We are losing our minds because the left is holding them hostage.

[RDKirk]

you do know that was in reference to the actual throwing of rocks at a sinner until they were dead, right?
like it is not a verse about just being nice

here are some pertinent Bible verses that might be more pertinent to this topic

Isaiah 5:20
Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.

Galatians 1:8
But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God's curse!

Matthew 18:17
If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

Notice that none of the New Testament remedies involves the use of the king's sword to ensure compliance with Jesus' commands.

 

[s_gunter]

I admit I stopped reading the article at the part where the author condemns the Chic-fil-A boycott due to what the owners said about marriage because of the blatant hypocrisy. Christians have drawn first blood so to speak on attempting to drive companies out of business if they don't adhere to Christian morals. The American Family Association (AFA), a Christian group, has had a boycott list for a very long time. Every year, we have to listen to the "War on Christmas" diatribes from the likes of Bill O'Reilly and and Glenn Beck. The AFA even has a "Naughty or Nice" list which tells you which stores express all-inclusive greetings (Happy Holidays) vs. Christian specific greetings (Merry Christmas). Right now, Christians are attempting to put Target out of business by encouraging Christians to boycott the store.

Since this is the Catholic forum, and most of us who interact here are Catholics, maybe this might hit home. These "freedom of religion" bills are dangerous to Catholics, especially in the USA south. Here in the Bible Belt, the majority of Christians are Protestant. Therefore, most won't consider Catholics Christian. Therefore, under these freedom of religion bills, a business owner could fire or even refuse to hire a Catholic under the guise of exercising his religious freedom. Even in right-to-work states, which most of the Bible Belt states are, it was illegal to fire someone based on his/her religion. Now, it's perfectly legal. I personally could lose my job if my boss decides he doesn't want to pay a Catholic...

 

[MoonlessNight]

I admit I stopped reading the article at the part where the author condemns the Chic-fil-A boycott due to what the owners said about marriage because of the blatant hypocrisy. Christians have drawn first blood so to speak on attempting to drive companies out of business if they don't adhere to Christian morals. The American Family Association (AFA), a Christian group, has had a boycott list for a very long time. Every year, we have to listen to the "War on Christmas" diatribes from the likes of Bill O'Reilly and and Glenn Beck. The AFA even has a "Naughty or Nice" list which tells you which stores express all-inclusive greetings (Happy Holidays) vs. Christian specific greetings (Merry Christmas). Right now, Christians are attempting to put Target out of business by encouraging Christians to boycott the store.

Since this is the Catholic forum, and most of us who interact here are Catholics, maybe this might hit home. These "freedom of religion" bills are dangerous to Catholics, especially in the USA south. Here in the Bible Belt, the majority of Christians are Protestant. Therefore, most won't consider Catholics Christian. Therefore, under these freedom of religion bills, a business owner could fire or even refuse to hire a Catholic under the guise of exercising his religious freedom. Even in right-to-work states, which most of the Bible Belt states are, it was illegal to fire someone based on his/her religion. Now, it's perfectly legal. I personally could lose my job if my boss decides he doesn't want to pay a Catholic...

The quote that inspired the boycott was the following:

"We are very much supportive of the family -- the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that.

Do you consider this to be an offensive enough statement to boycott a company over? Don't deflect the issue by discussing why other boycotts have went through, we are talking about this boycott in particular. Do you find this statement to be offensive enough to boycott a company over?

 

[s_gunter]

The quote that inspired the boycott was the following:



Do you consider this to be an offensive enough statement to boycott a company over? Don't deflect the issue by discussing why other boycotts have went through, we are talking about this boycott in particular. Do you find this statement to be offensive enough to boycott a company over?

I personally do not, since I do believe that the opposing side either unintentionally misunderstood the statement, or that they intentionally took it out of context. That said, I personally would not patron a company who did not "Love all, serve all." If Chic-fil-A refused to hire a gay person just because s/he was gay, or that they wouldn't serve a gay person, I would have a problem with that. However, that doesn't take away from the fact, and yes, it is a fact, that the tactics used are exactly the same. It's not the message that gets me, it's the idea that it's A-OK for Christians to use boycotts to spread their message, but it's absolutely, positively wrong for the other side to boycott those who discriminate, using the guise of their Christianity to spread their hate.

Edited to add: BTW, nice trap you tried to set for me there.

 

[MikeK]

I personally do not, since I do believe that the opposing side either unintentionally misunderstood the statement, or that they intentionally took it out of context. That said, I personally would not patron a company who did not "Love all, serve all." If Chic-fil-A refused to hire a gay person just because s/he was gay, or that they wouldn't serve a gay person, I would have a problem with that. However, that doesn't take away from the fact, and yes, it is a fact, that the tactics used are exactly the same. It's not the message that gets me, it's the idea that it's A-OK for Christians to use boycotts to spread their message, but it's absolutely, positively wrong for the other side to boycott those who discriminate, using the guise of their Christianity to spread their hate.

Edited to add: BTW, nice trap you tried to set for me there.

You're going to see "B-b-but it's different when /we/ do it!" expressed 1000 different ways here. It's dishonest and gutless, but it's what we've devolved to.

 

[MoonlessNight]

I personally do not, since I do believe that the opposing side either unintentionally misunderstood the statement, or that they intentionally took it out of context. That said, I personally would not patron a company who did not "Love all, serve all." If Chic-fil-A refused to hire a gay person just because s/he was gay, or that they wouldn't serve a gay person, I would have a problem with that. However, that doesn't take away from the fact, and yes, it is a fact, that the tactics used are exactly the same. It's not the message that gets me, it's the idea that it's A-OK for Christians to use boycotts to spread their message, but it's absolutely, positively wrong for the other side to boycott those who discriminate, using the guise of their Christianity to spread their hate.

Edited to add: BTW, nice trap you tried to set for me there.

I'm not aware of anyone who has said that boycotts are universally immoral. Let's even go back to the article in the OP:

When the owners of the fast-food chain Chick-fil-A publically supported the Biblical definition of marriage, protestors across the country boycotted them. Boston Mayor Thomas M. Menino vowed to prevent them from opening a franchise in his city. The Bible has always been their owners’ guide, even closing on Sundays. And the company has a policy of non-discrimination: “The Chick-fil-A culture and service tradition in our restaurants is to treat every person with honor, dignity and respect — regardless of their belief, race creed, sexual orientation or gender.” But the outrage was not about behavior; it was about expressing opinions.

Is there any bit of this that suggests that we should be angry because there was a boycott and boycotts are unacceptable? I don't see it.

Rather, the incident is worrying because it was in response to privately expressed opinions which until recently would not have even raised an eyebrow.

The point of the article is that we are moving into a period where disagreement with the left will not be allowed and where they will use every tactic available to stamp out even the slightest disagreement. That is, it is not an article that objects to the mechanisms used to stamp out disagreement, but rather in where they are deployed and for what reason.

But beyond that, you should be ashamed of saying this:

it's absolutely, positively wrong for the other side to boycott those who discriminate, using the guise of their Christianity to spread their hate.

Immediately after you said that you don't think that the owner of Chick-Fil-A said anything objectionable, and that the statement used to justify the boycott was taken out of context. If you really believe that then you also believe that Chick-Fil-A is not using "Christianity to spread their hate." If you are referring to some other boycott by that quote, you certainly did not make it clear.

 

[grandvizier1006]

Would you believe that the liberal Catholics are now holding a thread insisting that "the right" is holding THEM hostage?

 

[s_gunter]

Immediately after you said that you don't think that the owner of Chick-Fil-A said anything objectionable, and that the statement used to justify the boycott was taken out of context. If you really believe that then you also believe that Chick-Fil-A is not using "Christianity to spread their hate." If you are referring to some other boycott by that quote, you certainly did not make it clear.

