Wednesday is Chik-Fil-A Day

Unfortunately, I spent my lunch money for this week going to Chik-Fil-A yesterday. So if you want me to go to eat anti-bullying-thug chicken sandwich today, you will have to put seven dollars into my my tip jar (see the tip button to the right).

By the way, this whole bullying tactic is based on a fraud, typical of the modern deception engine we call the Leftstream Media.

What Mr Cathy said was a rather unexceptional statement that he supported marriage. In other words, he said exactly what Leftists of the last generation had been saying for years. (Indeed, one of the Leftist criticisms of capitalism dating back to Marx’s time was that the free market broke up traditional marriage by forcing the wives of poor men out into the job market to work.)

Mr Cathy made no political statement, said nothing about a political policy nor endorsed a political candidate, and said nothing about homosexual so-called marriage as opposed to polygamy or anything else.

It is a fraud. The pervertarian Leftroids are merely trying to gin up hatred against an honest and Godfearing man who, because his business depends on public goodwill, is in no position to defy them.

We must defy them for him. Eat a chicken. Slap a Leftist with a chicken.

98 Comments

  1. Comment by Boggy Man:

    The Mayor of Boston, Thomas M. Menino stirred up this pogrom in order to ingratiate himself to the gay community of Jamaica Plains , thus extending his fiefdom.
    People outside of Massachusetts simply will not understand this; the mayor of Boston is a borderline mental invalid who can barely complete a sentence without trailing off into incoherent babbling. He’s only in this position as he has been a coat-holder for many years, and in Kennedy country a potted plant will be elected if it has a D next to its name on the ballot.

    And no, I’m really not kidding: http://www.mumblesmenino.us/mumbling.htm

    • Comment by deiseach:

      What I could not understand was the absolute either idiocy or sense of imperial (as in Caligula) entitlement of the Chicago alderman, who sent a statement to the public press saying he would block any attempts by a Chick-fil-A store to get a licence in his ward solely and simply on the grounds of thoughtcrime.

      Now, the good Lord knows, Chicago politics took the worst of Irish parish pump politics and turned it up to eleven, and we all know how that works, and if a functionary wants to put the kibosh on something he can – but a little more subtly than that. Invoke obscure provisions of planning and zoning laws, gin up a fake ‘neighbourhood’ protest, let the mills of bureaucracy grind so slowly that the Second Coming has rolled around before the paperwork is processed.

      It seems to me, in my ignorance, that revealing prejudice so nakedly is just handing over all the evidence needed for a lawsuit challenging your refusal – or is Chicago so outside the legal system that there is no appeal to federal or other courts, should it become necessary?

      • Comment by Mary:

        Ah, but if you did it subtly, no one would know. You miss out on the cheers, the applause, the praise. . . .

        They revealed their prejudice so nakedly because they really didn’t realize that people would do anything but lavish them with honor for it.

  2. Comment by joetexx:

    Seems like the boycot is falling flat on its face.

    I recommend mustard and pickles with the sandwich. Fair enough food, not great, but well above the usual run of mall food.

    Speaking of which, Chik-Fil-A has been around Texas for years, always in malls AFAIK.
    Yesterday the bus went by the first free standing location I’d ever seen. Don’t know how it is in the lesser states of the Union.

    • Comment by Tim Ohmes:

      Actually, we live in the Texas panhandle and our second free standing location recently opened. The other has been open about a decade. We do also have one in a mall. All are doing booming business today.

      My wife tried to go at lunch and did not have the time to wait in line because of obligations.

      We know the owners of both locations and they are very gracious and generous gentlemen.

      In fact, the first free standing location was built by the owner of the mall location because the mall was always giving him grief for not being open on Sundays. It was because of the company policy to be closed on Sunday that led him to purchase the franchise in the first place.

      • Comment by joetexx:

        That’s very good news.

        I won’t be able to hi CFA till Friday, when I’ll stop by the new location.

        I respect them for the no-sunday rule. Las Palapas, a regional Mexican food chain, caved in on this issue some years back, and I’ve never really enjoyed their food since.

        Texas appears to have the largest number of CFA outlets, at 263.

        The freestanding are more profitable than mall locations though both make money.

        • Comment by joetexx:

          Well, Friday PM stopped by the new freestanding Chik-fil-A to perform my belated Appreciation.  It was the first time I had ever been in one outside a mall. 
          It was incredibly spacious clean and friendly. Most other patrons were young couples with kids. 

          Two deluxe sandwiches with pepper jack and a large ice cream cup. I don’t do nuggets or fries. The Texas Pete hot sauce had a serious bite. I snagged a few packets for home. 

          I saw no protests and no smooches except for a young papa kissing his infant. 

    • Comment by fabulous_mrs_f:

      We live 80 miles from the nearest Chik-fil-a, and never eat there because it’s in the mall, and we just don’t go to the mall that often. We didn’t go today, but we shall make a point of going whenever we are near the mall now.

    • Comment by Vision_From_Afar:

      You don’t understand how a boycott works, do you? It’s the simplest thing in the world to not go somewhere for food, and that’s what everyone has committed to. Do you honestly believe that there’s going to be this monthly surge of supporters at Chik-fil-A? Let’s see where everything stands in three months, or six, shall we?

      • Comment by John C Wright:

        Note the easy and natural way a Leftist slips into the condescending lecturing mode. They are not even aware that they do it. Visions (not her real name) does not say “you have made an understandable error, but I respect your conclusions, even though they differ from mine” — instead she says “you don’t know how it works and I do. I am smarter than you.”

        It is almost charming how complete the self-delusion of the Left can be, how insular they are from reality. Nothing phases them. Facts are optional.

        Yesterday’s sales figures broke all records. It is a sign of the discontent of the American people with the semi-socialist holier-than-thou statist Christophobic indecency-loving pinheaded pseudo-intellectual establishment of the Left. We Americans are weary of being lectured and hectored by moralizing moral retards.

        • Comment by Vision_From_Afar:

          It’s concesention because it’s akin to the hare claiming victory twenty steps into a two-mile race. It shows a lack of understanding of not only the purpose of the race, but also that the current pace is unsustainable. Boycotts work because over the long term revenues become impacted. A day of surging business does not win the war.
          I have a tough time respecting someone who displays that level of (maybe even willful) misunderstanding.
          It’s a sign of just how many Americans are happy to do what religious leaders tell them to do, that’s all. I may be condecending, but I’m not the one who devolved into a paragraph-long namecalling session.

          • Comment by Robert Mitchell Jr:

            If you are going to lecture, you are going to look stupid unless you show you understand the issues in question. This was not about a “boycott” (“Come back in a year, you’ll see! Nobody does long term actions like the Left!”. Really? Then why does the Left even care, when Global Warming has not been dealt with? “Look, Squirrel!”). That is only another sad Leftist attempt at damage control. This was about bigoted Democrats announcing to the World that their private views trumped the Law. They had the power to stop a perceived enemy from adding to Civilization, and they were going to use that power.

            It was quite the eye-opener, for normally the Democrats use their control of the bureaucracy to strangle these things in the crib, cutting with a thousand unaccountable knifes, wielded by committees. The American people saw the mask slip, and stood with Chik-fil-A, stood with Freedom and Civilization.

          • Comment by Suburbanbanshee:

            Vision, it’s spelled “condescension.”

            I suppose it’s possible that large numbers of leftists have been the only thing standing between Chick-Fil-A and insolvency until now, but that doesn’t seem likely. Judging by how many people say they had never even heard of Chick-Fil-A until this little firestorm blew in, and who consequently proclaimed that they like CFA’s chicken and their waffle fries, it would seem that CFA has received invaluable advertising for free, as well as being provided with bonus market share over the last few days.

            If I were really cynical, I would go see which leftist journalists hold stock in CFA or one of its franchises, because really, this “boycott” has done them a heckuva favor.

            • Comment by PK:

              Probably none; last I checked, Chick-Fil-A is a privately held company — I suppose it may be possible to invest in it somehow, but you can’t buy stock in it. (I checked at one point in hope. I have loved their food since childhood and miss it sorely, as I am currently living a few hours away from the nearest.)

  3. Comment by Robert Mitchell Jr:

    Oh, that’s nonsense. You have a family. I’m putting in twenty, and if someone will do “Federal Matching Funds”, you’ll have enough to feed the thundering herd….

    • Comment by John C Wright:

      Mission accomplished. Thanks to your generosity, I was able to go to Chik-Fil-A today. At was at 3.00 halfway between the lunch rush and the dinner rush, and even so, it was a packed house, standing room only. I waited in line half and hour. The staff were courteous and efficient, and seemed to be holding up under the strain.

