The Great Chick-fil-A Snake Oil "Faith" Hustle

[emmiedahl]

Traditional marriage is a young girl being sold to a much older man she has never met. No, I do not support that; I think it is appalling.

Unless by traditional marriage you mean a love match between one man and one woman, which is a mode of marriage that began less than a century ago :roll:

[scarygirl]

So let me get this straight, ScaryGirl:

1. When conservatives boycott, it is good.

2. When liberals boycott it is an offense to the First Amendment.

3. Keeping strip clubs out of the suburbs because they are not compatible with local values, good.

4. Keeping a homophobic business out of town because it is not compatible with local values, bad.

5. Giving people different rights because of inborn trait is bad when we are talking about black people.

6. Giving people different rights because of inborn traits is a constitutional right when we are talking about gay people.

7. Chik-Fil-A has the right to say whatever they want.

8. We do not.

Anything else, asshole?

I never said those things and you know it. I said people have a right to their opinions and free expression of those opinions. If a person wants to give to gay/lesbian causes so be it. Same with Chik Fil A. If you want to watch their bottom line suffer, don't eat there.

8. We do not.

Anything else, asshole?

[debrand]

Agreed.

Because I don't know you or you stance on issues, I have to ask this question

Do you think that communities should be able to prevent stripclubs from opening in their neighborhood?

According to Doggie's article, this is one of the groups that Chick-Fil-A supported. Granted, the company might not have known at the time that the Family Research Council was going to lobby Congress. But so much press was given to this event that if Chick-Fil-A didn't immediately denounce the Family Research Council, I can only conclude that the fast food chain supports killing homosexuals. :cry:

to wit, funds to the Family Research Council, which lobbied Congress not to oppose the infamous Ugandan "kill the gays" bill that proposed death sentences for gays and lesbians in that country.

How can any group not oppose Uganda's plans to kill homosexuals?

I don't view homophobia as any different then racism

What surprises me (but doesn't, sadly, at the same time) is the silence from mainstream Christians, at least some of whom must see what a repulsive mockery Dan Cathy and his "chicken-fried Jesus" cult have made of Christ's actual teachings on love and grace.

I agree with this. Many American Christians seem to follow the crowd. If someone in power says that an issue is biblical, they support it, regardless of anything the bible actually said.

Unless I misread the article, I don't think that it discusses the opening of new Chick-Fil-A stores. Of course, I don't mind changing the subject.

[CanadianHippie]

Putting this up again because the first comment is basically what I feel.

[emmiedahl]

I never said those things and you know it. I said people have a right to their opinions and free expression of those opinions. If a person wants to give to gay/lesbian causes so be it. Same with Chik Fil A. If you want to watch their bottom line suffer, don't eat there

You did say those things.

That was exactly what most of us were doing before you came in here saying handslappy things like this:

So long as one is purposely not trying to maim, murder, or molest another individual why should I care?

That is your opinion, what you cannot do is tell another business they cannot open in your district just because you don't agree with the owner's religious beliefs.

isn't it funny how not nary a peep was made until someone had the absolute gaul to express support for the biblical view of marriage. Maybe those stories are true, maybe they are not.

(BTW Chick Fil-A has done a lot of time in courtrooms for various types of discrimination, many peeps were made.)

What's next? Having an American Idol style vote on every controversial topic, the most votes wins. Those that don't express the views of the popular vote, off with their heads!

etc, etc. You are starting a lot of Chick-Fil-A drama on your first day of posting. Interesting. You would not happen to look like this, would you?

[scarygirl]

Because I don't know you or you stance on issues, I have to ask this question

Do you think that communities should be able to prevent stripclubs from opening in their neighborhood?

According to Doggie's article, this is one of the groups that Chick-Fil-A supported. Granted, the company might not have known at the time that the Family Research Council was going to lobby Congress. But so much press was given to this event that if Chick-Fil-A didn't immediately denounce the Family Research Council, I can only conclude that the fast food chain supports killing homosexuals. :cry:

How can any group not oppose Uganda's plans to kill homosexuals?

I don't view homophobia as any different then racism

I agree with this. Many American Christians seem to follow the crowd. If someone in power says that an issue is biblical, they support it, regardless of anything the bible actually said.

Unless I misread the article, I don't think that it discusses the opening of new Chick-Fil-A stores. Of course, I don't mind changing the subject.

To answer your question, no, I don't think Chik Filet should support any group that supports the killing of gays, lesbains, or anyone for that matter. If they didn't know at the beginning, they should have pulled their support immediately upon the information being presented to them.

As to strip clubs, I don't think they belong in a residential neighborhood, and I would support legislation to stop that as it would crush my home's value. Like it could get any lower. But if someone wanted to open one in the general business district so long as they not promoting prostitution, under age girls, that sort of thing, what should I care? I may not agree with it, but no harm no foul.

[scarygirl]

You did say those things.

That was exactly what most of us were doing before you came in here saying handslappy things like this:

(BTW Chick Fil-A has done a lot of time in courtrooms for various types of discrimination, many peeps were made.)

etc, etc. You are starting a lot of Chick-Fil-A drama on your first day of posting. Interesting. You would not happen to look like this, would you?

I have been here for far more than a day. :roll:

You should reread my first post . My first post was simply refuting the article that called a a simple matter of opinion, one's support of the biblical view of marriage, as being hateful.

Simply slapping the hate speech label on any opinion we disagree with seems to be the quickest means of shutting people up these days.

As to my posting here. There was a thread. I posted my opinion in that thread. Posted back and forth with various people. If you want a thread of only non-chick filet supporters then there should be two threads, one pro and one con. Otherwise, I thought the purpose of a message board was for people to intermingle.

[jesssnerch]

I'm a little confused about some things in the bible and maybe you fine Free Jingerites can help me. So, traditional "biblical" marriage is supposed to be between a man and a woman. Proof of this is creation of Adam and Eve. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the only offspring mentioned are Cain and Abel. They had wives, right? So this means that they married their biological sisters at some point? So a traditional biblical marriage includes incest? And Christians get grossed out at the idea if two unrelated same sex partners marrying each other? Seriously?!?

*I apologize in advanced for any riffles. I'm on my phone.

[scarygirl]

I'm a little confused about some things in the bible and maybe you fine Free Jingerites can help me. So, traditional "biblical" marriage is supposed to be between a man and a woman. Proof of this is creation of Adam and Eve. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the only offspring mentioned are Cain and Abel. They had wives, right? So this means that they married their biological sisters at some point? So a traditional biblical marriage includes incest? And Christians get grossed out at the idea if two unrelated same sex partners marrying each other? Seriously?!?

*I apologize in advanced for any riffles. I'm on my phone.

This is an article that explains a biblical view of just your question. It is simply an article. To be read, chewed up, spit out, and back again. I believe in a God that is perfect. And yes, I do believe that mankind started in the garden. It was only after the fall that things got so screwed up. If it wasn't for the fall, we wouldn't have children being beaten and horribly abused. God takes no pride in such horrible behavior.

http://www.biblestudy.org/question/who- ... marry.html

[Guest Anonymous]

This is an article that explains a biblical view of just your question. It is simply an article. To be read, chewed up, spit out, and back again. I believe in a God that is perfect. And yes, I do believe that mankind started in the garden. It was only after the fall that things got so screwed up. If it wasn't for the fall, we wouldn't have children being beaten and horribly abused. God takes no pride in such horrible behavior.

http://www.biblestudy.org/question/who- ... marry.html

This has probably been gone over again and again (and again and again) but if perfect God abhors the awful behaviour that came after the fall, then why did He make up such a ridiculous rules in the first place? He didn't need to throw anyone out of the garden. That was His rule and that was His choice. And, assuming He sees all and knows all, He knew full well what would happen but did it anyway.

The thing that most gets me about perfect God is how petty, limited, short-sighted, and unnecessarily technical His rules are (see: Jesus died for our sins).

Edited for wording X2.

[emmiedahl]

[

I have been here for far more than a day. :roll:

You should reread my first post . My first post was simply refuting the article that called a a simple matter of opinion, one's support of the biblical view of marriage, as being hateful.

Simply slapping the hate speech label on any opinion we disagree with seems to be the quickest means of shutting people up these days.

As to my posting here. There was a thread. I posted my opinion in that thread. Posted back and forth with various people. If you want a thread of only non-chick filet supporters then there should be two threads, one pro and one con. Otherwise, I thought the purpose of a message board was for people to intermingle.

It is hateful, no way around it. The racist Southerners 50-something years ago did not see withholding civil rights as hateful either; nonetheless, it was. You are allowed to express your opinion even if it is dumb.

If it wasn't for the fall, we wouldn't have children being beaten and horribly abused. God takes no pride in such horrible behavior.

I don't know if he takes pride in it, but he commands it. I am only mentioning this because you say you believe in a somewhat literal interpretation of the Bible and so the child abuse commanded by your version of God must therefore be as perfect as He is.

Exodus 21:7-11 gives instructions for the Godly way to sell your daughter as a slave (many people interpret this verse as referring to sex slavery)

Proverbs 22:15 and 23:14 both condone beating children. I am pretty sure there are others, these are just the ones off the top of my head.

Bible literalists have to either ignore the rampant God-sanctioned evil in the Bible or believe in some really screwed up stuff. I don't care which you choose but either way, keep your religious-based hatred out of government.

[debrand]

I'm a little confused about some things in the bible and maybe you fine Free Jingerites can help me. So, traditional "biblical" marriage is supposed to be between a man and a woman. Proof of this is creation of Adam and Eve. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the only offspring mentioned are Cain and Abel. They had wives, right? So this means that they married their biological sisters at some point? So a traditional biblical marriage includes incest? And Christians get grossed out at the idea if two unrelated same sex partners marrying each other? Seriously?!?

*I apologize in advanced for any riffles. I'm on my phone.

From Chapter 4 of Genesis

And Cain went out from the presence of the LORD, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden.

17 And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch.

Apparently, he slept with his sister or niece. The bible does not mention Adam and Eve having any daughters. It only mentions three sons, Cain, Abel and Seth. Christians who believe in a literal Garden of Eden believe that the couple had several undocumented children.

It was explained to me that before the fall, there was no genetic faults in human beings. So, god didn't care if sisters slept with brothers. This means that incest isn't forbidden because it is morally wrong but only because it can harm offspring. Either that, or the biblical god's rules change.

[jesssnerch]

This is an article that explains a biblical view of just your question. It is simply an article. To be read, chewed up, spit out, and back again. I believe in a God that is perfect. And yes, I do believe that mankind started in the garden. It was only after the fall that things got so screwed up. If it wasn't for the fall, we wouldn't have children being beaten and horribly abused. God takes no pride in such horrible behavior.

http://www.biblestudy.org/question/who- ... marry.html

So what this is saying is that God didn't declare incest to be wrong until there were enough people to multiply efficiently without being with a member if their immediate family. It was then he said that only man and woman should lie together. Population was still kind of small. A lot of kids didn't survive childhood. A lot of women didn't survive child birth. It really made sense for God to allow a man to have a ton of wives. Gotta keep the population growing, after all.

Now logically, doesn't it make sense that maybe all the scientific advancements being made in ways to conceive is God's way of telling us that a man and a woman being together is not the only way to create a family anymore? Maybe he's telling us times have changed and His word is evolving? He's apparently corrected himself before, why not now?

For the record, I believe in God and the bible just as much as I believe in Greek myths or the religion of Ancient Egypt. To me the bible was written so people at the time could have some answers to the mysteries of the world around them. We understand science a lot more now so it seems kind of silly to keep believing the stories of the bible as a literal truth.

[formergothardite]

Saying that a whole group of people don't deserve equality is hateful. Saying that giving this group of people equality would bring the wrath of God upon this nation is hateful. Do people have the right to say those hateful things, yes, and others have the right to point out how hateful it is.

[debrand]

Saying that a whole group of people don't deserve equality is hateful. Saying that giving this group of people equality would bring the wrath of God upon this nation is hateful. Do people have the right to say those hateful things, yes, and others have the right to point out how hateful it is.

:clap: :clap: :clap:

I am giving you a standing ovation.

[debrand]

[. My first post was simply refuting the article that called a a simple matter of opinion, one's support of the biblical view of marriage, as being hateful.

.

This is a major difference between my views and yours. There is no real, nonreligious argument against same sex marriage. Preventing consenting adults from marrying is hateful. There is no reason to discriminate against same sex couple. Our society has decided that marriage grants spouses certain rights. In order for same sex couples to get the same rights they must hire lawyers and get different forms. All a heterosexual couple has to do is to get a license and stand in front of a judge.

Saying that a same sex couple doesn't deserve those rights is hateful. It doesn't matter if the hateful views come from the bible or someone's own brain, it is still wrong.

[doggie]

The first article is horrible. A true christian should not agree with a government purposely killings others because of ther sexual practices so long as the partner are of age and of agreement with one another.

However, I have no issue with pastors sharing what the Bible says about sins of any kind. People should be free to take it or leave it.

So if a pastor preachers to gleefully bash babies of gays heads against rocks your ok with that? ok to rape as long as you marry her afterwards? Do I really need to go on?

[scarygirl]

So if a pastor preachers to gleefully bash babies of gays heads against rocks your ok with that? ok to rape as long as you marry her afterwards? Do I really need to go on?

I don't know a pastor who teaches or believes things like that.

[doggie]

I don't know a pastor who teaches or believes things like that.

Why because it is horrible? well it is right there in the bible so why not? wait it is pretty horrible right? well so is saying being gay is abomination and a person is hellbound for something they have no control over.

[Anxious Girl]

scarygirl; using the Bible as an excuse to defend on what fundies think is traditional marriage (like previous posters listed; there's no such thing in the Bible) is using a religion to persecute others. Would you also advocate that people shouldn't critize others for using the Bibile to support slavery; 'cause that's exactly what most slave owners said in the Civil War because it's in the Bible. Even though 1 of the 10 Commandments is to not kill; people kill in the Bible and God commands genocide. Are they not Biblical values because you fundies like to cherry pick? Or to stone a woman for having pre-marrital sex? Those are also Biblical values. Even though Christianity is based mostly on the New Testament; why are the values Old Testament ones that fundie/ignorant Christians seem to care most about when Jesus said that he would accept all sinners? Are they that scared of "unBiblical" change?

[formergothardite]

I would love for it to be explained to me, scarygirl, how exactly denying a whole group of people equality is not hateful. How saying giving this group equality will bring the wrath of God on our country is not hateful? Please, do explain how exactly this isn't hate.

Judging from one of your first posts, I suspect that you might agree with these statements which is why you don't find them hateful. But feel free to correct me if I am wrong and you are all for gay equality.

[Anxious Girl]

Well that was a quick flounce. Buh-bye; and don't forget you're pooper-scooper and shit-filled bag on the way out. * :hand: *

[shesinsane]

Next time I hear the phrase "Biblical marriage", I'm going to ask if that means switching the bride at the ceremony, then marrying her sister and servants. It's in Genesis.

[debrand]

These are the New Testament verses dealing with homosexuality. These are not Jesus' words but Paul's. Jesus said NOTHING about homosexuality

For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,

30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,

31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:

32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

In order not to be hyprocrites, religious opponents for same sex marriage should also fight against marriage for gossipers(whisperers), liars, the proud, boasters, disobedient children etc. It is strange that they only concentrate on homosexuals.

[doggie]

I would love for it to be explained to me, scarygirl, how exactly denying a whole group of people equality is not hateful. How saying giving this group equality will bring the wrath of God on our country is not hateful? Please, do explain how exactly this isn't hate.

Judging from one of your first posts, I suspect that you might agree with these statements which is why you don't find them hateful. But feel free to correct me if I am wrong and you are all for gay equality.

But But the gays is a choice so that makes it a sin. :animals-dogrun: