Are gay rights, including gay marriage, evolving?

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

07/26/2012 06:08:06 PM · #5702

Originally posted by escapetooz:

You'll have to talk to the people who put the books together and said, "This is the bible."

07/26/2012 06:30:14 PM · #5703

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

He was saying that Chick-fil-a was guilty of breaking levitical laws but seemingly only in a very metaphorical way. So why does Shannon or Venser get to decide the law is metaphorical?

Actually, I regard them as mythical and/or comical, depending upon the specific biblical law, with the metaphorical or literal aspect about as relevant as a declaration in Harry Potter. Chick-Fil-A's owners can believe whatever they want in private, but serving the public requires keeping your personal prejudices to yourself... exactly like people who used to believe blacks shouldn't be served and contributed to campaigns against their rights to equality.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Clearly the dietary rules did change and yet we say God is unchanging.

Clearly, or just assumed since most people ignore them now? Nowhere in the Bible do unclean meats get the green light, let alone other ridiculous prohibitions such as mixing wool and cotton. Surely you can also point out where the laws against tattoos or trimming beards are lifted? Yeah, didn't think so. Regarding your Constitution analogy, that particular document was intended to be revised and changed with the times (the authors literally said so), while God's word is supposed to be strictly UNchanging and apparent to all (the authors literally said so).

07/26/2012 06:50:24 PM · #5704

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
He was saying that Chick-fil-a was guilty of breaking levitical laws but seemingly only in a very metaphorical way. So why does Shannon or Venser get to decide the law is metaphorical?

Actually, I regard them as mythical and/or comical, depending upon the specific biblical law, with the metaphorical or literal aspect about as relevant as a declaration in Harry Potter. Chick-Fil-A's owners can believe whatever they want in private, but serving the public requires keeping your personal prejudices to yourself... exactly like people who used to believe blacks shouldn't be served and contributed to campaigns against their rights to equality.

As far as I know Chick-Fil-A has never done as such. All that has happened is the CEO has stood up and said, "hey, we're traditional marriage people." They have affirmed that they will serve everybody gladly and do not discriminate by any of the usual discriminators including sexual orientation. So, while I agree with you, it seems moot because that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about Chicago saying, "you can't open a store here because you don't support gay marriage" and the ACLU saying, "hold on, not so quick, that's actually not true".

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6

07/26/2012 07:11:10 PM · #5705

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Clearly the dietary rules did change and yet we say God is unchanging.

Clearly, or just assumed since most people ignore them now? Nowhere in the Bible do unclean meats get the green light, let alone other ridiculous prohibitions such as mixing wool and cotton. Surely you can also point out where the laws against tattoos or trimming beards are lifted? Yeah, didn't think so. Regarding your Constitution analogy, that particular document was intended to be revised and changed with the times (the authors literally said so), while God's word is supposed to be strictly UNchanging and apparent to all (the authors literally said so).

I'm pretty sure Acts 10-11 would give the green light to unclean meats.

escapetooz

Canon EOS-500D Rebel T1i

07/26/2012 08:33:31 PM · #5706

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Clearly the dietary rules did change and yet we say God is unchanging.

Clearly, or just assumed since most people ignore them now? Nowhere in the Bible do unclean meats get the green light, let alone other ridiculous prohibitions such as mixing wool and cotton. Surely you can also point out where the laws against tattoos or trimming beards are lifted? Yeah, didn't think so. Regarding your Constitution analogy, that particular document was intended to be revised and changed with the times (the authors literally said so), while God's word is supposed to be strictly UNchanging and apparent to all (the authors literally said so).

I'm pretty sure Acts 10-11 would give the green light to unclean meats.

Sooo that thing about marrying your rapist?

Family values!!! :D

07/26/2012 10:10:38 PM · #5707

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

As far as I know Chick-Fil-A has never done as such.

Chick-Fil-A has contributed millions to several groups actively campaigning against gays and refused to allow gay couples to participate in their family retreats. The restaurant chain has been turned away by Boston, Chicago, San Francisco and several universities (though I agree with the ACLU on this one). Acts 10-11 VERY clearly refers to a vision that taught Peter to accept faithful Gentiles, not food (as if an anonymous author's hearsay of one person's trance vision of God floating down a magic sheet containing living quadrupeds, reptiles and birds for Peter to kill and eat makes ANY sense as revoking a ban on eating shellfish or fat anyway).

07/26/2012 11:00:54 PM · #5708

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
As far as I know Chick-Fil-A has never done as such.

Chick-Fil-A has contributed millions to several groups actively campaigning against gays and refused to allow gay couples to participate in their family retreats. The restaurant chain has been turned away by Boston, Chicago, San Francisco and several universities (though I agree with the ACLU on this one). Acts 10-11 VERY clearly refers to a vision that taught Peter to accept faithful Gentiles, not food (as if an anonymous author's hearsay of one person's trance vision of God floating down a magic sheet containing living quadrupeds, reptiles and birds for Peter to kill and eat makes ANY sense as revoking a ban on eating shellfish or fat anyway).

I think you are right in that the vision talks about gentiles, but it also talks about food. I'll quote the most academic commentary I have (Oxford Bible Commentary):

The immediate focus of the vision, however, is on food. The list of "four-footed creatures and reptiles and birds of the air" (v.12) echoes the creation narrative of Gen I, and is deliberately inclusive: the heavenly voice prohibits the classification of foods into "clean" and "unclean" that was fundamental to the Jewish food laws...the whole range of created food is clean not simply because God made it but because God has "cleansed" it (v.15).

That's good enough for me. You are allowed to disregard if you wish.

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6

07/26/2012 11:19:21 PM · #5709

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

That's good enough for me.

No doubt, but four footed animals, reptiles and birds are not even close to "the whole range of created food" that was prohibited (shellfish, fat, blood...?), there is nothing whatsoever to indicate that the "cleansed" food wasn't specific to just the doomed critters on the sheet, and a decades-old, 3rd party account of one person's trance vision is a downright idiotic way to publicize lifting a global ban... especially considering that the target audience (Jews) apparently didn't get the message.

If a grand overlord makes it crystal clear that something is off-limits for consumption, and that very thing is then repeatedly presented IN A DREAM with an invitation to munch (apple anyone?), I believe the expected response is "WTF?!?" in Hebrew.

Message edited by author 2012-07-26 23:46:15.

escapetooz

Canon EOS-500D Rebel T1i

07/27/2012 01:21:44 PM · #5710

So... just gunna ignore the other things written about marriage then? Rapists? Anybody? Anybody?

Mousie

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

07/27/2012 01:45:14 PM · #5711

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
He was saying that Chick-fil-a was guilty of breaking levitical laws but seemingly only in a very metaphorical way. So why does Shannon or Venser get to decide the law is metaphorical?

Actually, I regard them as mythical and/or comical, depending upon the specific biblical law, with the metaphorical or literal aspect about as relevant as a declaration in Harry Potter. Chick-Fil-A's owners can believe whatever they want in private, but serving the public requires keeping your personal prejudices to yourself... exactly like people who used to believe blacks shouldn't be served and contributed to campaigns against their rights to equality.

As far as I know Chick-Fil-A has never done as such. All that has happened is the CEO has stood up and said, "hey, we're traditional marriage people." They have affirmed that they will serve everybody gladly and do not discriminate by any of the usual discriminators including sexual orientation. So, while I agree with you, it seems moot because that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about Chicago saying, "you can't open a store here because you don't support gay marriage" and the ACLU saying, "hold on, not so quick, that's actually not true".

Dr. Achoo, you are wildly misinformed and need to do your diligence, for it's apparent you haven't done even the minimum required to form a valid opinion on this matter. Your misunderstanding is precisely what conservatives have been parroting over and over to hide what Cathy has actually said, but as someone who has followed this issue from DAY ONE, I assert that your ignorance of the facts is inexcusable. Congratulations, you've jumped through hoops placed just for you, like so many on the right. Welcome to the echo chamber. You've been played by your own team.

