In Reply: "Collective blame for individual action is a non-starter." (Chick-fil-A, Religion, Bad Thinkin')

In reply to Conservatives blast Chick-fil-A 'Tastes like hate' vandalism - latimes.com

Generalizing about whole groups based on the bad behavior of individual members (allegedly, anyway--I'm not saying that graffiti was planted, but it sure makes for a convenient meme) is the very building block of bigotry, whether the group is based on religious belief, sexual orientation, or political belief. Gay folks (or liberals) are no more responsible for that graffiti than folks opposed to abortion (or conservatives) are responsible for clinic bombings. Collective blame for individual action is a non-starter.
--
Posted 8/3/12, 9:00 PM (or so)
===

I will say this, though... Like the idiot(s) who did the vandalism, the people beating up on the faithful in these comments and claiming to do so in the name of marriage equality are not doing anyone any good, and are not speaking for me, at all. The God I worship sees the inherent worth and dignity of all persons, including the ones who think He would ever condone treating anyone as less than perfect creations...or who don't believe in Him, at all.
---
Posted 8/3/12, 9:10 PM (or so)

In Recognition of Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day

I don't support either the restaurant or the reason some folks are eating there today, but their free speech--while wrong in content, in my humble, and in spite of whiners who only appreciate the free speech of those who agree with 'em--is just as valuable as mine.

So, with that in mind, a Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day playlist, suitable for those eating at the place, and those protesting there, too...

Ain't Nobody Here But Us Chickens - The Stargazers
All Birds Look Like Chicken To Me - Sweet Papa Stovepipe
Back In The Chicken Shack (Live) - Phish
Betting Better Fake Chicken Meat Will Be As Good As The Real Thing - NPR Story of the Day Podcast
Chick Habit - April March
Chick Singers - Dan Bern - Fifty Eggs
Chick-A-Boom (Don't Ya Jes' Love It) - Daddy Dewdrop
The Chicken - Bill Williams
A Chicken Ain't Nothin' But a Bird - Cab Calloway
Chicken ain't nothing but a bird - Duck Baker
A Chicken Ain't Nothing But A Bird - Louis Jordan
Chicken And The Hawk - Cousin Joe, aka Joe Pleasant
Chicken blues - Mississippi John Hurt
Chicken Boy Polka - Those Darn Accordions! - Vongole Fisarmonica
The Chicken Dance - Lawrence Welk
Chicken Dog - John Scofield
Chicken Half - Sugarman 3
Chicken Heart - Arch Oboler - Drop Dead!
Chicken Heart - Bill Cosby
CHICKEN HUNTIN - FROGTHEDAWG - TEXAS CHAINSAW MASHACRE
Chicken In The Kitchen - The Robert Cray Band
Chicken Little - Push Down & Turn - H.O.R.D.E. Band To Band Combat
Chicken Outlaw - Wide Boy Awake
Chicken Roost Blues - Cliff Carlisle
Chicken Shack - Pinetop Perkins
Chicken Shack Boogie - Amos Milburn
Chicken Stuff - Hop Wilson
Chicken Stuff - Steve James
Chicken Town - James Mathus & His Knockdown Society
Chicken Wing Ft. The Demigodz [Explicit] - Eric Bobo
Chicken You Can Roost Behind The Moon - Stokes And Sane
Chickens - Junip
Chicklet Learns to Surf - Ben Vaughn - Psycho Beach Party OST
Chicklet Meets Surfers - Ben Vaughn - Psycho Beach Party OST
Chicklet Wipes Out - Ben Vaughn - Psycho Beach Party OST
The Chicks I Pick Are Slender And Tender - Louis Jordan
Chicky-Mo, Craney-Cro - Louis Jordan
Chips - Chicken - Banana Split (From Jamaica To Toronto: Soul Funk & Reggae 1967-1974) - Jo Jo & The Fugitives
Coop D'Etat: Farmers, Humane Society Partner On Chicken-Cage Revolution - NPR Story of the Day Podcast
Cotton Pickin' Chicken (Lost in Paradise) - Angel Baby
Congress Passes Amendment Guaranteeing Right To Chicken Done Right - The Onion Radio News
Slate's Explainer Podcast - Funky Chicken: Do American birds taste funny because we chlorinate them? By Nina Shen Rastogi
In New Orleans, A Fried Chicken Institution Revived - NPR: Story of the Day Podcast
Kitty's Rambles/Dowd's 9 Lives/Jenny's Chickens - Marc Gunn - MarcSONGS Podcast
Pregnant Circus Geek Now Biting Heads Off Chicken For Two - The Onion Radio News
Savoring The Spice In Kung Pao Chicken - NPR: Story of the Day Podcast
Slate: The Chick-fil-A Church - Dale Willman, Slate Magazine Daily Podcast
Swinging Chicken Ritual Divides Orthodox Jews - NPR: Story of the Day Podcast
Dig That Crazy Chick - Sam Butera & The Witnesses
Dixie Chicken - Little Feat
Do These Frogs Really Taste Like Chicken - Budweiser Lizards
Fried Chicken - Steve Vai
Funky Chicken - Marcus Miller, Steve Gadd, Eric Clapton, David Sanborn & Joe Sample Funky Chicken - The New York Jets
The Funky Chicken - Rufus Thomas
Funky Chicken Song [Techno] - Fast Food Rockers
Funky Chicken Stew - The Dayton Sidewinders
The Ghost And Mr. Chicken - The Tiki Tones
Grab a Chicken (Put It Back) - Peter Frampton - Fingerprints
The Greasy Chicken - Andre Williams & The Don Juans
Hippie Chick - SoHo
Huddled Chickens - Phillips, U. Utah - I've Got To Know
CHICKENS & OTHER CLUCKERS... - Intoxica Radio w/Howie Pyro
Kicks & Chicks - The Zipps
Marque-son's Chicken - Frank Zappa
Mr. Chicken Shit (alternate take) - The Soul Seven
Quarter Chicken Dark - Stuart Duncan; Chris Thile; Edgar Meyer; Yo-Yo Ma - The Goat Rodeo Sessions
Refried Funky Chicken - The Dregs 1
Robot Chicken - Les Claypool
Run Chicken Run - The Felice Brothers
Running With Chicken - Garfunkel and Oates - All Over Your Face
The Sad Chicken - Leroy & The Drivers
Shoo That Chicken - Bo Carter
Stay Away From My Chicken House - Gene Autry
Superchicken - Sheldon Allman & Stan Worth - Television's Greatest Hits Vol. 5 - In Living Color
That Chick's Too Young To Fry - Louis Jordan
Thunder Chicken - The Mighty Imperials
VLR 04 - How to be a Chicken - Rev. Davdson Loehr - Voices of Liberal Religion
Wasted Chicks - Chicks On Speed vs Kings Of Leon
Y'all Chickenhawks to Me - Elmo and the Monsters
5-Piece Chicken Dinner - The Beastie Boys
Pepito Chickeeto - Woody Woodpecker Presents

In Reply: Reading Into Speech, And Finding Exactly What You're Looking For

In reply to Allergic to Bull: It’s about Fascism: Why Everyone Should Eat At Chick-Fil-A On Wednesday

I'm with you on the Boston and Chicago incidents, but I think that to lump Mayor Lee in with them, one has to read too much into what he says. Whatever meaning he intended--and I agree that he might've intended to be threatening official Mayoral action to block Chick-fil-A from locating in San Francisco, and even that if he was intending to threaten the use of Mayoral power, he likely intentionally chose his words carefully so as not to be held accountable for the threat he was making--he did not make a threat clear enough to warrant lumping him in with the other two officials in the other two cities. There are other possible meanings, and you're choosing the most damning one, and attacking him for what you think he meant, probably.

Mostly this is a disagreement of opinion--you read one thing into his tweet, and I read another, and neither of us has any definitive proof--or will ever have any, unless the Mayor says something more to clarify the meaning of that original tweet (and even then, he could be walking back his original statement, right?)--but you're also suggesting that what he said--what you believe he said--is a violation of law.

I don't think so. I don't believe there is any law under which one can be prosecuted for what folks think a person meant in a statement as unclear as his. (And even if there were some way to prove he actually meant he would take official government action, I question whether there would need to be some overt act--or some showing that Chick-fil-A suffered some quantifiable damage, at least--before a case could be brought against Mayor Lee.) But I'm not a lawyer, so what do I know...

And while we're on the subject of law, I'm still perplexed by your cite of Virginia v Black, and your suggestion that one can find "the law of what counts as a threat" as a part of that decision. As you may've read, all I found when I perused the thing was the cite about "true threats," which involve clear expressions of the intent to commit unlawful violent acts. And if you're reading THAT into what Mayor Lee said, well, I'd be very surprised.

I'm a little worried about the accusation of Mayor Lee in terms of free speech, as well. If your interpretation of his meaning is wrong, you're defining down what an attack on free speech actually is--and chilling the speech of those who would disagree with Dan Cathy, or with those who would defend him (I'm sure you recognize how being casually accused of a crime can put a crimp in one's speech)--and I think that's very dangerous.

Finally, I'm certainly not going to agree that the verbal overreach of a couple of elected officials--which they already backed off from, in the face of a whole lotta pressure from, well, almost everyone--constitutes an attack on free speech that would cause me to advocate for eating at a Chick-fil-A restaurant in the name of striking a blow for the first amendment.

I'm pretty sure that Chick-fil-A will see a good size bump in their business for a little while (and on Wednesday, for sure). The thing is, buycotts tend to be short-term. People do their duty and make a point of making those purchases for a little while, then life sets in, and the McDonalds is a half a block closer, and... people in the buycott start purchasing like usual, again.
The customers Chick-fil-A gains over this issue will almost certainly give the company a bump, short term. The customers they lose will likely never come back.

That said, I sincerely hope you enjoy your chicken, sir. I hear it's dee-lish. (The whole boycott/buycott thing is academic for me... The nearest Chick-fil-A location for me to eat at or protest is like 50 miles away... ...and at this stage, I'm not willing to make a day of it, however strong my beliefs...)
---

Submitted for "Allergic to Bull" moderator approval Posted July 31, 2012 2:59 PM (Actual post time, 8/1/12, 7:15 AM)

In Reply: Legally Unnecessary Regulations and Restrictions as a Way to Legislate Morality

In reply to Truth Wins Out -

Note: This link used to lead to a post by Evan Hurst--"As good as it feels to have politicians telling Chick-Fil-A to get lost, it's actually not okay http://bit.ly/MMeAUo #p2 #lgbt"-- but the post, as well as some powerful back and forth by the readers in the comment section, was disappeared by some person or persons at Truth Wins Out, which yes, is pretty ironic. (Those persons do not include the author, who said the decision was out of his hands--but offered to send me a copy, which yes, I intend to repost here, under the "sometimes it's better to ask forgiveness than permission" theory. I did not ask Evan whether it would be ok, and thus did not put him in the position of letting me down or going against the wishes of the site he writes for, either. If/when I get a copy, it will appear below--unless the author includes a request that I not share it when he sends the post, of course, in which case I will report that.

Either way, my reply to the disappeared Truth Wins Out post and reader commentary appears below:
---

I see the chick-fil-a issue regarding these government officials as being akin to the government officials passing immpossible/extremely costly-to-comply-with regulations on medical providers in the business of providing a service to which these government officials are opposed--abortions--and thus closing them down, or keeping them from opening. (And unlike the Chick-fil-a threats, these regulations against abortion providers are already in place in several cities and states...)

I'm all for protesting, and for the free speech and right of religious and moral conscience of all involved... ...but I cannot support targeting businesses with legally unnecessary regulations and restrictions because you oppose the business on moral grounds, whether it's anti-abortion legislators targeting clinics or pro-marriage equality legislators targeting fast food chicken.
---

Posted July 26, 2012 10:27:14 PM EDT

In Reply: The Answer to Speech is More Speech

Revised and extended, in reply to No More Mister Nice Blog: WHAT WOULD BE THE OUTCOME OF THE WAR WE MAY BE STARTING HERE?, about Chick-fil-A, and the aldermen and mayors making threats to use their political power and legal means to keep them out of their area:

It's one thing to say "don't eat there" (or even to say "I'm opposed to your setting up shop in my city," though that's right on the line). It's another to use political/legal might to forbid them from doing business in a particular city/town...

If they were stopping gay folks from eating or working there--which I'm pretty sure is ALREADY against the law--I could see trying to run them out of town unless they stopped doing that.

But really, all the guy did was express the opinion of his faith which, like it or not, sees homosexuality as a sin. While I don't share that opinion myself, and will do all I can to avoid financially or otherwise rewarding those who believe and express it, religious freedom and the right of conscience allow him his beliefs, just as they allow me mine.

One has to meet speech with speech and action with action, which is to say, as long as Chick-fil-A and their CEO is using speech--talking about his beliefs, donating to political and religious organizations in furtherance of his beliefs--political figures should respond the same way; speaking out, and donating/urging donations to organizations and groups in favor of his/her goals. Chick-fil-A has every right to speak, and should not face official government punishment for what they say.

If Chick-fil-A were violating anti-discrimination laws, THAT would be the time for government action. I am aware of no evidence that they are, though the company must be aware that many eyes will be on them and that it isn't only the right who engages in video stings.

Nothing prevents citizens (including elected officials) from speaking out or protesting in favor of or against marriage equality or any other issue. Companies who take a stand on controversial issues--even if they do nothing more than send out a press release--have to know they're going to gain some customers and lose others, whatever stands they take. There is nothing wrong with "voting your values" by spending more money with companies who share your values and less with those who do not. If money is speech, there's no reason yours shouldn't help you say the things you think need saying.

As an exit question, though... How is what these mayors are threatening to do ANY DIFFERENT from what certain republican legislators and governors are doing as regards abortion providers, setting up trap laws that regulate every aspect of the clinics and providers in such a way that they cannot meet them, and thus will have no choice but to close... The answer, of course, is that there's ZERO difference, except that these Republican governors and legislators have actually done what these anti-chickfila mayors are only threatening to do, even if some people choose to stick their fingers in their ears in a desperate attempt at willful misunderstanding and denial...

Finally, there is a line between religious beliefs and bigotry, on both sides of this issue.

As I said above, the interviews Dan Cathy gave expressed his support for the religious tenets of his faith. While my faith and my personal moral compass don't agree with those tenets, he didn't say anything hateful or bigoted. (I have since learned about donations Cathy and the Chick-fil-A corporation have made to more extreme anti-homosexual causes, whose stated beliefs and concrete actions go further than much of Cathy's religion has chosen to go, and yes, I do find those donations more problematic.)

On the other hand, not every person who speaks out against Chick-fil-A is an anti-Judeo-Christian bigot, either. It is possible to say "I disagree with the church on this issue" without actually hating God and everything Jesus stood for. Even being an atheist isn't an expression of hate. (Some folks claim it's another kind of faith, and thus should be protected by religious freedom.)

As I've said elsewhere, I have no problem with 99% of what faiths other than mine preach and teach. People can believe as they wish, and live according to the customs of their faith, with my blessings. The tolerance stops when you try to legislate aspects of your faith into secular law, forcing those to don't share your church's understanding of God and morality to nevertheless live as though they do. It's fine for individuals to choose to live according to what their Bible and preacher tells them. It's also fine for individuals--especially individuals who don't go to your church--to reject the teachings of your Bible and preacher, whether in favor of what their preacher teaches, or in favor of their own moral code. Religious freedom goes both ways.
---

Posted THURSDAY, JULY 26, 2012, 7:23 PM

In Reply: When Eagle (Scouts) Attack (or, of loyalty oaths and litmus tests)

In reply to I Am Not the Best Kind of Citizen - Popehat
---

I left Troop 106, Huntington, NY, when the scoutmaster told my friend--an atheist--that he had to leave the summer camp out and quit the troop if he refused to attend one of the Sunday services. He packed up and left, and I left with him. (I'm guessing this was 1979 or '80.)

There is very little chance I ever would've become an Eagle scout, and there's even a good chance I would've quit scouting altogether anyway... but I was very proud of my friend for standing up for his right of conscience that day--I probably would've picked a service and gone, were I in his shoes--and I'm glad to this day that I left with him.

I can understand institutions and groups who want to instill values in their members, including particular religious or sociopolitical values. What I cannot understand--and refuse to be a part of--are institutions and groups who refuse to allow people admittance unless they subscribe to those particular values at the outset. I've never been a fan of Loyalty Oaths and litmus tests...
---

Posted Jul 23, 2012 @5:56 pm
---

The whole discussion is pretty fascinating, whatever your views on the Boy Scouts or religious faith. If you're interested, I suggest reading this whole post, including the comment section (That link again was: I Am Not the Best Kind of Citizen - Popehat) as well as this post: Atheist Scout Booted from Scouting - Beliefnet.com (my friend obviously wasn't the only one) and the follow-up post at Popehat: Guest Post: An Eagle Scout's Thoughts On The BSA's Policies | Popehat (including the comment section)

The original Popehat post was inspired by Eagle Scouts stand up to the Boy Scouts of America: *UPDATED* - Boing Boing, which talks about the BSA's stand on homosexuality, and what a number of Eagle Scouts are doing in protest. Some of the letters bring tears to my eyes.

For the record, while I'd like for BSA to open up and change their policies regarding religious faith and homosexuality, they are a private organization, and can set their membership rules according to the values they wish to instill in their members. I also support the laws that prohibit some government entities from working with them as long as they continue to forbid membership to protected classes of people. I view them the same way I do religious faiths and denominations other than my own; they have every right to believe as they do, but I have just as much right to reject their teachings in favor of my own. The BSA are not bigots, but their beliefs do conflict with American values regarding equality, as well as with the beliefs of my faith regarding the inherent worth and dignity of all persons.