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

Originally posted by cetaphobic
reply to post by TinfoilTP

 

So, can you prove that it's slander, or do you just not care that they are paying money to convince politicians that killing homosexuals is okay?

US Tax Dollars go to Uganda too, guess that makes every American associated with every bad deed that ever occurs in Uganda.

Look n see

See some more

That makes US gays and Lesbians killers by your logic.

reply to post by natters


well.. that makes sense. $1000 can only buy so much hate. I guess that makes it ok. A little hate is ok.. Just not a lot, right?

lol that's not what I said at all! Read the link I posted clarifying the FRC's reasoning behind lobbying the bill. It was about changing wording defining homosexuality, not about allowing the ugandan organization to murder

Originally posted by rainbowbear
reply to post by gncnew

 

lol im sure Chick-fil-a considers this minority "acceptable losses" in corporate boycott terms.

but think of all the busywork that can be created and funded thru NGOs and such to get the 98% of the rest of the country to jump on the group think boycott bandwagon.

It would seem the Tea Party was doomed from the start, because I can't see why anyone would want 'more tax', which usually grows government, when it isn't mutating into something else, like a technofascist state. What a target for infiltrators. A big ass target.

Thus, we have our 'proof' that people who want small, accountable government, whose sole duty is to protect Liberty, are really homophobes, and racists. It was infiltrated, and will always be infiltrated, by those who want to assimilate their power trip, into our lives. See Emanuel, rahm.

It's all part
Of his rock and roll fantasy.

I've given money to homeless people on the street before. If they went out and gave that money to the KKK am I now guilty of a hate crime? Seems like stupid logic to me.

Originally posted by gncnew

Originally posted by Annee
If Equal Rights is an agenda. Currently - - Equal Right of Legal Government Marriage.

Count me in 100%.

Be alert to anti-gay hate groups trying to claim they are victims.

Chick-fil-A makes chicken sandwiches... they're not quite the "hate group" you're attempting to confer upon them.

The attack on Chick-fil-A has backfired.

The liberals have a new poster boy.

He has a new t-shirt with one word on the front -- INTOLERANCE --.

If you donate money to an organization i don't approve of then i will attack your company

and harrass your employees. Look out! Here comes Adam Smith.



After getting fired as CFO of Vante, Inc. then he apologized.

As a gay man, I for one feel it is unfair to put us all in one category. I think the whole Kiss In thing was stupid, and did NOTHING but make gay people look stupid. I also don't agree that we are all hypocritical in our agenda. I am so freaking sick of this whole issue. The way I see Chick-fil_A is they don't support gays and therefor I will not support them. Plain and simple. I do think that too many people think that the whole anti-gay marriage thing is the only thing that Chick-fil-A has done that against us, but that's not the case. They have refused service in West Hollywood, and would not cater an event in that was held by the GLBT, they also fund anti-gay groups as well. You know what though this is America, and if that's what they want to do so be it. I will just boycott them and that is it. For me case closed. I am sick of hearing SOME of the LGBT whining about this crap though. I wish they would just shut up and leave it alone!!!!

Originally posted by kurthall
As a gay man, I for one feel it is unfair to put us all in one category. I think the whole Kiss In thing was stupid, and did NOTHING but make gay people look stupid. I also don't agree that we are all hypocritical in our agenda. I am so freaking sick of this whole issue. The way I see Chick-fil_A is they don't support gays and therefor I will not support them. Plain and simple. I do think that too many people think that the whole anti-gay marriage thing is the only thing that Chick-fil-A has done that against us, but that's not the case. They have refused service in West Hollywood, and would not cater an event in that was held by the GLBT, they also fund anti-gay groups as well. You know what though this is America, and if that's what they want to do so be it. I will just boycott them and that is it. For me case closed. I am sick of hearing SOME of the LGBT whining about this crap though. I wish they would just shut up and leave it alone!!!!

Have you noticed that the mayors or Chicago, Boston and San Francisco have shut up?

They have awakened a sleeping giant. Now it's a 1st amendment issue.

Silence the opposition doesn't work here in the USA.

Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day was an incredible success. The lines were wrapped

around the stores!

reply to post by kaylaluv

Rosa Parks was not the only black protestor during the civil rights movement

No, she wasn't even a real protestor... she was someone who supported the movement. But she did more for the civil rights movement simply by being who she was and letting bigotry show its ugly head than all the hairy pink tu-tu wearers in the world can ever do.

The point is that one cannot hope to be accepted unless they make themselves appear acceptable. Blacks did not point out the fact that they were black; they pointed out the fact that they were human and were being denied the rights available to all other humans based on a skin color alone. They (the ones that made the movement work) did not see themselves as superior or as needing extra rights; that (Affirmative Action) came along much later.

The thing is, the squeaky wheel gets the oil, and sometimes you gotta make some unpleasant noise to get something done.

Around here, the squeaky wheel gets the oil, but the wheel that reuses to even turn gets thrown out.

Please don't tell me you are stereotyping ALL gays as having green mohawks and pink tutus. You don't know very many gays, I guess.

