Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Melissia wrote:

Relapse wrote:

Melissia wrote:

Relapse wrote:I agree tonot arguing against straw man nonsense.

So then, you disagree with your assertion that we can't deny businesses for political reasons?

Because we certainly do it.

I take from your reply that you support execution or internment camps for dissenters .

Dodging the subject are we?

How sad.

Just coming up with a point as valid as the strawman you produced for me.

Nitros14 wrote:
Let's all be wonderful friends

I would rather have a gay old time.

I would rather have a gay old time

.

exalted

Occasionally, I feel old.

Damn, I gotta eat CFA tomorrow.

Well, it appears this scandal has legitimately hurt Chic-Fil-A. Yaaaaaaay! Less money to Chic-Fil-A means less money to homophobic organizations.

http://research.yougov.com/news/2012/07/27/chck-fil-takes-perception-dive-fast-food-eaters/

dogma wrote:It depends on city. In Chicago, for example, its a de facto ban.

Fair point. Well, it's a de facto ban until the mayor is indicted, then you have to find out if the new one hates you as well.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Relapse wrote:From almost everything I've read, including the letter at first, the Jackass wrote a letter that pretty much says, don't open a restaurant here
Because of your stated beliefs. If that was done to a minority, it would be equated to pre civil rights 1960's activities.

But it wasn't done to a minority. The threat in this case carried nothing like the potency it would when sent to a minority in 1960.

You can't just pretend that power can be, or is wielded equally against everyone. CEOs are not, in fact, a victimised minority.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Relapse wrote:That will be a good thing, but I foresee "code violations" and lost permits for Chic Fil A.

I think you may have a slightly exaggerated concept of the ability of a mayor to influence a health inspector.

And an even stranger idea of the sort of mayor who is likely to use his power. Those guys don't send personally signed letters suggesting they're going to try and misuse the power granted to them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

generalgrog wrote:It's a minority only because a minority of people behave that way...it's not an "ethnic" minority from the classic view of what being a "minority" has always meant.

A minority is group with a smaller popultion, or one with less political or economic power than the majority. That's what it has always meant.

Anyway we've been down this path before..I realize that on Dakka, I will always be in the minority on this issue.. so be it.

It is a great, great thing that your side of the debate is rapidly losing ground.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Monster Rain wrote:I'm waiting for the inevitable backlash when cities with more right-leaning tendencies start attempting the same thing against companies with openly "liberal" policies.

When they what? Write letters saying 'I don't like what you're saying', and later clarify to state they won't actually be doing anything about it?

Oh, I too fear the reckoning.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Monster Rain wrote:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/16/saudi-arabia-bans-gays-tom-boys-schools_n_1428907.html

http://www.eia.gov/countries/country-data.cfm?fips=SA

I suggest you all stop buying gasoline as well. Which is to say, at what point exactly do idealism and reality intersect?

If undertaking, and encouraging others undertake a boycott on oil and petroleum products until gas companies stopped buying from Saudi Arabia or Kenya or whoever, to in turn force those countries to improve their treatment of sexual minorities, then it'd be a good thing. I think it'd be a pretty big long shot to get any kind of meaningful change, but hey if you want to try it go ahead.

But more importantly, whether or not the above is undertaken doesn't change, in any way, whether or not it is right to boycott Chic-Fil-A for funding anti-gay lobbying groups.

Note that the real difference is in the actual, sensible definition of 'free speech'. I don't believe it's right to boycott Chic-Fil-A if the CEO was just talking about how much he hated gay people, but when he acting by giving money away, then it is only reasonable to act in turn, but not giving him any money to hand over to those groups.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Monster Rain wrote:I think we agree that the viewpoint held by the owner of CFA is on the wrong side of history, and in time the idea of opposition to Same Sex Marriage will be held in the same regard as the earth being the center of the universe.

#Common Ground, #End On a Friendly-ish Note

Yes, and that time seems to be coming quicker all the time. I mean, just think back to, like 1990, and how contraversial it was to suggest there was nothing wrong with homosexual people, and now we're seeing not just tolerance, but actual acceptance through majority support in many places for gay marriage.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

SlaveToDorkness wrote:Damn, I gotta eat CFA tomorrow.

What's that? It's becoming obvious that a significant portion of the right wing has long since abandoned any kind of claim to a higher moral concept, and basically just devolved into doing whatever spites the opposition in their glorious cultural war? Surely not.

sebster wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:I'm waiting for the inevitable backlash when cities with more right-leaning tendencies start attempting the same thing against companies with openly "liberal" policies.

When they what? Write letters saying 'I don't like what you're saying', and later clarify to state they won't actually be doing anything about it?

