Great piece. I agree about the Civil War never ending (even in 2012, I still sometimes fantasize about "marching through Georgia"). The map is a nice touch. It applies to so many other issues today as well.

Rated.

It sure does. Among other things, it applies to the prevalence of racism, the prevalence of "Christo"fascism, the acceptance or the rejection of corporatism (the belief that corporations should have as much [or even more] power over the average individual as they do), the acceptance or rejection of U.S. militarism/global belligerence, the acceptance or rejection of science, reason and intellect, etc.

I'm not sure what was the "tipping point" with the Chik-Fil-A issue. I've known in the back of my mind for awhile that it was a "super heavy Christian" kind of place, but I didn't really give much more thought to it, because I'd never eaten there. Still haven't. Still won't.

(And I'm actually pleasantly surprised that there are that many states where it is illegal to fire someone because they're gay. I'm still hoping that sexual orientation will be added as a protected category in the Civil Rights Act. I won't hold my breath.)

Of course, if an employer really wants to fire someone, he or she can find SOME reason do so, and may be smart enough not to be overtly homophobic. The employer also can call it a "layoff" or the like.

Yes, indeed, sexual orientation should be a protected class in all 50 states. "States' rights" is bullshit where it comes to equal human and civil rights for everyone. Something as fundamental as equality shouldn't depend upon what state you are in...

Yup.

It became a "new" controversy because the mayors of Chicago and Boston said they wouldn't allow the company to locate in their jurisdictions, and the reason was because one of the top execs says he favors only hetero marriages. This is awfully close to having the government punish free speech. It may be more than close. I am sure some lawyer could argue that convincingly. Gays have come a long way in this country, and by and large that is a good thing, but I am not willing to repeal the First Amendment to appease them.

Yeah, I totally disagree with you.

What if a corporation gave money to white supremacist and/or other hate groups, groups that are dedicated to keeping certain minorities subjugated and treated as less than equal? Would that be OK? Would mayors and other government officials be OK in saying that they don't want these corporations in their cities or other jurisdictions, then?

Homophobia IS hate.

Chick-fil-A is giving money to hate groups. It's not just that its owner(s) simply hold(s) an opinion on same-sex marriage and non-heterosexuality. The corporation is actively aiding and abetting hate groups, which causes harm to people (hate crimes committed against non-heterosexuals because of the homophobia that is pumped out there, homophobia-related suicide, etc.).

Hey, nice try, though.

Anyway, the Chick-fil-A assholes have plenty of money. If they believe that their constitutional rights are being violated, they certainly can take it to a court of law, can't they?

Yeah, I WON'T be boo-hoo-hooing for the corporations the way many if not most Amerifascists do.

One just has to spend a year down here in the South, to know they think they won the Civil War!

----oh yes, and as for the "free speech" argument. I guess then we should condone the KKK, and the Nazis as well. After all they are only expressing their First Amendment rights to HATE!

Indeed. Again, those who are acting as though the "Christo"fascist owner(s) of Chick-fil-A simply have expressed homophobic sentiment, which the First Amendment allows them to do, are dead wrong.

Chick-fil-A has given millions of dollars to anti-LGBT groups -- to hate groups. (There are anti-LGBT groups that the Southern Poverty Law Center [at http://splcenter.org/] has identified as hate groups -- groups that ACTIVELY WORK to SUPPRESS equal human and civil rights of one or more classes of individuals.)

There is a huge difference between simply and only holding bigoted views and working actively to suppress the equal human and civil rights of a minority group. Very often those who hold such strong views ACT on them.

Speaking of the Nazis, it is telling, I think, that they persecuted gay men and lesbians and other non-gender-conforming individuals as well -- just like the fascists who comprise the Repugnican Tea Party.

Robert writes: "There are anti-LGBT groups that the Southern Poverty Law Center has identified as hate groups . . . "

The SPLC is a private organization with a financial (fund-raising) interest in identifying groups as "hate" groups. They have their own criteria for identifying groups as "hate" groups, and there doesn't appear to be any review or appeals process. The great majority of SPLC "hate" groups are not violent nor do they advocate violence; they are perfectly legal organizations.

In the state in which I live, the SPLC identifies around 15 "hate" groups. I've lived in this state for over 50 years, and I have never heard of any of these groups. Some of them appear to be storefront churches with a handful of members. Other groups appear to consist of a couple of people running a web site.

Robert: "Speaking of the Nazis, it is telling, I think, that they persecuted gay men and lesbians and other non-gender-conforming individuals as well -- just like the fascists who comprise the Repugnican Tea Party."

The nazis also persecuted Christians and orthodox Jews. And by the way, just because you call certain groups "fascist" does not make it so.

Robert: "Chick-fil-A has given millions of dollars to anti-LGBT groups -- to hate groups."

In 2010 most of their charitable donations -- around 70 percent -- went to groups that have nothing to do with LGBT issues.

Robert: "Again, those who are acting as though the "Christo"fascist owner(s) of Chick-fil-A simply have expressed homophobic sentiment, which the First Amendment allows them to do, are dead wrong."

Wrong in what way? Their donations are legal, and the groups to which they donate are legal. The fact that the SPLC calls some of those groups "hate groups" is utterly irrelevant, legally and constitutionally.

Robert: "What if a corporation gave money to white supremacist and/or other hate groups, groups that are dedicated to keeping certain minorities subjugated and treated as less than equal? Would that be OK? Would mayors and other government officials be OK in saying that they don't want these corporations in their cities or other jurisdictions, then?"

Certainly they would not be Ok in trying to deny such a corporation licenses and permits. If the corporation is operating legally and donating to legal organizations, then that is covered by the First Amendment. Look, free speech doesn't just cover speech and groups that you like; it also covers speech that you don't like and groups that you don't like. When the SPLC designates a group a "hate" group, that is legally irrelevant. If you like the SPLC then you should donate to them. But their "hate" list doesn't set government policy, nor does it determine which corporations can get government licenses and permits.

Overall, I agree with the Southern Poverty Law Center's definition of and identification of hate groups. There doesn't need to be "an appeals process" because the SPLC is not a court of law that has the power to deny life, liberty or the pursuit of ka-chiiiinnnnng! to those it adds to its hall of shame.

You are free to disagree with the SPLC. Hallelujah!

Again, Chick-fil-A, if it believes that it has been legally wronged by any party for any reason, has plenty of money with which to argue its case in court. Our court system overall leans to the right, so Chick-fil-A should have no problem.

Chick-fil-A doesn't need to be defended by apparent corporate-loving hos like you.

Do you have a connection to this evil corporation (redundant), I wonder? Why your wordy defense of the indefensible, I wonder?

There are indeed dictionary definitions of "fascism," one of which includes the corporatism -- the fusion of corporations with government, and the blind, mindless allegiance of the people under fascism to corporations -- that we saw in Nazi Germany and that we see in the United States of America today.

Chick-fil-A doesn't just support hate groups. Under my broad definition of the term "terrorism" -- which is the use of the intimidation of others in order to get one's own way in the political system -- Chick-fil-A actually supports terrorist groups, and thus most certainly does not deserve governmental favor or even governmental protection.

Stuff that in your fascist pipe and smoke it.

So you like the SPLC. That's great. Personally, I tend to be skeptical of an organization that identifies groups as "hate" groups at the same time they have a financial interest in increasing the number of "hate" groups. As the number of "hate" groups increases, the SPLC uses that "fact" in fundraising. So there is an inherent conflict of interest at work.

This explains why the SPLC lumps non-violent organizations in with violent organizations. It explains why the KKK and a web site run by two people are counted equally as "hate groups." These techniques increase the number of "hate" groups.

"Chick-fil-A doesn't need to be defended by apparent corporate-loving hos like you."

I was wondering when the personal attack would come. You may have missed the point that I wasn't defending a fast food chain; I was defending the principle of freedom of speech.

"Do you have a connection to this evil corporation (redundant), I wonder? Why your wordy defense of the indefensible, I wonder?"

I've never eaten there. None of their restaurants are located where I live, as far as I know. I never heard of them until the recent controversy. Again, you miss the distinction between defending a principle and freedom of speech, and defending a corporation.

"Chick-fil-A actually supports terrorist groups . . . "

Did you ever consider that there is something wrong with your definitions?

Oh, you'll KNOW when I've made a personal attack upon you.

Name one group or organization that SPLC has incorrectly identified as a hate group, and why SPLC is incorrect in its designation. ONE.

Non-profits must raise funds in order to operate and in order to expand, if they wish to expand, especially within a capitalist society. That's a fact of life.

Speaking of interesting definitions, my interpretation of the First Amendment is that it applies to individuals, to people -- not to corporations. Yes, the current right-wing, pro-corporate U.S. Supreme Court has deemed corporations as persons, but the esteemed U.S. Supreme Court also once deemed a black person to equal only three-fifths of a white person. Indeed, the court has a history of fucking up the concept of personage.

I call you a corporate ho because you speak as though corporations were people with rights, and that corporate "rights" must be defended just like an individual's rights. Corporations are not people. Corporations are profiteering machines. People are people. People can have and do have inalienable rights. Corporations cannot and do not.

I do not like the technical, literal definition of "terrorism" in which someone has to be put in the hospital or put six feet under until we finally can call it "terrorism." Terrorism starts with hatred, such as the hatred of non-heterosexuals, which is what Chick-fil-A supports with millions of dollars -- and which you apparently support, at least philosophically.

But I'm glad to hear that you at least don't have the opportunity to give the fascists your business, even if it's only because they're not conveniently located near you.

"Name one group or organization that SPLC has incorrectly identified as a hate group, and why SPLC is incorrect in its designation. ONE."

I'll do better than one. First, go to the SPLC hate map and click on the state of Oregon. You'll see 15 groups listed.

Having lived in the state for over 50 years, I am surprised that I have never heard of any of these organizations. They obviously aren't making much of a splash.

Here are some questions I have about these 15 organizations:

1) Do they really exist? If they existed at one time, are they still around? From the list itself it is impossible to tell. By looking for web sites I can confirm the existence of only a few. With no outside audit process it is impossible to know whether the SPLC information is out of date.

2) The web site for the American National Socialist Party goes to another site called Crusaders for Yahweh. I was unable to find any evidence that the ANSP still exists in Eugene.

3) Blood and Honor. I was unable to find any evidence that it still exists in Oregon.

4) Crusaders for Yahweh. Since the ANSP web site goes directly to the CFY web site, I suspect that there are not two groups but just one. CFY is supposedly located in Coos Bay, a small coastal town. If this group even exists in Oregon, I doubt that more than a few people are involved.

5) Israelite Church. Two groups are listed, but the locations are only a few miles apart. It is quite possible that there is only one group that moved to another location, not two.

6) Life Rune Industries. The web site is defunct. It appears that there is a group in California that goes by that name. Unable to find any evidence of it in Oregon. No such business has ever registered that name in the state.

7) Nation of Islam. It may exist in some form today, but some years ago apparently most of the members and the building became the Muslim Community Center, a "mainstream" Sunni Muslim organization.

8) National Prayer Network. This appears to be nothing more than a web site featuring the rants of an anti-semitic minister. The web site also offers 10 DVDs and 1 book for sale.

9) National Socialist Movement. The hate list has two entries but lists only one location. Their primitive web site only lists two email addresses, one for Portland and one for somewhere in southern Oregon.

10) Northwest Hammerskins. Supposedly a chapter of Hammerskin Nation. Other than an email address I could find no evidence of its existence.

11) Pacifica Forum. From the wiki article: "When it was founded in 1994, the Pacifica Forum had a generally left-wing orientation. However, in recent years it has also hosted right-wing speakers. After hosting two Holocaust deniers, it was listed as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center. Its regular attendees respond that the forum is not a membership organization, and does not hold any positions itself. It offers a platform to all political views, including Zionism and anti-fascism."

12) Temple 88. The SPLC has no location listed. I am unable to find any evidence that this group exists in Oregon.

13) KKK. Though influential in Oregon in the 1920s, I can't find any evidence that it exists today as a group in Oregon.

14) Volksfront. Originally founded in Portland, this group has a web site and also appears to function actively as a group.

In summary, of the 15 "hate groups" listed in Oregon, only one group appears to be an active group with a significant membership. Some of the groups appear to exist only as web sites or email addresses. One "hate group" is actually a discussion group with no ideology and no membership. For many of the groups there is no evidence of existence. Some of the groups -- if they even exist -- are apparently very small.

That's the situation in Oregon. Whether the hate group lists for other states are as flimsy as Oregon's I cannot say. Suffice it to say that with respect to my own state I am very unimpressed with the SPLC's hate list. This is what happens when there is no outside audit, no information on number of members, some groups listed without any location information, no information on why the SPLC thinks these groups are active, a very subjective process for classifying groups, and an organization with a clear conflict of interest in increasing the number of hate groups for fundraising purposes.

You asked for one group. I give you 14. I'll grant that Volksfront is clearly an active group in Oregon that can be appropriately labeled a "hate group" under any reasonable definition of that term.

Uh, I asked you about what groups the SPLC incorrectly identified as hate groups -- not hate groups that may or may not still be active because you can or cannot find evidence that they still are active.

Also, for the purposes of this post, I'm most interested in those hate groups that SPLC has identified as being anti-gay, not racist, although both types of hate are a big problem and are intertwined (as was the original point of this post).

Slate.com has posted a great piece on the subject of Chick-fil-A. It is here:

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2012/08/chick_fil_a_controversy_why_dan_cathy_s_statements_are_dangerous_.html

The money shot of that piece, I think, is this:

"There was a time, not so very long ago, when business owners in Southern states proudly poured their riches into segregationist causes. These investment strategies (and the political fruits they bore) helped keep 'Negroes' in their place as second-class citizens. And just as we’ve been seeing with the enthusiastic support for Chick-fil-A by the 'moral majority,' the racist business models of those segregationists rallied local social conservatives. Like the WinShape Foundation’s shameless use of Chick-fil-A proceeds to support the efforts of the Family Research Council, as well as many other anti-gay outlets designated as official hate groups by the Southern Poverty Law Center, a wealthy white citizen’s public segregationist stance back in, say, 1960 Mississippi or Tennessee, and his decision to put his company’s proceeds into racist political causes, was not only perfectly legal but hailed by most of his customer base. After all, just as same-sex marriage is today, the rights of blacks were a 'political issue.' People spoke of 'personal beliefs' about whether blacks should vote, marry outside their race, drink at public water fountains, swim in public pools, attend schools with white students, or sit in the front of the bus. Those whose 'personal belief' was that blacks should be socially quarantined from whites felt absolutely no reason to apologize. People were 'entitled to their opinions.'"

I recommend the entire piece.

Again, this goes beyond a corporation's supposed First Amendment rights (again, I don't believe that constitutional rights belong to corporations, but only to individual persons) -- this is about whether or not we should say it's OK for a corporation to pour millions of dollars into efforts to deny certain individuals the equal human and civil rights that are guaranteed to them by the U.S. Constitution.

The Slate.com piece goes on:

"Fortunately for African Americans, the U.S. government, which grows sluggishly, if incrementally, in its social conscience, eventually joined them and threw its weight into their tireless crusade against bigotry and prejudice. Federal civil rights laws effectively obviated the 'personal beliefs' of those who continued to view blacks as lesser beings, making these people’s 'opinions' completely irrelevant as to what African Americans should or shouldn’t do in our society. In other words, the racists were stripped of their democratic voices — and a very good thing that was, too, as it’s clear even today that many white Americans remain of the opinion that blacks are inherently inferior to them. Racism persists, but at least racists have been formally politically defanged. Homophobes, meanwhile, have not. ..."

That's what it's about: formally politically defanging the homphobes, not so that they can't continue to hate, but so that they cannot continue to CAUSE REAL HARM people by pushing to deny them their equal human and civil rights.

Oops.

That link again is:

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/
2012/08/chick_fil_a_controversy_why_dan_cathy_s_statements_are_dangerous_.html

OK! Third time is a charm:

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/
2012/08/chick_fil_a_controversy_why_dan_cathy_s_statements_
are_dangerous_.html

Robert, thanks for the recommendations. I will read through those.

As far as same-sex marriage -- I'm not a supporter of that, for reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with God or religion. I don't want to turn your post into a debate on SSM, so I'll be as brief as possible.

Marriage is a social institution. The purpose of social institutions is to modify human behavior. The social institution of marriage basically tells us how we should live for the benefit of children. Stated differently, the social institution of marriage is the "instruction manual" that tells heterosexuals how we should behave. It does that through the values and ideals inherent in the institution. These include various precepts such as no sex outside of a marital relationship, permanence, and fidelity. (Since we live in a free country we can choose to ignore or follow those precepts.) This is what is often called the "conjugal" view of marriage, in which marriage is seen as fundamentally related to procreation.

The proponents of SSM have a very different view of marriage -- a revisionist view, in which marriage is all about offering various benefits to the marital partners, including financial benefits, and a public affirmation of the romantic relationship. In this view of marriage, the precepts of traditional marriage are seen as mere lifestyle options.

So the debate about SSM is really a debate over how to answer this question: "what is marriage?" Proponents of SSM answer the question one way; opponents answer it another way.

The reason why throughout history marriage has been restricted to opposite-sex couples has nothing to do with animus against homosexuals. It is because only opposite-sex couples can have children. The issue is not civil rights but a simple fact of biology.

Again, I don't want to hijack your post into a debate about SSM, and I offer the above only as a summary of my view of the issue.

Interestingly, even some gays and lesbians oppose same-sex marriage. One gay author writes "Same-sex marriage, however good its proponents believe it might be for homosexuals, is essentially an attempt to subvert the cultural primacy of the reproductive family. Gays will not allow themselves to consider the fact that this spells death for civilizations, and that society has a rational interest in promoting big, patriarchal families above all other arrangements . . . While alternative relationships need not be openly scorned, and they may deserve some sort of reasonable accommodation, it isn't in the best interest of Western Civilization -- or any civilization -- to morally or institutionally equate reproductive and non-reproductive sexuality. Reproductive sexuality is an indispensable building block of civilization; it serves society as a whole. Non-reproductive sexuality is, in the big picture, basically a 'feel-good.'"

OK, we are done. I'd rather spend time and energy on new posts than on going around and around with one individual in the comments section on the same post.

By your definition of marriage, older heterosexual couples who biologically/medically cannot reproduce can't, or at least shouldn't be able to, get married, and neither can/should heterosexual couples in which one or two of the partners is infertile. Nor can/should heterosexual couples who are both fertile but who don't want kids.

No, procreation is not the only thing that marriage is all about, and, because you apparently haven't noticed, I will point out to you that the planet is quite overpopulated with Homo sapiens -- more than 7 billion individual members of the species -- and Homo sapiens is on no endangered species list.

Because Homo sapiens is in no danger of going extinct (with the exception of by man-made things such as global warming or nuclear world war), because plenty of human babies still are being popped out like puppies, the state has NO interest in shoving the "Christo"fascist definition of marriage down our throats. (Your apparent viewpoint on "feel-good sex" also is a "Christo"fascist viewpoint. I mean, the Taliban and other Islamofascist groups probably agree with you.) For the state to define marriage as striclty heterosexual and to regulate human sexuality (except when others are actually harmed by sexual activity, such as in the case of rape or child sexual abuse) is fascistic and a violation of our constitutional rights.

Again, we're done with the back-and-forth. You get no more than one more comment on this post.

P.S. There are plenty of heterosexuals who disagree with the institution of legalized heterosexual marriage. They believe in such alternatives as polyamory or cohabitation without marriage -- or, they believe in bigamy or polygamy. So should we deny all heterosexuals the right to marry, since some heterosexuals disagree with heterosexual marriage? By your argumentation, the answer would be YES.

Why do you loathe the idea of personal freedom so much? Why do you worry so much about what others do and feel the need to regulate them?

Robert, thanks for the discussion and best wishes. It's your blog so you can have the last word.

Best wishes to you, too. I appreciate the fact that although we disagree, you keep it more or less civil (which I don't always do myself). Feel free to comment on future posts, but please keep in mind that I'm not big on going around and around and around with the same person in my comments section on the same post.

My general comments guidelines are here:

http://open.salon.com/blog/sacrob/2010/01/28/
blogiquette_101_when_is_it_ok_to_delete_comments

In those guidelines, I wrote, among other things:

"You are entitled to only one or two, maybe three comments on any one blog piece, as long as you stick to the subject at hand and don’t use abusive speech or hate speech. The blog’s owner doesn’t have to take your abuse or let it become all about you."

Three comments on the same post from the same person is adequate, I believe. Otherwise, unless the blogger invites you to post more, you are hijacking his or her blog...