>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>zombiekiller57 wrote:well here is a confirmed example. Best Buy contributes to the Terrorist Organization (CAIR) http://www.inquisitr.com/222475/is-best ... terrorism/ but no one on the left made a peep. As for me, I don't set foot in their stores anymore.
I stopped by the Glen Allen CF today for lunch. I didn't see any protests there.
When planning a trip to Egypt and Morrocco with two friends (alas it never happened, one is a history prof. and it woulda been cool) I was advised to buy and wear a cheap wedding ring, since this was before I was married, I asked why.mamabearCali wrote:I can do you one better than that. Islam is no friend to the gay person. As much as gays whine about homophobes and bigots and Christians, they should be thankful for the non violence and compassion for the "sinner" that Christianity fosters. In Islamic countries if they think a person is a homosexual they simply execute him. I am not saying by any means that we should do that--absolutely not--just pointing out differences in religious responses to something they deem unacceptable.
Peter Singer, a bioethics professor at Princeton, has been known to advocate marriage to an animal. His essay, Heavy Petting ( http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/2001----.htm caution: language ) certainly seems to approve of sexual relations with animals. And, a few years ago, concert producer Sharon Tendler married a dolphin. http://eddriscoll.com/archives/008323.phpmamabearCali wrote:It is not a strawman because I have seen and heard of people advocating for the right to have plural marriage (polygamous marriages) since the early 1800. Early Mormonism called for plural marriages. I have seen and heard of people wanting to marry animals and inanimate objects. A straw man is something that is not actually happening but is simply hypothetical. Plural marriages are not hypothetical, neither is the other wierd stuff.
yall did not address my question though. Are you ok with Mr Smith from Salt Lake city having 5 wives. Are you ok with Mr. Atta from Dearborne having 6 wives? That is at least a valid question.
Kreutz wrote:When planning a trip to Egypt and Morrocco with two friends (alas it never happened, one is a history prof. and it woulda been cool) I was advised to buy and wear a cheap wedding ring, since this was before I was married, I asked why.mamabearCali wrote:I can do you one better than that. Islam is no friend to the gay person. As much as gays whine about homophobes and bigots and Christians, they should be thankful for the non violence and compassion for the "sinner" that Christianity fosters. In Islamic countries if they think a person is a homosexual they simply execute him. I am not saying by any means that we should do that--absolutely not--just pointing out differences in religious responses to something they deem unacceptable.
I was told I would be pestered by men for sex since the locals feel much safer propositioning a foreign man for gay sex as opposed to one another on the off chance their local object of lust turns them in to be killed. Apparently those countries have quite the homosexual underground.
That's just ignorant BS. Best Buy doesn't support Terrorism. It's just more internet BS from those who hate Best buy.dorminWS wrote:>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>zombiekiller57 wrote:well here is a confirmed example. Best Buy contributes to the Terrorist Organization (CAIR) http://www.inquisitr.com/222475/is-best ... terrorism/ but no one on the left made a peep. As for me, I don't set foot in their stores anymore.
I stopped by the Glen Allen CF today for lunch. I didn't see any protests there.
Never bought much there anyway, but now I will buy nothing.
Man,those chicken biscuts with tomatoe and mayonaise are great. Got one on friday when the spit swappers were supposed to be there. Didn't see any.OakRidgeStars wrote:Enjoying me some chicken biscuit this morning at Chick-fil-A!
Going back at lunch time for a chocolate milkshake sugar buzz
I wonder if there isn't a bigger picture here. Religion is a very emotionally charged issue. So is the gay marriage issue. So is the whole gay/straight issue. I see both sides in this chic-fil-a thing being used by certain political groups to further their particular political agendas. Its really not about gay marriage or Kathys position on marriage. We go in to support chic-fil-a's constitutional right to free speech,or rather Kathys right to free speech. Certain people are using us all,using this issue for their own political gain. Fact is,they don't care a wit about the gays,the straights,religion or free speech and the constitution for that matter. They see an opportunity to further divide us as a nation. Divide and conquer,conquer and control,and we fell right into it with both feet. This is a two for one deal for them,they get one side pissed off about religious values,the other side pissed off about gay issues. Both of these things are constantly under attack from the left and the right. We are pawns in their political games. The real issue here is,does a man have a right to his/her own thoughts,his/her own beliefs,and the right to freely express them.This better concern the people on both sides of any issue.It cannot exist for one,and not for the other.It either exist,or not. We support it for all,or none.It cannot be both ways. Two political parties always at war with each other,both trying to divide us to gain recruits to each side and we are the ones that are losing for it. The two sides in question on this chic-fil-a thing may be worlds apart on alot of things,but when it comes to our constitutional rights and our freedoms we must stand together. We must not let the government use us as pawns by pitting us against one another. We are either a free people,and I mean room for eveyone, or we have the boot of a tyrannical government on our necks. There are some things that are far more important than these petty issues. Think big picture, think staying a free people, think Freedom, We are all americans and must have each others back.thekinetic wrote:Be damned with your morals and burn the churches, this isn't about them! It is about a legal contract and is only buisness. We make money, we spend money, we pay our taxes, and whether you would think it or not we ARE couples and deserve the same tax breaks and legal standing.
This is not about god or marriage, it's about buisness and capitalism. Besides we have just as much right to be as miserable as all you straight folk.
Also for the record I'm not upset with chick-fil-a for sticking to it's guns (I'm actually proud of them for it), I'm upset that they have the absolute audacity to serve such a nasty sandwich.
snipLAKEWOOD, Colorado, July 31, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The owner of a cake shop in Lakewood, Colorado said that, following a refusal to provide a wedding cake for a homosexual couple his business has more than doubled.
Jack Phillips, the owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, told local media that this wasn’t the first time he had turned away homosexuals seeking wedding cakes, but it is the first time his stand for Christian principles has resulted in so much media attention and some death threats.
The situation developed on July 19 when two homosexuals entered the shop and announced they were getting “married” in Massachusetts and wanted to order a wedding reception cake for their reception in Colorado. When Phillips refused, one of the pair, 28-year-old Dave Mullins, is reported to have said, “F*** you and your homophobic cake shop,” and directed an obscene gesture at the owner before leaving.
The "homophobe" is the bigger man/adult in the situation, but when this is a made for TV movie he will be depicted as jumping on the counter (whilst dressed in his KKK baker whites of course) and beating them with a rolling pin and then shoving the innocent gay lambs into his conspciously over-sized oven.Phillips remarked that he is not “homophobic” and does not refuse service to anyone based on their sexual orientation. He does however draw the line on catering to same-sex “marriage.” Colorado does not recognize same-sex “marriage” or same-sex civil unions.
“If gays come in and want to order birthday cakes or any cakes for any occasion, graduations, or whatever, I have no prejudice against that whatsoever,” Phillips said. “It’s just the wedding cake, not the people, not their lifestyle.”
My point, though, is this stuff is happening. Peter Singer is a professor at a university that is considered to be top-notch, for crying out loud. He's in a position of authority. Considering his views, that's pretty damn scary.Kreutz wrote:
I know of Peter Singer (and the woman who "married" a dolphin). The thing is, and this is why the gay marriage=bestiality=pedophilia argument is a strawman; an animal or child cannot give consent. Ergo, they can not be married. The fact the pedos and zoophiles use similar arguments as the gays did is truly irrelevant as they can never claim their objects of affection are capable of consent.
The idiot with the dolphin can have a ceremony and call it a wedding sure, but the marriage isnt actually valid; she cant file jointly with Flipper on her state or federal taxes.
Only you will be able to resolve your affection for the word, but I would guess that will never be satisfied. Part of the problem is that governments around the world use that word to describe a coupling instead of something like "civil union". On any form you fill out generally something asked is if you're single or married. Well, my wife and I did have to go to the local courthouse and get a marriage license. We're not religious or anything, but that's what they call it so we tell everyone we're married. Multiply that by a lot of couples in the same boat all over the world and any sanctity the word from a religious perspective has lost all value.SHMIV wrote:My biggest issue with the concept of gay "marriage", though, is the use of the word "marriage". It seems such a minor thing, I know. But marriage is supposed to be a sacred thing. Granted, these celebrity types are doing their best to destroy the sanctity of marriage, and they make a mockery of it every day. Believe me, I'm just as annoyed with them. As a Christian, I cannot accept two men or two women being married to each other. As an American, a citizen of a Nation of (theoretically) Free People, I recognize that some folks want to give in to various lusts. And, if that leads to two people wanting an unholy bond, so be it. Call that bond a civil union, a court appointed coupling, or whatever. Just don't call it marriage, because it is not, and can never be.
Now you just sound like the DNC. Just continue to ignore the words that are coming out of their own mouths. Just like the current administration thinks that the Muslim Brotherhood is a secular group. Ask the Brotherhood if they think they are a secular group. Ask Best Buy if they support Care. Their answer is, yes we do. Here is a post from a Best Buy spokes person on their company's own forum to confirm they donated to CAIR http://forums.bestbuy.com/t5/Best-Buy-G ... d-p/503349 It's ok to be stupid, but don't be ignorant WolveeWolvee wrote:That's just ignorant BS. Best Buy doesn't support Terrorism. It's just more internet BS from those who hate Best buy.dorminWS wrote:>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>zombiekiller57 wrote:well here is a confirmed example. Best Buy contributes to the Terrorist Organization (CAIR) http://www.inquisitr.com/222475/is-best ... terrorism/ but no one on the left made a peep. As for me, I don't set foot in their stores anymore.
