Launch Code: Did they invite other fast food CEOs to dinner? Is this a common thing that the les community does? What makes them think the owner of a successful business would want to come over to their house for dinner? What makes them think this CEO wants to socialize with two women that like to have sex with each other?
Wait a sec....I get it now, publicity stunt. Chick-Fli-A doesn't refuse service to gays. Treat gays unfairly. Chick-Fli-A will hire gays.
The owner doesn't like gays marrying, it's not a big deal.
This is typical democrat reasoning. Freedom of speech only applys to people that think like democrats and bow to the democrat agenda.
Instead of going out to dinner tonite, I'm taking the family to Chick Fli A. Nobody ever died from a little fast food but a lot of people did so that Americans could think and speak freely. I don't expect any looney libs to understand the cost of free speech or what happens when you lose it.

8/10. I gave you extra points for misspelling Chik-fil-A

jshine: ...ahh the daily Chick-fil-A thread. Of all the terrible things that have happened to gays and other groups generally, surely nothing else has ever risen to the level of a disapproving word from a purveyor of fried-chicken. Let the wailing and gnashing of teeth continue.

So I guess it doesn't bother you that some holier-than-thou business donates millions of dollars to anti-gay groups. I believe the term is "useful idiot."

This is why I eat chicken here:

Kanemano: [sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net image 276x492]

I want that shirt.

gravy chugging cretin.: TomD9938: I wish we had Chick-fill-A around here (Minneapolis) because KFC is just farking gross.

Plus, who knows what any given Yum-Brand share-holders opinions are on issues that I hold dear.

300 Washington Avenue Southeast Minneapolis, MN 55455
(612) 625-2037

/and that family really is adorable.

Wow, thanks!.

I had no idea... thought they were just in the south.

Preaches death to homosexuals



Offres Unconditional love to all people



Curious what some people call hate

whidbey: jshine: ...ahh the daily Chick-fil-A thread. Of all the terrible things that have happened to gays and other groups generally, surely nothing else has ever risen to the level of a disapproving word from a purveyor of fried-chicken. Let the wailing and gnashing of teeth continue.

So I guess it doesn't bother you that some holier-than-thou business donates millions of dollars to anti-gay groups. I believe the term is "useful idiot."

I understand. The issues are very simple. We all get it. ...and if you don't want to support those groups, then by all means, don't spend your money at Chick-fil-A. Otherwise, do. Vote with your wallet and the chips will fall where they may.

What I don't understand is the ongoing (and repetitive) theater. Is a daily mud-slinging fest *really* going to change anything?

Clemkadidlefark: Offres Unconditional love to all people

Except gays, blacks, women, anyone who doesn't fit the patriarchal paradigm.

Curious what some people call hate

Yeah giving millions of dollars to anti-gay groups in order to keep discriminating against American citizens.

No hate there. Gays shouldn't take it personally.

Look at them crackas lined up for fried chicken

Clemkadidlefark: Preaches death to homosexuals

[www.ask-aladdin.com image 392x411]

Offres Unconditional love to all people

[thesouthcarolinaconservative.com image 491x325]

Curious what some people call hate

Amazing what some people call "unconditional love".

I wonder how many of those so-called Pro-Chick-fil-A people would still be Pro-Chick-fil-A if they knew how much of their money was going to charities that help provide free medical care, housing and scholarships to the less fortunate. (Such as, Georgia Baptist Health Care System, Georgia Lion's Lighthouse Foundation and WinShape Homes to name a few.) In other words, OMG! Socialism.

mekki: I wonder how many of those so-called Pro-Chick-fil-A people would still be Pro-Chick-fil-A if they knew how much of their money was going to charities that help provide free medical care, housing and scholarships to the less fortunate. (Such as, Georgia Baptist Health Care System, Georgia Lion's Lighthouse Foundation and WinShape Homes to name a few.) In other words, OMG! Socialism.

They are A-OK with it. It's a private company fulfilling a good, Christian mission. It's only when the government goes to fulfill a good, Christian mission that panties get in a wad.

smitty04: [anexconsview.files.wordpress.com image 500x416]

I know it's hard to wrap your mind around, but one side is actually right.

The conservative side of this argument has no merit.

/Also, ignore.

gerbilpox: olddinosaur: "---I support the traditional Biblical definition of marriage---"

So... guys should have multiple wives, and screw their servants if a wife can't produce an heir?

You ever hear of a place called Hollywood?

jshine: What I don't understand is the ongoing (and repetitive) theater. Is a daily mud-slinging fest *really* going to change anything?

I'm pretty sure what you call "mudslinging" is actually understandable outrage at this company's bigotry, and when they finally back down is the day people are going to stop talking shiat on them.

I don't understand why you would find sympathy for their predicament. This could well hurt their business, and frankly, they deserve it.

smitty04: [anexconsview.files.wordpress.com image 500x416]

wow you really hit an all time low with that one.

So much for your superior position. You can't even speak outside of lameass cliches and Fox News soundbites.

mekki: I wonder how many of those so-called Pro-Chick-fil-A people would still be Pro-Chick-fil-A if they knew how much of their money was going to charities that help provide free medical care, housing and scholarships to the less fortunate. (Such as, Georgia Baptist Health Care System, Georgia Lion's Lighthouse Foundation and WinShape Homes to name a few.) In other words, OMG! Socialism.

Conservatives are big believers in and donate to charities. Liberals believe the government should take from the haves and give it to the havenots.

Clemkadidlefark: Preaches death to homosexuals

[www.ask-aladdin.com image 392x411]

Offres Unconditional love to all people

[thesouthcarolinaconservative.com image 491x325]

Curious what some people call hate

If I were inclined to get technical, I might point out that with a literal interpretation of both the Bible and the Q'ran, both of those statements apply fully to both Christianity and Islam.

In such a technical mood I might also list twenty or thirty similar direct contradictions in both books, or just go dark with it and just pull ten or fifteen explicit demands that Christians murder people from the new testament, easily found at any of a thousand online searchable bibles/q'rans of various translations.

But I'm feeling happy at the moment, so just gonna let you keep on getting down with your gullible idiot self there.

//I would advise that perhaps making religious arguments when you didn't even get halfway through the cliff's notes on either religion might not be the best idea on the internet, though. Even those of us that don't care much have been in enough of those to almost casually flatten you, there.

WhippingBoy: Would gay people be happy if being gay was regarded as completely and utterly unremarkable?

Actually plenty are happy when rational people treat it as such.

WhippingBoy: Would gay people be happy if being gay was regarded as completely and utterly unremarkable?

Libertarians have felt that way for 40+ years, and they hate us worse than the Republitards.

No, not cute as in 'aww'. Ugly on all accounts.


Subby fails

olddinosaur: WhippingBoy: Would gay people be happy if being gay was regarded as completely and utterly unremarkable?

Libertarians have felt that way for 40+ years, and they hate us worse than the Republitards.

There are plenty of reasons to hate libertarians, actually. Probably not for this reason.

whidbey: jshine: What I don't understand is the ongoing (and repetitive) theater. Is a daily mud-slinging fest *really* going to change anything?

I'm pretty sure what you call "mudslinging" is actually understandable outrage at this company's bigotry, and when they finally back down is the day people are going to stop talking shiat on them.

I don't understand why you would find sympathy for their predicament. This could well hurt their business, and frankly, they deserve it.

You're right. I think it's generally poor practice for a business to publicly engage in any kind of political issue. If you make chicken sandwiches (for example), then just make chicken sandwiches & confine your pronouncements to business issues.

If you think I sympathize with them, you misunderstand me. I don't really care much one way or the other. I enjoy seeing people troll one another as much as anyone. It's good sport (in general terms). ...but this is a side-show. Admittedly, the owner of a company will have more cash than your average citizen to donate, but he's still just one donor. He has no authority to set policy, and there are *lots* of rich people out there.

I think it would be more productive to the pro-rights cause to just ignore Chick-fil-A. Take the energy that is being poured into (mostly impotent) outrage and direct it into something positive that can actually win hearts and minds. I'm no political organizer, but when I see a bunch of people foaming at the mouth, it doesn't really inspire support. Rage may be fun to watch from a distance, but it isn't attractive.

whidbey: WhippingBoy: Would gay people be happy if being gay was regarded as completely and utterly unremarkable?

Actually plenty are happy when rational people treat it as such.

Yeah, that's actually their end-game.

Is "gay for attention" still a conservative argument?

radarlove: Can I do some kind of carbon-credit thing, where I maybe offset eating a 12-piece and large waffle fry by letting a guy cum up my ass afterwards?


"Knock yourself out."

jshine: I think it would be more productive to the pro-rights cause to just ignore Chick-fil-A. Take the energy that is being poured into (mostly impotent) outrage and direct it into something positive that can actually win hearts and minds. I'm no political organizer, but when I see a bunch of people foaming at the mouth, it doesn't really inspire support. Rage may be fun to watch from a distance, but it isn't attractive.

I really don't think you're going to see CFA be treated as anything other than a punching bag right now.

They aren't budging from their position, they aren't backpedaling, they aren't admitting that their actions are bigoted against homosexuals.

Incidentally, whose "hearts and minds" are you trying to win over? Do you feel that we should just coddle bigotry and pretend it's best off being ignored? How do you think that attitude would have gone over in the 1950s?

WhippingBoy: Would gay people be happy if being gay was regarded as completely and utterly unremarkable?

I think we all know the answet to this.whidbey: jshine: ...ahh the daily Chick-fil-A thread. Of all the terrible things that have happened to gays and other groups generally, surely nothing else has ever risen to the level of a disapproving word from a purveyor of fried-chicken. Let the wailing and gnashing of teeth continue.

So I guess it doesn't bother you that some holier-than-thou business donates millions of dollars to anti-gay groups. I believe the term is "useful idiot."

I support gay marriage 100%, but please drop the act OK? We all know you have a double standard if a business donated millions of dollars to GLADD

You're just making yourself look like an idiot.

Tolerance and Cute. Two words the LGWhatever community doesn't understand the meaning of.

This boycott crap is getting out of hand and will ultimately hurt all charities. Corporations donate for two reasons. 1. A tax break. 2. Good PR. Some might even donate because they actually want to do the right thing, but that's difficult to accurately measure. Boycotting a business for political reasons has been around a long time, but has really gained steam with social networking. Eventually a business will have to consider the potential damage caused by their donations and weigh it against the tax benefit and the positive PR it generates. If the dollar value goes in the red, they will have second thoughts about making those donations. And before you say, "good, they're donating to the wrong people", keep in mind this can go both ways. A charity you support might piss off a large enough segment of the population (even if it's over stupid reasons) that they might receive less money. With the way social networking works and the lemming mentality, it wouldn't take much to cause a boycott, even if it is based on a lie.

If Cathy has dinner with the ladies, which I doubt he has the courage to do, I hope he is at least somewhat open minded and civil.
If not, I hope they have this ready for their debate.
(Paragraph 2 for the skimmers.)

whidbey: olddinosaur: WhippingBoy: Would gay people be happy if being gay was regarded as completely and utterly unremarkable?

Libertarians have felt that way for 40+ years, and they hate us worse than the Republitards.

There are plenty of reasons to hate libertarians, actually. Probably not for this reason.

Personally, I hate Libertarians for treating people as human beings (and not as cattle like they are). The fact that they believe adults can make decisions for themselves pisses me off on a deep level.

The LBGT is really showing their intolerance for normal peoples right to free speech over this.

Even if Cathy accepts the invitation he could care less what the couple thinks because his beliefs were defined a long time before this even happened. They will not change him and he will not change them. It's an exercise in futility. The best thing they can hope for is for Cathy's generation gets out of the way by dying out tolerance for homosexuals will be more common and accepting, and thus laws will be passed to reflect the societal change.

JDAT: The LBGT is really showing their intolerance for normal peoples right to free speech over this.

What is "normal"? Please help me out here.

JDAT: The LBGT is really showing their intolerance for normal peoples right to free speech over this.

whidbey: jshine: I think it would be more productive to the pro-rights cause to just ignore Chick-fil-A. Take the energy that is being poured into (mostly impotent) outrage and direct it into something positive that can actually win hearts and minds. I'm no political organizer, but when I see a bunch of people foaming at the mouth, it doesn't really inspire support. Rage may be fun to watch from a distance, but it isn't attractive.

I really don't think you're going to see CFA be treated as anything other than a punching bag right now.

They aren't budging from their position, they aren't backpedaling, they aren't admitting that their actions are bigoted against homosexuals.

Incidentally, whose "hearts and minds" are you trying to win over? Do you feel that we should just coddle bigotry and pretend it's best off being ignored? How do you think that attitude would have gone over in the 1950s?


The guy who owns Chick-fil-A (I forget his name) isn't ordering any fire-hoses to be trained on gays. He doesn't have anywhere near that level of authority. If he did, my opinions would be very different, but we aren't talking about George Wallace here.

In short, whether he back-peddles or not is irrelevant, because he's just not that important. ...unless one is more focused on winning one battle than winning the war (in other words, "How DARE so-and-so defy me! Whargarble!").

If you need a punching bag, there are plenty of politicans who *do* have power to advance gay rights and aren't doing it. Finding a more productive target for action shouldn't be difficult.

SpecialK29: whidbey: olddinosaur: WhippingBoy: Would gay people be happy if being gay was regarded as completely and utterly unremarkable?

Libertarians have felt that way for 40+ years, and they hate us worse than the Republitards.

There are plenty of reasons to hate libertarians, actually. Probably not for this reason.

Personally, I hate Libertarians for treating people as human beings (and not as cattle like they are). The fact that they believe adults can make decisions for themselves pisses me off on a deep level.

Don't forget our affirmation of the sanctity of the individual, and the right of all persons to live their lives any way they wish, provided solely that they do not inflict their ways by force upon any other people wishing to do the same.

That would also include gays, collectivists and leftist libtards, BTW.

Yep, sure is a lot there to hate.

Solution:

Take everyone who (1) went to chick-fil-a to support a gay marriage ban and (2) everyone who got offended at chick-fil-a speaking out against gay marriage and shoot them into the fuvking sun. You'll see the collective IQ of America skyrocket.

TomD9938: gravy chugging cretin.: TomD9938: I wish we had Chick-fill-A around here (Minneapolis) because KFC is just farking gross.

Plus, who knows what any given Yum-Brand share-holders opinions are on issues that I hold dear.

300 Washington Avenue Southeast Minneapolis, MN 55455
(612) 625-2037

/and that family really is adorable.

Wow, thanks!.

I had no idea... thought they were just in the south.

It's in Coffman Memorial Union (the student union on the East Bank of the UofM campus). Chick-Fil-A apparently has worked hard to get their stores on college campuses, even when there are no franchises nearby.

And I have to assume the food they serve there is not the standard CFA fare. I've never been to any other CFA, but not only was the chicken sandwich I bought ridiculously expensive (I'm thinking like $4?) but the nasty frozen Tyson chicken fillets you buy at the store are the closest thing I can compare them to.

tricycleracer: All fried chicken sucks.

/Flame on.

Have you ever tried Roy Rogers's fried chicken, or (from a decade or so ago when they still sold fried chicken made using the Roy Rogers recipe which they licensed) Hardee's fried chicken? Far and away the best I've ever had. Period. Not just the best fast-food fried chicken. The. Best. Fried. Chicken.


Politicandy: low_dazzle: Isn't the possessive form of Jesus: Jesus'? (as in ...Jimmy Carter, and farting on Jesus' head.)

That's only for plural. If it ends in 's' but is singular it can go either way.

Nope. IIRC, adding just the apostrophe is only for the case of making a possessive out of a plural that is pluralized by adding "s" or "es." In all other cases, including plurals that do not add an "s," and singulars that do end in "s," you add "'s."

• This child's birthday present is a well-known children's game. (plural not adding "s")
• John William and his family live in this house. The Williams live there. This is the Williams' home. (plural adding "s")
• John Williams lives alone in this house. This is John Williams's home. (singular ending in "s")
• John Williams and his family live in this house. The Williamses live there. This is the Williamses' home (pluralized to "Williamses" by adding "es," then possessivized [if that's not a word, it should be] by adding just the apostrophe).

this is news?

tricycleracer: JDAT: The LBGT is really showing their intolerance for normal peoples right to free speech over this.

What is "normal"? Please help me out here.

It's an adjective.

Didn't know wimmin could have kids with a strap-on.