Henson issues statement about Chick-Fila-A

[Bannanasketch]

When it comes to Chick, someone SHOULD have said "Hey, Chick Fil A! If we want your opinion, we'll ASK for it." Kirk Cameron said what he said, because they made the mistake of asking his opinion.

To be clear, Dan Cathy was asked. This news came out after an interview he had done so clearly somebody asked his opinion on the matter.

 

[jvcarroll]

I don't see why Henson comes off bad at all. There's no reason for them to. It's a corporate move, plain and simple and they don't want to be associated with someone who they disagree with. That happens ALL the time in business partnerships, I don't see anything that should make them look bad at all. It is within their rights to say "Thanks, but no thanks." Politically, religiously... heck with that. Henson could have bit their lips and said "sure, fine... whatever," and it probably wouldn't have looked good on them.

I'm reiterating this... my beef is not so much Chick's attitudes or views. It's the fact that they use their money, power, and influence to buy their way into political movements. BOTH sides politically can agree that's what's ruining our country. That's the reason the banks got bailed out AND the reason why there's still no regulation to prevent it happening again. And I say it again... if I use whatever money I have to influence government, that's an illegal bribe and I can get arrested for it. Why the heck is this still legal? Oh yeah... they BUY anyone who tries to challenge it. Duh.

As for the mayor of Boston... sigh... I'd LOVE to respect his wishes for this, but I'm still quite annoyed at how he handled Cartoon Network after that stupid Mooninite scandal. Poor form. He wanted people fired and shook them down for more money than they willingly wanted to pay. I guess you could say it was Menino's fault we got CN Real.

Besides, I'd rather have a hundred far far right fast food joints in Boston than that *&&^% Szkieletor half building half hole that destroyed Downtown. Why isn't he trying to Shake down Macy's for that? *&^% Macy's!

You bring up a good point? Why are so many Christian organizations (the Pennsylvania Family Institute, Marriage & Family Foundation, Focus on the Family and the Family Research Council) trying to hide the fact that they are Christians when people see the name? I mean, it's apparent later on, but there's something that's dishonest about releasing quotes and "data" under their organization's name while withholding their central purpose.

Bottom line I think the tide in society is shifting towards more sympathy to the gay marriage issue and anyone who does otherwise is going to catch flack for it at this point. Not saying Chick-Fil-Whatever (never heard of it until the other day) should just go along with the crowd then; you should never do something for that reason. If they can't bring themselves to support the issue, they should be honest. They may not win, but that's the way it goes.

I agree. People too often get sanctioned by the PC police. However, the statements made by CFA contained inflammatory and downright apocalyptic language that no company would say about any group other than gay people.

When it comes to Chick, someone SHOULD have said "Hey, Chick Fil A! If we want your opinion, we'll ASK for it." Kirk Cameron said what he said, because they made the mistake of asking his opinion.

But the main point isn't so much Chick Fil A said something, they spend their profits influencing government and funding anti-gay groups.

They're entitled to their opinion, they're NOT entitled to use their money and influence to force their opinions into law.

Think of it this way. Let's say it came out that, instead of an anti-gay agenda, Chick Fil A was giving their profits to (hypothetically) a terrorist organization that kidnaps children and eats them. Or lets say Soylent Chicken is PEOPLE. Would you stand by Henson if they didn't politely end their partnership?

Kirk Cameron was painted into a corner by tabloid journalist Piers Morgan. Remind me why he's on CNN? Cameron's response could have been better, but I can't fault him for having a personal belief. I have no knowledge of any of his evangelical organizations directly influencing public policy other than this rather ambiguous "marriage tour" that appears to be for straight Christians only. I don't know much about that organization.

People should be careful of the words they use. He should have stated his beliefs without claiming that he found gay marriage to be "destructive to foundations of civilization." That's the hateful and downright passive-aggressive part that no young LGBT person growing up under so many oppressive conditions should ever hear!

 

[CensoredAlso]

Kirk Cameron was painted into a corner by tabloid journalist Piers Morgan....People should be careful of the words they use. He should have stated his beliefs without claiming that he found gay marriage to be "destructive to foundations of civilization." That's the hateful and downright passive-aggressive part that no young LGBT person growing up under so many oppressive conditions should ever hear!

I can't take Kirk Cameron seriously. He suggests the manner of a brainwashed cult member to me. Or maybe he's just an actor. Hehe, sorry.

 

[jvcarroll]

I can't take Kirk Cameron seriously. He suggests the manner of a brainwashed cult member to me. Or maybe he's just an actor. Hehe, sorry.

Have you seen his banana demonstration on YouTube? He and this Australian fella explain how the design of the banana to fit the hand proves the existence of God. Some clever YouTube responder interjected that God must hate Pacific Islanders for giving them the coconut. Ha! I'm not a Christian, but it's that kind of garbage that offends me because it cheapens the belief of millions of people and reduces it to a punchline.

 

[CensoredAlso]

Have you seen his banana demonstration on YouTube? He and this Australian fella explain how the design of the banana to fit the hand proves the existence of God. Some clever person interjected that God must hate Pacific Islanders for giving them the coconut. Ha! I'm not a Christian, but it's that kind of garbage that offends me because it cheapens the belief of millions of people and reduces it to a punchline.

Yeah my friend (who's an atheist) actually showed me that, lol. Off topic but that bugs me. The Bible is a book of faith. If you want to believe in it literally, that's your right. But don't try to say it's science. It's faith. That's the whole point. Lol

And to clarify I'm not saying every creationist is a brainwashed cult member. I'm just saying Kirk Cameron in particular gives off that vibe, especially when you hear about how obsessive he got with the whole born again thing. No different from the actors who went in for Scientology. This is when it's scary that entertainers are given such a big platform, heh.

 

[jvcarroll]

Yeah my friend (who's an atheist) actually showed me that, lol. Off topic but that bugs me. The Bible is a book of faith. If you want to believe in it literally, that's your right. But don't try to say it's science. It's faith. That's the whole point. Lol

And to clarify I'm not saying every creationist is a brainwashed cult member. I'm just saying Kirk Cameron in particular gives off that vibe, especially when you hear about how obsessive he got with the whole born again thing. No different from the actors who went in for Scientology. This is when it's scary that entertainers are given such a big platform, heh.

I agree. Most entertainers become creepy once it comes to matters of faith no matter what that faith may be. It's probably because we're so used to them selling us stuff that it starts looking cheap when what their selling is spiritual in nature.

 

[seismicmike]

I have to admit that my statement about Jim Henson removing support being bigoted went a little too far. I acknowledge that there is a difference between restricting the rights of someone else versus being inclusive of everyone. Chick-Fil-A is certainly not handling this very maturely if they are indeed using fake Facebook accounts, but that does not change that they have the fundamental right to support non-profit organizations as they see fit. We may not agree with them, but it's still their right to support whatever they want. Just like you have the right not to eat there so that your money doesn't go to these organizations. Just like Jim Henson has the right to end their business relationship. So I was wrong on that count.

However, I think that we must remember freedom of thought, speech and conscience as being important as well. I think what some on the left might be missing is the fact that Christians feel as though their rights are being ignored. The message of tolerance rings hollow when Christians are not tolerated. I know, I know. You're going to scoff at this because who cares about someone's right to hate, right? But that's not the issue. The concern here is not the right to hate someone for their behavior, it's an issue of conscience.

Granted, I think most of this stems from the fact that a lot of Christians act like complete douchebags on this issue. The real truth of this issue has been lost in the fluff of the "God Hates Fags" demonstrations - which are terrible by the way. Most Christian position on this issue is not motivated by hate. It's motivated by fear. Some of that fear is mis-guided, like the belief that gay marriage will harm the family, but some of that fear I see as legitimate.

For example, I think there is a legitimate fear among conservative Christians that if gay marriage becomes law there may arise situations in which the law will require us to violate our conscience. This is not a trivial issue. It is one thing to allow others to conduct their lives as they see fit. It is another to be required to commit sin ourselves. In these situations we must make a choice of whether to obey God or man.

