Chick-fil-A Kiss in???

[DragonGunner]

That will teach those chicken people a thing or two, they will think twice now before they say anything. lol.

 

[loudpedal]

I completely agree that it's your choice, as a business owner. You should also be able to ask them to leave for carrying a gun, or wearing a red shirt. I'm not really sure how you magically divined their intent, but it doesn't matter. Your store, your rules. I hope you're as philosophical about it when someone asks you to leave for disliking something about you.

What about when you're just a customer, like in the OP?

+1

I don't care if someone is homosexual even though the wind didn't bend my twig in that direction, it's just not my business. I just hate the parades.

 

[Liberty Sanders]

Two men or two women in a relationship do not need a "Peace Treaty" which is what a marriage is. A marriage is a treaty between two opposing forces or parties. Men and women are different and I won't go into all of these details but I am sure you and I can agree on that.

You brought up religon so I will bring up Darwin. If you put two men on a desert island and come back 100 years later to check up on their progeny you will find nothing. Nada. Zip. The same with two women,( although I think the Island would be in much better shape. Us menfolk, straight or gay are just pigs by nature.)

There is no "right" to get married and to make the comparison to interracial marriages is an insult to any person, black or white, who went through the civil rights movement in the 60's. Once you accept the fact that marriage is not a right then you will understand how silly the "right" to gay marriage is.

I will borrow something the bullies at GLAAD and The Southern Poverty Law Center say about my side with their smug little NPR inflection. You are on the wrong side of history. There is nothing in evolution, religon, the civil rights era, or history to back up the argument that marriage between members of the same sex is a "right." Nothing.

No matter what the Hollywood actresses and the pop stars tell you it's just not a "right." Lady GaGa is not known for her understanding of history and civil rights. She is an entertainer. Let her entertain you and look for your understanding of history elsewhere.

It's funny. Bullies all wish people would adopt their philosphy and if they don't??? Well...Then they must be bullies.

What's your point?

There are lots of things we do that aren't rights. There's nothing in the Constitution that says I can drive a car on public highways, but I meet the requirements established by the government to do it and I harm no one when I do, so I'm allowed to do it. There's no reason for me NOT to do it.

If you put a 90 year old man and a 20 year old woman on a desert island and come back in a hundred years you won't find any progeny either (probably anyway). Does that mean a 90 year old man can't marry a 20 year old woman? Potential for procreation is utterly irrelevant to the issue.

No, gay marriage isn't a right. Neither is STRAIGHT marriage. But what earthly reason is there to prohibit it? Just because some people don't LIKE it?

 

[bingley]

How about my wife and I go into Chick-Fil-A while OCing and make out for a while specifically to bring attention to the fact that we are OCing?

Making out won't do anything to promote our cause. You have to fondle each other's guns, while loudly drawing attention to your open carrying.

"Oh, Indy Joe, your 7" barrel is so... hot. Did you just shoot your Ruger Redhawk? You know I love your magnum rounds."

"Why, yes, Indy Jane. I was at the Marion Co Fish & Game right before this. Say, I love your OWB Milt Sparks holster. It's so soft and yielding to the touch. It feels like butter in my hands. And look at that glossy, ebony-like finish. You know what they say, once you go black, you can't go back."

"Isn't it just much more comfortable carrying it openly? We no longer have to hide in the closet about who we are, with Cross Breed Supertuck and the like. Look at us, world! I don't care what you think! I'm wearing my gun on the sleeve!"

"That's why I love you so much, Indy Jane! Concealed carry advocates say we'll be the first ones to go when the armed bank robber comes, but I'll die happy in your arms, knowing that I have open carried and asserted my constitutional right under certain interpretations that not all legal scholarship supports unequivocably."

 

[foszoe]

What's the definition of an assault weapon?

 

[JBI812]

Just goes to prove that the USA has a huge number of just plain weird people. Just the thought to two men kissing makes me want to throw-up.

I saw a group of "gays" at a ball game last night and they remind me of "my old desk doodle Pads".

 

[jd4320t]

I saw a group of gays once and I just went on living my life.

 

[sepe]

+1

I don't care if someone is homosexual even though the wind didn't bend my twig in that direction, it's just not my business. I just hate the parades.

If you hate the parades, don't go. If the parade isn't hurting anyone, why be concerned with it?

 

[pudly]

This sums up my feeling about it anymore.

Took you a while to come to that conclusion: 44 posts on that topic in the other thread.

 

[phylodog]

God forbid anyone have the audacity to voice opposition to the homosexual "movement". I wonder if anyone at Chik-Fil-A has attempted to fire a chicken sandwich out of one of those T-shirt launching guns?

Private property + refusal to leave when asked + intentionally aggravating the owner = Free chicken sandwich (at 35mph)

 

[littletommy]

Took you a while to come to that conclusion: 44 posts on that topic in the other thread.

It takes a lot of posts to make it clear you don't like people disagreeing with you.

 

[miguel]

This sums up my feeling about it anymore.

Chick-fil-A

p.s. thanks sepe

 

[sepe]

ChiCk-fil-A

FIFY

 

[findingZzero]

As a progressive/liberal, I would like to apologize for all the overreaction to CF's CEO's free speech uninformed statements. He has a right to spout them w/o gummint interference. Rahm, back off.....you make their arguments for them. It's embarrassing and impossible to defend. I may have to become a redneck now.....
p.s Wait! My wife thinks that's already happened....

 

[WWalker]

If common courtesy and good manners aren't dead already, they are at least on life-support

 

[WWalker]

What's your point?

There are lots of things we do that aren't rights. There's nothing in the Constitution that says I can drive a car on public highways, but I meet the requirements established by the government to do it and I harm no one when I do, so I'm allowed to do it. There's no reason for me NOT to do it.

If you put a 90 year old man and a 20 year old woman on a desert island and come back in a hundred years you won't find any progeny either (probably anyway). Does that mean a 90 year old man can't marry a 20 year old woman? Potential for procreation is utterly irrelevant to the issue.

No, gay marriage isn't a right. Neither is STRAIGHT marriage. But what earthly reason is there to prohibit it? Just because some people don't LIKE it?

What earthly reason to allow it? Just because some people like it?

 

[shibumiseeker]

What earthly reason to allow it? Just because some people like it?

Because if you are going to have the government recognize it then some people think that equal treatment under the law means that it should be legally allowed. More than just a small percentage of people, many of whom are not interested in marrying someone of the same gender, feel this way.

Other people are against it because they feel that it violates tradition and will somehow make their marriage of lesser value. Some people are against it because they think it's icky.

Many people, on both sides of the issue, think that the government should be out of the marriage business completely and leave marriage a religious or spiritual union based on the belief structures of the principles involved. However, just try seriously lobbying for the government to do away with marriage completely and the ****storm around gay marriage would pale in comparison.

 

[hornadylnl]

What earthly reason to allow it? Just because some people like it?

By defending the liberty of others, I'm defending my own.

 

[pudly]

By defending the liberty of others, I'm defending my own.

That makes a nice slogan and I want to believe it. However, I've observed far too often that many of the same people that I might defend due to this principle in one situation are actively trying to take away our liberty in other respects. This results in two groups defending one sides rights and only one defending the second sides rights. The first group will win more often than the second. The predictable result is a gradual shift in the legal/regulatory environment to favor the first group. Those in the second group have fulfilled the first half of the slogan, but have diminished liberty in the end.

The whole Chick-fil-a event is prima facie evidence of this. On the one side, you have those that want to support equal rights for gays, pushing to redefine marriage to accommodate them. They have the support not only of themselves, but also of those who really don't have any direct interest, but believe that it is a matter of fairness or liberty to support them.

On the other, you have Dan Cathy and others like him who believes that marriage should be strictly between one man and one woman. His reasons are due to faith and a belief for what is best for society in the long run. There is no evidence that he hates anyone. He has not discriminated in employment, customer service or otherwise. He has strictly exercised his first amendment rights. As a consequence, he and his company have been subject to hate speech, crimes against his property and employees, and illegal government interference in his business. If the supporters of gay marriage had recognized his free speech rights, I wouldn't be concerned, but instead this has become another example of one side pushing for one set of rights while actively campaigning against other rights.

Gay marriage is an example of this phenomenon, but by no means the only one. It isn't enough to defend this newly defined right, those who support it feel the need to act against the rights of others in the process. This is the mechanism by which political correctness trumps liberty and grows in influence. Two sides recognize one aspect of liberty, while only one side recognizes the second. Consequently, although I want the slogan to be true, I cannot in believe it.

Edit: I'll offer an alternate slogan. Those who demand tolerance while not exercising the same are not worthy of tolerance.

 

[Liberty Sanders]

What earthly reason to allow it? Just because some people like it?

Yes, exactly. Some people like it. And if they engage in it they don't do you the slightest harm or interfere in your life in the slightest way.

Therefore, it SHOULD be allowed.

Some people don't want us to be able to go to our favorite range and shoot because they don't like it. Does that mean we shouldn't be allowed to do it?