Guess I never should've doubted this stance .... Nike drops Pacquiao for anti gay statements. The silent majority has catered to the vocal minority for too long. Campbell's Soup also came out with that flamin' commercial, pretty soon there's going nothing left to eat or wear. Disney, Apple, Starbucks, Kraft, etc., all of them can go suck d*@k.
To remove first post, remove entire topic.
Guess I never should've doubted this stance .... Nike drops Pacquiao for anti gay statements. The silent majority has catered to the vocal minority for too long. Campbell's Soup also came out with that flamin' commercial, pretty soon there's going nothing left to eat or wear. Disney, Apple, Starbucks, Kraft, etc., all of them can go suck d*@k.
Campbell's Soup also came out with that flamin' commercial, pretty soon there's going nothing left to eat or wear. Disney, Apple, Starbucks, Kraft, etc., all of them can go suck d*@k.
It really is alarming
Even though they know a large percentage, probably a majority, find tolerance of open and state supported homosexuality to be offensive, these big corps. have gotten together and decided they want to bully society into a corner.
On the other hand, chick fil a is now incredibly busy and successful. It's my first choice for fast food, and it's not just because of their food.
Quote Originally Posted by DHass22:
Campbell's Soup also came out with that flamin' commercial, pretty soon there's going nothing left to eat or wear. Disney, Apple, Starbucks, Kraft, etc., all of them can go suck d*@k.
It really is alarming
Even though they know a large percentage, probably a majority, find tolerance of open and state supported homosexuality to be offensive, these big corps. have gotten together and decided they want to bully society into a corner.
On the other hand, chick fil a is now incredibly busy and successful. It's my first choice for fast food, and it's not just because of their food.
These big corps. know that economically it would be better to remain neutral or silent on the issue as many will boycott their products compared to those who will purchase them in support of the agenda.
They have said screw the bottom line, let's inject a social agenda because we need to teach these peasants how to think. Really sucks
These big corps. know that economically it would be better to remain neutral or silent on the issue as many will boycott their products compared to those who will purchase them in support of the agenda.
They have said screw the bottom line, let's inject a social agenda because we need to teach these peasants how to think. Really sucks
Hang on a minute, Pacquiao compared gays to animals, If Pacquiao made those comments about Black people and then Nike was to drop him, Would you still be boycotting them?
Just like you I don't like the fact that the media tries to shove guy behavior in our face, To be brutally honest i don't like the way the media tries to shove tolerance of ethnic minorities in our face, Every show i watch now has an Asian or a Black on it who are most likely dating someone White, Which is their way of telling us to accept them.
My opinion is you don't have to accept their behavior but you also don't need to vilify them, Just like you don't need to have Black or Asian friends to feel socially accepted or to feel not racist, I can have only White friends and still not feel racist.
Hang on a minute, Pacquiao compared gays to animals, If Pacquiao made those comments about Black people and then Nike was to drop him, Would you still be boycotting them?
Just like you I don't like the fact that the media tries to shove guy behavior in our face, To be brutally honest i don't like the way the media tries to shove tolerance of ethnic minorities in our face, Every show i watch now has an Asian or a Black on it who are most likely dating someone White, Which is their way of telling us to accept them.
My opinion is you don't have to accept their behavior but you also don't need to vilify them, Just like you don't need to have Black or Asian friends to feel socially accepted or to feel not racist, I can have only White friends and still not feel racist.
I'm with BW, stopped buying Nike years ago. Products are cheap garbage.
Addidas, Asics.
I used to live in their cross trainers 20 years ago, those things would last forever... now they are a 6 month shoe at best. Bought some t-shirts a few years ago, all XL size... all fit differently depending on what color shirt and what country they were made in. No uniformity on stitching or anything.... logos peel off after a few washes. Buncha crap.... but the Oregon football uniforms are still cool
Quote Originally Posted by searchwarrant:
I'm with BW, stopped buying Nike years ago. Products are cheap garbage.
Addidas, Asics.
I used to live in their cross trainers 20 years ago, those things would last forever... now they are a 6 month shoe at best. Bought some t-shirts a few years ago, all XL size... all fit differently depending on what color shirt and what country they were made in. No uniformity on stitching or anything.... logos peel off after a few washes. Buncha crap.... but the Oregon football uniforms are still cool
Guess I never should've doubted this stance .... Nike drops Pacquiao for anti happy statements. The silent majority has catered to the vocal minority for too long. Campbell's Soup also came out with that flamin' commercial, pretty soon there's going nothing left to eat or wear. Disney, Apple, Starbucks, Kraft, etc., all of them can go suck d*@k.
They made a business decision. Their choice. Just as you have decided to not buy their products. Your choice. That is all it is.
They do not want to have someone promote their products who behave that way. It is not that crazy of a concept. Just as someone else said earlier -- what would you think if the comment was directed towards blacks as opposed to LGBT?
Quote Originally Posted by DHass22:
Guess I never should've doubted this stance .... Nike drops Pacquiao for anti happy statements. The silent majority has catered to the vocal minority for too long. Campbell's Soup also came out with that flamin' commercial, pretty soon there's going nothing left to eat or wear. Disney, Apple, Starbucks, Kraft, etc., all of them can go suck d*@k.
They made a business decision. Their choice. Just as you have decided to not buy their products. Your choice. That is all it is.
They do not want to have someone promote their products who behave that way. It is not that crazy of a concept. Just as someone else said earlier -- what would you think if the comment was directed towards blacks as opposed to LGBT?
Years ago businesses would not serve blacks, would not let them use their bathrooms, and would generally hate them simply because they were different (i.e. black, not white)
Today we have people who would like to see gaze treated unfairly, simply because they are different (i.e. gaye, not straight)
DHass22, keep on hating, that is your right. This great country of ours allows for the right to ignorance, so continue taking full advantage of that.
Unfortunately for those who think similarly to yourself, this country also affords us all additional rights, such as the right to be black, gaye, jewish, stupid, prejudice ... so on and so forth.
Hitler wanted a society of people of all the same color, same religion, same appearance.
How do you feel about him?
bigreds daddy
Years ago businesses would not serve blacks, would not let them use their bathrooms, and would generally hate them simply because they were different (i.e. black, not white)
Today we have people who would like to see gaze treated unfairly, simply because they are different (i.e. gaye, not straight)
DHass22, keep on hating, that is your right. This great country of ours allows for the right to ignorance, so continue taking full advantage of that.
Unfortunately for those who think similarly to yourself, this country also affords us all additional rights, such as the right to be black, gaye, jewish, stupid, prejudice ... so on and so forth.
Hitler wanted a society of people of all the same color, same religion, same appearance.
These big corps. know that economically it would be better to remain neutral or silent on the issue as many will boycott their products compared to those who will purchase them in support of the agenda.
They have said screw the bottom line, let's inject a social agenda because we need to teach these peasants how to think. Really sucks
So you are saying that big business is more concerned with gaye rights than corporate profits?
Interesting.
You claim you are a regular at Chick-Fill-A "not just because of their food".
In other words, you support one corporation for their stance on a social issue, yet you condemn another corporation for their stance on a social issue.
Sounds like you want it both ways.
Should corps make public decisions on social issues or not???
Your answer to that question seems to be ... "as long as they are in agreement with MY VIEWS"
As I said in my previous post ... "the right to be ignorant"
Enjoy it
bigreds daddy
Quote Originally Posted by thecentaur:
These big corps. know that economically it would be better to remain neutral or silent on the issue as many will boycott their products compared to those who will purchase them in support of the agenda.
They have said screw the bottom line, let's inject a social agenda because we need to teach these peasants how to think. Really sucks
So you are saying that big business is more concerned with gaye rights than corporate profits?
Interesting.
You claim you are a regular at Chick-Fill-A "not just because of their food".
In other words, you support one corporation for their stance on a social issue, yet you condemn another corporation for their stance on a social issue.
Sounds like you want it both ways.
Should corps make public decisions on social issues or not???
Your answer to that question seems to be ... "as long as they are in agreement with MY VIEWS"
As I said in my previous post ... "the right to be ignorant"
So you are saying that big business is more concerned with gaye rights than corporate profits?
Interesting.
You claim you are a regular at Chick-Fill-A "not just because of their food".
In other words, you support one corporation for their stance on a social issue, yet you condemn another corporation for their stance on a social issue.
Sounds like you want it both ways.
Should corps make public decisions on social issues or not???
Your answer to that question seems to be ... "as long as they are in agreement with MY VIEWS"
As I said in my previous post ... "the right to be ignorant"
Enjoy it
and HJS
Quote Originally Posted by Hugh_Jorgan:
So you are saying that big business is more concerned with gaye rights than corporate profits?
Interesting.
You claim you are a regular at Chick-Fill-A "not just because of their food".
In other words, you support one corporation for their stance on a social issue, yet you condemn another corporation for their stance on a social issue.
Sounds like you want it both ways.
Should corps make public decisions on social issues or not???
Your answer to that question seems to be ... "as long as they are in agreement with MY VIEWS"
As I said in my previous post ... "the right to be ignorant"
Nike; over the years has become nothing more than a pimp with Superstar athletes as their ho's...turn a trick for Iceberg Slim, turn a trick for Nike...Pacquiao is the richest man in the Philippines, he did Nike a favor marketing their products, not the other way around..his culture identifies gaye men/boys as the lowest form of manhood imaginable, what he says should have no bearing as to 'how' Nike wants their ho's to act & speak, being politically correct in one country varies in others..I'll take a pair of New Balance anytime..they last, more than I can say for the Cheap Shitt Nike tries to shove down your throat.
Nike; over the years has become nothing more than a pimp with Superstar athletes as their ho's...turn a trick for Iceberg Slim, turn a trick for Nike...Pacquiao is the richest man in the Philippines, he did Nike a favor marketing their products, not the other way around..his culture identifies gaye men/boys as the lowest form of manhood imaginable, what he says should have no bearing as to 'how' Nike wants their ho's to act & speak, being politically correct in one country varies in others..I'll take a pair of New Balance anytime..they last, more than I can say for the Cheap Shitt Nike tries to shove down your throat.
So you are saying that big business is more concerned with gaye rights than corporate profits?
Interesting.
You claim you are a regular at Chick-Fill-A "not just because of their food".
In other words, you support one corporation for their stance on a social issue, yet you condemn another corporation for their stance on a social issue.
Sounds like you want it both ways.
Should corps make public decisions on social issues or not???
Your answer to that question seems to be ... "as long as they are in agreement with MY VIEWS"
As I said in my previous post ... "the right to be ignorant"
Enjoy it
Couple of things I would like to address here Hugh Jordans:
-The liberal use of the word "ignorant" by the left. Liberal is defined as lacking knowledge or awareness in general; uneducated or unsophisticated, lacking knowledge, information, or awareness about something in particular
I assure you, I and many otherswho disagree with you on the subject are well aware of the issues involved, know and have known plenty of happy people, and are well aware of what being happy means. Your use of "ignorant" is ironically ignorant itself. Now THERE is a word you should look up, "Ironic".Maybe you and others who sling around "ignorant" are invoking its rare definition of "discourteous or rude" (because that's what you think we are), but I highly doubt that.
-No I am not saying big businesses are more interested in happy rights than corporate profits, and that isn't what I said. I said they have decided to possibly reduce their bottom line slightly to push an agenda. If pushing that agenda meant they lost profitability and they still did it, THAT would mean they are more interested in an agenda than corporate profits. Also you keep on talking about happy rights. These commercials aren't saying support such and such legislation for happy rights, they are portraying openly happy people and behavior to help normalize it as part of an agenda. That is not "happy rights". No one has a legal right to be considered "normal".
-You state through some of your semantic contortions that I want it both ways because I support chick fil a. Since you can't understand the difference between what they did and what these other corps do I will point it out to you. The main issue was Chick fil a upper management was asked about their views on happy marriage. They gave an honest answer about their views, even though it went against the vocal minority, it was pretty unsurprising considering Chick fil a is closed on Sundays, and they got roasted in the liberal mass media for answering a question and expressing those views (even though the majority of the controversy was over one person voicing an opinion).They did not air commercials portraying open homosexuality negatively, as opposed to these other corporations who consciously and purposefully inject open homosexuality into their commercials which the vast majority of the time has nothing to do with their product. Big difference Hugh Jordans.
-Let me give you an example of the way these corporations are purely pushing a social agenda separate from their actual business interests, which is not and should not be their job to do.
Go to lovehasnolabels.com. I am sure you have seen their commercial where two skeletons are making out behind some kind of xray cloth and then they are revealed to be two chicks, or a black and a mexican, but then they also sprinkle in two sisters loving and caring for eachother even though one obviously has down syndrome, in essence saying homosexuality and miscegeny are the same as accepting and loving your sister who has down syndrome.
No product is sold, it's just social messages, but it is sponsored by some very large corporations whom you don't even know about unless you scroll to the bottom of the website (Just now I found out one of them is State Farm insurance whom I will be cancelling my insurance with).
