Chick-Fil-A, Standing Up Against a Liberal Agenda

Originally posted by torqpoc
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

Correct JPZ, but it's far better than a despotic state, fascist state, communist state etc..

So if you're going to bash, bash them all. At least it's not open warfare and let's kill the educated, students, of a specific colour, of a specific religion etc...

Slightly narrow minded bashing there.

T

Electing the lesser of two evils is still electing evil. Freedom is the only noble state to aspire towards and in freedom all people have the right to hold their beliefs, and in freedom no one need apply to the state for a license to marry. Not to many fans of freedom in this thread.

So imagine this scenario:

I, in a statement on behalf of my corporation, say that I don't believe in the animal rights movement. I believe that god set us above the animals as it says in the bible.

Upon further investigation into my company's earnings and donations, you find that I have supported several companies that blatantly abuse animals for things like cosmetics testing or have funded illegal poachers that specifically hunt endangered species.

Protesters boycott my products and go to the media. I say they are radical animal rights activists that probably blow up labs and they are impeding my 1st Amendment rights to speak out and support those who think like me.

Thoughts?

reply to post by Masterjaden


Marriage is not a religious ceremony. It is a legally binding contract. Religion needs to stay out of it. If you want a religious ceremony go ahead and have one but there was no religion at my wedding - there didn't have to be. But the legal part did.

At any rate people are never going to say "I got cvili unioned." They are always going to say "I got married." And everyone should have the right to do so. Evolve a little. We don't all of us have to stay in the middle ages.

reply to post by paganini


Yes - what is this "nature of marriage" of which you speak? I believe an earlier post already cleared that up. Marriage has existed in many forms - this is just another form.

reply to post by lambs to lions


"I like your Christ, but I do not like your Christians".

Thanks Ghandi. I agree.

I have seen many horrors done to my people because of well intentioned Christians wanting to "save my soul" from hell. Unfortunately they brought hell to us, before we got the chance to get their on our own.

If core values means serving up a hate sandwich, then no thank you. I'll starve. Perhaps, avoiding Chik fil a will also save me a coronary bypass someday. I prefer to eat healthier foods.

Choking on judgement and grease, does not sound like a pleasurable past time.

The God that I know, is a loving God. You can keep your version of God.

Originally posted by benrl
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

To be fair, the gay movement began as a liberation movement and has now become a turn to the government to ask permission from the state movement. The whole marriage issue was an opportunity for the gay movement to point out to heterosexuals that a license, by legal definition, is the grant to do something that would otherwise be illegal. The marriage issue was an opportunity for the gay movement to point out that no one needs permission from the state to be married. Instead, that opportunity was discarded in favor of filing privileges and licensing schemes.

Exactly, I never need the state to tell me I was "married" to my wife.

In my heart I always was, from the moment I fell in love.

The state butting in was an after thought, Id be damned if the "state" would give me permission to marry my wife...

Its an after thought for tax benefits, and if that's all it is, the state level of participation should only be Civil unions for all.

Gay, Straight, who ever.

And what I find most interesting is, it is usually self proclaimed Christians that treat their wives the worst. How about Newt Gingrich, who left his wife that had MS and the one who got breast cancer? He didn't live according to the Lord's instructions, now did he?

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

There's a segment of society (a bit smaller than they themselves believe it to be) who have no mind and obediently follow whatever the media tells them too. Then they believe their manipulators' insistence it makes them somehow smarter and/or more moral.
This "movement's" leadership is increasingly bullying, intolerant, and thrives on the ignorant buffoons who love to believe they are "on the right side of history" (a phrase that means nothing since whoever wins is on "the right side of history").
It is also amusing how easily taken in folks are by manufactured issues intended to distract from real issues (this for both sides of the argument)
I personally could not care less what adults do in the privacy of their own home, and I like and respect many homosexuals. At least the ones who see themselves as individuals rather than a member of some agenda. The "LGBT" agenda however has grown quite tiresome and they will be seeing some strong pushback by mainstream Americans who have their own problems at the moment.
And that will increasingly apply to any "group politics" movement in the coming years.

Not supportive enough to stand in line for 2 hours for a piece of fried chicken on a bisquit, but I'll stop by when it is convenient for me. Not that Mr. Cathy needs my agnostic support since his business is suddenly booming while the mobthink "boycotters" are not likely to have been Chic-Fil-A customers to begin with. Methinks he is quite thankful for the self righteousness of screaming idiots. He is crying all the way to the bank.
We need more Americans to stand up for their beliefs. The political correctness agenda has jumped the shark and its adherents are becoming increasingly hostile, bullying, and intolerant. Hopefully Mr. Kathy's stance will inspire more independent minded individuals to fight back against these thugs.

solid comments by pierregustavetoutant and Thunder heart woman.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Of course I will if that's their bag, it's just not mine.

But I've seen same sex couples kissing in many places so I don't think that it will get as much attention as this story.

reply to post by krossfyter


We can't have nice things unless they're fried in peanut oil... Case in point:

reply to post by otherpotato


This issue to me is not about religion as I do not follow any particular doctrine, though I do believe in a higher power than myself. I don’t agree with marriage in the legal sense either. To me, if you love someone with all your heart, mind and soul, as far as I’m concerned…you’re married.

People have spouted off before publicly, it cost Glenn Beck, amongst others, their jobs. In this case it was Dan Cathy responding with his religious beliefs to a religious magazine, not a MSM news organization.

The left went into attack mode immediately, and now they’re surprised when people respond to defend a person’s right to free speech?

You seem to be a cordial individual and I will die to defend your right to verbally disagree with any subject under the sun.

But understand that there are those out there like me who do not like anything crammed down our throats in the name of political correctness. That path leads to madness, oh, and doom. DOOOooom, I tell ya.

Originally posted by TDawgRex

The left went into attack mode immediately, and now they’re surprised when people respond to defend a person’s right to free speech?

The Left

Yeah well - - if you have to be 'Left" to support Equal Rights - - I'm fine with that.

Gays have known about Mr. Cathy and his million dollar donations to anti-gay groups for a long time. Many Gays were already boycotting Chick-fil-A before this happened.

It is Mr. Cathy running his mouth that brought this on - - - in a much larger scale - - for non-gays and Equal Right supporters - - enough that it was picked up by the media - - and is now creating Awareness.

reply to post by Annee

It is Mr. Cathy running his mouth that brought this on

Yep that's a brilliant way to illustrate support for equal rights. Anyone who say's something not in line with a particular ideology and instead espouses their own ideology should accept the consequences. The wrong ideology, after all, has no stake in "equal rights".

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Do not address me.

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by TDawgRex

The left went into attack mode immediately, and now they’re surprised when people respond to defend a person’s right to free speech?

The Left

Yeah well - - if you have to be 'Left" to support Equal Rights - - I'm fine with that.

Gays have known about Mr. Cathy and his million dollar donations to anti-gay groups for a long time. Many Gays were already boycotting Chick-fil-A before this happened.

It is Mr. Cathy running his mouth that brought this on - - - in a much larger scale - - for non-gays and Equal Right supporters - - enough that it was picked up by the media - - and is now creating Awareness.

This was made a political farce by those who were offended by Mr. Cathy's remarks.

But you do realize that there are gay conservatives too, right? And that there are people within the LGBT community who support Mr. Cathy's right to say what he feels, even though they may disagree with his feelings.

The way I see it is, if you attack someone, don't be surprised when they attack back.

I refuse to be a victim of political correctness.

Originally posted by Annee
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

Do not address me.

Now there ya go! That is an even better way to illustrate what you mean by "equal rights". Nothing I could have ever posted would have ever been as succinct and to the point as that. Equal rights. Your a great comedienne.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Originally posted by Annee
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

Do not address me.

Now there ya go! That is an even better way to illustrate what you mean by "equal rights". Nothing I could have ever posted would have ever been as succinct and to the point as that. Equal rights. Your a great comedienne.

That's hilarious.

The intolerance of those who preach tolerance.

i don't know why you all want to keep attacking back and forth? doesn't that continue the hate?

i think people should be able to have conversations and disagreements respectfully dont you?

but i guess there is a place for being disrespectful to remind us about what being respectful is not.

you all have some very intelligent things to say and seem very third eye open. or are on their way at least. i guess the disagreements are good to sharpen and emboldened ones views. they sure dont seem about persuasion.
its a team fight. like rooting for your favorite football team or basketball team or basketweaving team. whatever is your bag/your thing.

Originally posted by TDawgRex

That's hilarious.

The intolerance of those who preach tolerance.

You have no idea why I do not want this person to address me.

It is not because of this thread.