Mayor of Boston is opposed to Chick-Fil-A in his City

Status
Not open for further replies.
We all know you're a saint, Ferris. But most people aren't. In particular the people behind Exodus International are not.
 
For the 327th time, Christians don't hate gays. Hate the sin, love the sinner. I can't say if this works in practice or not, but all the anti-SSM people I know don't have anything against them. I oppose abortion but I'm friends with a lot of pro-choicers.
That is certainly true of most Christians. But it certainly isn't true of those who give to organizations like the Family Research Center, a known hate group, as well Exodus International as Cardgame just mentioned. They are really no different than Westboro Baptist Church except in the vocal level of their hate and those whom they publicly target.
 
Much in the same way this isn't:

Westboro Baptist Church Nutbags Must Love Chick-fil-A



Yes, this image is obviously Photoshopped. I know that for a fact, because I did it.

But it doesn't mean it isn't depicting their thoughts, desires, and motivations while pointing out the quite obvious similarities.

I thought this paragraph of the article was particularly poignant in regard to this thread and others in this forum:

But it's okay, since their personal interpretation and version of Christianity is that lying is either okay, or at least not as "wrong" as being gay. Of course, most Christians remember that God had a Top Ten list, in which He included lying (bearing false witness), etc... but for some reason forgot to include the gay thing in the Top Ten list. (And don't forget that the book of Leviticus also called eating pig and shellfish an abomination- sorry Red Lobster and BBQ joints.)

And how it pertains to Dan Cathy in particular:

The CEO and son of the founder of Chick-fil-A is okay with lying about the safety of Muppet toys (which they supposedly only found out about the day after the Muppet Company ended their contract). After all, he was defending their brand of Christian principles which, as I said, makes gay the wrongest thing, but not lying.
 
It's Westboro Baptist. They're pretty much incapable of loving anything or anyone. Cathy and Phelps may share a common denominator of being anti-gay, but any extensive comparison is riludicrous.
 
You mean like the sort that Mobboss has now tried to do twice, and you didn't say a word about it?

WBC is far closer to Dan Cathy and his gang of idiotic homophobic bigots than they are to those who are objecting to it. To suggest anything else is "ridiculous".

Besides, which does far more actual harm to homosexuals? A group that virtually everybody despises and thinks are complete morons? Or a company which is enjoying a great deal of support right now from a much larger segment of our population?
 
WBC is far closer to Dan Cathy and his gang of idiotic homophobic bigots than they are to those who are objecting to it. To suggest anything else is "ridiculous".

Of course. Dan Cathy is a moderate in comparison to either of those extremes. Obvioiusly the middle is far close to either end of the extreme.

Besides, which does far more actual harm to homosexuals? A group that virtually everybody despises and thinks are complete morons? Or a company which is enjoying a great deal of support right now from a much larger segment of our population?

Being in favor of traditional marraige doesnt 'harm' homosexuals. Get over it.

That is certainly true of most Christians. But it certainly isn't true of those who give to organizations like the Family Research Center, a known hate group, as well Exodus International as Cardgame just mentioned. They are really no different than Westboro Baptist Church except in the vocal level of their hate and those whom they publicly target.

Because a single lefty organization calls FRC a hate group doesnt make them a hate group.

Are they classified as a hate group by the Government? No? Ok then.

Neither of those two organizations are anywhere near as extreme as say the KKK, Westboro Baptist Church or any other extremist hate group that can be legitimately identified as a hate group.

All you have done is to water down what is indeed a 'hate group' as to be almost meaningless.

Notice the obvious resemblance?

Yeah, just like I said, your pics certainly resemble something from the Westboro Baptist Church protest, just from the other end of the spectrum.

EDIT: Just found this and it pretty much illustrates what I'm saying. Please notice how the Chic-Fil-A employee acts with extreme tolerance to this waste of a human being. http://www.libertynews.com/2012/08/02/liberal-who-bullied-chick-fil-a-employee-in-drive-thru-fired/

Watch that and tell me exactly who exactly are the haters here again?
 
Honestly, I think this is messed up. People are banning this from cities just for the reason that the owner doesn't believe in gay marriage?
 
EDIT: Just found this and it pretty much illustrates what I'm saying. Please notice how the Chic-Fil-A employee acts with extreme tolerance to this waste of a human being. http://www.libertynews.com/2012/08/02/liberal-who-bullied-chick-fil-a-employee-in-drive-thru-fired/

You shouldn't judge people. I've noticed you do that a lot.

I am so tired. ugh I'm going to bed. Night y'all.

i could've had Chick-Fil-A today but I said NO I had watermelon instead and it wasn't as good but at least I didn't have to feel bad about the pennies I just gave to hate organizations.
 
I saw this on another forum and it's very true.

J-Pow said:
Ugh, it's sickening. I can only imagine the younger teens out there that have been emotionally impacted by the success of this.

It may sound extreme, but there's a lot out there who are on the brink of ending their lives with suicide. Yesterday, they were given the illusion (as represented by the thousands of people at the restaurant's lines) that they are not loved, and that there is no one out there that supports them.

No, the increase in traffic was not because everyone craved a chicken sandwich that day. It wasn't even because it was appreciation day. It's because everyone was told to gather up like an army by conservative media and show America that the majority still hates homosexuals, and that the traditional Christian family will always prevail.

If I were a troubled teen, that would be my breaking point.

You guys should be ashamed of yourselves.
 
You guys should be ashamed of yourselves.

If you really, really think this:

a. Your're just as guilty of judging as anyone you accuse of doing so.

b. Greatly misled if you think thats why people supported Chic-Fil-A yesterday. It wasnt about 'homosexual hate' at all, however, the most intolerant simply refuse to look at it any other way. If you want to be part of that intolerance, that's up to you; but it is a lie to think that this is all about homosexual hate. It isnt.

You shouldn't judge people. I've noticed you do that a lot.

So, you endorse what this guy did to the girl at the drive-in window? Isnt there some bad behavior that everyone should agree that is dispicable? That was it.
 
I don't visit this forum much anymore so I'm 33 pages late and don't know if anyone mentioned this. I'm just wondering, where were all these free speech supporters when the Dixie Chicks were blacklisted from country radio stations? Were they running out to buy their CDs because they have such respect for freedom of speech? Is it because they're chicks of a different feather?
 
For the 327th time, Christians don't hate gays. Hate the sin, love the sinner.
Is that a legitimate distinction? I would argue that the subjects is necessarily constituted through activity, that we are what we do. The sin constitutes the sinner, is what makes the sinner the sinner, so to hate the sin is to all intents and purposes to hate the sinner. So what your distinction amounts to in practice is hating people whiling claiming that you love some hypothetical "sin"-less entity that looks kinda like them. And I don't think that you can expect anybody else to have much time for that.
 
Is that a legitimate distinction? I would argue that the subjects is necessarily constituted through activity, that we are what we do. The sin constitutes thus the sinner, is what makes the sinner the sinner, so to hate the sin is to all intents and purposes to hate the sinner. So what your distinction amounts to in practice is hating people whiling claiming that you love some hypothetical "sin"-less entity that looks kinda like them. And I don't think that you can expect anybody else to have much time for that.

I don't think that marriage is entirely fair. I agree, you can't love gay people if you hate their expression of their sexuality and identity, but I don't think all things fall under this union of yours. You can hate gambling and lover someone who gambles. Maybe someone who gambles all the time, can't stop thinking about gambling etc. But you can't hate gambling and love a gambler. What we are is what we do, but what we do isn't necessarily what we are.
 
We have a way to deal with that however. Its called the courts.

haha what

Can you explain what you meant please?

I don't visit this forum much anymore so I'm 33 pages late and don't know if anyone mentioned this. I'm just wondering, where were all these free speech supporters when the Dixie Chicks were blacklisted from country radio stations? Were they running out to buy their CDs because they have such respect for freedom of speech? Is it because they're chicks of a different feather?

I don't think this is about free speech at all.
 
MobBoss said:
b. Greatly misled if you think thats why people supported Chic-Fil-A yesterday. It wasnt about 'homosexual hate' at all, however, the most intolerant simply refuse to look at it any other way. If you want to be part of that intolerance, that's up to you; but it is a lie to think that this is all about homosexual hate. It isnt.

Hate and bigotry do not deserve "tolerance," oddly enough.
 
I don't visit this forum much anymore so I'm 33 pages late and don't know if anyone mentioned this. I'm just wondering, where were all these free speech supporters when the Dixie Chicks were blacklisted from country radio stations? Were they running out to buy their CDs because they have such respect for freedom of speech? Is it because they're chicks of a different feather?

Private radio stations can black list whomever they want. If it were a city government banning their appearances I would have been behind the Dixie Chicks 100%. If a city government tried to ban Micheal Moore, I would be behind him 100% against that ban.

There is no valid comparison in your post.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom