In a perfect world that would be a great idea. When it is revealed that a corporation is funding measures that one is either opposed to, in agreement with or indifferent to, it is wise to decide if you would like to fund those measures as well. Because in essence that is what you are doing.

Dagoth Ur,

Agree. Can you imagine where this is going? Soon every niche group will have their own boycott lists.

Oh how cute, a veiled reference to anal sex - brilliant mark. Of course approximately half of homosexuals are women, but don't let that stop you from making off color jokes. Nor should the fact that there are more heterosexual people having anal sex than the population of gay men). The outcry on the "left" still comes down to concerns about bigotry and you make people's point by comments like that.

(heterosexual, married father of two sick of the ignorance)

Oftentimes that is the only way that we can measure our disgust. I don't need their chicken sandwiches, and there are other restaurants that sell them. So yes, I will let make sure that I am not participating in any potentially discriminatory practices by not buying their products.

And if it makes others feel good to, like Huckafee and Palin, support discrimination, well...

By the way, could someone be so kind as to tell me where the Bible defines marriage? I find a story about daughters "laying" with their father. Surely you don't mean that!!

Hey DBAM, relax and enjoy a little levity. A little wit and humor is ALWAYS called for. Only a bigot thinks his particular cause/opinion is so important it can never be taken lightly. Don't Be A Moron, come out of the closet and into the real world. Thanks for listening!

could someone be so kind as to tell me where the Bible defines marriage?

Nina, in the New Testament. The words of Jesus Christ - the Book of Matthew 19: 4-6.

Matthew 19:4-6

King James Version (KJV)

⁴ And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,

⁵ And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

⁶ Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

"And if it makes others feel good to, like Huckafee and Palin, support discrimination, well..."

You "reverse bigots" sure like to read between the lines when it comes to promoting your own opinion/agenda. Go back and read the guy's statement and show me the discrimination. When was the last time a homosexual was turned away from a CFA store? Has there ever been a lawsuit or other action against CFA for discriminatory practices? (Serious question... I don't recall one, so if you know then speak up and prove your point. You're making the accusations, so you prove your point.)

Your "discrimination" accusations are tired, old propagandizing rhetoric. Until it becomes law that employers have to recognize homosexual relationships and afford benefits for it, then it's every business's opinion for itself. This man spoke his opinion, and you "enlightened, fair, inclusive" people want to crucify him for it.

Go ahead, boys and girls, boycott CFA. It's your "right" in a free country to have whatever reaction you want, as long as it's a legal reaction. But realize that you're REALLY boycotting the freedom to have an opinion different from the fad opinion of the day, and you're rallying to kill individualism. That same individualism and freedom of speech that gives you the right to boycott and bully people who disagree with you. That same Constitutional guarantee that gives you the right to have your "Gay Rights Parades."

As for me, I plan to support the Constitution in the small symbolic act of patronizing CFA. I stood up for homosexuals' rights to speak out, so I plan to stand up for CFA's and Christians' rights to do the same. If ONE group loses that right, then eventually we all will.

Please remember that Christ came to fulfill the Old Testament, therefore we are no longer bound by the laws of blood, we are bound in faith by the blood of Christ.

I am a conservative woman who is frustrated by the enmity shown to people like myself who are simply asking to be allowed to publicize our beliefs (just like those who don't agree we us do) and not be called haters. I may not believe in thee gay and lesbian lifestyle, and I will continue to exercise my right to say so publicly without inciting hate. HOWEVER, because I live in the United States, I am willing to fight for those same gay and lesbians to express their opinions as well.

I do not consider myself a "hater" because I don't agree with someone else's lifestyle. If I choose to associate with like-minded people, we are not a band of "haters."

Not just any political affiliation, but religious as well? We have freedom of religion in this country, and if we don't want to practice the biblical definition of anything we don't have to. People need to realize that not everyone lives by the Bible - that is the root of the issue here. I'm personally tired of people shoving religion down my throat. Not only is there nothing that says we have to abide by one religion, there are actually two clauses in the First Amendment of the Constitution (Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause) that prohibit the establishment of a national religion by Congress, or the preference by the U.S. government of one religion over another, and allow Americans to practice whatever religion that they wish. Government and individuals alike should stop wiping their butts with the Constitution and its Amendments and realize that prohibiting gay-marriage because the Bible says it's wrong is unconstitutional and if they don't agree with it, then that's unfortunate for them.

You "reverse bigots" sure like to read between the lines when it comes to promoting your own opinion/agenda. Go back and read the guy's statement and show me the discrimination.

That isn't my issue with Chick Fil A CC GWRider. My issue is their donations go to large powerful groups that introduce anti-gay legislation to different levels of government. Religion has NO PLACE in American legislation. I can't hurt the pockets of the groups receiving the donations from CFA and others, but you better believe I can hurt the pockets of the source, and I will continue to do so.

"Religion is the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - George Carlin

This seems like a simple enough issue to me. If you don't want to support CFA, don't. Companies are held accountable for their statements all the time, just ask Abercrombie & Fitch.

For the record, I think that Mr. Cathy is perfectly entitled to make this statement, just as he is entitled to make contributions to whatever cause(s) he prefers.

The public is likewise entitled to reward or punish his decisions at the cash register.

But realize that you're REALLY boycotting the freedom to have an opinion different from the fad opinion of the day, and you're rallying to kill individualism.

Nonsense. Individualism and differing opinions are both alive and well. Rest assured you can always find someone willing to espouse anything. CFA is a business. Support them or don't support them, but don't imagine they represent some last bastion of individual freedoms.

I am a conservative woman who is frustrated by the enmity shown to people like myself who are simply asking to be allowed to publicize our beliefs (just like those who don't agree we us do) and not be called haters. I may not believe in thee gay and lesbian lifestyle, and I will continue to exercise my right to say so publicly without inciting hate.

I agree. Everyone should be able to express considered and respectful opinions without being subject to cruelty. American discourse does not always live up to the ideal. That said, the frustration exists on both sides.

To be LGBT is not a lifestyle; it is part of one's identity. The generally accepted psychological determination is that sexual orientation is not really a choice. You are either attracted to people of the same sex, or you are not. The only real choice for LGBT Americans is how or whether one expresses that identity. This is a challenge for LGBT Americans, who are oftentimes subject to various forms of abuse for refusing to live a lie for the comfort of a portion of the population.

So before you go off being so "Offended" - maybe you should read what was actually written. I find it taken out of context and just another example of a group (that has been unfairly treated at times) lashing out - but doesn't make it right.

If the link is correct above in the story, I don't necessarily find anything wrong - he has a position, doesn't negatively address anyone (sorry - no gay bashing found in the article I read), so I think it's just another dust-up over a misrepresentation and rather than people reading for themselves, they instead jump upon rumor to grab their pitch-forks.

If someone can actually point out where he said anything against homosexuals, et al - rather than FOR Families (single or otherwise or HIS definition of Family), I'd be more than happy to look; but to me this seems to be another contrived dust-up against "Christians". While there are a few wack jobs out there, most Christians have a live and get along value, not a condemn / convert / or go to hell attitude which the media and the left continues to portray. It's getting old all this "made-up righteous indignation"

Read for yourselves rather than jumping on the bandwagon, otherwise you're just sheep.

DFW_Walt

Cathy's quote:

“I think we are inviting God’s judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at Him and say ‘we know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage’ and I pray God’s mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we have the audacity to define what marriage is about.”

With this line it is obvious what he is talking about along with the money the company donates to NOM and other anti-gay-marriage groups. One would have to have their head in the sand not to see what this means.

For the record my personal views are this, we all have the right to exercise free speech, that is his right. However once money goes to support groups who actively work to prevent equality in law, then this turns from free speech to bigotry.

If the link is correct above in the story, I don't necessarily find anything wrong - he has a position, doesn't negatively address anyone (sorry - no gay bashing found in the article I read), so I think it's just another dust-up over a misrepresentation and rather than people reading for themselves, they instead jump upon rumor to grab their pitch-forks.

I think you are correct when the quote is taken at face value without the context of the larger national debate over marriage equality. The predominant argument to support the definition of marriage as one man and one woman is a religious one. Hence advocating for a biblical interpretation of family tends to equate to advocating against marriage among same sex couples.

Granted, this requires a couple assumptions about his interpretation of the Bible - but those assumptions are hardly wild or unsupportable.

Personally, I am not offended by this quote. He can say and advocate whatever he wants - it's his PR one way or the other. I've never eaten at CFA, and am not about to make the trip to Bellingham to try them out. Not worth the cost of gas.

And that is the true crux of the matter. the Company itself may not be discriminating in it's business practices, but by donating such large sums to Organizations that are they money we would spend there would be used to harm us. So it's not us saying they are a horrible evil corporation, it's us saying, Whoa, Wait a minute, you want to support what now?

the Company itself may not be discriminating in it's business practices, but by donating such large sums to Organizations that are they money we would spend there would be used to harm us.

Pretty much. If you don't like how the company engages with public policy, don't support them. That's the American way. There's nothing wrong with that.

@Jo Ann-666954: As usually happens with bigotted bible thumpers, You stopped short of the context to support your view. You obviously don't support divorce then, right?

Matt 19:9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put
away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth
adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

And you obviously don't support reading because you forgot to keep reading the rest of the passage.

Matt 19:11 But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this
saying, save they to whom it is given.

Hey, look!! Christ teaching tollerance. Who'd-a thunk it. And in case you feel like screaming hypocrite at me for not reading the rest of the passage. Here you go:

Matt 19:12 For there are some eunuchs, which were
so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were
made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made
themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive
it, let him receive it.

Hey, look!! Christ teaching that people are allowed to make choices in their lives or are excused from being born a certain way. Wow, that Christ guy was a really neat person. I wish the people who believed in him would actually read his words and listen to his teachings. He seams like a pretty together guy.

Blended families? Give me a break.

The bible is just a make pretend fictional book made up by man anyway. So why should I follow what some dude back then trying to tell me what to do. I have a free will and mind and won't listen to that dribble.

You certainly do, Ronald. But this discussion is about why many of us support Mr. Cathy, and we believe the Holy Bible is God's Word - and that "dude" is the living Son of God. Your denial of Jesus Christ and the Bible is really nothing new.

Richod

"Folks with biblical values are not concerned that their values are not of the unsaved world "

If what you say here is true then why do we have to continually fight the 'religious right' to keep your biblical views out of our secular laws?

wm. sanders please do yourself a favor when you quote from the bible to quote it properly.

"judge not ,that ye be not judged. for with what judgement ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it will shall be measured to you again".

makes a big difference doesn't it!!!!!

@ dsb, Because we have the right to vote our personal values, just as you do. We base our values on the unchanging Word of God. Others base theirs on the ever-changing value system of mankind.

Others base theirs on the ever-changing value system of mankind

Yes, yes we do...

We base our values on the unchanging Word of God

We know, and we pity you for it. BTW, your jesus son of god was an Egyptian story 2,000 years before jesus was invented (there is no proof he actually existed), but whatever stay unchanged.

dsb

If what you say here is true then why do we have to continually fight the 'religious right' to keep your biblical views out of our secular laws?

because this country was founded on strong religious right beliefs, you are now trying to change that. almost every document or law that this country was founded on has references to god including the pledge of alliegence, the constitution, even the swearing in of our elected officials and witnesses in court. Lucky for you we are also founded on allowing free speech and freedom of religion. try spouting you pro gay anti religion dogma in muslim countries and see what happens. The problem with the anti religious fanatics is they only want freedom of speech for their causes. We give tolerance to your beliefs and you in turn try to demonize us for ours

Many Religious Right activists have attempted to rewrite history by asserting that the United States government derived from Christian foundations, that our Founding Fathers originally aimed for a Christian nation. This idea simply does not hold to the historical evidence.

The U.S. Constitution:

Although the Constitution does not include the phrase "Separation of Church & State," neither does it say "Freedom of religion." However, the Constitution implies both in the 1st Amendment. As to our freedoms, the 1st Amendment provides exclusionary wording:

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. [bold caps, mine]

Thomas Jefferson made an interpretation of the 1st Amendment to his January 1st, 1802 letter to the Committee of the Danbury Baptist Association calling it a "wall of separation between church and State." Madison had also written that "Strongly guarded. . . is the separation between religion and government in the Constitution of the United States." There existed little controversy about this interpretation from our Founding Fathers.

If religionists better understood the concept of separation of Church & State, they would realize that the wall of separation actually protects their religion. Our secular government allows the free expression of religion and non-religion. Today, religions flourish in America; we have more churches than Seven-Elevens.

Although many secular and atheist groups today support and fight for the wall of separation, this does not mean that they wish to lawfully eliminate religion from society. On the contrary, you will find no secular or atheist group attempting to ban Christianity, or any other religion from American society. Keeping religion separate allows atheists and religionists alike, to practice their belief systems, regardless how ridiculous they may seem, without government intervention.

The Declaration of Independence:

Many Christian's who think of America as founded upon Christianity usually present the Declaration of Independence as "proof" of a Christian America. The reason appears obvious: the Declaration mentions God. (You may notice that some Christians avoid the Constitution, with its absence of God.)

However, the Declaration of Independence does not represent any law of the United States. It came before the establishment of our lawful government (the Constitution). The Declaration aimed at announcing the separation of America from Great Britain and it listed the various grievances with them. The Declaration includes the words, "The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America." The grievances against Great Britain no longer hold today, and we have more than thirteen states.

Although the Declaration may have influential power, it may inspire the lofty thoughts of poets and believers, and judges may mention it in their summations, it holds no legal power today. It represents a historical document about rebellious intentions against Great Britain at a time before the formation of our government.

Of course the Declaration stands as a great political document. Its author aimed at a future government designed and upheld by people and not based on a superstitious god or religious monarchy. It observed that all men "are created equal" meaning that we all have the natural ability of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That "to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men." Please note that the Declaration says nothing about our rights secured by Christianity. It bears repeating: "Governments are instituted among men."

The Treaty of Tripoli:

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

So here we have a clear admission by the United States in 1797 that our government did not found itself upon Christianity. Unlike the Declaration of Independence, this treaty represented U.S. law as all U.S. Treaties do (see the Constitution, Article VI, Sect.2: "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.")

Common Law:

According to the Constitution's 7th Amendment: "In suits at common law. . . the right of trial by jury shall be preserved; and no fact, tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States than according to the rules of the common law."

Here, many Christians believe that common law came from Christian foundations and therefore the Constitution derives from it. They use various quotes from Supreme Court Justices proclaiming that Christianity came as part of the laws of England, and therefore from its common law heritage.

But one of our principle Founding Fathers, Thomas Jefferson, elaborated about the history of common law in his letter to Thomas Cooper on February 10, 1814:

"For we know that the common law is that system of law which was introduced by the Saxons on their settlement in England, and altered from time to time by proper legislative authority from that time to the date of Magna Charta, which terminates the period of the common law. . . This settlement took place about the middle of the fifth century. But Christianity was not introduced till the seventh century; the conversion of the first christian king of the Heptarchy having taken place about the year 598, and that of the last about 686. Here then, was a space of two hundred years, during which the common law was in existence, and Christianity no part of it."

". . . if any one chooses to build a doctrine on any law of that period, supposed to have been lost, it is incumbent on him to prove it to have existed, and what were its contents. These were so far alterations of the common law, and became themselves a part of it. But none of these adopt Christianity as a part of the common law. If, therefore, from the settlement of the Saxons to the introduction of Christianity among them, that system of religion could not be a part of the common law, because they were not yet Christians, and if, having their laws from that period to the close of the common law, we are all able to find among them no such act of adoption, we may safely affirm (though contradicted by all the judges and writers on earth) that Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law."

In the same letter, Jefferson examined how the error spread about Christianity and common law. Jefferson realized that a misinterpretation had occurred with a Latin term by Prisot, "ancien scripture", in reference to common law history. The term meant "ancient scripture" but people had incorrectly interpreted it to mean "Holy Scripture," thus spreading the myth that common law came from the Bible. Jefferson writes:

"And Blackstone repeats, in the words of Sir Matthew Hale, that 'Christianity is part of the laws of England,' citing Ventris and Strange ubi surpa. 4. Blackst. 59. Lord Mansfield qualifies it a little by saying that 'The essential principles of revealed religion are part of the common law." In the case of the Chamberlain of London v. Evans, 1767. But he cites no authority, and leaves us at our peril to find out what, in the opinion of the judge, and according to the measure of his foot or his faith, are those essential principles of revealed religion obligatory on us as a part of the common law."

Thus we find this string of authorities, when examined to the beginning, all hanging on the same hook, a perverted expression of Priscot's, or on one another, or nobody."

http://www.nobeliefs.com/Tripoli.htm

It's a little something called the separation of church and state...

@ WE, We'll certainly see, won't we? I feel very confident in my position ... and it sounds like you do as well. But if I'm right, you're in a world of hurt. If you are, well .... we're all in the same boat. For me, I trust Jesus Christ.

By the way, your comments on Jesus are completely insane. Hardened our heart, have we?

Richod, so you really want to pull out the ol' Pascal's Wager? Here's something I like to call the Atheist's Wager:

Consider living your life dedicated to helping others and reducing the amount suffering in the world. Do this without any belief in or regard for the existence of a god.

If you are correct you lose nothing, but have greatly helped those around you and will be remembered fondly.

If you are wrong, a benevolent god will judge you on the merits of your life and reward you for it. In fact he may be more inclined to reward you since you lived your good life without expecting one.

But if God requires belief, the response is simple: Then he can no longer be describes with words like “benevolent” and “just”. The God being discussed can now only be described with words like “vain” and “cruel”. Even if God required both a good life andbelief he will still choose to punish a good person for his own vanity.

This doesn't even take into account the amount of time, money, and energy wasted on participating in a religion. Or the fact that there are literally 1000's of Gods to believe in, and believing in 1 typically excludes them from being "saved" by the other Gods.

No, this is what the options truly are:

Belief:

(true): You go to heaven

(false): You have wasted your one and only life.

No Belief:

(true): You have lived a rich full life

(false): A truly benevolent and just God still accepts you into Heaven. Any God that does not allow you into Heaven is not worth spending an eternity with.

@madd dogg,

There's only way anyone will be saved ... through faith in the birth, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. No one will "earn" it by good works.

My one and only life has only just begun, and it's definitely NOT a waste. Jesus Christ defeated death at the cross, and I WILL go to heaven. Not of my own doing, but of Christ.

Our truly benevolent and just God has sent His Son to die in your place, if only you'll accept Him. It's up to you.

@ WE, We'll certainly see, won't we? I feel very confident in my position ... and it sounds like you do as well. But if I'm right, you're in a world of hurt. If you are, well .... we're all in the same boat. For me, I trust Jesus Christ.

Cool thing is... There is no Hell either

There's only way anyone will be saved ... through faith in the birth, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. No one will "earn" it by good works.

Wow, what a small petty god you believe in, to leave all those starving kids in Africa out of heaven simply because they never heard of this guy jesus, no matter how good they lived their short miserable lives...

Our truly benevolent and just God has sent His Son to die in your place

There is NOTHING benevolent about a god who lets the vast MAJORITY of all the humans he supposedly created burn in hell because they didn't bow to a fictitious man who never even existed...

and I WILL go to heaven

Pretty sure only jesus judges and pride is a sin...good luck, but then again lucky for you there is no hell either.

So wait, let me get this right. This "benevolent" and "just" God is willing to let me spend eternity in hell? What about Bill Gates? The man who has donated over $25 billion to helping people in Africa, significantly decreasing the AIDS epidemic, preventing starvation, and increasing literacy? All because we don't "believe"?

Think of a family member of yours. Is there ANYTHING they could possibly do that you would want them to spend just 1 day in hell? How about 1 week, or 1 month, or 1 year? How can you say you honestly love someone if you think they deserve to go to hell? And if your love for someone prevents you from wanting them to go to hell, what does that say about a supposed God that "loves" everyone but is more than willing to let people spend an eternity in hell?

But according to you, all it takes to get into Heaven is "faith in the birth, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. No one will "earn" it by good works." What kind of Heaven is that? And what kind of God is that? What kind of God is willing to let good, honest, and caring people spend an eternity in hell for not believing in him? What kind of God won't let children who are too young to understand religion into Heaven? What kind of God let billions of people live their entire lives before Jesus was born, and then proceeded to let billions of other people live their entire lives in areas that had no knowledge of Jesus?

I'm sorry, but the God you are describing does not sound benevolent and just. He sounds like an @!$%#. Someone who is so wrapped up in their self worth that they allow good people to suffer because of their vain ego. That does not sound like a person I want to spend an eternity with.

There is no way that this supposed God is as powerful as you say he is, as loving as you say he is, and as mean as you say he is.

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.

Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.

Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?

Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

-Epicurus

It's a HOLY God, madd dogg. He cannot tolerate sin, and we ALL sin. The result of sin is death (separation from God), and we cannot earn redemption of those sins by good works. Redemption requires sinlessness or death. Jesus Christ provided both ... but He conquered death, and offers His redemption by faith. It's truly YOUR decision if you prefer sin or prefer salvation. Good works are something that certainly should follow conversion, but it doesn't save you.

My comment that I'm going to heaven was not pride, but assurance. I don't deserve salvation, but I have been given it by He who is sinless and died for me.

He is able, but let's us live the results of our own decisions. If He intervened constantly, you'd be screaming that He's not really giving you free choice.

And I prefer the wisdom of God than the "wisdom" of man.

"Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is heaven will enter. Many will say to Me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophecy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?' And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness.'" Matt 7:21-23

Pointing to one's own actions and deeds is lawless and evil, even while doing such actions in the name of Jesus.

Pointing to Jesus and His righteousness and accepting His gift bought by His sacrifice is the only way.

Your atheist's wager and the following argument doesn't even make sense in regards to the words of Jesus.

But do you really have free choice? What about those people born in areas that do not practice Christianity? What about the remote villages in Africa, South America, and Asia that have never been exposed to Christianity? Do they REALLY have free will? Are they really being given the choice to freely decide whether or not to follow a Christian God?

And what about people like me? Your religion claims that God made me just the way I am, but that means he specifically made me skeptical. He specifically made me into a person that would reject religion and belief. So he specifically made me into a person that would reject his teachings and ignore the rules to salvation. He KNEW before he created me that the only way to make me believe in him was through fear of hell, which makes that free will more an illusion. That's not free will, that's coercion!

Would you let your 5 year eat nothing but candy? No you wouldn't, because the negative consequences of someone eating nothing but candy far outweighs their free choice. You love your child so much that their safety, their future, their well-being trump their freedom of choice in this instance. And that's something as insignificant as their stomach/teeth/blood sugar.

I suggest you look at the following logical argument, known as Dan Barker's argument:

1. God is defined as a personal being who knows everything.

2. Personal beings have free will.

3. In order to have free will, you must have more than one option, each of which is avoidable. This means that before you make a choice, there must be a state of uncertainty during a period of potential: you cannot know the future. Even if you think you can predict your decision, if you claim to have free will, you must admit the potential (if not the desire) to change your mind before the decision is final.

4. A being who knows everything can have no "state of uncertainty". It knows its choices in advance.

5. A being that knows its choices in advance has no potential to avoid its choices, and therefore lacks free will.

6. Since a being that lacks free will is not a personal being, a personal being who knows everything cannot exist.

7. Therefore, a personal God does not exist.

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.

Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.

Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?

Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

-Epicurus

"What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patients vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory, even us, whom He also called not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles. Rom 9:22-24

In other words God allows evil so He can save a remnant out of love and mercy. Epicurus left out of His argument a few things (love/mercy/righteousness/justice).

Thankful,

You have now opened Pandora's box. There is no selective use of Bible quotes. By validating 1 claim, you are validating all the claims in the book. So everything I post below this is with respect to this new validation.

What kind of a God is that?

That quote uses the word "lawlessness". I completely reject how that "God" is using that word. Who does he think he is? He thinks he can sit there and dictate laws about committing genocide, the protocol for owning slaves, and raping women and children and call ME lawless? You expect me to believe that he actually contributed to the writing of those books and allowed them to put in all those disgusting passages? By doing that, he allowed millions of evil actions to take place. And he wants to call ME lawless?!

I spend my life teaching the ignorant, feeding the hungry, helping the poor, and loving my family. If you want to call me "lawless" after all of that because I won't jump through your hoops, then I want nothing to do with you. If God can truly look at all of that and call someone "lawless", then he has no concept of what lawless truly is.

I'm sorry, but that doesn't make any sense.

There is no logical argument for why someone should be tortured for eternity.

When I see parents caring for children, I see them removing some of the child's free will to protect the child. When I see adults taking care of their parents that are losing their mental capabilities, I see them removing some fo the parent's free will to protect the parent. These are the people we love most in our world.

If you truly love someone, you wouldn't let them spend an eternity in hell.

Only a fool would follow the "Dan Barker Argument". Too tired to go through it all, but madd dogg, in spite of all the good things you do (and I commend you for those good acts), you are STILL a sinner, and God cannot accept sin. So you're left with two options. God gives you a "get out of Hell free" option in Jesus Christ, or you can try to make it on your own .... in all your "good works". But God's Word is clear that No one comes to God the Father, except through Jesus Christ.

As far as Hell is concerned, God does give you an option. If you end up in Hell, it was your decision to reject Christ that sent you there. He has already paid for your sins if you only accept Him.

If you're still not interested in a God like that and want nothing to do with Him .... you will get your way.

QUOTE:

I suggest you look at the following logical argument, known as Dan Barker's argument:

1. God is defined as a personal being who knows everything.

2. Personal beings have free will.

3. In order to have free will, you must have more than one option, each of which is avoidable. This means that before you make a choice, there must be a state of uncertainty during a period of potential: you cannot know the future. Even if you think you can predict your decision, if you claim to have free will, you must admit the potential (if not the desire) to change your mind before the decision is final.

4. A being who knows everything can have no "state of uncertainty". It knows its choices in advance.

5. A being that knows its choices in advance has no potential to avoid its choices, and therefore lacks free will.

6. Since a being that lacks free will is not a personal being, a personal being who knows everything cannot exist.

7. Therefore, a personal God does not exist.

END QUOTE

These arguments all make the same fallacy (highlighted above). Knowing does not equate to no other option.

Example: If a person knows everything about a past action, that does not exclude choices or will. If an American Civil War historian knew every little detail about what occured in a battle, down to the microscopic level of every combatant, his knowing what happened does not exclude any choices made in the battle. Knowledge of what happened does not erase the other possibilities of choices that did not happen.

Future knowledge works in the same way as it is history to the knower.

History: It happened, because that is what was chosen.

Future knowledge: It happened, because that is what was chosen.

Applied future knowledge: It will happen, because that is what will be chosen.

At (time 1) X chose Y.

At (time 1) X chose Y and Z at (time a) knows/knew X chose Y.

Pointing to the latter half of the premise says nothing about X chose Y, except for when Z knows/knew the choice.

Knowledge and different points of time does not equate to lack of choice. 'Knowledge of' is only descriptive, not postcriptive.

"As far as Hell is concerned, God does give you an option. If you end up in Hell, it was your decision to reject Christ that sent you there. He has already paid for your sins if you only accept Him."

How is that free will? Free will is "the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion." And how is that ultimatum free will?

That's not free will. That's coercion. If someone is holding a gun to your head telling you to give them your wallet, is he really giving you free will?

And Thankful, that is a false analogy. That historian had no control over the people in the Civil War. God supposedly created all of us. That means he had control over who we are, how we think, and how we feel. In essence, he was in control over every mechanism people use to make decisions. If that historian had never studied the Civil War, the Civil War would have still happened. But if God had never created us, we would never be here (supposedly).

What a silly argument. Are you saying it's not your free will whether to obey (or not) traffic laws, for example? There IS a consequence if you don't follow them. But it's asinine to argue that you don't have free will. You certainly are a perfect example of free will .... you're consciously choosing to reject God. I'm choosing the other option - to embrace God and humble myself before Him.

Actually the analogy is fine. And your response shows my critique was spot on. You pointed to God and creation for why choices are made and NOT time and knowledge. In other words you pointed to the first part of the premise and not the second part, the very thing I pointed out. Knowledge of a choice at a certain time says nothing about the choice itself.

As for God and creation, do not confuse God's creation with creation corrupted.

"Do not love the world nor the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the boastful pride of life, is not from the Father, but is from the world." 1 John 2:15,16

Corruption has "control over who we are, how we think, and how we feel".

My analogy stands.

Yes, Richod, that is exactly what I am saying. If you want to see free will, remove consequences from decisions. Free will is something like choosing between vanilla and chocolate ice cream. There is no external factor forcing you to decide one way. It is purely up to you. That is free will.

No one ever "chooses" to believe in something. You believe in something when you are convinced. When you are a child, you believe in your parents because they provide for you. You obviously believe in religion because SOMETHING in the religion convinced you it was true. I personally have seen no proof that it is true. All it would take to have me "choose" to believe in God is a little proof, but for some odd reason sending me to an eternity in hell is a better option than providing proof.

And how bout we stop talking about the free will of men and talk about the free will of God. He is free to do as he sees fit. If he wanted to, he could change the rules. He could allow good people like me into Heaven. He could change what sins are. But he doesn't.

Thankful, your analogy does not stand. Your entire premise centers around Z having no impact on X. My claim is that Z created everything about X. And that includes how X thinks and feels. That includes every aspect of X that leads to X making decisions. In essence, X is an extension of Z; everything about X has been designed by Z. Therefore, everything X decides is an extension of Z.

There is no logical argument for a loving God who is willing to let billions of people spend eternity in hell. Either he does not care or unable to change the rules. Or the premise of belief is wrong. Or the premise of God itself is wrong.

Anyway, it was nice having this chat, but I'm going to bed now. As a parting thought, I'd like to just quickly redirect this conversation back to my original post: America was clearly founded separate from religion and has successfully operated for 250+ years with that firm separation. Many European countries spent hundreds of years fighting wars over religion, but America has mostly avoided that needless violence because of that firm separation. Let's just all try to keep religion out of politics and politics out of religion. I think we'd all get along better that way.

Thank you, Madd Dawg, heroic Defender of the Faithless. I'm glad I slept a little later than usual, so I could allow your eloquence and logic to speak for me. I too tire of parrying religionists' arguments. . .

Mad dawg needs to get a life! You seem very long winded too! Do you think anyone really cares what you think? NOT! Waisting your breath except for the people that think its funny to pull your chain and argue! Have fun! hahaha

Thankful and Richod have no actual reasoned response, they have old, often contradicting quotes from a series of books originally written hundreds and sometimes thousands of years after the events described, and re-written for hundreds of years afterwards by a priest class that had 100% control over all writing and reading of those texts. Those Priest classes whole point of existence and source of wealth for many hundreds of years was dependent on getting as many people as possible to show up and give them money to listen to them read a book that only they could read from.

Now off the top of your heads, how many "preachers" have been caught lying, cheating and stealing (not to mention much, much worse) from there flock in the last 20 years?

If I wanted your money, one way is to tell you that you must listen to me and only me and give me 10% of everything you get or you'll regret it forever. Legally that's called blackmail, and when done by a large group, it's racketeering, but if you call it a religion, you're good to go.

I live my life much like Madd-Dawg and I can't agree with him more, if your god is so petty and cruel, hell is probably preferable.

@WE the Corporations

We know, and we pity you for it. BTW, your jesus son of god was an Egyptian story 2,000 years before jesus was invented (there is no proof he actually existed), but whatever stay unchanged

Actually, Historically both in secular and biblical cannons, Jesus of Nazareth, Jesus the CHRISTOS exsisted. Check with most Atheists, and Agnostics, do a little research beyond our own language, some of the greek writers, and there were more than a few. (Most Atheist just question the divinity). He was written about after death by a few scholars of ROME as well as the disciples that followed.

Welcome To This World

This is what Christianity teaches.

(false): A truly benevolent and just God still accepts you into Heaven. Any God that does not allow you into Heaven is not worth spending an eternity with.

You completely ignore that a truly loving being also practices justice. If your father was murdered, would you not want to see the criminal who killed him to come to justice? Of course you would. Justice isn't wrong. Any person who commits a crime should be punished.

So no, God will not accept unrepentant sinners into heaven. That is, actually, the entire reason for the need for Jesus to come to earth. The justice of your wrongdoing is no longer on you--Jesus has offered to take the punishment for you. The price you pay for escaping your punishment is that you must choose to admit you are wrong and that you need him. It's easy enough to do if you have no pride in your heart. Sadly, most people want to say they can live a good life and do it all on their own. And the life time that you get is your opportunity to prove that. Without even know who you are, I know you have already failed, because we all carry the same desire to selfishly protect ourselves, even at the expense of others. I've done it too.

The choice is yours: dig into the facts to find the truth, or to ignore it and choose to face the punishment on your own.

Have you heard of something called "ear worms"? They are the term now used to describe how songs work their way into your head and you can't get it back out. Mark 9 describes hell as the place where "the worm does not die, and the fire is never quenched." We don't know exactly what hell would be other than you suffer, but I think the worm is nagging regret about rejecting the knowledge of the truth, and it never leaves you.

We know, and we pity you for it. BTW, your jesus son of god was an Egyptian story 2,000 years before jesus was invented (there is no proof he actually existed), but whatever stay unchanged

I honestly can't believe this viewpoint is still being spouted. If you want to live a life that rejects God, go ahead. But for people to deny the existence of Jesus of Nazareth on this earth is unreal to me. Proof of his existence has been documented by non-secular archaeological and historical sources conclusively. It's not even a debate in scientific circles anymore. This stuff only gets passed from person to person by people who never actually dug into the proof themselves.

Historically both in secular and biblical cannons, Jesus of Nazareth, Jesus the CHRISTOS exsisted

No he didn't. The earliest know historically proven mention of jesus was 100 years AFTER his death...so no, there is still no proof other than multiple middle eastern stories about a son of a god (hercules, osiris, etc...) who died to save man and become a full god.

Proof of his existence has been documented by non-secular archaeological and historical sources conclusively.

No it hasn't, not even a little bit. There is not a single writing or shred of evidence that is contemporary to jesus, all are stories written down decades later, sometimes centuries. It is amazing to me that people don't know that, but you have faith so it shouldn't matter right?

But again, believe whatever you want, just don't pretend it is factual its insulting to those of us who evolved a brain.

It's not even a debate in scientific circles anymore

We know, debates require evidence, and there is NONE that jesus ever existed.

We the corporations - you are obviously an angry, angry person. If you want to reject Jesus and Christianity, then that is your belief and your right. It doesn't make believers stupid - we've evolved brains too. I'm sad for people like you.....

We the corporations - you are obviously an angry, angry person.

Actually, no anger at all

It doesn't make believers stupid

Well not stupid, but something, and the more people use the brain they evolved the less religious we become and THAT is good news. Someday we as a people will stop believing in stuff just like we did as kids, no tooth fairy, no easter bunny, no santa claus, no jesus. I know its scary, but you may just have to live your life without the blanky of belief

Standing against homosexuality is not hate, so we don't accept your label.

Richod, I disagree with that, but I'll even give you that one.

Would you consider supporting the oppression and denial of a homosexual's civil and Constitutional rights hateful ?

Because that's what most of the groups that Mr. Cathy support do, introduce anti-homosexual legislation into different levels of state and federal government. Like the gays or not, that's just anti-American and hateful to deny a person, (because like or not they ARE human beings) liberty and basic civil rights.

Wow Richod, your posts are fun !

There's only way anyone will be saved ... through faith in the birth, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. No one will "earn" it by good works.

That's a little arrogant of your god and his son Jesus, to only accept you into eternal bliss if you spend your life worshipping them ?!?!? You can live a good, loving, giving and full life, but if you don't believe and "kiss the rings" of these two I'm going to hell ?!?!?

I want nothing to do with ANY of that then.

My one and only life has only just begun, and it's definitely NOT a waste. Jesus Christ defeated death at the cross, and I WILL go to heaven. Not of my own doing, but of Christ.

Our truly benevolent and just God has sent His Son to die in your place, if only you'll accept Him. It's up to you.

I'm glad you left the adjective 'wise' out of your description of god. I would think if he's wise and all powerful he wouldn't have minded waiting a few thousand years to send his son, since the Earth has been here millions of years and he's just recently decided to send Jesus. If he had waited until say, last week, to send him we could record and document it properly to spread the word for the remainder of eternity, no ?

Seems like the right place in the discussion to interject this:

http://theoatmeal.com/comics/religion

It's a comic, but dead on in most aspects, imo...

I'm glad you left the adjective 'wise' out of your description of god. I would think if he's wise and all powerful he wouldn't have minded waiting a few thousand years to send his son, since the Earth has been here millions of years and he's just recently decided to send Jesus. If he had waited until say, last week, to send him we could record and document it properly to spread the word for the remainder of eternity, no

The amusing part is, if his son showed up in human form today with that message, almost everyone on the planet would assume he was crazy and either ignore him or put him in a mental hospital. Even Christians would think he was some crazy homeless drunk just trying to get attention. But put those stories in a book written hundreds of years ago in a time when people were far less educated than most of us in the U.S. are today, and voila, it must be real.

@Rochad: Are you sure there's no way to heaven but throught Christ? I know it says that in Galatians 2:16 but it also says this:

For we must all appear before the jugment seat of Christ, that each
one may receive the things done in the body, according to what he has done,
whether good or bad. -- 2 Corinthians
5:10

...and it says this:

For the Son of Man will come in the glory of His Father with His
angels, and then He will reward each according to his works. -- Matthew
16.27

...and this:

When the wicked man turneth away from his wickedness ... and doeth
that which is lawful and right, he shall save his soul. -- Ezekiel
18:27

...and this:

Who will render to each one according to his deeds. ... For not the
hearers of the law are just in the sight of God, but the doers of the law will
be justified. -- Romans
2:6, 13

...and this:

Whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved. -- Acts 2:21, Romans 10:13

...and this:

Whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will
liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock. -- Matthew 7:24

...and this is only a small selection of the various and sundry ways you can be "saved" that are listed in the bible. So, which one is the "right" one? The one about doing Christs wok? The one about just saying his name? The one about following the law? I'm confused by this. There's so many to choose from.

Oh, and as for the "benevolent God" argument - I like to point to two great scriptures:

God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
That they all might be damned. -- 2 Thessalonians
2:11-12

Kinda mean, don't you think? That God would deliberatly trick people into not believing in him and then punish them for it.
And one of my personal favorites:

2 Sam 12:15 And Nathan departed unto his house. And the LORD struck the child that Uriah's wife bare unto David, and it was very sick.
2 Sam 12:18 And it came to pass on the seventh
day, that the child died...

Wow, what a benevolent God.

I doubt that very few toy companies would like to have their products associated with a topic so divisive. Most companies are in business to make money and alienating one side or the other with politically charges positions is not what is best for their bottom line.

Do the Tele-tubbies market figurines?

Tele-tubbies are very pro-gay marriage. They even mascot gay events... (and they are British)

I love it .... conservative christians always couch their un-Christ like behaviours and beliefs behind Old Testament morality. Shoot, you folks would probably have been all over the Biblical righteousness of slavery 100 years ago. Things sure don't change much in some backwoods quarters, do they?

Andrew, Which behavior exactly are you describing as un-Christ like? And if you're speaking of homosexuality, there are plenty of verses discussing it in the New Testament.

I agree Ed!

What about women who sleep together Tarzan? Or does that actually appeal to you?

and I am buying more KFC. It's nice to know I can enjoy a meal that was not served with HATE.

Hey Tarzan.... I wish you would eat a dozen of them sandwiches daily. Good for their business and your arteries. Stupid stuff eventually catches up to us all.

Good luck with yours.

What's a "Chick-fil-A" anyway? Chicken sandwich? Like that Southern Style thing McD has (not bad - yes the pickle thing works).?

Taking a divisive stand is bad for business no matter how you slice it. Its not that Christians shouldn't hold thier beliefs, its just that they shouldn't advocate policies that force thier beliefs on others. It's un-American.

I think I'd prefer a burger from Kidd Valley or Dicks...

Its about time: yea, no haters at KFC LOL And Patrook, do you live under a rock?

uknownance - I live in the pacific northwest. My nearest Chick-fil-a is 407.5 miles away at Boise State University (according to the store locator).

I suppose they are yummy, but not drive-for-8-hrs yummy.

So you don't want the liberal media and Hollywood telling you what to believe? Well I don't want someone who believes in a 2000 year old book that has been rewritten multiple times by man telling me what to believe.

And you don't want businesses to be told what they can and can not do well I don't want individuals told what they can and can not do and that is exactly what the Republicans and religious right try to do. Just because it isn't what you believe doesn't mean everyone has to follow.

The Bible may be a great way to live your life, but it isn't for everyone and it is definitely not the way to run a FREE country. A country that is built on the idea of religious freedom. But the only religious freedom I see is the freedom to be Christian.

Anyone who thinks that their way is the only way is the one with the problem. A true free society lets all people be who they want to be and not held to one ideal. This is why the founding fathers of this country demand separation of Church and State. So one religion wouldn't start to impose its beliefs on the greater population.

Standing in the way of another group or individuals right to something is nothing but hate and bigotry no mater which way you look at it.

@BigNick, What are you talking about??? Have you ever seen how many different kinds of churches there are in America? And you certainly have the right to be an atheist, or to believe in the tooth fairy. Our right to freedom of religion means freedom to worship your God, or to deny Him if you so choose.

"Standing in the way of another group or individual's right to something is nothing but hate ..." So Big Nick, are you for legalizing plural marriage, prostitution, bestiality, pediphilism, etc? We don't want to stand in their way!

or to believe in the tooth fairy.

I am glad you equate believing in god to believing in the tooth fairy. There is actually more proof that the tooth fairy exists than god and its good you are starting to see that.

Steven100

Can you make sure you turn off your computer too? Microsoft and Apple both support gay marriage. So if you don't want the 'liberals' as you call them influencing you, stop using it immediately. Oh, and stop going to Starbucks, do not buy Levis, stay away from any product from Proctor and Gamble, watch the food you eat (General Mills), I wouldn't fly on American Airlines or Delta Airlines, and Oh.. I almost forgot, IBM is a huge supporter as well.

In short, there probably isn't one product that you use everyday that isn't MADE by a US Corporation that supports GAY Marriage :-). Maybe you can move to Iran.

P.S 53% (Majority) of Americans now support Gay Marriage.

@We, Actually, I was thinking of those like YOU when I said that. Your stubbornness and hardness of heart has blinded you, and you're actually proud of yourself. I pity you.

As for me, my trust is wholly in Jesus Christ. You hate that, don't you! :)

@Richod.... I believe an atheist or agnostic has a higher understanding of morality than you guys do. In your fanatical approach to the Old Testament you've forgotten Christ's message. You don't know whether to be Jewish or Christian and are taking the worst of both to suit an agenda. THAT is pitiful.

You hate that, don't you! :)

Nope, pity it really, sort of sad like a 12 year old who still believes in Santa Claus despite having no proof whatsoever... oh well, whatever makes you feel safe and cuddly.

I have the Holy Spirit in me ... something that proves my salvation. This is something you don't know about, so you can't understand - but I hope someday you will. And I DO feel safe and cuddly!

@ Andrew, You're right ... I AM fanatical when it comes to trying to follow God's Word. I'll take that over man's wisdom any day.

Richod

Just remember.. your beliefs in god are not equal to the secular laws of the United States. Amendment #1 prohibits the establishment of any religion and god is mentioned anywhere in the Constitution.

P.S. Can you point out the specific phrase in the bible that says god is against 'gay marriage'.

Amendment #1 prohibits the establishment of any religion and god is mentioned anywhere in the Constitution.

I suggest you re-read the actual constitution. Here is Amendment #1: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." You don't have to take my word for it, here's a source: #Original_text

The first amendment specifically states that the federal government is not permitted to stop anyone from establishing a religion, or from freely expressing their beliefs therein.

I suggest YOU read the actual Constitution and study constitutional law. You can start by also reading SCOTUS rulings on separationof church and state", and the influence of the 1st Amendment and Declaration of Independence as well.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/church-state/decisions.html

P.S. Christanity is not nor will it EVER be the official religion of the United States of America. It has no place in our secular laws.

To answer your question Steven100,

It is not a crime to express your ideals and to run a private business the way you want to. So why are they being treated like criminals?

Because the donations go to groups that introduce anti-homosexual legislation on state and federal levels of government. Not quite criminal, but very hateful and biased, against basic civil and Constitutional rights. Religion has no place in those forums.

Your point? I have read the constitution many times. I am well aware that the government is prohibited from forcing any religious beliefs on anyone. However, I am also aware that the government is likewise prohibited from stopping anyone from those same beliefs. What the first amendment states regarding religion is that 1. Government cannot establish an "official" religion, and 2. Government cannot stop us, on our own time, from establishing/practicing whatever religion we choose.

As for your PS, I never said anything about any "official" religion. But no place in secular laws? That's a bit of a stretch, don't you think? "Thou shalt not steal, etc."

But no place in secular laws?

That is correct. you know, that whole separation of church and state thing.

That's a bit of a stretch, don't you think? "Thou shalt not steal, etc."

Not stealing was codefied into law long before the bible was written, nor is it unique or exclusive to religion.

Government cannot stop us, on our own time, from establishing/practicing whatever religion we choose.

Not entirely true. Religious practice can be impeded by the government if that practice violates the law.

I AM fanatical when it comes to trying to follow God's Word.

Key word (and red flag) here is "fanatical."

It seems there are some issues with comprehension here. Allow me to assist with finding the key words.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

The words in bold are the key words. No law means exactly that - the government is not permitted to pass laws about what religions can and cannot be established.

Free is the other important key word, which, in this context, says this:

1. The government cannot tell you what religious belief you must have, or what religion you must follow.
2. The government cannot stop you from worshiping as you see fit.
3. I cannot make you believe what I believe.
4. You cannot stop me from believing what I believe.

What the government can do is pass laws that protect the rights of others. If any group (religious or otherwise) imprisons someone against their will, that practice can be impeded by the government. That's not a religious practice, that's a felony. So the whole violation of the law part of your argument is comparing apples to baseballs.

Not stealing was codefied into law long before the bible was written, nor is it unique or exclusive to religion

That's a chicken-or-egg argument, one that we could debate until we're both purple in the face without either side bending.

That's a chicken-or-egg argument, one that we could debate until we're both purple in the face without either side bending.

The point being that it's a law that is not based on or entirely based in religion, especially where the bible is concerned.

Everyone has the right to practice whatever religion they choose. What they do not have a right to do is use religious principles to govern. If you don't like gay marriage then don't get one and keep them out of your church, but to introduce theologically-based legislature to prevent non-believers from sinning against the Christian God is clearly an overreach.

Government cannot stop us, on our own time, from establishing/practicing whatever religion we choose.

Really? Tell that to the Rastafarians. I'm sure they will tell you how fair it is that the Christians can give children alcohol but they can't follow their beliefs. Why are the Christians allowed to perform their sacraments but the Rastas aren't?

The law is SUPPOSED to protect against such discrimination, but in practice it doesn't always happen.

@Wall of J

Not stealing was codefied into law long before the bible was written, nor is it unique or exclusive to religion

That's a chicken-or-egg argument, one that we could debate until we're both purple in the face without either side bending.

Actually, that's not a chicken-or-egg argument. The oldest recorded code would be the Code of Ur-Nammu which states that stealing is punishable by death. Now, I'm not arguing that it is right or wrong, only that it exists and has been dated to 2100 B.C.

Since the oldst known New Testament scipt is the Codex Vercellensis from around 350 A.D. there's not much hope for this being a chicken-or-egg argument.

just don't be a fool:

live by the Golden Rule.

I am really tired of ignorant people calling something they do not understand a "sick sexual perversion"...just saying.

I'm pretty sure they are really sick of dil-holes like you as well. See how that works? I call you names and disrespect you, and now you don't like me. Weird stuff, I know.

But it IS a sick sexual perversion.

you most likely think oral sex is pervsion too don't you?

If it's not within the biblical marriage of one man and one wife, yes.

Even if it is between "one man and one wife," the bible still considers oral sex to be the sin of sodomy.

How so, Toasty? Prove that to me.

Sadly, Richod, just because you say it is so doesn't mean it is. Though, if you want to play that game I could just as easily call you a liar, hypocrite, rabble rouser and baby eater.

On what basis could you do that, aardvark?

Put your bibles down. They are inhibiting your ability to think openly and freely. The highly religious boggle my mind. The story of christ was around before christ to include the virgin birth and resurrection. Pick up a book other than the bible and educate yourself on the history of man based on evidence.

But it IS a sick sexual perversion.

Merely your opinion and one which the APA disagrees with!

If it's not within the biblical marriage of one man and one wife, yes.

What a boring sex life you must have. And also just your opinion.

The story of christ was around before christ to include the virgin birth and resurrection.

Indeed. It's borrowed from the Egyptian story of Horus.

Richod, any sex that isn't missionary, penetrative, ejaculative intercourse between a man and a woman is sodomy. Oral sex? Sodomy. Foreplay? Sodomy. Doggy style? Sodomy.

There is something I don't understand about this whole Gay Marriage thing.Why is it whenever someone says we don't believe in Gay marriage because, it is against their religious beliefs, they are called names, they are disciminated against,Don't bring your store to my town", you cant be Miss America,etc,etc. The excuse the Liberal pro gay anti God ,conservative Christian hating ,left leaning Liberals ,give for this reaction is, Christians shouldn't push their belief's on others. On the other hand though ,they push their believes on us. Every show on TV now has a gay person ,or a gay couple, their are pro gay articles in every magazine,but we are the pushy ones. can anyone spell Hypocrite!!!!!!

Coral Taxi wrote "Chic- fil- a has been closed on Sundays because of their religous affiliation since opening, does it surprise anyone they are not for gay marriage?"

Do you have a problem with businesses closed due to religious observation ? Call up BH Photo, the premiere photo/video/audio brick&mortar and mail order business, and ask them why they are closed for every holiday observed by Orthodox Jews, because, well, they are Orthodox Jews. Perhaps you should boycott them as well because you can't buy or place an order for your Nikon every few weeks.

@ Ian;

Do you have a problem with businesses closed due to religious observation ?

Umm no.

I might eat at chic fil a twice a year, I was just making a point that it is no secret they are a Christian oriented business, so it should not be a surprise they are against gay marriage. Call up BH photo? Who the hell is BH photo.lol

Your attack is very misguided sir. I could care less when chic fil a is open or closed.lol

That's easy Joe. The reason that companies like Chik-fil-A are getting all the bad press is because they are funding groups that are seeking to block rights of fellow citizens.

Does the company's owners have a right to their beliefs? Absolutely. But once they take those beliefs and seek to impose their ideology using the method of restricting the rights of others they're reveal themselves to not only be bigots, but unethical and bluntly un-American.

Now at this point the typical response from the Right is "But by allowing people equality you're forcing your beliefs up me!" Here's the difference. You are still free to practice your religion and beliefs as you see fit. You are not being forced to do, or not do anything. Gays unfortunately can't make the same claim. They are being legally barred from enjoying the rites enjoyed by the majority of citizens.

So I'm sorry but there is no hypocrisy here. Bigots don't get to protest disapproval of their bigotry.

@Bill, You're completely mistaken. Mr. Cathy was speaking to a Christian organization, and was only stating his personal beliefs. That is still acceptable in America, isn't it? He wasn't "putting them in your face" as you call it, unless you're part of that organization he was speaking to. The leftist media picked up the story and made it what it is. Chick Fil A does not discriminate, and I challenge anyone to prove otherwise. This is his own personal belief ... and America is in deep trouble if we start discriminating against people's free speech. You certainly have a right to not eat there and boycott the business, but government (such as Boston's mayor) have NO right to ban companies based on the personal beliefs of it's owner.

Unless you were reading the Biblical Recorder, Mr. Cathy didn't put them in your face. That was done by the main street media stirring up trouble. Why not investigate every Muslim business and find out what groups they donate to? I doubt you'd like what you hear.

Do you think The Muppets and The Berenstain Bears refuse to do business in Muslim countries?

WWJD? Probably urge us to drop the hate on both sides.

Apparently only the liberal view is tolerated here. I do not have an iron in this because I am the live and let leave sort. But I do notice that if you do not fall into liberal think you are not allowed an opinion.

o'really -

love how you guys always bring up the "main stream media". this story was, in fact, published correct? and it was published by someone you trust, correct? so what's to keep anyone from reporting on it? seems to me that mr. cathy might have been better off skirting the issue and none of us would be here now. but i know, you've just got to press the issue...

MSNBC might be putting it in your face..running the same basic story every other day but Mr Cathy didnt get anywhere near your face.

spock -

you might want to catch up on current events. msnbc doesn't exist anymore. microsoft and nbc disolved their business arrangement like two weeks ago. try to keep up.

btw- if you so hate what used to be msnbc, what are you doing here? why don't you just stay at fux news? oh, sorry, fux doesn't provide space for you do they?

Spock has been running around the universe, fighting the Klingons ... and missed the MSNBC change. His point is still correct though.

Bill, you sound like a drama queen.

Bill, what is the problem? He was asked a question, he answered the question honestly. It's just like the Carrie Prejean debate. She was asked a question, she answered it honestly. Both people were asked for their honest beliefs on the topic, and they stated their honest beliefs on the topic. Were they supposed to lie, or duck the question out of fear of what those who disagree with them might feel about it?

Mr. Kathy's personal view is not the issue here; the issue is that he's using his company's profits to donate to organizations that introduce anti-gay legislation. His company is guilty of funding discrimination.

And other companies fund pro gay marriage organizations. Freedom of choice. Oh yeah, Christians don't have that right.

Freedom of choice. Christians don't have that right.

On the contrary, everyone has that right (at least until anti-discrimination laws catch up). What you do not have is the right to not be criticized by those who think you are doing something wrong.

Happily, you do have the right to defend your position.

Nonsense. America is founded on religious freedom. If you are not interested in Section VII Civil Rights Act that prohibits employer discrimination based on sex, religious and race, perhaps you will be more comfortable in a Communist regime that bans religion, such as that of Soviet Russia or Communist China .

Currently, same-sex marriage (which includes the interests of the 1% homosexual population) is illegal in nearly every US state. Mr. Chik-a-fil's opinion is in accordance to marriage laws of nearly every US state, including his own, Georgia.

Same-sex marriage is illegal in nearly every US territory, including California.

Same-sex marriage is illegal in nearly every US territory, including California.

California is a state.

Your comment makes absolutely no sense. Chuck Akers was talking about making a personal choice to not spend his money at a particular business. WTH does a personal choice have to do with communism, religious freedom and the Civil Rights Act? It doesn't affect you anyway.

Chuck Akers.

I'm sure you will not be missed.

Congrats! Pat yourself on the back, buy yourself a cookie! YOU GO, GIRL!

Probably for the same reasons they won't marry each other.

I am pro-Gay/Lesbian (I am straight/hetero myself)
I believe the separation was to clarify male/female for comparative reference... Gay used to refer to males in general as females didn't become a issue the same as males... as more females made a stance the separation became more of need to define sex as opposed to context. The "group" is Homosexuals, it is broken down to Gay/Lesbian as sub-group. Much the same way that a group "Fox" is broken down to Reynard/Vixen.

gay / lesbian I think we should go back to the old name. Queers...

Oddly, according to English structure, that indicates they are NOT married to their 2nd wives but they could exist.

I'm divorced and remarried. I also identify myself with Christian beliefs. Cathy's opinion does not offend me because he is stating beliefs he values that in no way mean that he doesn't love or appreciate others. He simply states he values people who fight for a first marriage between a man and woman.

Why you choose to resent that means you have your own issues you need to work through that have nothing to do with Cathy.

He did not say anyone is a lesser person because they are divorced and remarried. People are commenting about things that simply aren't there.

He did not say anyone is a lesser person because they are divorced and remarried. People are commenting about things that simply aren't there.

Sort of. The implication is that a good Christian does not divorce, and that is a tenant of some branches of Christianity.

I'm not offended either - they're his values, not mine. Where he contributes money on behalf of the (private) company is his business. My option is not to eat there. Easy.

Then what are you whining about?

We're having some fun debate with Sodomites!

richod -

oh, so just like i thought, you are a troll...

Oh I see, good old "christian hate".

I don't hate anyone. And is Sodomite a bad word to you people???

Dave,

How is what I said be perceived as whining. I was simply saying I hope all homosexuals would boycott Chick Fil-A so the lines won't be so long. My time is valuable, so please stay away, Dave.

Richod, sodomy is any non-penile/vaginal sexual act. So if you and the wife have ever stepped out of those bounds guess what? You're a sodomite!

What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

@mrgrinch09, I agree with most of your statement. But I believe Mr. Cathy was not looking to inflame the issue with anyone, nor does he discriminate. He was merely stating his personal religious belief ... and if that is somehow not acceptable to the gay community and the leftist media, then I truly worry about the future of our country. I believe the left and the right (and the majority somewhere in the middle) should be able to speak their mind. We call that the first amendment. If people want to boycott, let them ... that's also part of free speech. But government needs to butt out.

What you don't get is that we don't give a rat's ass about his personal beliefs. If he wants to be a bigot--fine. Just keep it to himself and within his religion. But when he starts donating millions towards lobbyists and legislation to keep an entire subset of the population from being seen as equal in the eyes of the law--and a subset whose lives have absolutely zero impact on his own life and marriage--that's when we take issue.

Do you not see the irony in screaming about religious persecution and claiming that your rights are being trampled on when we do nothing more than call you a bigot or arrange a boycott, and then turning around and actively trying to keep LGBT people from having equal rights under the law? One of these two groups is actually having their rights trampled on, and it's not Christians.

Ms. Emily,

YOU might not care about his personal beliefs, but obviously someone did; that would be why the interviewer asked him.

This is just like the Carrie Prejean issue; someone asked her what her honest beliefs were on a controversial issue (the same exact one, in fact), and then there was a huge uproar when she answered honestly. This sounds like a classic case of entrapment to me.

@ PSound, Where exactly is the hate? I don't believe in the Democratic party .... does that mean I hate people that are democrats?

Hate is not a fundamental Christian value, any more than racism and segregation was.

Segregation, at least politically, mostly came from Southern Democrat Protestants: George Wallace, James Eastland, John Stennis, William Fullbright, Robert Byrd, et. al.

All these companies are on the wrong side of history.

Why? How? What is "the wrong side?" The one that's not yours?

Peccker Wood. We ARE expressing our freedom of speech. How is it different from YOUR freedom of speech? Please respond. Smells like hypocrisy to me. How about you?

Congratulations pecker, you win circular logic award of the day.

How dare you exercise your rights as a result of me exercising my rights!

After a generation or two there should be no queers left 'cuz they can't reproduce. Just look back at the Shakers. No sex and now no Shakers. Problem solved.

BM43

"After a generation or two there should be no queers left 'cuz they can't reproduce."

So straight people don't have gay children?

I name you IDIOT. Don't breed. The gene pool is obviously shallow enough.

Yeah? I wonder how many Chick Fil- A owners are married to their FIRST wife? Does Mr Cathy follow the tenets of the Bible completely? Ooops..women can not wear red! Men must not have long hair! Lets exclude these heathens from church, too! On and on and on.......................... that is my complaint with so many "Christians" they cherry pick what they want to believe and force these concepts and beliefs on others, ignoring what is written and specific in the Bible.

Yeah? I wonder how many Chick Fil- A owners are married to their FIRST wife? Does Mr Cathy follow the tenets of the Bible completely? Ooops..women can not wear red! Men must not have long hair! Lets exclude these heathens from church, too! On and on and on.......................... that is my complaint with so many "Christians" they cherry pick what they want to believe and force these concepts and beliefs on others, ignoring what is written and specific in the Bible.

Your comment reads like uneducated rambling. If you studied biblical literature, you would be aware of dispensationalism.

In short, the law (old testament Jewish rituals and requirements) do not apply to Christians.

Sadly, even most Christians are unaware of this concept.

In short, the law (old testament Jewish rituals and requirements) do not apply to Christians.

It suffers quite a bit for being overly condensed. Basically, Christ did not revoke the Law, He fulfilled it. The "rule" of the sin offering is still there, but Christ fulfilled that by giving Himself as the sin offering. This doesn't mean we stop trying to live a good life as Jesus taught us. It simply means that we recognize that we've fallen short of this, and that the only reason we have any hope of going back home to the Lord is that we have been forgiven.

Christians are NOT perfect. We are simply forgiven. That, in and of itself, doesn't make US special, it makes Christ special, as He is the only one with the authority to forgive. See how simple that is?

See how simple that is?

See how illogical that is?

I say good for them!!

I wish every homosexual would boycott Chick Fil-A. I am tired of driving to the restaurant at lunch everyday and having to go somewhere else because of the huge, huge lines. I want some of that good chicken.

Waffles fries FTW.

Funny thing, in West Hollywood, one of THE gayest communities, there's a HUGE Chick-fil-a restaurant with a double drive-thru and that place is constantly packed!!! You can't tell me it's only the 4 heteros in that area that are keeping that place bumpin! Admit it gays, YOU LOVE THEIR CHICKEN TOO!!! Hahaha!

Let's all just take a breath and agree that it's some damn tasty chicken!

I will keep eating there and supporting the place. I respect a man who stands up for his beliefs. If you don't agree, don't agree. I don't really care. But people don't need to get nasty.

It amazes me how hateful and intolerant some people can be when it comes to beliefs other than their own.

I'm gonna eat at Chick Fil A as much as possible,

Enjoy your heart attack.

eat the food, its awesome!!!

Yeah, uh, no!

Just curious, do the LGBT groups contribute to anything worthwhile?

Yes, but how is that relevant to whether LGBT Americans should be able to marry the one they love? I have a sister-in-law who's popping out babies on welfare, but she's married.

you can still go. but you have to wear a scarlet "D"

Your comment = Projection.

Chuck Akers I believe you took that wrong. He was not condemning anyone for being divorced and remarried. He was not putting anyone down. He was simply stating he is married to his one and only wife. I applaud him! I am divorced as well but for good reason, my husband abused me in every way shape and form. I wish my first marriage would have lasted for ever but it didn't. I am married to a wonderful man now.

People take offense to the least little thing these days. Lighten up.