Who is supposed to march and where? Protests in those countries are brutally repressed. What is happening there is poorly covered by our media, and also remote from people's lives. If you're going to make a gesture, at least make it where it might make a difference.

I disagree with the way the Chick Fil A protestors have gone about things, especially the damage to legitimate businesses and gratuituous PDA. But to ask why they protest a business whose actions actually might matter to their lives and not something that is totally abstract seems pretty disingenous. Why waste anyone's time? Iran's going to kill the homos, and Iraq is pretty hot on its heels (yay, a trillion for a new Shiite Theocracy! Thanks, GWB xoxoxo).

Where or where are the protests (yes, I know it was meant as rhetorical)?

1) Who drives those 'thorny' type protests (thorny = race, gender, ethnicity, religion etc)? Only by the 'most tolerant groups'..... Hollywood, liberal academia, ultra liberal left activists, identity politics groups.

2) Looking at their track record, who does the 'most tolerant groups' see as their 'protest targets'? Christianity, Israel, western businesses, western governments, western social conventions and the race and/or gender that is viewed as the power behind those entities.

Put 1 and 2 together and voile! You have your answer. Islam is not on their protest targets list. And they have geared the MSM to demonize any protest group that is not within the 'most tolerant groups'. Those groups are labeled racist and hate peddlers to dare suggest anything anti-Islam (among other things). Look how easy they did it to the TEA party? The 'most tolerant groups' in Europe have even managed to stop some in the MSM from using the name 'Islam' in a negative way. For instance when a girl is an "honor killing" victim of Islam in Pakistan or England, you will here it was a honor killing committed by Asians.

Amy's wrong, but—

> I disagree with the way the Chick Fil A
> protestors have gone about things,
> especially the damage to legitimate
> businesses

The graffiti shouldn't have happened, but there was precisely one incidence (to my knowledge) during a nationwide day of 'social action' or whatever. The protests were as mild as can be imagined, and I saw them with my own eyes at the outlet most likely to be a flashpoint for angry conflict... Basically, they were a lot of fun for everyone. People were burping more than they were yelling. And when writing about it the other day, I forgot to add the last exchange I shared with the restaurant's manager before saying goodbye.

Me: And business is good, right?

CFA Manager: OH yeah.

We're told it was the best week of business they ever had:

Chick-fil-A Day a Reminder That Boycotts Often Backfire
Bloomberg - 4 days ago

Throughout U.S. history, Americans have periodically been forced to reckon with the moral and political impact of the goods and services they buy. Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day was one such moment. […] As a result, according to ABC news, Chick- fil-A had a “record-setting day” in terms of sales, although the company provided no figures.

[more]

> and gratuituous PDA.

1. Dude, it's all gratuitous.

2. Andrew Sullivan annoys me, but I remember a story he once told of a cab/van ride somewhere, with another man –a stranger who happened to be gay— and a middle-aged woman. I think they were riding into London from an airport or something. Everyone made pleasant conversation for an hour as the miles rolled on. Late in the journey, the man said something about his partner, and the woman took exception, saying that gays were welcome to live as they wanted to, but they shouldn't parade their feelings for others to see. Everyone else in the cab pointed out that she'd not shared a single word of conversation about her own life that didn't hinge directly upon her sexuality... Her children, her marriage, the life and travels she'd shared with her husband.

I'm quite certain that you, "No one," are not aware of the vibes and feelings that you project into your surrounding community. If you were made aware of them with the arrogance you're offering here, you'd not find the experience pleasant.

3. Seriously, just get over yourself. The reason that they do it is that they know you take offense.

And you deserve to take offense. The bottom line is that we're talking about adult acts of love. If they offend you that badly, the world is crawling with cultures that you might find more hospitable. Or not. But it's your call.

PS— You misspelled "gratuitous," which makes it seem like think you're parroting someone else's arguments without reflecting on them.

What about Muslim owned and operated businesses and organizations right here in the USA? You can pretty much assume that the owners oppose gay marriage, and in many cases the very existence of gay people. What about African-American pastors who have spoken out against gay marriage? Anybody demonstrating against them, or putting graffiti on their property, or making out in front of their facilities?

The same Mayor Menino who can't tolerate a Chick-Fil-A in Boston was an enthusiastic tolerator of the new Islamic Society of Boston Cultural Center, built on land valued at over $2 Million that the city sold to the ISB for $175,000. One financial supporter and fundraiser for the ISBCC is Yusuf al-Qaradawi, a Muslim cleric who said that Muslims "are not hostile towards these people. On the contrary, we pity them." But he says homosexuals should be put to death, "The same punishment as any sexual pervert". He says there is disagreement over the preferred method - whether gays should be stoned, burned, or thrown from a high place. He also said the Jews deserved the holocaust, and he was one of the first prominent Muslim clerics to advocate equal rights for women in the area of suicide bombing. (It took The Guardian, Der Spiegel and Al-Jazeera to ask al-Qaradawi to share his position on these topics. For some reason the American media won't go there unless the interviewee is a Christian conservative) Any LGBT's or their supporters picketing and making out in front of the Islamic Society of Boston Cultural Center or Boston City Hall?

Chicago mayor Emanuel, who opposes Chick-Fil-A because Dan Cathy's views on gay marriage are not consistent with "Chicago values" gets all giddy over Louis Farrahkan and the Nation of Islam, who also oppose gay and interracial marriages. Mayor Bloomberg, Emanuel and Obama all favored the construction of the mosque on Ground Zero. Were there any LGBT counter demonstrators at the Million Man March, or in front of Nation of Islam facilities?

It's interesting that gays and their supporters hate Chick-Fil-A for Cathy's relatively mild comments on gay marriage, but they seem completely indifferent to other prominent people, organizations and their political supporters whose views on the same topic are far more extreme and potentially threatening.

It makes me suspect that the issue of Cathy's position on gay marriage is just pretext, and the real reason they hate him is because he's a Christian, conservative, straight, white male.

Politically correct liberals seem to have no internalized sense of right and wrong. To them whether something someone says or does is right or wrong, good or evil, depends not on the nature of the words or acts themselves, but on who says or does them.

Apparently you can have an opinion, so long as you don't own a big company.

Meanwhile, no one is being refused service at CFA, unless, of course, things reach the point police are called.

Protesting CFA in this country is to protesting anti-gay policies in the Muslim world as playing army with toy guns is to actually being shot at in a war. One's fun and un-dangerous.

Ken R, in what universe does the suggestion that God's wrath will be vented on the U.S.A. "relatively mild"?

Oh, the irony. It burns.

Gay people expressing their rights by kissing in front Chick-fil-A.

People (governmental types, even) wanting to shut down Chick Fil A for the owner expressing his rights of free speech.

If it wasn't so damn sad I'd pop popcorn and just watch the show.

As to the question of where on would protest?
At the UN.
at / near the embassy of any of the offending countries.
In front of the White house, since it would be their ability to put pressure on the foreign governments.
At local Muslim places, places of worship.

So there are plenty of plalaces and times and triggers for a protest vs these actions. What is missing, it is not part of their political agenda.
Was arguing with someone that they claim this whole CFA thing wasn't about what they just said but about donations years ago. My counter, then why wasn't the protest years ago. It happened now because it was about what they said, or because it is an election year and this is a handy political distraction.

Just like why did the Pres come out with his "evolved" stance when he did. Easy, it was right before a major, Hollywood campaign fundraiser. They bought and paid for him to say that.

But, but...Chick-Fil-A is just more fun to protest. Islam is exotic! Seriously, this is as much about the left's disdain for the South, fast food, and the rubes who (to a left-wing bigot---which is not all lefties) simply must be fat, uneducated slobs if they can stand to eat there. Most people I saw commenting in favor of the boycott fit into two categories. The first would tell you all about the boycott and how appalled they were at Dan Cathy and then humble-brag that they'd never set foot in a Chick-Fil-A or that they'd been dragged there against their will by a coworker or something and found the food simply awful, artery-clogging crap, so this boycott wouldn't be much of a sacrifice. The second would say that, oh, yes they *used* to eat there and maybe even that they grew up eating it, in the South, after Wednesday night fellowship at the Baptist Church---this will be said in the tone of one confessing to a bravely overcome drug addiction or an upbringing so backwards and repressed that they are moved to write a an expose about it.

