patrick.net

Liberal politicians have finally come out of the closet with public displays of political tyranny. The liberal bastions of Boston and Chicago are using politics in an attempt to squash, censure and punish Chick-fil-A by preventing the company from opening outlets in their towns.

As they should. There's a thing called zoning laws. Now perhaps you disagree with the philosophy or implementation of zoning laws, but in some form or another they are a necessity. No one wants a nightclub to be opened right next door to their residents. As a result of noise laws no nightclub could ever open if it weren't for zoning.

Restaurants operate on land that is zoned commercial. In exchange for getting to use the surface area, a very limited resource in any city, commercial enterprises must serve the community at large, not just an arbitrary subset they like. This is the cost of using what is essentially a public resource (land) created by nature not man.

Sure, we have "private ownership" of land to a certain degree as it's impractical to do otherwise, but no claim on absolute ownership of land could ever be justified as no "original owner" can have a legitimate claim on land. See the Georgism link on the front page of patrick.net.

As such, the collective society through the state must ensure that the land and other public/natural resources like the EM spectrum are used to the full benefit of society, not just a few individuals. This is exactly why restaurants can't refuse to serve customers on the basis of race, gender, sexual orientation, nationality, age, and other protected attributes.

Now, on the Internet, you are free to be as bigoted as you want because there is no limit to the number of domains and websites that can be created. Harry opening a website does not prevent Joe from opening his own website. However, as land is limited, Harry opening a bar or restaurant does prevent Joe from doing the same because there is only so much commercial land available for bars and restaurants.

Thus it would be wrong for states to block the KKK's website or any other. However, it would be wrong to let the KKK open a whites-only restaurant. In the Chick-fil-A conflict, the state has taken this one step further and adopted the position that even if a restaurant doesnâ€™t actively refuse to serve a customer based on illegal discrimination, they cannot have use of commercial land if they have the mission statement of promoting that illegal discrimination.

It is questionable whether or not this one step further is valid, but it is certainly keeping in line with the principle that land usage must serve the whole community, not just one bigoted group. I hope you understand this conflict better now and why the actions of the cities in question have been taken.

6 Honest Abe 2012 Jul 31, 7:22am

Dan, does Chick-Fil-A really have "a mission statement promoting illegal discrimination", or did you just make that up? From what I've read, the owners simply stated their OPINION that "marriage" is between a man and a women".

To use political power to squash someones opinion is practically the definition of tyranny - "absolute power, arbitrarily or unjustly administered". I thought liberals were all about tolerance. I guess that's simply more of the liberal double standard.

You indicate that its a zoning law issue. Let me ask you this: if any branch of the LGBT wanted to start a restaurant in the same location that CFA wanted to - would they be allowed to...or not? A simple yes or no will suffice.

BTW, if you want to be intellectually honest, a restaurant owned by any branch of the LGBT would NOT "serve the whole community", because a percentage of the religious right wouldn't patronize it. The real issue here is the glaring INTOLERANCE of the LGBT community and liberal democrats. They are the INTOLERANT ones, AND by utilizing unjust POLITICAL TYRANNY, want to crush, censure and destroy it.

I rest my case.

7

Bap33 2012 Jul 31, 9:36am

However, it would be wrong to let the KKK open a whites-only restaurant

why?
how?
who says?
how many "black" churches can you name?

This issue is the common intollerant militant left demanding tollerance of whatever immoral behavior they dream up. So disgusting and funny if it were not so sad.

8

Dan8267 2012 Jul 31, 9:55am

http://www.youtube.com/embed/Y1s1BA0xSnM

Dan, does Chick-Fil-A really have "a mission statement promoting illegal discrimination", or did you just make that up?

why?
how?
who says?
how many "black" churches can you name?

You can walk into a "black" church. However, I would argue that Churches should not get zoning permits. If people want church services, they can hold them in their own residency. But that's another story.

In any case, Churches should not get any tax exceptions.

This issue is the common intollerant militant left demanding tollerance of whatever immoral behavior they dream up.

Just because you consider homosexuality to be immoral doesn't make it so. I consider faith to be immoral. I can justify faith being immoral as it has caused irrational violence, death, and destruction throughout history. I've asked you to justify why homosexuality is immoral and you never have been able to do so. That should be a hint that homosexuality isn't immoral.

