No Gay chicken marrige!

[fauxshizle]

We do not approve of gay marriage whilst you eat yer chicken samich!

http://www.ajc.com/news/chick-fil-a-president-1481215.html

 

[Dealings]

u can work there u can eat there so its just a belief about same sex marriage

maybe u cant have butt sekz in the lobby but im not sure

lately it seems if u are pro same sex marriage u are a biggot racist evil person

forcing all churches to marry same sex may be going too far, civil union w full rights same as hetero is fine (me and wife got married by a judge and was good enough for us) was fast we spent any money on a wedding on us rather than make a huge hoopla

you dont want to descriminate against the alternative lifestyle people because of their lifestyle, have the same courtesy regarding people's religious beliefs.

If they arent giving same legal rights on civil unions then fight that.
Create or make your own religion if u want to marry anything else but stop forcing your views on everyone else, they have to respect you they dont have to convert to your beliefs.

 

[DT]

Welcome to the new Nation of Acceptance, where we accept whatever you want, say, do, feel, and believe. We promote equality and a society where everyone accepts every one else. However, if you follow your own beliefs, and we deem them incorrect, then you are no longer accepted.

 

[dulak]

This bothers me. Why is it that when someone mentions gay or homosexual, it's automatically assumed that there will be 2 or more guys having sex with each other? Why is it noone bothers to mention girls having sex with each other? I've seen posts like this on several boards across the net and it always the same. I guess it's just more "acceptable" to be a bisexual/homosexual female than it is for a male. Regardless, my opinion is this: if it makes a person happy, leave them the fuck alone. I'm not gay nor do I think I ever will be. I have several friends who are, and are all saddened that I won't be crossing the fence so to speak, but they don't pressure me about it. They're human like the rest of us. If you're going to be ignorant and just throw around derogatory terms like a fucked up spelling of butt sex, stfu. All you'll do is piss people off and make yourself look like an idiot.

 

[kinomar_s]

simple fix

you want a marriage / binding for souls = go to church . you want a tax break for spending your life with someone = go to a court house . church and state should be separate, state should not even be allowed to do marriage at all . should a church be forced to bind souls they don't believe should be bound no , nor should they have right to grant a tax break that is states job. keep church and state separate .

 

[rob]

The obvious solution is to get rid of state acceptance of marriage/civil union. Letting the state pick and choose who they allow to marry and who they don't is obviously wrong.

I don't understand why people are so rabid about this subject. It doesn't hurt anyone nor does it impact anyone's quality of life.

 

[SiegeTank]

The state is involved in sanctioning marriage (or "civil unions", if you prefer) because of the tax and other legal benefits accorded to people who are married.

The state accords such benefits because the state considers it beneficial to society to encourage marriage.

The THEORY is that people in married relationships are more stable and contribute more to society plus it enhances child-rearing, thereby producing more healthy children who become contributing adult citizens.

That's the theory. You can argue about whether it's sound (I happen to think it IS but that's my opinion) but you can't argue that the state gets involved in sanctioning marriage for mindless or trivial reasons.

What happens if the state stops supporting marriage? Heck, this question's already being answered in the billions we spend every year supporting single moms, fatherless children, prisons, welfare, drug treatment, etc.

 

[rob]

Those are some great reasons why gay people should be able to get married. My wife and I got married for the legal benefits and nothing else.

Also, if a state stops supporting marriage you know what happens? Nothing. People will still get married be it by pastors, their friends, or their families. It won't mean anything to the state.

 

[PRWraith]

Take the government out of marriage and return marriage to a religious sacrament. Problem solved.

Gay friend of mine said he wouldn't bother with marriage at all if i wasn't for the government benefits.

And if the government has no involvement in marriage, then no gay person has the right to force church to change their views and extend that sacrament outside of the traditional man + women.

 

[ThunderStruck]

the real problem is that people need to disassociate what the state is doing and the religious version. One has absolutely nothing to do with the other. Keep them out of your church all you want but to tell someone they can't give power over their estate because you don't like their beliefs is ridiculous.

As for the company, I'm all for them believing what they want to but I also fully support the mayor of Boston saying he will do what he can to prevent them from operating in his city. You have every right to hold any belief you want but everyone else also has every right to try and convince people that your an idiot and never to buy your products.

 

[SiegeTank]

As for the company, I'm all for them believing what they want to but I also fully support the mayor of Boston saying he will do what he can to prevent them from operating in his city. You have every right to hold any belief you want but everyone else also has every right to try and convince people that your an idiot and never to buy your products.

Yeah, but that doesn't include a mayor trying to unethically (and maybe illegally) put blocks in the path of a legal company trying to do business in his city. Isn't a major part of a mayor's job ENCOURAGING business and GROWING his city's economy? If the citizens of Boston don't want to eat this chicken, in protest of the company's position, then fine they have that right. But it's absolutely inappropriate for a mayor arbitrarily and unilaterally to decide not to permit a legitimate business to open in the city.

If the business meets the zoning and certification requirements to do business in Boston, then nobody should be maneuvering to block their advance. Menino can always try to get the city council to pass a new ordinance requiring all businesses operating in Boston to sign onto a written pledge in support of gay marriage.

See how far that effort goes...

