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.
If they give money to anti-gay groups, then they're hateful idiots.
To be fair, I'd say it's either one or the other.
If they don't know that studies have found gays to be equally good if not better at parenting and marriage, it's because they don't want to learn about the subject. Not wanting to know something relevant to a subject you care so much about = idiotic.
If they do know gays are at least as good if not better parents and spouses, and they still want to deny them the right to raise children or get married, that'd suggest they're just plain hateful. Hateful of homosexuals, and hateful of the children who would be raised by them. They'd rather see them in orphanages than in a household where they'd be raised equally well as (if not better than) if they were raised by heterosexuals.
Don't want someone thinking you're hateful?
Give us another explanation as to why you think these people shouldn't be allowed to raise children or get married.
I think you'd be more comfortable living in a theocracy. Do you need help packing?
You yourself in another thread think that it is okay to kill unborn children. That's an odd way of thinking.
No one is advocating a Theocracy.
You don't believe in Freedom of Speech.
Have your silly little boycott. It'll be laughed at. It will simply increase the profits of Chick-Fil-A, so that they can give more money to these "hateful" organizations, ones who work for the common good of society.
As it is, most Chick-Fil-A restaurants are in the South, and you're not going to have any influence here in the Bible Belt. This makes me more determined than ever to eat more often at Chick-Fil-A.
Have homosexuals been prevented from acquiring employment from Chick-Fil-A. Have they been prevented from ordering a meal?
NO!
What you don't like is that a MAN, who happens to be the head of a large company, does not agree with homosexual marriage, something that has been seen as unnatural and perverse since the beginning of mankind. Considering that homosexuality was labeled a mental disorder as recently as the 1970s, the left has gone insane into trying to make everyone believe that homosexuality is normal, and to trying to dictate that people believe as they do with regard to homosexual "marriage".
Why is it stupid?
You do realize that homosexuals have a much shorter life span due to sexually transmitted diseases?
You do realize that homosexuals cannot procreate. If children aren't born, mankind does not continue.
You do realize that homosexuality is not natural, and that promoting the unnatural influences children to believe that it is normal. This only further debases society and sets the stage for further immorality. It also influences many individuals to get involved in a lifestyle that leads to destruction.
That you'd call it "stupid", despite the facts, especially considering that GOD calls it an abomination, speaks volumes. Do you dislike what God says? What do you have against the Word of God?
Truett Cathy does have a right to his beliefs. That so much is made of this speaks to the wickedness of politicians, businesses, reporters, and journalists who make a big issue of something like this. After all, the man said, "I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman". Wow, shocking.
This just goes to prove that the left is never satisfied, and that they want to tear down every semblance of Christian-based morality in this society.
Then you do not worship a God, for the one and only God, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, calls it an abomination.
Romans 1: 21-32
21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.
24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.
28 Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. 29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. 32 Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.
Of course you do. You attack Biblical teaching.
Don't try to pretend that your viewpoint represents a majority of America. Outside of the northeast, the west Coast, and a few isolated locales, such as Chicago and parts of Minnesota, your viewpoint is highly outnumbered.
Speaking in favor of perversions is not popular.
Homosexuality is not a peversion; homosexuality is not abnormal.
Well there you go. I'm not a huge fan of fast food.
Again, I like real food.
Just as people boycott Target and JcPenny's for their pro-gay stuff.
One can most certainly have their own religious beliefs. But it crosses a line when people use their religious beliefs to influence our secular government.
Faith is like genitalia. We all have one that is ours and ours alone; we are free to share our genitalia as we please, but use safety and caution when sharing with everyone. Too many people share and you get this incurable disease where you cannot separate your faith from everything around you.
I'm a Jenova's Witness. Jenova would love nothing more than to destroy humanity and clean the lifestream - but you don't see me going around committing mass murder purely because my religious texts say so.
How specifically did Chick-Fil-A try to influence the government? I don't recall seeing that.
Secondly, if they did try to influence the government, there is NOTHING in the Constitution that prevents a person from doing such. If that were the case, then you'd never had men on the floors of congress speaking of God and Jesus. This has been done repeatedly.
Frankly, there is NO separation of church and state. There is a prohibition for the establishment of a state church, one that prevents worship of any other kind, as well as one that forces people to pay a tax to it. If you're familiar with the establishment clause, it says, "CONGRESS shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion", implying the formation of state church, for that is what they were familiar with when in England. It is what they wanted to guard against. Furthermore, since when is Truett Cathy "Congress"?
You don't even know the Constitution, and you're simply parroting the nonsensical "separation of church and state" that leftist God-Haters like to argue whenever any Christian gets into the public sphere.
How specifically did Chick-Fil-A try to influence the government? I don't recall seeing that.
Secondly, if they did try to influence the government, there is NOTHING in the Constitution that prevents a person from doing such. If that were the case, then you'd never had men on the floors of congress speaking of God and Jesus. This has been done repeatedly.
Frankly, there is NO separation of church and state. There is a prohibition for the establishment of a state church, one that prevents worship of any other kind, as well as one that forces people to pay a tax to it. If you're familiar with the establishment clause, it says, "CONGRESS shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion", implying the formation of state church, for that is what they were familiar with when in England. It is what they wanted to guard against. Furthermore, since when is Truett Cathy "Congress"?
You don't even know the Constitution, and you're simply parroting the nonsensical "separation of church and state" that leftist God-Haters like to argue whenever any Christian gets into the public sphere.
Nice strawman fallacy. Good thing I never stated that the Constitution has a "Separation of Church and State". But even still, you should read more than just the first few amendments. You'll find that there are provisions that extend things like the Establishment clause to all levels of government.
Plain and simple, if a person doesn't like what a business does or stands for, then they have the freedom to not partake in the business being provided. You can whine and kvetch about "God Haters" and "evil atheists" until The Reunion and this fact will not change.
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.
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.
organizations, ones who work for the common good of society.