-There are plenty of social norms based upon natural law that I don't hear any of you leftopaths questioning. Incest is socially abnormal and illegal (which homosexuality was also) yet no dramatic marches and ribbons for that garbage. Yet if you can objectively look at incest, the only force behind it's unacceptability is that mating within closely related genepools is detrimental and unhealthy because of recessive genes and mutations. It isn't biblically driven, as there was much incest in the bible. The only driving force behind the abnormality and unacceptability of incest is natural law and consequence. Guess what else is naturally abnormal, detrimental (disease), and unacceptable? One dude up another dudes behind or two chicks bumping tacos. Sex is for procreation.
Another example is age difference. When I was a little kid I would have done anything for Gena Lee Nolin to bang my brains out every day. She would have gone to jail though. I was mentally and physically too young to have a productive partnership with her, and that is the main reason such things are still illegal.
So if you want homosexuality to be open and acceptable, are you also prepared to support incest and underage relationships? How about bigamy? I mean, your daddy couldn't help he loved your mommy (his sister), Gena Lee Nolin just had an uncontrollable attraction to some young cock, and some guy just loved having a half a dozen snatches to choose from instead of one, even though it was a terrible burden to society for one guy to have 20 kids which he couldn't support, you know?
-You asked me, "Should corps make public decisions on social issues or not???"
Then stated my answer to that question seems to be ... "as long as they are in agreement with MY VIEWS"
Well no, my answer is I don't believe so, that isn't what chick fil a did (The COO just answered a question and gave opinions on court rulings), but if these corporations want to make it their business to do so they will lose mine and many others. I assure you if chick fil a started airing commercials purposely defaming and degrading homosexuality I would find it distasteful, as that is not their job and doesn't have anything to do with chicken sandwiches.
You said in your previous post ... "the right to be ignorant".
Well it seems you misunderstand the definition of that word, unless of course you and your lefty friends have a new cause to redefine words? Have fun with that
Quote Originally Posted by Hugh_Jorgan:
So you are saying that big business is more concerned with gaye rights than corporate profits?
Interesting.
You claim you are a regular at Chick-Fill-A "not just because of their food".
In other words, you support one corporation for their stance on a social issue, yet you condemn another corporation for their stance on a social issue.
Sounds like you want it both ways.
Should corps make public decisions on social issues or not???
Your answer to that question seems to be ... "as long as they are in agreement with MY VIEWS"
As I said in my previous post ... "the right to be ignorant"
Enjoy it
Couple of things I would like to address here Hugh Jordans:
-The liberal use of the word "ignorant" by the left. Liberal is defined as lacking knowledge or awareness in general; uneducated or unsophisticated, lacking knowledge, information, or awareness about something in particular
I assure you, I and many otherswho disagree with you on the subject are well aware of the issues involved, know and have known plenty of happy people, and are well aware of what being happy means. Your use of "ignorant" is ironically ignorant itself. Now THERE is a word you should look up, "Ironic".Maybe you and others who sling around "ignorant" are invoking its rare definition of "discourteous or rude" (because that's what you think we are), but I highly doubt that.
-No I am not saying big businesses are more interested in happy rights than corporate profits, and that isn't what I said. I said they have decided to possibly reduce their bottom line slightly to push an agenda. If pushing that agenda meant they lost profitability and they still did it, THAT would mean they are more interested in an agenda than corporate profits. Also you keep on talking about happy rights. These commercials aren't saying support such and such legislation for happy rights, they are portraying openly happy people and behavior to help normalize it as part of an agenda. That is not "happy rights". No one has a legal right to be considered "normal".
-You state through some of your semantic contortions that I want it both ways because I support chick fil a. Since you can't understand the difference between what they did and what these other corps do I will point it out to you. The main issue was Chick fil a upper management was asked about their views on happy marriage. They gave an honest answer about their views, even though it went against the vocal minority, it was pretty unsurprising considering Chick fil a is closed on Sundays, and they got roasted in the liberal mass media for answering a question and expressing those views (even though the majority of the controversy was over one person voicing an opinion).They did not air commercials portraying open homosexuality negatively, as opposed to these other corporations who consciously and purposefully inject open homosexuality into their commercials which the vast majority of the time has nothing to do with their product. Big difference Hugh Jordans.
-Let me give you an example of the way these corporations are purely pushing a social agenda separate from their actual business interests, which is not and should not be their job to do.
