Due to a security update, you may have to reset your password. Don’t panic, nothing has gone wrong and your password is safe. If you don’t have access to that email, send Tube a message at [email protected] More info here: https://status.vanillaforums.com/incidents/2zdqxf3bt7mj
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.

LGBTT: It's Raining DOMA Rulings! (It's for Thread)

24567100

Posts

  • SniperGuySniperGuy Also known as Dohaeris Registered User regular
    KalTorak wrote: »
    Gaiman's "Anansi Boys." The main cast is predominantly black, but he leaves that out when describing them. The assumption is that characters in Britain and the US are white unless we're told otherwise. Gaiman turns the assumption around, and only describes the non-black characters' race (as "white"). People don't notice the assumption until it's broken. It's harder to do with a non-obvious trait like homosexuality, but the practice of dispensing with the assumption by refusing to explicitly describe how a character isn't the norm works the same way.
    ...I need to read Anansi Boys again.

    Twitch Streaming W/TH/F and more
    Dohaeris210 on PSN / SniperGuy710 on Xbone Live
    Sometimes, I make YouTube videos
  • JibbaJibba Registered User regular
    edited August 2012
    I always thought it obviously violated full-faith and credit, similar to passing a law making it okay for one state not honoring another's driver's licenses. I'm curious though, is their an actual legally admissible argument as to why it might not? (Such as marriage not being covered by full faith and credit?)
    Over that provision, there isn't. The issue was always that it's a states' rights issue so the fifty states were the ones being infringed upon, and would have to make the case. As much as conservatives speak of state's rights, I guess for their governors it didn't outweigh the backlash of supporting gay marriage.

    The case being made here isn't a states' rights issue, although it could very well come up if it heads to the Supreme Court. The case that that provision violates full faith and credit is extremely solid. I don't see how even the most Scalia-est of Scalia's could deny that.

    Jibba on
  • ChillyWillyChillyWilly Registered User regular
    MrMister wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    wandering wrote: »
    This is a good point and I wonder how long it'll be before we start seeing gay characters/romance in children's entertainment.

    The majority of Disney and Pixar movies contain straight romance, after all.

    Weren't the two old women in Coraline lesbians? Or were they supposed to be spinster sisters, or something?

    One thing I found incredibly obnoxious in Wall-E was that they took pains to very clearly gender Wall-E and EVA as a boy and girl, even though they were in fact robots and no such thing; the only reason to do this was to fit it in with heteronormative audience expectations.

    Why does that matter? You can't relate to a machine unless it has human traits. Some humans happen to be boys who are attracted to girls and vice versa. Heteronormative or not, it seems a bit silly to get upset at the filmmakers for personifying a part of the human experience to make their movie more relatable for the majority of people that would be watching it.

    PAFC Top 10 Finisher in Seasons 1 and 3. 2nd in Seasons 4 and 5. Final 4 in Season 6.
  • SmoogySmoogy Registered User regular
    MrMister wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    wandering wrote: »
    This is a good point and I wonder how long it'll be before we start seeing gay characters/romance in children's entertainment.

    The majority of Disney and Pixar movies contain straight romance, after all.

    Weren't the two old women in Coraline lesbians? Or were they supposed to be spinster sisters, or something?

    One thing I found incredibly obnoxious in Wall-E was that they took pains to very clearly gender Wall-E and EVA as a boy and girl, even though they were in fact robots and no such thing; the only reason to do this was to fit it in with heteronormative audience expectations.

    Why does that matter? You can't relate to a machine unless it has human traits. Some humans happen to be boys who are attracted to girls and vice versa. Heteronormative or not, it seems a bit silly to get upset at the filmmakers for personifying a part of the human experience to make their movie more relatable for the majority of people that would be watching it.

    Agreed. Just like in Futurama; it is obvious that Bender is a male-bot or whatever you'd call it and pursues the female versions of himself. If "he" (note the he) was an actual robot with no gender characteristic, "it" would be entirely unrelatable and fail for comedic purposes and just in general, narratively speaking. This isn't new; C-3PO and R2D2 are typically thought of as male, even though R2 really has no gender at all and isn't close to humanoid in form.

    This would be the same for Wall-E and EVA. I guess MrMister wanted them both to have female or male personalities and for the producers to make it between two essentially homosexual robots. Or, they should have been incredibly robotic and exhibited no gender traits, which would really have been a stretch for the audience to believe that unemotional, nondescript robots could fall in love, for lack of a better robotic term. Remember, studios exist to make money and Wall-E raked it in. The asexual or homosexual robot movie would not have done well at the box-office at all compared to what it actually grossed.

    Smoogy-1689
    3DS Friend Code: 1821-8991-4141
    PAD ID: 376,540,262

  • Fallout2manFallout2man Registered User regular
    edited August 2012
    MrMister wrote: »
    One thing I found incredibly obnoxious in Wall-E was that they took pains to very clearly gender Wall-E and EVA as a boy and girl, even though they were in fact robots and no such thing; the only reason to do this was to fit it in with heteronormative audience expectations.

    I think Hollywood also has a huge problem when it comes to Robots. They always feel terrified that the audience won't relate to robots or robotic characters and feel the need to add lots of humans or obviously human traits to the point it may even ruin the greater film. See: Transformers (all of them.)

    edit:
    Why does that matter? You can't relate to a machine unless it has human traits. Some humans happen to be boys who are attracted to girls and vice versa. Heteronormative or not, it seems a bit silly to get upset at the filmmakers for personifying a part of the human experience to make their movie more relatable for the majority of people that would be watching it.

    It's mostly because they overdo such things. Again, see: Transformers. You can make relatable machine characters without having to go the full monty and assigning them genders. The point is that in Wall-E's case though more is the film missed a great opportunity to create a story where you could've had a romance that was entirely gender-ambiguous (to show that love isn't a product of gender but rather reflects a deeper, and stronger emotional bond.) If anything we should be using machine characters to broach subjects like this that are hard to do directly.

    X-Men for example was all about racism and discrimination, but because it was done artfully enough it didn't offend the sensibilities of the times. Wall-E could've done that sort of a thing (showing how even genderless machines can love), but sadly it didn't.

    Fallout2man on
    On Ignorance:
    Kana wrote:
    If the best you can come up with against someone who's patently ignorant is to yell back at him, "Yeah? Well there's BOOKS, and they say you're WRONG!"

    Then honestly you're not coming out of this looking great either.
  • Sweeney TomSweeney Tom Registered User regular
    So according to Twitter, Chick-Fil-A is having one of its better days profit-wise, with stores across the US having lines out the door.

  • TenekTenek Registered User regular
    So according to Twitter, Chick-Fil-A is having one of its better days profit-wise, with stores across the US having lines out the door.

    Who will run out of money first, those spending it or those determined not to?

  • SniperGuySniperGuy Also known as Dohaeris Registered User regular
    So according to Twitter, Chick-Fil-A is having one of its better days profit-wise, with stores across the US having lines out the door.

    One of my facebook friends announced earlier that if anyone used the Check in feature at a Chik-Fil-A today they'd remove them from their friends list. Some sort of "support chik-fil-a" day thing?

    Twitch Streaming W/TH/F and more
    Dohaeris210 on PSN / SniperGuy710 on Xbone Live
    Sometimes, I make YouTube videos
  • HevachHevach Registered User regular
    Santorum declared a Chick-Fil-A holiday. I guess that was today?

  • MuddBuddMuddBudd Registered User regular
    Yeah the 'Chick-Fil-A Appreciation day' is today.

    steam_sig.png
  • Sweeney TomSweeney Tom Registered User regular
    edited August 2012
    Yeah, today was that CFA Appreciation day.

    Sweeney Tom on
  • NocrenNocren Lt Futz, Back in Action North CarolinaRegistered User regular
    Wonder how long it will last, or if it's just a single day spike.

    newSig.jpg
  • Magic PinkMagic Pink Tur-Boner-Fed Registered User regular
    MrMister wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    wandering wrote: »
    This is a good point and I wonder how long it'll be before we start seeing gay characters/romance in children's entertainment.

    The majority of Disney and Pixar movies contain straight romance, after all.

    Weren't the two old women in Coraline lesbians? Or were they supposed to be spinster sisters, or something?

    One thing I found incredibly obnoxious in Wall-E was that they took pains to very clearly gender Wall-E and EVA as a boy and girl, even though they were in fact robots and no such thing; the only reason to do this was to fit it in with heteronormative audience expectations.

    Why does that matter? You can't relate to a machine unless it has human traits. Some humans happen to be boys who are attracted to girls and vice versa. Heteronormative or not, it seems a bit silly to get upset at the filmmakers for personifying a part of the human experience to make their movie more relatable for the majority of people that would be watching it.

    They had human traits. They do not need to have an assigned gender to have those and if you can't relate to something unless you know what metallic bits are installed between it's robo-servos then there's something wrong with you.

  • DiannaoChongDiannaoChong Registered User regular
    I am pretty sure no matter what the cause, a corporation doesnt need a public "appreciation day".

    on "who will run out of money first":
    Also, It's not about the customers pocket, its about chik fil a's. If there getting money, they have no reason to change. Like I stated before, a public boycott will only make them more profitable. CFA would be smart to constantly poke at the gay community every 4 months to try and get "grass roots" movements to have "support CFA day", and people in politics PR endorse them (see palin with the bag) for free.

    steam_sig.png
  • Magic PinkMagic Pink Tur-Boner-Fed Registered User regular
    Smoogy wrote: »
    MrMister wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    wandering wrote: »
    This is a good point and I wonder how long it'll be before we start seeing gay characters/romance in children's entertainment.

    The majority of Disney and Pixar movies contain straight romance, after all.

    Weren't the two old women in Coraline lesbians? Or were they supposed to be spinster sisters, or something?

    One thing I found incredibly obnoxious in Wall-E was that they took pains to very clearly gender Wall-E and EVA as a boy and girl, even though they were in fact robots and no such thing; the only reason to do this was to fit it in with heteronormative audience expectations.

    Why does that matter? You can't relate to a machine unless it has human traits. Some humans happen to be boys who are attracted to girls and vice versa. Heteronormative or not, it seems a bit silly to get upset at the filmmakers for personifying a part of the human experience to make their movie more relatable for the majority of people that would be watching it.

    Agreed. Just like in Futurama; it is obvious that Bender is a male-bot or whatever you'd call it and pursues the female versions of himself. If "he" (note the he) was an actual robot with no gender characteristic, "it" would be entirely unrelatable and fail for comedic purposes and just in general, narratively speaking. This isn't new; C-3PO and R2D2 are typically thought of as male, even though R2 really has no gender at all and isn't close to humanoid in form.

    This would be the same for Wall-E and EVA. I guess MrMister wanted them both to have female or male personalities and for the producers to make it between two essentially homosexual robots. Or, they should have been incredibly robotic and exhibited no gender traits, which would really have been a stretch for the audience to believe that unemotional, nondescript robots could fall in love, for lack of a better robotic term. Remember, studios exist to make money and Wall-E raked it in. The asexual or homosexual robot movie would not have done well at the box-office at all compared to what it actually grossed.

    Who said they fell in love? They were good friends from where I was sitting. Doesn't really matter since your last paragraph is 100% unprovable anyway.

  • ShivahnShivahn Unaware of her barrel shifter privilege Eastern coastal temptressRegistered User regular
    Magic Pink wrote: »
    MrMister wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    wandering wrote: »
    This is a good point and I wonder how long it'll be before we start seeing gay characters/romance in children's entertainment.

    The majority of Disney and Pixar movies contain straight romance, after all.

    Weren't the two old women in Coraline lesbians? Or were they supposed to be spinster sisters, or something?

    One thing I found incredibly obnoxious in Wall-E was that they took pains to very clearly gender Wall-E and EVA as a boy and girl, even though they were in fact robots and no such thing; the only reason to do this was to fit it in with heteronormative audience expectations.

    Why does that matter? You can't relate to a machine unless it has human traits. Some humans happen to be boys who are attracted to girls and vice versa. Heteronormative or not, it seems a bit silly to get upset at the filmmakers for personifying a part of the human experience to make their movie more relatable for the majority of people that would be watching it.

    They had human traits. They do not need to have an assigned gender to have those and if you can't relate to something unless you know what metallic bits are installed between it's robo-servos then there's something wrong with you.

    Also, they just happened to pick male and female. So they're straight. Except really it's not just one case, it happens pretty much every time a robot couple needs gendering. Which isn't very often, I guess, but.. yeah. It's annoying that even when it's totally reasonable to take gender out entirely, it's inevitably told as a story between a boy and a girl.

    And I, too, don't require gender to identify with things. And identify with/relate to women and men pretty much because of their situations, not their genders.

    (Which is funny when you think about it because neither I nor most people share many of the traits that movie heroes have anyway, yet once the gender gets funny that throws people for a loop. Gender and its roles are just so ingrained into our collective psyche that we fail to function right when it's the slightest bit off.)

  • SniperGuySniperGuy Also known as Dohaeris Registered User regular
    Wall-E is actually a transvestite and Eva is an alien with a third gender. There.

    Twitch Streaming W/TH/F and more
    Dohaeris210 on PSN / SniperGuy710 on Xbone Live
    Sometimes, I make YouTube videos
  • VeeveeVeevee WisconsinRegistered User regular
    edited August 2012
    It's fucking Disney. Of course they're going to market their movies to the lowest common denominator.

    There are fewer people in the world offended by Heterosexual relationships than there are homosexual relationships. This isn't right, but it's the world we live in and the one Disney has to deal with. Believe it or not, they actually are an incredibly homosexual friendly company

    Veevee on
  • tbloxhamtbloxham Registered User regular
    I am pretty sure no matter what the cause, a corporation doesnt need a public "appreciation day".

    on "who will run out of money first":
    Also, It's not about the customers pocket, its about chik fil a's. If there getting money, they have no reason to change. Like I stated before, a public boycott will only make them more profitable. CFA would be smart to constantly poke at the gay community every 4 months to try and get "grass roots" movements to have "support CFA day", and people in politics PR endorse them (see palin with the bag) for free.

    It's absolutely about the customers pocket.

    People who are for marriage equality simply need to not spend money at CFA. They have many other sources of chicken, and only face any opportunity cost to their boycott if they live very far away from another chicken brand.

    People who are AGAINST marriage equality need to spend equal to the amount of money lost at CFA for as long as the boycott continues. They need to actively do something (buy CFA chicken) which is harder than doing nothing (DON'T buy CFA chicken) for 99% of the population.

    Assuming the split is 50/50 the success of the boycott will come down to who cares more about the issue multiplied by how much it costs them to care. CFA appreciation day will give CFA a bump, but it won't be a long one. Unless their chicken is phonomenal and it attracts new customers to CFA who hadn't previously eaten there.

    "That is cool" - Abraham Lincoln
    Tenek
  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD along with you if I get drunk well I know I'm gonna be gonna be the man whoRegistered User regular
    KalTorak wrote: »
    For another example, look at Neil Gaiman's "Anansi Boys." The main cast is predominantly black, but he leaves that out when describing them. The assumption is that characters in Britain and the US are white unless we're told otherwise. Gaiman turns the assumption around, and only describes the non-black characters' race (as "white"). People don't notice the assumption until it's broken. It's harder to do with a non-obvious trait like homosexuality, but the practice of dispensing with the assumption by refusing to explicitly describe how a character isn't the norm works the same way.

    Ursula Le Guin and Samuel Delaney also wrote this way at times.

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • BSoBBSoB Registered User regular
    edited August 2012
    tbloxham wrote: »
    People who are AGAINST marriage equality need to spend equal to the amount of money lost at CFA for as long as the boycott continues. They need to actively do something (buy CFA chicken) which is harder than doing nothing (DON'T buy CFA chicken) for 99% of the population.

    Assuming the split is 50/50 the success of the boycott will come down to who cares more about the issue multiplied by how much it costs them to care. CFA appreciation day will give CFA a bump, but it won't be a long one. Unless their chicken is phonomenal and it attracts new customers to CFA who hadn't previously eaten there.

    This is pretty wrong. If it is part of someone's normal routine/life to stop by CFA and grab some food, then not doing that is actively doing something. As an extreme example, would you call quitting cigarettes "doing nothing"? CFA is cheep, convenient, and/or tasty(as evidenced by the fact that it is earning money); it takes more involvement for an average CFA eater NOT to patron them than it does to patron them.

    Add in that in order to have an impact, the boycott has to come from people who at one point actually ate at CFA, and you're on the losing side of the apathy train.

    BSoB on

  • Captain CarrotCaptain Carrot Alexandria, VARegistered User regular
    If that's the case, sure. Do you really think many people go there regularly?

  • SniperGuySniperGuy Also known as Dohaeris Registered User regular
    If that's the case, sure. Do you really think many people go there regularly?

    I live in the south. Yes. Yes they do.

    Twitch Streaming W/TH/F and more
    Dohaeris210 on PSN / SniperGuy710 on Xbone Live
    Sometimes, I make YouTube videos
  • MelksterMelkster Registered User regular
    Roger Cates told iReport he had lunch at Chick-fil-A in Owensboro, Kentucky, and planned to return with his family for dinner. Political leaders who have criticized the chain, like the mayors of Boston and Chicago, are hypocritical, he said.

    "I think it is ironic that the so-called forces of tolerance and inclusion are calling for the exclusion of Chick-fil-A from cities simply because of the beliefs of their chairman. ... People that disagree with me have a right to their opinion, and I have a right to mine," he said.

    http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/01/us/chick-fil-a-appreciation/index.html

    Sigh. See, that's the thing about using (or appearing to use) your government position to suppress a business. You give people the argument that this is a free speech thing, and not a suppressing gay people thing.

  • VeeveeVeevee WisconsinRegistered User regular
    Does once a week count as regularly? When I worked at Disney World last year CFA offered a buy one get one free deal every thursday to Disney employees. Those days the line to get chicken went out the door as several thousand people got chicken they normally didn't.

  • MelksterMelkster Registered User regular
    edited August 2012
    So a gay friend of mine on Facebook posted this:
    My boss just asked me to find the closest Chick-Fil-A. She wants to order for everyone because today is the boycott day. I feel dirty....

    Melkster on
  • BSoBBSoB Registered User regular
    edited August 2012
    If that's the case, sure. Do you really think many people go there regularly?

    We got our first CFA out here 6 months ago, there are now 2 in my city.

    they are always fucking packed.

    I don't know for sure, but i bet they are a strong example of the 80/20 rule. Which means if you get 80% of the people who eat at CFA to stop, you're not really accomplishing much in terms of their pocketbook.

    BSoB on

  • syndalissyndalis Getting Classy On the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Products regular
    Melkster wrote: »
    So a gay friend of mine on Facebook posted this:
    My boss just asked me to find the closest Chick-Fil-A. She wants to order for everyone because today is the boycott day. I feel dirty....

    If your friend is "out" he/she should ask the boss to find someone else to do it.

    SW-4158-3990-6116
    Let's play Mario Kart or something...
  • VeeveeVeevee WisconsinRegistered User regular
    syndalis wrote: »
    Melkster wrote: »
    So a gay friend of mine on Facebook posted this:
    My boss just asked me to find the closest Chick-Fil-A. She wants to order for everyone because today is the boycott day. I feel dirty....

    If your friend is "out" he/she should ask the boss to find someone else to do it.

    Absolutely. The great thing is that they can't retaliate based on her saying no to this because it would 100% be sexual discrimination

  • syndalissyndalis Getting Classy On the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Products regular
    Apologies in advance for linking fox News:

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/08/01/chick-fil-appreciation-day-brings-out-supporters-more-protestors/

    The list of supporters on the bottom of the article is pretty much what you would expect. A few churches, a few politicians, a ton of groups with the word "family" in their name... and Citizens United.

    That article is amazing in how they are framing it as a Civil Rights issue FOR CHICK FIL A... as in their rights are being crushed somehow.

    SW-4158-3990-6116
    Let's play Mario Kart or something...
  • AtomikaAtomika A joke hole just for fartsRegistered User regular
    syndalis wrote: »
    Apologies in advance for linking fox News:

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/08/01/chick-fil-appreciation-day-brings-out-supporters-more-protestors/

    The list of supporters on the bottom of the article is pretty much what you would expect. A few churches, a few politicians, a ton of groups with the word "family" in their name... and Citizens United.

    That article is amazing in how they are framing it as a Civil Rights issue FOR CHICK FIL A... as in their rights are being crushed somehow.

    That's been the Christian Right's MO for some time now; act with prejudice, bitch and moan that their intolerance isn't being tolerated.

  • tbloxhamtbloxham Registered User regular
    BSoB wrote: »
    tbloxham wrote: »
    People who are AGAINST marriage equality need to spend equal to the amount of money lost at CFA for as long as the boycott continues. They need to actively do something (buy CFA chicken) which is harder than doing nothing (DON'T buy CFA chicken) for 99% of the population.

    Assuming the split is 50/50 the success of the boycott will come down to who cares more about the issue multiplied by how much it costs them to care. CFA appreciation day will give CFA a bump, but it won't be a long one. Unless their chicken is phonomenal and it attracts new customers to CFA who hadn't previously eaten there.

    This is pretty wrong. If it is part of someone's normal routine/life to stop by CFA and grab some food, then not doing that is actively doing something. As an extreme example, would you call quitting cigarettes "doing nothing"? CFA is cheep, convenient, and/or tasty(as evidenced by the fact that it is earning money), then it takes more involvement NOT to patron them than it does to patron them.

    Cigarettes are addictive. CFA chicken is no better than other equivalently priced chicken brands, so people who love Chicken and also love marriage equality can easily procure cheap chicken from Popeyes or KFC. They don't need to give up chicken entirely. CFA is profitable due to producing an acceptable product with strong cost control and marketing efforts. It's not like the product can't be replaced. It's like boycotting BP service stations. It's only a hassle if you don't have alternatives and almost all americans do.

    "That is cool" - Abraham Lincoln
  • MuddBuddMuddBudd Registered User regular
    Veevee wrote: »
    syndalis wrote: »
    Melkster wrote: »
    So a gay friend of mine on Facebook posted this:
    My boss just asked me to find the closest Chick-Fil-A. She wants to order for everyone because today is the boycott day. I feel dirty....

    If your friend is "out" he/she should ask the boss to find someone else to do it.

    Absolutely. The great thing is that they can't retaliate based on her saying no to this because it would 100% be sexual discrimination

    Nono, take the order, then fill it at KFC.

    "Sorry boss, but the line at CFA today was crazy! I got this instead, though. Thanks for lunch!"

    steam_sig.png
  • KalTorakKalTorak One way or another, they all end up in the Undercity.Registered User regular
    That's the thing - today isn't "boycott day"; every day is boycott day. Today is "buy CFA day," which is much harder to keep up.

  • AtomikaAtomika A joke hole just for fartsRegistered User regular
    Col. Sanders weighs in on the Chick-Fil-A controversy.

  • maximumzeromaximumzero I...wait, what? New Orleans, LARegistered User regular
    On Chick-Fil-A, I'll just quote my post from the previous thread.
    I disagree with CFA's stance on Gay Marriage, but I don't think Boston or Chicago should have right to stop them from doing business in their towns.

    Free speech exists for a reason. Let the customers decide that they don't want to give the business to CFA and the locations in those areas won't last long anyway.

    Local radio personality puts it well:

    yWaUZ.gif

    FU7kFbw.png
    Switch: 6200-8149-0919 / Wii U: maximumzero / 3DS: 0860-3352-3335 / eBay Shop
  • PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    tbloxham wrote: »
    BSoB wrote: »
    tbloxham wrote: »
    People who are AGAINST marriage equality need to spend equal to the amount of money lost at CFA for as long as the boycott continues. They need to actively do something (buy CFA chicken) which is harder than doing nothing (DON'T buy CFA chicken) for 99% of the population.

    Assuming the split is 50/50 the success of the boycott will come down to who cares more about the issue multiplied by how much it costs them to care. CFA appreciation day will give CFA a bump, but it won't be a long one. Unless their chicken is phonomenal and it attracts new customers to CFA who hadn't previously eaten there.

    This is pretty wrong. If it is part of someone's normal routine/life to stop by CFA and grab some food, then not doing that is actively doing something. As an extreme example, would you call quitting cigarettes "doing nothing"? CFA is cheep, convenient, and/or tasty(as evidenced by the fact that it is earning money), then it takes more involvement NOT to patron them than it does to patron them.

    Cigarettes are addictive. CFA chicken is no better than other equivalently priced chicken brands, so people who love Chicken and also love marriage equality can easily procure cheap chicken from Popeyes or KFC. They don't need to give up chicken entirely. CFA is profitable due to producing an acceptable product with strong cost control and marketing efforts. It's not like the product can't be replaced. It's like boycotting BP service stations. It's only a hassle if you don't have alternatives and almost all americans do.

    Some suburbs are so underdeveloped that they don't have much of a choice between brands of fast food or gas stations. Guess where most of those kinds of places are collected

    Marty: The future, it's where you're going?
    Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
  • maximumzeromaximumzero I...wait, what? New Orleans, LARegistered User regular
    SniperGuy wrote: »
    If that's the case, sure. Do you really think many people go there regularly?

    I live in the south. Yes. Yes they do.

    Psh, everybody knows if you're in the south you go with Popeyes.

    FU7kFbw.png
    Switch: 6200-8149-0919 / Wii U: maximumzero / 3DS: 0860-3352-3335 / eBay Shop
  • ForarForar #432 Toronto, Ontario, CanadaRegistered User regular
    Veevee wrote: »
    syndalis wrote: »
    Melkster wrote: »
    So a gay friend of mine on Facebook posted this:
    My boss just asked me to find the closest Chick-Fil-A. She wants to order for everyone because today is the boycott day. I feel dirty....

    If your friend is "out" he/she should ask the boss to find someone else to do it.

    Absolutely. The great thing is that they can't retaliate based on her saying no to this because it would 100% be sexual discrimination

    I thought part of the problem was that sexual orientation wasn't (yet) a protected class within most states?

    First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
  • AtomikaAtomika A joke hole just for fartsRegistered User regular
    SniperGuy wrote: »
    If that's the case, sure. Do you really think many people go there regularly?

    I live in the south. Yes. Yes they do.

    Psh, everybody knows if you're in the south you go with Popeyes.

    Or Church's. Or Chicken Express. Or Golden Chick.


    Ever been to a Golden Chick? Because I'm not religious, but if there IS a heaven and it's NOT a Golden Chick, I'll be very upset.

Sign In or Register to comment.