Chick-Fil-A

[dshans]

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.

I apologize for any confusion. The reference to "what is Caesar's and what is God's" was meant to point out the often referenced "wall of separation" between church and state. It is my contention that any couple, heterosexual or homosexual, willing to subject to and avail themselves of the of the rights and constrictions of the UCC should be allowed to do so regardless of religious prejudices.

Live and let live. Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Laissez les bons temps rouler. When it comes to dogma it's all a crap shoot. Take the best in terms of R-E-S-P-E-C-T and discard the political R-E-S-T.

 

[PLACforever]

I don't discriminate against a delicious chicken sandwich.

 

[Grahambo]

True story: I had Chick Fil A yesterday. It was good.

 

[johnnykillz]

True story: I had Chick Fil A yesterday. It was good.

I all about the deluxe combo.

With plenty of fry sauce.

Righteous.

 

[CarrollVermin]

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



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.




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...

My bad in using marriage. I agree, marriage in the traditional term has become synonymous with religion. However, the rights that are afforded to married couples are brought forth by the government. Call it whatever you want, I think the GLBT community wants those rights more than the ability to walk down the isle at any religious institution. My stance hasn't been for gay marriage, but our government should recognize, across America, their unions and afford them those rights. Unfortunately, the debate always turns to religion and the Bible. The government recognizing those unions and allowing them to enjoy the same rights as other relationships should never center around religion or the Bible.

 

[AvesEvo]

Let's be honest, there may have been a religious ceremony tied to a marriage (at least in Europe), but marriages were a business deal and love was not important. Whether it be to inherit land, to make political allegiances, or simply to procure sons to keep the family farm going. Like most business deals, the government has their fingers in it. The only difference is that 600 years ago, the government's fingers were involved in specific marriages, now they are in the concept of marriage. Marriage for the sake of love is a very recent development.

 

[johnnykillz]

Let's be honest, there may have been a religious ceremony tied to a marriage (at least in Europe), but marriages were a business deal and love was not important. Whether it be to inherit land, to make political allegiances, or simply to procure sons to keep the family farm going. Like most business deals, the government has their fingers in it. The only difference is that 600 years ago, the government's fingers were involved in specific marriages, now they are in the concept of marriage. Marriage for the sake of love is a very recent development.

What are you a king?

Aves you're acting like a douche. Let's be honest.

 

[AvesEvo]

What are you a king?

Aves you're acting like a douche. Let's be honest.

No, but my mom thinks I'm a prince.

Anyway, jokes aside, it wasn't until the 1700s or even 1800s where love was thought to be an important factor in marriage. Certainly that isn't the case now, but all I was trying to show was that marriage, until recently, was not about love and barely about religion, it was business.

 

[ACamp1900]

My bad in using marriage. I agree, marriage in the traditional term has become synonymous with religion. However, the rights that are afforded to married couples are brought forth by the government. Call it whatever you want, I think the GLBT community wants those rights more than the ability to walk down the isle at any religious institution. My stance hasn't been for gay marriage, but our government should recognize, across America, their unions and afford them those rights. Unfortunately, the debate always turns to religion and the Bible. The government recognizing those unions and allowing them to enjoy the same rights as other relationships should never center around religion or the Bible.

Well if you've read all my posts then we obviously agree on just about everything... It's only the marriage is a civil right that should be afforded to anyone that gets me, and that if the gov doesn't want religion in politics then they shouldn't adopt or use church ideas. Aside from that I believe we pretty much agree.

 

[mgriff]

No, but my mom thinks I'm a prince.

Anyway, jokes aside, it wasn't until the 1700s or even 1800s where love was thought to be an important factor in marriage. Certainly that isn't the case now, but all I was trying to show was that marriage, until recently, was not about love and barely about religion, it was business.

****ing Shakespeare...

 

[IrishBlood81]

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...