No, I am giving an example based on the number of "gay pride" events I have seen, mainly on TV.

I do not know how many "gay friends" I have... can you possibly be more degrading to another human being? Should people begin choosing friends based on sexual preference? Why is that the single most important aspect of a person to you, so much that you categorize your friends into "gay" and "straight" categories?

I know of a couple of people I call friend who are gay. One of them tends to "flame" a bit, but I put up with it as long as I can before telling him to chill out. The others one would never know unless they told. It has nothing at all to do with the friendship; it has everything to do with we enjoy each others company and have common interests.

Now, let me ask you a question: put yourself in the shoes of someone who is not gay and does not have any known gay friends... the vast majority of those he sees are the hairy dude in the tutu. How do you expect anyone gay to be taken as anywhere near normal after that? Every time it happens, all these fools are doing by parading up and down the street in cross-dressed underwear is showing how different they are, not the commonality they have with all other humans!

But, I suppose that's the bigot coming out in me. I have to start looking at peoples sexuality rather than what kind of person they are, I suppose.

I've seen some pretty "abnormal" looking straight people too.

And they are usually surrounded by more straight people shaking their heads and talking about what a horse's patootie they are making of themselves. The tutu-wearer is typically surrounded by more of the same shouting encouragement.

Look, it's obvious you are not going to get the message; no one in this debate will. You cannot legislate opinion. You cannot legislate beliefs. You cannot legislate acceptance. All you can legislate are activities. But even then, when you go too far too fast, those beliefs and opinions will fight against you... and you cannot imagine the true horror that can occur when a particular group becomes the perceived cause of injustice among the masses. That is what leads to armed rebellion and widespread violence. Our laws, as imperfect as they may be at times, have kept this from happening until now, but when those laws are used to brow-beat and intimidate rather than serve justice...

...well ... I'm just glad I am hiding and watching. Enjoy your revolution and let me know when the insane of the planet have destroyed each other. I will have a lot to do rebuilding what people like you have destroyed.

TheRedneck

reply to post by TinfoilTP


That doesn't make the graphic slander.

HUH.Chicky fil a --- a corporation working with Govt to kill gays?

Sounds like Fascist behavior all right. where has this happened before?

gays are barking up the wrong tree, they should be protesting Fascism with the FedGov, not working with them..

It is slander because it's not true lol. They lobbied to change WORDING defining homosexuality as a human right. They didn't lobby it in the hopes that it would be passed

reply to post by natters


Got any proof for that?

I posted a link in response to an earlier comment of yours. From CBS news.

www.cbsnews.com...

I believe in freedom of speech.

I believe in treating others equal, no matter their difference!

I believe in speaking with positive words rather than the negative.

I believe I totally love oreo cookies ( eat the whole bag in minutes).

I believe chick fil a needs to cook chicken and not worry about personal views however I believe in the freedom of speech just not the chicken.... Its gross!

Originally posted by okyouwin
One of the parts of the owners interview. that was overlooked, and I think a big part of his statement. was his emphasis on the fact that his and other family members marriage was their first. This seemed to me to a bigger slam on divorce than gay marriage. Just what I saw. And I wonder how come it didn't get no play?
.

Because they're not rallying to make/keep divorce illegal.

Originally posted by TheRedneck

No, I am giving an example based on the number of "gay pride" events I have seen, mainly on TV.

I do not know how many "gay friends" I have... can you possibly be more degrading to another human being? Should people begin choosing friends based on sexual preference? Why is that the single most important aspect of a person to you, so much that you categorize your friends into "gay" and "straight" categories?

I know of a couple of people I call friend who are gay. One of them tends to "flame" a bit, but I put up with it as long as I can before telling him to chill out. The others one would never know unless they told. It has nothing at all to do with the friendship; it has everything to do with we enjoy each others company and have common interests.

I bring up gay friends only because we are talking about gays in this thread - duh. My friends are not friends because they are gay. They're my friends because I like to hang with them.

Now, let me ask you a question: put yourself in the shoes of someone who is not gay and does not have any known gay friends... the vast majority of those he sees are the hairy dude in the tutu. How do you expect anyone gay to be taken as anywhere near normal after that? Every time it happens, all these fools are doing by parading up and down the street in cross-dressed underwear is showing how different they are, not the commonality they have with all other humans!

Well, television and movies usually portray most LGBT characters in a positive light. Even if you don't watch TV, you probably know who Ellen DeGeneres is. One may not like her comedy, but she still looks pretty normal and human to me.

But, I suppose that's the bigot coming out in me.

Well, If the shoe fits.

Look, it's obvious you are not going to get the message; no one in this debate will. You cannot legislate opinion. You cannot legislate beliefs. You cannot legislate acceptance. All you can legislate are activities. But even then, when you go too far too fast, those beliefs and opinions will fight against you... and you cannot imagine the true horror that can occur when a particular group becomes the perceived cause of injustice among the masses. That is what leads to armed rebellion and widespread violence. Our laws, as imperfect as they may be at times, have kept this from happening until now, but when those laws are used to brow-beat and intimidate rather than serve justice...

