Chick-Fil-A Appreciation Day

[Oh Shoot]

Did anyone else notice the host state he "loves the who"

Last I checked that intro song was KISS

You obviously haven't followed Gutfeld, that's one of his trademarks.

He'll often give a intentionally completely wrong attribution, like "Oslo, which is in Hawaii", and the like.

He's quite hip to pop/rock music history.

- OS

Edited August 3, 2012 by OhShoot

[BrasilNuts]

The stores should bring in security guards and anyone that isn't actually buying have them removed from the property and ask to not come back. Maybe threaten to even file a trespassing complaint against them and have them arrested if they come back. However, they will just let this pass as I think they are ready for this to drop out of the news.

My wife and I were just talking about that and I told her that if I were the manager of a Chick-fil-a and some couples came in to protest in that fashion I would give them free sandwiches or milkshakes... something.

They want a rise out of Chick-fil-a just so they can cry out about being repressed.

Don't give it to them.

[East_TN_Patriot]

So many people are off base here, a few get it. It's not about gay marriage!

It's free speech. The owners comments have the mayors in several cities stating they "WILL NOT!" allow Chick Fil A to opens stores in their city. The company has no anti gay anything in any policy and do not refuse service to them, so tell me where a city feels they can dictate what buisness opens assuming all other requirements are met based on the owners statement?

If I'm wrong on this can someone please point me in the right direction? Isn't the first amendment real, or is it only my imagination?

Am I a bigot or a hate monger for believing in free speech? If it was an anti traditional marriage buisness being blocked from a city wouldnt the support from the gay community be the same? Would that be free speech then?

My sense is that there are three main groups in this event: 1) the anti-gay crowd, 2) the free speech crowd, and 3) those who are peeved at the response of politicians who are using their power to prevent Chick-fil-A from establishing business locations because they disagree on policy. Clearly, they are interconnected, but the anti-gay crowd appears - at least to me - to be very prominent. That may very well be the result of selective media coverage, and partially because I just can't stand Sarah Palin and she's a big "traditional marriage" advocate and she basically started this push.

[East_TN_Patriot]

I thought about going to heckle tomorrow, but I don't want to be mistaken for what I am not. However stores should bring in security guards and anyone that isn't actually buying have them removed from the property and ask to not come back. Maybe threaten to even file a trespassing complaint against them and have them arrested if they come back. However, they will just let this pass as I think they are ready for this to drop out of the news.

Why? Would you approve of people coming to heckle you? Should they have filed trespassing complaints on anyone who hadn't purchased food during yesterday's little protest? This is the problem with our country right now. People want to ignore our constitutionally protected right to equal protection under the law and pick and choose who gets legal rights and who gets the boot of the government on their throat, not because they are actually harming you in any way, but because they are different than you.

[plank white]

saw this on FB had to share

[Wingshooter]

saw this on FB had to share

A few more Chick-fil-A appreciation days like yesterday and they will need to hire more workers that will get paid resulting in more stimulation to the economy.

[c.a.willard]

Personally i wont give my money to an organization who's views i differ with that significantly. I firmly believe that homosexuality is not a disease or a choice anyone makes, they are born that way period end of story. I can not see the harm to America that could possibly come from allowing homosexual marriage.

[plank white]

I think that pic is trying to point out how the media sensationalizes someones thoughts on gay marriage this much and doesnt really say much about our real problems in this country I could care less if folks are gay , I coluld also care less what other folks think about gay folks we need less regulation and more personal freedom but most of all day in and day out the #1 story on all major media should be this countrys toilet of an economy and the debt maybe then those would be the issues our political candidates have to discuss not "what do you think about gays" who gives a darn about what they think about gays

Edited August 3, 2012 by plank white

[Oh Shoot]

....I can not see the harm to America that could possibly come from allowing homosexual marriage.

Gotta separate this "marriage" thang from "legal union" thang if it's ever gonna get settled.

As long as a man and a woman can have a legal union in the eyes of the state that gains them benefits over other mere "couples", then something will have to eventually give, and it will have to be federally mandated, since many of those benefits are federally bestowed. Hell, a gay man can marry a gay woman with no sex or procreation involved and gain those legal benefits, so I don't see ultimately that the "man/woman" distinction is going to hold up in jurisprudence.

Once you settle the legality, whether a couple is "married" or not will be up to how the couple feels about it and/or how their professed religious institution feels about it.

- OS

Edited August 3, 2012 by OhShoot

[strickj]

then something will have to eventually give, and it will have to be federally mandated, since many of those benefits are federally bestowed.

Just take the government out of it. Problem solved for everyone.

Do away with tax incentives for married folks, too. Us single kid-less guys are being ####ed!

[Guest FIST]

http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.phdcomics.com%2Fcomics%2Farchive.php%3Fcomicid%3D1174&h=MAQHYpih5AQEURE4CjdQxubp8qwVigJlrbFsA2EvZiGIIqg&enc=AZOFADgopIXm6VjPSp8x0GGtdN2MoMA6m9fjx_nud28bzy5uYgZg4Kkhg4QuXmIDoqBRVkrT77lKcElQZKncq8iWwBBTzD8V9Wk9DlYUf1b57w&s=1

This a pretty solid representation of media.

[Oh Shoot]

Just take the government out of it. Problem solved for everyone.

Do away with tax incentives for married folks, too. Us single kid-less guys are being ####ed!

So nobody should get survival benefits from military, social security, pension plans, life insurance policies, estate inheritance, a few right off that bat? Many more, too.

Tax benefits are a tiny part of it, and I think for the most part have been equalized anyway.

- OS

Edited August 3, 2012 by OhShoot

[Luckyforward]

In comment to other folks "taking exception" to Luckyforward's statement-- Dunno his implication but I read it as a comment on the futility of the gay protests rather than a criticism of the Cathy family.

Thank you, Lester . . .

I comment little on TGO because the comments you make are taken so far afield of what you say . . .

[strickj]

So nobody should get survival benefits from military, social security, pension plans, life insurance policies, estate inheritance, a few right off that bat? Many more, too.

Tax benefits are a tiny part of it, and I think for the most part have been equalized anyway.

- OS

I said tax incentives.

Have no problem with married folks receiving other benefits.

[Oh Shoot]

I said tax incentives.

Have no problem with married folks receiving other benefits.

The other bennnies are not because they are "married". It's because the government considers it a legal union. A man and a woman can have those legal advantages, many of which are federal. No other couple, regardless of how devoted, can have any of them.

That will eventually been seen as discriminatory, if not unconstitutional via "pursuit of happiness" or some other principle.

- OS

Edited August 3, 2012 by OhShoot

[sigmtnman]

1. The government has no business being in the business of licensing marriage or providing monetary benefits to anyone.

2. Two adults regardless of gender should be able to enter into whatever sort of contract they want as long as it is not under duress and does not infringe on other's rights.

3. No religion should be forced to perform a marriage for anyone they choose not to.

4. Mr. Cathy has a right to free speech and private property rights. He should be allowed to file tresspassing charges on people who choose to protest on his property. The same is true for the owners of his franchises.

5. Gays have the right to free speech. They have the right to assembly on public property but not on other's private property.

6. I don't have to accept gays if I chose not to.

7. Politicians should not be allowed to make political statements using official letterhead, during official work time or while acting as an elected official.

8. The Chick fil in cleveland was still packed yesterday (Thursday the 2nd) and sold out of chicken sandwiches before closing and was out of ketchup.

Edited August 3, 2012 by sigmtnman

[Oh Shoot]

1. The government has no business being in the business of licensing marriage or providing monetary benefits to anyone.

So you also don't think that things like benefits from social security, military, inheritance, life insurance, etc should be there in the first place?

2. Two adults regardless of gender should be able to enter into whatever sort of contract they want as long as it is not under duress and does not infringe on other's rights.

Problem is, you can't make a contract that the government will honor regarding such matters as I mentioned in your point 1.

A guy can't make a contract with another guy to receive the survivor's social security benefits, for one quick example. And the two guys can't do the contract of "marriage" to make it happen either.

Again, the concepts of "marriage" and "legal union" are going to have to be separated. Let religion honor the first and the state honor the second.

- OS

[sigmtnman]

So you also don't think that things like benefits from social security, military, inheritance, life insurance, etc should be there in the first place?

Problem is, you can't make a contract that the government will honor regarding such matters as I mentioned in your point 1.

A guy can't make a contract with another guy to receive the survivor's social security benefits, for one quick example. And the two guys can't do the contract of "marriage" to make it happen either.

Again, the concepts of "marriage" and "legal union" are going to have to be separated. Let religion honor the first and the state honor the second.

- OS

If you have not gathered it by now, I don't believe the federal government should be in the business of doing much of anything. I don't believe in Social Security. I'm not sure what benefits from military you are referring to but I'd assume it's pension and if so, I don't believe the pension should transition to anyone after death and really don't believe there should be a pension. If the man did a bang up job, pay him when he departs and let him do what he wants with the money.

As far as inheritance, I was under the impression someone could leave their stuff to anyone, though I've never inherited or left anything (thank goodness) so I'm ignorant to that. If it's about taxes on the inheritance, then I feel there really should be no federal taxes on income, capital gains or personal property. If it collects those taxes, it will want to get bigger and tax more and get bigger and, well you get the idea.

Life Insurance, I'm guessing you are referring to taxes as well? Again, I'm not a believer in taxing; see above. I know I can make anyone I want a beneficiary without the feds consent.

[TMF]

I'm not sure what benefits from military you are referring to but I'd assume it's pension and if so, I don't believe the pension should transition to anyone after death and really don't believe there should be a pension. If the man did a bang up job, pay him when he departs and let him do what he wants with the money.

Well say goodbye to a volunteer and professional Military, because you aren't going to see quality leaders give 20+ years of their life for a pat on their back.

[sigmtnman]

Well say goodbye to a volunteer and professional Military, because you aren't going to see quality leaders give 20+ years of their life for a pat on their back.

I did not mean to imply a pat on the back. I meant give them their money as a lump sum and let them do with it as they please. Pensions are a way for folks to be robbed due to inflation. If the person was given the lump sum upon departure, they could invest it as they see fit, give it to whoever they want, leave it to whoever they want and not have to worry about the cost of living increases eating away at the fixed income.

I would ask though, why would folks immediately chose that as an impetus to not join the military? Many folks work highly dangerous professional jobs that offer no sort of pension or support after leaving the job.

Edited August 3, 2012 by sigmtnman

[TMF]

I did not mean to imply a pat on the back. I meant give them their money as a lump sum and let them do with it as they please.

Pensions are a way for folks to be robbed due to inflation. If the person was given the lump sum upon departure, they could invest it as they see fit and not have to worry about the cost of living increases eating away at the fixed income.

Doesn't work that way in the Military. Retirement pay is based on your pay grade. Every year when Congress approves a 2-5% pay raise for Servicemembers it counts for retirees. So, If someone retires as an E-8 at 50% he will get half the base pay of an active E-8, not half of what he was making when he retired. This prevents them from getting screwed... unless of course they lower pay for active Servicemembers or don't give them their yearly raise to offset inflation... which is not likely to happen.

Edited August 3, 2012 by TMF 18B

[daddyo]

I support his free speech, and if a private company wants to incorporate religious ideals in their philosophy, go ahead. You still can't get around the bigotry of the statement, and in our modern free society, they run the risk of alienating potential customers. I don't think it will hurt them as every Chick Fil A I see is completely packed at lunch time.

Why is it bigotry to believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman?

[daddyo]

What ever happend to " dont judge lest you want to be judged?

Either way.. I dont care what they think of gays.

Was never fond of their food anyway.

Believing that marriage should be between a man and a woman is not judging.

[zapfbroad]

Dan Cathy isn't a politician. He's a businessman, whose father 'single-handedly' built his business. The same day that Rahm Emanuel drew his line in the sand to support his unconstitutional stance he welcomed Louis Farrakhan to Chicago and embraced him publicly. That man is one of the most vitriol inciters of racism, anti-semitism & homophobia in the public eye of this nation. Thereafter, Rahm Emanuel's sentiments were affirmed by other like minded individuals in charge of running major metropolitan areas. Make no mistake this is more than just about one family's business or personal ethos. This is more than just about whether or not same-sex marriage is something that should be tolerated & accepted or if it is acceptable for the gay community to demand that non-gays also endorse & support their lifestyle choices.

35 years ago these politicians would have received short shrift from the media, the populace & their fellows in the government and sent home to pack for their new life in Mother Russia. The continued climate of political correctness has adjusted for such an erosion of morality and values that no longer is it acceptable to be a man of conviction and backbone like Dan Cathy. The assumption was that Chick-Fil-A would cave under the pressure of the juggernaut of Political Correctness and that this continued degradation of society would continue in it's declination. Fortunately, there are some other people who feel the need to take up a righteous fight and champion on behalf of Dan Cathy in order to symbolize that we have not forgotten who we are, where we came from, or what this country is about. A harmonic resonance to sweep the nation, complete with disbelief and discontent. That is why so many millions, yes across the country those numbers of people attending are in the millions, showed up to patron Chick-Fil-A. Some people weren't really even sure why they showed up, it's easy to fall in with Christ & the 1st amendment. It's inexorably difficult to continue that walk daily supporting and living the Gospel of Christ (or the 1st amendment). The 1st amendment is 1st because of the importance in the structure of our government. The view that a prohibition against a business because of the owner's viewpoint differing from that of a civic official where the business operates within is not part of democratic republic in which we live. It's the ideology of a totalitarian dictatorship. That pressure that many of you have articulated to go is a part of the struggle and it's admirable but it must be aligned in context of your freedom to do unto others, improve yourselves & contribute to society. When you live as a persecuted people it's not impossible but it's damn hard to lift up others. That's why now is one of the most important times in our country's history. We are at a demarcation in the road between two paths. We've been walking up to this fork for some time but it's important to pay attention, educate ourselves about the truth of the reality in which we live and make sure that we are walking the path We want to continue on towards our kingdom.

People must truly stop trying to blindly live the soundbites of ideology that politicians are so willing to dole out by the cupful and examine, unpack, question, and consider.

There is no constitutional right to marriage of a man and a woman. To continue this predilection of advocating a constitutional right for a man to marry a man or a woman a woman is simply pandering to a minority. 32 states including Rahm Emanuel's have decided that by popular vote that the state should not recognize gay marriage. Gay 'rights' advocates will not accept the populace's will, they must foist their will upon the populace by judge shopping. It is only by judicial decree that gay marriage is recognized. It is characterized as intolerance, bigotry, homophobia if you don't accept the gay advocates' perspective all designed to elicit an emotional response to conform. Why should two men be allowed to marry each other and be recognized as equal to a tradition that has dated back more than 2000 years?

Why not a father & daughter of legal age without reproductive capability? A brother & sister? They love each other too. Why not allow a man and two women to marry? They all love each other and want to share health insurance and pass on estates as well. What gravity lends more credence to a homosexual couple as opposed to a polygynist or polyandrist? They conform more closely to the traditional societal view of marriage just in plurality. What about one woman & ten men, well it's not love but it's financially expedient so why should we judge? Outrageous & absurd to even ask? Well is it then?

If we're going to advocate everyone having equal rights then regardless of income everyone should pay the same tax rate. Otherwise we're discriminating against the wealthy and successful. Taxes actually Are in the constitution. Article I. Section 8 of the US Constitution. This idea of equal rights seems to fail scrutiny when applied to this context.

People do not have Equal rights, they have Inalienable Rights, they are Created Equal. It is essential to understand the defining difference in believing we have Inalienable Rights and Equal Rights. To continue to pursue a utopian society is folly that has historically been predicated by ruin. This is inarguable except that people choose not to pay attention to history or the present. It's far more comfortable to live in a fractionalized reality than to day in and day out accept and understand the difficulty of life and the rewards of success due to those challenges.

To be clear, I could care less who marries who, let's get some birds involved right. I care what people tell me I Have to accept. That's Liberty. That is what is being eroded. There has been since Vietnam a pervasive effort to destroy the United States and remake it. The effort begins by saying, we're a bunch of elitists in the world (guilt). Look what they are doing over there (greener pasture). That's not as Hard for everybody, granted no One is likely to succeed beyond others individually but it's not about the individual it's about the society as a whole (easy solution). It finds a handhold in the hearts of many Americans because this echoes what Jesus said about peace and loving one another right? Washing feet and all that? But it lays scorn to the scouring of the wicked that God laid upon the world, the righteous fury in which God smote down the sinners, those were hard times. Times to make a man go to a mountain and pull his hair out and scream at the sky. Jesus and God one and the same, two sides of a coin. As I said it's easy to fall in with Christ. There's a band of troubadours 2000 years in front of us calling us to the party. It's God that comes to us alone, demands absolution and to look upon Oneself starkly with honest conviction that we did what was right and we face judgement for our choices. This is part of what I imagine Dan Cathy meant by saying we are shaking our fist at God.

[Guest Nikator]

This CFA thing is only a big thing here in the south, where ignorance, intolerance, and a religious superiority complex are combined to form all of you supporters.