Chick-Fil-A

patlpp

patlpp

New Member
There will be another congregation of conservatives much like you saw at Chick-Fil-e: ELECTION DAY.
 
srh88

srh88

Well-Known Member
patlpp said:
There will be another congregation of conservatives much like you saw at Chick-Fil-e: ELECTION DAY.
Click to expand...
its not about conservative or not really the way im seeing it now, all the gay marriage crap is dumb, just let people be happy, guy wants to marry another guy, they happy together.. fuck it, im sure more fucked up marriages went down in these
then gay marriage all together will cause
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
patlpp said:
There will be another congregation of conservatives much like you saw at Chick-Fil-e: ELECTION DAY.
Click to expand...
thank goodness, just what we need. i was getting so worried that my wife was going to make the wrong decisions regarding her vagina, i need government conservatives to make sure she doesn't do the wrong thing with it.

i mean, all this time i thought her using the birth control pill to relieve her extreme menstrual cramps and for responsible family planning purposes was a good thing, turns out that shit is immoral and we need to fuck only when we want to pop out a baby.

not to mention the other little goodies that conservatives bring to us via their SCOTUS picks, like strip searches for jaywalking. i mean, can you say awesome move?

this country would be a much better place if we stuck to conservative values, like disallowing the mixing of races. i mean, who knows if those black kids would play jazz music and introduce my white daughter to the evil marihuana, causing her to go crazy and play the piano faster, faster!

i think we can all agree that we need to return to a good ol' days that never, ever existed.
 
st0wandgrow

st0wandgrow

Well-Known Member
ANC said:
As far as I understand, gays make up about 4% of the population, but they seem to be getting a disproportional amount of media time.
Click to expand...
African Americans make up only 12% of the population, and they get their own month.

Crazy, eh?
 
Winter Woman

Winter Woman

Well-Known Member
Well the jerk that filmed a Chic employee without permission and then was extremely rude and arrogant towards her was fired today. Here's the press release.

Vante regrets the unfortunate events that transpired yesterday in Tucson between our former CFO/Treasurer Adam Smith and an employee at Chick-fil-A. Effective immediately, Mr. Smith is no longer an employee of our company.


The actions of Mr. Smith do not reflect our corporate values in any manner. Vante is an equal opportunity company with a diverse workforce, which holds diverse opinions. We respect the right of our employees and all Americans to hold and express their personal opinions, however, we also expect our company officers to behave in a manner commensurate with their position and in a respectful fashion that conveys these values of civility with others.


We hope that the general population does not hold Mr. Smith’s actions against Vante and its employees.

​
 
2easy

2easy

Well-Known Member
just want to say wtf is a chicken waffle fry? you americans eat some whack shit lol.

oh and politics and that.
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
Consider two hot dog enthusiasts. One loves to eat his hot dogs with ketchup, while the other is adamant that mustard is the only proper condiment. As there is only one gourmet hot dog stand in town, they inevitably cross paths. Several possible scenarios might unfold as the mustard zealot passes the other eating a ketchup-covered dog.

  • He might exclaim, "Ketchup is not fit for hot dogs!" and continue on his way.
  • Instead, he may strike the hot dog to the ground so as to deprive the other of his unholy meal.
  • Another possibility is that the mustard fanatic is so appalled at the sight of wanton ketchup usage that he determines to put a stop to it once and for all. He begins supporting a local anti-ketchup group called “The Red Scare”; donating money to help further their efforts to ban ketchup on hot dogs. Wanting others to do the same, he decides to publically denounce the heinous practice of putting ketchup on hot dogs to the local media so that other decent folk will know they are not alone and will band together to end this menace.
In the first instance, the man who likes mustard is merely (though rudely) expressing disagreement with the man who likes ketchup. The second scenario crosses the line and becomes discrimination because he clearly takes action to deprive the man who likes ketchup of his right to choose how he prepares his hot dog. The third case is a little less clear since the mustard man doesn’t directly interfere with the rights/privileges of ketchup eaters. However, since the ultimate purpose behind publically denouncing the use of ketchup on hot dogs is to eliminate the option entirely, his statements are not merely disagreement. In this case, unlike in the first scenario, his statements seek to deprive another of the same rights/privileges he himself enjoys. As a result, his statements (I would argue) constitute discrimination. So what it really boils down to is intent. If a person shares a difference of opinion while respecting another’s right to disagree, discrimination has not occurred. If the same opinion is shared with the intent to suppress or prohibit opposing opinions, voila! Discrimination!

http://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/wxfuf/do_christians_and_other_religious_people_see_laws/c5igjfc?context=1
 
Kaendar

Kaendar

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
Consider two hot dog enthusiasts. One loves to eat his hot dogs with ketchup, while the other is adamant that mustard is the only proper condiment. As there is only one gourmet hot dog stand in town, they inevitably cross paths. Several possible scenarios might unfold as the mustard zealot passes the other eating a ketchup-covered dog.

  • He might exclaim, "Ketchup is not fit for hot dogs!" and continue on his way.
  • Instead, he may strike the hot dog to the ground so as to deprive the other of his unholy meal.
  • Another possibility is that the mustard fanatic is so appalled at the sight of wanton ketchup usage that he determines to put a stop to it once and for all. He begins supporting a local anti-ketchup group called “The Red Scare”; donating money to help further their efforts to ban ketchup on hot dogs. Wanting others to do the same, he decides to publically denounce the heinous practice of putting ketchup on hot dogs to the local media so that other decent folk will know they are not alone and will band together to end this menace.
In the first instance, the man who likes mustard is merely (though rudely) expressing disagreement with the man who likes ketchup. The second scenario crosses the line and becomes discrimination because he clearly takes action to deprive the man who likes ketchup of his right to choose how he prepares his hot dog. The third case is a little less clear since the mustard man doesn’t directly interfere with the rights/privileges of ketchup eaters. However, since the ultimate purpose behind publically denouncing the use of ketchup on hot dogs is to eliminate the option entirely, his statements are not merely disagreement. In this case, unlike in the first scenario, his statements seek to deprive another of the same rights/privileges he himself enjoys. As a result, his statements (I would argue) constitute discrimination. So what it really boils down to is intent. If a person shares a difference of opinion while respecting another’s right to disagree, discrimination has not occurred. If the same opinion is shared with the intent to suppress or prohibit opposing opinions, voila! Discrimination!

http://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/wxfuf/do_christians_and_other_religious_people_see_laws/c5igjfc?context=1
Click to expand...
I dont get it. At the end of the day, being anti gay marriage doesnt mean anti gay. They never said gays cant eat there or that gays are bad.
 
srh88

srh88

Well-Known Member
Kaendar said:
I dont get it. At the end of the day, being anti gay marriage doesnt mean anti gay. They never said gays cant eat there or that gays are bad.
Click to expand...
remember when they let black people ride the bus, but only in the back
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
srh88 said:
remember when they let black people ride the bus, but only in the back
Click to expand...
yeah, but wanting the blacks to ride in the back doesn't make me a racist. and just because i am opposed to kaendar's mixed race relationship, that doesn't make me a bigot. i just believe in traditional marriage. one white man and one white woman. and the white man gets to rape his black slaves.

ya know, the good ol' days.
 
2easy

2easy

Well-Known Member
Kaendar said:
I dont get it. At the end of the day, being anti gay marriage doesnt mean anti gay. They never said gays cant eat there or that gays are bad.
Click to expand...
whats the difference. if theres nothing wrong with being gay then why should they not be allowed to be married?
 
2easy

2easy

Well-Known Member
what kind of sick fuck puts ketchup on there hotdog anyway, those arseholes should be stopped
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top