Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
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.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

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

134689100

Posts

  • reVersereVerse regular Registered User regular
    This is like people thinking "Reverse racism" is a bigger problem than racism.

    It absolutely is a bigger problem.

    Deebasersaint2ebfickyMalReynoldsCasual EddyJibbaJHunzCapfalcon
  • DeebaserDeebaser on my way to work in a suit and a tie Ahhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered User regular
    :^:

    YOLO. Swag. Whatever. Fuck it. Lets do this.
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Melkster wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    MrMister wrote: »
    Melkster wrote: »
    And yeah, the more I think about it the more pissed off I get that those mayors have said what they've said. It compromises our moral high ground, and makes it seem more like a grey area. Which it is, I guess. On the one hand you have some mayors trying to suppress a business that isn't doing anything illegal, and on the other hand you have a business that's spending some serious cash on anti-gay rights.

    Fuck those mayors, seriously. They're not helping.

    I'm sorry, that's bullshit.

    Elected representatives have every right to speak their minds, certainly as much as a CEO. Until a permit gets denied "fuck the mayors" is ridiculous.

    And even then I think there's a discussion to be had.

    Mayors have the right to speak their minds as private citizens, as do Aldermen, but when they start doing things like using city stationary it shades into an inappropriate use of state power.

    Posters in this thread are right that de facto it is often possible to creatively use zoning restrictions in order to punish or block certain undesirables from entering town; they are wrong in thinking that this is de jure legal. This is just as it is often possible to design facially neutral hiring and retention policies--policies which never explicitly mention race--but which are nonetheless jury-rigged so as to retain and promote whites over minorities; or, perhaps better yet, to deliberately place polling locations and install voter registration procedures such that the minority vote will be suppressed. These things are all illegal, although often difficult to catch. If you're arguing that creative zoning as a way to punish Chick-Fil-A is kosher here, then you should realize that similar maneuvering would vitiate a great deal of civil rights legislation.

    Cities taking retaliatory action against a corporation--by, say, blocking its establishment of franchises, or terminating its leases in state university cafeterias--on the basis of the political views it espouses strikes me as an exceptionally clear cut violation of the freedom of speech. Which, I think, is why at least most of these mayors have been careful not to explicitly say that they will, in their role as mayor, take this form of retaliatory action, preferring nasty letters to concrete promises of action. Which, as above, is fine and all, right up until the point where the nasty letters themselves begin to be such that a reasonable person would interpret them as more than just a personal expression of disapproval, but a veiled threat of retaliation by state agencies.

    So, in other words, I'm with Melkster.
    I'm aware of this, and the fact that it is regularly and consistently used against minorities, the young, homosexuals, and other "undesirables."

    I'm not proposing it's Constitutional; I'm merely proposing that since they do it to us, the way to get the behavior to stop is not to roll over and ask really nicely; the way to get the behavior to stop is to do it to them. I'm not saying it's nice, Constitutional, or legal; I'm just saying that they can't actually prove it's not okay, and they regularly screw us with it, so fuck them and the horse they rode in on.

    It might feel good to hurt them as bad as we've been hurt, but it isn't right.

    Why not?

  • ForarForar #432 Toronto, Ontario, CanadaRegistered User regular
    In an ideal world one would convince those who disagree by doing morally, ethically, legally and all other forms of right things, and showing them the better way.

    We don't live in an ideal world. I'm not sure I'm quite as on board with Thanatos' 'ends justify the means' approach to politics, but I don't think it's entirely unreasonable to shy away from fighting back with whatever tools are available. Is it risky? Of couse. There's always the chance that whatever tools you use to overcome those who oppose you will also turn away some who already sided with you. "Those who fight monsters, etc", but when one side is perfectly happy ruling from tyranny of the majority, sometimes you have to use whatever works to make progress.

    Civil rights for blacks, for women, for gays, all of these have had those who politely and passionately followed the rules and worked for change from within, and there were those who rebelled, started shit (figuratively and literally) and picked fights loudly and publically to garner attention. Was every single movement made positive? No, but it's complex enough that I have a hard time villifying those who took action. Was it right to start a riot and apparently threaten the safety or even lives of dozens of policemen during the Stonewall Riots? Was it right for Rosa Parks to ignore the status quo in choosing her seat? I'm not drawing a direct equivocation here, but there is a massive grey area between what is 'appropriate' and what is 'necessary'.

    Am I uncomfortable with these declarations by various mayors? A bit, but I'm also glad to see someone in an official role standing against intolerance, even if it's just in a strongly worded letter that may not actually matter. Deeds are greater than words, and it will be by their actions that we really see how firmly these politicians stand by their convictions.

    And let's keep something else in mind; in the current economic situation, they are turning away money and jobs to local economies. CFA is (according to Wiki) a 4 BILLION dollar a year company. They're not McDonalds, but it's nothing to sneeze at either. And no, I doubt that we'll see Republican led forces kicking away corporations and businesses left and right. There would be massive diminishing returns on trying to turn away untold jobs and millions or billions of dollars in industry and taxes just to stand on ones convictions.

    I highly doubt we'll see GOPple and Republicamazon rising up because there have to be seperate services to cater to ~1/2 the US apiece.

    First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    I'm a bit flabbergasted at the idea that people should have no recourse to business moving in other than "vote with their wallets."

    Surely the people should have the right to control their towns.

    And beyond that what Menino said is in no way the same as "I will use my magic alderman powers to stop you". So "fuck the mayors" is just stupid bullshit.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • AtomikaAtomika Brought to you by Technicolor™ Registered User regular
    I'm a bit flabbergasted at the idea that people should have no recourse to business moving in other than "vote with their wallets."

    Surely the people should have the right to control their towns.

    And beyond that what Menino said is in no way the same as "I will use my magic alderman powers to stop you". So "fuck the mayors" is just stupid bullshit.

    But what's the flipside to that?

    A overly-religious town council that refuses businesses because their CEO is Jewish/female/gay/brown?


    I'm cool with zoning codes that won't allow for discriminatory practices, but line-item refusals should be a big no-no.

    AManFromEarthDeebaser
  • Captain CarrotCaptain Carrot regular Alexandria, VARegistered User regular
    Yes, those are the same thing as corporate revenue going to hate groups.

  • MelksterMelkster regular Registered User regular
    edited August 2012
    shryke wrote: »
    Melkster wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    MrMister wrote: »
    Melkster wrote: »
    And yeah, the more I think about it the more pissed off I get that those mayors have said what they've said. It compromises our moral high ground, and makes it seem more like a grey area. Which it is, I guess. On the one hand you have some mayors trying to suppress a business that isn't doing anything illegal, and on the other hand you have a business that's spending some serious cash on anti-gay rights.

    Fuck those mayors, seriously. They're not helping.

    I'm sorry, that's bullshit.

    Elected representatives have every right to speak their minds, certainly as much as a CEO. Until a permit gets denied "fuck the mayors" is ridiculous.

    And even then I think there's a discussion to be had.

    Mayors have the right to speak their minds as private citizens, as do Aldermen, but when they start doing things like using city stationary it shades into an inappropriate use of state power.

    Posters in this thread are right that de facto it is often possible to creatively use zoning restrictions in order to punish or block certain undesirables from entering town; they are wrong in thinking that this is de jure legal. This is just as it is often possible to design facially neutral hiring and retention policies--policies which never explicitly mention race--but which are nonetheless jury-rigged so as to retain and promote whites over minorities; or, perhaps better yet, to deliberately place polling locations and install voter registration procedures such that the minority vote will be suppressed. These things are all illegal, although often difficult to catch. If you're arguing that creative zoning as a way to punish Chick-Fil-A is kosher here, then you should realize that similar maneuvering would vitiate a great deal of civil rights legislation.

    Cities taking retaliatory action against a corporation--by, say, blocking its establishment of franchises, or terminating its leases in state university cafeterias--on the basis of the political views it espouses strikes me as an exceptionally clear cut violation of the freedom of speech. Which, I think, is why at least most of these mayors have been careful not to explicitly say that they will, in their role as mayor, take this form of retaliatory action, preferring nasty letters to concrete promises of action. Which, as above, is fine and all, right up until the point where the nasty letters themselves begin to be such that a reasonable person would interpret them as more than just a personal expression of disapproval, but a veiled threat of retaliation by state agencies.

    So, in other words, I'm with Melkster.
    I'm aware of this, and the fact that it is regularly and consistently used against minorities, the young, homosexuals, and other "undesirables."

    I'm not proposing it's Constitutional; I'm merely proposing that since they do it to us, the way to get the behavior to stop is not to roll over and ask really nicely; the way to get the behavior to stop is to do it to them. I'm not saying it's nice, Constitutional, or legal; I'm just saying that they can't actually prove it's not okay, and they regularly screw us with it, so fuck them and the horse they rode in on.

    It might feel good to hurt them as bad as we've been hurt, but it isn't right.

    Why not?

    Moving forward on social issues while respecting the law, including the civil rights of the other side, has allowed transformational change in civil rights over the last sixty years, and I see no reason to believe that we need to change how we operate now.

    Melkster on
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Melkster wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Melkster wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    MrMister wrote: »
    Melkster wrote: »
    And yeah, the more I think about it the more pissed off I get that those mayors have said what they've said. It compromises our moral high ground, and makes it seem more like a grey area. Which it is, I guess. On the one hand you have some mayors trying to suppress a business that isn't doing anything illegal, and on the other hand you have a business that's spending some serious cash on anti-gay rights.

    Fuck those mayors, seriously. They're not helping.

    I'm sorry, that's bullshit.

    Elected representatives have every right to speak their minds, certainly as much as a CEO. Until a permit gets denied "fuck the mayors" is ridiculous.

    And even then I think there's a discussion to be had.

    Mayors have the right to speak their minds as private citizens, as do Aldermen, but when they start doing things like using city stationary it shades into an inappropriate use of state power.

    Posters in this thread are right that de facto it is often possible to creatively use zoning restrictions in order to punish or block certain undesirables from entering town; they are wrong in thinking that this is de jure legal. This is just as it is often possible to design facially neutral hiring and retention policies--policies which never explicitly mention race--but which are nonetheless jury-rigged so as to retain and promote whites over minorities; or, perhaps better yet, to deliberately place polling locations and install voter registration procedures such that the minority vote will be suppressed. These things are all illegal, although often difficult to catch. If you're arguing that creative zoning as a way to punish Chick-Fil-A is kosher here, then you should realize that similar maneuvering would vitiate a great deal of civil rights legislation.

    Cities taking retaliatory action against a corporation--by, say, blocking its establishment of franchises, or terminating its leases in state university cafeterias--on the basis of the political views it espouses strikes me as an exceptionally clear cut violation of the freedom of speech. Which, I think, is why at least most of these mayors have been careful not to explicitly say that they will, in their role as mayor, take this form of retaliatory action, preferring nasty letters to concrete promises of action. Which, as above, is fine and all, right up until the point where the nasty letters themselves begin to be such that a reasonable person would interpret them as more than just a personal expression of disapproval, but a veiled threat of retaliation by state agencies.

    So, in other words, I'm with Melkster.
    I'm aware of this, and the fact that it is regularly and consistently used against minorities, the young, homosexuals, and other "undesirables."

    I'm not proposing it's Constitutional; I'm merely proposing that since they do it to us, the way to get the behavior to stop is not to roll over and ask really nicely; the way to get the behavior to stop is to do it to them. I'm not saying it's nice, Constitutional, or legal; I'm just saying that they can't actually prove it's not okay, and they regularly screw us with it, so fuck them and the horse they rode in on.

    It might feel good to hurt them as bad as we've been hurt, but it isn't right.

    Why not?

    Moving forward on social issues while respecting the law, including the civil rights of the other side, has allowed transformational change in civil rights over the last sixty years, and I see no reason to believe that we need to change how we operate now.

    Uh, the civil rights movement involved a shit-ton of disrespecting the law.

  • Captain CarrotCaptain Carrot regular Alexandria, VARegistered User regular
    Disobeying specific laws, while still respecting the legitimacy of law enforcement in general.

  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie regular Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    Melkster wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Melkster wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    MrMister wrote: »
    Melkster wrote: »
    And yeah, the more I think about it the more pissed off I get that those mayors have said what they've said. It compromises our moral high ground, and makes it seem more like a grey area. Which it is, I guess. On the one hand you have some mayors trying to suppress a business that isn't doing anything illegal, and on the other hand you have a business that's spending some serious cash on anti-gay rights.

    Fuck those mayors, seriously. They're not helping.

    I'm sorry, that's bullshit.

    Elected representatives have every right to speak their minds, certainly as much as a CEO. Until a permit gets denied "fuck the mayors" is ridiculous.

    And even then I think there's a discussion to be had.

    Mayors have the right to speak their minds as private citizens, as do Aldermen, but when they start doing things like using city stationary it shades into an inappropriate use of state power.

    Posters in this thread are right that de facto it is often possible to creatively use zoning restrictions in order to punish or block certain undesirables from entering town; they are wrong in thinking that this is de jure legal. This is just as it is often possible to design facially neutral hiring and retention policies--policies which never explicitly mention race--but which are nonetheless jury-rigged so as to retain and promote whites over minorities; or, perhaps better yet, to deliberately place polling locations and install voter registration procedures such that the minority vote will be suppressed. These things are all illegal, although often difficult to catch. If you're arguing that creative zoning as a way to punish Chick-Fil-A is kosher here, then you should realize that similar maneuvering would vitiate a great deal of civil rights legislation.

    Cities taking retaliatory action against a corporation--by, say, blocking its establishment of franchises, or terminating its leases in state university cafeterias--on the basis of the political views it espouses strikes me as an exceptionally clear cut violation of the freedom of speech. Which, I think, is why at least most of these mayors have been careful not to explicitly say that they will, in their role as mayor, take this form of retaliatory action, preferring nasty letters to concrete promises of action. Which, as above, is fine and all, right up until the point where the nasty letters themselves begin to be such that a reasonable person would interpret them as more than just a personal expression of disapproval, but a veiled threat of retaliation by state agencies.

    So, in other words, I'm with Melkster.
    I'm aware of this, and the fact that it is regularly and consistently used against minorities, the young, homosexuals, and other "undesirables."

    I'm not proposing it's Constitutional; I'm merely proposing that since they do it to us, the way to get the behavior to stop is not to roll over and ask really nicely; the way to get the behavior to stop is to do it to them. I'm not saying it's nice, Constitutional, or legal; I'm just saying that they can't actually prove it's not okay, and they regularly screw us with it, so fuck them and the horse they rode in on.

    It might feel good to hurt them as bad as we've been hurt, but it isn't right.

    Why not?

    Moving forward on social issues while respecting the law, including the civil rights of the other side, has allowed transformational change in civil rights over the last sixty years, and I see no reason to believe that we need to change how we operate now.

    Uh, the civil rights movement involved a shit-ton of disrespecting the law.

    Not to mention that there's a solid argument to be made that success in the civil rights movement was due in part to Malcolm X and other radicals playing the stick to MLK's carrot.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • ThanatosThanatos regular Registered User regular
    Melkster wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Melkster wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    MrMister wrote: »
    Melkster wrote: »
    And yeah, the more I think about it the more pissed off I get that those mayors have said what they've said. It compromises our moral high ground, and makes it seem more like a grey area. Which it is, I guess. On the one hand you have some mayors trying to suppress a business that isn't doing anything illegal, and on the other hand you have a business that's spending some serious cash on anti-gay rights.

    Fuck those mayors, seriously. They're not helping.
    I'm sorry, that's bullshit.

    Elected representatives have every right to speak their minds, certainly as much as a CEO. Until a permit gets denied "fuck the mayors" is ridiculous.

    And even then I think there's a discussion to be had.
    Mayors have the right to speak their minds as private citizens, as do Aldermen, but when they start doing things like using city stationary it shades into an inappropriate use of state power.

    Posters in this thread are right that de facto it is often possible to creatively use zoning restrictions in order to punish or block certain undesirables from entering town; they are wrong in thinking that this is de jure legal. This is just as it is often possible to design facially neutral hiring and retention policies--policies which never explicitly mention race--but which are nonetheless jury-rigged so as to retain and promote whites over minorities; or, perhaps better yet, to deliberately place polling locations and install voter registration procedures such that the minority vote will be suppressed. These things are all illegal, although often difficult to catch. If you're arguing that creative zoning as a way to punish Chick-Fil-A is kosher here, then you should realize that similar maneuvering would vitiate a great deal of civil rights legislation.

    Cities taking retaliatory action against a corporation--by, say, blocking its establishment of franchises, or terminating its leases in state university cafeterias--on the basis of the political views it espouses strikes me as an exceptionally clear cut violation of the freedom of speech. Which, I think, is why at least most of these mayors have been careful not to explicitly say that they will, in their role as mayor, take this form of retaliatory action, preferring nasty letters to concrete promises of action. Which, as above, is fine and all, right up until the point where the nasty letters themselves begin to be such that a reasonable person would interpret them as more than just a personal expression of disapproval, but a veiled threat of retaliation by state agencies.

    So, in other words, I'm with Melkster.
    I'm aware of this, and the fact that it is regularly and consistently used against minorities, the young, homosexuals, and other "undesirables."

    I'm not proposing it's Constitutional; I'm merely proposing that since they do it to us, the way to get the behavior to stop is not to roll over and ask really nicely; the way to get the behavior to stop is to do it to them. I'm not saying it's nice, Constitutional, or legal; I'm just saying that they can't actually prove it's not okay, and they regularly screw us with it, so fuck them and the horse they rode in on.
    It might feel good to hurt them as bad as we've been hurt, but it isn't right.

    Why not?
    Moving forward on social issues while respecting the law, including the civil rights of the other side, has allowed transformational change in civil rights over the last sixty years, and I see no reason to believe that we need to change how we operate now.
    The reason we change how we operate now is that historically, the oppressed involved in civil rights legislation haven't had the clout to push back from a position of power. Now, progressive interests control huge enclaves of America, and we have the power to punish reactionary interests in those enclaves in the same way they punish progressive interests in the areas they control. Legally, this forces the courts into a position where they either stop everyone from doing it--which is a net good--or they don't, in which case we're no longer fighting with one hand tied behind our backs.

    Win-win.

  • MelksterMelkster regular Registered User regular
    edited August 2012
    shryke wrote: »
    Melkster wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Melkster wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    MrMister wrote: »
    Melkster wrote: »
    And yeah, the more I think about it the more pissed off I get that those mayors have said what they've said. It compromises our moral high ground, and makes it seem more like a grey area. Which it is, I guess. On the one hand you have some mayors trying to suppress a business that isn't doing anything illegal, and on the other hand you have a business that's spending some serious cash on anti-gay rights.

    Fuck those mayors, seriously. They're not helping.

    I'm sorry, that's bullshit.

    Elected representatives have every right to speak their minds, certainly as much as a CEO. Until a permit gets denied "fuck the mayors" is ridiculous.

    And even then I think there's a discussion to be had.

    Mayors have the right to speak their minds as private citizens, as do Aldermen, but when they start doing things like using city stationary it shades into an inappropriate use of state power.

    Posters in this thread are right that de facto it is often possible to creatively use zoning restrictions in order to punish or block certain undesirables from entering town; they are wrong in thinking that this is de jure legal. This is just as it is often possible to design facially neutral hiring and retention policies--policies which never explicitly mention race--but which are nonetheless jury-rigged so as to retain and promote whites over minorities; or, perhaps better yet, to deliberately place polling locations and install voter registration procedures such that the minority vote will be suppressed. These things are all illegal, although often difficult to catch. If you're arguing that creative zoning as a way to punish Chick-Fil-A is kosher here, then you should realize that similar maneuvering would vitiate a great deal of civil rights legislation.

    Cities taking retaliatory action against a corporation--by, say, blocking its establishment of franchises, or terminating its leases in state university cafeterias--on the basis of the political views it espouses strikes me as an exceptionally clear cut violation of the freedom of speech. Which, I think, is why at least most of these mayors have been careful not to explicitly say that they will, in their role as mayor, take this form of retaliatory action, preferring nasty letters to concrete promises of action. Which, as above, is fine and all, right up until the point where the nasty letters themselves begin to be such that a reasonable person would interpret them as more than just a personal expression of disapproval, but a veiled threat of retaliation by state agencies.

    So, in other words, I'm with Melkster.
    I'm aware of this, and the fact that it is regularly and consistently used against minorities, the young, homosexuals, and other "undesirables."

    I'm not proposing it's Constitutional; I'm merely proposing that since they do it to us, the way to get the behavior to stop is not to roll over and ask really nicely; the way to get the behavior to stop is to do it to them. I'm not saying it's nice, Constitutional, or legal; I'm just saying that they can't actually prove it's not okay, and they regularly screw us with it, so fuck them and the horse they rode in on.

    It might feel good to hurt them as bad as we've been hurt, but it isn't right.

    Why not?

    Moving forward on social issues while respecting the law, including the civil rights of the other side, has allowed transformational change in civil rights over the last sixty years, and I see no reason to believe that we need to change how we operate now.

    Uh, the civil rights movement involved a shit-ton of disrespecting the law.

    Okay, so obviously I wasn't saying that Rosa Parks should have kept her head down and sat in the back of the bus. If there are unjust laws that violate the bill of rights, then yeah, protest those laws. Break them. But let's respect and uphold the just ones, even if the other side won't.

    Melkster on
  • DeebaserDeebaser on my way to work in a suit and a tie Ahhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered User regular
    So those in elected office should push ignore the law in pursuit of their ideology. That's chilling.

    Those dumb bigoted chucklefucks that showed up for Chick Fil A day also have the right to vote and do so in places that are a bit more backwards than Boston and Chicago.

    YOLO. Swag. Whatever. Fuck it. Lets do this.
  • maximumzeromaximumzero I...wait, what? New Orleans, LARegistered User regular
    edited August 2012
    RushChickFilABack1.jpg

    The biggest shit-eating grin you've ever seen.

    maximumzero on
    FU7kFbw.png
    Switch: 6200-8149-0919 / Wii U: maximumzero / 3DS: 0860-3352-3335 / eBay Shop
  • DeebaserDeebaser on my way to work in a suit and a tie Ahhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered User regular
    whatadouche

    YOLO. Swag. Whatever. Fuck it. Lets do this.
  • ThanatosThanatos regular Registered User regular
    Deebaser wrote: »
    So those in elected office should push ignore the law in pursuit of their ideology. That's chilling.

    Those dumb bigoted chucklefucks that showed up for Chick Fil A day also have the right to vote and do so in places that are a bit more backwards than Boston and Chicago.
    And we should work on passing laws that "fight voter fraud" that help prevent that, too.

    Again, I see no reason to unilaterally disarm.

  • adventfallsadventfalls Why would you wish to know? Registered User regular
    Super douche silly goose.

    NintendoID: AdventFalls 3DS Code: 3454-0237-6080
  • DarkPrimusDarkPrimus premium Registered User regular
    He must be smiling because he's got an excess of prescription pills.

    dt3GeqU.png
    Gamertag: PrimusD | Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
  • ForarForar #432 Toronto, Ontario, CanadaRegistered User regular
    Because if there's one thing the average American needs, it's more fast food in their diet.

    I joked before about this potentially being a self-correcting problem, but seriously, the juxtaposition here is really hitting me. Older, overweight, quite possibly not eating incredibly healthily to begin with... let's add a giant heaping dose of fat and sodium!

    CFA supporters have a vested interest in the ACA being as successful as possible.

    First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
  • DiannaoChongDiannaoChong regular Registered User regular
    saint2e wrote: »
    So some dude videotaped himself going through the drive thru at Chick-fil-a yesterday, ordering a "free water", and having a conversation with the Chick-fil-a employee at the window.

    Apparently he posted it, got lambasted and took it down hours later.


    Can't watch as I am at work, but this sounds like it's in line with what I was suggesting.

    steam_sig.png
  • durandal4532durandal4532 regular Registered User regular
    Muzzmuzz wrote: »
    So I heard someone say a word today that just sounded so fucking horrible.

    "Heterophobic."

    This is like people thinking "Reverse racism" is a bigger problem than racism.

    The closest term I could come up with is 'cis-privilage' that gets tossed around by Social Justice Warriors in blogs. (Granted, it's a tiny minority) Are you a white, heterosexual, male? Congratulations, your opinions mean nothing, since everything you say is going to be homophobic, racist, and misogynistic.


    Now, personally that's the only 'Heterophobia' I've seriously ever heard of. Most of the non-internet world has never even heard of it.

    Man let's have like 20 or 30 threads discussing how hypothetically if there were enough people doing this it might make men feel bad so basically everyone is on equal footing.

    Take a moment to donate what you can to the International Rescue Committee, the National Immigration Law Center, the Southern Poverty Law Center, and the American Civil Liberties Union. There has never been a more urgent moment to do so.
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie regular Registered User regular
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • HallowedFaithHallowedFaith Call me Cloud. Registered User regular
    People look really dumb posing with bags of fast food, lol.

    Chick-fil-a is the new duckface or what.

    I'm making video games. DesignBy.Cloud
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    I certainly don't advocate breaking the law to ban companies.

    I still contend that there is fuck all wrong with what Menino and the guy from PA said. The alderman thing is all second hand info for me, but I would be against using magic alderman powers to stop CFA from opening.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • Disco11Disco11 regular Registered User regular
    I wish we had chick a fil up here in Canada so I could not buy their sandwiches.

    PSN: Canadian_llama
  • Sweeney TomSweeney Tom regular Registered User regular
    Remember a month ago, when Mark Jimenez and Beau Chandler were arrested for performing a sit-in at the Texas county office until they were granted their marriage license?

    mark_beau_sit-in.jpg

    They're doing it again right now. With friends.

    394672_347410068671271_896379354_n.jpg

    Disco11
  • emnmnmeemnmnme regular Registered User regular
    Disco11 wrote: »
    I wish we had chick a fil up here in Canada so I could not buy their sandwiches.

    You haven't eaten their food.
    You don't know the sirens' call of their waffle fries dipped in your leftover BBQ sauce.

  • BagginsesBagginses regular __BANNED USERS regular
    RushChickFilABack1.jpg

    The biggest shit-eating grin you've ever seen.

    That makes sense, given where he got his lunch from.

  • HallowedFaithHallowedFaith Call me Cloud. Registered User regular
    saint2e wrote: »
    So some dude videotaped himself going through the drive thru at Chick-fil-a yesterday, ordering a "free water", and having a conversation with the Chick-fil-a employee at the window.

    Apparently he posted it, got lambasted and took it down hours later.


    Can't watch as I am at work, but this sounds like it's in line with what I was suggesting.

    This guy is a piece of shit.

    I'm making video games. DesignBy.Cloud
  • Disco11Disco11 regular Registered User regular
    emnmnme wrote: »
    Disco11 wrote: »
    I wish we had chick a fil up here in Canada so I could not buy their sandwiches.

    You haven't eaten their food.
    You don't know the sirens' call of their waffle fries dipped in your leftover BBQ sauce.


    I am on a diet right now and craving ANYTHING deep friend and covered in gravy but would make the sacrifice to not give that silly goose a red cent. I have a 10 year old and have taught her from a young age that doing what makes you happy is much more important then any label and I want her to live in a time when who someone is sleeping with/marrying is not something that shapes political discourse.

    PSN: Canadian_llama
  • syndalissyndalis Getting Classy On the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Products regular
    Yeah, that guy was a dumb in that video. The girl at the window? What should she do in response to him? Say "you're right" and quit her job in this economy?

    That video is shit and does nothing to further his cause.

    SW-4158-3990-6116
    Let's play Mario Kart or something...
  • DoctorArchDoctorArch Curmudgeon Registered User regular
    Muzzmuzz wrote: »
    So I heard someone say a word today that just sounded so fucking horrible.

    "Heterophobic."

    This is like people thinking "Reverse racism" is a bigger problem than racism.

    The closest term I could come up with is 'cis-privilage' that gets tossed around by Social Justice Warriors in blogs. (Granted, it's a tiny minority) Are you a white, heterosexual, male? Congratulations, your opinions mean nothing, since everything you say is going to be homophobic, racist, and misogynistic.


    Now, personally that's the only 'Heterophobia' I've seriously ever heard of. Most of the non-internet world has never even heard of it.

    I see someone has been reading Shakespeare's Sister.

    Switch Friend Code: SW-6732-9515-9697
  • BagginsesBagginses regular __BANNED USERS regular
    Disco11 wrote: »
    emnmnme wrote: »
    Disco11 wrote: »
    I wish we had chick a fil up here in Canada so I could not buy their sandwiches.

    You haven't eaten their food.
    You don't know the sirens' call of their waffle fries dipped in your leftover BBQ sauce.


    I am on a diet right now and craving ANYTHING deep friend and covered in gravy but would make the sacrifice to not give that silly goose a red cent. I have a 10 year old and have taught her from a young age that doing what makes you happy is much more important then any label and I want her to live in a time when who someone is sleeping with/marrying is not something that shapes political discourse.

    I'm not sure that's entirely ideal. Stealing all the candy would make a ten year old happy, damn the "naughty" labels.

  • HallowedFaithHallowedFaith Call me Cloud. Registered User regular
    syndalis wrote: »
    Yeah, that guy was a dumb in that video. The girl at the window? What should she do in response to him? Say "you're right" and quit her job in this economy?

    That video is shit and does nothing to further his cause.

    Not to mention how he lashes out at her at the end asking her how she sleeps at night? Who the fuck does he think he is? I feel bad for the girl because this is a clear example of how what one man says should not be forced onto other people. Boycott is fine, but anything like this is just idiotic in nature and that guy should be ashamed.

    I'm making video games. DesignBy.Cloud
  • saint2esaint2e regular Registered User regular
    syndalis wrote: »
    Yeah, that guy was a dumb in that video. The girl at the window? What should she do in response to him? Say "you're right" and quit her job in this economy?

    That video is shit and does nothing to further his cause.

    Not to mention how he lashes out at her at the end asking her how she sleeps at night? Who the fuck does he think he is? I feel bad for the girl because this is a clear example of how what one man says should not be forced onto other people. Boycott is fine, but anything like this is just idiotic in nature and that guy should be ashamed.

    I thought the video did more to put her in a great light, and him in a pretty poor one. I wonder what his thought process was when he uploaded it.

    banner_160x60_01.gif
  • emnmnmeemnmnme regular Registered User regular
    syndalis wrote: »
    Yeah, that guy was a dumb in that video. The girl at the window? What should she do in response to him? Say "you're right" and quit her job in this economy?

    That video is shit and does nothing to further his cause.

    He's a liberal version of James O'Keefe. Masquerading as a paying customer and hoping to film some Gotcha! footage rich in shock reactions. I bet he was hoping he'd get a rude GET THE FUCK OFF OUR PROPERTY! response on film when he called Chick-Fil-A a hate-filled corporation.

  • Sweeney TomSweeney Tom regular Registered User regular
    If he had said that stuff to the manager of the store, I could agree with that, because that's a guy who actually could do something about it.

    But yeah, I felt bad for the poor underpaid girl who basically just had to stand there and take it, looking uncomfortable the whole time.

    On the plus side the guy took down the video. The asshole who re-uploaded it on his account just to pick on the guy is just as bad as the guy himself.

  • DiannaoChongDiannaoChong regular Registered User regular
    syndalis wrote: »
    Yeah, that guy was a dumb in that video. The girl at the window? What should she do in response to him? Say "you're right" and quit her job in this economy?

    That video is shit and does nothing to further his cause.

    He directly impacted the company's wallet. Water, the cup, the lid, the straw, the time to put it together, and the woman at the windows paid time. It doesn't matter if her mind changes (it costs the company more to hire a new dreg), it matters that he took their time. If everyone who was protesting instead did something like this, you would see a pretty big change in the company. Instead we have the striesand effect and more people support the company then ever.

    steam_sig.png
  • Captain CarrotCaptain Carrot regular Alexandria, VARegistered User regular
Sign In or Register to comment.