Chick-Fil-A under attack over nonsense

grinder wrote:

Those who are pro-family support Cathy and his donations. He is viewed as doing what is right and good for America and conservative, traditional values.

If you want to call irrational hate and legalized discrimination what is "right" and "conservative, traditional values", knock yourself out, but we are going to call them what they really are.

grinder wrote:

The only reason that the pro-homosexual community calls him a bigot is b/c they follow a different moral standard.

No dear, we call him a bigot because he meets the dictionary's definition of that word: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/big...

grinder wrote:

In America we all enjoy the right that states that each of us is allowed to express and follow their own beliefs and moral codes, protected from the attacks of those who disagree.

You should have ended your sentence at the comma, no one enjoys the right to be immune from criticism when it comes to the expression of their choice of "beliefs" and/or "moral codes".

grinder wrote:

You are entitled to your views, but you are not entitled to attack and encourage others to attack anyone simply because they hold a different moral view than you.

I'm not attacking him or his company for their choice of "moral views" but for their funding of hate groups that promote legalized discrimination, but again the Constitution doesn't grant him immunity from criticism for his seriously suspect "moral view".

grinder wrote:

It seems that many in America are feed up with the bullying tactics that come from some extremist in the homosexual community.

Well dear, we are fed up with the bullying tactics of an allegedly "Christian" community that comes across as far from Christ-like as we can possibly imagine.

grinder wrote:

Certainly the Chick-Fil-A appreciation day made that message clear and sent it around the world.

The message it sent is that you wanted to enrich a family of billionaires because you were under the delusion that his ugly version of "Christianity" that was under attack, when the reality is that it was his taxpayer supported financing of irrational hate and legal discrimination. CFA appreciation day was nothing more than a pathetic flock of sheep being fleeced by those who promote division and hatred of those who disagree with them.

grinder wrote:

<quoted text>
I'll take the correction on writing "galaxy" rather than "solar system". I typed out the incorrect space entity name.
The Old Testament is part of God's Word, in fact it teaches that Jesus is the Word. And the New Testament describes how the law brings death, but the Spirit bring life under the new covenant.
Have you seen any accounts of Jesus hating, beating, enslaving and murdering people? If what you state is true, why would Jesus live contrary to the very scriptures he defended with all he said and did? It doesn't fit.(I ask this more rhetorically, given that you conveyed that you have not yet studied out the scriptures.)

Jesus did live contrary to the Mosaic law, and for 2000 years many have lived contrary to Jesus' example. Unless I am somehow debilitated by a horrible brain injury, I'm unlikely to be inclined to "study out the scriptures".

Brian_G wrote:

BTW, there's nothing wrong with homosexuals or homosexuality but that's no argument to redefine marriage.
There is no gender equality right in the Constitution.

I agree that traditional marriage is already defined, and that the gay community is irrational in trying to redefine it as something it's not. You can put 2 boards together with a nail or a lag bolt, but you don't hit a nail with a wrench or screw a bolt with a hammer.

grinder wrote:

<quoted text>
OK here is your accusation - "half of them [fundamentalists] think encyclopedias and textbooks were written by Satan"
This is an example of an opinion of yours that has nothing to substantiate it. Did you mean it literally or as a hyperbole?
You make an assertion that it is wrong to get rich off of tithes. Why? Against what moral standard are you judging the action? What if God wants them rich from tithing? If it is your own moral view, then just say so.
And how about hate? Does God hate anything?
Perhaps you should back off being condescending. It's not a safe approach for you.

Literally. Science texts normally include information on the theory of evolution. Geology texts propose the Earth is far older than 6,000 years. History texts state that civilization is older than 6,000 years. Humanities texts include information on other religions.(Astro)physics texts include the theory of the Big Bang. Encyclopedias include all of that and more. Many, if not most fundamentalists are Creationists that feel that these are lies of Satan.
You are defending the fleecing of the flocks. How telling.
"what if God wants..." "Does God hate..."
There are over 7 billion people living on Earth. Sol is a small sun, yet it contains 99.8% of the mass of the solar system. There are roughly 300 billion stars in our galaxy, and there are roughly 90 billion galaxies in the observable universe, which is estimated to be 13 billion years old. If there is a creator to this vastness, "He" is farther beyond our comprehension than a supercomputer is to an ant. "He" doesn't care whether a preacher drives a 2013 Veyron or an '85 Yugo and "He" doesn't care if Fred and Barney say "I do" to each other. Societies make those judgements, and there are elements within those societies that rationalize a Divine Right of hatred, discrimination and persecution. To be fair, I think that religion also brings out the best in some people, as well. Condescending? Yes, to those who make God a doppelganger of their own image.

Catholic created gay wrote:

<quoted text>
Divorce is clearly wrong in the New Testament but today is commonplace even among Christians and Jews.
Your whole premise is based on the Bible condemning gays and we simply don't believe it does and not just because we don't want it to but because the Bible has been (as many things in it have been) misinterpreted and taken out of context. And, you really don't care what the Bible says as long as it supports your prejudice.

Let's take a look at the scriptures then...

Mark 10
Some Pharisees came and tested him by asking,“Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?”

“What did Moses command you?” he replied.

They said,“Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away.”

“It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law,” Jesus replied.“But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.’‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.”

So we are agreed that God does not approve of divorce. Many religious people choose to get a divorce. So has God changed his mind or have people elected to not submit to his Word. I think the answer is self-evident: divorce has always been considered not what God intended, but people still choose to do it.

The same is true of homosexuality.

Even in the passage above, God made MALE and FEMALE. He already had a male but when a mate was needed, He made a female, not another male. He also stated that a man will leave his father and mother and be united with his wife, not a "partner", not another male, not a suggestion of anything less than the female He created.

We all are familiar with the OT scriptures on this:
Leviticus 18:22
“‘Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.

Leviticus 20:13
“‘If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable.

Then there is the Sodom and Gomorrah where the men of the town wanted to have sex with the male visitors and which Jude later gives an interpretation for...

Jude 1:7
In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.

Paul clearly states homosexuality as wrong in both Romans and Corinthians.

Romans 1
26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

1 Corinthians 6:9
Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders

We have other NT passages that state a leader is the husband of but one wife - again, no room for "or committed relationships" or "the one you naturally love".

So it is your claim that all that I have listed here from the bible is being misinterpreted? That's just not reasonable conclusion. Much of what is listed is stated at face value; it doesn't need any interpretation - it flat out says it is an abomination, an offense, a depravity.

It's understood that this position is opposite of what you want the bible to say, but that does not qualify you to then attack me personally simply because I chose to believe what has been written in scripture is true.

Catholic created gay wrote:

<quoted text>
You can say anything is what God wants because I have yet to hear anyone (anyone sane) say God told me it was what He wanted.

In part that agrees with my point.

The other poster said it was wrong for people to get rich on tithes.

Ok, why? It's a reasonable question. It doesn't support or negate his premise, it just asks for qualification of how he determined it and with what code of right/wrong.

Rick in Kansas wrote:

<quoted text>If you want to call irrational hate and legalized discrimination what is "right" and "conservative, traditional values", knock yourself out, but we are going to call them what they really are.
<quoted text>No dear, we call him a bigot because he meets the dictionary's definition of that word: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/big...
<quoted text>You should have ended your sentence at the comma, no one enjoys the right to be immune from criticism when it comes to the expression of their choice of "beliefs" and/or "moral codes".
<quoted text>I'm not attacking him or his company for their choice of "moral views" but for their funding of hate groups that promote legalized discrimination, but again the Constitution doesn't grant him immunity from criticism for his seriously suspect "moral view". <quoted text>Well dear, we are fed up with the bullying tactics of an allegedly "Christian" community that comes across as far from Christ-like as we can possibly imagine. <quoted text>The message it sent is that you wanted to enrich a family of billionaires because you were under the delusion that his ugly version of "Christianity" that was under attack, when the reality is that it was his taxpayer supported financing of irrational hate and legal discrimination. CFA appreciation day was nothing more than a pathetic flock of sheep being fleeced by those who promote division and hatred of those who disagree with them.

I do support traditional biblical values as what is good and right.

It is only in your world that biblical values are wrong and you justify attacking these people in a pejorative manner.

Seems too, that you meet the definition of a bigot... interesting.

Criticism is tolerable , but when people of a particular group purpose to personally attack and prevent a man from succeeding in his business, that is more than an opinion of dissent. It's wrong to do it. I don't know if you were personally involved or not, so you can comment as to whether it applies to you directly.

grinder wrote:

<quoted text>
I do support traditional biblical values as what is good and right.
It is only in your world that biblical values are wrong and you justify attacking these people in a pejorative manner.
Seems too, that you meet the definition of a bigot... interesting.
Criticism is tolerable , but when people of a particular group purpose to personally attack and prevent a man from succeeding in his business, that is more than an opinion of dissent. It's wrong to do it. I don't know if you were personally involved or not, so you can comment as to whether it applies to you directly.

How do you feel about the MANY, many, many, individuals who have persecuted homosexuals and attacked them physically and emotionally throughout history in the name of Christianity and it's supposed "traditional" values?

X -Man- wrote:

<quoted text>
How do you feel about the MANY, many, many, individuals who have persecuted homosexuals and attacked them physically and emotionally throughout history in the name of Christianity and it's supposed "traditional" values?

Whether it is a religious person attacking a homosexual, as with your example, or a homosexual attacking a religious person, as was the case recently with the Family Research Council worker, I feel that people are not right or justified to attack another person simply because they disagree with their views - moral or otherwise.

Although they do not need to accept their views, no one should rationalize attacking people simply because they hold to different beliefs.

grinder wrote:

<quoted text>
Whether it is a religious person attacking a homosexual, as with your example, or a homosexual attacking a religious person, as was the case recently with the Family Research Council worker, I feel that people are not right or justified to attack another person simply because they disagree with their views - moral or otherwise.
Although they do not need to accept their views, no one should rationalize attacking people simply because they hold to different beliefs.

So you do acknowledge that there are far more attacks on homosexuals by those who call themselves "Christians" than the other way around?

X -Man- wrote:

<quoted text>
So you do acknowledge that there are far more attacks on homosexuals by those who call themselves "Christians" than the other way around?

As there should be! I'm not a Christian, but, I have no problem with anyone attacking flamers or child molesters. Sick pack of puppies!!
They need to get help, but, in the interim they should crawl under the nearest rock.

Rogerg wrote:

<quoted text>
As there should be! I'm not a Christian, but, I have no problem with anyone attacking flamers or child molesters. Sick pack of puppies!!
They need to get help, but, in the interim they should crawl under the nearest rock.

That's because you'er a sick puppy in your own right. Believe it.

I don't care much for child molesters either but homosexuals are not child molesters and we are a civilized society not a giant lynch mob.

I would be much happier to see ignorant folks like you go back to carrying clubs and living in caves where you would be much happier anyway. ;)

X -Man- wrote:

<quoted text>
So you do acknowledge that there are far more attacks on homosexuals by those who call themselves "Christians" than the other way around?

Honestly, I don't know what the numbers are for various attacks on people.

My point was that a difference of beliefs is not justification for an attack on anyone.

grinder wrote:

<quoted text>
Honestly, I don't know what the numbers are for various attacks on people.
My point was that a difference of beliefs is not justification for an attack on anyone.

Maybe I can conjure some up. Your original post was clearly bent on tying the most recent shooting to all Gays and the Gay movement.

My point was, IF this is even a gay person and a case of domestic terrorism. It is a rarity in comparison to attacks on Homosexuals by "Christians" or those supporting their actions with the word of God.

Beatings
Killings
Emotional abuse, persecution

Real gay rights means everyone treated the same, not new special marriage rules to satisfy the sexual predilection of a minority imposed without consent on everyone.

Brian_G wrote:

Real gay rights means everyone treated the same, not new special marriage rules to satisfy the sexual predilection of a minority imposed without consent on everyone.

I agree, equality for all and special treatment to no single group....

Brian_G wrote:

Real gay rights means everyone treated the same, not new special marriage rules to satisfy the sexual predilection of a minority imposed without consent on everyone.

So you believe that if you are a minority member, the majority has the right to tell you and your girlfriend, fiance or wife what you can and cannot do as consenting adults.(I REALLY don't want to know.)
I know at least one state where you can't have sex with your wife unless its in your own home, in others only the missionary position is lawful. Those laws were written from the same religiously moral high ground that many are taking in this issue.

X -Man- wrote:

<quoted text>
That's because you'er a sick puppy in your own right. Believe it.
I don't care much for child molesters either but homosexuals are not child molesters and we are a civilized society not a giant lynch mob.
I would be much happier to see ignorant folks like you go back to carrying clubs and living in caves where you would be much happier anyway. ;)

Pretty insightful, I do carry a club just in case I should run into any freaks that ever mess with any of my children again. That's right, a flamer had his way with one of my kids when he was 12. The good news is he was sent to prison and the really good news is a friend of a friend pushed him off the second tier with a message from me.
Cool, huh?
Now wriggle under your rock.

Rogerg wrote:

<quoted text>
Pretty insightful, I do carry a club just in case I should run into any freaks that ever mess with any of my children again. That's right, a flamer had his way with one of my kids when he was 12. The good news is he was sent to prison and the really good news is a friend of a friend pushed him off the second tier with a message from me.
Cool, huh?
Now wriggle under your rock.

I hate to tell you this, if your story is indeed true, one "freak" does not a proper example of all homosexuals make. Freaks come in all shapes and sizes, ethnicity's, sexual orientations.

So stay in your cave angry man. You have no control here. ;)

Rogerg wrote:

<quoted text>
Pretty insightful, I do carry a club just in case I should run into any freaks that ever mess with any of my children again. That's right, a flamer had his way with one of my kids when he was 12. The good news is he was sent to prison and the really good news is a friend of a friend pushed him off the second tier with a message from me.
Cool, huh?
Now wriggle under your rock.

The age of consent in Mexico is 12. So why did you really move to Mexico?

Hmmmmmm!!!