Feedom Of Speech * Freedom Of Religion

**Papasito** · August-02-12, 06:53 AM

What did Dan Cathy say exactly?

“We are very much supportive of the family — the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that”

- Dan Cathy, President of Chik Fil A
http://www.getreligion.org/2012/07/w...s-really-said/
http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=38271

Not really so harsh when you hear the exact words.
He was being interviewed BY Christian Press, and expressed his Constitutionally empowered opinion. His actual quote is not offensive, but the twists and distortions the media has implied are, intentionally, to stir people up.

.

**Zacha341** · August-02-12, 06:57 AM

Hmmm! Just look at all of those virulent, extreme, 'intolerant', right-wing, tea party type folks lining up to get their chicken on!

**Papasito** · August-02-12, 07:12 AM

The same sex agenda has never had such a foothold in America. The President himself has added same-sex marraige to his re-election agenda, something that has never been done before. Gay and lesbian groups have pushed and pushed their cause for people of all faiths to be tolerant. Once they were tolerant, they wanted them to EMBRACE and SUPPORT it. Tolerance is not seen as enough.

"Without morals a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion, whose morality is so sublime and pure [[and) which insures to the good eternal happiness, are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments."
- Charles Carroll, signer of the Declaration of Independence
http://www.cancertutor.com/Quotes/Qu...residents.html

The Founding Fathers wrote Article 6 and the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which stipulate that there shall be no religious test or requirement for office, and that "there shall be no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".
In other words, the Founding Fathers not only wanted to establish freedom from the monarchial religious military industrial empire of the theocratic King of England [[the Head of the Church of England). They also wanted to establish freedom from the theocratic political ideology of the Calvinists and and Puritans and other theocratic clergy in America.

This nation was founded with a principle for freedom of faith.

People can agree to disagree on issues, but it does not give them the right to assault their beliefs and values.

**noise** · August-02-12, 07:38 AM

Originally Posted by Papasito

What did Dan Cathy say exactly?

You should post the entire statement if you want to be honest.

Being tolerant to intolerance is absurd and it's embarrassing that so many conservatives argue this like they actually have a valid point.

**rb336** · August-02-12, 09:00 AM

Without morals a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion, whose morality is so sublime and pure

Just for a start:

Leviticus 12:2
Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a woman have conceived seed, and born a man child: then she shall be unclean seven days; according to the days of the separation for her infirmity shall she be unclean.
Leviticus 12:6
But if she bear a maid child, then she shall be unclean two weeks, as in her separation: and she shall continue in the blood of her purifying threescore and six days.

Judges 19:22-24
22 Now as they were making their hearts merry, behold, the men of the city, certain sons of Belial, beset the house round about, and beat at the door, and spake to the master of the house, the old man, saying, Bring forth the man that came into thine house, that we may know him.
23 And the man, the master of the house, went out unto them, and said unto them, Nay, my brethren, nay, I pray you, do not so wickedly; seeing that this man is come into mine house, do not this folly.
24 Behold, here is my daughter a maiden, and his concubine; them I will bring out now, and humble ye them, and do with them what seemeth good unto you: but unto this man do not so vile a thing.

**ghettopalmetto** · August-02-12, 01:21 PM

Originally Posted by Papasito

The Founding Fathers wrote Article 6 and the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which stipulate that there shall be no religious test or requirement for office, and that "there shall be no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".
In other words, the Founding Fathers not only wanted to establish freedom from the monarchial religious military industrial empire of the theocratic King of England [[the Head of the Church of England). They also wanted to establish freedom from the theocratic political ideology of the Calvinists and and Puritans and other theocratic clergy in America.

This nation was founded with a principle for freedom of faith.

People can agree to disagree on issues, but it does not give them the right to assault their beliefs and values.

Alternatively:

The Founding Fathers wrote Article 6 and the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which stipulate that there shall be no religious test or requirement for office, and that "there shall be no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".
In other words, the Founding Fathers not only wanted to establish freedom from the monarchial religious military industrial empire of the theocratic King of England [[the Head of the Church of England). They also wanted to establish freedom from the theocratic political ideology of the Calvinists and and Puritans and other theocratic clergy in America.

