Chick-Fil-A: A Christian Business in the Left's Crosshairs
Here's a modest proposal for liberals who say they support job creation: Stop smearing successful, law-abiding private companies whose values don't comport with yours. I'm looking at you, New York Times.
Chick-fil-A is an American success story. Founded by Georgian entrepreneur Truett Cathy in 1946, the family-owned chicken-sandwich chain is one of the country's largest fast-food businesses. It employs some 50,000 workers across the country at 1,500 outlets in nearly 40 states and the District of Columbia. The company generates more than $2 billion in revenue and serves millions of happy customers with trademark Southern hospitality.
So, what's the problem? Well, Chick-fil-A is run by devout Christians who believe in strong marriages, devoted families and the highest standards of character for their workers. The restaurant chain's official corporate mission is to "glorify God" and "enrich the lives of everyone we touch." The company's community service initiatives, funded through its WinShape Foundation, support foster care, scholarship, summer camp and marriage enrichment programs. On Sunday, all Chick-fil-A stores close so workers can spend the day at worship and rest.
For the left, these Biblically based corporate principles constitute high social justice crimes and misdemeanors. Democrats are always ready to invoke religion to support their big government, taxpayer-funded initiatives (Obamacare, illegal alien amnesty, increased education spending and FCC regulatory expansion, for starters).
But when an independent company — thriving on its own merits in the marketplace — wears its soul on its sleeve, suddenly it's a theocratic crisis.
Over the past month, several progressive activist blogs have waged an ugly war against Chick-fil-A. The company's alleged atrocity: One of its independent outlets in Pennsylvania donated some sandwiches and brownies to a marriage seminar run by the Pennsylvania Family Institute, which happens to oppose same-sex marriage.
In the name of tolerance, the anti-Chick-fil-A hawks sneered at the company's main product as "Jesus Chicken," derided its no-Sunday work policy and attacked its operators as "anti-gay." Michael Jones, who describes himself as having "worked in the field of human rights communications for a decade, most recently for Harvard Law School," launched an online petition drive at www.change.org "demanding" that the company disavow "extreme anti-gay groups." Facebook users dutifully organized witch hunts against the company on college campuses.
Over the weekend, New York Times reporter Kim Severson gave the Chick-fil-A bashers a coveted Sunday A-section megaphone — repeatedly parroting the "Chick-fil-A is anti-gay" slur and raising fears of "evangelical Christianity's muscle flexing" with only the thinnest veneer of journalistic objectivity. Severson, you see, is an openly gay advocate of same-sex marriage equality herself and the former vice-president of the identity politics-mongering National Gay and Lesbian Journalists Association.
In a bitter op-ed on gay marriage laws not changing quickly enough, she asserted: "I don't want the crumbs. I want the whole cake." Severson has voiced complaints about her social and economic status as an unwed lesbian with a partner and child in several media publications.
None of this was disclosed in Severson's advocacy journalism hit job on Chick-fil-A. But therein lies the unofficial motto of The Gray Lady: All the ideological conflicts of interest unfit to print.
Progressive groups are gloating over Chick-fil-A's public relations troubles exacerbated by the nation's politicized paper of record. This is not because they care about winning hearts and minds over gay rights or marriage policy, but because their core objective is to marginalize political opponents and chill Christian philanthropy and activism. The fearsome "muscle flexing" isn't being done by innocent job-creators selling chicken sandwiches and waffle fries. It's being done by the hysterical bullies trying to drive them off of college grounds and out of their neighborhoods in the name of "human rights."
Remember: These were the same tactics the left-wing mob used in California to intimidate supporters of the Proposition 8 traditional marriage initiative. Individual donors were put on an "Anti-Gay Black List." Businesses who contributed money to the Prop. 8 campaign were besieged by fist-wielding protesters. The artistic director of the California Musical Theatre was forced to resign over his $1,000 donation.
Message: Associate with the wrong political cause and you will pay. So much for national "civility."
Michelle Malkin is the author of "Culture of Corruption: Obama and his Team of Tax Cheats, Crooks & Cronies" (Regnery 2010). Her e-mail address is malkinblog@gmail.com.
