American Family Association boycotts McDonalds over promoting "gay agenda"

[CptStern]

Christian right group American Family Association is boycotting McDonalds because:

AFA is upset at McDonald?s for refusing to condemn Vice President of Communications Richard Ellis?s decision to serve on the Board of Directors of the National Gay & Lesbian Chamber of Commerce (NGLCC). AFA President Donald Wildmon said the situation is ?strange? because ?it?s the family that McDonald?s appeals to ? children?s playland, you know, all the little toys, all of that. And they are promoting a lifestyle that would utterly destroy the traditional family.?

I cant believe I'm siding with McDonalds but ..

McDonald?s is holding strong, writing a letter to Wildmon on May 29 and rebuffing his attacks:

"We treat our employees and our customers with respect and dignity, regardless of their ethnicity, religious beliefs, sexual orientation or other factors. We support our employees? personal involvement in organizations of their choice."

about AFA:

AFA has a long history of silly, offensive boycotts against, among others, Wal-Mart (for selling ?Brokeback Mountain? DVDs), Ford Motor Company (for advertising in gay-friendly publications), and the American Girl dolls (because the maker contributed to a youth organization that was pro-choice and supported the acceptance of lesbians). In 2005, it called off its unsuccessful nine-year boycott of Disney (for its ?embrace of the homosexual lifestyle?).

The AFA defines itself as "a Christian organization promoting the biblical ethic of decency in American society with primary emphasis on TV and other media"[6][7] It pursues its views and other issues through a number of activism efforts, including boycotts, "action alert" e-mails, publications on the AFA's web sites or in the AFA Journal, broadcasts on American Family Radio, and lobbying.[8] The legal efforts previously promoted by the AFA Center for Law and Policy were eliminated in 2007. Chief among its efforts were the recognition of Christmas in seasonal print advertisements; the criminalization of homosexuality;[9][10] lobbying against same-sex marriage, and in opposition of equal-rights and hate-crime legislation that would benefit homosexuals and advocating censorship of print and electronic media.[14]

but they're a small group with little to no influence, right?

The organization has an annual budget of roughly US$14 million and owns 180 American Family Radio stations in 28 states

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/07/03/mcdonalds-boycott/

 

[Mr Stabby]

Nothing wrong with boycotting an organizations who's practices you disagree with.

 

[CptStern]

except when the practices you disagree with is completely idiotic and without merit ..unless you believe an employee of mcdonalds serving on a separate and unrelated board is proof of a "gay agenda" ...in which case I'd have to mentally lower a dunce cap on your head

 

[Mr Stabby]

So they shouldn't be allowed to boycott McDonald's?

 

[CptStern]

you diagree just for the sake of diagreeing ...whether they have the right to boycott or not is not the issue ..even though you;re trying to make it the issue

 

[jverne]

Nothing wrong with boycotting an organizations who's practices you disagree with.

oh shut up...you know AFA is just a bunch of insane fundies who are desperate to make a big deal of something insignificant.

 

[Mr Stabby]

So what's the issue, they hold an opinion you disagree with? Unless they actually interfere with McDonalds or gays, I really don't see the problem in what they are doing.

 

[Mr Stabby]

oh shut up...you know AFA is just a bunch of insane fundies who are desperate to make a big deal of something insignificant.

They aren't the only ones making a big deal over nothing.

 

[CptStern]

So what's the issue, they hold an opinion you disagree with? Unless they actually interfere with McDonalds or gays, I really don't see the problem in what they are doing.

yes because somehow it's not ok to disagree with something that's completely idiotic and without merit? ...again, unless you believe this to be proof that McDonalds is pushing a gay agenda

and how can they not be interefering with mcdonalds? they're boycotting their products because of some really obscure tie to homosexuals? they openly advocated CRIMINALISING homosexuality, how can they not be interfering with homosexual lifestyle?

They aren't the only ones making a big deal over nothing.

I'm a sinlge person, I dont have a annual operating budget of 14 million and over 180 radio stations ..apples and oranges ..you're usually not this ..obtuse. I blame myself: anyone else and you wouldnt be this adament that their complaints have any merit

 

[AJ Rimmer]

Never thought I'd say it but; Go McDonalds. Not that I know anything about the American Family Association but it sounds like one of those orginizations big companies usually settle with rather than get bad publicity, so good on 'em.

Also, I did not know there was an american group called AFA as well. Course, the AFA here in Sweden stands for AntiFascist Action, and I'm betting they could probably take down the American Family Association in a fight.

 

[CptStern]

but it sounds like one of those orginizations big companies usually settle with rather than get bad publicity, so good on 'em.

agreed:

http://digg.com/television/Dunkin_Donuts_Pulls_Rachael_Ray_Ad_Because_She_Looked_Arab

 

[Mr Stabby]

yes because somehow it's not ok to disagree with something that's completely idiotic and without merit? ...again, unless you believe this to be proof that McDonalds is pushing a gay agenda

Disagree all you want, but there is nothing wrong with people expressing their opinions in a manner which doesn't affect others.

and how can they not be interefering with mcdonalds? they're boycotting their products because of some really obscure tie to homosexuals? they openly advocated CRIMINALISING homosexuality, how can they not be interfering with homosexual lifestyle?

A boycott is when people chose not to do business with an organization, that organization has no intrinsic right to such trade and therefore, withholding such trade is not interfering with McDonald's.

Until criminalization of homosexuality becomes reality, saying it should happen isn't interfering with anyone. Anyway in this case that's not what is happening, so it's irrelevant.

 

[Mr Stabby]

I'm a sinlge person, I dont have a annual operating budget of 14 million and over 180 radio stations ..apples and oranges ..you're usually not this ..obtuse. I blame myself: anyone else and you wouldnt be this adament that their complaints have any merit

Doesn't matter how big the organization is if it's a voluntary organization. They don't like the fact that McDonald's is gay friendly, an opinion they are entitled too. You think their opinion is wrong, an opinion you are entitled too.

 

[CptStern]

Disagree all you want, but there is nothing wrong with people expressing their opinions in a manner which doesn't affect others.

man you're thick headed ..it affects others just like the kkk affect others or any other hate group ..saying otherwise is just being purposefully ignorant

A boycott is when people chose not to do business with an organization, that organization has no intrinsic right to such trade and therefore, withholding such trade is not interfering with McDonald's.

again you're being thick headed ..if I spread iditoic falsehoods that reaches millions of consumers who join in on my boycott how is that not interfering ..please explain

Until criminalization of homosexuality becomes reality, saying it should happen isn't interfering with anyone. Anyway in this case that's not what is happening, so it's irrelevant.

yes because absolutes are only valid when you say they are ..you're being stupid ..sorry but you are:

Chief among its efforts were the recognition of Christmas in seasonal print advertisements; the criminalization of homosexuality;[9][10] lobbying against same-sex marriage, and in opposition of equal-rights and hate-crime legislation that would benefit homosexuals[11][12][13] and advocating censorship of print and electronic media.[14]

it's not like they're just keeping it to themselves, they lobby government, they boycott, they actively protest certain issues ..HOW IS THAT NOT BEING ACTIVELY ENGAGED? ..wtf unless they actually criminalise homosexuality it isnt worth commenting on?

