Long Lines At Chick Fil A.
Quote: rxwine
Great video! Carnie Wilson hasn't changed a bit. I wonder if those performers would get upset if I referred to them as he instead of she. If I'm in the Boston area this weekend I may have a chance to visit one of these fine establishments.
They are deadly serious. They think that gay people are just waiting in the wings to collect their ministers and throw them into the ovens. I've avoided commenting in this thread until now because I've been collecting the comments as evidence for the trials that are coming where we, the gays, decide the fate of followers of Jesus. I personally think 39 lashes will be enough but my peeps generally want nothing less than full crucifixions.Quote: 24BingoWait - you were serious about agreeing with the Kristallnacht thing? I thought you were being sarcastic before.
Fun times :)
Quote: s2dbakerThey are deadly serious. They think that gay people are just waiting in the wings to collect their ministers and throw them into the ovens. I've avoided commenting in this thread until now because I've been collecting the comments as evidence for the trials that are coming where we, the gays, decide the fate of followers of Jesus. I personally think 39 lashes will be enough but my peeps generally want nothing less than full crucifixions.
Fun times :)
What is funny is that gays cry about wanting "tolerance" yet are happy when a person is threatened to have his business destroyed not because he discriminates in the workplace but because he just does not believe in their cause.
It has just proven my oft-repeated stance that gays are the most untolerant populaion out there right now and that they demand tolerance but offer none.
And lets take it another step. Earlier in the week people with conservative, libertarian, and constitutionalist views joined together in a cause. They did not like what is said so they decided to peacefully patronize a business. Today gays will have their demonstration. But simply saying, "I do not like the views of the owner so I will not eat there" is not enough. No, they are having a "kiss-in" to help drive away customers and destroy the business as best they can.
Kind of shows you which side is the tolerant one, and it is not the homophiles.
Quote: AZDuffmanIt has just proven my oft-repeated stance that gays are the most untolerant populaion out there right now and that they demand tolerance but offer none.
What an excellent observation. I've noticed the same; they hold marches and demonstrations claiming to want acceptance and tolerance but stage these events being as flamboyant and offensive as possible. Frankly, I don't get why anyone would define their entire sense of self based upon their sexual fetishes. Nobody I work with knows what gets me off in bed. I feel like religion and sexuality should both be personal things. No advantage comes from advertising either.
(Sartre said, "sexual identity is an expression of the meaninglessness of our culture".)
Honestly, until this happened, I thought that Chick Fil A being religious was an urban legend. They have signs in their restaurants that say that they're closed on Sundays because they've always been closed on Sundays, with no reference to it being a religious observance. It's not like In-N-Out Burgers where they print Bible verses on the bottoms of their cups.
Quote: AZDuffmanIt has just proven my oft-repeated stance that gays are the most untolerant populaion out there right now and that they demand tolerance but offer none.
Where to begin. I would submit that we're at an extremely polarized time in our history, building up to a crescendo with the election. While there have been many other times in our history with extreme polarization, there haven't been with the Internet and social media, allowing for a story to break and then instantly become the water-cooler conversation with people getting all riled up. And the media loves it as it allows them to both push their agenda and make money at the same time. And people like to fight about it too!
What I see is that the media many times portrays a fringe element of a group as the mainstream for a particular group and then people buy into it as that's how the whole group feels. I would wager that most gay people couldn't care less about the CFA "controversy" and of course won't be participating in the demonstrations against them. Along the same line, just because a few tea-partiers had racist signs doesn't make the whole group racist. It just means a subset of the group, like a subset of society in general, are jack-asses.
Up until a few months ago before the President "evolved", he had the same views as CFA and supported traditional marriage. That's what the CFA owner said, that he supported traditional marriage. The only difference is that he put some money behind his support and the President did not. Could this "controversy" have even happened if the President didn't recently "evolve"?
Quote: heatherHonestly, until this happened, I thought that Chick Fil A being religious was an urban legend. They have signs in their restaurants that say that they're closed on Sundays because they've always been closed on Sundays, with no reference to it being a religious observance. It's not like In-N-Out Burgers where they print Bible verses on the bottoms of their cups.
Chic-Fil-A is a long way from being the most religious secular business in this country. They themselves have said that being closed on Sundays allows employees to go to church, but it as much an acceptance of old-time blue law culture as well. I think the direct quote was "my daddy didn't want to work on Sunday, and he believed that he shouldn't make his employees do something he wasn't willing to do himself".
Quote: TheBigPaybakUp until a few months ago before the President "evolved", he had the same views as CFA and supported traditional marriage. That's what the CFA owner said, that he supported traditional marriage. The only difference is that he put some money behind his support and the President did not. Could this "controversy" have even happened if the President didn't recently "evolve"?
Yes. For the reason you just said: he put money behind it and Obama didn't. You can't boycott the US presidency, and even if you could, there'd be no real reason to. Loads of people were boycotting Chic-Fil-A already, it's just that the COO coming out in support fanned the flames, and Henson Co. pulling out publicly put a spotlight on it. Then came Menino's little...
Regardless, Obama never "supported traditional marriage" in the way the Cathies probably do. My guess would be they're wholly against civil unions and would be in favor of a federal ban on same-sex marriage, two positions he has never supported. At the very least, the organizations to whom they're shovelling money do hold these positions.
Chic-Fil-A has a right to operate any way they see fit within the limits of the law. They have a right to support any causes they believe in. And I bet their employees appreciate having Sunday off. I don't eat fast food but if I did, I would support them with my dollars.
Quote: TheBigPaybakUp until a few months ago before the President "evolved", he had the same views as CFA and supported traditional marriage.
That expression makes no sense. You don't see throngs of people calling for abolishing marriage, do you? And claiming same-sex marriage would destroy "traditional" marriage makes as much sense as claiming peanut farming will destroy the aerospace industry.
Quote: NareedThat expression makes no sense. You don't see throngs of people calling for abolishing marriage, do you? And claiming same-sex marriage would destroy "traditional" marriage makes as much sense as claiming peanut farming will destroy the aerospace industry.
I was just making the point that both the president and the CFA owner both stated that they believed marriage was between a man and woman. They both are on the record stating they believed the same thing. As are the Clintons and many other high-profile political figures.
From what I've read, the CFA owner recently said the same thing, and didn't say anything that same-sex marriage would destroy traditional marriage. He didn't say anything except for supporting the same belief the President supported a mere few months ago.
Are there quoted articles or interviews of the CFA owner making anti-gay slurs? Once again, I'm not including "pro traditional marriage" statements as anti-gay statements. Or if you want to do that, then you have to say that for most of his political career, the President was anti-gay. Same for Clintons, etc.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6K9dS9wl7U
Is this anti-gay?
Quote: pacomartinChic-Fil-A is a long way from being the most religious secular business in this country. They themselves have said that being closed on Sundays allows employees to go to church, but it as much an acceptance of old-time blue law culture as well. I think the direct quote was "my daddy didn't want to work on Sunday, and he believed that he shouldn't make his employees do something he wasn't willing to do himself".
Here it is from the founder's book:
"The second question they ask is, 'Why do you close on Sunday, the biggest day of the week for many restaurants?' The answer lies in my loyalty. For my family and me, when we speak of *loyalty* (emphasis his) we first mean loyalty to God. Closing our business on Sunday, the Lord's Day, is our way of honoring God and showing loyalty to Him. My brother Ben and I closed our first restaurant on Sunday after we opened in 1946, and our children have commited to closing our restaurants on Sundays long after I am gone. I believe God honors our decisions and sets before us unexpected opportunities to do greater work for him because of our loyalty."^1
1. "Eat Mor Chikin, Inspire More People." S Truett Cathy, p.100.
I would hardly call this a "religious organization" based on that. No mention of the employees at all, in fact. I have seen more than one businessowner say, "Can't help you Sunday, come by on Monday" though they will help for a real emergency. (eg: I could see CFA opening on Sunday if there was a disaster to deliver food.) They affect nobody but themselves by this decision. Yet they take flack for it all the time.
Quote: 24BingoYes. But he says in the same clip that he supports essentially identical civil unions, and that the question should not be approached at a federal level. If the Cathies hold these positions, the organizations they, and the customers of their privately owned business, are giving money to by the millions emphatically do not.
I'm sorry, to be clear, you feel his remarks were anti-gay?
So you feel the issue with CFA owner is that his degree of anti-gayness is like, on a scale of 1 to 10, maybe a 7 and the President's was like at a 5? I say "7" as you don't see him openly spewing hate speech or physically gay-bashing- which I would put at a 10, for example.
I'm just trying to understand the issue- having now broke my recent thought to stay out of political/social discussions and stick to gambling...
Quote: 24BingoYes, of course his statement was anti-gay. The only reason people tolerated it that it was about the best stance to be found in a viable Presidential candidate at the time, and a fair chunk of his constituency had correctly deluded themselves into thinking he was lying. Make no mistake, in an increasing number of states, actually being heard to say such a homophobic cliché as "I believe marriage is between a man and a woman" could have badly hurt him.
I guess I just don't understand statements like Rahm Emmanual's- when he's so sanctimonious about "values" relating to the issue, when he worked for the President who as recently as a few years ago stated his "core values" were the same regarding traditional marriage.
I don't see how someone can give the President a pass, and *completely* vilify CFA...
...Oh well, enough of the social issues talk for me, back to gambling talk. Final thought: I suppose the better way to have asked my question would have been do you feel the video was homophobic or immoral or prejudicial...
Quote: s2dbakerThey are deadly serious. They think that gay people are just waiting in the wings to collect their ministers and throw them into the ovens.
Good god, talk about missing the point. I could care
less what Gay's do or don't do. Its about people in
power, like Rahm Emanual, acting like the Nazi's,
who knocked on doors at 3am and arrested or killed
people just for belonging to a particular religion.
Chcik Fil A doesn't discriminate against Gay's in their
business. All they do is publicly say the don't support
Gay marriage because of their religious befiefs. To
Rahm Emanual, their crime is their religion and he
doesn't want 'those people' owning restaurants in his
city. Just like the Nazi's didn't want 'those people' in
their country.
Quote: EvenBobIts about people in power, like Rahm Emanual, acting like the Nazi's, who knocked on doors at 3am and arrested or killed people just for belonging to a particular religion.
I think the alderman is doing a pretty good job
By coincidence the 2011 rankings for quick service restaurants were posted this week. Chick-fil-a is still number one, and has actually increased their lead (on a per location basis). There are now six chains that clear over $2 million per location in a year, and two of them are small chains.
| Name | Millions $ | Per Location | Locations |
|---|---|---|---|
| Chick-fil-A | $4,051.00 | $2,893.50 | 1,606 |
| McDonald’s | $34,172.00 | $2,500.00 | 14,098 |
| Panera Bread | $3,400.00 | $2,304.30 | 1,541 |
| Krispy Kreme | $531.70 | $2,290.00 | 234 |
| Jason’s Deli | $534.10 | $2,200.00 | 233 |
| Chipotle Mexican Grill2 | $2,270.00 | $2,013.00 | 1,225 |
With this new found notoriety, they should break $3 million for the year 2012.
Quote: pacomartinI think the alderman is doing a pretty good job
That guy cracks me up. "Hey, give up your First Ammendment Rights and open a Chick-Fil-A in Chicago!"
If I ran CFA I'd take out a billboard in his district, put his picture on it, with a simple line stating, "9.4% unemployment in your city, and this man refused to let us hire 'x' number of employees. Please call his office at 555-***-*** and ask him why!"
I will compliment CNN here, they did not let him get away with a soft interview.
Quote: 24Bingohomophobic cliché as "I believe marriage is between a man and a woman"
So are you saying that believing in the traditional definition of marriage--a man and a woman--is homophobic? That may be your opinion but it certainly doesn't seem homophobic at all. If one believes marriage is as it has been for years but also thinks that gays should have the ability to enter a civil union, is that a homophobic position?
ho·mo·pho·bi·a (hm-fb-)
n.
1. Fear of or contempt for lesbians and gay men.
2. Behavior based on such a feeling.
(source: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/homophobic )
Of course not. There is neither fear or contempt of gays or lesbians in that position, nor is there behavior based on that feeling. It is just a position about a type of union that has been around for a while and is traditionally defined as being between folks of opposite sexes.
We can have differing opinions without needing to resort to name calling.
Quote: RonCSo are you saying that believing in the traditional definition of marriage--a man and a woman--is homophobic? That may be your opinion but it certainly doesn't seem homophobic at all. If one believes marriage is as it has been for years but also thinks that gays should have the ability to enter a civil union, is that a homophobic position?
Well, the opposite position would be that gays should be able to marry and heterosexuals would be confined to civil unions but can't marry.
Would that fly?
Quote: rxwineWell, the opposite position would be that gays should be able to marry and heterosexuals would be confined to civil unions but can't marry.
Would that fly?
When a child can define what a marriage is and adults have a hard time, the brainwashing of people is complete. Our great nation founded on Christian values is slowly being eroded away.
Those that support homosexual "marriage" will have to support incestual "marriage". All your reasoning supporting the previous position will be the same as for the later position. So all that support homosexual "marriage" why do you not support incestual "marriage". Why should people be limited to just one partner, why can't they marry multiple partners? Do you support poly "marriage"?
I do not buy Snapple drinks because they tried an ad campaign where the theme was lesbian. A daughter brings someone to her parents and said she found the "one" for her and it was another girl.
To quote Forrest Gump, "Stupid is as stupid does."
Quote: rxwineI don't think polygamy is all that great, but you're saying government telling two or more consenting adults what to do is
But he even left out necrophilia, bestiality and sexually abusing children. I guess that's progress.
Quote: NareedBut he even left out necrophilia, bestiality and sexually abusing children. I guess that's progress.
I tried to carefully specify "consenting adults" to exclude these too. But it still leaves polygamy and incestual adults.
Quote: AceCrAAckersOur great nation founded on Christian values is slowly being eroded away.
Unlike whatever homophobic folderol you wish to spout, this is objective BS, and I'm not even going to bother to explain why, because I'm pretty sure you know damn well you're lying.
Quote: rxwineI don't think polygamy is all that great, but you're saying government telling two or more consenting adults what to do is
No, not at all. Nobody is telling any adults what to do. They are free to do as they please. The issue only arises when those adults voluntarily come to the government, and request a certificate with some very specific wording on it. I think, it is absolutely the government's prerogative to decide who should be issued said certificate, and who should not. This has nothing to do with telling people what to do. The whole issue is about a definition of a word.
Quote: 24BingoWe've come to understand that the connection between two of the same sex is not dissimilar to those of the opposite sex. We've evolved beyond the bestial need for the tribal custom of marriage, making it a union of partnership rather than of subjugation and inheritance. With these two facts in mind, how could it be anything but contempt to deny gay couples legal sanction, or even to enforce a legal distinction, however meaningless?
Can you point out what makes homosexual relationship different in this respect from incest (between adults, and without offspring) or polygamy? If you can, let us hear it. If you cannot, but continue support gay marriage but not the other two kinds, then your argument above is hypocritical and, as such, weightless.
Quote: NareedBut he even left out necrophilia, bestiality and sexually abusing children. I guess that's progress.
Now you are equating a homosexual relationship to child abuse? Way to go, Nareed. Showing your true face, heh?
Quote: rxwineI tried to carefully specify "consenting adults" to exclude these too. But it still leaves polygamy and incestual adults.
Not you. the guy you were quoting. I mean if supporting a reasonable position he doesn't care for implies support for irrational positions he doesn't care for, then he left out a bunch of things from the usual arsenal. And maybe that's progress.
