Chick-fil-a

[herbivor]

One more reason to not eat Chick Fila, not that I needed anymore.

[ck_taft325is]

lol.



Buddy, you're getting codgery in your old age. I love you but you're a giant cock in mouth type when it comes to words. If you didn't give a fuck, you wouldn't post you giant hypocrite ;)

I genuinely don't give a crap what they want to call it. Nor do I feel my marriage or any other is threatened by two guys/gals wanting to stick it where the sun doesn't shine and "feel good" about it because they have the same tax exemptions. BUT, putting someone's stance that they don't believe homosexuality is right/correct/special/decent, ect... in the light of hate speech is a bit much. Denying them places to construct businesses is a bit absurd and a waaay more tactical politically then people are giving it credit. It's not so much a view point or I'd hazard, a genuine belief that the mayor or Governor or whatever/whoever is saying what they're saying but, a fantastic use of someone else's very poor business move.

HAR!

[F34R]

“It doesn’t send the right message to the country,” Menino said. “We’re a leader when it comes to social justice and opportunities for all.”

If the fags and lesbians want to piss Chick-fil-a off they all need to do is dine there and make out in front of everybody. You know in front of all of the family and kids.
That would be a great message...

This, if they don't like it go eat at BK or something. Oreo supports waffleswaffleswaffleswaffleswaffleswaffless.

[Farbin Kaiber]

My religious beliefs have nothing to do with it. And LOL at the Segregation concept.

It's fine with me, it's just my opinion. I grew up in Palm Springs, CA. A place with a higher LGBT population percentage than the oft assumed "Gay Capitol of the World" San Fransisco. I am not hateful, spiteful, nor bigoted or prejudiced, or any of the other words to describe a "hater" of a group of humanity. If you are a guy that wants to love/life partner/union up with a guy, go for it. If you are a chick that want's to pledge her undying, lifelong love and cohabitation with a stone, a pet, a vehicle, I don't give a fuck, go for it. If you want your Social Security to benefit your Lover, your pet, your car, I DON'T CARE.

But if you are going to change the intrinsic meaning of a term, so you can feel like everyone else, that's when I have an issue.

Maybe call your union a Homogenous Mixture, or some term that is an accurate, factual definition of the agreement/union/contract/package deal you have, that is, and does not fit under the present term for a gender binary union.

[gwb72tii]

Hey, I'm all about women.

me too

[Cliche Guevara]

My religious beliefs have nothing to do with it. And LOL at the Segregation concept.

It's fine with me, it's just my opinion. I grew up in Palm Springs, CA. A place with a higher LGBT population percentage than the oft assumed "Gay Capitol of the World" San Fransisco. I am not hateful, spiteful, nor bigoted or prejudiced, or any of the other words to describe a "hater" of a group of humanity. If you are a guy that wants to love/life partner/union up with a guy, go for it. If you are a chick that want's to pledge her undying, lifelong love and cohabitation with a stone, a pet, a vehicle, I don't give a fuck, go for it. If you want your Social Security to benefit your Lover, your pet, your car, I DON'T CARE.

But if you are going to change the intrinsic meaning of a term, so you can feel like everyone else, that's when I have an issue.

Maybe call your union a Homogenous Mixture, or some term that is an accurate, factual definition of the agreement/union/contract/package deal you have, that is, and does not fit under the present term for a gender binary union.

Are you so thick headed to believe that the definition of marriage has been static throughout history? Or that it means the same thing to everyone today, even? What is it about gay marriage that makes a very slight change in the legal definition of the word in some states in a way that doesn't affect you at all so repulsive to you? We aren't naive enough to believe that your issue with gay marriage is one of semantics and that you just happen to subscribe to a religion that is prejudiced against homosexuality.

[F34R]

Are you so thick headed to believe that the definition of marriage has been static throughout history? Or that it means the same thing to everyone today, even? What is it about gay marriage that makes a very slight change in the legal definition of the word in some states in a way that doesn't affect you at all so repulsive to you? We aren't naive enough to believe that your issue with gay marriage is one of semantics and that you just happen to subscribe to a religion that is prejudiced against homosexuality.

You must love the cock, I love how angry you are.

[Cliche Guevara]

You must love the cock, I love how angry you are.

Shh, don't tell anyone.

[F34R]

Shh, don't tell anyone.

;)

[Farbin Kaiber]

Are you so thick headed to believe that the definition of marriage has been static throughout history? Or that it means the same thing to everyone today, even? What is it about gay marriage that makes a very slight change in the legal definition of the word in some states in a way that doesn't affect you at all so repulsive to you? We aren't naive enough to believe that your issue with gay marriage is one of semantics and that you just happen to subscribe to a religion that is prejudiced against homosexuality.

And, what makes you so naive to lump all Christians into a batch of people that are against homosexuality.

MANY times, I've said I do not subscribe to the stereotypical belief that "sin" is something that has to be rallied around, and everyone has to follow some set of rules that no longer apply.

