Chick-Fila
Options
Replies
-
I am completely aware of the good intentions and did not choose my words maliciously. I'm not trying to be mean, but for all the good intentions, he is still tone deaf and I think sometimes you need to be blunt about it
It's called "tough-loving the sinner". ...:flowerforyou:
In some ways, it's more important to push those that are half way there all the way home, rather than those who haven't reached the start line yet. After all, we aren't handing out participation ribbons......
It's interesting to me. Catholicsm teaches that pre-marital sex is a sin. Using birth control is a sin. Divorce and remarriage without an annulment is a sin. So on and so on. Guess what? Our churches are filled with people guilty of these sins. Just because Christianity teaches something is a sin, doesn't mean all Christians want to run off the sinners or hate them. My friend is a pastor, so he had to choose is words carefully. I'm glad he took a stand and is doing what he can to "push" his parishoners in the right direction.0 -
I understand the disagreement of the sinfulness issue. I think he's trying to make a small difference.While I disagree with your pastor friend about the sinfulness of adult consenting same-sex relationship, I admire his take on Chick-Fil-A Appreciation Day as idolatry.0 -
I understand the disagreement of the sinfulness issue. I think he's trying to make a small difference.While I disagree with your pastor friend about the sinfulness of adult consenting same-sex relationship, I admire his take on Chick-Fil-A Appreciation Day as idolatry.
And I do understand what he is trying to achieve and the risks he is taking.0 -
I am completely aware of the good intentions and did not choose my words maliciously. I'm not trying to be mean, but for all the good intentions, he is still tone deaf and I think sometimes you need to be blunt about it
It's called "tough-loving the sinner". ...:flowerforyou:
In some ways, it's more important to push those that are half way there all the way home, rather than those who haven't reached the start line yet. After all, we aren't handing out participation ribbons......
It's interesting to me. Catholicsm teaches that pre-marital sex is a sin. Using birth control is a sin. Divorce and remarriage without an annulment is a sin. So on and so on. Guess what? Our churches are filled with people guilty of these sins. Just because Christianity teaches something is a sin, doesn't mean all Christians want to run off the sinners or hate them. My friend is a pastor, so he had to choose is words carefully. I'm glad he took a stand and is doing what he can to "push" his parishoners in the right direction.
The difference is the other things you mention are things that people DO. When being gay is lumped in there, people are being cast as "sinners" for what they ARE. That's really the crux of the argument IMO.0 -
In what should have been predicted: the counter move to show support through consumerism: www.isupportmarriageequality.com
Are they doing it just to increase some revenues? Maybe. Do I enjoy chi tea lattes and lemon pound cake? yes.
I will definitely be there! Support for a good cause, and yes, revenue...I'm technically still on the Starbucks payroll, so I don't mind...:laugh: And yes, lemon pound cake is wonderful, too. Starbucks has always been extremely vocal about equality. So has LUSH...and it may have just been the local LUSH here, but they had a support page up for a while, too. 
0 -
That's not necessarily true. Being divorced is not a sin. Engaging in sex while not married is. Re-marrying without an annulment is the sin; not the divorce itself. Being homosexual is not a sin, so people aren't labeled sinners for who they are. The sin is the sexual act, just like it is for heterosexuals. My point has always been, we all sin, so what? We aren't going to change the Church's position on what a sin is. I'd love to see birth control not considered a sin, but that's not going to change the Pope's mind. Ha! But, I don't hate or condemn anyone who does (I'd then be a hypocrit). So, if we can teach Christians to love one another despite our sins, as God does, we're moving in the right direction.The difference is the other things you mention are things that people DO. When being gay is lumped in there, people are being cast as "sinners" for what they ARE. That's really the crux of the argument IMO.0 -
That's not necessarily true. Being divorced is not a sin. Engaging in sex while not married is. Re-marrying without an annulment is the sin; not the divorce itself. Being homosexual is not a sin, so people aren't labeled sinners for who they are. The sin is the sexual act, just like it is for heterosexuals. My point has always been, we all sin, so what? We aren't going to change the Church's position on what a sin is. I'd love to see birth control not considered a sin, but that's not going to change the Pope's mind. Ha! But, I don't hate or condemn anyone who does (I'd then be a hypocrit). So, if we can teach Christians to love one another despite our sins, as God does, we're moving in the right direction.The difference is the other things you mention are things that people DO. When being gay is lumped in there, people are being cast as "sinners" for what they ARE. That's really the crux of the argument IMO.
Well you are morally way out in front of the RCC on this issue, so your words certainly have a lot more weight IMO FWIW.0 -
This was written by one of my old high school friends who is now a pastor at a non-denominal parish:
THURSDAY, AUGUST 02, 2012
Chick-fil-a Sacrificed to Idols
1 Corinthians 8: 9 Be careful, however, that the exercise of your rights does not become a stumbling block to the weak.
This passage took on new meaning for me this morning and I wanted to share it with you.
Many well-meaning “Christians” took to the streets yesterday and PACKED Chick-fil-a’s across this country in what most deemed “Chick-fil-a Appreciation Day”. But we should know that is was more of a support of Dan Cathy’s stance on “biblical family values” than it was appreciation for good food and good service. Christians were countering an attempt by the LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgendered) Community to show up en mass and merely order a cup of water in order to clog up lines and frustrate the staffs and management at CFA.
I saw pictures on Facebook of Christians standing in line, taking pictures with the CFA mascot, proudly carrying their cups and bags of CFA food around like a badge of honor. People actually ordered bags of CFA sandwiches to pass out to homeless people on street corners….all in support of CFA. While these are not all bad things, it is the tone and manner in which Christians are voicing their support of CFA that disturbs me. Our posture sucks.
The LGBT has taken Dan Cathy’s remarks that he supports a “traditional family unit, made up of a man and woman in marriage” as anti-gay. Their thought being, if you are FOR traditional marriage you hate gays. CFA’s known policies of hiring and serving everyone are the same. Patrons are not asked their sexual orientation when stepping to the counter and there is no blank on employment forms asking about sexual orientation. I also know that CFA donates moneys to pro-traditional family causes...(Focus on the Family being one and there are others).
But here is the rub for me in light of today’s reading……we need to be careful that we do not exercise our rights to a great chicken sandwich on a day and in a manner that is deemed to be anti-gay. Christ was not anti-gay. If we believe that he was, we have our theology screwed up. He was anti-sin. He was just as much anti-gossip, anti-adultery, anti-greed, anti-covetous, anti-glutton as he was anti-gay. Can we gossip and still be loved by Jesus? Can we covet and still be loved by Jesus? Then can’t a person be gay and still be loved by Jesus? And if Jesus loves them and the entire LGBT community, shouldn’t we also love them?
I am reminded of the story of the woman caught in adultery. Where he literally advocated for this woman as she was about to be stoned by the religious. The religious! He didn’t condemn her for her sin to the contrary. He knelt beside her and drew in the dirt, as the religious were picking out their stones to throw at her. He questioned their hearts asking the one that was without sin to cast the first stone. Then they dropped their stones and left. After they left he asked, “where are your accusers. Has no one condemned you (to die)?”. And she replied, “they have all left”. And he said to her, “nor do I condemn you". Jesus himself did not condemn…what gives us the right?
This condemning patriotic idol of traditional family values has become a STUMBLING BLOCK to the LGBT Community. I call it an idol because we have elevated it above our love for them. When Christ said, “love your neighbor as yourself”, he was talking about ALL of our neighbors, including the LGBT Community. When he said, “whatever you have done to the least of these brothers and sisters you have done to me” he was talking about ALL the marginalized, including the LGBT Community. Yet we have grabbed hold of their sin, elevated it above our own, and are willing to cast hate filled stones.
Right or wrong, our action of solidarity for a restaurant and it’s CEO can be construed as anti-gay. If it is perceived as wrong by the LGBT then we should not eat Chick-fil-a sandwiches sacrificed to the condemning patriotic idol of traditional family values.
First, I believe the water-ordering was a response to the appreciation day, not the other way around. Anyone is free to research that timeline, but I believe the chicken buying came before the watering ordering egg.
I also have trouble following his toneThe LGBT has taken Dan Cathy’s remarks that he supports a “traditional family unit, made up of a man and woman in marriage” as anti-gay. Their thought being, if you are FOR traditional marriage you hate gays. CFA’s known policies of hiring and serving everyone are the same. Patrons are not asked their sexual orientation when stepping to the counter and there is no blank on employment forms asking about sexual orientation. I also know that CFA donates moneys to pro-traditional family causes...(Focus on the Family being one and there are others).
That's our thought because traditionally people use the term "family values" as a thinly veiled way of saying "not those gay people." Sorry, but that's the truth. it's just spin. We think that "family values" is a rhetorical device used in an anti-gay way because that's how it started. Focus on the Family can rot in whatever hell one believes in. Their twisted view of what constitutes research is amazing. I would say it's dog whistle politics, except you don't have even be a dog to hear it. If you support, financially or vocally, suppressing legalizing same-sex marriage, you're anti gay. Full stop.
Quite frankly, if the stakes were different, the term "family values" would make me laugh in the same way that PETA's desire to rename Tuna as Sea Kittens does.0 -
Bit too big, I guess. Full picture here: http://images.sodahead.com/profiles/0/0/2/0/1/0/6/6/1/traditional-marriage-58355476463.jpeg0 -
I agree with the term "family values" being used for that reason, Evan. I did reply to my friend and inform him of the other organizations that CFA supports.0
-
EvanKeel says:Moving on to the part that I find upsetting for me, and my own reaction surprised me a little if I'm being honest . . . .
Thanks for exploring your feelings and explaining them so eloquently to us. I think I understand that feeling. For me it came the weekend before the Prop 8 election in 2008. We'd spent the weekend at Lake Arrowhead, at the wedding of two friends. When we drove down the mountain, along the road outside San Bernardino, someone had set up "Yes on 8" signs every few feet for nearly a mile. The sinking feeling I got was the first premonition that our fellow citizens would vote to remove our right to decide on how to arrange our most personal relationships.
I think some unthinking straight folks got their wake-up a week later, unfortunately after the election, when they saw the backlash protests.0 -
0
-
EvanKeel says:Moving on to the part that I find upsetting for me, and my own reaction surprised me a little if I'm being honest . . . .
Thanks for exploring your feelings and explaining them so eloquently to us. I think I understand that feeling. For me it came the weekend before the Prop 8 election in 2008. We'd spent the weekend at Lake Arrowhead, at the wedding of two friends. When we drove down the mountain, along the road outside San Bernardino, someone had set up "Yes on 8" signs every few feet for nearly a mile. The sinking feeling I got was the first premonition that our fellow citizens would vote to remove our right to decide on how to arrange our most personal relationships.
I think some unthinking straight folks got their wake-up a week later, unfortunately after the election, when they saw the backlash protests.
And to put things in a slightly less dramatic lens, when I shared my feelings with my husband about this, the response I got was a mild sigh of derision along with questions as to why it was bothering me.
Sometimes boys are dumb. You'd think I'd feel awkward that the implication that I must, by necessity, include myself in that assessment, but I don't.0 -
You are not alone, EK.I have always seen the struggle for Marriage Equality as something that would be hard fought for. I lived in Hawaii when the state was trying to pass a civil unions bill in 2009 and I sat in the state capital building and listened to people say horrible things about the gay community. But none of that effected me as much as coming out of my office yesterday and seeing a line stretching down the block of people waiting to get into Chick-Fil-A.
People waiting with excitement and pride to show that they do not support equality. I suddenly felt like an alien in my own town, surrounded by people that i see everyday who jumped at the chance to show their evil side. I have spoken with my friends and many of us feel the same way, just utter shock and sorrow. The very existence and support of yesterday’s Chick-Fil-A appreciation day has negative impacts on the well-being of countless gays around this country. I could only wonder what the people in that line would have done had they known that I was gay as I walked by. To fear the anger and resentment of your neighbors for being who you are is not the freedom that the American dream promises. I hope for more, and I hope for better from my fellow Americans.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2012/08/not_the_freedom_the_american_dream_promises.php?ref=fpblg0 -
That's not necessarily true. Being divorced is not a sin. Engaging in sex while not married is. Re-marrying without an annulment is the sin; not the divorce itself. Being homosexual is not a sin, so people aren't labeled sinners for who they are. The sin is the sexual act, just like it is for heterosexuals. My point has always been, we all sin, so what? We aren't going to change the Church's position on what a sin is. I'd love to see birth control not considered a sin, but that's not going to change the Pope's mind. Ha! But, I don't hate or condemn anyone who does (I'd then be a hypocrit). So, if we can teach Christians to love one another despite our sins, as God does, we're moving in the right direction.The difference is the other things you mention are things that people DO. When being gay is lumped in there, people are being cast as "sinners" for what they ARE. That's really the crux of the argument IMO.
Patti, I have to agree with you wholeheartedly. :flowerforyou:0 -
That's not necessarily true. Being divorced is not a sin. Engaging in sex while not married is. Re-marrying without an annulment is the sin; not the divorce itself. Being homosexual is not a sin, so people aren't labeled sinners for who they are. The sin is the sexual act, just like it is for heterosexuals. My point has always been, we all sin, so what? We aren't going to change the Church's position on what a sin is. I'd love to see birth control not considered a sin, but that's not going to change the Pope's mind. Ha! But, I don't hate or condemn anyone who does (I'd then be a hypocrit). So, if we can teach Christians to love one another despite our sins, as God does, we're moving in the right direction.The difference is the other things you mention are things that people DO. When being gay is lumped in there, people are being cast as "sinners" for what they ARE. That's really the crux of the argument IMO.
Agreed! I like how you think Patti!0 -
That's not necessarily true. Being divorced is not a sin. Engaging in sex while not married is. Re-marrying without an annulment is the sin; not the divorce itself. Being homosexual is not a sin, so people aren't labeled sinners for who they are. The sin is the sexual act, just like it is for heterosexuals. My point has always been, we all sin, so what? We aren't going to change the Church's position on what a sin is. I'd love to see birth control not considered a sin, but that's not going to change the Pope's mind. Ha! But, I don't hate or condemn anyone who does (I'd then be a hypocrit). So, if we can teach Christians to love one another despite our sins, as God does, we're moving in the right direction.The difference is the other things you mention are things that people DO. When being gay is lumped in there, people are being cast as "sinners" for what they ARE. That's really the crux of the argument IMO.
Thought about it some more and, sorry, not buying it. When you (general "you", not YOU) ascribe a blanket condemnation to what is essentially the only form of sexual expression a group can engage in, and that group is born the way they are and cannot change, then I don't think you can separate the two and you are still attacking someone for who they are.
The other fundamental difference is that the "sinful" actions you cite are only "sinful" because they result in doing something hurtful to another person, not because of the act itself. The same is true for just about any "sin"--lying, stealing, murder, etc.
Using the sectarian justification (i.e. the selective use of "biblical" prohibitions), a) gay couples are prohibited from entering into the type of sanctioned arrangement in which sex (as you define it) is "non sinful"; and b) since any sexual acts between them are considered "sinful", they can only remain "nonsinful" by abstaining from any type of sexual relations whatsoever.
Since the religious prohibitions allow for no other options, I think it is hair-splitting of the highest order to assert that "it's not the person, it's their actions".0 -
I don't know what you're "not buying".
Thought about it some more and, sorry, not buying it.
Like I said, we're not going to change the Church's position on what is and isn't considered a sin. I never said we had to ascribe to it. And I've never condoned attacking anyone for their sins, let alone anyone in the LGBT community. I'm not sure how the Church is even "attacking" somone for claiming what it considers a sin. I never feel "attacked" because of my sins.When you (general "you", not YOU) ascribe a blanket condemnation to what is essentially the only form of sexual expression a group can engage in, and that group is born the way they are and cannot change, then I don't think you can separate the two and you are still attacking someone for who they are.
How is pre-marital sex hurtful to another person?The other fundamental difference is that the "sinful" actions you cite are only "sinful" because they result in doing something hurtful to another person, not because of the act itself. The same is true for just about any "sin"--lying, stealing, murder, etc.
And THIS is my biggest issue. If homosexuals are never allowed to marry, then they will always be sinning (in the Church's eyes). However, there are millions of Catholic women who use birth control, so in the Church's eyes, they're always sinning, too.Using the sectarian justification (i.e. the selective use of "biblical" prohibitions), a) gay couples are prohibited from entering into the type of sanctioned arrangement in which sex (as you define it) is "non sinful"; and b) since any sexual acts between them are considered "sinful", they can only remain "nonsinful" by abstaining from any type of sexual relations whatsoever.
And perhaps this shall change some day.Since the religious prohibitions allow for no other options, I think it is hair-splitting of the highest order to assert that "it's not the person, it's their actions".0 -
If I boycotted every business that did something I didn't agree with I would be naked and have nothing to eat.
jebuz h christy!! THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :smokin:0 -
If I boycotted every business that did something I didn't agree with I would be naked and have nothing to eat.
If I didn't boycott a business that spends money on conversion therapy that should be classified as torture, I'd have trouble sleeping. Thankfully we don't live an all-or-nothing-world. I don't imagine you have much trouble sleeping regardless.
I just find it humorous that people can get worked up over some issues while they wear clothing made by exploited workers, eat food produced by exploited workers, eat food created while mistreating animals, etc, etc... I guess you pick your battles
I also find it ridiculous that anyone would suggest a person that eats a box of chicken nuggets is against gay rights.
To your last statement, I think it's an issue of whether or not they know where they're money is going. If the consumer does know that CFA gives money to anti-gay organizations, then yes, they're literally saying it's ok with them that the company is spending whatever small fraction of their $3.50 on making life harder for the LGBT community. In that sense, that knowing consumer is against gay rights. It's not ridiculous at all.
If the consumer is ignorant, then there's no way to tell if they're against gay rights or not.
EDIT: We can compare it to people who are vegetarian for moral reasons. Now, I know that animals are mistreated by our food industry. Killing them doesn't bother me, but torturing them does. Yet I don't take the time to make sure that the meat I eat is killed humanely or that the restaurants I go to keep that in mind. Someone who feels strongly about this probably finds that contemptible. They're allowed. I feel kind of guilty about it, but not guilty enough to change my behavior. It's kind of the same situation here. I hold people in contempt who would knowingly give this company money when I know they're going to use it against me (in general way). They probably don't care.
Now, contrasting the two, I'd like to think that my civil rights are a more important issue than animal treatment by the meat industry, but I suspect a cow would disagree with me.
i liked how you picked the animal route. do you wear all american made clothing, i'm going to say... no. case closed! as long as it's your rights, you're pissed, (i get it, seriously) but if it's some poor japanese or chinese or mexican child laborer, who cares, no shirt off your back, right?0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFkeKKszXTw
