Jump to content

Chick-fil-A banned from opening at San Antonio airport, council members cite LGBTQ issues


Auburn85

Recommended Posts

14 minutes ago, homersapien said:

It's authoritarian to have a pressing need to know who  - specifically - sets the rules.

Or perhaps more accurately, a pressing need to know there is someone - specifically - who sets the rules.

Desiring to know basis on which laws or rules are made isnt authoritarian, it’s simply having a brain and thought processes that wish to go below surface level. “Who makes the rules?” Is just one part of understanding this. “What underlying principles or standards are being used to create the rules?“ Is also a reasonable question to ask. I guess I could see where it could be used in an authoritarian way, but it isn’t inextricably linked to authoritarianism. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites





  • Replies 171
  • Created
  • Last Reply
5 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Someone notify literally anyone who’s ever made a rule about anything ever. Apparently even wanting to understand the basis for which we make rules, laws or anything is “authoritarian.

That's not exactly what McLoofis said.  He said it was authoritarian to look for permission from some specific authority.

Everyone - authoritarian or not - should have a healthy curiosity about how rules are made in our culture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Guys, it’s been fun but I’ve got to sign off for now. Catch you guys tomorrow probably.

Hell, I am ready to quit for good.  We seem to go through one of these discussions every couple of years.

But I did enjoy it.  This was a great example of what this forum could and should be.  No childish gratuitous insults. (And on the "smack talk" forum, no less!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Someone notify literally anyone who’s ever made a rule about anything ever. Apparently even wanting to understand the basis for which we make rules, laws or anything is “authoritarian.

Umm... Thanks for making my point for me?

(why are we even talking about rules or laws for bros who just want to bang other bros)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Desiring to know basis on which laws or rules are made isnt authoritarian, it’s simply having a brain and thought processes that wish to go below surface level. “Who makes the rules?” Is just one part of understanding this. “What underlying principles or standards are being used to create the rules?“ Is also a reasonable question to ask. I guess I could see where it could be used in an authoritarian way, but it isn’t inextricably linked to authoritarianism. 

I said having a need to know not just a "desire" to know.

The difference being, a need to know is emotional, whereas, a simple desire to know can be simply intellectual. 

It's the difference between having the emotional comfort of knowing someone is in charge (or the discomfort of believing no one is in charge) and a curiosity of wanting to know how, and by whom, decisions are being made - i.e.: how does the system work?

Like I said, authoritarianism is not necessarily bad in all circumstances.  It's certainly preferable on a societal level to have people - or a process - that can make practical decisions (for example). 

But if it's expressed too strongly by enough people, you wind up with authoritarian, repressive governments and authoritarian repressive religions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Hell, I am ready to quit for good.  We seem to go through one of these discussions every couple of years.

But I did enjoy it.  This was a great example of what this forum could and should be.  No childish gratuitous insults.

Yeah. I probably lowered the bar on this one a little bit lol. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/11/2019 at 2:27 PM, TitanTiger said:

Like a textbook or a legal document?  No.  But it's spoken of multiple places in unmistakeable terms, not only in what is said, but in what is specifically not said.  A couple come to mind immediately:

 


 

Paul speaks of marriage and divorce in other places as well, always in the context of one man and one woman, both affirming the sacredness of the sexes involved, AND the number involved  And though polygamy was prevalent in the ancient world, never once does the Bible speak positively about the practice.  Never once amongst the many blessings surrounding marriage does God ever mention, "multiple wives" as one of the signs of His blessing.  In fact, it's hard to come away from most passages that speak of the practice with anything other than a sense that it's not God's original design, not what He created, not what He wants from people.  It invariably brings trouble and heartache anytime God's people engaged in it. 

Sex and marriage are inextricably tied together in Scripture and that is *always* reserved for - one man and one woman and *always* the context of marriage.  Everything that departs from that is considered wrong and sinful.

Now I fully agree with you that the sins of gay people are no worse than the sins of straight people.  But I disagree that the Bible doesn't give us a clear understanding of what marriage is and what it isn't.

I completely agree with you about everything you said except that Christians don't need to be defending "marriage", they need to be exhibiting God's plan, which IS a committed,sacrificial relationship between 1 man and 1 woman. I still think that "marriage" is a legal term that applies to people of all faiths and genders. God's plan doesn't have to be called marriage. In my opinion, if religious types wanted to own the word "marriage", they would have championed same-sex legal unions 10 years ago and given it a name (better than civil union) and talked about how important it is to follow the constitution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, homersapien said:

I am posting the following with all due respect and I certainly have no intent to belittle religious people.  I just think they are mistaken.

Titan - and many other Christians - is a good guy with good values - at least as far as they go - but he is an authoritarian to his very core. That is a common trait among Republicans, conservatives and the religious in general.

Not saying that's necessarily bad in all circumstances,  it's not.  But God - the ultimate authority - is the foundation of their world view.

That's exactly why Titan reverts back to instructions expressed in the literal word of the bible, which are presumably God's own words. 

And fwiw, I am not saying that "God" necessarily does not exist, In fact I suppose it's possible.  But if God exists, Nature is the manifestation of His handiwork, by definition.  (And science is the key to understanding nature.) 

As you implied, ancient manuscripts are interesting from a historical and cultural standpoint, but they have nothing to do with a potential God.  Any religion that relies on such manuscripts as a accurate indicator of what God "demands" is fatally flawed.  They were created by man and are therefore, are 'of' man. 

(This is what I meant when I referred to good values "as far as they go".  If your values ultimately rely on an ancient text written by ancient people, you are selling yourself short.)

I know this is going to cause people to react negatively - or at least with pity that I am not "saved".  That's OK and I appreciate your concern. But some of us - probably more than are willing to admit - just didn't inherent the "God gene".  

This is a REALLY great post! Thanks! If more people understood this then the world would be a much better place.

This:

"But if God exists, Nature is the manifestation of His handiwork, by definition.  (And science is the key to understanding nature.) 

As you implied, ancient manuscripts are interesting from a historical and cultural standpoint, but they have nothing to do with a potential God.  Any religion that relies on such manuscripts as a accurate indicator of what God "demands" is fatally flawed.  They were created by man and are therefore, are 'of' man. 

(This is what I meant when I referred to good values "as far as they go".  If your values ultimately rely on an ancient text written by ancient people, you are selling yourself short.)"

Awesome!

The thing that may freak you out about true Christians, though, is that they don't rely on ancient manuscripts, they rely on God Himself (or Herself if you prefer) to tell them what His will for them is. They don't believe in God--they know Him personally. Once the creator of the universe reveals Himself to a person, that person cannot possibly deny God's existence and be honest.

But, I'll stop with what you consider to be nonsense. I sincerely do appreciate your post, though!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks McLoofus and Titan and homer for your intelligent and respectful contributions late in this thread! I agree that this is how this forum should be. Interactions like this were far more common on this forum many years ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, homersapien said:

So, if you believe it actually happened, why not just say so? 

And your damn right your mind cannot imagine it.  No sane person - religious or not could entertain the notion that the myth of Noah's ark was literally true.  It's absurd on it's face.

Not sure if it was an instructive parable or a real event. Not absurd on its face. God could put the thing together. Why would you doubt it. Look at everything he created. 

Do you have any religious-based beliefs about the age of the earth?

I do not think the creation date is referenced in the Bible.

Do you think the scientific record is entirely bogus if it conflicts with the literal biblical story?

No. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, SaltyTiger said:

 

Science can already explain "everything he created".

There is no possible explanation for an ark preserving samples of every living terrestrial animal on earth.  Didn't happen.

Just admit you think God made it happen.   If you really believe in magic, you really ought to exhibit the courage of your own convictions and stop hedging.  

(OK Golf, time to cue up the Lovin' Spoonful. ;D)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, homersapien said:

Science can already explain "everything he created".

I have no problem with that statement Brother Homer. 

Some good stuff by Titan. Mcloofus, and you.  I deserved the face palm from you. Should not have interjected  when Mcloofus  bloomed his true colors.

Can science explain how God did not make it happen?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, SaltyTiger said:

I have no problem with that statement Brother Homer. 

Some good stuff by Titan. Mcloofus, and you.  I deserved the face palm from you. Should not have interjected  when Mcloofus  bloomed his true colors.

Can science explain how God did not make it happen?

No

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/13/2019 at 2:58 PM, homersapien said:

Science can already explain "everything he created".

There is no possible explanation for an ark preserving samples of every living terrestrial animal on earth.  Didn't happen.

Just admit you think God made it happen.   If you really believe in magic, you really ought to exhibit the courage of your own convictions and stop hedging.  

(OK Golf, time to cue up the Lovin' Spoonful. ;D)

Surely you can understand that if there is a God capable of intentionally creating the universe that He/She could fit all animals into any size vessel He/She chooses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Grumps said:

Surely you can understand that if there is a God capable of intentionally creating the universe that He/She could fit all animals into any size vessel He/She chooses.

There is nothing about nature - which of course includes physics - that would rationally suggest such a thing could happen.  And as I said, if there is a creator, it is reflected in the natural universe. Magic doesn't exist.

So, no, accepting the mere possibility of a creator does not require a belief or "understanding" it would violate the natural laws it created with magic. 

(BTW, I don't really believe in a creator.  But I cannot prove the lack of one.  My agnosticism is based on that logical construct, not on hope.)

But, if I am wrong and there is/was a creator, I certainly don't believe it would involve itself in the affairs of man, which I consider to be the ultimate hubris.

I realize the logical rebuttal is to propose a creator with infinite capabilities.  But that violates everything known about the universe.  I don't believe in magic. In fact, I consider such a willingness to believe in anything to be really no different that believing nothing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, homersapien said:

There is nothing about nature - which of course includes physics - that would rationally suggest such a thing could happen.  And as I said, if there is a creator, it is reflected in the natural universe. Magic doesn't exist.

I agree, but the fact that the universe exists at all defies the laws of physics. The idea of a creator is preposterous, but so is the idea that energy and matter just appeared from nothing. I am way more skeptical than most people about most things, but I have no doubt about the existence of a supernatural realm because I have experienced it.

So, no, accepting the mere possibility of a creator does not require a belief or "understanding" it would violate the natural laws it created with magic. 

Where do you think that the first energy and matter came from? What does science say about that?

(BTW, I don't really believe in a creator.  But I cannot prove the lack of one.  My agnosticism is based on that logical construct, not on hope.)

As a former agnostic that makes perfect sense to me.  I still don't BELIEVE in a creator...I just KNOW that It revealed Itself to me. It seems far more logical for me to accept the knowledge that I have been given by a superior being than to deny it, thereby claiming superiority that I know is false.

But, if I am wrong and there is/was a creator, I certainly don't believe it would involve itself in the affairs of man, which I consider to be the ultimate hubris.

Here is a funny idea for you: I think that God created man for His entertainment. If that is the case then why wouldn't It involve itself in the affairs of man?

I realize the logical rebuttal is to propose a creator with infinite capabilities.  But that violates everything known about the universe.  I don't believe in magic. In fact, I consider such a willingness to believe in anything to be really no different that believing nothing.

Depending on your definition, I don't believe in magic either. But I have knowledge of a supernatural being who can do supernatural things. My life was actually much simpler when I was an agnostic. All I had to do was to try to make myself happy. I didn't think that altruism was possible. Just like getting married complicated my life (though it made it much more fulfilling), changing my focus from my will to God's will also added a huge layer of complexity to life (though again making it more fulfilling). 

One thing I could never understand as an agnostic is how so many REALLY intelligent people could believe in the idea of a supernatural God to the point where they would willingly die rather than do deny It. But then when God revealed Itself to me I had no choice but to accept what It revealed if I were to remain true to just wanting to know the truth. The only way I could deny It would be to reject it solely because I didn't want it to be true, and that would be dishonest to myself.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
4 hours ago, homersapien said:

There is nothing about nature - which of course includes physics - that would rationally suggest such a thing could happen.  And as I said, if there is a creator, it is reflected in the natural universe. Magic doesn't exist.

I agree, but the fact that the universe exists at all defies the laws of physics. The idea of a creator is preposterous, but so is the idea that energy and matter just appeared from nothing. I am way more skeptical than most people about most things, but I have no doubt about the existence of a supernatural realm because I have experienced it.

No, the existence of the universe does not defy physics, which is impossible by definition.

Having said that, we obviously don't know everything about physics.  Science has certainly not concluded that "energy and matter just appeared from nothing".  Science does not allow such a conclusion without a theoretical and evidential basis.   We may have some theories (small "t") but certainly nothing approaching a Theory (big "T') on that.

I too have experienced a "supernatural realm".  But that experience - undoubtedly like yours - occurred in my head, not a "supernatural realm". 

So, no, accepting the mere possibility of a creator does not require a belief or "understanding" it would violate the natural laws it created with magic. 

Where do you think that the first energy and matter came from? What does science say about that?

I don't know what preceeded the big bang and science hasn't revealed that yet. (And you left out "space".)

BTW, I don't really believe in a creator.  But I cannot prove the lack of one.  My agnosticism is based on that logical construct, not on hope.)

As a former agnostic that makes perfect sense to me.  I still don't BELIEVE in a creator...I just KNOW that It revealed Itself to me. It seems far more logical for me to accept the knowledge that I have been given by a superior being than to deny it, thereby claiming superiority that I know is false.

That's fine. I'm just not wired in a way that allows me to really "KNOW" something I really don't.  This gets us back into the psychology of religion. I have said that, for better or worse, I don't possess that psychology.  And I hope you haven't inferred that I presume to be superior for it.

But, if I am wrong and there is/was a creator, I certainly don't believe it would involve itself in the affairs of man, which I consider to be the ultimate hubris.

Here is a funny idea for you: I think that God created man for His entertainment. If that is the case then why wouldn't It involve itself in the affairs of man?

Obviously, "if that were the case", it would naturally follow.  But I just don't believe that is the case.  I don't see any need for supernatural explanations for what we already know and observe, nor do I feel a need to create supernatural explanations for what we don't know.

I realize the logical rebuttal is to propose a creator with infinite capabilities.  But that violates everything known about the universe.  I don't believe in magic. In fact, I consider such a willingness to believe in anything to be really no different that believing nothing.

Depending on your definition, I don't believe in magic either. But I have knowledge of a supernatural being who can do supernatural things. My life was actually much simpler when I was an agnostic. All I had to do was to try to make myself happy. I didn't think that altruism was possible. Just like getting married complicated my life (though it made it much more fulfilling), changing my focus from my will to God's will also added a huge layer of complexity to life (though again making it more fulfilling). 

My definition of magic is anything supernatural.

Congratulations on your "knowledge" of a supernatural being.  That's an extraordinary thing to "know". (In fact, it sound more like "faith" to me. ;))

I am surprised to hear you were happier as an agnostic. I would expect that someone with religious inclinations would be much happier as a believer.

Science has shown that altruism is exists in nature. It's part of the natural world.

Anyway, I am glad you are more "fulfilled" with your religious faith, even if you were happier without it.   But I don't have any complaints in that regard.

 

4 hours ago, homersapien said:

One thing I could never understand as an agnostic is how so many REALLY intelligent people could believe in the idea of a supernatural God to the point where they would willingly die rather than do deny It. But then when God revealed Itself to me I had no choice but to accept what It revealed if I were to remain true to just wanting to know the truth. The only way I could deny It would be to reject it solely because I didn't want it to be true, and that would be dishonest to myself.

People are willing to die for many reasons other than for God. (Back to that altruism thing.)  But if you have strong religious conviction, I expect such a sacrifice becomes easier.  In fact, who needs altruism if you really believe you are going to paradise by sacrificing your life?  Never thought of that before, but true altruism is best demonstrated by the non-religious.

If God reveals himself to me, I'll undoubtedly join you in the firm belief of a creator.  Otherwise, as an agnostic, I am perfectly content to appreciate the revelations of the natural world, without a need to assign a supernatural origin. 

Thanks for the civil discussion. I appreciate it.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, homersapien said:
 

 

And I thank you. Just for the record. I never said I was happier as an agnostic, I said that life was less complicated. I am pretty sure I said that life is more fulfilling now even though it is more complicated.

Also, as to my "knowledge" of a supernatural being. It is not extraordinary at all. Not any more than "knowing" you via this message board.

I agree with you about a need for supernatural explanations. I didn't need one. I just accepted it when it was revealed to me. The only part I played in the revelation was to process it and apply what intelligence and logic I had to understand it. Probably just like you, all I want is to know the truth.

Anyway, thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Now California

 

https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2019/06/05/san-mateo-county-supervisor-takes-stand-against-chick-fil-a-opening-in-redwood-city/

 

 

Quote

 

REDWOOD CITY (KPIX 5) — A San Mateo County official is pushing to stop a Chick-fil-A restaurant from opening up in Redwood City.

The McDonald’s restaurant on Whipple could soon be tuning into a Chick-fil-A, making it the chain’s 13th restaurant in the San Francisco Bay Area.

The southern chicken chain filed an application with Redwood City in December 2018. The city deemed it to be an “architectural permit,” which didn’t require anything beyond approval from planning department staff.

“This would not go before the city council–because it’s an existing use, it would just be administerial for the planning commission,” San Mateo County supervisor David Canepa said. He is pushing to stop the chain from moving in. “When people think of the Chick-fil-A logo — what they think of is anti-LGBTQ.”

The Georgia company has a long history of donating millions of dollars to anti-LGBTQ groups and stating that marriage is strictly between a man and a woman.

Craig Wiesner, sits on the San Mateo County LGBTQ Commission, said the community should stand up to the company.

“I don’t think that we should necessarily be regulating what businesses can open in Redwood City, but I do think that as a community, we can stand up and say we don’t want this particular business which has taken a very open stand against LGBTQ people and spent millions of dollars against us at the heart of our county,” Wiesner said.

There have been protests outside other Chick-fil-As that have opened in the Bay Area. Recently, there’s been a push to put rainbow flags, traditionally a symbol of gay rights and pride, outside a planned Chick-fil-A inside Mineta San Jose International Airport.

Supervisor Canepa is hoping the pressure over the Redwood City store will be enough to force Chick-fil-A to reconsider.

“What we are trying to do is to make sure Chick-fil-A–if they want to do business here–that there is a lot of pressure here and that they should do the right thing and withdraw their application.”

In a statement to KPIX 5, a Chick-fil-A spokesman said, “We are committed to earning the respect and business of all our customers, and one day hope to serve guests in Redwood City.”

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/12/politics/texas-save-chick-fil-a--bill-greg-abbott/index.html

 

 

Quote

 

Texas governor signs controversial 'Save Chick-fil-A' bill

 

 

(CNN)Texas Gov. Greg Abbott has signed a controversial measure that supporters say provides religious protections but Democrats and critics argue would allow discrimination against the state's LGBTQ community.

 

more at the link

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...