The Chick-fil-A Hubbub

Good morning all.

So if you've been living under a rock for the past week, or if you're not a true Chick-fil-A connoisseur (it's a staple of my diet at least twice per week), you might not know about the recent Chick-fil-A and same-sex marriage debacle. Well, look no further monkeys, as you can get your good bit of news from the maker of the original chicken sandwich right here on WSO.

I'll be the first to say that I will support Chick-fil-A until the day I die (assuming the company sticks around for the next, oh, 50-60 years), not because of anything relating to their politics or bizarre policy of being closed on Sunday, but because they make a damn good chicken sandwich and I am fortunate enough to live in the Southeast and enjoy it at will. For a quick overview of the latest Chick-fil-A drama, check out this article.

So basically, CFA's president responded by saying "guilty as charged" when asked about the company's support of the "traditional family". Heaven forbid.

But wait my little monkeys, there is more: "I pray God's mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we have the audacity to define what marriage is about," stated the president.

Okay, so Chick-fil-A has always been a company that had its roots in the Bible, so to speak. It is closed on Sundays, observes more national holidays than any other fast food chain, and the company's founder, Samuel Truett Cathy, has been a longtime Southern Baptist and supporter of Republican presidential candidates. But on the flip-side, Chick-fil-A is also a fast food joint where I know for a fact that I will not only receive quality food, but will be treated respectfully by everyone in the establishment.

This is more than I can say for the overwhelming majority of fast food places. It seems like every time I go into a Burger King or Wendy's, the person behind the counter hates their position, resents me as a customer, and is generally rude. Okay, maybe not EVERY single time, but a good portion of the time people are not polite in the slightest at those places. In contrast, I know that when I walk into Chick-fil-A, everyone behind the counter will be extremely pleasant, polite, and will go to great lengths to ensure that I am satisfied with my order no matter what. +1 for CFA.

And those qualities, coupled with the noted excellence of their menu, would seem to indicate that Chick-fil-A is a cut above the rest. And that's the beauty of capitalism: I can choose, among many competitors, which I like best, and based on quality of product and quality of customer service, CFA wins out in 9 out of 10 cases.

But does it matter that the company supports a traditional family, something that I am personally not strictly in favor of?

Well, this author from The Atlantic had something to say about that: something as simple as 'no'.

What do you monkeys think? Should you boycott a business if you don't agree with its politics? More importantly, as a purchaser of consumer goods, where do you draw the line? Pretty difficult to research the ideology of executives of every company you will ever make a purchase from. How about if the distributor disagrees with you -- that company plays a huge role in the final product being available in the store?

Comments (102)

Jul 23, 2012

I don't agree with their politics, but i sure as shit will be eating one of their spicy chicken sandwiches later today!

Jul 23, 2012

Chick-fil-a is pretty much the only institution that gets a pass from me despite their hyper-religious bibble bullshit. Their normal chicken sandwich with no pickles is last meal on earth level. Simply unreal.

Jul 23, 2012
TheKing:

Chick-fil-a is pretty much the only institution that gets a pass from me despite their hyper-religious bibble bullshit. Their normal chicken sandwich with no pickles is last meal on earth level. Simply unreal.

Keep the pickles and we're in business, pal.

Jul 23, 2012

NYU (one of the most liberal universities in the country) has a Chick Fil-A restaurant on campus, and there was a serious effort by certain portions of the student body to have them kicked off the grounds--which were successfully resisted. Heck, there were protests and counter-protests on the same block!

The university showed some level-headedness for once and basically said, "If you don't like it, don't eat there." Seems simple enough.

Metal. Music. Life. www.headofmetal.com

Jul 23, 2012

I saw a billboard stating that they gave in the ballpark of 2 million to opposing same sex marriage. Was that CFA or someone trying to bring their policies to the public? I dont think it matters what a company believes or supports... if you need the product then you need the product. Putting it out there in a way that would offend people is ripping the doors off of a completely different coop though.

Its kind of like that westboro baptist church thing... who cares if they are having blood rituals behind the closed doors of the church - do what you want! But once you start protesting veteran's funerals you are asking for a swift kick.

Jul 23, 2012

I love CFA. This does not phase me in any way, shape or form.

Jul 23, 2012

hait mor qweerz. I can see the billboard already lol

I miss Chik-Fil-A

Jul 23, 2012

I have never been to a chick-fil-a. It is out of my price range for food.

Jul 23, 2012
IlliniProgrammer:

I have never been to a chick-fil-a. It is out of my price range for food.

If you drink water, and I assume your frugal self does, you can get a very solid meal for $5. You'd be hard-pressed to do that at McD's (and McD's tastes a lot worse, obviously).

Jul 23, 2012

Politics in my chicken sandwich? I'd rather find a hair in it.

Jul 23, 2012
Vontropnats:
IlliniProgrammer:

I have never been to a chick-fil-a. It is out of my price range for food.

If you drink water, and I assume your frugal self does, you can get a very solid meal for $5. You'd be hard-pressed to do that at McD's (and McD's tastes a lot worse, obviously).

You assume he means the high side of price range... Shit just might be too inexpensive for this food baller. "Free range or bust" may be how he handles the chicken sandwich question. Goes to S. America to find the spicy chickens.

Jul 23, 2012

Yeah, this all seems pretty silly to me. As objectionable as I find a Bible-thumping bigot, it's not like he...oh, I don't know...rigged LIBOR or something. Those are the fuckers who should be cock-punched. If your delicate sensibilities are so offended by the opinion of one ignoramus, fuck off and take your business to Wendy's.

    • 1
Jul 23, 2012

http://www.lfpress.com/news/world/2012/07/23/20017...
^ Glad to see someone standing up for what's right.

Jul 23, 2012

I've said this before many times: the hysteria around this ridiculous non-issue on both sides is unbelievable.

Metal. Music. Life. www.headofmetal.com

Jul 23, 2012

Hilarious. So many of my friends are like theKing "Normally this would bother me but its so good!'

So basically, there is some level of taste that is more important than your political sensibilities. Got it.

We have a CFA in the office and its maddd good.

If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses - Henry Ford

Jul 23, 2012

Yes, because Chick-fil-A is a major political entity and will parlay its influence to tilt the debate as it sees fit. This is so trivial. It's not like they won't serve meals to homosexuals. The CEO of the company simply expressed a personal opinion that has no bearing on the business. Before this happened, I bet no one even knew the name of the CEO.

As many people have already, if you don't like it, don't eat there. But I doubt many people check to political views of the CEO's of many companies they do business with- mostly because it doesn't matter. Molehills are not mountains- issue settled.

Jul 23, 2012
rls:

Yes, because Chick-fil-A is a major political entity and will parlay its influence to tilt the debate as it sees fit. This is so trivial. It's not like they won't serve meals to homosexuals. The CEO of the company simply expressed a personal opinion that has no bearing on the business. Before this happened, I bet no one even knew the name of the CEO.

As many people have already, if you don't like it, don't eat there. But I doubt many people check to political views of the CEO's of many companies they do business with- mostly because it doesn't matter. Molehills are not mountains- issue settled.

If I were an ardent gay marriage supporter, I would probably choose to not purchase CFA, not so much as the anti-gay stance is the viewpoint of the CEO, but rather it's the corporate viewpoint of the company and is demonstrated by the company's political / charitable contributions.

Quoting the CEO:
"We are very much supportive of the family -- the biblical definition of the family unit," he said. "We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that."

Given the company point of view, not surprisingly the company makes political contributions to anti-gay marriage groups, estimated at approximately $2M annually.

So for those who do support gay marriage, eating at CFA would be indirectly funding an opposing viewpoint. While the $5 bucks you don't spend on a chicken sandwich likely won't make any difference, it would be rather ironic and self-defeating to financially support a corporation that actively opposes your lifestyle / viewpoint.

Jul 23, 2012
freeloader:

for those who do support gay marriage, eating at CFA would be directly funding an opposing viewpoint. it would be rather ironic and self-defeating to financially support a corporation that actively opposes your viewpoint.

...and that's why I don't eat there. The guy has every right to spend his money how he sees fit, I have every right to call him a pompous jerkoff. I don't eat much fast food at all anyway, so it's not like my boycott matters. This kind of thing is point and case against the whole fraudulent notion of voting with your dollars: he tries to buy the system, I vote for people who MAKE THE SYSTEM'S RULES how I agree they should be....and I keep my dollar.

The whole gay thing isn't even a big deal to me, I just think the dude is a huge asshole and I'm taking pleasure in watching his archaic and bigoted value system be defeated by mine. In November, I'll laugh and laugh. Stone age, biblical dumbass motherfuckers.

I say this as a practicing Catholic who understands that some serious upgrades are needed, about 15 centuries worth...

    • 1
    • 1
Jul 23, 2012
freeloader:

...So for those who do support gay marriage, eating at CFA would be indirectly funding an opposing viewpoint. While the $5 bucks you don't spend on a chicken sandwich likely won't make any difference, it would be rather ironic and self-defeating to financially support a corporation that actively opposes your lifestyle / viewpoint.

I think this sums up the point about tax dollars being directly used to fund abortion advocacy groups like Planned Parenthood.

Regards

    • 1
Jul 23, 2012
freeloader:
rls:

Yes, because Chick-fil-A is a major political entity and will parlay its influence to tilt the debate as it sees fit. This is so trivial. It's not like they won't serve meals to homosexuals. The CEO of the company simply expressed a personal opinion that has no bearing on the business. Before this happened, I bet no one even knew the name of the CEO.

As many people have already, if you don't like it, don't eat there. But I doubt many people check to political views of the CEO's of many companies they do business with- mostly because it doesn't matter. Molehills are not mountains- issue settled.

If I were an ardent gay marriage supporter, I would probably choose to not purchase CFA, not so much as the anti-gay stance is the viewpoint of the CEO, but rather it's the corporate viewpoint of the company and is demonstrated by the company's political / charitable contributions.

Quoting the CEO:
"We are very much supportive of the family -- the biblical definition of the family unit," he said. "We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that."

Given the company point of view, not surprisingly the company makes political contributions to anti-gay marriage groups, estimated at approximately $2M annually.

So for those who do support gay marriage, eating at CFA would be indirectly funding an opposing viewpoint. While the $5 bucks you don't spend on a chicken sandwich likely won't make any difference, it would be rather ironic and self-defeating to financially support a corporation that actively opposes your lifestyle / viewpoint.

Chick-fil-A-sponsored events are very likely preaching to the choir- it's unlikely they are going to bring undecided people on board (not to mention, its a relatively small amount in the political landscape). And, I reiterate, if you don't like it- if anyone doesn't like it- don't eat there. Picket them, protest them, but be prepared to realize that the rest of us don't care nearly as much as you do, if at all.

Jul 23, 2012
freeloader:
rls:

Yes, because Chick-fil-A is a major political entity and will parlay its influence to tilt the debate as it sees fit. This is so trivial. It's not like they won't serve meals to homosexuals. The CEO of the company simply expressed a personal opinion that has no bearing on the business. Before this happened, I bet no one even knew the name of the CEO.

As many people have already, if you don't like it, don't eat there. But I doubt many people check to political views of the CEO's of many companies they do business with- mostly because it doesn't matter. Molehills are not mountains- issue settled.

