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

[emilynghiem]

you get what you give, Ravi.

it's okay for you to call the opposing side "intolerant"
but not okay to acknowledge when you are being intolerant.

it's okay for you to label people by group as "unamerican"
in order to discredit and justify rejecting that group
but not okay for other people to "discriminate against whole groups of people"

 

[The Gadfly]

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.

What hate? The man gave a personal religious opinion to a reporter for a Christian magazine. The problem is, you Leftists label any opinion you disagree with, or that any of your designated victim groups disagree with, as "hate speech". This is not new; the blueprint for the American Left's brand of selective tolerance was spelled out years ago by one of its pioneering philosophers , one Herbert Marcuse, in his essay, "A Critique of Pure Tolerance". I know, because I spent a college assignment many years ago tearing the spurious logic and pure self-serving hypocrisy of that wretched document to shreds. For anyone who wants to know how the hell you of the Left justify the sort of "tolerance" (what a farce!) you advocate, that essay of Marcuse's should be required reading, as it offers a fascinating insight into the Left's mindset, and its penchant for lies, distortion, and all forms of deceit in pursuit of its dreams of turning America into a communist dictatorship. Marcuse details the Left's way of "tolerating" only that expression which is "progressive", i.e. consistent with the Left's own ideology, while shouting down or otherwise attempting to utterly silence anything to the contrary. Your pious bleating in this instance is a perfect case in point. Unfortunately for you, the American sheeple are beginning to understand what we conservatives have said for years about the Left's mendacity, and have responded to your latest assault on the rights of the rest of us with proper outrage. I am only amazed it took this long. Spin it however you like, but you and your Leftist pals got yourselves screwed, blued and tattooed on this one, and I think, it couldn't happen to a more deserving bunch! I'm going to go now, and get another Chick-fil-A sandwich to enjoy, as I revel in your misery!

P.S. Serves you right, you partisan hack!

 

[The Gadfly]

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.

That is PRECISELY what it is! The company has NO record of discrimination against gays, yet a number of pandering liberal politicians threatened to keep his company out of their states/cities solely because Mr. Cathey affirmed his belief in traditional marriage in an interview. If THAT is not and attempted assault on the First Amendment, I cannot fathom what would be! Obviously, there are an overwhelming number of Americans who agree with my assessment on that, rather than yours!

P.S. I know that boot America just put up your arse hurts, but do try to stop whining; it's very unbecoming, and tedious besides.

P.PS. I really must go now; I'm getting hungry, and the line at my nearby Chick-fil-A is still quite long, I hear. Don't fret; I'll be back with more barbs later, because I'm just getting warmed up.

 

[emilynghiem]

So, standing up for equal rights is laying down?

I don't get your reasoning.

Ravi I see you are framing it as either/or where standing up for one side
means the other side is being asked to stand down.

If you frame it as both sides having equal right to stand up for their views,
they can both do so freely, and nobody has to back down or lie down for the other.

Isn't that more constitutional or american? To include and respect
all views equally, where you don't have to impose one way in conflict or competition?

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.

Ravi why are you equating not believing in the state sanctioning gay marriage
with "hating gay people" "being intolerant" or "idiots" cheering them on?

I also don't believe in imposing laws either for or against gay marriage
unless the legislation is written and passed by consent of the people affected.

So I equally defend views on both sides, and that certainly doesn't make me an idiot.
I think that shows I'm a fairminded person defending constitutional inclusion and
protection of all views, regardless if they agree or disagree with my own views or biases.

I equally cheer on the businessman here, for expressing his position without apology,
as I applauded Dick Cheney for countering Bush by stating his support of gay marriage!

Does this make me a two faced idiot, then, for cheering on both these men on both sides?

Just because I support prochoice, and don't support laws making abortion illegal, does not mean I "hate" babies or am "intolerant" of prolife beliefs in banning abortion. I actually agree abortion should be prevented and support prolife outreach as part of the solution.

Similarly just because I don't support laws making gay marriage legal (or illegal) against
public consent, does not mean I hate gay people or am intolerant of those who disagree.

Ravi, in several msgs you seem quick to labeling people in negative ways as "hating" "intolerant" "bigots" "unamerican"

Do you do this with all people? or just those you disagree with?

Weren't you criticizing someone else for doing that?
Are you equally as self-critical when it comes to yourself and people you agree with?

 

[MarcATL]

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.

That is PRECISELY what it is! The company has NO record of discrimination against gays, yet a number of pandering liberal politicians threatened to keep his company out of their states/cities solely because Mr. Cathey affirmed his belief in traditional marriage in an interview. If THAT is not and attempted assault on the First Amendment, I cannot fathom what would be! Obviously, there are an overwhelming number of Americans who agree with my assessment on that, rather than yours!

P.S. I know that boot America just put up your arse hurts, but do try to stop whining; it's very unbecoming, and tedious besides.

P.PS. I really must go now; I'm getting hungry, and the line at my nearby Chick-fil-A is still quite long, I hear. Don't fret; I'll be back with more barbs later, because I'm just getting warmed up.

Really?

List them please.

Thanks.

 

[emilynghiem]

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.

1. regarding free speech

both the Chick Fil A spokesman and the customers and the Mayors
have equal right to express their views freely
(only if they become so disruptive as to cause breach of security or peace, where they infringe on the right of others peaceably to assemble and conduct business securely would such right to free speech or protests violate the same laws these people are exercising)

as long as the patrons or protesters do not HARASS or commit other civil or legal violation
they all have equal freedom to express themselves, their support or dissent.

2. regarding religion neither prohibited nor imposed by the state

neither the people for or the people against gay marriage
should threaten to abuse state authority to impose their views on those of different beliefs

in this case, there is not equal recognition
of both the views for and against gay marriage to be equally protected
from biases in law by the state

3. NOTE: this is TECHNICALLY only a First Amendment issue where govt is involved
if you interpret the law to mean only govt is held to the Bill of Rights/Constitution

by the Spirit of the laws, where the Golden Rule of Reciprocity applies to all human beings
under natural laws of society and governance that affect all our relations with each other,
not jsut govt,
then all parties would be expected to follow the same rules
if they want to invoke them consistently.

so if you want free speech, you should respect the same of others
if you want your views to be included and not be harassed or namecalled for them,
then you should respect the same of others
etc.

that is not literally how the First Amendment is interpreted literally to apply to govt only

but in practice, that is how people exercise and respond to others under natural laws
and principles that the First Amendment contains and reflects.

 

[emilynghiem]

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.

That is PRECISELY what it is! The company has NO record of discrimination against gays, yet a number of pandering liberal politicians threatened to keep his company out of their states/cities solely because Mr. Cathey affirmed his belief in traditional marriage in an interview. If THAT is not and attempted assault on the First Amendment, I cannot fathom what would be! Obviously, there are an overwhelming number of Americans who agree with my assessment on that, rather than yours!

P.S. I know that boot America just put up your arse hurts, but do try to stop whining; it's very unbecoming, and tedious besides.

P.PS. I really must go now; I'm getting hungry, and the line at my nearby Chick-fil-A is still quite long, I hear. Don't fret; I'll be back with more barbs later, because I'm just getting warmed up.

Dear Gadfly: Again the Golden rule applies where you get what you give.
Only insofar as the company has "threatened" to discriminate against gays such as by
funding campaigns for or against certain legislation or views,
then it is natural people may respond by "threatening" the same by equivalent sanctions.

You can verbalize such protests all you want.

What matters is if you actually take steps to discriminate against someone by personal views or religious/political views.

In the case of gay marriage, both sides should have equal protection NOT to be imposed upon by the other viewpoint, and certainly not to be discriminated against or harassed.

I find it interesting at the same time this is going on,
a Mosque in Tennessee is trying to defend its rights to construct and congregate
while opponents are blocking and fighting those efforts by
equating Islam with Jihadist shariah law they claim is in conflict with the constitution
and not protected by it.

Whatever learning curve our country is on right now, we need to get to the point of these
lessons and exercises, resolve the conflicts and move to a better place with all this!!!

 

[ConzHateUSA]

anybody post the links to the employees losing free speech rights for working there?

that they monitor your behavior as in church attendance etc?

chick fil a needs to get the HELL out of my country, i am just about out of patience with you rabid racist haters...just about

keep it up, assholes...keep it up

 

[beagle9]

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?

He was referring to ravi with his statement, but I guess you feel that you should take up the conversation for ravi now?

 

[copsnrobbers]

He's rolling in the doe while the liberals are sucking wind and each other off.

LMAO!

 

[beagle9]

anybody post the links to the employees losing free speech rights for working there?

that they monitor your behavior as in church attendance etc?

chick fil a needs to get the HELL out of my country, i am just about out of patience with you rabid racist haters...just about

keep it up, assholes...keep it up

Another Holmes maybe ? Keep it up with your threats here, and the FBI will be knocking at your door real soon, you betcha.. In fact you may have already said enough now as it is, because there is a huge debate now going on right now, and this whether you know it or not, about when was it the right time to stop a person like Holmes, and a lot of finger pointing is going on now in regards to that. The debate going on now, is who should have caught him before he done what he had done, especially considering the evidence that he had put out there prior to ?

If don't want to end up like Holmes, then I would suggest that you stop with the general threats you keep making here.. Just saying! Now back on topic please..

 

[beagle9]

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.

How tolerant should America be ravi ? I mean we have laws ya know, and the very existance of those laws means that we have limits to our tolerances in America. This is what the left don't understand, where as just because they think something is good and that we should tolerate it, doesn't mean that we think that it is good, and therefore should tolerate it because they demand us to.

If anything the left are just as intolerant as they claim that the right is etc.

This is when the good majority should always be on standby, and on the ready to settle these issues by a majority vote there of, but the feds who have forever sided with those who claim eternal victimized status in America, and are given special victimized protections by the feds, use the status to abuse the rights of others in order to gain power over them.

People are awakening to this fact finally, and this was just one more good example of that awakening.

 

[beagle9]

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.

Who is stopping you from having an opinion Ravi ?

 

[gallantwarrior]

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.

1. regarding free speech

both the Chick Fil A spokesman and the customers and the Mayors
have equal right to express their views freely
(only if they become so disruptive as to cause breach of security or peace, where they infringe on the right of others peaceably to assemble and conduct business securely would such right to free speech or protests violate the same laws these people are exercising)

as long as the patrons or protesters do not HARASS or commit other civil or legal violation
they all have equal freedom to express themselves, their support or dissent.

2. regarding religion neither prohibited nor imposed by the state

neither the people for or the people against gay marriage
should threaten to abuse state authority to impose their views on those of different beliefs

in this case, there is not equal recognition
of both the views for and against gay marriage to be equally protected
from biases in law by the state

3. NOTE: this is TECHNICALLY only a First Amendment issue where govt is involved
if you interpret the law to mean only govt is held to the Bill of Rights/Constitution

by the Spirit of the laws, where the Golden Rule of Reciprocity applies to all human beings
under natural laws of society and governance that affect all our relations with each other,
not jsut govt,
then all parties would be expected to follow the same rules
if they want to invoke them consistently.

so if you want free speech, you should respect the same of others
if you want your views to be included and not be harassed or namecalled for them,
then you should respect the same of others
etc.

that is not literally how the First Amendment is interpreted literally to apply to govt only

but in practice, that is how people exercise and respond to others under natural laws
and principles that the First Amendment contains and reflects.

In support of everyone's First Amendment rights: The CEO of Chic-fil-A has a right to say he supports traditional marriage (still curious how that equates to hating gays); the mayors have the right to say that they don't believe his statement reflects the ideals of the inhabitants of their cities (they DO NOT have the right to block or forbid further establishment of businesses); the people have the right to support, or not support, the business in question (they either contribute by purchasing the fare on offer, or they do not). NO ONE has the right to bully, physically, financially, or psychologically intimidate, or otherwise threaten people who have opinions that differ from theirs.

 

[gallantwarrior]

anybody post the links to the employees losing free speech rights for working there?

that they monitor your behavior as in church attendance etc?

chick fil a needs to get the HELL out of my country, i am just about out of patience with you rabid racist haters...just about

keep it up, assholes...keep it up

No. Do you have access to links that substantiate the claims you make?

 

[The Gadfly]

anybody post the links to the employees losing free speech rights for working there?

that they monitor your behavior as in church attendance etc?

chick fil a needs to get the HELL out of my country, i am just about out of patience with you rabid racist haters...just about

keep it up, assholes...keep it up

Really? Or you'll do what, precisely? Go out in the garden and eat worms? Have a temper tantrum? Hold your breath? Implode? (I can only wish!). You better believe I'm going to keep it up, hell, I'm just getting started, and in the immortal words of Ronald Wilson Reagan, "You ain't seen NOTHING yet!" Prickly little caterpillar, when you get your bristles ruffled, aren't you? Well, let me assure you that I am thoroughly enjoying the discomfort this situation is causing you and your fellow travelers, and watching the lot of you make your mostly futile and pathetic efforts to extricate yourselves from the beating your side just took in a fight it explicitly picked, with malice aforethought, amuses me no end. On the whole, you've been reduced to little more than hysterical name-calling, a fact I note with some relish. In fact, I am such a good mood, that I'm not being nearly as mean as I can be. However, I am getting more irascible in my old age than I used to be, and it would not take much more of your drivel to change that mood.

 

[blastoff]

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.

The man said he supported traditional marriage. It's pretty intolerant not to recognize that as a valid opinion and leave it at that.

Amen! And the same opinion shared by millions and millions of other Americans.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

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.

Oh my how the world turns

 

[blastoff]

anybody post the links to the employees losing free speech rights for working there?

that they monitor your behavior as in church attendance etc?

chick fil a needs to get the HELL out of my country, i am just about out of patience with you rabid racist haters...just about

keep it up, assholes...keep it up

Oh, gee, yet another cyber tough guy. So many of them around they've been marked down to only a nickel a dozen these days.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

anybody post the links to the employees losing free speech rights for working there?

that they monitor your behavior as in church attendance etc?

chick fil a needs to get the HELL out of my country, i am just about out of patience with you rabid racist haters...just about

keep it up, assholes...keep it up

Oh, gee, yet another cyber tough guy. So many of them around they've been marked down to only a nickel a dozen these days.

Hence them not being taken seriously too often (unless i'm looking for some fun back and forth that has nothing to do with learning anything)