Chick Fil-A debate missing the point

[Heavyduty053]

WTF ?

Roseanne Barr is just a foul mouthed wash out, her and John Goodeman should have stayed together as they are two of a kind. Besides what do you expect someone of this character to say anyway.

[dhr05b]

Regardless of whether you support *** unions/marriage. I agree that people are missing the point.

Hate mongering is wrong. I was floored that Umbertino was negged so many times. I was also floored that everyone jumped right onto the hate mongering bandwagon.

I expected better from all of you. Perhaps I misjudged the clientele frequenting this site?

Especially in a site devoted to a minor global currency, we should have a more worldly understanding of the human race and more tolerance for different cultures, religions, etc.

I am not ***.

I do not care who does whom or why - as long as they are consenting adults, it's none of my damn business.

I love Chik fil A.

I also think their policies are disgusting and their owner is an old, prejudiced, hate mongering fool.

I was very disappointed to find out how many are here as well!

How telling that G A Y keeps getting automatically asterisked out, but I can say damn all day long! WTF?

Firstly, In the future, I think umbertino would be better received if he didn't bring over articles from the openly Communist 'People's World,' but that's really an aside. P.S., I didn't neg anyone on this thread.

Secondly, no. I think it is YOU who is missing the point. A vast majority of us are hate-mongering prejudiced fools because we think that it is highly inappropriate for government officials to attempt to bully a corporation out of business? Do you know the context in which his statements were made (i.e. a personal interview with the Baptist Press)? This is not a man that marched onto the Hill and began preaching about a final solution for the LGBT people. If that actually HAD happened, I think you would be justified in calling him 'hateful,' 'intolerant,' or a myriad of other liberal buzzwords. No, instead, he peacefully gave his comments on the subject - which, by the way - was the same position Barack Obama held during his 2008 campaign. I don't recall him being slapped around as much as Dan Cathy.

Seperately, I can understand what you say about their policies...I find it sickening that I'm treated with such dignity and respect everytime I visit. What nerve they have to make small talk with me while my order is being prepared? Or are you talking about their policies outside of the restaurant? Like partnering with All Pro Dad and Core Essentials. That's right, I forgot about how evil the WinShape Foundation is...

Really?

[caz1104]

Regardless of whether you support *** unions/marriage. I agree that people are missing the point.

Hate mongering is wrong. I was floored that Umbertino was negged so many times. I was also floored that everyone jumped right onto the hate mongering bandwagon.

I expected better from all of you. Perhaps I misjudged the clientele frequenting this site?

Especially in a site devoted to a minor global currency, we should have a more worldly understanding of the human race and more tolerance for different cultures, religions, etc.

I am not ***.

I do not care who does whom or why - as long as they are consenting adults, it's none of my damn business.

I love Chik fil A.

I also think their policies are disgusting and their owner is an old, prejudiced, hate mongering fool.

I was very disappointed to find out how many are here as well!

How telling that G A Y keeps getting automatically asterisked out, but I can say damn all day long! WTF?

I agree hate mongering is wrong...................regardless of position. Theres enough of it on both sides. Just like you expect better of the members here,your comment " I also think their policies are disgusting and their owner is old,prejudiced,hate mongering fool" is no different. I respect your right to voice your opinion but dont agree with judging others for theirs. Peace

Firstly, In the future, I think umbertino would be better received if he didn't bring over articles from the openly Communist 'People's World,' but that's really an aside. P.S., I didn't neg anyone on this thread.

Secondly, no. I think it is YOU who is missing the point. A vast majority of us are hate-mongering prejudiced fools because we think that it is highly inappropriate for government officials to attempt to bully a corporation out of business? Do you know the context in which his statements were made (i.e. a personal interview with the Baptist Press)? This is not a man that marched onto the Hill and began preaching about a final solution for the LGBT people. If that actually HAD happened, I think you would be justified in calling him 'hateful,' 'intolerant,' or a myriad of other liberal buzzwords. No, instead, he peacefully gave his comments on the subject - which, by the way - was the same position Barack Obama held during his 2008 campaign. I don't recall him being slapped around as much as Dan Cathy.

Seperately, I can understand what you say about their policies...I find it sickening that I'm treated with such dignity and respect everytime I visit. What nerve they have to make small talk with me while my order is being prepared? Or are you talking about their policies outside of the restaurant? Like partnering with All Pro Dad and Core Essentials. That's right, I forgot about how evil the WinShape Foundation is...

Really?

[One Fine Carpenter]

Christianity

See also: Christian ethics

According to Simon Blackburn, although the Golden Rule "can be found in some form in almost every ethical tradition", the rule is "sometimes claimed by Christianity as its own".[43] The "Golden Rule" has been attributed to Jesus of Nazareth: "Therefore all things whatsoever would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them" (Matthew 7:12, see also Luke 6:31). The common English phrasing is "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you". A similar form appeared in a Catholic catechism around 1567 (certainly in the reprint of 1583).[44] The Golden Rule also has roots in the two old testament edicts, found in Leviticus 19:18 ("Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against one of your people, but love your neighbor as yourself"; see also Great Commandment) and Leviticus 19:34 ("But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God").

The Old Testament Deuterocanonical books of Tobit and Sirach, accepted as part of the Scriptural canon by Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodoxy, and the Non-Chalcedonian Churches, also express a negative form of the golden rule:

"Do to no one what you yourself dislike."

—Tobit 4:15

"Recognize that your neighbor feels as you do, and keep in mind your own dislikes."

—Sirach 31:15

At the time of Hillel, an elder contemporary of Jesus of Nazareth, the negative form of the golden rule already must have been proverbial, perhaps because of Tobit 4:15. When asked to sum up the entire Torah concisely, he answered:

"That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow. That is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation; go and learn."

—Talmud, Shabbat 31a

Two passages in the New Testament quote Jesus of Nazareth espousing the golden rule:

Matthew 7:12

12Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.

Luke 6:31

31And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise.

A similar passage, a parallel to the Great Commandment, is Luke 10:25-28

25And one day an authority on the law stood up to put Jesus to the test. “Teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to receive eternal life?”

26What is written in the Law?” Jesus replied. “How do you understand it?” 27He answered, “ ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul. Love him with all your strength and with all your mind.’(Deuteronomy 6:5) And, ‘Love your neighbor as you love yourself.’ ”

28“You have answered correctly,” Jesus replied. “Do that, and you will live.”.

The passage in the book of Luke then continues with Jesus answering the question, "Who is my neighbor?", by telling the parable of the Good Samaritan, indicating that "your neighbour" is anyone in need.[45] Jesus' teaching, however, goes beyond the negative formulation of not doing what one would not like done to themselves, to the positive formulation of actively doing good to another that, if the situations were reversed, one would desire that the other would do for them. This formulation, as indicated in the parable of the Good Samaritan, emphasises the needs for positive action that brings benefit to another, not simply restraining oneself from negative activities that hurt another. Taken as a rule of judgement, both formulations of the golden rule, the negative and positive, are equally applicable.[46]

In one passage of the New Testament Saint Paul refers to the golden rule:

Galatians 5:14

14For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Love thy neighbour as Thyself

Everybody seems to forget this one.....................

[sandstorm]

As a Unitarian Minister I’d like to provide my thoughts. First a few things you should know, the Unitarian Universalist was the first major church “to approve religious blessings on homosexual unions”. Also based on my peruse of this form, I think I probably am far to the left of most Christian views, but I hope you will hear me out.

The premise of this debate seems to be that Christians believe that “marriage” is a relationship between a man and woman which is sanctified by God. That is, many of you believe that only a relationship that is approved of by God should be called a marriage.

May I ask a few questions? Do you believe that ONLY Christians should be allowed to marry? Yes or No?

