By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics - Chik-Fil-A Gay Fallout

bouzane on 26 July 2012
mrstickball said:
bouzane said:
homer said:
Good for chick-fil-a. Since businesses seem to care so much about political issues, it's good to see that some people still stand against liberal media oppressions despite the consequences that will arise. You have to be honest, if your stance is not pro-gay marriage or some form of indifference, the media will slaughter you and try to make you out to be a nazi or commie.


No offense but it  infuriates me to see somebody mindlessly drone on about this non-existant liberal media bias.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_bias_in_the_United_States

Also, Chick-Fil-a isn't simply defending "traditional" marriage. They fund groups that are flat out bigoted against homosexuality. This should not acceptable to any rational human being.

Given the fact that is about 80% of Christians that still believe in the Biblical definition of marriage, I don't understand your point.

Just because someone takes a certain point of view on an issue doesn't mean that their goal is to prevent the other from living out that way of life. I am a Christian and 100% against homosexuality as a lifestyle. But if I had to vote, I would approve gay marriage in a heartbeat, because it doesn't effect me.

Many of the organizations that are being discussed do that. Groups like Focus on the Family are against homosexuality and about 1,000 other things. That doesn't mean that they want to kill gays, or bar all of them from recieving equal treatment under the law.


Again, preventing the government from recognizing same-sex marriage in turn effects the insurance policies, adoption rights and other benefits that same-sex couples are eligible to receive.

This isn't equality, what about the rights of Athiest and Jewish same-sex couples to marriage? Why is one group, which never defined marriage to begin with, allowed to dictate what is and is not "traditional" marriage?



Around the Network
Zappykins on 26 July 2012
mrstickball said "Given the fact that is about 80% of Christians that still believe in the Biblical definition of marriage, I don't understand your point."

Um, what?  There is no point in making stuff up.  That is just silly - I think you have been feeding at the propaganda machine too much.

The Biblical definition of marriage is not one man and one woman.  It is one many and many women.

Plus, it gets all messy if your brother dies, with a wife, and no kids, she then becomes your wife.  But I have 3 brothers, so which one of us would be stuck with his wife?  (What happens if you are already married?)

Plus, if you rape a women you have to marry her, etc.  Plus so many ‘Christians’ get tattoos, remarried after divorce and have no problems with selectively using their religious books for their own agenda.

People seems to forget that many Church DO have same sex ceremonies for marriage.  It's the LEGAL RIGHTS that same sex couples want that come from the state.

Plus, the other guy talking about Christian and Slavery really has no clue. Christianity has been used to justify slavery more nearly 2000 years.  It was only in 1860’s in the USA that slavery was abolished and the Christian Church has been in power quite a long time.  And the Roman Catholic Church until fairly recently, was more than happy to enslave people as it 'converted' and 'concord' them - just look at Mexico's history.

What I find interesting is that nearly the exact same arguments against Same Sex Marraige were used against giving Women the Right to Vote.  And they still don’t have that right in some countries.  (I.e. hurts the family, bad for the children, etc.)

 



 

Really not sure I see any point of Consol over PC's since Kinect, Wii and other alternative ways to play have been abandoned. 

Top 50 'most fun' game list coming soon!

 

Tell me a funny joke!
Mr Khan on 26 July 2012
mrstickball said:
Wonktonodi said:
mrstickball said:
I haven't read every comment, but how many people are discussing the fact that Rahm Emmanuel and Boston's mayor are using the power of their office to bar a business from their cities, whereas the statement from Truett Cathy has virtually no bearing on the business, nor people that are gay?

Talk about a double standard. If Chicago or Boston banned a business because it was run by blacks, wouldn't that be pretty bigoted? Only one entity in this discussion effects anyone else - and it isn't Chick-fil-A or Truett Cathy.


The discussion has gone a bit away from that. While I agree that the governments shouldn't bar over statements. I think where some of the money had gone with the charities does have some baring. http://equalitymatters.org/blog/201103220005#1

I don't think your double standard comparison is good. If they were going after the business because they are Christian then I could see the comparison. That isn't the reason though it's because they have given money to charities that are anti gay. If it was just Christian charities and this was being done I too would be outraged. That isn't the case though, this is not tolerating the intolerant.


