Would think they would have read from one of their many online articles instructing how to get out of debt and be financially stable. Guess not.
They actually do good for some people and have probably helped many (hetero) couples work things out - but their obsession with anything LGBT is over-the-top and what has become legendary. Given that, it's almost funny that it's their anti-gay program that is causing their financial demise. Everything happens for a reason, as I learned in church years ago!
Wonder if they are seeing it the same way?
Cookout, rally, clambake... term is of little importance (although rally can be defined as "a get-together of like-minded enthusiasts, primarily to meet and socialize").
Tim Horton's did not "cower" to "the" gay lobby. It was simply made aware that one franchisee had breached the company's code of ethics and standard business practices. Simple. But seems you want to spin it into an issue of an all-powerful gay force that intimidates corporations (into being ethical). Funny you don't also comment on the American Family Association's "One Million Moms" that go around forcing corporations to pull ads...? Do corporations "cower" to that group?
And TH thinks nothing of offending Christians? Huh? Sorry but as a Christian, Tim Horton's has never offended me. And their relatively quick action to resolve this matter has prevented an incident that may have been offensive to me - as a Christian.
Sorry - using that old divisive "us versus the gays" line is frankly far too old & irrelevant these days. The problem is, you don't really know who "the gays" really are and who this "group" is that you refer to. They're normal people: in your neighborhood, in your office, in your church, your doctors & nurses - and in your family... You likely don't even know they are gay as they may be too uncomfortable around vocally anti-gay people to reveal that side of their lives.
What definition of marriage would make homosexuals happy? Easy. Look to Canada: "Marriage, for civil purposes, is the lawful union of two persons to the exclusion of all others." Not too complicated. Not too radical. Just, marriage.
Manuel Berlanga says "I just think that the case of calling a gay union a marriage is just demanding for the sake of demanding". I assume you are heterosexual?
So if you were to go & register for your own (heterosexual) wedding and are told, "no, asking for marriage is just too demanding, so you can have a straight union instead" you'd be okay with that, right? Hardly. You & your fiance would probably be incensed - and take as far as you could legally.
And thank God Tim Horton's resolved this issue as I go there 4 times/week and would hate to leave and find an alternative. But I would have, in a second.
Although off the Tim Horton's topic, thought it good to let Joe know that a Straight Pride parade would not be the equivalent of a Gay Pride parade:
Gay Pride Parade is not about pride in a specific sexuality, but it's a day dedicated to feeling confident & celebrating the person you are & believing you are equal & worthy when you know that many in society at present (and many groups, including some governments) say you are less than equal, only because of your sexuality. Pride Day is one day of the year many can forget about ridiculous inequalities, negativity & fear of threats.
Normal heterosexuals do not carry the burden of being told they are deviant, a threat to society, subject to unequal benefits & rights, and heterosexuals aren't usually worried about holding hands in public, so such a "Straight Pride" parade would be unnecessary and a slap in the face to many homosexuals. Would just exist to ridicule Gay Pride - and surely attract a significant number of anti-gay groups, like this NOM group, and for sure Fred Phelps too.
So a reaction to such a parade would be deserved, and not a double-standard.