Forum Post: Chick-fil-A is right, why is the government interfering with religions deciding for themselves who can marry in their church?
Posted 11 years ago on Aug. 1, 2012, 9:43 a.m. EST by factsrfun
(8310)
from Phoenix, AZ
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Why has the American congress turned it’s back on religious freedom and passed bills like “Defense of Marriage” which restrict religious leaders from practicing their religions as their God tells them to? Why do the folks in Washington think that their word is more important than the faith of the American people. Here are just two of the religions being suppressed by the US government.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitarian_Universalist_Association
I won't eat at Chick-fil-a, but this idea of a local government withholding permits based on a company's owner's politics is insane. At least it was nice seeing that Chicago alderman fail miserably on CNN, trying to defend his position.
Almost as outrageous as congress telling preachers who they can and cannot marry in their church, that's the biggest infringement on religious freedom I have ever seen yet the Robert's Court seems OK with it.
I'm with you 110%, thankfully my state made it legal, but the last thing we need is government picking and choosing business like that. We don't want conservative governments denying permits to businesses like Ben and Jerry's. Let the business open, then WE decide whether we want to use them or not.
Coloreds not served here?
why are business permits necessary ?
Money. Power. Control.
I agree
but health permits are good for food establishments
[Removed]
[Removed]
My dog is going to marry my goldfish.
I bet they both vote Republican too, don't they?
No, they rely on someone else to take care of them for their every need. They are both Democrats.
all resource come from the earth
sometimes you do have to give it a little coaching though,
some coaches treat the players better than others though:
http://www.usnews.com/education/blogs/high-school-notes/2012/08/06/heat-can-be-deadly-for-high-school-athletes
http://climaterealityproject.org/#step-1
the SCA (society of creative anachronism )
people wearing heavy armor hitting each other with sticks
has water bearers of the field
Gateraid is mixed with 50% water as it contains too much salt
the marching band refused to yield...
anarchy verse unity
in the beginning the earth became poisoned with oxygen, all life was threatened, then one day, two “enemies” one food the other hunter came together, their intent can not be known, and yet their union made thought possible, now what will we think
Democrat politicians want to take the resources someone else did the work to get from the Earth to give to their voters so their voters can reap the benefits without actually doing the work themselves.
miners and field hands
damn it matt, why does it take me so many words and you so few?
I guess you have mastered the way to walk lightly on the earth, if only more of us could
He's the king of succinct!
He's also tenaciously terse.
Ridiculously reticent?
I don't think so.
He still communicates, yet sticks to his vow not to use the term "you".
It's harder than one might think.
His conceptual continuity is beyond the pale, and in that way, beyond reproach.
yeah thought "ridiculously" might sound harsh on here, I was just trying out the word play, I'm sure matt would understand, we may not agree on everything, but we may agree on enough....
The facts say otherwise. Care to dispute them?
http://stateofworkingamerica.org/who-gains/#/?start=1968&end=2008
Best use of a link I've seen today, good job!!
What is your point? The average person lives a far better life today than they would have in 1968. Those charts do not take that into consideration.
The point is obvious. The vast majority of people have not shared in the increase that they produced over the last 40 years. Even you and your family.
But we have shared. How many families had 2 cars? TV's in every room? AC? Beer fridge in the garage? That has to be taken ito consideration when you look at income and wealth possessed by the average family.
This has been accomplished by both parents working. Remember back in the 70's when one parent could support a family?
Since 1968, the bottom 90% only shared 3% of the increase. What do you think would be a fair share for them?
I get it you mean like when people work their asses off only to see CEOs like Romney take all the money, leave the business with the debt and takes off, with the cash? Yeah I'm sick of that shit too the bankers and CEOs takin and takin like they can never get enough, why I hear they pay less tax than anybody and some of them got over a billion dollars of the people's money, what should we do?
Private companies "MAKES", government "TAKES".
No on forced anyone to purchase Romney's product, the government forces you to pay for their product, whether you want or believe in it or not.
you could leave, we don't mind
people make, the boss takes
Ditto. There are socialist countries that would welcome those who want to live off of others.
