Monday, July 30, 2012

You Said a Mouthful

Here at Hope n' Change, we strongly support Chickenboy's right to express his support of mixed species marriages, even though we don't agree with his position. Especially because most of those mixed species positions would be either uncomfortable or dangerous to attempt.

But he does raise a vitally important point: that expression of our First Amendment rights is also becoming increasingly uncomfortable and dangerous.

Does the strongly religious CEO of Chick-fil-a have the right to say he supports traditional marriage? Of course - as long as his opinions aren't translated into illegally discriminatory actions of any kind. And conversely, gay marriage advocates have every right to express their opinions as long as those expressions stay within the confines of the law.

For the record, Hope n' Change is supportive of gay marriage and Chick-fil-a sandwiches, and can respectfully acknowledge that others have differing opinions for a host of reasons. But we don't hate those people whom we disagree with, and it's the growing rhetoric of hate and suppression of free speech that worries us most.

For instance, is it "hate" to simply say: "I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I do not support gay marriage?"

Because that's exactly what Barack Obama said in 2008. And since that time, he hasn't really "evolved" a bit - because even now he says that the issue should be a matter for the states to decide individually, meaning he doesn't believe there's any constitutional right to gay marriage. Although he tapdances around that opinion when soliciting campaign donations from gay supporters.

Of course, any controversy over something as fatuous as chicken sandwiches is sure to generate a strong reaction from the Hollywood lefties, perhaps best exemplified by Rosanne Barr's statement that "anyone who eats S--t Fil-A deserves to get the cancer that is sure to come from eating antibiotic filled tortured chickens 4Christ".

Apparently Ms. Barr not only missed her charm school classes, but also missed her president's plea to use "words that heal rather than wound." Or maybe she simply gave up on civility a short time after the speech...just like he did.

But that lack of civility may come with a very high cost: Chick-fil-a's Vice President of Public Relations, Donald Perry, has been in the middle of the high-stress flood of venom directed against his company. Or at least he was until last Friday, when he died suddenly of a heart attack. Not exactly the way Ms. Barr wished him to perish, but with the same effect.

Or, possibly, cause and effect.

Hope n' Change concedes that gay marriage is a significant issue...but it's not even remotely near the top of the list of things Americans need to be most worried about right now. And arguing about the relationship between gay marriage and chicken sandwiches is simply stupid.

But what's not stupid, and is instead chilling, is the pronouncement by the Democrat mayors of Boston and Chicago that they want Chick-fil-a out of their cities because the company holds different political (and religiously-based) opinions than those mayors do.

And this, finally, returns us to where we began. However you feel about them, the opinions and actions of Chick-fil-a are all legally protected by the Constitution. The actions of the Democrat mayors are expressly forbidden by the Constitution.

Now that's a fight we can sink our teeth into. With a side order of waffle fries.



Pete(Detroit) said...

LOVING the "Protestors" pic!
States need to get OUT of the "marriage" business, period. Issue civil union contracts for those who want them (and are legally qualified to enter into same) and let Churches handle the 'God part' - the "marriage"
Why is this hard?

The fact that elected officials can think it's even LEGAL to bully a business this way, much less it being a 'good idea' is just stunning. I want to shake them until their teeth rattle, shouting "Are You FUCKING KIDDING Me?!?!?!??!"
Utterly unbelievable.
Except, sadly, it's not.

Angry Hoosier Dad said...

The issue isn't about "marriage". Never was. It's about mainstreaming a type of aberrant human behavior and forcing the nation to not just accept its existence, but embrace it as "good". To achieve that end, the militant gay activists have pushed to have any open expression against homosexual behavior classified as hate or hate speech. Churches and the Christian teaching against homosexual behavior are specifically targeted. Even speaking in favor of traditional marriage without mentioning homosexuality is hate speech and must be suppressed. In this country anything goes...except Christianity apparently. Slowly but surely biblical belief (in many areas) is being criminalized. Pastors are being silenced and churches are threatened with loss of their tax-exempt status. As always, when society starts to slide into the pit, I wonder...what next? Don't kid yourself, Stilton. When gay marriage is forced upon us, there will be a "next". And it may be something even further than you can tolerate. But by then who will be left to stand with you?

FlyBoy said...

AHD-Your summation is absolutely correct: those sickos from NAMBLA are already waiting in the wings to push their agenda to the forefront.
May God help us if Barry is re-elected (I can't think of why He would.....).

Coon Tasty said...

Vermont Woodchuck said...

This is nutz! There are a plethora of legal avenues to insure PoA's, hospital visits, real property tenancies, and boinking privileges.

Get the Government State and Federal out of these choices. Marriage always a province of the 'Church'.

There is nothing benign about Government.

Coon Tasty said...

@AHD - You are correct. It is all about trying to brainwash people into thinking immoral behaviour is somehow "good" and "desirable".

Isaiah 5:20 perfectly describes these times.

Irene Peduto said...

I came from a dominantly Democratic county in NJ where many will boycott Chick-fil-a just because it is an anti-conservative position. Still they are individuals entitled to their choice of food but no American politician should ever ban a business based on the opinion of their CEO. Donald Perry, former VP of Public Relations, who suffered a heart attack paid for such hate with his life. May he rest in peace.

Maxwell Wergin said...

"Judge not, lest ye be judged." I don't see what's so hard about that.

Sorta strikes me as foolish to dole out God's judgements and punishments for Him. If it is a sin, let them burn in the afterlife!

Besides: Marriage is a religious event. According to the bill of rights, "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion..." Therefore, since marriage is a religious event, legally Congress cannot and should not declare who can and can't marry each other.

How can someone that calls themselves a small-government conservative be against gay rights? "I want the government out of my paycheck, my gun collection...but I also wanna make sure the gays aren't happy." That makes no sense to me (speaking as a small-government conservative, myself).

Colby said...

More proof that the left wants to avoid at all costs the real issues facing this once great nation. They are running around with their hair on fire because Truet (sp) Cathey is standing firm on his Christian beliefs, but have no problem introducing Islamic beliefs into schools and public places. Meanwhile, the economy is in the dumpster, the world is falling one country after another to terrorists, schools are failing, unemployment still painfully high...

Now Bloomberg wants to force new mothers to breast feed!!!


And Stilton, I think the pic of BO eating a hot dog can have more than one meaning. It could be a modern version of Nero fiddling while Rome burns.

Gork said...

If the business is selling to the public, keep politics walled off from your business, unless it has a direct, measurable affect on the bottom line. I do not want to hear it --even if I agree with it!

If you do not want to advertise through some group, spend your money elsewhere. There does not have to be a reason.

Stilton Jarlsberg said...

@Pete(Detroit)- I'm fine with the idea of civil unions being recognized by the state, and letting churches (with their constitutional protections from government interference) handle the "God part" however they choose to.

@Angry Hoosier Dad- I certainly agree that it is both preposterous and offensive that defense of traditional marriage and/or traditional sexual preferences has been broadly labeled "hate." Even setting aside the religious factors, there are good sociological reasons to want to protect the 2 parent, male/female, family unit. But personally, I feel like that institution is already under assault by many and larger forces than gay marriage. Sexual promiscuity, a lack of personal responsibility or commitment, government payment programs which supplant the role of breadwinner, and on and on. And yes, I do worry about a "next." But with all of that said, I'd be dishonest if I didn't say that I'd prefer that my gay friends could marry without shame.

And as I've said previously, I have no acceptance whatsoever for promiscuity or predatory sexual behavior - no matter what orientation someone has.

It's a complicated issue, and I'm not dismissive of the arguments on either side.

@Flyboy- NAMBLA is, of course, offensive beyond words. But I have to say that their (ahem) proclivities are in no way analogous to those of gay adults who are attraced to other gay adults. NAMBLA members might try to argue that they are the way God made them, and that their highly atypical tastes are "natural." But their desires are by definition predatory, because they involve children who are too young to consent (indeed, their "consent" is considered meaningless in the eyes of the law, which is why we have statutory rape laws).

NAMBLA exists with the goal of hurting children. I don't believe my gay friends want to hurt anyone.

@Coon Tasty- Good link! It goes to a cartoon which says "So, you stopped eating at Chick-fil-a because the owner of the company thinks that homosexuality is wrong. Tell me, when are you going to stop buying gasoline because the owners of OPED put homosexuals to death?" That, my friends, is called "perspective."

@Vermont Woodchuck- I appreciate the chance you're giving me to restate and underscore a hugely important point: while not being a churchgoer myself, I support in the strongest possible way the Constitutional right of churches to conduct all of their business, including that of marriage, on their own terms with no government interference. If they're against gay marriage, so be it - and I'll fight to the end to protect their right to "just say no."

@Coon Tasty- I absolutely believe that we're being assaulted from all sides to make immoral behaviors seem good and desirable. Personally, I think homosexuals can be as moral or immoral as straight folks and should be held to the same standards as anyone else. But what are we to do about a culture in which the government encourages sex before the age of consent (yes, like NAMBLA), sex without consequences (via abortion), and pornography has become so mainstreamed that (according to a study I saw last week) "sexting" among teens is now considered a standard part of dating.

I think our nation needs a huge moral wake-up call.

Stilton Jarlsberg said...

@Irene Peduto- Well said. Individuals can patronize or boycott whomever they want, but government has no right to dictate what people should believe.

And by the way, I plan to eat at Chick-fil-a soon, not to show support for their stance on gay marriage, but to show support for their First Amendment right to hold personal beliefs.

@Maxwell Wergin- I think you've perhaps stated the argument better than I have. Nicely done.

@Colby- I strongly concur with your summation of leftwing assaults: ARRRGGGHH!!! We are under fire from so many directions. And when I said (a few comments above) that the nation needs a moral wake up call, it will never come from either the left or the government. I'm inclined to think it must come from churches, which is one of the reasons I'm a fierce advocate for the protection of churches.

@Gork- I agree that companies should keep their politics quiet or bear the consumer (not governmental) consequences. In this case, the CEO wasn't so much advertising his beliefs as answering a direct question honestly.

Emmentaler Limburger said...

There is no such thing as "gay rights". First step is to correct the language. Gays have the same rights, enshrined in the constitution, as everyone else. You do not see the "right" to a recognized marriage in the constitution for heterosexuals, do you? So why should there be same for gays at the federal level?

I neever understood why a license had to be granted in order to be married (aside for the paltry revenue the license fees generate), but marriage licenses, notably, are doled out at the municipal level. Let the decision stay with the voters at that level, and everyone else get the hell out of it. It is not for the federal government to force any religion to recognize anything, as is part of the "gay marriage" movement's goal. The freedom of religious expression, IS notably enshrined in the constitution.

And "spousal" perks for "married" gays should remain at the discretion of the employer - just as they are for heterosexuals. Notably ANY benefits offered employees outside of worker's compensation is at the employer's discretion. In this regard, the "gay marriage" movement is simply an attempt to rob employers who do offer such benefits. In any case, the wondrous health care "reform" law sort of obviates that goal - assuming it remains in place, very few employers will be offering such benefits to their gerneral employees. And "married" gays are welcome to the federal income tax "marriage penalty" as well. (I don't recall having seen a push for IRS recognition of gay marriage, though...)

Nowhere in the constitution do I find the right to not be offended, or the right to cram your position down everyone else's throat, and those are more what I find the whole "gay marriage" issue to be about. And I agree: there will be a "next" issue...

Suzy said...

I always find it interesting (and frustrating) when people will say to those who are religious "Don't shove your religion down my throat". Translation: "Do not mention Jesus around me."

But who is shoving their beliefs down everyone else's throat? Sorry, but the gay rights movement is trying to force their views on everyone. Chick Fil A is a case in point, here. Everybody hates that the CEO is a Christian and feels he is biased and wrong just by mentioning his viewpoint. But why is the Christian viewpoint any less "free speech" than the gay viewpoint, or the Muslim viewpoint, or any other religion, race, belief, etc? Why does it have to be "Move over, Chick Fil A, there's not room in this town for both of us." Really????

When you start restricting the freedom of speech and belief of ONE person, you start rolling the ball down the hill to restrict that of everyone.

Its pretty scary.

Thank you Stilt for understanding that freedom of speech and belief belongs to EVERYONE.

John the Econ said...

This whole issue is liberal fascist hypocrisy at it's best. The same mayor who condemns Chick-Fil-A and its founder for his views on gay marriage was more than happy to give another organization all the permits they wanted, plus $1.8 million of municipal land for them to build on. This organization has views that are far more extreme and overtly hostile to the homosexual community than those of Dan Cathy. In fact, the only debate that this organization engages in over homosexuality is the proper brutal manner in which homosexuals should be tortured before they are exterminated.

What possible explanation can there be for this divergence? Why are these officials willing to stand up on the behalf of homosexuals against a mere purveyor of chicken sandwiches for their supposed intolerance and not this other organization, which is not only intolerant, but in other countries actually murders people for such beliefs?

So for those so inclined, go ahead and protest Chick-Fil-A. But do ask yourself this: Will these bold, principled leaders still be prepared to stand up for your rights when it's not so cheap and easy to do so?

Angry Hoosier Dad said...

@ Maxwell Wergin:
"I want the government out of my paycheck, my gun collection...but I also wanna make sure the gays aren't happy."
That is a typical straw man argument - easy to construct and then burn down. A stand in favor of traditional marriage does not exist to make anyone unhappy. And a belief that homosexual behavior is aberrant is not a call for oppression of homosexuals. It is not even a veiled threat. If you believe it is anything other than an acceptance of biblical principles, please enlighten me.

Stilton Jarlsberg said...

@Emmentaler- I pretty much agree with you right down the line. There are definitely some gay rights activists who (like other groups) have a goal of being a little more "equal" than others...and I'm flat out against it.

And let me applaud your important point that the Constitution doesn't protect anyone from being offended, because some dumbass will always be offended by something, no matter how innocuous.

Case in point: a lamebrain lefty writing for New York Magazine is now offended because the GOP is running ads with the full context of Obama's "you didn't build that" speech. What's offensive about that, you ask? Well, he says that the clip was selected because Barry is speaking with a "black dialect" during that portion of the speech, so highlighting it makes the GOP racist. (Head banging on desk)

@Suzy- And thank YOU for understanding where I'm coming from. I support free speech, but do NOT support tactics to force your beliefs on others. Additionally, I think churches are an incredibly important force to stand up against the intrusions and power of the government.

@John the Econ- Excellent point. Left leaning activism groups (and I include a lot of politicians in that category) seem to ignore the real perpetrators of injustice and violence to women, homosexuals, Jews, Christians, and others. It's a lot easier for them to pick their fights right here at home, where they're not putting themselves at any personal risk at all.

@Angry Hoosier Dad- I agree that support of traditional marriage isn't hate toward anyone else. The derision of "family values" has cost this country dearly, and it angers me immensely.

Whether homosexuality is aberrant or not is a Constitutionally protected opinion that everyone has an individual right to (as do churches) as long as their consequent actions remain within the law.

Pete(Detroit) said...

Vermont Woodchuck - "There is nothing benign about Government."

Full Agreed.

Colby - Agreed, in the Grand Scheme, we have FAR bigger fish to fry than artificially inflated over wraught issue that might be super critical for 5% of the population, it does not really affect the rest of us. Yet there's torches and pitchforks on both sides. Nice. Loving. Tolerant.
And encouraging women to breast feed can only be a good thing. Forcing them to it is as disgusting as any other government intrusion "for your own good."
"Sometimes, a hot dog is just a cigar" But it's sure funny to see Barry scarfing a sausage, while Michelle has some kind of 'fudge on a stick' thing going on...

Wish I had Chik-fil-a closer, I'd like to try 'em. All over the place when I was living in TX, never went (chicken sandwich is not real high on my list). They *do* exist in the Detroit area, but NOT close...

Emmentaler Limburger +1 on down w/ 'special' rights for 'special' groups.
Local government issues the license not only to collect the danegelt, but also to record a legal contract - an appropriate and useful function, IMAO. They should do the same for ALL couples, provided they're otherwise legally able to enter such (of age, sound mind, etc). CUs (or what ever) for everyone. Same, and equal. For preferential "special" services, go see a religious figure. Problem is, too much like right (and probably won't satisfy the few vocal agenda driven bung-holes that are not REALLY about 'equal' treatment at ALL)

Pete(Detroit) said...

John the Econ - uppity bigots protest CFA and not others, because CFA does not advocate blowing up busses full of school kids, and grandmothers.

John the Econ said...

Correct @Stilton and @Pete(Detroit): There is no personal risk what-so-ever to these "bold" politicians for taking such a stand. Nobody is going to storm city hall in a bomb-vest over Chick-Fil-A. They repeat ad nauseum the lie that it's Tea Party types that are the violent threat to civilized society, (like Brian Ross last week) but it's quite clear who they really fear.

The unfortunate reality is that terrorism works. It's just ironic that this happens in Boston, the supposed birthplace of American freedom.

Anonymous said...

Can I support Chick-fil-a without, you know, actually having to eat there?

Freddie Sykes

Emmentaler Limburger said...

@Pete: yeeeaaaaaaaah - but then, there are those "common law" marriages that circumvent the whole license thing, and enjoy all the similar contractual bits; just not the compliance bits. And no-one has ever gone to jail, been fined, or otherwise adversely affected by entering into such a cohabitation arrangement in recent times - at least not any I'm aware of. Maybe the marriage license thing was set up just to make a legal, usually religious marriage more difficult than simpy living together? Those bastards!

@Stilton, Pete, & John the Econ: too true. Never expect one of our valiant ruling class to get "all in the face" of someone who is likely to take theirs off.

Goldenrod said...

Is there a link for 'Democrat mayors are expressly forbidden by the Constitution'?

TheOldMan said...

Perhaps the marriage license thing also had to do with keeping records. Anyway as many here wrote and I have written in the past, make "marriage" a civil contract. Remove all references to "marriage","spouse", etc.. from tax, estate, criminal, etc... law. When there are no more automatic "goodies" from being "married", this issue will go away.

Colby said...

Chick-fil-a is outstanding; all the other fast food places should pay attention. Every branch I have been to is super clean; the employees are neat, efficient and courteous; the food always fresh and good. The prices may be a fuzz higher, but well worth it. People make such a big deal about them being closed on Sundays, but when I was a kid, EVERYTHING was closed on Sundays, except maybe a gas station or two.

I would encourage everyone to support Chick-fil-a whenever possible to make a bold statement to the idiots that want to live in the United States of the Offended. Truett Cathey owns it and he is the one taking the risk, and I take my hat off to him for having the gonads to speak up. I'm betting he sees a huge spike in profits this quarter! And for you socialist morons out there, profit is a good thing. It helps Chick-fil-a (unlike obama) create jobs.

Dave David Schmoyer on Facebook said...

The problem I see with the whole GLB marriage issue is that both sides of the issue have completely rabid supporters. If I don't shout from the rooftops that I support gay marriage I am homophobic. But at the same time if I don't scream and whine about gay marriage then I am damned to hell....etc. And it does seem that the majority of the opposition to gay marriage is religious.

But the CEO of CHick-fil-a has the right to express his opinion just the same as everyone else in this country does. It's not like the CEO said that if you are gay you can't work for his company, or that you cannot buy one of his companies sandwiches.

While me personally I am into one man and one woman....that doesn't mean everyone has to agree with me but that is the beauty of this country, we don't have to all have the same opinion. But bigotry and hatred are inherently wrong. Bigotry and hatred of anything. We all need to start paying attention to our own lives instead of pointing fingers and telling others how horrible it is the way another person; that doesn't affect you; is living

PRY said...

Hey you cannot have a moral rebirth without the King of morality...Jesus Christ! And that isnt likely to happen in this culture until the entire bottom falls out! Listen for the cries to God then!

txGreg said...

"argue that they are the way God made them"

I know that Stilt used that quote in the context of the current debate on gay marriage, but I think it's a good line to examine... that's a totally useless argument that get thrown out there all too often.

If one person or group can use it, then why not the murderer, or rapist, or arsonist, or pedophile, etc...?

God (if you believe in Him) made people with the freedom to choose. He made them able to learn (with some rare exceptions) right from wrong and from there to make decisions accordingly.

Argue for/against gay marriage all you want, but leave that particular argument in the garbage heap where it belongs.

For the record - I subscribe to the "aberrant behavior" feeling. I get that both from Biblical teachings and evolutionary theory. (and if you're a liberal reading this, please check the dictionary for the meaning of aberrant before you start flaming people for being hateful and/or intolerant)

elcedar said...

@Dave David Schmoyer ... I think the reason most of the objection to gay "marriage" is religious is because we see Marriage as a religious ceremony. Obviously, so does the Federal goveernment or they wouldn't be forcing the military chaplains to conduct gay "marriages". Call it a Civil Union, make it a civil contract, most of us "rabid" Christians, have learned from scripture that the goal of our instruction is love. In other words, I learned to hate the sin, just as I hate the sin of murder, but love the sinner.
The problem evolved from the time when governments decided that they could make money off of marriages. The churches didn't speak up and protest ... so we end up having to apply to some faceless bureaucrat for permission to go see our Pastor for a religious ceremony.

I used to support civil unions for gays whole heartedly, but that doesn't seem to be their goal. They appear to want the Federal Government telling churches what they MUST do whether it violates their principles or not (abortions on demand, abortafacients paid for by taxpayers, birth control... sound familiar?).
I don't particularly care who they screw ... but it isn't going to be me.

Bobo said...

I just want Chic-fil-a to be open on Sundays. I have a Constitutional and Biblical right to eat chicken any day of the week, including the Lord's day.

Stilton Jarlsberg said...

@Pete(Detroit)- I've got to admit that I was annoyed when I saw the news story about Nanny Bloomberg throwing his weight behind semi-mandatory breast feeding of infants (rather than using formula). And the REASON I was annoyed was that I'd already done today's cartoon and commentary, so I couldn't go after such a ripe target.

@Pete(Detroit)- Isn't it funny that those on the Left only get enthusiastic about challenging groups they know won't hand their asses to them?

@John the Econ- Terrorism does work. And demonstrably, it works best on cowards.

@Freddie Sykes- I think you just did.

@Emmentaler- Thanks for throwing "common law" marriage into the mix, as if things weren't confusing enough already (grin). So, is there such a thing as common law gay marriage? And if there is, does it apply to longterm same sex roommates in an apartment even if they're straight? I don't know, and I ain't going there.

@Goldenrod- I don't think the Constitution says it specifically, but it's clearly implied.

@TheOldMan- That sounds good to me.

@Colby- Chick-fil-a makes a good sammich, but I rarely eat there because I'm a cheapskate. But by all accounts it's an outstanding business and not one which discriminates against anybody. And the fact that they're closed on Sunday lends additional weight to the argument that their religious principles are genuinely important to them and so should have the respect and protection accorded by the Constitution.

@Dave David Schmoyer- Very well said. Like you, I have little patience for the extremists on either side of the equation. When I say I have no problem with gay marriage, I should perhaps qualify that by saying longterm, committed, entirely boring-to-the-neighbors gay marriage. Those are the types of relationships I've seen first hand and would feel like a heel for condemning. But the really radical gay activists are their own worst enemies: you can't have a meaningful conversation while shoving your beliefs down another person's throat.

@PRY- Personally, I believe that people can have morality absent religion...but not many do. Which is another reason why I support and defend churches even though I'm not a member.

@txGreg- Per my remarks about NAMBLA, even if people argued that "I was born this way" there would still be no justification for murderers, arsonists, rapists, or pedophiles because every one of those behaviors infringes on the rights of others. A relationship between two consenting homosexual adults doesn't do that. Others still might not find such a relationship palatable or acceptable to their beliefs, but it can't really be compared to those crimes against other persons.

@elcedar- Good post, and I'll again repeat that the government has no business telling ANY church what to say, teach, or believe. If a gay couple wants a church wedding, then it's up to them to find a church that likes the idea.

@Bobo- According to scripture, you can buy two chicken sammiches on Saturday, and microwave one to eat on Sunday. No wait - that's not scripture. That's my "to do" list for next weekend.

Tatersalad said...

We all now can assume that every liberal attending the DNC in Raleigh this year can now hold each others dicks, grab their balls and everyone sings love songs to each other.

CenTexTim said...

FWIW, in that now-infamous interview, Chick-Fil-A's CEO Dan Cathy never mentioned gay marriage.

Here's the actual quote from
the original interview

Some have opposed the company's support of the traditional family. "Well, guilty as charged," said Cathy when asked about the company's position.

"We are very much supportive of the family -- the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that.

Here's how CNN reported it:

“Guilty as charged,”, Cathy said when asked about his company’s support of the traditional family unit as opposed to gay marriage.

Nowhere in the original interview do the words "gay" or "anti-gay" or "gay marriage" appear. CNN inserted the phrase "as opposed to gay marriage" that has caused all the ruckus.

As Stilt said in the beginning of his post, "...expression of our First Amendment rights is also becoming increasingly uncomfortable and dangerous."

Especially when the media continuously, shamefully, and one-sidedly distorts what people say.

Stilton Jarlsberg said...

@CenTexTim- Great post! Look at the man's own can he be described as a hater? And how disingenous of CNN to twist things for their own purposes. I'd suggest they should be ashamed of themselves, but that ship sailed a long time ago.

Stilton Jarlsberg said...

@Tatersalad- Wouldn't they have been doing that anyway?

SC said...

@ John the Econ: “What possible explanation can there be for this divergence?” Christians are such an easy target. They can’t fire-back the way they may want to because it is not Christian-like. And if some did fire-back, then, the left would point out how hateful & un-Christ-like the so-called Christians are. It’s a catch 22.

It just slays me that the left is supposed to be so open-minded & tolerant & they are ANYTHING BUT.

It is becoming standard operating procedure in the liberal media to make the news fit their agenda. Leaving out a word or two or adding words; case in point (Thanks CenTexTim). The mess-up on 911 recording MSNBC aired in the Travonne Martin case. Recently, the Aurora CO shooting, ABC saying the shooter was a member of the Tea Party. I have found that this is the most reliable place to find the truth.

I’m on a roll...

Arghh, I’m so sick of how racist I am because I support Mitt Romney. How can they NOT understand – the current President (who cares what color he is) is NOT getting the job done & his plan did NOT work & our beloved country is in a bigger mess because of his actions/ inaction’s & policies – not his skin color.

Stilton Jarlsberg said...

@SC- It's funny how little the news needs to edited, altered, or embroidered to make it mean whatever the MSM wants it to mean.

And no, preferring Mitt Romney's policies over Obama doesn't make one racist. Though increasingly, I can't say that the reverse is true.

John the Econ said...

@SC, how Roman of those big city mayors. Such tough men they are taking on the only people they know who will not fight back, physically anyway.

Speaking of that boob Bloomberg: Did you catch his comment last week to that British weenie Piers Morgan about how “I don't understand why the police officers across this country don't stand up collectively and say, ‘We're going to go on strike. We're not going to protect you. Unless you, the public, through your legislature, do what's required to keep us safe,’”?

Sounds to me like an argument for an armed citizenry, not against.

In fact, I'll take it a step further: Say the police were (allowed) to strike over such an issue and did so. What would happen? It would spur gun sales even further as people scramble to protect themselves. Criminals would be more afraid to commit crimes as they would know that more citizens than ever are armed and scared. The criminals who do go ahead and commit crimes would be much more likely to be shot in the process.

My point? The existence of the police does more to protect the well-being of the criminal than the citizen! (This is already the case in places like Britain where guns, and self-defense itself is totally outlawed)

Baconmancer said...

"Apparently Ms. Barr not only missed her charm school classes, but also missed her president's plea to use "words that heal rather than wound."

On July 25, 1990 at a San Diego Padres- Cincinnati Reds baseball game, she screeched the national anthem, and then grabbed her crotch and spit on the ground.

That airbag has been completely classless from the beginning. Shame that people still listen to her.

Cookie said...

Gosh, I almost missed this today. I finally got a chance to get on my computer!
In this whole mess, did someone lose sight of the fact that the owner of Chic-fil-a is simply a Christian who believes in traditional marriage--not some hate monger who refuses to serve or employ anyone who is gay? Why can't he (or us) have an opinion? Oh wait, because we might be conservative, Republican, Libertarian, Christian or anything not liberal or democrap? *sigh*
And I'm wondering if those cute little mayors are going to start putting up toll bridges where everyone will have to be stopped and fined if they are Christian and pro-traditional marriage! It makes me wonder...

Cookie said...

That should be toll roads, not bridges. sorry...

My Dog Brewski said...

What will it take for thoughts to become crimes? First, you must vilify the words and the speaker of those words. Then you must classify that speech as "hate". Then you must equate that speech with actual criminal acts. Finally, the speech - and consequently the thought - become crimes. Oh, you can still have the thought, silly. Just never give voice to that thought or it's off to jail with you. Ultimately, this suppresses not just the speech but the thought as well.
I don't believe we are that many steps removed from just such a reality.

Colby said...

An interesting letter to the editor...

The DNC probably WISHES they would have picked Raleigh over Charlotte at this point. Raleigh is a Liberal college / government town, but Charlotte has a much higher population of Conservatives. I have a feeling things are not going to go well for Blabbermouth-Shultz et al in Charlotte; the protesters will far outnumber the idiots inside!

Chuck said...

@My Dog Brewski - +1

The left sees hate everywhere because they hate anything and everything that does not think/believe as they do.

SeaDog said...

Perhaps OT, but I just read that DHS and the Army have ordered riot gear in preparation for 'civil unrest' at the RNC, DNC, and the inauguration (obviously 'The One' didn't survive the massive recount program), or perhaps they are preparing for massive Chic-Fil-A riots? Does this mean 'The One' is going to suspend the Constitution, declare martial law to avoid the Posse Comitatus act? Am I paranoid? You Bet-cha!

Stilton Jarlsberg said...

@John the Econ- I like the logical path you followed to arrive at the notion that cops help protect criminals from armed citizens. It's a good point!

@Baconmancer- Speaking of Roseanne Barr's extreme offensiveness, how about some photos of her dressed as a female Hitler, taking burnt Jew cookies out of the oven?

@Cookie- The issue with the mayors is at the heart of today's cartoon and commentary (not gay marriage, believe it or not). If citizens believe in traditional marriage OR gay marriage it is their protected right to do so. But the mayors are taking actions which are in violation of discrimination laws and the Constitution. That's unacceptable.

@My Dog Brewski- The entire concept of "hate crimes" and "hate speech" makes my butt cranch. "Hate crimes" establish the principle that some victims are more acceptable to attack than others. And defining unliked opinions as "Hate speech" is clear suppression of First Amendment rights.

But as you point out, the Left is trying to criminalize thought - and it's frightening.

@Colby- That was a good letter. Rahm Emmanuel says that Chick-fil-a doesn't represent "Chicago values." But it's hardly a smear, because Chicago values are now corruption and murder.

@Chuck- The Left categorizes conservatives as haters. The Right is more charitable, assuming that liberals are simply idiots.

@SeaDog- I read the same articles about loading up on riot gear for the conventions and inauguration (and don't forget that American skies will also be filled with drones for these events). But why would an administration that preaches class war and race war expect things to turn violent? Oh yeah - because it's their campaign platform.

My Dog Brewski said...

@ SeaDog:
Does anyone think the NBPP wasn't emboldened by Holder's get out of jail free card? The violence will not be of our (evil, racist white people) making, but likely we will not avoid getting caught up in it. I will not initiate violence, but I will protect my home and family.

SeaDog said...

@My Dog Brewski - That's why I have my CHL and a Sig .45ACP and a .380 for concealed carry. In '68 I took an oath to 'preserve and protect the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic ' While in the Marines with Force Troops at 29 Palms, we were on rotating 'Riot Duty', per our mission 'to be on the LZ within 10 minutes in full gear for transport to anywhere in the US' It was stated that if we were 'alerted' that civil insurection had been declared and we would go in hot. We were to be issued ball ammo and chemical weapons at our destination. The gas the military has makes CS look like perfume - as our First Sergeant said, it will leave a quivering mass of protoplasm, streaming from every orifice.

Macker said...

