Gay Marriage at Cedar Point: Please help us!

sirloindude said:

I know that the viewpoints of the company's CEO aren't popular...

They're unpopular because they're intolerant. But really, that isn't the problem with CFA. The problem is that their income is used, in part, to prevent a particular group of folks from enjoying the same rights as others.

San Diego's mayor is charged with sexual misconduct, but I don't see anybody crying out that we should boycott visiting the city.

That's an astonishingly poor comparison. Banging someone you're not supposed to isn't remotely in the same category as donating money to groups that work to prevent gay couples from marrying.

They haven't denied service to anybody...

Yes, how nice of them to take money from the same people they're trying to oppress.

...if you're going to demand tolerance and acceptance, you have to offer it as well, and that applies on all sides of the issue.

I'll never understand how anyone can make the "intolerance of intolerance" argument with a straight face.

Cedar Point is following Disney's lead. Both are following the laws of their respective jurisdictions. :)

sirloindude said:
San Diego's mayor is charged with sexual misconduct, but I don't see anybody crying out that we should boycott visiting the city.

There is no one defending him, there is nothing to boycott against. He is being charged and tried.

I knew my post would get ripped apart eventually.

Here's my main issue with the whole thing: you don't like Chick-fil-A because they don't support the LGBT community. I totally respect people's views on that. However, to use a different example than San Diego, consider the whole discussion we had a while back about how Disney and some of the Orlando parks were giving money to Republican politicians in Florida for their campaigns. Those Orlando parks are definitely LGBT-friendly, but I can almost guarantee that somebody they donated money to probably doesn't share the viewpoints of some of you on any one of a number of issues, be they LGBT-related or not.

I'm not saying you all need to support Chick-fil-A with open arms. I'm not saying people need to be tolerant of everything. I'm just saying that calling on Cedar Fair to wipe the Chick-fil-As out of their parks screams double standard to me. You're trying to deny them the right to operate and serve despite them being more than happy to serve you. Just don't buy anything from them.

I'll openly admit I'm a Christian, and even I read about some of the organizations Chick-fil-A supports and cracked up at what some of them are trying to do. How one thinks they can "cure" homosexuality as if it's some sort of medical condition is beyond me. I love me some Chick-fil-A, but supporting something like that just seems wack. However, I'm not going to scream that Chick-fil-A should crawl into a corner and die because I can accept the fact that some entity might have some off-the-wall values and not define it by just one set. It'd be one thing if they were outright discriminating, because at that point I'd be calling for their removal as well if for no other reason than that flies in the face of Christianity itself. There's a difference between discriminating and simply being unsupportive, though, and I think that's the key issue.

Again, I'm not in any way saying you have to agree with them, but I am saying that whether you like it or not, the simple laws of logic dictate that absolute tolerance includes tolerating the beliefs of people who don't see eye-to-eye with you. If you don't like them, that's cool. I totally respect that.

sirloindude said:

I knew my post would get ripped apart eventually.

And yet you posted it. :-)

You're trying to deny them the right to operate and serve despite them being more than happy to serve you.

That's total nonsense. I don't have any problem with them selling chicken, so long as their profits aren't used to systematically prevent a group from enjoying the same rights as they do.

I love me some Chick-fil-A, but supporting something like that just seems wack.

And yet you support them.

It'd be one thing if they were outright discriminating, because at that point I'd be calling for their removal as well if for no other reason than that flies in the face of Christianity itself. There's a difference between discriminating and simply being unsupportive, though, and I think that's the key issue.

Preventing a group from enjoying the same rights as others isn't discriminatory? Since when?

...absolute tolerance includes tolerating the beliefs of people who don't see eye-to-eye with you.

I'm not intolerant of others' beliefs. I am intolerant of discrimination and oppression, however. CFA engages in the latter.

I am intolerant of intolerance?

To be quite honest, if someone is selling somethign that I want, I don't care if theyr'e giving the money to Hitler, Saddam, Osama, or what. People have the right to spend the money they make on whatever they want. I don't care.

It's called capitalism. But if they spend money on harming Viking Hamsters riding on chickens, then I'll boycott.

Tekwardo said:

But if they spend money on harming Viking Hamsters riding on chickens, then I'll boycott.

Ooooh. Cross-referencing Facebook posts and taking it to a new level of inside joke.

I'm okay with making a moral stand with my wallet against the public policies or operations of a corporation. In fact, it's almost certainly a more powerful expression of democracy than my vote. That said, this isn't about the public policies or operations of Chick-Fil-A. I'm sure someone I disagree with profits every time I buy anything.

I'm not going to get into a ten-page debate about this. Honestly, I am perfectly fine with many of you not supporting Chick-fil-A, and considering how important the rights of the LGBT community is to so many people, I don't even get why some of you would support them. My whole point is that you calling for their removal from the CF parks and your desire to deny them the right to offer their product is as much discrimination as them supporting companies that don't support you.

I totally respect your views. I'm just asking that people find a way to express their views without calling for the elimination of the opposing viewpoint, and that applies to Chick-fil-A as well as members of the LGBT community.

Edit: Andy said it better than I ever could.

ApolloAndy said:

I'm sure someone I disagree with profits every time I buy anything.

Of course. But for me, there's a stark difference between disagreement on a particular issue where a lot of gray area may exist, and outright discrimination and oppression based on a book. And I'm sure that if we play Six Degrees of Separation, many of my purchases probably end up doing some truly horrible things.

But in this case, the link is clear and obvious, and anyone who has paid even a little attention in recent years knows exactly what CFA does with their profit.

Re: Andy:

I'm okay with people doing that as well, but don't step on my right to buy Chic Fil A at Cedar Point if I want to. The world is not fair. Sorry. Is it right that certain people don't have certain rights? Some people feel yes, others feel no. That's why we live in a 'free' society.

sirloindude said:

...I'm just asking that people find a way to express their views without calling for the elimination of the opposing viewpoint...

And hopefully for the last time, no one here has called for the elimination of their viewpoint, least of all me. What I have called for is the elimination of their oppressive behavior. There's a huge difference there that you seem unwilling to accept.

Tekwardo said:

...don't step on my right to buy Chic Fil A at Cedar Point if I want to.

Buying fried chicken is a civil right?

In my opinion, it is.

Ha ha. Buying fast food chicken at an amusement park is not a civil right.

"Equal rights for most" just really strikes me as bad public policy. "Most" would certainly agree that the few who disagree are in the wrong, and perhaps can even be treated as less-than-equal. The rights of "minorities" (not racially-based or preference-based, but merely a matter of statistics) must be protected as a matter of law, or else they will disappear.

One way to get a better view is to knock someone else down, then stand on top of them....but that's not really what we want as a society, is it?

eightdotthree said:

Ha ha. Buying fast food chicken at an amusement park is not a civil right.

I would like to think I didn't need to clarify that I was being facetious. But civil rights are obviously different to different people. That was the point I'm making.

There are people that feel that non white people shouldn't be allowed to marry white people. There are people that feel that people of this religion shoudn't marry people of that religion. Those people feel you're violating their civil rights.

I'm not saying that is or isn't right. I'm saying that's the way it is and we can get all lovey dovey and say let's make a change as much as we want. Love and rainbows and unicorns only go so far before they hit the ground.

djDaemon said:
there's a stark difference between disagreement on a particular issue where a lot of gray area may exist, and outright discrimination and oppression based on a book.

Why? And who gets to make that distinction? You? And is basing decisions based on "a book" inherently wrong? What about all the parts where the book teaches people to love and share and fight for justice? Is all that bunk as well?

What makes this issue "clearly right" vs. "clearly wrong"? I see a acres of gray area in there and many people I know and value see it black and white the other way from you.

Equal rights for most is better than where we started: equal rights for few (white, rich men). Our country was founded on discrimination and we have been fighting it ever since. History shows it to be an ongoing battle with few quick victories.

ApolloAndy said:

djDaemon said:

there's a stark difference between disagreement on a particular issue where a lot of gray area may exist, and outright discrimination and oppression based on a book.

Why? And who gets to make that distinction?

Because if one person simply disagrees with another on an issue, there is no inherent denial of life, liberty, etc.. However, if one person is actively trying to deny someone a particular civil right, then there is an inherent denial of life, liberty, etc.. That seems like a pretty clear distinction. I'm not saying that a fundamental Christian has to agree that two guys should be able to marry. I'm simply saying his disagreement is not an appropriate justification for denying those people that right.

...is basing decisions based on "a book" inherently wrong?

Not universally. But when those decisions deny basic rights to a certain segment of people, it is.

What makes this issue "clearly right" vs. "clearly wrong"?

Because in this case, the justification for denying people a basic right is simply "our religion prohibits it". Well, religion is a personal choice, and is therefore not something that should be forced on others.