Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Activists Won’t Let Up on Chick-fil-A [update on discrimination lawsuite against CFA]
IFI News Articles ^ | Aug 7 2012 | Laurie Higgins

Posted on 08/08/2012 9:06:30 AM PDT by scottjewell

No matter how much ink has been spilled on the unconstitutionality of using government power to censor speech, including by scores of “progressives,” homosexual activists just won’t let up.

The Civil Rights Agenda (TCRA), yet another organization committed solely to normalizing homosexuality, has filed an absurd complaint against Chick-fil-A with the Illinois Department of Human Rights. Their claim is that Chick-fil-A violates “Section 5-102(B) of the Illinois Human Rights Act, which prohibits a ‘public accommodation’ from making protected classes ‘unwelcome, objectionable or unacceptable.’”

In their press release last Thursday, TCRA made clear their tyrannical and unholy demands on Chick-fil-A — demands that no serious Christian could accommodate. TCRA explained that they and Alderman Proco “Joe” Moreno have been trying since last February to get Chick-fil-A to “examine” its corporate policies. Here’s what TCRA and Moreno want from Chick-fil-A:

"…an LGBT-inclusive non-discrimination policy, diversity and cultural competency training, parity in employee benefits that included benefits for couples in civil unions and domestic partnerships, appropriate and respectful advertising in the LGBT community and transgender inclusive health benefits."

Yes, TCRA and Moreno want to coerce an organization that is owned by theologically orthodox Christians to have policy that implicitly and/or explicitly teaches employees that homosexuality is ontologically and morally equivalent to heterosexuality; to provide benefits to unions that violate the clear teachings of Scripture; to advertise in a community that seeks to redefine marriage and family; and to subsidize hormone-doping and genital-mutilating surgery for the gender-confused.

The complaint from TCRA exposes a number of troubling issues:

1. The complaint reveals the serious problem with the ambiguous language in the Illinois Human Rights Act, which includes the following:

It is a civil rights violation for any person on the basis of unlawful discrimination to…[d]irectly or indirectly, as the operator of a place of public accommodation, publish, circulate, display or mail any written communication…which the operator knows is to the effect that…any person is unwelcome, objectionable or unacceptable because of unlawful discrimination.

The sentence construction is odd and awkward. I suspect its awkward construction resulted from homosexuality advocates’ intent to use this for exactly the purpose it’s being used now. TCRA is using this section of the Illinois Human Rights Act to prosecute speech outside of the work place that they don’t like.

Dan Cathy’s expression of his beliefs about marriage had nothing whatsoever to do with customer service in Chick-fil-A restaurants, which are the only actions that this section of the Human Rights Act should legitimately address. His statements about marriage said nothing whatsoever about who is not welcome in Chick-fil-A restaurants. For this section of the Human Rights Act to be applicable to the Chick-fil-A situation would require that Dan Cathy knew that his statement of belief about marriage would make homosexual patrons be unwelcome — not feel unwelcome, but actually be unwelcome. There is no evidence that those who identify as homosexual are unwelcome in any Chick-fil-A in the country or that any employee has ever treated any homosexual customer as objectionable or unacceptable.

Quite the contrary. The anonymous couple on whose behalf TCRA is filing the complaint have said that until they learned of Dan Cathy’s beliefs on marriage, Chick-fil-A “was one of their favorite places to eat.” In other words, this couple and the child they are raising were treated well.

Homosexual activists are essentially arguing that any public expression of disapproval of homosexuality makes them uncomfortable and, therefore, should be illegal. They are saying that they don’t feel welcome unless everyone approves of homosexuality — or conceals their disapproval. They are saying, in effect, that only they are permitted to express moral claims about homosexuality in the public square.

The problem is that the government has no right to prohibit speech simply because it hurts someone’s feelings. It’s both unconstitutional and dangerous to prohibit citizens, including business owners, from making moral or political claims about any issue, including sexuality and the nature of marriage. The First Amendment guarantees the right to express beliefs and opinions, especially unpopular opinions.

2. If TCRA’s reasoning were to be applied consistently, it would prohibit anyone who runs a business from ever expressing opinions on what constitutes moral behavior. If Dan Cathy’s expression of his belief that marriage is a sexually complementary union violates some fundamental anti-discrimination principle because it makes those who are in same-sex relationships feel bad, then does the expression of the belief that marriage is a union of only two people violate the same principle because it makes Fundamentalist Latter Day Saints who believe in polygamy feel bad?

Moreover, if Cathy’s expression of the belief that marriage is the union of one man and one woman makes homosexual couples feel unwelcome, and if their subjective (and erroneous) feelings that they are unwelcome constitutes proof that he violated the Illinois Human Rights Act, then what does it mean if a business owner says that marriage has nothing to do with sexual complementarity? Clearly, when a business owner expresses that idea, it means he thinks Christian, Muslim, and Orthodox Jewish beliefs about marriage are wrong. If Christians, Muslims, and Jews, therefore, feel unwelcome in businesses owned by people who express “progressive” beliefs, are those business owners guilty of engaging in religious discrimination, which is also prohibited by the Illinois Human Rights Act? After all, the religious beliefs of Christians, Muslims, and Jews are as central to their identity as are the sexual feelings and beliefs of homosexuals.

This intellectual and pragmatic sticky wicket points to the critical need to remove this ambiguous language from the Illinois Human Rights Act. No law should include language that could be interpreted in such a way as to make it illegal for a business owner to say publicly that he believes homosexual impulses are disordered, or that homosexual acts are immoral, or the there is no such thing as same-sex marriage; or that Illinois should not legalize same-sex unions; or that homosexuals should not be permitted to adopt, without fear of complaints or lawsuits. We should not have a law that contradicts the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution which guarantees the right to speak freely on issues even when such speech offends someone.

3. The complaint reveals the problem of establishing a protected class that is constituted by subjective desire and volitional sexual acts. Protected classes should be constituted by morally neutral, immutable, objective characteristics. That is to say, protected classes, like race, biological sex, or national origin, are wholly objective conditions, in all cases immutable, and are not in any way constituted by freely chosen behaviors.

Homosexuality is in some cases mutable (even “queer” theorists argue that “sexual orientation” is fluid) and is constituted solely by subjective feelings of attraction and volitional sexual acts that are perfectly legitimate to assess morally.

This raises the question that will surely soon emerge on the cultural landscape: Why should homosexuality and “gender identity,” which are constituted by subjective feelings and volitional acts, be included as protected classes in anti-discrimination laws but not other conditions similarly constituted? For example, why shouldn’t polyamory be included in anti-discrimination laws?

4. The complaint provides yet another example of how homosexual activists continually conflate disapproval of volitional sexual acts with disrespect or hatred of persons. The complaint states that Chick-fil-A has “made it clear the lives of LGBT individuals are unacceptable to them and that same-gender families are unwelcome at Chick-fil-A.” One would assume that the lives of “LGBT” individuals involve more than just their homosexual (or cross-dressing) acts. Expressing the belief that marriage is the union of one man and one woman, as Dan Cathy did, says nothing about what he believes regarding the totality of the lives of homosexuals. And judging from press accounts, there is no indication that his treatment of or interactions with homosexuals indicates that he believes their lives in their totality are unacceptable or that they are unwelcome in any Chick-fil-A restaurant. Has Jeff Bezos, founder, chairman, and CEO of Amazon who just donated $2.5 million to defend same-sex marriage, “made it clear that the lives” of theologically orthodox Christians are unacceptable to him because he thinks their beliefs on marriage and sexuality are wrong?

The Illinois Human Rights Act is a rhetorical and legal mess being exploited by those like The Civil Rights Agenda who have a pernicious obsession: the eradication or silencing of conservative moral beliefs about homosexuality. If the Constitution has to be shredded in the process, so be it.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 2012; chickfila; crushliberalism; democrats; homofascism; homosexualagenda; liberalfascism; liberalism; liberals; progressives; queer
Good analysis of the discrimination charges in IL against CFA, and good closing:

"The Illinois Human Rights Act is a rhetorical and legal mess being exploited by those like The Civil Rights Agenda who have a pernicious obsession: the eradication or silencing of conservative moral beliefs about homosexuality. If the Constitution has to be shredded in the process, so be it."

1 posted on 08/08/2012 9:06:35 AM PDT by scottjewell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: scottjewell

The heterophobic militant “gay” community thinks like the Islamic community; “Convert or die.”


2 posted on 08/08/2012 9:10:12 AM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum (Government is the religion of the collectivists.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

Yes, their thinking is parallel. Perhaps this is why they never criticize them despite the fact that one would think gays would view Muslims as their arch-enemies.


3 posted on 08/08/2012 9:13:49 AM PDT by scottjewell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: scottjewell

I got my Chick-Fil-A shirt in the mail yesterday. I tink I’ll wear it today.


4 posted on 08/08/2012 9:13:49 AM PDT by afraidfortherepublic (ABO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: scottjewell

No problem with these idiots doing this IF they first file the same lawsuit against the NOI and their public facilities in Chicago.

This is not an issue of gay rights, this is an attempt to destroy Christianity - and I’m saying this as a Jew. It’s an obvious play against a group that the activists know will not react.

If they filed this complaint against the NOI, no doubt they would find members of their security team on their doorstep within hours.


5 posted on 08/08/2012 9:14:10 AM PDT by MS from the OC (Obama taking credit for killing OBL is like Nixon taking credit for landing on the moon, John Bolton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

If this isn't thrown out of court before the case even begins, the judge should take a rolled up newspaper and smack the lawyer for these whackos on the nose and shout, "NO!"

Mark

6 posted on 08/08/2012 9:14:16 AM PDT by MarkL (Do I really look like a guy with a plan?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: scottjewell

“…an LGBT-inclusive non-discrimination policy, diversity and cultural competency training, parity in employee benefits that included benefits for couples in civil unions and domestic partnerships, appropriate and respectful advertising in the LGBT community and transgender inclusive health benefits.”

CFA and any normal American citizens response. KMA you perverted freakaziods.....


7 posted on 08/08/2012 9:14:30 AM PDT by SECURE AMERICA (Where can I sign up for the New American Revolution and the Crusades 2012?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: afraidfortherepublic

And, I guess we just gotta eat mo’ chicken and make CFA the most successful business on earth - if nothing else, to drive the homos, their liberal buddies, hollywood and the msm crazy. crazy.


8 posted on 08/08/2012 9:18:22 AM PDT by Bitsy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: scottjewell
Sounds like time for some conservative lawfare. Should a conservative legal foundation file against any gay or lesbian themed or friendly business because traditional marriage supporters feel unwelcome. Should legal complaints be filed against LGBT organizations for creating a chilling atmosphere in Chicago against heteronormative individuals and couples? Should ... etc. If the left wants to open this can of worms, bury them in return complaints.
9 posted on 08/08/2012 9:18:34 AM PDT by Truth29
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: scottjewell

That’s it for me.

All my fast food meals will be eaten at Chick-Fil-A.

...........and thats a bunch.


10 posted on 08/08/2012 9:20:04 AM PDT by PeteB570 ( Islam is the sea in which the Terrorist Shark swims. The deeper the sea the larger the shark.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: scottjewell
Attempted homosexual intimidation. Pathetic.
11 posted on 08/08/2012 9:21:04 AM PDT by Vision ("Did I not say to you that if you would believe, you would see the glory of God?" John 11:40)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: scottjewell

***The Civil Rights Agenda (TCRA), yet another organization committed solely to normalizing homosexuality,***

No matter how they try, they cannot pass off perversion as normal.

They can spread dog s#!t on bread and tell me it is ham on rye and I won’t accept it.

They can get all the psychologists to say it is ham on rye and I will call it dog s#!t.

The Congress can declare it ham on rye and I will call it dog s#!t and still will not accept it.

Perversion is still perversion. Sodomy is still Sodomy.


