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: 17
15
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 12:57 PM
link   
reply to post by manna2
 




what?
of course it is a belief.
You want to take a religious institution that was so common that it was used to encat laws that promoted family development.
This religious institution is called marriage.
It has ALWAYS been defined as a covenant between 1 man, 1 woman and God.
You have a belief in changing this.
It is all based on belief.


Marriage has NOT always been defined as "one man, one woman, and god", that is ignorant religious propaganda. Roman men were marrying each other before anyone even thought to compile what we know as the "holy bible".



You even believe you can change the meaning to suit your own selfish reasonings. Every one of your posts is only based on your beliefs. In fact, mosyt of your sources are false and infactual leaving you even more relyant on your "beliefs"


You are the only one trying to change the meaning of things to suit your purpose, rather it's the churches purpose since you obviously are just parroting them and cannot think for yourself.



You say in 1 post that it isn't about gay marriage but a boycott by you but then your next 5 posts are promoting gay marriage


So what? The topic is still about Chick-fil-hate spreading the anti-christian hate vibes, and them getting boycotted no matter how many forays there are into the definition of marriage.

There is no such thing as "gay" or "straight" marriage. There is only marriage, a union between people. This is you and your puppetmaster church making up meanings again and attach irrelevant terms to the word and concept of marriage.




posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 01:06 PM
link   
reply to post by manna2
 


Biblical marriage?
Bible, you mean like the gospels?
They are part of the bible right?

Christ said nothing against homosexuals...not even about marriage. Since he didn't condemn it, then he must have been okay or neutral with it.

Since Jesus didn't worry about gay's or gay marriage, and since Chick-fil-hate is a CHRISTIAN business, not just merely religious, they must do as Christ did.

But they aren't, so that makes them hypocrites.



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 01:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Violater1
 


"Gay agenda"?

What's is their agenda?
Getting equal rights and treatment?
Wanting gay discrimination to end?

Why are you threatened by the thought of gays having what you have?



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 01:53 PM
link   
reply to post by manna2
 




dude, you dance around language withe everyone and play word games with every post and the hypocrisy is mind boggling.


If it is boggling your mind, then you shouldn't be capable of comprehending it as hypocrisy since you are overwhelmed by it. You are contradicting yourself.

BTW, go ahead and PROVE how I am being a hypocrite.

Directly link to the posts and then quote my words that are hypocrisy, then explain how it is hypocrisy. Otherwise, it's just you talking **** and failing to back it up.



Where in any post, thread or any literature does chick0fil-a post any, ANYTHING that has the words "anti-gay" in them.


It's been linked multiple times by multiple posters, and thoroughly discussed in previous pages. If you cannot bother to read the ENTIRE topic, every page, that is YOUR problem. I won't be constantly reviewing topic material for lazy posters.



You cannot because you are soooooooooo guilty of everything you claim others do to you as they try and swim through all the misdirection and diflection from your own statements.


I don't have to, as I said other posters have shown the evidence of Chick-fil-A's anti-gay stance. You are the one who is too lazy to read the whole thread.

If I've misdirected/deflected any statements, then link to the post, quote the alleged misdirection/deflection, and explain how it is misdirection/deflection, and show how it is not reasonable defenses. Otherwise, well...you know...it's just more smack-talk from someone who can't even be bothered to read a whole thread.



You are puttin g words in chick-fil-a's mouth and you refuse to listen to the facts about it so you simply continue in this game of hypocrisy and transfrence that seems to titilate your anti-christian bias. I know, you didn't say that, lol "Of course not, they support ANTI-gay organizations and groups" where did chick-fil-a say they support anti-gay groups? Oh, you did.


Yes, I did say they support anti-gay groups. I have not denied this in any way. I don't know why you think it's some kind of point in your favor.

I didn't put any words in Chick-fil-A's mouth. They made the donations to anti-gay organizations all by themselves, and got caught all by themselves, and you obviously don't understand how to use that phrase.

I say it because I researched the matter, looked at information and references others linked, and came to a conclusion.
Something you obviously cannot be bothered to do. Proven by your ignorance of the content of prior pages in this topic.

Anyways, your attempt at using my own pattern of language against me are an utter failure. You've only demonstrated that you are ignorant of the facts, ill-informed as to what has been linked, and unwilling to actually research the matter.



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 01:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Bordon81
 


Chick-fil-A is privately owned, they don't get to benefit from the in-fighting excuse.

Everything they do rests squarely on the owners head.



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 02:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Violater1
 


No shoes, no shirt, no service is for SANITARY reasons.

No gays, is rooted in hate. There is no logical reason for it.
A decidedly UN-Christian emotion from a food chain that calls itself Christian.



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 02:11 PM
link   
reply to post by MikeNice81
 


You do realize that Chick-fil-A has it's hand further up it's franchisee's butts, than most other franchises right?

You read the entire topic right? Including the link I provided describing Chick-fil-A's franchise practices. Right?

If you did, then it should be painfully obvious that Chick-fil-A only franchises to people who have the same values.

THE SAME VALUES.

Chick-fil-A doesn't get to benefit from the "distant corporation" excuse. They are more like the puppeteer, carefully directing the franchise. They even retain ownership of the land it's built on and the building itself.



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 02:45 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 03:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by adifferentbreed
Gonna turn into another gay rights thread in 5,4,3,2,..........................
Ah well, another offended small minded group will blow this up into another star fest for each other.


I'm not gay. I am a 65 year old female who grew up with a divorced disabled mother.

I've experienced gender and disabled inequality.

Any business that has a belief system attached to it - - and that belief promotes discrimination and prejudice - - needs to be brought to Public Knowledge.



Nobody is asking about your personal situation or background. Nobody cares about another supposed "victim." This thread is not about you you you you. If you want to "boycott" some business, knock yourself out. Every time I see this kind of attitude I want to go out and buy whatever it is being protested. Too bad there is no chic-fil-a near me. I'd go out and get lunch just to protest the protesters. God, there's not even a KFC near me. Burger King? Nope. Guess I'll have to settle for Chicken McNuggets.



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 03:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by schuyler

God, there's not even a KFC near me. Burger King? Nope. Guess I'll have to settle for Chicken McNuggets.


That's not a good idea either.

www.rense.com...

I suggest for a nice Christian snack...a polish sausage or slim jims and a 40oz jug of Bull Dog Malt liquor.
Or perhaps some crackers and grape juice.

edit on 8-2-2011 by whaaa because: code 35 now appearing



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 03:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by something wicked
Annee, you may be 65 yadah yadah yadeh, but if you like it or not, marriage started out as a religious thing, . .


First off I did not make a big deal about a pastor at a church I go to as being a Lesbian. Its just a fact - and I was responding to your post (I think it was your post). I haven't been there in a year and a half.

I'm really not going to get into a discussion of religion. Shall we discuss the Mark of Ham to justify prejudice against Blacks. Multiple wives and concubines.

Should Atheists not be allowed to marry because they aren't religious?



Annee, if marriage = religious matrimony, why would atheists want to marry? Doesn't mean they shouldn't be allowed, means they are being hyporcrites.

I'm sorry, mark of Ham isn't something I'm aware of. If it's very important I'm sure I soon will be. You mean Noah's son? I don't see how that equates to him being black, but I'm sure you will tell me. I know that according to some people he moved into Africa, and?

As to a pastor being a lesbian, so what? When did sexuality become the point? You did point it out therefore I commented on it - I've no issue with gay pastors or either sex, but I get the feeling you have, or more to the point if one is gay you seem to think that is some kind of victory even though you have made it clear you are an atheist so it really shouldn't matter to you one way or another.



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 03:23 PM
link   
Wow. This is actually a rediculous arguement. "Oh no! Someone doesn't support Liberal agenda! Lets get mad at them for not wanting to support something that goes against their Christian belief system!" Pathetic. They run the company as they see fit, they are not doing anything illegal by not giving money to support what they see as wrong. You lefties worry about rights for everyone... by stepping on our rights to stand for what we find to be right.



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 03:32 PM
link   
some really good points on both sides. i like to eat chick fil a. the chicken sandwich and the nuggets are really good. i've always received outstanding service there. i can't think of any fast food chain that goes out of their way to please the customer. they are a privately held company, and so, they can pretty much do what they want. if they want to donate food to a specific group, they are entitled to do so. they aren't donating food to the national aryan nations convention. to equate a pro marriage counseling talk to that of a hate group is faulty reasoning. and negatively provocative.



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 03:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Byteman
reply to post by manna2
 


Biblical marriage?
Bible, you mean like the gospels?
They are part of the bible right?

Christ said nothing against homosexuals...not even about marriage. Since he didn't condemn it, then he must have been okay or neutral with it.

Since Jesus didn't worry about gay's or gay marriage, and since Chick-fil-hate is a CHRISTIAN business, not just merely religious, they must do as Christ did.



Well, leave it to someone who has no understanding of Jesus and his teaching to try and use it against a Christian ideology. Jesus was a Rabbi. As such, he would have taught the Torah in its entirety, without ommitions...That stated, the gospels (as wrote by his apostles) would have not wrote about the obvious things previously taught by the forefathers through Jesus. Now, with this in mind, there are dozens of laws made in the Bible (New and Old Testament) that state homosexuality as well as multiple sexual partners to be wrong and frowned upon by God. Don't tell us that you know everything that Jesus stated. He preached for 3 years before his crucifition. That leaves alot of room for him to preach the Torah on every Shabbat.
But they aren't, so that makes them hypocrites.



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Byteman
Getting peoples money under false pretenses is civilly actionable. It's called misrepresentation. Chick-fil-a is taking gay peoples money for food under false pretenses. The false pretense that Chick-fil-a is not anti-gay. If even one single gay person would have purchased elsewhere knowing that chick-fil-a is anti-gay, then chick-fil-a is liable.


Whoa there !

This is a ''reach'' too far.

Chick-fil-A is a restaurant who offer their meals to consumers in exchange for money. Customers choose to part with their money in exchange for the food provided.

That is where the business/customer relationship ends.

Where the business may choose to distribute their money to is of no relevance whatsoever.


edit on 8-2-2011 by Sherlock Holmes because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 04:00 PM
link   
Good for them. They have always been Christian. Anybody who has ever visited can tell. There kids meals, have a Christian overtone to them, and they are closed on Sundays. They are also a private company who can donate to who ever they feel like. If the Gay hall of justice, doesn't like them go eat some hamburgers. Stand outside and protest if they want. Honestly i think it would kind of be funny if they stood outside with signs saying eat more beef or something. But i've got a twisted sense of humor. In the end, they believe a certain way and are sticking by their convictions. Nothing wrong with that. Wish most people would stand by what they actually believe.



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 04:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes

Whoa there !

This is a ''reach'' too far.

Chick-fil-A is a restaurant who offer their meals to consumers in exchange for money. Customers choose to part with their money in exchange for the food provided.

That is where the business/customer relationship ends.

Where the business may choose to distribute their money to is of no relevance whatsoever.



Yes - I agree with you. This has nothing to do with business/customer. That is pushing it too far.

My points are political not personal.



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 05:22 PM
link   
Reply to post by Byteman
 


What a dumb priest.

Jesus said he did not come to abolish the Torah, but to fulfill it.

He did not have to say anything on it, because it was known. Just as he did not have to say anything about many things, including bestiality, etc.



 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 05:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by something wicked
Annee, if marriage = religious matrimony, why would atheists want to marry? Doesn't mean they shouldn't be allowed, means they are being hyporcrites.


The concept of Love in marriage is very new (relatively). Maybe only 100 to 200 years old.

Marriages were contractual obligations for various reasons. Today legal marriage is about tax breaks - insurance - medical - pensions - etc.

That's the reality of it. No one is hypocritical for getting married - - because they are not religious.



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 05:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Byteman
reply to post by manna2
 


Biblical marriage?
Bible, you mean like the gospels?
They are part of the bible right?

Christ said nothing against homosexuals...not even about marriage. Since he didn't condemn it, then he must have been okay or neutral with it.

Since Jesus didn't worry about gay's or gay marriage, and since Chick-fil-hate is a CHRISTIAN business, not just merely religious, they must do as Christ did.

But they aren't, so that makes them hypocrites.


your entire logic fails once you realize Yashayah never ever contradicts scripture and this is a must to understand to interprete correctly.
I will not argue scripture with you.
It is pointless.
You want to teach me what you are COMPLETELY ignorant of attempting to place me in a box that you made.
But I am both spiritually mature and wise enough to know the futile attempts at discussing mature matters with you as you play a game very similar to "I know you are but what am I".
Rest assured though, I am not bound by any church dogma or subject to anothers interpretation, but you are it is obvious.
You latch onto ANYTHING that fits your latest presupposed venture.
There is a reason I avoid you and from here will continue to avoid you.
it's an absolute complete waste of time. lol, you do believe in absolutes dontcha?


So I leave you with this logical conclusion based upon your own reasoning and understanding.
Poligamy is next. And then Billybob, or sanchez, or chung gets to marry their goat.
Because it's the "rights" thing to do.
Don't worry, by then you will have lost the defense of "well, a goat cannot willingly comply" because they are mapping brainwaves and they will easily prove the goat likes haveing sex with billybob sanchez chung (by then they will allow these lovers of the goat to add all their genes to an offspring maybe by donating dna) and everyones right to marriage will be "defined" in it's proper context....i.e., the right to an orgasm with whatever party we so choose.



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join