Chick-Fil-A is Awesome.

[OverVolt]

So long as they serve good food and have clean restaurants with good service I don't think anyone cares what they do with the gays in the basement of corporate as they try and fill their soul with the love of jesus.

 

[Ichinisan]

Or willing to read past FRC press releases. The link I provided above demonstrates that FRC, in fact, supported the kill-the-gays bill.

FYI, CFA has severed all ties to FRC. FRC says it doesn't support the bill or the death penalty for homosexuals.

That leaves one guy who was affiliated with an organization, an organization that was loosely linked to CFA with a few degrees of separation, --that guy-- made a radio broadcast about the bill. The broadcast gave false information about the bill. Intentionally or not, the guy clearly misrepresented the Ugandan bill. Isn't it possible that he simply didn't know or didn't believe those outrageous things really were in the bill?

[edit]
Regardless, even FRC didn't fund the Ugandan bill. They lobbied to change some of the wording in a US resolution that condemns the Ugandan bill.

 

[DCal430]

They didn't cut ties with FRC, they moved the suppprt underground. They also secretly give money directly to people in Uganda to support the killing of homosexuals.

 

[lxskllr]

CFA has been pretty meh the last couple times I went, especially considering the money spent. I thought they were the shit years ago when I first discovered them, but it hasn't held up over time.

 

[IronWing]

FYI, CFA has severed all ties to FRC. FRC says it doesn't support the bill or the death penalty for homosexuals.

That leaves one guy who was affiliated with an organization, an organization that was loosely linked to CFA with a few degrees of separation, --that guy-- made a radio broadcast about the bill. The broadcast gave false information about the bill. Intentionally or not, the guy clearly misrepresented the Ugandan bill. Isn't it possible that he simply didn't know or didn't believe those outrageous things really were in the bill?

The guy was FRC president Tony Perkins, not some obscure guy, the president of the FRC. FRC backpedaling is thin gruel.

 

[Ichinisan]

They didn't cut ties with FRC, they moved the suppprt underground. They also secretly give money directly to people in Uganda to support the killing of homosexuals.

Oh fuck! This is earth shattering "news!"

I believe it 100%

...because no one on the Internet sensationalizes or tries to distort facts to fit a narrative!

 

[Ruptga]

^^ what is that? an argument from incredulity?

 

[Ichinisan]

^^ what is that? an argument from incredulity?

I could restate that as a request for sources and evidence / proof.

I'm sure I would get a link to an article on a notoriously biased left-wing blog.

 

[CZroe]

How dare they report the FRC's very own words!

That's my point. Context is everything and they deliberately took everything out of context. "Support" can mean so many things. I support democracy and Arab Spring, but I don't support the criminalization of gays or any number of things they might add to their democratic constitutions. In fact, I particularly condemn that. Either way, I never sent financial support to them in any way, though I may have spent money to change the wording in a condemnation of their policies. If you twist and distort my words to imply that I endorse what I specifically condemn and then imply that I supported it financially just because the word "support" can mean that, you are a filthy manipulative dirtbag. If you did it specifically because you disagreed with my race or religion, then you are a bigot on top of that. Understand? Stop being a tool. Read between the lines. That "exposé" style of manipulative writing is surprisingly easy to do, which is why it was so easy to whip people into a frenzy over Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown. Tools of a manipulative media, all of you.

 

[CZroe]

They didn't cut ties with FRC, they moved the suppprt underground. They also secretly give money directly to people in Uganda to support the killing of homosexuals.

They deliberately played with the definition of "support" to get you to believe that. The Ugandan Resolution is a lot more than just a law criminalizing gays. It is possible to support it while condemning it, just like it is possible to support democracy while condemning certain democratic actions of that democracy.

 

[IronWing]

That's my point. Context is everything and they deliberately took everything out of context. "Support" can mean so many things. I support democracy and Arab Spring, but I don't support the criminalization of gays or any number of things they might add to their democratic constitutions. In fact, I particularly condemn that. Either way, I never sent financial support to them in any way, though I may have spent money to change the wording in a condemnation of their policies. If you twist and distort my words to imply that I endorse what I specifically condemn and then imply that I supported it financially just because the word "support" can mean that, you are a filthy manipulative dirtbag. If you did it specifically because you disagreed with my race or religion, then you are a bigot on top of that. Understand? Stop being a tool. Read between the lines. That "exposé" style of manipulative writing is surprisingly easy to do, which is why it was so easy to whip people into a frenzy over Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown. Tools of a manipulative media, all of you.

Here is Tony Perkins' statement on the bill and Obama's condemnation of the bill.

Does civility require the acceptance of all behavior? Hello, I am Tony Perkins with the Family Research Council. At the recent National Prayer Breakfast, President Obama took the podium calling for greater civility in Washington, which in my opinion is a laudable goal. However, his comments quickly turned to his preoccupation with defending homosexuality. The President criticized Ugandan leaders for considering enhance penalties for crimes related to homosexuality. The press has widely mischaracterized the law which calls for the death penalty, not for homosexual behavior which is already a crime, but for acts such as intentionally spreading HIV/AIDS, or preying upon vulnerable individuals such as children, which has been a problem in Uganda for years because the large number of orphans. The President said that "We may disagree about gay marriage, "but surely we can agree that it is unconscionable to target gays and lesbians for who they are." Mr. President as long as you characterize efforts to uphold moral conduct that protects others and in particular the most vulnerable, as attacking people, civility will continue to evade us.

"Efforts to uphold moral conduct" is referring to the Ugandan bill which at the time included provisions to execute gays. The death penalty was moderated upon final passage to life in prison for being gay. This bill is the morality of the FRC brought to life.

 

[Ruptga]

^^ Which, frankly, is bad enough. So they didn't come right out and say that the only gay is a good gay, whoop de doo. Their idea of utopia - that they are actively working for - involves the disenfranchisement of citizens for completely immaterial reasons, fuck em.

 

[CZroe]

Here is Tony Perkins' statement on the bill and Obama's condemnation of the bill.



"Efforts to uphold moral conduct" is referring to the Ugandan bill which at the time included provisions to execute gays. The death penalty was moderated upon final passage to life in prison for being gay. This bill is the morality of the FRC brought to life.

Christians disapprove of heterosexual relations out of wedlock too as part of supporting Christian values ("morals"). It's a sin, not a crime. It doesn't mean they want to kill or lock up all straights. They wanted the House of Representatives bill for condemning the Ugandan Resolution to stop short of embracing the morality of homosexual conduct which is exactly in line with mainstream Christianity and NOT "hate." They spent money to influence reps to change the wording but not to pull the bill. They did not seek to cancel the condemnation and actually condemned the criminalization of homosexuality themselves. Once again: learn to read between the lines. You are being manipulated in an anti-Christian agenda.

"V for Vendetta" has the same laughably distorted views on Christianity as you. Just because Christians believe homosexuality is a sin, they depict them ALL as oppressing gays while being universally perverted themselves (pedophiles and such). It's guilty of the kind of opinion manipulation and anti-[protected class] bigotry it PRETENDS to expose.

 

[Avalon]

Are you kidding me?

Wendy's, Backyard Burger, Zaxby's, and Huey's are all much better than Chik Fil A, to name a few.

Mediocre chicken and not much else.

 

[IronWing]

Christians disapprove of heterosexual relations out of wedlock too as part of supporting Christian values ("morals"). It's a sin, not a crime. It doesn't mean they want to kill or lock up all straights. They wanted the House of Representatives bill for condemning the Ugandan Resolution to stop short of embracing the morality of homosexual conduct which is exactly in line with mainstream Christianity and NOT "hate." They spent money to influence reps to change the wording but not to pull the bill. They did not seek to cancel the condemnation and actually condemned the criminalization of homosexuality themselves. Once again: learn to read between the lines. You are being manipulated in an anti-Christian agenda.

"V for Vendetta" has the same laughably distorted views on Christianity as you. Just because Christians believe homosexuality is a sin, they depict them ALL as oppressing gays while being universally perverted themselves (pedophiles and such). It's guilty of the kind of opinion manipulation and anti-[protected class] bigotry it PRETENDS to expose.

I have offered FRC's very own words to back my point. You have offered nothing but bitter insults to make your point.

 

[CZroe]

I have offered FRC's very own words to back my point. You have offered nothing but bitter insults to make your point.

Their words say exactly what I said they said. You read them with an agenda and interpreted something that was NOT said or implied. If you refuse to see what I have attempted to show you then YOU have become the manipulative anti-Christian bigot instead of simply being a tool of the manipulative anti-Christian bandwagon in the media. Read your own bolded quote of FRC again and understand what they REALLY said.

Mr. President as long as you characterize efforts to uphold moral conduct that protects others and in particular the most vulnerable, as attacking people, civility will continue to evade us.

They were talking about victims of rape and intentional exposure to HIV. That IS a criminal act, even here, and their condemnation of it has been mischaracterized as hate speech. You quoted it and pretended that it said something it did not say, which only further validates their (and my) objection. Stop playing games.

Everything I have posted has been from a smart phone, so don't pretend that my inability to cite everything I want proves your point, especially when your own citations are enough to prove mine.

 

[Ichinisan]

Are you kidding me?

Wendy's, Backyard Burger, Zaxby's, and Huey's are all much better than Chik Fil A, to name a few.

Mediocre chicken and not much else.

Wendy's chicken is not the same thing at all. In my area, the Wendy's chicken sandwiches are just stupid expensive. I don't know about the others except Zaxby's. Zax is pretty good, but the only thing I would compare is the good value of the Cajun Club versus CFA's grilled chicken. The Cajun Club meal is way too much food for a quick lunch. "Messy" is a massive understatement. It's just too much to eat unless it's the only thing you eat all day. I'd usually still prefer the awesome customer service, waffle fries, and split sweet tea + lemonade at CFA.

 

[IronWing]

They were talking about victims of rape and intentional exposure to HIV. That IS a criminal act, even here, and their condemnation of it has been mischaracterized as hate speech. You quoted it and pretended that it said something it did not say, which only further validates their (and my) objection. Stop playing games.

Everything I have posted has been from a smart phone, so don't pretend that my inability to cite everything I want proves your point, especially when your own citations are enough to prove mine.

Again you misrepresent the content of the bill.

The bill divides homosexual behavior into two categories: "aggravated homosexuality", in which an offender would receive the death penalty, or "the offence of homosexuality" in which an offender would receive life imprisonment. "Aggravated homosexuality" is defined to include homosexual acts committed by a person who is HIV-positive, is a parent or authority figure, or who administers intoxicating substances, homosexual acts committed on minors or people with disabilities, and repeat offenders. "The offence of homosexuality" is defined to include same-sex sexual acts, involvement in a same-sex marriage, or an attempt to commit aggravated homosexuality.

The legislation would have strengthened the criminalisation of homosexuality in Uganda by introducing the death penalty for people who considered serial offenders, who are suspected of "aggravated homosexuality" and are HIV-positive, or who engage in sexual acts with those under 18 years of age.[1] People who are caught or suspected of homosexual activity would be forced to undergo HIV tests. Ugandans engaging in same-sex sexual relations outside Uganda would have fallen under the jurisdiction of this law, and would have been subject to extradition and a felony charge. Furthermore, the bill would have required anyone aware of an offence or an offender, including individuals, companies, media organisations, or non-governmental organisations who support LGBT rights, to report the offender within 24 hours. If an individual did not do so he or she would also have been considered an offender and be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding 250 "currency points" or imprisonment of up to three years.

 

[Ruptga]

Once again: learn to read between the lines.

Their words say exactly what I said they said. You read them with an agenda and interpreted something that was NOT said or implied.

 

[Ichinisan]

Remote-linked image no workie.

 

[CZroe]

Again you misrepresent the content of the bill.

Just like I can endorse democracy without endorsing every democratically motivated action, they can endorse the punishment for the truly criminal acts while condemning the criminalization of the sinful act. They can, and they did. You simply REFUSE to acknowledge it. YOU misinterpreted their endorsement just like you misinterpreted their monetary "support."

 

[IronWing]

Just like I can endorse democracy without endorsing every democratically motivated action, they can endorse the punishment for the truly criminal acts while condemning the criminalization of the sinful act. They can, and they did. You simply REFUSE to acknowledge it. YOU misinterpreted their endorsement just like you misinterpreted their monetary "support."

Your interpretation is simply not found in their words. You have chosen to "read between the lines" to cast the words of the FRC into what you perceive to be a favorable light.

 

[CZroe]

Your interpretation is simply not found in their words. You have chosen to "read between the lines" to cast the words of the FRC into what you perceive to be a favorable light.

Really?

Again you misrepresent the content of the bill.

The bill divides homosexual behavior into two categories: "aggravated homosexuality", in which an offender would receive the death penalty, or "the offence of homosexuality" in which an offender would receive life imprisonment. "Aggravated homosexuality" is defined to include homosexual acts committed by a person who is HIV-positive, is a parent or authority figure, or who administers intoxicating substances, homosexual acts committed on minors or people with disabilities, and repeat offenders. "The offence of homosexuality" is defined to include same-sex sexual acts, involvement in a same-sex marriage, or an attempt to commit aggravated homosexuality.

The legislation would have strengthened the criminalisation of homosexuality in Uganda by introducing the death penalty for people who considered serial offenders, who are suspected of "aggravated homosexuality" and are HIV-positive, or who engage in sexual acts with those under 18 years of age.[1] People who are caught or suspected of homosexual activity would be forced to undergo HIV tests. Ugandans engaging in same-sex sexual relations outside Uganda would have fallen under the jurisdiction of this law, and would have been subject to extradition and a felony charge. Furthermore, the bill would have required anyone aware of an offence or an offender, including individuals, companies, media organisations, or non-governmental organisations who support LGBT rights, to report the offender within 24 hours. If an individual did not do so he or she would also have been considered an offender and be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding 250 "currency points" or imprisonment of up to three years.

Once again, they endorsed PART of it.

In November 2010, Perkins was asked about Sprigg's comments regarding the criminalization of same-sex behavior: he responded that criminalizing homosexuality is not a goal of the Family Research Council.

No doubt, you will still refuse to acknowledge that they can pick and chose what to endorse and go on claiming that they wanted the death penalty for gays.

 

[CZroe]

You aren't making your case very well. In fact your argument sucks. Chick-fil-a is a fried chicken joint just like KFC, Church's, and Popeyes are fried chicken joints. I see you also slipped Bojangles in there, also a fried chicken joint like Chick-fil-a.

http://youtu.be/V7G12THGE3U

Yep: "chicken joint." Note that the first sandwichs shown on the menu were beef and pork.

Granted, that's not a normal CFA (waitress/table service, order-eat-pay-tip meal sequence, bread basket, waterfalls inside and out, metal silverware, etc) but you can get normal service there too. Also, the closest CFA to me does this too minus the Hawaiian theme (CFA Dwarf House). Local KFC has a buffet but I can't say I've ever been asked what appetizer I would like or if I would like to see the dessert menu.

My case was made perfectly well before. You've never seen a chicken bone at CFA. There is a BIG difference between the box and bucket chicken places. They have more in common with Burger King, Wendy's, and McDonald's. Ranking them with box/bucket chicken places is like ranking Arby's or Burger King with steak houses.

 

[IronWing]

http://youtu.be/V7G12THGE3U

Yep: "chicken joint." Note that the first sandwichs shown on the menu were beef and pork.

Granted, that's not a normal CFA (waitress/table service, order-eat-pay-tip meal sequence, bread basket, waterfalls inside and out, metal silverware, etc) but you can get normal service there too. Also, the closest CFA to me does this too minus the Hawaiian theme (CFA Dwarf House). Local KFC has a buffet but I can't say I've ever been asked what appetizer I would like or if I would like to see the dessert menu.

Holy fuck, you're stupid! That is a separate chain that happens to be owned by CFA. That's why they named it Truett's Luau, not simply CFA. Chick-fil-a is a chicken joint. Come back to reality, CZroe, it's not that bad here.