This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
News Articles
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Adamsm
It's something very different to host that rebut on the person's property.Oh? Seems to me they are just doing what so many others do when it comes to protesting what they see as wrong; you show up, hold your protest in the face of what goes against your own beliefs and then leave after you've made your point.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
We're not talking about if they outlawed prayer in their restaurant- what if they worked to make sure that there would be legal action for you praying in public anywhere?
Then I would fight the legal action, and if the legal action took effect, I would pray anyway, and work to get it legalized. I WOULD NOT kick in the door of the anti-prayer coalition, drop to my knees, and start praying. That is their door. That is their private business. I think they are wrong, but that doesn't make an intrusion on them right.
Well then I'll have to disagree. I think that holding a prayer meeting in or in front of a business that has tried to pass laws against your religions is completely valid and justified form of protest. Holding a protest in a business who refuses to serve or hire people of a specific ethnicity (or makes them sit in the back of the bus) is also valid. Per your examples, you'd have said that Rosa Parks was being a hypocrite in refusing to get to the back of the bus because it's their bus and their right, right MyTie? If they didn't want her type in the front, they had every right to not have her force herself on them, right?
Post by
MyTie
It's something very different to host that rebut on the person's property.Oh? Seems to me they are just doing what so many others do when it comes to protesting what they see as wrong; you show up, hold your protest in the face of what goes against your own beliefs and then leave after you've made your point.
Protest outside the restaurant would be fine, on the public right of way. To protest inside of it is something very different. When I take my kids out for lunch I don't want people making out in the next booth, regardless of gender or age. Picket? Fine. Yell and scream? Fine. Don't spend your money there? Fine. But keep it outside the establishment.Per your examples, you'd have said that Rosa Parks was being a hypocrite in refusing to get to the back of the bus because it's their bus and their right, right MyTie? If they didn't want her type in the front, they had every right to not have her force herself on them, right?
No no. If a gay person wants to go in there and get a sandwich, fine. Rosa Parks was riding a bus while black, and doing what everyone else was doing, which was riding the bus. Going in there to make out is something different. The service provided by Chic Fil A to gays and straights is equal.
Post by
Adamsm
Well, sit in's are valid forms of protesting; they are just adding a twist to it.
Post by
MyTie
Well, sit in's are valid forms of protesting; they are just adding a twist to it.
Sit ins on publicly owned property are valid. Sit ins on privately owned property are not. There is no twist.
Post by
Adamsm
Well, sit in's are valid forms of protesting; they are just adding a twist to it.
Sit ins on publicly owned property are valid. Sit ins on privately owned property are not. There is no twist.
/shrug Whatever you say MyTie; I think they are doing the right thing here.
Post by
MyTie
/shrug Whatever you say MyTie; I think they are doing the right thing here.
Ok. You're certainly entitled to your opinion. If I was a manager, I'd ask them to buy something, or leave. If they didn't buy anything, and refused to leave, I'd call the police and have them arrested for
breaking the law
.
Post by
Adamsm
So, then they buy something(a drink or the like), but keep their protest going: Problem solved.
Post by
MyTie
So, then they buy something(a drink or the like), but keep their protest going: Problem solved.
Sounds good to me. I'd allow that, as a manager. That's great for business. Prices for soda might be a bit high that day, and then when the soda ran out people would have to buy other things, but yeah... come on in. lol
Post by
MyTie
WARNING!
I didn't watch the video, but it might contain violence, death, and NSFW images/sound.
WARNING!
"Islamists" (didn't know that was a word)
stone two idolaters to death
. The female had 2 kids. That'll show them. Then they ran around burning tombs from other religions.
Nice.
WARNING!
I didn't watch the video, but it might contain violence, death, and NSFW images/sound.
WARNING!
Post by
Magician22773
If they want to kiss, let them kiss. But, they should be required to be a paying customer, and not just walk into a restaurant and start making out. If any couple, straight or gay did that, they should be asked to leave, or arrested for trespassing.
For starters, I think that, right or wrong, this is going to do more harm than good for the gay community. This seems less like a protest, and more like making a spectacle of themselves. If they want to do something, than pick a restaurant that supports gay marriage, and organize a day to patronize them.
Post by
MyTie
This seems less like a protest, and more like making a spectacle of themselves.
This has been a common feeling I've gotten from a number of these types of protests as well. There was actually a homosexual event held in San Francisco that I tried to talk about here on wowhead, but found it so... over the top, in terms of public sex, nudity, etc, that I couldn't tone it down enough to make a discussion about it here.
Post by
Adamsm
Since the rallying cry of the gay groups are "We're here, we're queer, get used to it", that's how they do it, to attempt to shake up the standards of what the normal society thinks and try to get them expand their horizons.
Post by
MyTie
Imagine someone telling me that, Adamsm. How much do you think that's going to expand my horizons?
Imagine the scenario were reversed. Imagine someone told you that "God's real, God's all powerful, get used to it". Would you "expand your horizons"?
Post by
Patty
Because there is objective, quantifyable evidence for people being gay. There's not for god. Your point is more comparable to saying "evolution is real, it's all-encompassing, get used to it" than a religious allegory. You don't need to refer everything back to your religion to try and make a point when it's not relevant, you know.
Post by
MyTie
Because there is objective, quantifyable evidence for people being gay. There's not for god. Your point is more comparable to saying "evolution is real, it's all-encompassing, get used to it" than a religious allegory. You don't need to refer everything back to your religion to try and make a point when it's not relevant, you know.
The CEO of Chik Fil A is Christian, and that is the basis for his statement and actions. That's why it is pertinent. And we aren't discussing who is "right", but what reaction is desired, and what reaction is caused. My point isn't that gay people are wrong for being gay (that's a different discussion), but that anyone who is this invasive and forceful is wrong, or, at least, not going to be as effective at eliciting change as if they took on other methods for changing people's minds.
Post by
Adamsm
So then the CEO is in the wrong too then? After all, his statement, while a standard comment for a Christian, can be seen by the rest of the world who doesn't follow those beliefs as being ass backwards, intolerant, and bigoted.
Can't have it both ways MyTie.
As I've said, I'm on the sides of gay rights, and if Chik Fil A existed here in Canada, I'd never return to that store again. But I also know that people would be protesting it and try to change his view.
The simple fact is, the guy said something, and while it's his own personal opinion, people are going to react.
At this point in the game though, I've gone from disliking his comment to disliking him and his company itself for being media #$%^&s; all of this stink is just reeking of publicity to me.
Post by
MyTie
So then the CEO is in the wrong too then? After all, his statement, while a standard comment for a Christian, can be seen by the rest of the world who doesn't follow those beliefs as being ass backwards, intolerant, and bigoted.
Can't have it both ways MyTie.
There is something very different between saying what your beliefs are, and telling other people to "get used to" your beliefs. I don't support the need for a legal push for marriage laws, but I do support his right to have his opinion, and even be vocal about it. The same goes for homosexuals. If they want to be gay, fine. I don't mind when homosexuals publicly state their opinions. The difference is when someone says "this is my position, get used to it", it's not likely to cause people to "get used to it". I'm not necessarily saying they are
wrong
for having that position, but just saying it isn't effective.
I would be much more supportive of his views if he wasn't pushing for legal measures to uphold his personal views. That's where I draw the line of appropriateness. However, him saying his opinion publicly is fine. If he expects to sway people that way, then he isn't going to be effective, but I don't know that is his stated desire, as it is with homosexuals.
Post by
Adamsm
There is something very different between saying what your beliefs are, and telling other people to "get used to" your beliefs. I don't support the need for a legal push for marriage laws, but I do support his right to have his opinion, and even be vocal about it. The same goes for homosexuals. If they want to be gay, fine. I don't mind when homosexuals publicly state their opinions. The difference is when someone says "this is my position, get used to it", it's not likely to cause people to "get used to it". I'm not necessarily saying they are wrong for having that position, but just saying it isn't effective.
I smell some irony there, considering how the Church has pushed it's views on the rest of the planet for years upon years.
And to me, what the gay community is doing is the right thing: Make the rest of the straights see them as 'normal' and realize that who they sleep with/want to live their life with isn't important and they should get the sticks out of their rumps and start worrying about important things rather then what is going on behind closed doors.
Post by
MyTie
considering how the Church has pushed it's views on the rest of the planet for years upon years.I've repeatedly explained how I don't approve of this either.who they sleep with/want to live their life with isn't importantBut it is. If it weren't, they wouldn't be protesting.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.