Fast Food chain under fire from same sex couples

Attabear

Sea Filly wrote: »

I actually totally agree.

And others are entitled to say they disagree with those opinions.

(Sings American National Anthem, off key and with the wrong words)

Medusa22

I have a girlfriend and I find this man's stance to be old fashioned and ridiculous. However, I believe that he has the right to express his own opinion but people should also be allowed to criticise him if they disagree. In any case, I'm sure that publicly announcing his stance will cause a loss of earnings and that pleases me greatly. If people want to boycott the restaurant and stage a ''kiss-in'' then they are perfectly entitled to do so. What if he had said that he doesn't agree with blacks mixing with whites but he would allow them into his restaurant? There would be outcry. I wouldn't be comfortable eating in a fast-food chain whose owner believes that I am not entitled to the same rights as others.

jaydoxx

Attabear wrote: »

Elected officials claim to speak for everyone or at least the majority of people all the time. That's not dictatorship.

Politicians in Ireland routinely claim that right and they justify it by saying they have a mandate.

Words like fascism and dictatorship are bandied around much too easily for my liking.

But what is the basis for their claim that Chick-Fil-A isn't welcome in their cities? Those anti-gay organisations are not illegal in any way, nor are they hateful, just very very ignorant. The conservatives who share these beliefs are free to set up business wherever they wish and are clearly as anti-gay as this guy.

If any of those mayors did anything similar to Israelis involved in the Israel Palestine conflict, it'd be a whole other level of outrage. I'm all for gay rights, as I should because I am gay but it's not right to prevent people with differing opinions to take automatic penalty to their from a city representative. If they really aren't welcome then there is nothing to fear by having them opening a new branch and subsequently closing due to lack of supposed support.

Attabear

Medusa22 wrote: »

I have a girlfriend and I find this man's stance to be old fashioned and ridiculous. However, I believe that he has the right to express his own opinion but people should also be allowed to criticise him if they disagree. In any case, I'm sure that publicly announcing his stance will cause a loss of earnings and that pleases me greatly. If people want to boycott the restaurant and stage a ''kiss-in'' then they are perfectly entitled to do so. What if he had said that he doesn't agree with blacks mixing with whites but he would allow them into his restaurant? There would be outcry. I wouldn't be comfortable eating in a fast-food chain whose owner believes that I am not entitled to the same rights as others.

Seems to sum things up for me. Lets all enjoy the rest of our day in peace.

I'd love some fried chicken now.

mikemac1

Medusa22 wrote: »

In any case, I'm sure that publicly announcing his stance will cause a loss of earnings and that pleases me greatly. If people want to boycott the restaurant and stage a ''kiss-in'' then they are perfectly entitled to do so.

Don't be so sure

Business may go down in some places but it will rise in others

Seems to be doing well in Arkansas

Hundreds of residents in Bryan and College Station waited in line for more than an hour to get their meal in support of Cathy.

"He just had his right to voice his opinion and his values. I feel like being out here and being a part of this and showing that that's what we should all be able to do as Americans,” said Lori Novosad, a Chick-fil-A customer.

http://www.kbtx.com/home/headlines/Chick-fil-A-GainsLoses-Customers-After-Controversial-Comment-164683176.html

Mike Huckabee (remember him) drumming up some support.

Sea Filly

Attabear wrote: »

And others are entitled to say they disagree with those opinions.

Of course they are.

Attabear

jaydoxx wrote: »

But what is the basis for their claim that Chick-Fil-A isn't welcome in their cities? Those anti-gay organisations are not illegal in any way, nor are they hateful, just very very ignorant. The conservatives who share these beliefs are free to set up business wherever they wish and are clearly as anti-gay as this guy.

If any of those mayors did anything similar to Israelis involved in the Israel Palestine conflict, it'd be a whole other level of outrage. I'm all for gay rights, as I should because I am gay but it's not right to prevent people with differing opinions to take automatic penalty to their from a city representative. If they really aren't welcome then there is nothing to fear by having them opening a new branch and subsequently closing due to lack of supposed support.

I still claim that a public representative is free to say they are not welcome in their cities and that is not an example of fascism or dictatorship.

Attabear

Sea Filly wrote: »

Of course they are.

Great, lets go get some chicken.

You're buying.:)

jaydoxx

hooradiation wrote: »

You do fucking know what a representative democracy is, right?
Protip, you live in one

Sorry I should have said they spoke for everyone where they didn't have the right to do so. Unless of course the entire City of Boston is discriminating against Christians and their business' right to freedom of beliefs and values.:p

Attabear wrote: »

I still claim that a public representative is free to say they are not welcome in their cities and that is not an example of fascism or dictatorship.

Okay so maybe it's not to that degree, but I still don't believe it was right in this case.

Corkfeen

Attabear wrote: »

I still claim that a public representative is free to say they are not welcome in their cities and that is not an example of fascism or dictatorship.

I'm gonna have to agree due to the fact that they're not dictators, they must get elected to office and they can't keep their position as long as they want. If they say the company is not welcome that is based on public opinion, otherwise they won't get re-elected to office. T'is as simple as that..

jaydoxx

Corkfeen wrote: »

I'm gonna have to agree due to the fact that they're not dictators, they must get elected to office and they can't keep their position as long as they want. If they say the company is not welcome that is based on public opinion, otherwise they won't get re-elected to office. T'is as simple as that..

Technically, hitler was an elected official.

Technically:pac::pac:

Attabear

jaydoxx wrote: »

Sorry I should have said they spoke for everyone where they didn't have the right to do so. Unless of course the entire City of Boston is discriminating against Christians and their business' right to freedom of beliefs and values.:p

When politicians claim to be speaking for the people, they don't literally mean every single person. That's not how democracy works.

I think.:)

And fair enough, you have every right to disagree with their pronouncements on this matter.

I'm just upset I was called a fascist.:)

Corkfeen

jaydoxx wrote: »

Technically, hitler was an elected official.

Technically:pac::pac:

When exactly did Hitler go for reelection? He was elected as chancellor, not dictator. The odds of dictatorships starting in individual states are zero.... Country wide dictatorship is also extremely unlikely given the fact that individual states differ far too much to have a successful dictatorship.

Attabear

Corkfeen wrote: »

When exactly did Hitler go for reelection? He was elected as chancellor, not dictator. The odds of dictatorships starting in individual states are zero....

Are we still talking about chicken?

If you read the first post and last post of this thread, you'd be stunned.

I love Boards!

hooradiation

jaydoxx wrote: »

Sorry I should have said they spoke for everyone where they didn't have the right to do so. Unless of course the entire City of Boston is discriminating against Christians and their business' right to freedom of beliefs and values.:p

Given the volume of money that has been funnelled into anti-gay lobby groups by Chick-fil-A (and not Dan Cathy himself) claiming that "oh, it's just his opinion" is disingenuous at best .

Basically as long as the company wants to fund groups who lobby against basic civil rights, then fuck those guys.
It's not just "opinion" it's lobbying.

Kev_2012

What a load of bull****. Why can't he have an opinion? This is what really grinds my gears. Any opinion against gay marriage is "wrong". Opinions aren't fucking wrong, get over ye'reselves. Fuck sake.

Attabear

Kev_2012 wrote: »

What a load of bull****. Why can't he have an opinion? This is what really grinds my gears. Any opinion against gay marriage is "wrong". Opinions aren't fucking wrong, get over ye'reselves. Fuck sake.

Opinions can be wrong.

If I said, in my opinion, the moon landings were a hoax. I would be wrong.

jaydoxx

Corkfeen wrote: »

When exactly did Hitler go for reelection? He was elected as chancellor, not dictator. The odds of dictatorships starting in individual states are zero.... Country wide dictatorship is also extremely unlikely given the fact that individual states differ far too much to have a successful dictatorship.

ah right thought chancellor was the highest position back then:P
But out of curiosity why would it be less likely for a single state to start a dictatorship?:)

Attabear

Kev_2012 wrote: »

What a load of bull****. Why can't he have an opinion? This is what really grinds my gears. Any opinion against gay marriage is "wrong". Opinions aren't fucking wrong, get over ye'reselves. Fuck sake.

