The Planned Kiss In at Chck-fil-a On Friday,

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Yeah I know, smart strategy of CFA btw. There must be many idiots out there that believe giving away water is an act of Christian neighbourly love.

Not that I support the jerk in the vid, but I understand they fired him for venting a non-homophobic opinion? He may be an ass-hole but that's just stupid.

I dont think I agree with him being fired

But, I do not know what kind of company he worked for either so maybe there was some conflict

And again, he was berating the girl for the company she worked for

IF and just if, jobs were easier to find right now he would have gotten away with it

In the end he was a pure jerk

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

Oh, and one more thing

Supporting traditional marriage does not make one a homophob full of hate

That is bull shit story line that will die quickly

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

I could have predicted this too

And the left sooooo wants the tea party to act like they do

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/08/chick-fil-a-kiss-hate-graffiti-vandalized.html

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

Supporting traditional marriage does not make one a homophob full of hate

Well, that depends on how you're supporting it. If you're supporting "traditional" marriage by trying to keep homosexual couples from being able to marry, then that is bigoted at best. If you're supporting it by trying to make your own "traditional" marriage work and/or helping others to keep theirs working, then I see absolutely no problem with that. There is no reason why "supporting traditional marriage" should equal "opposing same-sex marriage," yet that's truly what a lot of people mean when they use that phrase.

[normiss 898]

How much in depth research does it take to make a lunch decision?????

I just want a fucking sammich.

I don't need to investigate all the investments, political donations, church attended, where they went to school, what they think of evolution, who they sleep with, or where they were born.

I just want lunch for pete's sake.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Supporting traditional marriage does not make one a homophob full of hate

Well, that depends on how you're supporting it. If you're supporting "traditional" marriage by trying to keep homosexual couples from being able to marry, then that is bigoted at best. If you're supporting it by trying to make your own "traditional" marriage work and/or helping others to keep theirs working, then I see absolutely no problem with that. There is no reason why "supporting traditional marriage" should equal "opposing same-sex marriage," yet that's truly what a lot of people mean when they use that phrase.

No it is not a biggoted position

As I have stated before, I support laws giving same sex coupled the same benifits.

It is not my business what they do

On the other hand, marriage is by definition between and man and women

They are very few reasons to try and change that

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Marinus 0]

The guy is without a doubt a monumental a-hole and I'll be the first to admit I LOL-ed when I read he got fired, but it's a bit harsh. Depending on his function in his former company he could be bad for business if he's a spokes person or something.

Quote

Supporting traditional marriage does not make one a homophob full of hate

Perhaps not, but actively promoting inequality for same sex couples is.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

The guy is without a doubt a monumental a-hole and I'll be the first to admit I LOL-ed when I read he got fired, but it's a bit harsh. Depending on his function in his former company he could be bad for business if he's a spokes person or something.

Quote

Supporting traditional marriage does not make one a homophob full of hate

Perhaps not, but actively promoting inequality for same sex couples is.

I dont agree

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

How much in depth research does it take to make a lunch decision?????

I just want a fucking sammich.

I don't need to investigate all the investments, political donations, church attended, where they went to school, what they think of evolution, who they sleep with, or where they were born.

I just want lunch for pete's sake.

Well, that's you. But anyone who purposely stood in unusually long lines at Chick-fil-A on Wednesday - I'm guessing they wanted more than just lunch or they would have gone somewhere less crowded.

[ianmdrennan 2]

Quote

Quote

The guy is without a doubt a monumental a-hole and I'll be the first to admit I LOL-ed when I read he got fired, but it's a bit harsh. Depending on his function in his former company he could be bad for business if he's a spokes person or something.

Quote

Supporting traditional marriage does not make one a homophob full of hate

Perhaps not, but actively promoting inequality for same sex couples is.

I dont agree

How, exactly, is "Actively promoting inequality for same sex couples" not bigoted?

Performance Designs Factory Team

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

The guy is without a doubt a monumental a-hole and I'll be the first to admit I LOL-ed when I read he got fired, but it's a bit harsh. Depending on his function in his former company he could be bad for business if he's a spokes person or something.

Quote

Supporting traditional marriage does not make one a homophob full of hate

Perhaps not, but actively promoting inequality for same sex couples is.

I dont agree

How, exactly, is "Actively promoting inequality for same sex couples" not bigoted?

I am not doing that

It is a biggoted view to think I am

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[ianmdrennan 2]

Your response makes no sense.

Either you don't understand the question, you can't read, or you dont understand what you wrote.

I simply asked, FROM YOUR POST:

How, exactly, is "Actively promoting inequality for same sex couples" not bigoted?

It's a pretty simple question Marc. If someone actively promotes inequality (for any group), how is that not prejudiced against them?

Performance Designs Factory Team

[Channman 2]

Quote

Here is the video

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/college-lecturer-berates-local-chick-fil-a-employee-at-the-drive-thru-horrible-corporation/

Here is the results

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2913907/posts

The firing was appropriate. After the many phone calls for comment by the media and several clients asking what the hell was going on with their CFO, a shocked and stund company had but one response, get your crap and POND SAND!!!, you bastard.

[ryoder 1,590]

Quote

No it is not a biggoted position

As I have stated before, I support laws giving same sex coupled the same benifits.

It is not my business what they do

On the other hand, marriage is by definition between and man and women

They are very few reasons to try and change that

It goes back to the problem that marriage is a religious practice, and never should have been recognized by the government. The government should recognize only civil unions for all couples, and those who also want the religious ceremony are free to go to whatever church they want for it.

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[ryoder 1,590]

Quote

I hope it doesn't have much of a turn-out. It's a childish reaction to the ignorant and/or bigoted reaction that was "Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day."

Well, I wasn't planning on going, but then when I thought about; How often do I get to see hot Lebanese babes in a lip-lock.

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[Channman 2]

Quote

Your response makes no sense.

Either you don't understand the question, you can't read, or you dont understand what you wrote.

I simply asked, FROM YOUR POST:

How, exactly, is "Actively promoting inequality for same sex couples" not bigoted?

It's a pretty simple question Marc. If someone actively promotes inequality (for any group), how is that not prejudiced against them?

Well just to be fair, there are many here within this blog and the LGBT actively devoted to his /her own opinions and prejudices; especially those who regard or treat christians with hatred and intolerance. Don't take this personal...just saying

As it is written, "You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye."

[davjohns 1]

I haven't really had an opinion in the whole issue of defining marriage to this point. I've thought about it, and here's what I've come up with.

Marriage might very well be a religious institution. Let religions have it. Just understand that there are some religions and Christian denominations that have no problem marrying same-sex couples. So, everyone has an avenue to claim they are married.

Now, government has no business in this sector. I think that the US, today, has eliminated the inequalities of gender that once justified government intervention in dissolution of marriages. So, if people want some form of civil union, they should put it in a contract. When they choose to end that contract, they can petition a civil court over any disputes resulting.

That gives the government jurisdiction over the civil issues of an intended long-term relationship and gives churches jurisdiction over marriage. Churches can be petitioned for the religious divorce / annulment and government can decide the division of property, financial obligations and such in accorance with the civil contract entered into.

Does that solve the problem? I think Catholics pretty much already see it this way. You can only be 'married' in Catholocism if both parties are Catholic and the church performs the wedding.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Your response makes no sense.

Either you don't understand the question, you can't read, or you dont understand what you wrote.

I simply asked, FROM YOUR POST:

How, exactly, is "Actively promoting inequality for same sex couples" not bigoted?

It's a pretty simple question Marc. If someone actively promotes inequality (for any group), how is that not prejudiced against them?

It is confusing to you because you are coming from a flawed premise

I am not actively promoting what you post. I marriage is be definition between a man and a women

However same sex couple can get equally recognized under the law is fine by me

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

No it is not a biggoted position

As I have stated before, I support laws giving same sex coupled the same benifits.

It is not my business what they do

On the other hand, marriage is by definition between and man and women

They are very few reasons to try and change that

It goes back to the problem that marriage is a religious practice, and never should have been recognized by the government. The government should recognize only civil unions for all couples, and those who also want the religious ceremony are free to go to whatever church they want for it.

+1

And your post identifies WHY groups are pushing marriage

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[jgoose71 0]

Quote

It's a pretty simple question Marc. If someone actively promotes inequality (for any group), how is that not prejudiced against them?

Nobody is promoting inequality for nobody. The LGBT argument is flawed from the get go.

The whole argument is that marriage is between a man and a woman. It's not about taking away rights. Gays can have unions, have family's, have tax benefits, what ever. No rights are being taken away. the argument is about a definition. The definition of marriage.

A family of wolves is called a pack. A family of geese is called a gaggle. Your argument is "if you don't call a family of geese a pack, you are a bigot."

It just doesn't work.

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

[ianmdrennan 2]

I never said a thing about marriage.

Quote

Gays can have unions, have family's, have tax benefits

Are you sure? I'm pretty sure that they can't claim a federal 'marriage' deduction under the umbrella of a civil union.

Anyway, back to my original post/post:
Marc made a statement in response to a statement that while being against same sex marriages didn't make someone a 'hate fill homophobe' (and I agree) that he didn't agree that 'actively promoting inequality for same sex couples is.' (and with that I disagree).

I asked him a question about it and so far he's been unable to answer it, or understand meaning of the statement he made.

Performance Designs Factory Team

[ianmdrennan 2]

Quote

Quote

No it is not a biggoted position

As I have stated before, I support laws giving same sex coupled the same benifits.

It is not my business what they do

On the other hand, marriage is by definition between and man and women

They are very few reasons to try and change that

It goes back to the problem that marriage is a religious practice, and never should have been recognized by the government. The government should recognize only civil unions for all couples, and those who also want the religious ceremony are free to go to whatever church they want for it.

Agreed. That is a big part of the root of the problem.

The other problem is that the word "marriage" doesn't belong to any one religion - but people tend to hide their prejudice behind that word too.

Ian

edit: On a side note - if I boycotted every company I had some moral issue with. I'd have a really hard time getting anything at all That doesn't make it ok mind you, but I can't pretend otherwise.

Performance Designs Factory Team

[davjohns 1]

I looked back over the thread. It looks to me as if you have twisted things around. You indicated that someone was a homophobe filled with hate. He disagreed. You then turned that into him actively promoting inequality. He said he wasn't doing that. You then asked how doing so was not bigotted. You've been twisting his comments at every exchange. I'm not surprised he quit responding.

Please go back and read the exchange again.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

The whole argument is that marriage is between a man and a woman.

Or between form and function.
Or between sweet and spicy.
Or between science and art.
Or between Heaven and Hell. (William Blake)
Or between two people of the same sex. (Merriam-Webster)

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/marriage

[billvon 3,120]

>The whole argument is that marriage is between a man and a woman. It's not about
>taking away rights.

Of course it is. Gays had the right to marry in California. That right was taken away.

> Your argument is "if you don't call a family of geese a pack, you are a bigot."

No. More like "if you don't call a black american a citizen (or a voter), you're a bigot." And up until about 100 years ago, blacks were not considered citizens, or voters. Fortunately we changed those definitions.