Just because you find something disgusting doesn't make it immoral. I think it's disgusting when old people have sex, but that doesn't make it morally wrong.

In any case, gay marriage is about one and only one thing as far as the state is concerned: equality under law. If religious institutions don't want to perform or recognized gay marriages, fine. But the state cannot discriminate against people based on gender without violating the equal protection clause of the Constitution.

The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment of the U.S. Constitution prohibits states from denying any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. See U.S. Const. amend. XIV. In other words, the laws of a state must treat an individual in the same manner as others in similar conditions and circumstances. A violation would occur, for example, if a state prohibited an individual from entering into an employment contract because he or she was a member of a particular race. The equal protection clause is not intended to provide "equality" among individuals or classes but only "equal application" of the laws. The result, therefore, of a law is not relevant so long as there is no discrimination in its application. By denying states the ability to discriminate, the equal protection clause of the Constitution is crucial to the protection of civil rights.

In terms of marriage, if it is legal for Sam and Christine to get married, then it's still legal if Sam is also a woman. Otherwise the genders of the couple is being used to discriminate in the application of marriage laws.

I really don't get why conservatives have such a hard time with such a simple and clear concept.

Of course, the real problem is that marriage should never have been a secular institution. It is a religious and social institution and thus should not be a secular one. The whole reason the state is in a quagmire over gay marriage is that the state is doing something that is should not have the responsibility or the power to do: to decide which relationships are legally valid and which are not!

Marriage should be desecularized. All marriage laws should be dropped or replaced with laws agnostic of marriage, and that includes laws regarding parent's rights as parents are not always married anyway. There should only be one filing status for income taxes as well. Any dependents should be based solely on financial dependency, not relationships.

If the government stayed out of the marriage business like it should, gay marriage would not even be an issue.

9

Bap33 2012 Jul 31, 10:42am

do you agree with sex based public toilets?

10

CL 2012 Jul 31, 11:08am

http://equalitymatters.org/factcheck/201207020001

Its glaringly obvious liberals are anti-business, anti-capitalism, anti-job creation and anti-constitution.

Do you consider the ACLU to be liberal?
http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2012/July/Pro-Gay-Marriage-ACLU-Defends-Chick-fil-A/

And again, the founder didn't merely express his beliefs. They contributed company money to anti-gay groups.

a restaurant owned by any branch of the LGBT would NOT "serve the whole community", because a percentage of the religious right wouldn't patronize it

That's okay. That would be the citizen's choice not to patronize the business. Just like those of us who don't want Truett to use our money to discriminate against gays won't buy his sandwiches. That's voting with your dollars.

I think I agree with Bloomberg though. The Mayors shouldn't get involved. In a buycott/boycott area like SF, we'll punish them the old fashioned way, replete with picket signs, protests, and dirty hippies.

They'll leave town on a rail, still stinking of patchouli! :)

11

Dan8267 2012 Jul 31, 12:27pm

do you agree with sex based public toilets?

So let me get this straight. The existence of separation of bathrooms in your mind is justification for any gender-based discrimination. After all, if we don't shit in the same stall, we're not equal under law. Hey, that rhymes.

Nice attempt. I appreciate that you are trying. However, the separation of public bathrooms does not constitute inequality under law like segregation did.

As stated by the Supreme Court in Brown vs. the Board of Education

Segregation of children in the public schools solely on the basis of race denies to black children the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment, even though the physical facilities and other may be equal. Education in public schools is a right which must be made available to all on equal terms.

The question presented in these cases must be determined not on the basis of conditions existing when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted, but in the light of the role of public education in American life today. The separate but equal doctrine adopted in Plessy v. Ferguson, which applied to transportation, has no place in the field of public education.

Separating black children from others solely because of their race generates a feeling of inferiority as to their status in the community that may affect their hearts and minds in a way unlikely ever to be undone. The impact of segregation is greater when it has the sanction of law. A sense of inferiority affects the motivation of a child to learn. Segregation with the sanction of law tends to impede the educational and mental development of black children and deprives them of some of the benefits they would receive in an integrated school system. Whatever may have been the extent of psychological knowledge at the time of Plessy v. Ferguson, this finding is amply supported by modern authority and any language to the contrary in Plessy v. Ferguson is rejected.

Clearly, this analysis does not apply to separation of the men's room and the women's room, which is done to prevent teenage boys from peeking at girls while they pee.

The Supreme Court's analysis does however apply aptly to the question of same sex marriages. Since marriage affects many legal statuses including federal income taxes and benefits, the equal protection clause clearly demands that all adults can marry whomever they want regardless of their or that person's gender.

Again, why is this a difficult concept for a conservative, who claims to be for small, unintrusive government, to understand? The government should not have the right, power, or responsibility to decide which personal relationships are valid and which are not.

Disregard your personal and religious beliefs. From a purely secularist perspective, any ban on gay marriage while hetrosexual marriage is recognized by the state is clearly a violation of equality under law and the Fourteenth Amendment.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws not even gays.

Ok, I added the part in lavender.

The point is that as an American you should believe in gay marriage even if you don't like it or believe in it religiously. The gay marriage issue is absolutely no different than the interracial marriage issue of fifty years ago. The arguments being made against gay marriage today are the same as those made against interracial marriages in the 1960s.

And you don't want people 30 years from now looking back at your comments and seeing you on the wrong side of this issue. Trust me, you'll look the fool when society finally accepts gay marriage, which is inevitable just like the acceptance of interracial marriage was inevitable.

12

Peter P 2012 Jul 31, 12:31pm

do you agree with sex based public toilets?

I think all single-stall toilets should be unisex.

13

Dan8267 2012 Jul 31, 1:56pm

To use political power to squash someones opinion is practically the definition of tyranny - "absolute power, arbitrarily or unjustly administered".

The TSA, the Patriot Act, the NDAA, and the arrest of civilians who video the police are far more tyrannical than a municipality refusing to grant commercial zoning to a corporation that is actively trying to suppress an already suppress minority. Granted, what the municipalities are doing may very well be wrong, as I stated, but clearly the intent is not nearly tyrannical like the intent of the acts and agency I just mentioned.

However, I would agree that preventing the CEO of Chick-fil-A from speaking on his beliefs would be tyrannical, un-Constitutional, and downright wrong. But that's not what the municipalities are doing. The blue laws of many states is clearly a much better example of municipalities violating people's rights to express their opinions and be free to reject other people's opinions. Just because you're religious belief prohibits alcohol consumption on Sunday, doesn't mean I shouldn't be able to buy alcohol on that day.

Most importantly, the municipals actions are directed against commerce performed by a corporation, and contrary to Citizen's United, corporations aren't people. And no, I don't care what the corrupt Supreme Court says, it's retarded to consider corporations equal under law to human beings. The best arguments you can make against the municipals is that they don't have the legal authority to block this commerce and in doing so they are depriving the people of the choice to eat shitty food. Of course, why then can a city prevent auto dealerships from operating within its limits as Boca Raton, FL does?

In any case, the municipalities may be wrong, but they aren't nearly as wrong as the TSA, the Patriot Act, the NDAA, Gitmo, the Bush-Iraq War, Obama's drone strikes against civilians including children. There's a lot more tyrannical things going on right now.

You indicate that its a zoning law issue. Let me ask you this: if any branch of the LGBT wanted to start a restaurant in the same location that CFA wanted to - would they be allowed to...or not? A simple yes or no will suffice.

A simple yes or no never suffices because the reason why always matters.

To clarify your question, you are asking "if a LGBT organization wanted to open a gay-only restaurant, would this be legal?". If that is your question, then the answer is no. A restaurant that prohibits heterosexuals from entering would violate federal anti-discrimination laws just like a restaurant that prohibits whites from entering would. There is no such thing as "reverse discrimination", it's all just plain discrimination.

However, gay and lesbian bars don't prohibit straights from entering and drinking just like nudie bars don't prevent female customers from entering. These establishments may cater to their intended customer base, but not prohibit others from using the services. Moreover none of these establishments ever advocate passing laws preventing straight people from marrying or preventing people from wearing clothes in public. So it's not really the same thing.

Come to think of it, if municipalities can ban strip clubs, which they do, then they can ban CFA. Personally, I don't think municipalities should be able to ban strip clubs, gay bars, underground fight clubs, Satanic churches, etc. But that's just my opinion.

BTW, if you want to be intellectually honest,

Which I always doâ€¦

a restaurant owned by any branch of the LGBT would NOT "serve the whole community", because a percentage of the religious right wouldn't patronize it.