12 posted on 08/08/2012 9:22:59 AM PDT by Ruy Dias de Bivar (Tyrannies demand immense sacrifices of their people to produce trifles.-Marquis de Custine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: scottjewell

Why does an American state even NEED a “Human Rights Act”??? This is the USA, not Afghanistan or Zimbabwe (at least for right now/s;) Seriously, is this some sort of UN Agenda 21-related activity, supported by Soros?


13 posted on 08/08/2012 9:26:00 AM PDT by Frank_2001
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: scottjewell

When I get bullied, it really challenges me to stand my ground and fight back even harder. Wonder if any other We the People have similar reactions? (Molon Labe, sodomite pervs).


14 posted on 08/08/2012 9:26:32 AM PDT by bboop (Without justice, what else is the State but a great band of robbers? St. Augustine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: scottjewell

The Thorne family is heading for Chick-fil-A this Saturday. Yum, yum! Hopefully looking forward to laughing at few pathetic protesting queens.


15 posted on 08/08/2012 9:27:21 AM PDT by Dr. Thorne (Don't vote for anyone who takes contributions from Goldman Sachs)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MarkL

Gee, I don’t feel welcomed any time McDonald’s messes up my order by switching it with somebody else’s order. I guess that means I can sue in Illinois.


16 posted on 08/08/2012 9:27:34 AM PDT by alancarp (Liberals are all for shared pain... until they're included in the pain group.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: PeteB570

In-n-Out is a Christian fast food chain, also.

I’m worried they will be targeted next.

At least, the Christian fast food chains have good food! It makes it easy to eat at them.


17 posted on 08/08/2012 9:28:13 AM PDT by luckystarmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Truth29

That is exaclty the same thing I was thinking.. give some of their crap back and see how THEY can take it.. of course, they are not known for taking hints :p


18 posted on 08/08/2012 9:30:29 AM PDT by Bikkuri (Choose, a communist, socialist, or Patriot)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: scottjewell

I do not understand the concept of a “protected class” if we are all afforded equal protection. This seems to directly go against what the Constitution guarantees. I guess some animals are more equal than others...


19 posted on 08/08/2012 9:35:42 AM PDT by brytlea (An ounce of chocolate is worth a pound of cure)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum
The heterophobic militant “gay” community thinks like the Islamic community; “Convert or die.”

Looks like the gay 'Starbucks fiasco' bombed too...

20 posted on 08/08/2012 9:39:06 AM PDT by GOPJ (..convinced if you put a compass in the hands of a liberal, it will point south -Fr Neveronmywatch)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: scottjewell; sickoflibs; Liz; marktwain
Here’s what TCRA and Moreno want from Chick-fil-A:

"…an LGBT-inclusive non-discrimination policy, diversity and cultural competency training, parity in employee benefits that included benefits for couples in civil unions and domestic partnerships, appropriate and respectful advertising in the LGBT community and transgender inclusive health benefits."

I assume these control freak jerks wouldn't mind 'cultural competency training' in Christian values...

Where's the freakin' press coverage about this outrage?

21 posted on 08/08/2012 9:45:54 AM PDT by GOPJ (..convinced if you put a compass in the hands of a liberal, it will point south -Fr Neveronmywatch)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Truth29

Not to mention Muslim-owned businesses.


22 posted on 08/08/2012 9:46:16 AM PDT by Anima Mundi (ENVY IS JUST PASSIVE, LAZY GREED)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: SECURE AMERICA; MarkL

They should be sanctioned for this stupidity and made to pay the whole cost. I like MarkL’s newspaper idea too.


23 posted on 08/08/2012 9:48:12 AM PDT by darkangel82 (I don't have a superiority complex, I'm just better than you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: GOPJ

“Where’s the freakin’ press coverage about this outrage?”

My question as well. The first press release I had to find on a gay site, and I had to trawl through Christian sites to find this piece today. MSM is silent on the whole thing.


24 posted on 08/08/2012 9:49:25 AM PDT by scottjewell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Truth29

I agree - why should conservatives continue to take this lying down?


25 posted on 08/08/2012 9:51:54 AM PDT by scottjewell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Frank_2001

“Why does an American state even NEED a “Human Rights Act””

To force acceptance of falsely proclaimed human rights.

ref CFA i tried to eat lunch there yesterday but the lines were so long i could not wait.


26 posted on 08/08/2012 9:55:05 AM PDT by fatrat (extremely extreme right-wing radicalized veteran)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: brytlea

This article stated the actual goal, and more people need tomb stating it out loud and challenging them on it.

They’re attempting to criminalize Christianity.


27 posted on 08/08/2012 10:05:03 AM PDT by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter knows whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: scottjewell

Another good argument for a law against frivolous lawsuits...loser pays.


28 posted on 08/08/2012 10:10:27 AM PDT by FrankR (They will become our ultimate masters the day we surrender the 2nd Amendment.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: scottjewell
Conservatives tend not to be promiscuous in litigation or in general and actually think about more than their giblets (GBLT).

Homosexuals seem to have a single (downward/rearward) focus.

29 posted on 08/08/2012 10:11:23 AM PDT by Aevery_Freeman (All Y'all White Peoples is racist!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: scottjewell


30 posted on 08/08/2012 10:12:50 AM PDT by Iron Munro ("Jiggle the Handle for Barry!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: scottjewell

Not one person has ever claimed Chick-Fil-A has denied them service based on anything yet they do this crap. I’ve said this before, I’ll say it again, I don’t care what the PC croud thinks.

Overwhelmingly, HOMOSEXUALITY, is a MENTAL DISORDER, period.

I have seen no evidence, studies or any other scientific research to remotely convince me that it should not be in the DSM.. in fact its removal from the DSM had nothing to do with any new research proving it should not be classified as such.. it was a purely political move.

Now, I also believe that of the homosexual population, a small percetange of them truly are wired different from birth and are not the nut job crazies who meet at highway rest areas and bathrooms for anoymous sex. However, within the very small minority which is the gay male segment of the population they are themselves a minority. The overwhelming majority are victims themselves of sexual molestation, overbearing mothers or stuck in perpetual adolecence desiring other males acceptance beyond anything else, and will do ANYTHING literally to get it.

You are free to live your life how you wish, but you will NEVER get the majority of people to accept it as “normal” it just won’t happen. The desire to throw up when watching 2 men kiss is not something learned by straight men, its inate and it cannot be learned away. Best you are going to get is tolerance, and tolerance is NOT acceptance and frankly you have tolerance. You will never get the majority of folks to accept what you do is normal, its not going to happen, it never will.

You are protected under the law from discrimination, as is everyone else, so you really don’t have a beef.. you are trying to mandate acceptance and it will never, ever happen.


31 posted on 08/08/2012 10:22:20 AM PDT by HamiltonJay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: scottjewell

Not one person has ever claimed Chick-Fil-A has denied them service based on anything yet they do this crap. I’ve said this before, I’ll say it again, I don’t care what the PC croud thinks.

Overwhelmingly, HOMOSEXUALITY, is a MENTAL DISORDER, period.

I have seen no evidence, studies or any other scientific research to remotely convince me that it should not be in the DSM.. in fact its removal from the DSM had nothing to do with any new research proving it should not be classified as such.. it was a purely political move.

Now, I also believe that of the homosexual population, a small percetange of them truly are wired different from birth and are not the nut job crazies who meet at highway rest areas and bathrooms for anoymous sex. However, within the very small minority which is the gay male segment of the population they are themselves a minority. The overwhelming majority are victims themselves of sexual molestation, overbearing mothers or stuck in perpetual adolecence desiring other males acceptance beyond anything else, and will do ANYTHING literally to get it.

You are free to live your life how you wish, but you will NEVER get the majority of people to accept it as “normal” it just won’t happen. The desire to throw up when watching 2 men kiss is not something learned by straight men, its inate and it cannot be learned away. Best you are going to get is tolerance, and tolerance is NOT acceptance and frankly you have tolerance. You will never get the majority of folks to accept what you do is normal, its not going to happen, it never will.

You are protected under the law from discrimination, as is everyone else, so you really don’t have a beef.. you are trying to mandate acceptance and it will never, ever happen.


32 posted on 08/08/2012 10:22:20 AM PDT by HamiltonJay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: scottjewell

“…an LGBT-inclusive non-discrimination policy, diversity and cultural competency training, parity in employee benefits that included benefits for couples in civil unions and domestic partnerships, appropriate and respectful advertising in the LGBT community and transgender inclusive health benefits.”

There is a word for requiring that from a company: Fascism


33 posted on 08/08/2012 10:22:47 AM PDT by cuban leaf (Were doomed! Details at eleven.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cuban leaf

Yes, fascism is the word for it; no way around it.


34 posted on 08/08/2012 10:25:10 AM PDT by scottjewell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: scottjewell

I agree - why should conservatives continue to take this lying down?

The best thing to do is to turn these laws around upon them - like Mcmillian Firearms suing BOA for dropping them.

Also, LaRaza and the New Black Pampers could be sued for hate speech, when those laws are encacted here.

The ACLJ could make it happen.


35 posted on 08/08/2012 10:27:40 AM PDT by MikeSteelBe (Austrian Hitler was, as the Halfrican Hitler does.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: HamiltonJay

That’s it, in a nutshell.
They want to silence and bury all dissent.
They want to mandate acceptance.
This is totalitarian, and cannot happen while people have the freedom to fight it.


36 posted on 08/08/2012 10:27:50 AM PDT by scottjewell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: HamiltonJay

“Overwhelmingly, HOMOSEXUALITY, is a MENTAL DISORDER, period.”

Too bad they don’t try that legal angle when seeking ‘special rights’.

Under the ADA, they’d get them a lot faster.

[IMO, it’s just a sin]

How many guys gag at the thought of two men kissing but drool over the sight of two women kissing?

If ~that~ doesn’t “bother” men, why not?

It’s still homosexuality.


37 posted on 08/08/2012 10:30:03 AM PDT by Salamander (I laugh to myself at the men and the ladies who never conceived of us billion dollar babies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: scottjewell

The US Constitution, the FIRST Amendment is very strong on the right of Americans to have freedom OF Religion and is 100% SILENT on Freedom FROM Religion. BIG difference.

The Constitution is also 100% silent on sexual deviants attempting to destroy the meaning of Marriage between one man and one woman.

If the Constitution is silent on something the government cannot force it.

Must be the HIV virus, even when suppressed to undetectable levels destroys the logic portions of the brain.

Fudge packers and carpet munchers cannot reproduce and that alone makes them unsuitable for marriage as marriage is partially created to support a family structure resulting from the reproductive functions of a man and woman.

No matter how much they protest, their physical actions are enough to gag a maggot.


38 posted on 08/08/2012 10:38:38 AM PDT by Wurlitzer (Nothing says "ignorance" like Islam!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: scottjewell
Protected classes should be constituted by morally neutral, immutable, objective characteristics. That is to say, protected classes, like race, biological sex, or national origin, are wholly objective conditions, in all cases immutable, and are not in any way constituted by freely chosen behaviors.

So discriminating on the basis of religion - a freely chosen behavior - is OK? I think the author may have proved too much.

39 posted on 08/08/2012 10:38:57 AM PDT by JustSayNoToNannies (A free society's default policy: it's none of government's business.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Salamander

Why men gag at men kissing and don’t at women is a classic gay nonsequitor..

Men are revolted at the thought of 2 men kissing because its something they want no part of... they don’t mind 2 ATTRACTIVE women kissing, because frankly they just want to join in. That’s not a proof of anything.

There are fundamental differences between male homosexuality and female homosexuality as well, which I think is at the forefront of why women are more accepting of the behavoir than men. But that’s a whole other conversation.


40 posted on 08/08/2012 10:49:18 AM PDT by HamiltonJay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Salamander

Why men gag at men kissing and don’t at women is a classic gay nonsequitor..

Men are revolted at the thought of 2 men kissing because its something they want no part of... they don’t mind 2 ATTRACTIVE women kissing, because frankly they just want to join in. That’s not a proof of anything.

However, if you’ve ever actually been to a Lesbian bar, you’ll soon realize the myth of the lipstick lesbian is by and far more myth than reality. I sometimes go to a Lesbian bar just to boost my ego, because as a slightly overweight 40 year old guy with a bald spot I can walk into most lesbian bars and be one of the most attractive people in the room.

There are fundamental differences between male homosexuality and female homosexuality as well, which I think is at the forefront of why women are more accepting of the behavoir than men. But that’s a whole other conversation.


41 posted on 08/08/2012 10:51:15 AM PDT by HamiltonJay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: JustSayNoToNannies

Yes, that’s their logic. Of course they need the “born that way” argument to uphold their protected class status, too.


42 posted on 08/08/2012 10:52:48 AM PDT by scottjewell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: scottjewell
Protected classes should be constituted by morally neutral, immutable, objective characteristics. That is to say, protected classes, like race, biological sex, or national origin, are wholly objective conditions, in all cases immutable, and are not in any way constituted by freely chosen behaviors.

So discriminating on the basis of religion - a freely chosen behavior - is OK? I think the author may have proved too much.

Yes, that’s their logic.

That's whose logic? The text I quoted was the article author's argument against homosexuality as a protected class - an argument that also rules out religion as a protected class.

43 posted on 08/08/2012 10:56:36 AM PDT by JustSayNoToNannies (A free society's default policy: it's none of government's business.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: JustSayNoToNannies

To quote from the piece:

“The complaint reveals the problem of establishing a protected class that is constituted by subjective desire and volitional sexual acts. Protected classes should be constituted by morally neutral, immutable, objective characteristics. That is to say, protected classes, like race, biological sex, or national origin, are wholly objective conditions, in all cases immutable, and are not in any way constituted by freely chosen behaviors.

Homosexuality is in some cases mutable (even “queer” theorists argue that “sexual orientation” is fluid) and is constituted solely by subjective feelings of attraction and volitional sexual acts that are perfectly legitimate to assess morally.

This raises the question that will surely soon emerge on the cultural landscape: Why should homosexuality and “gender identity,” which are constituted by subjective feelings and volitional acts, be included as protected classes in anti-discrimination laws but not other conditions similarly constituted? For example, why shouldn’t polyamory be included in anti-discrimination laws?”
___________________________________________________________

Yes, that is an argument against homosexuality as a protected class, but we all know the born that way argument is how they get around it. This is fact: How else would they have gained status as a protected class? And to their logic, religion is chosen so is not a protected class.

So yes, that is gay advocacy’s logic.

Do not understand your question.


44 posted on 08/08/2012 11:09:45 AM PDT by scottjewell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: scottjewell
MSM is silent on the whole thing.

Top democrats running PR firms feed top editors news stories - they know this doesn't 'work for' democrats. The New York Times, Washington Post, CNN and LA Times sell out to the highest bidder... (where the coin of the realm is information...)

What else could we expect?

45 posted on 08/08/2012 11:09:58 AM PDT by GOPJ (..convinced if you put a compass in the hands of a liberal, it will point south -Fr Neveronmywatch)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: HamiltonJay

“There are fundamental differences between male homosexuality and female homosexuality as well”

Sin is sin and I refuse to ‘accept’ homosexuality in any degree.

[I suppose that answers your question about whether I’ve ever been in a gay bar]


46 posted on 08/08/2012 11:41:07 AM PDT by Salamander (I laugh to myself at the men and the ladies who never conceived of us billion dollar babies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Salamander

No one accused you of, or encouraged you to accept anything... No sure where all this defensiveness is coming from. Nor did I ask or even intend to ask you if you had ever been in a gay establishment.


47 posted on 08/08/2012 12:40:46 PM PDT by HamiltonJay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson