Page 1 of 1

One less place to eat!

Posted: Thu Jan 26, 2017 11:48 am
by Sstavix
Planned Parenthood is being defunded in many states, and with President Trump in office, this may happen at the federal level, too. For some weird reason, some people see this as a bad thing. :?

This includes Chili's restaurants, which has a promotion going on in Kentucky and Indiana. Bring in a voucher, and 15% of the profits from your order will be donated to Planned Parenthood.

Frankly, that sounds like a good reason not to spend any money at Chili's at all. If you'd like to read more, here is a link to the commentary on one of my favorite political blogs, "Chicks on the Right."

Re: One less place to eat!

Posted: Thu Jan 26, 2017 12:10 pm
by ArcticFox
My wife showed me the same.

I'm not sure that's enough to make me boycott Chili's. The donation is entirely voluntary on the part of the diner, and only in states that I don't live in anyway. I can make a statement by going in and NOT having a portion of my meal's cost donated to PP. Apparently they'd previously done a promotion at one specific location to donate to PP and Pro-Life customers complained and it was shut down.

I'd rather maintain a presence of having pro-life people at Chili's to continue to make our voices heard there. To boycott is to give the place over to the people who would be more than happy to support Planned Genocide.

Re: One less place to eat!

Posted: Thu Jan 26, 2017 6:40 pm
by Gamer4Christ
Oh good grief! Chili's is gonna pull that stupid stunt? Count me out. I'm not playing their sick game. They certainly won't get a penny out of my pocket just to help those self-serving leeches assassinate children. :x

Re: One less place to eat!

Posted: Thu Jan 26, 2017 8:58 pm
by ccgr
It makes me wonder though, as a non-profit I can do restaurant fundraisers (I haven't done any yet since CCG fans are scattered world wide) I wonder if they discriminate faith based organizations or just approve any non-profit.

Re: One less place to eat!

Posted: Fri Jan 27, 2017 11:46 am
by Sstavix
Well apparently, thanks to customer backlash, Chili's has changed their mind about the program.

If anything, that's a great testimony to me about the power that we, the consumers really have. If a business supports something that we don't like e(whether it's refusal to serve a gay couple, give money to Planned Parenthood, or whatever), we don't have to shop there. It'll be up to the company to decide whether they want to change their mind. There's no reason for government to get involved in such moral debates. Let We the People decide for ourselves, based on our own conscious and moral guidance.

Re: One less place to eat!

Posted: Fri Jan 27, 2017 12:36 pm
by ccgr
Great news! Thanks for sharing it!

Re: One less place to eat!

Posted: Tue Mar 28, 2017 1:46 pm
by King_Hyder
One less place to shop is Target. They allow the transgender bathroom rules and I cannot seem to think it may extend into the dressing rooms soon. UGH!

Re: One less place to eat!

Posted: Sun Apr 23, 2017 3:35 pm
by skeer
If you're going to boycott Target, you'll probably want to boycott PayPal too. No one made a big deal about PayPal when they pulled their business out of North Carolina after the law in North Carolina said you must use bathrooms and locker rooms that match your born gender.

In addition a bunch of tech firms tried pressing Supreme court to revoke the law, but Supreme court denied it, and sent it to a lower court. Some of these tech firms include Apple, Microsoft, and IBM.

Maybe its just the way I was raised, but why can't people be happy the way they are? Idk anymore

Re: One less place to eat!

Posted: Sun May 07, 2017 7:24 am
by WisteriaWillows
I have a theory I'd like to flesh out. I'm not ready to push it hard. I'm not sure I fully buy in yet ...

Skeer asked:
Maybe its just the way I was raised, but why can't people be happy the way they are? Idk anymore
I'd propose that people can't be happy the way they are (gender), because they are very unhappy people at their core. They are searching for what could possibly be wrong ... maybe it's my gender ... grass is always greener syndrome.

Obviously, this is related to needing God and not having Him, but I believe that God isn't a magic switch. Accept Him and all problems vanish ... that's not usually how He works. Even when God instantly cures problems (He took away my Son-in-Law's alcoholism at salvation), God doesn't take away all problems (like Son-in-Law's anxiety). Taking away all problems would not leave room for growth of faith. In my example of my Son-in-Law (SIL), consider how much SIL must now depend on God to manage his emotions. He MUST pray or the anxiety will overwhelm him. He must rely on God to take care of scary situations, like not having enough money for bills, because God wants SIL to trust Him.

Pause ... let's look at this from another angle:

God didn't make up sin so we could prove our faith. God has rules about sin because sin hurts us and God doesn't want us hurt. So, let's look at some lifestyles that would hurt or help us.
Parents who subtly live by the "love of money" principle would fail to pay as much attention to their children as parents who "train up a child in the way he should go". Training takes a lot of attention. The parent spends time with the child along the way, and most of the training is done through the close relationship. Accidentally (except from God's perspective, it's not accidental at all), the child learns security and confidence.

When the parent is handling anger in a godly manner, then the child doesn't develop a deep down hatred of himself because the parent's anger didn't land on him, telling him he is worthless or broken. The parent's concern for the child focuses on ways the child should behave in order to be close to God and be safe.

Child runs into the street. Parent screams and yells at child for running into the street. Maybe physical punishment follows, maybe not. What matters from the child's perspective is that they were just playing, and suddenly the parent exploded.

Godly parent: Child runs into the street. Parents pulls child to safety and calmly states, "The street is not safe. You could get badly hurt there. I know that you aren't old enough to understand that a car could hit you in the street, so I will help you remember. If you go in the street without an adult, I will spank you. That will help you remember to stay in the yard." A calm spank follows. Not out of anger. Then love follows. A hug with the verbal affirmation, "I love you too much to let you get hit by a car."

I may have gotten off topic some, but please allow me to try again.
Theory: When raised with traditional roles, in a godly manner (note that those two things are not the same, but I don't know how to separate them), the child knows his place. Consider the phrase, "put him in his place". That's a terrible phrase that implies punishment. But what if knowing one's place (in a kind way), actually yields happiness? What if the woman in the kitchen is not unhappy. She COULD be an executive making a million a year, but what if she can actually be happier living like it's 1950? What if the emotional "knowing her place" is a happier place than having to fight her way to the top. What if using restraint with the well-run budget and pouring herself into the children is the most satisfying place she could possibly be?

And then ... "knowing your place" yields satisfaction in life. Yes, gender confusion has always existed, but it did not always exist to this extent. It was very rare in the past. I think I believe it is because we are raised without limits. That sounds like a free, wonderful thing, but it's not. Free might mean blowing in the hurricane winds without any place to belong or any place to be emotionally safe.

Re: One less place to eat!

Posted: Sun May 07, 2017 7:41 am
by Comotto
Amen. Wisteria's lesson for today. :-)