chick-fil-a

1 Stone Pwn · **Posted:** August 6th, 2012, 8:38 pm

Uncle Dano wrote:

1 Stone Pwn wrote:

I wouldn't call multi-million dollar donations to anti-gay rights organizations inactivity though.

A donation to a pro traditional family or pro Christian organization equates to a donation to an anti-gay rights organization?

A donation to a Christian organization that states that it opposes *** rights on its own website equates to a donation to an anti-gay rights organization.

Adbot · **Posted:** August 6th, 2012, 8:38 pm

Killjoy · **Posted:** August 6th, 2012, 8:40 pm

Uncle Dano wrote:

1 Stone Pwn wrote:

I wouldn't call multi-million dollar donations to anti-gay rights organizations inactivity though.

A donation to a pro traditional family or pro Christian organization equates to a donation to an anti-gay rights organization? Really?!? That's what all Christians and pro traditional family supporters are equal to nowadays? Christian organizations are Christian organizations... not anti-gay rights organizations. If the organization is solely aimed at attacking *** rights then you're right, but that's not the sole purpose of Christian, traditional marriage supporting organizations. A promotion of one ideal cannot be viewed exclusively as only an outright attack on other ideals.

Yes. That is exactly what it means. Why. Please explain what else this organization is doing with this money..
Why does this organization exist. Please explain what else they do besides try to not let *** people who love each other marry. (Because I would love to know)

Evelyn · **Posted:** August 6th, 2012, 11:53 pm

Even more so when allowing homosexuals couples to marry will in no way impact the ability for heterosexual couples to marry.

Uncle Dano · **12 99's on 12/12/12!**

Here's an article which echos my opinions on the matter, in case you are interested:

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/there- ... on-same-sex-marriage

That is all.

Duke Juker · RSBandB Donor since 07/01/2010

Here's my take on the matter.

If a company head wants to make his beliefs and opinions known, he has every right to. People are entitled to hold whatever belief they like. The fact our society is so politically correct and afraid to speak their minds on an issue to avoid being branded a terrorist, racist, sexist, etc. is a sad thing in this day and age. People ought to be able to speak their minds without having to suffer for saying it. And like what's been said, Chick-Fil-A just wants to sell food. This statement doesn't prevent them from serving homosexuals. They'll serve everyone just the same. It's just that they have made known their stance, their beliefs, and what they support. Nothing wrong with that.

Jay · **Posted:** August 8th, 2012, 8:25 pm

I usually avoid posting in most topics and observe. But this right here made me feel like I had to say something:

Jasonmrc wrote:

Why do I not support ***/Lesbians? Well for starters I'd like the human race to survive. Male-Male or Female-Female are Incapable of reproducing. In layman's terms, you can't have kids. After generations (well, about 100 -150 years) the world would be completely devoid of human life as we humans only live about 70-90 years and if we're all ***/******** we never interact with the other gender so we never have babies, thus there's never any new humans to grow up. That'll slim the population pretty dang fast. Thankfully I believe there are still some parts of the world untouched by anything due to being unknown of. They still follow the basic reproductive course and so would continue to even after the 'modern' world has killed itself.

I tried really hard to understand these points. Truly I did, and I do not mean to come off as offensive with this reply.

I'd like to introduce you to something: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_insemination
Also, do you seriously believe that if noone objected *** rights, that the entire population of Earth would become homosexual? Do you see homosexuality as some kind of plague that will multiply until the world is, as you put it, killed? Here's a recent graph of the world's population:

As you can see, the population has doubled in the last 50 years. At 7 billion individuals, humans are not an endangered species. In fact, the only population issue to concerned about is the opposite of your point: we're headed to (some will argue that we've already reached) maximum carrying capacity. There are nations that even limit the number of children you can have to counter this. If anything, a percentage of homosexual humans would improve Earth's population issue.

Then, with this:

Quote:

Wow, that was exaggerated, tweren't it? Umm, NO. All the pro-gays/lesbians I've seen seem to be intolerant of 'straight' people. I.E. they want everyone to be as them. Well it doesn't take a scientist to tell you that two creatures of the same gender can't reproduce.

If just part of the population is ***/********, well I guess they can choose to live together and not have kids but they're losing out on a large portion of the joys of life.

Yes, it was terribly exaggerated, as letting people's lifestyles coexist with yours will not cause the end of humankind.
Yes, part of the population IS homosexual. Again I don't see why you think that acceptance would lead to the entire population suddenly turning ***.
Also you claim that every homosexual being is intolerant. Which is weird because the only reason homosexuality is a social issue is because of the anti-gay intolerance. I've actually never even heard of anyone trying to force homosexuality on another. And you claim that "most of the joys of life" are giving birth to a biologically owned child? Adoption is a great option for anyone unable/non-willing to conceive on their own, including homosexuals. I don't believe that adoption would drain out a large portion of anyone's life happiness. If it would, then that person probably shouldn't raise children at all.

To my opinion on the actual topic: I also believe it was blown out of proportion by the media. A company's opinion on political and social issues should not affect your opinion their product. You don't have to agree with the CEO of a company on every matter to enjoy their product. If you really feel this way, then go ahead and stop buying from them. In fact, both Apple and Microsoft both support *** marriage. Does that stop opposers from using the majority of computers? Clearly not. I do entirely support equal human rights, including the inclusion LGBT in our society. But I do not support this completely trivial outburst over ONE MAN's opinion on the matter.

Adbot · **Posted:** August 8th, 2012, 8:25 pm

IsThisKidSerious · **Posted:** August 8th, 2012, 9:31 pm

Jasonmrc wrote:

Y'all may or may not know: That I am a Christian and that I do not support Gays/********. Why am I a Christian? Because Intelligent design makes more sense to me than random chance(that's a different topic though). Why do I not support ***/Lesbians? Well for starters I'd like the human race to survive. Male-Male or Female-Female are Incapable of reproducing. In layman's terms, you can't have kids. After generations (well, about 100 -150 years) the world would be completely devoid of human life as we humans only live about 70-90 years and if we're all ***/******** we never interact with the other gender so we never have babies, thus there's never any new humans to grow up. That'll slim the population pretty dang fast. Thankfully I believe there are still some parts of the world untouched by anything due to being unknown of. They still follow the basic reproductive course and so would continue to even after the 'modern' world has killed itself.

Wow, that was exaggerated, tweren't it? Umm, NO. All the pro-gays/lesbians I've seen seem to be intolerant of 'straight' people. I.E. they want everyone to be as them. Well it doesn't take a scientist to tell you that two creatures of the same gender can't reproduce.

If just part of the population is ***/********, well I guess they can choose to live together and not have kids but they're losing out on a large portion of the joys of life.

That's my gist on the topic. Hate me if you want, just remember the meaning of 'Bigot'.

I'd like to start off by saying that I created an account for the sole purpose of replying to your post. I have never personally seen such ignorance and closed-mindedness before so I had to say something.

First of all, homosexuality will not cause the end of the world. Unless you somehow believe that they will infect the rest of the world and women will refuse to reproduce with men or artificial insemination based purely on morals? Judging by what you said, I honestly believe that you think that... If so, just stop reading right here.

If we're going by children being born homosexual, how in the world can you choose not to support them? They don't choose to be that way, they just are. Would it be right for me to say I don't "support" mentally handicapped people? I don't understand how you come to the conclusion that it's up to you whether or not homosexual people should be "supported". They are human beings, and every single human being should have the chance to be themselves. Homosexuals are not breaking any laws, not murdering people, not raping little children, it's not something you can choose to support or not.

Now if we're going by homosexuals choosing to engage with the same ***, who are you to take that choice away from them? What gives you the right to give or take away someone else' rights?

One last thing. I know you think you've got the world figured out, that reproducing is the meaning of life and all joy in life comes from God and reproducing, but you're dead wrong. Having babies and raping the Earth until there's nothing left, then moving on to the next planet and doing the same was definitely not God's plan. You're delusional if you think that. Oh, and the garbage you spewed out was in fact bigotry.

Quote:

All the pro-gays/lesbians I've seen seem to be intolerant of 'straight' people.

Considering how intolerant you are of other people's choices that in no way will ever affect you, yet claim that they are intolerant towards you, you are a bigot. You cannot base an entire cultures opinions based on what you alone have experienced. I've never met a single homosexual person that was intolerant of heterosexual people. You pulled that out of your *** and you know it. Homosexual people are infamously known for supporting all types of relationships, they're more tolerant towards you then you'll ever be to them. I know many homosexual people that are a joy to be around and never bring up their sexuality just to put down mine.

You're utterly hopeless just like the majority of the Christian community, stuck in their 2000 year old mindset. I'm a proud Catholic but unlike you I have the ability to think for myself, not just believe nonsense. You are a disgrace to the human race, as well as God.

KefkaticFanatic · **Posted:** August 9th, 2012, 2:08 pm

While a corporation does have a right to speech, a strong reaction is not unexpected and completely reasonable, as it just so happens that their speech is standard conservative intolerance and bigotry. It's the same sort of response that westboro gets and deserves, though obviously they aren't as offensive, it's clearly a quite offensive statement.

We'll just have to wait a few more (maybe more than a few D: ) generations for the primitives to be mostly phased out. Just another fun instance where there's a lovely discriminatory viewpoint that is mainstream and in the distant future the initial thought will be "people actually thought like that!?!"

Shane · **Posted:** August 9th, 2012, 2:21 pm

KefkaticFanatic wrote:

We'll just have to wait a few more (maybe more than a few D: ) generations for the primitives to be mostly phased out. Just another fun instance where there's a lovely discriminatory viewpoint that is mainstream and in the distant future the initial thought will be "people actually thought like that!?!"

Are you calling people that posted in the topic here agreeing with that viewpoint primitive? If so I think you should revise your statement since that lowers your posting to a personal attack.

KefkaticFanatic · **Posted:** August 9th, 2012, 2:24 pm

I was speaking in general terms about the people who think that homosexuals are a lesser form of people etc etc.

There are subsets of those against homosexual marriage that at least agree that they are human beings and deserve rights and solely want to disallow marriage because they think it is 100% a religious thing, and while in my opinion they are misguided they are at least somewhat tolerant and more reasonable.

So no, I don't think I was referring to those posting unless they posted something in that manner.

i.e. the people I would be referring to would be the people more akin to a Rush Limbaugh character that are not just in disagreement but in hatred.

Davo · **Posted:** August 9th, 2012, 2:48 pm

The media never fails to crack me up and give me a good laugh. "Hey guys I have an idea! Let's ask a Christian CEO of a company what his views on *** marriage are and then we can ***** and whine for months about his answer because we already know what it's going to be." That's like asking a drug addict if they support the legalization of marijuana (this isn't a topic about that so no more on that please). I'm going to be completely honest. Dan Cathy is a very smart man. Why? Publicity. You mention Chik-Fil-A to anyone in the past month and almost every reply you get is "oh weren't they in the news recently?" It doesn't matter how good or bad the publicity is, it's publicity. Believe it or not that's one of the main goals in business. Rebecca Black was the most hated girl on YouTube for months and was the laughing stock of the entire WORLD. Oh, funny how that works. Did you catch her guest starring in one of Katy Perry's music videos a few months later? Black didn't care if people hated her. She's made it up the ladder and made everyone else look dumb. Kudos to her because I sure made fun of her and hate the song "Friday." She got the bad publicity, yet she's the one rolling in a 5 digit paycheck (if not 6).

I admit it would be one thing if Chik-Fil-A was discriminating against giving jobs to homosexuals, but everyone is so up in arms about what the CEO thinks. Just because a few hundred thousand people stop eating there doesn't make him embrace the *** community nor does it prevent him from donating to whatever organizations he chooses to. It's his money. Anyone remember Kony 2012? Make him famous. That lasted 5 weeks on Facebook. So many children were saved because of it too </sarcasm>. There comes a point where it really just doesn't matter in the scheme of things. The media needs to get over themselves, and anyone attacking other people or the company for such things like freedom of speech. So many people cry about how the government is taking away all our freedoms and constitutional rights. How about you think again. It's most likely you and society. Cathy NEVER said you cannot eat at Chik-Fil-A if you support *** marriage, nor is he forcing his view on anyone. He stated what HE believes. If you don't like it, please get over it, stop eating there, and be quiet. It's not that difficult. I promise.

I think Chik-Fil-A is delicious.

Pennstate315 · Runite Member 5-25-10

You Know all you liberals calling conservatives Intolerant and Bigots, etc. What I noticed is the people who claim to be the most *Tolerant* actually in most most cases are the most intolerant because if you express yourself and disagree with them you are immediately labeled as a bigot, anti-gay, or intolerant. Conservatives may disagree with you but they certainty don't begin personal attacks, because it turns out us conservatives actually can tolerate debate and differing opinions on important issues without denouncing the opposition.

Davo · **Posted:** August 10th, 2012, 8:58 am

Pennstate315 wrote:

You Know all you liberals calling conservatives Intolerant and Bigots, etc. What I noticed is the people who claim to be the most *Tolerant* actually in most most cases are the most intolerant because if you express yourself and disagree with them you are immediately labeled as a bigot, anti-gay, or intolerant. Conservatives may disagree with you but they certainty don't begin personal attacks, because it turns out us conservatives actually can tolerate debate and differing opinions on important issues without denouncing the opposition.

Sir, you are a gentleman and a scholar.

Jasonmrc · **Posted:** August 10th, 2012, 9:53 am

Jay,
I have heard of that and am aware of it. I was pretty sure that was how gays, well, lesbians I suppose, had children. Not sure how gays do it.

Perhaps I should've worded it differently, I don't think the entire population would turn ***. If that was the case either the government would have to do something to keep the world alive or the scientists would get rich.

Jasonmrc wrote:

All the pro-gays/lesbians I've seen seem to be intolerant

Jay wrote:

Also you claim that every homosexual being is intolerant.

Not the same thing. As you could probably guess, I don't see that many pro-gays/lesbans. Of the ones I have seen, they seem to be intolerant of others. Some gays/lesbians may be tolerant as you say. In fact, it usually seems that the ***/lesbians are tolerant but the pro-gay/pro-lesbians are intolerant. Funny.

Again you misquote me...

Jasonmrc wrote:

but they're losing out on a large portion of the joys of life.

Jay wrote:

And you claim that "most of the joys of life"

Most and a large portion are not the same. Most implies almost all, large implies lots, but not necessarily the majority. A large portion of people turned out to support Chick-fil-a, but most people did not do anything either way.
You won't get depressed and think of suicide if you don't have your own kid or any kids. Some gays/lesbians seem like they'd rather just be with their partner anyways.

I think we can both agree the media blew it out of proportion as they do with everything. I wonder what the world would be like without news...

Kid, I tried to figure out a way to retaliate to you in the same way as you did to me, but I couldn't. In all honesty your post merely amused me.
You came here merely to flame me, seeing as how your post was directed entirely at me and gave nothing to the conversation.
I did read your post, in its entirety, but I won't respond to it unless you repost in a civil manner. And please try to use a dictionary and/or thesaurus to find the correct words to use. Your post testifies to your intolerance of my differing beliefs. Which makes you a...ahh nevermind.

Oh, and by the way, Yes, Kid, I am Serious.

Pennstate315 wrote:

You Know all you liberals calling conservatives Intolerant and Bigots, etc. What I noticed is the people who claim to be the most *Tolerant* actually in most most cases are the most intolerant because if you express yourself and disagree with them you are immediately labeled as a bigot, anti-gay, or intolerant. Conservatives may disagree with you but they certainty don't begin personal attacks, because it turns out us conservatives actually can tolerate debate and differing opinions on important issues without denouncing the opposition.

Very well said.

Jay · **Posted:** August 10th, 2012, 4:44 pm

Pennstate315 wrote:

You Know all you liberals calling conservatives Intolerant and Bigots, etc. What I noticed is the people who claim to be the most *Tolerant* actually in most most cases are the most intolerant because if you express yourself and disagree with them you are immediately labeled as a bigot, anti-gay, or intolerant. Conservatives may disagree with you but they certainty don't begin personal attacks, because it turns out us conservatives actually can tolerate debate and differing opinions on important issues without denouncing the opposition.

You're saying that there are no conservatives that begin personal attacks? And then you say all conservatives do not denounce the opposition. Right. I could replace that entire sentence's use of the word "conservative" and replace "liberal" and they'd both be very similar. The similarity? They are both horribly wrong. You cannot judge an entire group of people on a personal level based on their political views. Are there liberals out there that are intolerant, unintelligible, arrogant, and offensive? Absolutely. Are there conservatives out there that share the same traits? I hate to break it to you, but the answer is yes. Character traits come down to exactly that: the character, or individual. If anything about your post is directed towards me, please let me know what you are specifically referring to so I can tell you how you are misinterpreting what I say as uncalled for.

Jasonmrc wrote:

I was pretty sure that was how gays, well, lesbians I suppose, had children. Not sure how gays do it.

Adoption.

Jasonmrc wrote:

Perhaps I should've worded it differently, I don't think the entire population would turn ***.

Probably should have as that's exactly how I interpreted it.

Quote:

the world would be completely devoid of human life

Jasonmrc wrote:

Again you misquote me...

I apologize for not quoting your exact words, but the general meaning behind my response remains the same. Also I can't say I agree on making an opinion based on what some people seem like.