[Linzie]

The recent hoopla over Chick-Fil-A supporting traditional marriage, and the blacklash it has received, has got me thinking.

The USA supports freedom of speech, religion, etc, etc. We preach tolerance and acceptance of ALL lifestyles. BUT when someone opposes, using Chick-Fil-A as an example, same-sex marriage, THEY aren't tolerated for their religion and beliefs. Chick-Fil-A has not hidden the fact that they are a Christian based company. They are closed on Sundays. The Christian faith has always been transparent in the belief that homosexuality is a sin. So, of course, the CEO of the company is going to go with his faith. So of course the company has donated money to conservative parties, and anti-gay/anti same-sex marriage stuff.

BUT, does Chick-Fil-A spout anti-gay propoganda? Do they refuse to employ or serve gay customers? My guess is no.

I respect your right under this country's laws to love who you want, so please respect MY RIGHT to uphold my religion and think it's wrong. That doesn't happen. If you are for the traditional values, and against the new age agenda, the you are wrong and must be boycotted.

I understand everyone has their right to free speech, these people to have their right to protest Chick-Fil-A, same as Westboro Baptist Church has their right to picket funerals.

HOWEVER. Chick-Fil-A has not harmed anyone. They don't picket funerals, they don't spout propoganda except to "Eet mor Chikin". They serve and employ everyone regardless of anything, as long as they have the money to pay for their meal.

So why don't they fall under the umbrella of tolerance?

[Mommy_of_7_Angels]

I don't care about their opinion. I care that they support anti-gay groups. Even then, it's their right as a company (even if I don't agree with it) but I don't have to spend my there.

[Tammyjh]

If one doesn't like it, they don't have to eat there. Its that simple.

The controversy over Chick Fil A is hypocrital and political if you ask me. Politicians are spouting off on how they don't want Chick Fil A in their city but we never hear how we need to stop buying things or borrowing money from China where you basically have to hide if you are a homosexual.
Gay life in China is legal but remains hidden - USATODAY.com

For the gay community, China today is "like the USA in the 1960s and 1970s,"
says Wei Xiaogang of Beijing, who runs the Queercomrades.com site.

[plan4fate]

Tolerance works both ways, and sometimes in cases like this, there is no room for being a bigger person.

They think that I'm an abomination and they support groups that would like to strip me of my rights, the few that I do have (I'm bi, but have chosen a straight lifestyle as I feel there's more to my life than sexual attraction). So in return I refuse to support their company financially. In a small way, I have made it a little bit harder for them to financially support an anti gay group.

I don't hate them, I just do not agree what so ever with their opinions. And in return I will not go out of my way to purchase their food (no matter how good it is), and since the closet one is 2 hours away, it would be out of my way. I do not support any group if I can help it that promotes and supports hate. And I'd most certainly never purchase another item from China again if it was feasible.

The demands for boycotts go both ways, just not on a political level. As a Christian I'm apparently supposed to be boycotting Disney because they provide equal job benefits to all employees. So like, gay couples get insurance and stuff. Since I have no problem with that on the level of private businesses, I don't boycott Disney. And honestly, I don't know a single Christian who does boycott Disney on those grounds. I've known Christians throughout the years who don't allow certain Disney movies because they don't like what's in the particular movies, but I have never heard anyone say "we don't buy anything Disney cuz they treat gays equal."

Now, if someone wants to avoid Chik-Fil-A then that's totally their right and you won't see me calling them stupid or petty. Voting with your wallet is one of the biggest ways to show your support or lack of. What bothers me in this case is that government authorities have gotten involved and want to try to block the stores from their cities. I've never heard of a pro traditional marriage politician trying to ban Disney from showing movies in their town or anything like that. This feels very bully-ish to me and I don't like it. I'm supporting Chik-Fil-A from the sidelines on this one because I support people who stand up for what they believe in even when I don't agree. They've never hidden their Christian values. They won't even do commerce on Sundays, so I don't know why this is a surprise to anyone.

I'm still not planning to eat there though because I've never been impressed with their food. In fact, the first time I ate there when I was 17 I ended up in the ER a few hours later with food poisoning. And one of the guys in the ambulance was a really hot guy that I knew and wanted to go out with. Do you know just how fun it is to be having dry heaves in front of your crush? Yea, he never asked me out. Thanks Chik-Fil-A!

[GSLynn]

I saw something that said "Let's ask the Christian President of a restaurant chain, that isn't open on Sunday, his view on gay marriage and then act surprised and outraged when we don't like the answer"

This was meant to be sarcastic, but it's SO TRUE!

I don't see why people have to be so extreme. It's one thing to want equal rights, but it's another when people think their rights rights should be more important than someone else's.

Businesses have the right to support whatever causes they want. It's similarly your right to support the opposite cause. But to boycott someone who made their mission statement clear, who has not hidden their beliefs, who was very clearly Christian and not "for" gay marriage? That's ridiculous and hypocritical.

No one forces people to eat there. It's a restaurant. Not a political campaign.

I have to say I'm actually proud of Chick Fil A for standing up for their own beliefs and not caving because it's the popular decision to support gay marriage. NOT everyone supports gay marriage and they don't have to.

I don't even believe that sexual preferences should be shared with the world. I believe those things should be private, between you and your mate. Not everyone else's business. I think that sex should be between two consenting adults and only them. There's really no reason to tell everyone what you're doing in the bedroom. When I meet people, I do not really want to know all that information. Their being gay/straight/or wanting NO sex has no bearing on how they are as a person, therefore I don't see the relevance of it being discussed.

[Tammyjh]

It really has nothing to do with gay rights. Its a political ploy for campaign season. If the media and politicians who are fueling the frenzy really cared about not doing business with those who are against gay rights, they would be focusing on the bigger fish such as other countries where homosexuals have little to no rights at all.

[GSLynn]

Originally Posted by Tammyjh

It really has nothing to do with gay rights. Its a political ploy for campaign season. If the media and politicians who are fueling the frenzy really cared about not doing business with those who are against gay rights, they would be focusing on the bigger fish such as other countries where homosexuals have little to no rights at all.

True.

And I don't forget that Chick Fil A and others have been around for a long time with their beliefs since they opened. So it's "character" so to speak coming into question now? During election year? Not suspicious at all. lol

[Repti.Mom]

Ha, totally stealing that ecard. I have nothing else to add.

[Linzie]

Originally Posted by GSLynn

I don't even believe that sexual preferences should be shared with the world. I believe those things should be private, between you and your mate. Not everyone else's business. I think that sex should be between two consenting adults and only them. There's really no reason to tell everyone what you're doing in the bedroom. When I meet people, I do not really want to know all that information. Their being gay/straight/or wanting NO sex has no bearing on how they are as a person, therefore I don't see the relevance of it being discussed.

THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS.

I dont go off telling people what I do behind closed doors, so why do they think they have to? I don't care! I don't like seeing gay PDA, but then again I don't even like seeing straight PDA. Keep that stuff private. Sucking face does not need to be done in public. A quick kiss or a hug or something is cute, but dang, keep your clothes on!

I also stole the E-Card. That was amazing.

[hannah79]

I didn't realize there was a big gay PDA epidemic. I don't think I have ever seen one instance. I also didn't realize being gay meant you suddenly told everyone what you were doing behind your bedroom doors.

[Tammyjh]

Originally Posted by hannah79

I didn't realize there was a big gay PDA epidemic. I don't think I have ever seen one instance. I also didn't realize being gay meant you suddenly told everyone what you were doing behind your bedroom doors.

Nobody said there was one.
She said she didn't like gay OR straight PDA.

[Frozenoj]

I actually just posted that picture on my Facebook yesterday! I think people have the right to boycott whatever they want. People who are pro-gay marriage can boycott chick fil a and anti-gay marriage people can boycott Nabisco and General Mills. I don't see why people are surprised about it, though. If I was really worried about my money going to anti-gay organizations I wouldn't have ever eaten there. I also wouldn't shop at a Christian book store or Hobby Lobby.

When the government gets involved, that's when I have a problem. The government should either make gay marriage legal or not, but as long as organizations against it aren't doing anything illegal (like harassing gays or something) it should leave them alone.

I personally don't see why the government needs to be involved in marriage in the first place. Leave it a social and religious institution IMO. But if marriage is a legal thing, open it up to any group of consenting adults whether they be gay, straight, poly, related, whatever. If people want to be bonded in that way, who are we to stop them just because they don't conform to our values? Marriage should only be stopped if it involves a minor who cannot give consent or against one of the participant's will. Saying you are pro-gay marriage but against poly-marriage seems pretty hypocritical to me.

[hannah79]

I guess I read too much into her post.

Marriage is a religious institution and the government doesn't NEED to recognize it. They don't recognize baptism. Could you imagine what people would think if the government offered tax breaks or incentives to baptized people? WTH?
What the government should endorse is civil unions for all. If you get married in a church, it's not a government thing. If you want a government stamp of approval, you get your butt to the justice of the peace for a legal transaction.
The government, being a social entity that should not endorse any religious views, should grant civil unions to all consenting adults seeking them. That's true equality.
I don't support gay "marriage" because my religion does not define a marriage ceremony between same sex couples. "Marriage" is going to be defined differently from one religion to the next, just like baptism. You can't just splash some water on your kid and say "there, he's baptized now." Going through the motions doesn't mean you've performed a marriage or baptism.
It's not the government's job to figure out what's the right definition/ceremony and what's not. Plenty of people out there don't care how I define marriage and don't want the government to follow my religion's rules on the matter. And I can't say I blame them.

Civil unions for all who expect government acknowledgement. Marriage in addition to civil unions for those of us who want it done before our God. And if you can find a religion that willingly marries gay couples, cool. I think the Episcopals do it. But if so, they do it because their religion allowed for it, not because the government forced them to.

I also think everybody should agree with me on this, because my opinion on this matter is clearly 100% correct.

[cybele]

Foxfire, marriage pre-dates modern religion. Not the other way around, it is not a religious institution, in fact, marriage did not become a sacrament until long after the religion was established.
http://www.resurrection-catholic.org.../questions.pdf

My issue with the whole thing was issued all the way up the top and ignored. Obviously, I do not have the ability to purchase anything from Chick-fil-a, however, we have a similar issue with a place here called Gloria Jeans, who donate money to organisations that actively oppose gay marriage and I will never purchase from them. I will also ensure that people know their stance.

I don't care what someone's personal beliefs are, but when large sums of money come into play from businesses, I do care, very much. If Chick-fil-a, in this example, had their opinion, but used their money solely for their company, or donated to other organisations that only do positive things, then I would not care, as soon as a company donates towards oppression, there is a problem.

For the record, one of my children has less rights than the other 4, it's not an issue of what happens in the bedroom, it is an issue of discrimination, this child does not go around screaming "IM GAY" in people's faces, or giving details of their sex life, but so much as walking through the shops holding hands with their partner has brought on some very extreme reactions, mostly involving someone screaming something about God. It is not a 'bedroom' issue, it's a just trying to live like a normal person issue.

[HappyHippy]

I have no idea what Chick Fil A is, never heard of it. But I do support gay marriage and gay rights.

Originally Posted by Tammyjh

Nobody said there was one.
She said she didn't like gay OR straight PDA.

Her post, to me, made it sound like she saw gay PDA all thetime. I'm sure that is not what she meant though.

Originally Posted by foxfire_ga79

Marriage is a religious institution and the government doesn't NEED to recognize it. They don't recognize baptism. Could you imagine what people would think if the government offered tax breaks or incentives to baptized people? WTH?
What the government should endorse is civil unions for all. If you get married in a church, it's not a government thing. If you want a government stamp of approval, you get your butt to the justice of the peace for a legal transaction.
The government, being a social entity that should not endorse any religious views, should grant civil unions to all consenting adults seeking them. That's true equality.
I don't support gay "marriage" because my religion does not define a marriage ceremony between same sex couples. "Marriage" is going to be defined differently from one religion to the next, just like baptism. You can't just splash some water on your kid and say "there, he's baptized now." Going through the motions doesn't mean you've performed a marriage or baptism.
It's not the government's job to figure out what's the right definition/ceremony and what's not. Plenty of people out there don't care how I define marriage and don't want the government to follow my religion's rules on the matter. And I can't say I blame them.

Civil unions for all who expect government acknowledgement. Marriage in addition to civil unions for those of us who want it done before our God. And if you can find a religion that willingly marries gay couples, cool. I think the Episcopals do it. But if so, they do it because their religion allowed for it, not because the government forced them to.

I also think everybody should agree with me on this, because my opinion on this matter is clearly 100% correct.

What about homosexuals that do belong to the religioun that does not perform gay marriages? Not everyone in those religiouns are going to be straight. I've been to 2 civil unions performed in a church for lesbian couples. For them it was very important that they had a chuch ceremony.

It's a sacrament now and that's what I follow. Society believing that people are joined for social purposes and religions believing that people are joined and having a ceremony for it are not the same thing.

I'm not Catholic. According to Catholics, I'm not married. Good thing for me the government doesn't follow the Catholics' rules. The government also shouldn't be following my rules, and should grant civil/social unions to anyone who wants one.

Originally Posted by HappyHippy

What about homosexuals that do belong to the religioun that does not perform gay marriages? Not everyone in those religiouns are going to be straight. I've been to 2 civil unions performed in a church for lesbian couples. For them it was very important that they had a chuch ceremony.

I don't understand. Why would someone be in a religion whose articles of faith they don't believe in? Like, I don't believe in the Catholic views, so I'm not one. I couldn't get married in the Catholic church, so I'm not going to join it to begin with.

[Frozenoj]

Originally Posted by cybele

I don't care what someone's personal beliefs are, but when large sums of money come into play from businesses, I do care, very much. If Chick-fil-a, in this example, had their opinion, but used their money solely for their company, or donated to other organisations that only do positive things, then I would not care, as soon as a company donates towards oppression, there is a problem.

Who gets to decide what organizations do positive things and which ones don't? In their eyes this organization is positive. Either companies should be able to donate to organizations or they shouldn't. Would you like people with their beliefs saying companies can't donate to pro-gay marriage organizations? Since these things are so subjective I think they should be able to donate to any organizations they want as long as what they're doing isn't illegal. If people don't like it they vote with their wallet and thus prevent money from going to those organizations that way.