Chick Fillet Boycott Report
- Thread starter DBMJR1
- Start date
The Best online firearms community in Louisiana.
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
.
2011Corvette
Well-Known Member
Originally Posted by 09corvette
God has everything to do with marriage and it should be between a man and a woman!
Bottom line..........
I admire a company or anyone who stands up for morals and what the bible says.
'So, should we institute a Christian version of Sharia law in this country? Or should we follow the constitution and get the government out of our religion and leave "the sanctity of marriage" to individuals to practice?'
I believe we better stay involved in bringing GOD and MORALS back into this society.
It is pretty evident how screwed up things can get when you don't.
God has everything to do with marriage and it should be between a man and a woman!
Bottom line..........
I admire a company or anyone who stands up for morals and what the bible says.
'So, should we institute a Christian version of Sharia law in this country? Or should we follow the constitution and get the government out of our religion and leave "the sanctity of marriage" to individuals to practice?'
I believe we better stay involved in bringing GOD and MORALS back into this society.
It is pretty evident how screwed up things can get when you don't.
There is so much wrong with this thread it's hard to know where to start.
Marriage between one man and one woman is certainly a "religious concept." Obviously it's intent goes beyond just staying with one wife or one husband. It was also a means of pro-creation which obviously cannot exist naturally between 2 men or 2 women. The states became involved only with the licencing. If gay's want to get married then petition the states to change their constitution to allow "civil unions" performed by civil servants such as Justices of the Peace or churches that allow such unions under whatever codes they have. There are indeed churches that ignore this part of scripture.
What perk is provided to me by the government such as health insurance (which I personally pay for through a private corporation), or joint taxes which is currently allowed under the tax code. Until Obama care is fully instituted my wife and I make all our own medical decisions and I damned sure don't think the abitlity to do so is some kind of "government perk". Although I am opposed to inheritance taxes, who I pass on my persoanl possesions to again is not something I would remotely consider a government perk. And as long as our public affection is not lude, what the hell perk am I taking advantage of? Unless of course you think public affection is some king of religious ritual.
Gay marriage can only be considered a religious issue because our laws are based on a moral code established by "Natures God and Natures Laws". You seem to have fallen into the "speparation of church and state" doctrine which is not found any where in our Declaration of Independance or Constitution. It simply states that the government shall not establish a church!
I would argue that since same sex marriage is a moral issue as precribed by the vast majority or established "religions" and it is opposed by the majority of Americans (presumably on a moral basis) then to allow such unions without the consent of the governed is a form of state establihed church.
I would argue that mixing government and religion is NOT a slipperly slope as long as the government does not dictate church doctrin. I would argue that the church should however get more involved in the workings of the government (local, state and federal) in order to insure the codes used as a basis of our Republic are not eroded by individulal freedoms of a few that supercede the freedoms of the majority. I think it is the duty of any religion to speak openly and publicly against government intervention that is contrary it's beliefs. If a man wants to marry a man then I say "so be it" but nothing prevents me from speaking publicly against something I personally consider immoral and nothing should prevent me and others who believe in the sanctity of marriage from opposing such unions both publicly and religiously. Nothing should prevent me from from opening a business and employing my personal moral code in it's daily operation. What is "acceptable for the public" is the publics business not the governments.
And before you comment on the BIBLE with such misinterpretations of "concubines, child beatings, hair length, pork and other such things I would suggest you actually read the book and seeks it's truths rather that buy into the falicies you represent it as. And I do tithe 10% before taxes because that is my "religious belief". Living under or by the teachings of my church, contrary to your interpretation, does not make my life harder. If you equate a harder life to not drinking, dancing or staying true to your spouce then I would simply honor your right to believe as you do but accept your opinions to be baseless to by beliefs.
Marriage between one man and one woman is certainly a "religious concept." Obviously it's intent goes beyond just staying with one wife or one husband. It was also a means of pro-creation which obviously cannot exist naturally between 2 men or 2 women. The states became involved only with the licencing. If gay's want to get married then petition the states to change their constitution to allow "civil unions" performed by civil servants such as Justices of the Peace or churches that allow such unions under whatever codes they have. There are indeed churches that ignore this part of scripture.
What perk is provided to me by the government such as health insurance (which I personally pay for through a private corporation), or joint taxes which is currently allowed under the tax code. Until Obama care is fully instituted my wife and I make all our own medical decisions and I damned sure don't think the abitlity to do so is some kind of "government perk". Although I am opposed to inheritance taxes, who I pass on my persoanl possesions to again is not something I would remotely consider a government perk. And as long as our public affection is not lude, what the hell perk am I taking advantage of? Unless of course you think public affection is some king of religious ritual.
Gay marriage can only be considered a religious issue because our laws are based on a moral code established by "Natures God and Natures Laws". You seem to have fallen into the "speparation of church and state" doctrine which is not found any where in our Declaration of Independance or Constitution. It simply states that the government shall not establish a church!
I would argue that since same sex marriage is a moral issue as precribed by the vast majority or established "religions" and it is opposed by the majority of Americans (presumably on a moral basis) then to allow such unions without the consent of the governed is a form of state establihed church.
I would argue that mixing government and religion is NOT a slipperly slope as long as the government does not dictate church doctrin. I would argue that the church should however get more involved in the workings of the government (local, state and federal) in order to insure the codes used as a basis of our Republic are not eroded by individulal freedoms of a few that supercede the freedoms of the majority. I think it is the duty of any religion to speak openly and publicly against government intervention that is contrary it's beliefs. If a man wants to marry a man then I say "so be it" but nothing prevents me from speaking publicly against something I personally consider immoral and nothing should prevent me and others who believe in the sanctity of marriage from opposing such unions both publicly and religiously. Nothing should prevent me from from opening a business and employing my personal moral code in it's daily operation. What is "acceptable for the public" is the publics business not the governments.
And before you comment on the BIBLE with such misinterpretations of "concubines, child beatings, hair length, pork and other such things I would suggest you actually read the book and seeks it's truths rather that buy into the falicies you represent it as. And I do tithe 10% before taxes because that is my "religious belief". Living under or by the teachings of my church, contrary to your interpretation, does not make my life harder. If you equate a harder life to not drinking, dancing or staying true to your spouce then I would simply honor your right to believe as you do but accept your opinions to be baseless to by beliefs.
The issue, for me, is government tyranny. Mayors of three cities stood up and said that the beliefs espoused by the CEO would be the basis for denying the company the right to conduct business in their cities.
Doesn't anyone else see how this is only a small step from confiscating the businesses owned by the Jews? Has Krystallnacht 2012 been scheduled yet?
Well they can all three go to hell, and I'll go to Chik Fil A for lunch.
Doesn't anyone else see how this is only a small step from confiscating the businesses owned by the Jews? Has Krystallnacht 2012 been scheduled yet?
Well they can all three go to hell, and I'll go to Chik Fil A for lunch.
Did anyone notice that a Somali comedian was murdered because he made a joke about the peaceful religion of Islam?
Oh that's right, the media was reporting on this extremely important subject.
Pacioli hits nail on head! This is a far larger and dangerous issue.
RovingDisco
Well-Known Member
Antoine Dodson went to Chickfila back in my hometown yesterday...
http://blog.al.com/breaking/2012/08/antoine_dodson_supports_chick-.html
http://blog.al.com/breaking/2012/08/antoine_dodson_supports_chick-.html
I don't understand the urge among so many with only the most fleeting acquaintance with scripture to attempt to twist it to their purpose. And I weary of uninformed attacks on my faith that derive from that ignorance.
I don't remember any mention of Jews, Hebrews or the Children of Israel in this thread, rather Christians. Yet you have chosen the Old Covenant (The Law) to impeach. For your enlightenment, that portion of the "Bible" is a record of the agreement that God established with his chosen people. Christians do not fall into that category.
The basis of Christians' relationship with God derives from the teachings of the New Covenant. We are under grace, not law. Certainly not under the judgements and statutes you reference.
Your better chance is to go find a thread where you want to beat up on Jews and try your luck there. But I'd still put a little more study into your cause before you try it out on them. I don't think you are adequately prepared.
Btw, David danced before the Lord in worship and adoration. Jesus turned water into wine. Paul advised wine in moderation to aid digestion. God made provision for a man to divorce his wife for adultery. A little something from both covenants.
"Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding." Proverbs 4:7
Last edited:
I agree, but it also applies to the other side of the issue. They get to their voice too.
Well, I think the biggest real issue is the fact that Chick-fil-a gives money to groups who oppose doing those things. In this case I think they have a legitimate issue.... but the handling of it leaves much to be desired.
I disagree. While I am a Christian and hold the same values as many of us here, people are generally the problem. Even Christians (self proclaimed) have done evil under the guise of religion. Legislating morality is often a bad thing because as people we are all sinners and do evil. Less is better. You want better people, be better, be good to others, and be a role model.
Those Mayors should be run out of town tarred and feathered.
I'm just asking you to use some common sense
yes, what thing can you do to tell a person you want to spend the rest of your life with? i say giving up your virginity would be the highest tier thing on the list of covenant related practices..
I was in Gulfport for lunch yesterday at Chick-Fe-La with long lines at 2 p.m. It felt good to make my statement that I agree that the C.E.O. of that company could speak his mind.
I believe Obama started this Nationaly when he " I support Gay marriage ".That was wrong as being the President of this nation, in a political arena .So I suppose I early voted with my statement yesterday.
I believe Obama started this Nationaly when he " I support Gay marriage ".That was wrong as being the President of this nation, in a political arena .So I suppose I early voted with my statement yesterday.
^^^this^^^
One of the biggest reasons I never talk religion or politics at work is because it will polarize the clients.
And why do the rights of the minority outweigh the rights of the majority? A small percentage of the public want something right now, and if you don't agree, your the extremist, radical, fanatic, conservative, or whatever the new insult is today.
One kid is offended by the pledge of allegiance in school, don't remove the kid, remove the pledge. Makes sense to me.
What if I was geting serious with dating my pony Buttercup and felt that she should have healthcare provided on my insurance coverage. Afterall vet's are expensive. My church definitely says no to it. Where do I go to have my right to happiness upheld?
