Tim Thomas Stands with Chick-Fil-A (i.e. against gay marriage)

[Knalus]

Originally Posted by HPLovecraft

Is this what you actually believe will happen? I find it hard to believe a rational human being could convince themselves of this being the "logical" outcome of gay marriage being legalized.

Of course not, don't be absurd.

It would most likely be Laptops that take out the automobiles, not Coffeemakers. Duh.

[ernie]

There used to be a website buyblue.org that listed the companies that were run by executives that contributed heavily or the company contributed heavily to conservative candidates and causes. This was there list of strong blue companies:

Academy Sports and Outdoors
AFC (popeye's chicken)
Aloha Airlines
Hess gas
Apple Computer
Bally Fitness
BancWest
Barnes and Noble
Bed Bath and Beyond
Benihana's
Black and Decker(which includes Price Fister and Kwikset)
Charming Shops including Fashion Bug and Lane Bryant
Costco
Electronic Arts
Gallo Wineries
Estee Lauder
Foot Locker
Fredericks of Hollywood
Gateway
Google
Hilton
Hyatt
Expedia
Jo Ann Stores
LL Bean
Levi Strauss
Linens and Things
Lenscrafters
Pearl Vision
Mattel
Overstock.com
Panera Bread
Polo Ralph Lauren
Progressive
Sharper Image
Sonic Driveins
Kay Jewelers
Starbucks
Starwood Hotels


Current "faith based" companies include In-N-out Burgers, hobby Lobby, Tysons foods (worlds largest chicken supplier), Jet Blue, Curves, Marriott, and Forever 21

[troutman]

Chaz The Intolerant Chick-fil-A Chicken Returns


http://teamcoco.com/chaz-the-intoler...hicken-returns

http://teamcoco.com/video/38233/chaz...-fil-a-chicken

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by ernie

There used to be a website buyblue.org that listed the companies that were run by executives that contributed heavily or the company contributed heavily to conservative candidates and causes. This was there list of strong blue companies:

Academy Sports and Outdoors
AFC (popeye's chicken)
Aloha Airlines
Hess gas
Apple Computer
Bally Fitness
BancWest
Barnes and Noble
Bed Bath and Beyond
Benihana's
Black and Decker(which includes Price Fister and Kwikset)
Charming Shops including Fashion Bug and Lane Bryant
Costco
Electronic Arts
Gallo Wineries
Estee Lauder
Foot Locker
Fredericks of Hollywood
Gateway
Google
Hilton
Hyatt
Expedia
Jo Ann Stores
LL Bean
Levi Strauss
Linens and Things
Lenscrafters
Pearl Vision
Mattel
Overstock.com
Panera Bread
Polo Ralph Lauren
Progressive
Sharper Image
Sonic Driveins
Kay Jewelers
Starbucks
Starwood Hotels


Current "faith based" companies include In-N-out Burgers, hobby Lobby, Tysons foods (worlds largest chicken supplier), Jet Blue, Curves, Marriott, and Forever 21

I think you'd have to look to see if those same companies donated to any democrats as well before you'd really have anything meaningful.

[bizaro86]

Wait, "blue" in the US usually refers to democrat/left/"blue state" and some of the companies on that list fit better in that box, imo. (Google, eg)

Is it possible that's the "liberal" list not the "conservative" list?

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

Wait, "blue" in the US usually refers to democrat/left/"blue state" and some of the companies on that list fit better in that box, imo. (Google, eg)

Is it possible that's the "liberal" list not the "conservative" list?

That's what I wondered. Isn't Apple one of the most openly "liberal minded" employers around?

[Cole436]

Originally Posted by FlyingDonutz

Would someone close this thread? At least on other forums i've been on I know talks like these are frowned upon and I know the author of the thread didn't intend for everyone to get into a religious and sexual debate but I've got half the mind to rant.. and you don't want that.

If you don't like mature, intelligent, and critical conversations that can be discussed rationally, stay on HFboards.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

That's what I wondered. Isn't Apple one of the most openly "liberal minded" employers around?

Looking at it further, I think that must be it. There are a lot of San Francisco and Washington state companies there.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Yeah that list has to be from companies who support gay rights. Google and Starbucks are definitely companies who are pro-equal rights.

[HPLovecraft]

How could a store like Bed, Bath, and Beyond be anything BUT pro-gay?

[MrMastodonFarm]

All these companies probably gave as much money to the other side too.

[ernie]

My bad. You are all of course correct...I was digging up several old forum threads here and there and stumbled upon the list in a pro-conservative forum and posted without thinking too much about what the poster was actually saying. The companies I listed were indeed more supportive of democratic causes (To the above wondering how much money they gave to the other side, the list was made based on percetage of money. To be on that list over 80% donated money from executives and company went to democratic causes and candidates).

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by etherealgirl

You won't take one man's word as law, yet the specific interpretations (noun: "a particular adaptation or version of a work, method, or style") of people from a specific type of society at a specific time with their own interests and agendas "stand the test of time"? Do they? For whom?

What are you talking about? We have nearly 2000 years of consistant scholarship on the subject. That scholarship has come to the same conclusion regardless of which society has done the work.

Originally Posted by etherealgirl

Here's an interesting article for you by a Baptist pastor who is also a professor of religious studies, who actually is an expert on the bible's perspective on sexuality and marriage:

http://onfaith.washingtonpost.com/on...al_morals.html

"If we do take the time to read the Bible, we are likely to discover that the biblical writers do not agree with us, whatever version of sexual morality we are seeking to promote. Written more than 2,000 years ago at a significant historical and cultural distance, the Bible gathers together a diverse collection of ancient books, edited over time, not a coherent, divinely inspired set of instructions that can easily be applied.

...

Let's begin with an easy target: "biblical marriage." Despite frequent claims to the contrary, not a single biblical book endorses marriage between one man and one woman for the purposes of procreation. Directed at men, the laws attributed to Moses assume that Israelites will marry as many wives as they can reasonably support. By contrast, when Jesus speaks about marriage, he largely warns against it, presenting family life as a distracting waste of time. The apostle Paul follows suit, teaching that celibacy is the best choice for Jesus' followers. He recommends marriage only as a concession to those unable to keep their sexual impulses in check. Later New Testament writers do sanction marriage, but not for the sake of procreation and romantic love. Instead, marriage is portrayed as a venue for testing the fitness of male church leaders, who are told to love their wives and to be kind to their slaves. Wives, children and slaves, however, must obey the men in charge, no matter what, and this in a culture where the sexual access of masters to their slaves was simply presupposed. Biblical books never speak to marriage as currently practiced in the US and what they do say is totally contradictory."

Your women pastor neglected to insert scriptures into her article. Moreover, she neglected to consider many important passages on the subject of marriage: Eph 5:25-33 comes to mind.

The greek word "aner'" is translated "man" 156 times in my KJV and "husband" 50 times.
The greek word "gune'" is translated "man" 129 times in the KJV and "wife" 92 times.

There is no time where the New Testament uses a masculine word for wife or a feminine word for husband. Also, most greek nouns have an artcle attached to it that is either masculine, feminine, or neutral. It is a very specific language. I have never seen a masculine article attached to "gune'" or a feminine artcle attached to the word "aner'".

You and your Pastor can deny scriptures and pretend God agrees with you all you want. The fact remains biblical marriage is between a man and a women. Was polygamy practiced in biblical times? Sure, men did all kinds of things. In the New Testament that disqualified a man from church office.

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

What are you talking about? We have nearly 2000 years of consistant scholarship on the subject. That scholarship has come to the same conclusion regardless of which society has done the work.



Your women pastor neglected to insert scriptures into her article. Moreover, she neglected to consider many important passages on the subject of marriage: Eph 5:25-33 comes to mind.

Wow, the misogyny is just dripping in this post.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Makarov

I really don't understand your argument. This issue has nothing to do with sex or "making provisions for oneself" (whatever that means). Same sex marriage advocates (or equal marriage advocates) are simply saying that this lesbian couple should be entitled to the same treatment as a man and woman in a similarly committed relationship. You have still not provided a principled or rational reason why they should not.

I have identified the history that caused our governments to licence marriages. It was to protect women who were at a disadvantage physically and economically in a marriage. The possibility of children resulting in the union added to this vulnerability. Also, this particular union was seen as a benefit to society and tax credits and such were added to help marriages.

In same sex marriages both people have the same economic advantages. They are equal to single people. Their relationship presumably benefits each of them personally and should help them financially as well. Why should the government be involved?

Originally Posted by Makarov

In my view, this talk of biblical interpretation is really a red herring. Your bible and its interpretations (or Textcritic's interpretations) are irrelevant to the same sex marriage issue.

I think you will have to talk to Thor and others to find out why biblical interpretation was brought into this discussion. I'm just responding to his challenge.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

Wow, the misogyny is just dripping in this post.

But where is the racism?

Not one of his best posts.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

What are you talking about? We have nearly 2000 years of consistant scholarship on the subject. That scholarship has come to the same conclusion regardless of which society has done the work.



Your women pastor neglected to insert scriptures into her article. Moreover, she neglected to consider many important passages on the subject of marriage: Eph 5:25-33 comes to mind.

The greek word "aner'" is translated "man" 156 times in my KJV and "husband" 50 times.
The greek word "gune'" is translated "man" 129 times in the KJV and "wife" 92 times.

There is no time where the New Testament uses a masculine word for wife or a feminine word for husband. Also, most greek nouns have an artcle attached to it that is either masculine, feminine, or neutral. It is a very specific language. I have never seen a masculine article attached to "gune'" or a feminine artcle attached to the word "aner'".

You and your Pastor can deny scriptures and pretend God agrees with you all you want. The fact remains biblical marriage is between a man and a women. Was polygamy practiced in biblical times? Sure, men did all kinds of things. In the New Testament that disqualified a man from church office.

All that there kinda ignores the whole truth spoken by that "woman pastor" below:

"Written more than 2,000 years ago at a significant historical and cultural distance, the Bible gathers together a diverse collection of ancient books, edited over time, not a coherent, divinely inspired set of instructions that can easily be applied."

Hence any interpretation of the said scriptures aren't the be all end all to the morality of life on Earth. Gay people just want the ability to be with the one they love and have that relationship be accepted by the broader community just like any straight couple. Why does something like that have to be denied because of Greek translations of ancient books?

[Calgaryborn]

[QUOTE=Cowboy89;3811859]All that there kinda ignores the whole truth spoken by that "woman pastor" below:

"Written more than 2,000 years ago at a significant historical and cultural distance, the Bible gathers together a diverse collection of ancient books, edited over time, not a coherent, divinely inspired set of instructions that can easily be applied."

Hence any interpretation of the said scriptures aren't the be all end all to the morality of life on Earth. Gay people just want the ability to be with the one they love and have that relationship be accepted by the broader community just like any straight couple. Why does something like that have to be denied because of Greek translations of ancient books?[/QUOTE]

Firstly, it is a coherant(even if she doesn't get it) divinely inspired(even if she doesn't believe it) set of instructions that can easily be applied(even if she refuses to apply them).

Secondly, acceptance is a little much to ask. How about tolerance and privacy?

Thirdly, Greek is the original language of those ancient books. It is not a translation.

[Badger Bob]

Originally Posted by Titan

Did Thomas say he is against gay marriage or just that he stands with Chick Fil A. I know the assumption he is against gay marriage but he may be only supporting the right of a business owner to have his own beliefs without the government telling him his beliefs are wrong and that because of them he cannot open his business. That seems pretty reasonable to me.

To summarize:

The owner of Chick Fil A is an ardent opponent of gay marriage. It is his opinion which he is entitled to.

Chicago wants to prevent CFA from opening because of the views of its owner. An idea we may agree with but at odds with the constitution as I understand it, unless they want to prevent certain people from eating in their restaurant.

Tim has said he supports CFA but has not clarified whether that support means he supports the beliefs of the owner or simply their right to open a business without the government suppressing their right to religion and expression.

Until he comes out and states he is against gay marriage we should be cautious about inferring that is his actual belief. He may simply be expressing his libertarian views that the government should not be telling people what they should or should not think, without certain limitations. I actually agree with him in that regard as I assume most of us do.

He has made the decision to make his views known. That does not make him a wingnut. It means he holds certain things as more important than hockey. We can disagree with that as well but we do have to give him some respect for having the strength of his convictions, even if they are not the same as ours or how we may choose to express them.

Then it becomes an issue of restricting commerce, which might well be a legitimate constitutional issue.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

What are you talking about? We have nearly 2000 years of consistant scholarship on the subject. That scholarship has come to the same conclusion regardless of which society has done the work...

What a pile of crap. Once again, retreating to the confines of a tired, old argument from authority to insulate yourself from the truth. This "consistent scholarship" of which you speak is more commonly recognized as medieval dogma. The intellectual stagnation of Western civilization through the church dominated middle ages does not somehow constitute some sort of scholastic achievement.