So, there's this chicken place...

Funkenpants wrote:
DSGamer wrote:

I've often said that on my journey to atheism initially I was given a shove by Christians. They made me feel like it was impossible that I was one of them when they behaved like this.

Christians are a very diverse group of people. There are a ton of Christians who actively support gay rights, or are at least ambivalent about the issue, so it's not fair to argue that the behavior of people at Chick Fil A is a good reason for atheism.

You're absolutely right, Funken, but I can really see where DS is coming from. It doesn't require every Christian to display horribly un-Christ-like behavior to make one question the validity of the religion's message, just a significant enough portion of them.

DSGamer wrote:

My Christian brother-in-law posted this on Facebook yesterday. I was amazed by this in a good way.

http://matthewpaulturner.net/f1/5-reasons-why-the-church-failed-yesterday/

A real takeaway message in there for me is this:

Not only did supporting CFA Appreciation Day declare that Christians believe that an issue is more important than people, that declaration was made by the mass consumption of junk food. That fact doesn’t need a punch line. It is a punch line.

That is spot on. The CFA crap doesn't just reflect poorly on Christians, it reflects poorly on the US. Granted it's a fraction of Christians that are hopefully misrepresenting Christianity as a whole, but they are likewise a fraction of Americans misrepresenting their country.

The world already believes the US is nothing but ignorant Bible-thumping lard-asses. As a Canadian, my national identity is founded on harbouring that belief. Now to see the issue, proclaimed by a former Republican presidential candidate, that seemingly galvanizes a nation is the one built on buying a fast food sandwich...?

This is a PR disaster for everyone in your country. The US may be a superpower, but it's been a laughingstock for years now. The Chick-Fil-A crap (even the name—"Fil-A"—is stereotypically American) is like material from a comedy writer who's lost his passion for the job.

Funkenpants wrote:
Jonman wrote:

You're absolutely right, Funken, but I can really see where DS is coming from. It doesn't require every Christian to display horribly un-Christ-like behavior to make one question the validity of the religion's message, just a significant enough portion of them.

We're talking about a religion with over a billion or two believers worldwide. Even the Christians on this small board don't all agree on theology and politics. I think it's fair to make assumptions about a more homogenous group like the members of a single church, but a couple of billion people spread across the U.S. (and other continents)?

Who's making an assumption? DSG said it caused him to question his religion. Is questioning not the opposite of assumption?

Jonman wrote:

You're absolutely right, Funken, but I can really see where DS is coming from. It doesn't require every Christian to display horribly un-Christ-like behavior to make one question the validity of the religion's message, just a significant enough portion of them.

We're talking about a religion with over a billion or two believers worldwide. Even the Christians on this small board don't all agree on theology and politics. I think it's fair to make assumptions about a more homogenous group like the members of a single church, but not a couple of billion people spread across the U.S. (and other continents).

MattDaddy wrote:
RoughneckGeek wrote:
WipEout wrote:

I'd also heard that Chik-Fil-A's money went to groups that promoted that whole "ungayifying" brainwashing camps movement that's going on, but I don't know how much truth there is to that. I wouldn't be surprised, honestly, if their money went to groups that support it, but I kind of doubt they'd send money directly to such camps.

Exodus International is one of the groups WinShape has donated to. In addition to the harmful ex-gay therapy they peddle, several executives attended the conference in Uganda that birthed the "Kill the Gays" bill as spokesmen for the organization.

I'm only risking entry into this forum to contribute some facts, nothing more.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exodus_International

