Posted on 08/06/2012 5:56:17 AM PDT by Kaslin
“You don’t need Pelosi’s endorsement to bad mouth KFC.
Yum Brands pledged $80 mil to the Clinton Global Initative”
I’m not defending KFC... I’m saying leave unconnected utterances out of it.
Be very clear on what one is calling punishment for.
It is in my view, once again, a symptom of a sense of entitlement that transcends the law, the notion of a civil society, and the Constitution. The reaction against CFA is the perfect paradigm of leftism.
The left thinks it is smarter, therefore it thinks it has not only the right to its opinions, but the right to enforce them upon others, and further, to squash the Constitution by muzzling the freedom of speech and opinion of others. And they don’t even think about it; they don’t weigh their reaction against any external set or hierarchy of standards. Because they do not have one.
That is better, and I will substitute. I use 'sick' twice - any other suggestions?
What the MSM found out the hard way is this: They carry the water for the gay cause, but by doing so they grossly inflate their influence on society. So when such a scenario comes up, the gay cause doesn’t have a chance, and their media supporters were caught up a creek without a paddle.
I do wish more conservatives would properly recognize what the movement is really about. Much of society long ago recognized that there was considerable value in having something resembling generalized reciprocity on behalf of permanent family units; one major purpose behind government acknowledgment of marriage is to allow those who would bestow benefits upon the heads of a permanent family unit to distinguish those who qualify from those who do not.
What proponents of "gay marriage" are really seeking to do is compel those who would voluntarily bestow benefits upon what they would recognize as permanent family units, to also bestow those benefits upon couples whom they would not so recognize. The issue is not what gay people should be allowed to do among themselves--the issue is the extent to which others should be involuntarily compelled to regard their unions as being the equal of marriage.
I have no problem with laws which would allow any couple to register as a civil union for purposes like hospital visitation, survivorship, inheritance, etc, without regard for sex or sibling/cousin relationship (if parent/child relationships could be so registered, many such "relationships" would likely be formed as an inheritance-tax dodge; it would probably be best to disallow such relationships unless or until tax laws are changed so as to not encourage such a thing). Indeed, there may be some situations where it might be entirely reasonable for siblings to establish such a relationship (e.g. if two siblings, both with children, are widowed, it may be logical for them to share a household, and for each to want the other recognized as guardian of the children in case of death or incapacity. Curiously, however, proponents of same-sex marriage consistently seem to insist that civil unions should be unavailable for siblings, perhaps because if they were available to siblings, they would not imply legitimate sexual relations.
Ah, don’t tell me they misspelled “Chick-fil-A” in the dang headline.
“Curiously, however, proponents of same-sex marriage consistently seem to insist that civil unions should be unavailable for siblings, perhaps because if they were available to siblings, they would not imply legitimate sexual relations.”
Excellent analysis and I am in full agreement with all you say - as for the above passage, obviously if all they were really seeking were some legal benefits as per passing of property, hospital visitation, civil unions would serve them fine, even if granted to non-sexual couples such as siblings or even mother/daughter who are both widowed.
But we both know what their beef is: They are looking to be normalized and celebrated, and to transform marriage, and thus society itself. And they do not give a hoot n holler about any siblings needing civil unions.
They sure did and probably don’t have spellchecker
I do have to confess that “Chick-fil-A” is a clumsy name for a restaurant. It took me a while to remember how to spell it. :-)
I think the author couldn't wait to undercut the anti-homosexual marriage message.
As Rush sometimes says: your post ——> “RIGHT ON, RIGHT ON.”
Though I agree with what you posted I thought maybe a little more perspective was in order.
There are 1614 CFA stores according to Wikipedia. If every store had 1000 people throughout the day, that would have been 1.614 MILLION people. I went by the CFA closest to me, at 7pm and 9pm. Both times they had OVERFLOW parking in neighboring lots, with HUNDREDS of people waiting to get in. At 7pm the line of cars was about 1/2 mile long.
If we double the 1.614 number (which I think is probably accurate) that would be 3.2 Million people.
Heres the perspective part.
There are approximatly 310 million people in the US. 3.2 million is about 1% of the entire US population.
Much larger than any rally in Washington, EVER. All within days. Mike Huckabee made the idea of August 1 being Chick Fil A appreciation day on July 22. TEN DAYS LATER millions show up.
My point being, don't sell the day short. This wasn't a few hundred thousand people. This was closer to a few million.
:-)
I did the same math you did, but I wanted to be conservative.
I literally looked up the number of stores and multiplied by how many went to the local CFA, just as you did. :-)
The difference between US and THEM is very simple. If we disagree with a Company's Policies, we choose not to spend our hard earned Dollars there.
We don't paint hateful Graffiti on the walls of their buildings, we don't harass their customers, we don't call in Bomb Threats and we don't engage in Lewd Public behavior that would offend both the young and old Patrons of that particular Business.
Our ENEMIES, and that is exactly what they are, do the opposite.
My point was that its wrong to punish a business, its employees, and suppliers for what someone not even associated with it says about it.
I just got around to reading this thread, since bookmarking it on the 6th.
Just as an aside, another source of healthy fast food is Arby’s. They have good lean roast beef sandwiches that you can have plain or add your own toppings. Also healthy salads. Just stay away from the cheesy topping versions and the fries.
No, I haven’t any interest in the company, I just like good roast beef.
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.