panelarrow

Chick Fil-A Supporters Turn Out in Droves

| 74 Comments

EDIT at 7:20pm: While I am currently in my office studying for a sermon to give at four services this weekend, my wife and two daughters went to the Chick Fil-A by the Lakewood Mall. This is what my 13-year-old D.D. reported: “We didn’t appreciate them that much to wait in a line that had over 300 people! The drive-thru was wrapped around the mall. We had to order a Papa John’s pizza.”

An excerpt from YAHOO! news:

For those like John Mohler, 50, of Thornton, Colo., eating at Chick-fil-A on Wednesday was about defending free speech. Mohler said he doesn’t share Cathy’s belief–only his rights to air them.

“I’m not sure I agree with his position on gay marriage,” said Mohler, who drove to Englewood from downtown Denver on his lunch break. “But I applaud the owner for speaking his mind, and that’s why I’m here.” Read the rest here.

Check out this outrageous aerial photo from a Chick-fil-A near Ocala, Fla. Blog photo from my friend, Ryan Floyd.

74 Comments

  1. 144,000 thumbs up!!!

  2. I am confused. Whose freedom of speech has come under attack?

    Specific examples, please.

    • Pretty obvious, Mr. Cathy has been essentially ostracized from opening business in 3 city’s by politicians that have no right to limit commerce based on a person’s faith.

      • Read their letters again; it’s not his faith that they have an issue with.

        What’s up with all the strawman arguments against the people protesting Chick-fil-A? Can’t you guys understand why the company is being protested?

        I’ll just speak for myself, but it seems pretty consistent to me that the issue is not his faith (because, as I can’t imagine I have to remind people, this country is around 75% Christian, so get off of the persecution wagon, because no one’s buying it), the issue is not his freedom of speech (which I support 100%).

        The issue is that the *company* donates money to anti-gay groups.

        Please read that last sentence as many times as is needed to understand it and stop with the strawman fallacies.

      • So a Christian man who owns a Christian business should not be allowed to financially support other entities that also espouse Biblical principles as to what constitutes sin? I just don’t see any “straw man” anywhere. Should those mayors also exclude all Muslim businesses without input from the populous? After all many Muslims still stone homosexuals and adulterous persons. No one on this blog has said anything about the public’s right to protest against Chick-Fil-A. What is at issue is a few mayors excluding the right to open a business based on Mr. Cathy verbalizing his support of traditional marriage (and maybe supporting his belief financially as well). If, as you say, 75% of the populous s Christian, it doesn’t seem such a far stretch to assume that 75% of the populous of those areas would appreciate his business presence. Stick to the issue, there is no straw man, no Burning Man. Only misguided politicians.

      • Oh no! I made a spelling error, I await the persecution.

      • Hi Scott,

        You wrote: “So a Christian man who owns a Christian business should not be allowed to financially support other entities that also espouse Biblical principles as to what constitutes sin?

        And this is why I wrote ‘Please read that last sentence as many times as is needed to understand it and stop with the strawman fallacies”, because you’re still doing it.

        A man can financially support whatever he wants, but he has to be aware of the consequences of that.

        The issue is that the *company* donates money to anti-gay groups.

        Please read that last sentence as many times as is needed to understand it and stop with the strawman fallacies.

        Also, there’s a difference between “entities that also espouse Biblical principles as to what constitutes sin” and “entities that fight against the civil rights of free Americans”. We’re not talking about the former; we’re talking about the latter.

        You wrote: “I just don’t see any “straw man” anywhere.

        And yet you just used one in the first sentence of your comment. The fact that you don’t see it is a problem.

        Should those mayors also exclude all Muslim businesses without input from the populous?

        1. I don’t care what a mayor does.

        2. If the Muslim business in question donates money to groups that fight against the civil rights of free Americans, then I don’t have a problem with that. Something tells me that you yourself wouldn’t be too supportive of a business that donated to “entities that also espouse Qu’ranic principles as to what constitutes sin”, because I don’t think you’d be okay with those principles.

