North Carolina passes same-sex marriage ban

[MTK]

I still don't understand why a company needs to have a stance on gay marriage.

Chicken with a side of homophobes, what a combo.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

I still don't understand why a company needs to have a stance on gay marriage.

Chicken with a side of homophobes, what a combo.

I agree 100%. I actually think discrimination laws in general are pretty stuppid. I perfer to know who I'm doing business and if they don't like my race, etc... I want to know up front so I don't spend my money with them. With the way the laws are set up now I don't know.

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

I still don't understand why a company needs to have a stance on gay marriage.

Chicken with a side of homophobes, what a combo.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

I still don't understand why a company needs to have a stance on gay marriage.

Chicken with a side of homophobes, what a combo.

Companies generally don't have a stand on gay marriage, but with the 24x7 instant media coverage of everything things like this will happen. Good for D.C. standing by his beliefs.

BTW, Chick-fil-A had a "record setting" day yesterday.

The point is politicans like Rahm Emanuel and the Mayor of Boston have no right to discriminate against a company based on the religious or political views of its CEO. The company does not discriminate or violate any regulations for EEO. Wonder how the left's panties would get bunched if Starbucks or Nabisco was targeted by a local government for their stance on gay marriage.

[Giantone]

[QUOTE=Slingin Sammy 33;928209]

BTW, Chick-fil-A had a "record setting" day yesterday.

QUOTE]

Not really, yes in NC,SC,Texas......but not here in maryland,so take it for what it is worth.Point of fact...Chick-fil-A.....didn't have a veiw ...the owner did but most of the resturants are franchises and had to deal with the fallout.Problem is this isn't the first time he has done this ,he has made some questionable donations to certan groups that have also brought negative attention to the company.


Chick-fil-A Touts Bible and Antigay Donations in Statement | Advocate.com

In the new statement, the PR leader still reiterates the importance of the company's "biblically-based principles" and even brags about sending "a percentage of our profits back to our communities." Equality Matters first exposed Chick-fil-A for actually donating millions to antigay groups including the Family Research Council and the Marriage and Family Foundation. In 2010 alone, it gave $2 million to antigay groups.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Not really, yes in NC,SC,Texas......but not here in maryland,so take it for what it is worth.Point of fact...Chick-fil-A.....didn't have a veiw ...the owner did but most of the resturants are franchises and had to deal with the fallout.Problem is this isn't the first time he has done this ,he has made some questionable donations to certan groups that have also brought negative attention to the company.


Chick-fil-A Touts Bible and Antigay Donations in Statement | Advocate.com

In the new statement, the PR leader still reiterates the importance of the company's "biblically-based principles" and even brags about sending "a percentage of our profits back to our communities." Equality Matters first exposed Chick-fil-A for actually donating millions to antigay groups including the Family Research Council and the Marriage and Family Foundation. In 2010 alone, it gave $2 million to antigay groups.

Downplay it if you want, but the pictures from CFAs nationwide don't lie. Here in VA, lines were around the store and up the street...and the customers were diverse.

From your link, CFA corporate statement: "The Chick-fil-A culture and service tradition in our restaurants is to treat every person with honor, dignity and respect — regardless of their belief, race, creed, sexual orientation or gender," said the statement provided to CNN by spokesman Don Perry. "We will continue this tradition in the over 1,600 Restaurants run by independent Owner/Operators. Going forward, our intent is to leave the policy debate over same-sex marriage to the government and political arena."


CFA isn't ashamed or trying to hide their donations to FRC and MFA, nor should they be. Equality Matters exposed nothing. If being sound on one's principles makes for "record-setting" sales......I'm sure CFA would like to be more exposed by Equality Matters.

If folks don't want to eat there because of the owner's religious views....then don't. If people don't want to frequent Starbucks or buy Nabisco because they are "anti-traditional marriage"....then they shouldn't. My point is gov't doesn't have any right to discriminate against a business because of the owner's beliefs....PERIOD.

A majority in this country don't support gay "marriage". Many who don't support gay "marriage" couldn't give a rat's hind-quarters about civil unions or what folks do on their own time between consenting adults. Because someone doesn't support gay marriage doesn't mean he/she is a homophobe or anti-gay. What works in NY & CA doesn't work in KS, SC, TX, the gay marriage debate is something to be decided by states.

BTW, should pro-choice folks be labeled as "anti-unborn child". Same-old, same-old double standards from the left.

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

The point is politicans like Rahm Emanuel and the Mayor of Boston have no right to discriminate against a company based on the religious or political views of its CEO. The company does not discriminate or violate any regulations for EEO. Wonder how the left's panties would get bunched if Starbucks or Nabisco was targeted by a local government for their stance on gay marriage.

When you actively fund groups that lobby against the gay community, it's no longer "just a view." At that point, I believe that they should deny these companies right the to do business in their area if they see fit.



I posted this on facebook the other day and the message applies greatly here.



Most of the religious conservatives don't want the government to interfere in their lives, but have no problem insisting it does so in other people's lives. Irony. Hypocritical. Asinine.

[skinsguy]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

When you actively fund groups that lobby against the gay community, it's no longer "just a view." At that point, I believe that they should deny these companies right the to do business in their area if they see fit.



I posted this on facebook the other day and the message applies greatly here.



Most of the religious conservatives don't want the government to interfere in their lives, but have no problem insisting it does so in other people's lives. Irony. Hypocritical. Asinine.

I believe if you look closely enough, you'll find just as much hypocrisy on your end. Such as wanting all to recognize something they do not believe in as valid, which is how the Christian community would see legalized gay-marriage. So, you can't argue on both sides. If you truly want equality, you need to be arguing for the Marriage Law to end, not to be amended.

You can't expect everybody to see things the way you do, especially when you continue to spill hateful words and names their way. You'll never be taken seriously. Example, Fred Phelps. Nobody, including a large part of the Christian community, takes him and his group seriously. Until you recognize that you cannot force others, through your insults, to see and believe as you do, the issues will never be solved. That's a big part of a lot of these social issues. Both sides trying to force the other to see things the way they do, when everybody should have the right to their beliefs without ridicule.

The best thing to do is to end the marriage law completely. Nobody receives tax benefits, which of course would suck for married people, but ahh well...you'll adjust. Nobody is considered legally married, because marriage will be given back to the religious institution - where it was born from in the first place. The only caveat will be that everybody will be free to put whoever they wish on their insurance. It would no longer be a need for husbands and wives, since there would be no such thing, legally.

The legal system would be free of so many divorce cases, and those splitting up their "marriage" would not be forced to lose half of what they have earned over the years. Of course, you'd still need the legal system for custody of children, but divorce could be a lot less of a mess without the legal system in place (sorry for those here who are divorce lawyers.)

Finally, gays could come up with their own version of marriage if they so choose. Just like religious people would still continue to get married via a priest or pastor conducting the service. Religious people and others who are against homosexuality would no longer need to worry about ridicule from the PC "Lefties" who call them bigots for believing what the bible says. It would be none of your business. Just like gays being happily married would be none of the business of the religious right.

No harm no foul, one could go quietly observing his/her right-winged conservative ways, you could go on quietly hating religious people.

[firstdown]

I never heard any hate from the owner of Chick'Fil-A. He just does not believe in gay marriage. If I'm correct I don't even think he said that and he said that he and CFA supported traditional mar. and families. Not sure how that considered hate. Some people think drinking is wrong and I drink but don't view their opinion as hate. Also heard some CFA have been vandalized.

[Daseal]

Originally Posted by skinsguy

I believe if you look closely enough, you'll find just as much hypocrisy on your end. Such as wanting all to recognize something they do not believe in as valid, which is how the Christian community would see legalized gay-marriage. So, you can't argue on both sides. If you truly want equality, you need to be arguing for the Marriage Law to end, not to be amended.

You can't expect everybody to see things the way you do, especially when you continue to spill hateful words and names their way. You'll never be taken seriously. Example, Fred Phelps. Nobody, including a large part of the Christian community, takes him and his group seriously. Until you recognize that you cannot force others, through your insults, to see and believe as you do, the issues will never be solved. That's a big part of a lot of these social issues. Both sides trying to force the other to see things the way they do, when everybody should have the right to their beliefs without ridicule.