I stopped by the Glen Allen CF today for lunch. I didn't see any protests there.
Never bought much there anyway, but now I will buy nothing.
Is that all you got? Nothing to invalidate the companies own statements? Come on man you have to have more then just a "Tin Foiled Hat, BBY Hater, Conspiracist" statements. Back it up with some facts. I dare you.Wolvee wrote:I worked for BBY and I know exactly how these fundraisers work. They are normal $9/hr employees trying to do good by their community and BBY matches the money they raise to support the charity. You're just another BBY hating tin-foil hat conspiracist.
And Their ResponseCriticism
Critics of CAIR, including six members of the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate,[61][89][90] have alleged ties between the CAIR founders and Hamas. The founders, Omar Ahmad and Nihad Awad, had earlier been officers of the Islamic Association of Palestine (IAP), described by a former FBI analyst and US Treasury Department intelligence official as "intimately tied to the most senior Hamas leadership."[91] Both Ahmad and Awad participated in a meeting held in Philadelphia on October 3, 1993, that involved senior leaders of Hamas, the Holy Land Foundation (which was designated in 1995 by Executive Order, and later convicted in court, as an organization that had raised millions of dollars for Hamas), and the IAP.[92][93][94] Based on electronic surveillance of the meeting, the FBI reported that "the participants went to great length and spent much effort hiding their association with the Islamic Resistance Movement [Hamas]."[95] Participants at the meeting discussed forming a "political organization and public relations" body, "whose Islamic hue is not very conspicuous."[96]
Critics also point to a July 1994 meeting identifying CAIR as one of the four U.S. organizations comprising the working organizations of the Palestine Committee of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood, the parent organization and supporter of Hamas.[97][98] CAIR has responded by noting that Hamas was only designated a terrorist organization in January 1995 and did not commit its first wave of suicide bombings until late 1994, after Awad made the comment.[99][100]
Daniel Pipes and investigative reporter Steven Emerson accuse CAIR of being a front for Hamas, having ties to terrorism, as well as "offering a platform to conspiratorial Israel-bashers."[citation needed] The Anti-Defamation League and Emerson have also accused CAIR of having a long record of propagating antisemitic propaganda.[101][102][103][104][105] Journalist Jake Tapper criticizes CAIR for refusing to condemn specifically Osama bin Laden and Islamic extremism, but rather making only vague and generic criticisms.[106][page needed]
Furthermore, critics point to a statement made by Omar Ahmad (a joint founder of CAIR) in 1998 in which he said that Muslim Americans "have a duty to deliver the message of Islam" and that "Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant."[107]
Pipes has accused CAIR of demanding that a billboard declaring Osama bin Laden "the sworn enemy" be brought down in 1998 as "offensive to Moslems", denying bin Laden's responsibility for the Africa embassy bombings, calling the conviction of the 1993 World Trade Center bombers "a travesty of justice," calling the conviction of the blind Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman a "hate crime", calling the extradition order of suspected Hamas terrorist Mousa Mohammed Abu Marzook "anti-Islamic", calling President Bush's closing of the Holy Land Foundation for collecting money used to support Hamas "unjust" and "disturbing", praising and defending convicted murderer H. Rap Brown as well as convicted attempted murderer Adnan Chaudhry, and their LA office head calling Israelis "zionazis"; he also quotes the FBI's former chief of counterterrorism Steven Pomerantz saying that CAIR "effectively" gives aid to international terrorist groups.[108]
CAIR raised suspicions by raising its annual budget of around $3 million (as of 2007) in part through large donations from people and foundations identified with Arab governments.[109] The article further suggests that because CAIR's Washington chapter has repeatedly issued controversial statements, it has been difficult "for senior government officials to associate with the group."[109] Some Muslims criticize CAIR for being overly conservative from a religious standpoint, for example by taking the disputed position that all Moslem women are required to veil their hair.[109] Zuhdi Jasser (founder of American Islamic Forum for Democracy) has been stridently critical of CAIR, a Muslim-American civil rights group, which according to Jasser, is focused on "victimology" and also said that CAIR has received "significant Saudi financing".[110]
Neuroscientist and best-selling author Sam Harris, noted mainly for his contribution to the New Atheism movement, criticized CAIR by doubting their legitimacy saying CAIR is "an Islamist public relations firm posing as a civil-rights lobby".[111]
The organization has also been criticized for its lawsuit seeking to overturn Oklahoma State Question 755, a proposition that would prevent Shari'a law in that state. CAIR's Oklahoma director filed the suit, which he says unfairly targets Muslims and is in violation of the First Amendment.[112][113][114]
In April 2011, Rep. Frank Wolf, R-Va. cited a 2009 letter sent from CAIR's executive director, Nihad Awad, to Muammar Gaddafi asking Gaddafi for funding for a project called the Muslim Peace Foundation at a U.S. House of Representatives Appropriations sub-committee hearing with Robert Mueller.[115] The letter also said, in part, "I am pleased to send to Your Excellency in my name most solemn assurances of thanks and appreciation for the efforts you exert in the service of Islam, Muslims and all mankind through your initiative to teach Islam, spread the culture of Islam, and solve disputes, for which you are known internationally." Steven Emerson called the funding request "hypocritical."[116] while CAIR spokesman, Ibrahim Hooper, said that the organization didn't receive any money from the Libyan government and also that CAIR was one of the first American organizations to call for a no-fly zone[116]
[edit]
CAIR suggested that "the statements and agendas of our detractors will show that they represent the extremes in our society."[117] CAIR also stated on its website[117] that in 2004 an FBI agent said "false claims originate from one or two biased sources," and that a senior FBI official said CAIR would just have to live with them. In early 2007, the New York Times wrote that "more than one [U.S. government official] described the standards used by critics to link CAIR to terrorism as akin to McCarthyism, essentially guilt by association."[109] At that time (prior to the Holy Land trial), the Times called efforts to link the organization to Hamas and Hezbollah "unsuccessful," citing a retired FBI official who was active through 2005 and who suggested that while "of all the groups, there is probably more suspicion about CAIR", you don't get "cold hard facts"[109][context needed] although the article goes on to cite the suspicious background of some of CAIR's donors as a source of contention within members of the organization itself.[109] The Times also noted that even though a handful of its former members had faced prosecution, no criminal charges had at the time ever been linked to CAIR.[109]
CAIR also says that accusations against it have their roots in its refusal to endorse the U.S.'s blanket condemnation of Hezbollah and Hamas, though it says it did criticize Hamas for civilian deaths.[109]
Senator Boxer's 2006 decision to withdraw a "certificate of accomplishment" originally given to former CAIR official Basim Elkarra on grounds of suspicions about the organization's background "provoked an outcry from organizations that vouch for the group's advocacy, including the ACLU and the California Council of Churches.[109] "They have been a leading organization that has advocated for civil rights and civil liberties in the face of fear and intolerance, in the face of religious and ethnic profiling," said Maya Harris, executive director of the ACLU of Northern California.[109]
So his views will be popular in the unemployment line amongst hs debt-laden former students. We'll live.SHMIV wrote:My point, though, is this stuff is happening. Peter Singer is a professor at a university that is considered to be top-notch, for crying out loud. He's in a position of authority. Considering his views, that's pretty damn scary.
Yeah, I can't see this sort of perversion (pedo+zoophilia) gaining any legal rights due to the consent issue, but if it becomes at least informally acceptable, things can get worse fast. I've no desire for a new neighbor to introduce his "life partner" as an underaged alpaca.As to the consent thing, clearly I agree that children and animals are in no position to give consent. But, with the boundaries of right and wrong actively being blurred, and blurred more with each passing day, it would not surprise me to hear one point to the arranged marriages all throughout history (and in some of today's culture) to defend his "right" to marry whom/whatever. (The point in that being, of course, is in an arranged marriage, there is often one who would not consent, if given the choice.)
I'm with you on this, based on my own interpretation of the 14A I really can't see a legal standing for state/federal governemnt to refuse to recognize adult homosexual civil unions...but when we use the term "marriage" and introduce that whole religious element it gets more complex. Many religions will not consider them valid as is their right.My biggest issue with the concept of gay "marriage", though, is the use of the word "marriage". It seems such a minor thing, I know. But marriage is supposed to be a sacred thing. Granted, these celebrity types are doing their best to destroy the sanctity of marriage, and they make a mockery of it every day. Believe me, I'm just as annoyed with them. As a Christian, I cannot accept two men or two women being married to each other. As an American, a citizen of a Nation of (theoretically) Free People, I recognize that some folks want to give in to various lusts. And, if that leads to two people wanting an unholy bond, so be it. Call that bond a civil union, a court appointed coupling, or whatever. Just don't call it marriage, because it is not, and can never be.
