Re: Is GALA boycotting Chik-fil-A? -- Mamusz' Restoration Forum

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, [2], 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 19:48:00 08/06/12 Mon
Author: George
Subject: Re: Is GALA boycotting Chik-fil-A?
In reply to: Lois 's message, "Re: Is GALA boycotting Chik-fil-A?" on 09:39:37 08/06/12 Mon

>>>>That's something I'd like to know.
>>>>George
>>>
>>>Probably.
>>>
>>>I friend asked us today, "If you were at Chik-fil-A
>>>and a protester asked you why you were eating at that
>>>hateful place(or words to that effect)what would say
>>>to them?"
>>>
>>>I said, "I believe in freedom of speech and I like
>>>chicken sandwiches."
>>>
>>>It would be useless to have a reasonable conversation
>>>with them. The protesters are mindless in their
>hatred
>>>of Christianity.
>>>
>>>Lois
>>
>>The hatred is too well-documented, and the perversity
>>of it is too well recognized for me to waste any time
>>commenting on it. I still would like to know though,
>>how many GALA members took pictures of themselves
>>kissing in front of Chick-fil-A in an effort to
>>provide it with billions in free internet advertising.
>>
>>George
>
>We'll have to wait for their next newsletter. So far,
>nothing.
>
>I kind of suspect that the c-not-of-c has tried to
>tone down a little on its official website. The news
>items have been pared down. There is the news item
>that the Australian and Canadian Conferences have
>approved same sex marriage and ordination in the
>church. However, it is supposed to be approved by the
>first presidency or whatever. What a crock.
>
>Lois

The First Presidency has already approved of all this stuff. Approval for same-sex shacking up ceremonies was given in 1992, before W. Grant McMurray even became Chief Denominational Executive. No one knows exactly when homosexual ordination was approved, because the leadership is so secretive, but that occurred prior to the end of the last century.

What is in effect now is a "moratorium" on any more homosexual stuff until the proper paperwork can be done to make it look as if it hasn't already been approved by skullduggery. A moratorium cannot be declared on something that is already wrong to begin with.

The reason that same-sex marriages haven't been approved s that 90% or more of the tithing lay members don't believe in it and reject it, and at least 32 states have banned it constitutionally.

California and New York both have legal same-sex marriage, but likewise, those two states are the states with the most hate crimes committed against Sikhs, according to public radio. So it doesn't look like legal secular approval of same-sex marriage automatically spreads love around.

George

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]