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

[csb]

^ 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]

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]

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

 

[mudpuppy]

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

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

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

 

[DVINNY]

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]

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]

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]

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]

^^ 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. **** 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]

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]

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 ****." So feel free.

 

[DVINNY]

^^^ 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]

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]

^^^ 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]

^ 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]

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/p...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.

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

 

[mudpuppy]

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

 

[Capt Worley PE]

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]

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.

Please elaborate?

 

[Capt Worley PE]

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.

Please elaborate?

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.