One of the biggest reasons I never talk religion or politics at work is because it will polarize the clients.
And why do the rights of the minority outweigh the rights of the majority? A small percentage of the public want something right now, and if you don't agree, your the extremist, radical, fanatic, conservative, or whatever the new insult is today.
One kid is offended by the pledge of allegiance in school, don't remove the kid, remove the pledge. Makes sense to me.
What if I was geting serious with dating my pony Buttercup and felt that she should have healthcare provided on my insurance coverage. Afterall vet's are expensive. My church definitely says no to it. Where do I go to have my right to happiness upheld?
Last edited:
and if the woman wasn't a virgin, the husband could ask for a refund from the woman's father...
I think the rights of the minority seem to outweigh the rights of the majority because we stopped teaching religion and the Constitution in our schools. We have allowed our country to be run by feel good politicians under the cloak of "democracy". Few people understand that our democratic government is a Republic, not a democracy. I cringe every time I hear someone talk about democracy because I know they are talking through ignorance.
Once we have elevated our society to a point that individual rights equal the rights of the majority we have then set up a form of government that is anarcist in it's very nature. Our founders were wise enough to create a system of majority rule (a Republic) with out outwardly tramping the rights of a minority as long as that minority was not destructive in it's political nature.
We can all peacfully co exist, but our laws must be followed and those laws must be based on a moral code that is consistant with the majority of citizens. I believe religion is absolutely critical to the operations of any government while at the same time it is absolutely critical that government does not corrupt the morality of a church by creating and enforcing laws that are contrary to church doctrine.
It truly saddens me to see the state of our nation. I have made it my goal to study it's laws and history, to obeys all laws that are not contrary to the will of God, to financially support the church through tithes and offerings,support the Jewish people who I believe are the chosen of God, to defend the Constitution with all that I can. The scriptures teach that we all fall short of the glory of God and a Leonidas pointed out we are living under grace which benefits us mere gentiles because it exempts us from living under the law, but it does not allow us to violate it.
We can freely choose to obey whatever god we choose or serve no god at all. If we choose to follow the scriptures then we must do so with all our hearts, soul and body as required. To do anything else would violate His word. We can do this because God created us a creatures of choice (free will) and the Constitution of the United States of America and the Declaration of Independence gave us the civil right to do so. Our founders declared these rights to be "...truths to be self evident...and "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."
As with all things are rights are not free and they are not all encompassing. We should hold them dear and defend them with all that we have. If these rights are contrary to a select group or faction then fight for change. You have that right also. You don't have the right to do so by slander, disruption or chaos.
But...I could be wrong.
Once we have elevated our society to a point that individual rights equal the rights of the majority we have then set up a form of government that is anarcist in it's very nature. Our founders were wise enough to create a system of majority rule (a Republic) with out outwardly tramping the rights of a minority as long as that minority was not destructive in it's political nature.
We can all peacfully co exist, but our laws must be followed and those laws must be based on a moral code that is consistant with the majority of citizens. I believe religion is absolutely critical to the operations of any government while at the same time it is absolutely critical that government does not corrupt the morality of a church by creating and enforcing laws that are contrary to church doctrine.
It truly saddens me to see the state of our nation. I have made it my goal to study it's laws and history, to obeys all laws that are not contrary to the will of God, to financially support the church through tithes and offerings,support the Jewish people who I believe are the chosen of God, to defend the Constitution with all that I can. The scriptures teach that we all fall short of the glory of God and a Leonidas pointed out we are living under grace which benefits us mere gentiles because it exempts us from living under the law, but it does not allow us to violate it.
We can freely choose to obey whatever god we choose or serve no god at all. If we choose to follow the scriptures then we must do so with all our hearts, soul and body as required. To do anything else would violate His word. We can do this because God created us a creatures of choice (free will) and the Constitution of the United States of America and the Declaration of Independence gave us the civil right to do so. Our founders declared these rights to be "...truths to be self evident...and "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."
As with all things are rights are not free and they are not all encompassing. We should hold them dear and defend them with all that we have. If these rights are contrary to a select group or faction then fight for change. You have that right also. You don't have the right to do so by slander, disruption or chaos.
But...I could be wrong.
Staff online
-
340six-Global Mod-
Members online
- stag0608
- pangris1
- Bmash
- WhereIsIt?
- Jstudz220
- bayoutiger08
- Joe504
- SMR412
- usbuilt
- mforsta
- cbecnel
- Labeeman
- scrapiron
- lashooter68
- grantharris1945
- N4sir
- Scrape
- paddle007
- theway109
- gemihur
- miscverb
- GearFondler
- UncleBiff
- jdavid1
- SouthernInsanity
- Target Sports USA
- tekkaman_tnt
- 340six
- farmerjim
- jvr
- stinkysix
- K9Gunner
- mbuzha
- lowell66dart
- mickey
- bryanbag
- Gatordude
- k0k0m0
- speedfreek
- roundabout
- redhammer5
- AK shooter
- Latrag7
- Lindahon
- easy_does_it_24
- PhalanX-SS
- rk06classic
- pullstart
- Radar55
- idkmybffjill
