Chick Fil a - thank you

[rolling7]

If an organization is against people expressing their religious beliefs, that is hate. If an organization is trying to force people to suppress their religious beliefs, that is censorship and oppression. It also violates the Constitution.

Being anti-gay marriage is not even close to being the same thing as anti-gay.

 

[Foxrac]

Being anti-gay marriage is not even close to being the same thing as anti-gay.

No, anti-gay organizations against anything that related to homosexuality, not just same sex marriage.

 

[Foxrac]

If an organization is against people expressing their religious beliefs, that is hate. If an organization is trying to force people to suppress their religious beliefs, that is censorship and oppression. It also violates the Constitution.

No, the constitution only protect you from government, not private organizations.

You shouldn't put your religious belief in our throat and your religious has no business with government. Keep everything about religious to yourself. It is just like people can't eat shellfish because of religious reason and they can't pass on other people.

You oppose gay marriage because of religious belief? That's okay and I'm going fighting as possible, and you will lose, no doubt.

 

[rolling7]

No, anti-gay organizations against anything that related to homosexuality, not just same sex marriage.

You are correct, however against an action is not even close to being against a person.

 

[Foxrac]

You are correct, however against an action is not even close to being against a person.

That's correct, that why SPLC is more generalized but FBI is restricted to against a person.

It means hate group has to beat gay person up on street to get FBI to slap with it.

 

[MarkFromNJ]

I am going to end this once and for all. This is a hypothetical so don't get mad. Imagine I said I was against blind or deaf people getting married. Now imagine I was in a large group that stated the same thing. Anyone and everyone would say it is a hate group. Even if the group made a bunch of excuses it would still be considered a hate group. Those anti gay marriage groups are the same thing. The only and I mean only valid argument against same sex marriage is it is against the bible. However there are more then just 1 valid reason why same sex marriage should be legalized. Not to mention seeing as there is suppose to be a separation of church and state there is really no valid argument against same sex marriage. So by all means please anyone try to explain to me how a group that gets there rocks off on ruining the futures of other is not considered a hate group.

 

[whatdidyousay!]

hear news Good story! I hate politic debate topic around

If you hate politic debate topic do not read them , I happen love them and miss not having them here anymore.

 

[Steinhauer]

I am going to end this once and for all. This is a hypothetical so don't get mad. Imagine I said I was against blind or deaf people getting married. Now imagine I was in a large group that stated the same thing. Anyone and everyone would say it is a hate group. Even if the group made a bunch of excuses it would still be considered a hate group. Those anti gay marriage groups are the same thing. The only and I mean only valid argument against same sex marriage is it is against the bible. However there are more then just 1 valid reason why same sex marriage should be legalized. Not to mention seeing as there is suppose to be a separation of church and state there is really no valid argument against same sex marriage. So by all means please anyone try to explain to me how a group that gets there rocks off on ruining the futures of other is not considered a hate group.

Would that include groups trying to suppress other's rights to freedom of religious expression, and free speech?

 

[Jiro]

Mine does too. I have no doubt they will continue to grow and will soon be the largest chicken serving restaurant, by-passing KFC, POPEYE'S and all others.

that's probably because people are elated to see a corporation publicly stated its view.

 

[Jiro]

Would that include groups trying to suppress other's rights to freedom of religious expression, and free speech?

you are confused.

any group is free to express whatever the views they have even if they're racist and bigot but they are not free to exercise their free speech if it promotes/condones/supports hate/violence/discrimination.

so bottom line - if there is a group of people with a view that is not 100% inclusive in terms of civil rights, then it's a hate group

 

[Jiro]

If an organization is against people expressing their religious beliefs, that is hate.

correct.

If an organization is trying to force people to suppress their religious beliefs, that is censorship and oppression.

incorrect.

"censorship" and "oppression" are typically the term to be used to describe government. So exactly how does an organization censor or oppress people?

It also violates the Constitution.

incorrect.

It is against the Constitution - to be specific - Amendment One for government to censor people from exercising their free speech and criticism. It does not apply to an organization with a censorship policy.

 

[Jiro]

Being anti-gay marriage is not even close to being the same thing as anti-gay.

actually it is. it's closely interrelated with each other.

 

[MarkFromNJ]

Would that include groups trying to suppress other's rights to freedom of religious expression, and free speech?

Yes but if you are trying to claim the homosexual group under that notion I need to fill you in on 1 important detail. The groups that have tried to make same sex marriage illegal have had no problem lying to make sure same sex marriage is not legalized in all states Same with most hate groups. Which would normally be simply considered as freedom of speech....but it is also illegal what they are doing and here is how. Defamation of character is defined as follows: Any intentional false communication, either written or spoken, that harms a person's reputation; decreases the respect, regard, or confidence in which a person is held; or induces disparaging, hostile, or disagreeable opinions or feelings against a person.

Now stating what they have on many occasions this would make those hate groups not only a headache for a lot of folks but also criminals who are breaking the law. You might wonder in what way are they breaking the law? By stating homosexuality is a choice when the board of health, pediactrics of america and the board of mental health have stated it is not a choice. Is a blatant lie on part of the hate groups. Also those hate groups state that homosexuality is a mental disorder but the once again the board of health pediactrics of american and board of mental health have all concluded that it should not be treated and is not a mental disorder.

Those hate groups use those arguments to make it illegal which id obviously defamation of character. I have never in my life seen a group trying to oppose a man marrying a woman. Except in the 1960s when there was heavy race issues.

