What Chick-Fil-A boss really said – PLUS “Banned in Boston”!

On his own blog, our Rick Rice linked to this piece by Terry Mattingly at GetReligion.com: “Where’s the beef?  What the Chick-Fil-A boss really said

Now, one would assume — after reading a [CNN] reference to the “comments of company President Dan Cathy about gay marriage” — that this interview from the Biblical Recorder in North Carolina (which was circulated by Baptist Press) actually included direct quotes from Cathy in which he talks about, well, gay marriage.

In this case, one cannot assume that.

While the story contains tons of material defending traditional Christian teachings on sexuality, the controversial entrepreneur never talks about gay rights or gay marriage. Why? Because he wasn’t asked about those issues in the interview.

This raises an interesting journalistic question: Is a defense of one doctrine automatically the same thing as an on-the-record attack on the opposite doctrine? In this case, is it accurate for CNN (and others) to say that Cathy made comments about gay marriage when, in fact, he did not speak words addressing that issue?  (emphasis added)

Here’s the relevant portion of the Biblical Recorder interview:

The company invests in Christian growth and ministry through its WinShape Foundation (WinShape.com). The name comes from the idea of shaping people to be winners. It began as a college scholarship and expanded to a foster care program, an international ministry, and a conference and retreat center modeled after the Billy Graham Training Center at the Cove.

“That morphed into a marriage program in conjunction with national marriage ministries,” Cathy added.

Some have opposed the company’s support of the traditional family. “Well, guilty as charged,” said Cathy when asked about the company’s position.

“We are very much supportive of the family — the biblical definition of the family unit.  We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that.

“We operate as a family business … our restaurants are typically led by families; some are single. We want to do anything we possibly can to strengthen families.  We are very much committed to that,” Cathy emphasized.

“We intend to stay the course,” he said. “We know that it might not be popular with everyone, but thank the Lord, we live in a country where we can share our values and operate on biblical principles.”

Sorry Mr. Cathy, but not so much any more.  If you’d been following popular culture a little more closely during the last decade or so, you’d have realized that supporting traditional male-female marriages, or suggesting that children thrive fully in traditional homes with a married mother and father, or supporting efforts to help LGBT individuals escape the destructive “gay lifestyle” through interaction with a Christian faith community, are all examples of HATE.

Most of us with common sense understand that we do not live in a perfect world.  A child from a home terrorized by an alcoholic father will undoubtedly benefit from a stable home with two loving guardians, even if they are both female.  The husband who is threatened and abused by a drug-addicted wife and her junkie friends has no business keeping either himself or their children in such a dysfunctional household.  A man who struggles with same sex attraction should not be forced by the expectations from others into a marriage with a woman with whom he shares no attraction.  Perfection can truly be the enemy of good, and in many cases it makes sense to utilize a good, functional solution in situations where an “ideal” or “perfect” situation is not feasible.  But do imperfect family situations completely invalidate the basic truths of traditional family morality — a lifetime marriage covenant between one male and one female, consummated by an intimate sexual union, which forms the basis for the nuclear family unit and the perpetuation of society?

Herein lies the problem.  Social liberals focus on the exceptions and failures of traditional morality and argue that because traditional morality doesn’t always work, it should be universally eliminated in favor of situational ethics in which everyone strives to be “happy.”   But all too often, these solutions are incomplete or blatantly hypocritical, and end up causing greater damage when they are introduced as general guidelines instead of alternatives designed to improve broken situations.  For example, LGBT advocates openly encourage teenagers to walk away from traditional teachings and experiment with homosexuality, or encourage same-sex attracted men to divorce their wives, leave their families behind, and “shack up” with a same-sex partner.  Yet when a church-affiliated organization helps a same-sex attracted man walk away from the gay lifestyle, or counsels a teenager to avoid same-sex experimentation, it’s “hate.”  Really?  Why is one morally superior to the other?  Why is one celebrated, while the other is condemned?  If encouraging couples to stay married, or encouraging teenagers to respect their bodies and their sexuality and abstain from sexual activity is hate, then what would be the “loving” thing to do?

And why is pop culture morality so holy that the use of intimidation, state-enforced restraint of trade, deliberate mischaracterization, and outright fabrication have been sanctioned as acceptable methods for punishing the grave offense of promoting traditional morality?

In the wake of the Chick-Fil-A non-scandal, Boston Mayor Thomas “Mumbles” Menino has effectively shut the doors of Boston to the Chick-Fil-A franchise:

“Chick-fil-A doesn’t belong in Boston. You can’t have a business in the city of Boston that discriminates against a population. We’re an open city, we’re a city that’s at the forefront of inclusion,” Menino told the Herald yesterday.

“That’s the Freedom Trail. That’s where it all started right here. And we’re not going to have a company, Chick-fil-A or whatever the hell the name is, on our Freedom Trail.”

Discrimination to stop discrimination.  Intolerance in the name of tolerance.  Nice.  Decades ago, the phrase “Banned In Boston” became synonymous with moral crusading and prudishness, and eventually Boston became a laughingstock as people realized that “Banned in Boston” guaranteed a tidal wave of sales for anything lucky enough to be labeled as such:

But Mayor Menino has reached a new low with his comments, and has effectively turned the Boston city government into a mob-style enforcement agency:

If Menino, a partner in New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s Mayors Against Illegal Guns, can block a business based on political issues they support, what is to stop him from doing so based on a company’s championing of the Second Amendment, or a host of other issues that defy the so-called “progressive” agenda of government control and dominance over every aspect of citizens’ lives? Can business interest that support right to life or voter ID, or other “conservative causes” be far behind? Is it the place of government that is supposed to represent all of the people to discriminate against disapproved minorities and bestow a competitive advantage, not to mention special privileges and immunities, only to concerns that promote the agenda of the political bosses?

Far from being inclusive and tolerant, the mayor’s stance reveals the application of a chilling Orwellian Newspeak/Doublethink deception right out of “Nineteen Eighty-Four.” And far from representing all of Boston’s citizens, the mayor has shown himself not only to be unafraid, but enthusiastic about abusing the powers of office to bully political minorities into submission, even when he doesn’t have a legal leg to stand on.

In a free market economy, the customers decide if they wish to do business with a company, or if differences on social/political issues outweigh their desire for a product or service. If Chick-fil-A’s management support for social issues offends segments of the population, they are free to influence its profitability and survival by boycotting the chain and patronizing its competition. What they are not free to do is use the power of the state to economically destroy those who will not bend their knees because they disagree with them on matters of conscience, or in Menino’s case, more likely on matters of his political power and self-aggrandizement.

Fortunately, Chick-Fil-a has established itself very well across the US based on their clean restaurants, quality food, and exceptional customer service.  I’m sure plenty of other cities would be grateful to have their restaurants serve their communities.  Besides, who wants to kow-tow to a bunch of bigots anyway?

(And make sure you read Rick Rice’s further comments on this subject here at Wizbang.)

Weekend Caption Contest™ Winners
“Chick-fil-A doesn’t belong in Boston”
  • Commander_Chico

    I’ve mentioned it before, but there are a substantial number of authoritarians among gay people nowadays. Being gay used to mean rebellion and transgression, now too often it means suppression of dissent.

    I do support gay marriage because I think being gay is largely inherent in a person and marriage with regard to the state is just another form of a contract.

    One thing I do admire Chick-fil-A for is keeping their restaurants closed on Sunday. One day without worshiping Mammon and allowing rest is good. They are practicing their values at a cost.

    • Estranging your customers, as well as being closed on Sundays, are what we call poor business decisions. They are digging their own grave.

  • Brucehenry

    It’s true that, in this interview, Cathy didn’t mention the phrase “gay marriage.” But by “support of the traditional family,” he means, in part, $2 million in contributions to groups that oppose it.

    Chick-fil-A is awesome in it’s food, service, and cleanliness, although its employees can seem a little insincere and glassy-eyed, mouthing the anachronistic “My pleasure!” every two seconds. But it’s not inaccurate to characterize its political stance as anti-gay, or at the very least, anti-marriage-equality.

    • Commander_Chico

      I’ve never eaten in one. I’m hard pressed to remember any sincere fast-food employees who weren’t sincerely surly.

      • Brucehenry

        No, they are very nice there, and seem genuinely happy with their work, unlike, say, the unfortunate wretches at BK or Hardee’s (Omigod!).

        And their original Chick-fil-A sandwich is awesome, especially if you eat it right away. They have a “Chargrilled Chicken and Fruit” salad that’s excellent, too.
        My daughter’s best friend is a junior manager at a local Chick-fil-A, though, and is about sick of the religiosity and fake piety she must endure every shift. Also, she feels put-upon, though junior managers in chain restaurants often do (been there!).

        • Commander_Chico

          me too, although as counter service and not a manager. The seventh circle of hell. Could not take that and religious indoctrination as well.

          I suspect they will have problems sustaining that in Boston. They’ll be lucky to stop the employees from dropping f-bombs all the time.

    • Vagabond661

      The anti-gay label is not accurate. I couldn’t find any where in any news article where Cathy or anyone associated with Chik-fil-A are anti-gay. The leap from “traditional marriage between a man and a woman” to “anti-gay” is derived from the gay community. This is obviously meant to intimidate people to think and do and say what the gay community wants them to.
      As far I as I can see, they are not telling anyone not to be gay. They are asking the gay communitywhy do they inisist on trying to redefine what traditional marriages are which is according to the Christian faith.

      • Brucehenry

        If you say so, dude.

        If someone was telling me that I was a second-class citizen who didn’t have the same rights to civil contract as other citizens, I’d consider them anti-me, but your mileage may vary.

        • jim_m

          Gays considered Christians anti-gay long before the same sex marriage issue came up. I believe that this is due to the fact that Christians consider homosexual sex a sin. Gays identify themselves by the sex act. They feel that to be against the sin is to be against the sinner. They are wrong.

          • Brucehenry

            Sure they are. Whatever.

            There is anger toward Chick-fil-A because the corporation financially supports organizations that oppose gay marriage, to the tune of millions of dollars. That’s in part what Cathy means by “supporting traditional marriage.”

          • Vagabond661

            Please don’t tell me you are going to link to a report from the SPLC…

          • jim_m

            That’s fine. It doesn’t make them anti-gay. It makes them anti-same sex marriage. My point was to explain why it is that gays do not seem to be able to differentiate themselves from their sexual lifestyle.

            Seriously, if they were just about preferring relationships with the same sex it wouldn’t be an issue. They define themselves by their sex lives. If gay rights were just about enjoying the company of a same sex partner then gay rights parades wouldn’t be so pornographic.

          • Brucehenry

            Yes, they really are DIFFERENT, aren’t they, Jim? They define themselves by a sex act — perish the thought that they just want the same rights to marry, adopt, and enjoy family life as anyone else.

            And so ICKY with their icky pornographic gay “rights” parades! Who do they think they are — real citizens with First Amendment rights or something?

            And as I said above, if one wants to deny a right to one group that everyone else enjoys, one is indeed “anti” that group.

          • jim_m

            I’m sorry that they have such a crappy self image that they cannot understand their own existence apart from where they stick their sex organs. Healthy people have a self image that is a bit more complex.

            They have a right to do whatever stupid things they want to in their parade. I choose to not observe. I merely point it out as evidence that they define themselves by their sex lives. You actually agree with me on that point.

            The bottom line is that Christians believe that homosexual sex is sinful. You can disagree with that, but it does not make Christians anti-gay. If gays cannot understand themselves and their relationships apart from the sex act then it seems to me that they are pretty damned shallow people.

          • Brucehenry

            Actually, many Christians no longer consider gay sex sinful, any more than they still consider heterosexual oral sex sinful, as they used to do. So I don’t consider Christians, as a group, anti-gay.
            I do consider those Christians who wish to deny a right to others (gays) that they themselves enjoy anti-gay. And quite frankly, un-American.

            But you don’t have to be a Christian to adopt that position. And those non-Christians who hold that position I consider anti-gay as well. And un-American.

          • jim_m

            Wow, so having religious beliefs is now anti-American. Wouldn’t the Pilgrims be surprised!

            Frankly it’s fun watching you melt down like this.

          • Brucehenry

            HAWW! Melting down? Hardly.

            The Puritans of Salem had religious beliefs that accused witches should be hanged after rump trials. That was what would later be called un-American.

            Many congregations in the South before the Civil War had doctrines holding that “negro slavery” was ordained by God. Un-American, I say.

            Mormons held until 1978 that blacks bore the Mark of Cain or some such nonsense. I call that un-American. What do you call it?

            Just because one’s bigoted belief is called a “religious tenet” doesn’t mean it’s not bigoted.

          • jim_m

            The Salem witch trials had little to do with scripture, as did the justification for slavery.

            Mormonism was made up by a con man in the 19th century so what do you expect?

            In the case of the Bible we are talking about religious texts that go back several thousand years and norms that have existed through Jewish and Christian culture for the same amount of time. You want to call Christians bigots for believing as people have done for thousands of years? I think you are the bigot my friend. You are the one wanting to force people to change how they live and worship because the popular culture puts a greater value on sex than it does religion.

            You lack perspective.

          • Brucehenry

            Nope. Don’t care how people live and worship. But if they want to deny civil rights to their fellow Americans, I care about that.

          • Brucehenry

            Hilarious. I don’t think Rodney wants to argue with YOU, Jim, but under his rules I’m not allowed to address him directly. So, since the neighborhood bully has shown up, I’ll go to bed now.

          • When last I checked marriage was not a “right.” The state licenses the practice and allows one man to marry one woman who is not overly closely related to him. All are subject to the exact same standard. The utility (or lack thereof) of that to certain groups is irrelevant.

          • jim_m

            Agreed. Marriage is not a right. It’s a rite.

            The gays lack the ability to understand the difference.

          • Ah, I see your disputant has picked up his (few) marbles and gone home. How sad.

          • Commander_Chico

            Marriage, in its relation to the state, is just another form of contract. Freedom of contract is something our country is based on.

            If adults want to enter into arrangements which they call “marriage contracts” I see no reason to stop them consistent with liberty.

            The “rite” part of marriage is for the doctrine of your religion, not to be imposed on the rest of us.

          • Which, you should recall, was the condition which obtained in CA before the CA Supreme Court overturned the arrangement and the Prop 8 backlash.

            The advocates have clearly shown that they will settle for nothing less than marriages performed in the church of their choice.

          • Commander_Chico

            Seems to me Proposition 8 stripped the freedom to enter into a marriage contract from gay people and from religious organizations which wish to perform such marriages.

            As far as forcing churches to perform marriages against their doctrine, the First Amendment would not allow that.

          • Rewind there chica. California had a domestic partnership law which was functionally equivalent to marriage. The LGBT lobby found that inadequate, and sued to overturn. The CA Supreme court found in their favor, at which point Proposition 8 sought to overturn the CA Supreme Court returning to the full functional equivalence short of the name.

          • herddog505

            I agree. What two (or more) consenting adults want to do between themselves is their own business. The only roles that the state should play are in seeing that any contracts made between them are upheld and ensuring that their activities don’t harm somebody else.

        • Vagabond661

          See that’s exactly what I mean. No one said that. You bully to shut people down. If someone tries to hijack and redefine my traditional view of marriage to mean what they want, then I am just supposed to roll over and wet myself.
          If anything state, federal and local governments define the contract between two gays. Tell them to make civil unions as legal as marriages.

          • Brucehenry

            Here in North Carolina, an amendment to the state constitution was recently passed banning gay marriage AND civil unions between same-sex couples. You’ll never guess who gave lots of bucks to that campaign! (Hint: they sell chicken sandwiches.)

            Please, don’t tell me opponents of same-sex marriage aren’t anti-gay. That’s exactly what they are. If I supported a law banning marriage between people with IQs lower than 90, you’d call me anti-retarded. If I supported laws banning interracial marriage, you’d call me racist. If you want to deny Group A a right that other citizens enjoy, you are anti-Group A.

            Now you, vagabond, can continue to define marriage however you wish. Please, by all means, attend a church that refuses to perform weddings for gay couples. But if you want to pass laws denying a right to gay people that you yourself enjoy, you, sir, are anti-gay. Sorry, but if the shoe fits wear it.

          • jim_m

            Are you so blind that you cannot see that a lot of people who are against same sex marriage actually do support civil unions? I have no problems with civil unions. Do whatever you want. Just don’t call it marriage because it isn’t.

          • Brucehenry

            And are you so blind that you can’t see that the anti-gay-marriage forces weren’t satisfied with that in NC, but insisted on banning civil unions TOO? That is the law of the land here, now!

            And that Chick-fil-A contributed financially to that campaign?

            The mask slipped, dude. Or rather, they didn’t bother to put their masks on here in NC. I see no reason to think that antigay forces are different in other states than they are here. Bigots, most of ’em, I say.

          • Vagabond661

            I refuse to accept your label. I don’t see that I am “denying a right” (and where is that right defined?). i see i am protecting my rights from others who force us to redefine what we define our religion to be.
            You act indignant that chik-fil-a’s charitable organization (not chik-fil-a directly) gave money to an organization that opposes gay marriage. But it is us….we who should be indignant that the people think they have the right to hijack our traditions and expect us to to just meekly say ok.
            You want to live forever with your gay partner. more power to you. Make your own traditions. Call it whatever you want then get lawmakers to make it legal.
            Don’t come at me and tell me that the way i worship is wrong and we should worship the way you want to. Living here is SUPPOSED to mean freedom of religion.

          • Brucehenry

            Poor poor persecuted Christians. Like anyone is telling you the “way you worship is wrong.” Get over yourself.

            Anybody trying to pass amendments to your state’s constitution telling you that you don’t have this right or that right?

            Let me know when someone does, and when Chik-fil-A’s “charitable” organization gives that someone a couple million bucks.

            And you can refuse to accept the label anti-gay all you want. Guys wave confederate flags around here all the time and tell me they’re “not racists.” Doesn’t mean they’re not.

          • jim_m

            As a matter of fact you are. You are claiming that to believe the simple text of their religious book is to be a bigot. Hell, the Bible says to stone people for homosexual acts. Be glad that they aren’t so strict anymore. The muslims still do that.

          • Brucehenry

            I don’t care if the preacher says, from the pulpit, that gay sex is wrong and sinful and will result in eternal hellfire.

            I don’t care if he and his hierarchy forbid gay marriage, and condemn it as sinful, and refuse to perform gay weddings.

            But if he tells his flock that they ought to work to deny their fellow Americans who happen to be gay a right they themselves enjoy, he’s wrong from the point of view of the Constitution.

          • jim_m

            As marriage is traditionally a religious institution I have no problem with a religious based definition of marriage.

            If you want civil unions go for it. I agree that the NC law forbidding civil unions is wrong and in fact I consider that a flaw that will likely get it thrown out in court.

            I think the gay fixation on calling it marriage is in fact a form of anti-religious hate on their part. Oh, and by calling it marriage it is only a matter of time before gays start suing churches for discrimination. THAT is also their purpose: sue the churches out of existence if they will not forsake their doctrine to suit the gay lobby.

          • Brucehenry

            Re: your last paragraph — paranoia.

          • Vagabond661

            two words – birth control.

          • herddog505

            I agree.

            “I believe in the Biblical definition of marriage” = “BIGOT! HOMOPHOBE! H8R!”

          • jim_m

            I agree and would argue that it is the person who wants to change thousands of years of cultural tradition who is the hater in all of this.

          • Brucehenry

            Wrong. If you believe in the “Biblical definition of marriage” practice it in your own life. Don’t tell others they must believe in it, too.

          • herddog505

            What’s “wrong”? That people who believe in the Biblical definition of marriage are called homophobes, bigots and h8ers?

            And if we’re going to say, “Practice your religion in your own life”, what about theft, murder, lying, and other things that religion – and the law – tell us are wrong? If, for example, I say that what that sick bastard out in Aurora did was wrong, does my opinion become somehow invalid if I say that it’s wrong because the Bible says so? Have we got to start having anti-religious tests for voters and lawmakers to ENSURE that their nasty ol’ personal religion isn’t influencing their public policy decisions?

          • Brucehenry

            Contrarian nonsense, Outlandish examples. Jim-like paranoia about “anti-religious tests”. Come on.

            Again I return to the admittedly silly-sounding example of pork. No one forces Orthodox Jews to eat pork. It is a central tenet of their faith to keep a kosher diet. Thousands of years of tradition, yada yada.

            But no one claims that Orthodox Jews have any right to make the REST of us keep kosher, and no one claims that, because we don’t have laws against eating pork, that Orthodox Judaism is “under attack.” Or that anyone is “forcing them to redefine what their religion should be,” as Vagabond insists.

            That’s what I meant above about practicing your religion in your own life, and leaving the rest of us alone.

            What the Aurora shooter did was wrong — AND the Bible says so, but not BECAUSE the Bible says so, in my opinion.

          • herddog505

            Why are these “outlandish examples”? If you are going to claim that people ought not have their pastors tell them how to vote from the pulpit, does this apply to pastors telling them to vote for laws penalizing murder or theft? What CAN a pastor tell his flock when it comes to public policy? If he tells them that they should vote for a new hospital or funding for a new orphanage, is that wrong?

            Finally, if you want those of us who are religious to leave “the rest of us alone”, can we not make that same demand? If we believe that X is right or Y is wrong, who is somebody else to tell us that, essentially, we have to keep that opinion to ourselves? And does this apply to people who make moral judgements for non-religious reasons? Have they got to keep their morality confined to their own lives, too?

            As for the example of orthodox Jews and keeping kosher, I trust that you would agree that, if this were a majority orthodox Jewish country and they VOTED for such, they would have the right to do so?

            Don’t misunderstand me: I don’t like people foisting their religious / moral view on me. I don’t appreciate some religious people tut-tutting because I like to take a drink; I don’t appreciate the anti-tobacco people criticizing me because I enjoy a cigar from time to time; I don’t like anti-gunners telling me that I’m a wanna-be mass murderer because I enjoy shooting; and I’m not thrilled with gay rights people telling me that I’m a hater because I don’t trip over myself to agree with their position.*

            Therefore, I can appreciate why other people feel the same way, and why I try to take the view that, as I wrote in response to Commander_Chico elsewhere, what people do in their private lives is generally none of my business.

            ===

            (*) It might amuse you to know that I was once assured by somebody very close to me that I’m going to hell because I opined that, contra to what this person believes, gay people are NOT ipso facto going to hell, that homosexuality is NOT an “unforgivable sin”, and that, if God can have mercy on philanderers, liars, and the rest of us, He can have mercy on homosexuals, too.

          • Brucehenry

            Nobody is telling you that you must keep your opinions to yourself. Feel free to say that you think anyone who marries someone of the same sex is hellbound, and that you would never do such a thing. What I object to is you being able to marry the person you love while legally denying a fellow citizen the same ability.

            “Marriage,” in this country, comes with certain legal benefits that unmarried people don’t get. If civil unions could accomplish legal equality for gay citizens I’d say that’s fine. But civil unions aren’t recognized in many states, and, as I’ve noted, are specifically BANNED for same-sex couples in the state where most of my friends and family live. Due, in my opinion, to bigots and haters, whatever their motivation.

            Religious people are free to persuade other folks to act like them, convince people their dogma is the correct one, lead by example, even scold and shame those who they consider sinners. What they are NOT free to do is enshrine in law their own personal standards of private morality if significant numbers object, whether they are convinced their way is God’s way or not.

            Note the “significant numbers” qualifier — there’s no serious pro-murder, pro-lying, or pro-theft faction. There IS a sizeable gay community, many of whom may wish to marry someday.

            And no, if this were a majority Jewish country, Jews would STILL not have the right to make the minority keep kosher — not if our current Constitution was in effect in this hypothetical world. That’s why we no longer have enforceable “Blue Laws” — because they are unconstitutional. There was no reason to force a business who wished to operate on Sunday to NOT operate on Sunday — except it was the “Sabbath” for most Christians. Guess what — you can’t DO that shit.

          • herddog505

            BrucehenryWhat I object to is you being able to marry the person you love while legally denying a fellow citizen the same ability.

            We have a few laws concerning marriage such as the couple must be of a certain age, can’t be related too closely by blood, and can’t be in another, previously-contracted marriage. If Bob is married to Jane, why cannot he also marry Sue if he loves her (o’ course, Jane may have some objections to that!)? If Joey and Janey, two fifteen year-old lovebirds, are SURE they want to be married, then who are we to say ‘no’? Would it make us h8ers or intolerant or bigots? Or have we simply made a moral judgement that these sorts of marriages are (for want of a better term) wrong?

            If you support gay marriage, that’s fine, but it seems to me that you are enforcing – or, at least, attempting to enforce – your morality on other people in the same way that you protest that they are trying to do to you.

          • Brucehenry

            Is there a significant pro-bigamy movement? Are there millions of lovesick 15 year olds petitioning to be allowed to marry? No and no. That’s why your examples are outlandish.

            You’ve made your points, and they’re fine points in a blog comment section. Good luck with them in a political debate in the real world. They’re theoretical and rather beside the point.

          • herddog505

            Is that how we define civil rights? That there is some critical number of people who have want the right to this or that before we’ll consider it? Where is that in the Constitution?

            And go to Utah; let me know about the pro-bigamy movement out there.

          • Vagabond661

            get over yourself. it is you that is telling me the way i worship is wrong when you tell me that my belief that marriage is between a man and a woman is wrong.
            and as far as the confedrate flag, nice try at moving the goalposts.

          • Brucehenry

            Wrong, and falsely claiming victimhood, again, Vagabond.

            I’m NOT telling you that your church must perform gay weddings, or that you must believe gay marriage or gay sex isn’t sinful, or that you redefine what is meant, in your church, by “marriage.” I don’t care what you believe or how you practice your faith.