NEVER!!!!

hooradiation

Kev_2012 wrote: »

What a load of bull****. Why can't he have an opinion? This is what really grinds my gears. Any opinion against gay marriage is "wrong". Opinions aren't fucking wrong, get over ye'reselves. Fuck sake.

Opinions are not sacred, nor does holding one protect you from being disagreed with and ridiculed.

This has been another episode of "Basic things you should have learned in primary school, but apparently didn't"

Kev_2012

Attabear wrote: »

Opinions can be wrong.

If I said, in my opinion, the moon landings were a hoax. I would be wrong.

No, opinions aren't right or wrong in fact. Look it up.

Who is it up to say whether something is morally right or wrong? Nobody's, that's where opinions come into the equation.

Vegetarians think it's wrong to eat meat for example, they aren't right or wrong, but that's their opinion.

I'm not going to go along and stage a protest against vegetarians because I don't agree with what they think am I?

This is just a prime example of political correctness gone insane, and people are becoming afraid to speak their own mind because of it. The world is turning into a bunch of fake people who only say and think what the world wants them to think. Sounds like a sh!t world to me!

ratracer

Attabear wrote: »

Opinions can be wrong.

If I said, in my opinion, the moon landings were a hoax. I would be wrong.

No you wouldn't be wrong, moon landings were a work of fiction.....

Attabear

Kev_2012 wrote: »

No, opinions aren't right or wrong in fact. Look it up.

In my opinion, you're wrong.

jaydoxx

hooradiation wrote: »

Given the volume of money that has been funnelled into anti-gay lobby groups by Chick-fil-A (and not Dan Cathy himself) claiming that "oh, it's just his opinion" is disingenuous at best .

Basically as long as the company wants to fund groups who lobby against basic civil rights, then fuck those guys.
It's not just "opinion" it's lobbying.

Look i'm not supporting their opinions but they are entitled to have their concerns heard as a special interest group. And as long as the current model of government protects the practice of lobbying, they should continue to do so.

It's a pile of bull****, but its reality.

Corkfeen

jaydoxx wrote: »

ah right thought chancellor was the highest position back then:P
But out of curiosity why would it be less likely for a single state to start a dictatorship?:)

I'm not sure if you're bull****ting at this point. Hitler was appointed by Hindenburg, Hinderburg as president at the time was technically more powerful but Hitler's eventual move to power was as a result of Hindenburg's ill health and economic woes. Either way parties had input before the dictatorship and the word of either the president or chancellor was not absolute.

Every other state in America would be opposed to it and most people in states recognise themselves as American, not Californian or whatever state they come from. So the mayors and governors would simply be removed from office if they were idiotic enough to think that becoming an individual dictatorship would be a good idea... :pac:

Attabear

ratracer wrote: »

No you wouldn't be wrong, moon landings were a work of fiction.....

Do you have a newsletter I could subscribe to?

jaydoxx

Corkfeen wrote: »

I'm not sure if you're bull****ting at this point. Hitler was appointed by Hindenburg, Hinderburg as president at the time was technically more powerful but Hitler's eventual move to power was as a result of Hindenburg's ill health and economic woes. Either way parties had input before the dictatorship and the word of either the president or chancellor was not absolute.

Every other state in America would be opposed to it and most people in states recognise themselves as American, not Californian. So the mayors and governors would simply be removed from office if they idiotic to think that become an individual dictatorship would be a good idea... :pac:

No bull****, just should've listened more in history ahaha

I always thought you just said "oh btw bitches i'm running the country now" and had enough guns to quell any rebels to become a dictator. Or is that autocracy?:p

Kev_2012

hooradiation wrote: »

Opinions are not sacred, nor does holding one protect you from being disagreed with and ridiculed.

This has been another episode of "Basic things you should have learned in primary school, but apparently didn't"

Hahaha round of applause for the smartar$e.

I know that. People can disagree with opinions, but people overreacting like this is insane. Just get on with it and differ about their opinion on the matter. Why should that man change his beliefs because of a majority? What he is saying isn't illegal or harming people.

Scientology has 8 million followers, I think it's a ridiculous "religion", but I'm not going to hold a big protest in Limerick if they opened a church here.

People are getting far too sensitive about things.

Attabear wrote: »

In my opinion, you're wrong.

Fair enough, although the definition of an opinion is fact and not itself an opinion. Just though I'd clear the air there.

hooradiation

jaydoxx wrote: »

Look i'm not supporting their opinions but they are entitled to have their concerns heard as a special interest group. And as long as the current model of government protects the practice of lobbying, they should continue to do so.

It's a pile of bull****, but its reality.

This can't be both ways, either it's the cranky president of a fast food company who thinks America is "inviting gods judgement" - because after Indian genocide, slavery, segregation and nine police academy movies somehow not invoking gods judgement, this is what's going to really tick him off - and as such it really is "just his opinion" no matter how stupid and wrong that opinion is or he's using his company to fund lobby groups in which case he can't really hide behind that excuse because at that point it's not "just his opinion".
He is seeking to shape the political landscape to suit his views with the money from his business, so, frankly, fuck him.

hooradiation

Kev_2012 wrote: »

I know that. People can disagree with opinions, but people overreacting like this is insane. Just get on with it and differ about their opinion on the matter. Why should that man change his beliefs because of a majority? What he is saying isn't illegal or harming people.

Given his company has funded lobby groups who work to deny two consenting adults the right to get married, I'd say it is.

jaydoxx

Kev_2012 wrote: »

I know that. People can disagree with opinions, but people overreacting like this is insane. Just get on with it and differ about their opinion on the matter. Why should that man change his beliefs because of a majority? What he is saying isn't illegal or harming people.

Scientology has 8 million followers, I think it's a ridiculous "religion", but I'm not going to hold a big protest in Limerick if they opened a church here.

People are getting far too sensitive about things.

People are going to protest, the franchise will probably increase revenue in the bible belt and incur losses in the metropolitan branches. The point is people who may not have known can now make informed decisions about where they spend their money. After all would you want to give profits to someone who actively tried to take your rights?:rolleyes:

And I would recommend you do protest a church of scientology in your area:pac:

hooradiation wrote: »

This can't be both ways, either it's the cranky president of a fast food company who thinks America is "inviting gods judgement" - because after Indian genocide, slavery, segregation and nine police academy movies somehow not invoking gods judgement, this is what's going to really tick him off - and as such it really is "just his opinion" no matter how stupid and wrong that opinion is or he's using his company to fund lobby groups in which case he can't really hide behind that excuse because at that point it's not "just his opinion".
He is seeking to shape the political landscape to suit his views with the money from his business, so, frankly, fuck him.

Correct me if I'm wrong, because I'm no expert here, but his opinion is based on his religious beliefs and that's exactly why lobbying exists isn't it? For special interest groups to express themselves in a political setting.

Again please correct me if i'm way off in thinking that:p

Attabear

Kev_2012 wrote: »

Hahaha round of applause for the smartar$e.

I know that. People can disagree with opinions, but people overreacting like this is insane. Just get on with it and differ about their opinion on the matter. Why should that man change his beliefs because of a majority? What he is saying isn't illegal or harming people.

Scientology has 8 million followers, I think it's a ridiculous "religion", but I'm not going to hold a big protest in Limerick if they opened a church here.

People are getting far too sensitive about things.



Fair enough, although the definition of an opinion is fact and not itself an opinion. Just though I'd clear the air there.

Depends what you mean by opinion.:)

Colmustard

He can have any opinion he likes, but if he is a business owner catering for the public he cant say a law biding section of the community is unwellcome in that business, that is discrimination fullstop.

