Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
If you read the article, the CEO is bending over backwards trying to tell everyone how Chick-fil-a isn't anti-gay. His business must have really been taking damage.
Hence, people like Randallflagg and Katz must now flipflop and hate Chick-fil-a, being it's become such a gay-friendly chain.
They never were anti-gay. You buttholes claimed that.
If you read the article, the CEO is bending over backwards trying to tell everyone how Chick-fil-a isn't anti-gay. His business must have really been taking damage.
Hence, people like Randallflagg and Katz must now flipflop and hate Chick-fil-a, being it's become such a gay-friendly chain.
Chick-fil-A CEO regrets gay marriage controversy
Published on Thursday, 20 March 2014 05:45
Written by Jim Denison
Dan Cathy enjoying Food Truck Wednesdays at The Stove Works in Atlanta (Credit: Dan Cathy via Twitter) Dan Cathy stirred great controversy two years ago with his comments in support of biblical marriage. In an interview this week, he clearly stands by his beliefs on the issue. However, he regrets making Chick-fil-A, the company he leads, a symbol in the marriage debate.
Cathy: "The bottom line is we have a responsibility here to keep the whole of the organization in mind and it has to take precedence over the personal expression and opinion on social issues." Asked about a related legislative issue, he responded, "I think that's a political debate that's going to rage on. And the wiser thing for us to do is to stay focused on customer service."
Is this focus on customer service the right thing for Cathy to be doing? Or is he putting corporate profits ahead of religious conviction?
It's a vexing issue. On one hand, everyone who accepts a job with an organization is morally obligated to serve the interests of that employer. Scripture teaches us to "work with your hands... so that you may walk properly before outsiders and be dependent on no one" (1 Thessalonians 4:12). If our statements or actions regarding social issues hurt our company, are we violating this obligation? If I were on the board of Chick-fil-A, I could argue that the company must be profitable if it is to serve its employees and fulfill its vision. "No margin, no mission," as the saying goes.
On the other hand, if employees cannot express personal convictions that might negatively impact their employer, how is their freedom of speech to be protected? We can say that Cathy should state his views on his own time, but there is never a time he is not the CEO of Chick-fil-A. Nor should we demand that people ignore their deeply held beliefs while at work. Such a divorce of values and actions is unworkable. There's no such thing as no characterthere's only good character and bad character.
This issue has nothing to do with abortion. This issue is about whether business owners and can use professed religious beliefs to pick and choose which laws they will obey.
There is religious objection to abortion and abortion funding. There is also religious objection to
vaccinations, blood transfusions, surgery, not to mention ALL artificial birth control.
The HHS mandate requires the family-owned business to provide insurance coverage for the morning after pill and week after pill contrary to their religious convictions or pay fines to the IRS. The Greens believe that Hobby Lobby cannot fulfill its mission while paying for these drugs (the morning after pill and week after pill) that conflict with their beliefs. That is why on Wednesday, Sept. 12, Hobby Lobby filed suit in an effort to defend its constitutional freedom to carry out its mission in a way consistent with its owners religious principles.
The Green family has no moral objection to the use of 16 of 20 preventive contraceptives required in the mandate and will continue its longstanding practice of covering these preventive contraceptives for its employees. However, the Green family cannot provide or pay for four possible life-threatening drugs and devices. These drugs include Plan B and Ella, the so-called morning-after pill and the week-after pill. Covering these drugs and devices would violate their most deeply held religious belief that life begins at conception, when an egg is fertilized.
The Green family respects the religious convictions of all Americans, including those who do not agree with them. All they are asking is for the government to give them the same respect by not forcing them to violate their religious beliefs.
Does this help clarify HL's stance??
Uh, it's pretty easy to figure out if someone is being truthful or lying about their religious beliefs. Also, that belief has to pass the smell test...someone can't claim their religion opposes people with long hair, etc.
If their religion opposes an "action" and their well documented book (the Bible) speaks on the subject being discussed, then you are violating their Christian beliefs forcing them to go against the Bible.
See how that works, twit.
This issue has nothing to do with abortion. This issue is about whether business owners and can use professed religious beliefs to pick and choose which laws they will obey.
There is religious objection to abortion and abortion funding. There is also religious objection to
vaccinations, blood transfusions, surgery, not to mention ALL artificial birth control.
This issue has nothing to do with abortion. This issue is about whether business owners and can use professed religious beliefs to pick and choose which laws they will obey.
There is religious objection to abortion and abortion funding. There is also religious objection to
vaccinations, blood transfusions, surgery, not to mention ALL artificial birth control.
The HHS mandate requires the family-owned business to provide insurance coverage for the morning after pill and week after pill contrary to their religious convictions or pay fines to the IRS. The Greens believe that Hobby Lobby cannot fulfill its mission while paying for these drugs (the morning after pill and week after pill) that conflict with their beliefs. That is why on Wednesday, Sept. 12, Hobby Lobby filed suit in an effort to defend its constitutional freedom to carry out its mission in a way consistent with its owners religious principles.
The Green family has no moral objection to the use of 16 of 20 preventive contraceptives required in the mandate and will continue its longstanding practice of covering these preventive contraceptives for its employees. However, the Green family cannot provide or pay for four possible life-threatening drugs and devices. These drugs include Plan B and Ella, the so-called morning-after pill and the week-after pill. Covering these drugs and devices would violate their most deeply held religious belief that life begins at conception, when an egg is fertilized.
The Green family respects the religious convictions of all Americans, including those who do not agree with them. All they are asking is for the government to give them the same respect by not forcing them to violate their religious beliefs.
Does this help clarify HL's stance??
Hobby Lobby pays their employees cash also, which can be used to buy any birth control including outright abortion.
Why don't they object to that?
Uh, it's pretty easy to figure out if someone is being truthful or lying about their religious beliefs. Also, that belief has to pass the smell test...someone can't claim their religion opposes people with long hair, etc.
If their religion opposes an "action" and their well documented book (the Bible) speaks on the subject being discussed, then you are violating their Christian beliefs forcing them to go against the Bible.
See how that works, twit.
This issue has nothing to do with abortion. This issue is about whether business owners and can use professed religious beliefs to pick and choose which laws they will obey.
There is religious objection to abortion and abortion funding. There is also religious objection to
vaccinations, blood transfusions, surgery, not to mention ALL artificial birth control.
The Bible dictates that a Christian who operates a business cannot compensate his employees with anything that could be used as payment for an IUD??
Cite that passage.
Again because someone believes a turd is a snickers dont make it a snickers
Who cares?
...
You do when someone puts a turd in your mouth idiot
I noticed you didn't cite passage.Uh, it's pretty easy to figure out if someone is being truthful or lying about their religious beliefs. Also, that belief has to pass the smell test...someone can't claim their religion opposes people with long hair, etc.
If their religion opposes an "action" and their well documented book (the Bible) speaks on the subject being discussed, then you are violating their Christian beliefs forcing them to go against the Bible.
See how that works, twit.
The Bible dictates that a Christian who operates a business cannot compensate his employees with anything that could be used as payment for an IUD??
Cite that passage.
Perhaps some pro life reading would fill the bill :
Abortion - Pro Life - The Bible's Teaching Against Abortion
This issue has nothing to do with abortion. This issue is about whether business owners and can use professed religious beliefs to pick and choose which laws they will obey.
There is religious objection to abortion and abortion funding. There is also religious objection to
vaccinations, blood transfusions, surgery, not to mention ALL artificial birth control.
For generation upon generation, discrimination was justified on biblical grounds --
Perhaps some reading would fill the bill ...
Title: Defence Of Southern Slavery. Against The Attacks of
Henry Clay And Alex'r. Campbell,
In Which Much Of The False Philanthropy And Mawkish Sentimentalism Of
The Abolitionists Is Met And Refuted. In Which
It Is Moreover Shown That The Association Of The White
And Black Races In The Relation Of Master And Slave
Is The Appointed Order Of God, As Set Forth In
The Bible, And Constitutes The Best Social
Condition Of Both Races, And The Only
True Principle Of Republicanism.
By A Southern Clergyman.
This issue has nothing to do with abortion. This issue is about whether business owners and can use professed religious beliefs to pick and choose which laws they will obey.
There is religious objection to abortion and abortion funding. There is also religious objection to
vaccinations, blood transfusions, surgery, not to mention ALL artificial birth control.
The HHS mandate requires the family-owned business to provide insurance coverage for the morning after pill and week after pill contrary to their religious convictions or pay fines to the IRS. The Greens believe that Hobby Lobby cannot fulfill its mission while paying for these drugs (the morning after pill and week after pill) that conflict with their beliefs. That is why on Wednesday, Sept. 12, Hobby Lobby filed suit in an effort to defend its constitutional freedom to carry out its mission in a way consistent with its owners religious principles.
The Green family has no moral objection to the use of 16 of 20 preventive contraceptives required in the mandate and will continue its longstanding practice of covering these preventive contraceptives for its employees. However, the Green family cannot provide or pay for four possible life-threatening drugs and devices. These drugs include Plan B and Ella, the so-called morning-after pill and the week-after pill. Covering these drugs and devices would violate their most deeply held religious belief that life begins at conception, when an egg is fertilized.
The Green family respects the religious convictions of all Americans, including those who do not agree with them. All they are asking is for the government to give them the same respect by not forcing them to violate their religious beliefs.
Does this help clarify HL's stance??
Hobby Lobby pays their employees cash also, which can be used to buy any birth control including outright abortion.
Why don't they object to that?
Do you dislike conservatives?For generation upon generation, discrimination was justified on biblical grounds --
Perhaps some reading would fill the bill ...
Title: Defence Of Southern Slavery. Against The Attacks of
Henry Clay And Alex'r. Campbell,
In Which Much Of The False Philanthropy And Mawkish Sentimentalism Of
The Abolitionists Is Met And Refuted. In Which
It Is Moreover Shown That The Association Of The White
And Black Races In The Relation Of Master And Slave
Is The Appointed Order Of God, As Set Forth In
The Bible, And Constitutes The Best Social
Condition Of Both Races, And The Only
True Principle Of Republicanism.
By A Southern Clergyman.
Cool story
I despised slavery too, which is why i've never liked the democrat party.......
For generation upon generation, discrimination was justified on biblical grounds --
Perhaps some reading would fill the bill ...
Title: Defence Of Southern Slavery. Against The Attacks of
Henry Clay And Alex'r. Campbell,
In Which Much Of The False Philanthropy And Mawkish Sentimentalism Of
The Abolitionists Is Met And Refuted. In Which
It Is Moreover Shown That The Association Of The White
And Black Races In The Relation Of Master And Slave
Is The Appointed Order Of God, As Set Forth In
The Bible, And Constitutes The Best Social
Condition Of Both Races, And The Only
True Principle Of Republicanism.
By A Southern Clergyman.
The employees.For generation upon generation, discrimination was justified on biblical grounds --
Perhaps some reading would fill the bill ...
Title: Defence Of Southern Slavery. Against The Attacks of
Henry Clay And Alex'r. Campbell,
In Which Much Of The False Philanthropy And Mawkish Sentimentalism Of
The Abolitionists Is Met And Refuted. In Which
It Is Moreover Shown That The Association Of The White
And Black Races In The Relation Of Master And Slave
Is The Appointed Order Of God, As Set Forth In
The Bible, And Constitutes The Best Social
Condition Of Both Races, And The Only
True Principle Of Republicanism.
By A Southern Clergyman.
You know what a red herring is in debate circles, don't you??
Let's just for one second say I will humor your ill fated logic train, so with that being said, I would beg to ask the 64 million dollar question, Who is being discriminated against??
Do you dislike conservatives?For generation upon generation, discrimination was justified on biblical grounds --
Perhaps some reading would fill the bill ...
Title: Defence Of Southern Slavery. Against The Attacks of
Henry Clay And Alex'r. Campbell,
In Which Much Of The False Philanthropy And Mawkish Sentimentalism Of
The Abolitionists Is Met And Refuted. In Which
It Is Moreover Shown That The Association Of The White
And Black Races In The Relation Of Master And Slave
Is The Appointed Order Of God, As Set Forth In
The Bible, And Constitutes The Best Social
Condition Of Both Races, And The Only
True Principle Of Republicanism.
By A Southern Clergyman.
Cool story
I despised slavery too, which is why i've never liked the democrat party.......
The conservative democrats of that era? You betyer ass I do.Do you dislike conservatives?Cool story
I despised slavery too, which is why i've never liked the democrat party.......
Do you dislike democrats?.....
So HL isn't asking to treat their employees different than anyone else who has to comply with the law?You keep calling it discrimination, but to meet that criteria you would need an individual / group who was treated different than the status quot.
All are being treated the same, once again you can not back your fictitious claim up.
