Prompted by this article by Andrew Sullivan at The Daily Beast, the following exchange ensued.
My Friend (MF): When you outwardly state that you do not believe that all men are created equal, don't be surprised when you are found no longer loved by those who stand up for democratic principles and the rule of law, [Caspar]. There are exemptions naturally for religious institutions, but this Chicken joint isn't a church.
Moi: "When you outwardly state that you do not believe that all men are created equal"
He didn't say anything of the sort. He expressed support for the traditional understanding of marriage and predicted that a society which leaves that behind will not prosper. This does not equate to denying the equality of mankind.
"don't be surprised when you are found no longer loved by those who stand up for democratic principles and the rule of law"
Being loved is not the issue here. Being outlawed is the issue. By what right under the Constitution can local leaders penalize a businessman for his points of view? Does he surrender his right to free speech and free exercise of religion the moment he enters into business? Does donating money to organizations operating within the law somehow justify denying him access to certain markets?
These guys are not standing up for democratic principles and the rule of law--they are flouting both when they attempt to discriminate against Chick-Fil-A because of its institutional commitment to Baptist principles.
"There are exemptions naturally for religious institutions, but this Chicken joint isn't a church"
No. Every citizen has the right to free exercise of their religion, and freedom of speech. Don't ever buy Chick-Fil-A again if you choose, but don't defend the use of government power to penalize a business because of its president's profession of beliefs.
My Other Friend (MOF):You're overstating the case here. . . there are plenty of municipalities that have blocked other companies such as wal mart or fast food joints from opening in their communities, because of their politics and the perceived negative consequences for the community. . . And Chick-Fil-A is entitled to its day in court if it feels it is being unfairly discriminated agains
MF: We have exercised the right to penalize business when they participate in discriminatory practices, much like South Africa was essentially cut off briefly during the end of Apartheid. CFA isn't just expressing their opinion they support through financial and other means the lobbying attempt to prevent the due rights of all citizens from being able to have their relationships respected by civil law. Marriage as a civil right is well established, if I as a citizen, can go down to a court and seek to enact a contract between me and another citizen that allows us to unify our property and grants us additional rights as a couple according to the love we feel for each other, that is the right of the citizen. Whether they are of both genders or not, it shouldn't matter as long as it serves the purpose of the contract, that two individuals who love each other are allowed to bond their lives together, live together, love together and grow old and die together.
MF: Woops that was cut short more coming.
MF: CFA has stated that they do not believe this to be true and that they are funding measures and organizations to ensure that this will never happen. This goes in direct contradiction of many municipal and metro governments that have sought and won non-discrimination and other ordinances to ensure the equal rights of all citizens under the law. It is their prerogative to ensure that their citizens are protected from such lobbying and funding. The organizations like NOM, Focus on the Family, etc are nothing more than hate groups that use fake data to try and denigrate and keep equality under the law from happening. They are no different from groups that advocate apartheid, which in this case is GLBT oriented. Where there is a second class of citizen. This cheapens the rights of all citizens. When we deny the rights of all citizens it makes the law a privilege extended and not a right granted to all citizens. It tells us that we can deny the right of individuals because their lives are less than equal. We do not live in a nation that allows this to happen, it is against the spirit of our ancestors and the founders of the enlightenment.
Moi: "there are plenty of municipalities that have blocked other companies such as wal mart or fast food joints from opening in their communities, because of their politics and the perceived negative consequences for the community"
I grant because of the perceived negative impact on the community. For their politics? When?
"We have exercised the right to penalize business when they participate in discriminatory practices, much like South Africa was essentially cut off briefly during the end of Apartheid."
Sure. But nobody is claiming that Chick-Fil-A refuses to serve or hire gay folks.
"CFA isn't just expressing their opinion they support through financial and other means the lobbying attempt to prevent the due rights of all citizens from being able to have their relationships respected by civil law."
So donating to certain political causes means people merit punishment from the civil authorities? I thought you were taking the side of civil rights and democracy.
"seek to enact a contract between me and another citizen that allows us to unify our property and grants us additional rights as a couple according to the love we feel for each other, that is the right of the citizen."
That is not the definition of marriage on which family law has traditionally been based. That is the definition of a civil union.
"two individuals who love each other are allowed to bond their lives together, live together, love together and grow old and die together."
This does not require an act of the state to achieve.
"they are funding measures and organizations to ensure that this will never happen. This goes in direct contradiction of many municipal and metro governments that have sought and won non-discrimination and other ordinances to ensure the equal rights of all citizens under the law."
You are seriously laying out a case for punishing those who do not agree with you by means of civil law. Since when did donating to a political group merit retribution from the state?
"It is their prerogative to ensure that their citizens are protected from such lobbying and funding."
No, it's really not. Any more than Salt Lake City can "protect" its citizens from gay rights lobby groups and funding.
"They are no different from groups that advocate apartheid, which in this case is GLBT oriented. Where there is a second class of citizen. This cheapens the rights of all citizens. When we deny the rights of all citizens it makes the law a privilege extended and not a right granted to all citizens. It tells us that we can deny the right of individuals because their lives are less than equal."
Yeah, you know what? Free exercise of religion and freedom of speech are rights, not privileges extended by a generous government to its people. Just as it would be hideously unjust to prevent a Jewish businessman from opening a computer business in a city because of his Judaism or a Muslim from running a consulting firm or a Mormon from running a campaign or a Buddhist from selling iPods, it is hideously unjust to prevent a Southern Baptist from selling chicken sandwiches just because he is a Southern Baptist, with all that that implies.
No comments:
Post a Comment