You have failed miserably to explain how the so called "anti-gay" organisations are actually anti-gay. Are YOU anti-gay too just because I say so?
So you don't mean "anti-gay" as in they hate gay people, do you? So often the term anti-gay is interpreted as hated towards gay people. Define "okay." Anyway, I'll run with it anyway. For non-Christians: When? Any time? How? Any way. What form? Any form. At least that's what I say. Are these organisations saying that it isn't okay? They would really only be saying that it's not okay for Christians, whatever way they define "okay." They certainly would never mean that it should be illegal.
From my research, this was based on Chick-fil-A officials declaring in an internal document that the company “will treat every person equally, regardless of sexual orientation.” Chick-fil-A never publicly stated that they have decided to "redirect their donations away from organizations that had a political agenda and were anti'LBGTQ." Is that your understanding? What's wrong with funding biblical marriage support? What does that have to do with homosexuality? It also condemns heterosexual sex outside of marriage, so it can't be said that gay people are being targeted. Do you have a source which backs this up? A "dealbreaker" as in what? While Exodus supported gay conversion therapy, what makes the Family Research Counsel "despicable?"
You always start off making sense, but then you start to make ZERO sense. It's as if you are deliberately doing it so that you have a convenient excuse to pull out of debate by pretending that the problem is with me! Anyway, you have failed miserably to be able to explain how the owner is anti-gay! So to use your words, have a nice day!
Define "okay." Anyway, I'll run with it anyway. For non-Christians: When? Any time? How? Any way. What form? Any form. At least that's what I say. Are these organisations saying that it isn't okay? They would really only be saying that it's not okay for Christians, whatever way they define "okay." They certainly would never mean that it should be illegal. This 'nuanced' distinction presupposes that Christians do not do 'outreach' for converts, that they do not proselytize, and that they do not also sell this idea that those who are not 'saved' and find Jesus, may be condemned Cumulatively the result is a sexless loveless life or maybe eternal damnation. What's anti-gay about that? [/QUOTE] No I don't . I mean anti gay. Opposed to homosexuality, to homosexual relationships, and to gay rights equality. You are doing it again. You make responding to you WAY too much work. I will try to clear up what needs to be but I am going to expect you to understand the words I use within their simple common English context that I provide and sometimes I will just expect you to figure this crap out. You will just have to do without all these answers.
Like what? I'd imagine it funds Christian groups, does it fund any groups who blatantly engage in homophobia, etc? If so, which one (s) ?
"Focus on the Family" and "Nat'l organization for Marriage". It's not blatant but it is trying to curtail gay rights. Gays should be able to get married and enjoy the legal protection provided IMHO. They are citizens as well.
What if "focus on the family" was just looking at the best long term outcomes for children, and it was still against the lefts dogma. Can you fathom that?
Why does it "presuppose" all of this? Yes, but YOU have a brain. Others do not. And these others are the ones who interpret "anti-gay" as hatred towards gay people. I was just checking to see if you were one of them and I'm glad to see that you are not.
How do you know this? This isn't in the Wikipedia article. "Family retreat?" You failed to say what's wrong with funding biblical marriage support. You also failed to explain what proselytizing (in relation to the Fellowship of Christian Athletes) has to do with homosexuality. First of all, "targeting gays TO..." makes no sense. How can anyone be targeted TO something? Perhaps you mean that it is CONDEMNING them to a sexless, loveless life? Certainly Christians would say that a gay Christian should live a sexless life, but I'm not sure how that means loveless exactly. So where in that article does it say that they "actively discourage LBGTQ youth from participating?" I have to assume that you got your FALSE information from the Chick-fil-A Wikipedia article under the 'Report of policy change' section, where it says, "as of April 2018, Chick Fil-A reportedly continues to quietly donate to anti-LGBT groups such as the Fellowship of Christian Athletes, which opposes gay marriage and restricts participation by LGBT youth. [5][86][87]" The problem is that the cited sources (5,86,87) do not say anything about any such restrictions. I tried to edit it and remove this FALSE information, but I couldn't as the article is locked. What happened to your fact checking in this instance? Please don't tell me that you take Wikipedia's word for it! Surely not - you aren't stupid.
