The fallout from the controversial interview given by Chick-Fil-A president Dan Cathy over anti-gay comments continues to build. While most business leaders work hard to keep their political and religious views from affecting customers or their business, Cathy came out swinging with comments saying that he runs the company according to Biblical commands and that he views gay marriage as a sin. The result has been national boycott, store protests, and most recently moves in major cities like Chicago to bar the restaurant. The suggested legislation in Chicago would be in my view unconstitutional. Despite our disagreement with Cathy, civil libertarians should defend his right to do business without harassment or censure from the government for his views. His company is subject to anti-discrimination laws. Those laws protect his employees from “Biblical” harassment.
The gay rights group Equality Illinois is launching a campaign against Chick-Fil-A – petitioning universities and lawmakers to evict the fast food restaurant from their campuses. There is also a plan for a “kiss-in” campaign by gay and lesbian couples outside Chick-Fil-A restaurants. The latter protests are perfectly constitutional. Indeed, Cathy decided to force this issue in his interview and should have expected that his comments would enrage some consumer while delighting others.
It is the plan of Ald. Proco “Joe” Moreno (1st) that crosses the line.
I would also oppose as an academic an effort to bar the restaurant at universities. Universities are institutions committed to free speech and free thought. To start to bar groups or businesses on the basis of the religious views of their officers runs against the mission of a university.
Cathy was stating his personal view of gay marriage. He magnified the controversy by extending those views to the company: “We are very much supportive of the family — the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that.”
He seemed to double down on those comments despite the controversy and obvious cost of proselytizing to his business: “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,’ and I pray God’s mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we have the audacity to define what marriage is about.”
Moreno is moving to block permits for a new business in Chicago. Boston Mayor Thomas Menino has also vowed to block Chick-Fil-A from entering his city at all.
The suggestion that these cities would block a business because of the content of the religious views of one of its officers offends the principles of free speech and a host of constitutional protections. To the degree that the company violates discrimination laws, it can be punished and fined. In the meantime, the company is likely to loss millions in sales as well as protests from customers offended by Cathy’s comments. Just as Cathy elected to make his views public, customers have the same right. We can leave the outcome to the marketplace to work out.
Source: CBS
In any case, a genetic predisposition isn’t a prerequisite of providing legal protections against discrimination based on sexual orientation.
Then again, you back a political philosophy represented by a party who chose a guy as their Presidential candidate who would do away with Civil Rights Act of 1964.
I don’t think the “genetics versus environment” argument is anywhere near resolution with respect to sexual preference, unless something has taken place in the last decade that I totally missed — which is not impossible. But here’s a little (very little, admittedly) extra data: It’s probably not possible for a heterosexual woman to decide to be lesbian instead. Years back, as a joke, I announced to a small group of friends, “I wish the Hell I could switch to lesbian and that way avoid the whole man/woman thing forever; it’s so f*cked up already, and it’s so much easier to find good women than it is to find good men!” Although everyone laughed and recognized it as just another one-liner in my arsenal, one of my dear friends (heterosexual woman with a list of bad choices in her love life) actually decided to switch over but couldn’t.
She reported sullenly: “I tried to get cured but I couldn’t.”
Another friend of mine, a gay man, asked me once why I hadn’t tried to remarry or at least to get a part-time man, and I answered: “Oh once you have a man in your life, you have a source of unending intolerable trouble in your life,” and he said, “TELL ME ABOUT IT!” 🙁
Genetics Has A Role In Determining Sexual Orientation In Men, Further Evidence
Genes Help Determine Women’s Sexual Orientation
Also, link if you’re going to cite.
Bron,
Apparently in your zeal to cherry pick, you can’t comprehend what I’m saying.
No one.
NO F**KING ONE.
Said “single gene” or “solely”.
But.
You.
Straw man fabricating jackass that you are.
Bron,
Still no proof, but I’ll let that slide for a minute.
You obviously didn’t read a single one of those articles I posted to so I’ll explain the science to you.
Sexual orientation is not your choice. “What” or “who” you want to copulate with is set by genetics. It’s not malleable, changeable or “curable”. How that manifests is shaped by environment. Example: child predators. They are, despite misconceptions to the contrary, usually heterosexual. They were born that way. What makes them in to child predators are environmental factors, in their specific cases, usually being victims of child abuse themselves. Example: false asexuals. In ancient Greece and Rome, there was no stigma to homosexuality. It was simply an accepted part of human nature. As time moved on and societies changed, so did the sexual mores of society and a prejudice against homosexuality grew into predominance. As such, those born homosexual or bisexual often adopted professions that endorsed an asexual lifestyle like the priesthood or convents. They did this as a matter of survival in a hostile environment, but they were still homosexuals and bisexuals, just either not practicing or closeted. Example: wife beaters. They are born heterosexual, but what makes the behavior of violence against women both prevalent and accepted is the social environment in which those persons were raised in and/or continue to live in. Consider the example of Saudi Arabia versus the U.S. – heterosexual males treat their heterosexual female counterparts considerably different in both places but those behaviors are shaped by environment. Their orientation isn’t.
This doesn’t have a damn thing to do with government, economics or your Aynish fantasy life where the only determining factor in a person’s life is their ego. This has to do with science and what facts science tells us about human sexuality. If you don’t like those facts? That is your problem. For someone who is supposedly about “individual freedom”, you are sure anxious to endorse non-scientific reasoning that bolsters those who would oppress people based on their sexual orientation because “it’s a lifestyle choice”. Again, showing that Randian Libertarians are all talk and no walk.
Sexual orientation is fixed by genetics and how it is expressed is shaped by environment.
Deal with it or find some proof that statement is wrong.
Or continue to mistake your opinions for facts and let your theories dictate how you pick your evidence instead of the totality of the evidence dictating your theories.
You’re good at that.
“Researchers from Queen Mary’s School of Biological and Chemical Sciences, and Karolinska Institutet in Stockholm publish their findings in the scientific journal Archives of Sexual Behavior.
Dr Qazi Rahman, study co-author and a leading scientist on human sexual orientation, explains: “This study puts cold water on any concerns that we are looking for a single ‘gay gene’ or a single environmental variable which could be used to ‘select out’ homosexuality – the factors which influence sexual orientation are complex.
And we are not simply talking about homosexuality here – heterosexual behavior is also influenced by a mixture of genetic and environmental factors.”
Gene H:
you said your sexual orientation is not your choice, that means it is all nature. Slice it any way you want but that is what you said.
It has nothing to do with AR. There is a genetic component to human behavior but there is a good deal we can control.
If you would give up that slavish devotion to liberal victim-hood and see that many people are in a situation because of their own actions maybe you would see that government cant cure all of the worlds problems.
But then that would mean you have to give up your ego driven narcissism that compels you to think you can cure the problems of humanity with other people’s money.
Bron,
An assertion without proof is still just your opinion. Also, learn to read. “[Sexual orientation] is rooted in genetics and shaped in manifestation by environment” is not the equivalent of ” sexual orientation is the result of a couple of genes”. False equivalences will get you nowhere. Also, no one ever said climate change was solely caused by man. That’s a straw man and illustrative of your propensity for binary thinking. It’s also the exact kind of logical error you are making in this instance.
No one.
Said.
Solely.
But you.
Get it?
However, that being said, sexual orientation is rooted in genetics and shaped in manifestation by environment. This is what the science tells us. This is what the science tells us whether you like it or not.
Until you have proof that this statement is wrong and not just your opinion (which, by the way, is simply a restatement of what I’ve said but denying the role of genetics), you’re still just blowing smoke. Your sexual orientation is no more your choice than your eye color is factual. If your Aynish ego worship wasn’t getting in the way of your understanding of what science is telling us, you might get a clue. Not everything about humans is an operation of their choice as driven by their ego. That’s pure narcissistic nonsense.
Now get some proof that sexual orientation is not set by genetics and shaped by environment or run along.
Proof mind you. Not “what [you] believe”.
is just wrong.
Gene H:
“Just saying “the science isn’t settled” without proof never worked for you on climate change and it’s not going to work for you on sexual orientation either.”
It isnt settled now is it. And there is certainly much debate as to human activity causing said climate change. No one debates climate change, because climate has been changing for millions of years.
To say sexual orientation is the result of a couple of genes is simplistic. Just as saying climate change is the result of man is simplistic.
I dont even have to present evidence to the contrary about sexual orientation being solely the result of genetics because there are other human behaviors which have a genetic and environmental composition to them. Human beings are blank slates and are easily programmable, I believe personality is set by around age 5. Jesuits say “give me a child until he is 7 and he is mine for life”.
There are many factors which influence human behavior and human sexual behavior, so to say as you did; “Your sexual orientation is not your choice any more than your eye color is, Jim.”
Hubert, one of my best friends is a Jewish doctor. Tell your Old Testament theory to him. I have not asked him to read your comment yet, but already know what he would say about the OT not being operative any more. I know his style. He has a dry sense of humor, so will probably say something to the effect, “Yer funnee!”
I was in a fast food chain on Sunday about one in the afternoon. The place was packed with people wearing Sunday go to meetin clothes. As I watched them pray over the food before they ate it I thought it a wise idea. You would not believe the fat food that these fat slobs in JC Penny costumes were eating. I prayed over my cheeseburger and grits before I portaked too.
Just to be on the safe side.
Hubert (sorry about the prior typo):
“Our local restaurant here in town has always been busy, but it’s been observed lately, that it’s more busy than usual. The drive-thru line almost circles the building twice.”
**********************
Like I told you before, bigots have to eat somewhere.
Humbert Cumberdale:
“We’re no longer under OT Law. ”
*************************
Well, somebody had better tell Jesus not to worry about all those jots and tittles:
17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
Matt. 5
Hey, Humbert have you ever read that book?
Bettykath,
Interesting tidbit about Gov. Scott!
It’s interesting to observe in the light of the Chick-Fil-A “controversy” that they’ve experienced an increase in customers lately. Our local restaurant here in town has always been busy, but it’s been observed lately, that it’s more busy than usual. The drive-thru line almost circles the building twice.
Looks like the militant homosexual agenda and their whining like a spoiled little child has only helped business for Chick-Fil-A. Keep it up.
Otteray Scribe, that video clip from the Left Wing (oops, I’m sorry, WEST Wing) TV show has a pretty lengthy diatribe of Biblical misinterpretation. The willfull ignorance of the understanding between Old Testament Law and New Testament Grace is staggering. The actor goes on to cite several examples of Old Testament Law, while completely ignoring how the OT Law was done away with, in effect “nailed to the cross” in the New Testament. We’re no longer under OT Law. Someone seems to have forgotten to inform this guy in the video clip.
Blouise, They would be a treasure trove for genealogists if they managed to survive. There might be better sources for births and deaths, but not the gossip. A woman in PA found diaries of an ancestor. My great grandfather and his father are both mentioned. Great grandfather courted her sister Jan-Apr. She married someone else before the year was out. He married my great grandmother the following year. Diary also mentions great grandfather’s sister by her nickname, which we did not know. My fb page is getting pictures from hs classmates of do-you-know-what-this-is. The younger folks don’t have a clue, but I know what they all are. (sigh) Yes, this is way OT but I’m tired of the bible talk. Mespo has a good handle on it.
————-
Pete, lol
bettykath,
re: the newspapers … they’d usually write little articles about births, deaths, marriages etc and pass them out to their customers … just community gossip stuff. I know of several here in Ohio. Sometimes they’d hire young boys in the neighborhoods and pay them a penny for every ten copies they delivered … single sheet newspapers with a form on the bottom to sign up for that particular man’s route.