Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: rogwar on August 01, 2012, 01:15:24 PM
-
It was packed in Arlington but myself and three co-worked braved the crowds. I bet this had to be a record day. I like their waffle fries.
-
I like my Chick-Fil-A with extra self righteousness and a slice of bigotry. I'd ask them to hold the pickle, but that just sounds gay.
-
Why is there a little thumbs-up next to this thread? And why is Chick-Fil-A bigoted? I just thought it was cheap.
-
Why is there a little thumbs-up next to this thread?
Because it was pretty tasty, especially the fries.
-
Can't beat a chic-fil-A sandwich. Soo glad my brother runs 2 of them near my office :rock Says they have been slammed all day.
-
Because it was pretty tasty, especially the fries.
So all threads about tasty things get thumbs up? Is this a choice made by the poster, or does the BBS automatically sense this and assign the thumbs-up?
-
I like my Chick-Fil-A with extra self righteousness and a slice of bigotry. I'd ask them to hold the pickle, but that just sounds gay.
If you dont agree with pickles on a sandwich its your right to say so, nothing wrong with stating your opinions. I personally think dill pickles are ok on a sandwich but sweet pickles should not be allowed on a sandwich as I dont beilve they are truely pickles in the calorific sense.
-
Love me some chickfila!
-
Got to the closest Chick-Fil-A at 1:50 today and a lot of people had the same idea. It was a mob scene. Cars backed up all over the place and nearby shopping center lot was loaded. I went in and barely got inside the door at first. Considering the crowd, they got my order in my clutches in a very reasonable 22 minutes. Normally, a crowd like that would send most people somewhere else for lunch. Everyone was well behaved and not a gripe was heard. People seemed quite content in fact, to wait for "fast food".
It shows what can happen when the real intolerant people try to shut someone down for having a differing opinion. People don't like being told what to do but they sure aren't going to put up with being told what to think.
-
Those opposed to the stand 'Chick-Fil-A' has taken definitely have the right idea. If they can kill off those that disagree with them with high caloric and greasy food, it won't be anyone to disagree with them anymore.
:rofl
This thread is going to be locked, I just had to post the above comment, I found it funny.
-
So all threads about tasty things get thumbs up? Is this a choice made by the poster, or does the BBS automatically sense this and assign the thumbs-up?
When you create a new post you can choose a message icon from a drop down menu. I chose the thumbs up icon for the original post.
-
So all threads about tasty things get thumbs up? Is this a choice made by the poster, or does the BBS automatically sense this and assign the thumbs-up?
Who the bellybutton cares about a little thumbs up?... :rolleyes: :bhead
-
If you don't agree with pickles on a sandwich its your right to say so, nothing wrong with stating your opinions. I personally think dill pickles are ok on a sandwich but sweet pickles should not be allowed on a sandwich as I don't believe they are truly pickles in the calorific sense.
So says the Pickle Whisperer.
Proper moral values... :rock C-F-A
-
Freedom of Speech is sacred, unless someone uses it to oppose your position. Then they must be silenced. It's not like the Chick Fil-A guy is discriminating against gays in hiring or serving, he's just voicing his personal beliefs. These protestors are probably the same people who believe in multiculturism above all else, unless you involve American culture, of course... :rolleyes:
-
Those opposed to the stand 'Chick-Fil-A' has taken definitely have the right idea. If they can kill off those that disagree with them with high caloric and greasy food, it won't be anyone to disagree with them anymore.
:rofl
This thread is going to be locked, I just had to post the above comment, I found it funny.
You dont have to get the fried chicken they have grilled aswell. Also I love to put my tender in a Polynesian box :devil
-
In north Dallas today I saw two Chick-fil-A completely packed at about 11:30.
There was a 50-foot line out the door of both places and the drive through cars were stacked out of the parking lot and down the public street.
Think I'll go tomorrow.
-
Got my sandwich today.
-
I like my Chick-Fil-A with extra self righteousness and a slice of bigotry. I'd ask them to hold the pickle, but that just sounds gay.
No values are allowed but rpm's dammit!! Go back to FW with this crap.
-
No values are allowed but rpm's dammit!! Go back to FW with this crap.
Isn't that the point tho? Difference of opinions and the right to that opinion? expecially done in a civil manner? If RPM whants em to hold his pickle he has every right to ask for that, but it would be more appropreate on friday when there will be much pickle holding.
-
Was driving by where the Chick-Fil-A is here, and cars are backed up for a mile and a half at lunch hour in Metairie at the Veterans AVE location. Saw some protesters out front today, did not see any yesterday.
-
Got to the closest Chick-Fil-A at 1:50 today and a lot of people had the same idea. It was a mob scene. Cars backed up all over the place and nearby shopping center lot was loaded. I went in and barely got inside the door at first. Considering the crowd, they got my order in my clutches in a very reasonable 22 minutes. Normally, a crowd like that would send most people somewhere else for lunch. Everyone was well behaved and not a gripe was heard. People seemed quite content in fact, to wait for "fast food".
It shows what can happen when the real intolerant people try to shut someone down for having a differing opinion. People don't like being told what to do but they sure aren't going to put up with being told what to think.
:aok
My wife, daughter and I are heading out to Chick-fil-A now.
Lambo
-
:aok
My wife, daughter and I are heading out to Chick-fil-A now.
Lambo
Good luck, we're all counting you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SmHeP9Sve48
-
No values are allowed but rpm's dammit!!
I think you have that backwards. At least Chick-Fil-A does.
I'm a "Land of the Free" supporter. Everyone is entitled to their pursuit of happiness as long as it doesn't encroach on my rights. I see no encroachment on my rights with gay marriage.
YMMV
-
I think you have that backwards. At least Chick-Fil-A does.
I'm a "Land of the Free" supporter. Everyone is entitled to their pursuit of happiness as long as it doesn't encroach on my rights. I see no encroachment on my rights with gay marriage.
YMMV
You do realise the guy is the pres of CFA and not the USA so it doesnt really matter what the guy thinks. If people listen to him they already made up thier mind and those that disagree with him have made up thier so its just an opinion and arguing opinon is allways silly. Plus I havent seen any bigoty options on the menu is that a local thing?
-
I think you have that backwards. At least Chick-Fil-A does.
I'm a "Land of the Free" supporter. Everyone is entitled to their pursuit of happiness as long as it doesn't encroach on my rights. I see no encroachment on my rights with gay marriage.
YMMV
Does he prevent gays from eating or working at his restaurants? Does his business discriminate against them in any way? What's the problem, again?
-
Grilled chicken sandwich was so good, I'll be going again tomorrow. Had a chocolate shake with it also, dam that was tasty.
-
Does he prevent gays from eating or working at his restaurants? Does his business discriminate against them in any way? What's the problem, again?
I know a gay guy that went there last week and got extra mayo on his sandwich...didn't ask for it. DISCRIMINATION!
J/k was just a joke please don't ban me :angel: :noid
I have never been to chikfila is it delicious? I love the commercials.
-
Grilled chicken sandwich was so good, I'll be going again tomorrow. Had a chocolate shake with it also, dam that was tasty.
Dude try the Peach Shake
-
I know a gay guy that went there last week and got extra mayo on his sandwich...didn't ask for it. DISCRIMINATION!
J/k was just a joke please don't ban me :angel: :noid
I have never been to chikfila is it delicious? I love the commercials.
Its like crack made out of poultry and ...you know bigotry :rolleyes:
-
I have never been to chikfila is it delicious? I love the commercials.
Scrumptious would be a more delectable word. :)
-
:aok
My wife, daughter and I are heading out to Chick-fil-A now.
Lambo
It was an inspiring experience. Every customer I passed on the way in was happy. Not in a smug, self-righteous way, but they were glad to show how they felt about political correctness gone amok. This one older gentleman was grinning ear to ear and tried to high five me on the way past. :) It's good to know that people can express their opinions in a pleasant and non-threatening way. People were "making their voices heard", so to speak.
Enjoy and grab an extra sandwich for me. :cheers:
-
Why does the view of the CEO of chick-fil-a matter?
They make good food and that is all that matters to me.
-
I think you have that backwards. At least Chick-Fil-A does.
I'm a "Land of the Free" supporter. Everyone is entitled to their pursuit of happiness as long as it doesn't encroach on my rights. I see no encroachment on my rights with gay marriage.
YMMV
I think TJ asked you a question.
-
Does he prevent gays from eating or working at his restaurants? Does his business discriminate against them in any way? What's the problem, again?
I didn't call for a boycott, did I? It's his business to run as he sees fit. He can't legally prevent anyone from eating at his stores because of their marriage status. But he would if he could. The problem is his attitude on "marriage".
"We are very much supportive of the family -- the biblical definition of the family unit," Cathy said. "We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that."
Not only does that include gay marriage, it includes people that have been divorced, marrying a divorced person or not marrying the wife of your dead brother.
Again, I've no problems with gay marriage, straight marriage, divorce or choosing not to marry. It's none of my (or anyone else's) business when two people decide to marry or not... I don't care. Personally, I follow a different part of the Bible, Matthew 7:12. YMMV.
-
I didn't call for a boycott, did I? It's his business to run as he sees fit. He can't legally prevent anyone from eating at his stores because of their marriage status. But he would if he could. The problem is his attitude on "marriage". Not only does that include gay marriage, it includes people that have been divorced, marrying a divorced person or not marrying the wife of your dead brother.
Again, I've no problems with gay marriage, straight marriage, divorce or choosing not to marry. It's none of my (or anyone else's) business when two people decide to marry or not... I don't care. Personally, I follow a different part of the Bible, Matthew 7:12. YMMV.
You're entitled to your beliefs, he's entitled to his. I'd be hesitant to characterize a different opinion as a problem.
-
chicken shack could not of publicly announced that. a little consideration and class goes a long way.
"True" Christians are not supposed to hate or pass judgement, sounds like hypocrite city here .
I guess none of you have gays in your family's. And isnt it "We the people" or "We the people except gays"?
-
chicken shack could not of publicly announced that.
Why not if that is his view why should he hide it. I may not agree but I will always say its his right to state his opinion.
It was the CEO making his own personnel opinion known.
-
Why not if that is his view why should he hide it. I may not agree but I will always say its his right to state his opinion.
It was the CEO making his own personnel opinion known.
I don't agree with him but love his food. What should I do?
-
You're entitled to your beliefs, he's entitled to his.
Exactly. I'm pretty sure if people took a deeper look at what he actually said, they wouldn't be so quick to back his opinion. He wasn't just slamming the gays. Rape victims should be forced to marry their attackers (after a 50 sheckle fine) under "the biblical definition of the family unit".
chicken shack could not of publicly announced that. a little consideration and class goes a long way.
"True" Christians are not supposed to hate or pass judgement, sounds like hypocrite city here .
I guess none of you have gays in your family's. And isnt it "We the people" or "We the people except gays"?
Well said.
-
Getting peeved over the comments from that interview and then starting a nationwide boycott (that included several prolific mayors) that horrifically backfired is totally awesome!
-
chicken shack could not of publicly announced that. a little consideration and class goes a long way.
"True" Christians are not supposed to hate or pass judgement, sounds like hypocrite city here .
I guess none of you have gays in your family's. And isnt it "We the people" or "We the people except gays"?
