Yeah, but a useless one.
CFA response to anti-gay alleg. "Guilty as charged." Do NOT gloat about eating at CFA
- Thread starter RBH
- Start date
- Status
Yeah, but a useless one.
I've never even been inside a chik-fil-a but thanks to this thread I'll never even will. I generally don't buy products from places or companies that sink above a certain threshold (morality threshold?). Like Israeli oranges. I can get oranges somewhere else, it's not big deal. I didn't get Shadow Complex either.
As corporate power rises steadily the only power you have is your wallet. It's the language they speak so why not use it.
As for those who say you're 'hurting the people working there more', so what? This is the greatness of the so called free world capitalism. They're free to go work somewhere else, and I don't have to endorse them.
As a member of the lgbt community and as a person of colour, I am very conscious of a business' stance on minority rights. If I discover that a corporation, public figure, organization, etc. is against equal rights or financially supports a group that is against equal rights, not only will they never see my money, but I will also spread the information on. It's why I no longer shop at Urban Outfitters. Also, if I find out a business publicly supports minority rights, it does give me more of an incentive to shop there although it isn't necessarily the deciding factor.
Edit: totally agree with carcetti
Edit: totally agree with carcetti
I'm not sure how you derive interacial marriage with this one. It was likely a reminder statute regarding separateness from the rest of the pagan world so that Deut. 7:3 didn't happen:
The context is clearly dealing with fear of idolatry corrupting the people (Plus them being enemies in the first place).
God logically did not want belief mixing which happened anyway.
Overall, proselytes (Converts) were allowed to marry natural Jews. The most infamous example being Hittite Uriah marrying Bathsheba. Jews were not God's chosen people because of race, but because of relation to Abraham.
I stopped eating at Chick-fil-a a long time ago when I heard they were run by these assholes. Sometimes it's hard to avoid giving assholes your money. In this case, it wasn't hard at all, so I stopped.
Keru_Shiri
Member
Not really, but then again, I had a lot of these same arguments with people on Facebook beforehand, so I had a chance to consider and address the other viewpoints and watch all the same strawmen burned down there as I have here.
I have but I deleted my post about it.
I think you're the only one, congratulations on listening to the discussion.
Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
I don't disagree with everything you're mentioning here as being problems. Apple, and consumer electronics as a whole, has a long way to go. However, I don't think they're 1:1 comparable. Apple has negative externalities in their business practices. It's not particularly clear that they're any worse than their competitors, and in some respects, they might be better (Apple Foxconn employees get paid better than other Foxconn contracts, the company has clearly focused a lot on getting more transparent about labour issues in China, on trying to improve things, etc.) It's not really clear there's an overnight solution. Apple has repeatedly mentioned that besides cost, there are a lot of other factors keeping manufacturing in China--being able to hire 100,000 people within a few weeks. Being able to set up a factory instantly. Being able to hire thousands of engineers to oversee stuff. I mean, this isn't a defence, it's a problem that needs to be solved. But it's an industry-wide negative externality that sort of needs to be solved gradually. Some of what you've identified has been solved--they cap hours worked far below 18 (I think it's 60 a week now?), and they're been getting better at enforcing violations of it. They don't allow child workers, the minimum age is creeping up, and they're getting better at enforcing violations of it (IIRC the recent labour group analysis of Apple did not report any underage workers, although I think the minimum age is 12 or 13 so obviously not yet to North American standards). Again, doesn't mean it's a solved problem, it means it's a problem that's being worked on.
Chick-Fil-A, by contrast, does not have a negative externality. Actually, they do, it's the cruel treatment of the chickens they source. But that's not what we're discussing. We're discussing them using the money they make from your business to support a negative cause completely and utterly non-related to their business. None of their competitors (again, except possible In-n-Out) do this. If you go and eat at Five Guys, they will not do this. If you go and eat at McDonalds', they will not do this. This specific thing, anti-LBGT issues, is incredibly uncommon in large companies, because large companies want to be pluralistic and not exclusionary.
So that's two distinctions about why things are different. First that electronics have problems connected to the way they do business, while Chick-Fil-A's problem has nothing to do with its business; second that electronics have industry wide problems, while Chick-Fil-A proudly stands uniquely among restaurants to be bigoted.
But even if they were exactly the same thing, this isn't true:
I address that in multiple posts:
Here
Here
I sleep very well at night knowing there are certain kinds of places I wouldn't patronize, but also knowing that I still have further to go to make my life a reflection of my values.
Laughing Banana
Weeping Pickle
Uno Venova
Banned
It made me look to see if there was one nearby, there's one on Broadway, might check it out next time I'm around there.
Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
The only leap in the thread title is characterizing donating $2 million to "defence of traditional marriage" and "defence of traditional values" organizations as being anti-gay. That's a leap made for space and also because it's basically tautologically true--I don't think anyone can pretend that Focus in the Family or NOM are not anti-gay, and that material financial supporters are not anti-gay. Unless you would argue that being anti-gay marriage isn't being anti-gay.
IrishNinja
Member
sorry to see krypto banned, as well as the half-hearted ethical relativism here - "you don't have the same views of human rights others do!" this is one of the few areas i believe ethics are pretty black & white: if you're for suppressing liberty/human rights to a particular group, in whatever varying amount, you're in the wrong. you can rationalize around this until the dissonance dies down, but this doesn't change that fact.
does giving less than a penny towards such measures, by proxy, make you such a person? as with anything, that's up to you, though from my perspective the answer would seem pretty clear. but let's talk about picking & choosing your battles:
you really, really don't.
this is about the laziest logical fallacy i've seen lately, so let's try out various maxims and see why they don't work:
if you're going to donate to one charity, you should donate to all the charities.
if you're going to donate some of your money, you should donate all of your money.
if you're going to stop someone from beating their wife, you should stop all domestic abuse.
etc, etc - stump's analogy of a messy room was simple, and he even went on with examples of vegans: perhaps you consume fewer cows, or wear less leather, and so forth. i get people bothered by some inconsistency, but it's entirely absurd to pretend that a rational person trying to do some good is logically negated by not applying this universally to each and every facet of their life, despite varying circumstances in the examples of moral evil or a cost/benefit analysis of the extent to which they are personally comfortable taking such action. it's base discrediting and not an argument anyone with a fair grasp of how people arrive at logical conclusions - much less act upon them in life - should take.
i no doubt support all kinds've companies that do some atrocious things with my money - the example of nintendo has already been given several times. you're welcome to deem this hypocrisy, but what is then the alternative? support any company, regardless of stance or how hard they publicly embrace it, unless an arbitrary % of your $ goes towards an outright dehumanizing cause? Convince yourself complete moral apathy is preferable to taking a stance on anything, regardless of severity or convenience? congratulations on making default consistency the highest possible value, we're all no doubt the better for it.
TL;DR you do what you can
*edit dammit stumps more with less
yeah, me.
does giving less than a penny towards such measures, by proxy, make you such a person? as with anything, that's up to you, though from my perspective the answer would seem pretty clear. but let's talk about picking & choosing your battles:
you really, really don't.
this is about the laziest logical fallacy i've seen lately, so let's try out various maxims and see why they don't work:
if you're going to donate to one charity, you should donate to all the charities.
if you're going to donate some of your money, you should donate all of your money.
if you're going to stop someone from beating their wife, you should stop all domestic abuse.
etc, etc - stump's analogy of a messy room was simple, and he even went on with examples of vegans: perhaps you consume fewer cows, or wear less leather, and so forth. i get people bothered by some inconsistency, but it's entirely absurd to pretend that a rational person trying to do some good is logically negated by not applying this universally to each and every facet of their life, despite varying circumstances in the examples of moral evil or a cost/benefit analysis of the extent to which they are personally comfortable taking such action. it's base discrediting and not an argument anyone with a fair grasp of how people arrive at logical conclusions - much less act upon them in life - should take.
i no doubt support all kinds've companies that do some atrocious things with my money - the example of nintendo has already been given several times. you're welcome to deem this hypocrisy, but what is then the alternative? support any company, regardless of stance or how hard they publicly embrace it, unless an arbitrary % of your $ goes towards an outright dehumanizing cause? Convince yourself complete moral apathy is preferable to taking a stance on anything, regardless of severity or convenience? congratulations on making default consistency the highest possible value, we're all no doubt the better for it.
TL;DR you do what you can
*edit dammit stumps more with less
yeah, me.
Laughing Banana
Weeping Pickle
I think everyone here understands and agrees with that notion, actually. The problem arose because one group of people started yelling about how they are infinitely morally superior than other people. That's what many in this thread had a problem with, at least from what I can tell.
Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
As far as I can tell, this was the first argument exchange:
One person asked if people buying there were fine contributing to bigotry, and another person responded that other companies in other industries also do bad things
I don't think your characterization of this being a one-sided thread to chew out people who still want to eat the chicken there is apt. I think it's fair to say there are a lot of people in this thread who now won't choose to patronize the place, but I see very few cases where people are actually pushing the angle that each individual is culpable.
I do think if someone is saying "I support gay rights, but chicken comes first", they ought to re-evaluate their priorities. Of course, they are their priorities--everyone has agency and is able to make their own choices--but so too can people react to that. That's not to say they need to choose to boycott. But when they sort of proudly proclaim "Who gives a shit not me OM NOM NOM <3 u gays tho" it's kind of, I dunno, callous and reveals an unusual degree of self-centeredness.
IrishNinja
Member
do they? because a few people were echoing jackon's fallacy as if it were legit. but maybe you're right.
and i get that, too. its sometimes a hard line between awareness and proselytizing.
but when the conversation goes from "what are chick's stances" to "okay, i know they actively support efforts to suppress gay rights, does that make me immoral for patronizing them?" then that situation is kind've unavoidable.
i think most everything operates in a spectrum, and per my last post, often ethics as well. so while i have no interest in saying if i'm morally superior to you, for example - it's a useless question we'd spend all day arguing minute points and metrics to accomplish nothing but patting ourselves on the back - in the simple context of this discussion, if presented with the binary choice of:
(x) recognizes chick's stance and does not support them
also recognizes them but MMM MMM THIS SHIT'S DELICIOUS SON, FUCK YO HIGH HORSEx > y, for what it's worth. and again, that's only useful in this very particular discussion and even then, you're entirely free to decide to extent to which that matters to you. I mean, i just basically admitted I'd buy a 3DS XL built by the bloody stumps of good-hearted amputee orphans (if a non-stumpy version wasn't available), so by all means, feel free to call me on my dickbag qualia if that discussion occurs.
*edit dammit stumps, you are absolutely ruining me here
I'm happy to admit I was wrong that people would not be convinced.
Omegasquash
Member
Their chicken was delicious until I found out that the orgasm my taste buds were experiencing came at the expense (no pun intended) of me giving money to anti-equality groups.
Not even claiming that I'm some stoic champion of rights, here. I just found out what was going on and stopped eating there because of it.
Not even claiming that I'm some stoic champion of rights, here. I just found out what was going on and stopped eating there because of it.
Sometimes, honestly, it is. I work for a manufacturer that uses both USA and Chinese manufacturers, and for a couple of our products we had to yank them from the Chinese because we were getting just awful quality out of them. And yes, the working conditions were not great, but that is secondary.
And really, that is the key here as well. Corporations are not moral entities. A corporate position of "gay marriage sucks" is really not so different than corporations endorsing guys like Santorum, who go further than the gay marriage stance and put forth additional rights-denying planks for anyone not white and male.
Anything you go out and buy today puts money in the pocket of somebody whose beliefs you find abhorrent. Every single little thing. Let's say you go into some head shop today and buy a wooden water bong made by the store's owner: the wood may have come from a rainforest, the owner may be paying rent to a neo nazi, the drugs you smoke with the bong have a whole RAFT of 'evil' in the marketing chain.
So really, if you don't want to support immoral acts and beliefs in the world, the only way around it is live off the land in the middle of nowhere. That is, assuming you don't mind the fact that there was a huge blood cost in the Native Americans that died so you could purchase that land.
This I agree with. It is the "screw you, who are YOU to tell me how to run MY life" argument you often see in interviews on Fox News.
IrishNinja
Member
i was kind've cheating, as i don't recall eating them prior.
but a new one opened up near my job, and chicken kitchen is almost never open during my odd hours, so i was considering them, but now i won't. so, kind of!
but a new one opened up near my job, and chicken kitchen is almost never open during my odd hours, so i was considering them, but now i won't. so, kind of!
-ImaginaryInsider
Member
Boycotting Chick-Fil-A is but the first step on your journey, but just wait until you see how far this rabbit hole goes:
Burger King: Pro self-perpetuating autocracy. Anti anarcho-syndicalism.
Tim Hortons: Anti hand-jobs.
Those things at the end of shoe-laces: Made from baby fingernails.
Best Buy/HMV: Refuses to stock free-range eggs.
Eating General Tso's chicken: Supports the General Tso's war machine.
Stay strong armchair activist GAF.
Burger King: Pro self-perpetuating autocracy. Anti anarcho-syndicalism.
Tim Hortons: Anti hand-jobs.
Those things at the end of shoe-laces: Made from baby fingernails.
Best Buy/HMV: Refuses to stock free-range eggs.
Eating General Tso's chicken: Supports the General Tso's war machine.
Stay strong armchair activist GAF.
Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
I think most of us recognize that outcome is important, but also believe that intent is important. Someone who supports a Republican pro-business candidate in order to secure more favourable regulatory conditions might also cause the negative externality of strengthening anti-gay positions, but I'd view that as different than someone who explicitly supports a Republican candidate because they're anti-gay. Of course both are negative outcomes and I'd like to avoid either (and I'd also argue that in some ways the more favourable regulatory conditions might also be a net negative to a consumer like me, but that's a side debate). The point you raise is valid though, many of us who might choose not to patronize a given store should also spend time assessing the stores we do patronize and looking at what tradeoffs we can make to be the best people we can.
If you don't see a separate between intent and outcome, that's fine, but those of us who try not to patronize what we believe to be especially revolting organizations do see that separation, and so that's the first principle that guides our actions.
You're assuming that the choice in life is:
- Support immoral acts and beliefs, live like Pretty Cool Guy
- Don't support immoral acts and beliefs, give up everything
When in reality, we have many overlapping footprints (carbon output, use of petroleum and other pollutants; harm towards humans and animals; how our actions impact laws and allocations of state resources and normalization of positive or negative labels culturally; how our actions contribute to our own quality of life and psychological well-being). Sometimes we might choose to shrink one at the expense of raising another. Sometimes we might be able to shrink several at once. We make a series of decisions.
No doubt some of the decisions I make today will be a net positive in terms of my impact on the world. I will probably walk to lunch. I will probably have leftover pasta from yesterday for supper. I have purchased an independent game on Steam to support creative pluralism. I am going to give to a friend's work's breast cancer relay fundraising. I just dropped off two shirts to be repaired, so I won't need to buy new shirts. Some of the decisions I make today will probably be a net negative. I did drive to work when I probably could have walked. I use a lot of electricity at my job. I'm in the middle of a move and we ran out of recyclable bags so I'm throwing some of my recyclables in the trash for now. I don't think I turned off the porch light when I left for work this morning. Many of the products I use have ethical costs that are amortized over their lifespan.
So it's really not as simple as "If you're not Kaczynski, you've gotta be the Fat People from Wall-E".
Do you need an example of why arguing that all true believers are worth respecting regardless of the content of their beliefs is wrong? Think of literally the worst, most evil, more hurtful person in history. It doesn't matter who came to mind, and we don't need to derail the thread about who it is. They believed in their actions.
NervousXtian
Thought Emoji Movie was good. Take that as you will.
There used to be one inside Clackamas Town Center years and years ago.. in 90's.. right next to the ice rink... when there was an ice rink.
Although I already said I've stopped eating there I should mention that it's pretty easy for me since the only Chick-Fil-A in NYC that I know of is inside an NYU building. Although I'm an NYU Alum and still attending the university for dental school, I'm not sure it's possible to eat anything there without a meal plan. That said, I did frequent the place many times during my freshman year when I was not aware of their agenda and it was the best food available to me.
Anyway, a few months ago it came to my attention that some NYU students petitioned the school to ban the Chick-Fil-A on campus and the Student Council had to vote on the issue. Their decision was to uphold the institution and this was their reasoning:
Anyway, a few months ago it came to my attention that some NYU students petitioned the school to ban the Chick-Fil-A on campus and the Student Council had to vote on the issue. Their decision was to uphold the institution and this was their reasoning:
IrishNinja
Member
he's talking about scale.
you're applauding someone for sticking by their immoral beliefs, as though tenacity should be celebrated over (in this instance) human rights.
I would definitely argue that or at least that it isn't an all or nothing situation. It is not a reasonable position to take to expect someone to change their religious view about something they have no reason to change on except that you demand they do. Secularists have a hard time believing this, but it is extremely easy to love the sinner hate the sin. Gay marriage is wrong per the guys religious beliefs. When the law changes, they will still have to accept that at the secular level without doing a single thing at the belief level.
There is little to no evidence of the company even discriminating against gay people in any capacity beyond what is already illegal. In short, you're complaining about the wrong guys. People are upset with the people ok with the laws as they stand instead of the ones that have the ability to change them regardless of what the president of CFA thinks.