Doesn't matter how big the organization is if it's a voluntary organization.

what does that even mean? what ideology is forced down anyones throat that completely eradicates free will? you make it sound as if it's volunatary then it cant have any ill effects ..as if paying someone to spread an agenda makes it credible

anyone who argued that the KKK have no ill effects because it's "voluntary" would be ridiculed and labeled an idiot ..you have no point

They don't like the fact that McDonald's is gay friendly, an opinion they are entitled too. You think their opinion is wrong, an opinion you are entitled too.

having an opinion is one thing LOBBYING congress is somethign altogether different, they're actively rtying to force legislation ..that's not simply having an opinion


really you're just being a troll now and arguing a point that's indefensible

 

[Mr Stabby]

man you're thick headed ..it affects others just like the kkk affect others or any other hate group ..saying otherwise is just being purposefully ignorant

You're dense, and by the sound of things a bit of a fascist. The KKK attacks people, and when it attacks people it's harmful....apples and oranges.

again you're being thick headed ..if I spread iditoic falsehoods that reaches millions of consumers who join in on my boycott how is that not interfering ..please explain

In this case the AFA made no false claims, McDonalds isn't anti -gay. Unless they coerce people into joining their boycott then it's voluntary, and I've already explained why a boycott doesn't infringe on a business.

yes because absolutes are only valid when you say they are ..you're being stupid ..sorry but you are:

Well you didn't mention political lobbying, which still isn't relevant to this particular story.
I never claimed to support any absolutes, I've already stated that when someone actions interfere with another's without consent then it's wrong.

it's not like they're just keeping it to themselves, they lobby government, they boycott, they actively protest certain issues ..HOW IS THAT NOT BEING ACTIVELY ENGAGED? ..wtf unless they actually criminalise homosexuality it isnt worth commenting on?

You only listed boycotts and stated opinions, not political lobbying or harassing protest, show evidence of those incidence. In The case of McDonald's where was the lobbying or harassing?

really you're just being a troll now and arguing a point that's indefensible

Stop acting like a 4 year old.

 

[CptStern]

You're dense, and by the sound of things a bit of a fascist. The KKK attacks people, and when it attacks people it's harmful....apples and oranges.

yes because the only damage they've ever done is to the individuals they've murdered/beaten intimidated ..that's why they're public pariahs despite never having done anything to 99% of the population ........and you call me dense?

In this case the AFA made no false claims, McDonalds isn't anti -gay.

they said McDonalds is promoting a gay agenda ...please explain how an employee sitting on a board of commerce is "promoting a gay agenda" ..does "I'm loving it" really mean "McDonalds supports homosexual lifestyles, we actively promote the Gay Agenda ..would you like fries with that"?

you're being silly

Unless they coerce people into joining their boycott then it's voluntary, and I've already explained why a boycott doesn't infringe on a business.

and I rejected your explanation as being inaccurate/silly

Well you didn't mention political lobbying, which still isn't relevant to this particular story.

I didnt have to BECAUSE IT'S IN THE OP ..but you didnt read the OP, you just saw my name and figured it was a free speech issue ..as you always do

I never claimed to support any absolutes, I've already stated that when someone actions interfere with another's without consent then it's wrong.

how is that not an absolute? it's only wrong because it's non consentual? what the hell does that even mean? who would give consent to someone who wants to interfere with your actions ..completely nonsensical

You only listed boycotts and stated opinions, not political lobbying or harassing protest, show evidence of those incidence. In The case of McDonald's where was the lobbying or harassing?

again you're talking in absolutes; if there isnt lobbying then there's no harm ..if there isnt physical harrassment then according to you there is no harm ..absolutes

spread misinformation is causing harm whether you ****ing like it or not ..it affects the business' bottom dollar, there is no avoiding this. Bad publicity is bad publicity for a reason? why else would Dunkin donuts pull an ad if simple opinion didnt affect anything?

Stop acting like a 4 year old.

stop debating like a 4 year old

 

[Glirk Dient]

Wow Mr Stabby im sorry but you would support anything. This is without a doubt the most ignorant boycott I have heard of.

"So what if they burn witches? They probably deserved it"
"The jews shouldn't have let themselves get captured, it shows they are a weaker race"
"Some africans just like to work for free"

It isn't their right to have an opinion we are worried about it's their idiotic views they try to strong arm with boycotts.

 

[Gray Fox]

As far as I see Stern made this thread to show what a stupid organization is doing.

How does that translate in to him believing that it is wrong to boycott an organization who's practices you disagree with.

He is essentially just saying, hey guys look what these nutters are doing, lolz.

 

[Mr Stabby]

yes because the only damage they've ever done is to the individuals they've murdered/beaten intimidated ..that's why they're public pariahs despite never having done anything to 99% of the population ........and you call me dense?

They are a public pariah because people are a appalled at what they believe in, still how does believing racist things harm 99% of society. And you're calling me dense?

Are you advocating banning the AFA for express an opinion you don't like?

they said McDonalds is promoting a gay agenda ...please explain how an employee sitting on a board of commerce is "promoting a gay agenda" ..does "I'm loving it" really mean "McDonalds supports homosexual lifestyles, we actively promote the Gay Agenda ..would you like fries with that"?

you're being silly

A gay and lesbian board of commerce, quite an important detail.

You're being silly ignoring that.

and I rejected your explanation as being inaccurate/silly

Then you don't understand free trade.
I don't eat at McDonalds, so am I infringing on McDonalds ability to trade?

I didnt have to BECAUSE IT'S IN THE OP ..but you didnt read the OP, you just saw my name and figured it was a free speech issue ..as you always do

It's still entirely irrelevant to the McDonald's issue. And you're acting like a paranoid quack If you think I'm disagreeing with you just of the sake of it.

how is that not an absolute? it's only wrong because it's non consentual? what the hell does that even mean? who would give consent to someone who wants to interfere with your actions ..completely nonsensical

If I own a something and someone takes it without consent then it's theft, if they take it with my permission it's not a problem. Try thinking it really isn't that hard to understand. If there are limits imposed then it's not an absolute is it?

again you're talking in absolutes; if there isnt lobbying then there's no harm ..if there isnt physical harrassment then according to you there is no harm ..absolutes

What stupid reasoning, if there isn't theft, no harm, if there isn't murder no harm. If no one was harmed where is the harm? So things that aren't harmful should be illegal..why?

spread misinformation is causing harm whether you ****ing like it or not ..it affects the business' bottom dollar, there is no avoiding this. Bad publicity is bad publicity for a reason? why else would Dunkin donuts pull an ad if simple opinion didnt affect anything?

What misinformation?

stop debating like a 4 year old

How witty.

 

[Mr Stabby]

Wow Mr Stabby im sorry but you would support anything. This is without a doubt the most ignorant boycott I have heard of.

"So what if they burn witches? They probably deserved it"
"The jews shouldn't have let themselves get captured, it shows they are a weaker race"
"Some africans just like to work for free"

When did I say I supported the boycott, are you in favour of banning their right to boycott? How exactly do I support witch burning or slavery or the holocaust. It's just retarded to draw a parallel between a voluntary boycott and murder.

It isn't their right to have an opinion we are worried about it's their idiotic views they try to strong arm with boycotts.

Strong arm with a boycott is a contradiction.

 

[Vegeta897]

Mr Stabby seems to be making some sense, but honestly he's horrible at choosing his battles... Defending the "bad side" regardless of how you are doing it or how small a portion of what you're doing (in this examle, their rights to hold an opinion) is not a good idea on a forum where endless argument prevails.

Stern seems to be missing some things here, this is evident when he brings up the KKK when stabby specifically said he was talking about organizations that DON'T harm people.

 

[CptStern]

"So what if they burn witches? They probably deserved it"
"The jews shouldn't have let themselves get captured, it shows they are a weaker race"
"Some africans just like to work for free"
.

