The Black Vault

It's wonderful to see a rich guy speaking out against his gay oppressors.

humphreys wrote:Can we stop pretending that the rights of the Chick-Fil-a president have been obstructed in some way.

No we cannot Humphreys. For they were clearly working on it in the same manner and with the same cheering section in the media, politics, and in Higher education and other spokespersons.

Trying to use or overlay another law on the Law of the Land...just as did the Ancient Hebrews in the manner I mentioned in my previous post.

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.

Yes he has faced the ramifications of it.....except that this time the people of this nation have had enough and spoke out ...finally.

You don't suppose homosexuals occasionally feel intimidated and bullied by Christians too?

Not a very good try or attempt here Humphreys...but it is public education standards or non standards.
For you see Humphreys...you do not change the world by becoming the thing you hate in others...unless you finally win...destroying everything in the madness to win.
I think people are beginning to see this ..about the MSM, Politicians, and this group. That they are not the product advertised.

The key to this continuing in the programmed manner by social engineers is to let the fervor die out and create or cause events to get this back on the proper social track ..the track these groups and politicians want or desire. Never let a good crisis go to waste.

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".

This is not Islam ..nor is it drama techniques Humphreys. However...government is clearly trying to establish their religion and beliefs over on a people and supplant the religious beliefs of these people with the new government religion..and to do so devoutly/zealously ..by default. This is exactly what the Hebrew leadership did so long ago..our government is attempting to do today...for political lucre.
For it is clear here Humphreys that many governments in different states, under oath, are threatening openly and publically to operate outside their oaths and openly discriminate against a person and their company for excercising their First Amendment Rights. All this under an implied law...another law...which is a moral law...implied...and not actual...by someones "Feelings." "Emotions." This is becoming very popular today with few catching on to it's pattern. Trial by press and public opinion...contrary to the written law. If anything ..written law is to be disregarded and overthrown..ignored in favor of this new Higher Law.

The name for this kind of thing Humphreys..is revolution..overthrow. And it is being done and sponsored now by our leadership...and filtering down.

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.

Hmmmm...public schooling here Humphreys. Let us look at it again...

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.

Notice here how the limitations are on the Government ....not on the people?? Notice that Humphreys?
As a matter of fact...notice how the first ten Amendments are all restrictions on the government and not on the people.
This is very very different from most forms of government where the people are subjects and not sovereign. Where the government has all power over the people and the people have "Privileges" granted by the sovereign. This is not the case here in America.

But our government like many whores is trying to sell us down the drain and establish themselves and their religion...for power and control. The government is attempting to return to Divine Right of Kings....absolute power in the hands of a few men.

In short...they are trying to make us Englishmen and Continentals. After the world..after the god of this world. By supplanting our religious beliefs with government religious beliefs.

Did not Oliver Cromwell put a stop to this in the English Civil war...Divine Right of Kings..absolute power..or have wise men and intelligences..educated peoples.. found a new way to try to insert it back into vogue?? You know...Enlightened people!!??

People who have gotten past a public school education can see this going on in front of them.

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.

That is clearly not where government is going with this Humphreys as they attempt to overlay their religion over everything. Secular Humanism.

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.

No Humphreys. It is clearly government religious nonsense ...under the guise of trying to keep the rights of everyone ..while only establishing more government and feudalism over the people. Absolute power in the hands of men.

It is contrary to many aspects of Amendment One..not just freedom of religion. It is government establishing its official religion over everyone. Which is why it is religious nonsense.



DIss0n80r

It's wonderful to see a rich guy speaking out against his gay oppressors.

This kind of thing looks good initially..but it does not explain how and why the pro gay oppressors went after that beauty contestent with such fervour and devout religious zeal. For she was not rich.
You do not establish the moral high ground by becoming the thing you hate and then carrying on as if this is an entitlement.

People have seen this for themselves. The veil has come down with Chick Fil A.
Like many out here ...you too are attempting the good cop/bad cop routine with predictability.
Rich man/ poor man.

Exactly what our whorish government is trying to do to divide us. It gets wolfie when you have seen enough of it...with predictability.

Thanks,
Orangetom

If anyone is pretending it is you Humphrey, as this is just another opporunity for you to distort an issue, and take a shot at religious freedom. As an Englishman you do have it backwards understanding our laws. The separation is that the State may not mandate a religion, it does not say our people, elected offices, or laws are totally uninfluenced by Christian/Judeo teachings. That is our primary base, but it is not our rule. In the middle east, Islam is the rule, and those people are truly oppressed in human rights. Behind the iron curtain, the rule was Atheism, and you know what that oppression was all about.

