4 ms·

Oh those mean gays, why won't they just leave this poor family alone and let this family continue to pour millions of dollars into keeping them a permanent unde

Oh those mean gays, why won't they just leave this poor family alone and let this family continue to pour millions of dollars into keeping them a permanent underclass who will never enjoy the same rights as straight people in peace?? Obviously being a massive funder of a campaign against equal rights for the gay community is totally a neutral position which in no way harms gay people, but pointing out the fact that they've been doing it? Why, that makes gay people big meanies who are attacking this nice family for no reason.

blackbird_t 14y ago
Gay activists is a more appropriate term. And many people might agree with you they are "big meanies" looking for a fight. As far as funding campaigns that support their moral views as a "private" company, why is that so bothersome? They don't get out in front of a microphone in the public media and state this fact every time they get the chance. Although Bezos seems to think this is a good idea. Gay right=Civil right=Yeah right
- rayiner 14y ago
  > As far as funding campaigns that support their moral views as a "private" company, why is that so bothersome? When you bring your views into the public square by funding public campaigns to espouse those views, you can't complain when people react to those views. Chick-fil-A did something far stronger than simply get on a microphone in the public media and argue a particular viewpoint. It spent millions of dollars trying to affect legislation.
- kbolino 14y ago
  >>> Gay activists is a more appropriate term. What is Focus on the Family? Or the Family Research Council? Eagle Forum? >>> And many people might agree with you they are "big meanies" looking for a fight. They are "looking for a fight" to be fought in the public square, in legislatures and courts, over what many of them consider to be a legal injustice. Is this not the intended form of democracy? >>> As far as funding campaigns that support their moral views as a "private" company, why is that so bothersome? Why is it so bothersome to point this fact out? If they do not wish to be injured by the information, then they have the power to make it false. >>> They don't get out in front of a microphone in the public media and state this fact every time they get the chance. The fact they were (previously) not very vocal about their views negates them how? >>> Although Bezos seems to think this is a good idea. As is his right? Just like the Cathy family has the same right? >>> Gay right=Civil right=Yeah right Disagreement does not require a dismissive attitude. I could just as easily denigrate your opinions and your position, but that benefits no one.
  - kbolino 14y ago
    For what it's worth, I was not at the time aware of the mayors of Boston and Chicago saying they would oppose the expansion of Chik-fil-A in their cities. I wholeheartedly disagree with those actions, and I support Chik-fil-A in their business goal of selling tasty chicken to whomever will buy it. I still disagree with their political goals, but their freedoms as an enterprise should not be taken away because of them.

blackbird_t 14y ago

Gay activists is a more appropriate term. And many people might agree with you they are "big meanies" looking for a fight. As far as funding campaigns that support their moral views as a "private" company, why is that so bothersome? They don't get out in front of a microphone in the public media and state this fact every time they get the chance. Although Bezos seems to think this is a good idea. Gay right=Civil right=Yeah right

rayiner 14y ago
> As far as funding campaigns that support their moral views as a "private" company, why is that so bothersome? When you bring your views into the public square by funding public campaigns to espouse those views, you can't complain when people react to those views. Chick-fil-A did something far stronger than simply get on a microphone in the public media and argue a particular viewpoint. It spent millions of dollars trying to affect legislation.
kbolino 14y ago
>>> Gay activists is a more appropriate term. What is Focus on the Family? Or the Family Research Council? Eagle Forum? >>> And many people might agree with you they are "big meanies" looking for a fight. They are "looking for a fight" to be fought in the public square, in legislatures and courts, over what many of them consider to be a legal injustice. Is this not the intended form of democracy? >>> As far as funding campaigns that support their moral views as a "private" company, why is that so bothersome? Why is it so bothersome to point this fact out? If they do not wish to be injured by the information, then they have the power to make it false. >>> They don't get out in front of a microphone in the public media and state this fact every time they get the chance. The fact they were (previously) not very vocal about their views negates them how? >>> Although Bezos seems to think this is a good idea. As is his right? Just like the Cathy family has the same right? >>> Gay right=Civil right=Yeah right Disagreement does not require a dismissive attitude. I could just as easily denigrate your opinions and your position, but that benefits no one.
- kbolino 14y ago
  For what it's worth, I was not at the time aware of the mayors of Boston and Chicago saying they would oppose the expansion of Chik-fil-A in their cities. I wholeheartedly disagree with those actions, and I support Chik-fil-A in their business goal of selling tasty chicken to whomever will buy it. I still disagree with their political goals, but their freedoms as an enterprise should not be taken away because of them.