Canada’s Sun TV stands up for Chick-Fil-A, free speech, and free enterprise

by 1389 on August 4, 2012

in Blazing Cat Fur, Canada, censorship, culture wars, Ezra Levant, media, same-sex 'marriage' / LGBT agenda

Lilley & Coren on Chick-Fil-A

Published on Jul 30, 2012 by SDAMatt2a
Gay Nazi’s on the march.
Dumb name for a restaurant too.

Awww, you’re just jealous because they don’t have Chick-Fil-A in Canada! It’s time for free enterprise to come to the rescue. I suggest some of you Canadian restauranteurs and investors get together and talk to Dan Cathy about setting up franchises.

That said, I’m jealous because we can’t get Sun TV in the US, except via news clips posted on the Internet. If any US cable companies want to increase viewership, I suggest they start carrying Sun TV. When it comes to hard-hitting reporting, Sun beats the heck outta Fox News.

In any event, the name describes what you get, which is a large, juicy filet of boneless chicken breast on a bun with two pickle slices. Side dishes, soft drinks, and more elaborate sandwiches are available too.

Ezra Levant and Kathy Shaidle on Chick-Fil-A

Published on Aug 2, 2012 by SDAMatt2a

(From Five Feet of Fury):

We’re talkin’ Chick-Fil-A!

The Chick-Fil-A boycott contained the seeds of its own destruction:

Successful sixties style boycotts need two ingredients:

The moral high ground and a product/service you, the boycotter, actually use.

Early civil rights leaders demanded that protesters wear their Sunday best and conduct themselves in a dignified manner, the better to win sympathy from average observers.

Needless to say, the online and public behavior of Chick-Fil-A boycotters was the opposite.

(I won’t get into the built-in problem on the launch pad, that not everyone believes that gays can ever have the “moral” high ground anyhow, due to the fact that they’re gay. We may find this attitude repellent but again, this is another flaw in this boycott’s very DNA.)

As well, for class reasons, the activists would never set foot in a Chick-Fil-A anyhow, so their boycott was a joke. It’s like Jews boycotting bacon.

Next: progressives live in the past. The sixties are over.

Once upon a time, they could declare an Age of Aquarius and Archie Bunker could only grumble impotently.

They still think their top down tactics like boycotts will succeed, and they still can, if they contain the two ingredients above.

This boycott was more like the underpants gnome business plan. Too many steps were missing; without laying the proper foundation, the boycott was fated to crumble.

Today, our side has (temporarily I think) access to two parallel media outlets: talk radio and social media. This allows us to mount effective counterattacks immediately.

(Imagine: with today’s technology, everyone could have found out what a dangerous fraud and pseudo-cult leader Cesar Chavez much faster, and the grape boycott could have fizzled sooner.)

Mike Huckabee launched Chick-Fil-A Appreciation Day and set in for August 1 (an easy date to remember.)

Conservative/libertarian social media spread the word.

The result is well known by now.

As I said to Ezra off the air:

If Democrats can’t even pull off a good old fashioned lefty boycott anymore, how the hell do they expect to win an election?

(T-shirt via

(The above video can also be viewed here.)

Kathy Shaidle follows the money, as we should always do:

Exactly: ‘Same sex marriage is a welfare program, not a “right”’

Nazi rainbow flag

Survey the “rights” literature going back to Hobbes.

The word “marriage” never appears unless it’s in relation to women’s property rights.

(No doubt Mill wanted his married girlfriend to get to keep some stuff…)

Again: within living memory, homosexuals mocked the institution of marriage constantly.

When it dawned on them that, thanks to the welfare state, they could use marriage as a way to increase their already significant disposable incomes, they easily guilt-tripped millions of philosophically ignorant straights to play along.

Ben Johnson writes:

They want government benefits, mandatory health insurance coverage, and tax shelters – an unearned wealth transfer from taxpayers or employers to themselves.

One homosexual told CNN it was “unfair” and “un-American” that he could not receive $2,000 a month in Social Security survivor’s benefits from U.S. taxpayers after his “partner” died. In a more costly move, the “husband” of late U.S. Congressman Gerry Studds is now suing the government, because he cannot receive the federal benefits other spouses collect when a congressman dies. (…)

They also demand tax shelters heterosexual couples enjoy. “Queer advocate” Erik Lappman writes, “It is essential that progressives across the United States highlight” the fact that same-sex couples pay “on average at least $1,069 more than identical heterosexual, married couples in taxes.”

There’s a bumper sticker: “Same-sex ‘marriage’: ‘Cause it’s not love if I don’t get a tax break.”

{ 0 comments… add one now }

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: