Published: Sunday, July 29 2012 12:00 a.m. MDT
Like an outfit called 'loose slots and cheap beer O rama' deserves to
have 20 franchises in the salt lake valley, chick fil A belongs in Boston.
Well good on the ACLU for sticking up for that. There's no excuse for
saying he would deny a permit.
Threatening to use public resources to discriminate against an otherwise lawful
business because you disagree with what that business owner has said about gay
marriage is bone-headed and indefensible. That said, I won't
be eating any more Chick-fil-A sandwiches (not the best I've eaten, but not
the worst) because I don't want the profits generated by my purchase to
fund groups that seek to deny civil rights to American citizens.Threatening to use public resources to bully Chick-fil-A is as wrong as Mr.
Cathy's bullying of gay citizens. We should not tolerate
either form of bullying.
The up-roar over the Chick-fil-A founder has nothing to do with his words, he is
after all entitled to his opinion. The up -roar is not even due to his gloating
about donating "some money " as stated in the story -what he donated was
over $5 million, pocket money to him I'm sure . What is wrong is a group of
wealthy so called Christians pooling their mass wealth trying to change laws to
force their views on everyone. You are entitled to your opinion, but you are not
entitled to legislate what my opinion will be. My God is not prejudice or look
down on those different from the others, he loves everyone.
Well said, Blue. I agree on both points (though I'd only been to
Chick-fil-A once in my life so it's not like my "boycott" of them
would change anything).
If you want to make a statement for or against Gay Marriage, do it on your own
dime. If someone decides that won't patronize Chick-fil-A
because of their stand on gay marriage that is their right. If the same person
is using government money and power to stop them from setting up a restaurant
that is NOT their right. There is a difference between what we do in
the private sphere with our own money and choices and what we do in the public
sphere with public money and power. Yet both sides constantly lose site of this
important point.If the Catholic Church runs a private adoption
agency with their own money they can refuse to place children with Gays (or
Baptists or Mormons for that matter). If they use public money to run the agency
they cannot discriminate. Yet the Deseret News has repeatedly cited the refusal
of the State of Massachusetts to allow the Catholic Church to discriminate
against gays in adoption agencies run with state dollars as an example of an
infringement of religious liberty.You can't have it both ways
I agree Bule, I do have to however I find it fascinating that this author went
out of their way to not acknowledge the ACLU has not just stepped forward with
the statement they have stated their willingness to represent chick fil a in
court. Articles have been running in other papers for a couple of days know
about this fact and yet the DN has not run one whisper of it.
RE: DaveRLAre you opposed to a group of wealthy athiests, or wealthy
liberals, or wealthy "insert any group here" amassing their money to
change laws and force views on everyone? or does your viewpoint
only apply to christians or conservatives or groups disagree with?Everyone is entitled to try influence the creation of laws in this country,
not just specific person or groups, that is the greatness of america, and that
is how system works.Christians have every right to speak out in
public, and help in creation of our laws, they are Americans too.And
the beauty of America is you have the freedom to CHOOSE where you live, so you
can live with like minded people.Do those people not have freedom
and right to do that?The chick-fil-a man stated his beliefs in
traditional marriage and was even willing to back it with his money, BUT he
actually never said a word about gays.
Another example of those seeking tolerence being totally intolerent. I'll
be stopping in for a Chick-fil-A this week.
Blue,Have I missed something in the Chick-Fil-A debate? The CEO
expressing personal opinions opposing gay marriage and contributing funds
accordingly does not strike me as bullying. I can understand that some will
disagree and will stop eating there. But I simply do not see how this is
bullying. Can we not disagree anymore? If you and I disagree on abortion or
immigration or any other hot button issue, is one of us therefore bullying?
It's pretty ironic that people on the left always assume that when fascism
comes to America it will come from the right. It's frighteningly obvious
that in 2012 the thought police are on the left. Be extremely careful who you
support if you truly believe in freedom and liberty.
@ Blue: Very well stated!
I will be eating at chick fila all week. And three times on the day of the GLBT
daverl, I think you've got your story a little backward. The laws are
already clear and established and have been around for centuries. The gay
agenda with it's wealthy supporters are the ones who are trying to change
laws and push their beliefs on that Vast majority.They do not allow for
any opinion other than their own, otherwise, it's hateful or bullying.The accusation works both ways.20 years ago, the gay/lesbian only asked
for tolerance.Now, they want everyone to agree on every issue or the
hatred and outrage begins.Just look at the reaction when once again,
the voters of California defeated gay marriage.
Twin Lights: "Have I missed something in the Chick-Fil-A debate?"It seems pretty clear. What's to not understand? Mr. Cathy donates
money to groups that favor forcing their personal religious bigotries onto the
public and to the detriment of civil rights for gay citizens. If you support
bullies, I say that makes you a bully, too.Similarly, if a public
official wants to use public resources to threaten an otherwise lawful business
solely on the basis of the personal views of the business' owner,
that's also an indefensible act of bullying, and is even worse because it
is bullying under the cloak of government legitimacy.Judge
Chick-Fil-A by the quality (or lack thereof) of their food. If Mr. Cathy uses
profits from the sale of his sandwiches to support groups that seek to bully
other citizens, call him on it and stop eating his sandwiches. That said, no
mayor should threaten Chic-Fil-A as a business just because its owner holds
beliefs those mayors find repugnant.
@AZRodcenturies? barley two decades land only in certain states et alone
Blue, either we agree with you or we are bullies? Really? Or if we disagree that
is okay as long as we are muzzled. Logic is dead.
Screwdriver, Blue, Twin Lights,+1. This is a definite and troubling
overreaction by city government, it's not as if the owner of Chik-fil-a is
espousing White Supremacy. But his stance does make me far less inclined to give
my personal business to his chain. TRUTH,I find it amusing how
proud you are of such a childish sentiment. Let me know how you feel after
eating fast food all week. Sacrificing your health for a cause, that is indeed
"Are you opposed to a group of wealthy athiests, or wealthy liberals, or
wealthy "insert any group here" amassing their money to change laws and
force views on everyone?"I am opposed to all big money in
politics. That clear enough for you?Union money corrupts.
Corporate money corrupts. And the citizens united ruling put that all on
steroids. I want the bribery out of our govt and I believe that both
sides are much more likely to do a better job.I have yet to see a
conservative who thinks the Citizens United ruling will taint our politics.
AZrods,"The gay agenda with it's wealthy supporters are the ones
who are trying to change laws and push their beliefs on that Vast
majority."Nope, dead wrong on that one. Polls show that not only
do a majority of Americans now feel that gay marriage is acceptable, the
proportion of Americans who feel this way has been increasing greatly over the
last few decades. This is in contrast to abortion, which has not seen a large
increase in public support over the same time period. The reason why so many
states are still able to pass ballot initiatives banning gay marriage is that
the opponents of gay marriage tend to be zealous about it, whereas many citizens
who accept gay marriage don't see it as a big enough issue to go to the
polls over. It's all about voter turnout. Think what you will of those
facts, but if the trend continues, religious conservatives will be on the losing
side of this debate before too long. You already have lost majority public
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments