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

[Dastardly]

Did God HIMSELF ever actually say that in the bible?

No he did not. In fact, the one line anti-gay Christian groups fall back on only counts towards gay men, says nothing about marriage, and Jesus completely invalidated Leviticus, the book of the Bible that contains that line. Plus hating people is against Jesus's teachings, too.

Ehhhh... You're right about hating people, for sure.

But you're wrong about the rest.

1. Leviticus is not the only place that sets Biblical precedence for the immorality of homosexuality. Romans 1, for instance,(New Testament, notably) presents it as a symptom of man's fall from obedience to God.

There are also references in both Timothy letters, and in Corinthians.

2. Jesus did not invalidate Leviticus. If the gospel account of Matthew is to be believe, in chapter 5 Jesus tells us he did NOT come to abolish the Law, but to fulfill it. Here the "Law" means the Jewish Torah, or the first four books of the Christian "Old Testament."

The purpose of the purification laws in Leviticus was to purify the people for worship. Interestingly, that also meant that blind folks or menstruating women could not participate in worship -- this wasn't to blame them for that, but rather a recognition that such things were a result of the Fall, and thus a stain of impurity.

(Also notice that blindness (and the other stuff) wasn't called an abomination, but homosexuality was. Clearly the OT has an obvious opinion on homosexuality.)

Jesus's eventual crucifixion and resurrection served as the actual fulfillment of the OT symbolic sacrifice (see: Yom Kippur). This meant that, because the REAL sacrifice had been made, and REAL atonement offered, people were no longer bound to the specific purification rituals -- they had been fulfilled. But it doesn't invalidate that laws, or God's standard of right and wrong.

(None of this stuff has to be inferred, either. Of particular interest is the book of Hebrews, which covers the issue.)

________

So, in short, Christians handle homosexuality wrongly. They treat it as worse than other sins, when nothing in scripture indicates it is worse than adultery, stealing, or even lying. Basically, whether their beliefs are true or not, they handle this particular issue with an internal inconsistency that is troubling.

But, at the same time, your over-simplification is inaccurate. The Bible is pretty clear in its stance on the right/wrong of homosexuality. I'll grant you, however, that it does not give any specific instructions to mistreat homosexuals.

Anyway, all of this is academic. Those that believe the Bible need to be sure they're reading it carefully and not adding or subtracting... and those that don't aren't going to be convinced by any amount of explanation.

_________



On topic: I'll eat the chicken, because I like the chicken. Their religious affiliations and political beliefs don't concern me. My money goes, in large part, to the local people working in the restaurant -- and not all of them hold the same belief.

 

[axlryder]

Well it's well known that the company has religious groundings. This really isn't a shock.

 

[pppppppppppppppppp]

I find that I only really want to eat at Chick-fil-a on Sundays... what a cruel irony!

 

[Revnak_v1legacy]

Hehe, hilarious thread. Didn't know there were so many willing to stand up for bigotry here on the Escapist.

Clearly you've never read a thread on feminism or immigration. And I'm not standing up for the guy, I just like chicken. IS THAT SO WRONG??? I think it is my natural right to enjoy chicken, and that anyone who would try to stand between me and my chicken is a bigot and a pervert! Scratch that, they're triple-bigot super-perverts!

Well I have been known to be into a few rather nasty things... *wiggles eyebrows*

But I guess you're right, no worse here than on those threads. Main difference being that I simply don't get this irrational hatred of gays at all whilst I do somewhat understand being unlucky in romantic pursuits time and time again and starting to blame womankind as a whole. It's equally irrational, but somewhat more understandable.

And wouldn't you be able to get chicken elsewhere? That's what I'd do. Or hell, save some money and prepare a meal myself.

There is a small list of places I go to every time I go to California. Chick-Fil-a is among them as I actually really like their food and there are none in my state of Oregon, home of trees, rivers, trees, impossible to pronounce locations, trees, trees, mountains, and trees. I really hate KFC too, and the number of places with decent chicken sandwiches is limited. Besides, I'm pretty certain that the other places I go to when I head to California, such as In-and-Out, are just as likely to hate the gays (pretty certain In-and-Out has bible verses printed on their stuff. I am totally cool with that, I am a Christian myself, but it does imply some things. Some very gay hating things.).

 

[Dragonclaw]

Conservative stands up for conservative views, news at 11.
Honestly, has it really come to this? Forcing public acceptance or agreement to one side of an unresolved argument by boycotting anyone who disagrees?

It is not wrong to hold anti-homosexuality views, gentlemen. Nor is it wrong to express them. What, exactly, is the problem here?

It may not be wrong to hold views like his, but neither is it wrong to decide not to support someone who's views differ so sharply from mine, and who makes it clear that large portions of any money given to him will be used for a cause I cannot support. As a business owner I CHOSE to carry books like Earth-2, Life With Archie and Astonishing X-Men with their gay story lines...some customers voted with their wallet and went elsewhere those weeks out of protest and that's their right. Meanwhile I also got some new customers, as I'm sure Chick Fil A will lose some patrons, but also get some new ones because of their views.

As for me, I like knowing where my money goes, it's impoortant to me. To that end I prefer to shop locally and at smaller mom & pop stores whenever I can because I know that the money will stay local helping my community. Just like online shopping is my absolute last resort because it takes away from the area I live in.

So, that Oreo boycott and all the Million Moms stuff is A-OK with you, right?

While *I* disagree with the Oreo boycott and think the million moms are crazy (I had them calling my store to object to the Archie and X-Men issues...according to caller-ID they were hundreds of miles away so I doubt their personal boycott of me had any real financial affect) they have every right to vote with their wallets just like I do.

Describe this crazy ladies voice, i want to know if its the same one that called my buddies store complaining about video games. I question the size & scope of this organization & i think only a handful do the boycott calls.

It was a lady who sounded like she must have been in her late 50's...same lady both times and from Monterey California. Her biggest thing was the typical "think of the children" line...and didn't seem to get that Life With Archie deals with Archioe being married and adult issues...so NO kid is interested. I'd be surprised if the "million moms" even have 5000 members...

 

[Steve the Pocket]

I'm surprised this is new information for so many people, but you know what XKCD said about that...

Walt Disney hated jews but I still like his movies.

And you get your history from Family Guy but I still... oh wait no I'm totally judging you right now for that.

Conservative stands up for conservative views, news at 11.
Honestly, has it really come to this? Forcing public acceptance or agreement to one side of an unresolved argument by boycotting anyone who disagrees?

Yes. It's how progress happens. Like when Rosa Parks called for a boycott of the Montgomery Bus Company for making black people stand in the aisle. It's not just what his views are; it's the fact that he's donating considerable portions of his company's profits to fund organizations that aim to enforce those views.

I think that people who say things like, "I don't care what they believe, if their product is good, I'll buy it" are immoral. It just shows that you don't care about the direct consequences of your own actions, especially if you agree with the principles of a free market. Because, if it were a free market system, this is precisely why someone would go out of business, and someone else would come along to replace them, who maybe didn't believe that a large percentage of the population didn't deserve the same rights as they do.

It just shows how banal, selfish and blind the modern consumer really is.

Direct consequences? Buddy, I do not think it is anyone's personal responsibility to track down how each and every piece of their property they gave away was used. I think that is absolutely insane.

No one's asking you "track down how each and every" dollar you spend is used. But when people do learn that their money is being used to do not-so-nice things, they have a social responsibility to evaluate whether it's morally OK to help them do those things.

 

[Revnak_v1legacy]

I think that people who say things like, "I don't care what they believe, if their product is good, I'll buy it" are immoral. It just shows that you don't care about the direct consequences of your own actions, especially if you agree with the principles of a free market. Because, if it were a free market system, this is precisely why someone would go out of business, and someone else would come along to replace them, who maybe didn't believe that a large percentage of the population didn't deserve the same rights as they do.

It just shows how banal, selfish and blind the modern consumer really is.

Direct consequences? Buddy, I do not think it is anyone's personal responsibility to track down how each and every piece of their property they gave away was used. I think that is absolutely insane.

No one's asking you "track down how each and every" dollar you spend is used. But when people do learn that their money is being used to do not-so-nice things, they have a social responsibility to evaluate whether it's morally OK to help them do those things.

If that were so then any time I heard about any business person's political convictions I'd likely have to stop giving them money. NOBODY agrees with me entirely on politics. I have to consider whether or not I think it's a big enough deal for me to care, which it isn't for me as I feel their side's loss is inevitable anyway and that 5% of the population having to wait a little while longer is not the end of the world (taking into account that the amount of money this man donates will like extend that period of time by a matter of days at most, then consider how insignificant of a fraction my money would make up of that). Also, I really don't think that a boycott would send much of a message to them. It just seems useless.

 

[2012 Wont Happen]

This is to be expected. The one time I had a conversation about religion with somebody working for them it ended in them saying "how could someone not know there's a God?".

As long as they keep giving free refills of their fries on Fridays I'll keep going there to eat a ludicrous amount of fries whenever my and my friends get munchies on a Friday.

Spoiler

and on a slightly related note, you know what would be the absolute shit with the munchies? That rainbow Oreo. Why can't that be real?

 

[Fappy]

I think that people who say things like, "I don't care what they believe, if their product is good, I'll buy it" are immoral. It just shows that you don't care about the direct consequences of your own actions, especially if you agree with the principles of a free market. Because, if it were a free market system, this is precisely why someone would go out of business, and someone else would come along to replace them, who maybe didn't believe that a large percentage of the population didn't deserve the same rights as they do.

It just shows how banal, selfish and blind the modern consumer really is.

Direct consequences? Buddy, I do not think it is anyone's personal responsibility to track down how each and every piece of their property they gave away was used. I think that is absolutely insane.

No one's asking you "track down how each and every" dollar you spend is used. But when people do learn that their money is being used to do not-so-nice things, they have a social responsibility to evaluate whether it's morally OK to help them do those things.

If that were so then any time I heard about any business person's political convictions I'd likely have to stop giving them money. NOBODY agrees with me entirely on politics. I have to consider whether or not I think it's a big enough deal for me to care, which it isn't for me as I feel their side's loss is inevitable anyway and that 5% of the population having to wait a little while longer is not the end of the world (taking into account that the amount of money this man donates will like extend that period of time by a matter of days at most, then consider how insignificant of a fraction my money would make up of that). Also, I really don't think that a boycott would send much of a message to them. It just seems useless.

I agree with this entirely and would also add that it would send a bad message considering how recent the whole Oreo fiasco is. The last thing you want is to have the team siding with logic looking like a bunch of hypocrites.

 

[PhunkyPhazon]

Well, the guy's gotta be at least 50 years old and owns a restaurant chain that closes on Sundays. Hearing this does not surprise me in the least. Besides, it's not like I'm going to stop eating Chick-fil-a. If anything, this topic is making me crave it.

I'm not even worked up about them donating to anti-gay causes. Why? Because let's face it, they're pretty much destined to lose this fight. They can raise up a stink now, but I feel pretty confident that this whole Christian-fundamentalist-anti-gay thing will die out over the course of the next few decades. Equal rights gains more and more footing by the day, and besides, how often do you hear people under 40 go on a huge anti-gay crusade save for the *really* bigoted fucktards?

Not to say there won't be people against it in the future. Even now we have people like the KKK and Westboro Baptist Church, after all.

 

[Cowabungaa]

Sorry, I just always blame liberals. It's fun for me.
But then again, it IS liberalism that goes with the whole "open, free, democratic world", and this whole boycott business goes completely against that.

How does it ever do that? Why is not wanting to give a company your money because they spend said money (partially, of course) on supporting organizations you strongly disagree with stupid and silly. It seems absolutely reasonable to do such a thing in a free market as you're free to spend your money wherever you like.

-snip- Also, I really don't think that a boycott would send much of a message to them. It just seems useless.

Completely depends on the amount of people involved. Customers are their lifeblood, they freakin' exist because of it. If everyone would think like you do, and most people do, yeah it sends no message. But if, for the sake of argument, the 20% of their customer base suddenly realizes that; heej, if we all stop spending our money there together, then they sure as hell will notice. You and everyone who shares your way of thinking are making a self-fulfilling prophesy.

It's the same thing with saving energy. So many people think "Oh the tiny amount I'd save wouldn't make a difference. Why bother?" But all those tiny bits eventually add up when millions of people realize that it's supposed to be a group effort. Boycots too are group efforts.

 

[shrekfan246]

As a person who lives in the small state of Vermont, the first time I had ever even seen a Chick-Fil-A in my entire life was a few weeks ago when I went down to Florida for a vacation. I have never eaten there, I can't honestly see myself ever being in the position to eat there, but it's not because of this guy's views. Religious gay-haters are nothing new, despite how stupid I might find them to be.

 

[Soviet Steve]

No shit. But it's pretty much the same as some guy, with a job, and he says he doesn't like religion because it causes a lot more problems in his opinion, and the people who hear about it petition he be fired just cus they don't like his opinion.

There's a difference between asking that the company do specific things because you don't like what they do, or simply choosing not to buy stuff from there.

It's fucked up. Especially if it actually passes... Which I have no doubt it has in the past, very similar scenarios occurred, and still occur as is still apparent.

It's fucked up that people are allowed to choose how they spend their money? Wat?

So you want to force your opinion on them?

Look, the deal is, the moment it leaves your hand it ceases to be your money. I doubt you'd like it if your boss decided to stop paying you because you disagree with him/her on something. I just consider your way of looking at this as silly. It's not your money anymore, so your money isn't supporting anything that you disagree with.

Essentially this. If you buy food from a place, you're supporting yourself, by buying food to eat. Not whatever the hell the company in question decides to do with it.

The obvious difference being that your employer has a legal obligation to pay you for your work. I don't have a legal obligation to eat at their fast food place. I know that if I spend money there I am supporting fundamentalists, therefore I do not spend money there. True you can't dictate how your money is spent within a company, the only part you control is whether or not you give them your money, I choose not to.

They're the ones who want my money, they are trying to offer a service and a product, part of that service involves supporting fundamentalists. That's where they lose my interest.

 

[DANEgerous]

I am going with i like the slightly less now. They actually treat their employes better than most giant mega corporations and as a whole I have found no complaint from LBGT which is a rumor mill i hear from often and have got the anti-gay complaint from Wal*mart, Target, The old regime at Blockbuster before Direct TV took them over as well as many other companies and while it may be true such complaint exist they are likely not as as the aforementioned companies.

 

[renegade7]

Hey, if his god actually is real, then he'll sort everything out at the rapture regardless of what the laws are. So what does he have to worry about?