Hi Tracy

Amy, a facebook friend, shared my post on Chick-Fil-A from yesterday.  I decided I’m going to start responding to some commenters again, and a gent named Tracy volunteered to be the first.

Having stood in line and talking to people around me, what that guy wrote is a lot of crap. We didn’t do it because we hate gays. I don’t and I respect them. What we hand a problem with, was that that community wanted to boycott the chain because the owner believes in the sancity of Marrage. And that the gay commuinty is saying to him you can’t believe in the scancity of marrage, you don’t have the freedom of speech, and that is why I stood an hour and half to get my meal. I believe in the freedom of speech. That was our message. You can take if for what you will.

Tracy even managed to score one “like” for that tribute to inanity.  I responded…

Tracy,

“We didn’t do it because we hate gays. I don’t and I respect them. What we hand a problem with, was that that community wanted to boycott the chain because the owner believes in the sancity of Marrage.”

What is sanctity of marriage to you? In this context, I have a hard time seeing how it could mean something other than “sanctity = no gays.” That’s not respect. That’s saying they don’t deserve something that you do. That’s the opposite of respect.

“And that the gay commuinty is saying to him you can’t believe in the scancity of marrage, you don’t have the freedom of speech, and that is why I stood an hour and half to get my meal.”

Freedom of speech? From the article you’re commenting on, which you purport to have read when you dubbed its contents “a lot of crap.”

“It has nothing to do with their free speech. Dan Cathy remains free to say what he wants. But when you use that freedom to express an opinion that a significant portion of the population are second class citizens, and when you spend an exorbitant amount of money not on feeding the starving or housing the poor, but on fostering a world where millions of good people are denied equal rights, you have set yourself against humankind by the vehicle of not only your opinions, but also your actions. You cannot be shocked when humankind shuns you as it is the only moral thing to do.”

You clearly didn’t even read the article, but you sure weren’t slowed from expressing an opinion about what you hadn’t read. I can only suspect you treat the bible the same way.

If your message was to support free speech, then you are a sucker. Dan Cathy remains free to say whatever he wants. Had he said bathrooms should be segregated, he would continue to be free to say it. Had he said we should lynch LGBT people, his freedom to say it would remain uncontested.

He is not having his free speech contested. Not at all. Not ever. This is obvious to anybody with a functioning neuron.

That is why I said, in the article you clearly didn’t read (but still felt moved to comment on):

“The defense is that Dan Cathy was merely stating an opinion – namely that he supports biblical values. That’s like the KKK saying they are merely stating an opinion – namely that they support Southern values. How does it not occur to these people that their values can be terrible, traditional or not? Vile opinions that value discrimination and/or hate are not “mere.” They are anathema to humanity. For those possessed by true compassion for others, not the mealy-mouthed “compassion” of those giddy to display their lack of empathy for others in the name of Jesus, we should ensure that those who actively oppose the well-being of others, as expressed in their opinions, become pariahs.”

When someone uses their freedom of speech (which is not being challenged) to say flagrantly discriminatory things that negatively impact humanity, people aren’t going to want to support you financially – unless, of course, their religion moves them to be just as callous as Cathy.

So ditch the red herrings and own up to either being duped by a specious freedom of speech argument or own up to being a bigot. But at least be honest.

Oh, and read shit if you’re going to have an opinion on it. Otherwise you’ll come off looking like an irretrievable dumbass even if you do have a good point.

JT

Conversations won’t work on people who aren’t listening.  So, once they establish they’re not going to listen, we take it public and use them as an example of what you look like when you have a strong opinion you haven’t cared to become informed on.

About JT Eberhard

When not defending the planet from inevitable apocalypse at the rotting hands of the undead, JT is a writer and public speaker about atheism, gay rights, and more. He spent two and a half years with the Secular Student Alliance as their first high school organizer. During that time he built the SSA’s high school program and oversaw the development of groups nationwide. JT is also the co-founder of the popular Skepticon conference and served as the events lead organizer during its first three years.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X