Being Liberal is the gift that keeps on giving on Facebook, where there photos get passed around like a barely legal man at a bathhouse.
There are so many things wrong about this, and it gives a glimpse into the mind of a fascist.
First of all, there's the charge that Chick-fil-A is an "anti-gay" company. What is this based on? Certainly not the Cathy position (held by at least half of Americans and virtually everyone in history) that marriage is between a man and a woman. Because that would mean President Obama was was "anti-gay" up until a few weeks ago.
If someone sincerely believes there positions will actually make things better for people with homosexual feelings, are they really "anti-gay"?
Nor am I going to concede that "gay" has to mean homosexual, but that's a tangent.
I don't recall seeing anyone allege that Chick-fil-A discriminates in its business operations. Rather, Cathy's words in interviews with Christian media express his conviction that God knows best about family, and that God has made that opinion known to us, and he and/or the company donates for Christian ministries that seek to strengthen families. Among some of those companies many positions is opposing the neutering of state marriage licenses. Is someone who opposes the neutering of state marriage licenses necessarily "anti-gay"? Was say, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. anti-gay? After all, in his leadership for civil rights causes, not once did he ever say that there was a right for a brideless or a groomless pairing to get a state marriage license.
Notice the requisite use of the word "bigot". Nobody can disagree with a Leftist without the Leftists considering that person a bigot of some sort. In the Leftist mind, it isn't possible to have a different opinion, reached at through reason, experience, feelings, or anything else - no, you re just a bigot. That way, the Leftist doesn't need to defend their opinions, because any contrary opinion is dismissed as mindless bigotry.
Did the Palins say they were supporting Chick-fil-A because it is, let's assume for the sake of argument, "anti-gay"? Or was that an assumption made the Leftist mind-readers?
We can even assume for the sake of argument that Chick-fil-A is actually "anti-gay" and that the Palins were supporting them because of that, and that still doesn't mean there is any conflict in buying goods and services provided by "pro-gay" companies.
One can be against Cathy's positions and statements and still want to show support for Chick-fil-A. This is what the fascists don't comprehend because, for all of their talk about diversity, they are intolerant. Many people who identify as gay or lesbian supported Chick-fil-A yesterday, because they wanted to support a company after elected officials implied that the company would not be allowed the freedom of enterprise due to an executive exercising his freedom of speech. Like them, the Palins could have been demonstrating against fascism. There is a Constitutional right to freedom of speech, especially about political matters. (Speaking of the Constitution... the 14th Amendment that marriage neutering advocates use because they insist it compels us to neuter state marriage licensing was written and adopted by people who were not supporters of neutering marriage. Does that mean they shouldn't use it?) The fascists want everyone to believing marriage unites the sexes and that our laws should reflect that is necessarily a hate-filled attack on people who identify as gay or lesbian, and that is a lie. Where does it stop? Is tithing to the Roman Catholic Church hateful and "anti-gay"?
There are many people who were involved in this demonstration who do agree with Cathy, but they have no problem buying products and services from companies whose donations or whose executives have publicly expressed an opinion contrary to theirs, because for them it is a matter of free enterprise and free speech. Dennis Prager has said be buys Ben & Jerry's ice cream fully aware that Ben and Jerry have positions he finds to be wrong and even destructive. For more about this, see "We Are Your Family and Neighbors" over at The Opine Editorials.
There are so many things wrong about this, and it gives a glimpse into the mind of a fascist.
First of all, there's the charge that Chick-fil-A is an "anti-gay" company. What is this based on? Certainly not the Cathy position (held by at least half of Americans and virtually everyone in history) that marriage is between a man and a woman. Because that would mean President Obama was was "anti-gay" up until a few weeks ago.
If someone sincerely believes there positions will actually make things better for people with homosexual feelings, are they really "anti-gay"?
Nor am I going to concede that "gay" has to mean homosexual, but that's a tangent.
I don't recall seeing anyone allege that Chick-fil-A discriminates in its business operations. Rather, Cathy's words in interviews with Christian media express his conviction that God knows best about family, and that God has made that opinion known to us, and he and/or the company donates for Christian ministries that seek to strengthen families. Among some of those companies many positions is opposing the neutering of state marriage licenses. Is someone who opposes the neutering of state marriage licenses necessarily "anti-gay"? Was say, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. anti-gay? After all, in his leadership for civil rights causes, not once did he ever say that there was a right for a brideless or a groomless pairing to get a state marriage license.
Notice the requisite use of the word "bigot". Nobody can disagree with a Leftist without the Leftists considering that person a bigot of some sort. In the Leftist mind, it isn't possible to have a different opinion, reached at through reason, experience, feelings, or anything else - no, you re just a bigot. That way, the Leftist doesn't need to defend their opinions, because any contrary opinion is dismissed as mindless bigotry.
Did the Palins say they were supporting Chick-fil-A because it is, let's assume for the sake of argument, "anti-gay"? Or was that an assumption made the Leftist mind-readers?
We can even assume for the sake of argument that Chick-fil-A is actually "anti-gay" and that the Palins were supporting them because of that, and that still doesn't mean there is any conflict in buying goods and services provided by "pro-gay" companies.
One can be against Cathy's positions and statements and still want to show support for Chick-fil-A. This is what the fascists don't comprehend because, for all of their talk about diversity, they are intolerant. Many people who identify as gay or lesbian supported Chick-fil-A yesterday, because they wanted to support a company after elected officials implied that the company would not be allowed the freedom of enterprise due to an executive exercising his freedom of speech. Like them, the Palins could have been demonstrating against fascism. There is a Constitutional right to freedom of speech, especially about political matters. (Speaking of the Constitution... the 14th Amendment that marriage neutering advocates use because they insist it compels us to neuter state marriage licensing was written and adopted by people who were not supporters of neutering marriage. Does that mean they shouldn't use it?) The fascists want everyone to believing marriage unites the sexes and that our laws should reflect that is necessarily a hate-filled attack on people who identify as gay or lesbian, and that is a lie. Where does it stop? Is tithing to the Roman Catholic Church hateful and "anti-gay"?
There are many people who were involved in this demonstration who do agree with Cathy, but they have no problem buying products and services from companies whose donations or whose executives have publicly expressed an opinion contrary to theirs, because for them it is a matter of free enterprise and free speech. Dennis Prager has said be buys Ben & Jerry's ice cream fully aware that Ben and Jerry have positions he finds to be wrong and even destructive. For more about this, see "We Are Your Family and Neighbors" over at The Opine Editorials.
It was so great to see what was happening yesterday as Americans, including gay people and lesbian people, supported free speech and FREE ENTERPRISE and told fascists and radical activists and hypocritical politicians "We will NOT let people be bullied that way!" It was a clear demonstration that the homofascists (who do NOT represent all gays and lesbians) are in the very, very small minority. It will be very interesting to see how the size and behavior of the crowds yesterday compares to the organized sexual harassment planned for tomorrow.
The same freedoms that allow you to NOT support Chick-fil-A and allow you to commit to - and have ceremony with - someone of the same sex... allow people to NOT endorse that relationship as "marriage." For example, Californians have TWICE voted to reiterate that state marriage licenses, issued on our behalf, are to be reserved for bride+groom unions (you know, "marriage".) Freedom is for more than just expressing Leftism.
walrus, you must know that Chik-Fil-A's support extends well beyond the position that "marriage is between a man and a woman". Even advocacy for this postion would be a non-issue.
ReplyDeleteWe're talking about a company that throws its considerable (multi-million dollar) financial support behind anti-gay propaganda factories and certified hate groups ... folks who knowingly perpetuate falsehoods in order to advance their postions.
Freedom of speech never included guarantees that the speaker would be free from the consequences of their words & actions.
Sorry, the Left-leaning SPLC calling some organization a hate group doesn't necessarily make it one. Being FOR marriage and FOR the idea that sex is for marriage does not make someone "anti-gay".
DeleteI agree .. this is why organizations like The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, the Southern Baptist Convention, NOM, and Liberty Council stand apart from groups like the FRC. The former hold a position and engage in civil debate, the latter propagates known falsehoods to advance their own agenda, maliciously maligning a class of people.
DeleteWhich falsehoods would those be? Can you cite examples?
DeleteI'm not aware of FRC maliciously malingning any "class of people". The FRC says sex or what passes as sex outside of marriage is harmful. I shouldn't have to clarify, but marriage meaning bride+groom. The FRC addresses behavior, from what I've seen.
Actually, FRC is well known for misrepresenting research findings, and presenting those misrepresentations as if they were the conclusions of the researchers themselves. ( see: Nick Pinto, for starters ). Their oft-repeated fallacy that 86% of child molesters are gay or bi - a claim absent from the very research they cite as proof - is another fine example. Their continued reliance on the debunked "junk science" of Paul Cameron is also noteworthy.
DeleteIf the FRC would stick to the truth and eschew the misrepresentations and the junk science they would neve have earned the "hate group" label in the first place.
I'll get you a few more citations, right now I'm a little caught up in your thought provoking essay over at The Opine Editorials !
Thanks for your patience ... here's a more detailed example of how the Family Research Council misrepresents scientific research.
DeleteIn 1988 there was a study called "Behavior patterns of child molesters". It studied 229 convicted child molesters in Minnesota. Of those, 54 self-identified as gay or bisexual when asked.
When citing this research, Tony Perkins says: "If you go back to the Archives of Sexual Behavior, a peer-reviewed reviewed journal, that stated that in self-identified… 86% of men, homosexual men, or who engage… or men who engage in molestation of children, 86% of them identified as homosexual or bisexual. That study has not been refuted."
here's the video
But two problems with this:
1) In fact, only 54 of the 229 men in this study self-identified as homosexual or bisexual. That a far cry from the 86% (or 197 men) that Tony Perkins claims did so.
2) Neither the sampling, nor the research methodology, support ANY meaningful conclusions about the sexual orientation of child molesters in general. ( The researchers involved have have said so! )
I'm not going to waste my time going down rabbit holes on this. Assuming they got something wrong, how does that make them a hate group? Look, YOU can call them a hate group all you want. Nobody else has to agree.
Delete