Fast Food chain under fire from same sex couples

YoungTrouble

Bannasidhe wrote: »

You registered just to say that? You must have little to be troubling you.

Why is people in inverted commas? Are you implying if one is gay one is not a person?

Look I don't want to get into a fight on here so all I will say is that no,I don't think gay individuals are not as sane as you or I.
Just an opinion.

Bannasidhe

mickydoomsux wrote: »

I'm completely pro-gay marriage but i think that if the owners of this particular chain want to be against it then that is their choice and they have to live with the consequences of their stance the same as any of us have to live with our stance on the issue.

So what if they are donating money to anti-campaign bodies? It's their money and their opinion. No one can tell them that they are "wrong".

We have become so PC nowadays that there are now widely accepted "wrong opinions". That's a very scary thought.

So to extend that thought do you think saying white people are superior to black people is just an opinion and that as a simple opinion cannot be incorrect?

Tell that to Nelson Mandela.

marshbaboon

I think the bigger problem here is the crystal meth factory under one of his restaurants...

kylith

Gandhi wrote: »

This whole thing is stupid.

Mayors of cities have no legal power to deny a business's right to open inside their city limits because they don't like the CEO's opinions. The only non-zero outcome they could have is a very expensive lawsuit, which they will lose, and then hand the taxpayers the multi-million-dollar legal bill. All they are doing is making a meaningless crowd-pleasing political soundbite for the press.

I don't have the time right now to look up various American city statutes, so for now I'm going to cross post this from another forum I'm on:

To open up a business in most cities, the business owner is required to obtain permits submit to inspections and so forth. Most cities can deny permits for any reason they like, especially if a nearby neighborhood organization is opposed to it for various reasons. Even then, cities have the option to use tools like "imminent domain" to prevent a business that they don't like from opening up in their city, or to close one down.

The use of this for this reason was upheld by the Supreme Court a few years back.

This means that a city can deny a Chick-fil-A for any reason they like. It's legal, and I say use all of the tools you've got!

This seems to say that if a neighbourhood organisation doesn't want a new Chick Fil-A opening near them the city is within its rights to deny the company a permit.

I'm not sure about the concept of 'imminent domain' so I'll have to do more research before I can comment on that.

Bannasidhe

YoungTrouble wrote: »

Look I don't want to get into a fight on here so all I will say is that no,I don't think gay individuals are not as sane as you or I.
Just an opinion.

Who said anything about sanity?

I asked what the purpose of your inverted commas around the word people was when you referred to homosexuals. Not an argument, just a simple enquiry.

I must admit the double negative in this sentence 'no,I don't think gay individuals are not as sane ' has me a bit confused as to what you mean.

YoungTrouble

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Who said anything about sanity?

I asked what the purpose of your inverted commas around the word people was when you referred to homosexuals. Not an argument, just a simple enquiry.

I must admit the double negative in this sentence 'no,I don't think gay individuals are not as sane ' has me a bit confused as to what you mean.

Look I just don't view gays as real people.They are not Gods children in my eyes.

Mod: Banned

Corkfeen

EZ24GET wrote: »

No one should ask Mr. Cathy to give up his opinion and beliefs either. The fact that he doesn't believe same sex marriage is right is not breaking any law.

The problem seems to be that this is a man of some substance who gives his money away. If he had no money he wouldn't even have been asked his opinion. He is a Christian. ( and I realize that you will find varying beliefs among Christians too) Is it his right to give away his money where he wants?

The KKK which is an anti-black and anti-semantic organization (and in my opinion based in hatred) are still legal in this country. You can legally donate money to this organization too. Your money is your money.

As for "rights", That is still up for grabs. Some states have legalized same sex marriages the majority have not. At some point the right to marry will be defined, up until that point, and even beyond it, citizens will be able to express their opinion and support whichever side they believe in. That is each persons right.

If a company owner was donating to the KKK, it would be just as big a deal in the press if not bigger. He is supporting groups that are attempting to prevent the equal rights that people deserve. It's not really up for grabs in terms of 'rights', it's just a matter of time before it's legalised across Europe and America even if there are efforts to slow it's implementation down. He has a right to an opinion but the shift in opinion against his company is his own fault and the protests that go hand in hand with it.

MagicMarker

MagicMarker wrote: »

If this guy wants to hold stupid opinions and give his money to other stupid people who hold the same stupid opinions, then he has the right to do it. Just like other people have the right to have a problem with it and protest against it.

Nothing new here, the world is still spinning and some people are still stupid. Business as usual.

It's a bit more than stupid opinions when they go off to other countries spreading harmful disinformation, supporting the "kill the gays" laws, and generally practising discrimination
if it were all as simple as "i have my opinions" nobody would care

Bannasidhe

YoungTrouble wrote: »

Look I just don't view gays as real people.They are not Gods children in my eyes.

This very real gay person has reported this post.

Omackeral

YoungTrouble wrote: »

Look I just don't view gays as real people.They are not Gods children in my eyes.

Here we go......

KeithM89_old

YoungTrouble wrote: »

Look I just don't view gays as real people.They are not Gods children in my eyes.

Banned.

Gbear

EZ24GET wrote: »

The KKK which is an anti-black and anti-semantic organization (and in my opinion based in hatred) are still legal in this country. You can legally donate money to this organization too. Your money is your money.

The key point is that if somebody actually did this, they'd be the center of a galactic-sized ****storm.

Even if he wasn't black, Obama would, and rightly so, condemn such a practice.

If anything, PC comes into it on the anti-gay side because it's not the done thing to question religion with some people. For some reason, we put bull**** opinions based on religion up on a pedestal when opinions just as stupid and bigoted as racialism are rightly derided.

YoungTrouble wrote: »

Look I just don't view gays as real people.They are not Gods children in my eyes.

I take it they snook into the universe while your omnipotent and omniscient deity was looking the other way?

Lelantos

Bannasidhe wrote: »

YoungTrouble wrote: »

Look I just don't view gays as real people.They are not Gods children in my eyes.

This very real gay person has reported this post.

He is obviously looking for a reaction, but the sad thing is that people actually think that way & the chick fil a supporters are top heavy with these sad-acts

mickydoomsux

YoungTrouble wrote: »

Look I just don't view gays as real people.They are not Gods children in my eyes.

"Gays" are in fact real.

God, however, isn't.

Omackeral

mickydoomsux wrote: »

"Gays" are in fact real.

God, however, isn't.

You're just as bad as him if you're gonna go on like that. What's the difference in what you said? Some people take their faith very seriously.

MagicMarker

Omackeral wrote: »

You're just as bad as him if you're gonna go on like that. What's the difference in what you said? Some people take their faith very seriously.

Does the difference really need to be explained to you?

Lelantos

Omackeral wrote: »

mickydoomsux wrote: »

"Gays" are in fact real.

God, however, isn't.

You're just as bad as him if you're gonna go on like that. What's the difference in what you said? Some people take their faith very seriously.

Which god are they talking about? There are approx 2800 different ones in the world

EZ24GET

kylith wrote: »

I don't have the time right now to look up various American city statutes, so for now I'm going to cross post this from another forum I'm on:


This seems to say that if a neighbourhood organisation doesn't want a new Chick Fil-A opening near them the city is within its rights to deny the company a permit.

I'm not sure about the concept of 'imminent domain' so I'll have to do more research before I can comment on that.

I don't think Chick- Fil-A has tried to do anything illegal If the community doesn't want them -so there are a lot of other places would welcome them.
Don't quite see them as trying to "muscle" their way in

Corkfeen wrote: »

If a company owner was donating to the KKK, it would be just as big a deal if not bigger. He is supporting groups that are attempting to prevent the equal rights that people deserve. It's not really up for grabs in terms of 'rights', it's just a matter of time before it's legalised across Europe and America even if there are efforts to slow it's implementation down. He has a right to an opinion but the shift in opinion against his company is his own fault and the protests that go hand in hand with it.

Someone has been donating money to the KKK for quite a few good years. Maybe they just lie when asked if they support the KKK, I mean they do wear those masks for a reason.

There really hasn't been a shift in opinion On Wednesday Chick-Fil-A was swamped and people waited hours to be waited on in a public support of the chain. Yesterday the turn out for the "kiss in" wasn't nearly so large.

bluewolf wrote: »

It's a bit more than stupid opinions when they go off to other countries spreading harmful disinformation, supporting the "kill the gays" laws, and generally practising discrimination
if it were all as simple as "i have my opinions" nobody would care

As far as I know The US does not have any "Kill the gay" laws but does have laws to the contrary.
I have had to endure explicit details of gay peoples sexual exploits and intimate details - I really don't want to know this much about you whether you are straight or gay- But because they were gay, and this was at work - I was a captive audience and the management were afraid to do anything about it because they were afraid there would be a discrimination suit.