The best thing to do is to end the marriage law completely. Nobody receives tax benefits, which of course would suck for married people, but ahh well...you'll adjust. Nobody is considered legally married, because marriage will be given back to the religious institution - where it was born from in the first place. The only caveat will be that everybody will be free to put whoever they wish on their insurance. It would no longer be a need for husbands and wives, since there would be no such thing, legally.

The legal system would be free of so many divorce cases, and those splitting up their "marriage" would not be forced to lose half of what they have earned over the years. Of course, you'd still need the legal system for custody of children, but divorce could be a lot less of a mess without the legal system in place (sorry for those here who are divorce lawyers.)

Finally, gays could come up with their own version of marriage if they so choose. Just like religious people would still continue to get married via a priest or pastor conducting the service. Religious people and others who are against homosexuality would no longer need to worry about ridicule from the PC "Lefties" who call them bigots for believing what the bible says. It would be none of your business. Just like gays being happily married would be none of the business of the religious right.

No harm no foul, one could go quietly observing his/her right-winged conservative ways, you could go on quietly hating religious people.

The difference that you seem to be missing, is marriage isn't forcing a single thing on the churches. It is creating more freedom for the individuals to make decisions, while others are trying to constrict freedom. The amount of time and money taken up by gay marriage is beyond crazy to me. Let them get married so that they can be viewed legally as one for things like healthcare, next-of-kin, etc type decisions. It doesn't affect anyone in a negative manner if we do this. If this went live today, no one here (unless you're a gay person that gets married) has their life changed.

Most gay couples, and many non-gay couples, couldn't give half a shit if the 'church recognizes' their marriage. It's about the legal ramifications around not being married that matters; if this happens, non-gay couples need to have their title to the government changed as well. It is about fairness and consistency.

The church doesn't have to recognize marriage. Call it something else if you like -- as long as it fills the legal roles of a typical marriage. Your argument should have 0 credibility or influence on this decision because the church, and their values, should not be weighed or factored in when it comes to making governmental decisions. No Christians are being forced to do anything, they're just trying to force others from having something.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

I posted this on facebook the other day and the message applies greatly here.



Most of the religious conservatives don't want the government to interfere in their lives, but have no problem insisting it does so in other people's lives. Irony. Hypocritical. Asinine.

Actually the message doesn't apply. The choice the woman is about to make affects more than just her (Child & father). Again, another issue that should be decided at the state and not federal level.

[Daseal]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

Actually the message doesn't apply. The choice the woman is about to make affects more than just her (Child & father). Again, another issue that should be decided at the state and not federal level.

The message stands. It doesn't affect the guy with the picket sign that knows nothing about her situation.

[skinsguy]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

I still don't understand why a company needs to have a stance on gay marriage.

Chicken with a side of homophobes, what a combo.

As Target the same question.

[mlmpetert]

Also for those who have never gone to CFA before something a little funny they normally do is say "my pleasure" instead of youre welcome or no problem.

mlmpetert: Hi! May i please have a delicious chicken sandwich and one of your awesome Oreo milkshakes?

CFA girl: Absolutely! Anything else?

mlmpetert: No thats all. Thank you very much!

CFA girl: My pleasure!

Its kind of wierd at first, but then you get used to it and appreciate it. Whats really wierd is they started saying my pleasure at Taco Bells around here. I havent gotten used to that yet.

[Chico23231]

This is really becoming so silly, its insane to see how this country is so media driven. Its really amazing.

Its rare we get to hear what companies support outside the business world unless its a charitable organization, I think lessen learned from Oreo's maker and Chickfila is to keep quiet. I dont mind when people or corporation use their first admendant right, even if I dont agree, but I sick of the god damn media and talking heads on cable and radio driving their extreme, hate filled rhetoric home.These people dont want to talk about the legit issue, they just want to throw punches. We get suckered into it and Chickfila in the end gets paid.