This nation was founded with a principle for freedom of faith.

People can agree to disagree on issues, but it does not give them the right to assault their beliefs and values.

"Freedom of faith" can also be interpreted to mean "freedom FROM faith". Should we all be forced to believe in the same God worshipped by self-righteous Bible-thumping Holy Rollers? Personally, I don't believe in the concept of "being saved". My faith is not a self-help clinic, but instead teaches that we are here to do the work of God--not proseletyze and berate others. Is that also protected?

Likewise, "freedom of speech" also includes the Constitutionally-protected right to be pissed off at a bigot. It goes in all directions, good sir.

**Zacha341** · August-02-12, 01:32 PM

Good points. The definition of tolerance has really become distorted. The natural 'progression' as presented/ defended is that same sex marriage must be agreed upon as a measure of tolerance of the gay community.

I find the method of protest http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/02/us/us-chick-fil-a-debate/ "kiss protests" revealing. The theme beyond the signs and banners seen at most protests is a shock and offend visual statement to the 'intolerants'. Course if you say that you're intolerant or a bigot, but yet the protesters chose this style of protest FOR A RESULT... umm, ok, it easy to read how this will bow.

I doubt this presentation will compel. If it gets explicit it's going to be a long day for CF... Boding poorly for the argument of [[privacy, rights and consent). If so then the agenda is somewhat wrapped in the content of the protest! The level of displays will be interesting...

Has CF been involved in employee/ employer discrimination based on sexual preference as an edict from the CEO?

Originally Posted by Papasito

The same sex agenda has never had such a foothold in America. The President himself has added same-sex marraige to his re-election agenda, something that has never been done before. Gay and lesbian groups have pushed and pushed their cause for people of all faiths to be tolerant. Once they were tolerant, they wanted them to EMBRACE and SUPPORT it. Tolerance is not seen as enough.

**jiminnm** · August-02-12, 02:48 PM

Chick-Fil-A had a pretty good day.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...TMPX_blog.html

**Zacha341** · August-03-12, 06:54 AM

Chick-fil-A protests: Will petition and 'kiss-in' help or hurt?

http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-chick-fil-a-kiss-in-20120802,0,3873417.story

From article:
Nationwide, at least 15,000 people have agreed to participate in the kiss-in, McGehee said. But even among LGBT supporters, some wonder whether such an in-your-face act might be too provocative, or amount to taunting.

"I respect not patronizing their establishment ... but by taunting them in their establishment is hate-filled and inciting anger and hate," said one commenter on a Causes.com page urging people to participate in the kiss-in.

Suggested another: "Its okay to disagree but its not okay to confront a person on their views in such an aggressive and provocative manner. There are forums for that."

McGehee [a New York-based political activist who started the idea for the kiss-in] told the Los Angeles Times that she encouraged participants to be "polite and tasteful."

"This is about us showing our love.... We're not encouraging people to be outrageous or lewd."

She said the protest was less about trying to change the minds of people who are offended by LGBT love, and more about encouraging young people who are frightened to embrace their sexual orientation. "We want to tell young people, you are OK just the way you are."

**Papasito** · August-03-12, 07:30 AM

To "make out" with a person of the OPPOSITE sex in a public restaraunt is considered inappropriate and offensive.

That's why TOLERANCE alone is not enough for these groups... they not only want tolerance, they want support and endorsement!

People have the right to form their own opinion, not have the opinions of others forced on them. How can same-sex couples scream about the church's "bigotry" and "intolerance" when they are doing the exact same thing?

If Obama really supported same sex marraige, he could make an Executive Order TODAY that made "Civil Unions" or "Domestic Partnerships" legal, and give them the same legal rights as "Marraige"... But he won't.
He's going to hold that out like a dangling carrot ... as a "promise" ... to get people to vote for him ... and his track record for keeping promises is VERY bad.

He has made Executive orders to get his issues put through the system, bypassing everything, before. He would do it here, but he favors Politics over Principle.

**Zacha341** · August-03-12, 08:05 AM

Compelling post Papasito! Usually politicians will be, well 'politicians'...

And regarding bigotry, we have the 'tit-for-tat' play there. But here's the rub, everyone not indorsing same sex marriage is not a bigot. Some are not even repubs. Imagine that!?

Originally Posted by Papasito

How can same-sex couples scream about the church's "bigotry" and "intolerance" when they are doing the exact same thing?

If Obama really supported same sex marraige, he could make an Executive Order TODAY that made "Civil Unions" or "Domestic Partnerships" legal, and give them the same legal rights as "Marraige"... But he won't.

He's going to hold that out like a dangling carrot ... as a "promise" ... to get people to vote for him ... and his track record for keeping promises is VERY bad...

**firstandten** · August-03-12, 09:15 AM

Originally Posted by Papasito

If Obama really supported same sex marraige, he could make an Executive Order TODAY that made "Civil Unions" or "Domestic Partnerships" legal, and give them the same legal rights as "Marraige"... But he won't.
He's going to hold that out like a dangling carrot ... as a "promise" ... to get people to vote for him ... and his track record for keeping promises is VERY bad.

He has made Executive orders to get his issues put through the system, bypassing everything, before. He would do it here, but he favors Politics over Principle.

You don't quite understand what a President can and cannot do when it comes to executive orders. What Obama can and did do was to extend the benefits of same sex partners that were federal employees via executive order, but he can't just declare thru executive orders that same sex marriage is now legal. Besides the next president could come and undo the executive order and you would have a whole bunch of pissed off people.
If he could actually do what you say, then he would be King Obama not President Obama.

As far as keeping promises I know you like to think that he doesn't keep them and if you want to believe that, fine, but the facts don't bear that out. But hey, when has facts ever gotten in the way of a good narrative. especially of a guy you don't like.

What is true however is that you have a bunch of black pastors who are very pissed off about this subject and they want blacks to not vote for Obama.

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/0...-gay-marriage/

I'll let my thoughts about this marinate for a little while but I will throw one name at you that will give you a clue as to how I feel about that.

Rev Eddie Long - one of the biggest gay bashers out there.

**oladub** · August-03-12, 09:38 AM

I think this is an excessive punishment and disproportionate to what this guy did. I would say the same about off-handed comments by media people too even if the comments were the opposite. The guy was boorish but on his own time.

Exec Bullies Chick-Fil-A Worker, Then Promptly Gets Fired For It

**poobert** · August-03-12, 11:22 AM

You are right. He is absolutely entitled to his opinion and to express it. Others are equally entitled to oppose his opinions and protest them.

"That's why TOLERANCE alone is not enough for these groups... they not only want tolerance, they want support and endorsement!"

What do you define "tolerance" as? Not murdering them? You speak of "tolerance" like people such as yourself should be lauded for simply allowing them to exist.

Gays and Lesbians aren't looking for "support and endorsement" as far as I can tell. They're looking for rights and equality. You know, those things you keep talking about except when it relates to them. They're looking for equality under the law, not your approval or marriage in your church.

So yes, you and your Chick-fil-a buddies have the right to cling to your anti-gay viewpoints. You are welcome to shout about it in your churches. I am equally protected under the law to call you out as a bigot.

I happen to be a Christian. For the life of me, I can't understand why so many "Christians" in this country are more concerned about preventing marriage equality than these endless wars, the rampant poverty and economic inequality in this country, the endless bloodletting in Syria [[where Christians are expected to fare very poorly). That, to me, screams that it is about bigotry and hatred of the "other" since there are clearly, in the Christian ethos, far more pressing issues to be concerned about than Bob and Mike getting married.

**ghettopalmetto** · August-04-12, 11:16 AM

Originally Posted by poobert

I happen to be a Christian. For the life of me, I can't understand why so many "Christians" in this country are more concerned about preventing marriage equality than these endless wars, the rampant poverty and economic inequality in this country, the endless bloodletting in Syria [[where Christians are expected to fare very poorly). That, to me, screams that it is about bigotry and hatred of the "other" since there are clearly, in the Christian ethos, far more pressing issues to be concerned about than Bob and Mike getting married.

I have to chuckle at Dan Cathy's defenders when they start screaming "FREE SPEECH! FREE SPEECH!". I haven't heard of a single person trying to censor Dan Cathy. I *have* heard, however, a lot of people trying to legislate their self-help Jesus onto the other 80% of the country who doesn't share their religious views.

I recently read "Failing the Faithful" by Kathleen Kennedy Townsend. In it, she makes a personal account how churches in the United States are doing disservice to their flocks by focusing on divisive moralizing and the condemnation of personal lifestyles. The social justice message has been nearly lost. Nor does Ms. Townsend spare her own Catholic Church.

You can't pick a single phrase out of Leviticus and proclaim yourself holier-than-thou. Not unless you take every seventh year off work, and make the appropriate animal sacrifices too.

Funny part is, when Mr. Cathy proclaimed his "support for traditional marriage", did anyone think he was lashing out at single moms, or broken families--of which there are a hell of a lot more in Mr. Cathy's evangelical South than anywhere else in the United States?

Occurrence · August-04-12, 11:22 AM

I'm very intolerant of all organized religions. I think believing in imaginary things is both retarded and childish. I don't think churches should be banned like they think gay marriage should be banned. I do think churches shouldn't be tax exempt though. What's up with that?

**oladub** · August-05-12, 12:33 AM

firstandten: You don't quite understand what a President can and cannot do when it comes to executive orders. What Obama can and did do was to extend the benefits of same sex partners that were federal employees via executive order, but he can't just declare thru executive orders that same sex marriage is now legal. Besides the next president could come and undo the executive order and you would have a whole bunch of pissed off people.
If he could actually do what you say, then he would be King Obama not President Obama.

Obama does not have executive powers to either legislate or expend funds without the consent of Congress. Whether Congress cares about maintaining it's powers is a different matter. If he did, then President Romney could similarly undo Obama's executive order, as you suggested, and replace it with his own executive order extending the benefits of marriage to polygamous federal employees via executive order.

**Zacha341** · August-05-12, 08:28 AM

Gay Couples Head To Chick Fil-A-For Kiss In Protest

Protest small compared to appreciation day

Media Harassment of CF-A Employees

**Papasito** · August-06-12, 07:01 AM

The original article with the original quotes:
http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=38271

Chick Fil A President Dan Cathy simply stated he [[and the "company") support traditional marraige, but never condemned same-sex couples anywhere in that interview.

The media and fringe groups have blown this entire situation out of proportion. I've seen posts on facebook and other social media sites condemning Chick Fil A of bigotry, hatred, and the like by people who have likely never even read the interview.

Is it wrong for a citizen of the United States to state their faith based support for something in a nation of free speech and freedom of religion? Or is it wrong for other citizens attack someone for expressing their Constitutionally protected opinion?

Both sides of this issue need to compromise.
You can be tolerant of the opposing side's views, but you don't have to EMBRACE and SUPPORT those views.

The battleground here should not be over a guy who makes chicken fingers. This aggression is by the misinformed and is occurring in an arena that is misplaced.

**Papasito** · August-06-12, 07:12 AM

Originally Posted by oladub

Obama does not have executive powers to either legislate or expend funds without the consent of Congress.

That hasn't stopped him in the past.

Obama Uses Executive Orders To Bypass Congress

The Obama administration's use of an executive order to make immigration policy is disturbing

http://articles.baltimoresun.com/201...gration-policy

Shift on Executive Power Lets Obama Bypass Rivals

Branding its unilateral efforts “We Can’t Wait,” a slogan that aides said Mr. Obama coined at that strategy meeting, the White House has rolled out dozens of new policies — on creating jobs for veterans, preventing drug shortages, raising fuel economy standards, curbing domestic violence and more.

Each time, Mr. Obama has emphasized the fact that he is bypassing lawmakers. When he announced a cut in refinancing fees for federally insured mortgages last month, for example, he said: “If Congress refuses to act, I’ve said that I’ll continue to do everything in my power to act without them.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/23/us...pagewanted=all

**noise** · August-06-12, 08:24 AM

Originally Posted by Papasito

Both sides of this issue need to compromise.
You can be tolerant of the opposing side's views, but you don't have to EMBRACE and SUPPORT those views.

It's pretty clear that you don't fully grasp the issues here. The misinformed are usually the loudest.

**firstandten** · August-06-12, 11:21 AM

Papasito stop linking letters to the editor in response to articles in legit papers. These people are more misinformed than you.

**Papasito** · August-06-12, 03:55 PM

If you can post an exact transcript from the President of Chick Fil A that shows hate and an uncontested attack on same sex couples, please present the facts from a reliable source.

**Papasito** · August-06-12, 04:14 PM

Poobert, you assume a lot.
I am not gay. And I am not a gung-ho Christian either.
My path of faith needs some work.

I respect same sex couples. Like most people, I have had direct contact with them, been in thier homes or out in public with them, worked with them, been personal friends, ect. This is 2o12, so lets get real - most people probably have. Unless you're living under a rock, homosexuals have interacted with you in normal life.

I also respect people of faith. I believe they are entitled to their values and their belief system, even if and when I don't agree with it.

My answer for the whole same-sex marraige thing is that the term "Marraige" has always been the hurdle the people of faith [[Christians, Catholics, Muslims, ect.) can't accept. It's just a word. A word with religious connotations.

I think the answer is to call it something else.
Domestic Partnership.
Civil Union.
Give it the same rights as heterosexual marraige.
This way, religion still has it's "marraige" and same sex couples get their equal rights. Win-Win.
Personally I like the Domestic Partnership title. "Partner" is a term that has been used for years for same sex couples BY same sex couples when identifying thier significant other.

Or take away heterosexual benefits and put everyone on the same crappy playing field. As long as it's equal.

There's my stand.

Don't attack religious groups and belittle them. Don't attack homosexuals and belittle them.

Regarding your tolerance comment - Tolerance means co-existing without descrimination.

Regarding your assumption I am anti-gay: Incorrect.

**rb336** · August-06-12, 06:34 PM

Originally Posted by Papasito

My answer for the whole same-sex marraige thing is that the term "Marraige" has always been the hurdle the people of faith [[Christians, Catholics, Muslims, ect.) can't accept. It's just a word. A word with religious connotations.

The fact is, marriage is now and always has been an economic institution, even in biblical terms. Maybe especially in biblical terms. It is an economic union between families, tribes, even nations. Today, it is usually an economic union between two consenting adults

I think the answer is to call it something else.
Domestic Partnership.
Civil Union.
Give it the same rights as heterosexual marraige.
This way, religion still has it's "marraige" and same sex couples get their equal rights. Win-Win.
Personally I like the Domestic Partnership title. "Partner" is a term that has been used for years for same sex couples BY same sex couples when identifying thier significant other.

This is essentially the anti-gay marriage version of "separate but equal"

Or take away heterosexual benefits and put everyone on the same crappy playing field. As long as it's equal.

The MAIN thing being denied are things like the right to visit their spouse in the hospital, legal protection of the spouses' interests in each other's estates, parental rights, etc. As long as there is a "separate" category, same sex couples will STILL have those issues.

Don't attack religious groups and belittle them. Don't attack homosexuals and belittle them.

Regarding your tolerance comment - Tolerance means co-existing without descrimination.

Regarding your assumption I am anti-gay: Incorrect.

Sorry, when religious groups preach hate based on their religion, I feel totally free to belittle them. When they insist on imposing their dogma on the public sphere - whether it is the ten commandments in courthouses, teaching creationism as science, or anything else, I will feel justified in mocking them. Any time they seek to impose their superstitious views on me or society, I will feel the duty to stand up against them.