In the same way that McDonalds or CFA don't serve the whole community because a percentage of health-minded individuals wouldn't patronize it? Or the same way that a golf store doesn't serve the whole community because most people don't golf?

There is a huge difference between having your doors open to all people and appealing to all people. The state is only concerned with the former. The free market is concerned with the later.

The real issue here is the glaring INTOLERANCE of the LGBT community and liberal democrats. They are the INTOLERANT ones, AND by utilizing unjust POLITICAL TYRANNY, want to crush, censure and destroy it.

Gays have been horrifically discriminated against throughout history. The word "faggot" comes from a Medieval joke that the thing homosexuals are good for is burning alive at the stake like a kindling of faggots.

Up to the mid-20th century even in America and the U.K. homosexual behavior was a felony. This is clear, systematic, state-sponsored discrimination and dehumanization of homosexuals. The smartest man in all of human history, with the (slightly) possible exception of Karl Friedrich Gauss, was a homosexual by the name of Alan Turing. He was driven to suicide by the anti-homosexual persecutions by the British government.

The loss of this one man changed all of human history. I do not exaggerate when I say that had Turing lived, he would have probably figured out a cure for cancer using computers. That's a bold claim, but I'm pretty damn sure of it because he was that smart. So, every person who dies from cancer does so because of the anti-homosexual bigotry of the 20th century. The lost of him alone impoverishes the world more than all of religion could, even in principle, enrich the world.

To claim that the LGBT community is being intolerant for not tolerating legislative discrimination against them is hardly a justifiable position.

Now, I will agree that political correctness is evil and is a road to tyranny. However, a liberal, by definition, is against political correctness. Like many conservatives, you confuse the terms "liberal" and "leftist". The left was known for political correctness during the 1990s -- although today the right seems just as if not more guilty of it. Liberals, however, were always against it.

For example, the leftists wanted to ban "hate speech" from college campuses but all the liberals opposed that. The liberals believed that

1. All speech is protected, even hateful speech.
2. There should be no thought crimes.
3. All of America is a free-speech zone.
4. Colleges especially are places where controversial issues and opinions should be discussed.
5. Silencing racism, etc. only does bad. The bad ideas fester silently whereas if free speech is tolerated, bad ideas can be shown to be bad in an open forum. Without such a forum, bad ideas grow in the dark.

So clearly, the concept of liberal is independent of left-vs-right. That said, over the past 15 years or so, the republicans have become so anti-liberty that no liberal would be a part of that party. This wasn't the case in the 1980s and early 1990s.

Also, liberalism is not the opposite of fiscal conservatism. For example, I am a fiscally conservative liberal. I believe in small government, eliminating the national debt, balancing the budge, and greatly reducing both spending and taxes for the middle class. I also believe that there should be no such thing as a victimless crime.

However, liberalism is pretty much the opposite of social conservatism because social conservatism and "family values" are basically code for accepting racism, homophobia, xenophobia, and being for a theocracy that imposes classes on people at birth. Unfortunate, but true.

Anyway, I think that I've addressed all of your issues. If not, let me know.

14

Bap33 2012 Jul 31, 2:37pm

but Dan, wait, you are now making a blanket call that says sexual difference matters when it suits the needs of the liberal adgenda.
What potty should a queer use?

You are a smart guy, so you already know my next step .. like chess .. but do me the favor of following along so I can make my point once you hit the end of the logic used to grant special laws based of unfounded privet personal assertians. Thanks.

15

Dan8267 2012 Jul 31, 2:54pm

but Dan, wait, you are now making a blanket call that says sexual difference matters when it suits the needs of the liberal adgenda.

Since when is keeping tween perverts from looking at your daughter taking a dump a "liberal agenda"?

What potty should a queer use?

Gay men use the men's room. Sure, it would be nice if we all got individual, self-cleaning bathrooms, but that's not economical with today's technology.

You are a smart guy, so you already know my next step .. like chess

Go ahead, make your next move, but remember to address the point I made above. You know, how single-sex bathrooms don't degrade men or women or make them unequal under law, whereas white and black segregated bathrooms and schools do.

Twisting sex-separated bathrooms into justifying a ban on gay marriages is completely unattainable. You'd be better off trying to use sex-segregation as a justification for banning opposite sexed marriages as the analogy is much more of a fit.

Furthermore, the fact that I use the men's room doesn't impact my federal income taxes. Whether or not I'm married (gay or not) does. If heterosexual couples can reduce their net taxes via marriage, than equal protection demands the same for homosexual couples. Now, as I said before, one could argue against the married filed status, but that's another story. As long as there are heterosexual marriages, equality under law demands equal standing for homosexual marriages.

16

Peter P 2012 Jul 31, 2:56pm

Again, I am all for individual unisex toilets. I am against the abolition of urinals because it saves men at least 7 seconds every time.

17

The Original Bankster 2012 Jul 31, 3:02pm

"that's like saying Hilter !@#$ werfasded the Concentration Camps and Guantanamo BAY!!!!!!! ARGHHHH!!!"

-example of liberal nonsense argument.

18

The Original Bankster 2012 Jul 31, 3:04pm

"Now hold on here, 4 out 5 professors said the KKK and Palestinian Date Rape and !#@$ed my !&&&%goofer uh huh? ARGHHHH!"

-another example of liberal nonsense argument

19

Peter P 2012 Jul 31, 3:05pm

WTF?

20

JodyChunder 2012 Jul 31, 3:06pm

http://www.zombietime.com/hall_of_shame/

Gay men use the men's room. Sure, it would be nice if we all got individual, self-cleaning bathrooms, but that's not economical with today's technology.

Disagree. This would not only be more hygienic, but would create jobs.

21

The Original Bankster 2012 Jul 31, 3:11pm

some visuals for this thread:

22

Dan8267 2012 Jul 31, 3:18pm

JodyChunder says

Disagree. This would not only be more hygienic, but would create jobs.

Self-cleaning bathrooms don't create jobs. They eliminate them.

23

Peter P 2012 Jul 31, 3:25pm

Self-cleaning bathrooms don't create jobs. They eliminate them.

Not if you are a bathroom engineer!

24

JodyChunder 2012 Jul 31, 3:27pm

Self-cleaning bathrooms don't create jobs. They eliminate them.

Someone has to install them!

25

Dan8267 2012 Aug 1, 9:41am

JodyChunder says

Someone has to install them!

Something has to install them. Robots!

26

Dan8267 2012 Aug 1, 9:41am

but do me the favor of following along so I can make my point

It's still your move.

27

Bap33 2012 Aug 1, 9:47am

Bap33 says

What potty should a queer use?
Gay men use the men's room.

a lezbo in a ladie's room is different than a male in a ladies room???

28

Bap33 2012 Aug 1, 9:52am

If heterosexual couples can reduce their net taxes via marriage, than equal protection demands the same for homosexual couples.

the republic is better served by supporting normal coupling. maybe that is the reason for the tax difference? The benefit should increase with time served.

29

Dan8267 2012 Aug 1, 11:49am

APOCALYPSEFUCK is Shostakovich says

the republic is better served by supporting normal coupling. maybe that is the reason for the tax difference?

No. Tax law is not determined by what is best for society or the republic. Tax law is determined by what is best for those writing the tax law.

More to the point, you are going off on a tangent. Our discussion was about why gay marriage should be legalized or banned. I've presented my thesis, reiterated below, present yours.

Marriage should not exist as a secular institution since it is not the right or the responsibility of government to intervene or judge personal relationships. All laws regarding marriage should be repealed or replaced with marriage agnostic laws.

That said, if America does recognize marriage as a legal institution, then the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as well as the philosophy of equality under law demands equal recognition of gay marriage.

See, my thesis is quite simple, easy to understand, easy to defend, and specific. What's your anti-thesis?

30

Dan8267 2012 Aug 1, 12:39pm

Chikfilet sandwiches are used in gay rituals. Guys shove them into their assholes and go to bars and pick up congressmen to eat them out of their assholes.

Um, that's actually how Chikfilet sandwiches are made.

31

xrpb11a 2012 Aug 1, 12:47pm

And you know that how??......Oh, I see...

Â§259 of the Virginia Code

APOCALYPSEFUCK is Shostakovich says

Chikfilet sandwiches are used in gay rituals. Guys shove them into their assholes and go to bars and pick up congressmen to eat them out of their assholes.

Um, that's actually how Chikfilet sandwiches are made.

32 kentm 2012 Aug 1, 12:58pm

Hey, those mayors are just expressing their opinions, you know, like the chick-fil-a CEO.

Oh no, wait, you're right, those two comments by random mayors expressing dislike for bigotry and discrimination is exactly the correct example of the complete liberal plot to take over and destroy the country.

33

Dan8267 2012 Aug 1, 1:05pm

Cross-posting from another thread because it's relevant to this one...

xrpb11a says

Marriage is not a civil right.

Actually, according to the Supreme Court it is. In the 1967 case Loving v. Virginia, the Supreme Court ruled that states could not ban or restrict interracial marriages, a common practice at the time that was called miscegenation, as it was a violation of the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment.

As I argue in this thread, the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applies exactly the same way to the issue of gay marriages.

Ultimately the people twenty years from now are going to look back at this debate in the exact same way we look back at the 1960s debate over interracial marriages. And those who oppose gay marriage will look as bigoted and stupid as those who opposed interracial marriages. It's the natural progression of liberty and equality.

34

Dan8267 2012 Aug 1, 1:06pm

Punishment for marriage. -- If any white person intermarry with a colored person, or any colored person intermarry with a white person, he shall be guilty of a felony and shall be punished by confinement in the penitentiary for not less than one nor more than five years.

As repugnant as that text is, the prohibition of gay marriage is just as repugnant and for exactly the same reasons.

35

Dan8267 2012 Aug 1, 1:32pm

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/best-companies/2012/full_list/

Loving v. Virginia

...an ironic name for the case. It seems that sometimes history has a sense of humor.

36

Bap33 2012 Aug 1, 1:46pm

@Dan,
I say your assertion that "marriage" is a generic term for coupling, and does not soley mean male coupling with female, is wrong. The word has meaning. It means what it means. What you want is something-other-than-marriage, and needs a name. Sexual deviants pulled "gay" out of their behinds and made it "mean" something it never ment. Maybe the same needs to be done for the unnatural coupling that you suggest be recognized.

Your demands for special consideration for non-productive, unnatural coupling, could be very bad for the republic. If you were to take all of those whom you represent and create your own republic, how might you plan to reproduce?

The act of sex and marriage are not allowed with a person that is not of sound mind, or not of age. There are laws preventing these things. I submit that having sex with a person who is suffering from uncontrollable deviant desires, or from a birth defect that has rendered them a sexual deviant, is sexual abuse. Having sex with such a person is against the law. Just as having sex with a low functioning downs person that is of age is not legal. It is disgusting the way the mentally challenged and/or physically handicapped are being targeted by sexual deviants. Shameful. ANd you suggest the Gov sanction such abuse?? Why?

37

Bellingham Bill 2012 Aug 1, 2:54pm

fwiw I think the SF, Chicago, and Boston attacks on CFA were retarded and un-American, helping the right wing message machine turn the CEO into a free speech martyr instead of the bigoted badguy (with a big checkbook) he really is.

People refusing to eat at CFA are just exercising their fundamental freedom to not support things that are working to harm them or those they care about.

Local government getting into the act is bad juju. Morons.

38 Buster 2012 Aug 1, 3:24pm

I'm gay and I am liberal. I firmly believe that anyone should have the right to say anything they wish, short of yelling fire in a dark, very crowded theater when there is no fire. I actually even welcome folks going on the record with their white trash bigoted comments.

One thought and concern regarding Chick Fil A day: As if a bunch of trailer trash need another special day or another excuse to go out and buy a bucket of chicken thighs and display their bigotry.

As for those who support them, that is your right as well as it is mine to withhold my patronage. This is easy for me to do as I actually love good and healthy food. So no, I probably would never walk into one of their stores to begin with.

On this note, I was sort of wondering how the christianist rights boycott of companies supporting gay rights is going? A Million Moms against JC Penny because of their support of gay rights was sort of funny. Are all of you anti gay bigots also boycotting Microsoft, Apple, Google, Mercedes, Starbucks and virtually all of the TOP 100 Companies to work for as well as the vast majority of fortune 500 companies? Yea, there is tyranny at work here as the tables have now turned and being a douche is now far less popular than it was even just a few years ago.

As far as equal civil rights go, there is simply not a single RATIONAL reason to withhold such rights from anyone under the laws of the USA. DOMA will go down as shameful US history. The faster the better. As for greasy chicken crap, I am sure it will be served for many more years. Social Security balances would benefit greatly if the bigots started to eat a bucket a day and I actually hope they do.

39 Buster 2012 Aug 1, 3:35pm