How does this happen? Chick-fil-A branded as anti-gay?

[Imran Siddiqui]

And of course the end result would be the same if every business owned by an openly gay person were "coincidentally" blocked by zoning laws.

Of course... Asher wouldn't be denying that either (ie, pay attention to his argument).

[Elok]

I can't recall ever having a CFA sandwich and thinking it was too dry. The meat has always been juicy.

[Kuciwalker]

Of course... Asher wouldn't be denying that either (ie, pay attention to his argument).

Oh, I couldn't possibly have been using that as an example of the absurdity of his position, could I?

[MrFun]

So most people are up in arms about CFA's freedom being violated, but they support my having the freedom to marry a man whom I am romantically in love with to be denied.

I guess you guys are not really that big of a fan of freedom, then.

[Asher]

Oh, I couldn't possibly have been using that as an example of the absurdity of his position, could I?

It's quite clear neither you nor your brother understand my position.

Because apparently I wasn't clear enough - I do not support the mayor's actions.

I'm illustrating the absurdity of the American ideal of freedom. You have lots of contrived examples of arbitrarily limiting freedom and no one bats an eye. I think you, specifically, have argued that you don't support gay marriage but "the people have spoken" (not your words, but your concept).

How can people democratically ban gay marriage but people can't democratically ban Chick-fil-A? Are individual rights really less important than the rights to do business?

[Hauldren Collider]

Perhaps because one is protected by free speech and the other isn't?

Despite that, it should be mentioned that numerous courts in the US have decided that you can't. Examples include Iowa and Massachusetts.

[MrFun]

How can people democratically ban gay marriage but people can't democratically ban Chick-fil-A?

exactly

[Elok]

Of course... Asher wouldn't be denying that either (ie, pay attention to his argument).

His argument doesn't seem to be leading anywhere in particular. Nobody ever said our various social restrictions were "about freedom," except to the extent that churches want the freedom not to recognize gay marriages, etc. The American conception of liberty is extremely individualistic and perfectly consistent (not always good, but consistent) to the extent that it is applied.

[Asher]

Perhaps because one is protected by free speech and the other isn't?

Uh, what?

[MrFun]

His argument doesn't seem to be leading anywhere in particular. Nobody ever said our various social restrictions were "about freedom," except to the extent that churches want the freedom not to recognize gay marriages, etc. The American conception of liberty is extremely individualistic and perfectly consistent (not always good, but consistent) to the extent that it is applied.

Giving gay people equal marriage rights will not force churches to marry gay people.

[Asher]

The American conception of liberty is extremely individualistic and perfectly consistent (not always good, but consistent) to the extent that it is applied.

Except for when it's not. If you need examples, you're too far gone to be helped.

His argument doesn't seem to be leading anywhere in particular. Nobody ever said our various social restrictions were "about freedom,"

I suppose you didn't read the posts in this thread by Americans bragging about American freedoms (while nasty Europe isn't free, of course)

[Imran Siddiqui]

Oh, I couldn't possibly have been using that as an example of the absurdity of his position, could I?

His whole argument is about absurdity!!

Your purposely absurd arguments lead to absurdity!

[Asher]

Despite that, it should be mentioned that numerous courts in the US have decided that you can't. Examples include Iowa and Massachusetts.

Freedom != US Constitution.

Courts decide what is or is not legal within the framework of law. We do not philosophically define freedom by what legislators think it is.

[Kuciwalker]

Because apparently I wasn't clear enough - I do not support the mayor's actions.

OK, good. I hadn't read your posts closely enough and did not realize that.

I'm illustrating the absurdity of the American ideal of freedom. You have lots of contrived examples of arbitrarily limiting freedom and no one bats an eye.

We enshrine some rights (speech) and leave others subject to balancing tests of various strengths (constructing buildings). This is perfectly reasonable because some rights are genuinely more important than others. Pretending to restrict one right as a way to actually restrict another, more important one is a no-no.

I think you, specifically, have argued that you don't support gay marriage but "the people have spoken" (not your words, but your concept).

Uh, no?

How can people democratically ban gay marriage but people can't democratically ban Chick-fil-A? Are individual rights really less important than the rights to do business?

1) The distinction is peculiar to the particular legal rights enshrined in our Constitution as inviolate. I don't have any particular objection to enshrining this one, either, but it isn't there right now and so it would be inconsistent with democracy for our judiciary to invent one when our Constitution assigns that power to the electorate via the amendment process.

2) More generally, certain freedoms (speech, assembly, voting) are fundamentally necessary for democracy; marriage isn't one of them. That isn't to say it isn't an important right or that it shouldn't be protected, but restricting it isn't undemocratic, just bad.

edit: just to be clear, democracy and freedom are both valuable but distinct virtues, and they occasionally conflict. In some cases democracy should win, especially when it's clear that in the long run democracy will be consistent with freedom (e.g. gay marriage). In other cases freedom should win (e.g. speech).

[MrFun]

Can someone explain to Elok that giving gay people equal marriage rights does not force churches to marry gay couples?