"Ken R, in what universe does the suggestion that God's wrath will be vented on the U.S.A. "relatively mild"?"

Are you serious?! This universe.

Do you think God will punish the U.S.A. because Dan Cathy said that? If not, what are you worried about? If saying it won't make it happen then the comment is completely harmless. Maybe I should have used the word "harmless" instead of "mild".

If a Muslim businessman said on TV that he believes Allah will kill everyone who eats bacon, it would have no effect whatsoever on my diet nor concern me in any way, because I don't believe it. The words are completely harmless. I probably wouldn't even boycott his convenience store. And I certainly wouldn't picket and eat bacon in front of it.

If, however, a Muslim cleric got on TV and said Muslims in the Pacific Northwest should attack straight, middle age, white men who don't convert to Islam, then I might be a little concerned... because I believe there are Muslims who might do that.

Do gay people believe God will vent His wrath on the U.S.A. if they get married? If they think God would do that it's not Chick-Fil-A's fault. If they don't think God would do that, or they don't believe in God, why the hell do they care what Dan Cathy thinks? His religious beliefs are harmless.

Jenny, that was beautiful.

Protest in front of the UN? You mean the organization that can't seem to find its own ass with both hands and a flashlight? We expect them to do something about human-rights atrocities against gays? And do we really want the Obama administration going to the wall over gay rights in the Middle East? Aren't we embroiled in enough shit there?

Chik-fil-a can say whatever they want, and people can protest whatever they want. This is one of the best things that has happened to Chik-fil-a in a long time, and I'm sure they're not crying tears over it. And gay-rights supporters got to wave their tiny fists in impotent rage for a bit. Everybody wins.

I see gratuitous PDAs all over the place. Seeing it in a Chik-fil-a won't bring the Apocalypse.

I hear a lot of people saying that the gays need to get a grip, that this isn't important enough to protest. I say they take their own advice. Why get your panties in a knot over something this trivial? It's entertainment and public show and will be out of the news cycle probably before this thread stops getting comments.

Man, I got no dog in this fight, never ate at a CFA and probably never will, I don't do road burgers and the like, but this whole thing is absurd. Who gives a rat's ass?

What MonicaP said.

I don't think American protests will be enough to stop Iran from killing gay people. Sorry.

Islamists would hurt or kill you. It's much safer to protest Chick-Fil-A. (If you youtube yourself teeing off on some minimum wage kid, it might not work out for you, but protesting the meek is generally safe.)

The company did nothing to anyone, but people's beliefs are now supposed to be subject to approval and punishment meted out based on mere association? Not in my world. I'll go out of my way to patronize Chick, just to show my displeasure. With all the fast food I eat, that's probably worth a whole ten bucks, but the principle stands. I don't like the tactics and I'll do everything I can to make it hurt for those who think it's OK to go after folks for what they believe.

I'm not talking about actions - if Chick-Fil-A discriminated in employment or service, that would be wrong, and illegal. This is just some childish ass-hattery because someone dares to think differently. No sympathy.

Amy, regarding the third paragraph of the blog post, I'm reminded that my grandmother used to say "Pictures are hung, people are hanged."

Monica P-" And do we really want the Obama administration going to the wall over gay rights in the Middle East? " Do I want, no but the gay groups who protest CFA, not wanting that shows that gay rights aren't their actual agenda.
Not protesting the UN, because it won't do any good? Like the Occupy people did, or hippies at the pentagon did? Most protests don't have a sliver of a chance.
I'm just pointing out that if their message whas actually what was on their protest signs, then they are in the wrong spots.
Or how about protesting the Black Churches who have publicly come out against Obama soley for his stance on gay marriage. If thier message was actually about gay rights and gay marriage, that would be THE target. But since it is not their target, then the message on their signs is a lie.

Just like when 80% of the war protesters vanished after election night. We still have trooops in the Middle East, fighting continues, years after the election. But you would never guess that by the anti-war protests. Thats because most didn't really care about the war, it was a protest against Republicans, not the war. If it had been about the war, the protests would be growing, not effectively have vanished.

"But to ask why they protest a business whose actions actually might matter to their lives and not something that is totally abstract seems pretty disingenous. Why waste anyone's time?"

Iran and other nations torturing people to death is not abstract, it is more real--far more real--than the imaginary harm done by a business CEO who won't support gay marriage rights.

Trouble is, however, that a young teen being tortured to death by the government is beyond most American's ability to comprehend, because they live so sheltered a life. American complaints are that people do not endorse their lifestyle wholly, or that the government does not send enough money to them in income redistribution, or some such other first world tragedy. In short, most American activists' concerns are as laughably contemptible and pathetic as most contemporary American concerns, once you lay them against the concerns faced by most people in most eras.

Most activists in America are best described as people who really want to fight, but don't want to find themselves in a real fight. (Not my original thought, but it was a good one, so I use it.)

By that I mean they are eager and motivated to show up at a rally in America. At that rally, they can expect local police to maintain the activists' safety (i.e., protect them from people opposing viewpoints). The activists can expect the police to do little or nothing as the activists engage in private and public property destruction. (So the activists get the additional thrill of low level intimidation of society via actions designed to instill fear in bystanders.) And the activists can regularly do these things while obtaining student loans, food stamps, unemployment compensation, education grants, scholarships, stipends, NGO salaries and other forms of income redistribution from the larger society they scorn.

This permits the activists to live in extended adolescence, while all of us support their existenc by making the 1,000 compromises a day you must to make your own way. The activists get to adopt a pose of superiority relative to those providing for them via state-enforce transfers, because we pay their damn way.

But--and it is a big, big, but--the first day those same activists face going to a rally where the police are not going to protect them (heck the cops might even beat them), they will not rally. The first time they face a withdrawal of their cushy income supports for their political views, they will suddenly sing from the proper hymnal. The first time their giddily-enthusiastic enablers no longer turn their gaze from immature property destruction antics, and instead jail time is imposed, with reimbursement required, they will put down those rocks and control themselves.

In short, the first time those people actually have to live with the consequences activists outside the US face, they will not be active. Instead, the grim business of facing horrors like a murderous government will be left to people with actual courage, something those activists typically lack.

"I don't think American protests will be enough to stop Iran from killing gay people. Sorry."

When you consider the record of various organizations who tried to bring pressure to bear on murderous, vicious regimes, I would say that while Amnesty International et al is unlikely to make a change happen soon, their efforts, combined with government assistance from Western democracies, is often invaluable in accelerating whatever progress can be made.

But as I say above, it is far more fun and exciting to rally and shout in America against Americans with no power (trust me, that Chik Fil A CEO is relatively powerless as compared to your neighborhood cop or sewer commissioner), as opposed to confronting a foreign government with sociopathic killers on the payroll.

[Hey Amy! Hey Feeberz! Looks like you two are once again on the forefront of American compassion!!!]

I am conservative and religious, and my kids go to a very liberal school. On my FB, the liberal people from their school were the only ones showing any hate about the topic at all. I found that telling.

I"m betting none of the people boycotting chickfila are boycotting gas. Or cheap clothing from China.

It's just the same as animal rights activists-they protest the rich women in coats, not the bikers in leather. Even our passionate indignance has to be easy nowadays.

[Jesus F.C.--- Our nation is spazzing apart at the speed of sound, and some people still want go faster.]

They're too busy protesting against Israel, the only Middle Eastern country where gays are left alone in peace.

The answer to where are the protestors against Muslim gay atrocities is this. Muslims are part of the Democratic party fund raising operation and are teammates with the professional protestors. Plus of course American Muslims mostly are successful in hiding their domestic crimes from media exposure. I wonder what happens to gay US Muslim boys and girls when the parents find out? American media won't tell you. Again they are on the same team.

rich: "Muslims are part of the Democratic party fund raising operation and are teammates with the professional protestors... Again they are on the same team."

Exactly!

To the PC liberals whether something you do or say is right or wrong, good or evil, depends not on the nature of your words or actions, but on which side you're on.

Rich : Too true!

1) There's terrible shit happening to people all over the world. How many people even know what's happening to gay people in the Middle East? I don't fault people for not knowing all there is to know about everyone everywhere.

2) Just because people are protesting CFA doesn't mean they aren't also donating money and time to organizations that do real work around the world. This CFA nonsense made the news because crap like this is what makes the news.

3) People care more about what's going on in their own backyards than they do about what's happening thousands of miles away. A bus accident killing 30 people in your hometown is terrible. A bus accident killing 30 people in Paris doesn't even make your newspaper, and no one cares. Just the way it is.

4) People tend to focus their energy on the problems they think they can solve. Getting CFA to issue an apology or suffer economically is within the realm of possibility for average people in America. Getting the UN or White House to develop an effective strategy for ending the persecution of gays in the Middle East, not so much.

> I don't fault people for not knowing all
> there is to know about everyone everywhere.

Me neither. I fault them for describing the trivial iniquities in their own lives as monstrous policies inflicted by The Man to bring darkness to the hearts of the meekly decent, and for then invoking the happenstance lawlessness of more primitive nations as evidence of American cruelty. The "people" you describe have it better than almost anyone who ever lived, at all, ever, at any time.

They're insufficiently grateful; and by this negligence, they're at risk for losing their abundance, whether of freedom or wealth. Perhaps deservedly. You don't have the right to be oblivious.

> A bus accident killing 30 people in Paris
> doesn't even make your newspaper, and no
> one cares. Just the way it is.

This is not the first time you've been blithe about mundane cruelty. You're trying to signal something, we can tell. We're not sure we care yet.

> Getting the UN or White House to develop
> an effective strategy for ending the
> persecution of gays in the Middle East,
> not so much.

Yes. That's why sane men prefer strong liberty to strong government. If you think making authorities do virtuous things is your challenge in life, you missed the assignment.

But Monica P. none of your objections apply to the pro-gay groups not doing anything against Black Churches. They are well within their own backyard, were instrumantal in every public vote against same sex marriage, and have been way more vocal than the CFA and in way stronger terms.

But we won't see the pro-gay groups attack, why? As rich and Ken R have pointed out, all that matters is are they voting Democrat, then they will not be touched.
It's why you won't see a gay kiss in at their churches. Or a protest at the Southern Baptist conference.

Islam celebrates diversity.

Gays can be shot, burned, hanged, defenestrated, buried alive, beheaded, aren't you glad i cannot post pictures in these comments?, crushed beneath a falling wall, stoned or drowned. Islam allows every country to chose their own way to kill gays, and that's as close as they are going to get to Diversity.

The Olympic Frogs.

"But we won't see the pro-gay groups attack, why?"

They're not going to attack the same historically oppressed group they want so badly to identify with.

3) People care more about what's going on in their own backyards than they do about what's happening thousands of miles away.

4) People tend to focus their energy on the problems they think they can solve.

Monica nails it with these two points.

"Yes. That's why sane men prefer strong liberty to strong government. If you think making authorities do virtuous things is your challenge in life, you missed the assignment."

But you defend men without warrants and guns kicking down doors of little girls with pony tails, holding guns to their heads to take their cut of a medal! a piece of medal!!!

(I feel positively smarmy for using accusatory, personalized, manipulative and emotional, hyperbole to get back at crid... But I'll get over it).

I feel like a lefty.

Ps. I think Islam sucks.

> I feel like a lefty.

When you talk this way, it's like I don't even KNOW you anymore, Man...

More later; for now, consider the judgment of a very tall libertarian.

There are plenty of things we can do to affect treatment of gays in the middle east. One is to call our Congress Critters and tell them to back sound policies supporting Israel, and to tie our billions in financial aid to the human rights records of the countries that receive it. Tell them the free ride is over, and mean it. Foreign policy is supposed to do more than provide photo ops, dammit.

Send donations to genuine charities that actually build communities abilities to support themselves, like Kiva.org. They give micro loans to women to start their own businesses, you can give someone a $25 loan, and they can build a lifetime of support for themselves and their families.

Teach by example. If you want people to be responsible for their own actions, you have to show them how. In this day and age, it is getting harder and harder to find good role models. A lot of the apathy floating around is because we just don't have heroes anymore.

Bah-dum-PUM.

Also, I think Kat delivers some clarity for those who are glibly blasé about our response to atrocity in distant cultures. Hell, these are chores we should have been doing for Iraq and Afghanistan anyway... If we hadn't been counting on the government to do these things (and so much more) for the last ten years, this second decade of the millennium would not be nearly as ugly as it's proving to be.

If there's an international player on this planet, we're it. Even today.

More later. Tremble, Feebz.

Kat, is your internet fast enough for YouTubes? Shoot me an email, there's something I want you to watch.

> But you defend men without warrants and guns
> kicking down doors of little girls

Feebie, the United States Tax code is the all-time mother warrant. Everyone knows this, which is why the United States Government has become the world's most powerful religion. EVERYONE believes in its power to appropriate and distribute revenue.

Again again again, I beg you: Let the following link live near the front of your thoughts for the rest of your days. Let it be the lens through which you view all the things the government has done, will do, should do, and cannot do:

★ ☠ — DEBT — ☠ ★

(Now, personally, I think some of that money won't be repaid, because it will never be created. But here's the deal...)

You are going to pay your fuckin' taxes. So will fuckin' I. I always have, and have done so without shenanigans or hair-splitting.

But we are out of money. The last, last, LAST thing to encourage at this point in our history is the daydream of kissing especially cute people on the forehead and telling them they're excused.

And indeed, why just athletes? I like guitar players. A favorite is a guy named Tuck Andress. He's a monster! His version of 'Somewhere Over the Rainbow' is insane! Brilliant. The audio stinks, but listen to the end of this clinic. He's not kidding: He IS one of the best in the world, and he says he got there through hard work... Just like your little spinning pixies in London.

But TUCK ANDRESS HAS TO PAY HIS TAXES, even though he's champion. I'm glad his life has worked out so well, and I admire his willingness to struggle, but he's not excused from the human project.

Nor should your little girls be excused. (You've never really answered this: Why should they? Why should they not have to pay taxes? Put it in an affirmative sentence: 'They, specifically, shouldn't pay taxes because __________, ________ and ________.')

(more)

Feebie, please try to understand this. EVERYONE already dreams of not paying taxes. Time and again we read of people we might admire, not-stupid people (e.g. George Carlin), who get in trouble because, oops, they 'forgot'. Tim MotherFreaking Geithner didn't pay his taxes, and his name's on the money in your pocket.

Our champions –whether of music, sports or commerce– are exactly the people who should be counted on to fulfill this most fundamental social obligation, and who should be best equipped to do so.

Consider also these words from George Will at Cpac 2010:

When this administration gets in place all of its tax preferences, 60% of the American people, a large majority, will pay either no income taxes or less than 5% of their income. Now that is a majority that has zero incentive any longer to restrain the growth of a government they are not paying for. That is a classic case of moral hazard and it is an addiction and a dependency on the government.

But don't pretend they shouldn't pull their weight.

OK, appropriate and distribute wealth, not 'revenue'.

I'm assuming its because if you were to March for gay rights in Saudi Arabia, you'd get in a lot of trouble.

You could March for Gay Rights in front of the Saudi consulate if you wanted to. Why don't you?

2045 Sawtelle Blvd.
Los Angeles, CA 90025

I'm going to go out on a limb and say people care more about what their own countries are doing than other countries.

Actually, maybe you shouldn't. Americans protesting for gays would probably hurt them, not help them, as they'd be seen as agents of the West.

> I think his thoughts about gay marriage don't
> make sense (for anyone who cares about
> children's welfare);

For Fuck's Sake, Amy. You don't think children need Mothers.

This is unlikely to be a productive vector of argument for you.

> 2045 Sawtelle Blvd.

Weeyird. That's a few blocks from my house. I drive by it three times a week, and had no idea.

It's not an especially opulent area. It's a "Micro Tokyo".. There's a genuine Little Tokyo downtown, but this neighborhood has a lot of great little casual Japanese restaurants.

Anyway, it's not nearly as elegant as the British consulate... Even though the Saudis can presumably afford the best.

So maybe they're spending their money in Texas, right? The oil business. So...

Their Houston consulate is here. But the word "Saud" doesn't appear on any of the names on the index for that address.

We might presume they're trying to keep a low profile.

> BASED ON RESEARCH THAT SHOWS THIS

Bullshit. Amy, your rhetoric is cowardly and evasive.

Say it out loud: Use cap letters! Very emphatic! Say it:

CHILDREN DON'T NEED MOTHERS.

Yoohoo... Use BOLDFACE, too.

> His beliefs are shared by many people -- they
> just don't speak to the media about them.

Right? Despite our best efforts* to penetrate their subversive networks with the usual intrusive agencies, these sinister renegades resist identification and assimilation into our evidence-based collective! Our adversaries are shadowy and nefarious! Tell no one you saw me!

I speak of a subtype of militant atheists who I’ll call the “Reddit Atheists.” These are the folks who have, ironically, adopted the attitudes of hardcore evangelicals who try to convert strangers on subway platforms—it’s not enough for them that they don’t believe in God, they want to make sure you don’t believe in God either. Just by being themselves, they make the best case against humanism.

* Other than, y'know, being warmly and
sincerely  welcomed as a guest at one of their
weekly public services...  And maybe having one
of their cookies and a sip of their punch, and
sharing a few seconds of non-coercive 
chat about cosmology.
Too risky, right?

A-my, C'mon........

"I'm going to go out on a limb and say people care more about what their own countries are doing than other countries."

Maybe, but these days it takes about five seconds to go from there to "Western Civ's jaywalking is morally equivalent to the Third World's mass murder." Americans are absolutely fed up with constantly being told that they are the worst people on Earth.

As for the CFA protests: Ann Althouse put her finger exactly on what the problem is. Disregarding outlier incidents like the bomb threat and Adam Smith's drivel, the big problem is this: When the civil rights movement staged their lunch-counter protests back in the '60s, the black protestors who took up space in the lunch counters were behaving in an entirely civilized and ordinary manner. They went in and asked to be served lunch. The uncivilized behavior occurred when the lunch counter owners ignored them and refused them service. It became a DoS attack from the perspective of anyone else who wanted lunch because the lunch counter was full of people who weren't eating, but the reason they weren't eating was not because of anything they had done. It was because of the owner's uncivilized reation to their ordinary everyday behavior.

The CFA thing, on the other hand, turned into a DoS attack because it was designed to be from the start. The pro-gay protest groups made it clear that their tactic was to clog up the CFAs with people who weren't ordering anything, thereby making it impossible for ordinary customers to get lunch. No one said that CFA was refusing to serve the protestors (well, there may have been a few CFA owners here and there, but like Adam Smith, they would be outliers). It was the protestors who were engaging in uncivilized behavior. And that's not the way to win friends and influence people, especially when your cause is one that a lot of people are uncertain about.

This backs my contention previously stated here: "The Gay Agenda" is not to win. "The Gay Agenda" is actually doing everything it can to push the undecideds away. "The Gay Agenda" is to lose, so it can then claim victim status and demand social and legal special privileges. "The Gay Agenda" is not interested in convincing anybody. "The Gay Agenda" wants to ram their viewpoint down everyone's throats. It isn't about rights. It's about conquest.

That's Cousin Dave, Cousin Dave, lookit him go.

See also, the "Reddit Atheist" agenda. Whatever it is, it's not about cosmological persuasion.

