• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day brings out supporters, protesters [W:529]

I don't think there's one poster here who would disagree with that. The arguments mostly come from the intolerance that's being shown by those who attack religion based on their views on gay marriage. IMO, churches get a pass. Otherwise, we don't really have freedom of religion in this country.

They can believe whatever they want. That doesn't mean that it isn't ignorant...and when they cross the line from religious belief to advocating discriminatory public policy, that's reprehensible.

We villify corporations for their inhumanity all the time. Here's a solid, faith-based company who, by all accounts, treats its employees and franchisees while looking through the lens of Christian Values. Yet we bash them in the head for that. Surely many religions don't embrace SSM. Have we villifed them? Are we picketting in front of their synagogs, mosques and chapels? No. We're not. But let the owner of a company walk the walk? We're ready to hang 'im from the highest tree.

I just don't get it.

It's a lot easier to hold the head of a business accountable than to hold a church accountable.
 
I think they view the civil concept of marriage as utterly inappropriate anyway. That's why most of them don't balk at "civil unions". As far as they're concerned it doesn't mean anything because it isn't "marriage", which, according to them, belongs solely to religion. As you and I both know, marriage neither began with or will end with religion...but we're talking about thousands of years of indoctrination.

Actually that's not true, when civil unions have come up most of the people against SSM are also against civil unions, and pass laws that block same sex civil unions, or limit their power.
 
Anybody spraying the bowl last night after supporting the homophobes at Chik-Fil-A?
 
The intensity of groups like the KKK and the Nazi Party is higher than that of groups like the Family Research Council. However, the reality is that both spread hateful messages about those whom they perceive as less than them and who they don't believe are worthy of the same treatment for arbitrary reasons. As a result, the comparison is a fair one if you understand what's being compared.

Again....comparing a company (chick-fil-a) whose charitable arm (wingate) then gives money to another group (FRC) that does many good things as well as some hateful things as well to flat out a group like the KKK or the Nazi Party is ridiculous and goes beyond simply "intensity".
 
I think they view the civil concept of marriage as utterly inappropriate anyway. That's why most of them don't balk at "civil unions". As far as they're concerned it doesn't mean anything because it isn't "marriage", which, according to them, belongs solely to religion. As you and I both know, marriage neither began with or will end with religion...but we're talking about thousands of years of indoctrination.

Tess, I think if they hold the view that the institution of marriage should be under the sole purview of the Church, then they shouldn't even bother with trying to shape secular marriage since in their eyes secular marriage has no validity. They simply have to face the fact that the civil and secular institution of marriage exists whether they like it or not, and apply their own beliefs to the religious institution rather than the secular and civil one. Just because I'm a Hindu who believes that cows are deities and that the consumption of beef is offensive to me doesn't justify me making beef consumption illegal for everyone else.
 
In this case they appear to be one in the same. Just because people politisize a religious belief does not stop it from being a religious belief.

It's not about "politicizing" a religious belief.

If you believe that marriage, a LEGAL term, shouldn't be recognized under the law as being able to be between two men or two women...that's a POLITICAL view.

Your reasoning may be religious in nature, but you're speaking about a POLITICAL issue.

Because your reasoning is based on religion makes your view no less unable to be attacked then if your reasoning was based on science, philosophy, personal experience, political ideology, or any other reason that leads one to take a political stance.
 
So you've never voted for an individual on the national or state level that's contributed their vote to restricting of individuals rights regarding the ownership and carrying of firearms? I would say voting is "political action". I find it hard to believe given the gun laws present in the state you live. Or is it basically that restricting of rights is something that you selectively have issues with depending on how you personally value the right and the importance of the right and the level in which you feel the government should be okay in involving itself in that right?

I've never voted in a local or state level election, including Congress. The one ballot I have ever cast was for Obama.
 
Again....comparing a company (chick-fil-a) whose charitable arm (wingate) then gives money to another group (FRC) that does many good things as well as some hateful things as well to flat out a group like the KKK or the Nazi Party is ridiculous and goes beyond simply "intensity".

What hateful things does the FRC do? I don't see it.
 
The intensity of groups like the KKK and the Nazi Party is higher than that of groups like the Family Research Council. However, the reality is that both spread hateful messages about those whom they perceive as less than them and who they don't believe are worthy of the same treatment for arbitrary reasons. As a result, the comparison is a fair one if you understand what's being compared.

your issue appears to be with the family research council not with chick fil a. Chick fil a gives money to the winshape foundation. The winshape foundation makes donations to huge list of charities many of which are christian based. They also give millions to helping the poor, help homeless kids find permanent homes, puts kids through college, and much more. The winshape foundation has made america a better place.

As far as their involvement with the family research council have you really looked into that? I am curious because from what I was able to find Winshape donated $1000 to them in 2009. Futhermore the FRC does more than just oppress gay people. They oppose gay marriage, abortion, divorce, stem cell research and pornography. Whether Mr. Cathy believes in all those things or some or all of their practices they use to promote their message we dont really know. All anyone around here wants to do is assume since he gave them 1000 dollars out of 9 million that he donated to what he thinks will help make the world a better place is he is doing to oppress gays. For all you know all he opposes as far as gays is them being allowed to be married. He may support civil unions, and fully rights to gay couple under that heading, and support all other gay rights. But so many only see what they want.
 
Again....comparing a company (chick-fil-a) whose charitable arm (wingate) then gives money to another group (FRC) that does many good things as well as some hateful things as well to flat out a group like the KKK or the Nazi Party is ridiculous and goes beyond simply "intensity".
I don't think people have been comparing Chik Fil A to those entities. I think they've compared FRC to those groups - which is understandable. And it doesn't matter if FRC does "good things." The KKK and the Nazis did good things as well - they were still hate groups. I also find it hilarious that you minimize the hateful things they do by saying they do "some" hateful things and exaggerate the good things by saying they do "many." Please.
 
They spread propaganda that gays are pedophiles.

Link for this? I quickly scanned their website and found nothing even remotely suggesting that. Maybe I missed it? Never mind. Google is my friend. ;)

And they do claim a connection between homosexuality and pedophilia. No doubt. Are we sure they're wrong? Is it possible that pedophilia is committed much more often by homosexual males? I don't know. We know one thing for sure: pedophiles are incurable.
 
Last edited:
Tess, I think if they hold the view that the institution of marriage should be under the sole purview of the Church, then they shouldn't even bother with trying to shape secular marriage since in their eyes secular marriage has no validity. They simply have to face the fact that the civil and secular institution of marriage exists whether they like it or not, and apply their own beliefs to the religious institution rather than the secular and civil one. Just because I'm a Hindu who believes that cows are deities and that the consumption of beef is offensive to me doesn't justify me making beef consumption illegal for everyone else.

You're approaching as somebody with no religious affiliation. The mindset of and education given to members of any religion creates a different idea of how to handle those who don't agree or don't practice as you've been instructed. "Live and let live" is not a long-standing mentality in any major world religion. Conversion through request or force has been a key tenant of religion for thousands of years.

I'm not saying I don't agree with you. I'm just saying it's much easier to say or assume that certain behaviors must be exhibited by a religious body than to actually make them happen. Think of how you feel when you're told by the religious that you need to accept the behaviors you don't like? It's the same for them, and they think they're just as correct as you think you are.

We'll never 'win' the victories we expect if we refuse to understand the motivation of the opposition. And it's so much deeper than "the bible says".
 
this type of disrespect toward religion is just as bad as any anti gay remarks anyone else has made. mr cathy said his opinion about what marriage was, this is just openly mocking millions of people because their beliefs are different. Why does no one around here condemn these types of remarks?

Get this through your head. Their's is a twisted version of 'religion.' They are like the WBC.

Christ NEVER SAID ANYTHING ABOUT HOMOSEXUALITY.

The CORE MESSAGE of CHRIST is LOVE AND TOLERANCE.
 
Link for this? I quickly scanned their website and found nothing even remotely suggesting that. Maybe I missed it?

The Southern Poverty Law Center classifies them as a hate group. Here are a few of their gems:

“Gaining access to children has been a long-term goal of the homosexual movement.”
— Robert Knight, FRC director of cultural studies, and Frank York, 1999

“[Homosexuality] … embodies a deep-seated hatred against true religion.”
— Steven Schwalm, FRC senior writer and analyst, in “Desecrating Corpus Christi,” 1999

“One of the primary goals of the homosexual rights movement is to abolish all age of consent laws and to eventually recognize pedophiles as the ‘prophets' of a new sexual order.”
-1999 FRC pamphlet, Homosexual Activists Work to Normalize Sex with Boys.

“[T]he evidence indicates that disproportionate numbers of gay men seek adolescent males or boys as sexual partners.”
— Timothy Dailey, senior research fellow, “Homosexuality and Child Sexual Abuse,” 2002

“While activists like to claim that pedophilia is a completely distinct orientation from homosexuality, evidence shows a disproportionate overlap between the two. … It is a homosexual problem.”
— FRC President Tony Perkins, FRC website, 2010

Family Research Council | Southern Poverty Law Center
 
Last edited:
What hateful things does the FRC do? I don't see it.

Was largely going with the posters premise and showing even if accepting his premise, the idea that is should be equivilent or significantly viewed on a similar level as still wrong.

That said...IF the things I've read as criticisms to the group and it's head guy are true (which ironically, they complain about the lack of peer review of some of the things FRC has put out...while the page I'm looking at has them not sourcing their claims against them at all) then I'd likely agree. It's one thing to feel that same sex couples should not be granted additional governmental privledges for marriage...it's another thing to suggest that homosexuality be made a crime or suggesting that gays and single people should be taxed heavily for their failure to have children, not to mention pushing the notion that the primary reason there's a push for protecting homosexual rights is simply “seeking to legitimize child-adult homosexual sex.”
 
Last edited:
your issue appears to be with the family research council not with chick fil a. Chick fil a gives money to the winshape foundation. The winshape foundation makes donations to huge list of charities many of which are christian based. They also give millions to helping the poor, help homeless kids find permanent homes, puts kids through college, and much more. The winshape foundation has made america a better place.

As far as their involvement with the family research council have you really looked into that? I am curious because from what I was able to find Winshape donated $1000 to them in 2009. Futhermore the FRC does more than just oppress gay people. They oppose gay marriage, abortion, divorce, stem cell research and pornography. Whether Mr. Cathy believes in all those things or some or all of their practices they use to promote their message we dont really know. All anyone around here wants to do is assume since he gave them 1000 dollars out of 9 million that he donated to what he thinks will help make the world a better place is he is doing to oppress gays. For all you know all he opposes as far as gays is them being allowed to be married. He may support civil unions, and fully rights to gay couple under that heading, and support all other gay rights. But so many only see what they want.
No, my issue is with any person or entity that supports, financially or otherwise, groups that spread unjust hateful messages and support arbitrary discrimination against other groups. Chik Fil A and its CEO among other members fit that bill. Furthermore, the FRC is not the only intolerant group that the Winshape foundation has donated to. Exodus International, the NCF, the FCA and other groups are similar in nature.

I understand that these groups help other individuals, but that help does undo the harm that they do. Other more intensely hateful groups like the KKK did good things for their communities and for other people. Those good actions don't erase their hateful ones.
 
Last edited:
Get this through your head. Their's is a twisted version of 'religion.' They are like the WBC.

Christ NEVER SAID ANYTHING ABOUT HOMOSEXUALITY.

The CORE MESSAGE of CHRIST is LOVE AND TOLERANCE.

i can respect that statment. its the "invisible man in the sky" bit you keep pitching that i have a problem with.
 
Link for this? I quickly scanned their website and found nothing even remotely suggesting that. Maybe I missed it? Never mind. Google is my friend. ;)

And they do claim a connection between homosexuality and pedophilia. No doubt. Are we sure they're wrong? Is it possible that pedophilia is committed much more often by homosexual males? I don't know. We know one thing for sure: pedophiles are incurable.

Homosexuality and pedophilia are two very different things.


Facts About Homosexuality and Child Molestation
 
i can respect that statment. its the "invisible man in the sky" bit you keep pitching that i have a problem with.


Wish I could take credit, but it's a Ricky Gervais bit.
 
Oh so he was "running his mouth" was he.

He wasn't talking about a political issue with his so-called right to free speech, he was "running his mouth". mmmmhmmmm.

"Tomato"

"Tom-ah-to"

Running your mouth is excercising free speech. It's only a First Amendment issue if the government gets involved.
 
I don't think people have been comparing Chik Fil A to those entities. I think they've compared FRC to those groups - which is understandable. And it doesn't matter if FRC does "good things."

If people are simply talking about FRC, then I have less of an issue. However, last I checked FRC isn't running "chicken shops" which was where I first saw the attempt to compare Chick-Fil-A to Nazi's and Westboro.

With regards to the "good" things, I was listing FRC as one such group as I've heard some complaining about Chick-Fil-A as them donating to "multiple" so I imagine there are more than just the FRC. I'll be forthright in stating I don't know a ton about the FRC and all I've reliably found so far is the SPLC blurb on them which, to be fair as it's my general stance that regardless of side places that seem to have a specific agenda are ones I don't immedietely just take as 100% gospel, is largely unsourced and the few sources they have are sourcing themselves. So my comments regarding the man/some were off base, and poorly got across my actual point in my head which was that there can be a difference between giving money to a group DUE to the hateful things they do and due to other things they do despite the hateful one. Now, that's not suggesting either thing is good as ultimately you're still aiding a group doing a hateful things, and I get that...but when talking about intensity and level of culpability and the amount of hate rightfully put towards an individual or group, I think such a notion is important. When one is attempting to place hateful actions done by a group 2 or 3 steps down the line from Chick-Fil-A proper back onto Chick-Fil-A DIRECTLY...such as in the suggestion its "hate chicken"...then that to me matters a bit on the level at which such criticisms should be cast.

-edit-

Thanks Khand for another link. I'm somewhat annoyed that their siting of things is done without any kind of link and without any kind of significant layout to make it simple to actually research and look up, but at least in that link rather than the first one I found they do site. However, it's all mostly the pedophile stuff (Which I view as hateful, but largely ignorant as well). The thing I'm curious about is their statement regarding their head guy claiming homosexuality should be illegal...that one is the giant red flag beyond all else to me, but the sourcing of it was ridiculous broad and has not helped one bit in actually finding the article to actuall see the real quotes.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom