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

page: 3
51
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 01:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by gncnew

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by gncnew

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by MentorsRiddle

In short: people need to stop whining. The majority should be spoken for, while the concerns of the few squelched.



Majority rule - huh? That's your stand.

Well - - sucks for you America is a Democratic Republic not a Democracy.


Actually Annee... I never thought I'd say it - but damn if I don't agree with you. Majority rule is not something I subscribe to. While I agree that sacrificing the rights and liberties of the many for the luxuries and comfort of the few is garbage political pandering - I don't agree that the minorities simply of to suck it up because they're the minority.

That's essentially the premise that this nation was founded on. We are not a Democracy (mob rule), we are a Representative Republic that gives everyone a voice. My problem is that too often the current popular cultural fad seems to forget that EVERYONE gets a voice, not just them.


LGBTQ - - are just people. They are not a group think. They are not a fad. They get up - go to work. Some are professionals - athletes - ministers - actors - etc.

They want Legal Equal Rights - - Period! That's it.

How does it affect your life if they have Equal Rights? It doesn't.



It doesn't, but the label "LGBT" is used to confer an agenda based movement that assumes to speak for a segment of society. Just like "Republicans" or "Democrats" are people, but there is a larger "party" that assumes to speak for them.

I have no problem with equal rights, but other than being able to get married... what exactly is it that the LGBT (I have no clue wtf the Q is for now) does not have the "right" to do that every other American has?

They can adopt, they can get married in some places (not all yet, but it wont be too long now), and *gasp* they can even drive cars!!!

Seriously - this issue came over a guy asked about his religious views on a subject. Nobody asked him to make laws, he's not an elected official.

Here's what I think - I think the LGBT community has this enormous chip on their shoulder and they see intolerance and injustice around every corner - so much that they feel they need to jam their agenda down people's throats.

Have you not noticed the enormous uptick in "Gays" on TV lately? It reminds me of the early 80's when there were suddenly a bunch of "Black" TV shows on prime time. It's the old song and dance of preying on strait white people's fear of being labeled "racists" or "intolerant" so they'll literally RUN to embrace anything gay just to show they're not bigots.

Other than the minor stuff that comes along with being married, Gays are not discriminated against. Hell, it's not even a frog's breath close to what the Blacks went through during the days of segregation and the civil rights era - yet the LGBT community is trying to portray every minor issue as some epic battle for equality.

Squeaky wheel syndrome?


Hear! Hear!

I thought everyone is equal now in the US. But we now have STUPID laws that make the average citizen with a opinion a hate mongerer.

If two people of the same sex want to get married, who cares?

It'll just double the divorce rate.

That's a good thing?




posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 01:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stormdancer777

Catholic charities just purchased more property for additional homeless shelters, this summer.


Of course they refuse any Federal Funding - - - because then they'd have to feed Gays.

Apparently its OK if Gays starve.



posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 01:39 PM
link   

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.


Why do they have to be put on a list of "protected minorities"??? how does that make them equal? Equal to what? Other minorities?



posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 01:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by gncnew


Annee - the problem here is that we have a primarily Christian nation that has it's laws and foundations set in primarily Christian beliefs. While the founders were escaping religious intolerance at home, they didn't intend to create a secular nation.


Our government is secular - - by intention. When our forefathers saw the diversity of religious groups forming in the new land - - - they by intention - - - made sure there was no official government religion. Creator in the Constitution represents a Deist concept of a universal Creator - - and wasn't even in the first 2 drafts.

We are not a Christian nation - - no matter how much Christians try to push that.

Have you researched the Puritans? Did you know the Southern Baptist are partly descended from the Puritans. The Puritans were not persecuted for their beliefs - - - they tried to force their home government to make their extreme religious belief law.

Kind of like many Christians today claiming persecution. They are not persecuted - - - they just don't have the power of control.

edit on 6-8-2012 by Annee because: (no reason given)


Annee, our laws and founding formation of government were/are based on the Judeo-Christian system of 10 Commandments. And more importantly, read the writings and quotes OF the founders.

Again, the idea was that government would make no mandate towards religion, not that there would be no consideration of faith in one's governance.

They are two separate and unequal (no pun intended) concepts that have unjustly been lumped together by revisionist history implemented by the "enlightened".



posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 01:43 PM
link   
hmmm...if taco bell gave 5 million dollars to organizations that are working against christian fundamentalists and the owner came out and publicly said he doesn't believe in the christian lifestyle...i'm sure there wouldn't be anybody opposed to taco bell or the owner for the words spoken along with the actions taken...right??....hey, it's just tacos..



posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 01:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by gncnew

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.


Why do they have to be put on a list of "protected minorities"??? how does that make them equal? Equal to what? Other minorities?


Because they are a minority.

Protection from majority that doesn't think everyone should have the same Equal Rights.



posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 01:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by kaylaluv

Originally posted by gncnew

Annee - the problem here is that we have a primarily Christian nation that has it's laws and foundations set in primarily Christian beliefs. While the founders were escaping religious intolerance at home, they didn't intend to create a secular nation.



The government MUST be secular. There are many, many citizens who are not Christian. You can't create laws based solely on Christian belief, and demand that non-Christians follow them. That is NOT what this country is about. Besides, there are Christians who are accepting of gays, and there are Christian churches who are perfectly willing to marry gays in the eyes of God. To not allow those churches to participate in the legal marrying of gays is going against their religious beliefs.

The state is not a religious organization, and it cannot favor religion over non-religion, or one religion over another religion when handing out licenses to marry. It's discrimination, and that is unconstitutional in this country.


You can't? Oops, we better tell that to the founders. Wait, too late... darn!

You're arguing the wrong point of that statement. I'm giving a context for how/where we are at as a culture. You're arguing what "should be" instead of what "is".



posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by murphy22
reply to post by Shimri
 


Queers, I'd imagine.


No - it means QUESTIONING


BTW, that's some propaganda for the agenda if I've ever seen it... you're ambiguously lumping in a group of people that are neither definable nor identifiable - yet somehow you're standing up for them?

LOL.


+3 more 
posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 01:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by Stormdancer777

Catholic charities just purchased more property for additional homeless shelters, this summer.


Of course they refuse any Federal Funding - - - because then they'd have to feed Gays.

Apparently its OK if Gays starve.


That's silly, no one ask you sexual orientation if you are hungry or homeless,

It is a fact Christian organization do a lot of work with the needy, you really hate them don't you?
edit on 013131p://bMonday2012 by Stormdancer777 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 01:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by gncnew

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by gncnew


Annee - the problem here is that we have a primarily Christian nation that has it's laws and foundations set in primarily Christian beliefs. While the founders were escaping religious intolerance at home, they didn't intend to create a secular nation.


Our government is secular - - by intention. When our forefathers saw the diversity of religious groups forming in the new land - - - they by intention - - - made sure there was no official government religion. Creator in the Constitution represents a Deist concept of a universal Creator - - and wasn't even in the first 2 drafts.

We are not a Christian nation - - no matter how much Christians try to push that.

Have you researched the Puritans? Did you know the Southern Baptist are partly descended from the Puritans. The Puritans were not persecuted for their beliefs - - - they tried to force their home government to make their extreme religious belief law.

Kind of like many Christians today claiming persecution. They are not persecuted - - - they just don't have the power of control.

edit on 6-8-2012 by Annee because: (no reason given)


Annee, our laws and founding formation of government were/are based on the Judeo-Christian system of 10 Commandments. And more importantly, read the writings and quotes OF the founders.

Again, the idea was that government would make no mandate towards religion, not that there would be no consideration of faith in one's governance.

They are two separate and unequal (no pun intended) concepts that have unjustly been lumped together by revisionist history implemented by the "enlightened".


wrong, wrong, wrong.....use the lords name in vain, worship any religion you want or none at all....1st amendment freedoms...this is just one...you can go down the list of "rights" and see how it directly conflicts with the ten commandments and christian belief.


+5 more 
posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 01:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by Stormdancer777

Catholic charities just purchased more property for additional homeless shelters, this summer.


Of course they refuse any Federal Funding - - - because then they'd have to feed Gays.

Apparently its OK if Gays starve.


That's a baseless strawman argument used to justify your stance despite undeniable facts.

Guess what - they don't ask "Are you gay?" to the homeless people before they give them a sandwich. And if someone took the sandwich and then pranced around saying "I'm gay, I'm gay"... well, they wouldn't snatch the food away, but the gay person would sure be acting like an ass.

You attempted to manipulate an emotional response in place of a valid or compelling argument.
edit on 6-8-2012 by gncnew because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 01:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by jimmyx
hmmm...if taco bell gave 5 million dollars to organizations that are working against christian fundamentalists and the owner came out and publicly said he doesn't believe in the christian lifestyle...i'm sure there wouldn't be anybody opposed to taco bell or the owner for the words spoken along with the actions taken...right??....hey, it's just tacos..


Wanna bet?

LGBTQ already knows about these business that donate large sums to officially designated anti-gay hate groups. They already knew about Mr. Cathy.

Its the media that picked it up and went with it.


Thankfully Lauren Kelley, the activism and gender editor at AlterNet, pulled together a list of five food companies run by radical right wingers."who’ve spent significant money opposing gay rights, abortion rights, and other important causes and funding attack ads against left-leaning politicians."

Among Alternet's top four:

1. Chick-fil-A: Founder S. Truett Cathy puts his money where his mouth is when it comes to antigay organizing.

2. Carl’s Jr.: Founder Carl Karcher, who died in 2008, writes Kelley, had been a supporter of anti-abortion causes, like Operation Rescue, for decades. He also had a mean anti-gay streak as well, she says, and "gay rights groups dubbed his hamburgers 'bigot burgers' after Karcher supported a 1978 proposition that would have allowed school boards to fire teachers who were gay or advocated homosexuality."

3. White Castle: According to a ThinkProgress report on brands that give to radical ring wing causes, White Castle helped bankroll right wing attack ads giving $25,000 to the Congressional Leadership Fund super PAC, a group linked to House Speaker John Boehner, which supports conservative candidates in the upcoming election.

4. Waffle House: Also mentioned by ThinkProgress, says Kelley, has given $100,000 this election cycle to the Karl Rove super PAC American Crossroads.

UPDATED: Domino's Pizza was originally on AlterNet's list but was removed.

Check AlterNet for a complete explanation. www.advocate.com...



posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 01:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by jimmyx
hmmm...if taco bell gave 5 million dollars to organizations that are working against christian fundamentalists and the owner came out and publicly said he doesn't believe in the christian lifestyle...i'm sure there wouldn't be anybody opposed to taco bell or the owner for the words spoken along with the actions taken...right??....hey, it's just tacos..


Poor attempt at tu quoque for an anecdotal argument here.

Arguing a hypothetical scenario with your presumed result does not justify another scenario that actually happened.



posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 01:54 PM
link   
And BTW Annee, there are over 48,600,000 results, when you look for links to gay Christians and Christian communities,

Christians are also very diverse, you cannot continue to lump them all in the same category.



posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 01:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by gncnew

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by Stormdancer777

Catholic charities just purchased more property for additional homeless shelters, this summer.


Of course they refuse any Federal Funding - - - because then they'd have to feed Gays.

Apparently its OK if Gays starve.


That's a baseless strawman argument used to justify your stance despite undeniable facts.


It is not a stawman argument - - it is fact.

There have been religious soup kitchens that stated flat out - - - they would close their doors and feed no one - - if they were forced to serve gays. How very God like.

Catholic Charities used to handle adoptions (forget which state). That service has been taken away from them where state/federal funds are involved - - because they will not place with gay couples.

Depends on the state in many cases. CA state included LGBTQ in their list of protected minorities way back in 1959.

But it need to be Federal - - - which will usurp any state discrimination laws.



posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 02:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by jimmyx

wrong, wrong, wrong.....use the lords name in vain, worship any religion you want or none at all....1st amendment freedoms...this is just one...you can go down the list of "rights" and see how it directly conflicts with the ten commandments and christian belief.


Yep, you don't go to jail for adultery, you don't go to jail for premarital sex, you can even lie and not go to jail (as long as you don't lie in a court of law). There's no law against atheists getting married, there's no law against satanists getting married, there's no law against having a child outside of marriage, etc., etc., etc.

Laws against stealing, and killing make logical sense, to keep order and the peace - has nothing to do with Christian beliefs.



posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by jimmyx

Originally posted by gncnew

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by gncnew


Annee - the problem here is that we have a primarily Christian nation that has it's laws and foundations set in primarily Christian beliefs. While the founders were escaping religious intolerance at home, they didn't intend to create a secular nation.


Our government is secular - - by intention. When our forefathers saw the diversity of religious groups forming in the new land - - - they by intention - - - made sure there was no official government religion. Creator in the Constitution represents a Deist concept of a universal Creator - - and wasn't even in the first 2 drafts.

We are not a Christian nation - - no matter how much Christians try to push that.

Have you researched the Puritans? Did you know the Southern Baptist are partly descended from the Puritans. The Puritans were not persecuted for their beliefs - - - they tried to force their home government to make their extreme religious belief law.

Kind of like many Christians today claiming persecution. They are not persecuted - - - they just don't have the power of control.

edit on 6-8-2012 by Annee because: (no reason given)


Annee, our laws and founding formation of government were/are based on the Judeo-Christian system of 10 Commandments. And more importantly, read the writings and quotes OF the founders.

Again, the idea was that government would make no mandate towards religion, not that there would be no consideration of faith in one's governance.

They are two separate and unequal (no pun intended) concepts that have unjustly been lumped together by revisionist history implemented by the "enlightened".


wrong, wrong, wrong.....use the lords name in vain, worship any religion you want or none at all....1st amendment freedoms...this is just one...you can go down the list of "rights" and see how it directly conflicts with the ten commandments and christian belief.


Murder, theft, sabbath (i.e. federal offices closed on Christmas, Easter and Sunday), oath on a bible... you can down the list and see another correlation. The bill of rights was designed with a non-faith specific orientation, but that's not to say it wasn't faith inspired.

The spirit of the law v/s the letter of the law - context here is everything:




“When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitles them . . .

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights . . .

“And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, We mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.” (emphases mine.)


I think we often fail to recognize that the founders didn't envision a nation where the existence of religion itself was questioned. They instead were accomidating to make sure that all could worship God in their own way, and allotted for the non-belief in God, but this was not the basis of the moral code written into the law.



posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stormdancer777
And BTW Annee, there are over 48,600,000 results, when you look for links to gay Christians and Christian communities,

Christians are also very diverse, you cannot continue to lump them all in the same category.


I grew up Christian.

I don't need you to tell me about Christians.

When speaking of anti-gay Christians - - - that is who we are speaking of.

I don't think its necessary I constantly every time have to qualify that it is not all Christians.



posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 02:04 PM
link   
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.



posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 02:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by gncnew

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by Stormdancer777

Catholic charities just purchased more property for additional homeless shelters, this summer.


Of course they refuse any Federal Funding - - - because then they'd have to feed Gays.

Apparently its OK if Gays starve.


That's a baseless strawman argument used to justify your stance despite undeniable facts.


It is not a stawman argument - - it is fact.

There have been religious soup kitchens that stated flat out - - - they would close their doors and feed no one - - if they were forced to serve gays. How very God like.

Catholic Charities used to handle adoptions (forget which state). That service has been taken away from them where state/federal funds are involved - - because they will not place with gay couples.

Depends on the state in many cases. CA state included LGBTQ in their list of protected minorities way back in 1959.

But it need to be Federal - - - which will usurp any state discrimination laws.


Feeding people and alowing adoptions are NOT equal services and cannot be lumped together.

You're using composition/division:

You assumed that one part of something has to be applied to all, or other, parts of it; or that the whole must apply to its parts.

Stop it. Be rational here.





new topics
top topics
 
51
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join