Amy, thank you for posting this.

Yes, it has been one of my pet peeves that so many folks get all indignant over some (often perceived) slight while quite silent about what is happening to those are truly downtrodden in the world.

If I may add two things:

First, something I read several years ago. They don't "hang" gays in Iran they "strangle" them.

While dead is still dead, the manner in which one is killed does make a difference (all be it a somewhat moot point after the fact). A "proper" hanging (boy, does that feel funny to type proper with the word hanging) is one in which the science of hanging is taken into consideration. That is the correct way (nope, correct feels just as funny as proper to me, sorry) to hang someone is to take into consideration the weight of their body and make sure that you have the correct length of rope so that their neck is snapped and thereby kills them almost instantly. If the rope is the wrong length you take their head off or you might cause them to struggle with being strangled instead of "hung."

I know, all that sounds kind of gruesome, and it is. But, what they do in Iran is the don't "hang" someone, rather, what they do is put the rope around their neck and then hoist them by a crane slowly so that they do, in fact, struggle. This is more than just killing someone; it is also torturing them as you slowly kill them. That's just plain sick.

Secondly, while it is true that protests will not cause the wackjobs in Iran (and other parts of the world) to change it will bring light to the issue. And isn't that the real reason for any protest? To bring light to an issue.

I remember reading several years ago about a Soviet dissident who was in jail in the old Soviet Union when Reagan referred to the Soviets as an "evil Empire." That dissident said years later that such a statement from the leader of the free world gave him hope, even if his own situation didn't change, because it meant that he wasn't forgotten.

For this last reason alone I do wish folks (and the powers that be in the free world) would speak up and say something, anything, to let those who are persecuted know that they are not forgotten. Hope is a powerful tool.

Cousin Dave- well said, with one corrrection, Many of the lunch counters had been fine serving black people. However, politicians made it illegal to do so. So sometimes the target of sit-ins wasn't the shop owner, but the police/court system.

Cousin Dave: "The Gay Agenda" wants to ram their viewpoint down everyone's throats.

The people doing the viewpoint-ramming are religious (and other) conservatives who support denying marriage to same-sex couples. Gays and lesbians (and straights like me who support their "agenda" of...quelle horreur!...equality) aren't trying to deny marriage to religious (and other) conservatives.

*

Amy: ...a barbaric totalitarian system masquerading as a religion that commands the murder of gays.

The Bible also commands the murder of gays. Well gay men anyway. Leviticus is mum about girl-on-girl action...maybe Yahweh was really into that.) Of course, fortunately for gays in countries where the main "holy" book is the Bible, the vast majority of conservative Bible-believers ignore that part and just stick to figuratively bashing gays.

Hey, Crid...

Based on your OWN research (this ought to be good), AND
given that not every kid GETS one Mom and one Dad...

What's second best?

And what do you suggest be done about it?

Amy's not suggesting your own parents be killed and replaced with two burly women.

But you could quit whining and complete your case.

> What's second best?

Who cares?

This happens sometimes, often at critical rhetorical junctures. And it's a shame, because it would be fun to correct you if you were wrong or (much less likely, of late) to agree with you if you were right.

But even though all those words are in English, I have absolutely zero idea what point you're trying to make.

Raddy, there will always be people trying to do less than the best for their kids. Psychopaths, meanies, and incompetents of every stripe are reproducing as fast as they can. The gruesome stats for divorce are merely the paler (if broader) slice of this rainbow.

> given that not every kid GETS one Mom
> and one Dad...

That's all mixed up. 'Every kid' comes from a man and a woman. Shitty culture means they're not always 'given' a loving mother with a loving father.

> And what do you suggest be done about it?

We can recognize that the needs of children and the fulfillment of adults cannot and will not be made perfectly mutual through policy.

...And then we can choose whose outcome better deserves protection.

...By other forces, I mean. Shunning, beatings, etc.

...And a few policies. We're all working with the world we've got, right?

Unless someone uses that argument with you in regards to the children of gay parents, right?