Did you read the article? Part of their meal plans go directly to them regardless of whether the students eat there or not.

"The Holocaust illustrates the consequences of prejudice, racism and stereotyping on a society. It forces us to examine the responsibilities of citizenship and confront the powerful ramifications of indifference and inaction. "
Tim Holden

Studen funds, through Chick, end up supporting Uganda's "kill the gays" bill among other anti-gay laws.

"Uganda’s “Kill The Gays” bill, also known as the anti-homosexuality bill, has received worldwide attention for its provision mandating the death penalty for anyone convicted of the “crime” of homosexuality, anyone convicted of same-sex rape, anyone who is classified as a “serial offender,” and even anyone with HIV. Other provisions demand life in prison for being gay or for having same-sex sex. Jail sentences are also mandated for people who simply know someone who is gay and not reporting them to the police within 72 hours."

http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/chick-fil-a-profits-are-supporting-ugandas-kill-the-gays-bill/politics/2012/08/01/45430

It is easy for those who aren't personally affected by the prejudice and legal discrimination Chick promotes through funding anitgay organizations, to dismiss them as trivial. But for those who fear for their lives as well as those whose families are harmed by the anti-gay laws Chick spends millions to support, your characterization of this issue is insensitive at best. The prejudice and discrimination Chick spend millions to promote, results in needless suffering and death here and around the world.

As the article mentions, this is not advancing an opinion, but about Chick spending student funds, to support organizations that support laws that harm gay people here and around the world. Those organizations lobby for laws that harm gay people. Some don't want student funds going to support needless suffering and death.

It isn't about free speech, but about spending student funds to support harmful laws that result in needless suffering and death.

Harming others needlessly is not a Christian value. This is about Chick spending millions to harm others.

As the article explains, student funds go to the company even if students never eat there.

This isn't just about ideas, but rather should student funds go toward supporting laws that harm and kill gay people.

While I would normally agree with you about tolerating and accepting ideas that are different to your own....

Following what Dan said, this is not about accepting others' views. This is about money being put into laws and organizations that are wanting to suppress the rights of fellow citizens.This is not about how Chik-Fil-A is run by people who are against gay marriage, this is not a war of just morals.

This is about allowing a company's profits to be consciously used to keep a group of our own fellow Americans from having same rights that we do. What Chik-Fil-A says with their mouths is not important, so much as where they put their money. The actions speak far more than any words.

Sounds like maybe the Student Senate doesn't understand this contract arrangement as well. They should be protesting the nature of the contract from a business standpoint. Where was the School of Business when this contract was written and negotiated? Another failed education curriculum. Taxpayers and students should demand a renegotiation of such a contract. Apparently the members of the Student Senate aren't putting their education into practice.

HUH? You mean if someone buys a burger at MickeyD's Chick-fil-A get the money? So, if I started a md pie shop there I wouldn't actually have to sell any to make money?

Again, this isn't about free speech, but about spending student funds to support harmful laws that result in needless suffering and death.

Go back and read the article. Whether a student gets food or not from there, money from they're meal plan goes directly to Chick-Fil-A.

The article does not say the money is transferred whether they eat there or not. That wouldn't make sense. More likely, the student can pay using their meal plan...in which case the money is transferred.

Employers SHOULD be put out of business if what they are doing is immoral and unjust.

So the students don't pay any of their own bills or their own student loans, Paul?

Why don't you tell me, Matt, you seem to be in the know about everything. BTW, it's not the "students" in general, it's 14 students on the Student Senate. I'd be willing to take odds that my comment is closer to the truth than yours.
People, who don't even patronize the store, feel discriminated just by its presence on campus. That doesn't even deserve a response.

Paul, you said "parents" as if they were the only ones footing the bill. Where's your bootstraps love of the average American making it on his or her own?

P.S. I got help from mom and dad, but still pay my student loans. I doubt you have the inside track on this one--not that there's one to have.

Look, Matt, the finances are only part of the story, not that I still don't hold to my challenge that I'd take the odds that my synopsis of the situation was closer than yours. Parents don't expect to have their kids brainwashed by the academic literati who depend on tenure to secure their incomes. Frankly, I know a lot of people who like Chick-fil-A and appreciate the stand that the owners have made for family values. I would therefore be highly offended if I did not have access to Chick-fil-A. Additionally, I have heard of no one who was insulted when ordering at Chick-fil-A and made to fell less than human because of their sexual preferences or religious affiliations. As a matter of fact, I've heard and seen just the opposite.

OK, so let's agree that each of us thinks he has his finger on the pulse. Then what? Which literati were brainwashing college riots during the Civil Rights movement? Didn't we have a much more violent and dangerous youth culture in this country at that time? And you want to knock these kids for going through the process?

How about this one: if you're really a free-market economy fella, then why wouldn't social consciousness be a marketable attribute?

Or how about this: if you were an unwilling participant in an unjust system—say one that didn't spend a collective pile of money to which you contributed much in a way with which you agreed (jeez, I swear I've heard an argument like this somewhere before)—wouldn't you want to speak up for yourself, if not for your financial investment?

While individual workers at a specific Chick may be equally polite to everyone, that is not the primary issue. In addition to using public funds to subsidize them, the primary complaint is that for many years, Chick has given millions to several organizations that promote prejudice and discrimination against gay people in a wide variety of ways, causing harm in a wide variety of ways, here and around the world. Family values should include valuing all families, and treating others the way we want to be treated, not trying to use the law and prejudice to harm them.

It isn't just trying to "cure the gays", or opposition to marriage equality, or opposition to DADT repeal, ENDA, hate crime protections, or supporting repressive laws in other countries, but also about promoting an irrational, scientifically unsupportable prejudice that inevitably results in needless suffering and death.

Matt, as a matter of fact students are not paying their loans back....

