Posted on 08/02/2012 6:49:37 AM PDT by DallasBiff
He certainly has a high opinion of himself and his ilk. I doubt, very seriously, whether a total loss of all homosexual customers would even show up as a point on the profit and loss sheet. Even IF they are 10% (DOUBTFUL) of the general population, how many have a Chick-fil-A near them that they can boycott, since most are in The South? How many eat chicken as opposed to being vegetarians? How many have a 'lifestyle' that allows them to eat fast food as opposed to places like the now defunct 'Elaines'? If the scenes from yesterday didn't convince the butt pirates of the futility of their pissant boycott, I guess they are even more deluded than I thought, and that was pretty deluded..........
Uh-huh.
Right.
When I see a big city mayor retract, backpedal, apologize: then I’ll believe they “get it”.
Until then, the choice of where you eat is now politicized.
A man built a BILLION dollar business. Take that Obama.
Customers peacefully buycotted said business. They did it for a variety of reasons. . Free Speech. Traditional marriage. A show against Tyranny, etc. Even Antoine Dodson showed up to support the employees.
We voted with our wallets, our families, our feet, our time, in the hot blazing sun.
I believe in the halls of Obama land they are scared about November 6th.
“Chick-fil-A is still likely to experience a net loss of business over time as a result of Mr. Cathy’s statements.”
Exactly. Just like on August 1, right, Steve?
Steve Salbu
Out & Equal is proud to announce that Steve Salbu, dean and Stephen P. Zelnak chairholder at the Georgia Tech College of Management, will be addressing attendees at the HR Luncheon, sponsored by IBM. He will address the role that multinational companies can take in influencing the experience of international lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender employees, as an extension of both their diversity and business strategies.
The only openly LGBT dean of a leading U.S. business school, Salbu assumed his current role after serving as associate dean for graduate programs at the McCombs School of Business at the University of Texas, where he also served as director of the McCombs School Business Ethics Program and editor-in-chief of the American Business Law Journal. Salbu
What’s stopping them? If they want to call their perverted union a marriage, do so. It’s not about their freedom to enter into a relationship and call it marriage.
It’s about whether the public has to recognize that perverted union as a marriage. It’s about whether governments and businesses have to pay benefits for relationships that are not a traditional family. They are trying to impose their values on the public, they are trying to get the public to demean the meaning of marriage as recognized in the public sector, not vice versa.
“What’s stopping them? If they want to call their perverted union a marriage, do so. It’s not about their freedom to enter into a relationship and call it marriage.
It’s about whether the public has to recognize that perverted union as a marriage. It’s about whether governments and businesses have to pay benefits for relationships that are not a traditional family. They are trying to impose their values on the public, they are trying to get the public to demean the meaning of marriage as recognized in the public sector, not vice versa.”
That’s the clearest and best summation of the entire situation that I have heard (read) to date.
Thank you!
Jeez... that guy looks like he’s getting buggered just sitting there for that picture.
Wait. There're gay chickens?
Why not substitute "number" for "gender" ? Or "species" ?
The problem here is that the homosexuals want to force us to publicly approve of their "choice".
And we don't have to. That's our freedom.
You beat me to it, and well said.
But this statement? "True individual freedom includes allowing consenting adults to marry the partners they choose, regardless of gender"? This is factually wrong.
The right to marreiage is always defined by certain eligibility requirements: the potential marriage partner must be of age, mentally competent, consenting, of the other sex, not within proscribed degrees of blood reltionship (e.g. not their father, mother, brother, sister, etc.), not already married to somebody else (no bigamy, polygamy, etc.), not acting under threat or duress, etc.
Any gay person finding a partner who meets the eligibility requirements, can marry just like anybody else.
As far as I could know such a thing, most homosexual people throughout history married: I have in mind the famous New Hampshire Episcopal cleric, Bishop Gene Robinson, who had a wife and 2 children. I can't call to mind anyone of whatever orientation, who was ever denied the right to marry.
Somebody help me out if I missed something. I'm here to learn.
Fine... move to a state that supports your perverted definition of 'marriage'. This is a states rights issue and always will be.
You could be correct. My mind probably ended back in the nineties. I just remember seeing copies everywhere while at Penn State and at the Carnegie.
I tried to research the NYT gov. subscription stats but can't seem to find any? Curious to know?
Those who follow such people will also be hesitant to eat there, or be branded “haters” (which I guess is the ultimate insult today).
So in some sets, I expect to see a decline. However, Chick-fil-A got a great PR boost. Lots of people ate there yesterday that normally wouldn't. Many will go back.
I would bet on an over increase, at least short term.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.