zoocrew

Now you're in pure conjecture and innuendo. If Chi-Fil-A feels it was stopped from its legal right to open a store, the company has a legal department and it should be used.

I think you missed the point about the community cooperation and local legislative workings in order to get zonings. You are reading WAAAAAAY too much into my position and taking my point to where I never said it was to go. Please don't assume that I am supporting banning a business or denying a permit based on a viewpoint or political position. That is NOT what I'm saying nor do I agree with that. Yes, colleges may decide based on viewpoint discrimination, just like they have the right to allow (or not) guest speakers, performance groups, or even an organization, depending on the charter

Because there is a group of people not being treated as first class citizens and Cathy is giving money to causes that actively seeks to keep a class of people from the same rights as everyone else. He states his rational for the discrimination is that he believes that is what God wants. He is hiding behind God (his version) to justify treating one class of Americans differently than anyone else. How would you feel if a company gave money to a cause that actively promoted the government to discriminate against you, and then everyone is all giddy about going to that company because they

And colleges have the right to say no to a Chic-fil-A if they want. People have the right to not patronize the restaurants. Zonings that require community cooperation or local legislative workings don't have to allow them their permits. It's a 2 way street, this freedom thing.

His place of business doesn't issue marriage licenses and that is what we're talking about here. It is not what his business does but the policy that hides behind God as an excuse to discriminate and put his religious ideas on the rest of us. He is supporting the nationwide policy that institutionalizes discrimination against gays by not allowing them the right to marry

Oh, come off it. Everyone in the world knows he was talking about gay marriage as the main topic. Even the Chic-Fil-A official press release acknowledged it was about same-sex marriage. My link Going forward, our intent is to leave the policy debate over same-sex marriage to the government and political arena.

No one is claiming that he is discriminating in his restaurants.

You have made the point for me. Not everyone agrees with your version of what God wants, either. So they would say the same to you. You're beginning to see the light since you're agreeing with me more and more.

I agree 100%. He has every right to hold whatever view he wants to hold. He has every right to support whatever cause he wishes with ever how much money he wishes. That is up to him. He can run his business any way he wants as long as it is legal. But when he advocates putting into law (as we have now) a wholesale discrimination against a class of American citizens based on his religious ideas, that is something that is wrong. It is no different than the Muslims who wish require women to wear the veil because their religion says the veil is "traditional modesty and morality."

Exactly. Right. If he is guilty, he deserves the jail time. But until there is proof of any crime at school or with Paulding's kids, the system could not say anything, nor should we try to put other charges against the SOB for which there is no proof.

But we can't say he is guilty of crimes there is no proof he did, either. That is the point.

And yet you support those nations in killing people by buying gasoline too, no? The point is that those nations have the right of self determination and can do as they wish. The issue here is not about what other nations do but what we do here in America. Sorry, but let's not confuse the issue by erecting a strawman. We can deal with the international issue of human rights another day. Today, it is about the issue of civil rights in America.

There is no proof he did commit any crimes at school, either. I think the guy is the scum of the earth but let's be fair, here. We can't put the Lindberg Baby at his feet, either., so let's not speculate any more than the facts that are.

I let my boys ride the bus themselves this morning and handle all the new stuff on their own. They are past the second grade and should be able to do all that on their own. Both did well and are happy I let them do all that by themselves! No need to make a big fuss and drop them off or pick them up because they said they are old enough to do their stuff on their own. So I let them. And am glad I did because they had a blast and bragged to their friends that they didn't need mama to baby them. I don't know if I should laugh or cry but I'm proud.

Won't be going anymore.

Exactly. The news story wasn't much of a story after all. I don't know Valbuena from Adam's house cat, but I can read and the stuff I read said exactly what you described. Looks more like a smear. I so hate politics.

Just ignore the guy. He is not that smart and not educated. Just let him blather on.

The secessionist said the same thing.

I am in total agreement with you. It had nothing to do with race but with boorish behavior. I just don't think anyone should have mentioned race at all since that is irrelevant, just like you said.

OK I. get it now. Some consenting adults should be able to marry but others should not. As long as heterosexuals are allowed to it is OK to tell others they can not.

Wrong again. Homosexuality is very common in nature. If you're stating that the only reason for marriage is for procreation, then fine. I disagree but won't even get into that because that is not even a rational idea. But whatever.

Court already ruled on that a long time ago. Separate issue. Homosexuals can produce malformed offspring? I'm appalled that you would compare homosexuality to incest.

Not contradiction at all. Reasonable people see that those are two separate issues. Discuss each issue on its own merits. Please explain the difference in opposite sex incestuous marriage, and opposite sex marriage of non-related people. Same logic. You brought up the comparison so the onus is on you. You either support consenting adults having the ability to choose a partner or you do not. By telling two people of the opposite sex it is OK but telling another group it is not makes you no better than those telling incestuous partners they can't. I'm pretty sure this is the point you'd

Huh? I'm asking you to be consistent. If you want to compare gay marriage to incest, then explain the difference between the marriage of opposite sex couples, and opposite sex incestuous marriage. If there is a differential there, then there must also be a differential between incest and same sex marriage. By your logic, we should not allow opposite sex couples to marry because we don't let opposite sex incestuous marriage either. The point is that there is a difference in marriage and incest. We all recognize that. So why not recognize the difference in incest and gay marriage?