Chik fil a

[peternap]

Chicage values - that's a good one - a real knee-slapper 

I thought it was "Knee breaker" there!

[archimedes]

the owner of Chick Fil A is not "restricting" anything,

attempting to transfer their personal beliefs into public policy.

So making gay marriage illegal isn't "imposing personal beliefs"through public policy.  Your twisted logic is tying you in knots.

The 14th Amendment to the Constitution guarantees everyone equal protection under the law.  If you select out a particular group for dis-similar treatment under the law then you are violating the 14th Amendment of the Constitution.    The courts have already ruled on this numerous times.   This is not about Mr Cathy stating what his personal values are (although that's how you would like it to be frame it)  it's about him and the people he is giving money to making their personal value judgments the law.  Whenever you let citizens use the gov't for those purposes you are on very dangerous ground.

I think the Mayors should have kept there mouths shut,  they just muddied the waters more than they were already.  But they have the same right to state there views,  or their displeasure with someone else's views,  just as much as anyone else.   They have not used the gov't to impair Mr Cathy,  or his business,  in any way.  And if they did he could sue them - and would win.   

It's funny how you can see the "imagined" infringement on Mr Cathy's freedoms (that don't really exist, except on talk radio) but completely overlook what he and his benefactors are trying to impose through legislative means.  Those are real infrigements of people freedoms.

The fed gov't should have an MYOB policy on such matters.  But Mr Cathy and many of his supporters and benefactors can't accept that.  They want to impose their view on a minority that doesn't want it.  Matters of personal morality are no place for gov't interfearance.   And that's a very Libertarian view.

[mgramann]

So making gay marriage illegal isn't "imposing personal beliefs"through public policy.  Your twisted logic is tying you in knots.

The 14th Amendment to the Constitution guarantees everyone equal protection under the law.  If you select out a particular group for dis-similar treatment under the law then you are violating the 14th Amendment of the Constitution.    The courts have already ruled on this numerous times.   This is not about Mr Cathy stating what his personal values are (although that's how you would like it to be frame it)  it's about him and the people he is giving money to making their personal value judgments the law.  Whenever you let citizens use the gov't for those purposes you are on very dangerous ground.

I think the Mayors should have kept there mouths shut,  they just muddied the waters more than they were already.  But they have the same right to state there views,  or their displeasure with someone else's views,  just as much as anyone else.   They have not used the gov't to impair Mr Cathy,  or his business,  in any way.  And if they did he could sue them - and would win.   

It's funny how you can see the "imagined" infringement on Mr Cathy's freedoms (that don't really exist, except on talk radio) but completely overlook what he and his benefactors are trying to impose through legislative means.  Those are real infrigements of people freedoms.

The fed gov't should have an MYOB policy on such matters.  But Mr Cathy and many of his supporters and benefactors can't accept that.  They want to impose their view on a minority that doesn't want it. Matters of personal morality are no place for gov't interfearance.   And that's a very Libertarian view.

So you would agree that opinions like "universal health care is a right" and "social security" should not be part of the government, right?  There is no difference in that they are "morality" based.

Personally, I don't believe it is possible to completely eliminate morality from legislation.

[archimedes]

Personally, I don't believe it is possible to completely eliminate morality from legislation.

Well,  of course.  But who you marry is a pretty private personal decision,  previously recognized by the Supreme Court as a Constitutionally guaranteed right of freedom.  And since no one is harmed,  or has their rights impaired,  by letting another couple get married,  where's the legal justification for stopping it?

Essentially,  where is the Constitutional justification for stopping it (keeping in mind the 14th amendment) ?

[mgramann]

Well,  of course.  But who you marry is a pretty private personal decision,  previously recognized by the Supreme Court as a Constitutionally guaranteed right of freedom.  And since no one is harmed,  or has their rights impaired,  by letting another couple get married,  where's the legal justification for stopping it?

Other personal decisions include what charities I support, and how to invest for my retirement.  Currently, I am personally harmed by someone else's morals being enforced on me.

My point is that many of the people who are claiming Cathy is a bigot for funding his morals, have no problem funding their own.  It's classic hypocrisy.

Essentially,  where is the Constitutional justification for stopping it (keeping in mind the 14th amendment) ?

Not to get overly technical, but there are a few things going on here.  Should a law be made, it could be justified in that all races, all sexes are equal in that they can marry a member of the opposite sex.  The argument against this is that a person is born a certain way as opposed to it being a choice, which would infringe upon their rights since it relates to something they have no control over.  The science is still out on this(but that is another debate entirely)  The refute against the "born that way" perspective is some people could argue they are born attracted to other things, and where does one draw the line?  What makes one location of that line any better than the next?

My personal opinion?  I'm torn on this issue.  Being a Christian I support traditional marriage, but there is also a libertarian side of me that thinks God's path needs to be chosen and the government should stay out of it.  I go back and forth on this.

I do think you are marginalizing the impact of the governors statements on this.  It shows how little they value the constitution, and if their statements even slightly discourages the owner from opening up shop, simply to avoid a fight, they have gone too far.

[muldoon]

This thread is all over the place... 

So you would agree that opinions like "universal health care is a right" and "social security" should not be part of the government, right?  There is no difference in that they are "morality" based.

Personally, I don't believe it is possible to completely eliminate morality from legislation.

Morality has nothing to do with either of them, they are both taxes.  By legal definition. 
You are not legally obligated one penny from either, they are a tax. 
...  cite:  1960 supreme court http://www.ssa.gov/history/nestor.html

Governments role in marriage is likewise a tax.  pay for a marriage license?  it's a tax. 

Other than that, I have no issues with gays marrying each other, no victim no crime in my mind.   

[archimedes]

The science is still out on this

With all due respect,  no it's not.  But even if it were,  adults have a right to make that choice.

The refute against the "born that way" perspective is some people could argue they are born attracted to other things, and where does one draw the line? 

I draw the line at humans.  And I think almost everyone would.   

I do think you are marginalizing the impact of the governors statements on this.  It shows how little they value the constitution, and if their statements even slightly discourages the owner from opening up shop, simply to avoid a fight, they have gone too far.

Like how governors and mayors intimidate and condemn abortion providers and Planned Parenthood offices which are legal regardless of how reprehensible some one may find them.  Politician says lots of stupid stuff.  Most people only pay attention when the stupid stuff conflicts with their personal views. 

But I agree the mayors should have stayed out of it   .

My personal opinion?  I'm torn on this issue.  Being a Christian I support traditional marriage, but there is also a libertarian side of me that thinks God's path needs to be chosen and the government should stay out of it.  I go back and forth on this.

to this ^^^^^^

[mgramann]

This thread is all over the place... 

Morality has nothing to do with either of them, they are both taxes.  By legal definition. 
You are not legally obligated one penny from either, they are a tax. 
...  cite:  1960 supreme court http://www.ssa.gov/history/nestor.html

Governments role in marriage is likewise a tax.  pay for a marriage license?  it's a tax. 

Other than that, I have no issues with gays marrying each other, no victim no crime in my mind.   

You are missing my point.  They are laws justified by morals.  People support one law justified with morals, while condemning another law because it is based on morals.  I'm simply pointing out a major flaw in the argument.

[muldoon]

You are missing my point.  They are laws justified by morals.  People support one law justified with morals, while condemning another law because it is based on morals.  I'm simply pointing out a major flaw in the argument.

An you are missing mine.  Those are not laws based on morals, they are taxes. 
Moralistic viewpoints were used to sell them to voters but that does not change that they are taxes. 

[mgramann]

Let me start of by saying please don't take my arguments the wrong way.  I consider this thoughtful discussion, and hold no animosity towards anyone...yet   I appreciate the discourse.

With all due respect,  no it's not.  But even if it were,  adults have a right to make that choice.

Maybe I'm behind.  Is it genetic, or something that occurs during development? 

The choice thing limits the protection of the 14th amendment.  There are lots of things I could choose to do that won't hurt anyone else that have been deemed illegal.  I was interpreting it to prevent discrimination based on things outside of our control.  I'll leave it at that-I don't want to delve into that much philosophy today.

I draw the line at humans.  And I think almost everyone would.   

Almost is the key word there:)  Still, isn't that limitation morality based?

Like how governors and mayors intimidate and condemn abortion providers and Planned Parenthood offices which are legal regardless of how reprehensible some one may find them.  Politician says lots of stupid stuff.  Most people only pay attention when the stupid stuff conflicts with their personal views.

But I agree the mayors should have stayed out of it   .

Agreed.  All forms are wrong.

to this ^^^^^^

I don't know if this is an insult to my intelligence or not.  To many, it is black and white.  In my mind, it isn't that simple.

[mgramann]

An you are missing mine.  Those are not laws based on morals, they are taxes. 
Moralistic viewpoints were used to sell them to voters but that does not change that they are taxes.

My apologies.  You are correct that they are taxes, and the funding rarely go towards what they were justified for.  I was just trying to illustrate the flaw in the moral argument, and the hypocrisy of that voter justification.

:we need a "cheers" or "beer" smiley:

[archimedes]

Let me start of by saying please don't take my arguments the wrong way.  I consider this thoughtful discussion, and hold no animosity towards anyone...yet   I appreciate the discourse.

same here.

To many, it is black and white.  In my mind, it isn't that simple.

I think the legal side is pretty black and white.  To paraphrase muldoon above " no harm no foul".

The moral side is a much more complicated discussion.  And one I'm sure this country is going to have for a long time to come.  It will be interesting.

[Squirl]

Not to get overly technical, but there are a few things going on here.  Should a law be made, it could be justified in that all races, all sexes are equal in that they can marry a member of the opposite sex.  The argument against this is that a person is born a certain way as opposed to it being a choice, which would infringe upon their rights since it relates to something they have no control over.  The science is still out on this(but that is another debate entirely)  The refute against the "born that way" perspective is some people could argue they are born attracted to other things, and where does one draw the line?  What makes one location of that line any better than the next?

I disagree that the science is out, but that is regardless to the legal argument.
People are born male or female (some both).

Marriage under the law is a contract.  Since the law and the government wants to be involved in that contract, it cannot discriminate who can enter into it based upon the genders of the individuals entering into that contract.  The same as it can't based upon the race of the individuals entering into a contract.  Attraction is not a condition of marriage.  The attracted to other things argument is silly in the eyes of the law, because the "other things" cannot enter into a contract.

[NM_Shooter]

So making gay marriage illegal isn't "imposing personal beliefs"through public policy.  Your twisted logic is tying you in knots.

They are not working to make it illegal.  They are working to keep it illegal.  As such they are not IMPOSING anything. 

It really is not a subtle difference. 

[NM_Shooter]

BTW... this was Chik fil a's official statement about the LGBT kiss in event scheduled for today :

"We understand from news reports that Friday may present yet another opportunity for us to serve with genuine hospitality, superior service and great food."


And this was the response in one community :

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/08/chick-fil-a-kiss-hate-graffiti-vandalized.html

[Squirl]

They are not working to make it illegal.  They are working to keep it illegal.  As such they are not IMPOSING anything. 

It really is not a subtle difference.

It is legal in Boston.  It has been legal in the state of Massachusetts for over 8 years.  Defining marriage as exclusively between a man and a women would be in violation of their laws.

[NM_Shooter]

Is the Family Foundation actively working to make it illegal again there?

[OlJarhead]

I personally believe that the Government, at all levels, has no business being involved with marriage.  I don't feel they should be allowed to dictate whom or what you can or cannot marry nor how many of them.

But them I'm one of those evil Constitutionalist Libertarians and probably on some government watch list because of it! 

[OlJarhead]

By the way, I'm one of those who see 'Marriage' as a 'contract' between a man and a woman with the ultimate purpose being to procreate and raise a family.

But what do I care of John Boy wants to 'marry' Billy Bob and his goat?  As long as it doesn't infringe on my rights, my natural and Constitutional rights then who am I to say who John, Marry, Paul or Tom can or cannot marry?

I do however believe that it is a violation of a child's right to Liberty to marry them off before they are old enough to make decisions for themselves.  We can debate what age that is but I suspect we could all agree it isn't 10 or 11 or even 12 or 13 or 14...my point being that their are limits, I'm not an anarchist, I just think Uncle Sam and Uncle State and the local governments etc have no right to be involved other then basic protection of rights for all American's.

[Squirl]

Is the Family Foundation actively working to make it illegal again there?

I apologize for not responding sooner.  I had plans for the weekend.  Yes.  They filed a brief in MA v. HHS in 2011 to overturn the district court decision.

The 1st Circuit Court of Appeals decision, which came out this year, ruled against the foundation.  The unanimous ruling by judges appointed by presidents from both political parties ruled that defining marriage as exclusively between a man and woman is in violation of the scrutiny standards for gender under the fourteenth amendment.

[NM_Shooter]

Hmmmm... looks as though I am wrong.

Chik fil a donated $1.2M to the Family Foundation which was NOT involved in that lawsuit.

They did donate $1000 to the Family Research Council which was named in fine print in that lawsuit.

$1000 from a $4B company.  Although that was in 2010, before the brief was filed.  I wonder what their 2011 contribution to FRC was?

A whopping $1000 from a $4B company,  .000025% of their revenue, donated before the brief was filed.  Wow...That certainly reveals a determined and nefarious commitment to stripping US citizens of their rights. 

Here in ABQ, as part of a company called Xilinx, we had the ability to distribute $25k to local charities.  We gave as much as $2500 to individual organizations, and our corporate office had no clue who this was going to until well after the checks were cashed. 

I am for equal rights.  But I can not hold $1000 donation in serious regard.  This is similar for holding the Susan Anthony breast cancer research group responsible for donating to pro-abortion activities via contributions to planned parenthood. 

[Squirl]

Family Research Council is a division of Focus on the Family. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_Research_Council
Focus on the Family has been one main organization that has lobbied and funded court actions in opposition to same sex marriage.
Chick fil A main giving arm is WinShape Foundation. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WinShape
They have contributed millions of dollars to these groups, tens of thousands per year to Focus on the Family.  That is how this whole situation began.  He was heavily contributing to organizations that filed amicus briefs to overturn same sex marriage rights, which he is proud of.


It is also difficult to tell which foundation you are referring to.  Many have the word "family" in the name.

I could see your point as similarities with the breast cancer example.  I would normally chalk these millions in contributions to possibly many of the other activities these groups participate it, until the head of the organization states that this is one of the main reasons he is giving.

[NM_Shooter]

This is the group that received the lion's share of contributions : http://familyfoundation.org/initiatives/marriage/

The other group (involved in the brief in MA) was the one that received $1000 total.  To put that in perspective, for every $40,000 that Chik fil had in revenue, they donated a penny. 

I don't believe that decision was made at the corporate head level.  If it had been, the amount donated would have been much more. 

I think more telling will be how they spend their charitable contributions going forward. 

However they choose to donate, a company that employs gays, feeds gays, and is a good community member should not come under media attack for such a trivial amount, and politicians and universities who attempt to destroy their business should be run out on a rail.

If we are going to consider this $1000 as a testimony of hate towards gays, then we should also consider the benefit that Chik fil a does in helping the United Way.  They routinely host fund raising events for the United Way.  UW is a pro-LGBT organization, and in many areas refuses to fund Boy Scouts because of their stance on members and leaders. 

To chastise Chik fil a over a tiny donation made two years ago (before the brief was filed), used by a fringe group who is not under the control of Chik fil a, only a tiny portion of the support for the brief, and then to not also acknowldedge Chik fil a's assistance to gays directly as well as their significant donations to a group that is clearly pro-gay, is hypocritical.  That is not an unfamiliar hat worn by today's media.

I think I'll eat at Chik fil a today.