PDA

View Full Version : Today is Chick-Fil-A Appreciation Day!



Hubie
08-01-2012, 12:57 PM
By the numbers:

https://www.facebook.com/events/266281243473841/

Going: over 615k

Declined: only about 159k

:friendly_wink:

And some news reports:

http://www.wvmetronews.com/news.cfm?func=displayfullstory&storyid=54125

http://www.myfoxtampabay.com/story/19169187/2012/08/01/supporters-crowd-area-chick-fil-a-locations

http://www.witn.com/home/headlines/Checking-Out-Local-Chick-fil-As-On-This-National-Appreciation-Day-164604436.html

This is so awesome! Thank you, America! :love_heart:


By the way, there's no Chick-Fil-A anywhere close to where I live, so if someone is so inclined, please buy an extra meal in my honor and give it to someone in need in Jesus' name.

LukeEDay
08-01-2012, 01:14 PM
I hope the turn out is huge.

Gina
08-01-2012, 01:52 PM
Allen West volunteers and interns at the campaign HQ in Stuart before enioying some Chick-fil-A for lunch today.

https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/406188_10151380709366729_2099238548_n.jpg

greenhornet-1
08-01-2012, 02:05 PM
WOW, that looks good!!!! GO Allen West!!!!

Rockntractor
08-01-2012, 02:13 PM
All of them are packed in Tulsa with parking overflowing into surrounding businesses, news reporting some streets blocked.

Gina
08-01-2012, 02:18 PM
All of them are packed in Tulsa with parking overflowing into surrounding businesses, news reporting some streets blocked.

I hope they have record sales, and then give a media announcement about which anti-lib places will get big donations. :thumbsup:

Hubie
08-01-2012, 02:45 PM
The pics from the media and from people posting on CFA's Facebook page are amazing! Dan Cathy's probably got tears in his eyes today. The queer "kiss-in" planned for Friday will be an absolute joke in the face of this.

linda22003
08-01-2012, 02:48 PM
I don't "appreciate" any fast food, but it has nothing to do with politics.

FlaGator
08-01-2012, 03:16 PM
The wife and I are planning on getting a couple of chicken sandwiches after church tonight.

Rockntractor
08-01-2012, 03:26 PM
I don't "appreciate" any fast food, but it has nothing to do with politics.

You must have really burned the candle at both ends when you were younger to get in the shape you are now!http://www.smiley-lol.com/smiley/tristes/striste.gif

SarasotaRepub
08-01-2012, 03:33 PM
The DUmmies are NOT happy. (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021057519) :biggrin-new:

Bailey
08-01-2012, 03:38 PM
I don't "appreciate" any fast food, but it has nothing to do with politics.

No one cares, Mrs wet blanket.

LukeEDay
08-01-2012, 04:03 PM
Fox News is reporting about it now. They are going to have Mike Huckabee on here soon.

Elspeth
08-01-2012, 04:14 PM
Great news! I hope they break the bank today.

Hubie
08-01-2012, 04:21 PM
CBS Atlanta decided not to cover the event because it wasn't a protest:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IOLHsrJ4Gak


Media bias? What media bias?

Hubie
08-01-2012, 04:22 PM
The DUmmies are NOT happy. (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021057519) :biggrin-new:

ROFLMBO!!!! Their annoyance is delicious! So, so very delicious. Almost as delicious as Chick-Fil-A, I bet. And I guarantee there will be zero traffic jams on Friday's queer "kiss-in."

Janice
08-01-2012, 04:28 PM
http://i.imgur.com/es9uH.jpg

Local Republican leaders react to Chick-fil-A controversy

CHICAGO (WLS) - The latest in the Chick-fil-A flap finds leaders of the Chicago Republican Party asking Attorney General Lisa Madigan to investigate.

Even though it's been all talk and no action so far, Chicago Republicans say it still violates state law for Alderman Moreno to say he'll block a Logan Square Chick-fil-A because the company boss is against same-sex marriage.

But does Chicago GOP vice-chairman Chris Cleveland actually expect state Democratic Chairman and House Speaker Madigan's daughter Attorney General Lisa Madigan to take this seriously?

"Well that's a very sad question. We're asking the attorney general to enforce the law. Now some have said that Attorney General Lisa Madigan is unwilling to investigate political corruption, particularly corruption in her own party. We are providing her with an opportunity to prove her critics wrong."

89WLS (http://wlsam.com/Article.asp?id=2504839)
PHOTO GALLERY: Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day Lines (http://www.wlsam.com/photoWallPhoto.asp?wallID=70602&photoID=5066006)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7bH2Ik0M8nw

Generation Why?
08-01-2012, 04:30 PM
Well I see both sides handled this situation rather immaturely. How very American...

JB
08-01-2012, 04:40 PM
The DUmmies are NOT happy. (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021057519) :biggrin-new:Great thread. Those are some tasty tears they have going on over there right now.



Response to Dkc05 (Original post)

NightWatcher (18,388 posts)

1. every good christian was told to eat mor chicken today

makes as much sense as a bunny laying and hiding colored eggs
Yeah because every "Not one damn dime day" made perfect sense and were wildly successful. :rolleyes:

LukeEDay
08-01-2012, 04:42 PM
http://i.imgur.com/es9uH.jpg


I laughed at the guy standing there with a box that says 'Buy lunch for Moreno' .. LOL

JB
08-01-2012, 04:59 PM
Well I see both sides handled this situation rather immaturely. How very American...?

Some folks want to boycott the place, some folks want to support it.

It's called an exchange of ideas. Isn't that part of what the country was built on?

Novaheart
08-01-2012, 05:02 PM
The wife and I are planning on getting a couple of chicken sandwiches after church tonight.

Guessing that you aren't Catholic, Episcopalian, Methodist, or any other mainstream denomination.

Madisonian
08-01-2012, 05:07 PM
The DUmmies are NOT happy. (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021057519) :biggrin-new:


Dkc05
Chick-Fil-a WTF is going on.
They have caused traffic jams all over KC. I was driving around for busines today and twice got stuck in traffic for over thirty minutes due to extreme traffic caused by their crap. The authorites need to move this traffic on as its wrong to create a nuisance and safety issue for drivers.

Can you say OWS or Madison, Wisconsin?
For that matter, can you spell?

Generation Why?
08-01-2012, 05:12 PM
?

Some folks want to boycott the place, some folks want to support it.

It's called an exchange of ideas. Isn't that part of what the country was built on?

I see where you're going, JB. Allow me to clarify:

Dan Cathy makes comments.
Libs and Gays create unnecessary uproar.
Issue becomes *news*
Republicans blow it up even more by not (for the most part) just brushing it off.
Libs and Gays continue to bitch.
Republicans continue to put fuel on the fire.
Chick Fil A Appreciation Day. Protests, Calls for Boycotts, and Supporters.


I would like to think that if Dan Cathy says his piece, the Libs flip out, and the Republicans say nothing and don't have this Appreciation Day shenanigans, there is not AS MUCH boycott and protest talk, and therefore would have died down quicker than it will. I just think both sides acted like middle school girls in the situation. Boycott, protest, and support your hearts out. It is your Constitutional right to do so. But that doesn't make you any smarter for partaking.

On a side note, being from North Carolina, I really want some Chick Fil A right now but the closest one is in Boise, Idaho.

JB
08-01-2012, 05:13 PM
Guessing that you aren't Catholic, Episcopalian, Methodist, or any other mainstream denomination.I can't speak for the other two but why are you guessing that he could not be Catholic?

And whatever answer you give is going to be a huge Fail. You really need to stop discussing religion. You have shown time and time again that you know nothing about it.

Novaheart
08-01-2012, 05:13 PM
From the article I read today, you all are cheering a corporation which has donated money to deprive your family members of equal rights and/or exploit some gay people who have already been terribly harmed by such bigotry. You must be terribly proud of that.

Generation Why?
08-01-2012, 05:16 PM
From the article I read today, you all are cheering a corporation which has donated money to deprive your family members of equal rights and/or exploit some gay people who have already been terribly harmed by such bigotry. You must be terribly proud of that.

What they do with their money is their business.

Gina
08-01-2012, 05:19 PM
https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc7/392365_389865487734289_771461847_n.jpg

JB
08-01-2012, 05:22 PM
From the article I read today, you all are cheering a corporation which has donated money to deprive your family members of equal rights and/or exploit some gay people who have already been terribly harmed by such bigotry. You must be terribly proud of that.This one time at band camp...

LukeEDay
08-01-2012, 05:33 PM
From the article I read today, you all are cheering a corporation which has donated money to deprive your family members of equal rights and/or exploit some gay people who have already been terribly harmed by such bigotry. You must be terribly proud of that.

Yes, I am terribly proud of it. I am terribly proud that people are showing their 1st amendment right. This has nothing to do with religion or what causes people pay money to. It is about free speech, which the liberals try to take away from people because they don't like their opinions, and want to silence everyone. You have to remember that the liberals have an ideology of 'Free speech for me, but for thee'. Sure everyone claims to be for free speech, but when something is said against their (liberals) beliefs or (liberals) views, they (liberals) don't like it and cry fowl.

You would think that the liberals know what can happen after the dixie chick fiasco. What they did here, just shows that they never learn.

Madisonian
08-01-2012, 05:37 PM
From the article I read today, you all are cheering a corporation which has donated money to deprive your family members of equal rights and/or exploit some gay people who have already been terribly harmed by such bigotry. You must be terribly proud of that.

I have a slightly different take on it.
I think what we are seeing is common people doing what they can to send a big "Fuck You" to governmental overreach and political posturing.
Until a few weeks ago, I could not have told you the name of anyone from Chick-Fil-A if you promised me a winning Powerball lottery ticket and I am sure that most people were in the same position.
Then the politicians opened their mouths, promptly inserted their feet, the shit hit the fan and more people can name the CEO of CFA than can probably name the Treasury Secretary of the US.

While I have never eaten there, possibly never will and don't necessarily agree with Mr. Cathy, he still has the right to say what he want, fund what he wants and build stores where he wants in compliance with local laws.

If Mr. Cathy's position is so distasteful to that many people, it presents the perfect opportunity for the LGBTWXYZ community to open up a competing franchise and put their money where their mouth is.

JB
08-01-2012, 05:46 PM
If Mr. Cathy's position is so distasteful to that many people, it presents the perfect opportunity for the LGBTWXYZ community to open up a competing franchise and put their money where their mouth is.They could call it Gaybirds.

FlaGator
08-01-2012, 05:49 PM
Guessing that you aren't Catholic, Episcopalian, Methodist, or any other mainstream denomination.

I am Episcopalian and I'm an elder at my parish and serve as Vestry Secretary. I have been ordained and licensed by my Diocese as a Eurchrist minister and Lector.

Gina
08-01-2012, 05:50 PM
https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/557315_269292616510862_1696529597_n.jpg

Rockntractor
08-01-2012, 05:57 PM
Well I see both sides handled this situation rather immaturely. How very American...

The whole world is fucked up but you.
http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv230/upyourstruly/d4a.jpg

FlaGator
08-01-2012, 05:59 PM
From the article I read today, you all are cheering a corporation which has donated money to deprive your family members of equal rights and/or exploit some gay people who have already been terribly harmed by such bigotry. You must be terribly proud of that.

So it is OK to respond to what you perceive bigotry by the Church with bigotry and intolerance? Calling for the boycott and attempting to harm a business and it's workers because of the beliefs it expresses is just a bigoted as those you deny gays jobs, career advancement, housing, etc.

Can you show me how Chick-fil-A has exploited or harmed a single homosexual?

You talk about rights but as an atheist can you tell me where those rights come from? Who grants the rights that you feel have denied to homosexuals?

Generation Why?
08-01-2012, 06:01 PM
The whole world is fucked up but you.


Oh I am sure I have my problems. I just think this could have been handled a lot better. There is no reason for this to have become as big of a story as it is. Yet it is a big story because people are stubborn.

Generation Why?
08-01-2012, 06:05 PM
So it is OK to respond to what you perceive bigotry by the Church with bigotry and intolerance? Calling for the boycott and attempting to harm a business and it's workers because of the beliefs it expresses is just a bigoted as those you deny gays jobs, career advancement, housing, etc.

Can you show me how Chick-fil-A has exploited or harmed a single homosexual?

You talk about rights but as an atheist can you tell me where those rights come from? Who grants the rights that you feel have denied to homosexuals?


I believe in Free Will, so my rights come from the fact that I was born. (Personal viewpoint. I am sure other Atheists have different thoughts) And when it comes to social issues, it appears that the government regulates the rights. What with DOMA and everything.

JB
08-01-2012, 06:09 PM
...It's pouring rain out. There's a CFA right down the road. Now I have to go check it out.

Instead of just driving by maybe I'll go in. I'll think up a good bouncy between now and when I get back.

FlaGator
08-01-2012, 06:11 PM
Oh I am sure I have my problems. I just think this could have been handled a lot better. There is no reason for this to have become as big of a story as it is. Yet it is a big story because people are stubborn.

It's a big story because the libs wanted to make it a big story. People like Rahm Emanuel and Joe Moreno and Joe Moreno decided to weigh in on the topic publicly and attempt to illegally deny Chick-fil-A the opportunity to grow their business. If the supporters of same sex marriage had not have raised the bar to begin with then there would have been no Chick-fil-A Appreciation day and this would not have even been a footnote in the history of 2012.

Comments where made, the left raised the ante and Huckabee called. Now you claim the conservatives should have behaved better?

FlaGator
08-01-2012, 06:17 PM
I believe in Free Will, so my rights come from the fact that I was born. (Personal viewpoint. I am sure other Atheists have different thoughts) And when it comes to social issues, it appears that the government regulates the rights. What with DOMA and everything.

You have rights because you where born? Why? What are they and how do you know about them?

Generation Why?
08-01-2012, 06:17 PM
It's a big story because the libs wanted to make it a big story. People like Rahm Emanuel and Joe Moreno and Joe Moreno decided to weigh in on the topic publicly and attempt to illegally deny Chick-fil-A the opportunity to grow their business. If the supporters of same sex marriage had not have raised the bar to begin with then there would have been no Chick-fil-A Appreciation day and this would not have even been a footnote in the history of 2012.

Comments where made, the left raised the ante and Huckabee called. Now you claim the conservatives should have behaved better?

I feel that if something is a non-issue in the broad scheme of things, don't push the issue. The Dems pushed the issue. It could have stopped with them whining as per usual. Instead, Republicans pushed back and from there it was just bouncing back and forth and gaining momentum. So yes, if you want to say "behave better" that is how I feel. I would use the term "Back off and let them bitch about it" or "Be the better man". This would have blown over a lot quicker.

Generation Why?
08-01-2012, 06:18 PM
You have rights because you where born? Why? What are they and how do you know about them?

I have the right to do whatever I want within the confines of the Constitution. And my rights are the rights to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

FlaGator
08-01-2012, 06:24 PM
I feel that if something is a non-issue in the broad scheme of things, don't push the issue. The Dems pushed the issue. It could have stopped with them whining as per usual. Instead, Republicans pushed back and from there it was just bouncing back and forth and gaining momentum. So yes, if you want to say "behave better" that is how I feel. I would use the term "Back off and let them bitch about it" or "Be the better man". This would have blown over a lot quicker.

You feel this is a non-issue but what about others who feel differently?

Let's use your logic. By responding to me are you not simply escalating the debate about a non issue. If it is a non issue to you then why comment on how others escalated it. I made my comment and you pushed back and now I am responding and in the end you are engaging in the same activity that you said shouldn't have taken place to begin with.

FlaGator
08-01-2012, 06:27 PM
I have the right to do whatever I want within the confines of the Constitution. And my rights are the rights to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

So you have these rights simply by being born or do you have these rights because they have been defined by the Constitution?

Generation Why?
08-01-2012, 06:30 PM
You feel this is a non-issue but what about others who feel differently?

Let's use your logic. By responding to me are you not simply escalating the debate about a non issue. If it is a non issue to you then why comment on how others escalated it. I made my comment and you pushed back and now I am responding and in the end you are engaging in the same activity that you said shouldn't have taken place to begin with.

I am clarifying myself, not in an attempt to escalate anything. I will leave it at this:

I am in the unfortunate position of supporting both gays rights to marry and Chik-Fil-A's rights to do business and have free speech. Basically everybody hates me. Whether I was on this board or DU, I wouldn't win. I just really can't stand talking to Democrats so I keep it over here where I share the same thoughts on some things.

FlaGator
08-01-2012, 06:41 PM
I am clarifying myself, not in an attempt to escalate anything. I will leave it at this:

I am in the unfortunate position of supporting both gays rights to marry and Chik-Fil-A's rights to do business and have free speech. Basically everybody hates me. Whether I was on this board or DU, I wouldn't win. I just really can't stand talking to Democrats so I keep it over here where I share the same thoughts on some things.

And I am happy to hear your thoughts and it is my pleasure to have opportunity of exchanging thoughts with you.

MountainMan
08-01-2012, 07:31 PM
Closest Chick Fil-A is in Boise. Id. I'm hoping they get one up here near the bases soon. God knows they would want to avoid Seattle proper.

linda22003
08-01-2012, 07:52 PM
No one cares, Mrs wet blanket.

YOU should absolutely eat all you can hold at EVERY opportunity. Every day! :smile-new:

linda22003
08-01-2012, 07:54 PM
I do have to wonder if people would support a chain of "healthy salad" restaurants so passionately. :biggrin-new: I was reading some of the responses at FR today, and while they were congratulating each other on eating at a fast food place, they were indignantly planning to boycott Amazon because Jeff Bezos gave millions in support of gay marriage. I suppose they would define "irony" as being like "goldy" or "bronzy". :cool:

linda22003
08-01-2012, 07:55 PM
I am in the unfortunate position of supporting both gays rights to marry and Chik-Fil-A's rights to do business and have free speech.

You're not alone.

Rockntractor
08-01-2012, 08:01 PM
I do have to wonder if people would support a chain of "healthy salad" restaurants so passionately. :biggrin-new: I was reading some of the responses at FR today, and while they were congratulating each other on eating at a fast food place, they were indignantly planning to boycott Amazon because Jeff Bezos gave millions in support of gay marriage. I suppose they would define "irony" as being like "goldy" or "bronzy". :cool:

Complex carbohydrates are healthy but proteins and fats aren't, is this a personal finding of yours?

Bailey
08-01-2012, 08:03 PM
YOU should absolutely eat all you can hold at EVERY opportunity. Every day! :smile-new:



Why is it you and the resident queer want me to die of heart disease? Looks like Nova has a new fag hag. :evil-grin:

Bailey
08-01-2012, 08:05 PM
You're not alone.

You know what Mr miagi said(from the first karate kid said) left side of the road good right side of good, middle of the road squish like grape.

Rockntractor
08-01-2012, 08:24 PM
Why is it you and the resident queer want me to die of heart disease? Looks like Nova has a new fag hag. :evil-grin:

If they charged three times as much and served it with a fresh sprig of parsley and a cloth napkin Linda would like Chic-Fil-A just fine.

Gina
08-01-2012, 08:27 PM
https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/527425_269318613174929_1485598124_n.jpg

LukeEDay
08-01-2012, 08:29 PM
Frankly, the only bigots I saw in this whole ordeal are the liberals.

Gina
08-01-2012, 08:35 PM
It's pouring rain out. There's a CFA right down the road. Now I have to go check it out.

Instead of just driving by maybe I'll go in. I'll think up a good bouncy between now and when I get back.

Yay!

Bailey
08-01-2012, 08:39 PM
If they charged three times as much and served it with a fresh sprig of parsley and a cloth napkin Linda would like Chic-Fil-A just fine.

And wine dont forget a good Chardonnay and fava fava beans

Rockntractor
08-01-2012, 08:41 PM
They need to deliver Rahm a sandwich with a thank you note.

JB
08-01-2012, 08:42 PM
...they were congratulating each other on eating at a fast food place, they were indignantly planning to boycott Amazon because Jeff Bezos gave millions in support of gay marriage. I suppose they would define "irony" as being like "goldy" or "bronzy". :cool:What's ironic about that?

Bailey
08-01-2012, 08:46 PM
I could care less if the fags and dykes boycott CFA, what i do care about is the govt (mayors of Chicago, Boston) trying to use their power to shut them down just because the CEO has an opinion they don't like. I know Lindanumbers you dont care and think that isn't a big deal but if you pay attention you can see mayors all over this country starting to regulate your behavior or punishing your speech. Well keep not getting worked up about it.

ABC in Georgia
08-01-2012, 09:15 PM
CBS Atlanta decided not to cover the event because it wasn't a protest:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IOLHsrJ4Gak


Media bias? What media bias?

Loved it Hubie! ... :applause: :applause:

Guy doing the talking to the news truck folks ... was a lot more polite than I would have been tempted to be! Can tell you that!

~ ABC

Retread
08-01-2012, 09:57 PM
...................... And I guarantee there will be zero traffic jams on Friday's queer "kiss-in."

I'll bet there are but it will be the same as today - customers spending and 'appreciating.' The line here in Egypt will stick out into the FM at noon.

ABC in Georgia
08-01-2012, 10:00 PM
Well I see both sides handled this situation rather immaturely. How very American...

Oh my!

Still just a tad "wet behind the ears" I see, Gen Why.

If *now* is not the time to stand up and support (no not Chick-fil-A, per se ... but their freedom of speech to express their personal opinion in this country... then when is it, huh?

Sure as the dickens if we let the libs in power get away with it now... we will no-way-in-bloody-hell be able to stop it ... if this fool in office is re-elected!

Come on ... open those little eyes darlin' ... just try!

Ayn Rand, a fave of mine as well, although an atheist ... didn't have to deal with the ridiculous libs that are out there now!

~ ABC

Novaheart
08-01-2012, 11:20 PM
I am Episcopalian and I'm an elder at my parish and serve as Vestry Secretary. I have been ordained and licensed by my Diocese as a Eurchrist minister and Lector.

Real Episcopalian or some kind of breakaway version? I was baptized and confirmed in the Episcopal Church and I have never heard anyone referred to as an "elder". I've only known Mormons and fundies to use that title. Neither can I recall ever going to church on Wednesday (except Wednesday morning in Catholic school), unless you simply mean going to the church rather than attending services. Maybe there was Evening Prayer now and then, but one would have to be terribly bored to attend that. I've also never been served communion by a lay person in the Diocese of Easton, Washington, or

Novaheart
08-01-2012, 11:23 PM
I can't speak for the other two but why are you guessing that he could not be Catholic?

And whatever answer you give is going to be a huge Fail. You really need to stop discussing religion. You have shown time and time again that you know nothing about it.

Yeah, all those years of A's in religion class in Catholic school did me no good.

Rockntractor
08-01-2012, 11:28 PM
Yeah, all those years of A's in religion class in Catholic school did me no good.

What made you such a mess? I doubt it was Catholic school.

Novaheart
08-02-2012, 12:16 AM
What made you such a mess? I doubt it was Catholic school.

I'm a mess? Most people think I am a saint.

Rockntractor
08-02-2012, 12:22 AM
I'm a mess? Most people think I am a saint.

This is who I picture when you post.
http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv230/upyourstruly/picasso1.jpg

RobJohnson
08-02-2012, 03:58 AM
They could call it Gaybirds.

:rotfl:

RobJohnson
08-02-2012, 04:02 AM
I do have to wonder if people would support a chain of "healthy salad" restaurants so passionately. :biggrin-new: I was reading some of the responses at FR today, and while they were congratulating each other on eating at a fast food place, they were indignantly planning to boycott Amazon because Jeff Bezos gave millions in support of gay marriage. I suppose they would define "irony" as being like "goldy" or "bronzy". :cool:


Have you ever seen CFA's menu?

http://www.chick-fil-a.com/Food/Menu-Detail/ChickfilA-Chargrilled-Chicken-Garden-Salad#?details=desc

RobJohnson
08-02-2012, 04:08 AM
Real Episcopalian or some kind of breakaway version? I was baptized and confirmed in the Episcopal Church and I have never heard anyone referred to as an "elder". I've only known Mormons and fundies to use that title. Neither can I recall ever going to church on Wednesday (except Wednesday morning in Catholic school), unless you simply mean going to the church rather than attending services. Maybe there was Evening Prayer now and then, but one would have to be terribly bored to attend that. I've also never been served communion by a lay person in the Diocese of Easton, Washington, or

I can name at least 50 churches off the top of my head that have Wednesday night services. It was very popular in the Midwest as the farmers often had to be in the field on Sundays to beat the rain and others liked the spiritual boost midweek and youth activities for the kids.

linda22003
08-02-2012, 08:57 AM
Have you ever seen CFA's menu?

http://www.chick-fil-a.com/Food/Menu-Detail/ChickfilA-Chargrilled-Chicken-Garden-Salad#?details=desc

Thanks for the info. I looked at all of the menu items, and that salad is the ONE thing I can eat. Nice to know that if we get stuck on a road trip with no other options, I'll be okay.

And no, that wasn't a snarky comment. Some of us have to be more careful (medically) with our diets than we might otherwise choose to be. :blue:

Hubie
08-02-2012, 09:41 AM
You know what Mr miagi said(from the first karate kid said) left side of the road good right side of good, middle of the road squish like grape.


I like this better (skip to 2:38 or so):


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Y8I9S7wvk4

Gina
08-02-2012, 09:52 AM
There's nothing unusual about Wednesday night at church. Bible studies, kid's activities. It's not Sunday so I don't see what the big deal is about going out to eat after. Unless Nova is just trying to be an ass.

https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/557391_432254180146925_438270702_n.jpg

Hubie
08-02-2012, 10:02 AM
There's nothing unusual about Wednesday night at church. Bible studies, kid's activities. It's not Sunday so I don't see what the big deal is about going out to eat after. Unless Nova is just trying to be an ass.

https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/557391_432254180146925_438270702_n.jpg



Sweet!

FlaGator
08-02-2012, 10:17 AM
Real Episcopalian or some kind of breakaway version? I was baptized and confirmed in the Episcopal Church and I have never heard anyone referred to as an "elder". I've only known Mormons and fundies to use that title. Neither can I recall ever going to church on Wednesday (except Wednesday morning in Catholic school), unless you simply mean going to the church rather than attending services. Maybe there was Evening Prayer now and then, but one would have to be terribly bored to attend that. I've also never been served communion by a lay person in the Diocese of Easton, Washington, or

Real Episcopalian. Many Episcopal Parishes hold bible study on Wednesdays. Some offer communion. Once every month or two we hold a prayer meeting on Wednesday in lieu of Bible Study.

As for communion I cannot bless the host and wine but a Eucharist Minister assists the priest. Generally we have our priest and one lay person act to serve the host and 4 lay chalice bearers who server the wine. Eucharist Ministers can also visit shut-ins and perform the communion server with the host and wine blessed by the priest before visiting.

If you're interested http://www.stpetersjax.org/

Look under ministries\lay ministries for the role and function of Eucharist Ministers and Lectors.

Zathras
08-02-2012, 10:25 AM
There's nothing unusual about Wednesday night at church. Bible studies, kid's activities. It's not Sunday so I don't see what the big deal is about going out to eat after. Nova is just being an ass.

FIFY

FlaGator
08-02-2012, 10:34 AM
There's nothing unusual about Wednesday night at church. Bible studies, kid's activities. It's not Sunday so I don't see what the big deal is about going out to eat after. Unless Nova is just trying to be an ass.

https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/557391_432254180146925_438270702_n.jpg

I live within walking distance of a large Methodist Church and a Baptist Church (next door to each other) and both offer Bible study on Wednesday night. My brother is a Deacon at a Pentalcostalist Chruch and they have Wednesday night services and Bible study. In fact it is common all over the south for Wednesday night services of one kind or another.

Hubie
08-02-2012, 10:57 AM
Rick Warren just tweeted that Dan Cathy talked to him and said yesterday Chick-Fil-A "set a world record." Don't know if that's official or figurative at this point.

Novaheart
08-02-2012, 11:49 AM
500 calories

21 grams of fat

1650 mg of sodium

Gina
08-02-2012, 11:53 AM
Someone is bitter.

Rockntractor
08-02-2012, 11:53 AM
500 calories

21 grams of fat

1650 mg of sodium

Probably not a good idea if you have acquired an immune deficiency of some sort.

Rockntractor
08-02-2012, 11:54 AM
Someone is bitter.

Actually he is a little to sweet.

Gina
08-02-2012, 11:56 AM
Actually he is a little to sweet.

I'm not asking how you know. Let's just smile, nod and walk away. :biggrin-new:

Novaheart
08-02-2012, 11:59 AM
Someone is bitter.

Have as many of those sandwiches as you like. I'll still to avocado, sprouts, and tomato.

Gina
08-02-2012, 12:01 PM
Have as many of those sandwiches as you like. I'll still to avocado, sprouts, and tomato.

No chick-fil-a around here. I like Subway. :smile-new:

Rockntractor
08-02-2012, 12:04 PM
Have as many of those sandwiches as you like. I'll still to avocado, sprouts, and tomato.

I bet avocado sprouts are huge!

Novaheart
08-02-2012, 12:08 PM
No chick-fil-a around here. I like Subway. :smile-new:

Subway is the only saving grace on I-10 and I-40. Veggie sub: no guilt, no salt/fat hangover.

Hubie
08-02-2012, 12:11 PM
Have as many of those sandwiches as you like. I'll still to avocado, sprouts, and tomato.

And you undoubtedly shit like a cow. Whatever floats your boat.

Novaheart
08-02-2012, 12:12 PM
And you undoubtedly shit like a cow. Whatever floats your boat.

Standing up?

Rockntractor
08-02-2012, 12:18 PM
Standing up?

I'd ask if you have ever been tipped over while sleeping but I don't think that would go well.http://gfxlovers.com/smilies/imgs/scared/scared003.gif (http://gfxlovers.com/smilies)

Generation Why?
08-02-2012, 12:23 PM
Oh my!

Still just a tad "wet behind the ears" I see, Gen Why.

If *now* is not the time to stand up and support (no not Chick-fil-A, per se ... but their freedom of speech to express their personal opinion in this country... then when is it, huh?

Sure as the dickens if we let the libs in power get away with it now... we will no-way-in-bloody-hell be able to stop it ... if this fool in office is re-elected!

Come on ... open those little eyes darlin' ... just try!

Ayn Rand, a fave of mine as well, although an atheist ... didn't have to deal with the ridiculous libs that are out there now!

~ ABC



I support freedom of speech. I am talking about everything that happened after the comments. It started out with dislike, then turned into a shouting match and ended with such a childish stand for or aaginst a company because of ONE MAN'S words.

Generation Why?
08-02-2012, 12:28 PM
Closest Chick Fil-A is in Boise. Id. I'm hoping they get one up here near the bases soon. God knows they would want to avoid Seattle proper.

That really pissed me off about two weeks ago when I was craving it.

AmPat
08-02-2012, 12:28 PM
Subway is the only saving grace on I-10 and I-40. Veggie sub: no guilt, no salt/fat hangover.
Have you tried grazing. Works for cows, why not the lazy?:friendly_wink:

Generation Why?
08-02-2012, 12:29 PM
And I am happy to hear your thoughts and it is my pleasure to have opportunity of exchanging thoughts with you.

It is a pleasure. Go Bulldogs! (Or whatever they say to piss off Gator fans)

Rockntractor
08-02-2012, 12:31 PM
Have you tried grazing. Works for cows, why not the lazy?:friendly_wink:

If I saw him out in the pasture on all four I would get my gun......or maybe the billy goat.

Novaheart
08-02-2012, 12:37 PM
... aaginst a company because of ONE MAN'S words.

It's not simply one man's words. It is corporate culture.

“Guilty as charged,”, Cathy said when asked about his company’s support of the traditional family unit as opposed to gay marriage.

“We are very much supportive of the family — the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that,” Cathy is quoted as saying.

Now, let us allow that this is not directed at gay people (since that is now the claim of Cathy) , who exactly is "we"? Perhaps it's simply a confusion of sentence structure, but in that sentence "we" is not limited to his family, it's a reference to the business. "We" are a business, which is presumably not entirely staffed by his blood relations, and therefore to claim that "we are married to our first wives" suggests a uniformity in that business not naturally occurring today, and thus is a function of corporate culture or direction. These are not assumptions, this is the application of logic and language. If this is not the case then it behooves Cathy to make it clear that conforming to his religious ideas and practices is not a condition of employment or advancement in the executive pool.

FlaGator
08-02-2012, 12:39 PM
It's not simply one man's words. It is corporate culture.

“Guilty as charged,”, Cathy said when asked about his company’s support of the traditional family unit as opposed to gay marriage.

“We are very much supportive of the family — the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that,” Cathy is quoted as saying.

Now, let us allow that this is not directed at gay people (since that is now the claim of Cathy) , who exactly is "we"? Perhaps it's simply a confusion of sentence structure, but in that sentence "we" is not limited to his family, it's a reference to the business. "We" are a business, which is presumably not entirely staffed by his blood relations, and therefore to claim that "we are married to our first wives" suggests a uniformity in that business not naturally occurring today, and thus is a function of corporate culture or direction. These are not assumptions, this is the application of logic and language. If this is not the case then it behooves Cathy to make it clear that conforming to his religious ideas and practices is not a condition of employment or advancement in the executive pool.

In this case I would interpret "we" to mean people who feel has he does whether involved in the corporation or those outside the corporation.

Gina
08-02-2012, 12:41 PM
Conservatives don't like Ben & Jerry. Yet somehow we carry on.

Take Chick-fil-A personally Nova. It really will make a difference. :rolleyes:

Generation Why?
08-02-2012, 01:01 PM
Conservatives don't like Ben & Jerry. Yet somehow we carry on.

Take Chick-fil-A personally Nova. It really will make a difference. :rolleyes:

Personally I think Ben and Jerry's and Chick-Fil-A are awesome

Novaheart
08-02-2012, 01:03 PM
In this case I would interpret "we" to mean people who feel has he does whether involved in the corporation or those outside the corporation.

We are a family-owned business,

FlaGator
08-02-2012, 01:39 PM
We are a family-owned business,

You are right and I did misunderstand his meaning but that doesn't change much. He still meant "we" to refer to those who hold the same values as he does when he has with in the business.

"We are very much supportive of the family -- the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that...we know that it might not be popular with everyone, but thank the Lord, we live in a country where we can share our values and operate on biblical principles."

I don't think that he is referring to the individual franchise owners although he may have been. He is referring to corporate management and his family's involvement. His family does own the business and they work for the business. As family patriarch he has the right to speak for his family.

Gina
08-02-2012, 01:43 PM
As an American he has the right to speak. Nova is quick to remind us of his first amendment rights but would rather Dan Cathy not be afforded the same.

LukeEDay
08-02-2012, 01:50 PM
This whole thing was a fact of 'Free speech for me, but not for thee'.... Plain and simple. I am happy with the turn out, and I hope it keeps up.

As for Ben and Jerry's - I love Ben and Jerry's. I also have to support a Penn State Grad in his wonderful ice cream. I don't care what his personal and political views are, their ice cream is pants.

If I didn't like peoples personal and political views, I wouldn't be watching any tv shows, watching any movies, listening to any music, or reading any books.

Something else - Apple Corporation: They support gay marriage and support groups to make it legal. I am such a boycotter though because all I use is Macbook Pro, iPod, and iPhone. Dang, how could I be so bigoted and discriminatory?

Gina
08-02-2012, 02:20 PM
Good video at link!
Link (http://mrctv.org/videos/checking-out-chick-fil-appreciation-day)

In the wake of attacks against the Chick-fil-A fast food restaurant for its owner's stance of gay marriage, Mike Huckabee decided to organize "Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day" on August 1st, so that supporters of traditional marriage and freedom of speech could show their support for the organization.

MRCTV traveled to several Chick-fil-A locations around the DC area to see whether or not people would heed the call to support the Chick-fil-A franchise.

LukeEDay
08-02-2012, 02:27 PM
Good video at link!
Link (http://mrctv.org/videos/checking-out-chick-fil-appreciation-day)

That was good.

Novaheart
08-02-2012, 02:50 PM
As an American he has the right to speak. Nova is quick to remind us of his first amendment rights but would rather Dan Cathy not be afforded the same.

Mulefritters. Not once have I opposed Dan Cathy's right to say anything he pleases. The First Amendment protects you from government backlash for political speech and has been extended somewhat from there, as well as restricted in some ways. Dan Cathy has a right to say what he pleases and the public can respond in any legal fashion. If he breaks employment nondiscrimination laws, then that's another matter.

Hubie
08-02-2012, 03:05 PM
I think it's funny that CFA, unlike stores like Target, happily serves and employs anyone without having to pander to them in order to draw them in.

Hubie
08-02-2012, 03:10 PM
I guess some lone agent provocateur showed up at a CFA somewhere wearing a cow suit and holding up a Westboro Baptist Churchish sign. Saw a pic being passed around Twitter.

LukeEDay
08-02-2012, 03:12 PM
I guess some lone agent provocateur showed up at a CFA somewhere wearing a cow suit and holding up a Westboro Baptist Churchish sign. Saw a pic being passed around Twitter.

Yeah, where was the WBC in all of this? This would have been a protesting dream for them.

Hubie
08-02-2012, 03:46 PM
Forbes:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/derekbroes/2012/08/01/chic-fil-a-day/

Very much worth the read.

Hubie
08-02-2012, 05:26 PM
Watch all the way to the end. It's heartwarming:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HqkHCimnxvI

LukeEDay
08-02-2012, 05:40 PM
Watch all the way to the end. It's heartwarming:

That is great. Wouldn't it be awesome if Rahm lost his re-election? This would be one of the reasons why..

JB
08-02-2012, 05:45 PM
Yeah, all those years of A's in religion class in Catholic school did me no good.Obviously they didn't otherwise you wouldn't have been surprised that you could go to Mass in the evening.

I'll just continue to chalk it up to your general lack of knowledge of everything.

Madisonian
08-02-2012, 06:11 PM
Mulefritters. Not once have I opposed Dan Cathy's right to say anything he pleases. The First Amendment protects you from government backlash for political speech and has been extended somewhat from there, as well as restricted in some ways. Dan Cathy has a right to say what he pleases and the public can respond in any legal fashion. If he breaks employment nondiscrimination laws, then that's another matter.

This brings up an interesting conundrum.

According to the Federal Government Equal Employment Opportunity Law:

RACE, COLOR, RELIGION, SEX, NATIONAL ORIGIN
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, protects applicants and employees from discrimination in hiring, promotion, discharge, pay, fringe benefits, job training, classification, referral, and other aspects of employment, on the basis of race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy), or national origin. Religious discrimination includes failing to reasonably accommodate an employee’s religious practices where the accommodation does not impose undue hardship.

Note that it does not mention sexual partner preferences.

Now if you take that in combination with the Arizona immigration case in which the Federal government made the claim that because Immigration Law has been historically the domain of the Federal government (regardless that it is not a specifically enumerated power), then following that same line of reasoning, the US Department of Labor holds the reins of labor law and states cannot require a more liberal or restrictive policy than that required by the DOL.

So it would therefore hold that no state can have or enforce a policy that prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual partner preference status.
So if Chick-Fil-A wants to have a policy that denies employment on the basis of sexual partner preference status, they are entirely free by Federal law to do so. Same as they can discriminate based on hair color, dental condition, or anything else not specifically covered as quoted above.

RobJohnson
08-02-2012, 08:43 PM
Thanks for the info. I looked at all of the menu items, and that salad is the ONE thing I can eat. Nice to know that if we get stuck on a road trip with no other options, I'll be okay.

And no, that wasn't a snarky comment. Some of us have to be more careful (medically) with our diets than we might otherwise choose to be. :blue:

I totally understand the medical reasons for diet. I started to cook low fat for my father while I was still in high school after he had heart problems. It also helped me. This was when most store bought foods had not even thought about going "fat free." (80's)

My cholesterol tests in my 20's were always under 200 when I had co-workers testing at over 300...my blood test last month showed it at 153. I like to keep it that way and avoid the deep fryer as often as I can. I do cheat once in a while, but not very often.

My life is a bowl of egg whites! :adoration:

linda22003
08-02-2012, 08:47 PM
Good for you RobJohnson. Since December my cholesterol has gone from 211 to 162, and triglycerides from 180 down to 98. :smile-new:

RobJohnson
08-02-2012, 08:54 PM
I'm not asking how you know. Let's just smile, nod and walk away. :biggrin-new:


:lol:

Novaheart
08-02-2012, 08:58 PM
Note that it does not mention sexual partner preferences.



Doesn't need to if it falls under religious discrimination, and anti-gay discrimination seldom has anything to do with sex.




Now if you take that in combination with the Arizona immigration case in which the Federal government made the claim that because Immigration Law has been historically the domain of the Federal government (regardless that it is not a specifically enumerated power), then following that same line of reasoning, the US Department of Labor holds the reins of labor law and states cannot require a more liberal or restrictive policy than that required by the DOL.

No, your train of thought just went off the tracks. States may have more restrictive laws than the federal government, but they may not have less restrictive laws. Example: Florida can (and I think does) have a higher minwage than the fed requires, but it may not have a lower minwage.

Novaheart
08-02-2012, 09:53 PM
Obviously they didn't otherwise you wouldn't have been surprised that you could go to Mass in the evening.



You can do a lot of things, that doesn't mean that most or even half of everyone does. I forgot, what are your religious credentials?

Hubie
08-02-2012, 10:22 PM
Chick-Fil-A gave water to protesters! Priceless!

http://a.yfrog.com/img611/1285/z99bz.jpg

Hubie
08-02-2012, 10:34 PM
http://twitchy.com/2012/08/02/douche-of-the-day-tolerance-bully-proudly-harasses-young-woman-at-chick-fil-a-window/


Blogger Ace of Spades revised his Twitter bio and avatar to have a little fun at King Douche’s expense. Say hello to Johnny Douchechills:

Johnny Douchechills @AceofSpadesHQ

My next video will be me crapping my pants and walking down the street with a load. In protest of, uh, apartheid? is that still a thing?
2 Aug 12



Johnny Douchechills @AceofSpadesHQ

brb, fightin for freedom, one free water at a time
2 Aug 12



Johnny Douchechills @AceofSpadesHQ

brb, fightin the forces of hate by stiffing a Dominos delivery boy on his tip
2 Aug 12



Johnny Douchechills @AceofSpadesHQ

some people think i'm morally blind or can't see myself properly. Well, this HUGE GLOWING HALO around my head is pretty BRIGHT, okay?
2 Aug 12



Johnny Douchechills @AceofSpadesHQ

notice my tinted prescription douchebag glasses? That's to reduce the glare from my beautiful Halo of Heroism.

I laughed. Hard. :biggrin-new:

NJCardFan
08-03-2012, 02:04 AM
And wine dont forget a good Chardonnay and fava fava beans

That would be Chianti(coincidentally, I'm watching Silent of the Lambs right now and that scene is on as I type).

NJCardFan
08-03-2012, 02:10 AM
No chick-fil-a around here. I like Subway. :smile-new:

If you put a fresh turd on a roll and then a Subway sandwich side by side, there would be little difference.

NJCardFan
08-03-2012, 02:11 AM
I support freedom of speech. I am talking about everything that happened after the comments. It started out with dislike, then turned into a shouting match and ended with such a childish stand for or aaginst a company because of ONE MAN'S words.

Who started it genius?

NJCardFan
08-03-2012, 02:15 AM
Conservatives don't like Ben & Jerry. Yet somehow we carry on.

Take Chick-fil-A personally Nova. It really will make a difference. :rolleyes:

I had Ben & Jerry's tonight. I'm not thrilled with their politics but like their products. I'm still pissed they stopped making Wavy Gravy. That said, this is the stark difference between conservatives and liberals. Conservatives are willing to not let petty political differences cloud their judgement. Liberals get worked up like a child wanting a bottle when someone says something they disagree with.

Novaheart
08-03-2012, 11:02 AM
Conservatives are willing to not let petty political differences cloud their judgement.

Disney boycott?

Novaheart
08-03-2012, 11:07 AM
If you put a fresh turd on a roll and then a Subway sandwich side by side, there would be little difference.

That's unfair. I know what you mean, but it's still unfair. No one that I know of considers Subway to be a real sub (which as we know can only be found in Wildwood NJ, Fenwick Island DE, and Ocean City MD.). Subway is merely a sandwich they call a sub.

However, if you are ever in Florida, then get a sub from Publix supermarket deli. Damned close and better bread!

Generation Why?
08-03-2012, 01:00 PM
Who started it genius?

For the "Umpteenth" time, the Democrats started with the bitching and whining. That doesn't mean it had to be reciprocated. Especially something so minor.

AmPat
08-03-2012, 01:38 PM
For the "Umpteenth" time, the Democrats started with the bitching and whining. That doesn't mean it had to be reciprocated. Especially something so minor.
Your opinion is noted.

My opinion is to fight libertards wherever and whenever they pop up. Allowing the unchecked and unanswered attacks and lies allows these retards even more of a head start, something they don't need since the DIMoRATS already own the media..

Generation Why?
08-03-2012, 01:59 PM
Your opinion is noted.

My opinion is to fight libertards wherever and whenever they pop up. Allowing the unchecked and unanswered attacks and lies allows these retards even more of a head start, something they don't need since the DIMoRATS already own the media..

Your opinion is also noted. I understand the whole concept of answering back when challenged. I do not argue that. I argue if this was really that important in the first place to argue about. I don't think so. Everyone knew the Liberals were going to respond like this. Why bait them into getting more vocal about such an insignificant issue. Just wanted to clarify I am not saying not to defend your stances. I am saying pick your battles because this one shouldn't have happened. The Democrats would have complained for a week or two and then it would have gone away.

FlaGator
08-03-2012, 02:16 PM
Disney boycott?

That was more of a Christian thing than a conservative thing and I know very few Christians who observe this boycott other than Westbro Baptist and they probably can't afford the price of an admission ticket.

AmPat
08-03-2012, 07:06 PM
Your opinion is also noted. I understand the whole concept of answering back when challenged. I do not argue that. I argue if this was really that important in the first place to argue about. I don't think so. Everyone knew the Liberals were going to respond like this. Why bait them into getting more vocal about such an insignificant issue. Just wanted to clarify I am not saying not to defend your stances. I am saying pick your battles because this one shouldn't have happened. The Democrats would have complained for a week or two and then it would have gone away.
Surrender to your enemy is an endearing liberal trait, I choose to fight. The tards started this by attempting AGAIN, to shut down opinion. You may capitulate and cower, I like the fight.

Hubie
08-03-2012, 11:49 PM
For the "Umpteenth" time, the Democrats started with the bitching and whining. That doesn't mean it had to be reciprocated. Especially something so minor.

So, the 1st Amendment is "minor?"

Novaheart
08-04-2012, 07:41 AM
That was more of a Christian thing than a conservative thing.........

That's a distinction without a difference. The basis for anti-gay politics, if you are to believe that it is sincere, is religion. If you simply think that it's a good way to rally ignorant people, then those engaging in it have even less integrity than they did when hiding behind religion.

txradioguy
08-04-2012, 09:31 AM
That's a distinction without a difference.



Only if you refuse to understand and comprehend how the two can and often times are completely separate.

Rockntractor
08-04-2012, 09:40 AM
That's a distinction without a difference. The basis for anti-gay politics, if you are to believe that it is sincere, is religion. If you simply think that it's a good way to rally ignorant people, then those engaging in it have even less integrity than they did when hiding behind religion.

Interesting, in your world christian values are conservative values, Christians values are Gods values so that would mean that the values of the progressives are................






It all comes down to a battle between good and evil and deep down inside everyone knows it.

LukeEDay
08-04-2012, 12:42 PM
Interesting, in your world christian values are conservative values, Christians values are Gods values so that would mean that the values of the progressives are................






It all comes down to a battle between good and evil and deep down inside everyone knows it.

Progressives don't have values....... or morals, shame, or intelligence.

Odysseus
08-04-2012, 11:31 PM
Doesn't need to if it falls under religious discrimination, and anti-gay discrimination seldom has anything to do with sex.
It also has nothing to do with the law as written, for which Madisonian was good enough to provide the text. Why don't you respond to the argument that he presented, instead of the one that you wish he'd presented? And I seem to recall asking you to provide an example of CFA discriminating against gays, or anyone else. Still waiting.... :rolleyes:


No, your train of thought just went off the tracks. States may have more restrictive laws than the federal government, but they may not have less restrictive laws. Example: Florida can (and I think does) have a higher minwage than the fed requires, but it may not have a lower minwage.
Except that his argument is valid. The Arizona law was not less restrictive than the federal law, but matched it, almost word for word. The federal suit against Arizona argued that they were encroaching on federal law enforcement under the Supremacy Clause, not that they were imposing a different standard.


That's a distinction without a difference. The basis for anti-gay politics, if you are to believe that it is sincere, is religion. If you simply think that it's a good way to rally ignorant people, then those engaging in it have even less integrity than they did when hiding behind religion.
This is patently false. I've argued against gay marriage and DADT repeal without once citing a religious argument or source, and your response has always been to ignore the arguments and respond as if I'd made a religious argument. Once again, you are responding to the argument that you'd like us to make, instead of the arguments that we do make. There are valid arguments against redefining marriage to the point of irrelevance that have nothing to do with Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, Scientology or any other faith, but you can't counter them, so you default to the religious bigotry meme. This is grossly dishonest, but since you cannot counter these arguments any other way, you revert to slander and bullying, just like the clown who harassed a CFA employee and was stupid enough to put it on YouTube.

Hate to tell you this, but the vast majority don't see marriage the way that you do. It doesn't make us bigots, any more than calling us names makes you enlightened.

txradioguy
08-05-2012, 05:21 AM
This is patently false. I've argued against gay marriage and DADT repeal without once citing a religious argument or source, and your response has always been to ignore the arguments and respond as if I'd made a religious argument.

I don't think he...like most liberals...are capable if separating the two. They are programmed...like Pavlov's dogs to automatically believe that any opposition to their agenda HAS to be religious in nature. Facts to the contrary be dammed...you oppose the gay agenda...it's because you're a dirty fundie.

Odysseus
08-05-2012, 10:41 AM
I don't think he...like most liberals...are capable if separating the two. They are programmed...like Pavlov's dogs to automatically believe that any opposition to their agenda HAS to be religious in nature. Facts to the contrary be dammed...you oppose the gay agenda...it's because you're a dirty fundie.

It's not so much that they see all counter-arguments as religious, it's that they see all counter-arguments as illegitimate, and use whatever label they can in order to render the person putting forward the argument on the defensive, at best, and toxic, at worst. That's why the left's gay marriage debate never discusses the implications of redefining or diminishing the importance of marriage, and focuses solely on their characterization of their opponents as bigots and fanatics. If someone has to argue that the isn't a bigot or a loon, rather than address the substance of the issue, then the left wins, and if the person who has been slandered is cowed and driven from the debate entirely, then that is the left's ultimate victory. The CFA Appreciation event infuriates the left because it demonstrates that the mainstream of America is not bigoted, but will respond with dignified, peaceful protest. This can be seen in Smith's vicious tirade against the CFA employee, who maintained her calm and professional demeanor despite his outburst, which simply enraged him further.

Generation Why?
08-05-2012, 02:12 PM
So, the 1st Amendment is "minor?"

I am done trying to explain. AmPat and others know what I am saying for the most part. You have obviously made no effort. If so you would know I did not call the first amendment minor. And lastly, to AmPat, I prefer to fight , too, I just pick battles I feel are worth it. Have a good day.

Novaheart
08-05-2012, 02:22 PM
This is patently false. I've argued against gay marriage and DADT repeal without once citing a religious argument or source, and your response has always been to ignore the arguments and respond as if I'd made a religious argument.

Because it is a religious argument, even if you don't make it in Latin or Hebrew, even if you don't mention God.

A valid comparison would be you arguing that people should have the right to refuse to work on Sunday and their employer should have to respect that. You haven't mentioned God, but the basis for thinking that one should have Sunday off is not simply that a person should only work five days, one of which is not Sunday, it's that there is something special about Sunday. So, you switch to the argument that "For 2000 years people have had Sunday off." , which also doesn't mention God but does indeed refer to the "Christian Era" in European cultures, or more accurately the spread of Christianity under the Roman Empire and descendant governments.

The basis for your arguments has always been religion. The animosity generated towards gay people is religious at its root. That's why anti-gay laws lose in the courts; because they cannot be justified without religion and the courts do not respect religion as a compelling state interest.

Rockntractor
08-05-2012, 02:27 PM
Because it is a religious argument, even if you don't make it in Latin or Hebrew, even if you don't mention God.

A valid comparison would be you arguing that people gibber jabber gibber jabber gibber jabber gibber jabber gibber jabber gibber jabber gibber jabber gibber jabber gibber jabber gibber jabber gibber jabber gibber jabber gibber jabber gibber jabber gibber jabber gibber jabber gibber jabber gibber jabber gibber jabber gibber jabber gibber jabber gibber jabber gibber jabber gibber jabber gibber jabber gibber jabber gibber jabber gibber jabber gibber jabber gibber jabber gibber jabber gibber jabber gibber jabber gibber jabber gibber jabber gibber jabber gibber jabber gibber jabber gibber jabber gibber jabber gibber jabber gibber jabber gibber jabber gibber jabber gibber jabber

You could make it easier on yourself by just typing the first sentence and a half, no one will notice.

Novaheart
08-05-2012, 02:33 PM
You could make it easier on yourself by just typing the first sentence and a half, no one will notice.

The sermon isn't for those who will not learn.

Zathras
08-05-2012, 08:06 PM
The sermon isn't for those who will not learn.

So that explains why what Ody and the rest of us post in rebuttal to your lame arguments goes right over your head.

This whole hate religion tirade that you're on does prove one thing though.....it proves the old addage "Those who believe in nothing will fall for anything" is very true when it comes to you Nova.

Odysseus
08-05-2012, 08:08 PM
Because it is a religious argument, even if you don't make it in Latin or Hebrew, even if you don't mention God.

Wrong, wrong and wrong. There are numerous arguments against gay marriage that are completely divorced from religion or religious morality. As I wrote in this post to Wilbur on the same subject:


Gay marriage creates a form of marriage that has never existed before. It is a sterile dead end, that depends on invasive behaviors involving third parties in order to procreate. ...A gay marriage is not, in the most critical way, a marriage. And, as I have said before, the gay marriage/polygamy issue is based on the fact that once marriage is redefined to the latest fashionable consensus, there is nothing to prevent further redefinitions, and tremendous pressures to accept them. The argument that marriage is no longer between one man and one woman will open the floodgates to every judge who wants to be seen as being on the cutting edge of societal evolution, and will eliminate most of the constraints against any of the alternative forms of marriage that will be proposed.

And


Whereas you frame it entirely in positive terms and refuse to consider the possibility that radically redefining marriage could damage the concept of marriage as a whole. History is full of changes which, at the time, seemed inconsequential, but which proved to have profound impacts. The sexual revolution followed a simple technological change, the introduction of the birth control pill. Millions of people changed their behavior radically over one pharmaceutical innovation. Millions more changed theirs after the legalization of abortion. Look at the changes in divorce rates following the introduction of no-fault divorce. Even if you consider each of these developments a positive one, you can't deny that they were changes that were far in excess of the perceived cause. Human relationships are infinitely complex, and the institutions that have formed to protect and nurture them have evolved through trial and error over centuries. Are you so arrogant that you can dismiss our concerns for a future that you can see no better than anyone else?

And


No, the arguments change if you redefine marriage. As of a few years ago, every state in the nation recognized marriage as the union of one man and one woman, period. This was not open to interpretation. It was cut and dried and comprehensible to everyone with half a brain. Now you're demanding that they change the definition, but to what? Two adults? How long will that last once you have accepted that the definition is malleable? If you change that definition once, why can't a court change it again? That's the other thing that you refuse to take into account, that having this legislated by a few judges doesn't make us freer, it enslaves us to the tyranny of the bench. You accept the precedent that judges can make law where no law existed previously, which means that all it will take to introduce polygamy is a majority of judges in a few states, or even a majority in one federal circuit court (the Ninth comes to mind for some reason).

None of these are religious arguments, and they barely scratch the surface of what I've argued here.


A valid comparison would be you arguing that people should have the right to refuse to work on Sunday and their employer should have to respect that. You haven't mentioned God, but the basis for thinking that one should have Sunday off is not simply that a person should only work five days, one of which is not Sunday, it's that there is something special about Sunday. So, you switch to the argument that "For 2000 years people have had Sunday off." , which also doesn't mention God but does indeed refer to the "Christian Era" in European cultures, or more accurately the spread of Christianity under the Roman Empire and descendant governments.

Nice try. It's good to see that you can come up with a completely irrelevant argument and then pretend that it is germane to this one. In fact, the issue is more like this: Gays are arguing that people who have a right to a day off should also be allowed to choose that day, regardless of the impacts. A business owner could argue that his business is closed on Sundays because of his religious orientation, and therefore everyone gets Sundays off, but a Muslim might insist on Friday, or a Jew might ask for Saturday. Meanwhile, the vast majority of employees are either Christians or are indifferent to which day that they have off, and don't mind taking Sundays. Now, a certain percentage of employees will get an additional day off, with the rest having to pick up the slack, or the employer must accommodate them by closing on their day off, too. Do you have the right to demand that the majority incur additional costs in order to accommodate you? Do you have the right to redefine their work rules to suit yourself?


The basis for your arguments has always been religion. The animosity generated towards gay people is religious at its root. That's why anti-gay laws lose in the courts; because they cannot be justified without religion and the courts do not respect religion as a compelling state interest.

No, the basis of my argument has never been religion. The basis of my argument is societal stability, the unanticipated consequences of radical changes to law and the imposition of newly defined "rights", and the floodgates that you are opening. You have never been able to counter any of these arguments, so you construct the religious straw man and argue against that, because it's the argument that you can counter.


The sermon isn't for those who will not learn.

Your sermon is only for those who are already in the choir.

LukeEDay
08-05-2012, 08:17 PM
That's a distinction without a difference. The basis for anti-gay politics, if you are to believe that it is sincere, is religion. If you simply think that it's a good way to rally ignorant people, then those engaging in it have even less integrity than they did when hiding behind religion.

My stance on gay marriage and homosexuality is religious based. So, please, SHOW ME WHERE IT SAYS IN THE BIBLE THAT HOMOSEXUALITY AND GAY MARRIAGE ARE GOOD?

JB
08-05-2012, 08:43 PM
Because it is a religious argumentTell that to the Prime Minister of Austalia. An atheist that doesn't believe in gay marriage.

Hubie
08-05-2012, 08:48 PM
I am done trying to explain. AmPat and others know what I am saying for the most part. You have obviously made no effort. If so you would know I did not call the first amendment minor.

You assume a lot. First you assume that this issue is minor and then you assume that I haven't bothered to make an effort to understand your position. You are wrong on both counts.

The issue of free speech -- no matter what the topic or who is involved -- is never "minor." To portray this situation as "minor" is a great disservice to the American public and the Constitution. Indeed, positions like yours are how free speech is destroyed -- little by little. "Oh, this issue is minor. Oh, that issue is minor." Eventually, all those little "minor" issues add up to a great big denial of free speech.

As far as my effort goes, do not confuse not accepting your arguments as not making an effort to understand them. Making such a judgment against me is little different from people taking statements like Dan Cathy's about traditional marriage and conflating them with statements like Fred Phelps' "God hates fags" crap.

txradioguy
08-06-2012, 03:19 AM
Because it is a religious argument, even if you don't make it in Latin or Hebrew, even if you don't mention God.

The basis for your arguments has always been religion. The animosity generated towards gay people is religious at its root. That's why anti-gay laws lose in the courts; because they cannot be justified without religion and the courts do not respect religion as a compelling state interest.

That is all a pantload of self indignant bullshit.

You spew this stuff out based on your agenda drive anti-religion personal beliefs without proof without fact but with 5 tons of bias and expect us to believe it like it's Gospel.

If ever there was someone on this forum that was completely blinded by their own bigotry and personal bias...it's you Novatwit.

You are the posterchild for intolerance.

Generation Why?
08-06-2012, 08:00 AM
You assume a lot. First you assume that this issue is minor and then you assume that I haven't bothered to make an effort to understand your position. You are wrong on both counts.

The issue of free speech -- no matter what the topic or who is involved -- is never "minor." To portray this situation as "minor" is a great disservice to the American public and the Constitution. Indeed, pos
itions like yours are how free speech is destroyed -- little by little. "Oh, this issue is minor. Oh, that issue is minor." Eventually, all those little "minor" issues add up to a great big denial of free speech.

As far as my effort goes, do not confuse not accepting your arguments as not making an effort to understand them. Making such a judgment against me is little different from people taking statements like Dan Cathy's about traditional marriage and conflating them with statements like Fred Phelps' "God hates fags" crap.


You are right. Free speech is never minor. And I never said it was. I was talking about how Dan Cathy, one person expressing his views, is minor in comparison to the reaction from the left. AKA the left blew it way out of proportion. And instead of letting them bitch for two weeks and moved on, the right went balls to the walk, too. I never said free speech was minor. So yes, you did refuse to grasp what I said. You should be a politician.

Generation Why?
08-06-2012, 08:02 AM
My stance on gay marriage and homosexuality is religious based. So, please, SHOW ME WHERE IT SAYS IN THE BIBLE THAT HOMOSEXUALITY AND GAY MARRIAGE ARE GOOD?

Show me in the Constitution where we are a theocracy. My whole argument. Short and sweet.

LukeEDay
08-06-2012, 08:31 AM
Show me in the Constitution where we are a theocracy. My whole argument. Short and sweet.

Show me where it says the line 'Separation of church and state' in the constitution. Not some beating around the bush bs, the exact line 'Separation of church and state'...

Over 80% of the country is christian and feels the same way I do. You remaining 20% are out numbered.

Generation Why?
08-06-2012, 08:44 AM
Show me where it says the line 'Separation of church and state' in the constitution. Not some beating around the bush bs, the exact line 'Separation of church and state'...

Over 80% of the country is christian and feels the same way I do. You remaining 20% are out numbered.

Are you saying we should be a theocracy? Just curious, not gonna turn this into a whole new discussion.

LukeEDay
08-06-2012, 09:00 AM
Are you saying we should be a theocracy? Just curious, not gonna turn this into a whole new discussion.

I am saying the christian belief of everywhere in this country. Look around. It is in the courts, it is on the money, it is in the campaigns, it's on street signs, it is in the fields, it is in the sky, it is everywhere. We are a christian nation. The constitution may be 'secular' even though it says about 'Our Creator'. But if you look around, you will see that we are pretty much there.

Me being christian, I don't want my country to be completely secular.

Hubie
08-06-2012, 10:05 AM
Show me in the Constitution where we are a theocracy. My whole argument. Short and sweet.

And stupid. You CLEARLY do not understand what a theocracy truly is.

txradioguy
08-06-2012, 10:14 AM
Are you saying we should be a theocracy? Just curious, not gonna turn this into a whole new discussion.

That's not at all what he's saying and you know it. Quit acting like Nova.

At the end of the day...despite all their hand wringing and crying to the contrary...under the Constitution...gays aren't being denied any of the same rights you and I have.

AmPat
08-06-2012, 10:16 AM
Show me in the Constitution where we are a theocracy. My whole argument. Short and sweet.
Show me an example ANYWHERE, where this Christian nation in over 200 years of Constitutional rule, has ever attempted to become a Theocracy.:rolleyes:

Show me where it says the line 'Separation of church and state' in the constitution. Not some beating around the bush bs, the exact line 'Separation of church and state'...

Over 80% of the country is christian and feels the same way I do. You remaining 20% are out numbered.
It's a stupid argument. We have been majority Christian for over 200 years and still (until Chairman Maobama) have a Constitutional Republic. That little +80% majority must have missed their chance at hijacking the USA.

Odysseus
08-08-2012, 11:16 AM
Nova's argument boils down to two premises, that objection to homosexuality and gay marriage is based solely on religion, and is therefore religious discrimination, and that the failure to expand the definition to include gay marriage is discrimination. Let's address both.

Religious discrimination, as defined in the Constitution, is an official recognition of an establishment of religion. The cause of this was the religious conflicts in Europe prior to the American Revolution. Membership in the king's church became a de facto oath of loyalty, and membership in a competing church was therefore treason. It means that government cannot apply a religious test for citizenship or any right of citizenship. It does not mean that government must be blind to obvious factors of biology.

Marriage is not simply a religious rite, but an institution whose purpose is to establish a family structure that centuries of trial and error have demonstrated is the optimum environment for raising children. Other arrangements may substitute for this, but the primary indicators of stability are biological ties between parent and child. Adoptive parents may be as loving and nurturing, but casual hookups, boy or girlfriends or other non-stable relationships with a biological parent tend to carry much higher risks for dysfunction and abuse. Gay relationships, even so-called marriages, have much shorter durations and are far less likely to demonstrate the commitment seen in actual marriages. The advent of no-fault divorce, abortion on demand, birth control and a host of other attacks on sexual fidelity have done tremendous damage to marriage, and as a result, more marriages fail than used to be the case, but the imposition of further stresses on marriage is not the answer, it's just more of the same problem. As previously stated, leftists have always seen the family as a bulwark against their agenda. Stable families don't require welfare states. Stable families don't want or need an intrusive social service apparatus. Stable families need government to protect their rights, not do dictate them. In a free society, the compelling state interest is to encourage family formation and stability. If others wish to form attachments outside of that, that is not the business of the state, but it is also not the business of the state to encourage or sanction such couplings. Whether that hurts the feelings of a particular minority is not a compelling state interest.

LukeEDay
08-08-2012, 04:54 PM
Nova's argument boils down to two premises, that objection to homosexuality and gay marriage is based solely on religion, and is therefore religious discrimination.

To Change the religious input of it, you will have to re-write the whole bible. Enjoy it, Nova.