thats not even close to true youre just speaking.

7/26/2012 5:25:32 PM

Boston's mayor wants to prevent Chick-fil-a from opening a store in Boston. Government overstep much?

7/26/2012 5:45:23 PM

Just a couple of dumbshit blowhards trying to score political points.

If they really wanted to keep CFA out, they can come up with any reason they wanted to deny a building permit. Or they could delay it indefinitely without a reason. But now they kinda can't since they made such a big deal of it. Which makes me think it's all a show.

7/26/2012 5:57:10 PM

Quote :

"so even if the ceo of chic-fil-a was a vocal muslim fundamentalist and didn't try to hide the fact that he sends money directly to the taliban, muslim brotherhood, and hezbollah, lonesnark and destroyer would still "mind their own business" and eat at chic-fil-a"

An impossible scenario as he could not do that without being arrested.

If someone is hurting someone either intervene or call the police. If someone is being a dick or is otherwise rude, shun them. Otherwise who are you to punish someone for what they do in their private lives? You would never have known they were a religious establishment if the media hadn't told you. So leave it as the private matter it is.

7/26/2012 6:06:16 PM

Whatever, replace the Taliban with WBC. You call it minding your own business, I call it supporting bigotry.

7/26/2012 6:59:06 PM

nvm

[Edited on July 26, 2012 at 7:05 PM. Reason : -]

7/26/2012 7:04:46 PM

Quote :

"Why do some of yall have such a problem with people standing-up for what they believe in and not giving their money to causes they think are morally wrong? "

I have no problem with people not wanting to buy from CFA anymore, that's their prerogative. I do have a problem with a politician playing fast and loose with political power because they don't like someone else's political views.

7/26/2012 7:18:34 PM

Quote :

"Menino just may succeed in effectively banning the chain from Boston: The mayor blocked the development of a Walmart in Roxbury last year, citing the retail empire’s negative impact on neighborhood business and lower-wage workers as his motivation. Now, he plans to offer Chick-fil-A a similar hurdle-laden policy."

Read more: http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/07/23/boston-mayor-blocks-chick-fil-a-franchise-from-city-over-homophobic-attitude/

7/26/2012 9:02:08 PM

I stopped reading here:

Quote :

"Liberals need to take a step back and recognize their own hypocrisy."

Hopefully someone has already pointed out the more-than-a-handful-of-liberal-commentators who are taking issue with this, for pretty much the same reasons you are.

7/26/2012 10:51:26 PM

^ I consider myself a classical liberal in terms of personal liberties... issue is lump summing a group under one package.

7/27/2012 12:08:05 AM

Quote :

"You call it minding your own business, I call it supporting bigotry."

It is not supporting bigotry, it is merely refusing to be bigoted against bigots.

There does not seem to be a difference between you and those you hate. You both hate or otherwise refuse to associate with people for either what they represent or what they believe. I just refuse to lower myself to their level, if in fact they are bigots.

And I will say yet again supporting the Taliban is illegal in this country, as it arguably should be, so your example is impossible.

[Edited on July 27, 2012 at 12:42 AM. Reason : .,.]

7/27/2012 12:41:32 AM

Quote :

"You both hate or otherwise refuse to associate with people for either what they represent or what they believe."

Ignoring of course what they believe then yes, we're exactly the same.

[Edited on July 27, 2012 at 7:26 AM. Reason : .]

7/27/2012 7:26:16 AM

Glad you can admit it. So please, don't act all surprised when I refuse to shun people for their religious, political, or ethnic identities. Just because you're a bigot doesn't mean everyone must be.

7/27/2012 9:10:01 AM

I'm definitely bigoted against people who think that we should discriminate against homosexuals.

Fuck anyone who isn't.

I'm biased both toward reality and equality. I admit it.

[Edited on July 27, 2012 at 9:26 AM. Reason : .]

7/27/2012 9:19:35 AM

Quote :

"And I will say yet again supporting the Taliban is illegal in this country, as it arguably should be, so your example is impossible"

geez, stop focusing on the illegality and the taliban. i was just giving an example. what if it wasn't illegal? what about another muslim fundamentalist group that isn't associated with terrorism and isn't illegal? what if you knew the money you were spending on a chicken sandwich was being sent overseas to build mosques? what if it was speculated that that money was being laundered to the taliban, but it hadn't been proven yet? would you refuse to support the business, or would you continue to "mind your business" and keep giving them your money?

[Edited on July 27, 2012 at 9:44 AM. Reason : ]

7/27/2012 9:35:34 AM

^^youve proven time and again on this forum that you are bigoted specifically against christians for a variety of reasons; this just gives you an excuse to further your argument.

ill go ahead and say that i do find discrimination against homosexuals to be abhorrent, but its fairly obvious that chicfilet doesnt discriminate against them and cathy was completely taken out of context. supporting or preferring one thing, believe it or not, does not mean completely hating the alternative. i believe bullet would call such a person a "hack," stu.

gays openly work at the restaurant here in huntersville, and they have since i moved here several years ago. same goes for the charlotte restaurant at the intersection of mt holly huntersville rd and hwy 16. i know you would never actually patronize a fast food resturant to investigate for yourself, but keep soaking up all the internet news you can and watch this "scandal" and bostons mayor simultaneously unravel.

on that note, if you knew anything about local government, economic development, or the role of a mayor in this process, you would know menino means precisely dick in the grand scheme of things.

your dislike if christians can be boiled down to one very simple fact; you find them to be illogical and hence ridiculous. you look down at them like theyre all a bunch of raving lunatics that think the world is 6000 years old and like to cut skin off baby dicks and drink the blood, etc.

youre just a typical little angry atheist, in other words, and exactly the kind of person that keeps poking and prodding chicfilet over this kind of nonissue.

kudos to chicfilet for keeping their cool; keep up the good work by not.

[Edited on July 27, 2012 at 10:23 AM. Reason : work, not word]

7/27/2012 10:08:52 AM

And here we go...

Quote :

"youve proven time and again on this forum that you are bigoted specifically against christians for a variety of reasons; this just gives you an excuse to further your argument."

ad hominem; please address what I say, not some preconception you have about my character.

Quote :

"ill go ahead and say that i do find discrimination against homosexuals to be abhorrent, but its fairly obvious that chicfilet doesnt discriminate against them and cathy was completely taken out of context. supporting or preferring one thing, believe it or not, does not mean completely hating the alternative. i believe bullet would call such a person a "hack," stu. "

You think that the only reason I dislike Chik-fil-a is because of what Cathy recently said and has nothing to do with the millions of dollars they've funneled into Focus on the Family? Well, I'm glad I could clear that up for you.

Quote :

"gays openly work at the restaurant here in huntersville, and they have since i moved here several years ago. same goes for the charlotte restaurant at the intersection of mt holly huntersville rd and hwy 16. i know you would never actually patronize a fast food resturant to investigate for yourself, but keep soaking up all the internet news you can and watch this "scandal" and bostons mayor simultaneously unravel."

I eat fast food at least once a week. I've been refraining from eating at Chik-fil-a for years. That they don't openly discriminate in hiring doesn't mean that they don't support organizations that further even greater discrimination at large.

Quote :

"on that note, if you knew anything about local government, economic development, or the role of a mayor in this process, you would know menino means precisely dick in the grand scheme of things."

Are you even addressing me in this post? I haven't addressed the government, any mayor, or anything.

Quote :

"your dislike if christians can be boiled down to one very simple fact; you find them to be illogical and hence ridiculous. you look down at them like theyre all a bunch of raving lunatics that think the world is 6000 years old and like to cut skin off baby dicks and drink the blood, etc. "

My "dislike" of some American Christians can be boiled down to one very simple fact; they can't keep their bullshit at home/in church.

Quote :

"youre just a typical little angry atheist, in other words, and exactly the kind of person that keeps poking and prodding chicfilet over this kind of nonissue."

It's sad that you're not upset about an organization that supports lobbying against marriage equality. And that you're proud of this fact.

Quote :

"keep up the good word work by not."

still wat

[Edited on July 27, 2012 at 10:27 AM. Reason : .]

7/27/2012 10:19:58 AM

*by not keeping your cool.

just to make sure we are on the same page, will you acknowledge that this list of items pretty much sums up your problems with the company?

http://equalitymatters.org/blog/201103220005

7/27/2012 10:32:17 AM

Generally speaking sure, though I'm not vetting that every single grievance on that particular website is 100% accurate. You can add on "having a leader which openly decries homosexual marriage." if you feel so inclined.

7/27/2012 10:37:12 AM

http://reason.com/blog/2012/03/02/is-chick-fil-a-anti-gay-and-if-so-should

Quote :

"A student at Ohio's Bowling Green State University, which barred Chick-fil-A from its campus over similar concerns, argues Saying Chick-fil-A is anti-gay for donating to a religious organization is like saying someone supports domestic violence because they paid to see a Mel Gibson movie. "

Quote :

"If a restaurant gives money to causes you don't like, does it make sense to stop patronizing it? Earlier this week, I noted that Ben & Jerry's not only dished up what some hyperbolic commentators called "a pint of racism" by including fortune cookie bits in its Jeremy Lin ice cream tribute. Is that - or Ben & Jerry's generous giving to Occupy Wall Street - worth saying goodbye forever to Cherry Garcia (itself a potentially controversial flavor)?"

7/27/2012 10:43:56 AM

So you can't form a cogent thought on your own? Shall I respond with a link to a magazine?

It boggles my mind that reason magazine is suggesting that people shouldn't spend their money as the wish for the reasons that they wish. "Speak with your wallet" is the rallying cry of free market philosophy isn't it?

V,It's pretty clear that I was directing my response toward reason magazine (I stated as much) but I can see how you'd think it was directed toward you since all you posted was a link.

[Edited on July 27, 2012 at 11:01 AM. Reason : .]

7/27/2012 10:49:19 AM

you call that a cogent thought?

looks like "standard soapbox liberal drivel response #4" to me.

im proud its been directed towards me this time; that particular belittling of capitalism is usually reserved for destroyer, lonesnark, and geniusboy.

Quote :

"It boggles my mind that reason magazine is suggesting that people shouldn't spend their money as the wish for the reasons that they wish."

i dont think thats what theyre doing at all. i think theyre suggesting that evil doesnt lurk in every chicken sandwich or ice cream purchase (but do what you will).

7/27/2012 10:58:08 AM

So buying gas which funnels more money to worse people is okay for those types but a chicken sandwich is too far? But I guess it all goes back to you have to buy gas but you can easily go without a chicken sandwich from a fast food chain.

7/27/2012 11:39:22 AM

I like how you figured it out the ridiculousness of the comparison before you finished the post.

7/27/2012 11:49:33 AM

Yeah, I do that. Except when I don't.

[Edited on July 27, 2012 at 11:54 AM. Reason : -]

7/27/2012 11:53:39 AM

Quote :

" what if it was speculated that that money was being laundered to the taliban, but it hadn't been proven yet? would you refuse to support the business, or would you continue to "mind your business" and keep giving them your money?"

I already answered this question. The restaurant is not discriminating, the business in question is not bigoted, just the owners are. And I absolutely refuse to discriminate against people for what they do in either their private lives or the privacy of their own home.

If it is okay to discriminate against people because of their personal affiliation with a religion then it would be okay to discriminate against people because of their personal affiliation with a sexuality.

Quote :

""Speak with your wallet" is the rallying cry of free market philosophy isn't it? "

Absolutely not. The rallying cry is either "Leave me alone" or "Live and let live"
Reason magazine is against bigotry, even against bigots. These are the people that defend sweat shops and free trade with tyrants.

Quote :

"My "dislike" of some American Christians can be boiled down to one very simple fact; they can't keep their bullshit at home/in church."

And I'm sure they also say the gays "can't keep their bullshit at home/in church."

[Edited on July 27, 2012 at 12:06 PM. Reason : .,.]

7/27/2012 12:01:45 PM

Quote :

"I already answered this question. The restaurant is not discriminating, the business in question is not bigoted, just the owners are. And I absolutely refuse to discriminate against people for what they do in either their private lives or the privacy of their own home."

so let me get this straight. what you're saying is: Even if it was speculated that the owners of a business were sending 10s of thousands of dollasr to the middle east to build mosques, or that it was going to organizations that were trying to pass legislation to require all women to wear veils in public, or to take away all of women's rights and consider them their husband's property. or even if it was speculated that the money was being funneled to terorrist organizations (although not proven), you wouldn't discriminate against them? you wouldn't "speak with your wallet" and choose to get your chicken sandwich elsewhere? you'd just mind your business, and oblivously give your money to the owner, who turns around and gives it to orgnaizations trying to take away women's rights?

[Edited on July 27, 2012 at 12:34 PM. Reason : ]

7/27/2012 12:24:45 PM

Quote :

"And I'm sure they also say the gays "can't keep their bullshit at home/in church.""

Except "gays' bullshit" in this case is "I'd like the same rights as heterosexuals, thanks."

7/27/2012 12:40:37 PM

^^ I would. And I would at least try to eat at your restaurant too, even though it seems you'd refuse to serve me based upon my personal beliefs.

To quote Reason Magazine a few minutes ago:

Quote :

"Lord knows that if we had to agree with the cook (however loosely defined) on every issue before we could sit down to eat, there'd never be another family meal in America."

[Edited on July 27, 2012 at 12:46 PM. Reason : ^]

7/27/2012 12:45:30 PM

Quote :

"Quote : ""Speak with your wallet" is the rallying cry of free market philosophy isn't it? " Absolutely not. The rallying cry is either "Leave me alone" or "Live and let live" Reason magazine is against bigotry, even against bigots. These are the people that defend sweat shops and free trade with tyrants. "

what the fuck? free market is about spending (or not spending) on whatever the fuck you want for whatever reason you want. And in this case, not spending it at CFA falls perfectly in line with free market theories, regardless of why you aren't eating there

7/27/2012 12:54:14 PM

Terminology conflict. If you define "free market philosophy" to mean "people are free to spend or not spend however they please and no other considerations matter", then you've defined the term to exclude most libertarians including myself. Paying to have someone murdered would fit your terminology, but no libertarian would accept it as moral behavior. So I guess the mistake made here was attributing "free market philosophy" as an apt description of anyone's belief structure but your own.

A better definition for "free market philosophy" would be someone that purposefully does not interfere with the spending choices of others even when you can. If person A owns a business and hates the sexual preferences of person B, they may have the right to refuse to allow person B to buy food from person A, but they allow the transaction anyway because doing otherwise would violate their "free market philosophy". The road runs both ways. If I believe person A should overlook their beliefs and transact with person B anyway, it is only fair that I should overlook the beliefs of A and transact freely with them as well. After-all, CFA may hate gays, but they are honoring my "free market philosophy" and transacting freely with gays as respected customers. Why should we ourselves not be held to a similar standard?

[Edited on July 27, 2012 at 1:16 PM. Reason : .,.]

7/27/2012 1:04:56 PM

You're conflating "free market philosophy" with Libertarianism. You're the only one using the word "Libertarian". I wasn't using "free market philosophy" as a synonym for "Libertarian philosophy" or "what every Libertarian believes."

7/27/2012 1:12:09 PM

Quote :

"I would. And I would at least try to eat at your restaurant too, even though it seems you'd refuse to serve me based upon my personal beliefs. "

I find that hard to believe, and I find it pretty weak. You would knowinging contribute money to a company that knowingly contributes money to organizations that are trying to take away women's rights and make them the property of their husbands? I would of thought you'd have more moral conviction than that and take a stand against what you believe is wrong.

And once again, you're just making up bullshit. I haven't made any sort of comment about how I wouldn't serve people based on their personal beleifs. This whole discussion has been about people not wanting to givetheir money to organizatinos that support things that they find morally wrong. I don't know how you turned that into "you wouldn't serve me based on my personal beliefs." I have never said that, you're making stuff up, and it's hard to take you serioulsy when you do that

[Edited on July 27, 2012 at 1:20 PM. Reason : ]

7/27/2012 1:12:11 PM

Quote :

"Lord knows that if we had to agree with the cook (however loosely defined) on every issue before we could sit down to eat, there'd never be another family meal in America"

that's really missing the point. i don't care what the cooks beleifs are. i don't really care about the owner's beliefs. my main concern is not the owner's beliefs, it's that he's taking the 10s thousands of dollars he makes from sellng chicken sandwiches and donating that to organizations that try to pass legilsation that i don't agree with. if it was known that the cook was donating 10s of thousands of dollars to those orginzations, i probably wouldn't eat there either.

7/27/2012 1:15:36 PM

disco_stu, you were using it in relation to a libertarian entity, Reason Magazine.

Bullet, I don't see the distinction between buying chicken or selling chicken. If you refuse to buy chicken from someone, why are you willing to sell chicken to them? If you refused to sell them chicken, they'd have to go elsewhere for it, most certainly at higher prices, leaving them less money to donate to political organizations you disagree with.

Quote :

"that's really missing the point. i don't care what the cooks beleifs are. i don't really care about the owner's beliefs. my main concern is not the owner's beliefs, it's that he's taking the 10s thousands of dollars he makes from sellng chicken sandwiches and donating that to "

Your objection is not giving money to people you disagree with, just that they then turn around and give that money to people you disagree with? By your belief structure it'd be fine for an employer to fire all the Democrats or Republicans or gays or women or Christians in his employ because they're giving his money to organizations he opposes.

7/27/2012 1:25:39 PM

Quote :

"By your belief structure it'd be fine for an employer to fire all the Democrats or Republicans or gays or women or Christians in his employ because they're giving his money to organizations he opposes."

This is just taking his position and taking it to a ridiculous place that he wasn't originally suggesting nor supported logically by what he said. It's a strawman.

You're suggesting that the rules that govern where I spend my money should be the same as the rules that govern whether I should fire my workers.

Quote :

"disco_stu, you were using it in relation to a libertarian entity, Reason Magazine. "

And yet still I wasn't referring to Libertarianism in it's totality or all Libertarian philosophy, I was referring to (as I stated) free market philosophy, which could be considered part of Libertarianism perhaps which is why I thought it odd that there was someone published by Reason essentially arguing that people shouldn't spend their money as they see fit.

[Edited on July 27, 2012 at 1:30 PM. Reason : .]

7/27/2012 1:28:08 PM

Quote :

"Bullet, I don't see the distinction between buying chicken or selling chicken. If you refuse to buy chicken from someone, why are you willing to sell chicken to them?"

i don't see how you don't understand. i'll take their money, i just don't want to give them mine.

Quote :

"Your objection is not giving money to people you disagree with, just that they then turn around and give that money to people you disagree with?"

My main objection is giving large sums of money to orginizations that try to pass legislation. I admit, the scenario has a lot of gray in it, but with the CFA scenario that we're talking about, my objection is giving money to a company that dontates very large sums of money to orginizations that want to promote ideas through legislation or other means that i don't agree with.

I'll end it there, because we're not going to agree. I'd hope you wouldn't give money to a company that donates large sums of money to a muslim organizaton that has a goal of taking away women's rights. But if you have no problem with it, then go for it.

[Edited on July 27, 2012 at 1:53 PM. Reason : ]

7/27/2012 1:31:14 PM

Quote :

"You're suggesting that the rules that govern where I spend my money should be the same as the rules that govern whether I should fire my workers."

Quite right. The rules governing who you give your money to should apply to who you give your money to. An employer is purchasing labor services from workers, who are sellers of labor services. If anything, who I buy labor from should be a more rigorous test than who I buy chicken from.

Quote :

"free market philosophy, which could be considered part of Libertarianism perhaps which is why I thought it odd that there was someone published by Reason essentially arguing that people shouldn't spend their money as they see fit."

And like I said, you are attributing a philosophy to people that they do not share.

Quote :

"i don't see how you don't understand. i'll take their money, i just don't want to give them mine."

Even though selling them chicken furthers their political aims? What if you're a wholesaler and they're turning around and selling the chicken at a profit? Are you going to sell them paper to publish books and pamphlets? Office furniture and rental space the organization in question is going to use to advocate policies you despise? You'll take their money right? Or will you take their money sometimes but not others?

You don't like it when I change what is being bought and sold because it makes you look like historical examples of what you are, a bigot. You don't want to be seen discriminating against employees or customers because that's what the people you hate do. But because they don't have a history of discriminating in this particular way, against business owners, you're fine with such discrimination and eager to participate. You have no philosophy to tell you right from wrong, all you have is what they do versus what you are now going to do to them.

A consistent philosophy would tell you if it is alright to discriminate against people in one market then it is fine to discriminate in other markets. My consistent philosophy tells me discrimination based upon personal matters is wrong, no matter what the people involved are trying to trade.

[Edited on July 27, 2012 at 3:40 PM. Reason : sp]

7/27/2012 3:33:34 PM

Quote :

"You don't like it when I change what is being bought and sold because it makes you look like historical examples of what you are, a bigot."

You're a funny guy. I am not a bigot just because i don't want to give my money to a company that donates vast sums of money to organizations that work to prohibit abortions and constitutionally ban same sex marriage (causes i don't agree with). to call me a bigot because of that is... stupid. i think he should be able to believe whatever he wants, and he can give his money to whomever he wants. and i can too.

i'm pretty sure the reason you and many others are so passionate about defending chick-fil-a is simply because you agree with their beliefs, and you'd be signing a different tune if it was something you were against. i'm done.

7/27/2012 3:55:24 PM

Of course, there goes the personal attacks. And I guess all first amendment defenders are pornographers too. Well, to put you at ease, you're wrong. I'd love it if both the government and churches got out of the marriage business and abortion should definitely be legal. But others think differently from me, and to shun them for it would only lower myself to their level.

"I am not a bigot just because i don't want to give my money to a company, <employees, customers, etc> that donate vast sums of money to organizations that work to <legalize same sex marriage>(causes i don't agree with)."

Quote :

"i'm pretty sure the reason you and many others are so passionate about defending chick-fil-a is simply because you agree with their beliefs, and you'd be signing a different tune if it was something you were against. i'm done."

It seems this is what you are doing. You have no problem with discriminating against people so long as it is the right people, so you have no qualms with how the war is being fought, you only lament the loss of the individual battles. When the <Christians/Muslims/etc> discriminate against the <gays/women/etc> you are outraged, when the <gays/women/you/etc> discriminate against the <Christians/Muslims/etc> you are proud your side won that battle. It is rather unsavory to watch.

7/27/2012 4:31:16 PM

Quote :

"It seems this is what you are doing. You have no problem with discriminating against people so long as it is the right people, so you have no qualms with how the war is being fought, you only lament the loss of the individual battles. When the <Christians/Muslims/etc> discriminate against the <gays/women/etc> you are outraged, when the <gays/women/you/etc> discriminate against the <Christians/Muslims/etc> you are proud your side won that battle. It is rather unsavory to watch."

once again, you're just making shit up. not giving money to causes i don't believe in is not "discrimination", at least not on par with wanting to deny a group of people cerain rights.

[Edited on July 27, 2012 at 4:41 PM. Reason : ]

7/27/2012 4:40:59 PM

OK, how about this:

If McDonald's was known to give huge sums of money to organizations that worked to legalize gay marriage, or to keep abortion legal, or whatever other "liberal causes", and some conservatives decided to stop eating at McDonalds, I'd have absolutely no problem with that, and i'd even kinda respect those who sacrificed their Big Macs for their beliefs.



[Edited on July 27, 2012 at 5:03 PM. Reason : ]

7/27/2012 4:40:59 PM

Quote :

"It seems this is what you are doing. You have no problem with discriminating against people so long as it is the right people, so you have no qualms with how the war is being fought, you only lament the loss of the individual battles. When the <Christians/Muslims/etc> discriminate against the <gays/women/etc> you are outraged, when the <gays/women/you/etc> discriminate against the <Christians/Muslims/etc> you are proud your side won that battle. It is rather unsavory to watch."

Truth. I could care less what someone's actual views on social issues are, but I have no respect for people like this.

7/27/2012 5:02:58 PM

^^ Well, I would have a problem with that ^_^

Perhaps we're done? I'm convinced you understand my position, and I'm convinced I understand your position. All that remains is our personal preferences for how the culture war should be fought, which are in disagreement. I pray my side wins someday. For your way of waging war is casualty prone. But luckily you don't care who gets hurt for what they believe in, even when its someone from your side.

[Edited on July 27, 2012 at 5:06 PM. Reason : .,.]

7/27/2012 5:04:04 PM

^^the thing is, i don't see anybody doing that. please point out some examples.

^ i just can't understand why you have a problem with people not wanting to give their money to causes they don't agree with.

Quote :

"I pray my side wins someday. For your way of waging war is casualty prone. But luckily you don't care who gets hurt for what they believe in."

once again, wtf are you talking about? who's getting hurt by me not wanting to give money to an anti-gay cause? and if somebody was getting hurt, why do you assume i don't care. making up shit again. stop it.

[Edited on July 27, 2012 at 5:08 PM. Reason : ]

7/27/2012 5:04:09 PM

Quote :

" who's getting hurt by me not wanting to give money to an anti-gay cause? and if somebody was getting hurt, why do you assume i don't care. making up shit again. stop it."

The Christian whose business you have refused to patronage. You've hurt his business because you don't like what he spends HIS money on. Your money went towards chicken, which he provided. So now he is either free to suffer the harm of losing his business or abandoning his beliefs and shuffling into the closet to keep quiet. Either way, your side has silenced this individual, just as the other side used to silence gays by threatening to refuse doing business with them anymore (by firing them).

Are you seriously suggesting the bigotry against blacks (and black owned/supporting businesses) and gay (and gay owned/supporting businesses) didn't harm anyone?

Or are we back to the nonsense that discrimination in one market is fine but that same discrimination in some other market is somehow completely different? The only explanation I can think of is you believe discrimination is fine based upon expectant wealth, as customers and employees tend to earn less than business owners so discrimination here is wrong but discrimination against business owners is always acceptable because they tend to be wealthier?

7/27/2012 5:20:06 PM

http://tinyurl.com/boston-strip-clubs

http://tinyurl.com/bmskr32

[Edited on July 27, 2012 at 8:22 PM. Reason : chick-fil-a]

7/27/2012 8:21:02 PM

[Edited on July 27, 2012 at 10:15 PM. Reason : ]

7/27/2012 10:15:18 PM

I'm going to buy an oreo infused cookies and cream shake from CFA.

7/27/2012 10:18:54 PM

7/27/2012 11:11:57 PM