[speakeasy]

Is anyone else bothered by this eradication of free speech? You have mayors in major American cities attempting to block the franchise in their city because the CEO believes marriage should be between a man and woman. Not because there is any actual case of unlawful acts of discrimination against gay employees, but for the thought crimes of its CEO.

It is one thing for people to state an opinion about his beliefs and boycott the company if they find the views offensive, it's another thing altogether for politicians to seek means of stopping a business from operating because they don't like the personal views of the CEO. That is a violation of the first amendment and none of these pro gay liberals seem to be bothered by it.

Why don't they also crack down on Chevron? They buy oil from countries that make homosexuality a capitol offense.

The level of arrogance from the gay movement right now is unprecedented.

[Icarus]

(07-31-2012 12:24 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

The level of arrogance from the gay movement right now is unprecedented.

It's more than arrogance. It's also extreme self-righteousness. They defend totalitarian measures to fight what they perceive as "evil". I love it when the mask comes off and people show their true colors. I also love it when "progressives" go witch-hunting. The irony is delicious.

[UgSlayer]

The only thing the boycott and hoopla accomplished was make me want to buy more chik-fil-a

[mikeymike]

we don't have chik-fil-a in canada, well at least vancouver so while I had heard rumblings about a boycott I hadn't really read much about it, had no idea this was the issue...i'd head straight to a cfa right now if i could to protest the boycott...only had it once but that shit was good.

[el mechanico]

I love Chik-fil-a. I love the fact they don't like gay people as well. Me and my kid will be just fine in the play area without little fem kids running around. So, if any fags are reading this FUCK YOU!!!!!Go get your Chicken sandwich from Burgerking

[teh_skeeze]

When I first heard about this my first thought was if they really wanted to screw the company, they should have allowed the chain to be built. Then, call for a massive boycott, causing him to lose money.

[j r]

In all fairness, most on the left have actually stepped forward and criticized both mayors for trying to legally bar Chick-fil-A from opening. There were a bunch of articles from progressive publications saying that the president of the company has a right to say anything he wants without legal sanction. And I haven't seen any support for banning from gay groups. I was actually a little surprised by it considering how polarized things have become.

Most of the support for banning Chick-fil-A came from random people on Facebook, most of whom are just reflexively leftist.

[Aliblahba]

I support Chic-fil-A 100%. Last place in America you can eat and not see a bunch of fucking freaks.

[Vicious]

You can say a lot of things about gays and the gay movement... but complaining about them "eradicating free-speech" is somewhat ignorant considering where they've been in history.

I thought that Chick-A-fils play was a good one initially with corporations getting a social face (albeit a bad business decision) but then both Rick Santorum and Sarah Palin went and got their pictures taken at one of their joints declaring that they wanted to support at great company. So now they are a face of the nutty right.

[WanderingSoul]

I am for gay marriage, and I think this shit is ridiculous. The Mayor of the city should also be allowed and speak out against Chic-Fill-A and its CEO, but should not be able to bar them from doing business in the city. Freedom of speech, motherfucker. Get with it.

[Blunt]

Apparently tomorrow has been designated support free speech/Chic-fil-A day.

[Icarus]

(07-31-2012 02:12 PM)Vicious Wrote:  

but complaining about them "eradicating free-speech" is somewhat ignorant considering where they've been in history.

How so? Gays always existed (and always will exist), they were allowed to lead their sex lives discreetly (e.g., in the Catholic Church). What have gay rights "activists" contributed to the gay "cause"? Nothing, really.

Some people will always oppose gay "rights". Passing a law will only lead to the legal recognition of some so-called "rights". What does that mean on a practical level? It means that gay rights "activists" can use even more of the legal system and police forces to coerce you, which will breed even more opposition to gay "rights", albeit this opposition will be silenced.

You cannot change people's minds with legislation. You can only shut them up.

[Sourcecode]

I have nothing against gays they can do whatever they want.
they only thing I don't like shit chick fil a is that they don't open on Sundays

[Jackhammer]

People are up in arms over the sayings of a fast-food restaurant. A FAST-FUCKING-FOOD RESTAURANT.

I can't imagine the boredom level of the people who really give a shit about a chicken joint's stance on gays.

[speakeasy]

(07-31-2012 12:58 PM)Icarus Wrote:  

(07-31-2012 12:24 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

The level of arrogance from the gay movement right now is unprecedented.

It's more than arrogance. It's also extreme self-righteousness. They defend totalitarian measures to fight what they perceive as "evil". I love it when the mask comes off and people show their true colors. I also love it when "progressives" go witch-hunting. The irony is delicious.

A few months ago something like this happened with Manny Pacquiao. He as a practicing Catholic said he is opposed to same sex marriage and he was banned from an outdoor mall where he was scheduled to do an appearance. They later reversed the ban though:

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/20...marks.html

Yeah, it's full on witch hunt mode right now. What often happens when you have a previously persecuted group such as gays or atheists is that at first they are content just to be left alone and not stigmatized. Then after they get that, then comes the arrogance, then comes the desire punish anyone that doesn't support you. We see this for example with atheists who now want crosses removed off of memorials or gays that want a high tech lynching of anyone opposed to same sex marriage.

[Vicious]

(07-31-2012 02:29 PM)Icarus Wrote:  

(07-31-2012 02:12 PM)Vicious Wrote:  

but complaining about them "eradicating free-speech" is somewhat ignorant considering where they've been in history.

How so? Gays always existed (and always will exist), they were allowed to lead their sex lives discreetly (e.g., in the Catholic Church).

Gays were allowed to live "discreetly"? Have you ever opened a history book? Many Christian and Muslim countries has had laws making sodomy punishable by death during long periods of time (ie centuries). This goes on today in many countries.

Quote:

What have gay rights "activists" contributed to the gay "cause"? Nothing, really.

So you think gay rights would have come about without gay activists? Right.

---

I'm far from a proponent of gay rights, but the fact is that this is a movement that has been actively hunted by religious nuts for millennia. I chuckle when I read that people refer to anti-gay boycots as a "witch hunt" since that's exactly what gays have experienced during many times in history. Free speech never applied to them in many case, now that the shoe is on the other foot they are just running with it. Not saying it's right but to suddenly start getting moral over their failings is hypocritical.

[Icarus]

(07-31-2012 04:31 PM)Vicious Wrote:  

I'm far from a proponent of gay rights, but the fact is that this is a movement that has been actively hunted by religious nuts for millennia. Free speech never applied to them in many case, now that the shoe is on the other foot they are just running with it. Not saying it's right but to suddenly start getting moral over their failings is hypocritical.

The Jews, the Jesuits, the Templars, the Protestants, the Catholics, the Muslims, the Christian Orthodox, and even the Zoroastrians were also actively hunted by religious nuts in the past. Heck, wasn't that why the pilgrims took the Mayflower?

Is it regrettable that gays were oppressed in the past? Yes, it is. Does that warrant that gay marriage and adoption by gay couples should be legalized to make up for past oppression? Not in my opinion. What has changed? It's simple: in the past the gays were the hunted, now they are the hunters.

Marriage is a religious institution, and since I believe in separating Church and state, the state should not meddle in people's religion. Muslim marriage, Jewish marriage, and Christian marriage are not the same thing de facto, but legally they are. Gays want to get married because of "benefits", which shows that civil marriages are an abomination that should be abolished and replaced with contracts. Just imagine how much time and money the state would save by killing the divorce industry. There is no lack of children. Hence, there is no reason why taxpayers should have to support married couples (straight or gay).

If gay rights activists were smart, they would have realized long ago that creating opposition is stupid and counter-productive. Yet, they love creating opposition. Tactical victories do not ensure a strategic victory. If they had chosen their battles more carefully, they would have gone much, much farther.

[durangotang]

I liked society a lot more when they were in the fucking closet. I am so sick of hearing about gay rights. It is not enough that society accepts them, they are organized and entitled and want special rights and privileges. They don't want tolerance and they are not tolerant of others opinions. They are on a holy crusade that is not based upon virtue, but vice, and they wish to turn the entire society into their own image. Disapprove? Then you are labeled homophobic by our politically correct society - a slur word meant to ostracize you into accepting gay culture.

[HeyPete]

The gay rights stuff has definitely gotten out of control and the hate for anyone who dares say anything against it is similarly ridiculous.

If I'm the CEO of a big company, though, I keep my mouth closed on any controversial topic. Why bring any headache?

I think non-PC stuff all the time when I'm out and about, but saying it out loud isn't worth it, most of the time.

And another thing, I'm sure there has been threads on this, so I will go look them up, but what's up with women and hanging out with gay guys?

[RazorRamon]

lol, a bunch of right-wing nerds as well. It's alpha to hate queers!

George Clooney must be beta because he supports gay rights!

You guys are so raised to be lame.

[Hades]

I have a lot of gay friends but the whole "homos can do no wrong" level of fanaticism for the cause confuses me. If this is all the resistance that (society?) is putting against their equal rights crusade, then what's the problem exactly?

[ccurtis189]

(08-01-2012 01:45 AM)HeyPete Wrote:  

And another thing, I'm sure there has been threads on this, so I will go look them up, but what's up with women and hanging out with gay guys?

Queens usually like the same stuff women do. On the flip side, the militant masculine gays usually harbor some anti-women resentment.

[kosko]

^ Naw its not even that. It has just become the trendy thing to do now. Females seem to view their gay male friends like real life barbie dolls. Gay men feed them the same attention, and one could say even more-so then strait men can/do and all without the requirements or pressures for sex. Its a females hamsters dream.

[ColSpanker]

What I find strange is that the same people who boycott Chhikfilla have no problems filling their cars up with gas produced by countries where gays are routinely executed.

[Bad Hussar]

This kind of boycott won't help actual gay people in the long term. Probably not even in the medium term. It's pretty obvious that what is happening is that (mostly) not-gay people are using gays and gay rights to stick it (ha) to other unrelated people and groups they don't like (American social conservatives apparently). In their heart of heart's they really don't give a flying fuck about gay's or gay issues. Their actual focus is on other people and issues.

In reality when the backlash comes, as a result of actions like those of Chicago's and Boston's mayors, gay people will be in a worse position than they were before their "cause" become the cause du jour . As usual Mark Steyn has deconstructed this issue perfectly here:

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/3...mark-steyn

Personally I have no issue with homosexuals, and am generally very tolerant, but even I can see that the left wing proponents have become outright fascists with respect to this issue.