home
RSS
Christian groups allege threats to religious freedom in anti-Chick-fil-A campaigns
Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel has discouraged Chick-fil-A from coming to his city.
July 30th, 2012
02:54 PM ET

Christian groups allege threats to religious freedom in anti-Chick-fil-A campaigns

By Dan Gilgoff, CNN.com Religion Editor

The nation’s biggest evangelical group said Monday that religious freedom is threatened by American mayors who say Chick-fil-A is not welcome in their cities because of the restaurant leader’s opposition to gay marriage.

“Individuals have the right to decide whether or not to ‘eat mor chikin.’ But no government leader should restrict a business or organization from expanding to their district based on the personal or political views of the owners,” Leith Anderson, the president of the National Association of Evangelicals, said Monday.

“Such evident discrimination and attempts to marginalize those with religious values have no place in American democracy,” Anderson said.

The National Association of Evangelicals is the country’s largest evangelical umbrella group, representing 45,000 local churches from 40 denominations.

9 religious companies besides Chick-fil-A

Last week, a handful of mayors urged Chick-fil-A to stay out of their cities after the chain’s president, Dan Cathy, weighed in on same-sex marriage by saying his company backs the traditional family unit.

"Chick-fil-A's values are not Chicago values,” Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, a Democrat, said last week. “They're not respectful of our residents, our neighbors and our family members."

San Francisco Mayor Edwin M. Lee tweeted last week: "Closest #ChickFilA to San Francisco is 40 miles away & I strongly recommend that they not try to come any closer."

Evangelist Billy Graham defends Chick-fil-A

Those comments and other criticisms have prompted conservative Christian groups to rally to the restaurant’s side.

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee has called for a "Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day" on Wednesday, while former vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin tweeted a picture of her and her husband holding Chik-fil-A takeout bags last weekend.

Opinion: Chick-fil-A and free speech

"I have been incensed at the vitriolic assaults on the Chick-fil-A company because the CEO, Dan Cathy, made comments recently in which he affirmed his view that the Biblical view of marriage should be upheld," Huckabee, a Republican and former pastor, wrote in a Facebook posting announcing the Wednesday event.

CNN’s Belief Blog: The faith angles behind the biggest stories

More than 300,000 people have accepted Huckabee's Facebook invitation to participate in the event.

Evangelical groups like Focus on the Family and the Family Research Council have also urged their followers to see campaigns against Chick-fil-A as threats to religious freedom.

Follow the CNN Belief Blog on Twitter

“For the government to engage in viewpoint discrimination is not only bad politics - it's unconstitutional,” the Family Research Council said in an e-mail to supporters last week. “Chick-fil-A may be a private company, but that doesn't mean it has to surrender its beliefs at the dining room door.”

“Under the First Amendment, executives at Chick-Fil-A are just as entitled as any American to speak publicly about their views,” the statement continued.

- CNN's Sarah Aarthun contributed to this report.

- CNN Belief Blog Co-Editor

Filed under: Christianity • Food

soundoff (782 Responses)
  1. llɐq ʎʞɔnq

    The National Insti'tute of Health have proven ho'mophobes are probably latent gays.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8772014

    July 30, 2012 at 7:17 pm |
  2. Smitten with Mittens and his Delightful Army of Kittens

    If the Pope commanded his flock to perform anallingus on him, they would. Think for yourselves, people!!

    July 30, 2012 at 7:17 pm |
  3. Smack Dab

    Statistics prove that Christian men have the highest percentage of gays among all religions. Jesus was gay. So are you people.

    July 30, 2012 at 7:11 pm |
    • Concerned

      Very good comeback. Pull the gay card. That'll shut us up. It is rather humorous though that everyone EXCEPT Christians can proudly proclaim their views, but as soon as Christians speak ours, we're "gay". Sir, your view of tolerance is intolerant. We respect your views; respect ours.

      July 30, 2012 at 7:28 pm |
    • danny

      dude, you are a plain and simple idiot

      July 30, 2012 at 8:10 pm |
    • PercievedReality

      Never wanted to mature ehh?

      August 21, 2012 at 8:32 pm |
  4. Bob

    Since "Kindness" keeps unkindly dumping her Christian nonsense on us, let's have a look at what's really in the Christian book of nasty AKA the bible. Fine demands from "loving" god like this, from both NT and OT:

    Numbers 31:17-18
    17 Now kiII all the boys. And kiII every woman who has slept with a man,
    18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

    Deuteronomy 13:6 – “If your brother, your mother’s son or your son or daughter, or the wife you cherish, or your friend who is as your own soul entice you secretly, saying, let us go and serve other gods … you shall surely kill him; your hand shall be first against him to put him to death”

    Revelations 2:23 And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works.

    Note that the bible is also very clear that you should sacrifice and burn an animal today because the smell makes sicko Christian sky fairy happy. No, you don't get to use the parts for food. You burn them, a complete waste of the poor animal.

    Yes, the bible really says that, everyone. Yes, it's in Leviticus, look it up. Yes, Jesus purportedly said that the OT commands still apply. No exceptions. But even if you think the OT was god's mistaken first go around, you have to ask why a perfect, loving enti-ty would ever put such horrid instructions in there. If you think rationally at all, that is.

    And then, if you disagree with my interpretation, ask yourself how it is that your "god" couldn't come up with a better way to communicate than a book that is so readily subject to so many interpretations and to being taken "out of context", and has so many mistakes in it. Pretty pathetic god that you've made for yourself.

    So get out your sacrificial knife or your nasty sky creature will torture you eternally. Or just take a closer look at your foolish supersti-tions, understand that they are just silly, and toss them into the dustbin with all the rest of the gods that man has created.

    Ask the questions. Break the chains. Join the movement. Be free of Christianity and other superstitions.
    http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/

    July 30, 2012 at 7:10 pm |
    • Winston

      Bob – my heart breaks for you. I pray now that God would open your eyes and you would realize the amazing gift of grace that God perfected in Jesus. America – we must turn our eyes and hearts to God, and He will heal this land.

      July 30, 2012 at 9:30 pm |
    • PercievedReality

      Athiests always crack me up with thier arrogance, they think that their human rightousnes and judgment is higher than God's, which leads them to make all kinds of detestable charges against their very creator, a being infinetly more intelligent and loving then themselves.

      August 21, 2012 at 8:49 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      It's "i before e except after c", doofus. People who live in glass houses...

      August 21, 2012 at 8:51 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @PerceivedReality

      Assuming that your, and only your god exists out of the thousands throughout history, based on the same thing everyone else uses (faith), and that anyone that doesn't agree gets punished for eternity is a lot more arrogant thatn saying something as simple as "provide evidence toback your claim".
      I don't expect you to answer this post, however, as that has not been your MO.

      August 21, 2012 at 8:51 pm |
    • PercievedReality

      Oh no Tom the spelling nazi!

      Why can't people come up with their own rituals for bonding? How is it a civil right to change the definition of a word? That word has represented a very specific union since the dawn of civilization. Why does this belief make me a bigot?

      August 21, 2012 at 8:55 pm |
    • midwest rail

      The concept of marriage predates Christianity. And out of all the religions openly practiced in America, why should you get to codify your beliefs through civil legislation ? Is it to justify your defense of the " sanct-ity of marriage" ? If it were, then I'm sure you'll be leading the charge to make divorce and adultery illegal, right ?

      August 21, 2012 at 9:07 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      You witless moron, you bit@h about the 'arrogance' of atheists and then proceed to fvck up your own screen name, the words "righteousness" (not rightousnes), "infinitely" (not "infinetly") and "than" (not "then"), you stupid galoot.

      Why would anyone with a brain read your posts without laughing?

      August 21, 2012 at 9:08 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Percieved (sic),you're hardly an authority on anything concerning language. You can't even use the words you type with any degree of understanding; why should you have a single thing to say about definitions? You're an idiot.

      August 21, 2012 at 9:10 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      Everyone watch the strange creature known as "Religious moron" or the scientific classification "Theisticus moronicus".
      It shall now ignore any legitimate objection to its posting, and zero in on a single sentence or phrase and continue to ignore all else. The single minded devotion would be almost admirable if it weren't so dishonest.

      August 21, 2012 at 9:13 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      It's a dope.

      August 21, 2012 at 9:16 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      HG, would you do me a favor? On the gay marriage comments, would you tell Bob to read Evelyn Ho oker's 1957 study on ho mo s3xuality?

      Thanks in advance!

      August 21, 2012 at 9:17 pm |
    • PercievedReality

      Well as soon as you guys are done stroking each other could some one answer my questions? One dude mentioned the definition pre-dating Christianity, I never said it did not. I mentioned that since "the dawn of civilization" the definition of marriage has been between a het couple and the definition of family is the same with children.

      August 21, 2012 at 9:29 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      No one can clarify things for you until you grow a brain, you dipsh!t.

      The church doesn't 'own' marriage. Look it up. Clergy didn't even want marriages to be performed inside the church.

      Stop pretending you have a clue about the history of marriage and go read it.

      The definitions of marriage have evolved over time and will continue to evolve. You can either get with the program or live in ignorance.

      August 21, 2012 at 9:33 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      @P.R.

      you might find this interesting ... from the wikipedia page on the "History of marriage in the Catholic Church"

      The first available written detailed account of a Christian wedding in the West dates from the 9th century and appears to be identical to the old nuptial service of Ancient Rome.

      It was not until the sixteenth century, when the Protestant Reformation challenged the seven sacraments, including Matrimony, that the Church officially named the sacraments for the first time in Canon Law at the Council of Trent in 1547.

      August 21, 2012 at 9:39 pm |
    • PercievedReality

      I never said the church owns the definition of marriage. When looking at nature, when something is created or becomes perfect in its form, it stops evolving, like an alligator. If something is perfect, why would it evolve? Why can't those seeking a new design provide it an original name and ritual and be proud of their creation?

      August 21, 2012 at 9:41 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      Well, looks like Perceived acted exactly as expected.

      August 21, 2012 at 9:44 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      @P.R.

      Ah, but that's the catch about evolution. Occasionally a beneficial mutation occurs.

      In this argument a more inclusive definition of a concept that extends equality to a greater number of people. It is only relevant in a secular space.

      It's all about being able to file taxes jointly, rights of survivorship and family law. What's wrong with one set of rules for everyone?

      August 21, 2012 at 9:46 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      What an idiotic analogy. Who says marriage is "perfect"? For that matter, who says an alligator is perfect?

      August 21, 2012 at 9:47 pm |
    • PercievedReality

      GOP'er
      I would assume that early Christians would have married according the Judaic rituals. I wish this issue would get resolved, I hope that level heads on both sides will get something hammered out. I think alot more people would vote for this if a new name and ritual where chosen, I know I would.

      August 21, 2012 at 9:48 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Why? What difference does it make? Why should a marriage be called something else when it is a union with exactly the same rights and responsibilities?

      August 21, 2012 at 9:49 pm |
    • PercievedReality

      Tom, alligators have not had any significant evolutions in millions of years.

      August 21, 2012 at 9:51 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      And you have a crystal ball that tells you they will never evolve in the millions of years to come, Percey?

      Please.

      August 21, 2012 at 9:52 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      @P.R.

      I expect the early Christian Jewish communities married in a Jewish tradition. The early Christian Romans probably married in a Roman tradition. The Greeks likewise. They probably did anything that was normative in their culture. The wiki page I referenced is interesting. Holy Matrimony was not considered important to the early Christians compared with Baptism, Confirmation and Holy Orders (Ordination).

      Why not call the union that happens in the church "sacramental marriage" and the piece of paper you sign for the county registrar "marriage"?

      August 21, 2012 at 9:56 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      It's not valid to compare a ritual to an organism.

      August 21, 2012 at 9:57 pm |
    • PercievedReality

      Tom, It is not the same union. One union is between natural counterparts that produce offspring, the other is not. Using the same word for a fundamentaly different scenerio does not make sense. You want to label dissimiliar paradigms with the same word. The word marriage will no longer have the same meaning. Where once the word marriage meant a union between natural counterparts designed to produce offspring, it could mean a union between two men, or two women. Can you grasp where I am coming from yet?

      I think it would be cool to see the feeling of liberation and delight in their faces when they perform their ritual using their word that is so much better than that old fuddy-dutty stuff! They will rock out loud! Hit it girl!

      August 21, 2012 at 10:03 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @PR

      So should naturally sterile couples not have the same rights or be called married as well?

      August 21, 2012 at 10:06 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Percy, do point out to me where procreation is a requirement for marriage. Then, dear, do show me any evidence that gays are sterile and cannot reproduce. Thanks in advance, you moron.

      August 21, 2012 at 10:07 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      And fvck off with your asinine crap about gays being thrilled about being "separate but equal". It didn't work before and it won't work now.

      August 21, 2012 at 10:09 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      @P.R.

      S3xual reproduction is not a requirement in a secular marriage but this is irrelevant. Infertile couples can adopt. In this regard they are no different from h0mos3xual couples. So why enfore an arbitrary distinction that denies equality?

      Other than old testament thinking, the distinction is moot.

      August 21, 2012 at 10:11 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Morons like Percy make the same idiotic arguments over and over, and none of their reasons are valid. There is no reason to call a union between two people anything other than marriage. There is no reason gays should be satisfied with a lesser/different nomenclature. The procreation argument is invalid on its face, since couples marry all the time when they have no intention to have children, are past menopause, or are sterile.

      August 21, 2012 at 10:13 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      You guys are quick.

      August 21, 2012 at 10:15 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @Tom, Tom

      Not to mention that they run like little bitches after they make the stupid argument.

      August 21, 2012 at 10:29 pm |
    • Chad

      @Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son "... There is no reason to call a union between two people anything other than marriage. .."

      =>so you are in favor of you being allowed to marry your father?

      August 21, 2012 at 10:32 pm |
    • PercievedReality

      Tom,
      Please explain the "seperate" part of seperate but equal, I would glady have a hot tottie and crumpet sitting in the next booth to you. Please stop the hate! I do not hate you, I actually am learning how to love everyone. If Christianity is correct which is my faith, I feel empathy toward my brothers and sisters lost in the grip of sin, warping their minds and seperating them from the eternal. As a human I understand alot of what they go through, I have been through alot myself and have experienced certain truths. I hope all resolution and peace in your life. I hope an agreement can be reached soon.

      HG, what you suggest is not a compromise. I guess this isn't about civil rights after all, it is about the definition of marriage, thank you for the clarification.

      August 21, 2012 at 10:33 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Funny that the slipperiest little sturgeon of all would pick up on that. I should have said two consenting adults who would not violate laws regarding incest.

      Chard, why is it you are ready to respond to my posts only when I'm not asking you a direct question?

      By the way, have you connected your god to the Big Bang or evolution yet?

      August 21, 2012 at 10:35 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      @P.R.

      when you lose the sanctimonious judgmentality, such as:
      " I feel empathy toward my brothers and sisters lost in the grip of sin"

      you will be closer to the Christlike behavior to which you claim to aspire.

      August 21, 2012 at 10:36 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      It's a hot "TODDY", you twit.

      Explaining anything to you would be as much a waste of time as waiting for the Chard to develop the virtue of honesty.

      August 21, 2012 at 10:36 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @Perceived

      Why should a compromise be reached? Banning gay marriage, or not allowing them equal rights due to your religious beliefs is a breach of the First Amendment.

      August 21, 2012 at 10:37 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      @P.R.

      I've developed a bad reflexive habit when I smell the stench of sanctimony here and I just can't help myself but quote Matthew 7:5
      You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.

      The whole of Matthew 7 has lots of good bits. Go read it and then come back.

      August 21, 2012 at 10:39 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Percy the Moron seems to think that I am gay. Of course, his use of language is so inept it's not clear what he means most of the time, since few of the words he writes are either correctly spelled or used.

      How did someone this dumb get a computer?

      August 21, 2012 at 10:39 pm |
    • Chad

      @Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son " I should have said two consenting adults who would not violate laws regarding incest."

      =>why exactly do you feel incest should be illegal? Arent you the forever claiming that you shouldnt be imposing your morals on someone else? What's your reasoning for outlawing incest?

      August 21, 2012 at 10:41 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      @Chad,

      you've sussed the plot. We just want marriage equality for pigs and frogs so Kermit and Miss Piggy can get married.

      August 21, 2012 at 10:42 pm |
    • PercievedReality

      The sterile marriage is still between natural counterparts, they are just barren, doesn't change the scenerio. So you guys say my arguments are invalid, I know there are plenty of people who do not, so we agree to disagree. I would still like to know how my views, which are basicly the same as Dan Cathy's, make me a bigot?

      August 21, 2012 at 10:42 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      @Chad,

      really? Do we really have to have the objective vs. subjective morality discussion AGAIN? Is that where you are going?

      You know it is number 4 on the top 10 list!

      Who in the world believes that incest is OK?

      August 21, 2012 at 10:45 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @Perceived

      Then why bring up the whole thing about having children? You're just grasping at straws now to avoid actually getting to the only reason you really have, and that being god said it's icky.

      August 21, 2012 at 10:45 pm |
    • PercievedReality

      Sorry HG, I meant that reply for GOP'er

      I rest for now, I have spoken my peace.

      Love, peace and safety to all my human siblings.

      August 21, 2012 at 10:47 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      Sure, nice timing.

      August 21, 2012 at 10:48 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      @P.R.

      who are you to define 'natural counterparts'? This wording itself reeks of Leviticus.

      August 21, 2012 at 10:49 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Chard, I'd be happy to answer your questions, just as soon as you answer mine. Quid pro quo, Veggie. Have you proven your god is connected to the Big Bang and evolution? If so, point out the post where you did that. Thanks ever so.

      August 21, 2012 at 10:50 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Will you please ask your jeebus to give you a damn brain? It's PIECE, not 'peace'. How dumb can you get?

      August 21, 2012 at 10:51 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Just by the by, Chard, where did I say incest "should" be illegal? I believe I simply acknowledged that it is, didn't I?

      Are you going to go the slippery slope route yet again, as you always do, and attempt to pretend that gay marriage is going to leave a door open for polygamy and pedophilia?

      Go ahead, honey. It'll just confirm what most of us already know about you-that you're intellectually dishonest.

      August 21, 2012 at 10:54 pm |
    • Chad

      @Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son " I should have said two consenting adults who would not violate laws regarding incest..."

      =>why exactly do you feel incest should be illegal? Arent you the forever claiming that you shouldnt be imposing your morals on someone else? What's your reasoning for outlawing incest?

      August 21, 2012 at 10:57 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Chard, dear, did you miss your dose of Ritalin today?

      August 21, 2012 at 10:58 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      @Chad, (reposted for giggles)

      really? Do we really have to have the objective vs. subjective morality discussion AGAIN? Is that where you are going?

      You know it is number 4 on the top 10 list!

      Who in the world believes that incest is OK?

      August 21, 2012 at 10:58 pm |
    • Chad

      @I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV 'Who in the world believes that incest is OK?"

      =>I'm still confused. atheists are forever saying that imposition of morality is wrong.
      Two consenting adults, who are you to tell them what they can and can not do?

      August 21, 2012 at 10:59 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      I do get a charge out of the phrase "aren't you the forever claiming..."

      It has a ring about it.

      Kind of like your bathtub.

      August 21, 2012 at 11:00 pm |
    • PercievedReality

      Dag on it HG I was almost outta here! How many SSC produce children naturally? Answer is none, it is not a natural design for natural children to be born into, therefore it cannot a foundation for a family! Marriage is the foundation for the family which is the cornerstone of all civilization since the genesis of the species! A child should be raised by his/her natural mother and father who are in a happy, healthy marriage. Anything else is not a family, is not and has never been a marriage. Why if given the same rights under a different name won't the SSC relent? Why must they fundamentaly change the meaning of a tradition/insti()tution that has been with mankind since its birth?

      You are being completely unreasonable, the "seperate but equal" spin does not hold water. Love!

      August 21, 2012 at 11:01 pm |
    • Chad

      wait..
      you mean you ARENT in favor of polygamy?

      you are in favor of changing the definition of marriage to include someone of the same se, but NOT more than one??

      please walk me through that logic...

      August 21, 2012 at 11:02 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      If you're confused, Chard, go fvck your sister. Maybe that'll make it clear. Oh, wait...I guess you already did that, didn't you, you little perv.

      August 21, 2012 at 11:02 pm |
    • TOOL Tom

      Yes chard, it's "PIECE". As in, TOMI is a PIECE of TAE, the Piper's Son who uses pus as brain.

      Pagka KOLOKOY!LOL!

      August 21, 2012 at 11:04 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Percy thez: "Anything else is not a family, is not and has never been a marriage. "

      Cite your source for this statement.

      August 21, 2012 at 11:04 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Chard, i must have missed it. Did you actually show any connection between your fairy godfather and the Big Bang? Or evolution?

      August 21, 2012 at 11:05 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      @Chad,

      you raise a semantic point (what a shock) that this once I will address.

      Atheists who level charges that religionists want to force their "morals / moral code" etc on others in fact use the word "morals" a bit loosely.

      Morality is a societal consensus of conscience – we all share it, whether it is consistent with our personal conscience or not. So the atheist's complaint should be the charges that religionists want to force their beliefs on others.

      There are some topics, where the moral consensus is not abundantly clear. It is fair to say gay marriage belongs in this category – but not for long. The tide has turned and the clear plurality in favor of gay marriage will be a clear majority in just a few years (in my opinion). That's why the religious right is fighting so hard.

      August 21, 2012 at 11:09 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Yeah, that's pretty much what I expected. Crickets chirping.

      August 21, 2012 at 11:09 pm |
    • Chad

      @I'm not a GOPer "So the atheist's complaint should be the charge that religionists want to force their beliefs on others."

      @Chad "so then, using your definition, when atheists attempt to impose their beliefs on others, you would likewise be opposed to that? Or, do you feel that only Christians should be restricted in that area?

      August 21, 2012 at 11:16 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Gosh, Chard. I feel so left out. You seem to have answers for everyone else's questions but mine! Why is that? Too difficult for you?

      Or just too awkward to acknowledge?

      August 21, 2012 at 11:19 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      @Chad,

      more people support gay marriage than oppose it. Most of these are not atheists Chad. No atheists' beliefs are being 'forced' on them. They simply see equality as 'right'.

      Don't you?

      August 21, 2012 at 11:23 pm |
    • Chad

      GOPer "more people support gay marriage than oppose it. Most of these are not atheists Chad. No atheists' beliefs are being 'forced' on them.
      @Chad "WHATTTTTTTT!!! Most of these are not athiests!!!!????
      wait
      atheists keep saying that opposing it is an imposition of religious morality?

      are you sure you're an atheist? You seem badly out of step with the party line...

      ========
      @GOPer "They simply see equality as 'right'."
      @Chad "so, how does that same logic not apply to polygamy and incest? If they are all consenting adults, why push for one, but not the other?
      Arent you denying equality?

      August 21, 2012 at 11:31 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      @Chad,

      go back and read my earlier post about semantics and morality.

      We're done on this one.

      August 21, 2012 at 11:35 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      @Chad,

      as an example of the futility of this conversation beyond this point, look at the thread on the bottom of this very page from three weeks ago where you are debating marriage as one man, one woman with ME II.

      Reason is irrelevant to you.

      August 21, 2012 at 11:38 pm |
    • Chad

      @GOPer "..Reason is irrelevant to you..."

      well, let me know if you figure out how to claim allowing people of the same sex to marry is a right, but denying that to consenting adults in the case of incest and polygamy is not a right..

      that would be very interesting if you could do that...

      August 21, 2012 at 11:45 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      It would be very interesting if you'd answer the questions I asked you, Chard, but of course, since you can't do so, you're going to ignore them. As usual. As always.

      August 21, 2012 at 11:47 pm |
  5. dougie

    These christian groups should be rounded up and awarded McArthur grants for they are all supremely intelligent. Thank you, zealots, for keeping civilization from progressing!!

    July 30, 2012 at 7:07 pm |
  6. kindness

    This is my experience... Thank you.

    MY personal testimony.
    A thought to consider without an ego response

    I Accepted Jesus christ as my lord and saviour. You never know how soon is too late. Transcend the worldly illusion of enslavement.
    The world denounces truth....

    Accepting Jesus Christ (for me) resulted in something like seeng a new colour. You will see it .....but will not be able to clearly explain it to anyone else..... Its meant to be that way to transend any selfism within you.

    Also... much the world arranges "surrounding dark matter into something to be debated" in such a way that protects/inflates the ego.

    The key is be present and transcend our own desire to physically see evidence. We don't know anyways by defending our own perception of dark matter.

    Currently.... most of us are constructing our own path that suits our sin lifestyle. Were all sinners. Knowing that we are is often an issue. But both christians and non are sinners. Even once we are saved by christs merciful grace we will still experience adversity to mold us to adhering to the truth.
    We will slip... But not fall of the ship ...carrying us onward to perfection in christs grace.

    We don't like to Let go and let god. We want control to some degree. This is what Jesus asks us to do. "Follow me".
    It's the hardest thing to do... but is done by letting the truth of scripture lead you (redemptive revelation)... as I said .

    Try reading corinthians and see if it makes sense to you. Try it without a pre conceived notion of it being a fairy tale.
    See the truth...
    do we do what it says in todays society... is it relevant... so many have not recently read and only hinge their philosophy on what they have heard from some other person...which may have been full of arogance pride or vanity..

    Look closely at the economy ponzi, look at how society idolizes Lust , greed , envy, sloth, pride of life, desire for knowledge, desire for power, desire for revencge,gluttony with food etc .

    Trancsend the temporal world.

    Just think if you can find any truth you can take with you ....in any of these things. When you die your riches go to someone who will spend away your life..... You will be forgotten.... history will repeat iteslf.... the greatest minds knowledge fade or are eventually plagerzed..... your good deeds will be forgotten and only give you a fleeting temporary reward . your learned teachings are forgotten or mutated..... your gold is transfered back to the rullers that rule you through deception. Your grave will grow over . This is truth .

    Trancsend your egoism and free yourself from this dominion of satan. Understand you are a sinner and part of the collective problem of this worldly matrix... Repent.... Repent means knowing (to change) The Holy spirit (within) will convict you beyond what you think you can do by yourself. Grace is given to those who renounce the world. That are" in" the world but not "of " the world.

    Evidence follows faith. Faith does not follow evidence..... Faith ....above reason in Jesus Christ.

    Faith comes by Reading or Hearing the word of god from the bible . Ask Jesus in faith for dicernment and start reading the new testament... You will be shocked when you lay down your preconceived notions and ....see and hear truth ... see how christ sets an example ... feel the truth....

    Read Ecclesiastes. Read romans or corinthians.

    You cant trancend your own egoism by adapting a world philosophy to suit your needs. Seek the truth in Christ.

    Sell all your cleverness and purchase true bewilderment. You don't get what you want ....you get what you are by faith above reason in christ.

    I promise this has been the truth for me. In Jesus christ .

    Think of what you really have to lose. ...your ego?

    Break the Matrix of illusion that holds your senses captive.

    once you do . you too will have the wisdom of God that comes only through the Holy Spirit. Saved By grace through Faith. Just like seeing a new colour.... can't explain it to a transient caught in the matrix of worldly deception.
    You will also see how the world suppresses this information and distorts it

    You're all smart people . I tell the truth. Its hard to think out of the box when earthly thinking is the box.
    I'ts a personal free experience you can do it free anytime . Don't wait till you are about to die.. START PUTTING YOUR TREASURES WHERE THEY REALLY MATTER >
    Its awsome and It's just between you and Jesus

    my testimony

    Romans 10:9

    "If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved

    July 30, 2012 at 6:58 pm |
    • Bob

      Since "Kindness" keeps unkindly dumping her Christian spew on us, let's have a look at what's really in the Christian book of nasty AKA the bible. Here we have some typically Christian horrors, from OT and NT:

      Numbers 31:17-18
      17 Now kiII all the boys. And kiII every woman who has slept with a man,
      18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

      Deuteronomy 13:6 – “If your brother, your mother’s son or your son or daughter, or the wife you cherish, or your friend who is as your own soul entice you secretly, saying, let us go and serve other gods … you shall surely kill him; your hand shall be first against him to put him to death”

      Revelations 2:23 And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works.

      Note that the bible is also very clear that you should sacrifice and burn an animal today because the smell makes sicko Christian sky fairy happy. No, you don't get to use the parts for food. You burn them, a complete waste of the poor animal.

      Yes, the bible really says that, everyone. Yes, it's in Leviticus, look it up. Yes, Jesus purportedly said that the OT commands still apply. No exceptions. But even if you think the OT was god's mistaken first go around, you have to ask why a perfect, loving enti-ty would ever put such horrid instructions in there. If you think rationally at all, that is.

      And then, if you disagree with my interpretation, ask yourself how it is that your "god" couldn't come up with a better way to communicate than a book that is so readily subject to so many interpretations and to being taken "out of context", and has so many mistakes in it. Pretty pathetic god that you've made for yourself.

      So get out your sacrificial knife or your nasty sky creature will torture you eternally. Or just take a closer look at your foolish supersti-tions, understand that they are just silly, and toss them into the dustbin with all the rest of the gods that man has created.

      Ask the questions. Break the chains. Join the movement. Be free of Christianity and other superstitions.
      http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/

      July 30, 2012 at 7:11 pm |
    • Rebel Texas Democrat

      ......I don't think her tree goes all the way to the top branch....... yet another loony christian for the funny farm. Think if we locked up all the christians in mental asylums where they belong we'd be a lot better off as a society.

      July 30, 2012 at 7:18 pm |
    • Chad

      Hmmmm....Yeah...that's a real good idea, Rebel Texas Democrat. Heil Hitler! Are you serious?

      July 30, 2012 at 7:45 pm |
    • Gavin Ford

      We are NOT all sinners. The very concept of "sin" is made up by your appalling belief system and does not apply to those of us that are not in your oversize cult.

      July 30, 2012 at 8:33 pm |
    • lambnetmadi

      Thanks Kindness. God has said that his understanding is his own. Reading your post left me in a place the comforter calls joy while being surrounded by the Tempest. The ego is a hard feeling to break. I like to look at feelings like lines in the sand on the shores of uncertainty. God holds the brush to the easel of colors. His brush strokes on the canvas of life paint a light of the everlasting. Its a joy only the saved find in "Kindness" & Christ. Thanks, God Bless & Take Care ~ MadisonLock

      July 30, 2012 at 10:12 pm |
  7. kenny

    anyone ever wonder why people think being gay is a choice??? i finally realized IT IS..... FOR THEM and anyone else that is BISE-XUAL... they ARE attracted to men and women and they choose women... for religious reasons.. or whatever... why do SOOOOO many turn out to have gay relationships... they're clearly BI.... and despise themselves soooo much they just have to impose that self hatred on others... so they make gay's the enemy... i'd LOOOVVVEEEE to see hot gay guys seduce all these self righteous xtian hate mongers... and video tape it.. they neeed to be exposed to set themselves free of their own self hatred...

    July 30, 2012 at 6:54 pm |
    • Val

      And you have your opinion Kenny, but you don't own a chicken franchise. Too bad, because many people would probably boycott your stores due to YOUR stance on gay rights. It's too bad, because the point should be that no matter what someone's opinion is that is the owner of a company....if you like their product, what in the world does the CEO'S opinion of ANYTHING have to do with whether or not they should be able to open a store in any city in America???? THIS IS AMERICA where we have the freedom of speech!!!!!!!!! Deal with it and spend your time hanging out with all the people who do accept you and stop trying to change the minds of people who feel differently. You don't want people trying to change YOU do you? You want the right to be who you are and think the way you think so be fair and let others have that right EVEN IF YOU DISAGREE. That's the way a real adult handles things instead of being childish and spewing nasty comments such as yours. Shame on you.

      July 30, 2012 at 7:20 pm |
    • danny

      and some people are just tired of the gay and lesbian issue crammed down thier throat,we have alot more important issues to deal with,and you know everybody who disagrees with gay marriage is bigot or religous fanatic,plain and simple you liberals seem to be the haters with the labelling and name calling,

      July 30, 2012 at 8:27 pm |
  8. TC

    Chicago and Boston mayors I guess are the new breed of local politicians that support a new communist government. Rahm is an idiot – Chicago values huh? The un AMerican values of suppresing freedom of speech and beliefs. Glad I don't live there.

    July 30, 2012 at 6:50 pm |
    • Val

      Agreed.

      July 30, 2012 at 7:22 pm |
  9. Charlotte

    What I don't understand is why anyone would eat there in the first place. The food is awful, flavorless, bland, unhealthy and reeks of animal cruelty. Buy your chicken from a local farm with un-caged chickens and take the twenty minutes needed to make your own sandwich. Then you'll know exactly what you are eating and you won't be supporting this unethical bigoted business. Maybe it will de-fuzz the brains of all those on both sides of the issue who don't seem able to spell, punctuate or use complete sentences with subject/verb agreement.

    July 30, 2012 at 6:48 pm |
    • rt

      This is way beyond the quality of their food and the business is neither unethical or bigoted. Do you libs even know what a bigot is and what they do?

      July 30, 2012 at 6:53 pm |
    • Bob

      rt, the business as presented by the CEO clearly is bigoted. Care to try again, but after you RTFA this time?

      July 30, 2012 at 7:14 pm |
  10. TC

    This story is highlighting how the atheists and LGBTs are trying lable those who don't agree with their lifestyle as bigots and make speech against them lagally wrong. Forcing your beliefs on another through governemnt law and controlling free speech is called communism. Let this continue becasue its blowing up in atheist and LGBTs faces as it shows their position as completely un American.

    July 30, 2012 at 6:48 pm |
    • Charlotte

      You, TC, seem incapable of differentiating between 'beliefs' and states of being. Moreover, I don't think the LGBT community has introduced any legislation to punish Chick Fill-A (or whatever they call themselves) but instead there has been a backlash at grass-roots level of people across the spectrum denouncing what is clearly an immoral stance and an effort by one religious nutjob to influence the civil rights of a community through the bullhorn that is (whether rightly or wrongly) available to a nationwide corporation. It's wrong and everyone knows it.

      July 30, 2012 at 6:52 pm |
    • TC

      @Charlotte – you are a delusional lib that cannot understand that in this country a human being has the right to disagree with another and not support their lifestyle. No one has been discriminated against – chill and quit hating on religious people and those thet think the gay lifestyle is immoral. Tis their right

      July 30, 2012 at 6:56 pm |
    • Andrew Chisholm

      Funny, I'm a fiscal conservative and I think Chickfilla is obviously bigoted. They state that rather obviously.

      July 30, 2012 at 7:15 pm |
  11. Dana

    This is where the State is clearly violating the Separation Clause. In this country, people are to be prosecuted for their actions, not their beliefs. I'd suggest that select group of BIGOTED mayors be more trustworthy in regard to their oaths of office and spend their energies seeing that their cities are run properly, instead of improperly running around . . . looking to cut off a chicken's head!

    July 30, 2012 at 6:46 pm |
    • Dana we saw your black man comin round

      Kettle calling Dana...

      July 30, 2012 at 7:18 pm |
  12. Ed

    I want to start by stating I disagree with Dan Cathy's stance on G-ay marriage. Hom-ose-xuals should have identical rights to heterose-xuals in every way.

    With that said he does have the legal right to express his opinons, and as the president of the company state company corprate values. To deny him this vio-lated the consti-tution of this country. As for mayors banning his company. This is a vio-lation of anti-trust laws and well as unconsti-tutional. Also see the movie "MILK." Its about a g-ay man in San Fransico who ran into similar discrim-ination against him and his company in the 60's. The movies about him the discrim-nation was a sub plot not the main plot. The courts upheld his right to open a store regardless of his personal points of view. Now the same city wants to block a different company because it disagrees with its point of view or the point of view of the President of that company.

    Also I grow tired of every time some one disagrees with a group calling them hat-e mongers and hom-ophobs or racist. I can disagree with a behavior or a group without being hat-eful or spreading hat-e torwards them. I can think your wrong with out being afraid of you. And well frankly hom-ose-xaul is not a race. it would be more accurate to call Cathy a big-ot. I read his comment. It did not include any hat-eful words or comments other then disagreeing with ga-y marriage. He had no call to action against hom-ose-xuals. it simply stated the compnay disagreed with allowing them to marry. Again he is wrong to think that way but that doesn't make him a ha-te monger, racist or hom-ophob. It is not fair to say he has to agree with you to be a good person. That atti-tude is exactly what so many complain the church is doing.

    He had a right to state his opinon. Jim Henson and his compnay had the same right to come out against his comment a refuse to do business with Chik-Fil-A in the future. You have the right to boycott the company and even pickett their stores. Although all you will really do by the boycott is hurt the local franchise owners and employees. It is still your right. You have the right to post all your comments many of which are far more hat-efilled than his was. But you don't have the right to take his right away. The mayors of the cities mentioned and others don't have the right to pass laws discrim-inating against him or his company because the disagree with the jerk. They certainly don't have the right to pass this laws just to get relected with out any concern for their citzens or the laws of this land, and that is what they are doing.

