Chic-Fil-A is making history, and showing the power of the American people/voter.

[Luissa]

I guess it's cool that people applaud intolerance....

Funny how the First Amendment works so well when you agree with it, but when you don't, not so much.

What are you even referring to?

 

[Luissa]

I guess it's cool that people applaud intolerance....

Funny how the First Amendment works so well when you agree with it, but when you don't, not so much.

Exactly...

Exactly what? Where did Ravi state she wanted their first amendment rights taken away?

 

[gallantwarrior]

Funny how the First Amendment works so well when you agree with it, but when you don't, not so much.

Exactly...

Exactly what? Where did Ravi state she wanted their first amendment rights taken away?

Where did the CEO of Chic-fil-A say he hates gays?

 

[The Gadfly]

So, standing up for equal rights is laying down?

I don't get your reasoning.

The left basically rules our nation by fear and intimidation -- a small, intolerant, hateful group of fuckwads who bully the rest of us with lawsuits, Hollywood poison, PC propaganda, the news media, bought politicians. We're constantly bashed and we just take it: Christians, traditionalists, straights, normal families, normal kids, non-drug users, workers, etc. "You suck, you're racist, you're intolerant, backward, inbred, flyover country, blah blah."

So, Ravi, biting into that juicy chicken and those wonderful waffle fries just tastes all the more delicious knowing it hurts you so.

Gotta tell ya, IT FEELS SO FUCKING GOOD to get back at the liberal asshole elites by supporting CFA.

Exhibit A:

The subject clearly suffers from persecution complex.

A persecution complex is a term given to an array of psychologically complex behaviours, that specifically deals with the perception of being persecuted, for various possible reasons, imagined or real.

People or groups who hold to marginal (non-mainstream) beliefs or theories often display some features of this malady, as a way of explaining why their views are not more widespread. It is also commonly displayed by people or groups whose beliefs actually are comparatively widespread, such as fundamentalist Christians.

Because the subject perceives to be under persecution, the subject now finds great comfort and satisfaction with yet another perception...a lash out and back against a perceived foe by eating tasty chicken in one of the subject's favorite southern establishments.

Thank you, Marc, for this classic illustration of denial and projection, as practiced by the American liberal establishment. Once again, I find that an example of the behavior so prevalent among your faction of choice is far more revealing than any attempt at explication ever could be.

Just as an aside, while I rarely agree with the individual you are addressing, in this instance he happens to be correct in describing the selectively intolerant behavior so long associated with the Left in America (and elsewhere). I suppose even a blind squirrel can find the occasional nut. This one has, and if his observation cuts a bit near the bone, well, your side had it coming to them.

 

[The Gadfly]

Funny how the First Amendment works so well when you agree with it, but when you don't, not so much.

Exactly...

Exactly what? Where did Ravi state she wanted their first amendment rights taken away?

She quite clearly sides with those who would abridge Mr. Cathey's First Amendment rights by intimidation, Lulu, and that is quite the same thing. I might point out that simply voicing support for traditional marriage is quite some distance from advocating (much less practicing) "intolerance" of homosexuals, a point lost among those liberals who attempted to create a tempest in a teapot, and got thoroughly rebuked for their effort (even by some of their own, I note). It is more than a little hypocritical to demand "tolerance" when one refuses to extend it to even the mere expression of a contrary point of view.

 

[Ravi]

Exactly...

Exactly what? Where did Ravi state she wanted their first amendment rights taken away?

She quite clearly sides with those who would abridge Mr. Cathey's First Amendment rights by intimidation, Lulu, and that is quite the same thing. I might point out that simply voicing support for traditional marriage is quite some distance from advocating (much less practicing) "intolerance" of homosexuals, a point lost among those liberals who attempted to create a tempest in a teapot, and got thoroughly rebuked for their effort (even by some of their own, I note). It is more than a little hypocritical to demand "tolerance" when one refuses to extend it to even the mere expression of a contrary point of view.

Ah, it's okay for him to have an opinion but it isn't okay for me to have an opinion.

Priceless.