The percentage of borrowers who defaulted on their federal student loans within two years of their first payment jumped to 9.1% in fiscal year 2011, up from 8.8% the previous year, according to U.S. Department of Education

The percentage of borrowers who defaulted within three years of their first payments was 13.4%, down slightly from 13.8%.

Just another bailout away.......

I am also willing to bet that 98% of students don't pay many if any of their own bills either. Don't you know how hard it is to be a student, own a Chinese outsourced made IPhone and be an Occupier these days - who has time to work and pay bills???

Stop it, Joe Taxpayer, Matt is an "editor" and a "professional." Aren't you as impressed as I am?
Go ahead, Matt, we're waiting.

So the threshold for statistical analysis is now what you're wiling to bet?

Paul--easy on the quotation marks, abuse of punctuation is grounds for detention on Schoolhouse Rocks.

By the way, Joe Taxpayer, the student debt researcher quoted in this article says that it is "both puzzling and disturbing that so many student-loan debtors are still going into default, given that the government’s income-based repayment program, which allows low-income or unemployed debtors to make lower monthly payments, or even to forgo payment, has been in effect for three years."

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/29/education/report-shows-more-borrows-defaulting-on-student-loans.html

Furthermore, the research her institute uncovered said that students at for-profit colleges—Stockton, I believe, is not—default on their loans at twice the rate as students who attend not-for-profit colleges:

http://projectonstudentdebt.org/pub_view.php?idx=857

I suppose you can argue that it's a chicken-and-egg question (forgive the proximity of the pun). Are students defaulting because the cost of a degree outweighs their ability to earn its value once they enter the job market? Or should they seek jobs that do not require bachelor's degrees (at minimum) to avoid entering the workforce in debt?

Matt,

"....government’s income-based repayment program, which allows low-income or unemployed debtors to make lower monthly payments, or even to forgo payment, has been in effect for three years."

you mean the Government that borrows 40% of every dollar it spends is lending our money and doesn't even expect to get paid back? Taxpayers are getting fleeced yet again.

How does a low income person qualify for loans if they cannot pay them back?

Sounds just like the housing debacle.

You cited the NYT? Really, what's next WaPOO? Those papers are so irrelevant which is why their revenues and customers are down.

Stockton is for profit? Then why do they receive $20 million a year in state aid paid courtesy of the taxpayers, well at least those who actually pay taxes.

I expect people who take out loans to pay them back. It's not asking too much now is it.

So your answer is to misread what's written and then knock the source providing it? The person cited has an independent research operation that studies student debt. And by the way, student loan debt is some of "the best debt" that people can carry, so we are told, because of the flexibility of the repayment terms. The government isn't necessarily securing it, they're sanctioning predatory lenders and oppressive terms, while allowing forbearance and delayed repayments *while people are in school*, not forever. And no, I didn't say Stockton is a for-profit college; I said just the opposite.

Matt, I misread your comment on Stockton.

As for your latest "And by the way, student loan debt is some of "the best debt" that people can carry, so we are told, because of the flexibility of the repayment terms. The government isn't necessarily securing it, they're sanctioning predatory lenders and oppressive terms, while allowing forbearance and delayed repayments *while people are in school*, not forever"

What student loans are issued by predatory lenders?

How is a unsecured loan one of the "best debts" and if it's so good why are defaults near 10%? No bank or company could survive on 10% non performing loans?

Taxpayers shouldn't be subsidizing student loans especially when nearly 50% are not contributing taxes to do so. If someone cannot get a loan based on their credit and ability to repay, that's not the rest of our problem. This is more nanny state BS especially when we don't have the money to begin with and have to borrow it to then lend it to then have it not repaid.

1. Please don't cite this tired and misleading saw that 50 percent of Americans do not contribute to tax payments; they are not taxed because they make so negligible a salary as to not be taxed:

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3505

2. Student loan debt is not limited to financial aid lenders, and there are many of those who either issue predatory terms or who buy up student loan debt and then jack the rates:

http://money.cnn.com/2012/10/22/pf/college/student-loan-debt/index.html

3. Here's a great breakdown on why student loans are not a bailout issue, as you claim, and some perspective on how other countries handle them:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Student_loan

"Federal Student loans are generally less expensive than private student loans. However, the federal student lending program still generates billions of dollars in profit for the government each year, because the interest payments exceed the government's own borrowing costs, loan losses, and administrative costs.

"Losses on student loans are extremely low, even when students default, in part because these loans cannot be discharged in bankruptcy unless repaying the loan would create an "undue hardship" for the student borrower and his or her dependents."

Tired and misleading....how can a fact be misleading? 47% pay ZERO FEDERAL INCOME TAX for whatever reason. It's indisputable. That means of the $1.2 Trillion a year the IRS takes in from individual income taxes and Obama spends, 47% contributed nothing to yet they think it's their birthright to decide how to spend it.

Please tell me you have a clue about the Federal Budget and who pays income taxes. Please......

We're so far afield from the topic at hand, but I'll indulge your opinion here.

I am reacting to the characterization that there is a percentage of people who you said don't contribute because they don't have a taxable income, and therefore have a misguided sense of entitlement to participate in the political process. That's in no way what our constitution guarantees, and it's misleading and bizarre of you to conflate the two things.

Do you need a refresher on who the famous 47 percent are?

http://www.offthechartsblog.org/five-points-worth-remembering-about-taxes-and-the-poor/

I mean, where are we in this conversation at this point?

>> Please don't cite this tired and misleading saw that 50 percent of Americans do not contribute to tax payments; they are not taxed because they make so negligible a salary as to not be taxed:

I can't believe the pathetic nature of your argument. They don't pay any federal income taxes, Matt, what's so hard to understand about that? Now when someone doesn't pay any federal income tax, exactly what right do they have to demand more from me to pay for what they want from the government?

Listen, Matt, wherever you got your college education, go back and sue for a refund. because "you was hawnswaggled."

Matt still trying to defend the 47% are you? Here's a nugget for you. 47 million receive food stamps. Is the 53% or the 47% paying for them?

Joe, will you grant that it's not inconceivable that people who are on public assistance may have paid into those programs prior to needing them, or that they will contribute to them again in the future right? It's not a mutually exclusive arrangement.

Did you read the link I posted last time? The same people in "the 47%" still pay local, excise, and payroll taxes. Nearly 2/3 of them are employed, and the others are either elderly or disabled and/or students.

Let's be clear, Matt...

>> 1. Chick-fil-A is in hot water because they've donated money to political groups that lobbied the U.S. Congress *NOT* to condemn the nation of Uganda for passing a law that would legalize the execution of confessed homosexuals.

That is a rabid distortion of the truth but I'm sure that doesn't concern you.

Paul that was a rabid distortion of English, but I respect that you signed your name.

In 2010, as Scott Wooledge notes and details in his post at Daily Kos, the Family Research Council, a certified anti-gay hate group run by Tony Perkins, spent $25,000 lobbying Congress to NOT condemn Uganda’s “Kill The Gays” bill. http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/chick-fil-a-profits-are-supporting-ugandas-kill-the-gays-bill/politics/2012/08/01/45430

As a matter of fact the concern was for... "language it contained and to remove sweeping and inaccurate assertions that homosexual conduct is internationally recognized as a fundamental human right."
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2012/08/02/No-Chickfila-Did-Not-Support-Legislation-To-Kill-The-Gays

Fact: Homosexual conduct is not internationally recognized as a fundamental human right.

If I was homosexual and had my druthers, I would rather live in the USA and eat at Chick-fil-A than live in any other country that supposedly "recognize homosexuality as a fundamental human right."

>> a rabid distortion of English
I assume you are referring to your comments, Matt.

Paul, please leave the jokes to the professionals.

Breitbart? Do you want to have a link race about this? Is this what passes for discussion for you on Thanksgiving?

Okay, I'll disallow Breitbart, Alex Jones, and Drudge, and then you get three selections of your choice: the NYT? ProPublica? AlterNet? NPR? CNN? There's so many to choose from.

You want Snopes?
http://www.snopes.com/politics/sexuality/chickfila.asp

How about the vox populi?
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2012/07/25/chick-fil-a-has-completely-lost-control-of-its-facebook-page/

Or the centrist view of The Economist:
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2012/08/conscientious-consumption-and-culture-war

Take your pick, Paul. But if you have to have Breitbart, this link is right a few comments in:

http://web.archive.org/web/20100315131339/http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=CM10B11

"They make out the legislation isn't so bad and only targets gay people intentionally spreading AIDS. That's just not true. The bill says nothing about intent, just that someone has to be gay, active, and have AIDS. And more importantly, it specifies that the death penalty can be used for "repeat offenders" (people that keep being gay).

I'm willing to believe that Chick-Fil-A and the FRC were so caught up in condemning homosexuality that they didn't properly examine what was getting their support, but that's damning with faint praise."

A denial from Tony Perkins, head of a hate group, is suspect at best. FRC supports criminalizing gay people here and around the world as well as removing any equal protections from the law, in violation of the 1st, 14th, and 14th amendments to the constitution. The want to impose their scientifically unsupportable "cure or celabacy" program. They even admitted they wanted to make sure being gay was not recognized as a human right. They oppose all rights for gay people.

For photographic documentation: "According to the FRC's official lobbying report for the first quarter of 2010, they paid $25,000 to lobby Congress against approving a resolution denouncing Uganda's plan to execute homosexuals. Below are three screencaps of the 20-page Family Research Council lobbying report ... Among the other items they lobbied against are the overturn of DADT and DOMA. But it's almost astounding, almost, that they would lobby the members of Congress against denouncing the death penalty for LGBT people." http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2010/06/christian-love-family-research-council.html

Gee, Matt, you're a legend in your own mind. A professional? Gee, am I permitted to stand in your presence and raise questions? Please, I'm rolling on the floor with pains in my sides.
NYT, CNN, NPR? I see where you're coming from, Matt. No wonder you work for the Huffington Post.
you want to trade insults, I'm your huckleberry.

Paul, please go back and re-read before you fire back. You're not even giving your own bad arguments a chance anymore.

I don't think you have all of the salient points listed Matt. The main point is thatthe owner of Chik-fil-a opposses the homosexual agenda, and made his opinion known. That is the only point that the GLBT group cares about. Mainstream America made it's preference known when Chik-fil-a set sales records on "Chik-fil-a appreciation day" Free speech is alive and well in our country, as long as your not Christian.

Michael. Again, this is about Chick spending millions to harm gay people through laws that discriminate and punish, here and around the world. It is not about the opinion, but rather spending millions to force that opinion on others using the force of law.

You contradict yourself when you note Chick had record sales on "appreciation" day. Those who support imposing their Christian beliefs on others using the force of law spoke loudly. They made it very clear they want to harm gay people, ignoring the Golden Rule.

@Michael. Students at Stockton want to throw Chick-fill-a off campus. How does this affect Michael if he is not a student? How does this affect Christianity? Is that faith in so much danger of collapsing if Chick-fill-a is tossed off Stockton’s campus? And how are the busybodies in mainstream America affected?
All Americans should boycott Chick-fill-a because their food is so unhealthy. How many Americans die each year eating their greasy junk along with the junk served at Mickey D’s, etc. Since when has Christian values required eating Chick-fill-a garbage?

Matt.
Thanks for the explanation of how student and public funds go to subsidize Chick, who in turn, spends money intended to harm gay people.

I would expand on point 1. Chick has spent millions on groups that support legal discrimination in all areas, and some who want to criminalize being gay here at home, just as they support laws that criminalize gay people around the world.

