Logic for Christians

You know what?

You're pretty darn cool!

Why thank you.

I wonder why people do care. It is not like the CEO is denying the sales to gay people. He just doesn't agree with gays marrying.

You do realize that if he came out saying "God I hate selling to niggers, but fine I'll keep serving them cuz they loves dem fried chickens" There would be very little people supporting him, just because it comes off as an opinion doesn't mean it doesn't carry baggage. Especially if you are representing your company.

An opinion is disliking something, but still respecting other people's liking of it.

Being an asshole bigot piece of shit is saying someone can't do something you can do because they're different.

Exactly, I find there is a huge difference with:

"I dislike gays" and "I dislike gays marrying"

One is your opinion on something, another is depriving someone else a right.

Neither is depriving a right. He has no power to take away their rights, and he has every right to dislike gay marriage. I dislike both, and i'm Christian. For some reason only Liberal opinions are allowed under the constitution.

One is an opinion, another is distinctively different because it is an idea that you will base your judgement on if they ever go for marriage.

Example: I dislike christians, and I dislike religion, but I do not dislike christians having their religion, I just find it idiotic and a hindrance to human progress.

Um no, liberal and conservative opinions are fine, as long as they aren't derived from hate. (which it is, sorry to say but your dislike for gays and gay marriage is derived from hate.)

I was just about to say something like that. Why protest Chick Fil A because their view is different than your's. The CEO isn't an asshole and it's right to have his view in this country.

It changes when you are the face of a company, your views represent the companies ideology whether you like it or not. This is why most CEO's usually say "My views are still changing." or something of the sort.

Ah you are correct, I was under the assumption that it was open to public.

Strengthens my point actually then. Thank you.

I'm only replying to this because of your first sentence. This protest is not about him having his own opinion. It is about how he was sending millions of cooperate money to anti-gay and hate groups. Some groups he sent money to are the ones like the group trying to give homosexuality in Uganda a death penalty.
This is about how he is trying to deny a constitutional right to a particular group.

I didn't actually know he'd been sending money into anti-gay organizations and I've seen a significant amount of coverage regarding the issue. That's not to say it isn't you're lying. The media is consistently awful. However, do you think most people bear that same knowledge in mind when protesting Chick-fil-A, or that they're jumping on the bandwagon because their feelings were hurt? Nevermind what portion of protesters actually know the facts about which they have an objective reason to be upset. If there are even some, I hope those organizing the protests are making sure people aren't participating as an unconscious demonstration of reverse discrimination. Since you were at a protest, I'll rely on you to clue me into just how much well informed the typical protester was. Though I know that's a high expectation, considering you couldn't have conversed with every demonstrator.

Most of us were fairly informed. Some were out there because they were simply angry that he said something anti-gay, but those people weren't part of our organization. This was arranged by two former local high school students who at first, didn't think much of until they discovered records of missing money and traced it down to hate groups.
So while 2/10 of every protester was simply there from having their feelings hurt, the other 8/10 were there because of being well informed and defending constitutional rights.

On a side note: only about half of the people there were actually gay or bisexual. Many of the fellow protesters were straight.

^this guy

Lol. Would you like some cream for that butthurt?

I'm just going to ignore your idea they made a word with no meaning or use...

Ok, fine, the three comments saying the same thing, the second one not understanding the internet, convinced me to tell you a better idea than fighting for something.

Why don't they try to make something other than marriage,Civil Union is what the guy who I am stealing the idea from is what he called it, that would have the same advantages as marriage, and would go through the same steps (finding a Church to get married in is a hole in the idea, maybe at a house or something?) but would not be marriage. Then, Christians couldn't complain because they weren't married. If you see any bad points in this idea I am happy to accept CONSTRUCTIVE CRITISIZM. (meaning not insulting me, but building on the idea and helping to better the idea.)

I'm sorry, but you're an idiot. Marriage is not by any means a Christian thing. Marriage in it's purest sense (a couple devoted to each other for their life) predates human history, as in animal marriage, and certainly predates Christianity in terms of human culture. The word marriage itself is only loosely related with Christianity and is accepted in many other senses than the "typical Christian marriage" that so many people harp on about.

Well boy scouts are an entirely different thing, they don't just have an opinion they actively exclude open gays.

I did not know that. I see why people don't like them.

dailylounge.com/the-daily/entry/boy-scouts-refuse-to-reexamine-policy-on-gays


Yup, while the girl scouts are seemingly more progressive in this area. It still seems mainstream media and anti-gay protesters don't believe lesbians exist or something XD

Well, thank you for informing me on the subject :)