Thursday, August 2, 2012

Adam "There's No Gay In Me" Smith Fired After Bullying Chick-fil-A Girl

Oh...sweet sweet retribution! And so FAST! Maybe God has taken sides in this whole thing. Or maybe not. I put a call in to God, but He never returns my calls. America has clearly taken sides, though.

Tucson executive loses job after confronting Chick-fil-A worker

Arizona resident Adam Smith thought he was doing good by taking a video of himself confronting a Chick-fil-A employee in the drive-thru lane Wednesday. 
“Chick-fil-A is a hateful company,” Smith said to the employee in the video, which is still up on YouTube under multiple accounts. 
Don't be a h8ter.
But his employer, Tucson medical equipment manufacturer Vante, saw it differently. Vante has announced that Smith, formerly the chief financial officer and treasurer, no longer works there.
The problem, as I see it, is that Mr. Smith did not just make his disapproval known politely and leave it at that. He was...and I know this seems impossible, kittens, because Mr. Smith is obviously enlightened and progressive...intolerant of opposing views. Surprising.
“I don’t know how you stand it,” Smith said to the employee. “This is a horrible corporation with horrible values.”
After the employee wished Smith a nice day, he responded, “I will. I just did something really good. I feel purposeful.”
I suspect he's going to feel somewhat less good and purposeful standing in the unemployment line in Obama's economy. It would be ironic if the only company hiring was Chick-fil-A. They did just have a record-breaking day in sales. They may need more people...

And just because it amuses me...That sudden and unsolicited confession of his amazing, awesome straightness at the end of the video seemed completely weird. Does anyone else get the feeling that saying "there's not a gay in me" was maybe a Freudian slip? His righteous outrage may be more personal than righteous.



  1. As for the "There's no gay in me", with apologies to Shakespeare; the hateful moron doth protest too much, methinks.

    It's funny how a comment such as "I don't believe in gay marriage" becomes "hate speech", but vitriol directed toward the person who uttered a basically innocuous statement is a "required" exercise of freedom of speech.

  2. Does anyone else see a kind of disturbing parallel to, oh say, a black man trying to date a white woman in the 1950's?

    "Son, we don't cotton to that sort of thing around here. You know what's good for you, you'll change your tune."

    "That's a nice chicken business you got there, son. Be shame if anything happened to it. You'll come around to our way of thinking, if you know what's good for you."

  3. Snakeeater (Great name, btw) Absolutely. For the left, tolerance only goes one way -- TOWARD them. If you oppose anything they believe you are intolerant. But their opposition makes them RIGHT not intolerant. So whatever they do or say to you is justified. See? They get to be dicks and they're just "fighting the good fight." You stand your ground-even politely-and you're a hateful, intolerant bigot. Nice gig.

    Cheeze! Hey, you. Yes, remarks from the left are starting to sound an awfully lot like threats. I think that's why so many Americans showed up yesterday. It ceased to be about gay rights and became about 1st Amendment Rights. Something we should ALL be supportive of.

    1. Does anyone else get the feeling that saying "there's no gay in me" was maybe a Freudian slip? His righteous outrage may be more personal than righteous.

      Not sure if it's a leftist thing or if I just don't notice it as much from the right, where your opinion is automatically more or less legitimate depending on what group you belong to.

      I see it a lot in comments about some outrageous statement by some atheist. (The recent one about the head of some group complaining about a government official saying he was praying for rain comes to mind) A lot of commenters pop up and say "I'm an atheist but", making sure they get their bona fides in first thing.

      For a straight guy he's certainly picked up some stereotypically gay speech patterns and vocal tones.

    2. Naw, RG, that is just the in lib thing right now. Feel your feminine side, wear pads 5 days a month to show support. Do you remember white libs trying ebonics for a while several years ago. They would obnoxiously axe you a quetion...

  4. I think the left is always misrepresenting its intentions and hiding behind the "it's not for me that I fight, but for the (fill in the blank). They have to because they are never fighting for something that can be gained for everyone, like freedom, they are fighting for privileges or protection or just goodies. To do so for themselves seems obviously selfish, greedy, nasty and mean. But they're the good guys, remember? So they HAVE to fight for "someone else". So his reassurance that "I'm totally heterosexual. Not a gay in me," was to show that his rage was for someone else.

    I call bullshit.

  5. I think it's all about the leftist's desire to display himself as morally superior purely as an ego-feed. There's no introspection, no self-awareness, just baby-wants-to-feel-good preening and posturing. Because this sort of leftist has cocooned himself in a big lefty pouch for years or a lifetime, he is conditioned to being rewarded with stroking and approving murmurs from mommy when he acts like a sanctimonious prick and so it never occurs to him that he could possibly be the hateful shithead, himself.

