“It’s been like this since 6:00 AM.”
It was 8:15 PM. The employee had a tired but sincere smile on his face as he went fromcar to car, already a block from his restaurant, thanking customers for both their patience and their support.
Chick Fil-A Appreciation Day has apparently taken on a life far greater than anyone could have envisioned, and according to reports pouring in from around the country, the Bible-respecting chicken franchise has had to call in off-duty staff in an attempt to keep up with the hordes of people flocking to the store.
Out of curiosity I swung by the closest franchise just after 6:00 PM, and was floored by what I witnessed.
[More]
Afternoon Updates:
3:56 pm EDT, August 3rd, 2012 – Viral video of man picking on Chick-fil-A worker gets him fired
Notes:
Watch the video. Can’t make up my mind whether he’s NDP or Liberal. Guess it doesn’t matter. ”Wiseguy” is not going to be happy in a few more months as his world collapses “and you can take that to the bank”.
In a short few months time I think that America just might experience another Chicken-Fil-A moment……at the voting booths.
I hope your prognostication is right beentheredonethat. Like you I would love to see the leftist mental disorder so adequately demonstrated by the leftist haters out there removed from polite society. Trying to shut down a business because the owner offers an opinion contrary to popular leftist doctrine, wishing a six year old and his parents dead because the six year old spoke against said leftist knitwittery, YEESH. How any one could support such vile hatred is completely beyond me.
The LGBT community has a long way to go in the US …
Alas, Chick-Fil-A will hurt for this in the long run. Politicizing a chicken sandwich is basically saying that you only want part of the population to eat it.
Will the homophobes continue to scarf down sandwiches forever or will this die down as soon as some other front is opened next month in the culture war?
Meanwhile they are NEVER getting that gay sector back. Ben Stein was right about this.
“Chick-Fil-A will hurt for this in the long run. Politicizing a chicken sandwich is basically saying that you only want part of the population to eat it. ”
The owner of Chick-Fil-A was not speaking as a representative of that company. He was expressing an opinion as an ordinary citizen. In other words exercising his absolute right to freedom of speech. A right by the way which the left hates if they disagree with what is being said. T’was not he who politized his comment. I disagree and predict that this issue will not cause Chick-Fil-A any damage short or long term.
The LGBT is just another leftist hate group like so many others whose sole aim is to keep their own on the reservation. Ask any LGBT who has disagreed with them politically and you will find out that they have received the same treatment as many members of racial minorities have who in the course of their political maturing have run counter to the orthodoxy of said ethnic minority.
So does this copy and paste analysis suggest that going off the reservation means going against gay marriage? If so, how does denying one’s self the ability to marry amount to “freedom” for the gay going off the reservation, Joe?
Like many straight people many LGBTs do not agree with ‘gay marriage’. However when they voice their opposition they are threatened by agendized LGBT’s whose orthodoxy DEMANDS that all LGBTs support the normalization of the gay lifestyle. Certain knitwits on the left slavishly agree with said agenda and even try to elevate ‘gay marriage’ to the level of a human right.
That didn’t really answer the question, but you’ve created a couple more:
1) What gays don’t believe they should get married? Should they be able to make that decision for other gays?
2) Is it possible for a minority to speak in favour of their demographic instead of against it without being a part of the “reserve”?
Well Cy I guess you’re just too thick to understand. NO ONE has a RIGHT to marry. NO ONE has the RIGHT to marry whomsoever they would marry. Yes there are lots of gays who do not agree with the idea of gay marriage. There are several in my own circle of friends and there are a few others who are members of my family. One male cousin has been in a committed relationship with the same man for several decades. He doesn’t like the idea of gay marriage. However as he told me one evening he expressed his discomfort with the idea of gay marriage in a group of gays he associates with and was verbally berated and slapped several times by his associates. He was completely taken aback by the HATRED he encountered simply for expressing his opinion. Yes his story is only one but I have talked to and read the blogs of a number of other gays who were shunned by their former friends because they dared stray off the plantation.
(May Jack note what civility gets you around here)
So I’m thick, yet your definition of “freedom of speech” only applies to right-wing speech? Let me explain this really slowly for you …
1) There is only freedom of speech if EVERYONE has it
2) Given #1, if you are allowed to speak an opinion then others are allowed to respond
3) Disagreement is not hatred. Hatred is someone burning a cross on your front lawn for being a few shades too dark or kicking your arse when walking down the street because you look “gay”. Someone telling you that you are in idiot for making what very well may have been an idiotic statement is not hate.
Also it is ironic that your use of “straying off the plantation” always seems to refer to instances where someone is arguing for the right to be subordinate or inferior.
Oh and one more thing …
NO ONE has a RIGHT to marry
You’re wrong:
http://www.canlii.org/en/ab/laws/stat/rsa-2000-c-m-5/latest/rsa-2000-c-m-5.html
That’s a legal entitlement not a “right”. It’s an abuse of language to call entitlements bestowed by the government a “right”.
So the “right to bear arms” is essentially a misnomer? As part of the constitution, it is also technically a legal entitlement.
Also what would be a “right” that could survive any government legislation?
Yeah, I see your point. But I think you also see mine. Just because the government calls something a “right” doesn’t make it so. I think that the “right to bear arms” is protection of a right. So there needs to be a more substantive argument on both of our parts in order to establish what constitutes a bona fide “right”.
Real rights don’t disappear because of legislation. When you can’t exercise your rights because of legislation you have tyranny.
Yes, I see your point – a “right” in the purest sense should not require political sanction for validation.
The problem is that the whole idea of rights becomes purely moral, which means the answer depends on who you’re asking. The only thing absolute about morals is that they’re absolutely relative.
My personal view is that anything a person wants to do that does not cause material and undue harm to others is a right. Sounds nice on paper, but what does “material” and “undue” mean? By my standards, homosexual marriage does not harm heterosexual marriage (we’re quite good at destroying it ourselves), as it is a civil union between two consenting adults who otherwise have no interest in joining in traditional marriage to procreate.
Anyone’s distaste for it is not based on material threat but rather bigotry and failure to mind one’s own business. I say this as a guy who visibly winces when seeing two men embrace romantically. Live and let live.
Your turn.
So where do you draw the line Cy? Once you change the definition of marriage to include gay marriage how can you possibly deny it to any other combination of people or things? Or do gays get to kick the door shut behind them?
Since the law had to be extended to gays, the door is by definition shut to anyone else until we decide to open the debate again.
What’s I’d like to know from you is how far backwards we should go. Your exact arguments were made about inter-faith and inter-racial marriages in America, and are still being made about inter-caste marriages in India. Does your outrage extend in that direction as well?
If you have a right to marry then how come my maiden aunt never married despite her fondest desire to marry? My single daughter and her single friends would also love to get married so who is going to enforce their ‘marriage right’?
Sometimes leftists are just so stupid. They think that by passing a law they can somehow circumvent reality!
What kind of a moronic post is this?
Does having the right to something mean you have to do it?
How does something get passed in law, and occur frequently, yet not be counted under “reality”?
Do I know what goes through the mind of people unfortunate enough to share your genetic material? Can’t even figure out what passes for logic in your mind.
When you resort to calling me a leftist and stupid, it’s clear to even you that you’ve run out of ideas. Just quit.
The reality for the slow of uptake like leftists everywhere is that gays have always had the ‘right’ to marry. The only restriction they have had is the same restriction everyone has had in what or whom you can marry. A man can’t marry his mother. A woman can not marry her father. A human can not marry a goat. Until dimwitted leftists decided to think themselves smarter than reality a man could not marry a man nor could a woman marry a woman. People who try to distort reality like that are evil. I know that is a concept beyond you Cy but someday you too may see the truth in what I just posted.
And now a homosexual man can marry another homosexual man, which you know full well is that they wanted. Do you understand this reality?
Put the “leftist” scarecrow down and address the situation – do you think your gay relatives marrying people of their own sex is equivalent to a man marrying a goat? That seems to be what you’re saying.
Just for Cy
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/08/chick-fil-a_kiss-in_protestors_show_their_colors.html
My outrage? So your short answer is yes that anyone else will be discriminated against by gays. Pot meet Kettle. So why aren’t gays fighting their good fight for all humans since they claim marriage is a human right?
The point was that you seem to think allowing gay marriage is tantamount to opening the floodgates to anarchy. I’m asking if those floodgates were really opened now or back when America struck down other discriminatory rules. Since you are so interested in the dividing line between “morality” and “chaos”, the least you could do is tell us where it’s drawn.
Well Cy since you are completely blind to the idea of Good and Evil I guess there isn’t much point in further debate. Of course coming as you do from a leftist point of view which is basically to call all Evil Good and all Good Evil…..
Ah yes, the immutable good and evil, which we know never changes over time. Why don’t you explain what it is for the benefit of the “unenlightened” among is?
The line is drawn at one man one woman, Cy. You cannot make an exception for one group and not others, and neither can the courts if they are applying the law evenly.
That is fundamentally why I am against gay marriage. It has little to with gays, (other than the fact they are picking the fight) and everything to do with the definition of marriage.
Your turn.
I tend to view the individual as the ultimate sovereign unit.
As far as marriage is concerned, I don’t think the State has any authority telling the Church who they can marry. Nor do I think the Church has any authority telling the State who they can marry. Nor do I feel that I have any authority to tell gays or lesbians that they can’t marry. However none of that precludes someone from having the belief that marriage is exclusively for a man and a woman. Whether or not that makes them a bigot is beyond me. I’m not familiar with their arguments. However if their convictions are based on religious teachings then I think it is a bit gratuitous to call them a bigot.