Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Worthy of a boycott?

Worthy of a boycott?

Well, if we’re using the same “difference of opinion” standard that was used to call for the boycott of Chick-Fil-A, then it sure would seem it. If the 30 states that have enacted legislation or constitutional amendments defining marriage as between a man and woman decided to engage in the same type of ban that a Chicago Alderman is seeking, Target would quickly be losing an awful lot of business.

But this is different than the Chick-Fil-A thing, right?

Indeed, this is very different. This isn’t Target’s President casually mentioning at the end of a lengthy interview that he is pro-gay marriage. No, this is a company ad stating that they are pro-gay marriage, and in fact would like to help with the wedding process.

Obviously, there is nothing wrong with this sentiment. If this is how Target feels on the subject of gay marriage, then they are 100% within their rights to express that. But let’s establish the same standard for all businesses, shall we?

For example, if the government of North Carolina, which recently added a Constitutional Amendment prohibiting gay marriage in the state, were to take up the same practice that Mayor Rahm Emanuel and other leftist politicians are doing in Chicago, more than 40 Target locations would be on the chopping block.

But that’s not going to happen.

The uniform standard that should be established is not one that mimics the leftist Mayor of Chicago’s intolerance for a difference of opinion on a political issue. It should be that businesses and their employees, like everyone in the United States, have a right to believe what they want to believe, and a government cannot punish a person for their thoughts.

Target’s ad isn’t worthy of a government boycott, and neither are Chick-Fil-A’s President’s thoughts.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

LukeHandCool | July 28, 2012 at 11:46 am

I have mixed feelings about gay marriage … but I’m definitely against goofy “Eskimo kissing” ads.

I’m supposedly an intolerant, homophobic, conservative Republican.

Then why oh why do I not feel this overwhelming urge to boycott Target?

    This campaign does not breach the threshold of subverting evolutionary fitness. Since I suggest tolerance is warranted, I would not boycott a business on these grounds. It does demonstrate progress to normalize a behavior which constitutes evolutionary dysfunction. It calls into question the mental “solvency” of its creators.

    Besides, it’s not as if evolutionary dysfunction is exclusively defined by homosexual behavior. It is certainly exemplary of that outcome, but individuals who are heterosexual and engage in similarly dysfunctional behavior are clearly represented in the overwhelming majority. If we use the standard of normalizing behaviors which constitute evolutionary dysfunction to boycott interests who promote it, then the list would be very long indeed.

    I do, however, believe there is a symbiotic relationship between individuals in each class to protect their dreams of instant gratification at the expense of society and humanity.

    Oh, well. Either the majority or a sufficiently empowered minority (the historical standard) rule. Perhaps there is an ulterior motive which they have not made plain.

There’s a phrase you hear a lot in certain (leftist) circles: “Doing well by doing good.” This is what the folks at Target are thinking. Not only are they supporting something they believe in, they’re making money off of it too!

Don’t ask me how this seems so virtuous to those people. I just report the news, I don’t claim to understand it.

To the Left, there are right thoughts and wrong thoughts, right expression and wrong expression. That’s it. For all their vaunted nuance and sophistication, this is how culture and politics and indeed the entire world are reduced. When you discuss notions of a “uniform standard” and allusions to ‘live and let live’ and ‘respect for different opinions,’ you might as well be describing metaphysics to an alligator. It cannot be processed. It won’t be. In fact, that’s the real point — it won’t be because to do so subjects their fundamentalism (which can only succeed in a denuded and absolutist moral universe) to a larger liberal review and judgement. Target is different than Chick-Fil-A because its thought is right; its expression is unique and sacred as a result. Chick-Fil-A’s is wrong, so not only is its expression abhorrent and censorable, but the entity Chick-Fil-A itself is unworthy of existence. It doesn’t go beyond that.

    Ragspierre in reply to raven. | July 28, 2012 at 12:19 pm

    Very true. This set of filters extends to what they will allow themselves to see, or acknowledge seeing.

    For instance, Don Perry died yesterday. You can find Mushroom Media pieces about it all over the place. His death was worthy of mention because he was a VP for corporate PR for Chick-fil-A. (How many corporate VPs die every day with no mention in the papers?) But in none of the many MSM pieces will you find a mention that Mr. Perry was Black. To note that would dilute his “wrongness” in the eyes of the people reporting on his death. He was part of a preferred victim class, but to acknowledge that would make him “sympathetic” to them. Viewed another way, he was a traitor to victimology, and so unworthy of inclusion.

    In reality, he appears to have been a capable, strong, accomplished person of very good character. But that is also NOT mentioned in any of the pieces I reviewed about his death.

      raven in reply to Ragspierre. | July 28, 2012 at 12:53 pm

      http://bottomline.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/07/27/12994174-chick-fil-a-spokesman-don-perry-dies-as-company-battles-controversy?lite&ocid=ansmsnbc11

      MSNBC’s piece on Perry. Look at the language, or rather the abuse of it.

      They call Chick-Fil-A the “embattled restaurant chain.” Really? Why are they “embattled”? By whom? Who decides the criteria for “embattled.” Do protestors outnumber supporters? It never says. But note the attempt to authoritatively define the sides and terms. Chick-Fil-A is on the defensive, “embattled,” i.e., wrong.

      They face a “crisis.” Really? Who says? By what standard? What constitutes a crisis? Are they closing shops, laying off employees? No. In any case, we’re given no details. It’s just a “crisis.” And they’re “embattled.”

      The company faces its crisis over “what some describe as the company’s “intolerance” of same-sex marriage.” What “some describe”? Who describes? Who are the describers? We’re not told. And how are the company’s CEO’s personal statements reflective of the “company’s intolerance”? How is this so-called intolerance manifested? Does Chick-Fil-A discriminate against gay employees? Nothing, no details.

      Then this: “Chick-fil-A has a long tradition of adhering to conservative religious practices including closing on Sunday”. Is closing on Sunday a “conservative religious practice” or just a commonplace American tradition? How is it politically “conservative”? And what other “conservative religious practices” does it adhere to aside from closing on Sunday? The writer chose the plural. Any others? No details.

      Finally this: “Chick-fil-A has tried to defuse the crisis by saying they intend to leave the issue of same-sex marriage to the political arena.” Again, the “crisis.” Who at Chick-Fil-A said this? No quotes are provided. Did Chick-fil-A ever attempt as a company to do anything with this “issue” at all? How did Chick-fil-A ever politicize the issue? Wasn’t this ALWAYS the well-known and personal position of the CEO? Who made this a “crisis”?

      The mother-f*cking media at it again, abusing their pretense of objectivity, assuming the mantle of adjudicatory authority to establish and reinforce a Narrative. Beyond that, the article has next to nothing about Don Perry.

        WarEagle82 in reply to raven. | July 28, 2012 at 2:14 pm

        They call Chick-Fil-A the “embattled restaurant chain.”

        Of course Chick-Fil-A is embattled! In fact, they are practically besieged! Have you EVER tried to get a parking space or a table at one of their restaurants at lunch time?

        It is like the “Golden Horde” has descended upon the place trying to get in. And who can blame them. That is some tasty chicken…

          “Embattled” is a misnomer. There is also a major “buycott” for a company whose restaurants were very, very popular before the “kiss-in” (how weird is THAT?) boycotts started. I expect that in the end we’ll find this was a positive for the restaurant. But will anyone report it?

          WarEagle82 in reply to WarEagle82. | July 28, 2012 at 7:02 pm

          Sorry Phil. I was going for that ironic, sarcastic, factious thing with a bit of whimsy thrown in. I guess it didn’t work. It, it, won’t happen again, bro…

This article presumes a parity between supporting equality and supporting its withdrawal.

Supporting a boycott of a “whites-only” store does not mean you have to support a boycott of an integrated store. Refusing to allow the expansion of a business that donates millions to deprive Jews of civil equality does not mean you need to refuse to allow a business that donates to ensure civil equality for all.

False equivalencies may firm up the hardcore reactionary anti-intellectuals who are easily victimized by this sort of thing but they don’t really win any new ground. This is one of the many reasons the haters are losing this debate. Too much reliance on pre-existing prejudice, no ability to parse an issue or make distinctions.

    Ragspierre in reply to filmstocker. | July 28, 2012 at 12:23 pm

    Golly. That giant WHOOOSHING sound you heard…???

    That was the whole point of the post, flying untouched over your head.

    Ragspierre in reply to filmstocker. | July 28, 2012 at 12:28 pm

    “…the hardcore reactionary anti-intellectuals who are easily victimized…”

    Self-awareness is a trait you give up as a member of the Collective, which you ironically describe so well there.

    LukeHandCool in reply to filmstocker. | July 28, 2012 at 12:28 pm

    If only Chick-fil-A were a “straights only” business … then your comment might make a tiny bit of sense.

      filmstocker in reply to LukeHandCool. | July 28, 2012 at 1:06 pm

      What part of this question DON’T you understand? “Refusing to allow the expansion of a business that donates millions to deprive Jews of civil equality does not mean you need to refuse to allow a business that donates to ensure civil equality for all”

      Disallowing a business because it works to withdraw equality from a disfavored minority is not the same thing as disallowing a business because it supports equality. The article argues that they are the same. For people with brains, they are not the same thing. You’re welcome.

        Ragspierre in reply to filmstocker. | July 28, 2012 at 1:20 pm

        The irony with this one is strong…

        Collectivist boycotts against a religious population are hardly new.

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xh95Ijf5BjI&feature=player_embedded

          filmstocker in reply to Ragspierre. | July 28, 2012 at 2:17 pm

          Oh, please.

          Talk about an inability to draw even the simplest distinctions.

          People are not objecting to Cathy’s beliefs or his race or stigmatizing his minority status. They are objecting to his business’ donations in the millions to organizations (many of them classified as hate groups) that seek to deprive a disfavored minority of civil equality via the courts, ballot box and legislatures.

          Yeesh… What is this site? It’s like talking to simple children over here. Is “Legal Insurrection” a law school for the mentally disabled or something?

          LukeHandCool in reply to Ragspierre. | July 28, 2012 at 2:37 pm

          filmstocker:

          “People are not objecting to Cathy’s beliefs … They are objecting to his business’ donations in the millions to organizations (many of them classified as hate groups) that seek to deprive a disfavored minority of civil equality via the courts, ballot box and legislatures.”

          Let me distill that:

          People are not objecting to Cathy’s beliefs … they are objecting to his donations to organizations (form of free speech) which share his beliefs.

          And if the self-contradiction there bugs you … and the fact that people like filmstocker have no problem with lefty business owner doing the same thing … if that bugs you, too, well, then, you’re worse than Hitler!

          filmstocker in reply to Ragspierre. | July 28, 2012 at 2:54 pm

          “People are not objecting to Cathy’s beliefs … they are objecting to his donations to organizations (form of free speech) which share his beliefs.”

          You want to believe in an imaginary man in the sky that hates the gay? Knock yourself out. I don’t give a crap.

          Once you start donating in the millions to organizations that take specific political action against disfavored minorities: Yep, I—and a lot of other people–give a shit. Deal.

          It’s a pretty simple distinction. How sad for you that you can’t see it. I suspect there are a lot of things you just don’t get.

          Anywho: Enjoy those waffle fries! Why not have a shake with it?

          LukeHandCool in reply to Ragspierre. | July 28, 2012 at 3:26 pm

          I love it when I don’t need to respond. Just encourage all to read the feigning feignstalker’s comment again … let the outright hostility sizzle in those juices.

          Oh, but I gotta respond … it’s like looking at a juicy big piece of white meat (obviously white) and not taking a bite …

          “You want to believe in an imaginary man in the sky that hates the gay? Knock yourself out. I don’t give a crap.”

          Who said I was religious? I just hope that if there is a man in the sky, he hates straw man arguments.

          “Once you start donating in the millions to organizations that take specific political action against disfavored minorities: Yep, I—and a lot of other people–give a shit. Deal.”

          I have no problem with you giving a crap … but I do have a problem with the usual leftist perspective that there is only one reasonable perspective.

          The usual silly insinuation that if you don’t support something, you must therefore hate the people who support it.

          Sorry dude.

          I play constant matchmaker for my gay coworker. When I set him up with a gay friend from school and we went to dinner and then went pub crawling, at one point I had to admonish them and their stiff reserve:

          “Come on you guys. I’m the straight one. But right now I’m by far the gayest one here!”

          Have you hugged a gay guy lately, feignstalker? Whip out your bonafides.

          I sense you’re a boring straight white male trapped in a gay-activist-boycott-supporting-mind-numbed-by-noble-leg-tingling hipster body?

          And the two gay friends I mentioned? They think gay marriage is silly. They are fine with civil unions. And, they aren’t feigning! So, maybe you wouldn’t understand.

          Are they intolerant?

          filmstocker in reply to Ragspierre. | July 28, 2012 at 3:41 pm

          ”Who said I was religious?”

          Um, this is in reference to Cathy’s beliefs. You remember him? The one we’re discussing? He’s the one who backed up his bigotry by arguing it was religiously based.

          ” the usual leftist perspective that there is only one reasonable perspective.”

          Er, there are many reasonable perspectives. Intolerance, bigotry and inequality are not among them. That’s all.

          “The usual silly insinuation that if you don’t support something, you must therefore hate the people who support it.”

          Cathy may be deluded enough to think he doesn’t hate gay people. I don’t know. What we’re discussing is the use of funds to deprive minorities of legal equality.

          “I play constant matchmaker for my gay coworker.”

          Poor thing. Does he know you also troll conservatard message boards arguing against his right to ever marry the person he loves? “But I have plenty of XXXX friends” has gotten to be a pretty tiresome trope of the haters. True friends generally support each others’ legal equality.

          “I sense you’re a boring straight white male trapped in a gay-activist-boycott-supporting-mind-numbed-by-noble-leg-tingling hipster body?”

          Try reading those cards again, Madame Cleo.

          “And the two gay friends I mentioned? They think gay marriage is silly.”

          They sound pathetic (if they even exist. I doubt it, but whatever). Gay people who don’t believe in legal equality are as stupid as straight people who don’t. Perhaps stupider.

          Keep trying. Maybe one day you’ll come up with an actual argument.

          LukeHandCool in reply to Ragspierre. | July 28, 2012 at 4:10 pm

          “Um, this is in reference to Cathy’s beliefs. You remember him? The one we’re discussing? He’s the one who backed up his bigotry by arguing it was religiously based.”

          Here’s what you said:

          “You want to believe in an imaginary man in the sky that hates the gay? Knock yourself out. I don’t give a crap.”

          When people address me with “You,” I usually take it to mean, “Me.” But maybe that’s just me! Eh, feignstalker?

          “Er, there are many reasonable perspectives. Intolerance, bigotry and inequality are not among them. That’s all.”

          Yep, that’s what the polygamists say alright!

          “Cathy may be deluded enough to think he doesn’t hate gay people.”

          Speaking of the Olympics … what a leap!!

          “I don’t know.”

          You can say that again!

          “What we’re discussing is the use of funds to deprive minorities of legal equality.”

          Nope. I can’t make that leap. And, you hit your nuts on civil unions when you leapfrogged.

          “Poor thing. Does he know you also troll conservatard message boards arguing against his right to ever marry the person he loves?”

          I wouldn’t be a troll here, would I? Talk to me feign. Is “conservatard” a typo, or are you full of content again?

          “Try reading those cards again, Madame Cleo.”

          I knew I was right! Who but a pasty hipster would respond that way?

          “They sound pathetic … are as stupid as … Perhaps stupider.”

          “Keep trying. Maybe one day you’ll come up with an actual argument.”

          Perhaps, feign. Perhaps.

          filmstocker in reply to Ragspierre. | July 28, 2012 at 4:46 pm

          “When people address me with “You,” I usually take it to mean, “Me.” But maybe that’s just me! Eh, feignstalker?”

          **eyeroll** It’s a general “you,” as in “If you play with fire, you will get burned.” “If you are a person who believes in invisible skymen, knock yourself out.” etc. You misunderstood a pretty common turn of phrase, the use of “you” here to indicate a general “you.” Pick up the pieces and move on, dear. Really.

          “civil unions”
          Um, civil unions aren’t legally equal. They’re a separate institution, and currently they don’t carry the benefits of marriage: they’re not recognized in many states and the federal government is forbidden from recognizing them at all by DOMA. Moreover, even if they were designed to carry all the benefits, they’d still be “separate but equal,” which is an unconstitutional way to confer rights. Right now they’re separate AND unequal

          “I wouldn’t be a troll here, would I? ….”

          Interesting that you didn’t answer the substance of my question. Does your friend know you argue against his right to marry? He should

          “I knew I was right!”

          Yeah. About as accurate here as you are about everything else.

          “Perhaps, feign. Perhaps.”

          Write your own material. Quit copying mine. Thanks!

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | July 28, 2012 at 5:58 pm

          “People are not objecting to Cathy’s beliefs or his race or stigmatizing his minority status. They are objecting to his business’ donations in the millions to organizations (many of them classified as hate groups) that seek to deprive a disfavored minority of civil equality via the courts, ballot box and legislatures.”

          OHHHHHHH…

          I SEEE… You don’t object to his (MAINSTREAM) beliefs…

          You ONLY object to his expressing them.

          Yeah. That clears it up very nicely.

          What a totalitarian moron.

          You want HOMOariges, fine. No issues. Been helping clients arrange their affairs for years to provide that. About the only thing I cannot do is rearrange the tax code. Hell, I’d scrap that in a minute if I could.

          But you do no get to INVERT the meaning of a cultural institution on your whim without a fight.

          You want civil unions. No issues. Contract is a very expansive concept. You DO NOT get to call it a “marriage”.

          filmstocker in reply to Ragspierre. | July 28, 2012 at 6:24 pm

          “You ONLY object to his expressing them.”

          I’m glad he expressed them. It’s more problematic to hold bigoted views and keep them hidden, secretly donating money to hate groups. Good of him to be open about it… But it seems he and the corporation are already “chickening” out, issuing statements that they won’t speak about the issue anymore. You’d be lucky if your little hero is ever going to address the matter publicly again. A couple days of heat and he backs down. Typical. Why doesn’t he man up and stick to his guns?

          “mainstream”
          Just because a view is popular doesn’t mean it’s right. It was once mainstream to believe that blacks and whites should go to separate schools, that women shouldn’t vote, that a man had the right to beat his wife and so on.

          Secondly, I’m not convinced Cathy’s wacky views are really “mainstream” anymore. Certainly gay people alone can’t create the huge social media backlash (which preceded the media coverage btw).

          ” You DO NOT get to call it a “marriage”.”

          Free country. I can call it whatever I want and I have for many years. The current fight is to get the government to recognize same sex marriages as legally equal to opposite sex marriages, and it’s a fight we’ve won in DC, New Hampshire, Iowa, New York, et al and are winning elsewhere.

          The fight is decidedly NOT about what I get to call anything, which I have always been free to do exactly as I please. You certainly don’t get to tell other people what they can call their own relationships. No one elected you hall monitor, thanks. Marriage, marriage, marriage. It’s a marriage. See? Can’t stop me, can you, hall monitor?

          btw: A great man once said on matters of rights movements: “First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. ”

          True that.
          I’ll leave it to you to guess which stage we’re at.

          How sad it must be to slowly realize you’re on the wrong side of history, the side of hate, prejudice and ignorance. Even sadder to never realize it. Either way: pathetic.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | July 28, 2012 at 6:36 pm

          You can call sexual congress with chickens “sacred”, too.

          Or “grapefruit”.

          Free country.

          What an idiot.

          BTW, STILL waiting for those historical links supporting your claims.

          Tick-tock…

          filmstocker in reply to Ragspierre. | July 28, 2012 at 7:07 pm

          “BTW, STILL waiting…”

          ????
          Um you never asked for any links.
          Here are some to get you started though there are thousands of sources for you to discover:

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions

          http://www.randomhistory.com/history-of-gay-marriage.html

          And I mentioned the book by Yale professor John Boswell:
          http://www.amazon.com/Same-Sex-Unions-Premodern-Europe-Boswell/dp/0679751645

          “a long tradition of same sex marriage indicates that the Christian attitude toward same sex unions may not always have been as “straight” as is now suggested. A Kiev art museum contains a curious icon from St. Catherine’s monastery on Mt. Sinai.

          It shows two robed Christian saints. Between them is a traditional Roman pronubus (best man) overseeing what in a standard Roman icon would be the wedding of a husband and wife. In the icon, Christ is the pronubus. Only one thing is unusual. The husband and wife are in fact two men.”

          http://www.gaychristian101.com/Gay-Marriage.html
          Interesting, no?

          Anyway, those will get you started. All you have to do is ask. You’re welcome.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | July 29, 2012 at 10:37 am

          I’ve looked at your “authorities”.

          Pathetic. Simply pathetic.

          Laughable, actually.

          Let’s go back to your original assertion, which was that gay couples HAD a right to marry which had been withdrawn…that equity had been lost.

          When challenged on that, you did the typical Collectivist crab-walk, and cited to some historical obscurity or other (none of which has anything to do with our subject, even IF true…which your crap is not).

          Gay couples have not…in history or any culture which you or I can SUPPORT with VALID documentation…MARRIED. I note a lot of your bullshit resorts to conflating COUPLING with MARRYING, which is NOT the same, and nobody ever disputed that gay people coupled in history.

          They CERTAINLY have not had any such RIGHT in modern Western law…until very recently in some “progressive” places in Europe. Even in Eastern cultures they have had no such “right”.

          So, again, you are full of lies. Gay people are NOT suffering from a right withdrawn in the U.S. They are asserting that they have a right to fundamentally corrupt a cultural norm that is many centuries old, universally applied, and kind of has a proven track record of success (i.e., it got you and me here and reared…or at least I assume you’re not the product of a turkey baster).

        LukeHandCool in reply to filmstocker. | July 28, 2012 at 1:33 pm

        Oh filmstocker,

        I see that, just like the president, you’ve evolved.

        It’s a “lizard’s tail” kind of evolution.

        As soon as hearty debate takes place … off it comes!

        What was just recently quite acceptable as an arguable opinion, is now a wriggling, squirming piece of grossness not to be considered a part of the body politic.

        I hope the owners of Chick-fil-A don’t have any other personal opinions … they should take a page from the notebook of the entertainment industry … whose business owners, as you know, would never dream of letting their personal opinions on public issues open to debate be known.

        I’m going to start eating at Chick-fil-A.

        Enjoy your rubber chicken.

          filmstocker in reply to LukeHandCool. | July 28, 2012 at 2:08 pm

          “What was just recently quite acceptable as an arguable opinion, is now a wriggling, squirming piece of grossness not to be considered a part of the body politic.”

          Um, care to offer an English translation for this nonsense?

          Please do eat at Chick-fil-a. Often. Like this guy:

          http://www.freep.com/article/20120728/BUSINESS07/120728005/Chick-fil-A-spokesman-dies-amid-furor-over-same-sex-marriage

          Poor guy. Dead of a heart attack from all the grease and salt. He doesn’t even look that old.

          Scarf down those fries and fried chicken all you like, fundtard,

          WarEagle82 in reply to LukeHandCool. | July 28, 2012 at 2:18 pm

          Ah, so the feigned tolerance drops quickly as the leftist idiot descends to the “I hope you eat lots of fatty food and die quickly” argument. BRILLIANT

          filmstocker in reply to LukeHandCool. | July 28, 2012 at 2:30 pm

          Huh? Feigned tolerance? When did I feign tolerance?

          I have no tolerance for bigotry and ignorance. i can’t and won’t even fake it.

          I ask again: Is Legal Insurrection the discussion board for a school for the mentally handicapped? This place is weird.

          LukeHandCool in reply to LukeHandCool. | July 28, 2012 at 2:46 pm

          How cute!

          “I ask again: Is Legal Insurrection the discussion board for a school for the mentally handicapped? This place is weird.”

          The little filmstalker, who found this site, and who obviously read it before going through the steps to register, before reading more and commenting …

          …. now feigns not feigning tolerance while feigning surprise.

          Good show, mate!

          filmstocker in reply to LukeHandCool. | July 28, 2012 at 2:58 pm

          “…. now feigns not feigning tolerance while feigning surprise.”

          No, dear. My intolerance of bigotry and my surprise at the stupidity of the posters on this site are both quite genuine, I assure you. Nothing feigned about it. But if it makes you feel better to pretend otherwise, do carry on.

          LukeHandCool in reply to LukeHandCool. | July 28, 2012 at 3:03 pm

          So noble, you.

          How do you cope with the constant leg tingles?

          A nice balm of intellectual bigotry, I suppose.

          filmstocker in reply to LukeHandCool. | July 28, 2012 at 3:08 pm

          When there’s no argument asserted or actual content in your posts other than weird, fumbling name-calling, it’s a safe bet my work is done.

          Carry on discussing your views with others of your kind in the echo chamber of the reactionary law school for the mentally handicapped. If you do ever think of an actual argument or a point, do let me know.

          WarEagle82 in reply to LukeHandCool. | July 28, 2012 at 3:33 pm

          I ask again: Is Legal Insurrection the discussion board for a school for the mentally handicapped? This place is weird.

