Thankfully it is now our moral obligation to eat at Chick-Fil-A, not just a place you go when you want good chicken. This of course is due, in part, to Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel and Boston Mayor Thomas Menino who apparently want to lead the way in being the two most stupid mayors in the country, and thus pushing both sides to action. Ever since word got out Chick-Fil-A was a Christian company a few days ago, (oh wait, haven’t they always been?) these mayors have insisted on displaying their lack of knowledge on how our country was founded. Like a mob boss from the 1960’s the mayor of Chicago greatly discourages Chick-Fil-A from coming to Chicago where they are not welcome, and the Boston mayor Vows To Block Chick-Fil-A From Opening Restaurant After Anti-Gay Remarks. I hope the ACLU sues both of them seeing how the ACLU actually agrees with Chickfila’s right to move into any city they choose.
This is an amazing time we live in when the words of a person who owns a private, family run business, can cause a fire storm by say, “guilty as charged.” He didn’t say, “I want to kill gay people,” or “I’m going to bomb a gay politician,” he didn’t even go as far as those stupid people in Topeka, KS led by Fred Phelps at Westboro, and he didn’t actually DO anything. From those three words though, eating a Chick-fil-a sandwich has now become a political statement, and a moral obligation to those who support traditional marriage.
I’ve got news for these mayors. You know why most of us, even those who oppose gay marriage, eat at a restaurant? Because they have GOOD FOOD! Deborah loves eating at Hooters because she thinks they have the greatest wings, and trust me, she’s not going there because she wants to see anything besides the wings. I don’t particularly care for Hooters wings, so I generally prefer the local chicken finger place down the road.
But now, you mayors Emanuel and Menino have awoken the dead and sleeping, and have made it a necessity to support Chick-Fil-A even more by your idiotic statements (I’m not quite sure how I can personally do that though since I already eat there several times a week). Now, thanks to your careless disregard for the constitution, you have even awoken and united those toughest of baby boomers who would sooner give up part of their 401(K) than to hold a protest sign, and lowered them to “Eat Mor Chikin.” Even Billy Graham Defends Chick-fil-A, Traditional Marriage Amid Uproar, and he is a far more powerful individual in history than either mayor.
This is the defining social agenda of our day. Amazing. It is not what a terrible economic situation our country is facing. It is now how to best celebrate the sin of homosexuality and make sure everyone agrees that gay marriage is acceptable by all. As it was written recently, Gay Is Not the New Black, and this redefining of marriage is not something orthodox Christians are going to ever give up. This is core to Scripture’s teaching, and not because homosexuality is a sin, which it is, but because Scripture presents us, the Church, as the bride of Christ. Those churches who have given in to the pressures of homosexuality have violated the marriage between Christ and their church, they have become an adulterous church.
Society and culture may keep trying to waste away the beliefs of some when it comes to homosexuality, just as they did with abortion convincing millions this horrific act is not the actual killing and murder of another person, but they will never be able to change the Word of God. There are few things in Scripture that are more clearly defined than the sin of homosexuality, and there just isn’t thing one any mayor can do about that. As society tries to convince the faithful that homosexuality and gay marriage is acceptable in God’s eyes, they show their understanding of the issues to be one like Homosexuality, Polyester, and Shellfish. The more they protest, the more they show a total and complete misunderstanding of basic hermeneutical principles of the Bible.
Did you know there is actually something that orthodox Muslims, Jews, and Christians all agree on? That homosexuality is a sin. Now there is something the ACLU and Chick-Fil-A both agree on, the Freedom of Speech that clearly allows Dan Cathy to say what he wants, without the threat from thugs in Chicago.
Related articles
- Chick-Fil-A Sandwiches Become Political Symbol (huffingtonpost.com)
- Chick-Fil-A No Longer Welcome in Chicago Neighborhood (theatlanticwire.com)
- Predictably, Tim Thomas ‘Stands With Chick-Fil-A’ (sbnation.com)
- Rahm Emanuel Needs to Back Off on Chick-fil-A (motherjones.com)
- Rahm Emanuel Pledges To Ban Chick-Fil-A From Chicago (breitbart.com)
- Chick-fil-A beef puts mayor in pressure cooker (bostonherald.com)
- Liberal Madness: Mayor of Chicago Welcomes “Fruit of Islam”, Rebuffs Chick-fil-A (nicedeb.wordpress.com)
- Bigotry should be made of sterner stuff (dennyburk.com)
18 responses to “Thanks Mayor Rahm Emanuel It’s Now Our Moral Obligation to Eat Chick-Fil-A”
Well put.
DID you see the segment on the 700 club? This just had me like :O. GOD Bless!
missed that one but i can only imagine lol
Ok, so I mostly disagree – but I still enjoyed reading it because you write so well 🙂
well I can’t have it all lol, thanks for reading anyway 🙂
Why is it when people say homosexuality is a sin they quote the bible but only some old testament stuff which in reality has nothing to do with being gay, it has to do with raping angels (sodom and gamora) – I would love it it some day you could provide real proof. Perhaps a quote from the new testament or from Jesus saying homosexuality is a sin. Oh wait, there are none. Your arguments are tired. I will however agree with you on one point, no politician has the right to tell a business they can’t do business some place. Chick Fil A can open as many restaurants as they want, just like Muslims can build a mosque any place they want, or do you deny them that right?
Those who only quote Old Testament Scriptures in arguing homosexuality is a sin simply do not know their Bible very well. There are many New Testament Scriptures that state homosexuality as wrong, as sinful, or that deal with the issues at hand. I Corinthians 6:9; 10, Matthew 19:5, Romans 5:8, Romans 1:26-27, and so on.
You can’t make the argument that homosexuality being wrong according to the Bible is only from the OT, that is just categorically wrong, sorry. You also can’t just pick and choose parts of the Bible. There are specific truths laid out in the Bible as being wrong, many. Homosexuality is just one of those.
Glad we can agree on the First Amendment, that’s a plus 🙂
The number of translations of Corinthians 6:9 is off the charts.. Nice try though, at least 1 or 2 of the translations do mention men with men, but the rest… As for Matthew 19:5 – that is an even bigger stretch. Seriously, No idea how Romans 5:8 has anything to do with being gay. My point remains – why do you not condemn those who eat shellfish or those who work on the Sabbath or (my favorite) those who violate Matthew 6:5… Honestly, anyone who claims that the bible tells them that being gay is a sin need to really start living by EVERYTHING in the bible and not just picking and choosing. Oh and while you are at it, go out and get several wives, just like the bible teaches, and lastly, as you sure you are ready to “cast the first stone”?
Maybe – and I hope in my lifetime – people simply start living their own lives and stop trying to preach to others, especially when it comes to whom I love, this world will truly be a better place. I am so sick of people telling me that if I marry my girlfriend of 17 years now that all of society will crumble… Really? Then I guess you have to follow the bible and kill me since that is what the bible says..
if you want to truly “protect marriage” start by making it harder to divorce (Hello Rush Limbaugh and 3/4 of the politicians) and of course outlaw marriage for anyone infertile – don’t forget that. This could go on for pages, because *THAT* is the problem. For everyone argument you have, I may counter and vice-versa. How about we agree on that First Amendment thingy and go just live our lives as we wish to live them and leave one another alone..
And finally, if you don’t like gay marriage, then don’t marry a gay.
Peace..
Kat
@Kat you have obviously convinced yourself it’s ok, so I guess that’s all that matters. There is just no way around the Scriptures, though you can try to slice them up any way you like, but just your tone and statements show you are trying to justify your lifestyle.
The culture and society we live in have clearly accepted the homosexual lifestyle, so it seems your problem is convincing the faithful that they should fall in line with culture and society. This is clearly not what God wants for his faithful, and it says as much in Scripture. I will say there are also many in the church body who have been deceived by the world, and that is truly sad.
Instead of trying to refute that the Bible says homosexuality is wrong, why don’t you show me where in Scripture it says homosexuality is ok? And the shellfish thing…? Did you not read the post above, I covered that in the post itself.
See http://headhearthand.org/blog/2012/06/19/homosexuality-polyester-and-shellfish/ if you need an explanation of that particular issue. There are many reasons why New Testament Believers observe certain aspects of Scripture and learn from others but don’t necessarily do them, like animal sacrifices.
I would agree, more Christians should start living out what is taught in Scripture, but if you take an honest look at Scripture, one that takes and evaluates the 66 books as a whole, there is just no way in the world it does not make the conclusion homosexuality is wrong, and a sin in God’s eyes.
By the way, I would say the exact same thing to someone living in an adulterous relationship, there is no difference, this is living in sin in God’s eyes, and there is just no way around that truth.
You want to just “live our lives” and that is fine, we live in a free country, you are welcome to live any way you like. This post was merely stating here Scripture falls as it pertains to homosexuality and “marriage.” Doesn’t mean I hate you, on the contrary. Mainly it means I disagree with your hermeneutical interpretation of Scripture.
I should have prefaced my very first post with the fact that I am Buddhist. At any rate, I am not trying to justify anything, especially who I am. My point was a simple one, but more easily discussed over coffee/wine/whatever because of tonal inflections. Simply put, I live in a country where I am a minority, and contrary to yours or anyone else’s belief, I know I was BORN this way. It was NOT a choice. This is how God (yours, mine, whomever) made me. Now the problem with that is simple – I am denied rights that you are given, and all you have to do is run to Vegas or any govt office and get a marriage license and poof. I can’t do that, at least not with the woman I love. That was my point.
The bible is what it is – a book – written long after the events happened, translated so many times.. Well, you believe it, and that is your right. However, you have no right to JUDGE me and deny my civil rights based on your religion and that was my point all along. I just worded it poorly.
I was not, however, attacking you in any way and I am glad you realized that. My sister is a Tea Partier, and I am liberal and we sit and discuss politics all the time (and wish the idiot politicians could do the same) I don’t care what anyone’s religion is as long as they don’t try to force their beliefs on me. Marriage is a “civil” law, which is why you can get married in a church 1000 times over, but unless you sign all the legal documents and file them correctly, your “church marriage” means nothing to the government. Even if I was granted the right to “marriage” I would never go to a church and force them to perform the ceremony unless we all agreed, what is the point. I do not agree with people who want to sue a church for not wanting to perform the ceremony.
Tell you what — You can have “marriage” but in your church. We will change the government issued “civil right” to “civil union” for gay and straight alike. You can hold marriage to your same standards (including being able to get divorced as much as you want) but as far as the govt, taxes, home ownership, health care, survivor benefits, social security, etc, if you do NOT file the “civil union” document, then you don’t get those perks. Seems fair — a win-win situation all around. 😉
cheers
I actually have far less problem with “civil unions” to allow those to have the same access to public services. 🙂