Driving home from work today I stopped at a four way light. I saw movement off to my left and looked over…saw a dude frantically waving around a sign. One side said “The wages of sin is death” and on the other it said “Jesus agrees with the president of chick-fil-a”.
He then looked right at me and I smiled at him and said “No He doesn’t” and drove away.
The Gay Agenda[sup]TM[/sup] killed Cathy’s PR guy, and the Gay Agenda[sup]TM[/sup] is hurting Cathy’s profits, therefore the Gay Agenda[sup]TM[/sup] must be evil . . .
or very, very good.
I was listening to a news broadcast about the Chick Fil A situation where the owners (or managers) didn’t want to serve gay people, and I wondered how they would feel about the people God Chose to lead his people. According to the OT, God chose a Murderer and Adulterer to lead his people, and to be born of that linage. I wonder if They would serve them. Or is it better to be a Murderer who kills people etc. than it is to be a Gay person who has no control of how he was born? How many adulterers do they turn away. And I wonder how they feel about Jesus, they claim to worship, is quoted as saying, “let he who is with out sin cast the first stone”!
If this is the wrong forum I hope the mods will change it.
Considering that serial killers can get married but not homosexuals, apparently so.
This is stupid. Obviously chick-fill-a serves gay people. Hell, they have drive throughs. So unless a gay couple is kissing in line…which is bad manners if you are straight, how the hell would they know? The majority of fast food conversation is
1|)Number 1 with lemonade
2)To go
3)Out of $10
I have never been given a religious/political/moral quiz while getting a big mac.
I don’t think Chick-fil-A has said anything about not wanting to serve gay people. I’m not sure how you got that after reading about the situation.
Cite?
This is plausible given other news and history about the chain but if it is true I am surprised I haven’t heard about it.
As far as I know the prez of CFA just said they are giving money to support the anti-gay-marriage folks. That’s cool by me; I am glad to know where the money they earn is going, so that I know not to buy any more food from them. I wish every business would tell me what political causes they are supporting financially so I could decide if they need my nickels and dimes, or not.
Yep, these are the same guys that believe in the ‘biblical’ definition of marriage.
Um… Really CFA? So guess you’re totally cool with fathers giving away their daughters for property? Or men taking on many wives?
Some things described in the bible are often descriptive (what happened) rather than prescriptive (what should have happened). A case can be made against same sex marriage, but too often both sides devolve to name calling and straw men.
I’ve merged monavis’ OP and the six replies into this larger thread in MPSIMS.
Whoever told you that is wrong.
Does that matter to you?
Would you care to take that case to another thread where we can [del]dissect[/del] discuss it in detail?
I got the information by the media, I know that isn’t always factual. If it were true, I just wondered how one could justify any type of bigotry.
The NT is also against divorce and re-marriage. Jesus is quoted as sayin,"He who puts away his wife and takes another commits adultery, He who marries one who has been put way also commits adultery, so if this is true, then there are a great many of adulterers in this world!
No, I don’t think it is wrong, I believe they were born that way. It doesn’t bother me. What a person does in their private life (as long as it isn’t harming another ) is non of my business. I don’t believe it has any effect on the word marriage,( the word is used when some substances are merged), it is a merging of two people who have a right, as far as I am concerned, to live their own life. I worked for Gay men years ago and they were just as(in some cases more so ) moral than some non gays.
Do you know of any specific instance where Chik-Fil-A hasn’t served gay people because they were gay? That’s what you were “told” isn’t it? That Chik-Fil-A didn’t want to serve gay people? Apparently, whoever told you that doesn’t know what they are talking about. Does that matter to you?
The owner of the company has his own personal views. You’ve stated that, “What a person does in their private life (as long as it isn’t harming another ) is non of my business”. Do you still believe that?
I don’t think directing profits from a company to a political agenda is a “personal” view. And I do think it’s my business to direct my dollars someplace else.
You should spend your money anyway you chose. It’s your money and the government shouldn’t be telling you how you can spend it.
Should Chicago’s City Hall decide that they don’t like your personal views and therefore you should not be able to open/operate your otherwise perfectly legal business in Chicago?
You seem to think these two questions are related.
If the owner of the company starts donating company money to political organizations, his actions are no longer private. They are public. And it is certainly anyone’s right to decline to patronize his business as a result.
This has nothing to do with any government actions taken to restrict business. No, I don’t think Chicago or any other locality has the right to prevent a business from opening there for this reason. But this is an entirely different issue from the question of whether a personal boycott is justified.