DAS Posted July 26, 2012 Author Share Posted July 26, 2012 :hysterical: :hysterical: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DAS Posted July 26, 2012 Author Share Posted July 26, 2012 :hysterical: :hysterical: :hysterical: :hysterical: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DAS Posted July 26, 2012 Author Share Posted July 26, 2012 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. Actually when the government, be it the fed or local, punishes in any way, be it death or prison time or refusal to allow them business permits, any person BECAUSE they chose to express themselves in a legal fashion contrary to what said government (official) believes in it is the highest form of free speech infringement possible. WE have a right to not eat there if we disagree. The GOVERNMENT has no rights in and way, shape or form to take action against any individual in any way, shape or form for the same reason. That is why the Constitution exists. To protect OUR rights (and Dan Cathy is one of us) from infringement by the GOVERNMENT ITSELF (which the mayors of Boston and Chicago are a part of). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dandu Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 I sincerely hope so as well but his track record here proves otherwise. You were right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DAS Posted July 27, 2012 Author Share Posted July 27, 2012 I think Mr. Rogers giving you the finger speaks pretty clearly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tmtomh Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 All of this jibber-jabber because gay people want to get married. I think they should have the right to get hitched & be as miserable as the rest of us. Two dudes or two girls getting together doesn't harm me or any heterosexual union in anyway that I can see, just my $0.02... +1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tmtomh Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 Actually when the government, be it the fed or local, punishes in any way, be it death or prison time or refusal to allow them business permits, any person BECAUSE they chose to express themselves in a legal fashion contrary to what said government (official) believes in it is the highest form of free speech infringement possible. WE have a right to not eat there if we disagree. The GOVERNMENT has no rights in and way, shape or form to take action against any individual in any way, shape or form for the same reason. That is why the Constitution exists. To protect OUR rights (and Dan Cathy is one of us) from infringement by the GOVERNMENT ITSELF (which the mayors of Boston and Chicago are a part of). I am totally opposed to Chick-Fil-A's stance on gay marriage, and I applaud elected officials for speaking out against it (even if they're just doing it to score political points). But I agree with DAS here. If the City of Boston decides it doesn't want to do business with Chick-Fil-A - for example, doesn't want to contract with Chick-Fil-A to cater official City events, or doesn't want to partner with Chick-Fil-A on some kind of public-private partnership - then that's fine. But if the City of Boston says it's not going to allow Chick-Fil-A to operate as a private business in city limits, that seems like a violation of free speech and/or due process. If Chick-Fil-A wants to open a store in Boston, it has to abide by the City code - zoning, building, health, workplace safety, registrations, taxes, and so on. If it does that, then Boston shouldn't be able to stop it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jangles Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 For a thread that will undoubtably get heated and nasty at times, there's some funny stuff on this page. The finger/s I think they should have the right to get hitched & be as miserable as the rest of us. DAS quoting and laughing at the fingers Sagittarius Rising’s summation of MM’s dream – not wanting to touch it with a 3 foot pole and of course ….. and the part about the crapper, forget it But with my warped sense of humour, I found the funniest was MM calling Sagittarius Rising …… “Saggy” :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimmie ray Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 But with my warped sense of humour, I found the funniest was MM calling Sagittarius Rising …… “Saggy” :lol: Yeah - it's quite the opposite of "Rising"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveAJones Posted July 28, 2012 Share Posted July 28, 2012 If the City of Boston decides it doesn't want to do business with Chick-Fil-A - for example, doesn't want to contract with Chick-Fil-A to cater official City events, or doesn't want to partner with Chick-Fil-A on some kind of public-private partnership - then that's fine. In other words it's become perfectly acceptable for government to further negatively impact the market to advance the GLBT agenda. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cryingbluerain Posted July 28, 2012 Share Posted July 28, 2012 I am totally opposed to Chick-Fil-A's stance on gay marriage, and I applaud elected officials for speaking out against it (even if they're just doing it to score political points). You got it, just pandering to their left wing base and trying to force the issue into the mainstream even though it's not really a popular issue with the majority of voters. Even though polling data would have you believe that most people support gay marriage, most states that have voted on the issue have voted against same-sex marriage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DAS Posted July 29, 2012 Author Share Posted July 29, 2012 You got it, just pandering to their left wing base and trying to force the issue into the mainstream even though it's not really a popular issue with the majority of voters. Even though polling data would have you believe that most people support gay marriage, most states that have voted on the issue have voted against same-sex marriage. I believe he is in fact correct. They want to score points with a particular voting block and not the public in general and it scores huge points with the DNC. I'm not saying it's a good idea that they are using this to score the points but when was the last time a politician had a good idea? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TypeO Posted July 29, 2012 Share Posted July 29, 2012 The simplest way to test the fairness / equitability of a situation is to reverse the dynamics. So if Boston's Mayor opposed a business coming to his town because they SUPPORTED same-sex marriage...? You got it - explosive outrage! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lake of Shadows Posted July 29, 2012 Share Posted July 29, 2012 As best I can figure out after reading this thread all the way through... Most people who have posted have more or less agreed that the city govt. doesn't or shouldn't have the right to deny Chick-Fill-A a business permit based upon the opinion expressed by the company's CEO... regardless of what any of us think of the guy's opinion. The only disagreement I can find amongst folks in this thread is whether the wrongness of denying business permits based upon the ceo's statements is or is not a constitutional 1st amendment issue... (excepting emoticryptic symbols or pictures of fingers, which merely digress). That's pretty amazing for this place, if ya think about it for a minute. I didn't eat at Chicks-Feel-Ugh before the guy said his bit cuz I don't like it... the dipzoid just gave me a reason to avoid it based on principle rather than just taste. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Electrophile Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 So wonderful to see you back and posting, LoS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DAS Posted July 30, 2012 Author Share Posted July 30, 2012 The simplest way to test the fairness / equitability of a situation is to reverse the dynamics. So if Boston's Mayor opposed a business coming to his town because they SUPPORTED same-sex marriage...? You got it - explosive outrage! This is a great point. The side that can cry the loudest usually gets a better deal in these situations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jahfin Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 Pardon the pun but here's some food for thought from The Atlantic on the current Chick-fil-A situation: In Defense of Eating at Chick-fil-A Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jahfin Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 These signs are currently making the rounds and both of them are absolutely fake. They were made using the Fast Food Sign Generator app. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DAS Posted July 31, 2012 Author Share Posted July 31, 2012 ^ Whoever made these was not too sharp. How could we believe that these were legit in the first place? Why would companies support their competition? And in reality it's not like Chik-Fil-A needs support. They are too big and successful to be put out of business by a stupid boycott everyone will have forgotten about in a few weeks anyways. Boycotts of this nature ALWAYS fail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jahfin Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 How could we believe that these were legit in the first place? I didn't believe them for a second but there are some people out that do. One dead giveaway is how pixelated the text on the signs is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dandu Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 The only disagreement I can find amongst folks in this thread is whether the wrongness of denying business permits based upon the ceo's statements is or is not a constitutional 1st amendment issue... (excepting emoticryptic symbols or pictures of fingers, which merely digress). That's pretty amazing for this place, if ya think about it for a minute. It is amazing. In addition, I have found that, for the most part, the level of discourse on political topics has improved quite a bit in the past several months. While we usually have several strong viewpoints on all sides of an issue, people have generally been respectful of one another as of late and tried to stick to the facts. This makes posting on, and reading about, such issues on this forum a lot more informative and enjoyable. I hope it continues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MollyHendrix Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 I don't see why this is such a big hype. If I were to state my opinion about this subject would everyone try to ignore me? I try my hardest to respect everyone, so if someone does not have the same view as me I don't hate them for believing in that. I personally think that gay marriage is wrong, but that doesn't mean I hate gay people! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jahfin Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 It's just a very touchy subject, which is why it's often been said that sex, politics and religion are topics that shouldn't be discussed. Of course, they are but when the people discussing them are passionate about their stance on them, civility can go out of the window pretty quickly. After reading the article from The Atlantic I posted previously, I think have a better understanding of how tolerance is perceived (or misperceived) but that goes for both sides. However, that doesn't really change how I feel about Cathey funding anti-gay groups. He may be perfectly within his legal rights to do so but that doesn't mean I have to agree with him. As for gay marriage, I see no harm whatsoever in two people of the same gender getting married. They should have the same rights as everyone else. Here in North Carolina, when Amendment One passed, it was already illegal for homosexuals to marry, it just made it illegal for them (or straight couples) to have a civil union. It also stripped away homosexuals' rights to benefits as well as for couples who are straight. I don't agree with any of that, which is why I voted against it. I believe some of the Republicans that voted for Amendment One didn't realize that gay marriage is already illegal here and had no idea whatsoever how it would effect the straight population. In the year 2012, I have to wonder how such an Amendment is even on the books to start with. As Todd Snider sings in "Conservative Christian, Right Wing Republican, Straight White American Male", people that get offended by gay marriage don't have fuck all else to be offended about and I agree with him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lake of Shadows Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 I don't see why this is such a big hype. If I were to state my opinion about this subject would everyone try to ignore me? I try my hardest to respect everyone, so if someone does not have the same view as me I don't hate them for believing in that. I personally think that gay marriage is wrong, but that doesn't mean I hate gay people! But you aren't the CEO of a company making a statement in a public manner about a controversial topic. Therefore, what you think or say about it, won't be possibly construed as actual or potential 'unofficial, but plausibly deniable, company policy.' FWIW, I don't consider boycotting something to be the same as 'ignoring' it... quite the opposite actually. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Electrophile Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 I don't see why this is such a big hype. If I were to state my opinion about this subject would everyone try to ignore me? I try my hardest to respect everyone, so if someone does not have the same view as me I don't hate them for believing in that. I personally think that gay marriage is wrong, but that doesn't mean I hate gay people! I find this stance truly puzzling. You don't hate gay people, but you want them treated like second-class citizens, not afforded the same rights as heterosexual people. That makes absolutely no sense. It's the same as saying you don't support abortion, except in cases of rape or incest. Either you believe abortion should be available no matter the reason, or you don't think it should be available at all. It's also akin to people who are against abortion, but for the death penalty. I don't hate you, and I certainly don't think any less of you for believing what you do, I just don't understand how you came to that reasoning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.