That's OK I vote, I think most Americans want a decent wage and place to live, beside my folks built this country so I think I'll stay and just keep telling the truth about how Americans are getting their futures stolen by these would be Kings. About how everything they make working 12 hours a day is just going into some Romney trust fund, maybe they will get tired of that shirt and do something while their grandchildren might still have a chance.
Me too. Although I think your definition of "king" differs from mine. "Kings" run governments, not private businesses.
Kings run your kind where the power comes from daddy at birth, the people run mine where people vote for things that make their lives better figuring the rich will OK even if they do pay a bit in tax.
You are naive if you think the Kings will take a chance on you voting on the real power, they are as likely to start running corporations on one shareholder one vote, instead of shares where only the rich decide.
Ummm.........I think that you are more then a little confused........... I do believe that you are thinking of the corpoRATist's you know the ones in office right now that are in open rebellion against the Government and the People? Ring any bells yet?
OH - Shit - What am I thinking you are already obviously confused - must not be too familiar with current politics - Hey?
Let me help you out - those ones in office right now (?) that are jumping up and down and shouting FUCK YOU AMERICA (?) those would be the corpoRATist's. And yes there seem to be a few hiding under the democratic banner - but the majority are hiding behind the republican banner. Yep the repubs in office have been co-opted into the CorpoRATist party a new as yet invisible party working behind the scenes. That is when they aren't openly shitting on the public with things like fracking or economic meltdowns extending tax cuts for the wealthy ( themselves ) removing mountain tops you know generally destroying and poisoning the environment and such.
stop with the bad language. you are known by all for your negative preachy rants.
Like Solyndra or GE or GM?
"Bin Laden would be alive and GM would be dead"
if Romney had his way, you'd prefer that too I guess, Bin Laden being gone takes away a lot of the apatite for war doesn't it? kinka sucks for the war lovers don't it?
Obama stood on the back of GW Bush when he made the admittedly "hard" decision to kill Osama. GW had an assist.
The asset being that for 7 years GW wasn't really thinking about Bin Laden much? That kind of asset? It didn't take us that long to get get, Hitler.
Hitler didn't have the Democrat party thwarting every effort to get him as the Democrats stood in the way of GW fighting the war he wanted. At least Obama had the backing and support of the Republican party.
Funny how Bin Laden didn't die till the Democrats were in charge of the whole shootin' match, and yet you can blame them for Bush and the GOP not doing it for 7 years, well if that don't beat all!
Well as long as they citizens of voting age they should be able to marry whoever they damn well please! At least we agree on that! Good to find common ground.
They are citizens of legal voting age and we have decided they are in love. We are not going to call it marriage, we are going to call it "normal homosexual relationship." Everyone around agrees that the definition of normal homosexual relationship should include two animals that are in love and have a sexual relationship.
And look, I had read Neanderthals went the way of the Dodo, but you're still around. Maybe Darwin was wrong.
He clearly lives in a land where dogs and goldfish vote, so who knows what strange creatures roam the earth.
True. I normally don't bother with the venom this poster and others spew, but at times their bigotry irritates me enough that respond. I don't understand why they feel compelled to interfere in other people's lives.
Why even bother to bite on his troll bait? Does it accomplish anything except to lead Occupy on an endless detour?
You're right. It's like having a spider in the house. Most of the time you ignore it, but every once in a while, you just react.
I react occasionally too. But that reaction prevents us from fighting the fire that's blazing in the living room.
Why the hate? Why don't you respect the rights of God's creatures?
I do respect most creatures; just pity you. I'll pray for you.
[Removed]
Odd that they can vote and all, makes me think that shit about voter fraud is real, I mean I thought only people could vote, what state you in?
Why the hate? Why do you want to restrict the rights of God's creatures? Obviously you are an Faunaphobe.
It does not surprise me that you live in a land where dogs and goldfish vote, which one are you?
Faunaphobe! Hater!
Where can you find hate in anything I said? I think you are finding something within yourself.
Bingo.....most lib's here hatefully project there own qualities on to opposition.
The first step in dealing with a problem is recognizing you have one, congratulations.
[Removed]
Just questioning the rights of homosexual love is an act of hatred.
It was you who compared homosexuals to dogs and goldfish and it was an act of hatred spewing from your soul.
I agree with you that the government shouldn't decide what a church can do, and I don't think that is necessarily what is going on. A church can still marry whomever they want - it isn't the act of marriage that is illegal. It is only that the government won't recognize the marriage and the couple won't get any of the legal benefit of being married. Also, my state had an open election to decide whether or not we supported gay marriage - and unfortunately the people voted no. That is one of the dangers of direct democracy, sometimes in doesn't go our way.
I think what these Mayors are doing to deny Chic-Fil-A permits amounts to religious discrimination...and the govt shouldn't be engaged in that practice either.
When the government treats a marriage done in one church differently than one done in another it is "establishing a religion" even if it a group of religions, I am talking more about DOM than the city actions if the mayor here does something I'll look at that, but the DOM affects everyone and it is a restriction on religious freedom.
Actually it isn't. The marriage ceremony in the church and the signing of the marriage certificate for the city/county are two different things. You can have a full wedding in a church, invite all your family members, and have a great time. That marriage can be recognized by the church, but not by the government. Conversely, you and your spouse can get a marriage license at the "Justice of the Peace" for $25, and not have the marriage recognized by any church.
This is a separation of church and state issue. Each entity can decide what marriages they want to recognize or not.
When the state recognizes one marriage ceremony but not another then it is establishing a religion. Are you trying to say that the state require you to be married in front of a state official before giving you the certificate i happen to know that is not true, and as far as what different churches recognize that's the whole point, the government should not be telling them.
I agree with you that if the state recognizes one marriage over another, then it is overstepping its bounds. However, I don't think you can say that the state is "establishing a religion" because there are many religions that don't support gay marriage. We can start with the big three - Judaism, Islam and Christianity. So you can't say that it is establishing A religion. Also, as previously mentioned - laws against gay marriage have been voted on by the public.
As far as how the marriage occurs, I can only speak about what I know - and that is NC procedures. You file for a license at the City or County Clerks office, which requires filling out a form, providing ID, and paying the fee ($60). The license is good for 60 days - during which your marriage is finalized in front of a recognized religious authority, judge, justice of the peace, or whatever. If two guys show up at the clerks office, they will not get a marriage license, thus their marriage will not be approved by the state. They can, however, find a church that will "marry" them. A church can marry anyone they want...they can marry people to animals if they want to, there is nothing to stop them. Only, you can't get health insurance for the goat you married at "church."
Does that make sense?
One of the main points of the Constitution is protect people from things people vote on, and when you recognize one but not the other you are establishing. Same as if the government only recognized marriages performed in a Catholic church but none others. Even if you pick one group over another you are still establishing.
Doesn't usually take Sanatorium long to get to man on animal sex when discussing this issue either.
Let me ask you in the case of two gays are they both animals or just one of them?
"Let me ask you in the case of two gays are they both animals or just one of them?"
Why would you say that? Do you assume that because I am presenting a logical retort to your post that I am against gay marriage? A few posts above I stated
"Also, my state had an open election to decide whether or not we supported gay marriage - and unfortunately the people voted no. " Would I say 'unfortunately' if I was against gay marriage. Instead of making stupid statements about gays and animals, why don't you instead ask "what are your feelings about gay marriage" and withold judgment until I answer.
I don't need to justify my position to you or anyone for my argument above to make sense.
Like I said before - the Government (at least in NC) did not cite any religious reasons why gay marriage is not allowed. They put it to a vote and the people voted it down. They also didn't ask people why it was voted down. On top of that, supporting a groups religious belief is different from establishing a state religion.
Actually, like forcing creationism in schools, it respects an establishment of religion.
I grew up in a state like NC where at one time the people voted to restrict other types of marriage it was unconstitutional when they did that too, just because people vote on something don't make it right, you brought up bestiality I just want to understand what you were trying to say.
So we do agree when talking about people the state whether the people vote for it or not have no right under the Constitution to tell churches who they can or can not marry, right?
