Young and Restless Star Greg Rikaart Tweets Disappointment in DAYS' Melissa Reeves' Support of Anti-Gay Chick-fil-A






Another daytime star has chimed in on "Chick-fil-A  Appreciation Day" and the restaurant's stance on gay marriage. The Young and the Restless' Greg Rikaart responded on Twitter to Days of Our Lives' Melissa Reeves' support of the fast food chain. Rikaart tweeted:

So far, Reeves has kept mum on Rikaart's decision to exercise his rights to free speech.

 


Comments

david46208's picture
Member since:
15 January 2009
Last activity:
6 days 4 hours

@TomZulawski: He could if he suffered as an account of it financially. That is what MR could do as well. So what I've learned from people like you is that you don't care what the facts are. What you believe is THE TRUTH no matter what the facts are. I must thank you for teaching me that. It says a lot.

Member since:
16 April 2010
Last activity:
4 hours 52 min

Anytime David, glad I could help.

soapjunkie88's picture
Member since:
3 July 2008
Last activity:
23 hours 48 min

david46208 wrote:
@soapjunkie88: Her tweet was in support of free speech. The problem here is that people have been deciding to create their own meaning behind her support of free speech. That's slander. Call it what it is.
Only thing anyone knows here for a fact is that she said that she supported free speech. That's all you know. Many people have decided that that means she supports whatever CFA stands for. That's where the lies and the slander begin. It is just like the game of telephone.
And what is funny to me is that as many times as I pointed to the facts. Just the facts, people avoid those facts to create their own. This is the root of the problem. See it easy for me because i'm dealing with fact and not fiction.
And to close if your argument can't hold up in court it is useless. But MR could sue for slander if something were to happen to her. She has the grounds for it if she wished. I'm just saying...

Melissa Reeves supported Chick-fli-A on their Appreciation day. The day where the company fought for their right to support gay hating groups. These ain't lies or slander.

But because Melissa Reeves throw in something about free speech, people make that this is what it's about.

It's about the fact that she supported the company on that day. Appreciation day. Where the company celebrated the support of people who agreeing with what they stand for.

Why are people trying to separate her involvement with Chick-fli-A and make this all about free speech? I don't get it.

If she wants to sue and can make a case in court I would be interested how this would develop.

david46208's picture
Member since:
15 January 2009
Last activity:
6 days 4 hours

@soapjunkie88: Okay a little bit of education here. Please listen.

You are called to the witness stand to testify whether Jane Doe was at Larry's house on Friday the 13th. All you know is that she was there. But you believe she was there because she had some issues with Larry.

What part of this is fact? And what part of this is speculation? What part is admissible and what part is not? And why is it not admissible?

Now MR only said she supported free speech. Some people think that she supports CFA's message.

Again, what part of this is fact? And what part of this is speculation? What part is admissible and what part is not? And why is it not admissible?

I'm giving you a chance here.

Member since:
21 March 2009
Last activity:
1 year 34 weeks

TomZulawski wrote:
Bellajewles obviously you feel MR freedom of speech and right to her opinion is more important than millions of people's civil rights. We understand your point and you have driven this into the ground far enough.

So you can continue to state your point over and over even thought it's completely clear but because you think I've said enough and made my point clear I should just stop. Good to know that you think that you not only have the right to voice your opinion as many times as you want to but that you also have the right to inform me when I've stated my opinions enough.

No one is saying that Melissa Reeves was right in what she was saying. And yes, I do believe that she has the right to say it. I thought you've said over and over again that she has the right to say it. I just think she has the right to say it without people judging her for saying something that she never actually said. But to quote you..We understand your point and you have driven this into the ground far enough.

hey mon's picture
Member since:
19 May 2011
Last activity:
3 hours 54 min

I guess it's just a boring debate here on DaytimeConfidential. I dont think anyone shuld be harping on Missy Reeves, and her right to do as she sees fit. I really dont agree with her that much, but I dont think anyone should be trying to hound her out of the industry.

I dont understand the 'gay gene'. I dont understand the 'born that way' argument. I understand a pre-dispositon top male/male behavior. And so, I think that what bothers me is that none of this can be talked about.

I think there is alot of behavior in the gay community that even a good PR campaign cannot overcome, cause its a bunch of guys with hormones run amok, without the inhibitions of women to reign them in. Pride parades with near naked men on floats, advertisements for fetish behaviors, quickie sex, multiple partner sex, body worhip -- all of this common.

So Im really not sure why the cry for 'marriage'. I know I may be driven out of the Daytime posting community, but for lack of a better phrase, I just dont see why the need. Every gay guy I know (and I have known about 10 in my life) brags about multple partners at once, or hundreds of partners. So is there a need for marriage?

Lesbian marriage? Make it legal.

Member since:
16 April 2010
Last activity:
4 hours 52 min

Exactly Bellajewels so Im hoping we dont have to hear from you again on this subject LOL

soapjunkie88's picture
Member since:
3 July 2008
Last activity:
23 hours 48 min

@david46208: You don't need to educate me. Thanks.

But I did listen anyway. The question then is why Melissa Reeves had to make a statement about free speech and mentioning Chick-fli-A with it?

The fact is that Mrs. Reeves drove to the Appreciation day of Chick-fli-A. The company celebrated that day to thank supporters for their right to support gay hating groups. Is it admissible? Probably, because the case wouldn't stand a chance in court anyway.

If you want to make a statement about free speech. Do it!
But bringing in a company that's part of a publicly debate is not a smart thing to do if you don't want to be part of it.

It's a situation that wasn't handled right by her IMO. I'm all for free speech but you should look out with what you associate it with. Don't associate free speech with hate.

Member since:
16 April 2010
Last activity:
4 hours 52 min

hey mon wrote:
I guess it's just a boring debate here on DaytimeConfidential. I dont think anyone shuld be harping on Missy Reeves, and her right to do as she sees fit. I really dont agree with her that much, but I dont think anyone should be trying to hound her out of the industry.

I dont understand the 'gay gene'. I dont understand the 'born that way' argument. I understand a pre-dispositon top male/male behavior. And so, I think that what bothers me is that none of this can be talked about.

I think there is alot of behavior in the gay community that even a good PR campaign cannot overcome, cause its a bunch of guys with hormones run amok, without the inhibitions of women to reign them in. Pride parades with near naked men on floats, advertisements for fetish behaviors, quickie sex, multiple partner sex, body worhip -- all of this common.

So Im really not sure why the cry for 'marriage'. I know I may be driven out of the Daytime posting community, but for lack of a better phrase, I just dont see why the need. Every gay guy I know (and I have known about 10 in my life) brags about multple partners at once, or hundreds of partners. So is there a need for marriage?

Lesbian marriage? Make it legal.

Really? I mean Really? Do you want to start comparing the sexual habits of heterosexuals to homosexuals? OMG just go onto Craigslist and you can witness for yourself how beyond screwed up the heterosexual community is, I dont think anyone should be allowed to get married if that is the case. I cant tell you how many of my straight friends have divorced to to one of the other cheating with many different people, How about this, lets turn on Maury Povitch and see how many heterosexual people dont know who the father of their baby is.

david46208's picture
Member since:
15 January 2009
Last activity:
6 days 4 hours

@soapjunkie88: No she supported free speech. You are adding to it what you want that to mean. Do you understand that you are speculating? That you are putting words in her mouth that did not come out. So again the fact is she said she supported free speech. You interpret that to mean that she supports whatever CFA stands for. That part is not fact.

Are you getting it now?

Member since:
16 April 2010
Last activity:
4 hours 52 min

David if I ever commit murder I want you on my jury, because I could have blood all over my hands and be holding the murder weapon but unless I tell you I did it, Im Innocent!!

Member since:
5 July 2008
Last activity:
11 hours 28 min

David
Anyone who gives money to CFA at the least indirectly supports the groups CFA donates to

david46208's picture
Member since:
15 January 2009
Last activity:
6 days 4 hours

@everyone: What I see here is Cognitive dissonance in a form called "The Belief Disconfirmation Paradigm."

Dissonance is aroused when people are confronted with information that is inconsistent with their beliefs. If the dissonance is not reduced by changing one's belief, the dissonance can result in misperception or rejection or refutation of the information, seeking support from others who share the beliefs, and attempting to persuade others to restore consonance.
----
This hits the nail right on the head.

hey mon's picture
Member since:
19 May 2011
Last activity:
3 hours 54 min

I guess so TomZ. I dont really see the widespread multiple partner 'thing' occurring in the straight community. I dont condemn anyone for the life-style they want to pursue, but I think that the 'marriage' concept is a hetero- and lesbian thing. Marriage is a 'thing' for women, by women, run by women, and dominated by women.

If I went by the gay men that I meet, I dont see it at all. My secretary is constantly talking about his 'threeway last night', or trying to run off during lunch with other gay male workers to have sex. Do I judge him? No, I dont. My female secretary never talks about such things. So Im not going to sit here and drink some 'kool aid' thinkng that most gay males arent thinking about their next conquest. Cause they sure seem to be.

And almost every gay guy I know is loaded, without an economic care in the world. Do I care? No.

So, gay male civil unions, I am for it. It seems to be a good way to forward property to whomever a person wants to. Marriage is a female thing, I think it should left that way.

Or dont I pass the litmus test?

soapjunkie88's picture
Member since:
3 July 2008
Last activity:
23 hours 48 min

david46208 wrote:
@soapjunkie88: No she supported free speech. You are adding to it what you want that to mean. Do you understand that you are speculating? That you are putting words in her mouth that did not come out. So again the fact is she said she supported free speech. You interpret that to mean that she supports whatever CFA stands for. That part is not fact.
Are you getting it now?

Honestly? I don't want to continue arguing with you. Not because I couldn't continue this for hours but because I think to wouldn't do much.

I'll only say that we all wouldn't have a discussion and others wouldn't feel the need to talk about this if Melissa Reeves had left Chick-fli-A out of her tweet.

Member since:
16 April 2010
Last activity:
4 hours 52 min

Wow David you are a posting maniac, you are just hating all over the liberals on Michael Fairmans site, I hope you get a better reception there.

david46208's picture
Member since:
15 January 2009
Last activity:
6 days 4 hours

@TomZulawski: First the premise of your statement is loaded. As a former high school and college debate team member you learn about what a "Loaded Question" is. A loaded question is a question which contains a controversial or unjustified assumption (e.g., a presumption of guilt).

Aside from being a logical fallacy, such questions may be used as a rhetorical tool: the question attempts to limit direct replies to be those that serve the questioner's agenda.The traditional example is the question "Have you stopped beating your wife?" Whether the respondent answers yes or no, he will admit to having a wife, and having beaten her at some time in the past. Thus, these facts are presupposed by the question, and in this case an entrapment, because it narrows the respondent to a single answer, and the fallacy of many questions has been committed. The fallacy relies upon context for its effect: the fact that a question presupposes something does not in itself make the question fallacious. Only when some of these presuppositions are not necessarily agreed to by the person who is asked the question does the argument containing them become fallacious. Hence the same question may be loaded in one context, but not in the other.

Thus you can also load statements or responses.

So this is loaded:

"David if I ever commit murder I want you on my jury, because I could have blood all over my hands and be holding the murder weapon but unless I tell you I did it, Im Innocent!!"

This is also loaded: Anyone who gives money to CFA at the least indirectly supports the groups CFA donates to.

I don't deal with loaded questions or statements.

but on the other hand, TomZulawski you'd rather have Uncle Ruckus from The Boondocks on your jury.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mK4XhR0lYlE

Member since:
16 April 2010
Last activity:
4 hours 52 min

Hey mon, no I understand and have experienced the same thing among gay men I've known. But I also know men who have been together for decades, have raised children and are monogomous. I hope if given the opportunity at a traditional marriage and general acceptance throughout the world that gay men would move closer to wanting to be in monogomous relationships. But trust me, there are many men out there capable of commient and love and they shouldn't be denied that chance.

Member since:
21 March 2009
Last activity:
1 year 34 weeks

TomZulawski wrote:
Exactly Bellajewels so Im hoping we dont have to hear from you again on this subject LOL

Call my immature but I'm going to reply again for the simple fact that NO ONE is going to instruct me to stop speaking because they don't want to hear what I have to say.

Member since:
16 April 2010
Last activity:
4 hours 52 min

David, I read your posts on Michael Fairmans site. I have a much better understanding of who you are, I have no desire to engage you.

Member since:
16 April 2010
Last activity:
4 hours 52 min

Bellajewels wrote:
TomZulawski wrote:
Exactly Bellajewels so Im hoping we dont have to hear from you again on this subject LOL

Call my immature but I'm going to reply again for the simple fact that NO ONE is going to instruct me to stop speaking because they don't want to hear what I have to say.

Bella, I'm sorry I was completely joking when I posted that, it was Getting intense I needed a laugh.

Member since:
5 July 2008
Last activity:
11 hours 28 min

Its funny that the ones that call Gays unnatural, unwanted by god and perverts and vote aganist Human rights are the same ones who are caught in a same sex act and then play the victim. Im over this BULLSHIT. Having a same sex attraction does not make one a PERVERT, It makes one HUMAN. Running from those feelings & burying them and hiding behind the line that GOD does not approve is COWARDNESS.

david46208's picture
Member since:
15 January 2009
Last activity:
6 days 4 hours

@TomZulawski: "David, I read your posts on Michael Fairmans site. I have a much better understanding of who you are, I have no desire to engage you.
So I" -- This is another loaded question.

But by the way DC is the only site I post on and have visited MF's site once to share the James Scott interview since I subscribe to their podcast on Itunes.

Other than that I go to SON to view and share the ratings.

So thanks! But no thanks.

stoney07's picture
Member since:
18 August 2009
Last activity:
10 hours 38 min

I'm sooooo sick of this crap. I wish it would really go away because its frustrating.

Who knows what MR meant by her comment? Who is to say that she KNEW that CFA supported these "hate groups" as they are being called. Who is to say that she had any idea. If she DIDN'T know, then what makes her any different from anyone else in this thread?

I'm assuming I'm not the only one that has eaten at CFA. I'm sure when some found out about how CFA spends some of their money, maybe they stopped going, but in the end, WE ALL have indirectly donated money to those groups, because we have eaten at CFA. So yeah, she said what she said, my bae Greg Rikaart said what he said, now back to the soaps...geesh...I hate this.

Member since:
5 July 2008
Last activity:
11 hours 28 min

Its on Michael Fairman's facebook actually

Member since:
16 April 2010
Last activity:
4 hours 52 min

Um yeah right David. I was born at night but not last night.

david46208's picture
Member since:
15 January 2009
Last activity:
6 days 4 hours

Who posted it you?

Member since:
16 April 2010
Last activity:
4 hours 52 min

I'm with ya Stoney!!!

david46208's picture
Member since:
15 January 2009
Last activity:
6 days 4 hours

@stoney07: Amen Brotha!

Member since:
16 April 2010
Last activity:
4 hours 52 min

Appleridge did you read the Michael Fairman post? They were hysterical. They blasted David.