143 Replies to “He Who Clucks Last . . .”

  1. btw, even from the lefty sites I browse this has split support. It appears many leftists are feeling this has gone too far.

  2. Well, it seems those threats came to nought, seeing as all men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights. A little thing called the Constitution. Your issue is a non-issue.
    Fiddle, I don’t know you or where you’re coming from but if you truly believe that Americans can just sit back and their rights will be protected then, respectfully, I think you’re very naive.
    I’ve recently started reading In The Garden of Beasts. It’s a non-fiction book with an initial focus on Germany in 1933 – ie. when Hitler’s rise to supreme power began. I recently walked the same street of Berlin that the author, Erik Larson, describes in his book. It’s frightening to think how the German people back then were so cleverly manipulated into bowing to Hitler’s will.
    And by the way, if anyone proffers the BS argument that the German people back then were weak & gullible, such a thing could never happen in modern day America – they truly do have their heads stuck in the proverbial sand!

  3. FrenchDip said: “I think the best way to handle this is to abolish the very notion of marriage altogether. …[snippage]…separation of the state and the marriage.
    Well now. It seems the blind pig may have found an acorn. Separating the state from the affairs of religion is usually never a bad idea, and really I have no problem with the state having no say in marriage either.
    Historically the place of government in Canadian marriage was to support the cultural institution of marriage, to protect families from the bad behavior of one (or both) partners in the marriage, or to protect citizens generally from the bad behavior of certain religious establishments. Like wacky cults who are into polygamy and child marriage. Cultists, you know who you are.
    If it weren’t for the vast apparatus of welfare bureaucracy that treats marital status as a code for “give out more money” none of this stuff would matter to our culture or our government at all. Our culture rejects polygamy and gay marriage as perversions and has for two thousand years, pretty much. Gays and Muslims would not be clamoring except for the FREE MONEY they get with a change in marital status.
    Presently the Canadian Left’s governmental efforts in marriage are entirely directed toward -destroying- it as a cultural institution and using it to beat up the various Christian denominations, as a tactic to forward their march toward an all-encompassing police state. The technique is known as divide and conquer, they don’t actually care about gays or Muslims at all.
    So I’d be entirely happy to see the government the hell out of the marriage business altogether, and let it be a strictly religious and cultural thing.
    DippyQuebecer also said: “Personally I prefer the single life. Much better.”
    Yeah, no doubt. That’s because you’re not emotionally mature enough to handle the responsibility that comes with a wife and kids, or even with giving and keeping your word. I bet you wear a pink fedora too.
    Fortunately, any woman (or man for that matter) you interact with can ditch your perpetual adolescent hipster @ss with a clear conscience. And offer up a prayer of thanks for the bullet she just dodged.
    Marriage is for men, not boys.

  4. “Well, it seems those threats came to nought…your issue is a non-issue.” — 12:27
    No, fiddle, ET understands the seriousness of what’s going on; you, in comparison, are focussing on a gnat while there’s a rabid bear at your back. To suggest that the fact that these threats by various local politicians to deny the constitutional rights of a business owner came to nought makes the existence of their threats a “non-issue” is kinda like saying that a politician who threatened to burn down your family’s business because of the views you hold on a particular moral issue turned out to be a “non-issue” because his lighter didn’t work.
    The fact that so many local politicians feel sufficiently empowered by the fascistic cultural imperatives of the left as to think they have such a right to shut down a business or deny it a business license, or even to publicly threaten such a thing, should give serious pause to anyone who’s not distracted by hot-button irrelevancies. The Mayor of Boston warned “if (Chick-Fil-A) need licenses in the city, it will be very difficult..” Rahm Emanuel said “Chick-Fil-A’s values are not Chicago values…If you’re going be part of the Chicago community, you should reflect Chicago values.” The Mayor of San Francisco said “the closest Chick-Fil-A to San Francisco is 40 miles away, andI strongly recommend that they not try to come any closer.” The Mayor of Washington, D.C. said he’d oppose the company if it wanted to expand in D.C.
    As I wrote in the Reader Tips thread, the notion that local politicians who have the power to grant or deny business permits would even think that they have any right whatsoever to use their political office to forbid anyone, under penalty of loss of livelihood, from expressing beliefs contrary to those of the politicians’ own political ‘tribe’ is a far more concerning and even ominous issue, by orders of magnitude, than that of gay marriage.
    People are going to have different opinions about gay marriage for the next hundred years, probably. In the meantime it’s critically important to ensure that local politicians from one particular political “tribe” not be allowed to even threaten to use the powers of their political office to punish people for holding the ‘wrong’ opinion. To characterize this sort of outrage as being all about gay marriage is *exactly* what the fascistic left wants, because it distracts everyone from their fascistic impulses and attempted abuses.