Visiting the websites makes clear that defense of traditional values encompasses way more than being anti-gay (I made a half joke about them being anti-women too due their stance on abortion. They are also anti-Muslim for being Christian). Homosexuality is against Christian Doctrine as taught by Southern Baptists. So most who are outraged by this are already boycotting the source of the problem. They're conservatives. Did anyone think they only existed in breaking news articles?
CFA's charity is based on helping heterosexual couples having successful marriages and that simply going to their websites will make clear that these groups either champion Christian ideals and/or tradional marriage. I remember people getting bent out of shape for them not taking in heterosexual couples who live together. So of course they are going to donate to charities that hold the same view as them (one of the VP's helped found one of them). I completely get why some would boycott, I don't agree that everyone should.
I have no idea why anyone would question the clear meaning of traditional marriages. Traditional marriage is not simply a catchphrase of anti-gay, it's the reality that marriages have almost always involved heterosexual realtionships so the word is appropriate. It shouldn't be the only type of marriage in the 21st century, but it's wrong to think it was the normal/traditional view of marriage. I say invent a new word to use. I also can't believe that so many are so misguided to think that Baptists are opening their arms to homosexuality.
Researching this has made it clear that at least since forming their marriage camp, they've been every bit as up front about it (Without being terribly vocal btw) as your typical politician.
I don't understand some of the bannings here. Why was painey banned? Just because he said he liked Chick-Fil-A chiken?
This thread is full of hypocrisy, people thinking they are morally superior to others, then find justifications when they are called out for supporting other "evil" companies. As one of the greatest Italian poet (Pasolini) said:
The moralist says no to others, the moral man only to himself.
I don't care for Chick-Fil-A since I live in Italy so food is really the last of my problem, what I don't understand is who decides where to draw the line. Since no one is God I won't judge somebody who goes to this fast food chain despite knowing its anti-gay position, as I won't judge people buying Foxconn products.
Some people need to understand that you're not right 100% all the time and you're never morally perfect, everyday you're probably doing something unethical and unfair. Don't think you're better than others just because you found out they are doing something worser (by your standard) than you.
I go to Chick-Fil-A despite knowing 4 cents of my moneys go to anti-gay campaigns, for me it's not a big deal because I love their food so much, for you it is because you have a gay friend.
You buy Foxconn products despite knowing their workers condition, for you it's not a big deal because you love Apple products so much, for me it is because I have a friend who works there.
So who's better than the other?
This thread is full of hypocrisy, people thinking they are morally superior to others, then find justifications when they are called out for supporting other "evil" companies. As one of the greatest Italian poet (Pasolini) said:
The moralist says no to others, the moral man only to himself.
I don't care for Chick-Fil-A since I live in Italy so food is really the last of my problem, what I don't understand is who decides where to draw the line. Since no one is God I won't judge somebody who goes to this fast food chain despite knowing its anti-gay position, as I won't judge people buying Foxconn products.
Some people need to understand that you're not right 100% all the time and you're never morally perfect, everyday you're probably doing something unethical and unfair. Don't think you're better than others just because you found out they are doing something worser (by your standard) than you.
I go to Chick-Fil-A despite knowing 4 cents of my moneys go to anti-gay campaigns, for me it's not a big deal because I love their food so much, for you it is because you have a gay friend.
You buy Foxconn products despite knowing their workers condition, for you it's not a big deal because you love Apple products so much, for me it is because I have a friend who works there.
So who's better than the other?
Oh please. He (the chick-fil-A guy) isn't saying gay people aren't welcome or allowed to eat in his restuarant. He doesn't believe 2 men or women should be married. Last I checked about 90% of the world agrees.
I simply meant that instead of making up something or lying, he straight up admitted to it. Like someone on the first page said, there's lots of passive-aggressive anti-gay movements out there. Again, the issue is being far overblown. No matter the bitching people do in this thread Chick-fil-A will continue to support those marriage organizations, the guy will not change his beliefs, and Chick-fil-A will continue to be delicious and will continue to serve gay men and women.
I think gay people should do whatever they damn well please and want, but my opinion won't change anyone else's.
Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
Okie dokie, well, I don't really feel a need to continue engaging you in this or any other thread. If you review the post history in threads we've posted in together, I'm sure you'll acknowledge that I always gave you the benefit of the doubt and never held your reputation or tag against you. Enjoy the rest of your time on GAF. For future reference, I won't be involved in any moderation decisions involving you and I've notified the other moderators that effect.
Okay, so people should be applauded for sticking to their principles (like this guy) unless sticking to their principles leads to a negative outcome of... what proportion would you have in mind--I don't see why sticking to your (bad) principles is a good thing when it's hurting some people a little bit but becomes a bad thing when it hurts a lot of people a lot?
Everyone who has ever done anything good or bad for the world has believed in what they're doing. I don't understand why being tenacious about your principles is more admirable than being on the right side of history.
Dude Abides
Banned
Southern Baptists eh? Not surprising that adherents to a sect formed to support slavery continue to be bigots.
Terrible argument. Every moment you live you make choices, weigh possibilities. Life is not a video game where you have to pick the renegade option every time if you do it once. You have to weigh your needs, your means, your family's means and needs vs your own morality system. Sometimes you do what you feel is the right thing, sometimes you compromise. I don't pretend to be a saint but I try to be a moral human being. Can't win every time, but I'm not a hypocrite about it, I admit that readily.
Some others in this thread have already said it even better but still.
I might even boycott your products based on this simple forum post. Such is my amazing right as a consumer. Or more probably, it's just going to influence my purchases slightly or not at all, but you never know. Everything sticks.
IrishNinja
Member
that's an interesting metric - so if 90% of the world believe any other group should be denied rights, it's okay then too? Ad populum is also a fallacy for a reason.
this strikes me as a very weird sentiment: so because he's open about his awful policy, that should be rewarded vs the many businesses likely to share his belief but have the good sense not to shout it from the rooftops while donating to such causes? i agree these things are good to know, but not for nearly the same reasons.
you are most certainly right: if everyone believed as you, such things would never change. i've no idea why you find this scenario preferable, given how easy it would be to vote with your dollar.
again, this is ever your choice - historically though, your defeatist attitude has not accomplished a great deal.
have i said otherwise? everyone does as they please, i thought this discussion was more of an "ought".
I don't know why you can't give me the benefit of the doubt now. I haven't said anything in any of our posts together that should rankle your feathers beyond the truth (As an example, prove me wrong on what I quoted while avoiding the followup sentence).
I admit it kills me a little that you are making some kind of weird false accusation against me now and implying I'm living up to a reuptation that you have failed to produce evidence of, but if you feel the need to turn off conversation just because you don't understand it, that's fine and entirely your business.
I will keep posting replies to you as long as other mods allow it since I'm a "no hard feelings" kind of guy and hope you change your mind.
InvincibleAgent
Member
Exactly what I was thinking. We've got plenty of awesome food in Portland anyway.
There's a lot of great places in Lexington too, but I don't go to them for chicken sandwiches. I actually am not big on eat fried chicken sandwiches regularly and eat at CFA maybe once every few months or so.
It's not a cult of CFA going on, but their sandwiches are good when you want one like any other food place.
It's not a cult of CFA going on, but their sandwiches are good when you want one like any other food place.
CornBurrito
Member
This mentality is why we have so many problems, because it works in reverse as well. People refuse to vote because one vote makes no difference, people don't donate to charity because their contribution is so little in the scheme of things, etc...
I can't even tell if it's sarcasm or not. The internets.
Anyway, the guys who post on Stormfront also stand firmly behind something they believe in. That in itself is not an endorsement.
AlteredBeast
Fork 'em, Sparky!
I think this comment should have remained private or in PM form...
IrishNinja
Member
standing by your beliefs is great. when said beliefs lead you to the conclusion that someone else is a second-class citizen who does not deserve the same rights as you, it's time to reexamine them.
Why? I prefer my institutions to be cravenly changeable before the public will, which is slowly coming over to my side on every issue.
Someone spending millions of dollars to deny me a basic right that you have isn't a big deal?
Dude Abides
Banned
It's the standard three stages of derp for people defending the indefensible:
Stage 1: Say something dumb. Proceed to lose the argument.
Stage 2: Mindless taunts. Here, it's tasty chicken tasty chicken tasty chicken!
Stage 3: Bail out while pretending the subject is too trivial for your precious time even though you just made multiple posts about it.
Well, only to you. To the rest of us who want equal rights.... wait a minute...
This is true in the sense of where those beliefs fit within the law. A Baptist, which like all religions is discriminating, never has to change their religious belief regardless of the law.
However, they should have never thought that that belief has anything to do with legality, equality, governance, or ammendments to those things.
- Status