• Banning Chick-fil-a

    From MATTHEW MUNSON@VERT/IUTOPIA to All on Saturday, March 23, 2019 07:47:00
    If you have an airport that is publicly owned should cities have a right to ditch a vendor for
    being anti-lgbt or pro-abortion?
    ---
    þ wcQWK 7.0
  • From MRO@VERT/BBSESINF to MATTHEW MUNSON on Saturday, March 23, 2019 22:59:38
    Re: Banning Chick-fil-a
    By: MATTHEW MUNSON to All on Sat Mar 23 2019 07:47 am

    If you have an airport that is publicly owned should cities have a right to ditch a vendor for
    being anti-lgbt or pro-abortion?

    whats this all about?
    ---
    þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
  • From Jagossel@VERT/DISCREAL to MATTHEW MUNSON on Sunday, March 24, 2019 06:00:00
    MATTHEW MUNSON, to All...

    If you have an airport that is publicly owned should cities have a
    right to ditch a vendor for being anti-lgbt or pro-abortion?

    Should cities ditch a vender for their political views? No, I don't think
    so. If they were doing something illegal, then that is a different matter.

    -jag
    Code it, Script it, Automate it!

    ... This tagline was intentionally left blank.
    --- MultiMail/DOS v0.51
    þ Synchronet þ -- You've arrived! Disconnected Reality BBS -- discreal.ddns.net
  • From Dan Clough@VERT/PALANT to MATTHEW MUNSON on Sunday, March 24, 2019 08:23:00
    MATTHEW MUNSON wrote to All <=-

    If you have an airport that is publicly owned should cities have
    a right to ditch a vendor for being anti-lgbt or pro-abortion?

    No.

    But I suspect there's more to the story.



    ... Internal Error: The system has been taken over by sheep at line 19960
    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.51
    þ Synchronet þ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL
  • From MATTHEW MUNSON@VERT/IUTOPIA to MRO on Saturday, March 23, 2019 10:24:00
    On 3/23/2019 10:59 PM, MRO wrote to MATTHEW MUNSON:

    Re: Banning Chick-fil-a
    By: MATTHEW MUNSON to All on Sat Mar 23 2019 07:47 am

    If you have an airport that is publicly owned should cities have a
    right to
    ditch a vendor for
    being anti-lgbt or pro-abortion?

    whats this all about?

    San Antonio Texas banned them from opening a store at their airport on Friday.

    ---
    þ wcQWK 7.0
  • From MRO@VERT/BBSESINF to MATTHEW MUNSON on Sunday, March 24, 2019 13:20:20
    Re: RE: Banning Chick-fil-a
    By: MATTHEW MUNSON to MRO on Sat Mar 23 2019 10:24 am

    On 3/23/2019 10:59 PM, MRO wrote to MATTHEW MUNSON:

    Re: Banning Chick-fil-a
    By: MATTHEW MUNSON to All on Sat Mar 23 2019 07:47 am

    If you have an airport that is publicly owned should cities have a
    right to
    ditch a vendor for
    being anti-lgbt or pro-abortion?

    whats this all about?

    San Antonio Texas banned them from opening a store at their airport on Friday.



    so the city missed out on almost 367k rent a year and 10% annual gross of receipts

    because they gave to the fellowship of christian athletes and salvation army, ted cruz sez.

    so if you are not FOR something, you are immediately against it? i am a live and let live guy. i am not FOR people with gender identity disorders, but i don't wish them any harm or discrimination.
    ---
    þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
  • From Va7aqd@VERT/VA7AQDS to MRO on Sunday, March 24, 2019 12:12:57
    Re: RE: Banning Chick-fil-a
    By: MRO to MATTHEW MUNSON on Sun Mar 24 2019 01:20 pm

    so the city missed out on almost 367k rent a year and 10% annual gross of receipts

    Because only Chick-fil-a could go in there? Nobody else?

    so if you are not FOR something, you are immediately against it? i am a live

    No, Chick-fil-A is very against equality "because god". They support anti-certain-people groups. More info
    via the references at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chick-fil-A_same-sex_marriage_controversy

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ VA7AQD's Tavern - bbs.isurf.ca
  • From MRO@VERT/BBSESINF to Va7aqd on Sunday, March 24, 2019 17:49:11
    Re: RE: Banning Chick-fil-a
    By: Va7aqd to MRO on Sun Mar 24 2019 12:12 pm

    Re: RE: Banning Chick-fil-a
    By: MRO to MATTHEW MUNSON on Sun Mar 24 2019 01:20 pm

    so the city missed out on almost 367k rent a year and 10% annual gross of receipts

    Because only Chick-fil-a could go in there? Nobody else?

    i'm just referencing the deal they had with chick fil a
    maybe they can put an amazon depo in there so democrats can chase it away.

    so if you are not FOR something, you are immediately against it? i am a live

    No, Chick-fil-A is very against equality "because god". They support anti-certain-people groups. More info
    via the references at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chick-fil-A_same-sex_marriage_controversy


    man, i dont trust no fucking wikipedia. any idiot can write bullshit on there. you should see the crazy shit i've had approved on there for over a decade.

    a chicken joint isnt against equality. that's just stupid bullshit.
    they want to sell chicken.
    ---
    þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
  • From MATTHEW MUNSON@VERT/IUTOPIA to MRO on Sunday, March 24, 2019 06:04:00
    On 3/24/2019 1:20 PM, MRO wrote to MATTHEW MUNSON:
    On 3/23/2019 10:59 PM, MRO wrote to MATTHEW MUNSON:

    If you have an airport that is publicly owned should cities have a
    right to
    ditch a vendor for
    being anti-lgbt or pro-abortion?

    whats this all about?

    San Antonio Texas banned them from opening a store at their airport on Friday.


    so the city missed out on almost 367k rent a year and 10% annual gross of receipts

    because they gave to the fellowship of christian athletes and salvation
    army,
    ted cruz sez.

    so if you are not FOR something, you are immediately against it? i am a live and let live guy. i am not FOR people with gender identity disorders, but i don't wish them any harm or discrimination.

    Sometimes cities like to slice their noses off for virtue signaling. I also said this move can backfire if a conservative city says, this food chain
    gives money to planned parenthood and axes them as well.

    ---
    þ wcQWK 7.0
  • From Va7aqd@VERT/VA7AQDS to MRO on Sunday, March 24, 2019 21:37:32
    Re: RE: Banning Chick-fil-a
    By: MRO to Va7aqd on Sun Mar 24 2019 05:49 pm

    i'm just referencing the deal they had with chick fil a
    maybe they can put an amazon depo in there so democrats can chase it away.

    ?

    anti-certain-people groups. More info
    via the references at

    man, i dont trust no fucking wikipedia. any idiot can write bullshit on there. you should see the crazy shit i've had approved on there for over a decade.

    ... References.

    a chicken joint isnt against equality. that's just stupid bullshit.
    they want to sell chicken.

    If that's all they were interested in then they wouldn't fund organizations that are anti-certain-people. But
    you'd have to go read the references to see what that's all about.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ VA7AQD's Tavern - bbs.isurf.ca
  • From MRO@VERT/BBSESINF to Va7aqd on Sunday, March 24, 2019 23:59:34
    Re: RE: Banning Chick-fil-a
    By: Va7aqd to MRO on Sun Mar 24 2019 09:37 pm

    man, i dont trust no fucking wikipedia. any idiot can write bullshit on there. you should see the crazy shit i've had approved on there for over a decade.

    ... References.


    oh boy that's the most fun part. i just put some fake ass references in that are leaning towards liberal and nobody even questions it.

    If that's all they were interested in then they wouldn't fund organizations that are anti-certain-people. But
    you'd have to go read the references to see what that's all about.


    dude it's a chicken shack. leave politics out of it. it's not like they say kill all the trannys. there's better fights to fight out there.
    people get so fucking upset over dumb shit. we need a mass extinction event. ---
    þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
  • From Va7aqd@VERT/VA7AQDS to MRO on Sunday, March 24, 2019 23:56:03
    Re: RE: Banning Chick-fil-a
    By: MRO to Va7aqd on Sun Mar 24 2019 11:59 pm

    oh boy that's the most fun part. i just put some fake ass references in that are leaning towards liberal and nobody even questions it.

    But we're not talking about you or your article, are we...


    dude it's a chicken shack. leave politics out of it. it's not like they say kill all the trannys. there's better fights to fight out there.

    You can't make the connection? Man, follow the money...

    people get so fucking upset over dumb shit. we need a mass extinction event.

    I think the only person upset here is you. Hope you have a better day tomorrow where you're
    not wishing genocide on everyone.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ VA7AQD's Tavern - bbs.isurf.ca
  • From Dan Clough@VERT/PALANT to MRO on Monday, March 25, 2019 08:10:00
    MRO wrote to Va7aqd <=-

    If that's all they were interested in then they wouldn't fund organizations that are anti-certain-people. But
    you'd have to go read the references to see what that's all about.

    dude it's a chicken shack. leave politics out of it. it's not
    like they say kill all the trannys. there's better fights to
    fight out there. people get so fucking upset over dumb shit. we
    need a mass extinction event.

    Well here's a rarity.

    I actually agree with something "MRO" says.

    Gonna have lunch at CFA today.



    ... Eye witnesses were on the scene in minutes.
    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.51
    þ Synchronet þ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL
  • From Nightfox@VERT/DIGDIST to MATTHEW MUNSON on Monday, March 25, 2019 10:22:28
    Re: Banning Chick-fil-a
    By: MATTHEW MUNSON to All on Sat Mar 23 2019 07:47 am

    If you have an airport that is publicly owned should cities have a right to ditch a vendor for being anti-lgbt or pro-abortion?

    Are you saying Chick-Fil-A is pro-abortion? I'd be surprised if they were, as I thought Chick-Fil-A was known for being a Christian-owned business.

    nightfox

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ Digital Distortion: digitaldistortionbbs.com
  • From Nightfox@VERT/DIGDIST to MRO on Monday, March 25, 2019 10:27:25
    Re: RE: Banning Chick-fil-a
    By: MRO to Va7aqd on Sun Mar 24 2019 05:49 pm

    a chicken joint isnt against equality. that's just stupid bullshit.
    they want to sell chicken.

    I remember there being a controversy about Chick-Fil-A and their stance on the LGBT community though. This is an article on AJC, and I'm not sure of their accuracy, but this article says Chick-Fil-A's president said the company opposes gay marriage (URL shortened to fit here more easily): https://on-ajc.com/2HTeRtx

    Nightfox

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ Digital Distortion: digitaldistortionbbs.com
  • From Nightfox@VERT/DIGDIST to Dan Clough on Monday, March 25, 2019 10:30:31
    Re: Re: Banning Chick-fil-a
    By: Dan Clough to MRO on Mon Mar 25 2019 08:10 am

    Gonna have lunch at CFA today.

    A few years ago, the first Chick-Fil-A in my area opened up. It seemed they were very popular, and they had long lines for months. I tried some of their chicken but I didn't see what all the fuss was about. I can get chicken just as good or perhaps better from other fast-food restaurants.

    Nightfox

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ Digital Distortion: digitaldistortionbbs.com
  • From Dmxrob@VERT/GUARDIAN to Nightfox on Monday, March 25, 2019 22:38:21
    Re: Re: Banning Chick-fil-a
    By: Nightfox to Dan Clough on Mon Mar 25 2019 10:30 am

    were very popular, and they had long lines for months. I tried some of their chicken but I didn't see what all the fuss was about. I can get chicken just as good or perhaps better from other fast-food restaurants.

    Ditto. I tried them once - and once was enough. Expensive relatively speaking and the chicken wasn't that good. I can get better chicken tenders at McDonalds, and better chicken period at KFC or Lee's -- or even some of the local grocery stores. Plus we have Cane's, Zaxby's and Slim Chickens which are all far, far better than Chic-Fil-A.

    As a bonus, they aren't controversial either.


    þdmxrobþ BBSing from St. Louis, MO since 1988

    ---
    þ Synchronet
  • From MRO@VERT/BBSESINF to Va7aqd on Tuesday, March 26, 2019 00:01:47
    Re: RE: Banning Chick-fil-a
    By: Va7aqd to MRO on Sun Mar 24 2019 11:56 pm

    Re: RE: Banning Chick-fil-a
    By: MRO to Va7aqd on Sun Mar 24 2019 11:59 pm

    oh boy that's the most fun part. i just put some fake ass references in that are leaning towards liberal and nobody even questions it.

    But we're not talking about you or your article, are we...


    how do you know!

    dude it's a chicken shack. leave politics out of it. it's not like they say kill all the trannys. there's better fights to fight out there.

    You can't make the connection? Man, follow the money...

    it's the owners money. he can do whatever he wants with it.


    people get so fucking upset over dumb shit. we need a mass extinction event.

    I think the only person upset here is you. Hope you have a better day tomorrow where you're
    not wishing genocide on everyone.


    DIE
    ---
    þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
  • From MRO@VERT/BBSESINF to Nightfox on Tuesday, March 26, 2019 00:05:06
    Re: RE: Banning Chick-fil-a
    By: Nightfox to MRO on Mon Mar 25 2019 10:27 am

    the LGBT community though. This is an article on AJC, and I'm not sure of their accuracy, but this article says Chick-Fil-A's president said the company opposes gay marriage (URL shortened to fit here more easily): https://on-ajc.com/2HTeRtx


    well he has a right to his opinion in my book. as long as he
    isnt hurting anybody.

    i'm against gay marriage or any type of marriage. i dont think there's anything in it for men.

    i support anybody's right to an opinion and their right to talk about it as long as its not hurting anybody.
    ---
    þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
  • From MRO@VERT/BBSESINF to Dmxrob on Tuesday, March 26, 2019 00:06:11
    Re: Re: Banning Chick-fil-a
    By: Dmxrob to Nightfox on Mon Mar 25 2019 10:38 pm

    Ditto. I tried them once - and once was enough. Expensive relatively speaking and the chicken wasn't that good. I can get better chicken tenders at McDonalds, and better chicken period at KFC or Lee's -- or even some of

    wow you must have been at a bad one. they are tons better than mcdonalds or kfc. hell, kfc's salt content is through the roof. makes my lips swell up.

    As a bonus, they aren't controversial either.

    mcdonalds kills rainforests.
    ---
    þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
  • From MATTHEW MUNSON@VERT/IUTOPIA to NIGHTFOX on Monday, March 25, 2019 11:29:00
    On 3/25/2019 10:22 AM, NIGHTFOX wrote to MATTHEW MUNSON:

    Re: Banning Chick-fil-a
    By: MATTHEW MUNSON to All on Sat Mar 23 2019 07:47 am

    If you have an airport that is publicly owned should cities have a
    right
    to ditch a vendor for being anti-lgbt or pro-abortion?

    Are you saying Chick-Fil-A is pro-abortion? I'd be surprised if they
    were, as
    I thought Chick-Fil-A was known for being a Christian-owned business.

    I was using the polar opposite if a conservative city wanted to censor a business who did the opposite.
    ---
    þ wcQWK 7.0
  • From Dan Clough@VERT/PALANT to Nightfox on Monday, March 25, 2019 21:40:00
    Nightfox wrote to MRO <=-

    a chicken joint isnt against equality. that's just stupid bullshit.
    they want to sell chicken.

    I remember there being a controversy about Chick-Fil-A and their
    stance on the LGBT community though. This is an article on AJC,
    and I'm not sure of their accuracy, but this article says
    Chick-Fil-A's president said the company opposes gay marriage
    (URL shortened to fit here more easily):
    https://on-ajc.com/2HTeRtx

    Yes, they oppose gay marriage, and presumably other LGBT-related
    issues, based on religion/faith reasons. That doesn't mean they
    don't serve folks of those persuasions, or discriminate against
    them. It just means they publicly put forth their opinion against
    such things. Probably means they lose a small amount of business,
    and they know and accept that. Nothing illegal about any of it.

    There were a lot of boycotts and sign waving a few years ago over
    it, but things seem to have moved on now.

