(Vanity) One Man, One Chick, or Unintended Consequences

One of the biggest news stories in the past week was the brouhaha over the remarks of one Dan Cathy (President of the fast food chain Chick-Fil-A) concerning support for traditional marriage. Homosexual activists were aghast that in this day and age, someone was allowed to run “afowl” of the anti-public-~~blasphemy~~piety laws, and began calling for a boycott, as well as denouncing Chick-Fil-A as a purveyor of “Hate”.

 Some of the usual (left wing) suspects joined the fray; among them, GLAAD, who released a report that Chick-Fil-A’s brand rating had plummeted following Dan Cathy’s remarks; Chicago Alderman Proco "Joe" Moreno, who announced that he would block Chick-Fil-A from building a new franchise location in his ward (Chicago Mayor Rahm “Dead Fish” Emmanuel, who declared the Chick-Fil-A did not represent Chicago values, backed him up); and Boston’s mayor, Thomas Menino, who sent a letter to Cathy stating in part that “[t]here is no place for discrimination on Boston's Freedom Trail and no place for your company alongside it.” San Francisco Mayor Edwin Lee weighed in on Twitter, first declaring “Very disappointed #ChickFilA doesn’t share San Francisco’s values” and later stating “Closest #ChickFilA to San Francisco is 40 miles away & I strongly recommend that they not try to come any closer.” Sarah Palin, on the other hand, who during her publicized bus tour last summer, toured historical sites in Boston, proudly Tweeted a photo of herself with her husband Todd standing inside a Chick-Fil-A, saying “Stopped by Chick-fil-A in The Woodlands to support a great business.” (She was visiting the Woodlands to attend a rally for Tea Party candidate for the U.S. Senate, Tom Cruz. Cruz ended up defeating the GOP-e approved candidate in a runoff, and will likely join the Senate for real this fall. Double win for Sarah!) And even ¨ber-RINO and Mayor of New York, Michael Bloomberg, pulled his head out of his cloaca long enough to chastise other government officials for their actions, saying during a weekly radio address that it's not the government's place to "look at somebody's political views and decide whether or not they can live in the city, or operate a business in the city, or work for somebody in the city." And finally, former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee weighed in on Facebook, encouraging people to support Chick-Fil-A by going there to eat on August 1.

What happened? Two things; or really, three. First, and most importantly, the “buycott” worked: all across the Country, Chick-Fil-A franchises were mobbed with customers, many of them having to call in numerous extra staffers to handle the rush: it was the single largest sales day in franchise history. Secondly, the press made a great show of minimizing the story; when News crews showed up, the story was not given much airtime, nor emphasized, and in many cases, did not even make it on the air. And finally, the homosexuals and totalitarians, having seen the determination of ordinary Americans not to be bullied by an alliance of perverts and leftist politicians, decided to up the ante a little: a bomb threat was called into a Chick-Fil-A in West Virginia; graffiti reading “Tastes Like Hate” in a font resembling that in Chick-Fil-A’s own advertising was spray-painted on a franchise in Torrance, CA; and a man, Adam Smith, who at the time was the CFO of a multimillion dollar publicly traded company, made a YouTube video of himself berating a young woman working the drive through window of a Chick-Fil-A franchise, but was not quick enough to delete the video before it went viral: he was fired from his job within hours. (Watch the video here; and recall as you do just which side claims to be fighting for “tolerance”.)

Now, claims of “hate” and similar posturing aside, the crux of the issue is that the homosexual community and their liberal and Communist supporters (but I repeat myself) are making what amounts to a full-court-press for marriage; their claim at first is that they are being discriminated against because they can’t marry who they want, but that is specious: many heterosexuals do not get to marry who they want -- have you ever read Romeo and Juliet? Very well, comes the response from the homosexuals, that just proves our point: just as Romeo and Juliet were unhappy over being denied their love, surely you see that denying marriage to homosexual couples is cruel? Well, no, I don’t: the purpose of marriage is not just the happiness of those involved, unless you want to justify the “man runs off with his secretary / woman runs off to Europe to find herself (*)” divorce court mentality. Marriage is also about providing for the raising of children; about a help-meet for life (“till death do us part”); and, speaking of death and children, of inheritance.

And it is here that the rubber chicken meets the road; that is, when pressed, many homosexual activists will claim that it is this, above all else, which is so wretchedly unfair, and discriminatory, about current laws. We all know of the horrors of AIDS; and homosexual activists often claim that they have no way to visit their partner in the hospital and to be guaranteed admission, no way to arrange for community property or inheritance in the case of their death; if only, if only, we were allowed to be married, it would all be clear sailing. And it is for this reason that I am against homosexual marriage. Because, in today’s modern, enlightened society, has anyone noticed what the “I Want To Be Married To Be Happy”^TM / no-fault divorce movement has done to heterosexual marriage? People can get married at the drop of a hat; and once the process has started, it’s a feeding frenzy for the lawyers. Think carefully about what you want, vs. what you just think you want: in fact, once homosexual marriage is accepted, and "gay" divorces (now there’s an oxymoron for you, given the historical meaning of the words!) are in full fling, it will be an open question whether the homosexual community will be happy with what they have fought for, when their worst enemies are their former lovers. Or even worse, if it comes out that the treatment of a man divorcing a woman, is generally much worse than the treatment of a man divorcing another man, you just know some enterprising young lawyer is going to come along and demand that the laws governing heterosexual divorces get revised -- and ironically enough, on the same equal protection grounds on which homosexuals are seeking marriage. And I’m sure the homosexuals’ sometime allies, the feminists, are just going to be ticked *pink* about that possibility. The law of unintended consequences strikes again!

Or even worse, if it comes out that the treatment of a man divorcing a woman, is generally much worse than the treatment of a man divorcing another man, you just know some enterprising young lawyer is going to come along and demand that the laws governing heterosexual divorces get revised — and ironically enough, on the same equal protection grounds on which homosexuals are seeking marriage.

The object of feminism is to end heterosexual love, marriage and “breeding.” I recall that at the height of their power, before Clintoon derailed them, was sexual harassment lawsuits shaking down businesses and creating a deeper “war of the sexes.” They named all heterosexual sex “rape.” Flirting was sexual harassment.

They can use gay marriage to totally revise the social contract of heterosexual marriage making it a downright harmful legal agreement to parents and children.

The push towards ghettoizing heterosexual sex relationships has come from homo activists. Sex with romance, love and commitment is taboo. Heterosexual sex is protrayed like homos experience it in the nearest bathhouse. It wrecks normal sexual expression and people like bathhouse behavior does to homos, too.

See also "Yes means yes" laws.

Also, have you ever read the works of Robert Stacy McCain (http://theothermccain.com) ? He has delved extensively into the lives and writings of leading feminists and come to the same conclusions as you...

I spent a whole summer reading leftist race and feminist books. I went down a rabbit hole of retardation and hate. The feminist movement was dominated by male and female homosexuals. Surprise, Surprise! I spent a year studying about the homo abuse of children and teens because we had two in-laws abused as children and they were ruined as men by the trauma they kept hidden for so long.

Ultimately, now that they have won homo rights, they want to lower the age of consent. They want the boys and girls before they are old enough to understand who they are and strong enough to stand up to the gay mafia members who select them. This is the way they increase their population and dominate the psychological damage is the way they use their minions in power. The loyalty (psychological attachment from trauma) to the abusers is dangerously warped.

When I say they HATE Christians, I mean THE HATE CHRISTIANS and religious Jews. Muslim leaders (The Saudis, in particular) are a big part of the international homo/bi circle of power in funding and influence with politicians as they rape boys and girls as a part of their culture.

It’s in the military - high up - too. Now that homos are “out” in the military, it will be a field day on the weak soldiers they (psychology profile) select for recruiting/sexual torture. The abused became twisted like execution operational leaders in Nazi Germany. In Nato, they are assassins. This is not a joke. They are embedded in the US military in leadership. They want global control and are Marxists/fascists. It’s like a cult of loyalty to abuse and perversion and the agenda of these powerful freaks.

It’s in Hollywood. If you want to be “special” you have to submit to homo ritualistic abuse. They tell the one’s they pick that they are “special.”

And the Catholic church...this is what that cult of child sexual abuse is about. It is global and especially embedded in Britian and Muslim nations. Now it will become embedded in the US when they lower the age of consent.

To shut up parents objecting to Boston area public schools grooming children for gender confusing and rape, the teachers’ unions threatened to rape the parent’s children. That shut a lot of them up and they stopped helping activists. They had parents arrested for speaking out at school board meeting and banned from the school grounds as a danger to the community.

The oppression against those who stand up (parents in general and Christians in particular) is going to be bad. I was not surprised Danny Hasert (sp?) was one of them. They are put in high places.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.