 

[kirbanmanaburn]

Dear Chik-Fil-A,

This letter is to inform you that the leftover cooking grease an employee left behind the Chik-Fil-A in Branson, Missouri was quite possibly the best lubricant my gay partner and I have ever used for anal penetration. Also, please advise where I may obtain more of the substance.

Best,
--Muss Tashrides.

 

[Dealings]

careful any mention of the butt zekzors even w chicken lard will result in you being labeled an immature idiot.

 

[ThunderStruck]

Yeah, but that doesn't include a mayor trying to unethically (and maybe illegally) put blocks in the path of a legal company trying to do business in his city. Isn't a major part of a mayor's job ENCOURAGING business and GROWING his city's economy? If the citizens of Boston don't want to eat this chicken, in protest of the company's position, then fine they have that right. But it's absolutely inappropriate for a mayor arbitrarily and unilaterally to decide not to permit a legitimate business to open in the city.

If the business meets the zoning and certification requirements to do business in Boston, then nobody should be maneuvering to block their advance. Menino can always try to get the city council to pass a new ordinance requiring all businesses operating in Boston to sign onto a written pledge in support of gay marriage.

See how far that effort goes...

true enough but I don't think he was doing anything legally (as in through the legal system). From what I understood he was doing it by asking prominent people to not allow them in rather than blocking them through laws or regulations. I do agree that it would be wrong if he made some law or regulation to prevent them but I do think it would be ok if he simply encouraged people not to invest in their company. It's a fine line to walk I know though.

 

[Dealings]

yea encouraging people to not cater to a restaurant as well as encouraging what ever sector of a population to attempt to block any new restaurants being built is all a right they have, freedom of speech, right to their own opinion

NOW DONT BE FUCKING ASSHATS when other peoples opinions dont fall in line w yours.

If they arent descriminating employees or refusing the glbt(fuck what ever acronym it is lately) service, or harassing anyone in any way shape or form STFU either get a sammich there or dont its that easy.

 

[SiegeTank]

Menino admitted in a TV interview he would pressure regulatory agencies to make it very very hard for this restaurant to get certificates and licenses.

If a mayor of a city like Boston pressures his officials NOT to issue licenses, I think 99% of the time those licenses do NOT get issued. Or, more cleverly to avoid the appearance of undue influence, they just make it very difficult, finding a flaw in every application, nit-picking about every single thing in the restaurant. Anyone who's dealt with government regulators or inspectors knows that if they want to make it virtually impossible for an applicant, they have a million ways to do it.

In some cities, mayors have more autocratic power in their little "fiefdom" than does a governor or the president. That's the case in Boston, I think.

 

[kirbanmanaburn]

Chicago. But all the surrounding countryside is so deeply red I don't think Emanuel would try this kind of nonsense 'cause you'd get every Confederate-Flag-Hat-Having Illinois Tea Party member driving into Chicago to protest it.

 

[PRWraith]

I agree with a previous poster. As long as in your hiring practices you follow the rules. Then it doesn't matter what your company supports. Just because they disagree about gay marriage doesn't make them inhuman.

Hell being against gay marriage doesn't even make you part of a hate group. It just makes you someone who has a different thought process and set of beliefs.

I voiced my opinion earlier when I said marriage is a sacrament. And it is between a man and a women.

That said what people are doing to this sacrament these days would make jesus cry. It's not even recognizable.

On the flip side however if you want to enter into a civil-union with your partner straight or gay that's fine by me I could care less. I just don't think you should get married.

I DO however think that you should recieve all the benefits of marriage though.

 

[ThunderStruck]

I agree with a previous poster. As long as in your hiring practices you follow the rules. Then it doesn't matter what your company supports. Just because they disagree about gay marriage doesn't make them inhuman.

Hell being against gay marriage doesn't even make you part of a hate group. It just makes you someone who has a different thought process and set of beliefs.

I agree that it doesn't make you part of a hate group or anything and you have every right to think that they shouldn't be married. I also believe that people have the right to protest and stop the company from getting any business. I say that knowing that I might also be on the negative side of that one day but I believe that if enough people believe in what your doing you will make it regardless.

I voiced my opinion earlier when I said marriage is a sacrament. And it is between a man and a women.

That said what people are doing to this sacrament these days would make jesus cry. It's not even recognizable.

On the flip side however if you want to enter into a civil-union with your partner straight or gay that's fine by me I could care less. I just don't think you should get married.

I DO however think that you should recieve all the benefits of marriage though.

This is what I don't understand. I guess the act of marriage = religious but a civil-union = marriage from the state? I don't get why you need two different names for the same thing. I don't believe in gay marriage but I also don't believe I have the right to tell them they can't get married. If you don't want them to get married in your church that's fine but giving one act two different names just for the sake of separating it from you is just stupid to me.

On a side note, it's interesting to me that while we both arrived at the same point how we got there are different.

 

[Dealings]

my guess is that it was an effort to maintain civil rights (granting unions)

while not trying to force churches to marry same sex couples

some states regardless (sounds like alot) have a voting population that dont condone or accept even civil unions (thats a loosing battle maybe not now but its coming to an end)

I dont have a strong opinion about one side or the other (not gonna find me doing anything to promote or condone either side), however the whole vindictive or intolerant way the alternative favor folks come across does piss me off, to the point where i will end up going to chik filet more to make my personal passive statement by supporting the business