Free Speech Not Free For All

[Mac (imported)]

I am not agreeing to the right or wrong of the referenced action. I am referencing the unequal right to free speach.

Why is one's speach justified and the other not?

More than gay marriage driving Chick-fil-A flap

By BILL BARROW Associated Press The Associated Press

Friday, August 3, 2012 6:43 PM EDT

http://www.charter.net/news/read.php?ri ... 915&page=1

ATLANTA (AP) — When President Barack Obama said same-sex couples should have the right to marry, it was national news for a few days before the presidential campaign and the country went back to business as usual.

Yet weeks after a fast-food executive doubled down on his opposition to gay marriage, debate rages on about equality, religious values and free speech. "Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day" on Wednesday, with supporters flooding the chain's franchises around the country, was countered with "kiss-ins" by same-sex couples at assorted locations Friday, long after Chick-fil-A president Dan Cathy's initial comments to a religious publication touched off the clash.

That's an unusual amount of staying power for what initially looked like just another skirmish over a hot-button question.

Coursing throughout the conversations on social media, in letters to the editor and in long lines to buy chicken sandwiches is the sense among proud Southerners that the outcry over Cathy's comments smacks of regional stereotyping. When public officials in Boston, Philadelphia and Chicago tell a Southern icon such as Chick-fil-A that it's no longer welcome, and that Cathy should keep his opinions to himself, many in the Atlanta-based chain's home region hear more than a little northern condescension.

"Maybe the reaction is just because we're Southerners," said Rose Mason, who was lunching Friday at a Chick-fil-A in suburban Atlanta.

Mason, who described herself as Christian, said she grew up in New York City. Now, she said, "I deal with my sister telling me we're a little backward. People have this idea that we're just behind on everything. So they view anything we say through that (perception)."

Cathy, a devout Southern Baptist whose family has always been outspoken about its faith, sparked the controversy by telling the Baptist Press that he and his family-owned restaurant chain are "guilty as charged" for openly — and financially — supporting groups that advocate for "the biblical definition of a family unit." He later added that the United States is "inviting God's judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at him and say, `We know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage."

For Marci Alt, organizer of a protest Friday at a Chick-fil-A in the relatively liberal Atlanta suburb of Decatur, it's Cathy's financial backing of conservative groups such as the Family Research Council that takes the conversation beyond merely what he said.

"Dan Cathy has the same First Amendment rights that I do. If he doesn't want to agree with same-sex marriage, I understand that," she said.

"But when he puts a pen to paper and writes a check to an organization that is about to squash my equal rights, I have a problem with that."

Cathy's comments were in keeping with the tradition established by his father, Truett Cathy, who started the chain in 1967 and never allowed franchises to open on Sundays.

Beyond Friday's organized displays of affection, there were other signs that the furor still had legs. Police were investigating graffiti on the side of a Chick-fil-A restaurant in Torrance, Calif., that read "Tastes like hate" and had a painting of a cow, in reference to the chain's ubiquitous ads featuring cows encouraging people to eat poultry.

In Tucson, Ariz., an executive at a medical manufacturing company lost his job after filming himself verbally attacking a Chick-fil-A employee and posting the video online.

For William Klaus, a 26-year-old X-ray technician with traditional views on marriage, the debate starts at ends with Cathy's liberty to voice his beliefs.

"He said what he said. Freedom of speech. Bottom line," Klaus said at a Chick-fil-A in Jackson, Miss.

However, that goes for Cathy's critics, too, said Klaus, adding that he stopped by the Jackson store simply to pick up some good food.

"For someone to blast him for his opinion, so be it — they have that right."

[Slammr (imported)]

Chick-fil-a is not a corporation; it's a family owned business, owned by Cathy's family, so he is speaking for the company. Chick-fil-a contributed $2 million to anti-gay causes in 2010, so their anti-gay attitude goes much farther than Cathy's comments. Despite the efforts of the Right to frame it as a Freedom of Speech issue, it has nothing to do with that. It's about opposition to an organization that continually mixes religion and politics with their business. While, as a private company, they have the right to do that, the rest of us have the right to protest against their policies and to refuse to eat at their stores.

I do have issues with Boston or Chicago refusing to allow them into their cities, however. I'm not sure they have a right to do that.

[Dave (imported)]

Well Bill Barrow of the AP is sadly mistaken (full of shit, poo-poo, excrement, dumb as a box of rocks)

It's the protesters rights of free speech that he's getting all pissy-pants and "hair on fire" about.

What Barrow thinks is free speech is the right to call some (insert nasty racial epithet) a (nasty racial epithet) and then say they aren't my equals as citizens without engendering a protest or even a reaction.

I give Barrow's six active brain cells a misfire on all counts.

That's not free speech. Dan Cathy has a right to say what he wants to say and in the spirit of the First Amendment any protestor and mayors have hte right to tell him to get lost and not give him permits to open his business in their town.

Let me put that THIS WAY: Dan Cathy has the right to degrade gays and lesbians as inferior, satanic, sinful and against nature as long as Mayors have hte right to say "we don't want Dan Cathy or his businesses working nearby"

tada

[Riverwind (imported)]

mac, I don't think you will ever get it. I have watched your posts for years, and I don't think you have a basic understanding of the problems we are talking about. I don't know if I can answer your question, I am not sure you want to know the answer.

However,

It boils down to this, one group of people would like to not give another group of people the same rights they enjoy, when we do this the group that does not have the right is rendered a second class citizen.

If you believe that all of gods people should be treated equal under the law, then you would be on the side that is fighting for their rights, but If you believe that GOD is not everybody's god and some rights should only belong to some and not others, then what kind of GOD do you believe in?

Sense I don't believe in GOD or GODS that second part does not matter to me, however if we believe that if your a citizen of this country then you should have equal rights the same as everybody else, then you must pick the side that is fighting for their rights and therefor your path should be clear.

If you don't fight for those rights because they don't matter to you or your not effected by them or you don't think that this group should have equal rights, that's OK, just remember who is going to speak up for your rights when it happens to you?

Its just that simple.

[devi (imported)]

Who'd have ever thought. Couples strolling hand in hand on beautiful Sunday mornings to the local Chick-fil-a, kissing and eating a bite from their packpack and then going on to the park to enjoy the afternoon. (Gay couples that is.)

[BossTamsin (imported)]

How is this quashing anyone's right to free speech? The head of Chick-fil-a has every right to say whatever he wants, and everyone else has every right to react to it. I'm not sure anyone wants to stop him talking about how he opposes same-sex marriage. If all he were doing was talking about how he opposes it, sure some people would be upset, but that's his right. Funding hate groups, however, is another story. Writing cheques is not free speech. Using corporate proceeds to financially support hate and discrimination is not, and should not be, covered under free speech laws. To put the issue into a different perspective, he's welcome to say he's prejudiced against people whose skin is a different colour than his. Once he cuts a cheque to the KKK though, things change.

(And yes, I am comparing Family Research Council to the Klan.)

For that matter, I want to ask each and every person that showed up on Appreciation Day a few questions. I want to find out how many of them (many of whom were 'good, Christian folks' with 'strong Christian values') donate time and money to food banks, homeless shelters, hospices, and so on. Not just 'tax break' donating, but showing actual honest charity and compassion to the poor, the sick, and the needy. They're willing to stand in line for a couple hours to support hate, but how many take a couple hours to minister to the less fortunate, you know, the actions of which Jesus was a huge fan?

[Mac (imported)]

mac, I don't think you will ever get it. I have watched your posts for years, and I don't think you have a basic understanding of the problems we are talking about. I don't know if I can answer your question, I am not sure you want to know the answer.

............................

Its just that simple.

Read my post. I said that I was not taking sides on the issue but questioning the unequal rights to free speach. The proponents of gay marriage were denying the owner of Chick-fil-A his right to free speach while claiming that their rights to free speech be protected.

I feel that both should have equal rights. What is wrong with that? How do you see that as "not getting it"?

If he said he supported gay marriage there would not have been any demonstration. I agree with giving gay couples the same legal rights as opposite sex couples just don't force the churches to sanction it against their beliefs.

[Dave (imported)]

You are so completely clueless that it isn't funny anymore.

What Barrow thinks is free speech is the right to call some (insert nasty racial epithet) a (nasty racial epithet) and then say they aren't my equals as citizens without engendering a protest or even a reaction.

I can specify those (nasty epithets). I guarantee you won't like that response.

[Elizabeth (imported)]

Read my post. I said that I was not taking sides on the issue but questioning the unequal rights to free speach. The proponents of gay marriage were denying the owner of Chick-fil-A his right to free speach while claiming that their rights to free speech be protected.

I feel that both should have equal rights. What is wrong with that? How do you see that as "not getting it"?

If he said he supported gay marriage there would not have been any demonstration. I agree with giving gay couples the same legal rights as opposite sex couples just don't force the churches to sanction it against their beliefs.

I have really tried to understand what you are saying, but it simply makes no sense to me. First of all, this man seems to have a lot more free speech than the rest of us, since we all know what he said and well? Everyone sure as hell don't know what I said. His money buys him a voice that others do not have. Also, his message is not nice, it's one of hate and bigotry. Christians don't own marriage, it existed before Christianity and it exists in every culture, including those that do not include Christians. But back to the point, I don't see anyone stopping this man's free speech, we all know what he said. So that is the first part. How do you figure his right of free speech was infringed upon? No one has said he couldn't talk. And if he chose, he could buy commercials and ads or even make a movie about his point of view.

Freedom of speech is not a universal right that others have to respect, it's a right the government has to respect. Anyone who has ever been employed will find out real quick that one can not just say what they want and remain employed. So again, I don't see how you figure this man's speech rights have been interfered with.

It looks like what you are saying is that he has some right to say what he wants and not have anyone disagree with him, and no one enjoys that right. It seems you find umbrage in others rights to speak their minds. As if you believe that he has a right to say whatever he wants and it's his right to have no one disagree with him. Freedom as speech, as it exists now, is a limited right that allows one to criticize the government without being punished or prohibited from doing so. But even this has been whittled down extensively. Look at Occupy Wall Street and you can see that free speech can be shut down when it's not addressed directly to the government. Even then, it's dubious at best.

So I need you to explain first of all, what speech this man has that we didn't get to hear and what his right to this speech is, that would prevent others from speaking about that speech. Sorry, but what you have posted so far makes no sense at all to me.

Elizabeth

[A-1 (imported)]

Well.

Please, please tell me that YOU ARE NOT going to a Chick-fil-a after seeing the new Batman movie...

:shakemitk

An Unholy Alliance: Black Folks and Chick-fil-A

By: Kirsten West Savali | Posted: August 4, 2012 at 12:22 AM (http://www.theroot.com/buzz/unholy-alli ... -chick-fil)

To African Americans who bought chicken to support the restaurant CEO's anti-marriage-equality stance, Clutch magazine's Kirsten West Savali says that she's sure Republicans "appreciate the funds you donated that will potentially empower their colleagues' push for more initiatives that could have a detrimental impact on the black community at large."

When Mary J. Blige sang her heart out about "crispy chicken," some black people rushed to call it "coonery." Yesterday, some of those same people sprinted to get fried chicken from Chick-fil-A and were proud of it. In fact, Facebook was adorned with black folks loving that "chikin," all to support a man who has no problem employing and serving the LGBT community, as long as he can take their dollars to financially support conservative politicians who view them as second-class citizens.

Even more interesting, and this is where things get real, black support for the Democratic Party, specifically President Barack Obama, has never dropped below 85%. But to gain some heavenly cool points, many of these same people flocked to fatten the pockets of an organization that funnels funds to Republican candidates.

Doesn't make much sense, does it?

For some reason that I have yet to discern, it makes some black evangelicals feel better to pretend that this is a matter of free speech, a call-to-arms to protect Christian values, when it's really nothing more than a study in financial and political gullibility, and religious elitism -- or even more simply, cutting off their noses to spite their faces.

If it was the 1960's this would be about miscegenation and not Gay marriage... (sigh!)

...and Southern Democrats or "Dixiecrats", you know, the ones that went for Richard Nixon in 1968...

mac, it is not about FREE SPEECH... it is about equal rights and sexual discrimination.

mac. A question. If all Gay people had their genitalia removed then could they get marries to each other then? I mean, since there is NO SEX involved because no sex is possible? What about your old avatar? Could the Eunuch on the left still marry the girl since he was no longer a male?

Would Dan Cathy still care?

Why would a man with a sir name of "Cathy" get so uppity about this.? Did he shorten his name from "Catherine"?

What about, "...a boy named Sue"?

Equal rights, NOT FREE SPEECH or speach or any other such nonsense. You are twistier than an Oklahoman TORNADO...