Wednesday, July 25, 2012

Eat More Chikin: Tolerance Police brandishing their truncheons against Chick-fil-A

Just in case you're wondering where that sound of goose-stepping is coming from, you might check out the news from Chicago, where an alderman (and now, apparently the mayor) is trying to prevent Chick-fil-A from building a second store in town because of its president's position on gay "marriage."

And then there's Boston Mayor Thomas Menino, who revealed himself this week as a st├╝rmfuhrer in the Brown Shorts, and who has declared that Chick-fil-A "doesn't belong in Boston."

As if we needed further proof of the increasing intolerance of the gay rights movement.

The Tolerance Police apparently don't see any inconsistency in preaching tolerance on one day, and then getting out their political truncheons to intimidate a private company because of its president's religiously-based belief that marriage should be between a man and a woman on the other.

Apparently one of the rights the gay rights movement wants is the right to infringe on the rights of conscience of others. [Click heels here]

HT: The Volokh Conspiracy, Michelle Malkin

29 comments:

Anonymous said...

homophobe.

ZPenn said...

really, anonymous? Can't you disagree with the man intelligently?

Martin Cothran said...

Maybe he's scared to. What would that make him: a logophobe?

William said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Lee said...

They're brandishing their truncheons, alright, but it looks more like the Keystone Kops than the local precinct. Even Mother Jones dissented, which gives me hope. If the looniest bin of Left America still believes in the First Amendment, maybe there's hope.

KyCobb said...

I would just point out that he doesn't merely have a religious belief, he spends millions of dollars encouraging government to violate the civil rights of LGBT people. When intolerant people whine about a lack of tolerance for their intolerance, I have to laugh at the hypocrisy.

Anonymous said...

What civil right is the government violating?

KyCobb said...

The right to equal protection of the law.

Lee said...

What law or part of the constitution guarantees the right of people to marry people they find sexually attractive?

Lee said...

> The right to equal protection of the law.

For that to become true, the definition of marriage has to be changed.

In the traditional meaning of the term, no civil rights have been violated. Gays have as much right as straights to get married. And many have.

KyCobb said...

Lee,

Many states have changed the definition of marriage. DOMA is unconstitutional because there is no rational basis for the U.S. to deny federal benefits to some legally married couples and not others. Prop 8 is unconstitutional because there was no rational basis for revoking the right of LBGT to marry.

Lee said...

Are you saying that if one state says it's legal for same-sex couples to marry, all states are forced by the Constitution to do the same?

Does the same logic apply, say, to drinking laws? If 19-year-olds are allowed to drink in Nebraska, then Virginia in violation of the Constitution for enforcing a 21-year-old requirement?

KyCobb said...

Lee,

No, I'm saying that the Federal government can't deny federal benefits to some legally married couples that it grants to other legally married couples without a rational basis for doing so.

Lee said...

> No, I'm saying that the Federal government can't deny federal benefits to some legally married couples that it grants to other legally married couples without a rational basis for doing so.

So you're saying the Constitution requires the federal government to accept gay marriage as valid?

KyCobb said...

Lee,

I'm saying the federal government is required to provide equal protection of the law. If a heterosexual couple legally married in Massachusetts is entitled to a federal benefit, then the federal government cannot deny that benefit to a homosexual couple legally married in Massachusetts unless it has a rational basis for doing so. If the federal government quit recognizing legal heterosexual marriages, then it would not have to recognize legal homosexual marriages either.

Lee said...

So to answer my question, you are saying yes, the federal government is required by the Constitution to view single-sex marriage as valid provided any one of fifty states does so.

So then somewhere we must have a constitutional amendment stating that any right recognized by any state is therefore forced onto the federal government and any other state which does not recognize that right.

It seems to me your argument could easily go the other way: we can't allow gay marriage because it is not recognized in most state, and equal protection under the law requires that it be the same everywhere.

KyCobb said...

No Lee, you completely misunderstood my argument. The federal government does not have to recognize any marriage as valid. However, if the federal government does provide benefits to some married couples, it has to have a rational basis for denying those same benefits to other married couples. That is equal protection of the law.

Martin Cothran said...

KyCobb,

What's your definition of "rational basis"?

KyCobb said...

Martin,

A rational basis has to conceivably advance a legitimate objective of the government. For example, you can't just assert that granting federal benefits to legally married same-sex couples will damage legally married heterosexual couples, you have to be able to make a cogent argument explaining how which passes the smell test. Theological arguments won't get the job done, because the federal government is constitutionally barred from preferring the theological beliefs of some sects over others.

ZPenn said...

I think maybe the main problem with this whole marriage legalization argument is that marriage is a part of the legal system in the first place. If marriage is a religious institution, then the government should not have any laws for or against any marriage, gay or straight, simply because that's not something the government has a right to touch due to the first ammendment. My personal opinion is that the best way to handle this situation is to de-legalize all marriages, and in the legal sector of our lives allow for civil unions between any two adult citizens. this type of union would carry all of the legal benefits currently afforded married people, but it would not carry with it a sexual component. In fact, two platonic friends who decided to live together for financial purposes could utilize the civil unions in a utilitarian sense. marriage would become a personal non-legal entity that citizens could choose to become without needing the legal loopholes, and anyone currently married under the law could be grandfathered in to the civil union status without any trouble. This would give the power to individual churches to recognize only the marriages they deem holy, while allowing secular people to make their own personal decisions about marriage without their rights being infringed upon by anyone else. I don't see why this redefinition isn't beneficial to both sides of the debate.

Martin Cothran said...

KyCobb,

What is the rational basis for same-sex marriage?

KyCobb said...

Martin,

"What is the rational basis for same-sex marriage?"

It preserves LGBT people's equal protection rights under the Constitution.

KyCobb said...

I should also point out that the government doesn't have to articulate a rational basis for a law unless someone asserts that it violates their constitutional rights, and no-one's rights are violated by legalizing same-sex marriage.

Lee said...

> No Lee, you completely misunderstood my argument. The federal government does not have to recognize any marriage as valid. However, if the federal government does provide benefits to some married couples, it has to have a rational basis for denying those same benefits to other married couples. That is equal protection of the law.

Therefore, if one state says two guys are lawfully married, you are saying the federal government is forced to accept that as well.

Like I said.

You say the feds need a "rational basis" to deny, but it sounds more definitional than rational to me. It is rational to expect the feds to pay out *if* the relationship is really marriage. But that's what the debate is all about: is it?

Your line of reasoning doesn't ask the question and simply assumes a 'yes' answer.

KyCobb said...

Lee,

You have made this definitional argument before, and its not rational. Humans have been redefining marriage for millenia. And if you are basing your argument on the claim that the dictionary is the final arbiter of what the law should be, rather than the government, then you have already lost your case.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/marriage

ZPenn said...

Why does the government have to define marriage in the first place; shouldn't something like that be left up to the individuals? I direct you to the tenth ammendment of the constitution of the Unites States...

Lee said...

> You have made this definitional argument before, and its not rational. Humans have been redefining marriage for millenia.

So what you are saying is that because marriage rules can be changed, they can therefore be changed in an utterly arbitrary fashion.

If I'm modifying my '55 Chevy to have a 450 hp engine, I'm modifying it. And if I remove the axles, I'm also modifying it. Only, modifying it one way helps, and the other way hurts. But under your argument, change is change.

KyCobb said...

Lee,

"modifying it one way helps, and the other way hurts. But under your argument, change is change."

If you are arguing that same-sex marriage hurts, all you have to do to justify DOMA is show that there is a rational basis for your belief. Its the easiest legal burden to meet; only the most discriminatory and irrational laws fail to survive the rational basis test.

ZPenn said...

Lee,

I would hardly call the legalization of gay marriage arbitrary.