Chick-fil-A banned from opening at San Antonio airport, council members cite LGBTQ issues

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

2 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

Or they perceive a threat from making marriage something other than what it is.  They see it as more than whatever we happen to feel like making it today, or what someone will feel like defining it as tomorrow.  They feel that if marriage is anything we want it to be, then it's really nothing special at all.  Marriage can't be everything.  So they perceive a threat in an ever-expanding definition of marriage that renders the term meaningless and same-sex marriage is only one of those things.

How do you feel?

[TitanTiger 20,468]

25 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Exactly.  They fear that if homosexuals are allowed to marriage, it degrades the meaning of marriage.  That's pretty much what I said.

(And the slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy.)

It can be a logical fallacy.  It is not automatically or by necessity so.  

[TitanTiger 20,468]

1 minute ago, Proud Tiger said:

How do you feel?

Pretty much the same way. I don’t think redefining marriage was wise nor warranted. And I think we are also seeing how the old jab of “how does same sex marriage affect you in any way” was a deceptive tactic. 

[homersapien 11,352]

1 minute ago, TitanTiger said:

It can be a logical fallacy.  It is not automatically or by necessity so.  

Kind of hard to argue something logically without facts or history.

[TitanTiger 20,468]

Just now, homersapien said:

Kind of hard to argue something logically without facts or history.

Well that didn’t seem to be a problem when one side was casting aside millennia of history and lacked any real data to argue it wouldn’t have any detrimental effects. 

[Grumps 3,693]

7 hours ago, homersapien said:

Absolutely not.  What a bizarre suggestion.

In fact, the people supporting same sex marriage are expressing their desire to enjoy the benefits of opposite sex marriage.  They want to join the party, not prevent others from participating.

On the other hand, an organization with a mission of supporting traditional, opposite sex marriage - as if it were in danger - perceives a threat from homosexuals having a right to marry.  That is what they feel they are "protecting" traditional marriage from.

This seems obvious.

 

You say, "I support same sex marriage." It means "I want EVERYONE to be happy."

Dan Cathy says, "I support opposite sex marriage." It means "homosexuals are evil and should burn in hell."

Surely you can see that there is MUCH subjectivity to the interpretations of two identical statements except for one word. To attribute hate to a person and an organization that has done more good for society than almost any, is laughable.

[Grumps 3,693]

I still haven't seen any evidence of discrimination of LGBT individuals by Chick-fil-A.

[TitanTiger 20,468]

3 hours ago, Grumps said:

I still haven't seen any evidence of discrimination of LGBT individuals by Chick-fil-A.

Because there isn't any.  But they've had impure thoughts or supported those who have.

[homersapien 11,352]

21 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

Well that didn’t seem to be a problem when one side was casting aside millennia of history and lacked any real data to argue it wouldn’t have any detrimental effects. 

It hasn't had any detrimental effects.

And many advances in the human condition have required "casting aside millennia of history".  

I think this is less of a debate than an exposition of how the minds and worldviews of liberals differ from conservatives.

[TitanTiger 20,468]

4 minutes ago, homersapien said:

It hasn't had any detrimental effects.

You’re comparing like 5 years of data on family and marriage to thousands of years. You can hardly make such a claim seriously. 

4 minutes ago, homersapien said:

And many advances in the human condition have required "casting aside millennia of history".  

And many terrible things have resulted from casting it aside as well. “Change” is not the synonym of “progress.”

[homersapien 11,352]

18 hours ago, Grumps said:

You say, "I support same sex marriage." It means "I want EVERYONE to be happy."

Dan Cathy says, "I support opposite sex marriage." It means "homosexuals are evil and should burn in hell."

Surely you can see that there is MUCH subjectivity to the interpretations of two identical statements except for one word. To attribute hate to a person and an organization that has done more good for society than almost any, is laughable.

First, I have not brought up the term "hate" nor have I attributed it to anyone or any organization.  I am just expounding on why some feel negatively about Cathy and Chick Filet. 

Regardless, I stand by my position that anyone actively supporting or promoting traditional marriage is really taking a stand against homosexual marriage.

But I am sure that Cathy feels any "hate", he would attribute to hating the "sin" while loving the sinner.  I am also pretty sure he would make homosexual marriage illegal, given the power to do so.

[homersapien 11,352]

7 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

You’re comparing like 5 years of data on family and marriage to thousands of years. You can hardly make such a claim seriously. 

And many terrible things have resulted from casting it aside as well. “Change” is not the synonym of “progress.”

Progress depends on change by definition.  No change, no progress.

That's not to say all change is necessarily good, but only experience can reveal that. 

Progress in such areas as women's rights, the abolition of slavery and legal racism also relied on abandoning "thousands" of years of history.  I don't think there is any dispute such progress has been good, even by judging the results by a few years.

