Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[ggamer]

Like I said, a company's views will usually not affect my patronage there.

So if a company was based in Saudi Arabia but had stores in the US and used their funds to lobby the King to, for example, hunt down and execute underground Christians, that wouldn't matter to you?

Like I said, it usually won't matter. I wouldn't patronize any store that supports things like that, I don't care what they're religion is, people don't deserve to be hunted down and executed. However, I will still go to a store that doesn't support a choice that they see as morally wrong. There is no word in that to indicated the systematic murder of any kind of person.
 

When did homosexuality become a matter of human rights anyway?

When homosexuals were denied equal rights to heterosexuals in the United States. Until 2003 sodomy laws were enforced in most US states. Until 1993 homosexuals couldn't serve in the military and until 2011 they couldn't serve openly, which is effectively the same restriction. Homosexuals still can't marry in most of the Union, nor are they protected from employment discrimination. Gay couples adopting children is in a more complicated legal state, but far from desirable nonetheless. Ex-gay camps using horrific and unscientific psychological practices to "fix" homosexuals are legal to send your children to.

Besides the last one, which isn't common where I live and is a horrible violation of human rights, I wouldn't chalk any of those up with such human rights violations as entire peoples getting murdered and sent to work camps for no good reason.
 

And even then those types of people are against blatant homosexuality, they aren't going to fucking quiz you the second they see you about how gay you are.

How does that make a difference? What do you define as "blatent" homosexuality?

Don't be coy. I mean Blatant homosexuality. Then again, those kinds of parts probably react to several other blatant activities, like blatantly liberal or blatantly not a fan of the braves.

You'd get a different reactions near where I live, most of it would just be a stern shake of the head and a topic change to avoid a shitstorm, though some would outright shut down the conversation. I don't know anybody that would react violently towards blatant behavior though, no matter how far it is from their ideals.

Bro, have you ever eaten at a chick-fil-a? Best damn fast food in the south, not terrible at all. Great food for fast food, especially when you have to deal with taco bell.

Yeah, you can really taste the suffering. But no, he's right, Chick-Fil-A is indeed some of the best fast food there is. It just so happens to also be evil.

I wouldn't say it is evil, the same as preferring coke to pepsi is evil.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

However, I will still go to a store that doesn't support a choice that they see as morally wrong. There is no word in that to indicated the systematic murder of any kind of person.

Alright, so you'd be willing to patronize a store that lobbies for legislation to remove anti-discrimination laws in hiring and adoption for Christians, then?

Besides the last one, which isn't common where I live and is a horrible violation of human rights, I wouldn't chalk any of those up with such human rights violations as entire peoples getting murdered and sent to work camps for no good reason.

A. Don't be so sure it isn't common where you live. People don't talk about it much, probably because it's fucking crazy.

B. What in the world does the Holocaust have to do with this? You do know there are human rights besides freedom from genocide, right?

Don't be coy. I mean Blatant homosexuality.

No, I seriously don't know what you mean.

You'd get a different reactions near where I live, most of it would just be a stern shake of the head and a topic change to avoid a shitstorm, though some would outright shut down the conversation. I don't know anybody that would react violently towards blatant behavior though, no matter how far it is from their ideals.

Sounds like the people where you live have issues if they can't even talk about it.

[ggamer]

However, I will still go to a store that doesn't support a choice that they see as morally wrong. There is no word in that to indicated the systematic murder of any kind of person.

Alright, so you'd be willing to patronize a store that lobbies for legislation to remove anti-discrimination laws in hiring and adoption for Christians, then?

ooooh, clever. No, discrimination laws are a no-go, again. I don't care who it is discriminating against, it's still wrong. Adoption is a little more odd, I think it would vary between societies. That kind of...

Oh god dammit you're going to get me to agree with you this way aren't you.

Anyway, there are already people who don't approve of adoption by christians, though it's the same niche filled by the people who abjectly hate Christianity. I guess that's a little more delicate, though now that I think about it I don't think any sort of choice should affect your ability to adopt. And again, while I don't think it is right for people to get support of homosexuality imprinted in children at a young age, many could say the same thing about Christianity, so fair's fair.

Besides the last one, which isn't common where I live and is a horrible violation of human rights, I wouldn't chalk any of those up with such human rights violations as entire peoples getting murdered and sent to work camps for no good reason.

A. Don't be so sure it isn't common where you live. People don't talk about it much, probably because it's fucking crazy.

I think it's less fucking crazy and more a lack of awareness.

B. What in the world does the Holocaust have to do with this? You do know there are human rights besides freedom from genocide, right?

I don't think That the Holocaust is the only time a group of people was murdered and oppressed, though it is the biggest example.

Don't be coy. I mean Blatant homosexuality.

No, I seriously don't know what you mean.

It's kind of hard to explain, but it'd be people being gay and being really obvious about it.

You'd get a different reactions near where I live, most of it would just be a stern shake of the head and a topic change to avoid a shitstorm, though some would outright shut down the conversation. I don't know anybody that would react violently towards blatant behavior though, no matter how far it is from their ideals.

Sounds like the people where you live have issues if they can't even talk about it.

It's less not being able to talk about it and more not wanting to talk about it. It may be surprising for you, but big-shot liberals getting really fucking offended and going off on a spiel at the first opportunity is surprisingly common around here.

Also, by shut down the conversation, I meant someone getting really... irked by the idea of someone with different ideals with them and kind of awkwardly trying to leave. Basically, it's people who are rather sheltered who act like that.

[kaijyuu]

I don't see a problem with being really obvious about anything. It being homosexuality isn't any worse than anything else.


If someone's very obviously "communicating" that they're gay, then whupidedoo. If someone attacks them for it, then you can't say "you brought it on yourself." That's incredibly blatant victim blaming. Same reason you wouldn't excuse an attacker for beating someone up over being a fan of the wrong sports team. Same reason you wouldn't excuse a rapist for attacking someone wearing revealing clothing.




I believe your original point with that was about witch hunts. Yeah, we realize there aren't lynch mobs going down the streets interrogating people. But homosexuals having to hide at all is a bad thing. It can still cost them their job. It can still cost them friends. All of that is incredibly stupid.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

ooooh, clever. No, discrimination laws are a no-go, again. I don't care who it is discriminating against, it's still wrong. Adoption is a little more odd, I think it would vary between societies. That kind of...

Well, as I mentioned before, there are lots of places in the Union where you can fire someone for being a homosexual, write that down as the reason you fired them, use it in court as a legitimate reason to have fired them, and win the case hands down. This is because of a lack of anti-discrimination in hiring laws concerning sexual orientation and gender identity in the states in question. These laws are opposed by family organizations, the very kind that Chik-Fil-A donates to, and being a large corporation they can donate quite a sum of money indeed.

So by your own standards you should be boycotting Chik-Fil-A.

Oh god dammit you're going to get me to agree with you this way aren't you.

That's the idea.

I think it's less fucking crazy and more a lack of awareness.

If you've sent your child off to a camp to have their gay removed, you've got to be at least a little crazy.

I don't think That the Holocaust is the only time a group of people was murdered and oppressed, though it is the biggest example.

You mentioned systematic executions and work camps. I want to know how that's relevant.

It's kind of hard to explain, but it'd be people being gay and being really obvious about it.

I'm not sure about you, but I lack gay-o-vison. Unless your local homosexuals have public orgies I'm not sure how you could tell through their behavior.

It's less not being able to talk about it and more not wanting to talk about it. It may be surprising for you, but big-shot liberals getting really fucking offended and going off on a spiel at the first opportunity is surprisingly common around here.

Given the political climate you've described, I doubt that there are very many big-shot liberals around to go off on spiels in the first place.

Also, by shut down the conversation, I meant someone getting really... irked by the idea of someone with different ideals with them and kind of awkwardly trying to leave. Basically, it's people who are rather sheltered who act like that.

Sheltered attitudes are not good for people. They get out into the world after having been sheltered for so long and they can't interact with other people properly. For example, like not even being able to stay around a conversation of something they disagree with.

[Mech#4]

It's kind of hard to explain, but it'd be people being gay and being really obvious about it.

I'm not sure about you, but I lack gay-o-vison. Unless your local homosexuals have public orgies I'm not sure how you could tell through their behavior.

I think ggamer might mean things like gay pride parades. They have them in Sydney where people dress up in really flamboyant clothes and/or crossdress to bring awareness to gay rights. People can be put off by such things, as it's very out of the ordinary.

[Truean]

Would you copy a baby?

King Solomon threatened to cut a baby in half with a sword in front of its mom and he's remembered as a pillar of justice. So yeah, sure. Copying one doesn't seem so bad. 

I don't see a problem with being really obvious about anything. It being homosexuality isn't any worse than anything else.

If someone's very obviously "communicating" that they're gay, then whupidedoo. If someone attacks them for it, then you can't say "you brought it on yourself." That's incredibly blatant victim blaming. Same reason you wouldn't excuse an attacker for beating someone up over being a fan of the wrong sports team. Same reason you wouldn't excuse a rapist for attacking someone wearing revealing clothing.

I believe your original point with that was about witch hunts. Yeah, we realize there aren't lynch mobs going down the streets interrogating people. But homosexuals having to hide at all is a bad thing. It can still cost them their job. It can still cost them friends. All of that is incredibly stupid.

Yes.

It's called repression and it's made my life a living hell the likes of which I will never fully tell you about. It's cost me friends, family, and even work, probably in the tens of thousands of dollar range and I'm actively closeted or try to be. It's really a losing game being closeted gay, because sooner or later people wonder why you're 30 years old and have never been on a date with a girl and don't notice them at all.... That, and several other things.....

I could say the role of corporations is to provide product to consumers, profit to investors, and that donating company funds to any political idea is misappropriating company funds. Those investors bought stock of the company, they didn't buy into a political idea or candidate. If the individual wanted to make a political statement; they should. The company should sell product and make profit, that's it. The Supreme Court should've said this, but didn't. I could say that but really if you want a reason everybody is making a big deal out of it, it's because the corporation made a big deal out of it. The corporation publicly made a controversial stand on an issue dividing the nation. Lo and behold there is controversy, who could've guessed.... [no question mark]. Honestly what did they expect? "Gee let's have our corporation take a stand on a controversial issue; hey where and why did all this controversy come around...?" Guess.

As for gays in society in general. The US was the only NATO country besides Turkey not to allow gays in the military. It didn't hurt any of the other countries who allowed it. There's no rational reason for any of it and there really should be if you're going to have a massive effect on just about all parts of another person's life who has never harmed you at all....

Edit: you wanna know what'd be really messed up? If I played devil's advocate and argued for the other side: namely if I put arguments together to say the company should be able to do this.

[Euld]

McCain defends Huma Abedin against the accusation against her by Michelle Bachman.  +1 Appreciation to McCain, even if he believes I'm an abomination destined for the fires of hell.

On that note, I defend my right to be gay and to talk about it.  I can't stand how my friends can nonchalantly discuss their straight relationships, sometimes in pretty embarrassing detail, but I'm absolutely not allowed to mention that I'm attracted to men without wide-eyed stares from people or shocked surprise.  My sexuality is left-handed, deal with it.  After years of sexual repression and praying to God to "cure" my sexuality, I'm pretty sure I've caused myself emotional damage that will take years to unravel, if not counseling.

I'd like the right to marry.  I'd like the right to rent an apartment without being turned away for being gay.  What exactly are people worried about when they refuse gay renters?  I'm pretty sure I can guess what they're thinking, and I'm pretty sure the damage deposit would cover that.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I'd like the right to marry.  I'd like the right to rent an apartment without being turned away for being gay.  What exactly are people worried about when they refuse gay renters?  I'm pretty sure I can guess what they're thinking, and I'm pretty sure the damage deposit would cover that.

A damage deposit can cover that they think they're enforcing the Will Of God?

[Heron TSG]

However, I will still go to a store that doesn't support a choice that they see as morally wrong. There is no word in that to indicated the systematic murder of any kind of person.

Alright, so you'd be willing to patronize a store that lobbies for legislation to remove anti-discrimination laws in hiring and adoption for Christians, then?

ooooh, clever. No, discrimination laws are a no-go, again. I don't care who it is discriminating against, it's still wrong. Adoption is a little more odd, I think it would vary between societies. That kind of...

Oh god dammit you're going to get me to agree with you this way aren't you.

So, if you're unwilling to patronize a store that supports discrimination laws, note that Chick-fil-A's 'charity' arm, WinShape, gave $1,733,699 to various groups in 2009 according to their IRS 990 form.

In order of donation value:

    Marriage & Family Legacy Fund: $994,199
    Fellowship Of Christian Athletes: $480,000
    National Christian Foundation: $240,000
    Focus On The Family: $12,500
    Eagle Forum: $5,000
    Exodus International: $1,000
    Family Research Council: $1,000

The first is a branch of Marriage CoMission, a group that lobbies for 'stronger marriages'. Not really sure about that one, their website is incredibly vague. Never heard of the second or third, though I imagine that them being large national Christian organizations, they're not exactly supportive. More important here are the bottom four, though the donations are smaller.

Focus on the Family is all about helping families overcome the incredible unjustices done to them by the public, such as forcing their children to be gay and learn about sex.

_{The sarcasm oozes from the sentence.}

The Eagle Forum's checklist for a candidate to support. They have some crazier stuff (somehow) on their website, but on that sheet, they have a demand for a candidate to support DADT, so there's your direct link to discriminatory laws. Supporting those who donate to candidates who would vote for them, anyway. As a further note, they apparently want 'Edison lightbulbs' to be legalized again. Huh.

Exodus International (Sometimes called Exodus Global Alliance) is one of those gay-re-education groups.

The Southern Poverty Law Center has a nice and disturbing 5-page PDF file about the Family Research Council. Suffice to say that they're pretty nuts about this stuff.

[Reelya]

Chick-Fil-A is like Coors beer then.

Family-owned Coors beer had similar issues with their Coors Foundation which donated heavily to anti-gay groups, so to "fix' the image they implemented tolerant practices within their own company, and hired Mary Cheney as their "gay liason".

But, they kept funding the anti-gay groups but called it the "Castle Rock Foundation" or something instead.

[scriver]

It's kind of hard to explain, but it'd be people being gay and being really obvious about it.

I'm not sure about you, but I lack gay-o-vison.

Really?

I'd write of the idea of a gay appearance as stereotyping as well, but I can't because....well....it's there. I can see it. Lots of people can see it. Plenty of people believed that Anderson Cooper was gay before he admitted it.

Also, by shut down the conversation, I meant someone getting really... irked by the idea of someone with different ideals with them and kind of awkwardly trying to leave. Basically, it's people who are rather sheltered who act like that.

Sheltered attitudes are not good for people. They get out into the world after having been sheltered for so long and they can't interact with other people properly. For example, like not even being able to stay around a conversation of something they disagree with.

I don't think it has anything to do with being "sheltered". Avoiding controversial topics is something people do everywhere because they don't want the conversation on their lunch break/family dinner to devolve into an argument all the time. It's basic social skills. The only difference is what topics have to be avoided.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

It's kind of hard to explain, but it'd be people being gay and being really obvious about it.

I'm not sure about you, but I lack gay-o-vison.

Really?

I'd write of the idea of a gay appearance as stereotyping as well, but I can't because....well....it's there. I can see it. Lots of people can see it. Plenty of people believed that Anderson Cooper was gay before he admitted it.

...I'm trying to remember what my thoughts were when I posted that, but I can't.

Well, in actuality I stand by my current position. Not sure why I'd say something like that, might have just been making a filler post or posting in the middle of the night when I think very strange things. It wouldn't be the first time I've looked upon a post made at 3:00 AM or some similar time and questioned myself later. That post in particular was apparently made in the day if I'm translating forum time to mine correctly, but its also during summer vacation, when I sometimes unintentionally go nocturnal for a while. So I might have been in weird mode for that one too, I don't remember.

EDIT: Though its 6:00 AM right now, so don't trust me on this either. Actually, you probably shouldn't trust me as a rule.

[Leafsnail]

I think ggamer is trying to say it's ok to discriminate against gay people if they're obviously gay, because...?

[lordcooper]

I'm less inclined to befriend overly camp people because they tend to annoy the fuck out of me.