Gays Responsible for God's Wrath, Like Chick-Fil-A Says?

Chik-fil-A didn't say that but nice try Liberal A.

This is exactly what he said:

"We are very much supportive of the family — the biblical definition of the family unit, I think we are inviting God's _judgment_ on our nation when we shake our fist at him and say we know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage."

The President said what his views were and is his right since the question posed to him was not in context with this statement. There are also comments that Chik-fil-A makes donations to anti-gay groups which is false, since equating the president's personal contributions to Focus on the Family is not the same as the company making a donation. This is a franchise business and is individually owned and operated by people in the communities and yet of course one group has to latch on and make it about them and how this restaurant is being discriminatory when in fact it isn't. Just another way to get themselves in the news.

What wrath?

Gods wrath LOL...so why would he (i know hes not real) make gay people then make them a sin???..

All sin is responsible for God's wrath. God's Word says it is a sin. No more, no less than the others. Must be covered by the Blood Of Jesus and his forgiveness

You or anyone in your family ever eat shrimp? Same thing.

I do not get your meaning, Shrimp is unclean according to The Old Testament. In The New Testament God told Peter to not call things unclean that he had cleansed.The Blood of Jesus cleanses all sins. But does not let us continue too sin. Personally I do not like shrimp.

You lift a finger on Sunday? Clean? Cook? Mow the lawn? Same thing.

WOW

I go to Chuch on Sundays and the rest of the day I sit in my recliner. So much for working LOL

You drive to church? That's considered working by biblical standards.

OH. That is a statement that is off base and how else would one get there. I think God will overlook that fact. I can only lose rewards if that was true but still have eternal life. Would keep me out of Hell at least.

Your god commanded that a man be killed for gathering sticks on the Sabbath. So, you might want to rethink driving to church and find one you can walk to.

Numbers 15:32-36

I do live close to walk but I go and God does not care how I get there. You can take your guilt and cram it. I do not question God's motive. If you do then you do not honor him. A woman once told my husband She lived to far to walk to church and too close to drive. It is all in the mind. At least I go.

I am curious. Do you think it was fair of your god to condemn a man to death by stoning for gathering sticks on the Sabbath?

I do not have the right to tell God to do anything He is my boss I am not his. If you want to condemn him for his actions, you are braver than I am. I am in my creator hands. He is not in mine. There is no such thing as being fair.

That's a good example of what is wrong with religion: you stop thinking for yourself and put it in "god's hands".

When he stops taking care of me I will look else where. You are on your own here and after you die. Foolish man who says there is no God. I did not say that The Bible does.

According to Matthew 5:22 “anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell.”

Maybe you should follow your religion if you really believe in it.

So but anyway I ride not drive. it is not work but worship. What I do for God is not work. I do nothing for Satan and I do not worship him, Apparently you do. If you are not for God you are for Satan.

Your god killed millions, maybe billions, in the bible. Satan only killed 10 people, Job's family, and he had to ask god, and god said YES.

You do not know Satan and his demons, Satan was a liar and a murderer from the beginning. You are wrong. God told Satan he could do any thing to Job except take his life,

Where in the bible did Satan lie to anyone?

wrath of something that doesn't exist?

I can't speak for God. Dan Cathy shouldn't either.

I would question, though, why an all-knowing God would make homosexuals and then condemn them.

(This message comes to you from a person who SUPPORTS Dan Cathy's right to say stupid things.)

I think what he said was hate speech. Thus, I don't think he has the right.

So far as I know, there's no constitutional exception to free speech. Not even stupid/hate speech.

He doesn't have to be arrested but everyone with a brain should be shouting him down as if he had done something horrid, which he did.

Everyone "with a brain" IS shouting him down for one reason or other--so much so, in fact, that people started resisting the shouts as a political witch hunt and running to his/Cathy's defense in droves.

There's a message in that, I think, which has nothing to do with Cathy, his stupid/prejudicial pronouncements or even gays themselves.

If anything, tensions between gays and "the rest of America" have been made WORSE not by Cathy's stupidity, but by gays' reaction to it. Point being, sometimes 'shouting down' a person can run contrary to one's own cause.

So, everyone should have just ignored Cathy and just moved on?

No. I would have gone . . .uh, pardon me. . .'straight' to the kiss-ins. I wouldn't try to shut down the man's business (thereby putting all his employees on government assistance).

That's what bothers me the most about these witch hunts: very little time is spent considering the ramifications of any particular style of protests. Most Americans are sensitive to the rights of the underdog. That *could* have been the gay community or gays themselves, but because of their reaction they made the object of their revulsion the underdog. Dumb.

Consider: how does it happen that a man with provincial, narrow-minded and intolerant attitudes becomes the victim? When you can answer that question, you'll understand why witch hunts AREN'T the best tool to use in a situation like this.

The idea is not to put him out of business but to get him to re-think his position. The boycott would end when he apologizes for his remarks. You think expecting an apology is too much to ask?

Nope! That's MORE than reasonable. I don't think I'd permanently hinge a boycott on the demand for such, however. If he doesn't give in, he won't be the one to suffer. His employees will.

Whenever leadership does something stupid, it is the workers that suffer for it. This isn't an exception to that rule.

That is because everything is hate speech to somebody. Defending free speech can get you attacked as being hateful. lol

Agreed in spades. . .uh, oops. . .I mean agreed in total. :-\

heehee

I, too, support his right to SAY whatever idiotic hateful nonsense he wants. But he is not just speaking, he is giving his money to groups which actively support discriminatory policies, and even the execution of gays in Uganda. I think that goes beyond speech.