Chick-Fil-A dealt with a storm of bad press a short while ago because of a statement by Dan Cathy, the president of the fast-food chain, saying he was "guilty as charged" when asked about his opposition to gay marriage. His comments, along with Chick-Fil-A's monetary donations to anti-gay organizations, led to a media frenzy.
But times have changed. Now, a Chick-Fil-A executive has confirmed that the chicken-loving, fast-food chain will stop donating to such anti-gay groups like Focus on the Family and the Family Research Council, according to The Civil Rights Agenda. Do you think this news is a great step for the fast-food company? Or do you feel that Chick-Fil-A was bullied into making this decision?
NYDAILYNEWS.COM reports:
Chick-Fil-A had plenty of support for its anti-gay-marriage stance, but in the end, the restaurant chain chickened out.
Moot point? Not hardly.
I said: There is a difference between opinion and donating money - some of which came from gay people and was earned by gay employees - to groups opposed to gay rights, determined to stop them and strip away any already available.
You said: So you are asserting that all money donated to push the GLBT movement came only from gays? Or did some of it come from non gays who oppose gay marriage? The later is true here and makes your point moot.
Side by side, unaltered. I said some of the money came from gay people and earned by gay employees as a point of catalyst for people taking action. You added the rest yourself.
The question itself is unnecessary in any case.
Are you ok with segregation and calling for making interracial marriage illegal? Do you expect that if the owner of the chicken place came out in favor of those two things that blacks and minorities are gonna buy his samiches? LOL
No I am not okay with segregation and making interracial marriage illegal. And if a business decided to fund this agenda, I would boycott them. But I would still support their right to fund it.
And again for the last time to all of you anti chick-fil-a people: I SUPPORT YOUR RIGHT TO BOYCOTT! Sheesh! How mwny times do I have to tell you all this. I think I have said this 5 times now.
Let Society deal with Social issues, while businesses focus on serving customers and making money. If an Executive wants to support certain social issues, they should do it on their own time and with their own money.
I supported the Owner Chick-Fil-A right to free speech. But from a purely business perspective, a business should deal with matters of a business nature.
Preferences are no more genetically and biologically determined than ANY OTHER BEHAVIORAL CHOICE. Murder, rage, rape, pedophilia, etc ... have the same level of genetic determinants as homosexuality: NONE--except if you include the genes that determine that the murderer is human and has a temper.
Conservatism, which is rooted in the Judeo-Christian faith, is solely responsible for ending the slave trade. This is historical fact. Look up William Wilberforce. The song "Amazing Grace" was written by a former slave-ship captain who converted to Christianity and joined forces with Wilberforce to end the slave trade. Not a single person who could be deemed a "liberal" was standing with them.
The only people playing racial games are liberals. THINK. No one is banning any person from "mixing" with anyone else. The issue here is not whether or not you can have sex with anyone or anything you want. Who is saying anything to stop that? NO ONE. It is fabricated between your ears.
THINK. If you would THINK with the excellent brain God gave you, you would understand that this entire "gay-marriage" thing ha...
Preferences are no more genetically and biologically determined than ANY OTHER BEHAVIORAL CHOICE. Murder, rage, rape, pedophilia, etc ... have the same level of genetic determinants as homosexuality: NONE--except if you include the genes that determine that the murderer is human and has a temper.
Conservatism, which is rooted in the Judeo-Christian faith, is solely responsible for ending the slave trade. This is historical fact. Look up William Wilberforce. The song "Amazing Grace" was written by a former slave-ship captain who converted to Christianity and joined forces with Wilberforce to end the slave trade. Not a single person who could be deemed a "liberal" was standing with them.
The only people playing racial games are liberals. THINK. No one is banning any person from "mixing" with anyone else. The issue here is not whether or not you can have sex with anyone or anything you want. Who is saying anything to stop that? NO ONE. It is fabricated between your ears.
THINK. If you would THINK with the excellent brain God gave you, you would understand that this entire "gay-marriage" thing has NOTHING to do with gays being able to be in a civil union with each other. That is already on the books as legal. The battle here is MARRIAGE.
Here's the rub: the same "logic" you use to support so-called "gay-marriage" can--AND WILL BE--used to realize beastiality as a legal union. That is, a man marrying a dog, for instance. Once you determine that marriage is no longer created BY GOD and can be re-defined, you have no moral right to say that "consent" or "must be human" has to be a part of the definition of marriage.
THIS is what the battle is all about. THINK.
Second, Christianity was used to DEFEND slavery by the south. You are ignoring the south's major ideological defense of something that plagued our country for 87 years. Conservatives like to pretend like they're the ideology of equality, but really they're not. You can make a defense for the GOP but not for conservatism.
And if two men love each other, why can they not get married and enjoy the same benefits as other married couples? It's a blatant lie that gays enjoy the same rights as everyone else. Everyone else can marry the person that they love. Gays can not. Not only that, but in some states, gays cannot have civil unions either.
And Marriage wasn't created by god, it was created as a wa...
Second, Christianity was used to DEFEND slavery by the south. You are ignoring the south's major ideological defense of something that plagued our country for 87 years. Conservatives like to pretend like they're the ideology of equality, but really they're not. You can make a defense for the GOP but not for conservatism.
And if two men love each other, why can they not get married and enjoy the same benefits as other married couples? It's a blatant lie that gays enjoy the same rights as everyone else. Everyone else can marry the person that they love. Gays can not. Not only that, but in some states, gays cannot have civil unions either.
And Marriage wasn't created by god, it was created as a way for people to pass their land on to their children. Marriage isn't rooted in the christian faith.
And to bring god into this is a losing battle because if you run into someone like a few of my friends, who are atheist, your argument has no value. You might want to think about that next time you decide religion is the savior to your problems.
As a matter of fact, gay marriage was legal until the Christians decided it shouldn't be.
However, the point of marriage is not just to procreate. According to the Christians it is, but before them there were many gay marriages.
But lest I insult your intelligence: men have sex with dogs. Being married to your dog--does it matter if it was "legal" before Christianity existed? Does that mean that it is the moral equivalent of God-defined and created marriage? I'd love to hear your rationale on this.
And to boot: you provide yet another example of how the same rational used to promote so-called "gay-marriage" will necessitate that beastiality, that is, a man marrying his dog, must also be made legal. The legalization of so-called "gay-marriage" will, if put through, provide all the arguments and legal precedent that will be needed to legalize beastiality, a man marrying his dog, his 5 year old daughter, YOU NAME IT! You will have effectively removed any and all moral boundaries in the process of legalizing "gay-marriage".
And to answer your "question", no. Legalising gay marriage will not in any way force legalisation of those things. Believe it or not, a four-year-old and a dog cannot give consent to marriage. Adults, however, CAN.
And no. Marriage was not created by your "God". Do some research.
You are sorely incorrect: MARRIAGE is NOT a Public Institution. It is founded by the Creator, and its origin is recorded in Scripture. Whether or not you believe that Scripture is authored by God or not is besides the point. HISTORICALLY, the origins of marriage are clear.
I have yet to hear a supporter of so-called "gay-marriage" respond to my request to either 1) defend a man's ability to marry his dog; or 2) disallow a man's ability to marry his dog WITHOUT CONTRADICTING THEIR GAY-MARRIAGE ARGUMENT.
You want to know why? Because supporters of so-called "gay-marriage" know that they can not deny a man's right to marry his dog without contradicting themselves. They understand that they are paving the way for the legalization of beastiality as a "valid form of marriage". That's why.
You are the bigots and hypocrites, quite frankly.
>>this is supposed to be a free country, they can do whatever the hell they want and I am sorry but gays should not be able to get married because that mocks every single religion in the world or at least that I know of I am not that familiar with taoism and stuff like that but how many taoists are in america<<