[Swerve22]

Originally Posted by F1VENOM

Literal interpretation is literal, you should have read it as a common phrase.

That being said those who show up to actively support a company who's leader is so outspoken against equal rights probably have pretty strong feelings.

Maybe it could be strong feelings about free speech? Maybe they don't support gay marriage but don't hate anybody? I don't get why people are so quick to accuse each other of hate.

[StellarKnight]

Originally Posted by LOL Renegade

The leftists who are trying to ruin this guys business just because he expressed his religious beliefs deserve to be deported because they are a danger to the 1st Amendment of the Constitution.

The empty threats from governors/mayors (which haven't even materialized into anything) aside, how is this even a First Amendment issue? The First Amendment doesn't protect you from me calling you an *******, and it certainly doesn't protect a COO from the monetary fallout resulting from his comments.

[Iamamartianchurch]

Originally Posted by tsbalr120

Yeah CFA is making bank from the attention from both sides and will continue to be profitable.

Turning a profit does not prove a thing.

[Iamamartianchurch]

Originally Posted by F1VENOM

Read Dan Cathy's statements. He's the definition of a hater.

Oh you trolling me boy.

"we’re inviting God’s judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at him and say we know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage. "

Doesn't sound hateful to me.

[LOL Renegade]

Originally Posted by Iamamartianchurch

They have the right to boycott.

Isn't the mayor speaking out against them too though? He told them not to come to Boston. It would be one thing if it was a citizen.

Originally Posted by StellarKnight

The empty threats from governors/mayors (which haven't even materialized into anything) aside, how is this even a First Amendment issue? The First Amendment doesn't protect you from me calling you an *******, and it certainly doesn't protect a COO from the monetary fallout resulting from his comments.

His comments were hardly radical in nature. Maybe if he called for the purging of all homosexuals there would be a reason to protest. Considering marriage as a man-woman union, not so much. In fact, I'm pretty sure that majority of Americans agree with him. The fact that people are judging the establishment based on politics and not quality of the food is the ****ed up part.

[Swerve22]

Originally Posted by StellarKnight

The empty threats from governors/mayors (which haven't even materialized into anything) aside, how is this even a First Amendment issue? The First Amendment doesn't protect you from me calling you an *******, and it certainly doesn't protect a COO from the monetary fallout resulting from his comments.

I think the threats from governors/mayors is the problem. It's intimidation. You can't really "put that aside".

[Iamamartianchurch]

Originally Posted by StellarKnight

The empty threats from governors/mayors (which haven't even materialized into anything) aside, how is this even a First Amendment issue? The First Amendment doesn't protect you from me calling you an *******, and it certainly doesn't protect a COO from the monetary fallout resulting from his comments.

Exactly. People are getting riled up. I think this is more symbolic than literally about the first amendment.

[tsbalr120]

Originally Posted by Iamamartianchurch

Turning a profit does not prove a thing.

Never said it would, I was more talking to the poster who said it would hurt them in the long run. It's just like KONY, it'll be a huge issue for a short time then nobody will care.

[Iamamartianchurch]

Originally Posted by Swerve22

I think the threats from governors/mayors is the problem. It's intimidation. You can't really "put that aside".

Misguided politically perhaps. I'd rather elected officials be more open such as these gentleman. I like knowing where the politicians stand, don't you?

[StellarKnight]

Originally Posted by Swerve22

I think the threats from governors/mayors is the problem. It's intimidation. You can't really "put that aside".

You do realize how royally ****ed the cities of Chicago and Boston would have been had they even attempted to follow through with their threats? Like I said, empty threats.

If anything, these short-sighted, knee jerk reactions did more to harm Chicago/Boston Democrats than intimidate CFA and it's supporters.

Originally Posted by Iamamartianchurch

Exactly. People are getting riled up. I think this is more symbolic than literally about the first amendment.

People always seem to forget that a violation of the First Amendment almost always requires some sort government action.

[F1VENOM]

Originally Posted by Swerve22

Maybe it could be strong feelings about free speech? Maybe they don't support gay marriage but don't hate anybody? I don't get why people are so quick to accuse each other of hate.

Where was the protected class of speech? What about support of equal rights?
'

Originally Posted by Iamamartianchurch

Oh you trolling me boy.

"we’re inviting God’s judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at him and say we know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage. "

Doesn't sound hateful to me.

You're editing his comments and I'm the troll?

‘I think we are inviting God's judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at Him and say 'we know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage,’ and I pray God's mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we have the audacity to define what marriage is about,

[Swerve22]

Originally Posted by StellarKnight

You do realize how royally ****ed the cities of Chicago and Boston would have been had they even attempted to follow through with their threats? Like I said, empty threats.

If anything, these short-sighted, knee jerk reactions did more to harm Chicago/Boston Democrats than intimidate CFA and it's supporters.

I agree, but without that I don't think there would have been backlash to the extent of deciding to hold an appreciation day. Many perceived a threat to free speech, and it was legitimately an attempt -however foolish- to intimidate/retaliate to free speech.

[Iamamartianchurch]

You believe that statement is hateful?

I disagree completely.

[StellarKnight]

Originally Posted by Swerve22

I agree, but without that I don't think there would have been backlash to the extent of deciding to hold an appreciation day. Many perceived a threat to free speech, and it was legitimately an attempt -however foolish- to intimidate/retaliate to free speech.

Perhaps.

In all honesty, I wish Emmanuel would have gone the distance and tried to thwart CFA's attempts at establishing more restaurants in Chicago. It would have destroyed him politically and (quite possibly) removed him from politics alltogether.

[Iamamartianchurch]

Originally Posted by StellarKnight

People always seem to forget that a violation of the First Amendment almost always requires some sort government action.

In the minority of cases I suppose you can have soft censorship at the hands of citizens. Yet that is not really a violation of the First Amendment.

[F1VENOM]

Originally Posted by Iamamartianchurch

You believe that statement is hateful?

I disagree completely.

Why would you be asking for mercy in a non-threatening situation?

[EPAPressure]

The chic-fi-la's here were jammed packed.

Estimated nationwide revenue yesterday- $30,000,000

[Riley Coyote]

Originally Posted by LOL Renegade

His comments were hardly radical in nature. Maybe if he called for the purging of all homosexuals there would be a reason to protest. Considering marriage as a man-woman union, not so much. In fact, I'm pretty sure that majority of Americans agree with him. The fact that people are judging the establishment based on politics and not quality of the food is the ****ed up part.

I don't know many people who aren't eating there because the owner said he is against marriage equality. People have stopped eating there because Chic-fil-a donates profits to help prevent marriage equality. Some, especially those who want to marry their partner but can't would really rather not have their money contribute to that cause.

There's lots of vocal people who are upset simply because of what he said, but they aren't the majority.

[Murph1329]

Originally Posted by Iamamartianchurch

I was out there to protest against this job creating, wealth building and stable family promoting hate corporation. The turn out was massive at my local store in support of the franchise. Quite frankly I'm appalled. Anyone else experience similar failure at the hands of intolerance?

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/08/02...ama-chick-fil/

i guess they weren't raping people at chick fil a


this is a 1st amendment issue and even the ACLU is on chick fil a's side

[barrel roll]

Originally Posted by Iamamartianchurch

They have the right to boycott.

Not on other's private property. Keep that in mind.

[StellarKnight]

Originally Posted by EPAPressure

The chic-fi-la's here were jammed packed.

Estimated nationwide revenue yesterday- $30,000,000

Meh, come back with the fiscal year statement to see the real effect from this fiasco.

It's similar to those bull**** FB posts where people try to starve the oil companies by not purchasing fuel on a particular day.