True, and Paul says just as much:
"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. 11 Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God."
Its the choice of every person whether or not they chose to be forgiven and believe in Christ.

There are NT lines that support slavery as well.

Supports? Where? There are references made to slavery and to slaves because it was permissible and lawful in that day and age, saying that they should obey and respect their masters, but it is not encouraging or supporting the idea of slavery.

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

I do, yes.
*Prepares for onslaught of numerous scriptures*

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.

So, the fact that Leviticus makes references to not eating scallops or shellfish (is it?), nullifies the whole book? Also does it nullify where it says we should not murder or commit adultery?
This reasoning is nonsense.

 

[AvesEvo]

So, the fact that Leviticus makes references to not eating scallops or shellfish (is it?), nullifies the whole book? Also does it nullify where it says we should not murder or commit adultery?
This reasoning is nonsense.

I only posted that because you said that Title2014 didn't know what he was talking about when he mentioned that Leviticus also mentioned condemnation of eating shellfish; perhaps you were referring to something else?

I do, yes.

Since you're putting your belief out there I will too. I believe that the Bible in many instances is outdated and not the word of God. I believe that it is a historical and political document and that is all it is; a collection of real histories, legends, and laws (specifically speaking of the Old Testament) that was purposefully collected in the 7th Century BC and used to unite scattered peoples under one common history.

 

[johnnykillz]

Since you're putting your belief out there I will too. I believe that the Bible in many instances is outdated and not the word of God. I believe that it is a historical and political document and that is all it is; a collection of real histories, legends, and laws (specifically speaking of the Old Testament) that was purposefully collected in the 7th Century BC and used to unite scattered peoples under one common history.

I don't believe you ever had the intent to come here to spread your belief, but rather to dissect those that believe in the bible.

This historically inaccurate text you speak of, warned of anti-Christ spirits in the end times.

Anti-Christ means antichristian.

You see, you have unwittingly become a part of the text.

Congrats, you're famous.

 

[AvesEvo]

I don't believe you ever had the intent to come here to spread your belief, but rather to dissect those that believe in the bible.

This historically inaccurate text you speak of, warned of anti-Christ spirits in the end times.

Anti-Christ means antichristian.

You see, you have unwittingly become a part of the text.

Congrats, you're famous.

How did you know?

 

[Bluto]

Here's a good one. My dad asked me when I was 17 if I worshipped the devil. Carry on.

 

[95NDAlumNM]

A ND site is the only place you can go where a thread about chick-fil-a becomes a argument about the bible. Got to love it.

 

[pkt77242]

Anyone who wants to go by the biblical definition of marriage (between man and woman) should then also believe that the father gets to pick who the daughter gets to marry as that was how it happened back then.

As to people who say that it is a religous rite, then should atheist not be allowed to marry? and what about the fact that states officialy sanction marriages (your marriage license is from the state not from the church)?

The government has no right to discriminate against gay marriage, just as they can't say Christians can't get married or interacial couples can't get married.

 

[BobD]

If someone knows how to, could you please embed the video? Thanks!


KFC Loves Gays with John Goodman from John Goodman, NickCorirossi, Mike Rose, Brian Lane, Andy Maxwell, Funny Or Die, Ally Hord, Tony Rodriguez, TONYCAVALERO, Martin C Vallejo, and BoTown Sound

 

[mgriff]

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/MODI6M_eQ30" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[irishog77]

Anyone who wants to go by the biblical definition of marriage (between man and woman) should then also believe that the father gets to pick who the daughter gets to marry as that was how it happened back then.

As to people who say that it is a religous rite, then should atheist not be allowed to marry? and what about the fact that states officialy sanction marriages (your marriage license is from the state not from the church)?

The government has no right to discriminate against gay marriage, just as they can't say Christians can't get married or interacial couples can't get married.

Does the guhvmint have the right to say a brother can't marry his sister? What if I want to marry my dog (she's actually pretty hot)? Can they say we can't get married? When I was 14, I was engaged to my 34 year old babysitter. We tried to run away and get married...but alas, the guhvmint said we couldn't.

 

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

Does the guhvmint have the right to say a brother can't marry his sister? What if I want to marry my dog (she's actually pretty hot)? Can they say we can't get married? When I was 14, I was engaged to my 34 year old babysitter. We tried to run away and get married...but alas, the guhvmint said we couldn't.

Except dogs can't consent and children can't consent to adults. Two adults can and that's why gay marriage is different from bestiality and pedophilia. That's just a slippery slope fallacy.

 

[BGIF]

A ND site is the only place you can go where a thread about chick-fil-a becomes a argument about the bible. Got to love it.

You apparently don't know any Southern Baptists nor Presbyterians.

 

[95NDAlumNM]

You apparently don't know any Southern Baptists nor Presbyterians.

Do they actually have a football/sports site? I have not heard of any. Hahahaha

 

[BGIF]

Do they actually have a football/sports site? I have not heard of any. Hahahaha

You obviously don't live in The South wear football participation on the field, in the stands, at the supermarket, or on the web, is considered "bearing witness". I have been told that Jesus would have been a Wide Receiver as nobody has better hands.

Off the top of my head:

Liberty University - Jerry Falwell's School ("Training Champions For Christ"). Falwell dreamed of his football program facing ND on national TV to the chagrin of the heathens at ESPN. Turner Gill is Head Football Coach AND Chick-Fil-A will be opening a new store on campus this summer. (How's that for a thread tie-in)

Wake Forest - The Div 1 A Demon Deacons will be at ND 11/17/12. Their current President Nathan Hatch was Provost at ND under Monk Malloy and a member of the ND faculty for over 30 years. (And fans think the WF/ND series started as move to the ACC.) WF has less students, about 4000, than ND.

Presbyterian College - With a student body of only 1300 the Div 1 AA Blue Hose played CAL last year (63-12 L), and play Vanderbilt this year. Clemson beats up on them regularly, 33-3-4 in 40 games. (I looked up the Clemson record.)

 

[AvesEvo]

I have been told that Jesus would have been a Wide Receiver as nobody has better hands.

Hmm... this is a bad joke, but I don't think Jesus' hands lend themselves to catching footballs.

 

[irishpat183]

How did I miss this one? I surely would've offended someone!


My take is is:

Chick-Fil-a is a PRIVATE christian based business that makes no secrets about what they believe in (try getting one on Sunday). They were asked a question, and they answered truthfully in a very respectful manner with class and grace. Do they donate to some groups that probably don't handle it with the same class and grace? Maybe. But I also know they do a ton of good as well.

As for the LGBT. Pick your battles. Picking a fight with a fast food chain over your "rights" isn't gonna solve a d*mn thing. All it does is attract attention to the chain (Chick-fil-a thanks you) and drive an even bigger rift between you and the other 97% of our population (gays only make up about 3%). Take your fight to our politicans. Not to the private sector. Also, is the best way to get your point across...Kissing in public? Throwing glitter bombs at people? I'm sorry, but it's no wonder that most people don't take your movement seriously...it boarders on the ridiculous.

As for my biggest problem with this issue, the mayors of Boston and Chicago, you outta be ashamed. Preventing commerce and jobs in your city, cities that so desperately need them, is irresponsible. While you may not PERSONALLY agree with Chick-fil-a's stance on gay marriage, you have no right to deny them, or citizens in your city that enjoy their food, access. Besides, with the kinda crap that you allow in your city now (sex shops...etc) you'd think that having a fast food chain that does a ton of charity(yes, you may not agree with all of it) and has great service and good values would be a great addition?

There is my rant.

 

[95NDAlumNM]

You obviously don't live in The South wear football participation on the field, in the stands, at the supermarket, or on the web, is considered "bearing witness". I have been told that Jesus would have been a Wide Receiver as nobody has better hands.

Off the top of my head:

Liberty University - Jerry Falwell's School ("Training Champions For Christ"). Falwell dreamed of his football program facing ND on national TV to the chagrin of the heathens at ESPN. Turner Gill is Head Football Coach AND Chick-Fil-A will be opening a new store on campus this summer. (How's that for a thread tie-in)

Wake Forest - The Div 1 A Demon Deacons will be at ND 11/17/12. Their current President Nathan Hatch was Provost at ND under Monk Malloy and a member of the ND faculty for over 30 years. (And fans think the WF/ND series started as move to the ACC.) WF has less students, about 4000, than ND.

Presbyterian College - With a student body of only 1300 the Div 1 AA Blue Hose played CAL last year (63-12 L), and play Vanderbilt this year. Clemson beats up on them regularly, 33-3-4 in 40 games. (I looked up the Clemson record.)

Is someone looking for an argument? I said a site. In all the examples that you just gave there was no links. Please show me the Wake Forest football site where the Chick-Fil-A thread is, or how about the message board for Liberty University where football is heavily discussed and how they are concerning themselves to this degree with Chick-Fil-A. Either you are missing my initial point or you are just trying to start a fight. My point was that ND has such a large fan base with a rich tradition of football and sports in general while also being Catholic that this is the only such place (sports message board) on the internet where you would find such a discussion. Yes, there may be others out there but it is most likely very rare. I was not saying that these people are not out there and that they are not having this discussion also. But to have this football SITE go in depth on some of these types of discussion is unique. now i am sure that you will find plenty to nitpick at if you are just trying to start something. Have at it.

 

[ClausentoTate]

I'm pretty sure Boston can deny whatever business they want from setting up in their city, they just need to cite "adverse secondary effects". Not letting a chain in town isn't going to destroy their economy and those jobs will come when another chain sets up shop.

There's a big difference between donating through your company and donating through your own funds. It may be from the same money pool, but it sends a bigger message.

I hope none of you have rebellious teenagers.

 

[Irish Houstonian]

Except dogs can't consent and children can't consent to adults. Two adults can..

So why can't three adult men marry each other? Seems like the odd-man-out has a good case for being denied his marriage equality.

I'm pretty sure Boston can deny whatever business they want from setting up in their city, they just need to cite "adverse secondary effects"...

That's true, but in order to pass 1st Amendment muster it would have to be a generally-applied rule that's content-neutral. That is, it would have to apply equally to all fast-food or chicken places, and couldn't apply based on the content of a restaurant's speech.

So you could re-zone to prohibit a fast food place that serves, say, only chicken with no beef. But you couldn't prohibit a restaurant based on campaign contributions or political stances, regardless of what the "secondary effect" was. Otherwise every town in Tennessee would ban Islamic mosques on the basis that their secondary effect is the incitement of residents (or less consumption on Ramadan, decreased face-shaving, decreased pork/liquor consumption, etc.).

 

[irishpat183]

So why can't three adult men marry each other? Seems like the odd-man-out has a good case for being denied his marriage equality.



That's true, but in order to pass 1st Amendment muster it would have to be a generally-applied rule that's content-neutral. That is, it would have to apply equally to all fast-food or chicken places, and couldn't apply based on the content of a restaurant's speech.

So you could re-zone to prohibit a fast food place that serves, say, only chicken with no beef. But you couldn't prohibit a restaurant based on campaign contributions or political stances, regardless of what the "secondary effect" was. Otherwise every town in Tennessee would ban Islamic mosques on the basis that their secondary effect is the incitement of residents (or less consumption on Ramadan, decreased face-shaving, decreased pork/liquor consumption, etc.).

Exactly.

Besides, if those boycotting Chik-fil-a only knew where half their money went when buying products...they'd have to boycott more than just Chik-fil-a. It's hypocritcal if you ask me.

All in all...it's a distraction from the real issues....like our pitiful economy.