Playing Chicken with Gay Marriage

 :: Main :: Social Issues

Go down

Playing Chicken with Gay Marriage

Post by TexasBlue on Thu Aug 02, 2012 4:44 pm

Playing Chicken with Gay Marriage

Bill O'Reilly
Thursday, Jul 26, 2012


When the New York Post puts a fast food chicken franchise on page one, you know some feathers have been ruffled, so to speak. And, indeed, the Chick-fil-A outfit can forget about catering any gay marriage receptions, because the company's president, Dan Cathy, recently told an Atlanta radio station that by supporting gay nuptials, America is "inviting God's wrath."

While that remains to be seen, the wrath of pro-gay marriage advocates is vividly on display. The mayors of Boston and Chicago, playing to their liberal bases, both came out against having any Chick-fil-A restaurants in their cities. In the case of Mayor Rahm Emanuel, his condemnation of the fast food chain came just days before Chicago was named the most dangerous city on earth by a local TV news station.

Maybe some good chicken would calm things down in the Windy City.

Anyway, the attacks on Chick-fil-A are un-American and here's why. Gay marriage is not a civil right in the USA, and until the Supreme Court rules that it is, there is no bias case to be made against those who, in good conscience, oppose it. Mr. Cathy and millions of other Americans believe in the sanctity of man-woman marriage based upon religious tenets. Some secularists even oppose homosexual nuptials because they believe nature dictates that marriage and procreation go together; that it is a societal stabilizer.

To brand someone a hater or bigot because he or she opposes an expansion of traditional marriage to one selected group is unfair and narrow-minded.

The converse is true as well. If someone sincerely believes that so called "marriage equality" is the fair and just thing to do, that belief should be respected.

What is truly disturbing are the threats. San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee recently tweeted: "Closest Chick-fil-A is 40 miles away and I strongly recommend that they not try to come any closer."

You strongly recommend, Mr. Mayor? Why? Might something happen to a Chick-fil-A business that opens in your town? Are you sanctioning threats?

That's the crux of this matter, Lee's belief that he has a right to punish those with whom he disagrees. Hey, Mr. Mayor, the vast majority of black preachers publicly oppose gay marriage. Are you going to tell them not to set up shop in your town?

Bet he won't.

The Chick-fil-A deal is basically a grandstand play by some politically correct left-wing zealots. But it has backfired big time. All across the country, thousands of folks stood in long lines this week to buy chicken from Chick-fil-A. They are making an important statement: Don't mess with freedom of expression.

That is one foul thing to do.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“I’m not in favor of fairness. I’m in favor of freedom, and freedom is not fairness. Fairness means somebody has to decide what’s fair.” - Milton Friedman
avatar
TexasBlue




Back to top Go down

Re: Playing Chicken with Gay Marriage

Post by Mark85la on Thu Aug 02, 2012 6:21 pm

avatar
Mark85la



Birthday : 1985-12-02
Age : 32

Back to top Go down

Re: Playing Chicken with Gay Marriage

Post by dblboggie on Thu Aug 02, 2012 7:07 pm

And the beautiful thing about this latest girlish tizzy by those radical leftists/Marxists is that they have gained the ire of MILLIONS of American conservatives who (unlike those foaming-at-mouth, rabid dog leftists whose first instinct is riot and destroy private property) rather than just protesting took it to an even more civilized and productive level by rewarding the owner for his honesty and steadfastness and visiting his franchisees in the millions, breaking the company's highest ever single day of sales by a factor of 2!!!

ROFL
avatar
dblboggie




Back to top Go down

Re: Playing Chicken with Gay Marriage

Post by TexasBlue on Thu Aug 02, 2012 8:06 pm

dblboggie wrote:And the beautiful thing about this latest girlish tizzy by those radical leftists/Marxists is that they have gained the ire of MILLIONS of American conservatives who (unlike those foaming-at-mouth, rabid dog leftists whose first instinct is riot and destroy private property) rather than just protesting took it to an even more civilized and productive level by rewarding the owner for his honesty and steadfastness and visiting his franchisees in the millions, breaking the company's highest ever single day of sales by a factor of 2!!!

ROFL

I laugh at this kind of stuff. I encourage the left to keep this shit going. It just digs a deeper hole for them. More!


