It's Turning Blue

[Y.A.G Si Ye Nots]

The San Antonio City Council just voted to ban chick-fil-a from opening in their airport, as was originally planned, after the information last week that the brand continues to send millions to anti-gay groups.

Great news:

https://thetakeout.com/san-antonio-city-council-bans-chick-fil-a-airport-termi-1833545136

 

[i am herdman]

Just go down the street and build one

 

[Bankerreturns]

https://thechickenwire.chick-fil-a....ity-Eats-the-Most-Original-Chicken-Sandwiches

 

[sistersville]

Great news. Well not news at all here

 

[Dreh_Nagi_HC_IM]

Got to admit, thread title fooled me. Thought for sure yagi was providing an update on his encounter with the porn star from a couple weeks back.

 

[mlblack16.]

The problem here is that more straight libs care about Chick-fil-A than gays. A buddy of mine is gay AF yet loves their food and he has told me about countless other gay people he knows who also continue to eat there. Then again, he respects the opinions and beliefs of others. Leftists don't actually give a shit about gays, they're just against Christian beliefs.

 

[ThunderCat98]

Starbucks and numerous other businesses donate to liberal organizations and causes I don't like or support. I don't like Starbucks' coffee (b/c it tastes like garbage), but that doesn't stop me from taking my kids there to buy a drink when they want one. It's silly to ban a business because you disagree with its politics.

 

[big_country90]

Starbucks and numerous other businesses donate to liberal organizations and causes I don't like or support. I don't like Starbucks' coffee (b/c it tastes like garbage), but that doesn't stop me from taking my kids there to buy a drink when they want one. It's silly to ban a business because you disagree with its politics.

But that’s what fascists do. It’s funny...everything liberals claim conservatives to be, they actually are in practice.

 

[herdfan429]

If you don’t like chick fila DONT eat there. It’s pretty fvcking simple

 

[Raoul Duke MU]

But that’s what fascists do. It’s funny...everything liberals claim conservatives to be, they actually are in practice.

Bible-Thumpers boycott just as much as looney liberals. I can give you plenty of links. You fvcks have been doing it since I was a kid and the "Moral Majority" was big. Are you a fascist? Not like you know the meaning of that word anyway....

And fvck Chic Fil A in the airport. Fvck all chain food in an airport. Give me local food in the airport.

 

[Raoul Duke MU]

Got to admit, thread title fooled me. Thought for sure yagi was providing an update on his encounter with the porn star from a couple weeks back.

Haha, I was thinking the same thing.

 

[WV-FAN]

Bible-Thumpers boycott just as much as looney liberals. I can give you plenty of links. You fvcks have been doing it since I was a kid and the "Moral Majority" was big. Are you a fascist? Not like you know the meaning of that word anyway....

And fvck Chic Fil A in the airport. Fvck all chain food in an airport. Give me local food in the airport.

there's actually "local food" in an airport?

 

[marshallisqbu]

I don’t care if they donate to ISIS I will still be eating there.

 

[Raoul Duke MU]

there's actually "local food" in an airport?

Yes! Even here in Louisville we have a pub in the airport focused on bourbon and regional cuisine.

For another example: BWI has Obrycki's and a Flying Dog Brewery pub.

 

[ThunderCat98]

Bible-Thumpers boycott just as much as looney liberals. I can give you plenty of links. You fvcks have been doing it since I was a kid and the "Moral Majority" was big. Are you a fascist? Not like you know the meaning of that word anyway....

And fvck Chic Fil A in the airport. Fvck all chain food in an airport. Give me local food in the airport.

Boycotting is not equivalent to banning a restaurant from opening.

 

[Y.A.G Si Ye Nots]

The problem here is that more straight libs care about Chick-fil-A than gays. A buddy of mine is gay AF yet loves their food and he has told me about countless other gay people he knows who also continue to eat there.
.

There were slaves who ratted out other slaves to plantation owners in order to benefit from it. It says a lot about their character.

