Chick-fil-a taking a stand on biblical marriage

[Jenny in Florida]

By doing what? Voting on something like gay marriage based on what they believe? Because isn't that what everyone does?

 

No, by actively promoting and providing financial support to organizations that exist solely or primarily for the purpose of denying gays and lesbians civil rights.

 

And, again, I'm absolutely not saying they don't have the right to do just that. But I also have the right to "vote my conscience" with my dollars and refuse to support them.

[PeacefulChaos]

"a majority... united by a common interest or a passion cannot be constrained from oppressing the minority, what remedy can be found...?"

 

~~James Madison.

 

Answer: A Republic.

 

What kind of government do we have?

 

Your very argument here is unconstitutional.

 

What? You totally lost me, sorry. :tongue_smilie:

[Lovedtodeath]

"a majority... united by a common interest or a passion cannot be constrained from oppressing the minority, what remedy can be found...?"

 

~~James Madison.

 

Answer: A Republic.

 

What kind of government do we have?

 

Your very argument here is unconstitutional.

:iagree:WOOT!

[La Texican]

Re:peaceful chaos

Secular "focus on the family" programming would be PBS, CNN.

FEMA does domestic disaster relief. I'm not sure who does international but I'm sure it gets done. Kiva does international micro loans which might be better for 3rd world countries than missionaries because donating our used clothes stunts the growth of the third world countries.

Chick-fila has generic chicken sandwiches anyway. I tried the wrap. It's gross.

 

PBS has a lot about child development for parents in the morning.

[La Texican]

Ha! Lol. I put Re : Peaceful chaos. I didn't put a space in there and it made : P. :P. lololol

[PeacefulChaos]

No, by actively promoting and providing financial support to organizations that exist solely or primarily for the purpose of denying gays and lesbians civil rights.

 

And, again, I'm absolutely not saying they don't have the right to do just that. But I also have the right to "vote my conscience" with my dollars and refuse to support them.

 

I see. In that case we agree - they do have the right to do that. I guess for some reason I was thinking you were saying the opposite. :)

However, the bolded is only the case in Exodus International, I believe. :)

[Dory]

No, by actively promoting and providing financial support to organizations that exist solely or primarily for the purpose of denying gays and lesbians civil rights.

 

And, again, I'm absolutely not saying they don't have the right to do just that. But I also have the right to "vote my conscience" with my dollars and refuse to support them.

 

I'm guessing the company that you have a problem with is Exodus International then right? FOTF definitely doesn't fit that bill. I'm not really familiar with Exodus International, but after all this I'm definitely reading up on them.

[MrsBasil]

I'm a little concerned about the inter-species issue. ;)

 

That and Canada must have much more liberal marriage laws than I thought.

 

What's next? Dogs and cats living together?

[Jenny in Florida]

Katie nailed it in her last paragraph. Does the mayor of Boston have no city corruption issues on which he can spend his time and energy?:lol:

 

No, I don't agree that she did. They are two separate issues. It reminds me of those commercials that suggest President Obama shouldn't have worried about health care reform because we have high unemployment. Or like my grandmother saying she didn't understand why I wouldn't eat meat when there are so many children suffering in the world. We don't get to decide for other people what their priorities are or should be. And focusing on one issue isn't necessarily the same as willfully ignoring another.

[Jenny in Florida]

Ok, again, totally not trying to be argumentative - but have you read the mission statements and primary goals of all these organizations? I haven't. But I just went and checked one of them and it doesn't say anything about gays in particular. So I certainly wouldn't say it is concerned almost entirely with denying anyone anything. I think it's there to help the people that it can (which, yes, will often be people who agree with them on most points).

 

Yes, I looked them up before posting.

 

Exodus International is pretty blatant. Focus on the Family requires a little more digging to find the information.

[Dory]

That and Canada must have much more liberal marriage laws than I thought.

 

What's next? Dogs and cats living together?

 

 

Yes! We had to work for many years for that law to pass, but after all our hard work our family can now enjoy our cat and dog living together. :D

[newlifemom]

C'mon I was funny, right? I know I'm no Swellmomma or well pretty much the rest of you, but that was funny. [huffing off now]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

:leaving:

[Slartibartfast]

What? You totally lost me, sorry. :tongue_smilie:

 

You said,

But in the end, if it is something that a majority has decided on, it isn't something that they single handedly enforced.

 

"Bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will, to be rightful, must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal laws must protect, and to violate would be oppression." --Thomas Jefferson

Edited July 22, 2012 by Sis

[PeacefulChaos]

"a majority... united by a common interest or a passion cannot be constrained from oppressing the minority, what remedy can be found...?"

 

~~James Madison.

 

A Republic was one of the answers to that question, the electoral college another, the separation of powers another...

 

 

Your very argument here is unconstitutional and in direct opposition to the intent of the founding fathers.

 

Ok, I'm still not 100% sure why my argument about voting is in opposition here... everyone votes based on their beliefs. And we vote, and that's constitutional. So I'm still lost. :confused:

[Jenny in Florida]

Have you read Chik-fil-a's mission statement? Nothing at all about denying civil rights or anything.

 

We weren't talking about Chick-fil-A's mission statement, but about the mission statements and declared purposes of the organizations to whom the business donated.

[swellmomma]

That and Canada must have much more liberal marriage laws than I thought.

 

What's next? Dogs and cats living together?

 

have you NOT been paying attention to this thread? They are are war with each other!

[swellmomma]

C'mon I was funny, right? I know I'm no Swellmomma or well pretty much the rest of you, but that was funny. [huffing off now]

 

:leaving:

 

Don't go...besides the huffing and puffing was with the 3 little pigs....this is chickens.

[Lucy the Valiant]

Except, you know, the gay ones.

 

Why do you say that?

 

Here is an LGBT site accusing them of giving $1.9 million dollars in 2010 to charitable organizations that support traditional marriage.

 

Here is Chik-fil-a's own charitable list of giving, identifying a $5 million dollar donation to the College Football Hall of Fame, for a total of charitable giving greater than $6 million in 2010.

 

 

 

Consider this: Some Christians oppose funding Planned Parenthood because it funds abortions, which they consider immoral; the argument to justify the tax-funded donations is that Planned Parenthood *also* provides contraception and counseling for women. So those Christians who object to the funding of abortion are told "well, some of the money goes to things you like, so you HAVE TO pay the funding because we said so (gov-funded)."

 

But most of these targeted "anti-gay" charitable organizations that Chik-fil-a supports *primarily* serve to help sick and disabled kids (Children's Healthcare of Atlanta), provide foster homes for kids (WinShape Homes), help hurricane victims (Louisiana State Hurricane Fund), etc. So shouldn't the answer be, "well, it's a private organization, so you DON'T HAVE TO pay the funding, and even then - most of the money is going to things you like!"

[PeacefulChaos]

You said,

 

"Though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable;...the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression". ~~Thomas Jefferson.

 

But when we vote, the majority wins. That's just what happens.

Obviously everyone has equal rights. But when it comes down to people voting on whether or not marriage should equal one man and one woman (which is what I'm speaking of) people are going to vote based on their beliefs, and in many places that is what happened - marriage became defined as such.

I was just saying that we can't blame FotF for that, they aren't 'enforcing' anything on anyone - it was a whole process involving a lot more people than that.

[Mrs Mungo]

This is a successful company, employing Americans, trying to reach out to families and disabled kids of all backgrounds through their charitable donations, and they're getting unfairly slammed, IMO.

 

Doing good doesn't undo something bad. Christians should be able to agree upon that, at the very least.

 

You don't like their policies? Fine, don't eat there. But don't block them from opening in your city - that isn't playing fair (or legal).

 

Uh, there are *plenty* of businesses that are blocked from opening in this city or that due to people and reasons on both sides of the fence. It *is* perfecty legal, whether I like it or not.

 

By doing what? Voting on something like gay marriage based on what they believe? Because isn't that what everyone does?

I'm just saying, I don't see them out mocking the LGBT community or hating on them. Maybe they support some policies or whatever in the government that are unfavorable to the LGBT community. But in the end, if it is something that a majority has decided on, it isn't something that they single handedly enforced.

 

There are lots of things that the majority *cannot* just decide upon. Those are civil rights issue. I am strogly against a constitutional ban on gay marriage because the Bill of Rights (the first 10 amendments) was written to clarify inalienable rights-rights that are inherent and cannot be taken away. It wasn't used to *take away* rights from any group. That is wrong, IMO. If it can be done to one group, then it could be done to another.

 

If marriage is a *sacred sacrament* (and I think it is), then government has no business officiating it. Everyone should get a civil union and then they can choose an optional religious ceremony, if they wish. I don't want the government telling me that I cannot eat a bacon cheeseburger or go out on the Sabbath or that I must wear a hijab, therefore I should not be telling other people that they must follow the rules of my religion.

[mommaduck]

have you NOT been paying attention to this thread? They are are war with each other!

*snort* My male cat can't stand the female cats. He goes over to the neighbour's window and chats with his male cat.

[PeacefulChaos]

Yes, I looked them up before posting.

 

Exodus International is pretty blatant. Focus on the Family requires a little more digging to find the information.

 

I did look up EI after I posted (I wasn't at all familiar with the organization before this evening) and yes, it is blatant.

FotF is still primarily pro-family. Certainly not so anti-gay as to call them 'rabid' (as in the article) or to say that it has anything to do with their sole or primary focus. :)

[Slartibartfast]

But when we vote, the majority wins. That's just what happens.

Obviously everyone has equal rights. But when it comes down to people voting on whether or not marriage should equal one man and one woman (which is what I'm speaking of) people are going to vote based on their beliefs, and in many places that is what happened - marriage became defined as such.

I was just saying that we can't blame FotF for that, they aren't 'enforcing' anything on anyone - it was a whole process involving a lot more people than that.

 

I don't believe we should be ABLE to vote whether or not someone is deserving of Civil Rights based on a disagreement in religion.

 

I do not believe it is Constitutional.

 

I can blame FotF for their views on a topic, why can't I?

 

If someone holds a certain religious belief that is their business but I don't believe that anyone should be denied Civil rights based on religion. Even if I didn't like the gays I would not see it as Constitutional. I am not concerned with what someone's religion tells them. I won't debate that. My concern is the Constitution.

Edited July 22, 2012 by Sis

[Jenny in Florida]

Good point. I guess I was just thinking that I don't see much in the way of parenting books that are written from a non-biblical perspective, but maybe that's because I just don't look for them.

But yes, I was asking basically about that sort of 'family friendly' stuff without the Christianity thrown in. I guess there probably isn't much of a market for that, though. :tongue_smilie:

 

http://parentingbeyondbelief.com/

 

http://www.thesecularparent.com/

 

These two are explicitly secular and the first I found in a couple of seconds of Googling.

 

I have read lots of books about parenting, from an assortment of points of view. I would recommend stepping into the Parenting section of any bookstore and taking a look.

 

I don't see them doing much politically, but I don't pay much attention. I really don't care that much for politics. :D

 

http://www.focusonthefamily.com/socialissues/social-issues.aspx

[PeacefulChaos]

I don't believe we should be ABLE to vote whether or not someone is deserving of Civil Rights based on a disagreement in religion.

 

I see. I don't disagree with you there.

I honestly don't know what I personally think of 'gay marriage rights' (though I do hold to a traditional biblical standard of marriage), but I do think that the civil union idea makes sense, and that some of it does fall under a separation of church and state issue. It doesn't make sense to me why people who don't believe as I do, under a government that is supposed to not take sides, can't have the freedom to do something that they don't think is wrong. (Did that make sense? :lol: ) I totally would have a lot to say if my church started marrying homosexuals - that would go against what we believe. But as long as the two stayed separate, I don't really see any reason to take issue with it. :)

[Jenny in Florida]

I'm guessing the company that you have a problem with is Exodus International then right? FOTF definitely doesn't fit that bill. I'm not really familiar with Exodus International, but after all this I'm definitely reading up on them.

 

Please take a look at the list of "social issues" with which Focus on the Family is concerned:

 

http://www.focusonthefamily.com/socialissues/social-issues/counseling-for-unwanted-same-sex-attractions/cause-for-concern.aspx

[Slartibartfast]

I see. I don't disagree with you there.

I honestly don't know what I personally think of 'gay marriage rights' (though I do hold to a traditional biblical standard of marriage), but I do think that the civil union idea makes sense, and that some of it does fall under a separation of church and state issue. It doesn't make sense to me why people who don't believe as I do, under a government that is supposed to not take sides, can't have the freedom to do something that they don't think is wrong. (Did that make sense? :lol: ) I totally would have a lot to say if my church started marrying homosexuals - that would go against what we believe. But as long as the two stayed separate, I don't really see any reason to take issue with it. :)

 

Then we are practically in accord.

 

I am ok with gay "marriage" if a church wants to do it. I don't think homosexuals should be denied "marriage" by the state. I also do not think churches should be forced into marrying anyone they don't want to.

Edited July 22, 2012 by Sis

[swellmomma]

*snort* My male cat can't stand the female cats. He goes over to the neighbour's window and chats with his male cat.

 

Ohh gay kitties...just what this thread needed.

[Mrs Mungo]

Ok, I'm still not 100% sure why my argument about voting is in opposition here... everyone votes based on their beliefs. And we vote, and that's constitutional. So I'm still lost. :confused:

 

But when we vote, the majority wins. That's just what happens.

Obviously everyone has equal rights. But when it comes down to people voting on whether or not marriage should equal one man and one woman (which is what I'm speaking of) people are going to vote based on their beliefs, and in many places that is what happened - marriage became defined as such.

I was just saying that we can't blame FotF for that, they aren't 'enforcing' anything on anyone - it was a whole process involving a lot more people than that.

 

No, that is not where the story ends.

 

Let me use a recent example. Oklahoma passed a law by popular vote that forbade courts from considering or using Sharia Law when making decisions. It was struck down in federal court because it violated the Establishment Clause of the Constitution. The judicial branch is a branch of government. It interprets the law. The Constitution is the highest law of the land. Once the judicial branch decides something is/is not Constitutional, then that decision *becomes* the law.

[Jenny in Florida]

But when we vote, the majority wins. That's just what happens.

 

Not exactly.

 

First of all, we vote for representatives, who then go on to debate and discuss issues and vote on our behalf. We do not decide public policy or make laws based on simple majority votes.

 

And then there's that whole balance of power thing, in which the laws that congress makes are subject to review by the courts, who can find said laws invalid if they violate our Constitution.

 

And I'm not even getting into the electoral college.

Edited July 22, 2012 by Jenny in Florida

[PeacefulChaos]

http://parentingbeyondbelief.com/

 

http://www.thesecularparent.com/

 

These two are explicitly secular and the first I found in a couple of seconds of Googling.

 

I have read lots of books about parenting, from an assortment of points of view. I would recommend stepping into the Parenting section of any bookstore and taking a look.

 

 

 

http://www.focusonthefamily.com/socialissues/social-issues.aspx

 

Yeah, like I said, I think my lack of knowledge in the area of secular parenting has a lot to do with lack of interest. :) You don't blame me for that, right? ;)

I am relatively familiar with their social issues, I guess I just haven't seen a lot of political activism on their part. But like I said, I really don't care much. I support businesses that supposedly give money to abortion clinics (or something - Idk, I don't pay attention :lol: ) and I'm anti-abortion, so I certainly don't pay much attention to businesses or organizations and where they give their money (the thought being that if I were going to be against any, it would be ones that are in direct opposition to my faith and beliefs).

Tbh, I actually get more annoyed with ones like HSLDA, which are supposed to be about homeschooling and are actually supporting causes that are completely unrelated. :D At least FotF has a general stance that is well known, so these things aren't surprising, kwim? :lol:

[Slartibartfast]

No, that is not where the story ends.

 

Let me use a recent example. Oklahoma passed a law by popular vote that forbade courts from considering or using Sharia Law when making decisions. It was struck down in federal court because it violated the Establishment Clause of the Constitution. The judicial branch is a branch of government. It interprets the law. The Constitution is the highest law of the land. Once the judicial branch decides something is/is not Constitutional, then that decision *becomes* the law.

 

That was pretty embarrassing. Talk about wasting money!

[Slartibartfast]

I don't know what "I'm a Barbie Girl" has to do with this thread, did people really start getting high? I thought that was a joke. :lol:

[PeacefulChaos]

Not exactly.

 

First of all, we vote for representatives, who then go on to debate and discuss issues and vote on our behalf. We do no decide public policy or make laws based on simple majority votes.

 

And then there's that whole balance of power thing, in which the laws that congress makes are subject to review by the courts, who can find said laws invalid if they violate our Constitution.

 

And I'm not even getting into the electoral college.

 

Well, yes. I did oversimplify. I apologize. :D I guess I was just trying to say that in defense of FotF - that they aren't some big thing enforcing rules on people that have no reason to be looking to them for guidance anyway. :)

[mommaduck]

Ohh gay kitties...just what this thread needed.

Either that or he's just ticked because he's an eunuch. We've started calling him a grumpy old man. He's decided that he's retired from hunting now that the females are around to do it for him. Too many females in this house for him.

[Lucy the Valiant]

Doing good doesn't undo something bad. Christians should be able to agree upon that, at the very least.

 

But not everyone agrees that Chik-fil-a is "doing something bad." That's the point: it's a religious interpretation.

 

Uh, there are *plenty* of businesses that are blocked from opening in this city or that due to people and reasons on both sides of the fence. It *is* perfecty legal, whether I like it or not.

 

Well, it happens - doesn't mean it's legal. :) (I'm thinking of the occupy movement in Boston, costing hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars, technically violating the city ordinance against sleeping on city streets.)

 

There are lots of things that the majority *cannot* just decide upon. Those are civil rights issue. I am strogly against a constitutional ban on gay marriage because the Bill of Rights (the first 10 amendments) was written to clarify inalienable rights-rights that are inherent and cannot be taken away. It wasn't used to *take away* rights from any group. That is wrong, IMO. If it can be done to one group, then it could be done to another.

 

If marriage is a *sacred sacrament* (and I think it is), then government has no business officiating it. Everyone should get a civil union and then they can choose an optional religious ceremony, if they wish. I don't want the government telling me that I cannot eat a bacon cheeseburger or go out on the Sabbath or that I must wear a hijab, therefore I should not be telling other people that they must follow the rules of my religion.

Partly kidding here, but - if that's true, I hope you don't live in Boston and want a soda to go with it!

 

 

:)

Edited July 22, 2012 by Katie

[Delirium]

I don't believe we should be ABLE to vote whether or not someone is deserving of Civil Rights based on a disagreement in religion.

 

A link for you!

[Jenny in Florida]

It doesn't make sense to me why people who don't believe as I do, under a government that is supposed to not take sides, can't have the freedom to do something that they don't think is wrong. (Did that make sense? :lol: )

 

It does make sense. And thank you! That's all most of us on this "side" have been trying to say. We respect your right to your beliefs, but we think we deserve the same respect for ours.

 

I totally would have a lot to say if my church started marrying homosexuals - that would go against what we believe. But as long as the two stayed separate, I don't really see any reason to take issue with it. :)

 

For what it's worth, there has never been any danger whatsoever of any law requiring any church to perform marriages that violate its beliefs. Every denomination in this country is allowed to set its own rules in that regard. They always have been. The idea that allowing same-sex marriages will in any way interfere with an individual church's (or denomination's) right to continue is a scare tactic.

[swellmomma]

I don't know what "I'm a Barbie Girl" has to do with this thread, did people really start getting high? I thought that was a joke. :lol:

 

we have a strict don't ask don't tell policy but the chickens say ask thepigs, they are guaranteed to squeal.

[Slartibartfast]

A link for you!

 

:)

[Lucy the Valiant]

For what it's worth, there has never been any danger whatsoever of any law requiring any church to perform marriages that violate its beliefs. Every denomination in this country is allowed to set its own rules in that regard. They always have been. The idea that allowing same-sex marriages will in any way interfere with an individual church's (or denomination's) right to continue is a scare tactic.

 

Except for the health care requirement that the Catholic and Lutheran organizations be required to provide birth control that they believe is un-biblical, right?

[PeacefulChaos]

It does make sense. And thank you! That's all most of us on this "side" have been trying to say. We respect your right to your beliefs, but we think we deserve the same respect for ours.

 

 

 

For what it's worth, there has never been any danger whatsoever of any law requiring any church to perform marriages that violate its beliefs. Every denomination in this country is allowed to set its own rules in that regard. They always have been. The idea that allowing same-sex marriages will in any way interfere with an individual church's (or denomination's) right to continue is a scare tactic.

 

And honestly, this is why I don't agree with the 'religious right' despite falling within their sphere regarding most issues. There is that subset that thinks that the nation should have laws based on Christian principles, but the purpose of separation of church and state is to keep it all separate - I'm not going to complain about 'no prayer in schools' because I don't want another religion to come along and be enforced on my kids (if they went to school :lol: ). A lot of people don't get that. It's a huge thing among Christians that 'America is a Christian nation' or 'We need to get prayer back in schools!' and I'm thinking, NO, we DON'T need to get prayer back in schools because I want to KNOW what my kids are praying and I don't want it to be something that we, as a family, don't believe in! So I certainly don't want to open that door that our religion needs to have that right, because then any religion gets the same right. Religion is a personal issue, not a governmental one.

Anyway, sorry... off my soapbox. :D

[Jenny in Florida]

But not everyone agrees that Chik-fil-a is "doing something bad." That's the point: it's a religious interpretation.

 

 

Of course not. But wasn't your argument that we shouldn't blame Chik-fil-a for giving money to organizations whose missions we think are reprehensible, because they ALSO give money to "good" ones?

 

It's not about "everyone." It's about the company's policies and corporate giving.

[Jenny in Florida]

Except for the health care requirement that the Catholic and Lutheran organizations be required to provide birth control that they believe is un-biblical, right?

 

I actually don't support that. I think the administration (and the court) got that one wrong.

 

I apologize for not being more clear. I was referring specifically to legally permitting same-sex marriages.

[Jenny in Florida]

And honestly, this is why I don't agree with the 'religious right' despite falling within their sphere regarding most issues. There is that subset that thinks that the nation should have laws based on Christian principles, but the purpose of separation of church and state is to keep it all separate - I'm not going to complain about 'no prayer in schools' because I don't want another religion to come along and be enforced on my kids (if they went to school :lol: ). A lot of people don't get that. It's a huge thing among Christians that 'America is a Christian nation' or 'We need to get prayer back in schools!' and I'm thinking, NO, we DON'T need to get prayer back in schools because I want to KNOW what my kids are praying and I don't want it to be something that we, as a family, don't believe in! So I certainly don't want to open that door that our religion needs to have that right, because then any religion gets the same right. Religion is a personal issue, not a governmental one.

Anyway, sorry... off my soapbox. :D

 

It's a good soapbox. I wish everyone with whom I disagree about the big stuff was as thoughtful as you are!

[Mrs Mungo]

Well, yes. I did oversimplify. I apologize. :D I guess I was just trying to say that in defense of FotF - that they aren't some big thing enforcing rules on people that have no reason to be looking to them for guidance anyway. :)

 

If they are fighting for/against certain laws *based upon a Christian belief*, then, yes, they are trying to impose their beliefs onto someone else.

 

From Katie:

But not everyone agrees that Chik-fil-a is "doing something bad." That's the point: it's a religious interpretation.

 

That doesn't have anything to do with it. If Mary Sue believes that X is wrong, then the fact that CF also does Y is not going to fix the issue with X.

 

Well, it happens - doesn't mean it's legal. (I'm thinking of the occupy movement in Boston, costing hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars, technically violating the city ordinance against sleeping on city streets.)

 

If CF doesn't think it is legal, then they can go to court with Wal-Mart and strip clubs and bars and dirty magazines and whatever other businesses people fight.

 

Partly kidding here, but - if that's true, I hope you don't live in Boston and want a soda to go with it!

 

I love soda. But, cities that have outlawed giant sodas can do so because it has nothing to do with religion. Heck, there are still tons of dry counties in the south.

[Dory]

Please take a look at the list of "social issues" with which Focus on the Family is concerned:

 

http://www.focusonthefamily.com/socialissues/social-issues/counseling-for-unwanted-same-sex-attractions/cause-for-concern.aspx

 

I don't see anything hateful in that. A different point of view, but not hateful. FOTF is one of the few organizations that has supported me and given me help when I was ready to sign out of life. They might not have agreed with my views, but they never made me feel hated or unloved because of that.

[PeacefulChaos]

Totally random, but I'm starting to wonder if outlawing giant sodas wouldn't be a good thing. :D

 

Get your contraband 64oz Dr. Pepper here! :leaving:

 

Ok, now I KNOW it's getting way too late. :D :lol:

 

ETA: Oh my goodness... I just was thinking that this thread was doing good things for my post total and I noticed Mrs. Mungo's... wow. I'm a total slacker. :lol:

[PeacefulChaos]

If they are fighting for/against certain laws *based upon a Christian belief*, then, yes, they are trying to impose their beliefs onto someone else.

 

 

True. I guess that's where the whole civil rights thing comes into play. I hadn't thought of it that way.

[Lucy the Valiant]

Of course not. But wasn't your argument that we shouldn't blame Chik-fil-a for giving money to organizations whose missions we think are reprehensible, because they ALSO give money to "good" ones?

 

It's not about "everyone." It's about the company's policies and corporate giving.

 

No, my argument was that Chik-fil-a has done nothing at all illegal, and is a company that gives millions of dollars to people who are hurting and need the help. To paint them as "rabidly anti-gay" is laughable, when you look at the numbers and the types of people they are helping. (If it's ok for our taxes to fund Planned Parenthood even though they perform abortions, then it should also be ok for a PRIVATE COMPANY to fund organizations that "you" (generic you) find reprehensible, especially because you don't have to participate (unlike the Christians who HAVE to support PP through taxes.)

 

I actually don't support that. I think the administration (and the court) got that one wrong.

 

I apologize for not being more clear. I was referring specifically to legally permitting same-sex marriages.

 

But if the government can force religious organizations to insure people for birth control that they consider immoral, what is to stop the government from forcing those same religious organizations to marry gays?

 

I'd hardly call that a "scare tactic" when the power-grab and enforced-political-correctness is already happening.