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“I’m not in favor of fairness. I’m in favor of freedom, and freedom is not fairness. Fairness means somebody has to decide what’s fair.” - Milton Friedman
avatar
TexasBlue




Back to top Go down

Re: Playing Chicken with Gay Marriage

Post by TheNextPrez2012 on Thu Aug 02, 2012 8:42 pm

All of this because some guy says he was against same-sex marriage?
Why have I never seen people lined up twice around city blocks to get into a church? The church is against same-sex marriage also! Heck, they even give you a free wafer and wine if you go in...

According to you guys, I'm one of those leftist bastards but I'm for same-sex marriage.
Does that confuse you?
avatar
TheNextPrez2012




Back to top Go down

Re: Playing Chicken with Gay Marriage

Post by kronos on Mon Aug 13, 2012 12:08 pm

I think what gays should do is go to Chick-Fil-A in droves and be very visibly, openly and flamboyantly gay there. Turn Chick-Fil-A into a gay mecca. Rub their gayness in everyone's faces. Noone could object, because the anti-gay crowd is all about "freedom of expression," right? I want to see Chick-Fil-A's full of dudes sticking their tongues down each other's throats. I want to see same-sex couples emerging from the restrooms with alarming regularity. I want Chick-Fil-A restrooms to replace roadside rest areas in the popular imagination as THE hot gay pickup spots.

And yeah, it would require them buying food there to justify being there. Big deal. It'd probably be offset by all the business they'd drive away. You toss them a bone, sure, but it's a bone they choke on.

I'm amazed this hasn't occurred to gays, or if it has, why it hasn't caught on. These people need to learn some political savvy!

kronos




Back to top Go down

Re: Playing Chicken with Gay Marriage

Post by dblboggie on Mon Aug 13, 2012 5:49 pm

The gay movement actually did try to stage a counter event by encouraging gay everywhere to descend on Chik-Fil-A's around the country and do exactly what you suggested kronos. It was a miserable failure with an embarrassing lack of turnout.

And as an interesting aside, I find the difference in responses by the 2 sides in this latest skirmish remarkably revealing.

On the right, neither the owner of the chicken chain, nor any conservatives sought to deny service to anyone based on their gender preferences. And rather than
threatening anyone or having a temper tantrum they merely went out quietly and rewarded the owner for the courage to practice his 1st Amendment right even if it wasn't politically "correct."

On the left, you saw threats and attempts to punish NON-PC speech.

I think it speaks volumes about a fundamental difference between left and right.
avatar
dblboggie




Back to top Go down

Re: Playing Chicken with Gay Marriage

Post by kronos on Tue Aug 14, 2012 9:08 am

I don't think it does. You're looking at the behavior of fringe elements of the left, and using that to paint that entire side of the political spectrum with the same brush. You're filtering out of your consciousness any voices from the left that condemned violence, threats of vandalism, and abuse of government power.

I could do that too, if I were so inclined. I could say "this is the way the right responds." I don't, because it would be ridiculous. Though, can you show me anything equivalent from gay-marriage activists?

kronos




Back to top Go down

Re: Playing Chicken with Gay Marriage

Post by dblboggie on Tue Aug 14, 2012 1:41 pm

kronos wrote:I don't think it does. You're looking at the behavior of fringe elements of the left, and using that to paint that entire side of the political spectrum with the same brush. You're filtering out of your consciousness any voices from the left that condemned violence, threats of vandalism, and abuse of government power.

You are mistaken here my friend. I am not filtering out of my consciousness any voices at all - left or right, fringe or mainstream. In fact I am, as you may well remember, quite a student of history, a study that has been an ongoing passion of mine for the last 2 decades.

The Democratic Party (though of course not every single Democrat politician) as a whole has been a party of violence and racism. If you will recall, it was the Democrats in the South who created the Ku Klux Klan as response to a massive tide of black persons who were being swept into office in state legislatures throughout the South starting after the Civil War. These Democrats were determined to thwart this threat to Democratic Party power in those states and in the Federal House and Senate. The Democrats were KILLING black state legislators and some of those black legislators were actually going to work at their respective state house offices ARMED because the threat to their lives were so high.

Were there some Democrats who opposed the KKK and their fellow Democrats? I'm sure there were. Sadly, those voices of reason on the left were a distinct minority - in fact, it was the reasonable Democrat who was on the "fringe" of their Party.

Remember, it was the Democrats who fought against the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments to our constitution. It was the Democrats who instituted those barbaric Jim Crow laws. It was the Democrats who fought against the 1965 Civil Rights Act. It was the Democrats who destroyed the black nuclear family with LBJ's "Great Society" programs and his "War on Poverty" - even when it's supposed to be "help" the Democrats always seem to ignore the unintended consequences of said "help."

And this is just scratching the surface. Let's take a more contemporaneous example of leftist behaviors that are by no means "fringe." The OWS movement is a perfect example of how leftists and Democrats seek to exert their will. These "occupy" protestors illegally take over a private park in Manhattan, launch illegal marches which obstruct traffic and businesses (with zero concern for whose lives they are negatively impacting), engage in the destruction of personal property, have violent clashes with law enforcement and otherwise demonstrate a complete disregard for the rule of law and reason. This movement launched other OWS gatherings in other cities which also engaged in violent and lawless behavior.

One could say these folks represented a "fringe" element on the left. However, one would be wrong to think so because the mainstream media many leading Democrats on the Hill, including the President himself, praised the OWS movement and stood behind their mindless sloganeering and idiotic and extreme leftist demands! This is what Obama had to say about OWS: "The most important thing we can do right now is those of us in leadership letting people know that we understand their struggles and we are on their side..." So many Democrats spoke out in support of the OWS movement that one could hardly call this "fringe" behavior!

I'm sorry my friend, but violence and lawlessness in leftist mob gatherings is the RULE and not the exception.

Now contrast that with how the Tea Party comported itself in massive gathers throughout the country and THERE you have a key difference between left and right.

The left wishes to FORCE their views on others through lying, cheating, activists courts (when votes don't go their way) and when all else fails, there's always the violent mob protests.

The Tea Party made their voices heard lawfully, then having made their point, got down to the business of putting like-minded politicians into office - hence the massive take over of the House by Republicans in 2010.

kronos wrote:I could do that too, if I were so inclined. I could say "this is the way the right responds." I don't, because it would be ridiculous. Though, can you show me anything equivalent from gay-marriage activists?

Well of course I can show you rough equivalents by gay activists.

Did you completely forget the “AIDS Coalition to Unleash Power” (ACT-UP), whose founder proudly proclaimed to the general public: “I shall torture you during the daytime, and will keep you from a peaceful sleep at night”? Or how about his views on pederasty? I quote: “In those instances where children do have sex with their homosexual elders, be they teachers or anyone else, I submit that often, very often, the child desires the activity, and perhaps even solicits it.”

Hell, ACT-UP became famous for invading Catholic churches during religious services, screaming obscenities and smashing newspaper boxes. The founder of the Washington D.C. division later regretted his ACT-UP involvement and wrote in a letter titled “Time to give up fascist tactics” that the the groups tactics were “drawn largely from the voluminous Mein Kampf, which some of us studied as a working model”.

Then of course there was the even more radical “Queer Nation” which grew out of ACT-UP and openly threatened violence on flyers to intimidate voters in an Oregon campaign. When bricks marked with swastikas where thrown through windows of political enemies, the “Queer Nation” defended the violence as justified but denied all responsibility.

And then there was a separate organization which called itself “Bigot Busters” who specialized in harassing and threatening petitioners seeking signatures to put the measure on the ballot. Petitions were ripped from circulator's hands or doused with paint, activists blockaded petition tables, and several circulators were physically assaulted.

It's not carving obscenities into a person's body, but it's still violent, still lawless and still condoned by Democrats who either gloss over or simply ignore these common tactics by extreme leftists.

And the Democrats embracing the OWS movement rather makes my point.
avatar
dblboggie




Back to top Go down

Re: Playing Chicken with Gay Marriage

Post by kronos on Tue Aug 14, 2012 9:53 pm

Student of history or not, filtering is certainly what it going here. If it weren't, you'd include instances of reasonable, law-abiding citizens on the left, and violent (sometimes murderously violent) lawbreakers on the right. I for one have never known anyone who supported slavery or pederasty (and I have no idea what those two positions have to do with each other, or why the one would imply the other at all), despite growing up in a blue state and currently residing in another. My comment stands. The black-and-white world you paint in this post is a simplistic caricature of reality.

