Chick-fil-a Ceo steps back after making comment opposing gay marriage in Atlanta

ChromiuMan wrote:

<quoted text>
I like chrome because it has that "see yourself" shine.
First, you should know to capitalize "the Bible". Offer it at least the same respect as "Christian", on paper even if not by practice. I wouldn't want people to think you look ignorant or stupid.
You cite Matt 5:17. Curiously, not 5:18 and 19. Why not? Because you commit that which you accuse others of. You select verses that support your bias and "you will also take out of context those verses that condemn your acts."
“Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you."
People should think about that before they smite others with the Bible.
"You have no idea what the scriptures say nor do you actually care because to do so would make you hang your head in shame..."
Well said. You should use that phrase often.

The only one ignorant is you. There is no need to capitalize "bible" unless you begin the sentence with it. Grow up. The rest of your rant is simply an unintelligent moron too stupid to read the scriptures taking things out of context. The reason is because you know it condemns your pathetic lifestyle. You are on equal footing with human garbage.

How I See It wrote:

<quoted text>
The only one ignorant is you. There is no need to capitalize "bible" unless you begin the sentence with it. Grow up. The rest of your rant is simply an unintelligent moron too stupid to read the scriptures taking things out of context. The reason is because you know it condemns your pathetic lifestyle. You are on equal footing with human garbage.

So this is your other cheek? At least you are consistent - it looks just like the first one. I wonder just what you presume to be a champion of?

I challenged your misconceptions and tactics. Now you condemn me as ignorant, stupid, uneducated, a moron, pathetic and human garbage, which sounds much more like ravings and rantings than anything I'd write and bolsters my assertions of your misconceptions and tactics. Might I recommend you re-read Matt 5:22?

The Bible is capitalized because it is a proper name, just as you would capitalize the "White House" or "Gone With the Wind."
If you call it "the book", or "the good book" it is not.

You know nothing at all of my "pathetic lifestyle", except what I've already stated - that I am not gay and that I am married, which is already more than you need to know.

Justfacts99 wrote:

<quoted text>
It's very interesting that you say that "Americans don't like people being told what to think" because especially here in the South, that is exactly what I feel about some so called Christians.
Is it included in your Bible that you must meddle in everyone else's life and tell them your view of what is right?

I can only speak as a Catholic. We follow the bible, and equally tradition. Started when Peter was told by Jesus that he was the rock upon which he would build his church. Apostolic tradition is unbroken from Peter, the first bishop of Rome. We follow the churches teachings across the centuries, hence tradition.

We all have the right to speak out...is that only your right?

Here in this case govt. officials in Boston and San Francisco attempted to use govt. power, making veiled threats of withholding a business license, to intimidate a legitimate business because of what he thought, not did, but thought. That came from 2 Democrat mayors...indeed all Americans regardless of party should be alarmed at that. Guess for you that intimidation was fine?

Ken wrote:

<quoted text>
I can only speak as a Catholic. We follow the bible, and equally tradition. Started when Peter was told by Jesus that he was the rock upon which he would build his church. Apostolic tradition is unbroken from Peter, the first bishop of Rome. We follow the churches teachings across the centuries, hence tradition.
We all have the right to speak out...is that only your right?
Here in this case govt. officials in Boston and San Francisco attempted to use govt. power, making veiled threats of withholding a business license, to intimidate a legitimate business because of what he thought, not did, but thought. That came from 2 Democrat mayors...indeed all Americans regardless of party should be alarmed at that. Guess for you that intimidation was fine?

The mayors are wrong to try to block a business for what the owner thinks. That violates a core principle of our country.
Bear in mind that as a Southern Baptist, Dan Cathy may well not even recognize that you are a Christian, and that your traditions are heretical.
At issue is not freedom of speech, religion or fair treatment by government, it is hypocrisy and bigotry.

ChromiuMan wrote:

<quoted text>
The mayors are wrong to try to block a business for what the owner thinks. That violates a core principle of our country.
Bear in mind that as a Southern Baptist, Dan Cathy may well not even recognize that you are a Christian, and that your traditions are heretical.
At issue is not freedom of speech, religion or fair treatment by government, it is hypocrisy and bigotry.

I agree totally. It is no coincidence that these "mayors" who would undermine our constitutions first amendment are democrats. The same party that leaves it's responsibility to govern when they know they can't stop the will of the electorate by giving the majority to the republicans. Like when the democrats left in Wisconsin and in DC to prevent action the republicans were bringing to the floor. The country is paying attention. They see the hate the democrats are trying to sell. The divide they are working to create between us citizens. They will pay a heavy price for it in just a few short months. Even worse then 2010's, and the republicans better be paying attention and getting the message or they will suffer as well.

Ken wrote:

<quoted text>
Here in this case govt. officials in Boston and San Francisco attempted to use govt. power, making veiled threats of withholding a business license, to intimidate a legitimate business because of what he thought, not did, but thought. That came from 2 Democrat mayors...indeed all Americans regardless of party should be alarmed at that. Guess for you that intimidation was fine?

If those thinly veiled threats are carried out CFA sues and wins.

The main difference to me here is if the Mayors are not supported by thier constituents they are gone, but no one in the public can vote out Dan Cathy. The non-faithful in the South are yet embarressed again by our back woods non-progressive behavior.

ChromiuMan wrote:

<quoted text>
The mayors are wrong to try to block a business for what the owner thinks. That violates a core principle of our country.
Bear in mind that as a Southern Baptist, Dan Cathy may well not even recognize that you are a Christian, and that your traditions are heretical.
At issue is not freedom of speech, religion or fair treatment by government, it is hypocrisy and bigotry.

I am not really familiar with all of Baptist dogma and teachings, not that I doubt what you are saying.

I will differ in part with you....to me this was about free speech and, incredibly, freedom of thought! That really bothered me.

I can't speak for Dan Cathy's heart, and some of what he said was in my opinion, a bit too dramatic.
But I won't tell anyone what to do with their money.

Americans can choose not to eat there if they feel that strongly. But I'm sure everyday companies make donations to causes we don't support,or do support.

Justfacts99 wrote:

<quoted text>
If those thinly veiled threats are carried out CFA sues and wins.
The main difference to me here is if the Mayors are not supported by thier constituents they are gone, but no one in the public can vote out Dan Cathy. The non-faithful in the South are yet embarressed again by our back woods non-progressive behavior.

Well Boston and Chicago are Democrat cities. A Democrat getting elected there is about as hard as trying to hit the side of a barn from 1 ft away with a beach ball!

The public can choose not to go to that restaurant.

Each person has the right to speak their mind....we defend unpleasant speech. Banning it would defeat the whole purpose of our cherished freedoms.

Ken wrote:

<quoted text>
Well Boston and Chicago are Democrat cities. A Democrat getting elected there is about as hard as trying to hit the side of a barn from 1 ft away with a beach ball!
The public can choose not to go to that restaurant.
Each person has the right to speak their mind....we defend unpleasant speech. Banning it would defeat the whole purpose of our cherished freedoms.

Right, our cherished freedoms. Such as getting married to whoever we desire to get married to

FloridaGirlx wrote:

<quoted text>
Right, our cherished freedoms. Such as getting married to whoever we desire to get married to

While I might like to debate music with you, you view on marriage is spot on.

That's coming from a conservative who believes government should stay out of marriage. So should the religious right.

FloridaGirlx wrote:

<quoted text>
Right, our cherished freedoms. Such as getting married to whoever we desire to get married to

Marriage is not a civil right.

31 states have voted it down...Constitution states whatever is not assigned to the federal govt is decided by states.

The issue is determined by civil society, a case is presented for both sides, and the people decide.

BoDog82 wrote:

<quoted text>
Your just being rediculuos.
But okay!
KJV, Scofield study bible.
The KJV has been the same for four hundred years, so it doesn't matter what year. Yes there have been a some grammatical changes but the text has stayed the same. Now quit being silly and go to bed jr.
The KJV bible was translated from the Masoretic text for the old testament and the Textus receptus for the new.
You do your own research now.

"It first appeared in 1909 and was revised in 1917." This book is not hundreds of years old.Thank-you for the information I appreciate your time.

Obskeptic wrote:

<quoted text>
I agree totally. It is no coincidence that these "mayors" who would undermine our constitutions first amendment are democrats. The same party that leaves it's responsibility to govern when they know they can't stop the will of the electorate by giving the majority to the republicans. Like when the democrats left in Wisconsin and in DC to prevent action the republicans were bringing to the floor. The country is paying attention. They see the hate the democrats are trying to sell. The divide they are working to create between us citizens. They will pay a heavy price for it in just a few short months. Even worse then 2010's, and the republicans better be paying attention and getting the message or they will suffer as well.

Partisanship is irrational and bigoted. There are good and bad politicians in both parties, but they are the ones who understand that what is good for the country is not decreed by a party headquarters. Partisans would like to see their opponents crushed, but the silencing of either party is the first step toward authoritarian rule. "A house divided against itself cannot stand." When cooperation between parties is damned as compromise, and compromise is damned as defeat, there are no winners. The ideologies of the Democrats and Republicans are not as pronounced as the vote counts indicate - it is the posturing and gaming that obliterate the common ground and the common good - and both parties are guilty. We should never abdicate our will to an elephant or a donkey and a representative should never betray his constituents, whether they are his supporters or not, simply to gain advantage for his faction.
Maybe the mayors ignored the principles of their office by thinking that they were upholding principles of human rights, or maybe they were just party posturing. Either way, they be wrong.

Ken wrote:

<quoted text>
I am not really familiar with all of Baptist dogma and teachings, not that I doubt what you are saying.
I will differ in part with you....to me this was about free speech and, incredibly, freedom of thought! That really bothered me.
I can't speak for Dan Cathy's heart, and some of what he said was in my opinion, a bit too dramatic.
But I won't tell anyone what to do with their money.
Americans can choose not to eat there if they feel that strongly. But I'm sure everyday companies make donations to causes we don't support,or do support.

I don't think that the wrath of God is coming because a couple gays in Atlanta or Boise want to get "married". There are plenty of and lots more other transgressions/catastrophes to worry about first.
This whole issue is really a waste of time. We've got debt, crop failure, job losses, ineffective government.... My dog in this hunt has always been HOW politicians are purchased and for what purpose. We have enough knuckle-headed yes men in office, already.

Ken wrote:

Marriage is not a civil right.

The United States Supreme Court disagrees. You may be shocked to discover that THEY are the authority, not you.

From Chief Justice Earl Warren's opinion when they struck down interracial marriage laws in Loving v. Virginia 1967:

"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men ...

To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."

Now go read a book and maybe you won't make such an ass of yourself next time.

Frisbee wrote:

<quoted text>The United States Supreme Court disagrees. You may be shocked to discover that THEY are the authority, not you.
From Chief Justice Earl Warren's opinion when they struck down interracial marriage laws in Loving v. Virginia 1967:
"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men ...
To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."
Now go read a book and maybe you won't make such an ass of yourself next time.

Well I know your side is already very ass oriented....You may want to think before you insult.

DOMA is still the law of the land. A race based decision has not automatically translated to a sexual orientation issue. In 1967 I am sure the justice was not thinking of gay marriage. The decision, you mat be shicked to discover, does not address you issue.

And in addition, not matter what the decision, my personal belief will not be affected.

Ken wrote:

The decision, you mat be shicked to discover, does not address you issue.

The decision that marriage is a civil right does not address the issue that you claim marriage isn't a civil right? Stick with that.

btw, what does 'mat be shicked' mean? Actually, never mind. You've got other things to worry about.

How I See It wrote:

. The rest of your rant is simply an unintelligent moron too stupid to read the scriptures taking things out of context. The reason is because you know it condemns your pathetic lifestyle. You are on equal footing with human garbage.

Such a Christlike thing to say.
Your imaginary friend will be displeased.

Frisbee wrote:

<quoted text>
The decision that marriage is a civil right does not address the issue that you claim marriage isn't a civil right? Stick with that.
btw, what does 'mat be shicked' mean? Actually, never mind. You've got other things to worry about.

Typo...ever seen/made one?

Race and sexual orientation are not the same.

At least Republican mayors did not attempt to intimidate a legitimate, successful business because of something a CEO thought.

The gay lobby is quickly becoming a new tyranny on free speech....and even free thought.

You've been silent on that transgression of liberty?

You've plenty to worry about.

Ken wrote:

<quoted text>
I am not really familiar with all of Baptist dogma and teachings, not that I doubt what you are saying.
I will differ in part with you....to me this was about free speech and, incredibly, freedom of thought! That really bothered me.
I can't speak for Dan Cathy's heart, and some of what he said was in my opinion, a bit too dramatic.
But I won't tell anyone what to do with their money.
Americans can choose not to eat there if they feel that strongly. But I'm sure everyday companies make donations to causes we don't support,or do support.

To a degree the issue is about freedom of speech and thought. Thre are those on either side who have no problem trying to shout down the other. Whether you support social liberties or religious conservatism is up to the individual, but each side is trying to convince the other what to do and how to think.

As a citizen and a voter, you tell people what they can do with their money all the time. A felon cannot buy a gun, even if he has cash. You have to pay taxes on your income, and you probably insist that others do the same. Loansharking is against the law, and you can't buy sexual favors... the numbers of laws you support that tell people what they can and cannot do with money is endless. I expect religious and political organizations to adhere to the standards we have set as a society, and to recognize that loopholes and trickery is fundamentally a violation of the public trust.