Seven Reasons to Stop Talking About Chick-F**-A.

Via on Aug 2, 2012

I absolutely do not agree with Chick-fil-A’s company president Dan Cathy’s stance on gay-marriage.

“We are very much supportive of the family–the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that,” Cathy is quoted as saying.

Sure, Cathy has a right to free speech, yada yada yada. Does he have a right to his religious beliefs? As backwards as I think they are, yes. But…

I think it’s crappy that he and his company pumped millions to groups that advocate against gay rights and even support ex-gay therapy.

That’s just plain old bigotry. While the company can claim they don’t discriminate because they serve gays at their restaurants and even hire them, if they’re supportive of anti-gay groups well that’s just… discrimination.

I just read this (excerpt from The Huffington Post):

One gay employee who works at Chick-fil-A headquarters in Atlanta, Ga., and asked to remain anonymous for fear of losing his job, says he is getting it from both sides. On the one hand, there is the customer who came in and said he supported Dan Cathy and then “continues to say something truly homophobic, e.g. ‘I’m so glad you don’t support the queers, I can eat in peace,’” the employee, who is 23 and has worked for Chick-fil-A since he was 16, wrote in an email. On the other hand, he continued, “I was yelled at for being a god-loving, conservative, homophobic Christian while walking some food out to a guest in a mall dining room.”

That just proves, all people—religious or not—can be downright mean and ignorant. Ugh.

Whatever the case, I’m tired of hearing about it. I’m tired of seeing it in my facebook and twitter newsfeed. I’ve never eaten at Chick-fil-A and I never will. Even if they decided to pump millions of dollars into clean energy, I would not eat their “food.”

Source: blogging2fun1687.blogspot.com via Bethany on Pinterest

Anyway… here are seven reasons I think we should stop talking about Chick-f**-A:

1. The company itself is not worth our energy. Don’t like ‘em? Don’t eat there.

2. They serve junk food that no doubt comes from factory farms.

3. Some chickens are gay. Is that a lifestyle choice? I think not. (That’s a somewhat random and potentially irrelevant factoid, but I found it interesting and thought you would too.)

4. Talking about them ad nauseum means free press for them. That leads to more sales and more money to funnel into anti-gay groups.

5. We need to talk to each other about gay rights. Not at each other via Chick-fil-A.

6. Chick-fil-A is a dumb name. Don’t they know how to spell filet?

7. I’m pretty sure we have bigger chickens to fry than Chick-fil-A (i.e., gay rights minus Chick-fil-A, sex trafficking, poverty, starving children, obesity, climate change, gun violence).

8. Chick-fil-A contains dimethylpolysiloxane, otherwise known as anti-foaming agent, and other unsavory chemicals. Yum yum. (That’s a bonus reason, free of charge.)

Now start again at number one. Please add more reasons in the comment section.

This is not a paid endorsement of Chick-fil-A.

Okay, one last word from political satirist John Fugelsang…

Like enlightened society on facebook.

About Lynn Hasselberger

Lynn Hasselberger lives in Chicagoland with her son, husband and two cats. She loves sunrises, running, yoga, chocolate, and NYR, and has a voracious appetite for comedy. In her spare time, she blogs at myEARTH360.com and LynnHasselberger.com. A "Green Diva" and social media addict, you'll most likely find Lynn on twitter (@LynnHasselbrgr & @myEARTH360) and facebook. She hopes to make the world a better place, have more fun, re-develop her math skills and overcome her fear of public speaking. Like her writing? Subscribe to her posts.

6,553 views

Appreciate this article? Support indie media!

(We use super-secure PayPal - but don't worry - you don't need an account with PayPal.)

50 Responses to “Seven Reasons to Stop Talking About Chick-F**-A.”

  1. LynnBonelli says:

    I completely agree. I allowed myself to get all pissed off yesterday as I saw post after post on FB, some from friends saying how good their Chick-fil-a tasted. Personally, I don't eat fast food so, like you, I wouldn't go out of my way to eat there regardless of their position. Perhaps I would add to your list that Chick-fil-a is bully company. They are suing a small business who is making "Eat More Kale" t-shirts for copywrite infringment (funny thing about the stance of freedom of speech except if it comes to their 'logo'). The shirt was not intended to be an "anti-CFA" shirt and was originally sold at the farmers market by a farmer who had a bumper crop of kale. Anyway, I also think that when we give so much like to this whole issue there comes a point when both sides start to look like extremists…esp calling out employees of the store and lumping them in with Cathy's beliefs. What happened to approaching everything with loving kindness? Sometimes I think the best approach to mean spirited, bigoted bullies is to do the exact opposite of what they expect. I.E. don't act the same way they are…

  2. Guest says:

    I don't see anything wrong with Chick-Fil-A putting money towards trying to help gays become non-gays. That's a great service for those that want become non-gay. No one is being forced to be straight. As for gay rights, what rights do they need that they don't already have? the right to marriage? Well why is there need for them to have the right to marriage if its been defined for years as a union between man and woman? If the government wants to create a union certificate so people can be united regardless of their gender or family relationship then that is great. Gays, cousins and anyone else that wants to commit may get united but for the rest of us who feel marriage is for the purpose of uniting a man and woman, for the original purpose of procreation, marriage can be our thing. And as the video posted, there is a lot of misinformation. Christians believe that the new testament rules replace the old testament laws so that stoning is not allowed today. But the old testament does show that homosexuality has long been held by Gods' peoples as a wrong thing to do such as lying or adultery or fornication, etc. The new testament is not full of laws but asks that people believe in Christ and follow Christ example and that includes forgiving one another and not throwing stones if you are not perfect. Many bible translations do list homosexuality among other sins that people can go to church for. (1 Timothy 1:9-11) And that is okay. We all need help. No one is perfect. What is not okay is hate. It is not okay to hate gays or anyone else for that matter.

    • lasirena says:

      Marriage has nothing to do with religion and has never been exclusive to Christianity. It's a secular institution, and among the reasons for gay marriage is spousal rights (hospital visits, benefits, a whole whack of legal issues). There is no "our thing" because you are not entitled to more rights than any other person.

      "Guest", eh? Says a lot…

    • "Traditional marriage" involves women as property and multiple wives. Whether that's new vs. old testament, I don't know. And if you believe that, that is your right for sure. BTW, not all married people procreate—should those people be required to divorce? If Christians don't believe gay people have the right to marry, then refrain from attending gay weddings. And gay Christians can remain single. Simple is that. A wee bit of time has passed since the Bible was written—I think we're past due for an update.

      • Keith says:

        Also Leviticus is in the old testament. Soooo, that verse about men lying with men….. cherry pick that one? Do we only use the verses that support our hate and pedjudice?

    • nikflorida says:

      "That's a great service for those that want become non-gay. " Except, of course, that every medically credible source out there agrees that "ex-gay therapy" absolutely doesn't work, stigmatizes its participants and probably causes irreparable psychological damage, and perpetuates the notion that somehow being gay is "bad" or "inferior," I'm reminded of something Florida State Attorney Bill McCollum said in a brief arguing against gay adoption: basically, his logic was that gay couples make inferior parents because their kids are discriminated against. Ya know, by people like Bill McCollum. Thank you for demonstrating the kind of ignorance and bigotry that this whole issue is about.

  3. jess says:

    ^ "As for gay rights, what rights do they need that they don't already have? the right to marriage? Well why is there need for them to have the right to marriage if its been defined for years as a union between man and woman?"

    Gays in long-term committed relationships want the right to marry so that they can have the same tax, insurance, and end-of-life type decision rights as straight married couples.

  4. Holly LeCompte Ng says:

    I, too, agree, Lynn, and I also agree with Lynn's statement about the influx of FB posts and "…friends saying how good their Chick-fil-a tasted." I find it very disheartening that so many people actually seem "proud" of their support of CFA. And it pisses me off that–in my opinion–some, maybe many, are using freedom of speech as a smokescreen for their homophobia. I believe in free speech, too, but I won't defend it at the expense of another human being's rights.

    And, yes, what's with that name? For years I've pronounced it with the emphasis on "fil"…you know, like the sportswear company. Okay, so maybe I'm just as dumb as their name. :o) Moving on now…

    • You're not dumb at all, Holly :) I had never heard of Chick-fil-A before this and after today, I'm not going to discuss. These were just my thoughts based on what I had learned. Thanks for taking the time to leave a comment!!

  5. __MikeG__ says:

    I personally can have simultaneous concerns about matters both great and small. And I know for a fact that I am not close to being the smartest person on this rock. So, there must be other people who can have concerns about small/medium/large subjects all at the same time as well. If doesn't make sense to say people cannot have small concerns just because larger concerns also loom.

    Tired of others talking about the bigotry inherent at Chick-Crappy-Food? Tired of others talking about Chick-Intestinal-Pain supporting bigotry in the guise of charitable donations?