[homersapien 11,352]

15 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

Because there isn't any.  But they've had impure thoughts or supported those who have.

There is always potential hazard of publicly taking on controversial issues when you operate a retail business.    

 

[TitanTiger 20,468]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

Progress depends on change by definition.  No change, no progress.

That's not to say all change is necessarily good, but only experience can reveal that. 

Progress in such areas as women's rights, the abolition of slavery and legal racism also relied on abandoning "thousands" of years of history.  I don't think there is any dispute such progress has been good, even by judging the results by a few years.

I don’t disagree with any of that. I simply pointed out that discarding thousands of years of data and human tradition isn’t automatically good.

[homersapien 11,352]

4 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

I don’t disagree with any of that. I simply pointed out that discarding thousands of years of data and human tradition isn’t automatically good.

Nor automatically bad.

[Grumps 3,693]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

There is always potential hazard of publicly taking on controversial issues when you operate a retail business.    

 

I completely agree--especially when the media and other agenda-driven liars make up things about what the business person said publicly.

[homersapien 11,352]

21 minutes ago, Grumps said:

I completely agree--especially when the media and other agenda-driven liars make up things about what the business person said publicly.

I don't think misrepresentation of what Dan Cathy has said is the issue here.  But if you have an example in mind, let's hear it.

But I don't think there is any doubt about his opposition for gay couples to become legally married.

(See his tweet regarding the failure of the "Defense of Marriage Act", which is a perfect example of the business hazards of making a public statement about a controversial subject.  Apparently, to his credit, Cathy realized that also and deleted it. Unfortunately for him, it had been archived.)

But admittedly, I haven't kept up with him. Maybe he's OK with it now.

[Grumps 3,693]

8 hours ago, homersapien said:

I don't think misrepresentation of what Dan Cathy has said is the issue here.  But if you have an example in mind, let's hear it.

But I don't think there is any doubt about his opposition for gay couples to become legally married.

(See his tweet regarding the failure of the "Defense of Marriage Act", which is a perfect example of the business hazards of making a public statement about a controversial subject.  Apparently, to his credit, Cathy realized that also and deleted it. Unfortunately for him, it had been archived.)

But admittedly, I haven't kept up with him. Maybe he's OK with it now.

Just so I'm clear,  do YOU think that Chick-fil-A discriminates against the LGBT community? Do YOU think that Chick-fil-A should be prevented from investing in a community because of claims of discrimination that have not been proven? Do YOU think it even matters if the claims are proven, or is a FEELING by some of discrimination enough?

[homersapien 11,352]

11 hours ago, Grumps said:

Just so I'm clear,  do YOU think that Chick-fil-A discriminates against the LGBT community? Do YOU think that Chick-fil-A should be prevented from investing in a community because of claims of discrimination that have not been proven? Do YOU think it even matters if the claims are proven, or is a FEELING by some of discrimination enough?

No - at least as far as I know.

Not my call, but the closing on Sunday would be a show-stopper for me.

What "claims"?

Look, this is not a court of law and no one has to prove anything. It's all about public relations.

And yes, if there is a perception that ownership/management of a company has taken strong public positions against the rights of a certain group - like the right of gays to marry, that may be sufficient to create a PR problem for them.  That's just reality.

That's exactly what I meant by the "hazard" of taking such controversial positions in the first place if you have a retail business.

[Grumps 3,693]

7 hours ago, homersapien said:

No - at least as far as I know.

Not my call, but the closing on Sunday would be a show-stopper for me.

What "claims"?

Look, this is not a court of law and no one has to prove anything. It's all about public relations.

And yes, if there is a perception that ownership/management of a company has taken strong public positions against the rights of a certain group - like the right of gays to marry, that may be sufficient to create a PR problem for them.  That's just reality.

That's exactly what I meant by the "hazard" of taking such controversial positions in the first place if you have a retail business.

What "claims"?

From the OP, "San Antonio is a city full of compassion, and we do not have room in our public facilities for a business with a legacy of anti-LGBTQ behavior," Treviño said in the statement. “Everyone has a place here, and everyone should feel welcome when they walk through our airport.” 

People are making real business decisions based on what some Huffington Post (or similar) "journalist" thinks Dan Cathy meant when the words he said were completely different from what he was reported as saying. It would be like making real business decisions based on what Sarah Huckabee says that Trump meant by a comment. EVERYONE knows that she is putting his comments in the best possible light. The difference is that Sarah Huckabee gets paid to "smooth over" Trumps comments.

[TitanTiger 20,468]

The Law of Merited Impossibility continues to be fulfilled:

“It’s a complete absurdity to believe that Christians will suffer a single thing from the expansion of gay rights, and boy, do they deserve what they’re going to get.”

[homersapien 11,352]

15 hours ago, Grumps said:

What "claims"?

From the OP, "San Antonio is a city full of compassion, and we do not have room in our public facilities for a business with a legacy of anti-LGBTQ behavior," Treviño said in the statement. “Everyone has a place here, and everyone should feel welcome when they walk through our airport.” 

People are making real business decisions based on what some Huffington Post (or similar) "journalist" thinks Dan Cathy meant when the words he said were completely different from what he was reported as saying. It would be like making real business decisions based on what Sarah Huckabee says that Trump meant by a comment. EVERYONE knows that she is putting his comments in the best possible light. The difference is that Sarah Huckabee gets paid to "smooth over" Trumps comments.

That's exactly what I meant by the "hazard" of taking such controversial positions if you have a retail business.

And this idea he has been misquoted or misrepresented in his statements concerning homosexual marriage is false. It's a matter of record:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chick-fil-A_same-sex_marriage_controversy

[Mims44 1,864]

On 4/6/2019 at 12:00 PM, TitanTiger said:

Or they perceive a threat from making marriage something other than what it is.  They see it as more than whatever we happen to feel like making it today, or what someone will feel like defining it as tomorrow.  They feel that if marriage is anything we want it to be, then it's really nothing special at all.  Marriage can't be everything.  So they perceive a threat in an ever-expanding definition of marriage that renders the term meaningless and same-sex marriage is only one of those things.

Marriage or the definition of the word has already changed throughout history. Same sex marriage was around for awhile, disappeared for a bit, and now is back. It is what it is.

The problem is people thinking that the government should be deciding this at all. That everyone is so busy arguing that the government SHOULD allow this or make that illegal and no one saying "Why is any long term relationship I have the governments business?"

People should have the right to enter into relationships with one another without fear that someone elses petty emotions over the definition of a word may take away their basic human freedoms. Which is another problem a lot of people seem to have, your thoughts and feelings on a subject with no actual evidence or facts of physical or proprietorial harm should not constitute a reason for taking away someones life, liberty, or ability to pursue happiness. 

 

[TitanTiger 20,468]

14 minutes ago, Mims44 said:

Marriage or the definition of the word has already changed throughout history. Same sex marriage was around for awhile, disappeared for a bit, and now is back. It is what it is.

Being able to find a few niche instances of people doing odd stuff in history isn't really an indicator that it was accepted by the overwhelming majority of humanity.

 

14 minutes ago, Mims44 said:

The problem is people thinking that the government should be deciding this at all. That everyone is so busy arguing that the government SHOULD allow this or make that illegal and no one saying "Why is any long term relationship I have the governments business?"

People should have the right to enter into relationships with one another without fear that someone elses petty emotions over the definition of a word may take away their basic human freedoms. Which is another problem a lot of people seem to have, your thoughts and feelings on a subject with no actual evidence or facts of physical or proprietorial harm should not constitute a reason for taking away someones life, liberty, or ability to pursue happiness. 

Well, the problem is there are various government benefits and such tied to the institution of marriage.  It streamlines inheritance, power of attorney, end of life health decisions, changes how your taxes are calculated.  So while getting the gov't out of it sounds good on paper, it's not practical in reality.

And of course as we know now, it's not as simple as just taking a "live and let live" attitude.  At one time that was the argument for stuff like this, but now the force of government sanction is being used as a cudgel to enforce thought and run people who don't comply out of the public square.  There is a difference in passive rights - that "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" thing you mention where we don't bother regulating who someone is having sex with, who they choose to live with and build a life together with.  Even before legally sanctioned marriage, there was nothing preventing someone - or any group of someones - from making arrangements encoding their relationship in various legal ways.  But it wasn't really about those things.  It was about an "active" right - societal sanction.  And as an intended side effect of that societal sanction, the ability to coerce those who disagree into going along with it.  It was no longer "live and let live" but "accept, bless, and celebrate," and if you don't then we will find various ways to hound you out of business and drive you from the marketplace of ideas.

I agree that the best thing that could probably happen would be to just remove government from the marriage debate altogether and let various religious organizations and their secular equivalents perform and recognize as marriage those things which align with their views on the institution.  But that ship sailed a long time ago.

[homersapien 11,352]

On 4/6/2019 at 5:48 PM, Grumps said:

You say, "I support same sex marriage." It means "I want EVERYONE to be happy."

Dan Cathy says, "I support opposite sex marriage." It means "homosexuals are evil and should burn in hell."

 

No, that's an overstatement. What it actually means is "homosexuals should not have the civil right to marry."

And it's more than simply supporting traditional marriage, it's keeping marriage exclusive.  (Presumably you aren't implying Cathy supports both traditional and homosexual marriage are you?)

(But I suspect he sees homosexuality as a sinful abomination - as do most people who so proactively support traditional marriage. He certainly has a right to those beliefs, just like others have the right to boycott his business. It all get's back to the hazards of taking public positions on controversial subjects when you operate  a retail business.)