In all honesty, I think there are many more similarities than differences in our viewpoints. First and foremost, we both see past the R vs. D partisan stranglehold plaguing our country.
Personally, I've come a long way in the past six years on this forum. Politically speaking, is there any other period of a person's life where views change more radically than his/her 20's?
I respect Chick-fil-A's right to have their policy and opinion as long as it's legal. I don't respect the disgusting message they send to the gay community.
But I agree, you and I (and Tater too) all seem to be somewhat of a like mind, in general terms, and all somewhat outside the two-party system in our preferences. If not all Libertarians, at least leaning to some degree in that direction.
With that said, I fully support the rights of the Chick-Fil-A CEO to hold his own, personal, opinions on the right/wrong of Homosexuallity.
The aforementioned irony is that by demanding everyone agree with and support the gay marriage agenda, you're doing and engaging in exactly the same kind of intolerence the Chick-Fil-A guy is doing. If he is disgusting, so is anyone who demands he must change his view or else suffer attack, criticism or economic warfare/protest.
Why can we not live in a world where this CEO can believe what he wants, and others can believe what they want, and both sides can simply let the other alone?
Last edited by Warfish; 07-31-2012 at 02:38 PM.
The beauty is that I don't have to support Chick-fil-A or buy any food from them. And it's just as legal for me to call them out and protest against them (which I don't care enough to actually do) as it is for them to hold their antigay stances publicly.
I think we are in complete agreement actually - except for you wanting Chick-fil-A to be left alone. They deserve all the **** that comes their way from politicians, protestors, etc. -IMO of course. You're more live and let live.
Was reading something interesting lately also about men in their even later years, whose outlook changes even further and how it may be explained by their decrease in testosterone levels. Will try to find a link if anyone has any interest.
But you said "**** Chik-Fil-A". Meaning **** the company (the legal entity that sells yummy chicken), and not just **** the CEO for his personal beleifs.
You see the issue? Yu want to seperate the Law (which Chik-Fil-A follows) from the owners beleifs (which we both disagree with).
But instead of ignoring the company and focusing on what the CEO beleives personally, you (and in fairness many many others) are strikign at, verbally and economicly, the Yummy Chicken Company.
Worse, for those of a liberal slant, is that what the CEO said is exactly what the PResident of the USA, Mr. Obama, says he ALSO believed in until very very recently.
I do not recall any such vitriol against the President from these folks then. So why, if the beleifs are the same, the vitriol against not just the CEO but also his entire company, now?
Why the lack of consistency?
Indeed, if peopel feel strongly, they can do as they wish, include protest and boycott. I absolutely support that.I think we are in complete agreement actually - except for you wanting Chick-fil-A to be left alone. They deserve all the **** that comes their way from politicians, protestors, etc. -IMO of course. You're more live and let live.
But it's harder to support when it is so inconsistent.
No one protested and boycotted the President for holding the same beleifs for the same reasons. And certainly no one boycotted the things Obama was a part of (or CEO of if you will), like the (D) party, did they?
I think we should all be aware enought o seperate the personal beliefs of a CEO, even if he donates to certain causes, and the company itself.
Eating Chik-Fil-A doesn't hurt gays or make you a homphobe, anymore than my own love of far-left liberal muscians does not make me a Communist who supports the Palestinians cause (as my two most favorite artists strongly support).
Personally, a move from the east coast to Colorado definitely initiated a shift. It was an eye opener in terms of cultural and sociological differences, and it also highlighted the importance of localized governance to best suit a local population.
A change of scenery is cliche, but in my case, it proved to be critical in seeing the world from another perspective.
It makes sense. Hormones control so many different aspects of the human body. I don't see why mental viewpoints and perspectives would be excluded from this process.Was reading something interesting lately also about men in their even later years, whose outlook changes even further and how it may be explained by their decrease in testosterone levels. Will try to find a link if anyone has any interest.
The title is "Mayor Says Banning Chick Fil-A is Wrong"
Do you have a link that contradicts this one or did you just make it up?
See? He's very anti-Fil-A.http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/...icle-1.1123274
Mayor Bloomberg said New York would welcome Chick-fil-A with open arms despite the chain’s anti-gay marriage stance — while other big-city mayors warn the chain to stay away.
“It’s just not government’s job, and no matter how much you dislike somebody else’s views, think about what would happen in the cities where the views are on the other side,” Bloomberg said Friday on WOR radio’s “John Gambling Show.”
Just curious ... why the sudden outrage over Chick-fil-A? I'm quite certain there are a fair number of corporate CEO's out there with anti-gay marriage views and donations to pro-traditional family organizations.
This seems like some sort of act of collusion to me. The most ironic part is sales will most likely go UP for Chick-fil-A because of these schenanigans.