Specifically, if one is NOT a Christian, instead let’s say a Hindu, should they be allowed to be married? Yes or No?

Lastly, do people of different faiths than Christianity marry? That is, in India, when two Hindu decided to join together to become life partners, is this called Marriage? Yes or No?

Now a few facts. Christians and Hinduism are vastly different. Christianity is a monolithic faith, one God (although He is made up of the Trinity), while Hinduism has many Gods. In Hinduism, reincarnation is essential, but is inconsistent with Christianity. Therefore only one of these beliefs technically can be right. As a Christian, I presume to believe Christinty is, as I’m a follower of Christ. But, I highly respect people of different faiths.

However, as you can see, the argument that marriage can only be a union blesses by God, starts to fall apart when one grasp that almost all faiths, be they Christian or non-Christian allow the unity of two individuals. Thus, if you answered above that you agree that non Christians (like Hindus) should be allowed to marry, then you simultaneously acknowledge that their union is not under a Christian deity. It is also important to point out that there are well over 1 Billion Hindu in the world so as a Christian do you wish to void all of those marriage? Or now knowing what I have presented to you, do you now wish to recant any answers to the question I posed above?

Now, lets look at the definition of Discrimination.

Discrimination -is the prejudicial treatment of an individual based on his or her membership - or perceived membership - in a certain group or category. It involves the group's initial reaction or interaction, influencing the individual's actual behavior towards the group or the group leader, restricting members of one group from opportunities that are available to a group, leading to the exclusion of the individual or entities based on logical or irrational decisionmaking.

If you are basing your decision to limit homosexuals from marriage based on religion, then your logic is flawed as I have shown above and you are discriminating.

If you read the New Testament, the teachings of Christ really boil down to: Be Nice and love each other.

how ironic, the lgbt group is discriminating against someones free speech and right to religion. the exact same thing they accuse everyone else of. politicians attacked this guy, and the people stood up. i believe everyone should have the same legal rights as anyone else, but the attack on christianity is disgusting. People can do whatever they choose, no ones stopping anyone. Im against theses kind of groups attacking other peoples freedomsand rights. majority rules in this country. we already discriminate against the majority....minoritys get special exemptions, extra points, all throughout the government system. id care less what people do. im not giving up my rights and freedoms so someone else can have theirs.

[wpsmit]

As a Unitarian Minister I’d like to provide my thoughts. First a few things you should know, the Unitarian Universalist was the first major church “to approve religious blessings on homosexual unions”. Also based on my peruse of this form, I think I probably am far to the left of most Christian views, but I hope you will hear me out.

The premise of this debate seems to be that Christians believe that “marriage” is a relationship between a man and woman which is sanctified by God. That is, many of you believe that only a relationship that is approved of by God should be called a marriage.

Or now knowing what I have presented to you, do you now wish to recant any answers to the question I posed above?

Well you have certainly convinced me, preach! Now in the interest of non discrimination, perhaps you will be the first to brag about how your church has

approved religious blessings on bestiality unions, or better yet, pedophiliac unions.

After all, sharia law says female children are "fair game" once they have hit puberty.

[caz1104]

how ironic, the lgbt group is discriminating against someones free speech and right to religion. the exact same thing they accuse everyone else of. politicians attacked this guy, and the people stood up. i believe everyone should have the same legal rights as anyone else, but the attack on christianity is disgusting. People can do whatever they choose, no ones stopping anyone. Im against theses kind of groups attacking other peoples freedomsand rights. majority rules in this country. we already discriminate against the majority....minoritys get special exemptions, extra points, all throughout the government system. id care less what people do. im not giving up my rights and freedoms so someone else can have theirs.

[Patty B]

I have not signed in to DV in over a year.

But I did today, just to give a minus to

the one who started this thread....

I am a Christian and I WILL NOT BE

SILENCED OR BULLIED BY LIBERALS!

IF IT'S AGAINST GOD'S WORD - IT'S

PERVERSION!!!!

