MERGED: Chick-fil-A

  • Thread starter Thread starter spencelo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

spencelo

Guest
Suppose Chick-fil-A implemented a policy of not serving *married *same-sex couples, on the grounds that doing so would be a tacit endorsement of SSM. Should Chick-fil-A be allowed to discriminate against them?
 
spencelo said:
Suppose Chick-fil-A implemented a policy of not serving *married *same-sex couples, on the grounds that doing so would be a tacit endorsement of SSM. Should Chick-fil-A be allowed to discriminate against them?
Click to expand...
Sure. They actually had that policy several years ago.

They’re not refusing service to people merely because they’re gay in hypothetical land. They’re refusing to serve people who publicly recognize a certain type of union as a marriage. They have every right to refuse service.

Honestly, if they refused to serve to straight couples that’s their right, but I doubt they’ll get much business.
 
Marc_Anthony said:
Sure. They actually had that policy several years ago.

They’re not refusing service to people merely because they’re gay in hypothetical land. They’re refusing to serve people who publicly recognize a certain type of union as a marriage. They have every right to refuse service.

Honestly, if they refused to serve to straight couples that’s their right, but I doubt they’ll get much business.
Click to expand...
When did they have the policy?
 
spencelo said:
Suppose Chick-fil-A implemented a policy of not serving *married *same-sex couples, on the grounds that doing so would be a tacit endorsement of SSM. Should Chick-fil-A be allowed to discriminate against them?
Click to expand...
Legally, yes. Socially, no.

Although the error may have no dignity, the person who errs does.
 
Marc_Anthony said:
Sure. They actually had that policy several years ago.

They’re not refusing service to people merely because they’re gay in hypothetical land. They’re refusing to serve people who publicly recognize a certain type of union as a marriage. They have every right to refuse service.

Honestly, if they refused to serve to straight couples that’s their right, but I doubt they’ll get much business.
Click to expand...
I agree with you that such is their moral (if not legal) right, as no one should compel another for service.

However do you think it is just of them to do so? What if it was an interracial couple, for example?
 
Actually, legally no because Chick-fil-A is a place of public accommodation.
Click to expand...
They can if sexual orientation is not a protected status.
 
Pretty certain there are anti-discrimination laws that would fine or close them down if a company was found to have a policy that so discriminated.

This is of course all backwards from what is happening in reality. The company is being discriminated against operating because of a religiously based belief that practicing homosexuality is a sin.
 
spencelo said:
Actually, legally no because Chick-fil-A is a place of public accommodation.
Click to expand...
  1. In the US, in most states, sexual orientation is not a protected class. Also, in most states, same sex marriage is not a recognized construct. There is no such thing, in Texas for example, as a same-sex married couple.
  2. Even if it was, in the hypothetical, CFA would not be discriminating against any individual. Fast food is not a couples activity. In the sceario you gave, CFA would serve any single person, straight or homosexual. They would just choose not to serve people who made their flouting of local law into an issue at the counter. (because without flouting, no one would know the two were living as if they were married)
But it is (by statute) in many states.
Click to expand...
Only 9 states and DC.
 
_Abyssinia said:
When did they have the policy?
Click to expand...
Right, instead of lying and giving a BS answer, I’ll tell you the truth: Hearsay from people who are against the policy on facebook 🤷 It doesn’t really make much of a difference to the hypothetical anyway.

VeritasMuxLea asks:
**However do you think it is just of them to do so? What if it was an interracial couple, for example? **

Believe it or not for once I think the Bishops gave a pretty good explanation on how interracial marriage and same-sex marriage are different (I don’t always think the Bishops give the best answers on such questions).

Isn’t allowing two men or two women to marry just an extension of allowing interracial couples to marry?

There is no valid analogy between the goal of “redefining” marriage to include persons of the same sex, and the historical movement to allow interracial couples to marry. The sexual relations between a man and a woman are simply not the same as the sexual relations between two men or between two women, regardless of their ethnicity. The intimate acts of husband and wife are able to unite them fully and to enable them to welcome children. Sexual difference is an essential characteristic of marriage; ethnic sameness or difference is not. Marriage is rooted in nature: two people of the same sex are no more being denied the “right” to marry than a man is “denied” the “right” to gestate and nurse a child.

So basically the difference is that people of different races have no natural law impediment to marriage while two people of the same-sex DO have a natural law impediment to marriage. It is perfectly reasonable to think that societal laws should reflect natural law.

[Let’s avoid natural law strawmen for now. The definition of natural law and possible objections to it can be discussed in another thread, they’re off topic in this one. Rest assured that I believe that societal law should reflect natural law when possible.]
 
Corki said:
  1. In the US, in most states, sexual orientation is not a protected class. Also, in most states, same sex marriage is not a recognized construct. There is no such thing, in Texas for example, as a same-sex married couple.
  2. Even if it was, in the hypothetical, CFA would not be discriminating against any individual. Fast food is not a couples activity. In the sceario you gave, CFA would serve any single person, straight or homosexual. They would just choose not to serve people who made their flouting of local law into an issue at the counter. (because without flouting, no one would know the two were living as if they were married)
Click to expand...
Very good answer. 👍
 
spencelo said:
Suppose Chick-fil-A implemented a policy of not serving *married *same-sex couples, on the grounds that doing so would be a tacit endorsement of SSM. Should Chick-fil-A be allowed to discriminate against them?
Click to expand...
Yes. We discriminate behavioral acts all the time.
 
Marc_Anthony said:
There is no valid analogy between the goal of “redefining” marriage to include persons of the same sex, and the historical movement to allow interracial couples to marry. The sexual relations between a man and a woman are simply not the same as the sexual relations between two men or between two women, regardless of their ethnicity. The intimate acts of husband and wife are able to unite them fully and to enable them to welcome children. Sexual difference is an essential characteristic of marriage; ethnic sameness or difference is not. Marriage is rooted in nature: two people of the same sex are no more being denied the “right” to marry than a man is “denied” the “right” to gestate and nurse a child.

So basically the difference is that people of different races have no natural law impediment to marriage while two people of the same-sex DO have a natural law impediment to marriage. It is perfectly reasonable to think that societal laws should reflect natural law.

[Let’s avoid natural law strawmen for now. The definition of natural law and possible objections to it can be discussed in another thread, they’re off topic in this one. Rest assured that I believe that societal law should reflect natural law when possible.]
Click to expand...
As far as I can tell, natural law sounds identical to Catholic theology – I doubt there is a meaningful difference between the two.
 
On a related note, listening to today’s show, I was reminded of a famous quote we learned in elementery school from the French philosopher Voltaire, “I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” Our political correctness (which is a gross misnomer) is now attacking any opinions that deviate from what is “politically correct”. Such as this Chik-fil-A issue. This is wrongheaded, out of line and downright un-American and needs to stop.
 
migueltojose said:
On a related note, listening to today’s show, I was reminded of a famous quote we learned in elementery school from the French philosopher Voltaire, “I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” Our political correctness (which is a gross misnomer) is now attacking any opinions that deviate from what is “politically correct”. Such as this Chik-fil-A issue. This is wrongheaded, out of line and downright un-American and needs to stop.
Click to expand...
A communist state:

Restricts free speech
and
Restricts freedom of religion.

Is America turning red?
 
The food was excellent, the workers (which included people of all races) were very friendly, and the dining tables and the bathrooms were very clean. I rate it a 10 out of 10 since they add a lot of extra touches that typical fast food chains don’t have. They also brought our food to us at our table. My kids loved the kid’s playroom (I don’t know if every restaurant has this), so it was very family friendly, too. Now I know why they have had such popularity.

By the way, if liberals succeed in their crusade to put Chick-fil-A out of business, they will also be putting a lot of African Americans out of a job. And that’s the last thing African Americans need since they’ve been hit the worst by this failed economy.
 
livingwordunity said:
The food was excellent, the workers (which included people of all races) were very friendly, and the dining tables and the bathrooms were very clean. I rate it a 10 out of 10 since they add a lot of extra touches that typical fast food chains don’t have. They also brought our food to us at our table. My kids loved the kid’s playroom (I don’t know if every restaurant has this), so it was very family friendly, too. Now I know why they have had such popularity.

By the way, if liberals succeed in their crusade to put Chick-fil-A out of business, they will also be putting a lot of African Americans out of a job. And that’s the last thing African Americans need since they’ve been hit the worst by this failed economy.
Click to expand...
Love it. I went for my first time last saturday and had an identically amazing experience. And the best part is: it tasted awesome. I can’t wait to go back.

Chick-fil-A should be the official meeting place for Christians.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top