Congrats, you win the "Vapid Statement of the Week" award.
Chick-fil-A digging themselves a hole
- Thread starter Ar-Pharazon
- Start date
Congrats, you win the "Vapid Statement of the Week" award.
That's not an interpretation about swine. God projected images and ideas that were interpreted, and those were interpretted into thoughts and concepts, and those were interpretted into Aramaic and Hebrew words, and those were written down, and amended, and debated. Frustrated with all the errors, God finally sent an Editor. But even his words were then interpretted into Greek, and those were interpretted into Latin, and those were interpretted into Shakespearean era English.
Since then God has upgraded to a Macbook air and can just e-mail us his opinions. I don't know why he didn't just bring networked HP Laserjets into existence with the rest of creation, but it would've save a lot of monks a lot of trouble. The only reason I can think of is that he wanted to sell us upgrades, and that upgrades are Holy.
Anyway, it's obvious that God has issues with gays, otherwise why would they be wearing those shoes with that shirt? Have you ever seen a picture of Jesus where his sandals didn't match his robe? No, you haven't, because Jesus' fashion sense came directly from God.
I often win awards for my statements, that is true, but I don't mindlessly set precedents that people can be denied the right to open a business based on their sexual orientation, or their opinions about sexual orientation.
Punching a guy in the face might feel good, but when your group is outnumbered ten or twenty to one in a crowd, half of whom are against you, throwing out the law and starting a brawl is going to hurt a lot of innocent people, and many of the people who are hurt or maimed will be gay. The same needless suffering and destruction takes will take place that would have if the other side had started it, but the other side wasn't gonig to start anything (please cite the calls from Christians for the government to prohibit pro-gay fast-food franchises from opening anywhere).
Not only have you gotten lots of gays needlessly beaten up and stripped of their livelihoods, you've diverted them from battles they needed to fight and win, including personal battles over child custody, all because you were drunk and pissed off at a chicken sandwich store whose franchises donate to your cause.
It's all collateral damage.
Thats nice. Not sure why you're telling me though?
Well, as I pointed out up above, being a bigot isn't necessarily a bad thing. I'm bigoted against people who think gays should be executed.
But back to the topic, in which the mayors of Boston and Chicago said a franchise can't open in their cities because of the founder's opinions on gay marriage. Ignoring the Constitutional violations, is this the rule we want to go with? Because if it is, for the vast majority of this country's history it would've meant that the government could have banned gays from opening any business, and would still mean that any mayor could ban any gay owned business of any kind, or any business whose owner supports gay marriage.
It doesn't matter if gays and gay supporters think they'll win most of the time, or that most mayors would support them. It means that gay or gay supporters anywhere could lose his business because of his sexual orientation or opinions. You can score easy points in some of the games, like Chicago and Boston, but everyone else has to play too, and everyone has to take their livelihood onto the field and stand to lose it.
Does that sound like a step forward? Does that sound like tolerance? Both mayors should be dragged out to the woodshed and beaten with a stick before they set a precedent for the summary execution of unpopular minorities while they're on this sanctimonious sugar rush from their culturally enlightened superiority.
We limit government for a good reason, because throughout human history people in power are invariably convinced that they're right on all the issues and show few innate qualms about cleansing, punishing, or re-educating those who aren't on board with the ruler's latest brilliant insight that just happens to ape the latest trend. And usually when they do it, the majority agrees with their position, because otherwise the politician wouldn't have done it.
Brilliant insights oddly come hard on the heels of polling, for some strange reason, which is why Democrats are suddenly all for gay marriage (which even Obama didn't support in 2008), but won't touch gun control with a stick (which they all supported not long ago).
Political winds shift back and forth, and we have tried to keep government officials from overtly punishing the lives and livelihoods of their political or cultural opponents in ways completely unrelated to the political and cultural questions in dispute. Chicken sandwiches have absolutely nothing to do with gay marriage.
If you go for the cheap win in one game by throwing out the rule book, be prepared for heavy losses in other ones, and bear in mind that the losses devastate the lives of those who lose in a game that all of us had long ago decided not to play because the victories are hollow and the losses are real.
If nothing else, those mayors (and aldermen) are making a really, really big thing out of this in a way us boycotting the restaurants might not.
So hopefully making a major shitstorm out of the situation will make the difference.
Unlikely, I know, but possible.
^ (oops, at the photos)
Imagine how those 60's Democrats would look if they'd protested in studded leather thongs and crotch poutches. The gay community could learn a lot from them about how to keep a position alive a hundred years after it should have died a violent, twitching death, just by images, framing, and narrative.
Imagine how those 60's Democrats would look if they'd protested in studded leather thongs and crotch poutches. The gay community could learn a lot from them about how to keep a position alive a hundred years after it should have died a violent, twitching death, just by images, framing, and narrative.
Apparently because I've screwed up yet another acceptance speech. They have these cute little umbrella drinks in the green room, and I just couldn't help myself!
But there is no shitstorm but the one they made. Nobody pays any attention to babbling codgers who run food companies. Now they are. And now restaurants are being banned because of political opinions about something completely unrelated to the food. This isn't about the FDA deciding haggis isn't fit for human consumption, or Mayor Bloomberg saying that super-sized sodas shouldn't be sold. This is saying that local mayors and city councils should be free to ban businesses because of the city's disapproval of the sexual beliefs of the business owners. On top of that, it gives Chick-Fil-A victim status.
For gays and people who believe in gay rights, this is the can of worms from hell. Whatever the correctness of their intentions, these mayors need to be restrained like a kid playing with a propane tank and a lighter.
She self-identifies as a bisexual. Try again.
Well, it's nice that there's room for interpretation there. And none for homosexuality, even though the word didn't even exist at the time...
Before slipping into a religious answer - something i can be prone to do - i just think intolerance sucks. Plain and simple. On a company level - a company i've never heard before now - it is totally unacceptable and such a thing couldn't happen in the UK due to the Equality Act 2010. Its 2012.
I could care less what their founder thinks. I love Chick-Fil-A.
Same here.
Knight Templar
Commodore
In the United States we routinely deny civil rights to pedophiles and rapists to list but 2 examples.
If you believe that denial of rights is okay for people who commit certain sexual acts, then denial of civil rights to those who actually commit homosexual acts is more than reasonable.
And to Peacemaker, you're not a bibical scholar of any kind (if you are, provide proof) so what when you lecture on what the Bible means, it has no relevance.
The only reason people listen to you regarding that is that you are "preaching" to the liberal echo champer at the TrekBBS.
If you believe that denial of rights is okay for people who commit certain sexual acts, then denial of civil rights to those who actually commit homosexual acts is more than reasonable.
And to Peacemaker, you're not a bibical scholar of any kind (if you are, provide proof) so what when you lecture on what the Bible means, it has no relevance.
The only reason people listen to you regarding that is that you are "preaching" to the liberal echo champer at the TrekBBS.
You think their stupid image has to do with their clothes?
That's called missing the forest for the trees.
And I'm pretty sure those weren't 60s Democrats.
Besides, studded leather would be a huge improvement over cowboy hats and neckbeards.
While they have not found a "gay gene" they have found that homosexuals react to the pheromones of their same gender rather than those of the opposite gender.
When did you chose and why?
Because I never chose. When I look at attractive women and wonder how any guy could be gay, and how come all women aren't.
The big difference being those are criminal acts victimizing other people.