I was clear enough on all of it, thank you very much. I made it clear how I felt about Chic-fil-A in the bold and underlined text here: I said, "It's not the message that gets me, it's the idea that it's A-OK for Christians to use boycotts to spread their message, but it's absolutely, positively wrong for the other side to boycott those who discriminate, using the guise of their Christianity to spread their hate." BTW, I ALSO said that it could have also been the other side misunderstanding the quote. Nice that you left that off too.

Also, you deliberately left out the rest of the sentence where you said I should be ashamed. If you take the sentence as a whole, there is absolutely nothing for me to be ashamed of. YOU should be ashamed of yourself for ripping just a piece of the sentence to suit a negative purpose.

Is there any bit of this that suggests that we should be angry because there was a boycott and boycotts are unacceptable? I don't see it.

Then you missed the first paragraph:

Our thoughts may be our own, but the radical left wants them. Pushing agendas, whether about marriage, bathrooms, or climate, is only their first step. The second step is not allowing disagreement. Without even touching the First Amendment, our right to free speech is being bullied away. (emphasis mine)

Rather, the incident is worrying because it was in response to privately expressed opinions which until recently would not have even raised an eyebrow.

You're right. That quote wouldn't have raised an eyebrow if state legislatures weren't busy trying to pass these "religious rights laws" that allow businesses to turn down customers based on their sexual orientation, based on the business owners' "deeply held religious beliefs." It was an easy mistake to make.

 

[One Voice Among Many1]

Would you believe that the liberal Catholics are now holding a thread insisting that "the right" is holding THEM hostage?

That is not accurate at all. It is a discussion about the same article in the OP of this thread.

 

[MoonlessNight]

I was clear enough on all of it, thank you very much. I made it clear how I felt about Chic-fil-A in the bold and underlined text here: I said, "It's not the message that gets me, it's the idea that it's A-OK for Christians to use boycotts to spread their message, but it's absolutely, positively wrong for the other side to boycott those who discriminate, using the guise of their Christianity to spread their hate." BTW, I ALSO said that it could have also been the other side misunderstanding the quote. Nice that you left that off too.

Also, you deliberately left out the rest of the sentence where you said I should be ashamed. If you take the sentence as a whole, there is absolutely nothing for me to be ashamed of. YOU should be ashamed of yourself for ripping just a piece of the sentence to suit a negative purpose.

I quoted the whole thing at the beginning, and focused on the parts that I found troublesome. Additionally, your post is right above mine. Anyone who needs context can easily find it.

But let's take it as a whole then. Who is the organization being boycotted for using a guise Christianity to spread hate? My objection is not to you supposedly endorsing the view that it's wrong for leftist groups to boycott those that they think discriminate. Obviously you don't object to that. My objection is to you needing to talk about people using Christianity to spread hate, when no organization which has done that has been discussed in this thread up to this point.

 

[s_gunter]

Would you believe that the liberal Catholics are now holding a thread insisting that "the right" is holding THEM hostage?

You know, they do make some good points over there. Do I dare start quoting some of them? (Namely, those that say that neither side is innocent?) That would make for some interesting discussion too.

 

[s_gunter]

I quoted the whole thing at the beginning, and focused on the parts that I found troublesome. Additionally, your post is right above mine. Anyone who needs context can easily find it.

But let's take it as a whole then. Who is the organization being boycotted for using a guise Christianity to spread hate? My objection is not to you supposedly endorsing the view that it's wrong for leftist groups to boycott those that they think discriminate. Obviously you don't object to that. My objection is to you needing to talk about people using Christianity to spread hate, when no organization which has done that has been discussed in this thread up to this point.

By what you are saying here, "My objection is to you needing to talk about people using Christianity to spread hate, when no organization which has done that has been discussed in this thread up to this point," are you telling me that no one is allowed to point problems with the author's thinking? That we're not allowed to point out blatant hypocrisy when it's seen? Is that the problem? You don't like me pointing all this out?

 

[grandvizier1006]

You know, they do make some good points over there. Do I dare start quoting some of them? (Namely, those that say that neither side is innocent?) That would make for some interesting discussion too.

No, it would just lead to more arguments and assigning of beliefs and motives to people.

 

[s_gunter]

No, it would just lead to more arguments and assigning of beliefs and motives to people.

Yeah, you're right. I'm not really gunning for all out war, here, and me doing that would start the bloodbath. I was just in the mood for a little skirmish, just to make people think.

 

[MoonlessNight]

By what you are saying here, "My objection is to you needing to talk about people using Christianity to spread hate, when no organization which has done that has been discussed in this thread up to this point," are you telling me that no one is allowed to point problems with the author's thinking? That we're not allowed to point out blatant hypocrisy when it's seen? Is that the problem? You don't like me pointing all this out?

My position is that if someone begins talking about using Christianity as a guise to spread hate, there should be some examples of people using Christianity to spread hate.

As for hypocrisy, I'm not sure what you are referring to, since as I have noted the argument in the article is not "boycotts are bad, but they are okay when we do it."

 

[MikeK]

I was clear enough on all of it, thank you very much. I made it clear how I felt about Chic-fil-A in the bold and underlined text here: I said, "It's not the message that gets me, it's the idea that it's A-OK for Christians to use boycotts to spread their message, but it's absolutely, positively wrong for the other side to boycott those who discriminate, using the guise of their Christianity to spread their hate." BTW, I ALSO said that it could have also been the other side misunderstanding the quote. Nice that you left that off too.

Also, you deliberately left out the rest of the sentence where you said I should be ashamed. If you take the sentence as a whole, there is absolutely nothing for me to be ashamed of. YOU should be ashamed of yourself for ripping just a piece of the sentence to suit a negative purpose.


Then you missed the first paragraph:

You're right. That quote wouldn't have raised an eyebrow if state legislatures weren't busy trying to pass these "religious rights laws" that allow businesses to turn down customers based on their sexual orientation, based on the business owners' "deeply held religious beliefs." It was an easy mistake to make.

Thank you for conduction yourself with grace and patience, even when on the receiving end of poor treatment. Please don't let the example you see by some members of this forum effect your opinion of the Catholic Church or Catholics in general.

 

[Rhamiel]

Notice that none of the New Testament remedies involves the use of the king's sword to ensure compliance with Jesus' commands.

In Acts 25:11 St. Paul seems to agree that the State has the right to use the Sword

at the time the New Testament was written there were no Christians as heads of state

also I was not arguing for putting people to death
I was pointing out that "throw the first stone" was being misused by people

Therefore, most won't consider Catholics Christian. Therefore, under these freedom of religion bills, a business owner could fire or even refuse to hire a Catholic under the guise of exercising his religious freedom.

oh that would be great
then I would know which businesses not to go to
because those people hate Catholics right now, but because of the law they can not just fire them
so I might be giving my money to bigots right now and not even know it
if we got rid of these discrimination laws people could more easily see who believes what and make their purchasing choices accordingly

 

[Michie]

Yes I saw it but I guess it is ok to go to trashy OBOB and lift some trash to take over there in their "better than OBOB" forum. If anything, we are a good source.

You know, they do make some good points over there. Do I dare start quoting some of them? (Namely, those that say that neither side is innocent?) That would make for some interesting discussion too.

 

[Martinius]

You know, they do make some good points over there. Do I dare start quoting some of them? (Namely, those that say that neither side is innocent?) That would make for some interesting discussion too.

You made me smile. Thanks for being so fair. Feel free to quote as you wish (you may have been referring to one of my posts), and also to join the conversation at TOL.

 

[Martinius]

Would you believe that the liberal Catholics are now holding a thread insisting that "the right" is holding THEM hostage?

No, no one is insisting anything. I think the discussion there is not as one sided as that, but is looking at whether the article is correct and also pointing out that this occurs on both ends of the spectrum. But thanks for stopping by TOL and checking out the thread.