Posted: September 2, 2012 at 6:02 pm
Wingnuts Throw Chick-Fil-A Appreciation Day
The Great Falls Tribune is reporting this week on a group of imbeciles from Laurel, Montana who are celebrating their hatred of gay people with by throwing a Chick-Fil-A Appreciation Day. Jeff Laszloffy, head of the Montana Family Foundation will bring the gay-haters together this week to teach their kids that discrimination against others is something to celebrate.
You must read the full press release to appreciate it . Here it is:
BILLINGS TO HOST MONTANA’S VERSION OF CHICK-FIL-A APPRECIATION DAY
Billings, MT – August 29, 2012 – Come and show your support for traditional family values! Chick-fil-A chicken will be available for one day only in Billings’ westend on Saturday, September 8th. This special event, called Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day 2.0, is sponsored by the Montana Family Foundation. The famous fried chicken sold at more than 1600 locations nationwide will be available to the first 1000 people that come through the one-day only drive-thru lane. A giant inflatable black and white cow will mark the location at 328 So. Shiloh Road in Billings. This fund-raising event will be held from 3:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. and is open to the public for a suggested donation of $20 per person.
The day of appreciation will include the tasty Chick-fil-A chicken nuggets, coleslaw and chocolate chip cookies, not to mention a college intern dressed up in Chick-fil-A’s signature black and white Holstein cow costume for the kids and families in attendance. Local churches are encouraged to come join the Montana Family Foundation for Montana’s own version of Chick-fil-A appreciation day.
Jeff Laszloffy, President/CEO, said, “The Montana Family Foundation is associated with Focus on the Family and CitizenLink and works in the Legislature and the courts to strengthen and defend Biblical Family Values”
In response, Kim Abbott of the Montana Human Rights Network said, “While people are buying chicken sandwiches in support of discrimination, we’ll be continuing to talk to Montanans about the importance of fairness for all families.” Amen.
Ladies High Tea… scrapbooking
http://montanafamily.org/
The Montana Family Foundation is a non-profit, research, education, and advocacy organization, working in association with Focus On The Family, to support, protect
Focus on the Family http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Focus_on_the_Family
Jeff Laffloopy, certified CHICKEN f*cker!
bwhahahahahahahahahahahaaa!
What a dumbass! This dude’s got WAY too much time on his hands!
Not only spewing hate in Letters, blogs and news releases… Jeff Laszloffy, wants you to eat hate as well. Shame on him and the people, who believe this is religious freedom.
Chicken is not hate. Just sayin …
For the record, this is religious freedom. It is ugly and angry, and exactly what we have to accept if we want a free culture ruled by laws.
Great, thanks for the heads up.
UH oh! Pope Nazi the First and the Holy Roman Kiddy Diddlers ain’t gonna LIKE this one little bit! Is it too late to excommuniate this dude?
He says that the catholic church is two hundred years behind the times. Well then, what does that make the PUBBIE party??
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/02/cardinal-carlo-maria-martini_n_1849173.html
Adios, amigo.
There is a counter rally planned:
http://dgsmith.org/2012/09/02/fairness-for-all-families-billings/
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/09/02/1127049/-Dear-Bigot-I-get-it-You-hate-me-Now-get-on-with-your-life
Maybe Montana Family Foundation should invite Dick Cheney to talk about his
daughter’s recent ‘marriage’, huh? Also, how about starting another war of choice, ‘pro-choice’ by neo-cons, who
are NO friends of real soldiers.
Chik-fil-A does not discriminate based on sexual orientation against customers or employees. The CEO, Dan Cathy, has the same opinion about the definition of marriage that President Obama had in the 2008 campaign up until about 2 months ago. Our two Senators also share Dan Cathy’s opinion about the definition of marriage as between one man and one woman. In 2004 Montana voters also approved this definition.
Dan Cathy does not hate people who are gay, he serves and employs them. He just disagrees with the policy of marriage. Also, it is nice to see Publius II extending an olive branch to Dick Cheney, a person who is usually shunned by those on the left.
Wow! Terrible way to go through life, doncha think, ricky? As a fearful little bigot? I mean, do you REALLY feel threatened by two people of the same sex who LOVE each other enough to want to get married? Please explain just HOW that threatens anyone ELSE?
A bigot is a bigot is a bigot! Me, peronally, I think that rightwing moronic southern batshits like dan cathy are idiots! But I don’t discrminate against them in any way either! As far as I’m concerned, they can believe whatever they want, unTIL their beliefs harm others for no reason. There is absolutley NO reason that two people in love, reGARDLESS of sexual orientation, should not be allowed to marry!
Hell, it’s simple, SO simple that YOU should even be able to understand it.
p.s. Ricky, ever been MARRIED, dude? It AIN’T what you think! It’s a lot of hard work, sacrifice, and effort! It’s a commitment that AIN’T for the faint of heart! If two people wanna do that, hell, let’em! It’s their lives, dude, NOT yours!
Larry,
Do your comments which were directed at me also apply to: All the people in Montana who voted for CI 96 in 2004, Our two Senators, President Obama up until ~2 months ago?
Thank you in advance for your reply.
Montanans also voted for access to alternative medicine: pick a lane.
Careful, Larry, you are starting to sound like one of those “Crazy Right Wing Tea Partiers” who support and defend the 10th Amendment. There are two problems with your assertion.
CI 96 was to affirm the federal law known as DOMA, which was signed by Clinton.
CI 148 was to undermine the supremacy of the federal law known as the Controlled Substance Act of 1970.
Based on your comment, I find it surprising that you support the definition of marriage as between one man and one woman.
For the record: you have not chosen a lane.
My brother has already brought this up but it deserves repeating. Civil rights are not a matter of voting. These are rights guarenteed to us by the very foundation of our legal system – the Constitution of the United States. Any laws, initiatives or policies we vote in that are in violation of those Constitutionally guarenteed rights are invalid. It doesn’t matter if the Marraige definition amendment was passed in Montana. It doesn’t matter if a majority of Montana voters voted for it. It is a matter of basic civil rights and the Constitution of the United States supercedes any initiative that is passed in Montana.
The “one man, one woman” definition has already been tested in court and found to be unconstitutional. Tim Baldwin used that very argument to get a client off on a charge of spousal abuse successfully. We can spin our wheels all day arguing it but at the end of the day, nothing changes the fact that gay American citizens have the same rights non-gay citizens have. This basic concept was set down by the founders of the country. Like African American rights, Woman’s rights etc, eventually the country will remember that.
where’s your tolerance for people that think different? why hate and discriminate against people that think differently than you? Not agreeing with your definition of marriage means you hate gay’s and discriminate against them…that is quite laughable.
OhReally,
Given your comment, does that mean that our two Senators are “haters” for not agreeing with your definition of marriage?
Yes, but they will come around some day as soon as public opinion turns. But you and all the crazy-ass cracker peckwood Southern Batshits out there? No, you never will ’cause GAWD tol’ you it just ain’t right! But the bad news is that god is wrong on LOTS of stuff!
So, if a church filled with “crazy-ass cracker peckwood Southern Batshits” refuses to let a gay couple marry in their church will there be a discrimination lawsuit filed? This isn’t about gay marriage is it? Go ahead be honest. If you don’t want to be honest please fell free to fling your invective and ridicule, that seems to be your m.o.
Why would there be? As I said, the Southern Batshits can do whatever they want, as can gay people. Dan cathy is a bigoted moron in my book. For you see, I have absolutely NOTHING in common with crazy-ass Southern Batshits!
Why are Catholic institution being forced by Obamacare to provide for free abortifacients and sterilization procedures?
Rick, to be fair, that is a loaded question. Catholic Churchs aren’t being forced to provide anything. Catholic health care facilities – those receiving governmental protections and funds – are. The Catholics running those institutions can refuse to do so – as soon as they give up the governmental funds and protections. Even the Catholic Church must follow the rules when they deal with the American populous at large.
This also goes back to the previous argument about gays being married in your church. Gays are not asking to be married in your church. They are asking to enjoy the same rights and priviledges that non gay citizens enjoy. It is a simple matter of civil rights. They are not trying to force their beliefs on you, they are trying to point out that you can’t force your religous beliefs on them. They are correct and eventually, the majority of people in this country will relize this (if they don’t already). Gay people are still American citizens and their rights should be protected under the Constitution just like any other citizen.
Kenneth,
Your articulate comment is greatly appreciated. It is relevant to note that I don’t belong to a church. So, please refrain from saying “your church” I am merely using the comical example that Larry–Ranger used.
The point that I was making is once the laws are changed then a whole new set of “injustices” are opened up to be litigated in our courts.
Catholics didn’t want to pay for birth control, aborifacients, and sterilization procedures that was their right before Obamacare was passed. People knew it and if you didn’t agree or share those values then you applied for work somewhere else.
Sandra Fluke is the best example of this mindset. She was an activist for “reproductive rights.” Georgetown is a Jesuit Law School which adheres to Catholic dictates. She knew it, but went there to undermine the freedom of that institution to set policy based on their beliefs.
Who exactly is “trying to force their beliefs” on whom?
YOU DON’T BELONG TO A CHURCH??? bwhahahaa!
Now THAT’S a funny one, ricky! What’s your beef then, dufus?
WHAT are the moral grounds for your “argument”?
MeTHINKS that someone is being LESS than truthful here.
What are the moral grounds for you “beliefs”?
Sheesh. You lose already, dude.
You see, ricky, Kenneth has alREADY blown any constitutional argument you may have right out of the water! The ONLY thing left is the religious argument!
DAMN it sucks to be you!
If you are not catholic, I apologize for that comment, but it appeared that way from the conversation. That said, you have missed the point.
There is nothing wrong with holding a set of beliefs – even if they are counter to the laws of the United States, as long as you do not attempt to force those beliefs on others. Where that line gets fuzzy is when a religious institution gets involved with the public at large. Yes, Georgetown University is a Catholic School, but where the line is crossed is when Georgetown University made the decision to accept governmental assistance and protection. At that point, they made the decision to follow the rules of the United States in return for that money and protection. As an American Citizen, Sandra Fluke has the legal right to contraceptives and health care. If Georgetown University denies her those rights, they are in violation of the laws of the United States and as such, are no longer entitled to the funds and protections of the United States Government.
You can’t have it both ways. What is preached inside a Catholic Church is up to the Catholic Church (there are exceptions but that would be a digression). What is done in a public institution is another story. I would have no problem (other than a personal disgust) if Georgetown University decided to institute Catholic rules in relation to birth control and contraception – as long as they are not receiving funds or protection from the public sector.
As a freedom loving man you should ask yourself “Why are the Catholic institutions allowed to make health care decisions for their non-Catholic employees?”
Thank you, Dallas Reese, hopefully you are a freedom loving person as well.
Because they should have the freedom to set employee policy based on their beliefs. Would you advocate that pork entrees had to be offered at the lunchrooms of Islamic & Jewish policy institutions if employees demanded them?
“they should have the freedom to set employee policy based on their beliefs.”
Here is where you and I completely disagree. Anyone accepting public funds or protections should have to follow the rules of the public. Period. This is a free society and when you interact with that free society, you have to follow the rules of that free society.
If it was my personal belief that children should work for me for substandard wages, should I be allowed to hire children and pay they substandard wages? If it was my personal belief that I should be able to marry multiple wifes, should I be allowed to do so freely?
There has to be rules on any society. We call those “laws” in this society. No religion has the right to violate those laws and remain in this free society.
So people on welfare &/or foodstamps do not have the right to protest the laws of the government?!
They are welcome to protest all they want. They still have to follow the laws, though. ALL American Citizens have to follow the laws. Do honestly believe that the Church is above the law?
If an employer is only going to hire employees of their faith, then I have no problem with an employer exercising their free will and abiding by their conscience. But most employers don’t set those religious pre-requisites in their hiring materials and hire the best candidate, regardless of religious affiliation. As such the employer cannot subsequently dictate his/her personal religious beliefs on the employees, especially since that was not a consideration during the hiring process.
The same would hold true in your lunchroom example. If the employees of the institution demanded pork products, the employer has two choices: fire all the existing employees and begin hiring only strict adherants to their religion beliefs; or provide pork products for the non-practicing/all non-Islamic/Jewish employees. Work and religion, much like work and politics, are difficult mixes.
As I see it, no person of faith can demand/impose their faith on another person regardless of the circumstances. But more importantly, no employer should be allowed to do that either, especially when it’s not a criteria for employment. If someone wants only Jewish/Islamic/Mormon/Catholic employees so their personal conscience can be salved, then they should make that religious preference part of the hiring criteria.
“If an employer is only going to hire employees of their faith, then I have no problem with an employer exercising their free will and abiding by their conscience.”
I have some conceptual issues with that statement, Dallas. First, employers are required by law to follow the rules set by the Government on employment. For example, discrimination in the workplace is illegal regardless of your faith. Sexual or physical harrassment is illegal regardless of your personal beliefs.
Moreover, when an employer accepts public funds, they are required by law to NOT discriminate on the basis of faith. A public institution such as a hospital or College is not allowed to just hire people of faith as long as they accept public funds.
In the case of a private business, this enters into some gray areas in the law. You can, theoretically, hire just people with the same faith as your own. Moreover, as long as you do don’t violate employment laws, you could make certain rules regarding faith at the workplace. Where this gets tricky is when you start violating civil or legal rights of employees.
Arizona is currently facing legal challenges because of some laws they have recently passed regarding the sexual practices of their female employees. Anytimes something is litigated, it is a crap shoot, but I am relatively sure that those laws will be deemed unconstitutional. That said, this is one glaring example of religious beliefs being dictated in law.
Kenneth,
We agree on the issue of employer discrimination and the issues of civil and legal rights. The point I was trying to make is that an employer cannot force their religious beliefs on their employees any more than I can force my religious beliefs on anyone.
And, yes indeed, when public funds get involved it’s a whole new ballgame as you’ve stated.
p.s. For the record, ricky, I listen to the same horseshit radio that YOU do, the AFR channel. And guess what? It’s all hate all the time! Hate homos, hate Muslims, hate O’Bama, etc. Turn on ANY time during the day and that’s all it is! Pure hate!
And that is NOT what religion is supposed to be about.
But you dudes who listen to this are NOT real sophisticated, bright, or educated. It is designed simply to keep you angry. Which raises the question. DO YOU HAVE A LIFE, DUDE, BESIDES HATING?
I doubt it. And that is just real sad.
A TYPICAL chuck-up-fil customer and homo hater! And a Southern Batshit in good standing!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BaxECcTjCuw&feature=related
I’m SURE that I’ve heard her call in MANY times on AFR Talk
The Ranger doth protest too much, methinks…
Dark days if Darky wins!
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/09/03/chuck-norris-threatens-1000-years-of-darkness-if-obama-wins/
HERE is a great rightwing intellectual to sum things up!
A giant inflatable black cow (inflated, presumably). Franchise chicken. Baked beans? Are we sure this isn’t a gathering of Focus on the Flatulence?
Conner for Governor.
https://www.facebook.com/events/221052914690718/
A Fairness For All Families Rally will be taking place across the street from the Sik-Fil-A event. Pita Pit is donating 75% of their Equality Chicken Pita to LGBT organizations across the state It starts at 1pm Saturday, Sept 8
Great job, Jason! Are you from south of Billings out by Pryor?
Crow Agency could be the site of the American Holocaust Museum following the slaughter of 52M natives in the ‘New World’ by Europeans since 1492.
The Battle of Greasy Grass (Little Bighorn), after all, was won by an alliance of Matriots defending their rights.
Updates:
http://sdgln.com/news/2012/09/18/chick-fil-agrees-end-anti-gay-donations-mandates-equal-treatment-gays