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

reply to post by kaylaluv

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.

That was my point. That's the only reason to have a friend. So why do I keep seeing people arguing over how many gay friends they have? Why does it even matter?

That's what true equality is: it doesn't matter! At one time, it did. At one time, white kids and black kids simply weren't supposed to become friends. No law was used to combat that; understanding and realization that the skin color did not define humanity destroyed it. So in that light, would it not make more sense for someone who was for the gay marriage argument to show that there was no appreciable difference?

Instead we have people demanding change, ignoring concerns, and actually stating they don't care what others think because they see the others as bigoted - I have even seen people post openly that they don't think "haters" (apparently meaning anyone who doesn't agree with them completely) should have no input on the subject, despite the fact that legislation is being proposed.

Well, television and movies usually portray most LGBT characters in a positive light.

Yeah, I have heard of Ellen. I never cared much for her comedy, but apparently a lot of people do.

But it isn't enough... not yet. There have been too many spectacles and too many tutus and too many reports of other perversions being associated with homosexuality. Ellen can't counter that alone, and let's be honest... her biggest support seems to be Rosie O'Donnell. Rosie is a no-talent, uneducated, idiotic screaming nail-on-a-chalkboard voiced so-so actress that shoves her foot in her mouth more than Pat Robertson!

George Takai is showing a good impression, and there are others. But you simply don't wipe out decades of idiocy with a few normal-looking individuals. It does not work like that (although I am sure you will demand it does before all is said and done).

Well, If the shoe fits.

Hmmm, nice comeback. Accuse the guy who is trying to help, the guy who will at some point get a chance to vote on this issue, the guy who, along with 299,999,999 others, has the future of this proposed ideal in his hands. Let me know how this works out for you.

I always found one could catch more flies with honey than with vinegar... but then again, that's probably just me wearing nice shoes.

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

Er, no. I'm here to fix everything for me. You made them, you get to fix your own problems.

TheRedneck

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.

You're not the only one. Reading major gay news sites - - - it was about a 50/50 split.

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.

Yes - - Exactly!

What is most important in all this is AWARENESS!

Not too long ago Neil Patrick Harris made a comment about liking Chick-fil-A. Even he was not aware of their major support of anti-gay hate groups. (LOL - needless to say - he got a lot of Tweets. Now that he is Aware - he too boycotts Chick-fil-A).

Even though it appears Chick-fil-A got lots of support - - - its a false sense of "counting clucks before they hatch".

Every year polls show more support for Gay Rights. Even the head of one of the major Traditional Family groups said they are losing to their own younger next generation.

Some states have now make it mandatory to reveal the name and address of anti-gay supporters. How willing will they be when they are no longer anonymous and might be subject to backlash?

Yes - AWARENESS. People as a whole - - don't like Bullies.

I use to be for gay marriage until I saw the bullying alot of the gay movement does if you don't agree with them. I thought they were for tolerance of others beliefs ( as long as they aren't hate groups) but they threaten and protest anyone famous who opposes them. If I was famous I would never speak out against gay rights because they will try and end your career and probably will succeed. If you protest against gay rights no matter what you are called the most ugly names even if you aren't full of hate and I just wish a good amount of the gay movement would practice what they preach. I know both sides have people with alot of hate for one another and not all the gay movement is like what I described but I see far too often.

reply to post by TheRedneck


Do you think that all gay people are hairy men in pink tutu's or that this is even his everyday attire? It is a parade and his attire for this was probably done as a big joke to get laughs just as my short chubby mom dressed in a wonder woman outfit for a halloween party. She was kinda the antithesis for wonder woman, just as the fat guy in a tutu was the antithesis for a ballerina.

We had a small pride parade locally and 98% of the people wore just jeans and a t-shirt but, the news media focused on the trans-sexual wearing a purple ball gown because people just waking by in t-shirts do not make parades interesting. Who am I to tell the Tutu man to do anything or the purple gown wearing trans-sexual? I suppose we could have grabbed the trans-sexual and dragged her to the back alley and stripped her and forced her into another outfit. I represent myself. I cannot tell other people what to do.

It is just the same as our local town parade the news media focused on the way too heavy/big Shriners driving their tiny go-carts instead of the high school marching band wearing dark dress pants and yellow t-shirts.

You say yourself you are a redneck but, do the neighbours that lived across the street from me at one point that proudly proclaimed to be rednecks represent you? They threw beer parties at least every other day kept the whole street awake, fought their spouse on the front lawn, sent each other to the hospital, and threw furniture out the front door after their drunken brawls. Why haven't you been down here to tell them they are misrepresenting you as a redneck? Could it be because you have no authority to tell others what to do or how to behave? Why should it be expected that I have some sort of authority over other gays?

