If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Some Chick Fil A)   "Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views" - William F Buckley   (dennyburk.com) divider line 595
    More: Obvious, Baptist Press, policy debate, rights movement, liberals  
•       •       •

2301 clicks; posted to Politics » on 23 Jul 2012 at 11:17 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



595 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-07-23 06:16:52 PM

Blue_Blazer: SkinnyHead: friday13: SkinnyHead: friday13: SkinnyHead:

Religious organizations that are devoted to preserving the traditional definition of marriage are not based on hate. Groups that express hatred for those religious organizations devoted to preserving the traditional definition of marriage, on the other hand, actually are based on hate.

Which traditional definition would that be? There are so many.
Would you like to defend the traditional definition of property while you're at it? Or maybe the traditional definition of citizen?


I believe that the traditional definition of marriage is the union of one man and one woman in matrimony. Those who want to preserve that definition for religious reasons or out of respect for tradition aren't doing so because they are full of hate. I see a lot of hatred directed at Chick-fil-A. Don't see any hatred coming from Chick-fil-A.
 
2012-07-23 06:18:38 PM

skullkrusher: whidbey: skullkrusher: Gay marriage bans and slavery are not even in the same sport, let alone ballpark

They're both discrimination, and covered under the 14th Amendment.

You're really flailing here.

that's enough trolling for one thread, brah


Not trolling, just pointing out to what lengths you'll go to defend bigotry.

The honorable thing would have been not to keep getting more stuck in it with each post.
 
2012-07-23 06:20:06 PM

skullkrusher: whidbey: Yes, I should be crushed that bigotry is protected by law.

you apparently are. Adults recognize that unpopular speech is why we have these sorts of protections in the first place.


Oh...more insults.

So far the score is 4-0.
 
2012-07-23 06:21:25 PM

whidbey: Not trolling, just pointing out to what lengths you'll go to defend bigotry.


if it is not trolling, then it is commenting ignorantly on a conversation you didn't bother to understand.

whidbey: The honorable thing would have been not to keep getting more stuck in it with each post.


yeah, dubya, I am holding the untenable position that government officials should not punish people for free speech. I really should be honorable and agree that your authoritarian ways are best. Any means to an end, right?
 
2012-07-23 06:22:30 PM

Russky: I know couldn't anyone see that Hitler wasn't anti Jewish he was just pro German.


you know who else like to godwin threads?

Hitler was for gay marriage therefore it is evil

can't anyone see that fark isn't anti traditional marriage? it's just pro progressive marriage.

/the anti christian hate is just the icing on the cake

40 years from now you backwards thinking dark ages racists will see how bigoted you are being about incestuous marriages, with all your talk about "traditional marriages" only being between non-related people, your discrimination disgusts me

next you know, you will be infringing on my rights to marry my turtle

thankfully we will have fark to protect us

/wish this was satire
 
2012-07-23 06:22:39 PM

SkinnyHead: Blue_Blazer: SkinnyHead: friday13: SkinnyHead: friday13: SkinnyHead:

Religious organizations that are devoted to preserving the traditional definition of marriage are not based on hate. Groups that express hatred for those religious organizations devoted to preserving the traditional definition of marriage, on the other hand, actually are based on hate.

Which traditional definition would that be? There are so many.
Would you like to defend the traditional definition of property while you're at it? Or maybe the traditional definition of citizen?

I believe that the traditional definition of marriage is the union of one man and one woman in matrimony. Those who want to preserve that definition for religious reasons or out of respect for tradition aren't doing so because they are full of hate. I see a lot of hatred directed at Chick-fil-A. Don't see any hatred coming from Chick-fil-A.


I think the traditional definition of marriage is a land grab and money transfer.

By saying you are for something that explicitly denies it to other people you are by default against them. If I'm only for men being able to vote, yes that's means I'm a sexist not that I'm some type of altruistic traditional voter.
 
2012-07-23 06:25:03 PM

skullkrusher: whidbey: Not trolling, just pointing out to what lengths you'll go to defend bigotry.

if it is not trolling, then it is commenting ignorantly on a conversation you didn't bother to understand.whidbey: The honorable thing would have been not to keep getting more stuck in it with each post.

yeah, dubya, I am holding the untenable position that government officials should not punish people for free speech. I really should be honorable and agree that your authoritarian ways are best. Any means to an end, right?


I know what you think you're trying to do.

What actually ends up happening is very different, as you've gotten more and more defensive about these morally bankrupt bigots with practically every response.

Again, the honorable thing would have been to lament the state of the law on the moral compass reflected, but your approach was to revel in the fact that our laws protect bigots like Chick Fil A.

Speaks a few volumes.
 
2012-07-23 06:27:58 PM
Funny how the people who claim the mayor has no right to deny the permit haven't cited any facts to support that. There was some half-hearted blather about protected speech, but this has nothing to do with limiting speech; it's a farking business permit.
 
2012-07-23 06:32:09 PM

skullkrusher: whidbey: Not trolling, just pointing out to what lengths you'll go to defend bigotry.

if it is not trolling, then it is commenting ignorantly on a conversation you didn't bother to understand.whidbey: The honorable thing would have been not to keep getting more stuck in it with each post.

yeah, dubya, I am holding the untenable position that government officials should not punish people for free speech. I really should be honorable and agree that your authoritarian ways are best. Any means to an end, right?


So everyone who is against same sex marriage is a bigot?
 
2012-07-23 06:34:45 PM
Buckley? That liberal-coddling RINO?

He makes me so mad that I'm gunna cross out the first word of the 'LIBERAL HUNTING PERMIT' bumper sticker on my truck and write in "WILM F. BULCKLY" in its place.
 
2012-07-23 06:35:54 PM

Uh Oh Chongo Danger Island!: skullkrusher: whidbey: Not trolling, just pointing out to what lengths you'll go to defend bigotry.

if it is not trolling, then it is commenting ignorantly on a conversation you didn't bother to understand.whidbey: The honorable thing would have been not to keep getting more stuck in it with each post.

yeah, dubya, I am holding the untenable position that government officials should not punish people for free speech. I really should be honorable and agree that your authoritarian ways are best. Any means to an end, right?

So everyone who is against same sex marriage is a bigot?


Pretty much
 
2012-07-23 06:36:49 PM

Uh Oh Chongo Danger Island!: skullkrusher: whidbey: Not trolling, just pointing out to what lengths you'll go to defend bigotry.

if it is not trolling, then it is commenting ignorantly on a conversation you didn't bother to understand.whidbey: The honorable thing would have been not to keep getting more stuck in it with each post.

yeah, dubya, I am holding the untenable position that government officials should not punish people for free speech. I really should be honorable and agree that your authoritarian ways are best. Any means to an end, right?

So everyone who is against same sex marriage is a bigot?


Yup. Whether they fool themselves into thinking they aren't is another story. It's easy to come up with an excuse to make yourself feel better about you, but in the end they are bigots.
 
2012-07-23 06:37:44 PM

whidbey: skullkrusher: whidbey: Not trolling, just pointing out to what lengths you'll go to defend bigotry.

if it is not trolling, then it is commenting ignorantly on a conversation you didn't bother to understand.whidbey: The honorable thing would have been not to keep getting more stuck in it with each post.

yeah, dubya, I am holding the untenable position that government officials should not punish people for free speech. I really should be honorable and agree that your authoritarian ways are best. Any means to an end, right?

I know what you think you're trying to do.

What actually ends up happening is very different, as you've gotten more and more defensive about these morally bankrupt bigots with practically every response.

Again, the honorable thing would have been to lament the state of the law on the moral compass reflected, but your approach was to revel in the fact that our laws protect bigots like Chick Fil A.

Speaks a few volumes.


No I won't lament the fact that government officials cannot punish people for political stances. The fact that you DO find this lamentable speaks volumes. Mainly about your wicked authoritarian streak when the politics suit you
 
2012-07-23 06:39:25 PM

Wooly Bully: Funny how the people who claim the mayor has no right to deny the permit haven't cited any facts to support that. There was some half-hearted blather about protected speech, but this has nothing to do with limiting speech; it's a farking business permit.


You support gay marriage? Sorry, you cannot open shop in my city. Maybe now you understand?
 
2012-07-23 06:40:18 PM

Wooly Bully: Funny how the people who claim the mayor has no right to deny the permit haven't cited any facts to support that. There was some half-hearted blather about protected speech, but this has nothing to do with limiting speech; it's a farking business permit.


Probably for the same reasons cities can't outright ban strip clubs because they find them offensive on moral grounds.
 
2012-07-23 06:41:19 PM

Russky: I think the traditional definition of marriage is a land grab and money transfer.

By saying you are for something that explicitly denies it to other people you are by default against them. If I'm only for men being able to vote, yes that's means I'm a sexist not that I'm some type of altruistic traditional voter.


Whenever you define something, you exclude things that don't fit that definition. That doesn't mean that it is wrong to define things. Marriage is traditionally defined as the union of one man and one woman. That definition is not for or against anyone.
 
2012-07-23 06:47:44 PM

Russky: Uh Oh Chongo Danger Island!: skullkrusher: whidbey: Not trolling, just pointing out to what lengths you'll go to defend bigotry.

if it is not trolling, then it is commenting ignorantly on a conversation you didn't bother to understand.whidbey: The honorable thing would have been not to keep getting more stuck in it with each post.

yeah, dubya, I am holding the untenable position that government officials should not punish people for free speech. I really should be honorable and agree that your authoritarian ways are best. Any means to an end, right?

So everyone who is against same sex marriage is a bigot?

Yup. Whether they fool themselves into thinking they aren't is another story. It's easy to come up with an excuse to make yourself feel better about you, but in the end they are bigots


But, I'm against all marriages, especially the civil component.
 
2012-07-23 06:47:52 PM

SkinnyHead: Russky: I think the traditional definition of marriage is a land grab and money transfer.

By saying you are for something that explicitly denies it to other people you are by default against them. If I'm only for men being able to vote, yes that's means I'm a sexist not that I'm some type of altruistic traditional voter.

Whenever you define something, you exclude things that don't fit that definition. That doesn't mean that it is wrong to define things. Marriage is traditionally defined as the union of one man and one woman. That definition is not for or against anyone.


Sure but the millions of dollars being spent to stop gay people from marrying can probably be defined as 'against someone' don't you think?
 
2012-07-23 06:48:43 PM

Uh Oh Chongo Danger Island!: Russky: Uh Oh Chongo Danger Island!: skullkrusher: whidbey: Not trolling, just pointing out to what lengths you'll go to defend bigotry.

if it is not trolling, then it is commenting ignorantly on a conversation you didn't bother to understand.whidbey: The honorable thing would have been not to keep getting more stuck in it with each post.

yeah, dubya, I am holding the untenable position that government officials should not punish people for free speech. I really should be honorable and agree that your authoritarian ways are best. Any means to an end, right?

So everyone who is against same sex marriage is a bigot?

Yup. Whether they fool themselves into thinking they aren't is another story. It's easy to come up with an excuse to make yourself feel better about you, but in the end they are bigots

But, I'm against all marriages, especially the civil component.


That's different you actually believe in equality for everyone, not just equality for Christians that are forcing their belief system on others.
 
2012-07-23 06:51:03 PM
Uh Oh Chongo Danger Island!: Russky: Uh Oh Chongo Danger Island!: skullkrusher: whidbey: Not trolling, just pointing out to what lengths you'll go to defend bigotry.

if it is not trolling, then it is commenting ignorantly on a conversation you didn't bother to understand.whidbey: The honorable thing would have been not to keep getting more stuck in it with each post.

yeah, dubya, I am holding the untenable position that government officials should not punish people for free speech. I really should be honorable and agree that your authoritarian ways are best. Any means to an end, right?

So everyone who is against same sex marriage is a bigot?

Yup. Whether they fool themselves into thinking they aren't is another story. It's easy to come up with an excuse to make yourself feel better about you, but in the end they are bigots

But, I'm against all marriages, especially the civil component.

That's different you actually believe in equality for everyone, not just equality for Christians that are forcing their belief system on others.

I'll have to remember to call my girlfriend a bigot for forcing her marriage belief system on me.
 
2012-07-23 06:51:38 PM

Uh Oh Chongo Danger Island!: Uh Oh Chongo Danger Island!: Russky: Uh Oh Chongo Danger Island!: skullkrusher: whidbey: Not trolling, just pointing out to what lengths you'll go to defend bigotry.

if it is not trolling, then it is commenting ignorantly on a conversation you didn't bother to understand.whidbey: The honorable thing would have been not to keep getting more stuck in it with each post.

yeah, dubya, I am holding the untenable position that government officials should not punish people for free speech. I really should be honorable and agree that your authoritarian ways are best. Any means to an end, right?

So everyone who is against same sex marriage is a bigot?

Yup. Whether they fool themselves into thinking they aren't is another story. It's easy to come up with an excuse to make yourself feel better about you, but in the end they are bigots

But, I'm against all marriages, especially the civil component.

That's different you actually believe in equality for everyone, not just equality for Christians that are forcing their belief system on others.

I'll have to remember to call my girlfriend a bigot for forcing her marriage belief system on me.


Not a surprise but you totally missed the point.
 
2012-07-23 06:58:41 PM

I drunk what: Russky: I know couldn't anyone see that Hitler wasn't anti Jewish he was just pro German.

you know who else like to godwin threads?

Hitler was for gay marriage therefore it is evil

can't anyone see that fark isn't anti traditional marriage? it's just pro progressive marriage.

/the anti christian hate is just the icing on the cake

40 years from now you backwards thinking dark ages racists will see how bigoted you are being about incestuous marriages, with all your talk about "traditional marriages" only being between non-related people, your discrimination disgusts me

next you know, you will be infringing on my rights to marry my turtle

thankfully we will have fark to protect us

/wish this was satire


You only think it isn't satire.

SkinnyHead: Russky: I think the traditional definition of marriage is a land grab and money transfer.

By saying you are for something that explicitly denies it to other people you are by default against them. If I'm only for men being able to vote, yes that's means I'm a sexist not that I'm some type of altruistic traditional voter.

Whenever you define something, you exclude things that don't fit that definition. That doesn't mean that it is wrong to define things. Marriage is traditionally defined as the union of one man and one woman. That definition is not for or against anyone.


Do you know how many times that definition has changed?

Let's see, there was the anti-anti-miscegenation change, the monogomy change, the "women are not property" change...
 
2012-07-23 07:01:14 PM

skullkrusher: No I won't lament the fact that government officials cannot punish people for political stances.


Ah so bigotry is just a mere "political stance," now. Excellent.

The fact that you DO find this lamentable speaks volumes. Mainly about your wicked authoritarian streak when the politics suit you

OK I won't count that one as an insult. Calling someone "authoritarian" in a discussion is meaningless.
 
2012-07-23 07:02:25 PM

BojanglesPaladin: Also, Old Testemant does not apply to Christ's specific teachings as he is tehe new law under Christian thinking. So what happened THEN is superceded by his teachings when there is a conflict.



I love how you misquote one sentence Jesus said as proof you don't have to follow laws from the OT, yet most of your hatred of homosexuals comes from the OT.

Just admit you Christians cherry pick what you do and don't want to follow, you're a hypocrite who doesn't even understand the book you pretend to live by.

Jesus said he came to FULFILL the old laws, but the old laws are sooo hard to follow and you don't want to do that! So screw it, lets just do what the NT says! It makes it so easy now! Brilliant!
 
2012-07-23 07:02:43 PM

HighOnCraic: So he was tolerant of the Freedom Riders' right to challenge segregation, and he was also tolerant of the use of violence against them. How classy.


See: Cognitive dissonance.
 
2012-07-23 07:05:23 PM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: mrexcess: He's pretty much spot on. Here's the sort of things that liberals get up to when they want to suppress other peoples' opinions:

A Gentleman's Guide to Forum Spies.

Bonus points - go back into the Fark Politics Tab archives and see how many of these techniques you can spot being used.

This is pretty much the best post I've seen all year. These tactics are rampant on this site.



Exactly from trolls like both of you. How ironic you can't even stop projecting when you aren't on topic
 
2012-07-23 07:10:12 PM

mrexcess: He's pretty much spot on. Here's the sort of things that liberals get up to when they want to suppress other peoples' opinions:

A Gentleman's Guide to Forum Spies.

Bonus points - go back into the Fark Politics Tab archives and see how many of these techniques you can spot being used.


Um....

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2012-07-23 07:13:33 PM

Russky: Uh Oh Chongo Danger Island!: Uh Oh Chongo Danger Island!: Russky: Uh Oh Chongo Danger Island!: skullkrusher: whidbey: Not trolling, just pointing out to what lengths you'll go to defend bigotry.

if it is not trolling, then it is commenting ignorantly on a conversation you didn't bother to understand.whidbey: The honorable thing would have been not to keep getting more stuck in it with each post.

yeah, dubya, I am holding the untenable position that government officials should not punish people for free speech. I really should be honorable and agree that your authoritarian ways are best. Any means to an end, right?

So everyone who is against same sex marriage is a bigot?

Yup. Whether they fool themselves into thinking they aren't is another story. It's easy to come up with an excuse to make yourself feel better about you, but in the end they are bigots

But, I'm against all marriages, especially the civil component.

That's different you actually believe in equality for everyone, not just equality for Christians that are forcing their belief system on others.

I'll have to remember to call my girlfriend a bigot for forcing her marriage belief system on me.

Not a surprise but you totally missed the point.


I didn't miss your point. I got it, unlike you getting my joke. Most likely a double fail on both sides.
 
2012-07-23 07:15:15 PM

SkinnyHead: Marriage is traditionally defined as the union of one man and one woman. That definition is not for or against anyone.


Eloquently put, Mr. ShinnyHead.

I've never before seen the fallacy argumentum ad antiquitatem so cleanly and succinctly phrased.
 
2012-07-23 07:16:16 PM

SkinnyHead: Whenever you define something, you exclude things that don't fit that definition. That doesn't mean that it is wrong to define things. Marriage is traditionally defined as the union of one man and one woman. That definition is not for or against anyone.



In America, "Traditional" marriage is one WHITE man and one WHITE woman.

But that doesn't discriminate against non whites. It's just supporting the traditional view!

Why do you call that bigoted? You must be a bigot!

/this is some of your worst work, I am disappoint
 
2012-07-23 07:25:57 PM

intelligent comment below: Jesus said he came to FULFILL the old laws


how does banning divorce fulfill the old law of divorce your brains out?

how does loving your enemies fulfill the old law of stoning your daughter to death because she is a whore? (which contradicts The Law of thou shalt not kill)

are you sure that's what He said?

friday13: You only think it isn't satire.


ah, i see so then fark is satire? what is the punchline?

/my money was on poe's trooper law
 
2012-07-23 07:32:54 PM

whidbey: mrexcess: He's pretty much spot on. Here's the sort of things that liberals get up to when they want to suppress other peoples' opinions:

A Gentleman's Guide to Forum Spies.

Bonus points - go back into the Fark Politics Tab archives and see how many of these techniques you can spot being used.

Um....


Hello alt! Yes, you and your cohorts are guilty of many of those tactics in your effort to avoid reasonable debate.
 
2012-07-23 07:36:55 PM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: whidbey: mrexcess: He's pretty much spot on. Here's the sort of things that liberals get up to when they want to suppress other peoples' opinions:

A Gentleman's Guide to Forum Spies.

Bonus points - go back into the Fark Politics Tab archives and see how many of these techniques you can spot being used.

Um....

Hello alt! Yes, you and your cohorts are guilty of many of those tactics in your effort to avoid reasonable debate.


*counts number of words in post*

You owe me $50.
 
2012-07-23 07:38:47 PM

I drunk what: how does banning divorce fulfill the old law of divorce your brains out?

how does loving your enemies fulfill the old law of stoning your daughter to death because she is a whore? (which contradicts The Law of thou shalt not kill)

are you sure that's what He said?



Why are you arguing with me? I'm not claiming the whole Bible makes sense. Plenty of parts contradict each other. Not even Matthew Mark Luke and John all say the same thing.

I'm just pointing out only one line of what Jesus said is used by some Christians to claim they don't actually have to follow any of the old laws. The biggest joke with that is the 10 Commandments are the ultimate laws Christians say they follow, so how can they turn around and say no OT law needs to be followed?
 
2012-07-23 07:45:43 PM

whidbey: BraveNewCheneyWorld: whidbey: mrexcess: He's pretty much spot on. Here's the sort of things that liberals get up to when they want to suppress other peoples' opinions:

A Gentleman's Guide to Forum Spies.

Bonus points - go back into the Fark Politics Tab archives and see how many of these techniques you can spot being used.

Um....

Hello alt! Yes, you and your cohorts are guilty of many of those tactics in your effort to avoid reasonable debate.

*counts number of words in post*

You owe me $50.


It seems you need an education in basic logic. Perhaps there's a community college in your area that could elevate your skills
 
2012-07-23 07:48:07 PM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: whidbey: BraveNewCheneyWorld: whidbey: mrexcess: He's pretty much spot on. Here's the sort of things that liberals get up to when they want to suppress other peoples' opinions:

A Gentleman's Guide to Forum Spies.

Bonus points - go back into the Fark Politics Tab archives and see how many of these techniques you can spot being used.

Um....

Hello alt! Yes, you and your cohorts are guilty of many of those tactics in your effort to avoid reasonable debate.

*counts number of words in post*

You owe me $50.

It seems you need an education in basic logic. Perhaps there's a community college in your area that could elevate your skills


I wouldn't be surprised if Seattle Central had a course of study in Internet Troll Slaying. Maybe there are scholarships.
 
2012-07-23 07:50:26 PM

SkinnyHead: Blue_Blazer: SkinnyHead: friday13: SkinnyHead: friday13: SkinnyHead:

Religious organizations that are devoted to preserving the traditional definition of marriage are not based on hate. Groups that express hatred for those religious organizations devoted to preserving the traditional definition of marriage, on the other hand, actually are based on hate.

Which traditional definition would that be? There are so many.
Would you like to defend the traditional definition of property while you're at it? Or maybe the traditional definition of citizen?

I believe that the traditional definition of marriage is the union of one man and one woman in matrimony. Those who want to preserve that definition for religious reasons or out of respect for tradition aren't doing so because they are full of hate. I see a lot of hatred directed at Chick-fil-A. Don't see any hatred coming from Chick-fil-A.


Traditionally, marriage is a woman being sold to a man (who may already have several wives, depending on the culture) to form connections between families.
 
2012-07-23 08:06:00 PM

friday13: SkinnyHead: Russky: I think the traditional definition of marriage is a land grab and money transfer.

By saying you are for something that explicitly denies it to other people you are by default against them. If I'm only for men being able to vote, yes that's means I'm a sexist not that I'm some type of altruistic traditional voter.

Whenever you define something, you exclude things that don't fit that definition. That doesn't mean that it is wrong to define things. Marriage is traditionally defined as the union of one man and one woman. That definition is not for or against anyone.

Do you know how many times that definition has changed?

Let's see, there was the anti-anti-miscegenation change, the monogomy change, the "women are not property" change...


The accepted, traditional definition of marriage in America has remained constant. It is the union of one man and one woman. People who want to preserve that traditional definition are not hateful and they're not bigots. I reject that.
 
2012-07-23 08:10:28 PM

intelligent comment below: In America, "Traditional" marriage is one WHITE man and one WHITE woman.


That was a Darwinist restriction that some states put on the right to marry. That was never part of the definition of marriage itself.
 
2012-07-23 08:12:01 PM

SkinnyHead: The accepted, traditional definition of marriage in America has remained constant. It is the union of one man and one woman. People who want to preserve that traditional definition are not hateful and they're not bigots. I reject that.



When "preserving" it restricts others from also getting married, they are hateful bigots.

Not to mention the true traditional definition is one WHITE man and one WHITE woman. So are you advocating the traditional marriage?
 
2012-07-23 08:12:03 PM

LordJiro: Traditionally, marriage is a woman being sold to a man (who may already have several wives, depending on the culture) to form connections between families.


Not in America.
 
2012-07-23 08:15:23 PM
beta_plus (favorite: Farkied in red. Ought to be brown.): So let me get this straight - banning the construction of a Mosque is OMG TEH FASCIST HITLER RACIST NAZIS!! but banning the construction of a Chick-Fil-A for its Christian beliefs is A-OK!

Yeah. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of fast food joints, nor prohibiting the free franchising thereof."
 
2012-07-23 08:21:22 PM

Lee Jackson Beauregard: beta_plus (favorite: Farkied in red. Ought to be brown.): So let me get this straight - banning the construction of a Mosque is OMG TEH FASCIST HITLER RACIST NAZIS!! but banning the construction of a Chick-Fil-A for its Christian beliefs is A-OK!

Yeah. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of fast food joints, nor prohibiting the free franchising thereof."


The word you're looking for is "speech" which IS protected.
 
2012-07-23 08:27:00 PM
You have the right to be:

1. Outraged by Chick-fil-A's policies.
2. Outraged over the outrage over Chick-fil-A's policies.
3. Outraged over the outrage over the outrage over Chick-fil-A's policies.
4. Outraged over a politicians's attempts to punish Chick-fil-A.
5. Outraged over the outrage over a politicians's attempt to punish Chick-fil-A.
6. Outraged over the lawsuit brought by Chick-fil-A over the politician's outrage.
7. Outraged over the outrage of the lawsuit brought by Chick-fil-A over the politician's outrage.
8. Outraged over the boycott against Chick-fil-A.
9. Outraged over the boycott outrage against Chick-fil-A.
10. Outraged anyone wouldn't participate in a boycott against Chick-fil-A.
11. Outraged anyone would be outraged over their additional patronage to Chick-fil-A to counter the boycott.

What did I miss?
...
 
2012-07-23 08:38:13 PM

Rincewind53: I'm 100% okay with boycotting Chick-fil-A

But I'm horrified to agree with Buckley about what Mayor Menino said. It's actually not okay for the mayor of Boston to say that (essentially) any business that publically opposes gay marriage will not be allowed to open in the city.

To recap: private opposition to private corporation's political use of funds = great, public opposition to private corporation's political use of funds = censorship.


Not being able to open a restaurant is not the same as censorship. One does not have the "right" to open any business anywhere.

And if they're banned from Boston (which they likely are not), they should go ahead and open up in the suburbs.
 
2012-07-23 08:39:08 PM
Incidentally, it's a good catch-all for any cities/states that may have strong anti-discrimination laws. If your company (or ownership) shows discriminatory signs or practices, it's worth considering not allowing them to operate in a particular area.
 
2012-07-23 08:45:41 PM

SkinnyHead: That was a Darwinist restriction that some states put on the right to marry. That was never part of the definition of marriage itself.



Wat?

Black people were not human, thus the original America interpretation of marriage was one white man and one white woman.

Why do you hate traditionalists?

You bigot!
 
2012-07-23 09:10:08 PM

Pants full of macaroni!!: theknuckler_33: [1.gravatar.com image 80x80]

It must be a requirement for right-wing bloggers to look like smug douchebags.

And yet it's the Libs who are Smug and Sneering.


I can accept smugness from people who actually know things, like the people on MSNBC, and can back that knowledge up with dates, places, times, and names. They also state on air when they get something wrong. This is why I can watch MSNBC, because they fact check their sh*t. If you can prove what you say, you get to be smug.

I cannot do the same for idiots who only think they know anything. This is why I do not watch Foxnoise, because they don't know sh*t, don't care to know sh*t, and believe "fact-checking" is for fa&&ots and communists. These morons are smug because they are ignorant, believing they have the right answers not because they have objectively tested the validity of those answers but because those answers "feel" right.

Entire FNC shows are frequently laced, if not filled to the f*cking brim, with untruths, canards, deceits, exaggerations, fallacies, falsehoods, distortions, libel, half-truths, misrepresentations, fictions, slanders, myths, misinformation, falsifications, fabrications, lies and just plain bullsh*t. None of which is ever retracted, amended, redacted, corrected or even admitted at any time for any purpose by any one in any media.

The reasons why people like yourself, who have probably broken all the buttons on their remote control except the ones that will let them tune into FoxNoise channel, probably think that "liberals" are all smug and sh*t is because you're probably too stupid to understand what they are saying. Big words scare you, new ideas mystify you, and the concepts of "fairness" and "equality" probably cause large puddles of warm liquid to appear in your shorts. You think that "libs" "sneer" at people like you... you might just be right. They have good reason to do so.
 
2012-07-23 09:20:31 PM
Good thing the libs flooded to Fark to prove their tolerant. Don't agree with gay marriage? You're a retard, ahole blah blah. You should be put out of business or not allowed to open one.

Actually scary that some people believe this. Don't agree with us?
You're banished. Who's the intolerant retard?
 
2012-07-23 09:25:10 PM

ditkaman: Who's the intolerant retard?


If you have to ask...
 
Displayed 50 of 595 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report