Chick Fil-A Day!

[Cthulhutu]

Hmm.

In my own opinion, the government should be completely out of marriage (when did it ever get involved in the first place) and screw the benefits for everybody. Why should being married give you benefits?

I'm totally fine with fags shoving their genitals into each-other. It doesn't really have anything to do with me. However, I don't quite get why this guy recieved so much flack for saying "no i don't like fags shoving their genitals into eachother".

1. Please don't say "fags". Would you walk up to a random black person (assuming you are not black) whom you've just met and start talking about "niggers"? No, because it's highly offensive. Same with "fags".
2. Personally, I say we ought to get religion out of marriage, which (for better or worse) is a civil contract. And marriage benefits are important - when two people live together and tend to spend money as a unit much more often, they ought to be treated differently than two single people for purposes of things like taxes.

1. Sorry. I apologize. That was extremely rude of myself, and I'd like to not be an asshole and apologize for that.
2. I agree with that, actually.

[Ethel mermania]

I doubt a few homosexuals give any substancial benefit to the place.

Anyway, my friend says that overall, it's been quite profitable, so that's good.

Luckily, we homosexuals are not the only ones who will never be eating there again. And it's not like we're going to start eating there again once this fades from the spotlight, whereas the bigots are going to go back to eating there however often they were eating there before they knew about this.

lets just say for arguments sake, Cathey has a dream, or just rethink's this thing, and says "i'm sorry i was wrong , here is a hefty contribution to GLAAD, as an apology" (and for the purpose of the conversation let's says he is sincere in his apology). Wouldn't you then have an obligation to go eat their crappy chicken?

[Genivaria]

Luckily, we homosexuals are not the only ones who will never be eating there again. And it's not like we're going to start eating there again once this fades from the spotlight, whereas the bigots are going to go back to eating there however often they were eating there before they knew about this.

lets just say for arguments sake, Cathey has a dream, or just rethink's this thing, and says "i'm sorry i was wrong , here is a hefty contribution to GLAAD, as an apology" (and for the purpose of the conversation let's says he is sincere in his apology). Wouldn't you then have an obligation to go eat their crappy chicken?

Assuming that apology came with a cessation of monetary contributions to hate groups then sure.
I personally enjoy their chicken and my only previous complaint was the music, so I just used the drive through.

[Astrolinium]

Luckily, we homosexuals are not the only ones who will never be eating there again. And it's not like we're going to start eating there again once this fades from the spotlight, whereas the bigots are going to go back to eating there however often they were eating there before they knew about this.

lets just say for arguments sake, Cathey has a dream, or just rethink's this thing, and says "i'm sorry i was wrong , here is a hefty contribution to GLAAD, as an apology" (and for the purpose of the conversation let's says he is sincere in his apology). Wouldn't you then have an obligation to go eat their crappy chicken?

Well, no, not an obligation as such.
However, as I did enjoy their chicken, I would probably go back to eating there every now and then as I did before I knew his position.

1. Please don't say "fags". Would you walk up to a random black person (assuming you are not black) whom you've just met and start talking about "niggers"? No, because it's highly offensive. Same with "fags".
2. Personally, I say we ought to get religion out of marriage, which (for better or worse) is a civil contract. And marriage benefits are important - when two people live together and tend to spend money as a unit much more often, they ought to be treated differently than two single people for purposes of things like taxes.

1. Sorry. I apologize. That was extremely rude of myself, and I'd like to not be an asshole and apologize for that.
2. I agree with that, actually.

Well, then, um...
I'm not sure how to respond.

Guys, what do you do when someone you were arguing with suddenly agrees with you on NSG? I've never encountered this before.

[Xathranaar]

And they have lost customers who will never come back.

I doubt a few homosexuals give any substancial benefit to the place.

Anyway, my friend says that overall, it's been quite profitable, so that's good.

I'm not homosexual, and I will never eat there again.

And I'm not the only one.

[Cthulhutu]

1. Sorry. I apologize. That was extremely rude of myself, and I'd like to not be an asshole and apologize for that.
2. I agree with that, actually.

Well, then, um...
I'm not sure how to respond.

Guys, what do you do when someone you were arguing with suddenly agrees with you on NSG? I've never encountered this before.

Never encountered this before?

Wow. That's odd. I just sat, thought for a moment, realized that I was being an asshole (which violates my moral code), and decided to apologize, and then I realized that I actually agreed with your second point.

This isn't relatively common?

[Wisconsin9]

1. Sorry. I apologize. That was extremely rude of myself, and I'd like to not be an asshole and apologize for that.
2. I agree with that, actually.

Well, then, um...
I'm not sure how to respond.

Guys, what do you do when someone you were arguing with suddenly agrees with you on NSG? I've never encountered this before.

Pfft, that's nothing. I once saw a hardcore Fundamentalist do a complete one-eighty and start using Biblical passages to argue in favor of pro-choice.

[Astrolinium]

Well, then, um...
I'm not sure how to respond.

Guys, what do you do when someone you were arguing with suddenly agrees with you on NSG? I've never encountered this before.

Never encountered this before?

Wow. That's odd. I just sat, thought for a moment, realized that I was being an asshole (which violates my moral code), and decided to apologize, and then I realized that I actually agreed with your second point.

This isn't relatively common?

Not on NSG. At least, not when it comes to my arguments.

People here tend to be fairly set in their beliefs. It's part of why we keep rehashing the same topics over and over.

[The Ben Boys]

"Santa Rosa City Council has halted Chick-fil-a development in the city, in light of the company's hierarchy's views on gay marriage."

Where the hell is a Press Democrat when you need one...

As usual, your side totally misrepresents the story. City Council has PERMITTED the Chick-Fil-A, overturning a planning commission ruling that would have halted it (on grounds of too many idling cars in the drive-thru smogging up the neighborhood, nothing to do with the current controversy). However, the nearby college is full of students who intend to protest and urge boycotts.

"My side"? You mean the one that is pro-gay marriage but doesn't like people profiling, whether it a Christian business or otherwise.

Sorry I got the information wrong (which I was: I was informed by what I thought was a reliable source, and I took it from a different newspaper article when this first came out a few days earlier), but "my side" is probably like that too.

See, this is sometimes why I don't like "my side", they seem to have to jump on anyone who doesn't go 100% with their protests and militancy. And this just isn't the profiling: it happens much too often concerning many different ideologies, but the most prevelant I see is the whole "gay marriage" debate (which has happened only in the last 40 years, even the liberal ideas of homosexuality in Greece defined marriage as between a man and a woman).

There, done with my small rant about my pet peeve. Now let's get back to debating.

[Adventus Secundus]

It warms my heart and brings a single tear to my eye, this outpouring of support for bigotry and discrimination freedom of speech...it's just so grand that people can come together for such a noble cause aslimiting supporting the rights of people they feel are icky.. to express their beliefs.

I mean, these people could have spent the day feeding homeless people or something, but then who would have come to the defense if of a large fast food chain that public supports limiting the rights of the LGBT community?whose founder supports the religius sacrament of marriage?

Fixed that for you. It was beginning to diverge from the facts.

[Adventus Secundus]

As usual, your side totally misrepresents the story. City Council has PERMITTED the Chick-Fil-A, overturning a planning commission ruling that would have halted it (on grounds of too many idling cars in the drive-thru smogging up the neighborhood, nothing to do with the current controversy). However, the nearby college is full of students who intend to protest and urge boycotts.

"My side"? You mean the one that is pro-gay marriage but doesn't like people profiling, whether it a Christian business or otherwise.

Sorry I got the information wrong (which I was: I was informed by what I thought was a reliable source, and I took it from a different newspaper article when this first came out a few days earlier), but "my side" is probably like that too.

See, this is sometimes why I don't like "my side", they seem to have to jump on anyone who doesn't go 100% with their protests and militancy. And this just isn't the profiling: it happens much too often concerning many different ideologies, but the most prevelant I see is the whole "gay marriage" debate (which has happened only in the last 40 years, even the liberal ideas of homosexuality in Greece defined marriage as between a man and a woman).

There, done with my small rant about my pet peeve. Now let's get back to debating.

Nonconformist. An honest one. High Five!

[Veladio]

It warms my heart and brings a single tear to my eye, this outpouring of support for bigotry and discrimination freedom of speech...it's just so grand that people can come together for such a noble cause aslimiting supporting the rights of people they feel are icky.. to express their beliefs.

I mean, these people could have spent the day feeding homeless people or something, but then who would have come to the defense if of a large fast food chain that public supports limiting the rights of the LGBT community?whose founder supports the religius sacrament of marriage?

Fixed that for you. It was beginning to diverge from the facts.

No. That would be valid if their freedom of speech was being infringed upon. It wasn't.

[Norstal]

Nonconformist. An honest one. High Five!

You're pro-gay marriage? Then why did you correct CTOAN's post?

[Occupied Deutschland]

Fixed that for you. It was beginning to diverge from the facts.

No. That would be valid if their freedom of speech was being infringed upon. It wasn't.

Eh, to a certain extent it wasn't. It would depend on whether one identifies government officials deprecating private-sector businesses because of their owners viewpoints as an infringement on that owners free speech (gubm'nt trying to silence unpopular opinions via economic rather than legislative means). It makes some sense I'd say.

Plus, I really don't want to see Republicans have an excuse to get all pissy and scream about how Ben & Jerry's Ice Cream is unpatriotic and unamerican and etcetera etcetera just because the owners happen to not share Republican ideology.

[Adventus Secundus]

Fixed that for you. It was beginning to diverge from the facts.

No. That would be valid if their freedom of speech was being infringed upon. It wasn't.

Governmentally boycotting a restaurant (and moving to prevent its expansion in your city, as the mayors of Chicago and Boston and San Francisico have done) based on the privately held beliefs of its owner (however publicly they may have been expressed) constitutes a violation of freedom of speech in my book. And in most people's.

[Adventus Secundus]

Nonconformist. An honest one. High Five!

You're pro-gay marriage? Then why did you correct CTOAN's post?

I never said that...but I'd rather not end up like the restaurant in question, so I will remain silent for now.

[Veladio]

No. That would be valid if their freedom of speech was being infringed upon. It wasn't.

Eh, to a certain extent it wasn't. It would depend on whether one identifies government officials deprecating private-sector businesses because of their owners viewpoints as an infringement on that owners free speech (gubm'nt trying to silence unpopular opinions via economic rather than legislative means). It makes some sense I'd say.

Plus, I really don't want to see Republicans have an excuse to get all pissy and scream about how Ben & Jerry's Ice Cream is unpatriotic and unamerican and etcetera etcetera just because the owners happen to not share Republican ideology.

Neither the mayor in Chicago nor the Alderman in Boston actually did anything to ban CFA. I say, let them bitch and moan about what ever they want, that is their freedom of speech as well. Politicians can say whatever they want, just like we can. But since neither actually *did* anything, then they didn't harm anybody's free speech.

[Veladio]

No. That would be valid if their freedom of speech was being infringed upon. It wasn't.

Governmentally boycotting a restaurant (and moving to prevent its expansion in your city, as the mayors of Chicago and Boston and San Francisico have done) based on the privately held beliefs of its owner (however publicly they may have been expressed) constitutes a violation of freedom of speech in my book. And in most people's.

Ah yes, the whole, "Rahm and Moreno are trying to pass laws to get CFA banned." But we have dismissed these claims.

[Lerro]

Eh, to a certain extent it wasn't. It would depend on whether one identifies government officials deprecating private-sector businesses because of their owners viewpoints as an infringement on that owners free speech (gubm'nt trying to silence unpopular opinions via economic rather than legislative means). It makes some sense I'd say.

Plus, I really don't want to see Republicans have an excuse to get all pissy and scream about how Ben & Jerry's Ice Cream is unpatriotic and unamerican and etcetera etcetera just because the owners happen to not share Republican ideology.

Neither the mayor in Chicago nor the Alderman in Boston actually did anything to ban CFA. I say, let them bitch and moan about what ever they want, that is their freedom of speech as well. Politicians can say whatever they want, just like we can. But since neither actually *did* anything, then they didn't harm anybody's free speech.

They did however make the threat of doing so. That's fairly scumbaggish.

[Veladio]

Neither the mayor in Chicago nor the Alderman in Boston actually did anything to ban CFA. I say, let them bitch and moan about what ever they want, that is their freedom of speech as well. Politicians can say whatever they want, just like we can. But since neither actually *did* anything, then they didn't harm anybody's free speech.

They did however make the threat of doing so. That's fairly scumbaggish.

I agree, but again...neither actually violated anybody's freedom of speech.

[Lerro]

They did however make the threat of doing so. That's fairly scumbaggish.

I agree, but again...neither actually violated anybody's freedom of speech.

No, but even threatening to do so is beyond the pale of elected officials.

[Lerro]

Note that the defense of Rahm and Mumbles is essentially "You can't actually expect to take them seriously!"

[Veladio]

I agree, but again...neither actually violated anybody's freedom of speech.

No, but even threatening to do so is beyond the pale of elected officials.

Rahm didn't actually have the power to do so, and Moreno backed down fairly shortly afterwards.

[Occupied Deutschland]

Eh, to a certain extent it wasn't. It would depend on whether one identifies government officials deprecating private-sector businesses because of their owners viewpoints as an infringement on that owners free speech (gubm'nt trying to silence unpopular opinions via economic rather than legislative means). It makes some sense I'd say.

Plus, I really don't want to see Republicans have an excuse to get all pissy and scream about how Ben & Jerry's Ice Cream is unpatriotic and unamerican and etcetera etcetera just because the owners happen to not share Republican ideology.

Neither the mayor in Chicago nor the Alderman in Boston actually did anything to ban CFA. I say, let them bitch and moan about what ever they want, that is their freedom of speech as well. Politicians can say whatever they want, just like we can. But since neither actually *did* anything, then they didn't harm anybody's free speech.

See, the underlined is what I don't know about. While to some extent I see where you're coming from, a number of bad historical examples pop into my mind (HUAC didn't have to DO anything itself to get a lot of people blacklisted, Tipper Gore didn't have to DO much to cement the idea of rock'n'roll corrupting the youth in the minds of Americans, etc.).

I dunnow. Chick-Fil-A is nowhere near me so I don't have to answer the complex ethical questions that are apparently being raised by fried chicken sandwiches.

[Lerro]

No, but even threatening to do so is beyond the pale of elected officials.

Rahm didn't actually have the power to do so, and Moreno backed down fairly shortly afterwards.

True, true. Evidently the real story is that some people should think before they speak.