Marriage is between a man and a woman.

Your beef is with God, not with Chc-fil-a ~

[kcw]

*** Marriage: Killing the Democracy of the DeadPAUL G. KENGOR, CENTER FOR VISION & VALUES

President Obama’s position on *** marriage has won some converts, from (perhaps) the entirety of the Democratic Party to (especially) young people. As to the latter, one of them emailed me recently. A good-hearted, thoughtful young man, who this fall will be a freshman at a very liberal college in the Northeast, I’ll leave him unnamed. His story, however, is instructive, and sheds light on an ancient morality tale worth considering right now.

The young man comes from a conservative evangelical family. He has progressively edged in a liberal direction. He read an article I had written on President Obama’s ***-marriage advocacy. Though he disagreed with me, he was respectful. I appreciated that, and responded.

He objected to my point that legalizing *** marriage would represent a radical rupture not just of the definition of “marriage” but of “family.” “How would that happen?” he asked. “I support *** marriage and think that if two people are in love, then they should have the right to be together with full benefits under the title of being MARRIED.” He continued: “I really don’t want to hear any religious arguments. Marriage is a secular act that can also be religious.”

The young man was open to hearing my viewpoint. As he said, he didn’t want to merely yell at me, “Oh my god! You’re against *** marriage? Then you’re stupid!” That’s what he’s sure to hear at the liberal college where his parents will be sending their lifesavings.

Though there were many ways I could have replied to this young man’s email, my response focused not on his youth but, rather, the youth of all of us, of this entire generation, of the whole culture. Here was the thrust of my response:

Whether a society or people are religious or not, the most fundamental basis of society and peoples—literally since the dawn of humanity—has been marriage between a man and a woman. That bond is the cornerstone. To suddenly sever that bond is not only a radical rupture, but remarkably arrogant; it assumes that our current generation is wiser than the multiple millennia of civilizations heretofore. Google the word “matrimony.” “Marriage” has always meant the marriage of a man and a woman.

We shouldn’t mess with these things. Once we begin redefining and reshaping these things in each of our own images, we’re in trouble. I ask progressives: Do you truly want the government to take unto itself the right to remold such ancient terms? (Answer: Yes, they do, but only when the government agrees with them.)

That question ought to give pause to libertarians who support *** marriage. Do they want to allow government this unprecedented, enormous moral power and authority, from which will flow all sorts of new, massive government redistributive power and authority? As Jennifer Roback Morse asks, do libertarians really want the federal government regulating (let alone defining) marriage? If they do, then they’re favoring not small government but big government—actually, huge government.

Even most liberal Democrats (prior to President Obama) had voted to preserve marriage between a man and a woman. Witness the Clintons and congressional Democrats passing the Defense of Marriage Act in the 1990s.

Those against *** marriage need to know that not only are they in the majority today, but over the course of centuries and millennia. Our position is based not on the latest societal/cultural whim at the ballot box but on the inherited wisdom of billions of ancestors and thinkers preceding us. It is rooted in what G. K. Chesterton called “the democracy of the dead.”

In his book, Orthodoxy, Chesterton wrote: “Tradition means giving votes to the most obscure of all classes, our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead. Tradition refuses to submit to the small and arrogant oligarchy of those who merely happen to be walking about. All democrats object to men being disqualified by the accident of their birth; tradition objects to their being disqualified by the accident of death. Democracy tells us not to neglect a good man’s opinion, even if he is our groom; tradition tells us not to neglect a good man’s opinion, even if he is our father.”

There is deep, accumulated wisdom in our long line of ancestors. To suddenly assume we know better, compliments of recent enlightened understanding, is self-righteous and short-sighted. Don’t our ancestors—our dead—have any say? There were a lot more of them than us. Are we to judge they were mere brutes lacking our magnificent reasoning abilities?

