Chipotle Cancels Boy Scout Event Sponsorship, Reverses Stance Due To Scouts' Gay Ban

  • metta

    Posts: 39104

    Mar 21, 2013 12:30 AM GMT
    Chipotle Cancels Boy Scout Event Sponsorship, Reverses Stance Due To Scouts' Gay Ban

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/20/chipotle-cancels-boy-scout-event-sponsorship_n_2909391.html
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 21, 2013 3:17 AM GMT
    Awesome! Thanks for the great links and stories, as always!
  • Montague

    Posts: 5205

    Mar 21, 2013 3:18 AM GMT
    In b4 the post about going to eat at Chipotle.
  • TroyAthlete

    Posts: 4269

    Mar 21, 2013 3:18 AM GMT
    Good for Chipotle for exercising its right to free speech in support of liberty and equality.
  • Medjai

    Posts: 2671

    Mar 21, 2013 3:22 AM GMT
    Totally unacceptable. The Boy Scouts are a reputable, caring association who are only looking out for the best interests of the children. Watch TroyAthlete have a shitfit over this.
  • TroyAthlete

    Posts: 4269

    Mar 21, 2013 8:00 AM GMT
    Medjai saidTotally unacceptable. The Boy Scouts are a reputable, caring association who are only looking out for the best interests of the children.


    5055032357_69d1d1be72_z.jpg
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 21, 2013 2:39 PM GMT
    Was craving Chipotle yesterday.
  • Medjai

    Posts: 2671

    Mar 21, 2013 3:15 PM GMT
    TroyAthlete said
    Medjai saidTotally unacceptable. The Boy Scouts are a reputable, caring association who are only looking out for the best interests of the children.


    5055032357_69d1d1be72_z.jpg


    Because you seem to have a tantrum every time I post in one of these threads. Doesn't matter what I say. I get the same ridiculous label and zero critical thought from you.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 21, 2013 3:32 PM GMT
    Oh, I'm sure Chik-Fulla-Hate will proudly step in to replace them.
  • TroyAthlete

    Posts: 4269

    Mar 21, 2013 10:08 PM GMT
    Medjai said
    TroyAthlete said
    Medjai saidTotally unacceptable. The Boy Scouts are a reputable, caring association who are only looking out for the best interests of the children.


    5055032357_69d1d1be72_z.jpg


    Because you seem to have a tantrum every time I post in one of these threads. Doesn't matter what I say. I get the same ridiculous label and zero critical thought from you.


    You're lying. It's not true that I "tantrum" no matter "what you say." When I respond to you, it is specifically in response to the times to that you defend homophobes and homophobia. Specifically. To suggest otherwise is nothing but a bold-faced lie.

    And I don't think anybody would agree with your assertion that my disagreement with your unfounded anti-gay apologia lack critical analysis. You're just butt hurt about being called out on it, which is fine and understandable, but to pretend that there is no logical motivation behind the criticisms directed at you is so obviously false that I'm surprised you would even attempt to advance it with a straight face.

    You trying to pretend like you have been the victim of baseless, reason-less attacks is just another example of you refusing to take responsibility for your choice to accept and defend homophobia, which is sad, because you should take it as an opportunity to reflect on why your positions on these issues cause so much blowback. That would help you to grow and to free your mind -- playing the martyr won't.
  • Medjai

    Posts: 2671

    Mar 21, 2013 10:13 PM GMT
    TroyAthlete saidYou're lying. It's not true that I "tantrum" no matter "what you say." When I respond to you, it is specifically in response to the times to that you defend homophobes and homophobia. Specifically. To suggest otherwise is nothing but a bold-faced lie.

    And I don't think anybody would agree with your assertion that my disagreement with your unfounded defenses lack critical analysis. You're just butt hurt about being called out on it, which is find, but to pretend that there is no logical motivation behind the criticisms directed at you is so obviously false that I'm surprised you would even attempt to advance it with a straight face.

    You trying to pretend like you have been the victim of baseless, reason-less attacks is just another example of you refusing to take responsibility for your choice to accept and defend homophobia, which is sad, because you should take it as an opportunity to reflect on why your positions on these issues cause so much blowback. That would help you to grow and to free your mind -- playing the martyr won't.


    On this subject? It's hardly a lie. Every post I've made you've twisted in some way to use your coined term. Especially since I have never defended homophobes or homophobia. I just dont see it everywhere like you, and I do not blindly defend homosexuals regardless of circumstances.