True horror??? I think you are overstating just a bit.

...well ... I'm just glad I am hiding and watching. Enjoy your revolution and let me know when the insane of the planet have destroyed each other. I will have a lot to do rebuilding what people like you have destroyed.

Well, it's comforting to know that you are here to fix everything for the rest of us. Thank God for you.

Originally posted by StalkerSolent
A lot of this conversation has centered over the issue of gay rights. Gays have the same rights non-gays do, as far as I know. They can get married in every state, just not necessarily to people of the same gender.
To put it another way, we are NOT dealing with an equal rights problem here, unlike laws discriminating by race. (To my knowledge, there are no current laws that discriminate against gays, unlike segregation-type laws.) Rather, proponents of homosexual marriage are either attempting to (and in some states have succeeded) (A) manufacture the "right" of gay marriage, or (B) make everyone else recognize their inherent right to marry someone of the same gender. Some people will say A, and some will say B, but does anyone disagree with my basic premise?
I suppose the other way to look at this is that (C) gays don't have the right to marry the person they love, which assumes everyone else has that right. Anyone opt for C?

You're being purposely obtuse. They can't marry who they want.The "right" is a human right to live your life and be happy as long as you don't infringe on others' rights to the same happiness.

Is disingenuous for people to say that gays have the same rights because they can marry someone of the opposite sex. That's an answer that trolls use. To prove it, all you have to do is switch it around. If gays had the rights to marry the same sex and you didn't, would that be against your civil right? If the answer is yes, then it's a civil rights issue and should be treated as such.

It's not hypocritical of the LGBT community to want this because it doesn't DENY the rights of others to have it. The LGBT community is INCLUSIVE. Chik Fil A's stance is EXCLUSIVE. They want to deny the LGBT community the right of marriage to who they want.

It's not about opinions either. If you don't like anyone in the LGBT community, the vast vast majority would say that's totally fine... You'd be hard pressed to find someone who cares that you don't like them or their attraction. But when you actively campaign against LGBT issues such as same sex marriage, you're going past opinion into ACTION, where you'll be fought tooth and nail because you have NO right to prevent them from their pursuit of happiness.

reply to post by grahag


what ever it is they want--it will take others tax money and Congessional Act to implement. So this is where the line is crossed with other people.

(I mentioned tax money because one of 2 cons to gay marrige on a federal level is that spouses of couples who are gay cannot claim bennies if they are a Govt worker)

Originally posted by grahag


You're being purposely obtuse. They can't marry who they want.The "right" is a human right to live your life and be happy as long as you don't infringe on others' rights to the same happiness.

Is disingenuous for people to say that gays have the same rights because they can marry someone of the opposite sex. That's an answer that trolls use. To prove it, all you have to do is switch it around. If gays had the rights to marry the same sex and you didn't, would that be against your civil right? If the answer is yes, then it's a civil rights issue and should be treated as such.

It's not hypocritical of the LGBT community to want this because it doesn't DENY the rights of others to have it. The LGBT community is INCLUSIVE. Chik Fil A's stance is EXCLUSIVE. They want to deny the LGBT community the right of marriage to who they want.

It's not about opinions either. If you don't like anyone in the LGBT community, the vast vast majority would say that's totally fine... You'd be hard pressed to find someone who cares that you don't like them or their attraction. But when you actively campaign against LGBT issues such as same sex marriage, you're going past opinion into ACTION, where you'll be fought tooth and nail because you have NO right to prevent them from their pursuit of happiness.

Your entire post seems to assume that heterosexuals have the right to marry whoever they want. Actually, part of my point was that no heterosexuals (in the USA) has that right. They have the right to marry whoever they want under certain, limited circumstances (i.e., I can't marry my cousin.) Humans have no right to happiness, although we do have the right to pursue happiness (though, in my humble opinion, 90% of that is contentedness.)

Where did I say they were hypocrites? I think that I mentioned that no one in the United States has the right to marry whoever they want. That right is non-existant. Gays are not--or should not--argue for equal rights because they already have them. What I presume they are arguing for is the right for EVERYONE to marry someone of the same gender.

The switch does not change the facts. Currently, any human being in America, no matter their sexual identity, has the limited right to marry someone of the opposite gender under certain circumstances. Society has not yet determined whether homosexuals have the right to marry someone of the same gender under certain circumstances. If you are appealing to Something beyond society from which you derive your rights--and I believe you are--I applaud you. However, I think you may be hard pressed to find a Deity or principle from natural law that clarifies upon all people the right to marry whomever they wish.

To reiterate: in the USA, we have a universal right to marry someone of the opposite gender within certain guidelines. This applies to everyone, both homosexuals and heterosexuals. We do not have a universal right to marry whomever we want, even within the same guidelines. This also applies to both homosexuals and heterosexuals. It makes more sense if you start thinking of people as people, instead of "straights" and "gays."

Does this make sense?