Latbear4blk

Naw.... he said "Civilizations", not just alien life forms.

I am afraid the Dems will have to increase the number of judges in the SCJ, but why not?

Welcome!

It is a huge victory, although Tasso's may be right to be pessimistic. As it right now, this considerably more consequential (beneficial) than previous victories, like the dismissal don't tell don't ask, and gay marriage.

That is previous to my living memory, but you are making a good point.

La Corte ordenó la detención de militantes bolsonaristas por "actos antidemocráticos"

Christian conservatives rattled after Supreme Court rules against LGBT discrimination After all the money they spent and the political effort invested to repopulate the courts with judges friendly to their Theocratic project, they are not happy. I am sure they will double their lobby power in incoming controversial decisions.

I do not think the friends here question their freedom of speech. They believe in the power of their shopping decisions. I do not. Actually, their sells went up immediately after the boycott, and have stayed up, and the chain is expanding. I believe politics is played in the political arena, not in the shopping cart. They had to change their politics because of social and political backlash against their homophobic stands, we did not need that boycott, although I am sure the controversy around it helped the cause.

I cannot argue against this argumentative line. I do like their biscuits and chicken, a lot, but cannot say it is healthy or good quality food.

Anyway, I prefer this line of political attack than discussing his sexual practices.

In Tulsa, again.

Now I understand your sarcasm. You were not unclear, I was slow.

Supreme Court says gay, transgender workers are protected by federal law forbidding discrimination on the basis of sex THIS is so much important than gay marriage! Kudos to the 2 Conservative judges who joined the Liberal minority.

Well, that was an historic and exceptional boycott. I thought you were younger, if I remember well, the antiapartheid boycott was lifted at the beginning of the 90s.

When you brag and bully others into them, it sounds to me more like compensation. You know, like the guy with a small dick who owns weapons or a big car. If you participate in one, great. What is stupid is assigning them litmus test value.

yes

Nice drama, Lee figures it out how to add current events commentary. I liked it a lot, specially the way he tells the story of people of color killing each other fighting for the colonizers.

Go to watch the online version of Sao Paulo Gay Pride Parade! Is right now live in you tube!

Sorry, I have never supported boycotts. It is controversial whether or not they are effective, but the main reason why I do not support them is because they are misguiding. You can continue being a racist, discriminating people of color and even oppressing them in your daily life, but your adherence to a boycott suddenly cleans your sins. They get a free pass to any asshole to point his finger and feel well about himself by doing nothing. To stay on the Chick-Fil-A topic, you can be a hateful gay person, discriminating against other gays, and thinking that fighting for gay marriage is not self-depreciating, but you eliminate fried chicken from your diet and you are a model to follow. (I am giving examples, not assigning these positions to anyone in particular) As I said, whether or not you participate in a place and/or consume a product is a personal decision, each one of us has to make that decision according to his own conscience, without projecting your circumstances to everyone else. Otherwise, it sounds to me like pure guilt self cleaning. If you want to judge someone for one decision or even I would say for one political stand, feel free to do so. But I cannot help laughing at your "wisdom".

Uh.... I guess you are just starting the list.

Sure. I guess you epitomize the highest point on gay awareness. If that is your Gay Club, I am glad to cancel my membership. And by the way, your analogy with BLM is irrelevant. I am not calling for a boycott to Daddy, not measuring people's commitment to fight against racism by their participation or not there. Furthermore, I have encouraged everyone who contacted me in public and in private to stay participating over there. But what is the point to try to explain the complexities of a personal ethical/political decision to someone who measures you according to whether or not you eat a chicken sandwich.

I am not sure. Do you know where the money you spend goes to? Who ends benefiting from your food, and drinks, and your car, and the clothing your wear, etc? If the product satisfies the consumer, it is a worthy service. I have never supported boycotts for any cause. Now, if you think the product is not good, that is a valid argument as I said before. By "argument" I meant reason.

The company institutionally supported those anti LGBT causes or the family owning the company did?