I doubt if Mr. Cathy would be in unity with those countries that do have such laws either. This started when a Southern Baptist online magazine asked a question. Mr Cathy stated his beliefs and opinions- would you prefer he lied?

mickydoomsux

Lelantos wrote: »

Which god are they talking about? There are approx 2800 different ones in the world

Does it really matter?

They all share one rather obvious trait which makes the choice irrelevant anyway.

Bannasidhe

Omackeral wrote: »

Here we go......

and there he goes...

Omackeral

MagicMarker wrote: »

Does the difference really need to be explained to you?

Well in a sense, it does. Look, I'm not into organised religion myself or anything but I think it's equally as ignorant to just state that God isn't real as an absolute fact, when some people live their entire lifestyle according to what they believe.

Anyway, live and let live. It doesnt bother me if people are gay, straight, religious, agnostic, whatever. When people start imposing their stuff on others for no reason other than to be on a high horse,that's when it gets douche-esque (it's a word ). It's also been said that atheists are more obsessed with religion than anyone else!

For the record, I dont believe in God myself but I wouldn't ever be as blunt as to deride someone who does.

MagicMarker

Omackeral wrote: »

Well in a sense, it does. Look, I'm not into organised religion myself or anything but I think it's equally as ignorant to just state that God isn't real as an absolute fact, when some people live their entire lifestyle according to what they believe.

You think saying "gays are not real people" and "god is not real" are equally ignorant things to say?

Are you fúcking kidding me?

EZ24GET

EZ24GET wrote: »

As far as I know The US does not have any "Kill the gay" laws but does have laws to the contrary.

My post referred to them going to other countries for this.

I have had to endure explicit details of gay peoples sexual exploits and intimate details - I really don't want to know this much about you whether you are straight or gay- But because they were gay, and this was at work - I was a captive audience and the management were afraid to do anything about it because they were afraid there would be a discrimination suit.

make a complaint anyway as that is inappropriate for the office

I doubt if Mr. Cathy would be in unity with those countries that do have such laws either.

I suggest you read up on mr cathy and his activities and who he sponsors
http://peoplesworld.org/chick-fil-a-debate-missing-the-point/

mickydoomsux

MagicMarker wrote: »

You think saying "gays are not real people" and "god is not real" are equally ignorant things to say?

Are you fúcking kidding me?

Mind-boggling stuff really.

Bannasidhe

EZ24GET wrote: »

I don't think Chick- Fil-A has tried to do anything illegal If the community doesn't want them -so there are a lot of other places would welcome them.
Don't quite see them as trying to "muscle" their way in



Someone has been donating money to the KKK for quite a few good years. Maybe they just lie when asked if they support the KKK, I mean they do wear those masks for a reason.

There really hasn't been a shift in opinion On Wednesday Chick-Fil-A was swamped and people waited hours to be waited on in a public support of the chain. Yesterday the turn out for the "kiss in" wasn't nearly so large.



As far as I know The US does not have any "Kill the gay" laws but does have laws to the contrary.
I have had to endure explicit details of gay peoples sexual exploits and intimate details - I really don't want to know this much about you whether you are straight or gay- But because they were gay, and this was at work - I was a captive audience and the management were afraid to do anything about it because they were afraid there would be a discrimination suit.

I doubt if Mr. Cathy would be in unity with those countries that do have such laws either. This started when a Southern Baptist online magazine asked a question. Mr Cathy stated his beliefs and opinions- would you prefer he lied?

Mr. Cathy denoted money to lobby against the repeal of Uganda's 'kill the Gays' laws.

I have had to endure listening to straight colleague's lurid accounts of their heterosexual exploits and management and HR did nothing to shut them up- but then I didn't complain, I just went and sat elsewhere or told them I had no interest in their sex lives (except the guy who got his head stuck under the headboard. I thoroughly enjoyed hearing how that happened and laughed for hours).

Omackeral

MagicMarker wrote: »

You think saying "gays are not real people" and "god is not real" are equally ignorant things to say?

Are you fúcking kidding me?

I think they are both ignorant statements, albeit on differing levels. The first one is just sickening and appalling, obviously. However, I think to bluntly state God is not real FACT is a huge slap in the face to those who dedicate their lives to following whichever path they do.

Anyway its a moot point, as I said I dont believe in a supreme being myself. I just feel that it's a potentially offensive comment to make given the many people worldwide who whole heartedly practise and believe in their religions.

Bannasidhe

Omackeral wrote: »

I think they are both ignorant statements, albeit on differing levels. The first one is just sickening and appalling, obviously. However, I think to bluntly state God is not real FACT is a huge slap in the face to those who dedicate their lives to following whichever path they do.

Anyway its a moot point, as I said I dont believe in a supreme being myself. I just feel that it's a potentially offensive comment to make given the many people worldwide who whole heartedly practise and believe in their religions.

Making such statements is illegal in Ireland thanks to our Blasphemy Laws... although in fairness so is saying Gay people are not people.

What is ironically legal in Ireland is allowing religious organisation to discriminate on the grounds of sexual orientation.

In the case of the US their constitution clearly separates church and State yet the likes of Mr. Cathy can legally donate money to religious organisations to aid them lobby Federal, State and City governments to have a religious perspective influence civil legislation.

It's a mad, mad world.

MadsL

jank wrote: »

So you think its OK that government dictate who can and cannot set up business? OK so, then you are a Fascist.

Governments in fact do this all around the world, many of them have laws about who can be a director of a company. Equally, planning laws may dictate where a business may be set up. Facist? Hardly.

As to religious groups - they would do well to consider the following problems with translation about sexual behaviour...a widely used passage in Corinthians may not mean what they think it to mean.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/homarsen.htm

EZ24GET

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Mr. Cathy denoted money to lobby against the repeal of Uganda's 'kill the Gays' laws.

I have had to endure listening to straight colleague's lurid accounts of their heterosexual exploits and management and HR did nothing to shut them up- but then I didn't complain, I just went and sat elsewhere or told them I had no interest in their sex lives (except the guy who got his head stuck under the headboard. I thoroughly enjoyed hearing how that happened and laughed for hours).

It was reported - that is the point- nothing was done because they were afraid of being called biased against gays for asking them to come in line with company polices.

If you care to lobby and protest against those organizations do it, but I still say it's his money, his opinion, and you have a right to what you do with your money and to belive whatever you believe.

I read that link and while it was upsetting I have to tell you I do not believe everything I read on the internet.

I believe if you want to change the world you need to do it with education - not spray painting messages on walls and not pointing fingers at each other.
demanding apologies and crying foul!

You are entitled to your own opinions as regards Mr Cathy (who by the way has also spent a great deal of money getting foster children started in life when the system bumps them out at age 18. I only mention this because I personally know it to be true.) and your view of Christian values and any other belief you hold,

TheJak01

MagicMarker wrote: »

You think saying "gays are not real people" and "god is not real" are equally ignorant things to say?

Are you fúcking kidding me?

There's no doubt that the first post was awful, and it deserved every bit of the ban it received. However, to come out and say god doesn't exist is equally ignorant and hurtful to billions of people around the world, all of whom live their lives I accordance to the laws of their religions. Is telling a gay person who has dedicated his life to equality that he is not a real person worse than telling somebody that has pledged their life to god that he doesn't exist? I personally think not, you are offending an entire lifestyle with both of those statements.

Personally I think that the religious person might even have slightly more reason to come out with a statement like that. The banned poster stated that he believed gay people were not gods children, a view that's taken from many interpretations of the bible. It's not a view I condone, but at the same time, it is something he believe to be true, and he has a legitimate reason to believe so. By the beliefs of many religions being gay will lead to you not reaching salvation and might mean damnation, clearly showing the being gay is a bad thing, or at least as far as anybody strongly following the religion is concerned. On the other hand, we still have nothing but theory that there is no devine being. Therefore there's no legitimate backing for the statement. Yes, I concede, the religious person is basing their statement on something we also have no proof of being true, but it's a basis none the less.

Both statements are wrong, and I personally think they should be given the same treatment. Both offend a huge number of people, and while a majority here are more inclined to get offended by the original statement, I don't think it really means the second can be ignored. Both do the same thing, and in my mind, in a similar severity.

On to the topic at hand. The CEO of this company is entitled to hold any views he wants, to support and donate money to any lobbying group he wants, provided of course he is not breaking the law. At the same time, everybody has a right to protest, but I dont really see the point. It's silly to think he will change his views, or resign, as he has done absolutely nothing wrong. If they don't agree with those running the company, they don't need to go there and buy chicken, but I really don't see what they are trying to achieve. The cathy family is entitled to run their company in any way they choose, and provided they do not discrimate actively, there is no reason why people should expect them to change anything they are doing. In my opinion this protest all comes down to a group that believes everybody should come into their way of thinking and anybody who doesn't is suddenly some sort of criminal. I am not a supporter of gay marriage, yet would not discrimate against gays. I believe they are equally as human as you and I, but I believe marriage is between a man and woman. A gay couple should be entitled to the same civil status as a heterosexual couple, but I will always believe that marriage is, by simple principal and definition, only between a man and a woman. Just as in politics I would support groups that are trying to promote my opinion. Its a view many lgbt rights groups would disagree with, and fair enough, but I'd hate if I was getting slated as a business man for my opinion, when I have done absolutely nothing wrong.

Out of interest actually. Id like to ask people where the distinction is between those that are trying to get Gay marriage legalised and those who don't. Just because it's the general consensus, doesn't mean people don't have the right to lobby against it. I have the right to support groups that will try bring my opinion into practice, in this case, just as I have the right to support fine Gael for their economic policies, or sign a petition to stop an incinerator being built near my home. Just because this is a controversial topic doesn't stop me having the right to lobby my views and try promote my opinions. We all do it, voting being just one of the many examples. Now why should we exclude somebody from this practice because he's against gay marriage? If there was a vote about gay marriage in this country, there'd be a lot of people who would vote against it. We wouldn't boycott their shops and call them swine for doing so would we? Every cause needs somebody in a position of power to promote it, doesnt mean he's any more evil than those who would vote against gay marriage in an election.

Lelantos

TheJak01 wrote: »

MagicMarker wrote: »

You think saying "gays are not real people" and "god is not real" are equally ignorant things to say?

Are you fúcking kidding me?

There's no doubt that the first post was awful, and it deserved every bit of the ban it received. However, to come out and say god doesn't exist is equally ignorant and hurtful to billions of people around the world, all of whom live their lives I accordance to the laws of their religions. Is telling a gay person who has dedicated his life to equality that he is not a real person worse than telling somebody that has pledged their life to god that he doesn't exist? I personally think not, you are offending an entire lifestyle with both of those statements.

Personally I think that the religious person might even have slightly more reason to come out with a statement like that. The banned poster stated that he believed gay people were not gods children, a view that's taken from many interpretations of the bible. It's not a view I condone, but at the same time, it is something he believe to be true, and he has a legitimate reason to believe so. By the beliefs of many religions being gay will lead to you not reaching salvation and might mean damnation, clearly showing the being gay is a bad thing, or at least as far as anybody strongly following the religion is concerned. On the other hand, we still have nothing but theory that there is no devine being. Therefore there's no legitimate backing for the statement. Yes, I concede, the religious person is basing their statement on something we also have no proof of being true, but it's a basis none the less.

Both statements are wrong, and I personally think they should be given the same treatment. Both offend a huge number of people, and while a majority here are more inclined to get offended by the original statement, I don't think it really means the second can be ignored. Both do the same thing, and in my mind, in a similar severity.

On to the topic at hand. The CEO of this company is entitled to hold any views he wants, to support and donate money to any lobbying group he wants, provided of course he is not breaking the law. At the same time, everybody has a right to protest, but I dont really see the point. It's silly to think he will change his views, or resign, as he has done absolutely nothing wrong. If they don't agree with those running the company, they don't need to go there and buy chicken, but I really don't see what they are trying to achieve. The cathy family is entitled to run their company in any way they choose, and provided they do not discrimate actively, there is no reason why people should expect them to change anything they are doing. In my opinion this protest all comes down to a group that believes everybody should come into their way of thinking and anybody who doesn't is suddenly some sort of criminal. I am not a supporter of gay marriage, yet would not discrimate against gays. I believe they are equally as human as you and I, but I believe marriage is between a man and woman. A gay couple should be entitled to the same civil status as a heterosexual couple, but I will always believe that marriage is, by simple principal and definition, only between a man and a woman. Just as in politics I would support groups that are trying to promote my opinion. Its a view many lgbt rights groups would disagree with, and fair enough, but I'd hate if I was getting slated as a business man for my opinion, when I have done absolutely nothing wrong.

Out of interest actually. Id like to ask people where the distinction is between those that are trying to get Gay marriage legalised and those who don't. Just because it's the general consensus, doesn't mean people don't have the right to lobby against it. I have the right to support groups that will try bring my opinion into practice, in this case, just as I have the right to support fine Gael for their economic policies, or sign a petition to stop an incinerator being built near my home. Just because this is a controversial topic doesn't stop me having the right to lobby my views and try promote my opinions. We all do it, voting being just one of the many examples. Now why should we exclude somebody from this practice because he's against gay marriage? If there was a vote about gay marriage in this country, there'd be a lot of people who would vote against it. We wouldn't boycott their shops and call them swine for doing so would we? Every cause needs somebody in a position of power to promote it, doesnt mean he's any more evil than those who would vote against gay marriage in an election.

Unfortunately, your argument holds no water once you mention religion & all the good it does in people's lives. Firstly, there are no gods & the sooner people finally accept that, the sooner we can get on & try to create a hate free world. Don't forget, the chic fil a ceo is doing this as its against gods laws from a 2000yo fairytale book. Any arguement that people make on the basis of this book are fundamentally flawed & incorrect

Manic Moran

Most cities can deny permits for any reason they like, especially if a nearby neighborhood organization is opposed to it for various reasons.

I do not believe this to be the case. There is a currently ongoing issue of a firearms store here in the San Francisco area, that the locals aren't so fond of the idea. However, there is no legal reason for the denial, it meets all the appropriate zoning, location and security requirements, so like it or not, the store is going in.

There are exceptions, but they have to be supported by actual logic. For example, setting up, say, an Ikea 'here' would cause massive traffic snarls and negatively affect the operation of the city, or setting up a refinery 'there' would result in pollution and health effects. I don't think 'we disagree with the owner's philosophical views' is sufficient grounds to deny a business permit in the US.

Firstly, there are no gods

I am a God.

NTM

Lelantos

Manic Moran wrote: »

Most cities can deny permits for any reason they like, especially if a nearby neighborhood organization is opposed to it for various reasons.

I do not believe this to be the case. There is a currently ongoing issue of a firearms store here in the San Francisco area, that the locals aren't so fond of the idea. However, there is no legal reason for the denial, it meets all the appropriate zoning, location and security requirements, so like it or not, the store is going in.

There are exceptions, but they have to be supported by actual logic. For example, setting up, say, an Ikea 'here' would cause massive traffic snarls and negatively affect the operation of the city, or setting up a refinery 'there' would result in pollution and health effects. I don't think 'we disagree with the owner's philosophical views' is sufficient grounds to deny a business permit in the US.

Firstly, there are no gods

I am a God.

NTM

Maybe I'm wrong & we're all gods?
Must write my own 10 commandments!

EZ24GET

Lelantos wrote: »

Unfortunately, your argument holds no water once you mention religion & all the good it does in people's lives. Firstly, there are no gods & the sooner people finally accept that, the sooner we can get on & try to create a hate free world. Don't forget, the chic fil a ceo is doing this as its against gods laws from a 2000yo fairytale book. Any arguement that people make on the basis of this book are fundamentally flawed & incorrect

Well that shows me you haven't read or failed to understand the Bible, I don't care really and I will support your right to your opinion but at the same time I am glad you aren't in charge.

The problem doesn't really come from the teaching of the Bible it comes from men. (and I mean men as a race not a gender) Man bends laws and interprets them to his advantage and has through the ages. That's a whole different thread topic though.

Fact is 1st amendment states that no religion will be forced upon the citizen nor prevented by government and we all have the right of free speech and peaceable assembly.

Like it or not it's freedom OF religion not freedom From religion. I think everyone (except maybe the graffiti artist ) is operating within their rights.
1st amendment also guarantees a right to bring forth problems to the government to redress. So you can attempt to ban business (usually porn shops but chicken shops if you wish) Does not mean the ruling will be in your favor (usually isn't)

Turtwig

TheJak01 wrote: »

There's no doubt that the first post was awful, and it deserved every bit of the ban it received. However, to come out and say god doesn't exist is equally ignorant and hurtful to billions of people around the world, all of whom live their lives I accordance to the laws of their religions. Is telling a gay person who has dedicated his life to equality that he is not a real person worse than telling somebody that has pledged their life to god that he doesn't exist? I personally think not, you are offending an entire lifestyle with both of those statements.
.

Gay people aren't even afforded equal rights because of myopic traditionalist based views. Religious people in almost every facet of society are given special privileges for no other reason than they happen to be religious people. Say God doesn't exist, or gays aren't real is completely missing the point. Even if I offend every religious person alive today that doesn't change the fact that they usually have full and often over protected status in society. Case in point, why should religious beliefs be respected? Because. . .. because...something pathetically circular. Gay people on the other hand are barely even recognised by some countries. In Ireland, the refusal to allows gays the right to marriage is essentially the state endorsing discrimination over of a group of humans because of their sexual orientation. You claim you don't discriminate gays, yet you agree with denying them the same right to marriage. On what basis?

On the subject of offence, white people, my ancestors, were once offended at the thought of interracial marriages. But I suppose it would have been best to leave things as they were and not risk offending them.

endabob1

TheJak01 wrote: »

There's no doubt that the first post was awful, and it deserved every bit of the ban it received. However, to come out and say god doesn't exist is equally ignorant and hurtful to billions of people around the world, all of whom live their lives I accordance to the laws of their religions. Is telling a gay person who has dedicated his life to equality that he is not a real person worse than telling somebody that has pledged their life to god that he doesn't exist? I personally think not, you are offending an entire lifestyle with both of those statements..

yes.
Telling someone that he is less than you are because he likes to play hide the sausage with other boys is a million miles worse than telling you that god doesn't exist.
The gay bloke exists I can see him, touch him (if I so desire) your god doesn't exist and unless you can prove to me using actual facts that he does exist your argument, like every other fundamentalist Christian/Muslim/Zion etc.. argument, is essentially just more made up hate filled ignorant sh!t.

Lelantos

EZ24GET wrote: »

Lelantos wrote: »

Unfortunately, your argument holds no water once you mention religion & all the good it does in people's lives. Firstly, there are no gods & the sooner people finally accept that, the sooner we can get on & try to create a hate free world. Don't forget, the chic fil a ceo is doing this as its against gods laws from a 2000yo fairytale book. Any arguement that people make on the basis of this book are fundamentally flawed & incorrect

Well that shows me you haven't read or failed to understand the Bible, I don't care really and I will support your right to your opinion but at the same time I am glad you aren't in charge.

The problem doesn't really come from the teaching of the Bible it comes from men. (and I mean men as a race not a gender) Man bends laws and interprets them to his advantage and has through the ages. That's a whole different thread topic though.

Fact is 1st amendment states that no religion will be forced upon the citizen nor prevented by government and we all have the right of free speech and peaceable assembly.

Like it or not it's freedom OF religion not freedom From religion. I think everyone (except maybe the graffiti artist ) is operating within their rights.
1st amendment also guarantees a right to bring forth problems to the government to redress. So you can attempt to ban business (usually porn shops but chicken shops if you wish) Does not mean the ruling will be in your favor (usually isn't)

Religion is forced upon the citizen, just look at the last line of your presidential oath

MadsL

"So help me God" is customary, not compulsory.

It is uncertain how many Presidents used a Bible or added the words "So help me God" at the end of the oath, or in their acceptance of the oath, as neither is required by law; unlike many other federal oaths which do include the phrase "So help me God." There is currently debate as to whether or not George Washington, the first president, added the phrase to his acceptance of the oath. All contemporary sources fail to mention Washington as adding a religious codicil to his acceptance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_office_of_the_President_of_the_United_States#.22So_help_me_God.22

Lelantos

MadsL wrote: »

"So help me God" is customary, not compulsory.

It is uncertain how many Presidents used a Bible or added the words "So help me God" at the end of the oath, or in their acceptance of the oath, as neither is required by law; unlike many other federal oaths which do include the phrase "So help me God." There is currently debate as to whether or not George Washington, the first president, added the phrase to his acceptance of the oath. All contemporary sources fail to mention Washington as adding a religious codicil to his acceptance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_office_of_the_President_of_the_United_States#.22So_help_me_God.22

But its still there! As it is for the congress, and its compulsary for other official offices.

floggg

Omackeral wrote: »

I think they are both ignorant statements, albeit on differing levels. The first one is just sickening and appalling, obviously. However, I think to bluntly state God is not real FACT is a huge slap in the face to those who dedicate their lives to following whichever path they do.

Anyway its a moot point, as I said I dont believe in a supreme being myself. I just feel that it's a potentially offensive comment to make given the many people worldwide who whole heartedly practise and believe in their religions.

Well nobody take a religious person to task for saying god exists as a statement of fact.

That would seem equally disrespectful to the views of athiests in my mind!

Sappa

I really hope we get chick fillet in Ireland,there food is very good in comparison to other fast food outlets.
I used eat there a lot in the states,awesome chicken wrap.

EZ24GET

Lelantos wrote: »

Religion is forced upon the citizen, just look at the last line of your presidential oath

I have not taken the presidential oath so not forcing anything on meand if the president in question should proclaim the oath meant nothing to him it would be useless.

In regard to taking religious people to task about the existence of God as far as I can see it happens all the time. I don't personally care if people believe in God or not. My religion tells me the choice is up to them and I should love them all and pray for my enemies. No where in the bible I read does it tell me to hate anyone. Rights are birth given respect is earned.

MadsL

Remember "I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth". So help me God used to be there too (and made optional) - that doesn't mean the courts were forcing religion on people, any more than me exclaiming Jesus! at stupid statements.

keano_afc

mickydoomsux wrote: »

"Gays" are in fact real.

