Chick-fil-A "non-story" exposes the Hypocritical agenda of LGBT Community.

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by StalkerSolent

Good luck. You are going to need it.

I proposed something very similar a few years back: striking the word "marriage" from all legal wordings and making everyone under the law a "civil union" (or whatever you want to call it). Anyone could then be married based solely on whether their religion said they were married, but marriage would carry no other benefits. All secular benefits would be for civil unions.

I was handed my hindquarters on a platter in that thread.

Ergo, I realized that the complaint of the loudest and most adamant has nothing to do with equality, but has to do with a word. So I started thinking what the societal results of redefining that word would be if carried to certain points, and I realized what the true agenda is: revenge. The sad part is that I believe a great many do want equality, but they are drowned out by those who hate, yet hide behind their constant accusations of others.

TheRedneck

Thanks for the well wishes Redneck. Some of the recent feedback I've gotten sort of tends to bolster your hypothesis. I'll keep an eye on my hindquarters from now on!

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes

Originally posted by jimmyx
maybe bible-thumpin', scripture-quotin',confedrate flag-wavin' christians would understand, if their own kids were killed, maimed, brutalized, bullied, shunned, made fun of, just for being christian...
maybe being an elite, just means you have critical-thinking skills combined with a degree of tolerance.

Look up a group called Voice of the Martyrs. Christians are attacked and killed, around the world, on a regular basis, because they are Christian. It happens in the US, too, just not (so far) to as deadly a degree. Workplace sanctions, school children penalized, lawsuits - that's all condoned by anti-freedom, Christian-hating people.

In Uganda, Christians made being gay a crime punishable by death.

Name one country where gays were able to do the same to Christians.

Originally posted by natters

They want to be able to exercise their freedom of speech, but the only freedom of speech they want for others is the freedom to accept their lifestyle.

This is the issue EXACTLY!! nothing to do with equal rights - but the expectation that everyone should agree with their choice. Absolutely ludacris.

WRONG. No one is against free speech. But everyone has a right to speak up if they don't like what someone else is saying.

The difference between what the Oreo company said and what the Chick Fil A Ceo said is like this analogy:

Company A says, "We fully accept black people as equal citizens. We believe blacks should have the rights to do anything that whites can do." Now, the anti-blacks don't like that, so they get upset, they want to boycott Company A, etc. The blacks get upset at these anti-blacks for being against them. Is it so hard to understand why the blacks would feel that way?

Now, let's say Company B says, "We don't have a problem with black people, but we don't think they should have all the same rights as whites, because our God tells us that black people are inferior to whites." The anti-blacks are cheering for Company B, so, of course the blacks are not going to be happy about that, right? Is it so hard to understand why?

Originally posted by kaylaluv

WRONG. No one is against free speech. But everyone has a right to speak up if they don't like what someone else is saying.

The difference between what the Oreo company said and what the Chick Fil A Ceo said is like this analogy:

Company A says, "We fully accept black people as equal citizens. We believe blacks should have the rights to do anything that whites can do." Now, the anti-blacks don't like that, so they get upset, they want to boycott Company A, etc. The blacks get upset at these anti-blacks for being against them. Is it so hard to understand why the blacks would feel that way?

Now, let's say Company B says, "We don't have a problem with black people, but we don't think they should have all the same rights as whites, because our God tells us that black people are inferior to whites." The anti-blacks are cheering for Company B, so, of course the blacks are not going to be happy about that, right? Is it so hard to understand why?

This is a misunderstanding of what Chick-Fil-A's owner said and it's not at all able to be made into an analogy about race. The better understanding would be (for company B): "We dont have a problem with homosexuals but marriage as I believe it is designed for a man and a woman."

There was nothing about homosexuals being inferior LOL! thats a stretch. Your whole analogy is ridiculous. try again. He didnt' say anything derogatory about homosexuals at all, except that he felt that marriage should be celebrated in the traditional sense. The offense was taken from that comment, not given.

Just have a quick question please excuse my ignorance on the subject, but why do lbgt people want to get married in the first place? Isn't marriage religious in nature? Holy matrimony? Doesn't a priest or rabbi or other holy figure declare you man and wife? Am I missing something here?

Originally posted by TXRabbit
Interesting that you mention hypocrisy....

Pretty sure Christians can also help without making a public display. I know for a fact they do. Look at your food shelves, those shelves are filled by Christians. It's considered a Christian "act" to give and donate, help your fellow man etc.

Just a point to the OP and everyone else about the LGBT 'community' ...

I don't compare you to the Westboro Baptist Church by default. Please don't compare me to whatever you're comparing me to by default. No offense to anyone in particular but there seems to be a general path of generalizing the LGBT community into one basket or agenda.

reply to post by LadyGreenEyes

In your opinion. However, claiming it isn't accurate, while also claiming it promotes this or that, is a bit less than honest, isn't it? Either you accept it, or you don't.

Initially, I planned to point to the fact that your framing of my argument was less than honest, but then it hit me, you apparently cannot comprehend my argument.

So let me rephrase it for you.

I stated that one's understanding of biblical intent is based upon translation.

I did not say that it promoted polygamy, as a matter of fact this is my actual quote-

One's perception of the legitimacy of polygamy in the bible depends on how words are interpreted.

So, that means that whatever someone wants to believe about the bible, they can interpret it to mean that.

Unless it just straight up contradicts itself, which happens a LOT...

The issue of polygamy in the Bible is ONLY in the OT, and only in reference to what was standard practice of the times, same as slavery was.

Yes... Only in the old testament, but yet STILL in the bible.
Are you saying that the old testament is wrong?
If so, then why is it a part of the bible?

At no point does the Bible ever say these things are right; it simply gives some standards of behavior for what was the cultural norm of the day. The NT makes it clear that polygamy isn't as God intended. For that matter, so does Genesis. God, after all, made the first marriage between Adam and Eve.

That is not true.

You should reread your own bible.

TWO creation stories exist.
In one, man and woman were made at the same time, but in another, woman was made from man's rib.

This is why the Jews refer to the character of Lilith, but what confounds me is....
That this creation story that you speak of is only in the old testament.
And according to you, if it's in the old testament, then it is not legit.

Isn't that what you just said about polygamy and slavery?

Look... You will not win an argument against me trying to justify the bible.
The bible is itself a contradiction.
You are basing your belief on a book that is inherently contrary in what it presents as a belief.
The only reason that it makes sense to you is because you have been beaten into submission by your church overlords.
They like to beat things... into submission.

This is why so many are closet perverts.

And unsurprisingly, why so many also engage in same sex behaviors and pedophilia.

Originally posted by AM47240
reply to post by Eurisko2012

 

Wow, you just took hypocrisy to a whole new level! You had some help though. I worked in the customer service industry for a long time, and I've encountered plenty of customers who screamed, cussed at, and threatened me because they didn't like the terms of the sale, etc. This guy wasn't anything like that, and even complimented this girl several times during the video. There were a couple of moments where he became a bit too passionate and it came across as though he was holding her responsible, but how is that any different from what customers do every day? If you work in customer service, you are a representative of that company. So if a customer has an issue with the company, they take it up with you. Like I said, he seemed a little bit rude in a couple of the things he said, but he was nothing at all like a lot of angry customers.

So all of the people who are mad that people want to boycott Chik-Fil-A need to check themselves, here. You claim that boycotting infringes upon Dan Cathy's freedom of speech (which isn't even the issue for most of us, but you claim relentlessly that it is), but then you aren't outraged that this guy expresses his own freedom of speech and loses his job over it? Not only that, but to have his family threatened? This is just a bunch of B.S.
I agree that he should apologize if he was rude to that girl, but that should be the end of it. It's not like this girl hasn't heard much worse coming from someone who's sandwich wasn't made correctly.

Oh, i get it! Now poor Adam Smith is a - victim -.

You live in an alternate reality.

"he should apologize -- IF -- he was rude to Rachel?"

Go watch the video again! Adam Smith was an arrogant jerk. -- Everyone sees that

except you. --

Adam Smith was fired because he orchestrated a public relations nightmare for his

employer - Vante, Inc. -.

Listen to the Adam Smith apology. He threw an immature hissy fit because of all

the people there to support Chick-fil-A during Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day.

He was also fired from the University of Arizona - Tucson as an adjunct lecturer.


OOPS! I got caught! I got fired ! .......Time for some -damage control-.

reply to post by Bluedream54


its about Federal Employees in same sex partners spouses being able to get bennies.

it really is.

reply to post by Eurisko2012

Listen to the Adam Smith apology. He threw an immature hissy fit because of all

the people there to support Chick-fil-A during Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day.

He was also fired from the University of Arizona - Tucson as an adjunct lecturer.

While also wanting it to be crystal clear that he was NOT gay.

I always find it entertaining when someone makes the argument that they are not gay by supporting gay marriage...
while NOT being accused of being gay.

It's a backhanded slap support and a serious freudian slip, IMHO.

Originally posted by natters

Originally posted by kaylaluv

WRONG. No one is against free speech. But everyone has a right to speak up if they don't like what someone else is saying.

The difference between what the Oreo company said and what the Chick Fil A Ceo said is like this analogy:

Company A says, "We fully accept black people as equal citizens. We believe blacks should have the rights to do anything that whites can do." Now, the anti-blacks don't like that, so they get upset, they want to boycott Company A, etc. The blacks get upset at these anti-blacks for being against them. Is it so hard to understand why the blacks would feel that way?

Now, let's say Company B says, "We don't have a problem with black people, but we don't think they should have all the same rights as whites, because our God tells us that black people are inferior to whites." The anti-blacks are cheering for Company B, so, of course the blacks are not going to be happy about that, right? Is it so hard to understand why?

This is a misunderstanding of what Chick-Fil-A's owner said and it's not at all able to be made into an analogy about race. The better understanding would be (for company B): "We dont have a problem with homosexuals but marriage as I believe it is designed for a man and a woman."

There was nothing about homosexuals being inferior LOL! thats a stretch. Your whole analogy is ridiculous. try again. He didnt' say anything derogatory about homosexuals at all, except that he felt that marriage should be celebrated in the traditional sense. The offense was taken from that comment, not given.

One company was being INclusive regarding gays - the other company was being EXclusive regarding gays. Is it hard to understand why some gays would be unhappy about being EXcluded? Wouldn't you be unhappy if others were telling you they felt YOU should be excluded from getting a marriage license?

reply to post by TheLiesOfEden


Ironic because????

both gays and christians use the symbol of the rainbow? Im neither, so whats your point?

Originally posted by Bluedream54
Just have a quick question please excuse my ignorance on the subject, but why do lbgt people want to get married in the first place? Isn't marriage religious in nature? Holy matrimony? Doesn't a priest or rabbi or other holy figure declare you man and wife? Am I missing something here?

Atheists get marriage licenses every day, in every state of the country. There are many churches perfectly willing to marry gays in the eyes of God, but gays can't get a marriage license in most states. Is this really about religion, or is this about something else??

Originally posted by kyviecaldges
reply to post by Eurisko2012

 

Listen to the Adam Smith apology. He threw an immature hissy fit because of all

the people there to support Chick-fil-A during Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day.

He was also fired from the University of Arizona - Tucson as an adjunct lecturer.

While also wanting it to be crystal clear that he was NOT gay.

I always find it entertaining when someone makes the argument that they are not gay by supporting gay marriage...
while NOT being accused of being gay.

It's a backhanded slap support and a serious freudian slip, IMHO.

Here was his profile at the University of Arizona - Tucson.

It was quickly removed after they saw the YouTube rant.

reply to post by kaylaluv


No, Chick-Fil-A never EXcluded anybody from their company. He was asked his PERSONAL opinion during a CHURCH interview!!! Are you guys seriously saying that individual people who happen to be business owners are not entitled to opinions? He shared his opinion openly and honestly. Instead of getting their tutu's ruffled (lol redneck....) maybe the gay community should take advantage of their right to an opinion and boycott the restaurant. But saying the guy isn't entitled to his opinion because it makes them *feel* excluded? (and it comes down to emotion because the owner never said he hated gays, or that gays weren't welcomed into his restaurant, or that if a gay came into the restaurant they'd go out of their way to make them feel uncomfortable, or anything hateful really)....

sure seems to me like they simply want everyone to agree with their choice. never gonna happen. ever.

reply to post by kaylaluv

One company was being INclusive regarding gays - the other company was being EXclusive regarding gays. Is it hard to understand why some gays would be unhappy about being EXcluded? Wouldn't you be unhappy if others were telling you they felt YOU should be excluded from getting a marriage license?

This is what I don't get about the whole "gay marriage" thing.

Marriage is a concept born of religious implications, and, in America, its historical roots are tied to the church.

Granted, the state has now usurped the concept of marriage to become a legal contract for a civil union between two people, totally bypassing the church.

And, in my opinion, if the gays want to have this right to contract, then they should have it, but why not call it something other than marriage?

Why do they have to have this word marriage?
Because in all reality, the only thing that the nutso christians want is to somehow keep the concept of marriage pure.
(somehow husbands and wives cheating on one another and filandering with children doesn't destroy the purity of marriage, but same sex unions do... Go figure... don't ever try to apply logic to religious reasoning.)

I would bet green money that the gays could get what they want pragmatically if the were willing to compromise, but it seems that winning this battle is more important to them than actually being able to have the right to enter into a marriage contract.

Just watched his "apology" video. That alone is grounds for termination. I wonder how he acheived his position in the first place!

Originally posted by Gridrebel
Just watched his "apology" video. That alone is grounds for termination. I wonder how he acheived his position in the first place!

He has an MBA.

He could open up his own company.

His website could be www.howtogetfiredfast.com.