Isn't it just a chicken sandwich...a really good chicken sandwich?
- Thread starter Tulsa Tom
- Start date
I am not going to get into a pointless argument about why I oppose giving homosexuals the right to marry. Neither of our minds or anybody else's mind is going to be changed by an argument on that. That's not what this is really about anyway. It is about whether an establishment should have the right to hold such views and how people go about keeping an establishment with such views out. If people would just be content with not going to Chick Fil-A themselves instead of trying to force that view on others by trying to keep them out, there would be no need to have this discussion.
not supporting something does not mean you are intolerant of it. if you can't understand that, then the conversation is over
As if you have any idea what you are actually talking about. Go google some more talking points
I change my mind all the time when someone presents an argument. It's simply not true that arguments do not change opinions. Historically it is the case that people change their minds given the influence of arguments, and homosexuality is a case in point. Fifty years ago the opinion on homosexuality was vastly different than it is today. Fifty years from now people are going to believe that views like yours were fundamentally backwards and mistaken. A lot of their reasons for doing so will be ideological, but some will be due to the persuasive effect of argument.
I haven't seen anyone here disagree with the sentiment that a person or establishment should have the right to hold the views they want. I certainly wouldn't deny that. Some people CANNOT be content going to the business or merely avoiding the business when it takes a stance on something they care about. You can't possibly deny this as your stance appears to be that gay marriage should not be allowed because you don't agree with it.
In my assessment you have a rather impoverished view of what moral judgment involves. The right wing are being intolerant of a lifestyle, and the left wing are being intolerant of a business that they see as fostering intolerance of some lifestyle they don't have a problem with. Both are the effect of taking a moral stand, of having a moral stance on the matter at all. It is not the case, in any instance, that we merely judge bad or good then don't care at all whether or not the world conforms to our judgment. So I continue to be baffled at your being puzzled why some liberal students at UNK would not want the business in the cafeteria, when at the same time the whole issue is an issue because the leader of that business does not want gays to be able to marry.
It actually does, at least in the way the person whose posts you keep liking uses it. If you disagree with someone about something, you are taking a stance against it. You are being intolerant of that thing and are unwilling to let it be, through your words and beliefs at the very least if not your actions. Unlike him and perhaps you, I don't see anything inherently wrong in that. If we were never intolerant we'd never stand for anything.
Last edited:
How in the world do you come up with your assessment from what he has said and done? And you feel comfortable calling him "ignorant"? Wow
This is funny. HE is being intolerant? I need to go back and read your posts again.
You just not understand the Left very well. Standard operating procedure when they don't agree. They like to. "Scream witch" to silence....or try. Speak back and they ask the Mods to step in.
I do find it funny that Probabaly ZERO of the Leftys on this Board have went and protested outside a Mosque where they advocate for death to Homosexuals.
Why does the Left only go after soft targets? Cowardice, I reckon.
Why does the Left only go after soft targets? Cowardice, I reckon.
Would YOU go down Ciudad Juarez and start protesting that Mexicans should not be allowed to cross the border illegally? No. I guess you're a coward too. Please, what nonsense!
A long ways from all churches are accepting. The ones that are tend to on the other end of the biblical perepctive - not all churches are same so lumping doesnt work. I am glad you introduced some "scientific" information from your two friends testimonies. I can show data on those who changed their lifestyle that refutes what you state as fact. That is the liberal way - if we say it is true enough times it must be and dont challenge it. I wont even go in to the dark world of this.
It really is sad and pathetic that there is no conservative voice here who can offer a counter-argument or claim that doesn't just completely straw man the competition, make claims about them that are clearly ideologically motivated, blatantly false, and unfair. I know for a fact there are sensible conservatives out there, and on this very forum, but I'm at pains to see one in this thread.
People may convince themselves however they need to that wanting to deny gay couples marriage is not 'intolerant'. It won't change the reality of their position one bit.
Gay couples exist. No law, constitutional or not, will stop this. Their existence threatens nobody. Acceptance harms nobody. Allowing laws to pass that marginalize them on the other hand. That hurts real people. To disagree is your right as an American. So is calling that what it is.
I am not always PC with my words for people who want such laws (which ARE now established as unconstitutional). I am sure some of you can appreciate that
Gay couples exist. No law, constitutional or not, will stop this. Their existence threatens nobody. Acceptance harms nobody. Allowing laws to pass that marginalize them on the other hand. That hurts real people. To disagree is your right as an American. So is calling that what it is.
I am not always PC with my words for people who want such laws (which ARE now established as unconstitutional). I am sure some of you can appreciate that
I think things that I dislike should be banned from places I like to go. And that we should bring back book burning. Man, those were the days.
Your opinion. You have a right to that opinion. My opinion is that you are the one who is being intolerant. I have a right to that opinion. Your opinion is not "reality". It is an opinion, just like mine. Nobody gave you the right to define for everybody else what is and isn't intolerance.
This is a hard but interesting discussion. I see that people find something in a CEO and want to divest themselves of participation in that business in any way. Now, you may find Cathy's view itself offensive but it is hard to say that the way he goes about treating people--even those who are gay--is done in an offensive manner. The following should help: "Dan and Me: My coming out as a friend of Dan Cathy."
What I do find interesting is how this issue is almost always attached to Christians. Yet, more and more Christians are living out a belief of tolerance (albeit certainly not the majority...yet.). However, as someone mentioned above, Islam is far more intolerant of homosexuality and some Islamic nations even put to death known homosexuals. What makes us reticent to view one religious group as "bad" on the issue and yet ignore the far more outlandish thought of the other group?
Furthermore, if this is such a big issue that many would not eat at Chick-Fil-A, have these people made the same decision about most restaurants that primarily serve middle eastern cuisine?
What I do find interesting is how this issue is almost always attached to Christians. Yet, more and more Christians are living out a belief of tolerance (albeit certainly not the majority...yet.). However, as someone mentioned above, Islam is far more intolerant of homosexuality and some Islamic nations even put to death known homosexuals. What makes us reticent to view one religious group as "bad" on the issue and yet ignore the far more outlandish thought of the other group?
Furthermore, if this is such a big issue that many would not eat at Chick-Fil-A, have these people made the same decision about most restaurants that primarily serve middle eastern cuisine?
Last edited:
I suppose out definition of "intolerance" differs. I can have a different opinion than someone, and still respect their position on something. Perhaps that is why liberals get so emotional; they don't see things that way. If you're not with them, then you're the hateful intolerant enemy? And if there is nothing wrong with intolerance, why does it keep getting used in a pejorative way by liberals on this issue?
I'm your huckleberry. Put your ego down for a second and ask me these burning questions that you think no conservative can answer.
I wouldn't, and though I called out Christians specifically, it wasn't out of malice toward them or a neglect of others far worse. I continued to reference Christianity because it is the majority religion to this country and the biggest threat to equal rights for gays, lesbians, bi-sexuals, and those who are trans-gendered in this country.
Also, thanks for linking that article. I know many of us who support LGBT rights would like to judge Cathy's character and think he is evil. But the fact of the matter is we have very little to go on in doing so, and these further judgments, which we'd like to make so as to confirm our righteousness, are very much deeply flawed. So I don't doubt for a second that he may be a compassionate and moral individual. None of us are without flaws in our character and judgments, so it's always good to get a view of the whole person (unfortunately, we rarely do).
Because some liberals are just as dumb and blind-sighted as some conservatives.
I actually don't think you can "respect their position on something" when what is at stake is a moral issue, and in this case it is. That is what I have been arguing throughout this thread and you've completely overlooked it.
If you disagree with rape, you cannot "respect" the rapist's position on rape.
If you disagree with murder, you cannot "respect" the murderers position on its legitimacy.
If you disagree with gay marriage and think it ought not exist, you cannot "respect" the stance of those who think it should be legal and legitimate.
If you disagree with the stance of those against gay marriage, you cannot "respect" their stance.
