So who's really the exhibitors of hate? Chick-Fil-A or the people who don't like Chick-Fil-A?
Picture of a vandalized Chick-Fil-A in Torrance California. Tolerance on display right?
Of course progressives are quick to point their fingers to conservatives and yell that they are the side of "hate, bigotry, closed mindless, homophobia, racism etc. During this whole Chick-Fil-A saga, I couldn't help to have noticed that the gay marriage supporters who claimed that Dan Cathy is full of hate are themselves the ones who have been exhibiting true hatred. Progressives have always annotated themselves as the definition of tolerance, diversity and compassion, yet their actions never ever resemble any of what they claim. At heart, they are delusional, self righteous people. They are paragons of their warped ideals being passed off as virtue in their minds. The National Chick-Fil-A Appreciation Day holds a great example of what I mean. On that day, a despicable incident occurred at a Tucson Arizona Chick-Fil-A. A gay marriage supporter by the name of Adam Smith who WAS the CFO of Vante Inc., an Arizona-based medical device manufacturer decided to show just how tolerant he really was. Take at look at what a peace loving progressive did to a worker at Chick-Fil-A, keep in mind that the narrative is that Chick-Fil-A and their supporters are suppose to be the ones who are "hateful".
Right one, Adam Smith really showed that young lady of hate a lesson didn't he? Of course I was being sarcastic. The young lady employee who's name is Rachael didn't deserve any of the vile garbage Adam Smith said to her. Rachael wasn't Dan Cathy. When Adam Smith recorded himself harassing that young lady simply, because she works at Chick-Fil-A, he thought he was going to be some sort of hero in the eyes of the pubic. It turned out to be only the opposite. Since this video has gone viral, Adam Smith has been fired from his high paying Chief Financial Officer position and has become a deplorable villain in the eyes of most of the people who have seen the video. It was Adam Smith's actual hate filled act that caused him to now be experiencing what he is going through. I've always said that progressives tend to be the monsters they claim that conservatives are. Since his firing, Adam Smith has recently uploaded another video giving an insincere apology to Rachael. Judging by the comments, nobody is buying it.
I'm confused. People who are peace loving, compassionate, and tolerant like Adam Smith shouldn't have to apologize to other people or for that matter be fired for their actions right? Adam Smith said that there wasn't any gay in him, and that he just couldn't tolerate the hate. Well based on his actions, I guess he is now feeling "the love" from others.
UPDATE
Another Chick-Fil-A restaurant has been vandalized by so called representatives of tolerance this time in Saint Louis. These incidents need to be treated as hate crimes..
posted by Alpha Conservative Male at 1:58 PM
26 Comments:
Unless I missed it, what companies did Adam Smith said that Chic-Fil-A endorses their "homophobic" agenda? He never mentioned one.
All I heard him say to the employee, "How can you work for a homophobic company that endorses anti-gay groups?"
The only thing I heard from Chick-Fil-A CEO Dan Cathy was he supports traditional marriage. Just because he's a practicing Christian doesn't make him a homophobe like these people claim? He's not the bigot Fred Phelps for crying out loud! So, I suppose If you are against miscegenation, does that automatically make you a racist?
The only thing that Mr. Smith, I feel is sorry for, is that he got caught for making a fool of himself, and getting fired.
As for the last piece of a Chick-Fil-A in St. Louis being vandalized, I do agree it should be a hate crime. But authorities are just going to brush it off as vandalism. It would be considered a "hate crime" if the business was owned by a minority.
This is the worse apology, he keeps making excuses, still discusing how horrible Chick-Fil-A is, even going as far to blame his company for not apologizing right away and even mentioning Rachel and talking about how she wouldn't see him. He is so passive agressive and completely delusional.
What could you possibly expect from a demon-rat?
The vile, disgusting, utterly ruthless blog at
http://progressiveerupts.blogspot.com/
comes to mind.
I'm telling you right now LGBT will never let this go.
They act like they don't have rights, yet they have more rights than heterosexuals. More like special rights. Which doesn't give them a right to harass and have militant hateful attitudes or speech and do the garbage they do at protests. And I'm not talking about kissing in public. Who cares about that, but the hateful things they do is despicable and down right hypocritical.
Her is an example of just one of many. http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/08/chicago-chick-fil-a-kiss-in-protesters-chalk-homeless-street-preacher/#comment
They need to start practicing what they preach when it comes to hate or else maybe the tables should be turned and people should start warranting hate speech against the LGBT.
Also, can someone explain to me how someone is being denied rights based on their preferred method of "sex." Because isn't that the ONLY thing that is making a homosexual different from a heterosexual. So based on preferred sex relations we now how a different breed of person? What is next?
Christopher;" but the hateful things they do is despicable and down right hypocritical".
What bowls me over is that some people just don't get it. It happens on "BOTH SIDES." Here right-wing Tea Party members verbally attack a man holding a sign that says he has Parkinson's.
You'll never resolve an ideological conflict by claiming that everything you believe is right. An ideological conflict can only be resolved through compromise. Yet, when one side is not willing to compromise you can rest assure that the conflict will continually worsen.
Christopher;"They act like they don't have rights, yet they have more rights than heterosexuals. More like special rights".
Okay, now you've went totally STUPID! Name ONE right that gay people have (legal rights by law) that heterosexuals don't have. Found any yet? Okay, now name any special rights (other than non discriminatory, which by the way are "human rights") which any other American does not have.
Christopher;"I'm telling you right now LGBT will never let this go".
Really? Are you willing to "let yours go?" Why should they "let theirs go?" Your statement clearly says that you don't believe a compromise or coexistence is possible. It also says that you need the conflict to maintain your identity. Unfortunately, you're not alone in your "despicable and down right hypocritical" (your words) ways. There are plenty on the left that carry the same sentiments and attitude as you.
Chick-fil-a donated millions to hate groups such as the Family Research Council (FRC). The FRC is officially certified as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center. This is problematic.
We live in a country where multiple sub-cultures exist. This is why multiculturalism is so important. It is therefore necessary to acknowledge that there are distinct difference among us. As long as these differences don't impact us personally in adverse ways, we shouldn't attack others for such differences. That is the American Way.
The act of open disdain towards a group of people because they're different is truly un-American.
there is just too much hate in the world. Why can't we all live how we want if it harms none?
Padzilla13 " there is just too much hate in the world. Why can't we all live how we want if it harms none?"
I don't know of a law preventing anyone from not living with another person Padzilla13, do you?
Westley Williams "Chick-fil-a donated millions to hate groups such as the Family Research Council (FRC). The FRC is officially certified as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center. This is problematic. "
lol, The Southern Poverty Law center is a known radically far left activist organization. They have no credibility accept among other radical progressive activist. Any organization that isn't as fringe as they are always going to be labeled as "hate" groups. I needed that laugh. To go one step further, who gave the SPLC the power to "officially certify" any group and anything? Let me try it. My organization known as the Civil Rights Commission of the Mid Atlantic States has OFFICIALLY CERTIFIED that the Southern Poverty Law Center are certifiable kooks being passed off by progressives as a legitimate organization that most people never heard of. Let's have some more fun though, I know I am laughing my ass off right now. You say that the SPLC has certified the Family Research Council as being a hate group. Tell me specifically how the SPLC came to that conclusion in order to have "officially certified" them as being that. Just being in support of Traditional Marriage doesn't make a group or person hateful fyi.
Westley Williams "We live in a country where multiple sub-cultures exist. This is why multiculturalism is so important. It is therefore necessary to acknowledge that there are distinct difference among us. As long as these differences don't impact us personally in adverse ways, we shouldn't attack others for such differences. That is the American Way."
Marriage is an institution that has existed long before this country even existed. It is rooted in biblical and religious theology of all the known mainstream religions. Government got into marriage, not the other way around. If the union of marriage was a creation made by the government, then it would be perfectly acceptable to most for it to define marriage however it saw fit, but that isn't the case. Look at the components of the marriage ceromony. The word bride has a definition, the word groom as a definition. The word husband has a meaning as do the word wife.
Westley Williams "The act of open disdain towards a group of people because they're different is truly un-American."
What is deceptive by people like you Westley is you all trying to force others to abandon their faith in acknowledging something that goes counter to it in the name of "equality". As for what constitutes being "Un American", is this the new strategy? If you don't support the altering of marriage then you are "Un American"? Oh yeah. Nothing is more American then Baseball, Apple Pie, The American Flag and Gay Marriage, lol. You crack me up Westley. Seeing that 32 states have voted against gay marriage, that would make the majority of Americans "Un-American" right?
andet "This is the worse apology, he keeps making excuses, still discusing how horrible Chick-Fil-A is, even going as far to blame his company for not apologizing right away and even mentioning Rachel and talking about how she wouldn't see him. He is so passive agressive and completely delusional."
The overwhelming majority of the people who have seen Adam's "apology" aren't buying it either. He's actually managed to dig himself further into scorn which I didn't think at the time was even possible after his first video. People like him and others who have vandalized several Chick-Fil-A's are actually doing more harm to their so called cause then helping it. Occupy Wall Street was seen in a somewhat favorable light once upon a time to until they started acting out and the public saw then for who they were. If Adam Smith was sincere, he would apologize to Rachael in person without it being tapped. You're right, he is delusional and then some.
Christopher "They act like they don't have rights, yet they have more rights than heterosexuals. More like special rights. Which doesn't give them a right to harass and have militant hateful attitudes or speech and do the garbage they do at protests. And I'm not talking about kissing in public. Who cares about that, but the hateful things they do is despicable and down right hypocritical. "
This is all about Special Rights even though they want to fool people into thinking it's about "equality". This however is what they can't explain. If marriage is altered for one alternative lifestyle in the name of equality, how can they make the case that other alternative lifestyles shouldn't also be allowed to marry also in the name of "equality". If someone wants to marry their car, why couldn't they, if a person wants to marry their pet, why couldn't they? If a person even wanted to marry themselves, what would be the grounds for them not being able to? It's the pandora's box. If marriage is allowed to become so distorted and diluted, it ceases to really mean anything of substance.
lol, The Southern Poverty Law Center is a known radically far left activist organization<<<<<<
You have to be joking???!!! The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC)is historically known for its legal victories against white supremacist groups. Also it's renown for its legal representation for victims of hate groups,militias and extremist organizations; and its monitoring of hate groups in general. The SPLC is a major resource used by the FBI in the Bureau's fight against hate crimes.
Seeing that 32 states have voted against gay marriage, that would make the majority of Americans "Un-American" right?<<<<<<<<
In 1967 a similar number were against mixed race marriages.
Your views seem very skewed to the right. Do you voice them in the streets of Baltimore?
My comment was not based on who we can live with. My comment was a question asking why is there so much hate in the world?
These talking heads love it when we fight one another. The right says the left are dumb, the left says the right is dumb.
Now do you see why I ask this question.
CB;"Government got into marriage, not the other way around".
Absolutely correct!! Government not only got into marriage, government is into almost every aspect of social life you can name. Therefore, why should marriage be any different! Accordingly, just as no one has "the right" to drive a car, no one is given a "RIGHT" to marry, be they hetero or homo sexual. However, being that it is the government that grants legal status to marriage, the government must adhere to the rights given to "ALL AMERICANS" under the U.S. Constitution.
The right-wing's objection to gay marriage, and homosexuality in general, is based on "RELIGION."
The left-wing prop's themselves up on the idea of what they see as their "civil rights." The believe their civil right provides them rights to gay marriage, health care, public education, public services, protection from discrimination. The right-wing props themselves up on "religion." They believe their religion provides them the right to self rule, self dependence, and a social protocol based on their religious beliefs.
Note the two above instances in "bold" print. These are the only two rights that the right and left has respectively. Those on the left are protected by the 14th amendment (Equal Protection Clause). Those on the right are protected by the first amendment (free exercise of religion). Again, within these two amendments lies an obvious, simple, clear cut compromise...
