Chic-Fil-A
 

I am suprised no one has brought this topic up. No - I am not talking about the issue of homosexual marriage. The idea of free speech and whether or not various governmental officials have the right to restrict free enterprise on the basis of a personal religious belief.

I think the 660,000+ people who participated in "Support Chic-Fil-A Day" made it clear that the rights to freedom OF religion and freedom of speech are not going to be lost without a fight.

I didn't bring up the topic because I don't really care; I've never eaten there. From what others have told me, it's like overpriced KFC. Meh.

Why I disagree with the CEO's fundy views, he has the right to speak them as long as he follows the law not to discriminate. If it can be proven that his views effect his hiring/promotion, then his mouth will certainly get him in trouble, but I don't see that it has. Course my guess is someone will eventually test this.

I like the food, will continue to eat there.

Well, their business, their decision. If they want to sponsor a gay parade, why not? :smug: http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/La...gay-pride-fest (hint: a link, introducing the news topic you want to discuss, is always appreciated)

The interesting question however is, to which biblical definition of the family unit did Cathy refer to...

http://img52.imageshack.us/img52/461/biblemarriage.jpg

I've eaten there once. Your not missing much. But yeah, some bible thumper opened his mouth again, and the gays are up in arms again. Nothing new to see here.

Re the image Penguin posted.

Well I'll be. Marriage between a man and his rape victim. That exactly what it says. Huh.

You sir, with your reasonable politeness and simple yet efficient piece of advice, just robbed me an opportunity for an unnecessarily sarcastic reply.

The unused but already prepared sarcasm has now been stored in my must-be-used-before-sarcasm-overload storage and which I'm therefore going to shoot at the next five random passers by that haven't bothered to train their little mutts properly.

This will make me hated within my neighborhood, leads to me becoming a social outcast and never getting employed or married because everyone thinks I'm a sarcastic jerk.

Thanks a lot, melon head! :stare:

Oh shut it and get me some more Oblivion AAR. One per day is no longer enough.

Oh, there will be a big update in the imminent future. And the ending too, in fact. That is, until I win in a lottery and can get Skyrim to write a sequel.

Actually this is supposed to be a law that forces a person to be responsible for his actions....in a wicked way but it was written long time ago.
Better think twice before you jump on a woman!!!
(quite progressive for its time:haha:)

well....

I am not sure what the JKV in your quote refers to, if it is King James Version, it states "force and lie with her" or "takes her by force" (=rape) in different translations: http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/...eronomy-22-28/

To be fair, verse 25 states that a man should be killed if he rapes an engaged woman.

Yes, I know the historical context, that a rape victim should be provided for, but the point of the pic is that the bible defines many different marriage concepts, while Cathy clearly refers to the first.
Why is it that so many people think their very own interpretation is the true version of god's will? (Cathy refgerred to god's will in the interview)

Meh. Business owner has the right to say what he wants. He must face the consequences of his actions. The public has the right to support/protest as they wish. They are also responsible for the consequences.



I just wish the lines to donate to the food bank were as long as the ones at the Chic-Fil-A yesterday.

lol, welcome to my life! :D

When there is nothing left to argue about on same sex marriage ...

that's when the world wins.

One world views are very popular in the world to come :yep:

KJV does indeed refer to the King James. NIV, by contrast is the New International Version. Both are favored by main-line protestants and evangelicals. The NJB, by contrast, stands for the New Jerusalem Bible and is a widely-used Catholic english language Bible.

I initially set out to disprove that part of the image, but was surprised when I reached for the King James on the shelf next to me and read it.

And yet, if we are to take the evangelical approach, The Holy Bible is the very word of God, and must be taken at face value whether we like it or not. The earth was created in six days. It is only several thousand years old. Slavery is the law of the land. A man must marry his rape victim.

If we take a less fundamental approach, in that The Bible is a revelation of God to an uneducated, pre-scientific, pre-industrial people, then we can take much as symbolic liberty. The six days of creation are a metaphor for the working of God. Slavery is understood as an institution of society that, while used to illustrate the teachings of God, is ultimately incompatible with His will. God works through the process of evolution, not in contrast to it. A man must take responsibility for his crimes.

The question is which side does Cathy take, and does he take it selectively.