Skip to comments.
Because of Adam Smith [Chick-Fil-A incident] many will no longer support liberal gay community
8-3-12
| Arcy
Posted on 08/03/2012 7:39:53 AM PDT by Arcy
The internet world awoke to a video of an exchange between Mr. Adam Smith, the now former CFO/Treasurer of Arizona based Vante, who has since been fired after embarrassing the company, and a young woman working the drive-thru window at his local Chick-Fil-A restaurant.
Smith, enraged by the first amendment freedoms Americans have to express opinions he disagrees with, chose to direct his frustrations with the Chick-Fil-A corporation by ambushing and berating a young lady trying to support her family by working at the drive-thru window of the restaurant.
Despite the professional and courteous service Smith received from the lady, he was unable to restrain himself from unleashing a vicious verbal assault on her. Much to her credit, she remained calm and collected - something Smith, the acting CFO of a company, could not do. Unmoved by the kindness of the young lady, Smith continued his relentless barrage, all of which was captured on his hand-held camera and later posted on the internet.
The liberal gay community continues to be its own worst public affairs advocate. Until the leaders of that movement learn to be tolerant of American values and the freedoms American's have under the constitution, it will continue to push away those who have tried to defend it.
For the record. I am absolutely NOT gay nor do I believe it is okay to be gay.
TOPICS: Editorial
KEYWORDS: adamsmith; chickfila; homosexualagenda; nealboortz; vanity
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100 ... 121 next last
To: lacrew
I pass no judgments on homosexuality.
I let nature do it for me.
Without active intervention, sexual traits like homosexuality tend to die out after two or three generations. Why? It can not reproduce itself without outside assistance. This has to be done either medically (artificial insemination, etc) or socially (host mothers or adoption).
IMHO this is what drives the hate shown by that community - it is so unfair that their life style is contra survival. And they are going to continue to protest until the laws of nature are changed in their favor no matter how many generations it takes. But they want the natural laws changed NOW!
61
posted on
08/03/2012 9:16:10 AM PDT
by
Nip
(TANSTAAFL and BOHICA)
To: PetroniusMaximus
They hate what is normal because it reminds them that they are not. True, at least for the foaming at the mouth gaystop-o members. I'm sure some really couldn't care less about the gay marriage issue.
I've decided if this is they way they want to play, fine. I'm willing to leave well enough alone, but if they keep pushing, I've decided to take the fight to them.
If ever confronted with one, the second they raise the issue, I'll start screaming HETEROPHOBE right in his face.
What happens next will be strictly up to them.
62
posted on
08/03/2012 9:17:50 AM PDT
by
MamaTexan
(I am a Person as Created by the Laws of Nature, not a person as created by the laws of Man)
To: ExTxMarine
Indeed! The quote is from John Adams: "This Constitution is made for a moral and religious people. It is inadequate for the governing of any other."
I am heartened by the outpouring of support for Chick-Fil-A, but disappointed that so many explain it as support for "free speech" rather than for public morality, since "free speech" is the slippery slope that has gotten us into this mess in the first place.
For many, I suspect, "free speech" is an easy answer given by (A) those afraid to say, "I'm here in line at Chick-Fil-A because they stand for what's RIGHT in the eyes of God," or (B) those who don't like homosexuality but do like fornication and pornography and all their pet immoralities and so are disqualified to make an argument from morality.
63
posted on
08/03/2012 9:19:51 AM PDT
by
LearsFool
("Thou shouldst not have been old, till thou hadst been wise.")
To: Conscience of a Conservative
Yes, he was a complete a**hole, and yes, he deserved to be fired and ridiculed. But let's not confuse things - under the First Amendment, he had every legal right to be a complete a**hole (just like his employer had every legal right to fire him for doing so). He had a legal right to say what he did, but he was way beyond socially accepted behavior. It was not culturally appropriate. People are repelled by his behavior.
If he actually committed a crime, he would have a right to a trial, a right to a lawyer, a right to a presumption of innocence.
He does not have those rights for his social and cultural faux-pax. It is not a legal issue, but a social and cultural one.
To: LearsFool
Our side was compromised and the battle lost when we started using "free speech" as a license for saying and doing things that ought not be said or done.The right did not us the First Amendment to say and do things that should not be done it was the left that did that. And the courts let them.
65
posted on
08/03/2012 9:25:29 AM PDT
by
Ratman83
To: LearsFool
Our side was compromised and the battle lost when we started using "free speech" as a license for saying and doing things that ought not be said or done.The right did not us the First Amendment to say and do things that should not be done it was the left that did that. And the courts let them.
66
posted on
08/03/2012 9:25:29 AM PDT
by
Ratman83
To: Conscience of a Conservative
This guy did not post/sell this video for commercial purposes, so he likely did not need a release to do so. Not that I really know, but -
He posted it publicly, obviously looking for public recognition, so the argument could be made that commercial purposes could have resulted from the video, despite the fact it was not initially for commercial intent.
------
In other words, had his (totally delusional) plan of Internet fame been successful, he would have been fay-mus!
:-)
67
posted on
08/03/2012 9:27:56 AM PDT
by
MamaTexan
(I am a Person as Created by the Laws of Nature, not a person as created by the laws of Man)
To: Ratman83
Darn double post and misspelling.
The right did not us the = The right did not use the
68
posted on
08/03/2012 9:30:35 AM PDT
by
Ratman83
To: DuncanWaring
Kippling be a favorite of mine, he.
For the sin they do by two and two they must pay for one by one.
69
posted on
08/03/2012 9:31:28 AM PDT
by
oyez
( .Apparently The U.S. CONSTITUTION has been reduced to the consistency of quicksand.)
To: LearsFool
You say “free speech” is the easy answer, but I believe it was the bigger issue of the day from the perspective of our country. As a Christian, I want to do what is right in the eyes of God. Many people don't understand that. As an American, I saw government officials trying to make policy based on someones religious beliefs. All Americans should be able to understand that was an attack on the freedom of every American.
70
posted on
08/03/2012 9:35:01 AM PDT
by
shatcher
To: LearsFool
You say “free speech” is the easy answer, but I believe it was the bigger issue of the day from the perspective of our country. As a Christian, I want to do what is right in the eyes of God. Many people don't understand that. As an American, I saw government officials trying to make policy based on someones religious beliefs. All Americans should be able to understand that was an attack on the freedom of every American.
71
posted on
08/03/2012 9:35:01 AM PDT
by
shatcher
To: LearsFool
You say “free speech” is the easy answer, but I believe it was the bigger issue of the day from the perspective of our country. As a Christian, I want to do what is right in the eyes of God. Many people don't understand that. As an American, I saw government officials trying to make policy based on someones religious beliefs. All Americans should be able to understand that was an attack on the freedom of every American.
72
posted on
08/03/2012 9:35:15 AM PDT
by
shatcher
To: Arcy
Adam Smith taught at the local college for years. I'm sure his brand of hatred for traditional American fit in perfectly with the other liberal elites... Your kids, my kids, our loved ones are being taught by men like Adam Smith.
It would be nice if some reporter dropped by the college to see if other 'teachers' on that campus agreed with Mr. Smith... then again hell would freeze over before that would happen...
73
posted on
08/03/2012 9:38:33 AM PDT
by
GOPJ
(Political correctness is simply George Orwell's Newspeak by a non-threatening name. FR- Bernard Marx)
To: LearsFool
So now our side is imposing "speech codes"? Banning "hate speech"? "Our side" isn't imposing anything.
74
posted on
08/03/2012 9:42:34 AM PDT
by
MileHi
( "It's coming down to patriots vs the politicians." - ovrtaxt)
To: MrB
Liberalism exposed is liberalism defeated.It exposes itself. Half of the country is too stupid to see it or too self-indulgent to accept it. Inertia will prevail until conditions get so bad that fear overwhelms it. At that point, you can't be comforted by the fact that the stupids will be looking for a solution.
75
posted on
08/03/2012 9:43:02 AM PDT
by
Stentor
To: Sans-Culotte
If they had their own acceptance, from within their own souls, they wouldn’t demand and try to legislate acceptance from me.
That’s why the more laws that get passed in an attempt to placate them the more frustrated they become. The soul is not deceived or fooled, it knows and wants the truth.
To: Ratman83
The right did not us the First Amendment to say and do things that should not be done it was the left that did that. And the courts let them.
Try proposing censorship of pornography and see what sort of responses you get here on FreeRepublic.
Or shoot, just make a comment complaining about the softcore porn posted on FR and see how many flaming comments you get from "the right".
77
posted on
08/03/2012 9:47:27 AM PDT
by
LearsFool
("Thou shouldst not have been old, till thou hadst been wise.")
To: Arcy
“Because of Adam Smith [Chick-Fil-A incident] many will no longer support liberal gay community”
From your lips to God’s ears.
78
posted on
08/03/2012 9:48:19 AM PDT
by
freeangel
( (free speech is only good until someone else doesn't like it)
To: LearsFool
For many, I suspect, "free speech" is an easy answer given by (A) those afraid to say, "I'm here in line at Chick-Fil-A because they stand for what's RIGHT in the eyes of God," or (B) those who don't like homosexuality but do like fornication and pornography and all their pet immoralities and so are disqualified to make an argument from morality.
But, this is where I can't agree, because this is not a simple black and white issue. For example, I know of some homosexuals who went to Chick-fil-a on Wednesday. Their "morals" allow them to be homosexuals, but they also believe in Mr. Cathy's freedom of speech. The problem that we have is that basing everything off of YOUR morals isn't a fair or accurate argument and that is where you and I, and it seems some other FReepers, disagree.
I do not agree with Luis Farrakan (sp) - I think he is a lunatic with an agenda to destroy Christianity. However, I think he has every right to speak his mind. Heck, I think the more he speaks, the better it is for the rest of America: they get to hear his stupidity. So, sometimes, it really is just about "freedom of speech."
What I think most liberals, and obviously most of these judges who have ruled for the homosexuals, seem to ignore is the "free exercise there of" portion of our 1st Amendment. My religion, and morals, says that homosexuality is WRONG. And therefore, I have a right to say that homosexuality is WRONG.
However, I am totally AGAINST the US government trying to "outlaw" homosexuality. Each person must CHOOSE to end their immoral ways and embrace religious morals - you cannot end this by some man-made law.
I want you to think about this as racism. Racism is "illegal." Does it still exist? Is it immoral? Heck, I would bet my paycheck that it is more prevalent in those who the law was originally written to "protect," than it is in those who it was designed to "punish!"
79
posted on
08/03/2012 9:49:41 AM PDT
by
ExTxMarine
(PRAYER: It's the only HOPE for real CHANGE in America!)
To: Arcy
I am genetically incapable of using “gay” to describe a homosexual person. Its just my personal quirk. Perversion of language is offensive.
80
posted on
08/03/2012 9:53:00 AM PDT
by
Elsiejay
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100 ... 121 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson