Let's All Be Gay Assholes Towards One Another About Chicken

[Rer]

Ahhh, the puns are aplenty with this title, I'm satisfied. So, I'm going in with the assumption that the American posters already know what's going on, so I'm just gonna give a quick recap for any EU or Aussie friends who don't know what's happening in regards to Gay Rights vs. Chick-Fil-A.

Essentially the CEO for Chick-Fil-A is staunchly against Gay Marriage. Wrath of God upon us for questioning his definition of marriage, yadda yadda. As a result, a lot of people are mad about this and are actively boycotting Chick-Fil-A (oh, if you don't have those they make chicken sammiches, and goddamnit its tasty chicken!). It is also very well documented that Chick-Fil-A donates millions of dollars each year to Anti-Gay Hate Groups. The mayors of Chicago, Boston, and.. San Francisco(?) have all told the company they can take their business elsewhere. Also, right now, as I'm typing this, my college's student body is actively debating about whether we should remove the Chick-Fil-A on our campus given we are a LGBT friendly community.

On the flipside, those who support Chick-Fil-A claim that saying "You can't have your business here because we disagree with your beliefs" is against the 1st Amendment. Its one of those stupid debates that gets really murky one way or the other but, hey this is Kugu and I figured maybe this could turn out to be an interesting discussion. Oh and don't forget to be civil because we don't wanna upset Vinata.

[spoiler=Below is what I posted in regards to my colleges internal debates about removing the restaurant from our campus... its kinda wordy sorry]I'm torn on this, I really am. I've actually sat here for about 30 minutes trying to piece together my thoughts on this.

On the one hand we have a CEO and a company that actively states a close-minded and intolerant viewpoint like its something to be proud of, lest we unleash the wrath of God! Said company also donates millions of dollars to anti-Gay groups across the country, whereas <college> (in my opinion) prides itself on being an extremely friendly campus to the LGBT community. I should also mention that I support Gay Marriage.

On the other hand we're literally considering burning a company at the stake because its CEO is close-minded. You all do realize how many CEOs are incredibly close minded or just outright stupid right? Does this mean we should suddenly never support any Republican/Christian establishment (generally speaking here, sorry its 4AM) because we disagree with their views? You can't tell me that isn't a tad ridiculous.

There are only two things I know to be true here, Gay Marriage is going to happen, and Chick-Fil-A sandwiches are tasty. Anything past that is in murky water at best and honestly needs to be thought out more instead of a knee-jerk reaction.

If you personally don't want to support Chick-Fil-A, that's fine, don't. No one can blame you or say you're doing anything wrong by boycotting them. Hell I myself already plan on only eating there sparingly as a result of all of this (seriously fake Facebook accounts to try to defend your viewpoints?) Outright forcing them to leave campus though? I'm sorry, part of me just can't support that, it doesn't seem right... even if the company in question has a CEO with viewpoints I personally can't stand.[/spoiler]

Also if the mods would prefer this be merged into the Sexism/Misandry thread because its not worthy of being its own thread that's understandable. In reality I think this entire thing is stupid, but stupid shit tends to be interesting to talk about.

[Agathor]

I guess this is where I chime in.

We have a lesbian prime minister, the state children show was directed by a gay man for years, every other fucking male singer here is gay. We have a huge gay pride festival.

Nobody seems to care here.

[madp0k]

Let people be happy with who ever they want, you'll never change the haters minds. As to boycotting them, well if we had any I probably would because he's an idiot and why would I want to give money to an idiot.

[Stronke]

Gay pride week in A'dam today. Prime ministers have there own boat on the parade where they can dance with homesexuals and lesbians in latex outfits.


Also the Netherlands was the first country allowing gay marriges. This was before 2000.

[Agathor]

I saw the chickfila reps show of support lines on the daily show. Alot of women there, even some black women. I think its more of them wanting to keep their gay husbands more then some real hate. So banning gay marriage might mean in their minds; more nice guys for them. You know, the guys that cook, clean, totally in to fashion, takes you out to broadway shows, listens to your feelings.

In a totally racism free surroundings, children tend to gravitate to gay peeps. Something about having no problem dressing up as princess at a play tea party.

[Hilmar Keller]

I saw the chickfila reps show of support lines on the daily show. Alot of women there, even some black women. I think its more of them wanting to keep their gay husbands more then some real hate. So banning gay marriage might mean in their minds; more nice guys for them. You know, the guys that cook, clean, totally in to fashion, takes you out to broadway shows, listens to your feelings.

In a totally racism free surroundings, children tend to gravitate to gay peeps. Something about having no problem dressing up as princess at a play tea party.

About a year ago during the DOMA fiasco, there was a fantastic clip on the Daily Show featuring a black woman soapboxing about how she lived in the generation of civil rights and her parents fought for equality, and now, by demonstrating to institutionalize bigotry, she was making her parents proud.

I puked in my mouth a bit.

[Agathor]

Is America a little bit retarded or something? I thought that we went through the 80s together and decided to that coke and gays is not that bad.

[Hilmar Keller]

Is America a little bit retarded or something? I thought that we went through the 80s together and decided to that coke and gays is not that bad.

Socially yeah, we're right up there with early 20th century German nationalism.

[Brooks Puuntai]

Now going to chick-fil-a labels you as being anti gay rights. When actually I just wanted a chicken sandwich ffs. I should just tape a sign to my window saying "I don't care if gays get married, and I don't care if you are against gays getting married...I just want a fucking chicken sandwich."

[Hilmar Keller]

It wouldn't kill you to make your own damned chicken sandwich for once.

I'm sorry baby I didn't mean it really, I'll make you whatever you'd like, no baby come back

[Fartman]

The mayors of Chicago, Boston, and.. San Francisco(?) have all told the company they can take their business elsewhere

lmao i must have missed the part where mayors are allowed to decide what businesses are allowed to operate in their cities

[Rer]

Yea they have no legal standing when it comes to "kicking Chick-Fil-A out". As much as I dislike the CEOs viewpoints, I too just want a goddamn chicken sandwich.

[Securitas]

i got a sandwich there yesterday lol

[Hilmar Keller]

lmao i must have missed the part where mayors are allowed to decide what businesses are allowed to operate in their cities

You're forgetting that the Mayor of San Francisco is this man
Attachment 3201

[Jambe]

It wouldn't kill you to make your own damned chicken sandwich for once.

You can't get the flavor of their chicken sandwiches from home because the pressure fryers they use (broasters) aren't available for home purchase. Pressurized hot oil cooking makes the chicken incredibly moist and delicious (for your health!).

I haven't eaten at a Chick-Fil-A for... probably a year or more? Mostly because I'm trying to avoid excess vegetable oil and carbohydrates because they're killing us (Agathor, you might like that article if you're into biology-writing). Their chicken sandwich (plain with pepperjack cheese) is fucking delicious, but I can live without it. I only rarely ate at Chick-Fil-A even when I frequented Ball State University, where one is right on campus (which is a curiosity to me given the school's supposed "health-consciousness").

I would probably eat there though I'm pro-gay/queer/whatever, but I don't see it as a particularly big deal. These "sanctity of marriage" people are already seen as fringe nutty types by most American coastal people, and they're increasingly disliked in big cities in the Midwest and even the South. These unjustly-discriminatory views will continue to become more marginalized with time, and that'll happen regardless of boycotts. And, as Rer said, CEOs tend to be libertarian/conservative types anyway, so odds are most big chains are run & owned, in full or in part, by people with similar views. Big whoop.

There are plenty of people with hateful, vocal prejudices in this country, and the First Amendment applies as much to bigots as to anybody else. Kind of a necessary dark side to our law — it's the same with e.g. the Westboro Baptist people or the KKK.

[Rer]

Well fuck me a fellow BSU student. What was your major?

[Jambe]

Ceramics, but I quit to work. I was mostly there because of a beautiful high school student teacher, and after I quit because of their billiards tables. Sometime I wanna pursue an MA or MFA but I also really disliked Muncie, though I lived there most of my life. Dilapidated rust belt towns...

[Rer]

Dilapidated rust belt towns...

Confirming, but it does have its charms.

[Bill Schwartzski]

lmao i must have missed the part where mayors are allowed to decide what businesses are allowed to operate in their cities

Good luck opening:

- A hardcore fully exposed porn shop next to a grade school
- a toxic waste dump next to a hospital
- a nuclear power plant next to a giant residential area

Some people just might see a company that donates a massive amount of its corporate profits to legislation aimed at taking away civil rights as dangerous to the public good.

But then again I'm going to take a wild stab in the dark that you are a white, heterosexual male that has literally zero exposure to any sort of legislation attempting to take away your civil rights.

Don't forget - Chik Fil A supports lobbyists and groups that would enact legislation based on religion, which is direct conflict with the First Amendment. So you could very easily say that condemning Chik Fil A is an act to protect your First Amendment rights. They can say whatever they want, but there are consequences. Just like yelling fire in a movie theater. Just like announcing that you hate America on a plane full of people.

[Bill Schwartzski]

And just so people are aware, Chik Fil A has a ZERO rating from the HRC. A *zero*. Meaning that, as a business, they're about American as Hitler.

(yes, I did it)

[Fartman]

hardcore porn, toxic waste, nuclear power

all three of which have many similarities with fast food restaurant chains whose owners hold opinions some people dont like

[Phineas Freak]

I saw the chickfila reps show of support lines on the daily show. Alot of women there, even some black women. I think its more of them wanting to keep their gay husbands more then some real hate. So banning gay marriage might mean in their minds; more nice guys for them. You know, the guys that cook, clean, totally in to fashion, takes you out to broadway shows, listens to your feelings.

In a totally racism free surroundings, children tend to gravitate to gay peeps. Something about having no problem dressing up as princess at a play tea party.

the answer my friend, is right here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZNs5e4Vhl9U
(dave chapelle about racism and chicken)

[Night]

I do have to wonder, on a purely business level, why anyone would do this. Smart companies support things like cancer research or housing for poor kids or something like that; something you'd have to be a member of the Kitten Burning Coalition or some other equally ridiculous organization to oppose.

Doing this instead has immense possibilities to damage a business, for years and even decades.

[jimmychrist]

So the same people who thought Oreo was in the wrong for weighing in on gay rights are now defending a sandwich company that is standing up for what their CEO believes in, and the people who are mad about said sandwich company is largely the same bunch of people who thought Oreo was acting just and proper as corporate citizens?

[Hilmar Keller]

Well, and then there's the whole JC Penney/Ellen Degeneres debacle which culminated with JC Penney publishing a catalog full of gay couples and their adopted children.

So yeah, the people who stood up for the right to promote intolerance also stood against the people who promote tolerance, and vice versa. Not disagreeing with that one bit.

[Barry Zuckerkorn]

Is America a little bit retarded or something? I thought that we went through the 80s together and decided to that coke and gays is not that bad.

Yes.

So the same people who thought Oreo was in the wrong for weighing in on gay rights are now defending a sandwich company that is standing up for what their CEO believes in, and the people who are mad about said sandwich company is largely the same bunch of people who thought Oreo was acting just and proper as corporate citizens?

Something like that. What the Constitution actually says is "Freedom to believe whatever you want to believe so long as it is what I believe!"- Founding Father (Dictated but not read)

[Prodnovick]

Conservative and economic right wing organisations controlling the poor and less educated people by playing their fears for "other people".

[Raketefrau]

The problem isn't a political party or any constitutional crap, this is purely a problem with religious people. Wait, I mean bigots.

We all know God hates fags, but loves capitalism in all its forms.

[Securitas]

How about being gay assholes to eachother about Disney? No seriously I foresee some sort of backlash against corrupting children's stories.

[Manfred Hideous]

Ahhh, the puns are aplenty with this title, I'm satisfied. So, I'm going in with the assumption that the American posters already know what's going on, so I'm just gonna give a quick recap for any EU or Aussie friends who don't know what's happening in regards to Gay Rights vs. Chick-Fil-A.

Essentially the CEO for Chick-Fil-A is staunchly against Gay Marriage. Wrath of God upon us for questioning his definition of marriage, yadda yadda. As a result, a lot of people are mad about this and are actively boycotting Chick-Fil-A (oh, if you don't have those they make chicken sammiches, and goddamnit its tasty chicken!). It is also very well documented that Chick-Fil-A donates millions of dollars each year to Anti-Gay Hate Groups. The mayors of Chicago, Boston, and.. San Francisco(?) have all told the company they can take their business elsewhere. Also, right now, as I'm typing this, my college's student body is actively debating about whether we should remove the Chick-Fil-A on our campus given we are a LGBT friendly community.

On the flipside, those who support Chick-Fil-A claim that saying "You can't have your business here because we disagree with your beliefs" is against the 1st Amendment. Its one of those stupid debates that gets really murky one way or the other but, hey this is Kugu and I figured maybe this could turn out to be an interesting discussion. Oh and don't forget to be civil because we don't wanna upset Vinata.

[spoiler=Below is what I posted in regards to my colleges internal debates about removing the restaurant from our campus... its kinda wordy sorry]I'm torn on this, I really am. I've actually sat here for about 30 minutes trying to piece together my thoughts on this.

On the one hand we have a CEO and a company that actively states a close-minded and intolerant viewpoint like its something to be proud of, lest we unleash the wrath of God! Said company also donates millions of dollars to anti-Gay groups across the country, whereas <college> (in my opinion) prides itself on being an extremely friendly campus to the LGBT community. I should also mention that I support Gay Marriage.

On the other hand we're literally considering burning a company at the stake because its CEO is close-minded. You all do realize how many CEOs are incredibly close minded or just outright stupid right? Does this mean we should suddenly never support any Republican/Christian establishment (generally speaking here, sorry its 4AM) because we disagree with their views? You can't tell me that isn't a tad ridiculous.

There are only two things I know to be true here, Gay Marriage is going to happen, and Chick-Fil-A sandwiches are tasty. Anything past that is in murky water at best and honestly needs to be thought out more instead of a knee-jerk reaction.

If you personally don't want to support Chick-Fil-A, that's fine, don't. No one can blame you or say you're doing anything wrong by boycotting them. Hell I myself already plan on only eating there sparingly as a result of all of this (seriously fake Facebook accounts to try to defend your viewpoints?) Outright forcing them to leave campus though? I'm sorry, part of me just can't support that, it doesn't seem right... even if the company in question has a CEO with viewpoints I personally can't stand.[/spoiler]

Also if the mods would prefer this be merged into the Sexism/Misandry thread because its not worthy of being its own thread that's understandable. In reality I think this entire thing is stupid, but stupid shit tends to be interesting to talk about.

In regards to your school and those cities, there's no ambiguity whatsoever. If you traded Chik-Fil-A for the word Negro (a group also represented in disliking gay marriage) not one person in your school would be debating kicking out the Negro company.

Private malls would have the option to kick them out because they're not arms of the government. Schools (and city managers) are and would be violating the first amendment. The CEO's social and political views are beside the point. Chik-Fil-A won a contract or was approved to move in because they are qualified to cock fatty foods to stuff in your gullet. I think Michael Moore is a giant douchbag but I wouldn't be in favor of not letting him film in Atlanta because I don't like his views.

I may be flexible if the argument was that he might be tempted to eat the Atlantans when he ran out of Chik-Fil-A.

[Hilmar Keller]

I think Michael Moore is a giant douchbag but I wouldn't be in favor of not letting him film in Atlanta because I don't like his views.

Right, here's the problem with your argument: You're equating gay rights, which is effectively a human rights issue, with gun control/healthcare/whatever else Michael Moore makes films about, which are divisive issues of political discourse.

Every news network does this. The 'fair and balanced' approach to filling up your 24-hour news cycle totally ignores the fact that bigots don't deserve a voice, don't deserve representation, don't even have a reasonable point to make; they are hateful and ignorant individuals who should be relegated to the fringe of society and ignored. I don't see a Nazi interviewed on CNN every time somebody makes an antisemitic statement or gesture. There's a reason for that: Antisemitism is an archaic, obsolete and regressive ideology with no utility. Bigotry is the same thing. Hitler targeted homosexuals for extermination as well as Jews, but we don't hear about that because they do butt stuff and my Bible says that's wrong.

One of these days, we'll see racists, anti-Semites and bigots grouped together in the 'ignore these people, they're just fucking crazy' category, and that day can't come soon enough.

[Manfred Hideous]

Actually, I'm comparing opinions on political and social viewpoints. You have the right to disagree with government policy and the government is not allowed to harrass you because you don't agree with it.

Schools can't decide legitimately that (based on this man's religious views) reject his otherwise qualified food service without stepping on his own human rights.

One of these days, we'll see racists, anti-Semites and bigots grouped together in the 'ignore these people, they're just fucking crazy' category, and that day can't come soon enough.

Why don't you ignore them, then? Certainly nothing is stopping you from doing so except your decision to give a shit about them. Were someone to tell you that you MUST put them on ignore, then you'd be subjected to control over other aspects of your life as well. See North Korea for an extreme example.

Personally, I like it when someone rednecks up and disparages someone for no other reason than they're black. This is not because I dislike blacks. It is because the redneck has served me notice that I can do quite well without his friendship.

Additionally, when you tell people that can't dislike something, you can also tell them you must hate something or that there are some acceptable prejudices. Ask Vinata about that sometime as he provided an example of the tiered protections that can come about as a result of wanting to control speech and thought.

[Hilmar Keller]

Lots of fallacies there, let's make a list.

First off, boycotting Chic-Fil-A or forcing them to change the way they do business is sound policy. Abloo bloo bloo, freedom of speech, the only reason they haven't come out and said we're sorry for giving money to bigots is because they draw a significant portion of their business from bigots. The purpose of the boycott is to demonstrate that enough of their business comes from people who are not batshit insane that they should not pander to the batshit insane.

Ignoring them is hard because they have a political presence validated by media attention. I'm not concerned about the Vinata issue because that's an issue of language, not of actual violence against a minority. Vinata's feelings were hurt by words, not by an expressed viewpoint that a certain group of people should be relegated to the back of the bus. And there are acceptable prejudices: Being prejudiced against prejudice is still a prejudice, so I'm going to dispose of the absurd semantics here and say that bigotry (not 'faggot' but 'faggots go to hell') has no place in modern society. We should've been past it fifty years ago.

Hate is not a human right. Hate is the suspension of human rights based on beliefs, and these beliefs are not rooted in rational thought.

[Grath]

Hate is not a human right. Hate is the suspension of human rights based on beliefs, and these beliefs are not rooted in rational thought.

This was true, until the world got so populated that they started trying to force you to be around the things you hate and trying to make us think all these things should be ok.


If you try to push your agenda on other people, and try to force people to "be nice to gays" and things like that then you have now enabled hate as a right.


Why am is it OK to force me to accept gays into my work place and accept their lifestyles and beliefs as valid and yet its not ok for my beliefs and my lifestyle to be equally valid? I think you're on a dangerous path of telling people what is and isnt' ok to believe.

I dont like people period, whites, blacks, browns, off yellows, mauves, and I'm not that big of a fan of flamboyantly gay people just like Im not a fan of some heathen fuck telling me how much pussy he gets. What gives you the right to devalue my beliefs over theres, what makes their beliefs more important than mine?

[Hilmar Keller]

Because your beliefs are just that - beliefs. Nobody asked you to pass judgment on same-sex couples. You elected to do that. People ought to own up to their beliefs and, instead of projecting them onto a proxy (family, friends, God, Ayn Rand, George Washington, etc), use arguments to justify them. Unfortunately, there is no way to justify bigotry without citing either the way you do things (and I'm sure it works fine for you) or the way God intended us to do things (which is pretty odd given the way our junk works). Now bigots get to backpedal and defend their beliefs by defending their right to hold those beliefs (like you're doing) which still doesn't justify the belief. You might say, "I don't like gays, and that's just how I feel," and you're fine by doing that, but please don't fucking vote to suppress their right to marry until you have an actual reason for feeling that way.

But more to the point, treating the issue of gay rights the same way you might treat environmental protection (with all the money it entails) or the war on drugs (with all the money it entails) is absurd because there's no money involved. You can't claim that this is going to be expensive. You can't claim that it's going to raise taxes. You can't claim that it's going to cause damage to our planet or to the next generation (it's been debunked repeatedly). You can't claim that it's unconstitutional. You can't claim that it's harming lives - even if you extend the definition of life to an unfertilized egg. The debate over gay rights is so unlike every other topic in American politics that you can only equate it to a debate about what you can and can't dip your french fries in. Absurd, right?

[Securitas]

Why am is it OK to force me to accept gays into my work place and accept their lifestyles and beliefs as valid and yet its not ok for my beliefs and my lifestyle to be equally valid? I think you're on a dangerous path of telling people what is and isnt' ok to believe.

v0v Personally I find 'hate groups' A-ok because they're exercising their right to free speech. No ifs, ands, or buts about it.

On the other hand, you have to accept me because I can do the job in question just as well as anyone else. Also, you do have to draw some line because the two "lifestyles and beliefs" are not necessarily equivalent. If your lifestyle includes expressing hostility towards others because of something they can do nothing about, that's what you might call anti-social or not socially helpful, versus a 'gay lifestyle' could not be classified the same way.

I guess what I'm saying is that all lifestyles are equally valid as long as they are not attempting to stomp out some other lifestyle, some bizarre paradox in which gay people are attempting to stomp out the lifestyle that is trying to stomp them out notwithstanding. That's only my opinion though, not what I think should be legislated for.

tl;dr: As long as someone isn't openly hostile to me in a workplace/similar environment (and I don't mean saying 'faggot' I mean trying to fuck with me because i'm gay) I really don't give two shits and I won't try to stop you from thinking/saying what you want.

[jimmychrist]

I'm going to throw this prepubescent girl down the side of a pyramid and if you think that's not fine I guess I'll see you in court cause I have the right to exercise my beliefs

[Desert Punk]

I am quite Hungry.

[Rer]

Thinkin' Chinese tonight, I've earned it.

[Hilmar Keller]

I dipped my fries in a milkshake.

And I think I liked it.

[Night]

I dipped my fries in a milkshake.

And I think I liked it.

HERESY.

[Manfred Hideous]

Lots of fallacies there, let's make a list.

First off, boycotting Chic-Fil-A or forcing them to change the way they do business is sound policy. Abloo bloo bloo, freedom of speech, the only reason they haven't come out and said we're sorry for giving money to bigots is because they draw a significant portion of their business from bigots. The purpose of the boycott is to demonstrate that enough of their business comes from people who are not batshit insane that they should not pander to the batshit insane.

Ignoring them is hard because they have a political presence validated by media attention. I'm not concerned about the Vinata issue because that's an issue of language, not of actual violence against a minority. Vinata's feelings were hurt by words, not by an expressed viewpoint that a certain group of people should be relegated to the back of the bus. And there are acceptable prejudices: Being prejudiced against prejudice is still a prejudice, so I'm going to dispose of the absurd semantics here and say that bigotry (not 'faggot' but 'faggots go to hell') has no place in modern society. We should've been past it fifty years ago.

Hate is not a human right. Hate is the suspension of human rights based on beliefs, and these beliefs are not rooted in rational thought.

Personally, I think a boycott is a good idea. What you are describing is people opting to exercise their rights and is a far cry from the situation I was discouraging.

Vinata's feelings were hurt by words that expressed a differing viewpoint. If someone refused him service in violation of business laws that reasonably don't allow cutting or diminishing services based on stupid prejudices, that's another matter. The fact is, we'll probably never be entirely past it. Not in 50 years and not in 5000. Some people will never evolve into the ideal you believe in. Some people, even though they have evolved significantly will still not satisfy you because they evolved to have different views than you on a variety of subjects.

Personally I see no difference between 'nigger' and 'die nigger' I'm offended even typing the word in scare quotes. That's a far cry from me telling you that you can't even think that word or be faced with... Well whatever it is you think will fix this ongoing problems of improper thinking. I'm curious about something; Is 1984 still required reading for people who have graduated HS the last ten years?

I disagree with you're assumption that hate isn't a human right. Hate alone violates nobody's rights. Acting upon that hatred is where it becomes a problem; otherwise it's only destructive to the person holding it.

Who gets to decide what beliefs are to be forcible imposed on people and what beliefs are to be denied a place? How do you enforce the belief structure? How do you prove a particular person actually believes what you want? Did you know that Kim Jon Il bowled a perfect game the first time he tried and finished a golf course 38 under par? Did you know that is required thinking in North Korea or you get a vacation in an exclusive education camp? There are people on this forum that would gladly see people of faith locked up for believing something they do not. Are you OK with that?

[Jambe]

Why am is it OK to force me to accept gays into my work place and accept their lifestyles and beliefs as valid and yet its not ok for my beliefs and my lifestyle to be equally valid? I think you're on a dangerous path of telling people what is and isnt' ok to believe.

Employment enforcement occurs because Western society is increasingly egalitarian. We're growing to dislike work restrictions based on shit that has no bearing on peoples' capabilities. Fuck those progressive Christians and their "universal brotherhood" bullshit. Screw those humanists. And don't get me started on the Jews; those loathsome reformed pantywaists should reexamine Leviticus!

The "beliefs" angle is irrelevant — nobody's forcing you to believe anything. People may be suggesting that you're a bigot, but why does that bother you? You can dish it out but you can't take it? Ultimately, the 1A provides for a two-way street: it lets you call me a queer-loving cuntstain from the right lane while I call you a whiny, curmudgeonly manchild from the left.

I dont like people period, whites, blacks, browns, off yellows, mauves, and I'm not that big of a fan of flamboyantly gay people just like Im not a fan of some heathen fuck telling me how much pussy he gets. What gives you the right to devalue my beliefs over theres, what makes their beliefs more important than mine?

So you should be able to publicly hate on whoever you want, but others shouldn't able to suggest you're dumb for doing so? That's entirely hypocritical, and it's also entirely irrelevant. Again, the government isn't telling you what to believe, nor will it. That's bullshitty "thought police" fearmongering. You can go on hate-speaking against whoever you want for any reason under the sun; the only time you'll be stopped by the government is if you're invading private property or being a public nuisance (e.g. the Westboro Baptist fuckers can picket all they want on public sidewalks so long as they're not impeding traffic).

wrt the "flamboyantly gay" thing — do you mean gays who talk in public about their sexytimes or gays that are lispy and limp-wristed? If you mean the former, yeah, it's generally considered impolite to discuss fucking in public, but I don't encounter that much. If you mean the latter, y'need to harden the fuck up.

"That smartly-dressed young man is limp-wristing his way around the restaurant and talking like he has no front teeth despite his immaculate smile... Argh, I've suddenly been struck with the mental image of a cock in my mouth and/or anus! Oh noooooooooooo!"

[Jambe]

@Manfred: did you just bring up North fucking Korea in a discussion about homosexuality in the USA? I appreciate hyperbole, but that's just absurd. Let's also study Kafka, and while we're at it let's start a private militia to take back our rights to BELIEVE IN QUEER-HA— oh wait, we already have those rights.

Tell me (and maybe Grath could as well) just who exactly is compelling you to believe x or y? Who? Which individual or organization is forcing you to have a specific belief, or to change one you currently hold? What is going through you mind? "Well, Chick-Fil-A is being boycotted because its leader supports anti-gay organizations, therefore people are being forced to abandon their anti-gay positions"?

It seems to me that hatefulness for its own sake is simply becoming less and less palatable in Western society. What is wrong with that? Why is hatefulness for its own sake worth defending? Why should we respect people whose default position on "people" is "I dislike them"?

[Hilmar Keller]

Jambe hit the nail on the head - I'm not suggesting the government outlaw thought or speech, because that's neither the government's role nor in its power.

I'm suggesting that society do this. If you ever want to get a job, make friends or have sex, there's certain beliefs that will isolate you from one if not all of the three. Let's add bigotry to this list. Employers, don't employ bigots, and if you hire one and then find out, fire them. If you have friends who are bigots, suggest they change and if they don't, just don't talk to them. And if you're dating a bigot, don't put out until their mind is changed.

I believe this is possible because most people don't respect bigotry as an 'opinion' or 'worldview' so it's not equivocal to liking the Celtics or voting Republican. Most people acknowledge that it's a product of ignorance, not rationality. And I think if those people all choose to change the way they deal with bigots and refuse to tolerate them, we might actually see results. More so than if the government turned into the thought police and martyred their cause.

[Manfred Hideous]

Hilmar,

I don't necessarily mean that YOU wanted government to intervene and punish the guy and the company he leads. The fact of the matter is two or three cities have already made noises that they might, which I contend is an actual violation of his human rights. I don't respect people who are bigots, that doesn't mean I have to suppress their ideas.

Jambe,

Who the fuck said I believed hate was good? I'm saying that making hate (thought not action) illegal is worse as it means the government would HAVE to take an active role in suppressing unacceptable thought. I said north Korea was an extreme example of where this might lead. I never said Present Tense that anyone is compelling me to think X or Y. I am stipulating there is a desire to go that direction and it's a very slippery slope that ends in some form of totalitarian society.

@anyone: Has Chik-Fil-A been accused or shown not to serve gay people deep fried heart attacks? Is he one of the guys who killed Matthew Shepard? Have they refused to hire gays? Or is the gay community hysterical of one man's opinion on a political topic that's been hotly discussed the last few years.

BTW, Everyone is a bit prejudiced towards something. None of you (or me) are entirely innocent of it. It's like women; They're all crazy in various degrees and only the degree of crazy really matters. *ducks under table*

[Hilmar Keller]

Well, those were knee-jerk reactions by mayors with political careers and support by those who praised the reactions. Gavin Newsom was unsurprisingly one of these politicians; the guy is admittedly bad as a mayor and the dirt on him would certainly exclude him from winning a Presidential primary, but in a city with a strong LGBT community, he's as popular as sequined pants. No city attempted to remove Chic-Fil-A from their borders; those were their Mayors speaking in an unofficial capacity.

Also, let's be frank about prejudice: Nobody can help a thought occurring to them, and everybody at one point has held a stereotype to be true, and whether they like it or not, everybody has thought badly of a minority at some point. This is all true. But I've never voted to exclude women from driving or African Americans from owning guns. That sort of political action is archaic and obsolete. The fact that bigotry has some legitimacy in the political sphere is why it needs to be cut off at its roots and left to rot on the vine. It's different because it's still tolerated and even pursued as viable, even though it has no more foundational validity than sexism or racism.

[Manfred Hideous]

I agree with everything you just said.

My entire point was that the mechanisms to change minds should never be government driven. When that happens it becomes necessarily overreaching because the nature of government is to expand its scope. Any government is going to do that.

Besides, the more a government is involved in suppression, the more fanatics are created.

Boycott them, mock them, protest them. Just don't demand (like Newsom did) that the government should step in. And yeah I wasn't surprised by his statements. I worked in SFO for years and always had people thinking I was a far right winger because i didn't celebrate gays or the homeless. I just don't give two fucks about gays and anyone who has to walk between Van Ness and Powell has to run a veritable gauntlet of aggressive homeless people (many of whom aren't even homeless).

Frankly, I think the discriminatory attitudes of the LGBT community about polygamous marriages mirror almost exactly the attitudes of the bible thumpers. The problem is less about who gets to be married and more about the government legislating it in the first place.

[Raketefrau]

The whole debate's about to get a lot more interesting, apparently Obama himself is gay:

http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com...2#.UCFjr6PyB8E

Michelle just screams "beard" anyway, no?

[Barry Zuckerkorn]

The whole debate's about to get a lot more interesting, apparently Obama himself is gay:

http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com...2#.UCFjr6PyB8E

Michelle just screams "beard" anyway, no?

Obama will surly be outed when they get his Kenyan marriage certificate.