Thought Crime in Chicago

I hope Chick-Fil-A files the appropriate libel and slander charges against TheUncivil Specialrights Agenda for their outrageously false claims about CFA’s statements, policies and actions.  How can a same-gender family with a daughter who ate frequently in CFA restaurants now suddenly make several claim s of public accomodation discrimination?  These liberal facist bullies will not stop unless they are countered forcefully and effectively.

Saw this on the local news.  I have added to my prayers that Chick-fil-a has amazing lawyers and a sane judge to hear the case. 

Planning on eating at Chick-fil-a today.  It was too busy on Wednesday and I thought they could use the support today also.

It’s not really about marriage.
http://redhatrob.com/2012/08/its-not-really-about-marriage-is-it/

As many of us predicted years ago, this is where discrimination and hate speech laws lead.  Indeed the concept of a protected class has expanded beyond fixed immutable traits to encompass behaviors. 

The intent is nothing less to control thought and speech of those with whom they disagree.  This is the tyranny of totalitarians and it must be resisted at all cost.  The Gays are on the cutting edge because they want acceptance for what is sexually degenerate behavior.  Their behavior will never be accepted on its own terms so acceptance must be compelled.

#4 ” Indeed the concept of a protected class has expanded beyond fixed immutable traits to encompass behaviors.”

That bears repeating. I keep reading idiot arguments on HuffPo, etc., and I cannot help but think, these arguments must be getting recirculated because someone is falling for them.

The majority of arguments for SSM are idiotic, but some group of people must be buying into them, by the mere fact that they are repeated continually.

“I have an urge therefore it is moral”.
“My urges have the force of law, but other people’s moral intuitions do not, since those intuitions happen to have certain things in common with religious ethics, so that would constitute a violation of church and state.”

Stupid stupid stuff like that. But people keep repeating it. Someone must be buying into it.

Speaking of this lunacy, it brings to mind this article about a survey of liberal academics and their surprising willingness to discriminate against minorities THEY don’t like.  The most juicy quote in the article was this one:

Generally speaking, the more liberal the respondent, the more willingness to discriminate and, paradoxically, the higher the assumption that conservatives do not face a hostile climate in the academy.

Read that over again - the more liberal a person is, the more willing they were to discriminate, but also, the more sure they were that conservatives weren’t being discriminated against. 

Here is the reality - liberals simply do not believe that people who disagree with them have the right to free speech.  They will say they believe in “free speech” but then exclude from that protection any speech they don’t like.  In the end, this repressive totalitarian attitude will surely bring the liberals down in the end.  The question is how much harm and destruction they can cause before they collapse.  Much the same in the political world as in the church.

I’d like tho think this is a joke, but it’s been obvious for decades that this is the direction things are moving.  I think it’s acidly ironic that “civil rights” are being used to crush actual human rights.  Your property was long ago commandeered to serve the ends of the State, now one’s thoughts are being bound to the altar of government-enforced kompassion.

Maybe the Left could be placated if Chick-fil-A did more to achieve gender equality for the birds who end up in their deep fryers.  At least one other person seems to think that may be part of the problem.

Despite Chick-Fil-A and its cultural war, should we not give equal rights to all gender of the bird? Liberals have a point: re-write the word of God, change the meaning of marriage, and give roosters equal billing.

Liberals Accuse Chick-fil-A of Sexism

Then there’s the thorny issue of sexual preference.  How can you tell what a bunch of caged chickens would rather do, and who they’d rather do it with, if they weren’t coerced into breeding all the time just so they could be eaten?

Exclusive use of free range chickens, along with some careful observation, would enable all purveyors of fried chicken to guarantee that roosters and hens who pursue nontraditional lifestyles are proportionately represented in the “final selection” process.

Another reminder that true progressives should focus on the important stuff and stop being so damned anthropocentric, as if Mr. Cathy’s view of marriage and the hurt feelings of some lesbian carried more weight than making sure our feathered friends are treated equally.

So now opponents of gay marriage are responsible for the feelings of those who disagree with them. Now the state is to become the enforcer of Right (make that Left) Thinking on moral issues. Now gay activists are going to destroy the First Amendment for the sake of a political disagreement.

They’ve been trying to do this for years in other countries such as Canada and Sweden, so it’s no surprise their crusade is coming to the U.S. Same-sex marriage advocates such as the Southern Poverty Law Center have begun designating organizations with dissenting viewpoints as “hate groups.” I also have to agree it’s not just about marriage.

Isn’t this similar to what has been happening in Great Britain?

When I attended university up in Canada, there was a (coercively) student-funded newspaper on campus.  It loudly proclaimed its commitment to free speech and a free exchange of ideas.  However, it censored anything at all from a pro-life perspective.  No letters to the editor, no nothing.  When challenged how it could claim to respect free speech when it censored opposing viewpoints, it simply declared that the pro-life point of view was “hate speech” against women and so wasn’t entitled to free speech protection.  This is the liberal response to free speech.  If they agree with the speech fine.  If they disagree with it, it is “hate speech” and thus not protected.  Thus liberals can simultaneously claim to be defenders of free speech whilst at the same time censoring speech they don’t like.

What is disturbing is not so much the fact that there are liberal wingnuts out there that peddle this nonsense.  No, what is disturbing is that the MSM is playing right along and acting as if blatant anti-free speech actions are just fine.  The liberal media/entertainment industry elite have enormous power in their propaganda.  The survey on American beliefs about homosexuality that David Fischler recently posted is testimony to this.  Think about it - I would guess that it is very likely that those people most inclined to favor same-sex marriage are the people who would give the highest estimates as to percentage of homosexuals in the country.  According to the survey 35% of Americans think that more than a quarter of people are homosexual.  High estimates of public support for same-sex marriage pegs it at around 50%.  So do the math.  A solid majority of supporters of same-sex marriage actually think that more than a quarter of Americans are homosexual.  Most supporters of same-sex marriage believe a resounding falsehood that is completely unsubstantiated by any survey.  A solid majority of supporters of same-sex marriage have unthinkingly swallowed the media/entertainment industry’s propaganda and then expanded on it.  A solid majority of supporters of same-sex marriage base their opinions on falsehood instead of on fact.

So if the MSM tells them the fiction that liberals support “free speech” even as they censor any opinion that they don’t like, we can be relatively sure that a good majority of liberals will just swallow it hook, line and sinker.

I bet Rahm likes this idea very much.  It’s so very Chicago-ish - coercion.  And of course it is the very attitude of Captain terrific in the White House, though he was on the wrong side of the hater agenda until 8 weeks ago.  Why didn’t these folks sue him or Rahm oppose him?

Chicago!  Chicago! It’s that kinda town!

As they say: tar, feathers, some assembly required.

I posted this on the AAC’s FB page:

Anti-Chick-fil-A-ism

- A Christian who believes the Bible believes marriage is only between a man and a woman.

- Believing that marriage is only between a man and a woman is being anti-gay.

- Being anti-gay is gay hating.

- Hate is intolerable.

From the Los Angeles Times, a minority report:

“I am gay and I support Chick-fil-A,” 19-year-old Redding resident Matt Perez wrote in a CNN iReport.

Perez goes on to say Chick-fil-A Chief Executive Dan Cathy has been “unfairly attacked” for a recent interview in which Cathy said he and his company were against gay marriage. The comments drew strong reactions as customers pledged to boycott the chain and some mayors proclaimed they would not allow Chick-fil-A to open within their cities.

“As a gay man, I say let him not support gays,” Perez writes. “When the gay community and gay activist groups push on anti-gay people and organizations to change their minds and opinions via bullying or forced involvement, I fear it would make whatever accomplishments taste cheap like a greasy coin.”

Perez went on to say business owners like Cathy have a right to express their religious beliefs, and city officials who disagree should not ban the businesses.

. . .

Those who ate at restaurants in Southern California on Wednesday listed a variety of reasons for their participation.

Gwilym McGrew said he came to the Northridge restaurant to support Cathy’s religious beliefs, even though he said he himself is not religious.

“I’m not getting myself involved in the issue of gay marriage and all that; I’m not getting involved in a religious debate,” he said. “I’m getting involved in the government putting their thumb on a businessperson for his religious beliefs.”

“I’m not against gay rights by any means, but I think this guy is getting a bad rap,” Beaumont resident Ed Vatter, 57, said over a plate of chicken nuggets and waffle fries at a Chick-fil-A in Laguna Niguel.

“Plus,” he told The Times, “the food’s pretty good.”

More good news.

Chick-fil-A bashing ‘isn’t what America stands for’: NYC’s Bloomberg

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg is among the country’s most high-profile advocates for gay marriage, even officiating a few himself. But now he’s also become one of the most stalwart supporters of Chick-fil-A.

Or, rather, of its free speech rights. Bloomberg has said that he’d never heard of the chain before the controversy over Chick-fil-A President Dan Cathy’s support for the “biblical definition of the family unit.”

But as protesters take to the chicken restaurants Friday to protest, with same-sex “kiss-ins” planned across the country, Bloomberg again defended Chick-fil-A’s right to believe whatever it wants.

“Whatever their views are, as long as they’re not hurting somebody else, I don’t think it’s the government’s business,” Bloomberg said in his weekly radio address.

But PETA is bringing up the rear.

PETA Readies to Clip Chick-fil-A’s Biblical, Anti-Gay Wings

Now the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) is, of course, rolling up its sleeves for battle. The controversial animal rights group and local gay rights activists will stage a protest in Hollywood “to protest Chick-fil-A’s cruelty to chickens as well as its anti-gay stance” on Wednesday, August 1, also known as Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day, according to a release.

They plan on coming back for the Kiss-In. 

This could lead to cognitive dissonance and a collective migraine if Tof-U-Burger comes out in support of traditional marriage.  Welcome to Hollywood!

Teh gheys gotta be pretty torqued what with PETA horning in on their synthetic grievance time.

Clearly Chick-Fil-A lacks Chicago values embraced by Hizzoner Emanuel, who embraces Minister Farakhan and the Nation of Islam. Under Sharia Law I believe gays can be stoned to death or some such.  Clearly Mr Cathy has to crank up his rhetoric if he hopes to embrace Chicago values.  So sad. My folks lived on the near north side for many years and I dearly lloved Chicago.

Something interesting from the Chicago Tribune (only never mind the crack about “the victim complex of social conservatives”).

Chick-fil-A remarks get a brushback pitch on ‘Hardball’

A Chicago alderman appeared on the MSNBC political talk show “Hardball” Wednesday afternoon to make a perfectly reasonable point about theChick-fil-A controversy.

. . .

The Chicago alderman who appeared on “Hardball” underscored how wrong Moreno was. This lawmaker said he would never insist “that a CEO has to believe something or state something that I believe in” to get a building permit. “Of course not,” he said. “I would protect that even if I disagreed with him.”

He said the only proper concern of government when it comes to positions on issues is whether a business follows state anti-discrimination laws in hiring employees and serving customers.

Again, exactly!

So who was this right-thinking alderman?

Why, none other than Joe Moreno — or, more accurately, Moreno 2.0 — who insisted to “Hardball” host Chris Matthews that he wasn’t backing down while, in nearly the same breath, backing down.

“I have never said anything about beliefs,” he said, evidently forgetting his own Tribune essay where he lectured us that beliefs have consequences.

All he is saying to Chick-fil-A, Moreno 2.0 added, is “clarify your anti-discriminatory policies … and we can move forward.”

That should be easy. Chick-fil-A has already issued statements saying it follows the law and has a corporate policy against discrimination.

I was explaining to my adult children why these sorts of things, if allowed to go unchallenged, are a threat to our freedoms as much or maybe even more than being overtaken by another country.  They had trouble accepting that the homosexual leadership wanted more than just “equal rights”, that in fact they want the government to “take down” anyone who speaks out against them. 

A very eye-opening conversation for them.

Interesting - and sad - that those in favor of “gay marriage” do not make a crucial distinction: being against such relationships is not the same at all as being against those with same-sex attraction.  The relationship is an action, or at least a state of being, that is voluntary.  Having same-sex attraction is merely a condition or emotional state. Dan Cathy and others do not oppose the people, per se; they oppose an action.

But time and time again, I see “progressives” taking offense at a desire to limit actions and saying that it means hatred of those who would like to do what is prohibited. We oppose the actions because we believe they are harmful to society and to those who do them; we do not hate those who would like to do them.

We only oppose actions; they oppose people and ideas.