The institution of Marriage is one which was created by GOD Himself, in the Garden of Eden...BEFORE the fall into Sin. We mess with it at our peril.
Most people who say teh gheys should be allowed to marry point to Jesus Christ saying "Love one another." He did say that, but then Paul points out in the letter to the Romans that God sees such behavior as an Abomination...both before (Old Testament) and after (New Testament) Christ's ministry.
Which means it's prohibited!

My Dog Brewski said...

@ SeaDog:
I took the oath with the US Army in 1972. Likewise, I have not forgotten it and agree with you completely. It didn't come with an expiration date. While stationed in Germany, I was also part of a quick reaction force to be deployed if "insurgents" attacked our closest HAWK missile battery. I wasn't sure why they picked a 71Q20 (Defense Information Specialist - Journalist) for that duty. I assumed it had something to do with being expendable. Luckily, I never found out.

Angry Hoosier Dad said...

@ Macker:
Ultimately, for society to be fully liberalized, God must be declared unconstitutional. Even then, that won't be the end of it, only the beginning.

SeaDog said...

@My Dog Brewski - Mine was easier to figure, even though my specialty was microwave radio, 'every Marine is a rifleman'.

Stilton Jarlsberg said...

@My Dog Brewski- I think the Founding Fathers were pretty clear on describing potential enemies as "foreign and domestic."

@SeaDog- If the military has gas which reduces crowds to quivering masses of protoplasm with leaky orifices, why wasn't it used on Occupy Wall Street? (I know, I know - I'm just enjoying the fantasy).

@Macker- I'm certainly not going to debate theology. I'll just gently and respectfully observe that the way we maintain freedom for all religions in this country is by refusing to favor any one of them when it comes to making laws.

@My Dog Brewski- Of course they chose a journalist to be part of a quick reaction force! Don't you remember that our commander-in-chief recently made a reference to "words that wound?" And of course, the pen is mightier than the sword. Assuming it's a really, really short sword.

@Angry Hoosier Dad- The libs believe in God... it's just that they think his name is Barack.

@SeaDog- Semper Fi! (I say that in deep admiration. I was never in the service.)

John the Econ said...

Was listening to NPR this afternoon and was shocked and presently surprised to hear that the majority of guests interviewed on this topic actually agree that these mayors have overstepped their authorities.

If you've gone so far off the edge that you're even criticized on NPR, then it looks like you're about to lose big.

Pete (Detroit) said...

Stilt - wrt Bloomburg, doign the strip daily surely made it easier to keep abreast of topics

wrt Macker - thank you. I'd been frustrated for some time, trying to come up a response on the order of 'I respect your right to be mistaken, and would appreciate the same in return' - I think you did it better

wrt Occupy >> quivering masses w/ oozing orafices... you could tell a difference? w/o looking twice? (Yeetch)

wrt Pens and Swords - careful, they get small enough, they're called 'pen knives' for a reason!

John - Full agree! If you're taking hits from NPR and / or NPR listeners, you've REALLY stepped in it - or you said something that might be construed as "conservative"...

Dave David Schmoyer on Facebook said...

I also took that oath and there was not an expiration date in mine either....I might be disabled...but I can still carry a rifle and hit my target...let them come at my house.....I can have fun shooting ducks in a barrel...or at least the large open lines of fire all around my house....Large yard.

Noelegy said...

Hello Stilton, long-time reader, first-time poster, and fellow Texan. The thing that has bothered me from the beginning about the Chick-Fil-A boycott is that those who object to Dan Cathy's statement seem unable to distinguish between someone expressing a personal opinion, and someone opining that their personal opinion should be made public policy, and enforced by law.

I have gay friends. I have no opposition to gay marriage. But I think that free speech is an equally important issue, and I don't see the tolerance inherent in trying to shut down those who don't think the way you (protesters) think they should.

Stilton Jarlsberg said...

@Noelegy- Good to hear from you! Sounds like we're in the same place on this. I have very good gay friends, and my support of Chick-fil-a isn't "anti-gay" in any way, it's support for freedom of speech and freedom of religion. Period.

And that's the same freedom of speech which protects those who want to protest Chick-fil-a. Freedom is messy but beautiful.

Jim said...

As a Christian, I agree with Dan Cathy's view that marriage is and should always be defined as between one man and one woman. That being said, the larger issue at stake here is the freedom issue. Dan Cathy has the God-given, Constitutionally protected right to hold and express whatever views he wishes, as does everyone else. The problem is, his opponents and detractors don't just want their voices and their views heard, they want to silence any and everyone who disagrees with them. THEY (the opponents of Dan Cathy & Chick-fil-A and the gay marriage supporters)are the ones who are the purveyors of hate on this issue, not Mr. Cathy or anyone connected to Chick-fil-A.