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: 28
51
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 04:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by kyviecaldges
reply to post by grahag
 


NIce platitudes Yoda.

But if you are really worried about "rights" and all that jazz then I would school yourself on the difference between a 14th amendment citizen and a State Citizen.
While you are at it, look up the difference between INalienable and UNalienable and try to figure out which one applies to this concept of civil rights that you seem to be so attracted to, but yet I detest.

Seriously, you're falling on deaf ears son.

This whole thing is a joke.... "losing rights".

We don't lose rights.
They are endowed by our creator.
What we lose are privileges.
We don't have civil rights. We have civil privileges.
That is why gay people can't get married.
Because it is a privilege.

Do some actual research before you come to me, who can school you twenty times over on this issue, and preach about "canaries in the coal mine".


Well done! Your condescension was received loud and clear.

caselaw.lp.findlaw.com...
You get to read this one, but it's cited all over the place regarding marriage as a civil right vs. states attempts to prevent that.

I LOVE how you talk to me about rights vs privileges and you get it wrong, advising that you could school me 20 times over.

Doesn't matter though. Marriage is a civil right. You can not have civil rights for SOME and not for OTHERS. Doing so for whatever reason is an inherently evil act.

Continue schooling me though as your foot in your mouth is amusing me.




posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 04:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by grahag

Marriage is a civil right.


That is, until grahag manages to convince everyone to drop marriage as a legal stipulation entirely so that he can run a very nifty non-discriminatory marriage facility and retire comfortably.



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 07:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by StalkerSolent

Originally posted by grahag

Marriage is a civil right.


That is, until grahag manages to convince everyone to drop marriage as a legal stipulation entirely so that he can run a very nifty non-discriminatory marriage facility and retire comfortably.


Some day... I'm gonna find that place on the beach!

I'll be rich and retire a happy miser!



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 11:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee
*snip*
In America religion has the same protection it always had.

The difference is non-religious have challenged their control.

Christians in America are not less protected - - - they simply have less control. And it pisses them off - - and they cry persecution.


No, it doesn't. If you believe that, again, you are not paying attention.

What is this "control" you keep referencing? Control of what??? The reality is that groups like those in this case want to control the religious rights of people, and they are whining and complaining, and screaming their way into getting it. Forget the Constitution, just don't tick off the wrong lobbying group.



posted on Aug, 10 2012 @ 12:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by nunyadammm

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes
No, I am NOT comparing the two - that was you. Typical tactic, to try and avoid the actual issue by bringing something else into it. If you want to discuss the laws of Uganda, start a thread for that.


Why did you bring up Muslims then?
I am confused.


You brought up a law that calls for the killing of homosexuals, so I listed another example of the same action. Can't see what isn't clear about that..... I also stated that those laws are wrong.


Originally posted by nunyadammmI brought up Uganda because it was pertinent in my response. Then you said

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes
However, I am also aware that many gays have in fact attacked churches, and are virulently hateful against Christians.


You know it was AMERICAN CHRISTIANS who helped get that Ugandan law in place, right?
So if you want me to feel bad for them, let's consider all the wonderful things they do.

If you go back the post I originally responded to and see why I posted why I posted then this would all make sense to you. If you just shift the conversation a post and ignore context, we get this. I guess then I do not understand what your point is. So some gay people have done some bad stuff to some churches? So have teenagers.

You want me to cry for some churches that some bad stuff happened to? How many churches have been burned down by gay people? How many have been burned down by racists? How many Christians have been put to death because of legislation put in place by American homosexuals?

Now tell me how far I shifted.
edit on 9-8-2012 by nunyadammm because: (no reason given)


Since when do Americans get to make laws in other countries? Where is your evidence? Blogs don't count; I mean actual evidence. You want to talk about how some group, supposedly Christian, did this or that against homosexuals, but you don't want to talk about how some homosexuals have done this or that against Christians. I guess open and honest debate isn't as important as making people feel badly for the group you support, eh?



posted on Aug, 10 2012 @ 01:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes

Originally posted by Annee
*snip*
In America religion has the same protection it always had.