Oh, I too fear the reckoning.

I'm not so much "fearing a reckoning" as "looking forward to people having the opposite opinion on this sort of behavior when they don't agree with the motivation behind it."

I'm a bit of a people watcher, you see.

Monster Rain wrote:I'm not so much "fearing a reckoning" as "looking forward to people having the opposite opinion on this sort of behavior when they don't agree with the motivation behind it."

I'm a bit of a people watcher, you see.

Yeah, I get that, and I know if it was the other way around then we'd have the same argument, except the left wing people would be claiming the mayor was wrong and the right wing defending him.

But I think the level of outrage against the mayor is, apart from the usual partisanship, dependant largely on what the mayor is actually doing. If, for instance, the mayor was actually telling this guy 'set up a store here and I'll shut you down' then I think you'd get a lot of people who are defending him now to start saying 'actually that's not cool'.

To be honest, the most surprising part of all this, to me, is how people have been willing to claim what the CEO is doing is free speech, while condemning the mayor. After all, all the mayor did was send a letter, in which any actual threat was somewhere between vague and non-existant, and when asked about it he clarified he wouldn't actually be acting in any way. That's nothing but speach and yet people seem willing to ignore what it actually is and start pretending the mayor somehow acted to ban a Chic-Fil-A store or something.

Whereas the CEO is giving money, millions of dollars to anti-gay groups. And not just your run of the mill activist groups, but outfits like The Family Research Centre, who are a really hate-filled bunch of bigots, and identified the Southern Poverty Law Centre as a hate group. That kind of thing isn't just speach, its an act. And yet the right wing pundits are out in force, constantly repeating the line that the CEO is being targeted for his stance, or for his speach, and completely missing the point that it isn't just words, but the handing over of money to some really hateful groups.

It's very strange. It might just the same old political bs, a piece of spin where they pretend their guy nothing more than give his opinion while at the same time pretending their guy is totally acting to ban restaurants, but that's not the vibe I'm getting. It seems like there's really is a point of disconnect here, where the right wing pundits actually don't get the difference between 'having an opinion' and actually acting on that opinion when it comes to this issue.

Maybe the whole debate, like so many other issues, has just become so much noise, something no-one expects to actually amount to anything, that the pundits have actually lost track between the noise of opinions and people actually doing stuff. I don't know, but it isn't very healthy.

Monster Rain wrote:

Nitros14 wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/16/saudi-arabia-bans-gays-tom-boys-schools_n_1428907.html

http://www.eia.gov/countries/country-data.cfm?fips=SA

I suggest you all stop buying gasoline as well.

Saudi Arabia provides less than 20% of the United States' oil.

Ah yes. Rationalize! Though you don't seem to have your numbers correct...

http://www.eia.gov/countries/country-data.cfm?fips=SA

It would seem that combining Saudi Arabia and Nigeria's contributions, the largest percentage of the USA's oil consumption is supplied by places that aren't nice to LGBT folks.

That doesn't mean that people have to support companies that are anti-gay.

d-usa wrote:What about all the gay people that have jobs and earn money thanks to CFA? The company actually has a stronger anti-discrimination policy than many other fast-food places, and between the company itself and all the other companies that have jobs because of them (construction companies, suppliers, farmers, even coca-cola supplying the drinks) there are many gay folks employed because of them.

You can protest the company all you want and boycott them into oblivion. But they will also cause many gay folks to loose their jobs and support as well.

I'm sorry to go here, but I can't help but read this and think of Randall arguing over the inherent fairness it is to kill all the clerical and construction staff who were present on the second Death Star.

Rebel scum...

Imperial Lackey

wait....which side would Chik Fil A be on?

sebster wrote:It seems like there's really is a point of disconnect here, where the right wing pundits actually don't get the difference between 'having an opinion' and actually acting on that opinion when it comes to this issue.

After Citizens United, maybe they're right. But I get what you're saying. I think that if Cathy really had just said something about not liking Gay Marriage and the company wasn't giving all that money to the groups you mentioned this reaction would be a bit over the top.

Kilkrazy wrote:That doesn't mean that people have to support companies that are anti-gay.

I just don't think most people are willing to follow that line of thought to its logical conclusion.

Jihadin wrote:Imperial Lackey

wait....which side would Chik Fil A be on?

Trade Federation, naturally!

Trade Federation, naturally

Beans and bullets..eerrrr blasters DIE JEDI!!!!

d-usa wrote:What about all the gay people that have jobs and earn money thanks to CFA? The company actually has a stronger anti-discrimination policy than many other fast-food places, and between the company itself and all the other companies that have jobs because of them (construction companies, suppliers, farmers, even coca-cola supplying the drinks) there are many gay folks employed because of them.

"Hey, we hate please don't use this term on Dakka. Thanks.Reds8n, but we probably have some homos working for us, so leave us alone as we spread and support homophobic hatred or they might get fired..."

So thats your arguement?

CT GAMER wrote:

d-usa wrote:What about all the gay people that have jobs and earn money thanks to CFA? The company actually has a stronger anti-discrimination policy than many other fast-food places, and between the company itself and all the other companies that have jobs because of them (construction companies, suppliers, farmers, even coca-cola supplying the drinks) there are many gay folks employed because of them.

"Hey, we hateplease don't use this term on Dakka. Thanks.Reds8n , but we probably have some homos working for us, so leave us alone as we spread and support homophobic hatred or they might get fired..."

So thats your arguement?

Reported for using derogatory language. If you cannot make an argument without using a very hurtful word (even if it is ironically) then just quit the argument.

d-usa wrote:

CT GAMER wrote:

d-usa wrote:What about all the gay people that have jobs and earn money thanks to CFA? The company actually has a stronger anti-discrimination policy than many other fast-food places, and between the company itself and all the other companies that have jobs because of them (construction companies, suppliers, farmers, even coca-cola supplying the drinks) there are many gay folks employed because of them.

"Hey, we hate color=red]please don't use this term on Dakka. Thanks.Reds8n[/color] , but we probably have some homos working for us, so leave us alone as we spread and support homophobic hatred or they might get fired..."

So thats your arguement?

Reported for using derogatory language. If you cannot make an argument without using a very hurtful word (even if it is ironically) then just quit the argument.

I'll take that as a yes...

I hate them too.



I have heard many a tale of British people on holiday asking for "A packet of fags" at American stores and being well, given confused looks at best.

CT GAMER wrote:

I'll take that as a yes...

Take it as what you want. When you are using language like that to describe a group you want to defend then there is no point in in keeping the argument going.

Whitey I have the blessing of working with many british troops in RC South Afghanistan. Kandahar and Bastion/Leatherneck. I even know what knickers are. Would it be considered bad form if I learned from Matty's friends about british slang/etiquette ?

I would consider it a requirement in being a manly mans man. Carry on.

as a member of the LGBT community, I have to admit this is getting ridiculous. then again' I don't eat there anyways, because there isn't one in the town I live in.

MrDwhitey wrote:I hate them too.



I have heard many a tale of British people on holiday asking for "A packet of fags" at American stores and being well, given confused looks at best.

That's what they were called in Northern Maine when I was a kid in the way way back times.

That's what they were called in Northern Maine when I was a kid in the way way back times.

Stop Relasping back to the "good old" times

Jihadin wrote:

That's what they were called in Northern Maine when I was a kid in the way way back times.

Stop Relasping back to the "good old" times

There was nothing better to have to warm you up on those cold winter nights than some nice, warm fags.

Jihadin wrote:Stop Relasping back to the "good old" times

Yeah, I hate that as well. Because they were never as good (or bad) as you remember, due to the way human memory works.

d-usa wrote:

CT GAMER wrote:

d-usa wrote:

CT GAMER wrote:

d-usa wrote:What about all the gay people that have jobs and earn money thanks to CFA? The company actually has a stronger anti-discrimination policy than many other fast-food places, and between the company itself and all the other companies that have jobs because of them (construction companies, suppliers, farmers, even coca-cola supplying the drinks) there are many gay folks employed because of them.

"Hey, we hate color=red]please don't use this term on Dakka. Thanks.Reds8n[/color] , but we probably have some homos working for us, so leave us alone as we spread and support homophobic hatred or they might get fired..."

So thats your arguement?

Reported for using derogatory language. If you cannot make an argument without using a very hurtful word (even if it is ironically) then just quit the argument.

I'll take that as a yes...

Take it as what you want. When you are using language like that to describe a group you want to defend then there is no point in in keeping the argument going.

Notice the quotation marks around the statement. I wasn't describing anyone. I was demonstrating the attitude and language used by the people that Chic fil a choose to fund and support.

I love when bigots/homophobes/assorted crazies (or those that defend them) get mad when you put a spotlight on their terms and behavior rather than pretending they aren't saying and using such terms.

"Oh my god, I am shocked and offended that you would mock those that use such words, I like to pretend they don't say such things..."

Please try to follow along...

What would Lenny Bruce have to say?

Relapse wrote:What would Lenny Bruce have to say?

I'm not really sure, but I know it would end in a ban.