Go to lovehasnolabels.com. I am sure you have seen their commercial where two skeletons are making out behind some kind of xray cloth and then they are revealed to be two chicks, or a black and a mexican, but then they also sprinkle in two sisters loving and caring for eachother even though one obviously has down syndrome, in essence saying homosexuality and miscegeny are the same as accepting and loving your sister who has down syndrome.
No product is sold, it's just social messages, but it is sponsored by some very large corporations whom you don't even know about unless you scroll to the bottom of the website (Just now I found out one of them is State Farm insurance whom I will be cancelling my insurance with).
-There are plenty of social norms based upon natural law that I don't hear any of you leftopaths questioning. Incest is socially abnormal and illegal (which homosexuality was also) yet no dramatic marches and ribbons for that garbage. Yet if you can objectively look at incest, the only force behind it's unacceptability is that mating within closely related genepools is detrimental and unhealthy because of recessive genes and mutations. It isn't biblically driven, as there was much incest in the bible. The only driving force behind the abnormality and unacceptability of incest is natural law and consequence. Guess what else is naturally abnormal, detrimental (disease), and unacceptable? One dude up another dudes behind or two chicks bumping tacos. Sex is for procreation.
Another example is age difference. When I was a little kid I would have done anything for Gena Lee Nolin to bang my brains out every day. She would have gone to jail though. I was mentally and physically too young to have a productive partnership with her, and that is the main reason such things are still illegal.
So if you want homosexuality to be open and acceptable, are you also prepared to support incest and underage relationships? How about bigamy? I mean, your daddy couldn't help he loved your mommy (his sister), Gena Lee Nolin just had an uncontrollable attraction to some young cock, and some guy just loved having a half a dozen snatches to choose from instead of one, even though it was a terrible burden to society for one guy to have 20 kids which he couldn't support, you know?
-You asked me, "Should corps make public decisions on social issues or not???"
Then stated my answer to that question seems to be ... "as long as they are in agreement with MY VIEWS"
Well no, my answer is I don't believe so, that isn't what chick fil a did (The COO just answered a question and gave opinions on court rulings), but if these corporations want to make it their business to do so they will lose mine and many others. I assure you if chick fil a started airing commercials purposely defaming and degrading homosexuality I would find it distasteful, as that is not their job and doesn't have anything to do with chicken sandwiches.
You said in your previous post ... "the right to be ignorant".
Well it seems you misunderstand the definition of that word, unless of course you and your lefty friends have a new cause to redefine words? Have fun with that
Couple of things I would like to address here Hugh Jordans:
-The liberal use of the word "ignorant" by the left. Liberal is defined as lacking knowledge or awareness in general; uneducated or unsophisticated, lacking knowledge, information, or awareness about something in particular
I assure you, I and many otherswho disagree with you on the subject are well aware of the issues involved, know and have known plenty of happy people, and are well aware of what being happy means. Your use of "ignorant" is ironically ignorant itself. Now THERE is a word you should look up, "Ironic".Maybe you and others who sling around "ignorant" are invoking its rare definition of "discourteous or rude" (because that's what you think we are), but I highly doubt that.
-No I am not saying big businesses are more interested in happy rights than corporate profits, and that isn't what I said. I said they have decided to possibly reduce their bottom line slightly to push an agenda. If pushing that agenda meant they lost profitability and they still did it, THAT would mean they are more interested in an agenda than corporate profits. Also you keep on talking about happy rights. These commercials aren't saying support such and such legislation for happy rights, they are portraying openly happy people and behavior to help normalize it as part of an agenda. That is not "happy rights". No one has a legal right to be considered "normal".
-You state through some of your semantic contortions that I want it both ways because I support chick fil a. Since you can't understand the difference between what they did and what these other corps do I will point it out to you. The main issue was Chick fil a upper management was asked about their views on happy marriage. They gave an honest answer about their views, even though it went against the vocal minority, it was pretty unsurprising considering Chick fil a is closed on Sundays, and they got roasted in the liberal mass media for answering a question and expressing those views (even though the majority of the controversy was over one person voicing an opinion).They did not air commercials portraying open homosexuality negatively, as opposed to these other corporations who consciously and purposefully inject open homosexuality into their commercials which the vast majority of the time has nothing to do with their product. Big difference Hugh Jordans.
-Let me give you an example of the way these corporations are purely pushing a social agenda separate from their actual business interests, which is not and should not be their job to do.
Go to lovehasnolabels.com. I am sure you have seen their commercial where two skeletons are making out behind some kind of xray cloth and then they are revealed to be two chicks, or a black and a mexican, but then they also sprinkle in two sisters loving and caring for eachother even though one obviously has down syndrome, in essence saying homosexuality and miscegeny are the same as accepting and loving your sister who has down syndrome.
No product is sold, it's just social messages, but it is sponsored by some very large corporations whom you don't even know about unless you scroll to the bottom of the website (Just now I found out one of them is State Farm insurance whom I will be cancelling my insurance with).
-There are plenty of social norms based upon natural law that I don't hear any of you leftopaths questioning. Incest is socially abnormal and illegal (which homosexuality was also) yet no dramatic marches and ribbons for that garbage. Yet if you can objectively look at incest, the only force behind it's unacceptability is that mating within closely related genepools is detrimental and unhealthy because of recessive genes and mutations. It isn't biblically driven, as there was much incest in the bible. The only driving force behind the abnormality and unacceptability of incest is natural law and consequence. Guess what else is naturally abnormal, detrimental (disease), and unacceptable? One dude up another dudes behind or two chicks bumping tacos. Sex is for procreation.
Another example is age difference. When I was a little kid I would have done anything for Gena Lee Nolin to bang my brains out every day. She would have gone to jail though. I was mentally and physically too young to have a productive partnership with her, and that is the main reason such things are still illegal.
So if you want homosexuality to be open and acceptable, are you also prepared to support incest and underage relationships? How about bigamy? I mean, your daddy couldn't help he loved your mommy (his sister), Gena Lee Nolin just had an uncontrollable attraction to some young cock, and some guy just loved having a half a dozen snatches to choose from instead of one, even though it was a terrible burden to society for one guy to have 20 kids which he couldn't support, you know?
-You asked me, "Should corps make public decisions on social issues or not???"
Then stated my answer to that question seems to be ... "as long as they are in agreement with MY VIEWS"
Well no, my answer is I don't believe so, that isn't what chick fil a did (The COO just answered a question and gave opinions on court rulings), but if these corporations want to make it their business to do so they will lose mine and many others. I assure you if chick fil a started airing commercials purposely defaming and degrading homosexuality I would find it distasteful, as that is not their job and doesn't have anything to do with chicken sandwiches.
You said in your previous post ... "the right to be ignorant".
Well it seems you misunderstand the definition of that word, unless of course you and your lefty friends have a new cause to redefine words? Have fun with that
What a bunch of ignorant horsesh*t. This is mental masturbation at its finest.
such nonsense
Quote Originally Posted by thecentaur:
Couple of things I would like to address here Hugh Jordans:
-The liberal use of the word "ignorant" by the left. Liberal is defined as lacking knowledge or awareness in general; uneducated or unsophisticated, lacking knowledge, information, or awareness about something in particular
I assure you, I and many otherswho disagree with you on the subject are well aware of the issues involved, know and have known plenty of happy people, and are well aware of what being happy means. Your use of "ignorant" is ironically ignorant itself. Now THERE is a word you should look up, "Ironic".Maybe you and others who sling around "ignorant" are invoking its rare definition of "discourteous or rude" (because that's what you think we are), but I highly doubt that.
-No I am not saying big businesses are more interested in happy rights than corporate profits, and that isn't what I said. I said they have decided to possibly reduce their bottom line slightly to push an agenda. If pushing that agenda meant they lost profitability and they still did it, THAT would mean they are more interested in an agenda than corporate profits. Also you keep on talking about happy rights. These commercials aren't saying support such and such legislation for happy rights, they are portraying openly happy people and behavior to help normalize it as part of an agenda. That is not "happy rights". No one has a legal right to be considered "normal".
-You state through some of your semantic contortions that I want it both ways because I support chick fil a. Since you can't understand the difference between what they did and what these other corps do I will point it out to you. The main issue was Chick fil a upper management was asked about their views on happy marriage. They gave an honest answer about their views, even though it went against the vocal minority, it was pretty unsurprising considering Chick fil a is closed on Sundays, and they got roasted in the liberal mass media for answering a question and expressing those views (even though the majority of the controversy was over one person voicing an opinion).They did not air commercials portraying open homosexuality negatively, as opposed to these other corporations who consciously and purposefully inject open homosexuality into their commercials which the vast majority of the time has nothing to do with their product. Big difference Hugh Jordans.
-Let me give you an example of the way these corporations are purely pushing a social agenda separate from their actual business interests, which is not and should not be their job to do.
Go to lovehasnolabels.com. I am sure you have seen their commercial where two skeletons are making out behind some kind of xray cloth and then they are revealed to be two chicks, or a black and a mexican, but then they also sprinkle in two sisters loving and caring for eachother even though one obviously has down syndrome, in essence saying homosexuality and miscegeny are the same as accepting and loving your sister who has down syndrome.
No product is sold, it's just social messages, but it is sponsored by some very large corporations whom you don't even know about unless you scroll to the bottom of the website (Just now I found out one of them is State Farm insurance whom I will be cancelling my insurance with).
-There are plenty of social norms based upon natural law that I don't hear any of you leftopaths questioning. Incest is socially abnormal and illegal (which homosexuality was also) yet no dramatic marches and ribbons for that garbage. Yet if you can objectively look at incest, the only force behind it's unacceptability is that mating within closely related genepools is detrimental and unhealthy because of recessive genes and mutations. It isn't biblically driven, as there was much incest in the bible. The only driving force behind the abnormality and unacceptability of incest is natural law and consequence. Guess what else is naturally abnormal, detrimental (disease), and unacceptable? One dude up another dudes behind or two chicks bumping tacos. Sex is for procreation.
Another example is age difference. When I was a little kid I would have done anything for Gena Lee Nolin to bang my brains out every day. She would have gone to jail though. I was mentally and physically too young to have a productive partnership with her, and that is the main reason such things are still illegal.
So if you want homosexuality to be open and acceptable, are you also prepared to support incest and underage relationships? How about bigamy? I mean, your daddy couldn't help he loved your mommy (his sister), Gena Lee Nolin just had an uncontrollable attraction to some young cock, and some guy just loved having a half a dozen snatches to choose from instead of one, even though it was a terrible burden to society for one guy to have 20 kids which he couldn't support, you know?
-You asked me, "Should corps make public decisions on social issues or not???"
Then stated my answer to that question seems to be ... "as long as they are in agreement with MY VIEWS"
Well no, my answer is I don't believe so, that isn't what chick fil a did (The COO just answered a question and gave opinions on court rulings), but if these corporations want to make it their business to do so they will lose mine and many others. I assure you if chick fil a started airing commercials purposely defaming and degrading homosexuality I would find it distasteful, as that is not their job and doesn't have anything to do with chicken sandwiches.
You said in your previous post ... "the right to be ignorant".
Well it seems you misunderstand the definition of that word, unless of course you and your lefty friends have a new cause to redefine words? Have fun with that
What a bunch of ignorant horsesh*t. This is mental masturbation at its finest.
thecantaur, I will address much of what you just stated at a later time, as I am on my way to the gym now.
A few brief thoughts before I go pump up these old, tired, muscles of mine.
"Hugh Jordans" ... a very funny, on topic, line. Made me laugh
The word 'ignorant'
You will know few people who are better versed in dealing with ignorance than myself. I won't bore you detailing why that is the case, you will need to take me at my word.
You would make a good politician, or litigation attorney, as you do a great job of putting a spin on my comments, as well as your responses to them. And you referred to me as some sort of 'semantic contortionist'??? Pot, meet kettle. I will address this later.
You do make a couple of points which I will have to fools, and possibly reassess my own points. Again, I will address this later.
Lastly, for now, I am many things, but a lefty leaning liberal is most definitely not one of them.
See you when I come back pumped like Arnold Schwarzenegger
bigreds daddy
thecantaur, I will address much of what you just stated at a later time, as I am on my way to the gym now.
A few brief thoughts before I go pump up these old, tired, muscles of mine.
"Hugh Jordans" ... a very funny, on topic, line. Made me laugh
The word 'ignorant'
You will know few people who are better versed in dealing with ignorance than myself. I won't bore you detailing why that is the case, you will need to take me at my word.
You would make a good politician, or litigation attorney, as you do a great job of putting a spin on my comments, as well as your responses to them. And you referred to me as some sort of 'semantic contortionist'??? Pot, meet kettle. I will address this later.
You do make a couple of points which I will have to fools, and possibly reassess my own points. Again, I will address this later.
Lastly, for now, I am many things, but a lefty leaning liberal is most definitely not one of them.
See you when I come back pumped like Arnold Schwarzenegger
What a bunch of ignorant horsesh*t. This is mental masturbation at its finest.
Established in 1995,
Hot Forum Topics
