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: 22
15
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 06:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by IronArm
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.


I state my position - opinion - point of view.

Where did I tell you your belief system was wrong for you?

Do I think it is wrong to deny legal marriage to two consenting adults of same sex. Absolutely! You may not agree with it - - - but in no way does it directly affect you.

Religious organizations have spent millions of dollars to prevent two consenting adults from having the legal benefits of marriage. Simple things such as property rights - insurance - medical benefits - retirement funds.

Their marriage doesn't affect you. However - You and others are interfering in their lives - - and You have significant negative affects on their lives.

It will happen - - just like blacks were once denied the right to even date a white person. As the Mark of Ham was used as God's reason for prejudice against black skin - - - equality will win out.




posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 07:25 PM
link   
I have made my point very clear. Legal marriage is a legal government contract that protects rights and property of those joining together as one household.

It gives legal right to "property rights" - "insurance benefits" - "medical benefits" - "tax breaks" - - etc etc.

I don't care what you choose to dig up to try to sway it off point. I am not going there.

I'm staying solidly right on my point. Period!



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



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 07:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


You have given Your "opinion" of what legal marriage is, and that's all you have given is an opinion. We all have opinions and we all think that everyone else's stinks.



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



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 07:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Adamanteus
reply to post by Annee
 


You have given Your "opinion" of what legal marriage is, and that's all you have given is an opinion. We all have opinions and we all think that everyone else's stinks.


Wrong. It is what Legal Marriage is - - a government contract - - and the legal benefits that go with it.

Yes - I know its hard for others when a Poster Stays-on-Point - - - and can't be manipulated.

Sucks for you. But feel free to have any opinion you want.



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 08:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by Adamanteus
reply to post by Annee
 


You have given Your "opinion" of what legal marriage is, and that's all you have given is an opinion. We all have opinions and we all think that everyone else's stinks.


Wrong. It is what Legal Marriage is - - a government contract - - and the legal benefits that go with it.

Yes - I know its hard for others when a Poster Stays-on-Point - - - and can't be manipulated.

Sucks for you. But feel free to have any opinion you want.





ok, you are stuck on legal.
Until you LEGALLY change the definition from being between 1 man and 1 woman you have no legal stance, so why claim it as wrong when it's obvious by your own definition and reasoning?
It's not legal so lets end it there?
So, stop the "legal" rant allready.
You have no "legal" footing.
There are no "rights" only liberties. If you feel that all laws and tax breaks that are enacted to propogate and empower child rearing corporations known as "marriages", then keep doing it.
But dang lady, you use lies for sources and never are accountable to the fabrications and sensationalism all for your personal vendetta.
That being said, you are ranting about legality now?
irony much?



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 09:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by manna2
Until you LEGALLY change the definition from being between 1 man and 1 woman you have no legal stance, so why claim it as wrong when it's obvious by your own definition and reasoning?



It is not relevant to the benefits.

The legal benefits remain the same for a married couple.



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 09:03 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 




Wouldn't it be more accurate to say: "an incorporated family business that acts neutral to gays, accepts their money in exchange for a product/service, and then donates a part of it to charities I consider anti-gay"?


How about you don't try and re-word my posts for me. I said exactly what I meant.

I laid my case out already, you can review the whole thread and find out what my case is for yourself.



After all, I don't remember ever hearing about Chik-Fil-A rounding up gays and taking their money... I believe they simply sell chicken to everyone.


Yes, blowing my statements out of proportion just like the others and from a moderator to-boot.
I never said they forced gays to eat there, why are you trying to dishonestly imply otherwise?



Would you feel better if they refused to sell chicken to anyone who is gay?


The fact that you would ask this, proves you don't understand my point.

If they openly admitted they were donating profits to anti-gay organizations, and then let gay people choose to eat there or not, that would be agreeable to me.

Chick-fil-A gets to choose to be anti-gay.
Gays get to choose to protest by purchasing elsewhere.

Now do you understand? I only ask because it cannot be made simpler, and if you don't understand this then you simply lack the capability of understanding my legal theory.

