Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day brings out supporters, protesters

[quote name='perdition(troy']ya, god forbid someone uses their hands when they talk.[/QUOTE]

Using your hands when you talk and putting your finger inches from someone's face during a heated conversation are two different things.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']While I agree with Mr. Kluwe's overall message in the letter - yeah...

Could you imagine if someone who disagreed so strongly with Obama on something wrote him a letter like this?[/QUOTE]

Well, Chris Kluwe is white and Emmit Burns is black, so I guess his opposition to the politician's position must be about race, right?
 
[quote name='Strell']EVERY SINGLE POST OF YOURS IS NOTHING BUT A DIFFERENT WAY OF EXPRESSING THOSE FOUR WORDS.[/QUOTE]

And every single post of yours is roughly, the equivalent of this:
cat-crap-big.jpg

So, um... congrats there.
 
[quote name='yourlefthand']So why is this state rep writing this letter so much worse than the mayors of Boston and Chicago saying they wouldn't want Chik-fil-A doing business in their cities?[/QUOTE]

There are differences, but they are similar in some ways, and I don't like either.

People have free speech. A government official shouldn't be asking a private organization (the Ravens) to silence an employee who's speaking out in support of gay marriage is wrong as it's trying to stifle free speech.

He's free to call attention to it, ask people to boycott the Ravens etc. as he has the free speech to do so. Though as a public official the role is murkier than for a private citizen as such things can get construed as a government official promoting censorship still.

As for Chick-Fil-A, they're owner has free speech and can donate money to whomever they like. That should not be grounds for governments to say anything about where their franchises can or should open. They have freedom of speech and expression to oppose gay marriage. Citizens have freedom of speech and expression to boycott the stores if they don't like how they use their speech/expression rights. Or support them if they approve. Same with Ravens fans.
 
[quote name='Strell']YOUR ENTIRE BREADTH OF ARGUMENT IS SERIOUSLY JUST "BOTH SIDES DO IT." EVERY SINGLE POST OF YOURS IS NOTHING BUT A DIFFERENT WAY OF EXPRESSING THOSE FOUR WORDS.

IT'S DUMB. IT'S FALSE. IT'S TOO BAD THIS PASSES FOR VALID DISCOURSE. I WISH YOU REALIZED HOW THIRD GRADE EVERYTHING YOU BRING TO THE TABLE ACTUALLY IS. HOLY SHIT.

THAT BEARS REPEATING - HOLY SHIT.

There. Much better.[/QUOTE]

lmao

Be the change Strell, be the change! :lol:
 
[quote name='Strell']I'm really tired of the mentality that you can't tell people they are full of shit anymore.[/QUOTE]

Bravo, sir. Brav-o.

Curious if the person responsible would step forth and send me a PM. I'd love to hear the justification of that selection.
 
Make point, prove point. Guess I'm just a scoring machine 'round these parts.

But [understood you]r mom already knew that.
 
The only irritating thing is that the mod community puts me on your level. Good lord, I stopped worrying about gold stars and recess ages ago. Then again, tattle tales are clearly proving to be an area of perceived dominance. Good to know.
 
[quote name='perdition(troy']Was nice as a forum post, but very disrespectful.[/QUOTE]

It's far less disrespectful than an elected official trying to stifle someone's First Amendment rights.
 
Kinda still makes me not want to eat there, if only because 1) I've gone this long already, 2) I hope their profits are tanking somewhat (somewhat, with nuance), and 3) there's no way for me to know if they'll actually stop funding such groups/lobbyists/whatever.

Though to be fair, I've been crazing their fucking Chik-n-biscuits. Get some of those and put sriracha on them, and you will travel to Magicland.
 
Eh, let's see how long it lasts. It's not like they suddenly saw the light. They were just pressured into it because it hurt their bottom line. It's nothing more than damage control.
 
Saw what then, you think they did it because they suddenly understood that what they were doing was wrong? No, they did it for business reasons. If their profits aren't hurting much now, they very well could in the future. Possible they saw projections of potential loses and got scared.
 
Of course it's business driven. As that article notes (and some others like the NYT one below talk about a bit more), this was partly in response to a Chicago alderman opposing a new Chick-Fil-A location over the issue.

I'm not sure how much their sales have been hurt-I know the one on my campus has looked just as busy as ever unfortunately. But it was clearly creating issues with opening new locations, and was a continued PR mess on that front with protests over new locations etc.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/20/us/chick-fil-a-and-chicago-alderman-reach-agreement.html
 
My boycott was never much of a boycott as I don't eat fast food hardly ever anyway.

I did occasionally grab a salad from the one on campus when working late, so I did switch that to the Einstein's Bagels on campus. Better salads there anyway.
 
[quote name='DurbanBrown']nope. ive always been on their side.[/QUOTE]

Their side as in their right to practice free speech or side in their hatred of gays?
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']My boycott was never much of a boycott as I don't eat fast food hardly ever anyway.

I did occasionally grab a salad from the one on campus when working late, so I did switch that to the Einstein's Bagels on campus. Better salads there anyway.[/QUOTE]

Yeah I'm in the same boat, the only fastfood I eat is Subway, Chipotle or Panera, at least they have semi-healthy options.

If you can, try the salads at Trader Joe's. I find them to be delicious and high quality.
 
[quote name='cancerman1120']Their side as in their right to practice free speech or side in their hatred of gays?[/QUOTE]

well since neither chick-fil-a nor the anit-gay group they supported actually speaks of the hatred of gays, youre dumb. but yes. i support free speach and no i dont support gay rights. def dont "hate" gays though. wtf
 
[quote name='DurbanBrown']well since neither chick-fil-a nor the anit-gay group they supported actually speaks of the hatred of gays, youre dumb. but yes. i support free speach and no i dont support gay rights. def dont "hate" gays though. wtf[/QUOTE]

You "dont support gay rights"? Did I read that right?
 
[quote name='DurbanBrown']well since neither chick-fil-a nor the anit-gay group they supported actually speaks of the hatred of gays, youre dumb. but yes. i support free speach and no i dont support gay rights. def dont "hate" gays though. wtf[/QUOTE]

I love it. How can you honestly say you do not support equality but you do not hate a group. It is not even worth rehashing this argument. You think I am dumb but I would love to hear a rational argument that explains restricting the rights of a group of people that does not involve some sort of hate of them.
 
[quote name='DurbanBrown']well since neither chick-fil-a nor the anit-gay group they supported actually speaks of the hatred of gays, youre dumb.[/QUOTE]

They may not come right out and say they hate gays, but I'd say trying to convert gay youths to straight, having a desire to criminalize homosexuality, and repeatedly trying to assert that homosexuals are a danger to children, etc. are pretty hateful actions that speak for themselves.

[quote name='Purple Flames']Well that didn't last long, now did it? http://www.advocate.com/business/20...-money-very-week-anti-marriage-equality-group[/QUOTE]

Heh, I gave them the benefit of the doubt and figured they'd wait a few months until all of this died down and people found something else to get upset about.
 
[quote name='DurbanBrown']well since neither chick-fil-a nor the anit-gay group they supported actually speaks of the hatred of gays, youre dumb. but yes. i support free speach and no i dont support gay rights. def dont "hate" gays though. wtf[/QUOTE]

Would you agree that you don't see gay people as being equal to straight people?
 
I don't hate you, i just think your lifestyle is morally wrong and want to restrict your rights so that you have fewer than I do.

No hate though!
 
It's lame, but I guess I can see the distinction. People can think homosexuality is morally wrong for religious reasons, and not support gay marriage as they see it as legitimizing behavior they think is an immoral choice. That doesn't have to entail outright hating the group I suppose.

Not that it's any better than outright hating gays. But I can get that someone can think homosexuality is wrong without emotionally hating them. Thinking something is immoral and shouldn't be legitimized doesn't have involve hate. Again, doesn't make trying to oppress a group and deny them equal rights any less shitty as that sucks regardless of the motivation behind it.
 
I always hear that it "ruins marriage" for everyone else. It jumps straight past legitimization and more into "you're making a mockery of our union and therefore denigrating it." But I've never understood the reason why that's the deal.

I guess it's like a "that one house on our block is lowering our property values" argument. Somehow two doods slapping each other around makes your wife less appealing?
 
Yeah, I've never gotten the "ruins the institution of marriage" argument.

I think they just don't want to come out and say that it legitimizes homosexuality and that's what they oppose. The "ruins marriage" bs is just a way to say that without saying it more or less. To be bigoted without saying something blatantly bigoted.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Yeah, I've never gotten the "ruins the institution of marriage" argument.