Quote: weaselmanNo, not at all. Nobody is telling any adults what to do. They are free to do as they please. The issue only arises when those adults voluntarily come to the government, and request a certificate with some very specific wording on it. I think, it is absolutely the government's prerogative to decide who should be issued said certificate, and who should not. This has nothing to do with telling people what to do. The whole issue is about a definition of a word.
So, the government could decide to not issue certificates of marriage to interracial couples on that basis, couldn't they?
Once you decide one race is not qualifed equal, it's fine. Or not?
Quote: rxwineSo, the government could decide to not issue certificates of marriage to interracial couples on that basis, couldn't they?
Once you decide one race is not qualifed equal, it's fine. Or not?
Yes, they could. They could also make smoking pot punishable by death. Just because they can do something does not mean they should. :-)
Quote: rxwineWell, the opposite position would be that gays should be able to marry and heterosexuals would be confined to civil unions but can't marry.
Would that fly?
The point was the labeling of people who oppose gay marriage as "homophobic" is not valid if the only reason for the label being applied is the position on this issue.
My BIL is gay. He is not a supporter of gay marriage but he does support civil unions. Does that make him "homophobic"?
If I am not gay, but have the same position, am I then "homophobic"?
My point is simple but might have been missed--labeling people is the simple person's answer to the issue. It is often an incorrect label and it does nothing to advance the opposite point of view.
To my knowledge, I haven't met your brother-in-law. It would be difficult to make a complete judgement but from the anecdote you've told, yes, he probably has some self-hate issues.Quote: RonCMy BIL is gay. He is not a supporter of gay marriage but he does support civil unions. Does that make him "homophobic"?
Quote: weaselmanYes, they could. They could also make smoking pot punishable by death. Just because they can do something does not mean they should. :-)
So let's say they decide to no longer legitimize interracial marriage. Are you okay with that? You have to say yes. I mean, it's totally meaningless anyway, so why would it matter? If you say no, why? What effect does it have. Even less than sexual preference, I'd imagine. Races could still live together or get a civil union.
I'm trying to get your perspective on why color is more relevant than sexual preference in order to get married.
Quote: s2dbakerTo my knowledge, I haven't met your brother-in-law. It would be difficult to make a complete judgement but from the anecdote you've told, yes, he probably has some self-hate issues.
Amazing!! A gay man who does not support gay marriage but strongly supports civil unions "probably has self-hate issues"??? How in the world did you come up with that?
Quote: KeyserRegardless of the numbers, Chick Fil A has just gained the gained the political support of most Americans.
Uhh, no. But keep farking that chicken.
:)
It's pretty easy. If he supports Civil Unions but not Marriage, then he thinks that he is unworthy of marriage simply because he is gay. Perhaps hate is a little strong but he certainly has a self-esteem problem. Perhaps he's a little fearful of himself. From the one sentence you described him with, it sounds like it to me.Quote: RonCAmazing!! A gay man who does not support gay marriage but strongly supports civil unions "probably has self-hate issues"??? How in the world did you come up with that?
to them something is 'wrong' with you. You hate them
because you hate yourself, or some such nonsense.
At a Gay pride parade a few years ago there was a guy
who made the news for screaming over and over We're
Here We're Queer and We're In Your Face! That 90%
of the problem. Get out of everybodies face with it.
If you just kept quietly keeping on, eventually you would
be accepted by society.
But thats no fun, is it. A lot of these people really don't
want to be accepted, they love all the attention too much.
They live for it, they invite it, they wallow in it. They enjoy
constantly rubbing your face in who they are. I find it
very entertaining.
Quote: s2dbakerIt's pretty easy. If he supports Civil Unions but not Marriage, then he thinks that he is unworthy of marriage simply because he is gay. Perhaps hate is a little strong but he certainly has a self-esteem problem. Perhaps he's a little fearful of himself. From the one sentence you described him with, it sounds like it to me.
...or perhaps he believes "marriage" is a term for a union between a man and a woman...
It is ridiculous to assume someone "has something wrong with them" just because they don't fully support every single position of the gay agenda. You can add Liberal, Conservative, Democrat, Republican, etc. to that--just because someone doesn't conform to an entire agenda does not mean there is something wrong with them.
Quote: RonC.just because someone doesn't conform to an entire agenda does not mean there is something wrong with them.
They don't really believe that, they just want
you to feel guilty. Its an old tactic used
to sell almost anything. If you don't want
whats being sold, something must be wrong
with you. I never hear of too many hetero's
jumping off bridges and leaving notes that
say 'I can't accept the homosexual agenda
in its entirety, I'm sick, goodbye cruel world.'
Quote: s2dbakerTo my knowledge, I haven't met your brother-in-law. It would be difficult to make a complete judgement but from the anecdote you've told, yes, he probably has some self-hate issues.
Another red-herring from the intolerant homophile community.
Why don't you just say, "The reason he doesn't agree with me is because he is stupid!?"
Does anybody else fond it amusing that this is the same type of person who will call a conservative a "mind numbed robot" just because he or she shares >90% of positions with say Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh but as soon as they do not agree with something the homophiles want, they have "self-hate issues?"
Quote: EvenBob
But thats no fun, is it. A lot of these people really don't
want to be accepted, they love all the attention too much.
They live for it, they invite it, they wallow in it. They enjoy
constantly rubbing your face in who they are. I find it
very entertaining.
I have noticed that gays seem to migrate to careers where they are the center of attention. Consider all the gays in the entertainment industry. Singer, dancer, actor...common theme is thousands of people watching you. There has to be a connection.
Quote: rxwineSo let's say they decide to no longer legitimize interracial marriage. Are you okay with that? You have to say yes. I mean, it's totally meaningless anyway, so why would it matter?
You lost me, I am afraid. What is "totally meaningless"?
Quote:If you say no, why?
I am happy with current definition of marriage. If someone wants to modify it (for example, to exclude mixed race or to include same sex), it should be their job to explain the reasons for changing the definition, and convince the public they are sound, not mine to explain why the definition should not be changed. If the government decided that male citizens should be called women from now on, and females should be called men, would you be opposed to that? Can you explain why?
Quote:I'm trying to get your perspective on why color is more relevant than sexual preference in order to get married.
I actually think that both are equally irrelevant.
Quote: s2dbakerIt's pretty easy. If he supports Civil Unions but not Marriage, then he thinks that he is unworthy of marriage simply because he is gay. Perhaps hate is a little strong but he certainly has a self-esteem problem. Perhaps he's a little fearful of himself.
This is priceless!
Do you think you are unworthy of wearing a bra simply because you are a man? If so, would you say you may be a little fearful of yourself too?
Quote: weaselmanThis is priceless!
Do you think you are unworthy of wearing a bra simply because you are a man? If so, would you say you may be a little fearful of yourself too?
You don't get how most Gay people think. They
believe that straight men are really Gay too, but
are too fearful to admit it. Because they can't
understand how we could be any other way. I
don't think being with a man is wrong, it just
doesn't sound appealing to me. It doesn't revolt
me, I have no feeling about it at all. It sounds
boring and a waste of time, kind of like drinking
flat beer. Why bother..
Quote: AZDuffmanI have noticed that gays seem to migrate to careers where they are the center of attention. Consider all the gays in the entertainment industry. Singer, dancer, actor...common theme is thousands of people watching you. There has to be a connection.
The argument may have no statistical significance. Because it is common to pry into the lives of celebrities in entertainment, we notice the straights and the gays. Since most people don't write about the office worker, we don't care if he/she is gay or straight. The notion that gays go towards entertainment may not actually be true.
People are very poor judges of statistics. It's been shown time and time again that if you ask a member of the majority group "what percent of a given area are black/hispanic/asian" they will usually grossly overestimate the number (unless they have read the statistic). The reason is that they only are conscious of the minority groups, and they exaggerate the percentage in their mind.
Try it on a colleague. The real numbers are 1 in 8 American is black, 1 in 6 is Latino, and 1 in 20 is Asian.
In the same way because most of us can tick off dozens of names of gay people in entertainment, we think that they congregate to those professions.
Quote: pacomartin
People are very poor judges of statistics. It's been shown time and time again that if you ask a member of the majority group "what percent of a given area are black/hispanic/asian" they will usually grossly overestimate the number
Yup. One of my favorite questions to ask black
people when I had them in my cab was, what
% of the population is black. Not one of them
was even close to the right answer of 12%.
They always guessed way high, like 45% and
39% and 33%. They often didn't believe me
when I told them the truth. Its because all they
see where they live is other black people.
“Chick-fil-A is a hateful company,” Smith tells the employee. "I don’t know how you sleep at night,” Smith adds at another point. This is a horrible corporation with horrible values.”
After the employee, who never loses her composure, wishes Smith a nice day, he responds “I will. I just did something really good. I feel purposeful.”
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/08/03/viral-video-man-picking-on-chick-fil-worker-gets-him-fired/#ixzz22cItsu7E
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/08/03/viral-video-man-picking-on-chick-fil-worker-gets-him-fired/
Quote: pacomartinThe argument may have no statistical significance. Because it is common to pry into the lives of celebrities in entertainment, we notice the straights and the gays. Since most people don't write about the office worker, we don't care if he/she is gay or straight. The notion that gays go towards entertainment may not actually be true.
It may or it may have not, I admit it would be next to impossible to prove one way or the other. First you have to define "entertainment" then you need to need to find how many people work in it, then you have to get at the least a sample to estimate the numbe of gays. Government does estimates like this via the same department that has had to revise weekly jobless claims upwards in 69 of the last 70 weeks or so. (Yes, all but one week in over a year the first estimate was low. When do you fire somebody?)
But i seriously believe the proportions are higher based on at least anecdotal evidence. I'd wager that if you did sampling of the actor's guild and in other entertainment segments you will find 2-3xs as many gays as their 1-2% of the population at large.
FWIW, I knew the number of blacks is about 12% and latinos is a hair higher since the mid 2000s. I would have only guessed 1 in 40-50 for Asians.
Like so many things, a very small minority seems to have captured the following of people who want to "look like they support the underdog" and inflated their numbers. Same as all the "offended Indians" who get people to support removing the honor of Indian-named sports teams.
Quote: EvenBobAt a Gay pride parade a few years ago there was a guy
who made the news for screaming over and over We're
Here We're Queer and We're In Your Face! That 90%
of the problem. Get out of everybodies face with it.
If you just kept quietly keeping on, eventually you would
be accepted by society.
But thats no fun, is it. A lot of these people really don't
want to be accepted, they love all the attention too much.
Possibly the most prescient comment that I've seen on the subject.
If I were interviewing candidates for a job, and somebody came in wearing a latex catsuit and carrying handcuffs and a whip, I wouldn't even consider them for the position regardless of how qualified they might be. Would I be engaging in discriminatory hiring practices? I don't think so. If that kind of thing gets you off in bed, it makes no difference to me, but when you drag it out of the bedroom and start shoving it in everyone's face, people are bound to get offended, regardless of what your personal fetishes might be. Whips and chains, autoerotic asphyxia, members of your own sex -- doesn't matter. I don't care what gets you off, but there's a time and a place for it and it's not at a job interview or on the six o'clock news.
Sexual fetishes are not something to build your entire lifestyle around, IMO, but if you really must, you can't complain if it bothers people. (And it strikes me as a particularly base and uninteresting thing to build your entire life around, anyway -- if you can't even reproduce, why form a "lifestyle" shaped around your sexuality? Aren't you deeper than that?)
What exactly do these marches and demonstrations and parades and "kiss-ins" accomplish, anyway, other than making homosexuals look distasteful to everyone else? Like EvenBob said, if you want tolerance and acceptance, just leave your sexuality in the bedroom like the rest of us do and you'll get it.
Actually, now that I think about it, The Onion beat me to this: Gay-Pride Parade Sets Mainstream Acceptance Of Gays Back 50 Years
