Liberals, media attack Chick-fil-A for opposing gay marriage

Jul 20, 2012 Full story: Examiner.com 229

Although Chick-fil-A has been promoting its Biblical values since it first opened 66 years ago, liberals and many in the so-called "mainstream media" are upset the company does not support gay marriage .

Full Story

Since: Mar 07

The entire US of A

#21 Jul 22, 2012
This business has every right to promote ignorance and bigotry if it chooses.

And sane folks have a right to protest/boycott the ignorance and bigotry in any legal manner.

That's the American way.

“ WOOF !”

Since: Oct 10

Coolidge, AZ

#22 Jul 22, 2012
Nytebreid wrote:
Hwyangel, the first of your three previous posts addressed incest. Fortunately, SSM is recognized in New York, so we can go online and view New York law:
http://public.leginfo.state.ny.us/LAWSSEAF.cg... @LLDOM+&LIST=LAW+&BROW SER=EXPLORER+&TOKEN=564384 67+&TARGET=VIEW
I draw your attention to the DOM section - specifically article 2: Marriage (section 5 addresses incestuous and void marriages). Article 7 covers adoption.
I think you'll find that all states and nations' SSM laws are a bit more than JUST the three words "two consenting adults."
It depends on what the definbition of "incest" is, because the legal definition of that varies from state to state.
CFA Rocks

El Segundo, CA

#23 Jul 22, 2012
Queers spend too much time on Topix.
Get a life.

Since: Apr 08

Chagrin Falls, OH

#24 Jul 22, 2012
CFA Rocks wrote:
Queers spend too much time on Topix.
Get a life.
Why are you in the LGBT threads again?
CFA Rocks

El Segundo, CA

#25 Jul 22, 2012
Gay And Proud wrote:
<quoted text>
Why are you in the LGBT threads again?
To defend Chick-Fil-A and the American way of life from homosexuals.
hwyangel

Louisville, KY

#26 Jul 22, 2012
Nytebreid wrote:
Hwyangel, the first of your three previous posts addressed incest. Fortunately, SSM is recognized in New York, so we can go online and view New York law:
http://public.leginfo.state.ny.us/LAWSSEAF.cg... @LLDOM+&LIST=LAW+&BROW SER=EXPLORER+&TOKEN=564384 67+&TARGET=VIEW
I draw your attention to the DOM section - specifically article 2: Marriage (section 5 addresses incestuous and void marriages). Article 7 covers adoption.
I think you'll find that all states and nations' SSM laws are a bit more than JUST the three words "two consenting adults."
A bill that would repeal New Hampshire’s 2009 law legalizing same-sex marriage would also allow two citizens of either sex to enter into a civil union —even siblings. Bates explained to the Union Leader that incest laws would not be violated by allowing siblings to enter into civil unions.“There is no reason for us to speculate on the sexual nature of that relationship,” he said.
http://dailycaller.com/2011/10/27/new-hampshi...

The major argument advanced by the Government in favour of civil partnerships is that there were ‘hard cases’ which needed to be remedied – individual cases of disadvantage suffered by homosexual couples in comparison to married couples. Yet for every ‘hard case’ cited for a homosexual couple, there will be almost 60 times as many cases which apply to people in ordinary families. For example, two elderly sisters live together for twenty years. One dies, and the other can’t afford the inheritance tax and has to sell the home they shared. A gay couple register their partnership. One dies after only a year and the other inherits a large property, tax-free. Over 80% of the public believed the Civil Partnership Bill should have been fairer to ordinary families according to an opinion poll. Even the Government and supporters of the Bill were forced to admit that civil partnerships created injustice for ordinary family members.

It's just a matter of time.

Since: Apr 08

Chagrin Falls, OH

#27 Jul 22, 2012
CFA Rocks wrote:
<quoted text>
To defend Chick-Fil-A and the American way of life from homosexuals.
So you're here to impose your religiously based strict viewpoint on the rest of society. Sounds like Iran. Perhaps you should move there -- you'd be much happier than in a country that claims freedom of speech, freedom of belief, freedom of religion, and all round freedom as the basis for its existence.
hwyangel

Louisville, KY

#28 Jul 22, 2012
See GENETIC Sexual Attraction (GSA). It's a proven genetic syndrome and its illegal.
ali71

Bowling Green, KY

#29 Jul 22, 2012
hwyangel wrote:
<quoted text>What I'm saying is that I believe in childrens rights to be protected from disease and deformity through blood testing and prohibiting marriage to immediate family. The right to know their family history and their medical history. The right to be cared for through grandparents rights or other immediate family should something happen to their parents. The right to inheritance and child support. Unlike adopted children a natural born child does not have these rights established through adoption. And unlike same sex couples, they don't have the ability to establish a will or power of attorney.
Maybe I'm being naive, but wouldn't most children of a gay couple be adopted, therefore have the same rights as any adopted child of hetero couple? Gays have parents too, hence grandparents. My sister, who is a lesbian, has been in a committed relationship for the past ten years and had she chosen to have had children my entire family would have loved and treated them the same as they do my kids who came from a hetero relationship. It's absurd of you to think otherwise!!

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#30 Jul 22, 2012
hwyangel wrote:
The redefinition of marriage for same sex couples is "two consenting adults". So if those "two consenting adults" happen to be siblings, first cousins or an aunt or uncle then it would be illegal to discriminate. Children would no longer be protected from being deformed. And if those "two consenting adults" happen to have a life threatening disease the children are no longer protected from that either because blood testing would discriminate against children who are adopted. And of course marriage would no longer give children a right to their nationality or their medical history because that would be discrimination against same sex couples too. But of course same sex marriage is not about children.
Wrong. Marriage equality for gay people means allowing gay people to participate under the rules currently in effect. That does not involve changing any of the rules about relatives.

But you would be right to believe marriage isn't only about children. Ability or desire for procreation has never been a requirement for marriage in any state and people who are past the age or infertile for other reasons get married every day. To make it one now, and only for gay people, is irrational.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#31 Jul 22, 2012
hwyangel wrote:
And let's not forget polygamy. If you have two women, they get married. They each have their own children. It doesn't prohibit the childrens fathers from being responsible for child support or having a relationship with their children. What you have is two sets of children with four legally responsible adults. The relationship is there and the financial responsibility is there. The only thing missing is the marriage certificate and the tax write off. How is this not polygamy?
Some women choose anonymous sperm donation. Other arrangements may include using the genetic material of a relative of one and the genetic material of the other partner. Contracts can spell out the expectations of the donor which may include having some or no responsibility. The options are the same as when a straight couple chooses (for whatever reason) to use assistance.

This is not polygamy, and there is no reason to believe allowing same sex couples to participate under the rules currently in effect would lead to polygamy. Again, many straight couples use the same methods of assisted reproduction.

“ WOOF !”

Since: Oct 10

Coolidge, AZ

#32 Jul 22, 2012
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong. Marriage equality for gay people means allowing gay people to participate under the rules currently in effect. That does not involve changing any of the rules about relatives.
But you would be right to believe marriage isn't only about children. Ability or desire for procreation has never been a requirement for marriage in any state and people who are past the age or infertile for other reasons get married every day. To make it one now, and only for gay people, is irrational.
I agree.

Gay Cousin Marriage ! The NEXT Frontier !(shoes not required).

:)

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#33 Jul 22, 2012
hwyangel wrote:
<quoted text>
A bill that would repeal New Hampshire’s 2009 law legalizing same-sex marriage would also allow two citizens of either sex to enter into a civil union —even siblings. Bates explained to the Union Leader that incest laws would not be violated by allowing siblings to enter into civil unions.“There is no reason for us to speculate on the sexual nature of that relationship,” he said.
http://dailycaller.com/2011/10/27/new-hampshi...
The major argument advanced by the Government in favour of civil partnerships is that there were ‘hard cases’ which needed to be remedied – individual cases of disadvantage suffered by homosexual couples in comparison to married couples. Yet for every ‘hard case’ cited for a homosexual couple, there will be almost 60 times as many cases which apply to people in ordinary families. For example, two elderly sisters live together for twenty years. One dies, and the other can’t afford the inheritance tax and has to sell the home they shared. A gay couple register their partnership. One dies after only a year and the other inherits a large property, tax-free. Over 80% of the public believed the Civil Partnership Bill should have been fairer to ordinary families according to an opinion poll. Even the Government and supporters of the Bill were forced to admit that civil partnerships created injustice for ordinary family members.
It's just a matter of time.
This demonstrates some of the problems that come up when trying to deny legal equality. The simple solution is to treat gay people equally under the law, rather than trying to create a less than equal compromise.

“ WOOF !”

Since: Oct 10

Coolidge, AZ

#34 Jul 22, 2012
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
This demonstrates some of the problems that come up when trying to deny legal equality. The simple solution is to treat gay people equally under the law, rather than trying to create a less than equal compromise.
I agree. But too many people are opposed to equality in general, and equality as you specified it in particular.

"Equality" really runs counter to American tradition and history (despite a widespread misconception to the contrary).

“Antisocialistic”

Since: May 12

Lake Charles, LA

#35 Jul 22, 2012
It's ridiculous that minorities can throw their politically correct weight around. Homosexual organizations threatened to boycott Home Depot if it did not contribute to gay and lesbian organizations. Home Depot caved. I don't shop there anymore.
Someone opens a fast food restaurant that greets you immediately upon entry to the store, provides your food within 2 minutes of ordering, actually gets your order right, and provided scholarships for student employees. It's been a Christian company from day one and has always been closed on Sundays. Yet freedom of religion apparently means nothing in this day and age of the majority allowing the minority to set the rules and run the show.

Since: Apr 08

Chagrin Falls, OH

#36 Jul 22, 2012
FaFoxy wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree.
Gay Cousin Marriage ! The NEXT Frontier !(shoes not required).
:)
I guess since they already have hetero cousin marriage in many places...

(I don't know any LGBT people who have the slightest interest in being romantic with blood relatives.)

Since: Apr 08

Chagrin Falls, OH

#37 Jul 22, 2012
Prep-for-Dep wrote:
It's ridiculous that minorities can throw their politically correct weight around.
Exactly! Who do those white, heterosexual, Christian men think they are?

“I beleave in reason not god”

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#38 Jul 22, 2012
Not Yet Equal wrote:
“Government ought to be kept off our backs, out of our pocketbooks, and out of our bedrooms.”
“The positive role of limited government has always been the defense of these fundamental principles. The conservative movement is founded on the simple tenet that people have the right to live life as they please, as long as they don't hurt anyone else in the process."
"Religious factions will go on imposing their will on others unless the decent people connected to them recognize that religion has no place in public policy. They must learn to make their views known without trying to make their views the only alternatives."
“There has always been homosexuality, ever since man and woman were invented. I guess there were gay apes. So that's not an issue. The Republican Party should stand for freedom and only freedom. Don't raise hell about the gays, the Blacks and the Mexicans. Free people have a right to do as they damn well please."
Conservative Icon, Republican Presidential candidate, Barry Goldwater.
Prejudice and discrimination are not conservative values, even though many who claim to be conservative promote them.
I am an atheistic. but I must accept that this country has a Christian Majority. the people decide what is important. so there is going to be Christian influence for the liftime of anyone reading this.and they have even tho they may be stories they have stood the test of time for a reason. and should not be discarded likily

“ WOOF !”

Since: Oct 10

Coolidge, AZ

#39 Jul 22, 2012
Gay And Proud wrote:
<quoted text>
I guess since they already have hetero cousin marriage in many places...
(I don't know any LGBT people who have the slightest interest in being romantic with blood relatives.)
About one half of the states allow cousin marriage, and about oe half the states do not (One state specifically allows uncle-niece marriages and aunt-nephew marriages), and ALL states legally recognize the marriages of cousins performed in other states.

It's always been a myster to me however, HOW a state knows that the parties are first cousins, because the counties don't do a genelogical research when they hand you a marriage license. Many states, including New York where I am from (born in Brooklyn, lived there 50+ years until just recently), and which legalized Same Sex Marriages last year, don't even require a blood test as they previously did.

So unless a couple announses it at the county office, how would a the government know if a couple to be married are first cousins ?

And incidentally, President Roosevelt married his cousin and I don't remember reading about anyone raising a ruckus about that.

“Antisocialistic”

Since: May 12

Lake Charles, LA

#40 Jul 22, 2012
Gay And Proud wrote:
<quoted text>Exactly! Who do those white, heterosexual, Christian men think they are?
Keep in posting! Your lack of intelligence only hurts your cause.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Gay/Lesbian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Gay Marriage and the Limits of Tradition 17 min Pietro Armando 1,033
Anti-gay Tenn. billboard stirs religion debate 45 min NorCal Native 689
Board member opposes teaching definition of gay 50 min Fundies R Mentall... 130
What if high court rejects gay marriage cases? 52 min Fa-Foxy 9
Facebook apologizes to drag queens for name policy 54 min Fundies R Mentall... 6
Questions linger on gay Boy Scout leaders as Ga... 59 min Jeremy 4
Is Polygamy the Next Gay Marriage? 1 hr Frankie Rizzo 2,275
Divorce Law Out Of Synch With Same-Sex Marriage 1 hr Fundies R Mentall... 41
State of Alaska defends gay-marriage ban 2 hr WeTheSheeple 165

Gay/Lesbian People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE