Sure. It was a political statement in support of Chick-fil-a. A business they like and support had been attacked in the media and a particular day had been declared to rally, so they did.

I'm taking your "opposite end of this agenda" to mean same-sex marriage haters, and while I think conservative Christians were well-represented yesterday, I think a lot of folks made the point to go some so much because of marriage, but more of a "I'll defend your right to say it" kind of view.

And maybe I'll concede that the average Chick-fil-a fan may not be normal. People have been known to camp out for store openings to win free food for a year. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1594165.html

No. Letting the majority vote on the rights of the minority is not a good idea, and never has been.

Texas Democrats are currently very familiar with this situatuion. We live it everyday........:(

The reason the CEO of CFA pissed me off was because, as CEO of his company, he's not just speaking for himself. He leads a company, and presumably, its business practices. I haven't looked at CFA's benefits for its workers in its stores and corporate, but if he is letting his personal beliefs infringe on the rights of his employees (legal and tax benefits), it is no longer just about his right to free speech...it's also about the company's treatment and support of its workforce. He has a right to say what he wants, but that doesn't mean I (and others) have to like it or respect the content of his words.

Here in Washington state we'll have a referendum on our November ballot to either uphold (Yes) the equal marriage law our state legislature passed this year, or strike it down (No). A number of large employers in our state - Boeing, Microsoft, Starbucks, Google, Amazon, Nike, Facebook - have publicly endorsed equal marriage because they believe in equal rights for all of their employees. They care about attracting the most skilled workforce, and keeping them happy by offering them great benefits is one way to keep a competitive edge. They can't attract the best talent - regardless of sexual orientation - if people don't want to move to the state because they can't marry here and get the same benefits their coworkers and neighbors receive. There are plenty of legal, tax and money-saving benefits that come with marriage, and plus, who really wants to live someplace where they're a second class citizen if there are other places that will welcome them with open arms? In addition to businesses, though, nonprofit and government entities in our state have endorsed the Yes campaign, including the Seattle Chamber of Commerce, King County Labor Council, YWCA and tons of churches/houses of worship and faith organizations.

If the head of CFA is in favor of discriminating against any gay employees that may work for him, not offering them the same benefits as his straight employees, then I have every right to hold CFA accountable.

If this were true, why didn't we get buses going to Disneyland when the SBC and CL boycotted Disney?

This seems pretty cut-and-dried - Occam's Razor should trump your natural skepticism.

A friend of mine posted this on FB, and I thought it was a nice piece.
http://matthewpaulturner.net/blog/5-...day/?wpmp_tp=1

I'm not sure I follow your analogy. I've considered a couple of ways it could work, but I'm not sure what you intend.

The way I understand things, the Disney boycott was a huge failure. So while nobody set up a date for everyone to arrive and show their Disney love, over the course of the years, people did.

You're claiming that this "CFA Day" is stocked with a pile of people who don't care about the religion, but instead care about the free speech element (to the extent it exists, which I think it doesn't).

However, there are literally zero other wide-scale boycotts that received the same "free speech" backlash/support for the boycotted company, including ones against companies (like Disney) that were primarily based in related issues (Disney's boycott was based on a movie - seems clearly free speech - and giving rights to gay employees).

The success of the original boycott is irrelevant (and it feels like you're being intentionally obtuse even bringing that up) - unless you're somehow claiming people would have done the same thing had Disney suffered? That seems wildly unsupportable - this was a complete organized "un-boycott" by religious organizations.

Occam's Razor says this was a religion thing - not a "free speech" thing (which barely even applies).

Thanks, Sen. I was waiting for a response from you. Your views may be different from mine for obvious reasons - you are gay; I am an evangelical Christian. But I would never say that I hope that you or any of my gay friends (and let me assure you, having been in the cat fancy I have had many) should get sick and die. :eek:

Are these supposed to be opposites?

Uh....

Would you say your best friend was in the cat fancy?

Has anyone posted this yet?
I like it. It helped me understand a bit more.

http://www.owldolatrous.com/?p=288

As long as we're sharing Facebook postings, both my cousin and a friend -- one a minister and one a minister's wife -- shared this today:

http://i.imgur.com/TG27y.jpg

Nothing says tolerance and respect like bullying a teen:

http://www.businessinsider.com/vante...-for-it-2012-8

”I’m a nice guy, by the way … totally heterosexual," he continues. "Not a gay in me, I just can’t stand the hate."


We obviously have different definitions of "nice guy".

Love. It.