  4. Comment by lampwright:

    Mr. Mitchell,

    I had not planned to go to Chick-Fil-A today, despite my support, due to a lack of funds. But thanks to you and the other kind person who sent $10, I am on my way out to buy nuggets! (They have the best nuggets. They are tasty and have twice the protein to carbs ratio of all other nuggets.)

  5. Comment by JoeCool:

    Fool-proof plan for riches:
    1. Start a restaurant chain.
    2. On a radio program, say you support traditional marriage. This will cause a national media firestorm.
    3. ???
    4. Profit.

    Or at least, judging from the lines at Chick-Fil-A’s across the country, this would seem to work. Even here in left-of-Stalin California, the local Chick-Fil-A was packed, and the manager said it had been all day. Another patron said the first Chick-Fil-A she went to was closed because they ran out of food.

  6. Comment by Manwe King of the Valar:

    I had no idea about Chick-Fil-A appreciation day (not until a few hours ago anyway), but seeing as how I was planning on going out earlier today, I had a strong urge to go and eat at Chick-Fil-A (my favorite fast food joint btw), to show my support for them against that idiotic ban (I was aware of the whole debacle, just not Chick-Fil-A’s response to it).
    Sadly I was not able to eat there…seeing as how amazingly crowded it was!! Good lord that place was more packed than I have ever seen it before in my life! The line was so backed up I thought I’d just grab a bite somewhere else and hit Chick-Fil-A another day.
    You can imagine my surprise at the crowds, I had no idea what was going on, had to look it up when I got home. What’s more surprising…I live in a blue state.
    Amen!

  7. Comment by Vision_From_Afar:

    Hate to be the one to point it out, but it’s not a fraud. The preponderance of support for anti-homosexual initiatives (some even to designated hate groups) by Chik-fil-A and the Cathy family isn’t exactly a secret. Couple that with
    True, some politicians have done a stupid, knee-jerk, “not in my town” proclaimation, but we all know the moment it goes to court, the 1st Amendment will come into play, and Chik-fil-A will have their business license. The shifting tide of public opinion, on the other hand, means any actual business (long-term, of course, since this groudswell of support will quickly fade, mark my words) may not be as easily forthcoming.

    • Comment by John C Wright:

      You are seriously quoting the Huffington Post to support your claim that the outrage of the pervertarians over Chik-Fil-A is not a fraud? Mr Cathy was speaking to the Baptist press about the support of his family-owned business for traditional marriage. He neither expressed contempt for homosexuals or even mentioned them.

      Leftist, who are craven, pick weak targets and go after low hanging fruit. The idea here was to gin up faux outrage and cow the company into mouthing support for conformity of Lefty pieties. This is how the Leftist, with remarkable, shocking success, can herd large numbers of ill educated or indifferent people into seeming to support their various barbarism, enormities, and abominations. It also flatters the Leftist egos to imagine themselves as brave as Crusaders.

      The fraudulent element is in the selectivity of the outrage. The claim is being made that Chik-Fil-A is anti-homosexual, when the company is nothing other than pro-Christian.

      Now, you may make the claim, if you wish, that all Christians are homophobic bigots and that no rational reason to support the traditions moral norms of decency and civilization can possibly exist — that claim is a difficult one to proof, but there would be no fraud involved in making it. The fraud is in the accusation of hatred. Psychologists call this projection.

      Two of my homosexual friends have no interest at all in gay so-called marriage. They think it unneeded and counterproductive. They affirm the traditional laws of traditional marriages. Are they hate-filled bigots? If not, then the claim that being pro-family is the same as being anti-gay is not a logical claim.

      • Comment by Vision_From_Afar:

        Again, everything the HuffPost lists is a matter of public record. They spin and they spin, but even they get facts right occasionally (and still more often than Fox).

        The claim is true. Let’s try an analogy. Just as one can’t say, “I have plenty of black friends, I just don’t want them marrying white people” and not sound racist, one cannot say either, “I have plenty of gay friends, I just don’t want them married, period” and not sound discriminatory.
        No, not all Christians are homophobic bigots, and I’m not out to make that claim. I know Christians who march in Pride Parades, so I know better than to paint with a broad brush like that.
        Just because your friends affirm what you deem “traditional laws” doesn’t mean they get to decide that for the millions of others who do, in fact, want to get married.
        Hate-filled bigots? Perhaps not. Incorrect, or perhaps even arrogant, may be a more accurate term. The claim of being “pro-family” (a fully spun term in it’s own right) is exactly the same as being anti-gay, but just as someone can be a little bit racist, someone can also be a little bit intolerant.

        • Comment by John C Wright:

          I am someone who ten years ago approved of homosexual acts, or any act sexual or otherwise, provided it was harmless, between consenting adults; and I am someone who, because of a coldly rational and disinterested assessment of the arguments and evidence on both sides, reluctantly come to the conclusion that gay marriage was a contradiction in terms: mating rituals logically absurd unless reserved for pairs of organisms who can mate, i.e. sexual pairs.

          With this in mind, let me ask you some specific question:

          1. What does someone in your worldview make of a man like me? In your world, do I simply not exist?

          2. Did the arguments that I allege convinced me not exist? For perhaps they were rationalizations for a psychopathic hatred which existed, underground and unnoticed, buried in my soul, for over 40 years?

          3. If a committed libertine and libertarian can harbor bigotry akin to race hatred for decades without his own awareness, then your own assessment of yourself as free from such bigotry is suspect. Is it not?

          4. But if there was no bigotry hidden in my mind, tell me, how does a rational and disinterested observer, someone with no dog in that fight (I was then neither a theist nor a supporter of the traditional family) — how did I get TALKED into becoming a bigot? How, in your worldview, is it possible?

          5. If the only possible motivations for believing the statement “gay marriage is a contradiction in terms” are (1) a moral failing akin to race-hatred or (2) arrogance and ignorance, how was I talked into them?

          6. Was I enlightened one day and persuaded by a logical argument into bigotry? Was I humble one day and persuaded by a logical argument into arrogance?

          7. Well, there was a specific hour of a specific day when I changed my mind about homosexuality. It was March 5,2002, at slightly after 10:00 in the evening. My question is this. Was I a humble and enlightened soul at 9:30 that night, back when I was in your camp and believed what you believe? And then by 10:30 I was an arrogant bigot?

          Since I recall being more filled with arrogance in those days and much more prone to hate those who offended me, your answer will have to take in account my recollection of my state of mind at the time.

          I am not claiming the argument that persuaded me is free of error. Perhaps my logic is wrong. But you and yours not believe that I am a good man who has been misled by an understandable mistake in logic, or even a grossly negligent mistake in logic. You pretend I am a bad man, morally corrupt or mentally defective or both.

          Let me close by stating that I fully expect you to answer this question by dodging it, pretending it is not legitimate, and by launching a personal attack on me, a stranger to you. I am making this statement in the hopes that if I say this beforehand, you will be ashamed to attempt this tactic on a grown-up. If this is your reflex nonetheless, and my hopes are cheated, I have here a record which will allow me sadly but surely to shake my head and say that I had hoped for better, but not expected better, from you.

          • Comment by Vision_From_Afar:

            Hate-filled bigots? Perhaps not. Incorrect, or perhaps even arrogant, may be a more accurate term. [...] just as someone can be a little bit racist, someone can also be a little bit intolerant.
            It seems that this would be the only part of my response that you read. Your seven questions are all derived from a single premise: That, according to you, I feel your beliefs on gay marriage are bigoted. Allow me to re-state myself. I don’t find you bigoted. I find your views to be mistaken. The first requires that I make a judgement about you personally. The second is a value statement based on evidence you have provided with your responses. A bigot is wrong in all things. An intolerant, misinformed, or mistaken person is only “wrong” in the area in which they are mistaken.

            As to the event that led you to change your mind on this issue, I cannot fathom what caused you to come to believe in this way. I cannot begin to comprehend a watershed moment in a straight man’s life that would lead him to form an opinion about the lives of gay people. Not knowing you personally, it is unreasonable to expect me to provide further comment on such an event.

            You asked about my worldview. I find that confusing, considering that you, with all your broad assertions about me, have already established in your mind the sort of person I am. Let me say this: In my worldview, of course people like you exist, because my worldview is not limited by my religious dogma.

            All of your questions seem to ask whether I feel you are justified in being wrong. If you have been “convinced” to be wrong, then what does that mean to me? Were you rational before being “convinced”? Were you a “better person”? That depends entirely on who “you” are. That’s a question for your friends, your psychiatrist, or your priest. Such a weighty topic his hardly fitting for the musings of a humble pagan troll.

            • Comment by John C Wright:

              It seems you cannot answer the questions. As I predicted, you “reinterpreted” them through a stream-of-consciousness sort of free-association, you thought of what the questions reminded you of, and you made a comment about that.

              “All of your questions seem to ask whether I feel you are justified in being wrong. If you have been “convinced” to be wrong, then what does that mean to me? Were you rational before being “convinced”? Were you a “better person”? That depends entirely on who “you” are. “

              I was not asking you about my identity or personality characteristics. I was not asking you what my questions “seem” to be about. I was asking them at face value. I was not asking about myself at all, aside from using myself as an example.

              I was asking about your model of the universe. In your model, are you able to conceive that there is any honorable opposition to your position? Your answer seems to be no. Everyone who opposes your position is “intolerant.” If you actually thought I was honestly mistaken, your answer would have been yes, not no.

              If you cannot imagine such a thing, your model is limited.

              I submit to you that most discussions between Right and Left are futile because, far too often, neither side has the imagination or interest to interpret the question from the other man’s “frame” or point of view. Both side start from different starting points, and address different questions, and each side is frustrated that the other seems not to be able or willing to talk about the issue.

              In this case, according to my “frame” it seems to me to be a matter of pure and abstract logic: mating rituals serve no purpose aside from those related to mating, which homosexual pairs cannot do. From the Leftwing “frame” — if I understand it — the question seems to be a matter of simple justice: the homosexual, like the Blacks before them, are being discriminated against based on an innate characteristic which cannot be changed any more than skin color can be changed, ergo the only possible answer is to end this discrimination. Any opposition is to ending discrimination is favoring discrimination and favoring injustice. What motive can any man have for favoring injustice, unless he hates the victim?

              Your mental universe is too limited even to admit to yourself that my frame of reference exists, and so you cannot speak to any of the arguments that convinced me to change my mind. You can talk and talk, but you are not even on the same topic as I am when I think on this issue.

              If you do not understand what convinced me to change my mind, you cannot offer anything that will change my mind. Before even beginning a discussion of what changed my mind, you have to admit that something did, something other than a mere foolish emotion like hate.

              That is what my question was. Are you willing to admit that I have (what seems to me, at least) to have a good reason for my position? If you have defined your “frame” such that anything I say is defined as being a defense of discrimination and injustice, I cannot say anything of value. You have impeached the witness before hearing him.

              “As to the event that led you to change your mind on this issue, I cannot fathom what caused you to come to believe in this way. I cannot begin to comprehend a watershed moment in a straight man’s life that would lead him to form an opinion about the lives of gay people. Not knowing you personally, it is unreasonable to expect me to provide further comment on such an event.”

              You misunderstand what I am asking. I did not say that an “Event” made me “form an opinion about the lives of gay people.” I said that I heard an argument, which means “a set of logical proposition arranged in order such that agreement with the axiom compels agreement with the conclusion, provided all the steps are sound”. The argument convinced me. The argument was not an opinion about the lives of gay people.

              “You asked about my worldview. I find that confusing, considering that you, with all your broad assertions about me, have already established in your mind the sort of person I am. Let me say this: In my worldview, of course people like you exist, because my worldview is not limited by my religious dogma”

              Oh, puh-lease. This is contemptible on your part, sir. I am trying to have a serious conversation with you, and you whine and pout that I am biased against you, and think all sorts of nasty things about you. I ask you a sober question and you answer with a sneer about my religion. Your world view is very tightly controlled by a dogma, but it is a political one not a religious one.

              My opinion of you is very low and getting lower with each illogical, emotional, petty and childish reply you write, but my opinion will improve when and if you can show any ability to answer questions honestly and think clearly, with intellectual integrity.

              If you cannot answer, or even understand, the question I asked, then you have decided to put us at an impasse. My sense of honor only requires that I give you one opportunity to speak your piece and be heard. I have done that now. You failed the test, as I expected you would.

              Fortunately, the test for honesty is a forgiving one. You may retake it at any time. All you need do is speak and answer honestly, which means, taking the question seriously, thinking about it as if for the first time, looking at the matter from another man’s point of view.

      • Comment by Robert Mitchell Jr:

        Sigh. We know there is not a lot of interest in actual “Same Sex” Marriage. It’s been formally legal in Canada for almost a decade. Any couple who actually wants to get married is not going to let a trivial requirement like a trip to Canada stop them. As it is, I think Canada just broke 10,000 “Marriages”, in total, after almost a decade. Some demand.

        No, this is driven by two things, I think. One, the joy of the squabble (Not that those of us who post here would know anything at all about that!) Second, the Feminist movement works quite closely with the “Homosexual” movement, and I think they are playing a mean girl game. They are pretending to be BBF, setting up the patsies (the “Homosexuals”) to take the hit when the pendulum swings back. Feminists destroyed Marriage in America, but if they have a scapegoat, they’ll get away scott-free……

        • Comment by Vision_From_Afar:

          The fact that the same sex marriages in Canada, as legal as they are there (though I’m not sure how much, considering it would be two foreigners applying under Canadian law), they have zero legal standing in the US. As it is, any trip to Canada to get a piece of paper that any local court will throw out is an exercise in futility.

          • Comment by Robert Mitchell Jr:

            Ah, such empty preening. If you are getting Married, the exchange of Vows is the important part, not the “piece of paper”, yes? Every legal bit you might want is covered by Power of Attorney, save “benefits”. And they won’t get them, even if they got a “piece of paper”, given the American tendency to game the system. Given the weakness of the Economy, if millions of “couples” apply for “benefits”, companies will response by ending benefits for everyone. There will be no “discrimination”, true, but I am thinking there will be quite a backlash against those seen as responsible. A big backlash. People are weird that way. They get quite angry about losing something they see as their due…..

            • Comment by Vision_From_Afar:

              So seperate but equal, with your own special hoops to jump through? How is that even close to right?
              Of course, I’m of the opinion that we need to do away with marriage altogether (in the eyes of the law) and simply make it a religious ceremony. As you said, it’s the exchage of Vows that’s important, right?
              A legal binding equivalent to current “marriage” rights, but without the divisive “m-word” would settle this nice and proper.

              • Comment by Robert Mitchell Jr:

                Ah, I thought you wanted to get Married? If this is a fight for Justice, then it’s a different matter, and, of course, Epic Fail, for if you are fighting for Justice on this world, and “Gay Marriage” is the hill you have set your flag on, then you only showcase what a coward you are. See what W is doing to save the lives of Millions of Africans. Why not stand with a Hero, as opposed to standing with those who burn to harass innocent girls working the drive-thru?

                As to making Marriage religious only, our esteemed host, Mr. Wright, has written at length about why that doesn’t work. As an appalling compression, Marriage (for normal people) involves three parties. The Man, the Woman, and the Children. The Children cannot, by definition, enter into the Marriage “contract”, first, they did not exist, second, they are Minors. One of the reasons we have the State is to speak for those who have no voice, and so the State will always be involved in Marriage.

                Alas, the “m-word” is only divisive because of those who wish to steal status they have not earned. The sort of poor thinking that punishes both the bully and the victim that finally fights back. And it would work just as well. Try again, with eyes unclouded by hate.

                • Comment by Vision_From_Afar:

                  Aside: Did you just quote Princess Mononoke at me?

                  I am, in fact, married, with a second child well on the way. I fail to see, however, how fighting for a fellow citizen’s civil right labels me a coward? I don’t suppose you have a link for the miraculous dealings with millions of Africans? Also, I never said the morons who tear into drive-thru workers deserved any praise or veneration at all (having worked drive-thru before, I have great sympathy for their plight). It was your decision to drag the lowest example of the Gay Rights movement out as my supposed “Hero”, not mine.
                  I understand the desire to protect and speak for the Children, but I fail to see how an equivalent legal connection severs that power of the State. The State has zero business deciding what is and is not a marriage, since part of that legal connection, just like a current “marriage certificate” includes any children that would enter into the care of one or the other person, regardless of means (surrogate, adoption, natural, etc.).
                  You realize the rhetoric of marriage being “earned” is quite similar to mixed race marrige rhetoric decades ago? I fail to see how legal, civil rights that a majority of our nation enjoys must be “earned” by the minority. That’s the kind of thinking the Bill of Rights was written to protect against.

                  • Comment by joetexx:

                    Vision, you have seen me disparage married, gay-friendly straights, and comparing them to subversive Communist fellow travelers. This is actually too kind. 

                    I don’t think you’re a coward for supporting a non-existent civil right. I think you’re a useful idiot.  You have an absolute right to your position, but there is nothing courageous about it, and you deserve no praise for it. 

                    Of course the State must decide what is or is not a marriage. Who the hell else is going to? The notion that the government, which had the right to define the legality of  every other contractural relationship, cannot do so in the case of the most important contract of all is claptrap, in spite of the fact that it is fashionable claptrap on both the libertine left and the libertarian right.  The connection of marriage with children and property makes this necessary state duty more, not less urgent. 

                    You bizzarries about earning or deserving rights seem to be based in the strategy of comparing gay rights to the black civil rights movement. Doesn’t work for me. There is no way to earn a right that doesn’t exist. Invoking the Bill of Rights gets you nowhere, nor does the fact that gays are a minority. Were they a majority the case for SSM would be no less absurd. 

                    • Comment by Vision_From_Afar:

                      I believe that puts us, at best, at an impasse. I think I’ll call this line of questioning quits, joetexx.
                      Robert, I still want to know if that was a quote, though. :D

                    • Comment by Robert Mitchell Jr:

                      Yes, indeed a quote from that wonderful movie, and an excellent lesson for us all. A movie filled with well meaning liberals, who will all see Justice done though the Heavens Fall! Only our hero, Ashitaka, the Conservative, tries to see the context, with eyes unclouded by hate.

                  • Comment by Robert Mitchell Jr:

                    Of course. A useful example for this discussion, given the terrible monsters birthed by you and yours, who will not live and let live. Your way or the Highway! Let the Heavens fall! Various governments of America reveal themselves to be Totalitarians who will use the power of the State to enforce their personal preferences, and you applaud, because your eyes are clouded by hate. You will “cut down all the laws in England” to get your personal devil……

                    Yes, you are a coward. Horrible things happening in Africa. Horrible things happening in the Middle East. Horrible things happening in Asia. Instead of trying to make the world a better place, your and yours work to bankrupt bakers guilty of “thought crime”, you work to bankrupt the Knights of Columbus, for not seeing through your fraud. Can you bring up a part of your “crusade” that actually involved risk? Any suicide Nuns blowing up at Gay Pride Parades?

                    If you don’t understand why a fence is there, leave it up. If you can figure it out, if “I to see how an equivalent legal connection severs that power of the State.” then, maybe you should act. It was that acting without understanding that gave us two million+ murdered babies a year.

                    Well, sure, to those who seen with eyes clouded by hate, there is no difference between disordered acts and a difference of pigment. I note you are writing here. You know who else wrote to get their point across? Hitler. I fail to see how my slur is different from yours…..

                  • Comment by VaidLeVey:

                    “You realize the rhetoric of marriage being “earned” is quite similar to mixed race marrige rhetoric decades ago?”

                    The difference between the mixed-race marriage issue and the same-sex marriage issue is this: a male and a female from different races are capable of having children, a coupling between members of the same sex (no matter how often or how hard they try) will never produce children.

                    • Comment by Vision_From_Afar:

                      …and thus you have nullified the marriage of all those sterile by choice or accident.

                    • Comment by Robert Mitchell Jr:

                      Ah, no. Few things are final in this fallen world, and quite a few people have been surprised with a child. Even after having their tubes tied…….

                    • Comment by Vision_From_Afar:

                      And those who choose to not have kids? Are they not actually “married”?
                      Statistical outliers due to a procedure with an inherent potential for inaccuracy does not my argument nullify.

                    • Comment by Robert Mitchell Jr:

                      Yes, they are Married. The act of Marriage is a statement, “We will care for the children we make, together”. You may not “choose” to have children, but the World may say otherwise, and so only a Cad would have sex out of Wedlock. You have no argument, just a sad ad hoc “but what if normal people were as sterile as homosexuals? What then?”. They are not, and the attempt to live that empty, stupid dream murders millions of children a year. If you need a Crusade, there’s one for you. Ah, but speaking for those who have no voice will get you drummed out of the “Cool’s kids Club”, yes? Better to flatter the Rich and Trendy, to tell the disordered that they’re just fine the way they are……

                    • Comment by Vision_From_Afar:

                      I never said I “need a Crusade”, you’re the one who started all the “hero” and “coward” nonsense. If you’re that spoiling for a fight, I think we’re done beating the dead horse here. Ciao.

                    • Comment by John C Wright:

                      Technically, members of the same sex cannot “couple” with each other. The gross physical reality, which should be the first thing addressed if the matter were discussed in logical order, the fact that penis cannot fit inside penis, nor womb receive womb, is the engineering matter which is the last thing brought up. Instead, the emotions which surround the nuptial act are said to exist as entities in and of themselves, unrelated to the act or the ability to perform the act, and held up as justification for the rites and laws and social approval surrounding marriage.

                      The best counter argument I have heard (and never stated explicitly) is another argument from analogy. In the same way that gays are analogous to Blacks, gays are analogous to sterile women. Since a sterile women can get married, and gays are sterile women, gays should get married. The central fact that sterile women can copulate with her mate and gays cannot is overlooked. Various other sexual acts, masturbation and sodomy, are made analogous to copulation, and called sex.

                      So three analogies are used again and again in such arguments: gays are the new Black, gays are like sterile women, and sodomy is copulation.

                      I have asked, and have never been answered, what argument should be given and honest and openminded man who does not get or does not believe the analogy?

                      The reply is a blast of hate; ad homonem; condescension; sneers; the usual Lefty bullshit. The whole Democrat party reminds me of a clique are particularly petty highschoolgirls, whose behaviors have not point other than to shame the outsider and huddle with the insiders. Asking the question makes me an outsider, even though I was once an insider.

                      No one actually, you know, can give me an answer, even though I think I could come up with at least one, if I were arguing their side of the case.

                    • Comment by Robert Mitchell Jr:

                      Ah, I gave you too much credit. I though you understood that throwing away rules we have come up with over, perhaps, a half million years was a Revolutionary act, a desire (poorly thought out though it might be) to see Justice done, though the Heavens fall. I had hoped to put that drive to saving the lives of innocent children. But, alas, you are just being trendy.

                    • Comment by Mary:

                      One notes that you will never find the most die-hard racist arguing against interracial marriage on the grounds that marriage is defined as the union of a man and woman of the same race.

        • Comment by joetexx:

          Sir, I squabble never, but traffic in learned and civil disputation. (sniffs)

          It’s a lot bigger than feminists. ‘Gay rights’ is a stalking horse for the modern attack on  traditional sexual morality and natural law.  Gays by themselves are simply not numerous or powerful enough to push this agenda; in fact a lot of ordinary gays, as opposed to activists, don’t care. 

          ‘Gay- friendly’ straights, particularly happily married ones, PMO far more than do gays themselves.  They are deliberately subverting an institution that, by their own acknowledgement, is central to their happiness and the well- being of society. 

          They’re the present day exact equivalent of the middle class professional and business people who were Communist  ‘fellow-travelers’ fifty years ago, devoting their energies to a movement dedicated to wrecking their whole way of life. 

          • Comment by Vision_From_Afar:

            I have yet to see evidence that allowing a legal recognition of gay marriage would harm anyone else’s marriage. Last I checked, there was no spike in divorce rates after New York legalized it.
            I would argue that those gays who “don’t care” have simply luckily avoided any overt discrimination yet, but no one says they “have” to get married if the change occurs, so I don’t see why they can’t go on not caring.

            • Comment by John C Wright:

              Talk to a lawyer. The cases are coming, believe you me, which will rest on the precedent set by gay marriage to legalize polygamy, marrying animals or inanimate objects or oneself. In effect, gay marriage abolishes the connection between marriage any form of contractual partnership. This, unfortunately, was done by the introduction of no fault divorce laws decades ago.

              The damage down to marriage is almost unrecoverable, and the blame is all at the feet of the heterosexuals. My only objection to gay marriage on legal grounds is that the damage becomes unrecoverable rather than almost unrecoverable. Other than that, to me it is a non-issue.

              I have no objection to some form of civil union which recognizes survivorship rights in joint property and suchlike if two “Ganymedes” want to live in the same house and open joint bank accounts.

              As a Christian, I think homosexuality is a sin less harmful than that gluttony called alcoholism, which is, by the way, also legal in America, and also something a person is born with.

              Oddly enough, no one has ever called me an alcoholophobe or a bigot because I support laws against drunk driving and public drunkenness. But everyone on your side of the argument calls everyone on my side, from me personally to Mr Cathy a homophobe and a bigot and every bad name you can find, and always in that same sneering tone of condescending moral superiority from creatures whose only claim to moral clarity is their inability to follow the moral law or to think clearly about it.

              • Comment by Robert Mitchell Jr:

                One of the depressing things about the issue is the fact that for so many, it’s just “Civil Rights”. “Marriage is a Civil Right. Everyone should have every Civil Right. The End.”, with no awareness of context, of the Common Law. I have yet to see anyone pushing this issue that has any awareness of Common Law Marriages, as the most obvious example. No idea that if “Gay Marriage” becomes part of the land, without any other changes, then a lot of people will find themselves married to roommates. I’m a little nervous about that, I have three roommates, and I think that means that I will become, overnight, a bigamist. Ick. And good lord, the Palimony suits! All of which, I am pretty sure, will lead us to a legal requirement of proof of coupling, which, of course, will have to be part of the legal record. Yes, Paris Hilton will be eligible for Marriage, but not Vision_From_Afar, because she has no You-Tube Video. I am torn between surviving to see it come to pass, and praying for the Heart Attack…….

        • Comment by John C Wright:

          I think it is just the hatred and contempt for the Church, and the Leftist have the Homosexuals conveniently at hand as a pretend Civil Rights issue they can use to stave in the cathedral doors. They will drop that battering ram, or, as the saying goes, throw them under the bus, once their usefulness is ended.

    • Comment by Noah D:

      designated hate groups

      What groups, specifically? And designated by whom?

      • Comment by joetexx:

        The Southern Poverty Law Center is the gold standard for hate group designators, but I don’t know if VFA refers to them.

      • Comment by Vision_From_Afar:

        Family Research Council –

        One of the primary goals of the homosexual rights movement is to abolish all age of consent laws and to eventually recognize pedophiles as the ‘prophets’ of a new sexual order.
        -1999 FRC pamphlet, Homosexual Activists Work to Normalize Sex with Boys.
        “While activists like to claim that pedophilia is a completely distinct orientation from homosexuality, evidence shows a disproportionate overlap between the two. … It is a homosexual problem.”
        — FRC President Tony Perkins, FRC website, 2010

        ADF – Alliance Devending Freedom (Formerly Alliance Defense Fund), one of the most prolific anti-gay groups active today

        Marriage is not only under attack in California, but across the country. Activists have been demanding – through different types of legal attacks – that marriage be redefined for everyone – everywhere. By God’s grace, Alliance Defending Freedom has won 45 out of 61 marriage cases litigated to completion and is involved in nearly every arena where marriage is currently under attack. – ADF website

        And yes, Joetexx is correct, the SPLC is the one who designated them, but I think the quotes stand up well enough without “official” designation.

        • Comment by joetexx:

          The evidence does show that there is a significant overlap between homosexuality and pedophilia, and same sex ‘marriage’ advocates are attempting through legal challenges to redefine marriage for everyone. 

          There is nothing factually wrong with either of these quotes, and no sane person would find them shocking. 

          Vision, you need to get out of your hothouse bubble. 

          • Comment by Vision_From_Afar:

            You seriously don’t find that kind of mud-slinging wrong?
            I’m afraid this is where I’m going to respectfully end our discussion, because I don’t think we’ll ever see eye-to-eye on this.

            • Comment by John C Wright:

              Did you guys hurt each other, patting yourselves on the back too hard for your ‘insightful’ deconstruction of Christianity, or do you just cackle madly at the silly conservative plebs who ‘play’ at trying to preserve what Leftist are attempting to eradicate?

              No, Vision_from_Nowhere, it is far too late for you to do anything respectfully.

              • Comment by Vision_From_Afar:

                lol! Are you cyber-stalking me? You could at least post where that came from.
                Yes, I admit I take great offense at your and Mr. Shea’s treatment of my religion. Just because I refuse to be respectful to some doesn’t mean I can’t be respectful to others.

                • Comment by John C Wright:

                  Mr Shea and I are friends from way back, the only two members of the Shea-Wright Mutual Admiration Society, and his articles were one of the many things that persuaded me to convert to Christianity after many decades of atheism. I did not realize at first you were the same harpy crapping on the feast over yonder, since to me you took a more polite tone. If you followed his link here, who is stalking whom?

            • Comment by joetexx:

              If  you actually think that constitutes ‘mudslinging’, yeah we’re talking at cross purposes. As I said, hothouse bubble. 

              The notion that legislating standards of morality and conduct rooted in natural law, and common to a wide variety of religious traditions and philosophies, 
              is theocracy shows that leftists have no idea what a theocracy really means. 

              When they quiver in fear that a ‘theocracy’ looms in the US, I am irresistibly reminded of certain extreme rightists who dread black helicopters. 

      • Comment by Darrell:

        The Family Research Council by the Southern Law Poverty Center.

        http://www.startdebatingstophating.com/

    • Comment by Darrell:

      It is a ‘designated’ hate group — not groups. The Southern Law Poverty Center (SLPC) in late 2010 designated the Family Research Council (FRC) a hate group in large part because Peter Spriggs, a senior fellow at FRC, is a consistent vocal proponent of the position that there is a correlation between homosexual behavior and pedophilia and other positions on homosexual behavior that the SLPC believe to be junk science.

      Because the SLPC believes that Peter Spriggs is using junk science to advance his position the suggestion is that the FRC recognizes this as well and therefore are permitting this speech due to institutional bigotry. While I disagree with Peter Spriggs on many points I don’t know that focusing on the output on essentially one individual in a relatively narrow category when you look at the whole of FRCs positions on a vast array of issues is grounds to label the organization a ‘hate’ group. It would seem akin to calling the Roman Catholic Church a communist organization because some of its members support liberation theology or that the US Congress is a hate group because some of its members hold and voice the same views as Spriggs.

      All of this is deceptive at any rate as what Cathy and/or Chick-fil-A are or were funding was not the cause of the ‘outrage’ but was instead a pair of relatively mild statements about belief made by Cathy during two interviews, and do we even know if there have been any donations to the FRC since they were ‘designated’ a hate group by SPLC? This has been perhaps the single largest display of bigotry against traditional Christianity that I have ever witnessed in the United States. We seem to have reached a point in US history where people are authentically saying, “I can’t get my hair cut by him because he is a Republican”; “I can’t buy my groceries there because the store owner is a Democrat”; and “He can’t open a store in ths town because he is a Roman Catholic.” This is madness on an amazing scale and such Balkanization, not China, is going to be what destroys the United States.

      • Comment by Vision_From_Afar:

        Chik-fil-A donated to FRC, Exodus International (which used to promote the “pray away the gay” method of “fixing gays”), and the National Institute of Marriage, among others, just two years ago (see pages 29 and 30). Nothing newer is forthcoming because of IRS rules about waiting to release tax documentation.
        I was boycotting Chik-fil-A because of the donations before the statements hit the airwaves. I agree that boycotting them for their views is silly, but when they’re actively and monitarily supporting what I believe to be the wrong side of a Civil Rights issue, I have to draw the line.
        I have no issues with what Christians believe, but I take issue when they try to legislate those beliefs, ostensibly on behalf of those who don’t believe because they just don’t know any better. It smacks of theocracy, which isn’t what this country was founded on.

        • Comment by Darrell:

          Vision

          I wasn’t, of course, addressing your pre-existing personal boycott but rather the general manufactured outrage following Mr. Cathy’s two interviews. Of the three groups that you directly focused on, only one was, as far as I understand, designated a hate group by the SPLC and the donation was for $1,000 out of almost 4 million dollars in charitable donations and even that prior to the FRC being labeled a hate group.

          Clearly Mr. Cathy strongly believes that marriage should remain ‘Biblical’ in the United States and intends to advocate for his view. This is perfectly reasonable. Should you, out of a distaste for Mr. Cathy’s charitable donations, choose not to eat at his restaurants then you are being less reasonable but not yet insane. Should you, out of a political disagreement, choose not to eat at his restaurants or deny his restaurants the ability to operate in a state or municipality then you have gone mad.

          What you seem to fail to understand is that many people believe that the end game of making dissent illegal is precisely what is being intended. Many people believe that disallowing a company or church from operating if it politically advocates against or in any other way speaks out against LGBT platforms is the goal and the mayors of Chicago, Boston, and San Francsco simply showed their hand too early.

          I would suggest that it will not be too long from now that pundits, mayors, and governors are openly suggesting that the Roman Catholic or Southern Baptist Church is not welcome in their community and that they will use the machinery of government to block them or throw them out unless they bend their knee and promise to toe the line. This is a significant miscalculation and misread of the US population.

          As to boycotts, historically without government sanction they have not been effective, especially for any length of time. This s to say nothing of the people that they often radicalize into supporting the organization being boycotted. Before the current madness I hadn’t eaten at Chick-fil-A more than once in two years and that was because I wasn’t the one driving when we stopped there. Now I’ve eaten there three times in two weeks and it would have been four if there wasn’t a line going out the door and police directing traffic in front of the local Chick-fil-A yesterday.

          • Comment by Vision_From_Afar:

            Darrell,

            I think you and deisearch misconstrue my position. I absolutely think that the patently insane statements by various politicians were both a knee-jerk attempt at drawing support from their voter base, and suggestive of not only illegal, but unConstitutional activity.
            I’m afraid I have to disagree on one point though, where you see a clear division between Mr Cathy’s “charitable” donations and his political viewpoint, I see both a real effort via donations and politically to deny a basic civil right to my fellow Americans. I doubt that makes me mad in one sense, but certainly in another.
            What you seem to do is a delightful bit of fear-mongering. The Supreme Court itself has already decided on numerous occasions that patently religious institutions like the Church have broad (sometimes too broad in my opinion, but that’s neither here nor there) powers in their financial and employment decisions. Considering the Supreme Court has allowed that vitriolic reprobate Fred Phelps free reign in both his rhetoric and activities, I doubt any action against a religious institution would not be laughed out of the first court it encountered. This is a significant misread of US case law.
            If, historically, boycotts are so ineffective, then why do major retailers (Wal-Mart, Sears, etc.) capitulate so quickly every time the AFA announces they’re planning a boycott due to the non-existant “War on Christmas”?

            • Comment by joetexx:

              Of course, there is no ‘basic civil right’ to same-sex marriage, which does not and cannot exist. 

              Boycotts can be effective. It’s just that gay boycotts never are, because they are not as numerous (look at the 10 % nonsense) nor as important as they delude themselves into believing they are. 

              Retailers cave in to ‘War on Christmas’ boycotts because the WOC is quite real, ordinary people are mad about it, and the organizers of the boycotts are not manufacturing public outrage, but tapping into it. 

              Leftists are constitutionally incapable of understanding that grass-roots rightist populism is the real McCoy. They think the grass-roots must always be on their side, and sentiments among the masses they don’t like have to be cooked up by sinister corporations and advocacy groups. Their sheer cluelessness on these issues is probably the main reason I stopped being a ‘progressive’. 

              • Comment by Vision_From_Afar:

                You’re right of course. The ‘basic civil right’ is to marriage under the law, and all the rights and benefits thereof, regardless of the sex of those involved.
                I think you’ll find that a growing number of the population (>50% in those under 30) support gay rights, and those boycotts are going to become more and more effective as time goes on.
                The WOC is a joke. It’s a bunch of privilaged religious dilettantes whining about how a company cashing in on their blithely secular celebration of a religious holiday fail to address them properly by specifically ignoring other holidays around the same time of year.
                Grass-roots movements are delightfully difficult to control, as the Republicans are quickly discovering with the Tea Party. Eventually the rage and anger that drove the original swell will consume the movement as a whole, either imploding or succeeding before that happens.
                It’s not the corporations that worry me, it’s the “advocacy groups” who use tax exempt statuses as a smokescreen for discrimination and legal contortions designed to keep everything not Christian out of the public sphere at all costs.

                • Comment by joetexx:

                  Don’t want to dance if you’re tuckered out. I had this in the pipeline though, so I’ll just send it through. 

                  The WOC is a joke. It’s a bunch of privileged religious dilettantes whining about how a company cashing in on their blithely secular celebration of a religious holiday fail to address them properly by specifically ignoring other holidays around the same time of year.

                  Bah, humbug! sez this Christian Scrooge. 

                  Nobody ever complained about celebrating Chankukah in the season, or even Kwaanza, though the latter is a completely phony holiday cooked up by a con man and torturer ( google Ron Karenga).  Until these holidays were used as excuses to exclude references to Christmas, a specifically Christian holiday dear to the hearts of Americans, including many non-christians. 

                  Season’s Greetings and Happy Holidays are innocuous salutations, objectionable to no Christian – unless one insists that they replace Merry Christmas and, say, penalize employees who use it to customers. 

                  This is what the dilettantes you snicker at are complaining of; not the civil recognition of other religions at Christmastide, but the deliberate exclusion of their own – the historic and present religion of the American majority. 
                  If you don’t see this you are a bigger idiot than I thought at first. I say this in the friendliest spirit. 

                  You cannot, in fact be quite as big an idiot as I suspect, since you show some acuity in your perception of popular movements. I can only hope the tea party and other popular movements of the right become, and remain, out of control. 

                  • Comment by Vision_From_Afar:

                    Since my first version of this comment was lost in the vast and unknowable streams of the ether, let me try again:

                    Season’s Greetings and Happy Holidays are innocuous salutations, objectionable to no Christian – unless one insists that they replace Merry Christmas and, say, penalize employees who use it to customers.

                    I agree wholeheartedly.
                    However, in my personal experience in watching this fiasco for the last two years, all I’ve ever seen was a big store (Best Buy, Office Max, Wal-Mart, etc.) put out a flyer for their “Happy Holidays Sale!”, followed by a wailing and gnashing of teeth by the AFA and its ilk that “They didn’t say Merry Christmas! Christian haters! Boycott! Boycott! RAWR
                    I’ve never encountered an article or press release that claimed evidence of actual corporate efforts to quash saying “Merry Christmas”. If there truely have been, I think that is a gross overcorrection by companies in an attempt at policial correctness, and they should be chastized for it.
                    I’m not a complete idiot, after all. :D

                • Comment by John C Wright:

                  The ‘basic civil right’ is to marriage under the law, and all the rights and benefits thereof, regardless of the sex of those involved.

                  I am an attorney. This is a misstatement of the law. No jurist ancient or modern, from Plato to Blackstone, recognizes such a right.

                  If you are proposing it as a philosophical position set in natural law, that is, something the civil law, cannon law, and common law should have recognized in times past, that is a different argument.

                  To make such an argument you will have to show that an institution which is fundamentally and irreducibly sexual, the marriage institution, which has only ever existed in the history of the law as an institution governing relations between pairs of the opposite sex for purposes relating to sex, is in truth an institution that was always neutral and unrelated to sex, and must henceforth maintain neutral indifference to the sexes of the pairs of sexual partners involved.

                  It is not an easy argument to make. Sneering and pretending the argument has already been made is easier.

                  I will be so bold as to predict you have no argument, merely an analogy. You liken the legal recognition of the sexes as being of different sexes to be akin to race-hatred, and hence the inability of the law to redefine marriage as a neutral compact for mutual masturbation and sharing of property is the denial of a civil right. Homosexuals are a race like Negroes, and are discriminated against not by nature and reality, but by the cruel malice of man.

                  Those of us not convinced that homosexuals are a race do not see the analogy to race-hatred or racial discrimination. The civil rights argument in favor of Blacks is that they by nature are not slaves, that is, that they have the ability and therefore the right to control their own actions as free men. The argument here is the opposite. Since homosexuals (so the argument goes) cannot control their own acts, therefore they are slaves, and therefore they should be awarded the civil rights they demand in order to make it easier to share property and diminish the social opprobrium attached unfortunately and arbitrarily to their sexual perversion.

                  • Comment by Robert Mitchell Jr:

                    I think that one of the reasons some are so frantic about this issue. This is a legal system that allows goldfish to be in control of millions. House pets have inherited over a quarter of a billion! There is no legal reason for a “partner” to be left out of the will, save one. Your “partner” didn’t want to give you anything. You were just a toy. How soul destroying. I’m not surprised that someone might tell themselves it was the Law that caused them such pain….

                    • Comment by Vision_From_Afar:

                      And when the Law leaves them locked outside of their dying loved one’s hospital room, or denies them coverage for survivor’s benefits or health insurance? What then?

                    • Comment by Robert Mitchell Jr:

                      Again, all of this is easily dealt with. Power of Attorney gets you into the hospital room, no problem. Survivors benefits can be given to anyone and anything if it’s done ahead of time. As to “health insurance”, that’s not a right, that’s a perk, and if too many people get that perk, it will go away (see the Tragedy of the Commons). If that is to goal of the “Homosexual Movement”, to level the field so that everyone is treated the same, then say so, and understand that there will be a Large backlash if you are successful……

                  • Comment by watermelonyo:

                    Since homosexuals (so the argument goes) cannot control their own acts

                    I defy you to provide an example of anyone on my side of the debate making that argument, ever. The argument is not that they cannot control their acts. The argument is that their acts are no less moral than ours.

