Chick - Fil-A BoycottFollow

It's a fast food chain that caters to religions that don't eat beef/pork by selling various chicken sandwiches that all taste the same. Shakes are great though.

Awesome.

"Your being a black man does not take away from your right to marry a black woman. You're not allowed to marry white women, though. Your preference is irrelevant! It offends my concept of traditional marriage."


Does that wash? No, of course it doesn't. It is in fact your "right" to marry a woman of whatever racial heritage you like. Would you be supporting the traditional paradigm of only marrying people of the same colour skin right now if that were the case?

Shockingly, it is actually exactly the same argument and you're still wilfully ignorant for not seeing it.

Well I'll be darned, they had what was dubbed an appreciation day. Is that what you were going on about?

Yes I know, I'm slow. This is still all oddly fascinating though...

It wouldn't be nearly as sad if it wasn't the same argument almost word for word.

I tried Chick-Fil-A when they came out my way like 10 or 15 years ago. I was completely unimpressed and have never gone back since. It's just another greasy fast food joint so I pretty much boycott it by default.

I'm imagining the billboards; picture of a hot gal eating a one of their burgers with something like "Chick-Fil-A, where it's okay for a chick to love another chick" written on it.

Ah, so nothing I care about anyway. We don't have any around here, so it falls into "Fast Food Places I don't think about" along with Whitecastle and Sonic (except that we have sonic commercials on every station, and not a single sonic within a hundred miles. It's very aggravating, because I've had sonic's food before, and liked it). I don't really eat chicken anyway though, not a huge fan of poultry, so I doubt I'd eat it even if we did have one

One of them southern things. Emanuel just needs to wait them out until they fold like Krispy Kreme did out here. Or.. umm... Coca-Cola.

******************* Do you honestly think that you're the one who's finally going to get through to Alma? Of course you're not, so stop ******* talking to him.

If anyone ever does get through to him, someone's gonna have to turn it into a movie like The Miracle Worker.


They said it couldn't be done. They said he was incapable of logical thought. They were right.


Until one poster....

Any "discussion" with him isn't worth reading. And if you quote him, I can read him

I'd rather read nothing than Alma posts. Just sayin'.

Edited, Aug 2nd 2012 9:20pm by Aethien

Yes it does wash. My stance remains.

Your "right" to marry is not removed. You not being able to marry who you want is a restriction that will always exist. It doesn't matter if you could only marry people within your state, of equal height, shorter height, within 5 years of age,same skin color, same occupation, same education, certain financial class or any other restriction.

It could be a lottery where you are randomly chosen to marry someone. As long as everyone is bound to the same restriction, then it is equal by definition and you have the right to marry. Is that fair? No. There is a difference. All I'm asking you to do is argue fairness and not equality. You're simply lying when you say that your right to marry is removed because you can't marry the person you want *if everyone is bound to the same standard*.

Just because one hits home more than others doesn't mean it takes away your right to marry.





I never said anything about supporting it. I even stated it wasn't fair. However, that doesn't change the equality of the matter. Equality isn't always fair. Everyone isn't the same so treating everyone the same, ignoring differences, isn't always fair.



What's shocking is that you make that connection with skin color and gender, but call it a "slippery slope" when the same exact argument is used on other things like polygamy, minors and bestiality.