• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

CFA response to anti-gay alleg. "Guilty as charged." Do NOT gloat about eating at CFA

Status
Not open for further replies.
W

Wallach

Member
btkadams said:
out the door? is that typical for an american fast food restaurant? the only one like that in canada is tim hortons.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I've ever seen that except when that particular joint was offering some kind of free promotion.

Edit - No, I take that back there was a Chipotle in Aurora that was pretty regularly over-occupied because it was in a very particular position between a few business parks.
 
EYEL1NER

EYEL1NER

Member
Cyan said:
Given the source, it's probably not even true.
Click to expand...
I've never seen a line out the door, but the parking lot is completely full, an adjacent lot is full, and the drive-thru line wraps around the building at least once at the location in town every Tuesday at lunch. They get a ton of traffic from the Air Force Base.
I could see stores in big cities being pretty crazy at lunch time or something.

Earlier I passed by and looked to see what the parking lot was like and it was dead at 5 pm.
 
D

Devolution

Member
MIMIC said:
My point was that it's absurd to paint an organization or group one way based on one political belief.
Click to expand...

The owners get money then they use said money towards anti-gay lobbies under the Chick Fil-A name and publicize it. If they were quiet about their contributions they wouldn't even get this PR.
 
Dude Abides

Dude Abides

Banned
el retorno de los sapos said:
I'm not a legal scholar but why can't that change?

Looking at the rational basis you're talking about doesn't that not apply with a fundamental right such as the right to marry?

Isn't this what the district court ruled?

I do understand the worry because the circuit court's ruling was much more narrow. But why couldn't the supreme court rule like the district did?
Click to expand...

TheY could but it's unlikely. The court doesn't like to reverse itself and the 9th circuit handed them a Romer like case on a platter. Even if they were to apply strict scrutiny on the grounds at marriage is a fundamental right, that is an entirely different ground than applying it because gays are a protected class, as Chocolate War is
Predicting they will do.

Cyan said:
Given the source, it's probably not even true.
Click to expand...

I wonder what Dan Cathy's tax rate is.
 
DR2K

DR2K

Banned
Personally i'd like to see how their business does if they deliberatly state their stance on gay rights at every resteraunt for every patron to see.
 
D

Deified Data

Banned
DR2K said:
Personally i'd like to see how their business does if they deliberatly state their stance on gay rights at every resteraunt for every patron to see.
Click to expand...

I don't think it would change much. Those who know their stance either hate it or support it. Those who don't probably wouldn't care one way or another.
 
C

Cyan

Banned
CrushDance said:
It pains me greatly to see the phrases "Discrimination against discrimination" and "Freedom of speech" used so much in this thread and in real life.
Click to expand...

Please don't lump these together.

Obsessed said:
I forget, but wasn't it Alpha Noid who gave some story about his father who lowered his own salary to get into a lower tax bracket, because he forgot how a progressive income tax works?
Click to expand...

Ayup. And runs away whenever called out on it. Far as I'm concerned, he's burned his anecdotal evidence cred until further notice.
 
C

CrushDance

Banned
Cyan said:
Please don't lump these together.



Ayup. And runs away whenever called out on it. Far as I'm concerned, he's burned his anecdotal evidence cred until further notice.
Click to expand...

I don't mean that the latter is wrong or shouldn't be invoked. I'm saying that it's used improperly to justify hate.
 
D

Dead Man

Member
MIMIC said:
My point was that it's absurd to paint an organization or group one way based on one political belief.
Click to expand...

If a party has a stated anti gay stance, and you vote for them, you will be hurting gay people. If a company donates money to anti gay organisations, and you give them money, you will be hurting gay people.

It's not complex, man.

If a party has a position against x, and you vote for them, that hurts members of x.
 
E

el retorno

Member
Dude Abides said:
TheY could but it's unlikely. The court doesn't like to reverse itself and the 9th circuit handed them a Romer like case on a platter. Even if they were to apply strict scrutiny on the grounds at marriage is a fundamental right, that is an entirely different ground than applying it because gays are a protected class, as Chocolate War is
Predicting they will do.
Click to expand...

I just don't understand why the circut court was so narrow and didn't do what the district court did.
 
M

MIMIC

Banned
Dead Man said:
If a party has a stated anti gay stance, and you vote for them, you will be hurting gay people. If a company donates money to anti gay organisations, and you give them money, you will be hurting gay people.

It's not complex, man.

If a party has a position against x, and you vote for them, that hurts members of x.
Click to expand...

1) What is an "anti-gay stance"? Is that JUST concerning gay marriage?
2) I would say that it's "affecting" gay people....not "hurting" them. I don't mean to play semantics but I see "hurting" to mean as doing something illegal or denying someone of a legal right.
 
Dude Abides

Dude Abides

Banned
el retorno de los sapos said:
I just don't understand why the circut court was so narrow and didn't do what the district court did.
Click to expand...

Because Kennedy wrote Romer, and Reinhardt knows Kennedy is the likely swing vote, so he wrote his opinion to mirror the reasoning in Romer. Also, Kennedy is much more likely to rule against Prop 8 if it Is in such a way that it only affects California, rather than invalidating gay marriage bans in 42 states. Under the 9th circuit analysis only Prop 8 would be unconstitutional, but under the district court's analysis all gay marriage bans would be.
 
Acerac

Acerac

Banned
MIMIC said:
2) I would say that it's "affecting" gay people....not "hurting" them. I don't mean to play semantics but I see "hurting" to mean as doing something illegal or denying someone of a legal right.
Click to expand...
Ah, you mean like during segregation days when blacks didn't have the ability to use the same facilities "affected" their population but didn't actually "hurt" them.

Think my statement is ridiculous? I agree, it shouldn't even have been needed to be pointed out how flawed that thinking is.
 
G

Ganhyun

Member
I personally don't care if gays or lesbians are allowed to marry or not. Its not my business if they want to marry so why should I stop them? I say let them marry. Let the them enjoy or suffer through marriage as much as straight people do. Its not like straight people have been a good example for marriage after all.

That said, I'll continue to eat Chic-Fil-A whenever I feel like it. I honestly feel like most of this is a huge overreaction on both sides.
 
C

Cyan

Banned
carfo said:
Mayor if Boston sent a letter to chik fil e telling them very bluntly that they aren't welcome here.
Click to expand...

Also, did you hear the Jim Henson company pulled out of their deal with Chick Fil A?

Ganhyun said:
I personally don't care if gays or lesbians are allowed to marry or not.
Click to expand...
Of course not. It's not your rights being trampled on, why should you?

That said, I'll continue to eat Chic-Fil-A whenever I feel like it. I honestly feel like most of this is a huge overreaction on both sides.
Click to expand...

Uh huh.
 
D

Devolution

Member
Ganhyun said:
I personally don't care if gays or lesbians are allowed to marry or not. For all I care, let the them enjoy or suffer through marriage as much as straight people do. Its not like straight people have been a good example for marriage after all.

That said, I'll continue to eat Chic-Fil-A whenever I feel like it. I honestly feel like most of this is a huge overreaction on both sides.
Click to expand...

Yeah fuck them gays who want marriage rights only to see Chick Fil-A donate to anti-gay lobbies, deal with it queerosexuals.
 
G

Ganhyun

Member
Cyan said:
Also, did you hear the Jim Henson company pulled out of their deal with Chick Fil A?


Of course not. It's not your rights being trampled on, why should you?



Uh huh.
Click to expand...

Yes I do. I know and talk to plenty of gay and lesbian people who, if you asked, would tell you that I do not discriminate against them one bit. If an amendment or law comes up in GA to allow gays and lesbians to marry, I'll gladly vote yes. Like I said, I don't care if they get married. As far as I'm concerned, give them the ability to marry.

Devolution said:
Yeah fuck them gays who want marriage rights only to see Chick Fil-A donate to anti-gay lobbies, deal with it queerosexuals.
Click to expand...

Way to be salty and overreact Devo.
 
N

nVidiot_Whore

Banned
Ganhyun said:
If an amendment or law comes up in GA to allow gays and lesbians to marry, I'll gladly vote yes. Like I said, I don't care if they get married. As far as I'm concerned, give them the ability to marry.
Click to expand...

I think you need to re-read your own post.

You said you don't care if they are given the right to marry.. not that you don't care if they marry.

Now you turn around and claim you support their right to marry... very odd behavior.
 
G

Ganhyun

Member
nVidiot_Whore said:
I think you need to re-read your own post.

You said you don't care if they are given the right to marry.. not that you don't care if they marry.

Now you turn around and claim you support their right to marry... very odd behavior.
Click to expand...

I figured most of GAF would be able to understand the next sentence that said to let the enjoy or suffer through marriage as well would mean that I would support their right to marry, but I guess I'll edit my post since people are ready to murder at the slightest provocation in here.
 
D

Devolution

Member
Ganhyun said:
I figured most of GAF would be able to understand the next sentence that said to let the enjoy or suffer through marriage as well would mean that I would support their right to marry, but I guess I'll edit my post since people are ready to murder at the slightest provocation in here.
Click to expand...

Sorry you couldn't properly communicate your first post and basically shat on those who find Chick Fil-A's support of anti-gay lobbies disgusting (which aren't just anti marriage rights but distribute anti-gay propaganda to children) claiming them to be "overreacting."
 
N

nVidiot_Whore

Banned
Ganhyun said:
I figured most of GAF would be able to understand the next sentence that said to let the enjoy or suffer through marriage as well would mean that I would support their right to marry, but I guess I'll edit my post since people are ready to murder at the slightest provocation in here.
Click to expand...

I think it was a combination of things. You made several statements leading people to believe you just don't give a shit (and as pointed out, you outright said you don't care).. you also suggested other people should give less of a shit.

It was a pretty drastic departure from your next post on the subject.

But you certainly didn't deserve Devolution's reply. People rarely do ;)
 
G

Ganhyun

Member
nVidiot_Whore said:
I think it was a combination of things. You made several statements leading people to believe you just don't give a shit (and as pointed out, you outright said you don't care).. you also suggested other people should give less of a shit.

It was a pretty drastic departure from your next post on the subject.

But you certainly didn't deserve Devolution's reply. People rarely do ;)
Click to expand...

Man, Devo is just salty because that's how she is. lol. Anyways I edited my post to try and make it more like what I wanted to say.
 
G

giga

Member
MIMIC said:
1) What is an "anti-gay stance"? Is that JUST concerning gay marriage?
2) I would say that it's "affecting" gay people....not "hurting" them. I don't mean to play semantics but I see "hurting" to mean as doing something illegal or denying someone of a legal right.
Click to expand...
1. Does it matter? They want to deny gay people equal rights.
2. I can hurt someone and it can be perfectly legal. Our laws hurt many people--even though they're "legal" laws that deny people their rights. They both affect and hurt groups of people.

Really, it's this simple:

If a party has a stated anti gay stance, and you vote for them, you will be hurting gay people. If a company donates money to anti gay organisations, and you give them money, you will be hurting gay people.

It's not complex, man.

If a party has a position against x, and you vote for them, that hurts members of x.
Click to expand...
 
D

Daydream Sequence

Banned
Ganhyun said:
Way to be salty and overreact Devo.
Click to expand...

I like the way she reacts. It's like a kick in the face. Lots of people need a kick in the face. Like the not-so-fine folks at Chick-Fil-A, who will willingly sell a gay man a sandwich, and then try to fuck him with his own money right after. Bravo, religious Right. Bravo.
 
M

MIMIC

Banned
Acerac said:
Ah, you mean like during segregation days when blacks didn't have the ability to use the same facilities "affected" their population but didn't actually "hurt" them.

Think my statement is ridiculous? I agree, it shouldn't even have been needed to be pointed out how flawed that thinking is.
Click to expand...


Fair point.

HOWEVER, despite the Supreme Court justifying the "separate but equal" clause, it was STILL inherently illegal because it infringed upon the Fourteenth Amendment (as well as the Civil Rights Act) and was eventually overturned because of so many subsequent things that proved that "separate but equal" was anything but.

I'm not aware of any right guaranteeing marriage....for anyone.
 
L

lunch

there's ALWAYS ONE
Robot Pants said:
So I've never eaten here. Should I go soon before they go out of business?
Click to expand...
Chick-Fil-A will be around for a while. The talk of their chicken sandwiches is making me feel like I'm missing out, but I'll wait until the donations stop before I have my religious chicken experience.
 
Acerac

Acerac

Banned
MIMIC said:
Fair point.

HOWEVER, despite the Supreme Court justifying the "separate but equal" clause, it was STILL inherently illegal because it infringed upon the Fourteenth Amendment (as well as the Civil Rights Act) and was eventually overturned because of so many subsequent things that proved that "separate but equal" was anything but.

I'm not aware of any right guaranteeing marriage....for anyone.
Click to expand...
I don't know of any right that allows me to use a computer, that doesn't mean I should randomly not be allowed to do so because I'm gay. How major of a thing needs to be restricted for a group before it crosses the line to damaging them?
 
N

nVidiot_Whore

Banned
Ganhyun said:
Good for you. I know Devo has a loyal and passionate following. I've seen it.
Click to expand...

I wish I recalled the thread.. but the other day someone responded to Devo, complaining of her brashness.

Someone else randomly chimed in, suggesting that person must be a virgin for saying that to her.

LOL

The internet provides much comedy.

edit: http://neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=40207311&postcount=374

LOL.. don't know why.. but it made me laugh.

Anyways.. back to the thread...

My GF just made an amazing fried chicken meal for me.... I really wonder why anyone makes a big deal out of any given chain's fried chicken.. it's really just not a difficult dish to make, and you can get such delicious fried chicken so many places.
 
Dude Abides

Dude Abides

Banned
MIMIC said:
Fair point.

HOWEVER, despite the Supreme Court justifying the "separate but equal" clause, it was STILL inherently illegal because it infringed upon the Fourteenth Amendment (as well as the Civil Rights Act) and was eventually overturned because of so many subsequent things that proved that "separate but equal" was anything but.

I'm not aware of any right guaranteeing marriage....for anyone.
Click to expand...

You're not aware of the Supreme Court?

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5103666188878568597&hl=en&as_sdt=2,33&as_vis=1

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13286124172413088195&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr
 
G

giga

Member
MIMIC said:
I'm not aware of any right guaranteeing marriage....for anyone.
Click to expand...
So isn't that something we should be trying to correct? Supporting companies that donate to lobbyists and hate groups that want to limit gay people their equal rights doesn't sit well with me.

Look, they donated over a million dollars to a group that has this on their homepage.

7e9P9.png


Bigoted nutjobs.
 
C

CrushDance

Banned
MIMIC said:
Fair point.

HOWEVER, despite the Supreme Court justifying the "separate but equal" clause, it was STILL inherently illegal because it infringed upon the Fourteenth Amendment (as well as the Civil Rights Act) and was eventually overturned because of so many subsequent things that proved that "separate but equal" was anything but.

I'm not aware of any right guaranteeing marriage....for anyone.
Click to expand...

Marriage should only between white people. Agree or disagree?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

The man who owes Nintendo $14m: Gary Bowser and gaming’s most infamous piracy case
2
85
5K
SHA replied
Over 1000+ titles coming to DisneyPlus Star (Lists announced)
News
15
4K
Ownage replied
Tomorrow is the 15th anniversary of Mother 3's Japanese release.
20
3K
Velius replied
Games, Scarlett, Services, Phil Spencer tells us more about the future of Xbox - Jeux Video
News
3
1K
Deleted member 740922 replied
  • Locked
National Organization on Marriage launches anti-gay International Org of the Family
7
579
crowphoenix replied
Top Bottom