August 1st is Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day

[Ted]

As I feared, the OP has been thread jacked to stellar levels.

 

[Roadie]

Contradiction gets the last laugh!

What contradiction? Sounds to me like they are tolerant of multiple beliefs.. Oh, and that they, oh, I dunno, support Free Speech?

They probably bought their cell phone at WalMart, a company founded on Christian values, so.. what was your point again?

 

[Smokepole]

The GLBT decided to protest the business based on the owner's comments. I get it and "knock yourselves out". Same with the counter protesters aka supporters...I get that and "go knock yourselves out". Both side should be able to express their opinion based on buying or not buying their product. Same as the owner should be allowed to express their opinion. Fair is fair...I got no beef with any of that. What get's in my crawl is NOT calling a spade a spade. Maybe I missed it but I did not think the GLBT protest was to keep the owner's from expressing their view...only that they disagree with that view. There was no loss of "freedom of speech" nor threat of that...only the message. SO, when you counter a protest for gay rights...you end up on the opposite side of that issue. Does that not make sense? The owners say they support Biblical marriage and the protesters take issue with that. So the counter protesters support the Biblical marriage view as the owners do. The BS with the local governments not giving permits to the business goes on every day for any number of reasons. My father in law was a city building inspector here in Indy and has told me about the political BS they has to dish out...he quit because of that. No one is tying to keep Chick Fil A owners from speaking..that it a Red Herring, the issue is WHAT they had to say. So it is rather meaningless to say "We are only here to support their right to say what they want." When no one was saying otherwise. The issue is the content. Heck, on this very board we had members the same day the GLBT group announced a protest try to start a counter protest by OCing in the stores. What does that do? What was the desired message? They said nothing anout free speech support...they just wanted to show support to the Christian values and freak the GLBT's out by displaying guns...the fail in that is beyond words.

You are right that everyone is entitled to free speech. And in MY opinion it would be different if Mr. Cathy's opinions filtered down into discriminatory or other policies and practices. If that were the case I doubt that there would have been such a response if any. But here we have not just a small boycott brought about by an voiced opinion, but, vitriolic, potential damaging action was speculated by 3 mayors. What you see here is kind of the straw that broke the camels back. All of the above combined with years of being called hater, homophobe, and numerous other names some deletable and otherwise and this is the outcome. A LARGE, HUGE showing of support with feet and dollars.

As for those calling for an OC fest of support for CFA, part of that might just be an effort by some of the militant OCers for an excuse to get together. Or not. I'll take heat for this too probably. Some just like to be a little intimidating towards those that tick them off when the opportunity presents.

 

[Super Bee]

Funny how the guy know as "The Drive Through Bully" was hoping to be a hero for the left, a internet sensation. But instead Adam Smith, a CFO of a company in Arizona was fired today. The guy is a complete tool, and I applaud the company he worked for.

The Chic-Fil-A girl needs a raise for putting up with the guy.

Vante CFO Bullies Chick-Fil-A Worker, Then Promptly Gets Fired For It - Business Insider

 

[LockStocksAndBarrel]

How about by pointing out a single law that has been enacted in the last 25 years that was based solely on a belief of a religion.

The anti-gay marriage movement has no argument against gay marriage other then what is written in their religious text. We do not need to start a modern practice of basing our laws this way. Maybe the next law will be about mixing fabrics or requiring us to have magical underwear.

I am against any suggested law that is based only on the view point of a particular religious belief. This case just happens to be about homosexually. But it would not matter if it was about anything that was only a religious belief.

The United States is not a theocracy and I do not wish it to become one. When we being to base our modern laws on the view point of a particular religion then we are heading down the slippery slope of becoming one.

Yea. We wouldn't want to use any of that as a foundation for anything important, like say a constitution or something.

 

[miguel]

Funny how the guy know as "The Drive Through Bully" was hoping to be a hero for the left, a internet sensation. But instead Adam Smith, a CFO of a company in Arizona was fired today. The guy is a complete tool, and I applaud the company he worked for.

The Chic-Fil-A girl needs a raise for putting up with the guy.

Vante CFO Bullies Chick-Fil-A Worker, Then Promptly Gets Fired For It - Business Insider

Hopefully somebody cracks this guy across the lips with a ball bat. Typical leftist prick.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Funny how the guy know as "The Drive Through Bully" was hoping to be a hero for the left, a internet sensation. But instead Adam Smith, a CFO of a company in Arizona was fired today. The guy is a complete tool, and I applaud the company he worked for.

The Chic-Fil-A girl needs a raise for putting up with the guy.

Vante CFO Bullies Chick-Fil-A Worker, Then Promptly Gets Fired For It - Business Insider

The guy has a right to his opinion. But two things:

To assault a drive-through cashier In this manner was cowardly. You have a right to speak your opinion, but you don't have the right to be heard. That young lady exemified the difference between grace and what a chicken-**** bully is.

Secondly, when you do something to bring attention to yourself and in your employer's opinion, that something may be harmful to his/her business, you shouldn't be surprised if/when you get axed.

Every decision has a price.

 

[Smokepole]

Yea. We wouldn't want to use any of that as a foundation for anything important, like say a constitution or something.

Hee Hee Hee Hee Hee Hee!!!!!! Rep inbound!

 

[PINski1015]

What a **** storm.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

As I feared, the OP has been thread jacked to stellar levels.

Welcome to INGO!

Is this your first post?

 

[Smokepole]

How about by pointing out a single law that has been enacted in the last 25 years that was based solely on a belief of a religion.

The anti-gay marriage movement has no argument against gay marriage other then what is written in their religious text. We do not need to start a modern practice of basing our laws this way. Maybe the next law will be about mixing fabrics or requiring us to have magical underwear.

I am against any suggested law that is based only on the view point of a particular religious belief. This case just happens to be about homosexually. But it would not matter if it was about anything that was only a religious belief.

The United States is not a theocracy and I do not wish it to become one. When we being to base our modern laws on the view point of a particular religion then we are heading down the slippery slope of becoming one.

Mmmmmmmmm, okaaay, let's do this.

First there have been aaaaaay too many laws enacted in the last 25, 50, even 100 years. Our Legislative body was originally supposed to be a PAR-TIME government of citizen legislators. What you get with a full-time Governmental body is a bunch of pandering, self-important blowhards passing loads of laws, securing favors and sending money home to their districts to justify their existence and keep themselves in power.

That having been said, this law isn't "based solely on a belief of a religion." There are plenty of people that don't consider themselves religious and claim no religious affiliation that support. There are atheists, agnostics and other non-religious folks that oppose homosexuality and gay marriage because they see it as not normal to nature and the traditional definition of marriage does not allow for same-sex marriage. The vast majority of our societal laws are based on a Christian, Anglo-Saxon morals that have been around for centuries. roughly 90% of the earth's population has some religious affiliation or recognition. Confucianism, Taoism, Buddhism and the like are all considered religions and even the most primitive of tribes have some religious practices that they follow. Religion is part of life throughout the world whether you want to admit it or not.

Marriage is an institution created by religious institutions for the recognition, support and strength of the natural heterosexual family unit (please reference original definitions and history). Most - myself included - don't care if government wants to recognize Civil Unions or whatever final label they are given. And if the real issue is TRULY about the LEGAL benefits, perks and privileges that would go with marriage, then what it is called should not matter as long as those things are secured for those that believe they deserve them.

And incidentally, the U.S. is in no trouble of becoming a Theocracy. Now if the Islamists were to gain control . . . . then the LGBT crowd would have a whole other world of things to worry about.

 

[CX1]

Mmmmmmmmm, okaaay, let's do this.

First there have been aaaaaay too many laws enacted in the last 25, 50, even 100 years. Our Legislative body was originally supposed to be a PAR-TIME government of citizen legislators. What you get with a full-time Governmental body is a bunch of pandering, self-important blowhards passing loads of laws, securing favors and sending money home to their districts to justify their existence and keep themselves in power.

Exactly why we don't need to add to it by making certain forms of marriage illegal.

That having been said, this law isn't "based solely on a belief of a religion." There are plenty of people that don't consider themselves religious and claim no religious affiliation that support. There are atheists, agnostics and other non-religious folks that oppose homosexuality and gay marriage because they see it as not normal to nature and the traditional definition of marriage does not allow for same-sex marriage.

In all honesty are you purposing the notion that that the vast majority of those opposed to same-sex marriage are not using religious based reasons? Granted there may be a few exceptions, but from listening to them it seems they are mostly religious based reasons.

The vast majority of our societal laws are based on a Christian, Anglo-Saxon morals that have been around for centuries. roughly 90% of the earth's population has some religious affiliation or recognition. Confucianism, Taoism, Buddhism and the like are all considered religions and even the most primitive of tribes have some religious practices that they follow. Religion is part of life throughout the world whether you want to admit it or not.

Marriage is an institution created by religious institutions for the recognition, support and strength of the natural heterosexual family unit (please reference original definitions and history).

I will have to disagree here somewhat. Marriage was around long before any of the current day mainstream religions. I encourage you to look here. History of Marriage | The History, Origins and Customs of Marriage

Most - myself included - don't care if government wants to recognize Civil Unions or whatever final label they are given. And if the real issue is TRULY about the LEGAL benefits, perks and privileges that would go with marriage, then what it is called should not matter as long as those things are secured for those that believe they deserve them.

So why not call them marriage since it shouldn't matter what they are called? And I don't believe the majority of the anti-same sex marriage crowd shares your opinion of being ok with the idea that same sex couples should get the same benefits of those in a traditional marriage.
Maybe I'm wrong on that, but it would seem if they were truly accepting of the idea this whole issue would have been settled a long time ago.
There is also the issue of some the laws and regulations that currently support benefits for traditional marriage may not cover civil unions as those current rules and regulations are written.

And incidentally, the U.S. is in no trouble of becoming a Theocracy. Now if the Islamists were to gain control . . . . then the LGBT crowd would have a whole other world of things to worry about.

In today's society marriage is not what is once was. Personally I do not think it will regain its luster considering the divorce rates, the rates of adultery (they have ads on TV for services specifically for people who want to cheat) and drive-thru wedding services. It is it's own parody.
I don't understand if the debate is simply over a label and not about equal rights and protections then why the traditionalists don't come up with a new term for their marriages that isn't so tarnished.

 

[Expat]

Exactly why we don't need to add to it by making certain forms of marriage illegal.

You do realize they have been illegal all this time. The change some are seeking is to make them legal. Right?

 

[Bunnykid68]

You do realize they have been illegal all this time. The change some are seeking is to make them legal. Right?

Correct

 

[PINski1015]

Why the hell do I need to get a marriage license?

 

[Greeper]

2 points:

First, anyone who thinks this is about gay marriage isn't paying attention and coming out in favor of traditional marriage isn't gay bashing any more than coming out in favor of gay marriage is straight bashing. This issue is about the 1A, period.

Second, the first time I come across phrases like 'magic underwear', 'invisible friend', 'talking snake', etc., the rest of the post reads like the trombone sound of Charlie Brown's teacher since that person is not interested in mutual dialog, but is just an insecure chid trying to tantrum his way into winning an argument. Honorable debate is good, disgusting tactics of tearing one's dearly held beliefs in the dirt is the lowest form of character, and one should be horribly ashamed...

Yeah, I'm done now...flame away.

 

[CX1]

You do realize they have been illegal all this time. The change some are seeking is to make them legal. Right?

What of the push to amend Constitutions to define it as only between a man and a woman? That sounds like adding something to me.
And this is in reaction to courts ruling that 'surprise it was not as illegal as once thought' and that is why the push is to get it defined in Constitutions to circumvent the courts rulings on the marriage laws as they are currently in some places. Not all States have the same marriage laws currently as Indiana. Right?

 

[Blackhawk2001]

My opinion is that we need to shrink government. We need to strip the government of the ability to punish those who exorcise speech. We also need to get the government out of marriage. That means that I as a Christian should not call on the government to ban gay marriage. Because a government that can tell Adam and Steve that they can't get married has the power to interfere with my ability to marry whomever I want.

In the words of Inigo Montoya: "I don't think that word means what you think it means."

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Exactly.

The homosexuals have been absolutely taking the wrong strategy - as have the heterosexuals. We need to get government out of the business of benefitting some and not others, of recognizing marriage. Get government out of our bedrooms and out of our lives.

You are absolutely wrong here. Homosexual Activists HAVE to have the government enforce their preferences because they fall so far outside the norm. Just as with taxes, if the government's boot wasn't waiting to thump down on citizens' necks, this wouldn't even be a matter for public discussion. It would have continued to be marginalized to the small percentage of people who favor their lifestyle. If they hadn't been able to bootstrap on the Civil Rights movement and get their particular sexual bent declared a Civil Right, they wouldn't have had a platform to keep pushing the boundaries of what is acceptable. If there were no such thing as "political correctness" (which even SOUNDS like a communist term) they would not have been able to shout down and shut down their opposition as they have largely succeeded in doing for the past 20 years or so.

 

[thebishopp]

2 points:

First, anyone who thinks this is about gay marriage isn't paying attention and coming out in favor of traditional marriage isn't gay bashing any more than coming out in favor of gay marriage is straight bashing. This issue is about the 1A, period.

Yeah, I'm done now...flame away.

And how exactly is this about the 1st Amendment? CFA can say whatever it wants and the people who disagree are free to boycott and demonstrate against the business (just like the people who support CFA's anti-gay stance).

It is only about the 1st Amendment if either side begins to try to make laws that infringe upon their right to say what they want to.

As far as I'm concerned (and the Constitution which is supposed to protect our inalienable rights from Government infringement) - CFA can preach pro-slavery, or baby killing, or whatever the heck they want to preach (I fully support their right to do so) and I have the right to boycott their business and demonstrate against them if I so choose (as long as I don't use unlawful force to prevent others from doing business with them). Just as those who support CFA's stance can spend more money eating at CFA and demonstrate in favor of CFA's stance (as long as they don't use unlawful force to prevent those who do not support CFAs stance from boycotting and demonstrating against them).