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 "non-story" exposes the Hypocritical agenda of LGBT Community.

page: 25
51
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 10:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Eurisko2012
 



He has an MBA.

He could open up his own company.


I am thinking that he would be fabulous at either fashion or interior design.

Or maybe he could create a line of accessories for small dog owners.

Monogrammed diamond encrusted dog collars, cashmere straps for carry-on animal totes...




posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 10:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by kyviecaldges
reply to post by kaylaluv
 



One company was being INclusive regarding gays - the other company was being EXclusive regarding gays. Is it hard to understand why some gays would be unhappy about being EXcluded? Wouldn't you be unhappy if others were telling you they felt YOU should be excluded from getting a marriage license?


This is what I don't get about the whole "gay marriage" thing.

Marriage is a concept born of religious implications, and, in America, its historical roots are tied to the church.

Granted, the state has now usurped the concept of marriage to become a legal contract for a civil union between two people, totally bypassing the church.

And, in my opinion, if the gays want to have this right to contract, then they should have it, but why not call it something other than marriage?

Why do they have to have this word marriage?
Because in all reality, the only thing that the nutso christians want is to somehow keep the concept of marriage pure.
(somehow husbands and wives cheating on one another and filandering with children doesn't destroy the purity of marriage, but same sex unions do... Go figure... don't ever try to apply logic to religious reasoning.)

I would bet green money that the gays could get what they want pragmatically if the were willing to compromise, but it seems that winning this battle is more important to them than actually being able to have the right to enter into a marriage contract.
edit on 8/8/2012 by kyviecaldges because: (no reason given)


I'm not gay, and I don't speak for all gays (sorry, Pinke), but here's the way I look at it: two gays that partner for life, or at least have the intention of partnering for life, have EXACTLY the same relationship that heteros do. Many times, they have families, many times they live in the suburbs with the white picket fence, the SUV, volunteer at the school, have barbeques in their back yards -- they ARE a married couple just as much as any heterosexual married couple. Some are religious, some are not - same as hetero families. The only difference, is that they don't have opposite sex parts. We all know that there is much more to marriage than sex. Some married hetero couples don't have sex at all.

Marriage predates religion, and it certainly predates Christianity. Like I said before, atheists get married every day. Marriage is when two people decide to partner for life. Period. Gays calling their union a marriage hurts no one. Even if gays only get a civil union, they're going to call themselves married. The state needs to be equal in what it issues - it either needs to be civil union licenses for ALL, or marriage licenses for ALL. It's unlikely that the government will change the name of the license, but regardless, gays and heteros are going to call themselves married.



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 10:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by natters
reply to post by kaylaluv
 


No, Chick-Fil-A never EXcluded anybody from their company. He was asked his PERSONAL opinion during a CHURCH interview!!! Are you guys seriously saying that individual people who happen to be business owners are not entitled to opinions? He shared his opinion openly and honestly. Instead of getting their tutu's ruffled (lol redneck....) maybe the gay community should take advantage of their right to an opinion and boycott the restaurant. But saying the guy isn't entitled to his opinion because it makes them *feel* excluded? (and it comes down to emotion because the owner never said he hated gays, or that gays weren't welcomed into his restaurant, or that if a gay came into the restaurant they'd go out of their way to make them feel uncomfortable, or anything hateful really)....

sure seems to me like they simply want everyone to agree with their choice. never gonna happen. ever.


Who said he wasn't entitled to his opinion? My opinion is, he is a homophobic religious nut. Many, many gays have been boycotting Chick Fil A for years - this is nothing new. But the main reason they have been boycotting Chick Fil A is not because of his opinion - it's because his company donated millions of dollars to anti-gay groups that have lobbied big time against gay rights.
edit on 8-8-2012 by kaylaluv because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 10:41 AM
link   
reply to post by kaylaluv
 



Marriage predates religion, and it certainly predates Christianity. Like I said before, atheists get married every day. Marriage is when two people decide to partner for life. Period. Gays calling their union a marriage hurts no one.


I am not arguing this point.

I was very clear in stating that, in America, marriage is traced to religious institutions.

My point is that public sentiment is blocking the gay's access to a civil union.

And it is very apparent that simply gaining access to the right of a civil union is not the only goal.
If this was the only goal, then the gays would be willing to compromise on issues, but they are not.

They want to take the concept of a christian marriage and own it and then rub this ownership in a christian's face (after they finish a 5-way sex bender at the local circuit party).

I would have more respect for the gays if they would just be honest and admit that they have a serious freaking ax to grind with the religious nutjobs.
This passive aggressive thing is getting old and annoying, but then again, this is the gays that we are talking about.

Passive aggressive is how they roll.

If a woman does it, then the gay women will naturally do it, being women and all, and the gay men will do it, but amplified by their testosterone.
Which is twenty times worse than when women do it.

Gay women love other women and gay men want to be women.

Real men are a dying freaking breed.
edit on 8/8/2012 by kyviecaldges because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 10:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by kyviecaldges
reply to post by kaylaluv
 



Marriage predates religion, and it certainly predates Christianity. Like I said before, atheists get married every day. Marriage is when two people decide to partner for life. Period. Gays calling their union a marriage hurts no one.


I am not arguing this point.

I was very clear in stating that, in America, marriage is traced to religious institutions.


Then answer me this: WHY ARE ATHEISTS ALLOWED TO GET A MARRIAGE LICENSE? It has nothing to do with religion. This is discrimination against gays - religion is just used as the excuse.


My point is that public sentiment is blocking gay's access to a civil union.


Public sentiment also blocked interracial marriages as well - until the Supreme Court ruled it discrimination.


And it is very apparent that simply gaining access to the right of a civil union is not the only goal.
If this was the only goal, then the gays would be willing to compromise on issues, but they are not.


Blacks didn't compromise on sitting at the back of the bus, either. So?


They want to take the concept of a christian marriage and wave it in the faces of christians (after they finish a 5 way sex bender at the local circuit party).


Christians want to wave it in the face of gays that they aren't good enough to have a marriage (and your remark in parenthesis was just rude - shame on you).


I would have more respect for the gays if they would just be honest and admit that they have a serious freaking ax to grind with the religious nutjobs.
This passive aggressive thing is getting old and annoying, but then again, this is the gays that we are talking about.


I don't think they deny this at all. I am not gay, and I fully admit I have an ax to grind with the religious nut jobs. The religious nut jobs should not be allowed to run this country.




If a woman does it, then the gay women will naturally do it, being women and all, and the gay men will do it, but amplified by their testosterone.
Which is twenty times worse than when women do it.

Gay women love other women and gay men want to be women.


Now your ignorant prejudice is showing. How are you any better than the religious nut jobs? Are you a member of Westboro Baptist Church?

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



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 11:29 AM
link   
reply to post by kaylaluv
 



Now your ignorant prejudice is showing. How are you any better than the religious nut jobs? Are you a member of Westboro Baptist Church?


You sure do have an emotional attachment to this issue?

Something tells me that your opinion has a bit more to it than your "I am straight... I swear to God" attitude.

Anytime that someone starts with the whole black people equal rights comparison, then the conversation has taken a turn into loonyville and a structured question and answer debate is impossible.

No one listens and the goal is simply to win the argument by any means necessary.

Your quoted response typifies this sentiment.

Personal attacks are only used when someone has a vested interest in the topic.
They are not persuasive.
Anyone educated in logic and reason understands that personal attacks are a sign of desperation, and your constant appeal to emotion is a logical fallacy employed to persuade deluded masses.
It is all a part of the rhetorical triangle.
I don't expect you to know this, but I thought that I would point it out to you.

I care neither one way nor the other.

Christians are brainwashed fools who blindly follow dogmatic protocol because it relieves them of their responsibility to think critically.
And the gays engage behavior that I find utterly repulsive.

Well... unless it's two hot sorority chicks acting gay for my pleasure.

Two girls are fine, unless it's two butch girls, then it may as well be two guys, which I find repulsive.

(see that... that is called humor and it is something despreately needed in this thread)



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 11:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by kyviecaldges

You sure do have an emotional attachment to this issue?

Something tells me that your opinion has a bit more to it than your "I am straight... I swear to God" attitude.


Sure, I have an emotional attachment. I have been close friends for over 20 years with a gay man. I think of him as my big brother. I live in the South, and I have personally seen the "religious nut jobs" give him a hard time. He has a partner that he has been with for almost 20 years, and they would like to get a marriage license. It makes me angry that any toothless, drunken, hateful, mullet-haired, white trash idiot can get a marriage license to marry his tube top-wearing, gum-smacking, greasy-haired, idiot white-trash girlfriend just because they are heterosexual, but my intelligent, classy, generous, kind, gay friends cannot. So, yeah, I get a little heated sometimes.


Anytime that someone starts with the whole black people equal rights comparison, then the conversation has taken a turn into loonyville and a structured question and answer debate is impossible.


Equal rights for ALL. Not just for blacks, and not just for Christians.



Personal attacks are only used when someone has a vested interest in the topic.
They are not persuasive.


You're right - you had some pretty personal attacks against gays. I give back as good as I get.



And the gays engage behavior that I find utterly repulsive.


And I find you utterly repulsive... but I'll still fight for your rights to equality.



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 12:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pinke
Just a point to the OP and everyone else about the LGBT 'community' ...

I don't compare you to the Westboro Baptist Church by default. Please don't compare me to whatever you're comparing me to by default. No offense to anyone in particular but there seems to be a general path of generalizing the LGBT community into one basket or agenda.


Absolutely, and well said.

I really don't toss in all "gay people" with the LGBT "agenda"... there is a difference between the people and the machine.



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 12:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by kaylaluv

Originally posted by natters

Originally posted by kaylaluv

WRONG. No one is against free speech. But everyone has a right to speak up if they don't like what someone else is saying.

The difference between what the Oreo company said and what the Chick Fil A Ceo said is like this analogy:

Company A says, "We fully accept black people as equal citizens. We believe blacks should have the rights to do anything that whites can do." Now, the anti-blacks don't like that, so they get upset, they want to boycott Company A, etc. The blacks get upset at these anti-blacks for being against them. Is it so hard to understand why the blacks would feel that way?

Now, let's say Company B says, "We don't have a problem with black people, but we don't think they should have all the same rights as whites, because our God tells us that black people are inferior to whites." The anti-blacks are cheering for Company B, so, of course the blacks are not going to be happy about that, right? Is it so hard to understand why?



This is a misunderstanding of what Chick-Fil-A's owner said and it's not at all able to be made into an analogy about race. The better understanding would be (for company B): "We dont have a problem with homosexuals but marriage as I believe it is designed for a man and a woman."

There was nothing about homosexuals being inferior LOL! thats a stretch. Your whole analogy is ridiculous. try again. He didnt' say anything derogatory about homosexuals at all, except that he felt that marriage should be celebrated in the traditional sense. The offense was taken from that comment, not given.


One company was being INclusive regarding gays - the other company was being EXclusive regarding gays. Is it hard to understand why some gays would be unhappy about being EXcluded? Wouldn't you be unhappy if others were telling you they felt YOU should be excluded from getting a marriage license?


Did you read the comments hte president actually made? He said he supported the biblical definition of marriage, not that he wouldn't serve gays...

You're trying to make this into something is never was.



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 12:32 PM
link   
reply to post by kaylaluv
 



You're right - you had some pretty personal attacks against gays. I give back as good as I get.


I knew that you are gay.

It's okay to come out of the closet.


And I find you utterly repulsive... but I'll still fight for your rights to equality.


You see... That is where you and I differ.
I don't know you, so I can't find you utterly repulsive.

I find your arguments comical and emotionally irrational, but not repulsive.

And I don't find gays repulsive either.

I find their behavior utterly and completely repulsive.

Well, not all of it.
Most of their whole mixed metaphor, twisted gender thing is just played out.
I am speaking of one behavior, specifically, that I find repulsive.
And it is the behavior that I find repulsive... NOT the person.

I don't take any of this personally, whereas you obviously do.

But that is because you are obviously in the closet and need to come out.

It's okay.

Come out of the closet.
edit on 8/8/2012 by kyviecaldges because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 12:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheLiesOfEden

Originally posted by gncnew

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by Six6Six

I am totally against the LGBT organised terrorist cult they have become.


OMG

Minority Bullies.

What is this world coming to?


Right, because if you're a minority, you have the right to be violent, overbearing, close minded, judgmental, and/or a general jackass....

Please tell me you aren't saying that that's how the LGBTQ group acts. I understand the point you bring up but...


NO, the community does not, the machine and agenda does, often. And more importantly, by people like Annee it is excused because she feels it's in some kind of revenge.



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 12:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by nunyadammm

Originally posted by AwakeinNM

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by StalkerSolent

Speaking of which, it seems the stuff you are concerned with has mostly to do with money, and less with what I consider inalienable rights.


It doesn't matter.

Fact is hetero's have this privilege which is denied a minority group.

Equality for all first - - - then change away.

There is no room in this society for one group to say "Neener Neener - - I have real marriage and you don't"


FYI, marriage is defined in the BIBLE. Long BEFORE any modern legal system. Before the Magna Carta. Before the US Constitution. You want "equality"? Look at the Biblical definition and tell me what it says.


In the bible Marriage is defined as a man and his wife and his wife and his wife and his wife.
In the bible Marriage is defined as a man and his dead brother's wife.
In the bible Marriage is defined as a man and his rape victim.

You really want to go there?


This had me all ROFL...

Good one.



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 12:39 PM
link   
reply to post by gncnew
 



And more importantly, by people like Annee it is excused because she feels it's in some kind of revenge.



This is the whole situation summed up accurately.

It's about power and revenge.

It has nothing to do with marital rights.
PLEASE.

The divorce rate among the gays that do get married is astro-freaking-nomical.

They don't care one way or the other.
They just want revenge and I would respect their psychotic behavior if they had the cajones... well

None of 'em have manly cojones.

If they had the forthright openness to just say that they want some serious-mamma-jamma-straight-up R.E.V.E.N.G.E.
edit on 8/8/2012 by kyviecaldges because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 12:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by reject
reply to post by gncnew
 


is it just me?

on both sides, its a case of the pot calling the kettle black...classic


little bit.

Just pointing out one instance here, I could probably go ROUND AND ROUND on both sides.



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
I'll say this right now, I just became a fan of Oreos, reading this thread.

Blessings on the gay community. First it was the blacks, then it was the hippies, now it's the gays. Eventually, we'll learn that discrimination is never good, no matter what.


Discrimination?

You obviously didn't read the thread... and the hippies? and the blacks???

Wow, reach much?



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 12:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by nunyadammm

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes

Originally posted by jimmyx
maybe bible-thumpin', scripture-quotin',confedrate flag-wavin' christians would understand, if their own kids were killed, maimed, brutalized, bullied, shunned, made fun of, just for being christian...
maybe being an elite, just means you have critical-thinking skills combined with a degree of tolerance.


Look up a group called Voice of the Martyrs. Christians are attacked and killed, around the world, on a regular basis, because they are Christian. It happens in the US, too, just not (so far) to as deadly a degree. Workplace sanctions, school children penalized, lawsuits - that's all condoned by anti-freedom, Christian-hating people.


In Uganda, Christians made being gay a crime punishable by death.

Name one country where gays were able to do the same to Christians.


Sure, I will... it's the country where gay people are the vast majority and have fundamental belief that strait people are a destructive force to their society.

Don't be childish. Christians are murdered around the world for their beliefs more than gay people could ever even come close to. Let's not point to one third world country and claim that somehow justifies boycotting chicken sandwiches because of a stance on what they think "marriage" should be.



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 12:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by AwakeinNM

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by StalkerSolent

Speaking of which, it seems the stuff you are concerned with has mostly to do with money, and less with what I consider inalienable rights.


It doesn't matter.

Fact is hetero's have this privilege which is denied a minority group.

Equality for all first - - - then change away.

There is no room in this society for one group to say "Neener Neener - - I have real marriage and you don't"


FYI, marriage is defined in the BIBLE. Long BEFORE any modern legal system. Before the Magna Carta. Before the US Constitution. You want "equality"? Look at the Biblical definition and tell me what it says.


en.wikipedia.org...

Marriage pre-dates recorded history... And you really don't want to go down the road on what is defined in the bible for marriage, because that involves rape, and slaves, and concubines.... The bible is not a good guide on marriage... or morals for that matter... There's too much conflicting info.



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 01:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by murphy22

Then, where and in what way do they get unequal rights? I really do not understand, in what way are they not equal?


In America. When LGBTQ have Full Legal Federal Marriage - - - and are included on the Federal Protection list of minorities.

Then they are Equal. Not until.


So when do Christian whites get added to that list?


Religion is already protected.

I am so sick of the persecuted Christian whining. You are NOT persecuted.

You just can't control everything.



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 01:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by gncnew

Originally posted by kaylaluv

Originally posted by natters

Originally posted by kaylaluv

WRONG. No one is against free speech. But everyone has a right to speak up if they don't like what someone else is saying.

The difference between what the Oreo company said and what the Chick Fil A Ceo said is like this analogy:

Company A says, "We fully accept black people as equal citizens. We believe blacks should have the rights to do anything that whites can do." Now, the anti-blacks don't like that, so they get upset, they want to boycott Company A, etc. The blacks get upset at these anti-blacks for being against them. Is it so hard to understand why the blacks would feel that way?

Now, let's say Company B says, "We don't have a problem with black people, but we don't think they should have all the same rights as whites, because our God tells us that black people are inferior to whites." The anti-blacks are cheering for Company B, so, of course the blacks are not going to be happy about that, right? Is it so hard to understand why?



This is a misunderstanding of what Chick-Fil-A's owner said and it's not at all able to be made into an analogy about race. The better understanding would be (for company B): "We dont have a problem with homosexuals but marriage as I believe it is designed for a man and a woman."

There was nothing about homosexuals being inferior LOL! thats a stretch. Your whole analogy is ridiculous. try again. He didnt' say anything derogatory about homosexuals at all, except that he felt that marriage should be celebrated in the traditional sense. The offense was taken from that comment, not given.


One company was being INclusive regarding gays - the other company was being EXclusive regarding gays. Is it hard to understand why some gays would be unhappy about being EXcluded? Wouldn't you be unhappy if others were telling you they felt YOU should be excluded from getting a marriage license?


Did you read the comments hte president actually made? He said he supported the biblical definition of marriage, not that he wouldn't serve gays...

You're trying to make this into something is never was.


Did I ever claim that he said he wouldn't serve gays? Of course, he has no problem taking their money. He just doesn't want them to have equal marriage rights. And he puts his money where his mouth is.



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by murphy22

Then, where and in what way do they get unequal rights? I really do not understand, in what way are they not equal?


In America. When LGBTQ have Full Legal Federal Marriage - - - and are included on the Federal Protection list of minorities.

Then they are Equal. Not until.


So when do Christian whites get added to that list?


Religion is already protected.

I am so sick of the persecuted Christian whining. You are NOT persecuted.

You just can't control everything.


Erm, Christians are persecuted all over the world. Shoot, pretty much everyone is persecuted by someone else. It's a pretty vicious cycle. And sure, Christians can't control everything. No human being can.



new topics

top topics



 
51
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join