zoocrew

That is a different issue altogether as that involves incest. This is not about incest but about the legal contract to marry the person you want to marry. The argument you're using is the same as the one used to support Jim Crow laws. There is no difference between that civil rights issue and gay rights. The same 14th Amendment should apply to everyone. It is working its way through the courts. Again, one day your position will be viewed in the same light as the segregationist.

I have a bit of education in the area, yes.

That is revisionist (and very poor) history.

But you may enter into the contract with the sex you are attracted to. The gay person may not. Why is that? On what basis do we rationalize the state prohibiting that? GA Sodomy's law was struck down.

He is second class if he is not allowed to marry whomever he wants as you may do. You have first class status and he doesn't. If that's true, then please point to the uniquely Christian principles in the Constitution. If we were founded on Christian beliefs, it would be in the Constitution, would it not?

And on what basis is it not allowed to marry whomever one wants, regardless of sex? Why is one group not allowed to enter that legal contract with whom they wish, but another group may?

No, because it makes one class of people second class and they are not given the same rights as all other Americans.

Wrong again. I specifically said your POSITION was bigoted. I did NOT say you were a bigot. Uh, really? Would you please show us in the Constitution where is says anything about our nation being founded on Christian beliefs? What specific item in the Constitution is uniquely Christian? Ooooo K. You keep believing it.

What drivel. No one is buying that argument. Everyone knows what it was about. I will be willing to bet a year's salary if we did a survey, the overwhelming majority will say he was talking about homosexuality and not the other things you mentioned.. Would you be willing to make that bet?

"National" as in "nation wide." History will see your position as bigoted as the segregationist.

Surely you don't believe that. Everyone knows what he meant. Even the people that are giving him kudos know what he meant. As for the "biblical definition," there are many people who are just as committed in their faith as he is that disagree with his "biblical" definition.

You've missed the entire point I've made over and over in this thread. It is the NATIONAL PUBLIC policy of discrimination toward gay marriage that is the issue. Let me repeat that ONCE AGAIN so we can make sure you understand that. It is the advocation of discrimination toward gays in not allowing them the same rights as straight couples that is the issue here. Now. Just to make sure you get it, I will say it once again. It is not about his company but about the public policy that advocates discrimination toward gays in not allowing them to marry.

Discrimination may be a fact, but the American way to fix those problems. All Americans are equal citizens. There is no Sky Miles Program of American citizenship. There is no 3rd string and work your way up to a starting position in citizenship. We are all First Class, with the free WiFi, complimentary blankets and the open bar. We all pay the same taxes and all get the same level of protection. It's either first class citizenship status for everyone or the American zeal for liberty is nothing more than a facade.

You know, gog8tors, I don't even think you understand what the arguments are in all this. I really don't. No one is saying Chic-Fil-A is discriminating. NO ONE. The point is that Mr Cathy is advocating a national policy that prevents a class of Americans from having full rights like all other Americans. The controversy is about the advancement of national discrimination against gays, not about what Mr Cathy believes about his religion. Again, no one is saying you don't have a choice. Please show where anyone has said your choice should be limited in any way. My point about the

No one --- I repeat, NO ONE --- is saying that if you believe being gay is a sin, that you are not entitled to your opinion. NO ONE is saying that. If you believe God is that way, that is fine. But others who are just as convinced about their religious ideas as you are believe it is not sin. However, that is not the point. It is not up to the government to decide matters of sin. Government punishes criminal acts that harm others. Being gay is not a crime. So why are gay people not allowed to marry when it harms no one? Fat people are still allowed to marry and have all the rights

How is wanting to end the discrimination against a class of people liberal?

Out there. Waaaaaay, way out there. Discrimination defies common sense. The majority must never discriminate against a minority, even by majority vote. The discrimination must end. No one has suggested Mr. Cathy may not contribute to whomever or whatever cause he wants. No one, NO ONE, has suggested you don't have free choice. You've arguing points that no one is bringing up. The point is that he is advocating a public policy that is bigoted. He is on the wrong side of history with this and the company will not be viewed favorably on this in 50 years.

I think your post says it all. Really. I do.

Read the piece the publisher posted. Understand the reason for the suit but don't understand the reasoning to go through with it. Frankly, politics is just so dirty and disgusting that anyone who gets close to it is toxic. I have no idea who the lady is that brought the suit and don't care what her reasons are, whether honorable or not. Irrelevant. If she wins and the politician gets hammered for it, fine. If she loses, fine. Doesn't bother me either way. I will vote for the candidate that I think will best serve the entire district regardless of what is happening. Remember that many of ou

But he is advocating a national policy that continues the discrimination. The gulf is getting smaller, but until it is gone, there is still work to do. So will you say the same for the Muslim groups that give scholarships and charities, and advocate their religious views to be adopted into law, e.g., that it is immoral and immodest for women to not wear veils? Just trying to shape consistency.

Because those people are in positions that they do drive in many directions, at all hours, doing all sorts of things, and with all kinds of things to do. An example is someone who works with the DOT. There are places to go to handle all sorts of situations at all sorts of hours. Same with the Parks and Rec people. There is no sense driving all the way back to the courthouse, pick up the vehicle, drive to the place where they need to be, drive back to the courthouse, then drive back home. That is paying those people for drive time when it is cheaper to give them the county vehicle for local use

You guys are missing the point of the boycott. The goal is not to hurt the business but to frame the discussion and keep the issue in the public square. If the discrimination is not discussed openly, there will be no change. It is the same with my facility when someone says she will "never step foot in that place again" or "wouldn't bring my dog to be treated here." Will one person hurt the bottom line? Technically, yes, but in reality, no. There will always be a few that are swayed by such antics. But we still try to keep that person (or group) happy because that discussion can help or hu

I will give this a shot. There is a wide gulf between catering to a certain segment of the population as a business model, and openly advocating a public policy that discriminates against a class of people. And, yes, it is the next step in the civil rights.

First, it is not a "chosen lifestyle" but a born-with charisteritic, just like skin color or any host of other things. Second, I am appalled you would put homosexuals in the same category as child molesters, murders, psychopaths or otherwise individuals who harm people. Third, instead of proposing the dissolution of the legal contract of marriage for all people, why not extend the same legal contract to all people. Lastly, why is your version of God the only version? How is that different from the Taliban, sans the violence?

Hmmm. It was only within the last 60 years that it was a crime to be gay in most parts of America.