Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
We have the right in this country to vote, literally and figuratively. We can vote at the ballot box, with our wallets, with emails, with calls, with letters, we can vote by supporting interest groups that advocate for causes we support.
We can vote with the remote, with the dial on the radio. We can vote by making 'demands'. We can vote by making 'threats', provided they are within the law.
Start taking away people's right to vote, and where does it go? Where could it go?
Maybe some of you noticed the story I posted about the Israeli parliament trying to make boycotts, or even calling for boycotts,
illegal. That's where it can go.
Did you know that Starbucks was recently reported to be perceived as the most LGBT-friendly brand in the U.S.? JCPenney, Target, Apple and Amazon round out the top five.
If you've been following the national marriage battle over the past 18 months this should come as no surprise. Starbucks has said that gay ‘marriage’ is one of its corporate values. Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, who recently purchased the Washington Post, gave hundreds of thousands of dollars of his own money to redefine marriage in Washington State. Target and JC Penny both support gay ‘marriage’ and the homosexual lifestyle in general, as does Apple.
In the same survey, it was reported that 75% of LGBT respondents said they were actively boycotting Chick-fil-A.
We only vote at a ballot box once a year at most. But we vote with our wallets every day. That’s why NOM maintains its Corporate Fairness Project - which includes the Dump Starbucks, Dump General Mills, and Thank Chick-fil-A initiatives – to inform you of what companies are taking active stands in the marriage battle, and where your money is best spent in defense of this sacred institution.
We have the right in this country to vote, literally and figuratively. We can vote at the ballot box, with our wallets, with emails, with calls, with letters, we can vote by supporting interest groups that advocate for causes we support.
We can vote with the remote, with the dial on the radio. We can vote by making 'demands'. We can vote by making 'threats', provided they are within the law.
Start taking away people's right to vote, and where does it go? Where could it go?
Maybe some of you noticed the story I posted about the Israeli parliament trying to make boycotts, or even calling for boycotts,
illegal. That's where it can go.
Yes, you have the right to threaten people. It's a right, and you choose to run with it.
You can also pretend that it's your only option, even though we all know it isn't.
Now that the pushback to this behavior has begun in earnest, I'm very pleased to say:
Keep it up!
.
National Organization for Marriage (NOM), from it's own Blog, September, 2013:
Voting With Our Wallets | NOM Blog
Did you know that Starbucks was recently reported to be perceived as the most LGBT-friendly brand in the U.S.? JCPenney, Target, Apple and Amazon round out the top five.
If you've been following the national marriage battle over the past 18 months this should come as no surprise. Starbucks has said that gay ‘marriage’ is one of its corporate values. Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, who recently purchased the Washington Post, gave hundreds of thousands of dollars of his own money to redefine marriage in Washington State. Target and JC Penny both support gay ‘marriage’ and the homosexual lifestyle in general, as does Apple.
In the same survey, it was reported that 75% of LGBT respondents said they were actively boycotting Chick-fil-A.
We only vote at a ballot box once a year at most. But we vote with our wallets every day. That’s why NOM maintains its Corporate Fairness Project - which includes the Dump Starbucks, Dump General Mills, and Thank Chick-fil-A initiatives – to inform you of what companies are taking active stands in the marriage battle, and where your money is best spent in defense of this sacred institution.
Yepp, a call to boycott any company that is in any way gay-friendly.
Lots of physical harm, I would say. Right, FoxFyre?
The AFA ( American Family Association), which is an extreme Right-Wing, Christian Fundamentalist Organization with a large following, has called for, organized and carried-out boycotts of:
American Family Association - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
... 7-Eleven, Abercrombie & Fitch, American Airlines, American Girl, Blockbuster Video, Burger King, Calvin Klein, Carl's Jr., Clorox, Comcast, Crest, Ford, Hallmark Cards, Hardee's, Kmart, Kraft Foods, S. C. Johnson & Son, Movie Gallery, Microsoft, MTV, Paramount Pictures, Time Warner, Universal Studios, DreamWorks, Mary Kay, NutriSystem, Old Navy, IKEA, Sears, Pampers, Procter & Gamble, Target, Tide, Walt Disney Company, and PepsiCo...
I guess that means a helluva lot of physical harm, what?
I certainly have not been singing their praises on this thread and in the J C Penney/Ellen Degeneres matter, I rated them every bit as hateful and wrong as GLAAD.
As for those other matters, I have not researched them and don't know WHY the boycotts were organized or carried out. If they were for tnothing more than the beliefs or opinions of people, an organized boycott is not something I will ever defend. If they were for bad ACTS, then they might be justifiable. So you'll need to be more specific if you wish for me to comment on something more than the JC Penney/Degeneres bruhaha.
National Organization for Marriage (NOM), from it's own Blog, September, 2013:
Voting With Our Wallets | NOM Blog
Did you know that Starbucks was recently reported to be perceived as the most LGBT-friendly brand in the U.S.? JCPenney, Target, Apple and Amazon round out the top five.
If you've been following the national marriage battle over the past 18 months this should come as no surprise. Starbucks has said that gay ‘marriage’ is one of its corporate values. Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, who recently purchased the Washington Post, gave hundreds of thousands of dollars of his own money to redefine marriage in Washington State. Target and JC Penny both support gay ‘marriage’ and the homosexual lifestyle in general, as does Apple.
In the same survey, it was reported that 75% of LGBT respondents said they were actively boycotting Chick-fil-A.
We only vote at a ballot box once a year at most. But we vote with our wallets every day. That’s why NOM maintains its Corporate Fairness Project - which includes the Dump Starbucks, Dump General Mills, and Thank Chick-fil-A initiatives – to inform you of what companies are taking active stands in the marriage battle, and where your money is best spent in defense of this sacred institution.
Yepp, a call to boycott any company that is in any way gay-friendly.
Lots of physical harm, I would say. Right, FoxFyre?
What physical harm? I have no problem with the LGBT people not patronizing Chick-fil-a. If enough people don't patronize Chick-fil-a, it will close its doors. I would have had no problem with GLAAD encouraging its members not to watch Duck Dynasty--not that many if any do--or A&E. Though in both cases, I would have seen that as small and petty, that is a very different thing than threatening an organization with lawsuits, going after and threatening its advertisers or customers. and demanding that people be fired for nothing more than you don't like who and what they are.
After your own intolerant comments here today, I honestly don't belive you will hear or understand that. But I know some will. Which is why I took the time to respond to you.
we have the right in this country to vote, literally and figuratively. We can vote at the ballot box, with our wallets, with emails, with calls, with letters, we can vote by supporting interest groups that advocate for causes we support.
We can vote with the remote, with the dial on the radio. We can vote by making 'demands'. We can vote by making 'threats', provided they are within the law.
Start taking away people's right to vote, and where does it go? Where could it go?
Maybe some of you noticed the story i posted about the israeli parliament trying to make boycotts, or even calling for boycotts,
illegal. That's where it can go.
#3
We have the right in this country to vote, literally and figuratively. We can vote at the ballot box, with our wallets, with emails, with calls, with letters, we can vote by supporting interest groups that advocate for causes we support.
We can vote with the remote, with the dial on the radio. We can vote by making 'demands'. We can vote by making 'threats', provided they are within the law.
Start taking away people's right to vote, and where does it go? Where could it go?
Maybe some of you noticed the story I posted about the Israeli parliament trying to make boycotts, or even calling for boycotts,
illegal. That's where it can go.
Yes, you have the right to threaten people. It's a right, and you choose to run with it.
You can also pretend that it's your only option, even though we all know it isn't.
Now that the pushback to this behavior has begun in earnest, I'm very pleased to say:
Keep it up!
.
Just stop lending these trolls any credence by your responses. You can tolerate them having their opinions without entertaining their opinions.
Hark! Who goes there! Alas!
Kind of ironic. GLAAD isn't supposed to try to effect change in the face of pure ugliness (Bible-based even, amen). But there's an entire segment of people in this thread trying to control the flow of conversation.
