Mayor of Boston is opposed to Chick-Fil-A in his City

Yeah but the Churchill of 1951 was more liberal than the Churchill of 1916. I was going to say that Churchill was a liberal Tory but felt I didn't have too...

 

Really? Relative to the rest of Britain, I'd say he emphatically wasn't. I mean, "Keep England White"? Seriously?

 

It's generally better to assume that Churchill was wrong and correct for those specific freak occurrences when he was not.

 

Protip: Trying to use "silly words" written thousands of years ago by men instead of gods in a secular country to try to rationalize similar present day bigotry and homophobia is an automatic "fail".

 

Nevermind

 

I find it really disturbing and uncomfortable that you seem to think intolerance of a minority is something that can be laughed at and how you seem to act so blase in the face of it.

 

I have nothing constructive to say other than I am shocked how many posts are in a thread with a title that is seemingly so benign.

 

teh gheyz

 

.....in the fifteen seconds it took you to write that sentence, probably. Seeing as how this whole surge in bizness for Chick-Fil-A happened right after the whole same-sex protest got started, it's been pretty obvious from the get-go that just about everybody is going there to spite same-sex-marriage wingnuts.

(though, now that I've been, their sandwiches are in fact very tasty)

That's exactly what it's about: pro-gay radicals can't accept other people who have different opinions from their own.

 

Funny to hear you, of all people, argue that the majority of Americans are petty, vindictive children.

 

Glad to see yet another "wingnut" who has come out of the closet.

This is why freedom of speech is so incredibly important because those who really can't "accept other people who have different opinions from their own" would otherwise be very difficult to spot.

 

Its hardly limited to America.

 

I'm not even saying that I agree with him, just that it's odd that he would make the claim.

 

I think your use of the word intolerance is in error. You tend to see everything as intolerance, and then get all spun up about it. The reality is its not anywhere as bad as you allege. Now, i'm sure you can provide exceptions to that generalization; but it doesnt disprove it.

I believe that largely what you claim as hate, intolerance or whatever, generally isnt, but you do use instances of when it happens to use guilt by association for all the rest of that demograph.

In other words, your're profilin' and profilin be bad.

 

I'm pretty you, a heterosexual male, know all about homophobic discrimination.

 

That's literally the debating tactic of the right. Say a million things, get you to concede most of the less relevant points. It keeps moving the point of debate, now far to the right of what it used to be.


The first time this point was brought up, I was so bothered by that nonsense that I actually went and researched a bunch of MLK's closest civil rights activist allies and organizations, and everyone I could think of off the top of my head who fought the same fight he did. They've all adopted a pro SSM position. I didn't run into a single person who didn't.

The position was uniformly pro gay marriage. There's no reason to think MLK would be the lone dissident especially when he was in the front of progressive action. Occasionally leftist action.

 

You're pretty me?

But I think I get your response. Mine is this: I'm familiar with your postings and how you observe things. Quite often you over-hype a situation for emotional effect. I see no reason to not expect you to do the same thing on the issue of 'intolerance' or related issues.

 

Do I overhype situations?

 

Are you planning on filing some sort of intellectual property infringement action?

 

No wonder given how many times you have misused it in this thread to criticize those who are actually opposed to intolerance instead of the opposite.