I havent seen an instance in the bible oppressing gays, and even if there is, its a book. ...thats so reason to freak out and follow every word of the bible..., and it might not even be real!
Are you sure you're [still?] a Christian?
Christianity has a few very specific goals. I don't care what denomination you are a part of, what doctrines you hold to, or how accurate you believe the bible to be, Christianity and LGBTQ do not mix.
There are enough passages, and many of the passages are detailed enough to make it difficult to believe that all were mistranslated. The Bible is very clear on its stance that sexuality is a choice, and not a biological issue.
Taken as a whole, the Bible does not codone oppression against non-Christian or non-Jewish LGBTQ individuals. The laws and rules are to be applied internally, and must be upheld by all believers.
However, the Bible is clear that LGBTQ is confusion, and does not fit in with the portrait of a perfect human being. It is not like a favorite color choice, which can vary, hetrosexuality is a requirement.
Here's my take on the sign, To me 'family values' declares marriage between man and woman with kids.
While I believe family values and Christian values are different, they can follow similar paths at times. I know atheist families that don't support gay marriage.
Because of the owner being Christian and the sign is support of him...I can understand the confusion.
Side note: I think this whole thing got blown way of out control...everyone has a right to their opinion.
The problem is not so much their right to their "opinion". As much one may disagree with it, they are free to believe what they want.
The problem has been coming in whether or not this affects their hiring policies and whether or not they've been donating to certain groups that might otherwise be considered as "hate groups". This has been a common charge against Chick-fil-a for a long time. That goes beyond merely having an opinion and "moral" choice, and affecting action that might be harming other people.
I'm not sure what can be done about that though. I mean even one calls for a boycott of Chick-fil-a, how effective would it be? Much of the chain has profitable activities across the South, and I know of three pretty close to where I am. Can't see it working, so on the flipside this call to "support" Chick-fil-a (didn't Santorum and Huckabee jump on that too?) is rather amusing. I mean every day I drive by one around lunch and it's always packed, compared to the poor Whataburger which is not so much. I don't think any of this is hurting them economically.
Last edited by Commissar MercZ; July 29th, 2012 at 11:55 AM.
Well, you've got another group that is voting for their decision with their wallets, offsetting any lost customers.
I would be doubtful if this has affected the business at all.
The thing is though I don't think there has been necessarily any sign of damage to Chick-fil-a that necessitates a big sign of support- this isn't the first time the accusation has been leveled against Chick-fil-a, it's only the first time Chick-fil-a management has said "well yeah we're against gay marriage". It's not like their stock prices suddenly collapsed and their franchises shuttered from this "pressure" from the all powerful "gay agenda".
The idea that Chick-fil-a is being "bullied" and hurt because of this baffles me though. Who is really being "bullied" here right now- the people Chick-fil-a is potentially discriminating against in hiring, or the criticisms leveled against it on the internet?
Then again there's always this talk about the "gay agenda" that presumably has so much power, so I guess it fits into that political stuff right now, hence Santorum and Huckabee, among others, getting behind this. Of course also to get some political relevance again.
Last edited by Commissar MercZ; July 29th, 2012 at 12:24 PM.
That's just stupid for a restaurant to take part in politics. Bad marketing, likely their brand suffers a bit but yeah, not likely that it's significant anyway.
But no reason to make a fuss either. The thing with same-sex marriage is that the best argument for it is that it's a social construction. But also the best argument against it is the same. I do support same sex-marriage, but I don't support polygamy. That could also be rationally supported, saying that they are consenting adults and who are we to judge.
So essentially their opinion against it is as valid too. It only turns into a problem if married people have some benefits which a gay couple doesn't. Like tax benefits, apartment benefits, things dependant on legislation and whatever there could be. Notice that these things relate to public law and the government, which makes it a secular political issue, not a religious one. So then it becomes discrimination because of those things and thus supporting same-sex marriage is a good thing.
Last edited by Rikupsoni; July 29th, 2012 at 01:07 PM.
So how do family values differ from Christian values
Here an example: two families,one with family values one with Christian values.
Family values: Father, mother and son pull up to a store in a car, as they get a out a stranger pushes the son. This make the father mad. The father then pushes the stranger and says if he does that again he will kill the stranger.
This is strong family values to protect the family
Christian values: Father, mother and son pull up to a store in a car, as they get a out a stranger pushes the son. Father comes around., "Sir, he did nothing to you to deserve you pushing him around. If you continue, I'll be forced to call the police"
The right wing will buy what? Three or four chicken sandwiches a piece? But if they don't like chicken sandwiches they're not going to go in there every day for years. It's something you have to make an effort to do. Whereas boycotting a place is virtually no effort at all - and in any case the cause will be felt by those its harmed for longer.
As long as they made tasty chicken, right and left would have shopped there. It may well be the case that the conservatives who shop there in the short term will offset the costs of gays and their supporters boycotting them. But someone's liable to have a much longer memory for the harm you do them than they are for some minor help you do some abstract cause they barely see. Harm is always something personal.
Companies taking a political position like this is incredibly stupid.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Warborg
Side note: I think this whole thing got blown way of out control...everyone has a right to their opinion.
Sure, and my opinion is people who hold the view that gays shouldn't be able to get married are arseholes. Just because you've a right to it doesn't mean I have to like it.
Why am I always getting the impression that people who hate religion are more outraged by these types of things than the people who are actually effected by them?
Words
Words
That
That
Kill
Kill
Disclaimer: Personal Opinions ARE endorsed by Filetrekker.
I'd imagine people who get continually shafted (no pun intended) have to get somewhat numb to it, otherwise the psychological costs would probably be quite large.
Or maybe you're just projecting.
Or maybe the reasons for hatred are the same as the reasons for dislike of the mistreatment, and so the two stack.
This site is part of the Defy Media Gaming network
The best serving of video game culture, since 2001. Whether you're looking for news, reviews, walkthroughs, or the biggest collection of PC gaming files on the planet, Game Front has you covered. We also make no illusions about gaming: it's supposed to be fun. Browse gaming galleries, humor lists, and honest, short-form reporting. Game on!
The Pub 
9Likes
Re: This made me quite angry 
Linear Mode
