Chick-fil-A Barred From Second Airport In Less Than 2 Weeks
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
 
Post new topic    LakersGround.net Forum Index -> Off Topic Reply to topic
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
mhan00
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 13 Apr 2001
Posts: 32025

PostPosted: Tue Apr 02, 2019 12:09 pm    Post subject:

ocho wrote:
focus wrote:
ocho wrote:
vanexelent wrote:
Their chicken is disgusting to begin with. Politics aside.


I had it for the first time a few weeks ago because they opened a location across from my office and my co-workers wouldn't shut up about it. It might be the single most overrated food experience out there. It's not even particularly good for a fast food fried chicken sandwich. Do not get it.
What are some good places for it, whether chain or individual places, and price not an issue? I'm in southern Cal, but not in LA or LB, though work brings me to LA a couple times a month, but then I usually don't want to eat big.


If you’ve got some time for a long line that’s worth it check out Howlin Rays in Chinatown. For fast food (which I admittedly don’t eat very often) I think the Wendy’s spicy chicken easily beats Chick Fil A. If you find yourself at Staples Center for a Laker game the Ludobird sandwich is also much better.


Howlin’ Rays is amazing. The wait is generally about an hour or so, though, no matter when you get there. Their chicken is also legitimately spicy. The medium is much spicier than most other restaurants’ spiciest items. It’s also juicy and delicious.

Chick-fil-A is fine, but honestly I don’t find their chicken to be much better than most fast food restaurants’ chicken sandwiches. I do love their Chick-fil-A and Polynesian sauces and waffle cut fries, though.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message ICQ Number Reply with quote
ringfinger
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 29418

PostPosted: Tue Apr 02, 2019 2:00 pm    Post subject:

If a Christian baker is required to bake a cake for a gay wedding, then, airports and other businesses should be required to lease space to Chick-Fil-A.

Now, if chick-fil-a is engaging in discriminatory practices, such as refusing to hire gay employees or not serving gay customers, then that is different.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
VicXLakers
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 08 Feb 2006
Posts: 11823

PostPosted: Tue Apr 02, 2019 2:24 pm    Post subject:

ringfinger wrote:
If a Christian baker is required to bake a cake for a gay wedding, then, airports and other businesses should be required to lease space to Chick-Fil-A.

Now, if chick-fil-a is engaging in discriminatory practices, such as refusing to hire gay employees or not serving gay customers, then that is different.



In narrow ruling, Supreme Court gives victory to baker who refused to make cake for gay wedding
The opinion did not address the larger question of whether businesses can refuse to serve gay and lesbian customers.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Aussiesuede
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 27 Jul 2005
Posts: 10964

PostPosted: Tue Apr 02, 2019 2:27 pm    Post subject:

ringfinger wrote:
If a Christian baker is required to bake a cake for a gay wedding, then, airports and other businesses should be required to lease space to Chick-Fil-A.

Now, if chick-fil-a is engaging in discriminatory practices, such as refusing to hire gay employees or not serving gay customers, then that is different.


Ahem the Baker was NOT required to bake a cake. The Supreme Court reversed the State of Colorado's decision.

When a business receives a license to do business with the public, then that business is subject to equal protection laws.

A property owner is NOT subject to equal protection laws when it comes to choosing who he wishes to rent HIS property to. Many states have Anti Discrimination laws which are specifically codified.

If someone wanted to come open an Adult book store in the spot currently occupied by Chick-Fil-A, the property owner is under no obligation to rent them that space. If someone wanted to utilise the space for a Topless Chicken Restaurant, the property owner has every right to decline a rental request. If the local KKK wanted to open up a White Supremacy Museum on the premises, the property owner is well within their rights to deny the lease application. And finally, if Vladimir Putin decided he wanted a Chick-Fil-A franchise, the property owner has every right to deny his lease application for that location...
_________________
I'm On point, On task, On message, and Off drugs. A Streetwise Smart Bomb, Out of rehab and In denial. Over the Top, On the edge, Under the Radar, and In Control. Behind the 8 ball, Ahead of the Curve and I've got a Love Child who sends me Hate mail.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ringfinger
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 29418

PostPosted: Tue Apr 02, 2019 2:41 pm    Post subject:

Didn’t realize that decision was reversed.