To keep this on topic though I really don't care what some fast food restaurant does/says. This is not the fight to go after for the community. Arguing over this fast food place didn't accomplish anything in the end other than arguing. I can't puff up and say that I won't eat there because I don't eat at fast food places at all. The kissing thing though in front of Chick-Fil-A was silly and really does not accomplish anything. other than having a photo of two people kissing in front of a fast food place and the beach looks much nicer for kissing photos even for heterosexuals.

reply to post by toochaos4u


Group Think does not discriminate. It affects any group of people who will allow themselves to be lead by their emotions. We arent talking about individual gay people here are we? No, were talking about a boycott, am I wrong?

In this way, organized homosexuals are like organized religion.

Both should be avoided.

reply to post by Eurisko2012


Wow, you just took hypocrisy to a whole new level! You had some help though. I worked in the customer service industry for a long time, and I've encountered plenty of customers who screamed, cussed at, and threatened me because they didn't like the terms of the sale, etc. This guy wasn't anything like that, and even complimented this girl several times during the video. There were a couple of moments where he became a bit too passionate and it came across as though he was holding her responsible, but how is that any different from what customers do every day? If you work in customer service, you are a representative of that company. So if a customer has an issue with the company, they take it up with you. Like I said, he seemed a little bit rude in a couple of the things he said, but he was nothing at all like a lot of angry customers.

So all of the people who are mad that people want to boycott Chik-Fil-A need to check themselves, here. You claim that boycotting infringes upon Dan Cathy's freedom of speech (which isn't even the issue for most of us, but you claim relentlessly that it is), but then you aren't outraged that this guy expresses his own freedom of speech and loses his job over it? Not only that, but to have his family threatened? This is just a bunch of B.S.
I agree that he should apologize if he was rude to that girl, but that should be the end of it. It's not like this girl hasn't heard much worse coming from someone who's sandwich wasn't made correctly.

Originally posted by StalkerSolent


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?

It is the government's job to protect all of its citizens. The reason why you can't marry your sibling is because the offspring will most likely have catastrophic birth defects. This makes the child a victim of its parents. Protect the potential victim. The reason why you can't marry a child or an animal is that neither a child or animal fully understands the marriage contract. Having sex with a child is pedophilia - the govt must protect the victim.

Where's the victim in two consenting adult homosexuals marrying each other? There's no victim. There is only one reason to deny gays a marriage license - prejudice against gays. That's it. No other reason. Prejudice equals discrimination. Discrimination equals unconstitutional.

For anyone who wants FACTS about the Kiss In - - read this article

Chick-fil-A Kiss-Ins Divide LGBT Movement

www.huffingtonpost.com...

What people do in their private lives should be private. A heterosexual kiss in would be as offensive as a homosexual one. Government should not have the right to say who can marry who. Its not equal rights the LBGT community is after its additional ones. It seeks to make what the majority say are immoral publicly acceptable.

This is not an attempt to gay bash its my opinion and if you do not agree, you can go pound sand.

I stand for my beliefs and principals.

Have a nice day!

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by kaylaluv

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.

That was my point. That's the only reason to have a friend. So why do I keep seeing people arguing over how many gay friends they have? Why does it even matter?

That's what true equality is: it doesn't matter! At one time, it did. At one time, white kids and black kids simply weren't supposed to become friends. No law was used to combat that; understanding and realization that the skin color did not define humanity destroyed it. So in that light, would it not make more sense for someone who was for the gay marriage argument to show that there was no appreciable difference?

Your attempt to make it seem like gays should just "act normal" falls flat. While it is true that many whites came to the realization that they did not need to discriminate against blacks because they realized that blacks were not less human, the blacks only "acted normal" because they had to. To make themselves visible in the struggle for equality subjected them to hate crimes. Also, gay people have tried to "act normal" (ever heard of the term 'in the closet???) Closeted gay people are able to look and act exactly like straight people. Blacks cannot do that. There is always an "appreciable difference" between black people and white people (skin color). The white people who eventually accepted black people did it knowing full well that the people were black. They didn't care. Besides that, it took legislation that many whites did not approve of to give blacks equal rights. You act as though the white community finally decided that black people were normal enough so they granted them equality as a gesture of goodwill. Wrong.

Instead we have people demanding change, ignoring concerns, and actually stating they don't care what others think because they see the others as bigoted - I have even seen people post openly that they don't think "haters" (apparently meaning anyone who doesn't agree with them completely) should have no input on the subject, despite the fact that legislation is being proposed.

Well, television and movies usually portray most LGBT characters in a positive light.

Yeah, I have heard of Ellen. I never cared much for her comedy, but apparently a lot of people do.

But it isn't enough... not yet. There have been too many spectacles and too many tutus and too many reports of other perversions being associated with homosexuality. Ellen can't counter that alone, and let's be honest... her biggest support seems to be Rosie O'Donnell. Rosie is a no-talent, uneducated, idiotic screaming nail-on-a-chalkboard voiced so-so actress that shoves her foot in her mouth more than Pat Robertson!

George Takai is showing a good impression, and there are others. But you simply don't wipe out decades of idiocy with a few normal-looking individuals. It does not work like that (although I am sure you will demand it does before all is said and done).

I'm sure those people don't give a rats-patootie whether or not you approve of the way they act, dress, or behave in public. They are being themselves, and not putting on an act as a means to gain your approval.

Well, If the shoe fits.

Hmmm, nice comeback. Accuse the guy who is trying to help, the guy who will at some point get a chance to vote on this issue, the guy who, along with 299,999,999 others, has the future of this proposed ideal in his hands. Let me know how this works out for you.

I always found one could catch more flies with honey than with vinegar... but then again, that's probably just me wearing nice shoes.

You're the guy who is trying to help??? By insinuating that because you hold on to a stereotype of all gay people based on the most sensationalist examples that you need gays to be nice to you and convince you that they are worthy of your vote? How is that any different from a playground bully saying "Give me your lunch money and do what I want and I won't beat you up"?

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

Er, no. I'm here to fix everything for me. You made them, you get to fix your own problems.

There you have it. The classic "Us vs. Them" argument that always inspires bigotry.

TheRedneck

Originally posted by votan
reply to post by gncnew

 

Being homosexual is not normal and they are not the same thing as heteros.

There is nothing wrong with being gay. They were born that way as a defect or maybe to cull the herd of certain genes by making them not procreate the lineage further.

I thought I had heard everything. Gay people are defective, according to you. And also not normal, right?

Can you not see that in or out of the context of this debate, those comments are not only incredibly ignorant but also ridiculously offensive?

Originally posted by kaylaluv

It is the government's job to protect all of its citizens. The reason why you can't marry your sibling is because the offspring will most likely have catastrophic birth defects. This makes the child a victim of its parents. Protect the potential victim. The reason why you can't marry a child or an animal is that neither a child or animal fully understands the marriage contract. Having sex with a child is pedophilia - the govt must protect the victim.

Where's the victim in two consenting adult homosexuals marrying each other? There's no victim. There is only one reason to deny gays a marriage license - prejudice against gays. That's it. No other reason. Prejudice equals discrimination. Discrimination equals unconstitutional.

I think your post is a bit tangental to what mine is discussing. I'm pointing out that everyone has equal rights under the current law, and that proponents of homosexual marriage are asking for rights to be recognized by the government that are not currently recognized.
Nevertheless, here's my quick take on what you posted. The government's job is to protect all of its citizens, true. However, I tend to disagree with your other points. Your claim that prejudice is the same thing as discrimination is not true. Prejudice is a state of the mind, discrimination is an action that usually stems from the state of the mind. And discrimination is not unconstitutional, only unequal protection of the law. Currently, homosexuals have equal protection of the law. (BTW, as far as I know, our Founding Fathers had no problem with the anti-homosexual and still-existing anti-polygamy laws in place when the Constitution was framed.) I'm curious--would you also support polygamous marriages, based on your rationale for gay marriage? In my opinion, the rationale for one would usher in the other, but perhaps there is a distinction.

Now, here's my opinion. Since marriage is primarily a religious ordinance, why don't we let the churches decide who to marry? If a couple of people wish to form a legally binding contract that carries the same legal weight as a marriage does today, go for it! I don't care what their relationship to one another is. What say you?

reply to post by Eurisko2012


I just realized that DB at the drive thru was driving a Prius, which makes perfect sense.

He loves causes, they make him feel passionate.

Just another rebel without a clue, he read all the misinformation put out by the pink mafia and jumped in that hybrid and he acted on it.

Originally posted by StalkerSolent
Currently, homosexuals have equal protection of the law.

Really?

Please explain.

reply to post by StalkerSolent


it seems the equal rights that are wanted are
1 Spouses of Govt workers can claim bennies--where does the money come from?

2 All 50 States are under federal regulation to recognize same sex marriage--even tho its recognised by some states

both need an act of congress assembled to be implemented, so I guess it should be clear to you why there is so much resistance to "gays rights to marry"

Originally posted by StalkerSolent

Now, here's my opinion. Since marriage is primarily a religious ordinance, why don't we let the churches decide who to marry?

Since we live in a secular government - - and Prop8 rulings say religion can not be used as an argument.

Let's not.

reply to post by AGWskeptic


yeah now he can claim Unemployment Insurance

Originally posted by rainbowbear
reply to post by StalkerSolent

 

it seems the equal rights that are wanted are
1 Spouses of Govt workers can claim bennies--where does the money come from?

Same place it comes from for heteros.

Originally posted by StalkerSolent
Now, here's my opinion. Since marriage is primarily a religious ordinance, why don't we let the churches decide who to marry? If a couple of people wish to form a legally binding contract that carries the same legal weight as a marriage does today, go for it! I don't care what their relationship to one another is. What say you?

Actually marriage is primarily a legal ordinance. It has been so since before religion was invented, and MANY religions picked it up before Christianity. So what you're saying is that we should convert all marriages to "legal contacts" and then let the churches decide who should be married?

I kinda like that idea! I think that would work for everyone! A fantastic bit of brainstorming! +1 for you!