OC Political

A right-of-center blog covering local, statewide, and national politics

  • Custom Campaigns

    Custom Campaigns
  • DMI

  • Lindholm for County Board of Education

  • Pollitt for County Board of Education

  • Glasky for IUSD

  • Rackauckas for District Attorney

  • Woolery for Auditor-Controller

  • Iglesias for 69th Assembly District

  • Ming for Supervisor

  • Contact Us to Purchase an Ad

  • Lincoln Club of Orange County

An Excellent Commentary about the Chick-fil-A Controversay by Walter Myers III

Posted by Craig P. Alexander on July 29, 2012

There has been a lot of press about the comments by the President of Chick-fil-A in support of traditional marriage.  Once again it seems those who are in favor of homosexual marriage are a very tolerance people – as long as you agree 100% with their point of view.  As usual the liberals are all for the 1st Amendment’s freedom of speech – as long as it is politically correct speech!

My friend Walter Myers III does an excellent job in his commentary pointing out the extreme double standard by those that condemn and protest Chick-fil-A over Mr. Cathy’s support of traditional marriage.  I strongly recommend you read Walter’s commentary at: http://www.scientiamedia.com/?p=2684 

7 Responses to “An Excellent Commentary about the Chick-fil-A Controversay by Walter Myers III”

  1. met00 said

    One last time. The First Amendment has to do with the GOVERNMENT stopping or reducing the ability of people to speak. It has NOTHING to do with people saying that a person who speaks is a jerk. My calling a speaker a jerk, or saying that their comments were jerky, and saying that they should sit down and shut up has NOTHING to do with the United States Constitution. It may mean that I am a boor and uncouth, that I have issues with allowing someone else to speak their mind, or that I may have an actual grievance with what the speaker may be saying, but it in no way affects their constitutional rights.

    So, were the people that said that the intolerance of the Chick-A-Fil CEO was unacceptable and that he should shut his pie-hole doing anything that in any way had anything to do with the First Amendment? No.

    But it seems like that red hearing is the first thing that those that preach hate pull out of their bag to try to silence those that oppose them. That their “first Amendment rights” are being trampled on. Well, unless the government tells Mr. Cathy that he has to shut up, or tries to silence him, it has NOTHING to do with the First Amendment rights of the bigoted hatemonger.

    Mr. Cathy has every right to spread his homophobic belief that the government can create a contractual relationship between two consenting adults that has specific legal rights, responsibilities and privileges and then refuse those right or grant those rights based on the sexual orientation of the two co-signers of the contract. Just as people before him felt that it was the governments responsibility to ensure that the two co-signers had to be of the same race. They were wrong, as is he. But he has every right to spread his mistaken belief, and he could even try for the old “separate but equal” bull if he thinks that will fly.

    But at the same time those that believe that the government, when they created a contractual agreement between two consenting adults that was recognized with special rights,. responsibilities and privileges, has to ensure that any two consenting adults may enter into it, without being disallowed based on the colour of their skin or based on their gender or sexual preferences – they too have ebvery right to be heard, and to say that those that seek to limit rights based on colour, race, gender or sexual preference are wrong.

    This is NOT about the First Amendment. Nor is it about forcing any religious institution to endorse, or require them to “marry” anyone.

    The actual debate is about whether the government has created a recognized contractual agreement that has specific rights, responsibilities and privileges that two consenting adults may enter into as long as they are above the age of consent and are not already entered into one (which it just happens to call marriage). And if the government has the right to deny any two consenting adults who qualify to enter into that contractual agreement the right to do so based on the colour/race (this has already been fought, and it was found that the government can NOT), or gender or sexual orientation of the two consenting adults.

    [Hint: In case you don't get it, I believe that the Rule of Law is to be applied equally without regard to race, gender, sexual identity or sexual orientation. I believe that those that feel that an individuals gender, sexual orientation or sexual identity are somehow legitimate disqualifications from granting them the same equal rights as they may have to enter into the social and legal contract known as marriage are as bigoted and as wrong as the racists that insisted that the race/colour of the participants in the contract were enough to refuse them access to this government recognized contractual relationship.]

    • Craig P. Alexander said

      No Met00 you don’t “get it” – several public officials have threatened Chick-fill-A that due to their President’s belief system and opinions, they will block any expansion of Chick-fill-A in their areas. In other words, prohibit them from doing otherwise lawful business because of Mr. Cathy’s expression of his 1st Amendment right of free speech and freedom of religion.

      In other words, I understand but don’t agree with all of your argument. However – bottom line – you are trying to change the subject to focus on your perceived grievances regarding homosexual marriage. Walter’s article is about the violation of Mr. Cathy’s rights. The conversation is not all about you Met00!

      • met00 said

        EDITORS NOTE: This commented has been redacted due to it attacking another commenter and starting to stray from the topic of the post.

        • met00 said

          I disagree with the moderator, but let’s try this again…

          “Well, that calling for the boycott is a real — has a chilling effect on our 1st Amendment rights. And the owner of the Chick-Fil-A business had merely voiced his personal opinion about supporting traditional definition of marriage, one boy, one girl, falling in love, getting married. And having voiced support for kind of that cornerstone of all civilization and all religions since the beginning of time, he then basically getting crucified.

          I’m speaking up for him and his 1st Amendment rights and anybody else who would wish to express their not anti-gay people sentiment, but their support of traditional marriage, which President Obama and Joe Biden, they both supported the exact same thing until just a few months ago, when Obama had to flip-flop to shore up the homosexual voter base.” – Sarah “The Quitter from Wasilla” Palin (VAN SUSTEREN Interview 7/31/12)

          How is this strawman wrong? Well line by line….

          1) The “boycott” is people exercising the exact same right as Mr. Cathy.
          2) The First Amendment only deals with the government silencing the people
          3) Mr. Cathy is not the “owner” of the company. Those would be the shareholders.
          4) Chick-Fil-A, the corporation, as a part of their corporate decision funds efforts to stop marriage equality; therefore it is not just “his personal opinion”.
          5) Disagreeing with Mr. Cathy is NOT like hanging him from a cross.
          6) see #2 for the First Amendment strawman… again…
          7) “anybody else who would wish to express their not anti-gay people sentiment” not anti-gay? so, then it’s pro-gay? Really? And refusing two people over the age of majority the ability to enter into a legally binding state recognized contract if they are not already in one based on their gender identity is… “”not anti-gay”?

          With spokespeople like this, Mr. Cathy really does need to hire better help.And to think that anyone thought she was qualified to be one heartbeat away from the highest office in the land. Amazing.

      • met00 said

        Oh, “The conversation is not all about you Met00!” No, the conversation we should be having is why anyone thinks that the State has the right to deny a “license and certificate of confidential marriage” based on anything other than the fact that any one or both of the two participants are already entered into such a license, and/or that either is under the age of majority.

        Of course that isn’t a conversation that Mr. Alexander wants to have since it’s much easier to attack a strawman than the real issue.

  2. Dan Chmielewski said

    Form Myers’ writing: “As gay marriage advocates would have it, Christians are supposed to sit idly by and watch them actively advance a social agenda that is anti-biblical, as if Christians have no say so even as citizens of the United States. The Bible doesn’t say anything about Gay Marriage.

    Look instead of what the Bible teaches about marriage — how a man’s obligation to keep a new wife who displeases him on the wedding night (Deuteronomy 22:13-21), he must marry a woman he has raped (Deuteronomy 22:28-30), or the right to exploit their slaves sexually. Jesus says quite a bit about divorce.

    • met00 said

      Dan. I hold in my hand a legal document issued to me and another person on 6/9/91 by the State of California called “License and Certificate of Confidential Marriage”. Now it so happens that both of us, over the age of majority and not at the time named in another such document, were of differing gender identities. But, what if we were not? Why should people who meet all the same qualifications that we did, but are NOT of differing gender identities not allowed to get the same legal document from the State of CA?

      Myers seems to believe a single religious viewpoint should be the law of the land. If this were Iran he would have a point. The Taliban thought so when they were running Afghanistan as well. But here, In America, we have a Constitutional right to be treated equally by the State.

      The State has defined a contractual relationship with specific rights, responsibilities and privileges. It has stated that the contract is made between two individuals, that neither individual making the contract is currently in the same contract with any other individual, and that both individuals are over the age in which to enter into a legally binding contract.

      Seems real simple. Under the equality clause of the Constitution there is no reason for the State to NOT support marriage equality.

      Oh, and in case you missed it, “traditional marriage” per the Christian bible seems to include…

      “And he had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines.”
      –1 Kings 11:3
      [King Solomon had a good thing going, unless they all went to the mall on the same day... "traditional marriage" rocks]

      Or to quote the founder of the Protestant Reformation, Martin Luther wrote: “I confess that I cannot forbid a person to marry several wives, for it does not contradict the Scripture. If a man wishes to marry more than one wife he should be asked whether he is satisfied in his conscience that he may do so in accordance with the word of God. In such a case the civil authority has nothing to do in the matter.”

      [Personally I have enough issues with one wife, I think I'll avoid all this Christian traditional marriage stuff.]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 891 other followers