Without emotion this stuff can be fascinating

[Tampa Turtle]

I like Chic-fil-A but do not eat it often as fast food night at the Turtle nest is on Sunday and they are closed. And I should not eat that stuff. But the one near my house is packed all the time--it is hard to get a parking space.

 

My observations are my social circle view Chic-fil-A well in part because they are closed for the Sabbath. Walking the talk and all that. I think the company is getting unfairly beat up over the issue--the founder is entitled to his opinion. I was on vacation this last week and in several southern cities I visited the places were packed to overflowing with folks on a "buy-cott" supporting them. So I think they will do OK.

 

The Dixie Chics got punished for making a brave/stupid comment at a time when it was unpopular. But I thought it was a bit unfair as well. But I guess they alienated their base--maybe their fans thought they we were being mocked?

[packsaddle]

Those delicious ironies...so many of them.

So, 'chickengate' boils down to a guy who exercises his First Amendment right and because it's somewhat controversial there are strong opinions expressed about him, his product, etc., both in support and in opposition. All this guy did was express his opinion on gay marriage. That's all. He's allowed.

And all of a sudden there's a surge of support for him and his business as if there's a boycott (which there isn't)...and that is really interesting AND,

If a hospital wants to limit the medical procedures to patients on the basis of religious beliefs, not to mention the hullaballoo about insurance coverage for their employees.....that is again protected first amendment stuff. So far so good.

 

BUT if a church decides to put a simple statement of disagreement with BSA with regard to the membership policy, exercising their first amendment right to both speech AND religion, into THEIR OWN literature for their OWN religious award, those of us who held one position in 'chickengate' and who were outraged at the threat to religious freedom at religious hospitals, etc.....seem to have given complete support to disregarding THAT religion's first amendment freedoms when BSA took action to disallow the award on the uniform.

 

Such delicious ironies.

[Tampa Turtle]

Well said. Ain't free speech a pain.

[Eagledad]

>>All this guy did was express his opinion on gay marriage. That's all. He's allowed.

[Beavah]

Yah, hmmmmm....

 

I'm seein' lots of delicious ironies, packsaddle. Especially since I'm quite fond of Chik-fil-A. Somethin' about da spice mix and peanut oil. Mmmmmm....

 

But I'm not seein' the same ironies you are.

 

A business owner expresses his personal views on gay marriage. Clearly protected free speech.

A host of "liberals" call for blocking food licensing permits or other public access to his business in various municipalities. Also free speech, but clearly an anti-diversity stance, as well as advocating unconstitutional nonsense that isn't helpful to public discourse.

A handful of liberal Democratic public officials threaten or take steps toward meaningful restrictions on his business. Clearly a problem. Public officials should not threaten da livelihood of others because they happen to disagree with their personal opinion.

As a result, a number of ordinary Americans respond by showin' support for the business owner. Many of 'em show support even though they personally disagree with his opinion on gay marriage. They just don't believe people should be threatened by government officials because they happen to have beliefs about marriage.

 

So far so good.

 

Now we enter da realm of random synaptic activity and jump to hospital procedures. A Christian church runs a hospital, and has a long memory of how abortion, sterilization, and contraception have been used around da world and in our own country to try to eliminate "undesirable" minorities or other things which it believes firmly contradict da Gospel of Christ. As a result it won't perform those procedures, nor will it collaborate with da government in paying for those procedures. It has seen what governments do with those procedures when not opposed. In our society, First Amendment religious freedom; their action is protected even though it's countercultural and edgy.

 

Again, various liberal politicians take da anti-diversity stance, and try to use da mechanisms of the state to coerce those that disagree with 'em to comply through legal and economic pressure.

 

As a result, a number of ordinary Americans express dismay and support da Christian church, even though they may personally disagree with that church on the issue.

 

Still good.

 

Now we continue da realm of random synaptic activity and shift to da UUA religious award. Note da false parallel being created. Da previous two examples involved public officials usin' the mechanisms of government in unconstitutional ways to suppress beliefs they disagreed with. This example quietly tries to pass off the BSA as being the same thing as government and BSA officials bein' the same thing as elected public officials responsible for da enforcement of laws.

 

A private organization that tries to teach moderately traditional values decides not to recognize an award offered by another organization because that award conflicts with da values it is tryin' to teach.

 

Once again, a liberal democrat takes the anti-diversity stance, and implies that da private organization is somehow denyin' the other organization its freedom just because it won't agree with and endorse da opinion that da liberal democrat wants it to.

 

Seems pretty typical by now. Liberal democrats seem to have a veritable lock on irony when it comes to diversity.

 

Beavah

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[packsaddle]

The irony is the selective devotion to the first amendment by forum members. Get it now?

[Beavah]

Nah, the irony is liberals selective devotion to "diversity". And their inability to distinguish between government and private entities.

 

Get it now?

 

B

 

[packsaddle]

Beavah, in 'chickengate', some mayors were 'called out' because they were trampling free speech. Rightly so.

In the health care/Catholic hospital argument, you made persuasive arguments about religious freedom.

While reading many responses to many threads over the years, I have been impressed with some persons, you for example, who try to champion a measured, kind, fair, and pragmatic approach to youth. I join in this tendency to defend young persons against such things, for example, as 'zero tolerance'. So far so good.

 

The UUA, like they often are, were among the first to express their concern about BSA membership policies, namely the same underlying issues as in 'chickengate'. They exercised their rights of free speech and to express ideas based on their faith in their own documents for their own religious award. BSA didn't like it.

BSA managed to convince the UUA to modify their own religious documents but evidently not enough to satisfy BSA. BSA could not force the UUA to modify those documents to the satisfaction of BSA so no resolution was reached.

 

At this point, there was no way for BSA to prevail over the first amendment rights of the UUA. And at this point BSA could have just accepted that they had failed. But BSA didn't. BSA had one weapon left and they aimed it at UUA youth. BSA announced that because the UUA would not set aside their own doctrine, BSA would no longer recognize the religious award. It was a small move in every sense because it not only failed to resolve anything, it only affected the youth.

I said it was small. I could also add that it was a shameful and spiteful act of cowardice and bullying, by a big organization who needlessly and gratuitously attempted to harm a small number of youth who had never done anything to deserve it other than try to follow their own faith and the Scout Law.

 

The irony is that members of these forums seem to use the first amendment to defend certain faiths and certain speech, but when it came to those UUA youth, some of those forum members who might have approached this with the same sense of fairness and kindness... turned their backs. And still do.

I call it irony. Perhaps there is a better term.

[Beavah]

Yah, hmmmmm...

 

I'll certainly agree with yeh that da UUA took a principled stand in accord with their beliefs.

 

I'll also agree with yeh that da BSA handled da issue in a ham-handed manner, as is their wont.

 

Da BSA recognizes religious awards, eh? Nuthin' more. BSA recognition implies endorsement. Yeh get to wear the award on your uniform alongside your scoutin' awards and such. It's considered a "part of" scoutin'.

 

The BSA choosin' not to endorse a particular religious award is also an act of free speech, eh? It says that what this religious award teaches and espouses is not endorsed by the BSA. It's not "part of" scoutin' as we see it.

 

That's just being honest, eh? When da Catholics choose to recognize Lutheran baptism but not recognize LDS baptism, that's just bein' honest about their beliefs and position as Catholics, eh? It's not an effort to "harm a number of youth who had never done anything to deserve it." It's not an "act of cowardice or bullying". It's just a statement of their own belief and position. When that came out, if I recall correctly, da LDS authorities in Salt Lake said, in essence, "yep, that's fine, we have no problem with it."

 

So here we have da BSA as an organization takin' a traditional moral stand based on da beliefs of a large majority of its corporate members, and da UUA takin' a different stand based on their own beliefs. Why would the UUA expect da BSA to endorse their position? Why would they want it to? That would just be askin' the BSA to be dishonest about its own beliefs, and da UUA respects diversity of thought.

 

I know quite a few UUA families and scouts and scouters, eh? They don't seem to have a particular issue with it, and da BSA still welcomes 'em as members. They're good folks. But just as da BSA welcomes 'em as members without expectin' 'em to endorse da BSA's position, it seems like mutual courtesy and respect should allow for da reverse, eh? They shouldn't expect da BSA to endorse their position.

 

You know. Diversity.

 

Beavah

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[JMHawkins]

I think the thing that makes the average American most upset is seeing someone bullied, regardless of the political issues involved. If a bunch of Rush Limbaugh listeners had been barricading the enterances to Dixie Chick's concerts, it would have been different, and it wouldn't have worked. But, that's not what happend. The Dixie Chicks weren't bullied by anyone, they just made comments a huge portion of their fan base found obnoxious. OTOH, a couple of mayors threatening Chik-fil-A over comments people who don't generally eat there find obnoxious is seen as bullying.

[BSA24]

What we have here folks is a failure to distinguish between behavior and labels. Diversity is allowing people of differing labels to be included without arbitrary, ignorant, beliefs about them based on how people label them to be included.

 

Diversity is not allowing people of differing BEHAVIORS to be included when those behaviors are arbitrary and ignorant or cruel to others.

 

It's the difference from disallowing membership to someone who fails a background check and disallowing membership to someone because you labeled him and think, "All them people like that are not to be trusted."

 

The irony, here, Beavah, is that you do not understand that, and went to such extraordinary lengths to demonstrate it.

[Beavah]

Yah, BSA24, that was a hoot, eh? Liberals don't even understand da meaning of their own buzzword.

 

Diversity is only about labels? It's not about includin' people of different backgrounds, beliefs, cultures, ethnicities, genders, etc.? You do recognize that folks of different backgrounds and cultures behave differently, right?

 

Beavah

[Lisabob]

Barry, sorry for the late follow-up but I've been (and will soon again be) without internet for a bit, and enjoying every moment of disconnection.

 

Anyway: I said I thought many gay-rights supporters might also not be big CFA supporters in the first place. You asked why I thought that. Here's my thought process.

 

In the study of social movements, there's a distinction between those movements that aim at fundamental survival/well-being and "pocket book" kinds of issues on one hand, and "new politics" issues about quality of life, equality, and other kinds of issues that aren't immediate in nature, on the other hand. "New politics" issues might include such things as environmentalism & "green" issues, gay rights, other group rights, vegan/vegetarianism, healthy foods, etc. And these tend to work as a constellation, ie, people who have gotten past the basic needs/security "old politics" issues and are focused on "new politics" issues tend to be involved or concerned with several overlapping causes, all of which might be "new politics" in nature.

 

So - and here's the conjecture part - I posit that folks who are particularly active in supporting gay marriage and gay rights in general, are probably also people who don't eat a lot of nasty deep fried fatty mystery-meat fast foods, and hence, these people are unlikely to have a hankering for CFA. Consequently, they aren't going to "boycott" CFA (effectively, anyway) because they weren't going there in the first place.

 

 

 

 

 

[JoeBob]

Hey LisaBob,

 

Although I agree with your premise of denizens of a certain type of political orbit having common causes with other astral entities in the same orbit...

 

I think you erred when you categorized Chik-Fil-A as "nasty deep fried fatty mystery-meat"

 

http://www.chick-fil-a.com/Food/Ingredients

 

http://www.chick-fil-a.com/Food/Healthful-Lifestyle

 

This stuff is even better than what Momma made.

Sorry , Momma!

[Lisabob]

Sorry JB, I just can't do it. I ate at a CFA one time. Being from the frozen north, I had never even heard of it until I relocated to points south for a few years, and a friend from Georgia was mooning about how wonderful it was. So off we went, and she got her fix. I couldn't finish mine. Yuck. Never went back.

 

Yes, Yes, I do understand that this constitutes sacrilige in some parts of the country!