Contradiction gets the last laugh!
The GLBT decided to protest the business based on the owner's comments. I get it and "knock yourselves out". Same with the counter protesters aka supporters...I get that and "go knock yourselves out". Both side should be able to express their opinion based on buying or not buying their product. Same as the owner should be allowed to express their opinion. Fair is fair...I got no beef with any of that. What get's in my crawl is NOT calling a spade a spade. Maybe I missed it but I did not think the GLBT protest was to keep the owner's from expressing their view...only that they disagree with that view. There was no loss of "freedom of speech" nor threat of that...only the message. SO, when you counter a protest for gay rights...you end up on the opposite side of that issue. Does that not make sense? The owners say they support Biblical marriage and the protesters take issue with that. So the counter protesters support the Biblical marriage view as the owners do. The BS with the local governments not giving permits to the business goes on every day for any number of reasons. My father in law was a city building inspector here in Indy and has told me about the political BS they has to dish out...he quit because of that. No one is tying to keep Chick Fil A owners from speaking..that it a Red Herring, the issue is WHAT they had to say. So it is rather meaningless to say "We are only here to support their right to say what they want." When no one was saying otherwise. The issue is the content. Heck, on this very board we had members the same day the GLBT group announced a protest try to start a counter protest by OCing in the stores. What does that do? What was the desired message? They said nothing anout free speech support...they just wanted to show support to the Christian values and freak the GLBT's out by displaying guns...the fail in that is beyond words.
How about by pointing out a single law that has been enacted in the last 25 years that was based solely on a belief of a religion.
The anti-gay marriage movement has no argument against gay marriage other then what is written in their religious text. We do not need to start a modern practice of basing our laws this way. Maybe the next law will be about mixing fabrics or requiring us to have magical underwear.
I am against any suggested law that is based only on the view point of a particular religious belief. This case just happens to be about homosexually. But it would not matter if it was about anything that was only a religious belief.
The United States is not a theocracy and I do not wish it to become one. When we being to base our modern laws on the view point of a particular religion then we are heading down the slippery slope of becoming one.
Funny how the guy know as "The Drive Through Bully" was hoping to be a hero for the left, a internet sensation. But instead Adam Smith, a CFO of a company in Arizona was fired today. The guy is a complete tool, and I applaud the company he worked for.
The Chic-Fil-A girl needs a raise for putting up with the guy.
Vante CFO Bullies Chick-Fil-A Worker, Then Promptly Gets Fired For It - Business Insider
Funny how the guy know as "The Drive Through Bully" was hoping to be a hero for the left, a internet sensation. But instead Adam Smith, a CFO of a company in Arizona was fired today. The guy is a complete tool, and I applaud the company he worked for.
The Chic-Fil-A girl needs a raise for putting up with the guy.
Vante CFO Bullies Chick-Fil-A Worker, Then Promptly Gets Fired For It - Business Insider
Yea. We wouldn't want to use any of that as a foundation for anything important, like say a constitution or something.
As I feared, the OP has been thread jacked to stellar levels.
How about by pointing out a single law that has been enacted in the last 25 years that was based solely on a belief of a religion.
The anti-gay marriage movement has no argument against gay marriage other then what is written in their religious text. We do not need to start a modern practice of basing our laws this way. Maybe the next law will be about mixing fabrics or requiring us to have magical underwear.
I am against any suggested law that is based only on the view point of a particular religious belief. This case just happens to be about homosexually. But it would not matter if it was about anything that was only a religious belief.
The United States is not a theocracy and I do not wish it to become one. When we being to base our modern laws on the view point of a particular religion then we are heading down the slippery slope of becoming one.
Mmmmmmmmm, okaaay, let's do this.
First there have been aaaaaay too many laws enacted in the last 25, 50, even 100 years. Our Legislative body was originally supposed to be a PAR-TIME government of citizen legislators. What you get with a full-time Governmental body is a bunch of pandering, self-important blowhards passing loads of laws, securing favors and sending money home to their districts to justify their existence and keep themselves in power.
Exactly why we don't need to add to it by making certain forms of marriage illegal.
That having been said, this law isn't "based solely on a belief of a religion." There are plenty of people that don't consider themselves religious and claim no religious affiliation that support. There are atheists, agnostics and other non-religious folks that oppose homosexuality and gay marriage because they see it as not normal to nature and the traditional definition of marriage does not allow for same-sex marriage.
In all honesty are you purposing the notion that that the vast majority of those opposed to same-sex marriage are not using religious based reasons? Granted there may be a few exceptions, but from listening to them it seems they are mostly religious based reasons.
The vast majority of our societal laws are based on a Christian, Anglo-Saxon morals that have been around for centuries. roughly 90% of the earth's population has some religious affiliation or recognition. Confucianism, Taoism, Buddhism and the like are all considered religions and even the most primitive of tribes have some religious practices that they follow. Religion is part of life throughout the world whether you want to admit it or not.
Marriage is an institution created by religious institutions for the recognition, support and strength of the natural heterosexual family unit (please reference original definitions and history).
I will have to disagree here somewhat. Marriage was around long before any of the current day mainstream religions. I encourage you to look here. History of Marriage | The History, Origins and Customs of Marriage
Most - myself included - don't care if government wants to recognize Civil Unions or whatever final label they are given. And if the real issue is TRULY about the LEGAL benefits, perks and privileges that would go with marriage, then what it is called should not matter as long as those things are secured for those that believe they deserve them.
So why not call them marriage since it shouldn't matter what they are called? And I don't believe the majority of the anti-same sex marriage crowd shares your opinion of being ok with the idea that same sex couples should get the same benefits of those in a traditional marriage.
Maybe I'm wrong on that, but it would seem if they were truly accepting of the idea this whole issue would have been settled a long time ago.
There is also the issue of some the laws and regulations that currently support benefits for traditional marriage may not cover civil unions as those current rules and regulations are written.
And incidentally, the U.S. is in no trouble of becoming a Theocracy. Now if the Islamists were to gain control . . . . then the LGBT crowd would have a whole other world of things to worry about.
You do realize they have been illegal all this time. The change some are seeking is to make them legal. Right?
You do realize they have been illegal all this time. The change some are seeking is to make them legal. Right?
My opinion is that we need to shrink government. We need to strip the government of the ability to punish those who exorcise speech. We also need to get the government out of marriage. That means that I as a Christian should not call on the government to ban gay marriage. Because a government that can tell Adam and Steve that they can't get married has the power to interfere with my ability to marry whomever I want.
Exactly.
The homosexuals have been absolutely taking the wrong strategy - as have the heterosexuals. We need to get government out of the business of benefitting some and not others, of recognizing marriage. Get government out of our bedrooms and out of our lives.
2 points:
First, anyone who thinks this is about gay marriage isn't paying attention and coming out in favor of traditional marriage isn't gay bashing any more than coming out in favor of gay marriage is straight bashing. This issue is about the 1A, period.
Yeah, I'm done now...flame away.