Most posts at my place are not the sort to bring over here but this one, by Chuckles, deserves special mention. Bascially, the story is:
[Last] Wednesday was Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day, and Americans flocked to the fast food restaurant in response to criticism of COO Dan Cathy’s opposition to same-sex marriage (as well as threats from the mayors of some major cities). The photos of long lines and traffic jams reveal the extent of the restaurant’s support–for some it’s about traditional values and for others it’s about freedom of religious exercise and speech in the face of government intimidation. There are even rumors that Chick-fil-A set a new world record for sales in a single day, though the company has yet to release any sales numbers.
Yet the MSM apparently roundly ignored that. American commenters at my place confirmed that it had, in fact, been quite a big thing and Chuckles further explained:
Rahm Emmanuel manufactured a faux outrage target in Chicago when he announced that the Chick-a-fil restaurant chain would not be allowed to operate there, since they would not endorse gay marriage, or abortion, or something, or everything.
This was picked up by the media, and the huffing and puffing began. It always amazes me that those of a lefty disposition have an unshakeable belief that EVERYBODY, all right thinking people, think exactly like they do. i.e. in any disagreement with feeble minded knuckle-draggers like ourselves, they speak for the huge majority, and we are very much a recalcitrant minority. It’s one of the reasons for the constant dripping condescension.
Various commenteres at the American sites opined [and this is very much OoL material]:
This isn’t about gay marriage it’s just a bit of pushback from people who are tired of being lectured to and threatened by fanatics on the left. This is a warning shot and you can be sure it’s being noticed by the White House.
As EBD has pointed out in the tips thread, this issue has essentially nothing to do with gays and lesbians.
‘Social ‘rights’ and I’ll include marriage in these are social decisions and are not fundamental human rights. The only fundamental or natural rights are those of life, liberty and the freedom to pursue happiness. Period. Then come the political rights that enable the above fundamental rights: freedom of speech, belief, association, religion.
It is these natural rights that are under attack by these mayors and the left. Essentially, Emanual and the other in government and the media are saying that you, a citizen, may hold only one belief, in order to have the freedom to participate in this society.
Notice that the CEO of Chick-fil-A isn’t refusing to hire gays or serve them. No, he’s just defending his belief against same-sex marriage. That’s his right.
But for a government to declare that your beliefs must match theirs – is unbelievable.
To which I replied:
Are – got it, got it. So the restaurant owner asserted his [first amendment?] right to hire and fire whom he chooses but Obama is forcing gay marriage down everyone’s throats? That’s how I read it. If that’s so, then yep – of course I would have eaten at Chick-fil-A’s restaurant that day.
That bit about “but for a government to declare that your beliefs must match theirs – is unbelievable”, I can only say welcome to the UK, where to apply for anything or even where they make you fill out forms you don’t want, there are those social diversity pages at the end you have to agree with or you don’t get the thing you want/need.
This is tyranny and it is blackmail. Shame on the gay mafia for endorsing it but the gay mafia is part of the whole strong-arm business, isn’t it and it pisses people off something awful. As many pointed out, it’s not that anyone’s against actual gays – I’ve said many times they can do as they wish as long as it doesn’t involve children. They can pretend it’s a “marriage” to make themselves happy [though it's not of course] and as long as children are not brought into it, everyone’s fine.
Not effing Stonewall, the government’s darling. So I oppose anything whatever Stonewall wants, also the animal rights activists, also the rabid greenies and anyone else like that who would force their views on me.
Cathy has no problem with Homosexuals, he employs more than a few and there are no ‘issues’ there. What happened is that he answered a question truthfully, namely that he personally endorsed the Biblical view of marriage as being a man and a woman. Needless to say, the benders went berserk and threw their toys out of the pram
and are now surprised to find that they are a small and not particularly well respected minority after all.
Couldn’t happen to a nicer bunch of loons.
Actually, his organization has actively been anti-gay in its hiring policies, according to several lawsuits. There is also the matter of supporting Uganda’s ‘death penalty for gays’ law.
I asked my MP why his stance on Gay marriage. He’s a LibDem so he’s for it. When I noted that – as so often with minority groups, when they get equal rights, they want more. So now, if the bill goes through, Gay folk can get married OR have a civil partnership. Straight folk can only get married.
So I asked my MP if he supported equal rights for non-Gays.
He didn’t reply.
By the way, my MP is David Heath, who was excellent UNTIL the LibDems when into the Coalition. Now he’s a 100% party man through and through.
Yep – it’s the hypocrisy and OTTness which everyone’s commenting on. No one sane is trying to make it a gay issue.
I would say that technically speaking, a registry office marriage is a civil partnership, only a Church wedding is a wedding.
My understanding is that homosexuals want Church weddings which isn’t possible because to have that means picking and choosing which parts of the Bible you choose to follow. I say this as an atheist.
DaveE.
How long has the word ‘marriage’ meant ‘the union of a male and female’? Hundreds of years? Thousands of years?
What amazes me is that anyone would want to arbitrarily change that meaning since it is specific and can only mean one thing. Why obfuscate the meaning by redefining it to include unions which are not male/female? It has nothing to do with equality – it is merely the time-honoured meaning of a word. Equal rights, in terms of tax laws etc, are fine, but not the vandalisation of our words. Find/invent a different/new word…. what’s the problem?
Do you include concupines? Or polygamy, as in the Mormons and Moslems?
Is that Stripbark Bristlecone Concupines?
Sorry, I’ll get my coat.
What is the vicar supposed to say at the end of conducting a simulacrum of a wedding, “I now pronounce you husband and man/man & manwife”?
I have nothing against queers but Marriage means man and wife (female), period.
Make no bones about it, Churches once ‘permitted’ to conduct same-sex fake marriages will soon be compelled to do so; all part of the Frankfurt school post-Marxist assault on civilisation