If I were an ardent gay marriage supporter, I would probably choose to not purchase CFA, not so much as the anti-gay stance is the viewpoint of the CEO, but rather it's the corporate viewpoint of the company and is demonstrated by the company's political / charitable contributions.

Quoting the CEO:
"We are very much supportive of the family -- the biblical definition of the family unit," he said. "We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that."

Given the company point of view, not surprisingly the company makes political contributions to anti-gay marriage groups, estimated at approximately $2M annually.

So for those who do support gay marriage, eating at CFA would be indirectly funding an opposing viewpoint. While the $5 bucks you don't spend on a chicken sandwich likely won't make any difference, it would be rather ironic and self-defeating to financially support a corporation that actively opposes your lifestyle / viewpoint.

I mostly oppose gay marriage and I eat at Ben & Jerry's. I'm a Republican and yet I own an iPhone. I'm a conservative and I use Microsoft Windows and Google search.

As a Republican, if I wanted to avoid every effeminate, un-American politically correct bullsh*t position I'd never buy a house (ever hear Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae's viewpoint on gay marriage?) or use a large bank for banking (seen Wells Fargo's moronic affirmative action position?) or buy a car (Subaru is run by godless hippies). At the end of the day, unless a company is supporting terrorists (like GE was doing by doing business with Iran) or denying the Holocaust or supporting communist belief systems then it comes down to product, service and price. Any mainstream political disagreement is and should be left at that.

Jul 23, 2012

Stop at CFA every morning on the way to the office. CFA has the formula for success- simple menu, quality food and the best service in the QSR industry. You are hit the nail on the head with this "I think this all stems from just how absurdly sensitive we have become in this country". Politics have become obsessed with issues that distract from the real issues our country faces.

Jul 23, 2012

I think it is respectable to see CEOs and other leaders express their political beliefs. Would you have more respect for the CEO of CFA if he was silent about his stance?

Jul 23, 2012

Agreed that people getting upset about this is kind of silly. Also, the company founder should be allowed to express his opinions without being bashed as an intolerant fool. Freedom of speech and opinion.

Jul 23, 2012

The most ironic thing here is that many people who are atheist and/or liberal are slowly but steadily becoming way more annoying and preachy than people who are actually religious.

    • 1
Jul 23, 2012
Nabooru:

The most ironic thing here is that many people who are atheist and/or liberal are slowly but steadily becoming way more annoying and preachy than people who are actually religious.

This about sums it up.

Regards

Jul 24, 2012
cphbravo96:
Nabooru:

The most ironic thing here is that many people who are atheist and/or liberal are slowly but steadily becoming way more annoying and preachy than people who are actually religious.

This about sums it up.

Regards

This. I'm agnostic merely on the premise that its hard for me to believe that everything has come to be by chance.

Regarding marriage, why can't we just give homosexuals/lesbians the same financial benefits of marriage while calling it something slightly different like this?:

Man+Woman=Marriage

Man+Man or Women+Women= Marriage*

Here to learn and hopefully pass on some knowledge as well. SB if I helped.

Jul 24, 2012
cphbravo96:
Nabooru:

The most ironic thing here is that many people who are atheist and/or liberal are slowly but steadily becoming way more annoying and preachy than people who are actually religious.

This about sums it up.

Regards

I heartily resent the implication that atheist and liberal somehow go hand in hand.

Regardless, this is a total non-issue. The people that would find this offensive and want to "do something about it" are the same people that will argue that everyone is entitled to their opinion, free speech, yadda yadda... The guy didn't say "we don't hire gays," or something like "if you're gay we won't serve you," or anything even remotely close to implying discrimination. All he said is this is my company and we think marriage should be in its traditional form. We make chicken and have no authority on this matter, but that's what we think.

I like chocolate chip cookies.

There's no difference between what they said and what I said, in reality. Anyone that thinks otherwise is an overly sensitive fuck that needs to re-examine if they actually believe what they're saying or if they just want to be angry at "the system," which, might I add, Chick-Fil-A is not exactly a key member of. I recommend these people go back to Zuccoti Park so my friends at NYPD can pepper spray their faces the way I'm gonna salt & pepper up some curly fries with my dank ass chicken sammy after work today from Chick-Fil-A. Then I'm gonna go pre-order my ticket to the Peach Bowl this year to show further support for someone voicing their opinion despite it being an unpopular one amongst the proletariat.

Jul 23, 2012
Nabooru:

The most ironic thing here is that many people who are atheist and/or liberal are slowly but steadily becoming way more annoying and preachy than people who are actually religious.

Ever look at Reddit? I'm Agnostic, but facepalm when I read that site.

Jul 23, 2012
Vontropnats:
Nabooru:

The most ironic thing here is that many people who are atheist and/or liberal are slowly but steadily becoming way more annoying and preachy than people who are actually religious.

Ever look at Reddit? I'm Agnostic, but facepalm when I read that site.

That is pretty much my reaction as well.

Jul 23, 2012
Nabooru:

The most ironic thing here is that many people who are atheist and/or liberal are slowly but steadily becoming way more annoying and preachy than people who are actually religious.

Yeah, who do they think they are? With their fuckin' facts and science and shit...

    • 1
Jul 23, 2012
Edmundo Braverman:
Nabooru:

The most ironic thing here is that many people who are atheist and/or liberal are slowly but steadily becoming way more annoying and preachy than people who are actually religious.

Yeah, who do they think they are? With their fuckin' facts and science and shit...

Clearly his point is about the irony of the left who lambaste the religious right for 'shoving religion down their throats' all the while demonizing the people who have different views and campaigning to get them fired, their stores shutdown/banned, etc.

Regards

Jul 23, 2012

Reading this thread makes me want to get the no.1 combo for lunch today.

Baby you're the perfect shape, baby you're the perfect weight. Treat me like my birthday, I want it this way and I want it that way. It makes a man feel good baby.

Jul 23, 2012

It's funny how as I ate my chicken biscuit this morning I noticed the bag CFA uses doesn't have some obnoxious advertisement on it. Instead, it had an article talking about how their scholarship fund for higher education for CFA employees started at $1,000 and is now over $25 Mil. Chick Fil-A is one of the few companies who hasn't checked their values at the door. Extremely fond of this. Will continue to be a proud customer as long as they are around- whether they voice their beliefs or not.

Jul 23, 2012

haha you guys are really into fast food... I would never touch that garbage

Jul 23, 2012

This thread has inspired me to make Chick-fil-A a large part of my diet

Jul 23, 2012

Being from Michigan, the closest Chick-fil-a to me is about a 4 hour drive. That being said, my friends and I go on CFA road trips just to get it. I'm not a fast food fan but there's a special place in my heart for CFA, it's just so good and actually not that unhealthy compared to other places.

Jul 23, 2012

Damn the homos to HELL

Eventus stultorum magister.

Jul 23, 2012

Let's not forget that bankers can act the exact same way. See Batali, Mario.

"After Chef's Hitler Remark, Bankers Change Lunch Plans"

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/10/nyregion/bankers...

Jul 23, 2012

Great post. I cannot stand when people act like, "Oh they're against my beliefs. I'm going to go rant about that in public". If you don't like it, don't eat there! This applies to many other organizations as well. Let us enjoy our chicken sandwiches in peace. Waffle fries too.

"If opportunity doesn't knock, build a door."

Jul 23, 2012
callison:

Great post. I cannot stand when people act like, "Oh they're against my beliefs. I'm going to go rant about that in public".

Public outcry over one thing or another and people taking up the issue to get votes is the basis of politics...yes?

Jul 23, 2012

Personally I'm somewhat on the fence on the pro life/choice argument, though I veer hard left in support of the gays. But there is an argument for "voting with your dollar".

If for example the owner of this restaurant were to come out and say for example that he segregation (or jim crow), would you consider it ridiculous if people of color boycotted his business?

I'm sorry - I won't be eating there anytime soon, regardless of how good their chicken tastes.

As a christian, I've seen the bible blatantly support racial discrimination, sexism, slavery as well as polygamy. What "bible-defined" marriage do they refer to I wonder - Abraham's? Or perhaps David and Solomon's?

It's all a farce lads, eat there if you will, I will fight for your right to do so. I however choose not to.

But Rhaegar fought valiantly, Rhaegar fought nobly, Rhaegar fought bravely.

And Rhaegar died.

Jul 23, 2012
Anomanderis:

If for example the owner of this restaurant were to come out and say for example that he segregation (or jim crow), would you consider it ridiculous if people of color boycotted his business?

Saying that he supported segregation or actually followed through with Jim Crow laws? I think supporting racial segregation is a far different beast from supporting the institution of the "traditional" family. Supporting Jim Crow almost implies not serving an entire population of people -- not supporting same-sex marriage doesn't imply not serving gay people or even attributing any hate toward gays and lesbians.

Jul 23, 2012
Vontropnats:
Anomanderis:

If for example the owner of this restaurant were to come out and say for example that he segregation (or jim crow), would you consider it ridiculous if people of color boycotted his business?

Saying that he supported segregation or actually followed through with Jim Crow laws? I think supporting racial segregation is a far different beast from supporting the institution of the "traditional" family. Supporting Jim Crow almost implies not serving an entire population of people -- not supporting same-sex marriage doesn't imply not serving gay people or even attributing any hate toward gays and lesbians.

Perhaps I should rephrase. If he supported jim crow and implemented it for example, then the issue of boycotting his business probably wouldn't come into play. If however he cunningly served all, while donating towards a bill in the house to bring back jim crow, then yeah, it would pretty much be the same.

I do see your point. However, the argument that a lot of LGBT people give is that preventing them from getting married is tantamount to depriving them of their rights.

But Rhaegar fought valiantly, Rhaegar fought nobly, Rhaegar fought bravely.

And Rhaegar died.

Jul 23, 2012

I'm now much more inclined to eat there.

At least someone isn't afraid to get verbally vomited on by the hordes of liberal trash.

Jul 23, 2012

Marriage should have never been something that the government ever got involved with. Religious people get too worked up about it being between a man and a woman because that's what their 'insert religious text here' defines it as. From the government's point of view, marriage is a contract that grants the two parties numerous benefits (tax-free inheritance from spouse, control over health issues of spouse, etc.)

If they just called this 'domestic partnerships', whether gay or straight, a lot of the issues would be less politically charged. Marriage should be left to the churches. Gay marriage will happen, it is inevitable.

CFA makes great chicken sandwiches...since I don't live anywhere near any of them, to boycott or not to boycott is not relevant to me. I do wish companies would steer clear of political social issues, it's just irritating. Make the sandwich and STFU.

    • 1
Jul 23, 2012
SirPoopsaLot:

I do wish companies would steer clear of political social issues, it's just irritating. Make the sandwich and STFU.

This. Not sure why it has become commonplace for companies to voice their stances on social and political issues. And it's not as if the company takes a formal stance on a particular issue with adherence to some democratic process -- a couple of guys decide the company's "official", for lack of a better word, stance toward "X". Pretty stupid IMO.

Jul 24, 2012
SirPoopsaLot:

If they just called this 'domestic partnerships', whether gay or straight, a lot of the issues would be less politically charged. Marriage should be left to the churches. Gay marriage will happen, it is inevitable.

I actually think this is a major point. My take on the situation is that Christians in this country feel they are under attack. They feel that their values, their way of life and their ability to freely practice their religion are slowly being eroded by liberal judges, the ACLU and the like. I think that gay marriage just so happened to be the issue at hand when they decided to put their foot down. I've always felt that Christians were pretty passive people but, from what I've read, they feel like they are at a tipping point and they aren't going to allow it to go any further. This is why you've had the push back on gay marriage and the huge push back on the healthcare debate with regard to religious institutions being required to cover things that go against their doctrine.

I don't have a crystal ball, so there is no way to know whether this would have blown up to the size it did if it was 'domestic partnership' vs. 'marriage/gay marriage' but I get the feeling that many people that oppose gay marriage would have been much more willing to just turned a blind eye to 'domestic partnerships' than to 'gay marriage'.

Also, don't shoot the messenger. LOL.

Regards

Jul 24, 2012
cphbravo96:

I actually think this is a major point. My take on the situation is that Christians in this country feel they are under attack. They feel that their values, their way of life and their ability to freely practice their religion are slowly being eroded by liberal judges, the ACLU and the like. I think that gay marriage just so happened to be the issue at hand when they decided to put their foot down. I've always felt that Christians were pretty passive people but, from what I've read, they feel like they are at a tipping point and they aren't going to allow it to go any further. This is why you've had the push back on gay marriage and the huge push back on the healthcare debate with regard to religious institutions being required to cover things that go against their doctrine.

This is the one point that really annoys me, the whole idea of "Christians under attack". It's nothing but people throwing a huge sissy fit because other people don't want to do things their way. You don't like the gays, they don't have to be in your church.

How can "your values" be eroded by someone else? Values is a personal belief. How is a Christian's way of life being eroded? They are still allowed to go to church, get married, go off into the woods and form a cult. No one is telling them they can have legal benefits that others have. Freely practice religion? Show me who is stopping them from going to church on Wed and Sunday.

At the end of the day, no one is asking for Christians to turn a blind eye to domestic partnerships or gay marriage. People are asking Christians to butt out of the conversation when it comes to someone else's life.

Jul 24, 2012

I think people often misinterpret the religious aspects of the founding of our country. To start with, while many of the men who built this country were Christian, many more were Deists (which was trending at the time, especially among the college-educate elite). While some advocated for a religious state much like Iran or Saudi Arabia, most did not. What they (especially Jefferson, Madison, Washington, Franklin) were promoting were the ideas of religion: be good to your fellow man (and he will be good to you in return), be fair and just (and you won't be fucked over), eschew excess (don't become an addict, whether to food, drink, or drugs), etc.

cphbravo96:

And just to be clear, I'm not saying that religious views should be implemented because there is a religious majority in the country, I'm saying it is inevitable. Our government, as ambiguous as it sounds, is simply made up of individual people. People that are elected by other people. Typically they share the same values, which is why they voted for that particular individual, and that applies to religion...therefor, the probability of having religious people in power, constructing laws, etc. is very high. That's why it's important to vote.

The main problem here is people ignore the spirit of this country. The whole point, as TJ often pointed out, was for the majority to protect the minority, the strong to protect the weak, the rich to protect the poor, and vice versa on all counts. It's gone from the original intent (at least from TJ's perspective) to, "my vote is my opinion", which as you said was bound to happen. That's because nobody really thinks about it. They're indoctrinated into a way of thinking when they're young and never think past it.

That_Aston:

Regarding marriage, why can't we just give homosexuals/lesbians the same financial benefits of marriage while calling it something slightly different like this?:

Man+Woman=Marriage

Man+Man or Women+Women= Marriage*

Or we could just strike the word marriage and give everyone the opportunity to have a government-recognized civil union. If you're gay and want to call your civil union a marriage, go for it. If you're uber-Christian and want to ignore someone else calling their civil union a marriage, go for it.

But this will never happen. Why? Because the religious institutions are as bad if not worse than political institutions. The hardcore religious people will tote the line on their deathbeds.

The only reason marriage is a government-run program is specifically to give certain people benefits and take those benefits from others. It was a racial thing when it first came about in the early 1900s, then sort of fizzled after the civil rights movement, and then became a sexuality thing in the 80s. As long as people want to keep another group of people down in this country, marriage will be a government thing.

I guess, in closing...

FUCK EVERYONE

Jul 24, 2012

Oops, missed SirPoopsALot's post, +1 for you sir.

Virginia Tech 4ever:

Actually in fairness, the pro gay marriage agenda has lost EVERY SINGLE ballot initiative in the entire country without exception, including in California. More than 60% of states have enacted relatively recent bans against gay marriage. Not sure where you're getting the "victory" of your side unless you consider the People's Republic of the District of Columbia and Vermont major victories.

Err, gay marriage is allowed in NY, DC, Mass, NH, Vermont, CT, and (wtf, props...) Iowa.

Also, cph, the only reason Christians feel like they're up against a wall is because their institutions tell them to feel that way. Instead of saying, "you live in a country where you practice your religion without fear of persecution!" they say, "you live in a Democratic country so make sure everyone lives the way you think they should live."

I've said it before and will say it again: the hardcore Christians (and hardliners of any religion really) and their institutions aren't just obnoxious, they're pieces of shit. If I've offended you, you probably deserve it so we're even.

Jul 24, 2012
D M:
Virginia Tech 4ever:

Actually in fairness, the pro gay marriage agenda has lost EVERY SINGLE ballot initiative in the entire country without exception, including in California. More than 60% of states have enacted relatively recent bans against gay marriage. Not sure where you're getting the "victory" of your side unless you consider the People's Republic of the District of Columbia and Vermont major victories.

Err, gay marriage is allowed in NY, DC, Mass, NH, Vermont, CT, and (wtf, props...) Iowa.

None of those were ballot initiatives. Every single ballot initiative in the nation has failed, and we are now over 30 states that have actively banned gay marriage. Even in the District of Columbia, public opinion was overwhelmingly against gay marriage, but the D.C. council is totally and utterly beholden to Democratic machine politics a la the 1890s and completely ignored the will of the people.

Jul 24, 2012
D M:

Also, cph, the only reason Christians feel like they're up against a wall is because their institutions tell them to feel that way. Instead of saying, "you live in a country where you practice your religion without fear of persecution!" they say, "you live in a Democratic country so make sure everyone lives the way you think they should live."

That's just not true. Look at all of the ACLU's recent lawsuits that have to do with religion and let us know who are behind a large majority of them... Atheists, not Christians. As someone stated before, Atheists have become much more proactive. The CFA thing is a prime example. The views that Dan Cathy stated are the same they always been, but now it's been flashed all over the press and the left is up in arms about it. From what I've read, he said nothing derogatory about gays, just that he and the company support traditional marriage. Additionally, the company even pointed out, specifically, that it doesn't discriminate against anybody for any reason. Yet LGBT groups and the left are boycotting the business, drumming up press about those boycotts and trying to ban them from certain cities. Talk about activism.

The business itself serves all customers so what's the big deal? How many businesses are owned by a bachelor that doesn't believe in marriage, is the LGBT community going to boycott that business, assuming it actually exists because that CEO/owner discriminates against married people and they want to be able to get married?

Why is it when the right disagrees with something they are religiously dogmatic or are called bigots, when the left disagrees with something, they are just exercising their constitutionally afforded rights?

Regards

    • 1
Jul 24, 2012

D M,

Thanks for pointing out that Jefferson was a Deist (as was Franklin, Madison, Paine, Ethan Allen, and many others). It pisses me off when people think that the Founding Fathers were a bunch of Bible-thumpers.

Jul 24, 2012
Edmundo Braverman:

D M,

Thanks for pointing out that Jefferson was a Deist (as was Franklin, Madison, Paine, Ethan Allen, and many others). It pisses me off when people think that the Founding Fathers were a bunch of Bible-thumpers.

I don't think anyone in this thread claimed them to be Bible-thumpers, just religious, as opposed to non-religious, as it was pointed out by one of the previous posters...but maybe this wasn't directed at anyone in particular.

Regards

Jul 24, 2012
Edmundo Braverman:

D M,

Thanks for pointing out that Jefferson was a Deist (as was Franklin, Madison, Paine, Ethan Allen, and many others). It pisses me off when people think that the Founding Fathers were a bunch of Bible-thumpers.

Yea, I'm with you there Eddie. My parents forwarded me a pro-Christian email that labelled TJ as a religious zealot a while back so I stocked up on material haha.

Jul 25, 2012
Edmundo Braverman:

D M,

Thanks for pointing out that Jefferson was a Deist (as was Franklin, Madison, Paine, Ethan Allen, and many others). It pisses me off when people think that the Founding Fathers were a bunch of Bible-thumpers.

I agree with you to an extent. There are definitely 2 sides at play here. Today, the Christian-Right likes to use historical perspectives to further there agenda and on the other side atheists use the 1st Amendment.

With that said, I pose a hypothetical. Precautionary measure: I am agnostic.

If the founders of this country were able to witness today's USA, which position would they be more inclined to take? I would argue that they would side with those in support of a "Christian America". I say this because its unlikely that they could've possibly fathomed the diversity that the U.S would become in terms of atheists, jews, muslims, etc.

They most likely made the 1st Amendment having Freedom of Religion cause they figured there would never be so many opinions clashing as there are today.

Here to learn and hopefully pass on some knowledge as well. SB if I helped.

Jul 24, 2012

It wasn't. It's just a general pet peeve of mine. Pretty much everyone from the South (these are my people, remember) want to think George Washington was a Baptist minister in his spare time. I've even given up proving to them how moronic Jefferson thought organized religion was - facts just don't matter to that set.

Jul 24, 2012
Jul 25, 2012

To say the founding fathers of America were non-religious or Diests is an obvious and transparent fallacy. More than half (29 of 56) of the signers of the Declaration of Independence had seminary degrees, for God's sake! Thomas Jefferson was a Diest and Benjamin Franklin an agnostic--but there are scores of unheralded founders who were very much Christian, and avidly so. The Continental Congresses and the actual congresses thereafter (and to this day) opened with a prayer--a very Christian prayer.

It's nothing more than wishful thinking to say that the founding fathers were irreligious or non-Christian. The overwhelming majority were practicing Christians. This is an easily verifiable fact.

Jul 25, 2012
Virginia Tech 4ever:

To say the founding fathers of America were non-religious or Diests is an obvious and transparent fallacy. More than half (29 of 56) of the signers of the Declaration of Independence had seminary degrees, for God's sake! Thomas Jefferson was a Diest and Benjamin Franklin an agnostic--but there are scores of unheralded founders who were very much Christian, and avidly so. The Continental Congresses and the actual congresses thereafter (and to this day) opened with a prayer--a very Christian prayer.

It's nothing more than wishful thinking to say that the founding fathers were irreligious or non-Christian. The overwhelming majority were practicing Christians. This is an easily verifiable fact.

There is a reason why we know the names of Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, etc and not the names of the unheralded founders. Both Jefferson and Madison, who were the considered the "Father of the Constitution" were diests and strongly believed in religious freedom.

Sure the founding fathers were practicing Christians, yet the same practicing Christians ratified a constitution and bill of rights that explicitly calls out religious freedom as a founding principal of the country.

Jul 25, 2012
freeloader:

Sure the founding fathers were practicing Christians, yet the same practicing Christians ratified a constitution and bill of rights that explicitly calls out religious freedom as a founding principal of the country.

