Jump to content

Menu

Recommended Posts

Constitutional rights, then. :) (It's late; I said the wrong word.)

 

Should the mayor be legally allowed to block them from coming to the city just because he disagrees with the political/religious stance of the founder of the company?

 

Why do they get Constitutional rights?!?! They aren't people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 410
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

So THAT's why we call it an arse. cool I know a greek root! :tongue_smilie:I am writing that word down to use as an insult. Not because it means homosexual just because coitus in the arse (which is what that words looks like in you break it down and reverse it) sounds funny in a big greek word :D
Sorry, arse is Germanic in origin. :tongue_smilie:
Link to comment
Share on other sites

??

 

What? What do you mean Baptists don't support boycotts?

 

I am curious not argumentative.

 

OUR Baptist church does not support boycotts. Baptist churches are independent from each other. Each one is sovereign. Just because SOME Baptist churches boycotted, doesn't mean all did or all agreed with the boycott. That's all I was saying. And, here in NM, it wasn't the Baptists that boycotted, it was the independent evangelical churches. I hate generalizations.

 

I am still not offended it's just hard to explain over the internet without sounding defensive.:001_smile:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Constitutional rights, then. :) (It's late; I said the wrong word.)

 

Should the mayor be legally allowed to block them from coming to the city just because he disagrees with the political/religious stance of the founder of the company?

 

I have mixed feelings about this, actually.

 

(By the way, I don't remember which campus, but a well-known university recently declined to allow Chick-Fil-A to open on campus because the majority of students didn't like the restaurant's policies in this regard. So, it's not just Boston.)

 

I think that some cities have statutes regarding discrimination. So, those municipalities may have the right to block businesses and organizations who advocate policies that violate those non-discrimination statutes.

 

But I'm speculating. I haven't done my research on this one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you. I needed to be reminded that there are many wonderful people out there who also happen to be devout Christians.

:grouphug:

:blushing: I sure wasn't wonderful before I was a Christian.

 

1. They aren't. But there IS a whole lot of 'Christians do ____' (insert anything negative about Christians that any Christian ever has done, even if it's just been wackos from Westboro ;) ) and negative comments about Christianity. It comes across incredibly hateful and negative. :( Especially since that isn't necessarily the case.

 

2. See what I said above. Seriously. People are boycott happy. I really just don't care to get into the politics of every last business. Is part of it laziness on my part? Most likely. But I don't feel any guilt about that. Sorry.

:iagree:

 

Oh, I know I should go to bed, (I have to be at church early tomorrow), but I am afraid I will come back in the morning and find this thread vanished along with all hope of finding out more about chicken shaving for fun and recreation.
:lol::lol::iagree:(except the church part)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

OUR Baptist church does not support boycotts. Baptist churches are independent from each other. Each one is sovereign. Just because SOME Baptist churches boycotted, doesn't mean all did or all agreed with the boycott. That's all I was saying. And, here in NM, it wasn't the Baptists that boycotted, it was the independent evangelical churches. I hate generalizations.

 

I am still not offended it's just hard to explain over the internet without sounding defensive.:001_smile:

Not all Baptist churches are independent. It all falls under "What KIND of Baptist are you?" ;) I grew up IFB and married someone that belonged to that horribly "liberal" SBC (you know, because they belonged to a Convention and all...then the CCM, girls in jeans, some of the kids owned NIV's, etc! Found out later that my dad's side is mostly SBC also)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It really is something. I have some friends who are really into some of the, um... extreme groups when it comes to certain issues. (Nothing to do with the current topic.) While I don't necessarily disagree with some of the stuff they say, they want to do things like boycott EVERY STORE in town because they can trace almost everyone to 'donating funds to ____' (insert any organization which they feel is the opposite of their cause). I'm like :001_huh: because seriously?! Where the heck am I supposed to go if I can't buy groceries at any of the stores in town?! :lol: So I totally just find myself rolling my eyes at the constant 'boycotting' of all these places.

 

 

One of my college roommates (just for one summer, thankfully) posted a list in our kitchen of companies we should boycott because they supported p*rn somehow. I asked her to elaborate, but she didn't know any details...but it was in a mass email so it must be true. (ETA: OK, that's not true, since we didn't use email much yet at that point in time. I don't know where she got the list.) She would glare and hmph when she noticed stuff on the naughty list in the kitchen, but she didn't see anything odd about her daily refill stop at a convenience store across the street that had hard-core p*rn mags on display behind the counter.

Edited by WordGirl
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

So, where are the laws prohibiting idolators, adulterers, thieves, greedy people, drunks, slanderers, and swindlers from marrying? If the argument against gay marriage is that homosexuals are sinners, then why aren't all sinners prohibited from marrying?

 

Jackie

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have mixed feelings about this, actually.

 

(By the way, I don't remember which campus, but a well-known university recently declined to allow Chick-Fil-A to open on campus because the majority of students didn't like the restaurant's policies in this regard. So, it's not just Boston.)

 

I think that some cities have statutes regarding discrimination. So, those municipalities may have the right to block businesses and organizations who advocate policies that violate those non-discrimination statutes.

 

But I'm speculating. I haven't done my research on this one.

 

It's Northeastern. :) In Boston.

 

But . . . that doesn't answer the question; Chik-fil-a itself has not violated any non-discrimination statutes. Any gay couple who wants to do so can walk right in, eat some chicken, pay, and carry on with the rest of their day, no questions asked, no discrimination exercised.

 

The actual organizations (that Chik-fil-a owners sent money to, the ones being labeled anti-gay) are actually IN Boston already.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not being open on Sunday is a good moral stand. It's saying "we believe a person shouldn't work on Sunday, and we won't make any of our employees do so either." It follows the spirit, as well as the letter, of the law. That's putting your money where your mouth is.

 

Saying you're anti-gay and donating to anti-gay organizations? That's not moral, that doesn't help anyone; all that does is try to push religious belief for the sake of religion. It's hateful, not helpful.[/QUOT

 

people have zero issues when a company goes out of their way to support those things that are "politically correct" but offend many, but then attack companies who happen to take an opposing position.

 

I don't eat fast food, but I will look for reasons to give them my money, if for no reason other than being impressed that they were willing to stand for their beliefs no matter what the cost.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's Northeastern. :) In Boston.

 

But . . . that doesn't answer the question; Chik-fil-a itself has not violated any non-discrimination statutes. Any gay couple who wants to do so can walk right in, eat some chicken, pay, and carry on with the rest of their day, no questions asked, no discrimination exercised.

 

The actual organizations (that Chik-fil-a owners sent money to, the ones being labeled anti-gay) are actually IN Boston already.

 

Wait, so the owners sent the money?

Then what does that have to do with the business at all? :blink: Individuals can choose to send their money wherever they please, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, where are the laws prohibiting idolators, adulterers, thieves, greedy people, drunks, slanderers, and swindlers from marrying? If the argument against gay marriage is that homosexuals are sinners, then why aren't all sinners prohibited from marrying?

 

Jackie

 

I have always wondered this! This is the logic that makes it very difficult for me to understand why homosexuals cannot marry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My breasts are plump and juicy.

 

 

 

 

Chicken people, chicken...geeze get your heads out of the gutter

 

Hey I think that counts as immoral thoughts...ah ha you all sinned! I get the kingdom of God to my self..woo hoo woo hoo...chicken dance time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My breasts are plump and juicy.

 

 

 

 

Chicken people, chicken...geeze get your heads out of the gutter

 

Hey I think that counts as immoral thoughts...ah ha you all sinned! I get the kingdom of God to my self..woo hoo woo hoo...chicken dance time.

You are on a roll tonight!!!

:lol::lol::lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's Northeastern. :) In Boston.

 

But . . . that doesn't answer the question; Chik-fil-a itself has not violated any non-discrimination statutes. Any gay couple who wants to do so can walk right in, eat some chicken, pay, and carry on with the rest of their day, no questions asked, no discrimination exercised.

 

The actual organizations (that Chik-fil-a owners sent money to, the ones being labeled anti-gay) are actually IN Boston already.

 

I think the problem is with their employees, not customers.

 

And thank you for reminding me about the university. I was too lazy to look up the information.

 

I understand the Boston mayor blocked Wal-Mart from opening in the area, too.

 

As I said, I have mixed feelings about this, and I haven't done any research into the legalities of this kind of action.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My breasts are plump and juicy.

 

 

 

 

Chicken people, chicken...geeze get your heads out of the gutter

 

Hey I think that counts as immoral thoughts...ah ha you all sinned! I get the kingdom of God to my self..woo hoo woo hoo...chicken dance time.

 

:smilielol5::smilielol5::smilielol5::smilielol5:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If anyone wants to have a little fun at the Boston Mayor's expense, YouTube him. He is a good guy, and I almost always agree with his politics, but he can't speak. I don't want to make fun, as maybe he has a speech impediment, but his speaking abilities are HORRENDOUS. Seriously sad.

 

He's not rich, famous, smart, or attractive enough to have a King's Speech movie made about his life.

 

He's a good guy, but highly painful to the ears. One can't listen and think, 'Rich Ivory Tower Liberal Who Doesn't Understand the Common Man." ;)

 

The Walmart thing? There is no room for a Walmart here, and there are hundreds of wonderful stores in Boston who serve the people well. Boston doesn't need a Walmart pit.

 

People can drive 3 or 4 miles to one if they want. They are freaking everywhere; just not in Boston proper. The world doesn't need another Walmart. It really does not.

Edited by LibraryLover
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not all Baptist churches are independent. It all falls under "What KIND of Baptist are you?" ;) I grew up IFB and married someone that belonged to that horribly "liberal" SBC (you know, because they belonged to a Convention and all...then the CCM, girls in jeans, some of the kids owned NIV's, etc! Found out later that my dad's side is mostly SBC also)

 

I'm not talking about the Indy fundy, I just meant Sovereign. Sorry I wasn't clear! I meant what you're saying, but being the good Baptist that I am, I've been drinking a little and I don't think I'm coming across clearly. :D

 

My breasts are plump and juicy.

 

 

 

 

Chicken people, chicken...geeze get your heads out of the gutter

 

Hey I think that counts as immoral thoughts...ah ha you all sinned! I get the kingdom of God to my self..woo hoo woo hoo...chicken dance time.

 

STOP IT!!!!!!:lol: You are killing me!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My favorite solution to all of this is to separate the religion part of marriage from the legal, contract part. Aren't there countries in which the actual legal part is handled separately from any religious ceremony? I'd like that, please.

 

And I couldn't care less if the legal contract thing is called a "civil union," because it would be one . . . for everyone.

 

Then, those who wanted to also be married in the eyes of their church could do that, too.

 

Then my church, which has been offering union and marriage ceremonies for many years, could go right on performing them and any other churches that want to reserve that for man-woman couples are welcome to not perform them. Equal playing ground for everyone, respect for every human being.

:iagree: This is a pretty good solution!

 

That bold bit? I really <3 you! People saying I could care less drives me up the wall.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I live in a state that likes to tell everyone what they can and can't do. You can't buy teA toys here. If they legalize gay marriage or civil unions or whatever we're calling them, can I have my toys back?

 

Yes! Wow, I had no idea those were banned anywhere. :001_huh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wait, so the owners sent the money?

Then what does that have to do with the business at all? :blink: Individuals can choose to send their money wherever they please, right?

 

The company donated money to family-friendly organizations (the company has focused carefully on family values from its inception). The mayor does not like the fact that those organizations are against gay marriage. So he has said that the company will not be welcome in Boston until their policies change.

 

I think the problem is with their employees, not customers.

 

And thank you for reminding me about the university. I was too lazy to look up the information.

 

I understand the Boston mayor blocked Wal-Mart from opening in the area, too.

 

As I said, I have mixed feelings about this, and I haven't done any research into the legalities of this kind of action.

 

I understand the mixed feelings; I'm not crazy about the fact that my own state government supports (with my tax dollars) many things that I am vehemently opposed to (some of those things being unfair loopholes, widespread corruption and ridiculous entitlement policies which I consider theft). However, I do pay my taxes.

 

I just think that fair should be fair, and powerful political figures should not be allowed to violate first amendment rights of the individuals in private companies (i.e., Dan Cathy should be allowed to say what he thinks without fear of economic sanctions). It's one thing for Northeastern to not allow them (it's a private school and should be allowed that freedom); it's totally another thing when the government itself starts blocking businesses who aren't politically correct. :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's Northeastern. :) In Boston.

 

But . . . that doesn't answer the question; Chik-fil-a itself has not violated any non-discrimination statutes. Any gay couple who wants to do so can walk right in, eat some chicken, pay, and carry on with the rest of their day, no questions asked, no discrimination exercised.

 

The actual organizations (that Chik-fil-a owners sent money to, the ones being labeled anti-gay) are actually IN Boston already.

 

A company still isn't a person.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I just think that fair should be fair, and powerful political figures should not be allowed to violate first amendment rights of the individuals in private companies (i.e., Dan Cathy should be allowed to say what he thinks without fear of economic sanctions). It's one thing for Northeastern to not allow them (it's a private school and should be allowed that freedom); it's totally another thing when the government itself starts blocking businesses who aren't politically correct. :(
:iagree:
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The company donated money to family-friendly organizations (the company has focused carefully on family values from its inception). The mayor does not like the fact that those organizations are against gay marriage. So he has said that the company will not be welcome in Boston until their policies change.

 

See, not everyone would agree that an organization is family friendly of it denies gay couples from marrying and having families. Breaks my heart to think of my gay friends, who are married and have kids, not being able to experience the joy of family like I have with my husband. Denying that is anti-family IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But Dan Cathy is a person, right? (I'm not totally clear on where you're going with this.) Isn't he allowed to disagree with the mayor without the mayor then blocking his business?

 

Lots of cities block Walmart.

 

Cities can block businesses.

 

What makes chick-fil-a special so that cities can't keep it out but they can other companies?

Edited by Sis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

See, not everyone would agree that an organization is family friendly of it denies gay couples from marrying and having families. Breaks my heart to think of my gay friends, who are married and have kids, not being able to experience the joy of family like I have with my husband. Denying that is anti-family IMO.

 

Not to be argumentative - just curious - are there any organizations like, for example, Focus on the Family, that are not Christian in nature and therefore not against gay marriage? Totally just wondering because I haven't heard of any.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The company donated money to family-friendly organizations (the company has focused carefully on family values from its inception).

 

To be fair, that would be your definition of "family-friendly." I know lots of families who wouldn't make the cut and whose rights to be families are threatened by the policies Chick-fil-A and its owners advocate.

 

I just think that fair should be fair, and powerful political figures should not be allowed to violate first amendment rights of the individuals in private companies (i.e., Dan Cathy should be allowed to say what he thinks without fear of economic sanctions). It's one thing for Northeastern to not allow them (it's a private school and should be allowed that freedom); it's totally another thing when the government itself starts blocking businesses who aren't politically correct. :(

 

I think Dan Cathy should be allowed to "say" whatever he thinks. For me, it crosses the line when he uses the visibility and financial resources of his company to actively promote things that encourage discrimination.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The restaurant chain has made the donations.

 

Wait, the fuss over their funds is from them supporting Focus on the Family, FCA, and Exodus International? I didn't realize that those were such horrible, gay hating organizations. Wow. Here I thought they must be supporting some really pushy extremist type groups.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not to be argumentative - just curious - are there any organizations like, for example, Focus on the Family, that are not Christian in nature and therefore not against gay marriage? Totally just wondering because I haven't heard of any.

 

I personally do not know but there easily could be some consecutive Muslim and Jewish groups that are.

 

ETA: conservative that is. Stupid iPad.

Edited by KathleenSLP
Link to comment
Share on other sites

See, not everyone would agree that an organization is family friendly of it denies gay couples from marrying and having families. Breaks my heart to think of my gay friends, who are married and have kids, not being able to experience the joy of family like I have with my husband. Denying that is anti-family IMO.

 

I understand that perspective. But logically speaking, if the argument against Chik-fil-a is that it is not "family friendly," shouldn't the mayor be blocking a whole lot of other private companies, too?

 

A private company should be allowed to disagree with the current political "values" of the mayor, and should not be penalized for doing so. Especially when those organizations (to which the company is donating) are legal and welcome in the Boston community.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...