          Well, pflegmstalker, of course it wasn’t. At least it wasn’t until you arrived and started posting such nonsense.

          So you admit you are only tolerant of people exactly like you and you consider that the pinnacle of tolerance. I think you just proved the point and we are done with this little lesson. Thanks ever so much…

          LukeHandCool in reply to LukeHandCool. | July 28, 2012 at 3:45 pm

          Don’t go, feignstalker!!

          You’re not done with the “actual content” of your “argument asserted” wishing I’d eat unhealthy food ending in my early demise.

          ” … it’s a safe bet my work is done.”

          You sultry, intellectual stud you. Give me one on the cheek, you skinny, pasty-white, ubermetrosexual, androgynous hipster boy you.

          “Carry on discussing your views with others of your kind in the echo chamber of the reactionary law school for the mentally handicapped.”

          There you go bein’ all “actual content” and “argument asserted” again. So unlike my “weird fumbling name-calling.”

          Got me there!

          “If you do ever think of an actual argument or a point, do let me know.”

          You mean like your “mentally handicapped” one?

          Okay! Shall do!

          WarEagle82 in reply to LukeHandCool. | July 28, 2012 at 6:06 pm

          LukeHandCool, Just to be safe, have a salad the next time you visit Chik-fil-A. It couldn’t hurt…

          spokker in reply to LukeHandCool. | July 29, 2012 at 12:23 am

          “Poor guy. Dead of a heart attack from all the grease and salt. He doesn’t even look that old.”

          If you were truly as tolerant and worldly as you think you are, you would know that black men are 30% more likely to die from heart disease than white men. It has nothing to do with Chick-Fil-A specifically you nitwit.

          http://minorityhealth.hhs.gov/templates/content.aspx?ID=3018

          I’m a “racist” (been called one many times anyway) and even I know this stuff.

        Your “Equality” argument would be valid if in fact heterosexuals were allowed to marry members of the same sex while homosexuals were denied the same Equality.

        As the law stands homosexuals can marry just like heterosexuals, in fact, has there ever been a case in which a homosexual marrying a heterosexual was denied access to marriage?

        That said; I boycott Target for its’ violent symbolism of a ‘target’,which of course, is as the Progressive Left has pounded over the last year the narrative that the reason for all horrific violence in the world today is the symbolic target.

          filmstocker in reply to syn. | July 28, 2012 at 2:12 pm

          This argument was used in the interracial marriage debate as well. (White people are deprived of the right to marry blacks, just as blacks are deprived of the right to marry whites) It was unconvincing then and it’s unconvincing now.

          Marriage is an individual liberty. It’s not up to the government to deprive citizens of the right to choose their own spouse, and when they do deprive them of that right, they need a damned good reason. Bans on same sex marriage rights fail on all accounts.

          If heterosexual couples can protect their relationships with civil marriage, then the same rights must be extended to homosexual couples. You know… equality.

        raven in reply to filmstocker. | July 28, 2012 at 3:05 pm

        “They are objecting to his business’ donations in the millions to organizations (many of them classified as hate groups)”

        Classified by whom? Oh, that’s right – the Great Classifiers. Those entitled to make peremptory judgments about a person’s morality, humanity and the right to utter an opinion or make a donation based on the orthodoxy of the opinion and donation. The special people. Like you.

        You bring it all, don’t you – the artless and tortured ideological logic (“disallowing a business because it works to withdraw equality from a disfavored minority is not the same thing as disallowing a business because it supports equality”); the condescension and contempt (“What part of this question DON’T you understand?” “For people with brains, they are not the same thing. You’re welcome.” “What is this site? It’s like talking to simple children over here.”); the actual false equivalencies (racial equality and gay marriage). Anything else? Oh, yes – the gratuitious degradation of a man’s life. Don Perry must have died from eating “too much grease and salt”, right? Because you know the truth. There are many ways to die nand death will find us all. So tell me — tell us all — about Don Perry’s life, Don Perry the man, Mr. Humanist? What’s that? You never met him? You never knew him?

        I’ve been running into you snarling moral pygmies my whole life. You’re boring, a dime-a dozen.

          filmstocker in reply to raven. | July 28, 2012 at 3:17 pm

          “Classified by whom?”

          Hate groups as classified by the non-partisan Southern Poverty Law Center, though there are others such as ADL. SPLC doesn’t classify groups according to their beliefs (ie simply objecting to same-sex marriage would not be enough to classify an organization as a hate group). A hate group are “those having beliefs or practices that attack or malign an entire class of people, typically for their immutable characteristics” and take action to ensure their legal and social inequality.

          A lot of times when you ask a rhetorical question, rather than answering it with more bloviated rhetoric “The Great Classifier!!” perhaps you should actually seek out the answer?

          raven in reply to raven. | July 28, 2012 at 3:27 pm

          Name the groups the CEO of Chick-Fil-A donated “millions” to and the basis of the charge of Hate Group and who made it.

          And the SPLC “non-partisan”? You’re in the wrong place to peddle that foolishness.

          Milhouse in reply to raven. | July 29, 2012 at 12:04 pm

          The SPLC?! Seriously?! What kind of moron thinks the SPLC is a respectable source? You might with equal gravity have cited the Faculty of UC Berkeley, or the Phelps family.

        NC Mountain Girl in reply to filmstocker. | July 28, 2012 at 3:42 pm

        Ah yes, the SPLC. The personal piggy bank of Morris Dees, the Max Bialystock of civil rights leaders, Dees has become a one percenter by giving a vicarious thrill to gullible liberals. If the supply of those whose image of the world south of the Mason Dixon line comes from old movies ever dries up the staff of the SPLC might actually have to work for a living.

      WarEagle82 in reply to LukeHandCool. | July 28, 2012 at 8:11 pm

      Wait. Hold on. Are you saying Chick-fil-A serves, er, “non-straight” chickens?

      No, hold on. You were probably talking about customers. Right? You were talking about customers…

    Ragspierre in reply to filmstocker. | July 28, 2012 at 1:13 pm

    “This article presumes a parity between supporting equality and supporting its withdrawal.”

    Except that is a complete inversion of the truth.

    There has never been a time in history when “homosexual marriage” was considered “equality”. Hence, nothing is being “withdrawn”.

    Rather, what advocates of “homosexual marriage” are militating for is a tortured definition of a concept (marriage) that has existed pretty much intact in all of history and across cultures. Even the exceptions (polygamy) to our Western norms STILL recognize the union to be between the two sexes. In ancient Greece, which culturally encouraged male homosexuality, marriage was STILL normalized as a union between the two sexes.

    So, your statement is just daft.

      filmstocker in reply to Ragspierre. | July 28, 2012 at 2:26 pm

      There has never been a time in history when “homosexual marriage” was considered “equality”.”

      Actually this isn’t true. Learn some history. Many societies, including the ironically placed Native American societies and the early Christian church, have recognized same sex unions. Oddly, many Native American societies considered same sex unions superior since the couple had the pleasure of coupledom without the burden of child-rearing. Read Yale professor John Boswell’s excellent book “Same Sex Unions in Pre-Modern Europe” for some interesting insight into the long history of the early church’s recognition of same sax unions.

      Second of all and more importantly, as you should know, just because something has “never existed” doesn’t mean it isn’t right. In 1853, there had never been a time in history when blacks were considered the legal equals of whites. In 1900 there had never been a time in history when a woman’s vote counted the same as a man. There was a time when it would have been laughable to suggest that men and women were legal equals in marriage, and so on.

      Gay people have been marrying each other for thousands of years: It’s simply that the government doesn’t recognize such unions. This is wrong. Gay people pay equal taxes, but they’re not being treated equally by the government. It is separate AND unequal.

        If-as you say-“Gay people have been marrying each other for thousands of years” then why are you engaged in your emotionally maniacal meltdown?

        At this point your arguments are spinning into nonsensical territory.

        If you try to end your hate tirade for one moment then it might allow opportunity for you to gain some perspective.

          filmstocker in reply to syn. | July 28, 2012 at 3:04 pm

          Um, in case you haven’t been keeping up, the current debate in this country is about recognition of gay unions as legally equal to heterosexual ones. Gay unions may have existed for thousands of years, but the current lack of legal recognition is wrong: it’s a deprivation of liberty to withhold the right of free citizens to choose their own spouse for no other reason than lingering prejudice. Do try to keep up, dear.

          WarEagle82 in reply to syn. | July 28, 2012 at 6:17 pm

          Um, in case you haven’t been keeping up, the current debate in this country is about recognition of gay unions as legally equal to heterosexual ones.

          Um, in case you haven’t been keeping up, there has not been very much debate.

          This one-sided exchange has been mostly people stating their opinion and intolerant, hate-filled bigots rushing to employ fascist tactics to shut them up and shut them down. Roseanne Barr and DL Hughley being only two of the most recent and vile examples of the intolerant, hate-filled bigots erupting and spewing on people they feel shouldn’t have a right to breathe…

          This is called tolerance in Doublespeak.

        retire05 in reply to filmstocker. | July 28, 2012 at 3:31 pm

        filmstocker, your argument is so full of holes it could have been designed by the Swiss. So let’s take it one absurd point at a time, shall we?

        There is not one state with one law that says gays cannot marry. In fact, many gays have married, just not to someone of the same gender. So that argument is made moot by reality. Now, if you disagree with that, perhaps you can show the laws of any state that require a marriage licence applicant to answer the question “Are you gay” and if you respond “Yes” you will be denied a license?

        Then you equate gays not being able to marry to be like former laws that prohibited interracial marriage. It’s not. Those laws were based on a person’s appearance. Now, if you can provide us with a way to determine, simply on appearance, that a person is gay and that that discrimination i based on physical appearance, (visually) please, let us all know how to look at someone and determine, without a doubt, they are gay.

        People like you will claim that gays who simply live together, without the approval of a government bureau (the county clerk’s office) are not entitled to the same benefits as heterosexual couples. That is misleading at best, a lie at its worse. The only benefit allowed to heterosexual couples that is not granted to homosexual couples are only two: filing joint income tax returns and Social Security benefits. Outside of those two, gay couples can acheive all the other benefits that are granted to heterosexual couples.

          filmstocker in reply to retire05. | July 28, 2012 at 4:23 pm

          “There is not one state with one law that says gays cannot marry.”

          Um, perhaps you’re not aware… The current debate is about the right of gay people to choose to marry EACH OTHER, and the laws which deprive free citizens the right to choose their own spouse.

          “Then you equate gays not being able to marry to be like former laws that prohibited interracial marriage.”

          Not equate. Drawing a parallel. When someone says something is like something else, they are not saying they are identical in every regard. If I say, “She moves like a cat,” you’re an idiot if you immediately shriek, “She doesn’t have a tail! She doesn’t have whiskers or eat Tender Vittles!!” The parallel is quite clear: it’s government unnecessarily depriving free citizens of the individual liberty to choose their own spouse without adequate justification. In both cases, it is done to stigmatize a disfavored minority. Mildred Loving, the plaintiff for the famous Loving vs Virginia case which ended laws depriving people of the right to choose a spouse of a different race, argued that depriving gay people of the right to marry is wrong. I agree.

          “Now, if you can provide us with a way to determine, simply on appearance, that a person is gay and that that discrimination i based on physical appearance,”

          Oddly enough, recent studies have shown that people can identify someone’s sexuality with reasonable accuracy based only a picture. So I take it you’ll now be a strong supporter of gay equality? Moreover, many forms of discrimination are not based on appearance. You can’t always tell visually if someone is of Irish descent, but it’s still wrong to discriminate against someone based on national origin.

          “People like you will claim that gays who simply live together, without the approval of a government bureau (the county clerk’s office) are not entitled to the same benefits as heterosexual couples.”

          We will claim this. Because it’s true. Gay couples cannot legally protect themselves and their relationships as straight people can. It is neither misleading nor a lie. It is a plain truth.

          “The only benefit allowed to heterosexual couples that is not granted to homosexual couples are only two”

          This is misleading and a lie. There are thousands of legal benefits available to married couples that are unavailable to unmarried ones, benefits that can’t be acquired or simulated any other way for those deprived of the right to marry. For instance, married couples can’t be forced to testify against each other in a court of law. That’s just one example, but there are thousands. Look it up. Separate and unequal.

          From the hip: Equality is coming. Deal.

          retire05 in reply to retire05. | July 29, 2012 at 3:29 am

          filmstocker, see what you are doing in your dishonest representation of your argument. You say “yeah, gays can marry, but not to each other. The argument then no longer becomes “We gays want to marry like everyone else” to “We gays want to marry by having the government cave to our demands and be different than everyone else.”

          And guess what, the laws deny people the right to marry who they want all the time. Or do you agree that brothers and sisters should be able to marry if you can marry your own gender? How about being able to marry your daughter? You down with that? Or maybe marrying your first cousin? Meet with your standards?

          Now, since being able to marry somone of your own sex and the $255 Social Security death benefits is so important to you, that makes you one greedly little sh!t. And would you be a girly man so that when your husband retires you could collect on his social security according the the rules currenly written on spousal (wife) benefits? Do you then declare yourself a wife? What are all these other “benefits” you claim you are being denied? List them. You say there are thousands. List them. And I will blow you out of the water with how wrong you are.

          When the gay movment started, they claimed all they wanted was the right to do whatever they wanted in the privacy of their own homes. They got that. Now, it’s traditional marriage they want to destroy, they want homosexuality taught in grade school as being “normal”. It is never enough with the gay activists, and it never will be. It is not tolerance you want, it is forced acception for your life style. But you can take this to the bank, the majority of Americans will never accept it as normal for one man to put his manhood where another man evacuates his bowels.

        Ragspierre in reply to filmstocker. | July 28, 2012 at 5:37 pm

        I am a pretty fair historian. But I’m always happy to learn new FACTS.

        So, if you have links to SOUND history, LOVE to see them.

        If all you have is apocryphal bullshit, save us both the time.

          filmstocker in reply to Ragspierre. | July 28, 2012 at 7:13 pm

          I already gave the title of a book above, and there’s another post with lots of links… Not sure why it hasn’t appeared yet but hopefully it will momentarily.

          Meanwhile, here is the book by Yale historian John Boswell:

          http://www.amazon.com/Same-Sex-Unions-Premodern-Europe-Boswell/dp/0679751645/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1343517053&sr=8-3&keywords=john+boswell

          Here’s another brief summary of the varying historical attitudes to same sex unions:
          http://www.randomhistory.com/history-of-gay-marriage.html

          Those will get you started.

          TrooperJohnSmith in reply to Ragspierre. | July 28, 2012 at 7:47 pm

          Rags…

          That’s from the same History class that taught us:

          1.) Columbus came here specifically to bring sexism, racism and homophobia.

          2.) Ancient African civilizations invented iron, steel, the microchip, baseball and the “Books for Dummies” series.

          3.) All civilizations and governments are the same. To say otherwise is evil, Chauvinistic and will get you sent to time out.

          4.) Before the evil European set foot on the Americas, the Indians all got along well, shared their stuff and never did anything harmful to man, beast or Gaia.

          5.) Before the Indians crossed the land-bridge from Asia, the Americas were devoid of people. The migrating tribes took no one’s land. That was learned from the white man.

          6.) White people were 100% responsible for slavery, an institution that never existed in History until the founding of America. Those stories of Africans and kind, peace-loving Muslins selling Africans into slavery came from Rush Limbaugh and the RNC via Karl Rove’s Mind Ray Satellite network.

          7.) Resistance to Homosexuality was invented by Christians and Republicans. They also started the vicious rumor that Islam promotes the killing of homosexuals. Societies that allowed homosexual marriage have thrived and covered the Earth with responsible civilizations that allow dissent, protect the rights of minorities and include all viewpoints in their political discussions.

          Yeah, THAT History curriculum.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | July 28, 2012 at 8:54 pm

          And, and, and…the Gospels somehow lost the Book Of Broooce, which has the account of the “happy” apostles.

          Cripes. Post-modernism allows you to make up anyFLUCKINGthing.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | July 28, 2012 at 11:10 pm

          Scaned you BULLSHIT. Found NO instance of “homosexual marriage”.

          Deeply impress by your bachelors degree authorities without any kind of peer reviews.

          Pathetic little liar.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | July 28, 2012 at 11:10 pm

          Scaned your BULLSHIT. Found NO instance of “homosexual marriage”.

          Deeply impress by your bachelors degree authorities without any kind of peer reviews.

          Pathetic little liar.

        Milhouse in reply to filmstocker. | July 29, 2012 at 12:20 pm

        You may be unaware that Boswell’s theories are not taken very seriously in academia. In fact the consensus in the field of LGBT studies is that categories like homosexual and heterosexual are social constructs that did not exist before the 19th century.

