Huff Post: Chick-Fil-A Agrees To Cease Funding To Anti-Gay Organizations, Chicago LGBT Group Claims

[twa]

I wasn't impressed with Bojangles

[Predicto]

As an aside, we ate at In N Out Burger last night, and as I lifted up my iced tea cup and saw the "John 3:16" printed underneath once again, and strangely enough, it wasn't an issue.

But if In N Out or its owners start using its profits to sponsor anti-gay groups, then I feel I will have to give them up too, and that would be a real tragedy.

[DC9]

I think it's pretty easy to NOT be anti-gay, but still be against gay marraige.

[The Evil Genius]

As an aside, we ate at In N Out Burger last night, and as I lifted up my iced tea cup and saw the "John 3:16" printed underneath once again, and strangely enough, it wasn't an issue.

But if In N Out or its owners start using its profits to sponsor anti-gay groups, then I feel I will have to give them up too, and that would be a real tragedy.

It's on the burger wrappers too, I think. I would be devastated if they did that..not sure if I could quit them.

[Kosher Ham]

I think it's pretty easy to NOT be anti-gay, but still be against gay marraige.

Thus making marriage the problem ?

I might agree. Maybe.

[Jumbo]

I sure wouldn't give up a place just because it printed "John 3:16" or "Praise Allah" or "There is no God" on a wrapper or cup.

I am curious as to how many Christians, specifically, (especially those who thought that withdrawing your business from CFA was "wrong-headed" or "dumb"in some way) would be fine with "a", or "a" & "b", but not "c", in terms of continuing to eat there. Or maybe if it said "We support abortion rights."

[Major Harris]

Try a Wendys chicken sandwich and you'll really wonder what the Fila-A hoopla is about. Even the McD's (I know right) chicken club is on par or better then Fil-A. The only thing I can think is that those that rave about Fil-A must've had Momma's that couldn't cook worth a **** and don't know what good food is.

Chick-Fil-A is the soccer of fast food chains in America if you get my drift.

that is so funny. i love it when someone is so confidently off base.

[Predicto]

I think it's pretty easy to NOT be anti-gay, but still be against gay marraige.

I don't. I think it's an intellectually dishonest position that requires a lot of empty rationalization.

But I guess that my personal point of view getting in the way too, I guess.

[The Evil Genius]

I'm not a racist white dude but I don't want my daughter marrying them colored folk.

[Predicto]

I'm not a racist white dude but I don't want my daughter marrying them colored folk.

And I don't want any colored folk being allowed to marry any white folk, even if it has nothing to do with my family. It's not natural.

[Jumbo]

Thus making marriage the problem ?

I might agree. Maybe.

Restricting the use of term "marriage" on a religious basis still a deal-breaker with me.

We have a challenging situation, obviously.

Christianity (while of numerous denominations and not of one voice in all things of course) is the dominant religion in the U.S by a large margin. Christianity is firmly on record (up to now) that same-sex sexual activity is a sin. If you commit sins deliberately and repeatedly without repentance or desire to change, your soul is at risk (according to Christian dogma). This is widely held as core truth even allowing for noted differences among denominations.

So if two people of the same sex, who love each other are in an otherwise typical and even monogamous legal union, actually express that love in the physical manners heterosexual people are "sanctioned" to do by Christian dogma, they are likely ****ed (spiritually, not physically). Christianity offers a work-around (often sincere among many practioners) via saying "love the sinner but not the sin", but it doesn't change the actual dogma's position on the "act", and it's very hard to "work around" the glaring cognitive dissonance so many people of many beliefs (including many Christians) find in this matter, or the social stigma and discrimination (in differing forms) it enables and facilitates.

Freedom to use the term marriage is a much more powerful step to a broadly applied social change on the level of discrimination applied to such relationships than making"civil unions" the "ok" way to do it and fencing off "marrige" simply for those whose consenting adult sexual activities is of a nature "approved by Christianity's construct of God."

And a related point I often make (usually ignored) is that there have been times where masturbation, oral sex, unmarried sex, and certainly threesomes have all been cast as sinful and unacceptable behaviors, yet I know few Christian males who haven't enthusiastically embraced (no pun intended) most if not all of those acts---and I won't even mention porn. Yet in our social dialogues, those people would not be held to anything like the same level of "ewwww" or "lesser-than" activities.

Like I also often point out, the "prosecuting" of sin is very uneven and always has been. As long as religion is a part of our human experiecne, than ideally I hope to see Christianity eventually reduce it's fervor on the homosexual focus to the same level of intensity they currently give "unmarried sex" and masturbation.

[Kosher Ham]

This thread has doomed written alll over it too.

Checking myself. I need to stay on topic.

Folks need to worry about people rights. Just because I don't support this businesses choice to support this cause, I have no issue with others supporting it. I do find it odd (and unsettling) when people of that genre support it though (saw that a few weeks ago).

---------- Post added September-20th-2012 at 01:32 PM ----------

Of course you respond to that one Jumbo...as I am getting ready to go out the door. I will respond soon enough, I think we will agree on some and I will have a point on some others (or maybe not, it is me anyway).

[Jumbo]

This thread has doomed written alll over it too. Checking myself. I need to stay on topic.

Some other poster actually PM'ed me with this story when it first broke and asked about posting it since two previous threads on CFA and the policy had eventually been closed for a mix of a "too stupid too often" and a "repeating repeat loop loop repeating" nature.

Here was my reply--

Well, amigo--first let me thank you for how you actually checked in first. That's a sign of true love and respect for the forum over any particular POV on a hot topic and we all (the staff and many members I kow well) appreciate it. Well done. When I closed the thread I did what I often do in that kind of matter and stated that if some future article of a really new and meaningful nature came out, another thread could be started. I think this certainly qualifies. And if it turns into another crapfest, it can simply be shut down or people can be appropriately dealt as merited on an individual basis.

Now I think what happened is that P opened it (which is fine of course) before this guy heard back from me (and I still appreciate how he asked).

But given how quick this thread did become headed towards that same ole same ole, I actually though some of the OT humor and any other digressions or somewhat meaningful tangents (so don't over-restrain yourself if you have a good one) can only help, not hurt, this thread's cause lol. We will see.

[twa]

I sure wouldn't give up a place just because it printed "John 3:16" or "Praise Allah" or "There is no God" on a wrapper or cup.

I am curious as to how many Christians, specifically, (especially those who thought that withdrawing your business from CFA was "wrong-headed" or "dumb"in some way) would be fine with "a", or "a" & "b", but not "c", in terms of continuing to eat there. Or maybe if it said "We support abortion rights."

Printing is so much more in your face ,than say a CEO or company donating to a cause

It would depend on the quality of food ....I don't deprive myself of pleasure for others errors

It is a bad road to go down (boycotts) over differences of opinion.

[Jumbo]

It is a bad road to go down (boycotts) over differences of opinion.

I really do get that, and have at least some agreement with it.

But I also took to heart an early-heard concept---"voting with your feet and your wallet." And it meant that it's my call, and in many cases my responsibility, to evaluate consequences of my actions, and to be aware of just how much I have choices, in as much detail as I have the energy and competency to do.

Hence, if I'm in a gathering where I start to hear certain **** that I find too "wrong" to my values, I may confront it openly then and there or I may leave then and there ("voting with your feet"). It's not "running away" in those cases, it's making a strong statement of disapproval. If I don't know something of such a troubling (to me) nature, it's different. But if it becomes known to me, and I choose to withdraw any action of mine that might enable it (i.e. "voting with my wallet"), then I still lean towards the idea that such is the thing to do. It's all about consciously weighing the matter and being informed---giving it real thought when it's of any import, not just reacting from a quick and reflexive comfort zone (even if that's the nature of my initial thought). I do give a great deal of valuable time, however, to things I "don't agree with" or "believe in" on a certain personal level, too (like religious groups).

I think for some of us it comes down how vital we see the issue or how extreme the expression of opposition is, of course. I do "hear" you. Freedoms can be delicate.