Chick-Fil-A President: Men shouldn't eat other men's chicken

#226
#226
vollygirl said:
Marriage, as defined by God, is the union of one man and one woman. If you're a Christian, this is what you believe.

My opinion on marriage has nothing to do with my opinion on who should or shouldn't receive benefits.
Click to expand...

I understand what the Bible says but that should not define law in the US
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#228
#228
The gay people that this man employs and treats like family probably aren't too hung up on his most recent comments or his beliefs. Not trying to speak on their behalf, but I know for a fact that there are a few gays at the nearest chick Fil a to me, and they have been bright, cheery, and happy to be there ever since gay chicken gate started.
 
#229
#229
I wonder how many that fight for "traditional" marriage are on their 2nd or 3rd spouse, and I don't mean through death of the previous spouse, I'm talking Rush Limbaugh.
 
#230
#230
Has this letter circulated around this thread yet?
422348_10151791883475752_1848650776_n.jpg


Now before all of you freedom fighters get excited (FTR, I am socially liberal), let me sum up this letter in one Michael Scott quote:

"This is an environment of welcoming, and you can get the hell out of here."

I would normally have my stance against the bigots, but you can't fight hate with more hate.
 
#231
#231
Chris4Vols22 said:
Has this letter circulated around this thread yet?
422348_10151791883475752_1848650776_n.jpg


Now before all of you freedom fighters get excited (FTR, I am socially liberal), let me sum up this letter in one Michael Scott quote:

"This is an environment of welcoming, and you can get the hell out of here."

I would normally have my stance against the bigots, but you can't fight hate with more hate.
Click to expand...

I agree completely, and I am gay. While I appreciate the base message some politicians are attempting to express, this is not the way to go about it. How can you espouse tolerance for one group and then turn around and be intolerant toward another? It makes no sense at all. You are right about the hate - way too much hate/intolerance on both sides of this issue, and people simply do not respond well to hatred. The only way to effect change is to engage in open, civil discourse on divisive issues such as gay rights. I hope we can start moving in that direction versus tossing hate back and forth - we need more tolerance and understanding by all parties. JMO
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#232
#232
gcbvol said:
I agree completely, and I am gay. While I appreciate the base message some politicians are attempting to express, this is not the way to go about it. How can yo espouse tolerance for one group and then turn around and be intolerant toward another? It makes no sense at all. You are right about the hate - way too much hate/intolerance on both sides of this issue, and people simply do not respond well to hatred. The only way to effect change is to engage in open, civil discourse on divisive issues such as gay rights. I hope we can start moving in that direction versus tossing hate back Nd forth - we need more tolerance and understanding by all parties. JMO
Click to expand...

Wow, I was not expecting the first response to be in agreeance with me.

But yes, you summed up my thoughts precisely.
 
#233
#233
Why doesn't the mayor of Boston let the people of Boston decide if they want Chik-Fil-A or not? Is he scared CFA will do fine in Boston regardless?
 
#237
#237
I see Rahm has welcomed Louis Farrakhan and his Nation of Islam folks into helping him fight crime in Chicago. Awesome. I guess Mr. F is Chicago values. Wonder their view on gay marriage.
 
#238
#238
bamawriter said:
I can't hear or read the word "agreeance" and not think of Fred Durst's anti-war statement at the Grammys.
Click to expand...

I can pridefully say that I'm not aware of that happening, as I am appalled by people getting awards and recognition for horrendous work, therefore I never watch the Grammys.
 
#239
#239
utvolpj said:
and if most people don't care then what's the holdup?
Click to expand...

People don't care what you do in the privacy of your home. If the homosexual community didn't need acceptance from everyone it wouldn't be an issue. He never said they couldn't eat or work there. He merely stated his opinion.

Nobody is boycotting the muppet babies because they support homosexuality. Disney has gay pride week, you don't hear about a bunch of conservative people calling for a boycott of all things disney. They will stand up and back someone with similar beliefs when an issue like this comes up. I bet most CFAs will be as busy as the first day they were opened next wed.

The homosexual community, and backers, are the ones raisin cain about this issue. Just don't eat there, it doesn't have to be a national issue. Why boycott a restaurant because of the owners beliefs? It not gonna hurt him at all, he sells chicken in the south for goodness sake. Just do your own thing and quit making a big deal about everything. Everyone isn't gonna agree with you, welcome to the real world

Never thought I would live in a country where having morals would be frowned upon by so many. I fail to see how the rest of the country becoming California is going to improve anything.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#240
#240
tkemo said:
People don't care what you do in the privacy of your home. If the homosexual community didn't need acceptance from everyone it wouldn't be an issue. He never said they couldn't eat or work there. He merely stated his opinion.

Nobody is boycotting the muppet babies because they support homosexuality. Disney has gay pride week, you don't hear about a bunch of conservative people calling for a boycott of all things disney. They will stand up and back someone with similar beliefs when an issue like this comes up. I bet most CFAs will be as busy as the first day they were opened next wed.

The homosexual community, and backers, are the ones raisin cain about this issue. Just don't eat there, it doesn't have to be a national issue. Why boycott a restaurant because of the owners beliefs? It not gonna hurt him at all, he sells chicken in the south for goodness sake. Just do your own thing and quit making a big deal about everything. Everyone isn't gonna agree with you, welcome to the real world

Never thought I would live in a country where having morals would be frowned upon by so many. I fail to see how the rest of the country becoming California is going to improve anything.
Click to expand...

Lol @ your self-professed morals.

Also, lol @ your implication that those who support the legal rights of gays are morally inferior.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#243
#243
tkemo said:
People don't care what you do in the privacy of your home. If the homosexual community didn't need acceptance from everyone it wouldn't be an issue. He never said they couldn't eat or work there. He merely stated his opinion.

Nobody is boycotting the muppet babies because they support homosexuality. Disney has gay pride week, you don't hear about a bunch of conservative people calling for a boycott of all things disney. They will stand up and back someone with similar beliefs when an issue like this comes up. I bet most CFAs will be as busy as the first day they were opened next wed.

The homosexual community, and backers, are the ones raisin cain about this issue. Just don't eat there, it doesn't have to be a national issue. Why boycott a restaurant because of the owners beliefs? It not gonna hurt him at all, he sells chicken in the south for goodness sake. Just do your own thing and quit making a big deal about everything. Everyone isn't gonna agree with you, welcome to the real world

Never thought I would live in a country where having morals would be frowned upon by so many. I fail to see how the rest of the country becoming California is going to improve anything.
Click to expand...

So let me get this straight.... It's okay to stand up for your beliefs against the rights of a population on the same grounds that it's okay to stand up for those people's rights?

So, people standing up and saying blacks shouldn't be allowed equal treatment during the civil rights movement were just as right as civil rights activists?

Basically, aside from murders and other illegal actions, the KKK was no worse than Martin Luther King Jr.?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#244
#244
The vast majority of people don't demonstrate their opinions. They don't protest. They don't announce. They don't recruit.

They simply live daily lives and do their own thing. They make choices based on their opinions (boycotting if you will, but not as part of a big group). But they don't broadcast it.

Am I the only one that thinks this? (Wouldn't be the first time I've been outnumbered. :) )
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#245
#245
Thrasher865 said:
So let me get this straight.... It's okay to stand up for your beliefs against the rights of a population on the same grounds that it's okay to stand up for those people's rights?
Click to expand...

At the risk of repeating myself I think this framing is off.

Set civil unions aside - the term marriage has symbolic meaning. Two sides are fighting over that meaning. Forcing those who are on the side of what the term has traditionally meant to expand the meaning results in a loss of rights for the traditionalists.

So it's not just denying rights to one group it is transferring the rights of the symbolism from one group to another.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#246
#246
volinbham said:
At the risk of repeating myself I think this framing is off.

Set civil unions aside - the term marriage has symbolic meaning. Two sides are fighting over that meaning. Forcing those who are on the side of what the term has traditionally meant to expand the meaning results in a loss of rights for the traditionalists.

So it's not just denying rights to one group it is transferring the rights of the symbolism from one group to another.
Click to expand...

Honestly, VIB, I just don't understand this.

If one is a "traditionalist" and marries as such, how does some "non-traditional" marriage somewhere else, among and between parties different and separate, possibly affect said "traditional" marriage?

I am reminded of the hoary hoorah over interracial marriage in the 1960's. How did an interracial marriage affect someone else's homogenous marriage?
 
#247
#247
Danl said:
Honestly, VIB, I just don't understand this.

If one is a "traditionalist" and marries as such, how does some "non-traditional" marriage somewhere else, among and between parties different and separate, possibly affect said "traditional" marriage?

I am reminded of the hoary hoorah over interracial marriage in the 1960's. How did an interracial marriage affect someone else's homogenous marriage?
Click to expand...

Let me try to explain (BTW - it's not my personal view but I've talked to many who hold it and I'm just trying to present that side).

Legal marriage is two components: 1) rights/benefits/privileges and 2) a symbolic relationship that is being legally recognized.

If you believe marriage means a man and woman being joined in a committed relationship and someone demands that it means more than that then you may feel that some of the meaning is lost.

To flip it around - I've heard many gay marriage advocates argue that civil unions are insufficient primarily because they don't carry the symbolic meaning of "marriage".

The symbolic meaning has clear value to people on both sides. One group wants to extend it and one wants to keep it the same. By definition, expanding it means that those that saw value in it meaning one man and one woman have had that value altered.

You may argue that it shouldn't matter but in the end it does matter. Likewise you could argue that gay couples shouldn't care about the word "marriage" so long as they get the privileges/benefits that straight couples get but clearly the word itself matters.

As I said at the beginning this isn't my position but I can see the merit in the argument - some traditional marriage advocates feel that the symbolic meaning of one man and one woman is core to the idea and being forced to change that then diminishes their rights so that some other group can claim the same symbolism.

That's about the best I can explain it. If that still doesn't make sense (even if you don't agree) then I'll just leave it at that.

As an analogy - if you are a Medal of Honor winner then the symbolism of that has a particular value. If a group of people who've also won medals demand that their accomplishments also be recognized as Medals of Honor then you might thing the symbolic meaning of your accomplishment has been changed. Not a great analogy I know.
 
Last edited:
#248
#248
volinbham said:
Let me try to explain (BTW - it's not my personal view but I've talked to many who hold it and I'm just trying to present that side).

Legal marriage is two components: 1) rights/benefits/privileges and 2) a symbolic relationship that is being legally recognized.

If you believe marriage means a man and woman being joined in a committed relationship and someone demands that it means more than that then you may feel that some of the meaning is lost.

To flip it around - I've heard many gay marriage advocates argue that civil unions are insufficient primarily because they don't carry the symbolic meaning of "marriage".

The symbolic meaning has clear value to people on both sides. One group wants to extend it and one wants to keep it the same. By definition, expanding it means that those that saw value in it meaning one man and one woman have had that value altered.

You may argue that it shouldn't matter but in the end it does matter. Likewise you could argue that gay couples shouldn't care about the word "marriage" so long as they get the privileges/benefits that straight couples get but clearly the word itself matters.

As I said at the beginning this isn't my position but I can see the merit in the argument - some traditional marriage advocates feel that the symbolic meaning of one man and one woman is core to the idea and being forced to change that then diminishes their rights so that some other group can claim the same symbolism.

That's about the best I can explain it. If that still doesn't make sense (even if you don't agree) then I'll just leave it at that.

As an analogy - if you are a Medal of Honor winner then the symbolism of that has a particular value. If a group of people who've also won medals demand that their accomplishments also be recognized as Medals of Honor then you might thing the symbolic meaning of your accomplishment has been changed. Not a great analogy I know.
Click to expand...


Excellent Post.
 
#250
#250
volinbham said:
Let me try to explain (BTW - it's not my personal view but I've talked to many who hold it and I'm just trying to present that side).

Legal marriage is two components: 1) rights/benefits/privileges and 2) a symbolic relationship that is being legally recognized.

If you believe marriage means a man and woman being joined in a committed relationship and someone demands that it means more than that then you may feel that some of the meaning is lost.

To flip it around - I've heard many gay marriage advocates argue that civil unions are insufficient primarily because they don't carry the symbolic meaning of "marriage".

The symbolic meaning has clear value to people on both sides. One group wants to extend it and one wants to keep it the same. By definition, expanding it means that those that saw value in it meaning one man and one woman have had that value altered.

You may argue that it shouldn't matter but in the end it does matter. Likewise you could argue that gay couples shouldn't care about the word "marriage" so long as they get the privileges/benefits that straight couples get but clearly the word itself matters.

As I said at the beginning this isn't my position but I can see the merit in the argument - some traditional marriage advocates feel that the symbolic meaning of one man and one woman is core to the idea and being forced to change that then diminishes their rights so that some other group can claim the same symbolism.

That's about the best I can explain it. If that still doesn't make sense (even if you don't agree) then I'll just leave it at that.

As an analogy - if you are a Medal of Honor winner then the symbolism of that has a particular value. If a group of people who've also won medals demand that their accomplishments also be recognized as Medals of Honor then you might thing the symbolic meaning of your accomplishment has been changed. Not a great analogy I know.
Click to expand...

I was so impressed with your post! And then...next to last sentence....you did it. Thing instead of think. FTR, I thing that has to be the most common typo EVER!!! I don't why it's so easy for our brains to do that. But we all do. :)

On a serious note, awesome post. As usual.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top