Chick-fil-A Head Spokesman Dies of Heart Attack

[KingNothing]

You're basically asking me to have tolerance for intolerance.

That's what they don't understand. And, at the very least, they're asking you to not think they're completely backwards or absurd for holding the views that they hold.

In sum, it works like this:

These people hold collectivists thoughts that cause them to look down on, hate, think less of, or refuse to tolerate, gay people. We are supposed to respect them just the same, or refrain from expressing our views, when they spout ignorance, intolerance, hatred and a litany of other things that the next generation of people will be confused by.

 

[Brett85]

That's what they don't understand. And, at the very least, they're asking you to not think they're completely backwards or absurd for holding the views that they hold.

In sum, it works like this:

These people hold collectivists thoughts that cause them to look down on, hate, think less of, or refuse to tolerate, gay people. We are supposed to respect them just the same, or refrain from expressing our views, when they spout ignorance, intolerance, hatred and a litany of other things that the next generation of people will be confused by.

Right, because refusing to give legal recognition to gay relationships is the same as "hating" and "refusing to tolerate" gay people.

 

[Brett85]

When the premise of your argument is that other people are not good enough or moral enough for you because of who they are attracted to, you're firing the opening shot when it comes to insults.

No, that simply isn't true at all. You can disagree with the lifestyle that someone lives and still treat that person with respect and love that person.

 

[KingNothing]

Right, because refusing to give legal recognition to gay relationships is the same as "hating" and "refusing to tolerate" gay people.

I've been involved in several threads on this message board where people most certainly do not view gay people as moral individuals, simply because of who they're attracted to. I'd consider that an absurd prejudice, hatred, and display of intolerance, yes. What else could it be called?

It might not be violent and the owner of such bigotry is allowed to possess it, no doubt about that, but that doesn't mean it represents a pinnacle of virtue and excellence -which Paul always tells us to strive towards. We can all do better than such petty prejudice and collectivist nonsense.

 

[KingNothing]

No, that simply isn't true at all. You can disagree with the lifestyle that someone lives and still treat that person with respect and love that person.

They just aren't allowed to do some of the things that you do. Because they aren't moral, and the current laws don't always apply to them.

Maybe you should stop "disagreeing with lifestyle" and let people live how their nature asks them to live. Besides, who are you to disagree with anyone's lifestyle? And before you say that I'm judging you and yours, I'm not. I'm judging the antiquated line of collectivist thinking that allows you to think that because someone is biologically driven to be attracted to a person of the same sex, their "lifestyle" is not good enough for you.


And, again, I'm not advocating for any sort of special treatment for gayfolks. I want no special laws or privileges granted to them. All I'm suggesting is that we learn to respect them and their "lifestyle" just the same as we'd learn to respect the lifestyle of ANY contributing member of society, person capable of loving and being loved, or anyone else. This silly passing of judgement on others based on sexual preference.... well... it's not the best we can do.

 

[libertariantexas]

I'm not surprised the corporate PR guy died.

After furor the CEO kicked up with his comments, I'll bet the PR guy was working 24-7 doing damage control.

It's not surprising the stress got to him and brought about his death.

The Chick fil A CEO effectively killed his PR guy with his anti-gay rant. I wonder if he feels bad.

Probably not.

 

[BamaAla]

I'm not surprised the corporate PR guy died.

After furor the CEO kicked up with his comments, I'll bet the PR guy was working 24-7 doing damage control.

It's not surprising the stress got to him and brought about his death.

The Chick fil A CEO effectively killed his PR guy with his anti-gay rant. I wonder if he feels bad.

Probably not.

Yes Doctor, that's exactly what happened.

 

[Peace&Freedom]

They just aren't allowed to do some of the things that you do. Because they aren't moral, and the current laws don't always apply to them.

Maybe you should stop "disagreeing with lifestyle" and let people live how their nature asks them to live. Besides, who are you to disagree with anyone's lifestyle? And before you say that I'm judging you and yours, I'm not. I'm judging the antiquated line of collectivist thinking that allows you to think that because someone is biologically driven to be attracted to a person of the same sex, their "lifestyle" is not good enough for you.


And, again, I'm not advocating for any sort of special treatment for gayfolks. I want no special laws or privileges granted to them. All I'm suggesting is that we learn to respect them and their "lifestyle" just the same as we'd learn to respect the lifestyle of ANY contributing member of society, person capable of loving and being loved, or anyone else. This silly passing of judgement on others based on sexual preference.... well... it's not the best we can do.

Perhaps the best we can do is not couch the subject in terms of forcing Christians to accept the "they're biologically driven" to homosexual behavior secular mythology. This line of thinking packs so many disputed notions into its articulation that it becomes a counter collectivist dogma, or sauce for the goose of traditionalist dogma. I view the thinking as double talk, because while it says it does not treat gays as 'special' it turns around and savages anybody that denounces their behavior the same as they would denounce any other "productive contributor to society" who also did bad behavior.

