American Family Association ends McDonalds boycott

[Satty]

linkypoo

McDonald's has told AFA they will remain neutral in the culture war regarding homosexual marriage. AFA is ending the boycott of McDonald's. As you know, AFA called for the boycott in May after McDonald's joined the National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce (NGLCC).

McDonald's said McDonald's Vice President Richard Ellis has resigned his position on the board of NGLCC and that his seat on the board will not be replaced. McDonald's also said that the company has no plans to renew their membership in NGLCC when it expires in December.

I'll remain silent

Edited October 10, 2008 by Satty

[Satty]

No I wont, the AFA is a bunch of assholes. I dont eat at McDonalds because the food sucks, but now that they've given in to this religious bull$h!, I'm going to avoid that place at all costs.

Oh, and here is why they hate the "gay agenda"

Edited October 10, 2008 by Satty

[Cory Wolfe]

I dislike McDonald's as is. Just gives me one more, very big, reason not to eat there.

[Robert Hall]

I bet Sarah Palin supports the AFA...seems like the kind of crowd she's follow..

Edited October 10, 2008 by moltar

[Sixty8panther]

In any case, WASTE OF TIME.

I bet Sarah Palin supports the AFA...seems like the kind of crowd she's follow..

Now now... let's not go jumping to conclusions.

[ocnblu]

Hmmm... will Oldsmoboi lock this thread, too, like he did for the "toilet smiley" thread for the out-of-place political comment? Or will it be allowed to live because the comment is anti-Republican? We'll see.

Meantime, McDonald's is a bunch of weenies for giving in to these loons.

[the_yellow_dart]

...but Ocn, isn't being anti-gay rights a real traditional Republican viewpoint?

I realize Sarah Palin is not anti-gay rights (not sure about McCain) but aren't Republicans traditionally the "one man, one woman" crowd?

I'm not trying to stir up crap here, remember I am Canadian and while I understand American politics I don't see it first hand all the time like all you Americans, so pardon me if this question is stupid.

[Satty]

I added a political warning to the subtitle, since this thread could veer that way.

[SingleStylish]

Republicans and Democrats alike are both cut from different cloths on social issues. One tenant to both parties however, is that democrats seek to improve quality of life through government run social programs while Republicans are fiscally conservative. What this means in plain english is that Republicans and Democrats clash on spending money. Everything else is based on what part of the country they are from, a democrat from the south will most likely have differing viewpoints from a dem. from the north. Same with east and west coast vs. mid america.

Back to this particular issue. Disclosing what you think, feel, or way of life in a public manner allows for open discussion. Censoring AFA is similar to censoring GLAD. Frankly, I wish the whole issue would go away with both sides agreeing not to talk about it in public.

[Hudson]

I have been an opponent of the AFA for more than 20 years. They tried to impose their "lifestyle choice" on me and my friends back then. They were offended when they heard "the devil" mentioned in a song played in a public place and demanded that the radio be changed to a Christian or news station...or be turned off all together. Their response when someone said they wanted the ambient music was for everyone else to "bring a walkman" because three people were offended by a Great White song. There are other reasons to be offended by Great White, but the lyrics of "House of Broken Love" are not even close to the top of that list.

The AFA is a very hypocritical organization. They're offended by a woman referred to as "the devil" mentioned in a song, but isn't THE Devil a primary character in the book they quote all the time? They were offended by Saturday Night Live where a "nude beach" sketch in 1988 mentioned "penis" 21 times...and the AFA used the same word in an AFA Journal article (about the sketch) 18 times. They opposed magazines like Playboy and Penthouse and even concocted a bogus report linking magazines such as these to the abuse of children and women to back up their story.

The ONLY good thing about the AFA is that its founder Donald Wildmon is the reason behind George Carlin's "The Seven Words You Can Never Say on TV." The AFA and Donald Wildmon have given NOTHING positive to society beyond that. Oh, and perhaps to give me an antagonist to my life's story.

I don't eat at McDonald's because of the food. But I would never knowingly avoid a company that the AFA was boycotting for any reason beyond bad products or bad corporate citizenship. Treating homosexuals fairly...is GOOD corporate citizenship. The AFA's stance is AGAINST what the Bible teaches. I always thought the basic principle behind the Bible was "do unto others." In that case, I think we should patronize every business on the AFA's boycott list and boycott anyone who supports the AFA. Seems only fair.

[Robert Hall]

...but Ocn, isn't being anti-gay rights a real traditional Republican viewpoint?

I realize Sarah Palin is not anti-gay rights (not sure about McCain) but aren't Republicans traditionally the "one man, one woman" crowd?

I'm not trying to stir up crap here, remember I am Canadian and while I understand American politics I don't see it first hand all the time like all you Americans, so pardon me if this question is stupid.

Well, the Republican party today is the party of intolerance, IMHO... it seems today that if you aren't a straight white evangelical Christian, you aren't welcome. The Republican party has alienated vast groups with in the US with it's anti-intellectual, anti-science, anti-professional stances...I saw an article today in the NYT that's one of these best I've seen in a while about this cultural divide--- it's a worthwhile read.

NYT article

A few paragraphs from the article that ring true to me:

" Over the past 15 years, the same argument has been heard from a thousand politicians and a hundred television and talk-radio jocks. The nation is divided between the wholesome Joe Sixpacks in the heartland and the oversophisticated, overeducated, oversecularized denizens of the coasts.

What had been a disdain for liberal intellectuals slipped into a disdain for the educated class as a whole. The liberals had coastal condescension, so the conservatives developed their own anti-elitism, with mirror-image categories and mirror-image resentments, but with the same corrosive effect.

Republicans developed their own leadership style. If Democratic leaders prized deliberation and self-examination, then Republicans would govern from the gut.

George W. Bush restrained some of the populist excesses of his party — the anti-immigration fervor, the isolationism — but stylistically he fit right in. As Fred Barnes wrote in his book, “Rebel-in-Chief,” Bush “reflects the political views and cultural tastes of the vast majority of Americans who don’t live along the East or West Coast. He’s not a sophisticate and doesn’t spend his discretionary time with sophisticates. As First Lady Laura Bush once said, she and the president didn’t come to Washington to make new friends. And they haven’t.”

The political effects of this trend have been obvious. Republicans have alienated the highly educated regions — Silicon Valley, northern Virginia, the suburbs outside of New York, Philadelphia, Chicago and Raleigh-Durham. The West Coast and the Northeast are mostly gone.

The Republicans have alienated whole professions. Lawyers now donate to the Democratic Party over the Republican Party at 4-to-1 rates. With doctors, it’s 2-to-1. With tech executives, it’s 5-to-1. With investment bankers, it’s 2-to-1. It took talent for Republicans to lose the banking community.

This sums it up the best:

" And so, politically, the G.O.P. is squeezed at both ends. The party is losing the working class by sins of omission — because it has not developed policies to address economic anxiety. It has lost the educated class by sins of commission — by telling members of that class to go away."

Edited October 10, 2008 by moltar

[Drew Dowdell]

Hmmm... will Oldsmoboi lock this thread, too, like he did for the "toilet smiley" thread for the out-of-place political comment? Or will it be allowed to live because the comment is anti-Republican? We'll see.

Meantime, McDonald's is a bunch of weenies for giving in to these loons.

No. This thread is labeled "Political", that's why the thread will live. The thread you are referencing was in regards to a board function and a few members decided to turn it political. If you've got a problem with that take it up with an admin... any admin, in PM.

I won't eat at McDonald's regardless... so....

edit: I didn't even see this thread till after the "political" label was added, otherwise I would have warned and closed it.

[Drew Dowdell]

Republicans and Democrats alike are both cut from different cloths on social issues. One tenant to both parties however, is that democrats seek to improve quality of life through government run social programs while Republicans are fiscally conservative. What this means in plain english is that Republicans and Democrats clash on spending money. Everything else is based on what part of the country they are from, a democrat from the south will most likely have differing viewpoints from a dem. from the north. Same with east and west coast vs. mid america.

Back to this particular issue. Disclosing what you think, feel, or way of life in a public manner allows for open discussion. Censoring AFA is similar to censoring GLAD. Frankly, I wish the whole issue would go away with both sides agreeing not to talk about it in public.

Republican's haven't been fiscally conservative for at least 8 years.

Not talking about it in public isn't an option... and doesn't get anywhere.

[Drew Dowdell]

It took talent for Republicans to lose the banking community[/b]. [/i]

That little tidbit warms the cockles of my heart.

[usonia]

I realize Sarah Palin is not anti-gay rights

Yes, she is.

...while Republicans are fiscally conservative.

At one time that was true, but they gave that up with the near doubling of the national debt is less than eight years. Today's politicians love to invoke the founding fathers for their brilliance in setting up our system of government while they routinely ignore their warings.

"I place economy among the first and most important republican virtues, and public debt as the greatest of the dangers to be feared. To preserve our independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt."

Thomas Jefferson, third US president, architect and author (1743-1826)

[loki]

...but Ocn, isn't being anti-gay rights a real traditional Republican viewpoint?

I realize Sarah Palin is not anti-gay rights (not sure about McCain) but aren't Republicans traditionally the "one man, one woman" crowd?

I'm not trying to stir up crap here, remember I am Canadian and while I understand American politics I don't see it first hand all the time like all you Americans, so pardon me if this question is stupid.

traditional.... if you mean since bush 1, probably, if you mean goldwater, no, but there is a large dichotomy of ideas in the "republican party"...there are prolly some "anti gay rights" people that call themselves democrats.

[SoCalCTS]

So now when I am enjoying a grilled Chicken salad while my niece and nephew play in the play area, my family will be exposed to religious bigots?!?! This sucks. I wish the AFA would continue to boycott. I don't want to be anywhere that they are!

[regfootball]

i suppose mcD's thinks they need to do this to protect the market share of Happy Meals.

[SingleStylish]

Republican's haven't been fiscally conservative for at least 8 years.

Not talking about it in public isn't an option... and doesn't get anywhere.

Where do we need to get exactly? I will never be in favor of gay and lesbian couples. Period. However, I will never pursue legislation that allows or disallows it. It simply is not the job of the government. So, I will again iterate... if it is brought up in public it is open for public discussion.

PS "IF" you are indeed born gay or lesbian why hasn't anybody sought government funding for finding a cure?

[SingleStylish]

On the spending note, we have had Democratically controlled congress for almost as long as we have had Bush. The President himself is not responsible for writting law or for that matter lately, approving it. Regardless of party we need term limits in both the House and Senate. After that is accomplished every single department within the US government should be responsible for writing a budge that prioritzes spending. From there, the Office of Budget should then organize priorities for the entirety. Put income tax (taken as 17% of all income no matter brackets) at the top and go down the list until you run out of money. Programs below the black number lose. Do it every year. Forever.

[Hudson]

Where do we need to get exactly? I will never be in favor of gay and lesbian couples. Period. However, I will never pursue legislation that allows or disallows it. It simply is not the job of the government. So, I will again iterate... if it is brought up in public it is open for public discussion.

The government gives tax incentives to married couples but not to committed gay couples, which is wrong. The government should stay out of "marriage" which is a religious thing...and every committed couple, gay or straight, should be granted a "civil union" by the government for all of the legal reasons (health care, inheritence, etc) and "marriage" should remain in the church. There should be NO special treatment of homosexuals...or heterosexuals. Treat them all the same.

PS "IF" you are indeed born gay or lesbian why hasn't anybody sought government funding for finding a cure?

Should there be a cure for being black? Or tall? Or female? Cause I'm pretty sure those people are born with those conditions as well.

[Hudson]

On the spending note, we have had Democratically controlled congress for almost as long as we have had Bush. The President himself is not responsible for writting law or for that matter lately, approving it.

We've had a Democratically controlled Congress for two years and a George W. Bush administration for just shy of eight years. I don't know about your math, but TWO is not "almost" EIGHT.

And that "Democratically-controlled Congress" doesn't mean they can pass whatever they want. There are 49 Democrats in Congress and 49 Republicans. Democrats don't even have a simple majority, let alone a filabuster-proof 60%.

Regardless of party we need term limits in both the House and Senate.

That's the first thing you've said that has made any sense.

[Croc]

PS "IF" you are indeed born gay or lesbian why hasn't anybody sought government funding for finding a cure?

Well I learn something new every day...here I thought eugenics subscribers had pretty much died out after Hitler.

Edited October 10, 2008 by Croc

[Drew Dowdell]

Where do we need to get exactly? I will never be in favor of gay and lesbian couples. Period. However, I will never pursue legislation that allows or disallows it. It simply is not the job of the government. So, I will again iterate... if it is brought up in public it is open for public discussion.

PS "IF" you are indeed born gay or lesbian why hasn't anybody sought government funding for finding a cure?

It's tied up in legislation to cure left handedness.

Who says there needs to be a cure? No credible medical professional/scientist considers it a disease or disorder. Most of us don't want to be "cured".

This is a completely different thread though and if you wish to discuss it more, I suggest you make a new thread.

[Drew Dowdell]

On the spending note, we have had Democratically controlled congress for almost as long as we have had Bush. The President himself is not responsible for writting law or for that matter lately, approving it. Regardless of party we need term limits in both the House and Senate. After that is accomplished every single department within the US government should be responsible for writing a budge that prioritzes spending. From there, the Office of Budget should then organize priorities for the entirety. Put income tax (taken as 17% of all income no matter brackets) at the top and go down the list until you run out of money. Programs below the black number lose. Do it every year. Forever.

If by "most of" you mean "2 out of 8 years".... then yes. I imagine by that standard, McCain will get "most of" the popular and electoral votes as well.

[Satty]

Ted Haggard was gay, but James Dobson cured him of it. Or some crap like that. Gay cure :rolleyes:

And when I posted this, I considered adding a "political" label, but there was no political party or candidate mentioned in the original article. It wasn't until a few posts in that politics came into play, I figured that would lead to a thread closing and I thought this could turn into an interesting discussion, so I added the label.

[regfootball]

got this in an email the other day, whether its fluff or not, you be the judge...but it is interesting.

TO ALL MY FRIENDS....LIBERAL OR CONSERVATIVE...FYI only.

George Bush has been in office for 7 1/2 years. The first six the economy was fine.

A little over one year ago:

1) Consumer confidence stood at a 2 1/2 year high;

2) Regular gasoline sold for $2.19 a gallon;

3) the unemployment rate was 4.5%.

4) the DOW JONES hit a record high--14,000 +

5) American's were buying new cars,taking cruises, vacations overseas, living large!...

But American's wanted 'CHANGE'! So, in 2006 they voted in a Democratic Congress and yes--we got 'CHANGE' all right. In the PAST YEAR:

1) Consumer confidence has plummeted;

2) Gasoline is now over $4 a gallon & climbing!;

3) Unemployment is up to 5.5% (a 10% increase);

4) Americans have seen their home equity drop by $12 TRILLION DOLLARS and prices still dropping;

5) 1% of American homes are in foreclosure.

6) as I write, THE DOW is probing another low~~

$2.5 TRILLION DOLLARS HAS EVAPORATED FROM THEIR STOCKS, BONDS & MUTUAL FUNDS INVESTMENT PORTFOLIOS!

YES, IN 2006 AMERICA VOTED FOR CHANGE...AND WE SURE GOT IT! .

REMEMBER THE PRESIDENT HAS NO CONTROL OVER ANY OF THESE ISSUES, ONLY CONGRESS.

AND WHAT HAS CONGRESS DONE IN THE LAST TWO YEARS, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.

NOW THE DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE FOR PRESIDENT CLAIMS HE IS GOING TO REALLY GIVE US CHANGE ALONG WITH A DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS!!!!

JUST HOW MUCH MORE 'CHANGE' DO YOU THINK YOU CAN STAND?

[Satty]

What, reg, does that have to do with McDonalds hating gay people?

[Drew Dowdell]

George Bush has been in office for 7 1/2 years. The first six the economy was fine.

At that point I stopped reading.

The rest of the email should go like this:

Maude smoked 3 packs of Lucky's a day since she was 18 and she's always been perfectly healthy. Two years ago she quit cigarettes completely. Since then she's developed cancer... in fact, her cancer has cancer. Clearly quitting smoking was no good for Maude's health.

[Drew Dowdell]

What, reg, does that have to do with McDonalds hating gay people?

Pointing out far right idiocy maybe?

[The O.C.]

...but Ocn, isn't being anti-gay rights a real traditional Republican viewpoint?

I see anti-gay rights as a far-right, conservative republican viewpoint.....and not in any way indicative of how the vast majority of republicans feel......

[The O.C.]

got this in an email the other day, whether its fluff or not, you be the judge...but it is interesting.

....and I'll add to that......Obama has voted 95% of the time in accordance with this very same Democratic congress. THIS is one thing that scares me so much about him. You put him in the white house and he will effectively be a "rubber stamp" for a Congress that has an even lower approval rating than the Bush Administration......scary.......

[The O.C.]

Going back to original topic......it really drives me nuts how the AFA makes such extensive use of the words homosexual "movement" and homosexual "agenda."

What sort of "movement" or "agenda" am I, as a gay man, supposed to be on?

I'm just living my life like everyone else.....and expected to be treated the same as everyone else. It's funny, because day-to-day, I forget that there are really these religious fanatics out there. My life, as an open gay man, is so lacking in drama from people I'm around, people I work with, people I come across every day....(no one at all really seems to care about me being gay that is)......that I forget that there is still a real serious danger from these fanatics.

[Hudson]

got this in an email the other day, whether its fluff or not, you be the judge...but it is interesting.

What does this have to do with this thread?

[Hudson]

Going back to original topic......it really drives me nuts how the AFA makes such extensive use of the words homosexual "movement" and homosexual "agenda."

What sort of "movement" or "agenda" am I, as a gay man, supposed to be on?

Shouldn't you, as a gay man, be offended by the "heterosexual movement and agenda?" If I were you, I'd be offended by it.

[The O.C.]

Shouldn't you, as a gay man, be offended by the "heterosexual movement and agenda?" If I were you, I'd be offended by it.

I am....but it seems the vasy majority of people on this "heterosexual movement and agenda" are these types of fanatics.....

For example, when I'm out-and-about at some of the many (straight) bars around Las Vegas with some of my friends, I get hit on quite a bit by women! I don't feel repulsed by it...in fact, it's kinda flattering.

Ultimately, it comes out that I'm/we are gay......then we all get a good laugh about it, and have a fun time shooting the $h! with those women......it's all good.....

[Drew Dowdell]

....and I'll add to that......Obama has voted 95% of the time in accordance with this very same Democratic congress. THIS is one thing that scares me so much about him. You put him in the white house and he will effectively be a "rubber stamp" for a Congress that has an even lower approval rating than the Bush Administration......scary.......

At this point, I'd think the disapproval rating congress has comes from not standing up to Bush and Co.

The democrat's agenda will be substantially different with a democrat in the whitehouse....

[Satty]

Going back to original topic......it really drives me nuts how the AFA makes such extensive use of the words homosexual "movement" and homosexual "agenda."

What sort of "movement" or "agenda" am I, as a gay man, supposed to be on?

As a gay man, you're trying to make everyone else gay. Or something like that. They're pretty much just interpreting the bible to say you need to be "healed" because you may turn their kids gay.

[AFA mode] Geez, at least if you're going to be gay, stay in the closet. We only hate the queers who wear pink tank tops and roller blade on the beach holding hands. Its far better for you to live feeling ashamed of yourself that it is for us to have to feel uncomfortable around you because you're different.[/AFA mode]

[Chris_Doane]

PS "IF" you are indeed born gay or lesbian why hasn't anybody sought government funding for finding a cure?

Because anyone with even half a brain knows it's not something that needs a cure.

[Satty]

Because anyone with even half a brain knows it's not something that needs a cure.

Thats it mister, you're test subject #1 for my gay cure. Its a pill I've tentatively named Vaginalishex.

[Chris_Doane]

Thats it mister, you're test subject #1 for my gay cure. Its a pill I've tentatively named Vaginalishex.

[daves87rs]

Thats it mister, you're test subject #1 for my gay cure. Its a pill I've tentatively named Vaginalishex.

Gee, the AFA is still around? Didn't they just disappear when Britney Spears came on the scene?

[Drew Dowdell]

Where do we need to get exactly? I will never be in favor of gay and lesbian couples. Period. However, I will never pursue legislation that allows or disallows it. It simply is not the job of the government. So, I will again iterate... if it is brought up in public it is open for public discussion.

PS "IF" you are indeed born gay or lesbian why hasn't anybody sought government funding for finding a cure?

[SingleStylish]

You apparently misunderstand me. Afraid of homosexuals no. Disagree with the LIFESTYLE yes. Any person with a brain would notice that it wasn't meant that way. The only arguement that homosexuals produce for the LIFESTYLE choice is that they are born that way. Well if you are indeed born that way why aren't we seeking a cure?

Like a said before, you disagree with what I think and that is fine. I have no problem with that. You do. That sums up the whole issue nationally.

[SingleStylish]

For those comparing the gay movement to the racial issues of the past... shame on you! Not even close.

[FAPTurbo]

I don't get organizations like the AFA, especially when they defend marriage. It's not as if marriage is all that sacred of a sacrament anymore these days, and it's not gay people that have ruined it.

I mean, Earnest Borgnine, has had like what, nine wives?

[SoCalCTS]

We should ban divorce. As a Catholic, divorce offends me deeply. You Protestants are playing with fire. Your whole religion is based on the fact that some fat king wanted to get a divorce and ruin the sanctity of marriage. The hypocrisy of it all makes me sick to my stomach and makes me realize how many false religions are out there.

[Hudson]

For those comparing the gay movement to the racial issues of the past... shame on you! Not even close.

I missed that reference. My comparison between homosexuality and race is the fact that people are born with these "conditions" and that neither is "curable."

[Hudson]

Thats it mister, you're test subject #1 for my gay cure. Its a pill I've tentatively named Vaginalishex.

You will make a fortune from all of those gay Christians who are looking for a cure. I want to be an early investor!

[Croc]

For those comparing the gay movement to the racial issues of the past... shame on you! Not even close.

You're right, not even close because you can't even tell how many gays are around you at any given time by giving the room a quick scan.