Chick-fil-A "non-story" exposes the Hypocritical agenda of LGBT Community.

So only heterosexuals should be allowed to flagrantly flaunt hypocracy, right?

If any 'devout' subscribers to the plethora of social progrogramming that passes for 'faith' took the time to plumb the depths of this indoctrination, a revolution would happen OVERNIGHT.

This goes for gays especially!

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by gncnew

Originally posted by Annee
If Equal Rights is an agenda. Currently - - Equal Right of Legal Government Marriage.

Count me in 100%.

Be alert to anti-gay hate groups trying to claim they are victims.

Chick-fil-A makes chicken sandwiches... they're not quite the "hate group" you're attempting to confer upon them.

It has nothing to do with the business or belief.

Its about the 5 million dollars Mr. Cathy donated to groups officially designated as anti-gay hate groups.

Who is your source that they are a "hate group" ?

Never mind, I know. It's the SPLC.

Which is ironic because the SPLC are the real hate group

Originally posted by gncnew

Then why boycott (well, attempt to boycott) a company based on the interview remarks of an employee? Especially a company that is ridiculously open about their faith based approach to business?

In stating attempt - - are you speaking about the Kiss thing?

It was never a group protest. It was a simple act to express love. Take a picture of yourself kissing your partner at a Chick-fil-A. Post it to a website. Have you even seen any of the pix?

Is the fight to get churches to marry gay people?

Freedom of religion allows a church to refuse anyone without giving a reason.

There are already plenty of churches more then willing to marry gays.

I'm assuming gay people that want to get married have no interest in the beliefs and/or rules of a church, especially one that won't marry them...

Why would you assume gays have no belief or no belief in God?

How many times must one repeat - - - there is NO DEBATE on forcing a church to marry anyone. They are protected by the Constitution. Some churches will not marry someone who is divorced.

Originally posted by HIWATT

Never mind, I know. It's the SPLC.

I really don't care what your opinion of the SPLC is.

Those who matter take it seriously.

lets just hope that MBLA does use the trail blazed by GLBT

A business is about prophet.

Other businesses are paying attention to what is happening to Chick-fil-A.

They are also paying attention to this.

Gay marriage boosts NYC's economy by $259 million in first year

By Blake Ellis July 24, 2012

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- Gay marriage is generating millions of dollars for New York City's economy. Since gay marriage was legalized in New York state a year ago, marriage license fees, local celebrations and wedding-related purchases have boosted New York City's economy by $259 million, Mayor Michael Bloomberg and City Council Speaker Christine Quinn announced Tuesday.

money.cnn.com...

Originally posted by gncnew

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by gncnew

The LBGT community wants us all to think they're standing up for this silent mass of people... but when the two causes go head to head...

well... we know how that story goes.

Now you are reading the minds of the LGBTQ?

They want Equal Rights - - Period. Its just that simple.

Then why boycott (well, attempt to boycott) a company based on the interview remarks of an employee? Especially a company that is ridiculously open about their faith based approach to business?

What battle are they fighting there? Is the fight to get churches to marry gay people? If so, why? I'm assuming gay people that want to get married have no interest in the beliefs and/or rules of a church, especially one that won't marry them...

so why the fight here? If it's for equal rights? Did Chick-Fil-A deny anyone equal rights?

1...the "employee" you site is the owner.
2...tell me how a profit-making corporation can be "faith-based"?.
3...the battle, as you call it, is not about belief, it's the action taken to deny rights, that heterosexual people have.
4...churches to marry gay people?? not even in the discussion
5...assuming gays have no interest in the beliefs of the church? no, just the beliefs that deny rights to others

people that believe in a mythical being, shouldn't be dictating to others to live by that mythical beings laws.

LOL

Watch video at link.

Watch What Happens When a Man Tries to Protest General Mills With Fire

BY Lucas Grindley - August 06 2012

Things obviously didn't go as planned for a man who tried to light a box of Cheerios on fire in protest of General Mills' support for marriage equality.

General Mills is based in Minnesota and has said a proposed constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage isn't "in the best interests of our employees or our state economy." So, in a video posted Sunday on YouTube and shared by the Good As You blog, a man is seen standing outside a General Mills location holding a box of Cheerios in one hand and a torch in the other.

www.advocate.com...

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by HIWATT

Never mind, I know. It's the SPLC.

I really don't care what your opinion of the SPLC is.

Those who matter take it seriously.

Of course you don't care. I did not expect you to!

Does that change the truth? No.

Morris Dees, founder of the SPLC, was a sexual deviant and btw, gay. You can read all about him and his perversions in the court documents related to his divorce: www.gcmwatch.com...

It all starts at the top, then rolls downhill. You cannot deny gravity.... but hey... you won't be reading it I'm sure.. because you know, the SPLC is such an authority on morality...

Originally posted by HIWATT

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by HIWATT

Never mind, I know. It's the SPLC.

