Wonder what happened wrt Chic Fil A?

[CHFG8R]

Originally Posted by wgbgator

Shorter version: He's respectful of people he thinks will burn in hell for eternity.

So? Did he tell them they would burn for eternity? Is he not allowed to believe what he wants so long as those beliefs and his actions aren't detrimental to others? Did stating his opinion on Gay Marriage hurt people (really, not just their sensibilities)? Does he openly discriminate against gays in the workplace?

What has he done to earn so much of your (and your comrades) ire? Is he not entitled to his opinion? Ever consider that his opinion may not be based on a sense of mean spiritedness but on a sincere belief on his part that they will burn in hell and that he doesn't want them to burn in hell?

Is it so hard to, as Atticus Finch said so perfectly, "walk in a man's shoes" and try to understand exactly where they are coming from and to respect their right to hold a different position than yourself? Or is everything to you people a political poop-throwing contest?

[MichiGator2002]

Originally Posted by wgbgator

Sure. I mean, I didnt think he was a monster. Most people aren't, despite their prejudices and bigotry. Other than image & brand rehab, I'm not sure what the purpose of an article like this is.

Edit: Incidentaly, a friend of mine picked up on this an mentioned he might be lifting his self-imposed ban on Chick-Fil-a. Seems the image rehab is working.

I think that the large part of folk who disapprove of homosexuality, and actually know and interact with homosexuals, simply compartmentalize it as the thing about them they don't approve of. Like knowing someone who is a problem drinker, or a philanderer, or skims the till, or pirates software, or whatever you have a moral objection to. None of these are things that make typical people write someone off altogether. Even when it is mutually understood between them, even.

A couple women I know got "married", my parentheses, obviously, and I was happy for them that they felt like making a public declaration of whatever they share. But, I never did call it a marriage and I don't now. They can no more be married than a man can get a hysterectomy. They know I can't and won't. Doesn't mean I wouldn't seat them together at an invitation dinner. Same way, again, you might treat someone who has whacked up with someone else's wife. You either are going to sever social ties or make some accommodation. You don't hate them.

Now, left-leaning people are the unchallenged kings of letting politics interfere with social niceties (heard stat quoted, something like twice as likely to sever a friendship over politics? Goes right back to the central schism of conservatives thinking liberals are wrong and liberals thinking conservatives are evil), so I have many times been put upon, like "Julie and Sarah are getting married, isn't that great?", with this air of hoping to start a fight. "I'm glad they are happy together", I demur.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

Originally Posted by wgbgator

Shorter version: He's respectful of people he thinks will burn in hell for eternity.

Is homosexual behavior a serious enough of a sin to send a person to hell? I ask because I am a somewhat religious person, but by no means steeped in Christian Theology. From a strictly religious standpoint, I view homosexual behavior with no more alarm than premarital sex. Shoot, in my mind, breaking one's marriage vows is more of a sin than homosexual behavior.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

Originally Posted by wgbgator

I think it speaks more of his business sense than integrity.

I don't think so. For example, his businesses do not open on Sundays. If his action s were driven strictly from a business perspective, he would not fail to open his stores on a day he could rationally expect to be very busy.

Besides, business actually picked up after his pronouncement.

[wgbgator]

Originally Posted by CHFG8R

So? Did he tell them they would burn for eternity? Is he not allowed to believe what he wants so long as those beliefs and his actions aren't detrimental to others? Did stating his opinion on Gay Marriage hurt people (really, not just their sensibilities)? Does he openly discriminate against gays in the workplace?

What has he done to earn so much of your (and your comrades) ire? Is he not entitled to his opinion? Ever consider that his opinion may not be based on a sense of mean spiritedness but on a sincere belief on his part that they will burn in hell and that he doesn't want them to burn in hell?

Is it so hard to, as Atticus Finch said so perfectly, "walk in a man's shoes" and try to understand exactly where they are coming from and to respect their right to hold a different position than yourself? Or is everything to you people a political poop-throwing contest?

He hasnt earned my ire. I'm just not sure why behaving respectfully in a civil society is worthy of praise. I mean, that's what you should be doing. But I guess that's how that's our participation trophy society works. While we're at it, why don't we start a thread praising posters who've never been banned from Too Hot? I demand recognition and validation for my civility!

[g8trdoc]

Followers of Christ have no basis of belief that homosexuality or any sin will send you to hell on it's own. There is only one way to heaven and that is through Jesus Christ.

[QGator2414]

Originally Posted by wgbgator

Sure. I mean, I didnt think he was a monster. Most people aren't, despite their prejudices and bigotry. Other than image & brand rehab, I'm not sure what the purpose of an article like this is.

Edit: Incidentaly, a friend of mine picked up on this an mentioned he might be lifting his self-imposed ban on Chick-Fil-a. Seems the image rehab is working.

Maybe a nice get away from the non news hyperbole we always get?

The best way to find out would be to ask the huffpo or Shane the writer...

[QGator2414]

Originally Posted by g8trdoc

Followers of Christ have no basis of belief that homosexuality or any sin will send you to hell on it's own. There is only one way to heaven and that is through Jesus Christ.

Yep!

[CHFG8R]

Originally Posted by wgbgator

He hasnt earned my ire. I'm just not sure why behaving respectfully in a civil society is worthy of praise. I mean, that's what you should be doing. But I guess that's how that's our participation trophy society works. While we're at it, why don't we start a thread praising posters who've never been banned from Too Hot? I demand recognition and validation for my civility!

Then stop being snarky about it and address the issue. The statement I responded to was completely unnecessary and existed, it seems, only to score some political point. I think the man was very honest and forthright about his motivations and, agree with his view re. homosexuality or not, seems like a decent person.

Why not just tip the cap and move on?

[DaveFla]

Originally Posted by wgbgator

I think this line of questioning does indicate that you care what I think to some extent.

You'd be wrong.

[LittleBlueLW]

Originally Posted by wgbgator

I think it speaks more of his business sense than integrity.

Based on the simple fact that his restaurant is a huge success by anyone's measure, it is safe to say his business sense is well above that of his internet critics.

[Lawdog88]

Originally Posted by MichiGator2002

I think that the large part of folk who disapprove of homosexuality, and actually know and interact with homosexuals, simply compartmentalize it as the thing about them they don't approve of. Like knowing someone who is a problem drinker, or a philanderer, or skims the till, or pirates software, or whatever you have a moral objection to. None of these are things that make typical people write someone off altogether. Even when it is mutually understood between them, even.

A couple women I know got "married", my parentheses, obviously, and I was happy for them that they felt like making a public declaration of whatever they share. But, I never did call it a marriage and I don't now. They can no more be married than a man can get a hysterectomy. They know I can't and won't. Doesn't mean I wouldn't seat them together at an invitation dinner. Same way, again, you might treat someone who has whacked up with someone else's wife. You either are going to sever social ties or make some accommodation. You don't hate them.

Now, left-leaning people are the unchallenged kings of letting politics interfere with social niceties (heard stat quoted, something like twice as likely to sever a friendship over politics? Goes right back to the central schism of conservatives thinking liberals are wrong and liberals thinking conservatives are evil), so I have many times been put upon, like "Julie and Sarah are getting married, isn't that great?", with this air of hoping to start a fight. "I'm glad they are happy together", I demur.

This is absolutely the truth in describing how strongly-held views on the homosexual issue work out in the context of real life.

Well said - again - MG.

[92gator]

Originally Posted by wgbgator

Shorter version: He's respectful of people he thinks will burn in hell for eternity.

Or maybe he figures--as Christianity teaches--that there's always hope of redemption, as long as they're still alive. All they have to do, is repent, and forgiveness is theirs for the taking.

"Love they sinner, hate the sin".

...I don't know why that's so hard for neo-libbies to grasp--actually, I guess I do--neo-libbyism is founded on the cult of personality--neo-libbie's are simply incapable of divorcing any issue at all, from the person; they define all ppl. by their beliefs and their issues, and decide that anyone who side with them on 'the issues' is worthy of exultation, deification, and adoration--(and forgiveness of virtually any wrongdoing--e.g.--President Billybob/perjury--among so many others)--and conversely, they despise, villify, and seek to condmemn virtually anyone who would dare oppose them on the issues--notwithstanding any other redeeming qualities.