My local Chik-Fil-A sold out of chicken as of 5:30 this evening

[DaTruth]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

That was such an insult towards Howard Stern!

I have a much better idea. Why don't all 50 states and the Federal Government just include same-sex couples in their "definition" of marriage... and all of this bickering can stop and people can move on with their lives, with equal rights and hopefully happiness.

Would most same-sex couples be satisfied with civil unions creating the same rights and obligations that are found in traditional marriages and that are recognized in all states? It would be a marriage, short the name. I know that some argue that it won't be truly equal rights for same-sex couples until they can marry, but what difference does it really make if the same-sex coupling is called a civil union instead of a marriage, at least in legal terms. I sometimes wonder if the battle over same-sex marriages is as much about acceptance as it is about equal rights.

[skippy3481]

kev,
You can't own a franchise from cfa. Single,married,glbt, you work for them regardless. Smart people they are....

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by DaTruth

Would most same-sex couples be satisfied with civil unions creating the same rights and obligations that are found in traditional marriages and that are recognized in all states? It would be a marriage, short the name. I know that some argue that it won't be truly equal rights for same-sex couples until they can marry, but what difference does it really make if the same-sex coupling is called a civil union instead of a marriage, at least in legal terms. I sometimes wonder if the battle over same-sex marriages is as much about acceptance as it is about equal rights.

Personally, I think the gov should throw the "marriage" out. If you want to be legally committed, like you said, same rights and obligations, through the government, then call it a civil union. If marriage is a religious term.. let it up to religious people who want that word to go have their church ceramony. Why do agnostic or athiests have to use the religous term "marriage"?

It would be the most simple and fair solution. Which means it's guaranteed to not happen!


I was hungry for chick fi a yesterday, and stopped on the way back from visiting my little buddy in the Pediatric ICU in Gainseville. Right before I got up to the drive thru window, a hose blew in my car and antifreeze spilled everywhere, steam pouring from the hood. I couldnt wait to pick up the spicy chicken sammich, so I pulled around to the parking lot and shut my car off. While a friend helped me fix the car, the owner of the G-ville Chick Fil - A was pretty awesome, gave me a free meal and made sure everything was alright with my car. It was pretty cool, he seems to be a great guy.

[bigrun]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

Personally, I think the gov should throw the "marriage" out. If you want to be legally committed, like you said, same rights and obligations, through the government, then call it a civil union. If marriage is a religious term.. let it up to religious people who want that word to go have their church ceramony. Why do agnostic or athiests have to use the religous term "marriage"?

It would be the most simple and fair solution. Which means it's guaranteed to not happen!


I was hungry for chick fi a yesterday, and stopped on the way back from visiting my little buddy in the Pediatric ICU in Gainseville. Right before I got up to the drive thru window, a hose blew in my car and antifreeze spilled everywhere, steam pouring from the hood. I couldnt wait to pick up the spicy chicken sammich, so I pulled around to the parking lot and shut my car off. While a friend helped me fix the car, the owner of the G-ville Chick Fil - A was pretty awesome, gave me a free meal and made sure everything was alright with my car. It was pretty cool, he seems to be a great guy.

Nice story..Hope your buddy is doing well..

Had a similar thing happen couple years ago on way to Durham, the intake manifold blew fortunately near an exit and McDonalds..Pulled into their lot with steam and water flying everywhere...the mgr called the cops and said a terrorist tried to blow up his joint.....
Actually a Good Samaritan came along and lead me to a local garage and left the car and was fixed next day...still have the guys name and number..

[GPK]

Originally Posted by skippy3481

kev,
You can't own a franchise from cfa. Single,married,glbt, you work for them regardless. Smart people they are....

You would know better than me, obviously. But the guy I know affiliated with 2 of them here in Roanoke is listed as the "Owner/Operator"? Difference?

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

probably about 2% of the people who showed up did it to support free speech (which I can tolerate)

Forever I will never understand the conflation of "free speech" with "speech without consequences" that conservatives love SO much.

The "free speech" portion of this discussion ended when Cathy said what he said. That's what free speech is -- his right to say what he did.

Not his right to avoid a boycott, be called out for his views, or lose business over it if that's what happened. That's not an issue of free speech -- ironically enough, it's an issue of a free market economy and people wanting go vote with their dollars. But when it comes to hating gays, all logic goes out the window.

This is hardly an issue of free speech. Nobody censored Cathy or denied him his right to say what he did. That's the only portion of this that had anything to do with "free speech" and the First Amendment, and the First Amendment worked just fine in this case.

Same thing happened with the Mormon lady in Cali whose restaurant got boycotted after it was found out that she donated to the effort to repeal gay marriage in California. All the gay-hating conservatives got all worked up about her right to free speech, pretending that her restaurant being boycotted for what she said and did had ANYTHING at all to do with the First Amendment.

What a bunch of disingenuous hacks.

[bigrun]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

Forever I will never understand the conflation of "free speech" with "speech without consequences" that conservatives love SO much.

The "free speech" portion of this discussion ended when Cathy said what he said. That's what free speech is -- his right to say what he did.

Not his right to avoid a boycott, be called out for his views, or lose business over it if that's what happened. That's not an issue of free speech -- ironically enough, it's an issue of a free market economy and people wanting go vote with their dollars. But when it comes to hating gays, all logic goes out the window.

This is hardly an issue of free speech. Nobody censored Cathy or denied him his right to say what he did. That's the only portion of this that had anything to do with "free speech" and the First Amendment, and the First Amendment worked just fine in this case.

Same thing happened with the Mormon lady in Cali whose restaurant got boycotted after it was found out that she donated to the effort to repeal gay marriage in California. All the gay-hating conservatives got all worked up about her right to free speech, pretending that her restaurant being boycotted for what she said and did had ANYTHING at all to do with the First Amendment.

What a bunch of disingenuous hacks.

That about covers it..

[GBBob]

Originally Posted by GPK

Think you can get a Chik-fil-a franchise if you are divorced? It ain't happening. Where are the liberals outrage over that?

Liberal outrage? If this is true, shouldn't EVERYONE be outraged...

[dellinger63]

The State of North Carolina (actually its citizens not its politicians) voted the same way Chik Fil A's owner spoke. Yet where's the outrage against the Democratic Party holding their Presidential convention in North Carolina?



Hopefully Rahm will make a call to Obama letting him know!

Or are the golf courses that good!

[Riot]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

Forever I will never understand the conflation of "free speech" with "speech without consequences" that conservatives love SO much.

The "free speech" portion of this discussion ended when Cathy said what he said. That's what free speech is -- his right to say what he did.

Not his right to avoid a boycott, be called out for his views, or lose business over it if that's what happened. That's not an issue of free speech -- ironically enough, it's an issue of a free market economy and people wanting go vote with their dollars. But when it comes to hating gays, all logic goes out the window.

This is hardly an issue of free speech. Nobody censored Cathy or denied him his right to say what he did. That's the only portion of this that had anything to do with "free speech" and the First Amendment, and the First Amendment worked just fine in this case.

Same thing happened with the Mormon lady in Cali whose restaurant got boycotted after it was found out that she donated to the effort to repeal gay marriage in California. All the gay-hating conservatives got all worked up about her right to free speech, pretending that her restaurant being boycotted for what she said and did had ANYTHING at all to do with the First Amendment.

What a bunch of disingenuous hacks.

Yeah, what he said

I personally think the only legal union, recognized by the government, should be civil unions for all.

If people believe in religion, and want to go have a type of ceremony there, good for them. But that should have nothing to do with legal recognition of the union as far as taxes, government, divorce, etc.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

The State of North Carolina (actually its citizens not its politicians) voted the same way Chik Fil A's owner spoke. Yet where's the outrage against the Democratic Party holding their Presidential convention in North Carolina?



Hopefully Rahm will make a call to Obama letting him know!

Or are the golf courses that good!

There was some quite significant pushback by some Dems against that very thing. Political parties have conventions in swing states they want to win. That reality won out.

[DaTruth]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

Forever I will never understand the conflation of "free speech" with "speech without consequences" that conservatives love SO much.

The "free speech" portion of this discussion ended when Cathy said what he said. That's what free speech is -- his right to say what he did.

Not his right to avoid a boycott, be called out for his views, or lose business over it if that's what happened. That's not an issue of free speech -- ironically enough, it's an issue of a free market economy and people wanting go vote with their dollars. But when it comes to hating gays, all logic goes out the window.

This is hardly an issue of free speech. Nobody censored Cathy or denied him his right to say what he did. That's the only portion of this that had anything to do with "free speech" and the First Amendment, and the First Amendment worked just fine in this case.

Same thing happened with the Mormon lady in Cali whose restaurant got boycotted after it was found out that she donated to the effort to repeal gay marriage in California. All the gay-hating conservatives got all worked up about her right to free speech, pretending that her restaurant being boycotted for what she said and did had ANYTHING at all to do with the First Amendment.

What a bunch of disingenuous hacks.

You are absolutely correct that freedom of speech is not involved when consumers vote with their feet and pocketbooks in response to a company's position. However, the issue leaves the marketplace of ideas and enters the arena of First Amendment rights when you have local elected officials use their position of power to make implicit threats against the company because of the its President's beliefs. For example, the mayor of Boston wrote, "I urge you to back out of your plans to locate in Boston." I don't know how things are done where you live, but it is fairly easy in many cities to harass a potential business with byzantine zoning regulations and enforcement of various codes that involve a lot of discretion.