Sure it doesn't, but it's the vessel. :NOTSURE: Christians can, and do.

 

I said I am trying to. So, would you say it's fine to not religiously discriminate against someone, but would you say that it's fine to not hire someone that is gay, since it's one of the goals of the evil homosexual agenda? I'm not applying this to the law, I'm applying it morally.

 

 

You don't wear a bra? :LOL:

But as KFC said:

 

 

This is not about what people do in their bed rooms, it's about politics outside the bed room. Whether or not men should be allowed to marry other men (and women other women) is a question that has nothing to do with being homosexual as such.

Incidentally, homosexuals have the same rights as everybody else: a homosexual man has the right to marry a woman, just like a heterosexual man. They want a new right.

So, I am sorry, but while I would/will not support the boycott (I don't think the issue is important enough), I can see that such a boycott is perfectly legitimate.

Corporations have an obligation to behave as good citizens, but how picking sides is being a "good citizen" while remaining neutral is "bad", I don't understand. It's not a civil rights issue.

If McDonalds wants to support gay marriage, that's fine. And those who are against gay marriage have every right to boycott McDonalds for it. But it isn't obvious that being against gay marriage is somehow "evil".

 

KFC,

if I apply the logic to several of your statements.

-Good stewards of money by not patronizing them (a business).

Do you ONLY patronize Christian organizations that ONLY use their money for Christian agendas (as all other agendas would be sinful)? Including groceries, gas, etc.

Let's go another step how about income? Does your only income come from Christian organizations or people that adhere to only your agenda?

Just some questions.

Those are good questions AD. Of course we should be careful in all areas on how our money is being spent since all comes from God. So I try my best to be a good steward of my money. I'm sure there are times I unknowingly give to something or purchase something where the money isn't being used very well. If I find out that it's not good, I would stop.

But as far as buying something from a secular organization and not a Christian organization, no I don't monitor it that closely. But if I know something is helping to contribute towards a cause of sin, there is no way I'm going to help that along. Not all secular causes are sinful or have sinful agendas.

I would not work in a company or organizatin that was not honoring to God. So I wouldn't recieve money from an organization that promotes sinful activities. Like I said, I don't patronize nor would I work for Hooters either.

ah come on... not even for free hot wings?
;p

Doesn't this seem like a bit of contradiction?

This almost sounds like... If I don't know about it then it's okay?

My point being this. Where is the line drawn in your logic?

What about if a business contributes to another business that supports such said agendas (and on and on)?

It's one thing to not patronize an establishment but it is another to campaign against it.

JMO

We'll I'm not exactly campaigning. Other than here, I haven't mentioned this to anyone in person. I'm not going door to door either.

How can I know about everything? If and when I do find out something is not right, I make it right but until then how am I to know?

I know of no business that would give to one business to give to another business. In othe words why would a business give to McDonald's so it can give to the homosexual agenda? Makes no sense to me.



they give free hot wings?  ;p 

I think you misunderstood.

Let's say (completely hypothetical here) that McDonald's purchases their beef from a farm that advocates for the homosexual agenda. Would you still patronize McDonald's?

What if the beef farm buys their grains from a farming co-op that advocates?

Or the Farming coalition buys fertilizer from a business that advocates?

See how this can go on and on?

Geeze AD this isn't legalism 101 here.....and usually I don't answer the hypothetical..but for you........

I probably wouldn't have a problem with this. My problem is my money being spent on McDonald's who takes my money and dumps it into an agenda that I don't believe in. If they buy their soda or beef from an organization who supports the same cause then their money is being spent towards a product and they have to make that same decision I'm making. If everyone did not support or patronize the business they deal with for say...this reason, the funds would dry up and there would be no money going towards this agenda that fights against Christ.

It's not rocket science and it's not something we have to worry about. It's just making a decision not to support something that goes against Christ.

wasn't trying to go into legalism...just trying to understand your POV here.

The reason I ask is Coca-Cola is Pro Homosexual and is in many restaurants (including our local McDonald's).

WWW Link

According to this website Coca-Cola is more of an advocate than McDonald's.

Although I spoke in hypothetical I do have reasons for it.

Pepsi is also included in this list. Making the majority of all restaurants on your list.

AD you hit the nail on the head in what I tried to get across, kudos for that.

Oh, and KFC, thanks for letting me discuss this with you.

ok



So Coke and Pepsi also are pro homosexual marriage ammendment? That would bother me more than the restaurants because we don't eat out that much but do like our cokes!



Again, I wouldn't not visit a restaurant because they buy from say Pepsi. If I find out that Pepsi/Coke are also supporting what I deem unacceptable than I would stop drinking those beverages but wouldn't stop going to the restaurant.

It's not that God is saying or dictating anything to me here so much as it's me just being sensitive to the cause of Christ. If I think something or someone is working
against Christ I'm just not going to support it. If it breaks God's heart shouldn't it break ours?



you're welcome!

I can't say for amendment but according to that website they support the Gay agenda.

