Radical imam OK but not Chick-fil-A

Not with the Left.
Good lord Grain. Even when you have a valid point you make it like a moron. What about the Mosque in Tennessee that has been persecuted by local bigots who've refused to issue them building permits based on bigotry towards Muslims? Hmmmm? Talk about being a hypocrit. Walk the talk pal.
 
And that is your (and every Amican's) right. Just as Huckabee and his 300,000+ folks have a right to have their Chick fil A day. I think what most folks On the right are upset about are the political figures who, on the spur of the moment after the statement became public, vowed to do their best to block any Chick fil A from their cities. That is where most of the argument ha been directed, other than some of the cartoons I have seen.
Agreed. I can certainly understand their anger at his comments but as long as he is not actively discriminating against gays (i.e. not serving them at his business) then his comments are protected free speech.
 
Chick-Fil-A is now a new favorite for me. Thank God somebody still has the balls to say in public what he believes, and to hell with the pervert heathens on the Left.

I love it.
Yea well good thing it's a privately held company cause he'd have a hell of a time explaining that to share holders of a publicly owned company. The dumbass has lost a lot more customers then he's gained by his stupid comments.
 
Well you know, I never have really been a fan of Chik-fil-a. My daughter LOVES it, and I have HAD to eat there, and it was okay... a dry hunk of chicken on a bun for $5... nothing I would normally go for. But with all this hoopla from the left, I think I might have to go on August 1st. In fact, I am going to get my daughter and we're going to have lunch there. It's just the principle of the matter to me, and the libs can go to Hell.
Good for you. After his stupid assed comments he'll need the business!
 
funniest stuff ever and SOOOOOO true. they opened up one down south of us and we tried it........gag me.

btw dixie....we out on the west coast only paid $3.00. i guess the southerners will pay $2.00 more for the same piece of chicken, yet, won't pay more for our scenic coastal living.
You've obviosly have never been to Alabama. It's a beautiful state and you need to take a dirve down St. Rt. 65.
 
Yea well good thing it's a privately held company cause he'd have a #%€£ of a time explaining that to share holders of a publicly owned company. The dumb#%£ has lost a lot more customers then he's gained by his stupid comments.

I'm not so sure about that. I depends on where the franchise is located. I know several people who ate there regularly BECAUSE of the values exhibited by the company keeping their restaurants closed on Sundays for the purpose of allowing their employees to go worship. Now several others have been made aware of the policies of this franchise and the one in the town nearest me was more packed than ever this weekend. I figure they'll be just fine. Some of their restaurants income more liberal areas of the country may see a fall off of business but he will almost definitely see an increase in some other areas. It might just balance out.
 
I would say that you don't understand the laws of this nation.

You say you're a christian. If that is the case, then I suggest you prayerfully examine the Bible. I guarantee you will find zero support for gay marriage in there.
ROTFLMA!! Hey Mr. GED....You are aware that Yurt is a licensd Atty aren't you? LOL
 
I'm not so sure about that. I depends on where the franchise is located. I know several people who ate there regularly BECAUSE of the values exhibited by the company keeping their restaurants closed on Sundays for the purpose of allowing their employees to go worship. Now several others have been made aware of the policies of this franchise and the one in the town nearest me was more packed than ever this weekend. I figure they'll be just fine. Some of their restaurants income more liberal areas of the country may see a fall off of business but he will almost definitely see an increase in some other areas. It might just balance out.
I'm reasonably sure they do a lot of business in urban areas where those kind of comments would alienate more people by far. It would be interesting to track them if they were a public company to see what the financial impact of his comments would be though that would probably be a moot point as I'm reasonably sure the board of directors of a publically owned company would fire his ass. Again, on the whole and across the board I'll stand by my statement, I bet the corporation loses more business then they gain by his comments and that's why I think it's stupd and I'd say the same thing if he came out publicly in support of gay marriage.
 
I'm reasonably sure they do a lot of business in urban areas where those kind of comments would alienate more people by far. It would be interesting to track them if they were a public company to see what the financial impact of his comments would be though that would probably be a moot point as I'm reasonably sure the board of directors of a publically owned company would fire his ass. Again, on the whole and across the board I'll stand by my statement, I bet the corporation loses more business then they gain by his comments and that's why I think it's stupd and I'd say the same thing if he came out publicly in support of gay marriage.

You're probably right that he shouldn't make any "political" comments if his focus is only on the bottom line. But here's another thing and maybe you know more about it than I do. He was being interviewed by a Baptist something or other. Was it a religious publication or not. I have looked some but have not found anything out as to the paper he was being interviewed for.
 
