Jump to content
IGNORED

"Voting" with Your Pocketbook?


Ken H.

Recommended Posts

Yes,and when they Dixie Chicks exercised their free speech they got beat down hard for it, Radio stations refused to play their music. The chicken or the egg?

 

I never saw the reason for banning prayer in public schools. I always thought that prayer was a positive and affirmative vehicle until I saw Mr. Cathy's description of his prayers. If prayer can be so disruptive, then I can see why it is banned.

 

People are losing privileges such as icons in public places and prayer in schools. I thinks they view this as intolerance and they feel embattled and have a desire to preserve some of their traditions.

 

On the other side are people that don't have much to lose in their effort to gain or support equal rights.

Link to comment
...

 

But my query isn’t about this specific example (nor intent to start a debate about Dan Cathy vs. Gay Marriage) but rather a question about how much do you/we, or should we make our where we shop/buy/eat/stay/etc decisions based our own personal alignment with, or lack thereof, a business’s social positions/values?

 

...specially because of Dan Cathy’s statements.

 

 

 

My consideration of your question goes beyond Cathy's mere statements. Shouldn't one be concerned with his company's track record of out of court settlements with employees who were discriminated against for their personal beliefs / life style as well as the obligation of training, not so much about preparing / serving sandwiches, but the indoctrination of Cathy's chosen religion based values. Does a non-christian, a gay person or a person living in a common law relationship have equal access to work in his organization?

 

My decision to cross one of Chic's thresholds would be based more on what Cathy has done with his social convictions/values. It's one thing for him to have them - after all, it's his right. It's another thing that he uses his position/power/influence to discriminate against potential or active employees who don't share his personal convictions, which I believe is their constitutional right.

 

In this case you are mistaken. In most states, employment is "at will". If I only want to hire blue eyed employees, I can do so. In the US, if you don't belong to a "protected class," you have no constitutional right to employment.

 

 

Link to comment
Does a non-christian, a gay person or a person living in a common law relationship have equal access to work in his organization?
Why should they? Should a private business owner have to hire someone who doesn't share his (& thus his company's) values? Should a church be forced to hire atheists as preachers? Should an abortion clinic be forced to hire an anti-abortion demonstrator as a receptionist? Should an anti-abortion advocacy group be forced to hire abortionists for their reception desk? No one anywhere owes any individual a job.

 

Legally, we may require that someone not discriminate based on protected classes of people because we believe it is in the greater good of the country. Business owners who disagree with them have to look at those laws and say the cost of obeying them does not outweigh the benefits of owning a business. Society has to look at them and decide if those laws prevent certain businesses from forming and thus the jobs for the unprotected classes from being created. It's a balance.

 

Cathy can choose to discriminate for whatever reason he chooses - it's HIS company. If he chooses to do so in ways that are illegal, he'll pay a penalty. If he chooses to do so in ways that invite litigation he'll pay for that as well. If he decides those costs are worth incurring in order to keep a company staffed with people who support his agenda, then that's his right. If gays/lesbians/living together without marriage people don't like those who think differently then they don't need to work for one of them. Forcing him to hire them isn't going to make him like them. If they are really pissed, they should start a chicken restaurant and prove to him the rightness of their position by being more successful and driving him out of business. In the meantime, they should vote with the feet and work for someone else. No one is forced to work for Cathy. He shouldn't be forced to have someone work for him that he disagrees with.

 

And that is exactly the crux of recently implemented legislation that requires employers to provide services to which they have a moral/theological objection.

 

This whole discussion about CF is another example of the continued culture wars that we will see for a long time to come.

 

"Fasten your seatbelts: It's gonna be a bumpy night."

Link to comment
This whole discussion about CF is another example of the continued culture wars that we will see for a long time to come.

 

Often times, one's "culture war" is another person's quest for equality under the law. I'll side with the latter any day.

Link to comment
This whole discussion about CF is another example of the continued culture wars that we will see for a long time to come.

 

Often times, one's "culture war" is another person's quest for equality under the law. I'll side with the latter any day.

Based on the increased business CFA is enjoying as a result of the culture war publicity, I'd say the latter is in the minority.

Link to comment
This whole discussion about CF is another example of the continued culture wars that we will see for a long time to come.

 

Often times, one's "culture war" is another person's quest for equality under the law. I'll side with the latter any day.

 

Show me how, in the CF example, that any person has not received "equality under the law".

Link to comment
This whole discussion about CF is another example of the continued culture wars that we will see for a long time to come.

 

Often times, one's "culture war" is another person's quest for equality under the law. I'll side with the latter any day.

