login
Chick-Fil- (Page 7)
-
No new posts
|
 2012-07-27 12:50 PM in reply to: #4334107 |
Member  5452    NC |  Subject: RE: Chick-Fil-trinnas - 2012-07-27 1:45 PM The post you originally quoted had to do with the comparison to voting rights and discrimination. CF does not refuse to hire or serve homosexuals married or un. In that sense the comparison is invalid. Alright, that's where we went sideways. I agree that, as I understand it, CFA does not discriminate in hiring/firing/promotion and the like any more than any other well run company. I disagree that CFA is merely voicing any opinion. To me, funding groups that advocate for legislation that is, in my opinion, discriminatory, is more than just voicing an opinion. But, they are certainly free to do so.
|
| 2012-07-27 12:55 PM in reply to: #4334094 |
Master 2083 Houston, TX | Subject: RE: Chick-Fil- NXS - 2012-07-27 12:41 PM jgaither - 2012-07-27 12:21 PM NXS - 2012-07-27 12:01 PM After reading all seven pages, I am left with this thought on those who are boycotting. Are you boycotting all petroleum based products as well? Gasoline, plastics, synthetic fabrics (think tri clothes) etc. all are made from petroleum, which in all likelyhood has mid-east oil in it. Seems to me that those Muslim countries are far more intolerant, even hostile toward gays than a CEO who believes in traditional marriage. I find the hipocracy of those boycotting CFA rather amusing. That is untrue. Petroleum products refined here in the US, most likely DO NOT have mid east oil in them.
At least five listed are Muslim nations. Do the math and you will see you have a greater likelihood of NOT having Muslim oil (as 2 of the countries you are referring to are African and not Mid-Eastern) than you do of having it. | ||||
| 2012-07-27 1:00 PM in reply to: #4334112 |
Member 5452 NC | Subject: RE: Chick-Fil- trinnas - 2012-07-27 1:47 PM Goosedog - 2012-07-27 1:34 PM trinnas - 2012-07-27 1:29 PM Ok so say you boycott CF and shut them down making the owner basically "pay the price" for his opinions and for sponsering WS. What about all the ancillary damage you cause to people who have nothing to do with the owner's views, eg the employees, the suppliers, the truckers that deliver to the stores etc.? Not exactly a great jobs environment out there so it's not like the employees can leave en masse? You hurt them as well when their hours are cut or they lose their jobs completely. Same for the suppliers and their employees. This argument falls apart if the money I would otherwise spend at CFA is spent elsewhere. but you assume those employed etc. at CF can get jobs where you choose to spend your money. You will also induce frictional unemployment in the transition. I suppose I induce frictional unemployment everytime I choose restaurant X over restaurant Y, but that is because restaurant X was able to deliver the product most appealing to me in light of the factors that go into my purchasing decision. That being said, yes it sucks that the franchise owners/employees/suppliers etc. are caught in the crossfire. Just like the gas station owners/employees that got caught in the Citgo mess. But, CFA put those people in this unfortunate position (if this whole thing really impacts CFA).
Edited by Goosedog 2012-07-27 1:02 PM |
| 2012-07-27 1:00 PM in reply to: #4334116 |
Elite 3519  San Jose, CA | Subject: RE: Chick-Fil- NXS - 2012-07-27 10:48 AM mr2tony - 2012-07-27 12:33 PM NXS - 2012-07-27 12:01 PM After reading all seven pages, I am left with this thought on those who are boycotting. Are you boycotting all petroleum based products as well? Gasoline, plastics, synthetic fabrics (think tri clothes) etc. all are made from petroleum, which in all likelyhood has mid-east oil in it. Seems to me that those Muslim countries are far more intolerant, even hostile toward gays than a CEO who believes in traditional marriage. I find the hipocracy of those boycotting CFA rather amusing. I doubt the oil barons from the Middle East are giving much to anti-gay marriage initiatives in the U.S. I could be wrong, but I doubt it. Prob because they are too busy funding the Clerics in their own countries who beat and stone homosexuals. I don't see the Hypocracy. 1 is an American company that has made a very vocal and physical commitment to changing and making the life of other American's miserable. Chic Fil A would rather I live closeted and a lie hating myself and my life, and with the way they place their moneys, they probably would prefer I just die. The other is a country that does not have religious freedom. If I stopped buying oil products, nothing would change. To enforce change in those countries we take different routes. We have to go through different channels and we have to support organizations that go into those countries and minister to change. If Exxon came out and said that they were going to donate profits to anti-gay charities, then I would boycott them as well. Actually I already boycott Exxon...but I think you get your meaning. If KFC came out and said it was buying Chickens from an anti gay farm in Mexico...I would probably still buy KFC as I am not sure that boycotting them would have an affect on the farm in Mexico. Again...have not idea if I am making sense... |
| 2012-07-27 1:06 PM in reply to: #4334148 |
Champion 18680 Lost in the Luminiferous Aether | Subject: RE: Chick-Fil- Goosedog - 2012-07-27 2:00 PM trinnas - 2012-07-27 1:47 PM Goosedog - 2012-07-27 1:34 PM trinnas - 2012-07-27 1:29 PM Ok so say you boycott CF and shut them down making the owner basically "pay the price" for his opinions and for sponsering WS. What about all the ancillary damage you cause to people who have nothing to do with the owner's views, eg the employees, the suppliers, the truckers that deliver to the stores etc.? Not exactly a great jobs environment out there so it's not like the employees can leave en masse? You hurt them as well when their hours are cut or they lose their jobs completely. Same for the suppliers and their employees. This argument falls apart if the money I would otherwise spend at CFA is spent elsewhere. but you assume those employed etc. at CF can get jobs where you choose to spend your money. You will also induce frictional unemployment in the transition. I suppose I induce frictional unemployment everytime I choose restaurant X over restaurant Y, but that is because restaurant X was able to deliver the product most appealing to me in light of the factors that go into my purchasing decision. That being said, yes it sucks that the franchise owners/employees/suppliers etc. are caught in the crossfire. Just like the gas station owners/employees that got caught in the Citgo mess. But, CFA put those people in this unfortunate position (if this whole thing really impacts CFA).
Your individual action does not but coodinated continued action does. I tend to doubt CFA will get the blame for "putting people in this situation". The reality is the "gay marriage lobby" will get the blame by most of those affected. *Sorry RW I don't know a better succinct way to put it. |
| 2012-07-27 1:17 PM in reply to: #4331762 |
| Master 2083 Houston, TX | Subject: RE: Chick-Fil- Amazon Founder and Pres just gave $2.5 mill to support gay marriage in Washington. http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/amazon-founder-bezos-donates-2-5-million-gay-132350086.html My understanding was that it was his own money. I just thought it gave some contrast to the discussion. |
| 2012-07-27 1:23 PM in reply to: #4334151 |
| New user 900 , | Subject: RE: Chick-Fil- runningwoof - 2012-07-27 1:00 PM NXS - 2012-07-27 10:48 AM mr2tony - 2012-07-27 12:33 PM NXS - 2012-07-27 12:01 PM After reading all seven pages, I am left with this thought on those who are boycotting. Are you boycotting all petroleum based products as well? Gasoline, plastics, synthetic fabrics (think tri clothes) etc. all are made from petroleum, which in all likelyhood has mid-east oil in it. Seems to me that those Muslim countries are far more intolerant, even hostile toward gays than a CEO who believes in traditional marriage. I find the hipocracy of those boycotting CFA rather amusing. I doubt the oil barons from the Middle East are giving much to anti-gay marriage initiatives in the U.S. I could be wrong, but I doubt it. Prob because they are too busy funding the Clerics in their own countries who beat and stone homosexuals. I don't see the Hypocracy. 1 is an American company that has made a very vocal and physical commitment to changing and making the life of other American's miserable. Chic Fil A would rather I live closeted and a lie hating myself and my life, and with the way they place their moneys, they probably would prefer I just die. The other is a country that does not have religious freedom. If I stopped buying oil products, nothing would change. To enforce change in those countries we take different routes. We have to go through different channels and we have to support organizations that go into those countries and minister to change. If Exxon came out and said that they were going to donate profits to anti-gay charities, then I would boycott them as well. Actually I already boycott Exxon...but I think you get your meaning. If KFC came out and said it was buying Chickens from an anti gay farm in Mexico...I would probably still buy KFC as I am not sure that boycotting them would have an affect on the farm in Mexico. Again...have not idea if I am making sense... I guess I just don't see the same outrage where the offense in my opinion is 100x worse. One thing great about the US is that we are free to purchase whatever we wish. |
| 2012-07-27 1:23 PM in reply to: #4334167 |
Elite 3519 San Jose, CA | Subject: RE: Chick-Fil- trinnas - 2012-07-27 11:06 AM Goosedog - 2012-07-27 2:00 PM trinnas - 2012-07-27 1:47 PM Goosedog - 2012-07-27 1:34 PM trinnas - 2012-07-27 1:29 PM Ok so say you boycott CF and shut them down making the owner basically "pay the price" for his opinions and for sponsering WS. What about all the ancillary damage you cause to people who have nothing to do with the owner's views, eg the employees, the suppliers, the truckers that deliver to the stores etc.? Not exactly a great jobs environment out there so it's not like the employees can leave en masse? You hurt them as well when their hours are cut or they lose their jobs completely. Same for the suppliers and their employees. This argument falls apart if the money I would otherwise spend at CFA is spent elsewhere. but you assume those employed etc. at CF can get jobs where you choose to spend your money. You will also induce frictional unemployment in the transition. I suppose I induce frictional unemployment everytime I choose restaurant X over restaurant Y, but that is because restaurant X was able to deliver the product most appealing to me in light of the factors that go into my purchasing decision. That being said, yes it sucks that the franchise owners/employees/suppliers etc. are caught in the crossfire. Just like the gas station owners/employees that got caught in the Citgo mess. But, CFA put those people in this unfortunate position (if this whole thing really impacts CFA).
Your individual action does not but coodinated continued action does. I tend to doubt CFA will get the blame for "putting people in this situation". The reality is the "gay marriage lobby" will get the blame by most of those affected. *Sorry RW I don't know a better succinct way to put it. You are correct. somehow people seem to think that the LGBTs started the war...we didn't start it, we just didn't start fighting in it until around 1969 with the Stonewall riots. We have come a long way since then...we have learned a lot, we have gone forward and backwards, and never want to get stuffed back into the closet again. We just want to live our lives...not our "GAY" lives...just our normal lives...and by normal I mean, we want to go shopping for groceries together and go on vacation together and just live our lives with out worrying that at the end of our lives, nothing will be there for those we love and leave behind. This isn't just about freedom to proclaim love (which is a big part of it)...it is about benefits that are denied because the person I love is the same sex. And we do not want the Chic Fil A employees out of a job...but if it happen, I am sure we would get blamed, particularly in the south. Honestly, if all this guy said was "I don't support....blah blah blah"...then nothing would matter, but since he actively is trying to either change newly enacted laws or prevent new laws or enact new laws that favor is position...we have little to fight with. In all honesty, our boycott will do nothing. Most of Chic Fil A's restaurants are in the south...most of their clientele will probably agree with their position! It is more a show of force for us. The Target Boycott was very effective, because our actions could hurt their profits...only minutely... The funny thing is, I have never been an activist until I was given the ability to get married, something I never thought I would see in my life time...and then it was taken away...Then all the sudden I was wounded personally. I can take all the name calling I have had to endure, I can even take being told I am going to hell (something I don't believe in anyways)...but do not give me benefits and then take them away...do not dangle equality in front of me and then yank it out of grips. I still don't consider myself an activist...but I will state my mind and opinion. |
| 2012-07-27 1:37 PM in reply to: #4334219 |
Champion 18680 Lost in the Luminiferous Aether | Subject: RE: Chick-Fil- runningwoof - 2012-07-27 2:23 PM trinnas - 2012-07-27 11:06 AM Goosedog - 2012-07-27 2:00 PM trinnas - 2012-07-27 1:47 PM Goosedog - 2012-07-27 1:34 PM trinnas - 2012-07-27 1:29 PM Ok so say you boycott CF and shut them down making the owner basically "pay the price" for his opinions and for sponsering WS. What about all the ancillary damage you cause to people who have nothing to do with the owner's views, eg the employees, the suppliers, the truckers that deliver to the stores etc.? Not exactly a great jobs environment out there so it's not like the employees can leave en masse? You hurt them as well when their hours are cut or they lose their jobs completely. Same for the suppliers and their employees. This argument falls apart if the money I would otherwise spend at CFA is spent elsewhere. but you assume those employed etc. at CF can get jobs where you choose to spend your money. You will also induce frictional unemployment in the transition. I suppose I induce frictional unemployment everytime I choose restaurant X over restaurant Y, but that is because restaurant X was able to deliver the product most appealing to me in light of the factors that go into my purchasing decision. That being said, yes it sucks that the franchise owners/employees/suppliers etc. are caught in the crossfire. Just like the gas station owners/employees that got caught in the Citgo mess. But, CFA put those people in this unfortunate position (if this whole thing really impacts CFA).
Your individual action does not but coodinated continued action does. I tend to doubt CFA will get the blame for "putting people in this situation". The reality is the "gay marriage lobby" will get the blame by most of those affected. *Sorry RW I don't know a better succinct way to put it. You are correct. somehow people seem to think that the LGBTs started the war...we didn't start it, we just didn't start fighting in it until around 1969 with the Stonewall riots. We have come a long way since then...we have learned a lot, we have gone forward and backwards, and never want to get stuffed back into the closet again. We just want to live our lives...not our "GAY" lives...just our normal lives...and by normal I mean, we want to go shopping for groceries together and go on vacation together and just live our lives with out worrying that at the end of our lives, nothing will be there for those we love and leave behind. This isn't just about freedom to proclaim love (which is a big part of it)...it is about benefits that are denied because the person I love is the same sex. And we do not want the Chic Fil A employees out of a job...but if it happen, I am sure we would get blamed, particularly in the south. Honestly, if all this guy said was "I don't support....blah blah blah"...then nothing would matter, but since he actively is trying to either change newly enacted laws or prevent new laws or enact new laws that favor is position...we have little to fight with. In all honesty, our boycott will do nothing. Most of Chic Fil A's restaurants are in the south...most of their clientele will probably agree with their position! It is more a show of force for us. The Target Boycott was very effective, because our actions could hurt their profits...only minutely... The funny thing is, I have never been an activist until I was given the ability to get married, something I never thought I would see in my life time...and then it was taken away...Then all the sudden I was wounded personally. I can take all the name calling I have had to endure, I can even take being told I am going to hell (something I don't believe in anyways)...but do not give me benefits and then take them away...do not dangle equality in front of me and then yank it out of grips. I still don't consider myself an activist...but I will state my mind and opinion. Sadly I do believe you are probably right. To me though, then it seems should you "win" with CFA it will be a pyrrhic victory.
|
| 2012-07-27 2:33 PM in reply to: #4333932 |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Chick-Fil- runningwoof - 2012-07-27 11:51 AM I respect the fact that you have a certain belief structure, I do not respect the actions of of trying to keep me from my belief. If, your religion says that two men or two women can not marry each other. Great! I won't get married in your church...but do not push legislation that prevents me from getting married in my church, or by the city. (I also think it funny that most people ignore the fact that in Leviticus, we aren't suppose to eat pork, and several Chick Fil A meals come with sausage...Just a side note. I actually agree with you on the pushing legislation and such. I'm pretty libertarian on the subject as a whole. I am a christian and I do have beliefs on the subject, but those are my beliefs and I don't impose, or attempt to impose them on anyone else. Also, just a quick note on the Leviticus reference. The bible has three categories of laws in the old testament. BTW, I'm not trying to push these beliefs on you or anyone else. i'm just merely providing why most christian's believe what they believe. It's not hypocrisy to eat pork or get a tattoo and not support homosexuality. |
| 2012-07-27 2:47 PM in reply to: #4334386 |
Pro 6767 the Alabama part of Pennsylvania | Subject: RE: Chick-Fil- tuwood - 2012-07-27 3:33 PM .... I actually agree with you on the pushing legislation and such. I'm pretty libertarian on the subject as a whole. I am a christian and I do have beliefs on the subject, but those are my beliefs and I don't impose, or attempt to impose them on anyone else. Also, just a quick note on the Leviticus reference. The bible has three categories of laws in the old testament. BTW, I'm not trying to push these beliefs on you or anyone else. i'm just merely providing why most christian's believe what they believe. It's not hypocrisy to eat pork or get a tattoo and not support homosexuality. As someone raised jewish, I can follow the thinking that sacrifices are replaced by Jesus' sacrifice of his life (though, to be fair, if you knew you were the son of God, and therefore immortal, it doesn't seem like as much of a sacrifice). But - the the thinking of separation of "civil laws" and "moral laws", especially when it comes from Leviticus seems to bend logic a bit. Take for example, your own citation of "no tattoos" as a "civil law"(Leviticus 19:28). It comes literally in the chapter after homosexuality - what you cite as an example of "moral law". It has always seemed to me that christianity basically decided to only follow the laws that were convenient. Circumcision? No thanks. Cheeseburgers? You betcha. Yet the logic behind the latter really reflects the idea that is rather a d*ck move to "boil the kid in the milk of its mother" - which seems to me to be much more a reflection of how a loving god would want to act in the world, and therefore should really be followed. |
| 2012-07-27 2:52 PM in reply to: #4334432 |
Champion 17756 SoCal | Subject: RE: Chick-Fil- gearboy - 2012-07-27 12:47 PM It has always seemed to me that christianity basically decided to only follow the laws that were convenient. NOOOOOOO say it ain't so. |
| 2012-07-27 3:00 PM in reply to: #4334432 |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Chick-Fil- gearboy - 2012-07-27 2:47 PM tuwood - 2012-07-27 3:33 PM .... I actually agree with you on the pushing legislation and such. I'm pretty libertarian on the subject as a whole. I am a christian and I do have beliefs on the subject, but those are my beliefs and I don't impose, or attempt to impose them on anyone else. Also, just a quick note on the Leviticus reference. The bible has three categories of laws in the old testament. BTW, I'm not trying to push these beliefs on you or anyone else. i'm just merely providing why most christian's believe what they believe. It's not hypocrisy to eat pork or get a tattoo and not support homosexuality. As someone raised jewish, I can follow the thinking that sacrifices are replaced by Jesus' sacrifice of his life (though, to be fair, if you knew you were the son of God, and therefore immortal, it doesn't seem like as much of a sacrifice). But - the the thinking of separation of "civil laws" and "moral laws", especially when it comes from Leviticus seems to bend logic a bit. Take for example, your own citation of "no tattoos" as a "civil law"(Leviticus 19:28). It comes literally in the chapter after homosexuality - what you cite as an example of "moral law". It has always seemed to me that christianity basically decided to only follow the laws that were convenient. Circumcision? No thanks. Cheeseburgers? You betcha. Yet the logic behind the latter really reflects the idea that is rather a d*ck move to "boil the kid in the milk of its mother" - which seems to me to be much more a reflection of how a loving god would want to act in the world, and therefore should really be followed. I don't make them up, I just go by what I've been taught. I've only been a christian for 6 years so I'm very young in the faith. I know there are some Christian faiths who have different interpretations of the laws, but I would say that most mainstream bible teaching churches believe what I posted. Obviously that's a whole other argument and thread possibly, but I just wanted to point out why christians follow some old testament laws and not others. I'm not sure what you mean about boiling the kid. As part of the Civil law the Israelites were not supposed to cook a young goat in it's mother's milk (NIV translation) because it was superstitious thing at the time. taken from Forerunner Bible Commentary on Deuteronomy 14:21 |
| 2012-07-27 3:04 PM in reply to: #4334432 |
Champion 7347 SRQ, FL | Subject: RE: Chick-Fil- gearboy - 2012-07-27 3:47 PM It has always seemed to me that christianity basically decided to only follow the laws that were convenient. Circumcision? No thanks. Cheeseburgers? You betcha. Hunh? Christians don't practice circumcision? News to me and lost of other men raised in Christian homes... And honestly can you name any religion that does not have some tenants that seems top be "picked and chosen"?
ETA: Chick-Fil-A and circumcision in the same thread? This is going downhill fast Edited by TriRSquared 2012-07-27 3:05 PM |
| 2012-07-27 3:06 PM in reply to: #4334386 |
Elite 3519 San Jose, CA | Subject: RE: Chick-Fil- tuwood - 2012-07-27 12:33 PM runningwoof - 2012-07-27 11:51 AM I respect the fact that you have a certain belief structure, I do not respect the actions of of trying to keep me from my belief. If, your religion says that two men or two women can not marry each other. Great! I won't get married in your church...but do not push legislation that prevents me from getting married in my church, or by the city. (I also think it funny that most people ignore the fact that in Leviticus, we aren't suppose to eat pork, and several Chick Fil A meals come with sausage...Just a side note. I actually agree with you on the pushing legislation and such. I'm pretty libertarian on the subject as a whole. I am a christian and I do have beliefs on the subject, but those are my beliefs and I don't impose, or attempt to impose them on anyone else. Also, just a quick note on the Leviticus reference. The bible has three categories of laws in the old testament. BTW, I'm not trying to push these beliefs on you or anyone else. i'm just merely providing why most christian's believe what they believe. It's not hypocrisy to eat pork or get a tattoo and not support homosexuality.
I have heard this before. I went to a Lutheran College and was very active in my church...but who split these up...where in the bible is it stated this way? There are also many different interpretations of what each of the passages meant. I am not a christian anymore...don't think I ever really believed in it...but I remember thinking at the time when I was at how easy it is to use a translation of a translation to match almost any belief...again, just my .02. I have heard many historians paint a very different picture of what many of the verses used to condemn homosexuality really meant. I am not saying I believe those theories either...just stating that the bible isn't as cut and dry as a lot of people like to think it is. |
| 2012-07-27 3:10 PM in reply to: #4334477 |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Chick-Fil- runningwoof - 2012-07-27 3:06 PM tuwood - 2012-07-27 12:33 PM runningwoof - 2012-07-27 11:51 AM I respect the fact that you have a certain belief structure, I do not respect the actions of of trying to keep me from my belief. If, your religion says that two men or two women can not marry each other. Great! I won't get married in your church...but do not push legislation that prevents me from getting married in my church, or by the city. (I also think it funny that most people ignore the fact that in Leviticus, we aren't suppose to eat pork, and several Chick Fil A meals come with sausage...Just a side note. I actually agree with you on the pushing legislation and such. I'm pretty libertarian on the subject as a whole. I am a christian and I do have beliefs on the subject, but those are my beliefs and I don't impose, or attempt to impose them on anyone else. Also, just a quick note on the Leviticus reference. The bible has three categories of laws in the old testament. BTW, I'm not trying to push these beliefs on you or anyone else. i'm just merely providing why most christian's believe what they believe. It's not hypocrisy to eat pork or get a tattoo and not support homosexuality.
I have heard this before. I went to a Lutheran College and was very active in my church...but who split these up...where in the bible is it stated this way? There are also many different interpretations of what each of the passages meant. I am not a christian anymore...don't think I ever really believed in it...but I remember thinking at the time when I was at how easy it is to use a translation of a translation to match almost any belief...again, just my .02. I have heard many historians paint a very different picture of what many of the verses used to condemn homosexuality really meant. I am not saying I believe those theories either...just stating that the bible isn't as cut and dry as a lot of people like to think it is. I agree. Even as someone whose trying to understand it all, I get confused as heck. i mostly try and stick to the new testament. |
| 2012-07-27 3:15 PM in reply to: #4334477 |
Sensei Sin City | Subject: RE: Chick-Fil- runningwoof - 2012-07-27 1:06 PM tuwood - 2012-07-27 12:33 PM runningwoof - 2012-07-27 11:51 AM I respect the fact that you have a certain belief structure, I do not respect the actions of of trying to keep me from my belief. If, your religion says that two men or two women can not marry each other. Great! I won't get married in your church...but do not push legislation that prevents me from getting married in my church, or by the city. (I also think it funny that most people ignore the fact that in Leviticus, we aren't suppose to eat pork, and several Chick Fil A meals come with sausage...Just a side note. I actually agree with you on the pushing legislation and such. I'm pretty libertarian on the subject as a whole. I am a christian and I do have beliefs on the subject, but those are my beliefs and I don't impose, or attempt to impose them on anyone else. Also, just a quick note on the Leviticus reference. The bible has three categories of laws in the old testament. BTW, I'm not trying to push these beliefs on you or anyone else. i'm just merely providing why most christian's believe what they believe. It's not hypocrisy to eat pork or get a tattoo and not support homosexuality.
I have heard this before. I went to a Lutheran College and was very active in my church...but who split these up...where in the bible is it stated this way? There are also many different interpretations of what each of the passages meant. I am not a christian anymore...don't think I ever really believed in it...but I remember thinking at the time when I was at how easy it is to use a translation of a translation to match almost any belief...again, just my .02. I have heard many historians paint a very different picture of what many of the verses used to condemn homosexuality really meant. I am not saying I believe those theories either...just stating that the bible isn't as cut and dry as a lot of people like to think it is. Valpo? Class of 91-ish! |
| 2012-07-27 3:16 PM in reply to: #4333979 |
Master 1440 | Subject: RE: Chick-Fil- trinnas - 2012-07-27 1:04 PM verga - 2012-07-27 12:55 PM trinnas - 2012-07-27 11:53 AM Goosedog - 2012-07-27 11:46 AM trinnas - 2012-07-27 11:34 AM Apples and oranges one is voicing an opinion the other is acting in a discriminatory fashion. This is old news (and I appreciate that the source is biased) but WinShape does, apparently, refuse to allow LBGT couples at their marriage camps. I don't know if this story has been debunked or not, but, if true, that is acting in a discriminatory fashion. Personally, I don't have a problem with a private marriage camp being open only to man/woman couples, but it is discriminatory. If true. http://news.change.org/stories/yes-chick-fil-a-says-we-explicitly-do-not-like-same-sex-couples
Now that is a much murkier issue as you are now getting into freedom of religion areas. The Catholic church is allowed to discriminate against women by not making them priests yet there is no outcry over that. Jesus appointed men to the position of apostles, the priests are the succesors of those twleve. Women served in otehr capacities. Look up the New Testament and you will see Lydia and Priscilla. So their discrimination is based on religion. what is your point?
The point is that it is NOT discrimination. Jesus set the requirements / criteria for the job and the Church is following through. Various jobs have requirements for those positions, if you don't meet the requirements you can't have the job. That is not discrimination. Ie Radio men on Naval vessels were at one time required to know Morse Code. If you didn't know code you couldn't do the job. |
| 2012-07-27 3:16 PM in reply to: #4334472 |
Elite 3519 San Jose, CA | Subject: RE: Chick-Fil- TriRSquared - 2012-07-27 1:04 PM gearboy - 2012-07-27 3:47 PM It has always seemed to me that christianity basically decided to only follow the laws that were convenient. Circumcision? No thanks. Cheeseburgers? You betcha. Hunh? Christians don't practice circumcision? News to me and lost of other men raised in Christian homes... And honestly can you name any religion that does not have some tenants that seems top be "picked and chosen"?
ETA: Chick-Fil-A and circumcision in the same thread? This is going downhill fast Loraina Bobbit it would be Chick Fillet! (of penii) |
| 2012-07-27 3:18 PM in reply to: #4334495 |
Sensei Sin City | Subject: RE: Chick-Fil- Most of these kinds of threads never stay on point. The trick is knowing when to punch out/pull the rip cord. |
| 2012-07-27 3:19 PM in reply to: #4334489 |
Elite 3519 San Jose, CA | Subject: RE: Chick-Fil- Kido - 2012-07-27 1:15 PM runningwoof - 2012-07-27 1:06 PM tuwood - 2012-07-27 12:33 PM runningwoof - 2012-07-27 11:51 AM I respect the fact that you have a certain belief structure, I do not respect the actions of of trying to keep me from my belief. If, your religion says that two men or two women can not marry each other. Great! I won't get married in your church...but do not push legislation that prevents me from getting married in my church, or by the city. (I also think it funny that most people ignore the fact that in Leviticus, we aren't suppose to eat pork, and several Chick Fil A meals come with sausage...Just a side note. I actually agree with you on the pushing legislation and such. I'm pretty libertarian on the subject as a whole. I am a christian and I do have beliefs on the subject, but those are my beliefs and I don't impose, or attempt to impose them on anyone else. Also, just a quick note on the Leviticus reference. The bible has three categories of laws in the old testament. BTW, I'm not trying to push these beliefs on you or anyone else. i'm just merely providing why most christian's believe what they believe. It's not hypocrisy to eat pork or get a tattoo and not support homosexuality.
I have heard this before. I went to a Lutheran College and was very active in my church...but who split these up...where in the bible is it stated this way? There are also many different interpretations of what each of the passages meant. I am not a christian anymore...don't think I ever really believed in it...but I remember thinking at the time when I was at how easy it is to use a translation of a translation to match almost any belief...again, just my .02. I have heard many historians paint a very different picture of what many of the verses used to condemn homosexuality really meant. I am not saying I believe those theories either...just stating that the bible isn't as cut and dry as a lot of people like to think it is. Valpo? Class of 91-ish! Concordia University Irvine...would have graduated in 92...but I quit school to go into the Navy. I wasn't out yet, I thought being in the Navy might make me straight...um...I didn't count on being surrounded by 1000s of gorgeous in shape men in uniform and all showering together...yeah...really didn't cure me! |
| 2012-07-27 3:23 PM in reply to: #4334499 |
Champion 17756 SoCal | Subject: RE: Chick-Fil- runningwoof - 2012-07-27 1:19 PM I thought being in the Navy might make me straight...um...I didn't count on being surrounded by 1000s of gorgeous in shape men in uniform and all showering together...yeah...really didn't cure me! So to become straight you became a seamen? |
| 2012-07-27 3:24 PM in reply to: #4334499 |
| Master 2083 Houston, TX | Subject: RE: Chick-Fil- runningwoof - 2012-07-27 3:19 PM Concordia University Irvine...would have graduated in 92...but I quit school to go into the Navy. I wasn't out yet, I thought being in the Navy might make me straight...um...I didn't count on being surrounded by 1000s of gorgeous in shape men in uniform and all showering together...yeah...really didn't cure me! why am I hearing the village people? |
| 2012-07-27 3:24 PM in reply to: #4334499 |
Sensei Sin City | Subject: RE: Chick-Fil- runningwoof - 2012-07-27 1:19 PM Kido - 2012-07-27 1:15 PM runningwoof - 2012-07-27 1:06 PM tuwood - 2012-07-27 12:33 PM runningwoof - 2012-07-27 11:51 AM I respect the fact that you have a certain belief structure, I do not respect the actions of of trying to keep me from my belief. If, your religion says that two men or two women can not marry each other. Great! I won't get married in your church...but do not push legislation that prevents me from getting married in my church, or by the city. (I also think it funny that most people ignore the fact that in Leviticus, we aren't suppose to eat pork, and several Chick Fil A meals come with sausage...Just a side note. I actually agree with you on the pushing legislation and such. I'm pretty libertarian on the subject as a whole. I am a christian and I do have beliefs on the subject, but those are my beliefs and I don't impose, or attempt to impose them on anyone else. Also, just a quick note on the Leviticus reference. The bible has three categories of laws in the old testament. BTW, I'm not trying to push these beliefs on you or anyone else. i'm just merely providing why most christian's believe what they believe. It's not hypocrisy to eat pork or get a tattoo and not support homosexuality.
I have heard this before. I went to a Lutheran College and was very active in my church...but who split these up...where in the bible is it stated this way? There are also many different interpretations of what each of the passages meant. I am not a christian anymore...don't think I ever really believed in it...but I remember thinking at the time when I was at how easy it is to use a translation of a translation to match almost any belief...again, just my .02. I have heard many historians paint a very different picture of what many of the verses used to condemn homosexuality really meant. I am not saying I believe those theories either...just stating that the bible isn't as cut and dry as a lot of people like to think it is. Valpo? Class of 91-ish! Concordia University Irvine...would have graduated in 92...but I quit school to go into the Navy. I wasn't out yet, I thought being in the Navy might make me straight...um...I didn't count on being surrounded by 1000s of gorgeous in shape men in uniform and all showering together...yeah...really didn't cure me! Right! That would be like me being the official Hawian Tropic sun tan lotion applicator with the hopes of it turning me off girls! We are what we are and what god made us. |
| 2012-07-27 3:26 PM in reply to: #4334509 |
| Master 2083 Houston, TX | Subject: RE: Chick-Fil- |
|
|
|
|
View profile
Add to friends
Go to training log
Go to race log
Send a message
View album
CONNECT WITH FACEBOOK