So far Chi-Fil-A has been banned from Boston, and parts of Chicago. This is in response to the fact that CEO is against same sex marriage, and only that.
While I applaud Boston for sticking it to the man in style, and with class, I must still lament the loss of those delicious chicken tenders. The cows will need a new plan.
Jihadin wrote:Incredible urge for a chicken sandwich. Thats for deciding where to go for lunch
Me too, I have been buying from them when ever I can.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LordofHats wrote:While I applaud Boston for sticking it to the man in style, and with class, I must still lament the loss of those delicious chicken tenders. The cows will need a new plan.
...
What can I say I don't give a about Chicago
Would you be saying that if say Atlanta banned Target for its pro gay stance?
Though, should a CEO of a large corporation really be so vocal in his opinions? It's generally considered "bad form" for people in such positions to speak about social issues, isn't it?
We're all grown adults to and can make excellent decision on where to crave that chicken sandwich. The decision of a few hampers those unlucky to be in those cities. I WILL EXERCISE MY RIGHTS TO ENJOY A CHICKENSANDWICH
Makarov wrote:Would you be saying that if say Atlanta banned Target for its pro gay stance?
Well of course! Where will all the poor people go to get bargain bin offers on cheap crap?
Oh right Wal-mart. And I guess K-mart still exists.
But come on! Think of the Bostonians! They're stuck with KFC and heaven forbid, Church's *shivers* That my friends, is sacrifice.
I'm not aware of either existing in Boston. It's always been pretty choosey with what it does and doesn't allow. To memory mass only had like 3 chickfillas at all anyway.
Some of the reasons people oppose gay marriage are really quite odd...
'I disagree with gay marriage because the new generation are arrogant'
Silly man...
purplefood wrote:Some of the reasons people oppose gay marriage are really quite odd...
'I disagree with gay marriage because the new generation are arrogant'
Silly man...
purplefood wrote:Some of the reasons people oppose gay marriage are really quite odd...
'I disagree with gay marriage because the new generation are arrogant'
Silly man...
I'm sure thats the real reason
You think he might be disingenuous?
A man trying to remove or deny the right to marry of a group of people based purely on their sexual preference is disingenuous?
Say it ain't so!
I can get good food without buying it from a bigot.
Good for Menino. He comes in for a fair amount of mockery, but this is a good guy move. The owner of Chick-Fil-A has the right to express his opinion based on his morality. The Mayor has the right to express his. We can each decide which we agree with.
Testify wrote:
Though, should a CEO of a large corporation really be so vocal in his opinions? It's generally considered "bad form" for people in such positions to speak about social issues, isn't it?
If I stopped buying things from every company that did or contributed money, directly or indirectly, to things I'm morally opposed to I'd have to live in a cave and eat tree bark.
Im perfectly fine with this. if they ever try to make it into my town i will fight tooth and nail to force it away.
Keep hate mongering out of good decent places.
hotsauceman1 wrote:Im perfectly fine with this. if they ever try to make it into my town i will fight tooth and nail to force it away.
Keep hate mongering out of good decent places.
I won't eat at Chik-Fil-A because of their political lobbying; but I think they have the right to compete fairly against other fast food places in open venues. Let people vote with their wallets.
ATLANTA—As part of its recent efforts to publicly align itself with fundamentalist Christian values, the Chick-fil-A restaurant chain announced today the debut of its new Queer-Hatin' Cordon Bleu sandwich that would be on sale in all of the company's 1,600 restaurants this Wednesday.
In a press conference to reporters, company representatives said the homophobic new sandwich will include the national fast food chain’s trademark fried chicken filet wrapped in a piece of specially-smoked No Homo ham that would be topped with a slice of Swiss cheese and lathered in a creamy new Thousand Island-based cigarette Punching sauce.
"The Queer-Hatin' Cordon Bleu is our company's way of showing our firm commitment to strong, Christian family values," said Chick-fil-A spokesman Robert Gary, before adding that the vehemently anti-gay rights sandwich comes served in a combo with waffle fries and a medium soda for just $6.95. "From the very first morsel of this savory meal to the very last bite, customers can envision gays burning in hell with their sodomizing cohorts, and know that our sandwich is on their side.”
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Monster Rain wrote:If I stopped buying things from every company that did or contributed money, directly or indirectly, to things I'm morally opposed to I'd have to live in a cave and eat tree bark.
True enough. Some choices are easier than others, though.
ATLANTA—As part of its recent efforts to publicly align itself with fundamentalist Christian values, the Chick-fil-A restaurant chain announced today the debut of its new Queer-Hatin' Cordon Bleu sandwich that would be on sale in all of the company's 1,600 restaurants this Wednesday.
In a press conference to reporters, company representatives said the homophobic new sandwich will include the national fast food chain’s trademark fried chicken filet wrapped in a piece of specially-smoked No Homo ham that would be topped with a slice of Swiss cheese and lathered in a creamy new Thousand Island-based cigarette Punching sauce.
"The Queer-Hatin' Cordon Bleu is our company's way of showing our firm commitment to strong, Christian family values," said Chick-fil-A spokesman Robert Gary, before adding that the vehemently anti-gay rights sandwich comes served in a combo with waffle fries and a medium soda for just $6.95. "From the very first morsel of this savory meal to the very last bite, customers can envision gays burning in hell with their sodomizing cohorts, and know that our sandwich is on their side.”
I love this
The sad part is I could honestly see Chick-Fil-A doing it
d-usa wrote:The ACLU is even on the side of Chick-fil-a here, how bad are the pro-gay cities screwing up if even the ACLU disagrees with them.
They have no legal case to ban the restaurant there, all it does it make for good posturing and headlines for their next elections.
It's the message an not the act that matters in the end, I really doubt they could stop chic-fil-a from setting up shop in their city. Actually preventing them makes no sense, or better yet, about as much sense as caring about what sort of sex the people eating your delicious chicken prefer.
...I think we are inviting God's judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at Him and say 'we know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage and I pray God's mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we have the audacity to redefine what marriage is about.
Because, of course, it is not at all arrogant to claim access to the word of God.
...I think we are inviting God's judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at Him and say 'we know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage and I pray God's mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we have the audacity to redefine what marriage is about.
Because, of course, it is not at all arrogant to claim access to the word of God.
Yeah, how dare we redefine it to...
1. Not require rapists to marry their victims (never being permitted to divorce them), and pay the victim's dad 50 sheckels of silver.
2. Not require a widow to marry her dead husband's brother.
3. Allow people of different religions to get married.
4. Allow people of different races to get married.
Thanks, Chick-Fil-A, for reminding us all that these changes all represent immoral defiance of god.
Jihadin, you can see the irony in (for example) me calling other people arrogant for defying the word of god, which I claim to understand better than they do, right?
Jihadin, you can see the irony in (for example) me calling other people arrogant for defying the word of god, which I claim to understand better than they do, right?
No one knows the Word of God. The "Word of God" was written by men and for men. Men can bolo
d-usa wrote:The ACLU is even on the side of Chick-fil-a here, how bad are the pro-gay cities screwing up if even the ACLU disagrees with them.
They have no legal case to ban the restaurant there, all it does it make for good posturing and headlines for their next elections.
Wait, did someone think the restaurant was literally being banned? As opposed to just invited to stay away?
Quite a few people actually. There has been a bit of a dust up over what seemed like an actual government intervention in Chicago, but even that has been walked back a bit.
I've known about Chick-fil-a's stance for awhile now, so none of this was really news. It has been some time since I ate on of their tasty sammiches. I don't care what the CEO does or his views, but when they funnel the company money into lobbying for hateful and harmful legislation I just vote with my wallet by not eating there.
Jihadin, you can see the irony in (for example) me calling other people arrogant for defying the word of god, which I claim to understand better than they do, right?
No one knows the Word of God. The "Word of God" was written by men and for men. Men can bolo
Obviously nothing written by men can be interesting or insightful or worthwhile.
Mannahnin wrote:I can get good food without buying it from a bigot.
Good for Menino. He comes in for a fair amount of mockery, but this is a good guy move. The owner of Chick-Fil-A has the right to express his opinion based on his morality. The Mayor has the right to express his. We can each decide which we agree with.
Manny...you're starting to slack here...you didn't get to play the bigot card fast enough. It was over 15 posts before you were able to start your "homophobe" schtick.
I'm dissapointed in you sir.
Oh wait.... and I see you got to get your anti bible "out of context" old testament schtick in as well a whole 2 pages in to the thread...
Mannahnin wrote:I can get good food without buying it from a bigot.
Good for Menino. He comes in for a fair amount of mockery, but this is a good guy move. The owner of Chick-Fil-A has the right to express his opinion based on his morality. The Mayor has the right to express his. We can each decide which we agree with.
Manny...you're starting to slack here...you didn't get to play the bigot card fast enough. It was over 15 posts before you were able to start your "homophobe" schtick.
I'm dissapointed in you sir.
Oh wait.... and I see you got to get your anti bible "out of context" old testament schtick in as well a whole 2 pages in to the thread...
My God man..your fallin.
GG
GG, explain how what Manny said is out of context. I'm genuinely curious.
Mannahnin wrote:I can get good food without buying it from a bigot.
Good for Menino. He comes in for a fair amount of mockery, but this is a good guy move. The owner of Chick-Fil-A has the right to express his opinion based on his morality. The Mayor has the right to express his. We can each decide which we agree with.
Manny...you're starting to slack here...you didn't get to play the bigot card fast enough. It was over 15 posts before you were able to start your "homophobe" schtick.
I know, right? It's so predictable how I call guys in the KKK racists, and people who oppose gay marriage homophobes, and both of them bigots.
You can always count on me to call water wet and coffee ice cream yummy, too.
generalgrog wrote:[Oh wait.... and I see you got to get your anti bible "out of context" old testament schtick in as well a whole 2 pages in to the thread..
How is it out of context to point how that marriage has changed many times, when morons act like it has not, and use that pretension as the premise for a false argument?
generalgrog wrote:
Manny...you're starting to slack here...you didn't get to play the bigot card fast enough. It was over 15 posts before you were able to start your "homophobe" schtick.
I'm dissapointed in you sir.
And I'm disappointed that it took you this long to claim that "Homophobes are people too!"
generalgrog wrote:
Oh wait.... and I see you got to get your anti bible "out of context" old testament schtick in as well a whole 2 pages in to the thread...
This is written in English, but I have no idea what it says.
LordofHats wrote:Boston's missing out Shuma. Something must be done. Maybe we can take a note from the cartels. Anyone got a cost analysis on smuggling in nuggets?
!
Would you smuggle them in your rectum? That would be ironic...
Obviously nothing written by men can be interesting or insightful or worthwhile.
If its religion based. No. The only religion that would fit me and accept me is greek/roman Gods. Because if I hold to trapping of todays religion I'm on a express frieght elevator to Hell because I broke every rule.
Mannahnin wrote:
I know, right? It's so predictable how I call guys in the KKK racists, and people who oppose gay marriage homophobes, and both of them bigots.
You can always count on me to call water wet and coffee ice cream yummy, too..
Mannahnin wrote:I can get good food without buying it from a bigot.
Good for Menino. He comes in for a fair amount of mockery, but this is a good guy move. The owner of Chick-Fil-A has the right to express his opinion based on his morality. The Mayor has the right to express his. We can each decide which we agree with.
So cities are now going to ban stores based on political views. Thats a mighty large can of worms.
Frazzled wrote:
So cities are now going to ban stores based on political views.
Not so much ban as lose consistently the application for the proper permit, everytime it's submitted. And this is nothing new. Cities have made decisions concerning permitting based on moral stances since forever. Except maybe here in Montreal, where 5 brothels advertise openly less than 10 minutes of walk away from my house...
Stock photo americans lol Guess we're all right wingers
Not so much ban as lose consistently the application for the proper permit, everytime it's submitted. And this is nothing new. Cities have made decisions concerning permitting based on moral stances since forever. Except maybe here in Montreal, where 5 brothels advertise openly less than 10 minutes of walk away from my house...
I had good times back in the days when I went for my Canadian jump wings
Not so much ban as lose consistently the application for the proper permit, everytime it's submitted. And this is nothing new. Cities have made decisions concerning permitting based on moral stances since forever. Except maybe here in Montreal, where 5 brothels advertise openly less than 10 minutes of walk away from my house...
I had good times back in the days when I went for my Canadian jump wings
Everyone has good times in Montreal. If they tip nicely and don't piss off the bouncers.
Mannahnin wrote:I can get good food without buying it from a bigot.
Good for Menino. He comes in for a fair amount of mockery, but this is a good guy move. The owner of Chick-Fil-A has the right to express his opinion based on his morality. The Mayor has the right to express his. We can each decide which we agree with.
So cities are now going to ban stores based on political views. Thats a mighty large can of worms.
I don't think Boston is actually banning the restaurant. Nothing in Menino's letter says "we will not give you a permit", or "we are revoking your business license". I don't think they actually should, but aside from the titles of a bunch of articles which don't seem to have any factual basis, I'm not aware that the restaurant is actually banned.
Thats banning actually, as thats what he was actually saying. He would everything in his power to keep them from being there. California should retaliate by banning all commerce with Boston or alternatively beating their ass in all sporting events.
Too bad, I'll support CFA as I love their sandwiches on occasion. They have a right to free speech, as long as they obey all relevant laws. And just as those can not spend their money there, I can do the opposite, but only with real mayonnaise. More for me! Yes!
What's banning? Having a newspaper claim you're banning?
Can you find anything from the City of Boston saying Chick-Fil-A can't actually have a restaurant there? Menino's letter doesn't seem to.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jihadin wrote:
Obviously nothing written by men can be interesting or insightful or worthwhile.
If its religion based. No. The only religion that would fit me and accept me is greek/roman Gods. Because if I hold to trapping of todays religion I'm on a express frieght elevator to Hell because I broke every rule.
Some Christians would accept you; the religion's about forgiveness and redemption, after all.
I used to know a guy who was a Mithraist. No reason you can't still worship the Soldiers' God.
Frazzled wrote:Thats banning actually, as thats what he was actually saying. He would everything in his power to keep them from being there.
No it doesn't. Go read it again. He urges them not to come there, and gives his personal opinion that they don't belong. He doesn't say anything about using any kind of official or statutory power to prevent them. Instead he seems to be invoking public opinion to persuade them not to.
Okay, so Menino misspoke. He does that. It's why we make fun of him regularly. That and his speech impediment. He's since clarified that the store is in no sense banned. He just thinks they shouldn't come to Boston, because culturally they'd be a bad fit, and he urged them to reconsider opening a store there.
In other news:
Truett Cathy wrote:Luke! Come to the Dark Side! I make yummy chicken sandwiches! Do not believe those who claim that they are merely over-hyped and are actually inferior to even crappy McDonald's chicken sandwiches. They are actually worth imperiling your very SOUL!
Frazzled wrote:Too bad, I'll support CFA as I love their sandwiches on occasion. They have a right to free speech, as long as they obey all relevant laws. And just as those can not spend their money there, I can do the opposite, but only with real mayonnaise. More for me! Yes!
Says the man who wanted to refuse the mosque two blocks from ground zero.
Frazzled wrote:Too bad, I'll support CFA as I love their sandwiches on occasion. They have a right to free speech, as long as they obey all relevant laws. And just as those can not spend their money there, I can do the opposite, but only with real mayonnaise. More for me! Yes!
Says the man who wanted to refuse the mosque two blocks from ground zero.
Thats because I am a French Republic kind of guy. I've changed my view on that fyi.
I'm glad he clarified it. Its a job for some if Chik-Fill-A does open there. Granted its fast food and min. wage but its a job. Like they say. "Money Talks BS walks"
Frazzled wrote:Too bad, I'll support CFA as I love their sandwiches on occasion. They have a right to free speech, as long as they obey all relevant laws. And just as those can not spend their money there, I can do the opposite, but only with real mayonnaise. More for me! Yes!
Says the man who wanted to refuse the mosque two blocks from ground zero.
Frazzled wrote:
But yea CFA chicken sandwiches are worth your soul!
I had CFA once, when I lived in AZ temporarily, and El Pollo Loco is far superior.
Blech. I can't stand Pollo Loco. Tasteless. Your mileage may vary.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mannahnin wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
ShumaGorath wrote:
Frazzled wrote:Too bad, I'll support CFA as I love their sandwiches on occasion. They have a right to free speech, as long as they obey all relevant laws. And just as those can not spend their money there, I can do the opposite, but only with real mayonnaise. More for me! Yes!
Says the man who wanted to refuse the mosque two blocks from ground zero.
I've changed my view on that fyi.
Good man!
yep. I'm still hardcore separation of religion and staate though.
Jihadin wrote:I'm glad he clarified it. Its a job for some if Chik-Fill-A does open there. Granted its fast food and min. wage but its a job. Like they say. "Money Talks BS walks"
We can just open another Dunkin Donuts on the spot. We drink that stuff like it was liquid crack. You can open two on the same block and they'll do fine.
Frazzled wrote:Too bad, I'll support CFA as I love their sandwiches on occasion. They have a right to free speech, as long as they obey all relevant laws. And just as those can not spend their money there, I can do the opposite, but only with real mayonnaise. More for me! Yes!
Says the man who wanted to refuse the mosque two blocks from ground zero.
Thats because I am a French Republic kind of guy. I've changed my view on that fyi.
Thank you Mitt. It's good to know where you stand now that it's no longer a party issue. Any particular reason for this last minute conversion?
generalgrog wrote:Oh wait.... and I see you got to get your anti bible "out of context" old testament schtick in as well a whole 2 pages in to the thread...
My God man..your fallin.
Where as you jumped straight into the 'that's out of context the bible doesn't really mean any of those things even though it says those exact fething things' schtick pretty much straight away. Which is, unfortunately, par for the course.
Jihadin wrote:Main line of defense against a certain legion.
I'm glad he clarified it. Its a job for some if Chik-Fill-A does open there. Granted its fast food and min. wage but its a job. Like they say. "Money Talks BS walks"
Fast food resteraunts are actively harmful to the U.S. economy.
Frazzled wrote:Too bad, I'll support CFA as I love their sandwiches on occasion. They have a right to free speech, as long as they obey all relevant laws. And just as those can not spend their money there, I can do the opposite, but only with real mayonnaise. More for me! Yes!
Says the man who wanted to refuse the mosque two blocks from ground zero.
Thats because I am a French Republic kind of guy. I've changed my view on that fyi.
Thank you Mitt. It's good to know where you stand now that it's no longer a party issue. Any particular reason for this last minute conversion?
1. Frazzled has determined that all Mitt notations shall be restylized as "Mittney." You're behind the curve there infidel!
2. Not last minute. As I said I am a libertarian. Leave me alone all you's guys.
generalgrog wrote:Oh wait.... and I see you got to get your anti bible "out of context" old testament schtick in as well a whole 2 pages in to the thread...
My God man..your fallin.
Where as you jumped straight into the 'that's out of context the bible doesn't really mean any of those things even though it says those exact fething things' schtick pretty much straight away. Which is, unfortunately, par for the course.
Quiet! We're now talking about the greatness of chocolate filled donuts. Frazzled has spoken!
Frazzled wrote:Thats banning actually, as thats what he was actually saying. He would everything in his power to keep them from being there. California should retaliate by banning all commerce with Boston or alternatively beating their ass in all sporting events.
No, that isn't banning, because the Mayor has no direct power to pick and choose what franchise junk food stores set up.
I could write you a letter in which I tell you I will do everything in my power to stop you posting on dakka, and it wouldn't ban you from the site, because I have no power to actually stop you posting here.
At worst it means if Chic-Fil-A wanted the mayor's office on side, to help expand the business by supporting new developments that'd benefit Chic-Fil-A's, then he might want to reconsider his strategy, but that's a pretty vague set up. Mostly it's just a letter from one private citizen to another saying "I don't like that you're being a dick".
Mannahnin wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jihadin wrote:
Obviously nothing written by men can be interesting or insightful or worthwhile.
If its religion based. No. The only religion that would fit me and accept me is greek/roman Gods. Because if I hold to trapping of todays religion I'm on a express frieght elevator to Hell because I broke every rule.
Some Christians would accept you; the religion's about forgiveness and redemption, after all.
I used to know a guy who was a Mithraist. No reason you can't still worship the Soldiers' God.
I'd go for Odin, or tyr personally, I've heard Valhalla is quite fun
I'm guessing you didn't read the thread, or the letter
From almost everything I've read, including the letter at first, the Jackass wrote a letter that pretty much says, don't open a restaurant here
Because of your stated beliefs. If that was done to a minority, it would be equated to pre civil rights 1960's activities.
Obviously nothing written by men can be interesting or insightful or worthwhile.
If its religion based. No. The only religion that would fit me and accept me is greek/roman Gods. Because if I hold to trapping of todays religion I'm on a express frieght elevator to Hell because I broke every rule.
Some Christians would accept you; the religion's about forgiveness and redemption, after all.
I used to know a guy who was a Mithraist. No reason you can't still worship the Soldiers' God.
I'd go for Odin, or tyr personally, I've heard Valhalla is quite fun
I've known a bunch of Asatruar. If you want to go to Valhalla you would most commonly want Odin or Thor, and be sure to die with your weapon in hand. But I've always had a fondness for Tyr. I wear his rune along with my triskele.
I'm guessing you didn't read the thread, or the letter
From almost everything I've read, including the letter at first, the Jackass wrote a letter that pretty much says, don't open a restaurant here
Because of your stated beliefs. If that was done to a minority, it would be equated to pre civil rights 1960's activities.
Yeah, because telling the KKK you don't like them is JUST LIKE telling black people you don't like them.
Freedom of Speech doesn't come into it because the government isn't restricting Truett Cathy's or his company's speech. A Mayor is saying "your bigoted beliefs and funding of bigoted groups is incompatible with the values of my city, which has its own shameful history of past bigotry, and wants to get past that, thanks." He initially made some comments that did sound like he might be misusing his authority, then clarified he would not.
I'm guessing you didn't read the thread, or the letter
From almost everything I've read, including the letter at first, the Jackass wrote a letter that pretty much says, don't open a restaurant here
Because of your stated beliefs. If that was done to a minority, it would be equated to pre civil rights 1960's activities.
Yeah, because telling the KKK you don't like them is JUST LIKE telling black people you don't like them.
Freedom of Speech doesn't come into it because the government isn't restricting Truett Cathy's or his company's speech. A Mayor is saying "your bigoted beliefs and funding of bigoted groups is incompatible with the values of my city, which has its own shameful history of past bigotry, and wants to get past that, thanks." He initially made some comments that did sound like he might be misusing his authority, then clarified he would not.
Way to go over the top, equating someone that doesn't agree with you to the KKK. Freedom of speech does come into it, because the tone of the letter is threatening.
Automatically Appended Next Post: The mayor is saying that he will personally do what he can to prevent them from opening a business.
Relapse wrote:From almost everything I've read, including the letter at first, the Jackass wrote a letter that pretty much says, don't open a restaurant here
Because of your stated beliefs. If that was done to a minority, it would be equated to pre civil rights 1960's activities.
Yeah, because telling the KKK you don't like them is JUST LIKE telling black people you don't like them.
Freedom of Speech doesn't come into it because the government isn't restricting Truett Cathy's or his company's speech. A Mayor is saying "your bigoted beliefs and funding of bigoted groups is incompatible with the values of my city, which has its own shameful history of past bigotry, and wants to get past that, thanks." He initially made some comments that did sound like he might be misusing his authority, then clarified he would not.
Way to go over the top, equating someone that doesn't agree with you to the KKK.
If I disagree with them over being prejudiced toward a minority (which they are), then it's not exactly a stretch.
Relapse wrote:Freedom of speech does come into it, because the tone of the letter is threatening.
That's not how it works. The Major has clarified that he would not interfere with their permitting.
Relapse wrote:
Jihadin wrote:
The mayor is saying that he will personally do what he can to prevent them from opening a business.
And he will lose in court because of it
That will be a good thing, but I foresee "code violations" and lost permits for Chic Fil A.
The fact that he has made the public statements he has makes it so that he can't do that, even if he would have. It'd be too obvious.
Mannahnin wrote:I wear his rune along with my triskele.
The first time I quickly glanced over this I read tricycle and had to stop and reread it. Now I can't get the image of you walking around with a tricycle under your arm everywhere you go.
Mannahnin wrote:I wear his rune along with my triskele.
The first time I quickly glanced over this I read tricycle and had to stop and reread it. Now I can't get the image of you walking around with a tricycle under your arm everywhere you go.
Would you feth with a man who carried a tricycle everywhere with a rune of tyr on it, he would feth you up
Mannahnin wrote:I wear his rune along with my triskele.
The first time I quickly glanced over this I read tricycle and had to stop and reread it. Now I can't get the image of you walking around with a tricycle under your arm everywhere you go.
Would you feth with a man who carried a tricycle everywhere with a rune of tyr on it, he would feth you up
It's my Tricyle of Smiting. The Rune of Tyr gives +2d6 damage against Bigots and Undead.
Okay, I'm a bit torn as well. Generally, I'd see it like Ouze regarding the right to compete and people voting with their wallets ... on the other hand, I'm sure that this letter sends a much more powerful message not just to this company, but the nation as a whole. It also makes Boston as a city look good. "We don't need you here, we're doing fine without religious bigotry and hipocrisy."
I mean, even if that branch would not make any money - and it would, simply because most customers would not be aware of the company's stance regarding this issue, not to mention that some only care for their own money - and would have to close again, the managers sure as hell wouldn't attribute this to the company's stance regarding homosexuality but the competition having better prices or people in Boston not liking chicken or whatever. This way, the message is sure to come across.
It's my Tricyle of Smiting. The Rune of Tyr gives +2d6 damage against Bigots and Undead.
Dang...how long did it take you to complete that epic quest?
No quest; in my church we issue you one if you complete the Paladin sub-path after your first circle Druid training. We really dislike bigots; and undead.
It's my Tricyle of Smiting. The Rune of Tyr gives +2d6 damage against Bigots and Undead.
Dang...how long did it take you to complete that epic quest?
No quest; in my church we issue you one if you complete the Paladin sub-path after your first circle Druid training. We really dislike bigots; and undead.
What kind of church allows Druid's to become Paladins?
It's this kind of wishy washy liberalism in the Order that's watering down our Paladins until we are defenseless against the hordes of the undead.
At least with vampires you know where you stand...
What? All kinds of churches have Paladins. In ours all the clergy are Druids first. So your basic religious training is as a Druid. You might additionally study to be a Bard, Ovate, Brehon, among other things. I was really kidding about the Paladins, but I'd like to be one.
Yeah but bigots can take 'Specialised Bigotry' so it stops the stacking effect but they are limited to one type of bigotry powers...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mannahnin wrote:What? All kinds of churches have Paladins. In ours all the clergy are Druids first. So your basic religious training is as a Druid. You might additionally study to be a Bard, Ovate, Brehon, among other things. I was really kidding about the Paladins, but I'd like to be one.
Mannahnin wrote:What? All kinds of churches have Paladins. In ours all the clergy are Druids first. So your basic religious training is as a Druid. You might additionally study to be a Bard, Ovate, Brehon, among other things. I was really kidding about the Paladins, but I'd like to be one.
Robert A. Heinlein wrote:A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
Relapse wrote:From almost everything I've read, including the letter at first, the Jackass wrote a letter that pretty much says, don't open a restaurant here
Because of your stated beliefs. If that was done to a minority, it would be equated to pre civil rights 1960's activities.
I think your comparison is apt, but not the way you think.
Let's pretend the CEO of Chick-Fil-A released the exact same statement as his now-infamous one, but replaced his endorsement of "traditional marriage values" with "traditional caucasian values". Let's pretend that he released this statement in 1960.
Because that is essentially what he has done. The current climate is just like the era immediately prior to the black civil rights movement, and the Chick-Fil-A CEO has done the equivalent of endorsing a Jim Crow law. While legally he has not done anything legally wrong (to my knowledge), history will show that he is on the wrong side of it, and if the mayor of Boston is in opposition to that, then I hope he continues to hold that office until such a time as history shows him for taking both a legally as well as a socially just stance.
Mannahnin wrote:
I know, right? It's so predictable how I call guys in the KKK racists, and people who oppose gay marriage homophobes, and both of them bigots.
You can always count on me to call water wet and coffee ice cream yummy, too.
Yes we can always count on you to compare someone holding a moral belief that homosexual behavior, and thus a marriage based on that behavior, is wrong and equivocating that to the KKK. You just insulted millions of Blacks and Jews that disagree with you. Be proud of that Manny...be proud.
That's not quite water being being wet...it's called you being your normal hysterical self.
Homosexual behavior is not and never will be the same thing as a racial minority.
Mannahnin wrote:
I know, right? It's so predictable how I call guys in the KKK racists, and people who oppose gay marriage homophobes, and both of them bigots.
You can always count on me to call water wet and coffee ice cream yummy, too.
Yes we can always count on you to compare someone holding a moral belief that homosexual behavior, and thus a marriage based on that behavior, is wrong and equivocating that to the KKK. You just insulted millions of Blacks and Jews that disagree with you. Be proud of that Manny...be proud.
That's not quite water being being wet...it's called you being your normal hysterical self.
Homosexual behavior is not and never will be the same thing as a racial minority.
GG
As a jew it offends me that you fail to see parallels between the two
Of course, it's a minority based on sexual orientation. But as a minority, you can draw parallels between the two.
It's a minority only because a minority of people behave that way...it's not an "ethnic" minority from the classic view of what being a "minority" has always meant.