The difference is non-religious have challenged their control.

Christians in America are not less protected - - - they simply have less control. And it pisses them off - - and they cry persecution.


No, it doesn't. If you believe that, again, you are not paying attention.

What is this "control" you keep referencing? Control of what??? The reality is that groups like those in this case want to control the religious rights of people, and they are whining and complaining, and screaming their way into getting it. Forget the Constitution, just don't tick off the wrong lobbying group.


Sorry but you are flat out wrong. Yes I remember the 50s when Christianity dominated everything. You could even lose your job if you weren't Christian.

Public school only celebrated Christian holidays - - - didn't matter if you were Jewish - Muslim - or something else.

Only Christmas decorations were on public government property - - - even though there are other beliefs celebrated during December.

Then Atheists began to challenge. And Atheists began to win separation of church and state lawsuits.

Christians couldn't control everything with free reign anymore. And they've been losing power control ever since.

Christians have spent BILLIONS just to stop a minority group from having Equal Rights. How pathetic.

BILLIONS of dollars may have slowed the process of Equal Rights for gays - - - but it will not stop it.

What a waste of money that could have been used for something positive.



posted on Aug, 10 2012 @ 02:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes

Originally posted by Annee
*snip*
In America religion has the same protection it always had.

The difference is non-religious have challenged their control.

Christians in America are not less protected - - - they simply have less control. And it pisses them off - - and they cry persecution.


No, it doesn't. If you believe that, again, you are not paying attention.

What is this "control" you keep referencing? Control of what??? The reality is that groups like those in this case want to control the religious rights of people, and they are whining and complaining, and screaming their way into getting it. Forget the Constitution, just don't tick off the wrong lobbying group.


Sorry but you are flat out wrong. Yes I remember the 50s when Christianity dominated everything. You could even lose your job if you weren't Christian.

Public school only celebrated Christian holidays - - - didn't matter if you were Jewish - Muslim - or something else.

Only Christmas decorations were on public government property - - - even though there are other beliefs celebrated during December.

Then Atheists began to challenge. And Atheists began to win separation of church and state lawsuits.

Christians couldn't control everything with free reign anymore. And they've been losing power control ever since.

Christians have spent BILLIONS just to stop a minority group from having Equal Rights. How pathetic.

BILLIONS of dollars may have slowed the process of Equal Rights for gays - - - but it will not stop it.

What a waste of money that could have been used for something positive.


I wasn't alive in the 50's. Were you? Parents were, though, and who, exactly, lost their job for not being Christian? The Constitution has always protected against that sort of thing.

Schools take holidays that most people want, and when more people are celebrating Christmas, of course that will be taken as a holiday. So what? Having that time off isn't forcing anyone to celebrate.

These days, other sorts of decorations HAVE been allowed, while Christian ones were denied. So, you think that is fair, somehow? I can locate evidence of that. Can you locate any showing where someone wanted other sorts, and was denied, back in those days?

The real issue is that atheists want to decide that Christians don't have the right to public displays of their faith, and that is a direct violation to the Constitution. Freedom OF religion, not from.

I am not wrong, and neither is the Constitution. Those opposing it are wrong.



posted on Aug, 10 2012 @ 06:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes
You brought up a law that calls for the killing of homosexuals, so I listed another example of the same action. Can't see what isn't clear about that..... I also stated that those laws are wrong.


That makes no sense. Read what you just wrote to me.




Since when do Americans get to make laws in other countries? Where is your evidence? Blogs don't count; I mean actual evidence. You want to talk about how some group, supposedly Christian, did this or that against homosexuals, but you don't want to talk about how some homosexuals have done this or that against Christians. I guess open and honest debate isn't as important as making people feel badly for the group you support, eh?


Are you #ing serious???????

US ties to Uganada anti-gay bill



posted on Aug, 10 2012 @ 03:17 PM
link   
reply to post by gncnew
 


bang on,for more evidence of the lgbt hypocrites check out the"christianity is hate speech a new lgbt agenda" they are all going on about equal rights but get nasty when you ask about a preist/vicar or preacher's religious freedom and the right to follow their conscience and not be forced to marry anyone their church law tells them they shouldnt marry.
they say its about love between two people but again use the same non arguments when asked why not just get married in a civil ceremony and respect other peoples right to beleive what they like.
They are all for equal rights until it comes to something they dont happen to agree with.
Hypocrites.
um i dont know what chick fill a is, sorry if ive gone of topic.



posted on Aug, 10 2012 @ 04:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes

I wasn't alive in the 50's. Were you?


Born in 1946. Raised Christian. Was a believer most of my life. Even wanted to be a minister at one point.

I was one of those odd kids that loved to read the encyclopedia and preferred the company of interesting adults.

My gramma kept trying to make me Catholic. At age 5 - looking around in church - - I stood up and said to her: "Does God need all this?" I mean seriously "the needy" "feed the poor" - - - and I'm in this overbearing ornate opulent gold everywhere building. And that was just the building.


. . . lost their job for not being Christian? The Constitution has always protected against that sort of thing.


No it hasn't. There are businesses today that can declare themselves Christian owned and have the right to hire only Christians (they do have to meet certain requirements).

We have anti-discrimination laws today because people fought for them. Some states protect LGBT - some don't. Some states have voted to deny LGBT any protection in employment.


So what? Having that time off isn't forcing anyone to celebrate.


Every kid was forced to participate in the Christmas pageant. Even if they were Jewish.

Why is a public school in a secular government - - - promoting religious belief?

But - non-Christians fought to change that - - - and won. (can't speak for the bible belt).


The real issue is that atheists want to decide that Christians don't have the right to public displays of their faith, and that is a direct violation to the Constitution.


Christian's don't have the right to display their religion on public government property.

I've had a long time to watch the process from both sides.

NO one is persecuting Christians. People are exercising their Constitutional secular government right - - to guarantee their rights.

Which is now why instead of Christmas pageants - - - we have Winter Holiday - - or Harvest Festival - - etc.

Not everyone is Christian. Those non-Christians have made themselves known. Christians are losing the dominance they once had. This is what they think is persecution. Which it isn't.



posted on Aug, 10 2012 @ 04:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


I'm not really sure why you want the government to force people not to discriminate. I think people have the right to hire whoever they want. I also think everyone else has the right to boycott the living daylights out of them. Why get the government involved? And the non-discrimination laws end up making people discriminate (for example, see this recent ATS thread: www.abovetopsecret.com...) I say it's best to let capitalism have its way. The bigots will get weeded out.

And on the matter of letting nature have its way, you stated in an earlier comment that "equal rights" for gays could not be stopped. I will not be surprised if, by the end of my life, I see what you are fighting for come about. But I would also not be surprised if my grandchildren saw the reversal of everything you stand for, simply because fundamentalists (many Christians, Muslims, Mormons, etc.) have lots of children, and don't get abortions. Often, they get married earlier and the women spend their lives at home, rearing children. Fortune may favor the bold, but nature favors the fruitful, and eventually, nature will have its way. Just some food for thought.



posted on Aug, 11 2012 @ 03:38 AM
link   
Just saw this, interesting and decent of him to apologise.





posted on Aug, 11 2012 @ 03:47 AM
link   
The real issue being challenged is whether or not the creator sanctions gay marriage. Most people believe theRE is ONE almighty god so anything tied to marriage is being challenged as it is seen as a religious union.
There are mammals on this earth who are simply here to oppose. They bring nothing else to society and humanity. This is who OUR FATHER, OF THE HEAVENS TALKS ABOUT IN HIS FAVOURITE BOOKS OF CONFESSIONS
edit on 11-8-2012 by HamrHeed because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 11 2012 @ 11:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by StalkerSolent
fundamentalists (many Christians, Muslims, Mormons, etc.) have lots of children, and don't get abortions.


Most (not all) children tend to evolve with their generation.

