Rob Halford Weighs In On Chik-Fil-A Scandal

Judas Priest has also started writing brand new material, with "a tremendous amount of material in the vaults already".

logo
Ultimate Guitar
15

Rob Halford has thrown his hat into the Chik-Fil-A debate, saying the discussion is a great example of Americans exercising the first amendment.

His comments coincide with news that Judas Priest have started writing brand new material, after their supposed farewell tour ended in May.

The story began when Chik-Fil-A's president Dan Cathy opposed gay marriage in a radio interview, resulting in both a protest of the food chain and some supporters queuing to spend money there.

Halford is credited as being the first openly gay metal musician, and told Noisecreep how great it is to see people from both sides of the debate come forth and discuss the issue.

"If you really get into the heart and soul of this great country, it's all about the constitution and the First Amendment and the freedom of speech... Everybody in this country has the right to say what they think and feel and what best represents them. The people at Chik-fil-A have the absolute right to say and do what they want."

He continued: "What you're seeing here are the elements of the American Constitution in all of their glory. It's a wonderful thing to see happening and talk about and the fact that everyone is discussing the gay rights issue is great."

So what are Rob's views on the matter, if it isn't already obvious? "I don't think that man thought too much about the business consequences of what he said, but I think he was standing for what he believes in. I don't agree with him at all, but God bless the man. It's as simple as that."

Meanwhile, Judas Priest has started writing brand new material - the first without long-term guitarist KK Downing who left the band last year. Rob says he and guitarist Glenn Tipton have "a tremendous amount in the vaults already" but says there's a lot of work before fans can hear it. "We'll see what we can do over the next couple of months, look at everything, lay it all out and then start the hard work of picking out the best material," he said.

84 comments sorted by best / new / date

comments policy
    Minivirus2
    Why can't more people be level headed like Rob? We would have a much more peaceful world.
    wspeed6
    This is the most intelligent statement I have heard about this. Smart dude.
    BigMikeBDD
    on3andth3sam3 wrote: BigMikeBDD wrote: Yes, it is. The man can have any views he wishes, he can donate to who he likes. This doesn't mean you or anyone else has the right to prevent him from building a business. This is what the first amendment is all about. Regardless of what "prejudice" tag you want to put on it, which is also a stretch by the way. So you'd be totally fine if the owner of Dairy Queen came out as a racist and it turns out he'd been giving millions of dollars to the Klu Klux Klan? Also, how is giving money to hate groups a "stretch" for the term prejudice? Do you own a dictionary? Prejudice: noun, verb, unreasonable feelings, opinions, or attitudes, especially of a hostile nature, regarding a racial, religious, or national group.
    Being racist is not illegal. It's part of the first amendment. There's a reason why the KKK still exists...as does the Black Panthers and why Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton can get on national TV and express their hatred for white people.
    onetonryan
    Chik-Fil-A is delicious. I'm going to continue to eat there for that reason alone.
    jordo246
    Why is there even a gay rights issue, they're people who like the same sex, what's the big deal?
    Maiden95
    Wow. God bless the great Rob Halford for sorta taking the high road on this one. He could have easily destroyed Chick-Fil-A and all of their dumbassery but he didn't.
    whiplash944
    Honestly I wish I was as mature and levelheaded as he is. Had I been in his position, i would have done just that, destroy "chick-fil-a and all of their dumbassery"
    BigMikeBDD
    on3andth3sam3 wrote: Damn it. It's NOT about freedom of speech! It's about Chick-Fil-A giving $5 million to anti-gay organizations that have "Pray away the Gay" programs, which have been proven to be ineffective and psychologically harmful, and have lobbied to make homosexuality illegal in the U.S. Dan Cathy can say and do whatever he wants, but it's still messed up to use your company to support prejudice.
    Yes, it is. The man can have any views he wishes, he can donate to who he likes. This doesn't mean you or anyone else has the right to prevent him from building a business. This is what the first amendment is all about. Regardless of what "prejudice" tag you want to put on it, which is also a stretch by the way.
    BigMikeBDD
    on3andth3sam3 wrote: BigMikeBDD wrote: Yes, it is. The man can have any views he wishes, he can donate to who he likes. This doesn't mean you or anyone else has the right to prevent him from building a business. This is what the first amendment is all about. Regardless of what "prejudice" tag you want to put on it, which is also a stretch by the way. So you'd be totally fine if the owner of Dairy Queen came out as a racist and it turns out he'd been giving millions of dollars to the Klu Klux Klan? Also, how is giving money to hate groups a "stretch" for the term prejudice? Do you own a dictionary? Prejudice: noun, verb, unreasonable feelings, opinions, or attitudes, especially of a hostile nature, regarding a racial, religious, or national group.
    Oh and by the way, if Dairy Queen turned out to give money to the KKK, as an American, I don't have to give them my business. Simple as that. There's companies that support MAMBLA. I don't give them my business. According to you, they should also be able to prevent businesses from opening that support gay marriage, correct? Isn't Target one of them? By your laws, it would be ok to tell Target they cannot build because they support gay marriage. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
    Sammy Mantis
    Rob handled this with grace and recognizes that Chik-Fil-A is free to believe what they wish, rather than participating in a "kiss-in" at the restaurant like other gays in some spiteful, immature attempt at protest. Why does the headline say "scandal" though? Doesn't that term imply a disgraceful action? If Dan Cathy were to be silenced about his views, wouldn't we be denying him HIS rights to free speech and practice his beliefs? Oh wait, I forgot, it's equality for everyone, unless you're Christian or conservative. Just FYI, 55X more people showed up for Chik-Fil-A appreciation Day this week than for the "Kiss-In", and the restaurant saw record sales, so this is hardly been a downfall for the franchise. Kudos to them for standing up to political correctness!
    Agent 00Awesome
    Rob is a good guy. I know I'd be pretty pissed if someone was so against my lifestyle like that. Also, I want some Chik-Fil-A now.
    BigMikeBDD
    Sammy Mantis wrote: Rob handled this with grace and recognizes that Chik-Fil-A is free to believe what they wish, rather than participating in a "kiss-in" at the restaurant like other gays in some spiteful, immature attempt at protest. Why does the headline say "scandal" though? Doesn't that term imply a disgraceful action? If Dan Cathy were to be silenced about his views, wouldn't we be denying him HIS rights to free speech and practice his beliefs? Oh wait, I forgot, it's equality for everyone, unless you're Christian or conservative. Just FYI, 55X more people showed up for Chik-Fil-A appreciation Day this week than for the "Kiss-In", and the restaurant saw record sales, so this is hardly been a downfall for the franchise. Kudos to them for standing up to political correctness!
    *applause*
    Jimmyboba
    jordo246 wrote: Why is there even a gay rights issue, they're people who like the same sex, what's the big deal?
    I wish the rest of the world was like you. I'd like to see people tackling serious issues as opposed to questioning people's rights to love whoever they damn well please.
    acdcfan1556
    I love how Rob Halford gives a very well though out, articulate, respectful response, and then everyone who is not directly affected refuses to grant that same respect.
    bearmod
    bearmod wrote: This whole situation is so dumb. All the guy said was he didn't support gay marriage and now he's being attacked. Personally I don't care if gay people get married, if that's what makes them happy then go for it, and when you get down to it, their sexual preference isn't anybody's business but theirs anyway. I just hate when stuff like this happens, all he did was state his opinion and now everybody and their mother is trying to nail him to the wall
    By "him" I meant the chick-fil-a guy.
    bearmod
    This whole situation is so dumb. All the guy said was he didn't support gay marriage and now he's being attacked. Personally I don't care if gay people get married, if that's what makes them happy then go for it, and when you get down to it, their sexual preference isn't anybody's business but theirs anyway. I just hate when stuff like this happens, all he did was state his opinion and now everybody and their mother is trying to nail him to the wall
    TheExterminator
    eatfresh1736 wrote: Eyes Wide Open is somewhat correct, except for the fact that one of the fundamental concepts of original Christianity is the rejection of the old testament. That means that by definition, christians can pick and choose what they adhere to. They've been doing it for almost 2 millenia, when every hundred years or so, a new reform movement comes out and changes what is or isn't ok with the church (Eastern Orthodox>Roman Catholic>Russian Orthodox>Lutheran>Anglican>American Protestant...). Only the Jews have to follow the rules in the old testament (to the best of their abilities). Christians have never been fully bound to it, or they wouldn't be able to eat bacon, milk and meat together, or wear garments of mixed wool and linen. As an American Jew, I couldn't care less about what the owner of Chik-Fil-A does or says. This isn't a Jewish theocracy, so gay rights or lack there-of can't personally offend me. I agree with Rob Halford, the owner can say/do what he wants. People also have the right to be offended, but that doesn't mean that the Chik-Fil-A guy is doing something wrong. People assume that just because it's an unpopular opinion, it's illegal.
    The lack of gay rights should offend you as a human being, because this is the 21st century and people still feel the need to use third-world superstitious fairytales to justify bigotry and their attempts to keep certain people from enjoying rights most people take for granted.
    EyesWideOpen
    Jimmyboba wrote: jordo246 wrote: Why is there even a gay rights issue, they're people who like the same sex, what's the big deal? I wish the rest of the world was like you. I'd like to see people tackling serious issues as opposed to questioning people's rights to love whoever they damn well please.
    A lot of people seem to need a group to look down upon. Pretty sad. And of course religion plays a part in "hate'n them queers."
    TheExterminator
    eatfresh1736 wrote: The lack of gay rights should offend you as a human being, because this is the 21st century and people still feel the need to use third-world superstitious fairytales to justify bigotry and their attempts to keep certain people from enjoying rights most people take for granted. I understand what you're saying, but you have to see it from my side. It's against my religion to be gay, and that's a fact (it's in our bible). If other people (who don't follow my religion) want to be gay, that's fine with me. However, I can't outright support gay rights because it conflicts with the rules imposed upon myself (the key word is "myself". I'm not preaching to anyone else.) I'm keeping my own limitations to myself. Judaism, as a rule, doesn't proselytize to non-Jews. Live and let live.
    So it's best to take millennia-old fairytales that were made up by desertmen over a modern, evolved humanist view? Live and let live, aye, but can we start to live less like gullible bastards who still believe in primitive nonsense, and more like intelligent human beings?
    BigSpence
    on3andth3sam3 wrote: Damn it. It's NOT about freedom of speech! It's about Chick-Fil-A giving $5 million to anti-gay organizations that have "Pray away the Gay" programs, which have been proven to be ineffective and psychologically harmful, and have lobbied to make homosexuality illegal in the U.S. Dan Cathy can say and do whatever he wants, but it's still messed up to use your company to support prejudice.
    Again...freedom of speech. Who are you to judge these people for what they say or do with their money?
    on3andth3sam3
    BigSpence wrote: Again...freedom of speech. Who are you to judge these people for what they say or do with their money?
    You're clearly missing the point. If there weren't freedom of speech, I couldn't say it's ok to be gay, so I'm grateful for it. This is about a different kind of speech. It's about saying that it's ok to use corporate money to oppress a minority group. It's 2012, by now we should all know at least ONE gay person. Even if you don't like them (i'll admit some LGBT people can be real pricks) do you really think it's fine that a major restaurant chain is fighting against their social equality? And yes, they are socially unequal. I live in michigan, where gay partners can't adopt as a couple, can get fired for being openly LGBT, they can even be denied housing.
    iommi600
    God bless Halford. People don't have to agree with homossexuality, but the things are just fine if that disagreement doesn't turn people into bigoted *****s.
    iommi600
    EyesWideOpen wrote: iommi600 wrote: God bless Halford. People don't have to agree with homossexuality, but the things are just fine if that disagreement doesn't turn people into bigoted *****s. God bless Halford? Well if you're a Christian then your god wants gay people stoned to death. I'm aware that there are Christians who are fine with gay people. But these people are going against their own religion. A classic example of cherry picking the nice parts and of the bible and conveniently skipping all the rape, genocide and bigotry.
    Figure of speech, meet EyesWideOpen.
    EyesWideOpen
    eatfresh1736 wrote: Once again, @EyesWideOpen (with all respect for the sake of debate) just because something is harsh or seems offensive (like having slaves, or the fact that Christians say that you will burn - cue evil sounding music), doesn't mean that it is not a valid statement. Btw, on the topic of owning foreign slaves (from Leviticus), the rules actually are that the master must treat the slave better than himself. If there's only one bed, the slave gets it. When the slave is set free, he must be provided with a large sum of money and possesions. That's just as far as Judaism is concerned, I don't know about Peter.
    What do you mean that those are valid statements? I don't want to put words in your mouth, but are you saying that I would deserve to burn in unimaginable agony for all eternity simply because I don't believe in god? And please don't try to justify slavery.
    Gabriel75
    Exactly! That's what its all about! Everyone has the right to speak their mind. You don't like it...GFY!! 1st Amendment Baby!!!
    TheExterminator
    Sammy Mantis wrote: Just FYI, 55X more people showed up for Chik-Fil-A appreciation Day this week than for the "Kiss-In", and the restaurant saw record sales, so this is hardly been a downfall for the franchise. Kudos to them for standing up to political correctness!
    I'm all for freedom of speech - let morons speak all they want so the rest of us can make fun of them, assuring future generations realize how stupid such ideas are. But 'kudos to them for standing up to political correctness'? What? It's a good thing to donate to anti-gay organizations now, just because it's "standing up" to the current status-quo of equality and acceptance, something many people have been fighting for since it was decided blacks weren't just cattle and slaves? That's like respecting Dave Mustaine for "breaking the mould" by being a born-again, fundamentalist nutjob. That's not breaking the mould or standing up against something, that's just being completely backwards and behind the times.
    BaptizedinFire
    Nothing wrong with uttering the words "I don't approve of gay marriage". Fair enough, no one is being hurt by that. However, trying to help politicians who would impose a ban (which is a legitimization of the use of force against peaceful individuals) on homosexuality is just astoundingly immoral. I hadn't heard of this case before, so if I have misinterpreted something please correct me.
    nnb
    Off topic, but Rob, Bruce and the LoG singer have to be some of classist most articulet and intelligent people in music today.
    Hamham272
    This is why America sucks. Businesses lobbying political groups to do what the owner wants. Can't you guys please stop doing what the money says and do something that's actually good for your country? Probably a little late for that I guess. Rob makes a good point what the guy did is legal and he is well within his rights to say what he wants, but in most country's we call that bribery and your politicians would be shamed.
    SLonergan
    Just like Dan Cathy has the right to say what he wants, we have a right to protest. Freedom of Assembly folks. Lastly, it's not just about gay marriage. Dan Cathy funds actual HATE groups. Groups who want to outlaw homosexuality, not just gay marriage. Read up on Exodus International and the Family Research Council. No one's saying that he doesn't have a right to say what he wants. Well, the sensible protesters aren't anyway. And while I think that it's an abuse of power for a mayor to stonewall Chick-Fil-A from opening up in their city, I'm that there won't be a Chick-Fil-A in my city.
    DexterF
    Until I looked up the WP article to figure what "chik-fil-a" was in the first place I was surprised to find that it is supposed to be pronounced like "fillet". Before the case was clear to me as I assumed that whoever they are it's obvious that "chick filler" is anti-gay...
    BigMikeBDD
    "I dont think that man thought too much about the business consequences of what he said, but I think he was standing for what he believes in." You mean like record setting sales days?
    onetonryan
    Yeh I think I'll leave the Leviticus quote. If you think it's ok to end some ones life because of their sexual orientation then I'm glad I don't know you.
    Not what I said. The Bible says it's an abomination. I don't interpret that differently. That doesn't mean I hate gays or don't support gay rights. Quite the opposite.
    And as I knew both you and eatfresh1736 both tried to justify slavery as I knew you would because as usual "Oh you're just not reading it right".
    Well, you are. But as I said, it's not as much the literal context as it is the historical context. You're not the first to make this mistake.
    And neither of you seem to have anything to say about god committing genocide against the people he created even though he's supposed to be omniscient and so must have knew that they would turn against him although apparently he also gave us free will even though it is a logical impossibility for free will and omniscience to exist at the same time.
    God made this right in the New Testament. I encourage you to read about it. You'll learn a lot more than what I can tell you about here. God bless you, brother.
    dewitt
    EyesWideOpen wrote: I wouldn't say you have to be a scholar, but it would help if you've actually read it. Judging by your gross generalization, I'd wager that you didn't. Best you distance from such comments lest you reveal that you don't know what you're talking about. In kind, I will spare you any critique of "To Kill a Mockingbird" because I only read the cliff notes. Fair enough?
    You're correct I have not read it. But I have read passages and parts from it. Parts that are bad regardless of context. Leviticus 25:44 "Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves." Peter 2:18 "Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh." Leviticus 18:22 "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination" And also the part where god kills 99.99% of humanity in a flood because they displeased him. Women, children, babies, the elderly. And also that because I'm an atheist, according to Christian views, I'm going to burn in hell for all eternity. Simply for the crime of not believing. I suppose now's the part where you tell me that I've read these things out of context or somesuch.[/quote] Actually, most of that is out of context. Leviticus is supposed to pertain to the children of Levi - servants to the clergy, or something like that. So, all of those things from Leviticus aren't exactly supposed to apply to the general public. That is the only quote I have ever heard that touches on homosexuality, at all. I'm not even sure if it means what people think it means. I kind of get the impression that it means that men deserve to be treated with more respect than women by the children of Levi. That's also where it mentions the whole mixed fabrics, interacting with women in the 7 days surrounding her period, etc.
    EyesWideOpen
    onetonryan wrote: EyesWideOpen wrote: You're correct I have not read it. But I have read passages and parts from it. Parts that are bad regardless of context. Leviticus 25:44 "Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves." Peter 2:18 "Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh." Leviticus 18:22 "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination" And also the part where god kills 99.99% of humanity in a flood because they displeased him. Women, children, babies, the elderly. And also that because I'm an atheist, according to Christian views, I'm going to burn in hell for all eternity. Simply for the crime of not believing. I suppose now's the part where you tell me that I've read these things out of context or somesuch. See eatfresh above, and also consider some historical context regarding slaves, or indentured servants, as a function of the economy at the time. This is the critical error so many people make when they start spewing Biblical quotes about slavery as "evidence" that the Bible promotes/supports opression. It is a simple mis-interpretation of the term. In other words, your applying the negative conotation of more modern slavery (ie African-Americans who were stolen and forced into labor). That is not to say that all slaves in Biblical times were appropriately acquired/treated/compensated, but many were. As for the Leviticus quote; it is what it is. You can take it or leave it.
    Yeh I think I'll leave the Leviticus quote. If you think it's ok to end some ones life because of their sexual orientation then I'm glad I don't know you. And as I knew both you and eatfresh1736 both tried to justify slavery as I knew you would because as usual "Oh you're just not reading it right". And neither of you seem to have anything to say about god committing genocide against the people he created even though he's supposed to be omniscient and so must have knew that they would turn against him although apparently he also gave us free will even though it is a logical impossibility for free will and omniscience to exist at the same time. And to eatfresh1736. I fully acknowledge that people have the right to voice their thoughts on things. I will always support that right, even the right to religion I will always support and respect. However, that doesn't mean I have to support or respect the religion or opinion itself and it doesn't mean I have to be quiet about it. Good day.
    EyesWideOpen
    I wouldn't say you have to be a scholar, but it would help if you've actually read it. Judging by your gross generalization, I'd wager that you didn't. Best you distance from such comments lest you reveal that you don't know what you're talking about. In kind, I will spare you any critique of "To Kill a Mockingbird" because I only read the cliff notes. Fair enough? [/quote] You're correct I have not read it. But I have read passages and parts from it. Parts that are bad regardless of context. Leviticus 25:44 "Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves." Peter 2:18 "Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh." Leviticus 18:22 "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination" And also the part where god kills 99.99% of humanity in a flood because they displeased him. Women, children, babies, the elderly. And also that because I'm an atheist, according to Christian views, I'm going to burn in hell for all eternity. Simply for the crime of not believing. I suppose now's the part where you tell me that I've read these things out of context or somesuch.
    on3andth3sam3
    Damn it. It's NOT about freedom of speech! It's about Chick-Fil-A giving $5 million to anti-gay organizations that have "Pray away the Gay" programs, which have been proven to be ineffective and psychologically harmful, and have lobbied to make homosexuality illegal in the U.S. Dan Cathy can say and do whatever he wants, but it's still messed up to use your company to support prejudice.
    eatfresh1736
    Eyes Wide Open is somewhat correct, except for the fact that one of the fundamental concepts of original Christianity is the rejection of the old testament. That means that by definition, christians can pick and choose what they adhere to. They've been doing it for almost 2 millenia, when every hundred years or so, a new reform movement comes out and changes what is or isn't ok with the church (Eastern Orthodox>Roman Catholic>Russian Orthodox>Lutheran>Anglican>American Protestant...). Only the Jews have to follow the rules in the old testament (to the best of their abilities). Christians have never been fully bound to it, or they wouldn't be able to eat bacon, milk and meat together, or wear garments of mixed wool and linen. As an American Jew, I couldn't care less about what the owner of Chik-Fil-A does or says. This isn't a Jewish theocracy, so gay rights or lack there-of can't personally offend me. I agree with Rob Halford, the owner can say/do what he wants. People also have the right to be offended, but that doesn't mean that the Chik-Fil-A guy is doing something wrong. People assume that just because it's an unpopular opinion, it's illegal.
    EyesWideOpen
    BigMikeBDD wrote: EyesWideOpen wrote: iommi600 wrote: God bless Halford. People don't have to agree with homossexuality, but the things are just fine if that disagreement doesn't turn people into bigoted *****s. God bless Halford? Well if you're a Christian then your god wants gay people stoned to death. I'm aware that there are Christians who are fine with gay people. But these people are going against their own religion. A classic example of cherry picking the nice parts and of the bible and conveniently skipping all the rape, genocide and bigotry. Did you just make that up? That is so full of lies and false accusations it's not even funny.
    I'll give you a great tip buddy. Read your bible. I knew my comment would get voted down because even though I did not make a single lie or false accusation in my comment, for some reason people still think that religion deserves respect.
    onetonryan
    EyesWideOpen wrote: onetonryan wrote: BigMikeBDD wrote: EyesWideOpen wrote: iommi600 wrote: God bless Halford. People don't have to agree with homossexuality, but the things are just fine if that disagreement doesn't turn people into bigoted *****s. God bless Halford? Well if you're a Christian then your god wants gay people stoned to death. I'm aware that there are Christians who are fine with gay people. But these people are going against their own religion. A classic example of cherry picking the nice parts and of the bible and conveniently skipping all the rape, genocide and bigotry. Did you just make that up? That is so full of lies and false accusations it's not even funny. You couldn't tell? He's clearly a Biblical scholar. So unless I'm a biblical scholar I can't criticize the bible?
    I wouldn't say you have to be a scholar, but it would help if you've actually read it. Judging by your gross generalization, I'd wager that you didn't. Best you distance from such comments lest you reveal that you don't know what you're talking about. In kind, I will spare you any critique of "To Kill a Mockingbird" because I only read the cliff notes. Fair enough?
    BigMikeBDD
    EyesWideOpen wrote: iommi600 wrote: God bless Halford. People don't have to agree with homossexuality, but the things are just fine if that disagreement doesn't turn people into bigoted *****s. God bless Halford? Well if you're a Christian then your god wants gay people stoned to death. I'm aware that there are Christians who are fine with gay people. But these people are going against their own religion. A classic example of cherry picking the nice parts and of the bible and conveniently skipping all the rape, genocide and bigotry.
    Did you just make that up? That is so full of lies and false accusations it's not even funny.
    onetonryan
    BigMikeBDD wrote: EyesWideOpen wrote: iommi600 wrote: God bless Halford. People don't have to agree with homossexuality, but the things are just fine if that disagreement doesn't turn people into bigoted *****s. God bless Halford? Well if you're a Christian then your god wants gay people stoned to death. I'm aware that there are Christians who are fine with gay people. But these people are going against their own religion. A classic example of cherry picking the nice parts and of the bible and conveniently skipping all the rape, genocide and bigotry. Did you just make that up? That is so full of lies and false accusations it's not even funny.
    You couldn't tell? He's clearly a Biblical scholar.
    spiff-corgi
    Face R1pper wrote: Scourge441 wrote: Chick-fil-A financially supported a group that lobbied Congress not to oppose the Ugandan "Kill the Gays" law. It's one thing to be opposed to same sex marriage, it's another to give money to a group that is okay with making homosexuality a crime carrying the death penalty. That's way, WAY over the line in my book. Keep the rest of the discussion civil, guys. Fuck you before you sh1t stains ruined these news threads people could actually have proper discussions without the Gestapo popping in to write *checked* every 3 goddamn seconds, how about you piss off and let us discuss it the way we USED to you homo loving ****.
    Well that escalated quickly.