Chick-fil-A Wars: Gay vs Traditional Marriage

[JediKnight]

You left off part of my quote in your response, but if by your response are you suggesting that those who play both sides of the fence, to include bisexuals, are of "of low quality and of questionable character?"

Keep in mind that I personally have not made such a claim against any members of the LGBT community nor have I questioned the content of their character.

No, I was specifically refering to people who claim support for one groups civil rights while in the same breath supporting groups who fervently work to keep those who are different from themselves as lesser citizens. To your statement of not personally questioning LGBT quality or character, that appears to be correct, you have not. You have however thrown your whole hearted support behind groups that make those claims for you.

[JediKnight]

Im Proud to say I supported Chick- fil-A today!!!!!!!!!!! I had to park three rows away because it was so packed out. I gladly turned away other food places to support a great cause because i agree with Dan. If it was suppose to be Adam an Steve or EVE an Eva then why did God create Adam an Eve?

That's a fine question, why did god create Adam and Eve and not Adam and Steve or Eve and Eva? Lets see, I believe He did not create the gay versions for the same reason He did not create the straight version, that would be He did not create Homo sapiens. We evolved from ancient Hominids just like our relatives the Chimpanzees, Gorillas, Orangutans and Bonobos.

[saltman241]

As long as ALL churches are allowed the right to refuse "service" to individuals that do not meet marriage criteria based on their faith. What's the issue? If you don't recognize gay marriage as an individual, corporation or church that's your opinion and right. As long as the government grows a pair and defines marriage for what it should be, the union of two consenting adults, this whole issue is moot. We sure could take a huge step forward if we could get a true separation of church and state and keep government out of religion and religion out of government.

[derricksonb]

No, I was specifically refering to people who claim support for one groups civil rights while in the same breath supporting groups who fervently work to keep those who are different from themselves as lesser citizens.

Jedi- I don't expect you to be able to understand because frankly I think you are unable of understanding others points of view, but let me explain my position on this issue. I full heartedly believe that the LGBT community has the same rights to marry, adopt and raise children and have a life in the same way as traditional couples. However I also support the First Amendment Rights of individuals or corporations to have the freedoms to speak their mind on issues without the fear of intimidation or harassment by those with opposing views. In other words the wants and desires of those in the LGBT community to have equal rights do not trump the freedoms of religion and speech of others.

Grafxgirl- Very impressive argument regarding the ownership of local stores as franchises, but unfortunately The headquarters of Chick-Fil-A and the CEO still profit from the sale and distribution of their products as well as receive a portion of the profits from each store that represents their brand. Still there are others who share your same argument of protestors hurting the franchisee and local employees more so than Cathy or the Corporation itself.

http://forums.hannity.com/showthread...#post102135802

That's a fine question, why did god create Adam and Eve and not Adam and Steve or Eve and Eva? Lets see, I believe He did not create the gay versions for the same reason He did not create the straight version, that would be He did not create Homo sapiens. We evolved from ancient Hominids just like our relatives the Chimpanzees, Gorillas, Orangutans and Bonobos.

Just to play Devil's Advocate..... Jedi- If humans evolved from monkeys and apes then why are there still monkeys and apes?

[LFE]

3:00
The Kinks - Apeman promo film - full length

[chipgallo]

KFC weighs in on the controversy
http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/e86...h-john-goodman

[PENNY]

Possible?......

Chick-fil-a president: "We need to boost sales, suggestions?"
Chick-fil-a VP sales: "Tell the world you don't support gay marriage! It's freedom of speech."
Chick-fil-a president: "DAFUQ?!?!??!"
Chick-fil-a VP sales: "Trust me on this..."
--- August 1, 2012 sales through the roof
Chick-fil-a president: " BRILLIANT!"

[Chutney Daftcraft]

The short term boost may be followed by less-than-expected numbers throughout the rest of the year.

It's one of those 'wait and see' things.

[Tony]

I think in a biblical sense God is said to have created all things, including Adam, Steve, Eve, and Eva. And the apes and monkeys. That She chose to make some of them like each other is a mystery we may never understand, but should learn to accept.

[JediKnight]

Just to play Devil's Advocate..... Jedi- If humans evolved from monkeys and apes then why are there still monkeys and apes?

We did not evolve from monkeys. Humans, Chimpanzees Orangutans Gorillas and bonobos all evolved from a common ancestors.The tribe Hominini are the Genus Homo( Humans) and Pan ( Chimpanzees and Bonobos)Both Genus share the closest common ancestor. If you follow the branch farther back you find the subfamily Homininae were the genus Gorilla ( Gorilla) split off. Follow back further and you find the family Hominidae were the subfamily Ponginae split and further split into the Genus Pongo ( Orangutan). Follow back further and you come to the Superfamily Hominoidae which split two directions, the direction in which we and the great apes evolved and the other into the family Hylobatidae ( the Gibons ). So although related to the other great apes we did not evolve from them, but from the same common ancestor.

[JediKnight]

Jedi- I don't expect you to be able to understand because frankly I think you are unable of understanding others points of view, but let me explain my position on this issue. I full heartedly believe that the LGBT community has the same rights to marry, adopt and raise children and have a life in the same way as traditional couples. However I also support the First Amendment Rights of individuals or corporations to have the freedoms to speak their mind on issues without the fear of intimidation or harassment by those with opposing views. In other words the wants and desires of those in the LGBT community to have equal rights do not trump the freedoms of religion and speech of others.

I'm perfectly capable of understanding others points of view, I'm especially good at understanding them when they are wrong. I don't think one right trumps any other but what you may not be considering is that a boycott or protest is also a form of the first amendment. We all have the right to believe what we want, however when those beliefs are contradictory to other people aquiring thier rights, the other people have the right to express thier opinion about it. Believing in the First Amendment does not require one to agree with all forms of speech and all ideas brought forth by that speech. When a corporation not only expresses a negative opinion about gay rights but funds an effort to convince lawmakers to withold those rights that is thier right to do so, Gay people on the other hand also have the right to express thier opinion about that corporation. Having an idea and expressing that idea is your right, making others respect that idea is not. If one is for Gay rights they could certainly respect the right of Chic Fil a to voice thier opinion but don't have to go out of thier way to support that opinion. This argument has nothing to do with freedom of religion, taht is the most absurd argument I've heard. No one is stopping religious people from practicing what ever they want and holding what ever beliefs they where told to hold. They are absolutly within thier right to go out of thier way to deprive other of thiers.

[saltman241]

I'm perfectly capable of understanding others points of view, I'm especially good at understanding them when they are wrong. I don't think one right trumps any other but what you may not be considering is that a boycott or protest is also a form of the first amendment. We all have the right to believe what we want, however when those beliefs are contradictory to other people aquiring thier rights, the other people have the right to express thier opinion about it. Believing in the First Amendment does not require one to agree with all forms of speech and all ideas brought forth by that speech. When a corporation not only expresses a negative opinion about gay rights but funds an effort to convince lawmakers to withold those rights that is thier right to do so, Gay people on the other hand also have the right to express thier opinion about that corporation. Having an idea and expressing that idea is your right, making others respect that idea is not. If one is for Gay rights they could certainly respect the right of Chic Fil a to voice thier opinion but don't have to go out of thier way to support that opinion. This argument has nothing to do with freedom of religion, taht is the most absurd argument I've heard. No one is stopping religious people from practicing what ever they want and holding what ever beliefs they where told to hold. They are absolutly within thier right to go out of thier way to deprive other of thiers.

You basically just completely disproved your "perfectly capable of understaind others points of views", with: "This argument has nothing to do with freedom of religion, taht is the most absurd argument I've heard. No one is stopping religious people from practicing what ever they want and holding what ever beliefs they where told to hold. They are absolutly within thier right to go out of thier way to deprive other of thiers."

If you think for one moment that the second the federal government re-defines marriage to include same sex couples that discrimination lawsuits against prominent churches won't be filed instantly, you sir are naive. The whole of this arguement is soley based on religous freedom.

[Chutney Daftcraft]

Then perhaps religion needs to be more focused on maintaining the boundaries of separation of church and state than they currently are.

Of course, that would mean that they don't get to enjoy the other end of that, you know, the whole using their religion to influence laws they wish to have passed. So I guess their obsession with abortion will be to blame when they start getting their asses sued off because they cannot seem to stay the F out of national politics. Their fault, not ours.

Believe me, we are very well aware of where we are not welcome. It's sad that the Church has become so exclusive. I cannot wait for the rapture to come and take me away from all of his followers. It will be sad to look down upon them as they go through that because see, we have compassion that was nurtured by their shunning of us.

[saltman241]

Chutney I agree completely. However it's no different then any corporation donating to the canidate that has their best interests at heart. They have a right to lobby for whatever they please. Doesn't mean it will change anything but they can try. Abortion is a perfect example. There's actually alot of churches that are very much accepting of same sex couples and I expect that to continue to grow.

[derricksonb]

I'm perfectly capable of understanding others points of view, I'm especially good at understanding them when they are wrong. I don't think one right trumps any other but what you may not be considering is that a boycott or protest is also a form of the first amendment. We all have the right to believe what we want, however when those beliefs are contradictory to other people aquiring thier rights, the other people have the right to express thier opinion about it. Believing in the First Amendment does not require one to agree with all forms of speech and all ideas brought forth by that speech. When a corporation not only expresses a negative opinion about gay rights but funds an effort to convince lawmakers to withold those rights that is thier right to do so, Gay people on the other hand also have the right to express thier opinion about that corporation. Having an idea and expressing that idea is your right, making others respect that idea is not. If one is for Gay rights they could certainly respect the right of Chic Fil a to voice thier opinion but don't have to go out of thier way to support that opinion. This argument has nothing to do with freedom of religion, taht is the most absurd argument I've heard. No one is stopping religious people from practicing what ever they want and holding what ever beliefs they where told to hold. They are absolutly within thier right to go out of thier way to deprive other of thiers.

You do realize that within this post you completely contradict yourself, right?

To answer your assumption, Yes I do realize that protest is an expression of the first amendment rights, but that constitutionally protected protest is attempting to stiffle the first amendment rights of another based on his religious views. What's funny about your statement is that Mr Cathy has not said that he has any desire to make others feel as he does where as the more vocal protesters and gay rights groups are demanding that everyone else agree with their agendas. What separates humans from other species is that we were born with free will and we are basically going to do what we feel is right. When other people tell us how we are supposed to think and feel about things that tends to make us angry and want to do the opposite. I believe that was witnessed by the hour, hour and a half and in some cases two hour long lines at Chick-Fil-A yesterday.

If one is for Gay rights they could certainly respect the right of Chic Fil a to voice thier opinion but don't have to go out of thier way to support that opinion.

I concur with that statement. For the record I have not "gone out of my way" to support the opinion of their CEO as I do not agree with it, but I have gone out of my way to protect his right to say it.

[kkrapf]

What's funny about your statement is that Mr Cathy has not said that he has any desire to make others feel as he does...

No, he just throws money at companies who will do it for him. Pushing for legislation to keep homosexuals from being considered a protected class, working to deny domestic partner rights, "degaying" homosexuals... Mr. Cathy has certainly never SAID he wants any of those things, unless you follow the old line of follow the money.

[derricksonb]

No, he just throws money at companies who will do it for him. Pushing for legislation to keep homosexuals from being considered a protected class, working to deny domestic partner rights, "degaying" homosexuals... Mr. Cathy has certainly never SAID he wants any of those things, unless you follow the old line of follow the money.

Im going to pull the "Tony Card".... LOL.

Do you have links or actual proof of these claims to support your allegations or are you just regurgitating what the pro-LGBT, anti-christian hate mongers are spewing on their websites?

[JediKnight]

You do realize that within this post you completely contradict yourself, right?

To answer your assumption, Yes I do realize that protest is an expression of the first amendment rights, but that constitutionally protected protest is attempting to stiffle the first amendment rights of another based on his religious views. What's funny about your statement is that Mr Cathy has not said that he has any desire to make others feel as he does where as the more vocal protesters and gay rights groups are demanding that everyone else agree with their agendas. What separates humans from other species is that we were born with free will and we are basically going to do what we feel is right. When other people tell us how we are supposed to think and feel about things that tends to make us angry and want to do the opposite. I believe that was witnessed by the hour, hour and a half and in some cases two hour long lines at Chick-Fil-A yesterday.

Mr. Cathy and his corporation have lobbied against gay rights with the intention of depriving individuals equal protection under the law, although some may not recognize the fact that the 14th amendment applies to everyone, that does not change that fact. Nor does someones personal religious views have anything to do with how as a society we treat our citizens. Mr. Cathy may have not publicly encouraged others to follow his lead with words, but action as we all know speak volumes to ones true intentions. People have a right to live thier lives however they see fit. If certain people don't like gays because they were told not to, thats thier buisness. When they enter the public fray, funding endevoures for the sole purpose of cementing the deprivation of rights as a matter of public policy and law, others have every right to not do buisness with that person or those affiliated with them. They have the right to protest them and call for a boycott. I think the difference between the groups id fairly clear, but maybe I'm blind. One seeks to limit rights to individuals whom they deem worthy of them. The other wants the same rights as everyone else is afforded in this country. I know that Mr. Cathy is within his rights to believe what he wants and to do what he wants with his money. That does not make make his words or actions right. I feel as though if you believe that gays are deprived of these rights as you claim you do, standing up for that belief would be the right thing to do. Otherwise aren't you argueing that one groups rights trump the other?

[JediKnight]

If you think for one moment that the second the federal government re-defines marriage to include same sex couples that discrimination lawsuits against prominent churches won't be filed instantly, you sir are naive. The whole of this arguement is soley based on religous freedom.

I don't think the Federal Government should be in the buisness of defining marrage. I think the government should issue anyone who wants to get married a license for a civil union, gay or straight, then if the couple is so inclined they can be married by a church. If the church does not want to marry them for what ever reason that is the churches right under the Constitution. What I do think the Federal Government should be in the buisness of is recognizing the right of gay couples to be married and affording them the same protections and rights as any other couple who decides to marry.

[kkrapf]

Im going to pull the "Tony Card".... LOL.

Do you have links or actual proof of these claims to support your allegations or are you just regurgitating what the pro-LGBT, anti-christian hate mongers are spewing on their websites?

Article: http://equalitymatters.org/factcheck/201207020001

Direct tax statements of donations: http://dynamodata.fdncenter.org/990p...1012_990PF.pdf

Marriage and Family Foundation: $1,188,380

http://familyfoundation.org/initiatives/marriage/

What we are doing:

Opposing Domestic Partner Benefits - Homosexual advocates have worked to diminish the status of marriage by providing marriage benefits to any relationship. Already, private companies in Virginia can do so. Despite a marriage amendment that prohibits this, efforts are underway to expand this to state and local government.


Opposing Homosexual Behavior as a Protected Class - Every year there are efforts in Virginia to add homosexuality to the list of protected classes in non-discrimination laws. This is not only unnecessary, as no evidence of discrimination exists, but has potential negative ramifications on religious liberty.

I don't really even have to expand on this one.

Fellowship of Christian Athletes: $480,000

http://www.fca.org/vsItemDisplay.lsp...BA41A7675B0760

Coach saved from homosexuality through God's love. Just pray, kids, and God will save you, too.

Of note, you also cannot be a leader in this organization if you don't sign the purity pledge, which forbids homosexual relations/relationships.

Exodus International: $1000

http://exodusinternational.org/love-won-out/sessions/

http://www.npr.org/2012/07/06/156367...y-to-cure-gays

Earlier this year, Alan Chambers, the president of Exodus International, addressed the Gay Christian Network, which was notable because many in the network are more open to gay relationships. Chambers said that "99.9 percent" of the people he had met through Exodus International either had not changed their sexual attraction or still struggled with temptation. He got a laugh when he told the gathering that there are no quick fixes, "no hocus pocus, no magic wands, no '1-2-3, now be free, go be straight, date and mate!' "

Last month, Exodus International made it official: It would no longer associate with or promote therapy that focuses on changing sexual attraction.

Note that that article is written this past month, and that these donations were made in 2010, while they were still going strong on conversion therapy. Also note... that whatever it is that their workshops are trying to do now, it pretty much boils down to praying away the gay, however they try to spin it.