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.
Here we go again. Like the Chick-fil-A honcho, the Barilla chief responded to a question in the interview.
Everyone take note, because this appears to be the current MO: pro-gay agenda (which includes getting everyone else to accept every aspect of their lifestyle, and promote it) "journalists" corral the CEO of a lucrative business and ask "the question." When the question isn't responded to appropriately, the MNM runs a story about how that unenlightened person is "against" this or that and uninformed people say s/he should just shut up and make sandwiches or pasta when, in fact, that person simply answered a question.
Interestingly, if you read the entire interview, in the course of it the journalist stated his own opinion, that ads of "classic" families showing the woman (gasp!) serving a meal to her husband and kids are no longer "acceptable" in Italy. Apparently, they're no longer acceptable here, either because I see plenty of ads featuring moms at the table with their kids or kids alone at the table, but I can't tell you the last time I saw a man at the table with the kids because the implication would be that the woman was serving the meal. Sacre bleu!
Like Chick-fil-A, Barilla will survive and thrive, because they make a good product.
I was referring to the Million Moms boycotting JC Penny. In your eyes that's perfectly OK, but when it's the other way around, then oh no, we are shoving an agenda down your throat. Give me a break. The Million Moms were shoving their agendas down everyone's throats too. If it's going to be free speech then it has to work both ways.
no i am not okay with boycotts of any kind, except one, a boycott on boycotts. as for shoving agendas down people throats, again that is something i am not okay with. i personally dont care if someone is gay, straight, bi sexual, prefers animals, or what ever. that is between them and god, not me. and if the population of a state decides to vote for gay marriage, that is the business of the majority of the population, even though i may be against it. the majority rules, as long as the minority has a voice the freedom of speech still exists.
if a million moms want to boycott JC penny for what ever reason, that is up to them. if a bunch of gay people want to boycott what ever they want to boycott, that also is up to them. i will choose to do what ever it is that i choose to do regardless. and i will object if you or anyone else gets in my way of doing what i do as long as what i do is legal.
for instance if i for some reason wanted to shop at JC penny, and the million moms tried to stop me, i would tell them to get bent because i want to shop at JC penny and if they try to stop me, i will call the authorities on them for obstruction. if i choose to buy barilla products, and some gay person tries to stop me from doing so, i will tel them to get bent and if they dont stop i will call the authorities on them as well. i live my life, and i let others live their lives. if someone asks for my opinion, or if i am posting on a public board like this one where it is assumes that my opinion was asked for, i will give, few holds barred, i will try to be as polite as i am able, but i will express my opinion when asked. dont like my opinion? tough, you asked for it by being on this board.
I was referring to the Million Moms boycotting JC Penny. In your eyes that's perfectly OK, but when it's the other way around, then oh no, we are shoving an agenda down your throat. Give me a break. The Million Moms were shoving their agendas down everyone's throats too. If it's going to be free speech then it has to work both ways.
oh and by the way this is part of shoving ones agenda down anothers throat. you ASSUMED that i was perfectly ok with the million moms boycott, which i am not. and rather than actually ASK if i was ok with it, you made unfounded, and untrue, accusations. this is typical of the left on this, and many other, boards. all you need do is go back through my posts and you will find that i am always against boycotts, because they are counterproductive, and as such are useless.
One thing I've noticed in the discourse about gay rights in recent years is that when a person in any way questions or disagrees with the contemporary definition of homosexuality ("it's not a choice", "it should be embraced by all") it's automatically labelled as "hateful". I wonder if how we define the range of human opinions hasn't lost some sense of nuance or historical context.
Are people who are convicted by conscience that gay marriage is unethical, for example, the moral equivalent of Matthew Shepard's killers? Ideas like diversity, multiculturalism, embracing the Other, etc. (ideas which I personally support) are very novel, evolutionarily-speaking, and most people in the world tend to be conservative by nature.
I say by all means boycott if you feel the need. But I also sincerely believe that the way people's opinions about gays are most likely to be changed for the better is through exposure to the many decent human beings who just happen to be gay --- not through browbeating and shaming. But I could be wrong.
If anyone was buying Barilla before, they have too much money to spend. It's freaking pasta. Why would anyone pay $!+ for a brand when store brands are 20% cheaper? Not to mention 69 cents at Grocery Outlet.
One thing I've noticed in the discourse about gay rights in recent years is that when a person in any way questions or disagrees with the contemporary definition of homosexuality ("it's not a choice", "it should be embraced by all") it's automatically labelled as "hateful". I wonder if how we define the range of human opinions hasn't lost some sense of nuance or historical context.
Are people who are convicted by conscience that gay marriage is unethical, for example, the moral equivalent of Matthew Shepard's killers? Ideas like diversity, multiculturalism, embracing the Other, etc. (ideas which I personally support) are very novel, evolutionarily-speaking, and most people in the world tend to be conservative by nature.
I say by all means boycott if you feel the need. But I also sincerely believe that the way people's opinions about gays are most likely to be changed for the better is through exposure to the many decent human beings who just happen to be gay --- not through browbeating and shaming. But I could be wrong.
well said. the fact is that we have contact with many gay people everyday, we just dont know it unless they come out and say they are gay. i have worked with gay people, been friends with gay people, it doesnt matter to me as i deal with people as they come. if they are of good character, i dont care about anything else, black, white, indian, hispanic, asian, muslim, gay, bi, liberal, conservative, none of that matters. if we treat people like we want to be treated, then we would all get along much better than we do. but some choose to want to be treated better than everyone else even though they dont deserve it.
dont look down on me because i am conservative in my beliefs, both social and fiscal, because i dont look down on others because of their beliefs. i do look down on some people because they deserve it, like pedophiles and politicians.
I don't care about this issue because personally I am ambivalent about wanting to see homosexual families in ads, but here is the thing, I am not going to be upset if homosexual families are in ads, it will be whatever to me.
If this guy never featured a homosexual family in his ad's no one would even notice because heterosexuality is the norm. So much like whiteness, it is considered neutral and appealing to all demographics.
It'd be like some company saying, I'll never put non-white families in my ads, the reality is no one would even notice if they only put white families in their ads most likely.
A person only comes out and says what the owner of Barilla says if they have personal issues with some group and wants their disdain for that group accepted and widely known.
One thing I've noticed in the discourse about gay rights in recent years is that when a person in any way questions or disagrees with the contemporary definition of homosexuality ("it's not a choice", "it should be embraced by all") it's automatically labelled as "hateful". I wonder if how we define the range of human opinions hasn't lost some sense of nuance or historical context.
Are people who are convicted by conscience that gay marriage is unethical, for example, the moral equivalent of Matthew Shepard's killers? Ideas like diversity, multiculturalism, embracing the Other, etc. (ideas which I personally support) are very novel, evolutionarily-speaking, and most people in the world tend to be conservative by nature.
I say by all means boycott if you feel the need. But I also sincerely believe that the way people's opinions about gays are most likely to be changed for the better is through exposure to the many decent human beings who just happen to be gay --- not through browbeating and shaming. But I could be wrong.
You are correct. The thing is that, at least for me, with marriage and recognition come some protections under the law. It worries me that in the case something happens to me, I can't adequately provide for my partner because she will be just a friend. It worries me that the child that I birth, might be taken away from her if I die. I can't add her to my insurance at work, I might not be able to see her if she gets hurt and ends up in the hospital etc. For me personally, whether it's a choice or not, whether you are born this way, whether you call it marriage or whatever other word, whether the religious rite thinks it's sin etc, are of absolutely no concern to me. I just want to make sure that we are both covered the way a heterosexual couple would be. On top of that, it does hurt to be called an abomination, likened to a pervert, called a deviant - who wants to be called these things?
I'm not looking for everyone to embrace anything, just let us have the same protections and leave us alone -enough with the name calling. Stop talking about whether it's a choice or not, it's irrelevant to any of these discussions. Choice or not, people should be allowed to live their lives the way they choose and if you and your loved one can be protected, I should also have the ability to choose one other person to be protected with. It is hateful to deny people rights that you have access to just because you disagree. I may disagree with Asians being able to vote, but I have no right to speak out against them doing so if they are citizens of the United States.
Why is this so hard to understand? If gay marriage was legal in all of the US, all this talk would stop. Why if you have a moral objection to homosexuality that you think about it so much as to publicly speak out against it? Why not just keep your mouth shut and live and let live. Don't like your kids living around gays and lesbians, too bad. I don't go around and bad mouth all of the types of people I don't want to live next to. Mind your own business.
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.
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.
) serving a meal to her husband and kids are no longer "acceptable" in Italy. 
Apparently, they're no longer acceptable here, either because I see plenty of ads featuring moms at the table with their kids or kids alone at the table, but I can't tell you the last time I saw a man at the table with the kids because the implication would be that the woman was serving the meal. Sacre bleu!
