Does Tim Leatherman eat Chick-fil-a sandwiches?

[JCavSD]

In my view, individuals have the right to spend their money wherever they please. If they prefer to buy from someone who reflect their values, power to them. What makes this whole thing ridiculous in my view is that Barack Obama held the same view as Dan Cathy for his whole election campaign and for most of his presidency until a few months ago. During that whole time not one of the individuals or organizations that are now accusing Chick-Fil-A of being "homophobic" or "promoting hate," accused Obama of being "homophobic" or "promoting hate" based on his stance on the issue. I can't see this as anything else than political grandstanding and special interest groups manufacturing "news" in an attempt to advance a particular social issue.

Do you think that this is a valid comparison? We weigh the pros and cons, decide what issues we can live with and what we can't live with and where we'll compromise, and make the decision that best fits our thoughts, values, and beliefs. Maybe I'm unique, but it seems to me as if the decision making process when choosing a president is far more complex then when choosing a fast food joint. Single issue voters may not agree. And in reality there are far more fast food joints to choose from than there are viable presidential candidates. When we need sustenance, but the menu has only two rather unappealing items, sometimes we pop a handful of tums and pick the one that will be least likely to come back up.

[quietmike]

Do you think that this is a valid comparison? We weigh the pros and cons, decide what issues we can live with and what we can't live with and where we'll compromise, and make the decision that best fits our thoughts, values, and beliefs. Maybe I'm unique, but it seems to me as if the decision making process when choosing a president is far more complex then when choosing a fast food joint. Single issue voters may not agree. And in reality there are far more fast food joints to choose from than there are viable presidential candidates. When we need sustenance, but the menu has only two rather unappealing items, sometimes we pop a handful of tums and pick the one that will be least likely to come back up.

But a fast food joint can't make policy decisions, so a president who opposes same sex marriage should draw more ire from those groups, if the issue is truly about protecting their ideals.

[Preacher Man]

Do you think that this is a valid comparison? We weigh the pros and cons, decide what issues we can live with and what we can't live with and where we'll compromise, and make the decision that best fits our thoughts, values, and beliefs. Maybe I'm unique, but it seems to me as if the decision making process when choosing a president is far more complex then when choosing a fast food joint. Single issue voters may not agree. And in reality there are far more fast food joints to choose from than there are viable presidential candidates. When we need sustenance, but the menu has only two rather unappealing items, sometimes we pop a handful of tums and pick the one that will be least likely to come back up.

But a fast food joint can't make policy decisions, so a president who opposes same sex marriage should draw more ire from those groups, if the issue is truly about protecting their ideals.

I couldn't agree more with Mike's assessment. If this episode was really about what they perceive as an immoral and bigoted position represented in a stand against same-sex marriage, then the position of a policy maker is much more important than the position of the president of a fast food chain. But the silence about Obama's position reveals their hand. This was not about "hate" or "bigotry" but an attempt to manufacture "public outrage" in order to marginalize those who oppose same-sex marriage for religious reasons and force them to shut up. To be perfectly honest, whether it was intended that way or not, I personally do not see much difference between the "multi-level attack" used in this case to force compliance with the "politically correct" position and the techniques used by terrorists to force policy change. "Change your position or we will destroy you, and let this be a warning of what is to come if you do not change your policies as say." Had this been a purely "popular movement" and spontaneous boycotts, that would have been fine, but this seemed to be an organized attack at political, media, and popular levels. The media outlets, politicians, celebrities, and activists who started, promoted, and kept this in the media, and who were the most vocal and made the most vicious comments and accusations against Chick-Fil-A, not only voted for Obama, but never criticized him in any way remotely close to the vicious terms used to described Chick-Fil-A, even though Obama held exactly the same position. Keep in mind, I'm not saying this was a "conspiracy" but that the sequence of events make it look as an organized attack.

You can express extreme disagreement with a candidate on one issue and severely criticize his for it, and still vote for him as the best (or least bad) available option. That is called Realpolitik. The criticism Obama faced for his position from these media outlets, activists, celebrities, and politicians during his campaign and presidency was nothing more than, "we wish you would see the light," and nothing close to the "you are a bigot and need to be destroyed" as they charged against Chick-Fil-A for holding exactly the same position as Obama's.

[JCavSD]

But the silence about Obama's position reveals their hand.

Explain this to me one more time? If someone is silent on baby-rape then that means they are for or against it?

You can express extreme disagreement with a candidate on one issue and severely criticize his for it, and still vote for him as the best (or least bad) available option. That is called Realpolitik. The criticism Obama faced for his position from these media outlets, activists, celebrities, and politicians during his campaign and presidency was nothing more than, "we wish you would see the light," and nothing close to the "you are a bigot and need to be destroyed" as they charged against Chick-Fil-A for holding exactly the same position as Obama's.

Well, from my perspective this is a radical mischaracterization of what most people feel about Chick-Fil-A...even those that dislike the comments and financial contributions of the owner. Destroyed??? Completely silly. Sure, listen to a very small but vocal group that feels that way and apply that to all those who would boycott or protest the business and you've got bunch of unreasonable nonsense.

[timcsaw]

Or perhaps this...



and this.

[quietmike]

Explain this to me one more time? If someone is silent on baby-rape then that means they are for or against it?

If someone is silent when one person commits rape, but loudly protests on another occasion, it is plausible to question whether they actually are opposed to rape or have ulterior motives.

[emopunker2004]

Some of the Chick-fil-a restaurants in my area actually ran out of food on Wednesday! I love me some Chick-fil-a, and as far as fast food goes it's healthier than McD or Bk.

[Error 404]

I was wondering exactly what it was that Mr. Cathy said....

http://www.getreligion.org/2012/07/w...s-really-said/

[Preacher Man]

Explain this to me one more time? If someone is silent on baby-rape then that means they are for or against it?

I think you missed my point. The issue is not been silent of Obama's position against Gay marriage, but the double standard that when Obama held that position is was ignored, but when a Christian businessman holds it, it is turned into a media sensation. The question we need to sake is why. IMHO, the reason for this is not that Dan Cathy said anything wrong, but that a small number of activists and politicians saw it as an opportunity to push their agenda and try to paint as bigot those they see as standing in their way.

That is just my opinion, but I would like to know why do you think Obama's position against gay marrage was ignored and Dan Cathy's position (the same as Obama's) was and still is so highly criticized?

Well, from my perspective this is a radical mischaracterization of what most people feel about Chick-Fil-A...even those that dislike the comments and financial contributions of the owner. Destroyed??? Completely silly. Sure, listen to a very small but vocal group that feels that way and apply that to all those who would boycott or protest the business and you've got bunch of unreasonable nonsense.

Again, I think you missed what I was trying to communicate; that may be my fault, though. Your criticism would be right if I was making a generalization about everyone who wanted to boycott Chick-Fil-A. I am talking about a small group of media outlets (the Huffington Post for example), Politicians (those who threatened to use their office and political power to deny any and all permits and even close Chick-Fil-A in their jurisdictions), celebrities (like Roxanne Bar who wished cancer on all employees and patrons of Chick-Fil-A), and organizations (like GLAD that characterized Dan Cathy's comments as "homophobic" and "hateful" even though they remained silent the multiple times Obama said the same thigs, and they also choose to ignore Chick-Fil-A's record of treating gay patrons and employees with respect, dignity, and professionalism). My contention is that it was a small number of individuals and organizations who kept this in the media and turned on man's comments (that reflect the division our society has on this very issue) into a battle cry. Why do I say "destroy"? Because several of the mouthpieces on this have expressed their clear opinion that the purpose of any boycotts and political action should to insure that Chick-Fil-A closes it doors for good. I'm not saying that was the popular position. I'm talking about those who made sure this became an issue.

I don't enjoy watching two men or two women kissing, but I respect the call for demonstrations for this last Friday in the so called Chick-Fil-A Kiss Day, because this was a real popular movement and not something someone had to purposely hype in order to get attention. I'm all for freedom of speech and individuals expressing their views collectively. I do not stand for politicians and special interest groups and their celebrity sponsors trying to manipulate the news and manufacture popular uproar in order to advance their agenda.

[Noctis3880]

Explain this to me one more time? If someone is silent on baby-rape then that means they are for or against it?

It's more like someone was silent on baby rape when it was a white baby, then the same person LOUDLY protests when a black baby is raped. That would be the more accurate portrayal of how things stand.

[timcsaw]

It's more like someone was silent on baby rape when it was a white baby, then the same person LOUDLY protests when a black baby is raped. That would be the more accurate portrayal of how things stand.

A MUCH better analog IMO... nice.

[Codger_64]

You mean like a U.S. Attorney General who refuses to prosecute African Americans for race based hate crimes while investigating and prosecuting whites for hate crimes? Like that?

[ooitzoo]

Dear Gay-Rights / Marriage Equality crowd: You're having the wrong debate. Instead of arguing for or against gay marriage, you should ask yourself why we allow the government to regulate a deeply private institution to begin with. Then perhaps I will take you seriously.

[Preacher Man]

Dear Gay-Rights / Marriage Equality crowd: You're having the wrong debate. Instead of arguing for or against gay marriage, you should ask yourself why we allow the government to regulate a deeply private institution to begin with. Then perhaps I will take you seriously.

I understand what you want to say, but IMHO the debate we see among elected officials is a reflection of the debate among the people. We The People decide what is acceptable in society and what is not, and We The People are deeply divided on this issue. This debate is not going away any time soon.

[Triton]

The whole thing reminded me of the stink raised by some right here on BFC back when Tim Leatherman announced he was going to vote for John Kerry for President in '04. People were calling for a boycott of Leatherman products and some said they were going to throw away their Leatherman multi-tools.

I'm all about supporting businesses who have the same interests I do. For example I'll be buying more Chik Fil A. I'll never own another leatherman tool, nor eat at Ben and Jerry's and my children won't be watching the muppets. If some homosexuals don't want to eat at Chik Fil A that's fine that too is their right. What makes this case egregious is that two mayors are attempting to use the power of government to prevent Chik Fil A from coming to their towns because of the views of the ownership. That's where a line is crossed, and I'd say the same if the mayor of my town wanted to keep out a leatherman factory.

[Thomason]

II'll never own another leatherman tool,

Hope you don't have any boots or shoes with Vibram soles. Tony Post, president of Vibram, signed the same letter as Leatherman.

[Triton]

Hope you don't have any boots or shoes with Vibram soles. Tony Post, president of Vibram, signed the same letter as Leatherman.

As it turns out I don't, but thanks for the information, I'll keep that in mind.

[ooitzoo]

I understand what you want to say, but IMHO the debate we see among elected officials is a reflection of the debate among the people. We The People decide what is acceptable in society and what is not, and We The People are deeply divided on this issue. This debate is not going away any time soon.

I never said that it'd go away just simply that its the wrong debate to have. There are plenty of examples of this historically and present day.

And no, we the people should not decide what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own homes. The reason there is such a thing as a marriage license is that states wanted to keep certain groups of people from marrying certain other groups of people. Every time we frame this debate as "legalize this / that" we are implicitly endorsing the concept of govt telling a person what he can or cannot do with another person. Its plainly the wrong approach.

We should be framing this as "do away with govt regulation of marriage and regulation of freedom of association" rather then let's make this one tiny incremental thing legal now.

As far as Chick Fil A...I don't really care. The only one near me is on the NYU campus and I don't find myself there very frequently.

[timcsaw]

We should be framing this as "do away with govt regulation of marriage and regulation of freedom of association" rather then let's make this one tiny incremental thing legal now.

Though I agree with this, the government will never let go of it's power to regulate "marriage"... for one, there's money in it.

[ooitzoo]

Though I agree with this, the government will never let go of it's power to regulate "marriage"... for one, there's money in it.

I don't agree. There was money in telecoms and those were deregulated. All it takes is a sufficiently libertarian president.