Chick-fil-A PR goes Rogue

I gotta call BS on that, JD. I can move in with and marry any woman in the state in which I live ... as long as I'm not already married. I can not do both with another man. Those do not appear to be equal rights to me. Why should one couple living in one house live by one set of rules while another couple living next door live by another?

 

This would be an excellent argument if it weren't for the fact that a great number of U.S. states still specifically ALLOW discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation, particularly with regard to employment and housing.

 

Now Defense-of-Marriage proponents can boycott Amazon.

thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/27/amazons-founder-pledges-2-5-million-in-support-of-same-sex-marriage/?hp

 

And prior to the 1960s - those couples had to be of the same race. No mixed marriages.

 

Hey! Someone kept their eye on the ball!

 

Most of it already does, but every cent I can spend with Amazon, I will.

 

If the company is so against "unnatural" marriages, how does it explain the time it consummated one to create the Chick-fil-a Peach Bowl?

 

Instead of running it through the filter of one of a left-leaning publication that was among the ones who twisted the words, I prefer to read the actual original story itself. And again, doesn't mention gays at all.

http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=38271

CFA does support the Family Research Council and other pro-family groups. But to say these are groups whose mission is 100% devoted to opposing gay marriage is absurd (although that's the public perception). But they do support an ideal of human relationships that involve a married male/female, both of whom have saved themselves for marriage, who remain married until one spouse passes away, and who conceive and raise children. That's pretty clearly spelled out in the New Testament (rather than focusing like a narrow beam on Leviticus to discredit the Bible as a source). There is voluminous research that supports that construction of the family as being the most healthy long-term both for the individuals and their children.

That ideal is one worth supporting, and certainly to assist others in strengthening their marriages.

However, one can support that form of marriage and acknowledge that a large part of society has strayed from that ideal -- rates of divorce and children born out of wedlock are high, people commit adultery, et al. These "pro-family" organizations do not "hate" those who have strayed from the ideal, but work to bring them back to the ideal as spelled out in the Bible.

It's hard to believe, but the evangelical church is not obsessed with homosexuality. I've heard one sermon in the last 30 years that even broached the issue -- and it was by a pastor with a gay family member who very clearly spelled out the typical evangelical position on the issue -- a consecrated gay relationship is sin just as much as an out-of-wedlock relationship is sinful, but it is not our job to judge the person, but to understand that sin is wrong, we all commit it, and we all need to love all people and seek God's forgiveness for the sins we all commit.

It is the left that has forced the evangelical movement (and the Catholic Church, as well) to be put on defense, and the assertion that if we do not 100% fully accept and enthusiastically support this new version of morality, we deserve to be silenced and taken completely out of the public sphere, even to the point of losing our jobs and our businesses.

I'm still waiting for the outrage against Muslim-owned businesses because their views on homosexuality and the role of women in society make even the most fanatical evangelicals look extremely permissive.

 

I'd guess they would be better suited to sponsoring the annual Ole Miss-Mississippi State game.

The Chick-fil-A Egg Bowl has a nice ring to it.

 

Ask Sally Ride's "partner" of 27 years... yes, 27 years... more than 40 percent of her life ... who will not get Social Security benefits or a break on inheritance/estate taxes ... or who wouldn't have had hospital visitation rights if just one person raised any kind of stink... Ask about the "rights" that go with marriage.

Most gay people don't want a church wedding... they don't want anything to do with church... they want the financial/legal benefits that the government has given to people who are married. That's not too much to ask!

 

I don't feel like going back over this thread, but I don't recall anyone complaining that his free speech rights had been trampled. Furthermore, I don't recall hearing that said anywhere in the media either (though admittedly, I don't listen much to talk radio or watch TV other than sports).

 

And, going back to a previous argument, the big issue to a lot of evangelicals is semantics.

You'll find that a lot of evangelicals don't have any problem with state civil union bills. But the fear is that freedom of conscience will be eroded by gay marriage, as the issue will be used as a tool to force others into compliance with the state's values or be silenced.

To wit,
*-The wedding photographer in New Mexico who was told it was illegal to refuse to shoot gay ceremonies. (http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=14523)
*-eHarmony, a business that began as a means of matching Christian singles and was founded by an evangelical Christian, being forced to change its business model to accommodate gay relationships or be forced out of business on "discrimination" grounds in a few states, New Jersey being the most notable.
*-The belief that some states can force churches to open their property up to gay ceremonies, in violation of their values, or lose tax-exempt status (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/18/nyregion/18grove.html)
*-The Department of Justice coming out and stating that corporations (and businesses) have no First Amendment claims to religious freedom (specifically, in the HHS mandate, but it can be applied elsewhere) because they're not people and the Constitution doesn't apply to businesses, just individuals. (http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/312357/another-crazy-doj-stance-against-religious-liberty-ed-whelan)
*-The President replacing "freedom of religion" with "freedom of worship," which is being interpreted as stating that one's freedom of religion only exists within a house of worship.
*-Now, the mayors of Boston and Chicago specifically violating the First, Fifth and Ninth Amendments by trying to keep a Chick-Fil-A out of a city/ward because of the religious beliefs of its owners, which have no effect on the way it does business.
*-The attempt to fire the Florida public school teacher who expressed, on his own time, his opposition to gay marriage.