Thursday, July 26, 2012

Chick-Fil-A ‘Smeared By Vicious Hate Speech And Intolerant Bigotry’

Regardless of what you think of Huck,  it's a good thing that there's some pushback against the anti-Christian bigots

Mike Huckabee has designated Wednesday, August 1, as National Chick-Fil-A Appreciation Day because he is “incensed at the vitriolic assaults on the Chick Fil-A  company.” Huckabee, an ordained Baptist minister and failed Republican presidential candidate, created the event and posted it on his Facebook page, claiming the only reason Americans are angered with Chick-Fil-A is “because the CEO, Dan Cathy, made comments recently in which he affirmed his view that the Biblical view of marriage should be upheld.”

Huckabee added that “if Christians affirm traditional values, we’re considered homophobic, fundamentalists, hate-mongers, and intolerant.”



Anonymous said...

“if Christians affirm traditional values, we’re considered homophobic, fundamentalists, hate-mongers, and intolerant.”

Duh. That's religion for ya, eh?

Anonymous said...

So, opinion is now hate speech. But what of the opinions of those who claim to be offended? If you disagree with them, is that also hate speech?

The owner of this company was asked for his "personal" opinion, not his company's policy. (IMO, it was a deliberate ambush question) And even if it was his company's policy, is that not his right? If you disagree with the policy, don't shop there!

Radical gay activists, in their never-ending quest to force their lifestyle down the throats of everyone, are not going to like the backlash from their aggressive tactics, but they have only themselves to blame, something they're not in the habit of doing.

Bird of Paradise said...

I wish there was a CHIC-FIL-A restruant in my area i would like to eat there and congruaduate them for standing up for tradtional marrage and against the forces of perversion and filth

Use the Name, Luke said...

This is not about being “right” or “wrong” on an issue. This is about menacing and bullying people into conforming or paying the price. It’s about the bastardization of the word “tolerace” in our society, to the point where the word no longer means “live and let live” or “let people be who they are”; the word has become distorted in a very unhealthy way.

Chick-fil-A: if you’re not sure, this is how fascism works

Anonymous said...

In related news, Chicago alderman Joe Moreno has announced that he will block a planned Chick-fil-a location in his ward due to Mr. Cathy's remarks. So an elected official is using the power of government to punish a company because its CEO expressed his personal opinion.,0,929023.story

Anonymous said...

"Christian" so-called values (which according to the Bible are in no way "tolerant") hypocritically criticize anyone or group (like gays) who criticize their intolerance as being themselves intolerant.
Well, are such so-called Christians as stupid as they seem - to be intolerant of intolerance has some logical merit (yeah - the Bible is full of intolerance and illogical stories)

Use the Name, Luke said...


Well, that was confused.

Anonymous said...

Not if you understand the English language and understand logic (oh yeah Luke is a "Christian" - sorry!).

Anonymous said...

chick-fil-a will continue to be successful no big deal

Use the Name, Luke said...

A) It is possible to use English words and grammar and still write something incoherent. See 3:20 for an example.

B) The Bible doesn't claim "total tolerance" as a primary virtue. Instead, it promotes knowledge, wisdom and objective morality. (See Revelation 2:20)

The LGBTOMGWTFBBQEIEIO crowd claims "tolerance" as The virtue. Then in a move of rank hypocrisy, practices total intolerance of those they disagree with.

Anonymous said...

Luke, you have a "curious" interpretation of the bible. Still cherry picking quotations to suit you agenda, eh?

Use the Name, Luke said...

‘I know your deeds and your toil and perseverance, and that you cannot tolerate evil men, and you put to the test those who call themselves apostles, and they are not, and you found them to be false; and you have perseverance and have endured for My name’s sake, and have not grown weary.’
— Revelation 2:2–3

‘But I have this against you, that you tolerate the woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess, and she teaches and leads My bond-servants astray so that they commit acts of immorality and eat things sacrificed to idols.’
— Revelation 2:20

But do you suppose this, O man, when you pass judgment on those who practice such things and do the same yourself, that you will escape the judgment of God? Or do you think lightly of the riches of His kindness and tolerance and patience, not knowing that the kindness of God leads you to repentance? But because of your stubbornness and unrepentant heart you are storing up wrath for yourself in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God,
— Romans 2:3–5

What "things" is Paul talking about here?

For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.

And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful; and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.

— Romans 1:26–32

I don't see the Bible saying we should tolerate these things. Do you?

BTW, variations of the word "tolerate" only show up 11 times in the Bible. (In the NASB translation, searching for words that begin with "tolera".) Three of them I've already quoted.

Five of them are variations of this statement:

“Truly I say to you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment than for that city.”
— Matthew 10:15

Two more speak negatively of tolerating foolishness.

Only one speaks of tolerance as a virtue:

Therefore I, the prisoner of the Lord, implore you to walk in a manner worthy of the calling with which you have been called, with all humility and gentleness, with patience, showing tolerance for one another in love, being diligent to preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.
— Ephesians 4:1–3

In this case it's talking about tolerating other Christians, not evil.

Perhaps you can show where the Bible teaches that we should tolerate an "anything goes" mentality? Or possibly demonstrate how I'm misunderstanding these passages?

Anonymous said...

"Perhaps you can show where the Bible teaches that we should tolerate an "anything goes" mentality? Or possibly demonstrate how I'm misunderstanding these passages?"

You sure spent a lot of time responding to a troll.

Use the Name, Luke said...

Not really. Good software really helps. And studying the Bible is a net positive.

Anonymous said...

The Chick Fil A here was so popular that it was causing traffic jams as the drive through line backed into the street all the time (except on Sundays). They opened a second one but it didn't solve the problem, just created the problem again in another location. Consumer Reports list Chick Fil A as one of the most popular fast food joints as well as the most healthy. Since fascist fags are a minority Chick Fil A will likely see a windfall from this as the more numerous Christians take notice and now start patronizing their business in greater numbers.

Anonymous said...

Simplicity in communicating with gays is key. Example;


Not to find a cure, but a faster way of spreading it.

Dean said...

Conservative disagrees with Liberal = hate speech.

Liberal disagrees with Conservative = rational speech.

Both in the liberal mind only.

This is not to say all Conservative speech is rational. There are some who consider obscenity and profanity to be a logical statement.

It is just to point out how quick liberals are to label anything they disagree with as hate speech. And how slow they are to offer a rational argument for their view.

Anonymous said...

Luke spews half the Bible like it's meant to impress. I doubt anyone here actually read it, or thinks it can be in any way relevant. Does Luke have an original thought of his own or is he just another mindless ovine follower of archaic middle-eastern death-cults?

Use the Name, Luke said...

Luke spews half the Bible like it's meant to impress.

When you make idiotic claims about what the Bible says, it makes sense to, you know, look at what the Bible actually says!

Yes, I know you would prefer your lies to go unchallenged. Tough beans.

Anonymous said...

So now Luke reckons he's an academic Bible scholar. It's patently obvious that he knows very little about how "The Bible" actually evolved.

Anonymous said...

Luke keep up the good work
its obvious the trolls are coming from "left" field .


Use the Name, Luke said...

It's patently obvious that he knows very little about how "The Bible" actually evolved.

…says the guy who doesn't even know what it says. Why should anyone believe you?

I said...

Being a Bible scholar is akin to being a Leprechaun scholar.

Use the Name, Luke said...

That's it? Thanks for the laugh!

I said...

Yeah, religion is a funny concept. Sure makes me laugh. BTW I am not the anon.

Anonymous said...

ACLU set them straight, cities and the liberal moronic mayors of them cannot ban Chick-fil-A, pwnage, game set and match for Chick-fil-A.

Anonymous said...

"Why should anyone believe you?"

Belief does NOT require proof.

Anonymous said...

Luke - anyone can know what the Bible says simply by obtaining a copy in some translation. You obviously take the printed words at face-value, or interpret them as it suits you. Biblical scholars (the serious academic kind) study the history and evolution of the texts.

Anonymous said...

ISHGEBOR seems to think that anyone he disagrees with is a "troll". ISHGEBOR could just as easily be called a troll in the same way.

Anonymous said...

7:23, how so? please explain your ridiculous accusation.

Use the Name, Luke said...

Belief does NOT require proof.

Belief is a component of knowledge. It is impossible to KNOW something without also BELIEVING it. Knowledge requires evidence. Therefore, some belief REQUIRES evidence.

Note: There is no such thing as absolute proof because there is such a thing as unreasonable doubt. For example, what if we're actually just a brain in a jar and nothing we experience is real? Such a proposition is theoretically possible, no matter how unlikely.

Use the Name, Luke said...

take[ing] the printed words at face-value

Woodenly reading any text is a way to abuse that text. For example, here is a snippet from a current article on ESPN:

Several baseball sources told the Marlins are asking for each team's top two or three prospects in every trade scenario involving Johnson.

"They're asking for a ton," an American League general manager said.

In a "literal" reading of this passage, you would wind up asking, "A ton of what? Bricks? Feathers? Ice cream?" But you cannot read that last sentence literally because it's an idiom; a common statement with a meaning that is different than the literal meaning of the words used. (Rule of thumb is another such idiom.) So "words on the page" is insufficient and abuses the text.

Interpreting a text any way you want is also an obvious abuse.

Therefore, both types of reading you mentioned are abuses of any text you read, including the Bible.

The Bible is like any other kind of literature. It uses idioms, poetry, analogy, straightforward descriptions, and other types of literature. It even uses sarcasm. (One of the "tolerance" passages I referred to is just such an instance of sarcasm.)

Accurately understanding the author's meaning (known as exegesis) requires paying attention to the style the author is using, the context (locally and document-wide) and, yes, the historical context and culture of when it was written.

That said, if you think I'm actually getting it wrong, get specific. Point to what you think is wrong. Hold a rational discussion. Knock off the vague (and trollish) accusations. Otherwise, crawl back under your bridge like the troll you are.

Let me put it more directly: I think you are making vague ad hominem attacks because you know I'm right and you refuse to admit it. You refuse to address precise issues because doing so would more openly expose you to the world as the prejudiced bigot you are.

Biblical scholars (the serious academic kind) study the history and evolution of the texts.

Who do you think I look to to learn? Who do you look to? Based on your assertions, the answer is not the "serious academic kind."

Anonymous said...

2:30, good thing we have the Holy Spirit.

Anonymous said...

Luke - what's the matter with you - clearly I DO look to the "serious academic kind" of Biblical scholarship. Your idea of the Bible is obviously unobjective and idiosyncratic, and the strategy you employ here seems to "attack" with an overwhelming amount of quoted verbiage. I also realize that is also the tactic used by many religious preachers, both now and in the past, whether Christian, Muslim or whatever.

Anonymous said...

"Therefore, some belief REQUIRES evidence."

Ok, So where is your evidence that god exists?

Use the Name, Luke said...

And right back to the exact same tactic: vague trollish accusations and absolute refusal to directly response to the arguments.

BTW, what the heck does word count have to do with validity? Nothing. "Too long; didn't read" is not a valid argument. Yet more irrationality from the troll.

Ok, So where is your evidence that god exists?

A) Do you admit that the assertion "Belief does NOT require proof" was wrong?

B) Even simplified examinations of the evidence wind up being stored in these things called "books". But they apparently have too many words for you.

Anonymous said...

"absolute refusal to directly response to the arguments."

That what you do ALL THE TIME. Your previous post is a grand example of that. Clearly you do not have ANY evidence that god exists, just silly insults in reponse to a valid question.

Anonymous said...

Anyone who disagrees with Luke or challenges his dubious argumentation he calls a troll or trollish. So he's a "closed book" full of verbiage with no more value than smoke and mirrors.