        (Hint: you commit one of their greatest sins every time you pray to Jesus.)

        After all many Muslims still stone homosexuals and adulterous persons.

        I am aware of this. A business that donates money to a group that supports such things is a business and group I would fight against.

        No one on this blog has said anything about the public’s right to protest against Chick-Fil-A.

        And no one has complained about that. So, there’s a strawman right there.

        What is at issue is a few mayors excluding the right to open a business based on Mr. Cathy verbalizing his support of traditional marriage (and maybe supporting his belief financially as well).

        Ok, let’s try this again:

        The issue is that the *company* donates money to anti-gay groups.

        Please read that last sentence as many times as is needed to understand it and stop with the strawman fallacies.

        “and maybe supporting his belief financially”… yeah, “and maybe”.

        1. Mr. Cathy can verbalize whatever he pleases.

        2. It’s the financial support of groups that fight against the civil rights of free Americans that is the problem.

        3. It’s the financial support of these groups by the company that is the problem, not Mr. Cathy’s own private donations.

        If, as you say, 75% of the populous s Christian,

        Are you disputing this?

        it doesn’t seem such a far stretch to assume that 75% of the populous of those areas would appreciate his business presence.

        Wait, how does that work out? How do you get from the premise of “75% of the population are Christians” to “those people would agree with Mr. Cathy”?

        Aren’t you aware of how many schisms exist within the religion of Christianity? Why should we expect them to agree on much beyond “I love Jesus Christ, my Lord and Savior”?

        Stick to the issue,

        Yes, we should.

        there is no straw man,

        You used two in your comment that I quoted here.

        no Burning Man.

        A straw man is a fallacy in arguments. A burning man is a late summer event out in the desert, full of hippies. I’m not clear what they have in common.

        Only misguided politicians.

        And people who straw man the reasons behind the boycotts.

      • Scott wrote: “Oh no! I made a spelling error, I await the persecution.

        What’s up with the persecution complex that you guys have? Seriously.

      • Clarification:

        When I wrote “If the Muslim business in question donates money to groups that fight against the civil rights of free Americans, then I don’t have a problem with that.“, I’m saying that I don’t have a problem with those mayors speaking about excluding them.

        Because, as the link that Garrett posted shows, the ACLU would fight against the mayors in that regard.

        Seriously, check out that link; the ACLU is on the side of Chik-fil-A.

      • Nohm, can you define “straw man” argument, and point it out exactly in your accusation? I don’t see that I had stated any “argument”, only asked questions. Remember the post is about how “droves show up”.

      • Scott M wrote: “Nohm, can you define “straw man” argument, and point it out exactly in your accusation? I don’t see that I had stated any “argument”, only asked questions. Remember the post is about how “droves show up”.

        Scott, for the record, you could have googled this yourself, but please check out the wikipedia page for straw man fallacy.

        A straw man fallacy is when you misrepresent your opponent’s position, and then try to argue (or question) against that misrepresentation.

        As for an example of my accusation, you wrote:

        Pretty obvious, Mr. Cathy has been essentially ostracized from opening business in 3 city’s by politicians that have no right to limit commerce based on a person’s faith.

        Therefore, you’re claiming that it is Mr. Cathy’s faith that these politician’s are “basing” their decisions (to limit commerce) on.

        That’s the straw man.

        They aren’t doing this due to his faith, or due to his right to free speech. They’re doing it because the company donates to anti-gay groups, and they don’t like what he said.

        Mr. Cathy has the right to say what he said. He doesn’t have the right to prevent any consequences from saying things that others vehemently disagree with.

        Here’s another example of you creating a straw man:

        So a Christian man who owns a Christian business should not be allowed to financially support other entities that also espouse Biblical principles as to what constitutes sin?

        No one has mentioned anything about Mr. Cathy personally supporting any group financially, therefore it’s a straw man. Also, as you are well aware, this particular “sin” is a hotly debated topic, unlike shellfish or clothing of different fabrics or coveting (because I’d love to see a capitalistic system that contains no coveting).

        Also, as I said above, Mr. Cathy is “allowed” to do whatever he wants under the law; he just has to understand that certain activities will result in consequences (such as a boycott).

        By trying to make this into a free speech issue, you’re creating a straw man, because no one is trying to squelch Mr. Cathy’s right to free speech.

      • Nohm, that was an epic fisking. Hats off to you, sir.

    • Seems to me Nohm, you are equating failure to support another persons view as equal to persecution. Can you quote any specific verbiage within this blog and commentary that is precautionary? (unless you mean of course persecuting the misguided politician). Saying something is wrong is not persecution.

      • So Scott, I guess you fully supported the “Ground Zero Mosque?”

      • Garrett, maybe I’m just dumb, but I don’t see any connection with anything involving “ground zero” (tangential irrelevant disconnect). But if you are asking my opinion, I would vote against a mosque there. I guess it would be up to the populous, question is what populous should have the vote.

      • Hi Scott,

        You wrote: “Seems to me Nohm, you are equating failure to support another persons view as equal to persecution.

        Please show where I wrote anything even resembling this idea. I don’t know what you’re reading to read that kind of absurdity into it.

        No, I am not equating failure to support another person’s view as equal to persecution.

        That’s silly.

        Can you quote any specific verbiage within this blog and commentary that is precautionary?

        Precautionary about what? What are you talking about?

        Saying something is wrong is not persecution.

        You and I agree here, but I’m not at all clear what the context of any of this is. Please explain.

        Look, if all these anti-gay groups were doing was simply “saying something is wrong”, I wouldn’t have too much of an issue with it. But that’s not the reality. The reality is that some of these groups actively fight against the civil rights of free Americans.

      • Hi Scott,

        You wrote: “Garrett, maybe I’m just dumb, but I don’t see any connection with anything involving “ground zero” (tangential irrelevant disconnect).

        And that’s one of the problems. Garrett’s question was not irrelevant; he was trying to see how consistent you would be, or if you’re more of a “rights for me, but not for thee” kind of person.

        But if you are asking my opinion, I would vote against a mosque there.

        Why?

        I guess it would be up to the populous,

        Nope, it’s not. Do you want people voting on what churches are and are not allowed?

        question is what populous should have the vote.

        So, if this was a church we were talking about, exactly what populous would you think should have the vote on whether or not it can operate?

      • Nohm, maybe it would be better if you explained what it is you think this post was about and what point you are attempting to make (and whether that point is in anyway related to the original post).

      • Scott, I never claimed any persecution.

        The question about the Ground Zero mosque was to see how (in)consistent you would be. That’s why I asked you, “So, if this was a church we were talking about, exactly what populous would you think should have the vote on whether or not it can operate?

        My issue is, regarding this (Steve’s) post, the idea that this is a free speech issue and the claim that the boycotters have a problem with Mr. Cathy’s right to free speech, which as I’ve pointed out is a straw man, and straw man fallacies annoy me.

        This is not an issue of free speech; it’s an issue of what groups the *company* (not Mr. Cathy himself) donates to, and the consequences of advertising controversial viewpoints that are likely to anger large groups of Americans.

        For example, I didn’t have a problem when a lot of my conservative friends said that they were going to boycott Oreos a few weeks back; that’s the possible consequence of saying what the Oreos company said.

        I hope that answers your question.

    • Nohm, you ask why “I would vote against a mosque there.” Because that it was democracy is about, certainly not on the singular decision of a mayor.

      • But we don’t live in an democracy or straight up democracy Scott, we live in a constitutional, representative republic. Which means that, despite the power of the vote by the majority, the basic civil rights established by our constitution can not be infringed upon. If you have a problem with your elected representatives standing up for civil rights I suggest you vote them out of office, or maybe at least, question why its important to you to be in favor of denying simple civil rights to your fell citizen? Would you have been in favor of the ‘separate but equal’ practices of the south during segregation? Certainly a majority of southerners back then were in favor of them….

