The Chick-Fil-A controversy

[KRAM1]

I know you're referring to me. It's so ironic how people supporting CFA claim that everything is okay because of free speech, but I'm not allowed to voice my different opinion and disagree with people. Some free speech. Just because I disagree with someone's views doesn't mean I do not tolerate them.

IN NO WAY AM I REFERRING TO YOU! Sorry....I am A-OK with whatever you believe. It's your belief, right? That is...as long as it's OK for me to believe what I want to believe and state my opinions just like everyone else...including you.

But, really...no way was I referring to you...frankly, some of your posts are so long i just don't have time to wade through them all the way...love your enthusiasm, so keep it up...especially like your support for the Mean Green and UNT...we need plenty more students just like you!

[The Fake Lonnie Finch]

While I may disagree with your selective use of science, I can't deny how logical and correct you are when it comes to Christianity. It's great to come across someone who actually uses the religion in a 100% positive way. Kudos to you, TFLF. If more Christians were like you, the world would be a lot nicer of a place.

I don't selectively use science. I take the same approach to science, the Bible, pretty much everything - it's either there or it's not. I believe in the creation and evolution. I believe God created things and they can evolve. No specie continues unless is can naturally reproduce itself. And, the misuse of the body, in any given way, leads to detriment. This is proved over and over again without fail in any given physical situation.

Look at what we now accept about concussions. The brain wasn't made to be beaten into the skull wall over and over and over again. So, those who choose to participate in activities where that occurs, are more likely than those who do not to have complications later in life.

It doesn't matter than it "can" be done or if it "feels good to do it" now and that it is "rewarding" to the ego (and, for some, he bank account). The body will one day cash the checks written on the abuse. I'm sorry, but with homosexuality, I look at what the body is design to do and it doesn't fit.

In terms of Christianity, you have to look at what it means. It means you are attempting to pattern your life after Christ.. If you are attemting to pattern your life after Christ, you've got to know what he says.

To know what he says, you have to read the account of his life. If what you are doing is inconsistent with his doings and teachings, and the doings and teachings of his disciples (Paul, Peters, John, etc.), then, I'm sorry, you're not really a Christian. Go do something else and quit pretending.

You have to apply what you see and know in life and deduct the truth from it. I'm not a stark-raving mad environmentalist. But, I've been to Mexico City and have seen what it is like when a country's environmental policies are too lax. Some environmental laws are necessary.

I've studied the law and its history while obtaining a law degree. I am not for complete, Communist-style government. But, I also know what happened in this country before labor and antitrust law curbed what businesses here did.

Certain "captains of industry" stockpiled wealth and power to themselves. And, if workers were hurt in their employ, they'd more often than not be fired, with no recourse except to sue those "captains of indsutry" directly...good luck, right?

There must be some regulation of business or there would rise up a class of people who would stockpile the wealth and lord it over the rest. Look at Mexico. That's the way it is. The rich and connected lord it over the rest of the country. The protection and welfare of the workers and citizenry at large is an afterthought there.

You appear to be a truth seeker that is somewhat sideswiped by feeling and emotion on some issues. But, again, you are young. And, alas...we were all young once. I was once a young, idealistic Conservative. Now, I'm a middle-aged non-voter who keeps his eyes open.

[UNTstormchaser]

IN NO WAY AM I REFERRING TO YOU! Sorry....I am A-OK with whatever you believe. It's your belief, right? That is...as long as it's OK for me to believe what I want to believe and state my opinions just like everyone else...including you.

But, really...no way was I referring to you...frankly, some of your posts are so long i just don't have time to wade through them all the way...love your enthusiasm, so keep it up...especially like your support for the Mean Green and UNT...we need plenty more students just like you!

My bad then KRAM! I've just become so used to accepting the fact that any sly remark goes toward me, not only in this thread but in general on this topic. GMG!

Edited August 2, 2012 by UNTstormchaser

[UNTstormchaser]

I don't selectively use science. I take the same approach to science, the Bible, pretty much everything - it's either there or it's not. I believe in the creation and evolution. I believe God created things and they can evolve. No specie continues unless is can naturally reproduce itself. And, the misuse of the body, in any given way, leads to detriment. This is proved over and over again without fail in any given physical situation.

Look at what we now accept about concussions. The brain wasn't made to be beaten into the skull wall over and over and over again. So, those who choose to participate in activities where that occurs, are more likely than those who do not to have complications later in life.

It doesn't matter than it "can" be done or if it "feels good to do it" now and that it is "rewarding" to the ego (and, for some, he bank account). The body will one day cash the checks written on the abuse. I'm sorry, but with homosexuality, I look at what the body is design to do and it doesn't fit.

In terms of Christianity, you have to look at what it means. It means you are attempting to pattern your life after Christ.. If you are attemting to pattern your life after Christ, you've got to know what he says.

To know what he says, you have to read the account of his life. If what you are doing is inconsistent with his doings and teachings, and the doings and teachings of his disciples (Paul, Peters, John, etc.), then, I'm sorry, you're not really a Christian. Go do something else and quit pretending.

You have to apply what you see and know in life and deduct the truth from it. I'm not a stark-raving mad environmentalist. But, I've been to Mexico City and have seen what it is like when a country's environmental policies are too lax. Some environmental laws are necessary.

I've studied the law and its history while obtaining a law degree. I am not for complete, Communist-style government. But, I also know what happened in this country before labor and antitrust law curbed what businesses here did.

Certain "captains of industry" stockpiled wealth and power to themselves. And, if workers were hurt in their employ, they'd more often than not be fired, with no recourse except to sue those "captains of indsutry" directly...good luck, right?

There must be some regulation of business or there would rise up a class of people who would stockpile the wealth and lord it over the rest. Look at Mexico. That's the way it is. The rich and connected lord it over the rest of the country. The protection and welfare of the workers and citizenry at large is an afterthought there.

You appear to be a truth seeker that is somewhat sideswiped by feeling and emotion on some issues. But, again, you are young. And, alas...we were all young once. I was once a young, idealistic Conservative. Now, I'm a middle-aged non-voter who keeps his eyes open.

I agree that anal sex is not exactly the safest thing to partake in. That (and my lack of attraction to men) is why I do not choose to partake in it. But, biology aside, the government can't decide what two consenting adults can and cannot do in their sex life, and marriage has no relation to whether or not sodomy will occur in gay relationships. That's been my point all along.

What I meant by selectively using science is how you have completely ignored the fact that there is indisputable evidence that hundreds of other mammals do homosexual things, so it isn't just humans. There's actually some interesting research being done about whether or not homosexuality could be a means of natural population control. Obviously, a gay couple of either gender cannot naturally have children, so based on that fact alone there is premise for the research. I don't know whether I agree with it or not, but it's certainly an intriguing possibility.

We share the same ideal on how one should form their opinions and ideas. I like that, it's nice to see people of other opinions also being reasonable.

[The Fake Lonnie Finch]

Stormchaser, I'm not ignoring what you are saying about homosexuality. It doesn't matter that man and animal may participate in homosexuality. What I'm saying is, the act isn't healthy when viewed physiologically or productive to the continuing of the specie when viewed biologically.

As far as the government telling homosexuals what to do. The thread began with a gal ranting about Christians and their view of homosexuality.

But, the fact of the matter is, the government is the people in a democracy. And in the 30+ instances where homosexual marriage has been a ballot issue for states, it has been defeated every time. It even lost is California, which is regarded to be one of the most liberal states.

This is an issue that has only progressed through indirect means - legislatures and judiciary branches acting. Despite "poll numbers" and whatnot, it hasn't passed a popular vote, and probably won't in 75-80% of states once all is said and done. In the end, it will be decided by the judicary some day.

So...for people to rant at Chik-Fil-A and Christians about it doesn't make a whole lot of sense. In fact, all it has really served to do, at this point, is give the Chik-Fil-A CEO even more money to donate to anti-gay marriage causes.

Christians are pretty much like any other group. If you leave them alone, they'll pretty much stay to themselves. But, whack of them a little and the rise up together.

As it stood, Cathays interview was for some publication called "Baptist Press." Well, I mean, what did people expect that a Christian/Baptist business owner was going to say to the "Baptist Press"? It's not like the guy went on Nightline and shook his fist at the country making the statements he did.

Had anyone not Baptist even heard of the Baptist Press before the interview? Did most Baptists even know it existed? I think the whole thing got blown out of proportion when it was picked up by the mainstream media.

It would be the equivalent of Christians going nutso about a gay business person telling a gay publican that he or she is for gay marriage and donated to its cause. I mean, would that really be newsworthy? Surprising or shocking? I don't think Cathay's interview was, given the media outlet and its audience.

Edited August 2, 2012 by The Fake Lonnie Finch

[GreenBat]

Lonnie,

Take some time to read this blog. It's longer than stormchaser's post but it has some good information in it.

http://www.thegodarticle.com/7/post/2011/10/clobbering-biblical-gay-bashing.html/

[Green Dozer]

"As for the activists, I completely applaud them for standing up for what they believe in (especially considering they're right), and I support them 100%. If someone wants to boycott CFA, fine. If someone, for whatever reason, completely agrees with CFA and supports them, that's fine too, as dumb as it may be"

Just could not help it could you? I respected your opinion until this point, didn't think you were dumb or anything because of it. Didnt agree. But you couldn't just state your opinion and move on, you had to sling a little mud.

[UNTstormchaser]

I agree the entire thing got way blown out of proportion due to the media. That happens all the time, because our media is mentally impaired and driven by cashflow. Whether or not it's healthy is irrelevant...eating at Chik-fil-a isn't healthy either, nor any of the fast food places, and some of the biggest companies in the country and world, and it's perfectly legal to eat there. The insane obesity epidemic in the US is not exactly a good the for the future of our species either. Besides, marriage or no marriage, gays are going to have sexual relations with their partner. So basing an argument around the safety of sodomy against gay marriage doesn't actually make sense. If you were arguing for the legality or illegality of sodomy, that would be different.

That is very true that gay marriage legislation continually gets defeated, but the margin of defeat is shrinking dramatically and quickly. Fifteen years from now when the people of my generation are between 30-40, the people who are under 10 years old today are voters, and an entire older generation beginning to die off, I don't see gay marriage being nearly as controversial an issue. The divide is going to die off the same way the racial divide did. If you could poll people in 1900 about whether or not they supported black rights, the resounding answer would be no. I feel the same type of shift is occurring with the nation's (and the world's) view of homosexuality. It isn't a big deal to most people anymore, as opposed to the way it was even 15-20 years ago. Regardless, legislation will end up being passed with or without the support of the popular vote, because this is a civil right's issue, and it won't end up being settled the same way people settle whether or not we should fund a new city park.

People that are ranting at Christians as a whole are idiots, and Christians that are ranting at gays for wanting equal rights are idiots. When it comes down to it, anyone that is either lumping an entire group together to get angry at, and anyone that is trying to force their beliefs onto others, are idiots. I think we can all agree about that. But, the reason gay activists are upset at Chik-fil-a is because of where they donate, and it's their right to be upset at that if they choose to be so. It's also the right of anyone to stand with Chik-fil-a, if they choose to do so. And, both groups have a right to peacefully demonstrate their thoughts in any way they want.

Again, I totally agree that it wasn't shocking. I wasn't shocked nor upset by what he said, especially given his audience. I could give a damn what a private business owner says or thinks. As long as he isn't saying anything like "KILL THE GAYS!!", then there is no issue. I think mainstream America found it surprising because the majority of people walk around every day with their heads up their ass, so they have no idea what anyone says or does until someone slaps them in the face with it. But I disagree that people wouldn't react the other way around. About a month ago, Oreo came out in support of gay marriage by posting a picture on their facebook of a rainbow oreo cookie, and people freaked out about it. It didn't hit the same level of publicity as the CFA thing, but it got pretty big.

[UNTstormchaser]

"As for the activists, I completely applaud them for standing up for what they believe in (especially considering they're right), and I support them 100%. If someone wants to boycott CFA, fine. If someone, for whatever reason, completely agrees with CFA and supports them, that's fine too, as dumb as it may be"

Just could not help it could you? I respected your opinion until this point, didn't think you were dumb or anything because of it. Didnt agree. But you couldn't just state your opinion and move on, you had to sling a little mud.

Man you did some deep digging for that one. I agree, I did phrase that pretty harshly and poorly, and it wasn't my intent for it to come across that way. I wasn't meaning to insinuate that people are dumb for agreeing with the ideals of CFA, but I feel that people are supporting CFA for dumb reasons. They are saying "Oh I support the first amendment, so I'ma go eat some chicken", when the first amendment isn't being challenged or blocked here. No one is saying that their owner can't speak his mind, they're upset at the fact that he donates to the places he does. But a lot of people are idiot headline readers (on both sides) who don't actually know anything about the context of what was said or why people are reacting, and that is what I was trying to say was dumb. Sorry for coming off as a rude prick.

[GrayEagle]

Megachurches are dangerous because they lie about Christ, and they prey upon people's emotions for money. Neither Jesus nor Paul ever solicited funds as a means to:

(1) Build more facilities (or, any facilities, for that matter)

(2) Promise that prayers would be answered

(3) Ensure future enrichment

If there truly is an Antichrist, it will come in the form of a "church." This is the only way those inclined to believe in God can be misled. And, as you can readily see from "Pay for prayer" and "Pay for prosperity" television evangelists, many are misled daily.

This is part of the reason I disagree with churches being fully tax-exempt. I believe that a church must show that the majority of the their tithes and donations are going towards direct benefit to the community before their exemption can be claimed.

For instance, churches should show that the money is being given to food pantries, homeless shelters, abuse shelters, and the like. If not, then a church is no more than a business.

Our commercial insurance agency insures churches of all sizes. And, trust me, some of the megachurches we've visited and insured are run no differently than corporations.

To me, it's the perfect con for con artists - solicit funds by preying on the emotionally weak, and receiving the funds tax-free because church status can be claimed.

Many conservatives will disagree with me on this. But, honesty is honesty...and Jesus did say, "Render unto Caesar those things which are Caesar's...." in Matthew 22 when religious leaders tried to corner him on the tax question. In America, many churches forget - or, more likely, ignore - that Jesus was not about money.

I agree with almost all of what you say. The church is a congregation of people that minister to the needy, and the sick but they are also a building. There were no church buildings in Jesus' time because the Jews and Romans would have had them destroyed. There were no churches until Emperor Constantine I, a Christian convert, signed an edict making it unlawful to kill Christians. You may recall that it was entertainment for the Romans to match unarmed Christians against lions. Churches began coming into existence around 330 AD so it's unfair to compare the fact that Jesus didn't use churches with worship in homes. The Christians of that time still went to the synagogue lest they be found out.

No church would survive with the membership that would occur meeting in homes. Churches must have a common gathering site and knowledgeable, trained ministers. You wouldn't go to a school with volunteer teachers would you? Or have lay doctors treat you? Most ministers that I know would serve their congregations for free if they could afford it. It's a calling and they're not in it for the money. Even if they had megachurches and tremendous incomes they would not use it for jet planes, luxury cars, mansions, etc. I am just as opposed to insincere preacher's scams called megachurches as you are. They minister "fast food" Christianity to those who want meaning for their lives but aren't willing to work at it.

[oldguystudent]

I'll stick to In-N-Out for my periodic dose of Jesus in a bun. (Cue intense Texan hatred for In-N-Out in 3...2...1)

[Green P1]

[Mean Green 93-98]

Wherefore comfort yourselves together, and edify one another, even as also ye do (1 Thessalonians 5:11).

But exhort one another daily, while it is called To day; lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin (Hebrews 3:13).

[Green Dozer]

Man you did some deep digging for that one. I agree, I did phrase that pretty harshly and poorly, and it wasn't my intent for it to come across that way. I wasn't meaning to insinuate that people are dumb for agreeing with the ideals of CFA, but I feel that people are supporting CFA for dumb reasons. They are saying "Oh I support the first amendment, so I'ma go eat some chicken", when the first amendment isn't being challenged or blocked here. No one is saying that their owner can't speak his mind, they're upset at the fact that he donates to the places he does. But a lot of people are idiot headline readers (on both sides) who don't actually know anything about the context of what was said or why people are reacting, and that is what I was trying to say was dumb. Sorry for coming off as a rude prick.

LOL understood and thanks for clarifying.

[Green Dozer]

Yea, but never hear about Atheists on the scene of a hurricane or tornado either.

[Side Show Joe]

Wow... I guess you think my late uncle, who was a preacher, and built schools and water wells in Guatemala died for nothing?

[GreenBat]

Yea, but never hear about Atheists on the scene of a hurricane or tornado either.

There are plenty of them. They just don't pander to the media.

[MDH]

Yea, but never hear about Atheists on the scene of a hurricane or tornado either.

Kind of hard for us to say we're spreading anyone's word or message; we help out for the love of humanity, just like any religious group does. Sadly, the social stigma in this country associated with atheists is incredible ([sarcasm]you're picturing me with devil horns as you read this, admit it[/sarcasm]) so we often don't get the chance, nor do many of us feel it's necessary to share something like that.

[Side Show Joe]

I don't need an apology, and wouldn't want to see him suspended. He didn't intend to call out my uncle, and the man has a right to his opinion on this issue. I'll chalk it up as a bad joke.

[FirefightnRick]

"Mainstream Media Blacks Out Chick-fil-A Story"

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/mainstream-media-blacks-out-chick-fil-story_649234.html

.."But you wouldn't know anything about the national phenomenon by reading the front pages of most of the country's leading newspapers. There's no mention of Chick-fil-A on the front pages of the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, the Chicago Tribune, the Los Angeles Times, the South Florida Sun-Sentinel, and the Boston Globe...."

Rick

[The Fake Lonnie Finch]

Lonnie,

Take some time to read this blog. It's longer than stormchaser's post but it has some good information in it.

http://www.thegodart...y-bashing.html/

Thanks for the article. But, he's confused about Christianity as well. He's talking Christianity, but - as with the gal in the video - falls back into Old Testament examples.

He also gives a New Testament example were Sadducees tried to trick Jesus regarding what human relationships would be like in Heaven. In the exchange, Jesus does not endorse polygamy, he simply tells them they have no idea what they are talking about:

Jesus replied, “Are you not in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God? When the dead rise, they will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven.

To try to site that as an example of the acceptance of polygamy is to simply mistate the scriptures. Or, worse, to not understand the context.

I feel really bad for people who are under this author's ministry. His interpretation of the letters of Paul are nothing more than a mockery. To elavate Lady Gaga onto a level of Paul is absurd. This author is a person who is misleading people. Sadly. But, again, there are "Christians" who mislead people.

It's really simple, but homosexuals do not like it:

Jesus, from Matthew 19:

⁴ “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female, ⁵ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’?

This isn't confusing. It's really straightforward.

Paul, from Ephesians 5:

²⁸ In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. ²⁹ After all, no one ever hated their own body, but they feed and care for their body, just as Christ does the church— ³⁰ for we are members of his body. ³¹ “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.”

Again, this wasn't complicated or confusing to Paul.

There are people claiming to be Christian who rebel against the teachings of Jesus and Paul. They use the cover of "everyone has sinned." And, yes, everyone has sinned. But, the measure of a person striving to be a Christian is whether they are repenting of those sins and attempting to live a better life without those sins in their lives.

As stated before, homosexual do not view their actions as sinful and are not attempting to repent of them. This is resistance to the first steps toward Christianity - recognizing sin and repenting of it.

Nowhere in the gospel of Jesus, or in the letter's of Paul, do you read, "It's okay to keep sinning because we all sin."

Again, Paul address this in his letter to the Romans, 6th Chapter:

What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? ² By no means!

¹⁵ What then? Shall we sin because we are not under the law but under grace? By no means!

This author of the piece your offer is in rebellion against the scripture he purports to proclaim. And, he encourages his readers to join him in his rebellion. Not good stuff.

Edited August 3, 2012 by The Fake Lonnie Finch

[Quoner]

"Mainstream Media Blacks Out Chick-fil-A Story"

http://www.weeklysta...ory_649234.html

.."But you wouldn't know anything about the national phenomenon by reading the front pages of most of the country's leading newspapers. There's no mention of Chick-fil-A on the front pages of the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, the Chicago Tribune, the Los Angeles Times, the South Florida Sun-Sentinel, and the Boston Globe...."

Rick

At last count, there were 2,804 articles about this, including pickups in every publication you mentioned. If you think this deserves front page billing (or any part of this story does), congratulations, you hate tangible, important world news.

[Quoner]

Wherefore comfort yourselves together, and edify one another, even as also ye do (1 Thessalonians 5:11).

But exhort one another daily, while it is called To day; lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin (Hebrews 3:13).

"Where two are more are gathered in my name, eat more chikin."

[UNT Five&Dime]

Can someone mock those of us that are ovo-lacto vegetarian agnostics? We're feeling left out.

[UNTstormchaser]

Yea, but never hear about Atheists on the scene of a hurricane or tornado either.

Yes you do. We're also the vast minority in this country, so just from a pure statistical standpoint, if you were to pick one random person that is helping in a disaster, he'd likely be Christian, or at least some form of common Western religious. Put that in with the fact that the mainstream media is about ratings and pandering to the majority in their audience (hence increasing ratings), they're going to put on a good Christian story over an atheist one. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that all atheists are good or useful. There are plenty of atheists who are such narcissistic elitists that they don't even accept other less intense atheists as valuable people. And some others are so wrapped up in ridiculous philosophy that they can't even wipe their ass correctly. But it's the same thing with any other group of people. Some atheists are wonderful people. Others are normal, average people. Others suck. Most fall in between. Just like Christians. Some are wonderful people who live the life of Jesus and are constantly helping others. Others are normal people who are good by nature, but don't necessarily live their religion to the fullest (the vast majority fit into this category, as I think you'll agree). And, others are either completely insane maniacs (like the WBC), or are babbling idiots who quote the bible when they haven't read anything other than what they read online as an argument for or against what they want to believe in. Just like people of any race. Some white people are amazing, some are terrible. My point is that you shouldn't be judging a group of people that you don't understand because you have never been one or met enough of them to form a legitimate opinion. I've been Christian, I grew up Christian, have lived with Christians, and are friends with Christians. I understand that the religion they claim has little to do with how they act a lot of the time, and I don't judge people for being Christian as a result. I judge them based on how they treat me and others. Same with atheists. I may gravitate towards someone who is an atheist since we share similar views, but I don't place the person on a pedestal before I actually get to know them. If they're an ass to me, then I could give a damn what they are or believe in. Blanket statements are the downfall of society...they lead to ridiculous stereotypes that are hardly ever true. One love people.

Edited August 3, 2012 by UNTstormchaser