Again. Why should he offer an apology? He did nothing wrong.

He is allowed to denote $ to causes that he believes in.
He should be proud he is standing up for what he believes in.

You believe in the gay thing and are proud also in that belief. No one is bashing you for that belief.

You stated\
" They needlessly pissed off at least half their customer base." Maybe 5% not 1/2


-Proclaimed that people who don't share their stance are morally inferior.
-Declared on television that gay marriage is dangerous and destructive to the fabric of the country
" They've said that in the future they're going to stay out of situations like this which seems to indicate that they regret what they did. If they regret their actions..an apology WOULD be in order"


If I am not mistaken his statement was on a religious station so he was speaking his religious beliefs. He does not regret saying those words. He just regrets the childish hatred from the " open minded" community. You guys don't seem too open minded.


You stated\

"-Proclaimed that people who don't share their stance are morally inferior."
I don't know if he stated this but would be wrong to say.

You stated\
-Declared on television that gay marriage is dangerous and destructive to the fabric of the country "

I don't know of any hard evidence to support this statement Time will tell. I strongly believe that Divorce and single parenting is dangerous and destructive to the fabric of the country. I believe there are no "winners" in a divorce. I would rather see pro marriage agenda being push rather than call now for a quick divorce ad.



>> ^VoodooV:

Found this on another website and it would appear relevant:
Chick-fil-a and it's CEO met several criteria before earning a boycott.
-Donated to antigay causes.
-Announced that they did so
-Seemed proud of their stance
-Proclaimed that people who don't share their stance are morally inferior.
-Declared on television that gay marriage is dangerous and destructive to the fabric of the country
-Are a private company
- They needlessly pissed off at least half their customer base. They've said that in the future they're going to stay out of situations like this which seems to indicate that they regret what they did. If they regret their actions..an apology WOULD be in order.
It's called empathy bob, try it out sometime.


>> ^bobknight33:
Why should he offer an apology? He did nothing wrong.>> ^VoodooV:
>> ^bobknight33:
Gays 0 Chick Fil-a 1

bob's math isn't too good either. CEO didn't issue an apology, but they did release a statement saying that in the future they are going to stay out of hot-bed political issues.
It appears they have learned their lesson, but probably too late. Pro-gay supporters will very rarely eat there again, meanwhile the anti-gay supporters may be eating there a lot now...but they won't be able to sustain their attendance. They'll either go broke or die of a heart attack.
Net win for civil rights

Found this on another website and it would appear relevant:

Chick-fil-a and it's CEO met several criteria before earning a boycott.

-Donated to antigay causes.
-Announced that they did so
-Seemed proud of their stance
-Proclaimed that people who don't share their stance are morally inferior.
-Declared on television that gay marriage is dangerous and destructive to the fabric of the country
-Are a private company
-Are a company that requires minimal effort to boycott
-Are small enough that a boycott might have an effect

They needlessly pissed off at least half their customer base. They've said that in the future they're going to stay out of situations like this which seems to indicate that they regret what they did. If they regret their actions..an apology WOULD be in order.

It's called empathy bob, try it out sometime.

>> ^bobknight33:

Why should he offer an apology? He did nothing wrong.>> ^VoodooV:
>> ^bobknight33:
Gays 0 Chick Fil-a 1

bob's math isn't too good either. CEO didn't issue an apology, but they did release a statement saying that in the future they are going to stay out of hot-bed political issues.
It appears they have learned their lesson, but probably too late. Pro-gay supporters will very rarely eat there again, meanwhile the anti-gay supporters may be eating there a lot now...but they won't be able to sustain their attendance. They'll either go broke or die of a heart attack.
Net win for civil rights

You know, I'm not a Palin fan, but she wasn't really wrong on the 1st ammendment issue. If you've got Mayors calling for boycotts of a store because of comments they made, then that's government officials violating the ammendment. There's nothing wrong with ordinary citizens calling for a boycott, but as soon as you have elected officials doing so, you've crossed a line.

The rest of the things she said, on the other hand, were batshit crazy.

Could you imagine the boycotts, press coverage & protests that would occur if a business prominently stated that it would not provide any service to Christians because of the belief of some being extremely 'bigoted arseholes'.

yEA how did I know you would reply with that.

I used to boycott walmart when i was a tree loving hippy. Now I love it ! Chain stores = jorbes and sometimes low product price= win for me.
In reply to this comment by lurgee:
no can do, she's deaded jim. fuck ALL chain stores!
In reply to this comment by BoneRemake:
YEA WELL FUCK UR MOTHER !

REDLOBSTER REPRESENT !

love how they "censor" that scene in glee, even though you can clearly tell what it is. I see that double standard a lot in censorship. They hide certain bits of it, but you see enough of it so instead of saying "whew glad I missed those parts" its "hrm...what was I missing out on? I wish to know more"

And that's where censoring fails. You give power to that which makes you uncomfortable. It's so bad...YOU MUST CENSOR IT!! Which just encourages people further to view the censorship. It has the opposite effect. Same goes for boycotting. If you boycott something, odds are you're just going to make it more popular as it's just free press.

Here's a pro tip:

1. You don't have a right to not be offended.

2. If something bothers you, don't give it power over you. Seeing these things that bother you does not validate or endorse them any way. Announcing that you're offended and that you MUST remove the offending bits just announces to the world what honks you off and gives people power over you as they now know how to manipulate you.

3. If you're teaching your kids, step up and do your fucking job as a parent and educate your kids instead of hiding it from them. If this "education" has any merits to it, it will stick on it's own.

@GeeSussFreeK and I'm saying the ends justify the means.

