Automotive Deals HPCC Amazon Fashion Learn more Discover it Jake Owen Fire TV Stick Sun Care Handmade school supplies Shop-by-Room Amazon Cash Back Offer CafeSociety CafeSociety CafeSociety  Amazon Echo  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Amazon Echo Introducing new colors All-New Kindle Oasis AutoRip in CDs & Vinyl Segway miniPro
Customer Discussions > Christianity forum

Chick-Fil-A update


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 228 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Sep 19, 2012 12:33:14 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Sep 19, 2012 1:26:48 PM PDT
Rev Otter says:
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/chick-fil-funding-anti-gay-groups-175154249.html

so ... everyone is happy now, right? :)

Posted on Sep 20, 2012 4:50:28 AM PDT
Brian Curtis says:
If it's true, yes. It would be great if this report were actually confirmed by a statement from Chick Fil-A itself... but then, that would be an admission that openly declaring their bigotry was a bad business decision.

Posted on Sep 20, 2012 6:07:28 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Sep 20, 2012 6:07:57 AM PDT
W.T. Keeton says:
By stopping this funding, this will increase corporate profits by the amount that would have been donated. Being a family-owned business, those additional profits will go directly to the family. Then, with their private money, they can give it to whomever they want and it's nobody's business.

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 20, 2012 7:43:41 AM PDT
That may be the case, and that is fine (although unfortunate)

I am glad for the individual franchise owners, who will no longer be punished for the policies of company executives.

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 20, 2012 7:48:06 AM PDT
W.T. Keeton says:
It's a middle-ground solution. Everyone gets what they wanted, basically.

Posted on Sep 20, 2012 8:07:10 AM PDT
Bubba says:
Boycott seems to have worked.

Posted on Sep 20, 2012 10:19:44 AM PDT
W.T. Keeton says:
And Chick-fil-A got a double-digit increase in sales that still has not abated.

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 20, 2012 10:26:37 AM PDT
Rev Otter says:
<<Everyone gets what they wanted, basically.>>

... or not.

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2012/09/20/chick-fil-a-gay-issue/70000764/1

"Let me tell you something Chick-fil-A. If go back on your stance....if you give in to all the hate that has come after you....you will have a whole new group of people who will no longer support you. You can never make everybody happy. You have been blessed because you have stood on God's side since your beginning. Don't mess that up now. I'm truly surprised at your cowardice."

/sigh

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 20, 2012 10:36:58 AM PDT
W K,

It appears that that is about to happen, if the original supporters now feel like boycotting too. What an "odd" circumstance they would be in if it were the gays supporters that kept the business live!

Personally, I have too many better options; and their food has too much sugar!

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 20, 2012 12:14:05 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Sep 20, 2012 12:15:56 PM PDT
Brian Curtis says:
"Then, with their private money, they can give it to whomever they want and it's nobody's business."

Which is fine, and nobody has a problem with. Were you expecting otherwise? Private individuals can donate to whatever sick and twisted causes they choose. That's the great thing about a liberal country like ours... individual freedoms are always protected by good ol' liberal laws.

It's coporations that get held to the fire when they back sick anti-American causes like Focus on the Family and NOM.

Posted on Sep 21, 2012 11:54:51 AM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 21, 2012 12:01:22 PM PDT
Rev Otter says:
<<Freedom to pray in Jesus' name in public>>

well, your very first point is patently false. we pray in Jesus' name in public all the time.

given that praimary blatant untruth, i didn't see a reason to finish reading your rant. i sincerely hope it was cathartic and therapeutic for you, though. :)

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 21, 2012 12:25:01 PM PDT
The remainder was exactly as patently false as the first point, so you didn't miss anything, Rev

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 21, 2012 12:29:35 PM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 21, 2012 12:36:59 PM PDT
Looks like Stefan must be living on the same planet as REV Otter?

Perhaps since he was equally in error about the veracity of the first claim, he may want to research the other claims also!

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 21, 2012 12:39:41 PM PDT
mrs exp says:
Far West Journal,
I wonder how long it will be before no pray is allowed?
exp

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 21, 2012 12:45:38 PM PDT
So, although I can already assume this is a waste of time, I'll put my head on the block so it can be kicked around a little.

What immoral activity do you, personally, have to pay for?
What kind of immoral people do you want to keep from renting your home? You absolutely have a right to deny someone housing for legitimate criteria that is applied equally to all sexes, races, creeds, ages, etc.
Along with the ten commandments, would you be ok with the moral directives of every other religion in the world all displayed equally? Including Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, Last Thursdayism, and anything anyone else comes up with? Because if not, then your particular flavor of moral guide can't be there either.
Your children can pledge allegiance to God and Country all they want, as often as they want. Should the phrase "under God" be removed from the Pledge, they can still profess their belief - anywhere that is not a publically funded government entity. I guess you never stop to realize that public institutions are multi-cultural and multi-religious?
The same point applies to starting the day with a prayer. Why should a child be made to feel uncomfortable and an outcast because their belief system is different than yours? You want prayer, send your kid to a private, optional, non-mandatory religiously affiliated school and do all the praying you want...
Please elaborate on immoral teachings masquerading as "sensitivity training" - I'm not sure what you are getting at here. Is it immoral to be sensitive?

You can resist change all you want, but it comes anyway. Trying to swim against the tide just tires you out and eventually you drown...

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 21, 2012 12:48:11 PM PDT
You are wrong, people pray in public all the time. You can go stand on the street corner right now and pray up a storm if you want. Hell, Tebow does it in the endzone weekly. What you can't do is pray in a way that forces others to acknowledge or participate in your beliefs, and you can't pray in a way that makes others uncomfortable when they have no recourse.

If you don't grasp the distinction here, the fault is yours, not mine.

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 21, 2012 12:48:49 PM PDT
Don't get my hopes up!

Posted on Sep 21, 2012 12:52:23 PM PDT
Brian Curtis says:
Typical theocratic crybabies, demanding that government promote and endorse their religion at every turn despite that pesky ol' First Amendment guaranteeing the EXACT OPPOSITE.

You as an individual can pray all you like wherever you like... again, thanks to good ol' liberal laws looking out for the individual. What you CAN'T do is demand that government be a part of your prayers in any way--not schools, not courts, not the military. They're off limits to your silly chanting.

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 21, 2012 12:53:14 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Sep 21, 2012 1:18:30 PM PDT
Rev Otter says:
<<interview a few military chaplains>>

you said "in public". military functions =/= in public.

<<at graduations ceremonies?>>

you said "in public". taxpayer-funded school events =/= in public.

by changing your terms after-the-fact, you implicitly acknowledge that your prior claim is false. :)

if you had claimed, "government employees are restricted from endorsing or promoting specific religions during nonreligious, taxpayer-paid functions", then i would have posted agreement. but, you didn't. :)

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 21, 2012 12:54:51 PM PDT
Joe W says:
Never.

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 21, 2012 1:02:55 PM PDT
mrs exp says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 21, 2012 1:06:20 PM PDT
Joe W says:
Unless and until the majority of people stop believing, I do not see any mechanism by which it it would stop.

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 21, 2012 1:22:46 PM PDT
mrs exp says:
JoeW,
And there will always be those who believe.
exp
‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


Recent discussions in the Christianity forum

 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Christianity forum
Participants:  27
Total posts:  228
Initial post:  Sep 19, 2012
Latest post:  Dec 1, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 1 customer

Search Customer Discussions