Anyway we've been down this path before..I realize that on Dakka, I will always be in the minority on this issue.. so be it.
Of course, it's a minority based on sexual orientation. But as a minority, you can draw parallels between the two.
It's a minority only because a minority of people behave that way...it's not an "ethnic" minority from the classic view of what being a "minority" has always meant.
Anyway we've been down this path before..I realize that on Dakka, I will always be in the minority on this issue.. so be it.
GG
And ethnic minorities are only relevent as such because they are numerically less than other ethnic groups. There's nothing there that differentiate the nature of their struggle from that of the homosexuals. They struggle because they are a minority, i.e, the smallest part of an aggregate of individuals with common caracteristics.
Of course, it's a minority based on sexual orientation. But as a minority, you can draw parallels between the two.
It's a minority only because a minority of people behave that way...it's not an "ethnic" minority from the classic view of what being a "minority" has always meant.
Anyway we've been down this path before..I realize that on Dakka, I will always be in the minority on this issue.. so be it.
GG
As such we have the right to treat you with disrespect and hatred, since you are a minority of you own violation
generalgrog wrote:
Yes we can always count on you to compare someone holding a moral belief that homosexual behavior, and thus a marriage based on that behavior, is wrong and equivocating that to the KKK.
"Equating"
generalgrog wrote:
That's not quite water being being wet...it's called you being your normal hysterical self.
Frazzled wrote:So cities are now going to ban stores based on political views. Thats a mighty large can of worms.
I finished a discrimination policy for my company last month, and we were trained on what you can not discriminate on here in America.
You cannot discriminate based upon these in the US today.
* Race
* Religion
* Sexual Orientation
These rights are not protected in the US
* National Origin
* Political Views
So, yes, a company legally has right to say "We don't hire liberals/conservatives", or "Nope, don't like Canadians, won't hire em"
Therefore there is a precedent for a city saying they do not wish to give a business a license based upon political views.
Relapse wrote:That will be a good thing, but I foresee "code violations" and lost permits for Chic Fil A.
labmouse42 wrote:[These rights are not protected in the US
* National Origin
* Political Views
So, yes, a company legally has right to say "We don't hire liberals/conservatives", or "Nope, don't like Canadians, won't hire em"
Therefore there is a precedent for a city saying they do not wish to give a business a license based upon political views.
If that were to actually happen, then it would actually be a "freedom of speech" issue (maybe). Of course, if your aunt had nads, she'd be your uncle - we should probably talk about what's actually happened instead of these imaginary tangents. For the time being, it doesn't appear the government has actually done anything, other then unofficially sending a non-binding letter of disapproval.
Okay, I'm a bit torn as well. Generally, I'd see it like Ouze regarding the right to compete and people voting with their wallets ... on the other hand, I'm sure that this letter sends a much more powerful message not just to this company, but the nation as a whole. It also makes Boston as a city look like a PC hole run by nanny staters who wield their personal power like a hammer, but would probably take lots of "campaign contributions" on the side.
Melissia wrote:Also, on a culinary note Chik-Fil-A is nasty.
KFC and Chicken Express are both better.
On this, we must disagree. I find CFA to be utterly delicious and it is with great regret and sadness that I had to inform my wife they were on "The List".
Not only do I find KFC to not be as tasty as CFA, I also find that there is something in KFC - maybe the oil, I dunno - that causes upset stomachs in my household. And, not just any upset stomachs, but the second worst kind - the "surprise" upset stomachs, where you go from "hey, I'm cool" to "OMG GET ME IN there" in about 3 seconds.
Melissia wrote:Also, on a culinary note Chik-Fil-A is nasty.
KFC and Chicken Express are both better.
Sadly, I strongly disagree.
Chik-Fil-A has delicious fried chicken, and the best sweet tea of any fast-food chain. Heck, they even make their lemonaid from fresh lemons every morning.
Hate em or love em politically...they make awesome food.
Jihadin wrote:Just out of curiosity. How in depth is your company policy?
Painfully. I had to take a 2 hour class on discrimination. As Alcatel-Lucent is a global company, we had to be trained in multiple countries laws.
(Side note : ALU is a great company. Sucks that we have been losing money lately.)
Obviously nothing written by men can be interesting or insightful or worthwhile.
If its religion based. No. The only religion that would fit me and accept me is greek/roman Gods. Because if I hold to trapping of todays religion I'm on a express frieght elevator to Hell because I broke every rule.
Really? Find me the bit where Jesus talks about hell.
Obviously nothing written by men can be interesting or insightful or worthwhile.
If its religion based. No. The only religion that would fit me and accept me is greek/roman Gods. Because if I hold to trapping of todays religion I'm on a express frieght elevator to Hell because I broke every rule.
Erm... 10 Commandments. Those are pretty insightful and worthwhile.
Manchu wrote:I like them and I hate chicken otherwise.
Perhaps I just got sick of them, or perhaps my tastes have changed. We had them at Louisiana Tech (on-campus) when I was in college. They were neat at first, but then I started eating there quite a bit.
Now, I can't stand them. It's the smell of pickle and chicken, I think. Also, I grill my own chicken now for salad and sandwiches now, and I prefer the different poultry rubs I use.
Anyhow, back on topic.
Do any of the cities that are Banning Chick-Fil-A have laws allowing same-sex marriage? MA does, but does Illinois?
During a visit to America, Winston Churchill was invited to a buffet luncheon at which cold fried chicken was served.
Returning for a second helping, he asked politely, "May I have some breast?"
"Mr. Churchill," replied the hostess, "in this country we ask for white meat or dark meat." Churchill apologized profusely.
The following morning, the lady received a magnificent orchid from her guest of honor. The accompanying card read: "I would be most obliged if you would pin this on your white meat."
I'm waiting for the inevitable backlash when cities with more right-leaning tendencies start attempting the same thing against companies with openly "liberal" policies.
Monster Rain wrote:I'm waiting for the inevitable backlash when cities with more right-leaning tendencies start attempting the same thing against companies with openly "liberal" policies.
Yeah, I'm sure they'll take Oreo (nabisco (kraft)) to town. Sure seems inevitable.
Monster Rain wrote:Because there's no smaller companies than that that would fit that description?
You can do better than that.
Not ones that are getting media attention. Come on rainy, you know the world doesn't care unless fox or MSN throw a fit. Or is this one of those faux idealistic viewpoints that you toss out from time to time that doesn't quite mesh with reality but makes for a good snippet?
Monster Rain wrote:Because there's no smaller companies than that that would fit that description?
You can do better than that.
Not ones that are getting media attention. Come on rainy, you know the world doesn't care unless fox or MSN throw a fit.
Ben and Jerrys?
Who knows? Who cares? The point is, you go down this road and there is no limit (which many might like). Only the politicians' favored companies get the nod.
And you guys complain about Halliburton...
Monster Rain wrote:Because there's no smaller companies than that that would fit that description?
You can do better than that.
Not ones that are getting media attention. Come on rainy, you know the world doesn't care unless fox or MSN throw a fit.
Ben and Jerrys?
Who knows? Who cares? The point is, you go down this road and there is no limit (which many might like). Only the politicians' favored companies get the nod.
And you guys complain about Halliburton...
You know they might break an olympic high jump record at the olympics this year. But what if it doesn't stop there? What if our children see it and start jumping? What if they keep breaking records? You know falls from too high a height are fatal! There is no limit down this road (which many might like) frazzled, we have to stop the high jump before we all kill ourselves.
Monster Rain wrote:Because there's no smaller companies than that that would fit that description?
You can do better than that.
Not ones that are getting media attention. Come on rainy, you know the world doesn't care unless fox or MSN throw a fit.
Ben and Jerrys? Who knows? Who cares? The point is, you go down this road and there is no limit (which many might like). Only the politicians' favored companies get the nod. And you guys complain about Halliburton...
You know they might break an olympic high jump record at the olympics this year. But what if it doesn't stop there? What if our children see it and start jumping? What if they keep breaking records? You know falls from too high a height are fatal! There is no limit down this road (which many might like) frazzled, we have to stop the high jump before we all kill ourselves.
I am not seeing why anyone thinking businesses starting purely at the discretion of local politicians is in any way a good thing.
Popeyes has excellent red beans and rice when you're too pressed for time to make your own. I haven't had it in ages, though. I'm assuming it's still good...
I can't have KFC, I love it, but if I have it I'll be on my golden throne all night long. Popeyes is ok for fried chicken, but I'm lucky enough to have a semi local family owned place doing awesome fried chicken so I just go there when I need it.
Obviously nothing written by men can be interesting or insightful or worthwhile.
If its religion based. No. The only religion that would fit me and accept me is greek/roman Gods. Because if I hold to trapping of todays religion I'm on a express frieght elevator to Hell because I broke every rule.
Erm... 10 Commandments. Those are pretty insightful and worthwhile.
1. Thou shalt have no other gods before me. Sounds like a violation of anti-trust laws.
2. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments. More anti-trust violations.
3. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain. First Amendment violation.
4. Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it. In Canada we have laws against mandatory business closures on Sundays. I assume the USA does too.
5. Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee. Yeah, okay, I guess. Half marks for effort.
6. Thou shalt not kill. Good idea. Got to #6 before anything really useful poppped up.
7. Thou shalt not commit adultery. Good idea. hey! Two in a row!
8. Thou shalt not steal. A three-peat of good ideas! We're on a roll!
9. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour. Another good idea.
10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's. Sounds like socialism to me.
So what is that? 4.5 out of 10? Nice to see that you view a failing grade as "insightful and worthwhile".
Frazzled wrote:
ShumaGorath wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
ShumaGorath wrote:
Monster Rain wrote:Because there's no smaller companies than that that would fit that description?
You can do better than that.
Not ones that are getting media attention. Come on rainy, you know the world doesn't care unless fox or MSN throw a fit.
Ben and Jerrys?
Who knows? Who cares? The point is, you go down this road and there is no limit (which many might like). Only the politicians' favored companies get the nod.
And you guys complain about Halliburton...
You know they might break an olympic high jump record at the olympics this year. But what if it doesn't stop there? What if our children see it and start jumping? What if they keep breaking records? You know falls from too high a height are fatal! There is no limit down this road (which many might like) frazzled, we have to stop the high jump before we all kill ourselves.
I am not seeing why anyone thinking businesses starting purely at the discretion of local politicians is in any way a good thing.
You're using a straw man, Frazzled.
It's not purely the discretion of local politicians; it's at the discretion of a viewpoint* that is so obviously morally right under any system of ethics except for Kantian, and even with Kantian ethics it's a grey area. It is at the discretion of people who are in the right, being represented by a mayor who is accurately representing those people, by banning a company whose views are harmful to the greater good of society.
*those with discriminatory viewpoint can discriminate themselves out of the rest of an otherwise accepting society.
azazel the cat wrote:1. Thou shalt have no other gods before me. Sounds like a violation of anti-trust laws.
2. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments. More anti-trust violations.
3. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain. First Amendment violation.
4. Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it. In Canada we have laws against mandatory business closures on Sundays. I assume the USA does too.
5. Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee. Yeah, okay, I guess. Half marks for effort.
6. Thou shalt not kill. Good idea. Got to #6 before anything really useful poppped up.
7. Thou shalt not commit adultery. Good idea. hey! Two in a row!
8. Thou shalt not steal. A three-peat of good ideas! We're on a roll!
9. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour. Another good idea.
10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's. Sounds like socialism to me.
So what is that? 4.5 out of 10? Nice to see that you view a failing grade as "insightful and worthwhile".
Hey now. That was some pretty progressive social policy circa 1000 BCE
Horse gak. FOllowing this train means its at the discretion of the local "easily malleable" politician. The entire nation, not just NY/NJ will need "facilitators" to get a steenking local store put into place.
Frazzled wrote:Horse gak. FOllowing this train means its at the discretion of the local "easily malleable" politician. The entire nation, not just NY/NJ will need "facilitators" to get a steenking local store put into place.
It's at times like this that frazzled should call the ACLU, except he can't since he was told to disown them by fox.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LordofHats wrote:
azazel the cat wrote:1. Thou shalt have no other gods before me. Sounds like a violation of anti-trust laws.
2. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments. More anti-trust violations.
3. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain. First Amendment violation.
4. Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it. In Canada we have laws against mandatory business closures on Sundays. I assume the USA does too.
5. Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee. Yeah, okay, I guess. Half marks for effort.
6. Thou shalt not kill. Good idea. Got to #6 before anything really useful poppped up.
7. Thou shalt not commit adultery. Good idea. hey! Two in a row!
8. Thou shalt not steal. A three-peat of good ideas! We're on a roll!
9. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour. Another good idea.
10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's. Sounds like socialism to me.
So what is that? 4.5 out of 10? Nice to see that you view a failing grade as "insightful and worthwhile".
Hey now. That was some pretty progressive social policy circa 1000 BCE
Frazzled wrote:Horse gak. FOllowing this train means its at the discretion of the local "easily malleable" politician. The entire nation, not just NY/NJ will need "facilitators" to get a steenking local store put into place.
It's at times like this that frazzled should call the ACLU, except he can't since he was told to disown them by fox.
Yep pretty much broke all the commandments. If God forgives all then why do I get the feeling I'm a contestant standing before the Man who decides thumbs up or down?
Bacchus
I predict his next reelection is going to be really tight
Frazzled wrote:Horse gak. FOllowing this train means its at the discretion of the local "easily malleable" politician. The entire nation, not just NY/NJ will need "facilitators" to get a steenking local store put into place.
It's at times like this that frazzled should call the ACLU, except he can't since he was told to disown them by fox.
This thread title is inaccurate. In 2010 Chic-Fil-A donated $2 million to anti gay groups. It's not just the CEO's opinion. By eating at Chic-Fil-A, you're giving money to groups that oppose gay marriage. So umm, if you like gay marriage and such don't go there.
LoneLictor wrote:This thread title is inaccurate. In 2010 Chic-Fil-A donated $2 million to anti gay groups. It's not just the CEO's opinion. By eating at Chic-Fil-A, you're giving money to groups that oppose gay marriage. So umm, if you like gay marriage and such don't go there.
Freedom isn't moralistically good, it's case by case. A fast food chain giving millions to anti gay causes is fethed up by the perspective of people who think its fethed up. It's their "free speech" to think so. Stop shouting free speech every two seconds.
If a person said, "WE SHOULD KILL THE JEWS AND ENSLAVE THE BLACKS" and then Testify said, "That's fethed up" would you still say "Why? Its called free speech" because it's just as applicable?
If a person has the right to be a jackass, that doesn't mean they aren't a jackass when they exercise that right.
And it's my freedom of speech to say that it's fethed up.
Classic right-wing defence btw.
Yes it is, but when you use a political office to discriminate against a businessman who disagrees with you, and interfere with his right to run a legitimate business, that's beyond messed up.
They actually opened a Chik-Fil-A in Hollywood last year... ate it a couple times. It's mediocre. Really, if I want good fried chicken, ten times out of ten I'm going to pick Roscoe's Chicken and Waffles.
I do find it somewhat amusing and ironic that a corporation with a pretty strong anti-gay stance opened a restaurant in Hollywood. At least it wasn't West Hollywood, but it's pretty damn close.
In fact, a transvestite pop group filmed a music video there that I'm sure the CEO loved. By "loved" I mean he probably had a coronary. I originally embedded it here but it's actually fairly NSFW, so...
And it's my freedom of speech to say that it's fethed up.
Classic right-wing defence btw.
Yes it is, but when you use a political office to discriminate against a businessman who disagrees with you, and interfere with his right to run a legitimate business, that's beyond messed up.
So you agree, then, that we shouldn't discriminate against businesses which use slavery and support terrorism?
And it's my freedom of speech to say that it's fethed up.
Classic right-wing defence btw.
Yes it is, but when you use a political office to discriminate against a businessman who disagrees with you, and interfere with his right to run a legitimate business, that's beyond messed up.
So you agree, then, that we shouldn't discriminate against businesses which use slavery and support terrorism?
And it's my freedom of speech to say that it's fethed up.
Classic right-wing defence btw.
Yes it is, but when you use a political office to discriminate against a businessman who disagrees with you, and interfere with his right to run a legitimate business, that's beyond messed up.
So you agree, then, that we shouldn't discriminate against businesses which use slavery and support terrorism?
I agree tonot arguing against straw man nonsense.
I will point to this post when you start arguing strawman nonsense.
Freedom isn't moralistically good, it's case by case. A fast food chain giving millions to anti gay causes is fethed up by the perspective of people who think its fethed up. It's their "free speech" to think so. Stop shouting free speech every two seconds.
FREE SPEECH! FREE SPEECH! FREE SPEECH!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LoneLictor wrote:
Frazzled wrote:Why? Its called free speech.
Strawman alert! Wee wooo wee wooo wee wooo!
If a person said, "WE SHOULD KILL THE JEWS AND ENSLAVE THE BLACKS" and then Testify said, "That's fethed up" would you still say "Why? Its called free speech" because it's just as applicable?
If a person has the right to be a jackass, that doesn't mean they aren't a jackass when they exercise that right.
Exactly. Its their right to free speech to be a jackass. Its your right to free speech to say they are a jackass.
Relapse wrote:
I agree tonot arguing against straw man nonsense.
I'm going to take from that statement that you do agree that businesses that support slavery and terrorism should be discriminated against. Simply on the grounds that they 'disagree with you'. I'm also going to extrapolate from that that you agree that free speech has to have some reasonable limits.
In which case, without trying to be hostile, I'll ask why is it okay for a business to say that people shouldn't be allowed to, in the privacy of their own homes, marry and sleep with whatever human being they want to? Aren't freedoms like that what the United States claims to defend?
Both slavery and terrorism are active attacks on the freedom of the citizens of the United States. Isn't saying who people can and cannot marry and decrying their lifestyle as "wrong" somehow also an attack on the freedom of the citizens of the United States?
I don't know, I don't get why this CEO has to attack other people for living differently than him without hurting anyone. If he would be content to live and let live I'm sure the city of Boston would extend to him the same.
I think the world would be pretty nice if everyone adhered to the idea that you have the personal right to do whatever you want as long as it doesn't interfere with someone else's personal rights.
Frazzled wrote:"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice."
That's the kind of thinking that justifies murdering planned parenthood doctors and politicians you disagree with. Scary.
Frazzled wrote:"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice."
That's the kind of thinking that justifies murdering planned parenthood doctors and politicians you disagree with. Scary.
No. It means I protect the full penumbra of the Bill of Rights with vigor. its a shame you don't understand the difference. Scary.
I'm not sure you understand what "Extremism" is then. If by "protect with vigor" you just mean peacefully arguing your position then I have no problem with it. That doesn't sound like extremism to me though. Extremism generally involves killing people you disagree with.
Relapse wrote:I take from your reply that you support execution or internment camps for dissenters .
I know you're trying to sarcastically make a point, but it doesn't seem like a very good one. Execution and internment camps don't really have much to do with peacefully refusing to do business with someone.
Saudi Arabia provides less than 20% of the United States' oil. The largest exporter to the U.S. by far is Canada.
Although it'd be pretty much impossible to stop using oil products. Almost literally anything you buy or consume used oil at some point in its production. The whole system would need an overhaul to phase out oil.
It would seem that combining Saudi Arabia and Nigeria's contributions, the largest percentage of the USA's oil consumption is supplied by places that aren't nice to LGBT folks.
It would seem that combining Saudi Arabia and Nigeria's contributions, the majority of the USA's oil consumption is supplied by places that aren't nice to LGBT folks.
From your link
"In 2009, Saudi Arabia exported an average of 1 million bbl/d of petroleum liquids to the United States, (down from (1.5 million bbl/d in 2008) accounting for 9 percent of total U.S. petroleum imports."
It would seem that combining Saudi Arabia and Nigeria's contributions, the majority of the USA's oil consumption is supplied by places that aren't nice to LGBT folks.
Killing people is bad, cars kill thousands every year. Lets stop buying cars. Thanks MR, another great contribution.
It would seem that combining Saudi Arabia and Nigeria's contributions, the majority of the USA's oil consumption is supplied by places that aren't nice to LGBT folks.
From your link
"In 2009, Saudi Arabia exported an average of 1 million bbl/d of petroleum liquids to the United States, (down from (1.5 million bbl/d in 2008) accounting for 9 percent of total U.S. petroleum imports."
I've cited a few different sources. The point is unchanged.
You could stop buying things that contribute to an increase in heart disease. Either way...
MrDwhitey wrote:But but MR.. we like ignoring where everything we actually use comes from so that we can keep using it and still feel good about ourselves...
Don't take that from us.
Seems to sum it up.
At a certain point, for anyone, the moment living up to one's own ideals becomes too inconvenient we rationalize why it's okay for us to compromise.
The point is still silly Clearly we should do nothing to advance our ideals ever because at some point we're willing to sacrifice them to function normally in society.
Me personally not buying oil isn't going to do anything to Saudi Arabia. Even if everyone in America didn't buy oil Saudi Arabia could just increase exports to China without a problem.
Boston and Chicago refusing to do business with an American food chain might actually do something to said food chain.
Not that you actually care because you're just trolling the silly off-topic boards but you know.
Nitros14 wrote:Boston and Chicago refusing to do business with an American food chain might actually do something to said food chain..
But they aren't, though. Didn't Menino say that in his clarification?
Nitros14 wrote:Not that you actually care because you're just trolling the silly off-topic boards but you know.
"Trolling" implying that I don't mean every word I've said?
You couldn't be more wrong. Though throwing that word out at the first sign of disagreement doesn't really speak well of someone's capability for reasonable discussion.
Jihadin wrote:
You could stop buying things that contribute to an increase in heart disease. Either way...
53% of heart disease is due to inactivity
Citation needed. But not really, because no one buys "inactivity."
What about all the gay people that have jobs and earn money thanks to CFA? The company actually has a stronger anti-discrimination policy than many other fast-food places, and between the company itself and all the other companies that have jobs because of them (construction companies, suppliers, farmers, even coca-cola supplying the drinks) there are many gay folks employed because of them.
You can protest the company all you want and boycott them into oblivion. But they will also cause many gay folks to loose their jobs and support as well.
If they aren't that's their business really, I was speaking theoretically.
If you do mean what you've said then am I to understand that either you're very holier-than-thou or your point is that no one should ever try to advance their ideals because at some point they're willing to sacrifice them to function normally in society? That's just part of living. You can't have a life of absolute ideals you have to compromise. It still doesn't mean that discriminating against someone because of who they sleep with in private is right.
What about all the gay people that have jobs and earn money thanks to CFA? The company actually has a stronger anti-discrimination policy than many other fast-food places, and between the company itself and all the other companies that have jobs because of them (construction companies, suppliers, farmers, even coca-cola supplying the drinks) there are many gay folks employed because of them.
You can protest the company all you want and boycott them into oblivion. But they will also cause many gay folks to loose their jobs and support as well.
What about all those innocent Germans working in Nazi Germany? When the United States and the Soviet Union toppled Hitler it caused millions of innocent people to lose their homes. jobs and families as well.
Note that's an exaggeration, CFA are not Nazis. Still a silly argument. If CFA doesn't sate the demand that exists then another company will and that company will need to hire people to work those same jobs.
Nitros14 wrote:It still doesn't mean that discriminating against someone because of who they sleep with in private is right.
At no point have I said that Truett Cathy's beliefs are "right".
Or wrong. In the end it really doesn't matter.
Nitros14 wrote:If you do mean what you've said then am I to understand that either you're very holier-than-thou or your point is that no one should ever try to advance their ideals because at some point they're willing to sacrifice them to function normally in society?
I'm not very holier-than-thou at all, and you can feel free to try to advance your ideals all you want. I just think it's interesting that no matter how strongly held someone's belief in any political/social/moral cause they will almost always find some way to rationalize going the opposite direction due to convenience.
Diet, physical inactivity, and obesity are three major causes of cardiovascular disease. A diet high in saturated fats, trans fats, and cholesterol promote the onset of atherosclerosis. In addition, a diet high in sodium raises the blood pressure significantly.
Physical inactivity leads to high blood pressure, high levels of fatty acids which promote hardening of the arteries, low levels of HDL (good) cholesterol, and diabetes. In addition, physical inactivity leads to another of the causes of cardiovascular, obesity. Obesity is excess body fat and is linked to higher levels of LDL (bad) cholesterol and lower levels of HDL cholesterol. Obesity also triggers the onset of high blood pressure and diabetes.
Nitros14 wrote:It still doesn't mean that discriminating against someone because of who they sleep with in private is right.
At no point have I said that Truett Cathy's beliefs are "right".
Or wrong. In the end it really doesn't matter.
How very melodramatic.
It won't matter to us when we're dead no.
It matters to us a lot when we're alive though. I very much have a vested interest in seeing that baseless discrimination isn't part of a society I live in.
Nitros14 wrote:It still doesn't mean that discriminating against someone because of who they sleep with in private is right.
At no point have I said that Truett Cathy's beliefs are "right".
Or wrong. In the end it really doesn't matter.
How very melodramatic.
I meant "in the end" more in the sense of "This will likely gain CFA as much business as they lose from a boycott, and the world will keep spinning."
Nitros14 wrote:It won't matter to us when we're dead no.
It matters to us a lot when we're alive though. I very much have a vested interest in seeing that baseless discrimination isn't part of a society I live in.
As do I, but I'm not going to pretend that I'm forwarding a cause by not buying chicken when I support much more egregious human rights violations on a daily basis with my other purchases, that's all.
Jihadin wrote:Diet, physical inactivity, and obesity are three major causes of cardiovascular disease. A diet high in saturated fats, trans fats, and cholesterol promote the onset of atherosclerosis. In addition, a diet high in sodium raises the blood pressure significantly.
Physical inactivity leads to high blood pressure, high levels of fatty acids which promote hardening of the arteries, low levels of HDL (good) cholesterol, and diabetes. In addition, physical inactivity leads to another of the causes of cardiovascular, obesity. Obesity is excess body fat and is linked to higher levels of LDL (bad) cholesterol and lower levels of HDL cholesterol. Obesity also triggers the onset of high blood pressure and diabetes.
Monster Rain wrote:
As do I, but I'm not going to pretend that I'm forwarding a cause by not buying chicken when I support much more egregious human rights violations on a daily basis with my other purchases, that's all.
To be honest neither am I. Like I said in theory a major city in North America rejecting a chain on account of discrimination brings public attention to the issue
My personal buying decisions don't really do anything. Especially not my buying decisions in regards to products produced halfway around the world in entirely different cultures that aren't going to change as a result of what North America decides to buy or not.
I'm sure you mean to imply I'm being a hypocrite here but please don't assume I'm some sort of blind idealist unaware of reality.
I'm also sure the world will keep on spinning but I will point out that due to public attention many views have been socially unacceptable over time. Slavery for example was once accepted in the public mind and through public attention eventually became reprehensible for the majority of North Americans.
Saudi Arabia provides less than 20% of the United States' oil. The largest exporter to the U.S. by far is Canada.
Although it'd be pretty much impossible to stop using oil products. Almost literally anything you buy or consume used oil at some point in its production. The whole system would need an overhaul to phase out oil.
I don't know if you or any of your friends use drugs or not, but if you do, you are supporting murders by the thousands in Mexico.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote:What about all the gay people that have jobs and earn money thanks to CFA? The company actually has a stronger anti-discrimination policy than many other fast-food places, and between the company itself and all the other companies that have jobs because of them (construction companies, suppliers, farmers, even coca-cola supplying the drinks) there are many gay folks employed because of them.
You can protest the company all you want and boycott them into oblivion. But they will also cause many gay folks to loose their jobs and support as well.
Nitros14 wrote:I'm also sure the world will keep on spinning but I will point out that due to public attention many views have been socially unacceptable over time. Slavery for example was once accepted in the public mind and through public attention eventually became reprehensible for the majority of North Americans.
I think we agree that the viewpoint held by the owner of CFA is on the wrong side of history, and in time the idea of opposition to Same Sex Marriage will be held in the same regard as the earth being the center of the universe.
Nitros14 wrote:I'm also sure the world will keep on spinning but I will point out that due to public attention many views have been socially unacceptable over time. Slavery for example was once accepted in the public mind and through public attention eventually became reprehensible for the majority of North Americans.
I think we agree that the viewpoint held by the owner of CFA is on the wrong side of history, and in time the idea of opposition to Same Sex Marriage will be held in the same regard as the earth being the center of the universe.
dogma wrote:It depends on city. In Chicago, for example, its a de facto ban.
Fair point. Well, it's a de facto ban until the mayor is indicted, then you have to find out if the new one hates you as well.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Relapse wrote:From almost everything I've read, including the letter at first, the Jackass wrote a letter that pretty much says, don't open a restaurant here
Because of your stated beliefs. If that was done to a minority, it would be equated to pre civil rights 1960's activities.
But it wasn't done to a minority. The threat in this case carried nothing like the potency it would when sent to a minority in 1960.
You can't just pretend that power can be, or is wielded equally against everyone. CEOs are not, in fact, a victimised minority.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Relapse wrote:That will be a good thing, but I foresee "code violations" and lost permits for Chic Fil A.
I think you may have a slightly exaggerated concept of the ability of a mayor to influence a health inspector.
And an even stranger idea of the sort of mayor who is likely to use his power. Those guys don't send personally signed letters suggesting they're going to try and misuse the power granted to them.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
generalgrog wrote:It's a minority only because a minority of people behave that way...it's not an "ethnic" minority from the classic view of what being a "minority" has always meant.
A minority is group with a smaller popultion, or one with less political or economic power than the majority. That's what it has always meant.
Anyway we've been down this path before..I realize that on Dakka, I will always be in the minority on this issue.. so be it.
It is a great, great thing that your side of the debate is rapidly losing ground.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Monster Rain wrote:I'm waiting for the inevitable backlash when cities with more right-leaning tendencies start attempting the same thing against companies with openly "liberal" policies.
When they what? Write letters saying 'I don't like what you're saying', and later clarify to state they won't actually be doing anything about it?
I suggest you all stop buying gasoline as well. Which is to say, at what point exactly do idealism and reality intersect?
If undertaking, and encouraging others undertake a boycott on oil and petroleum products until gas companies stopped buying from Saudi Arabia or Kenya or whoever, to in turn force those countries to improve their treatment of sexual minorities, then it'd be a good thing. I think it'd be a pretty big long shot to get any kind of meaningful change, but hey if you want to try it go ahead.
But more importantly, whether or not the above is undertaken doesn't change, in any way, whether or not it is right to boycott Chic-Fil-A for funding anti-gay lobbying groups.
Note that the real difference is in the actual, sensible definition of 'free speech'. I don't believe it's right to boycott Chic-Fil-A if the CEO was just talking about how much he hated gay people, but when he acting by giving money away, then it is only reasonable to act in turn, but not giving him any money to hand over to those groups.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Monster Rain wrote:I think we agree that the viewpoint held by the owner of CFA is on the wrong side of history, and in time the idea of opposition to Same Sex Marriage will be held in the same regard as the earth being the center of the universe.
#Common Ground, #End On a Friendly-ish Note
Yes, and that time seems to be coming quicker all the time. I mean, just think back to, like 1990, and how contraversial it was to suggest there was nothing wrong with homosexual people, and now we're seeing not just tolerance, but actual acceptance through majority support in many places for gay marriage.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
SlaveToDorkness wrote:Damn, I gotta eat CFA tomorrow.
What's that? It's becoming obvious that a significant portion of the right wing has long since abandoned any kind of claim to a higher moral concept, and basically just devolved into doing whatever spites the opposition in their glorious cultural war? Surely not.
Monster Rain wrote:I'm waiting for the inevitable backlash when cities with more right-leaning tendencies start attempting the same thing against companies with openly "liberal" policies.
When they what? Write letters saying 'I don't like what you're saying', and later clarify to state they won't actually be doing anything about it?
Oh, I too fear the reckoning.
I'm not so much "fearing a reckoning" as "looking forward to people having the opposite opinion on this sort of behavior when they don't agree with the motivation behind it."
Monster Rain wrote:I'm not so much "fearing a reckoning" as "looking forward to people having the opposite opinion on this sort of behavior when they don't agree with the motivation behind it."
I'm a bit of a people watcher, you see.
Yeah, I get that, and I know if it was the other way around then we'd have the same argument, except the left wing people would be claiming the mayor was wrong and the right wing defending him.
But I think the level of outrage against the mayor is, apart from the usual partisanship, dependant largely on what the mayor is actually doing. If, for instance, the mayor was actually telling this guy 'set up a store here and I'll shut you down' then I think you'd get a lot of people who are defending him now to start saying 'actually that's not cool'.
To be honest, the most surprising part of all this, to me, is how people have been willing to claim what the CEO is doing is free speech, while condemning the mayor. After all, all the mayor did was send a letter, in which any actual threat was somewhere between vague and non-existant, and when asked about it he clarified he wouldn't actually be acting in any way. That's nothing but speach and yet people seem willing to ignore what it actually is and start pretending the mayor somehow acted to ban a Chic-Fil-A store or something.
Whereas the CEO is giving money, millions of dollars to anti-gay groups. And not just your run of the mill activist groups, but outfits like The Family Research Centre, who are a really hate-filled bunch of bigots, and identified the Southern Poverty Law Centre as a hate group. That kind of thing isn't just speach, its an act. And yet the right wing pundits are out in force, constantly repeating the line that the CEO is being targeted for his stance, or for his speach, and completely missing the point that it isn't just words, but the handing over of money to some really hateful groups.
It's very strange. It might just the same old political bs, a piece of spin where they pretend their guy nothing more than give his opinion while at the same time pretending their guy is totally acting to ban restaurants, but that's not the vibe I'm getting. It seems like there's really is a point of disconnect here, where the right wing pundits actually don't get the difference between 'having an opinion' and actually acting on that opinion when it comes to this issue.
Maybe the whole debate, like so many other issues, has just become so much noise, something no-one expects to actually amount to anything, that the pundits have actually lost track between the noise of opinions and people actually doing stuff. I don't know, but it isn't very healthy.
It would seem that combining Saudi Arabia and Nigeria's contributions, the largest percentage of the USA's oil consumption is supplied by places that aren't nice to LGBT folks.
That doesn't mean that people have to support companies that are anti-gay.
d-usa wrote:What about all the gay people that have jobs and earn money thanks to CFA? The company actually has a stronger anti-discrimination policy than many other fast-food places, and between the company itself and all the other companies that have jobs because of them (construction companies, suppliers, farmers, even coca-cola supplying the drinks) there are many gay folks employed because of them.
You can protest the company all you want and boycott them into oblivion. But they will also cause many gay folks to loose their jobs and support as well.
sebster wrote:It seems like there's really is a point of disconnect here, where the right wing pundits actually don't get the difference between 'having an opinion' and actually acting on that opinion when it comes to this issue.
After Citizens United, maybe they're right. But I get what you're saying. I think that if Cathy really had just said something about not liking Gay Marriage and the company wasn't giving all that money to the groups you mentioned this reaction would be a bit over the top.
Kilkrazy wrote:That doesn't mean that people have to support companies that are anti-gay.
I just don't think most people are willing to follow that line of thought to its logical conclusion.
d-usa wrote:What about all the gay people that have jobs and earn money thanks to CFA? The company actually has a stronger anti-discrimination policy than many other fast-food places, and between the company itself and all the other companies that have jobs because of them (construction companies, suppliers, farmers, even coca-cola supplying the drinks) there are many gay folks employed because of them.
"Hey, we hate please don't use this term on Dakka. Thanks.Reds8n, but we probably have some homos working for us, so leave us alone as we spread and support homophobic hatred or they might get fired..."
d-usa wrote:What about all the gay people that have jobs and earn money thanks to CFA? The company actually has a stronger anti-discrimination policy than many other fast-food places, and between the company itself and all the other companies that have jobs because of them (construction companies, suppliers, farmers, even coca-cola supplying the drinks) there are many gay folks employed because of them.
"Hey, we hateplease don't use this term on Dakka. Thanks.Reds8n , but we probably have some homos working for us, so leave us alone as we spread and support homophobic hatred or they might get fired..."
So thats your arguement?
Reported for using derogatory language. If you cannot make an argument without using a very hurtful word (even if it is ironically) then just quit the argument.
d-usa wrote:What about all the gay people that have jobs and earn money thanks to CFA? The company actually has a stronger anti-discrimination policy than many other fast-food places, and between the company itself and all the other companies that have jobs because of them (construction companies, suppliers, farmers, even coca-cola supplying the drinks) there are many gay folks employed because of them.
"Hey, we hate color=red]please don't use this term on Dakka. Thanks.Reds8n[/color] , but we probably have some homos working for us, so leave us alone as we spread and support homophobic hatred or they might get fired..."
So thats your arguement?
Reported for using derogatory language. If you cannot make an argument without using a very hurtful word (even if it is ironically) then just quit the argument.
Take it as what you want. When you are using language like that to describe a group you want to defend then there is no point in in keeping the argument going.
Whitey I have the blessing of working with many british troops in RC South Afghanistan. Kandahar and Bastion/Leatherneck. I even know what knickers are. Would it be considered bad form if I learned from Matty's friends about british slang/etiquette ?
as a member of the LGBT community, I have to admit this is getting ridiculous. then again' I don't eat there anyways, because there isn't one in the town I live in.
d-usa wrote:What about all the gay people that have jobs and earn money thanks to CFA? The company actually has a stronger anti-discrimination policy than many other fast-food places, and between the company itself and all the other companies that have jobs because of them (construction companies, suppliers, farmers, even coca-cola supplying the drinks) there are many gay folks employed because of them.
"Hey, we hate color=red]please don't use this term on Dakka. Thanks.Reds8n[/color] , but we probably have some homos working for us, so leave us alone as we spread and support homophobic hatred or they might get fired..."
So thats your arguement?
Reported for using derogatory language. If you cannot make an argument without using a very hurtful word (even if it is ironically) then just quit the argument.
I'll take that as a yes...
Take it as what you want. When you are using language like that to describe a group you want to defend then there is no point in in keeping the argument going.
Notice the quotation marks around the statement. I wasn't describing anyone. I was demonstrating the attitude and language used by the people that Chic fil a choose to fund and support.
I love when bigots/homophobes/assorted crazies (or those that defend them) get mad when you put a spotlight on their terms and behavior rather than pretending they aren't saying and using such terms.
"Oh my god, I am shocked and offended that you would mock those that use such words, I like to pretend they don't say such things..."
1) you are the only person throwing around the f-word. If you don't see the problem with throwing around a very hurtful word like that, even if it is ironically or to make a point, then I cannot help you.
2) I am not defending him for being a homophobe, I am defending his right to be a homophobe.
3) And truly and finally, if you really want to stand by your use if the gay version of the n-word, then there really is no reason to talk to you. Not because you uncovered my secret anti-gay alter-ego, but because I have no use for arguing with people that will attempt to use hurtful language in order to make themselves feel like they scored a point in an internet debate.
1) you are the only person throwing around the f-word. If you don't see the problem with throwing around a very hurtful word like that, even if it is ironically or to make a point, then I cannot help you.
2) I am not defending him for being a homophobe, I am defending his right to be a homophobe.
3) And truly and finally, if you really want to stand by your use if the gay version of the n-word, then there really is no reason to talk to you. Not because you uncovered my secret anti-gay alter-ego, but because I have no use for arguing with people that will attempt to use hurtful language in order to make themselves feel like they scored a point in an internet debate.
You will find a button labeled "ignore" in the bottom right corner.. Feel free to activate it.
hotsauceman1 wrote:Im perfectly fine with this. if they ever try to make it into my town i will fight tooth and nail to force it away.
Keep hate mongering out of good decent places.
Chicago, Boston, and the phrase "good decent places" should never be in the same sentence. The CEO doesn't like gay marriage but that doesn't mean the sandwiches taste like hatred, besides any money they're putting into anything anti-gay marriage is going to waste. Once a group is openly serving in the military their rights are inevitable, that's how Civil Rights got its kick start after all. Harlem Hellfighters started a cultural revolution back in the states after serving in WWI.
He would say use whatever words you choose and don't let anyone tell you you can't. He would then call you a bunch of things I can't post here...
Could you imagine Lenny and Matty adding to each other's comments?
Epic.
People would get banned just for being in the same thread as those two. This would almost be a good jump off thread about who various posters on Dakka would be a good match with.
Monster Rain wrote:After Citizens United, maybe they're right. But I get what you're saying. I think that if Cathy really had just said something about not liking Gay Marriage and the company wasn't giving all that money to the groups you mentioned this reaction would be a bit over the top.
Citizens United was the point at which I started to notice how bizarre the line between action and speach is drawn in some quarters.
But yeah, if he wasn't giving money this'd be totally different. In fact I've argued on this board before about a suggested boycott against Whole Foods, after the CEO said he didn't like the public option that was being proposed at the time. A boycott to what was basically just a comment couldn't be justified.
But when someone is actually using company profits to give money to some really despicable lobby groups, I think that's sufficiently different.
Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel has ticked off the flocks by criticizing Chick-fil-A.
Days after the big city boss blasted the chicken chain over its president's stance on same-sex marriage, an influential Baptist minister and Cardinal Francis George of the Archdiocese of Chicago struck back. The religious leaders, who support the traditional view of marriage, were incensed at Emanuel's claim that "Chick-fil-A's values are not Chicago's values."
"Do not disrespect us...We, too, are Chicago," the Rev. Charles Lyons of the Armitage Baptist Church thundered from the pulpit Sunday.
Cardinal Francis George also criticized Emanuel's stance, asking in the Catholic Chicago Blog if everyone who did not agree with Emanuel faced a similar fate.
"Must those whose personal values do not conform to those of the government of the day move from the city," George wondered. "Is the City Council going to set up a 'Council Committee on Un-Chicagoan Activities' and call those of us who are suspect to appear before it?"
The controversy began when a Chicago Alderman Proco Joe Moreno said he would block the restaurant from opening a location in his ward, citing recent comments by Chick-fil-A President Dan Cathy. When asked about the company's values, Cathy was quoted saying he was "guilty as charged" for being "supportive of the family -- the biblical definition of the family unit."
Cathy also said on a radio program: “I think we are inviting God’s judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at Him and say ‘we know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage,’ and I pray God’s mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we have the audacity to define what marriage is about.”
As officials in other cities, including Boston, San Francisco and New York, blasted Chick-fil-A over Cathy's beliefs, the company issued a new statement over the weekend.
"The Chick-fil-A culture and service tradition in our restaurants is to treat every person with honor, dignity and respect -- regardless of their belief, race, creed, sexual orientation or gender," the statement read. "We will continue this tradition in the over 1,600 restaurants run by independent owner/operators. Going forward, our intent is to leave the policy debate over same-sex marriage to the government and political arena."
But Lyons had a warning for anyone who tries to impose their values on his congregation.
"If the thought police come to Armitage Baptist Church, we will meet them at the door respectfully, unflinchingly, willing to die on this hill, holding a copy of the Sacred Scriptures in one hand and a copy of the U.S. Constitution in the other," Lyons said in the sermon.
Legal experts note that politicians, preachers and anybody else are entitled to their opinions on same sex marriage, which polls show the country is evenly split on. But they told FoxNews.com that it is disturbing that elected officials would threaten to use their power to block a company from doing business in their community because of a difference of opinion with people who work for the company.
The Chick-fil-A culture and service tradition in our restaurants is to treat every person with honor, dignity and respect
Bullgak, they're fast food. Fast food don't treat their employees with any of those three things.
When it comes to fast food, CFA is actually one of the best places for being treated well. Only place that potentially out-treats their employees that is comparable is probably Starbucks.
Of course Jon Steward (even though he really tore into CFA over this thing) managed to sum up the current situation pretty well:
The Chick-fil-A culture and service tradition in our restaurants is to treat every person with honor, dignity and respect
Bullgak, they're fast food. Fast food don't treat their employees with any of those three things.
When it comes to fast food, CFA is actually one of the best places for being treated well. Only place that potentially out-treats their employees that is comparable is probably Starbucks.
Of course Jon Steward (even though he really tore into CFA over this thing) managed to sum up the current situation pretty well:
Chick-Fil-A Supporters To Turn Out For ‘Appreciation Day’
'The Dark Knight Rises' PremiereCHICAGO (CBS) — The culture clash over Chick-Fil-A could come to a head on Wednesday, with supporters in Chicago and around the country turning out for an “appreciation day” first proposed by former Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee.
Nationwide as of Wednesday morning, about 582,000 people planned to go to a Chick-Fil-A location and order something for Chick-Fil-A Appreciation Day.
Meanwhile, Republicans in Chicago say they will also file a formal complaint at City Hall against Ald. Proco “Joe” Moreno (1st), who wants to block the restaurant from moving into his ward because of the company’s position on gay marriage and gay rights. Huckabee said on Facebook that the purpose is to support a business that operates on Biblical values and is being targeted by “vicious hate speech and intolerant bigotry from the left.”
Huckabee said further, “Too often, those on the left make corporate statements to show support for same sex marriage, abortion, or profanity, but if Christians affirm traditional values, we’re considered homophobic, fundamentalists, hate-mongers, and intolerant.”
But gay rights advocates in Chicago are setting up an event of their own, urging people to eat at local restaurants that support gay rights.
Equality Illinois is urging Chicagoans who support gay rights to participate in an “Eat for Love Day” on Wednesday, Aug. 1. The organization is urging people to eat at a local restaurant that supports LGBT rights and “is unafraid to show its support for equality for everyone.”
The group is asking participants to post where they are planning on eating and sent pictures. Among the restaurants participating are the Chicago Diner at 3411 N. Halsted St.; Lady Gregory’s at 5260 N. Clark St.; Wilde at 3130 N. Broadway; HB Chicago at 3404 N. Halsted St.; Club Lago at 331 W. Superior St..; and the Hearty Boys restaurant at 3819 N. Broadway – which is giving 100 percent of the proceeds from its fried chicken breast sandwiches to Equality Illinois.
Another popular restaurant, Hamburger Mary’s at 5400 N. Clark St. in the Andersonville neighborhood, put out a promotion for a “hate-free” fried chicken sandwich available through the month of August. The promotion for Southern-Style Chicken Sandwich features the national chain’s mascot Hamburger Mary wearing a cow-print dress and holding a sign reading “Eat More Mary’s” with the R’s backwards – in a parody of Chick-Fil-A’s cow mascot and “Eat More Chikin” slogan.
At the Chicago location, the restaurant is donating a portion of the sales to Equality Illinois.
Another protest is coming on Friday, when Equality Illinois is urging gay and lesbian couples to go to their local Chick-Fil-A restaurants for a “kiss-in” campaign, which the group is promoting along with other gay rights organizations nationwide.
At the “kiss-in,” Equality Illinois says, “LGBT supporters will show their disdain for Chick-Fil-A’s policies with public displays of affection in front of their restaurants.”
The controversy in Chicago erupted last week, when Moreno said he would be blocking Chick-Fil-A from opening its second Chicago city location in his ward, in the 2500 block of North Elston Avenue, because of the anti-gay philosophy articulated by the company’s president.
“I’m not going to sit on the sidelines, and allow them to come in, when I know in my heart that they believe in discriminating against gay people,” Moreno said last week.
The comments were published last week in an article on the Christian news site Baptist Press.
Chick-Fil-A chief executive officer Dan Cathy is quoted in the July 16 Baptist Press article: “We are very much supportive of the family — the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that.”
Cathy further expressed his opposition to same-sex marriage in an interview last month on the radio program “The Ken Coleman Show.”
“I think we are inviting God’s judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at Him and say ‘we know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage,’ and I pray God’s mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we have the audacity to define what marriage is about,” Cathy said on the radio program.
It was not just the published comments that reportedly gave Moreno doubts about Chick-Fil-A. The Chicago Phoenix reports he been in talks with Chick-Fil-A for several months about the company’s policies, as had the gay rights group the Civil Rights Agenda.
The group’s executive director, Anthony Martinez, said Moreno had “already known that (Chick-Fil-A was) discriminatory against LGBT folks,” and the alderman had asked the company to prove otherwise “and of course they said that they’re not discriminatory,” the Phoenix reported.
Moreno and the Civil Rights Organization went on to demand that the company change its corporate policies to ensure an LGBT-inclusive non-discrimination rule, which would include diversity and cultural competency training, benefits for people in domestic partnerships and civil unions, culturally-sensitive ads in the LGBT community, transgender health benefits, and a rejection of activities that would undermine equality, the Phoenix reported.
Mayor Emanuel spoke in defense of Moreno’s stance last week.
“Chick-Fil-A’s values are not Chicago values,” the mayor said. “They’re not respectful of our residents, our neighbors, and our family members. And if you’re going to be part of the Chicago community, you should reflect the Chicago values.”
Currently, Chick-Fil-A only has one location in the city of Chicago, at 30 E. Chicago Ave.
I am currently eating my Chick-fil-A sandwich and waffle fries. It is delicious. As I savor this midday repast, I am moved by the generosity of the mayor of Richmond for not obstructing the sale of this fine cuisine.
about Chicago 
*(okay it's late here too... )