    Actually, a lot of people have agreed with me, on many occasions on many topics. You just ignore them without fail, tossing them aside as "lies" or whatever term you're using that day. You cannot see the forest of opposition for the trees, it seems.

    I'd pay you a lot more attention if your accusations of me were more well thought out, and not just the result of casting a huge net and hoping to find something to support your misguided perspectives.

    I'm not playing a victim. I'd have to be somehow hurt to do that, and you're going to have to try harder than you have to accomplish that. But I absolutely do not defend homophobia, to any degree. I've lost half my family and most of my friends to it, so your assertion that I defend it could not be more wrong.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 21, 2013 10:20 PM GMT
    Man I love Chipotle. Those burrito bowls....dayum.
  • TroyAthlete

    Posts: 4269

    Mar 21, 2013 10:28 PM GMT
    Medjai said

    On this subject? It's hardly a lie. Every post I've made you've twisted in some way to use your coined term. Especially since I have never defended homophobes or homophobia. I just dont see it everywhere like you, and I do not blindly defend homosexuals regardless of circumstances.

    Actually, a lot of people have agreed with me, on many occasions on many topics. You just ignore them without fail, tossing them aside as "lies" or whatever term you're using that day. You cannot see the forest of opposition for the trees, it seems.

    I'd pay you a lot more attention if your accusations of me were more well thought out, and not just the result of casting a huge net and hoping to find something to support your misguided perspectives.

    I'm not playing a victim. I'd have to be somehow hurt to do that, and you're going to have to try harder than you have to accomplish that. But I absolutely do not defend homophobia, to any degree. I've lost half my family and most of my friends to it, so your assertion that I defend it could not be more wrong.


    In fact, you continue to play the victim by continuing to perpetrate the falsehood that there was no reason you have received blowback for your multiple defenses of anti-gay establishments, as if they just appeared out of thin air for no reason at all. Mmm hmm. Sure. Everybody just decided one day to attack you, just because.

    You are wearing blinders. You absolutely have defended homophobes and homophobia more than once. You have repeatedly risen to the defense of organizations under fire for anti-gay behavior, even a mall that kicked out two gays for kissing. You immediately blamed the gays, called them "regressive" and (your words) "excessive," assumed they were playing the "gay card" and implied that the mall probably was correct. You were wrong: the mall admitted they were wrong and apologized That's just one example, and it is obvious to everyone except you that you were defending homophobia and blaming the gays.

    You aren't fooling anybody.

    You obivously do pay attention to my accusation, which obviously struck a nerve within you considering that you brought them up on this forum randomly. Deep down you know it's true: and again I urge to you reflect on and examine the reasons why when confronted with incidents homophobia, your initial (irrational) reaction is to blame the gays.

    You seem unwilling to change or even admit you have a problem, preferring to retreat to poisonous circle of other self-loathing house gays. However, the mere fact that were are having this conversation indicates that in the back of your mind, something got through. Just because you have lost people to homophobia does not change the fact that you have defended homophobia -- and it's all here for everyone to see.
  • Puppymuncher

    Posts: 163

    Mar 21, 2013 10:54 PM GMT
    Medjai saidTotally unacceptable. The Boy Scouts are a reputable, caring association who are only looking out for the best interests of the children. Watch TroyAthlete have a shitfit over this.



    Because it's in the best interests of children to think that being gay is wrong?


    The Boys Scouts organization is obviously homophobic, it's practically public knowledge. Regardless of whatever else they stand for and do, they are homophobic. And by defending them, you are also defending homophobia.


    If you defend a person or organization, you are, in essence, supporting what they stand for. In this case, you are supporting their homophobia.


    I'm not attacking you as a person, I am attacking your statement. Now, if you're gonna try to defend yourself, refute my argument. Go
  • Medjai

    Posts: 2671

    Mar 21, 2013 11:57 PM GMT
    TroyAthlete saidIn fact, you continue to play the victim by continuing to perpetrate the falsehood that there was no reason you have received blowback for your multiple defenses of anti-gay establishments, as if they just appeared out of thin air for no reason at all. Mmm hmm. Sure. Everybody just decided one day to attack you, just because.