 

[Katzndogz]

Since Chick Fil A has never done anything intolerant and does not discriminate, the only thing the left has is that the CEO says he supports traditional marriage. It is that OPINION that the left intends to stamp out wherever they find it. Anyone who supports traditional marriage can expect to receive the same treatment.

Having been there myself, I know there is nothing gay activists will not do.

 

[Luissa]

Exactly...

Exactly what? Where did Ravi state she wanted their first amendment rights taken away?

Where did the CEO of Chic-fil-A say he hates gays?

Where did I say he did?

 

[Luissa]

Exactly...

Exactly what? Where did Ravi state she wanted their first amendment rights taken away?

She quite clearly sides with those who would abridge Mr. Cathey's First Amendment rights by intimidation, Lulu, and that is quite the same thing. I might point out that simply voicing support for traditional marriage is quite some distance from advocating (much less practicing) "intolerance" of homosexuals, a point lost among those liberals who attempted to create a tempest in a teapot, and got thoroughly rebuked for their effort (even by some of their own, I note). It is more than a little hypocritical to demand "tolerance" when one refuses to extend it to even the mere expression of a contrary point of view.

No it doesn't.
I think the guy is wrong but he has a right to be wrong. That is the part you guys don't get.
This guy has the right to to express his views, and we have the right to think he is an asshole. See how that works?

You just assumed you thought Ravi was demanding tolerance. And you assumed she wanted his rights taken away. One should never ASSume anything.

 

[Luissa]

Since Chick Fil A has never done anything intolerant and does not discriminate, the only thing the left has is that the CEO says he supports traditional marriage. It is that OPINION that the left intends to stamp out wherever they find it. Anyone who supports traditional marriage can expect to receive the same treatment.

Having been there myself, I know there is nothing gay activists will not do.

And there is nothing homophobes won't do.
But what ya gonna do?

 

[Article 15]

I'm seriously in the wrong business.

I need to find a way to somehow become a victim of the liberals so I can rake in all sorts of conservative sympathy cash.

 

[peach174]

So, standing up for equal rights is laying down?

I don't get your reasoning.

The chicken chain (that I avoid because of the inhumane practices toward chickens) obviously hates gay people. Fine, they are entitled to be intolerant.

What I don't understand is the idiots that cheer them on.

If they really hated gay people, they would refuse to hire them or serve them.
They don't.
The owner has the right to his religious views. He has the right to close his stores on Sundays.
Governors and Mayors don't have a right in this country to shut out or punish a business because you disagree with his or her first amendment right.

 

[The Gadfly]

Exactly what? Where did Ravi state she wanted their first amendment rights taken away?

She quite clearly sides with those who would abridge Mr. Cathey's First Amendment rights by intimidation, Lulu, and that is quite the same thing. I might point out that simply voicing support for traditional marriage is quite some distance from advocating (much less practicing) "intolerance" of homosexuals, a point lost among those liberals who attempted to create a tempest in a teapot, and got thoroughly rebuked for their effort (even by some of their own, I note). It is more than a little hypocritical to demand "tolerance" when one refuses to extend it to even the mere expression of a contrary point of view.

Ah, it's okay for him to have an opinion but it isn't okay for me to have an opinion.

Priceless.

Au contraire; it is perfectly OK for you to have an OPINION, and state it. What is NOT OK, is for you to mislabel the opinion of another for the purpose of suppressing it. The reasoning behind your opinion is entirely spurious, and I and others here have every right to point out how and why it is spurious. There is a difference, quite a large one, between a business ACTING to discriminate against a group, and an executive expressing a PERSONAL RELIGIOUS VIEW which said group does not like. In plain and simple terms, refusing to conform one's personal convictions to the every desire of ANY minority is hardly the same thing as hating that minority. That's a false equivalence; you know it, I know it, everyone else knows it; in sum, it is a lie. Now, you have every right to tell that lie; even believe it if you choose; but everyone else has an equal right to call you on it.

 

[The Gadfly]

I'm seriously in the wrong business.

I need to find a way to somehow become a victim of the liberals so I can rake in all sorts of conservative sympathy cash.

You were told the kool-aid was poisonous, but you drank it anyway. I doubt your fellow libs put a gun (they don't seem to like those) to your head, so you drank it of your own free will, didn't you? Sorry, no victim status for you; YOU DID IT TO YOURSELF!

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

I guess it's cool that people applaud intolerance....

I'm not sure why you are so intolerant towards Muslims and Christians who believe what their holy books teach them that marriage is supposed to be between a man and a women.

Sure I disagree with them but I don't call them names and disparage them over having their own opinions based of their religious values as you do. That is borderline bigotry you display ravi.

 

[Ravi]

She quite clearly sides with those who would abridge Mr. Cathey's First Amendment rights by intimidation, Lulu, and that is quite the same thing. I might point out that simply voicing support for traditional marriage is quite some distance from advocating (much less practicing) "intolerance" of homosexuals, a point lost among those liberals who attempted to create a tempest in a teapot, and got thoroughly rebuked for their effort (even by some of their own, I note). It is more than a little hypocritical to demand "tolerance" when one refuses to extend it to even the mere expression of a contrary point of view.

Ah, it's okay for him to have an opinion but it isn't okay for me to have an opinion.

Priceless.

Au contraire; it is perfectly OK for you to have an OPINION, and state it. What is NOT OK, is for you to mislabel the opinion of another for the purpose of suppressing it. The reasoning behind your opinion is entirely spurious, and I and others here have every right to point out how and why it is spurious. There is a difference, quite a large one, between a business ACTING to discriminate against a group, and an executive expressing a PERSONAL RELIGIOUS VIEW which said group does not like. In plain and simple terms, refusing to conform one's personal convictions to the every desire of ANY minority is hardly the same thing as hating that minority. That's a false equivalence; you know it, I know it, everyone else knows it; in sum, it is a lie. Now, you have every right to tell that lie; even believe it if you choose; but everyone else has an equal right to call you on it.

The guy is intolerant and an anti-American bigot. That's his right. He doesn't have the right to be shielded from derision.

 

[The Gadfly]

Ah, it's okay for him to have an opinion but it isn't okay for me to have an opinion.

Priceless.

Au contraire; it is perfectly OK for you to have an OPINION, and state it. What is NOT OK, is for you to mislabel the opinion of another for the purpose of suppressing it. The reasoning behind your opinion is entirely spurious, and I and others here have every right to point out how and why it is spurious. There is a difference, quite a large one, between a business ACTING to discriminate against a group, and an executive expressing a PERSONAL RELIGIOUS VIEW which said group does not like. In plain and simple terms, refusing to conform one's personal convictions to the every desire of ANY minority is hardly the same thing as hating that minority. That's a false equivalence; you know it, I know it, everyone else knows it; in sum, it is a lie. Now, you have every right to tell that lie; even believe it if you choose; but everyone else has an equal right to call you on it.

The guy is intolerant and an anti-American bigot. That's his right. He doesn't have the right to be shielded from derision.

He hasn't been; but he most certainly DOES have the right to be shielded from attempted intimidation and reprisal against his business by pandering liberal politicians! That's what started this, and I think you've seen how Americans by the hundreds of thousands have rallied to his side. Your side picked this fight, and lost. Deal with it. I suspect there's plenty more where that came from. Let's see where this "Kiss-In" goes tomorrow; somehow, I don't think that's going to work so well either. This ain't about gay, Ravi dear, it's about PC, liberal intolerance, and liberal bullying, and I think most of us out here in flyover country have had more than enough of all three.

 

[MarcATL]

I'm seriously in the wrong business.

I need to find a way to somehow become a victim of the liberals so I can rake in all sorts of conservative sympathy cash.

RW business THRIVE on victimhood.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Chick-Fil-A Has 'Record-Setting Day' While Embroiled In Anti-Gay Controversy

This latest load of teepot crap pretty much sums up what they're doing to our country. This chain couldn't get any attention until they joined the Hate Club. There's a whole lotta hate going on and they just cashed in because if there's one thing the right will fight against, its Equal Rights For All Americans.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Gadfly

She quite clearly sides with those who would abridge Mr. Cathey's First Amendment rights by intimidation...

This is not a First Amendment issue.

jeeeeez.