    I've known people like this Adam Smith guy and they genuinely scare me. I don't know how else to put it. They scare me and I want to put as much distance between myself and them as I can. Don't ask me why I moved to Europe, haha. Thing is, the European variety of this sort of specimen isn't actually frightening at all. More like a pesky gnat.

    It's the really aggressive American ones like this douchebag that are going to destroy Western civilization because they're able to vote for the most powerful office on the planet, and that qualitatively matters more than being able to vote for a French prime minister, for example.

    P.S. "Not a gay in me" is one of the funniest things I've ever heard.

    1. Ohhhhh Lordy! I busted a gut over ***he is conditioned to being rewarded with stroking and approving murmurs from mommy when he acts like a sanctimonious prick and so it never occurs to him that he could possibly be the hateful shithead, himself.***

      DING! DING! DING! We have a winner.

      I think that sums up just about every liberal I've ever met. Some are just slightly more discrete about how grand they think they are, but that's really the profile.

      Wait a're profiling...which is to be expected from a conservative.

  6. Interesting circumstance:
    Mr. Smith published at least one other video which he intended as ridicule, yet in which Mr. Smith happened across a tremendously sympathetic figure, and thus Mr. Smith's video garnered sympathy for the target of Mr. Smith's ridicule.

    In the second video, Mr. Smith speaks with a man who is hiking down a Tuscon highway while toting a Christian cross. Viewers do not have to agree with every opinion which the man expresses in order to find ourselves fully sympathetic to this likable man who is sincerely living out his convictions. The man is fully in control of his faculties, and is merely a sincere person who is trying to live out his convictions. The man's sincerity, and simplicity, and natural wisdom, form a sharp contrast with Mr. Smith's pretension, condescension, and lack of wisdom.

    What are the odds, that in the two videos we have by Mr. Smith, his subjects happened to be the two most sincere and sympathetic figures in Tuscon?


    along with Rachel L, I fear the voting impact of persons such as Mr. Smith. Along with Rachel L, I note the Mr. Smith is suprememly unaware of some of obvious ... incongruities(?), missing perspectives(?) ... of his personality and of his understanding.

    But, having watched Mr. Smith's apology video: I do think there is hope for Mr. Smith to grow and to mature. I do think Mr. Smith is sincere, and he has heart.

    I think he is simply shallow, and he has not been wise enough (fortunate enough?) to hang out with persons who have depth of character, and who have depth of wisdom about human nature. I modestly assert. Ho hum, it is so easy to declare myself superior. Still, I do think this is Mr. Smith's problem. And I do suspect that there is hope for a Mr. Smith who, underneath it all, has a good heart which - while currently hidden under a pile of manure - is nevertheless trying to find its way to the light.

    1. Mr. Smiths video of the man with the cross

    2. Also, my mind keeps focusing on Mr. Smith's video description of how he searched for evidence of the truth of Christianity, yet did not find it.

      I suspect Mr. Smith was engaged in what some are now referring to as "scientism", by which they mean instances of demanding scientific style evidence ... for a God who exists outside the limits of time and space, and who therefore could not be discovered via scientific style evidence. Father Barron has a YouTube channel on which he engages atheists:

      "The sciences - and their attendant technologies - have been so massively successful that people have come, understandably enough, to see the scientific way of knowing as the only epistemological path.

      Time and again, my conversation partners on YouTube urge me to admit that the only valid form of truth is that which comes as a result of the scientific method: observing the world, gathering evidence, marshaling arguments, performing experiments, etc. I customarily respond that the scientific method is effective indeed when investigating empirical phenomena but that it is useless when it comes to questions of a more philosophical nature, such as the determination of the morally right and wrong, the assessment of something’s aesthetic value, or the settling of the question why there is something rather than nothing.

      More to it, I argue that to hold consistently to scientism involves one in an operational contradiction, for the claim that all knowledge is reducible to scientific knowledge is not itself a claim that can be justified scientifically! But this appeal to metaphysics and philosophy strikes most of my conversation partners as obscure at best, obfuscating at worst."

      Also, I have recently encountered the philosopher Alvin Plantiga. In this video Plantiga discusses which types of claims require evidence, vs. which types of claims do not require evidence.

      In a second part, Plantiga discusses three contentions of those who argue that it is wrong to believe in god:
      1. believers have an intellectual duty to disbelieve
      2. believers are being irrational
      3. belief in god has no warrant (i.e. is not sufficiently grounded in knowledge).

      Which: OF COURSE no one has any obligation to sample Dr. Plantiga's videos! I am not that demanding of a commenter! I only put the links here, just in case any of you are nerds in a similar way to my own nerdism.

    3. Great stuff Gcotharn. I don't think we will have any dearth of liberals until we have parents willing to treat kids like kids when they act like kids. When I was young, if I swore in public or was rude to an adult, or threw a fit in a store, I got a swift slap on the mouth or butt. Before I could cerebrally understand that there was a reason to be courteous, I was taught to be courteous in the ways a typical 4-7 year old could understand.

      My middle teenage years went through an atheist/scientism phase. I spoke with at least 7 different religious faith Pastors/Priests, etc. and I felt like I slaughtered their arguments. The Cathlic Priest was particularly tongue tied and frustrated. Then, per my Mother's orders I went to Crescent Lake Bible camp in Northern WI and had a similar experience until I spoke with the athletic director.

      He asked the question do I believe in absolute truths? Something science absolutely fails at. There are exceptions to every provable thing scientifically, though the problems are often solved by 'falling in to the margin of error'. Is all water H2O? Meet heavy water, etc.

      Is there any absolute truth? Something true all the time anywhere in the universe? Of course, the answer is if there were no absolute truths, that in itself would be an absolute truth. Since there are then, absolute truths, and they certainly cannot all be found scientifically, perhaps philosophy and metaphysics can be at least as useful in discovering them. The conversation went on from there. I have been a cerbral and stalwart Christian ever since...

  7. Amazing: Daily Caller reports that Mr. Smith was an "adjunct lecturer" at Univ. of Ariz. during the the Spring 2012 semester.

    Could Mr. Smith possibly hit any more checkboxes for a stereotypical progressive? He would have to have been a precinct worker for Obama 2008, and to have done Meghan McCain during a night of drunken revelry.

    Wait, what am I saying? Mr. Smith would have to have done Gabby Giffords former campaign manager, Ron Barber, current Dem. candidate for Rep. Giffords seat in Congress ... to hit any additional checkboxes for a stereotypical prog, Mr. Smith would have to have blown Ron Barber during a night of drunken revelry. There. Fixed it.

    1. Firs, gcotharn, you are a heckuva lot more understanding of this creep with "not a gay in him" than I, and you are much MUCH more willing to give him the benefit of the doubt that there is something deeper and possibly salvageable in there. I hope you're right. The video of his encounter with the man carrying the cross just made me want to punch him. Turn the other cheek? If Mr. Smith wants to, then I'll just smack that one, too.

      As for the philosophy/religion video, great stuff! I have always believed that religious understanding can not be found in the dissection of the world around us, because religious experience is WITHIN us. It is personal, unique, and altogether private. We can attempt to share this experience via words, but we can never actually experience separate oursevles from the experience and therefore examine it as some kind of separate and measurable phenomena. The "truth" will always elude those who attempt to reduce God down to some materialistically provable construct.

      And yes, with the Barber thing, you fixed it alright! HAHAHA!

    2. One of my favorite religious blogs is One Cosmos. Great stuff there.

  8. Poetic justice. He seems to have forgotten that private companies can and often will terminate your employment if you make a douchebag of yourself and publicize it. Being a douchebag in private is one thing, but to make it public and distribute videos of said douchebaggery tends to bring the threat of unwanted negative publicity to his employer, and they will often act to protect themselves. Personally I call it consequences. You are free to behave like a jerk all you want, but sooner or later you will be held accountable somewhere, somehow, for your jerk actions.

    1. ***Personally I call it consequences. You are free to behave like a jerk all you want, but sooner or later you will be held accountable somewhere, somehow, for your jerk actions.***

      And that, my friend, is one of the basic differences between a conservative worldview and a liberal worldview. The conservative believes exactly that. The liberal thinks that's UNFAIR! waaaaaaaa!

      He might have lots of time to contemplate the nuance of the different positions while standing in the unemployment line.

    2. Amen. Conservatives are individually right or wrong on every subject and willing to participate in fixing themselves or you.

      Liberals are collectively right or wrong and change is always so much more of a bother when everyone has to agree, y'know? Just agree or be wrong.

    3. Precisely. And if all right or wrong is judged collectively, then "I" am never REALLY responsible for any of it, and therefore, it is never possible for me to change any of it. At least not without a gun, 'cause it's gonna be haaaarrd to change "collectively".

      Enter government.