Henson issues statement about Chick-Fila-A

[MJTaylor]

Yeah, not to dredge up the past, but the offending member went beyond stating his point of view. He used sexually explicit and derogatory language in an effort to taunt me and all LGBT people. He also spread false homophobic rhetoric and did all of this out of a misguided "Christian" duty. Basically, he was behaving like a bully. I'm glad to have seen Paranorman last night. Good timing!

Yes, it's me again and I'll admit I went too far with that remark about you know what. I promise never to do that on Muppet Central ever again. I don't usually speak like that, but I was feeling the heat at the time.
Honestly I wasn't trying to taunt anyone, nor did I mean to behave like a bully, but what I was trying to say is that I didn't feel easy about this push for gay marriage. I don't wish to make gay people feel inferior or anything like that. Surely you must recall in my first post I also took a shot at Chick-Fil-A?
Anywhere, I won't say any-more about this as I only seem to be offending people. Peace.

 

[Vincent L]

“I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write.” - Voltaire

You don't have to agree with someone to accept them.

 

[jvcarroll]

“I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write.” - Voltaire

You don't have to agree with someone to accept them.

What he said!

Yes, it's me again and I'll admit I went too far with that remark about you know what. I promise never to do that on Muppet Central ever again. I don't usually speak like that, but I was feeling the heat at the time.
Honestly I wasn't trying to taunt anyone, nor did I mean to behave like a bully, but what I was trying to say is that I didn't feel easy about this push for gay marriage. I don't wish to make gay people feel inferior or anything like that. Surely you must recall in my first post I also took a shot at Chick-Fil-A?
Anywhere, I won't say any-more about this as I only seem to be offending people. Peace.

Thanks for that. People can disagree without stepping on toes, considering the other as inferior or accusing them of sinister intent.

I have walked a mile in a Christian's shoes because I considered myself one for many years. The countless scriptural rationalizations from my comprehensive religious education didn't hold up in my adult life. I feel about Christianity the same way I feel about Islam. Most religion requires a leap of faith that my internal logic won't allow me to make. Nonetheless, I don't disparage those who believe differently, try to prove them wrong or try to convert them to agnosticism. I know much about the Christian life and their struggles. That is why I have real respect and compassion toward Christians. A lot of it! They are who they are, they believe as they believe and I wouldn't want to change one thing about them. If any gay-antagonizer really walked in our shoes they would take a different approach. We can share our experiences without forcing them or belittling the journeys of others.

A person can have values without having Christian values. We can have morals without having Christian morals. We can have a loving family without being a Christian family.

Wherever we come from, whatever we believe, none of us is born knowing how to treat people. We are taught that. It saddens me how horribly the most vocal religious representatives often treat non-believers. I know from personal experience that it is not indicative of these religions or their followers. Good people and horrible people come from all walks of life. There is no evidence that being gay, Christian, Jewish or Muslim makes for a better or worse person.

The true measure of a human being is what we decide to do with what we have been given.

 

[jvcarroll]

I...uh...missed something
(Facepalm).... Yeah. It was his sled and Norman Bates' mother was dead all along.

SPOILERS people. Thankfully I saw it, and I wouldn't so much say it's a nod so much as a GREAT gag payoff.

I mentioned a "nod" a week after the film's release, but no elaboration was given so that really can't be considered a spoiler. It's a film about tolerance after all.

I'm disappointed that the conservative media has blown that split-second nod out of proportion. The entire film features a teenager in tight clothes shamelessly throwing herself at a star football player, even some borderline-inappropriate touching is involved, but that is not mentioned at all. Also absent is the fact that "Paranorman" is a PG (not G) rated film. I wouldn't recommend the picture for most kids under 10 due to the scary content alone. Kids past the age of 10 who aren't aware of the existence of gay people will probably develop many social problems from being so incredibly sheltered.

 

[jvcarroll]

Well, the item that started this discussion has now come full circle:

Chick-Fil-A Agrees To Cease Funding To Anti-Gay Organizations​

​

CFA claims that their company will stay out of social politics and that includes their charitable arm that funds controversial anti-gay activists. Freedom of speech comes with responsibility and accountability for what is said and it looks like Chick-fil-A couldn't stand the heat. I'm still annoyed when anti-gay organizations claim oppression for their oppressive beliefs. Can't we all respect one another, live our lives and get along? It seems that's exactly what CFA wants to do. Good for them. It almost makes me forget that they still owe Henson an apology over the fake recall of their toys. ​

​

​

​

 

[CensoredAlso]

It's good that they're taking a second glance at some of the organizations that might be doing questionable things. That's really all this was and is about. Other than that their CEO can think whatever he wants. People can choose whether or not they want to go there. End of story.

I see their concession as mainly a victory for Capitalism, but in America what else is new?

 

[Slackbot]

I'll believe this when I see the evidence. And if & when I see the evidence I'll probably celebrate with a chicken sammitch. They can believe what they want to as long as my money isn't supporting sexism.

Interestingly, at the gummint office where I work there was a telecast of a speech concerning the constitutionality of Part 3 of DOMA, presented by an attorney who's on a case challenging it. It was interesting stuff, legal issues explained so mere mortals could understand it. Alas, I was the only one watching it, and I couldn't see the end because it was late in the afternoon.

 

[RedPiggy]

I have a hard time feeling happy about it (I'm not exactly a big chicken eater, so it's not like I care about their business one way or another). My first thought is, "Well, it's about dang time." My close second is, "Wait, if they thought it was such a sacred value, why are they ditching it just so there can be permissive zoning for them?" God is great, God is good, but dump Him quick if you can't make money off food?

This is NOT to say I find their position holy in the least. As a straight person who has been harrassed for being gay, I gave up the idea that God had anything to do with these folks whatsoever. It just irks me when someone who claims to have strong values caves in when the red ink starts showing (the financial kind, not the biblical kind).

 

[CensoredAlso]

"Wait, if they thought it was such a sacred value, why are they ditching it just so there can be permissive zoning for them?"

This is why people shouldn't look to corporate sponsors to support their doctrines, liberal or conservative. In the end they only have one loyalty.

 

[RedPiggy]

Kinda reminds one of the fight amongst Fraggles of visiting the carpet or the burger place.