Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-31-2012, 12:49 PM
 
33,387 posts, read 34,854,052 times
Reputation: 20030

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by TriMT7 View Post
Looks like you and anyone who attended "Chick Fil A appreciation day" FAILED to even know what the REAL hoopla was about.

Hint: It wasn't about what the guy said. That was the catalyst to expose the fact that the company DONATES MONEY (Which is ACTION, not just mere speech) to hate groups, groups that advocate and help support "death penality for gays in foreign countries" laws, and a host of other nasty things. THAT'S why the company was/is attacked and boycotted.


I don't know how many times you people need to be told this before it sinks in!!


If it was just one bigot executive spouting off, then whatever. Have at it. But ACTIONS have consequences more than words.


And yes: Fat, white religious whackjobs are no different than fat black religious whackjobs who "supported" Chick Fil A for the same thing! Knuckledragging yahoos come in all colors.
more ignorant tripe. the CEO isnt anti-gay, he is anti-gay marriage, which is his right. he also has teh right to say he is against gay marriage. there are gay people that work for chick-fil-a, and, for your information, many gay people attended chick-fil-a appreciation day, again because it WASNT ABOUT GAY MARRIAGE, BUT FREE SPEECH. i didnt attend by the way, i knew it would be huge success and i dont like crowds.

and again you show the intolerance of the left with people who disagree with you.

so one more time, if the government, at ANY level, can abrogate free speech for someone against gay marriage, then how long before government at ALL levels abrogates free speech for EVERYONE? i may not like what some people have to say, but i will defend their RIGHT ti say the things they do, because i know if one persons free speech rights are eliminated, then NO ONE has a right to free speech. once you understand that, you will truly understand chick-fil-a appreciation day.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-31-2012, 12:53 PM
 
Location: The D-M-V area
13,691 posts, read 18,458,970 times
Reputation: 9596
Quote:
Originally Posted by TriMT7 View Post
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) does not enforce laws that prohibit discrimination and harassment based on sexual orientation, status as a parent, marital status and political affiliation. However, other federal agencies and many states and municipalities do. The relevant federal agencies are listed below. For assistance in locating your state or local agency, contact the EEOC office nearest you.


Discrimination Based on Sexual Orientation, Status as a Parent, Marital Status and Political Affiliation


Sexual Orientation Discrimination in the Workplace

Existing federal laws do not acknowledge a gay or lesbian worker’s right to work in a private sector workplace void of discrimination due to their sexual orientation. However, many states have enacted laws protected workers of all sexual orientations. Likewise, other civil rights afforded workers may be violated by employers promoting an environment that marginalizes workers because of their orientation, such as gender discrimination, racial discrimination, and others. Additionally, certain local laws protect workers’ rights to work in an environment free from discrimination based on their sexual orientation, and in many cases, large and small companies often have manuals prohibiting discrimination against other employees on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.


Discrimination in the Workplace | Lawfirms.com
Sexual orientation should not be a protected class.

Discrimination against someone for their sexual practices should not be protected.

How or who you decide to screw is none of my business.

I don't want to work next to pedophiles, zoophiles, or polygamists, or polysexuals or anyone else, when they scream that they're a protected sexual class.

It's forbidden to discriminate against someone with disabilities or genetic disorders, that's where gays should fall on the spectrum. They don't need to be protected because of who they choose to have sex with or their sexual orientation. Unless you're screaming about your sex life when you apply for a job, nobody needs to know you're a homosexual, or heterosexual, it's not asked on any employment form anyhow.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-31-2012, 12:54 PM
 
Location: Middle of nowhere
24,260 posts, read 14,214,925 times
Reputation: 9895
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mathguy View Post
If you really knew anything about MLK you would realize that a screed like this is not the way to win hearts and minds.

I think that you really would benefit from learning more about whom opposes gay marriage and hint....it's not just "pudgy old white people". Prop 3 passed in california with a LOT of latino support, just as one example.

P.S. Hate crimes vs. gays have a 5x higher rate of occurrence by black males than white. If you are serious about gay rights you need to take off your political blinders and not make every problem out to be the fault of "acceptable" targets like old white people.
Prop 3 in California was a proposition to fund childrens hospitals.
California Proposition 3, Childrens' Hospitals Bond Act (2008) - Ballotpedia
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-31-2012, 12:55 PM
 
17,291 posts, read 29,411,909 times
Reputation: 8691
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbohm View Post
more ignorant tripe. the CEO isnt anti-gay, he is anti-gay marriage, which is his right. he also has teh right to say he is against gay marriage. there are gay people that work for chick-fil-a, and, for your information, many gay people attended chick-fil-a appreciation day, again because it WASNT ABOUT GAY MARRIAGE, BUT FREE SPEECH. i didnt attend by the way, i knew it would be huge success and i dont like crowds.

and again you show the intolerance of the left with people who disagree with you.

so one more time, if the government, at ANY level, can abrogate free speech for someone against gay marriage, then how long before government at ALL levels abrogates free speech for EVERYONE? i may not like what some people have to say, but i will defend their RIGHT ti say the things they do, because i know if one persons free speech rights are eliminated, then NO ONE has a right to free speech. once you understand that, you will truly understand chick-fil-a appreciation day.

"Ignorant tripe" indeed!

Way to go buddy! Bury your head in the sand. Sure is a lot easier than to expect you to actually do something revolutionary like... oh, I don't know... RESEARCH? about what the controversy is/was from the perspective of gay people (and those gay people whose lives are destroyed and effected by the ACTIONS of companies like Chick Fil A, who actively work against their ability to live as free and equal people not only in THIS country, but others!)


As far as your "overreaching government tripe," there is no instance of the government shutting down Chick Fil A's "freedom of speech." None. There were officials expressing THEIR opinion (which is THEIR free speech as well!) but no instances of Chick Fil A being denied their rights to do business.

Chick Fil A doesn't need heartland conservative lardarses to line up to support it. That's what lawyers are for if there's an ACTUAL abridgement of freedom of speech. Which there wasn't. Which is why there was no lawsuits.



Enjoy your chicken.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-31-2012, 12:57 PM
 
14,993 posts, read 23,899,456 times
Reputation: 26523
Quote:
Originally Posted by whogo View Post
yes, of course. Seeing a bunch of old, chubby, white people just through you over the edge.

What about this post of yours from january of this year?
hahaha...good catch

OP -
FAIL!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-31-2012, 12:57 PM
 
Location: The D-M-V area
13,691 posts, read 18,458,970 times
Reputation: 9596
Quote:
Originally Posted by jjrose View Post
Prop 3 in California was a proposition to fund childrens hospitals.
California Proposition 3, Childrens' Hospitals Bond Act (2008) - Ballotpedia
Prop 8. Which I voted YES on.

I think you know what he "meant". If he's not a Californian he might not know what the number was.

Proposition 8 - Eliminates Rights of Same-Sex Couples to Marry. Initiative Constitutional Amendment

Same Sex Marriage propositions failed twice in California until it was challenged by a homosexual activist judge who threw it out.

Activist judge overrules the will of California voters, rules Prop. 8 is unconstitutional

The only way it could be overturned was by a gay judge.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-31-2012, 01:01 PM
 
Location: Middle of nowhere
24,260 posts, read 14,214,925 times
Reputation: 9895
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuckyGem View Post
Prop 8. Which I voted YES on.

I think you know what he "meant". If he's not a Californian he might not know what the number was.

California Proposition 8 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
If the poster wants to discuss a topic, one would hope he/she would at least know what they are trying to discuss.

Must hurt to have your vote to deny American citizens equality overturned by the court. I can't wait to see what the USSC has to say on the matter.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-31-2012, 01:04 PM
 
Location: Ayrsley
4,713 posts, read 9,705,144 times
Reputation: 3824
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbohm View Post
what you dont understand is that chick-fil-a appreciation day was NOT about gay rights, it was about FREEDOM OF SPEECH.
Yes there were people who made that argument. They had no real idea about why a certain segment of the population takes issue with Chik-Fil-A. Has nothing to do with what the CEO said or with his beliefs.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-31-2012, 01:05 PM
 
17,291 posts, read 29,411,909 times
Reputation: 8691
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuckyGem View Post
Sexual orientation should not be a protected class.

Discrimination against someone for their sexual practices should not be protected.

How or who you decide to screw is none of my business.

I don't want to work next to pedophiles, zoophiles, or polygamists, or polysexuals or anyone else, when they scream that they're a protected sexual class.


Nobody should be discriminated against for innate characteristics. Period.

Sorry you seem to believe only categories that "you believe in" should get protection from discrimination!

It doesn't matter if you want to work next to these people. Tough sh** if you don't like someone whose handicap, gay, a different race or religion.


And: technically, polygamists would arguably fall under a "marital status" protection. POLYsexual is really just a version of sexual orientation.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Luckygem
It's forbidden to discriminate against someone with disabilities or genetic disorders, that's where gays should fall on the spectrum. They don't need to be protected because of who they choose to have sex with or their sexual orientation. Unless you're screaming about your sex life when you apply for a job, nobody needs to know you're a homosexual, or heterosexual, it's not asked on any employment form anyhow.

Do you live and work in the real world? Ya know, with real people in an office environment?

Your persepctive is so incredibly naive it's not even funny. A new young man started in my office recently. At a happy hour the female employees were grilling him: "Do you have a girlfriend? Are you dating? Seeing anyone?" "What's her name?"

Wedding announcements, baby announcements, FAMILY PHOTOS announce a person's sexuality.


Yours is a fantasy world if you believe that sex, relationships and human interactions won't or don't ALWAYS be a part of every facet of our lives.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-31-2012, 01:06 PM
 
78,435 posts, read 60,628,324 times
Reputation: 49733
Quote:
Originally Posted by jjrose View Post
Prop 3 in California was a proposition to fund childrens hospitals.
California Proposition 3, Childrens' Hospitals Bond Act (2008) - Ballotpedia
You are totally correct, it's been a long week and I erred majorly.

Prop 8.
California Proposition 8 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:23 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top