Chick-fil-A president slams gay marriage

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Ruth Anthony-Gardner on July 24, 2012 at 12:01am

Jim Henson Company And Chick-Fil-A: 'Muppets' Makers Sever Ties Wit...

"Yaaaay!"

Permalink Reply by Steph S. on July 24, 2012 at 12:08am

Thanks Ruth for posting the article about the Muppets severing ties with Chick-Fil-A.
I love the Muppets!

Permalink Reply by Grinning Cat on July 24, 2012 at 12:31am

Jeremy Hooper:

By now you've surely heard that the Jim Henson company has broken its partnership with Chick-Fil-A over the company's anti-equality stands. In honor of that move, I give you some truly grateful chickens:

http://www.goodasyou.org/good_as_you/2012/07/video-how-the-muppets-...

(with videos, less than 3 minutes)

Permalink Reply by Steph S. on July 26, 2012 at 10:25am

I love the Muppets!

Thanks for the Muppet video Grinning cat!

Permalink Reply by Joan Denoo on July 27, 2012 at 1:38am

Grinning Cat, great chickens from Henson's company.

Permalink Reply by Steph S. on July 26, 2012 at 10:25am

Boston mayor’s letter to Chick-fil-A: Stay out of Boston!

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/boston-mayor-letter-chick-fil-m...

Permalink Reply by Loren Miller on July 26, 2012 at 10:52am

"I think we are inviting God's judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at him and say, 'We know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage.'"

What an amazing, ill-informed and arrogant load of horse manure! Marriage has been redefined several times over the course of the history of the United States, not only in terms of who may get married (slaves and interracial couples) but the civil rights associated with being married.  Those rights now number over 1,000 and are virtually automatic for any heterosexual couple. Why same-sex couples shouldn't enjoy those same rights, I don't know and I would be dubious that Cathy could come up with a RATIONAL reason.

As for "god's judgment," that is a lame attempt at biblical intimidation, and Cathy deserves any mockery and derision he gets for indulging in it.

Permalink Reply by Joan Denoo on July 27, 2012 at 1:33am

Agreed! And a double dose of cowardliness: Cathy can't stand on his own misinformation, he has to call in the bible as his authority. Talk about circular reasoning.

Permalink Reply by Nerdlass on July 28, 2012 at 8:17am

I've grown quite upset enough over this that I actually posted to my FB calling out any married friend of mine who was against marriage rights for homosexuals to give me a logical reason. I don't like offending folks, but this is about people's pursuit of happiness and I honestly don't see why folks are getting their panties all scrunched up about it.

Permalink Reply by Pat on July 26, 2012 at 11:05am

I saw the letter from the Mayor of Boston in Hang With Friends. It got me thinking about the 1st Amendment.  It's one thing for individual citizens, like those of use here, to boycott a company.  And, I see the Muppets dis-association with Chick-Fil-A in the same vein. Private person or private company that can take a stand and refuse to engage in commerce with anyone they please.

However, we are now talking about government action. The Mayor of Boston is, after all, the chief officer and head of the executive branch of that municipal government. The First Amendment protects speech - both popular, which is easy, and unpopular, which is more difficult and more important to protect. Had he come out as a private citizen and expressed his displeasure, that's one thing. But his letter, on official Boston government stationary, makes it government action. And, it's government action stating that an otherwise legal entity, engaged in legal commerce, should not be allowed to do that, or advertise (a sign on the door announcing who they are).  I really don't see this difference in this, or a homophobic mayor of a different city publishing an official government memo saying Oreo cookies (a company that supports rights for all) should not be sold in his city.

It's unpopular speech, like the right of atheists to openly express their disbelief, or homophobes like Dan Cathy, that need protection. Not speech that the majority agrees with.

Permalink Reply by Sentient Biped on July 26, 2012 at 1:50pm

I agree that unpopular speech needs to be protected.  The government should not dictate the  beliefs of individuals.  I personally would oppose the company, as the means of expression that gives a bigot voice, and I support staying away from their stores.  But not government control of even bigoted opinions of business owners.

Permalink Reply by Michael Eppers on July 28, 2012 at 7:42am

Pat, Thank You for the kind words to my blog post. This is a moment that
demonstrates the difference between critical thinkers and, to put it nicely,
the blind followers of faith. While we are able to analyze the argument as an
equal rights and free speech issue, the religious followers only see this as a
moral issue. It is taking atheists to make their argument for them. Of course
if they were to see the gay issue as an equal rights issue, we wouldn’t be
having these discussions

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• 7
• 8
• Next ›
• Page