Twitter CEO says he was wrong to eat chick-fil a

[SassyIrishLass]

Now that this has been made public, millions of people will poke a stick in pride by going to Chick fil A.

That already happened on the left's infamous boycott. Lol

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Actually they probably still support traditional marriage advocacy, they just use their own personal money to do it, and not corporate $$.

Meh, who cares anymore

Evidently the CEO of Twitter.

To which I don’t see the point, since Chick Fil A apologized and halted funding of anti-gay extremist groups

I doubt they gave $$ to extremists, of course you consider anyone to the right of Mitt Romney a Nazi.

And SPLC definitions don't count anymore.

Yeah the right has decided to embrace its hate. I don’t think you have the numbers though.

Sure did Nov 9, 2016 HAHAHAHAHA

 

[martybegan]

You clowns have robbed the word hate of any meaning, equating political disagreement with it.

Denying people their right to pursue happiness is hate. Whether by denying them the right to marry, or passing Jim Crow laws, or banning friends and family from being able to visit because of their ethnicity. All are a form of hate.

So making a baker bake a cake is hate? By your definition it sure is.

What if murder makes a murder happy?

Blanket statements are kind of useless, just like most of your posts are.

Murder affects other people. Refusing business to a customer illegally affects other people. Being born black or brown or gay does not affect other people.

Making them bake a cake they don't want to, or ruin their business affects them.

Murder actually impacts other people, i.e the whole death thing, but in the case of the baker it's a simple issue of butthurt vs. butthurt, no actual harm.


Government shouldn't be in the business of regulating butt hurt.

If they refused business to a customer illegally, they shouldn’t be surprised about the ensuing consequences.

Not wanting to provide a contracted non-essential service due to religious objections shouldn't be illegal in the first place.

That pesky 1st amendment thing.

 

[TheOldSchool]

Meh, who cares anymore

Evidently the CEO of Twitter.

To which I don’t see the point, since Chick Fil A apologized and halted funding of anti-gay extremist groups

I doubt they gave $$ to extremists, of course you consider anyone to the right of Mitt Romney a Nazi.

And SPLC definitions don't count anymore.

Yeah the right has decided to embrace its hate. I don’t think you have the numbers though.

Sure did Nov 9, 2016 HAHAHAHAHA

Sorry, I meant numbers as in number of people.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Evidently the CEO of Twitter.

To which I don’t see the point, since Chick Fil A apologized and halted funding of anti-gay extremist groups

I doubt they gave $$ to extremists, of course you consider anyone to the right of Mitt Romney a Nazi.

And SPLC definitions don't count anymore.

Yeah the right has decided to embrace its hate. I don’t think you have the numbers though.

Sure did Nov 9, 2016 HAHAHAHAHA

Sorry, I meant numbers as in number of people.

So did I, dipshit

 

[TheOldSchool]

Denying people their right to pursue happiness is hate. Whether by denying them the right to marry, or passing Jim Crow laws, or banning friends and family from being able to visit because of their ethnicity. All are a form of hate.

So making a baker bake a cake is hate? By your definition it sure is.

What if murder makes a murder happy?

Blanket statements are kind of useless, just like most of your posts are.

Murder affects other people. Refusing business to a customer illegally affects other people. Being born black or brown or gay does not affect other people.

Making them bake a cake they don't want to, or ruin their business affects them.

Murder actually impacts other people, i.e the whole death thing, but in the case of the baker it's a simple issue of butthurt vs. butthurt, no actual harm.


Government shouldn't be in the business of regulating butt hurt.

If they refused business to a customer illegally, they shouldn’t be surprised about the ensuing consequences.

Not wanting to provide a contracted non-essential service due to religious objections shouldn't be illegal in the first place.

That pesky 1st amendment thing.

You have a right to your opinion.

The 1st amendment protects speech, of course, which has nothing to do with a cake that doesn’t have speech on it. It also protects your freedom to practice your religion, as long as it does no harm to others.

 

[TheOldSchool]

To which I don’t see the point, since Chick Fil A apologized and halted funding of anti-gay extremist groups

I doubt they gave $$ to extremists, of course you consider anyone to the right of Mitt Romney a Nazi.

And SPLC definitions don't count anymore.

Yeah the right has decided to embrace its hate. I don’t think you have the numbers though.

Sure did Nov 9, 2016 HAHAHAHAHA

Sorry, I meant numbers as in number of people.

So did I, dipshit

Ooooh then you’re retarded. Sorry

 

[SassyIrishLass]

The left should just leave Chik Fil La alone...everytime they go after them it blows up in their face

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

So making a baker bake a cake is hate? By your definition it sure is.

What if murder makes a murder happy?

Blanket statements are kind of useless, just like most of your posts are.

Murder affects other people. Refusing business to a customer illegally affects other people. Being born black or brown or gay does not affect other people.

Making them bake a cake they don't want to, or ruin their business affects them.

Murder actually impacts other people, i.e the whole death thing, but in the case of the baker it's a simple issue of butthurt vs. butthurt, no actual harm.


Government shouldn't be in the business of regulating butt hurt.

If they refused business to a customer illegally, they shouldn’t be surprised about the ensuing consequences.

Not wanting to provide a contracted non-essential service due to religious objections shouldn't be illegal in the first place.

That pesky 1st amendment thing.

You have a right to your opinion.

The 1st amendment protects speech, of course, which has nothing to do with a cake that doesn’t have speech on it. It also protects your freedom to practice your religion, as long as it does no harm to others.

How is one harmed by not getting a damn cake?

 

[TheOldSchool]

The left should just leave Chik Fil La alone...everytime they go after them it blows up in their face

Well, not the last time

 

[TheOldSchool]

Murder affects other people. Refusing business to a customer illegally affects other people. Being born black or brown or gay does not affect other people.

Making them bake a cake they don't want to, or ruin their business affects them.

Murder actually impacts other people, i.e the whole death thing, but in the case of the baker it's a simple issue of butthurt vs. butthurt, no actual harm.


Government shouldn't be in the business of regulating butt hurt.

If they refused business to a customer illegally, they shouldn’t be surprised about the ensuing consequences.

Not wanting to provide a contracted non-essential service due to religious objections shouldn't be illegal in the first place.

That pesky 1st amendment thing.

You have a right to your opinion.

The 1st amendment protects speech, of course, which has nothing to do with a cake that doesn’t have speech on it. It also protects your freedom to practice your religion, as long as it does no harm to others.

How is one harmed by not getting a damn cake?

How is one harmed by being denied seats at a counter?

Fuckin’ a... in the 21st century... smh

 

[CarlinAnnArbor]

You've gotta be kidding me.

The best part is most of these apologies aren't really apologies, much like Samantha Bee's.

It's more like "I'm sorry you rubes are too un-woke to get me"

Yeah, a "rube" is someone who doesn't get the brilliance of their vulgarity.

 

[martybegan]

So making a baker bake a cake is hate? By your definition it sure is.

What if murder makes a murder happy?

Blanket statements are kind of useless, just like most of your posts are.

Murder affects other people. Refusing business to a customer illegally affects other people. Being born black or brown or gay does not affect other people.

Making them bake a cake they don't want to, or ruin their business affects them.

Murder actually impacts other people, i.e the whole death thing, but in the case of the baker it's a simple issue of butthurt vs. butthurt, no actual harm.


Government shouldn't be in the business of regulating butt hurt.

If they refused business to a customer illegally, they shouldn’t be surprised about the ensuing consequences.

Not wanting to provide a contracted non-essential service due to religious objections shouldn't be illegal in the first place.

That pesky 1st amendment thing.

You have a right to your opinion.

The 1st amendment protects speech, of course, which has nothing to do with a cake that doesn’t have speech on it. It also protects your freedom to practice your religion, as long as it does no harm to others.

Having to go to another baker in this situation isn't harm.

The SC decision says free exercise has to be taken into account, despite the hostility towards it from the Colorado Commission.

 

[TheOldSchool]

Murder affects other people. Refusing business to a customer illegally affects other people. Being born black or brown or gay does not affect other people.

Making them bake a cake they don't want to, or ruin their business affects them.

Murder actually impacts other people, i.e the whole death thing, but in the case of the baker it's a simple issue of butthurt vs. butthurt, no actual harm.


Government shouldn't be in the business of regulating butt hurt.

If they refused business to a customer illegally, they shouldn’t be surprised about the ensuing consequences.

Not wanting to provide a contracted non-essential service due to religious objections shouldn't be illegal in the first place.

That pesky 1st amendment thing.

You have a right to your opinion.

The 1st amendment protects speech, of course, which has nothing to do with a cake that doesn’t have speech on it. It also protects your freedom to practice your religion, as long as it does no harm to others.

Having to go to another baker in this situation isn't harm.

The SC decision says free exercise has to be taken into account, despite the hostility towards it from the Colorado Commission.

The SC sent it back. And your first sentence is incorrect.

 

[martybegan]

Making them bake a cake they don't want to, or ruin their business affects them.

Murder actually impacts other people, i.e the whole death thing, but in the case of the baker it's a simple issue of butthurt vs. butthurt, no actual harm.


Government shouldn't be in the business of regulating butt hurt.

If they refused business to a customer illegally, they shouldn’t be surprised about the ensuing consequences.

Not wanting to provide a contracted non-essential service due to religious objections shouldn't be illegal in the first place.

That pesky 1st amendment thing.

You have a right to your opinion.

The 1st amendment protects speech, of course, which has nothing to do with a cake that doesn’t have speech on it. It also protects your freedom to practice your religion, as long as it does no harm to others.

How is one harmed by not getting a damn cake?

How is one harmed by being denied seats at a counter?

Fuckin’ a... in the 21st century... smh

In the case of counter service or point of sale service, the thing is the religious aspect doesn't have as much weight, as serving someone a soup or a point of sale baked item cannot be mistaken as an endorsement of anything.

Being asked to make a cake specifically for a certain ceremony can be taken as endorsement of said ceremony, and thus free exercise has to be taken into account.

 

[martybegan]

Making them bake a cake they don't want to, or ruin their business affects them.

Murder actually impacts other people, i.e the whole death thing, but in the case of the baker it's a simple issue of butthurt vs. butthurt, no actual harm.


Government shouldn't be in the business of regulating butt hurt.

If they refused business to a customer illegally, they shouldn’t be surprised about the ensuing consequences.

Not wanting to provide a contracted non-essential service due to religious objections shouldn't be illegal in the first place.

That pesky 1st amendment thing.

You have a right to your opinion.

The 1st amendment protects speech, of course, which has nothing to do with a cake that doesn’t have speech on it. It also protects your freedom to practice your religion, as long as it does no harm to others.

Having to go to another baker in this situation isn't harm.

The SC decision says free exercise has to be taken into account, despite the hostility towards it from the Colorado Commission.

The SC sent it back. And your first sentence is incorrect.

No, it's 100% correct. hurt feelings isn't harm. having to spend another 15 minutes finding another baker isn't harm.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

The left should just leave Chik Fil La alone...everytime they go after them it blows up in their face

Well, not the last time

You obviously don't have the first clue about whar happened. Sit your stupid ass down

 

[TheOldSchool]

If they refused business to a customer illegally, they shouldn’t be surprised about the ensuing consequences.

Not wanting to provide a contracted non-essential service due to religious objections shouldn't be illegal in the first place.

That pesky 1st amendment thing.

You have a right to your opinion.

The 1st amendment protects speech, of course, which has nothing to do with a cake that doesn’t have speech on it. It also protects your freedom to practice your religion, as long as it does no harm to others.

How is one harmed by not getting a damn cake?

How is one harmed by being denied seats at a counter?

Fuckin’ a... in the 21st century... smh

In the case of counter service or point of sale service, the thing is the religious aspect doesn't have as much weight, as serving someone a soup or a point of sale baked item cannot be mistaken as an endorsement of anything.

Being asked to make a cake specifically for a certain ceremony can be taken as endorsement of said ceremony, and thus free exercise has to be taken into account.

Yeeeaaah, that’s a very snowflakey opinion

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Old Fool trying so hard and doesn't realize Chik Fil La kicks the left's ass everytime.

That boycott they tried was comedy gold. Biggest sales day in company history and now America's favorite fast food.

Epic fcking fail

 

[martybegan]

Not wanting to provide a contracted non-essential service due to religious objections shouldn't be illegal in the first place.

That pesky 1st amendment thing.

You have a right to your opinion.

The 1st amendment protects speech, of course, which has nothing to do with a cake that doesn’t have speech on it. It also protects your freedom to practice your religion, as long as it does no harm to others.

How is one harmed by not getting a damn cake?

How is one harmed by being denied seats at a counter?

Fuckin’ a... in the 21st century... smh

In the case of counter service or point of sale service, the thing is the religious aspect doesn't have as much weight, as serving someone a soup or a point of sale baked item cannot be mistaken as an endorsement of anything.

Being asked to make a cake specifically for a certain ceremony can be taken as endorsement of said ceremony, and thus free exercise has to be taken into account.

Yeeeaaah, that’s a very snowflakey opinion

How is that in any way shape or form a snowflake opinion?