[INTJRyan]

	Originally Posted by Clueless To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	So hey, what do I know?

Not much, as repeatedly illustrated via retarded flailing and a basic ignorance of the issues being discussed. But do keep up your ever vigilant watch over this thread, lest a "gay rights activist" gets too "over the top" with their rhetoric and needs to be taken down a peg with more faulty and irrelevant conclusions.

[Clueless]

	Originally Posted by Bardas To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	When he uses profits from his business to actively pursue anti-gay legislation, we feel we have the right to boycott his company, and others argue this is somehow infringing on his freedom of speech. I don't see it, but maybe you do.

I think that many others (including myself) see this as a hypocritical practice. Were anti-gay rights advocates to actively promote measures intended to reduce the effectiveness of fundraising efforts benefitting the gay-rights lobby, I'm pretty sure you'd cry "foul".

Freedom of speech includes these efforts. Nobody is forced to contribute, but to actively oppose fundraising efforts sort of reeks of hypocrisy. That buying a chicken sandwich is equated to supporting gay opposition is another false equivalency. I can understand the sentiment but it really isn't a fair one. Yet another reason the mayor was way off base.

Many (if not most) employees of CFA likely do not approve of the ownership position. So a boycott of CFA also has the potential to harm "innocents" who are simply trying to make a living.


It's these sorts of things that appear "unreasonable" and "unsympathetic" to some of us who really don't have an ax to grind outside this type of unfairness.

---------- Post added 08-20-2012 at 01:52 PM ----------

	Originally Posted by INTJRyan To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Not much, as repeatedly illustrated via retarded flailing and a basic ignorance of the issues being discussed. But do keep up your ever vigilant watch over this thread, lest a "gay rights activist" gets too "over the top" with their rhetoric and needs to be taken down a peg with more faulty and irrelevant conclusions.

I'll just defer to your supreme intelligence on the matter then. After all everyone knows there's only one side to every story. That would obviously be the INTJRyan side in this particular case.

Good day.

[Bardas]

	Originally Posted by Clueless To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I think that many others (including myself) see this as a hypocritical practice. Were anti-gay rights advocates to actively promote measures intended to reduce the effectiveness of fundraising efforts benefitting the gay-rights lobby, I'm pretty sure you'd cry "foul".

Probably, but solely due to difference of opinion. Everyone in said case would be within their rights, and I would not contest that, as is being done here.

	Freedom of speech includes these efforts. Nobody is forced to contribute, but to actively oppose fundraising efforts sort of reeks of hypocrisy. That buying a chicken sandwich is equated to supporting gay opposition is another false equivalency. I can understand the sentiment but it really isn't a fair one. Yet another reason the mayor was way off base.

So your issue is with protesting, not simply boycotting, if I'm reading between the lines correctly?

	Many (if not most) employees of CFA likely do not approve of the ownership position. So a boycott of CFA also has the potential to harm "innocents" who are simply trying to make a living.

So does a purchase from the company, albeit in a different way. I imagine the American homosexual population outnumbers the pro-gay rights supporters working for CFA.

	It's these sorts of things that appear "unreasonable" and "unsympathetic" to some of us who really don't have an ax to grind outside this type of unfairness.

It seems those you want us to be reasonable and sympathetic towards are the members of the anti-gay rights movement. What sympathy do they deserve that we are withholding by boycotting a chicken restaurant?

They seek to prevent a minority from marrying. We seek to not buy their chicken. These things are not equivalent.

[AnaK]

I think boycotting companies is perfectly fine for whatever reason.

I think a mayor voicing disagreement with a CEO on a political issue is fine.

I think a mayor sending a letter, on official letterhead I presume, to say he will try to bar a company from doing business in his town because he doesn't like the views of the CEO is an abuse of power.

I think spraying graffiti on the side of a business you are boycotting is bad.

I think criticizing customers of a company you are boycotting and calling them fat pathetic sacks of shit is bad

The last three may make it hard for people who are on the fence to sympathize with your cause.

[Bardas]

	Originally Posted by AnaK To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I think a mayor sending a letter, on official letterhead I presume, to say he will try to bar a company from doing business in his town because he doesn't like the views of the CEO is an abuse of power.

Strictly speaking, no, it isn't. It's a threat to abuse power.

	I think criticizing customers of a company you are boycotting and calling them fat pathetic sacks of shit is bad.

I agree.

	The last three may make it hard for people who are on the fence to sympathize with your cause.

Well considering none of these have anything to do with the cause, I really couldn't give less of a fuck about people who think this way.

[AnaK]

	Originally Posted by Bardas To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Strictly speaking, no, it isn't. It's a threat to abuse power. I agree. Well considering none of these have anything to do with the cause, I really couldn't give less of a fuck about people who think this way.

Fine, ignore the posters in this thread who.called CFA customers fat pathetic sacks of shit and cheered the Boston mayor' threat to.abuse the power of his office and ignore how they cheered gay-marriage advocated who.sprayed graffiti on the wall of a CFA in LA. And contine to not understand why.no one gives a shit about. your "cause",or gays.

[Bardas]

	Originally Posted by AnaK To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Fine, ignore the posters in this thread who.called CFA customers fat pathetic sacks of shit and cheered the Boston mayor' threat to.abuse the power of his office and ignore how they cheered gay-marriage advocated who.sprayed graffiti on the wall of a CFA in LA. And contine to not understand why.no one gives a shit about. your "cause",or gays.

Stay classy.

[larkin]

	Originally Posted by AnaK To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I think criticizing customers of a company you are boycotting and calling them fat pathetic sacks of shit is bad [...] The last three may make it hard for people who are on the fence to sympathize with your cause.

I'm so glad you're here to determine when I'm entitled to rights, or when being angry about people hating me is inappropriate or unsympathetic.

Here's the truth - I don't need people to win over people who are "on the fence." There's enough people who are able to make the determination about the "cause" based on its rationality - not their personal icky feelings about gay people - to make those who make political decisions based on their personal feelings totally irrelevant to the discussion. Good.

[AnaK]

Originally Posted by larkin To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I'm so glad you're here to determine when I'm entitled to rights, or when being angry about people hating me is inappropriate or unsympathetic. Here's the truth - I don't need people to win over people who are "on the fence." There's enough people who are able to make the determination about the "cause" based on its rationality - not their personal icky feelings about gay people - to make those who make political decisions based on their personal feelings totally irrelevant to the discussion. Good.

Icky feelings about the childish and hypocritical behavior of gay rights activists. But it sounds like gay marriage is a done deal, so.I don't.know why you seem so.upset all of the time.

[larkin]

	Originally Posted by AnaK To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Icky feelings about the childish and hypocritical behavior of gay rights activists. But it sounds like gay marriage is a done deal, so.I don't.know why you seem so.upset all of the time.

Oh, no reason.

[newtome]

	Originally Posted by INTJRyan To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	YAWN Your "translation" is typically retarded. Christians can believe whatever they want. They cannot use those beliefs to enact discriminatory legislation. The bible isn't justification for anything with respect to our laws, as cheeseburgers and polyester are indeed ubiquitous.

Yes they can, they can get the numbers to pass legislation, they can get the numbers to ammend the constitution. Regardless of your complaints and the fact it may be discrimatory it will still be LAW.

[Clueless]

Originally Posted by larkin To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I'm so glad you're here to determine when I'm entitled to rights, or when being angry about people hating me is inappropriate or unsympathetic. Here's the truth - I don't need people to win over people who are "on the fence." There's enough people who are able to make the determination about the "cause" based on its rationality - not their personal icky feelings about gay people - to make those who make political decisions based on their personal feelings totally irrelevant to the discussion. Good.

Why do you continue to insist on this false dichotomy? Either uninvolved parties are 100% in agreement with the actions of every gay rights activist or they're opposed to gay rights and have a veiled dislike for gays?

Do you actually not see as a possibility that someone could condemn both overzealous Christians for their attempted imposition of beliefs, as well as those who would trample upon the rights and sensibilities of others in order to defend against it?

This makes no sense. I've admitted to insensitivity in understanding your position, is it your goal to demonstrate equally insensitivity toward any viewpoint that doesn't align 100% with your own?

Apparently this attitude is gay rights activism 101. If someone questions anything about the methods used in support of the cause they are to be ridiculed and categorized as idiotic bigots?

[INTJRyan]

	Originally Posted by newtome To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Yes they can, they can get the numbers to pass legislation

Doesn't matter. When Prop 8 is struck down, it's the end of anti-gay marriage statutes. Kids today give no fucks about gay marriage and are overwhelmingly in favor of it. Demographics certainly not in your favor.

	Originally Posted by newtome To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	they can get the numbers to ammend the constitution. Regardless of your complaints and the fact it may be discrimatory it will still be LAW.

Unlikely. Can't even get 75% of the states to agree the sky is blue. Certainly no blue state will agree to it, so your fantasy is just that.

[newtome]

	Originally Posted by INTJRyan To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Doesn't matter. When Prop 8 is struck down, it's the end of anti-gay marriage statutes. Kids today give no fucks about gay marriage and are overwhelmingly in favor of it. Demographics certainly not in your favor. Unlikely. Can't even get 75% of the states to agree the sky is blue. Certainly no blue state will agree to it, so your fantasy is just that.

OK, lets do a count.

50 States in the US, so 75% = 38 (to exceed 75%)

So far in the US there are 32 States that have defined marriage in their Constitutions, and they don't define it as same sex. Only 6 more states to go and all of these Constitutional Ammendments have occurred since 1996.

How about intent for marriage? 41 States define marriage by Statute as not including same sex marriage. That seems to be more than the 38 required.

Never have I said it would be right to amend the constitution but then again I don't get a say. So once again, it is just a fantasy, you keep believing that.

btw, did I mention there is a proposed constitutional amendment before congress to define marriage, again, it doesn't recognise gay marriage.

[INTJRyan]

Originally Posted by newtome To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

OK, lets do a count. 50 States in the US, so 75% = 38 (to exceed 75%) So far in the US there are 32 States that have defined marriage in their Constitutions, and they don't define it as same sex. Only 6 more states to go and all of these Constitutional Ammendments have occurred since 1996. How about intent for marriage? 41 States define marriage by Statute as not including same sex marriage. That seems to be more than the 38 required. Never have I said it would be right to amend the constitution but then again I don't get a say. So once again, it is just a fantasy, you keep believing that. btw, did I mention there is a proposed constitutional amendment before congress to define marriage, again, it doesn't recognise gay marriage.

Irrelevant speculation. Only thing that matters is how they would vote on the amendment. And if you think there is going to be a constitutional amendment defining marriage you are in la la land.

[newtome]

	Originally Posted by INTJRyan To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Irrelevant speculation. Only thing that matters is how they would vote on the amendment. And if you think there is going to be a constitutional amendment defining marriage you are in la la land.

There have already been 32 constitutional amendments defining marriage.

Why do you think the US constitution couldn't be similarly amended?

I may be in la la land but are you sure you don't have your head stuck in a hole, ignoring everything happening around you?

[INTJRyan]

	Originally Posted by newtome To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	There have already been 32 constitutional amendments defining marriage. Why do you think the US constitution couldn't be similarly amended? I may be in la la land but are you sure you don't have your head stuck in a hole, ignoring everything happening around you?

Senate's about 50/50 bro. Sorry. No chance. Vote more tea in. Oh wait you're in Australia.

[newtome]

	Originally Posted by INTJRyan To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Senate's about 50/50 bro. Sorry. No chance. Vote more tea in. Oh wait you're in Australia.

Well if those number are carved in stone (like the 10 commandments, joke) keep pushing through the courts and all will happen as you want.

I just hope the numbers don't change because if Gays feel hard done by now I can't imagine how they will feel then.

[larkin]

	Originally Posted by Clueless To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Do you actually not see as a possibility that someone could condemn both overzealous Christians for their attempted imposition of beliefs, as well as those who would trample upon the rights and sensibilities of others in order to defend against it?

It's this false equivalency I object to. I am trampling on no one's rights, and I have no obligation to protect anyone's sensibilities. Suggesting that I do have that obligation repeatedly - while demanding nothing of those who oppose gay rights, and what they say about me, which apparently doesn't offend the poster's sensibilities - is absurd.

And "condemning" them both is certainly not what this poster was doing. They were excusing one and faulting the other.