Originally Posted By WilliamK99 Then we have this story, a man harassing an innocent employee and ending up getting fired for it. <a href="http://www.theblaze.com/stories/totally-heterosexual-anti-chick-fil-a-tough-guy-fired-for-bullying-drive-thru-girl/" target="_blank">http://www.theblaze.com/storie...ru-girl/</a> WTG, attacking an innocent girl because it makes you feel like a bigger man! At least he got fired for it.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>That line at Chik-Fil-A touched me like a banner of unwelcome, like a vigilante caravan of people who could hardly wait for the opportunity to openly express their belief that I was an enemy to be conquered -- someone they longed to see be put back in her place as an anamoly, a threat to society, a pervert, a half-person.<< Sadly, that's exactly what it was. The politicians with the gleeful thumbs up photos weren't there for "first amendment" issues. They were there because to them, this is war. Just like their predecessors did back in the bad old civil rights days.
Originally Posted By WilliamK99 Can someone explain how this Kiss in will work? If they go to a Chick Fil A and don't buy anything they will be kicked out for loitering. If they buy something they are violating their own boycot. So how exactly will this work? Just curious.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer Seen on Twitter: Healthy black woman says people should eat healthy food: socialist. Fat white man tells people to eat fast food: hero.
Originally Posted By mawnck You're overthinking it, William. BTW ... <a href="http://tinyurl.com/howstupid" target="_blank">http://tinyurl.com/howstupid</a>
Originally Posted By mawnck >>Dallas, TX – August 2, 2012 - Hundreds of same-sex couples are planning to voice their displeasure with fast food chain Chick-Fil-A on National Same-Sex Kiss Day on August 3rd. At 8pm in Chick-Fil-As across the country, same-sex couples have pledged to come and publically embrace in an effort to protest the actions of Chick-Fil-A. Just hours after being created, the facebook event had participants from across the country. Event Creator Carly McGehee created the event in response to the recent actions of Chick-Fil-A. A recent interview with Company President Dan Cathy revealed that Chick-Fil-A is “guilty as charged” of the accusations of preference of sexual orientation. The interview resulted in public backlash that led a company statement saying that their policy is to treat everyone with “honor, dignity, and respect” regardless of sexual orientation. McGehee was not convinced. “The event is intended to show Chick-Fil-A how many people their donations and decisions are affecting, not to disturb business” said McGehee. Chick-Fil-A’s promise to leave the same-sex marriage debate to the government and political arena “isn’t enough,” she continued. “They are still donating millions of dollars to anti-same-sex marriage institutions and that is unacceptable.” Other LGBT rights groups have released statements declaring that these donations topped $5 million in from 2003 to 2010. -20- For more information, visit: <a href="http://www.facebook.com/groups/451347938220904/" target="_blank">http://www.facebook.com/groups...8220904/</a> or Twitter @NTLSameSexKiss << <a href="http://www.gaywebsource.com/gaypress/2012/08/02/national-protest-of-chick-fil-as-anti-gay-stance-organized/" target="_blank">http://www.gaywebsource.com/ga...ganized/</a>
Originally Posted By DDMAN26 <<“They are still donating millions of dollars to anti-same-sex marriage institutions and that is unacceptable>> But it's also a private business.
Originally Posted By DDMAN26 Got interrupted by a phone call. And since it is not a legal right in most states(yet) is Chick-Fil-A really violating any laws by donating to these groups. I'm not saying they should be donating, but I'm trying to look at this practically.
Originally Posted By mawnck >>Got interrupted by a phone call.<< Oh. >>I'm not saying they should be donating, but I'm trying to look at this practically.<< I don't understand what you mean by this. What's impractical about saying I'm not going to eat at Chick-Fil-A anymore?
Originally Posted By DDMAN26 I'm talking about this statement <<They are still donating millions of dollars to anti-same-sex marriage institutions and that is unacceptable>> So let me combine and edited my statements But it's also a private business. And since gay marriage is not a legal right in most states(yet) is Chick-Fil-A really violating any laws by donating to these groups. I'm not saying they should be donating to these groups, but I'm trying to look at this practically. This person is saying they can't donate to them. Well no they can.
Originally Posted By imadisneygal I am not in any way saying that they can't donate to the hate groups. But the fact that they do means that I will not give any of my money to them. It's that simple. Sure, it's legal for them to donate the money. And it's legal for me to not eat there. At the end of this whole thing they are going to come out on the wrong side of history, of that I am confident.
Originally Posted By imadisneygal And it IS unacceptable to me. Legal, yes. But unacceptable. One is a fact - it's legal. One is a judgment - it's unacceptable.
Originally Posted By barboy ///Meet Jane Devin/// I'd rather not....she sounds like she has real issues with a lack of self esteem and confidence.
Originally Posted By gurgitoy2 "I don't understand what you mean by this. What's impractical about saying I'm not going to eat at Chick-Fil-A anymore?" Yeah, I don't get how this has become twisted into a legal, first amendment thing at all. The only ones who said anything were the two governors, and yes, they overstepped on that, I think. However, the rest are just boycotting the chicken. Since it's a private business, and we are consumers, they can do what they want, and we can do what we want by not supporting them. I don't understand how this got twisted into some "free speech" thing.
Originally Posted By imadisneygal Because it makes for some good sound bites. And it riles people up.
Originally Posted By mawnck >>This person is saying they can't donate to them.<< No, that person is saying that they SHOULDN'T donate to them. Which is the exact same thing you're (almost) saying.
Originally Posted By mawnck Admins, please cut me a little slack here. This point NEEDS to be made. >>there was a unity and organization of Chick-Fil-A sentiment that felt crucial — a very concrete showing of what we're up against. It's not a million little monsters anymore; it's one big monster. This week, people proudly and tangibly exhibited the staunch belief that damn it, an institution is more important than the quality of actual human lives that could benefit from equality, that the moral thing to do is to side with ideas and not people. We now know how gigantic the wall of wrongheadedness that casts a shadow over society is. And as with Sarah Palin, what's creepy is how palpable the glee is.<< <a href="http://gawker.com/5931271/this-is-what-homophobia-looks-like" target="_blank">http://gawker.com/5931271/this...oks-like</a> (Some "Christ-inspired" material unsuitable for minors at that link.) >>It's a fascinating bit of sophistry. Not only was Chick-Fil-A the victim of censorship and a suppression of the constitution on behalf of The Gay Agenda, but that censorship was double deluxe extra unconstitutional, because it is illegal to express opinions of businesses that hinder their making money. ... The hegemonic forces of billion-dollar corporations and heterosexual Christians were the victims here. ... Cynical and ginned-up claims of victimization turned the focus away from estimable things like political activism and instead highlighted an strong undercurrent of malice. We moved from talking about civil rights and exercising them to a collective gesture of, "Tell the other side to shove it up their ***." ... Chick-Fil-A restaurants could have, for example, become collection centers for one of the largest canned-food drives in history, showing that we must heed Christian teaching because of the astounding power of its generosity. Instead, Chick-Fil-As became ground zero for the mass purchase of the Go **** Yourself Sandwich.<< <a href="http://gawker.com/5931519/all-meals-are-possible-through-christ-hate+bingeing-on-the-chicken" target="_blank">http://gawker.com/5931519/all-...-chicken</a>
Originally Posted By DDMAN26 <<However, the rest are just boycotting the chicken. Since it's a private business, and we are consumers, they can do what they want, and we can do what we want by not supporting them>> That I agree with. I also agree that it shouldn't have been twisted into a free speech issue. On the same token, I still don't see how the (very wrong) opinions of one CEO somehow destroyed the rights of homosexuals in this country.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer He alone didn't destroy any rights (unless his corporate policies caused illegal discrimination to happen in his work places), but he contributed a lot of money to organizations that are dedicated to destroying or limiting rights.
