1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Chick-fil-A PR goes Rogue

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by Evil ... Thy name is Orville Redenbacher!!, Jul 26, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Tarheel316

    Tarheel316 Well-Known Member

    And definitely don't call Moddy one.
     
  2. doctorquant

    doctorquant Well-Known Member

    So I've got that going for me ... which is nice.
     
  3. Steak Snabler

    Steak Snabler Well-Known Member

    Sorry if this has been posted already:

    http://www.seriouseats.com/2012/07/the-food-lab-how-to-make-a-chick-fil-a-sandwich-at-home.html
     
  4. imjustagirl

    imjustagirl Active Member

    Pinned that on Pinterest for later reference.
     
  5. hondo

    hondo Well-Known Member

    That's an interesting take on people who won't agree with you. Must make you all comfy and cozy in your bizarre intellectual world so you don't actually have to argue an issue on its merits. It is pretty fucking simple to have this chain of thought: "I believe this ... you believe that .... you're stupid, nanny, nanny boo-boo."

    Easy. And intellectually dishonest.
     
  6. deskslave

    deskslave Active Member

    How you can have an issue with "government" dictating who can benefit from the governmental benefits of marriage? If you don't want "government" interfering in the "definition" of marriage, then you and the wife can give up all the tax breaks, visitation rights, inheritance rights, etc. But if this is about the religious definition of marriage being somehow altered by government, the Mississippi church case shows that churches aren't going to be forced to marry anyone.

    Also, you're uncomfortable with a government deciding the definition of marriage, but you're OK with it being decided based on the definition in a 2,000-year-old written version of Telephone? That ... doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

    To be honest, I'd be fine with a version of the Italian system, where everyone gets married at town hall, and those who want a church wedding as well can have one. Keep the legal side on the legal side and the church side on the church side. Just don't give the church that legal power.
     
  7. JR

    JR Well-Known Member

    Ok, not sure if this was intentional or not but:

    "Chick-Fil-A's got quite a bit in common with California burger chain In-N-Out burger. Both serve reasonably priced tasty food of a markedly better quality than your typical fast food establishment. Both harbor a cult-like following of zealots. Both hire and retain extremely upbeat and friendly staff—you can't help but feel just a little more gay after stepping into a Chick-Fil-A"
     
  8. Steak Snabler

    Steak Snabler Well-Known Member

    I'd say that was totally intentional.
     
  9. doctorquant

    doctorquant Well-Known Member

    If you think marriage was defined only 2,000 years ago, well, we're probably not going to agree on much else. But read my words carefully, as I chose them with care. I didn't say I'm leery of government dictating who can benefit from marriage, I said that I was leery of government dictating the forms of marriage/unions that must be recognized. There's a difference. The counterpoint might be that the government already dictates the forms of marriage/unions that must be recognized, but the counterpoint to that argument is that the old-fart understanding of marriage long predates the state as we know it.
     
  10. JR

    JR Well-Known Member

    Except it'd be funnier if it weren't. :)
     
  11. cranberry

    cranberry Well-Known Member


    So we're going back to polygamy?
     
  12. Inky_Wretch

    Inky_Wretch Well-Known Member

    Well, it is biblical.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page