We have the right in this country to vote, literally and figuratively. We can vote at the ballot box, with our wallets, with emails, with calls, with letters, we can vote by supporting interest groups that advocate for causes we support.
We can vote with the remote, with the dial on the radio. We can vote by making 'demands'. We can vote by making 'threats', provided they are within the law.
Start taking away people's right to vote, and where does it go? Where could it go?
Maybe some of you noticed the story I posted about the Israeli parliament trying to make boycotts, or even calling for boycotts,
illegal. That's where it can go.
Yes, you have the right to threaten people. It's a right, and you choose to run with it.
You can also pretend that it's your only option, even though we all know it isn't.
Now that the pushback to this behavior has begun in earnest, I'm very pleased to say:
Keep it up!
.
Pushback begun by who? Those who agree with the fucked up shit that Phil Robertson said? Cool. You got the real smart folks standing there with ya.
I certainly have not been singing their praises on this thread and in the J C Penney/Ellen Degeneres matter, I rated them every bit as hateful and wrong as GLAAD.
As for those other matters, I have not researched them and don't know WHY the boycotts were organized or carried out. If they were for tnothing more than the beliefs or opinions of people, an organized boycott is not something I will ever defend. If they were for bad ACTS, then they might be justifiable. So you'll need to be more specific if you wish for me to comment on something more than the JC Penney/Degeneres bruhaha.
the act of petitioning?
yes
the bigoted, divisive, fucked up ideology that led them to petition.....no. It is fucked up. We agree on that point, i think.
If something is fucked up....it is not cool to let it slide.
so finally you are willing to take a stand directly pertinent to the op. You agree with samson. It is okay for an angry mob, group, or organization to use its power to demand that somebody be fired for no other reason than the person expressed an opinion that somebody didn't like or is somebody they didn't like.
I just wonder how okay with that either one of you would be if it was some group coming after you to physically and/or materially hurt you for nothing more than exercising what the founders intended to be your unalienable rights.
But you're both entitled to your opinion.
if i were gay...or black.....or a woman seeking an abortion......i would get that shit on a daily basis.....for decades if not centuries now.
By the way.......you have consistently confused one's actual being: ( race, ethnicity, gender, sexual identity).....with ones learned beliefs
( homosexuality is a sin, minorities are a drain on society, women should not have abortions ). You have identified all of these as "being who or what one is".
That is a bit off.
I certainly have not been singing their praises on this thread and in the J C Penney/Ellen Degeneres matter, I rated them every bit as hateful and wrong as GLAAD.
As for those other matters, I have not researched them and don't know WHY the boycotts were organized or carried out. If they were for tnothing more than the beliefs or opinions of people, an organized boycott is not something I will ever defend. If they were for bad ACTS, then they might be justifiable. So you'll need to be more specific if you wish for me to comment on something more than the JC Penney/Degeneres bruhaha.
Let's remember that there's nothing wrong with a boycott per se. It's the actions beyond that boycott where intolerance raises its ugly head.
I certainly have not been singing their praises on this thread and in the J C Penney/Ellen Degeneres matter, I rated them every bit as hateful and wrong as GLAAD.
As for those other matters, I have not researched them and don't know WHY the boycotts were organized or carried out. If they were for tnothing more than the beliefs or opinions of people, an organized boycott is not something I will ever defend. If they were for bad ACTS, then they might be justifiable. So you'll need to be more specific if you wish for me to comment on something more than the JC Penney/Degeneres bruhaha.
Let's remember that there's nothing wrong with a boycott per se. It's the actions beyond that boycott where intolerance raises its ugly head.
Yep. There's nothing wrong with voting with one's pocketbook. I do that all the time and I'm not about to fault anybody else for that. There is a LOT wrong with intention and purposefully trying to harm somebody physically and/or materially for no offense other than being who and what they are. I just wonder how many share my opinion about that and how many of those will be right of center versus left of center? I mean if we were taking a legitimate poll, how would it shake out?
That might give us a clue as to how close to totalitarianism we are in this country.
I certainly have not been singing their praises on this thread and in the J C Penney/Ellen Degeneres matter, I rated them every bit as hateful and wrong as GLAAD.
As for those other matters, I have not researched them and don't know WHY the boycotts were organized or carried out. If they were for tnothing more than the beliefs or opinions of people, an organized boycott is not something I will ever defend. If they were for bad ACTS, then they might be justifiable. So you'll need to be more specific if you wish for me to comment on something more than the JC Penney/Degeneres bruhaha.
Let's remember that there's nothing wrong with a boycott per se. It's the actions beyond that boycott where intolerance raises its ugly head.
Yep. There's nothing wrong with voting with one's pocketbook. I do that all the time and I'm not about to fault anybody else for that. There is a LOT wrong with intention and purposefully trying to harm somebody physically and/or materially for no offense other than being who and what they are. I just wonder how many share my opinion about that and how many of those will be right of center versus left of center? I mean if we were taking a legitimate poll, how would it shake out?
That might give us a clue as to how close to totalitarianism we are in this country.
For maybe the 30th time now yes, GLAAD demanded that Robertson be fired.
I would like to see that letter. I had heard that they simply asked A&E to disavow the statements.
And.....does it interest you that he was never fired?
Well you heard wrong. I'm not going to repost all those links from way back when. You can do your own research if you think all they did was ask A&E to disavoiw the statements. This had nothing to do with A&E in the first place.
Phil Robertson was never fired???????? Do you watch no television? Do you read nothing? No newspapers? No magazines? No internet news? How can you say that he was never fired? It is true that A&E used the word "suspended", without pay. They unsuspended him only after the rest of the Robertson family refused to go on without him and also in the wake of millions of viewers expressing their views.
And now Jesse Jackson and his Rainbow Coalition have gotten involved and are demanding that Jackson and GLAAD meet with Cracker Barrel and A&E. Presumably they aren't going to take it lying down that both Cracker Barrel and A&E bowed to public opinion and reinstated Phil Robertson.
Jesse Jackson, GLAAD demand meeting with A&E, Cracker Barrel over Phil Robertson - Spokane Conservative | Examiner.com
well you heard wrong. I'm not going to repost all those links from way back when. You can do your own research if you think all they did was ask a&e to disavoiw the statements. This had nothing to do with a&e in the first place.
Phil robertson was never fired???????? Do you watch no television? Do you read nothing? No newspapers? No magazines? No internet news? How can you say that he was never fired? It is true that a&e used the word "suspended", without pay. They unsuspended him only after the rest of the robertson family refused to go on without him and also in the wake of millions of viewers expressing their views.]
oh, so you support the people who demanded a&e keep robertson but glaad's demands ought to be illegal?
Jeezus you are the phoniest person on this board.
#1, #2, #4, #5
Yes. You my friend, have grasped the concept of the OP so far as GLAAD and Phil Robertson are concerned. They demand total immunity from any negatives whatsoever re gays but will not extend even token tolerance to those who promote traditional marriage or certain Christian beliefs or families with a mom and dad providing role models for the kids.
And it isn't just the Gestapo and/or Inquisition tactics of GLAAD demanding not just tolerance, but endorsement, total non criticism, non negative inferences of any kind. There are also groups who target anybody who doesn't interpret women's rights as they interpret them, who refuse to promote the politically correct and often dishonest social dynamics or history of racial minorities, who object to militant Islam, who promote certain Christian beliefs unrelated to homosexuality. And, as I have tried my damndest to point out, there are some rightwing groups who are just as bad.
Is there anybody among us who condones or approves the tacitcs of the Westboro Baptists? What hateful, mean spirited, disgusting, intolerant, and cruel people they show themselves to be. The American Family Association was not so hateful, but still were very very wrong and unAmerican to go after Ellen Degeneres for no other reason than they judged her to be promoting homosexuality purely by appearing in a Christmas ad. That to me is indefensible, wrong, and is an embarrassment to all of us who promote traditional family values as well as the unalienable right to be who and what we are with impunity.
Is there anybody in this thread who supports the tactics of the Westboro Baptists? Is there anybody in this thread who supports that action of the AFA?
How can you condemn one and not also condemn the actions of GLAAD re Phil Robertson?
I wonder if you have lost your mind when you invoke Godwin and associated GLAAD with Nazis. Do you have any idea in the world how unbelievably insulting and stupid that is, especially to Jews, Roma, Gays, political prisoners and handicapped people who DID suffer REAL physical harm and not just the bullshit you have been dreaming up here?
Wow, unbelievable. Wow.
Any time I see you criticize someone for invoking Godwin, I will certainly remind you of this moment.
Doing this kind of thing is just about as low as a person can stoop, in my book.
Somehow my name is in that quote, but I don't see any post or posts by me.
I wonder if you have lost your mind when you invoke Godwin and associated GLAAD with Nazis. Do you have any idea in the world how unbelievably insulting and stupid that is, especially to Jews, Roma, Gays, political prisoners and handicapped people who DID suffer REAL physical harm and not just the bullshit you have been dreaming up here?
Wow, unbelievable. Wow.
Any time I see you criticize someone for invoking Godwin, I will certainly remind you of this moment.
Doing this kind of thing is just about as low as a person can stoop, in my book.
#2, #3, and #4
#1 through #18 and further, you have got to be kidding me.
National Organization for Marriage (NOM), from it's own Blog, September, 2013:
Voting With Our Wallets | NOM Blog
Did you know that Starbucks was recently reported to be perceived as the most LGBT-friendly brand in the U.S.? JCPenney, Target, Apple and Amazon round out the top five.
If you've been following the national marriage battle over the past 18 months this should come as no surprise. Starbucks has said that gay marriage is one of its corporate values. Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, who recently purchased the Washington Post, gave hundreds of thousands of dollars of his own money to redefine marriage in Washington State. Target and JC Penny both support gay marriage and the homosexual lifestyle in general, as does Apple.
In the same survey, it was reported that 75% of LGBT respondents said they were actively boycotting Chick-fil-A.
We only vote at a ballot box once a year at most. But we vote with our wallets every day. Thats why NOM maintains its Corporate Fairness Project - which includes the Dump Starbucks, Dump General Mills, and Thank Chick-fil-A initiatives to inform you of what companies are taking active stands in the marriage battle, and where your money is best spent in defense of this sacred institution.
Yepp, a call to boycott any company that is in any way gay-friendly.
Lots of physical harm, I would say. Right, FoxFyre?
What physical harm? I have no problem with the LGBT people not patronizing Chick-fil-a. If enough people don't patronize Chick-fil-a, it will close its doors. I would have had no problem with GLAAD encouraging its members not to watch Duck Dynasty--not that many if any do--or A&E. Though in both cases, I would have seen that as small and petty, that is a very different thing than threatening an organization with lawsuits, going after and threatening its advertisers or customers. and demanding that people be fired for nothing more than you don't like who and what they are.
After your own intolerant comments here today, I honestly don't believe you will hear or understand that. But I know some will. Which is why I took the time to respond to you.
I would like to see that letter. I had heard that they simply asked A&E to disavow the statements.
And.....does it interest you that he was never fired?
Well you heard wrong. I'm not going to repost all those links from way back when. You can do your own research if you think all they did was ask A&E to disavoiw the statements. This had nothing to do with A&E in the first place.
Phil Robertson was never fired???????? Do you watch no television? Do you read nothing? No newspapers? No magazines? No internet news? How can you say that he was never fired? It is true that A&E used the word "suspended", without pay. They unsuspended him only after the rest of the Robertson family refused to go on without him and also in the wake of millions of viewers expressing their views.
And now Jesse Jackson and his Rainbow Coalition have gotten involved and are demanding that Jackson and GLAAD meet with Cracker Barrel and A&E. Presumably they aren't going to take it lying down that both Cracker Barrel and A&E bowed to public opinion and reinstated Phil Robertson.
Jesse Jackson, GLAAD demand meeting with A&E, Cracker Barrel over Phil Robertson - Spokane Conservative | Examiner.com
They suspended him. They put him on hiatus. They didn't fire him.
Don't ask how I can say it. Those are words, words have meaning, and neither of those words mean "fired."
