Chik-Fil-A and Bigotry

I think the tempest in a teacup that is Chik-Fil-A (or really, the owner of the company) being anti-gay, and the people who “appreciated” the company yesterday, is just silly posturing.

The people who are pretty much uniformly rabidly anti-gay cafeteria christians are dying off. They freak about about a bible verse that prohibits gay sex (maybe; a verse translated badly from Aramaic to Greek to English *after* being handed down by word of mouth for generations), while more direct verses and draconian verses are ignored. These people are getting fewer in number every year.

Equality is closer to full every day; it is inevitable.


3 Responses to “Chik-Fil-A and Bigotry”

  1. Tom Says:

    II think you’re letting some of your own prejudices blur your perception here. Many people believe that marriage is one-man, one-woman, but have no ill-will toward gays, much less a desire to deprive them of anything. They just don’t agree with anything other than traditional marriage. Some of these, it’s quite true, have no problem passing judgement and condemning those who are gay, but they are, in fact, as much a minority as those among the lefties who would judge a man for his personal beliefs and attempt to sabotage his business with a boycott without looking to see what the _business_ practices are.

    I was raised with, and try to live by, a very simple philosophy in life: “I do not agree with what you are saying, but I will defend with my life your right to say it!” Can those who called for the boycott say the same thing in regard to the owner of Chik-Fil-A?

    BTW: which verse are you referring to? Old testament text is Hebrew, not Aramaic (it was use in the New Testament for some of the oldest texts). The KJV was translated directly from the Masoretic text, which is Hebrew. The Roman church use the Greek Septuaguint as its base for centuries, but the Greek was also translated from the Hebrew, no the Aramaic. For Aramaic text, you need to go to the Peshitta (Eastern Orthodox). I suggest the Lamsa translation for it.

  2. Raegan Says:

    There are times I think this was just very cleverly done advertising for CFA and Wendy’s. However, I will not eat at either establishment again. while the chicken sandwich is good, I prefer my money not go eventually to groups which seek to deny rights to other Americans.

    OT “Biblical marriage” tended to be polygamous anyway. 🙂

  3. Bill Hensley Says:

    Tom, I don’t think you read what I wrote very well. I don’t care about what the owner of CFA believes, or that people of like beliefs went there to eat to show support. *What* he and they believe is doomed to die out in favor of equality for all.

    Couple specific things: you state that many people who are in favor of traditional marriage (whatever that really is) don’t want to deprive gays of anything. But the facts are that there has been a sustained campaign among conservatives to do just that. No question or doubt about it. And let’s not forget that it’s not just anti-gay stuff. Religious zealots (mainly conservative) have put a lot of stuff they disapprove of into law (blue laws, liquor restrictions, all manner of sex prohibitions).

    You make the standard claim that lefties are trying to sabotage CFA for the beliefs of the owner. NO – the people protesting have every right to proclaim their beliefs, as much as the CFA owner. Don’t try to paint that guy as a victim. He started the controversy, and didn’t have to, and whatever response he gets, that’s just the way it goes.

    You make the claim that the boycotters are limiting the free speech of the owner of CFA. NO. If speech is spending money, it can also be not spending money, or spending it somewhere else. I’ve not heard a single report of people trying to silence the CFA owner. Not one. But no one has to buy food there either. Again, he started it, and like all speech, he has to live with the consequences. His choice.

    Finally, I know you like to show off your apparent mastery of so many topics. Sorry to be blunt, but really, WGAD? The point is that the holy book(s) that is the source of all this really have little validity in discourse of the topic of gay equality. And the real problem I have is that most of the people that I know personally are anti-gay base their belief on their holy book. They want to place their anti-gay beliefs in law. But there is no effort that I have ever been aware of to place the entire bible or other holy book into civil law. It’s cafeteria religion. “Let’s get the icky gay stuff banned!”. I ask people who are passionate about this topic why they do not legislate all the other stuff in the Old Testament into law? They don’t because they know it would never pass Constitutional muster. And slowly, courageous judges and legislatures are overturning the parts that are anti-gay.

    I am being very direct here. But all of this fury is over trying to apply religious law to the entire country (called more simply trying to force someones beliefs on everyone), while we are a society of civil law. People are perfectly within their rights to not like gays. They can practice whatever religion they want. If they don’t like marriage equality, they should feel free to not participate. But using the law to strip civil rights based on a holy book is just not American.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: