights then I don't particularly care about their views. If they support the right to gay marriage and want to try convincing them not to because they think it's harmful to the gays, then whatever, feel free.
no one is saying they aren't allowed have to have those rights and beliefs, but that doesn't change the fact that they are bigots which is what ruxtpin, in all his wisdom, seems to be arguing.
You seem to be painting yourself into a corner here. I think this is what you're talking about, but I can't be sure anymore-- No one gives a toss if churches don't want to marry gay people within their walls. The problem arises when those churches exert their power to deny gay people equality outside of those walls.
Yeah. I'm just trying to describe a hypothetical situation. I don't think it's cool that CFA is giving money to anti-gay-rights groups. That's not cool at all. And if I was going to a church that did the same thing, I'd be out of there in a flash. I think a person or a church can say, "It's our belief gay marriage is wrong" - but... That's all it is, a belief. You don't have to agree or like it, but it's their belief. And - at the same time - I think that the same person or church can also say, "We are in support of gay rights and want them to have all the rights that everyone else does."
NathanMcMahon
Banned
Yeah. I'm just trying to describe a hypothetical situation. I don't think it's cool that CFA is giving money to anti-gay-rights groups. That's not cool at all. And if I was going to a church that did the same thing, I'd be out of there in a flash. I think a person or a church can say, "It's our belief gay marriage is wrong" - but... That's all it is, a belief. You don't have to agree or like it, but it's their belief. And - at the same time - I think that the same person or church can also say, "We are in support of gay rights and want them to have all the rights that everyone else does."
and they can do that but they are still bigots.
There's a clear difference. Said person is saying, "I don't believe gay marriage is right" (within their belief construct) - BUT that same person is also in support of gay marriage from a legal standpoint, and all other gay rights. I don't see their being an issue with that. At the end of the day, I don't care what someone "believes" - that's up to them. But as long as that person isn't denying my rights or someone else's rights, no harm no foul.
How could it possibly be "no harm, no foul" when it's going to affect how they might regard another person that comes to them for any reason? You're talking about intolerance that changes how someone gauges another person's worth as a human being and it's going to affect every decision they have to make about them. As if this entire topic wasn't a receipt of that already. We don't arrive to situations like the one we're discussing - much less the countless others regarding intolerance inspired by religious beliefs - by coincidence. Where do you think these problems sourced from?
no one is saying they aren't allowed have to have those rights and beliefs, but that doesn't change the fact that they are bigots which is what ruxtpin, in all his wisdom, seems to be arguing.
So said individual/church can have their own beliefs, and they can also be in support of gay marriage and gay rights. But if their beliefs run contrary to their support of gay rights, then they're bigots?
NathanMcMahon
Banned
So said individual/church can have their own beliefs, and they can also be in support of gay marriage and gay rights. But if their beliefs run contrary to their support of gay rights, then they're bigots?
yes
no one is saying they aren't allowed have to have those rights and beliefs, but that doesn't change the fact that they are bigots which is what ruxtpin, in all his wisdom, seems to be arguing.
I consider bigotry to be an intolerant view. If you don't think gays should marry and carry out that view by simply trying to tell them of whatever harm you think it will cause so that they'll decide not to marry, that isn't bigoted.
If you don't think gays should marry and carry out that view by trying to make it illegal for them to marry, that is bigoted.
Personally, I would compare it to my views on religion. I consider religion extremely harmful to someone, but I'm not going to impede their right to believe it or go to church. Am I then bigoted against the religious?
Going by how this country votes, most anti-gay people certainly are bigots, but it isn't necessarily true.
Of course, none of this has anything to do with the topic at hand with Chick-fil-a, they're directly supporting hate groups.
Doesn't seem to add up to me when that person isn't being utterly intolerant or treating anyone with hatred/intolerance or denying anyone's rights.
NathanMcMahon
Banned
Doesn't seem to add up to me when that person isn't being utterly intolerant or treating anyone with hatred/intolerance or denying anyone's rights.
you know what, you're right, and I took it to far. i'm sorry for being so hard headed about it.
If you don't think gays should marry and carry out that view by trying to make it illegal for them to marry, that is bigoted.
I agree 100%.
On the flipside, If you don't think gays should marry (because of your religion), yet support gay marriage and want them to have all the rights that you have, then that's not bigoted. Yet moop is telling me it is.
WanderingWind
Mecklemore Is My Favorite Wrapper
No, you're still bigoted. You're just self-aware enough to want to distance yourself from the legislation of that hatred.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.