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

Originally posted by natters
I guess progress isn't relevent? Only a few short years ago they couldn't get married ANYWHERE! Its easy to forget how good we actually have it sometimes, I suppose. Though a short drive to another state is hardly a huge inconvenience if two people love each other..you are right that it's not entirely equal....

There should be no compromise for equal treatment under the law. Blacks refused to compromise by sitting at the back of the bus - and rightly so. Now, no black has to sit at the back of the bus just because they are black. And no gay should have to move or drive to another state or country to get a marriage license just because they're gay.

I just posted an edit to my last comment. It's not a religious issue - it's a political issue.

Originally posted by natters
reply to post by grey580

 

You must have missed the last 4 pages lol.

Seems to me that Annee is all about equal rights for everyone other than christians. I am not sure what equal rights the LGBT community is missing out on? They can get married outside of their state if they can't there.....thats about the only thing? Kids and adults get bullied every day for all sorts of ridiculous reasons from height to hair colour to....well, basically you name it. In the workplace people are bullied often....anything that makes one person stand out from the crowd makes them a target to these wretched people. Being LGBT doesn't make someone more entitled to special protections than someone with red hair. All people are entitled to equal rights, doesn't mean that everyone on the planet is going to honour that entitlement. They need to balls up and deal with accepting themselves. Stop getting so defensive over every single mistreatment and learn how to live in community with ALL types. Gays, Heteros, Blacks, whites, good people and bad people.

If they would just accept themselves and forget about taking everything so personally then we'd all be happier (this goes for everyone...)

You left out that people get bullied and even killed over skin tone as well.

In any case. My father used to have a sign at his shop. It went like this.

It's nice to be important. But it's more important to be nice.

Maybe if Christians didn't run around quoting Leviticus so much.
Then maybe the LGBT community wouldn't have a cause to get defensive?
Is it just me or does it takes two to Tango doesn't it?

Why can't Christians do more of this.

A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another. 35 By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another. —John 13:34-35

And less of this.

20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

Makes sense?

Jesus fulfilled the old law through love. I agree with you and I thought I made that clear. Christians should definitely be showing more love and less judgement.

It takes two to tango, but offense is taken, not given (best advice I ever received). If the gay community would stop getting riled up - the offending "christians" would get less satisfaction from their abuse and while they may not change their opinions they might just keep them in their church.

It also makes the LGBT community look like they aren't secure in their choice every time they get riled up over these stupid things. I think both parties are guilty in this little situation. The man stated his opinion in an interview with a church. He's entitled to his own opinions, and he is not pushing his opinions on the patrons of his company. The money he's donating is his to donate to whomever he damn well pleases. That is between him and God. If the gay community feels hard done by they should just stop patronizing his business. There is no reason to be a bunch of whiny brats about the whole ordeal causing it to build into the #storm that it's become.

Originally posted by natters

edited to add - that the fact that atheists can get the license and not gays has nothing to do with christians LOL! It's political obviously.......take an entry level sociology course to understand marriage and why it's encouraged by governements. The agenda behind the nuclear family and why the government just might want things to stay the way its been set up.

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

Nope, it's not just political. Children are not a requirement to get a marriage license. A marriage license isn't a requirement to have children. Gays can have children, using sperm banks, surrogates, and adoption. Gays can have a nuclear family too (two parents, children, dog/cat, picket fence - the works). Fundamentalist Christians haven't lobbied to revoke marriage licenses for atheists, so it's not an issue for the government. Fundamentalist Christians HAVE lobbied to keep gays from getting marriage licenses, so it's become an issue.

reply to post by TXRabbit


jesus didnt make sandwhiches that good ^^

reply to post by grey580


No.

Because you can not pick and choose what sounds gay (happy) from the bible and discard the rest.

You fail to understand Christians don't hate they pitty (sympathy or sarrow for another)

People on here are trying to use the bible, which ironically, they also say is a false book. Untill they find a few words that may help their argument.

God says in the bible he "loves" and he "Hates".

You do what he loves and don't do what he hates. Simple really. If you are stuck on god hating something take it up with him not his followers. They didn't say it.

reply to post by kaylaluv


Lol do you know what the original definition of nuclear family was? Before gays started fighting for the right to marry? a husband and a wife....a father and a mother. not two fathers, not two mothers. one of each. A father and a mother conceiving and raising children were a benefit - producing workers to be supplied to the growing labour demand. Now there is no need for labour - might as well change the definition to "a couple" and allow same sex marriages. This is now the benefit to the government who outsources most of their manufacturing. They no longer need a steady stream of employees. In fact, the world is overpopulated right? This will help curb the pop growth of the country. Provide parents to orphaned kids, or kids taken by "the system" from unfit families and lessen the financial burden they put on the governement (lessening the amount paid to families on welfare, less chance of the kid growing up and going on welfare themselves, etc). It benefits the big guys upstairs. And this is what it comes to. It doesn't matter if christians lobby until their faces turn blue. If it doesn't benefit those at the top (and if those people are unaffected either way they will probably just figure out whether or not it pleases the majority) it wont happen.

Are atheists being married in a church? not usually unless pressured by family. I was an atheist when I got married - had them take out all the bits about God and everything Got married on a beach. If atheists were fighting to get married in a church, christians might have an issue lol.

It's political. Christians are not in control of your country. Pretty sure that's a fact.

Not loving this entire thread turning into a "Christianity v/s Gay"
Thing... Not really the point.

/shrugs

Oh man, gay people just want to be treated as equals, the horror. Such an awful agenda....

People like the OP would have been saying the same thing about black people during the civil rights movement. HOW DARE THEY TRY TO FORCE DE-SEGREGATION ON US FOLKS!

Grow up.

You have no right to deny someone a secular marriage because you personally disagree with it. Religion has absolutely nothing to do with getting a marriage license.

reply to post by gncnew


I personally find the whole Chick fil-a issue as an attempt to keep the masses busy while the governement does things like try and take over my uterus. I do support gay marriage ( I even have gay family members), however, I can not and will not get upset over what a man who sells sandwiches says about how he feels about gay people.

I mean Cathy has always been open about being christian and running a christian business. The music played inside the restaurants is even christian music, so am I surprised at his beliefs no. Plus I find their chicken and sweet tea very tastey.

Now do I care what Oreo did with their cookies. NO. Even if I didn't support gay marriage, I still love oreo's. Lastly, who really cares what these FOOD companies say about anything other than FOOD.

Well I guess all the chick fil-a fiascos are a good distraction from the awful presidential campaigns and the government trying to take over wombs, front yard gardens, guns, voting, and plan keeping busy trying to &*^% the American people.

Oh, Hell. I see I'm not going to get out of it on here, either.

Some points:

Our culture has accepted two huge lies: The first is that if you disagree with someone's lifestyle, you must fear them or hate them. The second is that to love someone means you agree with everything they believe or do. Both are nonsense. You don't have to compromise convictions to be compassionate.

Rick Warren.

If we can't agree with this concept, then there's no chance of people learning to meet in the middle.

Now, the issue with donating to charities:

PETA kills about as many animals than it saves. Hence: People Eating Tasty Animals. Houston's SPCA sold a donated wildlife preserve for a shopping mall, to fund it's ability to seize animals from crazy pet owners. Christian missionary trips are often causing deaths. Conversion to Christianity in hostile environments is a death sentence. Planned Parenthood kills as many babies as it helps parents raise--and don't start me on the founder's potentially racist background. Certain Pro-Life movements get violent at abortion mills.

Celebrity Charities can die off:
Here

Giving money to earthquake victims can spread hatred against Muslims and Christians alike:
Here

Some Charities are considered bad just because their administrative costs are so high, little of the money actually gets to those in need, not that they give to the wrong things. Some of these should be good names! For instance: Tucson Audubon Society; American Psychiatric Foundation; Charleston Area Medical Center Foundation (CAMCF); National Museum of Racing and Hall of Fame; Cherokee National Historical Society; Union Rescue Mission, Little Rock; National Council of Negro Women (NCNW); Boys Choir of Harlem; American Tract Society; ect Here.

Then there's: Well, it seemed like a good idea: Here.


"Weeding out the good from the bad can be uninspiring and downright impossible at times. You really only learn that a charity has gone bad when it becomes too late."Here.

And then, you can give to a charity in someone else's name:Westboro's name?


Financially: Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) does not have all that good a score, as a charity. And looking on the site at other gay charities? I've not come across a single one of them that's audited. That means they can lie with their paperwork. Here.

Frankly, the only way to make sure that you aren't giving to a lemon of a charity is to look into them for years (which will aide no one during that time), and preferably don't send all your money to 1 charity, in case the one you chose is a f-up.

What started this:

Consider the comments made by Chick-fil-A president Dan Cathy that triggered this escapade: “We are very much supportive of the family – the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that. We know that it might not be popular with everyone, but thank the Lord we live in a country where we can share our values and operate on biblical principles.”

Here.

So, that being said, out of all the charities that the CEO gave to, only a handful of them had any anti-gay crud going on, that I personally saw, 1 of those was I familiar enough with to comment on.

Focus on the Family. That one was a good thing to donate to some 15 years ago, before Gay marriage was a mainstream issue. One of James Dobson's books on marriage is still one of the best ones to read:
"What Wives Wish Their Husbands Knew About Women". As far as promoting healthy families, aside from anything about gays, this group was and in some ways is still big on supporting families. So, if that's your goal, and you don't specifically search for how they feel on gays (or don't care), I can see money going to them in an innocuous manner.

Continued.

Obama "seen the light" on same sex marriage issue, giving the liberal MSM the green light to attack any and all who express otherwise. When he said that publicly, people were puzzled, why not keep silent this could only cost him votes was the main thoughts. Now it is clear it will bring a huge amount of material for the MSM to vilify people on. It's more about smearing others than supporting same sex marriages during an election season.

Obvious is obvious.

Every smear they do, even to insignificant non politicians, only vindicates Obama's position in the backdrop without ever saying so outright.

There is no Middle in Equal Rights.

There is only Equal Rights.

A lot of this conversation has centered over the issue of gay rights. Gays have the same rights non-gays do, as far as I know. They can get married in every state, just not necessarily to people of the same gender.

To put it another way, we are NOT dealing with an equal rights problem here, unlike laws discriminating by race. (To my knowledge, there are no current laws that discriminate against gays, unlike segregation-type laws.) Rather, proponents of homosexual marriage are either attempting to (and in some states have succeeded) (A) manufacture the "right" of gay marriage, or (B) make everyone else recognize their inherent right to marry someone of the same gender. Some people will say A, and some will say B, but does anyone disagree with my basic premise?

I suppose the other way to look at this is that (C) gays don't have the right to marry the person they love, which assumes everyone else has that right. Anyone opt for C?

Many progressive Christians who disagree with Cathy’s view have uncritically circulated a claim by gay advocacy organization Equality Matters that Cathy’s WinShape foundation donated $2 million to “anti-gay” activist groups in 2009. Looking at the breakdown on their site, I’m pretty disturbed by what Equality Matters considers an “anti-gay” group. [...] Not every conservative Christian organization that opposes homosexuality is engaged in anti-gay activism. The Fellowship of Christian Athletes, which received $480,000 from WinShape, was a big part of my spiritual journey in high school and college. You can’t be gay and work for FCA (or be a Methodist pastor), but that doesn’t mean they’re circulating anti-gay-marriage petitions.

And:

One of the worst parts about this debacle has been the way that all sides have glossed over or willfully misrepresented how Chick-fil-A discriminates against homosexuals. It seems like both sides are more concerned with winning the war than with its legitimacy. Various sources have claimed that this is all about:

1. Dan Cathy’s personal views on marriage.
2. Dan Cathy’s personal views on homosexuality.
3. Chick-fil-A’s company-wide political stance on gay marriage.
4. Chick-fil-A’s giving to anti-homosexual organizations.
5. All of the above.

The correct answer is… #5. Sort of. [...]

1. Dan Cathy clearly stated in an interview published by the Baptist Press that Chick-fil-A supported “traditional marriage” as the “biblical definition of the family unit.” However, he never explicitly states that Chick-fil-A is actively opposed to same-sex marriage.[...] [It] is not clear from the interview what it means for the company to support the “traditional” family.
[...]
2. Confusing matters further, Cathy also gave a radio interview where he claimed that the US was “inviting God’s judgement” by supporting same-sex marriage. However, in this interview, Cathy does not appear to be speaking on behalf of the company. It’s reasonable for customers to express their disapproval of a company’s political stance, but it’s quite another to hold the company accountable for the beliefs of one of their employees, even if he is the CEO.[...]

3. Chick-fil-A disavows the man's stance as talking for the whole company.

4. More details about how the donations break down.

If “discriminating” includes associating with people who think gay sex is sinful, then we need a new word for what used to count for discrimination.

The only groups here that are primarily and explicitly focused on anti-homosexual or anti-gay marriage agendas are the last three, which received a total of $4,500 in donations. Most of the company’s donations do not necessarily go towards promoting an anti-gay agenda[...]. That said, it is true that Chick-fil-A has supported anti-gay marriage organizations to some extent, and so it is reasonable for those in favor of gay rights to want to boycott them as a result.

And the best part?

III. Imaginary, Marginal, Voting with your Dollars When you consider how much time, energy, and money has been spent on this proxy culture war, you would expect that Chick-fil-A’s impact on the same-sex marriage debate would be significant. [...] If you ate there once a week for a year and spent $5 per meal, you will have spent $260 by the year’s end. Chick-fil-A’s anual revenue is around $4 billion, and in 2010 it donated approximately $2 million to groups considered to be anti-homosexual. That means they gave 0.05% of their revenue to these “offensive” groups. Which means that your year-long patronage generated $0.13 for anti-homosexual groups.

It's only doubled to 26 cents if you eat there to support the "$2 million" that isn't even all going to "anti-gay" groups.

And finally:

Are we making a public statement by supporting or boycotting Chick-fil-A? Sure, but only in a coercive and circuitous way. Rather than deal with the issue directly, we’re devoting resources to coerce a company to adopt our values. This method of political activism leaves almost no space for public discussion about the issue, since our “activism” is comprised of buying or not buying a chicken sandwich. The purchase doesn’t convince anyone of the rightness of our cause, just the extent of our power. If we want healthy public political discourse, we need to be encouraging charitable dialogue, rather than economic arm wrestling.
[...]
So please, wherever you stand on same-sex marriage, don’t boycott or support Chick-fil-A for their marginal political stance. Give a few quarters directly to a charity. Talk with your neighbors about the issue and why you believe the way you do. If you spend a fraction of the time and money you would have spent boycotting, you will accomplish a lot more and help cultivate a healthier public square.

My further stance? Research the donations, THEN decide.

reply to post by Annee


If it was really about equal rights, it wouldn't even be about gay marriage, but about ending the unfair legal-financial advantages that a document like that has.

What does marriage do? Settles who gets children when 1 legal guardian dies. Settles who has the right to control hospital death scenes when 1 person can't decide for themselves. Name changes. Quazi -incorporation for taxation purposes. Oh a host of stuff. All of it for a $50 document that only requires witnesses and a dude with the license to marry folks.

Why in the world should a single mother have to jump through all sorts of legal documentation to give her folks equal legal say in her children's future as a parent, that a marriage license automatically grants to a married couple?

But no! We must sit around and push the EXCLUSION over 1 more notch so gays can get married. Orly.

Originally posted by CynicalDrivel

My further stance? Research the donations, THEN decide.

I have.

Long before this media circus.

Originally posted by CynicalDrivel
reply to post by Annee

 

If it was really about equal rights, it wouldn't even be about gay marriage, but about ending the unfair legal-financial advantages that a document like that has.

NO - - Equal Rights first.

If you want to fight for change after everyone has the same Equal Rights - - as of Right Now - - then go ahead.

But not until ALL have the same Equal Right.