I suppose it isn't of any use,

Then why are you so set on using a useless definition?

Last time I checked people were allowed to share statements and opinions on this website ;)

I don't see anyone stopping you.

The difference between this and lesbians coming from lesbian island is that the context I'm using discriminant is correct, I'm not saying this definition in a legal sense. The context is not legal, thus the legal definition means nothing, and the etymological definition means the most. What I was saying had nothing to do with how people were using the word discriminate I specifically said the context and definition of the way I used discriminate, thus the way I used discriminate does indeed belong.

With Chick-Fil-A we are talking about discrimination as prejudicial treatment. That is the context in use here. The definition you're insisting on broadens it beyond this context to the point of uselessness. You're trying to use the word in a different context.

Meanwhile the etymological definition of lesbians in not woman coming from an island called lesbo. Thus what I'm saying and what you're saying is nothing alike.

lesbian (adj.)
'1590s, "pertaining to the island of Lesbos," from L. Lesbius, from Gk. lesbios "of Lesbos," Greek island in northeastern Aegean Sea (the name originally may have meant "wooded"), home of Sappho, great lyric poet whose erotic and romantic verse embraced women as well as men, hence meaning "relating to homosexual relations between women" (1890; lesbianism in this sense is attested from 1870) and the noun, first recorded 1925. Before this, the principal figurative use (common in 17c.) was lesbian rule (c.1600) a mason's rule of lead, of a type used on Lesbos, which could be bent to fit the curves of a molding; hence, "pliant morality or judgment."'

"The word "lesbian" is derived from the name of the Greek island of Lesbos, home to the 6th-century BCE poet Sappho" -wiki  (cited from  Oxford English Dictionary, Second Edition, 1989. Retrieved on January 7, 2009.)

In short,  yes it is.

P.S. The context I used the word (which I was clear about) is that going by a etymological definition of the word, boycotters and the gays are discriminating

Which is where my example of lesbian comes into play.

@mage and the Lesbo related writing.

Well I did not know that. I guess I was wrong about it not meaning "women coming from Lesbos". So I guess if someone said "you are a lesbian" you could "say according to this definition I am not."

Then why are you so set on using a useless definition?

I'm not set on arguing about the useless definition of a word, more so set on showing you and the others the flaw of your thinking that the homosexuals aren't discriminating whatsoever, and that while I am wrong about many things a lot of the time, I'm not wrong that the meaning of this word is used in the right context and that discriminate is considered by many to be defined as "the preferential treatment between people and or companies". This is right because of you took a survey and asked 100 people I'm sure most would agree with that definition. I have no proof of this, but I am certain of it.

P.S. I would also consider arguing about the more specific term of discriminate as useless.

I'm not set on arguing about the useless definition of a word, more so set on showing you and the others the flaw of your thinking that the homosexuals aren't discriminating whatsoever,

Sigh. This has dragged on far longer than need be.

1) Yes, if you really want to get nit-picky, both sides are discriminating.
2) Even though the word is the same, the meaning behind each is different, making it a moot point.
3) It is fairly pointless to say that homosexuals are discriminating when there is a more accurate, inclusive word. It's also not limited to just homosexuals.
4) Words have different meanings depending on the context. Arguing that every definition of a word applies in all situations is incorrect.

I officially declare the subject closed.

I officially declare the subject closed.

Sure thing.

Although I prefer precise over nit-picky =.=

Very single minute definition constitute? That is absolutely not what I am doing/being, please elaborate to how you can think that.

Every*

And I have agreed that if the context of our argument was a legal one in a legal sense you'd be right, but the context is not one of that nature.

P.S. The context I used the word (which I was clear about) is that going by a etymological definition of the word, boycotters and the gays are discriminating.

OP has clearly set this in a legal context because we ate discussing the restaurant.

1. I Have no idea what volte face means.
2. I concede to points when I believe I am being wrong.
3. I admit to being wrong when I'm wrong (I've done this before on site and this thread).
4. I haven't really disparaged what you have said, I don't know how you can say that when I agree that the homosexuals aren't really indulging in hypocrisy and that I agreed with you that if the context I was using discriminate would be related to a legal issue I'd be wrong, but the context I'm using it is not legal.
5. The reason I'm arguing right now is because you're saying I'm wrong and single minded about the definition of discriminate in the situation I'm using it when I am most certainly not.

Volte face: reversal of attitude. Compared to your earlier rater staunch sticking to your definition it is a volte face. By sticking very strongly for about two pages and telling us we are all incorrect and narrow minded whilst adhering only to one definition yourself till this page, yes it can be said so.

Disparaged others. Yes. An insult is still disparaging.

Now let's move on because our misunderstandings have arisen from having different contexts in mind and this is pointless.

At any rate, Chick A Fil seems to have more business than ever. Hmmmm.

I agree with toemas they were just stating there opinions its not like they want to do anything or want to get rid of gays.

its not like they want to do anything or want to get rid of gays.

That's exactly what they were doing. They were funding groups which "re-educate" or flat out condemn homosexuals.

I agree with toemas they were just stating there opinions

Just stating one's opinion does not involve millions of dollars going to various groups.

I agree with toemas they were just stating there opinions

They pretty much funded hate groups trying to get people to not be gay anymore. Completely ridiculous in my opinion. Bringing politics into a food business or any business for that matter is really unnecessary. Bet they weren't happy when Romney lost.