Thoughts on Chick-Fil-A Being Barred From Chicago/Boston page 4

However, if the group was outright dedicated to breaking the law, I’m not so sure. I’m pretty sure you can’t donate to a terrorist organization, for example.

They’d probably be charged with “aiding and abetting terrorists.” They would figure out some way to punish a person for funding criminal activities.

Why is homosexual marriage even an issue that can be voted for? How does this not degrade from America’s stance on being a “free” country?

Many of the legal arguments I read that are pro-same sex marriage basically amount to “It violates the same-sex couples constitutional rights to not be allowed to marry.” It’s usually somewhere else that this gets muddied, and then there are those that don’t think this is an acceptable argument (because marriage “is a privilege, not a right”).

They’d probably be charged with “aiding and abetting terrorists.” They would figure out some way to punish a person for funding criminal activities.

Just like HSBC!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/video/2012/jul/18/hsbc-laundering-drug-terrorists-video

To THINK that it’s okay is protected. Reprehensible, but protected. To actually beat them up is not. Just like it’s legally OK to think drugs should be legal, but not legally OK to shoot up.

So it’s okay to donate to a group that regularly beats up homosexuals, no? In other words, it wouldn’t matter to you whatever I answered to that quote, as both would be “legal”.

I would certainly not trust individual mayors with that power.

They have the power to make decisions. I agree that if they take illegal actions they should not have that power, but I’m more speaking about what I personally think.

Legally? Absolutely yes. For crying out loud, the Democratic Party is legally some form of corporation, with the SOLE PURPOSE of spreading the views of the people who run it. Churches are corporations. Gay rights groups are corporations. Pretty much any organized group in the US is a corporation.

I would say that’s an association with the group/firm, not necessarily a firm having that belief itself. However, the groups you are mentioning are exactly what you stated, for the sole purpose of one thing. Heck, Chick-fil-A’s “personal” belief probably is that their products are the absolute best, because it was created for the sole purpose of having those products.

I don’t think it was created to donate to anti-homosexual groups, allow only heterosexual families to run the place, and generally state they are against God.

I’m pretty sure you can’t donate to a terrorist organization, for example.

Hmm, we could argue about that, but the purpose here was in relation to this topic, so not necessary now. I guess I can agree that this is a better way of handling donations than if it was entirely free.

It didn’t just happen because some mayor or judge decided it would be “equal”.

I perfectly agree it can’t just happen out of the blue. I just don’t agree that a “free” country like America proposes it is waits until people vote for equality until they actually make that minority that can never become a majority to become equal to the majority (getting the irony, though?).

The difference between America and some hypothetical dictatorship where you don’t even have the right to live and where people fight for this right is that America seems like a country where it should care. I’m not saying the law should be changed overnight without informing everyone, but to allow the majority to keep the minority from being equal is absolutely preposterous.

Ketsy,

because marriage “is a privilege, not a right”

And that gets scary. What if life was a privilege, not a right? I’ll repeat what I said before. This is the case in a hypothetical dictatorship, and that’s where they have to fight for these rights. That is “logical”. But America doesn’t seem like a country that should keep certain issues as “privileges” just to be able to uphold their religious beliefs. You are outright denying equality (not equal rights, legally speaking), and the only way to make a minority equal is to have a majority that doesn’t want that minority equal to vote for that minority to become equal.

AKA: Never.

Preaching to the choir, Dark

What I think is funny, it the instant windfall profit this restaurant has made. First of all, the owner is entitled to his views. It kind of amazes me that some of the posters go straight to calling him names like bigot and homophobes because he expressed his beliefs. You see, this is America and we have free speech.

I find it interesting that reading some of the posts on here condemn him and his company for these beliefs and yet people (probably Christians and people who believe in traditional marriages) showed their support of him through their wallets. I would say this speaks volumes about the attitude of the American people and their traditional values.

First of all, the owner is entitled to his views. It kind of amazes me that some of the posters go straight to calling him names like bigot and homophobes because he expressed his beliefs. You see, this is America and we have free speech.

And I am entitled to a view about his views. Yay free speech.

That he is a bigot and homophobe is a matter of factual accuracy. The right to free speech is not the right to immunity from criticism for said speech.

What I think is funny, it the instant windfall profit this restaurant has made.

Has it?

I find it interesting that reading some of the posts on here condemn him and his company for these beliefs and yet people (probably Christians and people who believe in traditional marriages) showed their support of him through their wallets.

And others showed their disapproval via the same method.

Let’s be honest here. The owner is a bigot, he was stupid enough to associate his company with his bigotry, and the inevitable public backlash from it was entirely predictable.

And I am entitled to a view about his views. Yay free speech.

That he is a bigot and homophobe is a matter of factual accuracy. The right to free speech is not the right to immunity from criticism for said speech.

You do. You are not, however, entitled to prevent him to open his business or silence his speech.

Let’s be honest here. The owner is a bigot, he was stupid enough to associate his company with his bigotry, and the inevitable public backlash from it was entirely predictable.

That’s not why this story has drawn attention. It’s drawn attention because two mayors acted unconstitutionally to repress speech. Whether or not said speech is that of a bigot is a moot point.

Furthermore, just as many people who are pissed at him for believing this are also flocking to Chick Fil A to support him.

What I think is funny, it the instant windfall profit this restaurant has made.

I haven’t been able to find anything on this that shows a before and after change from their view. While they did have an unofficial “Support Chick-Fil-A day,” they have also earned a lot of protests.

They’re also privately owned, so I can’t check stock market figures or anything, and I doubt I’ll find sales records.

First of all, the owner is entitled to his views.

As Redem said, we are entitled to disagree.

I find it interesting that reading some of the posts on here condemn him and his company for these beliefs and yet people (probably Christians and people who believe in traditional marriages) showed their support of him through their wallets. I would say this speaks volumes about the attitude of the American people and their traditional values.

I think it speaks volumes about people willing to stand up for what they believe in. Both sides are protesting, and there’s no clear indication that the “traditional marriage” side is bigger. I honestly imagine they’re smaller, since it’s a lot easier to stop buying from somewhere than it is to start buying somewhere.

Originally posted by Ketsy:

What I think is funny, it the instant windfall profit this restaurant has made.

I haven’t been able to find anything on this that shows a before and after change from their view. While they did have an unofficial “Support Chick-Fil-A day,” they have also earned a lot of protests.

They’re also privately owned, so I can’t check stock market figures or anything, and I doubt I’ll find sales records.

First of all, the owner is entitled to his views.

As Redem said, we are entitled to disagree.

I find it interesting that reading some of the posts on here condemn him and his company for these beliefs and yet people (probably Christians and people who believe in traditional marriages) showed their support of him through their wallets. I would say this speaks volumes about the attitude of the American people and their traditional values.

I think it speaks volumes about people willing to stand up for what they believe in. Both sides are protesting, and there’s no clear indication that the “traditional marriage” side is bigger. I honestly imagine they’re smaller, since it’s a lot easier to stop buying from somewhere than it is to start buying somewhere.

Today was so busy that lines were down the block just to park and 30 minutes to order at the local CF. Seems all of the people who support his statement want to support his business.

Of course you are and I have nothing against that. I’m just saying, he has more supporters than detractors.

The funny thing is this was not a political statement. He was ask for his views and gave them. The media than ran with that as if he had done something terrible, and let’s be honest, he didn’t. This was just one more thing the media in all of their glory blew completely out of shape.

Oh, dear...where to begin w/ this mess,,, good grief, Jake-0....haven't we been able to teach YOU anything yet on how these issues are sensibly & maturely approached?

Originally posted by jhco50:

What I think is funny, it the instant windfall profit this restaurant has made.

YES...I'll concur w/ YOUR "instant",,,, I'll agree there is this "INITIAL REACTION to this issue":http://www.azfamily.com/news/Chick-fil-A-supporters-recognize-appreciation-day-164625256.html

and a "video":http://www.kake.com/news/headlines/Crowds-Show-Support-For-Chick-fil-a-Appreciation-Day-164631346.html of activity here in Wichita,,,,BUT, is it SUSTAINABLE?

OR, is it just a "knee-jerk" reactionary event of sheeple--guided by their bigoted "shepherds" (Mike Huck, et.al.)--in a "snooty" effort to feed their massive bigotry against those despicable & (what is it ya call them, Jake-0??...oh yeah,) ABOMINATION Gays. Will these asshole--most who likely haven't EVER eaten at a Chick-fil-A establishment (some NOT EVEN have heard of it)--NOW CONTINUTE TO SHOW THIS "SUPPORT"?

OR, are they sooooo SHALLOW (as usually are many ppl are on issues like this) that this "INSTANT WINDFALL PROFIT" is pretty much just a fart-in-the-wind?

First of all, the owner is entitled to his views.

Now, Jake-0...how many times do we have to tell YOU to stop it w/ this rudimentary posturing? OF COURSE HE IS ENTITLED to his views.

BUT, we're not talking about merely his PERSONAL views.....we're talking about a man who does business w/ the public. Such business is usually heavily REGULATED by the govt. Yes,,,yes....FREE SPEECH certainly is "protected" by the Constitution. We ALL know this. What YOU (and YOUR "ilk") don't seem to understand is that THERE ARE LIMITATIONS to "speech" that denies fellow citizens their CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.

It kind of amazes me that some of the posters go straight to calling him names like bigot and homophobes because he expressed his beliefs.

NO....NO...NO,,,and N O.... When are YOU going to be able to understand the DIFFERENCE between calling someone an ASSHOLE because he actually IS one,,, and it being done BECAUSE he merely exercised his CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to express his PERSONAL views? From what I know of this board, we "liberals" tend to "operate" in the former...eh?

You see, this is America and we have free speech.

No shit, Sherlock....I'm damn glad we've cleared THAT up. Your next salient point is.....?

I find it interesting that reading some of the posts on here condemn him and his company for these beliefs and yet people (probably Christians and people who believe in traditional marriages) showed their support of him through their wallets.

I don't really get YOUR point here. How are YOU making a "comparison" here? Do YOU actually think the activity of those "good Christians" somehow negate the opinions of some of us on this forum? Are YOU saying that "monetary support" is more "valuable" than ideological stances?

I would say this speaks volumes about the attitude of the American people and their traditional values.

Yes...& YES,,,it does. AND, I'm most glad it does......as long as YOU understand that I'm talking about ONLY a segment of YOUR "the American people".

My studies of the "human condition" shows me that often before a "bad thing" came become "better".....it has to "get worse". I call it the "squeaky-wheel-gets-the-grease" syndrome. All this Chick-A-fil shit has done is merely BRING MORE FOCUS upon the bigoted assholes that are soooooo fucking behind the times on this issue that most of them can't see that their viewpoint has seen its "day" and is now history.

Gay Rights is here,,,, just as is Black Rights. I sit back and "enjoy the show" when my fellow citizens make such a huge effort to show (via their free speech) just how ignorantly impotent they are. Jake-0,,, ya talk about how disgusted YOU get w/ Gay Pride parades. Well, I got almost giddy as I stood next to that cameraman as he filmed all those idiots waiting in our 107 degree heat to protest something that has long left the "playing "field of life". I walked among them (in disguise as a bigot..mind ya) and talked w/ them on how they felt on the issue and WHY and what they based their reasons on.

SHIT MAN.....I had to walk away a few times to keep from shitting mah pants w/ laughter.

That he is a bigot and homophobe is a matter of factual accuracy

Actually it is a matter of factual fallacy, as saying that you support the traditional marriage between a man and a woman does not logically imply that you hate or are afraid of gays, or make you intolerant of their beliefs. The prospect becomes more likely statistically, but it is not inherent.

The right to free speech is not the right to immunity from criticism for said speech

We’re not opposed to your right to criticize him any way you feel appropriate, nor do we oppose any boycotts of his restaurant chain. What we oppose is a government official denying someone the right to business on a matter of spoken beliefs, and clearly putting one idea on a pedestal while shunning the other. In society there is no objective right, what we perceive as right and wrong is a reflection of our pre-existing society. Therefore, “bad ideas” should only be shut down by criticism and lack of adherence, not prohibition.

Has it?

Well it’s a supported speculation considering that many of their restaurants had lines going way out of the restaurant itself today.

Let’s be honest here. The owner is a bigot

Well you’ve already broken your first rule so I don’t know what the purpose of it was.

he was stupid enough to associate his company with his bigotry, and the inevitable public backlash from it was entirely predictable.

Fine. If society decides that they don’t approve of his business practices with this new statement, so be it. They can stop buying food there, and the company will go out of business, and a winner is declared. The situation as it is, however, is not the case; it was known that a winner would not freely be decided as many would still buy from the restaurant, so a couple of mayors thought it was appropriate to falsely declare a winner.

If his sales had gone down because of his beliefs then fine, but to try and force this process is a bad idea and now the poetic irony is that this injustice will probably cause their profits to go up even in the long run. People like me don’t stand behind him because we agree with what he said, but to show the people that the success of a business is judged not by what beliefs make the most sense but by the satisfaction and population of the customers.

ohmylanta…
I’m good—VERY GOOD, actually—w/ all ya said above.
Esp. the part where ya remind us that:
What we oppose is a government official denying someone the right to business on a matter of spoken beliefs, and clearly putting one idea on a pedestal while shunning the other. In society there is no objective right, what we perceive as right and wrong is a reflection of our pre-existing society. Therefore, “bad ideas” should only be shut down by criticism and lack of adherence, not prohibition.

Something that I am not sure sure about,, tho,, is where ya say:
People like me don’t stand behind him because we agree with what he said, but to show the people that the success of a business is judged not by what beliefs make the most sense but by the satisfaction and population of the customers.

1) What “people” are being shown…….

2) Is there not “room” for the concept that the success of a business CAN BE JUDGED by what make the most sense……REGARDLESS of the satisfaction & population of the customers.

I know that most of what I do (via “dollar power”) has a definitive effect. Letting a particular company//corp know how I feel about an issue involving them via a even more direct manner often leaves my fingers.

BUT, I find that events such as this are very often a MOST POWERFUL opportunity to have intercourse w/ other minds on the issue. Usually, it’s a case where the party is completely UNAWARE of the issue. AND, upon learning of it….decide to “boycott” & pass along the sentiment.

His “sales” may very well “go down”.
I touched on this in my above posts.

Evening Karma

Normally I would just ignore your post as being just another rant full of BS. It is, but I’ll answer anyway.

I stated the facts, and I thank you for supplying the links. You are asking if it sustainable, but what you see is the people stating their views on the topic of Gays. there is nothing to sustain, it is just two sides, opposing views, on a subject. I’m sure you have heard of the silent majority…well you just heard from them again. All of these people you call bigots because they don’t agree with you vote. One of the big problems with your political position is your kind try to silence anyone who disagrees with you. You think calling them names will do this, but it doesn’t. It just makes those who oppose your views dig in their heels in opposition. Your friend in the White House is doing the same as you and it is backfiring on him too.

I’m not posturing, I just told you the facts, as I already said. If you choose to read them fine, if not I don’t really care as I think you and your views are going down in flames in November. I didn’t understand the voracious attacks on this guy by you until I read a thread you started a couple of years ago about nudest camps, weird sex, and girls locker rooms. I must say it was very eye opening.

Now, I realize this post of yours is a rant toward me and it is hard for you to stay on the actual topic, so I am not going to stress you too much…right now.

LOL! Are you trying to tell me the opinions on this forum trump all of those good Christians who are going to vote against your buddy? A game forum full of young people have more important opinions than the real public who actually have lives?

So you are only talking to my segment of the American people? Wow, I hate to tell you this, but I come from a very large segment. Your studies of the human condition? LOL! I bet that is quite a study. Now I’m not going to tell you the gays are history, but things like the following from your link is not going to make them any points.

Opponents of Cathy’s stance have planned “Kiss Mor Chiks” for Friday, asking people of the same sex to show up at Chick-fil-A locations and kiss each other.

