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.

 

Should Chick-Fil-A ban Menstruating women?

page: 8
15
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 03:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by MamaJ
The president of chick fi a was expressing his opinion.

And... So am I! :-)


I fully support your right to do so. I also support the owner of Chick-Fil-A in his right to speak his mind. I also support the right of the bigot who insulted me earlier to have an opinion, though I didn't express my opinion of him since I could not think of a way to do so without violating T&C.

The rest of this issue irritates me intensely. The liberals put his comments under the magnifying glass, igniting this issue and turning it into an issue of hate. Hate only begets more hate.

Issues like this only serve to intensify the enmity between both sides. All of us need to drop this hatred and coexist, damn it. Unfortunately the only way this can happen is if the religious bigots drop the hate first and apologize, since the hatred emanating from the other side is merely reactionary.




posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 04:08 PM
link   





posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 04:37 PM
link   
reply to post by RealSpoke
 


That bottom picture is priceless.



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 04:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by ollncasino

Originally posted by kaylaluv
The people who go out and vote on this are haters of gays - plain and simple.


There we have it. Defending the traditional concept of marriage now amounts to hate according to somewhat confused liberals and communists.

Well done. May you now join the exalted ranks of the politically correct thought police.






what traditional concept of marriage ?

you're not gonna sit there and claim that xtianity [and/or the abrahamic religions ]
invented and hold a monopoly on the concept of marriage.

LGBT folks could care less about marrying in church

they just want equal rights and equal protection
something xtians are VERY active, behind the scenes, in trying to prevent
[yes, it's a conspiracy]

the way the laws are now
a gay couple could be living together for 30-40 years
and when one passes away

the deceased's relatives,
being the sweet and loving "followers of jesus" that they are
can come along and claim what is rightly belonging to the surviving member of the couple
using your same arguments in court and leave that survivor penniless and homeles

never mind that when the deceased was living his loving relatives wouldn't speak a word to him/her

the current state of things puts an excesivly onerous burden on LGBT couples in order for them to protect themselves from such situations.

but hey keep mit up
way i see it, gays are the last people you xtians are still getting away with persecuting

soon you'll have to figure out more civilized and socially acceptable ways to demonstrate your false righteousness

oh wait..!

edit on 3-8-2012 by DerepentLEstranger because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 04:47 PM
link   
No. Any true Christian woman knows that during her menstrual period, she is a shame to humanity and should be nowhere near general society let alone a restaurant. It goes without saying.If you are not a Chritian then you have no business in Chick Fil A, perverting Jesus chicken.



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 05:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by humphreysjim
Here is what the Bible has to say about homosexuality being wrong:

This comes from Leviticus:

18:22 Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.
20:13 If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

The first question one must have is whether Christians support putting to death homosexuals, or simply condemn them for their acts?

Anyway, moving on. Here is what Leviticus says about menstruation:

"And if a woman have an issue, and her issue in her flesh be blood, she shall be put apart seven days: and whosoever toucheth her shall be unclean until the even. And every thing that she lieth upon in her separation shall be unclean: every thing also that she sitteth upon shall be unclean. And whosoever toucheth her bed shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even. And whosoever toucheth any thing that she sat upon shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even"

"Every bed whereon she lieth all the days of her issue shall be unto her as the bed of her separation: and whatsoever she sitteth upon shall be unclean, as the uncleanness of her separation. And whosoever toucheth those things shall be unclean, and shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even. But if she be cleansed of her issue, then she shall number to herself seven days, and after that she shall be clean. And on the eighth day she shall take unto her two turtles, or two young pigeons, and bring them unto the priest, to the door of the tabernacle of the congregation. And the priest shall offer the one for a sin offering, and the other for a burnt offering; and the priest shall make an atonement for her before the LORD for the issue of her uncleanness."

"And if a man shall lie with a woman having her sickness, and shall uncover her nakedness; he hath discovered her fountain, and she hath uncovered the fountain of her blood: and both of them shall be cut off from among their people."

"But if a man be just, and do that which is lawful and right, and hath not ... come near to a menstruous woman....."

The Bible is quite clear that we must not "come near to a menstruous woman".

It is quite clear that menstruating women are disgusting and a threat to anyone who even comes near them. Certainly not appropriate for a restaurant where normal people will be eating!

I think it's obvious Chick-Fil-A should ban these types, and have vaginal checks for every woman who enters, for the safety of other "clean" customers, of course.

The double-standards of Christians are astounding!




you're fishing for something against christians. why do you hate us?



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 05:13 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


Bigoted douche? Really? I thought he was exercising his 2nd amendment rights... guess not. And secondly, Chick-Fil-A IS a corporation, it cannot feel anything. Hate, love, fear, remorse anything. To speak of it if it can or does is a reification fallacy. It's not a logical/rational point.

Dude....
*facepalm*.
Really? Yes, they declared that "corporations" are "people"......and their chief officers are free to exercise their 2nd amendment rights. But that "corporation" did not write a check to a club, the chief officer did......

and so, for you to dismiss it on grounds that this organization....this corporation....is "separate from" the people that run it, that profit from it, and that choose to "donate" (lobby) for oppression, is ridiculous.

THE MAN DID WHAT HE DID. It doesn't matter if he's an unemployed Joe Dirt sitting in his recliner saying "Ima donate 5M to the anti-guy cause" , or he's a Chief (Whatever) Officer of some corporation, it is
HIM
TALKING
AND
PAYING
...
And it's just wrong.



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 05:21 PM
link   
reply to post by humphreysjim
 


WHAT??? Does your mother know you say things like this? You are setting yourself up for 'SUICIDE BY FRYING PAN". You are one sick guy and you are ready to have access to hand puppets only, aren't you? Don't have many friends do you.



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 05:45 PM
link   
JUst another "we hate you for being a hater" troll thread. plonk.



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 06:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by krossfyter

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by krossfyter
 


What do you mean "how so"? What's the point of postulating if they should ban menstruating women when they have no history of banning anyone? We all know why this thread was made, lets not play games.


they dont have to have a history of banning anyone for anything for the OP to have made the point in this thread.

the game that is actually still being played apparently is dodging the crux/point of the post.





I didn't dodge anything, I addressed the issue of menstruation in my initial post.



you sure did dodge a point of the thread. i will let you find it. its like a where's waldo only WAY easier...


"Do you reject parts of Leviticus? Would you be happy, after reading and accepting Leviticus, to sit next to a menstruating woman who is unclean and disgusting? Do you think homosexuals should be put to death, or merely barred from marriage?"



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 06:52 PM
link   
I think the government should get out of the marriage business and just recognize unions instead.
Marriage should be recognized by church and not your tax return.



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 06:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by TsukiLunar

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by krossfyter
 


What do you mean "how so"? What's the point of postulating if they should ban menstruating women when they have no history of banning anyone? We all know why this thread was made, lets not play games.


Yes, lets not play games. Chik-fil-a hates gay people. Should it hate people who are menstruating? Should it hate women rights? Should it hate people who shave? Should it hate Harry Potter?

edit on 3-8-2012 by TsukiLunar because: (no reason given)


Chick-fil-A is a corporation, for one thing a corporation cannot "hate" anything, reification fallacy. Secondly, being against an issue doesn't involve "hate" in a collective sense. That would be as absurd as if I said "gay people hate Christian people". What is with this culture in today's society where if a person is against something it's "hate"?


edit on 3-8-2012 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)




not just against something. if that were just the case we wouldnt be having this discussion. didn't dan cathy donate at least $5 million to organizations (including a certified hate group) that, among other things, depict gay people as pedophiles, want to make "gay behavior" illegal, and even say gay people should be "exported" out of America?

hasn't Chick-fil-A been sued over a dozen times for employment discrimination?

has Chick-fil-A threatened to fire women to force them to be "stay home" moms against their will?
edit on 3-8-2012 by krossfyter because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 06:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by deadeyedick
I think the government should get out of the marriage business and just recognize unions instead.
Marriage should be recognized by church and not your tax return.


Once we have FULL Equality as things stand today.

After that go ahead - - - fight to change it.



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 07:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by ollncasino
I will happily eat in a Chick-Fil-A and by the sounds of things, I am not the only one. Chick-Fil-A has been experiencing a surge in business!

Central Texas Chick-Fil-A Sees Ten-Fold Increase in Business Today

Link

So much for the boycott that has fallen flat on its face.




edit on 3-8-2012 by ollncasino because: (no reason given)




its okay. we at least know the people who hide their "hate" under "freedom of speech".

we at least know the kinds of people who rally against other people for being discriminated against by eating chicken biscuits.
we now have a gauge to find out who really is going to stand for love and against hate. its not some of those christian pharisees who are lining up to get some chicken biscuits thats for sure.



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 07:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


I don't understand what you mean by full equality.
Someone has my rib so there will be no equality until i get it back.

I don't see how the gov. recognizing a union of people sharing a house would not be fair to everyone.



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 07:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by deadeyedick
reply to post by Annee
 


I don't understand what you mean by full equality.
Someone has my rib so there will be no equality until i get it back.

I don't see how the gov. recognizing a union of people sharing a house would not be fair to everyone.


When LGBTQ have the same exact Legal Government Marriage others have - - then we will have reached full equality in that area.

After reaching full equality - - - then go ahead - - fight for change. But not until ALL have the same.



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 07:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


Sounds like you have a problem with the church and want to use the law to get back at people that may look down on others.
Again why is it so important for marriage to be involved in the gov.
Doesn't my idea only strengthen the separation of church and state.
The question is this about finances and such or is this something else?



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 07:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by humphreysjim

Originally posted by VreemdeVlieendeVoorwep

I really hope that you are being sarcastic here....


I dunno, ask the Christians displaying the double-standard.

Who are we to pick and choose "God's word"?


the only problem is god doesnt exist. and if you "dunno" if you are being sarcastic or not, then you got a lot more problems on your hands than you might realize. This whole thread is a bunch of rubbish, but that is just my two cents I'm entitled to.



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 07:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by deadeyedick
reply to post by Annee
 


Sounds like you have a problem with the church and want to use the law to get back at people that may look down on others.


What does the church have to do with anything?

The US marriage license was created to prevent interracial marriage. Those who created it made it a Legal Government contract called Marriage License. No where in that official government contract is the word god.

Those who created the US marriage license had more concerns with racism then leaving marriage in the church.

Since it is a Legal Government document/contract - - and we are a secular nation - - religious qualification is not valid.



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 07:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


I see your point.
However when you get married by a jp or rep they do read you a certain set of words that pertain to GOD.
When you get married by a minister then e is usually a rep of the church and of the state.
The union i speak of would negate the need for vows and reps and only pertain to how long people live together and how many youngesters they are raising.Does that not solve our marriage problems that we are facing as a nation?




top topics



 
15
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join