Chick-Fil-A Appreciation Day

[BigK]

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.

Friday the other side is supposed to be staging what they've decided to call a "Kiss In". They want homosexuals to go to Chick-fil-A and sit around kissing in an attempt to disgust the other patrons and show how strong their cause is. That event has some pretty big shoes to fill. When all is said and done, we'll see which side it makes more economic sense to pander to.

I'm sure a lot of people who showed to support Dan Cathy's 1st Ammendment rights. Others likely showed up to support his religious beliefs. Unfortunately, I predict that if the media gives this the coverage it deserves (it's a pretty freaking big deal) they'll label them all gay-bashing, narrow-minded, zealots, who have no right judging the lifestyles of others...just saying.

[Wingshooter]

Friday the other side is supposed to be staging what they've decided to call a "Kiss In". They want homosexuals to go to Chick-fil-A and sit around kissing in an attempt to disgust the other patrons and show how strong their cause is. That event has some pretty big shoes to fill. When all is said and done, we'll see which side it makes more economic sense to pander to.

I'm sure a lot of people who showed to support Dan Cathy's 1st Ammendment rights. Others likely showed up to support his religious beliefs. Unfortunately, I predict that if the media gives this the coverage it deserves (it's a pretty freaking big deal) they'll label them all gay-bashing, narrow-minded, zealots, who have no right judging the lifestyles of others...just saying.

A kiss-In... How gay, lol. Yeah, that'll show him!

Liberals....

Edited August 2, 2012 by Batman

[Guest ThePunisher]

Anybody sure it's just going to be a kiss-in!

Anyway, this publicity for both sides is not good for Obama and the Libs.

Edited August 2, 2012 by ThePunisher

[Guest dubaholic2]

I'm all for freedom of speech, whether I agree with it or not, but I sure won't be buying anything from them. I believe religion should be kept out business.

[Wingshooter]

I'm all for freedom of speech, whether I agree with it or not, but I sure won't be buying anything from them. I believe religion should be kept out business.

Oh man, the Christian bookstores would be in trouble.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Yeah, but some people might think its ok to have freedom of speech such as flag burning, but don't believe in freedom of worship.

And it seems this BS political correctness is curbing our freedom of speech.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Hi Mr P

That is a good point that all the amendments must be defended. In many nations it has gradually become criminal to "hurt someone's feelings" or "say unfactual things". Dunno law but have heard the limitation of speech in USA-- "Can't yell fire in a crowded theater". Over time perhaps the principle gradually expands eroding the first amendment? Think I recall that "fighting words" are also not protected speech? Speech that can reasonably be expected to start a fight or incite a crime is not protected?

Maybe that is how it gradually slips-- If speech on the sinfulness of gay marriage could be interpreted as fighting words, or alternately might incite some idiot to criminality? Or a crime to disseminate "wrong and harmful" information on global warming or vitamins or whatever?

Folks ought to be able to say about anything and ought not be too thin-skinned. On the other hand even if it rudeness shouldn't be illegal, it is preferable to be polite, respectful and accurate. It is unrealistic to be offended for being disrespected if one is disrespectful. OTOH disrespect can be in the eye of the beholder. I'd as soon cut people slack and let em alone if at all possible. Disrespect breeds disrespect. If a person volunteers to give me an unasked-for lecture on religion, it is most tactful to politely say "no thanks" or nod politely if it is some sweet old granny you can't stand to hurt her feelings. But the person ought to be prepared to hear unasked-for opinions on their religion if I happen to be in a grumpy mood. Freedom of speech goes both ways though it is better to practice, "If I can't say something nice, don't say anything at all."

Offended gays like Rahm Emmanuel didn't "start it" in this case. If the chickfila dude hadn't started the conversation then it isn't likely that people would have made a stink for no reason. Though it seemed silly to over-react and turn it into a big deal. Who cares what the chickfila dude says? Who cares what Rahm says? Sticks and stones.

[Mark@Sea]

The Chic-fil-a dude didn't start it. A national gay/lesbian group asked his corporate headquarters for a large donation. Corporate politely replied in the negative. The group immediately started media bashing Chic-fil-a as bigoted, racist, anti-gay, what have you. The owner of the company replied in an interview that homosexuality was against his faith, and therefore his (family owned) company chose not to donate to their political warchest.

Does that make him a bigot? A homophobe? Isn't it okay to decline to fund something you believe is wrong? Some folks here have immediately leapt to the defense of Islam (whose practitioners worldwide kill homosexuals), then turned around and attacked Christians who don't discriminate, merely refuse to donate to an organisation they believe is promoting values actively hostile to their faith.

This disconnect from rationality is called 'liberalism'. I'm not sure why, as 'liberals' are some of the most intolerant people I've ever seen. Any departure from their party line is met with scorn, hatred, libel, and threats. Apparently individual liberty is incompatible with their worldview.

Edited August 2, 2012 by Mark@Sea

[Guest ThePunisher]

The Chic-fil-a dude didn't start it. A national gay/lesbian group asked his corporate headquarters for a large donation. Corporate politely replied in the negative. The group immediately started media bashing Chic-fil-a as bigoted, racist, anti-gay, what have you. The owner of the company replied in an interview that homosexuality was against his faith, and therefore his (family owned) company chose not to donate to their political warchest.

Does that make him a bigot? A homophobe? Isn't it okay to decline to fund something you believe is wrong? Some folks here have immediately leapt to the defense of Islam (whose practitioners worldwide kill homosexuals), then turned around and attacked Christians who don't discriminate, merely refuse to donate to an organisation they believe is promoting values actively hostile to their faith.

This disconnect from rationality is called 'liberalism'. I'm not sure why, as 'liberals' are some of the most intolerant people I've ever seen. Any departure from their party line is met with scorn, hatred, libel, and threats. Apparently individual liberty is incompatible with their worldview.

Well said.

[TMF]

I find this topic ironic.

When someone says / does something that threatens gun owners rights nearly 100% of the response is "don't infringe on my ####ing rights."

When some bigot infringes on others rights ya'll celebrate and support it.

I don't support or deny others from what makes them happy, as long as its legal and don't infringe on my rights.

I don't think you understand the issue here at all and are simply speaking out of ignorance so let me try to educate you as to why I and many others are upset at the liberal media's attack on this organization and the baseless remarks by folks like you that accuse folks of bigotry.

First, the owner of Chick-Fil-A did not come out and denounce homosexuality. He was solicited for his opinion on the subject and then attacked for it. I would never hold someone accountable for their opinions and beliefs so long as they are not trying to force them on me. He was not.

To put it into perspective, if the founders of Starbucks (started in a liberal Mecca) were to be asked their opinion on gun control and answered that they don't believe that the 2A refers to individual ownership I would not hold that against them. I would still go to Starbucks and get my overpriced coffee from a person of ambiguous gender. Now, if Starbucks was to make a press statement against gun owners or lobbied for gun control that would be a different story; I would boycott them.

Kinda like the Dixie Chicks fiasco. They've always had their opinions against conservatives. I didn't care. It had nothing to do with their music. They chose to make it a part of their music when they went on stage and spoke about how awful our country and President was. At that point it is about their music and that's why people boycotted it.

In the case of Chick-Fil-A I would like for you to show me evidence of your accusations that their religious beliefs infringe on "your rights." Please, I am very curious as I'm sure as it will add insight into this debate since you obviously know something that none of the rest of us do. Chick-Fil-A employs gays; there is no discrimination to employees or customers. In fact, if pressed about his opinions on gays in general I would imagine this man would have a very accepting opinion and no ill will or hate if he is a good Christian.

I don't care what his opinions are. I actually disagree with him. If gay marriages were recognized nation wide I wouldn't care. What I don't approve of is the media attacking his company for his beliefs and then folks like yourself spreading lies about bigotry and rights infringements. That is the sort of thing that makes people line up and wait for hours to patronize Chick-Fil-A because they see through the lies of witch hunters like you.

Like I said, Chick-Fil-A is laughing all the way to the bank on this one.

Edited August 2, 2012 by TMF 18B

[TMF]

double tap

Edited August 2, 2012 by TMF 18B

[Guest Lester Weevils]

The Chic-fil-a dude didn't start it. A national gay/lesbian group asked his corporate headquarters for a large donation. Corporate politely replied in the negative. The group immediately started media bashing Chic-fil-a as bigoted, racist, anti-gay, what have you. The owner of the company replied in an interview that homosexuality was against his faith, and therefore his (family owned) company chose not to donate to their political warchest.

Does that make him a bigot? A homophobe? Isn't it okay to decline to fund something you believe is wrong? Some folks here have immediately leapt to the defense of Islam (whose practitioners worldwide kill homosexuals), then turned around and attacked Christians who don't discriminate, merely refuse to donate to an organisation they believe is promoting values actively hostile to their faith.

Thanks for the explanation Mark

If that is how it went down then gays such as Rahm Emmanuel have no right to take offense and should be treated more rudely than I used to occasionally treat uninvited missionaries at my door before mellowing out. In fact, were I in the chikfila dude's place and had his resources, I'd consider turning it into a bigger series of internecine harrassment lawsuits against every possible target, than the scientologists ever dreamed possible. Bleed the harrassers to death in legal defense fees. See how many times they can try a shakedown and stay out of the poorhouse.

I don't know the fellow and therefore don't know if he is a bigot or homophobe. It doesn't matter because I don't care whether somebody is a bigot, homophobe, homosexual, baptist or sunni. Its their own business and none of mine as long as they stay out of my yard. The fella can donate to whoever he pleases with his own money. It is his money.

[Oh Shoot]

...Offended gays like Rahm Emmanuel didn't "start it" in this case...

...If that is how it went down then gays such as Rahm Emmanuel have no right...

Just a note, Rahm DeadFish ain't gay (as far as anyone knows). He's married with 3 kids.

- OS

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Just a note, Rahm DeadFish ain't gay (as far as anyone knows). He's married with 3 kids.

Thanks OhShoot. Maybe or maybe not, I dunno. There is absolutely nothing wrong with being a homosexual so how could he possibly be offended even if it isn't true?

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I'm all for freedom of speech, whether I agree with it or not, but I sure won't be buying anything from them. I believe religion should be kept out business.

As is your right. So, are you telling them how to run their business? Do you not respect the right to that man's running his own company the way he sees fit? It wasn't his company that made the statement. It was him. He felt the need to say what was on his mind. The same as you around here. He defended principles

he believes in. Besides, he runs his business within the law and doesn't discriminate against anyone,

unless someone dislikes the idea that his stores close on Sunday

This gay crap is in our faces 24/7 on the news. Political correctness is the tactic used to convince otherwise normally thinking people to jump on the gay bandwagon because they are the latest "victims" of discrimination. They want something that is not theirs, yet people rationalize and decide it's acceptable to break traditions just to accomodate them.

Personally, I'm glad to see someone of his stature say what's on his mind. To ridicule someone for his religious beliefs begs me to ask what other beliefs do you think should be shunted?

Travel down the political correctness road to Hell and see what all those good intentions produce.

Edited August 2, 2012 by 6.8 AR

[Glenn]

As is your right. So, are you telling them how to run their business? Do you not respect the right to that man's running his own company the way he sees fit? It wasn't his company that made the statement. It was him. He felt the need to say what was on his mind. The same as you around here. He defended principles

he believes in. Besides, he runs his business within the law and doesn't discriminate against anyone,

unless someone dislikes the idea that his stores close on Sunday

This gay crap is in our faces 24/7 on the news. Political correctness is the tactic used to convince otherwise normally thinking people to jump on the gay bandwagon because they are the latest "victims" of discrimination. They want something that is not theirs, yet people rationalize and decide it's acceptable to break traditions just to accomodate them.

Personally, I'm glad to see someone of his stature say what's on his mind. To ridicule someone for his religious beliefs begs me to ask what other beliefs do you think should be shunted?

Travel down the political correctness road to Hell and see what all those good intentions produce.

^Thank You^

Glenn

[tnhawk]

When gay soldiers recently violated DODI 1334.01, by participating in a gay parade while in uniform, liberals and the media considered it a Ist Ammendment right. Yet, they are offended when a business chooses not to donate to a national gay group.

Why should this insignifiant group of liberals think they should dictate to a corporation, how it chooses to donate it's money?

Edited August 2, 2012 by tnhawk

[RobertNashville]

I'm all for freedom of speech, whether I agree with it or not, but I sure won't be buying anything from them. I believe religion should be kept out business.

It was homosexual radicals, the press and government leaders who brought politics into the "business"; this event was to support the innocent party who was being harmed by those acts.

[RobertNashville]

The Chic-fil-a dude didn't start it. A national gay/lesbian group asked his corporate headquarters for a large donation. Corporate politely replied in the negative. The group immediately started media bashing Chic-fil-a as bigoted, racist, anti-gay, what have you. The owner of the company replied in an interview that homosexuality was against his faith, and therefore his (family owned) company chose not to donate to their political warchest.

Does that make him a bigot? A homophobe? Isn't it okay to decline to fund something you believe is wrong? Some folks here have immediately leapt to the defense of Islam (whose practitioners worldwide kill homosexuals), then turned around and attacked Christians who don't discriminate, merely refuse to donate to an organisation they believe is promoting values actively hostile to their faith.

This disconnect from rationality is called 'liberalism'. I'm not sure why, as 'liberals' are some of the most intolerant people I've ever seen. Any departure from their party line is met with scorn, hatred, libel, and threats. Apparently individual liberty is incompatible with their worldview.

Tread carefully...you are dangerously close to presenting so many facts that you are going to make some folks feel uncomfortable.

Edited August 2, 2012 by RobertNashville

[tnhawk]

Think I'll visit a Chic-fill-a today, the libs will all be at Starbucks.

[Luckyforward]

And at the end of the day, all this effort really did was to make the Cathy family (the owners of the chain) richer than they already are . . .

[GKar]

<<And at the end of the day, all this effort really did was to make the Cathy family (the owners of the chain) richer than they already are . . . >>

And the problem with that would be...?

[BigK]

Think I'll visit a Chic-fill-a today, the libs will all be at Starbucks.

Hey! I like Starbucks too and I'm not a lib, LOL. Plus, they made an unpopular decision with some of their customers not to adopt a corporate "no gun" policy not long ago. So, despite all the smelly hippies in Birkenstocks and cut-off shorts, I appreciate Starbucks and will support them as well.

And at the end of the day, all this effort really did was to make the Cathy family (the owners of the chain) richer than they already are . . .

Kudos, to him for it too! Couldn't happen to a nicer guy.

A few years back, Whoopi Goldberg publicly made some leftist comments (forget what they were about). As a consequence, one of the companies she did commercials for dropped her, citing that she was too controversial to represent them. She made a huge deal out of it, saying they were violating her 1st amendment rights.

Fact is, you can say what you want and if enough people agree (Dan Cathy) you are a hero. If too few agree (Dixie Chicks), you become a trivia question answer and disappear. This is NOT the same as discrimination, because we get to choose whether to punish or reward the speaker with our wallets....THAT'S THE WAY CAPITALISM IS SUPPOSED TO WORK!

[Hershmeister]

Lebanon TN store was packed yesterday!

[Guest 6.8 AR]

^Thank You^

Glenn

Your very welcome!

Usually good folks just live their lives and let things happen. This time enough was enough and Mr. Cathy stood on principles, rather than let live, by use of his own opinion.

Principles will survive. Fleeting moments just pass.

The Republic will survive when people stand up to fleeting moments with their principles.

Edited August 2, 2012 by 6.8 AR

[Guest ThePunisher]

Your very welcome!

Usually good folks just live their lives and let things happen. This time enough was enough and Mr. Cathy stood on principles, rather than let live, by use of his own opinion.

Principles will survive. Fleeting moments just pass.

The Republic will survive when people stand up to fleeting moments with their principles.

Glad to see people standing up to their principles instead of cowering to liberals and political correctness.