• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Chick Fill Aye on same sex marry age

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,567
6
81
Agreed he has an opinion and he has that right. I go to his business because they make great food, not because I want his opinion in my own personal life.
So, if a fast food company announced that a major share if its profits would be donated to organizations that are working to change the U.S. Constitution to legalize slavery or repeal voting rights for women or revoke the 1st Amendment - but you really, really liked the food there - you'd continue to "go to the business because they make great food?"
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
73,397
25,185
136
Twice last week, I had a Char Grilled Chicken Garden salad from Chick-Fil-A for lunch. And the week before, I had the same for lunch twice.

But I want you to know that I can feel your pain. And I support your right to patronize other establishments.

I mean, there is always a line when I go to Chick Fil A. If only more people thought like you, I would be able to get my salad quicker.

Best of luck,
Uno
Don't cut yourself on that 3dg3, bro.
 

alzan

Diamond Member
May 21, 2003
3,860
2
0
I've had Chick Fil A once in my life and that was one time too many; greasy, salty, easily the nastiest of the fast food variety of fried chicken.

But knowing this I'll go out of my way to write as many letters as I can to the CEO & the board of directors.

To the board of directors; "It's probably not in your company's best interest for the CEO to espouse his views and piss-off a potential customer segment. Oh and your chicken is 100% crap."

To the CEO; "Stick your crucifix someplace, buddy."
 

Geosurface

Diamond Member
Mar 22, 2012
5,776
4
0
I fully support gays and gay marriage.

But not at the cost of my Chick-Fil-A, which is delicious. I don't get it often, because there are none where I live.

I could find out they were burning babies alive to fuel their ovens and I'd still get it when I could. It's too good.
 

SheHateMe

Diamond Member
Jul 21, 2012
7,251
20
81
I've eaten at Chick-Fil-A a few times. I don't really care about their stance on Gays or Marriage, they could have kept that to themselves. But, whatever. I probably won't be eating there anytime soon...not because of their stance but because Fast Food is more expensive than groceries. :(
 

slag

Lifer
Dec 14, 2000
10,473
81
91
Their values as in, trampling other people's rights? Or thinking that they know everything and have the right to decide things for other people?

You don't want gay marriage, then don't fvcking marry a gay person. If a gay person wants to get married, then they should fvcking marry a gay person. I don't see why there is ANY controversy here. It's stupid.

If your religion says "It's bad to do this", then don't fvcking do it!!!! It doesn't give you the right to decide what other people can do. As soon as you have the religion dictating the law, you live in a theocracy. I for one, do not approve of living in a theocracy.
Living in this country though gives us the right to give our opinion on right and wrong. If you don't like it, tough shit.

In other words, good for Chik Fil-A.
 
Last edited:

zsdersw

Lifer
Oct 29, 2003
10,560
2
0
Living in this country though gives us the right to give our opinion on right and wrong. If you don't like it, tough shit.

In other words, good for Chik Fil-A.
There are churches that perform gay marriage ceremonies.. and call them "marriages". They're giving their opinion on right and wrong. If you don't like it, tough shit.

PS: Your original reply was much better. I saw it, but when you changed it to this diatribe I chose to respond in kind.
 
Last edited:

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
462
126
Where did you get that from? It wasn't even true of the Hebrew patriarchs!
The Biblical/Talmudic tradition of a sanctified marriage contract between a man and a woman goes back to the Hammurabi Code. The Talmud largely altered it in prescribing divorce procedures and in expanding women's rights. (For instance, I think it's defined in the Talmud under the kiddushin that in Jewish law women have a right to sex at least twice weekly; men have no such right.) After the kiddushin, the bride was sanctified (dedicated to the groom in the eyes of G-d) but not actually married until the nissuin. However the kiddushin, being the sanctification, was sufficient to prescribe the death penalty for adultery even though the actual marriage had not yet taken place, because the sanctification had taken place and thus, adultery was an offense against G-d. (See Dueteronomy - lots o' death penalties in Dueteronomy. Also, this bound the woman and other men on pain of death, but death was generally not enforceable against the groom.) I'm sure there are Jewish people in this forum who could better explain it, but suffice it to say the Jewish tradition of sanctified marriage between a man and a woman comes from the Hammurabi Code, was somewhat modified in the Talmud, and was later modified again (combining the kiddushin and the actual marriage ceremony, which term I've forgotten but which became {I think} the nissuin) in the Middle Ages. But only a man may offer kichah, and only a woman may accept. (Note that this is NOT a bride price, but is rather a token symbolizing the contract under G-d.)

Prior to Sinai marriage was (I think) an extension of pillagesh, and if I remember correctly was divided into free women (who were married only as long as they wished to be, as they needed no grounds for "divorce") and unfree (who were basically concubines owned by the man.) Pillagesh was not a covenant with G-d, had no quantitative definition, and lineages followed the line of the father. But rulers in any case are the absolute worst place to look for traditions, since they have the power to allow themselves virtually any transgressions they so wish.

Apologies to our Jewish forumites if I've mangled any of that. And again, this is as far as I'm concerned ancient history, to be followed only as far as one wishes to follow ALL Orthodox teachings, and certainly not to be enforced on non-Jews in any case.
 

sactoking

Diamond Member
Sep 24, 2007
7,026
1,872
136
Interesting note: I don't typically watch TV but my boy does watch PBS every morning to see Wild Kratts and Arthur. Chick-fil-A is often a PBS sponsor and their message is something like "Chick-fil-A wants to help kids learn because educated, healthy kids are great." I couldn't stop myself from thinking "Yeah, unless that kid is gay, then Chick-fil-A wants them to DIAF."
 

zsdersw

Lifer
Oct 29, 2003
10,560
2
0
Interesting note: I don't typically watch TV but my boy does watch PBS every morning to see Wild Kratts and Arthur. Chick-fil-A is often a PBS sponsor and their message is something like "Chick-fil-A wants to help kids learn because educated, healthy kids are great." I couldn't stop myself from thinking "Yeah, unless that kid is gay, then Chick-fil-A wants them to DIAF."
The other ironic thing about that is "healthy". There's nothing healthy about fast-food.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
462
126
There are churches that perform gay marriage ceremonies.. and call them "marriages". They're giving their opinion on right and wrong. If you don't like it, tough shit.
There are even Mennonite churches in (I think) the Netherlands who perform gay marriages; I think I saw that on a link someone posted on Anandtech. It says a lot that people who choose to follow such a fundamentalist faith, and who are so concerned with the ministry of Jesus Christ rather than with that of his disciples and later followers, see no problem with gay marriage. (Although having never been to the Netherlands, perhaps their Mennonites are the "plain people" Anabaptists we in Tennessee are used to seeing driving their buggies. LOL) Nonetheless religion, like everything, is continually evolving, and Christianity being a religion of love (and Jesus having never spoken against homosexuals as far as we know) I expect we'll see a doubling or more of Christian sects accepting gay marriage within the next decade or so.
 

Charles Kozierok

Elite Member
May 14, 2012
6,762
0
0
The Biblical/Talmudic tradition of a sanctified marriage contract between a man and a woman goes back to the Hammurabi Code.
Don't see anything in the Code about a "sanctified marriage contract between a man and a woman". I see plenty about concubines.

Regardless, polygamy was rampant in the bible as I am sure you know. If the Code was used as a template, they sure didn't move in the right direction.

The Talmud largely altered it in prescribing divorce procedures and in expanding women's rights.
You want to bring up the Talmud, fine. But you said: "Um, marriage was defined by the Jewish faith (of which Christianity is an offshoot) as one man and one woman bound together for life by the Grace of G-d far predating the birth of Christ."

The Talmud does not predate the birth of Christ.
 

sactoking

Diamond Member
Sep 24, 2007
7,026
1,872
136
The other ironic thing about that is "healthy". There's nothing healthy about fast-food.
Chick-fil-A and Chuck E Cheese both advertise on PBS for childrens' health; they encourage kids to and their parents to be active.
 

1prophet

Diamond Member
Aug 17, 2005
5,299
511
126
Those organizations that Chick Fil A donates to don't seem to be anti-gay. They're just Christian. Christianity forbids MSM (but not WSW).

So are we now supposed to boycott every Christian organization for following their religion?

What about Muslims? Jews?

Don't worry most Americans today love to talk boycott but are too apathetic to boycott anything if it requires any sort of sacrifice or discomfort on their part,

just ask all the so called pro union, pro USA types that fill their homes with made in China junk from places like Walmart while filling their gas guzzlers with OPEC derived gas.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
462
126
Don't see anything in the Code about a "sanctified marriage contract between a man and a woman". I see plenty about concubines.

Regardless, polygamy was rampant in the bible as I am sure you know. If the Code was used as a template, they sure didn't move in the right direction.



You want to bring up the Talmud, fine. But you said: "Um, marriage was defined by the Jewish faith (of which Christianity is an offshoot) as one man and one woman bound together for life by the Grace of G-d far predating the birth of Christ."

The Talmud does not predate the birth of Christ.
True, but the Talmud is merely the codification of accepted Jewish rabbinical law, not the creation of it. That is, the Talmud is an interpretation of the Torah, the Hebrew Bible or Hebrew Old testament, those first five books of the Bible written in Hebrew and to a lesser extent in Aramaic by Jews, and those undeniably predate Christ. Even the Mishnah is not creating Jewish law, but merely setting down the arguments for prevailing (and counter) arguments over the Torah's interpretations.

If there was not already established a sanctified covenant of marriage, Dueteronomy could hardly have set down conditions for the dissolution of that covenant, no? For under pillagesh, no such conditions for divorce were necessary as it was not a covenant with G-d.

EDIT: Forgot to add, under the Hammurabi Code, if a woman could not bear children she could give her maid (with that woman's consent) to her husband. If the maid bore her mistress' husband a child, either the child would be legally the woman's child or, if the maid consented, she could continue as a "wife" to her mistress' husband. However, in that case she was considered a concubine - legally, a slave, forever bound to her new master. Thus we already had the concept of one man, one wife, albeit with some concubines and not yet with a covenant with G-d.
 
Last edited:

BurnItDwn

Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
25,740
1,240
126
Living in this country though gives us the right to give our opinion on right and wrong. If you don't like it, tough shit.

In other words, good for Chik Fil-A.

Living in this country gives us the right to give our opinion. Yes that's true! And it's a wonderful thing.

That being said, when people try to oppress others, even if they do it using legal means, it's not a good thing.
 

Pr0d1gy

Diamond Member
Jan 30, 2005
7,775
0
76
It is time for organized religion to take a backseat with regards to the future of mankind. They have done enough damage already over the last few thousand years and mankind needs to move forward with facts instead of magical fairies.
 

Charles Kozierok

Elite Member
May 14, 2012
6,762
0
0
True, but the Talmud is merely the codification of accepted Jewish rabbinical law, not the creation of it. That is, the Talmud is an interpretation of the Torah, the Hebrew Bible or Hebrew Old testament, those first five books of the Bible written in Hebrew and to a lesser extent in Aramaic by Jews, and those undeniably predate Christ. Even the Mishnah is not creating Jewish law, but merely setting down the arguments for prevailing (and counter) arguments over the Torah's interpretations.
Nice speech, but utterly irrelevant. You were trying to claim that marriage was defined by the Jewish faith, before the time of Jesus, as "one man and one woman bound together for life by the Grace of G-d".

That is bullshit. Period. Full stop.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
73,397
25,185
136
Yes, that is pretty hilarious. They're so fond of preaching that choices have consequences.. well, it's true of them too.. and their choice to proclaim their anti-gay stance has the consequence of criticism and boycotts.
I always get a chuckle out of their continuing protests that somehow Christians who have spent the last several centuries merrily oppressing/beating/killing gays at every opportunity are now cowering under siege by the power of gay people not buying chicken sandwiches.

How the mighty have fallen.
 

Charles Kozierok

Elite Member
May 14, 2012
6,762
0
0
I always get a chuckle out of their continuing protests that somehow Christians who have spent the last several centuries merrily oppressing/beating/killing gays at every opportunity are now cowering under siege by the power of gay people not buying chicken sandwiches.

How the mighty have fallen.
Not to mention that Christians are not shy about enacting their own boycotts under similar circumstances.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
73,397
25,185
136
Not to mention that Christians are not shy about enacting their own boycotts under similar circumstances.
When Christians are boycotting JC Penny they are doing it because freedom.

When gay people boycott Chick Fil A they are doing it because tyranny.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY