DAS Posted July 26, 2012 Share Posted July 26, 2012 Hopefully this will save the news stories thread. My last post: I don't believe I've yet shared my opinion on the marriage issue yet so I'll just go ahead and do that. I'm against both gay and straight marriage as they stand. I don't think it's a government issue. I don't think they should be controlling the institution nor do I believe they should legally recognize or refuse to recognize anyone's vows to one another. It should be recognized by the families and communities of the people involved. Marriage was around for a very long time without bureaucracy and I doubt it needs it now. Major Major (I totally agree with this btw, well said): Chick-Fil-A would only be 'discriminating' if, on their job application forms, they asked 'Are you now or have you ever been a homosexual?' - or if they asked the same question of customers, and refused to serve anyone who answered in the affirmative. They are free to donate to whichever legal organisations they choose. It's their money, and they can spend it as they choose. There was a recent case over here where a devoutly Christian couple who ran a B&B were prosecuted for refusing to allow a homosexual couple to stay in their home. This was IMO an egregious infringement of the owners' civil liberties. However much the gay rights & PC brigades try to beat us over the head, the fact is that there remains a substantial minority of people who hold these views, which they are perfectly entitled to hold, and which nobody will ever be able to legislate out of existence. Jahfin: This isn't actually a "WTF?" news story as it actually makes sense but on the Chick Fil A tip: Muppets dump Chick-Fil-A to support gay marriage (Chicago Tribune) However, this does qualify as a WTF news story, especially on Chick Fil A's part, particularly in light of the above article from the Chicago Tribune: Resume Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anjin-san Posted July 26, 2012 Share Posted July 26, 2012 I'll take a chicken sandwich and free speech. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cryingbluerain Posted July 26, 2012 Share Posted July 26, 2012 This nonsense is getting out of hand. Roseanne Barr saying she hopes Chick-fil-a customers get cancer. Classy.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dandu Posted July 26, 2012 Share Posted July 26, 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anjin-san Posted July 26, 2012 Share Posted July 26, 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bong-Man Posted July 26, 2012 Share Posted July 26, 2012 Roseanne Barr saying she hopes Chick-fil-a customers get cancer After trying one of those nasties in Memphis, it's a distinct possibility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DAS Posted July 26, 2012 Author Share Posted July 26, 2012 I'll take a chicken sandwich and free speech. Would you like fries with that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dandu Posted July 26, 2012 Share Posted July 26, 2012 Would you like fries with that? Let me guess - only if they are Freedom Fries? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anjin-san Posted July 26, 2012 Share Posted July 26, 2012 Let me guess - only if they are Freedom Fries? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anjin-san Posted July 26, 2012 Share Posted July 26, 2012 Would you like fries with that? onion rings please! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DAS Posted July 26, 2012 Author Share Posted July 26, 2012 Let me guess - only if they are Freedom Fries? Well of course. Who would want commie loving French Fries? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DAS Posted July 26, 2012 Author Share Posted July 26, 2012 I just heard that the mayors of Chicago and Boston said they will prevent Chick-Fil-A from getting business permits in the towns henceforth. What country are we living in? That is government punishment for free speech. If this is true they both should be impeached and we should start pressing criminal charges for such blatant violations of the constitution by politicians. Regardless of the issue this is not right. No one should have to live in fear that they could be punished by their government while practice their rights guaranteed by the law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tmtomh Posted July 26, 2012 Share Posted July 26, 2012 Chick-Fil-A is indeed free to give their money to whomever they want, and their CEO is of course free to hold and express whatever views he wants. But the same goes for everyone else. Jim Henson's daughter is free to say she's in favor of gay marriage; and as a private business owner she's free to enter into, and dissolve, a promotional agreement with Chick-Fil-A. I'm also free to not buy anything from the company if I think they're going to be donating a portion of my money to groups I don't support. Everyone's free to feel, think, and say what they want. Free Speech rights in the Constitution protect us from government interference - they don't protect us from other private individuals or groups opposing or condemning what we say. Now, as for city governments saying they're going to prevent Chick-Fil-A from getting business permits that's BS. That is indeed a violation of free-speech rights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anjin-san Posted July 26, 2012 Share Posted July 26, 2012 Now, as for city governments saying they're going to prevent Chick-Fil-A from getting business permits that's BS. That is indeed a violation of free-speech rights. see: Boston,MA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Electrophile Posted July 26, 2012 Share Posted July 26, 2012 Now, as for city governments saying they're going to prevent Chick-Fil-A from getting business permits that's BS. That is indeed a violation of free-speech rights. Not really. Chick-fil-A's right to believe or think what they want is not being legislated, which is the heart of free speech. They're being told they can't open a franchise in Boston, which has nothing to do with their right to think what they want about gays or gay marriage. I don't like Mayor Menino's stance, I think if people in Boston want to eat Chick-fil-A they should be able to, and if people don't want to, they can go to whatever other fast-food restaurants operate there. I've been to Boston, you can't piss in the wind without hitting some overfilled grease trap. However, the company's right to freedom of expression is not being infringed upon at all. People are free to do business or not do business with whomever they choose for whatever reason they want. Boston does not want to do business with Chick-fil-A. Much like the customers, they are free to take that business elsewhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dawg Posted July 26, 2012 Share Posted July 26, 2012 Let me guess - only if they are Freedom Fries? They are not frenched but waffled. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anjin-san Posted July 26, 2012 Share Posted July 26, 2012 Boston does not want to do business with Chick-fil-A. No,Liz,it's the bag man mayor,...scum and villainy,indeed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LedZeppfan77 Posted July 26, 2012 Share Posted July 26, 2012 This nonsense is getting out of hand. Roseanne Barr saying she hopes Chick-fil-a customers get cancer. Classy.. She now lives on a Macadamia nut farm and is a nut. She eats them breakfast, lunch and dinner and lives with some sponge loser that sees God knows what in her. Its amazing to think someone like her could have made it so big on a national stage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dandu Posted July 26, 2012 Share Posted July 26, 2012 However, the company's right to freedom of expression is not being infringed upon at all. People are free to do business or not do business with whomever they choose for whatever reason they want. Boston does not want to do business with Chick-fil-A. Much like the customers, they are free to take that business elsewhere. In Canada you cannot be denied a government permit or licence simply because of your political beliefs. That is an improper use of discretion by the government. The same must be true in the US. I disagree with Chick-fil-A's politics (or at least those of their CEO), but it should not stop them from opening a franchise in any city if they otherwise meet the criteria. Governments are not businesses who have the right to pick and choose whom they deal with. Governments, unlike businesses, are required to treat everyone fairly. That is why Augusta National can have a no women policy, but the DMV cannot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sagittarius Rising Posted July 26, 2012 Share Posted July 26, 2012 In Canada you cannot be denied a government permit or licence simply because of your political beliefs. That is an improper use of discretion by the government. The same must be true in the US. I disagree with Chick-fil-A's politics (or at least those of their CEO), but it should not stop them from opening a franchise in any city if they otherwise meet the criteria. Governments are not businesses who have the right to pick and choose whom they deal with. Governments, unlike businesses, are required to treat everyone fairly. That is why Augusta National can have a no women policy, but the DMV cannot. That is not quite true in Canada. In Montreal you are required BY LAW to display your business name and any other info on your shop in French. You can also display in English but the font must be considerably smaller than the French font. You don't do that, you don't get a license. Or, if you have a shop and display English signage the same size or larger than French they will shut you down faster than you can say, Sacre Bleu!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sagittarius Rising Posted July 26, 2012 Share Posted July 26, 2012 I don't eat at Chic-fil-a because I am a vegan...oh, and I think Mormons are stupid. There is me expressing my 1st amendment, Mormons and magic underwear are silly and stupid. It's bad enough religions believe in virgin births, dismemberment and re-assembly, rising from the dead, and gods living on mountain tops, but mixing chicken and Mormonism...that is just plain wrong Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anjin-san Posted July 26, 2012 Share Posted July 26, 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dandu Posted July 26, 2012 Share Posted July 26, 2012 That is not quite true in Canada. In Montreal you are required BY LAW to display your business name and any other info on your shop in French. You can also display in English but the font must be considerably smaller than the French font. You don't do that, you don't get a license. Or, if you have a shop and display English signage the same size or larger than French they will shut you down faster than you can say, Sacre Bleu!!! That law was passed by evoking the "notwithstanding clause" of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (our Bill of Rights). The "notwithstanding clause" is a bizarre provision of the Canadian charter which states: "Parliament or the legislature of a province may expressly declare in an Act of Parliament or of the legislature, as the case may be, that the Act or a provision thereof shall operate notwithstanding a provision included in section 2 or sections 7 to 15 of this Charter." The notwithstanding clause allows the Provincial or Federal government (not a municipality) to pass laws that would otherwise violate the Charter. You may be wondering which rights can be revoked in this way on the whim of government? Nothing important, just:Fundamental freedoms (Section 2 of the Charter) such as freedom of conscience and religion; freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression (including media); freedom of peaceful assembly; and freedom of association.Legal rights (Sections 7-14 of the Charter) such as the right to life, liberty and security of the persons and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice; the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure; the right not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned; the right to not to be subject to any cruel or unusual punishment, rights against self-crimination; and so forth.Equality rights (Section 15 of the Charter) such as the right to be equal before and under the law and the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age, or mental or physical disability. I told you it was bizarre. There is no such provision in the US Bill of rights. Thankfully the notwithstanding clause has only been used a handful of times. Absent that anomaly, the government in Canada is required to treat everyone fairly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Electrophile Posted July 26, 2012 Share Posted July 26, 2012 In Canada you cannot be denied a government permit or licence simply because of your political beliefs. That is an improper use of discretion by the government. The same must be true in the US. I disagree with Chick-fil-A's politics (or at least those of their CEO), but it should not stop them from opening a franchise in any city if they otherwise meet the criteria. Governments are not businesses who have the right to pick and choose whom they deal with. Governments, unlike businesses, are required to treat everyone fairly. That is why Augusta National can have a no women policy, but the DMV cannot. Chick-fil-A isn't a religious organization. It's not a political organization. It's a restaurant. I don't agree with denying them business permits, but the denial of the business permit isn't an infringement on the company CEO's 1st amendment rights. It's dickish, but it's not a constitutional issue. Truett Cathy can continue thinking whatever he wants, donating money to whomever he wants, and not opening on Sundays as long as he draws breath. No one is stopping him from doing that, and if they did, THAT would be an infringment on 1st amendment rights. Again, this is patently ridiculous and Chick-fil-A should operate whereever it wants, but this isn't a 1st amendment issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anjin-san Posted July 26, 2012 Share Posted July 26, 2012 “The government can regulate discrimination in employment or against customers, but what the government cannot do is to punish someone for their words,” said Adam Schwartz, senior attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois. “When an alderman refuses to allow a business to open because its owner has expressed a viewpoint the government disagrees with, the government is practicing viewpoint discrimination.” The ACLU “strongly supports” same-sex marriage, Schwartz said, but noted that if a government can exclude a business for being against same-sex marriage, it can also exclude a business for being in support of same-sex marriage.“But we also support the First Amendment,” he said. “We don’ think the government should exclude Chick-fil-A because of the anti-LGBT message. We believe this is clear cut. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.