Saturday, August 4, 2012


Jeniffer brings what it is to be fully Human:
The very genuine reaction that I’ve heard is that although the people in the LGBTQ community believe the CEO of Chick-fil-A should have every right to state what he believes.  They cannot in good conscience spend their money with an organization that will use those profits to support anti-gay causes. This is completely legitimate, and I fully support anyone voting with their wallets. It is also understandable that the out pouring of support for Chick-fil-A feels like a slap in the face. Particularly when we tweet and Facebook and write blog posts about it.  Yeah, I want to stick it to the leaders in Chicago and Boston, but I do not want my friends to be collateral damage.  As a Christian, I cannot abide the hate directed at this community.

And so, here is what I propose. I can think of no better organization serving the LGBTQ community than The Trevor Project. For every dollar I spend at Chick-fil-A, I will donate a dollar to The Trevor Project. To me, this seems like a better way to love my neighbors and support what I believe in than slapping them in the face. Join me?
This is what I love about our little corner of the 'Net - this is a simply outstanding idea, filled with the best of both sides of the argument.  I've posted at least twice on this imperfect tense that never quite becomes a present.  I can't think of a better way to try to leave the world a little better place.

Jennifer says what Dr. Donne said, these many years ago:
No man is an island,
Entire of itself.
Each is a piece of the continent,
A part of the main.
If a clod be washed away by the sea,
Europe is the less.
As well as if a promontory were.
As well as if a manor of thine own
Or of thine friend's were.
Each man's death diminishes me,
For I am involved in mankind.
Therefore, send not to know
For whom the bell tolls,
It tolls for thee.
That's one smart lady.


Anonymous said...

I'll support gay rights when they stop overwhelmingly playing the identity politics game. Until then, it's nothing at all personal, but I'm not going to lift a finger for somebody who is actively out to eliminate most of my rights. How do I look my gay friends in the eye? Same way they look me in the eye, I guess, when they support using Title IX to exclude people like me from STEM departments. Nothing personal. Just business.

Sabra said...

I'm not going to lift a finger for somebody who is actively out to eliminate most of my rights

WTF? Exactly which of your rights are gay people looking to eliminate? Your right to prevent their marriages? Your right to refuse them a job because of their orientation? Your right to say stupid things on the Internet?

Pretty sure that last one's safe.

BP, her post is indeed excellent. I guess if you're not directly affected by it, it's hard to fully appreciate the whole thing. It is for me; I was surprised by how much the whole thing affected my best friend. It was more the support for the GLBTQ community than anything else, I think. For a guy who was once asked (in all seriousness) if he felt the Devil at work inside him, a whole lot of people saying "Yeah, you deserve full rights like we do" had to have been a good feeling.

Anonymous said...

Sabra: Amendments I, II, IV, V, X for starters. I mentioned the Title IX business. They overwhelmingly vote left, and left means authoritarian statists who regard me as livestock.

As I said, it's nothing personal. My preference is universalism: Same rights for everybody, marry who you please. No skin off my ass. But while I'd love to play by those expansive and friendly rules, the left chooses to play zero-sum screw-your-neighbor identity politics. It's not my choice which game is being played here. Bad political ethics drive out good. The choice I get is whether to be a sucker and be the only one playing by nice-guy rules, or not.

I'm the scapegoat these grasping petty little jerks all hate. They, and you, couldn't care less whether I have rights or not, so long as you get to spend my money. Why should I care more about your rights than you do about mine? Fair's fair.

See, I told you I'm a universalist.

Anonymous said...

Sabra: It's extremely risky to fire a member of a protected class (that's a genuine legal term). Even for cause. Or to include them in a RIF. As an employer, my right to keep the best employees is violated. As a non-protected employee, my right to be judged by the quality of my work is violated.

I'd be happy to take my chances on a level playing field. Why aren't you? Hm?

knottedprop said...

What most people are losing sight of the entire protest was about the militant progressive left trying to strong arm or destroy a privately owned company from doing what they felt to be right and what the owner did with his own money or say.
All they have done is make the world a less tolerant place as people are getting fed up of being told they must "love and embrace" the LGBT lifestyle and now they trying to make it criminal not to. I have warned of a backlash coming against this idiocy and it is starting to happen. You can't legislate people approving your lifestyle or liking you.

Borepatch said...

Anonymous, you can support the individuals - especially those that the Trevor Project is trying to reach - without supporting the coercive identity politics.

ASM826 said...

It's not about gay rights or marriage. I'm for both. I want everyone who wants to to get married. It about free speech and religious freedom. They want to silence this man, to destroy his business. They don't want him to be able to be closed on Sunday, they don't want him to be a success, because they despise what he believes.

His beliefs today, mine tomorrow, yours the day after. I stand against that sort of oppression, the same way I stand against the hate and disapproval that so often pushes young gay people to suicide. You want me to be in favor of freedom to live your life the way you choose? It has to be for everyone, even, especially, those I don't agree with.

Mycroft said...

Sorry, but that doesn't sound like an equitable deal. The money you spend at Chick-fil-A covers the cost of the food that you receive, the labor to prepare, cost of facilities/equipment/utilities and finally a bit of profit - most of which does not go to the groups you oppose.
Like most progressive efforts at "compromise" it is really nothing of the sort.

Jake (formerly Riposte3) said...

"They overwhelmingly vote left, and left means authoritarian statists who regard me as livestock."

Gays "overwhelmingly vote left" because the "right" - a.k.a., the Republican party - has done a wonderful job over the last few decades of alienating them and making them afraid of the R's getting real power. Witness the outcry from the "right" over Lawrence v. Texas, simply saying that states can't make being gay a crime. It's going to take years, if not decades, for the R's to undo that damage, and that's assuming they even bother trying rather than making things worse by courting the social conservatives again.

In what is widely perceived as an exclusively two-party system, what alternative do gays think they have left?

Anonymous said...

I'm sorry, but this whole argument is ludicrously absent any common sense.

Its simple whatever you want. I no longer support LOTS of organizations that propose limits of my 2nd Amendment rights, or my 4th Amendment protections, etc.

I have to laugh when I see supposed universalists or Tea Baggers or any other politically identified group trying to sit on the fence on an issue with the "if I give some funds here, I have to balance that with some funds there!"

Crock!!!!! You are effectively saying, "I actually am not sure how I feel on this issue, so I'll play it both ways." That is the WORST possible decision. I have good friends on both sides of this argument, and I can respect each of their views. I happen to have my own closely held opinion, but it does not mean I will discriminate against those with a different one.

However, I cannot respect anyone who wants to ride the fence. Lukewarm is useless. Hot or cold, find the answer for you and live by it.

Our country, and our world, is being compromised to death. Compromise is NOT the way to a better tomorrow, its the way to disaster. The Continental Congress did not compromise with England, we did not compromise with Nazi Germany, (Great Britain and Neville Chamberlain did, and Great Britain came a Winston Churchill away from speaking German) and we did not compromise with the USSR. Compromises, except in very small ideas, never works. One side eventually wins with the compromise. Which side do you want to see win? Pick it!

Be right or be wrong, but at least be something!