Chickens sacrifice for the greater good of the stomach.

Now The Colonel has weighed in on the argument!

http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/e86050c415/kfc-loves-gays-with-john-goodman?rel=player

MeanGreenStompa wrote:Now The Colonel has weighed in on the argument!

http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/e86050c415/kfc-loves-gays-with-john-goodman?rel=player

Glad to see John Goodman is off unemployment...

CT GAMER wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:Now The Colonel has weighed in on the argument!

http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/e86050c415/kfc-loves-gays-with-john-goodman?rel=player

Glad to see John Goodman is off unemployment...

He has worked fairly steadily for quite a long time. Besides TV and film appearances he still does stage acting as well as voice over work.

Frazzled wrote:
Meanwhile, Republicans in Chicago say they will also file a formal complaint at City Hall against Ald. Proco “Joe” Moreno (1st), who wants to block the restaurant from moving into his ward because of the company’s position on gay marriage and gay rights.

This has to be false, there are no Republicans in Chicago.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

generalgrog wrote:Eating chum fila right now .... The place was busier than normal... I mean like extremely busy. I wonder if the Boston mayors stance has backfired.

I consider it more likely that people saw Chik-Fil-A in the news, and were reminded that they hadn't eaten there in a while.

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
Meanwhile, Republicans in Chicago say they will also file a formal complaint at City Hall against Ald. Proco “Joe” Moreno (1st), who wants to block the restaurant from moving into his ward because of the company’s position on gay marriage and gay rights.

This has to be false, there are no Republicans in Chicago.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

generalgrog wrote:Eating chum fila right now .... The place was busier than normal... I mean like extremely busy. I wonder if the Boston mayors stance has backfired.

I consider it more likely that people saw C hik-Fil-A in the news, and were reminded that they hadn't eaten there in a while.

and you may be right on both counts

I celebrated the day by sitting in a room full of sweaty naked guys. Did I do it right?

Most certainly, especially if towels were optional.

You guys talking about Wrestling?

Towels are always optional.

d-usa wrote:I celebrated the day by sitting in a room full of sweaty naked guys. Did I do it right?

Boy Scout camp?

Boy Scout camp?

Boy Scouts has seriously changed in the past 25 yrs

Chick-fil-A was yummy, tried to go twice, but an hour for a chicken sammich was not an appealing idea.

dogma wrote:I consider it more likely that people saw Chik-Fil-A in the news, and were reminded that they hadn't eaten there in a while.

Apparently it was actually CFA appreciation day. It was on the news and heard others mention it as well. Of course, no one interviewed on the news or that I heard talking knew what actual issues were at stake, but they all wanted to show CFA support: one person said they were there because the CEO has the right to free speech, another person said it was, essentially, a conspiracy and that no one could prove that CFA actually gave money to support anti-gay organizations.

Jihadin wrote:

Boy Scout camp?

Boy Scouts has seriously changed in the past 25 yrs

Doubt it. You have simply repressed those memories...

Melissia wrote:

Manchu wrote:I'm going to Chick-fil-a for lunch today.

My condolences.

It was excellent. Chicken that actually looks and tastes like chicken? Who'd a thunk?

Sadly Manchu, it was actually beef.

The chick fil a in my town has cars backed up around the block, and mobs of people outside.

I say profit for Chik Fil A for this quarter is high. I'm intersted in seeing how well this "kiss in" going to do. If the kissers keep buying their products then its not an issue. If not and just sit there isn't that loitering?

Manchu wrote:

Melissia wrote:

Manchu wrote:I'm going to Chick-fil-a for lunch today.

My condolences.

It was excellent. Chicken that actually looks and tastes like chicken? Who'd a thunk?

You must not have eaten at Chick-Fil-A, then.

Melissia wrote:

Manchu wrote:

Melissia wrote:

Manchu wrote:I'm going to Chick-fil-a for lunch today.

My condolences.

It was excellent. Chicken that actually looks and tastes like chicken? Who'd a thunk?

You must not have eaten at Chick-Fil-A, then.

Whaaat? It's the ONLY way to eat chicken!

At least it's not this:
http://www.foodiggity.com/where-chicken-mcnuggets-come-from/

I refuse to click on that link. Once in a great while I do like my 20 McNuggets with sweet and sour sauce

Jihadin wrote:I refuse to click on that link. Once in a great while I do like my 20 McNuggets with sweet and sour sauce

I think it's really cool... I mean... c'mon, anything that tasty from THAT!?!? If that's not an engineering marvel, I don't know what is...

Jihadin wrote:I refuse to click on that link. Once in a great while I do like my 20 McNuggets with sweet and sour sauce

I miss the days when they contained dark meat.

I went by four CFAs around here (I cover a lot of ground for work) and every one had traffic backed up for half a mile and about 50 people outside in line.

Does my heart good.

I am a bit on the fence with this, though I am still in the dark with the major details (recovering from surgery and had no access to media).

Though I disagree with CFA's opinion on gay marriage, really no different than the few people who are still against interracial marriages. It's a disgusting idea, but just an idea and can't hurt or affect anyone as long as no one is being physically attacked or having laws in place that restrict people's personal freedom.

On the other hand, is it OK to donate money to groups who's purpose is to insure limiting people's freedom? I'm not too sure on this point as I have not looked too much in detail on who the money was donated to and how it operated.


I have no problem with someone thinking gays are sinners, immoral, disgusting, etc. But everyone should have the same rights.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/02/chick-fil-a-anti-gay-group-donations-_n_1644609.html

Piston Honda wrote:I have no problem with someone thinking gays are sinners, immoral, disgusting, etc.

That is the heart of it really. The problem here isn't that an individual has these feelings or is donating their money, it is that it is corporate sponsored hate. I wouldn't care if Dan Cathy gave 20 million to anti-gay causes, but he dragged the company into the political arena. He wants to use company money to promote bigotry he won't get my money. I'm not calling for violence, or saying Cathy can't say what he wants, I'm just going to get food elsewhere, and it isn't like there isn't a dearth of options available.

Couldn't boycott CFA if I wanted to.

None around me, never been to one, and when I eat out, I like to eat at family owned places. Each one has their own unique flavor/stlye. I also like quality over quantity when it comes to food.

Where as fast food all tastes the same to me. Couldn't tell the difference between a McDonalds chicken sandwich and a KFC one.

Wish the burger looked as good as they do in the pictures.

Jihadin wrote:I say profit for Chik Fil A for this quarter is high. I'm intersted in seeing how well this "kiss in" going to do. If the kissers keep buying their products then its not an issue. If not and just sit there isn't that loitering?

Since it's a private company they have no obligation to release financials publicly. Presumably if they do well, they'll say something and double down, and if they do poorly, they'll say nothing at all. So far the latter thought, it's a good one. Presumably these kissers have to buy food or else be expelled, no? Or maybe they'll just walk in, get a kiss photo op, and leave.

Maybe they'll buy a small soda?

I would like to believe the folks flocking (ha!) to the restaurant are doing so in support of free speech. Sadly, given the content of that speech, I have to suspect that's not what many of them are supporting.

No thanks.

For my part, I made it abundantly clear that I don't eat at CFA because I like to eat good quality food, but this certainly isn't helping my decision.

Sadly, these days, Christ would probably be called a socialist.

Presumably these kissers have to buy food or else be expelled, no? Or maybe they'll just walk in, get a kiss photo op, and leave.

Chik Fil A can hire a professional photographer and he can charge them (CFA get a cut) for that lasting kiss in CFA

Maybe they'll buy a small soda?

Nope won't work. The "intent" of loitering is still to clear.

@Manny
Maybe a lot of "supporters" don't care about the issue and like their chicken sandwich

Jihadin wrote:Nope won't work. The "intent" of loitering is still to clear.

Dunno, here in Texas, it'd be perfectly understandable. It's fething hot.

Melissia wrote:

Jihadin wrote:Nope won't work. The "intent" of loitering is still to clear.

Dunno, here in Texas, it'd be perfectly understandable. It's fething hot.

104 in Austin yesterday.

I support the support. Just like the CEO of Amazon can give money (and is applauded) the CEO of Chicky can give money. I'm just about the chicken burgers.

Actually, it's the company itself, not the CEO (well, possibly along with the CEO), that's giving money.

Therefor, the company is trash and I'm not doing business there.

The people who are suggesting that this is just a "freedom of speech" issue or just about one man's opinion are ignoring the fact that Chick-fil-A donates money from its profits to religious lobbyists and anti-gay groups seeking to deny people their rights. As consumers, we have the right to not spend money there to try and limit their ability to continue doing that. Mr. Cathy uses his Chick-fil-A profits and personal freedom to support causes many others do not wish to support and it's our right and the Mayor of Boston's right to not make it easier for him to keep supporting those religious causes.

Melissia wrote:Actually, it's the company itself, not the CEO (well, possibly along with the CEO), that's giving money.

Therefor, the company is trash and I'm not doing business there.

I doubt you'd go there anyway. Its a family place you single person!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

BrassScorpion wrote:The people who are suggesting that this is just a "freedom of speech" issue or just about one man's opinion are ignoring the fact that Chick-fil-A donates money from its profits to religious lobbyists and anti-gay groups seeking to deny people their rights. As consumers, we have the right to not spend money there to try and limit their ability to continue doing that. Mr. Cathy uses his Chick-fil-A profits and personal freedom to support causes many others do not wish to support and it's our right and the Mayor of Boston's right to not make it easier for him to keep supporting those religious causes.

Heinz supports lefty causes like abortion. I still buy Heinz ketchup (and its ketchup not catsup you scurvy dogs!)
Apple supports gay marriage. I would not let that keep me from buying an Apple product (my dislike of Cults however keeps me from buying an Apple product).

Its all good. If you don't like it don't go there. But don't get ing holier than thou.

I'm a single person who eats at family places, because I can fit all of me there.

Frazzled wrote:I doubt you'd go there anyway. Its a family place you single person!

I eat with family! In fact, I took my family to Razoo's earlier this year.

Mmm, cajun.

Mostly though I tend to try to cook for family rather than eating out. It's cheaper and, frequently, tastier...

True that.

BrassScorpion wrote:The people who are suggesting that this is just a "freedom of speech" issue or just about one man's opinion are ignoring the fact that Chick-fil-A donates money from its profits to religious lobbyists and anti-gay groups seeking to deny people their rights.

I think a lot of people are intentionally missing the point on this. I don't care what this guy says. I don't care what their corporate mission is. It's his business, and it's his right.

What I do care about is when they start to use their corporate funding to push their religious leanings via the monopolistic force of government onto other people, stealing their civil liberties, as happened with Prop. 8. The real mystery to me is why self-professed libertarian and small-government republicans would support this sort of government intrusion into private lives.

Ouze wrote:

BrassScorpion wrote:The people who are suggesting that this is just a "freedom of speech" issue or just about one man's opinion are ignoring the fact that Chick-fil-A donates money from its profits to religious lobbyists and anti-gay groups seeking to deny people their rights.

I think a lot of people are intentionally missing the point on this. I don't care what this guy says. I don't care what their corporate mission is. It's his business, and it's his right.

What I do care about is when they start to use their corporate funding to push their religious leanings via the monopolistic force of government onto other people, stealing their civil liberties, as happened with Prop. 8. The real mystery to me is why self-professed libertarian and small-government republicans would support this sort of government intrusion into private lives.

Its not intrusion. Its free speech on a topic that the majority of Americans agree with and the other side laughs at and generally screams BIGOT! at every opportunity.
I don't agree with the guy other than traditional marriage was indeed a tradition - a religious tradition. Government has no place in it.

Lets not forgot about the third group. The ones who just don't care about the issue

Oh yes, as we all know, conservatives have absolutely no history of restricting free speech.

BrassScorpion wrote:The people who are suggesting that this is just a "freedom of speech" issue or just about one man's opinion are ignoring the fact that Chick-fil-A donates money from its profits to religious lobbyists and anti-gay groups seeking to deny people their rights. As consumers, we have the right to not spend money there to try and limit their ability to continue doing that. Mr. Cathy uses his Chick-fil-A profits and personal freedom to support causes many others do not wish to support and it's our right and the Mayor of Boston's right to not make it easier for him to keep supporting those religious causes.

How is it NOT freedom of speech. He can say what he will! If you don't like it then fine YOU don't have to go there. I certainly won't stop you. What about the owner of Ben & Jerry's? I won't not eat their ice cream because of his political or social views. If I like the PRODUCT that a BUISINESS provides then I will patronize that buisness. Same for hollywood. I may or may not agree with the actors/actressess politically but if I like the movie/TV show then I will watch it.

He did not say that he HATES gay marriage. Words need to be used as they were. He stated that he SUPPORTS traditional marriage. I think that the american people yesterday showed their support for CFA. I know that here two of the busiest roads were blocked due to the drive threw line, and the other site, which is in the mall, had people wrapped around the building. Honestly if Bostson and Chicago want to kick out CFA then fine that is their choice but they loose that buisness. Now why not focus on other CEOs that have politcal views? Oh wait its just those that you don't agree with.

And Dems have no history of jumping on an issue just to garner votes from a certain sector of the population.

Jihadin wrote:Lets not forgot about the third group. The ones who just don't care about the issue

Well, presumably those people aren't participating in this thread

I want to make sure neither side spoke for us "Third Partiers"

Jihadin wrote:Lets not forgot about the third group. The ones who just don't care about the issue

And, let's not forget about the Romney patented fourth group that flip-flops back and forth on both sides.

And, let's not forget about the Romney patented fourth group that flip-flops back and forth on both sides.

That would mean the first two grps be split in the middle. He would get votes from both sides...and the third

He did not say that he HATES gay marriage. Words need to be used as they were. He stated that he SUPPORTS traditional marriage

If you're restricting rights, it amounts to nothing more than pathetic weasel wording to claim otherwise.

Grakmar wrote:

Jihadin wrote:Lets not forgot about the third group. The ones who just don't care about the issue

And, let's not forget about the Romney patented fourth group that flip-flops back and forth on both sides.

I think you'll find that someone else did this in a high profile sense long before Mitt.

Monster Rain wrote:

Grakmar wrote:

Jihadin wrote:Lets not forgot about the third group. The ones who just don't care about the issue

And, let's not forget about the Romney patented fourth group that flip-flops back and forth on both sides.

I think you'll find that someone else did this in a high profile sense long before Mitt.

Yes, but then Romney bought out his campaign, shipped all the jobs overseas, sold the ideas to his campaign for a fraction of their worth, and then declared bankruptcy.

Melissia wrote:

He did not say that he HATES gay marriage. Words need to be used as they were. He stated that he SUPPORTS traditional marriage

If you're restricting rights, it amounts to nothing more than pathetic weasel wording to claim otherwise.

So where is he able to restrict rights? Is he a politician that we elected into office? I don't remember that one in the news. Oh right he isn't so he can't. He spoke his opinion. I've got one. Apparently so do you. Everyone does even if it is that you don't care! Guess what that is an opinion too. Mine? Personally I don't care if you are straight or gay as long as you don't get up in my face about it and keep your love life in your house. Now if you express you opinion in public then as long as you don't infringe on my rights then be my guest. We can peacefully assemble so go for it!

Akroma06 wrote:So where is he able to restrict rights?

By trying to deny the right to marry for homosexuals through funding political action groups, and through funding anti-homosexual organizations which actively go about trying to make the lives of homosexuals miserable.

Melissia wrote:

Akroma06 wrote:So where is he able to restrict rights?

By trying to deny the right to marry for homosexuals through funding political action groups, and through funding anti-homosexual organizations which actively go about trying to make the lives of homosexuals miserable.

Ditto, and therein lies the problem.

I am pretty dang conservative in my own life. I agree with him when it comes to a Biblical definition of marriage, I agree that homosexuality is a sin (but no more of a sin than any of the sins I commit), and so forth.

I completely disagree with the motion that my religious belief has any place in politics. Religious dogma, even if I personally agree with it, should never be used as a basis for legislature. I am free to believe what I want, and so is everybody else.

I don't hate gays, I simply disagree with them. But I will stand with them shoulder to shoulder to defend their rights to lead a happy and productive life with all the rights I have.

Hell I am white and my wife is black. 50 years ago it could have just as easily been me that would have been fighting to marry the woman I love even though society would have said no and laws made it illegal. I think about that and this is one of the major reasons why I have no place for codified discrimination even if I might not agree with who you love.

Akroma06 wrote:Personally I don't care if you are straight or gay as long as you don't get up in my face about it and keep your love life in your house.

I agree, straight couples should keep it all at home. No kissing in public, holding of hands etc. It makes me feel damn icky just seeing a man and woman together, eugh.

Melissia wrote:

Manchu wrote:

Melissia wrote:

Manchu wrote:I'm going to Chick-fil-a for lunch today.

My condolences.

It was excellent. Chicken that actually looks and tastes like chicken? Who'd a thunk?

You must not have eaten at Chick-Fil-A, then.

No, I'm sure it was Chick-Fil-A. I had plenty of time to study the sinage on the building thanks to the huge crowd of people who had also turned out to show their support. Looking at that crowd, I realized that there are two issues at stake here. Some people would look at the crowd and see a group of people who disapprove of the states saying that same-sex couples can get married. Others would see this crowd as people fed up with public figures bullying them on the level of morality.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

d-usa wrote:I completely disagree with the motion that my religious belief has any place in politics.

Does morality have a place in politics? Is it important for politics to help society do right and avoid wrong?

Frazzled wrote:

Ouze wrote:

BrassScorpion wrote:The people who are suggesting that this is just a "freedom of speech" issue or just about one man's opinion are ignoring the fact that Chick-fil-A donates money from its profits to religious lobbyists and anti-gay groups seeking to deny people their rights.

I think a lot of people are intentionally missing the point on this. I don't care what this guy says. I don't care what their corporate mission is. It's his business, and it's his right.

What I do care about is when they start to use their corporate funding to push their religious leanings via the monopolistic force of government onto other people, stealing their civil liberties, as happened with Prop. 8. The real mystery to me is why self-professed libertarian and small-government republicans would support this sort of government intrusion into private lives.

Its not intrusion. Its free speech on a topic that the majority of Americans agree with and the other side laughs at and generally screams BIGOT! at every opportunity.
I don't agree with the guy other than traditional marriage was indeed a tradition - a religious tradition. Government has no place in it.

A majority of american do support however.

62% feel that gays should be allowed to marry or be allowed to form a civil union

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57433493-503544/poll-most-americans-support-same-sex-unions/

youbedead wrote:A majority of american do support however.

62% feel that gays should be allowed to marry or be allowed to form a civil union

Who cares? We're talking about the thing as a right, not a privilege to be given or retracted by the electorate. Are you telling me that if there is a swing back around to disfavoring homsexual marriage, it can be abolished by opinion polls?

And what about the 38% who do not support it? They should be marginalized from society, starting with having their business driven from certain major cities, for disagreeing? Sounds an awful lot like how gay people have themselves been treated over the years.

Yes, Manchu, it shouldn't matter.

But it does.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

d-usa wrote:I agree that homosexuality is a sin (but no more of a sin than any of the sins I commit), and so forth.

Would you say that it's not a sin once they're married?

I know several preachers who would argue that the main problem with homosexuality is that it is outside of the sanctity of marriage. A few of them support gay marriage because of this-- not wanting homosexuals to live in a state of sin because they're not allowed to marry.

Not really in this for the theological discussion Mel, just because I know it is the quickest way to get a thread shut down. It will just go off-topic really fast with the usual crowd fighting with each other.

I was really just trying to show that people can disagree with people being gay but still fight for their legal rights to be gay and enjoy the protection of marriage.

But it's a far more interesting discussion than the CFA one :/

Melissia wrote:Yes, Manchu, it shouldn't matter.

But it does.

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you are referring to.

Melissia wrote:Would you say that it's not a sin once they're married?

I know you didn't ask me but I'll answer all the same. As I understand it, this is just a red herring. First, homosexual marriage is a theological impossibility in the Catholic tradition. It's a basic contradiction of terms. Second, it is the act rather than the status of the actors that is considered sinful. So even if people of the same sex could be meaningfully married, their status as married would not have anything to do with the sinfulness of the act of homosexual intercourse. It's like how beating your significant other is wrong, no matter if you guys are married or not. I make this comparison only for the purposes of showing how status does not necessarily qualify an act; I do not personally equate homosexual intercourse with spousal battery.

Don't we already have the religion/gay thread on a biweekly basis in the OT?

Don't we already have the religion/gay thread on a biweekly basis in the OT?

thats 2-3 threads going at the same time like every two weeks. Would use the word "bi" but that might start a 3-4 thread every two weeks

Manchu wrote:

youbedead wrote:A majority of american do support however.

62% feel that gays should be allowed to marry or be allowed to form a civil union

Who cares? We're talking about the thing as a right, not a privilege to be given or retracted by the electorate. Are you telling me that if there is a swing back around to disfavoring homsexual marriage, it can be abolished by opinion polls?

And what about the 38% who do not support it? They should be marginalized from society, starting with having their business driven from certain major cities, for disagreeing? Sounds an awful lot like how gay people have themselves been treated over the years.

That was a direct response to frazz's stated belief that a majority of americans don't support gay marriage

Manchu wrote:

Melissia wrote:Yes, Manchu, it shouldn't matter.

But it does.

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you are referring to.

Popular opinion.

Manchu wrote:First, homosexual marriage is a theological impossibility in the Catholic tradition. It's a basic contradiction of terms.

Well, I wasn't really asking regarding Catholics anyway.

I have plenty of reasons to not like the Catholic church or its numerous teachings. No offense meant.

I guess the real problem here is not about gays or about religion.

The real problem is the terrible notion that if people have a different conception of anything, whether its sexuality or morality or even more superficial things, then they have no place in society.

To me, that's the issue whether it comes to marginalizing gay people or marginalizing people with more traditional values.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Melissia wrote:I have plenty of reasons to not like the Catholic church or its numerous teachings. No offense meant.

None taken. I suspect I have a lot more than even you.

All this talk of chicken sandwiches lead me to making a grilled chicken sandwich with marinara sauce and mozzarella cheese on a 7-grain bun I bought from the deli.

It kicked ass.

Also, the two Chick-Fil-As in my area had cars wrapped around them.

As for Chick-Fil-A and stuff, it's made it easy to see whom I need to block from my Facebook updates before the election season starts. I don't want to read about politics on facebook. Now go post pictures of your dog or your kid climbing on something REALLY dangerous.

youbedead wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Ouze wrote:

BrassScorpion wrote:The people who are suggesting that this is just a "freedom of speech" issue or just about one man's opinion are ignoring the fact that Chick-fil-A donates money from its profits to religious lobbyists and anti-gay groups seeking to deny people their rights.

I think a lot of people are intentionally missing the point on this. I don't care what this guy says. I don't care what their corporate mission is. It's his business, and it's his right.

What I do care about is when they start to use their corporate funding to push their religious leanings via the monopolistic force of government onto other people, stealing their civil liberties, as happened with Prop. 8. The real mystery to me is why self-professed libertarian and small-government republicans would support this sort of government intrusion into private lives.

Its not intrusion. Its free speech on a topic that the majority of Americans agree with and the other side laughs at and generally screams BIGOT! at every opportunity.
I don't agree with the guy other than traditional marriage was indeed a tradition - a religious tradition. Government has no place in it.

A majority of american do support however.

62% feel that gays should be allowed to marry or be allowed to form a civil union

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57433493-503544/poll-most-americans-support-same-sex-unions/

Yet no law change has ever been approved by ballot.
Take out the civil union part and the numbers change big time. Eventually its all a word game though. If Bob and Bob say they are married they have a right to do so under the First Amendment. What are you going to do, call them on the phone and say they are lying?

(translation marriage as a religious institution depends on the religion, just change your religion. Marriage as a non religious institution is just whatever you say).

The "majority of Americans" have not voted on a nationwide basis.

It's always been on a state by state basis. If 62% of Americans feel that homosexual marriages or civil unions should be legal, that doesn't mean they are all in one great big voter base which can roam the lands righting wrongs by voting in every instance.

I can think of at least one high profile instance of gay marriage being rejected by voters.

Yeah, but NC passing a gay marriage bill was as likely as chimps are to colonize Mars.

Wasn't the DNC suppose to be there first? Instead of FL?

From what I can tell, the DNC is still going to be here in Charlotte, NC.

Kanluwen wrote:Yeah, but NC passing a gay marriage bill was as likely as chimps are to colonize Mars.

California was rather more surprising.

Time to......REINSTATE SPQR!!!


But I shall be AWSOMIST MAXIMIST


just because I'm watching the movie

Frazzled wrote:

youbedead wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Ouze wrote:

BrassScorpion wrote:The people who are suggesting that this is just a "freedom of speech" issue or just about one man's opinion are ignoring the fact that Chick-fil-A donates money from its profits to religious lobbyists and anti-gay groups seeking to deny people their rights.

I think a lot of people are intentionally missing the point on this. I don't care what this guy says. I don't care what their corporate mission is. It's his business, and it's his right.

What I do care about is when they start to use their corporate funding to push their religious leanings via the monopolistic force of government onto other people, stealing their civil liberties, as happened with Prop. 8. The real mystery to me is why self-professed libertarian and small-government republicans would support this sort of government intrusion into private lives.

Its not intrusion. Its free speech on a topic that the majority of Americans agree with and the other side laughs at and generally screams BIGOT! at every opportunity.
I don't agree with the guy other than traditional marriage was indeed a tradition - a religious tradition. Government has no place in it.

A majority of american do support however.

62% feel that gays should be allowed to marry or be allowed to form a civil union

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57433493-503544/poll-most-americans-support-same-sex-unions/

Yet no law change has ever been approved by ballot.
Take out the civil union part and the numbers change big time. Eventually its all a word game though. If Bob and Bob say they are married they have a right to do so under the First Amendment. What are you going to do, call them on the phone and say they are lying?

(translation marriage as a religious institution depends on the religion, just change your religion. Marriage as a non religious institution is just whatever you say).

Exactly marriage is religious and the gov should have no involvement whatsoever, but i deserve the same tax breaks you do, I should be able to visit my SO in the hospital, I should be considered family for the purpose of health insurance etc. I could give a gak what you call it but I deserve an equal legal representation

And I am ok with that.

I demand equal rights for gay chickens NOW

Gay Chickens for some, tiny American flags for others!

I demand equal rights for gay chickens NOW

Processing plants provide 100% equal oppurtunity for all chickens coming through the door...

Melissia wrote:

Akroma06 wrote:So where is he able to restrict rights?

By trying to deny the right to marry for homosexuals through funding political action groups, and through funding anti-homosexual organizations which actively go about trying to make the lives of homosexuals miserable.

And this doesn't happen to other "groups" of people? Gun owners? I know I have been called racist a bunch of times even though some of my best friends (and family) are of different ethnicities. My point was to his statement in this instance. He expressed his opinion. I'm sorry if you don't agree with him but honestly I don't care about yours or his...that's my opinion, but it is also my opinion that people shouldn't attack him or his company based on his views. Now if it was something that threatened the country as a whole or threatened violence...like a shooting or terrorist attack then that is a whole other thing and goes well beyond what the first ammendment gives.

MrDwhitey wrote:

Akroma06 wrote:Personally I don't care if you are straight or gay as long as you don't get up in my face about it and keep your love life in your house.

I agree, straight couples should keep it all at home. No kissing in public, holding of hands etc. It makes me feel damn icky just seeing a man and woman together, eugh.

Ugh that was not my point either. I mean don't get rilled up and fill my news with it. I'm not a fan of things like the gay pride parades that block roads and interfere with society as a whole, and yes it would bother me if it was a "straight pride" and did the same thing.

Ultimately if you love your partner (gay or not) then fine. I am genuinely happy for you. If you have the same benefits whether mariage or civil union then that is where I think we should be as a whole. Anything else is excessive and we don't need.

This states the issue better than I can.


I encourage everyone who is in any way confused by any element of this matter to read the full post in the link.

No that doesn't adequately capture the issue. That's just the same tired assumptions and sentiments trotted out once again.

That's what makes arguing on the internet so much fun!

Manchu wrote:No that doesn't adequately capture the issue. That's just the same tired assumptions and sentiments trotted out once again.

Then please explain to me how Chick-Fil-A giving money to the Family Research Council is any different than donating money to the Ku Klux Klan. Because outside of some minor semantics, the comparison is apt. Both organizations have the goal of repressing or eliminating the freedoms of a minority group.

In that sense, donating money to a pro-gay political action group that lobbies to shut down the business of people with certain religious views is just like donating money to the KKK. After all, they both repress and aim to eliminate the freedoms of a minority group.

azazel the cat wrote:

Manchu wrote:No that doesn't adequately capture the issue. That's just the same tired assumptions and sentiments trotted out once again.

Then please explain to me how Hollywood giving money to the Brady Center for Prevention of Gun Violence is any different than donating money to the Ku Klux Klan. Because outside of some minor semantics, the comparison is apt. Both organizations have the goal of repressing or eliminating the freedoms of a minority group (gun owners).

Corrected your typo.

Frazzled wrote:

azazel the cat wrote:

Manchu wrote:No that doesn't adequately capture the issue. That's just the same tired assumptions and sentiments trotted out once again.

Then please explain to me how Hollywood giving money to the Brady Center for Prevention of Gun Violence is any different than donating money to the Ku Klux Klan. Because outside of some minor semantics, the comparison is apt. Both organizations have the goal of repressing or eliminating the freedoms of a minority group (gun owners).

Corrected your typo.

Are gun owners really a minority?

Manchu wrote:In that sense, donating money to a pro-gay political action group that lobbies to shut down the business of people with certain religious views is just like donating money to the KKK. After all, they both repress and aim to eliminate the freedoms of a minority group.

You're not considering the concept in the depth that it requires. The hyperbolic example you have used really translates more like this:

"the government is taking away my freedom to take away this smaller guy's freedom! I want to have the freedom to oppress that little guy!"

For your reading pleasure, I recommend Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan

No, what I am saying is that political expression is necessary in a democracy and that the government should not step in to give the advantage to either side of a debate.

d-usa wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

azazel the cat wrote:

Manchu wrote:No that doesn't adequately capture the issue. That's just the same tired assumptions and sentiments trotted out once again.

Then please explain to me how Hollywood giving money to the Brady Center for Prevention of Gun Violence is any different than donating money to the Ku Klux Klan. Because outside of some minor semantics, the comparison is apt. Both organizations have the goal of repressing or eliminating the freedoms of a minority group (gun owners).

Corrected your typo.

Are gun owners really a minority?

In New York and Illinois they are.

Frazzled wrote:

d-usa wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

azazel the cat wrote:

Manchu wrote:No that doesn't adequately capture the issue. That's just the same tired assumptions and sentiments trotted out once again.

Then please explain to me how Hollywood giving money to the Brady Center for Prevention of Gun Violence is any different than donating money to the Ku Klux Klan. Because outside of some minor semantics, the comparison is apt. Both organizations have the goal of repressing or eliminating the freedoms of a minority group (gun owners).

Corrected your typo.

Are gun owners really a minority?

In New York and Illinois they are.

Well if we are talking about some of those cities, then legal gun owners might be a minority, but not gun owners (counting the criminal folk)

Are responsible gun owners really a minority?

Fixed

To a few on here. I do believe so

Jihadin wrote:

Are responsible gun owners really a minority?

Fixed

To a few on here. I do believe so

From listening to the comments made on the gun forums I frequent, I can almost believe that though.

There are so many facepalm moments on them I don't even know where to start. Sometimes gun owners are our own worst enemy.

Frazzled wrote:

azazel the cat wrote:

Manchu wrote:No that doesn't adequately capture the issue. That's just the same tired assumptions and sentiments trotted out once again.

Then please explain to me how Hollywood giving money to the Brady Center for Prevention of Gun Violence is any different than donating money to the Ku Klux Klan. Because outside of some minor semantics, the comparison is apt. Both organizations have the goal of repressing or eliminating the freedoms of a minority group (gun owners).

Corrected your typo.

This is why I love you Frazzled...just so much win.

d-usa wrote:

Jihadin wrote:

Are responsible gun owners really a minority?

Fixed

To a few on here. I do believe so

From listening to the comments made on the gun forums I frequent, I can almost believe that though.

There are so many facepalm moments on them I don't even know where to start. Sometimes gun owners are our own worst enemy.

Purchasing a gun should also require an IQ test and a psychological screening.

Purchasing a gun should also require an IQ test and a psychological screening.

I like that Gamer...but
todays education is not as good as our education in the pass (think your near 40....think)

Psycho screening needs to be paid by the individual attempting to purchase a fire arm

Manchu wrote:No, what I am saying is that political expression is necessary in a democracy and that the government should not step in to give the advantage to either side of a debate.

Sort of. Certain kinds of political expression are valuable to certain democracies, but all political expression is not valuable to all democracies.

For example, Latin democracies are quite happy to tolerate attempted revolutions because the military tends to protect the rich, and the history of the relevant countries involves lots of attempted revolutions. Another example is striking in France, which is not nearly so well tolerated elsewhere.

The state, and nation, give advantage to different sides by means of what they want, or how they're trying to achieve what they want.

Fair points, d. To be more specific, I am repulsed by the idea of any level of government in the United States taking action against a business owner because he donates to certain lobbyist groups.

Manchu wrote:Fair points, d. To be more specific, I am repulsed by the idea of any level of government in the United States taking action against a business owner because he donates to certain lobbyist groups.

So someone, lets say the Mayor of a city, is not allowed to express an opinion on a subject because they are in office? Of course, isn't the point of lobbyist groups to lobby the government, which means that people in government aren't allowed to have a say, or even any action, when dealing with people whose express purpose is to deal with them? The business gives money to people to get the government to do what they want, and in turn the people in government give the people who give the lobbyists certain concessions on behalf of their 'constituents'. It is a snake eating it's own tail; it isn't as if these are disconnected elements. I kind of feel like I know what you are trying to get at, but it still feels a bit to broad.



Also, pastor calls for the death penalty for the Muppets for supporting gay marriage. So, there is that.

Manchu wrote:In that sense, donating money to a pro-gay political action group that lobbies to shut down the business of people with certain religious views is just like donating money to the KKK. After all, they both repress and aim to eliminate the freedoms of a minority group.

Well spoken.

Ahtman wrote:So someone, lets say the Mayor of a city, is not allowed to express an opinion on a subject because they are in office?

Sure they are. I think they should not be allowed to use their office to obstruct lawful business transacted by people who disagree with them.

I think it says something depressing about our culture that it is so hard to explain or understand why a mayor shouldn't use his bully pulpit to shut out a business on these grounds.

Manchu wrote:I think it says something depressing about our culture that it is so hard to explain or understand why a mayor shouldn't use his bully pulpit to shut out a business on these grounds.

It's more depressing that you think that the mayor shouldn't. The bully pulpit isn't an actual ban. And if the words the mayor says about the company are true, then the people of the city have every right to know about the gak-fether business practices of the trashy, homophobic businesses like this.

Emperor knows that the bully pulpit has been used for far lesser things.

I guess what I am saying is that I don't think the bully pulpit should be used to bully at all -- whether it's bullying gays or people who disagree that anyone has the right to marry someone else of the same sex.

Manchu wrote:

Ahtman wrote:So someone, lets say the Mayor of a city, is not allowed to express an opinion on a subject because they are in office?

Sure they are. I think they should not be allowed to use their office to obstruct lawful business transacted by people who disagree with them.

Barring the fact that I don't believe that any government official has actually done any more than say they don't like the views expressed (though a few came close to be sure), are you saying it is ok when business uses it's massive buying power and influence to obstruct people who they disagree with them? When a business buys legislation that is ok, but if a elected government officials use their duly appointed powers granted to them by their office (not talking anything illegal here) to prevent a company from buying legislation that is bad? Seems a bit off.

What seems to be hard to understand, actually, is that other people besides the CEO of CFA are allowed to have an opinion on the subject as well; that people and business other than CFA can use their money to influence process and culture as well. It seems odd to attack those who are doing the same thing CFA is doing, expressing a political opinion and using their money to back it up, but somehow they are treated like they are the intolerant ones. One can't use the 'they are allowed to have an opinion' to counter someone else's opinion.

People took pictures of themselves at Chik-fil-a on cell phones manufactured by pro-gay companies and using OS's produced by pro-gay companies. They were probably uploaded to facebook, twitter, ect which are all pro-gay companies, and did so on cellular service provided by one of the four major operators (AY&T, Verizon, Sprint, T-Mobile) which are all pro-gay companies. While at CFA they probably got a beverage, which is supplied exclusively by Coca-cola, a pro-gay company. If they used a VISA, Mastercard, or Amercian Express to pay for their meal they again helped support a pro-gay company. If they drove there in a GM, Ford, Toyota, or Chryler car there, well, you get the point by now. Maybe this isn't so much about supporting CFA's anti-gay rights policies as it is giving more support to pro-gay rights companies.

Manchu wrote:I guess what I am saying is that I don't think the bully pulpit should be used to bully at all -- whether it's bullying gays or people who disagree that anyone has the right to marry someone else of the same sex.

If the mayor had said the same threatening things about a business that promoted gay marraige, then the other side would have accused him of misuse of his position.

Government officials do not get to use their offices to vent their personal opinions about whatever issues on the rest of us. This is exactly why Catholic politicians find themselves voting for pro-choice laws -- and the inability for some of the left to understand why the mayors' actions are repugnant is exactly like the inability of some of the right to understand how Catholic politicians could support pro-choice (or even pro-gay) laws. Business owners do not have the same constraints on their expression as government officials.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Relapse wrote:

Manchu wrote:I guess what I am saying is that I don't think the bully pulpit should be used to bully at all -- whether it's bullying gays or people who disagree that anyone has the right to marry someone else of the same sex.

If the mayor had said the same threatening things about a business that promoted gay marraige, then the other side would have accused him of misuse of his position.

And yet they are pretending not to understand how this is the same. It's mind-numbing.

If you're going to claim that the bully pulpit shouldn't be used at all-- that elected officials shouldn't speak out on any issue-- I don't really see how we can agree on this.

Ever.

My goal is not to get you to agree with me. And "speaking out" is one thing -- but I don't think that's what's going on here. What I see is the same old methods, hateful demagoguery, turned on new targets. Our society will never be safe for anyone -- even gay people -- as long as we try to address established social inequities by advocating novel ones.

Melissia wrote:If you're going to claim that the bully pulpit shouldn't be used at all-- that elected officials shouldn't speak out on any issue-- I don't really see how we can agree on this.

Ever.

It went far beyond just speaking out on a subject. When an elected official says something equivelant to, "Don't let the sun set on you in these parts.", as the mayor did, that is out and out wrong.

Manchu wrote:understand how this is the same. It's mind-numbing.

Pretending that all causes are somehow equally valid is what is mind numbing. Pretending that not giving a company money to fund it's pet political projects is somehow infringing on it's rights is mind numbing. Pretending that the CEO expressing his opinion and using his money to further his personal religious beliefs is sacrosanct, but other CEOs and non-CEOs expressing their opinion of him is somehow a violation is mind numbing.

I've worked at food banks and homeless shelters and I've never seen as many Christians there as I have as there were at CFA, and that is something Jesus actually advocated.

Manchu wrote:Government officials do not get to use their offices to vent their personal opinions about whatever issues on the rest of us. This is exactly why Catholic politicians find themselves voting for pro-choice laws -- and the inability for some of the left to understand why the mayors' actions are repugnant is exactly like the inability of some of the right to understand how Catholic politicians could support pro-choice (or even pro-gay) laws. Business owners do not have the same constraints on their expression as government officials.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Relapse wrote:

Manchu wrote:I guess what I am saying is that I don't think the bully pulpit should be used to bully at all -- whether it's bullying gays or people who disagree that anyone has the right to marry someone else of the same sex.

If the mayor had said the same threatening things about a business that promoted gay marraige, then the other side would have accused him of misuse of his position.

And yet they are pretending not to understand how this is the same. It's mind-numbing.

I see from this thread if your against what the mayor said, you're automatically a homophobic, card carrying member of the KKK.

Relapse wrote:It went far beyond just speaking out on a subject. When an elected official says something equivelant to, "Don't let the sun set on you in these parts.", as the mayor did, that is out and out wrong.

That isn't even close to what he said. The statement implied no violence whatsoever, whereas that is implicitly a call for violence. There is a difference between "we don't care for that kind of attitude" and "We'll kill you if you come here". I know creating fake martyrs and fake battles in the fake War on Christianity is part of the appeal for some, but this is ridiculous.

The issue at hand involves mayors (not CEOs) saying "your beliefs and practices mean you are unwelcome here." I have no issue with any of these mayors committing their personal wealth to lobbying a cause. What I find troubling is committing public resources to such campaigns. If one mayor can say "people who don't advocate gay marriage aren't welcome" then another can surely say "gay people are not welcome here." That's not the kind of battle that this should be. The goal should be to have an inclusive society. Using public office to issue statements fostering exclusivity is counterproductive.

In effect, I believe the appropriate mayoral response -- note response, not initiative -- would be to simply state that all are welcome. Giving gay people a greater stake in civil society really does not have to come at the expense of diminishing anyone else's stake. By their actions, these mayors have merely confirmed to both their ideological enemies and to people like myself who would not otherwise oppose them that their rhetoric about a better society is intrinsically empty. This is just more "eye for an eye" pandering -- this is not building a society premised on a commitment to the dignity of all its constituents.

The best society we can possibly build is not one that proceeds from the notion that "whoever is not with us is against us" but rather "whoever is not against us is with us." We can see that longstanding prejudices against homosexuals have largely drained away by this attitude: many Americans have noticed that homosexuals are not committed to destroying their communities simply because they want the same privileges or rights with regard to their significant others as heterosexuals enjoy. Changing tacks now and insisting that we must root out all who aren't yet on board is a sad and sinister development. The only future that can lead to is entrenchment of hostility.

Manchu wrote:The issue at hand involves mayors (not CEOs) saying "your beliefs and practices mean you are unwelcome here." I have no issue with any of these mayors committing their personal wealth to lobbying a cause. What I find troubling is committing public resources to such campaigns. If one mayor can say "people who don't advocate gay marriage aren't welcome" then another can surely say "gay people are not welcome here."

Expressing disapproval in the organization, and using the bully pulpit to point out that they are scummy trash who participate in gay-bashing through their political donations, is a perfectly valid use of political office.

I don't like bullies, even the ones in my political party.

Manchu wrote:I don't like bullies, even the ones in my political party.

True dat...

Those mayors (or any political office) are free to use the bully pulpit as they see fit...

Just as "we" voters are free NOT to vote for them come election time.

This discourse is necessary in a free society.

Manchu wrote:I don't like bullies, even the ones in my political party.

I believe that it's an elected official's duty to speak on behalf of those who elected them.

If what the official is saying is bad, they should elect someone else.

Ahtman wrote:

Relapse wrote:It went far beyond just speaking out on a subject. When an elected official says something equivelant to, "Don't let the sun set on you in these parts.", as the mayor did, that is out and out wrong.

That isn't even close to what he said. The statement implied no violence whatsoever, whereas that is implicitly a call for violence. There is a difference between "we don't care for that kind of attitude" and "We'll kill you if you come here". I know creating fake martyrs and fake battles in the fake War on Christianity is part of the appeal for some, but this is ridiculous.

It was definitely the political equivalent of such a statement.

Manchu wrote:The issue at hand involves mayors (not CEOs) saying "your beliefs and practices mean you are unwelcome here." I have no issue with any of these mayors committing their personal wealth to lobbying a cause. What I find troubling is committing public resources to such campaigns.

But they do that all the time via the police and city ordinances. The only difference is that things like theft, murder, and zoning aren't so divided as gay marriage.

Well, zoning might be.

Manchu wrote:
If one mayor can say "people who don't advocate gay marriage aren't welcome" then another can surely say "gay people are not welcome here." That's not the kind of battle that this should be. The goal should be to have an inclusive society. Using public office to issue statements fostering exclusivity is counterproductive.

How do you have an inclusive society when both sides of the battle are deliberately attempting to exclude the other? Some gay people want to get married, and their opponents want to live in a world in which they can't get married. There's no middle ground there, at least not any that extends beyond "feth, and be happy."

Manchu wrote:
Giving gay people a greater stake in civil society really does not have to come at the expense of diminishing anyone else's stake.

Its not just gay people though, its people that accept gay people (and are generally comfortable with sexuality). I hate to use the phrase "culture war" but its starting to look like that because there is a pretty massive disconnect between people like me, and people like Rubio.

Also, I disagree with you, I think giving gay people (and their supporters) a greater stake in civil society necessarily reduces the stake that others have. The social conservative crowd is right about that.

Whats really bad. "IF" the local state governments has the "power" to prevent CEO from expanding their business into their areas of responsibilites. The CEO's could turn it into their favor by "fine we build else where."

So all the CEO's have to say "We donate to anti gay lobbist"
Boeing
Lockheed Martin
Auto makers
etc etc
Get the reaction they want and build plants elsewhere that's more profitable to them. Thats a long legal battle for the Unions to fight.....OUCH

dogma wrote:How do you have an inclusive society when both sides of the battle are deliberately attempting to exclude the other?

I do not believe that is the necessary disposition of society but rather is promoted by certain parties to pursue interests that have nothing to do with either "traditional" values or gay "rights." As I understand it, support of homosexual marriage is a generational issue. Somehow, younger people -- even religious people like myself -- are not offended by the idea that the state might allow gay couples to get married. I do not conceive of myself, even considering my own sacramental understanding of marriage, losing any stake in society for that reason.

dogma wrote:I hate to use the phrase "culture war"

Then, in reference to what I wrote above, don't use it. Don't use it and don't enact it and don't promulgate it -- and don't participate in it.

dogma wrote:I think giving gay people (and their supporters) a greater stake in civil society necessarily reduces the stake that others have.

Again, see above.

Melissia wrote:

Akroma06 wrote:So where is he able to restrict rights?

By trying to deny the right to marry for homosexuals through funding political action groups, and through funding anti-homosexual organizations which actively go about trying to make the lives of homosexuals miserable.

I think the real problem here is political action groups and lobbyists. If you give someone a big enough lever -

Jihadin wrote:Time to......REINSTATE SPQR!!!


But I shall be AWSOMIST MAXIMIST


just because I'm watching the movie

Why god why? That movie was... fairly bad.

Is it not part of a Mayor's job to speak for their city? While it's inappropriate to misuse authority, unless they're actually denying permits or similar, is it really misuse of authority?

Manchu wrote:I don't like bullies, even the ones in my political party.

Is he the bully, or the guy standing up to the bully on behalf of his constituents? Maybe I watched too many 80s movies growing up, but I do find something appealing about seeing the bully get a punch in the eye from a kid his own size.

Manchu wrote:Fair points, d. To be more specific, I am repulsed by the idea of any level of government in the United States taking action against a business owner because he donates to certain lobbyist groups.

I concur. If we're talking about action, in the sense of actually preventing the company from doing business. As opposed to expressing an opinion about that business/the owners of that business.

Ouze wrote:What I do care about is when they start to use their corporate funding to push their religious leanings via the monopolistic force of government onto other people, stealing their civil liberties, as happened with Prop. 8. The real mystery to me is why self-professed libertarian and small-government republicans would support this sort of government intrusion into private lives.

Because the vast majority of libertarians and small-government republicans are completely incapable of conceiving of the importance of rights outside of the ones they personally want to enjoy. It's why they've built an ideology nominally based around the idea of personal freedom and somehow ended up thinking the only freedoms that need protecting are property rights, gun laws, and sometimes drugs, and that everything else is up for grabs. Because in their little worlds the only time they ever feel infringed is when they don't get as much money as they wanted, when someone talks about them owning less guns, or (for some of them) when they want to smoke a joint.

They sometimes throw some lip service ideas out to people being able to follow their own religion, but only in the most superficial manner possible.

They personally don't want to be gay, because they're not gay, and so that isn't a freedom they worry about at all. The idea of liberties important to other people just don't matter at all. If they, they'd start sounding like a liberal.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:Its not intrusion. Its free speech on a topic that the majority of Americans agree with and the other side laughs at and generally screams BIGOT! at every opportunity.

Don't want to be called a bigot... then don't support a bigoted position.

I don't agree with the guy other than traditional marriage was indeed a tradition - a religious tradition. Government has no place in it.

I've explained to you many, many times that absolutely, 100% isn't true. The origin of marriage has far more of a place in inheritance and property law than it does in religious ceremony. But you just keep ignoring that, because you'd rather have a pretend reason to keep denying gay people equal rights.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

SlaveToDorkness wrote:And Dems have no history of jumping on an issue just to garner votes from a certain sector of the population.

Of course they do. Jumping onto an issue to garner votes is what politics is.

The difference, which should be very fething obvious to everyone, is whether the issue at hand is justifiable. Denying equal rights to a minority is not justifiable at all.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Akroma06 wrote:He did not say that he HATES gay marriage. Words need to be used as they were. He stated that he SUPPORTS traditional marriage.

Unless he wants to return to no divorce marriage, then he doesn't support traditional marriage. Or wants to return to marriage in which the wife is legally obligated to have sex with her husband when he wants, then he doesn't support traditional marriage.

What he does support is excluding one section of the population from marriage, because of their sexual preference. He uses made up nonsense to justify this, because he's stuck in a hard place, as he doesn't like thinking of himself as a bigot, but wants to side with the people he always sides with, who have chosen as a group to support a bigoted idea.

Mannahnin wrote:Is it not part of a Mayor's job to speak for their city? While it's inappropriate to misuse authority, unless they're actually denying permits or similar, is it really misuse of authority?

Well, yes, if he had a referendum and 100% of the returns were pro gay marriage and anti chicken, then yeah, but if people he is supposed to be representing either disagree with him or don't care on a significant level, then he isn't really speaking for his city.

He is, though. They can vote him out if they disagree, but despite the lines at the chicken stores, Bostonians in general are pro-gay marriage. The idea that he can only act or speak if 100% of constituants agree with the action or word is silly.

Manchu wrote:I do not believe that is the necessary disposition of society but rather is promoted by certain parties to pursue interests that have nothing to do with either "traditional" values or gay "rights." As I understand it, support of homosexual marriage is a generational issue. Somehow, younger people -- even religious people like myself -- are not offended by the idea that the state might allow gay couples to get married. I do not conceive of myself, even considering my own sacramental understanding of marriage, losing any stake in society for that reason.

I don't either, but many other people seemingly do. We're also not the people losing our stake in society , its the elderly and socially conservative that are.

Mannahnin wrote:He is, though. They can vote him out if they disagree, but despite the lines at the chicken stores, Bostonians in general are pro-gay marriage. The idea that he can only act or speak if 100% of constituants agree with the action or word is silly.

Whilst I was being slightly hyperbolic with the percentage, where is the cutoff point? How do you determine what percentage of the population is sufficient to where supporting them become supporting your city? 51%? Just because a population is 'generally pro-gay marriage', does that exact same percentage translate to being 'generally against chick fil a' ? You can't concretely defend a statement like this without evidence, based on generalities. Or do we assume the entire population is supporting him until they vote him out? Cause that would be silly.

If they don't think he's doing a good job of representing them, they vote him out. Lots of politicians have had long careers while still occasionally saying silly things.

I'd rather a politician make himself look silly standing up to bigotry than by being one himself (Strom Thurmond, anyone?).

Mannahnin wrote:If they don't think he's doing a good job of representing them, they vote him out. Lots of politicians have had long careers while still occasionally saying silly things.

I'd rather a politician make himself look silly standing up to bigotry than by being one himself (Strom Thurmond, anyone?).

Right, I get that, but if 52% of his city staunchly support him, 33% rabidly oppose, and the rest don't care, he can't exactly fall back behind the mantle of 'representing his city', unless he is using that as a euphemism for the far more honest 'representing those who voted for me'.
And yeah, bigotry bad (unless it's directed at bigots?! mindfeth), but that isn't really the issue here. The real issue is that political activity groups and lobbyists are bad, because they give power to bigots with money.

Well, if 52% of the city support him, and elect him, that's how representative democracy works, right? We as a community elect someone to represent us all, and to implement governmental policies and regulations for the collective weal.

Political activity and lobby groups give power to people with money, whether bigots or not. And that's kind of an unavoidable reality of politics and life. Ideally we limit how much they can do, so our politicians don't wind up bought by the highest bidder.

Maybe Menino's not so different in some ways from, say, George Wallace. In that both are/were guys not afraid to share their opinions or pander to their base. But I do see a material difference in the principles they stood up for.

Bromsy wrote:Whilst I was being slightly hyperbolic with the percentage, where is the cutoff point? How do you determine what percentage of the population is sufficient to where supporting them become supporting your city? 51%? Just because a population is 'generally pro-gay marriage', does that exact same percentage translate to being 'generally against chick fil a' ? You can't concretely defend a statement like this without evidence, based on generalities. Or do we assume the entire population is supporting him until they vote him out? Cause that would be silly.

Well, the percentage of the population needed to justify your action depends entirely on your action. For instance, if he was to say 'we will not tolerate you in our city and I will do every quasi-legal thing at my disposal to prevent you operating here' then the number would have to be pretty close to 100%.

On the other hand, writing a letter to say 'you're being a dick and in this city we don't like people who are being dicks in the way you're being a dick and nothing more than that'... well then you're probably justified with a broad majority of people happening to think that what the Chik-Fil-A CEO is doing is dickish.

Chik Fil-A is laughing all the way to the bank...

http://bottomline.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/08/02/13088211-chick-fil-a-protest-marks-rise-of-eat-in-movement?lite


The big takeaway.."Sam Hamadeh, CEO of research firm PrivCo, estimated that if the protest could have brought in $8 million in extra revenue for Chick-fil-A, assuming it got a 50 percent bump in daily sales."


GG

You know, calling marriage a religious thing means that marriage cannot be denied to homosexuals, because many religious sects would gladly marry homosexuals.

Not that the homophobes would ever listen to that kind of argument.

CT GAMER wrote:

d-usa wrote:

Jihadin wrote:

Are responsible gun owners really a minority?

Fixed

To a few on here. I do believe so

From listening to the comments made on the gun forums I frequent, I can almost believe that though.

There are so many facepalm moments on them I don't even know where to start. Sometimes gun owners are our own worst enemy.

Utilizing your Fourth Amendment Rights against illegal search should also require an IQ test and a psychological screening.

Well whats good for the good is good for the gander.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Manchu wrote:

Ahtman wrote:So someone, lets say the Mayor of a city, is not allowed to express an opinion on a subject because they are in office?

Sure they are. I think they should not be allowed to use their office to obstruct lawful business transacted by people who disagree with them.

I think it says something depressing about our culture that it is so hard to explain or understand why a mayor shouldn't use his bully pulpit to shut out a business on these grounds.

Agreed. Houston once again must show away. The Mayor came out (pardon the pun) expressing her First A rights to not purchase CFA products, but is strongly against any official using their official capacity to influence CFA.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Melissia wrote:If you're going to claim that the bully pulpit shouldn't be used at all-- that elected officials shouldn't speak out on any issue-- I don't really see how we can agree on this.

Ever.

He's not saying this. How are you getting that?

Freedom of speech is present. That doesn't mean the mayor or whoever can then say "you can't come here darkey er, CFA. I'll shut you down. "
Remember this stuff goes both ways.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Melissia wrote:You know, calling marriage a religious thing means that marriage cannot be denied to homosexuals, because many religious sects would gladly marry homosexuals.

.

EXACTLY!

Amusing story this. Homophobia from a manufacturer of crappy processed chicken.

A bit like those hotel owners who refuse to give homosexuals rooms. By which I mean unbelievably stupid.

generalgrog wrote:Chik Fil-A is laughing all the way to the bank...

http://bottomline.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/08/02/13088211-chick-fil-a-protest-marks-rise-of-eat-in-movement?lite


The big takeaway.."Sam Hamadeh, CEO of research firm PrivCo, estimated that if the protest could have brought in $8 million in extra revenue for Chick-fil-A, assuming it got a 50 percent bump in daily sales."

So your big takeaway is that Chik-Fil-A refused to comment on sales (which you intentionally omitted) and some essentially random guy, who isn't associated with the company, has absolutely no data on what specific sales were like that day (since, again, CFA didn't release any), made a wild-ass guess at a nice round number - 50% - and that's the moral of the story?

Unfortunately for you, I also run a market research firm. I have the same data about sales that day - none - and by my calculation, they actually lost eleventy billion dollars, and will likely go bankrupt soon.

I've seen people in this thread compare chic-fil-a unfavorably to KFC's chicken. Which, given the quality of KFCs chicken tells me all I need to know about them. The pathetic, backwards stance of the companies leadership and the pitiful groups they give their money to are just the goopey frosting on the gakky-ass dry cake. I for am certainly not enraged there won't be any opening near me.

I'

ve seen people in this thread compare chic-fil-a unfavorably to KFC's chicken. Which, given the quality of KFCs chicken tells me all I need to know about them. The pathetic, backwards stance of the companies leadership and the pitiful groups they give their money to are just the goopey frosting on the gakky-ass dry cake. I for am certainly not enraged there won't be any opening near me.

Whoa whoa slow down now. I believe no one mixed up chicken sandwich from CFA (yummy) the biscuits from KFC/Popeye (I choose both) and fried chicken from either KFC or Popeye...we still didn't cover everyone flavor of hot sauce with the mention fried chickens...I still refuse to click on the McNugget link

Individuals open up a franchise so maybe someone is already toying with the idea to open one up near you already

Herman Cain, the onetime GOP presidential frontrunner, weighed into the Chick-fil-A controversy during an appearance on Fox News on Friday and insisted that gay people are protesting the company’s opposition to equality for attention.
“This is simply an attempt on the part of the gay community to try and leverage their beliefs on another institution, a private company, since they can’t seem to get enough attention. That is what this is all about,” Cain told host Eric Bolling.

Cain, who claimed that he spoke with Chick-fil-A CEO Dan Cathy, said that the company’s sales exceeded $30 million during Wednesday’s “appreciation day,” “almost twice his previous high.” “They are going do take a lot of the excess profits they got on that day and contribute it to the charitable organizations they support in even bigger numbers,” Cain added.
The fast food chain has already donated millions of dollars to anti-gay organizations, including “reparative therapy” groups like Exodus International. Chick-fil-A is one of a very small number of major national companies that refuses to offer any employment protections to LGBT employees. In fact, the company received a 0 rating from the Human Rights Campaign and has a record of firing employees it believes engage in “sinful” behavior. Activists from across the country are protesting the company after its president condemned homosexuality in a recent radio interview.
On Thursday, Cain appeared on Fox News and praised Cathy for being “man enough and Christian enough” to oppose same-sex marriage.

So does reading the bible cause historical amnesia and the inability to draw parrallels between the experiences of one's own minority group and those of another?

Good thing Rosa Parks wasnt a lesbian...

Ouze wrote:
Unfortunately for you, I also run a market research firm. I have the same data about sales that day - none - and by my calculation, they actually lost eleventy billion dollars, and will likely go bankrupt soon.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Melissia wrote:You know, calling marriage a religious thing...

There's only one religion in the US Mel, Christianity*.



*The only Christians are conservative evangelicals, Baptists, and Catholics.