You're probably right that he shouldn't make any "political" comments if his focus is only on the bottom line. But here's another thing and maybe you know more about it than I do. He was being interviewed by a Baptist something or other. Was it a religious publication or not. I have looked some but have not found anything out as to the paper he was being interviewed for.
Well that's his responsibility as the CEO of a company. He has to look out for share holder interest whether it be a public company or private. I'm reasonably sure that even as a privately owned company Chik-Fil-A is in damage control mode and the board of directors have probably instructed the CEO (who are more accountable to a BOD in a privately held company) to shut the hell up about divisive political issues. To me the point is not about his expressing his political views but about hurting the business he has a financial obligation for. If I was a share holder I'd be pissed.

I work for a publically traded company and I own a significant amount of stock personally and as part of my retirement fund and if our CEO came out with public comments for or against any divisive political or social issue I'd be furious at him as I'm sure the companies stock would take a hit meaning I'd be taking a financial hit for his having a big mouth.
 
You are correct. But Jesus also told to render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, meaning the secular laws are what they are.
Jesus never told us to embrace sin. If gay marriage ever makes its way into the law books, the onus will be on good Christians, everywhere, to get it overturned.
 
Well that's his responsibility as the CEO of a company. He has to look out for share holder interest whether it be a public company or private. I'm reasonably sure that even as a privately owned company Chik-Fil-A is in damage control mode and the board of directors have probably instructed the CEO (who are more accountable to a BOD in a privately held company) to shut the hell up about divisive political issues. To me the point is not about his expressing his political views but about hurting the business he has a financial obligation for. If I was a share holder I'd be pissed.

I work for a publically traded company and I own a significant amount of stock personally and as part of my retirement fund and if our CEO came out with public comments for or against any divisive political or social issue I'd be furious at him as I'm sure the companies stock would take a hit meaning I'd be taking a financial hit for his having a big mouth.

First of all, Stewart Cathy did not call a press conference and make an announcement that Chick-fil-a was opposed to homosexuals and wouldn't serve gay people. If that event had transpired, I would be right there with the idiots boycotting the man, because that would have been wrong. What DID happen, was the man gave an interview to a Christian media source, where he simply gave his opinion about gay marriage and Christian values. The LEFT picked this up and decided to run with it. After a week of smearing and jeering, and threatening to put the man out of business because he disagrees with you, we now have you running around saying he should have kept his mouth shut.... Yeah, we should all probably keep our mouths shut, and simply capitulate to whatever the left wants, because if we don't, we see what happens, lives are destroyed, businesses are decimated, careers ruined. And if that doesn't work, bricks are hurled through windows and buildings torched in the night, I suppose?
 
Well, well well, an old blind hog finds an acorn every now and then. Yup he was wrong and so was Rom Emanual. Where they were really wrong is telling Chik-Fil-A they would prevent them from opening a business in Boston/Chicago respectively. That would last about 2 seconds in a court of law.

Unfortunately, probably last a long time in Chicago.
 
Jesus never told us to embrace sin. If gay marriage ever makes its way into the law books, the onus will be on good Christians, everywhere, to get it overturned.

If it becomes legal, I will have no problem with it. I am not embracing the sin, I am celebrating the union. The sin will continue regardless of the whether marriage is part of it or not.

So many in the religious right make it sound as though gays will stop being gay or having sex unless they get married. In essence, there are two sins committed today by gays. That of homosexuality and that of sex outside of marriage. At least this would cut the sinning in half. :cool:
 
If it becomes legal, I will have no problem with it. I am not embracing the sin, I am celebrating the union. The sin will continue regardless of the whether marriage is part of it or not.

So many in the religious right make it sound as though gays will stop being gay or having sex unless they get married. In essence, there are two sins committed today by gays. That of homosexuality and that of sex outside of marriage. At least this would cut the sinning in half. :cool:

There is no religious requirement of marriage for two people of the same sex. Men and women becoming husbands and wives and fathers and mothers to their children. From BC Roman law

"matrimonium is an institution involving a mother, mater. The idea implicit in the word is that a man takes a woman in marriage, in matrimonium ducere, so that he may have children by her"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage
 
If it becomes legal, I will have no problem with it.
Of course you won't; you're a liberal.
I am not embracing the sin, I am celebrating the union.
You're celebrating the sin.

The sin will continue regardless of the whether marriage is part of it or not.
So let's shepherd marriage into it anyways, since Satan is too powerful to resist, right?

So many in the religious right make it sound as though gays will stop being gay or having sex unless they get married.
That's what the Left would like people to think we are doing. The truth is, we want to uphold both the temporal law, and the spiritual law. You want to break both laws, because you are liberal.

In essence, there are two sins committed today by gays. That of homosexuality and that of sex outside of marriage. At least this would cut the sinning in half. :cool:
No, it wouldn't. Gay marriage is not supported in the Bible, either.
 
Back
Top