Chick-fil-a and the homophobic sandwich

Page 6 of 17 [ 272 posts ] Go to page Previous 1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 ... 17 Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,670
Location: Seattle-ish

06 Aug 2012, 12:08 am

Vigilans wrote:

What message? Lots of Americans are unprincipled? I could have told you that for free and without you having to eat some nasty grease soaked processed chicken.

How are you getting to unprincipled, this entire kerfuffle is about principles, mine happen to be in favor of free speech even when the speech is in favor of odious policies.

Vigilans wrote:

A lot of people are acting like boycotts are without precedent. I find this disingenuous.

I see a lot more people acting like counter-boycotts are without precedent, and then projecting motives onto the people participating in said counter-boycotts in a pejorative manner.

_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.

- Rick Sanchez

Vigilans
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,181
Location: Montreal

06 Aug 2012, 11:47 am

Dox47 wrote:

How are you getting to unprincipled, this entire kerfuffle is about principles, mine happen to be in favor of free speech even when the speech is in favor of odious policies.

You know; I get really irritated with politicians. Rarely is it that they will stand up for anything worthwhile, and most people lament this. Here we have politicians making a clear stance and what are lots of people bitching about? How they are somehow violating the owner of CFA's "free speech" by encouraging boycotts of his restaurants. I think CFA's owner can believe what he wants, say what he wants, support whatever groups what he wants- and in this vein, I think that those who disagree with him, or are disgusted by his opinion, should be free to react to this. The politicians especially. This is a serious issue that needs to be resolved and compromising with people who don't value universal human rights is clearly not working. I am glad that politicians are taking a hard line on this issue. If this was really about free speech they would be censoring CFA's owner, which is not the case.

Dox47 wrote:

I see a lot more people acting like counter-boycotts are without precedent, and then projecting motives onto the people participating in said counter-boycotts in a pejorative manner.

Like who? I haven't seen any of this. I know very well counter-boycotts have existed before. In this case I think those engaging in it are either misguided (thinking this is about free speech...) or proud bigots happy to support a cause that promotes inequality

_________________
Opportunities multiply as they are seized. -Sun Tzu
Nature creates few men brave, industry and training makes many -Machiavelli
You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do

Vigilans
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,181
Location: Montreal

06 Aug 2012, 11:54 am

Ancalagon wrote:

Vigilans wrote:

How does one get rich when there is no free market or capital to exchange, collect and distribute?

Stealing? There are probably plenty of others, but that will do.

You really don't get it, do you? You can steal and be rich, but that implies there is still a monetary value to your person and items. You are obtaining CAPITAL. If there were no value to anything, then stealing becomes irrelevant, and taking from others does not make one rich.

Ancalagon wrote:

Quote:

I am not interested in playing this game with you again.

Right back at you. If you only have snide remarks without content, please spare me.

LOL You're kidding me. What game am I playing? :lol:

I know you aren't actually interested in this discussion. What you really want is to antagonize people, which is why you constantly play dumb (ie postured ignorance) so you can avoid answering legitimate questions and instead waste everyone's time with your obfuscation. Or that other tired device I see from you "I would be on side N if they weren't all so rude!". I don't buy it, so try it on someone who does. I'm sure you're having a fantastic time doing this, but I see through it, and this is the last time I am giving you the benefit of the doubt and responding to you.

Sylkat
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 2 Sep 2011
Gender: Female
Posts: 17,425

06 Aug 2012, 3:46 pm

Seems to me that the CEO of CFA was ASKED what his opinion/belief was. He answered.
Does not seem to me that he tried to influence anyone else or publicly offered his opinions as an example to follow.
Also seems to me that if someone ASKS what I think (Do these pants make me look fat?
Should gun owners be required to lock up their guns? Should all pit bulls be euthanized?
Should large soda drinks be illegal?), I should not be criticized for holding an opinion/belief that I did not OFFER to share.
And everyone here has a right to hold and share their opinions, whether I agree or not, because this is a discussion room, and I respect everyone in WP, even when you see things very differently from me.

Sylkat

edgewaters
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 16 Aug 2006
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,427
Location: Ontario

06 Aug 2012, 5:20 pm

Sylkat wrote:

Right, but, the swarms of people who showed up to support his statements WERE offering their opinions, and weren't just asked.

If it was just the guy I'm sure there would have been a little bit of commentary, if it were a slow news day, but no big fuss like there has been.

Vigilans
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,181
Location: Montreal

06 Aug 2012, 5:29 pm

Sylkat wrote:

Nothing wrong with having an opinion, and an opinion alone is not necessarily worth action. The problem is Cathy puts his money where his mouth is and thus money you spend at his restaurants, even if it is a small percentage, goes to the causes he supports. So in essence by making this quite clear with his record of donations and now public admittance to this, he has opened himself to criticism or boycotts from those who refuse to allow any of their money to contribute to a cause that violates human dignity.

iBlockhead
Velociraptor

Joined: 6 Jun 2012
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 408

06 Aug 2012, 5:45 pm

Sylkat wrote:

If a woman asks me if those pants make her look fat, I am going to lie and say 'no' if they do, but that is just me.

Vigilans
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,181
Location: Montreal

06 Aug 2012, 9:19 pm

iBlockhead wrote:

Sylkat wrote:

If a woman asks me if those pants make her look fat, I am going to lie and say 'no' if they do, but that is just me.

That is actually the best way to ensure your personal safety

Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 48,721
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

06 Aug 2012, 9:24 pm

Vigilans wrote:

iBlockhead wrote:

Sylkat wrote:

If a woman asks me if those pants make her look fat, I am going to lie and say 'no' if they do, but that is just me.

That is actually the best way to ensure your personal safety

Unless she's out of her mind, and as she beats you into unconsciousness, she screams: "LIAR! LIAR LIAR!"

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

ComposerGal1928
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker

Joined: 17 May 2012
Age: 32
Gender: Female
Posts: 67
Location: Houston

06 Aug 2012, 11:57 pm

I'm sick of all my Facebook friends posting all these things about how they went to "Chick-fil-a Appreciation Day" and supporting traditional marriage, bitching about the protests being a "free speech issue", blah blah blah. Read my lips, Facebook friends:

It's not a free speech issue!! !

It's about the fact that Chick-fil-a is actively donating their profits to anti-gay organizations that use said money to:
- Deny gays the right to marry, adopt, serve, etc.
- Allow companies to fire/reject employees just for being gay
- Make it OK for homophobic religious zealots to get away with murder of gay people
- Characterize homosexuality as a mental disorder and set up "pray the gay away" clinics

And don't give me that garbage about having gay friends, but saying you support traditional marriage. Well, mazel tov, you're a bigot. I don't care if all of your friends and family are gay. If you say that they can't marry, that still makes you a bigot. That's like saying you have a lot of black friends, but you're against interracial marriage.

Speaking of traditional marriage, what do these people mean when they say they support "traditional marriage according to the Bible"? Their definition of "traditional" or "Biblical" marriage is totally different than from what's in the Bible. Here's marriage according to the Bible, other than the whole man+woman stuff:

- A woman is always subordinate to her husband
- A man can have multiple wives and/or concubines at a time (Even some of God's best followers weren't exactly faithful to their first wife)
- A man can acquire his wife's property, including her slaves (Gen. 16)
- Your marriage was usually arranged, not based on romantic love (Remember the first guy/girl you ever dated? Imagine having to be married to him/her, even though you hate each other's guts)
- A man has to marry his sister-in-law if his brother dies without having a son (Deut. 25: 5)
- Raped? Start planning for the wedding, like, now. Oh, and if you're the rapist, pay your victim's daddy for property loss. (Deut. 22: 28-29)
- If you go off to war, look at all the prisoners of war who are virgins. One of them might be a good wife, yes? (Num. 31:1-18, Deut. 21: 11-14)
- Ladies, if you can't prove you're a virgin before the wedding, consider yourself screwed. (Deut. 22: 13-17, 20-21)
- Are you a Christian and considering marrying a Hindu, Buddhist, Jew? Too bad. That marriage is forbidden. (Exo. 34: 12-16, Deut. 7: 1-4)

If they want to fight for "traditional" marriage, why are they only fighting for one element of said marriage? If they want Biblical marriage, fight for all of the elements.

Dilbert wrote:

Misslizard wrote:

Chick-fil-a s----s and so do all the commercial chicken houses that produce that tainted inhumane food product that narrow minded clueless idiots are lining up to eat.

Maybe all those ignorant bigots will eat that crap until they kill themselves with diabetes and heart problems?

I wonder if those people's opinions on Obamacare would change since they would actually need it?

*steps off soapbox*

Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 48,721
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

07 Aug 2012, 12:45 am

ComposerGal1928 wrote:

Dilbert wrote:

Misslizard wrote:

Chick-fil-a s----s and so do all the commercial chicken houses that produce that tainted inhumane food product that narrow minded clueless idiots are lining up to eat.

Maybe all those ignorant bigots will eat that crap until they kill themselves with diabetes and heart problems?

I wonder if those people's opinions on Obamacare would change since they would actually need it?

*steps off soapbox*

Amen!

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

07 Aug 2012, 8:32 am

ComposerGal1928 wrote:

It's about the fact that Chick-fil-a is actively donating their profits to anti-gay organizations that use said money to:
- Deny gays the right to marry, adopt, serve, etc.
- Allow companies to fire/reject employees just for being gay
- Make it OK for homophobic religious zealots to get away with murder of gay people
- Characterize homosexuality as a mental disorder and set up "pray the gay away" clinics

Observe. It is their profits to use as they see fit in a legal manner. The first amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantee all of us the right say or write anything we wish, be it ever so unpleasant or offensive. Pleasant speech requires no defense. Obnoxious unpleasant speech does. That is why it is in our Constitution.

If you do not like what the owner of Chick-Fill-A has to say, then do not do business with him.

ruveyn

visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Vancouver, BC

07 Aug 2012, 12:32 pm

Ancalagon wrote:

If gay marriage is allowed, it changes what marriage is.

This is the biggest lie told and repeated by the opponents of same-sex marriage.

There are as many types of marriage out there are there are couples who are married. I have yet to see a single, cogent argument that demonstrate how the marriage of two women makes any difference to the marriage of heterosexual couple living next door.

Some married couples are monogamous. Others are monogamish. Some marriages are sexless. Some couple have children, others adopt, some foster, still others are childless. Some couples sleep in separate bedrooms, others cannot bear to sleep in separate beds.

Marriage is defined, first and foremost, by the two people who are in it.

Now, were this all there was to it, we would have no debate. But the law has chosen to give legal benefits to people who enter into a legal marriage relationship.

The day that heterosexuals are willing to give up their legal rights to each other's property, the legal presumptions in favour of child guardianship, medical authority, tax treatment, testamentary presumption and all the other benefits of law that flow from their marraiges, then I will drop the subject.

But I don't see many anti same-sex marriage advocates talking about surrendering these.

Quote:

If people's suggestion (from earlier in the thread) that people should be allowed to marry chairs were allowed it would change what marriage is even more. What marriage is matters to a lot of people.

I'm curious as to how many people supporting gay marriage think people should be allowed to marry chairs.

What an utterly stupid remark.

If you cannot form the legal intention to marry, you cannot marry. That excludes inanimate objects, corporations, animals, children and people who lack the mental capacity to appreciate the nature of the action that they are undertaking.

_________________
--James

Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 48,721
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

07 Aug 2012, 12:38 pm

There are states in this country that already have gay marriage - including my home state of Washington - and I have yet to see any of us sliding into the ocean by God's wrath. And I seriously doubt people are going to start marrying inanimate objects in any state of the union, anytime soon.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

07 Aug 2012, 12:49 pm

I'm pretty much joined in holy wedlock to my iPhone.
But then again I'm the boy that lied about the German pirates.

_________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson

Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 48,721
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

07 Aug 2012, 1:04 pm

I... don't get the "German pirates" reference.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Page 6 of 17 [ 272 posts ] Go to page Previous 1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 ... 17 Next

Jump to:

Chick-fil-a and the homophobic sandwich Post Reply New Topic

Chick-fil-a and the homophobic sandwich