"certified" by WHOM?
The left-wing "Southern Poverty Law Center" which does nada about poverty at all? RTFLOL!!! You're hilarious, Foundit, forwarding Huffpost spin tripe. The SPLC is ITSELF a type of hate group.

Get real.
It galvanized people who are tired of this crap. A lot of people consider the gay pride movement a sham, because it tries to claim a place as a "civil rights movement". I don't think you realize how it's really more an entertainment factor than SUPPORT factor. That lack of realization on your part is WHY you end up shocked when things like this backfire.

No doubt that was indeed ALSO a factor as to why it backfired. But not necessarily the ONLY reason.

__________________
What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand???

By that logic, those anti-gay “Family” groups which do nothing to actually help families (attacking gays, abortion, single mothers, etc is not helping families), then they are invalidated because of their name…



And who is certifying your classification of them as a “hate group”?

And more to the point, I can’t help but notice you cowardly dodged (yet again) the meat of that point.
I don’t care if you agree with the SPLC’s classification or if you think the SPLC sucks.
Although I disagree with your baseless partisan rant, THEY ARE NOT THE POINT.

The article CLEARLY gave examples of these groups ACTING AS hate groups.
These organizations have “… among other things, depict gay people as pedophiles, want to make ‘gay behavior’ illegal, and even say gay people should be ‘exported’ out of America.”

If anybody had done that with CHRISTIANS as the target, you would probably easily admit that is hate.
But with gays, you cut and paste around THE ACTUAL EXAMPLES and obfuscate the point.

So my question to you Joe is can you address the actions of these groups that the chick-fil-a supported and tell me that gays should not have had any issue with their actions or chick-fil-a’s support of these groups?


“Get real”
You’re telling me YOUR talking points, and pretending that you’re somehow speaking for thousands of people who purchased Chick-fil-A sandwhiches. Pretending to know their motivations when you don’t.
As saltwn pointed out, THE INDUSTRY IN GENERAL saw increases. So proclaiming that one segment of that industry owes its increase to this specific issue is presumptive and ignorant.

But regarding your over-all rant, I’m sure “a lot of people” do have problems.
But they are a MINORITY of people, as compared to the MAJORITY who support gays on issues left and right…


All anybody has to do is track the actual sequence of events to realize that if any backlash was seen, THAT was THE item involved…

__________________
"Try to become not a man of success, but try rather to become a man of value."
Albert Einstein

The SPLC is not a hate group. The SPLC monitors hate groups and brings lawsuits against them.

They shut down Aryan Resistance, Tom Metzger's group. His skinheads murdered Mulageta Seraw, an Ethiopian immigrant living in Portland, Oregon.

I have financially supported the SPLC ever since. I particularly sponsor "Teaching Tolerance" workshops.

And I've heard that very thing argued. Such as that Concerned Women for America doesn't have much to do with helping women. But none of that refutes anything about the group (SPLC) "certifying" in this article you're forwarding.


Sometimes articles like this shoot themselves in the foot on credibility because of other such things they say. If the "certification" doesn't really mean anything in terms of whether these are actual "hate groups" or not, then the premise that Chick-fil-a donated to 'hate groups' is questionable to begin with. They donated to SOMETHING, sure. But "Hate groups"? That's just gay pride talking points there. Just calling something a hate group or getting another left-wing group's "certification" about it doesn't cut it.

It's amazing how these things are taken out of context in all three cases. This amounts to leftist groups like the SPLC looking to find statement to jump all over rather than taking into account context and in some cases the people make the statements correcting them later.

The real problem with SPLC is that a.) it tries to portray an image that it is somehow an official determiner of what is a hate group or not, when it itself is really just another ideological group, and b.) it lumps groups for which it is questionable they are "hating" with OBVIOUS hate groups like the aryan resistance, based on their own political and ideological views. The left has bought this pretense-of-officialty hook, line, and sinker, and the fact your article used the term "certified" as if there is something official going on here is hilarious and demonstrates how it's been bought.

I think those who have attacked Chick-fil-a need to a.) check to see if the company was as aware of these stances as they could be, and b.) whether the assertion that they 'depict gay people as pedophiles, want to make ‘gay behavior’ illegal, and even say gay people should be ‘exported’ out of America' are truly accurate given context and overall wording of the statements. Of COURSE gay pride groups are going to portray them that way; doesn't mean that was the REAL context.

LOL, obviously their motivation is to eat some lunch. Seriously dude. No one goes into a place like that thinking "oh, I think I'll eat there so I can play a role in hating gays." And even those who ate there more after this event: it's not even ABOUT hating gays--those who ate there more are more likely to just be sick and tired of politics as usual. It's a reaction against ACTIVISM, not gays, because most people don't fall under your boogy-men assumptions regarding people in general. You managed to make Chick-fil-a the VICTIM rather than underscoring GAYS as victims, and that's why your boycott failed so badly.

__________________
What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand???

Chik Fil A was sued by a former employee who was fired for being pregnant. Chik Fil A's value was that she should be a stay at home mom.

Do you have proof of that or are you making an assumption about thier motives??

__________________
Our nation has not always lived up to its ideals, yet those ideals have never ceased to guide us. They expose our flaws, and lead us to mend them. We are the beneficiaries of the work of the generations before us and it is each generation's responsibility to continue that work. - Laura Bush

Leftists and very small children don't seem to be able to understand that the Government isn't there to "fix" the economy, anymore than a tick is there to fix your dog.~Oftencold

Of course you have...


As previously mentioned, NOBODY needs to take the SPLC at their word on this.
All they have to do is look at the facts themselves.


Again, you fail at logic.
That isn't questionable. Like I said, the assessment can be re-affirmed by anyone who actually LOOKS at what these groups DO.

It's not like we're asking a scientist to confirm the God particle.
Almost anyone can recognize when a group does something repugnantly hateful.


I'm going to stop right here and issue a challenge, cause I KNOW when you're talking out your arse. Things like what you just said are easy to make up and lie about when you don't care about the facts or the truth.
Show the actual context of these statements which leads you to claim they were taken out of context.

__________________
"Try to become not a man of success, but try rather to become a man of value."
Albert Einstein

Isn't it funny how you sometimes can refute yourself from one thread to another. Wow, trusting the public to see the TRUTH? Imagine that .... Elsewhere (the other thread you and I are discussing at the moment) you don't seem to trust people at ALL to do this. But I digress ...

Again, it depends on the specifics. Sometimes groups such as these can simply be lobbying for things they genuinely believe is better for the country, rather than just plain 'ol hate for gays--you usual boogyman assumption. Gay priders tend to ascribe anything that lobbies for a different opinion or view than theirs as "hate", as if they own the moral ground on everything here. The question, for instance, of whether preventing gay marriage is "hate" gets much more iffy when you consider that one could make that argument about ANY group that wanted marriage who can't get it. Polygamous groups: "gee, everyone just HATES me 'cause I can't get married." NO ... it's simply because we have a different view of what should constitute a marriage.

Glad to. It's easy to do so when it's so blatant.

• In the link for "depict gay people as pedophiles", the link doesn't go back to any quote of Dave Perkins, but rather a GLAAD piece that OPINES on Dave Perkins. BIG difference.

• in the link for "want to make gay behavior illegal" in the article, the FRC guy CLEARLY states "We have not been nor will we be working to re-criminalize homosexual behavior". That context was COMPLETELY ignored.

• in the link for "exporting gays", it conveniently leaves out the fact that Peter Sprigg was responding directly to the contrast of IMPORTING them, and that a week later he clearly corrected this and indicated he didn't mean that. Again ... CONTEXT.

It's flat out a form of deception on the part of gay priders when they pull this crap. Now the REAL question is, whether you will ADMIT to this, or continue your partisan-ly loyal gay-pride-can-do-no-wrong defense. My prediction is that you WON'T admit it, and will just engage in more excuses and more attacks.

__________________
What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand???

Yes. You do digress and avoid my actual point with this meaningless non-sequitur.
It's amazing how you toss out such trivial responses which overlook things like two issues not being equal.

On the one hand, WE CAN QUOTE these groups and SHOW what they said. Recognize that WHAT THEY SAID was hateful.

On the other hand, we have obfuscation and denial from ex-gay groups. They will lie, cheat and steal regarding existing research. It's hard to keep up with the lies of the ex-gay groups to refute them all.
Hell. I think it would be a grand experiment to start a thread stating simply "Do ex-gay groups lie?"
But that doesn't mean that the people who go to reparative therapy will have to look at the thread. They can get suckered in.
If we required all potential reparative therapy patients to talk to the APA BEFORE-hand for education, that would be a start.


It's truly boring when you generalize.
Unless you can show me doing that, your assessment is irrelevant.
I don't care what other gay people do in ascribing hate. Just like you don't care what other Christians do in ascribing hate.


You lie so easily it isn't funny. You claim that the "context" proves us wrong, but then YOU REFUSE TO HONESTLY ADDRESS what was said. Trying to associate gays with pedophiles is a popular "family" group trick
We are talking about ACTUAL STATEMENTS:

“While activists like to claim that pedophilia is a completely distinct orientation from homosexuality, evidence shows a disproportionate overlap between the two. … It is a homosexual problem.”
— FRC President Tony Perkins, FRC website, 2010

"One of the primary goals of the homosexual rights movement is to abolish all age of consent laws and to eventually recognize pedophiles as the 'prophets' of a new sexual order."
—1999 FRC publication, "Homosexual Behavior and Pedophilia," Robert Knight and Frank York

While at the FRC, Knight also co-wrote (with Robert York, a former editor at Focus on the Family) a 1999 booklet with the attention-getting title of Homosexual Behavior and Pedophilia. Among its more remarkable claims was the baseless assertion that “one of the primary goals of the homosexual rights movement is to abolish all age of consent laws and to eventually recognize pedophiles as the ‘prophets’ of a new sexual order.” The same publication argued that the “homosexual rights movement has tried to distance itself from pedophilia, but only for public relations purposes.” The booklet has since disappeared from the FRC’s website, but the organization has not withdrawn the claims it made.

Part of the FRC’s recent strategy is to pound home the false claim that gays and lesbians are more likely to sexually abuse children. This is false. The American Psychological Association, among others, has concluded that “homosexual men are not more likely to sexually abuse children than heterosexual men are.” That doesn’t matter to the FRC, though. Perkins defended the “gay men as pedophiles” claim yet again in a debate on the Nov. 30, 2010, edition of MSNBC’s “Hardball With Chris Matthews” with the Southern Poverty Law Center’s Mark Potok. As the show ended, Perkins stated, “If you look at the American College of Pediatricians, they say the research is overwhelming that homosexuality poses a danger to children. So Mark is wrong. He needs to go back and do his own research.”

Family Research Council | Southern Poverty Law Center


So if a guy says "I'm not beating my wife", that's supposedly proof he's not beating his wife?

The guy OPENLY ADMITS that his statement is false!

we were opposed to the overturning of lawrence — of the sodomy laws in the lawren lawrence versus texas case. harmful to society and more importantly to the individuals who engage in it to be silent that is in fact hateful.

The FRC DID FILE a brief WITH the supreme court trying to keep sodomy laws on the books!
FRC Amicus Brief Filed in Sodomy Case
THE INTERFACE: Family Research Council


So, HE DID say it.
He later RETRACTED his statements, but it's obvious that he showed his true face a little too blatantly at that stage.


There is no deception here, except on your part.
You MISREPRESENTED the above situations to claim they were taken "out of context" when they were not.

__________________
"Try to become not a man of success, but try rather to become a man of value."
Albert Einstein

I provided proof of that on this very thread.

Here it is AGAIN:

Claims from the court document filed by Honeycutt’s attorney include:

“On or about June 27, 2011, Defendant Howard told Barbara Honeycutt that she was being terminated so she could be a stay home mother.”

“Howard routinely made comments to the Plaintiff suggesting that as a mother she should stay home with her children.”


“The Defendant has engaged in a pattern of gender discrimination against female employees.”

The court filing also lists others that the Chick-Fil-A owner told he had terminated so she could be a stay home mother, and shows a pattern of women with children being demoted.



http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com...12/07/26/44701