Chick-Fil-A

[IrishBlood81]

Leviticus is the one with the no shellfish and mixing cotton verses, right? And how slavery was supported throughout the whole Bible? This isn't a theocracy either.

Uh? Sounds like you have no clue what you are talking about. I edited my post to state my opinion clearer, so reread my original post if you want.

Also, I posted from the New Testament for that reason as well.

 

[Bubba]

And in the New Testament:

1 Corinthians 6:9-10
"9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God."

Who among us have not been fornicators, idolaters, covetous, or drunkards at some point. Dudes, we are all so going to he!! Somewhere I thought that forgiveness was a cornerstone of Christianity - assuming one accepted Christ as their savior...

 

[kmoose]

The problem is not that they hold the beliefs, it's that they fund, with company money, anti-LGBT organizations. Being against something and lobbying against something are very different. If it was the guy's personal money it would be a different story.

What specific organizations do they fund?

 

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

Uh? Sounds like you have no clue what you are talking about. I edited my post to state my opinion clearer, so reread my original post if you want.

Also, I posted from the New Testament for that reason as well.

There are NT lines that support slavery as well.

 

[johnnykillz]

Chick-fil-a rocks.

I love their sandwiches.

That is all.

 

[AvesEvo]

My opinion on the whole thing is I fully agree with what was said by Chick-Fil-A.
Its about time someone stood up for what they believe and stuck to the truth.





As for someone being gay and moves in next to you... is completely irrelevant to your chances of getting into heaven. I mean, if you had to un-gayify every gay to get to heaven... that would be just ridiculous.
I think thats taking things to the extreme.




I guess it depends on how you look at it.
To God, it is the same as murder, it is no different, it is sin. Murder and the anger behind murder are the same as well.
(Matt.5:22 21 “You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not murder, a and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ 22 But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brotherb will be subject to judgment.")

In society, of course, they are not harming anyone else (except themselves if thats your view), so it is different than taking an innocent person's life.
The fact is, this isn't about our opinion on things. If you believe in God and you believe in the Bible, homosexuality is an abomination before God. In the Old Testament such people would be killed:

Leviticus 18:22
"You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."

Leviticus 20:13
"If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them."

And in the New Testament:

1 Corinthians 6:9-10
"9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God."

Revelations 21:8
“But for the cowardly and unbelieving and abominable and murderers and immoral persons and sorcerers and idolaters and all liars, their part will be in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.”

Romans 1:21-27
"21For 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. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.
24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion."


I guess I'm surprised by people who claim to be Christians and yet completely disregard what the Word of God says.

Don't get me wrong, I work daily with gay people and am even friends with many. I do not hate them or would ever wrong them in anyway because of their choice, but I know what they have done and I know what God says about such a choice and, in the end, we have nothing to do with each other.

I imagine I will catch some heat from this but honestly, its about time someone posted what the Bible says.

In the scheme of the original post, the Government, unless it is imposing their religious beliefs on the nation, should have no right in opposing those who chose to do what they will with their life. If that includes same sex marriage, and that is what they want, then you are only opposing free will to stop such an event. Its not like you are going to stop them from being gay by not letting them get married and if even you would, it would be just as wrong.

Do you believe that we should follow what the Bible says?

 

[AvesEvo]

Uh? Sounds like you have no clue what you are talking about. I edited my post to state my opinion clearer, so reread my original post if you want.

Also, I posted from the New Testament for that reason as well.

No, he actually does have a clue.

Leviticus 11:9-12
These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat. And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you: They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination. Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.

 

[Irishnuke]

So just to be clear, this thread is no longer about Chick-Fil-A?

 

[AvesEvo]

So just to be clear, this thread is no longer about Chick-Fil-A?

I believe you are correct.

 

[Grahambo]

Well, since this isn't about Chick-Fil-A then I think the NHL should allow their players to play in Sochi in 2014!

 

[johnnykillz]

I think Americans should eat more fiber. And chick-fil-a.

 

[Zwidmanio]

So just to be clear, this thread is no longer about Chick-Fil-A?

I believe you are correct.

Couldn't see that one coming.

Just to throw my two cents in and address the original topic...

Both sides of this Chick-Fil-A controversy are annoying to me. I'm annoyed at the persons that run Chick-Fil-A because they donate money to and support a cause that I believe infringes on person's rights. This being said, I might even be more annoyed with those that oppose Chick-Fil-A because some are attempting to fight persons attempting to curtail rights by trying to curtail freedom of speech and the freedom to conduct one's business. I also find those that were lining up around the block to buy Chick-Fil-A while claiming they were fighting for constitutional rights annoying as well, simply because there are a million ways to better protect and promote constitutional rights than buying a stupid chicken sandwich.

Hmm, well that was my grumpy old man rant for the day.

 

[johnnykillz]

Couldn't see that one coming.

That's what she said.

And now I have two mouths besides hers to feed.

 

[CarrollVermin]

Why do we go to the Bible for governmental issues? This isn't a Catholic/Methodist/Mormon/<<Insert Religion Here>>...this is a governmental issue. The central point for those arguing for gay and lesbian rights is recognition of their rights as American's. I don't care what side you are on with respect to religion, but this is an issue of equality and civil liberty.

And above all else, these men and women are human beings, and sometimes that seems to be lost in all of this discussion...American human beings.

 

[ACamp1900]

this is a governmental issue. The central point for those arguing for gay and lesbian rights is recognition of their rights as American's. I don't care what side you are on with respect to religion, but this is an issue of equality and civil liberty.

Ah, no it's not... At least it shouldn't be and that's the problem.

 

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

Why do we go to the Bible for governmental issues? This isn't a Catholic/Methodist/Mormon/<<Insert Religion Here>>...this is a governmental issue. The central point for those arguing for gay and lesbian rights is recognition of their rights as American's. I don't care what side you are on with respect to religion, but this is an issue of equality and civil liberty.

And above all else, these men and women are human beings, and sometimes that seems to be lost in all of this discussion...American human beings.

You said it. It's a civil rights thing, not a religion thing. Marriage was started as a religious ceremony, but it's not just that anymore.

 

[ACamp1900]

You said it. It's a civil rights thing, not a religion thing. Marriage was started as a religious ceremony, but it's not just that anymore.

And you don't see the problem in this??? So the church can take basic gov premises tweak them and then force their new version back on the gov?? Should the gov allow baptism at the DMV for those who are 'denied their right' for one by the church??

 

[ACamp1900]

I want to be very clear as this thread either has gone unread at times or some simply did not grasp this the first time… I am not anti-gay, I am not anti-civil rights… I don’t even care who marries who really…

I do however care about the gov. taking a religious rite of passage out of the church and doing their own form of it. I do also feel that this may very well end with an end game of that new version eventually being forced on the church. This is an issue of the government (again) over stepping their bounds… and it has been from the first divorce/cermeony completed at the justice of the peace... For the second time I don’t think gov should have anything to do with this issue, gay, straight, polygamist or otherwise… religious rites of passage should be left to the church…

I am also sure many gays could find a church willing to marry them if the gov. would just stay out of it… more power to them. Either freakin way, the Government should have NO SAY on it one way or the other.

 

[CarrollVermin]

Ah, no it's not... At least it shouldn't be and that's the problem.

Not sure I follow. Marriage in the US has become a religious event, but eloping in Vegas, a union in the local courthouse, or a Catholic wedding are all the same in the eyes of the government.

Religious institutions should never have the ability to influence the rights of individuals in a free democracy. To do so in my opinion, violates the doctrines of our country. Without separation of church and state we run the risk of too many fallacies. Who determines which doctrine or religion, and how is that fair to those who don't follow that religious doctrine? Again, this should always be about civil liberties.

If you are going to deny gay and lesbian individuals their rights, then why should they pay taxes and contribute to other factions of our government? You can't ask them to do their part and strip them of some of the basic liberties afford other Americans.

 

[ACamp1900]

Not sure I follow. Marriage in the US has become a religious event, but eloping in Vegas, a union in the local courthouse, or a Catholic wedding are all the same in the eyes of the government.

Marriage has become a religious event??? I would say we have a fundamental misunderstanding going on here...

Religious institutions should never have the ability to influence the rights of individuals in a free democracy. To do so in my opinion, violates the doctrines of our country. Without separation of church and state we run the risk of too many fallacies. Who determines which doctrine or religion, and how is that fair to those who don't follow that religious doctrine? Again, this should always be about civil liberties.

To be honest, in the context this debagte, this reads a lot more like a seperate of the church from the state... not a seperate of church AND state. It does indeed go both ways... or at least it's supposed to.

If you are going to deny gay and lesbian individuals their rights, then why should they pay taxes and contribute to other factions of our government? You can't ask them to do their part and strip them of some of the basic liberties afford other Americans.

Again, it's the gov that has as much to do with gays not getting married as the church. If you want to see gays have the opportunity to get married then get the gov out of it all together and watch what happens. You may never see a Catholic or Southern Baptist church perform the ceremony, but many others would. Also, marriage is no more a civil right than baptism or communion...

 

[BobD]

Get religion out of your vote and keep it out.

If you don't agree, lets see how you feel about it in a few decades. Islam is the fastest growing religion in the U.S.

 

[ACamp1900]

Get religion out of your vote and keep it out.

If you don't agree, lets see how you feel about it in a few decades. Islam is the fastest growing religion in the U.S.

I agree totally. So long as we don't vote ON religion

 

[ACamp1900]

In related news dshans has now been replying for 25 minutes... look out.

lol

 

[DSully1995]

Get religion out of your vote and keep it out.

If you don't agree, lets see how you feel about it in a few decades. Islam is the fastest growing religion in the U.S.

I am pretty happy about this, dont want to start a flame war but, I think a larger muslim community within the US will cool down the heated dialogue and feelings we see from citizens and mostly politicians. A president wont gladly throw away 15% of the poulace or whatever it is just to lock up a primary.`


This should help foreign relations and limit problems

 

[dshans]

Why do we go to the Bible for governmental issues? This isn't a Catholic/Methodist/Mormon/<<Insert Religion Here>>...this is a governmental issue. The central point for those arguing for gay and lesbian rights is recognition of their rights as American's. I don't care what side you are on with respect to religion, but this is an issue of equality and civil liberty.

And above all else, these men and women are human beings, and sometimes that seems to be lost in all of this discussion...American human beings.

I will break my rule of avoiding political and social issues on this forum: I agree with you, even though you're a VerminCarroll. "Marriage" is historically a term tied to religious sects. Somewhere along the lines in American tradition it became intertwined with civil law.

Wrong.

Should a religious sect declare (and there are many) that a same-sex marriage is valid in the eyes of their "law" not be afforded the same rights and privileges as those whose sects who do not? Riddle me this: why are certain "religious" beliefs afforded certain civil protections and others not. Simply put, those who recognize same-sex unions as valid and a marriage contract are not protected by the same legal protections as a "traditional" Judeo-Christian or Muslim marriage.

Give to God what is God's and to Caesar what is Caesar's. The "state" is the "state," the Cathedral, Temple or Mosque (etc.) is a whole 'nother matter and never the twain shall meet.

Let the games continue ...

 

[Walter White]

Just like everything else having to do with the gay marriage debate (and most issues for that matter), the media made this whole chick-fil-a thing about everything except what is actually is about. Everything has to have two sides nowadays. Either blue or red, right or left. In a free society the media plays an important job in protecting citizens from government. Not promoting its ideology or fooling the public into thinking it has a choice between two of the same thing. Shame on the incompetent, biased media AND screw the self-serving, perverted, back-stabbing whores we call politicians.

End rant.

 

[HereComeTheIrish]

I will break my rule of avoiding political and social issues on this forum: I agree with you, even though you're a VerminCarroll. "Marriage" is historically a term tied to religious sects. Somewhere along the lines in American tradition it became intertwined with civil law.

Wrong.

Should a religious sect declare (and there are many) that a same-sex marriage is valid in the eyes of their "law" not be afforded the same rights and privileges as those whose sects who do not? Riddle me this: why are certain "religious" beliefs afforded certain civil protections and others not. Simply put, those who recognize same-sex unions as valid and a marriage contract are not protected by the same legal protections as a "traditional" Judeo-Christian or Muslim marriage.

Give to God what is God's and to Caesar what is Caesar's. The "state" is the "state," the Cathedral, Temple or Mosque (etc.) is a whole 'nother matter and never the twain shall meet.

Let the games continue ...

Blam.... I'd kiss you, but you're a boy so I'll refrain.....plus, my wife would get jealous.....so, just sayin'.

 

[ACamp1900]

I will break my rule of avoiding political and social issues on this forum: I agree with you, even though you're a VerminCarroll. "Marriage" is historically a term tied to religious sects. Somewhere along the lines in American tradition it became intertwined with civil law.

Wrong.

Should a religious sect declare (and there are many) that a same-sex marriage is valid in the eyes of their "law" not be afforded the same rights and privileges as those whose sects who do not? Riddle me this: why are certain "religious" beliefs afforded certain civil protections and others not. Simply put, those who recognize same-sex unions as valid and a marriage contract are not protected by the same legal protections as a "traditional" Judeo-Christian or Muslim marriage.

Give to God what is God's and to Caesar what is Caesar's. The "state" is the "state," the Cathedral, Temple or Mosque (etc.) is a whole 'nother matter and never the twain shall meet.

Let the games continue ...

Color me confused now, you stress that the Caesar's and God shoul stay to their own... Acknowledge that marriage has its roots in the church... But somehow the gov taking it and making it a civil law issue outside of the church is just fine? It seems a few have this logical stance and I just don't get that.

As for your middle portion I am with you, traditional beliefs or no... A legit church should see same protections regardless. I have also stated, that's where the solution lies IMO... Get marriage off the ballot, out of the gov and let a church marry whoever they see fit. Gays will most def get their marriages and those opposed to it could find a church that fits their ideas as well... To each their own and the gov can get back to government issues

 

[ACamp1900]

Just like everything else having to do with the gay marriage debate (and most issues for that matter), the media made this whole chick-fil-a thing about everything except what is actually is about. Everything has to have two sides nowadays. Either blue or red, right or left. In a free society the media plays an important job in protecting citizens from government. Not promoting its ideology or fooling the public into thinking it has a choice between two of the same thing. Shame on the incompetent, biased media AND screw the self-serving, perverted, back-stabbing whores we call politicians.

End rant.

Reps

 

[dshans]

Blam.... I'd kiss you, but you're a boy so I'll refrain.....plus, my wife would get jealous.....so, just sayin'.

I'll accept a kiss (as brief brief can be) on the cheek [how European!] or a loud, comic smack on my balding forehead. Your wife has no need for concern.