THIS is what Cathy has said, and why there has been a furor... and let me tell you, it is not equivalent to "we think traditional marriage is great!":

"It's very clear in Romans chapter 1, if we look at society today, we see all the twisted up kind of stuff that's going on. Washington trying to redefine the definition of marriage and all the other kinds of things that we goâ��if you go upstream from that, in Romans chapter 1, you will see that because we have not acknowledged God and because we have not thanked God, that we have been left victim to the foolishness of our own thoughts, and as result, we are suffering the consequences of a society and culture who has not acknowledged God or not thanked Godâ��he's left us to a deprived mind. It's tragic and we live in a culture of that today."

"â�¦I think we are inviting God's judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at Him and say 'we know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage' and 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"

This is an attack on gay rights and gay marriage in particular. He is not speaking in support of something... he is speaking AGAINST gays. He blames the entire suite of society's ills on gay marriage and other deviations from his sour little view of how the world should be.

"Twisted", "deprived" [sic], "victim", "foolishness", "suffering", "tragic", "inviting God's judgement", "shake our fist at him", "prideful", "arrogant", "audacity". All in the span of two brief quotes.

Then here's those pesky little facts that he has repeatedly donated to anti-gay groups for years, even hate groups according to the SPLC (for many have knowingly repeated falsehoods to denigrate gays), and that there are numerous cases of gay employees reporting hostile work environments while employed at his company.

But sure, go on believing that he's just standing up for his beliefs in a wholesome, fair, and positive way. That's what Fox wants you to think... because conservatives are too afraid to defend what he's ACTUALLY SAID. The man is a bigot, and does not believe I am his equal. He is on the record stating that my love is going to bring down society and incur god's wrath. He has literally equated my committed relationship with his, and the world's, suffering.

So, respectfully, why don't you find out what you're actually discussing before you run interference for those who'd see me stripped of my humanity.

Mousie

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

07/27/2012 01:49:17 PM · #5712

Because really, this whole playing the victim thing is getting really, really tired.

07/27/2012 01:58:21 PM · #5713

Originally posted by Mousie:

The man is a bigot, and does not believe I am his equal. He is on the record stating that my love is going to bring down society and incur god's wrath. He has literally equated my committed relationship with his, and the world's, suffering.

Cathy is a bigot, but he is also entitled to his opinion, however prejudiced and hateful it may be (just as others are entitled to boycott his business and point out that bigotry). We have had congressmen and presidential candidates make similar statements. Where it crosses the line is when personal beliefs trample the rights of others, as in discriminating against employees and customers and donating to hate groups that do the same. His job is to cook breaded poultry, not play judge and juror for God.

Mousie

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

07/27/2012 02:17:06 PM · #5714

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by Mousie:
The man is a bigot, and does not believe I am his equal. He is on the record stating that my love is going to bring down society and incur god's wrath. He has literally equated my committed relationship with his, and the world's, suffering.

Cathy is a bigot, but he is also entitled to his opinion, however prejudiced and hateful it may be (just as others are entitled to boycott his business and point out that bigotry). We have had congressmen and presidential candidates make similar statements. Where it crosses the line is when personal beliefs trample the rights of others, as in discriminating against employees and customers and donating to hate groups that do the same. His job is to cook breaded poultry, not play judge and juror for God.

The reason for my post is to disallow a flipping of the narrative that is being performed by the right.

This is not a story about a man who is in support of traditional marriages in a noble fight against hateful foes, it is about a man who is against gay marriages, despite gay marriage having absolutely no bearing on any two straight people who want to get married.

It chaps my ass when I hear that Cathy is being called out by 'intolerant' gays for 'supporting tradition'. This is not what he's doing, and to cast it as such is disingenuous at best, and willful malevolence at it's worst. Then to cast the side being discriminated against as the intolerant ones, justifying the original prejudice... that's just inexcusable evil.

Message edited by author 2012-07-27 14:19:05.

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

07/27/2012 03:08:58 PM · #5715

Originally posted by scalvert:

Shannon is right in this case. You can call him a bigot if you want. I know how that word gets used around here, but he is doing nothing illegal. He is entitled and only when Chicago suggested that they would prohibit him from opening a second Chick-fil-a did the ACLU step in and tell them "you can't do that". Shannon is also correct people can boycott his business if they want. However, I saw a good article that warns to be careful what you wish for. If you think such a boycott is a reasonable civic stance, then you have to also agree the opposite would be reasonable as well (ie. to boycott an establishment supporting gay marriage. Oreo anybody?). The article asked if we really want to juxtapose our commerce and political opinions, especially when groups that might disagree with you possess a significant amount of muscle and will to use it.

Personally, I think the best quote on the matter was, "I don't care what Cathy thinks. I'm here to eat chicken."

(I'm trying to find the blog article, but I can't seem to locate it. This is a repeated problem when I find something on Zite.)

BrennanOB

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

07/27/2012 03:11:37 PM · #5716

Originally posted by Mousie:

It chaps my ass when I hear that Cathy is being called out by 'intolerant' gays for 'supporting tradition'.

Well put. It does sadden me when I hear those who are stridently attacking another group be described as victims.

I will just add this chain to Domino's and Carl Junior's as places that actively support causes I oppose. Besides the horrid food they make makes it easy to stay away.

Message edited by author 2012-07-27 15:17:24.

07/27/2012 03:21:10 PM · #5717

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

The article asked if we really want to juxtapose our commerce and political opinions, especially when groups that might disagree with you possess a significant amount of muscle and will to use it.

Right... like when state Supreme Courts rule discrimination against gays in marriage laws unconstitutional or legislators pass a law for marriage equality, and then religious opponents with the ability and will to mobilize large groups of people (and a complete disregard for the separation of church and state) push for a popular vote against the minority. Like that.

Normally, I'm of the "I'm just here to eat chicken" opinion, and have fattened up at Chick-Fil-A before without the slightest care that they were a company with deep religious ties because they are entitled to their beliefs. However, when the organization is actively discriminating against or harming people, then the retailer has mixed commerce and political opinion, and I can eat chicken somewhere else out of social responsibility. With the rise of social media, the likelihood and scale of such a boycott grows. Business owners would be foolish to ignore this reality.

Message edited by author 2012-07-27 15:44:09.

07/27/2012 03:51:14 PM · #5718

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The article asked if we really want to juxtapose our commerce and political opinions, especially when groups that might disagree with you possess a significant amount of muscle and will to use it.

Right... like when state Supreme Courts rule discrimination against gays in marriage laws unconstitutional or legislators pass a law for marriage equality, and then religious opponents with the ability and will to mobilize large groups of people (and a complete disregard for the separation of church and state) push for a popular vote against the minority. Like that.

Naw. You are completely changing what I'm talking about. I'm talking simple "don't go here because we don't agree with them" movements. They are a) perfectly legal but b) cut both ways. You can't say boycotting Chick-fil-a is civic duty while boycotting Oreo is intolerance (well, you can, but you are just giving away your personal opinion rather than speaking to anything larger). The blog's point was valid. He (the author) supported gay marriage, but saw the futility of these boycotts (other than, I guess, press magnets). The problem in this specific case is that Christians are no strangers to persecution complexes (mousie and co. do not have the monopoly in that regard). For every person that boycotts Chick-fil-a there will be another that purposely goes because they feel a fellow Christian is being persecuted for their stand. Seeing that the vast majority of Chick-fil-a restaurants are in the south, I'm guessing they will do just fine.

We just ate at Chick-fil-a last week. Jenn likes to go when we can because they don't have any around us. I think the food and service is pretty good for fast food although I did note that it is harder to eat while driving than a Big Mac because the chicken is usually pretty hot. I had no idea about this hub-bub when I went and didn't care. It seemed nobody else cared either.

Message edited by author 2012-07-27 15:52:16.

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

07/27/2012 04:01:13 PM · #5719

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

You can't say boycotting Chick-fil-a is civic duty while boycotting Oreo is intolerance.

