Which is kind of funny when you consider that the head of Exodus International (one of the ex-gay groups Chick-fil-A donates their money to) recently acknowledged that it's impossible for gay people to become straight... that what "ex-gays" do is repress desires that nonetheless stay with them their entire lives. (Exactly how gay people have been describing "ex-gays" for decades.)

That's the current head, mind you. The founder and original head of Exodus International left the group three years after its formation.

To marry his boyfriend.

People against gays would then say, "see, he's gay but he's not acting on it!" Not the founder of that Exodus organization, but the ones that admit they're gay but just suppress it to fit in with their religious peers.

I would think that would be incredibly unhealthy. Like telling a heterosexual to live a life of celibacy and to not ever date the opposite sex.

Thanks for filling it in for us.

I think it's worth pointing out that Dan Cathy's money didn't just go to opposing gay marriage in the US. It also opposed efforts to cut down on anti-gay bullying, and opposed efforts to help gay youth at risk of suicide. It also supported efforts to make homosexuality illegal overseas, like in Uganda and other nations. Those were efforts to find gays and kill them. So all this talk about tolerating Dan Cathy's religious views is misplaced. He's not just exercising his first amendment rights. He's actively trying to ruin people's lives.

I think keeping money out of the hands of that enterprise is a worthwhile goal.

I can see Lawson's point that using government coercion against Chick-Fil-A may be overreaching, but I'm grateful to those politicians who clearly stated that their values were opposed to Chick-Fil-A's hateful agenda.

I just don't understand how the pundits on the right can argue someone exercising their freedom of speech to disagree with them is somehow infringing on their freedom of speech.

Yes, exactly!

Charlize Theron said that she doesn't agree with homophobia or discrimination of any kind and that she supports the basic civil rights of all Americans, in response to the ruling agianst gay marriage.

Bill O'Reilly responsed with, "Does that include the rights of Americans who sincerely oppose gay marriage NOT to be called homophobes??"

Yeah, I'd like to see how O'Reilly would explain how it's freedom of expression to call for a boycott of France, or the Dixie Chicks, but criticizing Chick-Fil-A is infringing on their rights.

I don't know about Bill O'Reilly but I suppose people who defend Chick Fil A but criticize The Dixie Chicks would argue that calling the latter "traitors" or "unpatriotic" would be accurate, whereas there's nothing bigoted about not wanting to give a certain group special rights over everyone else.

But by that logic wouldn't minorities, Blacks in particular, have received "special rights" when Anti-Miscegenation Laws were repealed, and later the Civil Rights Act was passed. Does that mean they wouldn't have supported the Civil Rights Act or the right to marry outside your race?

Apparently a PROponent of gay rights went gunning for Dan Cathy this morning in Washington DC. The guy is a dumbass, no question, but it's gonna be an ugly thing when those "Second Amendment solutions" start backfiring on the neocons. The Tea-tards want every contest of ideas to be a shooting match. Keep it up, jerks, and you may get your wish.