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.

If you can not see that this is a freedom of speech response, its you pretending. The question of same sex marriage, is an issue for the States to each decide as it stands. Marriage is also a religious rite and very well defined in every religion I know of, even in Muslim Faiths. I don't know what else everyone expects, as several State Supreme courts had previously ruled Gays were in no way discriminated against, given all our current laws, and laws of legal domestic partnerships, which is a Individual States Right, not a Religious Rite.

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.

He does have the right to express himself, again, the law of free speech is to protect you from government so whatever gay rights activists may have done is irrelevant. He was not arrested, he acted on his free speech and now faces the ramifications for it. If anyone decides to harm him illegally they will be punished as the law dictates. I don't see what the issue is.

Tell me, how would you have liked this to have gone down differently?

You cannot say you would liked others to have not criticized him, because to stop criticism of him you would have to trample on the free-speech of others, so which part of this are you unhappy with?

greeney2 wrote:Marriage is also a religious rite and very well defined in every religion I know of, even in Muslim Faiths.

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.

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?

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?

You insist this is a free speech issue, so what is your solution? You want all these protesters arrested, or just some?

You didn't say what you would have done differently, or what you would have liked to have done differently.

Humphreys,

Tell me, how would you have liked this to have gone down differently?

The mayors of two large cities , under oath, have no business taking sides on this issue and stating so publicly.within the capacity of their office. On the public purse. They openly and publicly stated what they believed was their license to discriminate against this business and individual when they voiced their first amendment right to speech. That these businesses would not be opening up in their cities.

These mayors did this in their capacity of public office. This is open and gross discrimination and prejudice on the part of public officials. It is intolerance and the very hate that these groups often decry and protest.

It is also not leadership

That nothing has happened to these mayors, as was the case with that CEO of which Greeny2 mentioned as having lost his job..or even reprimanded...censored, is an indication that the standards, for public office across this land are not as high as we are lead to believe.

These mayors should have kept their mouths shut within their public capacity.

This issue has been becoming dumb enough on it's own merits and demerits. These mayors only showed how dumb public officials can become on this issue as well. They are showing a gross lack of leadership as well as being contrary to their oaths.

Orangetom

Thank You, I was forgetting the Mayor involvments. I don't think the question is to us Humphreys, its to you what you think they should have done different, accosting customers eating, or if that was your daughter working in the drive thru? What do you think would have been a little less dispicable than the Kiss in, your kids might have been subjected to, or having to paint a several million dollar investment, becasue some jerks protest?

What did anyone do wrong in the support of them with lines hundreds of people long?

The question is not to me greeney, it is to you, because I am not the one complaining about this being a free-speech issue. If you think it is a free-speech issue, then you have to declare what it is that happened that suggests his free-speech was violated.

orangetom brings up the mayors refusing to have Chick-Fil-As in their cities, and I agree they should not have taken sides, I believe if you look back on my posts in the thread one of the first things I said what that this was wrong, so for once I agree with him, but I don't think what they're doing is a violation of his free-speech, as they have every right to ban companies they see as unethical, and Chick-Fil-A funds groups which have been declared as "hate groups". Plenty of politicians have used their power to give their unneeded opinions on the whole matter anyway, what the mayors are doing is little more than that. An abuse of their power? Perhaps, but not to more of an extent that we're used to seeing from those in power.

By having Chick-Fil-A on your grounds, you are adding to the funds of those groups.

Imagine that Chick-Fil-A were not Christians at all, but were atheists who openly funded groups that campaigned to abolish organized religion. Would you make such a fuss about a mayor refusing the company to open restaurants then? I highly doubt it, that's why I keep saying this is not an freedom of speech issue, it is a Christians versus non-Christians and homosexuals issue (in particular regard to gay marriage), and anyone who thinks otherwise is oblivious to their own bias.

The whole issue makes me shake my head to be quite honest, no one in this whole charade can hold their heads high, not least those who flooded Chick-Fil-A in support. As someone said elsewhere, Ghandi fasted for peace, these people are stuffing their faces for hate, and that to me speaks volumes to where we have come in recent times.

greeney2 wrote:What did anyone do wrong in the support of them with lines hundreds of people long?

Legally? Absolutely nothing.