Unfortunately for Christians, we must realize that the cushy positions we've experienced over the last 400 years in this land has been the exception, not the rule. Church history is a long story of martyrs and religious persecution and we must be prepared for the freedoms we have enjoyed to be revoked. But honestly, how bad could this be? Compared to times when martyrs have been crucified, flayed and burned at the stake, how bad could being sued and fined be? Even still, it is a legitimate concern.

Would the law require that churches are no longer be aloud to preach what they believe the Word of God to say on this issue (link)? Would the law require that churches be willing to perform marriages to gay couples even if the church disagrees with the practice as immoral (link)? Doing so would violate the conscience of the church. If that's the case, then this has crossed the line from sexual orientation persecution to religious persecution.

Would churches be required to hire gays? Would churches be required to ordain gays? Would churches be required to provide benefits to gay spouses? Would churches be required to allow gays into membership? Would the law require that home schoolers teach their children that homosexuality is not a sin and ban teaching them from teaching what the Bible says on the subject?

I'm certainly not saying that any of these fears would ever become reality, but they are real concerns for the conservative Christians. And considering that this same level of debate is already being had over the issue of contraception with Obamacare, I think it's safe to say that this issue is going to take that turn at some point. I think if the LGBT community really is concerned with tolerance and inclusion of all, they must be willing to tolerate the conscience of Christians and religious institutions who would see certain behaviors they might be required to adopt as sinful. That would go along way to allaying these fears.

Unfortunately, those fears are never clearly articulated by the right because we're too busy sounding like we hate everyone, and most discussion on this issue devolves into flame wars, rhetoric, name calling and Godwin's law.

Just my two cents. I appreciate the discussion

 

[Pinkflower7783]

We need to all respect each other no matter our beliefs.

 

[seismicmike]

I believe that you didn't mean to equate homosexuals with pedophiles and mass murderers, but think about it. How would you feel if I wrote an article stating that organized religion was mere wishful thinking, and lumped Scientologists, the Westboro Baptist Church, and Christians all together as examples? You'd object to that, I'm sure, and with good reason. And there's a long and sad history of people believing that gay people are perverts, pedophiles, and so on, rather than people who are simply attracted to people of their own gender. How could the excerpt quoted above fail to infuriate anyone sympathetic to LGBT issues?

I see your perspective on this issue and understand why it came across the way it did. I apologize for that.

Regarding a supposed lumping of religious groups together, I might take some exception to it, but I can see how from an atheistic world view all religion ultimately is a fairy tale. Thus there is a very real sense in which you can lump them together. I get the sense that the LGBT community does not take the requisite "willing suspension of disbelief" step to try to interpret things Christians say within the framework of the Christian world view before just dismissing it out of hand. Perhaps I'm wrong on this, I don't know.

Anyway, I understand that not all sin is the same. I did not intend to imply that at all. I was merely stating that since I am not the judge, I'll leave that up to God. You may not even agree with me that homosexuality is a sin. That's fine. I'll leave that up to God. I'll state the truth as I see it, but I can't judge you for not accepting. No matter who you are and what you've done, I owe you love. You can be an everyman who's only guilty of a few white lies, or you could be a chronic liar, a homosexual, a white collar criminal, a bank robber, drug lord, gangster, or even the worst pedophile on the face of the planet. I still owe you love. It's not a measure of the wrongness of a sin. It's a measure of the depth of love that Christ has shown me and that I am required to show others.

I was on Win7 and MSIE. Now I'm at home, On Windows XP and Firefox, and it looks fine.

Ah, the dreaded IE!

 

[CensoredAlso]

Would churches be required to hire gays? Would churches be required to ordain gays? Would churches be required to provide benefits to gay spouses? Would churches be required to allow gays into membership? Would the law require that home schoolers teach their children that homosexuality is not a sin and ban teaching them from teaching what the Bible says on the subject?

Would Jesus be required to share a table with gays?

No....He wouldn't even have to be asked.

Just saying...