# Emanuel goes after Chick-fil-A for boss’ anti-gay views



## Capt Worley PE (Jul 26, 2012)

> “Chick-fil-A’s values are not Chicago values. They’re not respectful of our residents, our neighbors and our family members. And if you’re gonna be part of the Chicago community, you should reflect Chicago values,” Emanuel said Wednesday.
> 
> “What the CEO has said as it relates to gay marriage and gay couples is not what I believe, but more importantly, it’s not what the people of Chicago believe. We just passed legislation as it relates to civil union and my goal and my hope … is that we now move on recognizing gay marriage. I do not believe that the CEO’s comments … reflects who we are as a city.”
> 
> Ald. Joe Moreno (1st) *is using the same argument to block Chick-fil-A from opening its first free-standing restaurant *in Chicago’s Logan Square neighborhood.


http://www.suntimes....-gay-views.html

Personally, I find it a sign of out-of-control government when a business is being blocked because the person views of the executives don't square with the political agenda of the powers that be.


----------



## engineergurl (Jul 26, 2012)

wonder what would happen if all the people who believed the same thing as Chic-Fil-a moved out of the city/county... and refused to buy anything there out of principal that their beliefs don't match with the cities...


----------



## Krakosky (Jul 26, 2012)

Mmmm...I miss Chik-Fil-A.


----------



## csb (Jul 26, 2012)

I think what baffles me the most about the Chick-fil-A thing is that they've been an overtly Christian company since the beginning. The one in our town has huge posters hanging up about the WinShape, WinMarriage, WinWhatever programs they support and they've been up for years. I'm struggling with this being new information.

A friend and I have been talking about this and I think a lot of it has been facebook groupthink. No one is looking at particulars or at much logic.


----------



## snickerd3 (Jul 26, 2012)

engineergurl said:


> wonder what would happen if all the people who believed the same thing as Chic-Fil-a moved out of the city/county... and refused to buy anything there out of principal that their beliefs don't match with the cities...


most people don't care one way or the other...its just another restaurant.


----------



## mudpuppy (Jul 26, 2012)

csb said:


> I think what baffles me the most about the Chick-fil-A thing is that they've been an overtly Christian company since the beginning. The one in our town has huge posters hanging up about the WinShape, WinMarriage, WinWhatever programs they support and they've been up for years. I'm struggling with this being new information.
> 
> A friend and I have been talking about this and I think a lot of it has been facebook groupthink. No one is looking at particulars or at much logic.


I think it just blew up recently due to someone from Chick-fil-a going on record last week against gay people.


----------



## mudpuppy (Jul 26, 2012)

BTW, am I the only one who looks at their name and says "chick fill uh"?


----------



## engineergurl (Jul 26, 2012)

I wonder if there are any Christian book stores in the city... or Catholic churches for that matter... maybe those should be banned too since they don't align with the city's values....


----------



## snickerd3 (Jul 26, 2012)

^Ha lots of both!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Road Guy (Jul 26, 2012)

So is he going to direct staff to deny building and other permits to chic-fil-a?

I am pretty sure that wont hold up in court... I think it would be different if Chic-fil-a had a policy of not hiring gays or serving gays, but you cant discriminate based on someones religous beliefs, I beleive thats in the constitution somewhere (or it used to be  )


----------



## snickerd3 (Jul 26, 2012)

Chicago it notorius for denying permits for stores they don't like for whatever reason...Walmart, home depot, chik fil a is just another on the list. Most just move to the community next door and build because they are more than willing to take there money


----------



## mudpuppy (Jul 26, 2012)

It's funny (sad) how hate spead by one side just creates more hate on the other side and who wins in the end? No one.


----------



## engineergurl (Jul 26, 2012)

I haven't seen the statement that the CEO made, but was it hateful? I was under the impression that it was regarding a traditional family unit. There is much difference between being hateful and expressing your views regarding someones decisions that don't align with yours. Now I'm going to have to go try to find the statement he made...


----------



## RIP - VTEnviro (Jul 26, 2012)

snickerd3 said:


> engineergurl said:
> 
> 
> > wonder what would happen if all the people who believed the same thing as Chic-Fil-a moved out of the city/county... and refused to buy anything there out of principal that their beliefs don't match with the cities...
> ...


Pretty much my feeling on the matter.

It's popular for politicians to pick a flavor of the week and be outraged about it.


----------



## snickerd3 (Jul 26, 2012)

VTEnviro said:


> snickerd3 said:
> 
> 
> > engineergurl said:
> ...


That's pretty much my feeling on lots of matters...this, religion, whatever to each his own...just don't get all up in my face about yours.

People would probably think my parents are whack jobs...catholic family with a huge painting of budha hanging in the front hallway. It is a great piece of art my grandma brought back with her from one of her trips to asia.


----------



## mudpuppy (Jul 26, 2012)

> "We are very much supportive of the family -- the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that.
> 
> "We operate as a family business ... our restaurants are typically led by families; some are single. We want to do anything we possibly can to strengthen families. We are very much committed to that," Cathy emphasized.


It's the "implied superiority" that Benbo mentioned in another thread. If you aren't in a family and married to your first wife then you are obviously not worthy of them. Not only is this offensive to gays but I'd think it might be to anyone who has been divorced, never married, or, for that matter, female, since he is implying they will only franchise to men (married to their first WIVES).


----------



## csb (Jul 26, 2012)

But that second sentence negates that when he says the restaurants are* typically* led by families. I'm pretty sure our local Chick-Fil-A is owned by a single guy.


----------



## RIP - VTEnviro (Jul 26, 2012)

snickerd3 said:


> VTEnviro said:
> 
> 
> > snickerd3 said:
> ...


I'm divorced and from a mixed marriage, I'm sure they'd be thrilled to have me there. Remind me to lose some sleep about it tonight. :jerkit:


----------



## snickerd3 (Jul 26, 2012)

Chicago is a melting pot, you'd fit right in.


----------



## IlPadrino (Jul 26, 2012)

Sounds like discrimination to me... you shouldn't deny someone public benefits just because of they way they think legal thoughts.


----------



## Ble_PE (Jul 26, 2012)

I think it is just taking the words that someone said and looking for something to get offended or pissed of by. As a society we've become far too sensitive to what people say and are constantly looking for something to complain about.


----------



## FLBuff PE (Jul 26, 2012)

^You [email protected] take that back! I AM NOT too sensitive, you directionally challenged bastard!


----------



## Ble_PE (Jul 26, 2012)

FLBuff PE said:


> ^You [email protected] take that back! I AM NOT too sensitive, you directionally challenged bastard!


Well that's not very nice...


----------



## FLBuff PE (Jul 26, 2012)

[No message]


----------



## mudpuppy (Jul 26, 2012)

I'm really just stirring the pot a little. We haven't had a good argument in a while.

But today is my Friday so I don't really care.


----------



## csb (Jul 26, 2012)

FLBuff PE said:


> ^You [email protected] take that back! I AM NOT too sensitive, you directionally challenged bastard!


I like that this gives me the option to e-mail f at cking.com.

I could go for some chicken nuggets right now. I swear that's all the facebook drama has inspired me to do...eat MORE Chick-Fil-A. It's like a freaking ad campaign. I just keep thinking about it.


----------



## snickerd3 (Jul 26, 2012)

there is already a chick fill a in chicago owned by a women...this brewhaha is about a second store to be owned by someone else.


----------



## frazil (Jul 26, 2012)

csb said:


> FLBuff PE said:
> 
> 
> > ^You [email protected] take that back! I AM NOT too sensitive, you directionally challenged bastard!
> ...


That's how I felt after reading Fast Food Nation. I was really craving McDonald's for weeks afterwards, and I almost never eat fast food.


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Jul 26, 2012)

frazil said:


> csb said:
> 
> 
> > FLBuff PE said:
> ...


I watched the movie as well. I laughed so hard every time that idiot furk threw up that I was hoarse by the end of the film.


----------



## RIP - VTEnviro (Jul 26, 2012)

snickerd3 said:


> Chicago is a melting pot, you'd fit right in.


I liked the times I've visited. But, as you know, I'm not much of a city guy.


----------



## csb (Jul 26, 2012)

I also want a cigarette at the end of any given episode of Mad Men.


----------



## cdcengineer (Jul 26, 2012)

NOT THAT THERE'S ANYTHING WRONG WITH THAT. OR MAYBE THERE IS


----------



## goodal (Jul 26, 2012)

Road Guy said:


> I beleive thats in the constitution somewhere (or it used to be  )


It still is until they find a way to say that part is so antiquated it should be removed. If the CEO's religious beliefs are the only thing keeping this branch from getting a permit, I hope the CLA sues the crap out of ol' dead fish Emanuel.


----------



## engineergurl (Jul 27, 2012)

the article says that there are traffic "issues" as well...


----------



## YMZ PE (Jul 27, 2012)

csb said:


> I also want a cigarette at the end of any given episode of Mad Men.


Me too, but for different, Jon Hamm-related reasons.


----------



## McEngr (Jul 27, 2012)

mudpuppy said:


> It's funny (sad) how hate spead by one side just creates more hate on the other side and who wins in the end? No one.


I wouldn't call the CEO a hater - they just believe what the Bible says is true. That's the misinformation that exists out there - people who have never read the Bible read an article, media articles for yahoo and the like that spin information to grab readers, and then you have people posting about bad information that was never the intent of the spokesperson to begin with.

We live in the information age, but so many people believe they are knowledgable because they read about it online. We are so informed, but lack so much understanding - ridiculous.


----------



## rktman (Jul 27, 2012)

McEngr said:


> mudpuppy said:
> 
> 
> > It's funny (sad) how hate spead by one side just creates more hate on the other side and who wins in the end? No one.
> ...


Absolutely correct.


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Jul 27, 2012)

rktman said:


> McEngr said:
> 
> 
> > mudpuppy said:
> ...


Concur.


----------



## Road Guy (Jul 27, 2012)

I wonder if they will survive the Chic-fil-a Bowl? Might be going back to the peach bowl..

Im not a religous type, but believe its your right to have an opinion..

Of course the Bible also says that if your brother is married and he dies and you are not married its your duty to marry your brothers wife...


----------



## knight1fox3 (Jul 27, 2012)

snickerd3 said:


> That's pretty much my feeling on lots of matters...this, religion, whatever to each his own...just don't get all up in my face about yours.


Exactly! :thumbs:



csb said:


> I swear that's all the facebook drama has inspired me to do...eat MORE Chick-Fil-A.


No kidding! That's all FB seems to be these days. It has really become exhausting. If it isn't one political thing on there, it's another. Then everyone becomes an expert on the subject because they read some one-sided argument on the interwebz. I'm getting closer and closer to deleting my account.


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Jul 27, 2012)

What I find interesting about most political discussions on the web, is that there is a huge tendency of people who disagree with you to slap a label on you.

I guess people demonize what they don't understand.


----------



## McEngr (Jul 27, 2012)

Haven't you heard? Jesus was a bigot!


----------



## Dexman PE PMP (Jul 27, 2012)




----------



## engineergurl (Jul 27, 2012)

except I know for a fact that I was the one who said

"corn and red velvet cake don't mix." ~EG


----------



## wilheldp_PE (Jul 29, 2012)

I caught the end of a news story on NPR today that said the president and provost of a local university (don't know if it was Louisville or Kentucky) were going to stop eating at the Chick-fil-a on campus, and decide whether or not they will be allowed to renew their lease before next semester. Talk about an unprovoked over-reaction. I know that universities tend to be bastions of liberal thought, but damn...this is getting ridiculous.


----------



## MA_PE (Jul 29, 2012)

Capt Worley PE said:


> rktman said:
> 
> 
> > McEngr said:
> ...


Isn't this the same basis the militant muslims use to justify their jihads? They just believe whatever the Koran and their prophets say is true.


----------



## csb (Jul 30, 2012)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/r-clarke-cooper/chickfila-empty-calorie-d_b_1711185.html?utm_hp_ref=fb&amp;src=sp&amp;comm_ref=false


----------



## envirotex (Jul 30, 2012)

It's a sad state of affairs when Americans base their whole political affiliation on whether or not they will eat at Chick-Fil-A...


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Jul 30, 2012)

A few goos quotes on the subject from This Week with George Stephanopolous's Round Table discussion"



> WILL: It's a First Amendment issue that wouldn't last 10 seconds in court, to condition a government entitlement or privilege on the content of your political thought? Second, the head of Chick-fil-A is being excoriated by these people, by Rahm Emanuel, for example, for holding a view on marriage that the president held when he was elected in 2008.





> WILL: The gay rights isn't driving this. The gay rights movement is far too sensible. These are pandering, third-rate politicians pandering to them.





> LOESCH: Well, and here's the difference. You know, I support -- you know, I'm a Christian. I go to church on Sundays. I believe in traditional marriage, but I eat Oreos. I don't care that Oreo came out with a rainbow Oreo. Why didn't they do it sooner? Because it's like quadruple stuffed. I would have loved to have ate that.


----------



## rktman (Jul 30, 2012)

MA_PE said:


> Capt Worley PE said:
> 
> 
> > rktman said:
> ...


Read it and tell us if you think that's what it says. (Spoiler alert, the Bible (read in context) does not lead to violence against non believers). Your post will lead others to believe that Islam and Christianity are the same. That is exactly what McEngr was saying in his post about lack of understanding.


----------



## MA_PE (Jul 30, 2012)

The old testament is full of passages about smiting your enemies. I went through elementary and catholic high schools. For the hard core fundamentalists there is plenty of fodder for promoting things that the vast majority believe are "un-christian-like". The bible and even the pope by his constant stance of not accepting GLIBs basically say that gay folk are destined to hell.

My point was that to use the excuse to wrong others as "they just believe what the &lt;insert any religious creed here&gt; says is true" can be extrapolated to any vitually any "religion". It does not justify any of it. From "name-calling" all the way to "killing the masses".


----------



## rktman (Jul 30, 2012)

MA_PE said:


> The old testament is full of passages about smiting your enemies. I went through elementary and catholic high schools. For the hard core fundamentalists there is plenty of fodder for promoting things that the vast majority believe are "un-christian-like". The bible and even the pope by his constant stance of not accepting GLIBs basically say that gay folk are destined to hell.
> 
> My point was that to use the excuse to wrong others as "they just believe what the &lt;insert any religious creed here&gt; says is true" can be extrapolated to any vitually any "religion". It does not justify any of it. From "name-calling" all the way to "killing the masses".


Agreed, plenty of Old Testament violence and I agree that anyone can use whatever "religious" excuse they dream up. That was happening a lot before Christ arrived on the scene (i.e. pharisee's). But that was (and is) their own lack of understanding, not a commandment from the Christian Bible. I'm not a theologian, but we are living in post New Testament times, probably getting close (if not already halfway into) the Revelation period. We are not under Mosaic law at present. (again, I'm not a Theologian but just want to make sure whoever reads these posts do not infer something that is not really stated in the Bible).


----------



## MA_PE (Jul 30, 2012)

People interpret the printed word as commandments. The old testament is part of the "Christian Bible". I don't profess to know the Bible well enough to quote specific passages, but I believe that there are enough passages to support these radical points of view (albiet often taken out of context) but they are in fact actual quotes.

Using them this way is called propaganda and both sides good and evil are known to use it as an effective tool. Many times the people pushing this propaganda actually "just believe what the &lt;insert any religious creed here&gt; says is true" so I'm back to supporting my original comment. The opposing view will also never convince these hard-liners that they are misinterpreting things.


----------



## DVINNY (Jul 31, 2012)

I think the pastor at my church put it best when discussing a story from the old testament, he said:

"many people take the bible literally, and I think we need to take the bible seriously"

he did a great sermon about how each story in the bible has a good value in it, and a lesson to be learned from it, but came just shy of saying they aren't 100% factual. I think he is in touch with how most feel about it. I do admit to know people that say "well, it's in the bible", while taking the scripture out of context as well.


----------



## RIP - VTEnviro (Jul 31, 2012)

I think the gang on this board generally has pretty reasonable, informed opinions. I lurk around on a sci-fi board that is populated with a bunch of bleeding hearts that speak fluent Klingon that immediately get outraged anytime there is a social issue out there because I guess the mothership told them it's cool to be a martyr.

I can't stand those types, there is no reasoning with them, and it's why stories like these still have legs long after the fact.


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Jul 31, 2012)

I had a Sunday School teacher for a while that was pretty cool. He once said (and wasn't the Sunday School teacher soon thereafter) that the only reason anti-gay stuff was in the Bible was that one day [one of the disciples] was walking down the street, saw two gay guys kissing, and thought, "Man, that's gross. I'm going to write something about that." Came about the same time that I learned about the Apocrypha and how the Catholic Church had met hundreds of years ago to decide what books should and shouldn't be included.


----------



## rktman (Jul 31, 2012)

Sorry guys, I disagree with some of these viewpoints. I do take it literally/seriously and I don't believe that it was "corrupted" by the Catholic Church or by the Nicene Council or by the King himself. I'm sure their are some literary differences from the Hebrew to our modern KJV, but when you believe part of it is in error, the next question becomes "Which Part?". Just my 2c.


----------



## MGX (Jul 31, 2012)

^ The parts we don't like


----------



## mudpuppy (Jul 31, 2012)

^Exactly.


----------



## Dexman PE PMP (Jul 31, 2012)

If the Bible is the exact same as it was back when it was originally written, why is it called the King James Edition?

Here's one thought:



> In January 1604, King James VI of Scotland and I of England convened the Hampton Court Conference where a new English version was conceived in response to the perceived problems of the earlier translations as detected by the Puritans, a faction within the Church of England.James gave the translators instructions intended to guarantee that the new version would conform to the ecclesiology and reflect the episcopal structure of the Church of England and its belief in an ordained clergy.


http://en.wikipedia....g_James_Version (yeah, I understand it's wikipedia, so take it with a grain of salt)


----------



## engineergurl (Jul 31, 2012)

rktman said:


> Sorry guys, I disagree with some of these viewpoints. I do take it literally/seriously and I don't believe that it was "corrupted" by the Catholic Church or by the Nicene Council or by the King himself. I'm sure their are some literary differences from the Hebrew to our modern KJV, but when you believe part of it is in error, the next question becomes "Which Part?". Just my 2c.


Not all Christians follow the KJV. Generally speaking Catholic Bibles include deuterocanonical books which were removed in the King James Version.


----------



## wilheldp_PE (Jul 31, 2012)

We're having a company meeting tomorrow...catered by Chick-fil-A.


----------



## MA_PE (Jul 31, 2012)

* Definition of *_*DEUTEROCANONICAL*_

*:* of, relating to, or constituting the books of Scripture contained in the Septuagint but not in the Hebrew canon

deuterocanonical -

well that's really helpful...... :blink:


----------



## snickerd3 (Jul 31, 2012)

aka the first traslation of the old testment


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Jul 31, 2012)

Interesting reading...

http://www.pseudepigrapha.com/


----------



## engineergurl (Jul 31, 2012)

^^ I wonder who runs that web site


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Jul 31, 2012)

Kinda ironic, isn't it?


----------



## mudpuppy (Jul 31, 2012)

Some sort of secret plot by Romney no doubt.


----------



## Road Guy (Jul 31, 2012)

I think we should just go back to worshiping the sun, much simpler, less tithing involved, no sacrfices, no interpretations needed...

Sun came up today. Sun God is GOOD!


----------



## MGX (Jul 31, 2012)

Tell Sun God to knock it off. Its 108F today!


----------



## Road Guy (Jul 31, 2012)

Sun god disappointed with level of appreciation for such generosity...


----------



## pbrme (Jul 31, 2012)

MGX said:


> Tell Sun God to knock it off. Its 108F today!


I'm sending in reinforcements


----------



## RIP - VTEnviro (Jul 31, 2012)

Oh screw the Sun God, all hail Xenu!


----------



## Flyer_PE (Jul 31, 2012)

Road Guy said:


> Sun god disappointed with level of appreciation for such generosity...


Just got my power bill for July. Sun god's generosity is kind of expensive.


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Aug 1, 2012)

Flyer_PE said:


> Road Guy said:
> 
> 
> > Sun god disappointed with level of appreciation for such generosity...
> ...


Haven't gotten July's bill, but Sun God's June generosity was pretty expensive, I'm dreading the generosity bill for July.


----------



## DVINNY (Aug 1, 2012)

ALL HAIL ZOLTAN !


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Aug 1, 2012)

> *CHICAGO (CBS)*
> — The culture clash over Chick-Fil-A could come to a head on Wednesday, with supporters in Chicago and around the country turning out for an “appreciation day” first proposed by former Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee.
> ​


http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2012/08/01/chick-fil-a-supporters-to-turn-out-for-appreciation-day/


----------



## pbrme (Aug 1, 2012)

DVINNY said:


> ALL HAIL ZOLTAN !


"Zoltan"


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Aug 1, 2012)




----------



## DVINNY (Aug 2, 2012)

Well... they mocked us when we started wearing bubble wrap..... but who's laughing now huh?


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Aug 2, 2012)

I wonder if the lines at CFA are in any way indicative of what's going to happen at the polling places in November.


----------



## Dexman PE PMP (Aug 2, 2012)

Interesting take on things:

http://www.perrynoble.com/2012/08/01/ben-jerrys-chic-fil-a-political-correctness/


----------



## engineergurl (Aug 2, 2012)

that is actually the take on things held by many people that I know...


----------



## snickerd3 (Aug 2, 2012)

blocked for religion/idealogogy


----------



## snickerd3 (Aug 2, 2012)

so what does it say?


----------



## Dexman PE PMP (Aug 2, 2012)

> Let me begin by saying I absolutely LOVE Ben &amp; Jerry’s ice cream. (Gonna go ahead and tell you that Oatmeal Cookie Chunk is THE BEST flavor I’ve EVER had!!)
> 
> A few years ago I went to Wal Mart (the closest thing to hell I can imagine…that and the DMV), found my favorite flavor and decided to tweet that I was purchasing some Ben &amp; Jerry’s ice cream…and doing so “unleashed the hounds” in a sense. Honestly, I’ve never experienced anything like it, “Christians” began @ replying me on twitter condemning me and scolding me for buying this product because apparently Ben &amp; Jerry’s supported gay rights/same sex marriage.
> 
> ...


----------



## knight1fox3 (Aug 2, 2012)

^ Wow, a very good read. I especially like the end where he starts talking about Chick-Fil-A and what the CEO actually said.


----------



## MA_PE (Aug 2, 2012)

So this exchange about chik-fil-a was on another board I go to. The two lengthy posts are from the same guy with a comment in between.

I responded that American wasn't necessarily founded as a Christain country and the Pilgrims were fleeing religious persecution but from the church of England not necessarily as Christians (I recall them being Protestants). and the Amreican REvolution wasn't a "religious war" it was against taxes and oppression from a remote government.

Am I wrong here. I went to cathloic schools through high school and don't believe I was taught that the US was founded as a "Christian country"

It might be that I equate "Christian" with "Roman Catholic" but all this Christianity talk is making my head spin.



> > Being gay and wanting to be married is like having no super powers and wanting to be a superhero. Just because you want something to be doesn't mean it can be. Marriage is a vow to God that one woman and one man shall be bound in Holy matrimony til death do you part. Now it is written that God disapproves of homosexuality and so do the laws of nature. We don't look at retards as normal. We look at retards as ~. Since it will never be normal for people to be homosexuals then why would we say it is nornmal? Homosexuals make up less than 2%. Sorry, but 2% does not set the rule. Maybe when homosexuality becomes greater than 49% they will have a case to argue but until then.
> > So with this said, agreeing with homosexual marriage is an attack on religion. Why can we not attack other peoples religion but the Christians and Jews are always being attacked?
> >
> > If you are a Christian then you know you are not more powerful than God so those who are not real Christians would be the ones who whould challange God, and say God is wrong.
> ...





> It's a shame that it appears you are not knowledgeable when it comes to American History. This is a Christian country. There is no such law that was ever written that says seperation of Church and state. This country's entire foundation is built on religion and has been written everywhere that we must follow God. This is a fact unlike the saying of seperation of church and state. All our forefathers said is that we would not establish a religion. This is so that we do not punish other people's religion. Being an atheist is the lack of a religion and being homosexual is not a religion. But, this country was and still is a Christian Nation. This is why our government recognizes marriage and our laws are based off the 10 commandments. Religion is why it's against the law to have more than one spouse, steal, murder, and have sex with family members or sex with animals and until recently same sex. I do not condone any of these but religion is why they are against the law. So if gay marriage is okay then lets throw out the rest of the laws. I should be able to have more than one wife and claim them all for tax purposes.
> You see I'm not saying a human being no matter what their sexual preference should be punished. If you're gay then so what pay the same in taxes as a married couple, or have visitation in hospitals, collect estates without being penalized, and same goes for retirement.
> 
> Problem is is that they want to claim married as well. You see they are not fighting for civil unions. They are fighting for the religios ceremony of Marriage.
> ...


----------



## MA_PE (Aug 2, 2012)

FWIW: this is what I wrote back to him, and the quote below is his response. Just kind of doing a sanity check, Is my recollection of Amercan History that bad?

I believe this country was founded due to religious persecution, but it was for freedom from the church of England and not for "Christianity" per se but for the Protestants. I do not recall the Pilgrims being Christians. The colonies then formed the the states due to freedom from taxes, not necessarily on a religious basis.

The constitution guarentees "freedom from religious persecution" but does not specify that it is established to solely Chistianity.

Lastly, all the hub bub about recognizing gay marriage is for a legal acceptance of same-sex marriage so (as previously stated) same-sex couples can get all of the same benefits and as "other married couples". It is civil union that's being pushed not a religious union.

Personally, I'm not in favor of equating same-sex couples with a traditional male-female/family couple. But I think we all need to keep to the facts and not confuse the facts with opinions.......and this has/should have nuttin' to do wit a chicken sammich.



> You may want to get a real education on history if you are going to try and teach it to others. You're statements are wrong per fact not per me. Get your facts straight first.Did you just really question if Pilgirms were Christian? WOW!!! Enough said. Take care good buddy and enjoy your chicken sammich!


----------



## Dexman PE PMP (Aug 2, 2012)

Although the basis of this video is about the election, the points about "Christianity" apply here as well. Essentially "Christianity" is a magical word used to bind all types of New Testament-based religions together in order to gain a stronger "religious" argument.

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJGxVeQw3SE&amp;feature=youtube_gdata_player


----------



## mudpuppy (Aug 2, 2012)

I had an argument with someone once where they claimed Catholics weren't Christian. My view is anyone that believes in Christ as the savior is christian, the rest is just dogma/details.


----------



## engineergurl (Aug 2, 2012)

Protestants and Puritans are Christians... I was under the understanding during the 16th century when King James started making changes to the Church of England was when the reformations occurred... the Pilgrims were then persecuted for holding a more pure (hence Puritans) view of the religious rites, scriptures and traditions and fled England not just to America but to other countries as well.

Regardless--- Protestants (Methodists, Baptists, Lutherans), Eastern Orthodox, and Catholics are all Christian Religions


----------



## mudpuppy (Aug 2, 2012)

Dex's quote lost me at the first sentence, "I went to Wal-Mart to buy Ben &amp; Jerry's". &lt;shudder&gt;

Good grief, those are two of the very few brands I will not patronize. Wal-mart due to being evil, poor quality and so forth and Ben &amp; Jerry's for being against nuclear power.

But hey, the author has every right to shop for B&amp;J at W-M if they so choose.


----------



## engineergurl (Aug 2, 2012)

mudpuppy said:


> Dex's quote lost me at the first sentence, "I went to Wal-Mart to buy Ben &amp; Jerry's". &lt;shudder&gt;
> 
> Good grief, those are two of the very few brands I will not patronize. Wal-mart due to being evil, poor quality and so forth and Ben &amp; Jerry's for being against nuclear power.
> 
> But hey, the author has every right to shop for B&amp;J at W-M if they so choose.


It's actually a very good blog article...


----------



## engineergurl (Aug 2, 2012)

MA- I think that I would actually probably be more focused on the guys statement about (I cringe even typing this word because I CAN'T STAND it when people use it) "retards" ... WTF is that all about?


----------



## MA_PE (Aug 2, 2012)

Thanks for the opinions. I'm almost as sick of hearing about "Christians" as i am about the "gay rights" people as far as the chik-fil-a saga is concerned.



engineergurl said:


> MA- I think that I would actually probably be more focused on the guys statement about (I cringe even typing this word because I CAN'T STAND it when people use it) "retards" ... WTF is that all about?


Well, these guys are not a necessarily sophisticated group like the EBer's. That's about all I can say about that. Of course, it's just a word, that over time has become a derogatory term. As is often the case a term that is originally used simply to describe a person morphs into a slur. I thought it was originally developed as a clinical terms and a quick interent search provided this link which supports my suspicions. Intersting read, which obviously some "Christians" like the dope above could benefit from.

http://www.washingto...0021103896.html


----------



## MGX (Aug 2, 2012)

The word retarded bothered me as well; that is until I found the Association of Retarded Citizens, a federally-recognized non profit. If they use the word retarded in their name I don't mind using it either. Furthermore, the word retarded* IS* the politically correct term since retarded replaced the words cretin, moron, etc. If the word gets replaced again the concept entirely will be on the euphemism treadmill for eternity.


----------



## Dexman PE PMP (Aug 2, 2012)

The problem lies not with the word itself, but rather the meaning given to it by the person saying it.

Dumbass is not a bad word, but if you say it to RG on a day he hasn't had his coffee...


----------



## wilheldp_PE (Aug 2, 2012)

MGX said:


> The word retarded bothered me as well; that is until I found the Association of Retarded Citizens, a federally-recognized non profit. If they use the word retarded in their name I don't mind using it either. Furthermore, the word retarded* IS* the politically correct term since retarded replaced the words cretin, moron, etc. If the word gets replaced again the concept entirely will be on the euphemism treadmill for eternity.


"Colored People" doesn't fly any more despite the existence of the NAACP. Just sayin'.


----------



## engineergurl (Aug 2, 2012)

I think the word bothers me most is because I trained myself not to use it. A very good friend of mine has a daughter who is now in her early 20's but who only developed to about the mental capacity of about a 10-12 year old. The daughter loves with out fault and with out judgement but the word hurts her... it also bothers her mother because of that hurt... and it bothers me because of it as well.

I can utilize the word retard in a scientific sense and in reference to traffic with no issues, but when referring to another human being, I picture her face full of hurt when she overheard it. I usually only tell my close friends that it bothers me... and I tend to ignore the people I overhear or that I don't have to deal with on a regular basis.

But that post was from someone preaching... and they said that we would never look at them as normal. Perhaps mentally challanged, mentally handicapped or "retards" (yes I just cringed)... won't seem normal to someone who isn't exposed to them on a regular basis, but to those people who deal with the challenges every day... it is normal. Which is the same with homosexuality, or being of a different ethicnic background, skin color, sex, etc etc etc

I think my point is, the dude from chick-fil-a was asked a question, and he answered honestly. Gay people live their lives honestly being true to who they are. (I will admit that I'm not being politically correct there because I can't remember the correct term). Isn't being honest more important than pretending? I try very hard to hear from all sides when I have a difference of opinion of something, because even if I don't agree with the persons statement or opinion, I feel like they should have the chance to educate me in something I don't understand or don't have experience first hand.

We can all form our own opinions, but what it comes down to is "the only right we are given on this earth is the air we breath, the rest we have to earn" (I love that quote).


----------



## EM_PS (Aug 2, 2012)

Not for nothing...

Treaty of Tripoli



> Article 11Article 11 has been a point of contention in disputes on the doctrine of separation of church and state as it applies to the founding principles of the United States. Some religious spokesmen such as David Barton claim variously that — despite unanimous ratification by the U.S. Senate in English — the text which appears as Article 11 in the English translation does not appear in the Arabic text of the treaty,[14] that though the English phrase is not an untrue statement since it is referring to the federal government, a number of the founders described America as a Christian nation,[9] or that the quotation is based on an incomplete reading of Article 11.[16]
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Founded on religion? Whatever you choose to believe, spindoctors have been around a long-ass time


----------



## DVINNY (Aug 2, 2012)

MA_PE said:


> .....the Pilgrims were fleeing religious persecution ....... and the Amreican REvolution wasn't a "religious war" it was against taxes and oppression from a remote government.


hmmmmmm. sounds familiar. Maybe another revolution is coming then.



Dexman PE said:


> The problem lies not with the word itself, but rather the meaning given to it by the person saying it.
> 
> Dumbass is not a bad word, but if you say it to RG on a day he hasn't had his coffee...


gotta let it go man, gotta let it go.



wilheldp_PE said:


> MGX said:
> 
> 
> > The word retarded bothered me as well; that is until I found the Association of Retarded Citizens, a federally-recognized non profit. If they use the word retarded in their name I don't mind using it either. Furthermore, the word retarded* IS* the politically correct term since retarded replaced the words cretin, moron, etc. If the word gets replaced again the concept entirely will be on the euphemism treadmill for eternity.
> ...


^^ Tell that to just about everyone in this state over 80 years old


----------



## wilheldp_PE (Aug 2, 2012)

DVINNY said:


> wilheldp_PE said:
> 
> 
> > "Colored People" doesn't fly any more despite the existence of the NAACP. Just sayin'.
> ...


Old people tend not to give a shit what other people think about what they say.


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Aug 3, 2012)

FWIW, the federal government is removing the word 'retarded' from education related laws/paperwork/etc and forcing the states to do likewise.

Retarded used to be the general umbrella that idiots, imbeciles, and morons fell under. They used to be legimate clinical terms describing IQ level.

And there is no 'separation of church and state. here's the first ammendment:



> *Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;* or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


But the lawyers have stretched that beyond all recognition.

And, as for gay marraiage, they can still avail themselves of all the legal 'benefits' of marraige, they just can't do it in one fell swoop. You can do the same thing with anyone, really. Just a bit more of a PITA.


----------



## mudpuppy (Aug 3, 2012)

Capt Worley PE said:


> And, as for gay marriage, they can still avail themselves of all the legal 'benefits' of marraige, they just can't do it in one fell swoop. You can do the same thing with anyone, really. Just a bit more of a PITA.


Really? How does a homosexual couple file taxes as 'married' without the IRS knocking on their door demanding more money?


----------



## MA_PE (Aug 3, 2012)

thanks for the input. EM , as I expected there is enough fodder out there to support whatever point of view someone wants to adopt. However, in the end it's "freedom of speech" that let's everyone spout their rhetoric about a particular point of view. The US government/legal system tries to simply support the right of someone to say their POV, which inevitably gets interpreted as supporting the cause.


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Aug 3, 2012)

mudpuppy said:


> Capt Worley PE said:
> 
> 
> > And, as for gay marriage, they can still avail themselves of all the legal 'benefits' of marraige, they just can't do it in one fell swoop. You can do the same thing with anyone, really. Just a bit more of a PITA.
> ...


What is the benefit of doing so? I haven't found any tax benefit to being married.

If the Bush tax cuts aren't renewed, the marriage penalty will return, and it will actually be better to be unmarried.


----------



## MA_PE (Aug 3, 2012)

Capt Worley PE said:


> What is the benefit of doing so? I haven't found any tax benefit to being married.
> 
> If the Bush tax cuts aren't renewed, the marriage penalty will return, and it will actually be better to be unmarried.


so is there any benefit to being married?


----------



## mudpuppy (Aug 3, 2012)

Capt Worley PE said:


> mudpuppy said:
> 
> 
> > Capt Worley PE said:
> ...


We've had the discussion over and over on here.

There very often is a huge advantage to being married, but it depends on the income of the two individuals. If the one of the spouses doesn't work or has a much lower income than the other, it can be tax advantageous to file married. If, for instance, I had a wife who didn't work it would lower my tax bill by about $9,000. Approximately in half. (edit: and that's just federal).

I agree, however, that if both spouses are high earners it can be a detriment.

In any case, gay couples do not have this option. There are other things they cannot find ways around too, like employer health care benefits. My company doesn't recognized domestic partners.

Personally, I think there shouldn't be a tax distinction for married couples, and companies shouldn't pay married people more in benefits just because they're married.


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Aug 3, 2012)

MA_PE said:


> Capt Worley PE said:
> 
> 
> > What is the benefit of doing so? I haven't found any tax benefit to being married.
> ...


Not on taxes, no.



mudpuppy said:


> Capt Worley PE said:
> 
> 
> > mudpuppy said:
> ...


I'm not being snotty, but explain to me how that works. Because when I did the numbers for the very same situation you listed, just for kicks, we would have been far better off if we were single filing separately. What did I miss?


----------



## Dexman PE PMP (Aug 3, 2012)

When my wife was in school and not working, our taxes were SIGNIFICANTLY lower by filing jointly. Basically because she wasn't working, she had no income and thus did not owe any taxes. By filing jointly, I essentially added a dependent without adding any additional income.


----------



## MA_PE (Aug 3, 2012)

Capt Worley PE said:


> MA_PE said:
> 
> 
> > Capt Worley PE said:
> ...


you didn't answer the question.


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Aug 3, 2012)

Dexman PE said:


> When my wife was in school and not working, our taxes were SIGNIFICANTLY lower by filing jointly. Basically because she wasn't working, she had no income and thus did not owe any taxes. By filing jointly, I essentially added a dependent without adding any additional income.


That may be true, but I found myself in the weird donut hole where I could itemize deductions to well over the single standrd deduction but not the married standard deduction.



MA_PE said:


> Capt Worley PE said:
> 
> 
> > MA_PE said:
> ...


Because the answer would be vastly different for each person.


----------



## engineergurl (Aug 3, 2012)

Capt Worley PE said:


> That may be true, but I found myself in the weird donut hole where I could itemize deductions to well over the single standrd deduction but not the married standard deduction.


us too


----------



## EM_PS (Aug 3, 2012)

This shit's getting out of control -

On W. MI direct sell corporation, Amway:



> ADA, MI - A leading national gay rights activist announced he is launching on Amway boycott three years after the direct selling giant's president donated $500,000 to a conservative group that has worked to ban gay marriage.
> Amway's founding families have never been shy about their conservative views. They have given to many conservatives causes over the years including the Republican party.
> 
> Karger's press release hints that he wants to pressure Amway - which had sales of $10.9 billion last year - *to make amends by donating to organizations that support gay rights**.*
> ...


 :blink: 
http://www.mlive.com...ctivist_de.html


----------



## mudpuppy (Aug 3, 2012)

Who would buy from Amway anyway? They're vastly overpriced.


----------



## mudpuppy (Aug 3, 2012)

Capt Worley PE said:


> I'm not being snotty, but explain to me how that works. Because when I did the numbers for the very same situation you listed, just for kicks, we would have been far better off if we were single filing separately. What did I miss?


Ok, let's say you have $10,000 in deductions (that's in between the single standard deduction and the married standard deduction).

Also let's say you make $80,000 gross and your wife makes $0.

Filing singly, your AGI is $80,000 - $10,000 (deductions) - $3,700 (exemption) = $66,300. The single tax on this is $12,706.

Wife's tax is $0, so total is $12,706.

Filing married, your AGI is $80,000 - $11,300 (standard deduction) - $7,400 (2 exemptions) = $61,300. The married tax on this is $8,349 or 35% lower.

This is based on 2011 tax tables, available here:  http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i1040tt.pdf The brackets/formulas are at the very end of the document. Since the married tax brackets are much wider, you are taxing the same amount of money at much lower rates. I think the effect becomes much more pronounced at the higher tax brackets, and much less as the two spouses incomes approach parity. I think it goes away and becomes a detriment as total income of the couple goes way up.


----------



## engineergurl (Aug 3, 2012)

ahhh, but I am pretty sure your fictional wife probably cost more than the savings.


----------



## Dexman PE PMP (Aug 3, 2012)

Yeah, I'm pretty sure my wife is A LOT more expensive than the $3,700 deduction. So are my kids...


----------



## goodal (Aug 3, 2012)

Reading through this one, I intended on commenting on the Bible stuff. However, I'm afraid its so far derailed there is no use anymore.


----------



## csb (Aug 3, 2012)

^ I know, right? mudpuppy all pulled out math and he should know no one around here is good at that sort of thing.

We ate at Chick-Fil-A last night. Today I equated to a one-night stand. It was pretty awesome last night, but now I feel remorseful.


----------



## EM_PS (Aug 3, 2012)

mudpuppy said:


> Who would buy from Amway anyway? They're vastly overpriced.


Just shy of $11billion - somebody's buying.

Point being, one "national" :f_115m_e45d7af: activist can declare war simply because a corporation donated to a cause which it feels strongly about and runs counter to said activists beliefs. Not illegal I suppose, but unethical certainly.


----------



## engineergurl (Aug 3, 2012)

the world is supposed to end in a few months...


----------



## mudpuppy (Aug 3, 2012)

EM_PS said:


> mudpuppy said:
> 
> 
> > Who would buy from Amway anyway? They're vastly overpriced.
> ...


Yeah, and that scares me more than anything else in this thread. Amway is like a giant pyramid scheme.


----------



## DVINNY (Aug 3, 2012)

Had my Chick-Fil-A last night, great stuff.

Will go get more tomorrow. 

only because I'm offended by people who are always offended.

but back to the original title of this thread. Did the owner of C-F-A actually make an anti- anything comment? I'm asking. Because if he made a PRO-traditional marriage comment, that DOES NOT equal a hate statement against the other. I'm confused about what this is even all about.


----------



## Flyer_PE (Aug 4, 2012)

The sad part of all of this is that, at its base, gay marriage isn't the issue. It's simply the catalyst. The issue isn't what the C-F-A owner said, it's about the idea that a government official feels the need to deny a company the ability to conduct a perfectly legal business simply because the owner has expressed an opinion that is in disagreement with his views. If an individual doesn't like the positions taken or the ideals supported by any non-governmental entity (corporation, entertainer, any idiot with a microphone...), that individual is perfectly free to react. That reaction can take on many forms ranging from not patronizing the entity in question to organizing boycotts or any other peaceful method of promoting opposing opinions. My problem with people like Rahm Emanuel isn't their positions on the issues, it's that rather than simply promoting a competing view, they immediately resort to using governmental power to silence the opposition.


----------



## benbo (Aug 4, 2012)

Well, up the street from us there was a remarkable showing of appreciation for free speech rights-

http://www.huffingto..._n_1738807.html

I love the way this guy characterizes the tagging. "It's just paint". Hey, it's private property.

It reminds me of the "Stop the Church" incident when a group of gay and wpomen's rights activists disrupted services at a church in New York - going in and tearing up a bunch of stuff in the church. not to mention desecrating sacred observances which are at least improtant to the people in the church. They filmed this and PBS was going to air it, not as an example of what not to do, but in a supportive manner. I was a regular donor to the local PBS statiion up until then, and quit. Boy, did they kiss my ass trying to get my donations back (and it wasn't really that much).

It was a vile film depicting a particularly nasty act in a positive light, but even so I was fine with them showing it. Even on government sponsored TV. I just wasn't going to support it.


----------



## Dexman PE PMP (Aug 4, 2012)

DVINNY said:


> but back to the original title of this thread. Did the owner of C-F-A actually make an anti- anything comment? I'm asking. Because if he made a PRO-traditional marriage comment, that DOES NOT equal a hate statement against the other. I'm confused about what this is even all about.


No, he only stated that he supports traditional marriage. That's it.


----------



## DVINNY (Aug 5, 2012)

^^ That is what I have heard.

Well, guess what..... I only support traditional marriage too. Maybe I'm setting myself up for protests. This whole thing is stupid. I'm entitled to my opinion. I have friends and family members that are gay, but it doesn't change my viewpoint, nor should it. I have my own thoughts, and they have theirs. I'm not boycotting any of thier businesses.

I think smoking is vile, disgusting, and should be fully banned publicly. I have friends and family that smoke. It doesn't change my opinion of smoking, and I still love my friends/family that smoke, but don't agree with that one aspect of their lives. Shit in life isn't always black and white, but some can grasp that concept.

Matter of fact, on Yahoo News today, it said that many gay couples were staging Kiss-ins at Chick-fil-A locations today. I hope they are all arrested for harrasment. I think that if me and my wife, and many other man/wife couples lined up outside of the local gay bar to stage a display of how we are not of the same lifestyle/opinions, and staged such an event, we would all be arrested for harrasment.

Fair is fair..... Or I guess it isn't.


----------



## RIP - VTEnviro (Aug 5, 2012)

I don't agree with everything you said, but thank you for having an opinion and standing by it. It's a lost art in this ultra PC era.


----------



## mudpuppy (Aug 5, 2012)

DVINNY said:


> Matter of fact, on Yahoo News today, it said that many gay couples were staging Kiss-ins at Chick-fil-A locations today. I hope they are all arrested for harrasment. I think that if me and my wife, and many other man/wife couples lined up outside of the local gay bar to stage a display of how we are not of the same lifestyle/opinions, and staged such an event, we would all be arrested for harrasment.


Seriously? It's ok for the CFA boss to exercise his right to freedom of speech, but not for the people he's speaking out against? Do you think MLK's sit-in protesters should have been arrested too? Who else should be arrested, everyone who doesn't agree with you?

And besides, if you wanted to stage a protest outside a gay bar, you shouldn't--and probably wouldn't--be arrested. There's already religious people going around staging protests at military funerals saying "God hates fags." So feel free.


----------



## DVINNY (Aug 5, 2012)

^^^ those aren't true "religious" people, they just say they are.

But I notice how they are too often described, as you just did, as being representitives for the religious.


----------



## benbo (Aug 5, 2012)

> Do you think MLK's sit-in protesters should have been arrested too? Who else should be arrested, everyone who doesn't agree with you?


I hate to break it to you, but protestors are arrested all the time. Legally and correctly so. In many cases they want to be arrested. You are not allowed to chain yourself to the gate of a nuclear plant and impede ingress and egress, or to "occupy" somebody's private office. Just like there are limits to where the reverend Fred Phelps can take his band of real haters, there are lmitis to how and where anyone can protest. You have the right to free speech but you don't have the right to disrupt business on private property, or place other people in harms ways as a result of your protest. Many of the "Occupy" movement protestors were ultimately required to move their ridiculous encampments. THank God because I had to pass by a huge smelly obnoxious one every day for a while. I deal with protestors in front of my building virtually weekly, many I stop to talk to or take papers from. But some are really annoying and get away with a lot but they are not allowed to prevent us from entering or intimidate us. We are allowed to do our work.

In the case of people maknig out in a Chick Fila - I don't think Chick Fila indicated they would do anythig about it. As long as the gay couples were not doing anything really lewd I can't see how they could be kicked out. If couples, gay or straight,, do something really offensive I think there is a point where the restaurant can ask them to leave. I'm not sure of the legality. But there is a point I'm sure. I just think they have to treat both gay and straight equally.


----------



## DVINNY (Aug 5, 2012)

^^^ With that said,

If I were obnoxiously "making out" with my wife in the middle of Chick-fil-A (as stupid as that even sounds) then I would expect to be asked to leave for our inappropriate behavior.

It's a freakin' fast food restaurant, not a pay by the hour hotel.

of course, we do not participate in PDA beyond the less than occasional peck on the cheek as we depart, etc. I think that public settings are not the place for it.


----------



## MA_PE (Aug 5, 2012)

^ Bingo. I classify it as lewd and lascivious behavior. It not like they were kissing out of affection. They were doing it to specifically to incite people and that's wrong, doesn't matter if it's M/F, M/M (F/F is ok by me)


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Aug 6, 2012)

mudpuppy said:


> Capt Worley PE said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not being snotty, but explain to me how that works. Because when I did the numbers for the very same situation you listed, just for kicks, we would have been far better off if we were single filing separately. What did I miss?
> ...


OK, I concede there are rare cases when you may actually be ahead.


----------



## mudpuppy (Aug 6, 2012)

The "rare" case when a spouse stays home with the kids? Seems like about half my coworkers do/did that.


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Aug 6, 2012)

mudpuppy said:


> The "rare" case when a spouse stays home with the kids? Seems like about half my coworkers do/did that.


I wish more did here.

But, it is very rare here, as is the pay rate mentioned in the example.


----------



## YMZ PE (Aug 6, 2012)

Capt Worley PE said:


> mudpuppy said:
> 
> 
> > The "rare" case when a spouse stays home with the kids? Seems like about half my coworkers do/did that.
> ...


Please elaborate?


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Aug 6, 2012)

YMZ PE said:


> Capt Worley PE said:
> 
> 
> > mudpuppy said:
> ...


I wish more families had one parent that stayed home with the kids, at least until they went to school. That is a very important time in child development, and I just feel the kid, family, community, society (in a cascade) would be better off if more parents chose to do this.

Unfortunately, my area also has a majority of babies born out of wedlock, so we probably have other fish to fry.


----------



## Master slacker (Aug 6, 2012)

Capt Worley PE said:


> I wish more families had one parent that stayed home with the kids, at least until they went to school. That is a very important time in child development, and I just feel the kid, family, community, society (in a cascade) would be better off if more parents chose to do this.


Concur.

We're doing that right now. We refuse to let anyone have more child-rearing / face time with our kids than us. Mama's there for every zoo trip, museum trip, meal, nap, head bump, storytime, park visit, walk, etc...


----------



## YMZ PE (Aug 6, 2012)

My parents both worked. I turned out fabulously.


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Aug 6, 2012)

YMZ PE said:


> My parents both worked. I turned out fabulously.


Not saying you didn't.

You asked me to elaborate, I did.


----------



## Master slacker (Aug 6, 2012)

YMZ PE said:


> My parents both worked. I turned out fabulously.


That's your opinion. 

Seriously, though, I try not to judge anyone in this matter. Everyone has their reasons and choices for when they work. It just happens that I agree with the Capt.


----------



## Dexman PE PMP (Aug 6, 2012)

On the flip side, there are some kids who are better off with as little face time with their parents as possible...


----------



## YMZ PE (Aug 6, 2012)

Master slacker said:


> Seriously, though, I try not to judge anyone in this matter. Everyone has their reasons and choices for when they work. It just happens that I agree with the Capt.


OK, that's good to hear. Sometimes this POV can be perceived as judgmental...I'd like any working moms who happen to be reading this thread to know that they have nothing to feel guilty about.


----------



## RIP - VTEnviro (Aug 6, 2012)

My theory: there's more than one way to skin a cat. Do what works for you, your spouse, and your kid.

It's nobody's elses business.


----------



## engineergurl (Aug 6, 2012)

I'm a product of a SAHM and I'm a hell raiser...

actually, my Mother never got her drivers license, so it was my Dad who was there for every dental appt, every flute lesson, every field hockey event, dance lesson, art lesson, girl scout meeting, he came and picked me up anytime I got sick at school... even through college, he would come visit me and hang out at the bars and leave Mom home. And I started pre-school at 2 years (half days, then full days at 3 years) and kindergarten at 4 years so I really don't have many memories of spending much time with my Mom until high school when she would wait up for me until I got home from where ever and we would watch the Grand Ole Opry and the Statler Brothers until who like 1 am...


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Aug 6, 2012)

Dexman PE said:


> On the flip side, there are some kids who are better off with as little face time with their parents as possible...


That's the dang truth.



YMZ PE said:


> Master slacker said:
> 
> 
> > Seriously, though, I try not to judge anyone in this matter. Everyone has their reasons and choices for when they work. It just happens that I agree with the Capt.
> ...


That view isn't judgemental at all. Just my thoughts. I do think that generally speaking society would be much better off if at least one parent, and I prefer the mother, because I think they are a bit better at rasing kids, stays home with the kids rather sending them to a day care where Lord knows what goes on. As always, YMMV.

A working mother should feel neither guilty nor vindicated by my opinion.



VTEnviro said:


> My theory: there's more than one way to skin a cat. Do what works for you, your spouse, and your kid.
> 
> It's nobody's elses business.


Agreed, up until the point somebody else has to pay for it.


----------



## DVINNY (Aug 6, 2012)

This is something that my wife and I have struggled with, but came to the conclusion that both of us working is the better scenario for us.

Reasons:

1. my wife has always been the higher wage earner, and I didn't want to stay home. 

2. She has always had guilt about 'missing time' with them, but said she feels that she needs her career to feel balanced.

3. We figured that we could easily live off of my salary, and her stay home for the young years, but with her earning a nice salary, we could save up more for later in life.

We ultimately decided that by both working, we would be in a much better financial situation to help our kids out in the future.

A good possible example: We may have enough money to retire early and be the free daycare for our grandkids, that would save the $1,600 a month that we pay. I'm sure our kids will appreciate that at the time as much as they'd appreciate a zoo trip now.

BTW, we still take them on a family vacation every year, and do many weekend trips to zoo's, parks, etc. My wife is home by 3:30 in the afternoon, and they get home from school at 2:50. I don't think that extra 40 minutes a day is worth giving up $100k per year.

Basically, I agree fully with what VTE said above.

_Disclaimer: as a conservative, I many times wish that things were the way they were in the 50's and 60's, when a single income household was the norm, but those days are gone. Although, I still hold out hope it can somehow get close to that again. For the simplistic reasons of it, not because I think a woman's place is in the home or anything. _


----------



## Master slacker (Aug 6, 2012)

Can we get back to hot lesbians making out?


----------



## csb (Aug 6, 2012)

And the delicious chicken nuggets?


----------



## Master slacker (Aug 6, 2012)

Yeah, I guess so. That's cool, too.


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Aug 6, 2012)

The grilled chicken club is da bomb, but the regular sammich has it beat on a cost/benefit ratio.


----------



## YMZ PE (Aug 6, 2012)

Love me some waffle cut fries.


----------



## DVINNY (Aug 6, 2012)

Let's just combine topics.....

when the gay couple has kids, who stays home from work to take them for lunch at Chick-fil-A ?

(I know, I know, very insensitive joke)


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Aug 6, 2012)

YMZ PE said:


> Love me some waffle cut fries.


I used to absolutely loathe them, but after a while got used to them. I'd still prefer regular cut fries, but it is a pretty cool idea and everyone associates it immediately with CFA.


----------



## snickerd3 (Aug 6, 2012)

^ not everyone does...I don't...I love waffle fries and have since I was a kid no association to anything really


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Aug 6, 2012)

^I'm guessing differences in regional culture...never even heard of waffle fries until I visited CFA.


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Aug 6, 2012)

As an aside, Columbia SC's first CFA closed after 40 years.

http://columbiaclosings.com/wordpress/?p=1324


----------



## YMZ PE (Aug 6, 2012)

I hate that Chick-fil-A is closed on Sundays. We go out to eat after church with several other families, but we can never go to CFA which stinks because it's one of the few restaurants all 20+ kids would want to go to.


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Aug 6, 2012)

When i was a kid (back in my day...), even gas stations were closed on Sunday. Nothing was open. It was like the end of the world when they started Sunday sales in the early eighites. Preachers had something to moan about for a few years when that happened.


----------



## Dexman PE PMP (Aug 6, 2012)

Capt Worley PE said:


> When i was a kid (back in my day...), even gas stations were closed on Sunday. Nothing was open. It was like the end of the world when they started Sunday sales in the early eighites. Preachers had something to moan about for a few years when that happened.


Most of my hometown (small mountain community of approx 3000 people), is entirely shut down on Sundays (minus the gas stations and grocery store). Hell, it's a ghost town after 5 pm...


----------



## engineergurl (Aug 6, 2012)

a lot of what is very local to my house is closed on Sundays, but I only have to drive a few miles into a larger community to get to the chain stores and they are open


----------



## MA_PE (Aug 6, 2012)

I believe the Blue Laws started in MA with the Puritans. I too can remember when virtually all retailers were closed on Sunday. It's only been within the last 10 years that liquor stores have been open on Sundays around here. and unlike some places all beer and wine is sold through the liquor stores


----------



## snickerd3 (Aug 6, 2012)

there are many places in our town that are open sunday but closed on Monday.


----------



## Master slacker (Aug 6, 2012)

We're heathens down here. One can buy alcohol on Sunday.


----------



## DVINNY (Aug 6, 2012)

snickerd3 said:


> there are many places in our town that are open sunday but closed on Monday.


^^^ Do they worship ZOLTAN????

ZOLTAN !


----------



## knight1fox3 (Aug 6, 2012)

snickerd3 said:


> ^ not everyone does...I don't...I love waffle fries and have since I was a kid no association to anything really





Capt Worley PE said:


> ^I'm guessing differences in regional culture...never even heard of waffle fries until I visited CFA.


Probably a mid-west thing. You can go into any local bar in WI and get waffle fries. They certainly aren't restaurant specific around here.


----------



## EM_PS (Aug 6, 2012)

^True. Ain't no CFA's up here anyways. And IMO waffle fries are a waste of good potato. Give me steak fries everytime.


----------



## snickerd3 (Aug 6, 2012)

waffle fries, steak fries, crinkle cut...any cut as long as it is potato is AWESOME....just not sweet potato...


----------



## Master slacker (Aug 6, 2012)

snickerd3 said:


> waffle fries, steak fries, crinkle cut...any cut as long as it is potato is AWESOME....*just not sweet potato*...


GASP! hmy:


----------



## engineergurl (Aug 6, 2012)

obviously she's never had sweet potato pie


----------



## Master slacker (Aug 7, 2012)

Or sweet potato pancakes / waffles


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Aug 7, 2012)

Sweet potato anything is just flat out nasty.


----------



## MGX (Aug 7, 2012)

Sweet potatoes are an abomination. Clearly the work of the devil or George Bush.


----------



## Master slacker (Aug 7, 2012)

Y'all probably don't like beignets either.


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Aug 7, 2012)

Master slacker said:


> Y'all probably don't like beignets either.


Sounds like some frenchy-french thing, so, no.


----------



## goodal (Aug 7, 2012)

We went to a brazilian steakhouse the other day, complete with foreign (sounding) waiters. My 5 year old asked "Daddy, why's he so french?".


----------



## Dexman PE PMP (Aug 7, 2012)

Mashed sweet potatoes with butter and brown sugar are the bomb!


----------



## Master slacker (Aug 7, 2012)

Well it appears that snick, Capt, and MGX are hopeless.


----------



## Dexman PE PMP (Aug 7, 2012)

We do the mashed sweet potatoes instead of "regular" mashed potatoes for Thanksgiving and Xmas dinners now.


----------



## MA_PE (Aug 7, 2012)

Capt Worley PE said:


> Master slacker said:
> 
> 
> > Y'all probably don't like beignets either.
> ...


is that some kind of really thin pancake?


----------



## MGX (Aug 7, 2012)

It's a french donut basically. Deep fat fried square of dough with powdered sugar. Popular in New Orleans and delicious.


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Aug 7, 2012)

Dexman PE said:


> Mashed sweet potatoes with butter and brown sugar are the bomb!


No, they really aren't. And my mom uses marshmallows to try and hide that atrocious dish from my eyes, but I'm on to her treacherous chicanery.


----------



## Master slacker (Aug 7, 2012)

Your mom sounds pretty awesome. I'm sorry you don't think the same.


----------



## knight1fox3 (Aug 7, 2012)

Sweet potatoes rock! Sweet potato fries are also pretty good and a little more healthy (baked variety).


----------



## Ble_PE (Aug 7, 2012)

I agree, sweet potatoes are amazing!


----------



## Dexman PE PMP (Aug 7, 2012)

My wife said she was going to try a twice-baked sweet potato receipe for Thanksgiving this year. Sounds delicious.


----------



## knight1fox3 (Aug 7, 2012)

^ sounds like a good time to visit Colorado. I'll bring my skis.


----------



## MA_PE (Aug 7, 2012)

Master slacker said:


> Can we get back to hot lesbians making out?


I'm waiting......... opcorn:


----------



## Master slacker (Aug 7, 2012)

You can't Yahoo! that?

Doesn't it just sound odd to say "Let me Yahoo! that" as opposed to "Let me Google that"?


----------



## YMZ PE (Aug 7, 2012)

You could say you'd like to Google a hot lesbian's Yahoo.


----------



## Dexman PE PMP (Aug 7, 2012)

BING!!


----------



## RIP - VTEnviro (Aug 7, 2012)

YMZ PE said:


> You could say you'd like to Google a hot lesbian's Yahoo.


Would you like to see my dongle?


----------



## knight1fox3 (Aug 7, 2012)




----------



## YMZ PE (Aug 7, 2012)

VTEnviro said:


> YMZ PE said:
> 
> 
> > You could say you'd like to Google a hot lesbian's Yahoo.
> ...


Ask Jeeves.


----------



## RIP - VTEnviro (Aug 8, 2012)

I already did, twice.


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Aug 8, 2012)

YMZ PE said:


> VTEnviro said:
> 
> 
> > YMZ PE said:
> ...


He's cleaning up a Dogpile.


----------



## snickerd3 (Aug 8, 2012)

Master slacker said:


> Y'all probably don't like beignets either.


I love those!!!!!



MA_PE said:


> Capt Worley PE said:
> 
> 
> > Master slacker said:
> ...


that would be a crepe...those I'm not as fond of.


----------



## Master slacker (Aug 8, 2012)

crepe - watered down pancake mix. Meh. But when someone else makes it for me and wraps it around some strawberries and yumminess, it's pretty good.


----------



## RIP - VTEnviro (Aug 8, 2012)

knight1fox3 said:


> Sweet potatoes rock! Sweet potato fries are also pretty good and a little more healthy (baked variety).


I don't mind sweet potatoes or certain types of potatoes (reds and Yukon Golds in particular), but they aren't my favorite veggie. I flat out can't stand Russerts.


----------



## csb (Aug 9, 2012)

Ne'er shall a sweet potato and a marshmallow meet. My mom makes sweet potatoes at Thanksgiving with just brown sugar and butter.


----------



## snickerd3 (Aug 9, 2012)

^ my mom makes sweet potatoes at thanksgiving with brown sugar butter and syrup...no marshmellows.


----------



## Ble_PE (Aug 9, 2012)

My mom's sweet potato's for Thanksgiving have butter and brown sugar with a rice krispies and pecan topping. It's awesome!


----------



## Dexman PE PMP (Aug 9, 2012)

csb said:


> My mom makes sweet potatoes at Thanksgiving with just brown sugar and butter.


Just mash the sweet potatoes, and you have our Thanksgiving tradition.


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Aug 9, 2012)

Dexman PE said:


> csb said:
> 
> 
> > My mom makes sweet potatoes at Thanksgiving with just brown sugar and butter.
> ...


Just be aware that your T-giving tradition is in fact an ode to Satan.


----------



## Master slacker (Aug 9, 2012)

We never wait for Thanksgiving to have sweet potato awesomeness dishes


----------



## goodal (Aug 10, 2012)

I guess I'm alone on this, but I don't like sweet stuff during dinner (apples, sweet potatoes, sweet cassaroles, etc.). Afterwards, however, I'm all over some pie or even sweet potatoe with brown sugar and stuff.


----------



## mudpuppy (Aug 10, 2012)

badal said:


> I guess I'm alone on this, but I don't like sweet stuff during dinner (apples, sweet potatoes, sweet cassaroles, etc.). Afterwards, however, I'm all over some pie or even sweet potatoe with brown sugar and stuff.


No, you're not alone. I don't like sweet foods for dinner either. . . this rules out a lot of German food, blech.

I am different in the fact that I'm not huge on sweet desserts either. A cookie now and then is ok though.


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Aug 10, 2012)

mudpuppy said:


> badal said:
> 
> 
> > I guess I'm alone on this, but I don't like sweet stuff during dinner (apples, sweet potatoes, sweet cassaroles, etc.). Afterwards, however, I'm all over some pie or even sweet potatoe with brown sugar and stuff.
> ...


I don't like sweet foods for dinner, either.


----------



## Dexman PE PMP (Aug 10, 2012)

Mashed sweet potatoes are a great balance side dish for something salty like prime rib with Au-jus.


----------



## mudpuppy (Aug 10, 2012)

^Heck no, the best side to prime rib with au-jus is bacon. Or a regular white potato with bacon.


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Aug 10, 2012)

Dexman PE said:


> Mashed sweet potatoes are a great balance side dish for something salty like prime rib with Au-jus.


You and your buddy, the Hoary Lord of the Netherworld can dine on that if you like...



mudpuppy said:


> ^Heck no, the best side to prime rib with au-jus is bacon. Or a regular white potato with bacon.


But this has it all over your Devil Dish.


----------



## Dexman PE PMP (Aug 10, 2012)

Capt Worley PE said:


> Dexman PE said:
> 
> 
> > Mashed sweet potatoes are a great balance side dish for something salty like prime rib with Au-jus.
> ...


Come to the Dark side. We have cookies...


----------

