Matt Barber's crazy semantics
Try as I might, I cannot ignore Matt Barber's mean bleatings against McDonalds.
I really tried to ignore his latest hysterics masquerading as a reasonable column. That is until this part:
Unfortunately, the radical San Francisco-style policies both the NGLCC and McDonald's advocate run directly counter to the best interests of the vast majority of Americans outside California's "Sodom on the Bay." For example, under communist-tested, McDonald's-approved "hate speech" legislation, such as the so-called Employment Non-Discrimination Act, Christians and other business owners with traditional values would be forced – under penalty of law – to abandon sincerely held religious beliefs and adopt McDonald's own secular-humanist, moral-relativist view of right and wrong.
Why is it so hard for Barber to simply say, "yes, I believe that someone should be fired or be kept from getting a job because they are gay or lesbian."
But no. He doesn't want to say what he really believes. He wants to string words together in a ploy to hide what he really thinks.
From political perspective, it's a good idea. But from a moral perspective, it comes across like a something out of The Manchurian Candidate.
The phrase reveals the duplicity of the anti-gay industry. As much as they try to push the notion that they are the bastions of truth and morality, they have to rely on cynical political wordings to try and sway the population.
If they tried truth for a change, they would probably get laughed out of the country (i.e. Elaine Donnelly).
And by the way, Barber's assertions that the boycott is growing is wrong. At the very least, in my city, McDonalds continues to do excellent business.
In fact, I am beginning to think that maybe McDonalds manufactured this boycott to create a jump in business.