North Carolina passes same-sex marriage ban

[skinsguy]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

I don't have any in my area, but if I did I'd sure as hell boycott them.

Cool...then I'm going to buy stock in Chic-Fil-A...lol!

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

I don't have any in my area, but if I did I'd sure as hell boycott them.

Well that's your right but we all know your going to sneek a few when no ones looking.

[dmek25]

never ate there. not because of any particular reason

[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.

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by firstdown

I'm not against gay parenting but for people to say they don't have additional challenges just goes beyond logic.

What additional challenges beyond other people's bigotry and hatred do they have? So they shouldn't be parents because bigotry and hatred exist? So we should conform to the bigots instead of the other way around?


I still see you and mlmpetert had nothing to say about that bogus study being exposed. I assume both of your silence means point noted and accepted.

[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.

[mlmpetert]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

What additional challenges beyond other people's bigotry and hatred do they have? So they shouldn't be parents because bigotry and hatred exist? So we should conform to the bigots instead of the other way around?


I still see you and mlmpetert had nothing to say about that bogus study being exposed. I assume both of your silence means point noted and accepted.

Dont think for a moment i forgot about you either!!!

Sike, im just kiding. Point noted. You win. But unfortunitly winning in the Debating With The Enemy section of thewarpath is like getting a box of Chicken McBites from McDonalds. Losing means you get 2 boxes of Chicken McBites.....

I wasnt answearing you because you hadnt answeared my question from before, and i happen to be very petty about that kind of stuff.

So:

Let me ask you something personally. In your opinion would a male teen raised by 2 dads in one of the most uneducated, ignorant and bigoted parts of NC, say Greenville*, be subject to more or less adversity than an otherwise similar kid with no gay parents? Same situation but in SoCal?

And you left out parts from the rest of my post, which if anyone would like to see you can click on THIS RIGHT HERE!.


And partly because it sums up the way i feel, but more so just because i like quoting myself (and of course citing FoxNewsTotallyAwesome):

This is very dificult topic/issue:

Study finds host of challenges for kids of gay parents | Fox News


But I think the author summed it up perfectly and basically states exactly how i feel.

I have a step brother and sister that are adopted and i feel like if the state becomes involved at any point (foster care) it has to take ownership in the well being of the child. Allowing a gay person or couple to adopt a kid in NYC is different than letting a gay male couple adopt a kid in NC_Skin's town of Greenville, no matter how unfortunate that may be. So i guess im trying to say discretion should be used.

If its a private adoption or international adoption i think the issue is a lot trickier. It becomes a civil rights issue vs a child welfare issue.

In a perfect world i dont think we should ever conform to bigots or haters, but my vision of a perfect world doesnt have any bigots or haters to conform to. In a imperfect world i think we have to use discretion when the well being of a child is involved (espicially after the state had already become involved). Children shouldnt be used to combat bigotry.

[mlmpetert]

Originally Posted by mlmpetert

UPDATE: Chick-fil-A Responds to Criticism Over Gay Marriage Opposition | FOX News & Commentary: Todd Starnes

I dont agree with Chic Fil a's views but im thinking this will have an overall benefit on business. If they were public i would be buying some futures. I got to think that this rallies just as many as it alienates, and perhaps ralies many more.

Coincedently I had some chicken minies this morning and they were awesome as usual. I may even get a chicken strips spicy dressing salad for dinner tonight, just because i cant stop thinking about how good it is now.

NCSkins are you boycotting Chic Fil a over this?

I just realized you skipped out on 2 of my questions! DAMN IT!!!

[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.

[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.

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by mlmpetert

But unfortunitly winning in the Debating With The Enemy section of thewarpath is like getting a box of Chicken McBites from McDonalds. Losing means you get 2 boxes of Chicken McBites.....

Not really about winning anything, but informing people of things they might not understand or know. Ignorance is a lock, knowledge is the key.

Let me ask you something personally. In your opinion would a male teen raised by 2 dads in one of the most uneducated, ignorant and bigoted parts of NC, say Greenville*, be subject to more or less adversity than an otherwise similar kid with no gay parents? Same situation but in SoCal?

The reason this wasn't answered because the answer really doesn't matter. My guess is that they would be subjected to more adversity, but that means nothing in the grand scheme of it. The fact is, bigotry and hate is wrong, regardless if people's religion says so. Should blacks move out of the south because more racism tends to exist there? When we start conforming to the people who are in the wrong, is when our country will go to hell in a hand basket. Want to see how F'd up religion will destroy your country, look at Iran and many of the Middle Eastern countries with radical Islam.

You have to make a stand at some point against your oppressors. It happened with women's rights. It happened with rights for African Americans...and the fight will continue for equal rights among all human beings regardless of their race, religion, or sexual preference.

Originally Posted by mlmpetert

In a perfect world i dont think we should ever conform to bigots or haters, but my vision of a perfect world doesnt have any bigots or haters to conform to. In a imperfect world i think we have to use discretion when the well being of a child is involved (espicially after the state had already become involved). Children shouldnt be used to combat bigotry.

Absolutely not. Your logic of backing down because bigotry exists doesn't make sense and all it does is negatively enforce the bigots actions that his bigotry makes a impact so he will continue on. Should black people not have children since racism exists? That's about the logic you are trying to use (or so it appears). Your assertion that children shouldn't be used to combat bigotry is off base, and assumes/implies that gay couples will run out and adopt just to fight for their rights.

Church that barred black wedding affirms commitment to equal treatment – CNN Belief Blog - CNN.com Blogs

[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.

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by mlmpetert

NCSkins are you boycotting Chic Fil a over this?

If I were to boycott everything that I stood against, chances are I wouldn't spend any of my money ever again.


Banks - part of the biggest swindle in US history. (legally at that)
Corporation- responsible for injecting money into politics to help favor their business models and avoid taxes.
Oil - a good bit of our oil comes from OPEC which is comprised of countries, who support inhumane religious practices and beliefs.


Chances are, I can find something that a company funds that I don't agree with. That said, I don't go to chick-fil-a often as is, but I have no problem staying away from them either.

Also, I find it sad that christians can go out of their way to support anti-gay measures, yet can't do the same for say...homeless people or other individuals in need. Which would you consider a pressing issue?


One more for the lulz: