Chick-fil-a

[JinormusJ]

Its delicious. Their Chick-filet-sauce is AMAZING. It's like everyone of my favorite dipping sauces in one.

I dread the day I checked the calorie count for ONE pack... Instant C-c-c-combo breaker... It's like meeting your childhood superhero in person only to find he's a middle aged fat prick..

I have reverted back to Honey Roasted BBQ and Honey Mustard..
So bomb though.. I work there and get a free meal, and I still don't think that's enough! Have yet to get sick of the stuff..

[Exodus_2pt0]

^^^ That and their nuggets really taste like they were touched by the hand of god.

[slaterd]

Would not hit... hahaha

but srsly why do people care, i've never eaten at one of these places.

Its delicious. Their Chick-filet-sauce is AMAZING. It's like everyone of my favorite dipping sauces in one.

[rwh11385]

Marriage shouldn't be a right.

The Supreme Court disagrees with you. And some nutjob former-hippie, now RWNJ - still without any ability to be logical or reason - doesn't matter in the determination of if it is or not.

if marriage is a right; why is polygamy and marital incest wrong?

The 1950s called, they want their argument against people marrying who they want back (the polygamy and incest question, as well as most other arguments - unnatural, tradition, etc.):

http://www.equalitygiving.org/files/Marriage-Equality-Same-Sex-Lesbian-Gay-Marriage/Arguments_Against_Interracial_Marriage_and_Equal_Marriage.pdf

“The amalgamation of the races is not only unnatural, but is always productive of deplorable results. The purity of the public morals, the moral and physical development of both races, and the highest advancement of civilization . . . all require that [the races] should be kept distinctly separate, and that connections and alliances so unnatural should be prohibited by positive law and subject to no evasion.”

(Source: Dissenting California Supreme Court Justice objecting to that Court's decision striking down a state law ban on interracial marriage in Perez_v. Lippold, 198 P.2d 17, 41 (1948 ), (Shenk, J. dissenting))

“The underlying factors that constitute justification for laws against miscegenation closely parallel those which sustain the validity of prohibitions against incest and incestuous marriages.”

(Source: Perez v. Lippold, 198 P.2d at 46 (Shenk, J., dissenting, quoting
from a prior court case))

“[T]he State's prohibition of interracial marriage . . . stands on the same footing as the prohibition of polygamous marriage, or incestuous marriage, or the prescription of minimum ages at which people may marry, and the prevention of the marriage of people who are mentally incompetent.”

(Source: Excerpted United States Supreme Court oral argument transcripts from Loving v. Virginia, from Peter Irons and Stephanie Guitton, eds., May it Please the Court (1993) at 282-283, quoting Virginia Assistant Attorney General R. D. McIlwaine, arguing for Virginia's ban on interracial marriage)

“[S]uch laws [banning interracial marriage] have been in effect in this country since before our national independence and in this state since our first legislative session. They have never been declared unconstitutional by any court in the land although frequently they have been under attack. It is difficult to see why such laws, valid when enacted and constitutionally enforceable in this state for nearly one hundred years and elsewhere for a much longer period of time, are now unconstitutional under the same constitution.”

(Source: Perez v. Lippold, 198 P.2d at 35 (Shenk, J. dissenting))

[LBJefferies]

if marriage is a right; why is polygamy and marital incest wrong?

Marriage shouldn't be a right.

[Cabriolet]

if marriage is a right; why is polygamy and marital incest wrong?

[Exodus_2pt0]

Why wouldn't I?

I never stated my personal opinions on the topic. I simply stated my support for a private corporation to have their own opinions, especially when it has nothing to do with their business.

[rwh11385]

Won't see anything different from me. I am of the stance that everyone should be able to do whatever the hell they want, so long as it doesn't impede on the freedom of others to do the same.

So you support legalized gay marriage then?

[Exodus_2pt0]

Won't see anything different from me. I am of the stance that everyone should be able to do whatever the hell they want, so long as it doesn't impede on the freedom of others to do the same.

[BraveUlysses]

Still, it is ironic that conservatives tried to block Park51 very hard - and now complaining about a few negative choice words from politicians about CFA.

hahahaha good point. someone should dig up all the impotent rageposts from the thread we had in here about it and cross check it with this one.

[rwh11385]

The very first post on this page is a politician imposing his beliefs on others. Weather or not CFA is on the right or wrong side of the fence is irrelevent. The problem here is that a government official wants to block them from doing business on his turf because of their Religious beliefs.

To me, this opens the floodgates. It's one thing for the public to be mad, fine, just don't eat there. When elected officials stick their nose in it and take it to a whole other level for votes, the ice begins to get thin.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2012/07/27/menino_clarifies_view_on_stance_against_chick_fil_a/

"There is no place for discrimination on Boston's Freedom Trail and no place for your company alongside it."

Menino now says he was just expressing his own opinion.

Mayors can obviously play the same game and give opinions while saying it's not a policy change. But upsetting communities and offending officials is probably not a wise move anyway.



Still, it is ironic that conservatives tried to block Park51 very hard - and now complaining about a few negative choice words from politicians about CFA.

[spike68]

Dont eat there if you dont like what they do...fine.

Moar chicken for me.

All jokes set aside, they can do what they want. I would still eat there even if I didnt like what they do. Lots of people do there. Remember the purpose you go there in the forst place.......to eat.

[Exodus_2pt0]

The very first post on this page is a politician imposing his beliefs on others. Weather or not CFA is on the right or wrong side of the fence is irrelevent. The problem here is that a government official wants to block them from doing business on his turf because of their Religious beliefs.

To me, this opens the floodgates. It's one thing for the public to be mad, fine, just don't eat there. When elected officials stick their nose in it and take it to a whole other level for votes, the ice begins to get thin.

[rwh11385]

They can do what they want with their money. If you want to spend your money on something you believe in go right ahead.

Since when did other people get to dictate what one does with their money?

Since those "other" people are one's customers or the consuming public. Remember the Pepsi Refresh project? Or similar from Chase and other companies? People like companies that support what they believe in. That might work in the South where there's a ton of people who don't want gays to have the same rights... but there's plenty of backlash where educated people live.

And complaining about political correctness is weak. Go ahead and call an African-American the N word and see how that goes for you. You can say all you want, but you just might not like the results. Especially considering the political likes of Santorum will never again be considered likely and that asshole-esque mentality of imposing beliefs on others is fading out of style thankfully, CFA is making a stand on the wrong side of history.

[Exodus_2pt0]

They can do what they want with their money. If you want to spend your money on something you believe in go right ahead.

Since when did other people get to dictate what one does with their money?

This mob mentality is ridiculous.