You....Do realize that the vast majority of Christians hold to the Bible as being correct. Therefore, when it talks about homosexuality as being one of a large group of sexual issues that they are to avoid, that already puts them in that "bigoted, hateful" category by your standards, right?

There's a difference between a group promoting traditional marriage and values, and being a group that targets and hates gays. I know of most of those organizations that EqualityMatters discusses. The vast majority of work that they do has nothing to do with gays or gay rights at all. They simply take a Biblical stand on the issue (as 80% of all churches do across the denominational spectrum), which automatically puts them in the targets of groups like Equality Matters... Which seems to be hellbent not on equality, but forcing everyone to accept their viewpoint as the only one being correct (which to me sounds just as bigoted as the organizations they target).

The vast majority of the work, certainly, but occasionally they organize or put funding towards efforts like California's Prop 8, making targeting them a viable action. And because they are indeed working to deny legal rights to a certain group of people, this is something that should be duly campaigned against.

Your line of thinking bothers me because the notion of "bigotry" is not a two-way street. Would people who harrass the Ku Klux Klan for what that group does be considered bigots? The efforts to correct bigotry, either by discrediting bigots or working to reform their views, is not bigotry itself.



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

mrstickball on 26 July 2012
Zappykins said:
mrstickball said "Given the fact that is about 80% of Christians that still believe in the Biblical definition of marriage, I don't understand your point."

Um, what?  There is no point in making stuff up.  That is just silly - I think you have been feeding at the propaganda machine too much.

The Biblical definition of marriage is not one man and one woman.  It is one many and many women.

Plus, it gets all messy if your brother dies, with a wife, and no kids, she then becomes your wife.  But I have 3 brothers, so which one of us would be stuck with his wife?  (What happens if you are already married?)

Plus, if you rape a women you have to marry her, etc.  Plus so many ‘Christians’ get tattoos, remarried after divorce and have no problems with selectively using their religious books for their own agenda.

People seems to forget that many Church DO have same sex ceremonies for marriage.  It's the LEGAL RIGHTS that same sex couples want that come from the state.

Plus, the other guy talking about Christian and Slavery really has no clue. Christianity has been used to justify slavery more nearly 2000 years.  It was only in 1860’s in the USA that slavery was abolished and the Christian Church has been in power quite a long time.  And the Roman Catholic Church until fairly recently, was more than happy to enslave people as it 'converted' and 'concord' them - just look at Mexico's history.

What I find interesting is that nearly the exact same arguments against Same Sex Marraige were used against giving Women the Right to Vote.  And they still don’t have that right in some countries.  (I.e. hurts the family, bad for the children, etc.)

 

New Testament is quite different from the OT, especially among those that look to the Gospels and writings of Paul for the rules of life, faith, and praxis.

That does away with your "One man, many women" argument, along with "brother's wife", "rape a woman", and the rest. What it still maintains is the idea that marriage and sexuality is between one man and one woman. It's certainly inconvient and at odds with homosexuals, swingers, players, multiple-divorcees, and the rest, but its still there.

Like I said, 80% still believe the Bible. The 20% are those that do have rites for same-sex couples, rites for animals, and promote a thousand other things that are against the Bible. If they want to do that stuff, fine. I just know that what they're doing is contrary to what their Bibles state.

Additionally, I'd like you to do a quick study on who were the most prominent abolitionists in the USA. Go look at which religions they were a part of. Both sides of the slavery argument had Christians. But only one side was founded by Christian leaders. John Greenleaf was a Quaker, Harriet Beecher Stowe wrote on Jesus in her missives, Fredrick Douglas was a strong church-goer, and Charles Langston was part of the African Methodist-Episcopal church. To deny their contributions to destroying slavery would be remarkable.



Back from the dead, I'm afraid.

mrstickball on 26 July 2012
Mr Khan said:
mrstickball said:
Wonktonodi said:
mrstickball said:
I haven't read every comment, but how many people are discussing the fact that Rahm Emmanuel and Boston's mayor are using the power of their office to bar a business from their cities, whereas the statement from Truett Cathy has virtually no bearing on the business, nor people that are gay?

Talk about a double standard. If Chicago or Boston banned a business because it was run by blacks, wouldn't that be pretty bigoted? Only one entity in this discussion effects anyone else - and it isn't Chick-fil-A or Truett Cathy.


The discussion has gone a bit away from that. While I agree that the governments shouldn't bar over statements. I think where some of the money had gone with the charities does have some baring. http://equalitymatters.org/blog/201103220005#1

I don't think your double standard comparison is good. If they were going after the business because they are Christian then I could see the comparison. That isn't the reason though it's because they have given money to charities that are anti gay. If it was just Christian charities and this was being done I too would be outraged. That isn't the case though, this is not tolerating the intolerant.


You....Do realize that the vast majority of Christians hold to the Bible as being correct. Therefore, when it talks about homosexuality as being one of a large group of sexual issues that they are to avoid, that already puts them in that "bigoted, hateful" category by your standards, right?

There's a difference between a group promoting traditional marriage and values, and being a group that targets and hates gays. I know of most of those organizations that EqualityMatters discusses. The vast majority of work that they do has nothing to do with gays or gay rights at all. They simply take a Biblical stand on the issue (as 80% of all churches do across the denominational spectrum), which automatically puts them in the targets of groups like Equality Matters... Which seems to be hellbent not on equality, but forcing everyone to accept their viewpoint as the only one being correct (which to me sounds just as bigoted as the organizations they target).

The vast majority of the work, certainly, but occasionally they organize or put funding towards efforts like California's Prop 8, making targeting them a viable action. And because they are indeed working to deny legal rights to a certain group of people, this is something that should be duly campaigned against.

Your line of thinking bothers me because the notion of "bigotry" is not a two-way street. Would people who harrass the Ku Klux Klan for what that group does be considered bigots? The efforts to correct bigotry, either by discrediting bigots or working to reform their views, is not bigotry itself.

Did you bother reading EqualityMatter's statements on the various organizations in question?

Their attacks had nothing to do with political motives of the organizations - going after them attempting to undermine the rights of gays. But rather, they went against the idea that any organization could even disagree with homosexuality.

From their statement on FCA:

__________________

 

The application to become an FCA Ministry Leader requires applicants to agree with the FCA's Sexual Purity Statement, which condemns gays as engaging in an "Impure Lifestyle":

God desires His children to lead pure lives of holiness. The Bible is clear in teaching on sexual sin including sex outside of marriage and homosexual acts. Neither heterosexual sex outside of marriage nor any homosexual act constitute an alternate lifestyle acceptable to God. [FCA Application, accessed

_________________

Their argument isn't that FCA is trying to undermine their lifestyle from a political standpoint, but the simple notion that FCA disagrees with their lifestyle. So if bigotry is a metric of forcing others into doing something (e.g. taking away someones' rights), then its clear that EqualityMatters wants to take away their right to disagree.

That is equally as abhorrent as an organization that would attempt to take away rights from others, or continue to supress the rights of others. The right to free speech is the cornerstone of our society, and EqualityMatters wants to undermine that. They are doing it under the guise of other things, but what they're doing is just as egregious as the same people that passed Prop 8.



Back from the dead, I'm afraid.

Around the Network
Soleron on 26 July 2012
mrstickball said:

its clear that EqualityMatters wants to take away their right to disagree.

That is equally as abhorrent as an organization that would attempt to take away rights from others, or continue to supress the rights of others. The right to free speech is the cornerstone of our society, and EqualityMatters wants to undermine that. They are doing it under the guise of other things, but what they're doing is just as egregious as the same people that passed Prop 8.

Corporations do not have those rights. The individuals that make up those corporations deserve free speech and the ability to donate to who they want, but corporations have never been able to print what they want in advertising material or fund what they want politically.

That said, the government doesn't have the right to stop them building a store in their city because the individuals that make it up disagree with the stated beliefs of the individuals that make up the restaurant. It's not within their power, if we are to have a free market. They can restrict explicitly anti-gay-rights material being distributed through the stores, but not its operations.



Mr Khan on 26 July 2012
mrstickball said:
Mr Khan said:

The vast majority of the work, certainly, but occasionally they organize or put funding towards efforts like California's Prop 8, making targeting them a viable action. And because they are indeed working to deny legal rights to a certain group of people, this is something that should be duly campaigned against.

Your line of thinking bothers me because the notion of "bigotry" is not a two-way street. Would people who harrass the Ku Klux Klan for what that group does be considered bigots? The efforts to correct bigotry, either by discrediting bigots or working to reform their views, is not bigotry itself.

Did you bother reading EqualityMatter's statements on the various organizations in question?

Their attacks had nothing to do with political motives of the organizations - going after them attempting to undermine the rights of gays. But rather, they went against the idea that any organization could even disagree with homosexuality.

From their statement on FCA:

__________________

 

The application to become an FCA Ministry Leader requires applicants to agree with the FCA's Sexual Purity Statement, which condemns gays as engaging in an "Impure Lifestyle":

God desires His children to lead pure lives of holiness. The Bible is clear in teaching on sexual sin including sex outside of marriage and homosexual acts. Neither heterosexual sex outside of marriage nor any homosexual act constitute an alternate lifestyle acceptable to God. [FCA Application, accessed

_________________

Their argument isn't that FCA is trying to undermine their lifestyle from a political standpoint, but the simple notion that FCA disagrees with their lifestyle. So if bigotry is a metric of forcing others into doing something (e.g. taking away someones' rights), then its clear that EqualityMatters wants to take away their right to disagree.

That is equally as abhorrent as an organization that would attempt to take away rights from others, or continue to supress the rights of others. The right to free speech is the cornerstone of our society, and EqualityMatters wants to undermine that. They are doing it under the guise of other things, but what they're doing is just as egregious as the same people that passed Prop 8.

Change gay marriage to interracial marriage, and reread the statement on FCA. If members of an organization had to agree that interracial marriage is a bad thing to advance, wouldn't that make the organization worthy of rebuke? So it is with tolerance of homosexuality. If an institution fosters intolerance, then that's a bad thing. They have every right to do it, but that wouldn't take away the right of others to demonize the hell out of them for it.

The expression of disagreement is morally wrong and worthy of attack.



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

dandd on 26 July 2012

If we change the definition of marriage for gay people aren't we going to have to change it for everyone else who wants to get married? Polygamist, brothers and sisters, etc could use the same arguments that the gay community is using. Once you change one part of the equation to accomodate someone what stops everyone else from claiming discrimination?



Blacksaber on 26 July 2012

The Jim Henson company has pulled the use of their charcters toys and cut any future ties with them...



Former something....

badgenome on 26 July 2012
Soleron said:

Corporations do not have those rights. The individuals that make up those corporations deserve free speech and the ability to donate to who they want, but corporations have never been able to print what they want in advertising material or fund what they want politically.

That said, the government doesn't have the right to stop them building a store in their city because the individuals that make it up disagree with the stated beliefs of the individuals that make up the restaurant. It's not within their power, if we are to have a free market. They can restrict explicitly anti-gay-rights material being distributed through the stores, but not its operations.

I'm pretty sure corporations do have those rights. You may not think they should have them, but the freedom of the press part of the first amendment has been interpreted that way for a long time now - rightly so, I think.

So I'm pretty sure the government can't restrict the distribution of anti-gay rights material. That would never, ever survive in court.

Why is it uncontroversial for Nabisco to Photoshop up a gay pride Oreo or for the Jim Henson Company to be pro gay marriage or for Shittiest Company on the Planet award-winning EA to come out against DOMA, but the second the COO of a company says he's against gay marriage suddenly corporations don't have rights? Do corporations have the right to only express "correct" opinions?