 

Show me how, in the CF example, that any person has not received "equality under the law".

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/27/brenda-honeycutt-chick-fil-a-sues-gender-discrimination_n_1709645.html

Link to comment
This whole discussion about CF is another example of the continued culture wars that we will see for a long time to come.

 

Often times, one's "culture war" is another person's quest for equality under the law. I'll side with the latter any day.

Based on the increased business CFA is enjoying as a result of the culture war publicity, I'd say the latter is in the minority.

 

Bob,

 

That, in general, is true. The same happened to JC Penney's, when the "Million Moms" threatened a boycott because of DeGeneres. Support was overwhelming and business actually picked up. Pick your poison, pick your side. In general these things are alot of noise and not much action - though not in every case, obviously.

 

-MKL

Link to comment
This whole discussion about CF is another example of the continued culture wars that we will see for a long time to come.

 

Often times, one's "culture war" is another person's quest for equality under the law. I'll side with the latter any day.

Based on the increased business CFA is enjoying as a result of the culture war publicity, I'd say the latter is in the minority.

 

I would agree that CFA has won a battle but I would think that it is short lived.

 

Evidently fast food franchise operations grow or they die on the vine. CFA has done a good job of growing their business. This has included establishing food service operations in Universities, Large Hospitals and on Military bases. At least when it comes to Universities and Hospitals the criteria for selecting operators on premises may be more subjective. Students and medical profesionals are likely to voice strong objection to CFA at their institutions even in the south. In at least seven Universities students have started petitions asking for the removal of CFA from their schools.

 

We'll see how long lived peoples memories are after they tire of a steady diet.

Link to comment

Er, Cathy and the non-profit subsidiary (WinShape) of CF are pursuing legal activity to keep gays from being able to marry... understand that? That would be keeping a select group of people being recognized under the sanctioning of the state as being married.

Link to comment
Based on the increased business CFA is enjoying as a result of the culture war publicity, I'd say the latter is in the minority.

 

And your point is? Last time I checked, civil rights were not up for a vote by the majority of the citizenry. They are enumerated in the Constitution, not at the ballot box, of which it is why Prop 8 fails utterly, btw.

Link to comment
This whole discussion about CF is another example of the continued culture wars that we will see for a long time to come.

 

Often times, one's "culture war" is another person's quest for equality under the law. I'll side with the latter any day.

 

Show me how, in the CF example, that any person has not received "equality under the law".

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/27/brenda-honeycutt-chick-fil-a-sues-gender-discrimination_n_1709645.html

 

That is an example of alleged discrimination by a CF franchise owner.

 

Nothing to do with the previous discussion.

 

 

Link to comment
Based on the increased business CFA is enjoying as a result of the culture war publicity, I'd say the latter is in the minority.

 

And your point is? Last time I checked, civil rights were not up for a vote by the majority of the citizenry. They are enumerated in the Constitution, not at the ballot box, of which it is why Prop 8 fails utterly, btw.

So why isn't Cathy entitled to the civil right of free speech?

Link to comment

Yes, I understand that.

 

It is how our form of government works. People advance agendas, others oppose them. At some point, if a law is enacted then the courts become involved as to the Constitutionality of the law.

 

Your claim it is not a culture war issue misses the motivation of those you oppose. They are using their religious beliefs as the basis for opposing gay marriage. You may not like it nor agree, but that doesn't change the fact that religious beliefs are a strong determining factor in culture. One's view of culture shapes what is considered appropriate and acceptable behavior.

 

I'm old enough now to take a long view approach. This one skirmish won't determine the outcome. It is indicative of changes in attitude. My personal guess is that sometime in the future, our children's children will wonder what all the fuss was about. Just like my grandchildren don't view civil rights issues in the same way as those of us who remember seeing TV reports of race riots, school integration and voter registration.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Dave McReynolds
Based on the increased business CFA is enjoying as a result of the culture war publicity, I'd say the latter is in the minority.

 

And your point is? Last time I checked, civil rights were not up for a vote by the majority of the citizenry. They are enumerated in the Constitution, not at the ballot box, of which it is why Prop 8 fails utterly, btw.

 

If we look to the rights enumerated in the constitution, then gay marriage fails utterly also, as it is not so enumerated. What we have instead is an argument that language in the constitution should be interpreted to include gay marriage as a civil right. There is a long road from arguing that an activity, e.g. public nakedness, medical marijuana, etc., should be protected as a civil right, and actually having that activity protected as a civil right. Rarely is such a battle won solely in one venue, and commonly plays itself out in all three branches of government, plus the court of public opinion. And never believe that the SCoUS is immune from being influenced by public opinion either. Many believe that the recent surprising decision on healthcare had more to do with maintaining the public stature of the Court than with blind justice.

