Chick-fil-A Ban

How screwed up is it when a person of faith, who recently lost a ton of weight, encourages people to go eat at this place because they are standing up to the gays? UNBELIEVABLE!

You win for now DJ, I actually have a job where I can't sit here and do internet research for hours on end.

But, I am glad you do try to control where your money goes like I do. I don't shop at Wal-mart, Menards, Hobby Lobby and many others because of where they get their goods from concerning child labor laws, discrimination and plain out right bigotry. I only buy locally grown fruit and vegetables when possible at my local farmers market. The food industry it's the biggest culprit as far a discrimination is concerned as to what laws or lack there of some countries have.

If interested, I'd suggest seeking out the Blue Pages, a small book published by the Center for Responsive Politics. It breaks down political contributions by corporation and arranges it by area of service. I don't pretend to be able to account for every dollar I spend, but I feel that a resource like this at least allows me to make some informed judgments and appropriate financial shifts.

I ate there once a few years back because that's where my neices' daughter Amber and her freind Megan wanted to eat. It was OK but I don't eat chicken,don't like the taste.

I'm not against 'gay',nor am I for it,it's their decision of lifestyle.

Never the less,wouldn't it be great if on all the 'bring a freind' times,all the gay couples ate there,I think that would be hilarious.

Their attitude could/would be:

"You don't like us so we're going to eat there and you can't keep us out".

If Chick-fil-A is in favor of traditional marriage, then hopefully somewhere along the line, they mentioned something about infidelity, sex before marriage, and lustful eyes. See, if you're going to stand behind gay marriage being a sin, you have to log that one under sexual immorality and you have to be consistent as to when you stand behind your faith. Meanwhile, I have enough cobwebs in my own closet before attempting to work on anyone else's. If I ever get my closet perfectly clean, I'll give my opinion on the subject. However, that opinion will be in the form of what I believe in and NOT what others should believe. I also would not look down on someone else's beliefs or tread upon their civil rights as I'm sure I would not like the same done to me.

Jeff said:
This isn't about knowing what every business is about or what they support. That's a straw man argument. We know what this company is about, because their executives have made it quite clear and public. Ignorance isn't bliss here, it's just ignorant. Giving them money, to me, knowing what they're about, is a fine line from endorsement.

As to this particular business it probably is but this discussion has been broader than just this one particular business.

I don't agree with what Chickfila believes in any way. However I am not going to boycott them. That is my personal belief and I completely understand others if they chose to boycott them.

I think the definition of marriage is a fair question and being against the expansion to it to include same sex is by no means anti-gay (I don't personally agree with that approach, but marriage, its reasons for existence, and place in our society are all things that can be debated and labeling someone as anti-gay for not agreeing on expanding marriage bothers me a lot).

With that said, I hate companies giving to political dispersive groups. I hate it when they give to Planned Parenthood, political environmental groups, groups like Chick-fil-A is giving to, etc.

Cedar Creek Mine Ride said:
I think the definition of marriage is a fair question and being against the expansion to it to include same sex is by no means anti-gay...

Don't kid yourself - it very much is an anti-gay position.

Marriage existed long before Christianity existed. And, as is the case with many Christian traditions, Christianity "adopted" a Pagan concept and made it their own. I wonder how Christians would feel if some other religious group came along and re-defined marriage as being between a man and a lawnmower.

People who try and define marriage as a particular, specific, exclusionary thing are at the very least ignorant, and at worst hateful, hypocritical bigots.

What a church or other institution wants to recognize as marriage in their own eyes is their own business.

But the government shouldn't prevent two adults from entering a legally binding contract just because it is a marriage contract.

I am a devout Athiest but I do respect other people's religious beliefs and try hard not to judge. I think thier food is over rated and not that good actually (Just like Pinks!!! horrible hot dogs)!

If I did like it I would no eat thier any longer either. I am okay if they are closed on Sundays but I disagree with them spending money to be against how other people live thier lives. Such Hypocrites!!!

I think you can question whether the government should be in the business of recognizing any marriages or unions at all. But if its going to go there, it should recognize civil unions (between man and woman, man and man or woman and woman). Leave marriage to churches and let each church determine whom it will marry. For purposes of the law, being in a civil union will control and for purposes of religion, being in a marriage will control. Getting married in a church will create a valid civil union at the same time. Just like it does now for a religious and civil marriages.

For better or worse, that cat is already out of the bag, GoBucks. Marriage has become a fundamental institution in the US, and as such, it's unreasonable to exclude certain groups from the right to participate in that institution.

I wouldn't exclude anyone. Everyone would be in civil unions. There would be no differences in the eyes of the law. But that wouldn't be good enough because its not called a "marriage?"

That marriage has origins in religion isn't relevant anymore, as the institution is ingrained not only into our secular culture, but also our governance. With that being the case, it seems unfair to exclude anyone from the ability to marry, regardless of the reason.

Now, if we were to go back in time and take a mulligan, then yeah, I see where you're coming from. And I agree, in the general sense. But I don't agree it's reasonable to go that route now.

Unless Christians want to abide by Pagan beliefs in order to get married. ;)

I said:
This isn't about knowing what every business is about or what they support. That's a straw man argument. We know what this company is about, because their executives have made it quite clear and public.

GoBucks89 said:
So you do research on every business that you patronize?

Which part of what I said is confusing? I don't generally check with people to see if they're racists either, but if I know that they are, I don't associate with them.

But for many people, marriage does have very strong ties to religion. Most people I know were married in a church. Just seems to be it would be easier to get by this issue with the law recognizing civil unions for everyone and leaving marriage to the religious folks.

And if we were looking to take a mulligan, I would just get the government out of recognizing any type of unions/marriages in the first place.

Dennis Urban said:
I'm not against 'gay',nor am I for it,it's their decision of lifestyle.

Science proves otherwise. No rational minded human being choses to be part of something that is subjected to hate and ridicule. The same thing could be said of heterosexuals, or that "you choose to live a straight lifestyle". I'm but harping on you, just pointing out the common misconception.

GoBucks89 said:
But for many people, marriage does have very strong ties to religion.

And in our culture, marriage does not have any ties to religion for many people. It's part of our secular society just as much as it is part of religious history.

That's what I was saying about that ship having already sailed. Marriage was religious at one point, but not anymore. Not exclusively, anyway.

You are looking at it from a theoretical standpoint. I am looking at what would make it easier to resolve the issue. For many, redefining "marriage" to mean something other than between a man and a woman is problematic. So I say take that issue off the table and leave "marriage" as it is (or however any given church wants to define it for its members) and get the issue resolved with civil unions. I know that many people have issues with same sex unions no matter what the label. But there are a lot of people who have issues with the label itself. If there are enough people in that group (combined with the folks who have no issue with redefining marrage), I think it makes more sense to resolve the issue with civil unions. We waste too much political capital and energy on the issue as it is.