I'll tell you right now, I don't agree with what he said. However, he has the right to voice his opinions. Homosexual and Heterosexual relationships are two different kinds of relationships. They are not Constitutionally guaranteed equal protection. There are people on both sides of the issue, and as such I respect his beliefs.
-
.....
Again, I've no problems with gay marriage, straight marriage, divorce or choosing not to marry. It's none of my (or anyone else's) business when two people decide to marry or not... I don't care. Personally, I follow a different part of the Bible, Matthew 7:12. YMMV.
awesome post
.....
wanna type more but cant.
-
They are not Constitutionally guaranteed equal protection.
The Constitution says nothing about marriage or relationships. Nothing.
-
"You better agree with us or we will try to destroy you."
How American.
Here's a suggestion.
Don't like it, don't eat there.
-
I don't agree with him but love his food. What should I do?
Why are you asking me?
-
i wish we had a CFA up here in Fairbanks :frown:
-
The Chick-fil-A in our local mall had a 3 hour wait time on orders and the line wrapped around the whole building. Just incredible support today.
-
Why are you asking me?
No, just being an bellybutton in general. I'm having an extra crappy day and I'm sick of humans right now. The AH BBS may have been a poor choice at the moment.
-
You're entitled to your beliefs, he's entitled to his. I'd be hesitant to characterize a different opinion as a problem.
He has characterized my beliefs as a problem. Unfortunately I don't run a national chain seeking publicity and a much needed spike in sales.
-
(http://i287.photobucket.com/albums/ll149/jimsom88/chfilagene.jpg)
-
a much needed spike in sales.
bs
-
But he would if he could.
Don't let the facts stop you from looking stupid.
-
The Constitution says nothing about marriage or relationships. Nothing.
I was referring to the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment that many use to argue that not granting marital status to homosexuals is unconstitutional.
-
Don't let the facts stop you from looking stupid.
So why did he speak out against gay marriage? How often does gay marriage come up in the average fast food corporation board meeting?
Does this mean Mickey D's is serving studmuffinfood? They haven't taken a stand in the marriage war. Is the Quarterpounder code for something more?
-
I didn't call for a boycott, did I? It's his business to run as he sees fit. He can't legally prevent anyone from eating at his stores because of their marriage status. But he would if he could. The problem is his attitude on "marriage".Not only does that include gay marriage, it includes people that have been divorced, marrying a divorced person or not marrying the wife of your dead brother.
Again, I've no problems with gay marriage, straight marriage, divorce or choosing not to marry. It's none of my (or anyone else's) business when two people decide to marry or not... I don't care. Personally, I follow a different part of the Bible, Matthew 7:12. YMMV.
wow RPM, if you really believe that verse and try to live by it then try applying it to Chick-fil-A and it's CEO. For the record, I believe the Bible and agree 100% with Dan Cathy, but that's not why I went to Chick-Fil-A today. I went to support his RIGHT to voice his beliefs.
Lambo
Lambo
-
So why did he speak out against gay marriage? How often does gay marriage come up in the average fast food corporation board meeting?
Does this mean Mickey D's is serving studmuffinfood? They haven't taken a stand in the marriage war. Is the Quarterpounder code for something more?
rpm you can find the answers with a little bit of research.
Also this turnout was largely not about gay marriage rights.
-
So why did he speak out against gay marriage? How often does gay marriage come up in the average fast food corporation board meeting?
Does this mean Mickey D's is serving studmuffinfood? They haven't taken a stand in the marriage war. Is the Quarterpounder code for something more?
He was asked about it in an interview.
-
wow RPM, if you really believe that verse and try to live by it then try applying it to Chick-fil-A and it's CEO. For the record, I believe the Bible and agree 100% with Dan Cathy, but that's not why I went to Chick-Fil-A today. I went to support his RIGHT to voice his beliefs.
Lambo
I believe anyone is entitled to follow whatever religion they choose. They want to follow Buddah, Allaah, Jesus or whatever mythical creature they choose. Just don't force me to bend my personal beliefs to fit inside your comfort zone. You live your life by your convictions, I'll live by my own.
-
Jul. 31, 2012
Chick-fil-A Statement
Chick-fil-A is a family-owned and family-led company serving the communities in which it operates. From the day Truett Cathy started the company, he began applying biblically-based principles to managing his business.
The Chick-fil-A culture and service tradition in our restaurants is to treat every person with honor, dignity and respect –regardless of their belief, race, creed, sexual orientation or gender. We will continue this tradition in the over 1,600 Restaurants run by independent Owner/Operators. Going forward, our intent is to leave the policy debate over same-sex marriage to the government and political arena.
Our mission is simple: to serve great food, provide genuine hospitality and have a positive influence on all who come in contact with Chick-fil-A.
-
Just don't force me to bend my personal beliefs to fit inside your comfort zone. You live your life by your convictions, I'll live by my own.
That's why I went today.
-
He was asked about it in an interview.
That's the thing, he was asked, and he answered the question honestly. I did not think corporatism and hollywood went hand-in-hand. So if you are gay and you like their food, you are going to stop going? It is not exactly original for a gay person to hear that some people are against gay marriage. Really? It's become this childish?
-
That's why I went today.
Good for you. Are you ready to stone your daughter in front of the village for premarital sex? You can't have one without the other.
Maybe it's easier for you to just take 50 sheckles for your daughter's virginity taken by a rapist rather than prosecute him for rape of a minor. The Bible says so.
-
Good for you. Are you ready to stone your daughter in front of the village for premarital sex? You can't have one without the other.
I've known you for some time on here and you have my respect. That was a bit uncalled for in relation to my daughter. I recommend you research the whole story utilizing a variety of sources. I went in support of 1st amendment rights.
Attempting to debate with a person who has abandoned reason is like giving medicine to the dead. - Thomas Paine
-
I've known you for some time on here and you have my respect. That was a bit uncalled for in relation to my daughter. I recommend you research the whole story utilizing a variety of sources. I went in support of 1st amendment rights.
Attempting to debate with a person who has abandoned reason is like giving medicine to the dead. - Thomas Paine
:aok
-
Good for you. Are you ready to stone your daughter in front of the village for premarital sex? You can't have one without the other.
Maybe it's easier for you to just take 50 sheckles for your daughter's virginity taken by a rapist rather than prosecute him for rape of a minor. The Bible says so.
And that just went past the line.
-
he be hatin.
-
I'm not trying to set the parameters of the debate. I'm working within what has been said. "The biblical definition" of marriage includes more than just heterosexual marriage. What is happening is a cherrypicking of the Bible to fit certain POVs. You can take a portion of it out of context and then use it fit your agenda. When you twist that context, then you start to offend innocent people like Rogwar.
-
It was packed in Arlington but myself and three co-worked braved the crowds. I bet this had to be a record day. I like their waffle fries.
Well done. :salute
-
wow RPM, if you really believe that verse and try to live by it then try applying it to Chick-fil-A and it's CEO. For the record, I believe the Bible and agree 100% with Dan Cathy, but that's not why I went to Chick-Fil-A today. I went to support his RIGHT to voice his beliefs.
Lambo
In what way were his rights being trampled in the first place?
-
(http://img165.exs.cx/img165/7933/bunny0ry.jpg)
-
Really? It's become this childish?
Yes. And its really getting annoying.
But what I don't get is why theres such a big fight over the whole 'marriage' thing. To be frank, I've always felt the biggest reason for marriage is to create a stable enviornment in which to raise children. Since gays are incapable of reproducing with eachother, its really kind of a non-issue. As for addopted children raised by gays, having two dads would draw more FlaK from haters than having 'parents' who aren't married.
Unless theres some other benefits to being 'married' that I'm not aware of (I'm 17, don't judge) that a 'domestic partnership' or whatever they call it in whatever area can't match, it really seems like a "hey, look at us!!!" thing.
-
In what way were his rights being trampled in the first place?
They don't get that point. It's just wrong because some guy on TV told them it was. Reading the Bible is #toomuchhassle.
-
I like to keep an open mind. Gay marriage doesn't affect me, so I don't really care about it. That being said, Dan Cathy has every right under the 1st amendment to voice his opinion. Since when is it wrong to answer a question with an honest response?
And why is it such a surprise to people that a CEO, whom has always closed his restaurants on Sundays to observe God's holy day, has this stance on gay marriage? Do you think he likes losing a full day of profit every week?
Are we just so used to the corporate, political and media world being so politically correct that a different opinion is suddenly taboo? And I garruntee that half those people protesting are there because someone said it would be fun.
-
I like to keep an open mind. Gay marriage doesn't affect me, so I don't really care about it. That being said, Dan Cathy has every right under the 1st amendment to voice his opinion. Since when is it wrong to answer a question with an honest response?
It isn't. Using it for the sake of free publicity is. It's also genius.
(http://michele-norris.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/don-draper-stoic-421.jpg)
-
best quote about the issue yet... (although it wasn't said here)..
"According to Chick-Fil-A, traditional marriage should only be between an obese woman and a diabetic man."
:rofl :rofl
-
In what way were his rights being trampled in the first place?
Mayors of certain cities are trying to prevent him from opening restaurants because of his support of traditional marriage definition.
That goes way beyond criticism and way beyond even urging a boycott.
-
Think I will go again today just for fun. I bet there will be a lot of folks still. Probably even tomorrow.
-
In what way were his rights being trampled in the first place?
I never said his Rights were, please don't put words in to my mouth. Cathy was asked about his beliefs and then attacked by certain persons/media. One mayor in particular is trying to prevent a Chick-Fil-A from being built in his city over Cathy expressing his beliefs, which is why chose to show support by going to eat at Chick-Fil-A yesterday.
They don't get that point. It's just wrong because some guy on TV told them it was. Reading the Bible is #toomuchhassle.
I read the Holy Bible every day, do you?
Lambo
-
it really seems like a "hey, look at us!!!" thing.
Yes it could be like that. It is social engineering and they are tinckering with children in the process.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LUmoTOujJ7Q
"It just come downs to it....If I want a chic fil a sandwich, I'm gonna have a chic fil a sandwich. So you can run and Tell That!"
(http://i1253.photobucket.com/albums/hh600/assi2929/antoine-dodson-chick-fil-a.jpg)
-
I like my Chick-Fil-A with extra self righteousness and a slice of bigotry. I'd ask them to hold the pickle, but that just sounds gay.
Sorry if you don't like folks having an opinion then you don't get one either. lol
Those restaurants around here had long lines down the road all day long.
Funny how it works when some group or another doen't like honesty in an opinion and the Americans flock to support it.
-
I've known you for some time on here and you have my respect. That was a bit uncalled for in relation to my daughter. I recommend you research the whole story utilizing a variety of sources. I went in support of 1st amendment rights.
You talk of First Amendment rights, but I'm not sure that you understand them.
Realize that the right to say whatever you want does not entitle you to the right to remain free of criticism. People boycotting Chick Fil-A - and those going there to show support - are all exercising perfectly reasonable methods to express their views. The First Amendment really doesn't apply here at all.
-
You talk of First Amendment rights, but I'm not sure that you understand them.
Realize that the right to say whatever you want does not entitle you to the right to remain free of criticism. People boycotting Chick Fil-A - and those going there to show support - are all exercising perfectly reasonable methods to express their views. The First Amendment really doesn't apply here at all.
They certainly have a right to do their thing in terms of a boycott and protest. Likewise so do the people who went yesterday. Therefore you are absolutely incorrect. It is an expression of the 1st amendment in its purest form.