Link to comment

Dave, should the proscriptions against gay marriage fall as a result of a constitutional decision, it would likely be under the Equal Protection clause. I don't see that happening in the Supreme Court at this juncture, though it's formed the basis of some lower court decisions.

Link to comment

Dave, I agree that Gay Marriage is not mentioned specifically in the Constitution, but neither is the recognition of marriage as an institution for heterosexuals. The point that I am making is that under, say the 14th amendment, there is a case for granting these rights.

 

But your rebuttal of an "activity" being protected as a civil right, right along with your other examples... this is not about an activity, this about a bond between two consenting adults to become a married couple. Would you or others who are on the other side say that a heterosexual union is defined solely by an activity? I don't... it is much more that just about sex. It is starting the most basic of human institutions, a family. What the others, like Cathy and his ilk are saying, is that is not a family, a union of two people who love each other.

 

And yes, this gets played out in both branches of government, and slowly but surely, the government will catch up to the will of the majority, and recognize this right, cancel null and void DOMA as they did Don't Ask, Don't Tell, and join the modern world. My daughter and son, hopefully will soon be of the age when they scratch their heads and wonder what the fuss was all about.

Link to comment

No one seriously opposed to his view points are saying he doesn't have the right to say or EVEN spend his money as he sees fit. This is not an either or proposition... being opposed to his position doesn't equate with silencing him... not eating at Chick-fil-A doesn't silence him... it just says to him that the opposition to his views aren't contributing to his coffers.

Link to comment
Dave McReynolds
Dave, I agree that Gay Marriage is not mentioned specifically in the Constitution, but neither is the recognition of marriage as an institution for heterosexuals. The point that I am making is that under, say the 14th amendment, there is a case for granting these rights.

 

But your rebuttal of an "activity" being protected as a civil right, right along with your other examples... this is not about an activity, this about a bond between two consenting adults to become a married couple. Would you or others who are on the other side say that a heterosexual union is defined solely by an activity? I don't... it is much more that just about sex. It is starting the most basic of human institutions, a family. What the others, like Cathy and his ilk are saying, is that is not a family, a union of two people who love each other.

 

And yes, this gets played out in both branches of government, and slowly but surely, the government will catch up to the will of the majority, and recognize this right, cancel null and void DOMA as they did Don't Ask, Don't Tell, and join the modern world. My daughter and son, hopefully will soon be of the age when they scratch their heads and wonder what the fuss was all about.

 

My own position is that I am in favor of legalizing GM. The reason I tend to enter discussions about it is not to push one agenda or another, but to attempt to get each side to recognize the essential humanity of the contrary position. I think a fair number of people do recognize that there are good people on both sides of this issue; unfortunately, there is way too much polarization.

 

Getting back to the question posed by the OP, by all means vote with your pocketbooks whenever you think you should. For example, I would never support an activity promoted by Jane Fonda, because of her behavior during the Vietnam War. (see, there I used the word "activity" again; I guess it just has a broader meaning for me than it does for you). Not that I liked the war any more than Jane did; but her "activities" crossed the line from political dissent into something not worthy of an American, IMHO. Perhaps some of you feel that strongly about Cathy.

 

Do I think Dan or Jane worries about what we think or do? Not in my wildest dreams....

Link to comment
So why isn't Cathy entitled to the civil right of free speech?

 

Again, NOBODY (credible, anyway) said he wasn't. People are free to do and say whatever they want within the bounds of the law. Do not confuse his right to free speech with the consequences of that speech. Two different things, entirely.

 

-MKL

Link to comment

Dave,

 

I'm pretty sure neither cares what you may think. People who act on a principal do so knowing others won't approve, but do it anyway.

 

CF is closed on Sunday because of the owners religious beliefs. You sure wouldn't see that business model taught in any US business school.

 

I doubt that the boycott will change his beliefs either. It will be interesting to see what the long term financial effect of his opposition to GM will be.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
So why isn't Cathy entitled to the civil right of free speech?

 

Again, NOBODY (credible, anyway) said he wasn't. People are free to do and say whatever they want within the bounds of the law. Do not confuse his right to free speech with the consequences of that speech. Two different things, entirely.

 

-MKL

 

Moshe, while that principle may guide you, it isn't what's guiding the politicians. For example, here in Chicago elected officials have made it clear that they intend to punish CFA for its owner's expression of his religious beliefs...and for no other reason. For many of us--even those of us who disagree with the guy--that's the issue of real concern.

Link to comment

Mike,

 

Early on in this thread I made clear that, WRT to the issue you raise, I am dead-set against it. You will recall I brought up the example of a prominent NYC pol who, while for marriage equality very strongly, invited CFA into his city while others were making hay about kicking him out.

 

I really am at a loss as to how a local pol can "punish" a businessowner for expressing his beliefs, so long as his beliefs (and related actions) are within the boundaries of the law. I am not sure what that locality's laws are WRT to marriage equality, but unless it is legal there AND Cathy intends to disciminate illegally, there is no case against him, nor should there be. Because if they can do that to him unfairly, they can do it to me, or to you. I believe no good political argument can be used back against you. This is a principle of martial arts - no good attack or defense can easily be turned back on you.

 

He should be free to say what he wants to say. But neither he nor anyone else is free from the consequences afterward. That was my only point. Your caveat is that some of these consequences are absurd and unwarranted - and I agree 100%.

 

-MKL

Link to comment

A friend of mine, who has a gay son, said that on 8/3 gays are going to infiltrate the stores and have make-out sessions on the premises. Don't order the special sauce..

Link to comment
So why isn't Cathy entitled to the civil right of free speech?

 

Again, NOBODY (credible, anyway) said he wasn't. People are free to do and say whatever they want within the bounds of the law. Do not confuse his right to free speech with the consequences of that speech. Two different things, entirely.

 

-MKL

 

Moshe, while that principle may guide you, it isn't what's guiding the politicians. For example, here in Chicago elected officials have made it clear that they intend to punish CFA for its owner's expression of his religious beliefs...and for no other reason. For many of us--even those of us who disagree with the guy--that's the issue of real concern.

 

Mike, I agree with you that some of those politicians crossed the line and I think that it is dastardly that they try to wield power like that, power that they may not truly have.

 

Portland and some bedroom communities have pretty much kept Wal-Mart out of the area. Wal-Mart sets their eye on a location and begins the process. There is a firestorm of public testimony and things begin to happen like zoning changes that dissallow any big box stores from that property based on traffic impact etc.etc. WalMart contests it but eventually starts looking elsewhere and similar obstactles crop up again.

 

There are a couple of neighborhoods in Portland that have resolved to keep corporate chain operations out. Even Starbucks has given up their efforts to open a shop. Every time plans are announced for a corporate chain operation, people in the neighborhood start protests and letter writing campaigns. The operations so far have decided to withdraw, I think sensing that it might be hard to make a profit in a hostile market. The upshot is that those neighborhoods have some of the best food and beverage places in town. Ma and Pa operations, Ma and Ma operations and Pa and Pa operations.

Link to comment
So, as you asked the questions, Ken ... do you feel you've had it answered? Were you looking for a particular viewpoint or simply seeking opinions? (Either being valid to my mind.)

I think you summed it all up pretty well.

 

My personal opinion is that we should use our conscious more when deciding which merchants, companies, etc. to spend our $$ with. But it is interesting to hear others thoughts as to why or why not.

 

And I don’t think it’s quite as cut & dry a subject as I might have at one time thought. I think boycotts in mass (or supporting movements too) can have an impact, but the law of unintended consequences, e.g. collateral damage, clouds the subject even further.

 

Link to comment
A friend of mine, who has a gay son, said that on 8/3 gays are going to infiltrate the stores and have make-out sessions on the premises. Don't order the special sauce..

If the definition of "make out" means lewd activity, I bet the police will be busy responding to CFA's today.

 

314. Every person who willfully and lewdly, either:

 

 

1. Exposes his person, or the private parts thereof, in any

public place, or in any place where there are present other persons

to be offended or annoyed thereby; or,

 

2. Procures, counsels, or assists any person so to expose himself

or take part in any model artist exhibition, or to make any other

exhibition of himself to public view, or the view of any number of

persons, such as is offensive to decency, or is adapted to excite to

vicious or lewd thoughts or acts,

 

 

is guilty of a misdemeanor.

Link to comment
A friend of mine, who has a gay son, said that on 8/3 gays are going to infiltrate the stores and have make-out sessions on the premises. Don't order the special sauce..

If the definition of "make out" means lewd activity, I bet the police will be busy responding to CFA's today.

 

314. Every person who willfully and lewdly, either:

 

 

1. Exposes his person, or the private parts thereof, in any

public place, or in any place where there are present other persons

to be offended or annoyed thereby; or,

 

2. Procures, counsels, or assists any person so to expose himself

or take part in any model artist exhibition, or to make any other

exhibition of himself to public view, or the view of any number of

persons, such as is offensive to decency, or is adapted to excite to

vicious or lewd thoughts or acts,

 

 

is guilty of a misdemeanor.

 

http://www.oregonlive.com/news/index.ssf/2008/11/judge_throws_out_charges_again.html

 

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/judge-rules-ok-strip-naked-protest-tsa-182446590.html

Link to comment

Dan Cathy is just one person. The restaurants are all franchised. Some of those franchisees may support him but many may not. Why punish the franchisees for what one guy said? All they want to do is make a living....

Link to comment

Just to set the record straight on how Chick-fil-A handles it stores versus the rest of the fast food chains... the managers/operating partners are not the owners/franchisees like you see at a McDonald's or Burger King. All 1600 plus stores are owned by the company and the person who runs it is a direct employee of CFA in Atlanta. FYI

Link to comment
beemerman2k
My own position is that I am in favor of legalizing GM. The reason I tend to enter discussions about it is not to push one agenda or another, but to attempt to get each side to recognize the essential humanity of the contrary position. I think a fair number of people do recognize that there are good people on both sides of this issue; unfortunately, there is way too much polarization.

 

Great post, and it's absolutely true. Always has been and hopefully always will be.

 

I am often reminded of Dr King because he refused to condemn or to villify those who opposed his efforts toward integration. He often spoke very highly of his detractors, saying they were otherwise great Americans who were simply wrong on the race question.

 

We must find ways of disagreeing in agreeable fashion. Both sides have so much to learn from the other.

Link to comment
My own position is that I am in favor of legalizing GM. The reason I tend to enter discussions about it is not to push one agenda or another, but to attempt to get each side to recognize the essential humanity of the contrary position. I think a fair number of people do recognize that there are good people on both sides of this issue; unfortunately, there is way too much polarization.

 

Great post, and it's absolutely true. Always has been and hopefully always will be.

 

I am often reminded of Dr King because he refused to condemn or to villify those who opposed his efforts toward integration. He often spoke very highly of his detractors, saying they were otherwise great Americans who were simply wrong on the race question.

 

We must find ways of disagreeing in agreeable fashion. Both sides have so much to learn from the other.

 

Compared to an earlier related thread I think this one has been relatively free of objectionable labeling and offensive allegory from both sides. Congratulations everyone. Outside of the thread, CFA is suffering some vandalism (graffiti), reprehensible threats from politicians and counterproductive posts on social media pages that are in poor taste. None of which I can support in any way.

Link to comment
Dan Cathy is just one person. The restaurants are all franchised. Some of those franchisees may support him but many may not. Why punish the franchisees for what one guy said? All they want to do is make a living....

 

This from a N.Y. Times Jan/2011 article on CFA: "The company’s Christian culture and its strict hiring practices, which require potential operators to discuss their marital status and civic and church involvement, have attracted controversy before, including a 2002 lawsuit brought by a Muslim restaurant owner in Houston who said he was fired because he did not pray to Jesus with other employees at a training session. The suit was settled."

 

The issue is far deeper than "what one guy said".

Link to comment
Dan Cathy is just one person. The restaurants are all franchised. Some of those franchisees may support him but many may not. Why punish the franchisees for what one guy said? All they want to do is make a living....

 

This from a N.Y. Times Jan/2011 article on CFA: "The company’s Christian culture and its strict hiring practices, which require potential operators to discuss their marital status and civic and church involvement, have attracted controversy before, including a 2002 lawsuit brought by a Muslim restaurant owner in Houston who said he was fired because he did not pray to Jesus with other employees at a training session. The suit was settled."

 

The issue is far deeper than "what one guy said".

 

I stand corrected. Clearly all 1685 owner-operators are in lock step with Cathy and should therefore be deprived of their livlihoods. :dopeslap:

 

Re. the NY times article, they sound like they're describing a sinister organization, not someones religious beliefs (which are mostly mainstream). Typical.

Link to comment
A friend of mine, who has a gay son, said that on 8/3 gays are going to infiltrate the stores and have make-out sessions on the premises. Don't order the special sauce..

If the definition of "make out" means lewd activity, I bet the police will be busy responding to CFA's today.

