• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day brings out supporters, protesters [W:529]


I don't think he was respectful whatsoever. Some of his comments came across as downright arrogant and overly self-righteous, and frankly insulting.
 
I don't think he was respectful whatsoever. Some of his comments came across as downright arrogant and overly self-righteous, and frankly insulting.

This is from the original article/interview with Cathy that started all the controversy. What part of it is disrespectful, arrogant, or insulting?

 

Yep. I had Chick-Fil-A for breakfast yesterday. Was it due to some political message? Nope. It was due to the fact I was running late to work, didn't get breakfast at home, and could smell Chick-n-mini's driving past it and went "Mmmm...tha'tll hit the spot".

I'm not going to stop eating Chick-Fil-A because of a political message, but I'm not going to purposefully eat there for one either. I'm going to eat there or not because of the service and food that I recieve from a FOOD ESTABLISHMENT not a political entity.
 
This is from the original article/interview with Cathy that started all the controversy. What part of it is disrespectful, arrogant, or insulting?

Not that quote, but this radio show interview that happened days before:

 
This is from the original article/interview with Cathy that started all the controversy. What part of it is disrespectful, arrogant, or insulting?

Even if his interview was respectful, the fact that he donates millions of dollars to hate groups and pro-discrimination organizations is definitely NOT respectful.
 
Not that quote, but this radio show interview that happened days before:

Outside of it being religious in nature, I don't see the disrespectful or insulting nature you're seeing. If you believe in God and the Bible, marriage is never defined in same-sex terms. Again, I and you don't believe in living by biblical dictates, but those that do aren't necessarily heartless assholes. Find me a quote of Cathy saying, "God hates fags!", "Gays are going to hell", "I won't hire homosexuals", or anything truly insulting and I'll change my tune.

As of yet, Cathy's advocated rather respectfully for his biblical views. I think they're utter bull****, but he's got every right in the world to share them. And he could be a raging WBC jerk off. he could be running around like some people hear, saying homosexuals are disgusting, unnatural, in need of curing, hellbound sinners...but I haven't seen him doing that at all.
 
Let's go to 'iwaspoisoned.com' and see how things worked out yesterday.


Where: Chick-Fil-A, Dallas, Texas
When: 01-Aug-2012,
What: Sausage breakfast burrito, been vomiting and diarrhea all day afterwards


Only three reports of food poisoning yesterday. Looks like the invisible man in the sky was busy with other matters. Still wouldn't risk going there and angering the Big Guy.
 
Actually, thinking about it, yesterday I likely put on clothes potentinally made in a sweat shop, jumped into my environment destroyer, stopped in to get Hugo Chavez Gas, then after checking the time on my suicide-inducing slave wage created phone determined I had enough time to stop and get some hate chicken.

Of course, only hate chicken is the big to do on facebook and will make me feel so high and mighty because all my friends will hit "like" and I can act like I'm so much better than other people...so I should've just skipped the hate chicken that way I could proclaim I'm some kind of great noble person who *really* gives a **** about what businesses may do 2 or 3 steps down the line with my money.
 
Even if his interview was respectful, the fact that he donates millions of dollars to hate groups and pro-discrimination organizations is definitely NOT respectful.

In your opinion they're hate groups and pro-discrimination groups.

Are these groups tarring and feathering anybody?
Performing lynchings?
Throwing people into gas chambers or ovens to fry?
Standing outside of military funerals with "God hates fags" signs?

Or are they fighting in court and through lobbying to prevent gay marriage? 'Cause even if they're wrong about gay marriage, they have every right to protest against it.
 
Let's go to 'iwaspoisoned.com' and see how things worked out yesterday.


Only three reports of food poisoning yesterday. Looks like the invisible man in the sky was busy with other matters. Still wouldn't risk going there and angering the Big Guy.

this type of disrespect toward religion is just as bad as any anti gay remarks anyone else has made. mr cathy said his opinion about what marriage was, this is just openly mocking millions of people because their beliefs are different. Why does no one around here condemn these types of remarks?
 

Well, it was his whole comment about "our generation" being "arrogant and prideful" and all that bull**** about "we think we know better than God what constitutes marriage" that really rubbed me the wrong way. He was essentially accusing others of being arrogant and prideful while doing the same in sticking to his own construct of what marriage is, which is ironic and hypocritical at the same time.

It's like when someone says to you "You're going to hell" and I'm like "well who the **** told you, asshole? Did God send you a fax?" That is the height of arrogance and self-righteousness, and its an attitude that's not backed up by anything other than irrational faith. Whatever happened to "Judge not lest ye be judged?"

Apart from that, the whole argument about "biblical marriage" is plain bull****. The Bible never explicitly defines marriage as between a man and a woman. Not only that, the Old Testament at least supports polygamy and concubinage, and rape victims are required to marry their rapists.
 
Last edited:
Really...are we really having to reach so far to attack people that we need to compare "I don't believe the government should recognize and bestow additional benefits to homosexual marriages" to "GOD HATES FAGS", People who support the notion of Gassing Jews?

I remember hearing all the time how the world isn't black and white and you shouldn't say "you're with us or against us" and other such equiviocating things.....but when it comes to civil rights, disagreeing with changes to a law is fine to compare as equals with Nazi's and proclaiming things like GOD HATES FAGS while protesting a military funeral.

It's wonderful to see that the Godwining of this thread is such a bipartisan effort and began from the first few posts right up into the 200's :roll:
 

how original. another person looking for small parts of the bible that are in no way appliciable today to try to make an entire faith of people look bad while ignoring 99% of the book. Hey you want to do the muslim faith next? Then we can mock the jews for their faith too! Hell lets openly mock anyone who's faith differs from yours and pretend we are taking the high road for it. Sounds fun!
 

In my defense, I was trying to make the point that there are ways to reject gay marriage without being a raging asshole, and that people should focus on those who are raging assholes instead of making giant issues out of people who share their views more politely.
 

He's not really trying to make anybody look bad. He's pointing out the reality of selective application. It does happen a lot in the modern world.
 

As do white nationalists when it comes to pursuing their own agenda. That doesn't make the KKK any less a purveyor of bigotry and discrimination.
 
In your opinion they're hate groups and pro-discrimination groups.

Not just my opinion; the Southern Poverty Law Center (the nation's foremost organization that tracks hate groups) classifies the Family Research Council as a hate group for spreading propaganda about gays being pedophiles. Dan Cathy gives them money.

As for pro-discrimination groups...what else would you call an organization that advocates different rights for one class of citizens than for another?

Are these groups tarring and feathering anybody?
Performing lynchings?
Throwing people into gas chambers or ovens to fry?

They aren't directly doing these things, although they are fostering an atmosphere of hatred toward homosexuals in which violence against them is more likely.

Standing outside of military funerals with "God hates fags" signs?

The Family Research Council comes pretty close to that.

Or are they fighting in court and through lobbying to prevent gay marriage? 'Cause even if they're wrong about gay marriage, they have every right to protest against it.

They absolutely do. Just as others have the right to not support a business that openly endorses discrimination.
 
Last edited:
As do white nationalists when it comes to pursuing their own agenda. That doesn't make the KKK any less a purveyor of bigotry and discrimination.

just because someone disagrees with your point of view they should be equated to the KKK? How is suppression of religios beliefs any differnt?
 

If that's all you took away from my post, then my point went way over your head.
 
As do white nationalists when it comes to pursuing their own agenda. That doesn't make the KKK any less a purveyor of bigotry and discrimination.

I'm not sure what you're saying here. The KKK also has a record of burning crosses on lawns and allegedly lynching black people. They're not just a group using the court system to move on their agenda.

I know you feel strongly about this, and you know I fully support gay marriage.

But come on, SB. Not every single person who opposes gay marriage has an agenda to hurt, humiliate, or castigate homosexuals. Some of them (and you know a few), struggle every day to reconcile what they're taught about God's desires and what they feel personally for gay people in their own lives. It isn't as cut and dry as "He opposes gay marriage, he's a terrible bigot and a hateful monster."
 
just because someone disagrees with your point of view they should be equated to the KKK?

It has jack to do with disagreement. It has to do with the fact that they are attempting to deny an entire segment of the population their fundamental rights, which isn't any morally less reprehensible than denying minorities the right to vote.

How is suppression of religios beliefs any differnt?

Who's suppressing anyone's beliefs?
 
He's not really trying to make anybody look bad. He's pointing out the reality of selective application. It does happen a lot in the modern world.

the way it appears to me is he is mocking and attacking a religion because it differs from his beliefs. There are a lot of things in the old testament that were far more a product of there time and are not appliciable today. That is not selective application.
 

No, I actually generally agreed with your point being made. It was others in this thread who've tried to compare it to "Westboro Bapist Church" and the "Nazi Party" that I have issues with.

A little common sense is what I'm saying in regards to trying to compare disagreeing with laws that allow homosexual marriage be recognized under the law and being a Nazi or the view points of Westboro as some kind of equivalent thing.

Being against gay marriage makes one equivalent to a group that believes being homosexual should be a "Capital Crime" as being in favor of gun registration makes on equivalent to groups that feel that all guns should be banned.
 

Not sure I ever argued against this point, so I have no idea why you're bringing it up. Let's be careful about making dumb assumptions, shall we?
 

Like I've said elsewhere, it's one thing to hold to your own personal beliefs. I don't have a problem with that, though I disagree. It's quite another to engage in political action to actively deny someone else their rights.
 
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…