    Then stop talking to the people who still want to talk about Chick-Stupid-Name. That way you are happy and get to not talk about Chick-Stupid-Name. And people who are not done with the subject get to continue the discussion about Chick-Gag-N-Barf without you. Problem solved.

  6. Bec G. says:

    i happen to completely disagree with you. dialog is how we manifest change; check out martin luther king jr., malcom x and segregation, or margaret atwood and patrirchy, or ani difranco, or gandhi… when has *not* talking about an issue and the surrounding hailstorm helped? ever? at all? i get that your intention is to stop drawing attention to chic-f**-a and its bogus policies. but that's the opposite on my intention. i want people to understand what true intention really is: that where you put your money is has consequences. and as someone who IS gay, i don't want to stop talking about my discrimination, or the bias that exists against me. it isn't just the bigotry at chic-f**-a that is disconcerting, its the fact that a religiously based company, with a religiously based definition of marriage, is donating money to organizations that want to list homosexuality as a crime. punishable by exportation. a company where the president's hate speech: "I think we are inviting God's judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at Him and say, 'We know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage,' and I pray God's mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we have the audacity to try to redefine what marriage is about." affects my every day rights as a human being. chic-f**-a has also been cited as being directly discriminatory to gays within the company, even unjustly firing them, which last i checked is against the law.

    So, now, I don't want to shut up, or be shut up, or have anyone else shut up, about a company that is a) unlawfully firing its employees based on age, race, sexual identity, gender, marital status, ability, etc. b) a company that would like to fund legislation, and help groups pushing legislation, which would depict me as a pedophile, a heathen, and would make the love between myself and my partner illegal. in fact, i want more people to talk about it. i want people to start making the connection to what they talk about and their actions. to where they put their money and where their money goes. to what people are talking about, and creating change.

    so please don't ask me to stop talking about it.

    cited:
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-badash/chick-
    http://www.goodasyou.org/good_as_you/2012/07/with

  7. yogacatattack says:

    Yes, we have probably talked about this issue enough (today will be my last day) :)

    The reason it was helpful to me to hear so much about it from friends is this: I rarely eat fast food (not yet so far this year), and if I were going to choose to eat some kind of fast food, I would probably choose a burger anyways……
    However, now that I know how this company donates their profits, and that my money *MY money* would be donated to support hate and bigotry, I will NEVER eat there ever again. And I will happily, peacefully, explain the reasoning to others and as we spread the word, less money is funnelled into hate.

    For all those who ask, doesn't he have the right to freedom of speech/freedom of religion–what I would say to him is:
    Yup, you SURE do, bigot!
    And thank goodness that you do–thanks for outing yourself.
    Here's what America is doing about it.

  8. Justin says:

    Interesting points in the article, but very contradictory. Lets write about reasons as to why we should stop talking about that chicken place, only to talk about it in the comments section (like kids at recess).

  9. Patti says:

    Isn't writing this post keeping the talking going? Ironic.

  10. Laurel says:

    Why do liberals do nothing but cry & complain..it gets really old. If Christians disagree with your ways on marriage we are gay heaters & bias…Don’t. eat at Chick-Fil-A simple as that. You have your believe’s and have NO problem vocalisting your hate towards Christians but GOD FORBID IF WE VOICE ARE VEIWS!

    • __MikeG__ says:

      You don't seem to understand the difference between voicing a view and disagreeing with the view being voiced.

  11. Mark Ledbetter says:

    Laurel, you are a brave person for entering the Elephant's Den with your views. I commend you. However, I foresee the possibility that some self-styled grammarians here just might try to discount your argument with irrelevant comments on language usage. If so, be forewarned all ye grammarians! I will spring to Laurel's defense! And, being a linguist, I have some weapons at my disposal, not to mention sympathy for the underdog.

    Be that as it may, Laurel, what do you think of this? Government should not be involved in this issue at all. Liberals are wrong to attempt to legalize their own definition of marriage. But conservatives are also wrong to attempt to legalize THEIR definition. Defining marriage is NOT a proper government function. Let free people decide freely who they marry. And where to eat!

    Good day to you

  12. eric says:

    by firing up all the fast food eating self righteous folks in our country, they'll eat more chicken and die of cancer and diabetes. seems like a good plan to me.

  13. cesar says:

    Great post Lynn. I absolutely agree. Just don't eat there. If they refuse to serve Gay clientele, that's a different story. They are doing there own negative, or positive, promotion. I actually applaud their exercising of freedom of speech. Now we know who to support with our dollars, and who not to, if we wish. (Actually I don't eat there anyways)
    You ever wonder how many other places that we deal with, as far as buying food, clothes, anything we engage with really, has a completely different viewpoint than our own?

