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

#601
#601
volprof said:
That guy in the video just made himself look like a buffoon. This whole issue has been blown out of proportion, in my opinion - all the way from the Chick-Fil-A Appreciation Day to the planned Kiss-in on Friday. If the owner is against gay marriage, then so what. As far as I know, they don't discriminate against gay employees or customers. People should just not go there, if they don't like it. Personally, I don't plan on eating at Chick-Fil-A (and that goes back to a decision made long before this current debate came up), but it's the owner's right to do with his profits whatever he wants. It's also customers' rights to dine there or not. Obviously, I have my views on gay marriage and equal rights, but none of that matters if no actual discrimination exists in the company's hiring and serving practices.
Click to expand...

Agreed. It is a perfect example of why there is no real dialogue in the political arena.

Calling a Christian a hate monger for holding to a set of values is no different than calling a gay/lesbian a heathen for their lifestyle.
 
#602
#602
Lexvol said:
Agreed. It is a perfect example of why there is no real dialogue in the political arena.

Calling a Christian a hate monger for holding to a set of values is no different than calling a gay/lesbian a heathen for their lifestyle.
Click to expand...

Solid.
 
#607
#607
While I don't feel like getting in a crap flinging with anybody on here, I will say the following about Cathy's comments that started this current crap cycle.

He said something to the effect that it's arrogant for anyone to think they know better than God what constitutes a marriage. I would assume Mr. Cathy gained this insight from his reading of the Bible, and that's fine. I too have read the Bible though, and as I seem to recall there is no exact definition of marriage in its words. While I may be wrong about this point, I am certain that Jesus himself never uttered one word about homosexuality, at least as his sermons are recounted by the gospels. Although I think Mr. Cathy is entitled to do with his money what he wishes, I would also advise him to reread the Bible. Many of the patriarchs practiced polygamy. I would like to know if he agrees with the practice of polygamy simply because it wasn't "outlawed" in the Bible and the patriarchs practiced it. Furthermore, while I can't be 100% certain, I would imagine that many of these same patriarchs married women/girls between the ages of 12 and 17 quite often. I would also like to know if Mr. Cathy agrees with that practice. If these men chosen by God knew better than us what constitutes a marriage, then it would stand to reason that practices that are considered crimes in our culture today (polygamy and pedophilia) are actually moral.

Anyhow, I don't want to sound like I'm condemning anyone opposed to gay marriage. It is your right to oppose it for whatever that reason may be, and it is your right to do with your money whatever you want (as long as it's legal). However, I would challenge anyone to interrogate their beliefs on the matter and why it is that they hold them. The Bible says very very little about homosexuality (which really wasn't even a term back then). Jesus said absolutely nothing about it. It's difficult for me to see how it's such a big issue, but then again, I also understand that I could be wrong.
 
#609
#609
PKT_VOL said:
Yes.
Click to expand...

While I agree with you in principle (I agree that owners should technically have to right to serve who they wish), PKT, we just can't allow business practices like that as a society. Such practices are antithetical to a fully integrated, well-functioning society. Although not likely to happen by any means (and we can thank the profit motive for that), it's a slippery slope. We can't allow any one company to deny its services and/or goods to a particular group of people. That group could be denied essential goods or services by a particular business block. Like I said, this scenario is not likely in our current society, but a nightmare situation in which such a scenario becomes fact is conceivable. And we know this for certain, i.e. Nazi Germany and the Jews (just as one example).

Obviously, Chick-fil-A is not an essential service, but it's still a business, and any society that allows its businesses to deny certain customers (based upon identity markers) is an undemocratic one.
 
#610
#610
And yes, I know that Chick-Fil-A is not denying gay employees or customers before anyone accuses me of that based on my previous post.
 
#611
#611
lawgator1 said:
Question: Should CFA be able to refuse service to gays?
Click to expand...

Yes. I don't believe a business should be forced to sale to anyone. That said, kinda dumb question. Not sure people walk around with their sexual orientation hanging around their neck.
 
#614
#614
Gramps said:
A few do
Click to expand...

Yeah, that is true. Modernity, and, in particular, the last 100 years or so, marks a dramatic departure from the rest of human history in terms of sexuality. For the first time, sexuality now marks an actual lifestyle and identification. People, whether heterosexual or homosexual, actually go around now carrying "badges" of their sexual identification, whether it be the "Big Johnson" shirts from the 90s or flamboyant clothing and behavior. This is not to say that this development is wrong by any means; it's just a new social development. Homosexuality wasn't even a concept until the last 100-200 years or so. In fact, the Greeks practiced what by our standards today would be considered homosexuality, but for them was completely natural, masculine, and socially acceptable. And yes, that includes the ultra-masculine men depicted in 300: Spartan military society revolved around the relationship between the young to middle-aged man and the adolescent boy.

The ancients were actually far less concerned about sexuality than we think they were. In fact, they were less concerned about it than us in many cases.
 
#617
#617
volprof said:
If these men chosen by God knew better than us what constitutes a marriage, then it would stand to reason that practices that are considered crimes in our culture today (polygamy and pedophilia) are actually moral.
Click to expand...

Why would polygamy be immoral?

The case for allowing polygamy is better than the case for allowing gay marriage.

I do not see how anyone could be for gay marriage and not for polygamy.
 
#620
#620
volved said:
Why would polygamy be immoral?

The case for allowing polygamy is better than the case for allowing gay marriage.

I do not see how anyone could be for gay marriage and not for polygamy.
Click to expand...

I don't necessarily think that polygamy is immoral, as long as those being married are of a sufficient enough mental development to actually know and comprehend what they're getting in to. As far as I'm concerned, a person should be able to marry anyone (and as many people as agree to marry them) as they like, as long as whoever they're marrying actually knows what they're doing and getting in to.

And why is the case for polygamy better than the case for gay marriage? Progeny are produced or something?
 
#624
#624
UTRavens said:
I don't mind that answer as long as you believe that they would deserve to be publicly shamed and condemned for doing such a thing.
Click to expand...

I don't care what someone does to them as long as they are doing it on property that someone is giving them permission to do it on and they are not physically causing damage to the business or business owner.
 
#625
#625
volved said:
Why would polygamy be immoral?

The case for allowing polygamy is better than the case for allowing gay marriage.

I do not see how anyone could be for gay marriage and not for polygamy.
Click to expand...
I find it funny that you think Mr. Cathy should reread the Bible. Which Bible did you read? The Non Christian Translation?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top