I tend to be laissez faire when it comes to businesses. If they want to discriminate the market will take care of that.

But, if we’re going to say you cannot discriminate based on religious beliefs, then that should apply to business as well as individuals.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
governator
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 28 Jan 2006
Posts: 24996

PostPosted: Tue Apr 02, 2019 2:53 pm    Post subject:

ringfinger wrote:
Didn’t realize that decision was reversed.

I tend to be laissez faire when it comes to businesses. If they want to discriminate the market will take care of that.

But, if we’re going to say you cannot discriminate based on religious beliefs, then that should apply to business as well as individuals.


can the airport ban Chic-fil-A due to Chic-fil-A discriminatory practice against LGBT (whatever the definition) in itself without having to do with religion?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ringfinger
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 29418

PostPosted: Tue Apr 02, 2019 3:20 pm    Post subject:

governator wrote:
ringfinger wrote:
Didn’t realize that decision was reversed.

I tend to be laissez faire when it comes to businesses. If they want to discriminate the market will take care of that.

But, if we’re going to say you cannot discriminate based on religious beliefs, then that should apply to business as well as individuals.


can the airport ban Chic-fil-A due to Chic-fil-A discriminatory practice against LGBT (whatever the definition) in itself without having to do with religion?


Chick-Fil-A hasn’t practiced any sort of discriminatory practice within their business though.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
nickuku
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 09 Jul 2010
Posts: 7844
Location: Orange County

PostPosted: Tue Apr 02, 2019 3:40 pm    Post subject:

Its about time religion gets a taste of its own medicine.
_________________
Don't let perfect be the enemy of good
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ringfinger
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 29418

PostPosted: Tue Apr 02, 2019 3:51 pm    Post subject:

nickuku wrote:
Its about time religion gets a taste of its own medicine.


Except the same logic could be used to deny say, a muslim or a jew, based on their beliefs.

It’s a tough one for me. No matter which way we go, someone at some point will be impacted.

A laissez faire approach means a company can refuse to do business with a business or individual based on religion. I don’t like that, but the alternative is that you will require a company to do business with another business or individual regardless of their religious beliefs, and I think I dislike that more.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ContagiousInspiration
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 07 May 2014
Posts: 13811
Location: Boulder ;)

PostPosted: Tue Apr 02, 2019 4:43 pm    Post subject:

ringfinger wrote:
Didn’t realize that decision was reversed.

I tend to be laissez faire when it comes to businesses. If they want to discriminate the market will take care of that.

But, if we’re going to say you cannot discriminate based on religious beliefs, then that should apply to business as well as individuals.


Sigh

Sexual Orientation is a choice?

Let's see where this goes

Religion is a choice.
They choose to make themselves intolerant
Due to a diseased state of separation and supremacy
The world doesn't need them to save it
They need to save themselves

Their "being offended" is proof they aren't even an actual believer

They are only harmed by thought.
Yet their thoughts they seek to enforce upon others and restrict the others free will
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ringfinger
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 29418

PostPosted: Tue Apr 02, 2019 5:04 pm    Post subject:

ContagiousInspiration wrote:
ringfinger wrote:
Didn’t realize that decision was reversed.

I tend to be laissez faire when it comes to businesses. If they want to discriminate the market will take care of that.

But, if we’re going to say you cannot discriminate based on religious beliefs, then that should apply to business as well as individuals.


Sigh

Sexual Orientation is a choice?

Let's see where this goes

Religion is a choice.
They choose to make themselves intolerant
Due to a diseased state of separation and supremacy
The world doesn't need them to save it
They need to save themselves

Their "being offended" is proof they aren't even an actual believer

They are only harmed by thought.
Yet their thoughts they seek to enforce upon others and restrict the others free will


I think this “problem” is a hard one to solve if you’re trying to please everyone. But there’s only basically two options.

We just need to agree on whether a business should be able to decide not to do business with another business/individual based on the perceived religious beliefs of that business/individual.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ContagiousInspiration
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 07 May 2014
Posts: 13811
Location: Boulder ;)

PostPosted: Tue Apr 02, 2019 5:18 pm    Post subject:

Only if in a country who is willing to allow a company to be a "Person" and racist or homophobic

People can choose "not to buy" something of their own free will

A business cannot break the rules of the country they operate in
And choose to deny you a sale

Can a African American surgeon deny care to a White Supremacist
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ringfinger
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 29418

PostPosted: Tue Apr 02, 2019 5:27 pm    Post subject:

ContagiousInspiration wrote:
Only if in a country who is willing to allow a company to be a "Person" and racist or homophobic

People can choose "not to buy" something of their own free will

A business cannot break the rules of the country they operate in
And choose to deny you a sale

Can a African American surgeon deny care to a White Supremacist


Lets put it this way.

If I can deny you service because of what I think you think, then a secular business can deny service to a Christian customer (as we see with Chick-Fil-A) but a business can then also deny service to a gay or say, Muslim customer, for what it thinks they think.

That’s the challenge I guess with this. Whichever way we go, we just need to accept that the shoe can be on the other foot.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
slavavov
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 03 Oct 2003
Posts: 8288
Location: Santa Monica

PostPosted: Tue Apr 02, 2019 7:15 pm    Post subject:

vanexelent wrote:
adkindo wrote:


Which is why San Antonio changed their talking points so quickly to it not being about the foundations donations, but now it is because they do not want to lose revenue on Sundays.

It has become to the go to move for everything left....intolerant of anyone or anything that does not conform to their doctrine. The "nationwide boycott's" were an absolute failure, so they resort to this tactic. If they strongly believed that the good people of San Antonio are not represented by the fast food restaurant, then it would simply fail because the residents would not patronize the business. Yet, as an earlier poster pointed out....the only thing keeping people from Chick Fil A is the long line.

The irony is these tactics were common with the religious right a few decades ago, and I was just as much against them then, as I am now. I look around and notice that many of my friends on the left agreed with me then, but suddenly have a change of heart. No shock there.


But if the doctrine is the Bible, then it's okay to be intolerant.

It amazes me how conservatives always accuse libs and progressives of being intolerant of opposing viewpoints and trying to oppress or silence them, when they do the exact same thing with even greater venom.
_________________
Lakers 49ers Chargers Dodgers
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 52624
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.

PostPosted: Tue Apr 02, 2019 7:35 pm    Post subject:

adkindo wrote:

It has become to the go to move for everything left....intolerant of anyone or anything that does not conform to their doctrine.


"Doctrine" huh? Interestingly ironic choice of words in the context of this discussion. That context being a discussion about a company whose ownership espouses bigotry based quite literally on their religious doctrine.

But yeah, "The Left" is the group that is "intolerant of anyone or anything that does not conform to their doctrine."


_________________
You thought God was an architect, now you know
He’s something like a pipe bomb ready to blow
And everything you built that’s all for show
goes up in flames
In 24 frames


Jason Isbell

Man, do those lyrics resonate right now
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ringfinger
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 29418

PostPosted: Tue Apr 02, 2019 8:01 pm    Post subject:

DaMuleRules wrote:
adkindo wrote:

It has become to the go to move for everything left....intolerant of anyone or anything that does not conform to their doctrine.


"Doctrine" huh? Interestingly ironic choice of words in the context of this discussion. That context being a discussion about a company whose ownership espouses bigotry based quite literally on their religious doctrine.

But yeah, "The Left" is the group that is "intolerant of anyone or anything that does not conform to their doctrine."



I think a unique thing here, with this situation, is that Chick-Fil-A has not applied any (that I am aware of) discriminatory practices in the course of operating their business.

So if we decide to allow a person or business to say, I will not serve you because your beliefs don’t align with mine, that is a very slippery slope which might feel good sometimes, but not so good when the shoe is on the other foot.

I think the problem with this is that the rule, whichever it is, isn’t being equally applied. We’ll say a christian baker should service a gay wedding, but a secular business can choose not to service an anti-gay customer.

We need one rule, applied equally to all, with the acceptance that the “other side” is going to gain from it sometimes. This is generally why I prefer allowing the market to correct bad behavior.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 52624
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.

PostPosted: Tue Apr 02, 2019 8:16 pm    Post subject:

ringfinger wrote:
DaMuleRules wrote:
adkindo wrote:

It has become to the go to move for everything left....intolerant of anyone or anything that does not conform to their doctrine.


"Doctrine" huh? Interestingly ironic choice of words in the context of this discussion. That context being a discussion about a company whose ownership espouses bigotry based quite literally on their religious doctrine.

But yeah, "The Left" is the group that is "intolerant of anyone or anything that does not conform to their doctrine."



I think a unique thing here, with this situation, is that Chick-Fil-A has not applied any (that I am aware of) discriminatory practices in the course of operating their business.

So if we decide to allow a person or business to say, I will not serve you because your beliefs don’t align with mine, that is a very slippery slope which might feel good sometimes, but not so good when the shoe is on the other foot.


That's a different issue than the subject of this thread. The subject of this thread is a government entity preventing a business from operating due to the religious views expressed by the owners of that business. To which I, a member of the evil left who is intolerant of others, expressed a concern about in regards to the First Amendment despite the fact that I personally disagree with the ownership and would applaud citizens who boycott the business. This isn't about how a business treats its customers. It's about a government entity restricting business based on the ownership's stated religious beliefs

Quote:
I think the problem with this is that the rule, whichever it is, isn’t being equally applied. We’ll say a christian baker should service a gay wedding, but a secular business can choose not to service an anti-gay customer.


Who is your "we" in this "we'll say" scenario of yours?
_________________
You thought God was an architect, now you know
He’s something like a pipe bomb ready to blow
And everything you built that’s all for show
goes up in flames
In 24 frames


Jason Isbell

Man, do those lyrics resonate right now


Last edited by DaMuleRules on Tue Apr 02, 2019 8:22 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
The Juggernaut
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 24 Aug 2017
Posts: 4572

PostPosted: Tue Apr 02, 2019 8:21 pm    Post subject:

Huey Lewis & The News wrote:
best chick fil-a dipping sauces

1.) chick-fil-a
2.) polynesian
3.) sriracha
4.) honey mustard

best sandwich: spicy deluxe with pepperjack cheese

come for the evangelical homophobia, stay for the pickled chicken


You sir, are trippin

1. Chick Fil a
2. Ranch
3. BBQ
4. Polynesian
5. Honey mustard
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ContagiousInspiration
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 07 May 2014
Posts: 13811
Location: Boulder ;)

PostPosted: Tue Apr 02, 2019 10:15 pm    Post subject:

ringfinger wrote:
ContagiousInspiration wrote:
Only if in a country who is willing to allow a company to be a "Person" and racist or homophobic

People can choose "not to buy" something of their own free will

A business cannot break the rules of the country they operate in
And choose to deny you a sale

Can a African American surgeon deny care to a White Supremacist


Lets put it this way.

If I can deny you service because of what I think you think, then a secular business can deny service to a Christian customer (as we see with Chick-Fil-A) but a business can then also deny service to a gay or say, Muslim customer, for what it thinks they think.

That’s the challenge I guess with this. Whichever way we go, we just need to accept that the shoe can be on the other foot.


Is this alt-right speak?

You are once again equating treatment of a multi level corporation with that of a actual human being?

So, if I open a business and make it known I am 100%
Against same sex marriage @im sure that version of me wouldn't hire any human married to a human of same sexual organs..right?
I also make sure people can see I donate money to ANTI GAY groups..

^Should I expect gays and same sex couples or people who see others as equals and appreciate gays just like all other brethren To buy my product and if so why?

If I made it known I was 110%
Against their tax free mind control centers
Against their unfathomable hypocrisy and disgusting wealth

^^Should I expect Christians to visit?

All profit you supply Chick-fil-A can be spent to attack your friends and neighbors by religious bigots who forgot about the plank in their own eyes

Quote:

Matthew 7:3-5 New International Version (NIV)
3 “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4 How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.


Just remembered this Boy the bigots murdered RIP
His name
Matthew as in the writer above
Matthew Shepard’s murder still haunts Wyoming after 20 years
https://www.apnews.com/10235168c63041a0909ae6c0303cece7
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Aussiesuede
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 27 Jul 2005
Posts: 10964

PostPosted: Tue Apr 02, 2019 11:56 pm    Post subject:

DaMuleRules wrote:


That's a different issue than the subject of this thread. The subject of this thread is a government entity preventing a business from operating due to the religious views expressed by the owners of that business. To which I, a member of the evil left who is intolerant of others, expressed a concern about in regards to the First Amendment despite the fact that I personally disagree with the ownership and would applaud citizens who boycott the business. This isn't about how a business treats its customers. It's about a government entity restricting business based on the ownership's stated religious beliefs


That is incorrect. People are confusing anti discrimination laws meant to cover protected classes of people with Property Rights laws. They are two entirely different things. Absent a controlling statewide or local ordinance to the contrary, A commercial property owner has the inherent right to enter into ta contract for use of HIS property for whatever reason he chooses. The Airport authority could NOT invalidate a tenancy contract due to the views of it's ownership, but it sure as hell can CHOOSE not to enter into another contract with anyone for pretty much any reason of it's choosing. This owes to his rights as a property owner. A commercial tenant has no inherent right to occupancy of unowned property. When a contract of tenancy expires, it's ENTIRELY the choice of the property owner to enter into a new contract with whomever he wishes and for pretty much any reason he wishes. That's attendant to hi property rights as a property owner.

In this instance, the Airport authority could decide it would rather make use of that parcel of property as a smoking area. Chick Fil A would have no recourse once it's lease expired. Upon expiration of it's lease, it simply has no rights to tenancy. The reason for the property owner to choose to make different use of it's owned property lies entirely with the property owner. The airport authority would have been well advised to keep it;s reasons to itself just to avoid all this uproar. They made the ill advised decision to make a politically motivated statement. That still doesn't change the fact that it's in it's ownership rights to lease to whomever it chooses.
_________________
I'm On point, On task, On message, and Off drugs. A Streetwise Smart Bomb, Out of rehab and In denial. Over the Top, On the edge, Under the Radar, and In Control. Behind the 8 ball, Ahead of the Curve and I've got a Love Child who sends me Hate mail.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
vanexelent
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 17 May 2005
Posts: 30081

PostPosted: Wed Apr 03, 2019 2:43 am    Post subject:

ringfinger wrote:
nickuku wrote:
Its about time religion gets a taste of its own medicine.


Except the same logic could be used to deny say, a muslim or a jew, based on their beliefs.

It’s a tough one for me. No matter which way we go, someone at some point will be impacted.

A laissez faire approach means a company can refuse to do business with a business or individual based on religion. I don’t like that, but the alternative is that you will require a company to do business with another business or individual regardless of their religious beliefs, and I think I dislike that more.


The state of Texas is currently being sued because it has a law that forces contractors working in state-funded positions, to sign an oath saying they won't boycott Israel. A Muslim speech pathologist lost her job because she refused to sign it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
governator
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 28 Jan 2006
Posts: 24996

PostPosted: Wed Apr 03, 2019 4:54 am    Post subject:

vanexelent wrote:
ringfinger wrote:
nickuku wrote:
Its about time religion gets a taste of its own medicine.


Except the same logic could be used to deny say, a muslim or a jew, based on their beliefs.

It’s a tough one for me. No matter which way we go, someone at some point will be impacted.

A laissez faire approach means a company can refuse to do business with a business or individual based on religion. I don’t like that, but the alternative is that you will require a company to do business with another business or individual regardless of their religious beliefs, and I think I dislike that more.


The state of Texas is currently being sued because it has a law that forces contractors working in state-funded positions, to sign an oath saying they won't boycott Israel. A Muslim speech pathologist lost her job because she refused to sign it.


You mean a speech pathologist (I think this was also an episode of Vice reporting, they interviews jews in Texas, rabbis included that actually also don't support this law)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ContagiousInspiration
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 07 May 2014
Posts: 13811
Location: Boulder ;)

PostPosted: Wed Apr 03, 2019 6:13 am    Post subject:

governator wrote:
vanexelent wrote:
ringfinger wrote:
nickuku wrote:
Its about time religion gets a taste of its own medicine.


Except the same logic could be used to deny say, a muslim or a jew, based on their beliefs.

It’s a tough one for me. No matter which way we go, someone at some point will be impacted.

A laissez faire approach means a company can refuse to do business with a business or individual based on religion. I don’t like that, but the alternative is that you will require a company to do business with another business or individual regardless of their religious beliefs, and I think I dislike that more.


The state of Texas is currently being sued because it has a law that forces contractors working in state-funded positions, to sign an oath saying they won't boycott Israel. A Muslim speech pathologist lost her job because she refused to sign it.


You mean a speech pathologist (I think this was also an episode of Vice reporting, they interviews jews in Texas, rabbis included that actually also don't support this law)


Seems like an outrageous violation of personal freedom. Government can be a pawn if they can get away with it but they shouldn't be allowed to force citizens to be pawns also. That ish sounds creepy
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
focus
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 23 May 2012
Posts: 2526

PostPosted: Wed Apr 03, 2019 9:33 am    Post subject:

governator wrote:
vanexelent wrote:
ringfinger wrote:
nickuku wrote:
Its about time religion gets a taste of its own medicine.


Except the same logic could be used to deny say, a muslim or a jew, based on their beliefs.

It’s a tough one for me. No matter which way we go, someone at some point will be impacted.

A laissez faire approach means a company can refuse to do business with a business or individual based on religion. I don’t like that, but the alternative is that you will require a company to do business with another business or individual regardless of their religious beliefs, and I think I dislike that more.


The state of Texas is currently being sued because it has a law that forces contractors working in state-funded positions, to sign an oath saying they won't boycott Israel. A Muslim speech pathologist lost her job because she refused to sign it.


You mean a speech pathologist (I think this was also an episode of Vice reporting, they interviews jews in Texas, rabbis included that actually also don't support this law)
No one should if they actually believe in First Amendment principles.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Huey Lewis & The News
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 18 Dec 2015
Posts: 5234
Location: So what's the uh...topic of discussion?

PostPosted: Wed Apr 03, 2019 7:55 pm    Post subject:

The Juggernaut wrote:
Huey Lewis & The News wrote:
best chick fil-a dipping sauces

1.) chick-fil-a
2.) polynesian
3.) sriracha
4.) honey mustard

best sandwich: spicy deluxe with pepperjack cheese

come for the evangelical homophobia, stay for the pickled chicken


You sir, are trippin

1. Chick Fil a
2. Ranch
3. BBQ
4. Polynesian
5. Honey mustard


why do you hate america

chick fil-a ranch isn't ranch, it's alt-ranch. real ranch needs to be refrigerated
_________________
"All wars are civil wars, because all men are brothers."
http://forums.lakersground.net/profile.php?mode=viewprofile&u=13018
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic    LakersGround.net Forum Index -> Off Topic All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Page 2 of 3
Jump to:  

 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum






Graphics by uberzev
© 1995-2018 LakersGround.net. All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy. Terms of Use.
LakersGround is an unofficial news source serving the fan community since 1995.
We are in no way associated with the Los Angeles Lakers or the National Basketball Association.


Powered by phpBB