Will it Work?
Published on July 12, 2008 By KFC Kickin For Christ In Current Events

I heard about this boycott last week.  It's a boycott against McDonald's for supporting same sex marriage for throwing their money and support to the homosexual activists.  Many feel that McDonald's is abandoning those who helped make McDonald's the successful company it is namely familes with children.  I don't like McDonald's anyhow, so it doesn't really affect me.  I'd much rather go to Subway, BK,  or Wendy's anyhow. 

I didn't even know, until now,  that there was a National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce, did you?  So the American Family Association has called for this boycott.  This is from their site: 

Throwing out any pretense of being neutral in the culture war, McDonald's has taken up the rhetoric of gay activists, suggesting those who oppose same-sex marriage (SSM) are motivated by hate.

AFA has asked for a boycott of McDonald's restaurants because of the company’s promotion of the gay agenda. AFA asked McDonald’s to remain neutral in the culture war. McDonald’s refused.

In response to the boycott, McDonald's spokesman Bill Whitman suggested to the Washington Post that those who oppose SSM are motivated by hate, saying "...hatred has no place in our culture." McDonald's has decided to adopt the "hate" theme used by gay activist groups for years.

Whitman went on to say, "We stand by and support our people to live and work in a society free of discrimination and harassment." Mr. Whitman has intentionally avoided addressing the reason for the boycott. This boycott is not about hiring gays or how gay employees are treated. It is about McDonald's choosing to put the full weight of their corporation behind promoting their agenda.

McDonald's donated $20,000 to the National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce in exchange for membership and a seat on the group’s board of directors. The NGLCC lobbies Congress in support of same-sex marriage.

McDonald's CEO Jim Skinner said the company will promote issues they approve. "Being a socially responsible organization is a fundamental part of who we are. We have an obligation to use our size and resources to make a difference in the world...and we do."

 


Comments (Page 9)
13 PagesFirst 7 8 9 10 11  Last
on Jul 16, 2008
Those are your options for insulting me.


You don't dictate options to me, worm. Face it, I've played you like a violin and you fell for it completely.

Stardock has literally been contacted, though.


I'm sure they'll tell you to grow a pair.

on Jul 16, 2008

You don't dictate options to me, worm.

3. MEMBER CONDUCT
Members under the age of 12 years old must have permission from their parent or guardian before agreeing to these terms and conditions. You understand that all information, data, text, software, music, sound, photographs, graphics, video, messages or other materials ("Content"), whether publicly posted or privately transmitted, are the sole responsibility of the person from which such Content originated. This means that you, and not Stardock, are entirely responsible for all Content that you upload, post or otherwise transmit via the Service. Stardock does not control the Content posted via the Service and, as such, does not guarantee the accuracy, integrity or quality of such Content. You understand that by using the Service, you may be exposed to Content that is offensive, indecent or objectionable.

You agree to not use the Service to:
(a) upload, post or otherwise transmit any Content that is unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, tortuous, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, pornographic, libelous, invasive of another's privacy, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable;
( harm minors in any way;
(c) impersonate any person or entity, including, but not limited to, a Stardock official, forum leader, guide, moderator or host, or falsely state or otherwise misrepresent your affiliation with a person or entity;
(d) upload, post or otherwise transmit any Content that you do not have a right to transmit under any law or under contractual or fiduciary relationships (such as inside information, proprietary and confidential information learned or disclosed as part of employment relationships or under nondisclosure agreements);
(e) upload, post or otherwise transmit any Content that infringes any patent, trademark, trade secret, copyright or other proprietary rights of any party;
(f) upload, post or otherwise transmit any material that contains software viruses or any other computer code, files or programs designed to interrupt, destroy or limit the functionality of any computer software or hardware or telecommunications equipment;
(g) interfere with or disrupt the Service or servers or networks connected to the Service, or disobey any requirements, procedures, policies or regulations of networks connected to the Service;
(h) intentionally or unintentionally violate any applicable local, state, national or international law, including, but not limited to, regulations promulgated by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, any rules of any national or other securities exchange, including, without limitation, the New York Stock Exchange, the American Stock Exchange or the NASDAQ, and any regulations having the force of law;
(i) "stalk" or otherwise harass another;
(j) make malicious personal attacks, statements of libel, or other behavior deemed unacceptable by administrators.
(k) collect or store personal data about other users;
(l) promote or provide instructional information about illegal activities, promote physical harm or injury against any group or individual, or promote any act of cruelty to animals. This may include, but is not limited to, providing instructions on how to assemble bombs, grenades and other weapons, and creating "Crush" sites;
(m) send chain letters, junk mail, spam or any use of distribution lists to any person who has not given specific permission to be included in such a process.
(n) Interfere with another member's use and enjoyment of the Service or another entity's use and enjoyment of similar services.
(o) promote or advertise sexual or pornographic material or websites;

Your continuing in this manner violates rules (i), (j), and (n). If you do not stop, I trust that Stardock will make you.

I'm sure they'll tell you to grow a pair.

So I could have four? I've given you a place if you wish to continue this. You're just being stubborn and ruining a thread when I gave you a perfectly constructive place to go that you don't even have to register for.

on Jul 16, 2008
Wow, finally some common sense amongst all this craziness. Thanks jythier.
on Jul 17, 2008
where are you getting these figures?


I'm not sure where the $3 billion came from, I saw it on a slide at church. I'll have to ask the associate pastor. I googled the lawn care number and it came from the EPA. I'm pretty sure the slide at church had a much bigger number for lawn care, though, so maybe it's not $3 billion per year? Will have to find out.

As for where I've been, I've been doing other things. I come around and read and post now and again, but I haven't really had anything to write an article about. I never was much of a life-blogger, and most of the things I'd write an article about already had one out and I could just comment on it.
on Jul 17, 2008

Mason, I know we have crossed swords in the past, but I must commend you unreservedly on your contribution here. Your analysis of the crux of the issue under question is excellent, and - despite all the insect whining to which you have been subjected along the way - remains substantially unchallenged. Kudos!

On the subject of the whining insect, I am surprised that no one has taken him up on this particularly choice bit of frothing at the mouth:

'Excuse me, in a debate, you choose one side to cover. Your goal is to bring the other to your side, not hit them with a sense of sickening neutrality. I've been to a debate, and your goal is not to sink into a weak womanly compromise as you do, condemning the other for spite.'

So you've been to a debate, erathoniel? Good for you. I've been to a hospital, but that doesn't make me a surgeon. And isn't 'sickening neutrality' exactly what the AFA demanded from McDonalds in the first place? Finally, as for 'weak womanly compromise', I can only assume from this that you are as fearful, mistrustful and intimidated by women as you quite obviously are by gay people. Better surely to stick with those who look, act and 'think' exactly as you do - never challenged, never contradicted, never required to exercise your critical faculties.

on Jul 17, 2008
Furry Canary posts:
And isn't 'sickening neutrality' exactly what the AFA demanded from McDonalds in the first place?



I think in asking McDonalds to remain neutral in the homosexual culture war, the AFA was giving very good advice.

McDonald's made it where it is having always esteemed traditional family values....now it has turned to publicly promoting, supporting a homosexual lobby group that pushes congress to pass same-sex "marriage".

Any individual employee of McDonald's who wants to support such causes is fine...but as a corporation, giving support, I can't see McDonald's having it both ways and lasting for very long...but then again, I might be wrong. We'll see.



on Jul 17, 2008

'I think in asking McDonalds to remain neutral in the homosexual culture war, the AFA was giving very good advice.'

I have no doubt you do, but that wasn't my point.

erathoniel supports the AFA action, which sought to pressure McDonalds into adopting a policy of neutrality in the same sex marriage debate. However, he also describes a goal of neutrality in debate as 'sickening'.

Implicit question: 'Seeking neutrality in debate - good thing or bad thing?' (HINT: This is a rhetorical question, erathoniel, so you needn't try to answer it. It was designed only to illustrate that you're out of your depth.)

on Jul 17, 2008

I can only assume from this that you are as fearful, mistrustful and intimidated by women as you quite obviously are by gay people. Better surely to stick with those who look, act and 'think' exactly as you do - never challenged, never contradicted, never required to exercise your critical faculties.

It's because MasonM places too much weight on certain reproductive organs.

So you've been to a debate, erathoniel? Good for you. I've been to a hospital, but that doesn't make me a surgeon. And isn't 'sickening neutrality' exactly what the AFA demanded from McDonalds in the first place?

Well, if you say it that way, yes. But I never supported it, merely argued with MasonM's extreme response.

erathoniel supports the AFA action

I do not recall giving my support for it. I merely argued with the legality with MasonM.

'Seeking neutrality in debate - good thing or bad thing?'

Bad. The point of a debate is to solve something. I was never supporting the AFA action. I was merely stating that it was legal and fair.

on Jul 17, 2008
They asked ten thousand Americans, "What is the cause of the growing ignorance and apathy in the American public?" The most commonly given answer was, "Don't know and don't care."
on Jul 17, 2008
The most commonly given answer was, "Don't know and don't care."




I am going to a procrastinators Anonymous, but I just have not gotten around-tuit.
on Jul 17, 2008
Bad. The point of a debate is to solve something.[/quote]

Wrong.

a discussion, as of a public question in an assembly, involving opposing viewpoints


[link]http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/debate


Nowhere does it state that the point of a debate is to solve anything. The point of a debate is to express the different points of view of a specific topic or issue. One debates to express ones point of view and to listen to other peoples point of view allowing oneself to analyze you ones views and make changes accordingly if necessary.

Thank you for proving what I have been saying on all your latest articles or comments.
on Jul 17, 2008
They asked ten thousand Americans, "What is the cause of the growing ignorance and apathy in the American public?" The most commonly given answer was, "Don't know and don't care."


LOL, that was very, very funny. Guess ignorance has a limit. LOL.
on Jul 17, 2008

Nowhere does it state that the point of a debate is to solve anything. The point of a debate is to express the different points of view of a specific topic or issue. One debates to express ones point of view and to listen to other peoples point of view allowing oneself to analyze you ones views and make changes accordingly if necessary.

Then you are less aggresive in your debating than me.

on Jul 17, 2008

'Then you are less aggresive in your debating than me.'

Incorrect conclusion. It should be:

'Then you are more competent in your use of the English language than me.'

on Jul 17, 2008

'Then you are more competent in your use of the English language than me.'

On the contrary, if I hold an opinion that changes the meaning of certain words in my brain, it does not mean that I am any less competent in the use of the English language. Also, my knowledge of Latin gives me a background knowledge for the meaning of root words.

13 PagesFirst 7 8 9 10 11  Last