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.

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?