      • Hmmm. Wholeheartedly disagree.

        You may want to read this article for some enlightenment about this issue. Here’s an excerpt:

        It is certainly true that the contention over marriage is about civil law. Marriage law has long been a state matter, and in the United States that has meant, literally, a state rather than a federal matter. In any case, the law has until now taken for granted that marriage is an institutional bond between a man and a woman. Moreover, marriage is something people of all faiths and no faith engage in. Churches, synagogues, and mosques may bless marriages but they do not create the institution. In that sense the question of marriage is not first of all a religious matter in the sense in which most people use the word “religion.”

        However, to insist that the question of marriage is a matter of civil law and not first of all a religious matter does not take us very far. After all, the argument is about what government ought to do about keeping or changing the legal definition of marriage. The debate is not between husbands and wives within the bond of traditional marriage—like a court case over divorce and child custody. No, this debate is about whether the law that now defines marriage is itself good or bad, right or wrong. And to join that debate one must appeal, by moral argument, to grounds that transcend the law as it now exists. In that regard, the question of marriage is not about a civil right at all. It is about the nature of reality and interpretations of reality that precede the law.

        Read the rest: http://www.cpjustice.org/stories/storyReader$1178

      • Hi Steve,

        Ok, that’s that one guy’s opinion. And many people disagree with his opinion. He is not the sole authority in this matter.

      • So, Scott, do you believe that every house of worship, be it a mosque, a synagogue, or a church, should be voted on or against?

        Please think carefully about the consequences of this before you answer.

    • One last thing Nohm, my question regarding what statements where “precautionary” was the spelling error I was referring to. I meant to spell persecutionary (yes, I know that’s not a word either), that is why I said I await the persecution (its a joke, get it?) never mind.

  3. Nohm wrote:
    “The issue is that the *company* donates money to anti-gay groups.”

    It’s nobody’s business who the company donates to!!!!!
    Someone is using the above “issue” to get their “foot in the door” because it’s a (heaven forbid) Christian run business; a business that’s unashamed to honor God, a business that’s unashamed to close their doors on Sunday as a day of rest, a business that promotes the family and it’s God given values and a business run by a group of executives not worried about losing a million dollars on a Sunday because they believe their God will supply “all their needs!!”
    As I wrote in another post on this blog, “this may be the best thing that ever happened to Chick-fil-A!” May our all wise God use it for his honor and glory!

    And just for the record, it’s my considered opinion that the true Christian population here in the U.S. is closer to 2%; not 75 :<(

    • Uh, it is my business to know what my money is going towards. You pitch fits when there’s a movie about the scary gays that…that doesn’t portray them as scary! Why the double standard?

      Freedom of speech is protection against government censorship. So far, precisely 0 mayors have done anything to impede the future development of Chick-fil-As. Funny enough, the ACLU you hate so much is willing to defend Chick-fil-A should anything go wrong (http://www.inquisitr.com/286092/chick-fil-a-gets-unlikely-champion-in-aclu-after-boston-chicago-ban-chicken-joint/). But, as for now, nobody has had their rights violated.

      This is seriously 8th grade government we’re discussing. How can you get such essentials wrong?

      • If you have spent the money, its no longer yours.

      • Scott M wrote: “If you have spent the money, its no longer yours.

        No one is questioning this. This is why people are boycotting the company, so that they don’t spend the money that will become the company’s money.

      • Hi Steve L,

        It’s nobody’s business who the company donates to!!!!!

        You and I are in disagreement about this point, and I’d argue that you’d probably find it to be your business if a company donated to a group that fights against the rights of your pewmates.

        Someone is using the above “issue” to get their “foot in the door”

        Failed mind-reading. You don’t know the internal reasons as to why someone does something, only the claimed reasons, and no one is claiming this.

        because it’s a (heaven forbid) Christian run business;

        Many businesses in the USA are Christian run businesses. That’s not the issue.

        The issue is that the *company* donates money to anti-gay groups.

        a business that’s unashamed to honor God,

        No one has a problem with this.

        The issue is that the *company* donates money to anti-gay groups.

        a business that’s unashamed to close their doors on Sunday as a day of rest,

        No one has a problem with this, although I think it’s funny that they consider that all of their employees would want to worship on Sunday, as there’s this one group that has a different day. 🙂

        The issue is that the *company* donates money to anti-gay groups.

        a business that promotes the family

        Promote the family all you want.

        The issue is that the *company* donates money to anti-gay groups.

        and it’s God given values and a business run by a group of executives not worried about losing a million dollars on a Sunday because they believe their God will supply “all their needs!!”

        No one has a problem with any of this.

        The issue is that the *company* donates money to anti-gay groups.

        As I wrote in another post on this blog, “this may be the best thing that ever happened to Chick-fil-A!” May our all wise God use it for his honor and glory!

        We will see, although I find it strange that God is concerned with what’s happening with a wealthy fast food brand, and not, say, children in other areas of the world.

        And just for the record, it’s my considered opinion that the true Christian population here in the U.S. is closer to 2%; not 75 :<(

        Yet all of those other true Christians would say the same, but exclude you. They think they’re part of the 2%, and you’re part of the 98%.

        Personally, I’d argue (using my considered opinion) that the percentage is really more around 0%.

    • It’s nobody’s business who the company donates to!!!!!
      Not true. it’s the investors’ business. And the extent to which the company broadcasts its opinions & donations is the business of the people who buy that company’s products.

      Do you think voters have the right to angrily disagree with (aka. “not vote for”) a politician who says things they don’t like?

  4. Garrett wrote:
    “Uh, it is my business to know what my money is going towards”

    Your money went into the cash register and you got a chicken sandwich!! That money is no longer yours; get it??

    • Don’t be ignorant.

      People don’t just care about getting product. If that was it, then companies would not be taking great pains to show off their contributions to charities.

      You are being willfully ignorant because Chick-fil-A did something you agree with. You are practically proving my point for me. Feel free to rattle off some companies you whole-heartedly support that back gay marriage. You also have to been knowledgeable about the gay marriage backing beforehand

      • Do you buy gas supplied by OPEC nations? Do you know what they do to over there?

      • So you bought a chicken sandwich at an establishment that clearly states it was founded based on its Christian faith and remains closed on the Sabbath and has long publicly proclaimed their beliefs and support and now you want your money back? Wish I could get all my tax money back retroactively because I don’t like what Obama says.

      • Garret, I really doubt that you check out every single purchase you make, to make sure it lines up with your worldview, try to be more honest.

      • Steve M.,

        Would you like to try me on what I purchase and what it goes to?

        Come on, I support businesses that provide good products and give to worthy causes. Try and name some popular businesses that go against my pansexual support.

      • Hi Steve,

        You wrote: “Do you buy gas supplied by OPEC nations? Do you know what they do to over there?

        “Nations” and “companies” are two distinct things. There are things that happen in this nation (USA) that I vehemently disagree with, yet I buy stuff supplied by this nation (along with China and Mexico).

        We’re talking about what the companies do, and not what the nations as a whole do (because no nation would have clean hands).

      • Scott wrote:

        So you bought a chicken sandwich

        No one is claiming that they bought a sandwich. I know I’m certainly not, as I’ve never even seen a Chik-fil-A place.

        at an establishment that clearly states it was founded based on its Christian faith and remains closed on the Sabbath and has long publicly proclaimed their beliefs and support

        No one has claimed to have a problem with these issues. Hence, strawman, as I said before.

        and now you want your money back?

        Who is claiming to want their money back? Where are you getting this?

        Wish I could get all my tax money back retroactively because I don’t like what Obama says.

        Do you seriously not see the difference between that and the subject we’re discussing?

        And again, who is asking for their money back? Who has claimed this?

      • Hi RyanS,

        You wrote: “Garret, I really doubt that you check out every single purchase you make, to make sure it lines up with your worldview, try to be more honest.

        Garrett never claimed that he does this. I would never claim that I do this.

        Therefore, your request for him to try to be more honest in this context is a non-sequitor.

      • Hi Nohm:
        Some time back I accused you of doing an exegesis on many of the comments here on this blog! As I have read your reply’s over the last few months, I’ve come to the conclusion that I was mistaken and now I must offer you a heart felt apology! You see, I’m advancing in age and sometimes things get a little fuzzy. So allow me to amend my original accusation! I should have accused you of eisegesis, for never in my entire life have I seen anyone as skilled; injecting his own ideas into the text, making them say exactly what he wants! It’s a true art form… and believe me, you’ve mastered it well!

      • Wow Steve… just wow….

      • My thoughts, too. Amazing how many traditional marriage supporters there are who happen to like fast food chicken!

        We agree, Vintango! We agree!

      • Hahaha Steve, that wow was in regards to Steve L’s comments and it was more face palm then praise sadly.

      • Regardless, gays have all the civil rights tat I have. No Hahaha.

      • Steve L wrote: “Some time back I accused you of doing an exegesis on many of the comments here on this blog! As I have read your reply’s over the last few months, I’ve come to the conclusion that I was mistaken and now I must offer you a heart felt apology!

        This appears to be a lie; there’s nothing heartfelt about this. Instead this looks like passive aggressiveness on your part.

        This is equivalent to someone saying, “I apologize for calling you a jerk earlier; I should have called you a massive jerk.”

        You see, I’m advancing in age and sometimes things get a little fuzzy. So allow me to amend my original accusation! I should have accused you of eisegesis,

        And hence my point that this is not a real apology. Who are you selling this to?

        for never in my entire life have I seen anyone as skilled; injecting his own ideas into the text, making them say exactly what he wants!

        You accuse me of this, yet you don’t give any examples at all. Please note that when I accuse someone of something, I actually do the work to quote them.

        Here you simply accuse without supporting your accusation.

        If you feel I’m guilty of eisegesis, the least you could do is to point out where I’m guilty of it, right?

        Right.

        It’s a true art form… and believe me, you’ve mastered it well!

        More passive-aggressive stuff from you, as you act like you’re complimenting me.

        Either support your accusation, or please retract it.

      • Steve said, “Regardless, gays have all the civil rights tat I have.”

        No, not at all. Depending on the state, there can be around 1000 legal differences between civil unions and marriage contracts.

      • Marriage, by law, is between a man and a woman. Gays have every right to marry someone of the opposite sex and have their civil liberties fully. Like the rest of us.

      • Nohm:
        Next time I address you I’ll include a happy face, my friend :<)

      • Marriage, by law, is between a man and a woman of the same race. Blacks have the same right to marry a person of the opposite race as I do. They fully have the same rights as the rest of us.

        Yeesh, Steve.

      • That law has changed, Garrett.

      • I meant “same,” but you get the point. Racists were making the same arguments

      • Steve wrote: “Marriage, by law, is between a man and a woman.

        Not in all states anymore, and I have no question that it will be legal in most, if not all, states in 10 years from now.

        Gays have every right to marry someone of the opposite sex

        Oh, come on, now. What would be the point of that?

        and have their civil liberties fully. Like the rest of us.

        You and I obviously disagree on this issue. No worries. Like I said, I’m convinced that it’s only a matter of time until it’s legal throughout the USA; the younger generation, including the Christians of that generation, have a drastically different view on this issue than the Christians of our/your generation have.

      • Sadly, you are probably right. The issue is definition. By definition it has always been between a man and a woman. A table cannot be redefined as a chair.

      • Steve L wrote: “Next time I address you I’ll include a happy face, my friend :<)

        Oh, c’mon now. If you’re going to accuse of me eisegesis, please point out where you think I’m guilty of it; that’s not a minor accusation in the context of a comment thread, y’know.

      • The difference is that homosexual people cannot marry the ones that they love based solely on arbitrary principles that have no bearing in our constitution. That’s not equality – that’s on par with saying “separate but equal” is still equal.

      • Civil unions. See my new reply to Nohm about definitions. It’s not homophobia.

      • Nohm:
        Can’t I (we) have a little fun with the comment I wrote! Read it again – it was meant to be lighthearted!

        Let’s face it; we disagree all the time so I thought I would throw a little spunk into the mix! I really didn’t mean to insult you! That’s not my style :<)

      • Hi Steve,

        You wrote: “By definition it has always been between a man and a woman.

        As I mentioned before, this statement is incorrect. Throughout history it has been many things in different cultures; the most obvious one being “between a man and many women”, such as seen in Islamic countries even today (i.e., a man and up to four women).

        Therefore, it has not “always” been between a man and a woman.

      • That was God’s original intent. The polygamy was an accommodation to culture. A sinful accommodation.

      • Steve wrote: “Civil unions.

        If civil unions granted the same benefits as a marriage, that would be one thing, but they don’t.

        Therefore, simply saying “civil unions” is not the answer.

        Regardless, it’s just a short matter of time before gay marriage is legal throughout the USA.

      • Sadly, you are probably right.

      • Hi Steve,

        You wrote: “That was God’s original intent. The polygamy was an accommodation to culture. A sinful accommodation.

        1. I’d argue that the Bible does not support this claim.

        2. Muslims certainly believe that the Quran does not support this claim; the Quran supports the claim of one man and up to four women.

        Therefore, “by definition”, it has not always been between one man and one woman.

      • “That was God’s original intent. The polygamy was an accommodation to culture. A sinful accommodation.”

        This is interesting, how do you know that was his original intent Steve, can you point to the part of the bible where Adam and Eve were wedded? What about their immediate children… the ones who committed incest with one another to spawn the entire human race… why didn’t the Bible state whether they were paired into one woman and one man as commanded by God, that would have been a very easy part of the Bible that would have been so easy to include and clear up so much confusion, right?

      • Furthermore, was the one man one woman pairing applicable to Noah and his children the way God intended it after the flood when the global population became … 8? I assume it was a sin for those men to take multiple wives… even if it meant a failure to repopulate the endangered species that was the human race?

  5. Garrett says:
    August 2, 2012 at 6:12 pm
    “Uh, it is my business to know what my money is going towards.”

    Nohm , seems clear to me

    • I said it’s my business to know where my money goes. I never said I meticulously check everything. When I learn about something objectionable, I do my best to stop supporting it.

    • RyanS, please explain how that quote of Garrett’s matches with your comment: “Garret, I really doubt that you check out every single purchase you make, to make sure it lines up with your worldview, try to be more honest.

      Steve L. just accused me of eisegesis, and now I’m starting to wonder if that just might be projection on his part, because it appears that you’re doing the same thing.

  6. Let’s run it down:

    1. What is the alternative to gasoline? I cannot possibly bike to my job, though I would if it were feasible. The alternative is to boycott gas, lose my job, and starve. For me, it’s just not a real choice.

    2. Nobody is saying you have to check every purchase. You’d go crazy trying. But, in this case, Chick-fil-A is very public, and eating there is to make an equally public declaration. You have to pick your battles, and giving up fast food chicken sandwiches isn’t a terrible sacrifice.

    3. I’ve known about Chick-fil-A for some time. This isn’t news to me, and I haven’t eaten there since 2010 at the latest. At no point have I demanded my money back, and it really is darling to see Christianity honesty in action by putting words in my mouth.

Leave a Reply

Required fields are marked *.