Official Chick-fil-A Thread

[afleitch]

I think boycotting a company that donates millions to organisations that funds 'ex-gay' shams is a sensible thing to do if you have 21st Century sensibilities.

[afleitch]

I went back to Church today, for the first time in a few months, and was actually invited to join (despite that fact that I don't even live in the same county) and I must say, all opposition to gay marriage I had just yesterday was and is wrong. The point that won me over:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[afleitch]

Having attending a camp sponsored by Chick-Fil-A (and being a roomate with a Cathy!), I'm probably one of the biggest Chick-Fil-A supporters out there. Not necessarily because of their strong moral convictions, but because they have the best chicken sandwich in America.

I'm hungry now. Guess where I'm going???

Sad

[afleitch]

Went to Chick-Fil-A today and it was PACKED. It was awesome.

Have you given business to the companies who support gay marriage and gay rights but have been boycotted by the religious right in solidarity with their freedom of speech?

[afleitch]

Herman Cain says that Cathy told him that Chick-Fil-A would be donating their Wednesday profits to anti-gay groups. Frightening if true.

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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.