Chick-fil-A restaurants face day of "Kiss In" after conservatives deliver record sales

Ferrerman wrote:

You didn't specify who "we" is. I hope it's not the brown shirts. The person from Chicago was saying (effectively) that everyone is dirty/who cares?

It's not the brown shirts, they are the ones attacking a business because they object to the political speech of the CEO. We defend free speech, even when we disagree with the content.

.

Ferrerman wrote:

Well, the reason why we care is- using Hitler as an example- he didn't come right out and say he was going to put people in concentration camps, murder some and work the others to death. Now that we know he did and that he went to great lengths to hide that even AFTER he seized power and thought he had total control, we have to be on guard against such things happening again and that means closely watching certain people. If a guy is gonna get all Old Testament about one thing, he may just get all Old Testament about another. Better safe than sorry.

Hitler didn't justify his hatred with the Old Testament; he was a socialist.

Hitler wrote about his plans for the Jews in Mein Kampf, he didn't make a secret of his violence and hatred.

.

Ferrerman wrote:

You, for example, might think a couple of billionaire brothers might spend a billion dollars to save themselves a few million in taxes. I might think it's more than that....

F. might think it's worth spending a billion to save a few million, but people who understand math wouldn't.

yum

Marengo Jon wrote:

<quoted text>
You've already forgotten that I told you I was going to ride your ass like Jesus rode an ass through Jerusalem.
SecretSmile, Watchmann.

Not at all, if fact it gives me more opportunities to kick your ass.

Ad homoan attacks are hardly a match for facts and reality, right?

Grin.

Ghost Rider wrote:

<quoted text>
But it is a civil union where two people unite together as one, just as a marriage is for heterosexuals...
Whether you see it as "real", is irrelevant...

I have no problem with civil rights and gay unions.

Calling civil unions the same as marriage is untrue on a number of levels. One is a duplication of genders united is vastly different than a union of diverse genders.

Ghost Rider wrote:

<quoted text>
The problem lies more in falsely accusing people of being hater's when in fact they are not...

This post wasn't directed at you or anyone close to you - you do not represent the majority of anyone. It was directed at the posters who post once and fly away - their posts are designed for one reason, shock and awe.

Ghost Rider wrote:

<quoted text>The same could be said about gays. They hate heterosexuals.

Another false generalization. Covering your own insecurities about homosexuality by reversing the attack does not an arguement make. Gay people do not hate heterosexual people. I have plenty of lesbian friends that I would take a bullet for. The word hate doesn't exist in their vocabulary - so I rate your statement as false.

Ghost Rider wrote:

<quoted text>Equality for everyone. Special treatment to no one...
You simply cannot force people to accept gay lifestyles.

Who in the world is forcing you to do anything? LMFGDAO...I got news for you - the year is 2012, not 1962. Homosexuality is here to stay - it's just a part of our America. And if you think it's better someplace else, then move. But just like racism - anti-gay ideals will always exist when Middle Age thinking still exists in the minority.

Most people still think homosex is immoral and that gay jokes are funny. Just sayin'

Naughtyrobot wrote:

Most people still think homosex is immoral and that gay jokes are funny. Just sayin'

Unlike most of your humor, huh?

milwaukee69 wrote:

<quoted text>
Unlike most of your humor, huh?

http://www.towleroad.com/2012/ 06/carolla.html
Adam Carolla makes some jokes that some people laugh at, some people cringe. I make some jokes, some folks laugh, most groan, some cringe, some get pissed. Oh well!
Kinda like if I ate some chicken sandwiches, and then puked right in your mouth.

You know all those people who made last Wednesday the most profitable single day in Chick-fil-A’s history?
I’m still trying to figure out how they managed to eat the thousands of chicken sandwiches they bought – while simultaneously patting themselves on the back with both hands in honor of their political stand.
By filling Chick-fil-A president Dan Cathy’s coffers with even more moolah than usual, many somehow feel they were striking a blow for traditional marriage and free speech in America.
Buffalo chips. They didn’t do a thing in the world except help fatten a corporate chieftain’s bottom line and their own butts. Freud said – about something else – that sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Likewise, sometimes a chicken sammitch is just a freakin’ chicken sammitch.

This was such an instance.

On the day declared willy-nilly “Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day” by former Arkansas Gov. Mike “Cluck” Huckabee, I watched hundreds of people, lemming like, filing in to area Chick-fil-As to show their support for either the company president’s stand on gay marriage – he opposes it – or for his right to announce his stand on gay marriage.

Both sides self-satisfied

Yet the self-satisfaction in the faces and words of the people buying chicken sandwiches for the cause of traditional marriage was rivaled only by the self-righteousness of the people who feel they have the right to dictate what’s in the hearts, minds and bellies of their fellow men, women, gays and transsexuals.

That’s right: Chick-fil-A supporters weren’t the only ones suffering a surfeit of self-satisfaction. So were the people on the other side of the issue. In Arizona, a man recorded himself hassling a likely minimum-wage-earning Chick-fil-A drive-thru employee and applauded himself by saying,“I just did something really good. I feel purposeful. Thank you so much.”

What he did, after his video went viral, was get fired from his job as a chief financial officer for another company.

Sure, Cathy’s comments were gratuitously divisive and – if you ask James Miller of the LGBT Center of Raleigh – may have been part of a cynical ploy to increase sandwich sales. If so, that makes all those true believers who descended upon the store to buy a statement sandwich – in the words of the Everly Brothers’ song – Cathy’s Clowns.

In a telephone interview and in a written statement, Miller told me most in the Lesbian Gay Bisexual and Transsexual community “knew of Chick-fil-A’s negative stance on LGBT issues” before the current chicken contretemps kicked off. The company, Miller said,“has taken a public stance against progress, which will ultimately leave them on the wrong side of history.”

He applauded the company for its many charitable contributions, but decried that “they also chose to give heavily to anti-LGBT causes,” including groups that claim to convert gays to straight – in other words, to pray the gay away.

We all have a right

The great thing about America is that Cathy has a right to support any legal causes he wants, no matter how noxious we find them. Gays and their sympathizers also have a right not to support his business. But, having been unfairly bullied themselves, are gays in danger of being perceived as bullies – as a rainbow-clad Taliban intent upon squelching unpopular views and making everyone tow the party line?

If that perception takes root, the LGBT community could face a backlash from some of its sympathizers. I talked to people who actually support people’s right to marry whoever they love, regardless of gender, but who were nonetheless repulsed by the seemingly intolerant and heavy-handed response of many gay rights supporters to Cathy’s comments.

Of course, the response in support of Cathy’s comments was overdone, too. I swear, I kept waiting for someone to start singing “We Shall Overcome” while waiting on a chicken sammitch.

Regarding John Bussey's view that Chick-fil-A has set a "powerful brand identity" that is "swimming against the tide": I'm assuming he means the tide that favors gay marriage. Well, good—I'm for gay marriage, too ("Chick-fil-A Leaps Into Controversy," The Business, Aug. 3).

But I think the bigger feeling in this country is a "tide" against overly cautious, calculated statements. It was so refreshing to hear Chick-fil-A President Dan Cathy share his true views without calculating the dollar impact first.

You write what you want, and I'll think what I want.

Michele Ross

A recent defense of Chick-fil-A president Dan Cathy makes much out of the fact that his controversial interview with Baptist Press on July 16, 2012 never even mentioned same-sex marriage specifically, but rather the “biblical definition of the family unit.”

Reading between the lines, the mainstream media drew its own logical conclusion that this must include an adverse view of gay couples.

It is true that Cathy was not that specific with Baptist Press, but when asked for clarification on The Ken Coleman Show just a few days later, he did answer “Guilty as charged.” He also went on to say,“I think we are inviting God's judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at him and say,'We know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage … I pray God's mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we have the audacity to define what marriage is about"(Ken Coleman Show, 7-21-12).

Although critics of Chick-fil-A may be guilty of fishing for controversy, defenders would do well to avoid slicing and dicing. The point is not to highlight the fact that Cathy never intended to start an argument. The point is to defend the right of an American citizen to make any comment he wants regardless of chronological order.

Dan Cathy is entitled to his opinion. He should be allowed to express himself without having to worry about bully mayors.

Of course, Boston Mayor Thomas Menino’s letter to Cathy seems to indicate that he views himself as less of a bully and more of a freedom fighter.

“There is no place for discrimination on Boston's Freedom Trail and no place for your company alongside it,” Menino said. He also wrote,“We are indeed full of pride for our support of same sex marriage and our work to expand freedom to all people. We are proud that our state and our city have led the way for the country on equal marriage rights.”

All public officials should have to take at least one civics class, with a possible history class thrown in as well. Perhaps in Menino’s mind freedom of speech isn’t one of the freedoms our Forefathers envisioned.

Menino’s modern history is as flawed as his understanding of the Constitution. The people of Massachusetts did not “lead the way on equal marriage rights.” This newer “Freedom Trail” was blazed by the courts. In Goodridge v. Department of Health the Supreme Court of Massachusetts ruled that it was unconstitutional to forbid same-sex marriage.

Maybe we could over look such historical revision if it didn’t go hand in hand with the mayor’s exaggerated view of his own importance. So now a mayor has the right to tell somebody who can and cannot open a business in his city? Obama’s recent decrees, by which he ignores congress, doing as he wants, are inspiring the little dictators as well.

Not that any of these mayors are able to explain their authority to forbid a fast food restaurant. At least Mayor Edwin M. Lee of San Francisco seems to understand that he is only offering a strong suggestion. Others might call it a threat.

On Twitter he wrote:“Closest #ChickFilA to San Francisco is 40 miles away & I strongly recommend that they not try to come any closer.”

Of course illegal immigrants are welcome in San Francisco. It’s a sanctuary city. But an American businessman who believes (as Obama did until very recently) that marriage means men marrying women, need not bother coming?

Oh well. Let’s leave our hearts in San Francisco and drop in on the Windy City instead. A lot of wind blows from the mouth of Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel these days. He said that Chick fil-A values “are not Chicago values.”

Hmm … Chick fil-A values are not Chicago values. Boy, you can say that again mayor! You must mean the kind of Chicago values where you invited the racist, antiSemite Louis Farrakhan to help with city security. Are those the values you’re protecting?

Our “brave mayors” should not pat themselves on the shoulder quite so fast. After all, it doesn’t require much courage in today’s politically correct climate to speak up for same-sex couples. Had they taken such a stand in the 60’s or early 70’s, before such endorsement became fashionable, back when gay people were coming out of the closet in smaller numbers, perhaps then we could have admired their courage regardless of our own personal opinions.

Today, there has been a role reversal. People who defend traditional values are the ones putting themselves on the line. But nobody on either side should be at risk when sharing a mere opinion. I don’t care if you’re gay or straight, liberal or conservative, Republican or Democrat, Christian or Atheist, all Americans must wake up and confront this assault upon freedom of speech.

The good news is that many have. People showed up for Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day in mass, some of them waiting in line many hours at different fast food chicken stations all over the country.

Even John Stewart, no lover of Evangelical Christians or the politically conservative chimed in to support freedom of speech. "[I'm] pretty sure you can’t outlaw a company with perfectly legal business practices because you find their CEO’s views repellant," Stewart joked. "Not sure which amendment covers that, but it’s probably in the top one"(Daily Show 8-1-12).

It’s encouraging to see this public reaction. But it’s unsettling to realize that people are just now figuring out a key component to the militant gay agenda: They intend to make it against the law to even speak against homosexuality. Although the movement has gained more traction in recent years, the goals have been openly, shamelessly stated for quite some time.

“We are no longer seeking just a right to privacy and a protection from wrong. We also have a right — as heterosexual Americans already have — to see government and society affirm our lives”(From homosexual spokesperson Jeff Levi in a speech for the National Press Club in Washington, 1987).

In fairness, it should be pointed out that militant gay activists do not speak for all homosexuals. Many gay people just want to be left alone. Others, such as openly lesbian radio talk show host Tammy Bruce, bravely challenge the militant agenda by writing books like The New Thought Police.

But the squeaky wheel gets the grease, so those few who push for censored speech are winning this battle. Critical disapproval of homosexuality is already against the law in Canada (Criminal Code Sections 318, 319, and 320).

America is fast on its way to embracing similar legislation under terms such as “hate speech” and “hate crime.” Congress passed a Hate Crimes Protective Act in 2009. Since violent crime is already punishable under the law, getting into the head of a person to interpret “hate” carves a thin line between hate crime legislation and hate speech legislation. Next time we may just see a law about “hate” even without the crime.

Ambitious California is already well along that road. It is now against the law to say anything disparaging against homosexuality in any California class room (SB 47). They are also trying to make it against the law in California for psychologists to offer reparative therapy to homosexual teens.

The jury may still be out on the actual causes of homosexuality. Is it a genetic predisposition? Is it a choice? Is it an unchosen predisposition caused by some childhood trauma as opposed to genetics? Can there be both genetic and psychological causes? Various opinions should be allowed to breathe. Ironically, those who would stifle debate do so in the name of tolerance.

This is Bob Siegel, making the obvious, obvious.

Chick fil a will not be censored..

Ghost Rider wrote:

<quoted text>
I have not condescended you or others.
It is human nature to retort back and defend oneself. I get that as well as support it... But to start off in defense mode and accuse prematurely is uncalled for not to mention nonproductive as not everyone is tolerant or patient when approached in such a manner.. Yes, I know, it goes both ways, but not always...

Sorry, but "you people", or "you gay people" smacks of condescension. The reason you can't see that is because "you people" never do.

Does Chaz Bono eat ate Chic-fil-a? Where does Chaz NOT eat, I mean dang, that chick/man thing can eat!

Did anyone tell the gays to just Kiss Off?

quilterqueen wrote:

Did anyone tell the gays to just Kiss Off?

You mean all the "happy people" with green tights, right?

Went to Chik Fil A for kiss in, but no takers.

Royal Knight wrote:

Normal folks - 1
Flaming fairys - 0

And...the Department of Intelligence has spoken.

Brian_G wrote:

<quoted text>Right, as if casual encounters an quickie unions are unknown in the gay community.

no, that is true, they are. but the gay community calls them exactly what they are. the g.c. doesn't hide these liaisons behind a phoney marriage. the straight community does....and i don't see gay couples getting married to furhter career or enterprises. at least, not to the extent that the striaght community does.