Everyone here libs and conservs holds a pretty hard line view. Aren't we all then the definition of a bigot?

:bowdown::bigbow:

Best post of the year. :crap2:

No, because the definition of "bigot" includes "treats members of a group with hatred".

Most people understand the meaning of and the difference between "Love the sinner...hate the sin".

I'm pretty sure Truett Cathy would try to adhere to "Love the sinner....hate the sin".

Definition of BIGOT

: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

Merriam Webster Dictionary online

I'M Outraged That Mr. Cathy's Constitutional Rights Are Being Violated
 

People seem to be drifting away from the true situation here. Mr. Cathy simply stated that he views marriage to be between a man and woman. He has not acted in any way that could be construed in the liberalist view as being bigoted.

The Gay Nation went berserk because they viewed his view as a threat to their agenda. The Gay Nation's reaction and complaints led to some spineless opportunists politicians and Hollywood people to discriminate against Mr. Cathy and his business Chick-fil-a

People on the side of Mr. Cathy are outraged that people in responsible government positions, et al would intentionally take actions to damage Mr. Cathy's business. These tactics mimick the hit list being applied in the Obama Administration. These once again hitman tactics created by "Saul the Maul" Alinsky.

I have already ask my wife to accompany me on a date tomorrow to purchase a tasty Chick-fil-a

Mr Cathy in essence is being persecuted for his religious beliefs

Good post, Rubicon.

One thing that always strikes me with "gay marriage" is that "marriage" is a religious covenant/promise/sacrament, as well as being a civil union in our nation and in Europe and other places.

Who do gay "marriage" proponents think they are, re-defining a 6,000+ year-old religious rite, when it is Judeo-Christian religion and laws that they cannot stand??

A big part of the problem is calling it gay "marriage", when the religious rite of marriage is and always has been between a male and a female. Who are gay rights proponents to change the definition of millennia-old religious rites???

A lot of this fighting would stop if gay proponents would focus on a "civil union" or "domestic partnership", and leave the religious rites alone as they have stood for thousands of years.

I can't think of anybody I know who is not okay with a "civil union" or "domestic partnership" sanctioned by civil authorities, while leaving the religious union/rite up to the churches/synagogues.

ilovetv, I absolutely agree with you. Any committed couple should be afforded the opportunity to form a "civil union" or "domestic partnership" and with that commitment should be able to realize all civil benefits currently extended to married couples. These benefits would include inheritance rights, tax benefits, banking/financial benefits, etc. Society can call these unions - "civil unions" or "domestic partnerships".

If that couple chooses to "go the next step" and make a commitment between themselves and their God, society can label that as "marriage".

There is absolutely NOTHING different between a gay couple being married by a Justice of the Peace or a judge than a straight couple being married in the same way. It is a CIVIL ceremony. It is a civilized thing to do!

IF a church wants to recognize the civil ceremony with a religious ceremony of it's own, THAT is up to the church. The GOVERNMENT should keep it's nose out of the church business.

If the CEO of Chick-fil-a wants to come out and denounce gay marriage - nothing wrong with him doing that. If groups want to protest his actions by boycotting the restaurant - nothing wrong with that, either. GOVERNMENT should not be involved IN ANY WAY.

Go ahead and buy your sandwiches tomorrow. Nothing wrong with that, either - except for the huge amounts of grease and sodium and empty calories in the sandwiches. Those waffle fries do sound good, though.

.....

Okay - I'll bite. What's the difference?

me. too - i'll bite! please explain your post.

OMG!!, I agree with every single word you've said here.

The only problem I have with this whole overblown story is the government getting involved in any of this, and agree 100% on your view on this.

Where we part is I don't think the sandwiches are greasy at all, and they are not empty calories because you're getting a bit of a protein fix. You could get a protein fix more efficiently than a Chick-fil-a sandwich, but they're not that unhealthy, I don't believe.

The waffle fries; now those are delicious empty calories........mmmm.

For those too far away from Chick Fil A that want to symbolically support Cathy or have worked up a hankerin for one and for those boycotting and craving one.

The Food Lab: How to Make a Chick-Fil-A Sandwich at Home | Serious Eats

Assuming the sinkhole didn't occur. He is a benevolent God!