 

314. Every person who willfully and lewdly, either:

 

 

1. Exposes his person, or the private parts thereof, in any

public place, or in any place where there are present other persons

to be offended or annoyed thereby; or,

 

2. Procures, counsels, or assists any person so to expose himself

or take part in any model artist exhibition, or to make any other

exhibition of himself to public view, or the view of any number of

persons, such as is offensive to decency, or is adapted to excite to

vicious or lewd thoughts or acts,

 

 

is guilty of a misdemeanor.

 

http://www.oregonlive.com/news/index.ssf/2008/11/judge_throws_out_charges_again.html

 

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/judge-rules-ok-strip-naked-protest-tsa-182446590.html

Lewd activity is not public nudity.

Link to comment
I would be interested in knowing your opinion on how our province should handle the reverse situation - gay marriages have been accepted and lawful in our province for several years. It's really a non-issue, that is until some clerks assigned to perform civil marriages refused to carry out their duty to marry gay couples because of the clerk's personal religious beliefs. Referring to your statement

 

"He shouldn't be forced to have someone work for him that he disagrees with"

 

should these clerks then be fired from their jobs?

Unless Canada has some right to full employment at the job of your choice thing, then yes, they should be fired. As an employee your responsibility is to execute the duties of your job to the best of your abilities. In return your employer owes you an agreed upon compensation package and safe working conditions (the latter are negotiable if the decision to accept unsafe conditions - e.g. coal mining - is made without duress). If you cannot uphold your part of that bargain, your employer need not abide by his side of the bargain and should be allowed to terminate your employ.

 

Why someone chooses not to do their job isn't relevant (insofar as what's being asked is legal). They may be applauded for their religious or moral convictions but the job they agreed to do isn't the place for them to take that stand unless they are willing to accept the consequences (termination) of their action. That allows for people who have moral or ethical objections to job duties to express those and perhaps help change the job (one can consider the actions of bus drivers for instance in segregationist states in the US in the 50s & 60s). But, if the employer says to take it outside and here's your final paycheck, that's all she wrote. They don't owe the dissident a job & a soapbox to trumpet their values from.

 

In the States it's harder & harder to be an employer as more & more objectionable behavior by employees does not rise to a level that courts and state employment commissions will agree allow you to terminate employees - even in "employment at will" states. It's incredibly hard to terminate people for anything less than flagrantly egregious (& usually illegal) behavior. It's one of the reasons for the migration of jobs to offshore companies & temporary agencies.

Link to comment
Couchrocket
Based on the increased business CFA is enjoying as a result of the culture war publicity, I'd say the latter is in the minority.

 

And your point is? Last time I checked, civil rights were not up for a vote by the majority of the citizenry. They are enumerated in the Constitution, not at the ballot box, of which it is why Prop 8 fails utterly, btw.

 

Chris,

 

Not trying to bait you... but would like to explore your logic a bit. As you know, in other threads I've tried to focus the discussion on the definition of marriage "in law" (without much success) and I feel that this discussion of civil rights really hinges on defining the specific right, or rights. Here's a possible demonstration of what I mean. In current parlance the LGBT community is a more or less united front that is asking for the same civil rights as heterosexual couples. With gay couples the emphasis can still rightly be focused on "the definition at least is something that couples do" and so if heteros can do it (whatever it means) homosexual couples should have the same right to do it. Logical if you disregard the fact that the "it" still remains largely undefined in law. So, let's take a look at the "B" in LGBT. Bi-sexual. If "couples" is a limiting factor in whatever the definition of marriage is, then bi-sexuals are automatically discriminated against because of that. Should their civil rights be trampled upon due to an archaic element in what marriage means that limits it to "two." We'd be abridging the rights of bi-sexuals if they are forced to choose one gender or the other to "marry" rather than to have the right to marry more than one individual in order to fulfill their true sexual identity. Does this line of reasoning lend any credibility to my thought that what we're talking about here is the importance of a definition of something, not just a nebulous something that we're calling a civil right without defining it (that still has some unjustifiable limits hidden in it from the LGBT community's perspective I would think)?

Link to comment

Scott, this is an easy one for me...

 

It comes down to "do no harm."

 

The L and G in LGBT are known quantities... you have a person of the same sex loving emotionally and physically another. They want to have all the benefits (tax, medical decisions, estate, etc.) that heterosexual couples want.

 

The B in that, Bi-sexual isn't much different. Basically a person who is attracted to either sex (most of the time, not at the SAME time). They can fall in love with either sex... so in essence, they want the right to settle down with one person. On the chance that it is with multiple partners, much like polygamy, then, if I were to be consistent, then, yes, that union would be recognized, probably structured in legal terms not unlike a non profit corp with multiple individuals at the helm... a recognition by the state that it exists and is due the same rights and privileges that are granted to duos. In all honesty, I don't believe that situation would be a great percentage. I don't personally know a bi-sexual, but what I have read is that it is usually a monogamous relationship.

 

The T is like the L and G. And sadly, this is the one that is the most misunderstood and probably the most scorned. Gender identification is not a new situation... it has gone on as long as man has been on this earth. It just is now a point where people are openly identifying as such, at great risk from family, friends and the society. If a man or woman identifies with being the other sex and falls in love with the same sex (usually wanting to have the operation that makes them "fully" a man or woman), then that is a couple that the state should recognize.

 

I guess what I am saying is that the definition of marriage that you try to narrow it down to, is, well, just too narrow. It is usually based on some religious belief without much evidence for it being defined as such, save for the old "this is how we have always done it and it is what works best." Well, that excuse doesn't work for a portion of our population, and they are getting left out in the cold. Exclusion brings up more harm than any perceived harm done by redefining a Judeo Christian notion of marriage between man and woman. And if that term still strikes you as distorted, marriage applying to other forms of family, then maybe the time has come that the word marriage needs to be tossed aside and the word civil union is used from a public policy standpoint. I wouldn't mind using it to define my marriage to my wife if it meant that we could just move along and start including more people going forward.

 

Hope that helps in understanding my point of view.

Link to comment
Couchrocket

Hope that helps in understanding my point of view.

 

It does. Thanks for the thoughtful reply. Is it safe for me to assume, then, that you think the number of participants in marriage should be limited to two in the legal definition? If so, what is your rationale in law for that?

 

And for what it's worth, I agree with you re removing the whole "marriage" issue "from law" and having both the definition and title for such a contract called civil union. But we still need a definition if it is going to be a contractual relationship "in law."

 

If we did this, then those who choose for religious or other reasons to have a ceremonial event that may have other aspects included (fidelity, heterosexual only, "until death," etc.) may do so as long as it is clear that it is an expression of "free exercise of religion" and contains no coercion. That way, churches would still retain the ability to decline to "marry" based on any number of parameters without depriving anyone of civil rights.

Link to comment

 

In the States it's harder & harder to be an employer as more & more objectionable behavior by employees does not rise to a level that courts and state employment commissions will agree allow you to terminate employees - even in "employment at will" states. It's incredibly hard to terminate people for anything less than flagrantly egregious (& usually illegal) behavior. It's one of the reasons for the migration of jobs to offshore companies & temporary agencies.

 

I have to disagree. I worked for the Illinois Department of Employment Security for a long time. Under Illinois law it is easy to terminate someone for cause. Documentation is key in successfully doing so. In addition, unless there is a collective bargaining agreement, you can terminate someone w/o cause, but you will most likely find them drawing unemployment if you do and your unemployment insurance rate will most likely go up.

 

I fired an employee of the Department for lying on an application. She appealed, bargaining unit, and lost her arbitration case. She then filed an EEO suit but dropped it when it came time to show up.

 

Millions of people have been terminated in our continuing recession and I doubt that many of those have successfully challenged their termination in court.

 

One mans opinion. YMMV

Link to comment
Is it safe for me to assume, then, that you think the number of participants in marriage should be limited to two in the legal definition? If so, what is your rationale in law for that?

 

Probably wasn't too clear on that (thought I was)...

 

I think I'd probably defer to the individual situation and not box it into a two person definition... my go to definition is colored by my upbringing, but in all honesty, I could see a multiple partner marriage. Some cultures have that going for them. To be consistent and not pre-judge the marriage arrangements between consenting ADULTS, that would be fine. I would draw the line at anything remotely considering Children and I take that stance from a position that a child is generally not mature enough to enter into such a contract with a lot of emotional and physical awareness of said decision... in fact, I would presume that in most of those cases it is coerced.

Link to comment
I would be interested in knowing your opinion on how our province should handle the reverse situation - gay marriages have been accepted and lawful in our province for several years. It's really a non-issue, that is until some clerks assigned to perform civil marriages refused to carry out their duty to marry gay couples because of the clerk's personal religious beliefs. Referring to your statement

 

"He shouldn't be forced to have someone work for him that he disagrees with"

 

should these clerks then be fired from their jobs?

Unless Canada has some right to full employment at the job of your choice thing, then yes, they should be fired. As an employee your responsibility is to execute the duties of your job to the best of your abilities. In return your employer owes you an agreed upon compensation package and safe working conditions (the latter are negotiable if the decision to accept unsafe conditions - e.g. coal mining - is made without duress). If you cannot uphold your part of that bargain, your employer need not abide by his side of the bargain and should be allowed to terminate your employ.

 

Why someone chooses not to do their job isn't relevant (insofar as what's being asked is legal). They may be applauded for their religious or moral convictions but the job they agreed to do isn't the place for them to take that stand unless they are willing to accept the consequences (termination) of their action. That allows for people who have moral or ethical objections to job duties to express those and perhaps help change the job (one can consider the actions of bus drivers for instance in segregationist states in the US in the 50s & 60s). But, if the employer says to take it outside and here's your final paycheck, that's all she wrote. They don't owe the dissident a job & a soapbox to trumpet their values from.

Seeing as this thread has gone off topic anyway...

 

So what about the controversy that’s going in the USA now about some pharmacist, nurses, doctors and the like that are refusing to provide contraceptives on religious objections even though required to under the latest federal health care reforms? Should they be allowed to keep their jobs even though they are refusing to perform (some of) their job duties?

 

Seems to me it’s much the same type of subject.

Link to comment
I would be interested in knowing your opinion on how our province should handle the reverse situation - gay marriages have been accepted and lawful in our province for several years. It's really a non-issue, that is until some clerks assigned to perform civil marriages refused to carry out their duty to marry gay couples because of the clerk's personal religious beliefs. Referring to your statement

 

"He shouldn't be forced to have someone work for him that he disagrees with"

 

should these clerks then be fired from their jobs?

Unless Canada has some right to full employment at the job of your choice thing, then yes, they should be fired. As an employee your responsibility is to execute the duties of your job to the best of your abilities. In return your employer owes you an agreed upon compensation package and safe working conditions (the latter are negotiable if the decision to accept unsafe conditions - e.g. coal mining - is made without duress). If you cannot uphold your part of that bargain, your employer need not abide by his side of the bargain and should be allowed to terminate your employ.

 

Why someone chooses not to do their job isn't relevant (insofar as what's being asked is legal). They may be applauded for their religious or moral convictions but the job they agreed to do isn't the place for them to take that stand unless they are willing to accept the consequences (termination) of their action. That allows for people who have moral or ethical objections to job duties to express those and perhaps help change the job (one can consider the actions of bus drivers for instance in segregationist states in the US in the 50s & 60s). But, if the employer says to take it outside and here's your final paycheck, that's all she wrote. They don't owe the dissident a job & a soapbox to trumpet their values from.

Seeing as this thread has gone off topic anyway...

 

So what about the controversy that’s going in the USA now about some pharmacist, nurses, doctors and the like that are refusing to provide contraceptives on religious objections even though required to under the latest federal health care reforms? Should they be allowed to keep their jobs even though they are refusing to perform (some of) their job duties?

 

Seems to me it’s much the same type of subject.

Do you have a link to the medical professionals who are refusing to hand out condoms?

Link to comment
Couchrocket
Is it safe for me to assume, then, that you think the number of participants in marriage should be limited to two in the legal definition? If so, what is your rationale in law for that?

 

Probably wasn't too clear on that (thought I was)...

 

I think I'd probably defer to the individual situation and not box it into a two person definition... my go to definition is colored by my upbringing, but in all honesty, I could see a multiple partner marriage. Some cultures have that going for them. To be consistent and not pre-judge the marriage arrangements between consenting ADULTS, that would be fine. I would draw the line at anything remotely considering Children and I take that stance from a position that a child is generally not mature enough to enter into such a contract with a lot of emotional and physical awareness of said decision... in fact, I would presume that in most of those cases it is coerced.

 

Thanks for the response. Logically consistent.

What if a child is legally emancipated? If the law sees fit to consider them adult, should marriage be denied them? If so, why?

 

 

Link to comment

I think that the courts could rule on that on a case by case basis... the law should not be so rigid as to exclude the very few who can make a case for child marriage, say for instance, the teen who is very advanced in their years of education, the kid who graduating from college at 16 and finds a mate... I think we are still talking such a small minority of situations. So, I would amend my earlier statement that says drawing the line at children to have an asterisk there. But on the whole, most would agree, parents and the courts, that children before the age of 17 and before aren't really the best arbiter of what's good for them.. but that statement can exclude a very small percentage.

 

But to be honest, I am not sure how that would be determined by a case worker/Guardian ad litem/officer of the court. I am not skilled in that area to make a determination in a case like that. I would trust that these professionals would be able to make a clear decision for a teenager getting married before the allowable age of the locality.

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...