If you have an airport that is publicly owned should cities have a right to ditch a vendor for
being anti-lgbt or pro-abortion?
If you have an airport that is publicly owned should cities have a
right to ditch a vendor for being anti-lgbt or pro-abortion?
MATTHEW MUNSON wrote to All <=-
If you have an airport that is publicly owned should cities have
a right to ditch a vendor for being anti-lgbt or pro-abortion?
Re: Banning Chick-fil-aright to
By: MATTHEW MUNSON to All on Sat Mar 23 2019 07:47 am
If you have an airport that is publicly owned should cities have a
ditch a vendor for
being anti-lgbt or pro-abortion?
whats this all about?
On 3/23/2019 10:59 PM, MRO wrote to MATTHEW MUNSON:
Re: Banning Chick-fil-a
By: MATTHEW MUNSON to All on Sat Mar 23 2019 07:47 am
right toIf you have an airport that is publicly owned should cities have a
ditch a vendor for
being anti-lgbt or pro-abortion?
whats this all about?
San Antonio Texas banned them from opening a store at their airport on Friday.
so the city missed out on almost 367k rent a year and 10% annual gross of receipts
so if you are not FOR something, you are immediately against it? i am a live
Re: RE: Banning Chick-fil-a
By: MRO to MATTHEW MUNSON on Sun Mar 24 2019 01:20 pm
so the city missed out on almost 367k rent a year and 10% annual gross of receipts
Because only Chick-fil-a could go in there? Nobody else?
so if you are not FOR something, you are immediately against it? i am a live
No, Chick-fil-A is very against equality "because god". They support anti-certain-people groups. More info
via the references at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chick-fil-A_same-sex_marriage_controversy
army,On 3/23/2019 10:59 PM, MRO wrote to MATTHEW MUNSON:
right toIf you have an airport that is publicly owned should cities have a
ditch a vendor for
being anti-lgbt or pro-abortion?
whats this all about?
San Antonio Texas banned them from opening a store at their airport on Friday.
so the city missed out on almost 367k rent a year and 10% annual gross of receipts
because they gave to the fellowship of christian athletes and salvation
ted cruz sez.
so if you are not FOR something, you are immediately against it? i am a live and let live guy. i am not FOR people with gender identity disorders, but i don't wish them any harm or discrimination.
i'm just referencing the deal they had with chick fil a
maybe they can put an amazon depo in there so democrats can chase it away.
anti-certain-people groups. More info
via the references at
man, i dont trust no fucking wikipedia. any idiot can write bullshit on there. you should see the crazy shit i've had approved on there for over a decade.
a chicken joint isnt against equality. that's just stupid bullshit.
they want to sell chicken.
man, i dont trust no fucking wikipedia. any idiot can write bullshit on there. you should see the crazy shit i've had approved on there for over a decade.
... References.
If that's all they were interested in then they wouldn't fund organizations that are anti-certain-people. But
you'd have to go read the references to see what that's all about.
oh boy that's the most fun part. i just put some fake ass references in that are leaning towards liberal and nobody even questions it.
dude it's a chicken shack. leave politics out of it. it's not like they say kill all the trannys. there's better fights to fight out there.
people get so fucking upset over dumb shit. we need a mass extinction event.
MRO wrote to Va7aqd <=-
If that's all they were interested in then they wouldn't fund organizations that are anti-certain-people. But
you'd have to go read the references to see what that's all about.
dude it's a chicken shack. leave politics out of it. it's not
like they say kill all the trannys. there's better fights to
fight out there. people get so fucking upset over dumb shit. we
need a mass extinction event.
If you have an airport that is publicly owned should cities have a right to ditch a vendor for being anti-lgbt or pro-abortion?
a chicken joint isnt against equality. that's just stupid bullshit.
they want to sell chicken.
Gonna have lunch at CFA today.
were very popular, and they had long lines for months. I tried some of their chicken but I didn't see what all the fuss was about. I can get chicken just as good or perhaps better from other fast-food restaurants.
Re: RE: Banning Chick-fil-a
By: MRO to Va7aqd on Sun Mar 24 2019 11:59 pm
oh boy that's the most fun part. i just put some fake ass references in that are leaning towards liberal and nobody even questions it.
But we're not talking about you or your article, are we...
dude it's a chicken shack. leave politics out of it. it's not like they say kill all the trannys. there's better fights to fight out there.
You can't make the connection? Man, follow the money...
people get so fucking upset over dumb shit. we need a mass extinction event.
I think the only person upset here is you. Hope you have a better day tomorrow where you're
not wishing genocide on everyone.
the LGBT community though. This is an article on AJC, and I'm not sure of their accuracy, but this article says Chick-Fil-A's president said the company opposes gay marriage (URL shortened to fit here more easily): https://on-ajc.com/2HTeRtx
Ditto. I tried them once - and once was enough. Expensive relatively speaking and the chicken wasn't that good. I can get better chicken tenders at McDonalds, and better chicken period at KFC or Lee's -- or even some of
As a bonus, they aren't controversial either.
Re: Banning Chick-fil-aright
By: MATTHEW MUNSON to All on Sat Mar 23 2019 07:47 am
If you have an airport that is publicly owned should cities have a
were, asto ditch a vendor for being anti-lgbt or pro-abortion?
Are you saying Chick-Fil-A is pro-abortion? I'd be surprised if they
I thought Chick-Fil-A was known for being a Christian-owned business.
Nightfox wrote to MRO <=-
a chicken joint isnt against equality. that's just stupid bullshit.
they want to sell chicken.
I remember there being a controversy about Chick-Fil-A and their
stance on the LGBT community though. This is an article on AJC,
and I'm not sure of their accuracy, but this article says
Chick-Fil-A's president said the company opposes gay marriage
(URL shortened to fit here more easily):
https://on-ajc.com/2HTeRtx
Nightfox wrote to Dan Clough <=-
Gonna have lunch at CFA today.
A few years ago, the first Chick-Fil-A in my area opened up. It
seemed they were very popular, and they had long lines for
months. I tried some of their chicken but I didn't see what all
the fuss was about. I can get chicken just as good or perhaps
better from other fast-food restaurants.
people get so fucking upset over dumb shit. we need a mass extinction event.
I think the only person upset here is you. Hope you have a better day tomorrow where you're
not wishing genocide on everyone.
DIE
Nightfox wrote to Dan Clough <=-
Gonna have lunch at CFA today.
A few years ago, the first Chick-Fil-A in my area opened up. It
seemed they were very popular, and they had long lines for
months. I tried some of their chicken but I didn't see what all
the fuss was about. I can get chicken just as good or perhaps
better from other fast-food restaurants.
I haven't found many (any?) *fast-food* places that are better,
but it's a subjective thing anyway, of course. I think CFA's
chicken is a little different (and better IMHO) than most others.
Ditto. I tried them once - and once was enough. Expensive relatively speaking and the chicken wasn't that good. I can get better chicken tenders at McDonalds, and better chicken period at KFC or Lee's -- or even some of the local grocery stores. Plus we have Cane's, Zaxby's and Slim Chickens which are all far, far better than Chic-Fil-A.
As a bonus, they aren't controversial either.
the LGBT community though. This is an article on AJC, and I'm not
sure of their accuracy, but this article says Chick-Fil-A's president
said the company opposes gay marriage (URL shortened to fit here more
easily): https://on-ajc.com/2HTeRtx
well he has a right to his opinion in my book. as long as he
isnt hurting anybody.
Ditto. I tried them once - and once was enough. Expensive relatively
speaking and the chicken wasn't that good. I can get better chicken
tenders at McDonalds, and better chicken period at KFC or Lee's -- or
even some of
wow you must have been at a bad one. they are tons better than mcdonalds or kfc. hell, kfc's salt content is through the roof. makes my lips swell up.
DIE
I understand you're going through some personal issues at the moment, and
your job, and the come backnonce you're through your personal issue. Stop taking it out on the rest of us that had not done anything to you.
If you can't contribute to this conversation with more meaningful points and counter-points, then I suggest taking a break.
Re: Re: Banning Chick-fil-a
By: Dmxrob to Nightfox on Mon Mar 25 2019 10:38 pm
Ditto. I tried them once - and once was enough. Expensive relatively speaking and the chicken wasn't that good. I can get better chicken tenders at McDonalds, and better chicken period at KFC or Lee's -- or even some of the local grocery stores. Plus we have Cane's, Zaxby's and Slim Chickens which are all far, far better than Chic-Fil-A.
As a bonus, they aren't controversial either.
I don't really see what all the controversy is about with Chick-Fil-A..
They can run their business how they want, people can buy their food if they want.
Re: RE: Banning Chick-fil-a
By: MRO to Nightfox on Tue Mar 26 2019 12:05 am
the LGBT community though. This is an article on AJC, and I'm not
sure of their accuracy, but this article says Chick-Fil-A's president
said the company opposes gay marriage (URL shortened to fit here more
easily): https://on-ajc.com/2HTeRtx
well he has a right to his opinion in my book. as long as he
isnt hurting anybody.
I agree, everyone has a right to their opinion.
Jagossel wrote to Dan Clough <=-
I haven't found many (any?) *fast-food* places that are better,
but it's a subjective thing anyway, of course. I think CFA's
chicken is a little different (and better IMHO) than most others.
Dan, I agree with you; it's very subjective as people have
different tastes. Me personally, I love Chic-fil-A and Zaxby's,
but I'm not a fan of KFC.
Even after all of the negativity they received a few years ago,
they seem to do really well in the area that I'm in, and they are
growing. Hm, oh well. Still love their food.
I've been to my local Chick-Fil-A a few times and I still don't see what the fuss is about. Their chicken is good and I'd eat there, but I wouldn't go out of my way to go to Chick-Fil-A. IMO KFC's is just as good. I think even Dairy Queen has good chicken, and I don't think McDonalds chicken is that bad either.
like the owner of the company donated some money in 2012 and a few years ago people made a stink about it.
in the end they are only doing witchhunts because they like to see the big rich ones fall. there's no real moral reason.
Va7aqd wrote to MRO <=-
like the owner of the company donated some money in 2012 and a few years ago people made a stink about it.
Is this where you guys that love their chicken have landed?
Please go read up on them. It has nothing to do with the owner,
it has everything to do with *the company* reportedly continuing
to fund anti-LGBTQ groups.
in the end they are only doing witchhunts because they like to see the big rich ones fall. there's no real moral reason.
That's incredible short-sightedness. Guess you only want to see
what you want to see because... why, exactly? Because they serve
chicken? Shithead businesses should get the clue to act at least decently, or fail.
Re: Re: Banning Chick-fil-a
By: Dmxrob to Nightfox on Mon Mar 25 2019 10:38 pm
Ditto. I tried them once - and once was enough. Expensive relatively speaking and the chicken wasn't that good. I can get better chicken tenders at McDonalds, and better chicken period at KFC or Lee's -- or e some of the local grocery stores. Plus we have Cane's, Zaxby's and Slim Chickens which are all far, far better than Chic-Fil-A.
As a bonus, they aren't controversial either.
I don't really see what all the controversy is about with Chick-Fil-A.. The can run their business how they want, people can buy their food if they want
Nightfox
Very handy word there.... "reportedly..." Where is that being
reported? Can you provide a cite/reference that confirms that, or
are you just using that as a way to get all indignant?
So they are a "shithead business" because they have an opinion on
something? Why are they not allowed to have an opinion just the
same as you are? If it's not illegal, can't a business donate
money to whomever they choose, as long as they're willing to
accept possible consequences to their business? Doesn't seem to
have hurt them (CFA) any - every single store they have is packed
every single day.
Just because something isn't illegal (yet) where you are doesn't make it correct, just, or moral.
On 03-27-19 10:49, Va7aqd wrote to Dan Clough <=-
Who said they're not allowed to have an opinion?
Yes, they're a shithead business when they're obviously for oppression
of a particular segment of the population who has done nothing wrong.
It's not just opinion, they *fund* these other organizations, so their "opinion" matters. It harms people. It's not just a passive thing.
Just because something isn't illegal (yet) where you are doesn't make
it correct, just, or moral.
Va7aqd wrote to Dan Clough <=-
So they are a "shithead business" because they have an opinion on
something? Why are they not allowed to have an opinion just the
same as you are? If it's not illegal, can't a business donate
money to whomever they choose, as long as they're willing to
accept possible consequences to their business? Doesn't seem to
have hurt them (CFA) any - every single store they have is packed
every single day.
Who said they're not allowed to have an opinion?
Yes, they're a shithead business when they're obviously for
oppression of a particular segment of the population who has done
nothing wrong.
Just because something isn't illegal (yet) where you are doesn't
make it correct, just, or moral.
Va7aqd wrote to Dan Clough <=-
Just because something isn't illegal (yet) where you are doesn't make it correct, just, or moral.
I should probably clarify - this isn't a suggestion or an
endorsement of making donating of any sort, or of having an
opinion, illegal. It's a suggestion that there's a long way to
go in the US anyway to making hate and oppression much less legal
and accepted than they are today.
Moondog wrote to Nightfox <=-
I don't really see what all the controversy is about with Chick-Fil-A.. The can run their business how they want, people can buy their food if they want
The idea of a non-individual such as a corporation being tied to
a religious or political opinion is enough to enrage sensitive
interest groups, regardless which direction they spin. Also I
feel there's an inbalance in bias where liberal ideas no matter
how controversial are expected to be accepted, while anything
conservative is going to be deemed immediately as being backward,
racist, and negative in general.
Re: Re: Banning Chick-fil-a
By: MRO to Nightfox on Tue Mar 26 2019 06:29 pm
like the owner of the company donated some money in 2012 and a few years ago people made a stink about it.
Is this where you guys that love their chicken have landed? Please go read
up on them. It
has nothing to do with the owner, it has everything to do with *the company* reportedly
continuing to fund anti-LGBTQ groups.
That's incredible short-sightedness. Guess you only want to see what you want to see
because... why, exactly? Because they serve chicken? Shithead businesses should get the clue
to act at least decently, or fail.
The idea of a non-individual such as a corporation being tied to a religious or political opinion is enough to enrage sensitive interest groups, regardless which direction they spin. Also I feel there's an inbalance in bias where liberal ideas no matter how controversial are expected to be accepted, while anything conservative is going to be deemed immediately as being backward, racist, and negative in general.
This is all about human rights and respect. These hate groups that are being funded do real harm. Look at the suicide rate among LGBT youth, compared to the general population. This is a direct result.
On 03-27-19 23:26, MRO wrote to Vk3jed <=-
for one, are they truly a HATE group? are some of these groups just supporting their own beliefs and wish no harm on anybody?
in the usa gay people have rights. they can now marry, too. in some
cases you are better off being gay. you can get away with a lot.
the best way to fund a hate group is the give them attention. with the attention they get funds and people who join the cause.
the more media attention, the more money. it just rolls in.
---
for one, are they truly a HATE group? are some of these groups just supporting their own beliefs and wish no harm on anybody?
in the usa gay people have rights. they can now marry, too. in some cases you are better off being gay. you can get away with a lot.
This is all about human rights and respect. These hate groups that are being funded do real harm. Look at the suicide rate among LGBT youth,
And I will also vote with my wallet on these issues. For example, I've
Well.... OK, you didn't actually say that, but called them a
shithead business for their actions which are *BASED* on their
opinions. Namely, that they believe in the words of the Christian
Bible and don't think LGBT conduct is appropriate.
Unless you believe that that segment *HAS* done something wrong.
There's also a huge difference between oppression and expressing
an opinion. They're not "oppressing" anybody. They don't have
others. I keep out of it. Live and let live. I don't base my
eating decisions on the political stance of a restaurant,
certainly.
I think you're missing that it *CAN* be correct, just, and moral
to someone who believes strongly enough against the behavior in
question. Many very religious people are that way. I'm not
Understood, and agreed. I just like to remind folks that
sometimes the definition of what is "hate" or "oppression" is half
the battle. In the USA there are strong protections for freedom
of speech and the right to have any opinion you want to, and it
can get a little hazy on whether it is OK to suppress that.
that's exactly why. i dont care how many faggots get murdered so i can have my delicious chick fil a. i hope there's a homo-holocaust so i can get my chicken tenders with polynesian sauce.
go back to facebook.
I thought the laws for gay marriage were enacted by individual states, and I still don't think it's legal in all US states for gay people to get married. For instance, several years ago I heard California enacted a law allowing it, and then I heard it was repealed. I haven't really kept up on that for California, but I still don't think gay people can easily get married anywhere in the US. And even if they get married on one state, I'm not sure if their marriage would be recognized in all other states.
According to this info at WP : "On June 26, 2015 the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in Obergefell v. Hodges that states must license and recognize same-sex marriages. Consequently, same-sex marriage is legal in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, U.S. Virgin Islands and Northern Mariana Islands. Officials in American Samoa are
So, apparently, it should be do-able in every state, I think? I don't know if some states find ways to squirm around that or not, but it seems like they shouldn't be able to.
for one, are they truly a HATE group? are some of these groups just supporting their own beliefs and wish no harm on anybody?
in the usa gay people have rights. they can now marry, too. in some cases you are better off being gay. you can get away with a lot.
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck... Even if it's hiding behing religious beliefs, "religious freedom", or some other facade.
the best way to fund a hate group is the give them attention. with the attention they get funds and people who join the cause.
the more media attention, the more money. it just rolls in.
---
As I said, vote with your feet/wallet. Cut the money off. :)
I could see some people arguing that by trying to prevent them from getting married, etc., or by calling their actions "wrong" etc., they are doing emotional harm. I suppose that still wouldn't necessarily qualify them as a "hate" group though.
in the usa gay people have rights. they can now marry, too. in some cases you are better off being gay. you can get away with a lot.
I thought the laws for gay marriage were enacted by individual states, and I still don't think it's legal in all US states for gay people to get married. For instance, several years ago I heard California enacted a law allowing it, and then I heard it was repealed. I haven't really kept up on that for California, but I still don't think gay people can easily get married anywhere in the US. And even if they get married on one state, I'm not sure
especially food - the hard(er) part is
getting an understanding of where your money is going. I'm not sure why so many want to bury their heads in
the sand.
go back to facebook.
Oh dear... You can stop waving your cane and sit down now, Grandpa. You've had too much screen time this
week.
I could see some people arguing that by trying to prevent them from
getting married, etc., or by calling their actions "wrong" etc., they
are doing emotional harm. I suppose that still wouldn't necessarily
qualify them as a "hate" group though.
at the same time god loves everyone, so if they follow god, they shouldnt be hateful.
I thought the laws for gay marriage were enacted by individual states,
and I still don't think it's legal in all US states for gay people to
get married. For instance, several years ago I heard California
enacted a law allowing it, and then I heard it was repealed. I
haven't really kept up on that for California, but I still don't think
gay people can easily get married anywhere in the US. And even if
they get married on one state, I'm not sure
i'm pretty sure in the beginning it was like that and then the supreme court eliminated the bans and it's now it's legal on a fed level
an opinion. They're not "oppressing" anybody. They don't have
signs up saying they won't serve LGBT folks. If they are willing
to give up that segment of the population as potential customers,
they can do that. It's not like they are turning anyone away, or
I thought the laws for gay marriage were enacted by individual states, and I still don't think it's legal in all US states for gay people to get married. For instance, several years ago I heard California enacted a law allowing it, and then I heard it was repealed. I haven't really kept up on that for California, but I still don't think gay people can easily get married anywhere in the US. And even if they get married on one state, I'm not sure if their marriage would be recognized in all other states.
Yeah, someone else posted the federal ruling making it legal in all 50 states.
at the same time god loves everyone, so if they follow god, they shouldnt be hateful.
They say you shouldn't judge anyone, and you should leave judgment up to God/Jesus.
Pretty sure this was decided by the Supreme Court and that gays can marry anywhere.
On 03-28-19 11:16, Va7aqd wrote to Vk3jed <=-
Absolutely, and it's not all hard to not spend money in many places, especially food - the hard(er) part is getting an understanding of
where your money is going. I'm not sure why so many want to bury their heads in the sand.
On 03-28-19 17:21, MRO wrote to Vk3jed <=-
the thing is, the media twists shit to their own interests. so you cant really know for sure.
you cant cut the money off when giving them attention gives them resources. best thing to do is ignore them
On 03-28-19 12:39, Va7aqd wrote to Nightfox <=-
According to this info at WP : "On June 26, 2015 the Supreme Court of
the United States ruled in Obergefell v. Hodges that states must
license and recognize same-sex marriages. Consequently, same-sex
marriage is legal in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto
Rico, Guam, U.S. Virgin Islands and Northern Mariana Islands. Officials
in American Samoa are discussing whether the ruling applies to the territory; currently same-sex marriages are neither licensed nor recognized there."
Pretty sure this was decided by the Supreme Court and that gays can marry anywhere.
getting married is such a crock of shit. they need to come up with something better
Re: Re: Banning Chick-fil-a
By: MRO to BlaZ on Sat Mar 30 2019 12:40 pm
Pretty sure this was decided by the Supreme Court and that gays can marry anywhere.
getting married is such a crock of shit. they need to come up with something better
They have that already: staying single.
the gays had a good deal going. on the major ins agencies they could be on their partner's insurance before gay marriage was legalized.
i've read the bullshit in the media. there's better things to focus on.
gay people have rights now but apparently they think the fight will never end.
that's exactly why. i dont care how many faggots get murdered so i can have my
delicious chick fil a. i hope there's a homo-holocaust so i can get my chicken tenders with polynesian sauce.
Late to this topic and I give zero fucks about it, in two different quotes you proved the
exact issue at hand.
But even
where they do have rights, nothing is going to stop a hateful piece of shit from beating
you down.
So enjoy your churkken and get back to watching what ever crap you've been blitzing on
YouTube, leave the rest of us to make the world less of a shitty place without you.
I've been to my local Chick-Fil-A a few times and I still don't see what the fuss is about. Their chicken is good and I'd eat there, but I wouldn't go o of my way to go to Chick-Fil-A. IMO KFC's is just as good. I think even Da Queen has good chicken, and I don't think McDonalds chicken is that bad eith
I've been to my local Chick-Fil-A a few times
| Sysop: | Eric Oulashin |
|---|---|
| Location: | Beaverton, Oregon, USA |
| Users: | 102 |
| Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
| Uptime: | 07:07:12 |
| Calls: | 3,521 |
| Calls today: | 3 |
| Files: | 8,461 |
| Messages: | 337,989 |