What anti-gay supporters seem to fail to realize is that the more situations like this get air time. The more it highlights the issue and the more people really start to think about how stupid it is to deny rights to homosexuals. When people go out of their way to impede homosexuals like that cake shop owner did. It highlights their struggle more and more people eventually sympathize with them. On top of it, everyone loves an underdog.

So please, bring it on. Are there any more anti-gay restaurant CEOs out there? any more local store owners denying service to homosexuals? Let them stand up and be heard.

It also highlights how Sarah Palin's time in the spotlight is over. She's irrelevant.

>> ^bobknight33:

Gays 0 Chick Fil-a 1


bob's math isn't too good either. CEO didn't issue an apology, but they did release a statement saying that in the future they are going to stay out of hot-bed political issues.

It appears they have learned their lesson, but probably too late. Pro-gay supporters will very rarely eat there again, meanwhile the anti-gay supporters may be eating there a lot now...but they won't be able to sustain their attendance. They'll either go broke or die of a heart attack.

Net win for civil rights

He did not make anti gay statements. Once again the left twisting his words. He spoke about his religion beliefs on a religious station.


The invisible marked became very, very visible yesterday -

Support across the county. Every Store packed with lines and lines and mores lines showing their support.

Hey that's how the free market works.

Once again the left is wrong.

>> ^shinyblurry:

The parameters of marriage was determined by God at the beginning of His creation. We have turned away from God in these United States, and so we have turned away from the biblical standard, however, not as much as gay marriage proponents have stated. Even with the media saturation and the constant infiltration of gay special interest groups into the national discourse, we have these realities:
1. A gay marriage amendment has never passed at the ballot box. It has failed everywhere it has been tried, with the voters rejecting it 32 times since 1998.
2. Constitutional bans on gay marriage have been successful 100 percent of time at the ballot box, passing in 31 states, typically with wide margins. This includes liberal strongholds like California and Hawaii. 38 states ban it to some degree.
The people don't appear to want gay marriage, and they are strongly in favor of the biblical definition of marriage. If you don't want to accept the reality that God has defined marriage, then accept the reality that most people are not that hot for this, and they don't want to take the country in this direction.
>> ^petpeeved:
>> ^shinyblurry:
If polygamy were legal, would it be a civil rights issue if he refused to bake one for a polygamous wedding? How about a cake for someone wanted to marry their dog, or their car? He believes marriage is between a man and a woman and refuses to make a cake for any other kind of wedding. This has nothing to do with their sexual orientation, it has to do with his moral opposition to the corruption of the institution of marriage.
>> ^petpeeved:
>> ^shinyblurry:
Don't try that shit, it's discrimination, you know exactly why he was refusing to make a gay wedding cake that type of lying isn't going to help your argument. 2nd it's not a double-standard to hand someone their ass when they say something stupid. You do something counter to the way a society has been going you get shouted down in the public square. We're moving towards legalizing gay marriage and giving equal rights to all americans, you go counter to that you're gonna get yelled at.
Sorry but you're wrong, it isn't discrimination. They were still able to do business there if they wanted another kind of cake, and I'm sure they're still welcome to do so. The man doesn't want to make a gay wedding cake because he believes marriage is between a man and a woman, and that gay marriage is immoral.
Also filth posted on message boards? Is this your first day on the internet? I'm pretty sure Justin Beiber hasn't done anything to anyone on the internet and still he's talked about worse than Hitler. You're in hyperbole country mother fucker, deal with it.
Now you want to continue discriminating against people and not doing your job to make cakes or hand out birth control pills than yeah your life is gonna be made harder. Too bad because you're lives are already way too easy as it is. Complaining about christian discrimination, bitch there's children dying in Africa, shut the fuck up.
So discrimination against Christians is okay, because people talk trash all the time and children are dying in Africa? In other words, you just wave your hand and make excuses..proving that you don't really think discrimination is wrong, so long as its against people you disagree with. It's clear you want equal rights for everyone except Christians.
>> ^Yogi

So blacks weren't being discriminated against on the buses and water fountains, because, hey, they could still ride...just not in the front of the bus and hey, they could get a drink...just not at this particular water fountain.
Sounds like the sequel to separate but equal.


You know what is the main flaw in the argument of Christians who claim that they have the sole right to define what the institution of marriage represents and who is permitted to access it?
Simply this:
Christians don't own, didn't invent, and have no right to control marriage. They don't hold the patent on it. Not the idea of marriage, not the word of marriage, nothing. The concept of marriage belongs to the human race and predates Christianity by millenia and continents. Therefore, they have no special rights or privilege to impose their definition of it upon the rest of the nation.
But don't take my word for it. You have google at your finger tips.



As much as I want to applaud you for shifting to a "fact" based argument with elements of reasoning as opposed to your pure belief based system of thought, I'm greatly confused as to where your statistics are coming from. I'm also a little irked that you forced me to do all the googling by the way. There are mountains of evidence that on every front, from the popular vote to constitutional challenges, that gay marriage is gaining support, not losing it.

Here, let me google it for you.

Just a few rulings on the constitutional level:

November 2003: the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that barring gays and lesbians from marrying violates the state constitution. The Massachusetts Chief Justice concluded that to “deny the protections, benefits, and obligations conferred by civil marriage” to gay couples was unconstitutional because it denied “the dignity and equality of all individuals” and made them “second-class citizens.” Strong opposition followed the ruling.

August 4, 2010: Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker ruled that Proposition 8, the 2008 referendum that banned same-sex marriage in California, violates the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause. "Proposition 8 singles out gays and lesbians and legitimates their unequal treatment," Vaughn wrote in his opinion. "Proposition 8 perpetuates the stereotype that gays and lesbians are incapable of forming long-term loving relationships and that gays and lesbians are not good parents."

February 7, 2012: the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in California ruled 2–1 that Proposition 8, the 2008 referendum that banned same-sex marriage in state, is unconstitutional because it violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. In the ruling, the court said, the law "operates with no apparent purpose but to impose on gays and lesbians, through the public law, a majority's private disapproval of them and their relationships."

On the popular opinion front:

A June 6 CNN/ORC International poll showed that a majority of Americans support same-sex marriage being legalized at 54%, while 42% are opposed.

A May 22 NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll showed that 54% of Americans would support a law in their state making same-sex marriage legal, with 40% opposed.

A May 17-20 ABC News/Washington Post poll showed that 53% believe same-sex marriage should be legal, with only 39% opposed, a low-water mark for opposition in any national poll so far.

A May 10 USA Today/Gallup Poll, taken one day after Barack Obama became the first sitting President to express support for same-sex marriage,[14] showed 51% of Americans agreed with the President's endorsement. A May 8 Gallup Poll showed plurality support for same-sex marriage nationwide, with 50% in favor and 48% opposed.

An April Pew Research Center poll showed support for same-sex marriage at 47%, while opposition fell to an all-time low of 43%.

A March 7-10 ABC News/Washington Post poll found 52% of adults thought it should be legal for same-sex couples to get married, while 42% disagreed and 5% were unsure.[18] A March survey by the Public Religion Research Institute found 52% of Americans supported allowing same-sex couples to marry, while 44% opposed.

A February 29 - March 3 NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll found 49% of adults supported allowing same-sex couples to marry, while 40% opposed.

One last note on a slightly different topic: religious groups funding anti-gay legislation, most notoriously, the Prop. 8 campaign in California. If Christians are going to use their funds as a group, not individuals, why are they being given tax-free exemptions? Why should people, such as myself, who don't share their beliefs, subsidize their political ambitions?

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

I don't want the government to curtail the ability of the religious to practice their faith but I don't think the first amendment was intended to give religions the overwhelming competitive advantage of tax-free money at the ballot box.

This could be solved two ways: no more organizational level contributions to political campaigns, i.e. the close to 200k the Mormon Church donated to support Prop. 8, OR remove tax-exempt status from religions.

By the way, it might seem impossible to conceive of a time when tax-exempt status for religion wasn't taken for granted but it's been a controversial issue from the inception of America. For example, even President Grant and Madison were against tax-exemption for religions.

I think you should have actually read about what happened before you commented.

This is what the owner said:

""If gays come in and want to order birthday cakes or any cakes for any occasion, graduations, or whatever, I have no prejudice against that whatsoever," Phillips told CBS. "It's just the wedding cake, not the people, not their lifestyle."

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/cake-bakery-blasted-refusal-gay-couple-wedding-cake-article-1.1125737#ixzz22M2FLkbs

So yes, my argument does have merit. They also came in an announced that they were gay and told him what the cake was for:

"My first comment was, 'We're getting married"

I'm sure the reason for this was that they already knew they were going to get turned down:

"This is not the first time Phillips has refused to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple. He insists, however, that his stance is not anti-gay."

The gay community in that town already knew about it, and sent someone in to get refused so they could create a story for the media with the hype and drama that has surrounded it, and generate sympathy for their cause.



>> ^JiggaJonson:

@UsesProzac You'll never get through to someone who honestly believes "it's not that he refused to make them a cake because they were gay, he refused to make a gay wedding cake," has any merit as an argument.
To really get somewhere in an argument with someone like this, you need to re-frame the problem into a more basic philosophical question after agree'd upon facts have been established.
Why do he refused service? <<< a rel="nofollow" good place to start apparently. @shinyblurry seems to think it's because of the event that the cake was being used for, so let's continue on that basis.
The next question would be: Does the baker have the right to demand to know what events his cakes are being used for? I mean, if I had some kind of cake-fetish should I be required to disclose it to the baker "Yes, I'm totally gonna stick this cake up my own ass."
^this seems like a more appropriate place for the two of you to continue your discussion in some constructive way.

I have to chuckle when the guy talks about how he's doing more business now because of his views. The same was said about Chik-Fil-A.

Yeah, they're doing more business *now* because it's been publicized. The strong supporters on the right are going to come in droves to support, and the strong supporters on the left are going to...not shop there...ever again and all that money that he could be raking in had he been indifferent is forever lost to him. Not exactly the smartest business decision. In addition...they're supporting him today...but yeah, even the strongest anti-gay is not going to keep buying weddings cakes or keep buying from chik-fil-a as time goes on. It's not sustainable. America's collective ADD is going to kick in and they'll move on to the next outrage. Except now these businesses have shot themselves in the foot because the people who are denied service will continue to not shop there. Do the Anti-Gay supporters plan on buying a wedding cake and eating at Chik-Fil-A every day? Once a week? once a month? Not going to happen. Besides..sounds like too much of a handout to me. Funny how supposedly the supporters of a free-market suddenly don't think free-market principles shouldn't apply to them.

It also galls me from a strictly statistical and historical point of view. Regardless of what side of the aisle you're on, you have to be deaf, blind, and dumb not to realize which way the winds are shifting...and that they aren't going to be shifting back. Support for gay marriage is over 50 percent now. In 5 years, do you honestly think it will be any less? In 10?? In 20??

The CEO of Chik-Fil-A is not long for this earth, and the wedding cake store owner isn't exactly young. Old ideas get replaced by new ones all the time. The sad thing is that we have to wait for enough people to die for change to really occur because they're too stubborn to see reality.

I bet every large retail company keeps track of their popularity by constant polling. Those numbers are supposed to be internal, so we rarely hear about them.>> ^MrFisk:

Chik-fil-A has an approval rating!?

This is a very ugly misconception that you seem to have. Except for several very vocal celebrities, Atheists aren't "against" religion... there certainly isn't some central creed or governing body telling us what to organize against.

What Atheists are against, in the western world, is having our government (and hence our lives) tainted by beliefs that we don't hold. In Muslim countries, there are harsh penalties (up to Death) for blasphemy... so you won't find many people speaking up. In the US, Muslims and Hindus aren't making laws to persecute us, hence why you don't hear us complaining about them.

There's no crusade to remove Religion... There's no attempt to persecute Christians, we just want the ability to go about our heathen lives in peace.

Here is a bunch of atheists who disagree with you: http://www.reddit.com/r/atheism

This is probably because the content in the video was a pseudo-intellectual, pseudo-philosophical sermon that made such astronomical leaps that it didn't need to be said.

Pretty harsh point for the people who enjoyed it. If that's true then make your case against it, since you have understood it so well as to completely dismiss it.

There wasn't an argument made for this. For some reason, you seem to believe that "the things we do in life have no meaning after we die" turns people into sociopaths... And since we're not all sociopaths, that proves that God exists. The first issue is that you assume that 'meaninglessness' leads to sociopathic behavior. Secondly, this is a textbook example of Denying the Antecedant fallacy.

Show me where anyone said this, or even implied it.

--Skipping the story--

Is this really your argument? 80% of the people you meet were raised Christian (even most of the Atheists)... This is confirmation bias... You can't say something is put there by God when Religion was preaching to them on a weekly basis. If there really were some sort of imperative planted by God... wouldn't there be far less religious wars?

Breaking news... people really do spend their entire lives 'waxing philosophically'... People do die for things that their religion has told them was wrong, but they felt was right (Anti-Gay Violence?).

That's what is called sitting in Gods lap to slap His face, or borrowing from my worldview to establish yours, and this really isn't an argument in your favor. Also, as far as sin goes, do you understand Christian theology?

This is news to me... I believe Mormons teach this, but all other denominations preach that when you accept the Holy Spirit, it moves you to do good deeds... that the good deeds aren't your own.

Revelation 22:12

And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.

You seem to be deliberately misunderstanding me here. I was very specifically using the definition of 'meaningless' that the speaker above uses... as in, 'meaning nothing after you die'.

But that isn't the definition he used. He applied it to past present and future.

My point exactly. The only thing that matters is that you've accepted Jesus as your Savior. NOTHING else matters... hence it is meaningless.

Where do you get the hence from? Meaning is meaning. Even if there was only one meaningful act you could ever do, it would still be meaningful. However, in the context of God, everything takes on its true meaning, attaining the purpose it was created for.

You completely ignored my point here. Except for the Mennonites, there are no other denominations (in the US) that take a hard stance against violence. None. Zero. This country is 80% Christian, and yet we've been at war for 209 of 235 years of our existence.

No ignored my point that religions don't matter, because the true church is the body of Christ. You want to blame an institution, and that's fine, but that isn't what the church is.

Let me be very clear on this: ALL CHRISTIAN RELIGIONS IN THE US ARE FALSE purely based on this one single fact (again, excluding Mennonites)... Granted, that doesn't prove that God doesn't exist... but it certainly does mean that I can't trust any US-based Christians...

I believe all denominations are false because they bring separation to the body of Christ.

What have you done to end discrimination (of ALL types)? Have you participated in any protests against wars, for Gay Marriage, for Women's Rights? Have you stood up in Church to let everyone know that you think it's wrong to discriminate against others, regardless of what they've done?

I'm against discrimination, flat out, and I would say something if I see it. I don't go to protests, no. I use my time to help people in many other ways.

I'd recommend reading up on philosophy, logical debate, and comparative religion... and finding a denomination that is above reproach. The reason Atheists always seem to have the same 'tired' arguments all the time is because we don't need to have new ones... the old arguments still come out in our favor.

I'd recommend the same to you, and the old arguments obviously are not coming out in your favor since atheism is in decline

http://www.sneps.net/RD/uploads/1-Shall%20the%20Religious%20Inherit%20the%20Earth.pdf

This is the point where most Atheists become seriously pissed... Simply stating that someone is wrong because they don't believe what you believe is not the way to have a discussion. Especially when what you believe isn't widely believed by your own fellow Christians. LCMS, Presbyterians and Seventh-Day Adventists are the only denominations that officially preach Young-Earth Creationism...

The whole point is, if it is an old earth, it doesn't make sense that Jesus would come after 198000 years of struggle. That doesn't really prove anything, but the entire point is invalidated if it is a young Earth. Do you see what I am saying? I didn't say he was wrong, I just said what I believe.

>> ^hatsix

The goal of posting this video was to spur interesting conversations on philosophical topics, but so far everyone (with an exception here and there) seems interested in discussing the same old atheist talking points and ignoring the content of the video entirely.

This is probably because the content in the video was a pseudo-intellectual, pseudo-philosophical sermon that made such astronomical leaps that it didn't need to be said.

The argument that was made, I think, is that if you're an atheist you're leading a double life. On one hand, you are committed to this relativism which makes every value judgment subjective, but on the other hand, you live as though there are absolute values and meaning.

There wasn't an argument made for this. For some reason, you seem to believe that "the things we do in life have no meaning after we die" turns people into sociopaths... And since we're not all sociopaths, that proves that God exists. The first issue is that you assume that 'meaninglessness' leads to sociopathic behavior. Secondly, this is a textbook example of Denying the Antecedant fallacy.

--Skipping the story--

The point being that while it's easy to wax philosophical about these points, no one really lives that way. We all have an idea of what is wrong, and if there is something the way it shouldn't be, then naturally there is also a way it ought to be. Where does that come from?

Is this really your argument? 80% of the people you meet were raised Christian (even most of the Atheists)... This is confirmation bias... You can't say something is put there by God when Religion was preaching to them on a weekly basis. If there really were some sort of imperative planted by God... wouldn't there be far less religious wars?

Breaking news... people really do spend their entire lives 'waxing philosophically'... People do die for things that their religion has told them was wrong, but they felt was right (Anti-Gay Violence?).

Yes, if you don't support gay marriage, you are, by definition, anti-gay. (I have never heard of any gay person who doesn't like straight people getting married. Have you???)

You're correct that homosexuals aren't defined by their ability to marry one another. They, like all humans, are defined in part by their rights, of which marriage is one.

You're correct, Chik Fil-A didn't donate to anti-gay campaigns. They donated to the anti-gay organizations that run them. Same difference, as far as I'm concerned, but if you want to split hairs...

As our country is more closely aligned with fascism inasmuch as government is "gay married" to the corporations, then where/how corporations spend their money is of increasing importance to the consumers who are, in essence, voting to support issues with their dollars.

Your analogy of the birthday present is not the same thing, because I, unlike a corporation, do not have political power like they do. If the present was $50 Million, and it was donated to Al Qaeda, then yes, you would have supported terrorism with your "gift."

Anyone who says the following is clearly running an anti-gay agenda:
"I think we are 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' and I pray God's mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we have the audacity to try to redefine what marriage is all about."

Dan Cathy, Chick-Fil-A Pres. and COO, The Ken Coleman Show, June 16th.


... even though he clearly has little understanding of how marriage was originally defined in the Bible (which commands that brothers-in-law marry widows, or that rapists marry the women they rape) as if that even mattered!.


>> ^Edgeman2112:

>> ^Trancecoach:
You're right. The fact that they do things for married couples doesn't mean that they're anti-gay. The fact that they donate large bundles of money to anti-gay campaigns, on the other hand, does mean that they support anti-gay policies.
Did you not watch the video??>> ^Edgeman2112:
This is reaaaaaaaaaaaallly stretching it. Just because they do things for married couples doesn't mean they hate gays. I side with the chicken people on this one because they're a victim of gross generalization.


Yes I watched the video, but you are the one who fell for the sensationalism.
Let's be rational and fair here. If you don't support gay marriage, does that automatically label you as anti-gay? F-ck no it doesn't. If gay people don't like straight people getting married, does that make they're anti-straight? F-ck no it doesn't. It's a ludicrous generalization.
Each group of people isn't defined by their ability to marry one another. This is the mistake complainers are often guilty of making.
And no, they didn't make donations to anti-gay campaigns. They made donations to the organizations. What they then do with that money is not Chic Fil A's business. If I give you 50$ for a birthday present, then you donate that to Al-Queda, the media will portray me as supporting terrorism.
I don't like to jump to conclusions based on things I hear on the internet, and I do love that spicy chicken sandwich with a half and half sweet tea and waffle fries.

Just to clarify; If you think gay people should have less rights than heterosexuals than that makes you Anti-gay. Just as if you think Black people, Hispanics or Jews should have less rights than whites than you are racist.

I thought we covered all this in the 60s?

>> ^Trancecoach:

You're right. The fact that they do things for married couples doesn't mean that they're anti-gay. The fact that they donate large bundles of money to anti-gay campaigns, on the other hand, does mean that they support anti-gay policies.
Did you not watch the video??>> ^Edgeman2112:
This is reaaaaaaaaaaaallly stretching it. Just because they do things for married couples doesn't mean they hate gays. I side with the chicken people on this one because they're a victim of gross generalization.



Yes I watched the video, but you are the one who fell for the sensationalism.

Let's be rational and fair here. If you don't support gay marriage, does that automatically label you as anti-gay? F-ck no it doesn't. If gay people don't like straight people getting married, does that make they're anti-straight? F-ck no it doesn't. It's a ludicrous generalization.

Each group of people isn't defined by their ability to marry one another. This is the mistake complainers are often guilty of making.

And no, they didn't make donations to anti-gay campaigns. They made donations to the organizations. What they then do with that money is not Chic Fil A's business. If I give you 50$ for a birthday present, then you donate that to Al-Queda, the media will portray me as supporting terrorism.

I don't like to jump to conclusions based on things I hear on the internet, and I do love that spicy chicken sandwich with a half and half sweet tea and waffle fries.

You're right. The fact that they do things for married couples doesn't mean that they're anti-gay. The fact that they donate large bundles of money to anti-gay campaigns, on the other hand, does mean that they support anti-gay policies.

Did you not watch the video??>> ^Edgeman2112:

This is reaaaaaaaaaaaallly stretching it. Just because they do things for married couples doesn't mean they hate gays. I side with the chicken people on this one because they're a victim of gross generalization.

because what you buy increasingly impacts what policies get funded.>> ^VoodooV:

Why does anyone care what a chicken restaurant thinks about...well...anything other than chicken?

http://videosift.com/video/GOProud-Matt-Hissey-likes-Sarah-doesnt-like-gays

Mr Savage posted this video on the above referenced blog, in support of his thesis about Republican Gays and how they could possibly endorse someone who is so anti-gay.