Chicago Chick-fil-A owner wants to talk with Emanuel

I only go to Chick-Fil-A on Sundays.

I never heard of them at all until I saw the controversey about them here on this site.

fr Canon:

>Why in the world does the local government/dictators get to discriminate against any business?
THEY in turn are discriminating against many citizens who would enjoy Chick Fil A. The local government/dictators are the BIGGEST discriminators!!!
If customers do not want to go they don't have to go, but GOOD GREIF they should have the OPPORTUNITY... and it's the OPPORTUNITY the local government/dictators want to TAKE AWAY!!
Shameful and dreadful!!!<

Nobody is "discriminating" against anyone here. Cfa is an organization that gives a LOT of money to rightwing anti-gay nutballs like the "focus on the 'family'" CULT and the laughable "frc". These two are known hate groups.

fr bringmedinner:

>...Recriminalizing homosexual behavior because of its criminal psychology becomes the only answer to reestablishing a sound and unhindered societal norm capable of sustaining itself. <

I suggest that if you want that kind of government then you move to Iran or Saudi Arabia. You'd feel right at home there.

rdg1234 wrote:

<quoted text>Excellent post! Thanks so much for sharing :)

her opinion is a scum like her own-self.

Lawrence Wolf wrote:

<quoted text>Here are your simple instructions:
1-Go to the window
2-Open it
3-Plunge to your death

I got this image of some fool going to their window and having to crawl out and UP from their mother's basement...

NWmoon wrote:

<quoted text>I got this image of some fool going to their window and having to crawl out and UP from their mother's basement...

Good one!

FaFoxy wrote:

I never heard of them at all until I saw the controversey about them here on this site.

I don't think there are any here either. I've never seen one anyway. But I think I'm going to make the effort to see if there is one nearby and I'll use them on a regular basis.

These gays are driving me nuts. It was better when they were in the closet. Now they want to change marriage, and dare anybody resist or cast an opposing view, they are haters simply because they don't want the institution of marriage infected.

Obviously, if that is against your values, what kind of "values" do you have???

xxxrayted wrote:

<quoted text>
I don't think there are any here either. I've never seen one anyway. But I think I'm going to make the effort to see if there is one nearby and I'll use them on a regular basis.
These gays are driving me nuts. It was better when they were in the closet. Now they want to change marriage, and dare anybody resist or cast an opposing view, they are haters simply because they don't want the institution of marriage infected.

You prefer gay people in your closet. Got it, Lance....

Larry Meber wrote:

<quoted text>You prefer gay people in your closet. Got it, Lance....

I prefer gay people just keep it to themselves. I have had gay friends. I have gay family members. They don't bother anybody. They do what they do in their own time and nobody knows the difference. You would never know they were gay. Heterosexual people don't hate gay people, we hate the "in your face" gay people. Big difference.

xxxrayted wrote:

<quoted text>
I prefer gay people just keep it to themselves. I have had gay friends. I have gay family members. They don't bother anybody. They do what they do in their own time and nobody knows the difference. You would never know they were gay. Heterosexual people don't hate gay people, we hate the "in your face" gay people. Big difference.

You just think you have gay friends. If you support keeping them second class citizens, if you support denying them the same rights we have, you are NOT their friend.
I heard the same stupid trash from people about integration and the end of the prohibition against interracial marriage as I grew up.
BTW, you do not in any way shape or form speak for ALL heterosexuals.

NWmoon wrote:

<quoted text>You just think you have gay friends. If you support keeping them second class citizens, if you support denying them the same rights we have, you are NOT their friend.
I heard the same stupid trash from people about integration and the end of the prohibition against interracial marriage as I grew up.
BTW, you do not in any way shape or form speak for ALL heterosexuals.

The problem with the (horribly over used) Loving example is its power comes from mere analogy. The problem with analogy is it is exactly that: an analogy.

Its weight raises and falls on the strength of the analogy. Courts have been quick to dismiss this characterization of marriage law with racial segregation. The point of anti—miscegenation laws were to keep the races apart. No one would seriously argue that that is the point of marriage law. Quite the opposite, the intention of marriage law is to bring the two sexes together.

Note this quick rebuke of same-sex “marriage” offered by the plurality in Hernandez v. New York, Justice Smith, when confronting the idea that marriage as historically defined was analogous to Loving.

“[T]he traditional definition of marriage is not merely a byproduct of historical injustice. Its history is of a different kind.”

The use of the term kind is telling. Not a matter of degree, mind you. Rather a different of qualitative substance…a difference of kind.

As dismissals of the Loving v Virginia case goes, this is rather mild. However – I like it for precisely that reason. It dismisses casually a analogy that doesn’t hold up precisely because it is not the same kind of things being compared.


As the Washington dicesion illustrates

"We vigorously reject any attempt to link the discriminatory Anti miscegenation laws in Loving with this State’s DOMA. The Washington Court of Appeals in Singer correctly noted:the Loving and Perez courts [Perez v. Sharp, 32 Cal. 2d 711, 198 P.2d 17 (1948)] did not change the basic definition of marriage as the legal union of one man and one woman; rather, they merely held that the race of the man or woman desiring to enter that relationship could not be considered by the state in granting a marriage license. 11 Wn. App. at 255 n.8. Numerous other courts have all rejected the claim that the decision in Loving somehow challenged state laws reaffirming marriage as the union of one man and one woman.25 Careful review of the historical context of Loving further undermines the dissents’ disturbing attempt to link constitutionally void, racist laws with a historical definition of marriage as between a man and woman. Anti miscegenation laws were anathema to the “color-blind” constitution articulated in Justice John Marshall Harlan’s dissent in Plessy v. Ferguson.26 Anti miscegenation laws infringed upon the union of one man and one woman by injecting racial status as a qualification. Such laws contradicted the fact that a man and a woman of any race have the natural right to marry and have children. This right is protected by the United States and Washington State Constitutions. Racially discriminatory anti miscegenation laws also violate the right to marriage between a man and a woman. Here, in contrast, the State’s DOMA simply confirms the common law understanding of marriage as a union of a man and woman. It is the dissent that would abrogate the common law understanding through judicial fiat.

Sheesh, Fitz- are you writing a book? I didn't even read all that.

Regardless, "Loving" might not have made it if put to *popular* vote. That's one reason why we have government and one reason why the Xtians and cons want so BADLY to take over.

xxxrayted wrote:

<quoted text>
I prefer gay people just keep it to themselves. I have had gay friends. I have gay family members. They don't bother anybody. They do what they do in their own time and nobody knows the difference. You would never know they were gay. Heterosexual people don't hate gay people, we hate the "in your face" gay people. Big difference.

Gay is Gay, in your face or not. No diference.

xxxrayted wrote:

<quoted text>
I prefer gay people just keep it to themselves. I have had gay friends. I have gay family members. They don't bother anybody. They do what they do in their own time and nobody knows the difference. You would never know they were gay. Heterosexual people don't hate gay people, we hate the "in your face" gay people. Big difference.

What is WORSE is IN YOUR FACE heterosexuals, announcing they're going steady, announcing they're pregnant ! Announcing engagements !

Lavish IN YOUR FACE weddings ! Why can't they keep they're sexuality to themselves ?! Why do they have to constantly advertise it so much ?!

Sometimes after they get married, they wear "secret signals" on their fingers to announce they're shtupping somone ! For God's sake, keep it to yourself !!! Does EVERYONE have to know about your sex life and your totallly uncontrollable and weird attraction to the opposite gender ?!

Fitz wrote:

<quoted text>
Deleted a lot of blah blah blah

Dude, you just don't get it. You've ALREADY lost.
It's legal in some states, and even if it does have to wait to qualify by popular vote, it will be legal in every state in a few years anyway. All the delay by you haters does is make the US look more stupid for denying a significant portion of our citizenry of their rights.
It's not going to be compulsory you know, they're not going to force you to marry a man.
Tell me please, just what damages have you suffered due to the marriages of all the gays who are already legally married worldwide?
What ACTUAL damages have you suffered? How has it harmed you?
Your outrage and hurt feelings from being considered a homophobic bigot do not count.
What are your damages?

xxxrayted wrote:

<quoted text>
I prefer gay people just keep it to themselves. I have had gay friends. I have gay family members. They don't bother anybody. They do what they do in their own time and nobody knows the difference. You would never know they were gay. Heterosexual people don't hate gay people, we hate the "in your face" gay people. Big difference.

So you are saying people should hide who they really are.

No pictures of their loved ones on their desk.(It's OK for you, but not for others you don't like...)

No discussing their personal lives.(Well, you can , but not the gays...)

Are you beginning to see why your descendents will be calling you your rightful name of prejudicial bigot?

NWmoon wrote:

<quoted text>You just think you have gay friends. If you support keeping them second class citizens, if you support denying them the same rights we have, you are NOT their friend.
I heard the same stupid trash from people about integration and the end of the prohibition against interracial marriage as I grew up.
BTW, you do not in any way shape or form speak for ALL heterosexuals.

Correct, I don't. But from most of my heterosexual friends and family I have, they share my views.

Just how are homosexuals considered second class citizens? They can vote, purchase homes and automobiles, gain employment, will their belongings and finances to another, live together, have sex together. What is with this second class citizen nonsense?

Marriage is not a right. It's not a club. It's not a group. Marriage is the legal definition of one man and one woman uniting under religious and legal status. No state in our union prohibits gay marriage, it's just that the citizens of such states don't respect that marriage. But if you can find some religious organization to marry two people of the same sex, no government authority can stop it.