Links234

I have to laugh at the "personal opinion" claims every time someone from the religious right in America mouths off. Sure, that's just like your opinion maaan... great, well its not your opinion I care about, its what your doing I care about. Like, donating millions to hate groups. That's the issue here, and its crazy that this whole thing can be so skewed and spun to be made out to be about this guys "personal opinion"

Corkfeen

jaydoxx wrote: »

Correct me if I'm wrong, because I'm no expert here, but his opinion is based on his religious beliefs and that's exactly why lobbying exists isn't it? For special interest groups to express themselves in a political setting.

Again please correct me if i'm way off in thinking that:p

The issue I have with these particular lobby groups is that their lobbying is based on a book . I can even understand to a degree abortion lobby groups even though I don't agree with any of their opinions. But Anti-Same sex marriage lobby groups is religions believing that they have the right to dictate the civil rights and equality of the individual based on an ancient religious text. Their objections are not in anyway legitimate and plenty of false-truths are used by them. If there was efforts to make all churches to have same sex marriages, I could actually understand them lobbying against that. But that is not the situation.

To use an example, Mormons at one point believed black people had the mark of Cain so did not deserve the same rights as everyone else. I don't think they should have a right to lobby against black rights though because their religion doesn't support it.

They should be allowed to hold opinions but shouldn't influence policy outcomes if it limits the rights of an individual unnecessarily .

jaydoxx

Corkfeen wrote: »

The issue I have with these particular lobby groups is that their lobbying is based on a book . I can even understand to a degree abortion lobby groups even though I don't agree with any of their opinions. But Anti-Same sex marriage lobby groups is religions believing that they have the right to dictate the civil rights and equality of the individual based on an ancient religious text. Their objections are not in anyway legitimate and plenty of false-truths are used by them. If there was efforts to make all churches to have same sex marriages, I could actually understand them lobbying against that. But that is not the situation.

To use an example, Mormons at one point believed black people had the mark of Cain so did not deserve the same rights as everyone else. I don't think they should have a right to lobby against black rights though because their religion doesn't support it.

They should be allowed to hold opinions but shouldn't influence policy outcomes if it limits the rights of an individual unnecessarily .

That's a perfectly sound argument, I guess I just feel sorry for their stupid ignorance:p
But I still think that it was wrong for the mayor of chicago to say what he did.

walrusgumble

bluewolf wrote: »

they're officially designated hate groups, i think that is pushing it
he is entitled to support them and the rest of us are entitled to have a problem with him

So, the rest of the people are also entitled to have a problem with fags shoving their relationship status down people's throats by standing outside the restaurants ?


There is a lot of waffle of "equality".

Equality requires you to treat like for like, and things that are not the same, different to each other. A married hetrosexual couple are not the same as homosexual couples, can never be the same either.


mod:
Banned.

walrusgumble

Corkfeen wrote: »

The issue I have with these particular lobby groups is that their lobbying is based on a book . I can even understand to a degree abortion lobby groups even though I don't agree with any of their opinions. But Anti-Same sex marriage lobby groups is religions believing that they have the right to dictate the civil rights and equality of the individual based on an ancient religious text. Their objections are not in anyway legitimate and plenty of false-truths are used by them. If there was efforts to make all churches to have same sex marriages, I could actually understand them lobbying against that. But that is not the situation.

To use an example, Mormons at one point believed black people had the mark of Cain so did not deserve the same rights as everyone else. I don't think they should have a right to lobby against black rights though because their religion doesn't support it.

They should be allowed to hold opinions but shouldn't influence policy outcomes if it limits the rights of an individual unnecessarily .

The reasoning for the preference to status quo in Ireland, is not primarily based on religion. Go and read the All Party Oireachtas Report on the Family 2006 (you can find it on the net)

walrusgumble

hooradiation wrote: »

Given the volume of money that has been funnelled into anti-gay lobby groups by Chick-fil-A (and not Dan Cathy himself) claiming that "oh, it's just his opinion" is disingenuous at best .

