tailgater
13 years ago
There was talk on the radio this morning saying that there might be some sort of gathering at the few local Chick-Fil-A locations in Massachusetts.
Hundreds of gay and lesbian couples were going to kiss in front of the stores.
Someone called it Two-Chick-Fil-A's

Which led me to ponder:

How many of the so-called Anti-Gay bigots out there enjoy watching a little girl on girl action every once in a while?
victor809
13 years ago



How many of the so-called Anti-Gay bigots out there enjoy watching a little girl on girl action every once in a while?

tailgater wrote:



That always bothered me... I've seen some of the biggest "homos are sinners and need to go to hell" bigots then talk about how hot they thought girl on girl porn was.

It's always okay as long as it's YOUR OWN sexual proclivity.
DrafterX
13 years ago

enjoy watching a little girl on girl action every once in a while?

tailgater wrote:




šŸ‘
BuckyB93
13 years ago

Perhaps a little back ground on Chik-Fil-A and its owner who has, according to people here, done nothing but state his opinion, would prove interesting. In 2010, Chik-Fil-A gave over $2 million dollars to anti-gay groups such as the Family Research Council (FRC). The FRC is listed as an anti-gay hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center, a non profit civil rights organization that keeps track of hate groups in the United States. Quoting from the SPLC site, "The Family Research Council (FRC) bills itself as ā€œthe leading voice for the family in our nation’s halls of power,ā€ but its real specialty is defaming gays and lesbians." Another group suppported by Chik-Fil-A was Exodus International, a group which advocates reparative or conversion therapy which operates on the basis that through therapy you can become "ex-gay". According to the American Psychological Association, such therapy "for gays is useless and harmful." Additionally the man who was just stating an opinion on marriage admitted in an interview with Forbes magazine that things he considered sinful were reason enough for terminating an employee. Despite the company's claims they treat all employees the same, they do not offer gay employees the same benefits they offer straight ones.
As so often happens here, since most of you won't like the facts, they will be irrelavent to the topic at hand and so I apologize for wasting your time.

SammyETN wrote:




Not sure this is based in fact. I would think that if this was actually true there would be boat load of lawyers pursuing it.

Did you mean that they don’t offer same benefits to couples that are not married as they do to married couples? That would apply across the board whether they were gay or not and this is not unusual for many businesses

For example: someone’s boyfriend/girlfriend doesn’t get medical coverage while someone’s wife/husband does. It’s not a gay/straight thing.
DrMaddVibe
13 years ago

There was talk on the radio this morning saying that there might be some sort of gathering at the few local Chick-Fil-A locations in Massachusetts.
Hundreds of gay and lesbian couples were going to kiss in front of the stores.
Someone called it Two-Chick-Fil-A's

Which led me to ponder:

How many of the so-called Anti-Gay bigots out there enjoy watching a little girl on girl action every once in a while?

tailgater wrote:




I think it'll be a real slow day for Happy Meals!
DrMaddVibe
13 years ago

That always bothered me... I've seen some of the biggest "homos are sinners and need to go to hell" bigots then talk about how hot they thought girl on girl porn was.

It's always okay as long as it's YOUR OWN sexual proclivity.

victor809 wrote:




judge not lest ye be judgedo:)
DrMaddVibe
13 years ago

Perhaps this should be the way the world works:

http://greginhollywood.com/parody-11-other-fast-food-chains-on-gay-marriage-71654 

victor809 wrote:




Then again...no.
tailgater
13 years ago

Perhaps this should be the way the world works:

http://greginhollywood.com/parody-11-other-fast-food-chains-on-gay-marriage-71654 

victor809 wrote:



So you love wiccans, do you?
Then you aren't allowed to visit our city. And you certainly can't put a business in town. And employ people. And add to the economy.
Because I disagree with your opinions.



(see how stupid it sounds?)
DrafterX
13 years ago

So you love wiccans, do you?
Then you aren't allowed to visit our city. And you certainly can't put a business in town. And employ people. And add to the economy.
Because I disagree with your opinions.



(see how stupid it sounds?)

tailgater wrote:





why do you hate wiccans..?? šŸ˜•
DrMaddVibe
13 years ago

why do you hate wiccans..?? šŸ˜•

DrafterX wrote:




Cause he always loses at Croquet![ram27bat]
tailgater
13 years ago

why do you hate wiccans..?? šŸ˜•

DrafterX wrote:



It's true. I do hate wiccans.

But show me some wiccan on wiccan sex? WOWZA!
Now THAT'S hot!!

tailgater
13 years ago

Cause he always loses at Croquet![ram27bat]

DrMaddVibe wrote:



Chicken croquets?

DrMaddVibe
13 years ago





EAT




MOR




CHIKIN!
victor809
13 years ago

So you love wiccans, do you?
Then you aren't allowed to visit our city. And you certainly can't put a business in town. And employ people. And add to the economy.
Because I disagree with your opinions.



(see how stupid it sounds?)

tailgater wrote:



You know that isn't an equivalent scenario.

The most equivalent scenario would be a burger joint owned by a member of the aryan nation, who is on the record saying he thinks blacks and whites intermarrying is a sin and who has made significant donations to white power groups around the country.

I'm still not sure what the actual reaction to that should be.
The public is (as always) free to boycott.
The mayor is free to say he doesn't think that particular burger franchise is appropriate for his city.

But I don't think anyone has the right to legally block the company. I don't think there's a mechanism in place, nor am I convinced there should be one.

A company is more than the CEO. A company is made up of hundreds maybe thousands of individuals, each with a different view on life, each with their livelihood based on the success of the company. While the fate of the company is always dependent to an extent on the perception of the CEO, it would be bad to have a legal mechanism in place to be able to harm those people's livelihood simply based on their CEO being a bigot.
DrMaddVibe
13 years ago

You know that isn't an equivalent scenario.

The most equivalent scenario would be a burger joint owned by a member of the aryan nation, who is on the record saying he thinks blacks and whites intermarrying is a sin and who has made significant donations to white power groups around the country.

I'm still not sure what the actual reaction to that should be.
The public is (as always) free to boycott.
The mayor is free to say he doesn't think that particular burger franchise is appropriate for his city.

But I don't think anyone has the right to legally block the company. I don't think there's a mechanism in place, nor am I convinced there should be one.

A company is more than the CEO. A company is made up of hundreds maybe thousands of individuals, each with a different view on life, each with their livelihood based on the success of the company. While the fate of the company is always dependent to an extent on the perception of the CEO, it would be bad to have a legal mechanism in place to be able to harm those people's livelihood simply based on their CEO being a bigot.

victor809 wrote:




You think I'm eating in an Aryan Nation restaurant? Are you out of your freaking mind?

























































Besdies...everyone knows they always burn everything there!
DrafterX
13 years ago

It's true. I do hate wiccans.

But show me some wiccan on wiccan sex? WOWZA!
Now THAT'S hot!!

tailgater wrote:




🤣
tailgater
13 years ago

You know that isn't an equivalent scenario.

The most equivalent scenario would be a burger joint owned by a member of the aryan nation, who is on the record saying he thinks blacks and whites intermarrying is a sin and who has made significant donations to white power groups around the country.

.

victor809 wrote:



The thing is, when we're dealing with mere opinions stated by a company CEO, versus the belief of the city Mayor, the exact details need not be "equivalent" because it's only opinion.

And I don't know why you keep using this vile "equivalent".
Aryan Nation has a very specific goal.
The owner of Chick Fil-A isn't on a mission to rid the world of gays. He simply believes (strongly) in the traditional family and the story-book values that result (a la Father Knows Best).



DrafterX
13 years ago

The owner of Chick Fil-A isn't on a mission to rid the world of gays.

tailgater wrote:




unfortunatly that's exactly how it was interpreted... I guess his father and his father before him were bigots too... 😟
DrMaddVibe
13 years ago
Father knows best?


Great.


This really funny thread is going to go all pedo now?


WWJD?


Who Would Jerry Diddle
Users browsing this topic