In September 2012, The Civil Rights Agenda (TCRA) announced that Chick-fil-A has "ceased donating to organizations that promote discrimination, specifically against LGBT civil rights." Chick-fil-A officials did state in an internal document that they "will treat every person equally, regardless of sexual orientation." [...] A document released by Chick-fil-A on September 20, 2012 does not mention any organizations opposed to same-sex marriage as being part of Chick-fil-A's donation base.
I doubt anyone believes that discrimination has 100% disappeared from Chick-fil-A, but they've made significant changes. What discriminatory practices remain have been driven further underground, where it won't give other people - and other companies - reason to think that sort of behavior is acceptable.
Wneglia wrote:So Vrede where was all this moral outrage against Robert Byrd ?
You mean after he denounced the Klan and their beliefs decades ago? On one hand his membership was in the 1940s. And in 1952 he announced that he had quit the organization years earlier. On the other hand his voting record on civil rights was nothing to be proud of right into the 1960s. But after that?
It was indeed an issue in later elections. After he denounced such beliefs. As your own link - and photoshopped image - shows.
As well it should be. And while Byrd's actions were half a century earlier, even apologized for decades earlier, with Eich it was his current actions.
Wneglia wrote:So Vrede where was all this moral outrage against Robert Byrd ?
You mean after he denounced the Klan and their beliefs decades ago? On one hand his membership was in the 1940s. And in 1952 he announced that he had quit the organization years earlier. On the other hand his voting record on civil rights was nothing to be proud of right into the 1960s. But after that?
It was indeed an issue in later elections. After he denounced such beliefs. As your own link - and photoshopped image - shows.
As well it should be. And while Byrd's actions were half a century earlier, even apologized for decades earlier, with Eich it was his current actions.
So, if Eich had said he had rethought the situation, and made a misguided mistake, all would be forgiven? Or are cons unforgiveable?
Obama was against gay marriage in 2008. Why no outrage in 2 elections?
Vrede wrote:I supported stronger progressives in the 2008 primaries and it's not like McCain had a rainbow logo. By 2012 Obama had ended DADT, stopped defending DOMA and had come around to endorsing SSM, thanks to a lot of heat that you think Eich should be exempt from. Do you have a point and will you ever answer my question?
Oh, btw, Ohio! Tick-tock.
The point is selective outrage and the answer is no.
BTW here is the latest sentiment on Mozilla: Link
As rstrong pointed out, Byrd did get a ton of grief for his remote (and dishonestly photoshopped) KKK ties. By the late 1960s, racist southerners were swinging GOP and Byrd was a relic of the racist southern Dem past. It's not like WV voters had much of a choice on the issue. And, as I stated, Obama got a lot of eventually successful criticism for his tepidness. I did my part. So, what are you talking about?
Obama was supported enthusiastically by gays in spite of the fact he was on the record as a bigoted homophobe. Just pointing out the double standard.
Different circumstances, different context, different standards. Assuming Obama to have been a bigoted homophobe in 2008, he was still better than the available alternatives in the general election. Better in the long run for gays, as well as the rest of us.
Vrede wrote:There was no turning on my "tolerance machine", you've screwed up again. I grew up in a household that cared deeply about and fought for civil rights for blacks and one that wasn't obsessed with the consensual sex lives of other adults, particularly gays, like you and Mr.B are. It's a shame that the upbringing you two had was so miserable but you're old enough that you should have overcome it by now.
I'm glad we coloreds had you fighting for our rights. Don't know how we would done without you, since you cared so deeply and all. There's nothing wrong with consensual sex between adults. What's wrong is when those so-called adults go panting after those of their own gender like a goddam dog in heat. You've seen videos of dogs humping legs or doing dry humps? That's because the stupid bastards are so damn horny they hump anything that will be still for them. A frigging queer is the same way, providing it's one of the same gender. You and your twisted free thinkers think that's so goddam beautiful and perfectly natural behavior. I don't give a shit about their sex, but the only reason a queer wants to <marry> one of the opposite sex is not love, it's pure unadulterated filthy sex. Shit packers and piss hole suckers are not a natural part of the human race. Sorry about that. It's a shame that the upbringing you and yours had was so twisted and fucked up. As adults you should have overcome that by now. Open your damn eyes idiots.
Proudly Telling It Like It Is: In Your Face! Whether You Like It Or Not!
Vrede wrote:There was no turning on my "tolerance machine", you've screwed up again. I grew up in a household that cared deeply about and fought for civil rights for blacks and one that wasn't obsessed with the consensual sex lives of other adults, particularly gays, like you and Mr.B are. It's a shame that the upbringing you two had was so miserable but you're old enough that you should have overcome it by now.
I'm glad we coloreds had you fighting for our rights. Don't know how we would done without you, since you cared so deeply and all. There's nothing wrong with consensual sex between adults. What's wrong is when those so-called adults go panting after those of their own gender like a goddam dog in heat. You've seen videos of dogs humping legs or doing dry humps? That's because the stupid bastards are so damn horny they hump anything that will be still for them. A frigging queer is the same way, providing it's one of the same gender. You and your twisted free thinkers think that's so goddam beautiful and perfectly natural behavior. I don't give a shit about their sex, but the only reason a queer wants to <marry> one of the opposite sex is not love, it's pure unadulterated filthy sex. Shit packers and piss hole suckers are not a natural part of the human race. Sorry about that. It's a shame that the upbringing you and yours had was so twisted and fucked up. As adults you should have overcome that by now. Open your damn eyes idiots.
I guess I'd be grumpy too if I never had my "piss hole" sucked.
k9nanny wrote:FYI. The dog humping described by homerphobe is dominance behavior. Has nothing to do with lust.
I'd say the only one who lusts over dog humping would be ol' homo himself.
The dominant humper queer humping the ass of his fairy assed humpee, is no different than two dogs in heat. I'd say lust is 95% of the reason a dog humps, wouldn't you? So if a dog is by himself doing a dry hump, who/what's he expressing his dominance to? You got two male fags that <marry>, one is the dominant, the other is the open assed queenie. Of course the round mouth syndrome is another issue.
O Really, what you'd say don't mean shit anyway, you're just fantasizing.
Proudly Telling It Like It Is: In Your Face! Whether You Like It Or Not!
