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: 20
15
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 02:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Lawgiver
 




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.


Why would it be any different if it were an aryan convention?
If they gave free food to them, then they would be supporting White supremacists.

I personally find both groups despicable.

That "pro-marriage counseling" group (it's called the art of marriage) is run by the Pennsylvania Family Institute, and they have an anti-gay track record for lobbying against same-sex marriage.

Chick-fil-A itself conducts charity through the Winshape Foundation. Their "retreat centers" (for pro marriage counseling as you put it) refuse to counsel homosexual couples.

These groups have every right to refuse service or not like gay marriage, but it is definitely anti-gay.




posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by D377MC
It's about hatred and rebellion towards God and his Word, and the desire to wipe away everything Christian from existence and from memory.


NO - its not.

Most gays I know are Christians.



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 02:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Byteman
 





Their "retreat centers" (for pro marriage counseling as you put it) refuse to counsel homosexual couples.


If they value God's Word, they have to don't they, otherwise what we have is hypocrisy. Granted they would fit in better...

Your complaints and irritation lie with God and his Word, that's plain to see, the rest is a decoy, so why not just drop the pretense and lash out at your intended victim?



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 02:19 PM
link   
reply to post by v1rtu0s0
 


Chick-fil-A is a private business. What the heck is the big deal? Bill Gates donates millions to causes I disagree with but I am not lambasting him. Are we now a country of MOB RULE where if the MOB objects to how an individual thinks or acts within the law we shun him and heap vile epitaphs on his head???


I am an agnostic and all I care about is if the business is successful, obeys the law and produces a quality product. I would also prefer they treat their workers right.

I worked for a company (VERY well known) that demanded you donate a portion of you salary to United Way. If you did not forget about salary raises or promotions. There are other companies that forbid employees to smoke in their own car in the parking lot (I worked for one) Other companies demand you pee in a bottle.

For crying out loud there are better boggiemen to chase than Chick-fil-A



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 02:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Byteman
 


No idea of Christ and Christianity? Well I guess 4 years of Christian Theologial studies prove nothing to someone who is purely a critic of Christianity. "It is easier for a camel..." This is in correlation to the passage "The love of money is the root of all evil." Note the use of "Love of money". Due to the greed of humaity in general, He is stating this to tell us that it is difficult for us to forego our hardwired 'me-me' personalities and follow His divine purposes. "Sell all your possesions..." This is more of a 'Don't let anything hold you down when I call you to my direction for your life'. Now answer this...how are we to give money to the poor if we are not allowed to make money?

Also...pro-equality does not nessisarily fit into the Laws made byYaweh; If you actually had total understanding past the partial usage of Scripture to fit your personal vendetta againts Christians. As I previously noted, not all of Jesus' teachings (including from the Torah, which firmly is against many things advocated nowadays as perfectly ok) were wrote down. If you read the details in the Gospels, it often says something along the lines of (to paraphrase) "Jesus went along, teaching and healing".

Pro-gay...How about anti-moral?

And to Annee....Most gays you know are Christians? You can believe in a God and not be fully following the laws made by that particular deity. Doesn't mean its right or ok by the teachings of affoemtioned possible deity.



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 02:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by crimvelvet
Are we now a country of MOB RULE where if the MOB objects to how an individual thinks or acts within the law we shun him and heap vile epitaphs on his head???


You can apply MOB RULE to organized efforts by mostly Christian groups in denying two consenting adults to marry.

Oh and here's a sight for Christians for Gay Rights: christianglbtrights.blogspot.com...



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 02:51 PM
link   
reply to post by TheWalkingFox

Who will win? Well, Chick-fil-A loses business, the protesters lose nothing. It all comes down to whether Chick-fil-A values profits or evangelism more.

The protesters do stand to lose something... respect and goodwill. Those oppressed stand to lose even more.

In order to overturn a law, one need only convince a few judges that it should be overturned. But a law does not equal equality. What you will see happen, should things continue the way they are going and the marriage laws are changed in this social climate, is a rash of crimes committed against anyone who is even perceived to be homosexual.

That is not a threat; it is a warning. I don't want to see that happen any more than you do. I will not be involved.

If, however, society is convinced, through actions and tolerance, that homosexuality is not a threat to them, then the laws will follow, equality will be achieved, and there will be no blood shed.

The intolerant attitudes expressed in this thread alone, by demanding that anyone can be harmed financially for free exercise of rights, does not help the situation. it is placing untold men and women in jeopardy in the long run. We saw it happen after the Civil War... how many years did those of darker complexion struggle with public opinion? How many lives were taken or destroyed through social 'justice' against the wishes of law? How many crosses were burnt, how many beatings endured, how many bright intelligent minds were unable to contribute... just because no one tried to change public opinion before changing law?

Must we do this again?

TheRedneck



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 02:58 PM
link   
reply to post by IronArm
 




Well, leave it to someone who has no understanding of Jesus and his teaching to try and use it against a Christian ideology.


We'll see.



Jesus was a Rabbi. As such, he would have taught the Torah in its entirety, without ommitions.


The bible is riddled with contradictions that could allow someone to see it both ways That being said.....

Jesus said his teachings supersede the old law.

Matthew 5:38-42



“You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth. 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. 40 And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. 41 If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.


His own words... [don't follow that old law, follow my instructions instead.]

Matthew 5:43-48



43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47 And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.


Here he does it again. Don't follow the old testament way of hating your enemy for God (like david), love your enemy now.



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.


Sure, sure. Just quote what Jesus himself said against homosexuality and homosexual marriage. Christians follow his teachings above all. (something such an expert like you should have known)



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.


I'm going with what is on record, you seem to want to make your point with fantasy-land assumptions about what he MIGHT have taught.

Okay, if we get to use fantasy-land assumptions about what he taught that didn't make it into the gospels, then I assume this....

Jesus taught that homosexuals were okay, and that same sex marriage is okay.
(see what happens when you want to use fantasy-land as proof of your point?)
(wanna stick to the record now?)

I don't even know what point your trying to reach, or who your calling a hypocrite. Perhaps you could re-word that sentence.



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 03:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by IronArm
Pro-gay...How about anti-moral?



Who the hell are you to define mine or anyone else's morals.

It is your choice to believe whatever you want - - but do not try to legislate morals.

Because you believe something - - does not give you the right to deny two consenting adults marriage equality.



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 03:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 





Oh and here's a sight for Christians for Gay Rights


I think you mean a 'site', and there is no such thing as a Christian 'for' gay rights. You either follow Christ or you don't or you profess to and don't.



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 03:11 PM
link   
I am not going to get into a religious debate. I do not care what your religious belief is - - it does not give you the right to deny consenting adults marriage equality.

There are many ancient taboos attributed to being possessed by the Devil - - including having red hair.

But - - by knowledge of understanding - science - and education - - - we know that Epilepsy is an illness. That Leprosy is an illness - - etc etc etc.

Ignorance is intolerable. And religion - - any religion - - should have no basis in government equality.



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 03:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Sherlock Holmes
 




Whoa there ! This is a ''reach'' too far.


It's only a reach if you are ignorant of what misrepresentation means.



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.


Chick-fil-A is a restaurant? really? And here I thought they were booking flights to the Moon.

Yes customer DO choose to part their money for the food provided, that is how a restaurant works. I never said otherwise.



That is where the business/customer relationship ends.


Only if the transaction is permanently satisfactory (within statues of limitation) for both parties.



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


Yes it is.
The right to privacy doesn't protect you from defrauding customers.

If they take a gay persons money pretending they are neutral, and then give it to an anti-gay organization. They have harmed the gay person by denying the gay person the right to protest the anti-gay organization.

Another way of putting it, if the gay person would have shopped elsewhere knowing Chick-fil-a's real stance on homosexuality, and Chick-fil-a hid that real stance. Then Chick-fil-a is liable for profiting through fraud.

What I find EXTREMELY funny, is how you are gung-ho for the Chick-fil-a's right to be anti-gay, but you refuse to consider the gay persons right to protest.

How come only the private corporation gets all your consideration, but not the private citizen?



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 03:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee

Who the hell are you to define mine or anyone else's morals.

Ummm.... sorry Annee, but isn't that exactly what some posters are trying to do? Define morality for Chik-Fil-A?

Just sayin'.. no offense...

TheRedneck



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 03:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


And who are you to tell me that my belief system is wrong? It goes both ways now doesn't it.

To byteman...Well played, in actuallity, I'm rather inpressed by your rhetorics. Admittantly, I'm just as informed (read: un-informed) about the "unknown teachings of Christ" as I'll tag them, as you are. However...continue reading into the New Testament...read the letters of Paul the Apostle. If this is an issue of what did Christ say or not say...Is pre-marital sex ok? Just look at the natural consequencial nature of both. Both lead to promiscuity (a generalization indeed, I'll take the backlash for that) based on my knowladge of people and thier habits (and yes, I do know seveal gay people, men and women alike). Promiscuity will lead to sexually transmitted diseases. Both lead to emotional trauma. Both lead...where? This being said, being preoccupied with sex in general will delay your desire to follow the true nature of Christianity.

I'm babbling, and in essence, not doing a damn thing to change anyones mind unless they are willing to accept it. Believe what you wish, I will follow my understanding of morality, and if due, suffer the consequenses eternaly if I am incorrect; but this does not mean that I, nor any other Christian should have to change who or what they support in order to follow the wishes of the world and its hedonistic populace.



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 03:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Lemon.Fresh
 


Oh, how mature...slinging 2nd grade insults. Anyways.....

He said his instructions supersede the old testament laws.
Twice.



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 03:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


Saying no one has a right to dictate someone elses morality while in fact is true it is not practiced whatsoever in modern times or the past.

The Government has been legislating morality since time began. ie sodomy,polygamy,gambling,prostitution,drugs and the list goes on and on.

Don't get me wrong and think I'm against Gay Marriage because I could careless what anyone does as long as it doesn't affect someone else's rights.


The act of selling drugs in fact affects no one negatively whatsoever (the person who takes the drugs affects themselves and others around them.) Are we to legalize selling all drugs including Heroin,Cocaine,Methamphetamine? since it is technically a victimless crime?

The simple fact is that no one wants something that they see to be moral legislated but if they see it as immoral then they don't have any problem jumping on the bandwagon to outlaw it.




edit on 9-2-2011 by Adamanteus because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 03:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by Annee

Who the hell are you to define mine or anyone else's morals.

Ummm.... sorry Annee, but isn't that exactly what some posters are trying to do? Define morality for Chik-Fil-A?

Just sayin'.. no offense...

TheRedneck

Annee seems to want to restrict the conversation to her own views and ban any counter views. A company such as Chick-fil-A has the right, as a privately held company, to take a moral stand. Those who don't like that stand can take their business elsewhere. Annee should consider that she cannot deny anyone the right to speak their mind.
edit on 9-2-2011 by romanmel because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 03:59 PM
link   
reply to post by romanmel
 



Annee seems to want to restrict the conversation to her own views and ban any counter views. A company such as Chick-fil-A has the right, as a privately held company, to take a moral stand. Those who don't like that stand can take their business elsewhere. Annee should consider that she cannot deny anyone the right to speak their mind.


I agree a couple of posters(myself being one of them) have brought up the point asking if she would be so adamantly defending the offended party if they were polygamists and Chic fil A had donated to an anti polygamist group. She has not responded to any of those posts that I have seen.

And if you think Gays have a right to marry and Polygamists don't then that is quite frankly hypocrisy since both groups are made up of consenting adults who's actions/choices don't affect anyone else.
edit on 9-2-2011 by Adamanteus because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 04:22 PM
link   
reply to post by manna2
 




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.


He does twice, in Matthews as I have shown.
So, if that's the basis of this whole diatribe. Then it's a failed diatribe.

Of course you won't argue scripture. I'm not surprised that you would call my logic a failure and then fail to prove it yourself. Pointless is trying to prove someone wrong, but conveniently excusing yourself from the tools of doing so.



You want to teach me what you are COMPLETELY ignorant of attempting to place me in a box that you made.


This sentence doesn't make sense.
Didn't mean to fluster you into a state of gibberish.



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".


Ah, I see.
You are so spiritually mature that you are pridefully bragging about being spiritually mature.

How "wise"....LMAO.

I haven't played any such childish games. Again, you are speaking gibberish and pretending it's a cogent line of reasoning. Why don't you go ahead and quote the post where I play the "i know you are but what am i" game, and then explain in uncertain terms how I am playing that game?

Because you wanna know what? I think you are like a lot of the other posters who tried to take a bite out of me. Lies, putting words in my mouth, childish insults. Lots of hot air, but no real substance. You claim this or that (spiritually superior) but it's all just a defense mechanism protecting your fragile ego. The ego that says you cannot out-debate this person, so just insult him and make false implications about what he has said.



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?


I wasn't losing any rest over the matter, you have an unjustifiably inflated sense of your importance where I am concerned. Fueled by your "spiritual maturity" I'm sure.

Actually I don't follow any church or religion, so your assumption is a complete and utter failure. Knowing, understanding, and following religion are three different things. A person as "wise" as you brag about being should have known that.

I don't latch onto anything, I have remained consistent. It's your pro-hate side that latches onto any tactic to use against me. Like your little assumption/lie about me being bound by a church or your tactic of acting like you are correct and I am wrong, but refusing to prove it.

You will continue to avoid me, because you are incapable of fairly addressing anything I say. All you have are insults and assumptions. Like your assumption that I believe in absolutes, and your implication that it is a bad thing.

I believe that child-rape is wrong...ABSOLUTELY. If that is a negative thing then sign me up.

Since your so against absolutes, then you must think that child-rape is okay in certain circumstances.
(still wanna argue about absolutes?)



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.


You've left no such thing resembling logic, I cite your own gibberish sentence near the top. You and your incorrect assumptions prove you don't have the slightest insight into the way I reason or understand.

I never said anything about marriage rights extending to animals. Care to quote that post?
Oh wait, no you won't. You think you're too "spiritually mature" to actually have to prove what you claim.



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.


Oh look, more "spiritually mature" blowing things out of proportion. More "spiritually mature" putting words in my mouth. More "spiritually mature" smack-talk.

Why don't you go ahead and link to the post that I said humans should be able to marry animals?

All you have is lies, insults, and hyperbole to bolster your fragile little ego, but you obviously don't care about learning how to honestly express yourself. I leave you to those (imo completely pathetic) devices.

I feel sorry for people like you, people who refuse to pick yourself up out of the mud.



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 04:27 PM
link   
reply to post by 547000
 


Just...gross.

LMAO



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join