BTW, don't think I didn't notice how you are slyly trying to imply I'm getting emotional. My feelings aren't at stake. The only people getting emotional are you pro-chickies with your overblown and emotional hyperbole.

Why can't any of you express yourself without exaggeration?
Is it because you lack the ability to express yourself in a more mature fashion?

Anyways, thanks for putting words in my mouth, and interpreting my words in an overblown manner. From a moderator no less.



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 09:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


Again that is what Your opinion is and that's it. I gave you the legal definition of marriage now I will give you the definition of Legal Marriage


The legal status, condition, or relationship that results from a contract by which one man and one woman, who have the capacity to enter into such an agreement, mutually promise to live together in the relationship of Husband and Wife in law for life, or until the legal termination of the relationship.



Now we can change the definition from by which one man and one woman to by which two persons or to by which one or more persons It doesn't matter ,if we're changing the definition then EVERYONE wanting to marry must be included. If not then You're discriminating.

You don't get to define marriage to meet Your idea of it .How presumptuous and arrogant does someone have to be to decide they can define something all by themselves

You have proved throughout this thread that you're just as biased as Chik fil A. They're standing up for what they determine to be legal Marriage and You're standing up for what You determine Legal marriage to be. there is no difference other than a moral belief system. The exclusion of someone outside that belief system is present in both parties.
edit on 9-2-2011 by Adamanteus because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 09:28 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


Oh how rich.
That's your picture right? The old white man in the hat?

I'd love to hear about what a older white man in America (and in Alabama especially) thinks they know about fighting for your rights or equality against discrimination, that isn't book knowledge or interpretations of another groups struggle against racism. Because the track record for America is that people in your demographic haven't really had to fight for equality at all with few exceptions...like being gay.

Who discriminated against you because you are a white man in America?

Who took your money under false pretenses, and used it to fund anti-white man groups?

Do you think you'd feel slighted if some business did?

Do you think you'd want to know that beforehand so you could shop at another business and exercise your right to protest that businesses practices?

Be honest now, if not with us, then with yourself.

The odds are that you have never been discriminated against, and don't really know anything about being on the short end of that stick. So, when you make speeches about how protesters are just causing trouble for themselves, you can understand if I think you don't have any practical or useful knowledge about the subject.

I have had to fight for my rights against the majority, and have operational knowledge about the process.

How about you?



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 09:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee
So if you are not interested in the legal benefits - - - that go along with the Government Contract - - legally named "marriage license" - - - which protects rights and property of those joining together as one household - - - fine. Go have your religious ceremony.

Whether anyone likes it or not - - a "Marriage License" - - - does not mention god or religious belief of any kind.


The fact that you call an extortion racket "legal benefits" leads me to believe you didn't catch my point. I agree with you that marriage licenses are certainly not religious at all and certainly are just a way to exert undue power and control over people's personal lives. I would replace your comment "interested in additional legal benefits" with "interested in participating in a mafia racket where you pay money for rights and privileges nobody else gets". Does it bother you that marriage licenses are things that by definition create hundreds to thousands of inequalities?

I assert that marriage is a *religious* ceremony because of all its grounding in religion. While its true that many non-religious people participate in marriage, its also true that many non-religious people celebrate Christmas. Its also true that non-religious people tend to ignore marriage quite a lot. Why do you suppose is? Well, consider that most people get married at churches in most cases, and that the people doing the marrying are preachers. Those are the biggest examples of how marriage is much more of a religious ceremony than a non-religious ceremony.

I have zero interest in either homosexuals or heterosexuals obtaining rights and privileges that other people don't have so I have zero interest in in homosexual marriage licenses. So I would certainly consider myself a friend of any organization opposed to state-sanctioned gay marriage. State sanctioned gay marriage is yet another step backwards towards an authoritarian state that controls our personal lives.



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 10:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by civilchallenger

Originally posted by Annee
So if you are not interested in the legal benefits - - - that go along with the Government Contract - - legally named "marriage license" - - - which protects rights and property of those joining together as one household - - - fine. Go have your religious ceremony.

Whether anyone likes it or not - - a "Marriage License" - - - does not mention god or religious belief of any kind.


