That's not what I said. I said they didn't open on Sunday and wasn't aware of any other activism.

In any event, they are a Christian company, they don't hide from it, and I'm not surprised that they donate money to the church or pro-church organizations. I wouldn't call that sinister activism that warrants boycots.

These donations are specifically to groups working to stop gay marriage. They aren't generically pro-church.

I don't care if it bothers you or not, but I understand why some homosexuals wouldn't want to support a business that is actively working to limit their rights.

It's a discussion for another time, but I don't think a Christian company equals donating money to stop gay marriage.

Homosexuals actively support Chic-Fil-A everytime they are go into these restaraunts to have lunch or dinner. The concern here (at least on my part) arose when a public official and mayor of a city is actively blocking a legal private business from being established because it's owner has a belief that is different from the public official. Particularly when the public official not only is failing to stand up for the business owner's right to free speech but actively trying to punish the private business owner for using it. As long as it's within the laws, I'm okay with it, even if I personally would never base my company upon those same beliefs.

Is he "actively blocking it" really? He really doesn't have any type of grounds on which to block it without being sued into oblivion, as long as it meets zoning/etc. restrictions. I'm sure he could find a way, but I'm equally sure if that was the case that the Chick-fil-A lawyers would love to sue the city and the city's lawyers would settle. Furthermore, I'm not aware of any plans by Chick-fil-A to open any franchises up here, so I'm guessing the whole thing is just PR-grandstanding. He's just stating (publicly) that businesses with that type of behavior would not be enthusiastically welcomed by the community. You can argue that maybe he shouldn't be stating that type of thing publicly (although frankly he's known for sticking his nose where it doesn't belong), but I fail to see where he's actively blocking it.

Fair enough, DT.

I know they don't. I just think it's funny when someone claims that they do something because of the Bible and then ignores the Bible when it's not convenient for them. Just pointing out hypocrisy.

FWIW - most people up here think Menino runs off at the mouth about stuff where he should keep his mouth shut far too often, and he's widely viewed as a "good ole boy" style pol who maybe isn't CORRUPT, but is certainly...sleazy in that old-fashioned-pol type of way.

He definitely doesn't speak for everyone (although in this instance I have no doubt he speaks for the majority of folks in his sentiment, even if he shouldn't be spouting off publicly about it), and we all often wish he'd keep his big trap, and his often unintelligable public comments to himself.

And Rahm is a blowhard hypocrite considering he was a part of Clinton and Obama's campaign. Two guys who opposed gay marriage.

Although it looks like he's stepped back from earlier statements.

http://www.nbcchicago.com/blogs/ward...164043916.html

Lot's of Christians eat bacon. If I recall, there are a million different ways to interpret the bible (including my interpretation...and your interpretation, which differ from his...which differs from someone who chooses not to eat bacon).

So, if he personally doesn't eat pork, that's really just more proof that he seperates his personal beliefs from his customer's beliefs when it matters most...the business exchange.

And I'm pretty sure the bacon thing is in the old testament, when contains the old law that Jesus and Christians replaced. The Christians split off from the old law while the Jews retained it, I think that was the whole point. The Christians were all, "it doesn't matter if we eat bacon or not, what matters is our relationship with god." Or at least, I think that's the Lutheran interpretation. But Lutherans have gay pastors, so I don't know. But ya, I think you're right, people think of the bible as thing big long list of rules that people pick and choose from, and it's really not like that. Culture and prejudice certainly influence religion and faith and how things are interpreted, but I think most modern Christians would acknowledge that. People aren't perfect and we kind of suck sometimes, which is also one of the whole points of Christianity. The point is just that you have some kind of structure and faith, which brings you close to "whatever", but there's no one clear set of do's and don'ts....Every Christian feels somewhat differently about homosexuality, I think a lot believe it's a "sin", but so is premarital sex generally - that stuff takes us further way from a totally perfect soul or whatever, but it's all good, 'cause we're not perfect and we're forgiven for that.....Sorry to get sidetracked.

But if you're going to argue the Bible is the inerrant word of God you can't also argue that some Old Testament stuff is important and some isn't.

It just seems like a lot of people use the Bible when it's convenient for them. Picking and choosing which verses apply. I just find that hypocritical.

A lot of people want to pass bans on gay marriage because it's in the Bible. Not a lot of those people want to ban premarital sex which is also in the Bible. The Bible seems to matter a lot more when it doesn't involve you have to sacrifice something you like. Do as I say, not as I do.

So you have to have a "strict interpretation" of the whole thing or throw it all away? Do you feel the same way about the constitution?

I'm just saying the bible isn't one big book written by the same guy one afternoon. Every person or religion that takes anything from it whatsoever has a different take on what from it matters in their own faith, based on their own culture and interpretation and experiences. Sure, some people are just weirded out by gay people so they make sure that's the a part of their religion they emphasize a lot, I just think there's some misconceptions about religion and the bible generally going on here. Edit: The guy who wrote about bacon and the guys who wrote later about homosexuality were completely different dudes, of completely different religions.

I think if you went around claiming your belief system is based on the constitution and then said the 2nd and 4th amendment don't count because they aren't important to you, youd be a hypocrite.

A lot of people aren't too keen on this guys freedom of religion (1st)...lots of people aren't too keen on our right to bear arms (2nd)...the limitation of the federal government (10th)...lots were against the banishment of alchohol (18th)...people disagree with term limits (22nd). I don't think they are hypocrites, I think they are individuals that are free to interpret things how they see fit. So long as you don't do anything illegal. I'm no expert on the bible, but growing up in Mississippi as a Catholic, I learned real early that people can interpret the bible in lots of different ways and nobody judges you (or really has the right to judge you...born-agains, yeah, I'm talking to you!) until the very end...if that sort of judgement exists.

That's my point. They "interpret" it to fit whatever is convenient for them. The stuff that doesn't effect them like gay marriage are things we can say matter. The stuff that does like premarital sex we can just ignore because hey...sex is fun. I'd say the same thing about someone who says they believe everyone has a right to free speech because of the 1A but then pretends that 2A doesn't exist at all. It's hypocritical.

I also don't think a lot of this is "interpreting" either. It's just ignoring portions that don't fit what they want to live by. A lot of these things are fairly clear. Saying someone interprets it a different way is just a nice way of saying they chose to ignore parts that they don't like.


Bit of irony in this you have to admit.

My religious tradition allows for adults to interpret the Bible through prayer and contemplation. Cathy's belief holds that the Bible is the literal, inerrant word of God. The problem for me isn't that he interprets it, but that he denies interpreting it when he clearly does.

I'm pretty sure nobody has called for the arrest of Dan Cathy.

I was super depressed when I read about those donations. There is only one Chic-Fil-A in Michigan and it's too far to ever go to.

There is one in the food court in the mall in Indianapolis near GenCon. Every year, I must say, I look forward to those delicious chicken sandwiches and waffle fries... So. Damned. Good.

However, now that it's come to light that president and owner of Chik Fil A is a complete bigot and quite proud of it, donating millions and millions of dollars for anti-gay purposes, I can no longer patronize their business. Homey don't play that.

Why do they have to make such good foods, but be so damned intolerant and full of hate? This makes me sad and unhappy.

Fucking bigots.

Seriously. People seem to have no real clue what "freedom of religion" and "freedom of speech" really mean.

Ah, so the boycott is on. The Boston mayor's activism is having some sort of effect afterall.

Who said anybody was calling for his arrest?

Didn't you bring his first amendment rights into this in your post?

SI

So now you're saying that people aren't free to decide where they want to spend their money? :confused:

Boycotting is pretty classic capitalism.

Yes.

No.

If someone wasn't "too keen on this guys freedom of religion", that would mean they want him arrested for practicing his religion. Disagreeing with someone's religious beliefs is not the same thing as thinking they shouldn't have freedom of religion to express those beliefs, just like disagreeing with someone's speech isn't the same thing as thinking they shouldn't have freedom of speech. The first amendment doesn't protect you from criticism.

I don't even know who the mayor of Boston is or what his "activism" is.

Is there something wrong with choosing to not give my money to corporation that supports something I don't believe in?

By your "boycott is on" comment you seem to imply there is, which is very odd.

You need a Bojangles. They made me forget all about Chick-Fil-A.

Controversially, spending and withholding money are expressions of free speech. At least we know now that the federal government can't force you to buy chick fil a.

I still tend to think most older corporate CEOs aren't bastions of liberal thinking, either in terms of their beliefs, or in terms of where their company donates money. Most of them are just smart enough to keep it to themselves a little more. I do wonder if in 10 years we'll just have "red stores" and "blue stores" and everyone shops accordingly.

LOL.....this is just silly on so many levels. Anybody who has this high on their list needs to have their priorities examined. This has to be one of the worst political spats ever.

I brought up something a while back about doing business with a company that expressly said that sales in February would be going to anti-abortion organizations. Some of my money probably did end up getting filtered to anti-abortion organizations but I guess it doesn't bother me. It's a little bit of a different thing when I am conducting business as opposed to choosing to patronize a restaurant. Still, I had other options but if the product is of a quality that I'm happy with, politics will rarely come into play.

Either way, this really isn't some sort of revelation with Chick-Fil-A is it? I've never been to a Chick-Fil-A, the nearest one is over 100 miles from me yet I knew what the values of the ownership were before any of this flap came about.

Every time I try to go to one, the place is closed.

The McDonalds southern chicken sandwich isn't as good as a ChickFila. But it tastes nearly as good, with 73% less right wing.

I still go to Chick Fil A on occasion and hopefully this will drive away some of the pack of white women and small kids that make eating there a crowded and miserable experience.

"First they came for the Polynesian sauce"

On the topic of biscuits, I think Red Lobster could wave a Nazi flag out front and I would still have to go in.

What about Der Olive Garten?

Think of it this way - there'd almost certainly never be a wait for a table.

And to think, you could have gone into today without the handy voting aid of my regular endorsements
http://t.co/rs6hyINz

Of course they're largely local (to Athens area), just a couple of statewide notes, and therefore even more meaningless to you than even the average endorsement. But I know a few of you find some entertainment value in them anyway, so I'll share :)

I've stated on here numerous times that I am even less of a fan of Romney's than Obama and of the two candidates would prefer an Obama second term. That said I find the Romney Europe trip coverage from the press quite interesting and in quite a contrast to Obama's "Eurpoean Rock Tour '08". To anyone who doesn't think the media has an agenda...

Mitt Romney Spokesman Tells Reporters 'Kiss My …' at Polish Holy Site - Yahoo! News

Mitt Romney's 'racist' remarks against Palestinians: Will they actually help him? - The Week

Mitt Romney England Trip, Insults Olympics Preparations - NYTimes.com

It’s a bit of a chicken and egg thing though, what kind of coverage does Romney expect when he only takes three questions from his press corps on the entire trip. And it’s been like that for his entire campaign, to the point that it has to be viewed as a conscious strategy by Romney to antagonize reports. Running against the Lame Stream Media is kind of standard operating procedure for Republicans now. (Or they realize their guy can't open his mouth without sticking his foot in it.)

And as far as writing about this trip, any story that wasn’t critical would have to be about three sentences long. For a supposedly seasoned politician that was some pretty amateur hour stuff.

To anyone who doesn't think the media has an agenda...

obamas-chaotic-approach-to-the-middle-east

obama_rich_tax_misfire

obamas-middle-east-policy-has-failed-to-bring-peace

To be fair, two of those three are right-wing papers.

Are the British press similarly motivated? How about the people on twitter that created the hashtag #romneyshambles? Sometimes you just have to call a spade a spade. Romney has made some serious gaffes in this short tour abroad

To your two questions: Yes of course they are behind Obama, is this even a serious question? Yes the name would imply they aren't big fans on Romney.

No doubt Romney is a bad candidate but I don't recall ever seeing a use of $&*% in a headline. (Even when Cheney told someone to go fuck themselves the press did a more honorable job of presenting the story) Maybe it is just 2012 or maybe I am getting older and more "shocked" but it seems like the 4th estate has lost their way. (Queue Jeff Daniels rant :) )

The British press is so ideologically diverse it's impossible to lump them all together.

9% of Obama stories are positive? I must read exclusively liberal blogs.

Edit: and where are these positive sarah palin articles? yesterday she was all over the news because cheney said mccain screwed up by picking her, which i think is pretty typical kind of coverage over the last few years. I'm guessing there's a lot of small town/rural papers counted the same as the ny times.

You have in no way helped me today. ;)

Speaking of which, I will get to vote in two different Senate primaries this year: first in Indiana and now a Texas runoff. And, I'll even throw this out there: I'm voting (voted) in the Republican primaries in both since I think they matter more.

SI

{thinks} Let's see, I'm gonna guess that IN was early in the year, then you relocated & registered just in time to be eligible in TX (maybe even just for the runoff but not for the first vote). Right?

Or is there some other way that's possible & I'm just blank?