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

Originally posted by lambs to lions
reply to post by grey580

 

Sorry, I though that you were being sarcastic. They do not believe in same-sex marraige. They believe in the marraige between two consenting adults, one being a man, the other, a woman.

I see.
And where do they base that belief off of?

Here's something fun I wish I would have thought of myself. found this in comments in the thinkprogress.org... ple/?mobile=nc blog

Tony Adebahr · Top Commenter · Atlanta, Georgia
I think the liberal left-wing media should leave Dan Cathy alone. It is just unseemly to pick on the mentally handicapped.

Here’s a summary of different Biblical forms of Marriage:

1. Polygamous Marriage
Probably the most common form of marriage in the bible, it is where a man has more than one wife.
2. Levirate Marriage
When a woman was widowed without a son, it became the responsibility of the brother-in-law or a close male relative to take her in and impregnate her. If the resulting child was a son, he would be considered the heir of her late husband. See Ruth, and the story of Onan (Gen. 38:6-10).
3. A man, a woman and her property — a female slave.
The famous “handmaiden” sketch, as preformed by Abraham (Gen. 16:1-6) and Jacob (Gen. 30:4-5).
4. A man, one or more wives, and some concubines.
The definition of a co
ncubine varies from culture to culture, but they tended to be live-in mistresses. Concubines were tied to their “husband,” but had a lower status than a wife. Their children were not usually heirs, so they were safe outlets for sex without risking the line of succession. To see how badly a concubine could be treated, see the famous story of the Levite and his concubine (Judges 19:1-30).
5. A male soldier and a female prisoner of war.
Women could be taken as booty from a successful campaign and forced to become wives or concubines. Deuteronomy 21:11-14 describes the process.
6. A male rapist and his victim.
Deuteronomy 22:28-29 describes how an unmarried woman who had been raped must marry her attacker.
7. A male and female slave.
A female slave could be married to a male slave without consent, presumably to produce more slaves.
and of course ….
8. Monogamous, heterosexual marriage.
What you might think of as the standard form of marriage, provided you think of arranged marriages as the standard. Also remember that inter-faith or cross-ethnic marriage were forbidden for large chunks of biblical history.

The important thing to realize here is that none of these models are described as better than any other. All appear to have been accepted.

So there you go. The next time someone says that we need to stick with biblical marriage in this country, you can ask them which of the eight kinds they would prefer, and why.

reply to post by seeker1963


Thanks for ruining Little Caesars Pizza... Sincerely....thanks for that.

For what it's worth, after an energetic discussion with my other half who feels differently on gay issues than I, we came to the agreement that in this, it's as much or more about the core right to express an opinion and belief without attack and condemnation than the cause that sparked it.

I'm about to walk out the door for dinner.....guess what business is getting our dollars this evening? Free speech must be free and without fear of serious attack for *BOTH* sides. If it's one sided, we have tyranny. Either side's dominance will bring that. Right or Left. It can't be allowed to happen like this, even for what so many would say is a good underlying cause. (I'll leave that alone...not where I wanted to go with this post)

I'll fight to see that tyranny never comes. Some in my family tree already have. Some, gave all for it. I'll sure do the little it takes to go out and have an enjoyable dinner to show my fierce support of the right being defended here.

Ok, this getting tired. I'm tired of seeing it on Facebook and I'm tired of seeing it on ATS (where is the conspiracy, nowhere I swear).

Look, Liberals: It's ok for someone to hold a bigoted opinion. The freedom of thought is an essential human right. One can not force tolerance onto others. It should always be a conscious decision where in which individuals open their hearts to others in order to eliminate "others". "You" should turn into "We" willingly and without outside pressures coupled with social constraints.

Conservatives: If it's absolutely necessary to hold an opinion that is disgusting and bigoted, keep it separate from your business. The end.

Problem:
www.snopes.com...

A company should not donate and fund anti-same sex marriage groups that seek to suppress and subjugate citizens of the United States of America. Equality, in this nation, should lie in the hands of every citizen regardless of Race, Ethnicity, Sexuality, Gender, Creed, and or Faith. Having an opinion is fine, and respectable; however, utilizing company profits to fund the discrimination efforts against Homosexuals is reprehensible.

I understand where the protests originate from: Why donate funds indirectly to support the discrimination of other Tax Paying citizens?

reply to post by seeker1963


Yes! I'm totally with you. I don't understand why how people get so easily offended all the time. Just about everything that comes out of my mouth could be deemed offensive to someone for some reason. Everyone needs to stop taking themselves so seriously. If someone believes in something, who cares if someone else doesn't agree. It shouldn't affect them in any way, shape, or form. Boo-hoo, such and such hurt my feelings...

reply to post by fourthmeal

Monogamous, heterosexual marriage.

You know the bible never calls for that either, it suggest that a leader of a church should follow that, just as Adam and Eve.

BUT it never straight out says that its a requirement for all.

Find the verse that says it, ill wait...

Its a western thing, its why the Mormons thought Polygamy was okay.

reply to post by lambs to lions

Originally posted by lambs to lions
Perhaps there should be a "national heterosexual kiss-day"???

There already is... 365 days a year. If I go in public, I see straight people hugging, holding hands and kissing...

I'm not sure what that is supposed to accomplish?

I'm not sure it's supposed to "accomplish" anything. What are the supporters hoping to accomplish? It's an expression and we have the right to it.

I just don't understand why some homosexuals want to flaunt their sexuality to the world.

I know what you mean. I don't understand why some heterosexuals want to flaunt their sexuality to the world, either. All the holding hands, public kissing, having kids and showing pictures of their wife and kids to everyone. Ugh! I don't want to see that! They should just keep that crap to themselves!

(that was sarcasm)

Then again, I don't know why some heterosexual people care.

Care about what?

reply to post by Kangaruex4Ewe

Thanks for ruining Little Caesars Pizza... Sincerely....thanks for that.

I'm so sorry!

reply to post by lambs to lions


one persons "core values" is another persons means of discrimination.

these very same "core values" have justified any number of discriminatory practices in our sordid past, most glaringly, slavery:

www.religioustolerance.org...

www.christianitytoday.com...

teachingamericanhistory.org...

and here's a quote from the above article:

"Those who support abolition are", in Reverend James H. Thornwell’s words, “atheists, socialists, communists [and] red republicans.”


until we find a more consistent means to define "core values" (i think Love is a good start), it is difficult to support such flagrant and brazen forms of discrimination.

reply to post by TheOneElectric


Absolutely.

If you want to not agree with Gays getting married.
Then that's your right.
You are entitled to your opinion.

However Chic-fil-A crossed the line and is actively supporting a hate group. And another questionable group.

When you cross that line and support the denial of anothers rights then there's a problem.

A persons rights begin where anothers ends and vice a versa.

You gotta remember that.

Originally posted by lambs to lions
reply to post by seeker1963

 

Yes! I'm totally with you. I don't understand why how people get so easily offended all the time. Just about everything that comes out of my mouth could be deemed offensive to someone for some reason. Everyone needs to stop taking themselves so seriously. If someone believes in something, who cares if someone else doesn't agree. It shouldn't affect them in any way, shape, or form. Boo-hoo, such and such hurt my feelings...

too many times, peoples beliefs affect others in many ways, shapes, and forms... most obviously in the US legislation.

it is people's beliefs who chose to deny the rights of homosexuals to not only Marry, but also to have a Civil Union in North Carolina.

www.ballotpedia.org...(May_2012)

in fact, these "beliefs" are so stringent that any fornicating union must be defined as a Marriage between One Man & One Woman, and now even heterosexual couples cannot form a Civil Union.

so it is not just my feelings that are hurt... it is my rights as a citizen.

reply to post by TheOneElectric

A company should not donate and fund anti-same sex marriage groups that seek to suppress and subjugate citizens of the United States of America. Equality, in this nation, should lie in the hands of every citizen regardless of Race, Ethnicity, Sexuality, Gender, Creed, and or Faith. Having an opinion is fine, and respectable; however, utilizing company profits to fund the discrimination efforts against Homosexuals is reprehensible.

Given that you appear to be in support of a licensing scheme, these words read as empty rhetoric. The problem is not people's views on who has the right to obtain a license to marry, the problem is that the state is issuing marriage licenses at all. Create such a licensing scheme and this leaves the door open for lobbyists on both sides of the issue, neither one concerned with freedom and only concerned with using government to suppress others while gaining a tactical advantage for themselves.

The question should have never of been why can't gay people obtain a license to marry. The question should have always been, why the hell do I need permission from the state to marry the one I love? Regardless of a persons sexual orientation, the right to marry is a unalienable right that requires no permission what-so-ever.

reply to post by grey580

When you cross that line and support the denial of anothers rights then there's a problem.

What right did they Deny anyone????

I misquote myself by saying they, it should be he! ONE man who owns a corporation made a comment based on his beliefs! Last time I checked our Constitution, that was allowed in this country! I don't care one iota if people are pissed and want to picket or boycott them! What I do care about is Mayors who come out and tell franchisees that they are not welcome in their cities!!!! That is illegal and you damn well know it!

But consider this, before you make your picket signs and go try to shut down a person who did nothing more than invest their money into a business and product that they believe is good, make damn sure that you have a good employment rate in you city before your politically and unconstitutionally ban a business from coming into your city!!!!

The franchisee didn't do one damn thing wrong to anyone!!!! Think about it!

good grief.

could those of you who are 'supporting' chick-fil-a explain to me why you don't see this for the transparent marketing gimmick it truly is?

npr had a mention earlier of a planned 'kiss moar chix' campaign for friday.

sales have been through the roof since saturday?

good grief--I thought being closed on sunday was cheap, this is worse.
(for those unfamiliar, many states in the united states have laws which require employers to give 'sabbath' day off when requested.)

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Given that you appear to be in support of a licensing scheme, these words read as empty rhetoric. The problem is not people's views on who has the right to obtain a license to marry, the problem is that the state is issuing marriage licenses at all. Create such a licensing scheme and this leaves the door open for lobbyists on both sides of the issue, neither one concerned with freedom and only concerned with using government to suppress others while gaining a tactical advantage for themselves.

The question should have never of been why can't gay people obtain a license to marry. The question should have always been, why the hell do I need permission from the state to marry the one I love? Regardless of a persons sexual orientation, the right to marry is a unalienable right that requires no permission what-so-ever.

Exactly Jean Paul!!!! If marraige is a religious issue, why does the government require a license?? What happened to freedom of religion if you have to pay the government to abide by it? I am feeling more like a farm animal as the days progress in this damn country!

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Care whether or not homosexual people choose to express their sexuality in public. It doesn't affect them in any negative way.

reply to post by seeker1963

If marraige is a religious issue,

Yep, and there are plenty of faiths that allow for gay marriage, even many christian denominations.

As with everything it takes government stepping in to screw it to hell.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


That's an absolute side issue that is tacked on to this debate for the sole purpose of diversion of facts.

Fact: Discrimination is occurring within the legal system.

You are now arguing about the foundations of the legal system and who in turn should provide a "marriage" status. It's not the same debate. You know this, I know this, and we all know this. That's a different conversation that is a few steps removed from this one, yet still connected. It is not the focus of the discriminatory policies, rhetoric, and funding that this debate centers around.

Be careful to stay on topic.

Briefly.

Marriage isn't a religious thing.

It's a contract between two individuals to form a legal entity jointly. That then entitles those individuals to receive certain legal benefits as set by our legislation.

Anything beyond that is religious coloring on a black and white issue.