Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day

[Bergs]

Very nice Buckeye Deaconness.  It's a much better discussion of it than the work and faith presentation I heard from Rick Steves at Luther Seminary a few years back.  His big thing?  He goes to church when he travels to all of the fabulous places he goes to (and tells you where you can find prostitutes for hire).  The rest of the talk he bashed Americans for being so backward and really laid into President George W. Bush.

Brian J. Bergs
Minneapolis, MN

[Buckeye Deaconess]

Get it to go and then put it on plates at your own home.  And you could save whichever restaurant some money by not taking their utensils since you likely have your own at home too.

Jeremy

And to lighten things up, I took Jeremy's suggestion and had my chicken sandwich and waffle fries on my fine china and my lemonade in my best crystal by candlelight in the dining room that we seldom use (4 kids, white carpet . . . enough said).  It was wonderful.

[RogerMartim]

I know you folks are trying to make light of the whole situation, "What's the big deal?"

But the fact of the matter is that the Chick-A-Fila (jeepers, I have a hard time trying to type that name) CEO brought it up first with his personal views of relationships, God likes this and God doesn't like that. When did he become a spokesman for God?

Again, I don't see that this has anything to do with Lutheranism. I see it as a blatant political position started by Buckeye Deaconess. It is a Blue versus Red issue and I feel that politics should be kept at a minimum on this board. We are here to discuss our Lutheran faith with the many varieties of expressions and we have hearty exchanges.

[Buckeye Deaconess]

Very nice Buckeye Deaconness.  It's a much better discussion of it than the work and faith presentation I heard from Rick Steves at Luther Seminary a few years back.  His big thing?  He goes to church when he travels to all of the fabulous places he goes to (and tells you where you can find prostitutes for hire).  The rest of the talk he bashed Americans for being so backward and really laid into President George W. Bush.

Brian J. Bergs
Minneapolis, MN

Thank you kindly.  You just have to love the intolerance coming from those espousing tolerance!

I had not previously heard of Mr. Steves, but in trying to gain perspective on your post, I found this piece and found it rather, well, interesting.

"Whether in a German spa, a Finnish sauna, a Croatian beach, or a Turkish hammam (I can't come up with an English example), a fun part of travel can be getting naked with strangers." 

Lord, have mercy! 

[Buckeye Deaconess]

I know you folks are trying to make light of the whole situation, "What's the big deal?"

But the fact of the matter is that the Chick-A-Fila (jeepers, I have a hard time trying to type that name) CEO brought it up first with his personal views of relationships, God likes this and God doesn't like that. When did he become a spokesman for God?

Again, I don't see that this has anything to do with Lutheranism. I see it as a blatant political position started by Buckeye Deaconess. It is a Blue versus Red issue and I feel that politics should be kept at a minimum on this board. We are here to discuss our Lutheran faith with the many varieties of expressions and we have hearty exchanges.

Oh, please.  Don't be ridiculous.  This is taking my corner of Lutheranism and Christianity (and yes, even my corner of gay Facebook friends, yikes!) by storm today.  I'll take your concern seriously when you address how these posts of yours have anything to do with Lutheranism.  The double standard amazes me.

http://www.alpb.org/forum/index.php?topic=4444.msg261037#msg261037
http://www.alpb.org/forum/index.php?topic=4444.msg260824#msg260824
http://www.alpb.org/forum/index.php?topic=4444.msg260754#msg260754
http://www.alpb.org/forum/index.php?topic=4208.msg245165#msg245165
http://www.alpb.org/forum/index.php?topic=4031.msg231079#msg231079
http://www.alpb.org/forum/index.php?topic=4031.msg230921#msg230921

Who is offering a blatant political position?  It might be best if you simply ignore this thread if it is that bothersome to you.  I personally have enjoyed the comments of others.