If you look at that link that gives you a fairly long list of corporations that have 100% support of the HRC (pro homosexual agenda). Keep in mind that McDonald's is recorded as only 85%.

Looks like you have a decision to make about your cokes?

I think several here were saying the same thing (IMO).



This is highly vulnerable to interpretation bias and personal convictions?

IMO

how so?

How you view that is different than the CC, which is probably different than the SDA, etc. Also inside of that is the personal level of personal convictions as to 'what' breaks G-D's heart.

(Tongue in cheek): McDonalds should put its money where its mouth is. Personally I don't take my mouth anywhere near McDonalds because they serve sub-standard food!

IMO the whole issue is fairly simple: The beauty of the market is that it allows consumers to vote with their money. So, if you disagree with McDonalds stance on the issue and how they're promoting a particular agenda, you can vote by not giving them your money in future. Just as if you support their stance you can vote by giving them your money and buying some cheeseburgers etc..

As such I don't see any problem with such a boycott. If some people believe that marriage should only be between a man and a woman, and don't wish to support companies that promote same-sex marriage, that's their right. It's their money to spend, after all.

Maudlin27,

BINGO! It is as you say, the whole issue is fairly simple...the consumer has the power of the purse!

One other thing..in order to get more bang to the boycott...the boycotter ought to write or call the company and tell them that he's no longer going to be a customer and why.

I just read this from LifesiteNews and thought I'd post it as a follow-up....

Boycott Successful: McDonald's Abandons Homosexual Activism

By Kathleen Gilbert

OAK BROOK, Illinois, October 10, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The American Family Association (AFA) announced the end of a successful boycott yesterday against McDonald's Corporation. McDonald's has severed its ties to a homosexual business group and declared neutrality in the culture wars as per AFA's request.

AFA's five-month boycott ended after Richard Ellis, former McDonald's vice president of U.S. communications, left his seat on the board of directors of the National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce (NGLCC).  McDonald's, which was offered the seat after donating $20,000 to the NGLCC, has announced there are no plans to replace Ellis on the board. 

In an email to its franchise owners, McDonald's said, "It is our policy to not be involved in political and social issues. McDonald's remains neutral on same sex marriage or any 'homosexual agenda' as defined by the American Family Association."

"The franchise owners understood very early that this was an issue that McDonald's did not need to be involved in from a corporate level and they needed to stick with serving good food products in a convenient way, at a good price," said AFA's director of special projects Randy Sharp,

Although McDonald's still appears as an official partner and sponsor on NGLCC's website, the burger giant told the AFA that the restaurant chain does not plan to renew its membership after it expires in December.

The AFA, a Christian association dedicated to advancing traditional family values, launched the boycott in May shortly after McDonald's became an official NGLCC sponsor and received a seat on the board with its donation at the chamber's annual fundraising gala.

"I'm thrilled to join the National Gay & Lesbian Chamber of Commerce team and ready to get to work," McDonald's Ellis had said upon joining the NGLCC board in March. "I look forward to playing a role in moving these important initiatives forward."

In response Tim Wildmon, president of the AFA, asked McDonald's Corp. not to align themselves with the homosexual agenda and to end their association with the NGLCC. 

"This is so strange, because it's the family that McDonald's appeals to," Wildmon had said. "And they are promoting a lifestyle that would utterly destroy the traditional family."

In a May 29 letter, McDonald's global chief diversity officer Pat Harris responded to Wildmon that they would continue to support the NGLCC's agenda, and would "take this opportunity to reaffirm our position on diversity."

The NGLCC lobbies Congress for homosexual equality, including legal recognition of homosexual unions.

AFA then urged its 2.2 million members to reject McDonald's and spread the boycott message, which was "not about hiring homosexuals or how homosexuals are treated," but only "about McDonald's, as a corporation, refusing to remain neutral in the culture wars." 

Now that McDonald's has declared neutrality regarding homosexuality, said Wildmon, the boycott can finally be declared a success.

"The fact of the matter is they've done what we've asked them to do," he said.

Wilson added a note of gratitude in the AFA website's statement.  "We appreciate the decision by McDonald's to no longer support political activity by homosexual activist organizations," he said.  "You might want to thank your local McDonald's manager."

 

Lula I wrote an update on this as soon as it came out like a week or two ago. 

I was away from work, home and computer when this news story (and your update) came out.  

Ah, c'mon LW, stop pressing the wrong button.....no one involving or supporting the boycott is against homosexuals owning or working at eating establishments...(and again, who would know anyway, unless they want to be detected)?

 

 

In some ways this is an example of a better functioning Democracy than what is going on at the moment! Some people feel McDonalds should support an issue, others feel they shouldn't/should remain neutral, and the group that feels most strongly about it overall (i.e. the group who will 'put the most money where their mouth is', and hence the group that McDonalds will maximise revenues by choosing) 'wins'. Meanwhile it still leaves a niche there for another company to support the issue if they feel that there are sufficient revenues to justify their entry. Thanks for providing the update on it!