Are we supposed to 'respect' John Edwards' adulteries, because you could argue he was otherwise "productive" as a Senator? Shall we 'respect' alcoholism, because some alcoholics have positive talents? Why is performing homosexual acts uniquely supposed to be given proxy 'respect' compared to any other 'mixed bag' situation concerning individuals? Because, yes, you are asking to give them special treatment or rights. I ask that you respect people who treat homosexual behavior separately from the person, instead of calling them intolerant for making the distinction.

 

[jonhowe]

I'm surprised to see some of the posts in this thread. I have (and everyone here should have) no problem with someone thinking whatever they want. If they're a Christian that believes homosexuality is a sin, fine. The problem is, they SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED to infringe on the rights of others, and those who support these constitutional amendments to ban gay marriage are doing just that. If you think it's wrong for them to be married, then don't let them marry in your church. Just don't impose your religious beliefs on the rest of the nation.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." -1st amendment, U.S. Constitution.

This. Exactly.

 

[BlackTerrel]

The only agenda I can figure so far is a government divide and conquer strategy. Their chief spokesperson wasn't inflammatory enough and he didn't say enough anti-gay rhetoric in order to play into the establishment's goal of pinning gays against fundamentalists and vice versa.

That's because you live in a world where spooks sit in smoke filled rooms and just decide to do evil all day purely for the sake of doing evil.

Most people who die of heart attacks just die of heart attacks. I know that's boring.

 

[BlackTerrel]

I know someone who died of a heart attack in his 30s. Its one of the leading causes of death in this country with tons of contributing factors. Genetics, diet, lifestyle, stress...

It's one of the leading causes of death because that's what our government uses to take people out. I'd say at least 90% of such deaths are caused by the government.

 

[cstarace]

Yes Doctor, that's exactly what happened.

It's certainly more plausible than a bunch of gay activists sitting around in a room conspiring to stage the death of Chick-fil-A's head spokesman.

 

[BlackTerrel]

It's certainly more plausible than a bunch of gay activists sitting around in a room conspiring to stage the death of Chick-fil-A's head spokesman.

I'd like to know where Lance Bass was when this happened.

 

[KingNothing]

Are we supposed to 'respect' John Edwards' adulteries, because you could argue he was otherwise "productive" as a Senator? Shall we 'respect' alcoholism, because some alcoholics have positive talents? Why is performing homosexual acts uniquely supposed to be given proxy 'respect' compared to any other 'mixed bag' situation concerning individuals? Because, yes, you are asking to give them special treatment or rights. I ask that you respect people who treat homosexual behavior separately from the person, instead of calling them intolerant for making the distinction.

There is NOTHING inherently wrong about homosexuality. It harms NO ONE. Infidelity breaks a vow and a contract. Alcoholism is a medical condition that can be treated and overcome. Being gay is just.... finding attractive adults who society says you shouldn't find attractive. And, for what its worth, I don't think that we should judge alcoholics or men and women who cheat, either. Everyone has a story. You'll never know all of it, or what would have happened to you if you led their life.

 

[KingNothing]

I'm surprised to see some of the posts in this thread. I have (and everyone here should have) no problem with someone thinking whatever they want. If they're a Christian that believes homosexuality is a sin, fine. The problem is, they SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED to infringe on the rights of others, and those who support these constitutional amendments to ban gay marriage are doing just that. If you think it's wrong for them to be married, then don't let them marry in your church. Just don't impose your religious beliefs on the rest of the nation.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." -1st amendment, U.S. Constitution.

It would take an amazing amount of cognitive dissonance to disagree with this.

 

[Peace&Freedom]

I'm surprised to see some of the posts in this thread. I have (and everyone here should have) no problem with someone thinking whatever they want. If they're a Christian that believes homosexuality is a sin, fine. The problem is, they SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED to infringe on the rights of others, and those who support these constitutional amendments to ban gay marriage are doing just that. If you think it's wrong for them to be married, then don't let them marry in your church. Just don't impose your religious beliefs on the rest of the nation.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." -1st amendment, U.S. Constitution.

Another example of asserting disputed premises as a settled matter. Christians and other traditionalists do not want SECULAR beliefs imposed on THEM, such as "there's nothing wrong with homosexuality," or "people are born that way, and cannot change," or "their rights are being infringed on," and so on. Even the presentation about the establishment clause reflects the draconian secularist 'separation' interpretation dominant since post WW II, and not the historic, Founders' view (that the federal government not endorse a specific CHURCH denomination, but states were perfectly free to do so; the amendment never intended to separate God and government).

Marriage is not a 'right' in the first place, it is a religious RITE where vows are made to God to bless a union. So of course religion is involved, as God will not bless sin, and as a historic religious concept is being forcibly re-defined using state coercion. Traditionalists will NOT drink the kool aid or marketing spin that misframes the issue as one of 'discrimination' or 'genetics' in order to give homosexuality bogus legitimacy. Those social left concepts are the very things being disagreed with, yet are presented as self-evident and not to be challenged. That is the essence of dogma in action, be it imposed by authoritarians of the left on the right, or the right on the left. What is so complicated about not imposing the values of San Francisco on the Bible belt? Don't impose such secular humanist beliefs on the rest of the nation, either.

 

[KingNothing]

Don't people just sound completely insane when they try to say that being gay is a sin, and that if you're tolerant of gay people you're focing insane people to accept your values?