-
They certainly have a right to do their thing in terms of a boycott and protest. Likewise so do the people who went yesterday. Therefore you are absolutely incorrect. It is an expression of the 1st amendment in its purest form.
It's an expression of free speech. The First Amendment protects free speech from government intervention. You said that you went to Chick Fil-A in order to support First Amendment rights, which implies that those boycotting somehow threatened those rights.
Where's government in this? I'm unclear. It's a bunch of people acting kind of stupid over a fast food joint from what I can tell.
-
Where's government in this? I'm unclear. It's a bunch of people acting kind of stupid over a fast food joint from what I can tell.
The mayors of Boston and Chicago.
-
Where's government in this?
Mayors of Boston and Chicago.
-
The mayors of Boston and Chicago.
Are you arguing that cities don't have a right to determine the kinds of businesses they allow to operate there? So Salt Lake City can't do anything to prevent adult stores from opening there if they don't want them? Let's say David Duke decided to open Grand Wizard Pizza in New Orleans. Would you argue that the city has no power to disallow such a venture?
Of course you wouldn't. That'd be crazy.
-
Are you arguing that cities don't have a right to determine the kinds of businesses they allow to operate there? So Salt Lake City can't do anything to prevent adult stores from opening there if they don't want them? Let's say David Duke decided to open Grand Wizard Pizza in New Orleans. Would you argue that the city has no power to disallow such a venture?
Of course you wouldn't. That'd be crazy.
No. You just made that argument up for me.
You asked where government was involved in this and I answered you.
-
Are you arguing that cities don't have a right to determine the kinds of businesses they allow to operate there? So Salt Lake City can't do anything to prevent adult stores from opening there if they don't want them? Let's say David Duke decided to open Grand Wizard Pizza in New Orleans. Would you argue that the city has no power to disallow such a venture?
Of course you wouldn't. That'd be crazy.
What is it that you want anyway? What does rpm want?
Would you rather people have not gone? Do you want to belittle the people who went? Or are you trying to educate the people who went in some way?
Bunch of people went to show support of a business. Nothing really anybody posts can make those that went feel any different about their motivations. It's really entertaining to see the reaction from various groups across the nation. It's also kind of rewarding.
-
Are you arguing that cities don't have a right to determine the kinds of businesses they allow to operate there? So Salt Lake City can't do anything to prevent adult stores from opening there if they don't want them? Let's say David Duke decided to open Grand Wizard Pizza in New Orleans. Would you argue that the city has no power to disallow such a venture?
Of course you wouldn't. That'd be crazy.
They are not targeting a type of business.... they are singling out one business. That is illegal.
-
They are not targeting a type of business.... they are singling out one business. That is illegal.
I imagine the legality of it varies from state to state or city to city.
Note that these cities weren't threatening to shut down existing Chick Fil-As over this, as that would be clearly illegal.
-
Or are you trying to educate the people who went in some way?
This.
Bunch of people went to show support of a business. Nothing really anybody posts can make those that went feel any different about their motivations. It's really entertaining to see the reaction from various groups across the nation. It's also kind of rewarding.
Then say you wanted to show support for the business. You said you did it to show support for First Amendment rights. No you didn't, and if you did, you did so erroneously since nobody was violating anybody's rights. If anything, you did it to tweak "various groups" more than anything. Fair enough, but at least be honest with yourself and others.
-
You asked where government was involved in this and I answered you.
The government isn't involved in a First Amendment way. In any event, it's all political puffery and pandering, which is in fact protected speech even if despicable.
-
This.
Then say you wanted to show support for the business. You said you did it to show support for First Amendment rights. No you didn't, and if you did, you did so erroneously since nobody was violating anybody's rights. If anything, you did it to tweak "various groups" more than anything. Fair enough, but at least be honest with yourself and others.
Thank you for helping me understand myself better. :devil
-
Thank you for helping me understand myself better. :devil
You're welcome. :)
BTW Polynesian sauce has to have crack in it. I would put that stuff on anything.
-
Yes. And its really getting annoying.
But what I don't get is why theres such a big fight over the whole 'marriage' thing. To be frank, I've always felt the biggest reason for marriage is to create a stable enviornment in which to raise children. Since gays are incapable of reproducing with eachother, its really kind of a non-issue. As for addopted children raised by gays, having two dads would draw more FlaK from haters than having 'parents' who aren't married.
Unless theres some other benefits to being 'married' that I'm not aware of (I'm 17, don't judge) that a 'domestic partnership' or whatever they call it in whatever area can't match, it really seems like a "hey, look at us!!!" thing.
There are many benefits to be being married. For example obtaining medical insurance through a spouse's employer, the ability to file tax returns jointly, estate benefits, hospital visitation rights, etc.
And there are many same-sex couples that have children, both biological and adopted.
-
I choose not to eat there. He absolutely has a right to his beliefs and can choose how to run his business, up to and including donating money to anti-gay groups. That being said, his consequences for those actions is that I, and many others, choose not to support that business anymore.
Free commerce, first amendment rights at their best both ways. Carry On.
BTW, how is this thread still open!?
-
They ran out of food here. xD
And why is everyone surprised about his beliefs? It's a business that is always closed on Sunday and has always...ya know...just so this thread doesn't get locked, I'm gonna walk away.
This being a shock to a lot of people just shows how stupid our country is and how LITTLE thought they put into anything they use or where they go.
-
They ran out of food here. xD
And why is everyone surprised about his beliefs? It's a business that is always closed on Sunday and has always...ya know...just so this thread doesn't get locked, I'm gonna walk away.
This being a shock to a lot of people just shows how stupid our country is and how LITTLE thought they put into anything they use or where they go.
Think about all the businesses you patron in a week. It would be a monumental task to research every establishments history, goals, financial statements, etc. Just because a business is closed on Sunday doesn't mean we can assume the group has donated money to an anti-gay group. You've probably been a patron at plenty of businesses that you wouldn't necessarily agree with ideologically.
-
The funny thing is, it seems a good portion of the people supporting Chick-Fil-A over "They have a right to free speech" were also the ones to threaten to boycott Oreo over their 'Pride' cookie promotion. :neener:
-
The funny thing is, it seems a good portion of the people supporting Chick-Fil-A over "They have a right to free speech" were also the ones to threaten to boycott Oreo over their 'Pride' cookie promotion. :neener:
Not down here. No one cares what you have, where you put it or what gets put into it. You do it in your bedroom? Good. I can't see it, therefore; I do not care.
You could be smashing Godzilla's tail at night and no one would give a damn.
God you people all lived in some really jacked up places.
Think about all the businesses you patron in a week. It would be a monumental task to research every establishments history, goals, financial statements, etc. Just because a business is closed on Sunday doesn't mean we can assume the group has donated money to an anti-gay group. You've probably been a patron at plenty of businesses that you wouldn't necessarily agree with ideologically.
I don't use that many and with the amount of time every single person today wastes on the internet re-checking their FB, they can look up a business - ESPECIALLY a big time business like CFA (which is OBVIOUSLY one that most people return to use over and over.) :bolt:
It doesn't matter who they donated money to anyway. They're closed on Sunday's which would normally (to anyone with common sense) imply they have Christian roots and therefore; would more than likely not support gay marriage due to religious beliefs.
I don't have an ideology that would get me so upset that I would freak out and not go there anymore. Maybe that's being southern, but we don't get our panties in a wad over stupid $#!t.
-
The government isn't involved in a First Amendment way. In any event, it's all political puffery and pandering, which is in fact protected speech even if despicable.
Not picking on you, DeadMan; your's was just a good jumping off point for my thoughts on this. First, it is indeed a first amendment issue, and Government doesn't need to be involved for someone's right to free speech to be infringed. However, in this case, government officials DID in fact become involved, issuing statements in their official capacity as mayors that this particular business (of a type otherwise allowed in many areas of their respective cities) was not welcomed, and only because of the belief expressed by the CEO of said company. This is essentially applying a religeous test to the application of civil authority, which is so obviously a violation of the Constitution that both mayors have since backed off those statements. A lot of the people who showed up yesterday to eat a CFA were people of like mind to Cathy, but many were just there to insure that people like Rahm Emanual understand that we still believe and support the constitution. It is also perfectly in line with the 1st Amendment to refuse to eat at CFA because of Cathy's beliefs, and to state as much (so long as not acting in the capacity of a government official, where it might be construed as policy).
Regarding Cathy's statements, I'd like to point out a bit of hypocracy (well, perhaps more than just a "bit"). I recall hearing direct from President Obama's lips that he believed in the the traditional view of marriage as being between one man and one woman; this was only a year or two ago, as I recall, before his position "evolved". I don't recall him being villified or told his "values aren't Chicago values", or otherwise told he wasn't welcome there or in Boston. Yet, we have the brew-ha-ha now when a private citizen makes essentially the exact same statement. Consider, please.
For those who have expressed the belief that a town should be able to decide what businesses can open in their towns, it has already been pointed out that while a city government can decide what type of business can open in an area (often done through zoning laws), that decision must be applied universally to all businesses of that type. To put it in perspective, what if a town's mayor or city counsil said that a particular business owner's establishment was banned (or even just stated they'd be "unwelcomed") because the owner was gay? I hope that I would be every bit as offended as what the mayors of Boston and Chicago attempted to do to CFA. Would you?
Finally, to address the issue of what the bible says about morality and punishment, I would point out that something changed between the Old Testiment and the New Testiment; Jesus Christ. Putting people to death for adultery, as an example, was called for in the Old Testiment. However, when Jesus had an adultering woman brought before Him, He bacially saved her. This did not mean adultery was now okay. No, what he said was that her sins were forgiven and to "go, and sin no more". So, Cathy is not being inconsistent with the Bible simply because he is not insisting that horrible punishments be meeted out for things like adultery or fornication and such. Christ did not change what was or was not sinful in God's eyes, only how we treat the sinners; with forgiveness when asked and with love, always.
Sabre
P.S. Went to CFA lastnight at 7:30PM and place was still slammed, but not a word of grumbling or incivilety. Good chicken.
-
Yeah. Vanessa's throat has been sore since we went to visit her dad in the hospital so she made me get her a milkshake today and with CFA's being the cheapest around, we went there and it was STILL packed. :O
-
I like my Chick-Fil-A with extra self righteousness and a slice of bigotry. I'd ask them to hold the pickle, but that just sounds gay.
Could one day being called a bigot be a badge of honor for defending your beliefs?
-
Could one day being called a bigot be a badge of honor for defending your beliefs?
The argument being made isn't whether or not we have the right to defend our individual beliefs, but whether or not the belief in question is socially acceptable.
-
I choose not to eat there. He absolutely has a right to his beliefs and can choose how to run his business, up to and including donating money to anti-gay groups. That being said, his consequences for those actions is that I, and many others, choose not to support that business anymore.
Free commerce, first amendment rights at their best both ways. Carry On.
BTW, how is this thread still open!?
That's great.... thanks.
It's still going to be really crowded though. There was a huge line today at the one down the street.
-
I imagine the legality of it varies from state to state or city to city.
Note that these cities weren't threatening to shut down existing Chick Fil-As over this, as that would be clearly illegal.
So is denying a business permits and licenses purely over religious beliefs and speaking to those. You fail to realize that Dan Cathy and Chick-fil-A do not discriminate against any group. They pass any and all statutes, local, state, and federal, regarding their treatment of employers and patrons. As such, there is absolutely no legal standing for denying them any license or permit.
Refusing to license or permit a restaurant for a business location zoned for the operation of such businesses, providing that restaurant does not violate any law, or zoning statute, without being able to show legal cause to do so, is the same as trying to shut down an existing location.
The legal counsel of the political entities of the various cities have already advised their clients that they are in fact violating not only their own laws and policies, but also the Constitution of the United States of America, and that they have no legal standing upon which to even attempt to do so.
-
wow RPM, if you really believe that verse and try to live by it then try applying it to Chick-fil-A and it's CEO. For the record, I believe the Bible and agree 100% with Dan Cathy, but that's not why I went to Chick-Fil-A today. I went to support his RIGHT to voice his beliefs.
Lambo
Lambo
and yet you question somebody else's right to express.
semp
-
and yet you question somebody else's right to express.
semp
I don't believe anybody in this thread has said that gay marriage proponents cannot voice their ideas. I also don't believe anyone has questioned their rights to do so.
-
I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific laws and how to best follow them.
a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev 1:9). The problem is my neigh
bors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
d) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?
e) I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?
f) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an Abomination (Lev 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?
g) Lev 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?
h) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev 19:27. How should they die?
i) I know from Lev 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
j) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev 24:10-16) Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)
-
For the record, I believe the Bible
so what you want put on the record is that you are a clueless idiot and anything you say should be disregarded as the ramblings of a mental incompetent?
roger
-
and yet you question somebody else's right to express.
semp
Show me where I did that and I'll give my defense. Again, please don't put words in my mouth.
Lambo
-
so what you want put on the record is that you are a clueless idiot and anything you say should be disregarded as the ramblings of a mental incompetent?
roger
Can you not have a conversation regarding some one else's beliefs that might be different than yours without attacking them? And I'm the idiot? lol
Lambo
-
I have no problem conversing with someone of different opinions or beliefs
But when someone 'believes in the Bible' (your own words) they are basically admitting to a level of intelligence which makes them completely worthless when it comes to any kind of rational or logical discussion
-
I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific laws and how to best follow them.
a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev 1:9). The problem is my neigh
bors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
d) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?
e) I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?
f) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an Abomination (Lev 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?
g) Lev 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?
h) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev 19:27. How should they die?
i) I know from Lev 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
j) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev 24:10-16) Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)
"Let the hate flow through you." -Palpatine, Emperor
Tolerance is something to be preached but not practiced in your case. You would have fit in well in Germany, circa 1933. They loved to ostracize non-compliance too.
-
I have no problem conversing with someone of different opinions or beliefs
But when someone 'believes in the Bible' (your own words) they are basically admitting to a level of intelligence which makes them completely worthless when it comes to any kind of rational or logical discussion
I see. It's true, I do believe the Bible. If I am an idiot and it's in vain then what have I lost when I die? You might have an ill opinion of me for it, and that's ok. But know that if you, or any one else for that matter, need anything of me and if I can give it it's yours. Have a good one.
Lambo
-
I see. It's true, I do believe the Bible. If I am an idiot and it's in vain then what have I lost when I die? You might have an ill opinion of me for it, and that's ok. But know that if you, or any one else for that matter, need anything of me and if I can give it it's yours. Have a good one.
Lambo
I need you to admit that the Earth is more than 6000 years old :D
If you can do that for me I will apologize sincerely for being a d! ck
-
I need you to admit that the Earth is more than 6000 years old :D
If you can do that for me I will apologize sincerely for being a d! ck
LOL. No, I will not. I will stand on the authority of the Bible.
Lambo
-
no further questions your honour
-
I read the Holy Bible every day, do you?
I most certainly do not. I'm more of a read it once then let it collect dust type. As for that book in particular, its long and boring, and I prefer non-fiction most of the time. With exceptions for things like LotR of course.
Mayors of Boston and Chicago.
Wasn't there recently a thing in New York City with a Mosque? As I recall, First Amendment rights really were trampled there, except people were on the opposite sides. I imagine an extremely large percentage of the CFA-ers who go to defend the 1st Amendment are probably hypocrites.
-
Congratulations!
Regards
Sun
Chick-fil-A confirms 'record-setting day' on 'Appreciation Day'
Chick-fil-A announced Thursday morning that supporters who flocked to the restaurant for "Appreciation Day" propelled the company to a "record-setting day."
The statement confirmed anecdotal claims that the long lines seen at Chick-fil-A's across the country Wednesday fueled unprecedented sales. The turnout came after CEO Dan Cathy came under fire in some circles for his opposition to same-sex marriage.
"We are very grateful and humbled by the incredible turnout of loyal Chick-fil-A customers on August 1 at Chick-fil-A restaurants around the country. We congratulate local Chick-fil-A Owner/Operators and their team members for striving to serve each and every customer with genuine hospitality," the company said in a statement. "While we don't release exact sales numbers, we can confirm reports that it was a record-setting day."
Mike Huckabee, the former Arkansas governor and Fox News host who initially made the call for patrons to show up for "Appreciation Day," also said Thursday that the turnout went beyond "anything I could have imagined."
Huckabee said the call for an "Appreciation Day" was in response to what he described as "economic bullying" by people trying to put Cathy "out of business."
"It was just getting out of hand," Huckabee said.
The protests against Cathy included local mayors threatening to keep the restaurant out of their city.
But on Wednesday, stores were packed and lines poured into the streets.
"It's gone beyond anything I could have imagined," Huckabee told Fox News. "Every one of (the stores) that I know have reported record, historic sales yesterday. ... A lot of the stores ran out of chicken before the end of the day.".....<snip>.....
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/08/02/huckabee-chick-fil-appreciation-day-beyond-anything-could-have-imagined/#ixzz22Qqj9FOb
-
Time to invest in companies that specialize in heart disease treatment....
-
I have no problem conversing with someone of different opinions or beliefs
But when someone 'believes in the Bible' (your own words) they are basically admitting to a level of intelligence which makes them completely worthless when it comes to any kind of rational or logical discussion
It's that absolutist attitude that makes people like you look worthless at any "logical" discussion.
I believe in the Bible, and I support Dan Cathy, but I keep an open mind because it doesn't bother me. sure, the Earth was formed over billions of years, but I believe that that was God's idea of seven days. Just because I'm Christian, that automatically means I'm an absolutist biggot who denounces all of modern science?
It's unfortunate that the availability heuristic of a Christian is some conservative, judgemental old crow. like I said, I like to keep an open mind and be free of judgement, it reduces stress and frees my head.
believe what you want, but be careful about being so absolute about your veiw of "Christian" people.
and I can't believe this is still up. when His Skuzziness sees this tomorrow, we're all going to be banned :D
-
Just because I'm Christian, that automatically means I'm an absolutist biggot who denounces all of modern science?
Not at all! :) I wasn't slamming all Christians, or all people who believe in some kind of God...
just those like lambo who cling to blind faith and ignorance instead of embracing evident truths...there is no point talking to that kind of person, whereas you seem like a perfectly rational fellow
-
There are many benefits to be being married. For example obtaining medical insurance through a spouse's employer, the ability to file tax returns jointly, estate benefits, hospital visitation rights, etc.
Domestic partnership give the same benefits? If so, then gay-rights activists can shut the hell up about 'marriage'. If people don't want to let gays and lesbians 'marry' for reasons of religious or tradition, thats perfectly fine and dandy.
If they continue to argue over what its called, they can see as much discrimination as people can dish out. And not because they're gay, but because their being stupid, and stiring up trouble over something unimportant.
And there are many same-sex couples that have children, both biological and adopted.
Ummm..... kinda irrelevent, and really just missing the point.
The biggest reason for marriage is to create a stable enviornment in which to raise children. Just de facto cohabitation does the same thing.
-
Not picking on you, DeadMan; your's was just a good jumping off point for my thoughts on this. First, it is indeed a first amendment issue, and Government doesn't need to be involved for someone's right to free speech to be infringed. However, in this case, government officials DID in fact become involved, issuing statements in their official capacity as mayors that this particular business (of a type otherwise allowed in many areas of their respective cities) was not welcomed, and only because of the belief expressed by the CEO of said company. This is essentially applying a religeous test to the application of civil authority, which is so obviously a violation of the Constitution that both mayors have since backed off those statements. A lot of the people who showed up yesterday to eat a CFA were people of like mind to Cathy, but many were just there to insure that people like Rahm Emanual understand that we still believe and support the constitution. It is also perfectly in line with the 1st Amendment to refuse to eat at CFA because of Cathy's beliefs, and to state as much (so long as not acting in the capacity of a government official, where it might be construed as policy).
Regarding Cathy's statements, I'd like to point out a bit of hypocracy (well, perhaps more than just a "bit"). I recall hearing direct from President Obama's lips that he believed in the the traditional view of marriage as being between one man and one woman; this was only a year or two ago, as I recall, before his position "evolved". I don't recall him being villified or told his "values aren't Chicago values", or otherwise told he wasn't welcome there or in Boston. Yet, we have the brew-ha-ha now when a private citizen makes essentially the exact same statement. Consider, please.
For those who have expressed the belief that a town should be able to decide what businesses can open in their towns, it has already been pointed out that while a city government can decide what type of business can open in an area (often done through zoning laws), that decision must be applied universally to all businesses of that type. To put it in perspective, what if a town's mayor or city counsil said that a particular business owner's establishment was banned (or even just stated they'd be "unwelcomed") because the owner was gay? I hope that I would be every bit as offended as what the mayors of Boston and Chicago attempted to do to CFA. Would you?
Finally, to address the issue of what the bible says about morality and punishment, I would point out that something changed between the Old Testiment and the New Testiment; Jesus Christ. Putting people to death for adultery, as an example, was called for in the Old Testiment. However, when Jesus had an adultering woman brought before Him, He bacially saved her. This did not mean adultery was now okay. No, what he said was that her sins were forgiven and to "go, and sin no more". So, Cathy is not being inconsistent with the Bible simply because he is not insisting that horrible punishments be meeted out for things like adultery or fornication and such. Christ did not change what was or was not sinful in God's eyes, only how we treat the sinners; with forgiveness when asked and with love, always.
Sabre
P.S. Went to CFA lastnight at 7:30PM and place was still slammed, but not a word of grumbling or incivilety. Good chicken.
Thank you, Sabre. Nothing I can add that you haven't aleady fully covered. :aok
<--- we all had CFA tonight..... we previously rarely ever ate there, but we're now going to make it a regular thing, at least once every week or so. Heck, I don't even agree with or support Cathy's beliefs, but I absolutely detest leftists in government tring to use their power to discriminate against his business plans based solely on his expression of his personal beliefs, when in fact there have been NO instances of discrimination by his company or any of his employees.
-
Yeah his company doesn't discriminate at all
They just use their profits to support organisations that do it for them :lol
Obsfucation and mincing words, the last refuge of a bigot
-
Good for you. Are you ready to stone your daughter in front of the village for premarital sex? You can't have one without the other.
Maybe it's easier for you to just take 50 sheckles for your daughter's virginity taken by a rapist rather than prosecute him for rape of a minor. The Bible says so.
Wow what a disgusting personal attack over what some rich guy said... classy!
I hope you get banned.
-
Domestic partnership give the same benefits? If so, then gay-rights activists can shut the hell up about 'marriage'. If people don't want to let gays and lesbians 'marry' for reasons of religious or tradition, thats perfectly fine and dandy.
If they continue to argue over what its called, they can see as much discrimination as people can dish out. And not because they're gay, but because their being stupid, and stiring up trouble over something unimportant.
Ummm..... kinda irrelevent, and really just missing the point.
The biggest reason for marriage is to create a stable enviornment in which to raise children. Just de facto cohabitation does the same thing.
Settle down please. Domestic partnerships do not confer the same rights as marriage, hence, it's an issue for gay couples.
I'm not the one missing the point. You said:
...To be frank, I've always felt the biggest reason for marriage is to create a stable enviornment in which to raise children. Since gays are incapable of reproducing with eachother, its really kind of a non-issue. As for addopted children raised by gays, having two dads would draw more FlaK from haters than having 'parents' who aren't married.
And I pointed out that many same sex couples have children.
Very volatile issue, indeed.
-
Why has the whole "beef discrimination" issue not been addressed, yet?
:headscratch:
-
Yeah his company doesn't discriminate at all
They just use their profits to support organisations that do it for them :lol
Obsfucation and mincing words, the last refuge of a bigot
Are you referring to me, or Mr. Cathy? I've already stated my position that I do not agree or support his beliefs. I do however support his right to hold those beliefs and not to be persecuted for his beliefs, as long as his beliefs have not lead him to behave in a manner that is outside of the law or violates someone else's rights. So far, I have seen evidence of neither.
And he is no more a bigot than those who are intolerant of the thought of him holding those beliefs.
-
Yeah his company doesn't discriminate at all
They just use their profits to support organisations that do it for them :lol
Obsfucation and mincing words, the last refuge of a bigot
Not allowing gay marriage is not discrimination. The presence of two different kinds of relationships leaves open the possibility of two different sets of benefits. Whether you believe those relationships are close enough to each other to warrant the same benefits or not is up to you. I'm not rendering an opinion either way. Keep in mind the difference between the rights granted to a particular type of relationship, such as a business partership, civil union, marriage, etc, and inalienable rights such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness which are granted to every person no matter their race, gender, creed, or religion.
-
Why has the whole "beef discrimination" issue not been addressed, yet?
:headscratch:
Harrumph!
-
So after the kiss in tomorrow, will there prayer-ins at interior decorator stores?
-
And I pointed out that many same sex couples have children.
Very volatile issue, indeed.
Two men can't reproduce, two women can't reproduce. If they are going to adopt children, or go with artificial insemination, then they're probably about as stable as they're going to get. Just slapping the lable 'married' on the couple isn't going to change a thing.
The only valid reason for arguing the thing is the associated rights. And I'm sure there would be less objection to getting the same rights for domestic partnerships as marriages have.
Honestly, I think the biggest cause of resistance to gay 'marriage' is religion, followed by tradition. You try and fight either one with logic, and you're fighting above your weight.
-
Settle down please. Domestic partnerships do not confer the same rights as marriage, hence, it's an issue for gay couples.
I'm not the one missing the point. You said:
And I pointed out that many same sex couples have children.
Very volatile issue, indeed.
-
Settle down please. Domestic partnerships do not confer the same rights as marriage, hence, it's an issue for gay couples.
I pointed out that many same sex couples have children.
Very volatile issue, indeed.
Two men can't reproduce, two women can't reproduce. If they are going to adopt children, or go with artificial insemination, then they're probably about as stable as they're going to get. Just slapping the lable 'married' on the couple isn't going to change a thing.
If you already have children and enter into a same-sex relationship, you've already done just about all the damage you can there. The other school children won't care if your dads are 'married' or just sleeping together.
The only valid reason for arguing the thing is the associated rights. And I'm sure there would be less objection to getting the same rights for domestic partnerships as marriages have.
Honestly, I think the biggest cause of resistance to gay 'marriage' is religion, followed by tradition. You try and fight either one with logic, and you're fighting above your weight.
-
I like my Chick-Fil-A with extra self righteousness and a slice of bigotry. I'd ask them to hold the pickle, but that just sounds gay.
RPM goes to CFA...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bPLNgkP9nzc
-
Why has the whole "beef discrimination" issue not been addressed, yet?
:headscratch:
Beef-fil-A.....
There. :O
-
I need you to admit that the Earth is more than 6000 years old :D
If you can do that for me I will apologize sincerely for being a d! ck
well if you didn't listen to dogma and actually read the Bible you would know the Bible says the world is eons(my wording) old......
which it is.
I absolutely believe The Bible...not what people say the Bible says....
I would love to discus it with you but Alas we can not...if you want a serious...none insulting convo send me a PM....I have read the Bible many many times, plus all forms/religions of it, also the Hebrew Bible.
-
I am Stunned, I didn't realize we had so many Theologians in AH. :lol Use to be anytime someone said something theological you didn't agree with or condemned what we do, we started screaming "Hypocrite", now we start yelling "Bigot". Go figure, bottom line the "Good Book" has defined it all already. Don't like it? Go argue with God. BTw you wont win. :aok
-
Hen + Hen = O
Rooster + Rooster= O
Hen + Rooster = Chic-fil-A
-
Distraction is what all this is...he answered a question based upon his feelings and character,just like anyone would've done, except most politicians, who will typically give the response needed, which is a tactic that can be found in the bible as well.
Paul used this in Acts, when arguing the resurrection with the religious sects of that day.
Anytime, anyone takes a hard stand against homosexuality or another social craving or fad at the time, then they're gonna catch some flak.
If you don't believe that, then try it sometime.
I say stand up brethren and be counted...
romans 1:21-32
21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
Jude 1
King James Version (KJV)
1 Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James, to them that are sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ, and called:
2 Mercy unto you, and peace, and love, be multiplied.
3 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.
4 For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.
5 I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not.
6 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.
7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.
8 Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities.
9 Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee.
10 But these speak evil of those things which they know not: but what they know naturally, as brute beasts, in those things they corrupt themselves.
11 Woe unto them! for they have gone in the way of Cain, and ran greedily after the error of Balaam for reward, and perished in the gainsaying of Core.
12 These are spots in your feasts of charity, when they feast with you, feeding themselves without fear: clouds they are without water, carried about of winds; trees whose fruit withereth, without fruit, twice dead, plucked up by the roots;
13 Raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame; wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever.
14 And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,
15 To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.
16 These are murmurers, complainers, walking after their own lusts; and their mouth speaketh great swelling words, having men's persons in admiration because of advantage.
17 But, beloved, remember ye the words which were spoken before of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ;
18 How that they told you there should be mockers in the last time, who should walk after their own ungodly lusts.
-
awesome post...but you might want to edit it out, similar one got me banned for a week.
-
Ever heard of separation of church and state? Freedom of and from religion?
It's a civil rights issue, not a discussion on sin.
-
RPM goes to CFA...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bPLNgkP9nzc
Looks like he lost his job over this. Doh! :rofl
Regards,
Sun
Vante of Tucson, AZ Regrets Actions of Former CFO
Employee Has Left the Company
TUCSON, AZ, Aug 02, 2012 (MARKETWIRE via COMTEX) -- The following is a statement from Vante:
Vante regrets the unfortunate events that transpired yesterday in Tucson between our former CFO/Treasurer Adam Smith and an employee at Chick-fil-A. Effective immediately, Mr. Smith is no longer an employee of our company.
The actions of Mr. Smith do not reflect our corporate values in any manner. Vante is an equal opportunity company with a diverse workforce, which holds diverse opinions. We respect the right of our employees and all Americans to hold and express their personal opinions, however, we also expect our company officers to behave in a manner commensurate with their position and in a respectful fashion that conveys these values of civility with others.
We hope that the general population does not hold Mr. Smith's actions against Vante and its employees.
SOURCE: Vante, Inc.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/vante-of-tucson-az-regrets-actions-of-former-cfo-2012-08-02
-
Looks like he lost his job over this. Doh! :rofl
Regards,
Sun
Vante of Tucson, AZ Regrets Actions of Former CFO
Employee Has Left the Company
TUCSON, AZ, Aug 02, 2012 (MARKETWIRE via COMTEX) -- The following is a statement from Vante:
Vante regrets the unfortunate events that transpired yesterday in Tucson between our former CFO/Treasurer Adam Smith and an employee at Chick-fil-A. Effective immediately, Mr. Smith is no longer an employee of our company.
The actions of Mr. Smith do not reflect our corporate values in any manner. Vante is an equal opportunity company with a diverse workforce, which holds diverse opinions. We respect the right of our employees and all Americans to hold and express their personal opinions, however, we also expect our company officers to behave in a manner commensurate with their position and in a respectful fashion that conveys these values of civility with others.
We hope that the general population does not hold Mr. Smith's actions against Vante and its employees.
SOURCE: Vante, Inc.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/vante-of-tucson-az-regrets-actions-of-former-cfo-2012-08-02
That's kinda sad.
It's too bad that those types of people get too emotional and dramatic.
-
Smoochy, smoochy.
(http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/ff107/tymekeepyr/kiss27.gif)
-
Yeah his company doesn't discriminate at all
They just use their profits to support organisations that do it for them :lol
Obsfucation and mincing words, the last refuge of a bigot
The man spoke his mind and supports his beilefs like many people do, thats the great part of living in a free country we can do that without fear of persecution....oh wait.
-
awesome post...but you might want to edit it out, similar one got me banned for a week.
Some people die or imprisioned for stuff like this in other parts of the world. 1 week's ban is nothing. :aok
-
Some people die or imprisioned for stuff like this in other parts of the world. 1 week's ban is nothing. :aok
Good grief, he's in a pre-martyr state of self image now.
-
I'm leaving to go pick up a chicken salad sandwich right now. Hopefully I can see some hot girls kissing. I've sort of considered myself a lesbian for some time now.
-
I just got back from the one at North Collins in Arlington. Nothing to report other than the chicken salad sandwich was good.
-
The argument being made isn't whether or not we have the right to defend our individual beliefs, but whether or not the belief in question is socially acceptable.
The right to free speech and right to freedom of religion MAKES it socially acceptable.
Got a problem with it? Go back in time and tell our founding father's you have a problem with what they believe.
No one is being harmed by someone believing in something. We're not making sacrifices at an altar. (There's room for a Catholic joke but I'll let it go :lol )
Oh wait....they want the freedom of expression but want to destroy someone's right to freedom of religion and speech.....Ermaghaud.
Hypocrites. Every single one of them.
-
I don't believe anybody in this thread has said that gay marriage proponents cannot voice their ideas. I also don't believe anyone has questioned their rights to do so.
I wasn't talking about gays rights. I was talking about the poster saying he supports freedom of speech while telling the other guy to shut up.
semp
-
The right to free speech and right to freedom of religion MAKES it socially acceptable.
Got a problem with it? Go back in time and tell our founding father's you have a problem with what they believe.
Nah, I just pity the guy for not asking himself WWJD before focusing on 1 line of Leviticus (everyone ignores the rest) before offering corporate support to deprive one particular group of individuals of what is in my state, a civil right.
-
remove the legal status of marriage - problem solved. I see no legitimate reason why the state should have any say in peoples consenting relationships.
I'm unmarried at the moment, so my tax contributions are used to subsidise married couples through tax breaks. despite the fact that they already have all the benefits of partnership - massively reduced cost of living, better employment prospects, much longer life expectancy etc. etc. it really pisses me off.
-
Nah, I just pity the guy for not asking himself WWJD before focusing on 1 line of Leviticus (everyone ignores the rest) before offering corporate support to deprive one particular group of individuals of what is in my state, a civil right.
Corporations and individuals can support who they want here in the US.
-
The man spoke his mind and supports his beilefs like many people do, thats the great part of living in a free country we can do that without fear of persecution....oh wait.
Oh wait nothing. Nothing happened. No one was persecuted. No one's rights were trampled. No one got told they couldn't boycott, or couldn't speak out for one side or the other, or couldn't still buy CFA.
The worst thing that happened was a few mayors stepped out of line momentarily, before they got told (http://www.latimes.com/business/money/la-fi-mo-chickfila-bloomberg-20120803,0,7399923.story) and revised their statements to say they wouldn't use the power of their offices to violate the 1st Amendment. Since no actual actions were taken, no harm was done, and there is no case.
The most interesting thing I've read about all this: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/guest-voices/post/with-chick-fil-a-fight-progressive-mayors-get-their-ground-zero-mosque-moment/2012/07/31/gJQAEqTiLX_blog.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/guest-voices/post/with-chick-fil-a-fight-progressive-mayors-get-their-ground-zero-mosque-moment/2012/07/31/gJQAEqTiLX_blog.html). Among those CFAers there to defend against "persecution" (which didn't actually exist), instead of just being there because they are bible-thumping gay-haters, I bet most of the CFAers are only "for" the 1st Amendment when it suits them; they are probably the same people against the mosque in NYC. At least Bloomberg gets it right.
-
Oh wait nothing. Nothing happened. No one was persecuted. No one's rights were trampled. No one got told they couldn't boycott, or couldn't speak out for one side or the other, or couldn't still buy CFA.
The worst thing that happened was a few mayors stepped out of line momentarily, before they got told (http://www.latimes.com/business/money/la-fi-mo-chickfila-bloomberg-20120803,0,7399923.story) and revised their statements to say they wouldn't use the power of their offices to violate the 1st Amendment. Since no actual actions were taken, no harm was done, and there is no case.
The most interesting thing I've read about all this: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/guest-voices/post/with-chick-fil-a-fight-progressive-mayors-get-their-ground-zero-mosque-moment/2012/07/31/gJQAEqTiLX_blog.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/guest-voices/post/with-chick-fil-a-fight-progressive-mayors-get-their-ground-zero-mosque-moment/2012/07/31/gJQAEqTiLX_blog.html). Among those CFAers there to defend against "persecution" (which didn't actually exist), instead of just being there because they are bible-thumping gay-haters, I bet most of the CFAers are only "for" the 1st Amendment when it suits them; they are probably the same people against the mosque in NYC. At least Bloomberg gets it right.
Those mayors are out of line, two wrongs never make a right.
-
I just got back from the one at North Collins in Arlington. Nothing to report other than the chicken salad sandwich was good.
You mean you are actually judging the merits of their food based on, well, their food?
:lol
-
You mean you are actually judging the merits of their food based on, well, their food?
:lol
That's all I've ever judged them on...their food, which is pretty good fast food. :cheers:
-
Nah, I just pity the guy for not asking himself WWJD before focusing on 1 line of Leviticus (everyone ignores the rest) before offering corporate support to deprive one particular group of individuals of what is in my state, a civil right.
And that's what's so awesome about this country. You can interpret anything in your religion (or lack thereof) however you want.
-
it is funny but they were discussing this same thing at work today. and some guy said he went to chick-fill-a to support them as he said the bible made it clear that gays are sinners and it was against his beliefs. and looked at him and asked him if he knew what the bible says about adulterers and what the appropriate punishment is. he lives with his girlfriend, which I also do, and the bible clearly says that sex outside of marriage is a sin. and it also clearly states the punishment for it. I asked him what he thought of it, he said it wasnt the same thing as things have changed.
I dont know if this gay marriage thing is right or wrong, not for me to decide. but I find it hypocritical for some to use the bible as an excuse while at the same time breaking every commandment written in the bible.
semp
-
This made me laugh. :P
(https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/315463_10150964873896884_527563151_n.jpg)
-
Have any of you people who are having a meltdown over this bothered to check and see what the man actually said?
"We are very much supportive of the family — the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that.” “While my family and I believe in the Biblical definition of marriage, we love and respect anyone who disagrees."
He made this statement during an interview for a Christian publication. All of this uproar and anger over that? A person can't politely and respectfully give his opinion during an interview with a publication that represents his personal faith? Who is it that is being intolerant again? What a crock. :rolleyes:
-
Not in America.
-
Have any of you people who are having a meltdown over this bothered to check and see what the man actually said?
"We are very much supportive of the family — the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that.” “While my family and I believe in the Biblical definition of marriage, we love and respect anyone who disagrees."
He made this statement during an interview for a Christian publication. All of this uproar and anger over that? A person can't politely and respectfully give his opinion during an interview with a publication that represents his personal faith? Who is it that is being intolerant again? What a crock. :rolleyes:
I think more people are upset over where some of the money went, not just his opinion. I say your wallet will make a much bigger statement than any protest.
-
Found a video by Mac Lethal that made me lol
He raps it (but it's meant to be funny) and he's rapping how to make CFA food.
He cracks on the people protesting and CFA.
WARNING: The first little bit (he makes a remark) may offend some people.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lKQObbeDNpw
Love this guy. :lol
BTW - the ingredients work! They're listed under the video for those who want to try it at home! :aok
-
Have any of you people who are having a meltdown over this bothered to check and see what the man actually said?
"We are very much supportive of the family — the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that.” “While my family and I believe in the Biblical definition of marriage, we love and respect anyone who disagrees."
He made this statement during an interview for a Christian publication. All of this uproar and anger over that? A person can't politely and respectfully give his opinion during an interview with a publication that represents his personal faith? Who is it that is being intolerant again? What a crock. :rolleyes:
Careful Shifty, you'll confuse someone with the facts.
-
I think more people are upset over where some of the money went, not just his opinion. I say your wallet will make a much bigger statement than any protest.
Here in America you can also send your money wherever you want.
-
Here in America you can also send your money wherever you want.
Yes you can. Stop acting like someone said you can't. There was no trampling of rights, so stop acting like there was. If I don't like where you send your money, I'm perfectly within my rights to boycott your ass. Here in America, BOYCOTTS ARE NOT TRAMPLING ANYONE'S RIGHTS. Stop playing up the victim card (or more specifically, doing it on behalf of CFA) when you've had absolutely nothing done to you (or CFA) that isn't protected by the law.
Here's why I'll never eat at CFA again. CFA gives money to organizations that are around specifically to attack the rights of homosexuals. By spending money at CFA, I am indirectly helping take rights away from some of my friends, because the more I eat at CFA, the more money they'll have to donate. I find the actions of the groups CFA donates money to, to be despicable, and I draw direct comparisons from this to those who in the past attempted to deny rights to women, immigrants, racial minorities, and veterans. I for one will not be on the wrong side of this issue.
The time for me to say to myself, "I'm not gay so I don't care", is over. That's why I feel the need to speak out, even though this thread is doomed when Skuzzy gets back from wherever he's gone, when its clear that its not getting locked, I'm not going to stand by let the wrong people claim to be the victim and not respond and let those who think this way believe there is no dissent on this BBS.
By the way, none of what I said or done or not done has trampled any of your rights, or any rights of CFA. This is America.
-
Also, this is Sparta.
Sorry, but this thread needs levity.
-
it is funny but they were discussing this same thing at work today. and some guy said he went to chick-fill-a to support them as he said the bible made it clear that gays are sinners and it was against his beliefs. and looked at him and asked him if he knew what the bible says about adulterers and what the appropriate punishment is. he lives with his girlfriend, which I also do, and the bible clearly says that sex outside of marriage is a sin. and it also clearly states the punishment for it. I asked him what he thought of it, he said it wasnt the same thing as things have changed.
I dont know if this gay marriage thing is right or wrong, not for me to decide. but I find it hypocritical for some to use the bible as an excuse while at the same time breaking every commandment written in the bible.
semp
Semp, I agree that it's a shame people ( christaians and non-christians alike) use parts of the Bible to fit their own beliefs and their own agenda. I could give you the correct answers of what the Bible says, but in so doing I would violate the rules of this forum. That I will not do, not out of fear of being banned, but out of respect for HTC. If you or any one else want to talk privately regarding your post and what the Bible says I welcome it. Otherwise I'm no longer going to be a part of this thread.
One thing we should all keep in mind, if we want keep the rights we have here in the U.S.A. such as going where we want, doing as we want, saying what we want, and believing what we want as long as we don't step on or hurt others, then we need to allow other people to have those same rights even if we do think their an idiot for it.
Lambo
-
Yes you can. Stop acting like someone said you can't. There was no trampling of rights, so stop acting like there was. If I don't like where you send your money, I'm perfectly within my rights to boycott your ass. Here in America, BOYCOTTS ARE NOT TRAMPLING ANYONE'S RIGHTS. Stop playing up the victim card (or more specifically, doing it on behalf of CFA) when you've had absolutely nothing done to you (or CFA) that isn't protected by the law.
Here's why I'll never eat at CFA again. CFA gives money to organizations that are around specifically to attack the rights of homosexuals. By spending money at CFA, I am indirectly helping take rights away from some of my friends, because the more I eat at CFA, the more money they'll have to donate. I find the actions of the groups CFA donates money to, to be despicable, and I draw direct comparisons from this to those who in the past attempted to deny rights to women, immigrants, racial minorities, and veterans. I for one will not be on the wrong side of this issue.
The time for me to say to myself, "I'm not gay so I don't care", is over. That's why I feel the need to speak out, even though this thread is doomed when Skuzzy gets back from wherever he's gone, when its clear that its not getting locked, I'm not going to stand by let the wrong people claim to be the victim and not respond and let those who think this way believe there is no dissent on this BBS.
By the way, none of what I said or done or not done has trampled any of your rights, or any rights of CFA. This is America.
When we have at least 3 mayors of American cities as well as plenty of other city officials demanding political conformity as a condition of doing business in their towns, we are nearing something very disturbing.
-
Yes you can. Stop acting like someone said you can't. There was no trampling of rights, so stop acting like there was. If I don't like where you send your money, I'm perfectly within my rights to boycott your ass. Here in America, BOYCOTTS ARE NOT TRAMPLING ANYONE'S RIGHTS. Stop playing up the victim card (or more specifically, doing it on behalf of CFA) when you've had absolutely nothing done to you (or CFA) that isn't protected by the law.
Here's why I'll never eat at CFA again. CFA gives money to organizations that are around specifically to attack the rights of homosexuals. By spending money at CFA, I am indirectly helping take rights away from some of my friends, because the more I eat at CFA, the more money they'll have to donate. I find the actions of the groups CFA donates money to, to be despicable, and I draw direct comparisons from this to those who in the past attempted to deny rights to women, immigrants, racial minorities, and veterans. I for one will not be on the wrong side of this issue.
The time for me to say to myself, "I'm not gay so I don't care", is over. That's why I feel the need to speak out, even though this thread is doomed when Skuzzy gets back from wherever he's gone, when its clear that its not getting locked, I'm not going to stand by let the wrong people claim to be the victim and not respond and let those who think this way believe there is no dissent on this BBS.
By the way, none of what I said or done or not done has trampled any of your rights, or any rights of CFA. This is America.
+1000 Well Said.
When we have at least 3 mayors of American cities as well as plenty of other city officials demanding political conformity as a condition of doing business in their towns, we are nearing something very disturbing.
Saw this one Reddit this morning: "If you can ban strip clubs and porn from video rental stores because of your morals, I can totally ban Chick-fil-a from my town as being against my morals." Though I don't agree with doing either, the point is still the same. You can't ban something just because YOU don't believe in it, it goes both ways.
-
I think you have that backwards. At least Chick-Fil-A does.
I'm a "Land of the Free" supporter. Everyone is entitled to their pursuit of happiness as long as it doesn't encroach on my rights. I see no encroachment on my rights with gay marriage.
YMMV
agreed 150%, I am not gay, but I do have a couple friends that swing that way, and NEVER have they pushed the issue on me about it thats when I would have a problem. I dont believe that its any of my business or anyone elses how a person decides they want to live until it encroaches on ME and MY family. I dont like the way they are always wanting all the attention, I dont go around introducing my self as "Hi, I am Homer Sipes a heterosexual" but so many gays do just that. If I were to stand downtown here and totaly make out with the wife, I would get a fine, but the gays want the right to do it? I just dont get it. But I am all for to each their own, like I stated before its none of my business until its MADE my business.
-
+1000 Well Said.
Saw this one Reddit this morning: "If you can ban strip clubs and porn from video rental stores because of your morals, I can totally ban Chick-fil-a from my town as being against my morals." Though I don't agree with doing either, the point is still the same. You can't ban something just because YOU don't believe in it, it goes both ways.
That's pretty stupid since for one it's based on the product they sell and the other it's based on opinion of the owners.
Not even close to being the same thing.
A better analogy would be a bible belt town banning a hamburger stand because the owners are atheists and support atheist groups.
-
Well... Its not a hamburger stand, but I think a couple states ban atheists from holding public office in their constitutions. :neener:
-
Yes you can. Stop acting like someone said you can't. There was no trampling of rights, so stop acting like there was. If I don't like where you send your money, I'm perfectly within my rights to boycott your ass. Here in America, BOYCOTTS ARE NOT TRAMPLING ANYONE'S RIGHTS. Stop playing up the victim card (or more specifically, doing it on behalf of CFA) when you've had absolutely nothing done to you (or CFA) that isn't protected by the law.
Here's why I'll never eat at CFA again. CFA gives money to organizations that are around specifically to attack the rights of homosexuals. By spending money at CFA, I am indirectly helping take rights away from some of my friends, because the more I eat at CFA, the more money they'll have to donate. I find the actions of the groups CFA donates money to, to be despicable, and I draw direct comparisons from this to those who in the past attempted to deny rights to women, immigrants, racial minorities, and veterans. I for one will not be on the wrong side of this issue.
The time for me to say to myself, "I'm not gay so I don't care", is over. That's why I feel the need to speak out, even though this thread is doomed when Skuzzy gets back from wherever he's gone, when its clear that its not getting locked, I'm not going to stand by let the wrong people claim to be the victim and not respond and let those who think this way believe there is no dissent on this BBS.
By the way, none of what I said or done or not done has trampled any of your rights, or any rights of CFA. This is America.
I ate there today. :D I do now cause the food is good. I had not eaten there much till this all came about.
As for folks doing what they want with their money... there seems to be a few in this thread that think they can tell CFA where to spend their money.
I can tell you.. don't get anything from china. :D
-
it is funny but they were discussing this same thing at work today. and some guy said he went to chick-fill-a to support them as he said the bible made it clear that gays are sinners and it was against his beliefs. and looked at him and asked him if he knew what the bible says about adulterers and what the appropriate punishment is. he lives with his girlfriend, which I also do, and the bible clearly says that sex outside of marriage is a sin. and it also clearly states the punishment for it. I asked him what he thought of it, he said it wasnt the same thing as things have changed.
I dont know if this gay marriage thing is right or wrong, not for me to decide. but I find it hypocritical for some to use the bible as an excuse while at the same time breaking every commandment written in the bible.
semp
A sin is a sin right? I agree with that and I happen to be a Christian. In some ways, stealing or another sin is repulsive to me too.
What gays do has a "yuck" factor and that leads to the extra discrimination and frown.
-
That's pretty stupid since for one it's based on the product they sell and the other it's based on opinion of the owners.
Not even close to being the same thing.
A better analogy would be a bible belt town banning a hamburger stand because the owners are atheists and support atheist groups.
Thank you, jimson. To compare singling out a business because you don't agree with the owner's beliefs to banning all of a certain type of business because of what type of businesses they are.... is just stupid.
A STUPID comparison.
Banning certain types of businesses in certain areas, based on a set of community standards, OK. Withholding permits from one business because you don't like the the owner's religion, while allowing his competitors permits? ILLEGAL. Even the mayor of Boston knew it, that's why he backed off and admitted that he had no legal grounds to even attempt to do that.
Protest all you want if you don't like the guy. I have no problem with that, that's your right as an American. Boycott his business, take your money elsewhere. More power to ya.
I don't agree with Cathy's beliefs..... But I can tell you now that this crap has happened, we'll be eatin his chicken sammiches at least once a week. Rode by the one here in town earlier today.. place was packed. I'm not sure that they're not still setting records.
-
What gays do has a "yuck" factor and that leads to the extra discrimination and frown.
what some straight couples do is yuck. what old couples or fat couples do is also yuck. should we stop old people or fat people marrying?
... yes we should! and everybody else in fact. remove the legal status of marriage, it has no purpose in the C21st. and it leads to this kind of nonsense.
-
Agreed John. Government should only recognize civil unions, all of them, whether they be between man and woman, man and man, woman and woman, man and television, woman and shoes, etc etc etc. OK, just kidding about the TV and shoes..... but a legal agreement, with all the rights and advantages.
Marriage is a religious thing, and not owned by Christianity as there were marriages being performed by religious groups for thousands of years before Christianity was ever thought of... so don't give me that "the bible says" stuff.
Keep the marriage in the church, temple, mosque, grass hut, etc. Civil unions only concern the government, and they're at the courthouse.
That'd solve a lot of problems.
-
So a couple mayors come stick their foot in their mouth and people scream about religious persecution?
-
So a couple mayors come stick their foot in their mouth and people scream about religious persecution?
I despise government doing anything like that, so, yeh.
Rights are rights.
-
I despise government doing anything like that, so, yeh.
Rights are rights.
Except they didn't actually DO anything. However, governments have actually passed legislature that is discriminatory towards homosexuals based solely on religious principles. I despise that!
-
Except they didn't actually DO anything. However, governments have actually passed legislature that is discriminatory towards homosexuals based solely on religious principles. I despise that!
What discriminatory measures are you referring to?
-
What discriminatory measures are you referring to?
State bans restricting marriage between one man and one women.
-
what some straight couples do is yuck. what old couples or fat couples do is also yuck. should we stop old people or fat people marrying?
... yes we should! and everybody else in fact. remove the legal status of marriage, it has no purpose in the C21st. and it leads to this kind of nonsense.
Straight couples do is not yucky, it's acceptable in public. What gays want to do is yucky, especially in public and I don't want to have my kids subjected to repulsive behavior.
What you state is New-Age gobly goo.
-
So a couple mayors come stick their foot in their mouth and people scream about religious persecution?
The problem is that no Mayor should ever think for a moment that it would be appropriate to target someone's business over their personal political views. That's how screwed up this country has gotten.
This should have never gotten to this point anyway.
Dan Cathey didn't call a press conference to make this big anti gay announcement. It was lifted from an interview with a religious radio station. It was the media who decided to grab it and turn it into a national issue.
This next comment may get me in trouble here, but you notice how no one is targeting any Muslim owned businesses? You would think that as many Muslims believe it is appropriate to put homosexuals to death that there are probably interviews from Muslim media sources where someone has said at least something as controversial as being opposed to gay marriage, but the media isn't looking for those stories is it?
No it's only open season on one particular religious group.
This is not a civil rights issue. Marriage of any sort is not a constitutional right. It is regulated by the states and is a sacrament in many religions.
The comments below have some real merit.
remove the legal status of marriage, it has no purpose in the C21st. and it leads to this kind of nonsense.
Agreed John. Government should only recognize civil unions, all of them, whether they be between man and woman, man and man, woman and woman, man and television, woman and shoes, etc etc etc. OK, just kidding about the TV and shoes..... but a legal agreement, with all the rights and advantages.
Marriage is a religious thing, and not owned by Christianity as there were marriages being performed by religious groups for thousands of years before Christianity was ever thought of... so don't give me that "the bible says" stuff.
Keep the marriage in the church, temple, mosque, grass hut, etc. Civil unions only concern the government, and they're at the courthouse.
That'd solve a lot of problems.
-
Also, this is Sparta.
Sorry, but this thread needs levity.
No kidding....
Which side would I anger if I had sex with the chicken? What if it was just sex with the chicken sandwich, is that more agreeable?
-
No kidding....
Which side would I anger if I had sex with the chicken? What if it was just sex with the chicken sandwich, is that more agreeable?
What an absurd question. Obviously it depends entirely on whether the chicken is male or female. Gender no longer applies when in sandwich form.
-
What an absurd question. Obviously it depends entirely on whether the chicken is male or female. Gender no longer applies when in sandwich form.
But it's a Chicken so it's female. >.>
-
Straight couples do is not yucky, it's acceptable in public. What gays want to do is yucky, especially in public and I don't want to have my kids subjected to repulsive behavior.
What you state is New-Age gobly goo.
when you were younger did you ever make out in public? do you think that was acceptable for kids to watch? I see some really freaky stuff done by straight guys and gals in public that I didnt want my children to watch when they were kids. but there was never a public outcry about it. gays/lesbians do not do anything different than what we straight people do in public.
I believe that we all should have the right to be equal as guaranteed by the constitution. when it comes to yucky stuff it's different from person to person. some straight people will do stuff that other straight people will consider yucky and yet no public outcry about it. after all what is really the definition of yucky when it comes to a straight person?
semp
-
But it's a Chicken so it's female. >.>
Could be a transgender chicken. :angel:
-
Could be a transgender chicken. :angel:
That's like dividing by zero. :O
-
But it's a Chicken so it's female. >.>
(http://25.media.tumblr.com/G57Zu7unyn1qgdzd0kzDhnKxo1_500.jpg)
Let me understand, you got the hen, the chicken and the rooster. The rooster goes with the chicken. So, who’s having sex with the hen?
-
(http://25.media.tumblr.com/G57Zu7unyn1qgdzd0kzDhnKxo1_500.jpg)
Let me understand, you got the hen, the chicken and the rooster. The rooster goes with the chicken. So, who’s having sex with the hen?
:rofl :rofl :rofl
-
when you were younger did you ever make out in public? do you think that was acceptable for kids to watch? I see some really freaky stuff done by straight guys and gals in public that I didnt want my children to watch when they were kids. but there was never a public outcry about it. gays/lesbians do not do anything different than what we straight people do in public.
I believe that we all should have the right to be equal as guaranteed by the constitution. when it comes to yucky stuff it's different from person to person. some straight people will do stuff that other straight people will consider yucky and yet no public outcry about it. after all what is really the definition of yucky when it comes to a straight person?
semp
There is good old fashion decency so to guy/gal to make out in public is the sloppiest way possible, could and have been called on to please stop. But you can't equate kissing in public between hetero and homo equal. As kids we see our parents kiss, hold hands and express love so this is natural. That is why people are just uncomfortable with it. In terms of your abstract, i defer to common sense.
-
But you can't equate kissing in public between hetero and homo equal.
Yes, yes I can.
-
If it's not a kiss on the cheek, forehead or hand you need to leave that $#!t at the house. Plain and simple.
-
Straight couples do is not yucky, it's acceptable in public. What gays want to do is yucky, especially in public and I don't want to have my kids subjected to repulsive behavior.
What you state is New-Age gobly goo.
Two guys making out is yucky. Two girls making out is the opposite of yucky. So it all averages out the same as a guy making out with a girl. I'll tell you what's yucky: Eating the body and blood of someone who died 2000 years ago. I don't want any children of mine exposed to people who get off on doing that.
In all seriousness, whether you think its yucky or you think its wrong according to your religion, the first amendment is supposed to guarantee that religious laws aren't enforced on the general population who may not share the same religious values. And the fourteenth amendment is supposed to guarantee that laws treat all people equally. Any law restricting men from marrying men or women from marrying women is almost certainly a religious-based law, and should be found unconstitutional based on the 1st amendment, and those laws phrased carefully enough to not violate the 1st amendment will all violate the 14th amendment.
I for one would support a constitutional amendment saying its illegal for the government to give special privileges to those who are married, or to perform marriage ceremonies. Instead the government should certify civil unions between two adult humans of any gender. In order to not make thousands of laws become unconstitutional over night, a grandfather clause should be written in saying all laws that specify "marriage" prior to the passing of the amendment should be assumed to mean "marriage or civil union" afterwards. Going forwards all laws would be required to specify "civil unions" instead of marriage, and people who used to get a marriage certificate from the government will henceforth get a "civil union" certificate.
This law / amendment would delegate the responsibility to religion to take care of the religious matter of marriage. The government would wash its hand of one more religious responsibility, which is a good thing.
-
I'm not a big fan of the 14th Amendment because people use it to try and pigeon-hole the inhabitants of all 50 (and widely unique) States into living by one set of values or norms. It just doesn't work as this thread is a prime example. I think the original plan of having the 9th and 10th mean something was a better system. Which is probably why they passed without holding anyone at knife point.
It seems to be common sense that as I have never been to or lived in Texas, I have no idea what is best for Texas. Likewise, if a Texan has never been to Connecticut or lived in Connecticut, they have no idea what's best for Connecticut. I don't know why we all spend so much time worrying about what the other is doing or pretending that we know what's best for a place we've never seen.
-
There is good old fashion decency so to guy/gal to make out in public is the sloppiest way possible, could and have been called on to please stop. But you can't equate kissing in public between hetero and homo equal. As kids we see our parents kiss, hold hands and express love so this is natural. That is why people are just uncomfortable with it. In terms of your abstract, i defer to common sense.
ever been to the movies lately? have you seen young people going down on each other in a movie theater? more than once i left with my kids when they were young so they wouldnt watch this type of bedroom scene. dont give me that crap about what feels uncomfortable. I have yet to see a gay couple go down on each other as much as i see straight people do.
semp
-
ever been to the movies lately? have you seen young people going down on each other in a movie theater? more than once i left with my kids when they were young so they wouldnt watch this type of bedroom scene. dont give me that crap about what feels uncomfortable. I have yet to see a gay couple go down on each other as much as i see straight people do.
semp
I don't know where the hell you live but I've never witnessed this in a movie theater in my life.
Rather than redefine the legal institution of marriage, burn it. Burn it to the ground. No more legal marriage for anyone. Let the Government only recognize an agreement entered into by any two people for any reason. Let the concept of marriage only exist as a religious sacrament like baptism.
-
Rather than redefine the legal institution of marriage, burn it. Burn it to the ground. No more legal marriage for anyone. Let the Government only recognize an agreement entered into by any two people for any reason. Let the concept of marriage only exist as a religious sacrament like baptism.
I would accept that.
-
Boilerdown, although I've already mentioned it, I'll say it again. Not allowing same-sex marriage is not a violation of the 14th Amendment. Hetero and Homosexual relationships are two different types of relationships, meaning they can be recognized differently.
-
Hetero and Homosexual relationships are two different types of relationships, meaning they can be recognized differently.
Are they? How so?
-
Boilerdown, although I've already mentioned it, I'll say it again. Not allowing same-sex marriage is not a violation of the 14th Amendment. Hetero and Homosexual relationships are two different types of relationships, meaning they can be recognized differently.
Until 9 robed demons say it is, at which time the inhabitants of all 50 states will be forced to live by the values of some. Which seems all well and good until you realize that things aren't always going to fall your way. Abortion, for example, is currently protected across the nation by the 14th amendment. It could just as easily be outlawed by the same. All it takes is for 5 of 9 unelected judges to reevaluate just who exactly is being deprived their due process and equal protection. Just because the 14th currently champions what some people consider "progressive" and "good" doesn't mean it always will - it's a two-edged sword and one that allows for massive change without necessarily massive forethought.
I'd rather let the States make up their own minds on all matters not specifically assigned to the Feds by the Constitution. If one state wants to be terrible, mine will gladly welcome their best and brightest refugees.
-
Rather than redefine the legal institution of marriage, burn it. Burn it to the ground. No more legal marriage for anyone. Let the Government only recognize an agreement entered into by any two people for any reason. Let the concept of marriage only exist as a religious sacrament like baptism.
:aok
-
Are they? How so?
Family unit? Do we really need to explain this?
-
Family unit? Do we really need to explain this?
Yes, please.
-
ever been to the movies lately? have you seen young people going down on each other in a movie theater? more than once i left with my kids when they were young so they wouldnt watch this type of bedroom scene. dont give me that crap about what feels uncomfortable. I have yet to see a gay couple go down on each other as much as i see straight people do.
semp
Really, you would actually take your children to a type of movie where that crap happens? It must have not been a G movie semp if you took them there. That's on you.
Of course you have not seen gay couple go down on each other in the theaters. Get realistic. "As much as straight people do?" Where are you from where this is happening "as much"? You're reaching man.
-
Yes, please.
:huh :( :uhoh :frown:
-
:huh :( :uhoh :frown:
No, I'm serous. Because I would not like to answer while just assuming what your point is. I do have a guess, but topics like this are usually loaded with a lot of assumptions, so I want to avoid that. :)
Just to be very clear, this was the original statement I was stumbling over: "Hetero and Homosexual relationships are two different types of relationships, meaning they can be recognized differently. "
-
:huh :( :uhoh :frown:
I don't understand this explanation...
-
But you can't equate kissing in public between hetero and homo equal.
My actual quote....
Just to be very clear, this was the original statement I was stumbling over: "Hetero and Homosexual relationships are two different types of relationships, meaning they can be recognized differently. "
Someone elses?
[/quote]
-
I don't get it.
This is the argument so far:
Hetero and Homosexual relationships are two different types of relationships, meaning they can be recognized differently.
On which I asked:
Are they? How so?
You quoted this question of mine and said:
Family unit? Do we really need to explain this?
My reply
Yes, please.
And this explanation I'm still waiting for. I just want to have something to actually base my explanation on, rather than just assuming what someone might "really have meant". I'm not trying to win a match here.
-
Come on folks this thread is SOOOO last week. It has jumped the shark.
-
One type has the possibility of naturally having a kid, while the other doesn't. One type is made up of a member of each sex, while the other is composed of two members of the same sex. I'm not saying I agree or disagree with one particular side of the argument, just that there is a legal basis for the argument against giving the title of "marriage" to gay relationships, and that those that agree with that argument are not necessarily bigots on par with those in the south in the 50's and 60's, for example. Personally, I agree with the Ron Paul idea of getting government out of marriage all together.
-
Vu- There is a distinction between individual rights, which all people have regardless of race, creed, religion, sexual orientation, etc., and rights granted to groups/relationships. Again, the best solution is to just get government out of the picture.
-
Personally, I agree with the Ron Paul idea of getting government out of marriage all together.
It is the most sensible IMHO too.
-
One type has the possibility of naturally having a kid, while the other doesn't.
Quite a lot of heterosexual relationships do not have the possibility (or the intention to do so). For example me and my wife. We are married for 10 years now, support & care for each other, share our lives in good as well in bad days (been quite a number of them)... and have we have no kids, nor are there any being planned.
If my wife happened to by my husband instead, nothing would be different. That's why I where asking.
So if one wants to differentiate relationships and their legal standing only by the potential reproductive value, old hetero couples trying to 'legalize' their relation should also be treated differently from others. I'm not making a pro or con statement for the whole thing, but just trying to show that if one would deny certain kind of couples a specific legal status only on grounds of their (potential) reproductive value, it would have to be applied to all other couples too. So a different reason would be necessary.
-
One type is made up of a member of each sex, while the other is composed of two members of the same sex.
Replace "sex" with "race" and I bet you would be horrified by this statement.
-
See Rule #14
-
See Rule #14
-
See Rule #14
-
See Rule 14
-
I'm a vegetarian,so chicken don't appeal to me at all.People of the same sex getting married is another thing.I disagree with same sex marriage,but if someone disagrees with me,they have that right.I'm an old person,and gays were in the closet back then.Now they are every where,and like to push their believes on other people which causes problems.
The Dawg
-
Yeaaaah. I'm walking away from this thread now.
*unsubscribes*
-
Im telling you guys this is maybe one of the single most sucsseful marketing campaigns ever. Think about it.
-
See Rule #14
-
SERaider... sorry man... I'm going to have to throw my 2 cents in...
BUNNIES MUST DIE!!!!!!!!!!
Corrected. :neener:
-
Corrected. :neener:
:rofl
-
See Rule #14
-
See Rule #14
-
See Rule #14
-
See Rule #14
-
I'm a vegetarian,so chicken don't appeal to me at all.People of the same sex getting married is another thing.I disagree with same sex marriage,but if someone disagrees with me,they have that right.I'm an old person,and gays were in the closet back then.Now they are every where,and like to push their believes on other people which causes problems.
The Dawg
Ah, that right there would start a riot around here, who is pushing their beliefs upon whom when only one side of this arguement is being limited of the same life and liberties as their neighbor?
It's OK to admit you're afraid of change, but to act like such a change is a hostile invasion is very amusing.
At least from my persepctive, giving one liberties and freedom does not infinge upon another unless those afraid of the change let it change them.
I'd probabley be pretty pissed about it sometimes too, and people expressign their opinion that it's nothing to get mad about or fight for would probabley just make me even mader.
IMHO one person's happiness is not anothers. Lets live and love - love and let live.
See Rule #14
-
No contract in the US is binding. Years after a contract is signed a judge can change the wording completely and both have to abide by it.
Contracts don't mean much at all. He who buys the law can win easily.
-
it punishes those already married in order to make others happy.
how? :headscratch:
-
Fast Feud Nation!
-
See Rule #14
-
See Rule #14
-
BoilerDown for the win!
-
Locked for violation of rule #10