Chick-fil-A is ideologically opposed to my existence

limblips

Well-Known Member
PREMO Member
I don't patronize some places because they donate company profits to charities that promote and sensationalize queer people. Not really, I buy at places that have what I want at the best price.
 

Smokey1

Active Member
Of course, people are not just going to Chick-fil-A to eat fried chicken. They’re eating fried chicken spitefully. They’re defiantly standing in line with all the other freethinkers because they’ve been asked not to. They know that going to Chick-fil-A hurts queer people, but they’ve never thought much about queer people before and they’re not going to start now. It’s a strange form of identity politics where the identity is “a--hole.” The line to get into Chick-fil-A is the a--hole pride parade.
Not a good way to win friends and influence people.
 

transporter

Well-Known Member
Chick-fil-A is an anti-LGBTQ2 organization, not just because the founder publicly opposed same-sex marriage (he believed in a “biblical definition of marriage,” which doesn’t exist), but because company profits are donated to charities that oppress and marginalize queer people, especially queer youth.


https://www.thestar.com/opinion/contributors/2019/09/11/chick-fil-a-is-ideologically-opposed-to-my-existence.html
Did you post this because you are the author?

I mean who else would give a f*** about this, except the author?
 

BernieP

Resident PIA
For some reason, the louder the protest, the more people show up there to eat.
Damn drive thru is lined up even 2 minutes before closing.
 

LightRoasted

If I may ...
If I may ...

(he believed in a “biblical definition of marriage,” which doesn’t exist),
What the author fails to know, or just ignores, is that while the bible doesn't have a definition of marriage, it does state man shall not lie with man. However to be exact: Leviticus
  • "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination." Chapter 18 verse 22[2]
  • "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them." Chapter 20 verse 13
So while not a definition, surely a reasonable inferred suggestion. I reckon two guys could get married, but not have sex and be in the clear. Guessing mutual masturbation isn't covered in Leviticus, so they'd be good to go?

Me personally? I'm all about suppressing the LGBTQ2²LMNOP agenda.
 

Hijinx

Well-Known Member
Do I realyl give a thought to queers when I eat at Chic-fil-et?
Hell no, I go there because I want a chicken sandwich.
Sometimes when I am out and stop at a fast food outlet I get a burger, sometimes I don't want a burger, I want a chicken sandwich.I go to Chic Fil-et. One day I will try the Popeyes chicken sandwich---when I don't have to carry my own bread.

There is a word for the idiot that wrote this BS ----Paranoid.
When people go to Chic Fil-et no one is thinking I am going there because the queers are against it.
But they have given it great advertising and people know there is chicken there.
 
Reactions: BOP

Kyle

Just being a fly in the ointment...
PREMO Member
What do Chick-Fil-A's employees and Colin Kaepernick have in common?



They don't work on Sundays!
 

officeguy

Well-Known Member
If I may ...


What the author fails to know, or just ignores, is that while the bible doesn't have a definition of marriage, it does state man shall not lie with man. However to be exact: Leviticus
  • "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination." Chapter 18 verse 22[2]
  • "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them." Chapter 20 verse 13
So while not a definition, surely a reasonable inferred suggestion. I reckon two guys could get married, but not have sex and be in the clear. Guessing mutual masturbation isn't covered in Leviticus, so they'd be good to go?

Me personally? I'm all about suppressing the LGBTQ2²LMNOP agenda.
It's right up there with 'not wearing dissimilar fabrics' and 'not getting off your cellphone if dad tells you to'.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
It's right up there with 'not wearing dissimilar fabrics' and 'not getting off your cellphone if dad tells you to'.
  1. Actually, it says not to make cloth weaving two dissimilar fabrics together. It says nothing about having a wool shirt and linen pants/skirt.
  2. The rule against wearing different types of fabric was not a moral law. There is nothing inherently wrong with weaving linen and wool together. In fact, the ephod of the high priest was made of linen and dyed thread (Exodus 28:6–8; 39:4–5). The dyed thread would have been made of wool. This fact is probably the key to understanding the issue. The ephod of the high priest was the only garment that could be woven of linen and wool. No one else was allowed to have such a garment. Apparently, this rule was to place some distance between the high priest and the people, with the ultimate purpose of reminding Israel of how holy God truly is. A similar prohibition in the Law regarded anointing oil. God gave a special recipe for the anointing oil, and it was strictly forbidden to duplicate the recipe for common use. No Israelite was allowed to make this oil for his own purposes (Exodus 30:31–38).
  3. Nowhere does it call it an "abomination", or words anywhere close to that, to weave those dissimilar fabrics.
Now, as for honoring they mother and father... "Honor thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee." It would seem that's considered a moral thing that could result (not in death, as indicated for the abomination noted above) in a shortened lifespan. So, you're right on that one, sort of.
 

officeguy

Well-Known Member
  1. Actually, it says not to make cloth weaving two dissimilar fabrics together. It says nothing about having a wool shirt and linen pants/skirt.
  2. The rule against wearing different types of fabric was not a moral law. There is nothing inherently wrong with weaving linen and wool together. In fact, the ephod of the high priest was made of linen and dyed thread (Exodus 28:6–8; 39:4–5). The dyed thread would have been made of wool. This fact is probably the key to understanding the issue. The ephod of the high priest was the only garment that could be woven of linen and wool. No one else was allowed to have such a garment. Apparently, this rule was to place some distance between the high priest and the people, with the ultimate purpose of reminding Israel of how holy God truly is. A similar prohibition in the Law regarded anointing oil. God gave a special recipe for the anointing oil, and it was strictly forbidden to duplicate the recipe for common use. No Israelite was allowed to make this oil for his own purposes (Exodus 30:31–38).
  3. Nowhere does it call it an "abomination", or words anywhere close to that, to weave those dissimilar fabrics.
Now, as for honoring they mother and father... "Honor thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee." It would seem that's considered a moral thing that could result (not in death, as indicated for the abomination noted above) in a shortened lifespan. So, you're right on that one, sort of.
The point is the old testament is full of rules, and if you try to live by all of them, you end up like the guys with the funny hats in Williamsburg (or the amish). I dont see the bible thumpers getting as wound up about other 'abominations' like 'cheating in the marketplace', usury and suppressing the poor.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
The point is the old testament is full of rules, and if you try to live by all of them, you end up like the guys with the funny hats in Williamsburg (or the amish). I dont see the bible thumpers getting as wound up about other 'abominations' like 'cheating in the marketplace', usury and suppressing the poor.
And, my response point is that you're correct - but that doesn't mean ignore them all because some have more significance than others.

It's clear and indisputable that all of the religions based on the same God (Christianity, Jew, Muslim) consider homosexuality a sin. The response is a little different for them all though. Thanks to Christ, we know that it is not a Christian's job to judge the person, but to love the person. We all sin. We all sin daily. It's not our job to judge the sinner, but to hate the sin.

So, to point out it is an abomination is accurate. The difference is what one does with that information. As a Christian, I continue to love the sinner. That does not mean to accept the sin, just not to judge the sinner.
 

Sapidus

Well-Known Member
And, my response point is that you're correct - but that doesn't mean ignore them all because some have more significance than others.

It's clear and indisputable that all of the religions based on the same God (Christianity, Jew, Muslim) consider homosexuality a sin. The response is a little different for them all though. Thanks to Christ, we know that it is not a Christian's job to judge the person, but to love the person. We all sin. We all sin daily. It's not our job to judge the sinner, but to hate the sin.

So, to point out it is an abomination is accurate. The difference is what one does with that information. As a Christian, I continue to love the sinner. That does not mean to accept the sin, just not to judge the sinner.

What if their was a fast food restaurant that donated some of its proceeds to laws that and groups that stood for the unequal treatment of religious people and organizations?

You would cry and scream all day yet because you base your life on a book of fairy tales written by god knows who everyone has to fall in line with what your Jebus has to say.

Why do you believe the world should revolve around you and your beliefs?
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
What if their was a fast food restaurant that donated some of its proceeds to laws that and groups that stood for the unequal treatment of religious people and organizations?

You would cry and scream all day yet because you base your life on a book of fairy tales written by god knows who everyone has to fall in line with what your Jebus has to say.
I don't have a Jebus, and I have no idea to what you are referring.

I have repeatedly stated that companies should be able to do as they please, discriminate as they please, etc. The government may not discriminate, because we are all citizens. Since we are all FREE citizens, we should ALL be able to discriminate against ANYONE. I've said that is my position repeatedly.

Why do you believe the world should revolve around you and your beliefs?
I don't, but I do believe the country should follow the Constitution, not SJW beliefs.
 

officeguy

Well-Known Member
And, my response point is that you're correct - but that doesn't mean ignore them all because some have more significance than others.

It's clear and indisputable that all of the religions based on the same God (Christianity, Jew, Muslim) consider homosexuality a sin. The response is a little different for them all though. Thanks to Christ, we know that it is not a Christian's job to judge the person, but to love the person. We all sin. We all sin daily. It's not our job to judge the sinner, but to hate the sin.

So, to point out it is an abomination is accurate. The difference is what one does with that information. As a Christian, I continue to love the sinner. That does not mean to accept the sin, just not to judge the sinner.
Agreed. And that's why we welcome IRS employees, divorced folks, politicians and journalists in our churches. And oh my gosh, there are christian churches of all stripes that welcome gay members in their congregation.

The Cathys have some firm beliefs on the homosexuality issue, but eating at one of their franchises doesn't mean I endorse their personal beliefs.
 

Sapidus

Well-Known Member
Agreed. And that's why we welcome IRS employees, divorced folks, politicians and journalists in our churches. And oh my gosh, there are christian churches of all stripes that welcome gay members in their congregation.

The Cathys have some firm beliefs on the homosexuality issue, but eating at one of their franchises doesn't mean I endorse their personal beliefs.
It does when part of the money you spend goes to support those causes. You could reasonably claim that it doesnt if it just went to the Cathy's but it doesnt. As a corporations and individually they have donated to anti LGBT causes.
 
Top