- Michelle Malkin's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
→ Left-Wing's Fried Chicken
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Thu, 02/03/2011 - 12:15pm.
And opening soon: Dr. Gosner's All You Can Eat Fetus-chini
"Obama's Reconstituted Chili" You'll eat it and you'll like it.
LOL!
Submitted by SickofLibs on Thu, 02/03/2011 - 12:29pm.
Hey, you're not that far off.
OK
Submitted by GW on Thu, 02/03/2011 - 1:36pm.
That's just gross.
Hmmm, Isn't That Special (ala Church Lady)
Submitted by stratman on Thu, 02/03/2011 - 6:34pm.
Calling DrSam: You have a lot of work waiting.
It's bad enough people eat placenta out of a misguided sense of homeopathy, but it's wrong on many levels that people such as those at Time magazine help promote such a bizarre idea.
In a world where people eat their boogars, drink urine and feast on feces, why am I not surprised idiots eat placenta? Those midwives, doulas or any other licensed healthcare worker who suggest, encourage and/or participate in this activity should at least lose their license permanently.
Strat: who'd thunk cannibalism would make a comeback?
Submitted by SickofLibs on Thu, 02/03/2011 - 7:27pm.
Ooga booga, baby!
Placentophagia
Submitted by stratman on Thu, 02/03/2011 - 11:11pm.
Yeah, SoL, thought about that too.
As sick as it is, I think technically, eating one's self may make you a zombie Liberal, but you have to eat someone else to be a cannibal.
Donner party your table is ready.
Where's my Chick-fil-A??
Submitted by SamC on Thu, 02/03/2011 - 12:35pm.
I sure wish there was a Chick-fil-A in my area to support with my business. I'll have to wait until I head south this summer to enjoy one of them 'anti-gay' chicken sandwiches they offer!
Have you tasted Chick-fil-A?
Submitted by yutsnark on Thu, 02/03/2011 - 1:22pm.
Better to just send them a contribution.
Well, not exactly
Submitted by GW on Thu, 02/03/2011 - 1:39pm.
But I've had their food and I think it's yummy! My family goes there about once a week. they also have great milk shakes and I like their breakfasts, too.
To each his own, I guess
Submitted by SickofLibs on Thu, 02/03/2011 - 4:02pm.
I feel the same way about Dick-Fil-A.
Their clam rolls suck.
Oh man!!!
Submitted by jon_torlin on Thu, 02/03/2011 - 5:21pm.
Now THERE'S a WTF-UGH moment!
Yuck! I need to find a picture of Helen Thomas.
-Jon
Jon:
Submitted by SickofLibs on Thu, 02/03/2011 - 5:35pm.
Those are the special "Grandes" that have been soaking in Enzyte for a month.
The regular ones aren't that bad.
→ Meet Bob
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Thu, 02/03/2011 - 5:40pm.
SOL. You're sick!
Moving up on the hero scale.
Great article MM
Submitted by Iron Tigers Vet on Thu, 02/03/2011 - 12:38pm.
I just wish more companies were like this. Do what's right and don't let anyone else drag you down. The left will do everything possible to cause controversy for the company.
They believe in God, strong male/female relationships/marriage...GREAT FOR THEM!
If you don't like it... don't eat there and don't work for them. There are more people out there that feel the same way and would love to have a job working for them.
Way to go Chick-fil-A! Keep doing what your doing.
The looney left and the gays are going too far with this lunacy
Submitted by Dave. on Thu, 02/03/2011 - 1:06pm.
...and making themselves look like idiots in the process.
Chick-fil-A is a top notch company in every way you can measure it, and it is very well respected by most everybody here in Atlanta, and most other places.
And I'll tell you something else - they aren't about to cave to the whims of a cheesed-off, hysterical rug-muncher, either.
These idiot people are doing serious damage to their cause by attacking this company.
Come to think of it, I'm getting hungry.
Luckily for me, I have two Chick-fil-As withing 4 miles of my abode, so no matter which way I'm going, when the craving hits for one of their chicken sandwiches (yes, the fried one with two mayo packets added), I am never more than a couple of minutes away. :-)
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
→ Dave
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Thu, 02/03/2011 - 1:11pm.
Was this billed as a "Penetrating expose' of the dark underside of human abuse"
Good evenin Cool
Submitted by cocodrie on Thu, 02/03/2011 - 2:10pm.
They obviously don't believe that "chick" is referring to a chicken and are trying to inflame gender discrimination charges. I've been expecting the feds to require the listing of "other" along with male and female on application forms.
Jesus Loves You so much He died for you
Cool,
Submitted by Dave. on Thu, 02/03/2011 - 7:59pm.
LOL.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
Dave
Submitted by yutsnark on Thu, 02/03/2011 - 3:43pm.
Next time I'll ask for the two mayo packets. Maybe that will help.
And always ask for extra pickles, too.
Submitted by Dave. on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 12:47am.
As it forces a fresh sandwich, ant that makes all the difference.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
Yum!
Submitted by DontFeedTheTrolls on Thu, 02/03/2011 - 1:35pm.
I read about this the other day and stopped on my way home to pick up a chicken sandwich. I was going to go home and make my own but decided to support a great company in my small way. Good sandwich, friendly staff, quick service. Try the chicken salad sandwich, it's different, but good.
Wish There Was One Closer
Submitted by DaMama on Thu, 02/03/2011 - 1:38pm.
Chick-Fil-A is relatively new to California. There is one about 25 miles from me, and I try to go there when I go into town (I live in a rural area). They have great food, competitive prices, and great staff.
A few years ago on Black Friday, I was out at 4 am waiting in line at a well-known electronics store. The employees from Chick-Fil-A came to everyone in line and handed out warm chicken nuggets in a fresh made biscuit. It was freezing and raining outside, and the warm, free food was a welcome diversion from the tedious waiting in line. They were polite, cheerful and the food was great.
I am glad that C-F-A didn't kowtow to the leftist liberal homosexual agenda. WE need more companies like this to stand up to this agenda that is being forced on us. I will support this company whenever I can and buy their food.
Chick-Fil-A has every right
Submitted by JasonC on Thu, 02/03/2011 - 2:38pm.
Chick-Fil-A has every right to conduct its business and spread its tax-deductible dollars as it sees fit. But for conservatives to accuse gay rights proponents of acting out of order by calling attention to the anti-gay ethos of these organizations is just absurd. How many times a week on NB do we see posters harumphing, in that eminently self-satisfied way that they will never again spend one of their hard-earned dollars on a movie/TV show/album/book produced by Celebrity X because Celebrity X said something that contradicts those posters' treasured worldview?
Dixie Chicks, anybody?
Boycotting an otherwise apolitical artist - especially one whose work you enjoy - for having an opinion contrary to yours is pretty silly. Witholding your money from an organization that is known to give a percentage (however negligible) of that very money to groups that promote ugly ideologies is a bit different, no?
At any rate, let's not delude ourselves into believing that this is an exclusively liberal practice.
Ah
Submitted by HockeyKid on Thu, 02/03/2011 - 3:45pm.
I see. When you agree with someone, their opinion is "contrary to" those who disagree with you both. But when you disagree with them, their opinion is an "ugly ideology".
Thanks for the example. Better luck next time.
"Beauty is only skin deep, but liberal's to the bone." - me
My choice of words was not
Submitted by JasonC on Thu, 02/03/2011 - 11:51pm.
My choice of words was not meant as a political commentary per se.
My point is this: Does it make more sense to direct your political energies boycotting the work of a celebrity whose work you might otherwise enjoy - say, never seeing anything with Matt Damon because he made some thoughtless remarks about Sarah P. - or to boycott and encourage others to boycott a business that actively supports and has ties with an organization that does its darndest to enact social policies you find abhorrent?
Given the choice between never buying a Ted Nugent album (not that I'd ever care to listen to him anyhow) because he happens to say stupid things about what he inaccurately believes constitutes socialism, and refusing to give my money to a business with ties to anti-gay activists, the latter seems the more productive option.
But across the board, Malkin's remarks are hypocritical insofar as they divisively try to make this out to be liberal behavior; conservatives have never been shy about announcing that celebrities whose ideologies do not square with their own will never see a red cent of their entertainment budget.
JasonC
Submitted by MrShy on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 12:45am.
Chick Fil A gave some free food to a conference (which they do a lot) that was being hosted by a marriage counseling group.
That's. All. This. Was. Jason. C.
And yet, here you are, "harumphing" on and on about it.
Your equivalency arguments of liberal celebrities point-blank making political or policy-favoring statements and then, as a result, being taken to task for it, are meaningless.
This was not that. This was multiple degrees of separation.
The militant gay movement lifted every pillow they could find to pin something on a restaurant chain, and one outlet in particular in Pennsylvania -- THAT WAS GIVING TO FREAKIN' CHARITY. Sheesh.
- Shy's Wits End
Join Mr. Shy and The 1* Percent
Actually, the company also
Submitted by JasonC on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 4:45pm.
Actually, the company also has a track record of donating to political candidates with explicit anti-gay agendas, but that's neither here nor there. My post was never meant to defend or attack the company, but to point out Malkin's hypocrisy in acting as though this backlash is both unprecedented and an explicitly liberal behavior.
Which "ugly idealogies" are your referring to?
Submitted by SickofLibs on Thu, 02/03/2011 - 3:49pm.
Did Zippers put you up to this?
Actively working against gay
Submitted by JasonC on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 4:48pm.
Actively working against gay rights is about as ugly, futile, and petty as political activism gets, IMHO. I'm not going online and castigating CFA. I've also never had their product in my life (fast food = disgusting), and will now make it a point not to.
I don't know who Zippers is.
Jason
Submitted by yutsnark on Thu, 02/03/2011 - 3:54pm.
Agreed.
I don't exactly see the gay rights people as acting "out of order." But, based purely on the content of the article, I'd say that this particular protest is ill-conceived. Chick-Fil-A is not their enemy. As I understand it, the company's mission is "pro-family," which includes lots of good, uncontroversial principles. They sponsored a lunch for a pro-family organization that, among its own principles, opposes gay marriage. To boycott Chick-Fil-A for that seems like nitpicking, and isn't going to inspire the writing of good protest songs. If Chick-Fil-A were to back down and the pro-family people ate hamburgers instead, would that improve the lot of gay people? I think not.
Not buying a Dixie Chicks
Submitted by ant on Thu, 02/03/2011 - 7:20pm.
Not buying a Dixie Chicks album is one thing, disrupting the business of a record store that sells the album is quite another and I don't recall any conservative mob actions regarding the latter or forcing the removal of any employee in the recording industry or the Dixie Chicks entourage.
If the activists let it be known they won't patronize the establishment,that's fine, but it's not enough for them unless they're in your face and DEMANDING you meet their agenda or else. The resignation of the Theatre manager being the typical example.
While you have a valid point,
Submitted by dmntd1 on Thu, 02/03/2011 - 7:52pm.
While you have a valid point, it falls short based on the fact that the gay protesters are being egged on by activists pretending to be journalists. That's not to say the activists aren't journalists in other matters, but in this matter, they're simply activists, using their bully pulpit.
C-F-A wasn't using a bully pulpit. There were no big "look at me!" ads about their donation. They didn't post an article in the NYT...
We dare not tempt them with weakness. For only when our arms are sufficient beyond doubt can we be certain beyond doubt that they will never be employed.
Better Luck Next Time
Submitted by Tenebrous on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 8:16am.
These actions are only hypocritical when you presume that there is no absolute standard.
Those posters are correct because they are morally correct, which is to say, that their actions are correct on an absolute moral scale.
An artist forever sheds their apoliticality when they dip their toes into the culture wars, obviously.
It's an ugly ideology to be pro-family? What you're really saying, at the core, is that Christianity is ugly, and what you'd really like is for Christians to not act upon the conviction that the practice of homosexuality is corrupting to the individual, and a cancer in society. You are, at the core, a censor.
I grant you your last point, however. Doing immoral things on the scantiest of evidence is not an exclusively liberal practice. It is also a Muslim practice.
Visions and Principles blog
I would argue that being
Submitted by JasonC on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 4:57pm.
I would argue that being anti-gay, and working against gay rights, is precisely the opposite of being pro-family. It's not homosexuals that tear families apart, it's homophobic reactions to gay individuals in the family that do this.
As for Christianity, basing your opposition to a practice (one that doesn't affect you in any material sense) on cherry-picked, out-of-context, vaguely-worded homilies from a single text that you take to be infallible for no discernible reason other than your conviction/faith that it's Right and Good is pretty ludicrous. I fully respect Christians' right to believe what they wish and to act on those beliefs (and I was not only raised Protestant, but also confirmed and volunteered as a Sunday School teacher in high school, btw), but when those beliefs are put into the political arena in support of bigotry, sorry; all bets are off. You are not immune from criticism, and to blithely dismiss that criticism as "anti-Christian" is the height of laziness.
Those who seem to think that I want Christians to just shut up and keep their beliefs to themselves are dead wrong. I fully embrace the idea of an open and pluralistic society in which Christians and everyone else can speak their minds. But the cultural tide is turning more and more toward gay acceptance and, frankly, at this point in history, homophobia disguised as piousness is only going to help that acceptance along in the long run.
History, Reason, Nature, and Faith argue against you.
Submitted by Tenebrous on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 6:44pm.
There is no such thing as a homosexual family, as there is no such thing as a homosexual marriage. The concepts are contradictions in terms, and the only way to make them fit is to stretch the meaning of the word. This is a predictable and typical leftist response -- merely redefine words to mean what you want. I am not impressed.
Next you take a specific instance (people in a family being opposed to homosexuality) and argue that this is the prime cause of "tearing families apart" instead of exterior cultural forces brought upon nuclear families, often by homosexual activitists, to discourage and erode the sanctity of the family. That is laughable on its face and suggests you have a deep, deep ignorance of the forces arrayed against the family today.
You don't know what I base my opposition upon, but I will be gracious and clue you in. My opposition is based on Genesis, on Leviticus, on Romans, and quite a few other places in the Bible. I won't quote them for you, as your ignorance about Christianity's opposition to homosexuality is once again, laughable, and sadly, willful. Go do your own homework.
It doesn't affect me in any material way? Wrong. It affects me when my young boy is molested by a homosexual Scout leader. It affects me when I have to pay higher insurance premiums because my employer now covers AIDS drugs. It affects me in a material way when I am treated with tainted blood because homosexuals think that barring them from donating blood is discriminatory. It affects me in a material way when I watch television or listen to music and have to constantly deal with the imposition of sinful concepts upon my conscious mind. But all of life is not materialistic, as you well know. There are political, cultural, and spiritual impacts as well.
You think that upholding marriage as Christ defines it ("the two shall become one flesh" -- and of course He meant male and female; check the verse out for yourself) is bigotry? No, it is truth, and as with all good things ordained by God, truth has many beneficial effects. The lie has many deleterious effects, as you can see plainly by the practice and the cultural dissemination of homosexuality. By your logic, any religion which makes exclusive truth claims enables bigotry; which is a nice way of conflating truth claims with bias/hatred -- however, it, too, is a lie, unless you want to call God a bigot.
No, I think I've found you out. Your goal is to shut Christians up where it counts -- in opposing homosexuality. That's your topic and you don't care what we do otherwise, unless someday you find out that Christianity makes you feel uncomfortable somewhere else. Then it will be "Oh, Christians can't do/say/think that thing either."
Then, lastly, like mamabear, you appeal to the fashion of the times as an argument for your position, utterly unaware how ridiculous that is. If you asked people after World War I if they would fight another war, they would have confidently declared that war is dead. Or, if you asked people in the U.S.S.R in 1970 if they would ever be free, they would have confidently declared "no", if the KGB wasn't watching. You do not know what the future holds, and even the present doesn't support your position, for homosexual marriage has been rejected EVERY time it has been voted on, in every state in the union that has held a vote.
Class dismissed.
Visions and Principles blog
Oh, class is dismissed, is
Submitted by JasonC on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 3:25pm.
Oh, class is dismissed, is it? Sorry teach, but almost none of your examples or so-called arguments hold water.
First, let us consider the so-called material consequences. All of your statements here are flimsy. The Boy Scout thing? Do some research; who constitutes the greatest number of same-sex child molestors? Men who identify as gay, or ostensibly straight men with troublesome "impulses"? And let's not forget that many of these ostensibly straight men have entered into the sacred institution of heterosexual marriage that you seem to think is the polar opposite of and barrier to sexual perversion.
Worrying that homosexuality, in and of itself, is going to be cause for your child to be molested by a (theoretically) gay man makes exactly as much sense as not allowing your daughter to have a male schoolteacher (gay or otherwise). Shall we blame every incident in which a little girl has been sexually abused by a male on the existence of heterosexuality? That is precisely what you're suggesting. Consider the reductio ad absurdum trap sprung.
As for your insurance premiums, I'm sure you would consider it the height of elitism for me to suggest that - since I'm a vegetarian and only eat organic food and don't drink alcohol and run 40 miles/week and have like 10% body fat - I shouldn't have to pay as much into the system to subsidize the people who eat fast food 5 times a week and think that shoveling the snow off their car to drive half a mile to the liquor store constitutes exercise. And indeed, that would be highly arrogant and short-sighted of me. You can choose whether you would prefer a Nanny-State, as conservatives on this site tend to call it, or one in which people have individual freedoms unhindered by such tenuous outside objections. But I'll tell you one thing: Insurance premiums are driven a lot higher by obesity and heart disease issues than by AIDS issues (which straight people can get to, btw); but that doesn't mean I have any right to insist that 100 lbs overweight people shouldn't be allowed to drink soda and eat Cheetos til they explode, if that's their choice.
Donated blood is rigorously tested for infections and has been in the U.S. (and other developed nations) for decades. Acquiring HIV through a blood transfusion has basically been a non-issue since the early 90s.
What's even funnier about your little argument is that the two major objections you cite both come back to the old "Gays are Promiscuous" canard. And what's the solution? Deny them institutionalized monogamy! Now that's what I call Conservative Logic.
But all of this is academic when we add in the fact that what you're arguing against is homosexuality per se. What I'm arguing about is gay rights. And I don't care which sections of the Bible you've culled your anti-gay stance from. I wouldn't care if there was a New Testament book titled Why Homos Can't Marry and Should Just Resign Themselves to Being Second-Class Citizens Already. Your faith that every word of The Bible is sacrosanct - and good for you for being able to have such faith in something by the way; I'm certainly not capable of that, and in some ways I envy you - is in no way a convincing argument toward what should or should not be allowed in an open society. In other words, I won't argue with you on the issue of whether The Bible permits homosexuality, much less marriage; but I fully reject the premise of your argument that because a book you like says its bad, the laws of our society should conform to that. It's as relevant as a Trekkie saying we should do away with currency simply because there's no money or capitalism in the Star Trek universe.
And why are you so insistent in talking about marriage as defined by Christ? Marriage predates Him by quite some time. You can get married in whatever religious or spiritual context you wish; why must you insist that others cannot?
As for non-material (i.e. spritual) objections: Sorry, but none of us have the right to not be offended by something. I happen to find reality television and the culture of fandom regarding most professional sports to be grating and spiritually bankrupt; but this hardly puts me in a position to be making political demands restricting others' access to these entertainments. And even more of a hypocrite and all-around busybody would I be if I couched these demands in half-baked moralistic pronouncements.
So no, I have no wish whatsoever to "shut Christians up." But, I repeat, it is the apex of lazy argumentation to just stamp any counter-argument to Christian-based anti-gay rhetoric as "anti-Christian." Really, what a convenient strategy. "Gays are just molestors who drive up my insurance premiums and shouldn't be allowed access to basic civil institutions; and this book I'm pretty into says they're sinful. Case closed. If anyone says otherwise, they're anti-Christian."
@ JasonC
Submitted by T Walt on Mon, 02/07/2011 - 1:37am.
"the greatest number of same-sex child molestors? Men who identify as gay, or ostensibly straight men with troublesome "impulses"? "
Umm, those impulses are gay. Troublesome impulses dont make you gay. A desire to have sex with the same sex, regardless of age, does.
"because a book you like says its bad, the laws of our society should conform to that." I prefer our society conform to the laws of nature.
"I'm sure you would consider it the height of elitism for me to suggest that - since I'm a vegetarian and only eat organic food and don't drink alcohol and run 40 miles/week and have like 10% body fat - I shouldn't have to pay as much into the system to subsidize the people who eat fast food.."
No, not at all. We should all be paying for our own. I do consider it the height of elitism for you to tell everybody how much better you are because of how you eat and exercise.
Oh, that horrible Chick-fil-A
Submitted by HockeyKid on Thu, 02/03/2011 - 3:29pm.
Every time I go through their drive-through, they get my order right, repeat it back clearly before asking me to pull up to the window, and when I say, "That's all, thanks," they reply with, "My pleasure".
Makes me so mad, I think I'll stop for an extra "Original, No Pickle" on the way home.
If the "gays" are so mad about fast food, why don't they start a "Jeantee & LaMarr's Queerburger" chain and rake in the big money?
"Beauty is only skin deep, but liberal's to the bone." - me
Homochix R Us?
Submitted by Red Jeep on Thu, 02/03/2011 - 3:44pm.
Homochix R Us?
So, is the NYT anti-religeous?
Submitted by ThisnThat on Thu, 02/03/2011 - 4:54pm.
Answer: No, just anti-Christian. Look at this glowing report on Muslims, and compare it with the anti-Christian rant of this past weekend. But nobody in the MSM would every report on this obvious hypocricy, would they?
__________
“Didn't win the Medal of Honor? Didn't even serve? Then lie about it. We'll support you." — 9th Circuit Court
The Destructive Mentality of Homosexual Activists
Submitted by Tenebrous on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 8:20am.
I'm a bit tired of 10% (and I'm being generous) of the population trying to shove their will down my throat. Homosexual activists are leftists, and their scorched-earth wars are old. If you don't like what Chik-Fil-A does, go make your own fast food business. Stop trying to take away my toys because I play with them in a way you don't like.
But reason, logic, and tolerance make no dent in the minds of the perverse. I don't expect homosexual activists to ever learn to tolerate other lifestyles. They are like other destructive minority activists who have no truth but their own warped lens, and no hope but to break everything around them in some kind of misguided juvenile revenge fantasy.
Two words, y'all: Grow up.
Visions and Principles blog
I think your headline hit the nail on the head
Submitted by falcon on Sun, 02/06/2011 - 11:47am.
The "destructive mentality" of homosexual activists (and the Left in general) does not just apply to trying to silence those who disagree with them. If carried out to its logical conclusion, homosexuality - if allowed to spread - would eventually result in the destruction of the human race.
Consider: Man and woman were created in order to procreate. If you put two women together, or two men, they do not have the tools they need for procreation. That means no children. And no children means no progeny, and thus no future for that particular gene sequence.
And to those who claim that two homosexuals and a child constitute a "family," my response would be, no they don't. A family is a self-contained, self-creating unit - a man and a woman get together and create children. You cannot just pick your kids off a shelf or out of a test tube in order to get a "family." It's like claiming a crowd at a baseball game is a "family," because it's a group of people all in one place. (And forget about the 1979 Pittsburgh Pirates for a minute.)
God proclaimed marriage to be between a man and a woman. The left can disbelieve all they want, but they're being deceived, and when the day comes that we all have to answer for ourselves, they're not going to have much of an excuse. Good post, Tenebrous.
“I will not stand by and watch this great country destroy itself under mediocre leadership, that drifts from one crisis to the next, eroding our national will and purpose.” – Ronald Reagan, July 17, 1980.