Quote:
Originally Posted by Calgaryborn
Maybe they have finally rejected those homosexual hate groups that call them out to protest businesses just because they don't share their views.
|
It is so much more than Chick-Fil-A "not sharing their views." Chick-Fil-A can believe all they want to believe about "traditional marriage." But they monetarily back organizations that are incredibly hateful of homosexuals. Chick-Fil-A back a ton of anti-gay-rights groups, including one which was encouraging the US Government to condone Uganda's law that would kill all homosexuals.
This isn't a bunch of liberals throwing a hissy fit because someone disagrees. This is a group of people fighting for equality, and therefore protesting a company which donates money to groups that actively want to restrict their way of life in this country, as well as support the killing of their brethren in other nations.
This is a boycott, pure and simple. As customers, refusing to give money to a corporation based on their beliefs is about as basic as American rights gets. How many boycotts happened while fighting for equality for people of color?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calgaryborn
The laws which were created to control women in marriage were formed when Europe and North America already had a well extablished christian tradition regarding marriage...
|
FYP.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calgaryborn
That is an interesting question. I believe that laws should reflect the will of the people and to that extent christians should have equal opportunity to influence the ongoing debate.
I don't believe that the scriptures demand or expect christians to set up theocracies. Freedom of religion is a christian principle which includes freedom of choice. Certainly God will judge man for his choices but, neverless he allows him to make them.
|
God allows man to make choices. Period.
Why should a government deny said people from making choices, so long as those choices don't hurt others? Don't give me "So should a government stop people from murdering? It's free will!" Shut up, no. Not the same principle. Violence, crime, etc, they negatively affect other people. If two men love each other and want to be married,
no one is actually negatively affected. No one loses property, no one is injured. Just a bunch of conservatives get their panties in a bunch.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate
Martin Luther King Jr. had to have a LOT of protests before black people were given the rights that they enjoy today. They had these rights, but were denied them by society and the courts. Just because these rights were not recognized by the state does not make them rights never-the-less.
It wasn't a protest against free speech. It was a protest against what was said. If millions of Americans believe that blacks are inferior, and some company owner stands up and says that blacks are inferior, I would damn well hope that millions more would stand up and protest at that company. Like Saul Alinsky having a fart-in at Eastman-Kodak. People have to stand up to bigotry and hatred.
|
Again, this is where the rhetoric is getting confused. It is an issue with what was said, true, but that's only a small part of it. The protest is that the money that is paid to this corporation by its clientele is donated to "pro-family" groups, some of which actively hate gay people and want to obliterate them from the planet, and, oh, hey this is America, but they want to restrict their freedom.
The religious right is demanding free speech for Chick-Fil-A, demanding that no one can take their freedom away, all the while denying said freedom to their peers.
Again, I will believe that these "traditional family" proponents actually care about families when they support a raise of the minimum wage, when they support affordable pre- and post-natal care for mothers, when they support paid maternity leave for new mothers, etc. You can talk and talk and talk about "family values," but the only "values" you're upholding are the ones that keep the straight white man ahead of the rest of us.