Or put less flippantly, that freedom of speech isn't something that should be left up to the free market to decide whether we have or don't have, depending on whether taking it away alienates enough customers to make the policy a net loss on the bottom line.

Sure, consumer activism can fix some small scale problems, but it's not really a substitute for a functional government that defends your rights as an individual.

And yeah, getting & maintaining that kind of government is hard, but it's easier than achieving equivalent results through boycotts and customer complaints.

On a more serious note. Does "1 Million Moms", or shinyblurry and such like, see this as any different to 40 years ago, a chain of stores hiring a black person (an openly black person!) as spokesperson and urging a boycott?

If so, why? Because The Good Book™ makes one reference to lesbians being bad? (And of course, no references about judging other people...)

>> ^dannym3141:

At what point did i "join em"? I said i don't approve, but that i'm not upset over a fucking manipulative, aggressive, posh, entitled little cunt getting a bit of come uppance. There's not enough karmic justice in this universe.
I never claimed you said "join 'em". I asked if joining them was a valid alternative to condemning them.


>> ^dannym3141:

Her crime is NOT parking across the street, but chasing, intimidating, assaulting, and causing others to assault, and there's probably a few more in there as well.
Agreed.


>> ^dannym3141:

If this were a child molester i think the sway of opinion would be heavily on my side so the real question is where do you draw the line? I draw it roughly where she is.

You missed my point. The line I draw is not related to her actions, it is related to ours. I'm fine for people to boycott her shop, mock her on the web and so on, but I think abusive phone calls are a step too far. Bringing child abuse into the discussion does nothing but add emotion, but I would say that if her crime was that serious, it's a matter for the police. The question of abusive phone calls doesn't even come into it.

>> ^dannym3141:

I detest people like that; i'm sure it does cloud my vision, but please don't accuse me of joining them, because that's an outright falsehood and a little bit insulting to suggest that i'd make threatening phone calls, etc.

Again, I never accused you of any such thing. For reference:
>> ^ChaosEngine:

So we just shrug and say "can't beat 'em, join 'em"? Yes, the internet is here and people use it to be assholes, but that doesn't mean we should accept it. There is a line, and making personal threats crosses it. It might be a cliché, but two wrongs still don't make a right.
If someone really wanted to "giver her a taste of her own medicine", they could park their car across her driveway.


In fact, as I was writing that I specifically went out of my way to use neutral language ("if someone wanted, they could") for that very reason.

>> ^dannym3141:

I think you may have let an emotional reaction dictate your assessment of what i said.


Re-read the last quoted paragraph and tell me again who's being emotional.


So to sum up:
She's a silly bitch.
I'm glad she got caught on tape.
I'm glad people are boycotting her business and taking the piss out of her.
I don't approve of threatening phone calls/emails.
I don't believe you would do something like that either.

>> ^spoco2:

@dannym3141 : I think, as @ChaosEngine said, the extent of response to this should be to publicly out her as being a bitch, review down her store wherever possible, and boycott it.
But personal attacks are NOT OK. You don't stoop to their level, you just don't. As soon as you do that you've lost all moral high ground and devolved it all to a bloody school yard bullying match.
As I said, going to these lengths, and becoming abusive and hateful, will just make people start siding with her, start feeling pity for her and you've then lost.


Fair enough; i understand, but saying it again hasn't convinced me. I'm a fan of "a taste of your own medicine." However i agree that they don't know where to stop.

But when has anything been different? This could be in the paper or on the news, and no harder to trace the culprit. I've been able to figure out who's behind a local news story or two. Perhaps the people doing the bad stuff are immature; kids and stuff. How do you stop someone wanting to be malicious to others? Cos the internet's there now, there's no going back, it'll happen every time.

@dannym3141 : I think, as @ChaosEngine said, the extent of response to this should be to publicly out her as being a bitch, review down her store wherever possible, and boycott it.

But personal attacks are NOT OK. You don't stoop to their level, you just don't. As soon as you do that you've lost all moral high ground and devolved it all to a bloody school yard bullying match.

As I said, going to these lengths, and becoming abusive and hateful, will just make people start siding with her, start feeling pity for her and you've then lost.

>> ^joedirt:

SOPA has been dropped. It won't be voted on until next year's session if they bring it up again. SOPA is legitimately dead. They will come back with lobbyists and sneak this through when the media isn't paying attention. Not sure is PIPA will be voted on.
There should still be a boycott though, if only to show them the power of the internet.
I wish we could use boycotts like this to accomplish something like withdrawing from Iraq...


@ant as well

SOPA is dead but PIPA is still alive and well, and in need of a boycott.

The boycott is still on acct to this link at reddit to protest the continued threat, I say GAME ON CONGRESS!!!

*promote

>> ^joedirt:

SOPA has been dropped. It won't be voted on until next year's session if they bring it up again. SOPA is legitimately dead. They will come back with lobbyists and sneak this through when the media isn't paying attention. Not sure is PIPA will be voted on.
There should still be a boycott though, if only to show them the power of the internet.
I wish we could use boycotts like this to accomplish something like withdrawing from Iraq...


http://yro.slashdot.org/story/12/01/16/1457237/house-kills-sopa

SOPA could return in the future.

SOPA has been dropped. It won't be voted on until next year's session if they bring it up again. SOPA is legitimately dead. They will come back with lobbyists and sneak this through when the media isn't paying attention. Not sure is PIPA will be voted on.

There should still be a boycott though, if only to show them the power of the internet.

I wish we could use boycotts like this to accomplish something like withdrawing from Iraq...

There's a better (sane) reason to actually boycott girl scout cookies until 2015: The use of palm oil