There’s something to be said about, oh, multiple millennia of consensus belief. It seems unwise to not give our ancestors any serious consideration, and to not at least consider whether we might be wrong on this particular issue.

Should the dead not have a vote, a say, in this?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.themoralliberal.com/2012/08/02/***-marriage-killing-the-democracy-of-the-dead/

[sandstorm]

Regardless of whether you support *** unions/marriage. I agree that people are missing the point.

Hate mongering is wrong. I was floored that Umbertino was negged so many times. I was also floored that everyone jumped right onto the hate mongering bandwagon.

I expected better from all of you. Perhaps I misjudged the clientele frequenting this site?

Especially in a site devoted to a minor global currency, we should have a more worldly understanding of the human race and more tolerance for different cultures, religions, etc.

I am not ***.

I do not care who does whom or why - as long as they are consenting adults, it's none of my damn business.

I love Chik fil A.

I also think their policies are disgusting and their owner is an old, prejudiced, hate mongering fool.

I was very disappointed to find out how many are here as well!

How telling that G A Y keeps getting automatically asterisked out, but I can say damn all day long! WTF?

Hate mongering??? The only ones spewing hate are the gltb group. im with you....i could care less what they do. but if you want to flaunt in my presense or expect my church to support perversion your wrong. its seems the glbt group just wants to justify to their perversion by expecting everyone else to think its normal. its not. everyone has rights and everyone should have legal rights for civil unions, power of attorney, etc. dispite oreintation. but dont expect me to clap or smile at people perverting my faith.

Edited August 3, 2012 by sandstorm

[parmenio]

There was a chick fil-a on my campus.. honestly the foods not that great. Hardees makes a much better chicken sandwhich. Actually, I do to because it's not that hard to make something tastier and healthier.

I like to look at this from a logical perspective. Perhaps not totally objective but at least as logical as I can be. Hate speech is hate speech, and it does nothing good for anyone. While I find the belief some have that LGBTs are evil, freaks, the work of the devil, dangerous, or as having a mental illness to be.. medieval and factually incorrect there is one thing I can count on to be true. That is that no matter what the truth of a situation is, there will always be those who disagree. Whether they are right or wrong doesn't matter. We all have beliefs and opinions. We all want to hold on to them dearly. I don't get the whole left-right, conservative-liberal thing. People using little inflexible boxes to describe and contain themselves.

That said situations like this are pretty scary. I mentioned hate speech above.. Eventually this will come to a head and get nasty if cooler heads do not prevail. For those of you who lived through it do you remember the insanity of the racial tension of the 50s, 60s, and 70s? This is potentially not that different given enough time. And it's still happening in its own way. A cycle continues. I don't want to live in a country.. or planet, where this kind of stuff keeps happening. I don't want to see history repeat itself, but seriously? Promoting hatred and discriminating against others for what ever reason leads down a dark path. What are people really expecting?

We can believe in and what ever we want.. but please understand these are peoples' lives, we all share the same flesh and blood.

Peace.

Sounds like you've been indoctrinated into liberal thinking. Your talking points are those of an appeaser who refuses to acknowledge that Cathy was expressing his own views. With that said he is also entitled to give to whomever he chooses. This IS America..., remember!

Now for a little history lesson. In 1933 the Nazis began to boycott Jewish establishments only because of who they were and what they believed. A few years later the brown shirts were posted outside Jewish run businesses and physically removed anyone patron who entered. The rest is history! Sound familiar? Rahm Emanual, Menino, Vincent Gray and the mayor of San Franscisco Lee all made references to do the same thing the facists did in 1933. It's time to put a stop to ALL this nonsense and what you witnessed in the last 24-48 hours is a precurser of what is to come in November. Whose side are you on my friend? The facists' or the people's.

By the way I disagree about your comment on the taste. IT's ABSOLUTELY delicious and the lines are still long where I live!

[NevadaSam]

The Chick-Fil-A debate was not about homosexuals, it was about bullies and those against free speach

[skinz]

The day the CEO's personal beliefs hinder the companies ability to produce tasty chicken... I'll stop eating there.

[jonjon]

In 1938 the Nazis compelled Jewish shopkeepers to display the words "Jewish business" in their windows but did not introduce distinctive signs to be worn by Jews until after the occupation of Poland. The first to issue an order on his own initiative without a waiting instructions from the central authority, was the town Kommandant [[commander]] of Wloclawek [[German 1940-1945: Leslau]], S.S. Oberfuehrer [[supreme leader]] Cramer, who, on Oct. 24, 1939, ordered that every Jew in Wloclawek was to wear a distinctive sign on the back in the form of a yellow triangle at least 15 cm. in size.

As Christians we should be ready.

[tim228]

The owner was asked by people what he thought of marriage and thats when he said that he believes it is to be between one man and one woman. How does that make him a hate mongering fool? Learn the man dont just hear a story.

[skinz]

Chic-Fil-A isn't the only company that donates to anti-*** groups. Exxon Mobil, Wal-mart, and even the salvation army has anti-*** politics. I don't understand why Chic-fil-a is thrown under the bus with a simple comment about the CEO's beliefs.

My linkhttp://www.policymic.com/articles/10810/you-would-never-believe-which-anti-***-companies-you-support-with-your-money

[desimo]

Isn't it ironic. The people who were saying they would not allow Chick-fil-A in their cities did not have much of the left saying anything about them being hateful or hatemongers.

[Jimmyreno]

I've got to jump in briefly. I went to get Chic-Fil-A for dinner at 7:30 on Wed and was given a mint because they were out of all food. So I had Thai food and survived. Mmmmm Pud Thai! Anyway what I don't understand is that Cathy did not say one negative thing about the LGBT community! He spoke positively about the Chritian faiths and values, but not one negative word. And he got blasted and boycotted by the left. There was no hate. I am proud to have tried to be a prt of one of the few stimulus plans proposed by the left that actually worked to create business, but I was to late. So I am going to buy dinner tonight and support the "kiss in" because I like watching two chicks make out. So I guess I am in the middle on this argument. Either way I get a show, waffle fries, and a milk shake. I love this country!!

J.R.

[parmenio]

"....I also think their policies are disgusting and their owner is an old, prejudiced, hate mongering fool.

I was very disappointed to find out how many are here as well!"

I guess your statement also applies to obama since he had the same position as Cathy three months ago..., before he "evolved"of course.

[Marj1st]

As a matter of fact, I am not an Obama fan. I respect that he is our current president, but I cannot wait until he isn't!

[Maggie123]

As a matter of fact, I am not an Obama fan. I respect that he is our current president, but I cannot wait until he isn't!

Hello MARJ1st.

I BLESS what you brought in.

First You brought in Your Beliefs. Now I may be overstating it, but I could not agree with you more.

I can't wait until the truth be told.

[Maggie123]

Yup! Check it out! I'll bet one million dollars that Chic It Bit... is backed by the wallmart chineese!

[Bumper64]

How telling that G A Y keeps getting automatically asterisked out, but I can say damn all day long! WTF?

Just a FYI: The reason G a y is filtered is because a long while back we had a bad member that was attacking members that he thought might have been g a y on this site so we shut him down and added the filter!

[skitealwedrop]

Just a FYI: The reason G a y is filtered is because a long while back we had a bad member that was attacking members that he thought might have been g a y on this site so we shut him down and added the filter!

Good to know Bump. Thank you for the explanation as to why the G word is banned on the site.

Peace Dude!

[Maggie123]

Just a FYI: The reason G a y is filtered is because a long while back we had a bad member that was attacking members that he thought might have been g a y on this site so we shut him down and added the filter!

Bumper, please know I LOVE You! Truly I do.

I am so happy to have your ear. Could you balance this out? We have *** children that deserve to be honored for their blessed selves. How about being a christian?

Hugs, Maggie