Chick-Fil-A anti-Gay?

[Altair]

http://www.owldolatrous.com/?p=288

I just read the second one, and though I found his tone at times annoying, his points are dead on and are similar to what I just wrote in my previous post.

[sailor]

he's not banning soft drinks, he's banning selling you more than 16 fluid oz in one cup,

The appropriate response is to bring in one of those 64 oz cups and buy enough of the smaller ones to fill it up. Oh, and of course post it to YouTube.

[Aisling]

Nobody would give me grief for deciding as a black man not to give my $ to a business that funds the KKK. Nobody should be surprised if I and other people--gay, straight, or other--who see things my way refuse to give their money to a business that funds organizations that seek to keep me as a second-class citizen.

This. So very this.

I actually listened to a female friend who is in an interracial marriage go on a rant about how the owners of Chick-Fil-A shouldn't be "penalized" for expressing their opinions. When I asked her if she'd feel the same way if we substituted "interracial marriage" for "gay marriage", she looked like I'd punched her in the gut. I think she might have finally gotten the point.

[Skyth]

This. So very this.

I actually listened to a female friend who is in an interracial marriage go on a rant about how the owners of Chick-Fil-A shouldn't be "penalized" for expressing their opinions. When I asked her if she'd feel the same way if we substituted "interracial marriage" for "gay marriage", she looked like I'd punched her in the gut. I think she might have finally gotten the point.

I tried that on my fundyish uncle. He just didn't get that the first message entirely missed the point...He kept on the 'first one was more balanced (Yes, I posted the second one in response) and that it's just a 'difference of opinion' and brought up the 'freedom of speech' argument.

They just don't get the idea that you can't have a live and let live attitude of tolerance when one side is determined to destroy the other side and have the other side incarcerated or executed through the force of the government.

I was shocked when his daughter (the one who posted the original piece) actually posted that after some discussion with her friends, they thought it would be better to go help out the local food bank than support Chick-Fil-A.

[MadZealot]

I tried that on my fundyish uncle. He just didn't get that the first message entirely missed the point...He kept on the 'first one was more balanced (Yes, I posted the second one in response) and that it's just a 'difference of opinion' and brought up the 'freedom of speech' argument.

They just don't get the idea that you can't have a live and let live attitude of tolerance when one side is determined to destroy the other side and have the other side incarcerated or executed through the force of the government.

I was shocked when his daughter (the one who posted the original piece) actually posted that after some discussion with her friends, they thought it would be better to go help out the local food bank than support Chick-Fil-A.

This may sound a weird, but that first article is pretty balanced, as far as fundie Christian apologetics goes.

[SunflowerP]

But what really irritated me (besides pedophilia = gay) was, "Let's have a polite conversation."

I am convinced that - in many instances (from all axes of privilege, not just heteronormativity) - what that really means is, "I wish Those People would stop making angry noise! How can I ignore this thing I think is unimportant, when they keep making angry noise as if it was important??"

Sunflower

[SunflowerP]

This may sound a weird, but that first article is pretty balanced, as far as fundie Christian apologetics goes.

Without reading the article to form an opinion about whether it's weird in this instance, I can nevertheless say that I see nothing weird in general about damning with faint praise.

Sunflower

[Altair]

This may sound a weird, but that first article is pretty balanced, as far as fundie Christian apologetics goes.

It's not weird; you're right about that. I think that's why I ultimately found it so irritating: because it sounds so reasonable (and it does indeed try to "reach out to the other side") that it's flawed underlying assumptions go unchallenged.

[Altair]

I just came across this bootlicking quote on my favorite blog, and all I can say is...

...who's been feeding you f*cking moron for breakfast?

http://www.joemygod.blogspot.com/201...ne-dodson.html



If there's one thing this whole episode is putting in stark relief, it's just how much gay civil rights remain OK to treat as a lesser concern--even (esp.?) among those gays who have internalized the idea of their lesser status. It's inconceivable that *anyone*, let alone any black person (besides Clarence Thomas), would label the boycott of a company that funds segregationists as "bullying."