Dear Nutz

[wootah]

I hope you are complaining & posting pictures of genitals on their messageboards as well. That'll teach them a lesson.

Have fun on your Belize trip. I'll be sure to check the vacation pictures thread on a regular basis from now on.

[Deputy Nutz]

I went to Chik Fil A for the first time today. It was quite tasty, but the line for the drive through wrapped around the building twice, so it took like 10 minutes to get my sandwich and there were no parking spots to go inside and complain. That business must be very successful with so much traffic!

You motherfucker. See what you did with this bullshit? I hope you drown on your boat trip.

[MJZiggy]

It doesn't cost the person filing the lawsuit jack shit to do so. Although I've seen several of them empty their savings to pay a "lawyer" in the hopes of striking it rich because they think the companies will just roll over and give them tens of thousands of dollars and the lawyers certainly aren't going to disillusion them of that as long as they're getting paid. Most of the time, when these people lose these suits that cost the companies tens of thousands of dollars to defend, the most the judge will order them to pay is copying costs, and that's only in the most frivolous cases.

As far as your website goes, I'm sure a "news" site that covers "Here's What It Costs To Compete In Dressage" in it's politics section and runs the same newsfeed as dailykos and huffingtonpost and glaad is a wonderfully unbiased source of the most important information of the day. In the words of Tyler Durden, "sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken." Likewise, giving your website some ubiquitously ambiguous name does not make it a reliable source of information. Like I said before, let's see how many of these sites report CFA's legal response that lays out their side of the story, their method of, and reasons for her termination. I'm guessing none. Not even businessinsider.

Was there or was there not a lawsuit filed? If so, I don't really care the source of the actually true story. Just because it wasn't posted on Fox news, does not make the story inaccurate. Pray give us your source for CFA's response.

[SkinBasket]

Was there or was there not a lawsuit filed? If so, I don't really care the source of the actually true story. Just because it wasn't posted on Fox news, does not make the story inaccurate. Pray give us your source for CFA's response.

I'm not saying it's not real. It's just not news. The only reason it's being published anywhere is because it advances an agenda. It's no more complicated than that.

I doubt CFA has filed their response brief yet, but I'm sure they will in a timely fashion. I challenge you to find it when they do. Because I'm sure as shit I won't be able to find it on any of the sites "reporting" the filing, much less any other respectable source of actual news. I guess I assumed that since you were so interested in the case to bring it to our attention that you would follow it to it's conclusion, not just to the sensational, one-sided headline. Then again, that dressage article looked pretty distracting so I can understand if you get sidetracked.

[SkinBasket]

You motherfucker. See what you did with this bullshit? I hope you drown on your boat trip.

Fuck you. The sandwich was great.

[MJZiggy]

I'm not saying it's not real. It's just not news. The only reason it's being published anywhere is because it advances an agenda. It's no more complicated than that.

I doubt CFA has filed their response brief yet, but I'm sure they will in a timely fashion. I challenge you to find it when they do. Because I'm sure as shit I won't be able to find it on any of the sites "reporting" the filing, much less any other respectable source of actual news. I guess I assumed that since you were so interested in the case to bring it to our attention that you would follow it to it's conclusion, not just to the sensational, one-sided headline. Then again, that dressage article looked pretty distracting so I can understand if you get sidetracked.

What's your source for CFA's response? (Actually I'm more interested because your response was so vehement.)

[Freak Out]

Monkey Town.

[Deputy Nutz]

Fuck you. The sandwich was great.

I don't like Chik Fillet, Their buns are weak and ruin the sandwich.

[SkinBasket]

What's your source for CFA's response? (Actually I'm more interested because your response was so vehement.)

That's one of the points, if you had read my post. They probably have not responded yet. Although the courts are usually very generous in allowing complainants suing companies a great deal leeway on their end as far as deadlines and evidence goes, the companies are expected to file their briefs on time even if the lead attorney dies, so I'm sure it will be filed soon. In other words, there is only one side to this "story," which isn't a story, but an astoundingly common occurrence in American business. And I'm telling you that none of your news sources are going to report their response when they do file it, because it does not fit their sociopolitical narrative. I would love if you can prove me wrong when that brief is filed. Until then, you have one half of an obviously unbalanced narrative being reported by websites with just as obvious political and social agendas. If you really feel this lawsuit is somehow different than the countless others just like it being filed every day, maybe you should wait for both sides of the story - if you can ever find it.

I hope you don't feel my responses are "vehement." They are common sense sprung from the patience of truth. I don't want you feel like you're being attacked for having the truth revealed to you, because that could make you shy away from it in the future as well. I have to admit, truth is an overwhelming thing, but it will always make you stronger.

[SkinBasket]

I hope you are complaining & posting pictures of genitals on their messageboards as well. That'll teach them a lesson.

Yeah, I post pictures of genitals everywhere I go.

Have fun on your Belize trip. I'll be sure to check the vacation pictures thread on a regular basis from now on.

If you're lucky and they don't evacuate us, you'll get to see the inside of a hurricane.

[MJZiggy]

That's one of the points, if you had read my post. They probably have not responded yet. Although the courts are usually very generous in allowing complainants suing companies a great deal leeway on their end as far as deadlines and evidence goes, the companies are expected to file their briefs on time even if the lead attorney dies, so I'm sure it will be filed soon. In other words, there is only one side to this "story," which isn't a story, but an astoundingly common occurrence in American business. And I'm telling you that none of your news sources are going to report their response when they do file it, because it does not fit their sociopolitical narrative. I would love if you can prove me wrong when that brief is filed. Until then, you have one half of an obviously unbalanced narrative being reported by websites with just as obvious political and social agendas. If you really feel this lawsuit is somehow different than the countless others just like it being filed every day, maybe you should wait for both sides of the story - if you can ever find it.

I hope you don't feel my responses are "vehement." They are common sense sprung from the patience of truth. I don't want you feel like you're being attacked for having the truth revealed to you, because that could make you shy away from it in the future as well. I have to admit, truth is an overwhelming thing, but it will always make you stronger.

Your sarcasm and vitriol in my book amount to vehemence. You say I have no possible reason for posting the story in the first place, but you forget my line of work and that I've worked on a team that had to deal with crisis corporate communications before. This shit and the corporate response is absolutely fascinating to me. And by the way. What I posted was absolutely 100% true. They have other things to worry about. That's all I said. But nice job making completely unsubstantiated and made up responses to it and calling them truth. It is just as possible that the accusations are true (especially considering she had just had an above average review) as the possibility that they are false. It was not reported that the accusations were true, only what they were. And in the shitstorm that CFA finds itself in, this lawsuit is most definitely newsworthy. If you don't think so, then you've never been taught a thing in journalism class.

[SkinBasket]

And in the shitstorm that CFA finds itself in, this lawsuit is most definitely newsworthy. If you don't think so, then you've never been taught a thing in journalism class.

Record sales and a groundswell of public support absent one dollar of additional advertising is a shitstorm? No wonder you folks think Obama's doing a great job on the economy.

Like I said, I guess it's a "story," if you buy into the sociopolitical narrative that drives it and if you're only interested in one side of an otherwise unremarkable event. I'll admit, I've never taken a "journalism" class before, but I'm fairly confident it would not have changed any of the logical shortcomings I've pointed out regarding the "reporting" of this lawsuit. If po' ol' Mrs. Honeycutt had won a decision against this franchise owner, who I think you probably know is not the owner of CFA, then maybe this would be an interesting sidenote. But all she's done is filed an unsubstantiated lawsuit, probably hoping that given the timing, she could hope to get a little more out of a settlement.

All I've asked that you do is consider that you've only read one necessarily biased side of an event that's only considered remarkable by the people who accept that bias as de facto truth. I'm not sure where you've come up with all this other hullabaloo about vitriol and unsubstantiated responses, so I can't respond to that. Just like the CFA owner cannot respond to these falsified charges of gay hate that have been manufactured from the statement of his deeply held religious beliefs. Religious beliefs that have been answered with left wing hate, vitriol, intolerance, and juvenile retaliatory "kiss-ins."

I would say using government on any level to punish one man's freedom of speech (after falsifying what he said) and religion for political gain is the only real "shitstorm" that's come out of this, and the reason why this issue has resonated with so many people across the nation is that they agree.

[SkinBasket]

I don't like Chik Fillet, Their buns are weak and ruin the sandwich.

Your buns are weak.

[MJZiggy]

Record sales and a groundswell of public support absent one dollar of additional advertising is a shitstorm? No wonder you folks think Obama's doing a great job on the economy.

Like I said, I guess it's a "story," if you buy into the sociopolitical narrative that drives it and if you're only interested in one side of an otherwise unremarkable event. I'll admit, I've never taken a "journalism" class before, but I'm fairly confident it would not have changed any of the logical shortcomings I've pointed out regarding the "reporting" of this lawsuit. If po' ol' Mrs. Honeycutt had won a decision against this franchise owner, who I think you probably know is not the owner of CFA, then maybe this would be an interesting sidenote. But all she's done is filed an unsubstantiated lawsuit, probably hoping that given the timing, she could hope to get a little more out of a settlement.

All I've asked that you do is consider that you've only read one necessarily biased side of an event that's only considered remarkable by the people who accept that bias as de facto truth. I'm not sure where you've come up with all this other hullabaloo about vitriol and unsubstantiated responses, so I can't respond to that. Just like the CFA owner cannot respond to these falsified charges of gay hate that have been manufactured from the statement of his deeply held religious beliefs. Religious beliefs that have been answered with left wing hate, vitriol, intolerance, and juvenile retaliatory "kiss-ins."

I would say using government on any level to punish one man's freedom of speech (after falsifying what he said) and religion for political gain is the only real "shitstorm" that's come out of this, and the reason why this issue has resonated with so many people across the nation is that they agree.

The accusations of "gay hate" did not stem from his statement, rather from his millions in donations to a group that is listed as a "hate group." That is where the shitstorm came from. Did you read the complaint? There are quite a few demotions and terminations listed there. While the timing may be intended to play off of the existing controversy, the EEOC has already reviewed the case. How do you know that they didn't ask CFA for comment and they declined as any good PR firm would advise them to do?

[SkinBasket]

The accusations of "gay hate" did not stem from his statement, rather from his millions in donations to a group that is listed as a "hate group." That is where the shitstorm came from.

Oh, so he didn't actually say anything. It would be marvelous if we could apply this same standard to other folks. Maybe we should dig up some New Party statements and apply them to the President. Or better yet, his mentor, Frank Marshall Davis. Maybe some quotes from his church he attended for decades? Surely they are closer to the President than some group that defends the original definition of marriage is to the owner of CFA. I also wonder who labeled whatever this group this is as a "hate group?" What are the specific statements that are so horrible? Because I haven't heard them. All I've heard is that CFA hates gays because it's owner believes in the religious definition of marriage. The "hate group" tie in is pretty weak at best. At worst, it's an excuse to hate and punish a man for his free speech and religious beliefs.

But I have seen plenty of hateful messages hoping for the death of religious folks and those who eat at CFA from your wonderful defenders of love and tolerance.

Did you read the complaint? There are quite a few demotions and terminations listed there. While the timing may be intended to play off of the existing controversy, the EEOC has already reviewed the case. How do you know that they didn't ask CFA for comment and they declined as any good PR firm would advise them to do?

LOL. Never worked a fast food job before? High turnover isn't a fancy desert and assuming there aren't legitimate, legal reasons for those actions is again buying into the bias of a complainant brief as truth. Why would the EEOC ask CFA for a "comment?" CFA will either settle or run through the slog of deposing and arguing the case based on their legal philosophy. Some companies fight them for the principle, spending far more than it would cost to settle, and others simply settle through arbitration and move on. I doubt they're ever going to offer any "comment" on an ongoing legal matter, or any resolved legal matter, for that matter.

And again, this lawsuit is filed against a franchise owner, not the owner of CFA, so I'm not sure how you're tying them together, other than to say anything bad that happens is their fault and they are guilty of whatever charges are leveled against them by default.