I’m tired of hearing about Chick Filet, but here’s the reason why. The CEO has the right to express is opinion because he is a citizen of the United States of America and enjoys the right to speak his mind because of the first amendment.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
So yes, the CEO does have the right to say what he wants the same way the Westboro Baptist church has the right to say god hates fags at military funerals. Customers of Chick Filet have the right to stuff as much cock in their mouth to protest gay marriage as they want. On the other hand, supporters of gay marriage have the right to boycott the company as well.
Freedom of speech does not make you right or moral however. When it comes to sex, many of the religious folks in our country have morality all backwards. In my opinion, there are immoral sex acts. Rape is immoral. Forcing someone to have sex without their consent is just about the worst crime I can think of besides murder. It is wrong, not because it says so in some bronze age book with an unknown author says it’s wrong, It is wrong because it is evil to force someone into having sex with you against their will. Forcing people to do things against their will is evil.
There is a story in the book of Genesis that most Christians say is the reason why god hates fags. . . okay maybe most Christians don’t put it in those terms, but a rose by any other name is still a rose, right? The story of Sodom and Gomorrah is engrained in our culture, so much so that we think we all know it. Why even read that part of the bible, everyone know s the story right? Here is a quick synopsis, ikn case you haven’t actually read the first book of the bible or maybe you just forgot:
The story begins with two angels entering the city of Sodom. They meet a man named Lot who wants to wash their feet. The bible is chock full of foot fetish imagery like this. Jesus washed the feet of his disciples in the new Testament (I know you didn’t think Jesus was so kinky did you?) Lot was very hospitable he even baked the angels’ bread without yeast, because mnot only does got hate fags—he also hates yeast.
Then some dudes from the city come up to Lot and ask him to bring out the new boys so they can have sex with them. I guess they didn’t know they were angels, maybe they hid their wings? This is wrong by the way. I am assuming that these dudes wanted to fuck the angels with or without their consent. That’s rape. Rape is bad. Rape really is evil.
So then Lot is like “No, my friends. Don’t do this wicked thing.” Good for Lot, he doesn’t agree with rape, this is a good moral lesson to learn. . . “Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don’t do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof.”
What the fuck! Lot! What the hell is the matter with you? You offer your virgin daughters up for rape instead? That’s ass backwards. Rape is wrong. Rape is wrong, Rape is Wrong. Stand up and tell them to go fuck themselves. The angels can fly away with their invisible wings, but you should protect your daughters from being raped as long as you can by any means necessary.
Then the angels tell Lot to get the fuck out because they are going to destroy the place.
Lot and his family get out of dodge(or Sodom) I’m sure you’ve heard this part before, fire and brimstone, yada, yada, yada, the city is destroyed, but first Lot’s wife looks back at the city. Because she looks back she was magically turned into a pillar of salt.
So then after they leave Sodom, Lot no longer has a wife. His virgin daughters decide to get him drunk and fuck him so they can preserve their family line through their father.
I’m not the first person to critique this story, Richard Dawkin’s says similar things in the God Delusion, but I’m convinced that most Christians don’t really read their bible. If they did, there would not be so many.
There is a problem in this country. Many of our citizens really believe people can be turned to salt. They really think there is a god that will bless America and say fuck Iowa if he doesn’t like what they are doing. They feel like if we allow gays to be married or in the military god will jack off and cum fire and brimstone all over this great nation. I don’t think this is a red herring when about 40% of the nation think something called the rapture will occur within the next fifty years.
That is not a reason to mandate against someone else’s pursuit of happiness. Let people be happy and let the chips fall where they may. The real sexual crimes need to be prosecuted, but contracts between consenting adults should never be stifled. If this is your reason against gay marriage then your reasoning is not protected under the first amendment. Say what you must, do all you can, proselytize to your heart’s content but you do not have a right to impose your religious doctrine to squelch someone else’s individual rights.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” Magic sky daddy in the sky says it’s wrong, is not a rational constitutional reason to outlaw gay marriage.
On one hand I agree that the CEO has the right to say whatever he wants because of the first amendment. I am a strong advocate of the first amendment. I like the fact that you can say anything in this country, no matter how bat shit crazy you may be. I even support the right of the Westboro Baptist church to protest military funerals. It is really the same issue. He thinks god hates fags.
I also support the boycott of Chik-Filet. This is also a right given to us, not only by the first amendment but by the fundamental nature of capitalism. I support individual rights. If two men want to stand side by side together and declare themselves married—that should also be a right protected under free speech. The state should either recognize it for them as well, or just get out of the business of marriage all together (which is what I would prefer)
Sex is not a crime, unless it involves force. I prefer individual rights to family values because family values seem to be valuing the wrong things in my opinion. If children are raped in churches, no one orchestrates a boycott against that church or eats a Big Mac in support of the victims. When Dan Cathy says they believe in the biblical definition of marriage—people get all giddy. What the hell is the biblical definition of marriage anyway? David had 600 wives. Should that be part of the biblical definition of marriage as well? I’m not against polygamy either, but if we have a family law court that issues alimony what happens if 300 of your wives want a divorce? How do you divide the alimony up amongst the wives? These are things that the courts could figure out, but polygamy has got to be the worst idea of marriage of all, except it’s still not worse than rape.
No comments:
Post a Comment