wants2laugh wrote:

I find it funny that someone can say "if you trash me, your a bigot.... if i trash you, then it's freedom of speech". That is what I see happening here, and I think that is FM's point. It is freedom of speech on both sides.

Love ya, W2L! I fully support the right of people on the other side to hate on Chick-Fil-A! I just am going to note their hypocrisy as part of my right to freedom of speech! (And I'll also note that thet'd do better to just silently boycott rather than giving Chick-Fil-A more free press. But hey, they have a right to be counterproductive. lol) However, I do take issue with a politician trying to say that a business cannot open up in their city because they don't agree with the company's values

wants2laugh wrote:

I find it funny that someone can say "if you trash me, your a bigot.... if i trash you, then it's freedom of speech". That is what I see happening here, and I think that is FM's point. It is freedom of speech on both sides.

So then if I trash the Clan or Nazis or the Christians who threw a hissy fit at the black couple trying to get married in their church I'm a bigot? No I ain't. And neither is anyone else who calls out the intolerant. And just for fun, GO Sarah. GO far away!

wants2laugh wrote:

In my case, I sided with the Muslims. And although I am catholic, I sided with the wife of a fallen LT who died in Iraq defending our freedoms, but was denied his wife's request to put a wiccan symbol on his military headstone. In that case, there were 38 different symbols one could select from, even an atom for athiests, but the wiccan was denied the symbol of his religion. THAT is discrimination. Keeping a Islamic building out is discrimination. Preventing the mississippi couple from marrying in a church is discrimination. Chick Fil A has NOT discriminated against anyone. There have been no complaints that people were not served for being gay. There has not been one employee who has sued for wrongful termination due to sexual orientation. No employee has come forward and said "I was fired because I legally married my spouse" If those things had happened, we all know that it would be out in the open now. Instead, its "the CEO basis his business practices on his religious beliefs". That is HIS right as the owner of a private corporation---they are not publicly traded. Just the same as it is the right of gays to say, "He is wrong we are right".

wants2laugh wrote:

I find it funny that someone can say "if you trash me, your a bigot.... if i trash you, then it's freedom of speech". That is what I see happening here, and I think that is FM's point. It is freedom of speech on both sides.

There is a difference, subject to what bigotry is being trashed.

Alan Smithee wrote:

So then if I trash the (K)lan or Nazis or the Christians who threw a hissy fit at the black couple trying to get married in their church I'm a bigot? No I ain't. And neither is anyone else who calls out the intolerant. ...

And to anticipate the rebuttals, yeah they are intolerant. it's one thing to have an opinion but it's another to actively try and deny other people's rights outside the confines of your fast food restaurants.

Quote :

The Cathy family, which launched the chain in 1967, has long supported efforts (through millions of dollars in donations) to limit legal marriage to heterosexual relationships

http://philanthropy.com/blogs/philanthropytoday/chick-fil-a-anti-gay-marriage-support-stirs-ire-and-support/51013

Alan Smithee wrote:

So then if I trash the Clan or Nazis or the Christians who threw a hissy fit at the black couple trying to get married in their church I'm a bigot? No I ain't. And neither is anyone else who calls out the intolerant. And just for fun, GO Sarah. GO far away!

Shale wrote:

There is a difference, subject to what bigotry is being trashed.

Alan Smithee wrote:

And to anticipate the rebuttals, yeah they are intolerant. it's one thing to have an opinion but it's another to actively try and deny other people's rights outside the confines of your fast food restaurants.

Thank you

Forgiveness Man wrote:

Chick-Fil-A doesn't turn gay people away. lol "Oh you're gay, no chicken for you!" Nah, the only place that is happening is in the minds of the haters. (Which is where they live, so I suppose it's understandable)

Yeah, it sounds very accepting when the President of your organization openly declares his opposition to your rights because of who you are. How welcoming they are indeed!

Forgiveness Man wrote:

The people hating on CFA are bigots by very definition. They just like to cloak their bigotry in their phony, one-sided "tolerance." But it's still bigotry, and hypocritical.

No they're not. Again, that's not what bigotry means. You're being very obtuse on that point.

Forgiveness Man wrote:

"We won't let a business open here because they don't share our values." Bigotry.

Except that nobody has actually said this. Your talking point fails because it's based on a fallacy. Show me the article where ANYBODY actually says that they won't let Chick-Fil-A open their business there? Mind you this may take you quite a bit of time!

FUCK Chick-Fil-A and their supporters, ignorant as they may be!

wants2laugh wrote:

In my case, I sided with the Muslims.

Keeping a Islamic building out is discrimination. Preventing the mississippi couple from marrying in a church is discrimination. Chick Fil A has NOT discriminated against anyone.

You're missing the point. It's not about "discrimination", it's about whether or not someone has the legal right to build something wherever the hell they please, and why some people support a certain groups right to do that (Chick-Fil-A) and opposed another groups right to do the same thing (Islamic community center). These people are hypocrites plain and simple! Obviously that criticism wasn't specifically directed towards YOU since you "sided with the Muslims" in that case. I was just making a point directed mostly towards the right (who it generally applies to).

Nobody is alleging that Chick-Fil-A ever "discriminated" against anyone before. The accusation is that the person who owns the chain is an open homophobe, and the controversy is in whether or not citizens of a particular region want an organization ran by a homophobe in their neighborhood. If they don't, then they have the right to speak out about it. It's a matter of principle, and these Mayors, who presumably have the pulse of the citizens for which they represent, have made their positions quite clear (as they should).

wants2laugh wrote:

I find it funny that someone can say "if you trash me, your a bigot.... if i trash you, then it's freedom of speech". That is what I see happening here, and I think that is FM's point. It is freedom of speech on both sides.

And what I'm trying to say is that that if THAT is truly FM's point, then it's a STUPID point, because "freedom of speech" is IRRELEVANT to this conversation. This case has ZERO to do with "freedom of speech". Nobody has questioned the right of the President of Chick-Fil-A to say what he said. I can assure you with absolute certainty that he will not get arrested and jailed for speaking his opinion, because he is entitled to "freedom of speech" just like everyone else in this country, and NOBODY has questioned that. The point is, people who speak out AGAINST his point of view, ALSO have freedom of speech and that's why we have chosen to exercise it. Because when douchebags say DOUCHY things, then we have every right to call them out on it. People have the right to call for a boycott of a chain ran by a douche, and to say that they don't want them in their neighborhood (because it's ran by a douche). Freedom of speech is NOT impeded in any capacity here, so there is no reason to pretend that that is somehow an issue worth discussing.

You (not "you" specifically but anybody) can say whatever the hell you want to say. Just don't be surprised when people who disagree with you call you a bigot when you say racist, sexist, homophobic or xenophobic things and openly declare those views. You're allowed to be a bigot, because you have freedom of speech, and I'm allowed to call you a douche for your bigotry in return. You're not a bigot because you "trash me", you're a bigot because you openly trash a particular minority group in this country. Me calling you out for that doesn't in turn make ME a bigot also because I'm not trashing a demographic of people, only specific people who are bigots. The argument that I am somehow a bigot because I am intolerant to other bigots is nonsensical. It necessitates a bastardization of what the word bigot actually means. It's like saying that if you're against RACISTS that also makes you a bigot towards the racists. It's essentially an idiot's argument and it's one that FM makes constantly whenever HE chooses to use the term bigot. I'm not saying that FM is an idiot because I don't think that he is at all. I'm just that he routinely says idiotic things (this one being a primary example).

People assuming CFA is legitimately banned is driving me nuts. From what I have seen, they are not banned but are not being embraced. So what? Let them try to open in Boston. Let's see how many people frequent the place.

These franchises of CFA are owned and operated by individuals. While greatly benefiting from CFA sales, Dan Cathy is not the only person earning his living via CFA.

At the end of the day, people need to eat where they feel fit to do so and enjoy. If CFA offends you, then don't eat there.

I would bet most Christians don't investigate the moral compass of everyone they do business with. So, it is pretty ridiculous Christians are touting their "ideal" family values in conjunction with their support of CFA. But whatever floats their boat.

Same for the opposition to CFA.

Alan Smithee wrote:

So then if I trash the Clan or Nazis or the Christians who threw a hissy fit at the black couple trying to get married in their church I'm a bigot? No I ain't. And neither is anyone else who calls out the intolerant.

The ACLU and the US Supreme Court have determined that the KKK has the right to march/operate. If they commit a crime, then there is a problem. They have a right to think/feel any way they want. Just as you do. Just as that baptist church's members do. The church crossed the line into discrimination when it refused the couple services.

Also, one can tolerate without accepting. they are two different things. I do not agree with muslims/jews, and do not accept their views, but I tolerate them, and respect their right to their views. where the hypocrisy lies is in the concept that one should be tolerant of another's views, without that same tolerance being reciprocated.

And let me get this straight....According to cnn, Same-sex marriage is legal in the District of Columbia and six states: Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont, Iowa, New Hampshire and New York. Civil unions are legal in New Jersey, Illinois, Delaware, Rhode Island and Hawaii. so all the hoopla is really about someone agreeing with the laws of 44 states? and opposing the laws of 6 states? (cause we are discussing the wording of 'marriage'). If this man was soooo evil in opposing gay marriage, then wouldnt the rest of the country already be performing gay marriage?

I know people are going to go on with the history of civil rights, what was wrong then is accepted now, but that is the way societies work. What is the norm, accepted, or practiced during one century can be completely different throughout another. Unfortunately, this is one of those topics that involves people's religious beliefs, and their morals based on those beliefs. Because of that, it may take much longer for things to change.

But in the meantime, why not take the high road and lobby for change, demonstrate for change? rather than pointing fingers at obvious candidates?

I love kinky sex, this holy roller would tell me that im gonna burn in hell. do i believe him? No. Would i expect him to think differently or think i could change his mind? No. So why waste time and energy trying to do so?

Quote :

Also, one can tolerate without accepting

These groups neither accept nor tolerate. That's the point. I don't care that Chick-Fil-A is against gay marriage. I care that they donate millions of dollars to organizations that try to physically impose their views on others.

Quote :

If this man was soooo evil in opposing gay marriage, then wouldnt the rest of the country already be performing gay marriage?

Not with well funded political opposition. See above.

Quote :

I love kinky sex, this holy roller would tell me that im gonna burn in hell. do i believe him? No. Would i expect him to think differently or think i could change his mind? No. So why waste time and energy trying to do so?

So you'd be OK if this "holly roller" went beyond just preaching that you're going to burn in hell and actively tried to outlaw your sexual practices?