Jamie wrote:
Sigh. I was going to try and avoid this conversation, but after reading through this thread, I don't think I can.
Here's my thing. I completely agree with free speech and the right to believe what you want. If the president of Chick-fil-a has a different opinion about something than I do, then all the more kudos to him. But when he starts endangering lives because of his opinion, then that is where the problem starts. The groups that he has donated money to have a lovely list of things on their agenda including:
1. Advocating for criminalization of LGBT people.
2. Claiming to be able to "cure" homosexuality.
3. Calling LGBT people a threat to society and children.
4. Trying to stop the USA from disapproving Uganda's anti-homosexuality bill.
So from that list, it would seem that not only does he disapprove of homosexuality, he wants to get rid of all homosexual people, which would put the lives of homosexuals at risk. Suddenly it's not just about free speech anymore but rather the safety of a group of people.
And for all those who have been calling *** or pro-gay people intolerant because we don't like the conservative opinions, let me tell you conservatives this: we did tolerate your opinions. We tolerated it when back in the day you tried to kill gays or persecute them or force them to take hormones to "turn them straight." We didn't show mass intolerance until the Stonewall Riots. And now suddenly in the present when we have the courage to stand up for ourselves, we're the ones who are intolerant? Because we don't like the opinions of those who didn't tolerate us for decades and actively showed it? I'm sorry, but it seems like gays/pro-gays have a lot better reason to be slightly intolerant than anti-gays do.
I don't think that you can prove he is endangering lives due to his opinions or monetary contributions. I'd like to see the number of violent acts committed against gays only because of Cathy's words and actions.
Also, to say that "he wants to get rid of all homosexual people" is a complete inference. All Cathy has said is that he support traditional marriage. This doesn't mean that he goes out of his way to see it's eradication...and frankly, I think this is far from the truth.
I'm sure that he support these organizations or groups monetary for reasons other than those stated above. Just because an individual donates to a group doesn't mean that they agree with every stance that group takes or support them for those stances they don't like.
Even if Cathy were for the eradication of homosexuality, I'd like to hear your explanation behind the safety of a group of people being completely determined by one individual's opinions and monetary contributions. Groups become endangered when society views them in a bad light, not just an individual. Since I don't see all of society turning against *** people, I'm sure that their safety is about the same as it would be if Cathy had not said anything at all.
Lastly, I'd point out that monetary decisions are tied in with freedom of association. Cathy is free to associate with any groups he likes as well as free to give his money to any cause he wishes. If he is willing to give money to organizations opposed to homosexuality, I'm sure their are people on the other side willing to give to organizations who do support homosexuality as well.