Chick Fil A caves to LGBTQ coercion

ALAYMAN

Well-known member
Doctor
Elect
Joined
Feb 2, 2012
Messages
9,277
Reaction score
2,924
Points
113
Chick Fil A Caves in what can only be seen a path dictated by the Benjamins.  As a fan of their business model, but not their food, I am truly disappointed in their choice here. 
 
ALAYMAN said:
Chick Fil A Caves in what can only be seen a path dictated by the Benjamins.  As a fan of their business model, but not their food, I am truly disappointed in their choice here.

Though I applaud their limiting their support for anti-gay organizations, they have once again proven, as you said, it is all about "the Benjamins".

I would much rather them make those limitations based on the principle of equality but in the end, as with many capitalists, it is all about the final line, even if that means compromising principle. Kanye is abusing the Christian faith using this capitalistic model:

https://consequenceofsound.net/2019/04/kanye-west-church-clothes-sunday-service-coachella-merch/

As with most Kanye-produced merch, the Sunday Service church clothes didn?t come cheaply. Sweatshirts ranged from $165 to $225, while t-shirts set fans back at least $70. The most affordable items up for grabs were the socks, which had a price tag of $50.
 
Smellin Coffee said:
ALAYMAN said:
Chick Fil A Caves in what can only be seen a path dictated by the Benjamins.  As a fan of their business model, but not their food, I am truly disappointed in their choice here.

Though I applaud their limiting their support for anti-gay organizations, they have once again proven, as you said, it is all about "the Benjamins".

Alleged anti-gay - I don't see how Salvation Army is anti-gay since they give more to poor LGBTQ than any other group.

Either way, Christian mandates are given to individuals not businesses or governments, so it doesn't bother me when a corporation supports or doesn't support a particular group - in the same way it bothers me when the government forces people to support or not support a particular group.
 
As long as CFA doesn't support trans going into the women's restrooms, I don't care to whom they give their money.

I don't eat there anyway.
 
voicecrying said:
Smellin Coffee said:
ALAYMAN said:
Chick Fil A Caves in what can only be seen a path dictated by the Benjamins.  As a fan of their business model, but not their food, I am truly disappointed in their choice here.

Though I applaud their limiting their support for anti-gay organizations, they have once again proven, as you said, it is all about "the Benjamins".

Alleged anti-gay - I don't see how Salvation Army is anti-gay since they give more to poor LGBTQ than any other group.

This is true. The Salvation Army does not discriminate against LGBTQ (those in need) based on their sexuality. They are opposed to homosexuality, though:

The Bible teaches that God's intention for humankind is that society should be ordered on the basis of lifelong, legally sanctioned heterosexual unions. ... A disposition towards homosexuality is not in itself blameworthy nor is the disposition seen as rectifiable at will. ... Homosexual practice however, is, in the light of Scripture, clearly unacceptable. Such activity is chosen behaviour and is thus a matter of the will. It is therefore able to be directed or restrained in the same way heterosexual urges are controlled. Homosexual practice would render any person ineligible for full membership (soldiership) in the Army.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Salvation_Army#Positional_Statements
 
Smellin Coffee said:
This is true. The Salvation Army does not discriminate against LGBTQ (those in need) based on their sexuality. They are opposed to homosexuality, though:

The Bible teaches that God's intention for humankind is that society should be ordered on the basis of lifelong, legally sanctioned heterosexual unions. ... A disposition towards homosexuality is not in itself blameworthy nor is the disposition seen as rectifiable at will. ... Homosexual practice however, is, in the light of Scripture, clearly unacceptable. Such activity is chosen behaviour and is thus a matter of the will. It is therefore able to be directed or restrained in the same way heterosexual urges are controlled. Homosexual practice would render any person ineligible for full membership (soldiership) in the Army.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Salvation_Army#Positional_Statements

Believing it is wrong is far different than the way "anti-gay" is militantly used in the culture today.

Anyone who applauds less funds being donated to the Salvation Army is truly anti-gay - AND anti-humanitarian :)

 
voicecrying said:
Smellin Coffee said:
This is true. The Salvation Army does not discriminate against LGBTQ (those in need) based on their sexuality. They are opposed to homosexuality, though:

The Bible teaches that God's intention for humankind is that society should be ordered on the basis of lifelong, legally sanctioned heterosexual unions. ... A disposition towards homosexuality is not in itself blameworthy nor is the disposition seen as rectifiable at will. ... Homosexual practice however, is, in the light of Scripture, clearly unacceptable. Such activity is chosen behaviour and is thus a matter of the will. It is therefore able to be directed or restrained in the same way heterosexual urges are controlled. Homosexual practice would render any person ineligible for full membership (soldiership) in the Army.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Salvation_Army#Positional_Statements

Believing it is wrong is far different than the way "anti-gay" is militantly used in the culture today.

Anyone who applauds less funds being donated to the Salvation Army is truly anti-gay - AND anti-humanitarian :)

It seems like the LGBTQ crowd would rather die than be offended.  I've noticed they seem to care more now when one of their own commits suicide than when one has AIDS.  They know they can't blame someone else for them getting AIDS but suicide is blamed on homophobia. Not all who are gay or transgender are like this so I'm not broadbrushing.   
 
voicecrying said:
Smellin Coffee said:
This is true. The Salvation Army does not discriminate against LGBTQ (those in need) based on their sexuality. They are opposed to homosexuality, though:

The Bible teaches that God's intention for humankind is that society should be ordered on the basis of lifelong, legally sanctioned heterosexual unions. ... A disposition towards homosexuality is not in itself blameworthy nor is the disposition seen as rectifiable at will. ... Homosexual practice however, is, in the light of Scripture, clearly unacceptable. Such activity is chosen behaviour and is thus a matter of the will. It is therefore able to be directed or restrained in the same way heterosexual urges are controlled. Homosexual practice would render any person ineligible for full membership (soldiership) in the Army.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Salvation_Army#Positional_Statements

Believing it is wrong is far different than the way "anti-gay" is militantly used in the culture today.

Anyone who applauds less funds being donated to the Salvation Army is truly anti-gay - AND anti-humanitarian :)

Do you feel the same way about Planned Parenthood since only 3 - 10% of their services are abortions?
 
Smellin Coffee said:
Do you feel the same way about Planned Parenthood since only 3 - 10% of their services are abortions?

Do you feel the same way about Donald Trump, for whom sexual predation is probably considerably less than 3% of what he does?
 
Ransom said:
Smellin Coffee said:
Do you feel the same way about Planned Parenthood since only 3 - 10% of their services are abortions?

Do you feel the same way about Donald Trump, for whom sexual predation is probably considerably less than 3% of what he does?

Touche'!
 
Smellin Coffee said:
voicecrying said:
Smellin Coffee said:
Believing it is wrong is far different than the way "anti-gay" is militantly used in the culture today.

Anyone who applauds less funds being donated to the Salvation Army is truly anti-gay - AND anti-humanitarian :)

Do you feel the same way about Planned Parenthood since only 3 - 10% of their services are abortions?

I have the individual Christian mandate to protect the defenseless. I stand against Planned Parenthood because they are murdering defenseless human beings who were created in the image of God.
 
As this revolution has already gained a full head of cultural steam I fear (and I am not a chicken-little kinda guy) that the coercive tactics used in private businesses will eventually leak over to public utilities (water, electric, sanitation, etc). 

"You think there are only two genders comrade"?  ....





"NO WATER FOR YOU!"

:eek:


:-[
 
voicecrying said:
I have the individual Christian mandate to protect the defenseless. I stand against Planned Parenthood because they are murdering defenseless human beings who were created in the image of God.

So in your "protecting" the 3% of the defenseless from death, you are OK with risking the health and even extended life of the other 97%, ALL of whom were also created in the image of the same God.

Got it.
 
Ransom said:
Smellin Coffee said:
Do you feel the same way about Planned Parenthood since only 3 - 10% of their services are abortions?

Do you feel the same way about Donald Trump, for whom sexual predation is probably considerably less than 3% of what he does?
Zing!
 
Smellin Coffee said:
voicecrying said:
I have the individual Christian mandate to protect the defenseless. I stand against Planned Parenthood because they are murdering defenseless human beings who were created in the image of God.

So in your "protecting" the 3% of the defenseless from death, you are OK with risking the health and even extended life of the other 97%, ALL of whom were also created in the image of the same God.

Got it.

Yes, absolutely.  In trying to minimize the health risks and to extend the life of the other 90-97% (you left out the range in trying to condemn me), are you OK with murdering the 3-10%?
 
Smellin Coffee said:
This is true. The Salvation Army does not discriminate against LGBTQ (those in need) based on their sexuality. They are opposed to homosexuality, though:

The Bible teaches that God's intention for humankind is that society should be ordered on the basis of lifelong, legally sanctioned heterosexual unions. ... A disposition towards homosexuality is not in itself blameworthy nor is the disposition seen as rectifiable at will. ... Homosexual practice however, is, in the light of Scripture, clearly unacceptable. Such activity is chosen behaviour and is thus a matter of the will. It is therefore able to be directed or restrained in the same way heterosexual urges are controlled. Homosexual practice would render any person ineligible for full membership (soldiership) in the Army.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Salvation_Army#Positional_Statements

Oh the humanity! Haters!  ::)
 
This article sums up how I'm feeling about the whole story (especially the last paragraph):

https://relevantmagazine.com/current/heres-whats-actually-going-on-with-the-chick-fil-a-charitable-giving-controversy/?fbclid=IwAR3cUtOspP7VF8YBzEJ27HtereFJFa0lxLXbcrHYh4-MGH-ZteTkUJKbJ78
 
voicecrying said:
Smellin Coffee said:
voicecrying said:
I have the individual Christian mandate to protect the defenseless. I stand against Planned Parenthood because they are murdering defenseless human beings who were created in the image of God.

So in your "protecting" the 3% of the defenseless from death, you are OK with risking the health and even extended life of the other 97%, ALL of whom were also created in the image of the same God.

Got it.

Yes, absolutely.  In trying to minimize the health risks and to extend the life of the other 90-97% (you left out the range in trying to condemn me), are you OK with murdering the 3-10%?

I am opposed to abortion being used as birth control. For situations involving the physical and/or mental health of the baby or mother, that is a decision that should be made by the mother, her family and her medical counsel. It is NOT my business, NOT my right to interfere in the mother's autonomy to support HER unborn.
 
Smellin Coffee said:
voicecrying said:
Smellin Coffee said:
voicecrying said:
I have the individual Christian mandate to protect the defenseless. I stand against Planned Parenthood because they are murdering defenseless human beings who were created in the image of God.

So in your "protecting" the 3% of the defenseless from death, you are OK with risking the health and even extended life of the other 97%, ALL of whom were also created in the image of the same God.

Got it.

Yes, absolutely.  In trying to minimize the health risks and to extend the life of the other 90-97% (you left out the range in trying to condemn me), are you OK with murdering the 3-10%?

I am opposed to abortion being used as birth control. For situations involving the physical and/or mental health of the baby or mother, that is a decision that should be made by the mother, her family and her medical counsel. It is NOT my business, NOT my right to interfere in the mother's autonomy to support HER unborn.

So what percent of the PP "three percent" is for one of your acceptable reasons versus birth control? Three percent? Less? Let's see how far down we can split that hair. 8)
 
Smellin Coffee said:
voicecrying said:
Smellin Coffee said:
voicecrying said:
I have the individual Christian mandate to protect the defenseless. I stand against Planned Parenthood because they are murdering defenseless human beings who were created in the image of God.

So in your "protecting" the 3% of the defenseless from death, you are OK with risking the health and even extended life of the other 97%, ALL of whom were also created in the image of the same God.

Got it.

Yes, absolutely.  In trying to minimize the health risks and to extend the life of the other 90-97% (you left out the range in trying to condemn me), are you OK with murdering the 3-10%?

I am opposed to abortion being used as birth control. For situations involving the physical and/or mental health of the baby or mother, that is a decision that should be made by the mother, her family and her medical counsel. It is NOT my business, NOT my right to interfere in the mother's autonomy to support HER unborn.

So would you support legislation that outlaws abortion except in cases where it was a medical necessity for the mother?
 
Top