Chick-Fil-A Agrees To Cease Funding To Anti-Gay Organizations

no state requires consumation through sexual relations.

 

Yeah, if only.

Yep, he probably will. That is why it will be a VERY LONG TIME before I purchase their product again. I haven't been there since the 'controversy' began. They'll get my 'chicken' money, after I see that they are consistently advocating for liberty, freedom and justice.

Right now, Chic-fil-A is on my personal list of boycotts along with Walmart (the hardest to quit) and Papa John's. if you don't show that you can support workers and gay people... I don't want to be your customer (because I'm in both categories). Denny's may come off of my list and Texaco (black jelly beans) hasn't seen my car drive into their parking lot since.

Exactly!

In light of what Cathy has supported against homosexual people, I hope there are FEWER and fewer stores of his opening. I know he won't get 'my' several hundreds of dollars a year.

Really, the best answer for those of us who MUST be somewhat activistic about gay rights... is to strongly support corporations and businesses which are LGBT-friendly. If we fill the pockets of bigoted organizations with money, they WILL use that money against homosexual people.

 

I believe that's now 5 sources that say otherwise. Of course, you've convinced yourself your personal proclamations "refute" any amount of evidence

 

you haven't provided any state statute backing up your claims. I of course can't prove a negative, as there is nothing to provide to rebut non existant laws.

your argument remains refuted.

 

LOLOLOL!!!! You cant prove it, and yet that doesnt stop you from declaring the argument to be refuted because you have proclaimed it to be so. You wont find statutes because it is a part of the common law.

And still, 5 sources that directly contradict your assertion while you have nothing other than your personal proclamations

 

of course I can prove it. the coplete and total absence of any such law in any state. see how easy it is to refute you idiocy?

no it isn't.

none of the sources you provided list any statute or law in any state. they are meaningless, and your argument remains refuted.

 

I am confused... who am I cheering for in this e-argument???

rahl or dixon?

 

Theres nothing to cheer. Dixon made an idiotic claim and got called on it. He's been dancing ever since.

It's what he does

 

So we're stuck in an endless loop. The thread has deteriorated to the point where there's no actual discussion going on. Which seems to be the goal of people who endlessly troll every thread on gay topics - divert and derail to the point that it's impossible to discuss the topic. Which is why I ignore them and unsubscribe when a thread reaches this point.

Buh-bye!

 

but are you or he the liberal in this conversation so I know who to help deflect the topic for....

 

5different and linked to sources that all confirm my claim, directly refuting your claim. We can see where the idiocy resides

 

who supports cfa and who doesn't out of you two

 

I tried to do the CFA appreciation day on my lunch break, but the place was surrounded by people waiting in line. I support CFA support of the family and oppose all this "gay marriage" silliness and would argue that such special treatment for gays is in and of itself a violation of our constitutional rights to equal protection.

 

really? you provided the state statutes? I must have missed that post. please link me to it.

 

well that of course makes sense. equal rights for gays violates the constitution and equal protection and somehow means special rights for gays.

makes total sense.

 

I said "sources", not "statutes". And I only provided 2 of them, the other poster provided the 3 others. And you still havent yet provided even one source to support yours. Like I said it comes from common law, not statutes. You wouldnt understand.

 

without statutes, it's meaningless. I have nothing to provide, since I can't prove a negative. Unless you would like me to list every state statute and marriage law for every state in the union, showing the absence of your made up law?

of course I understand. no state requires consumation or sex for a marriage to be valid. neither by statute or common law. which is why you can't provide any statute or law saying otherwise, and why you continue to dance.

 

Here is just a bit of info/views from the earlier days of the controversy to consider.

The author's words below, sum up my overall opinion of where Mr. Cathy was in serious error.

 

No, it's called common law.

 

No it isn't, which is why you can't provide any statute or law

 

Its obvious you dont comprehend the meaning of common law.

 

http://usmarriagelaws.com/search/united_states/legal_requirements/index.shtml

 

of course I do. dance dance dance