(And the situation with the Civil Rights Act was more complex than you make out-- to the point that I'd say your characterization is wrong.)

kronos




Back to top Go down

Re: Playing Chicken with Gay Marriage

Post by kronos on Wed Aug 15, 2012 11:54 am

It's also ridiculous to lump Barrack Obama and John C. Calhoun under the same ideology.

I don't doubt that you read a lot, but that doesn't mean your analysis of what you read holds.

kronos




Back to top Go down

Re: Playing Chicken with Gay Marriage

Post by dblboggie on Wed Aug 15, 2012 6:07 pm

Sorry I've not responded to your last post yet kronos. I'll do it tomorrow when I'm in front of a real computer.
avatar
dblboggie




Back to top Go down

Re: Playing Chicken with Gay Marriage

Post by dblboggie on Thu Aug 16, 2012 1:26 pm

kronos wrote:Student of history or not, filtering is certainly what it going here. If it weren't, you'd include instances of reasonable, law-abiding citizens on the left, and violent (sometimes murderously violent) lawbreakers on the right. I for one have never known anyone who supported slavery or pederasty (and I have no idea what those two positions have to do with each other, or why the one would imply the other at all), despite growing up in a blue state and currently residing in another. My comment stands. The black-and-white world you paint in this post is a simplistic caricature of reality.

(And the situation with the Civil Rights Act was more complex than you make out-- to the point that I'd say your characterization is wrong.)

I think you've taken my post far too literally. I was not implying that leftists today would support slavery (though there is a very small segment of the left who still do support pederasty - and they truly are on the fringe).

Rather, my post simply points out the history of the left in this country. All of those things I wrote, the history of the Democratic Party after the Civil War, the Ku Klux Klan, Jim Crow, the steadfast opposition to the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments and the 65 Civil Rights Act, the opposition to school desegregation, the Watts riots, the Chicago riots of 68, and even the recent OWS movement, ALL of these were the acts of Democrats, of leftists. This is the factual and inescapable history of Democrats and the left.

Now the history of racism by the left is a thing of the past, but the left's tendency to think in terms of groups and not individuals persists to this day. The ideology of the left doesn't see individuals, rather it sees a member of a group - blacks, whites, Asians, Hispanics, rich, poor, women, men, gay, straight, educated, uneducated, the list goes on.

The ideology of the right (and yes, there are exceptions to every rule - both on the left and the right) sees people as individuals, not as a collective or as a member of a group.

And while this is certainly, as you say, a rather simplified characterization of reality, it is nonetheless a very sound characterization based on history. And given the brevity of this medium (online forum) it would hardly serve to make extremely granular posts about individual exceptions that one might find to these principle differences between left and right in this country.

The simple facts are that leftists have a long and storied history of using force and violence to achieve their objectives, especially when you step beyond our shores. Just look at the massive differences between America's Revolutionary War and the French Revolution. Our war was fought by the understood rules of war at the time. We comported ourselves within the framework of that law, we took out loans to finance our war and we paid those debts back, we did not go out and wantonly kill and destroy everything in sight, we engaged the enemy and fought hard, sure. But it was strictly within confines of the law, and was fought by men who believed in the liberal ideal (classical liberal - not the bastardized version of liberal that we now know), had read the works of men such as Smith, Montesquieu, Locke, and many others. They believed in individual liberty, personal responsibility, capitalism, free markets, limited government, all the things that 18th century liberals stood for.

In France, they ran riot, they were unorganized, undisciplined mobs of people who wantonly slaughtered 10's of thousands of aristocrats, clergy, and anyone they deemed deserving of death. They killed in cold blood, not on a battlefield, but where ever they found what they considered an enemy. It was a leftist revolution.

So while I'm painting in broad strokes here (since I can hardly write a book here), it still remains that the Democrats are just as I have characterized them in my initial post. Not ALL Democrats of course, but enough of them to make exceptions statistically unimportant.
avatar
dblboggie




Back to top Go down

Re: Playing Chicken with Gay Marriage

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Back to top

- Similar topics

 :: Main :: Social Issues

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum