Official Chick-fil-A Thread

[Napoleon]

I'm put off by the excessive politicization of our daily lives. I don't care to defend or attack Chik-fil-a per se but where is the line drawn? I feel like anyone spending money at places like this would understand that some people in the organization will probably donate to causes they support and others to causes they don't. That is how a business works.

[dead0man]

I'm in the camp of "why the hell is this a story?".  Seriously, 12 pages?


Though the douchebag getting fired for uploading a video of him being a douchebag is pretty freaking funny.  Douchebags that know they are douchebag can be alright in small doses, but douchebags that have NO CLUE that they are douchebags, well they are unbearable to deal with, but just awesome to watch get sh**t on.

[ZuWo]

How is supporting traditional values homophobic? I'm sick of seeing that term thrown around and misused so often. Supporting 1 man 1 woman marriage =/= hating the gays. Get over it.

Don't be a dumb. For a same-sex couple that wants to get married, being told that they can't and that it's not because opponents "hate the gay" is bullsh**t. It really does mean that those people hate the life that gay men and women lead and don't want their commitment to be official before the law, which means yes, "hating the gay". I at least have some respect for opponents of same-sex marriage who are upfront about it and say it's because they hate gay people. None for opponents who say they don't hate gay people, and civil unions are "good enough" or some dumb sh**t like that.

What I think many people do not understand is the fact that some people interpret their faith as saying its wrong. Hell, I thought same sex marriage was wrong until last Sunday, and it is in the Bible, no doubt about it. My faith is much more important to me than whether or not homosexuals have their rights.

In the Bible, it does clearly condemn homosexual marriage. It also clearly says that we are made in Gods image. And scissors cuts paper. Thus, in my opinion, homosexuality is reconciled with Christianity, with God’s law being more important than ancient Israeli old testament beliefs. But, some Christians disagree with me on this. Some do believe that the Old Testament is important as a stepping stone for the Gospel. That does not make them hateful. I think some gay rights activists are hateful. I think they downright hate Christians just because a bunch of closeted Catholic bishops and radical Southern Baptists and Pentecostals claim to represent Christianity and “family values”. If “family values” automatically is “hate”, than it would be equally logical to say that aids is to be totally blamed on homosexuals-which is an incredibly illogical and stupid statement.

Opponents of gay marriage look at gay marriage the way gays look at it. They feel it should be prevented on religious grounds as much as gays feel it should be pushed through on civil rights grounds. Yes, it is true that the Rick Santorums and Mike Huckabees of the world condemn gay rights only to turn around and say “oh no, were being discriminated against for our Christian faith” and what have you, but the people on the “family values” side of the issue are just as well intentioned as those who are on the side of gay marriage.

Again, I believe that gay marriage can be reconciled with Christianity (IE-The Gospel, not the Old Testament),so I am on the side of those who seek marriage equality in the state of Florida (marriage is entirely a state by state issue), but too condemn those who support family values as homophobes is just as bad as to condemn homosexuals for their lifestyle. Both sides of the issue are right, and both are wrong, in many, many ways. That is why this issue is one of the most needlessly passionate and distracting issues in American politics.  

FTR, it's not only the Old Testament which contains passages that condemn same-sex acts. Have a look at Paul's epistle to the Romans (specifically Romans 1, 26-27).

[afleitch]

FTR, it's not only the Old Testament which contains passages that condemn same-sex acts. Have a look at Paul's epistle to the Romans (specifically Romans 1, 26-27).

I could argue with you the nuances of the language and specifically what Paul is condemning but for a change read what Paul says afterwards;

Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. 29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. 32 Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

Is Paul right? Are people who undertake same-sex acts wicked, evil. Are they full of deceit, malice, murder. Do we disobey parents, do we have no love?

Because if you think Paul is right on 26-27, surely you must think he's right at 28-32?

[ZuWo]

FTR, it's not only the Old Testament which contains passages that condemn same-sex acts. Have a look at Paul's epistle to the Romans (specifically Romans 1, 26-27).

I could argue with you the nuances of the language and specifically what Paul is condemning but for a change read what Paul says afterwards;

Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. 29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. 32 Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

Is Paul right? Are people who undertake same-sex acts wicked, evil. Are they full of deceit, malice, murder. Do we disobey parents, do we have no love?

Because if you think Paul is right on 26-27, surely you must think he's right at 28-32?

Paul refers to human beings who live in sin in general, he doesn't single out homosexuals. He makes a list of actions he regards as sins - he says that certain actions are sinful but he doesn't suggest that if you do action A you also do B, C and D etc. Just because a person does one of the actions that are mentioned in these verses he/she does not necessarily do all of the others. As Romans 1, 18 and the verses that follow make clear, the personal pronouns "they" and "them" which Paul makes use of refer to sinning human beings in general, not homosexual people in particular.

[afleitch]

FTR, it's not only the Old Testament which contains passages that condemn same-sex acts. Have a look at Paul's epistle to the Romans (specifically Romans 1, 26-27).

I could argue with you the nuances of the language and specifically what Paul is condemning but for a change read what Paul says afterwards;

Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. 29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. 32 Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

Is Paul right? Are people who undertake same-sex acts wicked, evil. Are they full of deceit, malice, murder. Do we disobey parents, do we have no love?

Because if you think Paul is right on 26-27, surely you must think he's right at 28-32?

Paul refers to human beings who live in sin in general, he doesn't single out homosexuals. He makes a list of actions he regards as sins - he says that certain actions are sinful but he doesn't suggest that if you do action A you also do B, C and D etc. Just because a person does one of the actions that are mentioned in these verses he/she does not necessarily do all of the others. As Romans 1, 18 and the verses that follow make clear, the personal pronouns "they" and "them" which Paul makes use of refer to sinning human beings in general, not homosexual people in particular.

Paul says 'In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error. Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. They have become filled with every kind of wickedness...

It's clear that the 'they/them' he is referring to are those who committed sexual acts. Even if you read before when he's talking about those who do not glorify god he says that 'God gave them over to shameful lusts.' In each case he's talking about the same group of people and linking them step by step to every act his overactive mind can think of.

[ZuWo]

No. Everything Paul writes between verse 18 and verse 32 must be regarded as a coherent whole. In the opening of this passage, Paul sets the topic and talks about the godlessness of the human race; the personal pronoun "they" hence always refers to godless human beings. What follows is a list of all the wrongdoings people can be guilty of; same-sex acts are one of many examples "they", i.e. human beings in general, can engage in. The entire second half of chapter 1 is dedicated to the wickedness of the human race, and since actions or attitudes like "envy" or "murder" occur among people regardless of their sexual orientation, it makes sense to assume that Paul addresses all people who live in sin, not just a particular group.

[afleitch]

No. Everything Paul writes between verse 18 and verse 32 must be regarded as a coherent whole. In the opening of this passage, Paul sets the topic and talks about the godlessness of the human race; the personal pronoun "they" hence always refers to godless human beings. What follows is a list of all the wrongdoings people can be guilty of; same-sex acts are one of many examples "they", i.e. human beings in general, can engage in. The entire second half of chapter 1 is dedicated to the wickedness of the human race, and since actions or attitudes like "envy" or "murder" occur among people regardless of their sexual orientation, it makes sense to assume that Paul addresses all people who live in sin, not just a particular group.

But why does it? The only people he talks about are those who exhanged 'the glory of god' for idolatry. So what did god do in return? Made them becomes sexually impure and gave them over to 'shameful lusts' Then there's lots of sex and he also gives them an extra crime; depravity.

There is a narrative; he is talking about the same people.

[afleitch]

How is supporting traditional values homophobic? I'm sick of seeing that term thrown around and misused so often. Supporting 1 man 1 woman marriage =/= hating the gays. Get over it.

This coming from a fervent gay rights supporter.

You're using boilerplate Republican lingo, are we to assume you'll soon be talking about "preserving traditional marriage" and so on?

Absolutely not, but I'm defending people's right to hold "traditional" values. Do I think they're wrong? Totally. I believe marriage should indeed be between two people who love each other, regardless of gender. Straight people have so thoroughly f**ked up the "institution of marriage" that I say give the gays a shot to prove everyone wrong. On the other hand, this is America and everyone is entitled to their opinion, regardless of how stupid I think it is. Just because Dan Cathy opposes gay marriage does not mean you should boycott his company. Boycott him, protest him, call him an idiot, do not take it out on his employees. Not everyone who works at Chick-Fil-A is a Christian, nor are they all supporters of "traditional" marriage. Let's face it: Christianity is the dominant religion in America and a lot of Christians support 1 man 1 woman marriages, that does not mean they're homophobes, it means they care greatly about their religion and want to have society reflect those values. Again, I think they're 100% wrong and I believe religion and politics should not be mixed, as it only leads to flamewars and unnecessary bickering, but I believe they are entitled to that opinion. Freedom is for all, no matter how stupid the person is in my opinion. I absolutely believe that the Westboro Baptist Church should be allowed to do their protests and whatnot. Let them make fools of themselves, don't ban their right to do so. But that's just my two sense.

I'll ask you this again. Have you shown solidarity to businesses that the organisations Chick-Fil-A donates to have asked supporters to boycott? Like JCPenney, Target etc because they support gay marriage? I've not seen you suporting them or changing your sig in support.

[Grumpier Than Thou]

To be honest, I don't really care if a business supports or opposes gay marriage, if they make a product I like, I will buy it and continue buying it. If a group of gay marriage opponents decided to boycott a pro-gay rights company, I would specifically go out and purchase from that company that is being boycotted. For the same reason that I bought from Chick-Fil-A: because I support free speech.

[Phony Moderate]

Surely you don't seriously believe that a company's freedom of speech is stifled if some people choose not to buy it's products.

[afleitch]

To be honest, I don't really care if a business supports or opposes gay marriage, if they make a product I like, I will buy it and continue buying it. If a group of gay marriage opponents decided to boycott a pro-gay rights company, I would specifically go out and purchase from that company that is being boycotted. For the same reason that I bought from Chick-Fil-A: because I support free speech.

But that's already been happening. Quite alot actually. Never heard anything from you or any of the other 'free speech' crowd about actively helping those companies. Just this one.

[Torie]

Surely you don't seriously believe that a company's freedom of speech is stifled if some people choose not to buy it's products.

Isn't that akin to saying a politician's free speech is stifled if you don't vote for him or her based on what he or she says?

[Miles]

A chick fil a gets vandalized.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/08/chick-fil-a-kiss-vandalism-hate.html


Hopefully these thugs are thrown in prison.



Liberal big shot screams at a fast food worker, loses his job.

http://www.businessinsider.com/vante-cfo-bullies-chick-fil-a-worker-then-promptly-gets-fired-for-it-2012-8

That "thug" was a local artist.

And as for the vandalism:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[John Dibble]

A chick fil a gets vandalized.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/08/chick-fil-a-kiss-vandalism-hate.html


Hopefully these thugs are thrown in prison.



Liberal big shot screams at a fast food worker, loses his job.

http://www.businessinsider.com/vante-cfo-bullies-chick-fil-a-worker-then-promptly-gets-fired-for-it-2012-8

That "thug" was a local artist.

And as for the vandalism:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Even if it wasn't a major crime it is still a crime. Using a criminal act as a form of protest when plenty of legal means of protest exist only gives the other side ammunition.

[Grumpier Than Thou]

Surely you don't seriously believe that a company's freedom of speech is stifled if some people choose not to buy it's products.

Absolutely not.

To be honest, I don't really care if a business supports or opposes gay marriage, if they make a product I like, I will buy it and continue buying it. If a group of gay marriage opponents decided to boycott a pro-gay rights company, I would specifically go out and purchase from that company that is being boycotted. For the same reason that I bought from Chick-Fil-A: because I support free speech.

But that's already been happening. Quite alot actually. Never heard anything from you or any of the other 'free speech' crowd about actively helping those companies. Just this one.

I purchase from Target regularly, I use Twitter, Facebook, Apple products regularly, I think I give more time and money to pro-gay companies than anti-gay groups. You're right regarding the free speech crowd, but I can't speak on behalf of them, only myself.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I suppose this is an ideal Atlas thread these days. Unhealthy food plus homosexuality and all kinds of identity politics stuff. Perhaps it will be the new PA-13.

[krazen1211]

A chick fil a gets vandalized.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/08/chick-fil-a-kiss-vandalism-hate.html


Hopefully these thugs are thrown in prison.



Liberal big shot screams at a fast food worker, loses his job.

http://www.businessinsider.com/vante-cfo-bullies-chick-fil-a-worker-then-promptly-gets-fired-for-it-2012-8

That "thug" was a local artist.

And as for the vandalism:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Good. That makes it easy to catch him and throw him in jail for a year.

http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/594.html

[Yelnoc]

A chick fil a gets vandalized.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/08/chick-fil-a-kiss-vandalism-hate.html


Hopefully these thugs are thrown in prison.



Liberal big shot screams at a fast food worker, loses his job.

http://www.businessinsider.com/vante-cfo-bullies-chick-fil-a-worker-then-promptly-gets-fired-for-it-2012-8

That "thug" was a local artist.

And as for the vandalism:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Good. That makes it easy to catch him and throw him in jail for a year.

http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/594.html

America! etc.

[Miles]

For the record, I'm posting now from KFC...came to have lunch here again

[Yelnoc]

For the record, I'm posting now from KFC...came to have lunch here again

KFC's chicken is alright for it's type considering it's homestyle southern cooking shoved into a fast food joint, but I much prefer grocery deli chicken, myself.

[Grumpier Than Thou]

I think KFC is way overrated. The biscuits are to die for though.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

A chick fil a gets vandalized.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/08/chick-fil-a-kiss-vandalism-hate.html


Hopefully these thugs are thrown in prison.



Liberal big shot screams at a fast food worker, loses his job.

http://www.businessinsider.com/vante-cfo-bullies-chick-fil-a-worker-then-promptly-gets-fired-for-it-2012-8

That "thug" was a local artist.

And as for the vandalism:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Good. That makes it easy to catch him and throw him in jail for a year.

http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/594.html

What, other than successful business models of chicken 'restaurants', do you actually have respect for?

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

I think KFC is way overrated. The biscuits are to die for though.

Blasphemy!

[Lief 🗽]

KFC, Chik Filla, etc. are all disgusting. Eat real food please.