Babbling

[TsumeBlue]

Yeaaaaaaap. So, that was what? About two, three pages in? Not bad, not bad.

[lmposter]

---

redsilversnake wrote:

So, basically, you don't understand discrimination?

---

Oh?

You mean where the police show up with guns, german sheppards and fire hoses?

No. No I must have no idea what real discrimination looks like.

[redsilversnake]

Coincidentally, black people also still suffer discrimination/prejudice.

'Cause, ya know, racism didn't just suddenly disappear in the '60s. Or whenever people mistakenly think it ended.

[lmposter]

Yeah, well I really don't feel like posting sh*t that you're going to overlook... but you can go and look at statistics. All the numbers show that homosexuality is more accepted today than it ever was. And guess what? The number of people who accept gays for who they are just keeps going up and up. Never dips. So f*ck all of this persecution bullsh*t. I'm not saying it doesn't exist. But the gay community reminds me, sadly, of somebody who managed to get their so called "15 minutes of fame". And now it's dwindling. The candle is burned almost to the base. But the flame roars and spurts, desperately trying to remain. It's just pathetic.

[Buddyroe274]

That's what I call support

[redsilversnake]

Yes, acceptance of homosexuality is on the rise. However, I've yet to see any poll where it was over 55%, and discrimination is still common (just look at how few states have legalized same-sex marriage). So no, they are not just looking for "15 minutes of fame;" they are still a persecuted minority, and want their rights.

[MrD1718]

---

KuroKiri wrote:
I wouldn't eat it cause it's sh!t, nothing to do with their stance on gay anything.

---

[1pooh4u]

---

lmposter wrote:

---

1pooh4u wrote:
I never even seen a Chik-fil-a....but now that I see that they admittedly
advocate nonsense I won't eat there....

---

Hey look Sandstone. Your propoganda worked. Do you feel better now?

---

It's not HIS propoganda, he informed me of something and I took the information

and decided not to eat there, just like you decided to continue to eat there.  He even asked

nicely and said please, he didn't get  self righteous until he was attacked in this thread.

The only thing I disagree with is calling people homophobes for eating there.  That was an unfair thing

to say but nothing about this thread has been fair or well played at all.  You all need to go to your

rooms until your mommies give you permission to come out....

[cowboy_stilgar]

---

1pooh4u wrote:

ITT: Someone asks a favor and people

behave like children because they think

they are being told what to do....

---

also, chicken sandwiches

[cowboy_stilgar]

---

Shadowstaarr wrote:
I don't eat at Chik-fil-a, but if I did, I think I should get a pass because I also eat Oreos, which are pro-gay. That at least cancels things out.

---

if i was a woman i would mount you because of this post

[scoobdog]

---

SandStoneReborn wrote:
I've already explained my line of reasoning.

If you buy from a corporation that promotes bigotry then SOME of your money is going to promote bigotry.

---

That's what I corrected your statement to be.  What YOU said was that buying from a corporation that supports bigotry means supporting bigotry.  Maybe that's not what you meant, but that is almost exactly how you said it.  And, since knowingling supporting bigotry is the equivalent of being a bigot, you can understand how that might get a very negative reaction.  Whether you like it or not, being careless with your phrasing is going to have these kinds of results.

[Schizo]

 I don't eat there anyway, because they're overpriced. However, on the off chance I feel like paying an exorbitant sum for small portions of chicken nuggets and tasteless waffle fries, the personal philosophy of the CEO and the organizations he contributes to isn't likely to stop me. I patronize places for the products or service, not the beliefs of the owner or employees. Now if the owner or employees let their beliefs influence their service, that would be another matter.

[Cepheus84]

So... what? The big problem is they donate money to Christian organizations which aren't gay-friendly? Don't they have a first amendment right to give they money to whomever they want?

[capt_taco]

---

slyfoxx2 wrote:
How burdensome is your greatness that you must comment on topics you find beneath you, to inform all of us little people of what you think. Sir, thank you for the update. You got down in the muck and that's no place for a person such as you. One day, one day soon, all threads will pass the Capt Taco test of merit and interest. I salute you, Captain, my Captain.

---

Thanks, I'll bookmark this in case one day I ever need to know what a complete moron thinks.

[MrD1718]

---

Cepheus84 wrote:
So... what? The big problem is they donate money to Christian organizations which aren't gay-friendly? Don't they have a first amendment right to give they money to whomever they want?

---

Of course they do....that's not the point.

In fact, the first amendment grants everyone the right to free speech...which means they can say whatever they want but they can't be safe from criticism.

[slyfoxx2]

I'm glad you know I was addressing one.

[GinaSzanboti]

I guess there is one in town.  I might have to try it out some year to find out what it is I'm giving up.

[kimopo]

I've gone vegan (mostly) anyways.


But I'll tell other people to not eat at chik-fil-a.

[kimopo]

---

Schizo wrote:

 I don't eat there anyway, because they're overpriced. However, on the off chance I feel like paying an exorbitant sum for small portions of chicken nuggets and tasteless waffle fries, the personal philosophy of the CEO and the organizations he contributes to isn't likely to stop me. I patronize places for the products or service, not the beliefs of the owner or employees. Now if the owner or employees let their beliefs influence their service, that would be another matter.

---

Your sig says "libertarian atheist" are you really a libertarian?

I don't really get how so many libertarians seem to ignore the power their money has in making society a better place. If you're going to depend on the free market, you have to actually make it work by making socially conscious choices. Otherwise the freemarket will fail. 

[DoseOfLaughter]

If they were open right now, I'd totally go get a ####-hate-filled sammich and scarf that bad boy down like a boss.

[Glodson]

---

MrD1718 wrote:

---

Cepheus84 wrote:
So... what? The big problem is they donate money to Christian organizations which aren't gay-friendly? Don't they have a first amendment right to give they money to whomever they want?

---

Of course they do....that's not the point.

In fact, the first amendment grants everyone the right to free speech...which means they can say whatever they want but they can't be safe from criticism.

---

Exactly. And I can give my money to whoever I want as well. This cuts both ways. If they want the business of people like us, then they'll have to change their donation habits. That's it. So not only do we get to criticize them, we also can organize and show our displeasure by withholding our money from their company.

I would gladly become a customer again if they changed their policy on this. They don't have to stop being overtly christian, that doesn't bother me. It is the donations and support of hateful ideology that bothers me.

[lmposter]

I don't know, Glodson. Chick-Fil-A probably won't feel too much of a hit seeing as there's "rampant homophobia" running through the veins of bigots everywhere.

[Glodson]

I didn't say any of that, now did I?

All I said is that people who don't like Focus on the Family are free to criticize a company for supporting those douchebags, and that we are free to decide not to spend our money on their products because of it. And maybe it won't change their policies, but people who care about these kind of things notice if their sales drop. If this gains more attention, maybe enough people won't buy from them to notice. I don't know.

And I don't care, really. I just know that I cannot eat there in good conscience.

[lmposter]

---

Glodson wrote:
I just know that I cannot eat there in good conscience.

---

As opposed to, what? McDonalds?

[Schizo]

---

kimopo wrote:

Your sig says "libertarian atheist" are you really a libertarian?

I don't really get how so many libertarians seem to ignore the power their money has in making society a better place. If you're going to depend on the free market, you have to actually make it work by making socially conscious choices. Otherwise the freemarket will fail. 

---

 That assumes 1.) that I'm a free market libertarian, and 2.) that I don't condone people holding different viewpoints than me.

 Let's assume I'm pro-free market. The question remains, do I think this particular scenario warrants my active participation in a boycott? Is he turning away customers? Treating gay customers worse than heterosexuals? Treating gay employees worse than heterosexuals? If the answer is 'no', and it is, then why should I be bothered? He is entitled to his homophobia. I may not agree with him, and I certainly wouldn't invite him to any dinner parties or get-togethers, but he's still allowed to be a pro-christian homophobe. As long as he's not letting his homophobia leak into his how he treats his customers or employees, why should I be dissuaded from partonizing his business?

 Like I said before, the situation changes when he's actually letting his philoshophy leak into how he treats his customers. Let me know when that happens - because otherwise the man is entitled to his opinion.