There is probably a good chance that at least one of them is the Roy Cohn sort of homosexual (probably shouldn't dignify him with the term "gay").

Shows where their priorities are.

That really is the mentality of such people.

Wow! Talk about clueless! For one thing, the definition of marriage has never been set in stone. Were all of those ancient Isrealite males restricted to one wife?

First of all, it is obvious that what you define marriage as and what others define marriage as are two different things. So let's break it down for you. There is the "Traditional" concept of marriage between a man and woman, and the non religious definition of marriage, two people who choose to enter into a union/contract/partnership together.

BUT THAT is not really what this is about...this isn't about Cathy's right to say what he thinks either. He has that right. No one is arguing that he doesn't have the right to say what he thinks. NO ONE (in their right mind) is arguing that he doesn't have the right to freedom of speech.

What is wrong, and what has many very upset, is that people are supporting a company who uses their money to FUND and support hate groups that spread lies and encourage hate towards gay people. They use and encourage hate speech, think they can "FIX" gays by putting them in "pray them straight" programs, they want to "export gay people out of the country", AND they lobby against the rights of gay people.

Cathy even admitted (when he was still in charge in an interview in Forbes magazine) that "he would probably fire someone who "has been sinful or done something harmful to their family members.", and they have at least one discrimination law suit against it pending. A woman who claims they fired her because they thought she should be at home taking care of her kids.

He has the right to say what he thinks, but when you know what he said and what they company is saying, IS NOT the only thing the company really stands for, that it actually makes an active effort to spend it's income to force it's beliefs onto others and spread hate, that upset some people....and rightly so.

If they were spending the income for the promotion of churches or schools or youth groups or other "Godly" things, none of this would be going on.

Wow! Talk about clueless! For one thing...

And for another, until recently a wife was essentially the property of her husband, and had no legal existence apart from her husband. The legal principle was called coverture, and it was so bound up in the Western conception of marriage that in the 19th century advocates of women's rights frequently assumed that marriage had to be abolished in order for women to attain equal rights.

As it turned out, coverture was chipped away bit by bit over the course of the 20th century, and the institution of marriage remained. A very changed institution, certainly, but we still have a thing called marriage, and most people are unaware of the dramatic changes it has gone through, even in living memory. Clueless, indeed.

Purpose of mariage is to have children. Period. Society depends on it. That's why the governement sanctions man/woman marriage. No family, no society.

Wrong answer HuhTroll, but thanks for playing!

So...if we all believed that nonsense you just spouted (aside from being wrong and crazy and bad spellers)...that would mean...

"Purpose of mariage is to have children. Period."

.....couples who can't have kids are not married?

"Society depends on it."

.....the downfall of society is divorce and the economy is bad because of infidelity?

"That's why the governement sanctions man/woman marriage."

The government sanctions same sex marriages too-but I know how facts confuse your kind so we will just skip that one.

"No family, no society."

....orphans are not a part of society...poor orphans...why you gonna hate on the orphans!?!

Purpose of mariage is to have children. Period. Society depends on it. That's why the governement sanctions man/woman marriage. No family, no society.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/hokum

As Sheldon on the Big Bang would say.

So, why then did my uncle remarry after his much beloved wife died to a woman that was "past the age of bearing children"?

Look around and see the world is and always has had exceptions and those exceptions are never going to bring and end to having children, or anyone else's marriages. Trying to keep away the gay is wrapped up in hokum.

Back to ignore huh?, but now I see that's why NV tells me more messages are on this thread.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/08/01/1115751/-What-really-makes-the-gays-mad-about-Chick-fil-A

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-badash/chick-fil-a-5-reasons-it-isnt-what-you-think_b_1725237.html

There are two links to start you out, now the rest is up to you. Educate yourself or accept the fact that you choose to remain ignorant of the facts.

He didn't own a company that paid thousands of dollars to promote hate.

No he was a regsitered member of a socialist third party, hung out with convicted felons, and attended a church that promoted hate. But he's only president, not something that affects the world like CEO of a chicken restaurant.

Maybe in the Fox coated candy-land you live in those are called facts...but around here we call those fictitious Foxificated lies.

He never had the same beliefs as the FORMER CEO of Chick-fil-a, hence the lack of giving large sums of money to hate groups.

Was actually registered. FACT. Jackass

And if anything is a candy land it's an America where hard working people earn money are called evil

If it is a fact, please link to the source of this factual information. I'll wait while you look....but when you can't find proof don't cry to me.

Again, he is not being called evil for being a hard working person who makes money....that is one of those delusions of yours.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/302031/obamas-third-party-history-stanley-kurtz

Of course, it's not as important to the future of the country as the fact that Mitt Romney's wife owns 1/3 of an Olympic horse. I mean, if it was, certainly there would be as much mainstream news coverage of it

http://www.examiner.com/article/barack-obama-a-former-new-party-socialist-how-does-this-affect-you

As for your first link, the first line of the article is, "On the evening of January 11, 1996, while Mitt Romney was in the final years of his run as the head of Bain Capital..." So the article starts with a PROVEN LIE.

I went on to do a search for myself that helped me to find a quote from the New Party founder Joel Rogers. He "said Obama wasn't a member, and that the party didn't exactly have "members": There was no internal voting structure, and no way to register as a member of the party in Illinois."

Sooo...your full of crap.

As for your second link, it starts with a lie as well, so we have a problem.

You keep giving me links to things that are easily proven to be lies. That makes it hard to believe anything you say or anything you link me to.

So...do you work for Romney? He tells lies that are easily debunked as well.

Actually, the Colonel has come back from the grave to chime in on this subject...Warning, turn your volume down or it might blow out your ear drums.

http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/e86050c415/kfc-loves-gays-with-john-goodman

=/ eww. That would suggest mankind wrote some seriously twisted erotica under the guise of biblical text - not that they were very good at it.

Um...you just explained the stereotype of a red-neck. Incest is ok but Homosexuality isn't.

LOL. wow. That's some great talent there. BOOK 'EM !!

*Not all circumstances predicate a need for handcuffs.*

Best laugh of the day! Thank you so much for that!

Hahahahaaaaaa! Maybe that should have been the only response and end of the silliness. Thanks, great job ladies!