Then again, he respects the opinions and beliefs of others

This is such a foolish, tired, and illogical argument. If my opinion is that it should be legal to rape 5 year olds, and if I give money to lobbyists for that cause, should my opinion and belief be respected? Likewise, if you give money to organizations whose sole purpose is to block equal rights for people, should their opinion and belief be respected?

Leftists don't actually give a shit about gays, they're just against Christian beliefs.

Dear Stupid,

Homosexuality also goes against Islam and Judaism. So are "leftists just against Islamic/Jewish beliefs," also? It has nothing to do with Christianity promoting bigotry. If Christianity supported homosexual rights, does that mean I would be against homosexual rights since I just want to be against Christian beliefs?

See how stupid your argument is?

Starbucks and numerous other businesses donate to liberal organizations and causes I don't like or support.

That's because you have no backbone and have a severe character flaw.

Starbucks and numerous other businesses donate to liberal organizations and causes I don't like or support.

Which of those causes that Starbucks promotes blocks equal rights for a certain group of people?

It's silly to ban a business because you disagree with its politics.

This is why you're referred to as Tier Three. You simply don't have the aptitude for some discussions, similar to many other deplorables on here.

This isn't banning a business simply due to disagreeing with "politics" as you claim. Bigotry against homosexuals is illegal in many states. Many of those states prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity, and many also classify homosexuals as protected regarding hate crimes. Airports are publicly funded. So if a public institution allows a group that supports bigotry against gays, it could find itself in hot water. It is why colleges are starting to push-out/ban that restaurant chain from their campuses.

This isn't a case of politics; it isn't a case of being opposed to a group who supports leaving a trade deal or supporting lower gun regulations. It is a case of an organization making money from a public entity even though that organization financially supports barring equal rights to a protected group.

 

[mlblack16.]

. So are "leftists just against Islamic/Jewish beliefs,"
.

Actually, we can use Ilhan Omar as an example of the hypocrisy with Leftists. They applaud and elected her into office, yet she is openly anti-Semitic and is the female Muslim version of Trump when it comes to Twitter.

To answer, Leftists (like you) are for Islam, but against basically any other religion.

 

[ThunderCat98]

There were slaves who ratted out other slaves to plantation owners in order to benefit from it. It says a lot about their character.



This is such a foolish, tired, and illogical argument. If my opinion is that it should be legal to rape 5 year olds, and if I give money to lobbyists for that cause, should my opinion and belief be respected? Likewise, if you give money to organizations whose sole purpose is to block equal rights for people, should their opinion and belief be respected?



Dear Stupid,

Homosexuality also goes against Islam and Judaism. So are "leftists just against Islamic/Jewish beliefs," also? It has nothing to do with Christianity promoting bigotry. If Christianity supported homosexual rights, does that mean I would be against homosexual rights since I just want to be against Christian beliefs?

See how stupid your argument is?



That's because you have no backbone and have a severe character flaw.



Which of those causes that Starbucks promotes blocks equal rights for a certain group of people?




This is why you're referred to as Tier Three. You simply don't have the aptitude for some discussions, similar to many other deplorables on here.

This isn't banning a business simply due to disagreeing with "politics" as you claim. Bigotry against homosexuals is illegal in many states. Many of those states prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity, and many also classify homosexuals as protected regarding hate crimes. Airports are publicly funded. So if a public institution allows a group that supports bigotry against gays, it could find itself in hot water. It is why colleges are starting to push-out/ban that restaurant chain from their campuses.

This isn't a case of politics; it isn't a case of being opposed to a group who supports leaving a trade deal or supporting lower gun regulations. It is a case of an organization making money from a public entity even though that organization financially supports barring equal rights to a protected group.

Sure thing, chief.

 

[Y.A.G Si Ye Nots]

Actually, we can use Ilhan Omar as an example of the hypocrisy with Leftists. They applaud and elected her into office, yet she is openly anti-Semitic and is the female Muslim version of Trump when it comes to Twitter.

To answer, Leftists (like you) are for Islam, but against basically any other religion.

First, Omar has been publicly chastised by numerous Democratic leaders. Second, your attempt again makes no sense. If leftists are for Islam, why would they support homosexuality and gay rights since Islam is against those things?

 

[Raoul Duke MU]

Boycotting is not equivalent to banning a restaurant from opening.

Given the Religious Right's attitude on alcohol, gambling, naked titties, and other such fun things, I bet I could find a LOT more of them banning businesses from opening than what the libs have done even in their wettest dreams.

 

[mlblack16.]

First, Omar has been publicly chastised by numerous Democratic leaders. Second, your attempt against makes no sense. If leftists are for Islam, why would they support homosexuality and gay rights since Islam is against those things?

And house speaker Pelosi has dialed back her responses towards Ilhan, likely out of fear for potential backlash, since she's one of the hot chicks at the party right now in terms of identity politics, and Pelosi doesn't want to lose what remaining power she has within the Democratic party.

Why do female Leftists proudly support the hijab and Muslims when both represent suppression of women? You're right, it makes no sense.

 

[Y.A.G Si Ye Nots]

And house speaker Pelosi has dialed back her responses towards Ilhan,
.

Well, that backfired mightily for you considering just hours ago, Pelosi made this comment in a speech:

"We must also be vigilant against bigoted or dangerous ideologies masquerading as policy, and that includes BDS."

BDS is the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions front that Ilhan supports and whose purpose is to change Israeli policy on Palestinians.

In response, Omar took a swipe of her own.

Jesus, you should probably start taking the strategy '88 does and stick to liking posts.

Why do female Leftists proudly support the hijab and Muslims when both represent suppression of women? You're right, it makes no sense.

Compared to Christianity which orders women to obey and be subservient to men, calls for them to be stoned to death if they are found to have had sex before marriage, prohibits them from serving in top leadership positions within the church, etc.

Another brilliant attempt by you.

 

[Raoul Duke MU]

Why do female Leftists proudly support the hijab and Muslims when both represent suppression of women?

I can't speak for leftists, but I imagine it has something to do with freedom of religion. And when visiting in their lands, respect for their customs.

No matter how stupid your religion, I'm for you practicing it as long as it doesn't affect me in some way. Granted, you should understand I might call you an idiot or laugh at you. Isn't freedom great?

 

[mlblack16.]

Compared to Christianity which orders women to obey and be subservient to men, calls for them to be stoned to death if they are found to had sex before marriage, prohibits them from serving in top leadership positions within the church, etc.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. Why do you just make shit up? Oh, yeah, you're a LEFTIST. Sorry, I forgot.

 

[mlblack16.]

I can't speak for leftists, but I imagine it has something to do with freedom of religion. And when visiting in their lands, respect for their customs

Yeah, but I'm talking about vagina hat wearing feminists. Basically, the female equivalent to Rifle.

 

[extragreen]

Why do you just make shit up?

^^^the irony, coming from a cheetos defender^^^

 

[mlblack16.]

^^^the irony, coming from a cheetos defender^^^

Oh, so are you validating what Rifle is saying about Christianity?

Compared to Christianity which orders women to obey and be subservient to men, calls for them to be stoned to death if they are found to have had sex before marriage, prohibits them from serving in top leadership positions within the church, etc.

 

[Y.A.G Si Ye Nots]

Wrong, wrong, wrong. Why do you just make shit up? Oh, yeah, you're a LEFTIST. Sorry, I forgot.

You really should heed my advice and just like posts.

When do I ever "just make shit up?" Are you really trying to debate this with me?

Let's look at each claim:

Claim #1: Christianity orders women to be obedient and subservient to men:

• Ephesians 5:22-24 ...wives should submit to their husbands etc
• 1 Timothy 2:11-15 A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent etc.
• 1 Corinthians 14:33-35 ...women should remain silent in the churches
• 1 Corinthians 11:3-16 Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man
• Colossians 3:18 Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord.
• Peter 3:1-6 Wives in the same way be submissive to your husbands (and following).
• Titus 2: 4-5 Then they can train the younger women to love their husbands and children, to be self controlled and pure, to be busy at home, to be kind, and to be subject to their husbands so that no one will malign the word of God.

You simply cannot argue against those, moron. Hell, there have been major Christian leaders who have lobbied to have that type of scripture edited or dropped from the liturgy.

Overwhelmingly, this is proof that supports my first claim.

Claim #2: If a woman is found to have had sex before marriage, the Bible says they should be stoned to death.

Deuteronomy 22:20 - 21

If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the young woman's virginity can be found, she shall be brought to the door of her father's house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done an outrageous thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father's house. You must purge the evil from among you.

Again, this is overwhelming support showing that Christianity said to do this.

Claim #3: Christianity prohibits women from serving in the top leadership positions within the church:

Tim 2:12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man.

• • 1 Timothy 2:11-15 A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent etc.

So please, moron, explain how my three claims are "wrong, wrong, wrong" and shit that is made up.

 

[mlblack16.]

You really should heed my advice and just like posts.

When do I ever "just make shit up?" Are you really trying to debate this with me?

Let's look at each claim:

Claim #1: Christianity orders women to be obedient and subservient to men:

• Ephesians 5:22-24 ...wives should submit to their husbands etc
• 1 Timothy 2:11-15 A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent etc.
• 1 Corinthians 14:33-35 ...women should remain silent in the churches
• 1 Corinthians 11:3-16 Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man
• Colossians 3:18 Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord.
• Peter 3:1-6 Wives in the same way be submissive to your husbands (and following).
• Titus 2: 4-5 Then they can train the younger women to love their husbands and children, to be self controlled and pure, to be busy at home, to be kind, and to be subject to their husbands so that no one will malign the word of God.

You simply cannot argue against those, moron. Hell, there have been major Christian leaders who have lobbied to have that type of scripture edited or dropped from the liturgy.

Overwhelmingly, this is proof that supports my first claim.

Claim #2: If a woman is found to have had sex before marriage, the Bible says they should be stoned to death.

Deuteronomy 22:20 - 21

If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the young woman's virginity can be found, she shall be brought to the door of her father's house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done an outrageous thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father's house. You must purge the evil from among you.

Again, this is overwhelming support showing that Christianity said to do this.

Claim #3: Christianity prohibits women from serving in the top leadership positions within the church:

Tim 2:12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man.

• 
  
  
  • • 1 Timothy 2:11-15 A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent etc.

So please, moron, explain how my three claims are "wrong, wrong, wrong" and shit that is made up.

No, you ARE wrong. You are taking scripture from the bible, stretching the interpretation to fit your own narrative. Idiot, how many incidents of stoning do you read about in the news? I've seen several local churches where I live in which women are serving as lead pastors.

You really don't know what you're talking about, do you? Now then, go ahead and waste another 30 minutes typing up something else stupid.

 

[extragreen]

Oh, so are you validating what Rifle is saying about Christianity?

No, I'm laughing at you. You complain about someone "making stuff up" while supporting a president who does nothing but.

 

[mlblack16.]

No, I'm laughing at you. You complain about someone "making stuff up" while supporting a president who does nothing but.

And you claim to be Christian while supporting an atheist in the act of mocking Christianity.

Nice work, L.R.H.

 

[extragreen]

• Ephesians 5:22-24 ...wives should submit to their husbands etc

• 1 Timothy 2:11-15 A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent etc.

• 1 Corinthians 14:33-35 ...women should remain silent in the churches

• 1 Corinthians 11:3-16 Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man

• Colossians 3:18 Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord.

• Peter 3:1-6 Wives in the same way be submissive to your husbands (and following).

• Titus 2: 4-5 Then they can train the younger women to love their husbands and children, to be self controlled and pure, to be busy at home, to be kind, and to be subject to their husbands so that no one will malign the word of God.

That sounds real mean...until you read the part that tells men how to treat their wives. If men treated their wives the way the Bible instructs, lots of women wouldn't complain about being subject to men.

Deuteronomy

That's not under the heading of "Christianity."

I've seen several local churches where I live in which women are serving as lead pastors.

And those churches are out of order.

 

[Y.A.G Si Ye Nots]

No, you ARE wrong. You are taking scripture from the bible, stretching the interpretation to fit your own narrative. Idiot, how many incidents of stoning do you read about in the news?

Most reasonable Christians also don't teach that the sun revolves around the Earth, that Earth is stationary, and makes references that Earth is flat. Due to those Biblical teachings, Christians used to believe that . . . they went as far as exiling academics who taught otherwise.

Just because most Christians don't believe those things now doesn't mean that Christianity doesn't teach that. Christianity, as the Bible instructs, stated that women who cannot prove their virginity after being called out on it before marriage shall be stoned to death. The fact that it isn't a common practice currently in Christianity doesn't mean that isn't a teaching of Christianity.

There is no "stretching the interpretation." The teaching is as clear as can be.

I've seen several local churches where I live in which women are serving as lead pastors.

And they are going against teachings in the scripture by doing that. There are plenty of denominations who prohibit women from serving as leaders of the church, because the Bible prohibits it. Why don't you ask the resident preacher on the board about it?

There are plenty of Christian churches who don't have an issue with gay marriage. That doesn't mean they are teaching Christianity by allowing that.

You really don't know what you're talking about, do you? Now then, go ahead and waste another 30 minutes typing up something else stupid.

I am far, far more versed on this than you. The fact that your only rebuttal is "Well, some churches allow that so clearly you're wrong" and "That doesn't happen anymore" doesn't make my comment any less true about actual Christian teachings.

 

[Y.A.G Si Ye Nots]

That sounds real mean...until you read the part that tells men how to treat their wives. If men treated their wives the way the Bible instructs, lots of women wouldn't complain about being subject to men.
.

It doesn't sound "real mean." It sounds exactly what I said it is: tells women to be obedient and subservient to men. It tells men to be obedient and subservient to your god. It places men in a higher authoritative position than women, which you have admitted by claiming that churches who allow women to be pastors are out of line.

That's not under the heading of "Christianity."
.

You'll have to explain this bizarre belief of yours. Deuteronomy is part of the O.T. It is very much part of Christianity. Is slavery a part of the United States? It is a huge part of it. Just because it isn't accepted currently doesn't mean it isn't a big part of the country.

 

[19MU88]

I can't speak for leftists

Why stop now? Mr to the right of Eisenhower

 

[Raoul Duke MU]

Why stop now? Mr to the right of Eisenhower

 

[mlblack16.]

I am far, far more versed on this than you. The fact that your only rebuttal is "Well, some churches allow that so clearly you're wrong" and "That doesn't happen anymore" doesn't make my comment any less true about actual Christian teachings.

Moron, you always proclaim yourself to be more knowledgeable (in any subject) than anyone else on here. The fact that you presume to know more about law than actual attorneys and that you think you know more about medicine than actual doctors is more than proof that you are a delusional narcissist. I don't bother getting into arguments with you, because I have never once seen you admit to being wrong. Lately, you have been laughed at, mocked, and repeatedly proven wrong on here, yet in your mind, you're still the champ. You've been on a team consisting of Dtard, Greed and Bucky, and that should tell you something.

 

[i am herdman]

eat mor chikin, libtards

 

[Y.A.G Si Ye Nots]

The fact that you presume to know more about law than actual attorneys

"Presume" is not the word you were looking for. Presuming something is based on probability . . . some sort of rationality. By saying presume like you did, you are saying there is strong evidence or reason to believe I would know more than the attorneys. You are intending to say that it is absurd that I would assume to know more about law than actual attorneys, but by saying "presume," you are giving credit that there is a strong basis for my belief . . . and that wasn't your intention.

Be smarter.

But yes, I am very confident that I know more about certain aspects of law than many attorneys. You see, most attorneys specialize in only one or two specific focuses of law. My suit against Cookman that I won (more accurately, settled for a high amount)? That was almost entirely done by me. The only things the attorney did were procedural (filing the documents, etc.). Hell, he even agreed to a fairly large reduction in his percentage after I called him out on it. During the seven hour, two day special deputy hearing, Cookman was represented by two attorneys. I represented myself (my attorney said I could handle it). It led to Cookman's in-house counsel being fired, then their next attorney from a large Miami firm being fired, then their interim president (a judge) and their next attorney (a female from a large Orlando firm) agreeing to my demands.

A more recent example . . . I have yet another car issue (involving oil again) in which BMW has settled to class action lawsuits against them. The first attorney I retained for it had NEVER tried a Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act in her entire career. Hell, she worked primarily in family law. The only experience she had was in one class in 2L (25 years ago). I educated her on a ton of it. She had to research aspects of the Act and confirm what I believed to be true about it. The only thing she corrected me on, which was done weeks later after she researched it, was the amount of possible punitive award.

She's an attorney, yet she knew (and had no problem asking ME for help with the Act during our first few meetings/conversations) that I knew more about that particular field of law. Why is that so hard for your feeble mind to understand?

I guarantee you many bright people who have gone through contested divorces/custody cases know more about divorce/family law than a patent attorney (or any attorney who has never practiced family law).

The fact that you presume to know more about medicine than actual doctors

Making shit up again? The only argument I have remotely had with a doctor on this board on that topic was about male circumcision. It was an opinion argument that wasn't about facts.

Back up your claim with facts, liar.

Lately, you have been laughed at, mocked, and repeatedly proven wrong on here, yet in your mind, you're still the champ.
.

Where have I been "repeatedly proven wrong" on here "lately"? Repeatedly should allow you to easily come up with four or five instances, right? Or are you lying again, liar?

Face it - what you claimed I was wrong about regarding Christianity exposed you to be more of a moron than everyone already knew. That's why, with a board full of Christians, nobody is coming to your defense to say that you are right and that I am wrong on it.

 

[mlblack16.]

"Presume" is not the word you were looking for. Presuming something is based on probability . . . some sort of rationality. By saying presume like you did, you are saying there is strong evidence or reason to believe I would know more than the attorneys. You are intending to say that it is absurd that I would assume to know more about law than actual attorneys, but by saying "presume," you are giving credit that there is a strong basis for my belief . . . and that wasn't your intention.

Be smarter.

But yes, I am very confident that I know more about certain aspects of law than many attorneys. You see, most attorneys specialize in only one or two specific focuses of law. My suit against Cookman that I won (more accurately, settled for a high amount)? That was almost entirely done by me. The only things the attorney did were procedural (filing the documents, etc.). Hell, he even agreed to a fairly large reduction in his percentage after I called him out on it. During the seven hour, two day special deputy hearing, Cookman was represented by two attorneys. I represented myself (my attorney said I could handle it). It led to Cookman's in-house counsel being fired, then their next attorney from a large Miami firm being fired, then their interim president (a judge) and their next attorney (a female from a large Orlando firm) agreeing to my demands.

A more recent example . . . I have yet another car issue (involving oil again) in which BMW has settled to class action lawsuits against them. The first attorney I retained for it had NEVER tried a Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act in her entire career. Hell, she worked primarily in family law. The only experience she had was in one class in 2L (25 years ago). I educated her on a ton of it. She had to research aspects of the Act and confirm what I believed to be true about it. The only thing she corrected me on, which was done weeks later after she researched it, was the amount of possible punitive award.

She's an attorney, yet she knew (and had no problem asking ME for help with the Act during our first few meetings/conversations) that I knew more about that particular field of law. Why is that so hard for your feeble mind to understand?

I guarantee you many bright people who have gone through contested divorces/custody cases know more about divorce/family law than a patent attorney (or any attorney who has never practiced family law).



Making shit up again? The only argument I have remotely had with a doctor on this board on that topic was about male circumcision. It was an opinion argument that wasn't about facts.

Back up your claim with facts, liar.



Where have I been "repeatedly proven wrong" on here "lately"? Repeatedly should allow you to easily come up with four or five instances, right? Or are you lying again, liar?

Face it - what you claimed I was wrong about regarding Christianity exposed you to be more of a moron than everyone already knew. That's why, with a board full of Christians, nobody is coming to your defense to say that you are right and that I am wrong on it.

Dude, that is a fvcking book. Sorry, maybe one day when I get really bored I'll come back and read it.