I really don't care what your opinion of the SPLC is.

Those who matter take it seriously.

Of course you don't care. I did not expect you to!

Does that change the truth? No.

What matters is who in power/government takes the list of the SPLC seriously.

Your opinion is not relevant.

reply to post by Annee


I'd reread # 8 if i was you.

Originally posted by HIWATT

It all starts at the top, then rolls downhill. You cannot deny gravity.... but hey... you won't be reading it I'm sure.. because you know, the SPLC is such an authority on morality...

You do realize you are presenting a divorce case - - right?

Mud slinging in a divorce case.

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by HIWATT

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by HIWATT

Never mind, I know. It's the SPLC.

I really don't care what your opinion of the SPLC is.

Those who matter take it seriously.

Of course you don't care. I did not expect you to!

Does that change the truth? No.

What matters is who in power/government takes the list of the SPLC seriously.

Your opinion is not relevant.

You're right in that it is VERY important who in power takes what they say as gospel.

However, my point is that you are posting a group who's leader is a known gay, sexual sycophant as your source to evidence CFA as a "hate group."

Therefore I am simply stating that the SPLC is not a moral authority on the matter and should not be cited as such.

Yes. That IS relevant.

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by HIWATT

It all starts at the top, then rolls downhill. You cannot deny gravity.... but hey... you won't be reading it I'm sure.. because you know, the SPLC is such an authority on morality...

You do realize you are presenting a divorce case - - right?

Mud slinging in a divorce case.

I can find no evidence anywhere that the claims in that document were refuted. I've tried.

If they weren't refuted, that leaves only one possibility.

Originally posted by HIWATT

Therefore I am simply stating that the SPLC is not a moral authority on the matter and should not be cited as such.

Yes. That IS relevant.

Moral - - has become the most over used and abused word ever since Bush took office. I am sick of the word Moral.

Let's use Ethical. Its a law firm. Ethical depends on which side of the line you are standing.

I've followed this for a long time. I've followed the evolution of the group NOM. I've read the criteria for putting a group on the Hate List. Just being anti-gay does not put you on the list. Presenting false information and using extreme methods will make you a candidate for the Hate List. NOM was watched for several years before being added just last year.

I did not just Google "gay hate list".

A few months ago on OutQ radio they played a recording of a prominent speaker at a Family Values Convention.

Her rant was actually pathetically laughable. In her speech she went on and on about the deviant behavior of gays. She had a list of hundreds of Fetishes which she read to the audience at this convention. The gay host at OutQ was cracking up - - because he had to look up half of them.

This woman is a public school teacher.

Promoting this ignorance and lies - - along with Gays are Pedophiles - - etc - - - is what gets these groups on the hate list.

Originally posted by HIWATT

I can find no evidence anywhere that the claims in that document were refuted. I've tried.

If they weren't refuted, that leaves only one possibility.

But all you have is a mud slinging divorce case.

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by HIWATT

I can find no evidence anywhere that the claims in that document were refuted. I've tried.

If they weren't refuted, that leaves only one possibility.

But all you have is a mud slinging divorce case.

That, and the fact that the charitable organization you are trying so hard to look legitimate, has in excess of $50 Million dollars in holding.

They started out as KlanWatch way back in the day. Fair enough. Apparently though, just having one big bad wolf wasn't profitable enough for them, so they had to massively broaden their definitions of what constitutes a "hate group"

You think it's a coincidence that their purse has increa$$$$$ed exponentially and in step with their ever increasing "broadening of definitions" ?!

Ok, you want to use the term "ethical" sure! They are the DEFINITION of UNETHICAL!

They define "hate" as whatever supports their agenda, which is apparently MAKING A CRAPLOAD OF MONEY

These folks are in no position to tell Chic Fil A anything, never mind judge them.

Originally posted by HIWATT

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by HIWATT

I can find no evidence anywhere that the claims in that document were refuted. I've tried.

If they weren't refuted, that leaves only one possibility.

But all you have is a mud slinging divorce case.

That, and the fact that the charitable organization you are trying so hard to look legitimate, has in excess of $50 Million dollars in holding.

So what.

It has nothing to do with the criteria of why someone is put on a hate list.

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by HIWATT

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by HIWATT

I can find no evidence anywhere that the claims in that document were refuted. I've tried.

If they weren't refuted, that leaves only one possibility.

But all you have is a mud slinging divorce case.

That, and the fact that the charitable organization you are trying so hard to look legitimate, has in excess of $50 Million dollars in holding.

So what.

It has nothing to do with the criteria of why someone is put on a hate list.

Of course it does! When their motivation for doing so is MONEY!!!

Originally posted by HIWATT

Of course it does! When their motivation for doing so is MONEY!!!

They're a law firm. A business is about prophet.

Many businesses also have projects on the side that have great meaning to them.

Like Mr. Cathy donating 5 million dollars to anti-gay groups.