'Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day' sets record, restaurant chain says

[RonPaulFanInGA]

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/08/02/chick-fil-a-appreciation-day-sets-record-restaurant-chain-says/


Chick-fil-A says it set a sales record on Wednesday, the day that supporters rallied around the fast-food chain amid a debate over its president's opposition to same-sex marriage.

The chain won't release sales numbers, but "we can confirm reports that it was a record-setting day," said Steve Robinson, Chick-fil-A's executive vice president of marketing.

[Feeding the Abscess]

If they want to be super Christian, I wonder why they're going to Chik-fil-A.

http://www.naturalnews.com/036653_Chick-fil-A_anti-boycott_ingredients.html

[trey4sports]

good for Chick-fil-A

[TonySutton]

won't release the numbers, hahaha

in other news the economy has rebounded a record amount (we won't release the numbers, just trust us) ;)

[PaulConventionWV]

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/08/02/chick-fil-a-appreciation-day-sets-record-restaurant-chain-says/

This warms my heart. These stupid liberals are doing nothing except driving profit for some guy who had the audacity to speak his mind. Bless their hearts.

/irony

[dannno]

I believe you can avoid the MSG, defoaming agents and HFCS if you go with their grilled chicken salad.

Edit: Unless these are secret code for "MSG"

disodium inosinate, disodium guanylate


Edit2: Don't get the southwest grilled chicken salad, that one has partially hydrogenated oil and MSG, not sure what else, I stopped right there.

[erowe1]

won't release the numbers, hahaha

in other news the economy has rebounded a record amount (we won't release the numbers, just trust us) ;)

Do you really have any doubt about it? Have you not seen the pictures of the lines?

[matt0611]

Good for them. I'll probably go there sometime later this week.

[dannno]

Do you really have any doubt about it? Have you not seen the pictures of the lines?

I don't doubt it. Right wing talkshow hosts and tv have a real way with people.

[angelatc]

good for Chick-fil-A


http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7113/7698822504_86fe1b1f61.jpg

[TonySutton]

Do you really have any doubt about it? Have you not seen the pictures of the lines?

Nope, haven't seen any pictures and honestly I don't care. I just thought it was odd and humorous they talk about it being a record but have not idea or wont release the numbers.

[TonySutton]

I don't doubt it. Right wing talkshow hosts and tv have a real way with people.

These are the same people who stuck their nose up at Ron Paul and voted for Santorum, yay them :S

[erowe1]

These are the same people who stuck their nose up at Ron Paul and voted for Santorum, yay them :S

Yep. It's one big group of people who are all exactly alike and can be easily characterized by sweeping statements.

[angelatc]

Nope, haven't seen any pictures and honestly I don't care. I just thought it was odd and humorous they talk about it being a record but have not idea or wont release the numbers.

They're not a public company. They don't release squat.

[specsaregood]

Nope, haven't seen any pictures and honestly I don't care. I just thought it was odd and humorous they talk about it being a record but have not idea or wont release the numbers.

I don't think it odd, not every touchdown drive needs to have the ball spiked at the end. Releasing the numbers would just make them a bigger target most likely.

[Todd]

If they want to be super Christian, I wonder why they're going to Chik-fil-A.

http://www.naturalnews.com/036653_Chick-fil-A_anti-boycott_ingredients.html

Natural news is a great site for health information.

They should stick to that and leave the religious expertise to someone else cause they kinda suck at it.

[AuH20]

So when are the kiss-ins planned? ;)

[TonySutton]

I don't think it odd, not every touchdown drive needs to have the ball spiked at the end. Releasing the numbers would just make them a bigger target most likely.

maybe but if the touchdown drive was capped by a 52 yard run everyone is talking about the 52 yards, not the 6 points ;)

[sailingaway]

I don't doubt it. Right wing talkshow hosts and tv have a real way with people.

I think there was a boost. Whether the long term bad feeling or the long term support will win out, dunno. but even in Hollywood there were more eaters than protesters, and I think that is pretty telling. (The protesters looked kinda shell shocked from the disparity and lack of demonstrated support, in fact.) (Clarification, I didn't go there - I didn't even know there was one there until I drove by and saw the lines)

I think since there was no POLICY against gay marriage imposed at the restaurant, just one dude's personal opinion, expressed when asked, it was pretty over the top to make a huge cause of it, but my personal ire was triggered only when Mayors started bragging they wouldn't give permits and would essentially harras the business over the views of one person. Govt stopping you from making a living because they don't like how you think is a bad precedent imho. Private individuals can support it or boycott it as they please.

And as one owner noted, they are a franchise with separate owners, so the views of the CEO aren't really relevant to the individual operations, in any event.

[TonySutton]

So when are the kiss-ins planned? ;)

Actually I have already seen a couple of pics on facebook of same sex couples kissing with CFA in the background

[Sola_Fide]

If they want to be super Christian, I wonder why they're going to Chik-fil-A.

http://www.naturalnews.com/036653_Chick-fil-A_anti-boycott_ingredients.html

I agree with generally what he is saying here. I mean, why would you pollute your body with chemicals if you know better? But he's wrong (and most people are wrong) when they apply the "body is a temple" verse to dietary matters or exercise or something like that.

The context of the body is a temple verse is sexual sins, not diet or exercise or anything else. Paul was condemning the Corinthians who were saying they were Christians, yet still visiting temple prostitutes.

Read the passage in its context:


1 Corinthians 6:15-20 NASB

Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then take away the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute? May it never be! Or do you not know that the one who joins himself to a prostitute is one body with her? For He says, "THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH ." But the one who joins himself to the Lord is one spirit with Him. Flee immorality. Every other sin that a man commits is outside the body, but the immoral man sins against his own body. Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own? For you have been bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body.

[TonySutton]

They're not a public company. They don't release squat.

actually they do release numbers because they are a franchise company, http://www.chick-fil-a.com/Pressroom/Fact-Sheets#?release=2012_fun_facts

[sailingaway]

I don't think it odd, not every touchdown drive needs to have the ball spiked at the end. Releasing the numbers would just make them a bigger target most likely.


They'd have to to a special centralized accounting of it. These are individual franchises and don't run their books in coordination.

[sailingaway]

actually they do release numbers because they are a franchise company, http://www.chick-fil-a.com/Pressroom/Fact-Sheets#?release=2012_fun_facts

but not by day.

[jay_dub]

Natural news is a great site for health information.

They should stick to that and leave the religious expertise to someone else cause they kinda suck at it.

Yup...if someone wants to petition Chick-fil-A or any other company to make healthier food, that's a separate issue.

Not sure what the author is trying to accomplish by saying the following:

"So please help me figure this out here: WHO IS THE BIGGER RETARD IN ALL THIS?

• Is it the idiotic reptilian Emanuel who threatens economic sanctions against businesses that don't cower down to his personal gay marriage agenda?

• Is it the Chick-for-brains stooges who eat MSG and anti-foaming chemicals and somehow believe they will win by poisoning themselves with processed fast food? (Seriously, how is this a moral victory?)"


He then goes on to lecture about how MSG is a violation of Christian values. IMO, anybody that throws around the word 'retard' so easily is not one to lecture about Christian values. Guess he doesn't see the irony in that.

[ronpaulfollower999]

Wouldn't the libertarian solution to the Civil Rights Act be to boycott businesses that segregated? Shouldn't libertarians be boycotting Chick-Fil-A to show we don't need government intervention since the market is always a better solution?

Just a thought. I know gays are pissed off, but I'm not entirely sure what Chick-Fil-A did (didn't pay attention to the story because their food sucks anyway).

[TonySutton]

but not by day.

I doubt even McD provides day by day sales publicly

[Cowlesy]

People just don't like bullies. Whether that be the kids who bullied that woman bus monitor, or left-wing nutjobs waging economic war on a business because the owner has an opinion they don't agree with, people just do not like bullies.

[sailingaway]

I doubt even McD provides day by day sales publicly

I was wrong, according to twitter, and next to the wisdom of twitter, who am I?

Mike Faulkner ‏@mfaulkner65
THANK YOU PATRIOTS, With your help,Chick-fil-a, doubled their best one day sales record, with 31million in sales!!! "Conservatism Prevails"!

[sailingaway]

People just don't like bullies. Whether that be the kids who bullied that woman bus monitor, or left-wing nutjobs waging economic war on a business because the owner has an opinion they don't agree with, people just do not like bullies.

I absolutely agree.

[Feeding the Abscess]

Yup...if someone wants to petition Chick-fil-A or any other company to make healthier food, that's a separate issue.

Not sure what the author is trying to accomplish by saying the following:

"So please help me figure this out here: WHO IS THE BIGGER RETARD IN ALL THIS?

• Is it the idiotic reptilian Emanuel who threatens economic sanctions against businesses that don't cower down to his personal gay marriage agenda?

• Is it the Chick-for-brains stooges who eat MSG and anti-foaming chemicals and somehow believe they will win by poisoning themselves with processed fast food? (Seriously, how is this a moral victory?)"


He then goes on to lecture about how MSG is a violation of Christian values. IMO, anybody that throws around the word 'retard' so easily is not one to lecture about Christian values. Guess he doesn't see the irony in that.

The author is poking eyes.

[Bruno]

After seeing posts and pics of friends in line yesterday at Chick-Fil-A, here was my FB post yesteday on the topic:

"I dont' care what Chick-Fil-A does, or says about gay marriage, I can vote with my dollars if I don't like it. I don't care who you sleep with, as long as it isn't my wife.
What I do care about is getting government out of the marriage bussines, so churches can decide for themselves who is recognized as a couple and who is not, and people don't get a tax break for vowing not to sleep around. Then we can all stop arguing about it and move on to more important things like ending all the pointless wars we are involved in, stopping the fear mongering of terrorism that steals our liberties and freedoms, and finally call out the crooks in Congress and the Federal Reserve who destroy our dollar through printing endless amounts of money."

Surprising amount of support from friends on both sides of the issue.

[Dr.3D]

Wouldn't the libertarian solution to the Civil Rights Act be to boycott businesses that segregated? Shouldn't libertarians be boycotting Chick-Fil-A to show we don't need government intervention since the market is always a better solution?

Just a thought. I know gays are pissed off, but I'm not entirely sure what Chick-Fil-A did (didn't pay attention to the story because their food sucks anyway).
1. Chick-Fil-A doesn't segregate, they will sell food to anybody who wants to buy it.
2. The company has nothing to do with the opinion of it's owner. If we start boycotting businesses because of the opinions of their owners, we would be no better than those liberals who do such things.

[XTreat]

Should we boycott businesses who give money to lobbyists who in turn lobby government to write laws that create an impasse for voluntary association?

[Feeding the Abscess]

Should we boycott businesses who give money to lobbyists who in turn lobby government to write laws that create an impasse for voluntary association?

Yes, and I can't believe you're one of the only people I've seen bringing this up. Chik-fil-A's owner isn't some snow white activist, he's giving money to groups that want their morality enforced by the government.

Fuck Chik-fil-A's owner, fuck his supporters, and fuck idiots making an issue of homosexuality while missing the mark. Again.

[RickyJ]

These are the same people who stuck their nose up at Ron Paul and voted for Santorum, yay them :S

Ah, not all of them, I for one voted for Ron Paul! Some more on this forum with similar beliefs did the same.

[erowe1]

Yes, and I can't believe you're one of the only people I've seen bringing this up. Chik-fil-A's owner isn't some snow white activist, he's giving money to groups that want their morality enforced by the government.

Are you talking about the FRC?

If a donation to the FRC is a reason to boycott them, then should we boycott all businesses that pay any money to lobbyists who lobby for things we disagree with?

By the way, I've given money to the FRC before. So have a lot of other Ron Paul supporters. I know this, because Ron Paul won the straw poll at their convention last year.

[XTreat]

Yes, and I can't believe you're one of the only people I've seen bringing this up. Chik-fil-A's owner isn't some snow white activist, he's giving money to groups that want their morality enforced by the government.

Fuck Chik-fil-A's owner, fuck his supporters, and fuck idiots making an issue of homosexuality while missing the mark. Again.

I had been kind of wondering why nobody else was mentioning that CFA has given over 5 million dollars since 2007 or so to groups like the Marriage & Family Foundation.

These groups lobby government to write laws and keep laws in place that prevent humans from interacting freely.

[erowe1]

I had been kind of wondering why nobody else was mentioning that CFA has given over 5 million dollars since 2007 or so to groups like the Marriage & Family Foundation.

These groups lobby government to write laws and keep laws in place that prevent humans from interacting freely.

So in 5 years, Chick-Fil-A has given $5 million out of a toal revenue of $20 Billion (http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapId=7621129) to those groups.

So if I buy $100 worth of food there, something like 2.5 cents will get donated to pro-marriage groups. And what percentage of those groups' budgets goes to lobbying for something I disagree with (even if we were to pretend for the sake of argument that I supported gay marriage)? 10% maybe? So that brings us down to a quarter of a cent out of every $100 I spend there. And I should boycott them for that? I should only shop at places where 100% of the money I spend there will go to things I approve of? 99.9975% isn't good enough?

That makes no sense. The only person who spends 100% of their money in ways I approve of is I. Once I relinquish my money to someone else it becomes theirs, and I have to take for granted that they won't spend it 100% of the way I want.

[angelatc]

but not by day.

And not like public companies do.

[angelatc]

Yes, and I can't believe you're one of the only people I've seen bringing this up. Chik-fil-A's owner isn't some snow white activist, he's giving money to groups that want their morality enforced by the government.

Fuck Chik-fil-A's owner, fuck his supporters, and fuck idiots making an issue of homosexuality while missing the mark. Again.

At least he has some semblance of morality.

The people making the biggest fuss about this also want to use the government to enforce their morality, specifically by not allowing Chik-Fil-A to be in business.

[RickyJ]

At least he has some semblance of morality.

The people making the biggest fuss about this also want to use the government to enforce their morality, specifically by not allowing Chik-Fil-A to be in business.

I see this as more of a religious issue than a rights issue. The president of Chick-Fil-A believes in the Bible and believes that homosexuality is a sin, not a type of person. What else was he going to say when asked the question about why he supports defining marriage as between only a man and a woman? He wasn't going to deny his faith to make a buck selling chickens. His stance on this very well could hurt Chick-Fil-A's long term business, but he really had no choice but to put his faith in God over his business or his faith would be in vain.

[Sola_Fide]

Yes, and I can't believe you're one of the only people I've seen bringing this up. Chik-fil-A's owner isn't some snow white activist, he's giving money to groups that want their morality enforced by the government.

Fuck Chik-fil-A's owner, fuck his supporters, and fuck idiots making an issue of homosexuality while missing the mark. Again.

Why do you not have this attitude toward middle eastern oil companies who support stoning homosexuals daily?

[Yieu]

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7113/7698822504_86fe1b1f61.jpg

I find this quite amusing because it coincides with Vedic scripture! It is considered bad to harm the unborn and cows. :)

[shane77m]

Hopefully the national debt will come out and say it is against same sex marriage. Maybe then people will start talking about it. :)

[brooks009]

I think all of this chick-fil-a stuff is just silly but the reason this whole issue is brought up is because someones freedom is being taken away by the government again. We should be angry about that.

[XTreat]

To be honest I am not really actively participating in a boycott or supporting them.

It should however be noted that Mr. Cathy think its ok to use the government o enforce morals and stop voluntary association.

That is not something we should get behind.

[KingNothing]

His stance on this very well could hurt Chick-Fil-A's long term business

I sure hope it does, but I doubt America is smart enough for that to happen.

[RickyJ]

To be honest I am not really actively participating in a boycott or supporting them.

It should however be noted that Mr. Cathy think its ok to use the government o enforce morals and stop voluntary association.

That is not something we should get behind.

Dan Cathy is not against voluntary association. He is against government recognized marriage of gays.

[KingNothing]

Why do you not have this attitude toward middle eastern oil companies who support stoning homosexuals daily?

Who says he doesn't?

All purveyors of hate and/or stupidity can go pound sand, especially those who commit acts of violence.

[KingNothing]

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/08/02/chick-fil-a-appreciation-day-sets-record-restaurant-chain-says/

If protesting means stuffing your face with fried things, the bible belt can best all comers.

[KingNothing]

Nope, haven't seen any pictures and honestly I don't care. I just thought it was odd and humorous they talk about it being a record but have not idea or wont release the numbers.

It had to be a record. The lines were ridiculous -seriously- at basically every location.

[KingNothing]

Wouldn't the libertarian solution to the Civil Rights Act be to boycott businesses that segregated? Shouldn't libertarians be boycotting Chick-Fil-A to show we don't need government intervention since the market is always a better solution?

Just a thought. I know gays are pissed off, but I'm not entirely sure what Chick-Fil-A did (didn't pay attention to the story because their food sucks anyway).

My Libertarian solution is to defend the right of Chick-Fil-A's owner to hold ANY opinion he wishes, condemn the moves made by certain governments to kick them out of town, and criticize anyone who speaks against complete equality regardless of sexuality.

[Sola_Fide]

My Libertarian solution is to defend the right of Chick-Fil-A's owner to hold ANY opinion he wishes, condemn the moves made by certain governments to kick them out of town, and criticize anyone who speaks against complete equality regardless of sexuality.

Wrong. Libertarianism does not require me to endorse equality of sexuality.

[angelatc]

People just don't like bullies. Whether that be the kids who bullied that woman bus monitor, or left-wing nutjobs waging economic war on a business because the owner has an opinion they don't agree with, people just do not like bullies.

Yep.

On a side note, I think the stores should be commended for not running out of food. Preparing for days you know will be busier than usual is a PITA. Preparing for a wave that may or may not hit, with no idea of how big it will actually be....but they seemed to pull it off.

[ronpaulfollower999]

1. Chick-Fil-A doesn't segregate, they will sell food to anybody who wants to buy it.
2. The company has nothing to do with the opinion of it's owner. If we start boycotting businesses because of the opinions of their owners, we would be no better than those liberals who do such things.

Interesting, thanks. Was not aware of the actual story.

[KingNothing]

Wrong. Libertarianism does not require me to endorse equality of sexuality.


I never said that it did. Basic human decency demands that you stop giving a crap about what other people do though.

I just offered my opinion. You're just as free to offer yours. But that doesn't mean our opinions are equally noble.

[erowe1]

Basic human decency demands that you stop giving a crap about what other people do though.

Unless what they do is criticize homosexuality.

[Philhelm]

My loyalty to Chick-fil-A is absolute. It is one of the only companies that I respect; not only because the Classic #1 Chick-fil-A sandwich is to murder for, but because they're closed on Sundays. I'm impressed that a major fast food chain refuses to cater to everyone 24/7. It used to be that stores closed and business could resume for another day. These days, businesses are too busy-body for my liking.

[PaulConventionWV]

Yup...if someone wants to petition Chick-fil-A or any other company to make healthier food, that's a separate issue.

Not sure what the author is trying to accomplish by saying the following:

"So please help me figure this out here: WHO IS THE BIGGER RETARD IN ALL THIS?

• Is it the idiotic reptilian Emanuel who threatens economic sanctions against businesses that don't cower down to his personal gay marriage agenda?

• Is it the Chick-for-brains stooges who eat MSG and anti-foaming chemicals and somehow believe they will win by poisoning themselves with processed fast food? (Seriously, how is this a moral victory?)"


He then goes on to lecture about how MSG is a violation of Christian values. IMO, anybody that throws around the word 'retard' so easily is not one to lecture about Christian values. Guess he doesn't see the irony in that.

They're a lot healthier than most other burger 'n' fries joints. That point was kind of lost on them.

[TonySutton]

They're a lot healthier than most other burger 'n' fries joints. That point was kind of lost on them.

Sounds like you want me to eat "the lesser of 2 evils" :P

[PaulConventionWV]

I had been kind of wondering why nobody else was mentioning that CFA has given over 5 million dollars since 2007 or so to groups like the Marriage & Family Foundation.

These groups lobby government to write laws and keep laws in place that prevent humans from interacting freely.

Are you sure about that? Or are they lobbying government to not recognize LEGAL gay marriages? In my honest opinion, there's nothing wrong with that because that would mean the owner opposes government licenses and not necessarily actual marriages in a church with witnesses. He, like I, simply wants less of a tax burden on people to "support" government marriage with taxpayer "benefits", which may also very well be detriments.

[CaptainAmerica]

My first job was at Chik Fil A. I liked it as a first job and the people were really nice and my main boss was really nice. I've known for a very long time that it is a private business owned by christians and that the franchise owner /boss was a christian as well. No working on sundays was great and I got half priced food which I liked . Im tired of all this stupid crap about how "Chik Fil A" hates gays etc.., its a private company that provides better service than most other fast food places and its their right to deny access or rights to groups and individuals.

[PaulConventionWV]

I sure hope it does, but I doubt America is smart enough for that to happen.

On the contrary, I think Mr. Cathy is an economic genius. If you ask ANY OTHER fast food franchise about their beliefs, they will give some rhetorical humdrum or simply not voice their opinion at all for fear of economic backlash. Only Chick-Fil-A was able to harness the controversy to drive profits and get some free advertising and awareness of their restaurant. In the long term, I think this will help them, and for that, I applaud them. Well played, Mr. Cathy, well played.

[PaulConventionWV]

My Libertarian solution is to defend the right of Chick-Fil-A's owner to hold ANY opinion he wishes, condemn the moves made by certain governments to kick them out of town, and criticize anyone who speaks against complete equality regardless of sexuality.

Equality of lifestyles is not a libertarian principle. Equality of treatment of said lifestyles via government is. You can speak out against homosexuality all you want and still be a libertarian. Even lobbying the government for abolition of same sex marriage licenses is a completely acceptable libertarian practice. The people have a right to a redress of grievances by their government.

[KingNothing]

Equality of lifestyles is not a libertarian principle. Equality of treatment of said lifestyles via government is. You can speak out against homosexuality all you want and still be a libertarian. Even lobbying the government for abolition of same sex marriage licenses is a completely acceptable libertarian practice. The people have a right to a redress of grievances by their government.


I'm not saying people who speak against homosexuality but allow equal treatment under the law (which gay people don't have) aren't Libertarian. I'm just saying that they are worse people than me and others like me, who don't have an irrational disliking of others or a desire to interfere in their lives.

[angelatc]

I never said that it did. Basic human decency demands that you stop giving a crap about what other people do though.



When my wallet isn't affected, I could not care less. But according to the left, that also makes me an indecent person.

[KingNothing]

When my wallet isn't affected, I could not care less. But according to the left, that also makes me an indecent person.


Many here pay lip service to that, yet still fail to support gay marriage. So long as the state licenses straight marriage, there's no logical, equitable, reason why it shouldn't license gay marriage.

[brooks009]

I'm not saying people who speak against homosexuality but allow equal treatment under the law (which gay people don't have) aren't Libertarian. I'm just saying that they are worse people than me and others like me, who don't have an irrational disliking of others or a desire to interfere in their lives.

I agree, I just don't understand why people care what gay people do as long as they are not hurting anyone. I don't care what they do.

This is the basis for me being a libertarian. I don't care what people do as long as they don't hurt anyone.

[matt0611]

My first job was at Chik Fil A. I liked it as a first job and the people were really nice and my main boss was really nice. I've known for a very long time that it is a private business owned by christians and that the franchise owner /boss was a christian as well. No working on sundays was great and I got half priced food which I liked . Im tired of all this stupid crap about how "Chik Fil A" hates gays etc.., its a private company that provides better service than most other fast food places and its their right to deny access or rights to groups and individuals.

While I would support their right for them "denying access" to anyone they wanted to, they are NOT denying to serve anyone.

[dannno]

Hopefully the national debt will come out and say it is against same sex marriage. Maybe then people will start talking about it. :)

http://blogs.westword.com/showandtell/01%20at%20first%20i%20was%20like.jpg

[Jingles]

I don't support the guy's position, but I also doesn't support the state restricting commerce.

[jmdrake]

I agree with generally what he is saying here. I mean, why would you pollute your body with chemicals if you know better? But he's wrong (and most people are wrong) when they apply the "body is a temple" verse to dietary matters or exercise or something like that.

The context of the body is a temple verse is sexual sins, not diet or exercise or anything else. Paul was condemning the Corinthians who were saying they were Christians, yet still visiting temple prostitutes.

Read the passage in its context:

True. 1 Corinthians 10:31 is a better verse for watching what you eat.

So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God.

[jmdrake]

I find this quite amusing because it coincides with Vedic scripture! It is considered bad to harm the unborn and cows. :)

LOL. +rep for funny.

[The Free Hornet]

Even lobbying the government for abolition of same sex marriage licenses is a completely acceptable libertarian practice.

This line of thought could be applied to dog licenses (benefit of the public dog parks), driving licenses (public roads, interstates), liquor licenses (limited competition in the selling of spirits), fishing/hunting licenses ("you didn't grow that fish"), and medical licenses($$$).

The libertarian approach is getting the government out, not restricting who gets the licenses. Licenses for all is better than just having one place to buy booze in a ten-mile radius. As I have stated multiple times, there ought to be competing, private agencies that can certify someone as able to practice medicine. However, like with computers, you ought be able to hire someone with certifications or not.


The people have a right to a redress of grievances by their government.

That's a pathetic grievance. Their estates and income are not yours to tax. "You didn't earn that money!"

[Sola_Fide]

True. 1 Corinthians 10:31 is a better verse for watching what you eat.

So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God.

Even that verse is not concerned with a proper diet. The context of that verse is the liberty that Christians now have in the New Covenant, being not bound by the dietary laws of the Old Covenant which were fulfilled in Christ....also how not to cause offense to people who are still ignorantly bound by dietary restrictions, so that you may win them to Christ without being unnecessarily offensive. ALL things are lawful to a Christian. This is Christian liberty:


1 Corinthians 10:23-33 NASB

All things are lawful, but not all things are profitable. All things are lawful, but not all things edify. Let no one seek his own good, but that of his neighbor. Eat anything that is sold in the meat market without asking questions for conscience' sake; FOR THE EARTH IS THE LORD 'S , AND ALL IT CONTAINS . If one of the unbelievers invites you and you want to go, eat anything that is set before you without asking questions for conscience' sake. But if anyone says to you, "This is meat sacrificed to idols," do not eat it, for the sake of the one who informed you, and for conscience' sake; I mean not your own conscience, but the other man's; for why is my freedom judged by another's conscience? If I partake with thankfulness, why am I slandered concerning that for which I give thanks? Whether, then, you eat or drink or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God. Give no offense either to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God; just as I also please all men in all things, not seeking my own profit but the profit of the many, so that they may be saved.

[PaulConventionWV]

I agree, I just don't understand why people care what gay people do as long as they are not hurting anyone. I don't care what they do.

This is the basis for me being a libertarian. I don't care what people do as long as they don't hurt anyone.

But being libertarian doesn't necessarily mean you 'don't care'. You can still care and remain a libertarian by advocating persuasion and reason rather than government force. If people have a moral conviction against homosexuality, that doesn't mean they're going out condemning everyone they see who is gay. Rather, they treat it like any other sin and recognize that they, too, are sinners. Some people do condemn homosexuals, but the point is that you can care about what people do in their private lives and still be a libertarian. Caring goes way beyond government. It is a concern for the mental, physical and spiritual well-being of your fellow man without being intrusive. You don't always have to just "not care" in order to be a libertarian. It's a false dichotomy. I recommend we stop condemning people who think homosexuality is wrong. We need to be more tolerant of their views.

[PaulConventionWV]

Many here pay lip service to that, yet still fail to support gay marriage. So long as the state licenses straight marriage, there's no logical, equitable, reason why it shouldn't license gay marriage.

Yes, there is. For one, the taxpayers are paying for all of those "benefits" that gay marriage gets. Secondly, it's still not equal marriage for all because people who practice bestiality and polygamy are still being discriminated against. Thirdly, the government doesn't have the authority to license marriage in the first place. So, we should STOP licensing heterosexual marriages, not START licensing homosexual ones, which will then lead to the bestialists and the polygamists crying out for equality and justice, leading to even further government licensing of marriage which will, in all likelihood, never be reversed if we start doing that. Just STOP licensing marriage. It's that simple.

[PaulConventionWV]

This line of thought could be applied to dog licenses (benefit of the public dog parks), driving licenses (public roads, interstates), liquor licenses (limited competition in the selling of spirits), fishing/hunting licenses ("you didn't grow that fish"), and medical licenses($$$).

The libertarian approach is getting the government out, not restricting who gets the licenses. Licenses for all is better than just having one place to buy booze in a ten-mile radius. As I have stated multiple times, there ought to be competing, private agencies that can certify someone as able to practice medicine. However, like with computers, you ought be able to hire someone with certifications or not.



That's a pathetic grievance. Their estates and income are not yours to tax. "You didn't earn that money!"

We don't need government licenses. If you want government licenses for all, I'm sorry, my friend, but you are not trying to "get the government out of it." Licensing more things means more government involvement in those things. So, I don't think you know what "getting the government out" really means because you are advocating for more government involvement.

[showpan]

Yayyyy....Chik Fil A set a new record and made a lot of money to support candidates running against Liberty and Ron Paul.

[KingNothing]

If people have a moral conviction against homosexuality, that doesn't mean they're going out condemning everyone they see who is gay. Rather, they treat it like any other sin


You're a lunatic. A complete, unabashed lunatic. Again, you're free to think these absurd thoughts, but we're free to think your backward thought process and value system is pathetic.


I recommend we stop condemning people who think homosexuality is wrong.


And I recommend that we do the opposite and condemn all such purveyors of stupidity and hate.

[Dr.3D]

You're a lunatic. A complete, unabashed lunatic. Again, you're free to think these absurd thoughts, but we're free to think your backward thought process and value system is pathetic.




And I recommend that we do the opposite and condemn all such purveyors of stupidity and hate.
The most hate I see is coming from those who are upset some people disapprove of homosexuality.

[KingNothing]

I agree, I just don't understand why people care what gay people do as long as they are not hurting anyone. I don't care what they do.

This is the basis for me being a libertarian. I don't care what people do as long as they don't hurt anyone.

It always reminds me of Colonel Kurt in Apocalypse Now talking about leading a life free of judgement. This desire that some have to judge and condemn others for doing things that are entirely personal is ridiculous

[KingNothing]

The most hate I see is coming from those who are upset some people disapprove of homosexuality.


People really need to understand the difference between asking one group not to judge another, and engaging in the absurd prejudice that has alienated millions of people just because some absurd "holy" books demand it.

[Dr.3D]

People really need to understand the difference between asking one group not to judge another, and engaging in the absurd prejudice that has alienated millions of people just because some absurd "holy" books demand it.
I seriously doubt those people who believe the words of that holy book, are being judgmental, they are just saying they disapprove of the practice just as they disapprove of other sins. Those people know they will be judged as they have judged and thus they let God do the judging.

[showpan]

hmm...who's god? I wonder how many Gods there are since there are so many different religions.

[matt0611]

People really need to understand the difference between asking one group not to judge another, and engaging in the absurd prejudice that has alienated millions of people just because some absurd "holy" books demand it.

The irony of this post is amazing. :D

[RickyJ]

You're a lunatic. A complete, unabashed lunatic. Again, you're free to think these absurd thoughts, but we're free to think your backward thought process and value system is pathetic.




And I recommend that we do the opposite and condemn all such purveyors of stupidity and hate.

You are intolerant of Christians beliefs, yet call them intolerant?

Liberty is for all, including Christians.

[matt0611]

Yes, there is. For one, the taxpayers are paying for all of those "benefits" that gay marriage gets. Secondly, it's still not equal marriage for all because people who practice bestiality and polygamy are still being discriminated against. Thirdly, the government doesn't have the authority to license marriage in the first place. So, we should STOP licensing heterosexual marriages, not START licensing homosexual ones, which will then lead to the bestialists and the polygamists crying out for equality and justice, leading to even further government licensing of marriage which will, in all likelihood, never be reversed if we start doing that. Just STOP licensing marriage. It's that simple.

Also, if its just about government benefits shouldn't I, being single (hey I can't help it, I was just "born this way"), get these benefits too? Which would basically mean that getting married would have no advantages over being single.

That's why the simple solution is to get the government out of marriage.

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

I'm not sure this is something that should be on the front page of RPF :S

[Danke]

Nope, haven't seen any pictures and honestly I don't care. I just thought it was odd and humorous they talk about it being a record but have not idea or wont release the numbers.

A member on another forum confirmed her experience, huge lines for blocks.

[RickyJ]

A member on another forum confirmed her experience, huge lines for blocks.

At a Chic-Fli-A in Alabama they ran out of food at 6pm and had to close down yesterday.

[Danke]

To be honest I am not really actively participating in a boycott or supporting them.

It should however be noted that Mr. Cathy think its ok to use the government o enforce morals and stop voluntary association.

That is not something we should get behind.

Sorry if it has already been posted. But can someone post a link where the owner says he want to criminalize same sex marriage. (That doesn't mean expand expand state recognized marriages).

[RonPaulFanInGA]

Many here pay lip service to that, yet still fail to support gay marriage. So long as the state licenses straight marriage, there's no logical, equitable, reason why it shouldn't license gay marriage.

There isn't on polygamy either, but the media and leftists stay strangely silent on that. All the arguments for gay "marriage" could be made for legalized polygamy, just change the words "gay marriage" to "polygamy."

"It's not your business if gays polygamists marry. Gay marriage Polygamy is between consenting adults and whether you find it 'icky' or not or have a moral objection is irrelevant. Liberty is for all, including homosexuals polygamists. As long as the government is in the marriage business, it shouldn't discriminate against those who want to marry the same-sex those who want multiple spouses."

[The Free Hornet]

We don't need government licenses. If you want government licenses for all, I'm sorry, my friend, but you are not trying to "get the government out of it." Licensing more things means more government involvement in those things. So, I don't think you know what "getting the government out" really means because you are advocating for more government involvement.

Dishonest misrepresentation. No licenses or licenses for all - either way I want the government out of the equation. A license is often either a tax or similar barrier to competition. Arguing against them is as easy as arguing against the IRS. That said, once a barrier is erected, anybody ought be able to climb it as well as support its destruction.

There is no contradiction in my position and you would have to be dishonest to hold your POV. You allege to get government out of the equation by supporting the government restricting who legally enters relationships due to some biblical BS morality.

No doubt, you continue to claim support of purely private marriages with government out of the equation. Removing them from deciding who can be married is a large part of getting them out of the equation.

My guess is, you like taking other people's tax money.

This country is going down in flames because too many people want somebody else to support them. Advocating more income taxes and more death taxes is a clear indication of which side you support. It's not your money, keep your hands off!

Nobody is fooled by your bigotry and/or avarice (of other's wealth).

[Danke]

Dishonest misrepresentation. No licenses or licenses for all - either way I want the government out of the equation. A license is often either a tax or similar barrier to competition. Arguing against them is as easy as arguing against the IRS. That said, once a barrier is erected, anybody ought be able to climb it as well as support its destruction.

There is no contradiction in my position and you would have to be pretty fucking dishonest to hold your POV. You allege to get government out of the equation by supporting the government restricting who legally enters relationships due to some biblical BS morality.

Nobody is fooled by your bigotry.

My neighbor gets a government benefit because he grows GMO crops, therefore I want that benefit for my organic grow crops.

No, I want to stop his benefit in the first place, because it harms all those not involved in growing (steals from Peter to pay Paul). That is how government redistribution works.

But I'm "proud" I'm on your "BUCKET" list.

[The Free Hornet]

There isn't on polygamy either, but the media and leftists stay strangely silent on that. All the arguments for gay "marriage" could be made for legalized polygamy, just change the words "gay marriage" to "polygamy."

You're not arguing against the media or liberals. Step up your game! Bring on polygamy! The hell do I care and I doubt many here would oppose it (those on the libertarian side of this argument, not the theocratic side). Lower taxes (like Ron Paul supports) and more people could inherit an estate tax free (like Ron Paul supports).

[KingNothing]

You are intolerant of Christians beliefs, yet call them intolerant?

Liberty is for all, including Christians.

No, Christians are cool. People who moralize against others who find people of the same sex attractive, and work to maintain inequity under the rule of law are not, however.

[KingNothing]

There isn't on polygamy either, but the media and leftists stay strangely silent on that. All the arguments for gay "marriage" could be made for legalized polygamy, just change the words "gay marriage" to "polygamy."

"It's not your business if gays polygamists marry. Gay marriage Polygamy is between consenting adults and whether you find it 'icky' or not or have a moral objection is irrelevant. Liberty is for all, including homosexuals polygamists. As long as the government is in the marriage business, it shouldn't discriminate against those who want to marry the same-sex those who want multiple spouses."

I completely agree with this.

[erowe1]

My neighbor gets a government benefit because he grows GMO crops, therefore I want that benefit for my organic grow crops.

No, I want to stop his benefit in the first place, because it harms all those not involved in growing (steals from Peter to pay Paul). That is how government redistribution works.

But I'm "proud" I'm on your "BUCKET" list.

Also, since people over 65 get Social Security and people under 65 don't, we should support a law to lower the retirement age to 45 to make it more equal.

[Athan]

Don't know what the fuss is all about. Bunch of derpity herp if you ask me. They make a damn fine spicy chicken sandwich n' pepperjack chese. Not as spicy as I'd like, but not bad either. My only problem is the damn sandwich is do damn small. Great lemonaide and tea though.

[PaulConventionWV]

You're a lunatic. A complete, unabashed lunatic. Again, you're free to think these absurd thoughts, but we're free to think your backward thought process and value system is pathetic.

Ad hominem attacks are typical of people who are suffering from cognitive dissonance. What makes it so pathetic? Is it the fact that my moral convictions are different from yours? Would you say that someone who calls other people lunatics for having different moral convictions is "hateful", "bigoted", or "intolerant"?


And I recommend that we do the opposite and condemn all such purveyors of stupidity and hate.

Isn't that a little intolerant of you? I clearly demonstrated in that post that I am not advocating hate, yet you continue this rhetoric. Why is that? I don't hate anyone. I simply think that what they are doing is morally wrong. Is that even in the realm of possibility, or do you already know every facet of right and wrong that you can't possibly be mistaken? Do you even think it is possible for people to have different moral views than you and not be hateful?

Let's see, where is your activism for polygamy, which is a federal felony, and where is your concern for bestialists? I think bestiality is morally wrong, but you seem to think anybody who thinks any lifestyle is morally wrong is a hateful bigot. You are just spewing empty rhetoric.

Aga

[PaulConventionWV]

Also, if its just about government benefits shouldn't I, being single (hey I can't help it, I was just "born this way"), get these benefits too? Which would basically mean that getting married would have no advantages over being single.

That's why the simple solution is to get the government out of marriage.

Exactly. The system is prejudiced against single people. Who's going to defend them?

[PaulConventionWV]

Dishonest misrepresentation. No licenses or licenses for all - either way I want the government out of the equation. A license is often either a tax or similar barrier to competition. Arguing against them is as easy as arguing against the IRS. That said, once a barrier is erected, anybody ought be able to climb it as well as support its destruction.

There is no contradiction in my position and you would have to be dishonest to hold your POV. You allege to get government out of the equation by supporting the government restricting who legally enters relationships due to some biblical BS morality.

No doubt, you continue to claim support of purely private marriages with government out of the equation. Removing them from deciding who can be married is a large part of getting them out of the equation.

My guess is, you like taking other people's tax money.

This country is going down in flames because too many people want somebody else to support them. Advocating more income taxes and more death taxes is a clear indication of which side you support. It's not your money, keep your hands off!

Nobody is fooled by your bigotry and/or avarice (of other's wealth).

That's a false dichotomy. You say you want government out of it whether that means no licenses or licenses for all, but licenses for all requires government involvement, so the government can't possibly be out of it if it is providing licenses to all.

Also, how can you make these unjustified claims about me, such as, You like taking other people's tax money."

If the government can't grant marriage licenses, then nobody is taking anyone's tax money. I'm advocating completely private marriages. If you want the government to stop deciding who can and can't marry, then just take away the government authority to give licenses in the first place. I do NOT want to limit who can enter into contracts with each other. I just want to stop the government from being involved in those contracts.

Stopping the government from deciding who can and can't have a marriage license is NOT part of getting the government out of it. If you grant marriage licenses to every kind of marriage: polygamy, homosexuality, bestiality, etc., then that is TOTAL government involvement in ALL kinds of marriages, not a lack of government involvement. It is simply mind-boggling that you don't understand this concept.

[PaulConventionWV]

No, Christians are cool. People who moralize against others who find people of the same sex attractive, and work to maintain inequity under the rule of law are not, however.

I'm working to bring MORE equity by getting the government out of marriage.

[KingNothing]

Isn't that a little intolerant of you?


I have no desire to "tolerate" absurd moralizing and advocating for inequity under the law.


I don't hate anyone. I simply think that what they are doing is morally wrong.


Oh, ok then. Now, continue to advocate for legal inequality. You don't "hate" anyone - you just know that you're better than those silly gays and that they don't deserve the same benefits as you.



Is that even in the realm of possibility, or do you already know every facet of right and wrong that you can't possibly be mistaken? Do you even think it is possible for people to have different moral views than you and not be hateful?


Sure. But it's also no guarantee that the value system others choose to embrace is logical, reasonable, just and virtuous.



Let's see, where is your activism for polygamy, which is a federal felony, and where is your concern for bestialists? I think bestiality is morally wrong, but you seem to think anybody who thinks any lifestyle is morally wrong is a hateful bigot. You are just spewing empty rhetoric.


I have absolutely no problem with polygamy. When intolerant people moralize against its practice I voice my discontent. Bestiality, on the other hand, is basically just raping a different species. I don't endorse that.

[KingNothing]

Exactly. The system is prejudiced against single people. Who's going to defend them?

Yup. It's another reason why we need to get government out of marriage completely, which is something that the owner of Chick Fil A, apparently, does not support. He supports inequity.

[cajuncocoa]

Yup. It's another reason why we need to get government out of marriage completely, which is something that the owner of Chick Fil A, apparently, does not support. He supports inequity.I don't think the owner of CFA said anything about government involvement.

[The Free Hornet]

That's a false dichotomy. You say you want government out of it whether that means no licenses or licenses for all, but licenses for all requires government involvement, so the government can't possibly be out of it if it is providing licenses to all.

My point is the same as many others: government 100% out of the marriage business is best (aside from the obvious role they still play in adjudicating private contracts of which marriage ought to be an example). Further, I would prefer no favored or unfavored tax status because a couple, group, or some dude and his horse are married.

If you think something is a gay marriage benefit, you have two philosophically-consistent choices

1) advocate its removal from all marriages (treat individuals alike)
2) STFU

If there is a license - or tax or fee - my point is that anybody ought to be able to pay or file for it just like anybody can seek a driver's license, gun licenses, et cetera. I do NOT LIKE nor do I advocate the need for driver's licenses or gun licenses but if there existince is mandated to drive or carry, then I want the least amount of restrictions on their issuance.

When the government lets everybody buy a vehicle sticker, they are not permiting us to do anything really or granting any benefits. The license, sticker, permit, whathaveyou, is just a tax or fee of sorts. It should not exist, but if it does, it should be low and indiscriminately administered.

Government is not endorsing gays driving when they issue a gay driving license.


Also, how can you make these unjustified claims about me, such as, You like taking other people's tax money."

Because you argue against the so-called benefits of gay marriage. Substantially, these benefits are gay people keeping THEIR money ("You didn't earn that gay paycheck!"):

"Why Same Sex Couples Pay More Taxes" (http://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/0412/Why-Same-Sex-Couples-Pay-More-Taxes.aspx)

I think treating them as individuals is good. My reform would be to end the distinction of married vs single tax filing. Maybe my taxes could go down (lol - but that is not my motivation - equal treatment under the law is). That anybody is or isn't married: not my business.

More so, some companies - noting the inequitable treatment - are paying gays in partnerships more:


Luckily, more and more employers around the nation are reimbursing employees in same-sex unions for additional taxes they incurred due to federal laws. Starting on Jan. 1, 2012, Yale University and Columbia University will begin reimbursing employees for the extra taxes they must pay on partner's health insurance, The New York Times reported.

Google, Facebook, and Teach For America have all adopted similar policies aimed at providing equal benefits to opposite- and same-sex employees, The New York Times reported.

huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/28/gay-couples-pay-more-taxes_n_1171694.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/28/gay-couples-pay-more-taxes_n_1171694.html)

It wouldn't surprise me if not allowing gay marriage ends up as a net loss for straight people. Who are the winners and losers if only gay people can get gay-partnership money from corporate America without the cost of a real marriage or the cost of a real divorce? Straight Google/Facebook employees are on the losing end of this stick.


If the government can't grant marriage licenses, then nobody is taking anyone's tax money. [WTF?! -TFH] I'm advocating completely private marriages. If you want the government to stop deciding who can and can't marry, then just take away the government authority to give licenses in the first place. I do NOT want to limit who can enter into contracts with each other. I just want to stop the government from being involved in those contracts.

Government adjudicates (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adjudication) contracts. Until we have private adjudication (something akin to binding arbitration), then "stop the government from being involved in those contracts" is equivalent to not wanting those contracts to exist. Congress did not mandate or permit for a private and binding arbitration of these contracts. You are preventing people from entering meaningful contracts because they are gay. What do you think those lawyers and old dudes in black robes do????

If you are not lying, you will stop involving yourself in the micromanagement of who does and does not get a marriage CONTRACT. Someone holding the position you claim would by on the other side of this argument.

Like it or not, contracts presently involve the government. For example, if I agree to hire you for $5/hr, that contract is going to be deemed illegal and you can sue me for more money. Government has decreed that it will not respect the establishment of sub-minimum-wage contracts (in general, let's pretend this is no exception). Were government to allow our $5/hr contract, they are not endorsing, encouraging, or particularly involving themselves in our business. It is only when they prohibit our $5/hr contract that their jack-booted thuggery is in our business.


Stopping the government from deciding who can and can't have a marriage license is NOT part of getting the government out of it.

It *IS* government extricating itself from the decision making process even though it is not a 100% retreat. As much as I would like to get a 100% solution, I will encourage a 1% improvement.


If you grant marriage licenses to every kind of marriage: polygamy, homosexuality, bestiality, etc., then that is TOTAL government involvement in ALL kinds of marriages, not a lack of government involvement. It is simply mind-boggling that you don't understand this concept.

Really? First, DOMA mandates that only one type of marriage exists and government is up in it BIG TIME. Federal law prevents the respecting of private contracts described as marriage if they do not meet the one-man-one-woman definition.

To be sure, I DO NOT ADVOCATE THAT GAYS (OR ANYBODY) GET GOVERNMENT MARRIED IN MANY IF NOT MOST OR ALL US JURISDICTIONS! Government control over your life is bad. I strongly oppose common law marriages as coercive, not voluntary, contracts (unless there was a verifiable but non-government licensed/sanctioned ceremony). What I advocate is for people to have the right to get married and do other stupid things.

"Mind your business!"

If you were not a bigot and had any consistency, you would be against the issuence of gay fishing licenses, gay parking permits, gay pilot licenses, and gay building permits. You have stated clearly that gay is "nasty" (you left out "female sex" ... interesting):


LOL you'll never understand. Male sex is "nasty" to many people because it goes against nature's intended purposes. You can make all these arguments about "natural deviants" but it's pretty plain to see what the purpose of nature is, and that two males weren't created for that purpose.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?375699-North-Carolina-Bans-Gay-Marriage&p=4410363&viewfull=1#post4410363

I do not believe your opinion on gays and gay marriage is unrelated.

[Brian4Liberty]

I'll hand it to the Democrats and the establishment. Operation Red-Herring Fil-A has been a resounding success.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_LXxSHtFuqSo/TFe5yKgzbAI/AAAAAAAAANw/3HtNLHPCYo4/s1600/RedHerring.jpg

[angelatc]

And I recommend that we do the opposite and condemn all such purveyors of stupidity and hate.

The left hates Christians. We get that.

We will start branding Christian groups as hate groups. This is like Nazi Germany.

Anybody who disagrees with the gays is now an enemy of the state. And anybody who thinks it's ok for the Christians to believe anything they want is guilty of hate speech.


The New America.

[angelatc]

I do not believe your opinion on gays and gay marriage is unrelated.

Oh, the bigot card. Perhaps he's a racist too. ANd of course he's an anti-Semite. He's posting here, silly.

[BlackTerrel]

won't release the numbers, hahaha

in other news the economy has rebounded a record amount (we won't release the numbers, just trust us) ;)

These companies usually don't release their day to day numbers.

I have no doubt it was a record setting day - just looking at the lines.

[Agorism]

They need to fire the CEO

[BlackTerrel]

I had been kind of wondering why nobody else was mentioning that CFA has given over 5 million dollars since 2007 or so to groups like the Marriage & Family Foundation.

These groups lobby government to write laws and keep laws in place that prevent humans from interacting freely.

So what? Why shouldn't they be allowed to do with their money what they wish?

[BlackTerrel]

The left hates Christians. We get that.

We will start branding Christian groups as hate groups. This is like Nazi Germany.

Anybody who disagrees with the gays is now an enemy of the state. And anybody who thinks it's ok for the Christians to believe anything they want is guilty of hate speech.


The New America.

Does anyone really think if Chick-Fil-A was owned by devout Jews or Muslims we'd see these sorts of protests? I don't/

[Anti Federalist]

Everybody who has been here for a while knows I am full on, unabashed, unapologetic "truther".

Serious question:

Do us "truthers" sound like the pro-homosexual marriage people, to people who do not believe that "9/11 was an inside job"?

Do we sound like that even if the person we are addressing may have an open mind to what we are saying and inclined to agree?

I just had a real epiphany reading this thread, if that's the case.

[KingNothing]

Everybody who has been here for a while knows I am full on, unabashed, unapologetic "truther".

Serious question:

Do us "truthers" sound like the pro-homosexual marriage people, to people who do not believe that "9/11 was an inside job"?

Do we sound like that even if the person we are addressing may have an open mind to what we are saying and inclined to agree?

I just had a real epiphany reading this thread, if that's the case.


If you think I sound ridiculous just for saying that people should stop prejudging gay people, which seems self evident to me, then yes.

[Anti Federalist]

If you think I sound ridiculous just for saying that people should stop prejudging gay people, which seems self evident to me, then yes.

Running around and calling people lunatics and bigots for holding a different view based on deeply held religious beliefs is pretty ridiculous, and off putting to me, even though I happen to agree with you on this issue.

ETA - And weren't you the poster that once told me that I should "get over myself" and stop acting as if I was some grand player on the stage of life?

Because I was worked up and passionate about an issue that was important to me?

Kind of like how you are acting right now?

[Danke]

Everybody who has been here for a while knows I am full on, unabashed, unapologetic "truther".

Correct.





Serious question:

Do us "truthers" sound like the pro-homosexual marriage people...

:toady:

[Origanalist]

Does anyone really think if Chick-Fil-A was owned by devout Jews or Muslims we'd see these sorts of protests? I don't/

I don't see or read any examples of such.

[Origanalist]

Running around and calling people lunatics and bigots for holding a different view based on deeply held religious beliefs is pretty ridiculous, and off putting to me, even though I happen to agree with you on this issue.

ETA - And weren't you the poster that once told me that I should "get over myself" and stop acting as if I was some grand player on the stage of life?

Because I was worked up and passionate about an issue that was important to me?

Kind of like how you are acting right now?

You never came across that way to my perception. I don't remember you insulting people who weren't buying the "inside job" theory. (but I may have just missed it :p)

[RonPaulFanInGA]

Does anyone really think if Chick-Fil-A was owned by devout Jews or Muslims we'd see these sorts of protests? I don't/

These specific sorts of protests, over homosexual "marriage"? No. You can bet though that if Chick-fil-A were owned by devout Muslims, the neoconservative crowd would be posting hysterical garbage about 'terrorist chicken sandwiches' and conspiracies about the owner being connected to CAIR and the Muslim Brotherhood on FreeRepublic.com. Remember, these are the types of people who freak out over cans of soup and Butterball turkeys, because of the scary, scary Arabs.

[BlackTerrel]

I don't see or read any examples of such.

You don't see Muslims or Jews who oppose gay marriage? Really?


These specific sorts of protests, over homosexual "marriage"? No. You can bet though that if Chick-fil-A were owned by devout Muslims, the neoconservative crowd, they'd be posting hysterical garbage about 'terrorist chicken sandwiches' and conspiracies about the owner being connected to CAIR and the Muslim Brotherhood on FreeRepublic.com. Remember, these are the types of people who freak out over cans of soup and Butterball turkeys, because of the scary, scary Arabs.

As opposed to the scary scary Christians that some on this forum fret about it.


These specific sorts of protests, over homosexual "marriage"? No

Why not? Why are gays afraid to protest Jews and Christians?

[BlackTerrel]

Everybody who has been here for a while knows I am full on, unabashed, unapologetic "truther".

Serious question:

Do us "truthers" sound like the pro-homosexual marriage people, to people who do not believe that "9/11 was an inside job"?

Do we sound like that even if the person we are addressing may have an open mind to what we are saying and inclined to agree?

I just had a real epiphany reading this thread, if that's the case.

Here's my view as someone whose on the other side of that issue. I don't believe any of the "truther" views but if I did it would be a big issue for me and I probably couldn't shut up about it either. I mean what they're accusing people is basically the greatest crime in my lifetime.

What annoys me with conspiracy theorists in general is this overall attitude of "I'm better than you... I'm smarter than you... you're so brainwashed.... look at me I'm so smart... ". Maybe you don't think that but that's a lot of times what it sounds like to me. And it's so annoying and so over the top and so in your face it just grates on my fucking nerves... EXACTLY like this gay marriage issue does.

Look I oppose gay marriage but really it is about #1,000 on the list of issues I care about. But it's just so damn in your face. "Look I just want to enjoy a chicken sandwich leave me the fuck alone and get out of my face". That's how I see it.

Conspiracy theorists same way. Terrorist attack, or guy shoots up a movie theater and all I want to do is find out what happened and express my condolences for the victims and the shooting is barely even over and "obvious false flag", "clearly this is the government", "anyone who doesn't believe this is a conspiracy is a retard and needs to read 50 articles on MK Ultra... and BTW here are 50 articles on MK Ultra I'm going to post them all and spam this thread".

It's so annoying and so in your face it just makes you an unpleasant person. And by the way this is an internet forum. I can't imagine it does much in the making friends in real life department.

[DerailingDaTrain]

Here's my view as someone whose on the other side of that issue. I don't believe any of the "truther" views but if I did it would be a big issue for me and I probably couldn't shut up about it either. I mean what they're accusing people is basically the greatest crime in my lifetime.

What annoys me with conspiracy theorists in general is this overall attitude of "I'm better than you... I'm smarter than you... you're so brainwashed.... look at me I'm so smart... ". Maybe you don't think that but that's a lot of times what it sounds like to me. And it's so annoying and so over the top and so in your face it just grates on my fucking nerves... EXACTLY like this gay marriage issue does.

Look I oppose gay marriage but really it is about #1,000 on the list of issues I care about. But it's just so damn in your face. "Look I just want to enjoy a chicken sandwich leave me the fuck alone and get out of my face". That's how I see it.

Conspiracy theorists same way. Terrorist attack, or guy shoots up a movie theater and all I want to do is find out what happened and express my condolences for the victims and the shooting is barely even over and "obvious false flag", "clearly this is the government", "anyone who doesn't believe this is a conspiracy is a retard and needs to read 50 articles on MK Ultra... and BTW here are 50 articles on MK Ultra I'm going to post them all and spam this thread".

It's so annoying and so in your face it just makes you an unpleasant person. And by the way this is an internet forum. I can't imagine it does much in the making friends in real life department.

+rep

[Anti Federalist]

I can't imagine it does much in the making friends in real life department.

Well that explains a lot for me:

http://rlv.zcache.com/forever_alone_guy_postcard-p239449833252306640baanr_400.jpg

I can count all my "friends" on the fingers of one hand.

[BlackTerrel]

Well that explains a lot for me:

http://rlv.zcache.com/forever_alone_guy_postcard-p239449833252306640baanr_400.jpg

I can count all my "friends" on the fingers of one hand.

I hope you're joking because you actually don't strike me as the type.

And BTW rereading my post please do keep in mind I meant "you" in the general sense. I actually don't think you have most of the qualities I described and despite our disagreements I view you as a standup guy. Just stating my opinion in the general sense since it was asked...

[juleswin]

There isn't on polygamy either, but the media and leftists stay strangely silent on that. All the arguments for gay "marriage" could be made for legalized polygamy, just change the words "gay marriage" to "polygamy."

"It's not your business if gays polygamists marry. Gay marriage Polygamy is between consenting adults and whether you find it 'icky' or not or have a moral objection is irrelevant. Liberty is for all, including homosexuals polygamists. As long as the government is in the marriage business, it shouldn't discriminate against those who want to marry the same-sex those who want multiple spouses."

Thats not a good analogy. Se if leftist, liberals and most fair people are asking for the privilage given to 2 heterosexual human adults when they form a union to extend to two people of the same sex. But since you brought it up, why is polygamy illegal? If its done by consenting adults, who cares? how does it affect you and your family?

And to those who are worried that govt will have to spend more money to cover the benefits to all the new gay couples and thus put a strain on the tax payers, just know that gay people pay taxes too, so while they pay into your govt benefit you try to prevent them from getting access to it.

What this whole thread tell me is that people including many libertarians are very greedy(not the good type of greed) and selfish, they got theirs so gay people and single(not married couples) people can fuck off. I say we end ALL govt provided benefit to heterosexual married couples or open it up to any 2 humans who decide to form a union. Maybe when enough people start feeling the pain of supporting each other, the whole govt run marriage scam will end.

[phill4paul]

Here's my view as someone whose on the other side of that issue. I don't believe any of the "truther" views but if I did it would be a big issue for me and I probably couldn't shut up about it either. I mean what they're accusing people is basically the greatest crime in my lifetime.

What annoys me with conspiracy theorists in general is this overall attitude of "I'm better than you... I'm smarter than you... you're so brainwashed.... look at me I'm so smart... ". Maybe you don't think that but that's a lot of times what it sounds like to me. And it's so annoying and so over the top and so in your face it just grates on my fucking nerves... EXACTLY like this gay marriage issue does.

Look I oppose gay marriage but really it is about #1,000 on the list of issues I care about. But it's just so damn in your face. "Look I just want to enjoy a chicken sandwich leave me the fuck alone and get out of my face". That's how I see it.

Conspiracy theorists same way. Terrorist attack, or guy shoots up a movie theater and all I want to do is find out what happened and express my condolences for the victims and the shooting is barely even over and "obvious false flag", "clearly this is the government", "anyone who doesn't believe this is a conspiracy is a retard and needs to read 50 articles on MK Ultra... and BTW here are 50 articles on MK Ultra I'm going to post them all and spam this thread".

It's so annoying and so in your face it just makes you an unpleasant person. And by the way this is an internet forum. I can't imagine it does much in the making friends in real life department.

Tl:dr:
Look I oppose gay marriage


You are a nutter and have no friends.

[Anti Federalist]

I hope you're joking because you actually don't strike me as the type.

And BTW rereading my post please do keep in mind I meant "you" in the general sense. I actually don't think you have most of the qualities I described and despite our disagreements I view you as a standup guy. Just stating my opinion in the general sense since it was asked...

Half joking, half serious.

I value my privacy and, after spending my entire adult life cooped up with other men on ships and boats of various sizes, I like not having people underfoot.

More importantly, I value the word "friend".

I have very, very few. I have plenty of acquaintances and chums and colleagues and shipmates and buddies, but very few friends.

Remember, a pal will help you move.

A friend will help you move...bodies.

[specsaregood]

I value my privacy and, after spending my entire adult life cooped up with other men on ships and boats of various sizes
...
A friend will help you move...bodies.

http://scrapetv.com/News/News%20Pages/usa/images-6/Weekend-At-Bernies.jpg

[phill4paul]

A friend will help you move...bodies.

Bodyz?

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRev4zZQnebe-o14SiACgYFXpT6pavyaon7ZLT-gye7NcCXtIbG

Wut Bodies?

[RonPaulFanInGA]

Thats not a good analogy. Se if leftist, liberals and most fair people are asking for the privilage given to 2 heterosexual human adults when they form a union to extend to two people of the same sex. But since you brought it up, why is polygamy illegal? If its done by consenting adults, who cares? how does it affect you and your family?

"It's not a good analogy, but I will prove its point by asking why gay 'marriage' should be legal and polygamy not."

Why should gay marriage be legal, and polygamy not be? Any hypocritical leftists here want to answer that?

[juleswin]

"It's not a good analogy, but I will prove its point by asking why gay 'marriage' should be legal and polygamy not."

Why should gay marriage be legal, and polygamy not be? Any hypocritical leftists here want to answer that?

The same reason why we want income tax repealed while sales tax stays, you got to crawl before you can walk.

[Origanalist]

Originally Posted by BlackTerrel

Does anyone really think if Chick-Fil-A was owned by devout Jews or Muslims we'd see these sorts of protests? I don't/


I don't see or read any examples of such.


You don't see Muslims or Jews who oppose gay marriage? Really?

What I meant was that I agree with you that if it were Muslims or some other religion besides Christianity you would be hearing none of the uproar.

[angelatc]

Many here pay lip service to that, yet still fail to support gay marriage. So long as the state licenses straight marriage, there's no logical, equitable, reason why it shouldn't license gay marriage.

Yes, there is. It expands the entitlement base. I do not support gay marriage.

[angelatc]

T
And to those who are worried that govt will have to spend more money to cover the benefits to all the new gay couples and thus put a strain on the tax payers, just know that gay people pay taxes too, so while they pay into your govt benefit you try to prevent them from getting access to it.

.

Which is just another reason for me not to support gay marriage. Once they're on the dole, they have one less thing in common with the freedom agenda.

[angelatc]

I don't see or read any examples of such.

Jews are liberals, and aren't as uptight about gays as the majority of society is.

On the other hand, we've seen what happens when the decadence infiltrates Muslim countries that don't want it - the radicals take over.

[KingNothing]

What I meant was that I agree with you that if it were Muslims or some other religion besides Christianity you would be hearing none of the uproar.


If Chick Fil A were owned by Muslims it wouldn't even be a chain.

[Origanalist]

//

[Anti Federalist]

http://scrapetv.com/News/News%20Pages/usa/images-6/Weekend-At-Bernies.jpg

"There goes Bernie, showing off again."

"Well, he's got great form."

KLONG

[Origanalist]

If Chick Fil A were owned by Muslims it wouldn't even be a chain.

http://www.ediblearrangements.com/savings/

[pcosmar]

Jews are liberals, and aren't as uptight about gays as the majority of society is.

Jewish Law,

If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
But I suspect you were referring to the modern "Jew" that rejects the Law. (Zionist)

On the other hand, Jesus said,

He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone

Confusion and distraction.
:(

[Danke]

I value my privacy and, after spending my entire adult life cooped up with other men on ships and boats of various sizes, I like not having people underfoot.

A friend will help you move...bodies.

Homosexual group necrophilia on board ships. Great, just great...

[Anti Federalist]

Homosexual group necrophilia on board ships. Great, just great...

I'll be your friend...

[RickyJ]

If Chick Fil A were owned by Muslims it wouldn't even be a chain.

What? You think Muslims don't eat? It would do well in Muslim countries that have many more mouths they can feed than America does.

[RonPaulFanInGA]

What? You think Muslims don't eat? It would do well in Muslim countries that have many more mouths they can feed than America does.

Chick-fil-A started out in the south, has most of their restaurants in the south, most of their profits come from the south and their headquarters is in the south. They sell southern-fried chicken sandwiches; not exactly a traditional food of the Middle East or Islam. Why do you think they'd do well there? Non-native foods can be popular in places, but it's no sure thing.

KingNothing meant though, maybe, that a Muslim-owned Chick-fil-A wouldn't do well in the United States. It's possible. Surely not many of the neoconservatives 'buycotting' it now would go if it were owned by a Muslim. That's the kind of bigots they are.

[KingNothing]

Chick-fil-A started out in the south, has most of their restaurants in the south, most of their profits come from the south and their headquarters is in the south. They sell southern-fried chicken sandwiches; not exactly a traditional food of the Middle East or Islam. Why do you think they'd do well there? Non-native foods can be popular in places, but it's no sure thing.

KingNothing meant though, maybe, that a Muslim-owned Chick-fil-A wouldn't do well in the United States. It's possible. Surely not many of the neoconservatives 'buycotting' it now would go if it were owned by a Muslim. That's the kind of bigots they are.

That's exactly what I meant. Part of Chick Fil A's appeal (part, not all) is that they represent a good, fried, slice of the American Dream. A Good Christian Man made right by his God and Country by selling better-than-average fast food, and treating people well while he did it. I can't imagine that having the same pull if it were a Muslim man doing it.

[Revolution9]

It always reminds me of Colonel Kurt in Apocalypse Now talking about leading a life free of judgement. This desire that some have to judge and condemn others for doing things that are entirely personal is ridiculous

My irony meter is heading to the shop. You blew out it's calibration coils with that yard of lip.

Rev9

[BlackTerrel]

Chick-fil-A started out in the south, has most of their restaurants in the south, most of their profits come from the south and their headquarters is in the south. They sell southern-fried chicken sandwiches; not exactly a traditional food of the Middle East or Islam. Why do you think they'd do well there? Non-native foods can be popular in places, but it's no sure thing.

KingNothing meant though, maybe, that a Muslim-owned Chick-fil-A wouldn't do well in the United States. It's possible. Surely not many of the neoconservatives 'buycotting' it now would go if it were owned by a Muslim. That's the kind of bigots they are.

And not many of the liberals speaking out against it would boycott it if it were owned by a Muslim. Different kind of bigots.

[ExPatPaki]

Chick-fil-A started out in the south, has most of their restaurants in the south, most of their profits come from the south and their headquarters is in the south. They sell southern-fried chicken sandwiches; not exactly a traditional food of the Middle East or Islam. Why do you think they'd do well there

Lots of American chains do well in Muslim countries, such as KFC, McDonalds, Burger King, and Hardees. My cousins in Pakistan have a Hardees right down the street from them. The closest Hardees to me is 40 miles away. Tell me how that makes sense. I like Hardees. Why do my cousins in another country have easier access to Hardees than I do in America? That's bullshit.

[jmdrake]

And not many of the liberals speaking out against it would boycott it if it were owned by a Muslim. Different kind of bigots.

You know what's funny? I often hear right wing nutjobs on talk radio excoriate Islam for not being tolerant to gays. :rolleyes: So a Muslim owned Chik-fil-a that was antigay wouldn't have to worry about liberals attacking them for their antigay stance. "Conservatives" would do that for them. That said, this is all a tempest in a teapot. Chik-fil-a didn't say anything "antigay". It may a statement that was "pro family". Some folks still believe that what most people understand as the Bible definition of marriage still counts for something. Even some gay people see the anger over Chick-fil-a as stupid.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?385108-Antoine-Dodson-Defends-Chick-Fil-A-Gay-Internet-Celebrity-Criticizes-Boycott&highlight=antoine

[matt0611]

You know what's funny? I often here right wing nutjobs on talk radio excoriate Islam for not being tolerant to gays. :rolleyes: So a Muslim owned Chik-fil-a that was antigay wouldn't have to worry about liberals attacking them for their antigay stance. "Conservatives" would do that for them. That said, this is all a tempest in a teapot. Chik-fil-a didn't say anything "antigay". It may a statement that was "pro family". Some folks still believe that what most people understand as the Bible definition of marriage still counts for something. Even some gay people see the anger over Chick-fil-a as stupid.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?385108-Antoine-Dodson-Defends-Chick-Fil-A-Gay-Internet-Celebrity-Criticizes-Boycott&highlight=antoine

Isn't it ironic that until a few months ago Barack Obama held the same exact view of marriage as the the President of Chick-fil-a?

Where was the outrage about Obama's "hate" ?

[KingNothing]

Isn't it ironic that until a few months ago Barack Obama held the same exact view of marriage as the the President of Chick-fil-a?

Where was the outrage about Obama's "hate" ?

Ron Paul supporters, and Glen Greenwald, are about the only people with an interest in politics and a philosophical consistency.

[PaulConventionWV]

Ron Paul supporters, and Glen Greenwald, are about the only people with an interest in politics and a philosophical consistency.

Sadly, you may be right.