Flocking to Chick-fil-A

WTH wrote:

It seems that gays and some others believe that a person does not have the right to feel or believe as they do about homosexuality.That this must be accepted by everyone or your a hater.
I think it is weired and it makes my skin crawl.
I have just as much right to find it unacceptable as they find it acceptable.
Are we not allowed our thoughts and feelings any more?

Yeah, you can have those thoughts and feelings. it's when you act on them in a way that abrogates fellow citizens' civil rights, that is when it is not acceptable in this country.(Or any civilized country...)

Nice Guy wrote:

<quoted text>
And again, putting words into the mouth of someone. Traditional family. You're playing games with semantics now.
Ignorance is no excuse for poor arguing. Do some study. Read the article where he was interviewed. If you're too lazy to do the research, then I will gladly post the link to it here.

Traditional family? You mean when the woman was pretty much a slave with no rights? Which tiny slice of the ever changing social construct of family are you talking about? Which couple of decades was 'traditional'?

Nice Guy wrote:

<quoted text>
And again, putting words into the mouth of someone. Traditional family. You're playing games with semantics now.
Ignorance is no excuse for poor arguing. Do some study. Read the article where he was interviewed. If you're too lazy to do the research, then I will gladly post the link to it here.

What is the definition of "traditional family?" Because if you want to get technical, everything that they said was spot on.

woodtick57 wrote:

<quoted text>Traditional family? You mean when the woman was pretty much a slave with no rights? Which tiny slice of the ever changing social construct of family are you talking about? Which couple of decades was 'traditional'?

And again, this all further proves the point of ignorance.

If one reads the article, they recognize the context of the term "traditional family" was defined as a male and a female engaging in marriage together.

Here is the direct quote from the article that the media blew out of proportion. If you notice, there was no mention of homosexuality in it. Nor was there gay bashing. Nor was their bigotry. Nor was there anything that has been mentioned by dimwitted people who cannot use the Google search bar.

" It began as a college scholarship and expanded to a foster care program, an international ministry, and a conference and retreat center modeled after the Billy Graham Training Center at the Cove.

“That morphed into a marriage program in conjunction with national marriage ministries,” Cathy added.

Some have opposed the company’s support of the traditional family. Well, guilty as charged,” said Cathy when asked about the company’s position.

“We are very much supportive of the family – the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that.

“We operate as a family business ... our restaurants are typically led by families; some are single. We want to do anything we possibly can to strengthen families. We are very much committed to that,” Cathy emphasized."

But hey, sometimes research is difficult whenever you have only completed the fifth grade.

woodtick57 wrote:

<quoted text>Traditional family? You mean when the woman was pretty much a slave with no rights? Which tiny slice of the ever changing social construct of family are you talking about? Which couple of decades was 'traditional'?

Are you employed? Where do you find the time to post so many times? It does not matter what the definition of traditional family is. It's about the fact the man simply voiced his opinion and is being attacked for it. His opinion and right to say it should be protected the same as your opinion and your right to say yours. You seem to think that everyone can speak their opinion only if it agrees with yours. You are very closed-minded.

woodtick57 wrote:

<quoted text>Yeah, you can have those thoughts and feelings. it's when you act on them in a way that abrogates fellow citizens' civil rights, that is when it is not acceptable in this country.(Or any civilized country...)

Please explain to me how his personal opinion abrogates anybody's civil rights?

woodtick57 wrote:

<quoted text>Yeah, you can have those thoughts and feelings. it's when you act on them in a way that abrogates fellow citizens' civil rights, that is when it is not acceptable in this country.(Or any civilized country...)

Please explain to me how his personal opinion abrogates anyone's civil rights.

not a hater wrote:

no the problem with them is they did say not only do they stand by their christian values which is fine and dandy but they have said that they do not want to serve anyone of an orientation which is not backed by the christian values meaning a gay/lesbian/bi/transgender nor do they want someone who does not represent those values to work for them...thats one main reason why it stirred up controversy. They can stand for their beliefs by all means by being a christian or whatever religion they please my problem with it is the above which is similar to the civil rights movement when many restaraunts came out(via sign or what have you) saying that a race was not allowed because they believed it to be wrong. Just saying a lot of similarities. I don't have a problem with their christian beliefs nor anyone else's i just think that they should appreciate everyone's beliefs whether its a religious standpoint a matter of politics, sexual orientation, race...whatever. One way or another it'll all go back to the same thing...pregidice in some way for a belief. That's why this stuff is meant to be on hush bc its controversial, but when you boil it down Civil rights(whether its for race or orientation), Politics and Religion will always be controversial..unfortunately in the south Church and state are not seperated like its meant to be that's where things get blurry and well we wont go into it.

They never said what you claim. You are being duped by your liberal media. I suggest that you do a little research before you post again.

woodtick57 wrote:

<quoted text>Yeah, you can have those thoughts and feelings. it's when you act on them in a way that abrogates fellow citizens' civil rights, that is when it is not acceptable in this country.(Or any civilized country...)

When did Chik-fil-A discriminate against anyone?

Here's the problem, nobody on either side will bother to read up on this themselves. After doing my OWN research, I've determined that I don't support Chick-Fil-A because of where their money goes. In 2010, Chick-Fil-A's charitable arm donated at least 5 million dollars to "Christian" organizations, including a certified hate group. These groups, such as Exodus and Family Research Council, run things such as "straight camps", and perpetuate the ideas that gay marriage is the same thing as man - horse marriage, and that gays should be exported from America or killed. If anyone would bother to actually do some research before jumping on the bandwagon, they could make an informed decision on their own. Dan Cathy can say or believe whatever he wants, he has that right. The same way we have a right to not eat there. We're all entitled to our own religious beliefs. I'll defend his statement because I'm a strong believer in equal rights for everyone. If I wasn't willing to respect his opinion, I'd be a hypocrite like everyone else. But when it boils down to it, actions speak louder than words. It's one thing to say you don't AGREE with something, it's another to actively work to oppress an entire group of people just because of who they love. Isn't that ironic? And I can't willingly give my money to any corporation that funds hatred. Even if you don't AGREE with gay marriage, do you want to be supporting that level of prejudice towards people who aren't even affecting you?

I would like to know where that was said so please provide the information where they say the do not want to serve gays.
Seriously gays started this because of a comment in a CHRISTIAN MAGAZINE! What do you think gays would say if they were asked in a gay mag about how they felt about christians? What was the man supposed to lie. Gays have blown this up and made it dramatic like they do with everything ..you all turned nothing into something. But you know you all were trying to make people atop eating there when all you did was get them more business ...so BRAVO. Great tactic! Now why don't you all have a "kiss day " because that will just make more people go eat there because they will want to see how idiotic you all are being. Do you think kissing is going to make people change their minds about you ...no ..you know it wont..you are just looking for revenge because christians stuck together for once. But remember none of that would have happened if you all didn't have to make such a big deal about a comment in a christian mag. But back to what I said earlier I would like to know when and where it was said that he doesn't want their business

not a hater wrote:

no the problem with them is they did say not only do they stand by their christian values which is fine and dandy but they have said that they do not want to serve anyone of an orientation which is not backed by the christian values meaning a gay/lesbian/bi/transgender nor do they want someone who does not represent those values to work for them...thats one main reason why it stirred up controversy. They can stand for their beliefs by all means by being a christian or whatever religion they please my problem with it is the above which is similar to the civil rights movement when many restaraunts came out(via sign or what have you) saying that a race was not allowed because they believed it to be wrong. Just saying a lot of similarities. I don't have a problem with their christian beliefs nor anyone else's i just think that they should appreciate everyone's beliefs whether its a religious standpoint a matter of politics, sexual orientation, race...whatever. One way or another it'll all go back to the same thing...pregidice in some way for a belief. That's why this stuff is meant to be on hush bc its controversial, but when you boil it down Civil rights(whether its for race or orientation), Politics and Religion will always be controversial..unfortunately in the south Church and state are not seperated like its meant to be that's where things get blurry and well we wont go into it.

JelloLove wrote:

I would like to know where that was said so please provide the information where they say the do not want to serve gays.
Seriously gays started this because of a comment in a CHRISTIAN MAGAZINE! What do you think gays would say if they were asked in a gay mag about how they felt about christians? What was the man supposed to lie. Gays have blown this up and made it dramatic like they do with everything ..you all turned nothing into something. But you know you all were trying to make people atop eating there when all you did was get them more business ...so BRAVO. Great tactic! Now why don't you all have a "kiss day " because that will just make more people go eat there because they will want to see how idiotic you all are being. Do you think kissing is going to make people change their minds about you ...no ..you know it wont..you are just looking for revenge because christians stuck together for once. But remember none of that would have happened if you all didn't have to make such a big deal about a comment in a christian mag. But back to what I said earlier I would like to know when and where it was said that he doesn't want their business
<quoted text>

I think it's more than the comment. It was the comment that got people to look deeper into the issue, discovering that Chik-fil-a gives money to organizations that actually DO act on their opinions. I am a Christian, but I can't give business to a company that gives money to organizations like that. I don't agree with homosexuality, but I don't believe in not allowing perfectly capable parents to adopt children because they're gay or persuading parents to send their gay children in for what amounts to brain washing, either.

holy evil buybull toting church sheeple crave the taste of homohatred...

may they all choke on that fried cock!!!

http://aliciabanks.xanga.com/732742147/savage...

http://aliciabanks.xanga.com/732464265/same-s...

McGruff wrote:

<quoted text>
when the mayors said they were not welcome in their cities. That's when.

Bingo!

ALICIA BANKS wrote:

holy evil buybull toting church sheeple crave the taste of homohatred...
may they all choke on that fried cock!!!
http://aliciabanks.xanga.com/732742147/savage...
http://aliciabanks.xanga.com/732464265/same-s...

We bible toting male church belivers do not care for that fried, or otherwise. Those that do are wishing to stay away from "it" through faith in Christ. It was a matter of free speach, which is allowed on both sides. When members of city government exclude a business based on a statement that is a personal belief of the CEO, they are being non-inclusive. If the KKK wants to open a dry cleaning store offering the whitest whites, do not patronize their business. They will go out of business due to lack of business. What seem's to irritate is the groundswell support of a business that is being , in my opinion, discriminated against by a vocal smaller group. So spew your vile? Many, while not overtly against you will not submit to being "bullied" by supposed hatefull words.

Equality wrote:

Here's the problem, nobody on either side will bother to read up on this themselves. After doing my OWN research, I've determined that I don't support Chick-Fil-A because of where their money goes. In 2010, Chick-Fil-A's charitable arm donated at least 5 million dollars to "Christian" organizations, including a certified hate group. These groups, such as Exodus and Family Research Council, run things such as "straight camps", and perpetuate the ideas that gay marriage is the same thing as man - horse marriage, and that gays should be exported from America or killed. If anyone would bother to actually do some research before jumping on the bandwagon, they could make an informed decision on their own. Dan Cathy can say or believe whatever he wants, he has that right. The same way we have a right to not eat there. We're all entitled to our own religious beliefs. I'll defend his statement because I'm a strong believer in equal rights for everyone. If I wasn't willing to respect his opinion, I'd be a hypocrite like everyone else. But when it boils down to it, actions speak louder than words. It's one thing to say you don't AGREE with something, it's another to actively work to oppress an entire group of people just because of who they love. Isn't that ironic? And I can't willingly give my money to any corporation that funds hatred. Even if you don't AGREE with gay marriage, do you want to be supporting that level of prejudice towards people who aren't even affecting you?

Horse marriage, horse poop. Hopefully people will not take your word, and dig deep enough to find truth on their own, even if it might not agree with you.

not a hater wrote:

Chic Fil A just needs to take their message of hate somewhere else i think its a media stunt but why attack people who don't bother you?!?! I get that not everyone supports gay but that doesn't mean you have to line up at a restaraunt claiming "i love chic fil a cuz you hate the "F*gs" its not something constructive like go to a restaraunt to support our troops or to try and cure world hunger or something. This restaraunt makes me sick with their comments!!

I don't agree with what was said by the man. I also don't agree with the elected officials that wanted to use the government to inhibit free business through codes, etc. It's a matter of free speach. That's not hard to understand if you believe in the constitution.

yea

doh

ALICIA BANKS wrote:

holy evil buybull toting church sheeple crave the taste of homohatred...
may they all choke on that fried cock!!!
http://aliciabanks.xanga.com/732742147/savage...
http://aliciabanks.xanga.com/732464265/same-s...

Sounds like you hate religious people for their views. How is this different from what you call "homo hatred"? You're allowed to hate but no one else is, that is unless they hate the same thing you hate. Maybe it's time for some self evaluating.