I have been quiet for some time on writing on this blog, mainly due to life and all of the happenings that go on with family, work, and everything else. That being said, I am deeply concerned with some of the things that are going on in this world and have been researching solutions.
I do vent at times on here without a solution because I hope that some of my readers (although, very few) might have some answers to the issues that we face as a people either here in the US or abroad.
I have however been watching the rise of ISIS or ISIL, however they want to be called at this time, and I am very disturbed. This scourge is spreading, and I am not certain all those who are waving that banner really understand what it is that they are supporting. While doing research, I have been reminded of warnings from the dust that were given for our day.
I am a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, commonly know as either LDS or Mormon. As such, we believe that Jesus Christ restored his church through a young boy named Joseph Smith in the Spring of 1820 in upstate NY. As part of that, Joseph was told of gold plates that were hidden in a hill not far from his home, and that one of the tasks he was commanded to do was to translate them into English and make them available to the world. In this record, known as The Book of Mormon, written by ancient prophets living here in the Americas, there are references to an extremists group that set about forming "secret combinations", or oaths to each other to do evil on others for their own gain. These groups, commonly named in the passages as "Gadianton Robbers" became a scourge to society, plotted to take over governments, and killed many to get personal and group gain. They often spent resources taking away the rights, especially religious rights of others... sound familiar?
The account written in The Book of Mormon was abridged by a man and Prophet of God named Mormon (hence the name of the book) and was written and compiled for our day. In it there are many references to the wars that took place among the people, this always puzzled me, often they would say that there was but little precious space on the plates and that writing on the plates was tedious and difficult. Why then, would they included pages and pages of info on the wars and dealings with these Robbers. My take, we need to know this info for our days now, dealing with those like ISIS, to help us know how to defeat them and bring them to justice. His son Moroni was the last Prophet to write on the plates, his account of the demise of their civilization starts in chapter 8. We could all learn of what this kind of scourge can do to people by reading the Chapters of Mormon. It is a sobering account of the demise of a civilization that once were a righteous and humble people, now turned to one that only was interested in getting gain and taking away the freedoms of others.
The solution that seemed to work at different times was for the people to humble themselves before God, repent of their sins, then teach those "Robbers" the Gospel of Jesus Christ and those that converted turned from their evil ways, those that did not continued the traditions, but were weaker and less effective. Those that did not convert would later come back and try again to spread evil and gain followers. This was the pattern among the people there, when the people began to rely on their own philosophies and turn away from God, the people began to turn to secret combinations or secret oaths to do evil things to get gain. Once they began to do this, freedoms were removed, oppression reigned, wars started, and lives were lost. We can at least learn from the people of the Book of Mormon and try are best to teach the Gospel of Jesus Christ to those that are creating these secret combinations and hope and pray that they will embrace the truth... If not, maybe we will have to take other courses of action that were included in the writings, let's hope the first choice will help take care of this scourge.
Wednesday, October 8, 2014
Tuesday, June 24, 2014
Cancer Sucks!!
I know this is a political motivated blog, but I have to rant a bit about cancer... yes the dreaded disease that puts dread in anyone who has heard their doctor way the phrase... " we have found a mass and testing results show that it is cancerous"
I do not have cancer, but my father is struggling with it, I have a sister-in=law who is a survivor of breast cancer, battled and won, another sister-in-law who has had brain cancer twice, and won both times, many other friends who have made the long trek through pain, worry, fear, sickness, surgeries, radiation, chemo, and all of the many many struggles they slugged through to get to the word "remission" and then others like my sweet mother-in-law, aunt, and uncle who were taken to their heavenly home because of it.
I have a few friends right now who are in the midst of the battle, courageous they are, in the face of insurmountable odds. They keep a positive attitude and find time for those things that truly matter in life, and find peace even when everything around them says that they should just fold up in a heap of sorrow.
Gun control, illegal immigrants, campaign spending, war in Irag, all of these things, although important in some way, really become so trivial when faced with the reality that is the end of life. To all those of you out there struggling with this terrible disease.... Stay strong, know that we love you, you matter, and you have made this world a much better place for the rest of us, even if your time has been cut shorter than we would all like.
I do not have cancer, but my father is struggling with it, I have a sister-in=law who is a survivor of breast cancer, battled and won, another sister-in-law who has had brain cancer twice, and won both times, many other friends who have made the long trek through pain, worry, fear, sickness, surgeries, radiation, chemo, and all of the many many struggles they slugged through to get to the word "remission" and then others like my sweet mother-in-law, aunt, and uncle who were taken to their heavenly home because of it.
I have a few friends right now who are in the midst of the battle, courageous they are, in the face of insurmountable odds. They keep a positive attitude and find time for those things that truly matter in life, and find peace even when everything around them says that they should just fold up in a heap of sorrow.
Gun control, illegal immigrants, campaign spending, war in Irag, all of these things, although important in some way, really become so trivial when faced with the reality that is the end of life. To all those of you out there struggling with this terrible disease.... Stay strong, know that we love you, you matter, and you have made this world a much better place for the rest of us, even if your time has been cut shorter than we would all like.
Wednesday, March 19, 2014
Alight, so 2 posts within a month of each other, I must have a lot of time of my hands.... nope, just a few things that I have read that are really worrying me about where the world is going.
So I read an article this morning about a gay couple who is suing their church for opting out of performing same sex marriages. In the UK it is legal to get married if you are a same sex couple, (this just went into effect this month in England) but the law put in a provision that some can opt out of performing these services. The legislation that was introduced on Dec 2011 included the following in order to sustain the religious freedom and still allow for same sex marriages to be cleared for performing.
But in the article that I read this morning (The Libertarian Republic.com article) a gay couple is still trying to compel a church to perform their marriage even though the law was put in place to not allow this.
My question is why? Why take away others religious freedoms because you have an agenda to make a point? Why take away religious freedoms in the cloak of civil rights? Why trample over others rights and freedoms to impose your own? I think that is a form of tyranny.
I think that what the UK did in terms of writing the laws when they approached this subject was great. They spent a lot of time talking about both sides and tried to do their best at giving same sex couples more rights and the legal marriages that they wanted, and also keeping those that do not agree with that, their freedoms to not have to "perform" those ceremonies if they did not want to. I think the US would be wise to look at that, and maybe they have, but they are leaving it up to the States and each state is deciding to do it differently so we will see what the outcome is when all the dust settles.
I for one want those that desire a same sex union to have all of the rights and privileges that any opposite sex marriages have. If that means you have to call it a marriage than so be it, BUT I do not want to lose my religious rights and freedoms to not accept having to perform such when I don't agree with it. There will be plenty of others that are qualified to perform such unions, but in my church, we have a lay ministry and those in the congregation are called to be ministers (like a pastor) from time to time and in that situation you are given the authority perform marriages. I do not want to be compelled to perform a same sex marriage if I was ever put in that situation and that is a direct violation to my religious beliefs.
Again, I want to state that I would love nothing more than to have the rights of those seeking a same sex marriage to be granted, and that they can experience all of the same rights under law that opposite sex couples are granted. I just don't want peoples religious freedoms cancelled over it.
My personal religious beliefs are centered in a church that has a history relating to plural marriage. Most that I have talked with when telling them that I am a Mormon, jokingly ask if I have more than one wife. For the record I do not, and that has not been practiced since the late 1800's but people do ask, and I have many that have stated that they think that it is disgusting and degrading to woman. I am just thankful I was not asked to do that (if you want to really know more about that, please ask), but I am surprised that I have a few gay friends pushing for this new legalization of gay marriage, that are ones that are most vocal about how plural marriage is wrong. Well, once same sex marriage is legal, there is nothing to stop those that want to have plural marriages from doing the same thing (for the record I am not wanting it). Other combination could be thought up, but really under this logic, they should all have the same rights, and if the same sex couples are forcing others to perform these unions, even when they feel it is against their moral compass to do so, they might have to perform these types as well.
So I read an article this morning about a gay couple who is suing their church for opting out of performing same sex marriages. In the UK it is legal to get married if you are a same sex couple, (this just went into effect this month in England) but the law put in a provision that some can opt out of performing these services. The legislation that was introduced on Dec 2011 included the following in order to sustain the religious freedom and still allow for same sex marriages to be cleared for performing.
- Ensuring the legislation states explicitly that no religious organization, or individual minister, can be compelled to marry same-sex couples or to permit this to happen on their premises
- providing an 'opt-in' system for religious organizations’ who wish to conduct marriages for same-sex couples, which also allows individual ministers to continue to refuse to perform same-sex marriage even when their religious organization opts in
- amending the Equality Act 2010 to reflect that no discrimination claims can be brought against religious organization’s or individual ministers for refusing to marry a same-sex couple or allowing their premises to be used for this purpose
- Ensuring that the legislation will not affect the Canon law of the Church of England or the Church in Wales, i.e., unless Canon law and the same-sex marriage legislation are changed in future, both churches will be legally barred from performing same-sex marriages.
But in the article that I read this morning (The Libertarian Republic.com article) a gay couple is still trying to compel a church to perform their marriage even though the law was put in place to not allow this.
My question is why? Why take away others religious freedoms because you have an agenda to make a point? Why take away religious freedoms in the cloak of civil rights? Why trample over others rights and freedoms to impose your own? I think that is a form of tyranny.
I think that what the UK did in terms of writing the laws when they approached this subject was great. They spent a lot of time talking about both sides and tried to do their best at giving same sex couples more rights and the legal marriages that they wanted, and also keeping those that do not agree with that, their freedoms to not have to "perform" those ceremonies if they did not want to. I think the US would be wise to look at that, and maybe they have, but they are leaving it up to the States and each state is deciding to do it differently so we will see what the outcome is when all the dust settles.
I for one want those that desire a same sex union to have all of the rights and privileges that any opposite sex marriages have. If that means you have to call it a marriage than so be it, BUT I do not want to lose my religious rights and freedoms to not accept having to perform such when I don't agree with it. There will be plenty of others that are qualified to perform such unions, but in my church, we have a lay ministry and those in the congregation are called to be ministers (like a pastor) from time to time and in that situation you are given the authority perform marriages. I do not want to be compelled to perform a same sex marriage if I was ever put in that situation and that is a direct violation to my religious beliefs.
Again, I want to state that I would love nothing more than to have the rights of those seeking a same sex marriage to be granted, and that they can experience all of the same rights under law that opposite sex couples are granted. I just don't want peoples religious freedoms cancelled over it.
My personal religious beliefs are centered in a church that has a history relating to plural marriage. Most that I have talked with when telling them that I am a Mormon, jokingly ask if I have more than one wife. For the record I do not, and that has not been practiced since the late 1800's but people do ask, and I have many that have stated that they think that it is disgusting and degrading to woman. I am just thankful I was not asked to do that (if you want to really know more about that, please ask), but I am surprised that I have a few gay friends pushing for this new legalization of gay marriage, that are ones that are most vocal about how plural marriage is wrong. Well, once same sex marriage is legal, there is nothing to stop those that want to have plural marriages from doing the same thing (for the record I am not wanting it). Other combination could be thought up, but really under this logic, they should all have the same rights, and if the same sex couples are forcing others to perform these unions, even when they feel it is against their moral compass to do so, they might have to perform these types as well.
Friday, February 28, 2014
Loss of rights
Ok, so here it goes again... Loss of freedom in the name of tolerance and equal rights.
I just can't sit and take this much longer!! What is this big deal that I am whining about, you ask? Here is the issue that I am referring to:
Wall Street Journal Article
Example of situations where this has been an issue
NY Times Article
Fox News Story
To tell someone that they have to offer their services, or products regardless of if they feel is against something "morally right", is a loss of freedom, plain and simple.
Let's take a fictional look from a different perspective, shall we?
Let's say there was a small screen printer in a small town outside of Topeka, KS, and they have an excellent reputation for getting orders done correctly, quick, and reasonably priced. There are other screen printers in the Topeka area, but the partners in this business, Bob and Tom are considered the best. Bob and Tom are very enterprising and smart guys, who value their customers and make it a point to make certain they do the best job for their clients. It just so happens that Bob is gay, and Tom has know since they went into business 15 years ago. Tom doesn't care that Bob is gay, he just knows that Bob has been a great partner in their growing business, and is someone that he can rely on.
Across town a group is planning a demonstration, they are a part of a church group and with all of the talk about gay rights and gay marriage, they have decided to do a protest march in CO the next state over, but want to have some t-shirts screen printed for this. It just so happens that this "church group" calls themselves the Westboro Baptist Church. Knowing that the small town screen printer is the best and can get the shirts done reasonably and with a short turn around, the church group takes their business to the screen printer in this small town.
Tom is at the store on the day that this church group comes in to place the order, upon seeing what is to be screen printed on the shirts, Tom politely turns the church group down on taking the order, telling them that their business finds what they want to have printed to be offensive and would rather not subject their other employees to the type of wording on the shirts that is being ordered. Tom even gives this church group the names and numbers of other screen printers in the area that might be willing to do the work requested, but still refuses to print the shirts. The Westboro Baptist Church contacts one of the other screen printers on the list and that screen printer decides to do the work, charging the church group a premium for having to do a rush order.
After getting the shirts ordered, the Westboro Baptist Group decides that the original screen printing company has discriminated against them, they call the ACLU and place a formal complaint that the screen printing company willfully discriminated against them due to their religious beliefs. Tom hears about this later that afternoon, and calls Bob, explaining what happened. Bob comes over and they have a meeting with their employees. Bob and Tom are totally in agreement and explain what happened and get their feedback. Each of the employees feel the same and are grateful that the owners were willing to turn this type of business away since they did not want to be exposed to this type of language as well.
The ACLU and the Westboro Baptist Church sue the small screen printing company, even though they went with another screen printer, and win in court, forcing Bob and Tom's screen printing company to take the order on anyway or face large fines and loss of business license if they refuse.
So.... Does Bob and Tom, have a right as a business to refuse servicing someone based on preference of what they will and won't work on? If Bob and Tom had already signed an agreement with the Westboro Baptist Church, this would be a completely different discussion, but they did not, the church group came in asked to place an order and the screen printer refused based on personal convictions. We all know this is is hypothetical, but I think it should make you think.
Do you think that refusing to serve a customer is a right of any business
Do you think that a company should have a right to turn away business if they choose based on personal preference, regardless of whether that personal preference is due to religious, economic, or any other personal convictions?
If a company chooses to turn business away they don't get that income, that is a business decision. If a company chooses to not be open on a Sunday due to religious dictates, that is a business decision. It might be motivated by the owners, who are people, like all of us and have our own set of reasons for making decisions, but in the end I feel company owners have a right to choose who they will and will not service with their company. This happens everyday all over the world, even in countries that don't really have a free market. Companies refuse to serve customers for many reasons, a bar might because the patron has already had too much to drink, the fast food restaurant refuses to serve a customer that does not have shoes or a shirt on, a dog groomer refuses to trim a dog that has a bad skin disorder, a lawyer refuses because he does not think the customer has a case or is doing it fraudulent, a tax pro refuses to do someones taxes because he feels that the customer is filing incorrectly and will lead to an audit, a barber refuses to cut a person with afro-textured hair, only because they are not skilled in it, a sign maker turns business away because they find the message offensive... these are all valid reasons to turn business away. Ultimately the company looses the business and the income from that customer.. that is a choice. The customer in a free market can find another company to bring their business to, that is their choice. Are we wanting to go down this road of reasoning, and make it so that the government makes all of these choices for us. Please say NO!!
I am pretty sure that due to my limited readership and that I am really a "nobody" in the world, I will not have too many that dispute this but I may, and if so, please explain why you feel that way. I am always open for discussion on both sides.
I just can't sit and take this much longer!! What is this big deal that I am whining about, you ask? Here is the issue that I am referring to:
Wall Street Journal Article
Example of situations where this has been an issue
NY Times Article
Fox News Story
To tell someone that they have to offer their services, or products regardless of if they feel is against something "morally right", is a loss of freedom, plain and simple.
Let's take a fictional look from a different perspective, shall we?
Let's say there was a small screen printer in a small town outside of Topeka, KS, and they have an excellent reputation for getting orders done correctly, quick, and reasonably priced. There are other screen printers in the Topeka area, but the partners in this business, Bob and Tom are considered the best. Bob and Tom are very enterprising and smart guys, who value their customers and make it a point to make certain they do the best job for their clients. It just so happens that Bob is gay, and Tom has know since they went into business 15 years ago. Tom doesn't care that Bob is gay, he just knows that Bob has been a great partner in their growing business, and is someone that he can rely on.
Across town a group is planning a demonstration, they are a part of a church group and with all of the talk about gay rights and gay marriage, they have decided to do a protest march in CO the next state over, but want to have some t-shirts screen printed for this. It just so happens that this "church group" calls themselves the Westboro Baptist Church. Knowing that the small town screen printer is the best and can get the shirts done reasonably and with a short turn around, the church group takes their business to the screen printer in this small town.
Tom is at the store on the day that this church group comes in to place the order, upon seeing what is to be screen printed on the shirts, Tom politely turns the church group down on taking the order, telling them that their business finds what they want to have printed to be offensive and would rather not subject their other employees to the type of wording on the shirts that is being ordered. Tom even gives this church group the names and numbers of other screen printers in the area that might be willing to do the work requested, but still refuses to print the shirts. The Westboro Baptist Church contacts one of the other screen printers on the list and that screen printer decides to do the work, charging the church group a premium for having to do a rush order.
After getting the shirts ordered, the Westboro Baptist Group decides that the original screen printing company has discriminated against them, they call the ACLU and place a formal complaint that the screen printing company willfully discriminated against them due to their religious beliefs. Tom hears about this later that afternoon, and calls Bob, explaining what happened. Bob comes over and they have a meeting with their employees. Bob and Tom are totally in agreement and explain what happened and get their feedback. Each of the employees feel the same and are grateful that the owners were willing to turn this type of business away since they did not want to be exposed to this type of language as well.
The ACLU and the Westboro Baptist Church sue the small screen printing company, even though they went with another screen printer, and win in court, forcing Bob and Tom's screen printing company to take the order on anyway or face large fines and loss of business license if they refuse.
So.... Does Bob and Tom, have a right as a business to refuse servicing someone based on preference of what they will and won't work on? If Bob and Tom had already signed an agreement with the Westboro Baptist Church, this would be a completely different discussion, but they did not, the church group came in asked to place an order and the screen printer refused based on personal convictions. We all know this is is hypothetical, but I think it should make you think.
Do you think that refusing to serve a customer is a right of any business
Do you think that a company should have a right to turn away business if they choose based on personal preference, regardless of whether that personal preference is due to religious, economic, or any other personal convictions?
If a company chooses to turn business away they don't get that income, that is a business decision. If a company chooses to not be open on a Sunday due to religious dictates, that is a business decision. It might be motivated by the owners, who are people, like all of us and have our own set of reasons for making decisions, but in the end I feel company owners have a right to choose who they will and will not service with their company. This happens everyday all over the world, even in countries that don't really have a free market. Companies refuse to serve customers for many reasons, a bar might because the patron has already had too much to drink, the fast food restaurant refuses to serve a customer that does not have shoes or a shirt on, a dog groomer refuses to trim a dog that has a bad skin disorder, a lawyer refuses because he does not think the customer has a case or is doing it fraudulent, a tax pro refuses to do someones taxes because he feels that the customer is filing incorrectly and will lead to an audit, a barber refuses to cut a person with afro-textured hair, only because they are not skilled in it, a sign maker turns business away because they find the message offensive... these are all valid reasons to turn business away. Ultimately the company looses the business and the income from that customer.. that is a choice. The customer in a free market can find another company to bring their business to, that is their choice. Are we wanting to go down this road of reasoning, and make it so that the government makes all of these choices for us. Please say NO!!
I am pretty sure that due to my limited readership and that I am really a "nobody" in the world, I will not have too many that dispute this but I may, and if so, please explain why you feel that way. I am always open for discussion on both sides.
Wednesday, August 1, 2012
So, I seldom am posting these days due to busy life, that is until something comes along that gets under my skin and I decide to finally post about it.
So in the news there have been many posts and news updates around about the CEO of Chick-Fil-A stating that he is oppose to Same Sex Marriage. The posts that have been going around are stating that people should boycott Chick-Fil-A stores because of this.... Well, in my humble opinion... They have every right to boycott patronizing a business for whatever reason they have, whether that is because they don't like the food, they had a friend get sick there once, they hate the color of the packaging, they think the business is using products from China... who knows, but they have that right.. I also have a very very strong opinion that the CEO of Chick-Fil-A has every right to make a statement on their beliefs just like you or I... we live in the US for heavens sake and we should all feel safe to state our opinion... that is what makes this country great!!
quote
"Some have opposed the company's support of the traditional family. "Well, guilty as charged," said Cathy when asked about the company's position.
"We are very much supportive of the family -- the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that.
"We operate as a family business ... our restaurants are typically led by families; some are single. We want to do anything we possibly can to strengthen families. We are very much committed to that," Cathy emphasized.
"We intend to stay the course," he said. "We know that it might not be popular with everyone, but thank the Lord, we live in a country where we can share our values and operate on biblical principles."
end quote
So, first of all I ask... where is the hate in this statement? Just because he states that they take the stance of following "the biblical definition", does not mean hatred toward "the gay definition". The Bible states it a certain way, depending on the translation or alteration that has been done, and that is largely believed to be between a man and a woman. He also did say that they were married to their "first wives", was that a hate message to everyone that has gone through a divorce? I think not
So, here is where it gets dicey.... and where I get upset on this issue....
Chick-Fil-A has plans to open a new restaurant in Chicago in the 1st Ward area, when news of this statement by Dan Cathy came out all of a sudden Joe Moreno, the alderman of Chicago's 1st Ward began a series of statements rallying people to oppose Chick-Fil-A's expansion into the area. He also got others to enlist to his call...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/25/joe-moreno-chicago-alderm_n_1701646.html
I'm sorry, but that is both unethical and immoral to block businesses based solely on either religious or sexual orientation basis. If the tables were turned there are laws in place to protect people on issues like this, but because it was "pro biblical definition of marriage" it is okay to discriminate, in this alderman's eyes.
There are clear boundaries in place for cities to set up laws that govern what type of businesses can be in certain areas and what rules are around them... If Chick-Fil-A had been wantonly discriminating against people based on sexual orientation, then by all means, do an investigation and then if there is evidence, take them to court and convict them if guilty. If Chick-Fil-A was feeding people tainted food, or not keeping the restaurant in a clean and safe manner, there are agencies that are in place to protect the people from getting sick eating there, and if there was evidence that those things were going on, then shut them down till all the infractions can be remedied.
What this has escalated to is something that I am really worried about... government (or I should say, those in government) being able to just pick and choose the businesses that they like and discriminate on the rest. The act of bullying others due to their beliefs (and yes that is exactly what Joe did) is a slap in the face of everyone that is trying to make equal rights, truly "equal rights".
Whatever your stand on same sex marriage is, I would hope that you find these developments extremely worrisome. I would encourage you to take up the call of action to make certain that people, regardless of opinion, will always have a right to that opinion, and that those in opposition are not permitted legally, to bully them based on that opinion here in the US. I may not agree with those that have different opinions than I, but I will fight for their rights to be heard. I do not have to listen, I do not have to agree, I can even decide based on the statements that I choose not to endorse or patronize a place of business that they may own... but they can still under the rights we have in place, do their best to run their business ethically and successful. They have a right to be honest and state what they believe, and finally they have a right to choose what they will or won't in our society, and not have that dictated for them.
Joe, my question to you is this... if they are not discriminating against gender, race, color, religion, sexual orientation, and any others in their hiring practice... and are bringing needed jobs to people in your area, where they can start getting back to supporting the needs of their families... shouldn't you help Chick-Fil-A do more of this in your area, not sit there and criticize and bully them based on their beliefs, and drive them out of Chicago, or even the state?
Today was Chick-Fil-A appreciation day due to those that are outraged by these turn of events... I have heard that there are droves of people going into Chick-Fil-A's all over the country... well, if we had one here I would go, not only because it is appreciation day, but because they have good food, I have always received excellent and friendly service from their employees, and they are closed on Sundays which I applaud these days. May we always have our freedoms, and fight like hell for them!!
So in the news there have been many posts and news updates around about the CEO of Chick-Fil-A stating that he is oppose to Same Sex Marriage. The posts that have been going around are stating that people should boycott Chick-Fil-A stores because of this.... Well, in my humble opinion... They have every right to boycott patronizing a business for whatever reason they have, whether that is because they don't like the food, they had a friend get sick there once, they hate the color of the packaging, they think the business is using products from China... who knows, but they have that right.. I also have a very very strong opinion that the CEO of Chick-Fil-A has every right to make a statement on their beliefs just like you or I... we live in the US for heavens sake and we should all feel safe to state our opinion... that is what makes this country great!!
Ok, so here is the quote that Dan Cathy made (from the Baptist Press http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=38271:
quote
"Some have opposed the company's support of the traditional family. "Well, guilty as charged," said Cathy when asked about the company's position.
"We are very much supportive of the family -- the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that.
"We operate as a family business ... our restaurants are typically led by families; some are single. We want to do anything we possibly can to strengthen families. We are very much committed to that," Cathy emphasized.
"We intend to stay the course," he said. "We know that it might not be popular with everyone, but thank the Lord, we live in a country where we can share our values and operate on biblical principles."
end quote
So, first of all I ask... where is the hate in this statement? Just because he states that they take the stance of following "the biblical definition", does not mean hatred toward "the gay definition". The Bible states it a certain way, depending on the translation or alteration that has been done, and that is largely believed to be between a man and a woman. He also did say that they were married to their "first wives", was that a hate message to everyone that has gone through a divorce? I think not
So, here is where it gets dicey.... and where I get upset on this issue....
Chick-Fil-A has plans to open a new restaurant in Chicago in the 1st Ward area, when news of this statement by Dan Cathy came out all of a sudden Joe Moreno, the alderman of Chicago's 1st Ward began a series of statements rallying people to oppose Chick-Fil-A's expansion into the area. He also got others to enlist to his call...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/25/joe-moreno-chicago-alderm_n_1701646.html
I'm sorry, but that is both unethical and immoral to block businesses based solely on either religious or sexual orientation basis. If the tables were turned there are laws in place to protect people on issues like this, but because it was "pro biblical definition of marriage" it is okay to discriminate, in this alderman's eyes.
There are clear boundaries in place for cities to set up laws that govern what type of businesses can be in certain areas and what rules are around them... If Chick-Fil-A had been wantonly discriminating against people based on sexual orientation, then by all means, do an investigation and then if there is evidence, take them to court and convict them if guilty. If Chick-Fil-A was feeding people tainted food, or not keeping the restaurant in a clean and safe manner, there are agencies that are in place to protect the people from getting sick eating there, and if there was evidence that those things were going on, then shut them down till all the infractions can be remedied.
What this has escalated to is something that I am really worried about... government (or I should say, those in government) being able to just pick and choose the businesses that they like and discriminate on the rest. The act of bullying others due to their beliefs (and yes that is exactly what Joe did) is a slap in the face of everyone that is trying to make equal rights, truly "equal rights".
Whatever your stand on same sex marriage is, I would hope that you find these developments extremely worrisome. I would encourage you to take up the call of action to make certain that people, regardless of opinion, will always have a right to that opinion, and that those in opposition are not permitted legally, to bully them based on that opinion here in the US. I may not agree with those that have different opinions than I, but I will fight for their rights to be heard. I do not have to listen, I do not have to agree, I can even decide based on the statements that I choose not to endorse or patronize a place of business that they may own... but they can still under the rights we have in place, do their best to run their business ethically and successful. They have a right to be honest and state what they believe, and finally they have a right to choose what they will or won't in our society, and not have that dictated for them.
Joe, my question to you is this... if they are not discriminating against gender, race, color, religion, sexual orientation, and any others in their hiring practice... and are bringing needed jobs to people in your area, where they can start getting back to supporting the needs of their families... shouldn't you help Chick-Fil-A do more of this in your area, not sit there and criticize and bully them based on their beliefs, and drive them out of Chicago, or even the state?
Today was Chick-Fil-A appreciation day due to those that are outraged by these turn of events... I have heard that there are droves of people going into Chick-Fil-A's all over the country... well, if we had one here I would go, not only because it is appreciation day, but because they have good food, I have always received excellent and friendly service from their employees, and they are closed on Sundays which I applaud these days. May we always have our freedoms, and fight like hell for them!!
Tuesday, February 7, 2012
OK... so I have been quiet for a bit.... today I had to speak up again.
So, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Prop 8 was unconstitutional today. Why should I be upset you say? Truth be known, I do not endorse same sex marriage... Do I feel that they should have the same rights to medical care coverage, visitation, and legal rights like opposite sex marriages... YES. Do I feel that in a lot of ways their rights were being infringed upon before this... YES Here is my beef with this.... The people voted, passed Prop 8, now you have the arm of the Judicial System that is overriding this in one vote, how is this constitutional. From my HS days (I know long, long ago, in a far away land) I learned that the three powers in our country do not have the ability to circumvent the majority decision of the people. In the Constitution, Article 3, Section 1 it gives no power to the Judicial System to vote something "unconstitutional" That was a power that was asserted by the Judicial System (Supreme Court) back in 1803 and was never challenged, so that group has been doing it ever since. (see http://www.senate.gov/civics/constitution_item/constitution.htm) Also, in Amendment X it states "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.", thus it is the people's right unless the Constitution specifically outlines that power or the people or the elected politicians from that state have given the Federal Government the power... They cited the 14th amendment as a reason for it being unconstitutional.
I feel that this is actually an infringement on my rights. What this is saying is that it does not matter what I vote for... the Judicial System can just choose what they want and I have to go along with it. I just have a hard time with the Government coming in a without vote or voice of the people making changes that can have such far reaching consequences that it effects so many without most understanding the ramifications. So, we have a Presidential Election coming... what if the person that the majority of the people vote for gets elected, but then the Judicial System decides that it is "unconstitutional" to all him or her to make changes in the current health care program, and remove him. I have a problem with this, and I think so would all of you. Extreme example, you may say, and that this would never happen. Well, at some point when you keep allowing the Government to take the little bits of your freedom away, you don't have freedom and no way to get it back unless there is a revolution.
Again, I do want equal rights for all. Prop 8 was put on the ballot due to the LGBT community wanting to have a union between same sex attracted people to be called a "Marriage" I do not agree, and yes I know that some will feel that I am old fashioned and allowing my religious beliefs to get in the way and dictate my decisions.... Yes I am allowing my beliefs to shape my decisions.. It is a free country. I worry that with this there is no limit to what will be called a "Marriage". Man and Man, Woman and Woman, Dog and Man, Car and Woman.... What will limit this.. if a union of 2 men or 2 women must be called a "Marriage" because our constitution says that it must, then a Man can Marry his Goat, and the constitution says that is correct as well. This is a very slippery slope to go down, and I have to take a stand that it should not be a "Marriage". Call it a Union and outline the rights that those that are in this Union.
So, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Prop 8 was unconstitutional today. Why should I be upset you say? Truth be known, I do not endorse same sex marriage... Do I feel that they should have the same rights to medical care coverage, visitation, and legal rights like opposite sex marriages... YES. Do I feel that in a lot of ways their rights were being infringed upon before this... YES Here is my beef with this.... The people voted, passed Prop 8, now you have the arm of the Judicial System that is overriding this in one vote, how is this constitutional. From my HS days (I know long, long ago, in a far away land) I learned that the three powers in our country do not have the ability to circumvent the majority decision of the people. In the Constitution, Article 3, Section 1 it gives no power to the Judicial System to vote something "unconstitutional" That was a power that was asserted by the Judicial System (Supreme Court) back in 1803 and was never challenged, so that group has been doing it ever since. (see http://www.senate.gov/civics/constitution_item/constitution.htm) Also, in Amendment X it states "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.", thus it is the people's right unless the Constitution specifically outlines that power or the people or the elected politicians from that state have given the Federal Government the power... They cited the 14th amendment as a reason for it being unconstitutional.
I feel that this is actually an infringement on my rights. What this is saying is that it does not matter what I vote for... the Judicial System can just choose what they want and I have to go along with it. I just have a hard time with the Government coming in a without vote or voice of the people making changes that can have such far reaching consequences that it effects so many without most understanding the ramifications. So, we have a Presidential Election coming... what if the person that the majority of the people vote for gets elected, but then the Judicial System decides that it is "unconstitutional" to all him or her to make changes in the current health care program, and remove him. I have a problem with this, and I think so would all of you. Extreme example, you may say, and that this would never happen. Well, at some point when you keep allowing the Government to take the little bits of your freedom away, you don't have freedom and no way to get it back unless there is a revolution.
Again, I do want equal rights for all. Prop 8 was put on the ballot due to the LGBT community wanting to have a union between same sex attracted people to be called a "Marriage" I do not agree, and yes I know that some will feel that I am old fashioned and allowing my religious beliefs to get in the way and dictate my decisions.... Yes I am allowing my beliefs to shape my decisions.. It is a free country. I worry that with this there is no limit to what will be called a "Marriage". Man and Man, Woman and Woman, Dog and Man, Car and Woman.... What will limit this.. if a union of 2 men or 2 women must be called a "Marriage" because our constitution says that it must, then a Man can Marry his Goat, and the constitution says that is correct as well. This is a very slippery slope to go down, and I have to take a stand that it should not be a "Marriage". Call it a Union and outline the rights that those that are in this Union.
Friday, December 9, 2011
OK, so I have not been posting lately due to family, and work demands. I have also been working more on items with my other interests in Theater and Playwriting. I do need to post this though... I feel that it is important to really look at the root issue and that is that is Politicians can make a career out of being a politician and have no accountability to getting things done, other than wanting to get re-elected, then we need to fix this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIcqb9hHQ3E
I agree that I think that it is the responsibility of the elected President, to steer the ship, and if he can't make the case to change the way we are paying and using money to manipulate the political system then we need to vote someone in there that will.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIcqb9hHQ3E
I agree that I think that it is the responsibility of the elected President, to steer the ship, and if he can't make the case to change the way we are paying and using money to manipulate the political system then we need to vote someone in there that will.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)