'Hangover' Star Ed Helms to Boycott Chick-fil-A Over Gay Marriage Stance: Will You?
SodaHead Celebs
2012/07/20 21:00:00
|
|
|||||
|
308 votes
|
|
32% | |||
|
641 votes
|
|
68% | |||
Chick-fil-A shocked many of its fans when its president came out this week and said his company is opposed to gay marriage. And one famous fan who won't be returning to the fast-food joint is "The Hangover" actor Ed Helms.
"Chick-fil-A doesn't like gay people? So lame. Hate to think what they do to the gay chickens! Lost a loyal fan," Helms tweeted.
In an interview with the Baptist Press, Georgia-based Chick-fil-A President Dan Cathy said he is "guilty as charged" when it comes to accusations that his company opposes gay marriage. He also said Chick-Fil-A is "very much supportive of the family -- the biblical definition of the family unit."
However, the company quickly went on damage control, saying its policy is to treat everyone with "honor, dignity and respect" without regard to sexual orientation. "Going forward, our intent is to leave the policy debate over same-sex marriage to the government and political arena," the company wrote on its Facebook page on Thursday. Too little, too late?
Top Opinion
-
Outta' Here. 2012/07/20 19:47:02
This goes back to the “Jim Crow Laws” that were outlawed 50 years ago.
It has nothing to do with the food products at "chick-fil-a" you can't force someone to believe in what you do; when it comes to same sex relationships and marriages, suk it up...more for everyone else if you stop going.
Are you serious and if you are don't stop there, go after romney also; he's against gay marriage so you have a busy schedule to set up don't you, 'Good Luck Dude'
Jim Crow belonged to the Democrats so you'll have to take up their hate with them.
More over the case with this restraint chain has to do with discrimination. It may be gays today and people with freckles tomorrow.
http://apcentral.collegeboard...
wow a lot of people actually said "no" this time
So, boycott, or not, I'll eat at Chick-Fil-A. Other people can do as they please.
How'd THAT work out for you Ed?
Heck, until the American Revolution, the Divine Right of Kings and other nobility to rule over the peasants, treating them as slaves in all but name (bound to the land), etc. was the traditional view.
“Traditional” ≠ “Right and Proper.”
Forty years ago, the blacks who wanted equal rights were “the ones who just recently crawled out from under a rock or something.”
People who promoted slavery and Jim Crow also claimed to be standing up for their convictions based on their religion and morality. Slavery was called “the Natural Order of Man,” and even “the Divine Order of Man,” and was justified very specifically from the Bible, by Bible-believing Christians of their day. And they had a lot more passages of scripture backing them up than the same-sex-marriage deniers do today.
“We're just saying that the institution of marriage is and hopefully will be reserved for one man and one woman.”
Why? Like it or not, your religion did not invent marriage (marriage is known from history to predate Judaism and even predate the Garden of Eden story!), and does not own it.
Also, you might be surprised about what your Bible actually has to say on the subject.
You’re free to stand up for your convictions. You are not make other people stand up for your convictions, in terms of giving up rights.
Rights are not subject to popular vote. Everyone has Rights. Even if 99.99999% of the people decide that 0.00001% should not have a certain Right, that 0.00001% still has the Right just...
People who promoted slavery and Jim Crow also claimed to be standing up for their convictions based on their religion and morality. Slavery was called “the Natural Order of Man,” and even “the Divine Order of Man,” and was justified very specifically from the Bible, by Bible-believing Christians of their day. And they had a lot more passages of scripture backing them up than the same-sex-marriage deniers do today.
“We're just saying that the institution of marriage is and hopefully will be reserved for one man and one woman.”
Why? Like it or not, your religion did not invent marriage (marriage is known from history to predate Judaism and even predate the Garden of Eden story!), and does not own it.
Also, you might be surprised about what your Bible actually has to say on the subject.
You’re free to stand up for your convictions. You are not make other people stand up for your convictions, in terms of giving up rights.
Rights are not subject to popular vote. Everyone has Rights. Even if 99.99999% of the people decide that 0.00001% should not have a certain Right, that 0.00001% still has the Right just like the 99.99999% do. That’s what “inalienable” means in the Declaration. Rights cannot be legitimately taken away nor refused nor denied nor withheld. By anyone. No matter how many. If a Right can be withheld, then it is not a Right by definition, but a power or privilege (e.g. a driver’s license).
As for what States do, look up the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the U.S. Constitution. All States are bound to recognize any contract or similar arrangement (and marriage definitely qualifies, being, from the PoV of any and all levels of Government, a legal partnership) done by any State.
Just as you can drive from one State, through another, and into another, with the driver’s license and car license plate and registration you have from the State you reside in, so, too, would any marriage performed in any State be required to be recognized in any other.
Funny how the metaphor your mind comes up with is, “don’t cram it down the rest of our throats.” Is there something you’re not admitting to yourself?
How, exactly, does two men getting married in any way harm your own marriage? Be specific, please.
Yeah, God set rules regarding how a master treated his slaves, including that the master could beat the slave to death so long as the dying process took over two days. If the slave lingered for more than a couple days before dying of the beating , the master wasn’t even punished , because the slave was his property . Your God Himself said that, in pretty much those words.
Just so you know what you’re up against: I have the KJV largely memorized, and have read multiple versions of the Bible all the way through. You are way out of your league trying to debate the Bible with me.
“Now as for your fourth paragraph. Thats why homos aren't liked by many people. You always look at things you don't agree with in a sexual nature. That's the nature of the perverted un natural deviant homosexual person.”
First off, I’m not homosexual. I support same-sex marriage despite being straight for the same reason that I supported the Civil Rights movement despite being “white” (light pinkish tan, actually), and support equal rig...
Yeah, God set rules regarding how a master treated his slaves, including that the master could beat the slave to death so long as the dying process took over two days. If the slave lingered for more than a couple days before dying of the beating, the master wasn’t even punished, because the slave was his property. Your God Himself said that, in pretty much those words.
Just so you know what you’re up against: I have the KJV largely memorized, and have read multiple versions of the Bible all the way through. You are way out of your league trying to debate the Bible with me.
“Now as for your fourth paragraph. Thats why homos aren't liked by many people. You always look at things you don't agree with in a sexual nature. That's the nature of the perverted un natural deviant homosexual person.”
First off, I’m not homosexual. I support same-sex marriage despite being straight for the same reason that I supported the Civil Rights movement despite being “white” (light pinkish tan, actually), and support equal rights and pay for women despite having Y chromosomes in my cells. I support what is right just because it’s the right thing to do, even if I personally don’t benefit.
Secondly, your personal sense of disgust and what you think is “perverted / unnatural / deviant” is not, nor should it be, the basis of American law, especially concerning Rights.
Which leads to the fact that you’re flatly, demonstrably wrong on your last statement in your first paragraph: this nation was not founded on the idea of a traditional family, but upon the Inherent and Unalienable Rights of Persons. “Unalienable” means that Rights are not subject to being taken away by any means, not even majority rule.
I challenge you to show me any mention of traditional marriage in the Declaration of Independence or Constitution of the USA.
“Two men getting married doesn't affect me at all, but is [sic] damages our country by destroying the traditional family and the idea of a traditional family,”
How, precisely, does it do that? Be specific, please.
“What’s next, people marrying the[ir] pets?”
Slippery slope fallacy. Rights are for Persons, and pets are not Persons. Marriage is for consenting adults. It’s a legal partnership as far as the law and government are concerned. Pets cannot enter into partnerships.