Comments:

1. John Sinteur on August 3rd, 2012 at 21:40:

   Poor Mark Zuckerberg dropped out of the top 10 richest billionaires because of this. Boo hoo hoo.

Comments:

1. Forrest on August 3rd, 2012 at 20:35:

   LOL – I love that you found actual scripture to back this up. It’s in the Bible, so IT MUST BE TRUE!

Comments:

1. Steffen on August 3rd, 2012 at 10:34:

   From r/atheism, a tweet about the “Support Chik-Fil-A Day”:

   “Today, thousands of Americans ate processed chicken and artificially flavored soda because they think homosexuality is unnatural”

2. Mykolas on August 3rd, 2012 at 13:24:

   …brought to you by the usual blowhards Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee, Rick Santorum, Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh… and the lemmings line up and march as instructed into a salty high cholesterol, high fructose corn syrup induced nirvana. Pathetic.

3. Sue W on August 3rd, 2012 at 15:25:

   My pal says, “No self-respecting homo sapiens would eat in a place like this. The food is bad and the decor, my dear, is _awful_.”

4. murph on August 3rd, 2012 at 16:11:

   Mykolas neglected to mention Michelle Bachman, who would make the ideal running mate for Mitt. (Or spokesperson for the chain). Possibilities: endless.

5. Liz on August 3rd, 2012 at 17:46:

   So a guy answers a question honestly, not hatefully, just what he believes and what do the gay right advocates do? They accuse the guy of being hateful and intolerant and they start attacking the guy, calling for a boycott of his restaurants while spewing hate and intolerance, (much like the remarks above).

   So then, people who support traditional marriage like this guy does as well as those who simply support the 1st amendment and the guys right to freedom of speech show up at his restaurants to support him and what do the gay rights folks do then? They spew more hate and intolerance for those folks too! (much like the remarks above).

   The irony would be hilarious if it were not so very sad and pervasive among the so called “tolerant” left leaning among us.

   As for “You’d never see that many Christians lined up to help at a food bank or homeless shelter. And that’s something Jesus actually said to do.” Umm, yes actually you would and do find Christians doing just that on a daily basis and if you’ll go to the link I’ve provided below you can find just one example from last weekend – http://www.theblaze.com/stories/viral-chick-fil-a-picture-claims-christians-dont-feed-the-poor-but-we-have-proof-to-the-contrary/

   And just to be clear, no where in the bible did Jesus tell people to “line up at a food bank or homeless shelter”, however, Christians take it upon themselves to do it anyway.

6. John Sinteur on August 3rd, 2012 at 17:49:

   There’s a difference between “answering a question honestly” and actively funding groups that, for example, lobby for the death penalty for gays in Angola. This isn’t about free speech, Chick-fil-a has blood on their hands, and it isn’t chicken blood.

7. John Sinteur on August 3rd, 2012 at 17:53:

   Oh, and Liz, I don’t think “traditional marriage” means what you think it means.

   

8. Liz on August 3rd, 2012 at 17:55:

   @ John Sinteur, the guy was asked a question and he answered honestly. As for funding “lobby for the death penalty for gays in Angola” documentation please.

9. Liz on August 3rd, 2012 at 17:59:

   Oh my, you apparently are one of the very “tolerant” among us.

10. John Sinteur on August 3rd, 2012 at 18:01:

    Being Tolerant does not mean assuming that every viewpoint is correct, or partially correct. It means treating people’s freedoms and rights as something important and valuable, even if they don’t affect your own. When it comes to the choice of expanding liberty for a group of people or reducing it, there had better be a damn good reason for doing the latter, and a lot of questions about why we haven’t already done the former. If a person does not believe in extending equal rights to certain groups of people, it is the responsibility of tolerant people of conscience to stand up and defend those groups. Denying the vote to women was wrong, denying civil rights to African Americans was wrong, and people who think we should discriminate against other people are wrong. I tolerate the people who have those views, but I don’t give them the luxury of airing those views unchallenged.

11. John Sinteur on August 3rd, 2012 at 18:06:

    Here’s your link: Chick-fil-a donated a quarter million dollar in 2010 to the National Christian Foundation, who sends the money on to Ed Silvoso’s Harvest Evangelism (partner of Julius Oyet of Uganda), who promotes the “Kill the Gays” bill.

12. John Sinteur on August 3rd, 2012 at 18:07:

    You can find that donation in Chick-fil-a tax returns, and in National Christian Foundation documentation.

13. Forrest on August 3rd, 2012 at 18:12:

    @Liz, Since when is disagreeing or being critical of others the same as being intolerant?
    Dialog is good – and a healthy democracy needs a healthy dialog – QED, with straw-man dialogs like yours, one can see why our U.S. democracy is so dysfunctional.
    PS. This is not intolerance – this is criticism.

14. Liz on August 3rd, 2012 at 18:20:

    There was no link in your post and it’s not about correct or incorrect, it is what he believes and you and a lot of others appear to think that he should be crucified for it.

15. Liz on August 3rd, 2012 at 18:30:

    @Forrest, no argument here, dialog is good, (by the way, we do not live in a democracy, we live in a republic), but you obviously miss the point. The guy was asked a question and he answered with no animosity. The remarks here are acrimonious plain and simple. Where’s the straw man?

16. Forrest on August 3rd, 2012 at 18:30:

    Boycotting a business is democracy-by-dollars. How is that equivalent with a torturous death on a cross? Meanwhile, here’s a gay man being murdered in a torturous way, IN REAL LIFE. (WARNING, GRAPHIC): http://unicornbooty.com/blog/2011/10/10/gay-african-man-beaten-burned-alive-by-angry-mob-extremely-graphic-video/
    Funding hatred, has real consequences.

17. John Sinteur on August 3rd, 2012 at 18:34:

    What he believes kills people and hurts millions, I have no sympathy for that

18. Forrest on August 3rd, 2012 at 18:36:

    Yes, I’ve watched reason.tv too. We live in a democratic republic. A republic which functions via democracy. Non-polarized, reason-based arguments are in short supply in our national dialog.

    Equivocating some people’s disagreement with Chick-fil-A’s views as being “intolerance” is a straw-man argument. You apply the label and attempt to discredit a dissenting viewpoint.
    John nailed it, above:
    “Being Tolerant does not mean assuming that every viewpoint is correct, or partially correct. It means treating people’s freedoms and rights as something important and valuable, even if they don’t affect your own.”

19. John Sinteur on August 3rd, 2012 at 18:41:

    Sorry, wrong again. I live in a constitutional monarchy

20. Forrest on August 3rd, 2012 at 18:43:

    @John And I wish I lived there too! ^__^

21. Liz on August 3rd, 2012 at 18:45:

    Again, no argument here, boycotting is legitimate. But again, you seem to miss the point. The man is accused of being hateful and intolerant when he was being nothing of the sort and he, and his supporters have in fact become the victims of hateful intolerance by his accusers. You seriously don’t see the irony here?
    I don’t know how the link you provided is relevant to this conversation. The Chick-fil-a guy certainly never advocated violence against gays and I’m unaware of anyone who showed up at restaurants advocating it either.
    Forgive my use of “crucified”, it was merely a figure of speech. Perhaps I should have used “persecuted”.

22. John Sinteur on August 3rd, 2012 at 18:52:

    We disagree then. He IS an hateful and intolerant bigot

23. Liz on August 3rd, 2012 at 18:57:

    Ok, just thought I’d try to have a civil conversation with folks that held an opposing view, I see now that that was a mistake or perhaps this was just the wrong place to try. I’ve had my fill of “tolerance” today so I’ll just say good-bye.

24. Forrest on August 3rd, 2012 at 19:01:

    Again, you miss the point – our criticisms of the CEO and his views are not based on his calm and reasonable deliverance of his views. It’s based on the animosity views themselves. He is allowed to have them, and his company is allowed to donate to whomever they please. Yet the blow-back is a boycott from those who disagree.
    He is not being denied a LIBERTY. He is not being physically or legally HARASSED by our dissenting view.
    If he can’t take the heat – then get out of the chicken kitchen.

    By purchasing product from a company which donates portions of their proceeds to organizations, which lobby to *legally* DISCLUDE segments of the population from certain liberties, and who lobby in other countries to *physically* punish people for their alignments – then yes, they ARE advocating hate and intolerance.

    So no, there is in fact, no irony to see here.

25. Zoiks! on August 3rd, 2012 at 19:31:

    It’s very simple. He has every right to air his views, just as does anybody who is racist can air their views. It does not matter how straight forward or polite they are, the views in and of themselves are hateful and intolerant IMHO. And just as a racist or bigamist can expect blow back, so can he. No irony here.

26. John Sinteur on August 3rd, 2012 at 20:22:

    Liz, this isn’t about mutual tolerance because there’s nothing mutual about it. If we agree to disagree on this issue, you walk away a full member of this society and gays don’t. There is no “live and let live” on this issue because Dan Cathy is spending millions to very specifically NOT let gays live. I’m not trying to do that to him. I’m not trying to dissolve Mr. Cathy’s marriage or make his sex illegal. I’m not trying to make him a second-class citizen, or get him killed. He’s doing that to gays, folks; I’m just fighting back.

27. Sueyourdeveloper on August 3rd, 2012 at 21:06:

    Not “just” fighting back. I like to think of it as fighting forward, for the future. That is the point, isn’t it?

    Change will happen when people who think they are “fair-minded” realize that what they say is very threatening to those that they are oppressing and sounds intolerant to others. You can fight these people in the forlorn hope of changing their individual minds, but mainly to showing everyone else that you represent a force to be reckoned with.

    Women’s rights, for example. When I was young, the father of a neighbouring Catholic family was incredulous that I, a female, was studying for university; for anything other than child-rearing.
    “That’s a waste. Why would you want to do that?” He even though he thought he was a good person.

28. mysteryweapon on August 3rd, 2012 at 21:39:

    http://i.imgur.com/tCp90.gif

Comments:

1. Andre on August 3rd, 2012 at 10:20:

   bad idea? Ha, you never hear about the millions they make… 

2. Desiato on August 3rd, 2012 at 12:29:

   The NY Times headline is “Errant Stock Trades Reveal a Risk That Few Anticipated”. It derives apparently from this quote in the article:

   In the industry, there was a widespread recognition that the markets had become more dangerous than even specialists realized. “What is starting to become clear is that the costs in terms of these random shocks to the system are occurring in ways that people never anticipated,” said Henry Hu, a former official at the Securities and Exchange Commission…

   Maybe they need new “experts”? Really, you allow software to do high-volume high-frequency trading, and you’re surprised that at some point someone runs buggy software? And no one had any idea that that would rock the market? Really?

3. Sue W on August 3rd, 2012 at 15:28:

   The “bug” created an unusual opportunity for your competitors’ software.

Comments:

1. Jim on August 3rd, 2012 at 16:18:

   Having to click each cartoon twice to be able to see/read it is a bit tedious.

2. John Sinteur on August 3rd, 2012 at 17:30:

   fixed it – a setting was lost when upgrading the blog software.