Tagged: tolerance Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • just a conservative girl 2:21 PM on 04/04/2014 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , gay mafia, , , tolerance   

    Quote of the Day – Andrew Sullivan Edition 

    When people’s lives and careers are subject to litmus tests, and fired if they do not publicly renounce what may well be their sincere conviction, we have crossed a line. This is McCarthyism applied by civil actors. This is the definition of intolerance. If a socially conservative private entity fired someone because they discovered he had donated against Prop 8, how would you feel? It’s staggering to me that a minority long persecuted for holding unpopular views can now turn around and persecute others for the exact same reason. If we cannot live and work alongside people with whom we deeply disagree, we are finished as a liberal society

    On the forced resignation of the CEO of Mozilla.


    This is a response to the emails he has received for daring to question why the forced resignation was a good thing.  RTR here, the “tolerance” of the left is on full display.


  • just a conservative girl 10:21 AM on 12/20/2013 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: a&e, censorship, , duck dynasty, , , , paglia, robertson, tolerance   

    A&E and the Dangers of Political Correctness 

    I will say at the offset I have never seen Duck Dynasty nor do I plan to.   It doesn’t seem like something that I would be all that interested in enough to spend a half hour of my life sitting in front of the television for.  I have heard of the family and seen pictures of him with various people, but I really know very little about the show except it has something to do with duck hunting.

    A&E has decided that it goes against their values to employ someone who holds a biblical worldview on sin.  You can disagree with the premise all you like, but it doesn’t change what the bible says.  Homosexuality is a sin according to Christian belief.  I fully understand that there are churches out there that ignore that and have no problem with openly gay clergy and will marry same-sex couples.  That still doesn’t change what the bible says about it.

    Phil Robertson gave an interview with GQ Magazine.  During that interview he was asked a question on his view of homosexuality.  He answered the question coming from a biblical point of view.  He is a person who believes that the bible is the living word of God.  Yes his words may have been crude, but they were not bigoted, nor did he liken homosexuality to having sex with a goat.  He simply gave a list of things that are sinful, he also included having heterosexual sex outside of marriage in his list.

    “Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men.”

    All he said is that sex outside the confines of  traditional marriage is sinful, which according to the bible is.  That shouldn’t be up for debate.  Again, you can feel that the bible is outdated, fake, or anything that you may feel about it, but it doesn’t change what scripture says.  If you are to follow the bible and its teachings you shouldn’t be having sex of any kind outside of traditional marriage.  Once you do that, you are committing a sin.

    Another part of his quote gets left out in almost all of the media coverage:

    “We never, ever judge someone on who’s going to heaven, hell. That’s the Almighty’s job. We just love ’em, give ’em the good news about Jesus—whether they’re homosexuals, drunks, terrorists. We let God sort ’em out later, you see what I’m saying?”

    Is it any wonder that this gets left out?  How can you say that he is “hating” on homosexuals if he says he is not judging them?  As a Christian it is part of your duty to spread the word of God.  People will do that in different ways and to different degrees.  But a true Christian never makes statements about someone else’s salvation and how God will ultimately judge a person and how they lived their life.  Not only isn’t that our job, it way above our pay grade.

    But of course the media coverage is he is a bigot, he is a hater, or he is some crazy right winged nut job.  He isn’t allowed to have a biblical worldview and share that openly.  That is something you must keep in the closet and act like it doesn’t exist.  Of course the same people who are hitting him hard have no problem with talking about homosexuality in sex ed classes geared to 6 year olds.  That is perfectly acceptable.  But don’t tell them the other side of the equation, oh no, you are a hater then.

    If activists for the gay community are as open-minded as they claim to be, they will have a debate on this topic.  But that isn’t what happens.  The debate gets shut off by people losing their income or labeled a bigot and a hater.  My gosh even feminist and openly gay Camille Paglia understands what is happening by these fanatics

    “utterly fascist & utterly Stalinist”

    Having a debate on the legalization of gay marriage is worth having in this country.  But it devolves into name calling and threats.  What does it say about people who say they are only trying to be accepted and have their rights protected by our society when they care none about the rights of those who believe otherwise?

    We have gotten to the point where any talk of religion must be closeted and must be whispered in the confines of your own home.  We have even gotten to the point that sometimes you can’t have a bible study in your home without interference, putting up Christmas lights on the outside of your home gets you a letter from your neighbors telling them how offended they are.

    That isn’t tolerance folks, that is tyranny.  This is how far we have fallen as a society; a major public university gives classes on the fine art of fellatio and that is deemed a perfectly acceptable use of tax payer funds for “educational” purposes, but a Christian man can’t give the biblical view that he tries to live his life by without losing income.

    A&E has every right to end their contract with Mr. Robertson.  They are a private business and they are under no restrictions constitutionally, as this isn’t a free speech or free religion issue.  The government isn’t interfering.  Just because A&E has the right to end his contract doesn’t mean that it should.  So far the sponsors of the show seem to understand what is at stake here and are standing on the right side.  The side that says he has a right to religious liberty and his viewpoints.

    A sad day in America.  A very sad day.

    • NotAScientist 10:53 AM on 12/20/2013 Permalink | Reply

      “Is it any wonder that this gets left out? ”

      Probably because he’s comparing homosexuals to terrorists and drunks. It’s probably better for his public profile for no one to report on that.

      “The side that says he has a right to religious liberty and his viewpoints.”

      Sure he does. He doesn’t have the right to be on a tv show, though.

      • just a conservative girl 3:46 PM on 12/20/2013 Permalink | Reply

        No he is saying that drunks, terrorists, and homosexuals will be judged on their behavior. He didn’t say that they homosexuals are terrorists or drunks.

        So let me get this straight according to your logic someone who owns a business who is a relgious person should be able to not hire someone who, like yourself, believes that gay marriage is a right? Because you don’t get to have it both ways. You can either employ people based on their personal points of view or you can’t.

        That is the danger of this action. It sets precedent for all kinds of hiring practices that I don’t think most people in this country would be all that comfortable with. They knew his worldview when they hired him. This isn’t the first time he talked about these types of topics. He is an outspoken Christian man.

        This allows a very small minority of people to make decisions about the financial well being of all kinds of Americans. All that accomplishes is shutting down debate. Which is exactly what they are trying to do. Shut and comply. No American should be ok with that.

        I didn’t think the man who yelled at the Chick Fil A girl should have lost his job. I disagreed with everything he said. I think Martin Bashir being forced to resign was also wrong. We are losing our rights to have opinions that others may disagree with. The really scary thing about that is what opinion can you then hold? We have more than 300 million people in this country, I think it would pretty near impossible to find something that everyone agrees on.

        • NotAScientist 7:50 AM on 12/21/2013 Permalink | Reply

          “You can either employ people based on their personal points of view or you can’t.”

          Wrong. Most jobs have nothing to do with expressing your personal views and being seen as a representative of the company you work for while you do so.

          TV star is not one of those jobs.

          Should a conservative Christian tv station be allowed to fire a pro gay star? Sure.

          • just a conservative girl 11:14 AM on 12/21/2013 Permalink | Reply

            Every employee is a representative of the company they are working for in some form or another. That is just reality. You just don’t like what he said and that is why you feel this way. Sadly you are not looking at the larger picture. This isn’t just about him, this is about a small minority of people being able to threaten people into silence, and therefore submission. No one should be ok with that.

  • just a conservative girl 12:25 PM on 04/30/2013 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: collins, , , tolerance   

    My Obligatory Someone (Sort of) Famous is Gay Post 

    Jason Collins, NBA player, has come out of the closet and announced to the world that he is gay.  My first reaction was yeah so.  It is not like people were under the impression that there has never been a gay athlete before.    It really isn’t like he is even the first to “come out”.  Martina Navratilova has been out of the closet for years and years, although she was outed by Billie Jean King who is also gay.  The sport of Ice Skating has many openly gay men.  The Olympic diver Greg Louganis has written a book about his life, including being in a gay abusive relationship and having the AIDS virus.  So why exactly this is such a big deal is beyond me.

    The oddest thing about all of this to me is that I am a HUGE NBA fan and I don’t know this guy from a hole in the wall.  The NBA playoffs are still in the first round at the moment (Go Knicks!!!!) so this was the talk during the pre, post, and half time shows.  It seems that most players are coming out as supportive.  But I wouldn’t expect anything else.  What other choice do they have?

    If they come out publicly against it they will be labeled a hater and a homophobe.  You see having views that homosexuality is wrong is bad.  It is intolerant.  You are a bigot.  You are a hater.  But I am sorry, there is no one in the world that can convince me that a person who may be uncomfortable in a dressing room where you are showering and dressing together makes you a homophobe.  No one would say a word if there were of opposite sexes.  That would be considered perfectly fine.  Why exactly are women and men uncomfortable showering and getting naked in front of each other in that type of setting?  SEX, that is why.  We cannot deny human sexuality and attraction exists simply so we can be open-minded and tolerant about homosexuality.  I would not be comfortable being in that type of environment in front of an openly gay woman any more than I would be in front of a man.  There is nothing wrong with that.

    But no NBA player will be able to say this openly.  Not if they know what is good for them.

    Ah yes, it is all about the tolerance.  Just ask Tim Tebow.  Openly Christian NFL Player.

  • just a conservative girl 9:33 AM on 03/25/2013 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: diversity, , , starbucks, tolerance   

    Photo of the Day – Starbucks Edition 

    For those that have not heard, Starbucks CEO has decided that if you believe in traditional marriage you can just sell your shares.  Not that he has said it exactly, but I guess you don’t need to buy their products either.  Perfectly fine with me.  I don’t need your overpriced drinks and sandwiches anyway.

    Apparently in the name of tolerance and diversity, your views aren’t welcome.


    • Sherry 9:45 AM on 03/25/2013 Permalink | Reply

      Nice. Sigh. Have to give up my hot chocolate fix.

    • AKA John Galt 9:45 AM on 03/25/2013 Permalink | Reply

      Reblogged this on U.S. Constitutional Free Press.

    • NotAScientist 9:50 AM on 03/25/2013 Permalink | Reply

      How dare he stand up for his moral convictions instead of caving to profit. HOW DARE HE!

      • just a conservative girl 10:06 AM on 03/25/2013 Permalink | Reply

        He can stand up for his convictions all he wants, but why can’t the shareholder who happens to have other convinctions? If you want “tolerance” and “diversity” you need to accept other points of view. You can’t say you believe in those things and then tell someone who doesn’t agree with your views to get lost; unless of course you are a hypocrite.

        • NotAScientist 10:12 AM on 03/25/2013 Permalink | Reply

          ” but why can’t the shareholder who happens to have other convinctions?”

          They can, by taking their money and going home. He said as much that they were free to do that if they wanted to.

          “If you want “tolerance” and “diversity” you need to accept other points of view.”

          True. But why do I have to be tolerant of intolerant points of view?

          I try to be as tolerant as I can. But if you hold the position that gays can’t get married, I’m perfectly fine with not having your business.

          You can still hold your own beliefs, and your own opinions. But I hold a position, and if you give me your money for my goods or services I am free to use that money to support that position. If you don’t want to do that, that’s fine.

          • just a conservative girl 10:43 AM on 03/25/2013 Permalink | Reply

            But that isn’t the issue. Any company is free to do with their profits as they see fit. Much like Chick Fil A using theirs to promote traditional marriage. The difference being that Chick Fil A has never told anyone to get lost. Who exactly is being intolerant?

            As far holding a traditional view of marriage being intolerant, it is a belief system that you don’t share. It is only intolerant because you don’t agree with it. You are the one with the problem with people who disagree with you. You don’t want to accept the fact that people will differ on this issue. You are the one trying to bend your will onto others.

            . You need to have a physican heal thy self moment. You are trying to force your will, not me. I don’t have a problem with the fact that agree with gay marriage nor am I trying to change your mind. You are the one that has a problem with me not agreeing with you. The very essence of intolerance.

            • NotAScientist 10:51 AM on 03/25/2013 Permalink | Reply

              “The difference being that Chick Fil A has never told anyone to get lost.”

              Which is less honest.

              If you’re going to give your money to anti-gay organizations, that’s fine. Just be honest about it. Which is why I don’t give them my money.

              The CEO of Starbucks is being honest. He might not be as polite as you’d like him to be, but he’s honest.

              ” Who exactly is being intolerant? ”

              The group with the intolerant position is intolerant in relation to that position.

              “It is only intolerant because you don’t agree with it.”

              No. It is intolerant because it doesn’t allow gay couples to do the same thing that straight couples do.

              On top of that, I disagree with it.

              “You don’t want to accept the fact that people will differ on this issue. You are the one trying to bend your will onto others. ”

              Not at all. You are more than welcome to have your opinion. You are not welcome to force the rest of us to hold the same opinion, or to force the rest of us to make your opinion the automatic policy for everyone.

              If gays are allowed to get married, nothing will happen to you. The reverse is not true, however.

              “You are the one that has a problem with me not agreeing with you.”

              No, I don’t. I have a problem with you turning your opinion into law that prevents others to act according to their conscience.

              Even if gays can get married, you are still free to act according to your conscience.

              • Sherry 11:13 AM on 03/25/2013 Permalink | Reply

                Not necessarily. Catholic Charities had to stop adoptions to hold to its convictions. People have been “outed” for signing a petition to support traditional marriage and made to take leave from their position in Maryland for expressing an opinion now deemed archaic. People are free to associate, to have whatever types of adult relationships they wish, no one is beating on the doors of gay people and telling them to cease existing. However, there is a sense that if you say, “I support traditional marriage.” in more than a whisper outside of the comfort of your own room, people will deem you the very worst of monsters for daring to disagree.

                • NotAScientist 11:25 AM on 03/25/2013 Permalink | Reply

                  “Catholic Charities had to stop adoptions to hold to its convictions.”

                  Actually, they just stopped receiving government funds. They chose to stop adoptions rather than using only their own money.

                  “made to take leave from their position in Maryland for expressing an opinion now deemed archaic. ”

                  Whoever did that is wrong.

                  “However, there is a sense that if you say, “I support traditional marriage.” in more than a whisper outside of the comfort of your own room, people will deem you the very worst of monsters for daring to disagree.”

                  Perhaps. But since when has ‘people won’t like me if they know I hold this position’ been a good argument to make their opinion the legal one?

                  A fair amount of people don’t like me because I’m an atheist and I support gay marriage. Part of me doesn’t like that, but most of me doesn’t care. Because I believe my position on gay marriage is the moral one, it’s more important to hold that position than to insist everyone like me or to even make every potential customer happy.

                  • Sherry 11:52 AM on 03/25/2013 Permalink | Reply

                    Bullying is always wrong, whether done by the oppressed or the oppressor, it damages two souls with one set of words. I am not making a legal argument. I am stating a social fact of our existing society.

                    I don’t support gay marriage because I am Catholic. I believe my position is a moral one and we should not demand everyone agree in order to “coexist.” But we are being painted as haters because we understand moral law to indicate acting on one’s sexual desires outside the context of a marriage is sinful, and as such, we do not want to promote/encourage/codify sin.

                    The argument, don’t support gay marriage, don’t invest is like don’t want an abortion, don’t have one. Don’t believe in birth control, don’t take advantage of the prescription mandated by the government but do pay for it. Also, don’t be a pharmacist. Don’t believe in providing abortions, don’t go into medicine.

                    We are losing the freedom to live out our religion as we understand it, in favor of a forced secularism that brooks no tolerance for disagreement based on moral grounds.

                    • NotAScientist 11:58 AM on 03/25/2013 Permalink | Reply

                      “We are losing the freedom to live out our religion as we understand it”

                      And yet, even if I accepted your argument ( I don’t ), you lose nothing if gays are allowed to marry.

                      • Sherry 12:51 PM on 03/25/2013 Permalink

                        You do not think I lose anything. But sin affects us all.
                        We understand that war has long tentacles, abuses and wounds that linger long after the shooting stops. We understand that hatred has even longer tentacles, do you not think it would be possible to see the consequences of eroding the definition of marriage to family? Already, those who want polygamy are lining up to use the same argument.

                        I will thank you for your argument, your courage of your convictions properly chastised mine. It is easy to say one professes something when it is popular. The reality of what one professes, is revealed when it is not.

              • just a conservative girl 3:24 PM on 03/25/2013 Permalink | Reply

                Actually what is happening in Canada since gay marriage has been legal proves that I will not be able to keep my beliefs without consquences.

                People in Canada have lost their jobs due to the own view that gay marriage is wrong and not wanting to perform the ceremonies. Families who choose to pass those morals down to their children are undermined by the state run public school systems, businesses in this country have been sued for not wanting to work with gay clients.

                Another thing that needs serious explanation is why the gay community that is fighting for this is so opposed to religious protections written into the laws. Not one state that has legalized gay marriage has done this. Why? Conservatives churches are being put into a position that they may be sued in order to perform these ceremonies. Now, I am sure that once it gets to SCOTUS they would be protected, but how much money would they have to spend to get there?

                You say you are looking for simple fairness, but that seems to end on the church doorways. They shouldn’t be given protections. Freedom of religion is enshirned in our constitution, marriage not so much.

                What people seem to forgot about the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment is that was done to give all people the same access to the legal system when they are charged with a crime. It was never meant to talk about issues such as a maritial law.

                • NotAScientist 3:30 PM on 03/25/2013 Permalink | Reply

                  ” due to the own view that gay marriage is wrong and not wanting to perform the ceremonies.”

                  That’s sad. But if they work for the government, and the government allows gays to marry, then they either have to marry them or quite. Perhaps a church or two will employ them?

                  “Families who choose to pass those morals down to their children are undermined by the state run public school systems”

                  Why are you sending your children to state-run public schools if you want them to only ever encounter religious points of view?

                  “Conservatives churches are being put into a position that they may be sued in order to perform these ceremonies.”

                  No, they really aren’t. Churches won’t be forced to marry gays any more than they are forced to marry Jews.

                  ” Freedom of religion is enshirned in our constitution, marriage not so much. ”

                  What about the freedom of the religions that want to marry gay people?

                  • just a conservative girl 4:03 PM on 03/25/2013 Permalink | Reply

                    Churches that want to perform those ceremonies are free to. They have been doing it even before it was legalized anywhere. I have no problem with that. I have a friend who was married in a unitarian church in a state that gay marriage is still illegal. He didn’t do it for legal reasons, he did it to make a commitment to his partner in front of his friends and family. I went to the ceremony. He knows how I feel about gay marriage and adoption, but he knows that I don’t have any ill will towards him or his relationship. He also understands my concerns about the institution of marriage and he himself is against gay marriage and gay adoption. He is far more tolerant than you will ever be with all your views on morality and tolerance as long as they agree with your points of view.

                    Not everyone can afford private schools. As such people who pay taxes to run those schools shouldn’t be subjected to their children hearing that their parents are bigots. That shouldn’t be a great deal to ask.

                    As I said, if you believe in tolerance, you must agree with putting religious protections into the laws. Otherwise, it is just lip service and what you are truly saying is it is my way or the highway.

    • joyannaadams 1:48 PM on 03/25/2013 Permalink | Reply

      McDonalds’ has cheaper coffee…and it’s less fattening. Just saying…

      • NotAScientist 2:04 PM on 03/25/2013 Permalink | Reply

        Starbucks CEO: If you don’t like my political positions, you can take your money elsewhere.

        Anti-Gay Marriage Folk: That makes us angry! You know what we’ll do to show you? We’ll take our money elsewhere!

        CEO: Um…that’s what I said you should do.

        Folk: And that’s what we’re doing! Take that!

        • Sherry 2:11 PM on 03/25/2013 Permalink | Reply

          You made me laugh at myself. Hope for both of us.

      • just a conservative girl 3:54 PM on 03/25/2013 Permalink | Reply

        I can do you one better – I don’t drink coffee. I do admit that I do like Starbucks Zen tea, but it is sold in the grocery store and it isn’t actually a “Starbucks” brand, so I have some in my cabinet when the cravings for it arise!!!!

        • Sherry 4:05 PM on 03/25/2013 Permalink | Reply

          I don’t drink their coffee either, but I have liked the place as a hideyhole once my Borders bit the dust. Would curl up with my laptop and a hot chocolate. Now it will have to be at home.

  • just a conservative girl 2:39 PM on 08/01/2012 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , tolerance   

    Chick Fil A – My Take 

    Since people keep coming back to my blogs, I have to assume that you care about what I think.  So here it goes.

    Personally I find this whole thing ridiculous, and I mean that from both sides.  The Cathy Family are Christian conservatives, they have never hid that fact since they franchised the Chick Fil A restaurants.   They are not allowed to be open on Sundays, that is part of the franchise agreement.  Chick Fil A has a very slow growth plan that has helped them grow into the second largest chicken fast food restaurant in the country.  It has worked for them.  They don’t normally allow a franchise owner to own more than one, and they are looking for owners who are going to be hands on.  They are not looking for people to turn the place over in a short period of time.  They approve about 80 applications per year.

    Now, it is a fact that not all owners agree with the Cathy’s stance on marriage.  At least one Chick Fil A is going to participate in a gay pride parade sometime this summer.  I don’t know the exact date.  That is one of the reasons that I find this so silly.  These are individually owned, how does anyone know what the owner actually thinks?  I am sure that they are just like the country as a whole; some will agree, some will disagree.

    The left for some reason has chosen this restaurant as the poster child of hate.  Hate is a very strong word.  A word that the left doesn’t fully define.  Because I am against gay marriage and I have friends who are gay. They are my friends, so obviously I don’t hate them.  I was asked once by a former boss about my friendship with two men who happen to be gay, Ken and Norman.  Both great guys who I love dearly.  Norman and I hung out outside of work as well.  We have been to each other homes.  He is a very good man who happens to be gay.  I don’t want him tied up, gassed or anything else for that matter.  He can work where he wants, he can live where he wants, the only two things that I don’t think he can do is get married or adopt children.  I know gay people who don’t think that gay people raising children is a good idea.  His opinion is that childhood is hard enough without having that added pressure of being the odd kid out with gay parents.  He takes a great deal of ridicule, and yes outright hate from other gays for his belief.  He has been in a long-term relationship, something like 20 years.  Both families are very accepting of them, and they have nieces and nephews that they love dearly.   I don’t think a gay person is a danger to a child in any way, I just think that it just makes their lives harder than they need to be and question is placing an adopted child in that environment the best thing for them.  I don’t think that it is.  Am I a bigot or a hater?  According to many I am.

    This is what Christians see.  They see a society that has consistently told them that what they believe makes them haters and bigots.  They see a society that tells them that their rights as an American citizen to worship freely is really just a hate crime.  Put a Christmas tree in a town square and you are forcing your beliefs unto someone else, yet forcing them to accept gay marriage is tolerance.  It was only about 50 years ago that Christian conservatives started having a voice in politics.  For the most part before then they went about their lives, but the sexual and cultural revolutions forced them to find their voice.

    You hear from more moderate people in the republican party that they are going to be the ruin of it.  They are ridiculed in pop culture as ignorant hicks.  It never occurs to the people doing the ridiculing that all they are doing is standing by what they deeply believe in.

    Every Christian in the end gets called a hypocrite.  Somehow a Christian has to be perfect or they are one.  They are not allowed to make the same mistakes that others are allowed to make.  No Christian will ever tell they are perfect.  They will flat-out say that they fall short each and every day.  But, they try to live the best that they can in the eyes of God and what the bible tells them that they are to strive for.

    The fact remains if you are ready to redefine marriage then you need to be all in.  If you are not, it is the same intolerance that you are accusing Christians of.  There are approximately 6 million Muslims in the United States.  Plural marriage is widely accepted in the faith of Islam.  There are still Mormons who practice that as well.  If you are going to redefine marriage for homosexuals, then you must redefine for all.  Using the logic that is used if you don’t approve of gay marriage, you are a hater and bigot if you don’t agree.

    Christians feel that they and their belief system is under constant attack in this country.  You can disagree with that premise, but that doesn’t make it less so.  Now, if the issue truly is about the issues of benefits that can be done without redefining marriage.  But the problem is that isn’t what this is truly about.  It is truly about forcing the Christian belief system out of this country.

    There are conservative churches that are being sued for being unwilling to perform marriage ceremonies for gay people in states where gay marriage is legal.  That is about forcing their will on an organization that doesn’t want it.  My church would close its doors before it performed a marriage ceremony for people of the same-sex.  I wouldn’t want it any other way.  Those are my beliefs, beliefs that I am entitled to under our constitution.  You see, you don’t get to have it both ways.   The radical agenda that is being pushed by some in this fight are trying to force their will upon me, and using the tactic that it is the other way around.  Do I believe that everyone in this movement feels that way?  No.  Many just refuse to see what is really happening.  A push has been going on this country to eliminate all that is Christian for about 100 years.  They are getting closer and closer to getting it done.  They have accomplished this in part by redefining many things in our culture.  They have made the killing of an unborn baby just another lifestyle choice of getting rid of some cells.  They have made sex on the first date commonplace.  This is regardless to the bad effects that it has on society.  If it feels good, do it.  The consequences of your actions be left for another day, or better yet just leave them for someone else to clean up.

    I don’t hate gay people.  I could care less what consenting adults do in their bedrooms.  What I do care about is the society that we are leaving for the next generation.  I care about God having a place in the lives for the believers.  You don’t want to believe in God, don’t.  That is your choice, it is your soul.  But stop trying to take away my choices and the life that I want to live and to leave to the next generation.  The next time someone wants to call me a hater, just think about this; how much tolerance do you have for Christians?  Probably not very much.   Eating or not eating at Chick Fil A will change none of this.  So I didn’t waste my money or time today.

    • Kdaunt 6:21 PM on 08/01/2012 Permalink | Reply

      Thanks for that article. I’d just finished reading some posts on my favorite social site that got my dander up, but I could not put my finger on it. You have and I’m grateful. It’s nice to read an opinion that helps me identify my own. I think I understand the importance of some gay rights issues but the intensity and bile of their tactics seems overdone and more harmful than helpful. What keeps us from learning to get along?

      I remember seeing a Phil Donahue program on which his two guests, while discussing inner city issues, started to agree with one another and actually work out a potential solution. Phil got visibly scared when he realized they were no longer arguing but were collaborating. He started to inject things like “are you going to let him get away with that?”, like a kid in a schoolyard trying to start a fight. Without the disagreement, Phil didn’t have a show.

      So whose interest is really served by keeping these two sides at odds?

    • SignPainterGuy 6:45 PM on 08/01/2012 Permalink | Reply

      I drove almost 20 miles today to attempt to eat at Chik-fil-A, but you couldn`t get in in less than an hour and a half and I was too hungry to wait. The local AM talk radio station got several reports from the town`s 3 locations; all were very backed up, one had restocked 3 times today – by 3: o`clock ! One had done 3 days` worth of biz in a half day. One anticipated closing early, they were running out of food ! Customers were marveling at the patience and good naturedness of all the other customers. In the inside-mall location, the crowd broke out into “God Bless America” !

      I have a feeling (as do others) that Chik-fil-A will report a RECORD DAY today !! Not quite what the protesters had in mind ! Aaah ha ha ha haaaaaa !

      A small group of protesters had blocked the drive-thru shortly before I arrived. The Police were called; they moved the group of 1/2 dozen off property, down next to the highway, to be irrelevant …. in the direct sunshine ! 86° and humid out there !

    • fuzislippers 12:29 AM on 08/04/2012 Permalink | Reply

      Great post, JACG, I think I may be inspired to post on this topic as well (with proper attribution, of course ;) )

Compose new post
Next post/Next comment
Previous post/Previous comment
Show/Hide comments
Go to top
Go to login
Show/Hide help
shift + esc