The Chick-Fil-A controversy

[UNT Five&Dime]

What theory can we devise from this news?

Chick-fil-A public relations leader Don Perry dies suddenly

[LongJim]

More distraction for the media to keep the public focused on, and divided by. A shiny object. Nothing more.

[trussbussdad]

I am going to the nearest Chick-fil-A and pay for a good product the amount I owe them...I will pray before I eat my meal...then when I am done, I may feel like singing AMAZING GRACE...or...how bout the STAR BANGLED BANNER. AMERICAN CAPITALISM AT ITS BEST. Support and Buy if you want...if not go to any number of other restaurants .... AMEN CFA

[meangreendork]

Of course CFA won't keep homosexuals out of the shop or keep them from working. They want their damn money and won't do something actually (against EOE regs) discriminatory to jeopardize that.

[TIgreen01]

As it was already pointed out, It's hypocritical how if you support gay marriage, you are open minded, however if you don't then those "open-minded" label you. What the hell happened to one being entitled to their own opinion??

x1000.

[DeepGreen]

This is all absolute bullsh!t. Boycotting a company because the owner doesn't believes that marriage is between a man and a woman and doesn't believe in same sex marriage? Really??? These people are trying to take down a company because of what they believe in???

My family owned a business and we are Catholics who believe marriage is between a man and a woman. And never once did we discriminate against any employee that had different societal views than we did.

That's what I believe. If you don't like it, screw you and f__k off if you don't like it. Go eat a McDonalds "MacChicken", or whatever it's called!

[UNTstormchaser]

Going through all the comments that were posted after mine, I guess none of you have any real sense. It's so simple that it's ridiculous. It's a controversy because CFA donates millions to organizations that try to legislate Christianity, namely making gay marriage illegal. What he said brought that to light. Whatever your opinion or beliefs, fine. But, not everyone will share that view. Telling people to screw or F off isn't going to make your point any clearer. Besides, I think the gay marriage issue has a very simple solution. It needs to be legal, precisely for the reason that we all have the right to freely believe and practice any religion we want. And because of that, we cannot legislate religion, or prevent change due to religion. In some religions, it may be okay for gays to get married, and people without a religion could give a damn who marries who. Therefore, to protect all involved, anyone should be able to marry anyone if they choose to do so, the only restrictions should be against incest because that's just unsafe for reproductive purposes, and if a brother and sister, or different gender cousins cannot get married because of that, then we need to have that restriction for gays as well. If you don't believe in gay marriage, fine. There's a simple solution to that. If you're a guy, don't marry a guy. If you're a woman, don't marry a woman. Problem solved. It isn't your job to play moral police with our laws and rights.

Edited July 29, 2012 by UNTstormchaser

[UNTflyer]

There is no controversy.

NEWSFLASH: Conservative Christian Opposes Gay Marriage, Still Happily Does Business With Gays

[UNT90]

Going through all the comments that were posted after mine, I guess none of you have any real sense. It's so simple that it's ridiculous. It's a controversy because CFA donates millions to organizations that try to legislate Christianity, namely making gay marriage illegal. What he said brought that to light. Whatever your opinion or beliefs, fine. But, not everyone will share that view. Telling people to screw or fuck off isn't going to make your point any clearer. Besides, I think the gay marriage issue has a very simple solution. It needs to be legal, precisely for the reason that we all have the right to freely believe and practice any religion we want. And because of that, we cannot legislate religion, or prevent change due to religion. In some religions, it may be okay for gays to get married, and people without a religion could give a damn who marries who. Therefore, to protect all involved, anyone should be able to marry anyone if they choose to do so, the only restrictions should be against incest because that's just unsafe for reproductive purposes, and if a brother and sister, or different gender cousins cannot get married because of that, then we need to have that restriction for gays as well. If you don't believe in gay marriage, fine. There's a simple solution to that. If you're a guy, don't marry a guy. If you're a woman, don't marry a woman. Problem solved. It isn't your job to play moral police with our laws and rights.

There may be people on here who donate to entities that pursue legislation that defines marriage as between one man and one woman.

Are you going to protest against them?

It just seems that the real tolerence in this situation is pretty much always exercised by those who oppose gay marriage (not homosexuals).

With the gay marriage crowd, it's always if you do not think like they do, you are evil.

Isn't there a word for that? Oh ya, Intolerence.

Edited July 27, 2012 by UNT90

[The Fake Lonnie Finch]

NEWFLASH II: Chik-Fil-A guy isn't playing moral cop, he's just stating his personal belief. He's just as welcome to give his opinion about marriage as gay people are to give theirs.

Finally, if it isn't anyone's job to play moral cop with rights and laws, then gays and lesbians shouldn't be pushing for legalized marriage in states that have decided to outlaw it, or which have laws stating a marriage is between a man and a woman. See? Those states have already decided they don't want it. So, gays ad lesbians should leave those states' "right and laws" alone.

Easy.

[Green Mean]

I'm all for gay rights and marriage but I could give a damn what the CEO of CFA thinks. Just keep on making some kick ass food and you'll keep on getting my business.

[Monkeypox]

I still don't think people understand that it's people boycotting CFA, NOT because of the guy's beliefs, but because the money from CFA goes to fund groups that they don't agree with. So if you're FOR gay marriage, then it would be counterproductive to give money that goes to groups that work AGAINST gay marriage. I don't have a dog in this fight, but the boycott makes perfect sense.

As for the kiss-in and other bs... well, that I don't get.

[UNTstormchaser]

There may be people on here who donate to entities that pursue legislation that defines marriage as between one man and one woman.

Are you going to protest against them?

It just seems that the real tolerence in this situation is pretty much always exercised by those who oppose gay marriage (not homosexuals).

With the gay marriage crowd, it's always if you do not think like they do, you are evil.

Isn't there a word for that? Oh ya, Intolerence.

Not really. There is a reason that gays may seem intolerant towards those that want to take away their rights. You know, because they are gay, and they deserve the same rights as everyone else. Look back in history, to when blacks were going through this same issue. People were trying to outlaw interracial marriage, and make it so blacks cannot vote. Blacks fought this, and were intolerant towards people that disagreed with them. I think you'll agree that they had good reason. Anyone that doesn't support rights for all is intolerant, not the other way around. I support everyone's right to an opinion and belief, but no one has the right to legislate their belief, especially when it takes away other's rights. Like I said, if you don't think it's okay for gays to get married, then don't partake in gay marriage. It isn't your decision how other's live their lives.

NEWFLASH II: Chik-Fil-A guy isn't playing moral cop, he's just stating his personal belief. He's just as welcome to give his opinion about marriage as gay people are to give theirs.

Finally, if it isn't anyone's job to play moral cop with rights and laws, then gays and lesbians shouldn't be pushing for legalized marriage in states that have decided to outlaw it, or which have laws stating a marriage is between a man and a woman. See? Those states have already decided they don't want it. So, gays ad lesbians should leave those states' "right and laws" alone.

Easy.

That doesn't make any sense. It isn't ANYONE'S job, including the states. If gays don't have the right, due to the state they live in, then they need to fight for the right. It wasn't the states right to play moral cop back when racism was the issue either. There is a reason the federal government made it impossible for the states to play moral cop when it comes to outlawing interracial marriage and preventing blacks from voting. The same logic applies here. There is no reason other than religion that someone would want to outlaw gay marriage. Due to that, it cannot be outlawed, because religion cannot be legislated.

Easy.

[Andrew]

I never knew this section existed... This is awesome! I LOL at the com met above me though... Comparing the civil rights movement to prop 8 (and other similar movements) is laughable. Hm... Let's see the physical abuse of an entire race and the complete enslavement of them being used as property and not considered human beings.... Or peoPle with morals understanding the definition of marriage and standing to their values. YEP... sound similar enough.... (sarcasm)"""! Anyone who does not support the rights for all is intolerant? Really... So all the liberal nuts who want to ban firearms mustn't fall under this category. after all they are liberal! Everything they do just be correct. It had worked out so well these past 4 years. There is right and there is wrong and some people just cannot distinguish between the two.

Now sure let's let states vote to allow same sex couples marriage... But then when it does not pass we will be right back to attacking the people who voted against it for not tolerating others... The left will not behappy until the impose their viewsby any means necessary... Ever been to Chicago...

[Mean Green 93-98]

Not really. There is a reason that gays may seem intolerant towards those that want to take away their rights. You know, because they are gay, and they deserve the same rights as everyone else. Look back in history, to when blacks were going through this same issue. People were trying to outlaw interracial marriage, and make it so blacks cannot vote. Blacks fought this, and were intolerant towards people that disagreed with them. I think you'll agree that they had good reason. Anyone that doesn't support rights for all is intolerant, not the other way around. I support everyone's right to an opinion and belief, but no one has the right to legislate their belief, especially when it takes away other's rights. Like I said, if you don't think it's okay for gays to get married, then don't partake in gay marriage. It isn't your decision how other's live their lives.

That doesn't make any sense. It isn't ANYONE'S job, including the states. If gays don't have the right, due to the state they live in, then they need to fight for the right. It wasn't the states right to play moral cop back when racism was the issue either. There is a reason the federal government made it impossible for the states to play moral cop when it comes to outlawing interracial marriage and preventing blacks from voting. The same logic applies here. There is no reason other than religion that someone would want to outlaw gay marriage. Due to that, it cannot be outlawed, because religion cannot be legislated.

Easy.

This is a confused post. How can a "right" that never existed in the course of human history be "taken away"?

And, while the Bible forms the basis of most of our nation's moral standards, it is not the "only reason" why anyone would choose not to expand the definition of marriage. But even if the Bible is a significant reason, that does not prevent laws from being based upon it. No, you cannot mandate, "All Americans must be Methodists," or "All Americans must be Presbyterians." But if lawmakers have come to a firm conviction that murder is wrong and must be punished based upon their studies of the Bible, there is nothing to prevent them from making laws because of that.

For a guy getting so preachy about not bickering among the fan base, you sure seem to like stirring up the pot your first week on the board.

[GreenFlag]

Future generations will view the gay marriage issue like we view things like child labor and women's suffrage movement. The obvious eventual outcome on this issue will be that gay marriage will be viewed as a fundamental right - which it is. In the meantime we will waste valuable time, money, and resources on this idiotic debate.

Thank you founders for doing your best to keep church and state seperate.

[GreenMachine]

There is absolutely no controversy here. The guy stated his opinion. Whether you agree with it doesn't matter a bit. Whether you disagree with it doesn't matter a bit. An opinion is an opinion, regardless of your stance on it. Would you quit shopping at WaMart if you knew the Waltons stance on many issues? I sincerely doubt it.

[Quoner]

Skiver found this section of the board!? Thank you so much, CFA.

Also, I bet if you knew the Steak N Shake guys thoughts on stem cell research, you'd never drink a banana milkshake again.

Edited July 28, 2012 by Quoner

[Monkeypox]

Also, I bet if you knew the Steak N Shake guys thoughts on stem cell research, you'd never drink a banana milkshake again.

Those banana milkshakes cured my dad's Alzheimer's.

Gave him diabetes, though.

[UNTstormchaser]

This is a confused post. How can a "right" that never existed in the course of human history be "taken away"?

And, while the Bible forms the basis of most of our nation's moral standards, it is not the "only reason" why anyone would choose not to expand the definition of marriage. But even if the Bible is a significant reason, that does not prevent laws from being based upon it. No, you cannot mandate, "All Americans must be Methodists," or "All Americans must be Presbyterians." But if lawmakers have come to a firm conviction that murder is wrong and must be punished based upon their studies of the Bible, there is nothing to prevent them from making laws because of that.

For a guy getting so preachy about not bickering among the fan base, you sure seem to like stirring up the pot your first week on the board.

This is far from a confused post. Comparing murder to gay marriage is like comparing beheading a dog to accidentally stepping on an ant. It really just is simple logic that takes us to a very easy conclusion: If you are a human being in the United States of America (and many other countries around the world that aren't totalitarian crapholes), you have inalienable rights. These rights do not go away regardless of race, gender, or sexual orientation. People made the same arguments towards interracial marriage that you and many others make towards gay marriage today. "How can a "right" that never existed in the course of human history be "taken away"". You failed at contextual reading sir, and you're resorting to petty nitpicking to prove your point. A state that outlaws the legalization of gay marriage is taking away the chance of any gay person in that state to have the same rights as everyone else. When this is 10% of the population, that's pretty bad. Again, I can point towards interracial marriage; one could have made the same argument half a century ago. "Blacks and whites have never had the right to get married to each other, especially not here in the USA, so why should they now?", or probably even more accurate to what the logic would have been, "Blacks have never had the right to marry a white person before.". Look how that turned out? Today, that happens all the time and no one says a damn thing, because it's okay and doesn't effect even the most racist person's life.

I'm not about to turn this into a religious argument, because this isn't the time, place, nor venue for that. But just to make a quick point, using the bible to validate an opinion on gay marriage is actually incorrect, and outlawing gay marriage due to the bible is literally illegal. If we come to some scientific and unbiased conclusion that legalizing gay marriage greatly endangers everyone else in the country and invades their rights, then fine, it shouldn't be legalized. Obviously, that's completely ridiculous and allowing gays to get married doesn't effect any of us that do not choose to partake in gay marriage in any way, shape, or form. But let me go back to the point that using the bible to form a negative opinion about gay marriage is incorrect. The only place where the bible explicitly states that partaking in gay sex or being gay is wrong is in the Old Testament. You know what else is said in the Old Testament? That those who perform incestuous acts should be burned privately in a family home. That adulterers should be stoned to death publicly in the town square. That a man that rapes a virgin girl must then marry her. We don't take morals from the Old Testament, and for good reason. Christianity is all about the New Testament, and that is where Christian morals come from; specifically, they come from the teachings of Jesus. While incestuous marriage is illegal, that is because of the scientific dangers behind that. Incestuous marriage used to be common practice, especially between first cousins. It was seen as a good thing, until science brought to light the fact that it is awful for reproductive purposes, and children born of incest have an incredibly high rate of deformities, especially severe ones. And while adultery is definitely frowned upon and Christian values have something to do with that, we don't outlaw it. I shouldn't even need to comment on the rape example, that's illegal because it's disgusting and infringes on the girl's rights. And to complete the point, nowhere in the New Testament is gay marriage mentioned, nor is homosexuality mentioned at all.

To the last comment, I'm not stirring the pot. I view this as an intellectual discussion between people of different viewpoints. Besides, if you'll note 2 of my earlier comments, some things are bigger than sports, and this is one of them. And I don't mean any offense by anything I say, this is just my opinion that I feel strongly about, and I respect other's rights to disagree with me and tell me why. I also respect my right to disagree with them and tell them why. Cheers.

[UNTstormchaser]

And, although I think +/- is a silly thing, to make a quick point, there is a reason all of my comments have many +'s. I'm being incredibly fair, reasonable, and coherent. If you find that to be annoying bickering, then fine. But I do not.

[GreenMachine]

And, although I think +/- is a silly thing, to make a quick point, there is a reason all of my comments have many +'s. I'm being incredibly fair, reasonable, and coherent. If you find that to be annoying bickering, then fine. But I do not.

Pandering for a +1 is giving you a -1. You gotta learn the pecking order on the board.

[UNTstormchaser]

Pandering for a +1 is giving you a -1. You gotta learn the pecking order on the board.

Like I said, I find +/- silly, and I could care less. I'm not pandering, I was using it to make a point. But feel free to -1 me, I could really care less.

[GreenMachine]

Like I said, I find +/- silly, and I could care less. I'm not pandering, I was using it to make a point. But feel free to -1 me, I could really care less.

Pandering for a pandering to not get a -1, equals a -4

[Green P1]