[DCharlton]

Ross Douthat has a insightful article on the Chick-fil-A mess.  http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/31/chick-fil-a-and-social-change/ In it, he gives what I consider a fair description what is taking place:

The cause of gay marriage has indeed advanced because many millions of people have been persuaded of its merits: No cause could move so swiftly from the margins to the mainstream if it didn’t have appealing arguments supporting it and powerful winds at its back. But it has also advanced, and will probably continue to advance, through social pressure, ideological enforcement, and legal restriction. Indeed, the very language of the movement is explicitly designed to exert this kind of pressure: By redefining yesterday’s consensus view of marriage as “bigotry,” and expanding the term “homophobia” to cover support for that older consensus as well as personal discomfort with/animus toward gays, the gay marriage movement isn’t just arguing with its opponents; it’s pathologizing them, raising the personal and professional costs of being associated with traditional views on marriage, and creating the space for exactly the kind of legal sanctions that figures like Thomas Menino and Rahm Emanuel spent last week flirting with.

[Bergs]

I know you folks are trying to make light of the whole situation, "What's the big deal?"

But the fact of the matter is that the Chick-A-Fila (jeepers, I have a hard time trying to type that name) CEO brought it up first with his personal views of relationships, God likes this and God doesn't like that. When did he become a spokesman for God?

Again, I don't see that this has anything to do with Lutheranism. I see it as a blatant political position started by Buckeye Deaconess. It is a Blue versus Red issue and I feel that politics should be kept at a minimum on this board. We are here to discuss our Lutheran faith with the many varieties of expressions and we have hearty exchanges.

Wrong again!  There may be some lightheartedness in my post but I am very upset at the bullying Mr. Cathy is being subjected to.  The lies that are being said about him as anti-gay are steaming piles.  It has to do with lutheranism, especially the ELCA who passed an anti-bullying resolution at their last CWA.  Then when the hometown mayor bullies the CEO of a fine, fine company who espouses a view that the ELCA says is of good conscience, they don't have the moral fortitude to get up and call Bully Emanuel out. 

Bishop Hanson had no problem wading into other non-Lutheran national issues like the Trayvon Martin case.  Where is he on this one?

And as for your issue on bringing it up first.  Really?  Think about it?  Who brought this whole ridiculous issue up first?  Think hard. 

Brian J. Bergs
Minneapolis, MN

[LutherMan]

Who is offering a blatant political position?  It might be best if you simply ignore this thread if it is that bothersome to you.  I personally have enjoyed the comments of others.

Ouch...

[Buckeye Deaconess]

Who is offering a blatant political position?  It might be best if you simply ignore this thread if it is that bothersome to you.  I personally have enjoyed the comments of others.

Ouch...

Was I too harsh?  I believe I've been pretty clear that I'm approaching this from a business perspective and not a political perspective.  Clearly I've struck a nerve.  I'm not bashing politicians like my accuser, I'm simply supporting a privately-held company having the right to run its business as its owners see fit in keeping with the laws of our nation. 

[LutherMan]

Who is offering a blatant political position?  It might be best if you simply ignore this thread if it is that bothersome to you.  I personally have enjoyed the comments of others.

Ouch...

Was I too harsh?  I believe I've been pretty clear that I'm approaching this from a business perspective and not a political perspective.  Clearly I've struck a nerve.  I'm not bashing politicians like my accuser, I'm simply supporting a privately-held company having the right to run its business as its owners see fit in keeping with the laws of our nation.

Not at all.  I said ouch at RM's comments that you dredged up...
I applaud your stance.

[Charles_Austin]

Brian Bergs writes:
Bishop Hanson had no problem wading into other non-Lutheran national issues like the Trayvon Martin case.  Where is he on this one?

I comment:
Presiding Bishop Hanson did not "wade" in uninvited. The first response came from the Florida-Bahamas Synod and people close to the situation.
This particular cock fight is every bit as disgusting as the real bloody and idiotic ones held secretly in warehouses and back alleys.
My salt shaker of disgust sprinkles equally over those who make an issue of some billionaire's remark and those who rally to the support of the poor, "bullied" billionaire by clogging their arteries with his product and pretending - can you believe it?! - that by so doing they are protecting the sanctity of marriage.
What's next? Shall we research all corporations and rate them according to the piety of their highest muckety-mucks? Or could we publish a list showing which companies were "Christian," "non-Christian," "evangelical," "Catholic," or "liberal"?
Everyone want to deactivate their computers to protest the social or political views of Bill Gates? Can the pope-is-the-anti-Christ crowd ever eat a Domino's Pizza?
Do you really think that withholding a few bucks from a fast-food chain is gong to have any impact on anything or that lining up for a cheap, greasy meal is a witness to the Gospel? Really?
My disgust gets hotter than the fat in the French fryer because this is exactly the kind of dumb dispute that polarizes social discourse and makes those on all "sides" - especially Christians - look silly.

[George Erdner]

I know you folks are trying to make light of the whole situation, "What's the big deal?"

But the fact of the matter is that the Chick-A-Fila (jeepers, I have a hard time trying to type that name) CEO brought it up first with his personal views of relationships, God likes this and God doesn't like that. When did he become a spokesman for God?

Again, I don't see that this has anything to do with Lutheranism. I see it as a blatant political position started by Buckeye Deaconess. It is a Blue versus Red issue and I feel that politics should be kept at a minimum on this board. We are here to discuss our Lutheran faith with the many varieties of expressions and we have hearty exchanges.

I see you had such a hard time typing the name that you couldn't even get it right? A deliberate attempt at mockery, perhaps?
 
As for being a "spokesman for God", since when are we not supposed to bear witness to what God has told us through scripture? God made it clear to us what actions and behaviors He likes and dislikes by giving us the Law. As Lutherans, we understand that both Law and Gospel abide.
 
What good is discussing or having faith if we don't include discussing how our faith manifests itself in our actions? Where are your complaints about how often Hanson sticks his nose into political matters that have nothing specifically to do with Lutheran faith? And Hanson isn't just a Christian layman attempting to let his actions be guided by his faith. Hanson is supposedly speaking on behalf of the largest single group of Lutherans in the nation, even if it is shrinking rapidly under his watch.
 
 

[Bergs]

Brian Bergs writes:
Bishop Hanson had no problem wading into other non-Lutheran national issues like the Trayvon Martin case.  Where is he on this one?

I comment:
Presiding Bishop Hanson did not "wade" in uninvited. The first response came from the Florida-Bahamas Synod and people close to the situation.
This particular cock fight is every bit as disgusting as the real bloody and idiotic ones held secretly in warehouses and back alleys.
My salt shaker of disgust sprinkles equally over those who make an issue of some billionaire's remark and those who rally to the support of the poor, "bullied" billionaire by clogging their arteries with his product and pretending - can you believe it?! - that by so doing they are protecting the sanctity of marriage.
What's next? Shall we research all corporations and rate them according to the piety of their highest muckety-mucks? Or could we publish a list showing which companies were "Christian," "non-Christian," "evangelical," "Catholic," or "liberal"?
Everyone want to deactivate their computers to protest the social or political views of Bill Gates? Can the pope-is-the-anti-Christ crowd ever eat a Domino's Pizza?
Do you really think that withholding a few bucks from a fast-food chain is gong to have any impact on anything or that lining up for a cheap, greasy meal is a witness to the Gospel? Really?
My disgust gets hotter than the fat in the French fryer because this is exactly the kind of dumb dispute that polarizes social discourse and makes those on all "sides" - especially Christians - look silly.

1. You make an excellent criticism of my call to Bishop Hanson.  Perhaps we should hear first from one or all of the bishops of Chicago or New England.  It is happening in the ELCA's carefully chosen headquarter city.  This situation is one where the ELCA could quite painlessly step forward (like the Log Cabin Republicans) and truly show that they mean what they say about both bullying and "bound conscience."
2. Your even handedness with the salt shaker is noted.
3. From my experience the crowd that stands up for Chick-fil-a are less about the sanctity of marriage and more about bullying and freedom of speech.  Many of them are neutral on the marriage issue or even pro same-sex marriage.  This leads me back to my first point, they are actually walking the talk on "bound conscience" where they disagree but will support people who think differently.
4.  We would be in agreement on "what's next."   The attacks on Chick-fil-a are outrageous and those who do them should be called out.  Here is a rich man who really tries to run a values based company but has a traditionalist point of view (that the ELCA says is equally valid) on marriage.  He says it in context of a Christian magazine interview.  He gets wrongly and savagely attacked in the press as hateful and anti-gay.  His company gets threatened by politicians.  The response yesterday was because our blood boiled every bit as much as yours.  We did something about it to show our support for a good man who runs a good company who is being bullied over his Christian beliefs.

And we enjoy a delicious sandwich and waffle fries to boot.

Brian J. Bergs
Minneapolis, MN

[Dave Benke]

Article online this morning about gay employees at Chick-fil-A.  Their take, media-highlighted, was that this was the gay-haters' party time.  That highlights to me that there is risk involved in activities in what we Lutherans call God's Realm of the Left.  If the intent is to confront the over-the-top political correctnesses of the secular left prohibiting free speech in support of a moral issue, the result can be the perception in this case of gay-hating or gay-baiting. 

When the Missouri Synod began its efforts in housing decades ago and the Nehemiah Plan ensued, since it was accomplished ecumenically with congregations involved in community organizing, what got lost to the religious/secular right at the edge of the Missouri Synod was that this was a great urban housing effort (that eventually spread across the country).  What was perceived was that it was a crazy leftwing community organizing effort with the chief nut in charge being me.  So those few folks tried to make ecumenical community organizing the issue, rather than the thousands of homes.  They didn't carry the day, because the evidence of the homes where there had been devastation was too strong.

There was no instant media movement then.  Today polarities are the order of the day and they spread like wildfire through the anti-social social media, so the risks are more readily exposed.  I wouldn't think that anyone who posted "Yes" or "Would-if-I could" on this thread is a gay-hater or gay-baiter, and yet the risk of that perception is high.

Dave Benke

[Mike Gehlhausen]

What's next? Shall we research all corporations and rate them according to the piety of their highest muckety-mucks? Or could we publish a list showing which companies were "Christian," "non-Christian," "evangelical," "Catholic," or "liberal"?
Everyone want to deactivate their computers to protest the social or political views of Bill Gates? Can the pope-is-the-anti-Christ crowd ever eat a Domino's Pizza?
Do you really think that withholding a few bucks from a fast-food chain is gong to have any impact on anything or that lining up for a cheap, greasy meal is a witness to the Gospel? Really?
My disgust gets hotter than the fat in the French fryer because this is exactly the kind of dumb dispute that polarizes social discourse and makes those on all "sides" - especially Christians - look silly.

3. From my experience the crowd that stands up for Chick-fil-a are less about the sanctity of marriage and more about bullying and freedom of speech.  Many of them are neutral on the marriage issue or even pro same-sex marriage.  This leads me back to my first point, they are actually walking the talk on "bound conscience" where they disagree but will support people who think differently.
4.  We would be in agreement on "what's next."   The attacks on Chick-fil-a are outrageous and those who do them should be called out.  Here is a rich man who really tries to run a values based company but has a traditionalist point of view (that the ELCA says is equally valid) on marriage.  He says it in context of a Christian magazine interview.  He gets wrongly and savagely attacked in the press as hateful and anti-gay.  His company gets threatened by politicians.  The response yesterday was because our blood boiled every bit as much as yours.  We did something about it to show our support for a good man who runs a good company who is being bullied over his Christian beliefs.

Nice response to Pr. Austin.

I was one of those who voted that he was not eating at Chick-fil-A yesterday.  It was simply too busy.

I'm going Friday to support them when apparently some gay protest to clog and harass the restaurants is being planned by some.

As you say, it is in my opinion more about free speech and anti-bullying by politicians than it is about traditional marriage.  In fact, perhaps unlike other Christians, I would be just as outraged by a city mayor blocking JC Penney from placing a store in their city because of JCP's recent marketing to gays.

Mike