Basically this. The original Puritans came here for exactly that reason. Also, the people setting up the constitution weren't the zealots who put themselves at odds with science...they were students of the Enlightenment who strongly endorsed using their God-given faculties of reason. While the Catholic church (my native religion) is very hostile to Freemasonry (not going to stop me from joining), a very large percentage of founders were masons...and one of the core values is toleration of other people's religion. Note the word 'tolerance', it mean letting people do their own thing even if you're not a huge fan of it.

Contrast this with the fanatics who claim to be talking to God and that no reasonable explanation is necessary, and selectively interpreting the words of the founders to justify such behaviour is pretty disingenuous/misguided. When I bother to show up to church, there are republicans and democrats sitting there, so I find a large part of this debate to be loonie tunes. Most of the people in my parish are pro-choice and openly so, so I think its a matter of time before the 'emporers' in Rome update the ethical guidelines they created centuries ago...as the ranks thin out due to the advice and guidance falling farther and farther away from relevant to people's lives, the institutions will be forced to change. They simply don't have the power to enforce their worldview beyond a certain point, and I fail to see why people should be excluded from worship because SOME people, not all, have decided to force their interpretation of the Bible upon everyone else.

...and I just go because it's cool to run into people I like and haven't seen in a while. Then I go bartend. It's a party. Everyone be happy, jeez, WTF

Jul 25, 2012
freeloader:
Virginia Tech 4ever:

To say the founding fathers of America were non-religious or Diests is an obvious and transparent fallacy. More than half (29 of 56) of the signers of the Declaration of Independence had seminary degrees, for God's sake! Thomas Jefferson was a Diest and Benjamin Franklin an agnostic--but there are scores of unheralded founders who were very much Christian, and avidly so. The Continental Congresses and the actual congresses thereafter (and to this day) opened with a prayer--a very Christian prayer.

It's nothing more than wishful thinking to say that the founding fathers were irreligious or non-Christian. The overwhelming majority were practicing Christians. This is an easily verifiable fact.

There is a reason why we know the names of Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, etc and not the names of the unheralded founders. Both Jefferson and Madison, who were the considered the "Father of the Constitution" were diests and strongly believed in religious freedom.

Sure the founding fathers were practicing Christians, yet the same practicing Christians ratified a constitution and bill of rights that explicitly calls out religious freedom as a founding principal of the country.

First of all, James Madison was officially an Episcopalian, and possibly a Diest. And the Bill of Rights, which Madison is famous for, is modeled after Virginia's bill of rights, a colony that was decidedly Christian. The Bill of Rights wasn't modeled after a brilliant idea that came to Madison in the shower.

So, just for the record, were the following founders not heralded? John Adams; Samuel Adams; John Hancock; and Alexander Hamilton? Just a small handful that came to mind who are household names.

No one is arguing against religious liberty--I'm simply pointing out the transparently false claims that are being made about America's founding and about its founders.

Jul 25, 2012

Not sure why it matters what religion Thomas Jefferson believed in, he's dead.

Jul 25, 2012
BlackHat:

Not sure why it matters what religion Thomas Jefferson believed in, he's dead.

Yea, where is his nondescript deity now?

If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses - Henry Ford

Jul 25, 2012
happypantsmcgee:
BlackHat:

Not sure why it matters what religion Thomas Jefferson believed in, he's dead.

Yea, where is his nondescript deity now?

http://static.fjcdn.com/pictures/Where+is+your+God...

Jul 25, 2012

Speaking of politicians using their moral compass...

http://i.imgur.com/VSW8L.png

If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses - Henry Ford

Jul 25, 2012
happypantsmcgee:

Speaking of politicians using their moral compass...

http://i.imgur.com/VSW8L.png

We'll wait to see if freeloader is up in arms over a "godless atheist" using his moral compass to discourage jobs and excellent chicken in his own sh*thole city.

Jul 25, 2012
Virginia Tech 4ever:
happypantsmcgee:

Speaking of politicians using their moral compass...

http://i.imgur.com/VSW8L.png

We'll wait to see if freeloader is up in arms over a "godless atheist" using his moral compass to discourage jobs and excellent chicken in his own sh*thole city.

Immediately thought of the jobs angle as well. Should be interesting.

If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses - Henry Ford

Jul 25, 2012

So you're saying we should tax non-profit organizations? Not sure what kind of tax could be levied against a church's "profit" given that most churches spend what they take in--they don't run profits because...they're non-profits... Or are you saying that we should not allow people to write off on their taxes donations to non-profits? Either way, that position makes no sense unless you think there should be no tax deductions at all, which I can at least appreciate.

I think the greater theft is that 49% of the electorate pays no taxes at all. That's purely secular--do you have a problem with that? That secular government rips off the top 1% of tax payers who contribute 38% of total revenue? I mean, if you want to talk about ripping off the tax payer, I can go all day about Planned Parenthood, ACORN, etc. Do we really want to go there?

Jul 25, 2012
Virginia Tech 4ever:

So you're saying we should tax non-profit organizations? Not sure what kind of tax could be levied against a church's "profit" given that most churches spend what they take in--they don't run profits because...they're non-profits... Or are you saying that we should not allow people to write off on their taxes donations to non-profits? Either way, that position makes no sense unless you think there should be no tax deductions at all, which I can at least appreciate.

I think the greater theft is that 49% of the electorate pays no taxes at all. That's purely secular--do you have a problem with that? That secular government rips off the top 1% of tax payers who contribute 38% of total revenue? I mean, if you want to talk about ripping off the tax payer, I can go all day about Planned Parenthood, ACORN, etc. Do we really want to go there?

I don't see why they should get tax-exempt status. Churches openly fund anti-abortion campaigns and the like, yet we essentially subsidize them while at the same time subsidizing your Planned Parenthoods, etc. The government shouldn't be the ones funding every side of every issue, they should leave that to the people that support those issues, and in turn tax us less so we can support whatever issues (or in my case, no fucking issues at all) we feel that strongly about. If you want to donate your clothes to the homeless, go do it because you're a great person, not because you get a goddamn write-off. That's just pathetic, and make sno sense. There's plenty of positive social impact I can have that wouldn't get tax-deducted, so where do you draw the line? Can I deduct my time spent at the soup kitchen at the hourly rate I get paid? Oh, I can't?

And as for the half of the nation that pays no taxes, you're not gonna find a bigger proponent of forcing them into slave labor camps than me. Taxes aren't a secular issue when a portion of the government's tax revenues are allocated to religious organizations. But again, my entire point from before is simply that this "secular government" you referred to doesn't exist in my opinion. When it's a sticking point for the average voter that Mitt is a Mormon, and an athiest running for president would be like a death sentence, I think religion has a much bigger role in this whole government thing than a lot of people care to admit.

Jul 25, 2012

Religion plays an role because lots of people are religious, that's how it is. However, religion is not the basis of our system. The constitution is and overly religious types chafe at having another authority other than their own....that's really what this is about: power

BlackHat:

And as for the half of the nation that pays no taxes, you're not gonna find a bigger proponent of forcing them into slave labor camps than me.

If there's a statistic that's been massaged to get a particular reaction, it's this one. I'd put this in the same camp as massaged league table stats. State, local, property, payroll, sales and all the rest are paid by most people.

47% of people aren't paying Federal taxes. The breakdown is:
22% - Seniors. Social Security benefits aren't taxeable.
15% - Are poor or qualify for child, marriage, and income exemptions to the extent that their net tax is zero
10% - other. For a breakdown: http://taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/1001547-Why...
So, 15% of the US population is either too poor to pay taxes OR have enough exemptions to put them at zero net payout. However, payroll tax is still paid by anyone holding a job AND by the employer, so even if a person doesn't pay it out of their paycheck, they still put money into the pot...just not directly. Here's a breakdown of federal income:

42% - Individual tax
40% - payroll tax
9% - corporate tax
3% - excise
6% - other

Source: http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/backg...
Long story short, the 42% top line item doesn't include 15% of the population. So, what we're talking about is 6.3% of taxes are up for dispute. Why can't 6.3% of the population pay taxes? Let's talk about that.

See how stats work? (I know this analysis isn't accurate, I'm just doing it this way to make a point)

Jul 25, 2012
BlackHat:
Virginia Tech 4ever:

So you're saying we should tax non-profit organizations? Not sure what kind of tax could be levied against a church's "profit" given that most churches spend what they take in--they don't run profits because...they're non-profits... Or are you saying that we should not allow people to write off on their taxes donations to non-profits? Either way, that position makes no sense unless you think there should be no tax deductions at all, which I can at least appreciate.

I think the greater theft is that 49% of the electorate pays no taxes at all. That's purely secular--do you have a problem with that? That secular government rips off the top 1% of tax payers who contribute 38% of total revenue? I mean, if you want to talk about ripping off the tax payer, I can go all day about Planned Parenthood, ACORN, etc. Do we really want to go there?

I don't see why they should get tax-exempt status. Churches openly fund anti-abortion campaigns and the like, yet we essentially subsidize them while at the same time subsidizing your Planned Parenthoods, etc. The government shouldn't be the ones funding every side of every issue, they should leave that to the people that support those issues, and in turn tax us less so we can support whatever issues (or in my case, no fucking issues at all) we feel that strongly about. If you want to donate your clothes to the homeless, go do it because you're a great person, not because you get a goddamn write-off. That's just pathetic, and make sno sense. There's plenty of positive social impact I can have that wouldn't get tax-deducted, so where do you draw the line? Can I deduct my time spent at the soup kitchen at the hourly rate I get paid? Oh, I can't?

I'm sorry, but your arguments are terribly unconvincing. A non-profit shouldn't have tax-exempt status because people should donate because it's the right thing to do, not because they get a tax write-off...

Well, geesh, now here we are again making laws based on one's moral compass--but of course it's ok because your moral compass is based on whatever modern society says is moral as you interpret it, not based on timeless, widely accepted truths. Therefore, your morality is valid but a religious person's morality is not. I see your point...

Let me point out that your arguments about taxation are the same moronic arguments that liberal Democrats put forth--that if you don't pay a tax (or a higher tax) you are being subsidized by government. This position is predicated upon government having ownership to 100% of your earnings and that, in government's benevolence, they allow you to keep xx% of it. See, real Americans--conservatives, patriots, etc.--recognize that we own 100% of our own labor and that we give it up to government reluctantly to fund necessary public works. If our representatives pass a law that taxes my labor less, then I'm simply keeping more of my own labor. The government isn't subsidizing ANYONE when it cuts taxes or issues tax breaks. IT'S MY LABOR. I and my fellow Americans are in a contract with government called the U.S. Constitution where we reluctantly allow government access to some of our labor.

Jul 25, 2012
Virginia Tech 4ever:

I think the greater theft is that 49% of the electorate pays no taxes at all. That's purely secular--do you have a problem with that? That secular government rips off the top 1% of tax payers who contribute 38% of total revenue? I mean, if you want to talk about ripping off the tax payer, I can go all day about Planned Parenthood, ACORN, etc. Do we really want to go there?

I'm sure you can find just as many tax dollars going to corporate subsidies and wasteful pork as goes to Planned Parenthood, etc.

As for the 49% who don't pay income taxes, well when the bottom 50% of Americans on average has an average income of $15k, that's probably why they don't pay income taxes. And keep in mind social security taxes are already paid prior to income taxes. A tax rate of X on $0 taxable income is still $0...

Jul 25, 2012
Comment
Jul 25, 2012
Comment

Here to learn and hopefully pass on some knowledge as well. SB if I helped.

Pages