Chick Fil A and boycott (stunning, biased, party, claims)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well, I'm typically not someone who likes to say "Mind your own business" or anything of that nature. I believe that everything is everyone's business. But to concern yourself with homosexuality specifically, despite a lack of evidence that it is necessarily harmful to anyone or anything borders on obsession. Not a good thing to encourage in government, IMHO.
I agree. The question then becomes why homosexuals seem fixated on their own sexuality to the exclusion of practically everything else. There is something essentially unhealthy about being so exclusively self-referential.
I have a tendency to side with the gays.... That being said, I think though that this guy has his right to free speech, as long as he isn't discrimating against gays.
I have a tendency to side with the gays.... That being said, I think though that this guy has his right to free speech, as long as he isn't discrimating against gays.
Simple really.
To me, your statement is brief and to the point. I agree.
I will add: I think the gay community has made a huge mistake in this matter. I have several Christian sisters, and they were pretty well of the "Homosexuality is a sin, but it is not my concern" concept.
However, the Chick Fil A president (or owner, CEO, whatever) simply spoke his personal beliefs about gay marriage. To my knowledge, Chick does not refuse to serve gays.
By creating an 'issue' about this, the gay community does itself a disservice. Many Christians, like my sisters, view this as an attempt by the gay community to mandate what Christians think and believe. I agree: it does seem like those gay individuals calling for 'boycott' of Chick are trying to 'punish' a person for a belief. I guess my belief in religious freedom trumps all. I am an atheist, but I respect those, like my sisters, whom are Christian.
I am in favor of the concept of gays being entitled to 'civil unions'. I use this term because I think that 'marriage', in my mind, means a 'church sanctioned union of man and woman'. I am for gays being able to have 'civil unions' (i.e., State sanctioned) with all of the benefits of 'marriage'.
I was born in 1955, and I recall when to call another person 'homosexual' was considered 'libel per se'. In other words, of you called a person 'homosexual', you could be sued by that person for libel: truth, as always, was a valid defense. If it were not true, you were presumed guilty and subject to heavy financial damages.
I also recall, in the early 1970s, when the gay community basically cried to 'be left alone'. In other words, not criminally prosecuted for being gay. Over time, this desire was granted. People are no longer 'prosecuted' for being gay (a big leap).
Decades later, the gay community has made tremendous strides. Partly due to older people dying (WWII generation) and the younger people being more accepting of gays. Television has also helped to show that 'gay people' are 'just like us' with the same desires, fears, insecurities, etc.
However, sometimes 'success' can lead to arrogance. I think we are seeing that with the Chick controversy. A Christian makes a statement of belief, and the gay community goes overboard with boycotts, etc., claiming "how dare you not want gays to be allowed to be married!"
Yet, many reasonable Christians viewed the attacks as a proclamation by the gay community that to hold religious beliefs concerning gay marriage is 'wrong'. The sleeping giant has woken. From what I have read, some few thousand gays have held 'kiss ins', but many tens of thousands of Christians have flocked to Chick to show their support for the CEO.
I think those in the gay community whom have decided to make this a 'battle' are wrong. They have hurt their cause for equality. I am for for gays having the right to be 'married' (or, civil unions), but I am much more in support of 'freedom of speech' and 'freedom of religion'. To call for a boycott (which is within their right) of a business solely due to a belief (again, Chick is willing to serve gays) expressed by the CEO is, in essence, economic thuggery.
I think the gay leaders should have ignored the statement by the Chick Fil A CEO. The gay community leaders now look like bullies, or bulls looking for a China shop to destroy.
I for one am glad this was brought to everyone's attention. Not only that he had pleaded "guilty as charged" to "supporting traditional marriage" (which is just a nice-sounding way of saying you're against gay marriage), but that he had been donating money to organizations that expressed some truly anti-gay beliefs. You don't have to discriminate personally to get on my bad side; promoting discrimination (as in saying that gays shouldn't be allowed to get married, or that we should view their marriages differently) is enough.
It isn't the boycott that's making gays and gay activists look bad; it's all the protesting, confrontations, vandalism, etc. The boycott is a fine idea in and of itself, and that includes making it as public as possible. I won't be spending another dime there. Since that is the whole point of the boycott, I'd say it's quite successful in this household
To me, your statement is brief and to the point. I agree.
I will add: I think the gay community has made a huge mistake in this matter. I have several Christian sisters, and they were pretty well of the "Homosexuality is a sin, but it is not my concern" concept.
However, the Chick Fil A president (or owner, CEO, whatever) simply spoke his personal beliefs about gay marriage. To my knowledge, Chick does not refuse to serve gays.
By creating an 'issue' about this, the gay community does itself a disservice. Many Christians, like my sisters, view this as an attempt by the gay community to mandate what Christians think and believe. I agree: it does seem like those gay individuals calling for 'boycott' of Chick are trying to 'punish' a person for a belief. I guess my belief in religious freedom trumps all. I am an atheist, but I respect those, like my sisters, whom are Christian.
I am in favor of the concept of gays being entitled to 'civil unions'. I use this term because I think that 'marriage', in my mind, means a 'church sanctioned union of man and woman'. I am for gays being able to have 'civil unions' (i.e., State sanctioned) with all of the benefits of 'marriage'.
I was born in 1955, and I recall when to call another person 'homosexual' was considered 'libel per se'. In other words, of you called a person 'homosexual', you could be sued by that person for libel: truth, as always, was a valid defense. If it were not true, you were presumed guilty and subject to heavy financial damages.
I also recall, in the early 1970s, when the gay community basically cried to 'be left alone'. In other words, not criminally prosecuted for being gay. Over time, this desire was granted. People are no longer 'prosecuted' for being gay (a big leap).
Decades later, the gay community has made tremendous strides. Partly due to older people dying (WWII generation) and the younger people being more accepting of gays. Television has also helped to show that 'gay people' are 'just like us' with the same desires, fears, insecurities, etc.
However, sometimes 'success' can lead to arrogance. I think we are seeing that with the Chick controversy. A Christian makes a statement of belief, and the gay community goes overboard with boycotts, etc., claiming "how dare you not want gays to be allowed to be married!"
Yet, many reasonable Christians viewed the attacks as a proclamation by the gay community that to hold religious beliefs concerning gay marriage is 'wrong'. The sleeping giant has woken. From what I have read, some few thousand gays have held 'kiss ins', but many tens of thousands of Christians have flocked to Chick to show their support for the CEO.
I think those in the gay community whom have decided to make this a 'battle' are wrong. They have hurt their cause for equality. I am for for gays having the right to be 'married' (or, civil unions), but I am much more in support of 'freedom of speech' and 'freedom of religion'. To call for a boycott (which is within their right) of a business solely due to a belief (again, Chick is willing to serve gays) expressed by the CEO is, in essence, economic thuggery.
I think the gay leaders should have ignored the statement by the Chick Fil A CEO. The gay community leaders now look like bullies, or bulls looking for a China shop to destroy.
It wasn't a big deal until the mayors got involved in it. Once that happened, it opened up the floodgates to merge it into an anti-Obama, anti free speech, anti-gay battle royale. Gays had every right to declare a boycott just as million moms or concerned women for america have done countless times over the last decade. Just because they are willing to serve gays is not important to me. In segregation days, some restaurants allowed blacks to eat in their restaurant as long as they sat outside or in a certain section. It's not a direct analogy, but I don't want to contribute my $$ to a company that shifts its profits to groups that strive to hinder my civil rights in this country.
I'm glad he stood for traditional marriage, I'm glad the homosexuals boycotted and that it backfired on them, it shows the people pointing and calling others names are hypocrites
I'm glad he stood for traditional marriage, I'm glad the homosexuals boycotted and that it backfired on them, it shows the people pointing and calling others names are hypocrites
aren't you the one with the gay niece or stepdaughter?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.