Bun Toons Appreciation Day! Cluck! Cluck! Cluck!

Are you calling me a chicken?  You better not be.

Bun Toons is always on the forefront of today’s news stories.  We’re equal parts bunny cartoon and hard hitting, investigative news reporting.  Today, our roving reporters take you behind the scenes and put YOU in the middle of the headlines, as we present to you….

Click the image to make it larger if it`s hard to read…

Here’s the sad part.  I actually agree, to some extent, with the protesters.  As soon as those mayors in Chicago and San Francisco started telling this company what cities they were and were not welcome in, it CLEARLY became a free speech issue that needed a protest.  How DARE those mayors believe they had the right to dictate political and first amendment rules to Chick-Fil-A because they disagreed with their opinion on something.  Shameful.

But let’s not kid ourselves, the protesters who showed up, were all about the hating of “teh gay”.

So screw them.

Ty the Guy OUT!

Here now, your BONUS Chicken Comic Book Moment:

From “FOXHOLE” Comics.  I’m told there are no atheists in foxholes, or chickens either.

Learn the life of the shredded and tortured creature that makes it into your sandwich, now in comic book form.


For last week’s FAR less political, but equally controversial Bun Toon, click the title above.

For Every Bun Toon ever, click the politically correct rabbit above.

8 responses to “Bun Toons Appreciation Day! Cluck! Cluck! Cluck!

  1. My favorite quip is the callback to the Dixie Chicks. It’s often forgotten, but the South Carolina House of Representatives, led by Catherine Ceips, voted 50-35 to pass a resolution demanding an apology from them for their “inappropriate” remarks, and called for a free concert for the troops stationed in that state. Ceips didn’t consider it an overreach of government or an infringement of Constitutionally protected free speech. Rather, she called it an “olive branch” and made out that it was the best offer the Dixie Chicks were going to get to make peace with anyone.

    The conservative response to those of us who felt that was entirely out of line was something about how the freedom of speech doesn’t entitle anyone to an audience or support, etc. That blanket “might makes right” position was more than sufficient when conservatives were in power.

    I readily agree that it makes me uncomfortable to see an entire business told they’re not welcome in a particular area, but the truth is that it happens all the time and often for far pettier reasons. Hell, we can’t get a White Castle in my small town because the bible-thumpers who run things have resisted having a business with a reputation for drawing late night drunks. (We just finally voted to allow the sale of packaged liquor in this town. I swear to God this is true.) At least telling an organization that endorses hate they’re unwelcome is a reason I can get behind.

    That brings me to one last quick point; it’s different in this case because it’s not just Dan Cathy donating out of his own pocket to hate groups. He’s actually giving Chick-fil-A money out of the Chick-fil-A bank account. That’s why it’s appropriate to hold the company itself responsible for all this. If he had been content to wage his homophobic crusade on his own, so be it. He committed Chick-fil-A to all this by donating company money. I have no sympathy for the company whose board went along with that.

  2. So, basically, this is all about “clucking the gays”?


    Steven Willis

  3. Hm. I’m sad to hear that that’s your position. I mean, putting aside the whole point that corporations are not people (regardless of the legal fiction that claims that they are) and therefore shouldn’t enjoy “rights” (including the right to free speech), I think it’s painfully wrong to equate “free speech” with “using corporate profits to fund anti-LBGTI organization who seek to codify inequality into law.” To me, those are so obviously different things that it’s a bit painful to see the media and so many commentators trotting out this canard.

    • Wait. The “corporation” who is responsible for the free speech here is a man named Dan Cathy. It’s HIS corporation, and he’s utterly entitled to say what he wishes and donate to any legal cause he wants. I disagree with his opinion (hence, I made fun of his restaurant and its customers, another use of free speech), but it’s a no-brainer that his “using corporate profits to fund anti-LBGT organizations” continues that free speech. Where it becomes a “canard” is confusing to me. You see some obvious bright line between free speech and supporting causes you believe in with donations that I simply don’t see. Remember, believing in free speech means I believe in the free speech rights of those I VEHEMENTLY DISAGREE WITH. Do I think Dan Cathy is an ignorant bigot with an evil agenda? Yes I do. Do I believe he is completely in his rights to speak out for his opinion and advocate for it, regardless of the vileness of the opinion? Of course he is. This shouldn’t be confusing to anyone. We cannot dictate opinions or thoughts. That’s Orwell’s territory. We can publicly shun and ridicule opinions we don’t like (I insist on it) but we cannot take that right away from people, no matter what.
      And besides…by telling people what a homophobic prick he is, we are able to better shun and boycott this piece of garbage, and put his business into bankruptcy by shaming him. I’d rather Dan Cathy speaks out and isolates himself, then his keeping his monstrous opinion quiet where we can’t know what a shit he is.

      • I hesitate to respond to this because I suspect that it’s going to take a lot of work to get to the essence of the disagreement, and the likelihood of the conversation going off the rails is high. Much of your response is stuff that I agree with. Neil Gaiman, for example, has written eloquently about defending the freedom of speech, even in the case of icky things, and I think that you and I both agree with that position. I think that the Noam Chomsky/Robert Faurisson affair is another example: the speech that Chomsky was defending — holocaust denial — was pretty abhorrent, but I respect Chomsky’s willingness to defend it.

        I get that you disagree with Dan Cathy and Chick-fil-A, and I’m not arguing that we “dictate opinions or thoughts” — and the fact that you immediately go to this line of argument makes me skeptical that this conversation is going to be fruitful. I would argue that, to date, no one has limited Dan Cathy’s right to think or say whatever he wants on this topic.

        I *think* our primary difference of opinion boils down to two points, one of which is minor and incidental, and one I think is more salient.

        The incidental point is based on the legal status of Chick-fil-A: I don’t happen to agree with attempts to prevent them from opening new locations as “payback” for Cathy’s stance. But I also think that it’s untrue to say that this maneuver impedes Cathy’s right to free speech. My objection to this line of argument is based on the idea that the Chick-fil-A corporation is a different legal entity than Dan Cathy. But, as I said, I think that’s an incidental argument and I don’t think it’s important to try to come to agreement on it.

        But the more salient disagreement is around whether or not supporting a cause that seeks to legally enforce inequality is merely “speech”. For my part, I think that the answer is no. To try to talk about a comparable example, consider the Ugandan anti-gay bill which would result in the death penalty for “homosexual acts.” Bahati’s bill enjoys wide support in Uganda. He’s not some relatively unimportant bigot; he’s actually presenting a position that’s tremendously popular. And my point is that when someone is actively working to codify into law something that will lead to the deaths of queer people, it’s false to consider that “just a free speech issue.” If I may borrow your rhetoric for a moment, this shouldn’t be confusing to anyone.

        Does one have a free speech right to say that all the gays should be shot? Sure (although here in Canada, that would probably constitute hate speech — I have a number of apprehensions about Canada’s hate speech laws, but I’m not unsympathetic to what they’re trying to accomplish). But actively working to bring state power to bear on getting them shot? Different thing.

        And I view the Chick-fil-A/Dan Cathy situation similarly. Does he have a free speech right to say that queer folk shouldn’t marry/start families/etc? Sure. Do I think he’s a repugnant bigot for saying that? Sure do. But I don’t agree that trying to codify inequality into law is simply a free speech issue. It touches on some of the same ground that free speech touches. And I agree my line of argument raises a whole series of complex questions that are thorny and difficult. But it’s not merely “free speech”.

        • Actually, if the government imposes a financial penalty on someone for their opinion, it has a chilling effect on free speech. To say “you cannot open a business in my town because of your opinion” is a terrifying consequence of free speech, as bad as actual censorship.

          For my thoughts on your other analogy, see below.

  4. Obviously, creating laws that impose death penalties on someone for simply being who they are is the embodiment of evil. What the Nazis and the American Settlers and Cortez, and the government of South Africa, and all the evil creatures of history have done or attempted. That’s too easy to agree on, though, and it doesn’t work as an analogy.

    Dan (Asshole) Cathy has not advocated for a single new imposition upon the homosexual community as far as I know (though I’m happy to be educated on the specifics of what he’s done if he has). What Dan Cathy advocates is the continuation of a status quo. It’s an evil status quo, obviously… But advocates for pro-slavery positions could not be silenced under the first amendment either.

    What we are talking about here is the law and the importance of the government following it, not the justice or morality of it.

    Free speech in the advocacy of the current political and cultural status quo (as abhorrent as that is) cannot be curtailed, ever, ever ever, or the government has the right to curtail speech that protests THEM. As much as we agree with those two mayors on principle, their point of view and opinion cannot extra-judiciously trump free speech in a democracy, or we allow ANYONE to do so. I don’t want Southern Mayors suddenly deciding, extra-judiciously, that Muslims cannot own property in their town because, well, you know…I’m mayor and everyone’s making it up as they go along in Chicago and San Francisco.

    Asshole Cathy advocates for NOT granting what he considers “new” rights onto the GBLTQ community. He’s asking to impose nothing on his citizens, but for a continuation of the legal system as it now stands. Or it least the codifying of that status quo. You hate it and I hate it, but a democracy is based on this sort of back and forth advocacy of what constitutes rights and privileges. No one is killing anyone here. And denying you or me the right to visit my loved one in a hospital or to share a health care plan are awful, awful things, but do not rise to the level of prima facie human rights abuses that constitute this referenced law in Uganda.

    The remedy for all this (and it will happen in the next few years in the USA, I promise you) is that each court that looks at these gay-hating laws that strike down rights for the GLBTQ community rule that they cannot pass constitutional muster. There are a number of decisions already overturning these state votes pointing out that referendums cannot trump the national constitution and there’s no possible way for any other reading of that (at least when judges obey the law and remove religion from their decision making). Each court that has listened to people attempting to challenge the state laws that do allow for gay marriage in Hawaii, Maine, etc, can find no basis for anyone to bring a case AGAINST Gay Marriage, as no one has standing to be damaged by gay marriage. These decisions are being codified into precedent over and over at State Supreme Court levels and on a few Federal Courts. By the time the SCOTUS gets the case, it will be long decided.

    The US has that powerful third branch of government for precisely these sorts of extra-judicial overreaches –like trying to ban someone gay or black or female from having a right, or trying to stop someone from doing business in your town because you don’t like their opinions and advocacies on those subjects.

    Now, I advocate a completely extra-judicial solution to people like Dan Cathy. If he ever spoke like that in front of me, I’d citizen up and kick his fucking teeth down his nasal passages, and full throatedly advocate for any present to join me, please do. But I’m not a government, and we cannot allow the government to exercise their power based on extra-judicial opinion or we get mayors banning the Mosques in their towns, and mayors kicking out the Hispanics from their cities.

    WAY wrong road.

    Love and peace (unless a bigot spouts off in front of me, then I pull a knife).
    Ty the Guy

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s