God, however, isn't.

Which is, of course, just your opinion.

Nodin

Omackeral wrote: »

You're just as bad as him if you're gonna go on like that. What's the difference in what you said? Some people take their faith very seriously.

I am 100% sure that you could go out, into town, and - in some pub or other - buy a gay man/woman a drink. I am 100% sure that the same experience cannot be replicated with God.

floggg

Couple of things to say on this.

1.I think it's ironic that loads of people criticise the reaction to his comments as interfering with or attempting to stiffle his freedom of speech without realising that same freedom of speech allows the protesters to protest, boycott or do anything else that's not illegal to voice their opposition. Gays have freedom of speech to (at least in some countries).

2. Do you know how many companies in the US are subject to calls for boycotts from right wingers for supporting gay rights or equality? JC Penny are being boycotted just for putting Ellen in an ad. Starbucks, Amazon, Pepsi, General Mills Google and many more have all also been subject of calls for a boycott for supporting gay rights or equality.

Where is your **** storm over that?

How come Mick Huckabee and Sarah Palin didn't stand up for Starbucks right to free speech and to donate to groups of their choice when right wing hate groups tried to boycott them (many of whom probably are supported by Cathy)?

3. Loads of liberals, and even gay liberals, criticised those mayors for saying they would ban chick-fil-a. Those same liberals also criticised conservatives for trying to ban the mosque in NYC that was to be built near ground zero. Liberals are a lot of things, but they are generally consistent.

Funnily enough though, a lot of the right wingers criticising the mayors for saying that were the ones calling for a ban on that mosque. They werent too concerned about abuse of governmnet powers when they were being used in their favour!

4. Can people please stop trying to pass off beliefs that gay people are deviant, unhappy, broken people who require to be cured as a"difference of opinion." For **** sake, really?

If somebody was saying black people are stupid, lazy and inferior, you wouldn't pass it off as "just an opinion." You'd call it racism. Yea, people are entitled to be racist if they wish, but if they try and preach that **** in public they will be quickly called on it. If he was on Primetime saying that

Yet I have to accept people who think I am a "instrinscally disordered" for wanting to pursue a loving consensual relationship as just being their opinion wihtout people calling them on it because apparently there is some sort of doubt or not as to whether or not as a gay person I'm entitled to live my life and love my partner?

Can we call a spade a spade? If somebody thinks that gay people are somehow broken and not entitled to live their life as they see fit, its not that they disagree with gay people, its that they are homophobic.

Yea, they are entitled to be homophobic, to give money to homophobic groups and to spread homophobic speech. But when they do, can we at least call it ****ing homophobia.

Unless of course you do think there is some sort of doubt as to whether or not I'm instrinsically disorder or morally defective?

EZ24GET

Nodin wrote: »

I am 100% sure that you could go out, into town, and - in some pub or other - buy a gay man/woman a drink. I am 100% sure that the same experience cannot be replicated with God.

And this is proof of what exactly? That you like many others believe only what they can see? I would think that might limit your concept of everything? It's your choice though, you want to see nothing beyond your own limits, fine by me.

Ok just read the post directly above. I am not afraid of homosexuals so I am hot homophobic. I personally don't care what consenting adults do in their bedrooms, but (yep there's always a but...) I don't think I'm encroaching on anyones "rights" if I don't agree with them. I wouldn't even know other peoples orientation except they keep telling me. I have never asked anyone if they were gay or if they thought it was normal or not, nor have I ever asked ifthey were straight. This man was asked a question and answered it truthfully. I'm really content to let everyone decide the morale example that they live by unless they do something to break a law everyone gets to choose their own course.

I am not stupid or ignorant if I choose to believe in God. If you don't doesn't make you right and guess what I'll pray for you. Not because I think you are stupid or ignorant but because I think you're just wrong.

keano_afc

Nodin wrote: »

I am 100% sure that you could go out, into town, and - in some pub or other - buy a gay man/woman a drink. I am 100% sure that the same experience cannot be replicated with God.

Well stop the press, thats it. Conclusive proof has been unearthed.

Nodin

EZ24GET wrote: »

And this is proof of what exactly? That you like many others believe only what they can see? I would think that might limit your concept of everything? It's your choice though, you want to see nothing beyond your own limits, fine by me.

....when somebodys miraculous cure consists of a leg growing back, "feeling" is replaced with measurable effect and the like, call me.

Sappa

If gays wish to embarrass their parents,alienate themselves in society and shagg every thing going let them off.