Posted on 01/30/2011 8:53:18 AM PST by scottjewell
Yes, they are, I think it’s pretty clear.
I’m disgusted how fast this group of freepers ganged up on this wonderful Christian family who has promoted family values for decades in their company, based on misinterpretation from a LIBERAL news source. In fact one of the reasons the Cathy’s have refused to go public is so they could maintain these values.
Just as I don't patronize a company that bows to extortion from ANY "Group", which is an amalgamation of societal misfits who want OTHERS to adopt THEIR abnormality, Cick-Fil-A will go the way of Omaha Steaks, to my list of "do not patronize".
IMHO, Sex Deviates R Us (the whole faggot/dyke bunch) can stick their "cause" up their asses, and I'll vote with my wallet.
WTF?
Did they, or did they not, withdraw their support from Family Values sponsorship in RESPONSE to PRESSURE from the faggots and dykes?
Claiming they are "a wonderful family company" pales in comparison to ACTUAL DEMONSTRATION of principle, in caving to extortion tactics....it doesn't pass the smell test.
Yes, I echo that sentiment. And, after reading the press release a 2nd (and 3rd) time, the more I appreciate how well it was crafted, from a PR standpoint.
He's not responding to the artificial controversy created by the homosexual mafia, he's ignoring them. But, he is taking the time to clearly establish that it's a Christian company, with Christian morals and ideals, to especially include loving those with whom you disagree in the spirit of Christian civility. He also says pretty clearly that the company is going to continue supporting like-minded organization to strengthen Christian families.
I think that is a perfectly placed juxtaposition to the homosexual (figurative) bomb-throwers.
Right, the question is this:
Is it furthering the gay agenda or the traditional agenda to have this sort of ignoring, subterfuge, double-speak, which then can be spun to be pro-gay PR? This is what ought to be determined....
My reaction is not strictly limited to the article posted.
This article appeared in the NY Times today
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/30/us/30chick.html?ref=us&pagewanted=print
Coincidence? Hardly. It’s one of those brick-by-brick MSM campaigns meant to target and eventually tear down any person or institution that stands in the way of the militant gay agenda. Actual OPPOSITION is not required and the mere act of declaring one’s principles - especially those rooted in faith - is enough to set the wheels in motion.
The self-loathing, self-obsession, paranoia and overreaction in the Times piece is typical but it’s still an early indicator that the usual team of character/institutional assassins will be set loose.
No, they did NOT withdraw their support.
Maybe I missed it. But did they drop their support of the “anti-gay marriage group” or didn’t they?
READ what Dan Cathy ACTUALLY Said rather than what the liberal source said. POST #32
They did NOT. This was all explained last week and this letter reaffirms it today. It is up to the individual franchise owners to choose the organizations they will support. That has not changed.
So this mirrors, for example , when gay marriage supposedly had overwhelming support in Maine and NY, and was repealed in the former and voted down in the latter. Gay advocates see what they want to see. Meanwhile, reality goes on . . . Yet why have they been able to cause such upheaval, then?
I know exactly why they did this - it is a fact that when Cathy came out reaffirming their stance on traditional marriage, sales went UP.
They are trying to scare the conservatives off. Guess what, the title on FR is already picked up by Google and will be around the country in a day. People just like Freepers won’t even stop to consider the source or get information first hand.
For shame.
Well, I posted this as an example of what On Top was saying. I attributed all to their magazine, and their link, which was the protocol. How is that endorsing it?
They may as well. They were rather ostentatious about their Christian beliefs with the whole "closed on Sundays" thing. Now they will appear to be equally ostentatious in their apostasy.
I didn’t say you endorsed anything. “For shame” is directed at anyone who had a knee jerk reaction.
If you knew the article was misleading, you should have indicated that in parentheses. I have asked the mods to change the title to reflect that.
The title is a lie. Read post #32
Perhaps when we post such, we should us e the () after the copied title to add clarification and attention to the slant/spin contained in the article we are posting.
(Barf Alert) of course is the classic - for this, maybe (Gay Deception)
It wasn’t obvious to the majority of people who posted here. And you sure as heck didn’t come out and clarify anything.
Only two of us actually took the time to find out the truth and post it on this thread.
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.