Hmm, I don't mind being labeled a hypocrit in this instance but I'm not sure if the label fits. I believe their viewpoint is intolerable in a free society in the same way that it would be offensive if they advocated for marriage only between a white man and a white woman. I don't think the Federal government should restrict that speech but I do think that the public should take action by applying economic pressure.

And my point about the mayors was that they might have been acting on ordinances in place in their cities. Those ordinance might be vulnerable but then so is DOMA yet states act on it every day by refusing to recognize marriage contracts from other states..



No, it doesn't. But Cathy made it clear in the interview that he was speaking on behalf of the company. The company has also acted by funding a hate group. In spite of the spin people are trying to put on it, this is about the company and their actions.



I do not believe that just because a group is against gay marriage that they are or will become a terrorist group. My wording was poor. I was simply trying to point out that the type of thinking employed by hate groups is the same kind of thinking terrorist groups use, taken to extremes. The FBI recognizes this and that has given some scope for localities to monitor these groups and legally "discriminate" against them to varying degrees.

I don't think you should be so quick to dismiss my comment as laughable either. Some of the groups the Cathy family supports have loose ties to the "christian identity" movement which is connected to domestic terrorism. Eric Rudolph, for example, has been associated with that movement as have other lesser known criminals with on anti-gay or anti-abortion crusades. Do I think that Dan Cathy or CF supports terrorism? No. But I don't think being suspicious of some of the groups they fund is as crazy as you suggest.

Just a reminder to all those participating in controversial discussions like this one: Keep it civil and don't take things personally. This is the internet, after all.

Is there a way to put these kinds of discussions on permanent ignore?

I mean, obviously there is no way to magically detect political and/or religious discussions. But once I see such a discussion, or any other long thread that isn't interesting to me, I'd like to be able to permanently prevent it from being marked "unread" when I view the forums.

I resemble that statement. Err. Wait. What?

I've decided to take a step back and not take life so seriously. Good one bpgui.

I like this. Can we turn it into a verb? You just got Eagled.

I think he was referring to not stating something without checking the facts. So not sure if it applies to a verb. But hey whatever works.