[$tinkle]

perverted is fisting a ghey chicken: Dan Cathy, Chick-Fil-A President, On Anti-Gay Stance: 'Guilty As Charged'

silver lining: bad press will finally get their lunch lines down to under 15 min.

or in this town: double them

 

[RUFUS]

They have had this stance for quite a while, not sure why this is now gaining traction. Good to see them getting boycotted anyways.

I don't eat meat so I boycotted them and others, 4 years ago.

 

[jimmydean]

They have had this stance for quite a while, not sure why this is now gaining traction. Good to see them getting boycotted anyways.

I don't eat meat so I boycotted them and others, 4 years ago.

I don't think what they serve qualifies as "meat", but it's good to avoid them anyway.

 

[stevew]

makes me wonder what the fascination is with that sh!t hamburger chain on the west coast owned by those bible thumpers...

 

[Pesqueeb]

They have had this stance for quite a while, not sure why this is now gaining traction. Good to see them getting boycotted anyways.

I don't eat meat so I boycotted them and others, 4 years ago.

How do I boycott a place I would never go to anyway?

 

[stevew]

 

[Serial Midget]

Popeyes would never do this.

 

[X3pilot]

Nah...Popeyes or Church's would never sterotype...The Colonel and everyone from Kentucky that looks like him would kick their asses!

 

[X3pilot]

But, but, but..they have waffle fries!

 

[4xBoy]

Popeyes would never do this.

They should boycott dead beat fathers.

 

[stevew]

Nah...Popeyes or Church's would never sterotype...The Colonel and everyone from Kentucky that looks like him would kick their asses!

 

[Serial Midget]

I remember Jim Dandy fried chicken in the 80s, I know their stance on gays but their spicy chicken was the best ever!!!

For those who are sentimental racists - do a google for Coon Chicken Inn...

 

[JohnE]

Wouldnt eat there on a dare. Unless my boyfriend wanted to take me there.

 

[$tinkle]

Wouldnt eat there on a dare. Unless my boyfriend wanted to take me there.

save the date

 

[X3pilot]

I eat there and will continue to. I could give a fvck less about their politics or religion. They make a mean sammich that I like. I'm buying their damn chicken, not their view. They don't care about mine, I don't care about theirs. just fry those damn waffle fries in that holy oil!

 

[syadasti]

Dan Cathy is actually pro-gay, he's launched this new campaign to make homophobes love his product to make them sick:

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/07/how-your-chicken-dinner-is-creating-a-drug-resistant-superbug/259700/

 

[X3pilot]

Dan Cathy is actually pro-gay, he's launched this new campaign to make homophobes love his product to make them sick:

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/07/how-your-chicken-dinner-is-creating-a-drug-resistant-superbug/259700/

That's a good looking cock in that article. Whoa,, wait...it must be working....

 

[$tinkle]

well, looks like one franchisee is willing to bend over to please the public

 

[Andyman_1970]

Ok I’ve been following this a bit and maybe I’m missing something here (mountain meet mole hill?).

As far as I can tell, Chik-fil-A isn’t refusing to hire or serve LGBT people, they are not discriminating against them with their business practice. The CEO says he affirms “traditional” marriage, and that’s what people seem to be in an up roar about.

San Fran’s mayor tweeted (from the Wikipedia): San Francisco soon followed suit on July 26 when mayor Edwin M. Lee tweeted, "Very disappointed #ChickFilA doesn't share San Francisco's values & strong commitment to equality for everyone."

Where did the CEO say that he was not going to treat LGBT people equally? Not to mention SF’s mayor is pissed because Mr. Cathy does not share his views. So, are we not entitled to our own views? Or are we becoming a groupthink nation? If CFA isn’t discriminating against LGBT folks in how they do business, why is this an issue?

Also from the wiki:

The proposed bans in Boston and Chicago drew criticism from liberal pundits, legal experts and the American Civil Liberties Union. Kevin Drum of Mother Jones magazine said "[T]here's really no excuse for Emanuel's and Menino's actions... you don't hand out business licenses based on whether you agree with the political views of the executives. Not in America, anyway."[55] UCLA law professor and blogger Eugene Volokh observed, "[D]enying a private business permits because of such speech by its owner is a blatant First Amendment violation."[56] Echoing those views were Glenn Greenwald of Salon, professor John Turley of George Washington University, and Adam Schwartz, a senior attorney with the ACLU.[57]

Do anti CFA’ers not see this as intolerance similar to if say right wing fundies were trying to keep Ben and Jerry’s from opening a store near them?

While I don’t normally read blogs from the “normal” evangelical rank and file, I found this pretty rational and balanced (granted it's from a Christian POV but I think the points are valid):

Click here

My favorite part:

A few years ago I went to Wal Mart (the closest thing to hell I can imagine…that and the DMV), found my favorite flavor and decided to tweet that I was purchasing some Ben & Jerry’s ice cream…and doing so “unleashed the hounds” in a sense. Honestly, I’ve never experienced anything like it, “Christians” began @ replying me on twitter condemning me and scolding me for buying this product because apparently Ben & Jerry’s supported gay rights/same sex marriage.

Honestly, it bothered me. Because, first of all…I wasn’t trying to make a political statement I was simply trying to get some chunky monkey and some oatmeal cookie crunch. I like ice cream…I believe it will be served in heaven (with ZERO calories)! And second, it has broken my heart the way that many who claim to follow Christ have treated those who are homosexuals. We’ve yelled at them, ignored them and in some cases damned them to hell without EVER sitting down and actually having a conversation with someone who is gay.

“But Perry,” you say, “the Bible says that homosexuality is a sin.” Let me put my cards on the table and say that I agree; however, for too long the church has seemed to be obsessed with the sins that we do not struggle with; after all, if I am pointing out the sins of others I don’t have to deal with my own.People have taken me to I Corinthians 6:9-11 before and said, “look, the Bible says that homosexuals will NOT inherit the kingdom of God.” I always try my best to point out that also included in that list are…

o The sexually immoral (anyone been watching porn?)

o Idolaters (anyone love anyone or anything more than Jesus?)

o Adulterers (see Matthew 5:27-28)

o Thieves

o The greedy (uh oh!)

o Drunkards (tailgating season is quickly approaching)

o Slanderers (uh oh, a lot of bloggers and women’s Bible studies are in trouble!)

o After looking at this list I would say we are all pretty much screwed unless Jesus intervenes.

And…while I am at it why don’t I just go ahead and throw out that gluttony is way more of a problem in the church today than homosexuality!!! (Please see Proverbs 23:2…pretty intense!!! ONLY in the church can people that are huge condemn people who are homosexual and somehow feel like that they are spiritually superior!)

Do I hate homosexuals or have a “homophobia?” Absolutely not! (And, let me be VERY clear that as a child I was molested…TWICE…by men who were older than me. I have no idea if they were or are practicing homosexuals…but I can honestly say that I have forgiven them and do not think that because of what they did to me that homosexuals are bad people!)

So, if a company or an organization wants to support gay rights/same sex marriage I don’t believe that Christians should boycott and/or protest them (come on people, has that REALLY worked for us in the past?) Jesus went after the hearts of people far from Him through conversation, not condemnation. Yes, sin must be called what it is, even as the risk of offending people: however, when it is done so with a hateful spirit then Jesus is NOT exalted, thus making the confrontation of sin sinful!

 

[$tinkle]

word on the street is, today is 'national patronise CFA day', but in the same vein as the boycotters (who i'm sure never go to CFA anyway), i'm not going, but only b/c the lines will be so bleedin long. i'm an american first; activist much farther down the continuum.

our daughter is at her friend's house now; her parents own a local CFA franchise, and have been pretty upset at the manufactured outrage over this while these same people still pump OPEC sourced gas into their cars. is government sanctioned murder of homosexuals in OPEC countries somehow less offensive than a 90 year old on his john deere saying he has a preferred view of marriage when asked the question?

apparently so.

 

[Pesqueeb]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
*edit: Re: Andy's post

I agree to a certain point. AFAIK, CFA hasn't actually discriminated, in a legal sense, against anyone. How ever, when CEO dipsh*t opens his mouth and teh stupid falls out, then anyone who has an objection to his views has the right to say, "hey ass, go fvck yourself." Just like he has the right to say whatever he wants about his views and spend his(companies) money anyway he sees fit. None of that money will be mine though. Not that I'm "boycotting" per-se, I just don't spend money at any fast-food crap hole. Hell, I don't even eat meat as a general rule.

 

[syadasti]

http://www.owldolatrous.com/?p=288

The Chick Fellatio: stuck in the craw
Posted on July 30, 2012

This post is all I have to say about the Chick-Fil-A controversy. It sums up various posts on the issue and various points made by my friends and I. From now own, rather than spend time debating this issue person by person, I’m going to point people here.

My hope here is to find common ground with those who have disagreed with me on the issue, and maybe to persuade. It’s not to ridicule or to best.

So, in the interest of common ground, let’s start here: I acknowledge the absurdity of all this debate.

It’s definitely strange to have days-long Facebook debates flare up everywhere over a chicken sandwich. The anger, sarcasm, and hurt feelings on display seem strange or even laughable because most people have seen Chick-Fil-A as just a restaurant with a funny ad campaign. I’ll get into some of the whys and wherefores of that later. But, for now, let’s just say that, yes. It can seem ridiculous to get all worked up over fast-food chicken.

Let’s also agree that this isn’t about curtailing anyone’s rights under First Amendment. The Constitution is a legal document. This is not a legal argument. No one is arguing that Chik-fil-A founder Dan Cathy should be put in prison, or silenced, or censored by the government. This has nothing to do with government censorship or government abridgment of Freedom of Speech. So don’t worry: the ability of this millionaire to legally spend his millions as he sees fit is not in jeopardy. You need not defend it.

Now, let’s get to the nitty-gritty of things. Please read carefully. These things have been said before, but not by me, and not all in one place. Please read with an open mind. If you can’t read with an open mind, please leave, take a minute, come back, and try again. If you can’t do that, then please don’t bother. Please read all of the words here, rather than just reading half of the argument and assuming you know what I’m saying. Read these words as they are written. Again, if you don’t want to read my words, then don’t continue.

So here goes:

1. This isn’t simply about marriage. Shocker, right? It’s extremely frustrating that same-sex marriage is the great continental divide. People are judged according to how they stand on this issue, as if no other issue matters. Did you know that a person can be for same-sex marriage and still be homophobic? Did you know that a person can be against same-sex marriage and be gay? We all get categorized very quickly based on the marriage issue and maybe that’s not fair. But here’s what you should know:

- In 29 states in America today, my partner of 18 years, Cody, or I could be fired for being gay. Period. No questions asked. One of those states is Louisiana, our home state. We live in self-imposed exile from beloved homeland, family, and friends, in part, because of this legal restriction on our ability to live our lives together.

- In 75 countries in the world, being gay is illegal. In many, the penalty is life in prison. These are countries we can’t openly visit. In 9 countries, being gay is punishable by death. In many others, violence against gays is tacitly accepted by the authorities. These are countries where we would be killed. Killed.

- Two organizations that work very hard to maintain this status quo and roll back any protections that we may have are the Family Research Council and the Marriage & Family Foundation. For example, the Family Research council leadership has officially stated that same-gender-loving behavior should be criminalized in this country. They draw their pay, in part, from the donations of companies like Chick-Fil-A. Both groups have also done “missionary” work abroad that served to strengthen and promote criminalization of same-sex relations.

- Chick-Fil-A has given roughly $5M to these organizations to support their work.

- Chick-Fil-A’s money comes from the profits they make when you purchase their products.