The fact that you call an extortion racket "legal benefits"


Are you referring to the government?

If so - - please start your own thread.



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 10:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Adamanteus
 


When you post something pertinent - current - and realistic.

I will respond.



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 10:36 PM
link   
Did I miss something? How did the original post about chick fill a turn into an argument about gay mairrage? I'm not sure that was the intention of the OP.

Just curious.

my two cents since we are on the subject..... why is the government involved in mairrages anyway? Hmmmm perhaps it has to do with the revenue it generates going into a mairrage and expecially coming out of a mairrage.

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



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 10:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by photobug
Did I miss something? How did the original post about chick fill a turn into an argument about gay mairrage? I'm not sure that was the intention of the OP.

Just curious.

my two cents since we are on the subject..... why is the government involved in mairrages anyway? Hmmmm perhaps it has to do with the revenue it generates going into a mairrage and expecially coming out of a mairrage.


First paragraph: The ongoing Chick-fil-A flap - which has gay rights groups blasting the restaurant chain for donating food to an anti-gay marriage group - may be a fleeting controversy for a privately held company that is more accustomed to fiercely loyal patrons and generally positive press coverage.

Please start a new thread on "marriage in government".



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 10:44 PM
link   
reply to post by nwdogg1982
 


It may not be a secret, but for those of us growing up outside of the Bible belt its not something we all know either.

Ive never eaten at a Chik-fil-a, they didnt have them where I grew up, but now that I am in the Bible belt and might run into them, I will make sure I dont send any business their way. Im glad to know they are religious and political, because I am for a separation of religion and politics, and I dont want to inadvertently give money to someone who will use it to influence government policy in a way I dont approve of.



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 10:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Byteman

How about you don't try and re-word my posts for me. I said exactly what I meant.

Whoops! Did I hit a nerve?

I didn't re-word your posts. I simply pointed out what I believe are some logical fallacies in what you wrote. If I misunderstood your intent, I apologize.


I never said they forced gays to eat there, why are you trying to dishonestly imply otherwise?

You said Chik-Fil-A took money from gays, and that they, by this, denied the gays the ability to use that money to protest.

I asked whether it would be more accurate to say Chik-Fil-A freely allowed everyone to buy chicken. The word 'took' can imply force was being used to extract the money from its rightful owners.

May I ask you this: if you buy a product, any product, for $100, who owns that $100 after you bought the product? Do you somehow believe you still own it? That is the only way you can assert that someone has the right to direct the use of money after they have spent it.

Perhaps you mean that Chik-Fil-A is somehow tricking gay people into eating in their establishment? If that is the case, what do you suggest? A big sign plastered across the door that says "Attention gay people: We hate you"?



If they openly admitted they were donating profits to anti-gay organizations, and then let gay people choose to eat there or not, that would be agreeable to me.

As for the former condition, I believe their charitable donations are a matter of public record, at least now (more on that later). I don't hear Chik-Fil-A denying that they offered donations to any organizations; only that they do not consider these organizations to be 'anti-gay'. As for the latter, are you saying that gays do not have the ability to choose where they eat? I thought they were allowed to do so just like everyone else in the country.


BTW, don't think I didn't notice how you are slyly trying to imply I'm getting emotional. My feelings aren't at stake. The only people getting emotional are you pro-chickies with your overblown and emotional hyperbole.

"Pro-chickie"?


Congratulations. After everything I have been called in my lifetime, that one is unique. Good show!



Why can't any of you express yourself without exaggeration?

Perhaps what you call 'exaggeration' is what I call 'logical conclusions'. For example, I know that logically, if I light a firecracker with a lighting stick, it will explode. The explosion will not take place immediately, but at some future time based on the length of the fuse and the speed at which it burns. The lighting stick puts out very little heat; only enough to light a standard small-gauge cannon fuse. So is it logical for me to think as I put it to the fuse that very little will happen? Or is it logical to think that I am igniting something which has the potential to remove a digit from a limb?

I tend to ignite the fuse and quickly move away from the firework. Others may stand over it as the fuse burns. I call my actions logical in that situation, while they may call them exaggerated... well, until the gunpowder explodes in their face... but that's another topic.


