ieatcrayonz Posted July 26, 2012 Posted July 26, 2012 Let me translate this for you: Rahm didn't get no kickback.
truth on hold Posted July 26, 2012 Posted July 26, 2012 (edited) So the chicken chains head honchos support the bibles definition of marriage. But looking thru 10 commandments there's no language excluding gays. Just a ban on married folk getting some on the side. So what are they thinking, gays cheat and starights don't ? http://www.google.com/search?tbm=isch&source=mog&hl=en&gl=us&client=safari&tab=wi&q=10%20commandments&sa=N&biw=320&bih=356#i=9 Edited July 26, 2012 by Joe_the_6_pack
Joe Miner Posted July 26, 2012 Posted July 26, 2012 Wait, so Chick-fil-A is actively discriminating against homosexuals? Do they not serve them at all, or is there a special seating area?
ieatcrayonz Posted July 26, 2012 Author Posted July 26, 2012 Wait, so Chick-fil-A is actively discriminating against homosexuals? Do they not serve them at all, or is there a special seating area? It didn't say that. The article is sketchy but I think Rahm wants Chick fil a to offer wedding ceremonies at their stores or else pay him a big kickback. This ticks off the owner of the store who only wants to have straight marriages take place. At least that is what I get out of the article. Farakkhan must have paid the kickback because now it appears that the nation of Mormon is patrolling the streets.
Nanker Posted July 26, 2012 Posted July 26, 2012 Wait, so Chick-fil-A is actively discriminating against homosexuals? Do they not serve them at all, or is there a special seating area? No you silly azz. They certainly do serve them. First they capture them, so they can feature them on the menu after they spend an appropriate amount of time in bins they have in their cellars. I believe its usually three to seven weeks that they keep them there before they're brought up for processing.
ieatcrayonz Posted July 26, 2012 Author Posted July 26, 2012 (edited) No you silly azz. They certainly do serve them. First they capture them, so they can feature them on the menu after they spend an appropriate amount of time in bins they have in their cellars. I believe its usually three to seven weeks that they keep them there before they're brought up for processing. Do you know if the Nation of Mormon performs gay marriages? Because I think Rahm requires it. Edited July 26, 2012 by ieatcrayonz
3rdnlng Posted July 26, 2012 Posted July 26, 2012 Wait, so Chick-fil-A is actively discriminating against homosexuals? Do they not serve them at all, or is there a special seating area? They send them to a special area called the "cockpit".
DC Tom Posted July 26, 2012 Posted July 26, 2012 So the chicken chains head honchos support the bibles definition of marriage. But looking thru 10 commandments there's no language excluding gays. Just a ban on married folk getting some on the side. So what are they thinking, gays cheat and starights don't ? http://www.google.com/search?tbm=isch&source=mog&hl=en&gl=us&client=safari&tab=wi&q=10%20commandments&sa=N&biw=320&bih=356#i=9 Check Leviticus, dumbass.
truth on hold Posted July 26, 2012 Posted July 26, 2012 (edited) Check Leviticus, dumbass. Imagine you of all people saying skip the stone carved covenant (hebrew for "consitution") word of god, and go to that 2000 page micro managing socialist manifesto, rife with inconsistency. Sorry I don't bother with the interprations of activist priests and rabbis. Edited July 26, 2012 by Joe_the_6_pack
Nanker Posted July 26, 2012 Posted July 26, 2012 Do you know if the Nation of Mormon performs gay marriages? Because I think Rahm requires it. I'm pretty sure that they do that in their temples, and they would happily oblige Rahm whenever he wants to get gay married. In fact, they'll probably get Minister Farakkahn himself to personally officiate over the ritual. He's a big gay rights proponent, from what I hear.
3rdnlng Posted July 26, 2012 Posted July 26, 2012 Imagine you of all people saying go thru that 2000 page micro managing socialist manifesto, rife with inconsistency. Sorry I don't bother with the interprations of activist priests and rabbis. So, you have to read the whole "socialist manifesto" to find out that Yahwew frowned upon the practice of rump ranging in the twin cities? If you knew enough about the subject you are bloviating about you wouldn't answer in the way you did.
ieatcrayonz Posted July 26, 2012 Author Posted July 26, 2012 Check Leviticus, dumbass. Wasn't he the guitar guy for "The Police"?
truth on hold Posted July 26, 2012 Posted July 26, 2012 (edited) So, you have to read the whole "socialist manifesto" to find out that Yahwew frowned upon the practice of rump ranging in the twin cities? If you knew enough about the subject you are bloviating about you wouldn't answer in the way you did. LOL dude talk to "Chuck", the priest that is: Romans 1 “(26) Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. (27) In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.” However, it says in verse 27, "In the same way...", which is a comparative phrase, meaning that the women in verse 26 practiced unnatural relations in the same way that the men in verse 27 did, through homosexuality. This passage is also debated, both in terms of its relevance today and in terms of its actual prohibition.[14] Most Christian denominations maintain that this verse is a complete prohibition of all forms of homosexuality.[15][16][17][18][19] However, some contend the passage is not a blanket condemnation of homosexuality at all,[20][21][22] and some argue that Paul's writings must be considered fallible because of his support for slavery and the oppression of women.[23][24][25][26][27] A more recent interpretation of Romans 1:26-27 has also been explored as well. In Romans 1:26 it starts out saying, "For this reason, God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women (Romans 1:26-27b)." This passage is talking about heterosexually-oriented men and women, who "gave up," and "exchanged [their] natural [sexually-oriented] relations" just to self-satisfy, and vent their sexual pressure to the closest, and easiest people around; their own gender. So basically these heterosexually-oriented men just "gave up," and the heterosexually-oriented women finally decided to "exchange" what seemed natural and just basically said, "Let's have sex," without exercising faith in a loving God who would bring them one man and one woman that they could honorably marry. "God gave them up to dishonorable passions," because these people should have had faith in God that He would bring a wife or a husband to them so that they could "take a wife for himself in holiness and honor (1 Thessalonians 4:4, RSV)." So the righteous and honorable thing for these heterosexual men and women would be to do is to exercise faith that God would bring wives and husbands to them; but these men and women, claiming to be wise, became fools by venting their sexual frustrations on their fellow heterosexual men and women." http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_homosexuality#section_2 Holy Biblical spin zone Batman! Edited July 26, 2012 by Joe_the_6_pack
DC Tom Posted July 26, 2012 Posted July 26, 2012 (edited) Imagine you of all people saying skip the stone carved covenant (hebrew for "consitution") word of god, and go to that 2000 page micro managing socialist manifesto, rife with inconsistency. Sorry I don't bother with the interprations of activist priests and rabbis. In other words: you're too ignorant to even discuss it. Gotcha. All you had to say. LOL dude talk to "Chuck", the priest that is: Romans 1 “(26) Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. (27) In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.” However, it says in verse 27, "In the same way...", which is a comparative phrase, meaning that the women in verse 26 practiced unnatural relations in the same way that the men in verse 27 did, through homosexuality. This passage is also debated, both in terms of its relevance today and in terms of its actual prohibition.[14] Most Christian denominations maintain that this verse is a complete prohibition of all forms of homosexuality.[15][16][17][18][19] However, some contend the passage is not a blanket condemnation of homosexuality at all,[20][21][22] and some argue that Paul's writings must be considered fallible because of his support for slavery and the oppression of women.[23][24][25][26][27] A more recent interpretation of Romans 1:26-27 has also been explored as well. In Romans 1:26 it starts out saying, "For this reason, God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women (Romans 1:26-27b)." This passage is talking about heterosexually-oriented men and women, who "gave up," and "exchanged [their] natural [sexually-oriented] relations" just to self-satisfy, and vent their sexual pressure to the closest, and easiest people around; their own gender. So basically these heterosexually-oriented men just "gave up," and the heterosexually-oriented women finally decided to "exchange" what seemed natural and just basically said, "Let's have sex," without exercising faith in a loving God who would bring them one man and one woman that they could honorably marry. "God gave them up to dishonorable passions," because these people should have had faith in God that He would bring a wife or a husband to them so that they could "take a wife for himself in holiness and honor (1 Thessalonians 4:4, RSV)." So the righteous and honorable thing for these heterosexual men and women would be to do is to exercise faith that God would bring wives and husbands to them; but these men and women, claiming to be wise, became fools by venting their sexual frustrations on their fellow heterosexual men and women." http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_homosexuality#section_2 Holy Biblical spin zone Batman! Wikipedia...haven for the unthinking man. Edited July 26, 2012 by DC Tom
Rob's House Posted July 26, 2012 Posted July 26, 2012 Anyone notice how opposition to gay marriage is now "anti-gay views"?
3rdnlng Posted July 26, 2012 Posted July 26, 2012 LOL dude talk to "Chuck", the priest that is: Romans 1 “(26) Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. (27) In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.” However, it says in verse 27, "In the same way...", which is a comparative phrase, meaning that the women in verse 26 practiced unnatural relations in the same way that the men in verse 27 did, through homosexuality. This passage is also debated, both in terms of its relevance today and in terms of its actual prohibition.[14] Most Christian denominations maintain that this verse is a complete prohibition of all forms of homosexuality.[15][16][17][18][19] However, some contend the passage is not a blanket condemnation of homosexuality at all,[20][21][22] and some argue that Paul's writings must be considered fallible because of his support for slavery and the oppression of women.[23][24][25][26][27] A more recent interpretation of Romans 1:26-27 has also been explored as well. In Romans 1:26 it starts out saying, "For this reason, God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women (Romans 1:26-27b)." This passage is talking about heterosexually-oriented men and women, who "gave up," and "exchanged [their] natural [sexually-oriented] relations" just to self-satisfy, and vent their sexual pressure to the closest, and easiest people around; their own gender. So basically these heterosexually-oriented men just "gave up," and the heterosexually-oriented women finally decided to "exchange" what seemed natural and just basically said, "Let's have sex," without exercising faith in a loving God who would bring them one man and one woman that they could honorably marry. "God gave them up to dishonorable passions," because these people should have had faith in God that He would bring a wife or a husband to them so that they could "take a wife for himself in holiness and honor (1 Thessalonians 4:4, RSV)." So the righteous and honorable thing for these heterosexual men and women would be to do is to exercise faith that God would bring wives and husbands to them; but these men and women, claiming to be wise, became fools by venting their sexual frustrations on their fellow heterosexual men and women." http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_homosexuality#section_2 Holy Biblical spin zone Batman! So, what are you trying to say? Was God, or was he not pissed at the goings on in Sodom & Gomorrah? In your own words, please.
IDBillzFan Posted July 26, 2012 Posted July 26, 2012 (edited) Anyone notice how opposition to gay marriage is now "anti-gay views"? Which is precisely how the left opted to blow this up. The owner said they believed in the traditional marriage between a man and a woman, and it became "The Chick-Fil-A owner hates gays." Kind of bizarre, especially because the only "secret" more obvious than the owner is a devout Christian is the secret that Anderson Cooper is gay. Twitter was filled yesterday with some pretty vile lefty stuff, including Roseanne Barr of all people wishing cancer on anyone who eats at a Chick-Fil-A. Oh, the tolerant left. On the upside, I read this funny comment yesterday:"In order to match @RahmEmanuel's "Chicago values", #ChickFilA announces they will start murdering people and selling meth." Edited July 26, 2012 by LABillzFan
Rob's House Posted July 26, 2012 Posted July 26, 2012 Which is precisely how the left opted to blow this up. The owner said they believed in the traditional marriage between a man and a woman, and it became "The Chick-Fil-A owner hates gays." Kind of bizarre, especially because the only "secret" more obvious than the owner is a devout Christian is the secret that Anderson Cooper is gay. Twitter was filled yesterday with some pretty vile lefty stuff, including Roseanne Barr of all people wishing cancer on anyone who eats at a Chick-Fil-A. Oh, the tolerant left. On the upside, I read this funny comment yesterday:"In order to match @RahmEmanuel's "Chicago values", #ChickFilA announces they will start murdering people and selling meth." I missed that. In that case I think I'll go there for lunch today.
Gary M Posted July 26, 2012 Posted July 26, 2012 Anyone notice how opposition to gay marriage is now "anti-gay views"? Anyone remember when they just wanted the Christian right wing homophobes to "stay out of our bedrooms"?
Recommended Posts