I have an issue on my hands that I don't know how to handle with class. Let's dive in.
As many of you remember, Chick-Fil-A was a trending theme over the summer. Dan Cathy (the COO of Chick-Fil-A) made some questionable remarks about gay people and gay marriage. Many on the left reacted quite negatively and many on the right stood up for his First Amendment rights.
Fast forward three months. The issue is still brewing in the only place it can survive- academia. I'm on a college campus and there are some students within student government who want to sit down with the ownership of the local Chick-Fil-A and they have some demands. They want to present a letter to the ownership, and get them to sign it, that calls for Dan Cathy to apologize for his remarks, retract his remarks, and promise to stop funding anti-gay "hate groups" (I'm not saying Chick-Fil-A is completely innocent but they aren't as bad as some people make them out to be). They are also demanding that a "pride" flag be placed in the Chick-Fil-A store.
As far as I'm concerned the issue over Dan Cathy's remarks are a First Amendment issue. If this case were to go to court the petitioners would get laughed out. Thus, I think their demands are not only completely unrealistic, I think they should be called out on them. I understand that they are offended but there is absolutely no reason they should demand what they are demanding. How can I politely point out the problem here without sounding like a homophobe? I think they need to be taken down a notch. How can I put them in their place with class?
That may be the stupidest thing you've said here so far.
There's a great line from House, MD...it's from the episode with Candace Bergen. Candace plays Cuddy's mother, and asks House whether when he marries her daughter, he will convert to Judaism.
He lets her know that he's an atheist.
"Honey, half the Jews I know are atheists. It's about community."
That kind of sums up the level of belief that is present in many churchgoers, today, better than anything I've heard elsewhere.
Once again here is a fine example of a person ignorant of the facts!
Well, there's one thing for sure. You are an expert on ignorance.
@ Ken D Books -
To respond to your comment about my "ignorance of the facts", the political portions of this nonsense are:
1. Mr. Cathy is reported to be a political supporter and financial donor to anti-gay political groups;
2. His remarks about the company were immediately politicized, notably by several fairly prominent politicos; and
3. Like it or not, any public statement having to do with "persons of non-traditional or non-Biblical sexual orientation" is immediately thrown into the political arena these days.
Mr. Cathy's "positions" aren't political. They're convictions based on his Christianity. Other people are turning these personal convictions into political issues.
And if Christians would stop trying to pass legislation based in their faith, it would be a non-issue. Since he is donating specifically to organizations that lobby for political action, this is a political statement AND a statement of religious conviction. In this case, you cannot separate them.
Let's say, for instance, pushing for constitutional amendments (state and federal) to define marriage as between a man and a woman.
Good point. I always thought that inserting "under God" into the pledge of allegiance was a rather religiously motivated thing too. The number of people who can remember the days when it wasn't there are getting fewer and fewer.
I'll say what I've said the whole time. "Let's ask a CHRISTIAN business owner how he feels about something unbiblical and then get upset when he doesn't like it. Hurr durr herpader."