In disagreeing with someone about a moral issue you are by definition taking exception to it and not respecting it. This merely in virtue of the fact that you are taking a stance on a moral issue.
And finally, more liberal straw-manning. It really is pathetic. I've said nothing of the sort and everything I've said in this thread ought to have disconfirmed your biases about liberals. Has it? It seems not. I wonder why that is...
Again, you're completely missing the point. I never claimed there were burning questions no conservative can answer, because I think being a conservative is a completely legitimate way to be. My claim was that many in this thread are doing a very poor job of representing conservatism. Consider yourself part of the problem.
Well who knows what you're representing...this is coming across as wishy washy at best. Lukewarm rhetoric.
Maybe you could do a better job of explaining what it is you want to hear. Did it ever occur to you that you aren't asking the right questions? I don't think you really want to have a good discussion-you just want to throw a bunch of stuff out there and then because nobody can answer what it is you are looking for, you claim to be "winning" the argument.
Good post, Tom. Thank you for your thoughts in this thread. I was curious about them.
For myself, I would eat at Chick-fil-A. I don't, but I am not opposed to it, I am just not a fast food guy. Stopping them from coming to campus is not important. However, criticizing advocacy of intolerant legislation is. So good for some of the UNK students for protesting. If you like CFA please eat there. If you don't think the CEO's 2012 comments should stop the student body from approving them, please say so. There is nothing to criticize about that. The discussion has become however whether the CEO's position should be criticized -- or agreed with.
To the bolded: in my personal life I do not know many Christians who don't fall in this category. And, one does not have to be religious to be homophobic. I know some of those. I see many use their religion to justify their views. That is their call as humans. I see nothing divine about it (that is of course my opinion only).
--
In response to others, it is not a matter of opinion whether or not it is 'intolerant' to legally exclude gay couples from marriage. By definition! One can argue that it is better that way. Or moral. It is not by any stretch of the word tolerant to gay people. People are free to be for intolerance to gays, and for tolerance to the intolerant.
I grew up against gay marriage, many of us did. I grew up thinking what's the big deal, it's not that bad. I've changed my mind thanks to many things. Friends who have come out. I want them to be able to marry the love of their life just like I can. Discussions like these online and offline. The gay rights movement in the United States. I hope that more minds can change. On almost every other topic we stand united for tolerance and against intolerance. Why not this one?
Using murder and rape to make a point about gay marriage? You must be kidding me. Where did anyone say that differing opinions should be or are respected all the time? I fully understand why those who are in support of gay marriage feel the way they do. I respect why they feel that way. I disagree with it, but There is a logic to it. What I don't respect is
the nonsense and narrative that someone who does not agree is hateful. Are you really telling me that I can't respect some other opinion different from mine? Respect and agreement are not the same thing. Of course it is about morality, which is precisely why liberals saying "you hate" is such a joke. By taking that stance, they are saying, definitively, that their morals are superior to those who don't think the way they do.
Perhaps the way you think and process information is not ideal. It may be, but at least accept that there is a small chance that it is not.
You are now losing credibility. What is your problem. Spell it out so that my caveman mind will understand. Got to make dinner, so I won't be back for a bit, but boy am I excited to get to learn more from you. It has been an honor.
I never once expressed interesting "winning" an argument. I ask questions that I think you should be able to answer given that you have a stance on this issue. For the record, it occurs to me all the time that I may not be asking the right question. When I ask a question in class and 90% of my students look back at me with puzzled faces I reformulate the question. On this matter I do not believe I have asked inane, unclear, or irrelevant questions as the only thing I demanded was a call for justification and called people out for their blatantly straw manning their competition. You have thus far refused to have an argument. An argument consists of a series of premises and a conclusion. You by fiat very early on in our conversation refused to have an argument when you said "I will believe what I want to believe and I will not apologize for doing so."
1) You intimated as much when you said you could disagree with someone and still respect their opinion. I disagreed, but my disagreement was predicated on what we're talking about being a moral issue. Do you think you can disagree with someone and respect their opinion if what is at stake is a moral issue. Yes or no? It really is that simple, it gets no more "cave man" than that. That is the point of comparing gay marriage to murder and rape. It is not to put those things on a par (duh!!!!!!!!!), it is to point out that you cannot "respect" the rapist's/murder's/gay marriage denier's opinion if you think their opinion is immoral.
2) No. I am about to have an aneurysm. Go back and read my second reply to the above guy if you care. I explicitly pointed out that you can disagree about same sex marriage without being hateful.
3) No shit.
4) Everyone who makes moral judgments does this implicitly. There is no way to avoid it, which is why it is asinine to try to paint liberals as doing something conservatives aren't.
That is only a result of supreme court decision. States formely had states rights and a majority of states voted against it. Check your governmet on equal protection.
Thanks for the response. I do have one question though...and it isn't trying to back you in a corner...I'm just interested. If UNK or UNL wanted to have a restaurant that served primarily Middle Eastern fair that was owned by a Muslim, would you feel that restaurant should either not have a place on campus or be boycotted? Nearly all Muslims would not only disavow gay marriage but, at least around the world, feel homosexual relations should be illegal.
If the owner was a Muslim who came out publicly and took a stance on the matter, I feel that the students should react in the same way. They should do that if for no other reason than to be consistent.
But I must confess, I didn't make it past the third sentence of that article you originally posted. I sensed that the news outlet was not being objective in reporting it and stopped reading after they made the claim that the students sought to remove the business because they were "offended" by it. I stopped reading because I sensed it was more complicated than that.
Others have since posted in this thread that taking offense was not what it was primarily about, but about getting a business all the students wanted. It sounds like Cathy's words have made it the case that many students do not want that business because of the stance he took on gay marriage and what the business now represents in virtue of that fact. (Of course it's possible that many of them really are "offended," but I, like most in this thread, think that's dumb reason to deny a business the right to operate).
All that said, I am not for the stifling of speech or denying a business the ability to sell its product. I couldn't possibly be more against both of these. I am just as uncomfortable with the attempt to silence others and shut down free and open discussion on college campuses as are many of the conservatives on here. Heck, they may not want to acknowledge it, but so is Obama...
Fair enough. I figured that would be your response. I guess the issue is how much Cathy has publically pushed his view (which from all accounts is very minimal imo. The issue is his funding of traditional marriage groups). It would be interesting if part of the application process for restaurants coming to campus included these questions. Again, I am highly doubtful (according to opinion polls) that the Muslim's response to homosexuality would be any more tolerant than Cathy's. However, I am also doubtful that there would be the same amount of outrage from students.
P.S. Don't take this as though I think Christians are persecuted here. Those Christians who talk about persecution over issues like this around me, make me lose it. We demean real Christians persecution now and through the ages when we make those stupid statements.
It reminds me of France where people recently boycotted Starbucks for turning away women in a Middle Eastern country. The laws there required them to have a separate space for women. The Starbucks shop did not and they were required to turn women away until they could put up the barrier. I wonder if I would have joined in the boycott. Probably not. But I would respect people's reasons for doing so. I do not hold Starbucks very responsible but I agree with disappointment that they don't do more.
If the restaurant's CEO made the same kinds of statements I would feel similarly. I don't want to make this a Christians vs Muslims thing. However, I will just say I am proud of how relatively progressive and egalitarian Christianity is. If a CEO is speaking out against gay rights or women's rights, I will at least sympathize with boycotters. I will for sure speak out against those points. What religion or denomination the CEO comes from is not important. I would not say that anybody who stands for equality has to boycott, though.
Very well said. I agree that most Christians are much more aware on this topic. It's actually refreshing. I would like to think that most Christians believe in Jesus' teachings of love thy neighbor vs content from the Old Testament.
I am very glad to hear that and don't disagree with anything you said before it. We are fortunate in this country that very few are really being persecuted. If you want to see persecution, look at Rome two thousand years ago, look at parts of the Middle East and Africa today, look at Samaria during the time of Amos.
Agreed. Most liberals with rather argue a point using emotion rather than logic.