Chick-Fil-A is actively discriminating against people by banning them from company functions and donating millions to deny them equal rights. Dyeing a cookie does none of that. Sanctioning people for active discrimination is not intolerance.

Westboro Baptists could scream from the rooftops that gays shouldn't be allowed to visit National Parks, and we'd let them do it. That's religious tolerance. However, if they lined up at park entrances to keep gays out, then that's discrimination, and ensuring that the parks open to everyone is not intolerance or discrimination against the Westboro Baptists. They simply don't have that right.

Message edited by author 2012-07-27 16:12:37.

BrennanOB

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

07/27/2012 04:03:00 PM · #5720

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

For every person that boycotts Chick-fil-a there will be another that purposely goes because they feel a fellow Christian is being persecuted for their stand.

And let me tell you being a politically motivated shopper can be difficult! When the "Million Moms" said they would boycott J C Penny if they didn't fire Ellen DeGeneres that meant I had to go shop at J C Penny. J C Penny? Why did it have to be J C Penny? Why couldn't they have attacked a store I like to shop in? Oh well at least I got to stock up on my synthetic blends.

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D

07/27/2012 04:31:53 PM · #5721

Originally posted by BrennanOB:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
For every person that boycotts Chick-fil-a there will be another that purposely goes because they feel a fellow Christian is being persecuted for their stand.

And let me tell you being a politically motivated shopper can be difficult! When the "Million Moms" said they would boycott J C Penny if they didn't fire Ellen DeGeneres that meant I had to go shop at J C Penny. J C Penny? Why did it have to be J C Penny? Why couldn't they have attacked a store I like to shop in? Oh well at least I got to stock up on my synthetic blends.

ha! I love JC Penny. That probably discounts my coolness factor by quite a bit, but I find they have decent stuff. :)

I am declaring a new variation on Godwin's Law that involves bringing up Westboro Baptist. Shannon has just been found guilty! :P

frisca

Nikon D70

07/27/2012 05:32:35 PM · #5722

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
You can't say boycotting Chick-fil-a is civic duty while boycotting Oreo is intolerance.

Chick-Fil-A is actively discriminating against people by banning them from company functions and donating millions to deny them equal rights. Dyeing a cookie does none of that. Sanctioning people for active discrimination is not intolerance.
Westboro Baptists could scream from the rooftops that gays shouldn't be allowed to visit National Parks, and we'd let them do it. That's religious tolerance. However, if they lined up at park entrances to keep gays out, then that's discrimination, and ensuring that the parks open to everyone is not intolerance or discrimination against the Westboro Baptists. They simply don't have that right.

I've bolded and used italics to address this portion of the debate. It is LOGICALLY and LEGALLY incorrect to equate tolerance with active discrimination, or to suggest that by speaking out against something that is both illegal and immoral (this is arguable for those with more religious viewpoints, but for the purpose of my usage of this term here, I mean basic morality that to harm or promote hate against another is immoral) IS NOT THE SAME THING as saying "I support _____"

In simpler terms "I hate X" or "I think X is the cause of all society's ills" is not on the same playing field as "I support X". If Cathy had just said "We do not believe in gay marriage/do not support gay marriage" and left it at that, I'd call it "free speech" and while I don't agree, I would not have much cause to complain. HOWEVER, he uses the money earned from his business to support groups who propogate HATE against others, then a boycott is not only a consumer choice, but if you disagree with the stance, it is an obligation, otherwise you're supporting the company's ability to continue making the contributions it does and then tacit in the message that sends. One cannot be blind to that.

Making a rainbow cookie to show that you support equality is plainly not the same as doing or saying something that supports inequality. The latter is plainly immoral and no amount of "fancy talk" is going to remove that dirty foundation.

07/27/2012 06:58:31 PM · #5723

Oh, but these harmless people are only practicing their religion as guaranteed by the Constitution. It's the public being intolerant for not allowing them to follow their moral imperatives, and they should be free to refuse service to whomever they choose. That's not bigotry at all, RIGHT?

Message edited by author 2012-07-27 19:00:52.