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
yukonjack
This "ChicFilA" incident is, I think, a great example of Christian ideals being targeted and attacked. It's a snapshot of a greater problem, which involves an attempt to silence dissenting opinions from the popular view.
Or it could just as easily be percieved as a public attack on those that practice alternative lifestyles.
I think a lot of people just need to get down off that cross they are on, use it to build a bridge and get over it.
Post by
MyTie
I think a lot of people just need to get down off that cross they are on, use it to build a bridge and get over it.
Is this directed at Christians, or at homosexuals? If you are talking to Christians, it is perfectly socially acceptable to tell them that, but don't tell that to homosexuals. There is a double standard there.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
Part of it, though, is that the two positions are not analogous. The pro-gay marriage position is "Let us do what we want," and the anti-gay marriage position is "You can't be allowed to do what you want." The position of the anti-group, by it's very nature, attacks the pro group. There's no way to not attack a group of people while denying them equal protection under the law on the basis that they are sinners. It's inherent in the argument.
If we have this argument:
Me: As an Agnostic, I don't think that Christians should legally have the right to use the public library, unless we set up a separate one with a different name so that non-Christians don't have to be lumped in with them.
You: How dare you try to limit where I can go because of my religion? There is freedom of religion in this country.
Me: Isn't it hypocritical for you to be judging me for my beliefs?
...my belief is inherently judging you. To then request to no be judged in return is unrealistic. I find the argument that it is hypocritical to judge Christians for judging Homosexuals to be unrealistic. When people are slamming Christians for other things- refusal to divorce or use birth control, refusal to believe in evolution, etc. then you're right- they don't have the right to slam you.
But when they are judging you on your opinion (general you- MyTie doesn't share the view that the law needs to prohibit it, so not him specifically) that their religion is wrong, and doesn't deserve equal protection under the law, then to turn around and say judging you because your religion requires judging them by theirs is unfair, is really a ridiculous statement.
Post by
MyTie
So, Elhonna, you don't think it is realistic to request that Chick Fil A not be judged on the opinions of its owners, which are deemed to be too judgmental?
Post by
ElhonnaDS
So, Elhonna, you don't think it is realistic to request that Chick Fil A not be judged on the opinions of its owners, which are deemed to be too judgmental?
Judged, yes. Legislated against, no. If you make a public statement that another group should not legally have the same rights to marry according to their religions and beliefs as you do, then I will judge you for that. If you happen to own a restaurant, though, I don't think YOU should be denied legal equality either.
The irony was that is statement was that Gays shouldn't be legally allowed to marry, because it is against what he believes is right. However, when the government officials want to prevent him from having equal protection under the law because his beliefs are something they don't consider right, then it's an inappropriate use of governmental power. That's a double standard.
My personal opinion is that if they want to pass a law that requires all business to have a non-discrimination policy that is fine. If they want to request it of him only, that's not equal protection under the law and that's wrong.
Post by
MyTie
Hmmm... is it then ok to judge the people that are judging the Christians, that are supposedly too judgmental? If so, then I judge them as hypocritical and pushy.
Post by
Adamsm
Why not; when you are a human, you judge everyone else, so why should one group be unjudgable?
Post by
ElhonnaDS
Hmmm... is it then ok to judge the people that are judging the Christians, that are supposedly too judgmental? If so, then I judge them as hypocritical and pushy.
I think it's morally acceptable, and even required, to judge people who harm other people or treat them unfairly. If you feel that people treat Christians unfairly, then judge them accordingly. I'm just pointing out that to believe it is unfair to judge someone's desire to BE unfair is hypocritical.
Post by
MyTie
I'm just pointing out that to believe it is unfair to judge someone's desire to BE unfair is hypocritical.
I'm saying it is fine to judge someone who is being unfair, but it is hypocritical to judge someone for judging someone else. I mean, if X person thinks Y person is wrong, and Z person thinks X person is wrong because they decided that Y person is wrong, because Z person thinks any judgement of a person's lifestyle is wrong, then Z is a hypocrite.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
It depends on what person X thinks about why person Y is wrong.
If person X is a man who thinks that because person Y is a woman, she should not be allowed to make eye contact with him, appear in public, touch the same glasses or plates as him, and should follow any order he gives her, then person Z is not a hypocrite for believing person X is a smuck for believing that person Y needs to follow their life according to person X's wishes.
If you believe that the standard by which person X is judging person Y is unfair or immoral, then you it's unrealistic to say "but that's what they believe, so...." Especially if person X then tries to pass laws to keep person Y from living freely.
This is the situation in a lot of countries where women are oppressed, and the rest of the world judges it. Should they not judge people who want women oppressed because it's their opinion and they are entitled to it? Should men who bash women who want to live as an equal then be offended that other people judge them for that belief and those attempts to refuse them equality?
People who want gay marriage have no demands that they place upon people who don't, other than to be left alone- they don't need you to come to the ceremony, to perform the ceremony, to allow it in your church- they just want you to stop pushing laws that invalidate what they do in their church. People who don't want gay marriage are assuming all sorts of rights to regulate other people's lives, and legally refuse equal treatment of their religion. They are not two equal positions- one is that you should all be treated the same, and one is that you don't deserve to be treated the same. If you feel that it is a mandate from God, then that would make it an equal position in your mind, I guess, but if you don't then the argument is between people who want to be treated equally, and people who want to prevent them from being treated equally.
Post by
MyTie
We aren't talking about oppression, or legislation. We are talking about judging people's beliefs, and that's it.
If person Y is a woman who walks around without a burqua, and person X thinks person Y is wrong for not wearing one, and then person Z thinks person X is wrong for thinking that person Y is wrong, then person Z is a hypocrite. They are judging someone else for judging someone else. It is acceptable to judge someone else for oppressing someone else, but that's not what we are talking about. It goes a step further into hypocrisy if person Z oppresses X for their judgement but not oppression of Y, which is the situation we have in Chick Fil A.
Y is homosexuals, Chick Fil A is X, and Z is Rahm Emmanuel.
X thinks Y is wrong, but doesn't oppress them. Z thinks it is wrong for X to think that Y is wrong, and will oppress X for even thinking that. Hypocrisy.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
We aren't talking about oppression, or legislation. We are talking about judging people's beliefs, and that's it.
If person Y is a woman who walks around without a burqua, and person X thinks person Y is wrong for not wearing one, and then person Z thinks person X is wrong for thinking that person Y is wrong, then person Z is a hypocrite. They are judging someone else for judging someone else. It is acceptable to judge someone else for oppressing someone else, but that's not what we are talking about. It goes a step further into hypocrisy if person Z oppresses X for their judgement but not oppression of Y, which is the situation we have in Chick Fil A.
Y is homosexuals, Chick Fil A is X, and Z is Rahm Emmanuel.
X thinks Y is wrong, but doesn't oppress them. Z thinks it is wrong for X to think that Y is wrong, and will oppress X for even thinking that. Hypocrisy.
If he spent 2 million dollars pushing legislation that prevents them from being legally married, I'd disagree with whether or not he's oppressing him. If he's making public statements to persuade other people to back laws that deny equality, I'd say that's taking action to do more than just hold the opinion it's wrong.
Post by
MyTie
If he spent 2 million dollars pushing legislation that prevents them from being legally married, I'd disagree with whether or not he's oppressing him. If he's making public statements to persuade other people to back laws that deny equality, I'd say that's taking action to do more than just hold the opinion it's wrong.
Focus on the Family is not an oppressive organization, as Magician pointed out.
On the other hand, McDonalds gives money to Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion provider in the US. I'll never eat another McNugget in my life.
Post by
Adamsm
Focus on the Family is not an oppressive organization, as Magician pointed out.
Uh huh, sure it ain't
:In the same letter Dobson says that traditional marriage is the cornerstone of society, and
he states that the goal of the gay and lesbian movement is not to redefine marriage but to destroy the institution itself. “Most gays and lesbians do not want to marry each other…the intention here is to destroy marriage altogether.”
Dobson makes the argument that without the institution of marriage everyone would enjoy the benefits of marriage without limiting the number of partners or their gender. Focus on the Family sees allowing same-sex marriage as “…a stepping-stone on the road to eliminating all societal restrictions on marriage and sexuality.
Edit: Reading through the entire thing, all of what their founder says just screams 'Anti-Gay' to me. So, they may do some good things, but their stance on gays themselves is deplorable to me, and would definitely make me boycott Chik-Fil-A if they gave money to that group.
On the other hand, McDonalds gives money to Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion provider in the US. I'll never eat another McNugget in my life.
And you have every right to boycott that all you want MyTie; me? I'll keep eating there cause the breakfast food is good.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
Information
Gay marriage may not be the focus of all of their programs, but it is something they have spoken against, and they were part of the ProtectMarriage.com coalition which was founded to sponsor Prop 8. So there are some activities that they engage in specifically designed to keep gays from marrying. It may not be all they do, but it is one of the things they do.
Planned parenthood provides a number of non-abortion services as well. But since you believe that abortion is murder, then it doesn't matter what else they do because they are contributing to harming others. And no one should judge you for judging someone based on hurting children.
Focus on the Family provides a lot of services and initiatives that have nothing to do with Gay Marriage. However, because I believe pushing laws like Prop 8 is morally wrong, legally invalid and oppressive to gay people, it doesn't matter what else they are contributing because they are contributing to oppressing others. And so I don't feel that I am being hypocritical in judging someone for pushing to oppress someone else.
Post by
Adamsm
Lol, looks like Elhonna and I had the same idea there.
Post by
MyTie
Edit: Reading through the entire thing, all of what their founder says just screams 'Anti-Gay' to me. So, they may do some good things, but their stance on gays themselves is deplorable to me, and would definitely make me boycott Chik-Fil-A if they gave money to that group.Yeah, but they don't oppress anybody. They disagree with people's lifestyles, but they don't oppress. So, I stand by what I said. Focus on the Family is not an oppressive organization. They aren't the Klan or something.
Edit: Chick Fil A's support of Focus on the Family, which supports prop 8 is quite a reach to say that Chick Fil A is an oppressive organization.On the other hand, McDonalds gives money to Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion provider in the US. I'll never eat another McNugget in my life.
And you have every right to boycott that all you want MyTie; me? I'll keep eating there cause the breakfast food is good.
Ok. That's the difference between you and I. If McDonalds had the best 5 star champagne gormet breakfast I could get for 2 and half bucks, but sent 1 penny of my money to fund an abortion, then I wouldn't eat there. We are quite different.
Post by
Adamsm
Yeah, but they don't oppress anybody. They disagree with people's lifestyles, but they don't oppress. So, I stand by what I said. Focus on the Family is not an oppressive organization. They aren't the Klan or something.Sorry MyTie, but that's bull ^&*!; when the founder is calling on his people to go out and vote specifically against gay marriage, considers Civil Unions to be useless and backs laws such as Prop 8, I'd definitely call that oppression.
They may do some good, but that good is only for those who believe as they do; seems like anyone with a different view can go hang themselves.
Edit: Chick Fil A's support of Focus on the Family, which supports prop 8 is quite a reach to say that Chick Fil A is an oppressive organization.They support said oppressive organization, so to my mind, they are in the same boat.
Ok. That's the difference between you and I. If McDonalds had the best 5 star champagne gormet breakfast I could get for 2 and half bucks, but sent 1 penny of my money to fund an abortion, then I wouldn't eat there. We are quite different.Yes we are; I don't have the same stance you do on abortion and I know people who went to Planned Parenthood and they helped them not get pregnant in the first place. So stalemate.
Post by
MyTie
Yes we are; I don't have the same stance you do on abortion and I know people who went to Planned Parenthood and they helped them not get pregnant in the first place. So stalemate.
What does your example have to do with abortion?
Post by
Adamsm
Yes we are; I don't have the same stance you do on abortion and I know people who went to Planned Parenthood and they helped them not get pregnant in the first place. So stalemate.
What does your example have to do with abortion?
That not everyone who uses Planned Parenthood gets an abortion?
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.