Liberals, media attack Chick-fil-A for opposing gay marriage

I don't really care if they don't support same-sex marriages. What I do care about is that they actively work to deny rights to some citizens -- in this case, LGBT citizens.

Companies can be neutral on controversial topics but when they choose to be actively discriminatory they shouldn't be surprised when they are held accountable.

People who oppose freedom and equality should be called out.

When conservative whine liberal media this liebral media that,They just want media to tell them what they want to hear.

Sailor Mercury wrote:

When conservative whine liberal media this liebral media that,They just want media to tell them what they want to hear.

They also like to play the victim. They feel it justifies their bigotry and hatred because if they're the victim they think they're not really responsible.

“Government ought to be kept off our backs, out of our pocketbooks, and out of our bedrooms.”

“The positive role of limited government has always been the defense of these fundamental principles. The conservative movement is founded on the simple tenet that people have the right to live life as they please, as long as they don't hurt anyone else in the process."

"Religious factions will go on imposing their will on others unless the decent people connected to them recognize that religion has no place in public policy. They must learn to make their views known without trying to make their views the only alternatives."

“There has always been homosexuality, ever since man and woman were invented. I guess there were gay apes. So that's not an issue. The Republican Party should stand for freedom and only freedom. Don't raise hell about the gays, the Blacks and the Mexicans. Free people have a right to do as they damn well please."
Conservative Icon, Republican Presidential candidate, Barry Goldwater.

Prejudice and discrimination are not conservative values, even though many who claim to be conservative promote them.

Whenever Old Testament "values" are promoted I go strangely blind and deaf.. And it's only thanks to the great (but sometimes inaccurate) translators that was instilled some top poetry into the rather dry original texts..

Interesting use of the word "attack" in the headline.

So... large mobs of armed liberals and media personalities are attacking C-F-A franchises?

OR

C-F-A announced it doesn't support SSM, so supporters have likewise said they won't support C-F-A?(I'm guessing this is the case)

Sort of sounds like the anti's are playing the victim again.

How does this blurb qualify as a legitimate story?
Why would other people read what you wrote?
Unless you're co-signing a check to certain influential organizations, we're done here.

Free speech, imagine that, lol. So you don't eat at chi-fil-A and I don't eat at Mc Donalds. Only difference is I don't need to call you names or force my beliefs on you when you don't agree with me.

hwyangel wrote:

Free speech, imagine that, lol. So you don't eat at chi-fil-A and I don't eat at Mc Donalds. Only difference is I don't need to call you names or force my beliefs on you when you don't agree with me.

Nope, You the ones that were calling name before that. Go ahead hate gays for all I care but don't force it on everyone else or make the government to.

Sailor Mercury wrote:

<quoted text>
Nope, You the ones that were calling name before that. Go ahead hate gays for all I care but don't force it on everyone else or make the government to.

I don't hate gays, I just don't believe in redefining marriage.

hwyangel wrote:

<quoted text>
I don't hate gays, I just don't believe in redefining marriage.

you've already redefined marriage numerous times, because the original model was deeply flawed -- or do you still insist that interracial marriage is wrong (as the law did till just a few decades ago), or that the man is the head of the marriage and therefor women may not vote or hold titles to properties? Those were all previous definitions of marriage which have pretty much been totally debunked in modern times
Now as for the question of who is forcing their views on whom, let's examine the question: Most LGBT people I know say whatever model in which children are raised by adults should be considered a family (including your traditional model)-- as long as children are cared for in an environment of responsibility and love. We're not forcing anything on you. You, on the other hand, are saying YOUR model is the only correct one, and that it should be forced on us by penalty of law. Gay step parents will not be viewed as parents or part of a family. One view is all-inclusive, the other says, Oh no, ONLY my own opinion is valid.

Who's forcing what on whom?

Umninimuzi wrote:

<quoted text>
you've already redefined marriage numerous times, because the original model was deeply flawed -- or do you still insist that interracial marriage is wrong (as the law did till just a few decades ago), or that the man is the head of the marriage and therefor women may not vote or hold titles to properties? Those were all previous definitions of marriage which have pretty much been totally debunked in modern times
Now as for the question of who is forcing their views on whom, let's examine the question: Most LGBT people I know say whatever model in which children are raised by adults should be considered a family (including your traditional model)-- as long as children are cared for in an environment of responsibility and love. We're not forcing anything on you. You, on the other hand, are saying YOUR model is the only correct one, and that it should be forced on us by penalty of law. Gay step parents will not be viewed as parents or part of a family. One view is all-inclusive, the other says, Oh no, ONLY my own opinion is valid.
Who's forcing what on whom?

What I'm saying is that I believe in childrens rights to be protected from disease and deformity through blood testing and prohibiting marriage to immediate family. The right to know their family history and their medical history. The right to be cared for through grandparents rights or other immediate family should something happen to their parents. The right to inheritance and child support. Unlike adopted children a natural born child does not have these rights established through adoption. And unlike same sex couples, they don't have the ability to establish a will or power of attorney.

hwyangel wrote:

<quoted text>
What I'm saying is that I believe in childrens rights to be protected from disease and deformity through blood testing and prohibiting marriage to immediate family. The right to know their family history and their medical history. The right to be cared for through grandparents rights or other immediate family should something happen to their parents. The right to inheritance and child support. Unlike adopted children a natural born child does not have these rights established through adoption. And unlike same sex couples, they don't have the ability to establish a will or power of attorney.

Define "marriage to immediate family".

The redefinition of marriage for same sex couples is "two consenting adults". So if those "two consenting adults" happen to be siblings, first cousins or an aunt or uncle then it would be illegal to discriminate. Children would no longer be protected from being deformed. And if those "two consenting adults" happen to have a life threatening disease the children are no longer protected from that either because blood testing would discriminate against children who are adopted. And of course marriage would no longer give children a right to their nationality or their medical history because that would be discrimination against same sex couples too. But of course same sex marriage is not about children.

And let's not forget polygamy. If you have two women, they get married. They each have their own children. It doesn't prohibit the childrens fathers from being responsible for child support or having a relationship with their children. What you have is two sets of children with four legally responsible adults. The relationship is there and the financial responsibility is there. The only thing missing is the marriage certificate and the tax write off. How is this not polygamy?

Let's take if further. Two women get married. Two sets of kids. Two child support checks (tax free), two welfare checks (tax free). Now you have a relationship of two sets of kids, four legally responsible adults and the welfare system. Who do suppose gets to pay for this?

hwyangel wrote:

The redefinition of marriage for same sex couples is "two consenting adults". So if those "two consenting adults" happen to be siblings, first cousins or an aunt or uncle then it would be illegal to discriminate. Children would no longer be protected from being deformed. And if those "two consenting adults" happen to have a life threatening disease the children are no longer protected from that either because blood testing would discriminate against children who are adopted. And of course marriage would no longer give children a right to their nationality or their medical history because that would be discrimination against same sex couples too. But of course same sex marriage is not about children.

wow your dumb

hwyangel wrote:

Free speech, imagine that, lol. So you don't eat at chi-fil-A and I don't eat at Mc Donalds. Only difference is I don't need to call you names or force my beliefs on you when you don't agree with me.

i have a simple solution for u genass... if you don't like gay marriage.... don't flucking get one... wow that was easy

Hwyangel, the first of your three previous posts addressed incest. Fortunately, SSM is recognized in New York, so we can go online and view New York law:

http://public.leginfo.state.ny.us/LAWSSEAF.cg... @LLDOM+&LIST=LAW+&BROW SER=EXPLORER+&TOKEN=564384 67+&TARGET=VIEW

I draw your attention to the DOM section - specifically article 2: Marriage (section 5 addresses incestuous and void marriages). Article 7 covers adoption.

I think you'll find that all states and nations' SSM laws are a bit more than JUST the three words "two consenting adults."