Yeah, this is really going to make them popular with the public. You posted something that makes me wonder about you, other than the high school shower thing. Are you hinting you are gay?

Yes, I’m having the same problem with the laughter.

1) What “people” are being shown…….

Those who are not aware of why we should not ban businesses where the owners have controversial beliefs.

2) Is there not “room” for the concept that the success of a business CAN BE JUDGED by what make the most sense……REGARDLESS of the satisfaction & population of the customers.

It can be judged that way, but not in the legal system. Being a nazi as CEO will hurt your business prospects for certain but it should not be made illegal as it is not inherently damaging to anyone’s rights or property. Defending rights and property (includes your life) of individuals seems like the only thing to warrant the government barring any business practice.

You do. You are not, however, entitled to prevent him to open his business or silence his speech.

Depends what you mean by those. I am entitled to pressure other companies into no longer sponsoring or accepting sponsorship/business from the bigot’s company. I am entitled to object to them opening a new business in my area during planning application or any other legal means of obstructing them.

That’s not why this story has drawn attention. It’s drawn attention because two mayors acted unconstitutionally to repress speech. Whether or not said speech is that of a bigot is a moot point.

Did they? I don’t recall seeing that anywhere.

Furthermore, just as many people who are pissed at him for believing this are also flocking to Chick Fil A to support him.

Can you substantiate that claim?

Regardless, I find this no more interesting than I would a claim that the KKK were supporting a racist business owner.

Actually it is a matter of factual fallacy, as saying that you support the traditional marriage between a man and a woman does not logically imply that you hate or are afraid of gays, or make you intolerant of their beliefs. The prospect becomes more likely statistically, but it is not inherent.

That claim only holds if you reject any and all context of the statement. In context, it is clear he is a bigot and a homophobe.

Well it’s a supported speculation considering that many of their restaurants had lines going way out of the restaurant itself today.

Some did, no doubt, but that doesn’t answer the question. How many others were emptier than usual? And will the spike of " support" last as long as the drop in support?

What we oppose is a government official denying someone the right to business on a matter of spoken beliefs, and clearly putting one idea on a pedestal while shunning the other. In society there is no objective right, what we perceive as right and wrong is a reflection of our pre-existing society. Therefore, “bad ideas” should only be shut down by criticism and lack of adherence, not prohibition.

Some ideas should be put on a pedestal compared to others. Racism is a fine example, one that tends to correlate well with homophobia as it happens.

That claim only holds if you reject any and all context of the statement. In context, it is clear he is a bigot and a homophobe.

Proof?

Some did, no doubt, but that doesn’t answer the question. How many others were emptier than usual? And will the spike of " support" last as long as the drop in support?

A lot of new people are going to be introduced to the chain now, so overall I’d say they are going to profit and become larger.

Some ideas should be put on a pedestal compared to others. Racism is a fine example, one that tends to correlate well with homophobia as it happens.

You ignored my point. It doesn’t matter how batshit crazy anyone’s spoken beliefs are (frankly what he said wasn’t even that extreme), that person is still entitled to their beliefs and should not face legal repercussions from it. The consumers determine which beliefs make most sense for a CEO, or how much they care, by buying or not buying from a business; however, these decisions imply that those mayors are inherently representative of all consumer interests and can decide for everyone which companies they can buy from.

Proof?

In this case, “supporting traditional marriage” is shorthand for “opposing gay marriage”. The latter is not implied by the former at all, the term is merely a disguise to sound less bigoted. This anti-equality agenda is bigotry by definition.

A lot of new people are going to be introduced to the chain now, so overall I’d say they are going to profit and become larger.

Only time will tell. Possible, another example of why the free market is not a force for good if it does.

It doesn’t matter how batshit crazy anyone’s spoken beliefs are (frankly what he said wasn’t even that extreme), that person is still entitled to their beliefs and should not face legal repercussions from it.

He isn’t facing legal repercussions.

The consumers determine which beliefs make most sense for a CEO, or how much they care, by buying or not buying from a business; however, these decisions imply that those mayors are inherently representative of all consumer interests and can decide for everyone which companies they can buy from.

Consumers are also voters. Should, then, the KKK be able to open businesses whever they please, even in black neighbourhoods against the will of the people there? It’s not a simple question, or rather it has no simple answer.

Originally posted by jhco50:

Normally I would just ignore your post as being just another rant full of BS. It is, but I’ll answer anyway.

Geeeee,,,,,Jake-0, YOU may have “anwered”, BUT…per usual ya did nothing but YOUR same old tricks of either ignoring all-togather serious points made OR ya so twisted those points to make YOUR rhetoric more palateable. AND, it’s not just ME ya do this do….it’s what ya do most of the time to most of us.

I stated the facts, and I thank you for supplying the links. You are asking if it sustainable, but what you see is the people stating their views on the topic of Gays. there is nothing to sustain, it is just two sides, opposing views, on a subject.

YUP…just as I stated above,,,YOU totally missed the point….OR, ya twisted what I was saying about sustainabiliy so ya validate a bullshit answer to it.

YES…I agree (I said as much…DUH) that this ONE DAY declared by Mike Huckabee as “Support Chick-Fil-A Day” actually IS ppl on the “homophobia side” of the issue expressing their RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH to show support for what a CEO of a company said. NOW, what I clearly stated was: will this “support” continue…esp. in any meaningful form?

It’s a small wonder why YOU don’t respond to MY pointed questions…..ya just can’t keep up w/ them. OR, ya know I’ll blow a huge hole in your responses.

I’m sure you have heard of the silent majority…well you just heard from them again.

Errrrrr….I think ya’ll have to back up YOUR claim (as well as nearly ALL OF such claims ya make) w/ some UNBIASED factual support for YOUR opinions on these matters.

Many polls….I SAY MANY….show that this “silent majority” really doesn’t hold the position YOUR DO or that of a majority.

All of these people you call bigots because they don’t agree with you vote.

NO…..NO….NO. It’s NOT because they don’t agree w/ me on ideology,,,,it’s that their ideology actually IS THAT OF A BIGOT. This is a fact that YOU jsut aren’t able (ready?) to accept the diference of.

One of the big problems with your political position is your kind try to silence anyone who disagrees with you. You think calling them names will do this, but it doesn’t.

OH?….pray tell just how I do this? Didn’t I just state that by opening their mouths, it is much easier for ppl to “see the problem”? Stay w/ us, Jake-0….we keep losing ya "on the corners.

AND, ….calling them names…?. Ahaaaa, if only it truly were that simple. NO, calling their ideology exactly what it is is only the first step in ferreting out their loathesome behavior. It’s much easier to find a solution to a problem when ya actually know what the problem is. In this case, it is bigotry, intolerance, extreme//hatetul biases. A rose by any other name will still smell the same.

It just makes those who oppose your views dig in their heels in opposition.

AND, didn’t I just say—by exposing their bigotry—those against it now have INCREASED VIGOR to expose it for what it is….eh?

Your friend in the White House is doing the same as you and it is backfiring on him too.

Ahaaaaa….there it is. YOU always manage to twist the topic back to Obama….my, oh my, ya sound so much like a broken record.

I’m not posturing, I just told you the facts, as I already said. If you choose to read them fine, if not I don’t really care as I think you and your views are going down in flames in November.

What “views”? All of them…some of them….only “special” ones?? Jake-0, what have we told ya about ANTECEDENTS? AND, YES… YOU are “posturing”.

I didn’t understand the voracious attacks on this guy by you until I read a thread you started a couple of years ago about nudest camps, weird sex, and girls locker rooms. I must say it was very eye opening.

LOL. Please…PLEASE, ya just gotta explain how ANY OF THAT ties in w/ the topic at hand. Yes, I did author a thread about nudity. COMPLETELY depending upon what YOU mean by “weird sex”,,,I’ve probably advocated something along those lines……at least to YOU who waited until marriage to have sex for the FIRST TIME. I’d say most any kind of sex would be “weird” to YOU.

I don’t recall a fucking thing about “girls locker rooms”. THAT must be a “fantasy” of YOURS. LOL

Now, I realize this post of yours is a rant toward me and it is hard for you to stay on the actual topic, so I am not going to stress you too much…right now.

WHAT?

Do YOU seriously think that shit is even close to a reason for AVOIDING my questions?

LOL! Are you trying to tell me the opinions on this forum trump all of those good Christians who are going to vote against your buddy? A game forum full of young people have more important opinions than the real public who actually have lives?

NO. I’m NOT trying to say anything of that nature. This is merely just more of YOUR twisting facts around to better support YOUR BULLSHIT CLAIMS. A lot of good Christians will vote THEIR conciences and reelect Obama.

As far as insulting the other posters here….how ad homenish of YOU. Shame on YOU.

So you are only talking to {about?} my segment of the American people? Wow, I hate to tell you this, but I come from a very large segment.

I’ll NOT dispute this…..America is heavily loaded w/ bigots. Gay bashing is mere the “soup de jour” ATM,,,,,mostly because the shame of it hasn’t reached a level that will “shut it up”. BUT, it is coming….it IS coming.

Your studies of the human condition? LOL! I bet that is quite a study.

Since all of this point is extreeeeemly SUBJECTIVE,,,I don’t know why ya even bring it up. OH, wait….yes I do know. It is one of the DIVERSIONARY tricks YOU so lluv to use.

Now I’m not going to tell you the gays are history, but things like the following from your link is not going to make them any points.

Opponents of Cathy’s stance have planned “Kiss Mor Chiks” for Friday, asking people of the same sex to show up at Chick-fil-A locations and kiss each other.

Do YOU have some kind of OBJECTIVE “proof” of this? Then show it,,,,discuss it,,, OR SHUT THE FUCK UP ABOUT IT.

Yeah, this is really going to make them popular with the public.

Often, “popularity” isn’t the goal in such demonstrations. The goal is to point out THE PROBLEM.

You posted something that makes me wonder about you, other than the high school shower thing. Are you hinting you are gay?

Ahhhhhh…there it is,,,the childish calling someone “faggot” as a means to ad homenishly discredit their ideology.

Yes, I’m having the same problem with the laughter.

BUT OF COURSE.

Originally posted by ohmylanta:

That claim only holds if you reject any and all context of the statement. In context, it is clear he is a bigot and a homophobe.

Proof?

“I think we are inviting God’s judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at Him and say, ‘We know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage’. I pray God’s mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we have the audacity to define what marriage is about.”

Not stance of someone who is for “traditional” marriage but someone who is against marriage of others.

Some did, no doubt, but that doesn’t answer the question. How many others were emptier than usual? And will the spike of " support" last as long as the drop in support?

A lot of new people are going to be introduced to the chain now, so overall I’d say they are going to profit and become larger.

I rather doubt it. The target group is kinda small. A fast food restaurant targeting family people with specific religious conservative ideals. Even while trying to pass of as Family restaurant, the fact is that especially religious conservative families tend to eat less fast food.
Now the idea can and sure does work, but only as long as the conservative families that are targeted are willing to drive an extra couple of miles or more to go to CfA and not one of the competitors.
Building more stores has for CfA the drawback compared to other competitors that their target group is relatively small and thus they have to space their Buildings out more since their stores have a larger drawing range and they need the drive an extra mile customer since its their target group. If the customer can drive a mile less to get to another CfA then CfA still gets the customer but has double the cost because of one store missing out on an expected customer.

Some ideas should be put on a pedestal compared to others. Racism is a fine example, one that tends to correlate well with homophobia as it happens.

You ignored my point. It doesn’t matter how batshit crazy anyone’s spoken beliefs are (frankly what he said wasn’t even that extreme), that person is still entitled to their beliefs and should not face legal repercussions from it. The consumers determine which beliefs make most sense for a CEO, or how much they care, by buying or not buying from a business; however, these decisions imply that those mayors are inherently representative of all consumer interests and can decide for everyone which companies they can buy from.

Sure true. Problem especially in Building and commercial Zoning many rules exist and apply that often make it necessary for People who plan to build a store or other type of building to get an exception/change of said rules. And such exceptions and changes are almost always voluntary on the side of the community in charge of said rules.
The communities have the expressed rights to decide such voluntary decisions based on their own biased and subjective impression of the People planing to build the store/building.
Its an everyday occurrence that is used all across the country by all kinds of politicians to influence the shape of the community they hold office in. And its not with out reasons either since the rules and regulations are actually there to protect the life quality of those living in the community. So the exceptions from the rules and regulations should logical be based on the effects such exceptions could have on the quality of life in the community.
Sadly there because of the complexity involved there is hardly an objective way to decided this and so it relies on the subjective opinion of those in charge.
In some communities CfA stance on “Family values” might be seen as a positive enrichment and CfA may be given several exceptions from Building and Zoning laws. In other communities Cfa stance will not be seen as positive but negative and no exceptions will be given.

You are not, however, entitled to prevent him to open his business or silence his speech.

I could trust you on your word, but I simply don’t know. Perhaps the mayors can use other types of justification. And to be honest, it would be downright silly if mayors would be denied the right to free speech in mocking the firm by saying they’ll use fake justification to disguise the real one, whether that’s true or not, and use it in a legal case against them, when this whole case is about this silly “freedom of speech of business” (AKA: the thoughts of their owners, using their firm to make their bigoted views more known, while others are not capable of this). However, that’s all from a legal point of view. You would equally support the mass killing of people in a country where you do not have the right to live (yes, you should, to stay consistent). But we both know that we don’t personally like that. Heck, we can even use some more objective arguments against that.

The government not allowing X and Y shows that it does not support X and Y. The problem is not a random person showing his stupid, bigoted beliefs, but acting as a director of a firm and showing that the firm is anti-homosexual. I think the mayors don’t very much think that’s something that should be allowed, and if they can use legal means to stop them from setting up camp, what’s the problem? Again, I don’t know the loopholes they can abuse, but if it’s all legal, you consistently have to support it.

Chick-fil-A sure was good last night :)

Chicago has more things to deal with then a fast food joint.

They average more then a murder a day… Deal with that, who cares about no fast food joint.

Depends what you mean by those. I am entitled to pressure other companies into no longer sponsoring or accepting sponsorship/business from the bigot’s company. I am entitled to object to them opening a new business in my area during planning application or any other legal means of obstructing them.

Yes, that’s called a boycott. That’s fine. The government doesn’t have that authority.

Did they? I don’t recall seeing that anywhere.

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/chick-fil-blocked-opening-chicago-store/story?id=16853890#.UBrxuaB21ac

http://bostonherald.com/news/regional/view.bg?articleid=1061147182&position=0

Consumers are also voters. Should, then, the KKK be able to open businesses whever they please, even in black neighbourhoods against the will of the people there? It’s not a simple question, or rather it has no simple answer.

Is a member of the KKK able to open a business anywhere, even in, lets say, Harlem? Yes, they are able to. Should they? No. Would the business be boycotted? You better believe it? Would it be vandalized on a near nightly basis? More than likely I imagine.

I am well aware that this is not the place to post funny images, however this is to fitting to the topic to be left out:

I think they forgot to add “Donated millions upon millions to anti-gay institutions” to the Cons list.

Perhaps the mayors can use other types of justification.

I’m sure there are other ways to deny a permit from a business, such as the business actually being discriminatory towards its employees (something Chick Fil A hasn’t been shown to have done) or for safety concerns, etc. But, these mayors were looking to make a political statement and, by doing so, are repressing Cathy’s speech in a way that is unconstitutional.

You would equally support the mass killing of people in a country where you do not have the right to live (yes, you should, to stay consistent).

Again, comparing to gay marriage to either voting or in this case life, is a bit out there.

Even so, the right to life is in flux in the US as unborn children don’t have that right, but as soon as you leave the womb, you do.

The government not allowing X and Y shows that it does not support X and Y.

The government isn’t supposed to have political views. Politicains yes, the institution of government, no.