Not the ones by me.
What I want to know is, would they refuse to hire a gay employee? Do they refuse to serve gay couples who came in for lunch?
^
What this guy said
Yes, quasi. As in, just a little bit, unintentionally but obviously open to interpretation that it was intentional.
The statement could be interpreted as racist, though that waas not the intent. It made me think “Am I racist for noticing this?”
Take a chill pill man.
The couple I have seen around here have had a pretty diverse crew. Better run than most other restaurants.
Around here Burger King - Indian. KFC - Indian. MCDs - diverse but a lot of black employees. Dunkin Donuts - in the 4 in the area - 2 phillipino, 1 Indian, 1- Middle Eastern.
I guess it depends on what part of the country you live in.
Not for noticing it, but for equating a pleasant attitude with being white, sure, definitely.
And yeah: the average Joe on the street didn’t light crosses. He just stood by while it happened, and continued voting in a way that denied black people, women, and gay people their rights.
People who continue to advocate the loss of women’s suffrage are rightly ostracized. People who continue to advocate for racial segregation are rightly ostracized. And people who continue to advocate for gay people’s inequality ought to be ostracized.
I was just in line at the Post Office behind a woman who was there to pick up a piece of mail for her wife. Gay marriage agenda: running errands for your spouse. If she lived in my home-state, there’s no way she could do that, thanks to assholes like the guy running Chik-Fil-A. (And of course that’s small potatoes compared to my friend who may lose her daughter if her wife dies, due to NC’s bigoted laws about child custody).
This isn’t some complicated issue where both sides have reasonable points, like tax policy or high-stakes testing in schools or whether to intervene in Syria or how to reduce the deficit. This is one of those rare simple issues where you’re either with the bigots or you’re against them. Let’s not pretend there’s any sort of parity between the positions; let’s not pretend that people boycotting the asshole bigots are doing anything wrong here.
Clearly my point is lost on you.
Let the guy say whatever he wants. The nutjobs (people with views different than yours), as well as though who aren’t nutjobs (people with views similar to yours).
The fact that he is permitted to be open about his views gives you the opportunity to learn of them, and if you so desire, attempt to change his mind with rational logical presentation of your own ideas. Or you could skip that step and just call for a boycott. Whatever works for you.
But let’s not give the guy shit just for saying what he believes. Without that right, you can’t counter his point. if he held the majority accepted opinion (which he currently does not), and you didn’t have that right, you’d never be heard disagreeing with him over the din of the masses.
All I’m doing is pointing out an interesting piece of truth - the “old ideas” catch flak now, whereas in the past it was the “new ideas” that did. Flak being a general term here, the semantics of what can be called “flak” and what can be called “murder” don’t really contribute to the discussion.
I’m not siding with either. Just interesting to notice it.
And I’m not equating “pleasant” with “white”, however there are obvious cultural differences. And the blacks working at the chik fil a I went to were behaving in a very different way than the blacks you might see at wendy’s or burger king. Ever heard of “code switching”?
It made me wonder if the management was screening employees and only choosing the ones who were most like them (hint, they’re all white). This would obviously be wrong, both legally and morally, but noticing it isn’t.
I do like respectful debate about issues. Do you really think that I could enter into such a discussion if I tried to contact him? Really?
Gee! Thanks for your permission! I think I will!
You know, I bet of you tried, you could. It wouldn’t be easy, but I still think you could, especially now that his comments have drawn public ire. But nobody will, they’ll just knee-jerk react to their perception of his statements with disproportionate emotional outrage.
Probably not gonna have a nice conversation with him with the passive aggressive sarcasm angle though.
I’d love to see you try. Really, no sarcasm. If you’re sincere, give it a shot. Imagine the story you’ll have for the grandkids, whatever the outcome.
Ah, yes, the old, “If only you understood what I was saying, of course you’d agree with me.” Does that shit EVER work?
Let’s find out if that shit EVER works: Clearly my point is lost on you.
Neither I nor anyone else is giving him shit for SAYING what he believes. We’re giving him shit for WHAT he believes.
And nobody but nobody but nobody is suggesting that he not be permitted to be open about his views, or saying, “let’s not let the guy say whatever he wants.” Nobody but nobody but nobody is calling for stifling his free speech.
Instead, we’re exercising our free speech to call him a bigoted asshole for what he believes.
Yeah, I know you’re not siding with either. As I said earlier, this is one of those cases where failing to side against bigotry is morally reprehensible.
d(~_~)b
No he did not murder anyone*. He is, however, giving money to uphold laws and repeal acts in an attempt to make one segment of society have less power, acceptance and access to resources based on something that its members did not choose. That is a form of tyranny, IMO, and no different from denying access to resources to someone based on skin color or religion.
*It is worth noting that social environment does influence rates of suicides and attempted suicides among gay teens. But no, he hasn’t killed anyone.
Is this supposed to be commentary?
Do you approve of the material you quoted?
Is that what you’re trying to say, Lassie? (Hint: use your words!)
Who’s making that equation? Certainly not me: I was mocking the idea that opposition to civil rights is in any way equivalent to opposition to bigotry. And I don’t think anyone else brought up murder.
It’s two thumbs up!
Actually, I’m in Baltimore. Well, north of it, anyway- up in Hunt Valley.
I thought it was someone wearing headphones.
Nah, that would look like this:
♪d(~_~)b♫
So, staying married to your first wife is just as important as stopping gay marriage? Good thing the guy roasted John McCain in 2008 then. Wait, he didn’t?
Bolding mine, and since this thread is dripping with sarcasm I wanna say I am asking this genuinely…
Is having gays not be married really giving them less power or resources or acceptance? I am admittedly quite ignorant on the subject but I think they’ve been well accepted in our society now, and what “power” exactly is being denied to them by not being married? And when it comes to resources…aren’t “domestic partnership” laws available that give them the same tax, insurance, and legal rights as marriage?