    TrooperJohnSmith in reply to filmstocker. | July 28, 2012 at 2:48 pm

    Dude! Is your swag laced with something today? That made no sense. Get mom to proofread your stuff before you hit send. Or, go munch and sleep.

NC Mountain Girl | July 28, 2012 at 12:10 pm

I have tended to avoid the overly PC Target since five years ago when I went into the local Target to replace a favorite string of Christmas tree lights I had purchased there a few years earlier. I am not holier than though but this was ridiculous. As I looked around it quickly became obvious that the word Christmas could not be found anywhere on the premises. Not only was the store devoid of religious themed decorations, I couldn’t even find a box of cards that wished people a Merry Christmas.

I told the person at customer service that since their store did not seem to acknowledge that the holiday the vast majority of their customers celebrated was Christmas I was taking my Christmas shopping dollars elsewhere. I got a shrug and a look of contempt.

    JimMtnViewCaUSA in reply to NC Mountain Girl. | July 28, 2012 at 3:15 pm

    I’m with you.
    Target is the CostCo for liberals.
    I’ll avoid them when possible because they have gone out of their way to choose sides.

      filmstocker in reply to JimMtnViewCaUSA. | July 28, 2012 at 3:27 pm

      Actually Costco is the Costco for liberals.

      Costco was a recent corporate sponsor of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force’s Creating Change conference, and they’ve long been a big supporter of gay and lesbian equality. Google it. They’r often included in lists of companies that support gay rights. Enjoy!

It is their right. It is also a mystery why a society would want to normalize a dysfunctional behavior. It confirms that evolution was proposed not as an image to match a pattern, but as a cultural fad to counter their mainly Christian competing (i.e. political, economic, social) interests. They promote evolution as a description of origin, while rejecting evolutionary principles established by nature.

Well, perhaps human ingenuity and ego have overcome the natural order; but, it is still an ongoing experiment, with telltale signs of corruption and failed viability. Fortunately, for individuals who engage in homosexual behavior, there are “heterosexual” individuals who engage in similarly dysfunctional behavior, each with no redeeming value to either society or humanity. They are perfect allies of convenience to support each other’s causes.

Dreams of instant gratification will not be denied… and people thought that money was the root of all evil.

    TrooperJohnSmith in reply to n.n. | July 28, 2012 at 3:22 pm

    I mainly object to the Left’s reasoning, such as in the cases of Rahm and Dah Awderman and the Mayor of Bih’stn.

    They glam onto Mr. Cathy’s statement like it’s a challenge to individual liberty. But as it concerns coddling the Nation of Hizzylam in Chicago and giving land for a mosque to the Boston Muslims, they cheerfully and willfully do that, while ignoring the very visible and a clear attitude of Muslims towards homosexuals.

    Double standards are prime currency of The left. Which begs the question: Is the Left dishonest or just stupid?

Logic has nothing to do with any of this. It is do it our way or suffer the consequences. They are right and we are wrong. It is no more complicated than that.
I stopped buying from Amazon because of they withdrew their ads from a conservative site. I switched to Target. Where do I go now?

While we’re at it, what about Amazon? Amazon CEO supports same sex marriage. If the Left approves of buyers making spending choices based on agreement or disagreement with political positions, that can be done. Is there anything on sale at Amazon that isn’t on sale somewhere else? The idea of making purchases online was furthered by Amazon, but isn’t unique.

As the Professor points out, there is a huge difference between personal opinions and actions, and government approval or sanction.

Just had breakfast at Chick-fil-A. Couldn’t wait until Wednesday.

Difference between Chik-Fil-A and Target:

Target is MARKETING it’s support for gay marriage.

The President of Chik-Fil-A was simply stating his personal views to a church group.

Either way, there are no Chik-Fil-A’s in my State, so I can’t eat there even if I wanted to.
And I stopped shopping at Target(which was founded in my State) because their customer service SUCKS.

    LukeHandCool in reply to Tamminator. | July 28, 2012 at 12:32 pm

    I thought Chick-fil-A hadn’t come to California.

    I checked and I was wrong. Not only are they here, there’s one right by USC … so my daughter and I must start having lunch there occasionally. I can’t wait!

Wasn’t Target the object of homosexual activism a year or two ago? Something about a corporate contribution to a cause which may or may not have been affiliated with another cause which opposed marrying couplets. Yes, they were, in 2010.

Target stores negotiate with gay-lesbian group over political spending

Well, either the activists were lying or this new campaign is part of a settlement.

    Milwaukee in reply to n.n. | July 28, 2012 at 1:28 pm

    Some groups are intolerant of apostasy. In Islam, or rather, once in, and then going out of Islam is not approved, and death is the consequence. (Rarely enforced in the West. 30 years ago in Malaysia they passed a law that if a man wasn’t at mosque at least once a month he could be fined and or jailed.) Target has a history of supporting the homosexual agenda. They strayed by giving money to conservatives, and the gay community was calling them to heel. Gang initiations are hard, leaving a gang can be harder–don’t stray! We saw the same thing when Susan G. Komen wanted to walk back from supporting Planned Parenthood. Blacks who voice conservative-like opinions are shunned and scorned in their community. I’m beginning to feel a commonality here.

1. what will be next that gays will demand? They haven’t been satisfied by any concessions so far. I’m guessing they’ll demand that churches be forced to say being gay is okay. (it seems that gays have a real problem with the religion/church and those who adhere to the teachings of their religion/church.)

2. Where is the line drawn? If gays can marry, why cannot multiple folks get married to each other? (polyandry/polygamy)

2a. and what about Uncle Joe who really, really loves his dog? (and I mean LOVES LUV)

If any(one|body) can be married to anyone else in whatever number, what’s the point?

Create a law that says anyone can contractually obligate themselves to another|others|anything.

But they can do that NOW. SO WHAT DO THEY REALLY WANT?

Justification? Forgiveness? Acceptance? That can’t be legislated thus they’ll NEVER be satisfied.

It will always BE something else. I think they enjoy the get togethers and hating on the breeders and seeing how much they can pi$$ folks off. It seems they really get off on that. Plus they don’t respect the church yet expect to be respected themselves.

I wish they would just stop the churning of hate and discontent. We’ve got enough problems with out the nattering of adult adolescents whining about how they’re mistreated and abused by THE SYSTEM.

    Ragspierre in reply to jakee308. | July 28, 2012 at 12:40 pm

    The word is APPROBATION.

    Tolerance is not sufficient.

    You HAVE to approve. Less than that is verboten.

      LukeHandCool in reply to Ragspierre. | July 28, 2012 at 12:45 pm

      And a few decades down the road, not only will you have to approve—like the hysterically crying North Korean citizenry—you’ll have to demonstrate your approval … convincingly.

      WarEagle82 in reply to Ragspierre. | July 28, 2012 at 2:30 pm

      Spot on. They won’t rest until we chant our approval of their behavior. Merely accepting and tolerating their behavior was the announced goal but that has changed.

      The next goal will be to make us join them…

        retire05 in reply to WarEagle82. | July 28, 2012 at 3:50 pm

        That was Gamsci’s plan all along.

        I don’t shop at Target. Any company that bases the Salvation Army Santa Claus does not deserve my money or my business.

          retire05 in reply to retire05. | July 28, 2012 at 4:24 pm

          Oooops, that should have been “bashes”, not bases.

          Target hates Santa Claus and I hate Target.

          End of story.

          WarEagle82 in reply to retire05. | July 28, 2012 at 7:33 pm

          Strange. I think I have walked by Gramsci’s office in Moscow.

          But does that mean Target was founded by Italian communists? I always figured them for the less effective and more annoying French communist types…

        Which is why there is another Civil War coming. The only way to stop collectivists like filmstocker from enslaving you is to give them the choice the Founders gave the Tories: leave, or die.

        Or stop being Tories. But that presumes you can take their word for it. I don’t take the Left’s word for anything any more.

    TrooperJohnSmith in reply to jakee308. | July 28, 2012 at 3:23 pm

    #1 is already the law in Canada and the UK.

We are living in strange times. I could only take about five minutes of the Olympic opening ceremonies before turning it off. The London Olympics are the perfect symbol for the state of the free Western world. There are more troops in London than in Aghanistan not counting the police and missiles on roof tops and security check points and the rest. All to protect what can be best described as ultra-leftist propaganda of universal healthcare, gay rights, and a utopian nanny state ideal of entitlements.

The only difference between us and North Korea these days is that they never had any wealth. We, on the other hand, are slipping down the slippery slope of wealth redistribution (of certain select non-elites) for the benefit of the elites. Even talking about it divides us. There is a class war going on and even though we are losing it, we can’t acknowledge it. Sounds too Marxist.

    LukeHandCool in reply to Pasadena Phil. | July 28, 2012 at 12:55 pm

    I take it the little kids jumping up and down on hospital beds, spelling out “NHS,” didn’t pull at your heartstrings?

    Why do you hate athletics?

    LukeHandCool (who could only force out, with much effort, a single tear at the site of “NHS” spelled out by the children … and he carefully took that tear and placed it in a sealed petri dish).

      Milwaukee in reply to LukeHandCool. | July 28, 2012 at 1:35 pm

      Athletics, like most things, are fine in and of itself. What happens with athletics is another thing. I sort of soured on Olympics when I heard about “abortion doping”. Not illegal, but certainly immoral.

      Athletics are great, in the proper context and purpose. I regularly exercise. I see community being built by those who share an athletic interest. But athletics can be distorted. Have you ever heard of the Sandusky-Penn State scandal? I think that had something to do with athletics.

      I’m 59 years old and still play sports in addition to running 25-30 miles a week. It’s not the sports that I object to, it’s the leftist propaganda. This Olympics looks more like teh 1936 Munick Olympics than anything the free world should be putting on. I just can’t watch it.

Did anyone read the fine print in the ad that says “Build a Target wedding registry …”? Doesn’t Target know that the gifts are to be cash donations to Obama’s re-election bid? Is Target schizophrenic?

I guess I sort of boycott Target anyway, since I never go in there….

Basically, they suck.

The left’s boycotts are about censoring and controlling thought, beliefs, and ideology. About dominating and shifting cultural and societal traditions. They have zero interest in tolerance, fairness, or the law. Talking about boycotts when we talk about their tactics is not unlike discussing whether Mao or Hitler had the better idea for controlling their masses.

We need to take back our culture, and we’re not going to do that trying to reason with the unreasonable or pretending that they are just like us . . . only a little misguided. They’re not like us, not by a long long shot.

And yes, actually, that ad is worthy of a boycott. But not an all-out assault like the ones the left engages in. I don’t shop at Target, anyway, so they won’t notice that I will continue to not to shop at Target. But I have been putting my money where my ideals are for a couple years now, and that’s not going to change. If businesses, movie stars, etc. want to share their values, then I get to decide with my wallet if I want to support them. I do this every day and will not stop. I would never, of course, support a law banning such ads or ideology, but that’s what makes me different from leftists.

This Chick-fil-A trial balloon blew up in their faces, but it’s not a mistake that first Mumbles then Twinkle Toes then the San Fran mayor (whomever he is) came out (no pun) stating they didn’t want Chick-fil-A in their cities. The backlash made them back-track, not any new-found sense of respect for the law or for right and wrong or a new-found realization that government power and control extend only so far. They backed down because they had to in the face of a crush of criticism, but they do believe that they have the right and the power to decide whose ideology is “acceptable” and can be “rewarded” and whose is not and should be “punished.” This is the essence of leftist thought. If there’s any possible, legal, way to stop Chick-fil-A in Boston, Mumbles will do it. Or he’ll have his minions hold it up so long or change zoning or whatever. It’s what these people do.

Our sputtering about how unfair their boycotts are . . . just not useful at all. And it will never ever sink in to them. They are incapable of understanding that doing the wrong thing for what they perceive to be the “right” reasons is unacceptable, immoral, and wrong. They just don’t think that way. It’s all about The Greater Good, and they truly don’t care who gets hurt along the way.

TrooperJohnSmith | July 28, 2012 at 1:15 pm

Well call me a pragmatist. If their stuff is worthy of the esoteric decorating tastes of gay men, I know that I’m safe buying housewares and lounge wear there for my wife.

I mean, I thought she’d LOVE a set of tableware, place-mats and table cloth done in RealTree camouflage. It looked great at Bass Pro Shop, but she… you know… just.

😐

    LukeHandCool in reply to TrooperJohnSmith. | July 28, 2012 at 1:38 pm

    LOL! Bravo!

    WarEagle82 in reply to TrooperJohnSmith. | July 28, 2012 at 3:01 pm

    Okay, well at least you didn’t go for the RealTree pattern lingerie.

    And who cares about her tastes in place mats and tableware as long as she can call in arty when the time comes.

    She can call in arty or close air support properly, right…

      TrooperJohnSmith in reply to WarEagle82. | July 28, 2012 at 7:52 pm

      You kidding? She screws up the azimuth and elevation, all the damn time. But her nickname is Ma Deuce. 👿

Talking about boycotts, the Muslim countries threatened to boycott the Olympics if there was a moment of silence for the 1972 Munich Olympic murders.

What the IOC should have said is “Don’t let the door hit you on the ass on the way out… But they did not. The games are a sham and everyone knows it.

As for Chicken Little Mayor Tom Menino of Boston (Democrat of course), he gave $1.8 million of public money to a Muslim group supporting executing homosexuals, but has time to block a chicken franchise for having the same political views Barack Obama had two months ago?

The hypocrisy burns worse than any buffalo sauce I have ever had.

    LukeHandCool in reply to EBL. | July 28, 2012 at 1:46 pm

    But a minute of silence for the slaughtered Israeli athletes would have meant a minute less of the opening ceremony pageantry!

    What a mess it was … I kept waiting for some kind of depiction of the Kennedy assasination. The whole lefty kitchen sing and then some, it was.

    But for actual Olympic athletes butchered? A minute was just too costly to waste … and just not deemed relative enough to the games.

    What a sick joke the Olympics have become.

    That Mosque in Roxbury which acquired its prime land in an illegal land deal orchestrated by Mumbles Menino is referred to as the “Mennino Mosque”.

quiksilverz24 | July 28, 2012 at 1:36 pm

Tolerance is a one way street. It constantly dead-ends into another one way street that forces a left hand turn. No matter what, we don’t get anywhere.

We have a brand-spanking new Target near us. I went to check it out several months ago, needing some specific items. They didn’t have what I wanted and I didn’t like the store. So I guess I’m boycotting by default.

    TrooperJohnSmith in reply to Jenny. | July 28, 2012 at 8:02 pm

    You know that the Target stores up in Deep East Texas use a huge ‘T’ logo sign. Why?

    Well, hell. When you, Bill, Porkchop an’ Cooter have had a few beers, and you see this biiiiiiiiiiiiig ol’ lit up target, all shinin’ there in the night. Boys is gonna be boys…

    Disclaimer: This here is jist a JOKE. Deep East Texans only shoot at state and county roadsigns. ‘Specially the one with the lil’ leapin’ deer on it. A scientist up ‘ere at the college at A&M calls it muscle memory. Mentions some Russian guy, Pavlivica? Anyway, we’re ‘a testin’ Kevlar road signs up on US59 just north ‘a Shepherd, off yonder a ways.

      Until now I always thought the circle with the red dot in the middle did represent a target. Little did I know.

      I am so out of touch.

I’m guessing Target didn’t bother to check the statistics on gay couples – if they had, they would very quickly have realized that they make up such a miniscule portion of the population as to be totally insignificant.

The numbers come from the American Communities Survey – they take a subsection of people from the US Census each year – and have been given the Seal of Approval from Gary J. Gates, a well-respected analyst within the LGBT community.

What he has found – CONSISTENTLY – is that there are very few same-sex couples in America. In 2010, there were estimated to be 594,000 such couples in the US.

http://www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/acsbr10-03.pdf

There were 55 MILLION heterosexual MARRIED couples and 5 million heterosexual non-married couples in the US, according to the 2010 Census.

There are 308 million people in the US.

(594,000 x 2)//308,000,000 = 0.003857 = 0.39%

Less than 4/10ths of 1 percent of the US population is involved in a same-sex relationship.

(55M x 2)//308M = 0.357 = 35.7%

Almost 36% of the US population is in a heterosexual marriage.

Someone might want to let these retailers know who their REAL customer base is….

Doug Wright | July 28, 2012 at 4:03 pm

Must be mighty good fishing here cuz there’s at least one Troll who’s caught many a good commenter here. This mighty Troll has used the bait of being intolerant and idiotic, both well defined traits of the Socialist Troller out for a day’s fun starting flame wars. Some otherwise brilliant person said, many, many moons ago, not to engage those Trolls since they do not behave rationally, as demonstrated in the comments this one has made.

Gee folks, all this Troller has done is to point out that once the Socialists have declared something “bad” it’s bad. Yep, GFA must be bad cuz they say its bad yet CFA does not put its CEO’s beliefs its hiring practices or its other business practices, including hiring. Of course, if this Troll had an once of thought left in its mushed up brain, it should recognize that what it is demanding will be used against its own god and demigods; even the non-vetted ones.

Cheers gang and keep your flame retardant pants handy cuz that Troller wants to keep this flame war going. My only response to that idiot will be to say: Get F’ed and leave here.

I remember many years ago when Target banned
Salvation Army bell ringers. They were not
“compatible with the corporate image”. Now we
see what is compatible.

NC Mountain Girl | July 28, 2012 at 4:39 pm

Every notice that when the left wants to prove a point they drag out the absolute moral authority of Native Americans. Since there was no written language it’s a safe refuge for the agenda driven fabulists in fields as diverse as ecology to political science. Then there is how the gay activist hold up the example of the communal life of early Christians. Of course they omit that these were ascetics who anticipated their Savior’s return in mere months and hence practiced strict celibacy. Let me add that a great many of the historic and literary figures the activists love to pin their “must have been gay” label on were married to people of the opposite sex and bore children.

Could it be that while sodomy has been with us forever the rise of their sacrasant gay lifestyle is very much the product of the modern social welfare state? That is because before there was the assurance of state guaranteed care in one’s old age even those as closely identified with the gay lifestyle as Oscar Wilde married members of the opposite sex and had children as their form of social security.

There will be an ironic twist in this tale if society continues on its given course. The long run continuance of the social welfare state depends upon a growing population to fund the promised benefits. But those promises of a secure old age have meant that even citizens who don’t feel the urge to engage in sodomy have stopped reproducing at a rate to sustain the structure. I wonder how happy all the aging gay couples will be when the Social Security spigot runs dry in a few years. Could it happen that like the badly aging Blanche DuBois they will all find themselves relying upon the kindness of strangers? Strangers who are very likely to be the children of the very Christians they trash today.

    Doug Wright in reply to NC Mountain Girl. | July 28, 2012 at 5:47 pm

    NCMG: Yep, you’ve got it correctly, that’s the reason a certain well-known wannabe up Boston way wants to be known as Cherokee Princess Running Barely; that’s the only thing that provides her with her quota of moral authority.

Doug Wright | July 28, 2012 at 5:55 pm

One last comment, seriously: If boycotting Target were to be wrong, why would boycotting be acceptable? Is one such boytcotting action acceptable but the other not! Or, is the current Troll proclaiming ownship over all that is moral? Wow, what a person! 😮

Most of the comments I have heard here (and elsewhere) today are no different than those of the previous generation defending “whites only” businesses. The fact is that Chick-Fil-A is discriminatory. The previous civil rights issue was met with hate and vitriol from those seeking to maintain the status quo. This one is proving to be just as fraught. Boycott who you like. Eat at Chick-Fil-A if you like. In the end, love wins. It is always an uphill battle, but faith, hope and love – these three – and the greatest of these is LOVE.

I do resent the media though, claiming that Chick-Fil-A represents “Christian” values. Closing on Sunday may or may not be a Christian value. It is, though, a long-time American tradition. People need a day of rest to worship or re-connect with family and home. The bigotry IS NOT a Christian value. Christ would be appalled at seeing his people treating anyone as second-class citizens. As a Christian, I am appalled at the uninformed media assuming that we are all bigots. It was not the churches per se, but actual Christians (among others) who were on the front lines as abolitionists and defenders of civil rights is generations past. It is Christians who are standing for equality and civil rights today.

Last month, the Episcopal Church approved official Rites for the blessings of unions. We have, for years, been performing same-sex marriages where it is legal. We will continue to do so and now bless the unions where marriage is not legal until bigotry ends and love wins again.

This business and its beliefs and practices do not represent me as a Christian any more that Pat Robertson does or Jerry Falwell did. Hate has no place in the body of Christ.

Let me also be clear that, if it were just Chick-Fil-A’s practice to not hire openly gay people and the CEO’s need to put a voice to bigotry, I would not even have bothered commenting. However, that wasn’t enough. Chick-Fil-A donates money to hate groups, who then influence foreign governments in places like Uganda where people are actually in real danger.

I also have to add a note that, from a Christian perspective, it is easy to blame the outspoken minority for giving us a bad name with their penchant for taking four or five single verses out of context and using them to advance their prejudice as “the Will of God.” But, in reality, we all have some accountability. I believe that most Christians are sincerely caring, tolerant people who want to see the Love Commandment fulfilled in the world, but the fault with us lies in the fact that we are not (or have not been to date) as vocal as our fundamentalist counterparts. I think that we as Christians have a duty to speak out to injustice and oppression wherever we see it.

    Ragspierre in reply to QuietStorm. | July 29, 2012 at 10:50 am

    “Chick-Fil-A donates money to hate groups, who then influence foreign governments in places like Uganda where people are actually in real danger.”

    You are lying. Simple as that. Not a Christian value. AT. ALL.

    Milhouse in reply to QuietStorm. | July 29, 2012 at 12:37 pm

    Christ would be appalled at seeing his people treating anyone as second-class citizens.

    Um, Jesus was an Orthodox Jew who believed in all of the Torah, and therefore believed that it is and ought to be a capital crime for men to have sex with each other. He believed that if a male couple were caught in flagrante delicto by two witnesses, and on being warned to desist they refused, they should be tried by a court of law, and if convicted they should be sentenced to death by stoning. You do know this, don’t you? The idea of same-sex marriage probably never occurred to him, but if it had he would certainly have opposed it. There can be no question of that. And yet you think he would be “appalled” at such opposition? How can any sane person believe such a thing?

      QuietStorm in reply to Milhouse. | July 30, 2012 at 9:04 pm

      Jesus flagrantly broke many of the Mosaic laws including healing on the Sabbath, teaching women, allowing women to travel with his company. As far as the death penalty, did he not instruct, “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone?” Although, convincing arguments can be made that homosexuality, as we understand it today, is not a sin anyway. Still, even if it were, I would be hard-pressed to cat the first stone.

      The Gospel record has Jesus say NOthing about homosexuality, not that it wasn’t around in Jesus’ time. Also, he says NOthing to the abortion issue, which was also common in his time. Rome was very pro-choice, although it was entirely the father’s choice.

      Gracious God, when we would make much of that which cannot matter much to thee, forgive us.” – Right Rev. John Elbridge Hines, Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church 1964-1973, used to open his sermons

    Milhouse in reply to QuietStorm. | July 29, 2012 at 12:38 pm

    And yes, Jesus also believed, with absolute faith, that Jews convicted of eating shellfish should be sentenced to 39 lashes.

      QuietStorm in reply to Milhouse. | July 31, 2012 at 1:58 pm

      I am convinced that you either haven’t read what he taught, or you do not believe the Gospel accounts of his teaching.

      Sentenced to thirty-nine lashes? Jesus was very often portrayed as disobeying the purity laws and even the Sabbath observance. He healed on the Sabbath. He touched lepers, hemorrhaging women, Samaritans, etc.

      As far as your shellfish comment and the dietary restrictions in general, he spoke specifically to that, saying that it is not food that makes one unclean…

      Mark 7:18-20
      King James Version (KJV)
      18 And he saith unto them, Are ye so without understanding also? Do ye not perceive, that whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man, it cannot defile him;
      19 Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?
      20 And he said, That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man.

    spokker in reply to QuietStorm. | July 29, 2012 at 4:18 pm

    “Most of the comments I have heard here (and elsewhere) today are no different than those of the previous generation defending “whites only” businesses.”

    Chick-Fil-A serves gays and hires gays. Your entire comment is forfeit.

I think we should all boycott Target. And write letters to management indicating why we’re doing it. It’ll cost more money to buy elsewhere. But we’re talking liberty, so I believe we should.

If they value gay business that much, let them make all their money from gays and pro-gays. The rest of us should shop elsewhere.

If we don’t hit sanctimonious lefties in the pocketbook, they’ll keep subsidizing moral rot. And we’ll be part of the problem because we don’t want to make sacrifices to try to stop them.

I’m done with Target. (Moment of silence…I really like shopping there.) Who’s with me?

“Last month, the Episcopal Church approved official Rites for the blessings of unions.”

Which will hasten its already very rapid decline into obscurity.

I know it made at least one employee feel intensely uncomfortable– but that offence thing only matters if they’re The Right Sort of views.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend