That's great and all, but it doesn't work for people who aren't God/Jesus. Our brains aren't wired to be able to love the sinner and hate the sin without great difficulty.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
CFA response to anti-gay alleg. "Guilty as charged." Do NOT gloat about eating at CFA
- Thread starter RBH
- Start date
- Status
That's great and all, but it doesn't work for people who aren't God/Jesus. Our brains aren't wired to be able to love the sinner and hate the sin without great difficulty.
The reason for a belief is how you examine it's validity.
The actions you take based on the belief is how you examine your tolerance.
If you support the rights of others, you're being tolerant.
If do anything to constrict the rights of others, you're being intolerant.
If you have good reasons for your belief, it's a valid view.
If you don't have good reasons for your belief, it's an invalid view.
Those can be combined in any way. You can have an invalid view and still be tolerant.
You can think homosexuality is harmful and still be tolerant by supporting gay rights. I'm not saying a lot of people do this (going by the voting here, not many at all do), but they do not conflict. In my opinion this is a stupid, invalid view because there are no logical reasons for it, but the person is also being tolerant.
I certainly agree with you. I think when the conversation turned in this direction, then it can't really continue unless both parties are on the same page. And if one side is using the Bible for direction and the other isn't, there's going to be a disconnect. (Not saying that any side is right or wrong, just that there's going to be some fundamental differences in understanding.)
Squirrel Killer
Member
I would take exception to that.
While I have been pro gay rights for as long as I've been aware enough to take a stance on the issue, for a time I was... well, not exactly against gay marriage, but certainly not for it (at that point in time) either. My position was that "civil unions" offered a politically palatable (at least more so than gay marriage) alternative that would bring the advantages of marriage to the gay community more quickly than fighting the political battle for full gay marriage would. Then a few years after that had been (comparatively easily) won, then no one would really give a shit when you normalize the terminology to move everything to "marriage" (or alternatively, term everybody's legally-recognized relationships as "civil unions.")
Now that the political fight has firmly developed along "marriage" terminology, I am more than proud to support gay marriage, even if I still think the fight has taken longer and been more contentious than if the main actors had taken more of a stepping stone approach.
The thing about the Bible argument is that it doesn't not expressly prohibit gay marriage. It's been leveraged as a tool for use against gays, which makes using the Bible for direction disingenuous and damaging to their religion as a whole.
Of course, Christians have never cared about public perception, look at the pedophilia scandal.
Daydream Sequence
Banned
Thanks for that. She's excellent.
nVidiot_Whore
Banned
You still were for, or supported gay marriage.
You just didn't believe it was the best strategy for it to happen.
wow shes annoying
Mercury Fred
Banned
This is false. Tolerance is not defined by one's actions, even though action can be the result. Tolerance is defined during the process of an individual evaluation whether action follows or not. Otherwise being permissive alone could satisfy the definition of tolerance, and we know that it does not.
Omegasquash
Member
Supreme court would disagree...no illusions there. Well, probably would, anyway.
And Boston/Chicago can't REALLY stop a business from opening there based on discrimination (which is what it boils down to, legally). The difference is that CFA as a business does not discriminate. The owners of CFA discriminate in a legal manner, whereas Boston and Chicago are simply putting their beliefs on record. They can't "stop" the businesses from opening, but they can very well do everything in their power to try.
I still have huge issue with this mentality that free speech is at risk...it's not. Speech and action are two different things, and certain things need to be defined as inalienable rights, among them sexuality and union between two people, regardless of race, creed, or religion.
onlyindreams
Banned
edit: Fuck, I was misinformed. Excuse my temporary idiocy.
Soulscribe
Member
This puts a lot of pressure on me because 1) I am a gay man, and 2) their food is really fucking good.
... Why can't Whataburger or Burger King be anti-gay? I'd boycott them in a jiffy!
... Why can't Whataburger or Burger King be anti-gay? I'd boycott them in a jiffy!
As far as I can tell, this action does satisfy the definition. Supporting gay rights and gay marriage rights is a fair, objective and permissive attitude. Even if your belief is that they shouldn't get married, you are being tolerant toward them.
Is that what you tell yourself?
Daydream Sequence
Banned
Some call it "having a personality". I think she's great.
freenudemacusers
Member
Jeez, read the thread before making these dumb posts mah gawd
Just have your tolerant Christian friend buy some of it and re-wrap it so you won't know.
chaostrophy
Member
The gay community debated about whether gay marriage was a worthwhile goal decades ago. Gay marriage is only a mainstream political position because your viewpoint lost.
Vermillion
Banned
She seems too bubbly. But whatever works for her.
onlyindreams
Banned
I have been reading the thread and I just think a boycott is silly. Can someone explain why my stance is "dumb"? I'm open minded to having my position change here. I mean, legalization of gay marriage IS happening. Slowly, but it is. Probably only older generations and their brainwashed offspring are against it because of societal/religious norms of their upbringing and stuff. It'll happen everywhere soon enough.
Are these organizations actually doing anything super horrible or evil besides just trying to pointlessly push their political stance on a public that increasingly doesn't care? Show me an example and I'll join the boycott.
Are these organizations actually doing anything super horrible or evil besides just trying to pointlessly push their political stance on a public that increasingly doesn't care? Show me an example and I'll join the boycott.
Boycott sends the message that if you support anti-gay organizations, you'll lose business. Hit em in the bottom line. Simple as that.
If only there was a thread where this issue has been discussed (and explained) several times over for the last 40 pages.
Keru_Shiri
Member
A lot of the organizations have done quite a bit more (drumming up false reports linking homosexuality to pedophilia, for example). Let me see if I can find some links for you.
EDIT: This seems like a good place to start for answering the bolded.
onlyindreams
Banned
Ugh, holy shit. Some of that is more backwards and fucked up than I expected. Giving kids CDs with the kids meals promoting all these religious values is so scary and enough to make me not want to eat there anymore alone. Ugh.
You have to know why they support those things to know whether their conclusion is not just permissive but also free from prejudice. That's the point; we have to examine the evaluation to have a receipt of tolerance. If we don't, we can only validate the act of being permissive.
That would make their belief prejudiced, it does not make them intolerant.
If someone has a perfectly reasonable and rational belief, yet wants to constrict the rights of others I consider that intolerant. I do not tolerate murderers for instance. I have very good reasons for that and yet I am very intolerant.
Good news for Chick-Fil-a fans in Chicago. For me this is great news I won't have to go too far to get my Chick-Fil-a fix best chicken sandwich I have ever ate.
Chicago Chick-fil-a
Chicago Chick-fil-a
Keru_Shiri
Member
Um. Trying for a ban? The story is relevant, but what a way to present it.
Count Dookkake
Member
NathanMcMahon
Banned
man, so pathetic.
TheChocolateWar
Member
And what is this supposed to accomplish exactly? The company will continue to make delicious sandwiches which I won't be able to partake of anymore and gay marriage will still be legalized. I do not see how refraining from buying chicken sandwiches because of this will do anything but harm the economy and innocent third parties working for the company.
No matter what side you are on our government should not be able to take away our first amendment right. If I want to do business in a certain city what I believe or my religion should not be a criteria on wheter I can do business there or not as long as I am not trying to push values on my customers.
Count Dookkake
Member
They could just change the policy.
Also, the economy will not be harmed. There are other companies that like to make money selling fast food.
empty vessel
Member
The problem is that if CFA is incorporated (and I don't know if it is), then the discrimination is really against a governmental entity, not a citizen. (I realize the concept of popular sovereignty has been terribly perverted by incorporated business interests, but my opinion is that such entities have no constitutional rights that can be violated because they are in essence creatures of government. I know current law recognizes the possession of such rights by state-created entities like corporations.)
EatinOlives
Member
It stops being a simple viewpoint when the company is using business profits to donate to foundations of said viewpoint. Active donations means they're doing far more than simply expressing an opinion.
Subjective factors is basically the constituents saying they don't like it. It's not due to economic problems, but simply because they don't want it there. That's still a legitimate reason for banning a store, as it has happened before and will happen again.
At any rate, I'm only explaining to you as to why the Mayor has the power to do what he did. I'm not trying to sell you on a concept that doesn't exist.
... incentivize companies not to support anti-gay marriage organizations? I thought I had made it pretty clear.
Gay marriage being legalized isn't something that just happens by itself. You know that, right? It takes people pushing for it. Stuff like this is helping to make it happen.
Are you a Penn State fan?
This would've been way more convincing before your previous post.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that Chicago's mayor had "Aldermanic privilege" which allowed him to block actions he deemed unfit. I think the ACLU would have an argument against Boston, but it sounded like Chicago had something in place that would allow them to legally forbid Chick-Fil-A from setting up shop in the city.
Omegasquash
Member
I actually work with someone that has that same issue.
The alderman can block it, yes. The question isn't whether he has that power, it's whether using it in this case is a violation of the first amendment.
NathanMcMahon
Banned
nvm, trolling bigots be trolling bigots. smh
Ah, okay. Thanks for clearing that up. Has he, or previous mayors, used it before?
balladofwindfishes
Member
I can't boycott what doesn't exist in my area. It's unfair that an organization is allowed to spend millions in money that can effect my area, and I have no recourse against them because I have no way of not supporting them.
Boycotts only work if the people who want to boycott were giving the company business already. This is a national issue that a regional chain has entered into, and it's impossible for many to send any message to that company.
TheChocolateWar
Member
And what would Chick-Fil-A's changing of policy accomplish? Again, nothing beyond the peace of mind of overly sentimental people who get hurt when people have different views than them.
Also; it would hurt the economy in some capacity. People will lose jobs. There are thousands of employees at this company. They will need to find new jobs and that downtime in productivity will have some non-zero negative impact on the economy.
Even as a strong supporter of gay rights, I see absolutely no reason to stop consuming a product from a private company on public policy grounds.
el retorno
Member
I have a few coupons to chick-fil-a. for free chicken sandwiches. I really don't want to give anymore money to this company but would it be wrong for me to just pick up a sandwich since I'm not really paying?
I guess I'm asking about boycott morality.
I guess I'm asking about boycott morality.
- Status