The Left and Chick-Fil-A

[Skillet]

I know where you are Pygmy. I've seen where you sleep. You are not a light sleeper. *SMOOCH*

[Elmo]

I've never actually eaten at Chick-fil-A but if I do eat there, then the only thing you can say about me is that I like their chicken. It states nothing about my stance on gay marriage. I support gay marriage. Who care what they do. It doesn't effect me at all. I think celebrities like Kim Kardashian and Britney Spears who length of marriage can be counted in hours have tarnishes the meaning of marriages long before the gays came along. Besides. In all honesty, the meaning of marriage is really between you and your spouse. I don't need another group or organization to tell me what it's suppose to mean. With that said, gays should have their freedom as anyone else but again, by me eating at Chick-fil-A, all I'm saying to I like their food, not their owners point of view. If I knew that the money I spent there will be used to fund a malicious agenda, then yes, I will stop eating at such an establishment.

[Skillet]

Oh man....You are gagging me here! You must not be Italian....for sure you could not talk with your hands whilst they are covering your ass!

Now that's tolerance for you. Way to make a nationality based insult. Beautiful.

[Pygmy]

I know where you are Pygmy. I've seen where you sleep. You are not a light sleeper. *SMOOCH*

If you smudge my lip gloss, I'll scratch your EYES out !!

I'm not that EASY, you know !

[Grouse]

Elmo, it does affect you. The loss of traditional family values has already created many problems in this land and this will accelerate the problems. What's to stop redefining marriage from progressing to multiple spouses?

This could also signal the end of the family unit, which is the keystone to any society. The Left puts out a lot of propaganda about how gay marriage will not be a threat, but if you seek out opinions from the other side, which are never published in the mass media, you will find a lot to be worried about.

When anything goes in a society, eventually everything will be gone.

[Sogaard]

The same arguments were said in the 50s and 60s about interracial marriages. We managed to survive. Go figure.

Edited August 6, 2012 by Sogaard

[Elmo]

Personally, I think two straight couples who get married and divorces whenever they get tired of it and change spouses like its going out of style does more damage to traditional values more than a gay couple who stay faithful to each other till death do them part.

[Skillet]

Personally, I think two straight couples who get married and divorces whenever they get tired of it and change spouses like its going out of style does more damage to traditional values more than a gay couple who stay faithful to each other till death do them part.

Are you saying that you believe gays are more faithful, and have more successful long-term relationships? It's not clear to me if you are just giving an example, or if that is what you believe to be true.

Edited August 6, 2012 by Skillet

[Skillet]

The same arguments were said in the 50s and 60s about interracial marriages. We managed to survive. Go figure.

You are right with one difference. When did God say that different races could not marry? He clearly said that people of the same sex could not. If you are a Christian, it's simple. It's a personal choice of wether to believe or not. I'm not perfect, I'm no better than anyone else, and I've done some bad stuff, but I won't apologize for my beliefs. If that makes me an intolerant bigot, so be it. Just because the government or some church gone astray says gays can marry, doesn't mean that God will recognize it. You can force it to be recognized legally as such, but that doesn't change the fact that it is not a marriage.

Edited August 6, 2012 by Skillet

[Elmo]

Are you saying that you believe gays are more faithful, and have more successful long-term relationships? It's not clear to me if you are just giving an example, or if that is what you believe to be true.

Did not. Simply saying that unfaithful couples who have complete disregard for vows do more than damage than the gays that are faithful. I'm sure there are gays who are just as unfaithful. I am pointing to the fact that more celebrity marriages last less than 5 years while only a few last more than 5 years. The danger of this is that youths tend to emulate celebrities more than gays.

[Skillet]

Understood sir. I agree that people's willingness to give up on marriage is damaging. Not as damaging as gay marriage though. There was divorce back in the day too, and it was frowned upon without very specific betrayals, just as it should be now.

Edited August 6, 2012 by Skillet

[Sogaard]

God? Do you mean Jesus? Or the guy from the OT that also supposedly said you should be put to death for eating pork and shellfish, along with a dozen other incredibly stupid things?

Because last I checked, Jesus didn't weigh in on the subject much.

[Culvercreek hunt club]

I am pointing to the fact that more celebrity marriages last less than 5 years while only a few last more than 5 years. The danger of this is that youths tend to emulate celebrities more than gays.

As opposed to the vast increased in out of wedlock births? If we are going to get behind gay marriage as better than a heterosexual divorce should we be openly berating the ones that have any out of marriage children as bad?

What if the next wave of the day is having more than one spouse? If we are open to a new legal definition any time some group sees fit why not swing in line with the Mormons? Why is a loving couple of 2 people any better than a loving groupr of 3...or 4 ...or 6?

[Skillet]

God? Do you mean Jesus? Or the guy from the OT that also supposedly said you should be put to death for eating pork and shellfish, along with a dozen other incredibly stupid things?

Because last I checked, Jesus didn't weigh in on the subject much.

Believe what you want. I never heard anything in the NT condoning gay marriage.......

Edited August 6, 2012 by Skillet

[Skillet]

As opposed to the vast increased in out of wedlock births? If we are going to get behind gay marriage as better than a heterosexual divorce should we be openly berating the ones that have any out of marriage children as bad?

What if the next wave of the day is having more than one spouse? If we are open to a new legal definition any time some group sees fit why not swing in line with the Mormons? Why is a loving couple of 2 people any better than a loving groupr of 3...or 4 ...or 6?

Good point Culver. I guess we should also have no problem with our tax dollars going to fund abortion.

Edited August 6, 2012 by Skillet

[Elmo]

Yes, people do make mistakes but there are honest mistakes and then there are people who make mockery of the viow. I'm not sure what having children out of wedlock has to do with it. If you're here arguing about how sacred the vow is, how the bible strictly prohibits gay marriages, then you should also point out that sex before marriage is a sin. Another reason why gay marriages doesn't bother me. My tax dollars don't fund their abortions. Let's make it clear though. I'm not arguing for gay marriages. I'm just saying it doesn't bother me at all and the fact that in todays world, people seem to be treating marriage like it's a joke is more of a concern.

[RangerClay]

I'm not sure how many of you follow it but I want to share something from the Charlie Daniels Soapbox. yes I know its long, but its a good read.

Regardless of how you feel about the same-sex marriage issue, whether pro, con or neutral, if you are a freedom loving American you have to be appalled and angry to one degree or another when elected officials denounce an American businessman and his business for having the moral integrity to stand by a deeply held religious belief.

I think that Boston Mayor, Thomas Menino, Chicago Mayor, Rahm Emanuel, and a few other “progressive” mayors showed the true colors of the left this week when they basically told Chick-fil-A, "If you don't believe the way we do we don't want you in our towns."

I think that the encyclopedias should put pictures of Menino, Emanuel and their similarly minded counterparts next to the definitions of hypocrites and cowards, and I don't say that lightly.

Muslims don't believe in same-sex marriage either, but have any of the stalwart mayors attacked any Muslims or Muslim businesses or told them they were not welcome in Chicago, Boston or San Francisco?

Of course they haven't, they don't have the cajones. They never do.

This is the move of a desperate, morally bankrupt, tyrannical political genre realizing they are totally out of touch and distrusted by mainstream America and their only hope is to keep a demanding and ever changing base intact. The big tax, entitlement bunch who use the taxpayer's money to curry favor and buy votes, never minding whose head they step on and now much collateral damage they leave in their wake.

Don't look to hear about this in the mainstream media, but from what I hear from around the country, the inane tirades of these city officials had an unequal and opposite effect on Chick-fil-A and the American public, as they have awakened and angered a usually passive middle America who literally turned out by the tens of thousands all over country to show their support for Dan Cathy and the business his family founded by standing in long lines and waiting for open spaces in parking lots, some locations running out of food well before the business day was over.

These mayors have done more to identify the enemies of freedom in America than all the speeches at conventions, all the TV and radio ads and all the talking head commentaries put together.

They have put a face on a brand of politics that is anti-business, anti-Christian and anti anything else that flies in the face of their socialistic, dictatorial agenda, exposing the supposedly totally tolerant left as the petulant, opportunistic gaggle of milksops who try to draw attention away from the true and important problems they face by making a big deal out of something insignificant.

Dan Cathy’s convictions have been known for a long time, he doesn't even allow his brand to open for business on Sunday in accordance with his beliefs in observing the Sabbath, and since his remarks about same-sex marriage do not come as a surprise to anybody with a modicum of gray matter, why all of a sudden are the mayors of major American cities in an uproar about it?

Do you think that drawing attention away from the murder rate on the streets of Chicago, that Emanuel doesn't seem capable of doing anything about, have anything to do with it?

It's an old political trick that Bill Clinton developed into an art form and Barack Obama's whole 2012 campaign is based on. When you have big problems you can't deal with, you point attention at anything other than your own shortcomings. It's called the tail wagging the dog.

But this time they've hit a nerve, walked into a fastball they didn't see coming as hundreds of thousands of Americans went out of their way to show their support and admiration for someone who would stand up for something they believe in and their distaste for out of touch, big city mayors who don't respect anything that don't agree with them.

Mr. Emanuel, Mr. Menino and your ilk, let's see you go to a mosque and denounce the Muslim businessmen for their disapproval of same-sex marriage.

I double dare you.

What do you think?

Pray for our troops, and for our county.

God Bless America

Charlie Daniels

[Elmo]

Very well said, RangerClay.

[virgil]

^{These mayors have done more to identify the enemies of freedom in America than all the speeches at conventions, all the TV and radio ads and all the talking head commentaries put together.}

^{This is an interesting line in the context of an article that is promoting the denial of equal rights (the rights of gay americans to marry).}

[Culvercreek hunt club]

Virgil....and there is the problem with the whole thing. The owner did NOTHING to deny anyone anything. He voiced he opinion based on his belief and the whole left want him strung up because he is not inline with them. I have not seen one charge or complaint that a homosexual has been descriminated against by the firm as an employee or a customer...Have you?

Edited August 6, 2012 by Culvercreek hunt club

[virgil]

No. But, I don't think that's the point. I think that the point of the protests is that the leader of a large hospitality-industry business openly stated that he feels that certain Americans should not have the same rights as the rest of us. The only means that the public has to answer back is to boycot his business. Really, I don't see the big deal on either side. That franchise will do just fine because, from what I understand, they're mostly based in parts of the country that will support homophobia and other forms of narrow-mindedness.

[ants]

Amen...Libs pick and choose who to denounce. With them it's not the thought or the action it's WHO thought it or did it.... Cowards.... All of them.

[ants]

Amen...Libs pick and choose who to denounce. With them it's not the thought or the action it's WHO thought it or did it.... Cowards.... All of them.

[Culvercreek hunt club]

No. But, I don't think that's the point. I think that the point of the protests is that the leader of a large hospitality-industry business openly stated that he feels that certain Americans should not have the same rights as the rest of us. The only means that the public has to answer back is to boycot his business. Really, I don't see the big deal on either side. That franchise will do just fine because, from what I understand, they're mostly based in parts of the country that will support homophobia and other forms of narrow-mindedness.

The problem is elected official leading the charge....There is no place for that.

Add to that, protests designed ot disrupt their business....for voicing an opinion. whether you agree with His opinion or not, He had a right to voice it. Now he is targeted for exercising a right. So the group that doesn't like him talking about how they shouldn't have a right is going to punish him for using a right. Yeah that makes sense to me, what was I thinking.

Edited August 6, 2012 by Culvercreek hunt club

[Sogaard]

Elected officials should be leading the charge, its their job! Elected officials reflect the opinion of their constituents, or else they don't remain elected officials for long. You think the mayor of SF is losing any votes for saying he doesn't want C-A-F in his city? And the mayors can "say" whatever they want. Saying something doesn't make it policy, and doesn't make it law.

And to Grouse, who was nice enough to quote "Pearls before swine" (Matthew 7:6) earlier in this thread, how about you go back a few lines to 7:1, "Judge not, lest ye be judged."

Edited August 6, 2012 by Sogaard