There would be health reasons for banning homosexual males (HIV & Rectal Cancer are for more prevalent for them). Lesbians, OTH, are pretty much in the clear. Maybe God is just a horny SOB?
In the interest of full disclosure, Chik-Fil-A was my very favorite fast food restaurant until I went vegetarian in 1987. And when I was advised by health pros that I actually needed to eat meat again in order to heal from my accident (broken leg, hit by car, old story) because I was very weak and was not healing properly, and tried to do so, I did try to eat Chik-Fil-A again. I'd craved it all those many years and though I knew at the time they were fundy Christians and funded fundies as well I didn't care about that. I wasn't aware of those orgs funding people acting against equality for gays though. I can't honestly say what I'd have done if I'd known then. I like to think I would have boycotted but I was trying so damn hard to find any meat I could tolerate. In the end I was too far gone from meat and dairy to take more than a bite of the Chik-Fil-A a friend brought to me. And the whole meat experiment lasted only a couple of weeks, trying maybe once every couple of days. I was lucky to have healed even though I went back to my vegan diet. I do agree though that, for meat eaters at least, Chik-Fil-A is damn delicious.
I don't understand the people saying boycotting Chick-Fil-A because of this is pointless. There is very much a point. Sure, they have every right as a private entity to donate to whoever they choose, but I won't continue to knowingly contribute (however slightly and indirectly) to causes that I don't agree with when it's perfectly practical for me to stop. Fast food is a luxury that our wallets and bodies are better off without. This should be a no-brainer if you care at all about civil rights. I also try to give my business to local companies, I walk and carpool whenever feasible, actively try to reduce the amount of waste I produce, buy used clothing, etc. It's pathetic to think that because you can't be/have the ideal, you shouldn't strive to do better. Even small actions have consequences, and you should apply your moral code accordingly. If you find more satisfaction and value in eating a delicious fried chicken sandwich (that you could easily make at home for cheaper) than in curbing support for anti-gay organizations, you have a right, but I think there's something wrong with your priorities.
You're right. Back in the day, liberals didn't respect the moral code of those who supported slavery- a practice which, by the way, has a long tradition reaching back thousands of years. Christian supporters of slavery had cherry-picked justification for the practice from the bible, just as present day Christians have cherry picked verses justifying their suppression of another innocent minority- gays. Back in the day, liberals didn't respect the moral code of those who sought to deny the right to vote for African Americans. Back in the day, liberals didn't respect the moral code of those who sought to deny the right to vote for women. Back in the day, liberals didn't respect the moral code of those who made interracial marriage illegal. Of course, those who objected to interracial marriage did so on moral grounds. It was taken for granted that it was unnatural, and therefore against God. Back in the day, liberals didn't respect the moral code of those who proposed "separate but equal." Liberals didn't respect the moral code of those who sought (and still seek) to deny employment and housing to gays. Liberals don't respect the moral code of those who seek to deny marriage equality to gays. The argument in support of equality for gays is an argument for the support of freedom, equality, and the right to the pursuit of happiness for consenting adults. No credible defender of gay rights says otherwise. A so-called "moral code" that seeks to oppress and deny freedom to an innocent minority is not worthy of respect. It must be resisted. It must be fought. Once again, once again, we liberals must drag you social conservatives into a new century, kicking and screaming, and decade by decade open your eyes to the harm that you do to an innocent minority by blindly clinging to a "moral code" which is somehow self-justified via tradition. Attacking your ability to deny freedom to others is not suppressing your rights. Once another generation has passed, and gay marriage is legal throughout our nation, and the inherent equality of gay men and women is taken for granted, then conservatives can support it. Because then, at least, there will be a tradition behind it.
Don't want to derail and you've probably answered this on the forum before, but what occurred in 1987 that made you go vegan?
Are you then also boycotting other businesses that trample on the civili rights of people thought the world? Should you not apply your "no-brainer" logic and moral code to the other companies from which you purchase goods and services? Unless you've got a keen eye turned towards all businesses that take in your hard earned money you're likely supporting other evils you just don't know it and, personally, I find this to be high hipocrisy.
I graduated high school and moved out of my parents' house. That's the superficial reason. The more serious reason is that I went to an elementary school that was unusually multi-cultural for its time and when I learned about slavery as a boy half of my friends were black. And I was (and still am) white. And I felt very deep shame at the time for the sins of my ancestors. I was maybe 7 or 8 then but I began to ask myself what we were doing now that later generations would find unthinkable, appalling and primitive, with respect to the rights of others. It was important to me to figure it out because I didn't want to participate in anything even one millionth as bad as slavery just because it was the way things were done. When I was 18 I had a rather major epiphany and decided that eating meat was one of those things, so I quit doing it. 6 years later I quit dairy too. It wasn't hard, either time. Both times it felt like the only thing to do. And I've never felt I was denying myself anything good. And I do still believe that meat-eating won't survive another century as an acceptable or accepted practice. There will come a time when all brutalities against living creatures will become anathema to man, because man gains compassion and understanding every generation as a function of evolution and progress. Sorry for the lengthy derail, but there's your answer.
I'm not a vegan by any means, but that line is incredibly quotable. Kudos to you for having compassion for sentient beings. I know this is completely off-topic, but in certain areas, hunting is encouraged because predators of certain animals have reduced over time. Would you encourage bringing the predators back (such as wolves) or encouraging hunting of these animals? Obviously, if the population is left unchecked, disease and overpopulation would more cruelly deal with this animal. If hunting is the answer, would you still be against the non-vegan way of life?
He has a bit of a point. I have seen a few people discuss boycotting Chic-Fil-A due to this reason because although its delicious it's not that difficult to really stop something which you do on an occasional basis. On the other hand, boycotting a company like Apple seems much more difficult to do due to its every day presence in most people's lives. Thus, the thought is, if a company like Apple came out and said they're supporting Christian advocacy groups which have a stake in anti-gay marriage, that people would be less vociferous about boycotting their company. Now, a lot of this is just conjecture/assumptions. I'm just assuming that's where the disconnect is in this argument.
Thanks, I guess, for your passion. Unfortunately it's misplaced. I, like the vast majority of conservatives, am fine with African Americans (and even women!) voting, races marrying each other and whatever silly examples you tossed out there. Please do remember that the Republicans freed the slaves (Abe Lincoln, remember him?) This is not the same as those things. You're living in the past and trying to trumpet your side's alleged moral superiority. Obama and the liberals always know best. Don't believe me? Just ask any of them! Some statistics to remember: There are roughly 196 countries in the world. 10 of them allow same sex marriage. All 10 of those have happened since 2001. 6 of 50 states are allow it. The numbers simply are not on your side.
Yes, I do boycott other companies when it comes to my attention that they engage in practices that I don't agree with. I no longer give my business to Wal-mart or Gap. I go to Buffalo Exchange and thrift stores for my clothes and hired my little sister as a personal seamstress. I recently got rid of my TV and won't be purchasing a new one. I'm using an almost two year old Dell laptop and a two year old cell phone. When these go out, I'll likely buy used as that is the most ethical choice. For everyday items, I shop at Target and I get my groceries from Whole Foods. I'm not naive enough to think that everything I touch is going to be clean, but I do the best that I can. But as I said, just because you don't do everything you can, doesn't mean you shouldn't do something. This is the same defeatist attitude that keeps people from engaging in our political system.
Liberals use the state to enforce their moral codes. True liberty would be removing marriage licensing from the state, but liberals have absolutely no interest in that. They crave power. Save me your swan song, it's disgusting.
Why did I have to read this thread on a Sunday? Now I want Chick fil A and I can't get it! Also, I'd like to take this time for my semiannual request that members not quote posts from Batman Jones. It defeats the purpose of the ignore list. Thanks!
I open this thread to find the usual D&D suspects prancing around equating re-defining marriage with Abraham Lincoln emancipating slaves, and then patting each other on the back for saving the world. Let's all take a moment to appreciate this great age of kicking and screaming.
Then you haven't read. Because the civil rights issue of gays being allowed to marry isn't the same as slavery doesn't mean it shouldn't be addressed. While it may not be the voting rights act. It is important because one group of citizens are being denied rights just because of who they are. Gay people are murdered because they are gay, they are beaten, mocked, and ridiculed because they are gay. They are also denied rights the rest of society has because they are gay. Just because their plight isn't the same as the civil rights campaign from the 50's or 60's and emancipation doesn't mean it isn't a valid fight. It's very odd when someone claims that because the conditions aren't as bad some other conditions that it's OK to not address them and then laugh at the people are concerned about it.