HOMOSEXUALS CANNOT TELL A RELIGION WHAT THEY SHOULD OR SHOULD NOT ACCEPT. IF GAYS BELIEVE RELIGIOUS PEOPLE DON'T LIKE GAY MARRIAGE, GAY PEOPLE SHOULD NOT CONFRONT, ASSOCIATE NOR PROFESS THAT RELIGION.
RELIGIOUS PEOPLE CANNOT TELL GAY PEOPLE WHO OR WHO NOT THEY CAN LOVE NOR MARRY. IF RELIGIOUS PEOPLE DON'T APPROVE OF GAY MARRIAGE, DON'T MARRY A GAY PERSON.
CB;"The Southern Poverty Law center is a known radically far left activist organization. They have no credibility accept among other radical progressive activist".
Really? Well I'm sure you'll think that the SPLC's credibility should be called into question for labeling This Group a hate group.
"and the deeply racist, anti-Semitic and anti-gay rhetoric of its leaders, including top minister Louis Farrakhan, have earned the NOI a prominent position in the ranks of organized hate".
Let me beat you to it... you're gonna say something like, "they got one right." Did I nail it? You can throw it back at me, because a got a few more you might like.
P allen "Really? Well I'm sure you'll think that the SPLC's credibility should be called into question for labeling This Group a hate group."
The SPLC labels ever group that isn't progressive as racist, so eventually they will get one right. It's the law of averages allen, duh. As for the Nation of Islam being singled out by the SPLC, what's your point? Are you trying to say because it highlighted Screwy Louis who is aligned with the left, that makes the SPLC somehow balanced in it's calling out of hate groups? I guess the Nation of Islam can't be really that much of a hate group, Rahm Emmanuel and Louis Farrakhan were together last week. I wonder why Rahm who is Jewish inivted Louis Farrakhan to a social function
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/rahm-stiffs-chick-fil-welcomes-louis-farrakhan_648990.html
p allen "Absolutely correct!! Government not only got into marriage, government is into almost every aspect of social life you can name. Therefore, why should marriage be any different!"
Because government did NOT create marriage!! So you are saying that people should abandon their religious teaching and accept something that goes against their religion, because government says so? What happened to the separation between church and state allen? I don't have to acknowledge gay marriage or any other alternative variation of it simply because the government says so, not if it goes against my faith. Government isn't god, to progressive yes, to others no.
P allen "Accordingly, just as no one has "the right" to drive a car, no one is given a "RIGHT" to marry, be they hetero or homo sexual."
Man created cars, and man created the laws dictating who can drive cars based on laws. To people of faith, man didn't create marriage. They believe god did, and they based what marriage is defined based on that not man, next.
p allen "However, being that it is the government that grants legal status to marriage, the government must adhere to the rights given to "ALL AMERICANS" under the U.S. Constitution."
Government technically can't grant something that isn't theirs to grant. People have allowed it simple because marriage was maintained as it was from the beginning before government was created. Now that government wants to alter it from it conception, people are not happy with that. 32 states so far through the people have already made their point perfectly clear.
Allen your request is easy because you and the left refuse to acknowledge that they already have the same rights to marriage as anyone else and much, much more.
What they want is more special privileges and extra privileges, except they already have more than enough. Homosexuals already have all of the rights that non-homosexuals enjoy including hospital visitation, naming non-relatives as heirs in their wills, co-habitation, etc.
The SSM claim it is a civil right issue. It is not. Sexual preference is hardly comparable to race.
So you can keep on dragging me into your fantasy world of make believe. I'm not the one with the hypocritical attitude of believe my way or else you're a bigot, homophobe, etc when homosexuals have the same and more rights than non homosexuals. They aren't for equal rights. I am, but you keep trying to lump me into your predisposition. Sure both sides can be childish, but the left is much more militant and hateful about everything and cross way more lines to get what it wants.
Also when you say"let yours go" what you really mean is give in and accept it or else I'm on the hate list and I'm a bigot, and all the other names the left loves to throw around instead of actually listening to opinions of others. In fact that's a definition of a bigot. If anything the left are the true bigots.
And you know the real definition of that is? "A person with strong and prejudiced views who will not listen to the opinions of others."
That sums up the SSM advocates pretty well.
CB;"Because government did NOT create marriage!!".
According to the bible, you're right again, government didn't create it. However, according to the bible, you are to;
Roman 31:1-Let every person be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God.
vs2- Therefore he who resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves.
That verse plainly states that you are to be "in subjection" to the government. But wait! It goes on to tell you that;
vs5- Wherefore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of wrath, but also for conscience sake."
vs6- For because of this you also pay taxes, for rulers are servants of God, devoting themselves to this very thing.
vs7- Render to all what is due them: tax to whom tax is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor
Note the in vs7 where it states "custom to whom custom" which plainly means you must adapt to social customs. Over time all customs and practices change. Slavery was a custom in this country for almost 250 years. Discriminatory laws continued for another 100 or so. Social customs are always changing.
CB;"So you are saying that people should abandon their religious teaching and accept something that goes against their religion, because government says so?".
NO! I never said nor implied such a thing. I'm basically telling you the same thing your religion tells you to do. The government does not promote nor endorse your religion. Your religion tells you to be "in subjection" to the government. This next verse should be all you need;
vs3 For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same; vs4 for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath upon the one who practices evil.
There it clearly states that the rulers are not the ministers of good, but evil. According to your religion, "YOU" are to do what god says, "for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath upon the one who practices evil." Thus, according to your religion, God will deal with the "evil doers", not you, because you are to do only whats good. Simply put, if gay marriage is evil, DON'T GET GAY MARRIED and God will deal with those who do.
CB;" I don't have to acknowledge gay marriage or any other alternative variation of it simply because the government says so, not if it goes against my faith".
Here again, according to your religion, you "DO" have to acknowledge gay marriage. You might not "accept" it, but your religion tells you to acknowledge it (custom to whom custom). A very simple resolve, and compromise, is for religion to leave gays and gay marriage to the "wrath of God", and not attempt to enforce religious dogma on gays or the government.
If Rahm Emanuel wanted to be consistent, he would cut off any business activity involving to all of the hate-filled, homophobic US States that rejected homogamy at the ballot box.
Of course Rahm 'I never served in the IDF' Emanuel is only trying to score cheap political points so his inconsisteny is as unduly noted by the MSM as it is hypocritical.
Guess who's coming to dinner? Interesting seeing how African Americans act to this story and then, about this Abortionist in North Carolina who made his despicable statements, really separates out those who are dupes to their party from independent thinkers.
Wake up Black America.
I just need a minute to ingest the irony here. You want to encourage a more forward thinking approach for black Americans and yet you disparage the way another minority
group is pressing for equality? Since the abolishment of anti homosexuality laws, gay people continue to face discrimination - violent attacks, discrimination in the work place etc. It's akin to the treatment another miniority group faced some years ago; but times change
Wake up Black America - how fitting!
Nii " I just need a minute to ingest the irony here. You want to encourage a more forward thinking approach for black Americans and yet you disparage the way another minoritygroup is pressing for equality?"
For starters Nii, can you show me where marriage is suppose to be about equality based on sexual preference? If a man wants to go into a woman's bathroom, should he be able to claim under equality he should? Something to think about.As for minorities and gay marriage. Most minorities support traditional marriage. So what I say is in line with how most minorities including blacks feel and believe on the subject matter. Marriage isn't just a trivial union, it has a meaning that goes back long before this country and many other countries were even founded. Blacks are not gong to turn their backs on their faith in order to appease something that man says should be "acceptable", it just doesn't work that way. You seem to have a problem with ideological diversity. People can have opposing views. Try to embrace the following definitions.
The definition of "alternative" is
"a choice limited to one of two or more possibilities, as of things, propositions, or courses of action, the selection of which precludes any other possibility"
Homosexuality is an alternative lifestyle, just like those who engage in bestiality, pedophilia, sadomasochism, Dendrophilia,(sexual attraction to trees),Objectphillia(attraction to inanimate objects) so on. You believe that marriage should be altered to include homosexuality, do you also support those of other alternative lifestyles should be included under marriage in the name of equality? Remember now, if you say no to any one of the alternative lifestyles I've mentioned, then you become no different then me.
Since the abolishment of anti homosexuality laws, gay people continue to face discrimination - violent attacks, discrimination in the work place etc. It's akin to the treatment another miniority group faced some years ago; but times change
P Allen "Roman 31:1-Let every person be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God.
vs2- Therefore he who resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves."
Oh boy. In your haste to try and discredit my position, you got the verse backwards. First off, it's Romans 13:1 not 31:1. Second, read the verse more carefully "For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. THERE IS NO AUTHORITY ACCEPT FROM GOD. It didn't say that man has authority now did it. Many of our common law is based off the bible. When people are sworn in to testify in a court case, the witness use to put their hand on the bible and the sheriff would tell them, do you swear to tell the truth so HELP YOU GOD. Many courthouses had the ten commandments displayed. So what you are saying what? The verse is saying that government has authority under god's law. When the government goes against god's law, then it doesn't have authority over god's children.
p allen "NO! I never said nor implied such a thing. I'm basically telling you the same thing your religion tells you to do. The government does not promote nor endorse your religion. Your religion tells you to be "in subjection" to the government. This next verse should be all you need;"
If the government isn't in compliance with god's law, then what the government dictates or says means nothing. It's that simple.
CHris;"What they want is more special privileges and extra privileges, except they already have more than enough. Homosexuals already have all of the rights that non-homosexuals enjoy including hospital visitation, naming non-relatives as heirs in their wills, co-habitation, etc".
I'll take on you silliest one at a time....
-hospital visitation-
You can visit anyone you want in a hospital, providing the hospital allows you to visit them. If you have a "lover" (male or female) that want's you to visit, there is no hospital that will deny "the patients" request that you visit them.
-non-relatives as heirs in their wills-
There is no life insurance company, nor a law that prohibits you from naming who ever you want as a beneficiary, or in your will.
-co-habitation-
There is no law that prevents you from living with who ever you want. Most, if not all health insurance companies will not allow you to place non-relatives on your policy, be they male or female.
Chris;"The SSM claim it is a civil right issue. It is not. Sexual preference is hardly comparable to race".
Who said anything about "RACE?" Civil Rights encompasses "protection from discrimination on grounds of physical or mental disability, gender, religion, race, national origin, age, sexual orientation, or gender identity." Your giving to many "tell-tale" signs of your true colors. It would be much easier for you to just say you don't approve of homosexuality based on your personal beliefs, whatever they may be. But to make all those silly and ignorant claims (homosexuals have "more" rights, etc...) makes you sound stupid.
Chris, I am not a homosexual. If a homosexual man (one who knows that I am heterosexual, or appears to know I am) were to proposition me, he would have hell on his hands.
An associate who I've worked with is a snake enthusiast. He has several large snakes that he keeps as pets in his home. I like him as a person, we've even hung out bar hopping. But I never go to his house because "I HATE SNAKES." He also knows that I don't like his "hobby", so doesn't attempt to involve me with it. So, because I don't believe in, or like his lifestyle, should he have the "right" to have his pets?
Similarly, should gays have the "right" to their lifestyle? You don't have to go around them. You don't even have to look their way. I don't view my associate as having any "special rights." I think it's strange and weird, but I could care less what he does in his home, or what he does with his snakes.
Chris;"Also when you say"let yours go" what you really mean is give in and accept it or else I'm on the hate list and I'm a bigot, and all the other names the left loves to throw around instead of actually listening to opinions of others".
No! That's not what I'm saying. I "asked" you if you were willing to do what you claim they were not willing to do. I'm saying this;
Your statement clearly says that you don't believe a compromise or coexistence is possible. It also says that you need the conflict to maintain your identity.
If you're going to stand your ground, you should expect that the other side is going to do the same. Therefore, there will never be a compromise. That's what I'm saying.
Post a Comment
<< Home