    <SHRUG>



    ... So... So you think you can tell.
    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.51
    þ Synchronet þ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL
  • From Dan Clough@VERT/PALANT to Nightfox on Monday, March 25, 2019 21:43:00
    Nightfox wrote to Dan Clough <=-

    Gonna have lunch at CFA today.

    A few years ago, the first Chick-Fil-A in my area opened up. It
    seemed they were very popular, and they had long lines for
    months. I tried some of their chicken but I didn't see what all
    the fuss was about. I can get chicken just as good or perhaps
    better from other fast-food restaurants.

    I haven't found many (any?) *fast-food* places that are better,
    but it's a subjective thing anyway, of course. I think CFA's
    chicken is a little different (and better IMHO) than most others.



    ... Forbidden fruit is responsible for many a bad jam.
    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.51
    þ Synchronet þ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL
  • From Jagossel@VERT/DISCREAL to MRO on Tuesday, March 26, 2019 07:48:00
    MRO, to Va7aqd...

    people get so fucking upset over dumb shit. we need a mass extinction event.

    I think the only person upset here is you. Hope you have a better day tomorrow where you're
    not wishing genocide on everyone.


    DIE

    I understand you're going through some personal issues at the moment, and
    I would like to suggest that you log off a bit, take a break and focus on
    your job, and the come backnonce you're through your personal issue. Stop taking it out on the rest of us that had not done anything to you.

    If you can't contribute to this conversation with more meaningful points
    and counter-points, then I suggest taking a break.


    -jag
    Code it, Script it, Automate it!

    ... All the best to you!
    --- MultiMail/DOS v0.51
    þ Synchronet þ -- You've arrived! Disconnected Reality BBS -- discreal.ddns.net
  • From Jagossel@VERT/DISCREAL to Dan Clough on Tuesday, March 26, 2019 07:56:00
    Dan Clough, to Nightfox...

    Nightfox wrote to Dan Clough <=-

    Gonna have lunch at CFA today.

    A few years ago, the first Chick-Fil-A in my area opened up. It
    seemed they were very popular, and they had long lines for
    months. I tried some of their chicken but I didn't see what all
    the fuss was about. I can get chicken just as good or perhaps
    better from other fast-food restaurants.

    I haven't found many (any?) *fast-food* places that are better,
    but it's a subjective thing anyway, of course. I think CFA's
    chicken is a little different (and better IMHO) than most others.

    Man, all this talk about Chic-fil-A is causng me to crave to have their chicken sandwiches.

    Dan, I agree with you; it's very subjective as people have different tastes. Me personally, I love Chic-fil-A and Zaxby's, but I'm not a fan of KFC.

    As far as their opion goes, it's theirs and they have a right to have it
    like everyone else. Personally, I believe a business is not a good platform
    to do it through.

    Even after all of the negativity they received a few years ago, they seem
    to do really well in the area that I'm in, and they are growing. Hm, oh
    well. Still love their food.


    -jag
    Code it, Script it, Automate it!

    ... Now let's sit back and see how wrong I am!
    --- MultiMail/DOS v0.51
    þ Synchronet þ -- You've arrived! Disconnected Reality BBS -- discreal.ddns.net
  • From Nightfox@VERT/DIGDIST to Dmxrob on Tuesday, March 26, 2019 09:09:07
    Re: Re: Banning Chick-fil-a
    By: Dmxrob to Nightfox on Mon Mar 25 2019 10:38 pm

    Ditto. I tried them once - and once was enough. Expensive relatively speaking and the chicken wasn't that good. I can get better chicken tenders at McDonalds, and better chicken period at KFC or Lee's -- or even some of the local grocery stores. Plus we have Cane's, Zaxby's and Slim Chickens which are all far, far better than Chic-Fil-A.

    As a bonus, they aren't controversial either.

    I don't really see what all the controversy is about with Chick-Fil-A.. They can run their business how they want, people can buy their food if they want.

    Nightfox

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ Digital Distortion: digitaldistortionbbs.com
  • From Nightfox@VERT/DIGDIST to MRO on Tuesday, March 26, 2019 09:10:18
    Re: RE: Banning Chick-fil-a
    By: MRO to Nightfox on Tue Mar 26 2019 12:05 am

    the LGBT community though. This is an article on AJC, and I'm not
    sure of their accuracy, but this article says Chick-Fil-A's president
    said the company opposes gay marriage (URL shortened to fit here more
    easily): https://on-ajc.com/2HTeRtx

    well he has a right to his opinion in my book. as long as he
    isnt hurting anybody.

    I agree, everyone has a right to their opinion.

    Nightfox

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ Digital Distortion: digitaldistortionbbs.com
  • From MRO@VERT/BBSESINF to Jagossel on Tuesday, March 26, 2019 18:26:09
    Re: Re: Banning Chick-fil-a
    By: Jagossel to MRO on Tue Mar 26 2019 07:48 am

    DIE

    I understand you're going through some personal issues at the moment, and

    not really, i'm doing good.
    do you really think i'm pounding my fist on the table and yelling 'DIEEE'

    your job, and the come backnonce you're through your personal issue. Stop taking it out on the rest of us that had not done anything to you.
    If you can't contribute to this conversation with more meaningful points and counter-points, then I suggest taking a break.


    dont take everything so fucking seriously.

    i'm sick of hearing this contribute shit. i contribute as much or more than anybody else. quit trying to quantify contributions.

    lighten up. this kind of stuff is why the regular people ditched bbsing.
    ---
    þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
  • From MRO@VERT/BBSESINF to Nightfox on Tuesday, March 26, 2019 18:29:01
    Re: Re: Banning Chick-fil-a
    By: Nightfox to Dmxrob on Tue Mar 26 2019 09:09 am

    Re: Re: Banning Chick-fil-a
    By: Dmxrob to Nightfox on Mon Mar 25 2019 10:38 pm

    Ditto. I tried them once - and once was enough. Expensive relatively speaking and the chicken wasn't that good. I can get better chicken tenders at McDonalds, and better chicken period at KFC or Lee's -- or even some of the local grocery stores. Plus we have Cane's, Zaxby's and Slim Chickens which are all far, far better than Chic-Fil-A.

    As a bonus, they aren't controversial either.

    I don't really see what all the controversy is about with Chick-Fil-A..
    They can run their business how they want, people can buy their food if they want.



    like the owner of the company donated some money in 2012 and a few years ago people made a stink about it.

    i think people just like to be pretend offended. this is the age of the witchhunt.

    they went after that harvey weinstein guy even though women were bending over to get parts for years. what about all those people that knew what this monster was doing and let it go on. those people are the respected people that know how to keep away from the drama. they should go after THOSE people too.

    in the end they are only doing witchhunts because they like to see the big rich ones fall. there's no real moral reason.
    ---
    þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
  • From MRO@VERT/BBSESINF to Nightfox on Tuesday, March 26, 2019 18:30:40
    Re: RE: Banning Chick-fil-a
    By: Nightfox to MRO on Tue Mar 26 2019 09:10 am

    Re: RE: Banning Chick-fil-a
    By: MRO to Nightfox on Tue Mar 26 2019 12:05 am

    the LGBT community though. This is an article on AJC, and I'm not
    sure of their accuracy, but this article says Chick-Fil-A's president
    said the company opposes gay marriage (URL shortened to fit here more
    easily): https://on-ajc.com/2HTeRtx

    well he has a right to his opinion in my book. as long as he
    isnt hurting anybody.

    I agree, everyone has a right to their opinion.


    i think i said this before but those wesboro baptist church guys were in my city. they were a few blocks away from me infront of a school, in fact.

    my city handled it well. nobody came out in opposition and created a mob and shouted back. we let those fake losers stand outside in the cold for 2 hrs under police protection and then they left.
    ---
    þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
  • From Dan Clough@VERT/PALANT to Jagossel on Tuesday, March 26, 2019 19:16:00
    Jagossel wrote to Dan Clough <=-

    I haven't found many (any?) *fast-food* places that are better,
    but it's a subjective thing anyway, of course. I think CFA's
    chicken is a little different (and better IMHO) than most others.

    Dan, I agree with you; it's very subjective as people have
    different tastes. Me personally, I love Chic-fil-A and Zaxby's,
    but I'm not a fan of KFC.

    Yes, different people have different tastes, no doubt. I also
    love CFA and Zaxby's (in that order). Places like KFC and
    Popeye's have their place too, occasionally, perhaps at about 2AM
    on a Saturday morning... :)

    Even after all of the negativity they received a few years ago,
    they seem to do really well in the area that I'm in, and they are
    growing. Hm, oh well. Still love their food.

    Oh yes, I see them doing VERY well everywhere. Obviously their
    stance on certain issues hasn't hurt their business. I leave
    politics out of the equation when deciding where to eat. :)



    ... A woman drove me to drink, and I never had the courtesy to thank her.
    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.51
    þ Synchronet þ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL
  • From Nightfox@VERT/DIGDIST to MRO on Tuesday, March 26, 2019 09:21:39
    Re: Re: Banning Chick-fil-a
    By: MRO to Dmxrob on Tue Mar 26 2019 12:06 am

    Ditto. I tried them once - and once was enough. Expensive relatively
    speaking and the chicken wasn't that good. I can get better chicken
    tenders at McDonalds, and better chicken period at KFC or Lee's -- or
    even some of

    wow you must have been at a bad one. they are tons better than mcdonalds or kfc. hell, kfc's salt content is through the roof. makes my lips swell up.

    I've been to my local Chick-Fil-A a few times and I still don't see what the fuss is about. Their chicken is good and I'd eat there, but I wouldn't go out of my way to go to Chick-Fil-A. IMO KFC's is just as good. I think even Dairy Queen has good chicken, and I don't think McDonalds chicken is that bad either.

    Nightfox

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ Digital Distortion: digitaldistortionbbs.com
  • From MRO@VERT/BBSESINF to Nightfox on Tuesday, March 26, 2019 22:24:40
    Re: Re: Banning Chick-fil-a
    By: Nightfox to MRO on Tue Mar 26 2019 09:21 am


    I've been to my local Chick-Fil-A a few times and I still don't see what the fuss is about. Their chicken is good and I'd eat there, but I wouldn't go out of my way to go to Chick-Fil-A. IMO KFC's is just as good. I think even Dairy Queen has good chicken, and I don't think McDonalds chicken is that bad either.


    it's not bad, it's good. i wouldnt say it's the same as kfc or mcdonalds.
    it's proably a few notches better in my area.

    there are some people that are crazy about chick fil a. and they are crazy about it.
    ---
    þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
  • From Va7aqd@VERT/VA7AQDS to MRO on Tuesday, March 26, 2019 23:19:57
    Re: Re: Banning Chick-fil-a
    By: MRO to Nightfox on Tue Mar 26 2019 06:29 pm

    like the owner of the company donated some money in 2012 and a few years ago people made a stink about it.

    Is this where you guys that love their chicken have landed? Please go read up on them. It
    has nothing to do with the owner, it has everything to do with *the company* reportedly
    continuing to fund anti-LGBTQ groups.

    in the end they are only doing witchhunts because they like to see the big rich ones fall. there's no real moral reason.

    That's incredible short-sightedness. Guess you only want to see what you want to see
    because... why, exactly? Because they serve chicken? Shithead businesses should get the clue
    to act at least decently, or fail.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ VA7AQD's Tavern - bbs.isurf.ca
  • From Dan Clough@VERT/PALANT to Va7aqd on Wednesday, March 27, 2019 07:44:00
    Va7aqd wrote to MRO <=-

    like the owner of the company donated some money in 2012 and a few years ago people made a stink about it.

    Is this where you guys that love their chicken have landed?
    Please go read up on them. It has nothing to do with the owner,
    it has everything to do with *the company* reportedly continuing
    to fund anti-LGBTQ groups.

    Very handy word there.... "reportedly..." Where is that being
    reported? Can you provide a cite/reference that confirms that, or
    are you just using that as a way to get all indignant?

    in the end they are only doing witchhunts because they like to see the big rich ones fall. there's no real moral reason.

    That's incredible short-sightedness. Guess you only want to see
    what you want to see because... why, exactly? Because they serve
    chicken? Shithead businesses should get the clue to act at least decently, or fail.

    So they are a "shithead business" because they have an opinion on
    something? Why are they not allowed to have an opinion just the
    same as you are? If it's not illegal, can't a business donate
    money to whomever they choose, as long as they're willing to
    accept possible consequences to their business? Doesn't seem to
    have hurt them (CFA) any - every single store they have is packed
    every single day.



    ... So easy, a child could do it. Child sold separately.
    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.51
    þ Synchronet þ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL
  • From Moondog@VERT/CAVEBBS to Nightfox on Wednesday, March 27, 2019 09:57:00
    Re: Re: Banning Chick-fil-a
    By: Nightfox to Dmxrob on Tue Mar 26 2019 09:09 am

    Re: Re: Banning Chick-fil-a
    By: Dmxrob to Nightfox on Mon Mar 25 2019 10:38 pm

    Ditto. I tried them once - and once was enough. Expensive relatively speaking and the chicken wasn't that good. I can get better chicken tenders at McDonalds, and better chicken period at KFC or Lee's -- or e some of the local grocery stores. Plus we have Cane's, Zaxby's and Slim Chickens which are all far, far better than Chic-Fil-A.

    As a bonus, they aren't controversial either.

    I don't really see what all the controversy is about with Chick-Fil-A.. The can run their business how they want, people can buy their food if they want

    Nightfox

    The idea of a non-individual such as a corporation being tied to a religious
    or political opinion is enough to enrage sensitive interest groups,
    regardless which direction they spin. Also I feel there's an inbalance in
    bias where liberal ideas no matter how controversial are expected to be accepted, while anything conservative is going to be deemed immediately as being backward, racist, and negative in general.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ The Cave BBS - Since 1992 - cavebbs.homeip.net
  • From Va7aqd@VERT/VA7AQDS to Dan Clough on Wednesday, March 27, 2019 10:49:32
    Re: Re: Banning Chick-fil-a
    By: Dan Clough to Va7aqd on Wed Mar 27 2019 07:44 am

    Very handy word there.... "reportedly..." Where is that being
    reported? Can you provide a cite/reference that confirms that, or
    are you just using that as a way to get all indignant?

    I already cited the source that brings this information together. Here's the 4 references to this topic
    specifically:

    https://www.newyorker.com/culture/annals-of-gastronomy/chick-fil-as-creepy-infiltration-of-new-york-city

    https://www.businessinsider.com/chick-fil-a-lgbt-twitter-jack-dorsey-apology-marriage-equality-2018-6

    https://thinkprogress.org/chick-fil-a-still-anti-gay-970f079bf85/

    https://www.restobiz.ca/chick-fil-a-expansion-into-toronto-prompts-backlash/

    So they are a "shithead business" because they have an opinion on
    something? Why are they not allowed to have an opinion just the
    same as you are? If it's not illegal, can't a business donate
    money to whomever they choose, as long as they're willing to
    accept possible consequences to their business? Doesn't seem to
    have hurt them (CFA) any - every single store they have is packed
    every single day.

    Who said they're not allowed to have an opinion?

    Yes, they're a shithead business when they're obviously for oppression of a particular segment of the
    population who has done nothing wrong. It's not just opinion, they *fund* these other organizations, so their
    "opinion" matters. It harms people. It's not just a passive thing.

    Just because something isn't illegal (yet) where you are doesn't make it correct, just, or moral.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ VA7AQD's Tavern - bbs.isurf.ca
  • From Va7aqd@VERT/VA7AQDS to Dan Clough on Wednesday, March 27, 2019 11:07:08
    Re: Re: Banning Chick-fil-a
    By: Va7aqd to Dan Clough on Wed Mar 27 2019 10:49 am

    Just because something isn't illegal (yet) where you are doesn't make it correct, just, or moral.

    I should probably clarify - this isn't a suggestion or an endorsement of making donating of any sort, or of
    having an opinion, illegal. It's a suggestion that there's a long way to go in the US anyway to making hate
    and oppression much less legal and accepted than they are today.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ VA7AQD's Tavern - bbs.isurf.ca
  • From Vk3jed@VERT/FREEWAY to Va7aqd on Thursday, March 28, 2019 08:28:00
    On 03-27-19 10:49, Va7aqd wrote to Dan Clough <=-

    Who said they're not allowed to have an opinion?

    Yes, they're a shithead business when they're obviously for oppression
    of a particular segment of the population who has done nothing wrong.
    It's not just opinion, they *fund* these other organizations, so their "opinion" matters. It harms people. It's not just a passive thing.

    This is all about human rights and respect. These hate groups that are being funded do real harm. Look at the suicide rate among LGBT youth, compared to the general population. This is a direct result.

    I don't care what people believe in private, but as soon as beliefs enter the public sphere, harmful ones should be challenged.

    And I will also vote with my wallet on these issues. For example, I've never had Gloria Jeans coffee (which is very common here), because of their ties to the Hillsong Church. I'll go down to the local cafe with the rainbow sticker on the window instead - there's quite a few places with rainbow stickers, because of the 2017 marriage equality postal vote, and a lot of local businesses supported the (successful) "Yes" campaign.

    Just because something isn't illegal (yet) where you are doesn't make
    it correct, just, or moral.

    True.


    ... Die, my dear doctor? That's the last thing I shall do.
    --- MultiMail/Win v0.51
    þ Synchronet þ Freeway BBS, Bendigo Australia. freeway.apana.org.au
  • From Dan Clough@VERT/PALANT to Va7aqd on Wednesday, March 27, 2019 19:56:00
    Va7aqd wrote to Dan Clough <=-

    So they are a "shithead business" because they have an opinion on
    something? Why are they not allowed to have an opinion just the
    same as you are? If it's not illegal, can't a business donate
    money to whomever they choose, as long as they're willing to
    accept possible consequences to their business? Doesn't seem to
    have hurt them (CFA) any - every single store they have is packed
    every single day.

    Who said they're not allowed to have an opinion?

    Well.... OK, you didn't actually say that, but called them a
    shithead business for their actions which are *BASED* on their
    opinions. Namely, that they believe in the words of the Christian
    Bible and don't think LGBT conduct is appropriate.

    Yes, they're a shithead business when they're obviously for
    oppression of a particular segment of the population who has done
    nothing wrong.

    Unless you believe that that segment *HAS* done something wrong.
    There's also a huge difference between oppression and expressing
    an opinion. They're not "oppressing" anybody. They don't have
    signs up saying they won't serve LGBT folks. If they are willing
    to give up that segment of the population as potential customers,
    they can do that. It's not like they are turning anyone away, or
    somehow screening them before providing service.

    Just so you don't mistake my position, here's some info on it - I
    am not gay, but not anti-gay. I don't have a horse in the race.
    LGBT stuff is not my cup-o-tea, but I don't care if it is for
    others. I keep out of it. Live and let live. I don't base my
    eating decisions on the political stance of a restaurant,
    certainly.

    Just because something isn't illegal (yet) where you are doesn't
    make it correct, just, or moral.

    I think you're missing that it *CAN* be correct, just, and moral
    to someone who believes strongly enough against the behavior in
    question. Many very religious people are that way. I'm not
    arguing in favor of either side on this, just pointing out that
    each side can believe they're correct just as strongly as the
    other side does.



    ... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!
    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.51
    þ Synchronet þ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL
  • From Dan Clough@VERT/PALANT to Va7aqd on Wednesday, March 27, 2019 20:00:00
    Va7aqd wrote to Dan Clough <=-

    Just because something isn't illegal (yet) where you are doesn't make it correct, just, or moral.

    I should probably clarify - this isn't a suggestion or an
    endorsement of making donating of any sort, or of having an
    opinion, illegal. It's a suggestion that there's a long way to
    go in the US anyway to making hate and oppression much less legal
    and accepted than they are today.

    Understood, and agreed. I just like to remind folks that
    sometimes the definition of what is "hate" or "oppression" is half
    the battle. In the USA there are strong protections for freedom
    of speech and the right to have any opinion you want to, and it
    can get a little hazy on whether it is OK to suppress that.



    ... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!
    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.51
    þ Synchronet þ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL
  • From Dan Clough@VERT/PALANT to Moondog on Wednesday, March 27, 2019 20:38:00
    Moondog wrote to Nightfox <=-

    I don't really see what all the controversy is about with Chick-Fil-A.. The can run their business how they want, people can buy their food if they want

    The idea of a non-individual such as a corporation being tied to
    a religious or political opinion is enough to enrage sensitive
    interest groups, regardless which direction they spin. Also I
    feel there's an inbalance in bias where liberal ideas no matter
    how controversial are expected to be accepted, while anything
    conservative is going to be deemed immediately as being backward,
    racist, and negative in general.

    Absolutely correct on that bias point.

    Such ideas are aided and abetted by the no-doubt-about-it leftist
    biased "mainstream media", too. They don't even bother trying to
    hide it any more.




    ... Post may contain information unsuitable for overly sensitive persons.
    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.51
    þ Synchronet þ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL
  • From MRO@VERT/BBSESINF to Va7aqd on Wednesday, March 27, 2019 23:20:42
    Re: Re: Banning Chick-fil-a
    By: Va7aqd to MRO on Tue Mar 26 2019 11:19 pm

    Re: Re: Banning Chick-fil-a
    By: MRO to Nightfox on Tue Mar 26 2019 06:29 pm

    like the owner of the company donated some money in 2012 and a few years ago people made a stink about it.

    Is this where you guys that love their chicken have landed? Please go read

    i dont think i've had chick fil a in about 10-15 years.

    up on them. It
    has nothing to do with the owner, it has everything to do with *the company* reportedly
    continuing to fund anti-LGBTQ groups.

    i've read the bullshit in the media. there's better things to focus on.
    gay people have rights now but apparently they think the fight will never end.

    That's incredible short-sightedness. Guess you only want to see what you want to see
    because... why, exactly? Because they serve chicken? Shithead businesses should get the clue
    to act at least decently, or fail.


    that's exactly why. i dont care how many faggots get murdered so i can have my delicious chick fil a. i hope there's a homo-holocaust so i can get my chicken tenders with polynesian sauce.

    go back to facebook.
    ---
    þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
  • From MRO@VERT/BBSESINF to Moondog on Wednesday, March 27, 2019 23:23:33
    Re: Re: Banning Chick-fil-a
    By: Moondog to Nightfox on Wed Mar 27 2019 09:57 am

    The idea of a non-individual such as a corporation being tied to a religious or political opinion is enough to enrage sensitive interest groups, regardless which direction they spin. Also I feel there's an inbalance in bias where liberal ideas no matter how controversial are expected to be accepted, while anything conservative is going to be deemed immediately as being backward, racist, and negative in general.


    everyone has a right to their own beliefs and opinons in the usa.

    liberals, which are fucking retarded, want you to think the way they think and if you dont, you need to be destroyed in some fashion.

    some workplaces are so hostile, if they consider you a conservative or whatever, you are gone. you are the enemy. that's just wrong.

    i can't believe i used to consider myself a liberal when years later i see this kind of thinking and behavior.
    ---
    þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
  • From MRO@VERT/BBSESINF to Vk3jed on Wednesday, March 27, 2019 23:26:32
    Re: Re: Banning Chick-fil-a
    By: Vk3jed to Va7aqd on Thu Mar 28 2019 08:28 am

    This is all about human rights and respect. These hate groups that are being funded do real harm. Look at the suicide rate among LGBT youth, compared to the general population. This is a direct result.


    for one, are they truly a HATE group? are some of these groups just supporting their own beliefs and wish no harm on anybody?
    in the usa gay people have rights. they can now marry, too. in some cases you are better off being gay. you can get away with a lot.

    i know a lot about hate groups. we had some in my region and i know some people who joined them and left.

    the best way to fund a hate group is the give them attention. with the attention they get funds and people who join the cause.
    the more media attention, the more money. it just rolls in.
    ---
    þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
  • From Vk3jed@VERT/FREEWAY to MRO on Thursday, March 28, 2019 18:48:00
    On 03-27-19 23:26, MRO wrote to Vk3jed <=-

    for one, are they truly a HATE group? are some of these groups just supporting their own beliefs and wish no harm on anybody?
    in the usa gay people have rights. they can now marry, too. in some
    cases you are better off being gay. you can get away with a lot.

    If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck... Even if it's hiding behing religious beliefs, "religious freedom", or some other facade.

    the best way to fund a hate group is the give them attention. with the attention they get funds and people who join the cause.
    the more media attention, the more money. it just rolls in.
    ---

    As I said, vote with your feet/wallet. Cut the money off. :)


    ... Teamwork is critical; it allows you to blame someone else.
    --- MultiMail/Win v0.51
    þ Synchronet þ Freeway BBS, Bendigo Australia. freeway.apana.org.au
  • From Nightfox@VERT/DIGDIST to MRO on Thursday, March 28, 2019 09:51:29
    Re: Re: Banning Chick-fil-a
    By: MRO to Vk3jed on Wed Mar 27 2019 11:26 pm

    for one, are they truly a HATE group? are some of these groups just supporting their own beliefs and wish no harm on anybody?

    I could see some people arguing that by trying to prevent them from getting married, etc., or by calling their actions "wrong" etc., they are doing emotional harm. I suppose that still wouldn't necessarily qualify them as a "hate" group though.

    in the usa gay people have rights. they can now marry, too. in some cases you are better off being gay. you can get away with a lot.

    I thought the laws for gay marriage were enacted by individual states, and I still don't think it's legal in all US states for gay people to get married. For instance, several years ago I heard California enacted a law allowing it, and then I heard it was repealed. I haven't really kept up on that for California, but I still don't think gay people can easily get married anywhere in the US. And even if they get married on one state, I'm not sure if their marriage would be recognized in all other states.

    Nightfox

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ Digital Distortion: digitaldistortionbbs.com
  • From Va7aqd@VERT/VA7AQDS to Vk3jed on Thursday, March 28, 2019 11:16:34
    Re: Re: Banning Chick-fil-a
    By: Vk3jed to Va7aqd on Thu Mar 28 2019 08:28 am

    This is all about human rights and respect. These hate groups that are being funded do real harm. Look at the suicide rate among LGBT youth,
    And I will also vote with my wallet on these issues. For example, I've

    Absolutely, and it's not all hard to not spend money in many places, especially food - the hard(er) part is
    getting an understanding of where your money is going. I'm not sure why so many want to bury their heads in
    the sand.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ VA7AQD's Tavern - bbs.isurf.ca
  • From Va7aqd@VERT/VA7AQDS to Dan Clough on Thursday, March 28, 2019 11:41:45
    Re: Re: Banning Chick-fil-a
    By: Dan Clough to Va7aqd on Wed Mar 27 2019 07:56 pm

    Well.... OK, you didn't actually say that, but called them a
    shithead business for their actions which are *BASED* on their
    opinions. Namely, that they believe in the words of the Christian
    Bible and don't think LGBT conduct is appropriate.

    I'm happy to apologise for anything I am not clear enough about, for sure - so, honestly, I'm sorry for
    anything I'm not being clear enough about, that's fixable! :-)

    The crux of the issue with them as a business is nicely alluded to right there in your paragraph. They
    *believe* in something, they *think* something, and that's all A-OK, but it's *not OK* to then take action in
    a direct way (funding anti-LGBTQ-or-other groups) that harms a group of people. That's pro-inequality, and in
    my books, in this case, it's not OK.

    Unless you believe that that segment *HAS* done something wrong.

    Nope, it doesn't matter what you believe. Your actions matter, and in this case they're funding oppressive
    groups. That is a direct action against a group of people. Again, further on, there should be more action
    taken against oppressive organizations, but that's a slightly different topic than what we're going on about
    here.

    There's also a huge difference between oppression and expressing
    an opinion. They're not "oppressing" anybody. They don't have

    If you fund an oppressor, you're oppressing.

    others. I keep out of it. Live and let live. I don't base my
    eating decisions on the political stance of a restaurant,
    certainly.

    That's fine, but some of us definitely do not want our money being put toward organizations that harm people.
    Unfortunately, there's a very direct path of buying a hunk of greasy chicken at Chick-Fil-Eh (When they come
    to Canada), some of that money going to their "charitable donation" foundation thing, and some of that going
    to anti-LGBTQ groups. I won't be part of that.

    I think you're missing that it *CAN* be correct, just, and moral
    to someone who believes strongly enough against the behavior in
    question. Many very religious people are that way. I'm not

    Many very religious people need a much stronger lesson in what it means to treat people equally. The
    hypocrisy around harming your fellow man for showing an expression of love that your interpretation of a fairy
    tale doesn't agree with is jaw-dropping, and these coots need to be called on it every time. They can take
    their hate and shove it.

    That said, this is getting way off track. The point about the Chick-Fil-A going in to an airport is an easy
    one. If the airport wants to be a place of inclusion, you don't allow in businesses that are exclusionary.
    Chick-Fil-A may be happy to take money from anyone who walks in, but when they take that money and fund hate
    groups with it, fuck them. Why can't the airport take a stand, what's wrong with that?

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ VA7AQD's Tavern - bbs.isurf.ca
  • From Va7aqd@VERT/VA7AQDS to Dan Clough on Thursday, March 28, 2019 11:46:37
    Re: Re: Banning Chick-fil-a
    By: Dan Clough to Va7aqd on Wed Mar 27 2019 08:00 pm

    Understood, and agreed. I just like to remind folks that
    sometimes the definition of what is "hate" or "oppression" is half
    the battle. In the USA there are strong protections for freedom
    of speech and the right to have any opinion you want to, and it
    can get a little hazy on whether it is OK to suppress that.

    I guess if we go back to the original question or argument, it's perfectly OK for a business or a local
    government to refuse service to a business for whatever reason they like. That doesn't affect their free
    speech.

    This, over and over and over again: https://xkcd.com/1357/

    No?

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ VA7AQD's Tavern - bbs.isurf.ca
  • From Va7aqd@VERT/VA7AQDS to MRO on Thursday, March 28, 2019 11:48:45
    Re: Re: Banning Chick-fil-a
    By: MRO to Va7aqd on Wed Mar 27 2019 11:20 pm

    that's exactly why. i dont care how many faggots get murdered so i can have my delicious chick fil a. i hope there's a homo-holocaust so i can get my chicken tenders with polynesian sauce.

    go back to facebook.

    Oh dear... You can stop waving your cane and sit down now, Grandpa. You've had too much screen time this
    week.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ VA7AQD's Tavern - bbs.isurf.ca
  • From Va7aqd@VERT/VA7AQDS to Nightfox on Thursday, March 28, 2019 12:39:06
    Re: Re: Banning Chick-fil-a
    By: Nightfox to MRO on Thu Mar 28 2019 09:51 am

    I thought the laws for gay marriage were enacted by individual states, and I still don't think it's legal in all US states for gay people to get married. For instance, several years ago I heard California enacted a law allowing it, and then I heard it was repealed. I haven't really kept up on that for California, but I still don't think gay people can easily get married anywhere in the US. And even if they get married on one state, I'm not sure if their marriage would be recognized in all other states.

    According to this info at WP : "On June 26, 2015 the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in Obergefell
    v. Hodges that states must license and recognize same-sex marriages. Consequently, same-sex marriage is legal
    in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, U.S. Virgin Islands and Northern Mariana
    Islands. Officials in American Samoa are discussing whether the ruling applies to the territory; currently
    same-sex marriages are neither licensed nor recognized there."

    So, apparently, it should be do-able in every state, I think? I don't know if some states find ways to squirm
    around that or not, but it seems like they shouldn't be able to.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ VA7AQD's Tavern - bbs.isurf.ca
  • From Nightfox@VERT/DIGDIST to Va7aqd on Thursday, March 28, 2019 13:19:17
    Re: Re: Banning Chick-fil-a
    By: Va7aqd to Nightfox on Thu Mar 28 2019 12:39 pm

    According to this info at WP : "On June 26, 2015 the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in Obergefell v. Hodges that states must license and recognize same-sex marriages. Consequently, same-sex marriage is legal in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, U.S. Virgin Islands and Northern Mariana Islands. Officials in American Samoa are

    So, apparently, it should be do-able in every state, I think? I don't know if some states find ways to squirm around that or not, but it seems like they shouldn't be able to.

    Ah, interesting, I hadn't heard about that.

    Nightfox

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ Digital Distortion: digitaldistortionbbs.com
  • From MRO@VERT/BBSESINF to Vk3jed on Thursday, March 28, 2019 17:21:46
    Re: Re: Banning Chick-fil-a
    By: Vk3jed to MRO on Thu Mar 28 2019 06:48 pm

    for one, are they truly a HATE group? are some of these groups just supporting their own beliefs and wish no harm on anybody?
    in the usa gay people have rights. they can now marry, too. in some cases you are better off being gay. you can get away with a lot.

    If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck... Even if it's hiding behing religious beliefs, "religious freedom", or some other facade.

    the thing is, the media twists shit to their own interests. so you cant really know for sure.

    the best way to fund a hate group is the give them attention. with the attention they get funds and people who join the cause.
    the more media attention, the more money. it just rolls in.
    ---

    As I said, vote with your feet/wallet. Cut the money off. :)


    you cant cut the money off when giving them attention gives them resources. best thing to do is ignore them
    ---
    þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
  • From MRO@VERT/BBSESINF to Nightfox on Thursday, March 28, 2019 17:24:22
    Re: Re: Banning Chick-fil-a
    By: Nightfox to MRO on Thu Mar 28 2019 09:51 am

    I could see some people arguing that by trying to prevent them from getting married, etc., or by calling their actions "wrong" etc., they are doing emotional harm. I suppose that still wouldn't necessarily qualify them as a "hate" group though.

    at the same time god loves everyone, so if they follow god, they shouldnt be hateful.

    except if you are muslim.

    in the usa gay people have rights. they can now marry, too. in some cases you are better off being gay. you can get away with a lot.

    I thought the laws for gay marriage were enacted by individual states, and I still don't think it's legal in all US states for gay people to get married. For instance, several years ago I heard California enacted a law allowing it, and then I heard it was repealed. I haven't really kept up on that for California, but I still don't think gay people can easily get married anywhere in the US. And even if they get married on one state, I'm not sure


    i'm pretty sure in the beginning it was like that and then the supreme court eliminated the bans and it's now it's legal on a fed level
    ---
    þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
  • From MRO@VERT/BBSESINF to Va7aqd on Thursday, March 28, 2019 17:26:04
    Re: Re: Banning Chick-fil-a
    By: Va7aqd to Vk3jed on Thu Mar 28 2019 11:16 am

    especially food - the hard(er) part is
    getting an understanding of where your money is going. I'm not sure why so many want to bury their heads in
    the sand.


    it's not people burying their heads in the sand; these people dont share the same beliefs and opinions that you do. this doesnt make them stupid or ignorant. everyone has a right to their own opinion.
    ---
    þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
  • From MRO@VERT/BBSESINF to Va7aqd on Thursday, March 28, 2019 17:26:43
    Re: Re: Banning Chick-fil-a
    By: Va7aqd to MRO on Thu Mar 28 2019 11:48 am

    go back to facebook.

    Oh dear... You can stop waving your cane and sit down now, Grandpa. You've had too much screen time this
    week.


    i'll wave my cane sideways up your asshole
    ---
    þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
  • From Nightfox@VERT/DIGDIST to MRO on Thursday, March 28, 2019 20:18:49
    Re: Re: Banning Chick-fil-a
    By: MRO to Nightfox on Thu Mar 28 2019 05:24 pm

    I could see some people arguing that by trying to prevent them from
    getting married, etc., or by calling their actions "wrong" etc., they
    are doing emotional harm. I suppose that still wouldn't necessarily
    qualify them as a "hate" group though.

    at the same time god loves everyone, so if they follow god, they shouldnt be hateful.

    They say you shouldn't judge anyone, and you should leave judgment up to God/Jesus.

    I thought the laws for gay marriage were enacted by individual states,
    and I still don't think it's legal in all US states for gay people to
    get married. For instance, several years ago I heard California
    enacted a law allowing it, and then I heard it was repealed. I
    haven't really kept up on that for California, but I still don't think
    gay people can easily get married anywhere in the US. And even if
    they get married on one state, I'm not sure

    i'm pretty sure in the beginning it was like that and then the supreme court eliminated the bans and it's now it's legal on a fed level

    Yeah, someone else posted the federal ruling making it legal in all 50 states.

    Nightfox

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ Digital Distortion: digitaldistortionbbs.com
  • From BlaZ@VERT/PNLTYBOX to Dan Clough on Saturday, March 30, 2019 03:46:10
    Re: Re: Banning Chick-fil-a
    By: Dan Clough to Va7aqd on Wed Mar 27 2019 07:56 pm

    an opinion. They're not "oppressing" anybody. They don't have
    signs up saying they won't serve LGBT folks. If they are willing
    to give up that segment of the population as potential customers,
    they can do that. It's not like they are turning anyone away, or

    Many gays enjoy their chicken. Food is food.

    BlaZ

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ The Penalty Box | Peoria, IL | http://pbox.no-ip.org
  • From BlaZ@VERT/PNLTYBOX to Nightfox on Saturday, March 30, 2019 03:48:58
    Re: Re: Banning Chick-fil-a
    By: Nightfox to MRO on Thu Mar 28 2019 09:51 am

    I thought the laws for gay marriage were enacted by individual states, and I still don't think it's legal in all US states for gay people to get married. For instance, several years ago I heard California enacted a law allowing it, and then I heard it was repealed. I haven't really kept up on that for California, but I still don't think gay people can easily get married anywhere in the US. And even if they get married on one state, I'm not sure if their marriage would be recognized in all other states.

    Pretty sure this was decided by the Supreme Court and that gays can marry anywhere.

    BlaZ

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ The Penalty Box | Peoria, IL | http://pbox.no-ip.org
  • From BlaZ@VERT/PNLTYBOX to Nightfox on Saturday, March 30, 2019 03:52:01
    Re: Re: Banning Chick-fil-a
    By: Nightfox to MRO on Thu Mar 28 2019 08:18 pm

    Yeah, someone else posted the federal ruling making it legal in all 50 states.

    When reading and replying on a BBS, you may not know the message has already been replied to until after you have posted your reply.

    BlaZ

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ The Penalty Box | Peoria, IL | http://pbox.no-ip.org
  • From MRO@VERT/BBSESINF to Nightfox on Saturday, March 30, 2019 12:39:57
    Re: Re: Banning Chick-fil-a
    By: Nightfox to MRO on Thu Mar 28 2019 08:18 pm

    at the same time god loves everyone, so if they follow god, they shouldnt be hateful.

    They say you shouldn't judge anyone, and you should leave judgment up to God/Jesus.



    do they say that or do they say vengence is for god.
    oh judge not lest thee be judged or whatever. i'll judge people.
    sorry god
    ---
    þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
  • From MRO@VERT/BBSESINF to BlaZ on Saturday, March 30, 2019 12:40:34
    Re: Re: Banning Chick-fil-a
    By: BlaZ to Nightfox on Sat Mar 30 2019 03:48 am


    Pretty sure this was decided by the Supreme Court and that gays can marry anywhere.


    getting married is such a crock of shit. they need to come up with something better
    ---
    þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
  • From Vk3jed@VERT/FREEWAY to Va7aqd on Sunday, March 31, 2019 08:21:00
    On 03-28-19 11:16, Va7aqd wrote to Vk3jed <=-

    Absolutely, and it's not all hard to not spend money in many places, especially food - the hard(er) part is getting an understanding of
    where your money is going. I'm not sure why so many want to bury their heads in the sand.

    Agree. Be aware and spend (or not) accordingly. :)


    ... Keyboard not connected . . . . Think F1 to continue.
    --- MultiMail/Win v0.51
    þ Synchronet þ Freeway BBS, Bendigo Australia. freeway.apana.org.au
  • From Vk3jed@VERT/FREEWAY to MRO on Sunday, March 31, 2019 08:26:00
    On 03-28-19 17:21, MRO wrote to Vk3jed <=-

    the thing is, the media twists shit to their own interests. so you cant really know for sure.

    True, but since the 1990s, I've been getting a lot of information form outside the mainstream media. Back then, yes, BBSs were a source of news and information among others. The important thing is to consider sources and make as informed a decision as you can.

    you cant cut the money off when giving them attention gives them resources. best thing to do is ignore them

    And you can't advise others where (or not) to spend their money without telling someone. So some information without hysteria is definitely needed.


    ... Politics = Poly(many) + tics(blood sucking parasites)
    --- MultiMail/Win v0.51
    þ Synchronet þ Freeway BBS, Bendigo Australia. freeway.apana.org.au
  • From Vk3jed@VERT/FREEWAY to Nightfox on Sunday, March 31, 2019 08:41:00
    On 03-28-19 09:51, Nightfox wrote to MRO <=-

    I thought the laws for gay marriage were enacted by individual states,
    and I still don't think it's legal in all US states for gay people to
    get married. For instance, several years ago I heard California enacted
    a law allowing it, and then I heard it was repealed. I haven't really kept up on that for California, but I still don't think gay people can easily get married anywhere in the US. And even if they get married on one state, I'm not sure if their marriage would be recognized in all
    other states.

    In the US, same sex marriage became legal at a Federal level in 2015. Several states allowed it for some time before then.


    ... An optimist is a man who starts a crossword puzzle with a fountain pen.
    --- MultiMail/Win v0.51
    þ Synchronet þ Freeway BBS, Bendigo Australia. freeway.apana.org.au
  • From Vk3jed@VERT/FREEWAY to Va7aqd on Sunday, March 31, 2019 08:45:00
    On 03-28-19 12:39, Va7aqd wrote to Nightfox <=-

    According to this info at WP : "On June 26, 2015 the Supreme Court of
    the United States ruled in Obergefell v. Hodges that states must
    license and recognize same-sex marriages. Consequently, same-sex
    marriage is legal in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto
    Rico, Guam, U.S. Virgin Islands and Northern Mariana Islands. Officials
    in American Samoa are discussing whether the ruling applies to the territory; currently same-sex marriages are neither licensed nor recognized there."

    Yep, that sounds right.


    ... Accuracy is our watchword -- we NEVER make misteaks!
    --- MultiMail/Win v0.51
    þ Synchronet þ Freeway BBS, Bendigo Australia. freeway.apana.org.au
  • From BlaZ@VERT/PNLTYBOX to MRO on Sunday, March 31, 2019 16:19:06
    Re: Re: Banning Chick-fil-a
    By: MRO to BlaZ on Sat Mar 30 2019 12:40 pm

    Pretty sure this was decided by the Supreme Court and that gays can marry anywhere.

    getting married is such a crock of shit. they need to come up with something better

    They have that already: staying single.

    BlaZ

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ The Penalty Box | Peoria, IL | http://pbox.no-ip.org
  • From MRO@VERT/BBSESINF to BlaZ on Sunday, March 31, 2019 21:42:13
    Re: Re: Banning Chick-fil-a
    By: BlaZ to MRO on Sun Mar 31 2019 04:19 pm

    Re: Re: Banning Chick-fil-a
    By: MRO to BlaZ on Sat Mar 30 2019 12:40 pm

    Pretty sure this was decided by the Supreme Court and that gays can marry anywhere.

    getting married is such a crock of shit. they need to come up with something better

    They have that already: staying single.


    yeah, but some fools still want to get married. and then it doesnt work out and you have to give them half your 401k and maybe still be financially obligated to them.

    the gays had a good deal going. on the major ins agencies they could be on their partner's insurance before gay marriage was legalized.
    ---
    þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
  • From BlaZ@VERT/PNLTYBOX to MRO on Monday, April 01, 2019 22:38:23
    Re: Re: Banning Chick-fil-a
    By: MRO to BlaZ on Sun Mar 31 2019 09:42 pm

    the gays had a good deal going. on the major ins agencies they could be on their partner's insurance before gay marriage was legalized.

    This was true with Aetna back when I worked for Borders in the late 90s.

    BlaZ

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ The Penalty Box | Peoria, IL | http://pbox.no-ip.org
  • From Kevin@VERT/MMN to MRO on Saturday, April 06, 2019 01:14:00
    On 27/03/2019 23:20, MRO wrote to VA7AQD:

    i've read the bullshit in the media. there's better things to focus on.
    gay people have rights now but apparently they think the fight will never end.

    that's exactly why. i dont care how many faggots get murdered so i can have my
    delicious chick fil a. i hope there's a homo-holocaust so i can get my chicken tenders with polynesian sauce.

    Late to this topic and I give zero fucks about it, in two different quotes you proved the
    exact issue at hand.

    The LGBT community has *some* rights, but still in the majority of states and countries
    do not. It's also worth mentioning that in some countries, one's right to life is being
    taken away because some old ass book says so (by intrepretation of course). But even
    where they do have rights, nothing is going to stop a hateful piece of shit from beating
    you down.

    Paris is rather progressive, France has made laws to uphold (finally) the egalite end of
    their bargan, yet we still have a serious problem with gay bashings. And while you
    might think saying something like "i dont care how many faggots get murdered" and "i
    hope there's a homo-holocaust..." is a bunch of lolz, it's what happens in the real world
    thanks to the type of groups chick-fil-a support financially.

    So enjoy your churkken and get back to watching what ever crap you've been blitzing on
    YouTube, leave the rest of us to make the world less of a shitty place without you.
    ---
    þ wcQWK 6.0 ÷ MMN :: (416) 548-4117 :: bbs.ec.je :: www.mrman.net
  • From MRO@VERT/BBSESINF to Kevin on Friday, April 05, 2019 21:30:53
    Re: Re: Banning Chick-fil-a
    By: Kevin to MRO on Sat Apr 06 2019 01:14 am

    Late to this topic and I give zero fucks about it, in two different quotes you proved the
    exact issue at hand.


    i was just joking.
    and this is about chick fil a. they never hurt anybody and
    they are actually great to their employees.

    in no way do they fund and support groups that kill gays. they would be gone overnight if this was true.

    dont believe what the media tells you. they are out to make a buck out of your outrage.
    ---
    þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
  • From Dmxrob@VERT/STLWEST to Kevin on Saturday, April 06, 2019 08:26:17
    Re: Re: Banning Chick-fil-a
    By: Kevin to MRO on Sat Apr 06 2019 01:14 am

    But even
    where they do have rights, nothing is going to stop a hateful piece of shit from beating
    you down.

    So enjoy your churkken and get back to watching what ever crap you've been blitzing on
    YouTube, leave the rest of us to make the world less of a shitty place without you.

    Very well said!

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ Gateway to the West [ bbs.homelabber.net ]
  • From Porosz@VERT/CRYSTAL to Nightfox on Saturday, May 11, 2019 01:05:00
    Re: Re: Banning Chick-fil-a
    By: Nightfox to MRO on Tue Mar 26 2019 09:21 am

    I've been to my local Chick-Fil-A a few times and I still don't see what the fuss is about. Their chicken is good and I'd eat there, but I wouldn't go o of my way to go to Chick-Fil-A. IMO KFC's is just as good. I think even Da Queen has good chicken, and I don't think McDonalds chicken is that bad eith


    A fox would eat a chicken anyday, even if it was inside a prossing facility.


    ---
    þ Synchronet þ << Crystal Aerie >> Va, USA Telnet://crystal-aerie.com
  • From Phil Taylor@VERT/SBBS to Nightfox on Friday, July 26, 2019 02:09:48
    Re: Re: Banning Chick-fil-a
    By: Nightfox to MRO on Tue Mar 26 2019 09:21:39

    I've been to my local Chick-Fil-A a few times

    I love the good there. The company is building a new one in our town.

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ sbbs.dynu.net 2025