Eagle wrote:Do we know that in the communities in question there are not people who do support marriage as between one man and one woman?
I'm sure there are. Many.
Eagle wrote:Dan Cathy didn’t say he hated homosexuals.
He didn't need to.
Eagle wrote:So you agree that people who work for CFA are being discriminated against regardless of their personal beliefs.
Yes, I agree CFA is discriminating against its employees who do not share the same beliefs as the company's owners. This includes gay employees, divorced employees, single-mothers, and probably muslim, atheist, and jewish employees. I understand in many restaurants they are forced to pray with christians and do so out of fear of losing their jobs. And I agree that many customers are now coming into the stores and praising the employees for hating gays and the company is not allowing the employees to express their outrage or defend themselves. To a certain extent I think the company has a right to keep employees from confronting customers, but the company's overt action has created a hostile work environment. The company may have a legal obligation to repair the environment and not require employees to work until it has done so. I see that lawsuit happening soon. That $4 billion value is going to be pretty attractive to some lawyers. Dan's going to feel pretty stupid then...and his view on welfare might change when he needs food stamps.
Eagle wrote:CFA’s board is primarily made up of the Cathy’s. This is a private company. There are no public stockholders to my knowledge. Regarding Vane’s CFO what about some asking that the Mayor’s of those cities to step down who clearly issued discriminatory statements against CFA based on one man’s opinion?
Executives are removed by Boards or senior executives. Mayors are removed by elections or, in some cases, by impeachment. I know of no serious efforts to remove mayors in any of the cities you mentioned over this.
As for being a private company, that is true. But there are public stakeholders including the employees, the communities where there stores are located, their suppliers, creditors, and so forth. If their business suffers because people boycott them and they lay off employees, we'll be subsidizing the unemployment insurance. So, as I'm sure they taught you in one of your MBA classes, being private does not exempt a company from public obligations or isolate it from public stakeholders. That's why most private companies have independent boards by the time they reach that size.
Eagle wrote:So if an executive comes out in favor of same-sex marriage he or she is a hero. When an executive comes out saying he is in support of marriage between one woman and one man he is hateful bigot.
The executive speaks on behalf of the company whether he intends to or not. Dan was speaking on behalf of CFA whether he wanted to or not. The Vante CFO's behavior and actions impacted Vante and he was therefore fired. It has nothing to do with whether he was for or against a specific issue. You might take issue with the fact that the PUBLIC has not reacted the way you'd like when there is a statement one way or the other.
Now, regarding the issue, opposing same-sex marriage means you seek to limit freedom. You want to limit the freedom of certain people to marry based upon the gender of the people they choose to love and marry. Is that incorrect? If you are in favor of allowing people of the same sex to marry then you want to expand that freedom. I always thought limiting the restrictions that government places on people and expanding freedom was on the conservative agenda.
Eagle wrote:I guess this proves that one is considered open minded according to liberals so long as they don’t disagree with the liberal agenda.
Although I'm sure many liberals have an agenda just as many conservatives do, I am unfamiliar with exactly what is on this agenda. Perhaps you can enlighten us.
I don't form my view based on anyone's agenda. I think and decide for myself.
Eagle wrote:You assume that to believe in the Bible literally one must hate people who are homosexuals. That is just not the case. At least with many people. It’s a disagreement about the lifestyle.
I make no such assumption. But based on my observations of the behavior of SOME people who oppose same-sex marriage, I have come to accept that there is more beneath the surface than simply disapproving of their lifestyle. I am sure that if you had a friend and you found out she was deeply in debt you might disapprove of that but you would not ostracize here. But if you found out she was a lesbian I think your feelings would be far stronger.
The evidence that this is not true is the fact that Marriage is still defined as between one man and one woman in the U.S. Constitution.
The United States Constitution does not define marriage. If you believe it is then I encourage you to read the document and cite the Article and Section for us.
You might be thinking of the Defense of Marriage Act of 1996 (DOMA). It defines marriage as between one man and one woman. It is currently the law but is working its way through the court system. It has been struck down by at least one US Circuit Court of Appeals on the basis of violating the equal protection clause of the Fifth Amendment.
To be upheld it will need to pass one of three legal tests about whether there is a compelling government interest and, so far, it seems far from being able to pass even the weakest of those tests.