  5. To suggest that the fact that these threats by various local politicians to deny the constitutional rights of a business owner came to nought makes the existence of their threats a “non-issue” is kinda like saying that a politician who threatened to burn down your family’s business because of the views you hold on a particular moral issue turned out to be a “non-issue” because his lighter didn’t work.
    Equating the Constitution to a malfunctioning lighter is, well, inane.
    I’ll take Dan Cathy’s opinion over yours any day. He puts his money where his mouth is. And, has been proven right.
    You’re just trying to ride on his coattails to further your own particular agenda.

  7. fiddle – what coattails is EBD riding on? He’s expressing his belief about the importance of free speech, just as Cathy was expressing his belief about the nature of marriage. What’s the difference?
    EBD is not equating the Constitution to a malfunctioning lighter; he’s pointing out that the Constitution, as a set of laws created by man, has to be upheld by man. If politicians choose to ignore the Constitution and are not called to order on this, then those constitutional rights can be violated by those politicians. That means that we, none of us, would have freedom of speech or belief.
    These three mayors were not interested in gay marriage. Don’t you understand that, for example, gay marriage is not legal in Rahm Emanual’s Chicago? Has he said anything about this? Has he done anything about this? No.
    The issue is about freedom – a right which has been hard earned and is always fragile. You ignore history at your peril; you ignore the Inquisition which denied freedom of belief, the regimes of Stalin and Mao, the Third Reich – and you naively assume that ‘the Constitution’ will protect Americans from the power agendas of their politicians and the intolerance of the left.
    The very fact that three government officials dared to publicly declare that an individual’s personal belief ought to lead to an official denial of their right-to-work AND that these three officials were not instantly put up for impeachment, is a danger signal for those of us who value freedom.

  8. I suppose the one you’ve been gabbing about. Which has nothing to do with the content of Dan Cathy’s statement.

  9. fiddle, how would you like to be a Christian in Egypt right now? Where the cops are knocking down churches and shooting people for being Christian?
    That’s what this conversation is about. Not gay marriage, not Dan Cathy. He’s just today’s “shooting” victim.
    Nice to see the whole of the US population telling Lefty politicians that they are outnumbered and surrounded. Maybe you should grow a clue and join the party, eh?

  10. …he’s pointing out that the Constitution, as a set of laws created by man, has to be upheld by man.
    Maybe you should actually read it. The Constitution recognizes those rights as pre-existing man made law. You obviously don’t understand the meaning of ‘unalienable’.

  11. Not gay marriage, not Dan Cathy. He’s just today’s “shooting” victim.
    The point is, his strategy is successful. He’s far from being a ‘shooting victim’, and his support is positive support for what he stands for.
    Your negative moaning and groaning hasn’t produced anything. You want me to join that?

  12. fiddle – I know that your sole focus is on the fact that you agree with Cathy’s views on marriage. That’s all you care about; you don’t care about his right to believe and express that view.
    You don’t care that three government leaders tried to deny him this right- and that a lot of people on the left actually agree with those three government leaders.
    The Constitution is a document made and upheld by and only by mankind. The ‘unalienable Rights’ it refers to are three: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness’.
    Again, these rights must be upheld and protected by man and only by man. These three rights say nothing about freedom of speech, belief, religion, and that is what those government leaders are violating.
    Or, do you think that the violation of these rights during the Inquisition, during Stalin’s, Mao’s and the Third Reich’s era should be ignored?
    After all, what YOU ignore is that these rights have been and continue to be frequently violated. You don’t stand up for them; you only support those with whom you agree. But there is a deeper issue which you choose to reject, and that is the basic freedom of man, to think, reason, debate, argue, and arrive at his own beliefs. You reject this and that’s your choice.

  13. The Constitution is a document made and upheld by and only by mankind.
    You just called the Framers of the Constitution liars.
    The ‘unalienable Rights’ it refers to are three: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness’…These three rights say nothing about freedom of speech, belief, religion…
    Cognitive dissonance, anyone?

  15. fiddle- are you trying to tell us that the Founders didn’t write the Constitution? Are you saying that it, ah, came from God, just as Islamists declare that the Koran is also the inviolate ‘Word of God’?
    The Constitution is a document thought up by and written by men. They refer to three natural rights, by which they mean rights not open to debate: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Period.
    What you are ignoring is that these rights, and the political and social rights that rest on them (see the First Amendment for example as well as the rest of the Amendments) can be violated by mankind.
    Do you think that the rights of life were violated by the Church during the Inquisition? By Stalin, Mao and the Third Reich? Do you think that just because man has declared that life and liberty are ‘unalienable’ that mankind can’t violate them?
    Do you think that Rahm Emanual was violating Cathy’s rights of freedom of belief when he declared that, because of his beliefs, he was not welcome to work in Chicago? Does this fascism not bother you?

  16. “Steve Burton …just read your comment. Do you sense gays are being used as pawns?”
    Yes I’ve said that here many times. There is no “gay community” just lefties using the word to promote lefty ideals. To brainwash the young and the ignorant with simple sound bytes.
    All gays are not lefties, we’re all people with brains, jobs, responsibilities and wants. Just like there are “feminist” women there are “activist” gays, but they don’t represent women or gays they represent Democrats and Liberals. It’s about the left trying to manipulate people to gain more control over people. It should be read lefty women and lefty gays. I’m sick of those people speaking for me. Nobody asked me.

  17. ET, if you say the sky is blue fiddle will accuse you of trying to deny the existence of nighttime. He just seems to be fixated on you. You should be flattered; your own personal troll. I don’t think he really even has a point. I wonder whether he thinks of himself as having an “agenda”. Do you, fiddle? What’s your “agenda” vis-a-vis this post?

  18. I agree, this ain’t about gays this is about telling Team Obama and the Left Media to kiss our ass. Period !
    ,

  19. So pleased to see conservatives spiking their cholesterol–and paying for it–as a gesture of free speech. I’ll buy a dozen of these grease-sodden “meals” for the ones who think it’s a proud stance for freedom to clog an artery, and then when they dial 911 I’ll tell the operator it’s just a crank call.

  20. Sounds like fiddle believes that no matter how many rights the left steals from us God will somehow give them back? Or they were never really stolen ’cause they were granted by God himself?
    Despite some colourful language those freedoms and rights were fought for, won and put in writing by human beings, not our Lord. If you want to keep them you have to fight for them. We all may have different tacks on just how best to go about it, but sitting back and letting God take care of it isn’t going to work out very well for anyone, and least of all Christianity since it seems to be the main enemy of the left for whatever reason.

  21. “ET, if you say the sky is blue fiddle will accuse you of trying to deny the existence of nighttime.”
    Agreed. It’s like the free will thing from the other day.

  22. Guest – “…when they dial 911 I’ll tell the operator it’s just a crank call.”
    I bet you would, too. Care to defend government officials threatening to drive businesses which don’t toe the party line out of town?

  23. Guest – let me get this straight. You are introducing a completely different focus to this debate.
    You aren’t interested in freedom of belief or speech.
    You are, akin to Mayor Bloomberg of NYC, focusing on your particular belief of what foods are healthy. And you are insisting that other people ought to follow your beliefs.
    And, like Emanual and others, you’d like to punish people for making these free choices. Because you don’t like their choices. Do I understand you correctly?

  24. Just another ever so loving and tolerant Lefty, eh Guest?
    You should be more polite. You’re utterly surrounded by scary, knuckle dragging violent Conservatives. Who all have GUNS!
    Who knows, maybe someday soon we will all decide that Lefties aren’t welcome in our communities. How would that work for you? Would that be ok?

  25. Powel Lucas, and KevinB you may be ambivalent about SSM, but most of the SSM laws that have gone into effect were written to allow polygamy, which is certain to have the effect of attracting more Muslim immigrants and their 2 or more wives.
    Are you ok with that?

  26. Steven (3:11), even with the most charitable concession of ‘points’ I can’t figure out exactly what fiddle’s point is. He seems to be arguing that the prospect of fascistic local politicans threatening the livelihood of those who hold the wrong view — which happens to be the same view as fiddle holds — is a complete non-issue/non-concern that’s not even worth addressing.
    IMO, people who labor under the misapprehension that these politicians’ threats are really about gay marriage or gay rights are playing directly into the hands of the left. It might appear to be about gay marriage, if you take the bait, but tomorrow it will be about some other non-optional, royal “we” belief of their tribe — free contraceptives for students, or voter ID, or recycling, etc. etc. The only constant – and the real issue for concern — is that many on the left, including politicians who are in positions of power that allow them to grant or deny business licenses, think they have a right to use their power to threaten the livelihoods of those who hold and express the “wrong” beliefs.
    As you note, it won’t be God who fights back against these bastards.

  27. “most of the SSM laws that have gone into effect were written to allow polygamy”
    Which ssm laws are you talking about? Bringing polygamy into this now – it’s just fearmongering. Polygamy is separate from gay marriage. 4 is not 2. Polygamy is illegal in Canada, gay marriage is not. I don’t hear anyone pushing for that to change, although I hear it brought up on the right for reasons of arguing against ssm.

  28. “the real issue for concern — is that many on the left…think they have a right to use their power to threaten the livelihoods of those who hold and express the “wrong” beliefs.”
    Agreed, and we all have to fight that together. I wish more people would get involved in politics and not just parrot the simple things they hear. They have no idea their rights are being eroded away as they think they’re defending rights because that’s what they’re being told.
    Rohm Emmanuel thinks he can say and threated what he wants because, in his experience, the vocal ignorant on the left believe what they’re being told. I bet he’s not used to this kind of response from the right at all.

  30. I agree with those who are making the point that this issue is a side issue and a smokescreen for the left’s bigger agenda of shutting down any opposition to the gradual imposition of its ideology which will ultimately not allow an dissent.

  31. Re: Steven Burton at August 2, 2012 2:56 PM
    There is no “gay community” just lefties using
    As I see it, gays are the targets of of a more general pattern of radical leftist activity that proceeds along the following sequence:
    1. Activists tell a group that they are being victimized, persecuted, oppressed, or marginalized by society, that they are being denied some “right” or another.
    2. Activists insist to the members of the group that the mistreatment is historically rooted, is intrinsic to the culture and cannot be remedied except by vigorous government action.
    3. Activists demand that special laws be passed or special programs be set up on behalf of the targeted group in order to remedy what they insist is a gross injustice that has no place in an enlightened society.
    4. Activists try to create an environment of intense peer pressure within the group that suggests that any disagreement with the activists is equivalent to “selling out” the interests of the group.
    5. Activists work vigorously to ostracize anyone who disagrees with the activists, reserving their most vicious attacks for dissenters within the targeted group.
    Though detestable, the effort to wreck the life of dissenters works pretty well as evidenced by the power of political correctness.

  32. Re: Steven Burton at August 2, 2012 9:00 AM
    instead of something as unimportant as preventing gays from getting married
    Gays can get married anywhere in the US right now. The issue is not whether gays can get married. The issue is whether gays will be allowed to impose a redefinition of marriage onto the rest of society. Characterizing the issue as “banning” or “preventing” or “denying” or “not legalizing” is just political spin designed to suggest that gays are being denied something to which they are entitled.
    most Conservative Christians are against gay marriage, but I’m sure many others don’t really give a rat’s a**
    You are correct that many people don’t, but you are falling for a MSM defined narrative if you believe that only conservative Christians want to preserve the current definition of marriage. There are 32 US States that have explicitly defined marriage as between one man and one woman (usually mischaracterized by the media as “banning” gay marriage, which is a non sequitur). Those 32 reinforcements of the definition are mostly the result of prophylactic referendums and state constitutional amendments designed to head off the extreme political and legal aggressiveness of gay activists trying to impose a redefinition through the Judiciary or by the purchasing of votes in the state legislatures as was done in NY (the NY Times published an article detailing this shortly after it occurred).
    I don’t know if any one has run the actual numbers, but I don’t think there are enough conservative Christians to have passed all those referendums and amendments on their own.
    By contrast, those 6 states that have adopted a redefinition have not done so by popular vote.
    Despite the fact that a majority has never voted to change the definition, there is a robust effort to convince everyone that the battle over the definition of marriage has already been lost by the defenders of tradition and that they will find themselves “on the wrong side of history”. As I watch this, I remind myself that progressives always claim that the changes they want are “inevitable”. For most of my life, I listened to the left insisting that universal Communism was the inevitable fate of humanity and we all know how that turned out.
    The talking point is that young people are more “tolerant” and thus supportive of changing marriage. Maybe, but I think that it is just as likely that young people, trained in the government schools to regurgitate liberal attitudes to pollsters, will behave differently in the voting booth. If indoctrination were destiny, the US would have gone full-bore socialist years ago.
    It will be very interesting to see what happens in the four states voting on the issue in November. Maybe I am misreading things and the election will demonstrate how wrong I am. I will make this prediction, however, if Maine, Maryland, Minnesota and Washington all vote to reaffirm the current definition, the Media will insist that it is only an artifact of the heavy conservative/Republican turnout, not an indication that Americans really do want to keep the current definition.
    Dude has a right to say and believe what he wants though, and the media doesn’t have the right to try to destroy a private business over the beliefs of it’s owners.
    Kudos for supporting the CEO’s right to have an opinion of his own. I don’t agree though that the media doesn’t have a right to try to change the owners mind or to destroy the business. Media outlets, most of them in the US anyway, are private entities and have speech rights as well. The obnoxious and bullying way gay activists behave and the way that most of the media supports their actions may be off-putting, but unless government gets involved, by denying zoning permits say, then their actions must be tolerated as the price of living in a free society.

  33. I don’t think he really even has a point.
    Certainly not one clever enough for the resident ‘wit’ to understand.

  34. FYI I just updated this posting with a most “interesting” video and the explanation behind it.
    If you ever needed more proof that Inside the Leftist Echo Chamber there is zero self-awareness and zero tolerance for any other viewpoints, then this is it.

  35. “I think we are inviting God’s judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at Him and say, ‘We know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage.’ I pray God’s mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we have the audacity to define what marriage is about.” – Dan Cathy
    Yup, the nation has been paying the price. That much is obvious.

  37. Robert W – thanks for the video, but I’m puzzled why this arrogant person, harassing the Chick-fil-A server, was fired from his job. [And the Chick-fil-A employee behaved perfectly].
    I can understand that, if/when he posted this video online, he would himself be berated and chastized by people telling him how obnoxious and juvenile he was. I could understand that a Chick-fil-A security guard or manager could step in and suggest that he either order or allow others to order but that they could not allow their employees to be berated by customers.
    But why should his company fire him? He was not speaking on behalf of his company; he was not on company business; he was acting as a private individual.
    If we support freedom of speech, then, this has to include speech which expresses opinions with which we strongly disagree. My point is that it’s the Chick-fil-A’s prerogative to confront him; I don’t understand that his company has the legal right to fire him.

  38. I don’t understand that his company has the legal right to fire him.
    Probably because of academic sheltering from the real world.
    It’s very simple, his values don’t match the company values. Free speech doesn’t come without consequences, whatever leftist academics say.

  39. “…the resident ‘wit’…”
    Is that me? Aw.
    But look, why won’t you lay out your position, rather than just insulting people? EBD (@3:28) says he can’t figure out what you’re trying to say either, and surely he’s no dullard.

  40. Yes fiddle, we know that you don’t support freedom of belief or speech! Even though it’s in the Constitution.

  41. AS one commenter says: The Black Clergy came out yesterday against Gay marriage. 90% of black people are against gay marriage and voted it Down in CA. Funny how I never heard any of these fake ass liberals complain about that….
    So does this make black people all bigots or gay haters. Lets here from a gay liberal on this?
    Not some weeping metro-sexual, who picks on girls at check out windows, berating a youngster. What a testament to Beta males. What a black eye for gays with friends like this….

  42. But look, why won’t you lay out your position…
    Maybe I just like disturbing the resident entourage of experts on everything…

  43. From the company’s press release, “we also expect our company officers to behave in a manner commensurate with their position and in a respectful fashion that conveys these values of civility with others.”
    This fellow was fired because he bullied a Chick-Fil-A employee, and not because he was exercising his freedom of speech rights.

  44. Yes fiddle, we know that you don’t support freedom of belief or speech!
    I support freedom of speech. I also support freedom to apply lawful consequences to that speech. Your leftist academics steered you wrong on the real world.
    Hey, your leftist metrosexual will now have lots of time exercising free speech to harass drive through people. Although he’ll probably be walking through the drive through soon.
    Christians don’t have anything to fear from their enemies, they destroy themselves…

  45. Ken – but can a company consider that what an employee does in his free time is also under the rules of the company?
    That is, if an employee is rude and obnoxious on his own time to a waiter or cab-driver or plumber, can his company fire him? I’m afraid I don’t get the legal validity of this.
    As I said, I would expect that the individual would, after posting this online, receive a lot of negative feedback for his behaviour. That would be, to me, as far as it could go. The company, Chick-fil-A, could, if he took it further, tell him that he was not welcome at their sites IF he behaved again in such a manner.
    But for his company to fire him? Does a company have the legal right of ‘ownership’ so to speak, of an employee in all aspects of their life?

  46. ET, William Jacobsen at Legal Insurrection has a similar view to yours.
    For the record, I offered no opinion, for or against, whether he should have been fired.
    Let’s pull this away from the world of chicken and gay marriage … imagine an executive of a company goes around harassing innocent people, recording the videos, and posting them online, not hiding the fact of who he is. Doesn’t a company have a right to fire such a person under the grounds that his actions, even though in his own personal time, are a bad reflection on the company itself?

  47. Another confused Liberal that’s been marinating in the concept of group responsibility for (likely) decades.
    The corporation is evil?
    How the f*ck is a corporation moral? it can be no more moral than the car his fat ass is sitting in. is his car evil?
    There are no evil corporations, only evil people.
    What a confused (and unemployed) dumbass.

  48. Employers do not want abusive people within their organizations. No telling how they will respond to customers, clients, or fellow employees. Companies do not want potential lawsuits working for them. As far as we know, there could have been other issues he was having at his place of employment and this was the last straw.
    Clearly, the man at the drive through was abusive.

  49. ET: as Ken noted (7:59 PM), it appears the man wasn’t fired for political reasons, or for exercising his freedom of speech, but because he’s a jerk. If I was an employer and I saw a video of one of my employees (particularly a higher-up, as in this case) taking pleasure in abusing a polite young woman who was, in effect, hostage to the abuse because she was manning a takeout window as a requirement of her job, I would fire the jerk too.
    I don’t think it’s at all a question of legal ‘ownership’, as you put it, but simply a question of what sort of characters you do and don’t want to have in your company. If the man had proudly posted a video showing him, say, screaming at frightened old people sitting on park benches, wouldn’t the company have the right to say “You know what, Adam? You’re not really a good fit here…”?
    As a caveat of sorts, I admit that I’m a bit of a hardcore libertarian in this particular regard: I believe that employers should be allowed to hire whoever they want, and fire whoever they want. If a *private* employer demands that all employees have tattoos, for example, or not have tattoos, or insists that all employees have foot-long nose hair, that’s their prerogative, IMO.

  50. Lucky Lori- I don’t think you can fire someone on their potentiality to be abusive. You can do so only on the actuality, and, within the workplace.
    Robert W – I think that, as a commenter posted at the Legal Insurrection site, that a more viable response of the company would have been to put out a public statement that this employee’s actions do not represent the views of the company. Period. Leave his work colleagues and online reactions deal with him.
    Your example is different; it’s an outline of a continuous pattern of abuse of others and ‘exhibiting’ himself online as a member of a company. I could understand the company objecting to this publicity and firing him because he brought the company into his actions. But in this one particular case, I don’t see that it was anything other than a single personal action.
    Perhaps we don’t know the full details. My point is the usual response; freedom of speech includes obnoxious speech, and sometimes, that obnoxious speech is also harassment. Then, it’s the duty of the store’s management to step in and protect their workers from harassment.

Proudly powered by WordPress & Skyrocket Themes

MENU

Navigation