Liberals, media attack Chick-fil-A for opposing gay marriage

Prep-for-Dep wrote:

<quoted text>
Keep in posting! Your lack of intelligence only hurts your cause.

Gay And Proud wrote:

<quoted text>You're so funny. Do you perform stand up comedy? Do you get paid?

Prep-for-Dep wrote:

<quoted text>
Nope. But I do get paid for actually working. I don't expect anything from anyone. I don't feel entitled to anything I don't work for.
Btw, I'm free to donate some of that pay to any organization I see fit.

hwyangel wrote:

<quoted text>
What I'm saying is that I believe in childrens rights to be protected from disease and deformity through blood testing and prohibiting marriage to immediate family. The right to know their family history and their medical history. The right to be cared for through grandparents rights or other immediate family should something happen to their parents. The right to inheritance and child support. Unlike adopted children a natural born child does not have these rights established through adoption. And unlike same sex couples, they don't have the ability to establish a will or power of attorney.

Umninimuzi wrote:

<quoted text>The problem with your approach is that it addresses only theory, not reality. While I may agree with you about protecting children in the ways suggested, the fact is that millions of heterosexual families in this country do not meet those criteria -- stepparents, adopted children, foster children are the order of the day -- all are included under the umbrella of 'legal' families -- and I don't hear you and your religious buddies objecting to the current laws. Heterosexual stepparents are perfectly accepted in America -- they may marry their partners (who are often divorced parents)and help raise their partners' biological children. If either parent dies, the law guarantees tax-free inheritance to the other, even when the children are no longer minors and not that parent's biological children. The survivor gets the other partner's Social Security benefits to continue raising the family.

But when it comes to a gay stepparent, then suddenly you object on the grounds that the children won't know their grandparents! What hypocrisy! I am a divorced parent raising my own biological children. They know their biological mother, who relinquished custody because she had issues which prevented her from raising them. They also grew up knowing both sets of grandparents. I was a closeted gay person who went the route you're suggesting -- a heterosexual marriage -- which unfortunately ended in divorce as many heterosexual marriages do! Now I'm a gay parent raising my biological children -- as millions of other gay parents in America do. That's the reality. Millions of us are not contemplating adoption or artificial insemination or anything like that -- we ALREADY have our own children as a result of failed marriages. Yet you say we may not marry someone of the same gender, even if that person will be a very responsible loving parent to our children. And even if we function as a responsible loving family, there is no way that you would agree to our sharing our social security benefits or tax-free inheritance, even if the surviving partner is left raising small children.

As much as you may pretend that you are acting in the children's interest, the fact is that your prejudice is directed against homosexuality as such, and in so doing you are denying millions of existing American children the protection of the law that you would claim for yourself. THAT, my friend, is pure religious bigotry -- it has nothing to do with the ideal of a child having two biological parents.

Umninimuzi wrote:

<quoted text>
The problem with your approach is that it addresses only theory, not reality. While I may agree with you about protecting children in the ways suggested, the fact is that millions of heterosexual families in this country do not meet those criteria -- stepparents, adopted children, foster children are the order of the day -- all are included under the umbrella of 'legal' families -- and I don't hear you and your religious buddies objecting to the current laws. Heterosexual stepparents are perfectly accepted in America -- they may marry their partners (who are often divorced parents)and help raise their partners' biological children. If either parent dies, the law guarantees tax-free inheritance to the other, even when the children are no longer minors and not that parent's biological children. The survivor gets the other partner's Social Security benefits to continue raising the family.
But when it comes to a gay stepparent, then suddenly you object on the grounds that the children won't know their grandparents! What hypocrisy! I am a divorced parent raising my own biological children. They know their biological mother, who relinquished custody because she had issues which prevented her from raising them. They also grew up knowing both sets of grandparents. I was a closeted gay person who went the route you're suggesting -- a heterosexual marriage -- which unfortunately ended in divorce as many heterosexual marriages do! Now I'm a gay parent raising my biological children -- as millions of other gay parents in America do. That's the reality. Millions of us are not contemplating adoption or artificial insemination or anything like that -- we ALREADY have our own children as a result of failed marriages. Yet you say we may not marry someone of the same gender, even if that person will be a very responsible loving parent to our children. And even if we function as a responsible loving family, there is no way that you would agree to our sharing our social security benefits or tax-free inheritance, even if the surviving partner is left raising small children.
As much as you may pretend that you are acting in the children's interest, the fact is that your prejudice is directed against homosexuality as such, and in so doing you are denying millions of existing American children the protection of the law that you would claim for yourself. THAT, my friend, is pure religious bigotry -- it has nothing to do with the ideal of a child having two biological parents.

Judged:

1

1

1

freethinker1957 wrote:

<quoted text>
I am an atheistic. but I must accept that this country has a Christian Majority. the people decide what is important. so there is going to be Christian influence for the liftime of anyone reading this.and they have even tho they may be stories they have stood the test of time for a reason. and should not be discarded likily

Judged:

1

1

1

Prep-for-Dep wrote:

It's ridiculous that minorities can throw their politically correct weight around. Homosexual organizations threatened to boycott Home Depot if it did not contribute to gay and lesbian organizations. Home Depot caved. I don't shop there anymore.
Someone opens a fast food restaurant that greets you immediately upon entry to the store, provides your food within 2 minutes of ordering, actually gets your order right, and provided scholarships for student employees. It's been a Christian company from day one and has always been closed on Sundays. Yet freedom of religion apparently means nothing in this day and age of the majority allowing the minority to set the rules and run the show.

Gay And Proud wrote:

<quoted text>Oh, so you're one of THOSE. Against anything resembling a social safety net, opposed to any form of taxation.

Put your money where your mouth is then and stop taking advantage of things that taxes paid for -- like roads, schools, hospitals (which are partially funded by tax dollars even when they are for-profit private businesses!), police, fire fighters, sewage, public water, electricity (how do you think the electricity gets to your house and business?), television, radio, telephones.

And yes, you are free to donate your money to whatever organizations and causes you choose. But be an adult and accept the consequences of your choices -- if you run a business your customers are free to boycott you if they decide your charitable causes are contrary to their sense of ethics and morals. If you have any honour you will publicly stand up for those causes you give money to and let your neighbors and customers know.

Judged:

1

1

1

Not Yet Equal wrote:

<quoted text>What you seem to be missing is that some religious groups have set the rules and run the show in a way that denies equal treatment under the law to a significant segment of the population without a valid excuse to deny equal rights. Our system of government was intended to require equal rights for everyone, not just for those of a certain religious belief system.

Freedom of religion does not include imposing your religious beliefs on everyone else through the force of law. You are still free to practice your religion within your group, but so should be those with other religious or non religious beliefs when it comes to civil rights. Fundamental rights do not depend on sharing your religious beliefs. And that is the problem with Chick. They are trying to use the law to enforce their beliefs which include denial of equal rights to others.

Prep-for-Dep wrote:

<quoted text>
How has Chick-Filet infringed upon your rights?

Curtis Lowe wrote:

Marriage is a Holy Sacrament. God hates gays. Therefore, gays can never be married in the eyes of God. Eat mor chikin!

FaFoxy wrote:

<quoted text>
Someone remind me WHY we allow Americans to vote.

Umninimuzi wrote:

<quoted text>Excellent question. Let's frame it in terms of past civil rights struggles.

How did those who argued publicly in FAVOR of slavery infringe upon the rights of slaves?

How did those who persuaded their fellow citizens that women did not deserve the vote infringe upon the rights of women?

How did those who insisted on segregation in schools infringe upon the rights of children everywhere?

C'mon -- you think of yourself as a smart person, you can do the reasoning, can't you? Were it not for those (mostly christians) who had to be forced at gunpoint in a bloody Civil War, slaves may have been freed at least 50 years earlier. You gotta look at things in the context of history!

Judged:

1

1

1

No To Tinkerbell Marriage wrote:

The only gay to ever do good for America was the Enola Gay.