                    • Comment by John C Wright:

                      I can quote an example from the last person who wrote me and said he was boycotting my books because I am a Christian. Give me a moment to look it up.

                      Here it is:

                      Off topic, but can’t figure out how to send an email. Was looking for a good SciFi book and had really enjoyed the ‘Golden’ series so was checking out your other works. Found ‘Count to a Trillion’ and was reading sample chapter 1 on sff.net. Found mistake in sum 1-100. I’m probably the 5050′th person to mention that. The correct answer is 101×50 not 101×50 – 50. But browsing more found out about the ‘Controversy’. People who are gay are not immoral, they are born that way. You could have been born gay. I’ve decided not to buy any more of your books.

                      I interpret the phrase “not immoral” and “they were born that way” not to mean “like all men they sin” but to mean “because they were born that way, they cannot be blamed or held accountable for their acts.”

                      Do you not even know the arguments offered again and again and again and AGAIN to support your own side and your own agenda?

                      I have seen and deleted hundreds of comments screaming, yelling, yodeling, and berating me that homosexuals are not responsible for their acts and cannot help their attractions. And you have the gall to puff yourself up with mock umbrage and claim your side never makes this argument?

                      And This is the point at which you chose to hurl down your gauntlet and defy me? I need answer such folly: it is too easy. There is no sport to shoot the bird that sits on the arrowhead.

                    • Comment by watermelonyo:

                      I interpret the phrase “not immoral” and “they were born that way” not to mean “like all men they sin” but to mean “because they were born that way, they cannot be blamed or held accountable for their acts.”

                      Then you have incredibly poor reading comprehension. It’s perfectly clear that “born that way” means that they can’t control their preferences, not their acts. And if you asked the person to expound upon why he doesn’t consider homosexuality immoral, I seriously doubt he would say anything about them not being able to control their acts. He may say something about their acts being perfectly natural, or about their acts causing no harm (by which I mean no harm that can’t also be caused by heterosexual acts), or about their acts increasing the overall amount of love in society, all of which are true. I can practically guarantee you that he would not say that they are moral because they can’t control themselves. That’s your fantasy.

                    • Comment by John C Wright:

                      Unfortunately, I have heard no arguments but that one, endlessly repeated.

                    • Comment by Robert Mitchell Jr:

                      Alas, Mr. Wright is quite good at reading comprehension, being trained as a Lawyer, and passing the bar and practicing as one. The Law is quite clear that if “you couldn’t help it”, then you are not responsible. I (as a layman) understand the concept is covered by “Diminished Capacity”, and it’s why drunk drivers don’t get charged with murder. Since you are trying to change the Law, of course Mr. Wright is going to be reading with a Legal eye…..

                  • Comment by Vision_From_Afar:

                    The problem is that we appear to be talking past each other, having failed to define what, in fact, we are arguing for/against.
                    It is clear that we have no basis for real discussion, seeing as we are approaching an issue from positions that aren’t even remotely related. We can’t even agree on a basic definition of terms. There’s zero reason to continue this exercise in futility.
                    Merry met and merry part, sir.

            • Comment by Darrell:

              Vision

              I think that our discussion has wandered a bit. My initial contention was that this is a manufactured controversy based off of two interviews that Mr. Cathy gave. The initial news stories, expressions of “outrage”, and mayoral calls for exclusion from the market place were not around charitable contributions that Mr. Cathy or Chick-fil-A made two years ago. The “outrage” was because someone embraced “Biblical” marriage, indicated that homosexual behavior was immoral, and was a “conservative”.

              The intent here was clearly to stifle discourse through social intimidation. It has been a few days since I read what Mr. Cathy said, but I do not recall him making any overtly political statement such as, “Vote for Romney” or “Vote against Democrats to save the USA”. Rather he stated a social and moral position that he holds based off of his understanding of his religious tradition.

              Based off of Mr. Cathy’s statements there have been calls for boycotts and government officials suggesting blocking commerce — and not just any large city mayors but from the former White House Chief of Staff for a sitting President. These mayors even publicly talked about they could, under the color of law, block Chick-fil-A by pretending that they were doing it for reasons other than blocking freedom of speech. Your belief that “civil rights” will not trump the free expression of religion or even free speech rings a little hollow when we just witnessed an attempt at suppression — an attempt that I argue is viewed, correctly or incorrectly, by conservatives and many religious people as the intended end game.

              It was only after a mounting backlash, a backlash that has not received nearly as much media attention as the original criticism, that people began talking about contributions to various hate groups. Then of course there was no discussion of the amounts given ($1,000 for the FRC), or that the disclosed contributions occurred before the FRC was labeled a hate group, or even what constitutes a hate group in the instance of the FRC.

              This all seems a bit disingenuous to me. There very well are likely people out there, such as yourself, who were boycotting Chick-fil-A prior to Mr. Cathy’s interviews because they knew of a past $1,000 donation to the FRC or because of some other donation to groups that they disapprove of (though many corporations donations to both the DNC and RNC must make their life miserable from a shopping standpoint) and are doing so out of some moral sensibility.

              Consumer boycotts are ineffective because they fade rapidly and especially, as in this case, there is often a significant backlash when the boycott is on an issue where there is widespread disagreement. Wal-Mart is under almost constant boycott and yet they struggle by. What businesses dislike is publicity that could put them at a competitive disadvantage — even if that disadvantage is temporary because it might lead customers to try a competitor that more successfully meets their needs than they do.

              This is unlikely to impact Mr. Cathy or his company as it is turning his company into a martyr and bringing people to try his wares that haven’t done so before and by all accounts theirs is a good product with great service. I personally do not like their chicken (maybe I’ll try the chicken nuggets instead of the strips or sandwich) but find their waffle fries to be tasty. Also, Chick-fil-A currently abdicates millions of dollars a year by closing every Sunday because of their moral position so I doubt a boycott or kiss-in is going to change their mind.

              Though an anecdote is not the plural of data, I couldn’t eat at Chick-fil-A again today because there were lines out the door (though not as long as yesterday) and backed up traffic for the drive through. Maybe I’ll try again tomorrow during the kiss-in.

        • Comment by deiseach:

          Vision, you are perfectly entitled to boycott companies, institutions and other entities that propound philosophies or attitudes with which you do not agree. Your business as a customer is yours to patronise whom you will.

          You are perfectly free to campaign for issues you believe in.

          What is not acceptable is politicians and elected representatives leaping on a media bandwagon and declaring without any sense, it would seem, of either shame or responsibility that they are going to abuse the powers of their office because they disagree with the freely-expressed opinions of a businessman.

          Let us reverse the controversy: suppose the mayor of (picks large American city at random) San Antonio said he was going to block the application by Amazon to build a warehouse or back office in that city because he did not agree with Jeff Bezos’ position on marriage equality – would that be right? Would that be legal? Would the same politicians who are banging on about “Chicago values” and issuing press releases dream of following his lead or would we not be getting lectures about toleranc and how you can’t make a religious test a condition for obtaining public access?

          Protest is inviolable. Abuse of power is not.

  8. Comment by Iapetus:

    Something like this ban was bound to happen eventually. I’m glad that, when it did happen, it happened to Chick-fil-A. Why? Because it makes lines like “slap a Leftist with a chicken” possible–a spectacle rivaled only by the sight of Mayor Vincent Gray calling Chick-fil-A’s meals “hate chicken” with a straight face.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/calling-it-hate-chicken-dc-mayor-opposes-expansion-of-chick-fil-a-in-nations-capital/2012/07/29/gJQA6ZioIX_story.html

    This is easily the most ridiculous crisis I’ve ever been a party to, and I mean that in a good way. :)

  9. Comment by TheConductor:

    My dilemma: I want to support Chik-Fil-A, on the one hand. But on the other hand, I’ve lost 19 pounds in the last month and I don’t want to disrupt my diet. What’s a dedicated dieter to do?

  10. Comment by Brad R. Torgersen:

    I first ate at Chic-Fil-A in 1983 when a store opened in the Fashion Place Mall in Murray, Utah. I have eaten at Chick-Fil-A fairly frequently ever since, when I’ve had access. Thankfully stand-alone locations have popped up near my home and my place of work in the last 5 years, so now I frequent them any time I have a craving for excellent chicken nuggets. Best in the fast food world, if you ask me. Light, zesty, and delicious. And the waffle fries are excellent too. So it’s not like I needed an excuse to go to Chick-Fil-A yesterday. But I was pleased to see the extraordinary public display of civil disobedience before our Politically Correct masters in government and on the leftward side of the political spectrum. The store in West Valley, Utah, was packed beyond belief. Internet reports and photos from around the country mirror what I saw: long lines, lots of cars, lots of families, everybody being patient and kind and enjoying a shared love of common values, free speech, free enterprise, and damned tasty chicken.

    Everything that might make a liberal PC zealot’s head spin around three times, green pea soup shoot out his or her mouth in incoherent rage, followed by a profanity-laden cranial explosion where every fifth word is BIGOT!

    The most interesting comeback from Chick-Fil-A critics is usually, “How can you expect me to support a company that is contrary to my values?” Indeed. My response is: because I am a consumer of music, movies, television, and books, I am automatically supporting vast industries which are contrary to my values. Often to a stark degree. So while I understand it may be difficult to attain a place of moral clarity where commerce and ideology collide, I would suggest to those suffering heartburn over Chick-Fil-A that it’s OK to separate the views and opinions of the creators of a product, from the product itself. Heaven knows I’d live a life barren of entertainment if I imposed the sort of strict litmus on my consumption that many Chick-Fil-A critics seem to be embracing.

    Of course, scratch a Chick-Fil-A critic and you’ll usually find a string of serial violations of their sanctimoniousness on the issue. It just so happens that Mr. Cathy’s harmless and ordinary commentary created hyperbolic heavy-breathing on the part of our 5th Column media, hence the predictable and manufactured outrage.

    Suffice to say that ordinary, normal America took a look at the whole circus of hatred and villification against wholesomeness, and declared, “Let’s go get some chicken! Everybody into the car!” It was a wonderful thing to behold. Not because it was a show of hate against gays. Far from it. It was a rebel yell against coercion.

  11. Comment by deiseach:

    Completely off the topic, and I only mention it to show how out-of-touch with popular culture I am, but I was listening to a popular music radio station disseminating its wireless broadcast over the internet this lunchtime (Irish time, about four hours or so ago).

    One of the pieces of young people’s music they played caught my ear for the following reason; I was oddly charmed by the chorus which went “There’s a hole in my neighbourhood/Down which, of late,/I cannot help but fall”.

    Yes, I am so out of touch that I had no idea this song (“Grounds for Divorce” by Elbow) dated back to 2008 and was even used in a video game soundtrack. I mention this only because I am capable of being perked up by a grammatically-correct lyric, even though it comes in an otherwise gloomy or unhopeful song.

    :-)

  12. Comment by Sandy Petersen:

    Didn’t eat at Chick-Fil-A today, because of the massive lines. I did want to correct what I think is a mis-statement early in the comments, where a fellow Texan seems to believe that Chick Fil A was only in malls here in Texas. While most malls do have one (a Taco Bell plus a burger place, seemingly alternating between McD, and BK), most of the Chick-Fil-As I have seen are purpose built separate buildings. The local rag (Dallas Morning News) had an article talking about how many Chick Fil As were in each state (Texas appears to have the most, plus we’re in the south), and how the chain was getting tons of business.

    I suspect strongly that this extra business will keep up, and not be a simple one-time action, as Voice From Afar believes. I bet that months from now, possibly even years, people will remember that Chick Fil A supported their values and go there when given a choice.

    I find it amazing that Voice From Afar seems so confident that most people support his vision, given that every time gay marriage has been voted on at the state level, it has gone down. He seems to be setting his hat on the fact that he thinks more than 50% of people under 30 support the law. Well all I can say is that reading this blog, I notice that a LOT of the writers admit to believe some dumb things in their youth, and to have acheved wisdom as they aged.

  13. Comment by watermelonyo:

    By the way, this whole bullying tactic is based on a fraud

    Wrong, plain and simple. Cathy’s comments may have been what publicized it, but the reason for the boycott is the fact that a portion of the company’s profits go to organizations that work to oppose the legalization of gay marriage. I and many other people I know have been refusing to patronize Chick-fil-A for well over a year now because of the WinShape Foundation. Cathy’s comments may have made more people aware of Chick-fil-A’s policies, and caused more people to join the boycott, but there is nothing fraudulent about the reasons for the boycott.

    • Comment by VaidLeVey:

      Out of curiosity, are you boycotting all gas companies that receive their oil from OPEC? After all,a good number of the countries in OPEC have homosexuality as a capital crime (usually by stoning). I would think that would be a greater issue of social injustice than simply being a CEO that publicly states that he is for the traditional definition of marriage.

      • Comment by Vision_From_Afar:

        Those that I can, sure. But not every gas station has a nice, “Drilled with religious bigotry for your convenience” sign. Honestly, we might see an uptick in domestic gas consumption if we actually had to label where the gas came from…

      • Comment by watermelonyo:

        There is no gas company that doesn’t receive at least some part of its oil from OPEC countries. That’s simply not possible given the global nature of the oil market. Unfortunately, with my commute, a car is a necessity, and my current one runs on gas. So, no, I’m not currently boycotting OPEC oil. Nobody’s perfect. I do intend my next car purchase to be one that runs on an alternative fuel source though.

        Also, you may have missed it, but Cathy’s comments are not the reason for my boycott of Chick-fil-A, which began well before he made those comments. Also, I’m not deluded enough to think I’m striking any huge blow for civil rights by not buying from Chick-fil-A. It’s just that given the choice of eating there or not eating there, not eating there is a pretty easy choice for me to make.

    • Comment by John C Wright:

      The fraud is that Mr Tracy does no more and no less than what every good Christian should do, and you and yours call him a homophobe and bigot and gay-basher and so on, endlessly and endlessly. And yet you do not come out and say manfully that you hate all Christians and regard us all as bigots, et cetera.

      The fraud is that the comments did not provoke the controversy. The controversy is artificial. The controversy went looking for him and found some comments to use as fodder. It is surrounded with the typical plethora of lies, half-truths, and accusations too many to answer.

      Since I have also been on the receiving end, on a much smaller scale, of ginned up controversy (in my case a rival publisher and a rival SF writer send around emails telling their customers and fans that I was a gay-hater) I have neither sympathy nor patience for your wormy little deceptions.

      You lie. Plain and simple. When you are caught, you lie again, and act wounded.

      • Comment by watermelonyo:

        And yet you do not come out and say manfully that you hate all Christians and regard us all as bigots, et cetera.

        That wouldn’t be true. I don’t hate anyone, and I only regard people as bigots when they are, in fact, bigots.

        I have neither sympathy nor patience for your wormy little deceptions.

        And I have neither sympathy nor patience for bigots.

        • Comment by Robert Mitchell Jr:

          Rather bigoted of you. Second, it’s very hard to tell if people are bigots, because we can’t read minds. So, alas, people as a rule use “anti-bigotry” as a means of ignoring arguments they can’t answer. This would appear to be the case here, insofar as Mr. Wright has been on both sides of the issue, and so whatever dislike he may have cannot be “unthinking”. You are, of course welcome to convince me otherwise, for I am quite sympathetic and patient. I think I am better then most at seeing with eyes unclouded by hate because I do not engage the world very much. I burn with shame at being Tomlinson, but it serves me here. Show me you can read minds, or show me you are smarter then ten thousand painful generations of lessons learned.

  14. Comment by Kerry:

    Some quotes from Edward Feser’s book ‘The Last Superstition': “In 2004 the philosopher Antony Flew, who had been to that time perhaps the world’s most prominent atheist, announced he had changed his mind.” Feser then writes several paragraphs telling the responses of Flew’s critics, and then quotes Flew, “I have been denounced…for stupidity, betrayal, senility and everything you could think of, …and none of them have read a word that I have ever written.”
    Feser then elaborates on “This episode…”, saying, “Secularism is, in its way, a religion to itself, and it is a religion that cannot tolerate infidels or heretics. We shall see…this is by no means an accident, a mere byproduct of the passion and folly to which every human being succumbs from time to time. For secularism is, necessarily and inherently, a deeply irrational and immoral view of the world, and the more thoroughly it is assimilated by its adherents, the more thoroughly do they cut themselves off from the very possibility of rational and moral understand.” (This was very ably put by our host above, and a clearer example from Afar may not exist.) Feser concludes, “Moreover, and for this very reason, it adherents unavoidably find it difficult, indeed almost impossible, to perceive their true condition. The less they know, the less they know it.” Feser has made clear for me what I found most opaque: “To him that hath, more will be given. To him that hath not, even that which he has will be taken away.

Leave a Reply