MULTIPLE times, I've said I believe that a New Testament, (or contract) has replaced the old one that places humanity in a situation where following every rule, personally, perfectly, and perpetually was an impossibility, and the whole Jesus/New Testament thing was to replace that old package deal with a new package deal that the requirement became faith/belief/trust, not being a non-sinner, not being more like God, not being the best person you can be, but believing/faithing against the doubts of the world.

I don't care if you smoke a joint, with your hair cut, not wearing your kippah, while riding your bicycle, on the Sabbath, while heading to your homosexual lovers home to engage in homosexual sex, while letting the cat watch, with plans to drink and gluttonously gorge yourself on large amounts of cloven hoofed meats, while hating your Mother & Father and thinking about your neighbors Husband.

I don't care about anyone's sins as my standpoint on what they can, and can't do. That is not where I'm coming from.

About it meaning the same thing, words meanings aren't meant to change and make senseless meaning conversions. Just think of when gay went from meaning "happy" to now it has a totally different meaning and can be construed as hate speech.

Unless you can show me somewhere, historically where human beings had events and agreements where they were bonded with a lifelong commitment with random objects, or members of the same gender, I think your opinion is meaningless.

[evandael]

I've been to many a wedding (hetero) where there was no mention of any religion, let alone a christian god throughout the entirety of the ceremony.

I consider them married couples, and so does the state, to whom they pay the marriage license fee. No church involved.


back on topic, i've only ever eaten one waffle fry, ever. i never seem to make it to a Chick-fil-A. now, maybe if they were open sundays...

[FunfGan]

lol at Chick-fil-A being denied their freedom to open a restaurant near the Freedom Trail. Yay for hypocritical irony.

[z31maniac]

lol.



Buddy, you're getting codgery in your old age. I love you but you're a giant cock in mouth type when it comes to words. If you didn't give a fuck, you wouldn't post you giant hypocrite ;)

Hyperbole, look it up. ;)

[FunfGan]

Also, why won't my laptop charge? :(

[tttoon]

Unless you can show me somewhere, historically where human beings had events and agreements where they were bonded with a lifelong commitment with random objects, or members of the same gender, I think your opinion is meaningless.

No one owns a word. Direct from wikipedia, and dont start with the selective viewing of history on me here.

Ancient


Emperor Nero is reported to have married at least two men on different occasions.
In the southern Chinese province of Fujian, through the Ming dynasty period, females would bind themselves in contracts to younger females in elaborate ceremonies.[74] Males also entered similar arrangements. This type of arrangement was also similar in ancient European history.[75]
An example of egalitarian male domestic partnership from the early Zhou Dynasty period of China is recorded in the story of Pan Zhang & Wang Zhongxian. While the relationship was clearly approved by the wider community, and was compared to heterosexual marriage, it did not involve a religious ceremony binding the couple.[76]
The first historical mention of the performance of same-sex marriages occurred during the early Roman Empire.[77] For instance, Emperor Nero is reported to have engaged in a marriage ceremony with one of his male slaves. Emperor Elagabalus "married" a Carian slave named Hierocles.[78] These were usually reported in a critical or satirical manner.[79] It should be noted, however, that conubium existed only between a civis Romanus and a civis Romana (that is, between a male Roman citizen and a female Roman citizen), so that a so-called marriage between two Roman males (or with a slave) would have no legal standing in Roman law (apart, presumably, from the arbitrary will of the emperor in the two aforementioned cases).[80] Furthermore, "matrimonium is an institution involving a mother, mater. The idea implicit in the word is that a man takes a woman in marriage, in matrimonium ducere, so that he may have children by her."[81] Still, the lack of legal validity notwithstanding, there is a consensus among modern historians that same-sex relationships existed in ancient Rome, but the exact frequency and nature of "same-sex unions" during that period is obscure.[82] In 342 AD Christian emperors Constantius II and Constans issued a law in the Theodosian Code (C. Th. 9.7.3) prohibiting same-sex marriage in Rome and ordering execution for those so married.[83]
A same-sex marriage between the two men Pedro Díaz and Muño Vandilaz in the Galician municipality of Rairiz de Veiga in Spain occurred on 16 April 1061. They were married by a priest at a small chapel. The historic documents about the church wedding were found at Monastery of San Salvador de Celanova.[84]

Modern

In 2001, the Netherlands became the first nation in the world to grant same-sex marriages.[85] Same-sex marriages are also granted and mutually recognized by Belgium (2003),[86] Spain (2005), Canada (2005), South Africa (2006), Norway (2009), Sweden (2009), Portugal (2010),[87] Iceland (2010), Argentina (2010) and Denmark (2012). In Mexico, same-sex marriage is recognized in all 31 states but only performed in Mexico City. In Nepal, their recognition has been judicially mandated but not yet legislated.[88] 250 million people (or 4% of the world population) live in areas that recognize same-sex marriage.[89]