There goes my appetite.

(I do my running either real early or real late -no way gonna do that in THIS heat!   )

But as KFC said:

This is not about what people do in their bed rooms, it's about politics outside the bed room. Whether or not men should be allowed to marry other men (and women other women) is a question that has nothing to do with being homosexual as such.

Incidentally, homosexuals have the same rights as everybody else: a homosexual man has the right to marry a woman, just like a heterosexual man. They want a new right.

So, I am sorry, but while I would/will not support the boycott (I don't think the issue is important enough), I can see that such a boycott is perfectly legitimate.

Corporations have an obligation to behave as good citizens, but how picking sides is being a "good citizen" while remaining neutral is "bad", I don't understand. It's not a civil rights issue.

If McDonalds wants to support gay marriage, that's fine. And those who are against gay marriage have every right to boycott McDonalds for it. But it isn't obvious that being against gay marriage is somehow "evil".

Be well.

Sure it doesn't, but it's the vessel. Christians can, and do.

I said I am trying to. So, would you say it's fine to not religiously discriminate against someone, but would you say that it's fine to not hire someone that is gay, since it's one of the goals of the evil homosexual agenda? I'm not applying this to the law, I'm applying it morally.

Oh I would love it if things were switched around for once with heterosexuals being the ones in their shoes, then maybe there would be some understanding. You can't legislate morality, and you can't legislate who someone is. Treat others as you wish to be treated, period.

~L

Myself and the only other two guys in there huddled at the bar eating our chicken wings. At first we felt totally gay but then we started to think that this aint so bad, our stock has be way up in this town.   

Not so much confusion I guess, more so seeing what seems like if in the case of her hiring someone that she knows donates money and/or supports (or practices) things or lifestyles that she does not condone, yet she still pays them - a sense of indirect condoning and/or support of those very things. I was raised to watch things, and if you didn't condone something or support it then you just didnt set yourself up so that you would be. E.g. A business owner being aware to the fact that if they hire Person A, then they are still (indirectly) condoning their activities and such.

Hmm, I'll have to talk to one of my instructors on this.

(P.S. I'm not trying to lambaste you KFC. I'm trying to understand how and why you see things this way.)

~Lucas

If you stay on subject, I'm fine as long as you don't attack me.

So how does KFC's statement cause confusion?

As a business owner looking to hire someone you'd have to make a decision though; a day care provider isn't going to knowingly hire someone who has a history of abuse against a child, or worse. Just as a business owner can say, "I'm sorry but we are refusing you service," a business owner must have the judgement to be able to say, "Hmm, well this person supports something I cannot religiously agree with or condone. Perhaps I should hire the other person." This is odd given the fact that (I believe) you were for the business owner (photographer?) refusing service in a discussion some time ago.

I'm honestly trying to understand KFC, but to me it seems odd that you say that certain things are wrong (if not very wrong),and that you cannot condone them - but you say this. Perhaps I've just not had enough coffee this morning (or this week).

Poppycock.

'If you wish to continue this, you may do so at my site. Otherwise, I'll cite the TOS and tell you specifically which parts you are violating.'

* Yawn *

As I'm addressing the inconsistencies of your argument in respect of the subject matter of this thread, I'll do it here, thanks. For all I care, you can cite the phone book at me if you like. No, really - I'm quaking in my boots.

Which lots of people do every day for other stuff.

This makes no difference. Different backgrounds can cause some differences, but that is a step too far. If you wish to continue this, you may do so at my site. Otherwise, I'll cite the TOS and tell you specifically which parts you are violating.

I was making a point which you obviously missed, erathoniel.

When you were taken to task for defining 'debate' incorrectly, you merely claimed a different and equally valid meaning of your own devising.

If you take a word for which there is a concensus of understanding in respect of its meaning, and assign to it an alternative and arbitrary definition of your personal choosing, then you compromise your ability both to understand and to be understood. Viz. 'brain' and 'rectum'. See how it makes communication so much more problematic? QED.

Do you think the payout can be increased with more people? I could use some spending cash.

I'm for it, all the way, but I was never arguing about its correctness, merely its legality.

Apparently rectum-for-brain doesn't sound like an attack to you? It does to me.

If I cared enough to want to attack you I would go there. Instead, I take issue with your argument in respect of this thread, so I respond here. This seems to me to be entirely appropriate.

Viz.

'I was never supporting the AFA action. I was merely stating that it was legal and fair.'

Given that this is a thread about the AFA action, and that you have already admitted to a personal aversion to compromise, surely it's time to nail your colours to the mast, erathoniel. Are you for or against the action?