Poll: Chick-fil-a owner admits to anti-gay views

KingDragonlord

New member
Jul 22, 2012
50
0
0
I've lost over a hundred pounds eating Chik Fil A pretty much every day. It makes the diet bearable. The revelation that its elderly Christian owner is (gasp) not a fan of the gays is not exactly going to stop my successful weight loss plan.
 

Chanel Tompkins

New member
Nov 8, 2011
186
0
0
What surprises me is that people don't seem to realize that companies outside of churches and stuff can be run by Christians. Good for him, I guess. It's hard to say, you know? A while ago I would have totally agreed, but when someone in your own family comes out...
 

RicoADF

Welcome back Commander
Jun 2, 2009
3,147
0
0
Glass Joe the Champ said:
RicoADF said:
Funny how America is land of the free, land of the freedom of speach regardless of views..... until its unpopular. If you believe in the freedom your country preaches to the world so much, then (for better or worse) he has a right to whatever view he likes and to spend his money however he wants (legally). I don't agree with his views, but the response your suggesting is hypocritical.

"Now, I support gay marriage as much as the next guy and I completely disagree with him, but I really don't mind this at all. For one, Chick-fil-a has always been known as a Christian business, what with being closed on the Sabbath and all, so this isn't exactly a shocker. For two, considering all the laughing people did over the "Gay Oreo controversy", it'd be pretty hypocritical to turn around and be mad about this. It's just the opinion of a guy who happens to own a restaurant with awesome waffle fries."


Responses like these confuse me. Did you misinterpret what I said or just make assumptions before reading the whole post?

You can have whatever opinion you want (and again, I actually agree with you) but please understand the original post before commenting.
I was referring to a reply others had made, saying that they wouldn't shop at the stores again due to the news they had heard and pracitcally condeming him for his views. My apology if you thought I was talking about you (thought I had quoted them).
 

Pharsalus

New member
Jun 16, 2011
330
0
0
It's a restaurant that is closed on Sunday due to religious principles, wth did you expect?
 

90sgamer

New member
Jan 12, 2012
206
0
0
Buretsu said:
90sgamer said:
Blablahb said:
Uhm... Nope. Marriage is the state recognition and thus formalisation of a relationship between two people, the church has nothing to do with it.
Wrong. The United States of America and its marriage laws were not established before the Bible was compiled by bronze-age men. The Bible lays out the religious context and laws of marriage.
Irrelevant. Separation of Church and State means that the Bible has no legal authority. It's just a book, and therefore should not have any bearing whatsoever on actual laws set by actual governments.

If you say that marriage is religious because of the Bible, then not only would that mean that homosexuals wouldn't be able to get married, but non-Christians couldn't either.
I do not think irrelevant means what you think it means. Re-read everything you quoted then try formulating coherent argument again.
 

90sgamer

New member
Jan 12, 2012
206
0
0
Glass Joe the Champ said:
90sgamer said:
really long advice
Well, two of the poll options were messed up by the website, but whatevs.

*ahem* I'm so super sorry for making this terrible mistake on such a super important issue. Thank you for your amazing and helpful advice, and I hope I will never commit such a travesty again.
You are welcome.
 

RicoADF

Welcome back Commander
Jun 2, 2009
3,147
0
0
Asita said:
RicoADF said:
Now that's just a perversion of the concept, Rico. Freedom of Speech does not equate to "you cannot convey your displeasure about someone else's views" nor does it equate to the ability to say whatever you want without consequence. Nor is withdrawing your support of a group because you disagree with their positions antithetical to the concept. Honestly, it concerns me that I've seen this misconception pop up so frequently in recent years. Freedom of speech is quite simply the political right to convey one's ideas, and even that does not protect all forms of speech (notably, it is usually illegal to invoke slander or libel, for instance). Heck, the First Amendment itself acknowledged that consequences could still follow from the exercise of that right. To quote:
The free communication of ideas and opinions is one of the most precious of the rights of man. Every citizen may, accordingly, speak, write, and print with freedom, but shall be responsible for such abuses of this freedom as shall be defined by law."
Even that has little bearing on the issue at hand, however, as we aren't talking about government censorship, nor are we are talking about legal reprecussions for what was said. What we're talking about is people's right to dissent from the spoken opinion and to express that dissent through similarly legal means in an effort to make that dissent heard. Put more simply: "It is a man's right to hold an opinion, but so too is it his neighbor's right to disagree with that opinion". If people want to boycott Chick-Fil-A, it is their right to do so, just like it is their right to hold a protest, and just like their right to simply voice their dissatisfaction if that is their choice.
You've missed what I was trying to convay, which I can understand. Yes, you have the right to boycott all you want, don't let me stop you. I was just saying how 'funny', as in ironic/hypercritical, I find it that people like to sprout freedom of speach and beliefs, but love to condem others when they have a different view then they do.
If you disagree with him, fair enough, don't shop at his place (never heard of it before, their not in Australia) if you don't want to. But the way some people are reacting it's coming accorss as thought it'd be harassment &/or breaching his rights of belief (as far as I understand it in America he has a right to believe what he wants without discrimination, atleast over here he would). Which is where I was thinking it was getting rediculas.
 

90sgamer

New member
Jan 12, 2012
206
0
0
GunsmithKitten said:
90sgamer said:
Wrong. The United States of America and its marriage laws were not established before the Bible was compiled by bronze-age men. The Bible lays out the religious context and laws of marriage.
If marriage is entirely the purview of the religious sector, then why are there several secular means of marriage? A justice of the peace can marry you. Hell, according to maritime law, a ship's captain can do the same. It would also mean that non-Christian marriages would not be recognized by the state, and guess what, they ARE recognized legally.

Also, there were marital contracts around long before the advent of Christianity. You think that Abraham, David, and other Hebrew figures from the OT were never married?

The way I've seen it, about the best compromise is to have state RECOGNITION of same sex unions (that's what this fight is all about, when it comes to brass tacks), but allow any religious institution that has a beef with it to simply refuse to perform the ceremony. That way, any same sex couple such as me and mine can go to a justice of the peace or to a clergy that has no issue with same sex unions, and boom, w

We get what we want, and the anti gay crowd can keep their consciences clean on the matter.

Anyway, as for Chick Fil A, that guy has always worn his Christian conservative heart on his sleeve. No real surprise where he stands. As there is no Chick Fil A in convienient distance of here, he never got my money to begin with.

Now if Popeye's were to come out as sponsoring anti gay legislation.....yea, I'd have a moral quandry then.
I didn't ever say Marriage was entirely in the purview of the religious sector. In fact, my OP clearly states my opinion: that this is a problem only because we have failed to separate church from state. To rephrase it: marriage is a religious concept that was recognized by the government and given legal implications. It is currently a religious idea under government administration. This is a bad thing, obviously.

To answer your question, government policies change over time. Practical reasons evolved that allowed non-Christians (white people) to marry and captains to perform ceremonies. Whether the religious sector was OK with these changes I do not know, but religions change over time too and, as I said earlier, people pick and choose which part of holy scripture to believe.

You are correct that marriage is actually a concept introduced in the Old Testament, or the Torah. In my opinion all three monotheistic religions (Judaism, Catholicism/Christianity, and Islam) are practically identical and I tend to use them by name interchangeably. Sorry for the confusion.

Your proposed solution would probably work, but there would still be gay couples who feel cheated because they are getting a 'second citizen' form of marriage. I like my solution better because everyone gets equal treatment and it separates church and state in one instance where they needlessly overlap. I really do think Americans need to be more mindful of how important it is that religion and politics never mix. It's a slippery slope to becoming the Taliban.
 
Feb 9, 2011
1,735
0
0
I don't care that they are religious and want to keep their religious values. That's fine, that's their right in this country. However, they use their revenue to fund anti-LGBT groups and that's where they cross the line. You are free to express your views and I'd support that, even if I don't agree with what they say, but when you actively try to hinder the rights of other people, then you can just go fuck yourself.

Fuck Chic-fi-la.
 

TheIronRuler

New member
Mar 18, 2011
4,283
0
0
Pharsalus said:
It's a restaurant that is closed on Sunday due to religious principles, wth did you expect?
.
They do have private folks that just use the name and are not associated with them, so it might hurt them.
 

TheIronRuler

New member
Mar 18, 2011
4,283
0
0
Wolverine18 said:
Mortai Gravesend said:
Wolverine18 said:
I don't see what the owner's view on any political issue has to do with if you should eat at his restaurant or not.

Now if his company is breaking anti-discrimination laws, that's different. But because he thinks different than I do, that's a ignorant reason to discriminate against him.
Ignorance is framing this as just "Thinking different than I do"
But it is just thinking differently than you do.

What rule or law or equity regulation has this man, or more importantly, his company, broken? As far as I can tell, none.

So you hate him, and apparently everyone who earns a living working for him, because you disagree with his thoughts. That's pretty scummy of you. That's like saying "I won't go to Chain X because the main shareholder votes for political party Y?". Nice job standing against people's right to think.
.
People have a right to think. Mortai Gravesend has a right to think that this man is terrible and that he doesn't want to eat in a place which is run by such people. It's his right to think that. It's also his right to boycott them and choose how to use his money as he sees fit.

He is not legally obliged to eat there. Are you saying he has to eat there because you said so according to the international laws of "go-fuck-yourself"? (joke). He doesn't want to support such a person and organization with these ideas, so he denies them his patronage and informs others like him of this matter.

I thought you were smarter than this.
 

dreadedcandiru99

New member
Apr 13, 2009
893
0
0
I'd read about this a while ago. It's one of the two reasons I don't go to Chick-Fil-A anymore. (The other reason is that their chicken sucked ass. I went to three different places, in three different states, and they were all crap.)
 

DoomyMcDoom

New member
Jul 4, 2008
1,411
0
0
I only ever boycott things because of bad product or bad service, I ran out of fucks to give about other people's political, social, or religious views, a long time ago, and it really doesn't matter whether I agree with anyone, especially when I don't have to interact with them in person, or am unlikely to ever meet them ever.

I aim to enlighten people whenever possible, but when it comes down to it, whether someone takes or leaves my advice or comments, is their choice, and should rightfully remain their choice.

I have no desire to fight the right to hold whatever opinion a person chooses to hold, if they're serious about it, let them be serious, the only kind of people I find thoroughly distasteful are wishy-washy hypocrits.