humphreys wrote:Can we stop pretending that the rights of the Chick-Fil-a president have been obstructed in some way.
He wasn't arrested, was he? So, he has free-speech, he said what he wanted to say and has faced the ramifications (both positive and negative) for it.
You don't suppose homosexuals occasionally feel intimidated and bullied by Christians too?
How far does prohibiting the free exercise of religion go? If Islam tells believers to kill non-Muslims for instance, should the government try to prohibit that, or not? Seems pretty ridiculous to me that religion should get special treatment in any way. I as an individual, whether straight or homosexual, should not have to have my rights suffer in any way because you decided to adopt an absurd set of beliefs and protect them under the label of "religion".
As an Englishman I am not well versed in US laws and such, but I did think there was supposed to be a separation of church and state, which I took to mean in some respect that the religious beliefs of Christians should not interfere with the rights of its citizens, or influence its laws.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Why should I be negatively affected by what your book tells you is right and wrong, when I neither believe in your religion or the morals of your book? The default position should be equality for all, it seems, and religion is truly standing in the way of that.
In a nutshell, if the best reason for establishing a law is "it says in the Bible XYZ", as appears to be the case regards homosexual marriage, then that law should be revoked immediately as this is clearly religious nonsense interfering with the rights of everyone.
It's wonderful to see a rich guy speaking out against his gay oppressors.
greeney2 wrote:You should be screaming from the rooftops his right to express himself, and claim he was not obstructed, but you can not claim he was not persecuted for it, nor that the gay rights activists took one bit of consideration to the thousands of unrelated employees, who they tried to hurt in the process.
greeney2 wrote:Marriage is also a religious rite and very well defined in every religion I know of, even in Muslim Faiths.
humphreys wrote:Marriage has real world applications and meanings that extend far beyond religion. I am atheist and I got married, that should tell you that marriage is not solely a religious rite, however it may have originated.
greeney2 wrote:The issue is the intimidation that the protesters put on unsuspecting people just going out to eat. They were heckled and taunted getting out of their cars, screamed at when they were taking their kids into dinner. They didn't go to Chick-fil-a corparate headquarters and protest where the CEO is, they attacked customers and employees.
The issue is the reasoning behind doing something to make innocent employees suffer. The issue is the hate and venom the gay rights groups have against anyone with a religious belief. No different from the Perez Hilton character assasination of Miss America. When the lines wrapped around Chick-fil-a in support, their answer was to stage another protest, and kiss in, this time starting to deface buildings.
Who resorted to what Humphreys, after a show of support, blew them totally out of the water?
Tell me, how would you have liked this to have gone down differently?
greeney2 wrote:What did anyone do wrong in the support of them with lines hundreds of people long?
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 5 guests