Chick-fil-A to End Donations to Christian Charities after LGBT Backlash

Thank you for your interest in my comment, but really, I'd like to hear your thoughts instead of peppering me with questions.

 

How can I give my thoughts on what you think their stance on Christianity was?

 

I guess I saw the word 'neanderthal' as a good summation.

 

That's an adjective that you've chosen to describe what you think the stance is - that's not the actual stance itself. That's just lazy - surely you can do better.

 

Chick-Fil A. A genius business model. One way to sell your shitty chicken is to do it with smiles, pleasant demeanor, and a hearty god bless. Now go eat our slop.

 

I recognize your style of discussion, I just don't want to play. It isn't a style I employ or with which I agree. You may want to call that lazy, as is your choice.

I also recognize, from your other posts, that we disagree. I have no problem with your view and I hope you can respect me to hold a different one.

 

I'm really confused. Do you never try to understand what someone means?

 

Sure I do. But I don't nitpick someone into a corner. You may not believe you are doing that, but in drilling down on someone's statement, that's exactly what happens.

I believe the previous actions by CF were anything BUT Christian. If you disagree, or want to offer your thoughts, great.

 

In all fairness @chris155au you do have a habit of doing this — mostly the reason why I very rarely respond to you. I believe you are well intentioned but asking dozens of questions that do not really continue the discussion gets tiring to respond to after a while.

 

It doesn't, which is why it should be left up to the states. I reject the notion that people with same-sex feelings are a protected class. What next, a class for guys who like blonds? I'd be happy if they got civil unions and quit brainwashing the kids.

 

Should heterosexual unions be left up to the states?
What about interracial or interfaith unions?

To your point on civil unions, that was originally what gay and lesbian couples were fighting for but the religious right stepped in and banned civil unions for them and in several places went as far as to ban anything that even resembled a marriage. I bet they wish they would have not been bigots for 45 seconds now...

Yes, guys that like blonds should be able to marry those blonds.

Irregardless of what you reject, the animosity seen against same sex couples will eventually force national protections of homosexuals.
Firing them, refusing them housing and education, refusing them medical treatment, basic goods and services... It is not an if, it’s a when.

 

Yes.

The courts have rightly rejected racial discrimination based on religious views as it clearly violates the Constitution, and has no Biblical support.

Didn't take long to get to the name calling. Were the four SCOTUS justices who voted against gay marriage bigots too? I prefer to call them Constitutionalists. As Scalia said then, with that decision we have lost the ability to govern ourselves, as that decision overturned many state referendums. It was pure judicial activism, like Roe v. Wade.

We'll see when Trump replaces Ginsburg.

 

So states should be able to not allow homosexuals or heterosexuals to be able to sign a civil document but should have no say on interfaith or interracial marriages?

Your last point — “has no Biblical support” is both wrong and completely irrelevant.

That is your opinion.
Banning same sex unions violated the 5th, 9th and 14th Amendment.

If you believe they will reverse same sex marriage which currently has support in the mid 70% range then you are delusional. Very Christian of you to wish death of an old woman in the next year.
I believe Jesus mentioned a few times about wishing ill will towards others — guess how many times he mentioned homosexuality?
Who’s going to hell again?

 

There was no campaign to allow marriage between Chinese man and Native American woman either, but somehow Loving vs Virginia eliminated ALL racial boundaries.
In case of gay-marriage, government acted unilaterally extending benefits ONLY to gay couples, even though they are 100% identical to asexual couples.

 

If married man is automatically become a father if his wife is pregnant, but unmarried man is not presumed to be a father until DNA test, then marriage has something to do with it.
Again, whole foundation of gay marriage and gay propaganda is based on false premises.
your efforts to repeat the B.S. that you have been taught by gay activists are not convincing.

 

They do not need to be regulated by the government.

 

Yes, it is called presumption of paternity.

Yet you cannot name one of them, strange.

Aka, you cannot answer simple questions because they destroy your narrative and you don’t have talking points to address them — so you deflect and make excuses.
Don’t worry, they didn’t have counter remarks in the court cases either — thats why y’all lost in just about every court in America.
And why same sex marriage is the law of the land.
Enjoy

 

Do asexuals, infertile people or the elderly? What about people that do not want children?

Also, what is your stance on a lesbian and a gay guy marrying?
Do they need to be regulated?

 

I have a habit of doing what? Respectfully, I wasn't aware that I asked dozens of questions.

My initial post was: So was this a 'light bulb moment' or a business move? I would like to think that they decided that their neanderthal stance to Christianity was outdated (edited), but I think I might be disappointed.

It was a bit of a hypothetical - I wasn't really 'asking a question'.

For future reference, and to further the conversation better, what am I doing that is 'tiring'? Sincere interest and question...

 

The post was directed to Chris155au — I was agreeing with you, sorry if there was some confusion.

 

Asking someone why they believe something is certainly an interesting definition of 'nitpicking' I must say.

I don't understand what it is that you think was so unchristian. Are you unable that say? If it is because they stood by the BIBLICAL definition of marriage (the Bible being that book that is pretty important to Christians) then that is certainly an interesting position to hold!

 

It's okay, it just means that most of the time you're utterly incapable of standing up to scrutiny and defending your positions. There are some people on here that can deal with it very well, but you're not one of them. Although, you used to be!

 

Yes on the first, no on the second. Race is immutable, same-sex attraction is not.

We disagree.

Me and four SCOTUS justices disagree with you.

Very telling your SCOTUS decisions are based on polling. Basically what they did with Dred Scott, Plessy v. Ferguson and others.

Where did I wish her death, or did you make that up?

Want to cite, with context?

Or incest, or bestiality, and lost of other things. It was't a question among His Jewish audience, it was for Paul's gentile audience, which is why he mentioned it. Jesus would say to a repentant homosexual the same thing He did to the woman caught in adultery, "Your sins are forgiven, go and sin no more."

See John 3:16. Those who reject Jesus and Lord and Savior, and those who engage in homosexual acts, according to Paul.

 

Someone please enlighten me.

Why do liberals have a problem with the Salvation Army?

I have always donated to the Salvation Army and my contributions will continue, but I am Curious why they are Considered bad, according to the Left.

 

Because they are a Bible-believing organization. Gays don't just want toleration, they want validation from all. It will never happen.