    You are wearing blinders. You absolutely have defended homophobes and homophobia more than once. You have repeatedly risen to the defense of organizations under fire for anti-gay behavior, even a mall that kicked out two gays for kissing. You immediately blamed the gays, called them "regressive" and (your words) "excessive," assumed they were playing the "gay card" and implied that the mall probably was correct. You were wrong: the mall admitted they were wrong and apologized That's just one example, and it is obvious to everyone except you that you were defending homophobia and blaming the gays.

    You aren't fooling anybody.

    You obivously do pay attention to my accusation, which obviously struck a nerve within you considering that you brought them up on this forum randomly. Deep down you know it's true: and again I urge to you reflect on and examine the reasons why when confronted with incidents homophobia, your initial (irrational) reaction is to blame the gays.

    You seem unwilling to change or even admit you have a problem, preferring to retreat to poisonous circle of other self-loathing house gays. However, the mere fact that were are having this conversation indicates that in the back of your mind, something got through. Just because you have lost people to homophobia does not change the fact that you have defended homophobia -- and it's all here for everyone to see.


    This can all be addressed with two points:

    1) There is a difference between not blindly supporting homosexuals and supporting homophobia. Just because I'm not always on the side of the gays in a contraversy does not mean I'm for homophobia. It means I don't necessarily think homosexuals are in the right. Subtle difference with huge ramifications.

    2) You're assuming I'm always convinced of the points I make. If you read my posts carefully, you'll see that most of the time I'm presenting an alternative perspective, though it's not always something I back. It's to explore the issue, encourage thought, and see the bigger picture. Yes, sometimes they are my view, but not always. You need to read closer.

    I have never once seen you even consider that any homosexual scandal could be the fault of the homosexual. I have no idea what the statistics are as to where blame lies. However, the fact that you can consider nothing other than the purity and victimization of homosexuals, and not the possibility that they are falliable and occasionally opportunistic speaks volumes.

    Pot, meet kettle.
  • TroyAthlete

    Posts: 4269

    Mar 22, 2013 1:22 AM GMT
    Medjai said
    This can all be addressed with two points:

    1) There is a difference between not blindly supporting homosexuals and supporting homophobia. Just because I'm not always on the side of the gays in a contraversy does not mean I'm for homophobia. It means I don't necessarily think homosexuals are in the right. Subtle difference with huge ramifications.

    2) You're assuming I'm always convinced of the points I make. If you read my posts carefully, you'll see that most of the time I'm presenting an alternative perspective, though it's not always something I back. It's to explore the issue, encourage thought, and see the bigger picture. Yes, sometimes they are my view, but not always. You need to read closer.

    I have never once seen you even consider that any homosexual scandal could be the fault of the homosexual. I have no idea what the statistics are as to where blame lies. However, the fact that you can consider nothing other than the purity and victimization of homosexuals, and not the possibility that they are falliable and occasionally opportunistic speaks volumes.

    Pot, meet kettle.


    You're a liar, there are myriad examples all over this forum of me criticizing the behavior of gays -- starting with my criticism of your behavior. Do I think you house gays are pure? The fact that I'm arguing with you disproves your own argument. All people are fallible, so what? The point is whether people, fallible or not, deserve basic civil rights and equal protection. They do.

    There is also a difference between acknowledging homophobia and blindly supporting homosexuals. The difference is iluminated by facts.Blind support is not the issue, right vs. wrong and true vs. false is the issue. In the mall example, the facts showed the mall was wrong, as the mall later admitted. You ignored the facts and jumped to several false assumptions in defense of homophobia. Why?

    Because you are too worried about being seen as a "blind supporter of homosexuals" (and what's wrong with that, by the way?). If you had simply looked at the facts, you wouldn't have ended up on the wrong side, on the side of homophobia. Saying you are "not always" on the side of gays is like saying bin Laden was "not always" on the side of America. Instead of worrying about supporting gays too much, you should worry about being "on the side" of the facts, then you would end up on the RIGHT side because the facts almost never support those who seek to deny liberty and equality to others.

    Having been called out for your slavish defenses of bigotry, you now want to try to pretend you might not "believe" what you're posting. I don't buy it, because it's not that difficult. 9/11 was a tragedy -- what is the alternative viewpoint? Jim Crow was wrong -- and the alternative view is hat?

    Gays deserve liberty and equal rights. Period. There is no valid alternative view. Freedom is not rocket science. It doesn't require reading between the lines. So no, I'm not going to read nonsense closer. If it's nonsense, it should be called nonsense, and your suggestion that the mall was right in kicking out gays for kissing was nonsense.

    As to me not admitting when gays are wrong, you're lying again: in the thread about the gay guy being beat up by police, I came down on the side of the police. That's just the latest example. So perhaps it's you who needs to "read closer."
  • Medjai

    Posts: 2671

    Mar 22, 2013 4:28 AM GMT
    TroyAthlete said
    You're a liar, there are myriad examples all over this forum of me criticizing the behavior of gays -- starting with my criticism of your behavior. Do I think you house gays are pure? The fact that I'm arguing with you disproves your own argument. All people are fallible, so what? The point is whether people, fallible or not, deserve basic civil rights and equal protection. They do.


    This whole liar thing is old. It's inflammatory and unnecessary. You're trying to get a rise out of me by using strong accusations. Try again.

    You are against gays on this site, but you have never, that I've seen, sided against any gay in the media.

    TroyAthlete saidThere is also a difference between acknowledging homophobia and blindly supporting homosexuals. The difference is iluminated by facts.Blind support is not the issue, right vs. wrong and true vs. false is the issue. In the mall example, the facts showed the mall was wrong, as the mall later admitted. You ignored the facts and jumped to several false assumptions in defense of homophobia. Why?


    Exactly. At the time there was very little information released, and it was difficult to say. I still think that was more a political move, but you'll disagree. You, idiotically too, believe that straight people have/never will be kicked out because of excessive PDAs, regardless of all the people who claimed to have regularly observed otherwise.

    TroyAthlete saidBecause you are too worried about being seen as a "blind supporter of homosexuals" (and what's wrong with that, by the way?). If you had simply looked at the facts, you wouldn't have ended up on the wrong side, on the side of homophobia. Saying you are "not always" on the side of gays is like saying bin Laden was "not always" on the side of America. Instead of worrying about supporting gays too much, you should worry about being "on the side" of the facts, then you would end up on the RIGHT side because the facts almost never support those who seek to deny liberty and equality to others.


    Blind support of anything is bad. It's called religion, and makes you a blithering idiot.

    That is exactly what I strive for. The fact is, in most cases that we've clashed, the facts were in short supply. Yet you insisted that the homosexuals involved could do no wrong, while I suggested that there may bet more to it and the fault may lie with them. It some cases, it does too.

    TroyAthlete saidHaving been called out for your slavish defenses of bigotry, you now want to try to pretend you might not "believe" what you're posting. I don't buy it, because it's not that difficult. 9/11 was a tragedy -- what is the alternative viewpoint? Jim Crow was wrong -- and the alternative view is hat?


    Go back and read them all again. They're unedited. I even mention in those threads that they were suggestions not, a point you seem to constantly gloss over. A point you seem to often miss in your sycophantic defense.

    TroyAthlete saidGays deserve liberty and equal rights. Period. There is no valid alternative view. Freedom is not rocket science. It doesn't require reading between the lines. So no, I'm not going to read nonsense closer. If it's nonsense, it should be called nonsense, and your suggestion that the mall was right in kicking out gays for kissing was nonsense.


    I could not agree more. I look forward to the day we are equals, and resent that we are often a special group given special treatment for political reasons. It des set us back, it brews animosity, and only widens the divide between us and those we are attempting to convince. I want to see us maturely deal with issues separate from sexuality, because it should be a nonissue, and stop whistle blowing every time something comes up. Every time something occurs involving a homosexual doesn't mean it happened because s/he was a homosexual.

    TroyAthlete saidAs to me not admitting when gays are wrong, you're lying again: in the thread about the gay guy being beat up by police, I came down on the side of the police. That's just the latest example. So perhaps it's you who needs to "read closer."


    You did at the beginning. I'll recognize that. However, you quickly changed face and attacked my posts several times with the exact opposite stance, so I don't think you can refer to that example effectively.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 22, 2013 4:35 AM GMT
    Medjai saidTotally unacceptable. The Boy Scouts are a reputable, caring association who are only looking out for the best interests of the children. Watch TroyAthlete have a shitfit over this.


    In other words: A is wrong but B is right so who the fuck cares about A.

    Your logic surely is flawless.
  • Medjai

    Posts: 2671

    Mar 22, 2013 4:41 AM GMT
    charlitos saidIn other words: A is wrong but B is right so who the fuck cares about A.

    Your logic surely is flawless.


    You completely missed the fine print. Even TroyAthlete caught it.

    I actually think this move is great. It's a free market at work, and exactly what I love to see.
  • TroyAthlete

    Posts: 4269

    Mar 23, 2013 9:50 PM GMT
    Medjai said
    This whole liar thing is old. It's inflammatory and unnecessary. You're trying to get a rise out of me by using strong accusations. Try again.

    You are against gays on this site, but you have never, that I've seen, sided against any gay in the media.

    Exactly. At the time there was very little information released, and it was difficult to say. I still think that was more a political move, but you'll disagree. You, idiotically too, believe that straight people have/never will be kicked out because of excessive PDAs, regardless of all the people who claimed to have regularly observed otherwise.

    Blind support of anything is bad. It's called religion, and makes you a blithering idiot.

    That is exactly what I strive for. The fact is, in most cases that we've clashed, the facts were in short supply. Yet you insisted that the homosexuals involved could do no wrong, while I suggested that there may bet more to it and the fault may lie with them. It some cases, it does too.

    I could not agree more. I look forward to the day we are equals, and resent that we are often a special group given special treatment for political reasons. It des set us back, it brews animosity, and only widens the divide between us and those we are attempting to convince. I want to see us maturely deal with issues separate from sexuality, because it should be a nonissue, and stop whistle blowing every time something comes up. Every time something occurs involving a homosexual doesn't mean it happened because s/he was a homosexual.

    You did at the beginning. I'll recognize that. However, you quickly changed face and attacked my posts several times with the exact opposite stance, so I don't think you can refer to that example effectively.


    If you stop telling lies, I'll stop calling you a liar. You said I don't ever think gays are wrong, that's was not true. I know you want to minimize the fact of the example I gave you, because it again shows that you cannot take responsibility for what you say and do, particularly when it comes to your lying. I know you have a problem with recognizing facts and integrating them into your thinking, but that fact is you lied. And if you continue to lie, I will again call you a liar. Don't like it? Don't lie. It's not that hard.

    For example, you just lied again. You just said I don't think straight people have been kicked out for excessive PDA. That's a lie. What I said was straight people are not kicked out for innocent kissing like the gays in question were. That's different. You have real problems the truth -- you might need to see a therapist because your lying seems pathological.

    The statement that "blind support of anything is bad" is a false statement. There is nothing wrong with blind support of freedom and equality. for example. But again, blind support is not the issue because nobody here is blindly supporting gays. You made that up. We support efforts to obtain liberty, and we criticize the gay community's flaws. It happens daily here.

    The statement that I said homosexuals could do not wrong, is another example of what a bold-faced pathological liar you are. I never said. I said that in this specific case, the mall should not have kicked out these dues. I was right, as the mall later admitted with an acknowledgement and apology. You were wrong.

    You are also lying and not telling the whole truth about your reaction. You didn't just say "we don't have all the facts" and leave it at that. You took it further claiming the gays we "regressive" and "excessive" and playing the gay card. These are your own words. You were wrong, and you were wrong because you ignored that facts were in short supply, jumped to a bunch of false assumptions about the gay couple, and sided with the bigots as you almost always do.

    Progress is not forged by letting bigots get away with bigotry. When bigotry occurs, the whistle should be blown. Millions of bad things happen to the millions of American gays every day -- gays do not blame EVERY bad thing that happens to them on them being gay. You keep going back to that, but that's not the point. The point is these SPECIFIC incidents. In these specific incidents, bigots are almost never right. Gays don't blame their milk spoiling or getting a parking ticket on being gay. Gays blame specific incidents of discrimination on bigotry, and they are completely right to do so.
  • TroyAthlete

    Posts: 4269

    Mar 23, 2013 9:55 PM GMT
    yourname2000 said
    Troy, you're talking to someone who refers to HIV+ guys as having the plague and recommends people drink gatorade (replete with HFCS and vegetable oil) over coconut water because the latter causes heart attacks. icon_rolleyes.gif Save your breath....no intelligent life to be found there at all. Your considerable talents are best spent elsewhere, handsome. icon_wink.gif


    Really? Yikes. Thanks for the heads up. I know Medjai had some cognitive deficits, but I didn't realize how bad it really is. I'm starting to think he might have some sort of diagnosible mental disorder.

    I think it's necessary to continue to combat his lies and false statements with facts and truth, though, just to prevent other people from buying into the bullshit that spews forth from his keyboard. People need to know, clearly, that his kind of thinking is abnormal and immoral.