    Buttom line Dan Cathy's a bigot but well with in his rights, the mayors aren't

    July 30, 2012 at 6:23 pm |
    • Guest

      Although you may not agree with him, that does not make him a bigot. It's just you both have opposing opinions on a subject. And I agree with you that the mayors are completely out of line. But they are typical politicians. Anything for a vote.

      July 30, 2012 at 6:32 pm |
    • Ed

      @Guest, Your right my disagreeing with him does not make him a big-ot. Me stating it does would make me as guilty of an onfair label as those calling him a Hat-e monger or Hom-ophob. However his wanting to treat a group of people differently under the law just because they are differnt from him, does make him a big-ot. It is not my stance that make him at least appear to be a big-ot but his own. Discrimi-nation is wrong those who want to discriminate are usaully bigots thats seemd to be the reason they want to discrimi-nate.

      July 30, 2012 at 6:39 pm |
  13. Scott

    How funny that the bowel-obsessed is screaming about what they've been doing for DECADES. Any business in support of gay people? BOYCOTT, BOYCOTT, BOYCOTT.

    July 30, 2012 at 6:01 pm |
  14. You are an abomination. You make the baby Jesus cry.

    [youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sO-msplukrw&w=640&h=360]

    July 30, 2012 at 5:58 pm |
    • Lindeseig

      I was waiting for someone to post this...I think these drag queens get the point across rather eloquently.

      July 30, 2012 at 7:41 pm |
  15. jimmer

    If I were gay, I would apply for a job at chic fil a..

    Then every morning I would whack a load of spunk into a small tupperware container and secretly apply it to the chicken sandwiches.

    I would smile all day long serving hom oph obes my special sauce.

    July 30, 2012 at 5:39 pm |
    • Al

      What would you do if you had a brain?

      July 30, 2012 at 5:50 pm |
    • jimmer

      "What would you do if you had a brain?"

      I'd stop fvcking your mom.

      July 30, 2012 at 6:00 pm |
    • Scott

      Chic Fil A HAS gay employees. Most of them are at our location! LOL

      July 30, 2012 at 6:02 pm |
    • jimmer

      "Chic Fil A HAS gay employees. Most of them are at our location! LOL"

      Do you eat there?

      Does your chicken have "sauce" on it?

      July 30, 2012 at 6:05 pm |
  16. tnfreethinker

    The Dan Cathy/Chick-fil-A issue – this is not about anyone trying to prevent him from running a business as a christian man – this goes MUCH farther than a man just expressing his faith. He donates MILLIONS to verified hate groups and is playing politics and attempting to oppress others based on his religious ideology. I couldn't care less if he wants to hire only christians, close on Sunday, or any of that. But when he campaigns to deny other Americans their civil rights, that is what I, and many others, have an issue with.

    July 30, 2012 at 5:15 pm |
    • SPA Knight

      Does a private citizen have every right to donate their money to any organization they want? A freethinker should not fear other points of view. Has anyone restricted who you donate to? That is the risk we must take as a free nation.

      July 30, 2012 at 5:28 pm |
    • tnfreethinker

      I don't fear other's POV. The problem is when a ridiculous POV is passed into law. Like Chick-fil-A, who spends millions (the organization, not private citizens) to discriminate against loving families.

      July 30, 2012 at 5:41 pm |
    • Guest

      You say "He donates MILLIONS to verified hate groups ". Please list your sources and proof of this. Otherwise, you're just blowing hot air.

      July 30, 2012 at 6:34 pm |
    • NonGay Liberal

      tnfreethinker, please do name the verifiable hate groups.

      July 30, 2012 at 7:51 pm |
      • tnfreethinker

        From the following article: h ttp ://equalitymatters.org/factcheck/201207020001

        The WinShape Foundation is Chick-fil-A's charitable arm, created by Chick-fil-A founder and chairman S. Truett Cathy in 1984. WinShape has received a substantial amount of funding from Chick-fil-A: in 2010 alone, WinShape received $8,067,161 from Chick-fil-A Inc. [WinShape 2010, Publicly Available IRS 990 Form via Foundation Center, accessed 6/27/12]

        WinShape Gave Over $1.9 Million To Anti-Gay Groups. In 2010, WinShape donated $1,974,380 to a number of anti-gay groups:

        Marriage & Family Foundation: $1,188,380
        Fellowship Of Christian Athletes: $480,000
        National Christian Foundation: $247,500
        New Mexico Christian Foundation: $54,000
        Exodus International: $1,000
        Family Research Council: $1,000
        Georgia Family Council: $2,500
        [Winshape 2010 Publicly Available IRS 990 Form via Foundation Center, accessed 6/27/12]

        IRS 990 forms:
        ht tp: // dynamodata.fdncenter.org/990pf_pdf_archive/581/581595471/581595471_201012_990PF.pdf
        h ttp: //dynamodata.fdncenter.org/990pf_pdf_archive/581/581595471/581595471_201012_990PF.pdf

        July 30, 2012 at 9:01 pm |
    • SPA Knight

      Freethinker – all groups listed are all organizations that promote and try and protect traditional Christian, Family or Marriage. These are considered hate groups in your mind?

      July 31, 2012 at 11:40 am |
      • tnfreethinker

        Yes, a reasonable mind understands that discrimination is motivated by hate. The traditional Christian family is no better than a family with 2 moms or 2 dads. When organizations try to deny gay Americans their civil rights it is discrimination.

        July 31, 2012 at 2:10 pm |
  17. Bob

    Christians claiming persecution -now that's rich!

    July 30, 2012 at 4:53 pm |
    • junior

      We have for 2000 years. Now that is grand.

      July 30, 2012 at 4:57 pm |
  18. SPA Knight

    First Mayor Bloomberg wants to outlaw 16 oz drinks from restaurants and now these two jokers want to ban the American staople of friend chicken from 2 of our biggest cities? Typical liberals trying to control who drinks soda, eats chicken and expresses their personal religious opinions in the public square. People should be free to drink what they want, eat what they want and express what they want in a free country. If you don't like what Mr. Cathy as to say, you can always spend your money at Starbucks or Pinera Bread or perhaps we should ban them from our neighborhoods since they have expressed their social responsibility statements publically as well.

    July 30, 2012 at 4:41 pm |
    • ??

      U mad, bro?

      July 30, 2012 at 4:42 pm |
    • llɐq ʎʞɔnq

      pssst. ever heard of KFC ?

      July 30, 2012 at 4:43 pm |
    • t3chn0ph0b3

      Bloomberg is only slightly more liberal than Rush Limbaugh.

      July 30, 2012 at 4:44 pm |
    • sam

      Hmmm...Knight, do you know what liberal means?

      July 30, 2012 at 4:50 pm |
    • SPA Knight

      Sam, being liberal at one time stood for liberty and equality but that seems to have been redefined by those who want to control thoughts and actions that fit their world view. I object to people claiming to be open minded that working to censor fellow Americans from expressing their personal views because it's polically incorrect.

      July 30, 2012 at 4:58 pm |
    • YeahRight

      "since they have expressed their social responsibility statements publically as well."

      What they expressed was not social responsibility, it is an uneducated prejudice opinion, that fuels hatred and bigotry toward the gay community. It's why the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Counseling Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the American School Counselor Association, the National Association of School Psychologists, and the National Association of SocialWorkers, together representing more than 480,000 mental health professionals, have all taken the position that homosexuality is not a mental disorder and thus is not something that needs to or can be “cured." This is about civil rights.

      July 30, 2012 at 5:00 pm |
    • ME II

      @SPA Knight,
      As opposed to "conservatives" who want to keep the government out of their lives some much, that they pass laws dictating who can marry whom. That makes a lot of sense.

      July 30, 2012 at 5:29 pm |
    • ME II

      (they removed my /sarcasm > tag at the end)

      July 30, 2012 at 5:30 pm |
  19. t3chn0ph0b3

    "Religious freedom" does not include a "right" to impose your religious views on others using power and influence. That's fascism, not freedom.

    July 30, 2012 at 4:36 pm |
    • junior

      It does not impose its views, you are free to not dine there if you so feel obliged.

      July 30, 2012 at 4:58 pm |
    • Chelle

      Not if the person in question is an employee and is discriminated against because of their beliefs. I would be frightened if I was an employee and heard the CEO of the company I worked for making this declaration.

      July 30, 2012 at 5:47 pm |
    • Guest

      You say "Religious freedom" does not include a "right" to impose your religious views on others using power and influence." ,,,, Oh, like these mayors are trying to do now?

      July 30, 2012 at 6:37 pm |
    • You Are Wrong

      Oh yes it does! And you are free to walk away and not listen! No one is demanding that everyone else believe in the same thing, a key component of fascism. Do a little research before posting something so thoughtless and stupid!

      July 30, 2012 at 8:02 pm |
    • t3chn0ph0b3

      The head of Chic-fil-A is using his money (i.e., power and influence) to impose his religious views on others by purchasing government. That's fascism.

      The government doesn't give you the opportunity to just "walk away" and ignore it.

      July 30, 2012 at 11:33 pm |
    • Ju Ju Bee

      I don't understand – when did Chick Fil A impose their religious views on anyone? If you don't agree with them – then don't buy from them. It's really that easy.

      At least they are upfront about what their beliefs are and what they support. This way – you can make the decision.
      Bet we'd all be surprised if we knew what other company's positions were and what organizations they support. I no longer frequent Starbucks in my city, mainly because of who they contribute to and who they allow to solicit donations from their store. They always have a table for a gay/lesbian organization to solicit donations. I don't have a problem with that other than I don't like being harassed and called names when I decline to give them money when I try to walk in the door. And yes – they do that and I've complained. I've never had that issue with any organization except theirs. I'm there to buy a cup of coffee, not make a social statement. So, I choose to I spend my money elsewhere.

      July 31, 2012 at 2:45 pm |
  20. Chad

    “Individuals have the right to decide whether or not to ‘eat mor chikin.’ But no government leader should restrict a business or organization from expanding to their district based on the personal or political views of the owners,” Leith Anderson, the president of the National Association of Evangelicals, said Monday.
    “Such evident discrimination and attempts to marginalize those with religious values have no place in American democracy,” Anderson said."

    exactly!

    At what point did we decide that it's ok to discriminate against Christian owned businesses??????

    July 30, 2012 at 4:32 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      I don't see you speaking out against christian discrimination Chad. Or is your indignation only supposed to be in defense of people who are part of your religion?

      July 30, 2012 at 4:36 pm |
    • llɐq ʎʞɔnq

      This company has a corporate charter, granted by the government, to do business with the public, which gives them certain rights and responsibilities, both to the government, and to the public. They have proven time and again, they they discriminate against certain employees, and franchise owners. It is perfectly within the rights of a mayor, to look after the rights of those who may/might work there, and possibly be suckered into the purchase a franchise.

      July 30, 2012 at 4:39 pm |
    • Chad

      Who are Christians discriminating against?

      and, before you respond with "they are discriminating against gays because they arent supporting changing the existing definition of marriage", remember that expressing a desire to maintain an existing legal definition cant be "discriminatory" by DEFINITION.

      FYI:
      18 U.S.C. § 241 makes it unlawful for two or more persons to agree together to injure, threaten, or intimidate a person in any state, territory or district in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him/her by the Constitution or the laws of the Unites States, (or because of his/her having exercised the same).

      July 30, 2012 at 4:41 pm |
    • Chad

      @llɐq ʎʞɔnq

      no
      1) By definition, stating support for existing legal definitions is impossible to be labeled "discriminatory"
      2) see 18 U.S.C. § 241 above

      July 30, 2012 at 4:43 pm |
    • sam

      @Chad:

      "remember that expressing a desire to maintain an existing legal definition cant be "discriminatory" by DEFINITION."

      Uh huh. Except the only reasons christians do so is because the bible apparently says it's a no-no.

      There's plenty of other logic fail we could get into, but it's a waste of time with you, Chad.

      July 30, 2012 at 4:44 pm |
    • Chad

      @Sam "...e only reasons christians do so is because the bible apparently says it's a no-no."

      =>hmm.. I see that a lot
      is it true?

      so, if opposition to same-sex marriage can ONLY be due to "religious" reasons, then of course it would be embraced by atheist states such as China, former Soviet Union, North Korea, Cuba..

      right?
      😉

      care to know what those states with officially atheistic views are on that matter?

      July 30, 2012 at 4:47 pm |
    • llɐq ʎʞɔnq

      Chad,
      Your little quote proves they act illegally. Thanks for posting the proof.

      July 30, 2012 at 4:50 pm |
    • sam

      Chad, I'm saying flat out that most christians don't give a rat's ass what the law says unless it echoes the bible. No one is resisting gay marriage on the basis that it's not currently legal on the books. Don't even try and pass that bullshit on as truth.

      Christians in America feel it's a sin. If they didn't, they wouldn't lift a finger or a dollar to oppose it.

      July 30, 2012 at 4:53 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @Chad

      You're kidding right? Where does it state in the law that marriage is defined as man and woman specifically. Unless of course you're going on a state by state basis, which I suppose would mean that it is discriminatory in some states and not in others, which would make for an interesting stance on your part.

      July 30, 2012 at 4:57 pm |
    • Chad

      @llɐq ʎʞɔnq "Your little quote proves they act illegally. Thanks for posting the proof."

      =>really??
      so, I'm sure you'll be posting where the right to gay marriage is "secured to him/her by the Const.tution or the laws of the Unites States"

      ?

      18 U.S.C. § 241 makes it unlawful for two or more persons to agree together to injure, threaten, or intimidate a person in any state, territory or district in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him/her by the Const.tution or the laws of the Unites States, (or because of his/her having exercised the same).

      July 30, 2012 at 4:58 pm |
    • YeahRight

      "FYI:
      18 U.S.C. § 241 makes it unlawful for two or more persons to agree together to injure, threaten, or intimidate a person in any state, territory or district in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him/her by the Constitution or the laws of the Unites States, (or because of his/her having exercised the same)."

      Oh really – FYI this. Marriage was defined by the US Supreme Court as a civil right. Recognized federal civil rights law in the United States is grounded in the U.S. Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court. By this standard, marriage has long been established as a civil right.

      The operative constitutional text is section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was ratified in 1868. The relevant passages read as follows:

      No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws

      A federal appeals court on May 31st ruled that the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional because it denies equal rights for legally married same-sex couples, making it likely that the Supreme Court will consider the politically divisive issue for the first time in its next term. This most likely will be decided in the courts and since most courts keep ruling in gays favor they should be able to over turn all the unconstitutional laws prejudice bigots have been trying to pass.

      July 30, 2012 at 5:02 pm |
    • religion; a way to control the weak minded

      "Who are Christians discriminating against?"

      Really?

      July 30, 2012 at 5:07 pm |
    • Chad

      @YeahRight "Marriage was defined by the US Supreme Court as a civil right."

      interesting.. so, it's legal to marry a toothbrush?

      I had no idea.. interesting.

      July 30, 2012 at 5:08 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @Chad

      You really can't handle being wrong can you?

      July 30, 2012 at 5:10 pm |
    • Chad

      If someone wants to argue that two people who have not in the past been recognized as marriage partners should now be recognized as marriage partners, one must demonstrate that marriage law (not civil rights law) has overlooked or misidentified something that it should not have overlooked or misidentified. For thousands of years, marriage law has concerned itself with a particular kind of enduring bond between a man and a woman.

      The material legal matter at hand is therefor one of properly recognizing and identifying what exists and distinguishing between marriages and auto clubs, between schools and banks, between friendships and multinational corporations. It has nothing to do with civil rights.

      Those who choose to live together in life-long same serelationships; or brothers and sisters who live together and take care of one another; or two friends of the same sex who are not sexually involved but share life together in the same home—all of these may be free to live as they do, and they suffer no civil rights discrimination by not being identified as marriages

      July 30, 2012 at 5:11 pm |
    • religion; a way to control the weak minded

      " atheist states such as China, former Soviet Union, North Korea, Cuba.."

      ummmm China is not an atheist state?
      Religion in NK primarily consists of buddhism and confucianism
      Communisim in Soviet Union eliminated religion, atheists didnt.
      Cuba has traditionally been a Catholic country.

      Where do you get your information from? Time to open a book other than the bible and learn something.

      July 30, 2012 at 5:12 pm |
    • religion; a way to control the weak minded

      "interesting.. so, it's legal to marry a toothbrush?"

      I didnt now Toothbrushes have civil rights? Are you that r3tard3d or are you just stupid?

      Marriage is a legally binding contract between two consenting adults. nothing more. Why do you think you still need to pay the state a fee and go to a court house to have your marriage officially recognized? Going to a church to get married is not legally recognized until you file with the state.

      July 30, 2012 at 5:14 pm |
    • Chad

      @YeahRight "Marriage was defined by the US Supreme Court as a civil right."

      and.. you really should have done some reading..

      that ruling which you cherry picked 🙂 referred to Loving v. Virginia whereby a ban on interracial marriage was ruled unconstitutional.
      It DID NOT redefine marriage to include same sex.

      July 30, 2012 at 5:17 pm |
    • Chad

      @religion; a way to control the weak minded "Marriage is a legally binding contract between two consenting adults."

      =>er.. no
      which is why so much effort is being undertaken to redefine the word to include gay marriages..

      D'oh!

      July 30, 2012 at 5:18 pm |
    • Russell"s Teapot

      @Chad
      "At what point did we decide that it's ok to discriminate against Christian owned businesses??????"

      Right around the same time Christian felt that it was okay to publicly voice their ignorance and support of discrimination. Or maybe around the time that Christians started to aggressively attempt to enshrine their doctrines as law?

      July 30, 2012 at 5:23 pm |
    • sam

      We need to be nicer to Chad, you guys. He can't seem to help himself.

      And he apparantly fantasizes about toothbrushes.

      July 30, 2012 at 5:24 pm |
    • Moby Schtick

      Who cares if somebody wants to marry their toothbrush? Fine by me.

      Chad is a fan of toothbrush pron, I guess.

      July 30, 2012 at 5:30 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @Chad

      And since when did you get to define what marriage is chad? Marriage, when it comes to government recognition, is a social contract, guaranteeing certain privileges in one big package, which would otherwise take thousands of dollars to do individually.
      It is not only that, but it has also been defined as a civil right. Religion does not have a monopoly on marriage, just like it doesn't have a monopoly on morality.

      July 30, 2012 at 5:31 pm |
    • sam

      The bristles are irresistable; the ones with the gum stimulators, though, must be heavenly. And I suppose it's all in the grip.

      July 30, 2012 at 5:33 pm |
    • YeahRight

      "that ruling which you cherry picked 🙂 referred to Loving v. Virginia whereby a ban on interracial marriage was ruled unconstitutional.
      It DID NOT redefine marriage to include same sex."

      No kidding moron which is why this is a fight about civil rights and gays being denied that civil right. DUH! The American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Counseling Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the American School Counselor Association, the National Association of School Psychologists, and the National Association of SocialWorkers, together representing more than 480,000 mental health professionals, have all taken the position that homosexuality is not a mental disorder and thus is not something that needs to or can be “cured."

      Being gay is not illegal and the experts around the world have proven they are normal human beings who deserve to be treated equally, only Christian prejudice bigots are making up lies while fighting to block their civil right. Marriage is about civil rights and NOT your god! Duh!

      July 30, 2012 at 5:33 pm |
    • Alpa Chino

      What the...

      just go straight for the electric ones Chad

      July 30, 2012 at 5:34 pm |
    • Chad

      @hawaiiguest "And since when did you get to define what marriage is chad?"
      @Chad "I dont, the existing definition in place (between man and woman) has been there for hundreds of years. The current push is to redefine the word to include same sex"

      =====
      @hawaiiguest "Marriage, when it comes to government recognition, is a social contract"
      @Chad "yes, between man and women"

      =====
      @hawaiiguest "It is not only that, but it has also been defined as a civil right."
      @Chad "yes, marriage between man and woman is a civil right, see Loving v. Virginia

      July 30, 2012 at 5:41 pm |
    • YeahRight

      ""yes, marriage between man and woman is a civil right, see Loving v. Virginia"

      Thankfully the courts are ruling in gays favor which is why marriage for them is legal in several states, you will loose in the end because it based on the civil rights. You can't disprove all the experts showing that heterosexual behavior and homosexual behavior are normal aspects of human sexuality. Despite the persistence of stereotypes that portray lesbian, gay, and bisexual people as disturbed, several decades of research and clinical experience have led all mainstream medical and mental health organizations in this country to conclude that these orientations represent normal forms of human experience. The American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Counseling Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the American School Counselor Association, the National Association of School Psychologists, and the National Association of SocialWorkers, together representing more than 480,000 mental health professionals, have all taken the position that homosexuality is not a mental disorder and thus is not something that needs to or can be “cured."

      July 30, 2012 at 5:44 pm |
    • Chad

      @YeahRight "No kidding moron which is why this is a fight about civil rights and gays being denied that civil right."

      =>hmm, no:
      The material legal matter at hand is therefor one of properly recognizing and identifying what marriage is, and distinguishing between marriages and auto clubs, between schools and banks, between friendships and multinational corporations. It has nothing to do with civil rights.

      Those who choose to live together in life-long same sex relationships; or brothers and sisters who live together and take care of one another; or two friends of the same sex who are not sexually involved but share life together in the same home—all of these may be free to live as they do, and they suffer no civil rights discrimination by not being identified as marriages

      July 30, 2012 at 5:44 pm |
    • ME II

      @Chad,
      "I dont, the existing definition in place (between man and woman) has been there for hundreds of years. The current push is to redefine the word to include same se.x"
      It has not been defined as between a man and a woman for hundreds of years, perhaps in the church, but not in law.

      "... remember that expressing a desire to maintain an existing legal definition cant be 'discriminatory' by DEFINITION."
      I don't think this is true. Laws themselves have been declared discriminatory, so why wouldn't supporting such a law also be discriminatory?

      July 30, 2012 at 5:49 pm |
    • YeahRight

      "Those who choose to live together in life-long same sex relationships; or brothers and sisters who live together and take care of one another; or two friends of the same sex who are not sexually involved but share life together in the same home—all of these may be free to live as they do, and they suffer no civil rights discrimination by not being identified as marriages"

      Wow are you one idiot or what. The rights of legal marriage include:

      Tax Benefits
      -–Filing joint income tax returns with the I R S and state taxing authorities.
      -–Creating a "family partnership" under federal tax laws, which allows you to divide business income among family members.
      Estate Planning Benefits
      -–Inheriting a share of your spouse's estate.
      -–Receiving an exemption from both estate taxes and gift taxes for all property you give or leave to your spouse.
      -–Creating life estate trusts that are restricted to married couples, including QTIP trusts, QDOT trusts, and marital deduction trusts.
      -–Obtaining priority if a conservator needs to be appointed for your spouse – that is, someone to make financial and/or medical decisions on your spouse's behalf.
      Government Benefits
      -–Receiving Social Security, Medicare, and disability benefits for spouses.
      -–Receiving veterans' and military benefits for spouses, such as those for education, medical care, or special loans.
      -–Receiving public assistance benefits.
      -–Employment Benefits
      -–Obtaining insurance benefits through a spouse's employer.
      -–Taking family leave to care for your spouse during an illness.
      -–Receiving wages, workers' compensation, and retirement plan benefits for a deceased spouse.
      -–Taking bereavement leave if your spouse or one of your spouse's close relatives dies.
      Medical Benefits
      -–Visiting your spouse in a hospital intensive care unit or during restricted visiting hours in other parts of a medical facility.
      -–Making medical decisions for your spouse if he or she becomes incapacitated and unable to express wishes for treatment.
      Death Benefits
      -–Consenting to after-death examinations and procedures.
      -–Making burial or other final arrangements.
      Family Benefits
      -–Filing for stepparent or joint adoption.
      -–Applying for joint foster care rights.
      -–Receiving equitable division of property if you divorce.
      -–Receiving spousal or child support, child custody, and visitation if you divorce.
      Housing Benefits
      -–Living in neighborhoods zoned for "families only."
      -–Automatically renewing leases signed by your spouse.
      Consumer Benefits
      -–Receiving family rates for health, homeowners', auto, and other types of insurance.
      -–Receiving tuition discounts and permission to use school facilities.
      -–Other consumer discounts and incentives offered only to married couples or families.
      -–Other Legal Benefits and Protections
      -–Suing a third person for wrongful death of your spouse and loss of consortium (loss of intimacy).
      -–Suing a third person for offenses that interfere with the success of your marriage, such as alienation of affection and criminal conversation (these laws are available in only a few states).
      -–Claiming the marital communications privilege, which means a court can't force you to disclose the contents of confidential communications between you and your spouse during your marriage.
      -–Receiving crime victims' recovery benefits if your spouse is the victim of a crime.
      -–Obtaining immigration and residency benefits for noncitizen spouse.
      -–Visiting rights in jails and other places where visitors are restricted to immediate family.

      July 30, 2012 at 5:51 pm |
    • sam

      @Chad "all of these may be free to live as they do, and they suffer no civil rights discrimination by not being identified as marriages."

      Oh boy. They sure do miss out on a lot of other things, but that's ok, so long as Chad is happy that they don't get to call it marriage. Chad, why is it so threatening to you? What are you losing when someone else gets the same rights you do? It doesn't affect you, except in your head.

      July 30, 2012 at 5:52 pm |
    • llɐq ʎʞɔnq

      Chad,
      Giving women the right to vote has led to all kinds of terrible things, such as hamsters voting, and tooth brushes voting. One must be very careful.

      July 30, 2012 at 5:56 pm |
    • sam

      LOL bucky...

      July 30, 2012 at 6:11 pm |
    • Chad

      @ME II "Marriage has not been defined as between a man and a woman for hundreds of years, perhaps in the church, but not in law."
      @Chad "oh completely agree, that's why there is this huge push now to redefine it to include same sex..
      er..
      wait..
      what?

      ======
      @ME II " Laws themselves have been declared discriminatory, so why wouldn't supporting such a law also be discriminatory?"
      @Chad "before of after the ruling? While it is law, it certainly isnt discriminatory to support it.
      And, unless you are some kind of "Minority Report pre-cog" and you know what is going to happen, if it's law, it isnt discriminatory to support it.

      July 30, 2012 at 6:15 pm |
    • YeahRight

      "Giving women the right to vote has led to all kinds of terrible things, such as hamsters voting, and tooth brushes voting. "

      LOL! Yeah and where gays have been allowed to marry it hasn't degraded marriage either, but you can't tell that to a prejudice bigot.LMAO!

      July 30, 2012 at 6:20 pm |
    • Chad

      @YeahRight "The rights of legal marriage include:...."

      @Chad "correct, and there exists no civil right which allows any two people who arent married to enjoy the benefits of marriage."

      July 30, 2012 at 6:24 pm |
    • YeahRight

      "there exists no civil right which allows any two people who arent married to enjoy the benefits of marriage."

      Gay couples want the right to get married to protect their families, to be able to be their during medical emergencies, these marriage rights are being denied to gay couples which is why it's going to court and the courts are ruling in their families. The examples you are trying to use are not families but single adults. Duh! What an idiot. The experts have statedHeterosexual behavior and homosexual behavior are normal aspects of human sexuality. Despite the persistence of stereotypes that portray lesbian, gay, and bisexual people as disturbed, several decades of research and clinical experience have led all mainstream medical and mental health organizations in this country to conclude that these orientations represent normal forms of human experience. The American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Counseling Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the American School Counselor Association, the National Association of School Psychologists, and the National Association of SocialWorkers, together representing more than 480,000 mental health professionals, have all taken the position that homosexuality is not a mental disorder and thus is not something that needs to or can be “cured."

      Social science has shown that the concerns often raised about children of lesbian and gay parents—concerns that are generally grounded in prejudice against and stereotypes about gay people—are unfounded. Overall, the research indicates that the children of lesbian and gay parents do not differ from the children of heterosexual parents in their development, adjustment, or overall well-being.

      July 30, 2012 at 6:30 pm |
    • Chad

      there exists no civil right which allows any two people who arent married to enjoy the benefits of marriage.

      you are attempting to redefine the definition of the word marriage.

      that's it.

      July 30, 2012 at 6:32 pm |
    • ME II

      @Chad,
      I think most cases of Judicial review are over-turning the laws that ban marriage of same-se.x couples as a denial of equal rights under the consti.tution.
      "'Proposition 8 serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their relationships as inferior to those of opposite-se[.]x couples,' the ruling reads." Reuters Feb 8, 2012

      Prop 8 and DOMA seem to be the laws trying to '[re]define' marriage.

      I think the distinction you are making is that supporting the law is not illegal, it may however still be discriminatory, just like Jim Crow laws in the past. Just becase it's the law does not make it right or non-discriminatory, it just means it's not illegal.

      July 30, 2012 at 6:34 pm |
    • Peter

      "and there exists no civil right which allows any two people who arent married to enjoy the benefits of marriage.""

      Actually your wrong many states have common law marriages that allows unmarried men and women to have the benefits of marriage, gay couples do not fall into those rights either. What you are not considering is the children gay couples are raising and why they want to protect them through the rights of marriage.

      July 30, 2012 at 6:34 pm |
    • YeahRight

      "there exists no civil right which allows any two people who arent married to enjoy the benefits of marriage.

      you are attempting to redefine the definition of the word marriage."

      Because it needs to be redefined that is what this civil rights fight is about. Straights get the choice to get married and enjoy those rights. Gays do not even get that choice in most of the states in the U S. Duh!

      July 30, 2012 at 6:38 pm |
    • Chad

      @Chad "you are attempting to redefine the definition of the word marriage.""
      @YeahRight "Because it needs to be redefined that is what this civil rights fight is about.
      @Chad "again, this is not a civil rights fight..

      The material legal matter at hand is therefor one of properly recognizing and identifying what marriage is, and distinguishing between marriages and auto clubs, between schools and banks, between friendships and multinational corporations. It has nothing to do with civil rights.

      Those who choose to live together in life-long same sex relationships; or brothers and sisters who live together and take care of one another; or two friends of the same sex who are not sexually involved but share life together in the same home—all of these may be free to live as they do, and they suffer no civil rights discrimination by not being identified as marriages

      July 30, 2012 at 6:42 pm |
    • Chad

      @Peter "Actually your wrong many states have common law marriages that allows unmarried men and women to have the benefits of marriage"

      @Chad "no, see definition below. It allows certain co-habitations to fall under the definition of marriage (man and woman) even though there was no specific contractual agreement.
      It DOES NOT extend to non-married male-female co-habitations the benefits of marriage.

      Common-law marriage, sometimes spelled without a hyphen and also known as sui juris marriage, informal marriage or marriage by habit and repute; is an irregular form of marriage that can be legally contracted in an extremely limited number of jurisdictions and is universally recognized as a valid marriage.

      July 30, 2012 at 6:46 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @Chad

      I asked this earlier. Point to the law that defines marriage to be only between a man and a woman.

      July 30, 2012 at 6:50 pm |
    • YeahRight

      "Those who choose to live together in life-long same sex relationships; or brothers and sisters who live together and take care of one another; or two friends of the same sex who are not sexually involved but share life together in the same home—all of these may be free to live as they do, and they suffer no civil rights discrimination by not being identified as marriages"

      LMAO! Ok you're an idiot. This is about gay couples who want to get married, the courts have ruled marriage is a civil right.

      July 30, 2012 at 6:50 pm |
    • 2cents

      The NAACP has passed a resolution endorsing same-sex marriage as a civil right, putting it stamp on an issue that has divided the black community.

      The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People's board voted at a leadership retreat in Miami on Saturday to back a resolution supporting marriage equality, calling the position consistent with the equal protection provision of the US constitution.

      "The mission of the NAACP has always been to ensure political, social and economic equality of all people," board chairwoman Roslyn M Brock said in a statement. "We have and will oppose efforts to codify discrimination into law."

      Same-sex marriage is legal in six states and the District of Columbia, but 31 states have passed amendments to ban it.

      The NAACP vote came about two weeks after President Barack Obama announced his support for gay marriage, setting off a flurry of political activity in a number of states. Obama's announcement followed vice-president Joe Biden's declaration in a television interview that he was "absolutely comfortable" with gay couples marrying.

      "Civil marriage is a civil right and a matter of civil law. The NAACP's support for marriage equality is deeply rooted in the fourteenth amendment of the United States constitution and equal protection of all people" said NAACP president Benjamin Todd Jealous, a strong backer of gay rights.

      Gay marriage has divided the black community, with many religious leaders opposing it. In California, exit polls showed about 70% of black people opposed same-sex marriage in 2008. In Maryland, black religious leaders helped derail a gay marriage bill last year. But state lawmakers passed a gay marriage bill this year.

      Pew Research Center polls have found that African Americans have become more supportive of same-sex marriage in recent years, but remain less supportive than other groups. A poll conducted in April showed 39% of African-Americans favor gay marriage, compared with 47% of white people. The poll showed 49% of black people and 43% of white people are opposed.

      The Human Rights Campaign, a leading gay rights advocacy group, applauded the NAACP's step.

      "We could not be more pleased with the NAACP's history-making vote – which is yet another example of the traction marriage equality continues to gain in every community," HRC president Joe Solmonese said in a statement.

      July 30, 2012 at 6:54 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Chad, why do you object to gay marriage?

      July 30, 2012 at 7:00 pm |
    • llɐq ʎʞɔnq

      Chad,
      Here's something you may have never read. (It's the reason this is a democratic republic, and not a democracy..the founders were well aware of the tyranny of the majority. One does not vote on basic human rights. If you have the right to marry, so do they. Period.).

      "When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God ent'itle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

      We hold these truths to be self-evident, that ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are inst'ituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

      July 30, 2012 at 7:14 pm |
    • Jen

      Marriage is not between man and woman in my state. I live in MA and so what you say about marriage being between a man and a woman is completely wrong. I'm also extremely proud of our mayor(Boston) for standing up for what is right. The majority of Bostonians support him and we have every right to tell chick fil A to stay the h-ll out of here! That is our right.

      July 30, 2012 at 7:20 pm |
    • llɐq ʎʞɔnq

      There is no reason marriage can't be redefined. No one says the law is cut in stone, (except religionists). And they conveniently forget how many different forms of marriage existed in the bible.

      July 30, 2012 at 7:21 pm |
    • Chad

      @YeahRight " ..the courts have ruled marriage is a civil right."

      @Chad "no, again..
      The court ruled Loving v. Virginia that a ban on interracial marriage between man and women was unconstitutional because it was a violation of civil rights.

      It DID NOT redefine marriage to include same s</bex relationships.

      redefining marriage to include same sex relationships is NOT a civil rights issue and has never been.

      July 31, 2012 at 10:33 am |
    • Chad

      @llɐq ʎʞɔnq "There is no reason marriage can't be redefined."
      @Chad "if you want to redefine it, pursue it through legislation, that is your right as a citizen"

      @llɐq ʎʞɔnq " they [relilgionists] conveniently forget how many different forms of marriage existed in the bible."
      @Chad "??
      marriage has always been between a man and a women. In ancient times a man could marry many different women, they were different marriages, each separately constituted.

      July 31, 2012 at 10:38 am |
    • Chad

      @lɐq ʎʞɔnq "No one says the law is cut in stone, (except religionists)."

      =>so then, lets repeal Roe v. Wade

      ?

      dont like that do ya.. that ones cut in stone as far as you are concerned..

      #1 trait that distinguishes fanaticism, whether it be right or left, is the inability to see in your own position, the nature and structure you so roundly condemn in others.
      Excellent example above, BB will have some nonsense argument about why killing babies must be cut in stone but the definition of marriage mustn't.
      and at the same time, he'll feel perfectly justified in accusing "religionists" alone..

      un-self-awareness.. probably the trait that most clearly identifies the dangerous fanatic..

      July 31, 2012 at 10:56 am |
    • ME II

      @Chad,
      "marriage has always been between a man and a women. In ancient times a man could marry many different women, they were different marriages, each separately consti.tuted."

      Priceless! So you have no problem with polygamy, correct?

      July 31, 2012 at 12:26 pm |
    • Chad

      @ME II " So you have no problem with polygamy, correct?"

      @Chad "I dont think it's ideal, I think God allowed it in ancient times to protect and provide for women. Two points:
      1. I dont think a church should sanction it, because I do think that the biblical in Genesis is one man, one woman.
      2. Should it be illegal? I dont feel all that strongly about it either way, but in the end I think that I would not vote for a law making the practice illegal.

      July 31, 2012 at 12:42 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @Chad

      I'm still waiting for you to point to the point in the law which defines marriage as between a man and a woman.

      July 31, 2012 at 9:01 pm |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Advertisement
About this blog

The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.