Ugandan conference
In 2009, several Exodus International executives, traveling in their capacity as Exodus International spokesmen, attended a conference in Uganda that promoted what critics describe as promoting "shocking abuses of basic human rights".[41] Close to a year later, Chambers expressed regret for the organization's involvement, and spoke out against the nation's "Kill the Gays" bill.
In January 2012 the current president of Exodus International, Alan Chambers, during his address to a Gay Christian Network conference, stated that 99.9% of conversion therapy participants do not experience any change to their sexuality and apologized for the previous Exodus slogan "Change Is Possible". On October 6, 2010, it was reported by CNN and Ex-Gay Watch that Exodus International would not support the 2011 annual Day of Truth (a counter protest to the LGBT community's Day of Silence) originated by the Alliance Defense Fund, as the organization had done in 2010. President Alan Chambers was quoted as saying "All the recent attention to bullying helped us realize that we need to equip kids to live out biblical tolerance and grace while treating their neighbors as they'd like to be treated, whether they agree with them or not."[7][8] In another apparent shift in the organization's previous positions, Chambers stated in June 2012, "I do not believe that cure is a word that is applicable to really any struggle, homosexuality included." While he believes that "any sexual activity outside a heterosexual, monogamous marriage is sinful according to the bible", he is attempting to disassociate the group from "reparative therapy" and also step back from contentious political engagement. Speaking to the New York Times in July 2012, Chambers talked about how he believes gay people can have gay sex and still go to heaven. “But we’ve been asking people with same-sex attractions to overcome something in a way that we don’t ask of anyone else [with other sins].”[9][10]
Chambers, stated that conversion therapy is potentially harmful to those participating and it does not work

Thanks for sharing that - I appreciate knowing all the facts, and that adds to debate.

Kraint wrote:

Statement 1: Boycotting CFA(or Oreo cookies and Amazon) is legally and morally a-okay. Doing something illegal(harassment, trespassing, etc.) is neither. People are free to be stupid, loud, bigoted, etc., and others are free to not associate with them.

Statement 2: The Huckabee fan club's field trip will not last, and CFA is going to reap what it has sown. Let them have their record week, then deal with the ramifications of cultural ADD when the next Attack On Values happens and the organized trips stop. People remember their disgust far longer than they do artificial support.

I would agree with statement 1 if folks have issues with them then dont eat at the place.

Statement 2 is kinda true, I initially thought this as well until I found out for the most part their stores are located in the midwest and the south. I dont know if this will be true 5,10,25 years from now but at the moment they have a ton of support and that was before all of this went down.

Funkenpants wrote:
Jonman wrote:

You're absolutely right, Funken, but I can really see where DS is coming from. It doesn't require every Christian to display horribly un-Christ-like behavior to make one question the validity of the religion's message, just a significant enough portion of them.

We're talking about a religion with over a billion or two believers worldwide. Even the Christians on this small board don't all agree on theology and politics. I think it's fair to make assumptions about a more homogenous group like the members of a single church, but a couple of billion people spread across the U.S. (and other continents)?

So we're far more talking about my path to atheism now, but that's precisely the point. When a monolithic(ish) religion can contain so much dissent on so many issues, it makes me question whether any of them are right, not which ones are.

Okay. That's a bit different than the path I'd expect to see someone take to athiesm, but this is all kind of peripheral to the thread at this stage anyway. Derail over, then.

Funkenpants wrote:

There's no reason to get into arguments over word choice. I'm more than happy to delete "assumptions about" and replace with "statements about the behavior or beliefs of."

I'm not getting into semantics. I'm asking where are the statements that were made about all Christians? I thought the scenario was "Certain Christians behaved poorly and made me rethink my religion."

Gravey wrote:
DSGamer wrote:

My Christian brother-in-law posted this on Facebook yesterday. I was amazed by this in a good way.

http://matthewpaulturner.net/f1/5-reasons-why-the-church-failed-yesterday/

A real takeaway message in there for me is this:

Not only did supporting CFA Appreciation Day declare that Christians believe that an issue is more important than people, that declaration was made by the mass consumption of junk food. That fact doesn’t need a punch line. It is a punch line.

That is spot on. The CFA crap doesn't just reflect poorly on Christians, it reflects poorly on the US. Granted it's a fraction of Christians that are hopefully misrepresenting Christianity as a whole, but they are likewise a fraction of Americans misrepresenting their country.

The world already believes the US is nothing but ignorant Bible-thumping lard-asses. As a Canadian, my national identity is founded on harbouring that belief. Now to see the issue, proclaimed by a former Republican presidential candidate, that seemingly galvanizes a nation is the one built on buying a fast food sandwich...?

This is a PR disaster for everyone in your country. The US may be a superpower, but it's been a laughingstock for years now. The Chick-Fil-A crap (even the name—"Fil-A"—is stereotypically American) is like material from a comedy writer who's lost his passion for the job.

It also made me look back at NormantheIntern's statement about posting pics of men kissing in front of CFA being lazy and hypocritical and smile.

Funkenpants wrote:

Okay. That's a bit different than the path I'd expect to see someone take to athiesm, but this is all kind of peripheral to the thread at this stage anyway.

It totally is. I wasn't trying to derail the thread. In fact, I thought I was posting something topical. I really liked what those two writers, both Christians, had to say on the subject. And I guess the point is that even if I was always destined to end up who I am today I wish I would have had voices like theirs in my formative years so I didn't feel so alone. Modern Christians are lucky that even when a bunch of their flock go support a billionaire sandwich mogul because he's "pro family" that there are voices in their midst to say "this isn't our finest hour".

Jonman wrote:
Funkenpants wrote:
DSGamer wrote:

I've often said that on my journey to atheism initially I was given a shove by Christians. They made me feel like it was impossible that I was one of them when they behaved like this.

Christians are a very diverse group of people. There are a ton of Christians who actively support gay rights, or are at least ambivalent about the issue, so it's not fair to argue that the behavior of people at Chick Fil A is a good reason for atheism.

You're absolutely right, Funken, but I can really see where DS is coming from. It doesn't require every Christian to display horribly un-Christ-like behavior to make one question the validity of the religion's message, just a significant enough portion of them.

Bingo, this is what led to my own move away from the Christian religion. A lot of very unfortunate stances just made me feel that this was not the place for me both personally, nor a group I wanted to be associated with.

I loved playing D&D in college too, but when the leadership of the campus club became very hostile towards a group of female gamers when a breakup occured between two members of the leadership, I left that behind too rather than be associated with the Little Rascals style woman-hating.

The thing I don't get is... even with this being a privately-owned company... how does this not open them up for lawsuits from gay employees? Couldn't the head of the company saying that they do not believe in equal rights for members of a specific group immediately open them up to creating a hostile work environment for any employees in that group? I mean, with it being so strongly a Christian organization to start with, maybe they don't have a proportional number of employees affected by his statements... but to me, as a CEO of a company that serves the public like this, I just don't get taking this stance in public.

Then again, I work for a company that went the other way and specifically said this, for us, is an extension of our company policy of inclusion of all of our employees regardless of who they are. Little bit of flak from some customers on the religious side. Answered, end of story. I don't know that my employeers even made national news. *shrugs*

It's nice to see Exodus backing away from some of their extreme stances. Might not exactly clear CFA, since we're looking at June/July statements this year. When did CFA donate millions of dollars to them?

Couple of reports I could find for 2010 and 2009.

Looks like Exodus was actually one of their smaller donations, only $1k each year. The biggest donation each year seems to be nearly or over $1million to the Marriage & Family Legacy Fund, now known as the Marriage & Family Foundation. It doesn't have any web site or information, but apparently works directly with Marriage CoMission. They have a nice mission statement and background that just talks about stopping broken homes, reducing divorce rates, and promoting health and happiness in marriage. In a few spots in mentions men and women in their families or marriages. Nothing explicitly against gay marriage in their charter.

Not sure what they've been up to as far as lobbying or whatever, perhaps that's where the problem lies?

Here's a quick summary of where your money goes with a little info about each group, just from the 2010 numbers.

mcdonis wrote:

I dont know about everyone else who stood outside but I will tell you why I did.....

I saw this whole thing as a way to enforce belief on others, something Christians are yelled at every day of the week for. I saw the world telling me that an CEO cant agree with the bible because others dont like it or believe in it, so lets try hard to put them out of business. To me thats intollerance and hatred and I didnt like it. They also serve darn good chicken....

Would you consider it intolerant and hatred if the CEO of a company was openly racist and donating money to the KKK and people chose to boycott them and protest? Is it simply because the bigoted views from the bible that makes them ok?

Gravey wrote:
DSGamer wrote:

My Christian brother-in-law posted this on Facebook yesterday. I was amazed by this in a good way.

http://matthewpaulturner.net/f1/5-reasons-why-the-church-failed-yesterday/

A real takeaway message in there for me is this:

Not only did supporting CFA Appreciation Day declare that Christians believe that an issue is more important than people, that declaration was made by the mass consumption of junk food. That fact doesn’t need a punch line. It is a punch line.

That is spot on. The CFA crap doesn't just reflect poorly on Christians, it reflects poorly on the US. Granted it's a fraction of Christians that are hopefully misrepresenting Christianity as a whole, but they are likewise a fraction of Americans misrepresenting their country.

The world already believes the US is nothing but ignorant Bible-thumping lard-asses. As a Canadian, my national identity is founded on harbouring that belief. Now to see the issue, proclaimed by a former Republican presidential candidate, that seemingly galvanizes a nation is the one built on buying a fast food sandwich...?

This is a PR disaster for everyone in your country. The US may be a superpower, but it's been a laughingstock for years now. The Chick-Fil-A crap (even the name—"Fil-A"—is stereotypically American) is like material from a comedy writer who's lost his passion for the job.

I dont know about everyone else who stood outside but I will tell you why I did.....

I saw this whole thing as a way to enforce belief on others, something Christians are yelled at every day of the week for. I saw the world telling me that an CEO cant agree with the bible because others dont like it or believe in it, so lets try hard to put them out of business. To me thats intollerance and hatred and I didnt like it. They also serve darn good chicken....

I guess I am just another typicall stupid American who is brining shame to my country in the worlds eye. Yeah I feel bad about that part....

mcdonis wrote:

I guess I am just another typicall stupid American who is brining shame to my country in the worlds eye. Yeah I feel bad about that part....

That's how the shame stays juicy.

Tanglebones wrote:
mcdonis wrote:

I guess I am just another typicall stupid American who is brining shame to my country in the worlds eye. Yeah I feel bad about that part....

That's how the shame stays juicy.

mcdonis wrote:
Gravey wrote:
DSGamer wrote:

My Christian brother-in-law posted this on Facebook yesterday. I was amazed by this in a good way.

http://matthewpaulturner.net/f1/5-reasons-why-the-church-failed-yesterday/

A real takeaway message in there for me is this:

Not only did supporting CFA Appreciation Day declare that Christians believe that an issue is more important than people, that declaration was made by the mass consumption of junk food. That fact doesn’t need a punch line. It is a punch line.

That is spot on. The CFA crap doesn't just reflect poorly on Christians, it reflects poorly on the US. Granted it's a fraction of Christians that are hopefully misrepresenting Christianity as a whole, but they are likewise a fraction of Americans misrepresenting their country.

The world already believes the US is nothing but ignorant Bible-thumping lard-asses. As a Canadian, my national identity is founded on harbouring that belief. Now to see the issue, proclaimed by a former Republican presidential candidate, that seemingly galvanizes a nation is the one built on buying a fast food sandwich...?

This is a PR disaster for everyone in your country. The US may be a superpower, but it's been a laughingstock for years now. The Chick-Fil-A crap (even the name—"Fil-A"—is stereotypically American) is like material from a comedy writer who's lost his passion for the job.

I dont know about everyone else who stood outside but I will tell you why I did.....

I saw this whole thing as a way to enforce belief on others, something Christians are yelled at every day of the week for. I saw the world telling me that an CEO cant agree with the bible because others dont like it or believe in it, so lets try hard to put them out of business. To me thats intollerance and hatred and I didnt like it. They also serve darn good chicken....

I guess I am just another typicall stupid American who is brining shame to my country in the worlds eye. Yeah I feel bad about that part....

This is the argument I've heard from numerous people, here and on Facebook, and here is the problem I have with it:

A) The people boycotting CFA are voting with their wallets. That's part of a Free Market. A Free Market is exactly what conservative people espouse. So why is it "intolerant" and "hateful" to do so here? The answer is, because "you" (said conservative people) disagree. So go eat there. Vote with your own wallet. And this leads me to my second point:

B) To tolerate something is not necessarily to agree with it, just to accept that it exists and live with it. You don't have to participate, you don't have to agree, you just have to accept the fact that that thing exists. So to claim that people boycotting a business that espouses literal intolerance are themselves being intolerant, while vaguely true on the surface, is incredibly ignorant of the facts and the implications of the situation on a whole. LGBTQ groups are simply looking for equality. To claim that they themselves are spouting off intolerance and hate, simply for asking to be treated as equal citizens/people and lobbying for said equality within the free market, is just mind-explodingly stupid/ignorant/intolerant/hateful to me.

So mcdonis, while I don't personally believe you are a typical, stupid American that bastes his shame in salt water (;)), I do think that to claim a peaceful, dissident action against something you do or might support as being intolerant/hateful simply because you disagree is a pretty poorly-thought out decision-- at least in this case.

Well first of all I would not have any issue with folks protesting them or boycotting them, its trying to put them out of business and steping on their rights where I draw the line. I can dislike a person or their opinions, I can feel that what someone follows and wants is pure evil. I just dont think I have the right to demand that person be disalowed from making a living because of it.

Also I disagee with the correlation with the KKK and Focus on the Family, or some of the other groups sited.

mcdonis wrote:

Well first of all I would not have any issue with folks protesting them or boycotting them, its trying to put them out of business and steping on their rights where I draw the line. I can dislike a person or their opinions, I can feel that what someone follows and wants is pure evil. I just dont think I have the right to demand that person be disalowed from making a living because of it.

Also I disagee with the correlation with the KKK and Focus on the Family, or some of the other groups sited.

Where do you see this happening?

mcdonis wrote:

Well first of all I would not have any issue with folks protesting them or boycotting them, its trying to put them out of business and steping on their rights where I draw the line. I can dislike a person or their opinions, I can feel that what someone follows and wants is pure evil. I just dont think I have the right to demand that person be disalowed from making a living because of it.

Also I disagee with the correlation with the KKK and Focus on the Family, or some of the other groups sited.

Could you provide some info on what you are talking about here? I've only seen the boycotts, the protests, and the couple of people that attempted to actually interfere with the operation of individual locations that ended up getting arrested.

As a side note: while you may disagree, many people do see a valid comparison between Focus on the Family and well-known hate groups. The scale and active methods may be different, but the underlying motivations are arguably very comparable.

mcdonis wrote:
SixteenBlue wrote:
mcdonis wrote:

I dont know about everyone else who stood outside but I will tell you why I did.....

I saw this whole thing as a way to enforce belief on others, something Christians are yelled at every day of the week for. I saw the world telling me that an CEO cant agree with the bible because others dont like it or believe in it, so lets try hard to put them out of business. To me thats intollerance and hatred and I didnt like it. They also serve darn good chicken....

Would you consider it intolerant and hatred if the CEO of a company was openly racist and donating money to the KKK and people chose to boycott them and protest? Is it simply because the bigoted views from the bible that makes them ok?

Well first of all I would not have any issue with folks protesting them or boycotting them, its trying to put them out of business and steping on their rights where I draw the line. I can dislike a person or their opinions, I can feel that what someone follows and wants is pure evil. I just dont think I have the right to demand that person be disalowed from making a living because of it.

Also I disagee with the correlation with the KKK and Focus on the Family, or some of the other groups sited.

Boycotts and protests try to put companies out of business. That's the point. If you're talking about the majors that won't allow them in their town, that's a valid point but also the tiniest aspect of this whole issue.

Regarding your last point: bigotry is bigotry. I don't really care to even attempt to establish degrees. That said, some of these charities want to "cure" gay people through therapy and would even attempt to make being gay illegal. These are extreme stances that go way past a stupid definition of marriage.

SixteenBlue wrote:

Boycotts and protests try to put companies out of business. That's the point. If you're talking about the majors that won't allow them in their town, that's a valid point but also the tiniest aspect of this whole issue.

I'm talking about the miners that won't let them into their caves.

Tanglebones wrote:
SixteenBlue wrote:

Boycotts and protests try to put companies out of business. That's the point. If you're talking about the majors that won't allow them in their town, that's a valid point but also the tiniest aspect of this whole issue.

I'm talking about the minors that won't let them into their caves.

FTFY

WipEout wrote:

So mcdonis, while I don't personally believe you are a typical, stupid American that bastes his shame in salt water (;)), I do think that to claim a peaceful, dissident action against something you do or might support as being intolerant/hateful simply because you disagree is a pretty poorly-thought out decision-- at least in this case.

Again my beef isnt with those who are boycotting, I am cool with that. But there was a clear effort by some to try to hurt the company and step on their rights BECAUSE of their beliefs that I find offensive. When I say hurt I mean prevent them from building a new store in a city or proclaim they will never be allowed here. My going out there was me saying "While I disagree with their stance on marriage, I respect their right to have that belief and to be in business"

Lets turn this around and ask this question, would it be just of say Boston or Chicago to prevent my employment or my ability to build a business in town because I am a Christian. I think the clear answer we all know here is that it would be illegal because they are doing that based on my belief. Just like if Chick Fil A would be guity of the same if they refuse to hire someone who is gay, or refuse to serve someone who is gay.

WipEout wrote:

It also made me look back at NormantheIntern's statement about posting pics of men kissing in front of CFA being lazy and hypocritical and smile.

I'm definitely not saying the pro-CFA sandwich buyers are above reproach or anything, just to clarify. The whole thing seems to be this kind of ill-conceived proxy war gone horribly wrong.

In terms of the Christianity angle, I'd argue that people often incorrectly equate being Christlike with being super-passive and just accepting of everything. There are many examples where he calls people out for being wrong, creates public displays, etc. Heck, he was killed because he literally would not shut up about something he perceived to be incorrect. It is certainly true that he felt strongly about secular punishment for purely moral crimes, but "love one another" didn't stop him from flipping the (money) table and storming out when he didn't like that was happening.

Tanglebones wrote:
mcdonis wrote:

Well first of all I would not have any issue with folks protesting them or boycotting them, its trying to put them out of business and steping on their rights where I draw the line. I can dislike a person or their opinions, I can feel that what someone follows and wants is pure evil. I just dont think I have the right to demand that person be disalowed from making a living because of it.

Also I disagee with the correlation with the KKK and Focus on the Family, or some of the other groups sited.

Where do you see this happening?

Cities saying publicly that they will refuse to allow Chick Fil A into their city.

Stele wrote:

Here's a quick summary of where your money goes with a little info about each group, just from the 2010 numbers.

Seems a little disingenuous to put a sandwich number on each charity though.

mcdonis wrote:
WipEout wrote:

So mcdonis, while I don't personally believe you are a typical, stupid American that bastes his shame in salt water (;)), I do think that to claim a peaceful, dissident action against something you do or might support as being intolerant/hateful simply because you disagree is a pretty poorly-thought out decision-- at least in this case.

Again my beef isnt with those who are boycotting, I am cool with that. But there was a clear effort by some to try to hurt the company and step on their rights BECAUSE of their beliefs that I find offensive. When I say hurt I mean prevent them from building a new store in a city or proclaim they will never be allowed here. My going out there was me saying "While I disagree with their stance on marriage, I respect their right to have that belief and to be in business"

Lets turn this around and ask this question, would it be just of say Boston or Chicago to prevent my employment or my ability to build a business in town because I am a Christian. I think the clear answer we all know here is that it would be illegal because they are doing that based on my belief. Just like if Chick Fil A would be guity of the same if they refuse to hire someone who is gay, or refuse to serve someone who is gay.

A politician made some stupid comments in a speech. When that's actually a real issue and Chick-Fil-A can no longer do business, then maybe they'll need your support.

But, for discussion's sake, let's say Chick-Fil-A's rights ARE being stepped on. So are gay people's rights when they're not allowed to marry. Do you really think Chick-Fil-A is the bigger victim here? So much that you had to go out of your way to show your support for them which is standing directly against gay people?