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

[Nehkara]

[bubbsy]

Wonder if Burke reads this, and it forces him to remove any notion of trading for the guy from his potential plans...

[Thor]

Originally Posted by FlyingDonutz

Genesis 1:27, 28
Genesis 2:22-24
Matthew 19: 4-9


These should explain it. 2:22-24 shows the first marriage.

The other two explain it.

Source: This explains basically everything biblical about marriage. Everything from adultery to the structure of a family.

http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1...marriage&p=par

^ That, that could cause an argument. Please, people, this is just to help someone else who wants to learn more about this stuff. Not trying to preach. Just helping out.

I wonder how textcritic keeps it together, surrounded by a world full of fellow Christians who utterly know little to nothing about their bible or have any real understanding of their early foundations and evolution.

But sure means I don't have to reply, yay!

Oh and:

[Daradon]

Is it Christmas?!?!

[10W30]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

.... a bunch of great stuff....

I lurk here a lot and log in to post infrequently, but I LOVE it when you post on this topic Text. I always feel a little smarter after I read something you wrote.

Thanks. Thanks for the stuff you have written in the past and thanks in advance for the stuff I will be reading in the future.


Now, if I can get my little chide in and slip back out of here:

Gay people DON'T lie with man the way they do with women anyway, do they? In a certain context that verse seems to be against bi-sexual folks as a kind of "pick one and stick to it, but don't lie with one like you do with the other".

Anyhow, that is just a bit tongue in cheek as the bible is of little relevance for rules in my life, and more of a fascinating collection of documents. Fascinating in the sense of how polarizing it is and can be for people and groups.

[HotHotHeat]

Skip to clip 2 of 4. Good summary on the ridiculousness of this issue.

http://www.thecomedynetwork.ca/Shows...Package=120420

[Senator Clay Davis]

This guy could have been a fricken legend in Boston...and then he decided to open his mouth. I'm all for free speech so he can say what he wants...and as such, since I'm for free speech, I'm going to criticize his ignorant ass as much as I'd like. Why these guys choose to voluntarily out themselves as bigots seems strange to me, but I suppose if I was making millions of dollars I probably wouldn't care if the world thinks I'm a bigot either.

And as always, these freedom loving Libertarians love restricting the freedoms of others for things they don't agree with. They really outta just change their name to Religioustarians.

[Boshi]

Oh Timmy.. you poor fool :/

[Regular_John]

The guy isn't even an NHL player anymore, not sure why any of us give two fata's what he thinks or says.

[Reaper]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

The message is: You can do business here, as long as you toe the government line.

No, I think the stance is: "If you're going to be a bigot then we don't want your business to set up shop here."

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

Totalitarian bully tactics at it's finest. Obviously his religous belief is the basis for his "biblical" definition of marriage....and Chick-Fil-A is closed on Sundays...

Yes, that Mayor is such a bully standing up for equal rights.

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

Too bad Thomas got caught up in such a divisive issue. He'll be annihilated in the media.

No, its not too bad. Bigots should be exposed for what they are and I think public shamings are exactly what is in order in this case.

[Northendzone]

while i gotta hand it to him for taking a stand, I don't agree with it.......

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by jaydorn

The guy isn't even an NHL player anymore, not sure why any of us give two fata's what he thinks or says.

Same reason why we look at the aftermath of a car crash.


And who is surprised that the only free speech Mikey cares for is that which shares his own bigoted world views?

[Reaper]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Jesus's teaching here has nothing to do with homosexuality, but is rather offered to address polygamy. The social context in Palestine at the time probably explains why Jesus is silent on the issue, and why this was deemed a more pressing matter than homosexual relationships.

This one made me laugh. Hard. If there was a god who is all powerful as the Christians would suggest then I think he/she would be able to use his/her omnipotence to see how homosexuality might be a sticking point for the unenlightened and address it in turn. Apparently 33 years(sic) was not long enough for Jesus to tackle the subject.

[Regular_John]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Same reason why we look at the aftermath of a car crash.


And who is surprised that the only free speech Mikey cares for is that which shares his own bigoted world views?

Toche', wonder if Thomas will go full on Charlie Sheen/Michael Jackson crazy in the coming years? I can't wait for the cover story "I let my son drink for the Stanley Cup in 2011 and it gave him autism!"

[HPLovecraft]

Originally Posted by gpflamesfan

Have any more questions on theology? I would be happy to answer.

You mean Google would be happy to answer?

I think I'll stick with Textcritic, personally. Ya know, the actual biblical scholar.

[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.

[Russic]

nm... unnecessary rant.

[HPLovecraft]

Originally Posted by Titan

we do have to give him some respect for having the strength of his convictions

I always wondered what this meant when people said it.

Not referring specifically to Tim Thomas, but if someone has a bat-#### stupid belief and goes around preaching it at the top of their lungs every chance they get, why should I respect that? Just because he believes it? Even while he may be incredibly wrong? Should I respect the nut-bar that walks around the corner of College and Yonge here in Toronto screaming about the end of the world just because he really, really believes it?

Having convictions doesn't warrant anyone respect, and I don't know where the idea came from that just believing in something means you should be respected (though I have a hunch). The content of the belief, and the justification that the individual has for believing it, are all far more important qualities to be considered when determining whether someone deserves respect for something they do or do not believe.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by nik-

The 1st amendment protects you from prosecution or the making of a law preventing you from speaking your mind. It is not a mind erasing umbrella that makes you 100% immune from the consequences of what you say and it definitely doesn't say your corporation is immune from outrage or a drop in business as a result of your executives saying stupid things.

People who immediately bring up the 1st amendment whenever there is some sort of backlash against what someone says are dumb. Read what it says for the love of god.

If people avoid Chick-Fil-A (and I'm sure some do) that's something they have to deal with.

If the gov't of Chicago denies them zoning because of the speech of the company and its founder, that's a completely different thing, and would be protected by the 1st amendment.

[Rathji]

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.

3 things:

First, you are correct, but without that clarification, you can only assume that he supports all portions of the position. Unless you are claiming that Tim Thomas does not have a reasonable grasp of both the English language and basic logic.

Second, even if that is what he intended, I do not agree with him. A city has the right to decide what businesses are within its jurisdiction, in the same way they might choose that a strip club might not be appropriate for an area with a lot of schools. edit: I do think it has a decent potential to fail in a constitutional challenge though.

Third, you need to stand up and do what you think is right, and for that I applaud Tim Thomas. In the same manner that I applaud the city of Chicago representative who has taken a stand for what he, and I assume the bulk of the people in his area, believes in.