Liberals?  Happy?  Never.

Perhaps if it was a chick riding a fur burger, they wouldn’t have a problem?

Maybe the logo cutie is not ethnic enough to qualify for liberal approval.

C’mon! Cowboys were predominately men. Cowgirls were for show at traveling performances like Buffalo Bill’s. Here you have a woman in a clearly dominate role even if she is farting mustard. How much more "progressive" can you get?

Would it make the liberals happy if the burger was riding the cowgirl? It wouldn’t make a damn bit of sense, but neither does anything else liberals like.

Translated from Bullshit to English: You hit the nail on the head!

You’re right–the Stonewall Democrats (in Michigan or anywhere else) are only capable of "safe" protests.  "Safe" means white, conservative and/or Christian targets because (1) these people are always the staunchest supporters of the Stonewall Democrats’ constitutional rights to bitch and be outraged about inconsequential matters (even when their beef is, as usual, with the conservatives to begin with), and (2) the targeted individuals would sooner cut off their hands than retaliate with anything more than a sincere apology if they inadvertently offended anyone.  This is how useless liberals "save the world."

If these fools had any real courage or instincts to protect the truly oppressed, they would take on the draconian treatment of women, Christians and gays in the Islamic Republics of the Middle East and the communist regimes of Asia where real lives and freedoms are at stake.  The problem is that it would require them to have the fortitude to identify and face down REAL EVIL in the world (Iraq, Iran, North Korea,…) and support U.S. efforts to depose, kill or contain those regimes that, in fact, threaten American freedom.  There’s a name for people who are capable of going after the "not so safe" targets, and it’s not "the Stonewall Democrats."  It’s SOLDIERS.

Or if the cowgirl were riding a crack snack.

Anyway, does anybody know if there’s a Hooters close by? I’ll bet anything there is.

Well said, Leah.  This type of crusade also illustrates perfectly how the "causes" undertaken by lefties are never about making the world a better place because only rational, thinking people are capable of seeing beyond their own narcissism and recognizing that even if they are successful in changing or censoring the logo it means NOTHING.  Even if the proprietor were a sexist, objectifier of women, that would not magically change just because he (or SHE!) was shamed into taking the sign down.  Nor would the censoring of the logo somehow PREVENT well-behaved, non-sexist male patrons from suddenly transforming into slobbering rapists and sexual harassers.  This campaign serves one purpose: making pathetic, useless liberals feel wonderfully self-righteous in their deluded faux-heroism.                       

It’s also more evidence of just how perfectly comfortable liberals are condemning and suppressing speech they disagree with (or are simply uncomfortable with).  For them, the "equality" Leah mentioned includes the "right" for liberals to be free from being offended by how other people choose to express themselves, commercially or otherwise.  If they are offended by it personally, they see no problem with undertaking efforts to erase it from public discourse.  As student Kolby Roberts puts it, "It just seems like it’s not putting a good message out there for the objectification of women."  Naturally, the business owner’s decisions about how to market his own business are irrelevant–his marketing efforts are to be condemned and attacked unless he’s "putting a good message out there" about women.  Dim-witted narcissists like "Kolby" attack the owner of a small business in the press, circulate outraged petitions in the community and try to pressure a private individual not only to conform to his silly view of the world, but to shoulder the financial responsibility of promoting liberal-approved messages in his marketing efforts.  People like Kolby NEVER stop to think that they might be anything but the "good guys."              

Finally, their outrage is, in itself, sexist.  The very idea that women somehow need the activism of the Stonewall Democrats to ensure their respect and equal treatment in American society necessarily implies that women simply can’t handle being depicted in this way or are in a blind, screaming tizzy out of fear that men might interpret the logo as confirmation that ALL women are just free-wheeling sex objects.  If their psyches are that delicate, then perhaps the group’s next project could be to stop women from exercising their choice to actually behave like free-wheeling sex objects when and if they are so inclined.  Why not?  Apparently, women are so precious and fragile they need to be PROTECTED.  We wouldn’t want the little darlings to hurt themselves–it’s a big, bad world out there.                       

P.S. BTW, you’re right, Kevin.  The actions of the Michigan University Stonewall Democrats can’t be ascribed to "all Democrats" under these circumstances.  The only way ALL Democrats would support this cause is if the logo had offended Michigan’s Muslim community.

But seriously, I’m much less offended by the busty ho than I am by the fact that she appears to be farting mustard.

You can’t, unless you get a Double-Double for me. Seriously. It’s been 13 years since I’ve had a heart attack on a bun.

Now as far as the post: I bet a year’s worth of hamburgers that if you asked 100 people, at least 80% of them never noticed what the logo was. Therefore the GLBTWXYZ group, most likely, only increased the chances that folks would go there. This is free advertisement for the burger joint.

Frankly, I’m offended that gays are associated with liberals. Can we get a petition going on that?

Simple, lefties believe in equality. Since they can’t make everyone equally happy, they make everyone equally miserable.

Yes, if this is "objectifying" then any advertisement with a person in it would count.

(And abercrombie and fitch objectify young men who appear barely pubescent.   Got their height but don’t shave.)