Basically as long as the company wants to fund groups who lobby against basic civil rights, then fuck those guys.
It's not just "opinion" it's lobbying.

What the the basis of this ridiculous notion that civil rights recongises the right of same sex couples to marry? Not even the ECtHR recognises such a right

Corkfeen

walrusgumble wrote: »

The reasoning for the preference to status quo in Ireland, is not primarily based on religion. Go and read the All Party Oireachtas Report on the Family 2006 (you can find it on the net)

Lesbian women and gay men have been found to suffer from
discrimination and prejudice resulting in disadvantage and
exclusion from full participation in society (Gay and Lesbian
Equality Network and Nexus Research Co-operative, 1995).
They also experience poorer mental health because of the
chronic stress associated with being a member of a
stigmatised minority group (Meyer, 2003). This situation has
been recently further exacerbated by the Irish government.
Through the introduction of the Social Welfare
(Miscellaneous) Bill 2004, which restricts the definition of
‘spouse’ or ‘couple’ to a married couple and to an opposite
sex cohabiting couple for state welfare schemes, Ireland is
now in breach of Article 14 (obligation not to discriminate)
and Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of
EHCR, and is the only EU country to have introduced
deliberately discriminatory legislation against lesbians and
gays for over a decade (Equality Coalition, 2004). Hence,
legislative amendments are urgently needed to reverse this
situation and to promote and support their full participation
in all aspects of society, including legally recognised
relationships and families.

Basically that they have the right to recognition in their relationship.

Irish Council for Civil Liberties:

However, in Goodwin v United Kingdom and I v United
Kingdom37 the Court, in a unanimous decision, found that
the UK was in breach of Articles 8 and 12 of the ECHR. The
Court found that although the right to marry is subject to the
national laws of the Contracting States the limitations on it
must not restrict or reduce the right in such a way or to such
an extent that the very essence of the right is impaired. The
Court found that the UK laws, in prohibiting a post-operative
transsexual from marrying a member of their former gender,
impaired the very right to marry and was in violation of the
Convention.

The rights of the individual are damaged and a well rounded argument again

Arguments against:

Church teaching stresses that marriage is exclusively
between a man and a woman, because this is part of the
basic structure of the complementarity of the sexes,
something rooted in creation, and not simply a social or
cultural construct. It may, in certain circumstances, be in
the public interest to provide legal protection to the social,
fiscal and inheritance entitlements of persons who support
caring relationships which generate dependency, provided
always that these relationships are recognised as being
qualitatively different from marriage and that their
acceptance does not dilute the uniqueness of marriage.

The church thinks that the government should limit marriage as a result of church teaching.

Giving ‘gay’ relationships marital status will destroy marriage.
Homosexual and lesbian pairings are not marriage and never
can be. It is futile therefore to pretend that they can or
should be given a special status or treatment equivalent to
that of marriage …

The opposing arguments from the document you mention lack any argument. They center entirely around the so called destruction of marriage which divorce was going to do to the country as well. Some other ones that crop up is that they can't carry children.... The vast majority of the opposition in the document were religious or affiliated with religions. At one point, there was a group claiming that you choose your sexuality. So my point still stands. The world isn't going to fall apart as a result, numerous countries already have it and it poses no issue.

Attabear

walrusgumble wrote: »

So, the rest of the people are also entitled to have a problem with fags shoving their relationship status down people's throats by standing outside the restaurants ?


There is a lot of waffle of "equality".

Equality requires you to treat like for like, and things that are not the same, different to each other. A married hetrosexual couple are not the same as homosexual couples, can never be the same either.

It really doesn't, that sounds like the opposite of equality!

dr.bollocko

Walrusgrumble banned.

jank

Corkfeen wrote: »

The word fascism gets thrown around a lot. The American government is in no way close to being fascist. Firstly, i've never heard of a fascist state that were in favour of equal rights for all.

Not strictly fascist but communist totalitarian states advocated equality, brotherhood and comradeship before killing up to 100 million people, in fact basing the right to rule on those very things.

Corkfeen wrote: »

States are perfectly within their rights to tell companies that do fund hate groups to **** off and generally they won't be blocked as a result of the mayors opposition but if there's a large scale protest and boycotting in regards to them on the other hand that is based on public opinion. If public opinion isn't actually opposed to them, I doubt the mayor's stance will have any effect upon their ability to open.

Unfortunately they are not within their rights at all as it would be against the law. Just because someone has a different opinion as you, doesn't mean they cannot be afford the same rights as anyone. That's the crux of a tolerant society that liberals seem to forget, you have to accept the fact that there are others with extreme opinions who have just a right to be heard as those who are advocating rights for gays, women and so on.

Corkfeen wrote: »

Companies that do fund hate groups (they mightn't be hating enough for you but they still constitute hate) are always to going to result in issues. If a company that funded white supremacists or people who were opposed to inter-racial marriage attempted to base in a city, you'd see opposition once again.

Hate groups are such an arbitrary term. Who decides this? Apparently the ADL and the Southern Poverty Law Center do. So there is no "official" list of hate groups anywhere in the US. Sorry but I am not trusting what the ADL say about these groups when they have an entirely different agenda.

This is all political, if you cant see that then you are blind.

jank

Attabear wrote: »

I still claim that a public representative is free to say they are not welcome in their cities and that is not an example of fascism or dictatorship.

Would you be so understanding if we turned this around.

A business owner expressing his personal opinion that gays should marry while an elected mayor then says that he would NOT let that business setup in their jurisdiction. Would you be OK with that?

Attabear

jank wrote: »

Not strictly fascist but communist totalitarian states advocated equality, brotherhood and comradeship before killing up to 100 million people, in fact basing the right to rule on those very things.

You brought up fascism.

No one else did.:)

Shenshen

Of course he has the right to hold and pronounce this views.
But then, surely, all the protestors have the right to hold their views and pronounce and demonstrate them peacefully?

Why should freedom of thought mean freedom not to be criticised and face the disapproval of others?
It's hardly fascism, although that is a word that people who don't want to face differing view points often like to throw around.

Shenshen

Attabear wrote: »

You brought up fascism.

No one else did.:)

Erm, the article in the OP did?

hooradiation

jaydoxx wrote: »

Correct me if I'm wrong, because I'm no expert here, but his opinion is based on his religious beliefs and that's exactly why lobbying exists isn't it? For special interest groups to express themselves in a political setting.

Again please correct me if i'm way off in thinking that:p

And so fucking what?
"It's just his opinion" is never a valid defense - and doubly so when your funding organisations who actively seek to limit or revoke the rights of a section of the population based on their sexual orientation.

The people who are protesting chik-fil-a aren't doing it because their president is a terrible shit with awful ideas, they're doing it because he's using the money from that company to fund political campaigns that seek to undermine the rights of people.
They're boycotting it, because they want to draw attention to this practice, so that people know that even though they may not agree with the stance that Dan Cathy personally has, but by going there they are supporting the stance he has monetarily. Both matter.

walrusgumble wrote: »

What the the basis of this ridiculous notion that civil rights recongises the right of same sex couples to marry?

really?
Are you honestly asking why denying two consenting adults the right to marry each other based on both their genders being the same is a civil rights issue?

Are you fucking kidding me?

Attabear

jank wrote: »

Would you be so understanding if we turned this around.

A business owner expressing his personal opinion that gays should marry while an elected mayor then says that he would NOT let that business setup in their jurisdiction. Would you be OK with that?

He is entitled to say whatever he likes, and deal with the repercussions of his statement, whether it be protests or not getting elected next term. That's politics.

You are the one equating the freedom to make statements as an elected representative with fascism.

Attabear

Shenshen wrote: »

Erm, the article in the OP did?

Fair enough, apologies to Jank but I disagree with the application of the term in both the OP and in subsequent posts.