Homophobes boycott McDonald's

[Guest]

Ack! Not nice... never mind...

[_KimberlyAnn]

I took my girls to McDonald's for dinner tonight.

I prefer them to dine in a homophobe-free environment.

Thank you, Mc D's!

KA

[_Droopy]

Yawn. Come on, Cogs. If you reach for the "liberal" crap, we all know it means you've come up short.

No, it just means I've got your number my friend. Lefties always seem to get caught with their pants down around there ankles trying to pass themselves of as liberals and everyone who disagrees with them as fascists. Strange how projection works, and even stranger how they actually come to believe their own self serving rationalizations.

But of course, taking off their own brown shirts and throwing them at me changes little.

[_Gadianton]

And guess what I did Kimberly Ann? I stopped by McDonalds and brought dinner home for the whole family! The only bad part about it was the line sure was backed up.

Anyway, Droopy, now that I have a little more time, let's discuss your rebellion against the Lord's economic order. Milton Friedman has taught us that when a business makes a decision that discriminates against an ethnic group, a religion, or whatever group it may be, that it only does so as a reflection of the preferences of its consumers. A firm's duty is to maximize profits. Nothing more, nothing less.

McDonald's has no "duty" to any particular set of customers. It matters not if McDonalds was built on "family values". That was yesterday. It's duty today is to appeal to its customer base the best it can to continue maximizing profits, and if society has shifted drastically in its views of homosexuals (as evidenced by Will and Grace, Queer Eye and so on) and if it feels it can become more popular and profitable by appealing to the gay community and its supporters, and if in doing so, it discriminates against the "family values" cults, then it's merely maximizing profits by reflecting the views of its customers as market research advises by taking into consideration all available information as the divine principle rational expectaions teaches and that, my friend, is the moral responsibility of McDonalds.

And you, you are not only guilty of dishonoring the voice of God as spoken through the free market, but of colluding with other conspiritors, that's right, conspiritors as the Holy Spirit so did speaketh it through Adam Smith, to raise prices.

Your hope is that by fixing the market, you can divert its natural course and cause McDonalds to suffer financially which ultimately will result in higher prices for fast food.

And, as explained in Chapter seven, verse five, the fact that you are a member of the public steeped in discrimination, you are in the wrong. As explained,

..those of us who regard color of skin or religion as irrelevant can buy some things more cheaply as a result.

Your contrast of skin color to sexual preference is blasphemous. Nowhere does Friedman or the Chicago School authorize you to teach that whether or not one "chooses" the condition for which they are discrimiated against matters. Just read the quote above. We choose our religion, right? Any condition the Chicago School authorizes us to object to has to directly interfere with profit maximization. Clearly, you and your colluding "Christian" pals believe that McDonalds did not risk their profitibility by "pandering" to the gay community. If you believed so, you wouldn't have to conspire to raise prices.

You've become a member of one of the minority activist groups that Milton Friedman warns about in the first chapter of his sacred record. The fact that you teach socialism while taking on the holy name of the Chicago School (the full name I will not reference to avoid too frequent repetition) not only makes you a socialist, but an anti-Christ.

So help me God, if your socialist actions raise the price of my 1$ double cheesburgers by even a penny, God will visit you with his wrath on the day you stand before him. You have no right to meddle in the affairs of Christ.

[_The Dude]

Pew Forum Religious Landscape Survey

50% of Americans say homosexuality should be accepted by society.
40% say it should be discouraged by society.
10% don't know/don't care/refused to say.

I think McDonalds is just playing to the market. Someday the Mormon Church will do the same, although currently 68% of Mormons think homosexuality should be discouraged by society -- more than any other faith in the survey except Jehovah's Witnesses (76% said homosx should be discouraged).

[_Jason Bourne]

The teaching now is as it has always been: homosexual conduct is not inherent or genetic in origin, the behavior itself is learned (and Gay culture is composed of numerous learned behaviors, some of them quite
carefully constructed around various kinds of homosexual identity), and it is serious sin for which we are accountable before our creator. It is also classed, with no particular special status given to it, among a host of other serious sins, all of which fall under the rubric of "sexual immorality".

Thanks for the quotes. I saw only two that say that people may not be born that way. A number of them say that people may have inclinations towards the behavior. What does that mean? It does not say learned behavior. In fact not one of your quotes say it is learned behavior.

Also, could you give dates for the quotes and where they come from?

Thanks

[_Jason Bourne]

James E. Faust:

There is some widely accepted theory extant that homosexuality is inherited. How can this be? No scientific evidence demonstrates absolutely that this is so. Besides, if it were so, it would frustrate the whole plan of mortal happiness. Our designation as men or women began before this world was. In contrast to the socially accepted doctrine that homosexuality is inborn, a number of respectable authorities contend that homosexuality is not acquired by birth. The false belief of inborn homosexual orientation denies to repentant souls the opportunity to change and will ultimately lead to discouragement, disappointment, and despair.

Liahona » 1995 » November


Hmmm

From 1995. Wonder if the church has modifies this a bit since then.

Oh Droopy. I want your input. Could you please tell me how you would deal with the real life situation I outlines in my post. The one where you responded with all the Church quotes. Where is this young man learning homosexual desires from? Given where he is at it seems odd that he would choose this way or learn it. I could be wrong though. What are your thoughts on this?

[_Jason Bourne]

http://newsroom.LDS.org/ldsnewsroom/eng ... attraction

PUBLIC AFFAIRS: If we were to look back at someone who had a ‘short fuse,’ and we were to look at their parents who might have had a short fuse, some might identify a genetic influence in that.

ELDER OAKS: No, we do not accept the fact that conditions that prevent people from attaining their eternal destiny were born into them without any ability to control. That is contrary to the Plan of Salvation, and it is contrary to the justice and mercy of God. It’s contrary to the whole teaching of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, which expresses the truth that by or through the power and mercy of Jesus Christ we will have the strength to do all things. That includes resisting temptation. That includes dealing with things that we’re born with, including disfigurements, or mental or physical incapacities. None of these stand in the way of our attaining our eternal destiny. The same may be said of a susceptibility or inclination to one behavior or another which if yielded to would prevent us from achieving our eternal destiny.

PUBLIC AFFAIRS: You’re saying the Church doesn’t necessarily have a position on ‘nurture or nature’


ELDER OAKS: That’s where our doctrine comes into play. The Church does not have a position on the causes of any of these susceptibilities or inclinations, including those related to same-gender attraction. Those are scientific questions — whether nature or nurture — those are things the Church doesn’t have a position on.

ELDER WICKMAN: Whether it is nature or nurture really begs the important question, and a preoccupation with nature or nurture can, it seems to me, lead someone astray from the principles that Elder Oaks has been describing here. Why somebody has a same-gender attraction… who can say? But what matters is the fact that we know we can control how we behave, and it is behavior which is important.

Doesn't this interview say the Church has no position on whether homosexuality is natural-or rather someone is born with it, or is it nuture, or learned, which is Droopy's position.

I said the Church does not take a position that it is learned. I think I am correct. This is the most recent position from the Church and is posted in their public issues section of the web site. Again Oaks says the Church has no position on why someone is homosexual.

[_bcspace]

Regarding the OP, where is the homophobia? Does it actually exist or is it a condition made up by the APA? I think the latter is true.

[_Maxrep]

James E. Faust:

There is some widely accepted theory extant that homosexuality is inherited. How can this be? No scientific evidence demonstrates absolutely that this is so. Besides, if it were so, it would frustrate the whole plan of mortal happiness. Our designation as men or women began before this world was. In contrast to the socially accepted doctrine that homosexuality is inborn, a number of respectable authorities contend that homosexuality is not acquired by birth. The false belief of inborn homosexual orientation denies to repentant souls the opportunity to change and will ultimately lead to discouragement, disappointment, and despair.

Liahona » 1995 » November


Hmmm

From 1995. Wonder if the church has modifies this a bit since then.

I do remember recently reading some comments by one of the twelve(i believe) that represents a stance of being much more accepting of genetic factors influencing gender attraction. As a youth, I can distinctly recall being told that, "God would not put a womans spirit in a mans body", in other words, God doesn't make gay mistakes. Its all just a matter of time....