Chik-fil-a doesn't support gay marriage

[Rio]

right. they are entitled to express their opinions toward other people's opinion.

if a person doesn't want to hear any opinion to his own opinion.. simple - keep it to yourself. I have a very simple solution for Cathy if he was asked a question and did not want to get a heat for it - "no comment."

Yes, that is your simple solution. Let the man speak( Dan Cathy) not everyone is going to stand behind him, it's obvious. Those who do , those people are being mocked and persecuted. All they want to do is protect traditional marriages. The world starts crying over his opinion, all it is , is an opinion.

 

[Rio]

We are already persecuted by anti-gay people too.

Right, we can stand for our beliefs and not cry like babies bec we know there are others who believe in protecting traditional marriage.

 

[Foxrac]

ah now I understand. threatening to block CFA to do any further business simply because of their anti-gay view would be illegal.

Yup, that's true and it is very extremely ridiculous.

 

[Jiro]

Yes, many people out there being persecuted for their beliefs just like Mr.Cathy. Just bec he simply stated his beliefs on traditional marriage and everyone get's an uproar. Traditional marriage is being persecuted by the gay community. Christian and other religious organization with the same agenda are entitled to protect it.

no........... you are mistaken.....

Persecuted... I think you need to think very carefully about that term you just used. You do realize that for thousands of years, the Church and religious groups have historically persecuted people to deaths, imprisonments, tortures, and oppressions simply because these people do not share the Church's belief.

I think you should not even touch this at all because we both know who is really being violently persecuted more than others.

 

[Rio]

no........... you are mistaken.....

Persecuted... I think you need to think very carefully about that term you just used. You do realize that for thousands of years, the Church and religious groups have historically persecuted people to deaths, imprisonments, tortures, and oppressions simply because these people do not share the Church's belief.

I think you should not even touch this at all because we both know who is really being violently persecuted more than others.

I was thinking of missionaries in other countries type thing.Yes, I see what you mean about not even touch on this.

 

[Steinhauer]

I think you're confused.... it's other way around. that's why Congress passed stronger discrimination law and hate crime to include homosexuals. and more and more states are legalizing gay marriage. and bunch more...

Recall Philadelphia? you know.... the city of brotherly love?

You of course mean when the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Boy Scouts of America?

Homosexuality is inconsistent with Christian values. The BSA does not want their members indoctrinated with a leftist socio-political agenda - and it is their right to exclude indoctrination. The Supreme Court made their decision based on the first amendment. You cannot force anyone to accept your beliefs and opinions - which is what the left has been consistently trying to do - make it illegal for anyone to disagree.

That is why so many people showed up at Chic-Fil-A. Yes, even homosexuals, showed up in support for the first amendment.Trying to twist this around and make all those folks seem hateful will backfire as well.

To make this matter even more clear, freedom of association is defined to be part of the first amendment, and it was the Civil Rights Movement that made it possible for the BSA to win this decision.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAACP_v._Alabama


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_association

United States Constitution

Main article: United States Constitution

While the United States Constitution's First Amendment identifies the rights to assemble and to petition the government, the text of the First Amendment does not make specific mention of a right to association. Nevertheless, the United States Supreme Court held in NAACP v. Alabama that the freedom of association is an essential part of the Freedom of Speech because, in many cases, people can engage in effective speech only when they join with others.

You cannot trample over other people's civil rights to promote your own agenda. It is illegal.

I hope you learned something.

 

[Foxrac]

no........... you are mistaken.....

Persecuted... I think you need to think very carefully about that term you just used. You do realize that for thousands of years, the Church and religious groups have historically persecuted people to deaths, imprisonments, tortures, and oppressions simply because these people do not share the Church's belief.

I think you should not even touch this at all because we both know who is really being violently persecuted more than others.

Oh yup, is it like Koreans will be hanged for not follow Japanese moral order? That was happened in between 1910's to 1940's.

 

[Jiro]

The BSA does not want their members indoctrinated with a leftist socio-political agenda - and it is their right to exclude indoctrination.

what? I think you really don't have any idea what these terms mean exactly. Stop regurgitating some Westboro Baptist Church crazie's opinion.

You cannot trample over other people's civil rights to promote your own agenda. It is illegal.

That's what I just said. I find it comical that you're making it sound like it's your original thought when in fact you're just parrotting my words.

I hope you learned something.

Yea I did. I just learned that you're a confused closet buffoon

 

[Foxrac]

You of course mean when the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Boy Scouts of America?

Homosexuality is inconsistent with Christian values. The BSA does not want their members indoctrinated with a leftist socio-political agenda - and it is their right to exclude indoctrination. The Supreme Court made their decision based on the first amendment. You cannot force anyone to accept your beliefs and opinions - which is what the left has been consistently trying to do - make it illegal for anyone to disagree.

That is why so many people showed up at Chic-Fil-A. Yes, even homosexuals, showed up in support for the first amendment.Trying to twist this around and make all those folks seem hateful will backfire as well.

To make this matter even more clear, freedom of association is defined to be part of the first amendment, and it was the Civil Rights Movement that made it possible for the BSA to win this decision.

National Association for the Advancement of Colored People v. Alabama - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Freedom of association - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You cannot trample over other people's civil rights to promote your own agenda. It is illegal.

I hope you learned something.

Well, Girl Scouts is well tolerated with gay and lesbian people.

Make sense about Supreme Court ruling - why? because BSA is private organization, that's different. The BSA case has nothing with civil rights movement.

The homosexuality in Christianity is disputed because there are many Christians support gay rights and there are many others oppose gay rights.

I love Girl Scouts cookies.

 

[Jiro]

I was thinking of missionaries in other countries type thing.Yes, I see what you mean about not even touch on this.

Missionaries clearly have no business in hostile countries and "bribing" these desperate people to convert in order to receive food and shelter. They clearly have no business being in a hostile country when they knowingly very well that these people will be killed by ethnic-cleansing crazies.

But I've got respect for missionaries for going above and beyond the call of duty to help them without needing them to believe in their religion (no string attached or whatsoever) like Doctors Beyond Borders.

 

[Rio]

Wirelessly posted

I was thinking of missionaries in other countries type thing.Yes, I see what you mean about not even touch on this.

Missionaries clearly have no business in hostile countries and "bribing" these desperate people to convert in order to receive food and shelter. They clearly have no business being in a hostile country when they knowingly very well that these people will be killed by ethnic-cleansing crazies.

But I've got respect for missionaries for going above and beyond the call of duty to help them without needing them to believe in their religion (no string attached or whatsoever) like Doctors Beyond Borders.

I was attempting to understand what you mean and mentioned the missionary subject. My point is simply persecution over a statment from Mr. Cathy. Of course , the religious side will be a factor in this debate. Those who believe will stand traditional marriage. The forum may not like it, that 's truth God created Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve.

 

[Jiro]

Wirelessly postedI was attempting to understand what mean and mentioned the missionary subject. My point is simply persecution over a statment from Mr. Cathy. Of course , the religious side will be a factor in this debate. Those who believe will stand tradtion marriage.

well - the term "persecution" in this context is a wrong word to use because it is commonly known and used in the context of Church persecuting people for thousands of years. Abomination this. Abomination that. Well I believe they are the abomination themselves for spreading such blasphemy and persecuting people in the name of God when in fact it was not what God meant. How dare these men judge people and persecuted them for being different. They should leave the judgement to God.

The forum may not like it, that 's truth God created Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve.

I believe that's subjective and speculative because we humans are fallible. We are probably wrong and are misunderstanding it.

 

[Steinhauer]

well - the term "persecution" in this context is a wrong word to use because it is commonly known and used in the context of Church persecuting people for thousands of years. Abomination this. Abomination that. Well I believe they are the abomination themselves for spreading such blasphemy and persecuting people in the name of God when in fact it was not what God meant. How dare these men judge people and persecuted them for being different. They should leave the judgement to God.


I believe that's subjective and speculative because we humans are fallible. We are probably wrong and are misunderstanding it.

Just a polite interjection here. The term blasphemy could mean many things. In the context that I am familiar with, it means to intentionally warp what is said in scripture, or an outright rebuke of commandments in scripture.

In scripture, marriage is very well defined. The word is used a total of 21 times. Are you asking that religious people, such as the CEO of CFA, "blaspemy" scripture? Or, are you intentionally misinterpreting what is stated to promote your own opinion?

Its a important question I would think, since I am not sure you are using the word "blasphemy" correctly.

For me, the CEO of CFA is simply adhering to his religious beliefs, which is his right to do.

Are you asking that he sacrifice his rights so that others may promulgate a socio-political agenda of their own?

 

[Rio]

Wirelessly posted

This statement is meant with all love and sincerity. Chick-Fil-A never said anything against gay marriage. They only stated that they support traditional marriage and Christian and family values! I too take a stand with Chick-Fil-A! My opinion is my right and just because I feel that way doesn't mean I hate gays either! The Christians have just as much a right to freedom of speech as the gay marriage supporters have! The mayors who bash Chick-Fil-A have no right legally to do so and should banned, fined and fired! Go Chick-Fil-A!!! Love me some chicken sandwiches!

By the way, Rahm Emanuel doesn't speak for all in Chicago and does not accurately reflect Chicago values! Remember freedom of speech is at risk here and not discrimination!

I agree . It's about freedom of speech. He simply values traditional marriage due to his religious beliefs. Well said

 

[Jiro]

Just a polite interjection here. The term blasphemy could mean many things. In the context that I am familiar with, it means to intentionally warp what is said in scripture, or an outright rebuke of commandments in scripture.

In scripture, marriage is very well defined. The word is used a total of 21 times.

I disagree. It's speculative and subjective because humans are fallible.

Are you asking that religious people, such as the CEO of CFA, "blaspemy" scripture? Or, are you intentionally misinterpreting what is stated to promote your own opinion?

Are you constructing these ridiculous questions to obfuscate the truth?

Its a important question I would think, since I am not sure you are using the word "blasphemy" correctly.

oh yes I am using the term "blasphemy" quite accurately and correctly. do you believe or agree that the term "blasphemy" is what Church used to describe the non-believers?

For me, the CEO of CFA is simply adhering to his religious beliefs, which is his right to do.

he is very much free to do so. and he should keep it to himself if he did not want to deal with people who disagree with him.

Are you asking that he sacrifice his rights so that others may promulgate a socio-political agenda of their own?

Let me ask you this - do you believe or agree that humans are fallible? do you believe or agree that humans do not fully understand God's will?

 

[Steinhauer]

I disagree. It's speculative and subjective because humans are fallible.


Are you constructing these ridiculous questions to obfuscate the truth?


oh yes I am using the term "blasphemy" quite accurately and correctly. do you believe or agree that the term "blasphemy" is what Church used to describe the non-believers?


he is very much free to do so. and he should keep it to himself if he did not want to deal with people who disagree with him.


Let me ask you this - do you believe or agree that humans are fallible? do you believe or agree that humans do not fully understand God's will?

I am not going to address what I personally believe for two reasons.

1) The CEO of CFA was asked what he believed, and he gave an honest answer

2) You have said he should have kept this to himself, yet, are asking me to state my beliefs.


I am sure that the CEO of any corporation is fully aware that there will be those who disagree with their personal beliefs. We both agree then, that he is very much free to express those beliefs.

My question is, since he believes in the scriptural definition of marriage (and there really isn't any room to misinterpret what that definition is), should he sacrifice his rights so that others can promulgate their agenda?

You still haven't answered that question. It is an important one. Saying I am quoting Westboro Baptist crazie stuff and saying I am a closet buffoon just pegs you as ignorant to what qwe are discussing.

 

[Jiro]

I am not going to address what I personally believe for two reasons.

1) The CEO of CFA was asked what he believed, and he gave an honest answer

2) You have said he should have kept this to himself, yet, are asking me to state my beliefs.

um.... no I'm not asking you to state your belief. I already know what your belief is and I disagree with your interpretation of your belief.

I'm asking you if you believe or agree that humans are fallible.

I am sure that the CEO of any corporation is fully aware that there will be those who disagree with their personal beliefs. We both agree then, that he is very much free to express those beliefs.

My question is, since he believes in the scriptural definition of marriage (and there really isn't any room to misinterpret what that definition is), should he sacrifice his rights so that others can promulgate their agenda?

You still haven't answered that question. It is an important one. Saying I am quoting Westboro Baptist crazie stuff and saying I am a closet buffoon just pegs you as ignorant to what qwe are discussing.

you must have missed my answers. scroll back and figure it out. ie - Post #155. #134. #131. and so on...

 

[Steinhauer]

um.... no I'm not asking you to state your belief. I already know what your belief is and I disagree with your interpretation of your belief.

No, only I know what I believe - you do not know me well enough

I'm asking you if you believe or agree that humans are fallible.


you must have missed my answers. scroll back and figure it out. ie - Post #155. #134. #131. and so on...

Ok, I will review your answers.


ok ... as asked, I reviewed your answers. To sum up my understanding of your answers, you feel that Cathy should have remained silent about his beliefs in order to prevent any public turmoil. You also feel that it is possible that he (Cathy) is misinterpreting God's will (correct so far?). You have also made it clear that it is not possible to know what God's will is, since human beings are known to make errors.

My question did not direct any of those issues though. I was not trying to imply that my personal beliefs, or even your personal beliefs, were part of the equation. I was not addressing what either of us believe, or what anyone else believes. I was addressing what Cathy's public statement about what he, himself, believes. I hope I am at least clear with that.

It is my understanding that Cathy believes that marriage is between one man and one woman. He based this belief on his religious convictions and his own interpretation of scripture. I am sure he is prone to error, like the rest of us, but, again, that is not the issue I am addressing. I am addressing what he made public about his religious beliefs.

We have both agreed that he is every right to express them. There is no disagreement between you and I over this issue.

My question was very simple, should he sacrifice his constitutional rights so that others can push a socio-political agenda?

My question is based on the rights in the Constitution, not about what you or I believe.

 

[Jiro]

No, only I know what I believe - you do not know me well enough

in case you've forgotten.... you've already stated your beliefs here quite a numbers of times.... such as your belief and stance in gay marriage issue.

Ok, I will review your answers.

but you're not going to answer my question?

 

[Calvin]

Several posts contain religious and political discussions.... sorry that's off limits here in AD.