I think they just don't want to come out and say that it legitimizes homosexuality and that's what they oppose. The "ruins marriage" bs is just a way to say that without saying it more or less. To be bigoted without saying something blatantly bigoted.[/QUOTE]

That's always been my opinion as well. Closely related is the "my religion says its wrong" because using religion to support your bigoted views is something that is never really challenged. Nevermind the fact there's a good chance your religion was opposed to interracial marriage less than a hundred years ago as well...
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']It's lame, but I guess I can see the distinction. People can think homosexuality is morally wrong for religious reasons, and not support gay marriage as they see it as legitimizing behavior they think is an immoral choice. That doesn't have to entail outright hating the group I suppose.

Not that it's any better than outright hating gays. But I can get that someone can think homosexuality is wrong without emotionally hating them. Thinking something is immoral and shouldn't be legitimized doesn't have involve hate. Again, doesn't make trying to oppress a group and deny them equal rights any less shitty as that sucks regardless of the motivation behind it.[/QUOTE]

But, in this case, it wasn't really just about marriage. Chick-Fil-A's main reasoning for donating to these groups might've been for the whole "preserving the sanctity of marriage" bullcrap, but it shouldn't be ignored that these groups fight against allowing orphans to be adopted by gays, have repeatedly tried to claim homosexuals are child molesters, and run gay-to-straight conversion programs (some which are forcefully used on gay teens). Not to mention a higher up in one of the organizations has said he supports criminalizing homosexuality.

The whole outcry was just summarized as "Chick-Fil-A is against gay marriage!" As true as that might be, more should've been exposed on just who these organizations are and what they do.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']It's lame, but I guess I can see the distinction. People can think homosexuality is morally wrong for religious reasons, and not support gay marriage as they see it as legitimizing behavior they think is an immoral choice. That doesn't have to entail outright hating the group I suppose.

Not that it's any better than outright hating gays. But I can get that someone can think homosexuality is wrong without emotionally hating them. Thinking something is immoral and shouldn't be legitimized doesn't have involve hate. Again, doesn't make trying to oppress a group and deny them equal rights any less shitty as that sucks regardless of the motivation behind it.[/QUOTE]

Right.

Also, when you're talking to someone who just be open-minded enough to consider other points of view, telling them that they hate gays is going to stop the discussion right away.

[quote name='RedvsBlue']That's always been my opinion as well. Closely related is the "my religion says its wrong" because using religion to support your bigoted views is something that is never really challenged. Nevermind the fact there's a good chance your religion was opposed to interracial marriage less than a hundred years ago as well...[/QUOTE]

Gay rights/gay marriage is one of a just few issues where I just can't see any reason or logic behind opposing it. If you're not gay, it really has nothing to do with you. No one will force you to attend a gay wedding.

The religion argument is nonsense. Even if we ignore the whole separation of church and state, people who use the religion argument are ignoring dozens of other "sins" that Americans legally engage in every day. These "Christians" aren't spending any time or money trying to ban those sins. I'll believe that this is really about their religion when I see these people trying to get shellfish consumption banned.
 
Chick-fil-A seemingly doubled down on its anti-gay marriage stance yet again after the company's president re-iterated the restaurant chain's support of "Biblical" families.

"Families are very important to our country," Dan Cathy told NBC affiliate 11 Alive. "And they're very important to those of us who are concerned about being able to hang on to our heritage. We support Biblical families, and they've always been a part of that."

Cathy's remarks should clear up any residual confusion over the restaurant chain's views.
Click to expand...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/...t-dan-cathy-biblical-families-_n_1935786.html

Hilarious, the guy can't keep his mouth shut. No wonder his PR person keeled over from a heart attack. It's easier to rep Lindsay Lohan.
 
[quote name='Strell']Biblical families were fucked up - incest, slavery, women sold to men, adultery, immaculate conception...[/QUOTE]

Reminds me of a bumper sticker I saw the other day that said "No Jesus = No Peace." Apparently this person missed a few history lessons...
 
I'm pretty sure there was some bigamy. There might have been what (by today's standards) might be considered pedophilia, but I'd have to re-read some things, and I don't think I'll be doing that any time soon. Sodomy and rape might even fit in there somewhere, but again, that would require some study.

Point being is that seemingly few people actually take a reflective introspection into the words they use, and just knock off some sound bytes that support a stupid ideology.

You want marriage to be between a consenting man and woman? Alright, then say that. Throw in a descriptor like "biblical families" without understanding that it opens the door to a LOT of undesirable options doesn't make you look informed, but instead just a blind loudmouth.
 
Speaking of conception, you ever notice how, in pictures of Adam and Eve, they both have belly buttons? Yeah, think about that a second.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top