Religous Freedom

Jughead said:
False, a man said he belived in his version of the Biblical interpertation of marriage, that was okay.

It turned out that the man was donating money to groups that try to push that interperation onto other people.

People did not like that and began to talk about no longer adding to his financial wealth.
Click to expand...

Ahh... is THAT going to now be the spin put on this failed turdball? LOL

No, all of the bullshit about his supporting this or that, didn't come out until WELL AFTER the initial reaction to his comments in the interview he gave. When you realized the wheels were about to come off on this thing, and it wasn't going to fly like you expected, you ran out there and found some British tabloid internet group to gin up some bogus shit about Chick-Fil-a, and minions were dispatched to spread lies about who all he has contributed to.

In the end, you all look like a bunch of goofballs, because the man profited unbelievably on 8/1. It wasn't HIS idea, he didn't PLAN that, hell, the greatest geniuses of fast-food enterprise could have never planned anything to top what happened. Thank God for you these are modest Christian people, and don't believe in rubbing things in your face, but I imagine they set some sort of single-day record for fast food sales anywhere. I would be SHOCKED if that weren't the case.
 
Jarod said:
No, three people talked about blocking his business. (I disagree with them, just like I disagreed with those who wanted to block the NYC Mosque.)

I heard nothing about demanding water.
Click to expand...

yeah, just three guys.....nobody important........and did you watch the video of the guy who got fired for being an asshole to the drive up window clerk?.....
 
Jarod said:
No, three people talked about blocking his business. (I disagree with them, just like I disagreed with those who wanted to block the NYC Mosque.)
Click to expand...

Its four and you still cant seem to grasp. Individuals are free to try and keep the mosque from being built. Here we have 4 cities stating that THEY will block Chick Fil a
 
Jarod said:
False, a man said he belived in his version of the Biblical interpertation of marriage, that was okay.

It turned out that the man was donating money to groups that try to push that interperation onto other people.

People did not like that and began to talk about no longer adding to his financial wealth.
Click to expand...
Fine they don't have to buy his product, but where he puts his money is his own business, you don't like it? Don't go. But don't block his company based on the religious decisions of the owner, that's actually an infringement.

You want to do damage to them? Ignore them, it will be more harmful commercially than all this hatred. You can't buy the kind of publicity that they have right now.
 
dixon76710 said:
Its four and you still cant seem to grasp. Individuals are free to try and keep the mosque from being built. Here we have 4 cities stating that THEY will block Chick Fil a
Click to expand...
It was government officials trying to keep the mosque from being built.
 
You want to do damage to them? Ignore them, it will be more harmful commercially than all this hatred. You can't buy the kind of publicity that they have right now.
Click to expand...

You're right, I am guessing 8-1-12 was some kind of all-time record for fast food sales in the history of fast food, but the constant having his logo splashed on the front page of every newspaper in the country... like you said, you can't BUY that kind of publicity.
 
Jarod said:
Ugh
Click to expand...

You really are clueless. 4 city mayors have threatened or suggested that chick fil a would be blocked from conducting business in their towns. On the other hand, Bloomberg, in response to criticism about the mosque said

there is nothing in the law that would prevent the owners from opening a mosque within the existing building. The simple fact is this building is private property, and the owners have a right to use the building as a house of worship.

"The government has no right whatsoever to deny that right – and if it were tried, the courts would almost certainly strike it down as a violation of the U.S. Constitution.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703545604575407673221908474.html
Click to expand...
 
Lowaicue said:
Religious freedom surely means the freedom to choose between religions or the freedom to choose which parts of a particular religion you want.
The freedom we should be discussing is the freedom either to have or not to have a faith. I guess that might be secular freedom although there is a danger that would fall into the same trap. Therefore we should make it a freedom for those who know no better to join a faith if they wish since the status quo would be total secularism.
Now, considering the trouble most faiths cause to most societies that 'freedom' should be examined very closely. Perhaps those who feel strongly enough should have to apply to belong to a religion and if too many apply membership should be limited.

Any member of any church, mosque of temple who commits a crime should have their entire congregation punished by a ban in assembly for one year for the first offence, five years for the second and lifetime for the third. That means congregation would have to police their own membership.
Freedom? Of course, the members of the congregations would be totally free to abide by the law and to respect the society in which they exist.
tic
Click to expand...
Then by the inverse; any one who's not a member of a congregation, who then commits a crime, should be made to have thier entire family be part of a congregation for one year, etc., etc., etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top