Chick-fil-a "day" makes me sad...

There is really nothing else to say to this, other than I hope you get psychological help soon....(or better yet a psychiatrist, cause you might need medication)

 

Probably doesn't have a health plan.

Cannabis?

 

Thats your problem. Anyone who disagrees with your perverse opinion is full of hate.



Sooooooooo funny the hypocrisy of the left. Or maybe its just stupidity. Or perversion. We should have a poll!


I'll include an all of the above option...

 

Simple solve of this. Government doesn't stand in the way of any religion groups including Muslims or Aethiests from getting married at "the courthouse". Yet gay's cant. Republicans scream, "Less Government!" but if it comes to gay marriage they say, "well..........keep that part"

Using government to keep gays from getting married is throwing stones. Anyone who reads the bible should know this.

Besides.................you can't have a law that protects a citizen from a citizens sin.........can you? Idiots.

 

Wow, you really missed the point, didn't ya! After the CEO expressed the personal opinion that he supports traditional marriage, liberals got up in arms. Several mayors of towns threatened to use their political office to prevent the private enterprise from setting up shop. Liberals threatened to boycott, vandalize, and sit-in the restaurants. You have probably seen the video of the hateful liberal verbally assaulting a woman in a drive-through window. It would be one thing to have a difference in opinion, but it is entirely a different issue when politicians intend to use their office to prevent a company from operating in their city for an unrelated personal opinion.

When I see liberal abuse their positions of power like that, I feel a desire to show I don't support abuse of power.

 

You have nothing to say because you can't think of any lies to counter with my infallible truth.

If government was abolished tomorrow the Tea Party, libertarians and anarchists will live on. Oh so many liberals will curl up in a ball and die, or get shot trying to rob conservatives.

 

So says an anonymous internet guy, keep living in that fantasy world....

 

Anti - Chick-fillayers. What a point you got. DIscrimination against gays....forget that they serve, hire and sell franchises to them but still. you know what occurs to me? OPEC countries routinely torture and put Home-Ohs to death. I've got a great idea. Why don't you boycott Gasoline in your cars.

 

When "marriage" is used in the context of the joining of 2 humans; that term and definition combination belongs to them. Much like a permanent copyright for one's intellectual property. You have no right to take it from them or change it to suit your desires, their religion is theirs and it is protected by the Constitution. They aren't IMPOSING that you partake of their religion or of their religious ceremony of marriage. You are attempting a form of adverse possession by IMPOSING your will against them.

The religion clause of the First Ammendment was actually put there to protect religion from government, and to protect our right to the exercise thereof. Goverment does not grant us our rights. We receive them either by grant of God, or by nature, I believe the latter, and we don't lose those rights unless we give them voluntarily or they are taken by force. You are not being forced into any action, you are choosing to pursue action.

I concur that religion has killed many citizens of the world. I would also conclude that collectivism is running a close 2nd, if it hasn't achieved the pinnacle yet.

I care not if you have the same legal benefits. I do care that you should not be afforded the ability to infringe the rights of those who practice religion.

I believe religion does own the term/definition combo of marriage as it pertains to the joining of 2 individuals. It didn't become a legal agreement until government interferred with religion, which they should not have the right to do.

Nope.... You seem to admit, at least, it is the term you seek. The term seems to be more important than the legal benefit. I have no problem with the legal benefit, but I do believe you have no right to the term

In this context; they do

They originated the idea, it is theirs. Why is that hard for you to fathom?

Make that "government" code then.

[/QUOTE]

 

The interesting thing in all this is that if you call it a civil uinon and give it the same rights as a marriage no one cares. And the gays could have had that easily now in their desire to redefine what everyone else accepts as a marriage they may be on the verge of losing even that.

 

And there is NO reason that cannot refer to homosexual people (humans) as much as heterosexuals. It is obvious... despite the reality that you or others may not 'prefer' that to be.

No, this is NOT the same as any "copyright" case I've ever read about or dealt with. I studied that a bit, because I have written my own songs wanted to protect them. There NO WAY that heterosexuals somehow own the word "marriage"; if that were at all true... I could be literally sued for using it in a song without "permission".

That is 'nonsense'. No one has taken ANYTHING from heterosexuals or their marriages. I'd say that divorce has don't infinitely more to affect heterosexual marriages, than anything else I can think of in this reality.

I never claimed that they were. I inferred that religion should not be IMPOSED upon those with beliefs or values OTHER than those who are of "religion".

I'm not suggesting anything like that... and it is nevertheless clear to most reasonable human beings, that the 'religious' nor 'heterosexuals' (per se) can make a sole claim of possession in this matter. It doesn't take any law degree to see that.

And as settled law would have it, we also know that it means that those who are of no religion or diverse 'belief' (values or faith), would not be imposed-upon either. In essence, following your logic would somehow ultimately mean that atheists would have fewer rights than Southern Baptists (or other group); that is certainly NOT the case as law has been interpreted and applied in America.

Well, yes... it does (it also defends them). Do you think that our rights come from "religion" per se? If so... can you narrow down which religion or why that is so? Our rights definitely aren't directly from the "Bible" (per se); so what are you attempting to claim here?

That is a loaded claim. I've seen that discussed before (many times) and it is clear enough that the Constitution isn't referring to Yahweh or Allah or any particular 'god'. Nature defines some of our rights for sure... I'm perfectly clear on what aspects stem from what is SECULAR (natural) or what may be from religion. In any case... that in no way precludes homosexual people from protection and equal rights under the Supreme Law of The Land.

It is not against the U.S. Constitution for homosexual people to fight for equal rights and protections under the law. Anyone who thinks that is of such a shuttered view, that their position is a distortion of legal realities.

Yep. But free and more liberal thinking has essentially mitigated the same over time. Thank goodness!!

Well we can argue that in another thread perhaps. I don't see any connection to that topic here in this thread.

It is not about what YOU care; this is A LOT BIGGER than YOU. (I respect the reality that you have a right to your own sensibilities and personal view.)

I did not suggest any 'infringement', only EQUAL rights and protections. This will not disadvantage the 'religious'.

I see that is your 'belief'... but that cannot be so-defined Constitutionally. Or at least such a definition will not stand for all time in this nation.

Again, that is a separate topic. It has nothing to do with the rights homosexual couples are seeking... though any subsequent rulings on that matter could perhaps affect ALL couples.

Of course.

It would be a massive mistake, to assume that were true. The LEGAL part is about ALL most homosexual people are fighting for; but it is NOT that there aren't scores of other reasons to 'marry' someone, like LOVING them with all that you are...etc.

Again, it isn't about taking away anything which other hold sacred. And "marriage" is surely not confined to that which is approved of and accepted by the religious or those who are in exclusively "heterosexual" relationships. Really, it is ludicrous to suggest otherwise.

You are kidding right? (If not, please prove it beyond the shadow of any reasonable doubt.)

Millions of people are fighting for reasonableness and fairness. The government WILL change over time; that is inevitable.

 

I hit you where it hurts.

Go on now, do whatever it is retarded liberals do, like....go around calling conservatives the same when we all know who's the inferior.

 

Why the insults? (What a waste.)

Do you really think that anyone of us anonymously posting in these fora... should not be challenged? Come on.

 

"Challenging" me by just saying I am an anonymous person on the internet and living in a fantasy world is not a challenge, it's a dodge and an anonymous liberal's way of curling up in his ball.

 

In the UK, you can screw a gay person for about 10 quid (if you don't mind using a junkie and if that's your cup of tea).
Personally, I prefer women.

A more serious note; this hate eat is pathetic.
If it was an eat in against blacks or Jews...well, but because it's 'pillow biters', that's ok then.

Hate is so stupid, regardless of who hates who.

 

I agree with you on all of that (except that I haven't seen the video you're talking about). I'm just saying it's weird to spend a bunch of money to screw with gay people, and I don't intend to give them any of my money to do that with. I understand there are a lot of people that don't sympathize with the Chicken People on screwing with gay people, but intend to support them in order to show their opposition to the arguably greater evil of the government messing with people (even Chicken People). I think that's totally valid, in terms of this judgment call. It's just not the call I'm making.

 

It may not be the BEST possible challenge... but it IS one. And why should anyone trust another here? We don't know who's on the other end of the text we read.

Conservatives are just as 'flawed' and HUMAN as the rest of the people participating here. Please, try to consider/remember that.

 

Great points!!

 

John Stewart had it right. If you were there just to stick it to the gays then that is one thing, but if you were there to protest the government abuse of someones constitutional rights then that is admirable. I support states deciding gay marriage through referendums. However, had there been a Chik Fil A nearby I would have bought two chicken sandwiches because the overreach of some hyper partisan liberals on a power trip is far worse to me that some guy's religious views. I haven't heard about a history of Chick Fil A denying employment or service to people for being gay.

 

I don't. It's a form of mob rule mentality; tyranny of the majority.

But there is A LOT MORE to consider than just that.

 

He give money to fellow Christian organizations............so? Focus and the other groups don't exist solely to stop gay marriage that just happens to be one of their platforms. That is his business and if people don't like it then they don't eat there. That does NOT give any politician the right to deny business permits just because they don't like someones politics. That is pure tyranny, ironically you have no problem with the local government imposing their views on people but at the same time complain about states legalizing gay marriage through a referendum. Hypocrite anyone?

I can't wait for the next pro gay marriage business to be barred from operating in Texas or Virginia. It will be hilarious the complete 180 that all the libs that defended the actions of the mayors will all of a sudden decry government abuse and stepping on peoples constitutional rights.

 

If that's all you can see in that... then you'll continue to fail to see why Dan Cathy and his corporation will be persistently opposed for as long as it takes.

Boycott? No, it is more than that. Cathy has lost customers for a lifetime.

 

no, actually I was giving you the benefit of the doubt that you are just a misguided internet commando that in real life is scared to go out and interact with people, but now I see you are a very troubled individual that deserves no more of my time or interest...good day.

 

Then don't buy his product. You have NO right to prevent him from opening a lawful business in an area just because you disagree with his politics. All you are doing is making yourself sound exactly like how you characterize the people on the right as. You are being a complete hypocrite.

Judging by the massive turnout and the apparent failure of the "kiss ins" I don't see how you can possible think that somehow this has hurt Chick Fil A in any way. You liberals have essentially just made thousands of new customers for that company in your sick attempts to deny someone their constitutional right of free speech.

 

Yeah I never said I wasn't human buddy. And trust has nothing to do with using logic and knowing who is superior. When you go around calling conservatives (not you personally) retarded and backwards, when in reality you should be licking their boots, everyone knows who is speaking bull (*)(*)(*)(*).