Chick fil-a has caved to anti-Christian hate groups

[Albion]

You cannot deny it is conservative Christians that are the biggest group opposed to gay marriage. 60% of politically conservative Christians oppose gay marriage and only 10% that lean liberal politically are against gay marriage. If it was not for Christians gay people would have been able to marry long ago.

Well, I agree that more conservatives than liberals favor retaining traditional marriage. I can indeed deny that you have figured out to a count noses in the way you seem to think you can, however.

 

[Speedwell]

Well, I agree that more conservatives than liberals favor retaining traditional marriage. I can indeed deny that you have figured out to a count noses in the way you seem to think you can, however.

What do you mean by "retaining" it? Are not heterosexuals still allowed to marry?

 

[Albion]

What do you mean by "retaining" it? Are not heterosexuals still allowed to marry?

Yes, they are, but the institution itself is effectively altered (at least to the extent of the government's treatment of it).

 

[Belk]

Yes, they are, but the institution itself is effectively altered (at least to the extent of the government's treatment of it).

How? As far as I can see marriage remains the same. Even the governments treatment of marriage.

 

[Albion]

How? As far as I can see marriage remains the same. Even the governments treatment of marriage.

I can hardly believe that you are being serious with that reply.

Are there any other questions?

 

[Speedwell]

Yes, they are, but the institution itself is effectively altered (at least to the extent of the government's treatment of it).

Well that's OK then. My marriage is a sacrament of the church. What to state does with regard to who is allowed to form legal households has no effect on it whatever--even if they call it "marriage."

 

[durangodawood]

My parents' traditional marriage somehow has survived the state's attempt to blow it up.

 

[Albion]

Well that's OK then. My marriage is a sacrament of the church. What to state does with regard to who is allowed to form legal households has no effect on it whatever--even if they call it "marriage."

What church would that be? I'm merely curious because you hardly ever run into someone here who has chosen "other religion" for his personal profile.

 

[Belk]

I can hardly believe that you are being serious with that reply.

Are there any other questions?

I am being serious with my question. Can you answer it? The only difference is whom is allowed to marry. That in no way changes the institution of marriage. Me and my wife do not behave any differently simply because homosexuals are allowed to record their union with the government.

 

[seeking.IAM]

We celebrated our 46th wedding anniversary Sunday. So far our marriage seems unaffected by .gov giving others the right to marry. Maybe next year? And, I so wanted to make 50.

 

[Speedwell]

What church would that be? I'm merely curious because you hardly ever run into someone here who has chosen "other religion" for his personal profile.

Anglican (Anglican Province of Christ the King). I put "other religion" because spend so much time in the evolution forum and have found it is better not to immediately confront creationists with the fact that I profess Christianity even though I'm a "Bible-hating Christ denier."

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Well...I am very disappointed to say that I will probably never have a waffle fry again. What do you think? Is a Chick-fil-a boycott in order?

Mike Huckabee: Chick-fil-A 'surrendered to anti-Christian hate groups' and 'betrayed loyal customers'

They've either been eating too much of their own product, OR ... they know something that some of the rest of us don't.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Well, I agree that more conservatives than liberals favor retaining traditional marriage. I can indeed deny that you have figured out to a count noses in the way you seem to think you can, however.

What do you mean?

 

[Albion]

They've either been eating too much of their own product, OR ... they know something that some of the rest of us don't.

It looks as though no formal, organized, boycott is needed. Already there are indications that people who formerly ate at Chick-fil-A have become no-shows since this news broke.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

It looks as though no formal, organized, boycott is needed. Already there are indications that people who formerly ate at Chick-fil-A have become no-shows since this news broke.

Oh well. I very rarely have eaten there over the years (like maybe 5 times in total over 25 years), so it would be a hard call for me to say how much value Chick-fil-A adds to the world by its continued presence as a modern dining option.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

Which anti gay rhetoric is that?

No one will be able to tell you. Because it's not happening. It's just propaganda against a company that has dared to support orthodox Christian ministries and charities.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

...to me, that seems like more of a dog-whistle/word-game tactic that gets played by some folks in the evangelical community by promoting policies that directly and negatively impact the gay community, but still wanting to claim "we're not anti-gay".

Supporting a policy that only impacts (and negatively) <insert group here> is, in an of itself, a reflection of an anti-<insert group here> position.

If that strategy were applied to a variety of other issues/stances, the tactic would be quite transparent to anyone looking at it.


Imagine if someone were to hypothetically say: "I support this policy that forbids any display of multi-branched candelabras during the month of December, people wearing 5-7" small hats on their heads, and any displays of six-pointed stars for religious or ceremonial purposes"

...it'd be painfully obvious that the person was against a particular religious group. Nobody would buy the flimsy reasoning of "I'm not anti-Jewish, I just oppose those 3 things".

Poor analogy. Donating to Salvation Army - that serves EVERYONE - is not the same as supporting a policy that restricts displays of the Star of David. That's nonsense.

Chik-Fil-A is not supporting any policies that restrict anyone from engaging in their religious practices. Though intolerant people reject its right to support Christian charities as it sees fit.

??

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

Let this be a lesson to all corporations that you should never cater to Christians because the second you don’t do exactly as they want they will retaliate against you.

I see the reverse here. If a business dares to support Christian ministries, it brings down the wrath of the the highly intolerant religious bigots upon it, as has occurred...hence, what appears to be a flip flop (though I'm not sure it is...only the leadership knows if they are caving).

 

[keith99]

It looks as though no formal, organized, boycott is needed. Already there are indications that people who formerly ate at Chick-fil-A have become no-shows since this news broke.

The one near me is not going to have any problems. The lines may get shorter but there will always be a line. Rather like In-n-Out burger.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Poor analogy. Donating to Salvation Army - that serves EVERYONE - is not the same as supporting a policy that restricts displays of the Star of David. That's nonsense.

Chik-Fil-A is not supporting any policies that restrict anyone from engaging in their religious practices. Though intolerant people reject its right to support Christian charities as it sees fit.

??

It's not a poor analogy at all... If you support policies that are aimed at directly negatively impacting one particular group (for reasons that don't violate your own rights in any way shape or form), it's fair to say you're "anti".


...but that aside.
The organizations Chick-fil-a was supporting, were targeting groups they didn't like. ...and to say that they "serve everyone" isn't accurate either.


The Salvation Army’s anti-LGBTQ history is long —
They’ve lobbied all over the world, including in Scotland, the United States, and New Zealand, for the political curtailment of equal rights for LGBTQ people. They’ve discriminated against their own employees, and they’ve allowed LGBTQ people to die rather than provide equal services.

• In the US, the Church lobbies hard to shut down anti-discrimination laws. On their website, they claim to abide by such laws, but they don’t mention that they often do so by shutting down services in areas where equal-rights mandates apply.
• In Scotland, the Church recently fought to keep references to LGBTQ people out of school curricula.
• In New Zealand, the Church led efforts to keep sexual relations between adult men a criminal offense.
• The Church promoted the debunked and dangerous practice of conversion therapy for years on its websites all over the world, featuring links to “ex-gay” programs. While the links began to be removed in 2013, the Church still privately refers young people to such toxic “therapy.”
• In the US, the Church fought for the right to withhold health-care coverage to same-sex spouses of their employees.
• The Church has a long history of firing employees upon discovering that they are lesbian, gay, or transgender.
• In 2016, the Church "); background-size: 1px 1px; background-position-y: calc(1em + 1px);">refused to back a Safe Schools initiative to combat anti-LGBTI bullying, characterizing it as “toxic” and “pro-homosexual.”
• In just one example of many, the Church let trans woman Jennifer Gale "); background-size: 1px 1px; background-position-y: calc(1em + 1px);">freeze to death outside one of their homeless shelters rather than shelter her with other women.
• While the Church touts the tiny number of dedicated shelters they’ve opened for LGBTQ people, they "); background-size: 1px 1px; background-position-y: calc(1em + 1px);">fail to mention that they don’t provide equal services to LGBTQ people in their other shelters.
• The Church "); background-size: 1px 1px; background-position-y: calc(1em + 1px);">was caught in a sting operation in New York City in 2017, subjecting transgender people to humiliating physical examinations and discrimination in housing at a substance-abuse treatment center — in violation of their public service contracts.