Mayor of Boston to Chick-Fil-A: Get Lost!!!!

Christians are put into a really sticky situation on this subject. Honestly, most probably think (as I do) that a person's sexuality is their own business. I don't want to see it and hear about it on a daily basis - and that goes for heterosexuals, too. Don't we all have better things to do than dwell on sex in the public arena?

However, Christians tend to respect and follow the Bible. In order to give their blessings to homosexual marriage, they must rethink their faith. Asking a deeply religious person to do that is akin to asking the homosexual to stop being a homosexual. Frankly, it's not going to happen.

Marriage should only be a religious concept - not a legal one. There is a reason why our country was set up to separate church from state. I personally have no issue with gays having the right to a legal union. But, I would vote against it if it meant they were called "married" because a marriage (the word is a derivative mother) is between man and woman. I think many are tired of gays redefining concepts and words (such as the word gay, for instance) to suit their own purposes.

We need to have a system where a legal union is separate from a religious marriage. The legal union should be between any adults who choose to form a family unit for whatever reason they might have - to raise a family, taxes, inheritance, health insurance, sex, etc. A marriage, on the other hand, should be a religious ceremony between man/woman but not legal until the couple follows the proper channels.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


:-)

thank you BH - and as for this:

This is a civil rights issue (in my opinion) and it will progress until we'll look back on it with the same incredulity we feel about how once, black people had to drink from their own water fountains.

Absolutely. It's already so different now than it was 10 years ago - hard to see it while we're standing in it. But you're right - some day this will all look so...well - unbelievable :-)

I mean - this whole Chick-fil-A thing for instance - hopefully we'll be able to laugh about certain parts of this. I mean - this is just so American isn't it - making a fast food joint ground zero for these latest battles? Taking it to the streets - with chicken

I have to smile - I love us sometimes - how goofy we all are

Thank you for the kind words. There's nothing I enjoy more than getting into page 52 of a thread, with a handful of people really discussing the issue. It's too bad it takes so long to get there.

But I love it.

Charles is a real gent :-)

and I agree - I appreciate a genuine discussion when it happens

reply to post by mjfromga

Originally posted by mjfromga
However, Christians tend to respect and follow the Bible. In order to give their blessings to homosexual marriage, they must rethink their faith.

Christians don't need to give their blessing. This is a civil (legal) issue. Christians can disapprove of homosexuality and gay marriage just as they disapprove of other legal activities, such as gambling, drinking, smoking, working on Sunday, other religions, adult pornography, skimpy clothing, using God's name in vain... the list goes on and on. Christians are a disapproving bunch and that's OK. Let them continue to disapprove of homosexuality.

Religious followers, by the way, also used God to deny the rights of blacks to marry. This is a repeat.

"In case after case, legislation prohibiting racial inter-marriage was justified as unbending tradition rooting in received natural law." For example, in 1869, the Georgia Supreme Court ruled that:

"...moral or social equality between the different races...does not in fact exist, and never can. The God of nature made it otherwise, and no human law can produce it, and no human tribunal can enforce it. There are gradations and classes throughout the universe. From the tallest archangel in Heaven, down to the meanest reptile on earth, moral and social inequalities exist, and must continue to exist throughout all eternity." 4

"Eternity" came to a crashing halt 98 years later, in 1967.
...
"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races show that he did not intend for the races to mix."

Does that not sound eerily similar to today's arguments against gay marriage?

History of Interracial Marriage

I think many are tired of gays redefining concepts and words (such as the word gay, for intance) to suit their own purposes.

I think the dual meaning of the word is a little more complex than that. Origin of "gay" to mean homosexual. That's like saying black people changed the meaning of the "N-word"...

We need to have a system where a legal union is separate from a religious marriage.

I would be just fine with that. But that's not the way it is. If there were a movement to separate the two (which I believe should be led by Christians, since they are the ones offended by sharing the word), then I would probably support it, if for no other reason than to bring some sort of equality to the situation. If gay people using the word "marriage" is what Christians really object to (which I doubt*), they should be working to isolate THEIR version of the institution, instead of denying the right to one group. You don't hear of Christians campaigning to deny marriage rights to atheists, childless couples, multiple-divorced individuals, or those of non-conventional religions... who ALL denigrate the meaning of the word marriage, in the Christian sense.

*Per the above observations, I suspect the Christian fight is not so much motivated by their idea of 'sanctity of marriage' or their attachment to the word, but their desire to enforce what they see as "God's law" against homosexuality.

My marriage is not religious in the slightest. We are both atheist, in fact. We don't have or desire children. Yet we are legally married, and our marriage is drastically different than "traditional marriage"... yet no Christians are working to deny our right to marriage - and they aren't offended by the fact that we use the same word... and our marriage DOES NOT change the definition of marriage or affect traditional marriage in any way... as "unholy" as our marriage is.

Why is that?

.

reply to post by Spiramirabilis

Originally posted by Spiramirabilis
I mean - this whole Chick-fil-A thing for instance - hopefully we'll be able to laugh about certain parts of this. I mean - this is just so American isn't it - making a fast food joint ground zero for these latest battles? Taking it to the streets - with chicken

I have to smile - I love us sometimes - how goofy we all are

Oh! I love this! And I'm laughing at the circumstances of it now. It is SO American! The racial civil rights issue climaxed on a city bus with Rosa Parks and now we're doing it again, only with chicken. Thank goodness for people like Dan Cathy for speaking out and providing the forum for this discussion, right? I love this country.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by mjfromga

 

Originally posted by mjfromga
However, Christians tend to respect and follow the Bible. In order to give their blessings to homosexual marriage, they must rethink their faith.

Christians don't need to give their blessing. This is a civil (legal) issue. Christians can disapprove of homosexuality and gay marriage just as they disapprove of other legal activities, such as gambling, drinking, smoking, working on Sunday, other religions, adult pornography, skimpy clothing, using God's name in vain... the list goes on and on. Christians are a disapproving bunch and that's OK. Let them continue to disapprove of homosexuality.

Religious followers, by the way, also used God to deny the rights of blacks to marry. This is a repeat.

[.

edit on 8/5/2012 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)

Yes. This was my point. Marriage and legal unions are two different things and should be treated as such. As I mentioned, a person can be a Christian and not believe in same-sex marriage but still believe that gays have the right to a legal partnership. But the way we have it writen into law, they are one and the same, and therefore, Christians aren't allowed to state their belief that marriage should be one man/one woman without being labeled intolerant by the left. That's just as wrong as thinking gays shouldn't have any rights.

reply to post by charles1952

I have spent many party hours with a gay man who is a relative of one of my closest friends. Occasionally he will drift into "gay themed" (if that makes any sense) topics and I am surprised at the amount of venom he displays. Not to me, but to the straight world in general. That has taught me to be very cautious in dealing with him. We'll talk about his rock collection, or his small farm, but nothing serious.

Benevolent Heretic has already addressed this paragraph - but it made me think of several things - all at once

I've had a few friends that were friends first - but also gay - as it happens :-)

there are two that I don't see so much any more (as in ever) because we grew apart - for different reasons

one of those two actually became much more politically conservative as he grew older - I hear that happens sometimes - even to LGBT people

I know! Who'd have thunk it?

Anyhow - it turns out - I was too left leaning for him. He never said so in so many words...but, this is how friendship is sometimes, and so we drifted apart. And , well...politics - what can I say?

:-)

The other friend drifted out of my life because she was afraid to come out to me - even though I could have told her I knew years and years ago when we were both girls. She knew me quite well - and also knew it wouldn't matter to me - but she still couldn't quite do it. So - She moved across the country and started her life over - out of the closet - away from everyone she knew and loved. A clean break

I really miss her

You can lead a horse to water - but you can't make it drink Mr. Charles

I have a friend who is straight - who I don't see as much as I used to because - (drum roll please...) I'm not liberal enough :-)

I know someone who has a very good gay male friend that goes to church regularly and is voting for Romney in this next election. It defies explanation really - but I've met him and he seems sane enough

There's just no 'splainin' stuff sometimes

I'll end with this: there are so many people I know in so many different categories that I wish (oh, how I wish...) had a rock collection that we could talk about

:-)

reply to post by mjfromga

Originally posted by mjfromga
Christians aren't allowed to state their belief that marriage should be one man/one woman without being labeled intolerant by the left.

ANYTIME any of us states our belief about ANYTHING, we run the risk of being "labeled" as something or other. That's part of free speech. Facing the consequences of those who might not agree with you. Christians are free to speak their minds, while others (even lefties) have the right to speak theirs, too. Even if what they say is uncomfortable to hear.

We see it all the time. People come out and state their beliefs about something and other people (who don't agree) start saying crap about them... Sometimes it's true, sometimes it isn't. That's life. Christians need to put on their big-girl panties and face the consequences of what they do and say, just like everyone else does.

When I state my views about some religious practices, I am labeled as "intolerant", but you don't see me crying about it or being a victim. Everyone has a right to their opinion and these opinions can and do coexist.

reply to post by mjfromga


I have to disagree with you. Marriage predates Christianity. Pagans did it, tribal man did it and... it was a 'legal' agreement usually having to do with property ("10 goats for my daughter"). So it absolutely should not be about religion at all. Just because Christians (or any religion) adopted it into their religion and chose to seek God's blessing on those legal agreements does not mean that they now nor never should have influenced it's legal access to any consenting adults choosing to employ it.

Originally posted by charles1952

Yes a hater and yes he has acted against people.

I don't see the justification for that. Perhaps I'm being too literal, but opposing the new, gay, definition of marriage just doesn't seem like being against the person.

Leave Gay out of the discussion and focus on Equal Rights.

Who is redefining the definition of Legal Marriage? If you are speaking of the religious definition - - - that simply is not a valid legal reason.

Legal government marriage is a contract for protection of rights and property of individuals joining together as one household unit. It also affords specific privileges not afforded by any other means. The fact it affords these privileges only to married couples - - - excluding a couple just because they are same gender is unconstitutional. Equal Rights has nothing to do with traditional religious belief.

reply to post by charles1952

Absolutely agreed. And I think I can understand a little, not being gay myself, why there would be anger.

I know that you can. I think most people can. I get why this subject makes people angry - I do. And even when I disagree - it's not (always) because I can't respect their reasons. Having said that - this is one of those times where there really isn't any room for compromise. It could get ugly - possibly uglier than it already is. I hope not. But it's not difficult to see trouble coming down the pike...

I normally don't like going into the past, but here it may bring a little more understanding. Gays feel hated. I assume that's true, and not just a desire to claim victim status. Why the hatred? Is it because straights saw gays as different? Well, certainly gays saw straights as different. If that was the reason it would explain mutual hatred from the start.

We do have to go into the past for any of this to make sense. And while visiting the past we're also going to step on a few toes. First a chicken - or an egg? You ask why the hatred? Where did it start? The gays didn't see the straights as different - they were too busy trying not to stand out. In many cases their lives depended on blending. This alone should make people ask why they would choose to deviate from 'the plan'. The gays didn't pick this fight

Homosexuality has been with us from the beginning. I don't expect everyone to agree, but we're learning more every day we humans - we people. And, while the colorful and fun filled argument between belief and science never gets old (she said) it still - even now - comes down to this: is homosexuality natural - or is it deviant (and/or sinful) behavior?

Who gets to decide - officially? Officially...and that's where we are right now. Majority rules - and the prevailing beliefs win the day

When I asked you yesterday whether or not you really believed that this was all about marriage - I asked for a reason. Marriage is the symbol for the whole shebang - sure. It symbolizes Freedom (yes, with a capital F).

But, marriage is about union - and union is about sex. We are all fighting about sex Charles - I kid you not :-)

Sex - and who is doing it wrong

But you knew that - and your gift for diplomacy and polite debate aside - there' s no point in the two of us wrangling over any of it

At that point differences between the two groups were emphasized, and to get the point across "shock" tactics were used. On both sides I saw it quickly became an "us against them" matter. I wonder how much of the hatred was based in fear, I'm not sure of what.

I think the Civil Rights Movement indirectly made it easier for the gay community to be more open - and that wasn't something people with more conservative beliefs had time to adjust to

I don't necessarily accept the idea of "messy" as applied here. If "messy" is just how it is and perfectly, albeit regretfully, acceptable, then there is no reason to criticize hatred and, indeed, violence against gays. Goose and gander. I don't approve of "messy" to that extent by either side.

I can appreciate this - more than you know. I choose the word messy because ugly raises too many hackles. I don't intend to downplay the truth - as I said above - I don't see room for real compromise on this one. I know all too well where this could end up

I am opposed to violence to make a point on a social issue that is already being discussed in all three branches of government.

So am I

I'm probably misunderstanding you on this one. Is it illegal for people, not trying to antagonize anybody by jumping into their face with it, to express their hate-filled opinions?

And I might be misunderstanding your question... No, I personally don't believe it should ever be illegal - short of causing harm. Even with the hate - on both sides. I know everyone sees it differently. That's where it all gets tricky though - doesn't it? What is harm? Mr. Cathy didn't say anything new - it was just a public statement of his personal opinion. He didn't even refuse to bake anyone a cake. But this is where we are now - it made people angry. Everyone is allowed their opinion - the chicken buying public has spoken - as have the smoochers :-)

I wonder if he's sorry he said it - or glad?

And by-standers have an obligation to butt in and shut them up or they will be called haters, too?

Yes. I feel pretty strongly about this. Not shut them up - freedom of speech and all that either way. Just - we shouldn't leave things uncontested

"Acceptance" as another issue? Forgive me but space is limited.

It's a huge and exhausting topic - we could be here forever and never get it worked out

Also, I didn't imagine you as either grey or boring. I just thought maybe you were stuck in time and we should send someone to get you out

:-)

reply to post by crazydaysandnights


I know a lot of people who are christians who aren't "nuts" as you say. Perfectly normal people who work hard, take pride in their families, and fear god. They don't march up and down the streets demanding things and they don't resort to committing lewd acts in a public eatery just because they got their little feelings hurt. That being said, not all religious groups are the same, some of them actually do try and force it on you, but not here where I live, other than Jehovas Witness'.

Anyways, Rob Halford is the singer of Judas Priest, and I think he's one of the greatest rock frontmen of all time. He is an admitted homosexual. However, he doesn't run around like Richard Simmons or display affection in public or jump in peoples faces telling them proudly that he's gay and that they better accept it. My point is, why can't gays just keep it to themselves? Why they have to be so damn proud about it?? I'm married and would never make out with my wife in public or any of that. I keep it to myself, so why can't they so we can all just move on with our lives?

Originally posted by mjfromga
Christians are put into a really sticky situation on this subject. Honestly, most probably think (as I do) that a person's sexuality is their own business. I don't want to see it and hear about it on a daily basis - and that goes for heterosexuals, too. Don't we all have better things to do than dwell on sex in the public arena?

By now I think we all know there are Christians that support gay marriage. Just understand that when gays speak about Christians - - they mean those who deny them rights or even donate money and fight through organizations to deny them equal rights.

However, Christians tend to respect and follow the Bible. In order to give their blessings to homosexual marriage, they must rethink their faith. Asking a deeply religious person to do that is akin to asking the homosexual to stop being a homosexual. Frankly, it's not going to happen.

No body is asking them to accept or bless homosexual marriage.

I know Christians who are anti-abortion but Pro Rights. This is about Equal Rights - - nothing more.

Marriage should only be a religious concept - not a legal one.

Why? Who said?

Our government who created the Marriage license - - - to prevent interracial marriage - - - could have named it the Civil Union License - - - and left Marriage to the church - - - but they didn't. Blame them.

I personally have no issue with gays having the right to a legal union.

Do you have a problem with or think its OK to tell blacks to ride in the back of the bus?

Originally posted by Fylgje
He is an admitted homosexual. However, he doesn't run around like Richard Simmons or display affection in public or jump in peoples faces telling them proudly that he's gay and that they better accept it. My point is, why can't gays just keep it to themselves?

You really are naive when it comes to homosexuals.

There are quiet reserved heterosexuals - - and there are very extroverted heterosexuals.

Gays are not a group think - - they are individuals - - just like heterosexuals.

The LGBTQ Kiss protest - - was take a picture of yourself kissing a person of same sex at a Chick-fil-A - - then post it on a website.

A kiss - - - no different the heterosexuals do.

This guy stood behind his moral and value system concerning marriage...

Because certain people do not agree w/ his "free speech/ moral/ value system" they have to get the cross ready...err rope.....

I thought our fore fathers fought for the rights of anyone to say what they need to say?

Had anyone re-searched this guy and the company...they would have found that this company goes out of its way for employees and customers. People want to punish and take away jobs because 1 man excersized his rights?

Besides...keep going after this company because the innocent people being killed due to abuse of power and greed don't need you anymore.

I might add that I will always agree w/ the majority vote....

Originally posted by tracehd1
This guy stood behind his moral and value system concerning marriage...

Because certain people do not agree w/ his "free speech/ moral/ value system" they have to get the cross ready...err rope.....

I thought our fore fathers fought for the rights of anyone to say what they need to say?

You seriously couldn't have read this entire thread.

No one is going after his free speech or belief.

reply to post by Spiramirabilis and Benevolent Heretic

Thanks to your emphasis on how this whole set of issues hurts the hearts of gays, I've rethought my positions and now have a new set. I'm pretty sad.

Not sad because I have new opinions, that makes me happy. I'm delighted to have a better set of opinions in trade for the old, that's how we grow.

It's the opinions themselves that make me sad. Let's look at the hurt in the hearts of gays that leads them to despair, anger, and protests (sometime violent). Here's a story I found today: denver.cbslocal.com...

LAKEWOOD, Colo. (CBS4) – Supporters of a gay couple denied a cake for their upcoming wedding have taken to the streets. They’re boycotting Masterpiece Cake Shop.

With their rainbow flags raised high, a group of protesters campaigned for gay rights. Gay couple Dave Mullin and Charlie Craig are upset the owner of Masterpiece Cake Shop, Jack Phillips, won’t make a cake for their wedding because of religious opposition.

“I’m a human. It feels frustrating. Obviously they have the right to do what they want but you know it doesn’t feel good from the inside,” Craig said. (Emphasis added)

denver.cbslocal.com...
Craig realizes that the bakery has the legal right on their side, but he feels unwelcome, mistreated. Would he feel any more accepted and welcomed if there was a law making the owners bake a cake to Craig's order? Or would it be "Service with a Snarl," cakes made just slightly improperly, an error too small to demand a refund, but Craig would know. And the owners would now have a second "enemy," the government that forces people to do things. And the government would need a bazillion dollars to investigate the "He snarled at me." complaints.

This leads me to my first new position. Gays aren't concerned about the laws, they are concerned with the vast majority of society welcoming them, accepting them and their choices, as natural, acceptable, and good. Not what the laws say, especially since those can change.

This is an attractive goal, and one I can understand gays wanting to achieve, we all, as individuals, want to achieve it.

I see two major paths to this goal. My second new opinion, is that the movement has taken the wrong one. As Spiramirabilis writes, there is no room for compromise. This is not bad as a battle cry. And as a battle is how gays see it.

4 Aug 2012

More NOH8: Virginia Kruta reports that yet another Chick-Fil-A restaurant was vandalized by anti-speechers, this time in St. Louis at the Des Peres location.

www.breitbart.com... And how many more which haven't made the internet?

And here's a short video showing an elderly black man, sitting outside a Chick-fil-A, reading his Bible.

Winning full acceptance is an issue of winning the hearts and minds of the populace, not writing more laws. The more "In your face" the movement is, the stronger the resistance. And as we all know this is a extraordinarily difficult challenge for the movement. By choosing the wrong path, they have made it longer, more costly, more hate filled, and divisive, then it needed to be.

That's why I'm sad.

With respect,
Charles1952

Originally posted by charles1952

Winning full acceptance is an issue of winning the hearts and minds of the populace, not writing more laws. The more "In your face" the movement is, the stronger the resistance. And as we all know this is a extraordinarily difficult challenge for the movement. By choosing the wrong path, they have made it longer, more costly, more hate filled, and divisive, then it needed to be.

They want Equal Rights. Legal Equal Rights. With Equality acceptance will come.

Your name is Charles. You are human - - you would feel hurt if someone rejected you simply because your name is Charles. That does not mean you expect someone to fully accept you because of your name.

Would you tell blacks to keep saying "Yes Sir" and quietly wait for full acceptance before they're entitled to equal rights?

You are really really really reaching to try to justify this in your mind.

It is just not that complicated.

reply to post by charles1952

Originally posted by charles1952
Would he feel any more accepted and welcomed if there was a law making the owners bake a cake to Craig's order?

Did Rosa Parks (and all black people) feel better when the bus driver could no longer legally send her to the back of the bus? You damn betcha!

As to this cake example, it's a private business. They can refuse business to anyone, as it should be. The protestors' purpose isn't to force them to make cake, it is to bring awareness.

See, this cake and chicken fiasco are just two examples of steps in the battle for legal equality. Gay people are using them to bring awareness to the issue.

Gays aren't concerned about the laws, they are concerned with the vast majority of society welcoming them, accepting them and their choices, as natural, acceptable, and good.

Is it possible (and dare they hope) to want both? I believe they kind of go hand-in-hand.

I have both now, but it's been a long fight, fought by women who came before me. Small battles along the way that led to the acceptance and legal protection of women today. As a woman, there was a time when it was legal to pay me less than a man who was doing the very same job. And I was paid less. About 70% of my male co-workers, even though I had been there longer, was more skilled and did a better job.

But over the years, women fought for equality, societal AND legal. As a woman, it's still difficult for me to go into a car parts store, talk to a construction foreman or auto mechanic without getting a few eye-rolls, smirks and being condescended to... I've been called "little darlin'", "honey", and "missy" too many times, so some men still struggle with the idea... And I can live with that, because even though there are still chauvinists around, I've got the law behind me. I can't change their chauvinism, but I am treated equally under the law and that helps with social acceptance.

No, I'm not going to sue anyone because they call me "missy". That's ridiculous. But if a cake-maker refused to serve me because of my gender, I would make a big fuss, too! And I wouldn't be buying a cake from there after being treated like a second-class citizen. I would do my best to let the world know that this company refused me... and let society deal with it as they saw fit. That's my right now.

As you said, we all want acceptance. But if you didn't have the law protecting your equal treatment, you'd want that more than acceptance, believe me. It doesn't have to be one or the other, Charles. But the legal aspect of the fight is the more important one in their struggle for equal treatment. Acceptance will come - most people will learn to accept homosexuality over the years, just as they have blacks and women. Not all, but most. That's something that cannot be forced by law. But we must get rid of the gay version of the "Jim Crow Laws" first. That's the starting point and where you'll find more serious "gay rights activists" at work. They're not wearing rainbows and boycotting businesses. They're in board rooms with others of like mind, including Congressmen and state legislators, working on the laws they know they need to move forward in the fight for equal legal treatment.

And as a battle is how gays see it.

It IS a battle. Just as the "fight" for equality of blacks and women before were were battles. This battle has two sides. Those that believe in the founding equality principals of this country and those that don't. The 14th Amendment CLEARLY states that no state shall make a law that abridges the privileges of its citizens, nor deny them EQUAL protection under the law. Gay people are citizens, regardless of people's petty prejudices.

So, some restaurants get tagged with "Don't Hate"... Are you familiar with the death and destruction around the blacks' fight for their civil rights? People died, buildings were burned. Riots and unrest were normal happenings. If that's what has to happen to gain equality, that's what will happen. A few buildings spray-painted with "Don't Hate" is trivial compared to the deaths of gay people at the hands of bigots.

Your apparent "sympathy" for the oppressors is very frustrating for me. I haven't seen you express such concern for the gay victims of violent crimes against them. THAT'S what makes me sad... You're worried about a little paint as compared to the lives of loving, innocent people...

Winning full acceptance is an issue of winning the hearts and minds of the populace, not writing more laws.

How about we "let" them decide how to fight their own battles? They know a little more about it than you - or I.

reply to post by charles1952

This leads me to my first new position. Gays aren't concerned about the laws, they are concerned with the vast majority of society welcoming them, accepting them and their choices, as natural, acceptable, and good. Not what the laws say, especially since those can change.

oh Charles...

:shk:

I think you know better

In fact, I'm sure you know better

:-)

Originally posted by technical difficulties
If he is planning on banning Chick-Fil-A, it's just a waste of time considering that it will probably not gain much business in Boston (given it's current public image). I can understand why he would want to do it, but still.

Originally posted by thomas81z
yea mumbles menino is an idiot !!!! who care if they are agianst mo's tieing the knot i love their food,

What a stupid comment. There's more to it than the spokesman's silly, childish views on gay marraige-They also donate their money to anti-gay groups, which is a slap to the face to the rational people who eat there.

STUPID LOL again so he gives money to anti-gay groups big deal the food rocks