What on the surface may seem like a silly argument over chicken sandwiches and free speech is really about spending millions to promote prejudice, dehumanization, and legal discrimination that still results in needless suffering and death.

Hey, it says "editor" on my card there, chief.

Hey, I'm impressed, Matt. "Editor," man, that's big.

Yes robb, you are correct in that particular detail. I should have phrased it better. Thank you. Nonetheless, he is editor, and has done this on other stories,so ....the essence of my criticism stands...

Eleanor Hansen. If instead Chick-fill-a was making donations to anti-Christian groups that supported the death penalty for Christians that pray to god in Uganda, do you think people like Paul would be first in line demanding Stockton to shut down their Chick-fill-a?

Let me know when you wake up in the real world, Pundit.

Why would a self-proclaimed “intellectual” like you agree with the backward hating ways of a third world despotic nation? Does Chick-fill-a’s donations to groups supporting the execution of gays in Uganda make you feel like a real macho man?
The rule of thumb is the more a man screams gay hatred the more likely he is hiding a very gay truth.

Paul J. DiBartolo I am in the real world but I'll be glad to show you and all your brethren gay hating Christians the way to reality. Jesus Christ preached love. Christian haters like you preach support Ugandans plan to kill all homosexuals. Just like when the Nazis were killing Jews. You haters will soon find Saint Peter has closed the doors of heaven on you. Judge not DiBartlolo least ye be judged. Let God’s true love enter your life.
A real man does not feel threatened by another man’s sexuality. Let Jesus's love fill your life.

Hey Pundit, I challenge you to provide in quotes one thing I've said that can be construed as hate towards homosexuals.

As for judging, if you had any idea of what you are talking about you'd be dangerous. I did not bring Jesus Christ into this argument, you did. Why is it that your type always thinks you speak for Jesus? You judge others by telling them they should not judge. I've read the Bible quite extensively and what you write has no foundation within its pages.

77-percent of HIV infections reported in 2010 among adults and adolescents in the U.S. were the result of male-to-male sexual contact. Is that not risk factor enough for you?

If you read that again, you may see it is saying being LGBT is not a risk factor for suicide. However the prejudice promoted by Chick is directly associated with suicidal behavior as well as indirectly with risk factors for suicide. This documents the fact prejudice and discrimination result in a wide variety of harm including needless suffering and death.

You may also know, gay women have the lowest rates of infection of any group, while worldwide, HIV remains a threat to heterosexuals more than any other group. And while any transmission is unacceptable, the figure you present does not reflect the number of gay men who become infected, or those who don't.

The documentation also points out teens that were subjected to prejudice were 3.4 times more likely to have had unprotected sex than LGB peers who reported no or low levels of family rejection, demonstrating one more of the wide variety of ways prejudice and discrimination result in harm.

By the way, there's no question of convenience here. My job title is Local Editor. Reporting, writing, comment-section monitoring—all part of the gig. You don't have to be a thinking person to know that letting a flawed argument stand is just as much part of the problem as letting a discussion run far, far off-course. Both are equally part of being a professional, in my book.

bsdtktr. And what is your agenda? I never thought the reporter Matt Drudge was neutral, did you? Did you think the reporters at Faux News are neutral?

Matt, is being neutral and fair, pointing out flaws in arguments. You might want to stick to reading Pat Robertson's reporting at CBN. He "reports" the news unbiased if you are a right wing born again mental lightweight.

More and more, people are realizing there is no legitimate excuse for promoting prejudice and discrimination, and that it only causes needless harm. Therefore, they are left with nothing beyond personal attacks and fear of the unknown.

An honest, fair, and topical point, Stan.

Are any of the other vendors notorious for financially supporting prejudice and legal discrimination? Documentation shows Chick has been doing so for over a decade. While it would be a good idea to see if your money goes to support harming others needlessly, Chick is well known for doing exactly that.

Yet I suspect those who voted to continue to support using student funds to perpetuate harming gay students and others, didn't realize the extent and history of Chick's anti-gay financial support, as the issue is frequently and inaccurately portrayed as one of free speech rather than funding anti-gay groups.

A recent survey of Stockton students found support for keeping the restaurant on campus. Of the roughly 1,600 students who participated in the survey, 66 percent voted to keep Chick-fil-A on campus

Classic - liberals ignore the will of the people! Kinda like passing Obamacare when the majority were and still are opposed to it.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/repeal_of_health_care_law_favoroppose-1947.html

I can't wait to visit Chik tomorrow and support their business and the jobs they provide while you fight over PC BS!

I wonder how many of those polled understand the issue involves Chick spending their money to fund anti-gay groups. The issue is usually portrayed as a fee speech issue of Chick promoting "Christian values" rather than one of Chick funding groups that contribute to needless suffering and death.

Enough documentation has been provided to demonstrate your support of Chick is support for harming gay people in a wide variety of ways including death. Your desire to dismiss such well documented harm as "PC" is a rationalization for the harm you support. Irrational prejudice, no matter how popular, has no place in the laws of a country dedicated to the proposition all are equal. Additionally, refusing to follow the Golden Rule is not a Christian value.

John Adams, the second U.S. president, bluntly stated that "the majority has eternally, and without one exception, usurped over the rights of the minority."

I'd be interested to know if any suppliers provide products that were manufactured using child labor or products that involve the mistreatment of animals. The list of other concerns is too long to list here. Does Stockton's procurement policy clearly define the ethical requirements that contractors, suppliers and vendors must meet?

Right, they couldn't possibly understand the question

66% are OK with CHIK because they don't buy into your PC nonsense.

Get over yourself and your gay baiting BS.

I do wonder though how well the majority who voted for Obama grasped the issues as well......maybe they just have their hands out.

Obama has been clear for at least 6 years now, that he supports full equal rights for gay Americans. (It took a while to accept the term "marriage" over "civil unions".) I would think everyone who cares would know that by now.

But as previously documented, and demonstrated by the comments here and in the article, most mention free speech rather than the funding of discrimination. While the article mentions student funds supporting Chick, the comments overlook the millions Chick has spent promoting anti-gay prejudice and discrimination here and around the world.

Barry Goldwater next said "When you get down to it, no American able to serve should be allowed, much less given an excuse, not to serve his or her country. We need all our talent.

If I were in the Senate today, I would rise on the Senate floor in support of our commander in chief. He may be a Democrat, but he happens to be right on this question."

Obama claimed he gave orders to protect our people in Benghazi yet there is no record of any order given nor a response to follow it.

“I can can tell you that immediately upon finding out that our folks were in danger, that my orders to my national security team were do whatever we need to do to make sure they’re safe. And that’s the same order I would give any time that I see Americans are in danger — whether they’re civilian or military — because that’s our number one priority.”

Either Obama is lying or someone disobeyed his order since no one ever came to protect the 4 Americans who were murdered by Muslim terrorists. What did they do that consisted "to make sure they're safe" except blame it on a video.

Paul, at every turn, you've chosen to argue syntax over content, declined to address even one of my questions in good faith, and then descended into logical fallacy (ad hominem, ad populi, slippery slope) to do it.

I'm college-educated, so I must be elitist. I'm a journalist, so I must be biased (against or in favor of what exactly, I'm still not sure). I'm being snarky, so I must be self-important.

Was I sarcastic? Yes. Did I think you could have fun with it? Also yes. Was I off-base? Seems so.

Paul, you've thrown out so many unsubstantiated assertions—that college professors are tenure-leeches; that the youth of America are uniformly ignorant or lazy or dupes—and yet I still don't understand *why* you believe these claims. You just throw them out there and treat them like they're facts. And when challenged, you feel entitled to discredit the source rather than the substance of the issue. (I cited 7 sites other than the Times on this page. Were they all equally invalid?)

I've tried to come to the table as an honest broker, but instead of answering any of the questions about your own arguments, you've tried to channel the conversation into who I am, or my credentials are, or what it is you might think I believe. And Good Lord, Paul, I respect that you sign your name to all of it. But I just don't see a point in carrying on because you're not holding up your end here with any intellectual integrity.

Maybe we'll try again sometime.

No, Matt, you've channeled every conversation into who you are. I'm college educated, as well, and I'm an engineer at a large aeronautical corporation. So what, Matt, I don't feel the need to throw it around.
Yes, you have a bias. Imagine that. Hard to believe, huh, Matt? Not you, not the bastion of moderation and intelligence.
Allow me to inform you how I think, Matt; kind of a little foray into logic as I see it. You claim I "feel entitled to discredit the source rather than the substance of the issue." Guess what, Matt, character matters. Yes, when I see NYT I see a totally discredited source. So, no, it doesn't hold much water for me just because it appears in the NYT. And, guess what, Matt, I'm not the only one who thinks that. Surprise, surprise. Additionally, sources do not the argument seal!
Now, allow me to inform you that there is a rising chorus out there coming to the realization that our college system is way overloaded...and way overpriced. You need sources, Matt? You can get my e-mail from Patch. Drop me a line and I'll be glad to do the work to get them to you.
Finally, I'm sorry my integrity is not up to your standards. BTW, just to qualify, I never used the phrase "tenure-leeches," you did. I expressed my feelings about tenure and I stand by my comments, and, again, do not stand alone. But your bias towards me and your propensity to stereotype is responsible for calling tenured professors leeches. Tsk, tsk, I wonder what your professors would say:-0

If you had half the intelligence you thought you had, Pundit, and had read what you then tried to comment upon you would have known that Matt was the one who questioned me with the words "I doubt". I was only throwing back at him the half-baked style of argument he was using.
Look, Pundit, it's obvious you ate a little too much turkey and the tryptophan is having an adverse affect on your ability to reason. Try taking a long nap and check back in the morning.

LOL! I doubt you would know the truth if it smacked you on your fat tush. LOL! You even got my dinner wrong. I dined on elk which my brother had hunted. There was no turkey in either his house or mine. You cannot get anything right tonight

I get it, Pundit, you don't know what else to say so you try to fall back on what you think is humor; you're a laugh a minute. Oh, and I'm sure you dined on elf (wink-wink); we all get it, Pundit.
BTW..."Where are you facts" (about the elk)? "All you put forth is personal attacks on" me. (All your words.) Hey, Pundit, if the shoe fits...
As for personal attacks, I love how you guys operate and then refuse to show your real identity. Does that "make you feel like a real macho man?" (Again, more of your earlier diatribe.)

Paul J. DiBartolo you are great at making accusations but always you are always famously short on facts. For example, you claim I lied about my thanksgiving dinner but you are wrong. I had elk for dinner because my NRA member brother only serves meat for dinner what he has killed. He had elk in his freezer and no turkey. Yes, I would have preferred turkey so my wife will be preparing one this Sunday. Please take your misguided wink wink and dispose it properly.
So tell us, does your supporting a group that advocates executing people on basis of their sexuality make you feel macho? I would hope not because it makes me nauseous. God made all of us in his image including homosexuals. Jesus said judge not and to turn the other cheek. He also mentioned not throwing the first stone. Chick-fil-a’s contribution to the so-called “Christian” Family Research Organization is an affront to Christianity. Only a coward would support executing innocent people.

You demonstrate that many still want to frame this as a free speech issue, ignoring that student funds are being spent to support at least 7 anti-gay groups that cause real harm to real people, as previously documented.

Not all positions are "equally valid" as it seems you suggest when you recognize "a company who feels deeply about torturing babies should be sent packing". But this goes beyond "feeling deeply", to actually funding that harm, using student funds.

Remember that Chick is using funds to promote numerous laws that deny equal rights. Those who support equal rights are not trying to deny those equal rights to others. Only one side is using the law to harm the other. Equality harms no one, while discrimination results in harm in a wide variety of ways, as documented in history, science, and law, as well as on this thread. So are you really ready to say; "good for Chick for choosing a side" when that side funds harming others needlessly, and when equal rights harms no one? These are not equally valid positions. Prejudice and discrimination result in needless suffering and death.

As documented on this thread, this is about far more than what you wish to make it. Yet you demonstrate how so many could misunderstand the issues and vote to continue having student funds go to support funding destructive prejudice and legal discrimination.

Again, this is about Chick spending millions to support several anti-gay groups that lobby for harmful anti-gay legislation here and around the world, and using student funds to support those groups.

FRC is only one of those groups, and I provided a link to a photograph of the document by FRC showing they lobbied against DADT, DOMA, as well as the resolution to oppose the "kill the gays" bill. Your desire to rationalize their lobbying efforts ignores this documented fact.

Your slander, Mr. Johnson, seems to be that Chick-fil-A is in favor of killing homosexuals and that is an absolute lie. Dan Cathy is against same-sex marriage. So am I. That does not equate to either of us being in favor of killing homosexuals because of their lifestyle preference yet you seem intent on continuing to perpetuate that lie.
Chick-fil-A does not spend "millions" in the effort to thwart same-sex marriage advocates. NOH8 documented that Chick-fil-A's charitable arm, the WinShape Foundation, donated $1.7 million dollars to such causes in 2009. With assets of more than $60 million dollars the spending of $1.7 million does not constitute a huge priority. In addition, Mr. Cathy's personal fortune is estimated to be over $1.3 billion dollars. Surely if Mr. Cathy was desirous of waging a real publicity campaign against same-sex marriage he does not lack the funding.
Mr. Cathy is dedicated to supporting traditional marriage and the family. An aside to that effort is his opposition to same-sex marriage. That does not equate to what you wish to paint as a picture of hatred and murder towards homosexuals.
You refuse to accept and understand the facts, Mr. Johnson, so I will stand aside while you continue to propagate your misinformation.

Your attempt to defame me personally fails to consider the documentation previously provided.

As you note, in 2009 alone, they spent $1.7 million to deny marriage equality. Other documentation shows: "
The company gave $2 million to anti-gay groups in 2009 alone."

"Chick-fil-A gave $2 million to seven anti-gay groups in 2010, the most recent year for which figures are available, according to Equality Matters' analysis of its charitable giving."

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/heres-how-much-money-chick-fil-a-gives-to-anti-gay-groups-2012-7#ixzz2DBbplsje

So that's 4 million in just 2 years, yet they have been funding anti gay groups since at least 2003, and that doesn't include figures for 2011, and 2012.

Clearly, as I previously documented, Chick has spent millions promoting anti-gay prejudice and discrimination. The fact they have millions more available, does not alter that fact.

Clearly, it is you who is promoting misinformation including your attempts to defame me personally rather than focusing on the documented evidence, including the well documented fact through history, science, and law, that prejudice and discrimination result in needless suffering and death.

I'm sorry, Dan, but you've come up with your own set of facts and continue to refer to "marriage equality" as if that were some real idea anywhere but in your mind. Marriage has already been defined to be a relationship between a man and a woman usually for the purpose of procreation and continuing the human race.
Let me clue you in on something, if it were not for the fact of children and it being in the interest of the State to protect such, since they are the future and the guarantee of the human race, there would be no reason for the government to get involved in any marriage at all.
If a man and a woman want to live together, have at it. A man and a man, a woman and a woman...again, have at it. As for marriage equality, that's your term. There exists no such idea in my mind. You do whatever you want in that realm and I'll leave you alone but don't expect me to support you and teach my children that what their mother and I have dedicated 40 years of our lives to is no different than two men deciding to shack up together.
Just as the word "gay" has been hi-jacked and given a new meaning so you try to do the same thing with the marriage relationship by use of the term "marriage equality."
That term has no meaning to me and it surely doesn't mean what you try to imply.
So, do whatever you want in your love life, Dan, and I'll leave you alone.

I have provided documentation supporting my assertions, showing these are not my own facts, but rather well recognized points of science, law, and history. Marriage equality is also a fact of law, history, and science.

"President Obama was the first sitting president to come out in favor of marriage equality, and it didn't cost him at the polls. For the first time ever, a ballot measure against same-sex marriage (in Minnesota) was defeated. And for the first time ever, voters said yes to marriage-equality measures in Maine, Maryland and Washington state. The rights of a minority should never be put to a popular vote. Yet when the results favor equality, you can't help but breathe a sigh of relief." /07/b3ae62ea-2925-11e2-b4e0-346287b7e56c_blog.html

"It is clear that marriage-equality opponents are fighting a losing battle and our movement for full equality is at a tipping point,” said Sharon Lettman-Hicks, the executive director of the National Black Justice Coalition. “More and more Americans are realizing that LGBT people deserve the same protections to care for the people they love.”

Clearly, the concept of marriage equality as well as the term are widely used and understood by others.

Many of the more than 1,138 legal rights and protections that define what a marriage means legally, concern the interrelationship of the two persons making the commitment and have nothing to do with children. With older Americans on their second or more marriage, many marriages include no intention of having children.

"Moreover, an interest in encouraging responsible procreation plainly cannot provide a rational basis upon which to exclude same-sex marriages from federal recognition because, as Justice Scalia pointed out, the ability to procreate is not now, nor has it ever been, a precondition to marriage in any state in the country. Indeed, "the sterile and the elderly" have never been denied the right to marry by any of the fifty states. And the federal government has never considered denying recognition to marriage based on an ability or inability to procreate." (Gill)

Clearly, the procreation argument is not a valid excuse to deny equal treatment under the law to gay couples.

When you use the law to deny to me, the rights you expect for yourself, you are not leaving me alone. You are harming me, with no valid reason. I don't expect you to get my approval of your marriage, but neither should my marriage require your approval (under the same restrictions on age, blood relationship, and ability to demonstrate legal informed consent.)

It should be clear no two marriages are the same. The 48 hour marriage of Brittany Spears or the 8 marriages of Larry King, are not of equal quality to the 55 year relationship of Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon, the first same sex couple married in California. Spousal abuse and child abuse including murder demonstrate opposite sex marriage is no guarantee of a good marriage or of good parenting. Your denial of marriage equality as a concept or fact of law denies the reality of human relationships. Some are great, some are not. But legal denial of equality does nothing but harms those denied, while legal equality harms no one.

No, Pundit, Stockton's student senate does not want to "toss out a greasy chicken joint" (I like your attempt to derail the discussion with that little ditty, btw).
14 (read - fourteen) members, that equates to half of the student senate, want Chick-fil-A to leave the campus and, according to the article, they don't even represent the real sentiments towards Chick-fil-A of the student body.
1,600 students participated in the survey; 66 percent voted to keep Chick-fil-A on campus; about 300 people opted not to answer. Allow me to do the math for you.
1,056 voted in favor of Chick-fil-A and approximately 19-percent, that is, 300, opted not to answer. That leaves about 15-percent (244) who may favor asking Chick-fil-A to leave. My gosh, more opted not to answer than want Chick-fil-A to leave. I think it was our glorious president that said, "I won!" Doesn't that end the discussion and equate to the majority of the student-body saying to the student senate, "We won, so shut up!"?
Just sayin'.

Paul J. DiBartolo "Richard Stockton College's Student Senate voted 14-10 Tuesday to request the college cancel its contract with Chick-fil-A."
LOL! You are bad at math like you are at logic, politics and justice. A vote of 14 - 10 means nearly 2/3rds. voted in support of the resolution - not half as you lied.

Read much, Pundit? The senate is comprised of 27 members. Fourteen votes (that's 27/2 = 14 - hmmmmm, that's exactly half; boy, this engineering experience is coming in handy) were needed for approval - that appears to be half, in case you neglected to read the prior sentence. 14 voted "FOR," 10 voted "AGAINST," and 2 abstained. Now, by my math, that's only 26 so I don't know what happened to the missing vote...or maybe the education at Stockton does not concentrate as much on math as I was required to do for my career choice.
So, Pundit, it's time to review...
50% voted FOR - (this is apparently a requirement to pass).
37% voted AGAINST.
7.5% to 11% ABSTAINED (depending on what happened to the missing vote).
I know of no situation where ABSTENTIONS are counted as FORs. If 50% (as in this case) are required to pass a vote you need HALF...and that's exactly what they got. Now do you need anymore help with the math?

Paul J. DiBartolo you are obviously not a bright person. 14 voted for the resolution 10 voted against. Even a third grader will tell you 14 is more than and not equal to 10. What part don’t you understand?

Give it a rest, Pundit, your stupidity is glaring. BTW, I'd stack up my math skills against yours any day. In fact, after trying to explain a little low order math to you and seeing your inability to grasp such I will not waste anymore time trying. Try getting a third grade math teacher to explain it to you.
Actually, I can't believe what you are saying and can only attribute your continued attempt to defend your display of a lack of any real grasp of basic mathematics to your unwillingness to admit your error.

LOL! Paul J. DiBartolo. No matter how hard you try 14 will never equal 10. And this despite all your nonsense trying to prove 14 equals 10 it will never happen. Nor is 10 half of 24. 14 is more than half of 24.
You might want to tone down your insults. The only effect that has is to make you look like a long winded buffoon. And that is not something an important engineer like you would want to be known as. I pray you are not so abusive around your family.

So you have no problem with Americans, especially Muslims, who eat food purchased from restaurants that donate to Al Qaeda? That would be their First Amendment right.

Now if you were a true patriot, Pundit, you would say, "drill, baby, drill." That way we could get out from under buying oil from those countries who prop up Al Qaeda. After all, we have more of our own oil than they do, so why aren't we using it? What say you?
What's in your gas tank?

And again, we see the issue portrayed as one of expressing an opinion rather than using student funds to impose discrimination on a minority of Americans using the force of law. Chick wants to deny equal rights, including but not limited to marriage equality. The constitution was intended to prevent such denial of equal rights based on nothing more than a scientifically unsupportable, irrational prejudice.

"The Court finds that neither Congress' claimed legislative justifications nor any of the proposed reasons proffered by BLAG constitute bases rationally related to any of the alleged governmental interests. Further, after concluding that neither the law nor the record can sustain any of the interests suggested, the Court, having tried on its own, cannot conceive of any additional interests that DOMA might further."

"Prejudice, we are beginning to understand, rises not from malice or hostile animus alone. It may result as well from insensitivity caused by simple want of careful, rational reflection or from some instinctive mechanism to guard against people who appear to be different in some respects from ourselves."

Conclusion: DOMA, as it relates to Golinski's case, "violates her right to equal protection of the law under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution" (Golinski.)

Popular opinion does not justify legal discrimination.

“The framers of the Constitution knew, and we should not forget today, that there is no more effective practical guaranty against arbitrary and unreasonable government than to require that the principles of law which officials would impose upon a minority be imposed generally. Conversely, nothing opens the door to arbitrary action so effectively as to allow those officials to pick and choose only a few to whom they will apply legislation and thus to escape the political retribution that might be visited upon them if larger numbers were affected.” Railway Express Agency, Inc. v. New York, 336 U.S. 106,

What you may think is self evident, fails rational examination. You have no reason to believe marriage equality would have any negative effect on civilization while there is plenty of evidence to show it would only have a positive effect on civilization:

"The results of more than a century of anthropological research on households, kinship relationships, and families, across cultures and through time, provide no support whatsoever for the view that either civilization or viable social orders depend upon marriage as an exclusively heterosexual institution. Rather, anthropological research supports the conclusion that a vast array of family types, including families built upon same-sex partnerships, can contribute to stable and humane societies." ( American Anthropological Association)

There is no reason to believe marriage equality would cause straight people to stop having wanted and even unwanted babies. Additionally, gay people getting married often results in more homes for the often abused and discarded children of straight people, as well as more children being planned and created by same sex couples using all of the same methods open to heterosexual couples who need fertility assistance.

Gill v OPM: "This court can readily dispose of the notion that denying federal recognition to same-sex marriages might encourage responsible procreation, because the government concedes that this objective bears no rational relationship to the operation of DOMA.
(cont.)
.

Moreover, an interest in encouraging responsible procreation plainly cannot provide a rational basis upon which to exclude same-sex marriages from federal recognition because, as Justice Scalia pointed out, the ability to procreate is not now, nor has it ever been, a precondition to marriage in any state in the country. Indeed, "the sterile and the elderly" have never been denied the right to marry by any of the fifty states. And the federal government has never considered denying recognition to marriage based on an ability or inability to procreate.

Similarly, Congress' asserted interest in defending and nurturing heterosexual marriage is not "grounded in sufficient factual context for this court to ascertain some relation" between it and the classification DOMA effects.

(more Gill v.) "But even if Congress believed at the time of DOMA's passage that children had the best chance at success if raised jointly by their biological mothers and fathers, a desire to encourage heterosexual couples to procreate and rear their own children more responsibly would not provide a rational basis for denying federal recognition to same-sex marriages. Such denial does nothing to promote stability in heterosexual parenting. Rather, it "prevents children of same-sex couples from enjoying the immeasurable advantages that flow from the assurance of a stable family structure, when afforded equal recognition under federal law.

What remains, therefore, is the possibility that Congress sought to deny recognition to same-sex marriages in order to make heterosexual marriage appear more valuable or desirable. But the extent that this was the goal, Congress has achieved it "only by punishing same-sex couples who exercise their rights under state law." And this the Constitution does not permit. "For if the constitutional conception of 'equal protection of the laws' means anything, it must at the very least mean" that the Constitution will not abide such "a bare congressional desire to harm a politically unpopular group."
http://docfiles.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/massachusetts/madce/1:2009cv10309/120672/70/0.pdf

Deflection and diversion fail to alter the fact student funds have been used to support the destructive promotion of prejudice and imposition of stigmatizing legal discrimination here at home as well as around the world. While we may not be able to change every instance of needless harm, that does not excuse ignoring those situations where we can make a difference here at home.

Exactly what are you implying by the use of the phrase "student funds"?

From the article: "The Stockton Affiliated Services contract is with Chartwell’s, which then has contracts with the restaurants in the Campus Center; however, money from the college students’ meal plans goes to Chick-fil-A automatically."

From the clarification by: Matt Skoufalos, 1:03 pm on Wednesday, November 21, 2012:

"2. Student meal plans at Stockton are part of college tuition (room and board) at a state (i.e., taxpayer-funded) institution. It's part of the tab (student loans and scholarships) that these kids who raised and are voting on this issue will be paying for the next 10 to 20 years after their graduation.

3. Chick-fil-A and other on-campus vendors are all rolled up in the package that Chartwell's bids to provide at the school, which means that, for the life of that contract, Chartwell's is paying something to Chick-fil-A to franchise out a branded spot on campus."

So in addition to profits from those who choose to support them, Chick benefits from those students who choose not to eat there as well.

Thank you for the opportunity to demonstrate the prejudice you were taught as a child has no basis in reality. Assimilating new and conflicting information can be uncomfortable as well as time consuming, but it can be done, although the cognitive dissonance that results when prejudices we were taught as children are found to be without merit, can be very discomforting. Hopefully, you will eventually realize there are no rational arguments to support prejudice and discrimination, and they only result in needless harm.

I demonstrated why the procreation argument doesn't hold up to examination. Gay people can and do have children, just as many straight couples do, using all of the wide variety of methods available to those who need assistance. Further gay couples getting married and raising children has no effect on procreation among straight folks. I documented the science, history, and law that demonstrate this fact.

Your desire to frame the argument as Cathy's support for "traditional marriage" versus funding efforts in Uganda and elsewhere to kill all gay people ignores the middle ground and the wide variety of harm that results from laws that deny equal treatment as required by the constitution. As documented, Cathy has spent millions supporting at least 7 anti-gay groups. Those groups promote prejudice and discrimination here and around the world, and we know for certain that prejudice and discrimination cause harm in a wide variety of ways, including self destruction in addition to physical attacks from others, as well as imprisonment, torture, and yes, even death at the hands of governments.

I have had online discussions which included those who clearly stated they wanted gay people to be rounded up and killed. I am glad your prejudice does not include the desire to harm others. Yet the inescapable fact is that no matter what your motivation, the results remain the same: anti-gay laws and social systems that deny equality, perpetuate prejudice and discrimination that causes harm in a wide variety of ways. The resulting dehumanization and demonization is used to justify their behavior by those who bully, beat, torture, and kill, here and around the world. It also results in self destruction, both fast and slow. No matter what the motivation, prejudice and discrimination inevitably cause needless suffering and death.

(a small sample of supporting documentation)

Dr. Chris Beyrer, director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Public Health: "We know for certain that lesbian and gay individuals suffer harm to their physical and psychological health, and to their relationships and quality of life, as result of the shame, isolation and stigma accrued from their social and legal disenfranchisement."

The American Psychological Association : "Prejudice and discrimination have social and personal impact." "The widespread prejudice, discrimination, and violence to which lesbians and gay men are often subjected are significant mental health concerns. Sexual prejudice, sexual orientation discrimination, and anti-gay violence are major sources of stress for lesbian, gay, and bisexual people."