Chick spends millions trying to make their opinion the law of the land. By supporting Chick, you are supporting harming others through denial of equal rights. The organizations they support also promote prejudice and discrimination in other areas as well, resulting in needless harm to millions of real people.

Dr. Chris Beyrer, director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Public Health: "We know for certain that lesbian and gay individuals suffer harm to their physical and psychological health, and to their relationships and quality of life, as result of the shame, isolation and stigma accrued from their social and legal disenfranchisement."

To Don:

You write to Christine that, "Christine R

Tolerance of intolerance is still intolerance.

Treating everyone equally as required by the constitution = tolerance.

Refusing to treat others the way you want to be treated = intolerance.

You are asking us to tolerate intolerance."

Why do you label a differing opinion as intolerance? Chic-Fil-A is not intolerant, in fact they employ individuals who support gay marriage. It is a difference of opinion and everyone should be allowed to have that. You are the one who is intolerant, and may I suggest irrational as well.

Patches. Again, use of the law to grant or deny equal rights clearly demonstrates tolerance and intolerance:

Equal rights = tolerance.
Denial of equal rights = intolerance.

Chick promotes and financially supports denial of equal rights.

You fail to demonstrate how support of equal rights as required by the constitution is intolerance, or irrational.

Dan Johnson is attempting to convince us with his deep insights into the world of Progressive justice. Last I checked, gay chickens end up in the fryer just like "normal" ones. Too bad we can't engage in a "selective" process to eliminate those who can not, or will not, conform to majority norms. Chick-Fil-A rules the day and Progressives are losers!

Marshell. It sounds as if you are proposing genocide.

While Chick seeks to deny equal legal rights, and funds efforts to impose legal punishment for being gay, they don't go that far.

Dan Johnson
10:32 am on Sunday, August 5, 2012

Chick spends millions trying to make their opinion the law of the land.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Is that even true? I haven't seen that in any news story anywhere. They support a traditional family group that advocates for traditional family values, but I haven't heard of any legislation support.

You're just making things up at this point.

Dan Johnson,

Everyone in America has equal rights, already. Please prove to me otherwise.

I firmly believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman. That doesn't mean I'm intolerant or bigoted or homophobic. If someone is gay, I don't care any more or less than if that same person is heterosexual.

At 61, I believe everyone in this world is entitled to love someone and to be loved back. I also believe everyone in this world is entitled to his opinion, including Dan Cathy.

Jaycen. A quick google search could have saved you from incorrectly accusing me of lying. The fact Chick spends millions supporting anti-gay groups who lobby for and promote laws that deny equal rights to gay people is well documented, and has been going on for years. It is nothing new. Here is just one of the many resources detailing Chick's financial support of antigay groups:

"In 2010, as Scott Wooledge notes in this excellent graphic above, and details in his post at Daily Kos, the Family Research Council, a certified anti-gay hate group run by Tony Perkins, spent $25,000 lobbying Congress to NOT condemn Uganda’s “Kill The Gays” bill." http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/chick-fil-a-profits-are-supporting-ugandas-kill-the-gays-bill/politics/2012/08/01/45430

Jaycen. Your quote: "Everyone in America has equal rights, already. Please prove to me otherwise."

OK. Remember DADT? DOMA is similar in that it prevents federal recognition of same sex marriage performed in states and other countries. The legal marriages of gay couples are not treated equally under the law to the marriages of straight couples married in the same jurisdictions, by the feds and several states. That is clearly legal discrimination.

"In the court’s final analysis, the government’s only basis for supporting DOMA comes down to an apparent belief that the moral views of the majority may properly be enacted as the law of the land in regard to state-sanctioned same-sex marriage in disregard of the personal status and living conditions of a significant segment of our pluralistic society. Such a view is not consistent with the evidence or the law as embodied in the Fifth Amendment... The court has no doubt about its conclusion: DOMA deprives them of the equal protection of the law to which they are entitled."

Equal protections in housing, public accommodations, employment, and others are also denied in addition to the 1,138 federal rights and protections of marriage.

Dan,
Are we only to deny the rights of someone who thinks differently than you? TONS of other organizations spend millions trying to make their opinions the law of the land. Do you have the same feelings about the being shown sick puppies and sad songs, and being misled into sending in money so that they can create legislation? Legislation they will later dub the "puppy-mill" law, when it virtually has nothing to do with "puppy-mills"? Do you have a problem with that? Or did you not realize that is what was going on? Chick-fil-a is at least honest about what they are doing & what they believe, do you call out those that blatantly hide, lie, & misrepresent their agendas?
Political Correctness builds Prejudice, Segregation, & Discrimination also, and results in Bullying. How often do you speak out against that? That also seems like it brings harm to millions of real people, where are you on those.
My opinion is this: Do not deny rights. If 2 people want to get "married", by definition, they must be a male & a female. That does not mean that the same rights, privledges, & pitfalls of marriage should not be afforded to those same sex couples. Why re-define a word? EX: 'Gay' used to have a variety of meanings, some good, some bad. These days we are taught that it only has 1 & that any other use is somehow offensive to some. That's conditioning, not reality.
Be together, enjoy every right of any other couple, but marriage is a word that already has a definition.

Jaycen Rigger

8:46 am on Monday, August 6, 2012

Dan Johnson
10:32 am on Sunday, August 5, 2012

Chick spends millions trying to make their opinion the law of the land.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Is that even true? I haven't seen that in any news story anywhere. They support a traditional family group that advocates for traditional family values, but I haven't heard of any legislation support.
You're just making things up at this point.
----------------------------------
Chick-fil-A donates money to hate groups that:
Seek to deny Gay Marriage
Seek to deny Gay couples from adopting
Seek to deny Gays citizenship by DEPORTING them from America
http://equalitymatters.org/factcheck/201207020001

Devon. Yes, I speak out against prejudice and discrimination in many forms and in other forums. This one is about marriage equality and other equal rights for gay people, opposed by Chick.

The definition of marriage has taken many forms throughout history, including but not limited to the 8 types of marriage found in the bible. That includes the tradition of prohibiting interracial marriage which existed in this country up until it was declared unconstitutional in 1967. Traditional marriage in the US would include that tradition. Polygamy was also a tradition and remains popular in some countries. Treating women and children as property has also evolved over time. Ignored or denied by those opposed to marriage equality for gay people is the fact same sex marriages have also existed along with other forms at various times and places, dating back at least 4,000 years to ancient Egypt, and are also part of that tradition in Europe, Asia, Africa, and in the Americas before arrival of the Europeans.

Tradition has been the excuse used to justify slavery, segregation, animal abuse, child abuse, torture, and every other common practice that results in harm to another group. It is currently being used to justify harming gay people, though the courts are recognizing traditions that harm others are not worth preserving by the government. While you can practice your religion in your church however you want, you should not be allowed to impose your religious beliefs on the rest of the population, including those churches that recognize marriage equality.

What you are defiining as "interracial" isn't actually about race or discrimination, but an attempt to protect the blood-purity of the 12 tribes during Earth's population. Just as some of the biblical definitions of marriage also look a little goofy because they were about trying to increase the population of Earth.
Let's not forget also, the end-result of some of those places that you listed that took "liberties" with marriage & sexuality. It's tough to look too deeply into the history of Sodom & Gommorah for instance. They are defined by those activities, so much so, that we still actually use the name of the place to describe certain activities.

Devon. While race is a highly questionable concept, common understanding of it has been used to prohibit marriage for many people based on that concept of race throughout American history, until finally recognized as unconstitutional by the Supremes in '67. (Justice can take a long time.) Many people were harmed in many ways, including being stigmatized and dehumanized in addition to denial of fundamental civil rights, just as today with sexual orientation discrimination. No matter what the justification, it is an inadequate excuse for harming people who are different from those making the laws. There is no rational, logical, scientifically justifiable reason. It all relies on a prejudice which was supported by misuse of a few select bible verses. (Just as today with anti-gay discrimination)

The common but unsupportable belief same sex relationships led to the fall of civilizations, which you seem to be suggesting, is a popular myth which has no support in evidence, reason, or fact. The use of the story of Sodom to label a sex act is a good example of a misinterpretation and misapplication of biblical verses to demonize and dehumanize. The story of Sodom had nothing to do with same sex relationships based on mutual love and respect. Perhaps we should look deeper...

The point of Sodom was that you should love others, not abuse them. It was about harming them instead of treating them the way you want to be treated. It was about how you treat "the stranger at the gate." It had nothing to do with loving same sex relationships based on mutual respect and love between adults.

"Jesus and five Old Testament prophets all speak of the sins that led to the destruction of Sodom -- and not one of them mentions homosexuality. Even Billy Graham doesn't mention homosexuality when he preaches on Sodom."
"Ezekiel 16:48-49 tell us: "This is the sin of Sodom; she and her suburbs had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not help or encourage the poor and needy. They were arrogant and this was abominable in God's eyes."

"It was common for soldiers, thieves, and bullies to rape a fallen enemy, asserting their victory by dehumanizing and demeaning the vanquished. This act of raping an enemy is about power and revenge,"

And it still happens today, most notoriously in prisons. It is not about love. It is about power, control, domination, and abuse. Rape is not love.

"The sexual act that occurs in the story of Sodom is a gang rape -- and homosexuals oppose gang rape as much as anyone. That's why I believe the story of Sodom says a lot about God's will for each of us, but nothing about homosexuality as we understand it today." ( quotes from: What the Bible says - and doesn't say about homosexulaity by Rev. Dr. Mel White)

Even the English versions of this story demonstrate there was nothing that can be honestly used to condemn gay people. Many other explanations including the Jewish versions of the this story agree the message is that you should not harm others but instead, treat them with love.

"In Sodom every one who gave bread and water to the poor was condemned to death by fire (Yalḳ., Gen. 83). Two girls, one poor and the other rich, went to a well; and the former gave the latter her jug of water, receiving in return a vessel containing bread. When this became known, both were burned alive."

http://jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/13827-sodom

"The primarily sexual meaning of the word sodomia for Christians did not evolve before the 6th century AD. Roman Emperor Justinian I, in his novels no. 77 (dating 538) and no. 141 (dating 559) amended to his Corpus iuris civilis, and declared that Sodom's sin had been specifically same-sex activities and desire for them. He also linked "famines, earthquakes, and pestilences" upon cities as being due to "such crimes",[17] during a time of recent earthquakes and other disasters." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy

Sin of Sodom http://www.iwgonline.org/docs/sodom.html

There are about twenty references to the story of Sodom in the Bible, and none of them says homosexuality was the sin of Sodom. One of the most extensive references to Sodom is found in Ezekiel, which says, “This was the guilt of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy. They were haughty and did abominable things before me; therefore I removed them when I saw it.” (Ezekiel 16:49-50 (See note 5.)) It is clear from this passage (and others like it (See note 6.)) that the abomination of Sodom, according to the Old Testament prophets, was that they behaved with callous indifference toward the weak and vulnerable — the poor, orphans, widows, and strangers in their midst. http://www.wouldjesusdiscriminate.org/biblical_evidence/sodom_and_gomorrah.html

So when you see other verses that refers, to Sodomites, they are addressing those who harm others needlessly, not same sex relationships based on mutual love and respect.

Dan Johnson
10:32 am on Sunday, August 5, 2012

Dan, Did you take the same stance when many corporations donated money to deny citizens of this state the right to keep and bear arms as provided for in the constitution of the united states?
I am speaking of Hallmark, and Levi’s just to name a few, in the case of Proposition B in the state of MO.
Do you also take that stance on all corporate donations to PAC’s and to advertising efforts for or against any other laws?

Integr8er. I concentrate on laws that discriminate. Prop B and most other proposed laws treat all citizens equally under the law without discrimination, whether you agree with that law or not. Most laws do not guarantee rights to some while denying those same rights to others based on irrational classifications such as sexual orientation.

Chick supports laws that discriminate. They deny to others the rights they expect for themselves.

Stick your equal rights. These people should be segregated from society. Stay in the closet and do not flaunt your genetic defect in my face. Mr. Dan Johnson, do you and your lover really feel disenfranchised ? Homo's and lesbian's are not only sinners they are abominations.

W.B. Sorry to see the information provided was not sufficient to help you overcome the irrational, scientifically unsupportable prejudice you were taught as a child. It also appears you were taught to judge and condemn rather than to follow the Golden Rule.

While it is possible for you to overcome the irrational, destructive, and deadly prejudice you promote, I suspect you will refuse to accept the reality that gay people have always existed and, as recognized by every mainstream medical and mental health organization in the country, are a natural minority of the population. Unfortunately, I suspect you will continue to use your misinterpretation of a few ancient verses to justify promotion of the prejudice and discrimination that only results in hate, suffering, and death, rather than promoting love as Jesus intended.

I hope you will consider the information presented here and elsewhere which will show your prejudice is unsupportable as well as deadly. Join us in 2012.

Perhaps William is unaware of the precedent -outspoken raging homophobes that turn out to be latent gays.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/05/george-rekers-anti-gay-ac_n_565142.html

http://articles.cnn.com/2009-01-29/us/lkl.ted.haggard_1_ted-haggard-head-pastor-church-staff-member?_s=PM:US
http://newsone.com/780135/top-5-anti-gay-ministers-accused-of-being-homosexual/

RDBet. Good point, and good examples. The science supports this conclusion which was also observed as far back as Freud:

Department of Psychology, University of Georgia, Athens 30602-3013, USA.
Abstract:
The authors investigated the role of homosexual arousal in exclusively heterosexual men who admitted negative affect toward homosexual individuals. Participants consisted of a group of homophobic men (n = 35) and a group of nonhomophobic men (n = 29); they were assigned to groups on the basis of their scores on the Index of Homophobia (W. W. Hudson & W. A. Ricketts, 1980). The men were exposed to sexually explicit erotic stimuli consisting of heterosexual, male homosexual, and lesbian videotapes, and changes in penile circumference were monitored. They also completed an Aggression Questionnaire (A. H. Buss & M. Perry, 1992). Both groups exhibited increases in penile circumference to the heterosexual and female homosexual videos. Only the homophobic men showed an increase in penile erection to male homosexual stimuli. The groups did not differ in aggression. Homophobia is apparently associated with homosexual arousal that the homophobic individual is either unaware of or denies.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8772014

"Nothing dies so hard or rallies so often as intolerance" Henry Ward Beecher

I'm going to eat there all the time now.

LOL! Love it!!!! The Progressives have just provided MILLIONS in free advertising for Chik-fil-A. I used to love it too. But I'm a Vegetarian now so I can't eat the Chikkin anymore. :( Still love those Waffle Fries and the Lemonade!!!!!

Oh, and I actually support Gay Marriage, but I support FREE SPEECH even more. And, I cannot stand Progressives so I LOVE HOW THIS IS PLAYING OUT!!! Ba ha ha ha ha ha!!!!

I'm with you George. I had only eaten at Chick one time previously, and wasn't really impressed with their menu. However, I will make it a point to eat there regularly, now that I've seen how public officials and other INTOLERANT people have chosen to engage in bullying and villainizing Chick for daring to hold a position that isn't politically correct.

Tammy. "Politically correct" has become a catch phrase, often used to ignore the harm caused by abusing others. In this case we are talking about Chick harming others through denial of the rights they expect for themselves. It should be clear using the law to harm others by denial of equal rights qualifies as intolerance and bullying. I am sorry to hear you have chosen to eat food you don't really care for simply to deny to others the rights you expect for yourself, and will contribute to using the law to harm gay people needlessly.

Prejudice is a great time saver. You can form opinions without having to get the facts.” (E. B. White)

The bible has always stated that practicing homosexuality is wrong and it will always be wrong unless you are God and want to change your teachings.

Karl, you are a typical Progressive. You demand tolerance but refuse to tolerate others if they have a differing opinion. It's disgusting.

By the way, I support Gay Marriage.

No, E., it is your modern English mistranslation and misinterpretation of the bible that supports harming gay people by refusing to treat them the way you want to be treated: "What the Bible forbids is acts of lust, rape, idolatry, violation of religious purity obligations, or pederasty, but not condemnation of homosexuality in relationships of mutual respect and love." Dr. James B. Nelson, Professor of Christian Ethics, United Theological Seminary

"God is not a Homophobe: An unbiased look at Homosexuality in the Bible" by Philo Thelos
"Several books already exist attempting to demonstrate that the Christian Bible does not, in fact, condemn consenting-adult homosexuality. But God is Not a Homophobe has a unique perspective in that the author has a lifetime of experience in pastoring hard-core fundamentalist churches. His former bitter opposition to all forms of homosexuality has given way to a rational, unbiased acceptance that the Bible says hardly anything about homosexuality, and what it does say cannot honestly be used to condemn consenting same-sex unions."

Christine R

Tolerance of intolerance is still intolerance.

Treating everyone equally as required by the constitution = tolerance.

Refusing to treat others the way you want to be treated = intolerance.

You are asking us to tolerate intolerance.

But thanks for your support of marriage equality. Discrimination under the law is not a conservative, progressive, or Christian value.

Good for you .... you really are an open minded person. Your love for the freedom of others view is wonderful. It great to see someone who goes out of their way to make sure others who have minds of their own are not allowed to make comment that would violate your superior intellect . You are a wonderful person I if I was you I would make sure your view point is the only one that is Viable. LOVE YOU !!!!

I strongly support the right of everyone including Dan Cathy to voice their opinion. However; I cannot support their condemnation of anyone or anyone's actions based on their opinion, beliefs, or interpretation of biblical teaching.

To those who would use the Bible as justification for condemning others or their perceived misdeeds (sins), may I suggest that you go back to that Bible and read John 8:1-11 before you "...first cast a stone."

Are not those who are using their opinion to condemn others also "...shaking their fist at God's teachings"?

Karl Frank Jr.
7:21 am on Sunday, August 5, 2012

If I owned a franchise, I would be filing a lawsuit for defamation of character right away.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

For what?

Your comment is nonsensical.

Thank goodness Dan Johnson is an expert on the Bible.

Honestly, people should leave their own interpretations of the Bible out of these kinds of discussions, as it just turns most people off and everyone has their own interpretation.

Mostly, it encourages people like Dan to try to explain something he understands less than any of us.

Jaycen. re: "Thank goodness Dan Johnson is an expert on the Bible."

Your attempt to demean me personally fails to refute the information I provided. Those resources are from people who have spent their entire lives studying the bible.

Additionally, I did not bring it up, but was responding to claims made by another. You will see more attempts to justify harming gay people and refusing to treat others the way you want to be treated, ironically using the bible. This is because there is no scientific justification for harming others through denial of equal rights. All they have is irrational prejudice based on mistranslations and misinterpretations of a few bible verses taken out of context.

Karl,
Chick-fil-a did not defame anyone's character, including that of their franchisees. The man made a donation, that's it, so you would not have a suit, but knock yourself out.

The very actions you claim you would take are those of the intolerant, and closer to defamation of character than someone donating to a cause they believe in.

Guess what a person is who would do what you are suggesting... yes, the very 2nd word of your comment.

The Bible and Marriage:
If one were to construct an amendment to the Constitution based on a literal reading
1. Marriage in the United States shall consist of a union between one man and one or more women. (Gen 29:17-28; II Sam 3:2-5)

2. Marriage shall not impede a man's right to take concubines, in addition to his wife or wives. (II Sam 5:13; I Kings 11:3; II Chron 11:21)

3. A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin. If the wife is not a virgin, she shall be executed. (Deut 22:13-21)

4. Marriage of a believer and a non-believer shall be forbidden. (Gen 24:3; Num 25:1-9; Ezra 9:12; Neh 10:30)

5. Since marriage is for life, neither this Constitution nor the constitution of any State, nor any state or federal law, shall be construed to permit divorce. (Deut 22:19; Mark 10:9)

6. If a married man dies without children, his brother shall marry the widow. If he refuses to marry his brother's widow or deliberately does not give her children, he shall pay a fine of one shoe, and be otherwise punished in a manner to be determined by law. (Gen. 38:6-10; Deut 25:5-10)

7. In lieu of marriage, if there are no acceptable men in your town, it is required that you get your dad drunk and have sex with him tag-teaming with any sisters you may have. Of course, this rule applies only if you are female. (Gen 19:31-36)

While free to express an opinion, he works to make his opinion the law of the land. Spending millions to impose your opinion on everyone else using the force of law goes far beyond expressing an opinion. Prejudice and discrimination result in needless harm to real people.

Tastes like chicken.

Dan Johnson,

You're also working to make your opinion the law of the land. Assuming what you say is true (which I don't think it is), how are you any different? He wants to refuse homosexuals the right to do things that make no sense (get married). You want to encourage people to do it.

You're two side of the same coin.

Jaycen. Hopefully you are now aware of the widely documented funding by Chick of antigay groups.

The difference is he wants to use the law to prevent people from having equal rights. That harms people.

I want everyone to have equal rights. Treating others the way you want to be treated harms no one.

His position limits freedom, mine supports liberty and justice for all.

Denial of equal rights is not the same as promoting equal rights. Only denial forces a belief on others.

Well put Larry. You reflected my thoughts perfectly.

Well spoken! I, too, will not spend another dime at Chic-fil-A.

I do not agree with Dan Cathy's donation to homophobic hate groups, therefore I will not eat at Chick fil A. It is one thing to voice your opinion, it is a whole other thing to give money to organizations who promote criminalization and capital punishment of homosexuals in African countries such as Uganda. People in West County should think long and hard before they voice an approval of that kind of hate.

Yes, as always name-calling is a valid point, and never fails to recieve a cheer.

Bigot is a 2-way street. What we have here is people calling names that apply directly to them. The word bigot is funny like that, when you use it, you by definition become guilty of it.

Also, let's remember, this is not a company point of view, but that of one man.

Devon. Millions of dollars in company profits goes to support anti-gay organizations who use that money to lobby for and promote laws and policies that harm gay people. Spending company profits to promote discrimination makes that a company view, does it not?

That does not mean everyone who works for the company supports harming gay people, or that anti-gay prejudice is a condition of employment, but that the company as a whole supports anti-gay prejudice and discrimination through company profits.

I personally, don't care who you are sleeping with. AND I think it's become too important to our society what people do with their private parts. If someone is of age & consenting, why do we care? Why has this become a point of legislation, who you are sleeping with? It's rediculous.

Dan,
I would like to know when you've stood up against your TAX dollars going to organizations that push an agenda with no consideration for those who are forced to pay those taxes but oppose the agenda.
You act like this is your money being donated, yet seem to have no problem with it when it IS your money.

A donation by a CEO does not dictate everyday hiring practices. Even if it did, how is it different than someone who believes that people should pay for their own healthcare & contraception getting a job ANYwhere after the new healthcare laws? Or, how is it different than a company that donates to Planned Parenthood for those that don't agree with it. It's odd that the reason you give for having a problem with these practices, happens everyday, but is only a problem when it goes against your politics. It kind of let's people know how you may do business though.

It should again let you know that the people actually forcing their beliefs upon you, are not doing it by exercising their rights to make donations with their own money.

FYI - Being a homophobe and disagreeing with homosexuality are not the same thing, it'd be nice if folks who throw around that word knew it's definition.

Devon. The difference is most of those other laws or donations you mention treat everyone equally. You may not agree with planned parenthood for example, but they do not discriminate. They provide mammograms and health services to everyone who comes to them.

Do you know the definition of homophobia? "Homophobia is a range of negative attitudes and feelings towards lesbian, gay, bisexual, and in some cases transgender and intersex people. Definitions refer variably to antipathy, contempt, prejudice, aversion, and irrational fear.[1][2][3] Homophobia is observable in critical and hostile behavior such as discrimination[1][2] and violence on the basis of a perceived non-heterosexual orientation. In a 1998 address, author, activist, and civil rights leader Coretta Scott King stated that "Homophobia is like racism and anti-Semitism and other forms of bigotry in that it seeks to dehumanize a large group of people, to deny their humanity, their dignity and personhood."[4]" (Wiki)

As you see, it does not require fear, though that may or may not be an ingredient. Aversion qualifies. Prejudice, as expressed through denial of equal rights, qualifies.

But you have not seen me use that word, have you? Prejudice and discrimination are much more easily demonstrated and understood, so I tend to stick with them.

None of those Wiki definitions bother to define the word that is conveniently built-in to condescend: Phobia
Phobia, as I am not going to give you a Wiki definition, it pretty much means the fear of something. The word, by including that, implies that someone who may not feel exactly as they may have them feel, on each & every one of the issues they feel strongly about, is somehow (even if not by Wiki definition) scared. Fear is implied. It's a made-up, politically correct word, used & created to vilify those who may not bow to the peer pressure of the politically correct.

I agree the word has the unfortunate and unavoidable connotations if not the denotation of phobia, or fear. And that often is an element, though it is not a requirement to fulfill the definition of the word. That is why I don't normally use it without defining it. An "operational definition" is one we can spell out and agree to use for the purposes of discussion. That is why I defined what I was talking about when I refer to the word.

And yes, it is a made up word, as all words are. And I agree it was probably intended to shame, as it was not invented to fulfill a clinical, scientific definition, but to describe a cultural expression of anti-gay beliefs and attitudes.

And that is why I avoid it unless someone brings it up. I much prefer words that are more commonly agreed upon. Anti-gay prejudice is clearly definable and easy to demonstrate. Discrimination is also understood and easily shown when laws do not treat people equally.

Politically correct is also one of those new made up words, intended to demean efforts to treat people with dignity and respect.

But no matter what you call it, it should be clear that anti-gay prejudice and discrimination exist, with various degrees of severity up to and including those who would like to round us all up and kill us, as a few preachers suggested recently, and as is expressed on many other web sites, even here, tweets, etc. Prejudice and discrimination cause needles suffering and death.

Could the EPA, OSHA, or organized labor have anything to do with jobs leaving the USA and heading to other countries? What is more corrupt - Obama sending billions to his buddies in the phony alternative energy business or Chik Fil A? If you are looking for hate maybe you should start in the mirror!

What a pleasant human being you are, Dale. Thanks for characterizing me that way when you don't have much of a clue.

From the sound of your comment, it seems a Leftist can also find strong motivation in hate.

Have a nice day.

You don't have the first clue what motivates the right, and we already know what you've been trained to think. In addition, you don't bother to ask "why" businesses are leaving this country. It's because of the hate & motivation of money by the Federal government against your former employers. The highest corporate tax-rate in the world, endless regulation, and restrictions on those businesses, and NAFTA that enabled & encouraged those businesses to leave. Not the right.
The liberal press is not a myth, 95% of this business (my business) is from the left, you've just bought into it.
You have no idea what you are talking about.

Can you provide any proof regarding the donations you're talking about?

There is truth to his first contention, but not his second. The Family Research Council does promote pray away the gay because someone high up there did that. Exodus International is a group that supposedly supported the kills the gays bill. However, they specifically spoke out against it and joined the chorus of international pressure, and the bill has been pending for years now and is going nowhere due to that pressure.

Those are two of the organizations the Chick-Fil-A has apparently given money to in the recent past.

Not only is he free to express his opinions, he's free to donate his money to whatever causes he chooses as long as those causes are not illegal. I hate that my tax dollars go to help Planned Parenthood. I wish I could check a box on my tax returns to opt-out of that cause.

Dan Cathy gave $5m to the organizations that you have mentioned.

In 2010, as Scott Wooledge notes in this excellent graphic above, and details in his post at Daily Kos, the Family Research Council, a certified anti-gay hate group run by Tony Perkins, spent $25,000 lobbying Congress to NOT condemn Uganda’s “Kill The Gays” bill. http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/chick-fil-a-profits-are-supporting-ugandas-kill-the-gays-bill/politics/2012/08/01/45430

There is plenty of documentation for anyone who cares to look.

Look, I don't like his message at all, but just as pro Marriage Equality supporters have the right to donate to their cause, people have the right to lobby against it. Opposing gay marriage does not automatically rise to the standard of hate speech.

Ed. While not always motivated by hate, using the law to promote prejudice and discrimination through denial of equal civil rights has the same result: Needless suffering and death.

"The Holocaust illustrates the consequences of prejudice, racism and stereotyping on a society. It forces us to examine the responsibilities of citizenship and confront the powerful ramifications of indifference and inaction." (Tim Holden)

While I agree with your argument about freedom of expression not being restricted by the govt, I think the current public "voting" is very short-lived. Given time, anti-gay organizations of today will be viewed the same as the anti-black organizations of the 60's.

Amen to. Tammy mueller. It isn't about fried chicken or even his stance on gay marriage, it is all about his RIGHT to be able to believe what he wants AND to be able to voice it without any recourse from the government. And the rest of what is going on is the little minded people who want to make it personal. If you disagree with them and don't want to frequent their franchise that is your right also. That is how freedom works.

Neither the government nor gay people are trying to use the law to silence Cathy and Chick. They are trying to use the government to harm gay people.

It is also our right to point out Chick is spending millions to impose that harmful, discriminatory opinion on the entire population using the force of law. Prejudice and discrimination result in real harm to real people. Harming others needlessly makes it personal.

I respectfully disagree with your opinion that it is ok to give your money to whomever you want. Is it ok to give money to Nazi groups? Is it ok to give money to the KKK? How about it being ok to donate your money to cults who promote sex with children? Most people would say no. But somehow it is ok to give money to anti-homosexual hate groups because they have "a right to their opinion". Honestly, that is bs. No one has the right to donate money that goes to murdering innocent people. This is not about freedom of speech. It's about equality and the freedom to NOT be put in jail or murdered because you are gay.

Larry Lazar,

You're comment is shocking. Are you truly equating the homosexual agenda to that of Slavery?

Seriously?!?!

I think homosexuality is a fad, as it has been since Roman times, and again during the Renaissance.

Jaycen. Gay people have existed throughout history, across time and place. If being gay were a fad since Roman times, that would be a long time for a fad. But again, it existed long before Roman times, as shown by drawings, sculptures, pottery decorations, and even cave drawings. It has always existed.

Your belief it is a fad would also require it be a choice. If logic and reason doesn't tell you it is not a choice, science does:

"Contrary to claims of sexual orientation change advocates and practitioners, there is insufficient evidence to support the use of psychological interventions to change sexual orientation," said Judith M. Glassgold, PsyD, chair of the task force. "Scientifically rigorous older studies in this area found that sexual orientation was unlikely to change due to efforts designed for this purpose. Contrary to the claims of SOCE practitioners and advocates, recent research studies do not provide evidence of sexual orientation change as the research methods are inadequate to determine the effectiveness of these interventions." Glassgold added: "At most, certain studies suggested that some individuals learned how to ignore or not act on their homosexual attractions. Yet, these studies did not indicate for whom this was possible, how long it lasted or its long-term mental health effects. Also, this result was much less likely to be true for people who started out only attracted to people of the same sex."

Jacyen,
re: You're comment is shocking. Are you truly equating the homosexual agenda to that of Slavery? Seriously?!?!"

No, I'm equating it to the civil rights issues of the 60's. This was also a case an oppressed group of people not having the same civil rights at the majority.

I'm pretty sure that in 5 or 10 years that we'll look back at today with a fair amount of disgust that we could have thought the way we did.

I consider it to be a fair anology.

The Rev. Jesse Jackson, speaking in opposition to California's Proposition 8, said, "To those that believe in and fought for civil rights, that marched to end discrimination and win equality, you must not become that which you hated. ... Those that support civil and human rights cannot, must not, become perpetrators of discrimination against others based upon race, religion, culture, sexual orientation."

Rev. Dr. James Lawson is a distinguished United Methodist pastor who worked side-by-side with Dr. King training the activists who participated in the lunch counter sit-ins and the Freedom Rides of the 1960s. In 2004, he received the Community of Christ International Peace Award. Rev. Lawson said of the plight of many gay people: "Gays and lesbians have a more difficult time than we did. We had our families and our churches on our side. All too often, they have neither."

John Lewis, testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee on the Defense of Marriage Act, remarked, "I am very happy to see the Judiciary Committee holding hearings to address the issue of marriage equality. But at the same time, I must admit I find it unbelievable that in the year 2011 there is still a need to hold hearings and debate whether or not a human being should be able to marry the one they love."

Julian Bond said in 2005: “Many gays, many lesbians, worked side by side with me in the civil rights movement. Am I supposed to tell them now thanks for risking their lives and their limbs to help me win my rights but that they are excluded because of the circumstances of their birth? Not a chance.”
He also said; " I think Martin King would stand as his widow stood -- in favor of them."

Andrew Young said about marriage equality: "I think it would be consistent with our historic spirit of fairness and justice. But it also would be consistent with the spirit of grace and mercy as the path to peace that you judge not that you not be judged."

“It is time to say forthrightly that the government’s exclusion of our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters from civil marriage officially degrades them and their families.” — Rep. John Lewis (D-GA)

It was civil rights leader Bayard Rustin, one of Dr. King's main advisors and architect of the March On Washington who in 1986 said: "The barometer of where one is on human rights questions is no longer the black community, it's the gay community, because it is the community which is most easily mistreated."

Julian Bond. "I see this as a civil rights issue. That means I support gay civil marriage."

Does the group who yells the loudest win? Your approach is the uncivil culture we have around us.

it's this "uncivil culture" that gave women the right to vote and equal rights to blacks.

It's unfortunate that so many people are closed minded and prejudiced, but that is human nature I suppose.

Larry, YOU are intolerant. This drives me crazy. Progressives are so horribly intolerant.

As I have said numerous times on this topic - I support Gay Marriage and REAL TOLERANCE not the warped form of tolerance Progressives preach.

Larry Lazar makes some good points—the Civil War here in the U.S. had something to do with human rights, for example.

Christine, It is not progressives who are proposing denial of equal rights.

It is some of those who identify as conservatives and/or Christian who are supporting denial of legal equality, even though legal discrimination is not a conservative, progressive, or Christian value:

"The conservative movement, to which I subscribe, has as one of its basic tenets the belief that government should stay out of people’s private lives. Government governs best when it governs least - and stays out of the impossible task of legislating morality. But legislating someone’s version of morality is exactly what we do by perpetuating discrimination against gays." Conservative Icon, WW 2 hero, AZ Senator, and Republican Presidential candidate Barry Goldwater, 1993

Matthew 7:12: So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.

Matthew 22:37-40 Jesus said to him, You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself. The entire law and all the demands of the prophets are based on these two commandments."

Galatians 5:14: The entire law is summed up in a single command: "Love your neighbor as yourself."

Larry, you're the ignorant, misguided, intolerant bigot. You won't even consider the other side, and you maintain your stand even in the face of opposing evidence.

Thanks for participating though, and for keeping it classy.

Dan Johnson,

As a matter of fact, Dan, it IS Progressives who advocate the denial of Equal Rights.

Progressives don't want an equal application of the laws and Natural Rights (Life, Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness). You want to restrict those things, regulate them, and make sure only people who think like you do have any access.

Jaycen. You provide nothing to support your claim, though I suspect that would take us off topic unless you are trying to say progressives are the ones working to deny marriage equality. That is not the case.

Surely you see it is those who identify as conservatives who are working to deny marriage equality for gay people. Yes?

It is irrational to believe allowing gay couples to participate under the rules currently in effect would require changing those rules to allow harmful relationships such as incest, child abuse, or animal abuse, as is frequently suggested. The same irrational arguments were proposed to deny equal rights to mixed race couples. They have no basis in reason, evidence, or fact.

The reasons gay people want to be treated equally under the law as required by the constitution include the 1,138 rights that accompany federal marriage recognition, among others. Same sex couples benefit in all of the many ways opposite sex couples benefit.

Agreed !!!!!!!

LOUIS LEFFINGWELL! THANK YOU!!! That's EXACTLY what it is about and why government should NOT be involved in ANY marriage. But as long as they are involved, they should not discriminate against any 2 humans who want to be married including a Mother or Father and Child who want to marry in order to keep one or the other from going into financial ruin due to a health problem. I think a child should be allowed to enter into a marriage with his/her parent in order to add the parent to their Health Insurance. Marriage, in the legal sense, has absolutely nothing to do with love or sexual relations so it is illogical to ban any two humans from marrying. Why should just certain people get benefits and tax breaks? Everyone should be able to take advantage of the benefits and tax breaks if the government is going to provide them.

Christine. While you are free to make any argument you choose, your argument is very different from the argument gay people should be allowed to participate under the rules currently in effect.

Allowing gay people to participate under the current rules does not require changing any of the rules that currently determine what marriage is for straight people.

Because there are currently 1,138 federal legal rights and protections associated with marriage, and additional state rights, it is unrealistic to believe those legal rights and protections could now be taken away.

Prohibitions against incest are backed by a substantial body of science and law. Changing that requirement would be a challenge. Additionally, relatives are already related, and most insurance recognizes those relationships.

Gay marriage is NOT about money. It is about the right to marry the person you LOVE even if that person is of the same sex. It is about the right to be together in the traditional sense as a family, to be able to promise in public that you are committed to eachother. I wish people who are against gay marriage would take just one minute to think...how would you feel if the government told you that you could not marry someone you loved. Would that be ok? What if the world were opposites and hetrosexual people were not allowed to get married? How do you think you would feel? Would that be ok for the straight world? I have been happily married to my husband for 28 years. No one told us we couldn't get married. No one should tell gay couples they can't get married either.

Louis, you are clearly an intolerant bigot. You simply don't understand the love a man can have for a doorknob. I'm sick of this country coming down on people simply because they hate doorknobs.

Doorknobs must stand up for their rights to love a man, and for a man to love a doorknob, whenever and where ever they please. The humiliation I feel whenever I receive a "look" from people like you when I'm out with my doorknob is crippling for me.

Why must we hate?

Thanks for sharing Larry....well written article.

A clear measure of tolerance can be found in the use of the law.

Chick wants to use the law to deny to others the rights they expect for themselves. We know for certain legal discrimination results in harm to real people. Denial of equal legal treatment is clearly intolerance.

Gay people are not trying to use the law to deny any rights to Cathy and Chick. They simply want Chick to stop spending millions to harm them through denial of equal treatment under the law.

Dan Johnson,

No Dan, it cannot. The word Tolerance is subjective, and that's why Progressives use it, because they can twist the meaning to suit their current agenda.

Jaycen. While words have connotations as well as denotations, there are generally agreed upon denotations for most words, including "tolerance". Here is a common one. Perhaps we can agree to use this as our operational definition?

"Tolerance: The capacity for or the practice of recognizing and respecting the beliefs or practices of others." "2. a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, etc., differ from one's own; freedom from bigotry."

Using these denotations, refusal to treat others equally under the law fails to qualify as tolerance.

And for the record, I do not normally use the word unless replying to someone else who does. As you will see on this thread, many conservatives like to use it to complain we are intolerant of their intolerance.

Didn't this whole thing begin because one part of the community didn't like what Cathy has to say when he was asked a direct question? Did he ever once come out and say anything besides he and his other executives are in their first marriage to one woman? I just don't understand the hipocrisy.
We choose not to support Hardee's because of their provocative advertisting, thats a personal choice our family has made, but I am not out there blasting anyone.

Jenoa. No, it began several years ago when it was discovered Chick was giving millions to anti-gay groups, including some who lobby and promote harming gay people in a variety of ways including prison and death. Why it is finally getting widespread national attention I'm not sure. And yes, he said much more than what you have seen. He admitted spending millions trying to make his views the law of the land, and said we are inviting God's judgement by thinking about allowing marriage equality. It is not just his words, but his actions that are harmful. He spends millions in profits to impose his discriminatory beliefs on the entire population at the expense of other citizens. This is un-American, and many believe it is also un-Christian.

Chick spends millions working to deny to others the rights they expect for themselves. We know for certain legal discrimination results in harm to real people. Using the law to harm others through denial of equal rights clearly fulfills the definitions of discrimination and prejudice, if not hate.

Dan Johnson... you keep posting the same thing over and over... can you give me details of how Chick-Fil-A is using the law to spread hate? And I mean specific examples. Donating to an organization that is anti-gay is not using the law so give us something else other than that... the law/government appears to be trying to destroy them, not the other way around.

James. It appears you are attributing to me, things I have not said. I have avoided the label of hate, as it is a motivation that can only be inferred, not proven without an admission. Prejudice, legal discrimination, and even intolerance however, can be clearly demonstrated. The definitions are fulfilled by denial of equal rights.

Chick supports, financially as well as publicly, groups that lobby congress and legislatures, proposing and supporting laws that deny equal rights. This has been going on for many years and is well documented. The anti-gay work done by these organizations is also well documented and includes not only denial of marriage equality, but denial of other equal treatment under the law, as well as re-criminalizing simply being gay. Efforts to deny legal equality financially supported by Chick include efforts in other countries as well as here at home. Again, this is well documented.

Yes, they have the right to voice their feelings, and they also have the right, as they are doing, to spend millions trying to impose those feelings on everyone else using the force of law. The constitution however was intended to prevent the majority from using the law to deny to others the rights they expect for themselves.

James Madison wrote: “It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part … If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure.”

The U.S. Supreme Court said: "The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections."

Most people who want to vote on equal rights have nothing to lose, and know majorities will restrict the rights of others if given the chance. Equality was never intended to be up for a vote, and we know from history and science that prejudice and discrimination result in suffering and death.

Voicing your opinion is one thing. Giving money to organizations that promote murder is something else entirely. I can say outloud that I don't like people with glasses. I cannot give money to you so that you can go out on the street with a bat and hit people who wear glasses. That is wrong. Period.

Sam the Watermelon Man, the TRUE Sam, passed away some time ago. His son Leon has passed also. I question your screen name.

good point Louis, we certainly wouldn't want people "doing good" now would we?

That will convince them all to change their minds, Louis!

The compelling logic, reason, and evidence, fails to support using the law to harm others through denial of equal rights. In fact, it supports treating all persons equally under the law as required by the constitution.

You, Louis, provide nothing beyond vague fear mongering and pejorative terminology to support using the law to harm gay people.

Dr. Chris Beyrer, director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Public Health: "We know for certain that lesbian and gay individuals suffer harm to their physical and psychological health, and to their relationships and quality of life, as result of the shame, isolation and stigma accrued from their social and legal disenfranchisement."

"When faced with compelling logic, reason and evidence that debunks their positions they then revert to yelling and calling their opponents names."
"Larry "The Liberal" Lazar, Artichoke Annie, and the other doped up members of the intolerant left..."
You were saying?

Couldn't have said it better Tammy.

Tammy,
I agree that those that support Chic Fil A's position on gay marriage are not "haters". I also understand that you can still love people that you disagree with.
That does not change the fact that you are imposing your beliefs on others that do not share those beliefs. You are restricting their freedoms to have the same basic fundamental rights that you have.
This is the exact same argument that was used against "interracial marriage" back in the day and it is the definition of bigotry - which is bascially "intolerance" of those that have different beliefs or worldviews.
You are also claiming to have determined "God's Plan" - I"m sure we can find many others that have similiarly read the mind of God and came to a much different conclusion than you have.

I am sure you are a good person, but by patronizing Chick-fil-A you are indirectly providing money to organizations that I think you would agree are not "good." Cathy donates big bucks to anti-gay hate groups (as designated by the Southern Poverty Law Center). These organizations demonize homosexuals, spread lies and venom, and twist research to fit their perverted goals.

Your refusal to treat others the way you want to be treated may not be motivated by hate. But no matter what the motivation, the result is needless harm and suffering for millions of people.

Using the law to harm others through denial of equal rights clearly fulfills the definitions of prejudice, discrimination, and intolerance, if not hate.

The American Psychological Association : "Prejudice and discrimination have social and personal impact." "The widespread prejudice, discrimination, and violence to which lesbians and gay men are often subjected are significant mental health concerns. Sexual prejudice, sexual orientation discrimination, and anti-gay violence are major sources of stress for lesbian, gay, and bisexual people. Although social support is crucial in coping with stress, anti-gay attitudes and discrimination may make it difficult for lesbian, gay, and bisexual people to find such support."

The Ca. Supreme Court: "While retention of the limitation of marriage to opposite-sex couples is not needed to preserve the rights and benefits of opposite-sex couples, the exclusion of same sex couples from the designation of marriage works a real and appreciable harm upon same-sex couples and their children." (p.117 In re marriage)

"The Court finds that neither Congress' claimed legislative justifications nor any of the proposed reasons proffered by BLAG constitute bases rationally related to any of the alleged governmental interests. Further, after concluding that neither the law nor the record can sustain any of the interests suggested, the Court, having tried on its own, cannot conceive of any additional interests that DOMA might further."

"Prejudice, we are beginning to understand, rises not from malice or hostile animus alone. It may result as well from insensitivity caused by simple want of careful, rational reflection or from some instinctive mechanism to guard against people who appear to be different in some respects from ourselves."

Conclusion: DOMA, as it relates to Golinski's case, "violates her right to equal protection of the law under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution"

Yes, actually it does make you a bigot. Because you are denying people their civil rights. You can have YOUR belief in God's plan...you can also follow what you believe it God's plan. You should not have the right to force what you think is God's plan on anyone else. That is exactly what you are doing when you say that marriage should be denied to homosexuals. You are by defacto, keeping an entire group of people from having the same rights that you enjoy. If that is not hate, I don't know what is. As far as Chick fil A, lifiting up enpowering young people...hog wash. They certainly aren't empowering anyone with their donations to Exodus International's "pray the gay away". Psychologists would tell you they are only hurting young people by supporting that kind of psychological touture.

Dan Johnson,

Thanks for the lesson in collectivism, Dan, and why your mentality is twisted and dangerous.

Sir, you don't understand the first thing about fairness, and you are a really frightening individual. Please never enter the world of politics.

Jaycen. Your demeaning, dehumanizing personal attack fails to refute any of the documentation provided. Ad hominem attacks are the refuge of those who have no argument on the merits.

"No prejudice has even been able to prove its case in the court of reason” Marguerite Gardiner

That "one man's opinion" is backed by millions of dollars directed toward imposing his opinion by making it the law of the land, resulting in needless harm to millions of Americans. The prejudice and discrimination he promotes causes real harm to real people.

See, Richard?

Opinions don't matter to people like Dan Johnson. Dan will make it about "millions of dollars". For Dan, it all comes down to power, his power over your life to force you to think or say or do as Dan wishes.

Jaycen. You fail to demonstrate how I am forcing anyone to say or think as I wish.

It also fails to refute the fact Cathy is doing more than simply expressing an opinion but is working to make that opinion the law of the land. Clearly, it is Cathy who seeks to control the lives of others, not me.

Ad hominem attacks remain the refuge of those who have no argument on the merits.

"Prejudices are the chains forged by ignorance to keep men apart.” Marguerite Gardiner

Denial of equal legal rights has a direct effect on those denied. It is a harmful imposition of beliefs through denial of legal rights.

Equal treatment under the law does not force anyone to change their beliefs. Treating others the way you want to be treated under the law, does not deny any rights nor impose any beliefs. You are still free to believe whatever you choose.

Relevant how? And remember that part-time working students make up a large percentage of those citizens not paying taxes. Look at the stats deeper...if you dare.

Chick is spending millions to deny to others the rights they expect for themselves.

Those opposed to Chick's message of prejudice and legal discrimination are not trying to use the law to deny rights to Chick.

The desire to deny equal rights as required by the constitution is one sided.

Is Soros proposing laws that deny equal rights?
Chick certainly is.

Harming gay people is on the agenda of Exodus and the other anti-gay groups Chick supports. While they deny the motivation is hate, the result is the same: needless suffering and harm to real people.

Using the law to deny to others the rights you expect for yourself is not freedom. It is oppression:
"All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression." - Thomas Jefferson

A to the MEN Dan!!!!! So true!!!

Treating everyone equally as required by the constitution = tolerance.

Refusing to treat others the way you want to be treated under the law = intolerance.

"Prejudices, it is well known, are most difficult to eradicate from the heart whose soil has never been loosened or fertilized by education; they grow there, firm as weeds among stones.'” Charlotte Bronte

Thousands flock to Chick to support using the law to deny to others the rights they expect for themselves, harming millions of Americans through the promotion of prejudice and legal discrimination.

A few mayors publicly state prejudice and discrimination are not Chicago or Boston values.

And yet you believe the majority of hate is coming from progressives?

I personally am not willing to label all legal discrimination as hate, yet denial of legal equality is harmful and clearly fulfills the definitions of prejudice, discrimination, and intolerance, if not hate.

No one is saying he can't say what he wants, and even spend his money trying to harm others through denial of equal legal rights.

But if you read the constitution as well as the founding documents, you will find the concept of equal treatment under the law is a requirement. "

Conclusion: DOMA, as it relates to Golinski's case, "violates her right to equal protection of the law under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution" (Golinski v OPM)

As an owner of 3 rescued dogs, I want dogs to be treated equally under the law. Anyone out there who disagrees with me is hateful, intolerant, and a bigot and I'm not eating your Chikkin!!!!

lol. Are you saying all dogs should be treated equally, or that dogs should be treated equally to how we treat people?

While free to advocate for either position, the constitution does not require any animals to be treated equally to people. It does however, require all persons be treated equally under the law.

Treating all persons equally as required by the constitution = tolerance.
Refusing to treat all persons the way you want to be treated = intolerance.

David - was that tolerance and love that the guy was showing when he went through the drive through at Chik-fil-A this week? Multiply that guy by millions and that is pretty much what people with Judeo-Christian values deal with on a day to day basis. I'm not saying those with Judeo-Christian values are right, but I am saying they deal with this intolerant hateful attitude from the Left on a daily basis.

Again;

Treating all persons equally under the law as required by the constitution = tolerance.

Refusing to treat all persons the way you want to be treated under the law = intolerance.

It's happening in Muslim countries--the nurses in Pakistan recently. The Coptics in Egypt threatened by mobs for allowing buses of tourists to visit their churches. Churches in various countries burned. This doesn't get in the TV network news - you have to look elsewhere but it's happening. Of course, they hate the gays also.

While I do not call people bigots, and rarely us the word "homophobe", free speech means others are free to use those words when you support denial of legal equality. Free speech goes both ways. You are free to promote prejudice and discrimination, and they are free to disagree.

No one is trying to prevent free speech. What those who support equal rights for gay people want to stop is using the law to deny equal treatment. That requires more speech.

The bible contains 8 different types of marriage. When you insist on only one of those 8 being imposed on everyone, and claim it is God's will, you will find resistance from other religious people as well as from non-believers. Your misinterpretation of the bible has no place in the law when it conflicts with the constitutional requirement to treat all persons equally under the law.

Sandusky is a straight, married, pedophile. He is not an authentic gay person seeking to marry a consenting adult.

The U.S. Supreme Court said: "The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections."

"In the court’s final analysis, the government’s only basis for supporting DOMA comes down to an apparent belief that the moral views of the majority may properly be enacted as the law of the land in regard to state-sanctioned same-sex marriage in disregard of the personal status and living conditions of a significant segment of our pluralistic society. Such a view is not consistent with the evidence or the law as embodied in the Fifth Amendment with respect to the thoughts expressed in this decision. The court has no doubt about its conclusion: DOMA deprives them of the equal protection of the law to which they are entitled."

Again;

Treating all persons equally under the law as required by the constitution = tolerance.

Refusing to treat all persons the way you want to be treated under the law = intolerance.

Good idea.

While on the surface your compromise has appeal, in practice only the equal rights of gay people are compromised. Either way, straight people lose nothing. Only gay people sacrifice equality.

Adopted by several states, this "compromise" may seem reasonable to those not affected. While some states have adopted this approach, those with less than marriage have had some problems covering everything, and others don't even attempt to cover everything. Also, those who administer those rights don't always know or understand their duties under the law, and because some feel it is inferior, some refuse to apply it until the couple comes back with an expensive attorney. So while it may seem like a reasonable compromise, it doesn't carry the same recognition in practice.

The Supreme Court ruled on the matter of "separate but equal" in the 1954 case Brown v. Board of Education. The court recognized that "separate but equal" opportunities created a feeling of inferiority for the minorities being segregated, and that this feeling of segregation could cause permanent emotional injury.

The Ca. Supreme Court found "While retention of the limitation of marriage to opposite-sex couples is not needed to preserve the rights and benefits of opposite-sex couples, the exclusion of same sex couples from the designation of marriage works a real and appreciable harm upon same-sex couples and their children. (p.117) Additionally, the court found "the statutory provisions that continue to limit access to this designation exclusively to opposite sex couples likely will be viewed as an official statement that the family relationship of same sex couples is not of comparable stature or equal dignity to the family relationship of opposite-sex couples." (p.118 In re Marriage Cases)

You already have the over 1,138 rights denied to gay people. But for those who are denied those rights, especially those families with children, it is vitally important.

But why is it so important to those who will not lose any rights if marriage equality is someday recognized? Equal rights harms no one, while prejudice and discrimination result in needless suffering and death.

Gay people have been getting married throughout history, but that isn't widely known as the information has been repressed by those who wish to punish and demonize gay people. But the record is there, dating back at least 4,000 years. It has not always been "one man and one woman" as so many are fond of saying.

Allowing gay people to participate under the same rules you apply to yourself does not take away any rights from you and therefore does not harm you and won't require any change in the rules and rights for straight people or their families. Gay people are already forming families. Denial of the same rights you have won't change that fact. It will only harm those families. Yet allowing us the same opportunities you have won't harm you. Opposition to marriage equality results in needless suffering, while equality under the law harms no one.

I'm with you Tammy. As you can see, it's no longer about rights. It's about going after that word & getting some kind of revenge. As you can see, Dan sees gaining all of the rights that he claims aren't afforded as a loss. What's left if the loss of rights is covered? He told you one of them, "straight people LOSE nothing", so it's about taking something as well (as punishment for something? I don't know). And because he sees it as a loss, even after all rights became equal in your scenario, the word wasn't redefined. Also apparently, a necessity. Sorry Tammy, but your scenario falls short of at least 2 of the goals that have now been unveiled.
It was nice of Dan to have done his research, (and that is not at all sarcastic, he's obviously very well-read) but if the rights were equal, none of those things he pontificated about, would not have happened. He continues to describe situations on unequal ground. While he's done his research, their are a lot of things that a boyfriend or girlfriend cannot be a part of that a wife or husband can, gay or straight. The duties of law would be identical if rights were equal, there would be no EXtra "duties under the law", maybe that's another one of the problems with simply making the rights equal. It's just starting to feel like that's not the goal anymore to me.

Devon. You are misinterpreting my attempts to demonstrate you have nothing to lose by allowing other the same right you enjoy. We don't want to take away any of your rights. We want you to have all of them, because we want all of them too. But allowing us to have them doesn't require you to give them up. There is no quota. It only makes them stronger when everyone has them, as was the dream of the founders. They knew from history as well as their present, majorities would try to deny equality to minorities. They tried to structure a government that would require equal treatment. Fulfilling that goal has been and continues to be an ongoing process. Remember inter-racial marriage restrictions weren't overcome until 1967. But there is no desire to punish or harm anyone by taking away any of the rights they already have. Again, we want all of those rights too, as we have been promised by our government all our lives, but denied by the majority. Your fear is unfounded.

Great point Darci. In this country, we can thank our military veterans for the right to hold and speak of our own opinions and beliefs. But to mistreat or disrespect ANYONE is wrong, no matter if we view their position as right or wrong. This was my point earlier. Jesus wouldn't do that.

GREAT !!!!!!!

I support your Right to make that statement. I will choose to make a statement by not patronizing any Chick-fil-A whose COO supports the suppression of individual Rights granted to American citizens who happen to be Gay.

Prejudice is a burden that confuses the past, threatens the future and renders the present inaccessible.
Maya Angelou

"In up to 50 percent of reported cases, offenders are adolescents.1,5 In 82 percent of accusations recently studied the accused offender was a heterosexual partner of a close relative of the child's. Researchers estimate that between 96 to 100 percent of accused abusers are recognizably heterosexual.25 Another study found that almost half of offending fathers and stepfathers also abused children outside their family." 1 http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/publications/publications-a-z/410-child-sexual-abuse-i-an-overview

Your desire to demonize gay people as sex offenders, while popular among those opposed to equal rights for gay people, does not stand up to the evidence.

Sandusky is a straight, married, pedophile. He is not an authentic gay person seeking to marry another consenting same sex adult.

When confronted with the frequently promoted lie that gay people are child abusers and therefore should be denied marriage equality, it helps to remember a few details:

Heterosexual convicted sex offenders are not denied the fundamental right of marriage. (even in prison)

Most offenders are male. About half of the gay population is female.

Most offenders family members, or friends of the mother.

Opportunity is usually the determining factor for the offender. Gender of the child is not as important as access and the least chance of getting reported by the victim.

The 14th amendment says no state shall "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

The Equal Protection Clause “ ‘neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens.’ (SCOTUS)

The U.S. Supreme Court said: "The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections."

Attorneys Theodore B. Olson and David Boies wrote in their prop.8 filing: "Fourteen times the Supreme Court has stated that marriage is a fundamental right of all individuals. This case tests the proposition whether the gay and lesbian Americans among us should be counted as ‘persons’ under the 14th Amendment, or whether they constitute a permanent underclass ineligible for protection under that cornerstone of our Constitution.”

The trial court and appellate court agreed. Discrimination is prohibited.

mike k, would you care to cite your sources that prove your point?

Resorting to a personal attack fails to demonstrate how denial of equal rights does not fulfill the definition of intolerance.

Unfortunately for your argument, denial of equal treatment under the law undisputedly fulfills the definition of intolerance, as well as prejudice and discrimination.

We also know through history, science, literature, and law; prejudice and discrimination cause harm in a wide variety of ways.

The American Psychological Association : "Prejudice and discrimination have social and personal impact." "The widespread prejudice, discrimination, and violence to which lesbians and gay men are often subjected are significant mental health concerns. Sexual prejudice, sexual orientation discrimination, and anti-gay violence are major sources of stress for lesbian, gay, and bisexual people. Although social support is crucial in coping with stress, anti-gay attitudes and discrimination may make it difficult for lesbian, gay, and bisexual people to find such support."

Christine, are you ACTUALLY saying that, in your opinion, being "required" to treat people correctly "by the constitution"....haven't seen THAT one before....makes a person "tolerant"?
And, that someone not accepting YOUR point of view makes them intolerant, but not vice versa?
I thought treating people with tolerance was a message from God?

Dan Johnson: You really have invested alot of time and energy in this topic today, probably more than any other single writer here? After reading your many comments, I am convinced that you are a very intelligent and sensitive person. It also seems that this issue may be very personal to you, so I understand. I want you to know that I'm very sorry if anyone has ever mistreated or disrespected you or your loved ones because of this topic. Please consider the notion that God loves all of us no matter what we practice people ....... he loves us and offers his grace even when we refuse to accept what he calls us to do and how to live. Scripture is very clear regarding what God's definition is for marriage, as well as not being the first to judge others ....... as none of us are without sin.

Tammy. Thanks for the kind thoughts.

It is often difficult for those who are not harmed by laws and religious beliefs which perpetuate anti-gay prejudice, to recognize and appreciate the severity of harm caused by those anti-gay laws and scientifically unsupportable beliefs. I suspect you are not closely related to any of the 14,000 gay people who have had their careers and sometimes their very lives destroyed by DADT. I suspect you have never been physically attacked and beaten simply for being gay, fired from your job, kicked out of your home, disowned by family members, friends, and church, for who you love. You do not feel the effects of the demonization and dehumanization some who claim to be Christians dish out daily which drives many gay people to self destructive behavior including suicide. You don't have one of the major political parties trying to re-criminalize you, including some who want to return us to the recent past when if we voiced our opinion we were locked up in jails and institutions, sometimes for life, and tortured with emetics, electric shock, castration, and lobotomies. You are not among the highest per capita victims of hate crimes, youth homelessness, and suicide. Individuals and governments don't bully, beat, imprison, torture, and kill you because of who you love. Suffering and death are the extreme results of the belief being gay is not acceptable and we must change or live a life of celibacy and denial of our humanity.

Not all Christian groups judge and condemn, and some accept gay people as we are without condition. But those who demonize and punish us, are killing us. I have seen the death and destruction first hand, and can tolerate it no more. Many of us reach a point where we decide to fight back rather than kill ourselves or accept punishment and dehumanization as a way of life. We have no choice but to challenge and oppose prejudice no matter where it comes from, and whether it is mild or extreme. Decades of history and science, in addition to trial records of many different courts have all clearly demonstrated: Prejudice and discrimination cause needless suffering and death.

Not all religious scholars, leaders, and believe the bible is as clear about marriage as you seem to believe. There are 8 different types of marriage in the bible. Many who have devoted their lives to religious study, understand the context of the times included pagan ritual sex, temple prostitution, and worship of other gods and idols. The verses often misinterpreted to condemn gay people were addressing abusive, ritualized relationships, not same sex relationships based on mutual love and respect,

"The New Testament and Homosexuality" Robin Scroggs, Prof of New Testament at Union Theological Seminary is a serious theologian and is favorable reviewed by many theologians. He is a happily married heterosexual with no personal bias. He includes cites from Boswell and expands further especially on pederasty and concludes there is nothing biblically wrong with homosexuality."

"What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality" by Daniel Helminiask, PH.D., was ordained as a Catholic priest in 1967 and is incardinated in the Diocese of Pittsburgh. From 1981-1985 was Assoc Prof for Systematic Theology at Oblate School of Theology and earlier completed his Ph.D. in systematic theology at Boston College and Andover Newton Theological School. He concludes the Bible says absolutely nothing about homosexuality being sinful when you examine the actual Hebrew/Greek texts."

And there are many more...

The Bible says
“If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination.” (Leviticus 20:13)

“Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived, neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.” (1 Corinthians 6:9-11)"

The Bible said it and Christians believe it. Period. As a Christian run business they are entitled to operate by their set of morals and ethics. If you don't like the values they support then don't eat there. I think this stream of comments has really gone off the deep end. It hardly addresses the topic at hand anymore!

I think this blog speaks to the heart of the matter in a very fair and impartial way.

http://rachelheldevans.com/chick-fil-a

Bonnie. As previously documented, the word "homosexual" did not exist before 1869. Therefore, whenever you see it in your modern English bible, it is a clear mistranslation of the original text. And the verses taken out of context from Leviticus were addressing the cleanliness code and pagan fertility rituals. Yet even after reading the blog you reference, you still use a couple of mistranslated, misinterpreted bible verses to justify killing and harming gay people!

And you don't even attempt to follow Leviticus, including these verses: Leviticus 19:18: You shall not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of your people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the LORD.

and Leviticus 19:34: But the stranger that dwells with you shall be to you as one born among you, and you shall love him as yourself; for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.

From your blog reference: "Up to 40% of all homeless youth identify as LGBT," she writes, "and of those, almost 80% left because their families rejected them when they came out...There are more than 1100 federal benefits denied to same-sex couples...LGBT youth are five times more likely to attempt suicide than their straight peers...That’s a real injustice.”

All you have is a few misinterpreted bible verses to justify ignoring the Golden Rule: "Matthew 7:12: So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets."

Dan, I never took 'a side'. I only stated what the Bible says (which I think saying that portions of the Bible are 'wrong' then I guess you are free to interpret EVERY scripture how you want it to read. There are no mistakes in the Bible. I respectfully disagree with your 'interpretation'. I am not hateful, mean, vengeful --and I do live by the "love your neighbor as yourself'. I am simply stating that on the internet, you will find a 'factual' article to back up any claim you want to make and statistics to support it. I am not ant-gay nor a homophobe. But I do believe in the traditional man and woman definition of marriage. Gay people can get married in states where it is allowed, and otherwise, they live together in 'common law', even if that does not give them the same benefits by some companies for medical benefits. If they disagree with that, then move where their lifestyle is more accepted and celebrated. I am NOT out to persecute a gay person. I am not to judge them. That is between them and when they stand before God. Dan, if you haven't noticed, we live in a fallen world and strife is part of it. I applaud you for standing up for what you believe, but you need to more open-minded that other people feel just as passionately about the opposite view. For me, I see both sides, but I feel from a Biblical perspective that Chick Fil A can do what they want. They are not 'the law' and they are not 'taking away your rights.' That is a lot of power to give one company

Again, as well documented and admitted by Chick, they spend millions trying to make their discriminatory belief the law of the land. That is using the law to harm others through denial of equal rights.

My view: treat others the way you want to be treated under the law. (as required by the constitution)

Opposite view: refuse to treat others the way you want to be treated. Use the law to harm others needlessly by imposing your denial of equal treatment, using the force of law. Even though history and science has shown prejudice and discrimination cause needless suffering and death, use a few mistranslated bible verses to justify harming others and ignoring the Golden Rule.

While I am glad to see you don't want to think of yourself as anti-gay, denial of equal legal treatment, as well as promoting misinterpreted bible verses that call for punishment and death for gay people, is clearly anti-gay. And again, you don't even attempt to follow all of the bible verses, especially in Leviticus.

No matter what your motivation, the results are the same. Prejudice and discrimination inescapably result in needless suffering and death.

And another request to be tolerant of intolerance, and not exercise our freedom of speech in opposing legal discrimination.

Again, it is Chick who seeks to deny legal equal right, spending millions to impose their beliefs using the force of law. That fulfills the definitions of intolerance, prejudice, and discrimination.

Gay people want Chick to stop supporting legal discrimination, prejudice, and intolerance.

Can't help but laugh at that one. Sorry! Ba ha ha ha ha!

"I believe all Americans who believe in freedom, tolerance and human rights have a responsibility to oppose bigotry and prejudice based on sexual orientation."
Coretta Scott King

So, Marshell, only those who AGREE with your view has any Rights? By disagreeing with you, everyone is subject to ridicule and abusive name-calling?
I, and others sharing my views, cannot voice OUR First Amendment Right? But, you are allowed to use falsehoods and misogynistic references to make your 'point'?
Time to grow up.

It appears you haven't been paying attention.

No one is claiming the stores practice discrimination in serving customers. They will take money from anyone.

No one is saying he can't voice his opinions, no matter how irrational and harmful.

The problem is, Chick spends millions trying to make their opinion the law of the land, at the expense of the equal rights of millions of other Americans. By supporting Chick, you are supporting harming others through denial of equal rights. The organizations they support also promote prejudice and discrimination in other areas as well, resulting in needless harm to millions of real people around the world.

There are 8 different types of marriage in the bible. Your belief, while popular, is not supported by scripture. You are using your limited and incorrect understanding of scripture to justify harming others needlessly, ignoring the many verses that tell you to treat others the way you want to be treated and leave the judgement and condemnation to God.

Romans 13; 8: Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for he who loves his fellowman has fulfilled the law.
9:The commandments, “Do not commit adultery,” “Do not murder,” “Do not steal,” “Do not covet, and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this one rule: “Love your neighbor as yourself.
10: Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.

Dan, you say there are 8 different types of marriage in the Bible. My wife has a theological degree and this is news to her. Please list those 8 different types and if you can give the scriptural references that would be helpful. (She says all sexual sin is a mortal sin, straight or gay, in the New Testament.) Thanks in advance.

Gary. Too long to post here, but if you search "8 types of marriage in the bible." you will find many sources that provide chapter and verse. One of my favorites is; http://www.religioustolerance.org/mar_bibl0.htm

"What the bible says- and doesn't say- about homosexuality" by Rev. Dr. Mel White is another.

Abortion is a very different argument. It has noting to do with denial of equal rights of marriage for gay people.

Wendy's did not support abortion for some while denying equal legal treatment to others. If they supported rights for themselves while denying that same right to others, you would have an analogy. Chick works to deny equal rights. They refuse to treat others the way the want to be treated.

Again, no one is saying he can't voice his opinions, no matter how irrational and harmful.

The problem is, Chick spends millions trying to make their opinion the law of the land, at the expense of the equal rights of millions of other Americans. By supporting Chick, you are supporting harming others through denial of equal rights.

It appears you take delight in being able to harm others. Would you say your enjoyment in harming others is based on hate, a belief you are superior to others, or what?

Your goat cannot demonstrate informed consent, and probably can't meet the age requirements either.
It also does not qualify as a "person".

Marriage equality does not require changing the age requirements, informed consent requirements, or requirements to be a person. The constitution does not require treating animals as equal to persons. It does however require that no state "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

I am relieved to hear you are discussing your animal fetish with a therapist though. Hope he can help you understand the difference between a person and an animal, and why there is no constitutional right to marry an animal, even if it could meet the age and informed consent requirements.

If you do ever find an animal that can demonstrate the legal requirement of informed consent, I suggest you travel the world and make millions. If you marry it, such an animal would be smart enough it might decide to divorce you and take half your stuff.

Care to share what your goat told you? I'm curious.
I hope you are discussing what your goat has to say with your therapist.

Agree!!

"Prejudice is being down on something you're not up on”

It appears you have missed the many posts and documentation showing he spends millions in support of imposing his opinion on everyone else using the force of law. He seeks to punish gay people through denial of the rights he wants for himself, using the force of law.

The Court: "I'm asking you to tell me how it would harm opposite sex marriages."

Mr. Cooper: "Your Honor, my answer is: I don't know. I don't know."
p. 24, Motion for Summary Judgement, Perry

Even the highly paid attorney defending prop 8 could not provide any evidence marriage equality would harm so called "traditional marriage".

Traditional AND same sex marriage have the same human lack of morality. So no same sex marriage have cheating, abuse, disloyalty, neglect and dishhonor? Tony, that is preposterous to say only heterosexual marriages have those pitfalls. Humans are humans and they ALL have those sinful qualities to one extent or another.

Not if Chick gets to impose their prejudice on us all, using the force of law.

I'm sorry, can you please clarify? Are you suggesting that in order to be "married" one must "accept Scripture as the word of God" otherwise they can only be in a "union"? I just want to make sure I understand your post correctly. Thanks.

While not always motivated by hate, denial of equal rights under the law fulfills the definitions of prejudice and discrimination, as well as intolerance. "Prejudice, we are beginning to understand, rises not from malice or hostile animus alone. It may result as well from insensitivity caused by simple want of careful, rational reflection or from some instinctive mechanism to guard against people who appear to be different in some respects from ourselves. Conclusion: DOMA, as it relates to Golinski's case, "violates her right to equal protection of the law under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution" "

You fail to demonstrate where I have twisted scriptures. Yet I have demonstrated and documented where those opposed to equal rights have mistranslated and misinterpreted a few scriptures to suit their desire to harm gay people.

Marriage equality for gay people requires treating same sex couples equally under the laws currently in effect. No other changes are necessary.

You may want to google "cousin marriage by state" to see if the state you choose for your marriage allows it. Some do, some don't.

SoCal n happy, it depends on the laws of each state. Some states allow first cousins to marry while others don't. A little over 100 years ago a pair of first cousins in my family tree went to Minnesota to marry where it was legal because it wasn't where they lived in South Dakota. They went on to have kids. First cousins marrying first cousins was common in some countries. Of course, there is an issue when there is a genetic disease that runs in certain families, but in my family tree where first cousins married first cousins the kids turned out normal (such as a set of great-great-grandparents, parents of one of my great-grandfathers).

Sorry. Marriage equality for gay people requires treating same sex couples equally under the laws currently in effect. No other changes are necessary.

Poly arrangements are a very different argument, as they require changing the laws as well as the social dynamics of the entire society. Allowing gay couples to participate under the laws currently in effect requires no such alterations.

Lots of businesses are kept out of places, re: zoning and planning boards. Cathy can sell chicken, just not with new stores in Chicago. The mayor is against discrimination, not chicken-selling.

The Chicago Mayor said that Chick-fil-a does not fit with the values of Chicago. This is a place that hasn't had values since before Capone. Have we forgotten that the last 2 governors of Illinois are in prison? You can't say that about Chick-fil-a.

Chick-fil-a has also shown positive comp sales & positive comp profits for over 60 straight years, can the City of Chicago EVER show where they've made a profit?

Is the Chicago Mayor REALLY trying to indicate a system built on morality, honesty, & positive values?

If anything, Chick-fil-a should take that as a compliment.

You seem to have missed a lot of the events leading up to the current publicity. Chick has been funding anti-gay groups for many years, and many who support equal rights for gay people have known this for a long time. I'm not sure why all of the attention now.

But the current resurgence is a result of Mr. Cathy restating his opposition to equality in print and on the radio. The response from mayors and those who support equal rights was in response to Cathy's restatement of his desire to deny marriage equality to gay people.

Additionally, he never said he would refuse to allow Chick to build new stores:

“The Mayor simply said that Chick-fil-a’s CEO does not share Chicago’s values. He did not say that he would block or play any role in the company opening a new restaurant here,” mayoral press secretary Tarrah Cooper said the following day. “If they meet all the usual requirements, then they can open their restaurant, but he does not believe the CEO’s values are reflective of our city.”

Dan Johnson, you sure use a lot of words to say nothing. Try this : King James Version, LEVITICUS, CHAPTER 20, VERSE 13. This will tell you actually what our God thinks about Homo's and Lesbian's, this act is not a sin but rather an obamination.

Jean Whitney. Please do not show your lack of intelligence by writing such dumb statements, namely, " The mayor is against DISCRIMINATION, not chicken-selling. "
Young lady, the mayor of Chicago is a pig and is discriminating against Mr. Cathy and job creation. A typical democrat

William. Despite your reliance on demeaning terminology and personal abuse, the mayor did not stop Chick from creating jobs. He merely indicated harming others needlessly is a value neither he nor the city support.

William. We covered Leviticus somewhere in this thread. It appears you are another cafeteria Christian, picking and choosing verses out of context to support your prejudice while ignoring others including the many that stress the Golden Rule. Leviticus was addressing the cleanliness codes and prohibitions against Pagan ritual sex. It says nothing about lesbians, and it also tells you to treat others the way you want to be treated: Leviticus 19:18: You shall not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of your people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the LORD.

And Leviticus 19:34: But the stranger that dwells with you shall be to you as one born among you, and you shall love him as yourself; for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.

You need to consider Leviticus in context:
"Both of these verses refer not to homosexuals but to heterosexuals who took part in the baal fertility rituals in order to guarantee good crops and healthy flocks. No hint at sexual orientation or homosexuality is even implied. The word abomination in Leviticus was used for anything that was considered to be religiously unclean or associated with idol worship.

"Because these two verses in Leviticus have been used more than any other Bible texts to condemn and reject gay and lesbian people, the following material is given to help you think objectively about traditional abusive use of the Bible regarding homosexuals.

The use of Leviticus to condemn and reject homosexuals is obviously a hypocritical selective use of the Bible against gays and lesbians. Nobody today tries to keep the laws in Leviticus. Look at Leviticus 11:1-12, where all unclean animals are forbidden as food, including rabbits, pigs, and shellfish, such as oysters, shrimp, lobsters, crabs, clams, and others that are called an "abomination." Leviticus 20:25 demands that "you are to make a distinction between the clean and unclean animal and between the unclean and clean bird; and you shall not make yourself an abomination by animal or by bird or by anything that creeps on the ground, which I have separated for you as unclean." You can eat some insects like locusts (grasshoppers), but not others."

Leviticus 12:1-8 declares that a woman is unclean for 33 days after giving birth to a boy and for 66 days after giving birth to a girl and goes on to demand that certain animals must be offered as a burnt offering and a sin offering for cleansing. Nobody today who claims to be a Christian tries to keep these laws, and few people even know about them! Why do you think that most people don't know about them?"
(continued at:)
http://www.otkenyer.hu/truluck/six_bible_passages.html

And still no scientific justification nor legitimate governmental interest sufficient for denial of equal rights as required by the constitution.

I was just trying to understand your post. That was the only reason I asked. I didn't want to misinterpret what you were saying. When I read it, it sounded like it was a suggested definition of marriage. Meaning you are married if you accept the scripture otherwise you are in a union. Thanks for the clarification. I see what you were meaning now.

Not only is it in the Old Testiment it is in the New as well. Romans 1:26–27, 1 Corinthians 6:9–10, and 1 Timothy 1:9–10. Jesus also said he came to fullfil the Old Testiment not to do away with it.

Will anyone claim they attempt to follow all of the old testamtent?

"The Bible is the story of God's love for the world and the people of the world. It tells the history of God's love at work rescuing, renewing, and empowering humankind. It was never intended to be a book about human sexuality... In fact, the Bible accepts sexual practices that we condemn and condemns sexual practices that we accept. Lots of them! Here are a few examples.

DEUTERONOMY 22:13-21
If it is discovered that a bride is not a virgin, the Bible demands that she be executed by stoning immediately.
DEUTERONOMY 22:22
If a married person has sex with someone else's husband or wife, the Bible commands that both adulterers be stoned to death.
MARK 10:1-12
Divorce is strictly forbidden in both Testaments, as is remarriage of anyone who has been divorced.
LEVITICUS 18:19
The Bible forbids a married couple from having sexual intercourse during a woman's period. If they disobey, both shall be executed.
MARK 12:18-27
If a man dies childless, his widow is ordered by biblical law to have intercourse with each of his brothers in turn until she bears her deceased husband a male heir.
DEUTERONOMY 25:11-12
If a man gets into a fight with another man and his wife seeks to rescue her husband by grabbing the enemy's genitals, her hand shall be cut off and no pity shall be shown her. "
(quotes from: "What the bible says- and doesn't say- about homosexuality" by Rev. Dr. Mel White)

"I Cor 6:9, no way refers to homosexuality. The original Greek word often quoted as sexual immorality, Paul used was "porneia" which means "a harlot for hire". In Corinth in the temples of Venus, the principal deity of Corinth, where Christians went to worship, a thousand public prostitutes were kept at public expense to glorify and act as surrogates for the fertility Gods. This sex with the pagan Gods is what Paul was talking about - fornication is an admitted mistranslation and has nothing to do with gays or singles sex. This rendering reflected the bias of the translators rather than an accurate translation of Paul's words to a culture of 2000 years ago worshipping pagan sex gods.

Romans 1:26-27 mentions homosexual acts performed by people who are clearly described as heterosexual. The men in the NT patriarchal culture exerted dominance not only over women, but over younger males as well. The nature of homosexual acts in the Bible are so very different from what we know as homosexuality today that the passages have no application to today's homosexuality. Such practices as in NT times simply no longer exist. Alleged references to homosexuality in I Corinthians and I Timothy are the inventions of anti-gay translators. They are not in the original Greek texts. " (Rev. Dr. Mel White)

Are you claiming you even attempt to follow all of the rules of the old testament?

My guess is you are using a modern English translation of ancient texts and not the original. The sad result is you promote needless suffering and death, and blame it on Jesus.

"What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality" by Daniel Helminiask, PH.D., was ordained as a Catholic priest in 1967 and is incardinated in the Diocese of Pittsburgh. From 1981-1985 was Assoc Prof for Systematic Theology at Oblate School of Theology and earlier completed his Ph.D. in systematic theology at Boston College and Andover Newton Theological School. He concludes the Bible says absolutely nothing about homosexuality being sinful when you examine the actual Hebrew/Greek texts."

Your personal attack fails to demonstrate I am the one distorting scripture.

"How does the Bible address homosexuality - the word didn't even exist until 1869? The word first appeared in Germany to describe the theory that from birth some people are predisposed toward persons of the same sex. Since the biblical languages (Hebrew and Greek) had no words for heterosexual or homosexual, it is anachronistic and misleading when homosexual is used to translate a biblical text. It is wrong to proclaim the biblical view of homosexuality since there is none. This violates the integrity of the individual texts and the biblical witness as a whole. Each reference to what is today homosexuality must be read in the light of the particular literary, cultural, and historic contexts of any particular passage." (Rev. Dr. Mel White)

While I can't speak for anyone except myself, I am not motivated by hate, nor do I believe all of those who seek to harm gay people are motivated by hate. (Though for some, that is clearly their motivation.)

My concern is that no matter what the motivation, the result is the same: Prejudice and discrimination result in needless suffering and death.

Ad hominem attacks remain the refuge of those who have no argument on the merits.

All gay Americans have so far lived our entire lives as less than equal under the law in the land that promises liberty and justice for ALL. I keep thinking any day now, people will realize the needless suffering and death anti-gay prejudice causes. By passing laws that punish us for being human, they support a social climate that results in bullying, beating, torture, and death, here and around the world.

Dr. King said: "Freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed." He also acknowledged that real change takes time; yet he also warned against the "tranquilizing drug of gradualism" and instructed the oppressed to demand equality now - not on the convenient time schedule of those doing the oppressing. So we must speak out and work for equal rights, not sit quietly and hope straight people eventually will decide to give them to us as some sort of reward for waiting patiently. Prejudice kills, resulting in a suicide rate for gay youth 4 to 8 times that of their straight peers. The highest per capita victims of hate crimes and youth homelessness are only a couple of the other ways prejudice causes suffering and death. There is no excuse for the harm it causes, and now is the time to end it.

Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.

It appears you have been reading some of the revisionist history being pushed by the right wing. While southern democrats as well as southern republicans have been racist, and the civil rights act of '64 was passed with votes from both parties, more democrats voted for it than did republicans. It was also promoted and signed into law by a Democratic president. Here are the figures.

The original House version:

Southern Democrats: 7-87 (7%-93%)
Southern Republicans: 0-10 (0%-100%)
Northern Democrats: 145-9 (94%-6%)
Northern Republicans: 138-24 (85%-15%)
The Senate version:

Southern Democrats: 1-20 (5%-95%) (only Senator Ralph Yarborough of Texas voted in favor)
Southern Republicans: 0-1 (0%-100%) (this was Senator John Tower of Texas)
Northern Democrats: 45-1 (98%-2%) (only Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia opposed the measure)
Northern Republicans: 27-5 (84%-16%) (Senators Barry Goldwater of Arizona, Bourke Hickenlooper of Iowa, Edwin L. Mechem of New Mexico, Milward L. Simpson of Wyoming, and Norris H. Cotton of New Hampshire opposed the measure)

LBJ was well known for use of "colorful language", as was Nixon. But that doesn't excuse his language if he in fact said that.

"There goes the South for a generation," Lyndon Johnson is said to have predicted as he signed the 1964 Civil Rights Act into law. He knew his support of equal rights would cost the party votes.

But let's look at more recent history. The democrats have introduced and been pushing hate crimes protections, employment protections and other equality positions for years. All of those have been opposed by mostly republicans, who also officially call for writing discrimination into the U.S. constitution in the form of a marriage exclusion amendment. On a state level, it has been predominantly the republicans who oppose marriage equality, employment protections, and hate crimes protections, while the main support for equality has come from democrats.

Hate crimes against who? Employment equality for who? Equality positions for who?
This isn't for equality, it's for special provisions for certain individuals & not for others. Rights for those individuals who qualify as members of what? One of the many groups that are segregated & treated as different by law? What? That's discriminatory by it's very nature.
I don't believe in discriminating, but "equal rights" always discriminates. It has to. How else do you know who gets the added benefits & protections, and who doesn't?
So, you segregate them, then tell them you are on their side? Sounds like a pretty good way to perpetuate votes from those different groups who don't realize they've been segregated and deemed "needy" by a government that patronizes them.

It IS interesting that you bring up "revisionist's history", though.
If there were such a thing, how would you go about revising history? What would it take? What kinds of things would you need to do? What would you need to take control of to "revise" history? Would you say.....take over the Media? Schools? Hollywood? the Music Industry? Curriculums?
It IS interesting.....

Devon,
re your comment: "If there were such a thing, how would you go about revising history?..."
revising history is very easy to do and has been done throughout history to get "support" for a particular worldview or ideology (at least according to my version of history!).
Of course presenting a revised view of history is best accomplished if the audience being presented to is uneducated or lacks critical thinking skils necessary to be able to effectively weigh and evaluate claims.

It also helps when the "subjects" the revised history being presented to are in "echo chambers" of other people expressing the same worldviews that they already have. Social conformity helps to kick up the misinformation into a deeply held belief system.
Revising history so that it fits a particular worldview has been a highly effective tactic throughout time to gain control over the masses and that tactic continues to this day.

Devon. At risk of getting off into a discussion of hate crimes, when a category is added, it includes you and everyone else, under that classification. Race includes every race including you. Religious belief includes you, even if you are an atheist. Whatever the classification, you are included. But hate crimes only punish motivation of the perpetrator, and consideration of motivation has always been an element in law enforcement. They do not legally protect victims, though we hope that will be the ultimate effect.

Protections in public accommodations, housing, and employment do protect individuals based on categories historically denied, including race, sex, ethnic identity, religion, etc. But again, you have one of each of those, even though it may not be your sex or race that has historically been targeted for discrimination. Sexual orientation is not included federally, but if it were, you would be included.

So I must disagree "equal rights always discriminates." The goal is to make sure everyone can participate. It has never been perfect, but it is important to keep that goal in mind, and keep moving in that direction. Liberty and justice for all, not just the rich and famous, or traditionally privileged.

Devon. As Larry points out, you don't need to take over institutions to revise history. All you have to do is keep repeating the same false information over and over, to people who don't bother to check the facts, or don't already know better. This is one of the dangers of charismatic leaders. People believe what they say without question.

A good example is the line you have probably heard from some politicians and religious leaders, that marriage has always been one man, one woman, for 5,000 years. Anyone who knows anything about history, should know polygamy has been around forever, and continues in some places today. Most however don't realize gay people have also been getting married across time and place, but in much smaller numbers, and because it has never been the primary form of marriage, this fact isn't widely known. As demonstrated earlier, even a person with a divinity degree, didn't realize there are 8 forms of marriage described in the bible alone. Hinduism also has 8 different forms. Yet most in line at Chick would probably tell your it has always been one man, one woman. That is an example of revisionist history in action.

We also demonstrated how the word sodomy is now a sexual act and has even made it into law books as well as the culture, yet had noting to do with sex until the 6th century AD when Roman Emperor Justinian I, declared that Sodom's sin had been specifically same-sex activities and desire for them, even though that has no support in any scripture, and is even contradicted by scripture. Revisionist history in action.

And in this thread, the fact you believed the republicans were responsible for the '64 civil rights act, when it was votes of democrats who made it happen, and was signed into law by a democratic president. That's revisionist history.

I wasn't trying to get into an argument about hate crimes either.
But if equal rights includes everyone, who do you associate with the Civil Rights movement? How about Womens' Lib? Or Gay rights? See, they are always associated with one group or another. The only way to ever have equal rights is to quit segregating people into little groups, illustrating their differences, and requiring other people to refer to each of them in a seperate way. It doesn't make anyone equal. If it does, how's it working out for you? Equality is impossible until we trash the PC BS. It's conditioned psychological segregation, giving each group a list of things to get upset about, nothing more.

Untied We Stand, Divided We Fall.

Do Not Be A Part Of The Segregation.

There it is, Larry
That's what we agree on.
You're exactly right, and in fact, it is being done everyday.
I've been gathering examples of it for years.

Back to my original questions:
How would you go about revising history?
What would it take?
What kinds of things would you need to do?
What would you need to take control of to 'revise' history?
Could you do it if you controlled say.....
the Media?
Schools?
Hollywood?
the Music Industry?
Curriculums Across the Country?

Would that be a good start?

I contend it would be.

Devon. They are associated with minority groups because those are the groups to which equal treatment under the law has been denied. They wouldn't need to work as a group for equal rights if those rights enjoyed by the majority hadn't been withheld from them.

I was born into the segregation. I didn't start it. It was already there in the form of laws that singled me out for punishment, separate from the majority. While most of the discriminatory laws have been removed, some remain. Once those barriers and extra burdens have been removed, we will have legal equality. Prejudice will linger, but the "psychological segregation" cannot possibly be removed until the legal segregation has been eliminated.

Many people participated in the civil rights movement, including gay people, Jews, and others who knew a history of legal discrimination, and knew all prejudice and discrimination is wrong, and results in suffering and death. They understand injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere and it all must be corrected through legal equality. But to remove those barriers, those affected had to band together along with their allies and work to remove the barriers for that group.

There is no desire to harm you. We come in peace. We are your neighbors, coworkers, and fellow Americans who want to live our lives in peace. But the pursuit of happiness is burdened by laws that deny equal treatment. We don't want to hurt you. We just want you to stop harming us.

There are tons examples of it everywhere. Again, you've done wonderful research, and I respect you for it. Yet, you don't have to do anything more than turn-on prime-time TV or read a (local) paper to find examples of it.
Quote from STLToday editor "We shape the News as we see fit".
Another example was a week or 2 ago, when you were fed lies over & over about Joe Paterno & Penn State from an endless number of media drones & politicians who spouted off on a report without knowing thing one about it. Yet presented it as fact without even bothering to read the very report on which we all trusted them to be experts. Those who didn't read it, know nothing about Louie Freeh, his history, the envolvement or backroom deals of the current Penn State President with the NCAA, any Principals of the case (only one of which did Freeh even bother to interview), the Police & Division of Child Services blunders 14 & 11 years ago & since, or the involvement of the current Governor of PA.
These people are responsible for getting you the truth & no one bothered. Why?
For the same reason that you don't know anything about the same situation that happened at Syracuse, in which ABC & ESPN criminally sat on the evidence for 8yrs. How many of them went to Syracuse? I don't know the number, but it's a large percentage, and includes the very NCAA Rep that handed-down sanctions to Penn State.
Or how about NBC Today Show doctoring audio to promote racial unrest?
Is that the kind of thing you mean?

Again, the phobia part of the word has eaked it's way into your mind.
I'm not afraid of you at all. You have been intellegent & civil, I don't see anything to fear. I have advocated that rights not be denied, but have suggested there is a better way than at the expense of others' rights, as you are not in favor of someone else's rights infringe on yours. Where the rest of the assumptions came from I don't know.

Devon. I wasn't suggesting you were afraid of me personally. But it appears you may "fear" losing rights. You said: "there is a better way than at the expense of others' rights".

And you previously said: "its about going after that word & getting some kind of revenge", "so it's about taking something as well (as punishment for something? I don't know)." "It's just starting to feel like that's not the goal anymore to me." These are examples of fear of the unknown.

Fear of the unknown, including vague predictions of unspecified future harm as a result of marriage equality, is one of the primary tools used to argue against equality. Fear of the unknown is hard to dispel.

So lets, get specific. When you say: "there is a better way than at the expense of others' rights", what rights are you talking about? What rights would be lost by treating everyone equally under the law?

Muslims do not put homosexuals to death in the United States. If they did, they would be charged for murder.

Nice attempt at deflection. But two wrongs don't make a right, and the Muslims don't get a pass. But this thread is about Chick.

And did you miss the suggestion of genocide above?

Larry,
We can all find the most extreme example of something and attribute it to the opposition. You are excellent at it. However, the danger of practicing reductio ad absurdum is that it attempts to categorize (stereotype) anyone with an opposing view as Fred Phelps. It attempts to attribute his asinine statements, as one of the biggest idiot you can find anywhere, to everyone. Truth is: most of us on this side think he's just as big of a douchebag as you do. Trying to draw that comparison is clever, but it only works with the weak-minded, because it just doesn't apply.
Do you believe "God" is in favor of homosexuality or not? Feel free to support either answer. I personally don't believe that the Bible supports gays, but I KNOW it's against it's readers judging others.
BTW, the only difference in today's Dem party & full-blown Communism is a matter of degree as well. Just as, today's smaller government Reps are only different by degrees than Anarchists. It doesn't make the Dems communists, nor does it make Reps anarchists.
On your last comment: I am with you. We don't often agree, but I believe we have similar goals in trying to make this country a better place. I also appreciate the fact that you are usually up for an intellegent discussion. This forum allows us to learn from each other, have spirited & empassioned debate, forces each of us to consider the views of others, and hopefully allows us to see things in a little different way in the process.

Devon. "If Jesus ever said anything about homosexuality, it is not recorded in the Bible, even mistranslated. He did, however, speak extensively on God's unconditional love. Yet instead of dwelling on biblical love, Christians have historically been more concerned with obscure passages of Levitical cleanliness codes and Paul's misunderstood comments in Romans. Instead of focusing on the incredible injustice and hatred demonstrated by Christians and others, tying to deny homosexuals even basic civil rights, people appear more concerned with the specific homosexual acts between consenting adults who are naturally have a homosexual orientation. As James B. Nelson notes, the Bible more clearly advocates a "love ethic" rather than a "sex ethic."
(Rev. Dr. Mel White)

I can't say I disagree with that. Although, I don't think it's ok to lump all Christians together as having one mind. I'm a Chirstian, but I have certain issues with the "church", most of which include a mob mentality on certain issues from without & within. Christ was about LOVE, and he often demonstrated it with people who the "church" felt to be unclean or untouchable. I think Christians should exercise more of that, than a tendency to judge others, when they know it isn't their duty.
I feel that all people should have the same basic rights, I don't believe the government stepping in can, or will ever be able to, fix that. I don't believe we should take away rights from others, but I don't believe changing the definition of words is the way to go about it.

Devon. Again, the definition of marriage has continually changed over time and place, including many different forms of marriage including same sex marriage, dating back to cave drawings. It seems illogical to deny the fact it has had many different meanings, as it does today.

So, is it safe to say, that you too are against some of the ways that definitions have been changed?

Whether I like it or not, there is usually nothing I can do about it other than express my opinion.

But when it comes to marriage, that has taken many forms and has constantly changed throughout history yet it has always included rules about the relationships of the people involved. And here today, those rules include the 1,138 federal rules in addition to the various state rules.

It has always changed, and will continue to evolve. We can embrace the change or fight against it, but change is inevitable. (except from a vending machine...)

no, the argument against Cathy is that his belief restricts the rights of others at no harm to himself or to society.

Again, Dan Cathy can say whatever he wants - as can those that disagree with him. I disagree - profoundly.

The distinction you fail to grasp or choose to ignore, is that Chick and Cathy seek to deny to others the legal rights they expect for themselves.

Gay activists are not seeking to deny equal rights to anyone. They are seeking the rights you already enjoy.

Your demeaning, pejorative terminology fails to change that important fact.

What happened to freedom of speech?

Your judgement fails to provide any scientific justification or legitimate governmental interest sufficient for denial of equal rights, as required by the constitution.

But that is understandable, as there is no such justification for denial of equal rights.

“As irrational prejudice plainly never constitutes a legitimate government interest, this court must hold that Section 3 of DOMA as applied to Plaintiffs violates the equal protection principles embodied in the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.” (Gill)

You have yet to support your claim the various religious scholars I have quoted are distorting scripture. If you examine the evidence, you will see it is those who use the bible to justify harming gay people who are distorting scripture.

When anti-gay beliefs are used to deny equal treatment under the law, the resulting stigmatization and dehumanization leads to suffering and death. You can overcome the false and harmful beliefs you were taught as a child, even though they continue to be taught by some adults including some who claim to speak for God, if you choose to educate yourself with reality, not prejudicial beliefs. But if you choose to condemn and promote discrimination against gay people, you will bring harm and hate to the world instead of love, as Jesus intended.

Again, you don't even attempt to follow all of the provisions of the old testament, or even the new testament, do you?

MARK 12:18-27 If a man dies childless, his widow is ordered by biblical law to have intercourse with each of his brothers in turn until she bears her deceased husband a male heir.

You are saying rejecting this one means you reject all scripture. But clearly, you don't. You are using the bible to support the irrational prejudice you were taught as a child.

Accepting alternate interpretations of those few verses that seem to condemn same sex love does not require abandoning your religious beliefs, only expanding them to include the idea that God created all things, including gay people, and He wants you to love them as you love him, not judge and harm them.

http://www.wouldjesusdiscriminate.org/biblical_evidence/born_gay.html

Wilma,
As a reminder, the old definition used to be "one white man and one white woman". It evolved to the current definition as society became more accepting of interracial marriage.
I'm not gay, however, I believe the definition that is being suggested by those that are supportive of equality is "two consenting adults".

That is only the current definition in some places. In other places it includes one man and as many women as he can afford.

In some states and countries, it includes same sex couples.

In states and countries that recognize same sex marriage, I confess I'm not sure of the exact wording, but the concept is two consenting adults who are otherwise qualified. (not married to anyone else, not related, of age, and able to demonstrate informed consent.)

The greatest and noblest pleasure which men can have in this world is to discover new truths; and the next is to shake off old prejudices.” Frederick The Great

See above comment by Chris..

Your fear is unfounded. You can demonstrate no damage.

Unlike Canada, as you point out, our constitution guarantees freedom of religion. Just as today, no church in the US can be required to marry anyone they choose not to. Did you hear last week of the church that refused to marry a black couple because they are black? Hard to believe, but widely reported. Churches can use any excuse they want when it comes to rites of the church.

But no one church should be able to make their rules the law. Some churches support marriage equality, and those churches are currently being denied their freedom to practice their religion as they see fit, by laws that deny marriage equality. There is no reason to believe freedom of religion will be affected in the US.

And no, not 97% of the founders were Christians, but even if they had been, they did not establish a theocracy, but a representative republic. Many were deists, but not Christians. Many were not at all happy with the various ways Christianity was being practiced at the time, and that is why they attempted to separate church and state. They were well aware of the atrocities inflicted upon populations in the name of saving them.

"One of the many attacks on our country from the Religious Right is the claim that our country is a Christian Nation...not just that the majority of people are Christians, but that the country itself was founded by Christians, for Christians. However, a little research into American history will show that this statement is a lie. Those people who spread this lie are known as Christian Revisionists. They are attempting to rewrite history, in much the same way as holocaust deniers are. The men responsible for building the foundation of the United States were men of The Enlightenment, not men of Christianity. They were Deists who did not believe the bible was true. They were Freethinkers who relied on their reason, not their faith.

None of the Founding Fathers were atheists. Most of the Founders were Deists, which is to say they thought the universe had a creator, but that he does not concern himself with the daily lives of humans, and does not directly communicate with humans, either by revelation or by sacred books. They spoke often of God, (Nature's God or the God of Nature), but this was not the God of the bible. They did not deny that there was a person called Jesus, and praised him for his benevolent teachings, but they flatly denied his divinity. " http://freethought.mbdojo.com/foundingfathers.html

No, it tells you not to harm others. It says nothing about gay people.

"The primarily sexual meaning of the word sodomia for Christians did not evolve before the 6th century AD. Roman Emperor Justinian I, in his novels no. 77 (dating 538) and no. 141 (dating 559) amended to his Corpus iuris civilis, and declared that Sodom's sin had been specifically same-sex activities and desire for them. He also linked "famines, earthquakes, and pestilences" upon cities as being due to "such crimes", during a time of recent earthquakes and other disasters." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy

There are about twenty references to the story of Sodom in the Bible, and none of them says homosexuality was the sin of Sodom. One of the most extensive references to Sodom is found in Ezekiel, which says, “This was the guilt of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy. They were haughty and did abominable things before me; therefore I removed them when I saw it.” (Ezekiel 16:49-50 (See note 5.)) It is clear from this passage (and others like it (See note 6.)) that the abomination of Sodom, according to the Old Testament prophets, was that they behaved with callous indifference toward the weak and vulnerable — the poor, orphans, widows, and strangers in their midst. http://www.wouldjesusdiscriminate.org/biblical_evidence/sodom_and_gomorrah.html

Those who harm others needlessly are Sodomites.

Thanks. Good article. Here is documentation for Kurt, that this is not about the mayors, and is nothing new.

It also documents the hate, and I mean vile, vulgar, raw Hate, that many of the anti-gay people display and promote. It also addresses the destructive result of such hate, as well as the destructive force of more mild forms of prejudice and discrimination. It is all destructive.

I try to avoid addressing motivation and focus on outcome, as it is more easily displayed. But as I have said before, no matter what the motivation, the result is the same: prejudice and discrimination cause needless suffering and death.

Kurt. This is a legal issue with religious overtones. It is about religious beliefs not shared by all being imposed upon everyone using the force of law. Cathy believes he has the right to impose his religious belief, and spends millions trying to make that happen.

I am not trying to deprive Cathy of any legal rights. Cathy is trying to deprive me of equal legal rights. These are not equal but opposite positions. While we are both free to express our beliefs, only he is trying to deny equal civil rights. He is trying to use the government to impose undue harm on others.

You entered the fray late. This started long before the mayors responded. This same thing came up around this time last year, and surfaced again when Cathy went on radio and print and expressed his anti gay beliefs. I was blogging about this last year, and again several days before the mayors got involved. The controversy is, like last year and the year before, about Cathy spending millions trying to impose his legal discrimination and denial of equal rights.

Mike. Did you read the information about Sodom from biblical scholars? See the top of the page in the first set of replies for more details. The story of Sodom had nothing to do with same sex love. It was about how you treat strangers, hospitality, and abusing others.

ALL of the men, from every quarter of the city, young and old. Every man in the village! Are we to believe they were all gay? Of course not. They had wives and some children. These were straight men, and they weren't there to form long term, loving relationships. And if they were gay, why offer them virgin daughters? No, this had nothing to do with forming relationships. Not consenting adults. Not love. Not mutual relationships based on respect and emotional as well as physical attraction.

Many other translations say they were there to RAPE them. Even if we use your mild "have sex with them" it clearly wasn't consensual. Rape is not love. Rape is not treating others the way you want to be treated. It is not loving others as Jesus loves you. Your anti-gay prejudice isn't supported by the scriptures. You have to add your own interpretation to reach the conclusion you wish.

Meanwhile, you judge & condemn gay people to eternal suffering, based on your misinterpretation of verses that tell you to treat others with love and respect, and leave the judgement to God. The pain and suffering inflicted by your judgement leads many to self destruction, both fast and slow. Your false judgement is killing us. WWJD

Do you know the definition of homophobia? "Homophobia is a range of negative attitudes and feelings towards lesbian, gay, bisexual, and in some cases transgender and intersex people. Definitions refer variably to antipathy, contempt, prejudice, aversion, and irrational fear. Homophobia is observable in critical and hostile behavior such as discrimination and violence on the basis of a perceived non-heterosexual orientation. In a 1998 address, author, activist, and civil rights leader Coretta Scott King stated that "Homophobia is like racism and anti-Semitism and other forms of bigotry in that it seeks to dehumanize a large group of people, to deny their humanity, their dignity and personhood." (Wiki)

As you see, it does not require fear, though that may or may not be an ingredient. Aversion qualifies. Prejudice, as expressed through denial of equal rights, qualifies. I normally don't use this word, but do you see yourself in there anywhere?

Ouch! NO WAY! That sounds like your idea. Only a woman could put those two words together without wincing. I can't even type it!

Good points. We discussed separate not being equal, but your points are good ones. In support...

In 2009, Julian Bond wrote, "Black people, of all people, should not oppose equality. And that is what gay marriage represents. ... No people of good will should oppose marriage equality. And they should not think that civil unions are a substitute. At best, civil unions are separate but equal. And we all know separate is never equal."

Standing at a podium in front of the State Legislative Building last month, the Rev. Dr. William Barber II, North Carolina NAACP chairman, declared, "They're trying to give people, based on their sexuality, a kind of second- or third-class citizenship. We know what that looks like in the NAACP, and we're calling it what it is."

Why is it ok to call a gay marriage a union and call a straight marriage a MARRIAGE? The word marriage is meaningful in that it represents a life committment. The word union simply does not make that strong a statement and therefore lessons the impact of their committment. I am a Christian also but I have no problem with gay people getting married. You talk about Dan Cathy's right to free speech and to his religious beliefs which he absolutely has. But it seems that you have no problem limiting someone elses right because you do not like it. That in itsself seems very hypocritical to me. If gays want to get married they don't have to do it in YOUR church and your church does not have to recognize it. But don't keep them from getting married in their own church or by the state.

While you may wish to make this a religious issue, it is not. Some religious groups support marriage equality while others do not.

It is about Cathy trying to impose his religious beliefs, using the force of law.

We agree he has a right to his beliefs, a right to express them, and even a right to spend millions trying to impose those harmful beliefs on others using the law.

You want however to deny my right to oppose having those beliefs imposed on me. My speaking against his imposition of his beliefs on me, does not deprive him of his right to try to harm me. He can still try, and I can still fight back using the same tools he is using.

While marriage equality or denial of marriage equality may seem to be opposite positions, only denial of equality uses the law to deny equal rights. We are not trying to harm Cathy by denial of equal rights. He is trying to harm us through denial of equal rights. Those are not opposite positions. Only Cathy seeks to deny equal rights.

The government has an obligation to treat all persons equally under the law. It is intended to protect everyone, not just some at the expense of others. (That it doesn't do this perfectly is another issue)
When someone proposes laws that harm one segment of society needlessly, the government is supposed to oppose that. While the KKK can speak and hold irrational beliefs, the government is tasked with preventing them from imposing their harmful beliefs using the force of law. That includes speaking out against them. There is nothing wrong with government officials speaking out against attempts to harm the citizens it is tasked with protecting.

While having the government call all marriages a "union" has logical appeal, it is unrealistic to believe enough people would agree to make that happen. And there is no good reason for them to give up the term that is recognized around the world as a legal union.

In 2009, Julian Bond wrote, "Black people, of all people, should not oppose equality. And that is what gay marriage represents. ... No people of good will should oppose marriage equality. And they should not think that civil unions are a substitute. At best, civil unions are separate but equal. And we all know separate is never equal."

Standing at a podium in front of the State Legislative Building last month, the Rev. Dr. William Barber II, North Carolina NAACP chairman, declared, "They're trying to give people, based on their sexuality, a kind of second- or third-class citizenship. We know what that looks like in the NAACP, and we're calling it what it is."

Lisa L,
In the "NATURAL" order of GOD ordained LIFE, it takes the union of a Male & Female to create a new human being through the unification of the two, resulting in an act of marriage. Two Males or Two Females cannot create a new human being on their own with each other. (using donations from the opposite sex and self inserting or insertion through the assistance of the medical profession does not create an act of marriage that creates a new human being with the chromozones of only the civil union couple) Have you ever seen a single case of two men uniting naturally to create a new human being? What about two women uniting naturally to create a new human being?

Inability to procreate has never been used as a legal excuse to deny the fundamental right of marriage in the US.

"But even if Congress believed at the time of DOMA's passage that children had the best chance at success if raised jointly by their biological mothers and fathers, a desire to encourage heterosexual couples to procreate and rear their own children more responsibly would not provide a rational basis for denying federal recognition to same-sex marriages. Such denial does nothing to promote stability in heterosexual parenting. Rather, it "prevents children of same-sex couples from enjoying the immeasurable advantages that flow from the assurance of a stable family structure, when afforded equal recognition under federal law.

Moreover, an interest in encouraging responsible procreation plainly cannot provide a rational basis upon which to exclude same-sex marriages from federal recognition because, as Justice Scalia pointed out, the ability to procreate is not now, nor has it ever been, a precondition to marriage in any state in the country. Indeed, "the sterile and the elderly" have never been denied the right to marry by any of the fifty states. And the federal government has never considered denying recognition to marriage based on an ability or inability to procreate." (Gill v OPM)

To use this excuse for denial of equal rights now, and only for gay people, is irrational. Denial of equal rights ignores the fact gay people are raising children.

Thank you, Lisa. You address some very important points, including the destructive effect prejudice has, especially on young people.

The parade of prejudice displayed on the 1st, was not only disheartening, it was scary. To know that there are that may people who find enjoyment in harming others needlessly, leaves even me at a loss for words. Imagine what it does to a young person who is considering coming out to their family and friends. While the social climate has improved greatly since the 50's when being gay could get you locked up and tortured, it still is toxic, especially for the young as reflected in a suicide rate 4 times that of their straight peers, and the highest per capita rate of youth homelessness and hate crimes. Prejudice and discrimination still inevitably result in needless suffering and death.

If you have been reading this thread all the way through, I think you will find you can have a debate as long as you don't resort to insults and demeaning, pejorative terminology such as "goofy". But as you have also seen, hateful, ignorant, and bigot, also sometimes apply. (Chris among others.)

Why do we care? Because their profits go to support imposing their beliefs on everyone using the force of law. That harms people needlessly, while equal rights harms no one. While you are free to eat there, when you do, you are supporting with your money, using the law to impose a destructive religious belief not shared by all, on the entire population. Prejudice and discrimination result in needless suffering and death.

I did state that less money from me will be going to this guy and his strange method of using his business for a mouthpiece. I just can't promise that none of our money will go his way, via my kids or wife. I may lobby against them going there, but often times that lobbying can be counterproductive.

Thanks for your good intentions. I can understand your predicament. Preemptively suggesting other options rather that asking "where do you want to go" is a good strategy, if not always successful. Your support is appreciated. But please remember, prejudice and discrimination inevitably result in needless suffering and death for real people.

Your support and encouragement is greatly appreciated. I'm glad someone has been able to learn something from the information and documentation presented.

I truly believe there is no legitimate justification for refusing to treat others the way you want to be treated under the law, and I try to keep that in mind when responding. Abuse is counterproductive:

"Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Hate multiplies hate, violence multiplies violence, and toughness multiplies toughness in a descending spiral of destruction....The chain reaction of evil--hate begetting hate, wars producing more wars--must be broken, or we shall be plunged into the dark abyss of annihilation.

Nonviolence is a powerful and just weapon, which cuts without wounding and ennobles the man who wields it. It is a sword that heals.

Nonviolence means avoiding not only external physical violence but also internal violence of spirit. You not only refuse to shoot a man, but you refuse to hate him.

Nonviolence is the answer to the crucial political and moral questions of our time: the need for man to overcome oppression and violence without resorting to oppression and violence. Man must evolve for all human conflict a method which rejects revenge, aggression and retaliation. The foundation of such a method is love." (MLK)

I agree. Dan has done an amazing job of using logic to support an argument which he admittedly has emotional ties to as well. He has avoided the pitfalls of blogorrhiffic rhetoric which mind-numbingly deadens discussion so frequently on this site. If you can't appreciate Dan's logic (entitled as you are to disagree with it), you're not reading. Thanks, Dan.

jj. You are welcome, and thanks for the feedback as well as for speaking out for equality.

Now if we could only get those opposed to equal rights to read it all.

While I worry about overkill, presenting the facts is an essential though not always sufficient ingredient for overcoming the irrational, scientifically unsupportable prejudice and discrimination that continues to harm gay people everywhere.

Blame the media, these donations aren't new. They are nearly a year old. It IS an election year though. Even though your crazy conspiracy theory is interesting.

Chick does market directly to churches, and especially in southern states, though not exclusively. This same thing came up around the same time last year, though a quick search didn't bring up the documentation I was looking for, but I didn't try very hard. But the response by some conservative religious leaders makes one wonder...

Devon, I have no idea what you are ranting about today. What donations?

Conspiracy theory? One does not have to look hard to find businesses and entire industries that have sprung up to take advantage/make money off the political zealotry of the day on the right and left (from talk radio, to T-shirts, or your tri-cornered hats). Chik may be true believers in whatever donations or stances they've pronounced, but it is not far-fetched to think they could have put their finger to the political wind and figured they could profit off this wedge issue as well.

RDBet. Devon is talking about the millions Chick has given over the years to organizations that promote harming gay people through imprisonment, denial of basic civil rights including but not limited to marriage equality, and promoting anti-gay prejudice including the "kill the gays" bill in Uganda. He seems to be missing or ignoring the fact these donations have been continuous over many years and there is no reason to believe they have stopped, as Cathy's recent promotion of anti-gay prejudice suggests.

Just so I am following your logic....being closed on Sunday is a money making tactic for CFA? You may be on to something...I hear Apple is not going to allow anyone to buy their new ipads.....will drive demand through the roof.

1600+ locations.....growing faster than any other restaurant chain...lines out the parking lot.

Think of all the extra money CFA will have now to donate to these Pro-Family organizations. Puts a big smile on my face.

Not once have I said I agreed with this idiot's donations, yet that's how this seems to go, put someone in a little category in order to try & discredit them (see RD's comments once he's seen that I have made one). My defense is of his rights. Dan Johnson makes the case that rights are being violated. I just don't agree with taking away one persons rights to try to protect that of another. It chooses, judges, decides for everyone, and segregates. There are different means to the same end. As you can see (and have proven) from these posts, that even idiots have rights.
I have actually agreed with many things that RD has said today, but as usual he fears his argument to be so weak he must resort again to the usual rhetoric.
This whole thread is about donations that a business owner made. (As everyone else seemed to be capable of grasping.) And even though painful to some extent, I agree that this is the kind of thing that some cry out about while letting the same go on somewhere else depending on their agenda. RD just thinks it goes one way. The outrage is somewhat justified and there will be consequences. I just pointing out (at least to those that knew the subject of the thread) that these donations are not new, but currently being driven by a media that was so all over this story, it has taken them this long to call it out.

RD,
Yes, millions, even billions have been made by pushing an agenda, not with T-Shirts, but with....
the Media?
Schools?
Hollywood?
the Music Industry?
Curriculums Across the Country?

Can't see the forrest for the trees.

Cosmos, you must eat up the Ray Vincent character advertisements too. Ray is closed on Sunday also. Lol -save us from the Good People.

Devo, you misread yet again. Overreaction... First group I mentioned that profits from controversy such as this is media -as in talk radio of which the corporate media has a hand in. Do I really need to list out all the entities that profit -with the main benefactors being wealthy who like to stir up the base over wedge issues like gay marriage, so they can rake more tax breaks in the process.

And do not underestimate how much the guy that imports tri-cornered hats from China makes every time there is a wedge issue.

I agree, of course Hollywood and music industry profits from political controversy. I just didn't bother to mention them either. And I am sure if Dixie Chicks or Sean Penn or someone of that ilk spouts off from the left, you will be just as adamanant in supporting their rights to speak as you are about this Don Rickles-looking guy that sells greasy chicken sandwiches.

Tim. These are not pro-family organizations. They are anti-gay family organizations, and anti-gay in other areas as well. As previously documented here, denial of equal rights harms gay people and their families. Why do you get pleasure out of harming others needlessly?

Devon. You said: "I just don't agree with taking away one persons rights to try to protect that of another."

What rights do you believe are being taken away?

So far, the only rights that have been taken away and/or denied have been those of gay people, using the false claim that somehow protects the rights of straight people. Yet no one has been able to demonstrate how the rights of straight people are taken away when gay people are granted those very same rights straight people currently enjoy.

This seems to be one of those under the heading of unsupportable and unspecified fear of the future.

Yes, list them. You got 5-10 "radio shows" as examples, I've got the rest as mine. Including but not limited to nearly every sit-com, every movie, 95% of your news outlets, the music industry (where Rock & Rollers are now for huge government - ironic isn't it?), the list is endless, yet people have somehow been told it goes the other way, using the tools I just gave you.
I started in the media in '91, making claims that the media is 'right-wing' is just innaccurate.

Yes, I do defend their rights as well, but reserve the right to call those people idiots for what they've said, just as I've done here.

Here on Planet Earth, the mainstream media is mostly corporate. On Planet Amygdala it must be otherwise.

And not sure what "right" of Chic fil A you are defending here. As Dan Johnson has catalogued here so well - Cath has said plenty via statements and donations and has only been criticized. He has not prohibited from speaking freely. It seems you want to prohibit criticism. Besides, it appears Cath is weathering the criticism just fine, and currently is rolling around in persecuted martyr money.

So on your planet, the FOX Sunday night lineup is Rupert Murdoch? On Earth it's Seth MacFarlane.

You said: "I just don't agree with taking away one persons rights to try to protect that of another."

What rights do you believe are being taken away?

Almost 30 yrs ago I worked for Chick fil A as a teen. They were closed on Sundays then, too. It was also during the era where a lot of businesses were closed on Sundays and then legislation changed and businesses had the option to stay open on Sundays. I applaud Chick Fil A for allowing their employees to have family time. It's not BS...it is following their morals and beliefs.

Bonnie. No one is telling Chick to stay open on Sunday. While free to practicing their religious beliefs, the problem comes from them trying to use the law to impose those beliefs, not shared by all Christians, on everyone, causing needless harm through denial of equal legal rights and the resulting stigmatization, demonization, and dehumanization that inevitably results from legal discrimination.

What an insightful comment, Mike K.
Thanks so much for your help in this discussion.

While gay couples can travel to several states and countries to get married legally, those legal marriage are not treated equally by the federal government or by some other states.

While some people do, having a legal marriage is only symbolic if it isn't recognized when you return home. Only the legal rights of gay couples change every time you cross a state line or travel to other countries.

So you're saying that even getting married doesn't fix it?
There are many laws in one state that they may not have in others. They also apply to which state you are in, not who you are sleeping with. It's the way it should be. If people like the rules & way of life somewhere else better, at least for now, they have many different options (that is until we're forced to turn every state into mirrors of IL, CA, NY). No one is telling you to leave or even trying to be insensitive, don't misunderstand. It started to seem necessary to point out that options are out there before we get any closer to pretending they aren't.
I'm pretty sure that if you did decide to go to Iowa & get a marriage license, I think it would be valid in every state & even other countries.
Just playing advocate here, but maybe cried wolf a little on those.

Devon. If a gay couple and a straight couple go to Iowa and have a double wedding ceremony, when they leave Iowa, the marriage of the straight couple remains intact. The marriage of the gay couple is legally worthless. It only has sentimental value.

Those two legal marriages are not treated equally by the feds. The straight one is recognized while the gay one is not.

Every state and country recognizes the straight marriage.

Only those states and countries that recognize marriage equality recognize both marriages equally. To all other states and countries, the straight couple is legally married, while the gay couple are treated as legal strangers to each other. If they have children, their parental rights are not recognized. This is why gay families have to be careful where they travel, facing burdens straight couples never even consider.

Then I would assume you will protest Chic fil A for putting bacon on their sandwiches wich is clearly prohibited in the bible. I will be looking for you to stoneing to death the Chic fil A employees for breaking the law of god. While your at it don't forget Red Lobster

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Leviticus 11
11:1 And the LORD spake unto Moses and to Aaron, saying unto them, (11:2) "These are the beasts which ye shall eat."
What should we eat?
(11:5-6) The bible says that hares and coneys are unclean because they "chew the cud" but do not part the hoof. But hares and coneys are not ruminants and they do not "chew the cud."

(11:5) "The coney, because he cheweth the cud"

(11:6) "The hare, because he cheweth the cud"

(11:7-12) Pigs, clams, oysters, crabs, lobsters, and shrimp are all abominations to God.
What the Bible says about food and shrimp

(11:7-8)
"The swine ... is unclean to you ... their flesh shall ye not eat, and their carcase shall ye not touch."

(11:10) "All that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you."
(God Hates Shrimp)

D. Jesus never spoke a word against love between same sex couples. He frequently told us to love each other the way He loves you. When you harm others by refusing to treat them the way you want to be treated, you are ignoring the most important commandments, while relying on a modern English mistranslation of a few verses to justify harming others needlessly.

Matthew 7:12,: So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.

Matthew 22:37-40 Jesus said to him, You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself. The entire law and all the demands of the prophets are based on these two commandments."

Romans 13-10: Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.

Galatians 5:14: The entire law is summed up in a single command: "Love your neighbor as yourself."

John 15:12 My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you.

John 13:34: A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another.

Romans 14:13 Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in your brother's way.

Does God approve of all 8 forms of marriage as explained in the bible? If so, why do we now only allow one of those 8?

While you believe the bible does not prohibit interracial marriage, such marriages were prohibited for well over 200 years in the US, using the bible to justify their discrimination. The legal records contain many examples documenting this fact. (Loving v Virgina, 388 US 1,3, 1967)

http://www.equalitygiving.org/files/Marriage-Equality-Same-Sex-Lesbian-Gay-Marriage/Arguments_Against_Interracial_Marriage_and_Equal_Marriage.pdf

The fact some churches have performed same sex marriages throughout history shows many believed God accepted same sex marriages. The celebration of same sex love in the bible stories of Ruth and Naomi, David and Jonathan, and Daniel and Ashpenaz, support the belief God accepted same sex love. "What the Bible forbids is acts of lust, rape, idolatry, violation of religious purity obligations, or pederasty, but no condemnation of homosexuality in relationships of mutual respect and love. On the other hand, the Bible pointedly celebrates instances of same-sex emotional intimacy, a fact often overlooked by fearful homophobic readers." James B. Nelson, Professor of Christian Ethics, United Theological Seminary,

“Despite the persistence of stereotypes that portray lesbian, gay, and bisexual people as disturbed, several decades of research and clinical experience have led all mainstream medical and mental health organizations in this country to conclude that these orientations represent normal forms of human experience. Lesbian, gay, and bisexual relationships are normal forms of human bonding.” APA

No one is forcing you to be gay, accept gay people in your church, or to change your beliefs, even though they clearly fulfill the definitions of anti-gay and homophobic. Treating all persons equally under the law as required by the constitution does not force you to overcome your irrational prejudice. It only stops you from using the law to harm others by refusing to treat them the way you want to be treated.

A clear example of who is bullying who can be found in the application of the laws. Those being denied equal legal rights are clearly the ones being bullied. Those who deny equal rights are clearly the ones doing the bullying.

It may be true there is nothing I can say that can change your prejudice.

But it is your belief system, based on the irrational prejudice you were taught as a child that I cannot change. Only you can do that.

But I'm not saying you must change your beliefs. You don't have to accept reality. Changing your scientifically unsupportable belief is not required for treating me equally under the law.

You provide no scientific justification, nor legitimate governmental interest sufficient for denial of equal treatment under the law as required by the constitution.

“As irrational prejudice plainly never constitutes a legitimate government interest, this court must hold that Section 3 of DOMA as applied to Plaintiffs violates the equal protection principles embodied in the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.” (Gill)

You confuse holding a belief, with imposing that belief using the force of law.

While the worker at the counter treats you with respect, the profits from the money you spend go towards harming gay people, using the force of law.

But I'm not saying you must change your beliefs. You don't have to accept reality. Changing a scientifically unsupportable belief is not required for treating me equally under the law.

You provide no scientific justification, nor legitimate governmental interest sufficient for denial of equal treatment under the law as required by the constitution.

“As irrational prejudice plainly never constitutes a legitimate government interest, this court must hold that Section 3 of DOMA as applied to Plaintiffs violates the equal protection principles embodied in the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.” (Gill)

What force of law? They donated to Fellowship of Christian Athletes and Focus on the Family...as religious people they "condemn homosexual acts, not gay people".
That is their right whether they own a business or not. Whether religion is scientific or not our country was founded on it and they are entiltled to their beliefs. Although I am not a law student or proficient in all the laws on this topic I am surrounded by people who have participated in Fellowship of Christian Athletes program and they have not
bullied or rejected the rights of anyone else. They are taught tolerance and love and that God will do the judging not us. You are clouding the issue and making it into more than it is. It's their right to believe their way and not be persecuted for it. Quit persecuting them because your beliefs differ from theirs.

As previously documented on this thread and well documented in other places, they spend money trying to impose those beliefs using the force of law. Here is just one of many examples previously documented:

"In 2010, as Scott Wooledge notes in this excellent graphic above, and details in his post at Daily Kos, the Family Research Council, a certified anti-gay hate group run by Tony Perkins, spent $25,000 lobbying Congress to NOT condemn Uganda’s “Kill The Gays” bill." http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/chick-fil-a-profits-are-supporting-ugandas-kill-the-gays-bill/politics/2012/08/01/45430

Notice they are trying to use the law to harm me through denial of equal legal treatment.

Notice I am not using the law to harm them or deny equal legal treatment. The legal persecution is one sided.

Hate is a strong word. Hate is often a part of prejudice, but hate is not required. Prejudice may result from incorrect information, a set of beliefs, or a simple lack of information. But the result is the same. When it is imposed using the force of law, it always causes harm.

"Traditional family values" usually include not harming others needlessly. Denial of legal equality is harmful.

Again, treating everyone equally under the law does not require you to change your beliefs. It does not require you to like anyone, or even to see them as being of equal worth or value. All it requires is treating others the way you want to be treated under the law.

"The Court finds that neither Congress' claimed legislative justifications nor any of the proposed reasons proffered by BLAG constitute bases rationally related to any of the alleged governmental interests. Further, after concluding that neither the law nor the record can sustain any of the interests suggested, the Court, having tried on its own, cannot conceive of any additional interests that DOMA might further.

Prejudice, we are beginning to understand, rises not from malice or hostile animus alone. It may result as well from insensitivity caused by simple want of careful, rational reflection or from some instinctive mechanism to guard against people who appear to be different in some respects from ourselves.

Conclusion: DOMA, as it relates to Golinski's case, "violates her right to equal protection of the law under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution" (Golinski.)

"Prejudices are rarely overcome by argument; not being founded in reason they cannot be destroyed by logic”
Tryon Edwards

Walmart waiting for taxpayer kickbacks to build. Chick-fil-A checking to see if too many gays in Ellisville.

And yet, you offer no justification for harming others.

Shaking your head will not dislodge the irrational, scientifically unsupportable beliefs that were planted there when you were a child. I wish it was that easy.

But when you eventually realize you are supporting harming your fellow citizens needlessly through support of laws that refuse to treat others as you would treat yourself, the resulting cognitive dissonance may motivate you to reexamine those harmful, unsupportable beliefs.

You can assimilate new and conflicting information which can overcome the negative emotional reaction you have been conditioned to feel and use to justify harm.

It is irrational to expect others to conform their behavior to fit your irrational negative beliefs and stereotypes. Failure to change irrational thinking will result in negative emotional responses, which can adversely impact physical health. For your own well being as well as for the good of society, I hope you will consider changing that negative belief system to a positive one. Once you stop hurting others, you will feel better, and so can we. It can be done. Celebrate love.

And still no scientific justification, nor legitimate governmental interest sufficient for denial of equal treatment under the law as required by the constitution.

Prejudice is a raft onto which the shipwrecked mind clambers and paddles to safety.
Ben Hecht

You call me judgmental, yet it is you who supports using the law to harm others needlessly through denial of equal fundamental rights.

You provide no scientific justification nor legitimate governmental reason sufficient for denial of equal rights as required by the constitution.

And you might want to look up condensation.

Dan,
You are only harming yourself and the others that you feel you think your are supporting. When your eyes are opened and you realize the travesty of those you have led astray, you will wish you could undo all the wrongs that you have done.
Mathew 18:5 "And whoever welcomes a little child like this in my name, welcomes me. But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea."
May the Lord have mercy on you and restore your sight.

And yet it is you who is promoting harming others by refusing to follow the Golden Rule.

Your misinterpretation of a few verses is used to justify harming others by refusing to treat others the way you want to be treated.

You fail to demonstrate any harm caused by treating others the way you want to be treated under the law.

Dan, May the LORD HAVE MERCY ON YOU, and restore your sight!

Luke 6:37: "Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven.

Romans 14:13 Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in your brother's way.

James 4:11 Brothers, do not slander one another. Anyone who speaks against his brother or judges him speaks against the law and judges it. When you judge the law, you are not keeping it, but sitting in judgment on it.

"I believe all Americans who believe in freedom, tolerance and human rights have a responsibility to oppose bigotry and prejudice based on sexual orientation."
Coretta Scott King

OK, your posting a quote of what someone else said, must be a paid programmed response for legal-eze to any opposition of your claimed view, although you have no comments of your own feelings.
Since you are so opposed to supporting CHICK-FIL-A, which business's Do You Support?

As much as possible, I try to support businesses that do not use their profits to deny equal legal rights.

Chick not only promotes legal discrimination, they promote a harmful prejudice used here and around the world that results in needless suffering and death. That fact is well documented here and elsewhere, as well as openly and proudly admitted by Cathy.

You seem to have missed the posts where I have discussed my first hand experience witnessing the suffering and death that results from prejudice and discrimination. I suspect you have never worked directly with kids who try to kill themselves as a result of the irrational prejudice you promote. I have. Prejudice kills.

Dan, Again,you failed to identify any Business's that you support that you feel are worthy of your support. TYPICAL. You apparently support ANARCHY, since you fail to abide by the LAW of the land and the predominant majority of the inhabitants who passed those laws. Your interpretation of marriage (something that is not a marriage) cannot be redefine as marriage, in an effort to try and expect to receive so called benefits that you feel you should have. The so called "Civil Unions" or "Domestic Partnerships" is about as close as two (or more) same sex couples can achieve and I hope that it will NEVER be considered a marriage.

Sherlock. Ok, Whole Foods, and JC Penny are two business I use.

You fail to show how treating everyone equally under the law, as required by the constitution, is anarchy.

As Madison, Jefferson, Adams, and the other founders realized, majorities have always denied equal rights to minorities. That is why they stated all were created equal, human rights are inalienable, and gave us a bill of rights.

Again, the U.S. Supreme Court said: "The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections."

James Madison wrote: “It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part … If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure.” Unfortunately for us, the majority is united by a common ignorance and fear of us, fueled by an inordinate and irrational attachment to “traditional” values and man-made religious ideas.

John Adams, the second U.S. president, bluntly stated that "the majority has eternally, and without one exception, usurped over the rights of the minority."