Eagle, I know you don't think much of me, being that I'm female and all, but do not use my quotes out of context as anti-gay marriage. I am 100% pro marriage equality. I also think gay couples should adopt, if you need to fit my scenario to that.

Yes, it WAS all I cared to comment on at that moment, as I wanted to afford you the opportunity to explain why you chose to edit out the only portion of the poster's argument that didn't support your view before I jumped to conclusions about your motives and agenda. My original post stating my views is on page 2 of this thread. Since you believe it is acceptable to change people's words to fit your meaning simply because you can, I have nothing more to add to this "debate."

In recent news, I've found it ironic that the protesters are threatening to occupy various Chick fil A's, in the name of "tolerance," when they themselves are so completely INtolerant of the point of view that homosexuality is a sin.

Seems quite hypocritical to me.

Are they protesting for "tolerance," or their own agenda? Based on their own intolerance for opposing viewpoints, the answer seems obvious.

What about the Woolworth's counters sit ins? Rosa Parks? Fighting against the view that you are a second class citizen isn't hypocritical. No one should be forced to just accept not having equal rights so that the majority doesn't have to feel icky. If it weren't for people who were "intolerant" of that viewpoint years ago forcing the issue, I wouldn't have been allowed to marry my husband.

I don't know about anyone else, but I want to hear Mayor Emanuel speak about "Chicago values" to the attendees of any number of Chicago area churches/temples/mosques that would likely beg to differ. Or maybe his idea of Chicago values revolve around political corruption, and CFA simply had not greased various city government palms to an appropriate degree?

There's a difference here. With the Woolworth's sit ins, the business actually had a policy of discriminating against a group. Here, the owner (or actually a top executive) of the business just expressed a viewpoint. I haven't seen any evidence that discrimination is being practiced.

Actually I highly value women. Both men and women are equally important to society. Women are often kinder and more sensitive than men. And my wife would argue smarter too. Which I might tend to agree.

Why would you say that I don't think much of you? I was simply pointing out the value of marriage. You have the right to be pro same-sex marriage. No argument there. Sorry if you felt I took your quote out of context. I was actually responding to DoingHomework and Savarel's notion that marriage wasn't important to be registered/organized by government. Your post along with the idea that children need to be taken care of and if one spouse dies the children should go to the surving spouse makes the registration of marriage important. That along with other benefits make marriage important.

You don't need government registration of marriage for children to go to the surviving spouse (or more accurately, the surviving parent) if one dies. When people have children out of wedlock and one dies, this already occurs.

I'm not sure why it was necessary to explain that. So by not including that part of the quote what does that mean about my motives and agenda? Lol. Curious. Two posters (DoingHomework and Savarel) were arguing marriage shouldn't be registered with the government. And that filing income could be done by people who just lived together as roomates... Kaitlyn put out a scenario that clearly pointed to some benefits/reasons for marriage registration. Regardless if it reffered to same-sex or hetero marriages the point is that marriage is necessary and beneficial to society. Marriage solidifies relationships. Sorry you felt I was changing Kaitlyn's words.

The Mayors of the cities are public servants. Government officials have no right to interfere with business based on one man’s opinion. They cannot do whatever they like. Telling Chick-Fil-A not to build or expand CFA’s based on Cathy’s opinion is not within their rights. Hence the reason none of these Mayors are pursuing legal action. Most of them have back-tracked and clarified their statements. The damage has been done however.

Interesting point kombat. Good point bpgui. kaitlyn142 see the following below. I would argue the exact opposite and many African-Americans would agree with Rev. Owens below.

Supporters of Chick-Fil-A CEO Speak Out

http://video.foxnews.com/v/176620212900 ... -speak-out

See Reverend William Owens from Coalition of African American Pastors comments at the end starting at 1:44. Here's the transcript:

"Some people are saying because of the position which it CFA is taken - they don't want them in their cities.

It’s a disgrace.

It’s the same thing that happened when I was marching for civil rights when they didn’t want a black to come into their restaurant. " - Rev. Owens

Fascist regimes use fear and terror to seek to eliminate their opposition. Everyone has a right to their own opinion. But completely eliminating the opposition such as what has been suggested that CFA should just go bankrupt is just not the American way.

But you say yourself that they haven't pursued legal action. So the CEO can have freedom of speech but elected officials cannot? How is it different from a guy on the street telling Chick-Fil-A that they don't want them in their town? Some cities don't want Wal-Mart in their town and protest vigorously. Some neighborhoods don't want a McDonald's there. The mayors (and BTW, I think they're wrong) made speeches. Are you saying we should deny them freedom of speech? Should the Rev. Owens not be allowed to make speeches? After all, we have to muzzle everyone if we muzzle one person.

I'm dragging this topic back to what you say your basic premise is: freedom of speech. So let's see how far this can go.

First Cathy made personal religious claims about his personal views in an interview with a Christian organization. The mayors claimed to speak for all residents ("Chick-fil -A's values are not Chicago's values..." as an example) in their respective cities via public letters, tweets, and press conferences. Can we agree this was wrong?

Second the same mayors were threatening a business (CFA) based on one man's views that are protected under the first amendment. Can we agree this was wrong?

Actually, Chik-Fil-A's values are not exactly a secret. Chick-fil-A’s charitable arm gives millions of dollars to Focus on the Family, the Eagle Forum, the Family Research Council, and other organizations that agitate against gay marriage. The mayors do have a right to speak as representatives of their cities. That's part and parcel of being an elected official: representing the people who elected you. And if you do a poor job of representing them, you get voted out in the next election (see Rick Santorum). So no, I don't think it's wrong. The system works as it should. It's no more wrong than Rev. Owens representing his congregation when he speaks.


Back to basics, Eagle. I read your quotes from the mayors early in this post and while I saw some strong statements, I didn't see anything that even came close to being a threat, even a veiled one. Yes, I think threatening a business is wrong, but in this case, there weren't any threats.

So back to my question, which you didn't answer. Should we deny freedom of speech to elected officials while defending that right for CEOs and ministers?

Actually you did not say that. You said the opposite then we corrected you. You said marriage is defined by the Constitution and hence is a protected right.

Now, let's have fun with editing your quotes:



The ellipsis changes things doesn't it. But that doesn't seem important.