I lol'ed ..but it was a sick uncomfortable sort of laugh because it's just so horrible to contemplate

They are a public pariah because people are a appalled at what they believe in

I'm appalled by what the AFA believes in, I'm a member of the public therefore according to your logic, I'm right ..thanks for agreeing with me

Tstill how does believing racist things harm 99% of society. And you're calling me dense?

way to twist my words ..I never said the KK harms 99% of the population ...how would I even prove that? ..and yes I'm calling you dense because you've troipped over yourself to prove you are in this thread

TAre you advocating banning the AFA for express an opinion you don't like?

oh there's that free speech thing again ...point out exactly where I say or imply this

A gay and lesbian board of commerce, quite an important detail.

OMG GAY AGENDA!!!!

You're being silly ignoring that.

how am I ignoring that? how would the general public even know that the VP of communications (omg his job is in Public Relations ..and the board he sits on is a public relations board representing businessness, OMG PROOF OF GAY AGENDA)

Then you don't understand free trade.
I don't eat at McDonalds, so am I infringing on McDonalds ability to trade?

yes because that's exactly what I said ..however if you organise a group to actively boycott McDonalds, if you write articles, send out emails, canvas ordinary citizens then YES you are affecting their business ..they have 180 ****ing radio shows, they mass produce their hate and millions tune in

It's still entirely irrelevant to the McDonald's issue. And you're acting like a paranoid quack If you think I'm disagreeing with you just of the sake of it.

so then you you're agreeing that someone sitting on a board of commerce is PROMOTING a gay agenda? where are the tv ads? where are the "I love the cock" billboards? why else would anyone disagree here if not for the sake of disagreement UNLESS you honestly agree with them?

If I own a something and someone takes it without consent then it's theft, if they take it with my permission it's not a problem.

your absolute is in the fact that unless you say something is agreeable/diagreeable then it must be right ..simply because you say so ..this is the extent of your argument

Try thinking it really isn't that hard to understand.

I dont think I'm the one who has a hard time thinking here

If there are limits imposed then it's not an absolute is it?

either or statements are still absolutes

What stupid reasoning, if there isn't theft, no harm, if there isn't murder no harm. If no one was harmed where is the harm? So things that aren't harmful should be illegal..why?

i'm paraphrasing you ..you're the one who thinks that if it doesnt conform to certain ideals then there is no harm ..you debate in circles

What misinformation?

<knockknockknock, MCFLY!!!> gay agenda!

How witty.

I'm not being witty I'm being truthful

 

[PvtRyan]

Agreed with Stabby, but I don't think Stern was wrong to make this thread. Just as they have their right to stupid boycotts, we should be able to hate them for it. Doesn't mean they shouldn't have the right to boycott, just means that I do hate them for it.

 

[Mr Stabby]

I'm appalled by what the AFA believes in, I'm a member of the public therefore according to your logic, I'm right ..thanks for agreeing with me

Again the poor logic. Only when the KKK harms people is it a problem, you however believe that becasue most people despise the KKK, that the KKK is therefore a problem. What you basically saying is that whether an organization is good or bad is due to public opinion, in 2004 the Iraq was popular, therefore the Iraq war was a good idea. Since America is a conservative country the AFA is probably well regarded in America, since you use popularity as a measure of whether an organization is bad or not, the AFA is therefore probably good.

way to twist my words ..I never said the KK harms 99% of the population ...how would I even prove that? ..and yes I'm calling you dense because you've troipped over yourself to prove you are in this thread

Tripped over myself how? The KKK is disliked becasue it harms people, yet you suggest it's intrinsically bad becasue 99% of people don't like them. You're argument is retarded.

oh there's that free speech thing again ...point out exactly where I say or imply this

When you said it was wrong for them to express there opinion through a boycott.

OMG GAY AGENDA!!!!

That's what the AFA took issue with.

how am I ignoring that? how would the general public even know that the VP of communications (omg his job is in Public Relations ..and the board he sits on is a public relations board representing businessness, OMG PROOF OF GAY AGENDA)

A Gay and lesbian board, if you read your own god dam thread you'll see that's what the AFA was complaining about.

yes because that's exactly what I said ..however if you organise a group to actively boycott McDonalds, if you write articles, send out emails, canvas ordinary citizens then YES you are affecting their business ..they have 180 ****ing radio shows, they mass produce their hate and millions tune in

If I choose not to eat at McDonald's , I'm affecting there business, the issue is whether that affect is an infringement on McDonald's ability to do business. A boycott is when individuals choose not to voluntarily use a business, the business has no intrinsic right to that business so to be denied it, is not infringing on them. Stating that McDonald's has VP on the board of Gay business, is objectively true and not in the slightest bit coercive. So how are they infringing on McDonald's ability to do business?

so then you you're agreeing that someone sitting on a board of commerce is PROMOTING a gay agenda? where are the tv ads? where are the "I love the cock" billboards? why else would anyone disagree here if not for the sake of disagreement UNLESS you honestly agree with them?

Or the fact that they are on a Gay board of commerce suggest support of gays, which is what the AFA took issue with.

your absolute is in the fact that unless you say something is agreeable/diagreeable then it must be right ..simply because you say so ..this is the extent of your argument

I never said it anything was absolutely correct. The AFA hasn't done anything to infringe on McDonalds, and you haven't presented a case for what they did wrong other than you don't like there opinion, which is your opinion and has no value as an argument.

I dont think I'm the one who has a hard time thinking here

Well you still don't seem to get it.

either or statements are still absolutes

An either or statement is not an absolute, if there is a choice it's not an absolute. What is this in between gray area in this case I'm supposedly ignoring?

i'm paraphrasing you ..you're the one who thinks that if it doesnt conform to certain ideals then there is no harm ..you debate in circles

But it's an argument you never address, if there is no harm what's the problem?

<knockknockknock, MCFLY!!!> gay agenda!

Gay board.

I'm not being witty I'm being truthful

No, you're being egotistical.

 

[Direwolf]

I'm not quite sure why I even look at these threads anymore. I think my eyes are starting to bleed and my brain hurts.

 

[CptStern]

I'm not quite sure why I even look at these threads anymore. I think my eyes are starting to bleed and my brain hurts.

perhaps you're using too much bbq sauce?

 

[CptStern]

Again the poor logic. Only when the KKK harms people is it a problem, you however believe that becasue most people despise the KKK, that the KKK is therefore a problem.

yes, to those that despise the KKK sure

What you basically saying is that whether an organization is good or bad is due to public opinion

no this is what you're saying ..I never implied that popularity was any sort measure of worth, that's all you

Tripped over myself how? The KKK is disliked becasue it harms people, yet you suggest it's intrinsically bad becasue 99% of people don't like them. You're argument is retarded.

again with misquoting the 99% figure ..not once dod I say the KKK is bad because 99% of the people dislike them . read the relevent passage again

When you said it was wrong for them to express there opinion through a boycott.

no, I said it was idiotic to boycott mcdonalds over such a stupid issue

That's what the AFA took issue with.

explain how that's PROMOTING homosexual lifestyle

A Gay and lesbian board, if you read your own god dam thread you'll see that's what the AFA was complaining about.

I'm sure he sits on many special interest boards, you're associating sitting on a board; ie: supporting with PROMOTING a special interest groups pov. again, where are the "lets promote the gay agenda" or "cock; I'm loving it" campaigns? this comment from the article best explains this way of thinking:

The AFA may be on to something. Let?s consider the menu:

Big Mac?

Quarter Pounder?

Big N? Tasty?

Also suspect:

Sausage McMuffin?

Kiddie cone? (what?s that about)?

A hard look into McDonald?s gay connection is long overdue.

*sarcasm off*

If I choose not to eat at McDonald's , I'm affecting there business,

no, Mcdonalds has already factored you in; you're not the target audience, you dont eat at mcdonalds ..however if you do eat at mcdonalds and you buy into the misinformation that Mcdonalds is supporting a gay agenda and you stop eating there then the AFA is affecting their business ..why the hell else would anyone boycott anything if you didnt want to disrupt their business, that's what boycotting is

the issue is whether that affect is an infringement on McDonald's ability to do business.

no YOU made it that issue, not once did I say they dont have a right to boycott because it infringes on their right to do business. You're making an issue where none exists

A boycott is when individuals choose not to voluntarily use a business, the business has no intrinsic right to that business so to be denied it, is not infringing on them. Stating that McDonald's has VP on the board of Gay business, is objectively true and not in the slightest bit coercive.

you miss the ****ing point; GAY AGENDA ..please explain how sitting on a board is PROMOTING a gay agenda ...dont pussy foot around the question

So how are they infringing on McDonald's ability to do business?

see above

Or the fact that they are on a Gay board of commerce suggest support of gays, which is what the AFA took issue with.

you're twisating words again ..no they said:

"It is about McDonald?s, as a corporation, refusing to remain neutral in the culture wars. McDonald?s has chosen not to remain neutral but to give the full weight of their corporation to promoting the homosexual agenda, including homosexual marriage.

explain how sitting on a board is PROMOTING same sex marriage and GAY AGENDA?

I never said it anything was absolutely correct. The AFA hasn't done anything to infringe on McDonalds, and you haven't presented a case for what they did wrong other than you don't like there opinion, which is your opinion and has no value as an argument.

see above ..or below:

if you do eat at mcdonalds and you buy into the misinformation that Mcdonalds is supporting a gay agenda and you stop eating there then the AFA is affecting their business ..why the hell else would anyone boycott anything if you didnt want to disrupt their business, that's what boycotting is

But it's an argument you never address, if there is no harm what's the problem?

there is harm; their boycott affects their business directly HOWEVER not once did I say they dont have a right to boycott McDonalds. Sanity dictates that they shouldnt boycott McDonalds over such a stupid issue (hey what about really fat people and mcdonalds, surely there's morbidly obese christian families more directly affected by McDonalds then the subversive GAY AGENDA, why dont they harp on that? at least they'd have some justification ..no GAY AGENDA witch hunt is just idiotic

Gay board.

prove how that's PROMOTING A GAY AGENDA

No, you're being egotistical.

I'm not the only one who thinks you're barking up the wrong tree

 

[Mr Stabby]

yes, to those that despise the KKK sure

no this is what you're saying ..I never implied that popularity was any sort measure of worth, that's all you

You brought up public opinion of the KKK

again with misquoting the 99% figure ..not once dod I say the KKK is bad because 99% of the people dislike them . read the relevent passage again

Again you brought the issue about public views. Yet the main reason they are hated is they attack epople, so they are not comparable the the AFA. Apples and Oranges.

no, I said it was idiotic to boycott mcdonalds over such a stupid issue

It's irrelevant that the reasoning behind the boycott was stupid, you also took issue with whether they should be allowed a boycott.

explain how that's PROMOTING homosexual lifestyle

It can be viewed as promotion by association, which is the AFA reason as far as I can tell. It's like your saying that anything short of having the village people in every McDonald's is not pro-gay. McDonald's have a positive attitude towards gays, that's what the AFA objects too.

I'm sure he sits on many special interest boards, you're associating sitting on a board; ie: supporting with PROMOTING a special interest groups pov. again, where are the "lets promote the gay agenda" or "cock; I'm loving it" campaigns? this comment from the article best explains this way of thinking:

I thought I was pro- gay civil rights but I'm against the idea of 'Cock: I'm loving it'. As long as the AFA say 'Macdonald's is pro-gay, because they have a person on a Gay commerce board' there is nothing factually wrong in that.

no, Mcdonalds has already factored you in; you're not the target audience, you dont eat at mcdonalds ..however if you do eat at mcdonalds and you buy into the misinformation that Mcdonalds is supporting a gay agenda and you stop eating there then the AFA is affecting their business ..why the hell else would anyone boycott anything if you didnt want to disrupt their business, that's what boycotting is

McDonald's isn't entitled to any business, all business is optional, the market is based on voluntarism, you've entirely missed the point of the free market. There is no reason to suggest that the AFA is being fraudulent, they are basing there boycott on the Gay board issue, and issue which appears to be true.

no YOU made it that issue, not once did I say they dont have a right to boycott because it infringes on their right to do business. You're making an issue where none exists

It doesn't infringe on business. When I stated they have the right to boycott you took issue with that.

you miss the ****ing point; GAY AGENDA ..please explain how sitting on a board is PROMOTING a gay agenda ...dont pussy foot around the question


see above


you're twisating words again ..no they said:


explain how sitting on a board is PROMOTING same sex marriage and GAY AGENDA?


see above ..or below:



prove how that's PROMOTING A GAY AGENDA

From the AFA point of view supporting Gay board means supporting gay civil rights. The AFA have based there views on the fact of the Gay board, so they have said nothing fraudulent.

there is harm; their boycott affects their business directly HOWEVER not once did I say they dont have a right to boycott McDonalds. Sanity dictates that they shouldnt boycott McDonalds over such a stupid issue (hey what about really fat people and mcdonalds, surely there's morbidly obese christian families more directly affected by McDonalds then the subversive GAY AGENDA, why dont they harp on that? at least they'd have some justification ..no GAY AGENDA witch hunt is just idiotic

Actually this whole argument has been about there right to boycott, when you claimed that the boycott was coercive, which it's not. Whether the boycott is stupid or not, doesn't change their right to do it.

I'm not the only one who thinks you're barking up the wrong tree

I'm sure I'm not the only of thinks the same of you.

 

[Escaep]

If you guys spent the amount of time you take to quote every sentence from each others posts and put it toward something productive, you could cure cancer!

 

[Jintor]

Stern was right intially; this thread was not about their right to boycott, it was about how ****ing stupid they are to do so. Stabby just turned it into a big "ZOMG YOU'RE ATTACKING THEIR RIGHTS TO BOYCOTT" thread, which Stern is clearly not. Stern however can never resist the urge to quote-mine and that is why we have all these ****ing large-ass posts all over the place.

 

[Qonfused]

I think your avatar explains this thread pretty sufficiently, Jintor.

 

[Acepilotf14]

Why does it matter? Who actually listens to AFA anyway?
It's like listening to Jack Thompson.

 

[CptStern]

Stern was right intially; this thread was not about their right to boycott, it was about how ****ing stupid they are to do so. Stabby just turned it into a big "ZOMG YOU'RE ATTACKING THEIR RIGHTS TO BOYCOTT" thread, which Stern is clearly not. Stern however can never resist the urge to quote-mine and that is why we have all these ****ing large-ass posts all over the place.

it takes two to tango, cha cha cha OLE!

 

[Krynn72]

Thread should be re-titled to "The double post thread"

 

[Raziaar]

Holy shit at the ****ing quote war of the second page.

 

[Que-Ever]

I wish I had a gay agenda

 

[Kyorisu]

Gay agenda haha I love how they make it seem like some large scaled effort to destroy civilisation.

Fear the gays. they oppress your thoughts.
Run, the gays are coming.
Gays in your town? It's more likely than you think.

 

[Laivasse]

When you ride with gays, you ride with HITLER.

 

[mastag]

They have a right to boycott.

We have a right to point out how retarded they are.

 

[V-Man339]

I have to agree with the fact that these guys need to at least check their facts.
My mother atcually beleived that McDonalds supported gays until I pointed out that it was just one of their employees that joined a board of gays.
Sadly, most Christians will eat this shit up, just because it has the word "Jesus" written all over it.
Quite frankly, in the words of someone else:
I am offended by your eagerness to be offended.

By the way, a boycott does take down their business and get in the way of it, so long as enough people participate.
A boycott that's built on false statements such as these is just plain bullshit though.