Chick-fil-A Giving Free Food to Stranded Motorists

Charity and bigotry are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
 
sturg33 said:
Until there is evidence that they won't serve someone who is ***, they are not in the least bit bigoted
Click to expand...

WTF? For real? Donating to causes that specifically lobby to turn ***s straight or fight *** marriage isn't bigoted? They stopped doing that for a reason
 
zitothebrave said:
WTF? For real? Donating to causes that specifically lobby to turn ***s straight or fight *** marriage isn't bigoted? They stopped doing that for a reason
Click to expand...

I went to chick-fil-a with my *** friend the other day. We were served with a hearty smile.

You'd think they would have kicked him out of the store.
 
sturg33 said:
I went to chick-fil-a with my *** friend the other day. We were served with a hearty smile.

You'd think they would have kicked him out of the store.
Click to expand...

I think most people are aware it's the upper hierarchy that feels that way, as the chances of your cashier being under the age of 30 at Chick Fil A are pretty strong.

Also, how *** is your *** friend on the flamboyancy scale? I have a *** friend and you'd never know he was *** unless he told you he only was interested in guys.
 
Chick fila is the best. Their culture destroys it's competition. Nice to see them doing these type of things
 
jpx7 said:
I don't think you understand the concept.
Click to expand...

Help me understand... If you think someone who believes marriage should be between 1 man and 1 woman is automatically a bigot, then there's no point to discuss further with you.

They have a personal opinion. They do not discriminate against anybody in their business. That should be fine for everyone.
 
sturg33 said:
Help me understand... If you think someone who believes marriage should be between 1 man and 1 woman is automatically a bigot, then there's no point to discuss further with you.

They have a personal opinion. They do not discriminate against anybody in their business. That should be fine for everyone.
Click to expand...

But it's not that simple. They are not just having an opinion but taking money from the company and donating it to anti-*** causes. This isn't simply the owner having an opinion, but the owner taking money from the company and giving it to anti-*** groups.
 
zitothebrave said:
But it's not that simple. They are not just having an opinion but taking money from the company and donating it to anti-*** causes. This isn't simply the owner having an opinion, but the owner taking money from the company and giving it to anti-*** groups.
Click to expand...

Im sure there are poor people that are anti-*** that you want me to give more of my money too, right? Or is money out of my pocket just going to hard working, church going, angels?
 
gilesfan said:
Im sure there are poor people that are anti-*** that you want me to give more of my money too, right? Or is money out of my pocket just going to hard working, church going, angels?
Click to expand...

What the **** are you talking out of your ass about this time?
 
sturg33 said:
Help me understand... If you think someone who believes marriage should be between 1 man and 1 woman is automatically a bigot, then there's no point to discuss further with you.

They have a personal opinion. They do not discriminate against anybody in their business. That should be fine for everyone.
Click to expand...

Bigotry does not equate to, nor necessarily presuppose, discrimination. If person-a harbors ill-will, malice, or hatred towards a homosexual simply as a result of the homosexuality of person-b, person-a is still guilty of bigotry; good on person-a—and I mean this seriously—for not actively, much less criminally, discriminating against person-b, but that doesn't obviate person-a's prejudice, it just means its inactive.
 
jpx7 said:
Bigotry does not equate to, nor necessarily presuppose, discrimination. If person-a harbors ill-will, malice, or hatred towards a homosexual simply as a result of the homosexuality of person-b, person-a is still guilty of bigotry; good on person-a—and I mean this seriously—for not actively, much less criminally, discriminating against person-b, but that doesn't obviate person-a's prejudice, it just means its inactive.
Click to expand...

Could I make the same argument that person a is a bigot since he wants person b to pay more taxes, simply as a result of person b having more money?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top