Chick-fil-A "non-story" exposes the Hypocritical agenda of LGBT Community.

reply to post by gncnew


yeah its looking like the Federal Govt is using minorities to get more Federal Jurisdiction over States-or the minorities are using the FedGov to get more jurisdiction over other people.

or im oversimplifing the obvious agenda here

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by AGWskeptic
The epic failure of the kiss-in

Here is what the Kiss In - - - is really about.

It is NOT a serious major organized group "ground zero" protest.

It is a light-hearted - - - fun - - show love protest.

Go to a Chick-fil-A - - with your opposite sex partner. Take a picture of yourself kissing your partner at Chick-fil-A. Post it on a website.

Some LGBT went right away when they heard about it - - some went on Friday - - it is on going. Pix are still being taken and posted on websites.

edit on 7-8-2012 by Annee because: (no reason given)

Perfect! Set a goal, when you fail to meet that goal, redefine said goal and make the actual goal ambiguous and thus unmeasurable.

I dont understand. So if a heterosexual couple get married and then move to another state their marriage is no longer recognized?......

Or does this only apply to gay marriage...

Originally posted by AM47240

Originally posted by rainbowbear


What are these State vs Federal licence benefits? am I going to go look for myself, or do you have clear grievances?

edit on 7-8-2012 by rainbowbear because: (no reason given)

They are outlined specifically in previous posts. Go back and look.

No they're not, you're making that up. There is no "Federal Marriage"... if you are married in a state, the feds recognize that marriage... period.

reply to post by natters


Marriage between two straight people is legal in all states. Gay marriage is not, and even where it is it is defined differently.

but if you're allowed to get married in a state, the same way as heterosexual people do, then why all of a sudden if you move is it invalid. You are legally married, you just happened to do it in another state. You move to a state where it's illegal and they void your marriage?

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by gncnew

No, I'm talking about the LBGT reaction to the NEGATIVE response Oreo received, but then condoning their own NEGATIVE response to Chick-fil-A.

In essence, it's ok for them to hate on someone for their views and beliefs, but not ok for others to hate on someone they agree with for their views and beliefs.

And trust me, Annee does not have valid points - she has talking points that she plants as flags and uses as a sheild to keep from getting into "sticky" conversations.

Boycotts and Protests are rights protected by the Constitution - - as is Free Speech.

AGAIN - - - it is about the millions of dollars Mr. Cathy has donated to anti-gay organizations fighting to deny a minority group equal rights.

What is about the $$ donated by him? I thought it was about his comments on gay marriage?

Or is this another one of your moving goal posts to make sure you're always "right" in your arguments?

And who are you arguing about with boycotts and protests being protected by the Constitution? You making up your own fights now so you can be "double right"???

reply to post by natters


The federal government does not yet recognize gay marriage, because doing so would (almost) force all states to recognize it.

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by gncnew

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by gncnew

So equal rights is more about everyone having to swallow that gay people are married, not actually about their legal rights?

So all the hullabalou is just about forcing people to accepting something they dont agree with?

Civil Rights was forced.

Fantastic non-answer as usual, thanks!

You want complicated answers - - go to someone else. More words doesn't add or change anything.

Yes - - Equal Rights has to be forced.

Pretty damn pathetic.

edit on 7-8-2012 by Annee because: (no reason given)

Keep hiding Annee, it doesn't help your position, and you're not winning anyone over. I don't want complicated answers, just a dang answer period.

I ask you how much milk costs and you say "the government should inspect milk more!"...

You are scared to death to reach out of your little boxed answers on subjects like this because it requires critical thought outside of the precepts of what "should" be.

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by gncnew

You want there to be a Federal Law of marriage that superimposes itself on top of states rights to self-governance because of a perceived injustice that nobody outside of political funding machines care about.

As in the Civil Rights Act - - As in the Disability Act - - As in the Fair Housing Act.

Federal - - - entire country equality.

If you don't like my simple answers - - not my problem. More words don't change anything.

\
OMG... so you want a "Marriage Act"? That's not a Federal Marriage or whatever you were clamoring for earlier. And FYI - being gay is not a race, it's not a disability, or a socioeconomic status. Careful that we start describing gay people's sexual behavioral choices into a specific federally defined entity, else it can also be regulated.. i.e. mandatory medical screenings, registered gays..

You want the Federal government to involve itself into something because you can't win in the court of ideas. You lose the logic test, and the emotional test, and thus lose at the ballot box. So you want Big Brother to make it all better and force all those close minded people into what you want.

But when you bring him in, you don't control it any more... see Affirmative Action... great intentions, horrible consequences.

I think the REAL solution here is to remove the "bonus" of being married from a governmental perspective.

Originally posted by Annee
Do you know why states have marriage rights? I do.

Why do I know states have marriage rights? Because I researched it.

Do I need to spell it out and provide links every single time State Marriage Rights comes up?

NO

edit on 7-8-2012 by Annee because: (no reason given)

No, but just once would be nice... instead you point - very vaguely I might add - to this boogie man.

reply to post by cetaphobic


and even if it did, it would have to be implimented via an Act of Congress Assembled.

seems fine as State jurisdiction, but--id never go into contract with the State to be "married" so, im ignorant to what the real problem gay couples are having

Originally posted by votan

this is retarded [

Now you're in trouble.. you've just broken the primary rule of this crowd... you're so insensitive!!!!

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by gncnew

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by gncnew

So equal rights is more about everyone having to swallow that gay people are married, not actually about their legal rights?

So all the hullabalou is just about forcing people to accepting something they dont agree with?

Civil Rights was forced.

Fantastic non-answer as usual, thanks!

You want complicated answers - - go to someone else. More words doesn't add or change anything.

Yes - - Equal Rights has to be forced.

Pretty damn pathetic.

edit on 7-8-2012 by Annee because: (no reason given)

Forced? Then expect some blow back. But wait a second...you already have equal rights. It is your own dogma that makes you think otherwise.

But people just want to be accepted. Guess what, we all do, regardless of our beliefs. But when I am "forced" to adhere to a belief that I do not believe in, it's just not going to work.

You're doing a diservice to the LGBTQ community by try to "force" others into your way of thinking.

I don't give one ounce of bats guano if your gay, just keep it behind closed doors. I ask the same of hetrosexuals as well.

reply to post by gncnew


You're being an absolute jackass and you need to stop. I wouldn't normally say anything but not only are you being flippant, rude and ridiculous, but now thanks to this post you're off topic. Could you at least make your trolling somewhat interesting instead of being childish?

Originally posted by cetaphobic
I see no hypocrisy anywhere in the OP. Perhaps the poster should look up the definition of that word?

"These are not the droids you are looking for..."

Nice try though!

Here is what I have learned over the years; The right uses the wing nuts among us for an ATM machine, and periodically they need a new pin number. One of the other things I have learned is the gay comunity have a very long memory and are very persistent. My money is on the g.c.

Not that it matters but, there is a newish chic-fil a on my path that I was thinking of trying. I won't bother now that I am aware, (neither will my wife). We choose to not fuel the hate machine. There has to be 20 other places to eat along the way so I don't think we will be the ones missing out in the end.

Originally posted by rainbowbear
reply to post by cetaphobic

 

sometimes people get irony and hypocracy swapped

hy·poc·ri·sy
   [hi-pok-ruh-see]
noun, plural hy·poc·ri·sies.
1.
a pretense of having a virtuous character, moral or religious beliefs or principles, etc., that one does not really possess.
2.
a pretense of having some desirable or publicly approved attitude.

Dictionary.com

Well, the LGBT community seemed to condemn (in my opinion) the people that criticized Oreo and threatened a boycott for not being tolerant and open-minded (thus insinuating that they were these traits). Yet when the shoe was on the other foot, they turned around and demonstrated that they had none of those traits either when something they disagreed with presented itself.

Thus - Hypocrisy.

Originally posted by rainbowbear
reply to post by votan

 

oh, right--those arent retirement SAVINGS ACCOUNTS they are Insurance programs--SSI and Unemployment Insurance--y know, you pay in all your life and use it maybe once--while the Bankers and the FedGov make money on you when you pay into it....

if SSI and UI are something else other than Insurance scams , what is it?

edit on 7-8-2012 by rainbowbear because: (no reason given)

that is not the point but thank you for the information.

Originally posted by natters
but if you're allowed to get married in a state, the same way as heterosexual people do, then why all of a sudden if you move is it invalid. You are legally married, you just happened to do it in another state. You move to a state where it's illegal and they void your marriage?

Interesting question. I'd bet your fed taxes could be the same.... wonder.