2. This isn’t about mutual tolerance because there’s nothing mutual about it. If we agree to disagree on this issue, you walk away a full member of this society and I don’t. There is no “live and let live” on this issue because Dan Cathy is spending millions to very specifically NOT let me live. I’m not trying to do that to him.

Asking for “mutual tolerance” on this like running up to a bully beating a kid to death on the playground and scolding them both for not getting along. I’m not trying to dissolve Mr. Cathy’s marriage or make his sex illegal. I’m not trying to make him a second-class citizen, or get him killed. He’s doing that to me, folks; I’m just fighting back.

All your life, you’re told to stand up to bullies, but when WE do it, we’re told WE are the ones being intolerant? Well, okay. Yes. I refuse to tolerate getting my ass kicked. “Guilty as charged.”

But what are you guilty of? When you see a bully beating up a smaller kid and you don’t take a side, then you ARE taking a side. You’re siding with the bully. And when you cheer him on, you’re revealing something about your own character that really is a shame.

3. This isn’t about Jesus. I have a lot of Christian friends. Most of them are of the liberal variety, it’s true, but even this concept seems lost on some of you. Most of them are pro-LGBT rights. Pro-gay and Pro-Christ are NOT mutually exclusive. They never have been, in the history of Christianity, though it’s been difficult at times. It’s not impossible to be both.

If someone is telling you it is, then maybe you should wonder why they’d do that. I see divorced Christians, remarried Christians, drug addict Christians. I see people with WWJD bracelets bumping and grinding on TV and raking in millions to do it. I see greedy, rapacious, vengeful people who are Christians. And these people are accepted in the Church, and the Church does very little to combat them. Sometimes it seems like being gay is the ONLY thing certain modern Christian movements won’t allow. Why’s that, I wonder?

Jesus had almost nothing to say about sexual behavior of any kind. He was too busy teaching more important things. Empathy is at the heart of his teachings. “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” Remember that? It’s in red. So let’s examine that:

4. If things were reversed, I’d stand up for you.

Please think about this: How would you feel if KFC came out tomorrow and said they were spending money against equality for Asian Americans, or African Americans, or religious people? Really. Think about it. What would you do? How would you feel? How would you feel if, after their announcement, there was a big increase in KFC sales and I was all over Facebook supporting KFC. Please stop reading right now and imagine this. I’m serious.

You can stop now because it’s ludicrous. It would never happen.

Oh, I don’t mean the part about KFC being against some group. That COULD happen. I mean the part about me supporting them. Let me tell you something, and you can damn well believe it: I’d sign on for the boycott IMMEDIATELY.

Why? Well, because I believe in equality for all people, that’s why. But also, personally, from the bottom of my heart: because you are my friend, and I don’t willingly support people who harm you for just being you. How could I? How could I, really? But, more importantly for our purposes, how could you?

Seriously, how could you? What has Chick-Fil-A ever done for you? Sold you some fatty chicken at a ridiculous mark-up? Made you chuckle at semi-literate cartoon cows? You mean more to me than KFC possibly could. If I, in turn, don’t mean more to you than a chicken sandwich from Chik-Fil-A–if my life, my quality of life, and my dignity are such afterthoughts to you that you’d not only refuse the boycott, but go out of your way to support someone who was hurting me? if I let this stand, if I don’t stand up to the bullies and if I let my friends egg the bullies on, what does that make me?

Well, it makes me a Chikin.

Yeah, so suddenly it is cause for anger, ridiculous or not.

But I’m not going to stop being Facebook friends with anyone over this issue.

Instead, I will remain. And, when you see my face with my partner’s in my profile, maybe you will examine not simply what your opinions are about gay people, or gay marriage, or the first amendment, even; maybe you’ll examine not merely your opinions but your values. What is friendship to you? What is loyalty? How important are human life and dignity to you? Are they more important than fitting in with your social group? Are they more important than loyalty to a corporate brand, or a political party, or some misguided church teaching?

That’s why we’re so angry. This is personal for us. There are times in your life when you have the opportunity to stand up for your friends. When you let that opportunity pass, your friends notice. It doesn’t mean we can’t be friends, but it diminishes you, and it diminishes the friendship. That’s how it is, no matter what the issue or what the venue.

So stand up. Stand up for us. Do the right thing. You don’t have to agree with us on everything, but repudiate Chick-Fil-A. Unlike them on Facebook. Withdraw your support for them. Join us in the boycott. If you can’t do that, then please ask yourself whether I’m your friend. In fact, ask yourself whether anyone is.

This is all I have to say. If you’d like to debate the issue further, I’ll do it, but I’m not going to go around and around on the same points. If you’re just going to repeat yourself, save us both some time. If you haven’t taken the time to actually read this carefully and actually consider carefully what I’ve said, then I see no reason to waste further words.

The ball is in your court. Again, I urge you to do the right thing.

 

[Andyman_1970]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
*edit: Re: Andy's post

I agree to a certain point. AFAIK, CFA hasn't actually discriminated, in a legal sense, against anyone.

Has he discriminated against anyone in any sense?

How ever, when CEO dipsh*t opens his mouth and teh stupid falls out, then anyone who has an objection to his views has the right to say, "hey ass, go fvck yourself."

Very true, both sides are entitled to their views. However, when a city govt gets involved, and wants to....dare I say "discriminate" against a company that has not broken any laws, but based on conflicting ideologies/thinking we're treading on groupthink ice here.

Does tolerance equal affirmation? Can one tolerate and not discriminate against LGBT marriage (or what have you) and yet not affirm it?

This is the crux of the problem (in a marco sense, not just the CFA deal we're talking about) IMO, and both conservative and liberals suffer from it equally. While one may tolerate the others view/behavior/etc, if one is to disagree and not affirm said opposite view/behavior/etc then one is slapped with any number of rhetorical labels.....fag, pussy, racist, nazi, war monger, dip sh!t, etc.

 

[syadasti]

AM1970, see quote above, its not simply about tolerance.

 

[$tinkle]

AM1970, see quote above, its not simply about tolerance.

true, it's also about abusing reason. a few examples:

Two organizations that work very hard to maintain this status quo and roll back any protections that we may have are the Family Research Council and the Marriage & Family Foundation

AFAIK, they don't work very hard to see homosexuals put to death in islamic countries

Asking for “mutual tolerance” on this like running up to a bully beating a kid to death on the playground and scolding them both for not getting along

so now all gays are matthew shepard?

But what are you guilty of? When you see a bully beating up a smaller kid and you don’t take a side, then you ARE taking a side. You’re siding with the bully.

the bush doctrine sees what he did there

But I’m not going to stop being Facebook friends with anyone over this issue.

well, at least he's a grown-up

 

[Pesqueeb]

Has he discriminated against anyone in any sense?




Very true, both sides are entitled to their views. However, when a city govt gets involved, and wants to....dare I say "discriminate" against a company that has not broken any laws, but based on conflicting ideologies/thinking we're treading on groupthink ice here.

Does tolerance equal affirmation? Can one tolerate and not discriminate against LGBT marriage (or what have you) and yet not affirm it?

This is the crux of the problem (in a marco sense, not just the CFA deal we're talking about) IMO, and both conservative and liberals suffer from it equally. While one may tolerate the others view/behavior/etc, if one is to disagree and not affirm said opposite view/behavior/etc then one is slapped with any number of rhetorical labels.....fag, pussy, racist, nazi, war monger, dip sh!t, etc.

In regards to city government, I'm pretty sure Boston's mayor (or San Fran) cant legally keep Chick fil a out, but what he can do is express his opinion, and presumably his constituents opinion, on a business that openly advocates "Biblical marriage." I.E. "Your not welcome here" is not equal to "you can't come here." Advocating on behalf of their constituency is a large part what we elect public officials to do. It's not wrong and it's not illegal. Think of it this way: if the KKK were trying to open a restaurant in Atlanta you can be damn sure the Mayor there might have something to say about them not being welcome in his town and rightly so.

As far as name calling, Hitchens said, and I'm paraphrasing, something to the effect of "I've always taken the ad hominem as a sign of victory." and I believe there is truth in that, even though I am guilty of it, just a couple posts up.

 

[$tinkle]

from owldolatrous' fb page:

"If it wasn't food 100 years ago, it probably isn't food today." - Mike Huckabee.

i lol'd

So I'm hurrying out of the gym, about to start the jog home, when a kindly-looking, diminutive woman in her 60's rushes up to me, waving to get my attention.
"Hey, hey, hey!" she says, her hand outstretched.
I stop and say hello, shaking her hand. She holds my hand tightly and clasps it in both of hers.
"Are you a Christian?" she asks.
"Why, yes I am."
"Do you have a church home?"
"I've just moved here, so no."
"Oh!" She looks pleased. Deftly, she removes one hand from her grip on mine and produces a pocketbook, from which she draws a little card.
"But wait," I interrupt, "Before you go on, you should know: I'm gay."
"Oh, ok." Never has a card so quickly disappeared. Never has a pocketbook so quickly been put away.
"But wait! Don't you want to tell me about your church?"
"It's ok. It's ok." She retreats, bolting into the gym faster than I'd bolted out of it.
"Wait! I want to hear about your church! Tell me more! Was it something I said?"

The first of many such encounters I look forward to having here in the land of the mega-church. I hope I get one where they say "if you come to our church, Jesus will fix your gay right up".

i burned w/ contempt for my camp

 

[Andyman_1970]

AM1970, see quote above, its not simply about tolerance.

It’s not, it’s about the implied necessity of affirming opposing view points.

Just like with example I linked about the pastor buying Ben & Jerry’s, I see no point is boycotting either product. It doesn’t further the conversation on either side, it just polarizes the issue. .

My point was about the city govt’s blocking a company that isn’t doing anything illegal, but is based on an ideology they disagree with. Ok, but now we’re talking about a govt regulating how one must think in order to do business. CFA is a private business, that has not broken any laws, but has however contributed to organizations that many disagree with. Ok, so? How does that rate being denied the ability to open a business in say SF or Boston? I don’t agree with what the Family Research Council, or the Marriage & Family Foundation. Is contributing to those illegal? If not then why did SF and Boston react as they did?

What about all the oil companies that buy oil from OPEC nations that kill homosexuals, not just prevent them from getting married or deny them partner benefits? Where’s the boycott for that? That’s gov’t subsidized too? Where’s the cry to stop going to the gas station? What about boycotting anything made in any of those 75 countries where one can be jailed for homosexuality? Where is the rallying cries for these issues? I understand the authors point, but when a whole community glosses over those issues and chooses for focus on someone who spoke their mind, but yet runs a business that doesn’t discriminate against LGBT people it seems a bit manufactured and disingenuous. Kind of like when conservatives “cherry pick” issues that fit their narrative and ignore others.

I personally don’t give a crap what anyone does in their bedroom, or who they do it with. I don’t think homosexuality (more accurately being attracted to the same sex) is something you “choose” as a lot of Christians seem to think. I do however think it’s a sin, just like gluttony, greed, etc, that all Christians are guilty of committing. So while I tolerate homosexuality, I don’t affirm it………..am I discriminating? I also think it’s high time the church take it’s focus off homosexuality and clean it’s own house up, and love those people unconditionally as Jesus taught.

 

[Andyman_1970]

In regards to city government, I'm pretty sure Boston's mayor (or San Fran) cant legally keep Chick fil a out, but what he can do is express his opinion, and presumably his constituents opinion, on a business that openly advocates "Biblical marriage."

Openly advocates "Biblical Marriage" but does not discriminate against those who advocate same sex marriage. AFAIK, the only time the "advocating" part with CFA was the interview with Mr. Cathy. I'm not aware they openly go out of their way to push their "Biblical Marriage" views on their customers in their restaurants. While they do contribute to those orgaizations cited above (which had to be researched), it's not like they have signage in their store with cows holding a sign saying "Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve".

 

[dante]

our daughter is at her friend's house now; her parents own a local CFA franchise, and have been pretty upset at the manufactured outrage over this while these same people still pump OPEC sourced gas into their cars. is government sanctioned murder of homosexuals in OPEC countries somehow less offensive than a 90 year old on his john deere saying he has a preferred view of marriage when asked the question?

apparently so.

Canada's killing homosexuals now? (insert MMike joke here)

AFAIK, they don't work very hard to see homosexuals put to death in islamic countries

O'rly?

Some of the Africans cited in the report as heading African organizations set up by the U.S. religious right maintain that they are just using funds from foreign friends who share similar beliefs.

Among them is Joseph Okia, nephew of President Yoweri Museveni in Uganda, where proposed legislation would invoke the death penalty for "aggravated homosexuality."

.....

Kaoma's report identifies groups belonging to a loose network of right-wing charismatic Christians. They include Pat Robertson's American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), the Catholic Church's Human Life International (HLI) and the Mormon-led Family Watch International. All have launched or expanded offices in Africa over the past five years.

 

[$tinkle]

@dante

b/c of my obvious & previously pointed out reading comprehension shortcomings, i had to put your post in notepad & ctrl-f for "Family Research Council and the Marriage & Family Foundation", and oddly enough, it came up wanting. also odd is the implication those named right-wing charismatic groups from teh article fully fund the effort, for if it didn't, it would have to fit nicely into the "refueling one's vehicle is equal to funding HOMOcide"

but i can give some ground that knowingly putting whore-moan-injected-cock in your mouth is not the same as unknowingly putting opec sourced fuel in your car, nor bothering to find out the country of origin (if it can even be traced, which is intractable).

muslims, or christians? pick your battles; preferably the ones that have a lower likelihood of being tortured, raped, and murdered (until that last one, it may have been enticing, i acknowledge)

 

[Pesqueeb]

Openly advocates "Biblical Marriage" but does not discriminate against those who advocate same sex marriage. AFAIK, the only time the "advocating" part with CFA was the interview with Mr. Cathy. I'm not aware they openly go out of their way to push their "Biblical Marriage" views on their customers in their restaurants. While they do contribute to those orgaizations cited above (which had to be researched), it's not like they have signage in their store with cows holding a sign saying "Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve".

I suppose they don't, in much the same way that Sheldon Adelson doesn't openly do any thing. He just gives a ton of money to groups who will do it for him.

I actually see this whole thing evidence that "free speech" is actually still working. Mr. Cathy (heh) still gets to open his mouth and say what ever he wants. And he is free to reap whatever it is his words sow. Something we all should maybe keep in mind.

 

[$tinkle]

well, reports are coming in for record lines at CFA. so what do you do when these lines are too long & you're hungry, or was called on your day off to come into CFA & work a double?

obvious answer is obvious

 

[dante]

Nothing like taping a story about the MASSIVE crowds at Chic Fil A in front of an..... empty store.

 

[$tinkle]

Nothing like taping a story about the MASSIVE crowds at Chic Fil A in front of an..... empty store.

*you* projected "massive" crowds
*they* did a standup at an open chick-fil-a, with customers coming in&out animal style, beginning @ 0:47

were you thinking of this?

A protester hold a rainbow flag, Sunday, May 1, 2005, in front of the Focus on the Family campus in Colorado Springs, Colo. About 700 people braved cold temperatures and light snow Sunday to protest a conservative Christian group's campaign against gay rights and same-sex marriage

FotF is closed on weekends, as Soul Force knows very well.

"brave", indeed!

 

[dante]

I'm pretty sure that they were playing off of this, but wherever they were broadcasting from was apparently not rednecky enough.

 

[Pesqueeb]

 

[$tinkle]

i could be wrong, but is it possible one of our own has joined the fray?

http://sonnybunch.com/all-hail-king-douche/

sweet allah let it be true

 

[Pesqueeb]

Wow. That was kind of a dick move.

 

[Pesqueeb]

For Manimal: