The Boy Scout and Chik-Fil-A thread

[eolesen]

How is saying that marriage is only for man and woman not biased?

Try to remember that marriage is a religious institution first and foremost. It has been used (and abused) as a convenience by government.

If the goal is equal rights and survivor benefits, than the approach that the LGBT community should be pursuing is lobbying government for the approach we see in Europe -- a couple gets married in the church, but they get their rights via a civil union performed in front of their equivalent of a justice of the peace.

Just because I borrowed my neighbor's chain-saw once doesn't give me the right to tell him how to use it.

 

[Ms Tree]

In stating they support traditional marriage they stated they support depriving gays of access to marry by law?
From what I saw they merely said what they believe and what manys others believe.
Where is it written that gays define what is or isn't acceptable in society?
Chik never said thay had issue with the gay community, only stated their biblical position regarding marriage. GLBT doesn't see it that way, apparently everyone has to agree with their position which is unmittigated bullcrap.
In regard to the 1st amendment, GLBT is not offering their opinion, they are attempting to eliminate the opposing view to their lifestyle.

In my opinion yes it does. I have yet to hear anyone on the right say that they are against homosexuality but believe in equal access to marriage. So yes I do believe they think their beliefs should be enforced by law until they say otherwise.

I have no idea where that is written? Who said they do?

According to the Christian Post, Cathy went further during an interview on "The Ken Coleman Show," saying, "I think we are inviting God's judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at him and say, 'We know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage.' " Cathy was also quoted as saying during the interview, "I pray God's mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we have the audacity to define what marriage is about."

I see this as a pretty clear statement that they have a problem with equal access to marriage. I have yet to see anyone in the LGBT community say that everyone has to agree with them. The only thing I have heard is that they demand equal rights.

Please share how they are attempting to silence the opposition? They are trying the eliminate the legal barriers against their life. People like you will always be opposed to their lifestyle. I am pretty sure they do not care. They just want equal treatment under the law.

 

[muff daddy]

In my opinion yes it does. I have yet to hear anyone on the right say that they are against homosexuality but believe in equal access to marriage. So yes I do believe they think their beliefs should be enforced by law until they say otherwise.

I have no idea where that is written? Who said they do?


I see this as a pretty clear statement that they have a problem with equal access to marriage. I have yet to see anyone in the LGBT community say that everyone has to agree with them. The only thing I have heard is that they demand equal rights.

Please share how they are attempting to silence the opposition? They are trying the eliminate the legal barriers against their life. People like you will always be opposed to their lifestyle. I am pretty sure they do not care. They just want equal treatment under the law.

This whole Chik deal started when GLBT began researching and doing the Jesse Jackson move on companies when they found out one or another contributed to this or that. In this case, one of the most successful and tasty enterprises going was found out to be contibuting to some Christian family endeavor.
Holy sheeeyut.......GLBT gotts a problem here. And its apparent they have been looking into who which popular corporation contrutes to which cause and if it isn't GLBT we need a national campaign to put them out of business.
You going to tell me thats right and you support putting people out of business because of their fundamental beliefs?
The logical result is don't patronize their business.....but GLBT wants to put them out of business and seek revenge for their religous position.

 

[Ms Tree]

Try to remember that marriage is a religious institution first and foremost. It has been used (and abused) as a convenience by government.

If the goal is equal rights and survivor benefits, than the approach that the LGBT community should be pursuing is lobbying government for the approach we see in Europe -- a couple gets married in the church, but they get their rights via a civil union performed in front of their equivalent of a justice of the peace.

Just because I borrowed my neighbor's chain-saw once doesn't give me the right to tell him how to use it.

Marriage as an expression of love is a relatively new concept. Marriage back in the day was a matter of money, power and alliances. Women had no say and were considered a commodity. So please spare me the talk about the good old days. As far as government using religions, I think it's the other way around. Religion is seeking protection of their beliefs from the government. With out government protection of religion, all unions would merely be civil contracts. Marriages could be conducted by any religion between anyone or anything they want.


There is no equivalent in the US. Civil unions are quite different in their legal standings. If you want to take marriage out of the legal world, by all means go for it. I don't think you will have much luck.


Marriage is currently a legal contract. You obtain a license from whom? The church? No, the government. To legally marry two people who have to be authorized by who? The church? No, the government. When you get married where do you send the license? The church? No, the government. When you want to dissolve your marriage what do you do? Do you go to your church? No, you go to a lawyer to argue your case in front of a judge or you submit your paperwork to the government if it is amicable. The church here in the US is just like the church in Europe, merely there for decoration.


Us citizens should all be treated the same. The 14[sup]th[/sup] makes that crystal clear. When this case makes it to the SCOTUS I believe it will be settled and the right will be quite disappointed in my opinion.

 

[muff daddy]

Marriage is currently a legal contract. You obtain a license from whom? The church? No, the government. To legally marry two people who have to be authorized by who? The church? No, the government. When you get married where do you send the license? The church? No, the government. When you want to dissolve your marriage what do you do? Do you go to your church? No, you go to a lawyer to argue your case in front of a judge or you submit your paperwork to the government if it is amicable. The church here in the US is just like the church in Europe, merely there for decoration.

No obvious showing of religous bigotry here.

 

[SparrowHawk]

Exactly how is your belief not being respected? You can pray where and when you want so long as it is not on public property. Your belief is still the dominate belief in the country. No one is incarcerated for praying or believing in what ever version of God they choose. Churches are not being burned down in any significant numbers. Christians are not being persecuted or be denied any rights. Christians are not being denied equal standing under the law. So exactly how is your belief not being respected? Given the history of religious based persecution over the past centuries I'm not going to hold my breath for “Christians” to treat others with respect.

Please tell me where to buy my fuel so that I do not contribute to the ME? Please, I'm begging you, tell me where and I'll be happy to buy it from them. I do buy my electric from a company that is 100% renewable so at least that makes a little difference.

You would not know a fact if it came up and bit you on the a$$. You come up with hare brained ideas like buying fuel that is locally drilled as if anyone sell fuel that is “ME Free”. Are you really that much of a simpleton? I am not going to buy products from companies that I know are against my self interests or those of my friends and family. I have, do and will spend more to avoid vendors with whom I disagree. So again, let me know exactly where to by this ME free fuel.

Definitely in the top 10 list of dumb a$$ statements made on this BB.

You disrespect religon on this BB every time you post.

Well you're the Homo Promo on here and anyone who dares to think diferently is lambasted by you. I have a business trip this week and I'm hoping to find a Chick-Fil-A to eat at EVERYDAY!

It's not that I agree wholeheartedly with his statement, it's that I am in total support of his right to say it without Liberal pukes screaming bloody murder like he was advocating genocide or something.

Prohibiting Gay marriage isn't a Constitutional issue as no amendments were violated because there is no such thing as "Gay Rights". Rights are conferred by our Creator. Each of us has the right to our life, our Liberty and our Property. Nothing more, nothing less. States are within their rights to prohibit same sex marriage as it isn't specifically spelled out in the COTUS

 

[Ms Tree]

This whole Chik deal started when GLBT began researching and doing the Jesse Jackson move on companies when they found out one or another contributed to this or that. In this case, one of the most successful and tasty enterprises going was found out to be contibuting to some Christian family endeavor.
Holy sheeeyut.......GLBT gotts a problem here. And its apparent they have been looking into who which popular corporation contrutes to which cause and if it isn't GLBT we need a national campaign to put them out of business.
You going to tell me thats right and you support putting people out of business because of their fundamental beliefs?
The logical result is don't patronize their business.....but GLBT wants to put them out of business and seek revenge for their religous position.

Do I think it's right? Yes. If someone was trying every avenue available to deprive me of equal rights and treat me as a second class citizen I would do everything with in my power to strike back. Given the size of Chick Fil A it is highly unlikely that this will put them out of business. It may affect their bottom line and that in turn might affect how they conduct their public affairs.


But so what. Why should Chick Fil A get special treatment. This is capitalism after all. If Chick Fil A pi$$ off enough people that was a mistake on their part and they will suffer the consequences. They will loose business and go out of business. If people do not care then their bottom line will not be affected and they can go on conducting business any way they see fit.


If there was a company like IBM or Microsoft who was advocating laws limiting the rights of Christians to worship as they please would you be OK with that? Would you merely voice your opinion and walk away or would you actively seek to shut them down so that they could not harm or infringe upon the rights that you hold dear? I am guessing you would be screaming bloody murder.

 

[Ms Tree]

No obvious showing of religous bigotry here.

How exactly is it bigoted? They have no legal say in marriage. They are merely a religious institution that performs a religious ceremony.

 

[muff daddy]

How exactly is it bigoted? They have no legal say in marriage. They are merely a religious institution that performs a religious ceremony.

You were the object of the comment.

 

[muff daddy]

Do I think it's right? Yes. If someone was trying every avenue available to deprive me of equal rights and treat me as a second class citizen I would do everything with in my power to strike back. Given the size of Chick Fil A it is highly unlikely that this will put them out of business. It may affect their bottom line and that in turn might affect how they conduct their public affairs.


But so what. Why should Chick Fil A get special treatment. This is capitalism after all. If Chick Fil A pi$$ off enough people that was a mistake on their part and they will suffer the consequences. They will loose business and go out of business. If people do not care then their bottom line will not be affected and they can go on conducting business any way they see fit.


If there was a company like IBM or Microsoft who was advocating laws limiting the rights of Christians to worship as they please would you be OK with that? Would you merely voice your opinion and walk away or would you actively seek to shut them down so that they could not harm or infringe upon the rights that you hold dear? I am guessing you would be screaming bloody murder.

So the 1st doesn't count with regard to corporations supporting traditional marriage and if they don't instead of acknowleging thier view point and moving on ,we should ruin them.

 

[eolesen]

If there was a company like IBM or Microsoft who was advocating laws limiting the rights of Christians to worship as they please would you be OK with that? Would you merely voice your opinion and walk away or would you actively seek to shut them down so that they could not harm or infringe upon the rights that you hold dear? I am guessing you would be screaming bloody murder.

Problem isn't the right to boycott. It's politicians deciding that they're going to single out a corporation to be banned from doing business in their community, based entirely on the fact that their CEO has used his right to free speech and right to profess his faith and what he believes.

Never mind that the corporation hasn't discriminated against anyone. No laws have been broken.

If companies like JCPenney, AT&T, CNBC, Goldman Sachs, Johnson & Johnson, Gap, and Target can openly support gay rights,

If the Mayor of Boston or an Alderman in Chicago were seeking to ban a business because the owner was a professed athiest, we know which side you'd be on.

If the Mayor of some small Baptist town were to try banning JC Penny, Gap or Target because of their support for the LGBT community, I'm sure you'd be decrying that.

Yet when it's the opposite situation, it's hunky-dory?

Sorry, but that's just a little to hypocritical for me.

 

[Ms Tree]

You disrespect religon on this BB every time you post.

Well you're the Homo Promo on here and anyone who dares to think diferently is lambasted by you. I have a business trip this week and I'm hoping to find a Chick-Fil-A to eat at EVERYDAY!

It's not that I agree wholeheartedly with his statement, it's that I am in total support of his right to say it without Liberal pukes screaming bloody murder like he was advocating genocide or something.

Prohibiting Gay marriage isn't a Constitutional issue as no amendments were violated because there is no such thing as "Gay Rights". Rights are conferred by our Creator. Each of us has the right to our life, our Liberty and our Property. Nothing more, nothing less. States are within their rights to prohibit same sex marriage as it isn't specifically spelled out in the COTUS

Call it what ever you want. I do not need religion in my life and have no interest in my tax dollars supporting it. If that is disrespect then so be it.


Knock your self out. It's a free world.


So you agree with my right to say what I say with out the conservative pukes advocating genocide or something? Would you sit calmly by if someone were advocating limiting your rights as a Christian? You and I both know you would getting out your guns and waging a war. It's a free country so Chick can say what ever they want, the LGBT folks can say what ever they want, so can you and so can I. Seems like the 1[sup]st[/sup] and freedom are working as designed. What's your issue?


Geez, we have to go through this BS again? Even Scalia says your wrong. The 14[sup]th[/sup] is very clear that US laws must treat everyone the same. No, there is no such thing as gay rights, and that is why tyou will not fine one legal argument advocating gay rights. All the legal arguments in front of the courts are for equal rights. States are not allowed to violate the 14[sup]th[/sup] so no they are not allowed to do so and I believe that when the SCOTUS gets a case and rules on it that will be spelled out to you.


All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


I'm not sure how much clearer that can be. Marriage in it's legal form is a contract. The state has no legal interest or basis for depriving a segment of society equal access to the marriage contract.

 

[muff daddy]

Do I think it's right? Yes. If someone was trying every avenue available to deprive me of equal rights and treat me as a second class citizen I would do everything with in my power to strike back. Given the size of Chick Fil A it is highly unlikely that this will put them out of business. It may affect their bottom line and that in turn might affect how they conduct their public affairs.


But so what. Why should Chick Fil A get special treatment. This is capitalism after all. If Chick Fil A pi$$ off enough people that was a mistake on their part and they will suffer the consequences. They will loose business and go out of business. If people do not care then their bottom line will not be affected and they can go on conducting business any way they see fit.


If there was a company like IBM or Microsoft who was advocating laws limiting the rights of Christians to worship as they please would you be OK with that? Would you merely voice your opinion and walk away or would you actively seek to shut them down so that they could not harm or infringe upon the rights that you hold dear? I am guessing you would be screaming bloody murder.

If someone was trying every avenue available to deprive me of equal rights and treat me as a second class citizen I would do everything with in my power to strike back.

And you can prove that Chik-fil-a has done this? How?

How is Chik depriving anyone of their equal rights?
How is Chik getting special treatment?
Supporting traditional marriage is not depriving anyone of their equal rights. Please give examples of how Chik-fil-a has deprived anyone of their equal rights by supporting traditional marriage. Please provide examples.

 

[eolesen]

Again, implement civil unions, and offer marriage the same protections as civil unions, and all the "denial of rights" BS goes away.

But that's not what the activists want. They'd rather re-write the meaning of marriage as it has existed for thousands (yes, thousands) of years.

 

[Ms Tree]

So the 1st doesn't count with regard to corporations supporting traditional marriage and if they don't instead of acknowleging thier view point and moving on ,we should ruin them.

Try and keep up will you. They have the right to speak their mind and suffer the consequences. Do you believe the KKK or Skin heads should be allowed to speak their mind without stiff opposition and with out consequence? And no I am not comparing the KKK to chick Fil A, it's just an example.


If someone was trying to tell me how to run my life and deprive me of the same rights that other enjoy you are damn straight I would be speaking up and trying to shut them down by any legal means at my disposal. LEGAL MEANS. Chick can say what they want but there are repercussions.