Yes, we absolutely agree that the state has no right to tell churches who the can or cannot marry. My point is that the state doesn't actually do that. The state says that it will only recognize a marriage between a man and a woman, and not that other types of marriage are "illegal." The state hasn't banned any kind of marriage from the churches - they can marry whomever they want - it is just that the state doesn't recognize them.
and in so doing it chooses one religion over the other, when it recognizes some but not others, that's establishment of religion, the only way for not to be would be to require all people to see a judge to get married and not recognize any church wedding so as not to favor one over the other,
of course for the state to just pick and choose who can or can't get married because they don't fit the "state's" definition seems like picking and choosing who gets to be citizens and that is clearly unconstitutional religious or not
the owner's form of oppression is more accurate.
not sure what you mean, but I love this quote from LZ Granderson:
"This is what the forefathers had in mind when they composed the Constitution: liberals making out during lunch and conservatives stuffing their face with chikin in the name of Jesus. God, I love this country."
http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/31/opinion/granderson-chick-fil-a/index.html
I'm pretty sure they wanted government staying out of telling churches what they can believe in.
the first casualty of extreme liberalism is a sense of humor.
don't tell a joke in the middle of a bar fight, unless you're ready to duck
thanks for the case in point
Well, making out and lickin' chicken are definitely mutually exclusive - ask ANY female; there's a little bit of liberal in all of us.
What do you call the DOM act then but oppressive government action with its boot on the necks of religions they don't like?
who is he oppressing? there is no evidence and no charges that chik-fil-a stores discriminate in hiring or who they serve.
so who is he oppressing by holding a certain belief he doesn't impose on anyone else?
is it the same people the president has been oppressing for 3+ years until his "evolution" a month or so back?
btw, in case you are wondering, I am 100% pro-gay marriage.
It isn't about holding a belief. It is about the acts of discrimination.
Forbes reported in 2007 that Chick-fil-A has been sued a dozen times for employment discrimination according to district court records. A 2002 suit involved “Aziz Latif, a former Chick-fil-A restaurant manager in Houston [who] sued the company in 2002 after Latif, a Muslim, says he was fired a day after he didn’t participate in a group prayer to Jesus Christ at a company training program in 2000. The suit was settled on undisclosed terms.”
so you have zero evidence the company has discriminated towards gays.
didn't think so.
swerve noted.
it is about holding a belief. you support thoughtcrime. how sad.
and no comment on the president's gay-bashing bigoted hatred of gays that went unchecked as his hatred rolled like a panzer tank through the equal rights of gay Americans who deserve equal protection under the law up until a couple of months ago in a cynical, election-season ploy to curry favor with yet another divide-and-conquer voting bloc?
I'm shocked.
Another lawsuit filed earlier this year against a California Chick-fil-A claims that four former employees of the restaurant were sexually harassed by their boss -- and when they took their complaints to the owner, they were first ignored, then fired, then reported to immigration authorities in an attempt to have them deported.
Forbes noted that Chick-fil-A might face more discrimination lawsuits if it didn't screen potential hires and operators so rigorously, with many job candidates going through a yearlong vetting process with dozens of interviews that can last as long as five hours. The parent company also asks people who apply for operator licenses to disclose their marital status, number of dependents, and involvement in community, civic, social, church and professional organizations.
Federal law does not prohibit employers from asking potential hires questions about religion and marital status during interviews, and companies have even wider latitude in approving franchisees.
Thanks for the sarcasm The paragraph I pasted was to illustrate that their record of discrimination, whatever it is, is a relevant consideration. I didn't say whether it is good or bad. I didn't make the effort to research it myself. I don't know what the date is of that clip so there may be more current information available.
You say there is no evidence, Is that really true? Nowhere in my post did I express a belief. And the rest of your rant is unintelligible to me.
Did you read the headline? I think the US Congress is the oppressor with their DOM act which tells churches what ceremonies they can and cannot perform.
did you read what I was responding to?
"the owner's form of oppression is more accurate."
this may be shocking to you, but the owner of CFA does not own the US congress.
I realize you are reeling over being proven wrong about dems using target symbols on their websites, but do try to keep up.
speaking of that did you ever answer the question about gun sites on people and targets on states if you thought there was a difference, then you would have to have a thought to answer that, my bad
I dont think there is a difference.
you were wrong about the use of the target symbol.
admit it and grow the fuck up already.
then you are a sick fuck
I saw the symbols you refer to they were not gun sights, as the GOP used where they put gun sights on the faces of people if you don’t see the difference then you are just a sick fuck admit that bitch..
Your little hissy fit, prompted over being proven wrong about your beloved dems being hypocrites and using target imagery, makes me laugh.
And not just empty "lol" comment crap, I'm literally laughing at how angry and frantic you are.
Seems you sum up the ows 20something nitwit stereotype perfectly. You were brought up not keeping score of games, 1+1=3 if you really want it to, you've rarely heard "no" or "wrong" along the way, and now the big bad real world is eating you alive. And since this virtual online world means more to you than the actual people and environment around you, being proven wrong here in this, ahem, critical forum of meaning, you just can't handle it and need to lash out, stamp your feet, and STILL insist you weren't wrong.
What a pitiful display you've put on here. Enlightening to people like me who suspected what you sad boobs are about, but still pitiful. When you're in your 50s working for a 30something brought up the right way, you'll know why. You're ruined.
oh oh can I play too?
How small and pathetic your life must be, the way run and chase around behind those that think, hoping a thought will fall off and you can bask in pleasure only those with minds can experience. So sad that the closest you will ever be to actual thought is when you are caught in a trap set by a mind capable of it. How merely brushing up against an actual mind thrills you to your girlish loins makes you all tingly and warm inside, you can't help but smile and giggle. Well if you were here I'd satisfied your hungry butt, but since your not, oh well.
nah, that sucked. all made up, based on nothing, the whining fail of a fragile ego. I had you summed up just about right in mine. you got me all wrong.
and all this because you made a statement, it was proven wrong, and something like 2 weeks later you're still in agony over it.
"girlish loins" ... and you're so frantic and enraged, you've been reduced to using gay as a put-down. nice tolerance, hater. nice emotional control, angry little boy.
you've managed to make yourself look even worse. at least you can claim you accomplished something: finding a new personal low.
Look you are not the first to become enthralled by the brilliance of intelligent life and I do my best to satisfied one and all but really your desire must go unfulfilled unless you can bring your lust to the desert, but if you do I will hear your request, after all you're such a huge fan how could I not?
"...the brilliance of intelligent life and I do my best to satisfied one and all..."
really? you do your best to "satisfied" one and all?
hahahaha!!! look how flustered you are. what a loser.
now now don't pitch a fit, there will be others, just hit the streets and strut your stuff
his oppression not only branches out through his words but he also uses Chik-Fil-A funding for anti-gay organizations in the number of millions.
But an even bigger issue is Mitt Romney openly denounces gay marriage and yet everyone is talking about Chik-Fil-A.
"his oppression not only branches out through his words"
so do your words oppress his right to hold an opinion that differs from yours? or does something this fucking obvious not occur to you? perhaps the thin air up there on the soapbox is causing you to lose the ability to think clearly?
"he also uses Chik-Fil-A funding for anti-gay organizations in the number of millions."
are you sure he uses company money and not his own money? believe it or not, there is a profound difference. maybe details like accuracy don't matter when you feel the need to make a point you can't make honestly.
"But an even bigger issue is Mitt Romney openly denounces gay marriage and yet everyone is talking about Chik-Fil-A."
no, the bigger issue is that 3 big city mayors threatened to deny a business permit based on the owner's thoughtcrime. you're ok with this? if so, those of us who do support gay marriage do not need your kind of "support."
but since romey's opposition is so bad (and it is), care to share your take on how tens of millions of liberal and moderate Americans voted for a gay-hating bigot in the 2008 presidential election? did you?
You should look into shit before you make assumptions.
Yes it was COMPANY money that goes through it's charity to other organizations. Here's a source to that - http://abcnews.go.com/Business/chick-fil-company-political-leanings/story?id=16925613
Also to stop a problem you cut it off from the source. If you want a person to stop spending their money on something, boycott what makes them their money. It's a good strategy.
Do you know who else thinks gay marriage is a sin? Ahmadinejad
But I do agree the government should have no say in the current issue as far as the 3 mayors go.
And Romney is a bigot. And I do not approve of Obama either. Nor his refusal to sign the executive order banning discrimination toward LGBT on federal projects.
that article is so typical of govt-media complex fake journalism. 2 out 10+ paragraphs about CFA. and the idea of "curing" gay....I'd call it silly and ridiculous more than "radical."
"And Romney is a bigot." -- but obama wasn't when they held the same belief, right?
listen Dem-bot, you got nothing.
If the KKK wanted to open a restaurant on my block I'd hope my city council member would move heaven and earth to stop it. In the end a judge would decide but the sob's would sweat for the permits. This situation isn't much different.
How about let them open their restaurant as long as the restaurant is boldly marked a KKK establishment And the people are made aware of what the KKK stands for prior to opening. I think I would want to know - who in my community would support such a place.
Further more I would hope that the place would be shunned and go out of business shortly after opening for lack of any business.
And would you also mark christian or muslim owned establishments, anarchist, republican and democrat too?
NOPE
Why would you stop the KKK from exercising the same freedoms that say... the ACLU or the NAACP or the NRA or anyone else has? Just because you disagree with them? Lots of people disagree with you, and if they had it your way, you wouldn't be able to do anything because they don't want you to have freedom.
Get my drift? Probably not.
Nope....he doesn't get your drift. LIbs only support the 1st ammendment when lefties exercise it....Chik fil A proves that point.
The KKK organizes to terminate the rights of people it regards as either inferior or spawn of the devil, these rights up to and including the right to breathe in and out. I don't consider that to be some silly parlor game. The Mormon Church is anopther example brought to mnind because i met two lying ass Mormon Missionaries today claiming their church is not political. Of course the Mormon Church got fined in California for violations of state laws regarding their funding of the anti gay political campaign there. There is no reason other than hatred to want to deny two gay people the right to have their union and relationship granted the same privileges that non gay people get when they marry. And hatred is not a parlor game. It is a continuum of attitudes and actions up to and including beatings and murders.
So does the NAACP and the ACLU.
An inarticulate comment. Maybe the algorithm is messed up.
Sorry, I have to turn off the caps lock.. The NAACP and the ACLU = KKK
doing doing doing
fucking moron
I'm glad people are focusing on this issue... but there is a guy running for president that has the exact same views as this chiken sandwich guy.
I would love to see people organize protests against Romney for his bigoted stance on marriage and it would be great to see a kiss-in take place at Mitt Romney's mansions across the USA.
thanks for stopping by Trevor, people who cry for their own religious freedom, (when asked to do no more than provide health care), then have no problem with Congress stomping all over the freedom of people to love and be with who they choose, is compete bullshit, and we make our country stronger any time we call them on their bullshit, freedom is more than just being able to push people around with your money.
ps I always like girl kisses where ever they occur, call me a dog if you want...
Conan O'Brien @ConanOBrien
I’m going to go out on a limb and say Americans should be free to marry any chicken sandwich they choose.
Can we still get life insurance on them?
I may get hungry.............................:)
It would be like the free lunch that WallStreet gets every day.
Being ginger Conan would say that.
Wow, I don't think I've seen so much hate on a thread. For a minute there I thought I accidently got on a Stormfront forum.
I can understand people being mad what with the government stomping on their religious freedom with this DOM act.
Because states and the Feds do not interfere, without it being challenged in a court of law. Besides, marriage laws are not written into the Constitution, religious freedoms are. Many amendments have been proposed, but as of yet.....there has been no true conclusive decision made other than this....
"On February 23, 2011, Attorney General Eric Holder released a statement regarding lawsuits challenging DOMA section 3. He wrote: After careful consideration, including a review of my recommendation, the President has concluded that given a number of factors, including a documented history of discrimination, classifications based on sexual orientation should be subject to a more heightened standard of scrutiny. The President has also concluded that section 3 of DOMA, as applied to legally married same-sex couples, fails to meet that standard and is therefore unconstitutional. Given that conclusion, the President has instructed the Department not to defend the statute in such cases. He also announced the administration intended to enforce the law, as distinct from defending it in court, "unless and until Congress repeals Section 3 or the judicial branch renders a definitive verdict against the law's constitutionality."
Therefore, it is still subject to debate by the courts in individual cases, as with most laws...in other words the states still must fight the Feds to either maintain or deny, regardless.
We also tend to forget that god cannot put two people together through marriage vows, the laws as written by man do.
Man is not the interpreter nor does he have power over who belongs together or who will be together.....the two consenting "adults" involved make that decision, whether we like it or not. Therefore, man is not GOD....
Thanks for the info good to have it in the thread, I was aware that Obama was not defending the law and as such it was in legal grey area.
I posted more to point out that many in Congress (Republicans) did in fact feel that it was governments role to tell churches who they could or could not marry and I think that is wrong and those who care about true religious freedom will vote against them in Nov. (remember that's against Republicans)
"Religious views are not a license to discriminate." - ACLU
"Weddings" ought to be in churches, synagogues, temples and mosques. Legal formation of a couple or family should be certified by government entities and should be for any two adults. "Weddings" would then be certified by the government as the legal formation of a couple or family.
I don't care where you do it but if the government says this church preacher can do it they got no right to tell another they can't just because they have different beliefs.
It's been customary for example that Orthodox and Conservative rabbis won't perform wedding ceremonies involving non Jews. I think other religions have similar strictures. I don't like that but I think it's their right. If weddings become a simple religious ceremony with no legal clout then I'd say let the clerics marry who they want to. I fear the government getting into managing the affairs of religions such as ceremonies and rituals.
the government has always recognized weddings performed by rabbis or priests if it did one but not the other that would be wrong, now with the DOM the government is deciding that some church weddings aren't good enough or do not meet the government standards to be recognized that is what is wrong do you agree?
Not sure I understand what you're getting at. Also probably I wasn't clear in my words. I think any two adults who want to declare their love (or other reason as well) and become a team in life, maybe raise a child or more and needing in some tax breaks and other goodies that married people can get along with accepting responsibilities to each other should have those benefits and their teaming up together should be legally recognized. I think that should be finalized in some court house or county clerk's office period. Then let any rabbi or Popeye or bye bye marry up whoever he wants to and not marry up whoever he doesn't want to.
Forbes reported in 2007 that Chick-fil-A has been sued a dozen times for employment discrimination according to district court records. A 2002 suit involved “Aziz Latif, a former Chick-fil-A restaurant manager in Houston [who] sued the company in 2002 after Latif, a Muslim, says he was fired a day after he didn’t participate in a group prayer to Jesus Christ at a company training program in 2000. The suit was settled on undisclosed terms.”
It isn't politics when it involves actions.
As with many in the Royal class the CEO of chick-fil-a feels it is his right to expression that must be protected, it is as it always has been.
The right to freedom of money, so to pay?
You know what they say, money makes the King.
And clothes make the man, and the S--t hits the fan.
This history of employment discrimination and compulsion of employees to participate in religious rituals justifies any government entity's efforts to thwart the company's expansion. Thanks for bringing this fact here. It helps make the whole matter so much clearer.
The contribution of $millions in "speech" to anti gay lobbyists and PR firms is legal, but that doesn't make it right.
I'm an atheist, and although I think religion is kinda silly, I do respect the religious beliefs of others because most people can and do admit it doesn't make logical sense. that's why it's called faith.
that said, govt forcing private companies to cover contraception against their beliefs is wrong no matter how you slice it. (btw, I am also so pro-abortion I'd like to see it coin-operated).
and politicians threatening private businesses because the owner believes something they don't agree with is just as repulsive.
no matter what political stripe you are, if this shit doesn't offend you, you're an authoritarian asshole.
It's only wrong if you are forced to hire people, you always have the choice of being true to your religion and doing the job yourself. If you hire an American you have no right to tell them what they should or should not believe. On the other hand telling a church that they cannot marry two guys is an outrageous interference with free expression. Since that involves a private activity not a public one like employment where each person should be free to make their own choice, not their employer, if you don't want to pay the wage, do the job yourself.
Don’t know what your babbling about I support Chick-fil-A it’s a matter of religious freedom and the government should stay out of who gets married in what church if you recognize one you must recognize them all equally, we agree on that don’t we?
"Don’t know what your babbling about"
wow, that dems using the target symbol thing you were so, so wrong about has really got you all veklempt.
I'm amused at your paranoia (as if I was disagreeing with you here) and your pathetic attempt to get a return zinger in after you were proven so wrong about the dems using the target symbol.
you make me laugh. like a clown, you amuse me.
damn must of made you decade, if only I gave a shit, but when it comes to people sucking it up and paying for what they got to pay for or do the damn job themself, now that's something we do agree on
"if only I gave a shit"
right, it means so little you still can't come out and say you were wrong.
dems used target symbols, too. suck it up and live with it.
[Removed]
Chick fil A are RepubliCons!!
August 01, 2012 | Dan Rafter
Category: Call It Out, Marriage, Workplace, Blog, Call It Out, Chickfila, Do Not Display, Marriage & Relationships Chick-fil-A Anti-Gay: Bad for Business
http://www.hrc.org/blog/entry/chick-fil-a-anti-gay-bad-for-business/
Since Chick-fil-A President Dan Cathy made his anti-LGBT remarks two weeks ago, the fast food chain’s image with consumers has plummeted. According to YouGov’s BrandIndex, Chick-fil-A’s perception with consumers dropped from a 65 prior to Cathy’s remarks – nearly 20 points above the national average for other fast food chains – to a 39.
Chick-fil-A’s brand suffered particularly in the South, where the chain’s rating with consumers has dropped from an 80 to a 44 since Cathy’s anti-LGBT remarks. Chick-fil-A has a strong foothold throughout the South, particularly Texas, Florida, Georgia, and North Carolina – but the sheer number of stores couldn’t protect it from the consumer backlash.
The fast food chain also is seeing its image plummet in the Northeast, where its rating has dropped from a 76 to a 35.
BrandIndex conducts regular surveys with consumers and measures a company’s public image based on quality, satisfaction, reputation, value, general impression, and willingness to recommend.
There also is solid data indicating that being anti-LGBT is simply bad for business. Several profile high-profile examples from this year illustrate that embracing equality benefits a company’s public image: When Nabisco’s Oreo brand released a famous image of a rainbow cookie to commemorate LGBT Pride in June, positive perception of the company among 18-34 year olds skyrocketed, increasing 15 percentage points. Moms with kids stepped up their support for J.C. Penney’s on two occasions, when the anti-LGBT group One Million Moms criticized the clothing store first for naming Ellen DeGeneres as their spokeswoman, and later when they included a picture of two lesbian moms in their Mother’s Day catalogue. In both instances, support among moms with kids jumped as One Million Moms launched anti-equality attacks on the company.
Source: YouGov’s BrandIndex
It’s not hard to see why Chick-fil-A’s brand is suffering as they proudly embrace their anti-LGBT practices. They are outliers in a landscape where the majority of businesses have made historic strides in embracing equality:
86 percent of Fortune 500 companies protect employees on the basis of sexual orientation.
50 percent of Fortune 500 companies protect employees on the basis of gender identity.
Since 2002, the number of Fortune 500 companies offering domestic partner benefits climbed 76 percent.
Perhaps most noteworthy is that the LGBT community wields a buying power of nearly $800 billion.
During a decade of remarkable progress in the business community, Chick-fil-A has remained firmly planted in the past. As a result, there are now tangible declines in Chick-fil-A’s public perception that will likely impact the company’s bottom line. Learn more about Chick-fil-A’s anti-LGBT donations and view HRC's pledge.
http://www.hrc.org/blog/entry/chick-fil-a-anti-gay-bad-for-business/
they're republicans? omg
keen grasp of the obvious pal
Thank you!
And they, this Yahoo chicken chain, are just as bigoted and un-American as RepubliCons, too!
So as we boycott Chic Fil A (and their media ad carriers) in the market place we should also boycott the RepubliCon Cult at the ballot box this November 6th. No Chic Fil A RepubliCon bigots in the WH, Congress, Governorships and legislatures!!! Ever again!!
When will Atheists be allowed to openly run for political office?
they can run, they just can't win, reveling that you have a religious belief at all should be grounds for disqualification, that should be a private matter.
Boycott the Chic and Con cults!!
Is fill-A with ALEC??
doesn't look like it, but we don't know everyone, here's a great site on ALEC
http://www.alecexposed.org/wiki/ALEC_Exposed
Randy Rainbow Works at Chick-fil-A
thanks for the link,.funny
sends to the bottom of the thread where people will see it
upvotes some posts to keep this at the bottom
I think I see what you're saying, hey you got the "points" to spare I guess