McDonald’s vs. The God Squad

In my entire time on the internet I’ve never come across such unthinking, blind belief in stupidity as when I encountered the ‘born again’ Christians’ feedback to my complaint about Iris Robinson referring to gay people as an ‘abomination’. Following Iris’ lead, most of them attempted to legitimise their bigotry through modernising it via religious equality legislation, others chose the more blunt path of undisguised hatred for hatred’s sake.

Their compatriots in the US are also at it. The American Family Association has called for a boycott of McDonald’s by its members for being proactive in its support of diversity, specifically homosexuality:

McDonald’s Vice President of Communications Richard Ellis recently joined the board of directors of the National Gay & Lesbian Chamber of Commerce (NGLCC).

The anti-gay AFA claims that the multi-national restaurant chain is “refusing to remain neutral in the culture wars.”

Are you remotely clear about what that means? Me neither. Their website says it’s not about the hiring or treatment of gay staff, nor is it about gay customers. It appears to be about the diversity agenda itself, which will involve employers like McDonald’s joining organisations like the NGLCC, which will involve acknowledging civil partnerships and same-sex marriages (in areas they aren’t obliged to by law) and will see them promoting themselves at gay events like San Francisco Pride. This should be no surprise – they’re likely to take the same tack with age, gender, disability, race and of course religion.

And this is where their boycott shows itself for what it is. Corporations are never neutral, and the diversity agenda is not about one minority group’s untapped resources being brought on board at the expense of another’s. McDonald’s Chief Diversity Officer Pat Harris says:

“We treat our employees and our customers with respect and dignity, regardless of their ethnicity, religious beliefs, sexual orientation or other factors.

“We support out employees’ personal involvement in organisations of their choice.

“We will continue to support our people and their right to live and work in an inclusive society.”

with the AFA responding, saying:

“We are not telling McDonald’s who they can hire to work for the company, nor are we demanding that they stop serving Big Macs to homosexual customers.

“This issue is about the world’s largest fast food chain allying itself and partnering with an organization that lobbies Congress to enact laws that we feel can be used to repress religious freedom or undermine the sanctity of marriage,” AFA said

McDonald’s retaliated saying:

“while one McDonald’s employee is affiliated with the National Gay & Lesbian Chamber of Commerce (NGLCC), McDonald’s is in no way ‘aggressively promoting the homosexual agenda’ as suggested in the [AFA] newsletter.”

which drew this from the AFA:

“To refer to Richard Ellis, who is the vice president of communications for McDonald’s, as ‘one McDonald’s employee,’ as if he is a teenager flipping hamburgers, is disingenuous at best. While ‘aggressively’ is admittedly a subjective term, AFA believes that giving money to and partnering with a homosexual lobby organization is certainly an enthusiastic promotion of the homosexual agenda.”

Of course the notion of a ‘homosexual agenda’ is itself a homophobic one. To suggest that striving for equal rights under the law, in a society driven by the rule of law, not the superstition of scripture, is somehow a subversive agenda is completely ludicrous. What these bigots laughingly call an ‘agenda’, is the NGLCC’s lobbying programme. It makes no mention of gay marriage, but does follow Stonewall‘s UK lead in seeking changes of the law in areas where rights are not equal, particularly where equality would improve the lives of LGBT workers, which in turn would improve business performance. We also return to the competition I’ve referred to in a previous post, of human rights colliding, and indeed the bottom line is the same. By insinuating that lobbying for gay rights equates to attempting to ‘restrict religious freedom’, the AFA is running a bogus argument and a poor smokescreen for homophobia. The point of equal rights is that they are based on the (obvious) presumption that we are all equal; campaigning for one right is not the presumption of rescinding another. There’s plenty of room, unless of course their ‘religious freedom’ were to involve the ‘right’ to bigoted behaviour based on thin air. Wouldn’t that be a surprise?


Is dedicated to working with members of Congress in a bipartisan manner to pass common sense legislation in the areas of LGBT equal rights and business parity for LGBT business owners. The NGLCC believes there is a need for fundamental changes in access to heath care, taxation, and general principles that will allow for more prosperous business.

The NGLCC regularly communicates with members of Congress through lobby visits, letters and congressional testimony to ensure the needs of the LGBT business community are being heard.

The AFA in contrast:

believe(s) in holding accountable the companies which sponsor programs attacking traditional family values. (They) also believe in commending those companies which act responsibly regarding programs they support.

AFA supporters receive a monthly letter about a specific issue with a recommended action such as sending a postcard or making a phone call. In addition, supporters receive the AFA Journal with news on various moral and family issues.

The same Holy Bible that calls us to reject sin, calls us to love our neighbor. It is that love that motivates us to expose the misrepresentation of the radical homosexual agenda and stop its spread though our culture. AFA has sponsored several events reaching out to homosexuals and letting them know there is love and healing at the Cross of Christ.


12 responses to “McDonald’s vs. The God Squad

  1. Greetings cosmodaddy. Your name betrays you….’cosmo’ has its origin from the Greek…

    Probably from the base of G2865; orderly arrangement, that is, decoration; by implication the world (in a wide or narrow sense, including its inhabitants, literally or figuratively [morally]): – adorning, world.

    You see my friend your thought process is according to the thinking of the ‘world’ and that immersed in sin.

    “Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world. And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever.”

    Comments made by cosmodaddy
    “UK lead in seeking changes of the law in areas where rights are not equal, particularly where equality would improve the lives of LGBT workers, which in turn would improve business performance.”

    Its not about all of this… smoke and mirrors my friend. Your presentation makes it sound so sweet an innocent, but the truth is found in the link below.

    The issue cosmo is that it is a rebellious spirit against God, and his creation. It is not natural and it is sin..


  2. Malichi, what would you say to a person that takes on the name of an old testament prophet, wouldn’t that be presumption and pride? Thinking that your understanding is as great as a prophet?
    Why wouldn’t someone try to love the world, the people that made them and the land that fed them? seems more logical than hating it because of a presumed flaw put in there by the creator

  3. ‘Sin’ is a meaningless concept, the same as ‘blasphemy’ – both presume some form of wrong against what is, after all, an imaginary concept. The days where those had any relevance are long gone, and I shan’t debate them because of it. Nice advertisement Malachi, but we have nothing to discuss unless you accept we live in the real world and can only deal with real world issues and attitudes. Even the AFA admit that – they’re trying to use the diversity agenda the NGLCC via McDonald’s, because they realise that people who live in the 21st century rather than the 12th can’t stomach the fire & brimstone argument.

  4. In a book called ‘Under the Banner of Heaven’ the author sets out to explain why unpleasantness, fanaticism and indeed violence is available in abundance in religion. It’s well worth a read (link below).

    Anyway, one of the most stand out bits of the book is…..

    “Faith is the very antithesis of reason, injudiciousness a critical component of spiritual devotion. And when religious fanaticism supplants ratiocination, all bets are suddenly off. Anything can happen. Absolutely anything. Common sense is no match for the voice of God . . . ”

    Says it all really.

    Here’s the link to the book if anyone is interested.

  5. Question by Tim-
    “Malichi, what would you say to a person that takes on the name of an old testament prophet, wouldn’t that be presumption and pride?”

    The purpose of the name is strictly about the message Tim. If you study Malachi’s message to the people of God in his day you will find an uncanny resemblance to the need for the same message today for the church in America. Nothing to do with presumption and pride my friend.

    Question by Tim-
    “Thinking that your understanding is as great as a prophet?”

    The prophet was nothing more than a man who spake or wrote as they were moved by the Spirit of God. It is true today Tim. When an individual trust in Christ and is born again, it is this same Spirit.

    Question by Tim-
    “Why wouldn’t someone try to love the world, the people that made them and the land that fed them? seems more logical than hating it because of a presumed flaw put in there by the creator”

    I wholeheartedly agree. I do love you, James and even cosmodaddy… You had a problem with malachi…. do you have a problem with the name ‘cosmodaddy’ does it exude presumption and pride? Or is not about the name and you really just don’t like me?
    Just kidding.

    Your logical thinking concerning “presumed flaw put in there by the Creator” is not a sufficient defense to continue in an action that is against Him. Like the woman taken in adultery, he exhorted her to go and sin no more. He did not condone her sin for that was what he was to die for. Homosexuality is not anymore a act of condemnation that that of a murderer, thief, an extortioner, a fornicator or an adulterer. But God no longer winks at the error as Christ gave His life for all of the sin.

    Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. AND SUCH WERE SOM OF YOU: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.

    Comment made by cosmodaddy-
    “‘Sin’ is a meaningless concept, the same as ‘blasphemy’ – both presume some form of wrong against what is, after all, an imaginary concept.”

    Bless your heart cosmo.

    Statement by cosmodaddy
    “The days where those had any relevance are long gone, and I shan’t debate them because of it.”

    Nor will I cosmo. But just because I tell you what the word of God says does not mean that I hate you or anyone else.

    James I have never read the book, but if I understand the premise, I can think of a couple of reasons why people project a seeming spirit of hate while supposedly standing on the Word of God.

    The first is what we see when the religious leader brought the above woman mentioned who had been taken in adultery and wanted the Lord to condone her stoning. It was easy for them to see the error of the woman, which was in fact sin, while overlooking their own. Christ did not say don’t stone her, he said “he who is without sin, cast the first stone”.

    None of us could have picked up a stone and commenced the process, except of course one man that was present… Jesus. He knew no sin and became sin for us, so he did not come to stone a woman or any of the religious leaders, but to die for their sin. He did not come to condemn but to save.

    Another reason some people get angry is that what was in the video by the sisters of perpetual indulgence in San Francisco.

    We have seen Muslims kill for much less than that. Wonder why they don’t do a day on ‘hunky Mohammad’. I bet it ain’t hard to figure it out. They will probably end up with their head separated from the torso. Do you imagine my friend. But forget all of this hatred speech, can you justify the video? Can you understand why some Christians are seriously offended, or does it even matter?

    You see some people see this and when they attempt to convey the truth of God’s word the truth is flavored with a bitter and angry spirit. I think that is what we see all to often from both sides of the aisle.

    Concerning common sense….. His thoughts are not our thoughts, nor our ways liken to His. Human intellect will never get there James, no matter how hard it tries.


  6. Malachi, what right have you to query tolerance when you are preaching intolerance yourself? I will tolerate people I disagree with, though I certainly will challenge their views if I can.

    Can I ask, though, why do you single out the Folsom fair’s depiction of the Last Supper in particular? I would assume, though I could be wrong, that you have seen some of the many others.

    I can understand why people may be offended, but I don’t understand why they feel that only they have the right to be offended.

  7. Greetings Dave. Hopefully you have considered the previous post that I made. It is not about tolerance or intolerance as far as I am concerned. I am not offended by the video of the sisters or even the Folsom Fair depiction. It is to be expected from the mind that is darkened to the truth of God’s word…. for they that do not know Christ walk according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience. Among who also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind and were by nature the children of wrath.

    The only deliverance from such spiritual bondage my friend is to be born again.

    Until a man is born again he is spiritually ignorant and can not comprehend truth, even when it stands before them. It’s like the Roman solider that smote my Lord while He was blindfolded and then mocked, “if thou be the Son of God, tell me who smote thee?” or the religious leaders that walked by the foot of the cross and mocked the Son of God dying for their sin…

    Spiritual truth can not be comprehended by those who are bound in spiritual darkness. If I have ever said anything to any one on Word Press that has offended I would be the first to apologize, unless it was the Word of God… for that I can not apologize, for it is truth. The world can not comprehend it so there is a good chance it will offend. Christ told us this.

    Can I ask you Dave, does it offend you when I quote scripture?


  8. The only deliverance from such spiritual bondage my friend is to be born again.

    Except that’s meaningless hysteria. There’s no other reasonable spin to put on it. Comprehending truth doesn’t involve brainwashing, group hysteria or subscribing to cult-based and not real-world based notions of morality. If you need a book to figure it out, you’re doing it wrong basically. Spiritual darkness? Utter bilge. Word of God? Meaningless – all that exists or has ever existed is the word of man – the concept of a ‘word of ‘God” is so vain it barely bears thinking about.

    If I have ever said anything to any one on Word Press that has offended I would be the first to apologize, unless it was the Word of God… for that I can not apologize, for it is truth.

    Oh what an arrogant cop-out that is. ‘Oh it’s not me, God said it and you can’t criticise God’. Give me a break and take responsibility for your place in the world you intellectual coward.

  9. I’ve said before Malichi that quoting scripture is pointless to those who do not believe it was divinely inspired. If I quoted cookbooks, to you over and over you would be confused and ask me how they were relevant. Than I would say, “from this you can receive nourishment and live again”. Maybe you would reply back that you can’t see the connection, and I would tell you that if you had the faith of a simple teaspoon of salt you would see the wisdom of Saint Betty Crocker.
    See if you don’t use logic to construct your arguments and instead rely on rote quotation of a book that no one else in the discussion believes in your just gesturing madly to the crowd. You can base your life on the bible and that’s fine but using the bible as a point of reference in trying to convert people is meaningless.

    Your book, the bible, has led you to believe that this life and world you live in is pointless and meaningless and that the only thing that matters is making sure that you get into the next world properly. This allows you to deal with suffering by creating a goal that cannot be touched by pain or sorrow. Over the past two millennium, christians and muslims have tried to define human morality from the texts their forefathers passed down. Often the emphasis and belief systems have changed. Currently in the united states alone we have over 16,000 denominations of Christians, each teaching a different version of the “holy” word. Logically speaking, if a god did write this bible his entire purpose must have been to make a general outline that anybody could find something in to follow and believe in. If strict adherence was required either everyone is going to hell or no one is.
    Gays see much of this from a different perspective even though many of us were born to christian families and raised the exact same way as our straight brothers and sisters we came out gay. That being the case many of us become deeply skeptical of a text that says we are abominations and should be killed. Or even ones that say we did this intentionally and it was a choice. Regardless of how much you quote from that book of yours it does not change the facts of our lives one iota. We’ve already heard all the arguments in fact many of us were good little christian boys, which made being gay that much more confusing at first. after all why would god punish us, we were only children?
    if you are trying to proselytize one should keep one’s audience in mind.

  10. Can I ask you Dave, does it offend you when I quote scripture?
    It doesn’t offend me to read what you quote, provided you are willing to accept that not everyone will agree with what you say or what you are quoting. Also, as Tim says, it is meaningless to quote scripture to those who do not believe it to be the divine word. I do not believe it to be of divine inspiration, but am capable of understanding that there are many people who do – for whatever reason, be it that they want something to believe in, or have chosen to believe in a specific set of scripture, or another reason.

    It’s not my place to tell someone they can’t believe in something, though I will challenge it when I feel it’s wrong. Likewise, I would expect someone to be able to provide a reasonable argument other than “it says so in the Bible so it must be true”. There’s a lot of things said in the Bible or other holy texts, and there’s a lot of contradictions within those texts.

  11. For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries. He that despised Moses’ law died without mercy under two or three witnesses: Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?

    Peace my friends as long as you have breath in your lungs and a beat in your heart… for this is the beginning of eternity, if the word of God is true?


  12. Oh speak like a normal human being.

    ‘Sin’ is meaningless. The ‘word of ‘God” is meaningless. If you expect a dialogue on this blog you’ll have to take a chance and actually avoid proselytising. Your picture language may work for you, but our frame of reference is based on what there is, not what we choose to imagine.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s