Total Posts:66|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Chik-fil-A Protest is hypocrisy

GenesisCreation
Posts: 496
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2012 6:58:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Saw this online, had to re-post:

"If the homosexuals stop buying chicken because Mr. Cathy took a stance for traditional marriage.....are they going to stop buying Gasoline because OPEC nations execute homosexuals?"
Um....You've got a log in your eye.
"I would be suspicious of an argument without any concessions." - John Dickson
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2012 7:06:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I'm a big advocate of consumer power and all that: choosing who you support, etc.

That being said, I personally don't get that whole boycotting thing. I'm gay, and I'd go to Chick-fil-A if they had one here. I personally don't care about a person's personal views. As long as they serve good food, I'm down.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
Ron-Paul
Posts: 2,557
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2012 7:13:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/1/2012 7:06:56 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
I'm a big advocate of consumer power and all that: choosing who you support, etc.

That being said, I personally don't get that whole boycotting thing. I'm gay, and I'd go to Chick-fil-A if they had one here. I personally don't care about a person's personal views. As long as they serve good food, I'm down.

My views to a T. A person can express moral opinions without prejudice.
MouthWash
Posts: 2,607
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2012 7:21:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Gay marriage supporters can't seem to cope with the fact that other people genuinely don't believe the same things they do. I see absolutely nothing wrong in not wanting a new, "better" concept of marriage to replace your "old, outmoded views." You can't compare it to interracial marriage because that was based on a falsifiable proposition (blacks are inferior) which just happened to be unfounded.
"Well, that gives whole new meaning to my assassination. If I was going to die anyway, perhaps I should leave the Bolsheviks' descendants some Christmas cookies instead of breaking their dishes and vodka bottles in their sleep." -Tsar Nicholas II (YYW)
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2012 7:34:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/1/2012 7:21:41 PM, MouthWash wrote:
Gay marriage supporters can't seem to cope with the fact that other people genuinely don't believe the same things they do. I see absolutely nothing wrong in not wanting a new, "better" concept of marriage to replace your "old, outmoded views." You can't compare it to interracial marriage because that was based on a falsifiable proposition (blacks are inferior) which just happened to be unfounded.

Much of the rhetoric used against gay marriage today is the same type of rhetoric used against interracial marriage of yesteryears. It makes you wonder.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
KeytarHero
Posts: 612
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2012 7:47:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Yeah, it's hypocritical, but to be fair that doesn't make their position wrong. But there's been a lot of inconsistency from the pro-homosexual crowd over this.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2012 7:49:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/1/2012 6:58:29 PM, GenesisCreation wrote:
Saw this online, had to re-post:

"If the homosexuals stop buying chicken because Mr. Cathy took a stance for traditional marriage.....are they going to stop buying Gasoline because OPEC nations execute homosexuals?"

It's only hypocrisy if they're aware of that Gasoline-OPEC-homosexual execution connection.
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2012 7:53:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/1/2012 7:21:41 PM, MouthWash wrote:
Gay marriage supporters can't seem to cope with the fact that other people genuinely don't believe the same things they do. I see absolutely nothing wrong in not wanting a new, "better" concept of marriage to replace your "old, outmoded views." You can't compare it to interracial marriage because that was based on a falsifiable proposition (blacks are inferior) which just happened to be unfounded.

I can cope with it. I'm still very much appalled by the anti-gay marriage (meaning, the position of disallowing the same thousand-odd rights/benefits afforded opposite sex couples toward same sex couples), though. I am. However, I won't give up the tastiness of chicken for it, like I've already said before. Honestly, the owner's views have very little to do with the restaurant.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
Microsuck
Posts: 1,562
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2012 8:00:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/1/2012 6:58:29 PM, GenesisCreation wrote:
Saw this online, had to re-post:

"If the homosexuals stop buying chicken because Mr. Cathy took a stance for traditional marriage.....are they going to stop buying Gasoline because OPEC nations execute homosexuals?"

I agree. Government has no business saying that a business cannot expand based soley upon the views of that owner. I ate at Chick-fil-A to show my support even though I'm gay and an atheist!
Wall of Fail

Devil worship much? - SD
Newsflash: Atheists do not believe in the Devil! - Me
Newsflash: I doesnt matter if you think you do or not.....You do - SD

"you [imabench] are very naive and so i do not consider your opinions as having any merit. you must still be in highschool" - falconduler
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2012 8:02:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/1/2012 8:00:07 PM, Microsuck wrote:
At 8/1/2012 6:58:29 PM, GenesisCreation wrote:
Saw this online, had to re-post:

"If the homosexuals stop buying chicken because Mr. Cathy took a stance for traditional marriage.....are they going to stop buying Gasoline because OPEC nations execute homosexuals?"

I agree. Government has no business saying that a business cannot expand based soley upon the views of that owner. I ate at Chick-fil-A to show my support even though I'm gay and an atheist!

Woah. Woah. WOAH. Since when are YOU gay???
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
Microsuck
Posts: 1,562
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2012 8:04:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/1/2012 8:02:13 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 8/1/2012 8:00:07 PM, Microsuck wrote:
At 8/1/2012 6:58:29 PM, GenesisCreation wrote:
Saw this online, had to re-post:

"If the homosexuals stop buying chicken because Mr. Cathy took a stance for traditional marriage.....are they going to stop buying Gasoline because OPEC nations execute homosexuals?"

I agree. Government has no business saying that a business cannot expand based soley upon the views of that owner. I ate at Chick-fil-A to show my support even though I'm gay and an atheist!

Woah. Woah. WOAH. Since when are YOU gay???

Much longer than when I was on DDO--that's for certain!
Wall of Fail

Devil worship much? - SD
Newsflash: Atheists do not believe in the Devil! - Me
Newsflash: I doesnt matter if you think you do or not.....You do - SD

"you [imabench] are very naive and so i do not consider your opinions as having any merit. you must still be in highschool" - falconduler
HelterSkelter
Posts: 281
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2012 8:06:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
People have a right to choose what to purchase. Chick Fil A has no right to the money and no right to the customers and thus the boycott is justified.

Now, with regards to OPEC:

1. Gasoline is necessary. Some people might not like it, but they can't do anything because they need it to function in society. Chick Fil A is not selling a necessary product.

2. Most people who are gay tend to be liberal and support alternative energy.

3. Most gays only care about their government's and society's position, and not on OPEC's position since they don't live in those nations.

4. OPEC is not directly selling the product here. They are selling it to companies that sell the product here. Therefore there is no interaction with OPEC.

On top of it, the government can choose to prevent expansion at the local level. The constitution does not ban this, and it's their money so they should be able to choose with businesses to protect with their tax dollars.
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2012 8:10:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/1/2012 8:06:15 PM, HelterSkelter wrote:
People have a right to choose what to purchase. Chick Fil A has no right to the money and no right to the customers and thus the boycott is justified.

Now, with regards to OPEC:

1. Gasoline is necessary. Some people might not like it, but they can't do anything because they need it to function in society. Chick Fil A is not selling a necessary product.

2. Most people who are gay tend to be liberal and support alternative energy.

3. Most gays only care about their government's and society's position, and not on OPEC's position since they don't live in those nations.

4. OPEC is not directly selling the product here. They are selling it to companies that sell the product here. Therefore there is no interaction with OPEC.

On top of it, the government can choose to prevent expansion at the local level. The constitution does not ban this, and it's their money so they should be able to choose with businesses to protect with their tax dollars.

Agreed. My position is simply a personal one. I think they're forcing it with this boycott.

However, what I AM vehemently opposed to is a mayor being able to stop someone from opening a business because they disagree with them politically. That is sheer tyranny.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
HelterSkelter
Posts: 281
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2012 8:26:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/1/2012 8:10:43 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 8/1/2012 8:06:15 PM, HelterSkelter wrote:
People have a right to choose what to purchase. Chick Fil A has no right to the money and no right to the customers and thus the boycott is justified.

Now, with regards to OPEC:

1. Gasoline is necessary. Some people might not like it, but they can't do anything because they need it to function in society. Chick Fil A is not selling a necessary product.

2. Most people who are gay tend to be liberal and support alternative energy.

3. Most gays only care about their government's and society's position, and not on OPEC's position since they don't live in those nations.

4. OPEC is not directly selling the product here. They are selling it to companies that sell the product here. Therefore there is no interaction with OPEC.

On top of it, the government can choose to prevent expansion at the local level. The constitution does not ban this, and it's their money so they should be able to choose with businesses to protect with their tax dollars.

Agreed. My position is simply a personal one. I think they're forcing it with this boycott.

However, what I AM vehemently opposed to is a mayor being able to stop someone from opening a business because they disagree with them politically. That is sheer tyranny.

The people don't have to pay to protect a business that is opposed to their existence. It's their money.
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2012 8:31:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/1/2012 8:26:20 PM, HelterSkelter wrote:
At 8/1/2012 8:10:43 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 8/1/2012 8:06:15 PM, HelterSkelter wrote:
People have a right to choose what to purchase. Chick Fil A has no right to the money and no right to the customers and thus the boycott is justified.

Now, with regards to OPEC:

1. Gasoline is necessary. Some people might not like it, but they can't do anything because they need it to function in society. Chick Fil A is not selling a necessary product.

2. Most people who are gay tend to be liberal and support alternative energy.

3. Most gays only care about their government's and society's position, and not on OPEC's position since they don't live in those nations.

4. OPEC is not directly selling the product here. They are selling it to companies that sell the product here. Therefore there is no interaction with OPEC.

On top of it, the government can choose to prevent expansion at the local level. The constitution does not ban this, and it's their money so they should be able to choose with businesses to protect with their tax dollars.

Agreed. My position is simply a personal one. I think they're forcing it with this boycott.

However, what I AM vehemently opposed to is a mayor being able to stop someone from opening a business because they disagree with them politically. That is sheer tyranny.

The people don't have to pay to protect a business that is opposed to their existence. It's their money.

I said I agreed.

What I said I WAS opposed to was mayors abusing their power to intimidate businesses because they disagree politically.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
HelterSkelter
Posts: 281
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2012 8:36:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/1/2012 8:31:37 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 8/1/2012 8:26:20 PM, HelterSkelter wrote:
At 8/1/2012 8:10:43 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 8/1/2012 8:06:15 PM, HelterSkelter wrote:
People have a right to choose what to purchase. Chick Fil A has no right to the money and no right to the customers and thus the boycott is justified.

Now, with regards to OPEC:

1. Gasoline is necessary. Some people might not like it, but they can't do anything because they need it to function in society. Chick Fil A is not selling a necessary product.

2. Most people who are gay tend to be liberal and support alternative energy.

3. Most gays only care about their government's and society's position, and not on OPEC's position since they don't live in those nations.

4. OPEC is not directly selling the product here. They are selling it to companies that sell the product here. Therefore there is no interaction with OPEC.

On top of it, the government can choose to prevent expansion at the local level. The constitution does not ban this, and it's their money so they should be able to choose with businesses to protect with their tax dollars.

Agreed. My position is simply a personal one. I think they're forcing it with this boycott.

However, what I AM vehemently opposed to is a mayor being able to stop someone from opening a business because they disagree with them politically. That is sheer tyranny.

The people don't have to pay to protect a business that is opposed to their existence. It's their money.

I said I agreed.

What I said I WAS opposed to was mayors abusing their power to intimidate businesses because they disagree politically.

I don't think you understood what I said.

If the people support that measure, the mayor absolutely has the obligation to carry it out. The people will be the ones paying to host Chick Fil A and protecting it while providing it with services like city water and electricity.
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,750
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2012 9:42:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/1/2012 6:58:29 PM, GenesisCreation wrote:
Saw this online, had to re-post:

"If the homosexuals stop buying chicken because Mr. Cathy took a stance for traditional marriage.....are they going to stop buying Gasoline because OPEC nations execute homosexuals?"

If it was just the owners opinion, no one would take issue. However, the company, Chik-Fil-A, donates money to anti-gay groups. They donated money to an anti-gay group called Exodus International. Exodus went to Uganda to spread the anti-gay message. Shortly after Uganda started hanging homosexuals. This company helped establish genocide in a foreign nation. The company also gives money to "gay conversion" groups". http://www.nytimes.com......

There is no hypocrisy. There are few substitutes for Gas. People have to buy from OPEC. If there was an "All American" gas company, I am sure people would support it instead of OPEC.

It is important for consumers to be aware of irresponsible actions by companies. Generally, aware consumers will favour responsible companies over irresponsible ones, and this will be better for all.
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,750
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2012 9:47:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Honestly, the owner's views have very little to do with the restaurant.

In the case of Chik-fil-a, they do. The company Chik-fil-a donates money to anti-gay groups. So buy purchasing Chik-fil-a, your money helps finance anti-gay groups.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2012 10:50:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/1/2012 8:36:33 PM, HelterSkelter wrote:
At 8/1/2012 8:31:37 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 8/1/2012 8:26:20 PM, HelterSkelter wrote:
At 8/1/2012 8:10:43 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 8/1/2012 8:06:15 PM, HelterSkelter wrote:
People have a right to choose what to purchase. Chick Fil A has no right to the money and no right to the customers and thus the boycott is justified.

Now, with regards to OPEC:

1. Gasoline is necessary. Some people might not like it, but they can't do anything because they need it to function in society. Chick Fil A is not selling a necessary product.

2. Most people who are gay tend to be liberal and support alternative energy.

3. Most gays only care about their government's and society's position, and not on OPEC's position since they don't live in those nations.

4. OPEC is not directly selling the product here. They are selling it to companies that sell the product here. Therefore there is no interaction with OPEC.

On top of it, the government can choose to prevent expansion at the local level. The constitution does not ban this, and it's their money so they should be able to choose with businesses to protect with their tax dollars.

Agreed. My position is simply a personal one. I think they're forcing it with this boycott.

However, what I AM vehemently opposed to is a mayor being able to stop someone from opening a business because they disagree with them politically. That is sheer tyranny.

The people don't have to pay to protect a business that is opposed to their existence. It's their money.

I said I agreed.

What I said I WAS opposed to was mayors abusing their power to intimidate businesses because they disagree politically.

I don't think you understood what I said.

If the people support that measure, the mayor absolutely has the obligation to carry it out. The people will be the ones paying to host Chick Fil A and protecting it while providing it with services like city water and electricity.

Businesses pay for utilities the same as residents do. The people don't for them to have free utilities. Are you saying that only those who agree with liberal policies should have access to public utilities??
Aaronroy
Posts: 749
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2012 12:46:38 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I'm baffled by this entire process. This really should not have gotten popular. If anything, this has only been giving Chick-fil-a free publicity. I don't believe the Mayor of Boston is going to ban Chick-fil-a, after all he simply 'urged' them not to expand to an area that takes pride in marriage equality (excessively so.)

As far as Chick-fil-a being anti-gay, this isn't news to me. They've been lobbying since, what, 2003? I'm a vegetarian so it's not like I could eat there even if I wanted to. Boycotting is entirely justified, but the response from the right-wing is really hypocritical. As they dig their boots in the ground, they stand on the defense of Chick-fil-a professing Freedom of Speech, which is entirely understandable and nobody is objecting to them. However, they're being overly critical of the left for being critical of Chick-fil-a. I mean, wtf? Chick-fil-a (although it was the CEO who made the public statement, however I guess all of the lobbying could make this for the corporation uniformly) has every right to say their word, but I have every right to give them scrutiny for it.

I'm hearing the same rhetoric as always. 'gay socialists fascists agenda', 'Marxist Che-worshiping sodomites'. It's nothing new.
turn down for h'what
tornshoe92
Posts: 361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2012 1:47:30 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/2/2012 12:46:38 AM, Aaronroy wrote:
I'm baffled by this entire process. This really should not have gotten popular. If anything, this has only been giving Chick-fil-a free publicity. I don't believe the Mayor of Boston is going to ban Chick-fil-a, after all he simply 'urged' them not to expand to an area that takes pride in marriage equality (excessively so.)

As far as Chick-fil-a being anti-gay, this isn't news to me. They've been lobbying since, what, 2003? I'm a vegetarian so it's not like I could eat there even if I wanted to. Boycotting is entirely justified, but the response from the right-wing is really hypocritical. As they dig their boots in the ground, they stand on the defense of Chick-fil-a professing Freedom of Speech, which is entirely understandable and nobody is objecting to them. However, they're being overly critical of the left for being critical of Chick-fil-a. I mean, wtf? Chick-fil-a (although it was the CEO who made the public statement, however I guess all of the lobbying could make this for the corporation uniformly) has every right to say their word, but I have every right to give them scrutiny for it.

I'm hearing the same rhetoric as always. 'gay socialists fascists agenda', 'Marxist Che-worshiping sodomites'. It's nothing new.

Wait, so are you saying you have no free will in your vegetariansim? Like it's a disease? MOTHER OF GOD. Please excuse me while I prepare to inoculate myself with copious amounts of bacon.

Lol just kidding. I just thought it was funny how you worded that. To be honest you aren't missing much. The chicken is dry and the buns are soggy.
"Next time I see a little old lady going to church I am going kick her in the ovaries because she is personally responsible for this. Thanks Izbo." -C_N
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2012 1:49:30 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I'm highly approving of the protests. However, I also can't understate how stupid the whole scenario is.
Really? You finally start boycotting something and it was this?
Many corporations are guilty of literal murder and have never payed the price.
Many corporations are guilty of wage slavery and suppressing unionization.
Many are guilty of market manipulation and people manipulation.
Many are guilty of oligopoly and election manufacturing.
There are sooooooo many other things to protest about.
The only reason this is a big deal is because of conservative outlash. They've actually caused chick-fil-a to have a surge in business.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2012 2:58:02 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/2/2012 1:47:30 AM, tornshoe92 wrote:

Wait, so are you saying you have no free will in your vegetariansim? Like it's a disease? MOTHER OF GOD. Please excuse me while I prepare to inoculate myself with copious amounts of bacon.

Lol just kidding. I just thought it was funny how you worded that. To be honest you aren't missing much. The chicken is dry and the buns are soggy.

You're cray cray. Chick-fil-a is the best fast food chain out there. I would still eat their if the CEO spoke out against me specifically.
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2012 3:07:33 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Also, the people going to support Chick-Fil-A are hilariously idiotic.

They drive their in their cars they bought from pro-gay companies, using fuel from pro-gay companies, buy soda with their food that comes from pro-gay companies, take pictures of them eating their food with phones from pro-gay companies with pro-gay service providers and post it on their pro-gay Facebook.

Of course, I never expect conservatives to think things through like that.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2012 3:17:33 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/1/2012 6:58:29 PM, GenesisCreation wrote:
Saw this online, had to re-post:

"If the homosexuals stop buying chicken because Mr. Cathy took a stance for traditional marriage.....are they going to stop buying Gasoline because OPEC nations execute homosexuals?"

Never really thought hypocrisy was a particularly bad thing. Why is it bad for someone to do one right thing even though they're doing something else that's bad? Surely that's better than doing two things wrong.
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2012 3:27:35 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/1/2012 8:02:13 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 8/1/2012 8:00:07 PM, Microsuck wrote:
At 8/1/2012 6:58:29 PM, GenesisCreation wrote:
Saw this online, had to re-post:

"If the homosexuals stop buying chicken because Mr. Cathy took a stance for traditional marriage.....are they going to stop buying Gasoline because OPEC nations execute homosexuals?"

I agree. Government has no business saying that a business cannot expand based soley upon the views of that owner. I ate at Chick-fil-A to show my support even though I'm gay and an atheist!

Woah. Woah. WOAH. Since when are YOU gay???

Woah. Woah. WOAH. Since when are YOU gay???
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2012 3:32:19 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/2/2012 2:58:02 AM, Maikuru wrote:
At 8/2/2012 1:47:30 AM, tornshoe92 wrote:

Wait, so are you saying you have no free will in your vegetariansim? Like it's a disease? MOTHER OF GOD. Please excuse me while I prepare to inoculate myself with copious amounts of bacon.

Lol just kidding. I just thought it was funny how you worded that. To be honest you aren't missing much. The chicken is dry and the buns are soggy.

You're cray cray. Chick-fil-a is the best fast food chain out there. I would still eat their if the CEO spoke out against me specifically.

The only good thing at Dick-Fil-A are the little mini-chicken sandwiches on Hawaiian bread they have at breakfast.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
Agent_Orange
Posts: 2,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2012 4:37:25 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Same thing with the Oreos. Why do you even care? Is it going to get to a point where we want to know where all companies stand on the big issues?
#BlackLivesMatter
GenesisCreation
Posts: 496
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2012 5:15:10 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/1/2012 8:36:33 PM, HelterSkelter wrote:
At 8/1/2012 8:31:37 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 8/1/2012 8:26:20 PM, HelterSkelter wrote:
At 8/1/2012 8:10:43 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 8/1/2012 8:06:15 PM, HelterSkelter wrote:
People have a right to choose what to purchase. Chick Fil A has no right to the money and no right to the customers and thus the boycott is justified.

Now, with regards to OPEC:

1. Gasoline is necessary. Some people might not like it, but they can't do anything because they need it to function in society. Chick Fil A is not selling a necessary product.

2. Most people who are gay tend to be liberal and support alternative energy.

3. Most gays only care about their government's and society's position, and not on OPEC's position since they don't live in those nations.

4. OPEC is not directly selling the product here. They are selling it to companies that sell the product here. Therefore there is no interaction with OPEC.

On top of it, the government can choose to prevent expansion at the local level. The constitution does not ban this, and it's their money so they should be able to choose with businesses to protect with their tax dollars.

Agreed. My position is simply a personal one. I think they're forcing it with this boycott.

However, what I AM vehemently opposed to is a mayor being able to stop someone from opening a business because they disagree with them politically. That is sheer tyranny.

The people don't have to pay to protect a business that is opposed to their existence. It's their money.

I said I agreed.

What I said I WAS opposed to was mayors abusing their power to intimidate businesses because they disagree politically.

I don't think you understood what I said.

If the people support that measure, the mayor absolutely has the obligation to carry it out. The people will be the ones paying to host Chick Fil A and protecting it while providing it with services like city water and electricity.

That's absolute garbage. This is not a measure of protest. City hall puts the commercial zoning guidelines up for votes every year. If they want Chik-fil-A out, they need to pass a measure and file the paperwork.
My town kicked Walmart out because it caused small buisness to fail. The town CAN kick them out, but not without following constitutional law.

Just because a few rainbow flags get raised above ol' glory in that city, doesn't mean the mayor can kick them out. It's not a decision of the local executive branch anyways, even if the measure passed city hall.
Um....You've got a log in your eye.
"I would be suspicious of an argument without any concessions." - John Dickson