Even the head of one of the major Traditional Family groups stated - - they are losing the fight because of the acceptance by the next generation in their own circle.

I was Mormon for 5 years. There is pro-gay rights groups within the Mormon church. There is also pro-gay rights amongst Muslims.

If you can't understand employment discrimination - - - - then let's hope you don't have personal experience to learn about it.



posted on Aug, 11 2012 @ 12:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by StalkerSolent
fundamentalists (many Christians, Muslims, Mormons, etc.) have lots of children, and don't get abortions.


Most (not all) children tend to evolve with their generation.

Even the head of one of the major Traditional Family groups stated - - they are losing the fight because of the acceptance by the next generation in their own circle.

I was Mormon for 5 years. There is pro-gay rights groups within the Mormon church. There is also pro-gay rights amongst Muslims.

If you can't understand employment discrimination - - - - then let's hope you don't have personal experience to learn about it.



I agree that many "evolve" with their generation, but there comes a point when the number of fundamentalists that adopt a more liberal stance reaches its peak and begins to wane. I think Europe's current backlash against/struggle with Muslims (banning the burka in France, for instance) demonstrates the problems that nations develop when they achieve a high standard of living, begin to depend on the government, and generally lose the qualities that made them great (which often coincides with a rise in progressive thought and anti-traditional tendencies.) Rome's fall also illustrates this. As its citizens became decadent and dependent on the government, independent "barbarians" took advantage of their weaknesses. So in our culture, as the next generation "evolves," it will become less fruitful, while the ones who remain "unevolved" will become comparatively more fruitful, until eventually they supplant the "evolved" ones. Keep in mind, too, that the fundamental versions of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, as well as other religions, show no signs of changing after they have all had over a thousand years in the sun. The worship of Jehovah, first through the Jews, and then through Christianity/Judaism, is probably one of the oldest uninterrupted recorded belief systems on earth (I'm not schooled in Eastern religions; not sure about Hinduism or others) and its core values have not changed a whit.

In other words, fundamentalists have lots of babies, people with lots of babies eventually win, and the fundamentalist religions show no sign of going away--perversely, they seem to persist in spite of persecution.

As far as job discrimination, I think I understand it just fine. Essentially, it is the owner being able deny people employment for any reason whatsoever. Did I miss anything?



posted on Aug, 11 2012 @ 01:02 PM
link   
As a whole this situation backfired badly for the LGBT community.

Once the real story came out, that CFA didn't lobby for homogenocide, and that all the outrage was really is response to an interview Cathay gave to a Xtian publication on gay marriage.

I know the gay community doesn't see it this way, but it most definately was a free speech issue.


By trying to force the issue with militant methods they took people who were on the fence and knocked them right off of it.

It will be interesting to see the public opinion polls after the CFA fiasco, the numbers will be down. Which will hurt Obama since he took his stand pre CFA.



posted on Aug, 11 2012 @ 01:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by gncnew
So, this while Chick-fil-A thing made me start thinking a couple of points.

  1. The Hypocrisy of the LGBT Community is truly a sight to behold
  2. The LGBT Community really isn't quite the unseen masses they proport to be.



Can we not paint the entire LGBT Community with one brush, or even try to show the Community as being united, and of a single mind? There is no unified LGBT Agenda anymore than there's a unified White Agenda.



posted on Aug, 11 2012 @ 02:32 PM
link   
reply to post by grahag
 




You can not have civil rights for SOME and not for OTHERS. Doing so for whatever reason is an inherently evil act.


Civil rights are rights granted by the state.

If you were to read US History, you would notice in the Declaration of Independence that we have UNalienable rights endowed by our creator.
UNalienable rights can NOT be taken away or legislated.

INalienable rights, however, CAN be taken away or legislated.
But only as long as the bearer voluntarily relinquishes them.
(PATRIOT ACT ANYONE?!?!?)

A civil right is is only guaranteed BY LAW.
It's not really guaranteed. It is guaranteed as long as the law guarantees it.
When the laws change then the rights change.

Look at our so-called freedom of speech.

This situation began to evolve when the slaves were freed, they did not have citizenship status.
Citizenship was granted by each individual birth state.
And these State Citizens had UNalienable rights granted by each STATE.
These unalienable rights in relating to the federal government were simply respected states rights.

You see, the Constitution was originally a compact between the states with the expressed purpose of limiting the federal government.
The Constitution lists 20 powers granted to the government in Ariticle 1 section 8. These powers were to NEVER be expanded. And to further guarantee that these limitations were maintained, the bill of rights then further listed 10 specific UNalienable rights that the Federal Government could not, under any situation, alter, abolish or infringe upon.

The first ten applied to the federal government ONLY. If they were "civil rights" as you put it, then the Federal Government could have forced the states to comply with their demands through the use of force, as we saw during integration.
It was The War Between the States that changed all this.

In order to guarantee some form of privileges for the freed slaves, the federal government set up a second class of citizen based on Roman Law. (the 14th Amendment citizen)
This is a citizen with "civil rights". Civil rights by definition are legislated and given by the law rather than UNalienable rights that are endowed by our creator.

The BOR was originally meant to be a list of specific UNalienable rights. Rights limiting only the federal government with regards to the State's Citizens.

(This can be seen, explicitly, in the Barron v. Baltimore decision. )

The Supreme Court decided that the Bill of Rights, specifically the Fifth Amendment's guarantee that government takings of private property for public use require just compensation, are restrictions on the federal government alone....The case was particularly important in terms of American government because it stated that the freedoms guaranteed by the Bill of Rights did not restrict the state governments.


Legal definition of Civil Rights
[ex]The most common legal application of the term civil rights involves the rights guaranteed to U.S. citizens and residents by legislation and by the Constitution.

You notice the difference.
Rights, prior to the 14th Amendment were endowed by our creator, UNalienable.
definition of UNalienable.

"Unalienable: incapable of being alienated, that is, sold and transferred."

-Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 1523:

Unalienable rights are rights endowed by our creator that can nether be taken nor relinquished.
These rights originally were used to form the foundation of this country.
And the Bill of Rights states that, under NOT circumstances, could the feds trample upon them.

definition of INalienable.
[ex] INalienable: not capable of being surrendered or transferred without the consent of the one possessing such rights.
link to source

INalienable rights are civil rights. Civil rights are granted by legislation and NOT by our creator.

We give them away constantly, and we do this by electing representatives whose power is derived from an unacknowledged limited power of attorney conferred through the act of voting.

Unalienable rights are immutable and contain no limitations on personal freedom, unless your behavior directly affects another's UNalienable rights.

Inalienable rights are privileges granted by the law.
And they were created by the 14th Amendment.
Prior to the 14th Amendment overreaching federal jurisdiction over all lands did not exist.
Each state was FREE and SOVEREIGN, a country standing alone.

So.... You see nothing is a civil right. They are all civil privileges.
You have NO RIGHT to gay marriage. You have a privilege to gay marriage, if it is even given to you.

Start reading US History. You need to.



posted on Aug, 11 2012 @ 02:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by kyviecaldges

So.... You see nothing is a civil right. They are all civil privileges.
You have NO RIGHT to gay marriage. You have a privilege to gay marriage, if it is even given to you


I just skimmed your comment, but I thought I might point everyone on this thread towards this excellent Secular Case Against Gay Marriage. They make essentially the same point you do: marriage is not considered an inalienable right by the states in the same way one's life or liberty is.



posted on Aug, 11 2012 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by StalkerSolent

Originally posted by kyviecaldges

So.... You see nothing is a civil right. They are all civil privileges.
You have NO RIGHT to gay marriage. You have a privilege to gay marriage, if it is even given to you


I just skimmed your comment, but I thought I might point everyone on this thread towards this excellent Secular Case Against Gay Marriage. They make essentially the same point you do: marriage is not considered an inalienable right by the states in the same way one's life or liberty is.


Here is an excellent rebuttal to the article you linked:

squashed.tumblr.com...




top topics



 
51
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join