Chick-fil-a and the homophobic sandwich

Post Reply New Topic

if opinions are like bellybuttons, then mr. chick-a-fil's is an outie. or should be.

! !! !!

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Read the first amendment of the U.S Constitution sometime.

ruveyn

ROFL!! !! !! !! !! !

I might buy a shake to celebrate his right for free speech, but what appalls me is the number of people showing up in troves to demonstrate their hate. I felt sick to my stomach.
I also really dont support the CEO's funding of genocide of LGBT folks in Africa and these anti gay therapy in the US.
At that thought, nevermind the milkshake, none of my money is going to that crap.

Yes, he has a right to free speech. I am sorry he chose to exercise it by fueling the hatred of LGBT folks. I reeeeaally dont see how gay marriage affects the "sanctity of marriage" or whatever that means. Legal marriage is designed to protect family, children, and property, thats it. The religious aspects of it are separate and SHOULD be kept separate. People that think religion and state should be one should read up on the inqusition. When you add religion to politics, it tends to get ugly...look at the Sharia Law.
What really blows me away is that 1-4 children in the US are in food insecurity and do people flock in troves to try to help these kids?? No, but they sure will to demonstrate their hate.

Chick fil a could have done a donation drive for childhood hunger, but I guess that was not profitable, but gay bashing is.

humans are doomed.


Jojo

Showing up in droves is a form of free speech. As long as those who show up in droves are peaceable, all is well. Read the first amendment to the U.S Constitution some time.

Pleasant agreeable speech needs no legal protection. Annoying, hateful and disagreeable speech needs all the protection the law can afford to give it.

If you don't like what the boss of Chick-Fill-A has to say, then don't buy food at his restaurant.

ruveyn

no accounting for taste. i imagine the NASCAR crowd-types would stop over at the chit-a-fil for a few hundred bites before the big game, troop over to the big game, then troop back over to the chit-a-fil for more their fill of brain-n-body rot.

Well, yeah, you technically can yell FIRE in a crowded theater but is it really a good idea?


The main problem with Chick Fil A is it's so dang addictive.

Personally,I'm against all marriage.They are a leading cause of divorce,but if gay people want to suffer too,I'm all for equality.

I'm more worried about the economy and foreign policy than who lives with whom or who eats where. Under the U.S. system of laws, in a legal sense, it is a matter left up for each State to decide. My take ideally, I lean libertarian on most things (although I have my own personal standards) is that the State should not sanction relationships at all and we should have a flat tax system. other than that, I'm not really concerned at all, I'm more worried about supporting myself and family, as to who sleeps with whom, I really don't care as long as both (or all parties) consent and are at or above the age of consent.

Deep down inside I have conservative morals for the most part although I'd rather make up my own mind but government enforcing morals/ethics beyond the basic Mosiac laws which most people can agree on (do not kill, steal, etc) is not a good idea since we all have different standards. I put myself on the eight side of the spectrum, but me of a more libertarian bent, I am more of a maverick. I'd like to judge and think for myself.

I think both sides have a right to their opinions (and run their company/lives accordingly) and neither should bully each other.

I've rarely been a fan of states rights, as states rights more often than not have been used to beat down some unpopular group.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

I see where you're coming from but for the most part, that has been corrected. Still, I do favor leaving things up to the States on things where the Constitution is silent on. It is true, you might get more puritanical States, more liberal States, more libertarian States and so on. I liked how Red Skelton explained it in his 1969 speech on the "Pledge of Allegiance" where basically you had 48 (well at the time he was in school back in the 1920's, now 50 States, or if you're Obama, 57 B-)) individual systems come together as one for defense and a common goal. Yeah, sometimes you got to take the bad with the good as well, everything has its shortcomings but in my eyes, the benefits outweigh the problems. Plus it brings about diversity in thought, you can see what works and what doesn't. One thing to remember, if you're not happy in your State, you can always move to a better one to your liking. If you have a Federal one size fits all, then you cannot really run, unless you want to go to Brazil or wherever you want to. I think over the years, the Feds have had too much power in many things and should adhere to the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

You have come very clearly to the great strength of federalism. It is no surprise that almost all large countries are federations--it is simply not reasonable to expect a government in a large unitary state to legislate and regulate in a singular fashion across it's entire geography and population.

The trick is in deciding which powers to hold centrally and which to devolve. When it comes to marriage and divorce, I'm a strong proponent of centralization. Theoretically, marriage is portable. Once you are married in one place, you are married in all places. Similarly, once your marriage is dissolved in one place, it is theoretically dissolved in all places. The various rights that are packaged up in the word, "spouse," may vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but the status carries with the two spouses no matter where they go.

However, a multiplicity of marriage laws creates ambiguities. There are vast tracts of jurisprudence on the subject of the recognition of marriage and divorce under the rubric of "Conflicts of Laws." And while these are quite normal to expect in international circumstances, it seems to me that it is needlessly cumbersome within a single country. If two people have the right to live in any province in Canada, it strikes me as reasonable that the marriage that those two people contracted in Nova Scotia is equally valid in British Columbia, and that the dissolution of that marriage in British Columbia leaves them free to marry in any other province afterwards.

This reminds of late author James Michner. Michner had been married to a lady of Asian extraction at a time when racially mixed marriages were not recognized everywhere. Whenever traveling through the country with his wife, Michner said he lived in fear that he might suddenly die in one such state, and his wife would not be able to legally handle his affairs, or even inherit his property. Gay Americans shouldn't have to live in fear of such a thing, simply because they live in - or are just passing through - a state where same sex marriage is not recognized.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

The CEO of Chick-fil-A never said "I hate gays" in that interview. He may disagree with the gay community when it comes to marriage, but some people think that because he's against same-sex marriage it automatically makes him hateful. This isn't hate, it's just a disagreement.

That's disingenuous and you should know it.

Actively working to prevent same-sex marriage from being legalized is not, "just a disagreement." Funelling money from your business into political organizations that seek to deprive indivduals of equal protection of the law is perfectly legal, but it's far more than "just a disagreement."

I would never seek to deprive him of the right to do as he has done. Nor to deprive those who would call his actions hateful from doing so.