Saturday, August 4, 2012

Chick-Fil-A trouble.

According to the Williams Institute at the UCLA Law School, a sexual orientation law and public policy think tank, estimates that slightly less than 4% of the population in the United States is gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender. 1.7% are gay or lesbian, while 1.7% of the population is bisexual with 0.3% of the population transgender. How accurate these figures actually are can be debated but the Williams Institute is quite above board and very respected.

The COO of Chick-fil-a made a stupid and silly comment claiming something along the lines of gay marriage will bring god's wrath down on America. Everyone from Barack Obama, a really late expedient political convert, to the idiot but beloved Mayor Tom (mumbles) Menino of Boston and Rahm Emanuel, a true Chicago Pol, have come down hard on Chick-fil-a and are of course outraged and rightfully so but they miss the point as usual.

First and foremost under the Constitution of the United States same sex marriage is NOT a right in either the wording of the Constitution and in any of the Bill of Rights. I happen to support gay marriage because I believe two people in love should have the right to marry and enjoy both the joys of marriage and the nastiness of divorce. I voted for it in North Carolina and support it. The Supreme Court will hear something along these lines soon and I believe they will uphold States Rights to govern marriage which means some states will have it and others will not.

A large percentage of Chick-fil-a stores are franchises and are locally owned although the company is private held by one family that happens to be a Christian family.  They have around 1600 stores that employ in the neighborhood of 30,000 plus mostly young people and have a company wide policy of non-discrimination that is a model for the industry and the words of one idiot does not change that even if he is the Chief Operating Officer.

Gay marriage is a hot button topic and many Christians, Muslims, and Jews have an issue with it. Some do not but many do and they have a right to that view because Constitutionally it is not recognized and never will be because it is a State Rights issue.  In fact the man I voted for, our President, was firmly opposed to gay marriage up until a few months ago when he realized he needed to firm up his unltra-liberal base because he was in trouble in the upcoming election. Politicians do those kinds of things but this was a really big mistake.

The conservatives have never loved Romney because at heart he is a moderate Republican but they are energized by this scandal because most are Christian. They did not like McCain and did not vote but did vote in 2010 and it was not pretty for the Democrats. They are going to vote in this election in droves and it could be ugly for democrats again.

Why has Obama, Menino, and Emanuel not screamed bloody murder at the multitude of black Ministers and their Congregations that have come out against gay marriage? The reason is simple.  They are not an easy target and they do not want to alienate them to the point they might vote Republican. Politics is a dirty business and nobody is better at dirty business than a Chicago Politician.

There has even been a backlash from gay Democrats like Barney Frank concerning the attempt to disrupt the future location of Chick-fil-a stores by politicians. If you want to see the hornets nest this lunacy has brought about all you had to do was drive by a Chick-fil-a on the Appreciation day. The one closest to me and all those in the Charlotte area were packed as they were country wide because there are a lot of Christians and also a lot of people that think trying to put a company out of business or harming the business in the current economic climate is anywhere form damn stupid to very selfish.

The one thing that cannot be taken away is the First Amendment to our Constitution which assures us that we can all basically say what we want as long as we do not threaten harm to others or sedition to our Country. There is no illegality in being a dumb shit as this particular person was but he threatened nobody and gave a rather stupid opinion. Being stupid is not against the law because if it was our politicians would all be in jail.

If you do not like what this fool said then do not eat a Chick-fil-a but do not tell me and others that we are homophobic if we eat there or even if we support the opinion expressed. Free speech is not a one way street only available to the ultra liberals or the gay community or those who feel they are the only ones with the right to speak on certain issues. Whether you like it or not they have a right to disagree with gay marriage because as it currently stands it is not a right although I personally believe it should be.

Many people profess their support of gay marriage, yet even in California gay marriage lost in a referendum and has yet to pass muster in a vote in any state referendum. In my opinion it is soft support because most people are like me and see no harm in it so polls show more support but not hard support which is voting support. Besides I always lie to some dipshit pollster that calls me and interrupts my meal or life and many of my friends are the same.

This affair will blow over eventually because  it is basically unimportant and the idiot making the statement will hopefully keep his mouth shut and stick some chicken in it the next time he wants to opine.

The kiss-in was a giant failure compared to the support day and there has been vandalism at some Chick-fil-a restaurants, which is wrong. The 3.5 percent of the public that are gay need the straight population to support their position and you do not win support this way and no gay rights is not the same as civil rights involving people of color. By the way I know many people in my area that support gay rights but do not support gay marriage. Convincing them otherwise is not done with baseball bat but with rational dialog which seems missing altogether.

11 comments:

April said...

Amen, the greatest scandal here is the attempted denial of free speech.

Anonymous said...

Black were forbidden to marry whites, with much the same arguments. Isn't surprising the rights of others are a soft issue when your own rights are a hard issue. Human nature being what it is....

How would you like having your right to marry who you love put to a vote?

- an old aunty

Elizabeth said...

@old aunty

Any attempt to hijack the civil rights movement is a loser from day one and a white and a black marrying was still a marriage recognized or should have been recognized because it is a man and a woman.

The issue here is same sex marriage is not recognized as a legal action in most places. I am 100% in favor of same sex marriage but based on laws people can demand the right of referendum.

The simple truth here is there is no federal mandate that provides for same sex marriage and it will probably have a difficult time passing Congress. It is an issue for 3.5% of the population, many of whom could care less.

Many black churches are openly against same sex marriage. Try and tell them it is the same as civil rights. We fought a civil war of slavery. We are not going to fight over same sex marriage because it should be a non-issue in the upcoming election.

People have a right to say just about anything and you cannot legislate against stupid and the COO of Chick-fil-a proved that.

Anonymous said...

It left me shaking my head at the 'outrage' certain groups tried to stir up over the comments by CFA. Even more appalling were mayors who were even remotely suggesting that CFA would no longer be welcome in their community for new locations.

At what point in time did activists decide that free speech is only something that should exist if you agree with the activist position?

The CFA peeps have every right to voice whatever position they want and even to use their corporate profits in the furtherance of their position. I may not like their position, but I am damned sure not going to seek to remove their ability to adopt a position.

My local CFA has some very obvious individuals who would potentially be impacted by their CEO's position. But, the position does not threaten their employment. We don't discuss politics when I place an order though. Yes, I admit it...I like their Spicy Chicken sandwich and even occasionally order the chicken strips.

The outcry that was generated is same story, different chapter out of the whacktivist playbook. It is sad that they believe silencing others is the way to achieve what they want...

And no, my going to eat a chicken sandwich or not going to eat a chicken sandwich won't, in the long run, impact my ability to marry at some point in my life (if I ever chose to marry my partner).

Anonymous said...

First point was, same sort of arguments from biblical authority, God, tradition, etc. are trotted out to deny equality. Second point was, historically forces fight against acknowledging the human rights of minorities. Human rights ought not be put to a majority vote.

- an old aunty

Anonymous said...

A third point, as post script, the COO had the right to say what he did. Others have the right to call him every name in the book and suggest a boycott of his company. Whether that is fair or wise is a question separate from whether they have the right to do so. A boycott is legitimate free speech. The first amendment forbids the government from interfering with free speech. The first amendment does not in any way restrict individuals from using speech to attack people with whom they disagree. As an individual I am, by definition, unable to abridge your first amendment rights. I am not part of the government.

-an old aunty

Anonymous said...

It needs to be understood nobody has a right to marry, hetero or homosexual. Marriage is a Privilege and requires a license for it to be recognized by the state and the federal government. Marriages licenses have only been around since the late 1800s. There is a long sad history associated with the marriage license it was used to keep the races separate as well as keeping people thought to be unfit to reproduce to marry.

The only sensible thing to do is to remove the license requirement and allow anybody to marry anybody else that is not a direct member of their family. Get rid of tax regulations that favor married people and push for the same recognition for all forms of marriage.

This won't happen for one simple reason. The homosexuals insist on calling their homosexual unions marriage, the majority of the people in the US are against this because of religious beliefs and tradition.

If the homosexual community would get it's collective head out of it's ass and support their unions being called civil unions and push for equality and federal recognition they would have the support of the population at large.

But we know they just like the Tee-Gees are selfish and want to hijack the word marriage and water down it's meaning.

As for voting for Obama, well we all make mistakes.

NYF

Anonymous said...

Marriage provides many advantages set by law, such as survivor's rights, tax breaks, etc.. To deny them is discriminatory.

- an old aunty

Anonymous said...

I thought I had addressed those concerns. Normalize same sex unions legally with marriage, same rights same responsibilities.



Change the name and same sex unions will have widespread acceptance.
Until the activists are willing to drop the idea of calling their unions marriages there won't be any acceptance by the majority of Americans.


NYF

Anonymous said...

"Marriage provides many advantages set by law, such as survivor's rights, tax breaks, etc.. To deny them is discriminatory.

- an old aunty"

Not sure anyone here is denying that it is discriminatory. However, the owner and COO of a corporation is entitled to hold whatever opinion he or she wants to do and to spend their corporate profits in any manner that elect to do so.

To watch ANY person under the cloak of governmental position (ie. a mayor) attempt to put up a stop sign to further expansion into that jurisdiction is an improper infrigement upon the First Amendment right of said owner of a corporation...and THAT is the real issue here.

Free speech CANNOT be a one-way street...and that was something someone running another site could simply not grasp. I would hate to see similar attitudes take hold here.

Anonymous said...

The mayor didn't use the power of his office, just his reputation. Even mayors have a right to free speech.

Also, I don't care whether the majority agrees or approves, so long as the rights are guaranteed. At one time the majority of those recognized as citizens of the USA did not agree with legal equality for african americans.

- an old aunty