            I don’t deny Orthodox Jews their right to forbid pork or shellfish to their congregants, but I’ll be damned if I’ll let them pass a law banning bacon or shrimp from the local supermarket. Sounds like a silly comparison, but it’s really as simple as that.

            Oh, and once again — Is anyone trying to pass an amendment to your state’s constitution denying you this right or that right?

          • Vagabond661

            That is the pot calling the kettle black. I guess you want victimhood all to yourself. poor, poor persecuted gay boy.
            I laughed out loud when i read that you are “NOT telling you that your church must perform gay weddings” Your comments have been how the church wont perform gay weddings. Here are some examples:
            “If someone was telling me that I was a second-class citizen who didn’t have the same rights to civil contract as other citizens, I’d consider them anti-me”
            “But if you want to pass laws denying a right to gay people that you yourself enjoy,”
            Marriage is not a right as it is stated by Rodney later on in this thread. you are trying to manufacture a right that ISNT THERE. I am a meat eater but I wouldn’t try to pass legislation to force PETA to have BBQ.
            I am not against civil unions. I think civil unions are the answer to the problem. you have a problem with NC and there laws, take it up with them. I dont answer for them.

          • Brucehenry

            Dude, I’m not gay, I’m married to the same woman 23 years and have 2 children.

            But I have friends and relatives who are, and they are being denied the right to marry the person they love. YOU have that right. (I don’t care what Rodney, the class bully, says, if someone told you you were legally banned from marrying the woman of your dreams, I’m pretty sure you’d say your rights were being violated.) Think of it as a Tenth Amendment thing.
            You have every right to believe whatever you want, and to practice your religion as you see fit. No one is forcing your church to marry gay couples, or to recognize, as a matter of doctrine, gay marriages performed by any other church. Just as I don’t want to force Jews or Muslims to eat pork. But they can’t legally forbid ME from doing so! Again, maybe a silly analogy (no sillier than broccoli/healthcare, I guess), but it’s really just that simple.

            It’s a tenet of your religion that marriage is between one man and one woman? That is FINE. Marry the woman who is your chosen life partner.. Raise your kids to do the same. Pass the tradition down. But don’t tell 10% of the population they can’t legally do the same. Who the hell made YOU the judge of other people’s sexual morality?

            I don’t get why so-called Christians CARE what other people do. What difference does it make to YOUR marriage if the gay couple down the street is in a “civil union,” which you claim you’re fine with, or a “marriage,” which you aren’t?

            BTW NC isn’t the only state in which anti-marriage-equality forces have attempted, or succeeded, in banning civil unions as well as gay marriage. And Chik-fil-A sends those forces money, too.

            And, once again, Mr Deliberate Point Ignorer, let me know when Chik-fil-A or anyone else funds a campaign to deny YOU the right to marry the person you see fit to marry. If they attempt to amend your state’s constitution to do it, I’ll help you gather petition signatures to prevent it!

          • Vagabond661

            Saying your rights are being violated and them actually being violated are two different things. and that’s 3% of the population. and again i am not judging anyone morality. I dont give a flip how where or why or what gays do. As long as they dont forcibly try to change my way of life, i am not going to change theirs. thats freedom.
            Again the legality is up to them to get legislation passed to get civil unions recognized. Just like we have to do with obamatax. we dont like it some we have to find the right people to get it overturned. except there are 54% of us.

          • Brucehenry

            Yes, they ARE two different things, genius. That’s what I’ve been saying. Gay people’s rights ARE being violated. Yours are not.

            Again, and for the final time, who is trying to amend your state’s constitution to deny you a right that others enjoy? Who?

          • Vagabond661

            man, that is not what i am saying at all. genius. what fricking rights are being violated? the made up right?

        • uglybagofwater

          I think the core fallacy in your argument is assuming marriage is a civil right. It is a human invented societal institution, so to insist that an authoritarian entity should usurp the people in a society in defining the terms of that contract feels a tad antithetical to a civil society.

          You would seem to require that anything short of outright celebration of an aberrant lifestyle represents intolerance. Sorry, but we need not embrace something to tolerate it.

          • Brucehenry

            So is voting a human-invented societal institution, but it’s also a civil right. It can be denied for certain reasons — age, felony record, etc. — but it cannot legally be denied to those constitutionally qualified.

            And if marriage can garner a person certain LEGAL benefits not applicable to the unmarried, it is up to the state, not churches, to decide who can be LEGALLY married. I have no objection to any given church not blessing any particular union — if a church does not wish to consecrate same-sex marriage, fine. But that church should not, in my opinion, claim that the state must force all marriages to be defined as that church decrees.

            And who is asking for your “embrace,” implicitly or otherwise? Get over yourself, Mr Verbose.

          • uglybagofwater

            By seeking to normalize what is not normal behavior, that represents a desire to compel society to embrace that behavior, not simply tolerate it. I guess you could come up with a counter-argument, but to do so you’d have to ignore mountains of evidence.

            Transfer payments, such as welfare, also garner legal benefits for specific classes of people. Hate crime legislation enumerates specific law enforcement protections to select groups of people as well. So why is it that you choose same-sex marriage as the line to draw? I’d be willing to make a compromise — apply equal protection across *all* facets of government, and I’ll be happy. You get your marriage. And we shut down all wasteful programs where benefits are inequitably applied. Win-win.

          • Brucehenry

            Who’s drawing a line? It’s a thread ABOUT gay marriage and the folks who oppose it.

            I didn’t write the article, I just commented on it, and a discussion ensued.

            “By seeking to normalize what is not normal behavior, that represents a desire to compel society to embrace that behavior, not simply tolerate it.”

            You sonorously pronounce that sentence as if: 1.the syntax wasn’t fucked up, 2. it wasn’t a bigoted load of claptrap, and 3. it made any logical sense.

            Matter of fact, every sentence you’ve written here reads like it should be spoken in Ted Baxter’s voice. You should lose the Thesaurus and pick up a style manual.

            Anywhere from 3 to 15% of the population is gay, dude. Being gay is no more abnormal than being lefthanded or redheaded.

            No one is asking you to “embrace” anything. Just to mind your own damn business.

  • jim_m

    But Mayor Menino has reached a new low with his comments, and has effectively turned the Boston city government into a mob-style enforcement agency:

    What else should be expected in a state where the President of the Senate was the brother of an FBI 10 most wanted fugitive? The Dems in Massachusetts have been mobbed up for decades.

    • Commander_Chico

      . . . .mobbed up like the Republicans in Rogue’s Island, a lovely state.

  • GarandFan

    Bigotry is evidently the ‘in’ thing now. Did you know Romney is a MORMON?

  • herddog505

    Where do we draw the line? How do we draw the line? Why do we draw the line?

    Penn State has taken down their statue of Joe Paterno because he knew about and didn’t stop one of his chief subordinates sexually abusing boys. That subordinate is doing time, and his name is a hissing and a byword. There are those who hate the Catholic Church because priests and bishops did the same thing.

    We’ve collectively “drawn a line”: keep your damned hands (and other parts) off of children. Why do we do this? Is it “hate” and “religious bigotry” against men who “can’t help themselves” and succumb to a “natural” impulse? NAMBLA would say yes to that…

    So, where DO we draw the line? And how is ANY line not “intolerance” or “bigotry” or “hate” against those on the wrong side of it? Or shall we allow incestuous marriage? Polygamy or polyandry? Child marriage? Arranged marriages? Animal marriage?

    • Brucehenry

      Arguments disposed of long ago, Herd.

      We don’t allow child marriage or animal marriage because children and animals can’t consent. That’s also why we forbid the practice of pederasty and bestiality. It’s cruel.

      Incestuous marriage pollutes the gene pool, and the state has a compelling interest in a healthy populace to power its economy and its military.

      Historically, polygamy was used to exploit women, often under-aged girls. I myself would be open to allowing polygamous and polyandrous families if there was no taint of exploitation. I don’t know how that might work, though, and that might be why there is no serious movement to legalize it.

      Arranged marriages, as far as I know, are perfectly legal and done all the time.

      BTW, I trust you aren’t equating gay folk with pedophiles, zoophiliacs, or
      those who would commit incest.

      • herddog505

        BrucehenryWe don’t allow child marriage or animal marriage because children and animals can’t consent. That’s also why we forbid the practice of pederasty and bestiality. It’s cruel.

        I suggest that these are arbitrary decisions made by society based on (gasp) moral judgements. Does a person suddenly develop the ability to “consent” the day they pass their eighteenth birthday?

        I also suggest that these arguments were “disposed of” by people simply waving their hands and saying, “That’s not the same thing!”

        My point, again, is that our taboos are arbitrary and based on the prevailing morality of the society. I don’t equate homosexuals with people who molest children, commit incest, etc., but AT ONE TIME (and not so long ago) homosexuality was lumped in with them as a similar sexual disorder / perversion. The only thing that’s changed is that we have become more accepting of it. What’s to say – more to the point, WHO’S to say – that we shouldn’t extend the same “understanding” to people who feel a “natural” desire for those other practices? Why should we not feel ashamed for telling pederasts or polygamists that they don’t get the same rights as the rest of us? Why should we not reject our stuffy old Christian morality and tolerate people who naturally like to do X, Y and Z?

        The answer is, unfortunately, because we say so. There is little logical reason to accept this and not that, to say to these people, “You’re OK and ‘normal'” but tell those people, “If we catch you doing that, it’s to jail you’re a-going”.

        • Brucehenry

          The fact that it would freaking HURT for a child, or a dog, to be sexually penetrated by an adult is not an arbitrary moral judgement, it’s a fact.

          People are deemed able to “consent” (why the quotes?) at 18 for the same reason they are deemed eligible to “vote” — because there has to be some point and 18 seems logical, given what we know about maturity.

          We should not feel ashamed to tell pederasts ot polygamists they can’t exploit those too young, or otherwise unable, to consent. We shouldn’t extend the same “understanding” to pederasts or zoophiles because, again, animals and children CAN NOT CONSENT, while adult gays CAN CONSENT.

          And yes, people did wave their hands and say, “That’s not the same thing!” Because it ain’t, as I’ve demonstrated.

          • herddog505

            No, you haven’t demonstrated anything:

            People are deemed able to “consent” (why the quotes?) at 18 for the same reason they are deemed eligible to “vote” — because there has to be some point and 18 seems logical, given what we know about maturity. [emphasis mine – hd505]

            Again, people do not go through some magical metamorphosis at midnight on their eighteenth birthday; there is no “logic” in it. You can use the term “logical” if you wish, but it still boils down to being arbitrary: we collectively agree that eighteen is the age of consent. In years past, the age was rather lower; has the human race become more stupid? Further, I think we can all agree that not everybody is mature* at eighteen while some people are quite mature at an earlier age.

            As for it “hurting” to be penetrated, I suggest that this is so for many (most?) female virgins.

            My point is not to condemn homosexuals, and certainly not to champion pederasts and zoophiles (ick…), but rather to point out how shaky are the arguments in favor of gay marriage and, more exactly, against the traditional view of marriage. Further, I really don’t see how one can logically, consistently thunder against people “violating” the rights of homosexuals on religious grounds and then turn right ’round and say that it’s OK to do the same to people of other sexual persuasions.

            ===

            (*) How do we define “mature”, by the way? Is there a test that’s given?

            This comes up from time to time in criminal trials and the idea of trying minors as adults: “You should have known that X was wrong!”

          • Brucehenry

            OK, I get the point about arbitrary ages of maturity, but the point is still consent. Whether the age is 16, 18, 21, or 40-freaking-5, there must be some age of consent, and there are and should be laws against ignoring it.

            I don’t know about anyone else, but I have no argument against the “traditional view of marriage.” Hell, I’ve been living in a traditional marriage for 23 years. I’ve no doubt my children have benefited from having the same two parents in the same home all their lives.

            So I have no problem with “allowing” those in traditional marriages to stay in them. LOL.

            My problem with anti-marriage-equality folks is that, as I’ve stated repeatedly, they wish to deny *some* of their fellow citizens the same rights they themselves enjoy, based on *their* religious dogma. The fact that the folks whose rights are being denied don’t subscribe to *their* dogma means nothing to them, because, I assume, they are so sure *their* version of religion is the “correct” one, and should be imposed by the power of government on everyone else. Screw them.

          • herddog505

            BrucehenryMy problem with anti-marriage-equality folks is that, as I’ve stated repeatedly, they wish to deny *some* of their fellow citizens the same rights they themselves enjoy, based on *their* religious dogma. The fact that the folks whose rights are being denied don’t subscribe to *their* dogma means nothing to them, because, I assume, they are so sure *their* version of religion is the “correct” one, and should be imposed by the power of government on everyone else.

            I understand what you mean. As I wrote elsewhere, I don’t like being dictated to “for my own good”, either.

            However, I suggest that most people who support the traditional view of marriage do so not only because of religion, but mostly because they think that the family unit it entails is best for society. (I confess to exasperation when I see people waxing eloquent about the family when it comes to gay marriage but keeping mum regarding divorce; if the intact father-mother-children model is so great, then shouldn’t their energies be directed at making DIVORCE a damned sight more rare?) I also think that there is some concern about a slippery slope: once you define marriage as something other than that between one man and one woman, where does one stop? Again, I fail to see how one can logically, justly say that it’s OK for Bob and Joe or Sally and Jane to be married, but Tom and Sarah and Sally are SOL.

            Finally, people have been using the power of government to impose their view of morality on other people since… forever. What are laws against theft and murder but codifications of the predominant moral view that it’s wrong to kill somebody or to steal from him? What are Social Security taxes or welfare programs but codifications of a majority moral view that we should provide for the elderly and the poor? It sucks to be on the losing side, but, unfortunately, that happens. One can either live with it, try to change it, or ignore it at his peril.

          • Brucehenry

            All that seems reasonable, except the slippery slope stuff. The implication that gay marriage leads inexorably to legalized pederasty or bestiality is a scare tactic, and I’m surprised you, sir, are using it here.

            And many people who think banning gay marriage is “best for society” also think it would be best for society if everyone was made to follow ALL the tenets of their religion. Know any born-again Christians who don’t believe that society would be better off if EVERYBODY was a born-again Christian?

            Anyway, I enjoyed the exchange. I’m sure I haven’t changed any minds!

          • herddog505

            I don’t suggest that people will suddenly decide that f*cking their sister or pet black lab is a great idea. I merely point out that, if the argument is that people ought to have the right to “love / marry” whom they choose, then I don’t see how we can logically place any limits on that.

            And if we’re into invoking boogeymen, I suggest that “theocracy!” is a favorite of the left.

            But, as you say, it’s been a good exchange.

            Until we meet again…

  • jim_m

    If we needed any further evidence that the dems are about having a totalitarian control of the people and a total disregard for constitutional rights we now have it.

    The dems have decided that if you do not think like they do that they now have carte blanche to disregard your rights and to oppress you in any way they see fit. There are no more free speech rights in dem controlled districts. You either think like they do or you can get out. No rights to conduct business. No rights to express yourself without government taking direct action to destroy you.

    And idiots like Jay complain when I call them a bunch of fascists.

  • Pingback: False narratives and fascism | Wizbang()

  • Chris Berger

    News and opinions are delivered in silo’s that become echo chambers. This post seems to cherry pick quotes. An actual quote that has offended some US Citizens is:

    Dan Cathy’s: “I think
    we are inviting God’s judgement on our nation when we shake our fist at him and
    say ‘We know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage’”.

    Cathy
    added that his company is “very much supporting of the family, the
    biblical definition of the family unit.”

    –The Ken
    Coleman Show, June 2012