Quote :

"yeah, there's been a couple random cases of vandalism. why didn't the chief of the gays and his henchqueens adopt and implement a no-vandalism rule on his fags? fuck all them gays, send in the troops! "

Quote :

"a douche with a video camera, a coincidental bomb threat, and one instance of clever graffiti Three things that happen every day to every fast food chain, and conservatism thinks its "won"."

if someone called in a bomb threat to a gay establishment, or wrote anti-gay graffiti, it would be a hate crime. but when the shoe is on the other foot, it's clearly no big deal.

oh, just those silly kids again!

8/7/2012 9:48:20 AM

Part of the reason why hate crime legislation is fundamentally flawed in the first place. But wait, I thought Chick-fil-a wasn't anything more than a restaurant?

8/7/2012 9:53:46 AM

^if you're asking me, it isn't anything more than a restaurant.

[Edited on August 7, 2012 at 9:58 AM. Reason : .]

8/7/2012 9:57:41 AM

Then how can you insinuate that the shoe is on the other foot? "Philosophical position on marriage equality" isn't a protected class. The graffiti and bomb threats aren't directed at heterosexuals.

8/7/2012 10:07:27 AM

Quote :

"if someone called in a bomb threat to a gay establishment, or wrote anti-gay graffiti, it would be a hate crime. but when the shoe is on the other foot, it's clearly no big deal."

I in no way said it wasn't a big deal. If caught, they should be charged. I was sarcastically addressing a poster who thinks in total black and white and constantly posts huge generalizations.

His point was that since there was a case of graffitti, "they lose, Fuck the gays", as if all the gays did the vandalism, and they should all be held responsible, and they shouldn't be tolerated simply because somebody spraypainted on the wall of a fast food restraunt.

[Edited on August 7, 2012 at 10:23 AM. Reason : ]

8/7/2012 10:21:01 AM

Quote :

"Then how can you insinuate that the shoe is on the other foot? "Philosophical position on marriage equality" isn't a protected class. The graffiti and bomb threats aren't directed at heterosexuals."

you will pick anything to death.

8/7/2012 10:39:40 AM

It's simple; don't make false equivalences and I won't call them out.

8/7/2012 10:41:33 AM

the equivalence wasn't about protected class. at all.

rather, it was about the double standard in regards to this sort of behavior. if someone spraypainted an anti-gay marriage message on the side of the oreo cookie plant, or god forbid threatened to blow it up, liberals wouldn't be so quick to label it as an "isolated incident", it would be more like "OMFG look at what the anti-gay agenda has come to!!1!"

i'm sorry if you didn't get essence of what i was trying to say originally. but since you've always been a complete know-it-all prick on these boards, i can't say i'm surprised you jumped to correct my semantics so quickly

[Edited on August 7, 2012 at 10:53 AM. Reason : .]

8/7/2012 10:49:40 AM

Quote :

" if someone spraypainted an anti-gay marriage message on the side of the oreo cookie plant, or god forbid threatened to blow it up, liberals wouldn't be so quick to label it as an "isolated incident", it would be more like "OMFG look at what the anti-gay agenda has come to!!1!" "

Here's where your problem is. Pro-gay and anti-gay are not two sides of the same coin. One is discriminatory and one is not. It's not hypocritical to make a big deal out of anti-gay demonstrations but not pro-gay demonstrations for this very reason.

That's the point I was making. You complaining about liberals not making a big deal about pro-gray actions is like complaining that people don't have he same level of ire for acting against the KKK as they do when the KKK acts against racial equality.

[Edited on August 7, 2012 at 11:00 AM. Reason : slash]

8/7/2012 11:00:22 AM

I find it silly when a bomb threat gets national recognition, as if they aren't commonplace. They're only really reported in the news when it causes a sensation. Pro-gay establishments (e.g. Human Rights Campaign, UFMCC churches, other LBGT advocacy groups) receive bomb threats, death threats, arson attempts, vandalism, etc on a regular basis. Bomb threats have even been made to gay weddings and known gay couples at their homes.

That's not to say LBGT crazies have not made threats of their own, nor to say that fundamentalist churches and their allies have not received similar attention.

Any instance of extreme controversy such as this is going to produce such acts from one side or another, depending on who is the instigator and who is the instigated. Anyone who points to events like these as a basis for their conclusions about a protected class or a specific cause is not using critical thinking skills.

[Edited on August 7, 2012 at 11:36 AM. Reason : .]

8/7/2012 11:34:18 AM

Quote :

"is not using critical thinking skills"

yeah, hacks, shills, ideologues and extremists are not known for their rationality when it comes to issues they're passionate about (gay stuff)

[Edited on August 7, 2012 at 12:43 PM. Reason : ]

8/7/2012 12:18:31 PM

Being anti-bigot makes you a bigot too, checkmate lieberals!

8/10/2012 2:40:13 PM

Isn't this world grand where you actually have to explain that concept to people?

8/10/2012 2:52:22 PM

Being a bigoted anti-bigot makes you a bigot squared, checkmate conservatives!

8/10/2012 3:18:18 PM

Attempted shooting at the Family Research Council.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/mother-of-security-guard-shot-in-dc-happy-to-hear-him-called-hero/2012/08/16/531ed060-e7a1-11e1-8487-64e4b2a79ba8_story.html

Quote :

"According to an FBI affidavit made public Thursday, Corkins walked into the lobby of the conservative group’s headqurters shortly before 11 a.m. and encountered the guard, Leonardo Reno Johnson. A law enforcement official familiar with the incident but not authorized to talk about it, said Corkins asked to see someone Johnson didn’t know. Johnson has worked at the Council for 11 years and became suspicious. Corkins said he had the name in his bag, bent down and pulled out a 9mm handgun, the official said. Corkins said “I don’t like your politics,” according to the FBI affifavit. He then shot at Johnson, the affidavit said, and hit him in the arm... Corkins had been volunteering at a U Street NW community center for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people, according to officials there. Michael Sessa, president of the D.C. Center for the LGBT Community, said the FBI has spoken with staff members about Corkins’s time there, which had been about six months. Corkins would have performed administrative work checking in people at the front desk and would have undergone a background check, Sessa said. The FBI affidavit says that agents interviewed Corkins’s parents, who said their son “has strong opinions with respect to those he believes do not treat homosexuals in a fair manner.”"

Thankfully, the guy was incompetent so there were no fatalities. Looks like the crazies start coming out of the woodwork with dreams of martyrdom and glory.

[Edited on August 16, 2012 at 4:09 PM. Reason : P]

8/16/2012 3:45:37 PM

The Rethugs are likely scratching their heads about how the "LIEberal" media managed to not bury this story but rather promote it; it's almost like they were doing their jobs by reporting the important news as it happened.

8/19/2012 1:14:51 PM

Looks like the boycotts/bad press worked

http://chicagophoenix.com/2012/09/18/chick-fil-a-agrees-to-end-anti-gay-donations-mandates-equal-treatment-of-gays/

9/19/2012 12:20:28 PM

Too bad it was just a PR move, not an actual change in beliefs.

9/19/2012 1:57:18 PM

I'd say cutting off funding of anti-gay charities is pretty substantial

everybody is free to believe what they want to believe and it's a ridiculously slippery slope to try to pick and chose which companies to support based on their beliefs

[Edited on September 19, 2012 at 2:10 PM. Reason : that's what I believe at least]

9/19/2012 2:07:50 PM

Quote :

"Too bad it was just a PR move, not an actual change in beliefs."

Why does it matter? If they're actually pulling the funding, that's all you can ask for.

9/19/2012 2:16:12 PM

exactly

9/19/2012 2:25:17 PM

agree

9/19/2012 2:31:57 PM

precisely. they're free to believe whatever they want. As long as they don't contribute money to FoF, I won't mind giving them my money for chicken.

9/19/2012 2:34:54 PM

Oddly enough I haven't had chick fIl-a since this whole hullabaloo started, but only because it got too crowded with rednecks for a while there.

9/19/2012 2:51:04 PM

It was the fat, redneck, evangelical pilgrimage. It was great for them since they don't have passports to see the outside world and think that Jerusalem has too many muslims and jews anyways.

9/19/2012 2:59:10 PM

Hell I'll start eating there again. I may pick some up tonight.

9/19/2012 3:59:01 PM

So they get a huge boost of money from bigots flocking at their original intransigence, then they get a boost from queers celebrating their acquiescence. Seems like a giant troll...

9/19/2012 5:53:13 PM

I think you underestimate how powerful the gay demographic is

they are one of the wealthiest groups in America, and pissing them off is a great way to lose a TON of business

poor white trash and bigots might out number the gays, but they can't really outspend them these days...

and let's not even discuss the faghag to gay dynamic and quotient- that alone would cost them millions!

[Edited on September 19, 2012 at 7:50 PM. Reason : fat chicks will take their dollar bucks elsewhere!]

9/19/2012 7:49:18 PM

My thoughts about this are exactly the same as my thoughts about the original controversy.

I don't give a shit as long as they keep making good chicken.

9/19/2012 7:52:58 PM

Quote :

"if someone called in a bomb threat to a gay establishment, or wrote anti-gay graffiti, it would be a hate crime. but when the shoe is on the other foot, it's clearly no big deal."

The way a hate crime works is that you commit a crime out of blatant bigoted hatred toward one group. Now, when you reverse the action, and the minority acts in violence towards the oppresor, it technically no longer is a hate crime because one in that situation has a defined reason (retaliation in most cases) for committing the act due to the specific nature between the oppressed and the oppressor. It is still terrorism though, for sure.

9/19/2012 7:55:47 PM

^ that is easily one of the dumbest things I've heard today. Hate is fucking hate, no matter who is doing the hating.

Quote :

"everybody is free to believe what they want to believe as long as liberals agree with it"

FTFY

9/19/2012 9:19:15 PM

I'm not saying that I'm not glad they decided not to give money to those organizations. My point is the motive is likely disingenuous and doesn't really save them face. Most that decided not to give them their business will probably continue not to.

9/19/2012 11:26:30 PM

^^explain why I'm a "liberal" on this issue, burro.

i chose not to give my hard-earned money to a company who publicly gave money to an organization (FoF and others) who publicly lobbies to pass legislation that denies two committed men or women from getting the same marriage-benefits as straight couples.

shouldn't i have the right to choose who I give my money to?

9/19/2012 11:53:17 PM

I support your right to give your money to me.

9/19/2012 11:55:10 PM

^make a good chicken sandwich and waffle fries, don't charge too much, and don't give your profits to bigoted organizations... and we've got a deal.

9/20/2012 12:02:26 AM

One tiny pickle slice slapped between two greasy pieces of dollar store bread and a hunk of fowl flesh coming right up!

9/20/2012 12:17:04 AM

So Shane Windmeyer has posted an interesting article about the peace established between him and Dan Cathy.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/shane-l-windmeyer/dan-cathy-chick-fil-a_b_2564379.html

I find this article really fascinating in part because of the reactions it has invoked, many of which reflect the individual's personal belief on whether or not Dan Cathy is sincere.

If you believe he is not sincere then Shane Windmeyer is naive at best or a patsy at worst who has been tricked or bought off to provide Chick-Fil-A with top cover and deflate the boycott.

If Cathy is being sincere, then there is hope for peaceful reconciliation that can transcend the hardened trench lines that both sides have dug, or at very least, some kind of peaceful "agree to disagree" can be found between the two camps.

I would argue Liberal Evangelicals, individuals who support a broader liberal agenda of social justice and equality, are most excited by the article as it allows them some room for reconciling the conflict created by this issue. There is a significant camp that believes in marriage equality as a matter of legal fairness and equal protection even if they cannot reconcile it with the sacrament of marriage. For them, Cathy's actions represent how Christian love should work. However, more conservative Evangelicals would probably view this as a betrayal, a caving of beliefs by Cathy in the face of worldly pressure.

Curious what everyone else's thoughts are on the matter.

2/5/2013 12:07:12 AM

i just want some fried chicken

2/5/2013 8:13:42 AM

^^
That's basically how relationships work without politics.

Our political process creates a battle ground where people become your enemies, but in the normal world you learn to agree to disagree or come to a middle ground with people you know personally.

Unfortunately chuck fil a has power that is more far reaching than any individual normally would have, so the pressure has to stay on them, but even the dumbest amongst us normally has some set of life experiences that shape their beliefs, and they have to rationalize those experiences with new information to change their mind, just calling them a bigot won't do. It looks like Cathy has shifted, but like any religious person, can't completely disavow their formed notion in one swoop.

Maybe considering this, psychology will find there is a better way to influence large groups of people than the madness we have now where we're basically yelling and sneering at each other.

2/5/2013 9:28:04 AM

Quote :

"The way a hate crime works is that you commit a crime out of blatant bigoted hatred toward one group. Now, when you reverse the action, and the minority acts in violence towards the oppresor, it technically no longer is a hate crime because one in that situation has a defined reason (retaliation in most cases) for committing the act due to the specific nature between the oppressed and the oppressor. It is still terrorism though, for sure."

It's really quite frightening how some of you people think.

2/5/2013 11:13:48 AM

per their latest IRS filing, Chick-Fil-A is no longer funding these hate groups

8/15/2015 3:11:05 PM

^yeah it was mentioned 3 years ago in an article posted above

[old]

8/17/2015 12:08:55 PM

they said they were going to, now it is shown that they have

8/17/2015 12:32:33 PM

wonder if they found some new ones...

8/18/2015 1:52:08 PM