Where were we?
Have any of the lemmings crying about the Chick kerfuffle read any of the statements coming from the bigots to which they donate? Yup, they have a Constitutional right to express themselves, but God forbid anyone exercise their constitutional right to speak out in rebuttal.
"From the standpoint of conventional history, the fact that America was founded by believing Christians, for specifically religious reasons, is an intense embarrassment."Justifying bigotry against religion.
We'll put a stop to that!!!
This just in -- Rich and Poor live in separate neighborhoods. I'm shocked! SHOCKED! that this made the Washington Post (no I'm not).
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local...s/2012/08/01/gJQABC5QPX_story.html?tid=pm_pop
Take a look @ DC. The well to do live left of Rock Creek, the less well off live east of the Anacostia. It has not changed in a long time, despite the efforts of Mr. Barry. And heaven forbid the folks in Brookline associate with the hoi polloi who live in Southie.
Personally, this is getting blown way out of proportion. A group can have a stance, but said group must be prepared to defend that position for criticism. This is just wasted energy. I'd rather find a way to find more jobs, fix the economy and make the country better. However, that would require effort and working together and Lord knows people are too high and mighty to actually want to compromise because that would mean interact with the other side for something other than childish name-calling
Besides, I'm a Swiss Chalet fan.
I'd be very surprised if Chick-fil-a and its franchisees don't have gay employees and customers. Not every gay person wants Roseanne to tell him/her where to eat.
don't ask, don't tell
The government officials over-stepped their bounds. I am glad that they spoke their minds. They have every right to, and they should have. Indicating that they could prevent a legally operating business from opening was dumb. On the other hand, I absolutely think that an alderman of a district with a large gay community should say something publicly about how his constituents may feel about a business that supports anti-gay causes opening in that district.You're right. As long as we're clear who's doing the blowing. . .out of proportion, that is.
And threatening to use the power of government to keep an honest, successful business from operating in a city is not calculated to ease unemployment and is also illegal.
I'd be very surprised if Chick-fil-a and its franchisees don't have gay employees and customers. Not every gay person wants Roseanne to tell him/her where to eat. The "compromise" is have lunch there or not, as you choose.
Where were we?
The government officials over-stepped their bounds. I am glad that they spoke their minds. They have every right to, and they should have. Indicating that they could prevent a legally operating business from opening was dumb. On the other hand, I absolutely think that an alderman of a district with a large gay community should say something publicly about how his constituents may feel about a business that supports anti-gay causes opening in that district.
Saying he'll stop it? No. If he had said that his constituents may not welcome them, and left it at that? Fine. Good, in fact (in my opinion).
As for those who are deciding personally no longer to support those anti-gay causes by patronizing a business that proudly supports them. Also good.
As for those who go out of their way to support that business and those causes. Good, too, even though I believe that the cause in question is misguided, bigoted, and un-American.