From a moderator no less.

Hmmmm, so I gave up any right to an opinion as well when I accepted that position? Interesting how deep your ability to single out individuals for special restrictions go.

I am a member first, and am posting in this thread as a member.

Now on to your second post...


That's your picture right? The old white man in the hat?

Yes, that's me. You now have a good mental image of what a "pro-chickie" looks like.



... the track record for America is that people in your demographic haven't really had to fight for equality at all with few exceptions...like being gay.

Who discriminated against you because you are a white man in America?

Who took your money under false pretenses, and used it to fund anti-white man groups?

Do you think you'd feel slighted if some business did?

Do you think you'd want to know that beforehand so you could shop at another business and exercise your right to protest that businesses practices?

To start with, I am not into feeling sorry for myself, sorry. Yes, I have been discriminated against many times. I am a smoker, a Southerner (with a strong accent), and used to drive a truck for a living. Believe me, you are not alone in encountering discrimination. The difference is I tend to shrug my shoulders, learn someone else I do not do business with, and go on my merry way.

Want an example? Smokers pay several times the tax rate now on cigarettes than people pay on more dangerous products like alcohol. So, I reject the discrimination and grow my own tobacco for personal use. No taxes at all, and the smokes taste a lot better. Plus, it takes less time to grow a few plants each year than it does to fight against discrimination.

Want another? "Redneck" is more than a username; it is a commonly-used nickname in real life. Yell "Hey, Redneck!" in a crowd and I will turn around. I do that because it invites racist remarks. It cues me as to who is really prone to prejudice and who is not, and allows me to escape the effects of such most of the time - by ignoring their racism out of existence.

Old habits die hard, so forgive me if I ignore yours.

Secondly, if I purchase something in a store, the money I paid for it is no longer mine. It belongs to the seller, just as the product I bought belongs to me now and not them. That's called economics. I generally have no interest in what they do with their money. Now that said, if I found out, say, that a certain location where I buy cigarettes is lobbying for higher taxes on them (which I believe is the point of your argument against Chik-Fil-A), then I will stop buying cigarettes there. I have no recourse to tell them they cannot support the cause they have chosen, and they have no obligation to advertise that fact to me. I may tell them I am stopping my purchases because of their actions, but that is all I can do. To try to do more is to endanger my own freedoms, and I realize that.

(That is, incidentally, a true story from some years ago.)

The total responsibility Chik-Fil-A has to a purchaser ends when they receive money in exchange for their product. The customer has no further claim against the company due to the fact they once owned the money that now belongs to Chik-Fil-A, certainly not to the extent that they can demand a report of which charities they use or can define which charities may be donated to.

May I ask you this: should your employer be able to tell you where you can and can not spend your pay? Should you be required to report to your employer every purchase or donation you make with your money, so in case they disagree with you they can fire you?

Equality cannot exist unless everyone has that equality. I posted earlier that I support equality in the marriage laws. I believe in equality for everyone. But that also means I do not believe in inequality, which is what you propose for Chik-Fil-A unless you also demand that everyone (including yourself) be required to report every expense and donation to any source of potential revenue.

And I define that as "impractical" and "intrusive".

Thirdly, as much as I hate to say it, your post cries "racism" from start to finish. You judge me for being an "old white man"... not based on any other evidence. I debate you based on one thing: your words. Your skin color, place of origin, hair color, or whether you have three eyeballs is irrelevant to me. I wish mine was irrelevant to you, however, it is not my place to tell you you cannot be prejudice against me.

So feel free. I'll just ignore the racial comments.


TheRedneck



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 11:41 PM
link   
Chick-Fil-A - - partners with Rabid Anti-Gay Group: news.change.org...

Chick-Fil-A - - sponsors anti-gay marriage conference: www.pridesource.com...

Maggie Gallagher - - now here's a real gem: www.nationformarriage.org...

Seems to me - - after reading more then just a few websites - - - Chick-Fil-A - - - is doing major back peddling.

Why?


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



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 12:21 AM
link   
Dear Annee,

I applaud your energy, persistence, and ability to withstand criticism. You have stated your position clearly. As I understand it, it's "People have a right to know that Chick-Fil-A is bigoted and hate-filled by supporting anti-gay groups and they should be held accountable by boycott or other legal means."

How are people to find out whether a company is bigoted or not? Should there be a government office providing lists of groups that companies donate to? Should companies be required to post it on each piece of advertising?

If someone wants to go through publicly available records, find bits of information, then make a fuss (or a boycott), I don't think anyone has any trouble with that. That's what (I think) you're doing, and it's probably happening in dozens of other forums (fora? forii?). You don't have to show any reason for disliking a company, you can boycott anyone for any reason, and I support that right. So hats off to a fiesty woman, get on with your boycott.

Are we done now?



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 12:31 AM
link   
To Mr.(?) Byteman,

I get the impression from your posts that "misrepresentation" is the driving issue for you. You could be using it as a kind of "moral" misrepresentation or a "legal" misrepresentation. I can reasonably assure you that in normal legal settings in the US today, a "legal" misrepresentation case would fail.

A "moral" misrepresentation? Maybe something like "Go on, take another piece, it only has a few calories."
That seems to be more the kind of thing you're looking at. You won't win a fraud case, but you certainly can boycott. Get your friends and neighbors involved, too. Have a good time.



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 12:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Annee

Your first link is to a pro-gay-marriage group that is apparently up in arms over Chik-Fil-A.

The February event co-sponsored by Chick-fil-A is called "The Art of Marriage," and it's intended to be a launching point for Pennsylvania to return to "the biblical definition of marriage." Given the work of the Pennsylvania Family Institute, it's hard not to see where this event is going to go -- straight for the jugular of anyone who supports marriage equality for same-sex couples.

An assumption, but I'll bite. Now from their page specifically addressing the event:

*NOTE: This one conference is not about gays specifically, just "biblical marriage" in general. But PFI is the anti-gay, anti-marriage group in PA.

Sounds like it is goodasyou.org that is doing the backpeddling.

Your second link (which for some reason keeps trying to re-access every minute or so) is about as bad, but at least they had the integrity to post a few words from the accused:

Dan Cathy, president of the Chick-fil-A and son of company founder Truett Cathy, issued a response on Facebook and the company's website:

"While my family and I believe in the Biblical definition of marriage," wrote Cathy, "we love and respect anyone who disagrees."

Cathy stated in a video message released on Facebook that Chick-fil-A, an organization whose own corporate purpose is to "glorify God," the decision to sponsor the event was not an "endorsement of the mission, political stance, or motives" of the Pennsylvania Family Institute.


That's a backpeddle? It sounds like a press release to me. Not everyone who gives to a charity is frothing at the mouth over it... I don't automatically assume everyone who supports PETA is excited about killing animals, even though PETA has a 98% kill ratio in their shelters last time I checked.

Is it conceivable that the Pennsylvania Family Institute wanted some good food for their guests at this event, and contacted Chik-Fil-A and asked them if they would donate by catering it? They both claim Christian values, so that wouldn't exactly be unusual for one group to ask for a donation from a group with similar allegiances (similar not being equal).

Also, you have to understand that 'pro-marriage' does not automatically equal 'anti-gay-marriage'. In this case it may; I don't really know. I do know that I have been to similar events tat never even mentioned gay marriage. They concentrated on keeping marriages intact and promoting paternal responsibilities, both through lectures and workgroups where people interacted with the group leaders to try and understand the advantages of both to society.

A broken marriage, or a violent marriage, or a non-existent marriage is still against the "Biblical marriage" concept.

Your last link wouldn't work, but I tried just accessing the main site and this story on Maggie Gallagher came up... is this the one? It never mentions Chik-Fil-A.

A suggestion: while there is no law that forces Chik-Fil-A to make any of their corporate records public (SEC rules do not apply unless the corporation is publicly traded), such laws do exist for non-profit groups such as the Ruth Institute and the Pennsylvania Family Institute (required to be made public by the IRS in order to maintain non-profit tax status). Why not look those up and we can all see exactly who has donated to them and by how much?

You might be surprised...

TheRedneck



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join