 

[Steinhauer]

Yes but if you are trying to claim the homosexual group under that notion I need to fill you in on 1 important detail. The groups that have tried to make same sex marriage illegal have had no problem lying to make sure same sex marriage is not legalized in all states Same with most hate groups. Which would normally be simply considered as freedom of speech....but it is also illegal what they are doing and here is how. Defamation of character is defined as follows: Any intentional false communication, either written or spoken, that harms a person's reputation; decreases the respect, regard, or confidence in which a person is held; or induces disparaging, hostile, or disagreeable opinions or feelings against a person.

Now stating what they have on many occasions this would make those hate groups not only a headache for a lot of folks but also criminals who are breaking the law. You might wonder in what way are they breaking the law? By stating homosexuality is a choice when the board of health, pediactrics of america and the board of mental health have stated it is not a choice. Is a blatant lie on part of the hate groups. Also those hate groups state that homosexuality is a mental disorder but the once again the board of health pediactrics of american and board of mental health have all concluded that it should not be treated and is not a mental disorder.

Those hate groups use those arguments to make it illegal which id obviously defamation of character. I have never in my life seen a group trying to oppose a man marrying a woman. Except in the 1960s when there was heavy race issues.

When was the term "marriage" introduced into our collective vocabulary, and by which "organization". Was it secular or religious? What was the definition of "marriage" since 3,000 BC?

http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2000/10/26/204128.htm?site=science/greatmomentsinscience

If it is logical to claim that marriage is already regulated (which it is), and those, whom are claiming it should not be regulated - in addition, attempting to introduce a "new" definition for marriage, are stating that religious adherents are hateful when they do not agree with them ....

This argument equates to it being hateful for "marriage" (per the "new" definition vs. the sane definition) to be denied to anyone whom wishes for it. This includes marrying your dog, your sister, your dad, ad infinitum ... to oppose this is hateful.

 

[Jiro]

When was the term "marriage" introduced into our collective vocabulary, and by which "organization". Was it secular or religious? What was the definition of "marriage" since 3,000 BC?

Math of Marriage › Dr Karl's Great Moments In Science (ABC Science)

It is apparent that you are in support of the religious interpretation of "marriage" and that's fine with me. However it becomes a problem for me when you support gay marriage ban as the law of this country on the basis of your religious belief. You are in fact supporting the oppression of gay people - a violation of gay people's civil rights. This country and the Constitution applies to ALL people regardless of sex, age, race, and sexual orientation.

I disagree with your support of religious interpretation of marriage as the law of this country and you are forcing your religious belief into me.

 

[Jiro]

When was the term "marriage" introduced into our collective vocabulary, and by which "organization". Was it secular or religious? What was the definition of "marriage" since 3,000 BC?

Math of Marriage › Dr Karl's Great Moments In Science (ABC Science)

If it is logical to claim that marriage is already regulated (which it is), and those, whom are claiming it should not be regulated - in addition, attempting to introduce a "new" definition for marriage, are stating that religious adherents are hateful when they do not agree with them ....

This argument equates to it being hateful for "marriage" (per the "new" definition vs. the sane definition) to be denied to anyone whom wishes for it. This includes marrying your dog, your sister, your dad, ad infinitum ... to oppose this is hateful.

so you're saying the state governments are hateful, racist, and bigot for making it illegal to marry your sister, dog, etc. and also for making prostitution/bestiality/polygamy/child sex/etc illegal?

this is where you are notoriously horrendous in making a logical, coherent argument.

 

[Steinhauer]

so you're saying the state governments are hateful, racist, and bigot for making it illegal to marry your sister, dog, etc. and also for making prostitution/bestiality/polygamy/child sex/etc illegal?

this is where you are notoriously horrendous in making a logical, coherent argument.

This is where you are notoriously horrendous at misconstruing and twisting what has been stated. You do it time and again.

You deflected the question asked (in fact, you never mention it) and take something completely out of context for the sake of being a troll.

 

[Steinhauer]

It is apparent that you are in support of the religious interpretation of "marriage" and that's fine with me. However it becomes a problem for me when you support gay marriage ban as the law of this country on the basis of your religious belief. You are in fact supporting the oppression of gay people - a violation of gay people's civil rights. This country and the Constitution applies to ALL people regardless of sex, age, race, and sexual orientation.

I disagree with your support of religious interpretation of marriage as the law of this country and you are forcing your religious belief into me.

Since marriage began as a religious rite, please take your secularism out of religion. Stop forcing your secularism on the religious realm, stop changing definitions (that began in the religious realm) to suit your purpose. Keep them separated.

 

[Foxrac]

When was the term "marriage" introduced into our collective vocabulary, and by which "organization". Was it secular or religious? What was the definition of "marriage" since 3,000 BC?

Math of Marriage › Dr Karl's Great Moments In Science (ABC Science)

If it is logical to claim that marriage is already regulated (which it is), and those, whom are claiming it should not be regulated - in addition, attempting to introduce a "new" definition for marriage, are stating that religious adherents are hateful when they do not agree with them ....

This argument equates to it being hateful for "marriage" (per the "new" definition vs. the sane definition) to be denied to anyone whom wishes for it. This includes marrying your dog, your sister, your dad, ad infinitum ... to oppose this is hateful.

The marriage is sanctioned by government today, not religion anymore.

 

[Foxrac]

Since marriage began as a religious rite, please take your secularism out of religion. Stop forcing your secularism on the religious realm, stop changing definitions (that began in the religious realm) to suit your purpose. Keep them separated.

That's your religious belief and it doesn't apply to others, including me and Jiro.

The marriage is already part of secularism today, not 1800's.