Did Chick-fil-A Pretend to Be a Teenage Girl on Facebook?

[Jacob]

I'm not really either - I'm just saying that you and Yi seemed to come to an agreement on a division that doesn't seem particularly clear to me.

Ah, I see.

It wasn't a big philosophical agreement on a profound truth. I was just pleased that Yi could see a way in which he'd consider the anti-gay bigots bigots.

[garbon]

I'm not really either - I'm just saying that you and Yi seemed to come to an agreement on a division that doesn't seem particularly clear to me.

Ah, I see.

It wasn't a big philosophical agreement on a profound truth. I was just pleased that Yi could see a way in which he'd consider the anti-gay bigots bigots.

And here I thought you were providing me with profound truths for free. But nah, gotcha.

[Jacob]

And here I thought you were providing me with profound truths for free. But nah, gotcha.

If you got them for free, you'd probably discard them as having no value :buddha:

[garbon]

And here I thought you were providing me with profound truths for free. But nah, gotcha.

If you got them for free, you'd probably discard them as having no value :buddha:

The best things in life are free
But you can give them to the birds and bees

[Malthus]

Fair though one could conceivably not act on one's homosexual urges which doesn't really have an equivalent as a black person, does it?

So?

Well then I don't think the whole actions versus identity thing is so clear...as I believe their objection is to homosexual acts (something one can control) and not that a homosexual exists (not within a person's control).  A homosexual is still a homosexual even when not acting on it.

Oddly, many anti-gay folks appear to take the position that it is a total choice whether or not to be homosexual or heterosexual - and that if society doesn't work hard to make gay lives a living hell, lots of people would be attracted to the gay choice. 

[garbon]

Oddly, many anti-gay folks appear to take the position that it is a total choice whether or not to be homosexual or heterosexual - and that if society doesn't work hard to make gay lives a living hell, lots of people would be attracted to the gay choice. 

Yes, that is very bizarre.

[KRonn]

Well, one guy also has religious views on it, and the other doesn't. He's allowed his beliefs; I strongly disagree with that view on gays and God, but for those who follow religions they have to make the choice  one way or the other. When I was more Catholic I didn't believe in everthing, or take things so literally.

I find both your point and Yi's interesting, because the argument seems to be that because it's based on their religious beliefs, it's not actually hateful but a sign of what God wants.

But that can't be right, can it? We'd call a Muslim who thought he should oppress women a bigot even if he genuinely thought God wanted him to do so, wouldn't we?

I tend to agree with you on the religious stuff. I can't condone the anti-gay stuff by religions. My contention is that the CEO of the company didn't agree with same sex marriage, and I feel he can have that view. If he's a bigot  for that, I don't know. I think that can go either way because some people just feel that marriage is a man and a woman, more as a legal and social construct.
Not necessarily out of being a bigot towards gays. Others will argue that having that view is bigoted automatically, and I'm not sure it is. I can see the points both ways.

[CountDeMoney]

Wow, lotsa pages trying to define if bigotry is, in fact, bigotry.

It is.

[garbon]

Well, one guy also has religious views on it, and the other doesn't. He's allowed his beliefs; I strongly disagree with that view on gays and God, but for those who follow religions they have to make the choice  one way or the other. When I was more Catholic I didn't believe in everthing, or take things so literally.

I find both your point and Yi's interesting, because the argument seems to be that because it's based on their religious beliefs, it's not actually hateful but a sign of what God wants.

But that can't be right, can it? We'd call a Muslim who thought he should oppress women a bigot even if he genuinely thought God wanted him to do so, wouldn't we?

I tend to agree with you on the religious stuff. I can't condone the anti-gay stuff by religions. My contention is that the CEO of the company didn't agree with same sex marriage, and I feel he can have that view. If he's a bigot  for that, I don't know. I think that can go either way because some people just feel that marriage is a man and a woman, more as a legal and social construct.
Not necessarily out of being a bigot towards gays. Others will argue that having that view is bigoted automatically, and I'm not sure it is. I can see the points both ways.

I think you're missing that he's a CEO who runs a company that also donates money to explicitly anti-gay groups. If that's not bigotry...

[garbon]

Wow, lotsa pages trying to define if bigotry is, in fact, bigotry.

It is.

I think it it always worthwhile to go through the intellectual exercise of working through why.

[CountDeMoney]

I think it it always worthwhile to go through the intellectual exercise of working through why.

Ill will or intent or no, I don't buy the "White Man's Burden" argument of benign non-bigotry, though.

[DontSayBanana]

Let's look at Neil's comment about "socially unacceptable groups."  Actually, pedophilia is vilified on a very rational basis: the safety concern for minors, considering one child's harm due to pedophilia can easily ripple outward or downstream toward future generations.

"The Bible says it's wrong" doesn't constitute a rational safety concern for a segment of the population.  So why don't we try this for a definition of bigotry?  Vilification of a segment of the population without a reasonable concern for the safety of those interacting with that segment.

[KRonn]

Well, one guy also has religious views on it, and the other doesn't. He's allowed his beliefs; I strongly disagree with that view on gays and God, but for those who follow religions they have to make the choice  one way or the other. When I was more Catholic I didn't believe in everthing, or take things so literally.

I find both your point and Yi's interesting, because the argument seems to be that because it's based on their religious beliefs, it's not actually hateful but a sign of what God wants.

But that can't be right, can it? We'd call a Muslim who thought he should oppress women a bigot even if he genuinely thought God wanted him to do so, wouldn't we?

I tend to agree with you on the religious stuff. I can't condone the anti-gay stuff by religions. My contention is that the CEO of the company didn't agree with same sex marriage, and I feel he can have that view. If he's a bigot  for that, I don't know. I think that can go either way because some people just feel that marriage is a man and a woman, more as a legal and social construct.
Not necessarily out of being a bigot towards gays. Others will argue that having that view is bigoted automatically, and I'm not sure it is. I can see the points both ways.

I think you're missing that he's a CEO who runs a company that also donates money to explicitly anti-gay groups. If that's not bigotry...

The anti gay group that I'm aware of is one that tries to counsel gays to end being gay. Dumb idea, I agree.

[garbon]

The anti gay group that I'm aware of is one that tries to counsel gays to end being gay. Dumb idea, I agree.

There's more than that. Family Research Council was one and they spout about how homosexuality is dangerous to children like pedophilia...in fact pedophilia is largely an issue of gay men.

[KRonn]

The anti gay group that I'm aware of is one that tries to counsel gays to end being gay. Dumb idea, I agree.

There's more than that. Family Research Council was one and they spout about how homosexuality is dangerous to children like pedophilia...in fact pedophilia is largely an issue of gay men.

Is that a group he supports? Sheesh, that's nasty. Amazing that people still have those ideas with all the time gone by, and the info out there. That's disturbing.