It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Chick-fil-A controversy shines light on restaurant's Christian DNA

page: 13
15
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 05:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by manna2
you keep mentioning law as if it matters to you.
You never seem to want to address your mischaracterizations and falsehhods as you try and sensationalize everything.
But can you at least address this law thing you seem to want to use?
What do you say about the 1'st amendment to the constitution?
Does that matter to you?


Please enlighten me.

Its your "floor".




posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 05:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by charles1952
Thanks, Annee.

How are you using the word "discrimination?" There's a very broad form which says every choice is discrimination because some actions were chosen and some were not. The ones not chosen could be said to be discriminated against. But I don't think that's what you're saying.



I'm using discrimination in interfering/denying the rights of a minority.

As "marriage" became - is - a government license to insure and protect the rights of two joining together as one household/family - - - it is no longer a religious institution. It is a Legal Government Contract. God is not mentioned in this government license/contract.

Most gays that I've spoken to - - are interested in and denied - - the equality and legal protections of this contract.



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 05:51 PM
link   
Dear Annee,

That sounds as though large numbers of the "gay community" would be satisfied with "Civil Union" laws.
Is there a solution here? Civil unions as a separate category from church marriages?

If that is a solution, then Chick-Fil-A could continue to support marriages (church marriages) and gays could say, "Fine, we don't need a church, we've got our rights."



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 05:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by charles1952
Dear Annee,

That sounds as though large numbers of the "gay community" would be satisfied with "Civil Union" laws.
Is there a solution here? Civil unions as a separate category from church marriages?

If that is a solution, then Chick-Fil-A could continue to support marriages (church marriages) and gays could say, "Fine, we don't need a church, we've got our rights."


Separate - but Equal? Been there.

There is zero legitimate reason not to use the legal government license name "marriage".

As far as "sanctity of marriage " - - - divorce - adultery - etc etc. There are gay couples who've been faithful together for 50 and more years. Their "marriages" have more "sanctity" - - then many with discriminating religious belief.



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 06:09 PM
link   
Getting off topic. There are many threads discussing gay rights and marriage.

Back on topic: any corporation that enters the political arena by donating major funds to discriminate against a minority.

Is fair game.



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 06:10 PM
link   
Dear Annee,

Thank you for writing. I suppose that "equal" would mean church ceremonies, as they have in some denominations.

I wonder if there would be some practical problems. What if "Denomination X" says they don't want to, it's against their beliefs? Is the leader arrested? Would the Supreme Court uphold a law that empowered the government to tell a church what it had to believe and do?

If marriage is simply and only a government contract, why get the church involved at all? Could we not let churches go their way and the government go theirs?



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 06:13 PM
link   
reply to post by RicoMarston
 




This is pretty silly. I fully support gay rights, right? does that mean I think that every business run by a person who doesn't agree should be run under with boycotts and smear campaigns?


People have a right to boycott, it falls under Freedom of Speech/Expression. Yes, people and by extension their organizations have a right to be pro or anti whatever they want too. However, a business that does stuff like feed the public doesn't have a right to be free from scrutiny. In fact they must accept scrutiny as a matter of business.

A gay person has a right to know if the money they are paying for food will go to anti-gay causes.

These are just news reports that people are posting. I find it interesting that you refer to it as a smear campaign instead of something more neutral, after all you are "fully support gay rights" right?

Personally, I don't think you are. I think you are calling yourself fully supportive of gay rights to try and validate your obvious anti-gay stance. It's like that guy who talks bad about minorities, but he isn't racist because he has a minority friend, but he's obviously definitely racist.



If chikfillet were burning gays at the stake, we'd have a juicy thread on our hands, but the fact is they "support" (which in this case simply means 'do business with') groups who support and advance ideas and practices which you do no agree with, so you think that they should suffer.


The fact is that Chick-fil-a is providing several anti-gay groups with free money in some form or another. They are taking an ACTIVE role by doing so. Donating something is not a PASSIVE event. They are just as responsible as the organizations they are supporting, and should bear the brunt of negative press for their donations to such organizations.



Where does it end? any group that doesn't openly declare support for the gays goes to prison? anyone who thinks for themselves or believes in scriptures should be shot? just don't shop there. start a website and put crosshairs on all of the groups and businesses that don't support your agenda, but please, don't come to my wonderful conspiracy site and preach to us about the evil chicken shack and their KKK/Nazi agenda.


Yes, where does it end?...your ridiculous hyperbole, that is.



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 06:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by charles1952
Dear Annee,

Thank you for writing. I suppose that "equal" would mean church ceremonies, as they have in some denominations.


The church I go to (occasionally) is a Spiritual Enlightenment church. The minister is a lesbian. The president and vice president is a lesbian couple.

This church does "Marriage Ceremonies" for gay couples - - - and would love to perform legal marriages. There are many gay Christians - - and gays of other beliefs too. I know of a Gay Catholic church in Los Angeles. There are gay Jews - Muslims - Mormons - - etc.

It is time we grow up.

There are many words that have taken on new meanings through time. Marriage is one of them. It has been assigned to a government license/contract. You can not legally get married in any church - - - without this legal government license. Civil union does not work - because it is only randomly accepted.



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 06:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by adifferentbreed
Just more inflammatory pro gay bs. If they serve food to a pro marriage thing, so what? It's a sad statement that they should be boycotted for this. Then again, from what I've seen anything not bubbling with enthusiasm to promote alternative lifestyles is just plain evil to some, makes no damn sense.


You know there is more to this then just providing a dinner to a specific group.

It is political and politics affects everyone.

I don't see it as any different then soup kitchens in New York threatening to close their doors if they are forced to feed gays.



Are you serious? The two do not compare in any way. Chik-fil-a is not kicking gays out of their restaurants. They are hosting a meal. We live in AMERICA. Everyone has rights! If a privately owned restaurant wants to donate to a Christian based group then they have EVERY RIGHT to do so.

I am sick of everyone pushing their beliefs on everyone else. Chik-Fil-A is not forcing their beliefs on you, so leave them alone!



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 06:50 PM
link   
Dear Annee (and everyone else),

I'm sorry for going off the topic, but what future does this one have? Where is the discussion going? Is it doomed to travel in circles? I hope not.

I understand that Annee has beliefs concerning the role of gays in marriage. So does Chick-Fil-A. Annee believes her money should go to causes she believes in and not those she doesn't. So does Chick-Fil-A. Annee wants the public to know of her beliefs. So does Chick-Fil-A. Annee isn't doing anything illegal, neither is Chick-Fil-A. There's no evidence of conspiracy. Their beliefs aren't wildly out of the ordinary.

I was hoping to discover a "deeper", more "central" problem expressed here, so I went exploring. Again, my apologies for going out of bounds.














0



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 06:50 PM
link   
There is a Chick Fil A (or however they spell it) near my house and I like it. It is top quality, though expensive fast food. I eat there seldom but I do occasionally enjoy some chicken from there. I've also known for a long time that they are a "Christian" company, whatever that means...That has not bothered even though I've been decidedly non-Christian most of my life.

If gay advocacy groups are sincerely angry at Chick Fil A then they should show it by boycotting the store rather then by inventing some faux uproar because Chick Fil A donated to concessions “The Art of Marriage: Getting to the Heart of God’s Design.”

I don't like the tactic of basically inventing an issue to further your cause by getting it some press. Gays and gay adovcacy groups don't have a monopoly on this type of insincere tactic by any means. Unfortunately, everyone does it. But it is myopic, incendiary and intellectually lazy.

This is a non-story if I ever heard one.
edit on 7-2-2011 by Threadfall because: grammar



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 07:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by charles1952
I understand that Annee has beliefs concerning the role of gays in marriage.


Hold it! Beliefs concerning the role of gays in marriage? There is no Belief in gay marriage.

Two consenting adults joining together in a legal government contract to protect rights and property is called "Marriage License". That is not a belief. Religion should have nothing to say about it.

I never made any mention of me donating money to anyone.

Let's get it straight. If a corporation chooses to politically fund ANY discrimination agenda - - they set themselves up - - to be held accountable.



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 07:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Byteman
A gay person has a right to know if the money they are paying for food will go to anti-gay causes.


...the rest of your post was good but i dont think that statement up there is correct... citizens have no legal right to dictate how a business is run or who they donate money or goods to...



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 07:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Wyn Hawks
 

Nothing I said mentioned patrons dictating how a business is run, or dictating who it donates to.

I said a patron has a right to know about the place they are patronizing. I didn't say they have a right to dictate how that place runs.

Boycott a business does not equal "dictating" how a place is run.
edit on 7-2-2011 by Byteman because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 07:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Byteman
reply to post by adifferentbreed
 


I noticed how you completely glossed over the fact that you lied three times.



Dude really? Get over yourself. I'm not a Christian nor am I gay. I wonder why when you disagree with anyuthing from the gay agenda idiot trolls automatically pull the supressed feelings card.


Get over myself?
What is this even supposed to mean?
Do you even know how to apply this term?
Why don't you explain how my analysis is rooted in ego?
I can sure as heck explain how your lies that benefit anti-gays are rooted in ego.

You weren't just "disagreeing" with the "gay agenda" as you put it, you were outright lying about the contents of the article.

Someone who lies and then tries to disassociate themselves from the act has no business trying to childishly call people "idiot trolls". I can only wonder what causes you to lie about articles that show gays standing up for themselves. My current theory is that you have internal anger against homosexuality. I mean, why else would you lie so much?



I think it's just a ploy to try and get attention.


Trying to get attention is lying your eyes out about the contents of an article, and then crying wolf when you get called out for it.



As I predicted, another pro gay anti anyone who disagrees thread, guess we have to have one every week


Reading a topic title and taking a guess at it's contents isn't predicting, that's called inductive reasoning. We can all do it, you aren't special that way.

This forum is about discussing ALL SIDES of a presented issue, if you can't deal with people disagreeing with you, then you might as well cancel your membership here immediately.



have a nice day.


Yes, you are actually leaving because you cannot address the fact that you lied. You go ahead and have a nice day too, side-stepper.
Lied? ///snip///.............fact is the usual suspects have to turn any imagined slight......and yes that is subjective.....into another OMG they are bashing gays thread. The world doesn't revolve around homosexuals, never will, nor should it................they don't want equality, they want special treatment. It's not even worth discussing as the homosexual supporters will beat this thread to death glad handing each other with nothing but snide comments for those who dare to disagree, happens weekly on here................enjoy your little tirade. Frankly, there are better things to discuss than whether homosexuals should eat at a chicken place, who gasp, donates food to normal people. As far as the lying thing, should I point out the obvious one you told about me and religion, or was that just an oversight because you're too damn stupid to look at someones profile before shooting off an absolutely ridiculous idea like that?
edit on Wed Feb 9 2011 by DontTreadOnMe because: removed ill-mannered comment



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 07:27 PM
link   
I would think it would be allot safer for families with children.



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 07:36 PM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 07:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by charles1952
I understand that Annee has beliefs concerning the role of gays in marriage.


Hold it! Beliefs concerning the role of gays in marriage? There is no Belief in gay marriage.

Two consenting adults joining together in a legal government contract to protect rights and property is called "Marriage License". That is not a belief. Religion should have nothing to say about it.

I never made any mention of me donating money to anyone.

Let's get it straight. If a corporation chooses to politically fund ANY discrimination agenda - - they set themselves up - - to be held accountable.





Annee, you may be 65 yadah yadah yadeh, but if you like it or not, marriage started out as a religious thing, I am not disagreeing that anyone (assuming they are consenual) should be allowed to join in what is known as holy matriamony, but quit with your usual anti religion crap, You go to church, but you make a big deal of the pastor being a lesbian - errrrmmmm, and? Does she preach a different religion than someone else would preach, or does her sexualitty make her more trendy to you?

Sometimes Annee, you just seem to see who will bite, it gets a little boring,
edit on 7-2-2011 by something wicked because: typos galore and I bet I didn't catch them all



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 07:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by glen200376
reply to post by Annee
 


If you have any common sense you would realise that you can have any political views that you wish in a democracy.Liberals like yourself love to force their views on everyone,can you not see how ridiculous your argument is?Tolerance is something people like you only have when it supports your views which makes a mockery of your idea that you are liberal.Let me guess you are a fag hag and lap up gays,either that or a family member has just came out of the closet-AGENDA.


Am I forcing my views on you?

Stating my views - is stating my views. You don't have to read them - accept them - agree with them - etc.

People like me? What exactly is people like me?

I don't actually consider myself politically liberal. Is supporting Equal Rights liberal?

"Fag Hag - Lap up Gays" - - how eloquent.

No - no gay family member that I know of.



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 07:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 



Let's get it straight. If a corporation chooses to politically fund ANY discrimination agenda - - they set themselves up - - to be held accountable.


It all depends on their belief and what YOU determine as discrimination. I am sure most people are against polygamy(which is a religious doctrine) So it is in fact religious discrimination to donate money to any entity that has an anti polygamy agenda(which is a whole helluva lot of them)

I for one could care less what two(or more) adults do in their bedroom but don't expect anyone else to support what they don't believe in,or to not support what they do believe in.

Chik fil A has every right to donate to whoever they want and everyone has the right to not eat at their restraunts if they so choose.


edit on 7-2-2011 by Adamanteus because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
15
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join