Chick Fil-A franchises not welcome

[Nebe]

The only people who loose are the people who did amazing things durring this current news cycle who deserve to be on the news for their triumphs, but sadly, negativity trumps positivity to the tenth power when it comes to ratings and advertising money.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

I guess I'm wondering if Chick Fillet's owner(s) were gay or something and stated that he/his/her/bi/tri company had an issue with or opposed traditional marriage on some grounds...would it be ok for a mayor or city or town to deny them a business license on that basis?.....might not go over too well in the media and certain circles(for the mayors and towns to be sure)

really don't want to start a pro/con war here but always wondered how folks that have an issue with some Christian views on marriage as being a man/woman arangement(and I'm not sure that the view is always/mostly religeous based but it's just easier to assume that if someone thinks a certain way about this issue and some others it must be because their church told them to think that way)....but for those that see gay marriage/union as "the same essentially" and natural and for all intents and purposes equal to traditional him/her marriage but also and often think of themselves as "evolutionists" and "science based thinkers", how do you square those two?...just curious

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

really don't want to start a pro/con war here but always wondered how folks that have an issue with some Christian views on marriage as being a man/woman arangement(and I'm not sure that the view is always/mostly religeous based but it's just easier to assume that if someone thinks a certain way about this issue and some others it must be because their church told them to think that way)....but for those that see gay marriage/union as "the same essentially" and natural and for all intents and purposes equal to traditional him/her marriage but also and often think of themselves as "evolutionists" and "science based thinkers", how do you square those two?...just curious

Interesting point. The answer may just be that evolution and science is irrelevant to the conversation. What's relevant is the societal opinion vector...gay people have always been there but tolerance has varied. Certainly today the trend appears to be toward tolerance and equality rather than condemnation.

-spence

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

Interesting point. The answer may just be that evolution and science is irrelevant to the conversation. What's relevant is the societal opinion vector...gay people have always been there but tolerance has varied. Certainly today the trend appears to be toward tolerance and equality rather than condemnation.

-spence

I guess it's all in how you define condemnation...no doubt that some look at it as being unacceptable but I think that many that see a clear distinction between traditional marriage and some union between other combinations( and it appears to be a majority just about everywhere) would like to trade that word tolerance (as in, you are willing to tolerate it.....perhaps grudgingly) for "acceptance" (meaning, you accept the fact that some individuals are going to be oriented this way and that they have a right to live their lives as they wish but that they also should/could accept the fact that their orientation and lifestyle is somewhat if not completely out of the norm and natural order of things from creation or when evolution began)...guess you'd have to give me your definition of "equality" as well

seems to be "conveniently" irrelevant in this discussion

societal opinion vectors ...that's a good one...be careful where you point those things

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

...but that they also should/could accept the fact that their orientation and lifestyle is somewhat if not completely out of the norm and natural order of things from creation or when evolution began)...

I'd suggest rethinking this line from a common sense perspective.

-spence