    From a Buddhist perspective, this makes me think of the last verse from a classic short text,

    "If there is grasping, you do not have the View"

    amen :)

    cheers folks! i love this world. :)

  14. Tom Grasso tomgrasso says:

    Actually, I don't care as much about the company or the views of the CEO…what I care about is the REACTION that has been created. Chic-fil-a Appreciation Day? I mean WTF is that if nothing more than a bunch of bigots getting all happy that their bigotry has a voice?

    @ Laurel. It is not about your views, or the views of Christians. It is about the ACTIONS of those who wish to oppress the liberty of a certain group THEY disagree with. Face it, Christians (and Chic-fil-a) want us to be all concerned with their "right to free speech" (which no one is threatening to take away from them by law), but they don't want to (and work quite hard to oppress) the rights of others to simply MARRY whatever adult they feel like marrying.

    And yes, Laurel, if you are stopping two people from marrying because they are gay then you are gay haters. So much so that you (or those like you and Dan Cathy) spend MILLIONS OF $$ to oppress homosexuals. I would say that is an act of hatred, not love. You can get as sensitive as you want about it, but let's just stop pretending that you are filled with love when you step on the throats of homosexuals while treating them like they are deviants not deserving of the same happy married life you may enjoy. If you love freedom like you pretend you do, then simply let people do as they wish as long as they aren't hurting YOU. Last time I checked, two men marrying had no impact on you whatsoever except in that thing you call a mind.

    Voice your views if you want, but if your views favor bigotry and hatred expect to be called a hateful bigot. I'm not sure Jesus suffered and died for you to hate someone the way you do.

    @ Mark, it is ABSOLUTELY the job of government to protect the rights of citizens so as long as the rights of homosexuals are being violated the government has no choice but to step in and ensure those rights are protected by legislation. This nation cannot afford to "devolve" into a religious state guided by unrealistic religious principals spelled out by cave dwellers 4000 years ago (oddly, that text is littered with deviant sexual activities of some of its greatest characters). We are better than that, or at least we should be.

    Sorry, but this issue angers me as few do. I love my gay friends and acquaintances…and frankly don't even think of them as gay until some Christian-with-a superiority-complex comes around spewing their hatred. It bothers me that those people I love have to hear the bigoted rhetoric from a lost faith that has gone from "love your neighbor" to spending its money not on feeding the hungry, but on making sure only a woman and a man can get married. HOW UTTERLY SHAMEFUL.

    • Mark Ledbetter says:

      Tom, as a Classical Liberal or Libertarian, I see no place for government enforcing morality, with the obvious exception of prohibiting the use of force or fraud. The government has no business, IMO, defining marriage, issuing marriage certificates, or being involved in marriage in any way.

      • Tom Grasso tomgrasso says:

        You've been duped into believing that governmental interaction in this issue is "enforcing morality". IT IS NOT.

        What it is is government protecting a right of a minority of its population in the face of religious oppression. It is EXACTLY the role of government Mark. Using your logic, the founders would have had to suggest that the Bill of Rights was "legislating morality" and therefore not their role.

        Because marriage is a LEGAL issue, it must be regulated which is the purpose of marriage licenses. Religious marriage is of no concern to government, and it is not legally recognized. I could marry anyone spiritually if I don't care that it means nothing civilly or legally.

        Finally, I'm not sure how you say that government should not enforce morality and then add a "but" to it. You've created your own gray area, and that gray area is exactly what people use to get their agendas considered. It either is, or it isn't.

        • Mark Ledbetter says:

          TOM: You've been duped into believing that governmental interaction in this issue is "enforcing morality". IT IS NOT.

          MARK: How can government action on this issue be anything but enforcing morality? The only question is whose morality.

          TOM: What it is is government protecting a right of a minority of its population in the face of religious oppression. It is EXACTLY the role of government Mark.

          MARK: Government involvement guarantees cultural wars on this issue and the demonization of each side by the other. There would be no need for protection if government were not involved in the marriage business.

          TOM: Using your logic, the founders would have had to suggest that the Bill of Rights was "legislating morality" and therefore not their role.

          MARK: For the most part, the Bill of Rights simply protects people from the institution most threatening to liberty: government. It’s not legislating morality.

          TOM: Because marriage is a LEGAL issue, it must be regulated which is the purpose of marriage licenses.

          MARK: I grant that if you believe it should be a legal issue, then you have no choice but to fight this war. I don’t believe it should be a legal issue so I am free from the need of fighting, which is a relief!

          TOM: Religious marriage is of no concern to government, and it is not legally recognized. I could marry anyone spiritually if I don't care that it means nothing civilly or legally.

          MARK: Excellent. Now if it really did mean nothing civilly or legally, problem solved. Bumper sticker suggestion: Get Gov Out of the Marriage Business!

          TOM: Finally, I'm not sure how you say that government should not enforce morality and then add a "but" to it.

          MARK: I’m not an anarchist. Anarchists do not add ‘but.’ However, if you don’t believe in the possibility of a civilized anarchy, there has to be one caveat to freedom: you are not free to take the freedom of another.

          Sorry, Tom, can’t help myself when we start getting into history or political philosophy. Hope I didn’t go too far!

          Good day to you

          • Tom Grasso tomgrasso says:

            Mark, if I understand you right…women's suffrage was a morality issue. Laws prohibiting discrimination are a morality issue. Laws prohibiting states from discrimination based on sexual preference is a morality issue.

            Again, let me state this clearly. Government MUST be involved in the "marriage business" because marriage is not a religious institution in the eyes of the law. It is a legally binding arrangement that grants the "couple" certain rights and privileges. Since homosexual couples are prohibited from marrying in most states, they are denied the "rights and privileges" of heterosexual couples based soley on who they (the homosexual couples) are.

            If you deny government their role in the "marriage business" then you are removing the rights of spouses in all legal methods that are currently enjoyed. It seems you are stuck in this "marriage is a religious thing" for some reason. Remove religion and marriage is nothing more than a contract between two people. Contracts get their power by law, and laws are created by governments. Marriage is no different.

            War and marriage only relate when the marriage dissolves…otherwise the correlation is weak and nothing more than a straw man.

            Finally, it seems you add the "but" only because you fear being labeled an anarchist. That's what gets me most about libertarians…they smell like anarchists, look like anarchists, but put a dress on and somehow believe they aren't anarchists. It will ALWAYS be the "but" you place in your beliefs that causes all credibility to fly out the window. You can't involve government only when you believe it is necessary.

            The role of government is to ensure the rights and safety of its citizens is protected. Since marriage is, and must be, a legal issue government must get involved when a certain minority of its population are discriminated against in enjoying it.

          • Mark Ledbetter says:

            Tom, is it fair to say you are advocating rights for all within the current political structure? It’s a noble and necessary occupation. In my case, I’m imagining how things could be if we go outside the current structure. I think that is also a noble and necessary occupation.

            The society I imagine is simply this: a free society. For the issue at hand, that means anyone can marry anyone since, by doing so, they are not contradicting the central proviso of freedom (you know, the one you are a tad skeptical about, the one that says you are not free to violate another’s freedom.) What would happen in such a society? Obviously, people would marry whoever they wanted, some within a religious body, some not. Not only would you have same sex marriages, you would also have polygamy (Muslims and Mormons), you would likely have reverse polygamy (one woman, multiple men). Who knows what other configurations might arise when people are actually free?

            You worry about contracts. That’s a cinch. It would certainly be normal for people getting married to write a marriage contract. It makes no sense at all to say that contracts are no longer enforceable in court just because the government is no longer in the business of issuing licenses. Insurance, inheritance etc. would certainly be covered by the standard contract.

            And finally, since neither side is any longer trying to monopolize government policy (obviously, since in a free society there IS no government policy), culture wars and demonization of the other, will certainly decrease since neither side is threatening the other side with the raw power of a police state.

            Anyway, the best to you in advocating for improving what we have. I’ll keep imagining what we COULD have.

          • Mark Ledbetter says:

            Tom. Thought I'd say hey over here where likely no one is reading any more.

            Nice new article (Marriage and Sandwiches). Considering the underwhelming (underwhelming is the norm for me here at Ele!) response right here to my idea that govt should not be involved in marriage in any way, including licensing, I get the feeling that I've overstayed my welcome on this issue too (I overstay a lot here at Ele!). Therefore, I've been silent over on Sandwich. Of course, being the argumentative guy that I am (one of many personality flaws!), I'm more than willing. So, if you want my point of view over there, let me know. I'll find some time to jump in. Otherwise, I'll just let any debate develop naturally without my rather unorthodox input. Good day to you!

  15. Marya says:

    Thank you so much for your post. Whatever we give our energy to grows and this is certainly not an ideology that I want to grow.

  16. Dave says:

    Too much hateful rhetoric. You peeps are becoming part of the problemo…..

  17. [...] Bonus: 7 Reasons we Might Want to Stop Talking about Chick-fil-A. [...]

  18. Mark Ledbetter says:

    Right on, Dave. Being a wordy person, I would elaborate. It’s so EASY for us humans to see the logic of our own morality. People here accusing the other side of hatred are taking that easy way out. It IS possible to believe that marriage is only proper between a man and a woman and still be a good person. Don’t tell people who think that way that they are hateful. Tell them, “Fine, but please don’t try to legislate others based on your beliefs.”

    • Tom Grasso tomgrasso says:

      Mark, it is very possible to believe anything and be a good person. It's when you exercise your beliefs in a way that hurts other you cease being "good". I may believe that all men should work for their food and truly be a good person, but when I stand in the way of someone giving a homeless man food and he starves, I cease being good. It's not about beliefs, it's about the cause and effect of those beliefs when exercised.

      Discrimination, like the kind we see exercised by racists and other bigots, is not something generated from love. If it is not generated from a place of love, where would you suggest those who want to treat homosexuals differently from the rest of us comes from? (hint, it's the opposite of love…which is…hhhhmmmmmm).

      • Mark Ledbetter says:

        Tom, I could probably quibble about a few things here, but basically we're lined up. (For anyone interested in a more detailed response, check out the replies to Tom's post above). Still, Dave's point, I think, is something that's seriously missing in most of the discussions here on Ele.

  19. BRV says:

    When you use the term "gay rights," people jump on the "expectation of gays to have special rights." Instead of gay rights, why not just plain old rights like everyone else? NOT special rights. Just the right to keep a job, marry the person you love, etc.

    • cesar says:

      that's a great point BRV. i was actually contemplating this thought yesterday. folks seem to miss the point that we are talking about constitutional rights. look at the uproar that is stewed up when there is even a mention of the banning of firearms?! even in the face of a huge tragedy. or can you imagine what would happen if they decided to ban pornography? it's a fine line. whether you're into firearms, or porno, or some fascist ideology, you have a constitutional right to express within the boundaries of not impeding on another person's constitutional rights. should we give folks who are unable to exercise the freedom to marry a break a tax break? they are a part of society and contributing their share in taxes, but are being excluded? that would be funny. when you start talking $$$, people have a funny way of changing or being a little more flexible with their views.

      when you really think about it, why is this even an issue to vote on? the only people that seem to have an issue with it are the religious. and as far as equating their belief to hate, i don't agree with that. i have many christian friends who i can tell you their decision is not base on hate but on what they believe their scriptures tell them. and i have personally seen the struggle they have with it. for someone to say it IS hate, i would say to watch your arrogance, and perhaps you will get a peek at the hate and aggression that resides within you.

      we should all have the equal right to legally bond our commitment to another human being. this is based on a foundation of love. and we are denying it for some folks.

      with love and chaos..

  20. [...] “issue” involving Chick-fil-A has certainly stirred up a debate. (I love understating the [...]

  21. creator Amy Waterman has all the strategies necessary to help
    resolving conflicts, increase self esteem, find out about forgiveness,
    and re ignite the love that you both once felt. With Amy’s assist you can save your marriage and
    prevent being a divorce statistic.

  22. hi!,I really like your writing very so much! share we be in contact extra about your post on AOL? I need an expert in this house to resolve my problem. May be that’s you! Looking forward to see you.

  23. [...] if I’m all up in Chick-Fil-A’s grill about their CEO’s position, or worked up about Oprah’s hair color, there’s a very [...]

  24. Clark says:

    I was wondering if you ever considered changing the page layout of your site?
    Its very well written; I love what youve got to
    say. But maybe you could a little more in the way of content so people
    could connect with it better. Youve got an awful lot of text for only having
    one or two pictures. Maybe you could space it out better?

  25. viagra says:

    Usually I don’t read article on blogs, however I wish to say that this write-up very compelled me to check out and do it! Your writing style has been surprised me. Thank you, very great article.

  26. Why dont people care about those who are in need anymore? How can we spend millions of dollars to expand civil gay rights programs while there
    are children in need of emergency medica surgeries all over the US? Do you see those cans at gas stations with pictures of children on them? They are
    there because an ignorant group of people spent their money on more gay rights for improving their private bedroom lifestyles instead of helping
    out those in need. How do you put your perverted selfish wants before those in need? What a selfish arrogant country America has become.

Leave a Reply