Boston Mayor vows to ban Chick-Fil-A from his city - Page 28

On July 26 2012 16:15 Azzur wrote:

It's double standards to be in favour of one-form of discrimination but to be against another

On July 26 2012 16:12 Ryuu314 wrote:

Unless I'm mistaken and have missed a critical recent SCOTUS case, sexuality is not a "protected class" like race, creed, etc... Things are only considered (illegal) discrimination in the eyes of the law if they're targeting a protected class, of which sexuality is not one (yet). This is done so that people can't sue based on stupid things like discrimination against stupidity, lack of skill, etc...

On July 26 2012 16:07 Cel.erity wrote:


These types of arguments are not even slightly intelligent. It is not discriminatory (in any way other than semantically) to abhor the decisions and opinions that other people have. It is discriminatory to abhor a person for something that is natural for them, like their skin color, mental deficiencies, or sexuality.

If you want to argue the semantic definition of discrimination, then fine, saying that I hate homophobes and racists is discrimination. But it is a positive discrimination and not a negative one.

On July 26 2012 16:25 Diglett wrote:


dunno how you define discrimination but i am uncomfortable it. in your example it just seems one type of discrimination seems more morally cool. can you elaborate?

On July 26 2012 16:20 Courthead wrote:


That's the most ridiculous thing anyone has ever said on the entire internet. That's like saying it's a double standard to like one type of ice cream but not another. It's a double standard to be against the Holocaust unless you're also pro-Nazi. Etc.

Absolutely ridiculous.

On July 26 2012 16:29 Azzur wrote:

It's pretty easy to see that someone is losing the argument when they resort of words like ridiculous. Last time I checked, discrimination doesn't include ice-cream preferences, but it does include "political views". You have clearly shown that "political views discrimination" doesn't apply to views that are different from yours.

In case you start going off in tangents, I'll state that these political views obviously have to be within the law.

On July 26 2012 16:38 NEEDZMOAR wrote:



well isnt being anti gay marriage discrimination? so if you let an anti-gay organization establish in your city, it basically means that you support anti-gay marriage.

On July 26 2012 16:38 NEEDZMOAR wrote:



well isnt being anti gay marriage discrimination? so if you let an anti-gay organization establish in your city, it basically means that you support anti-gay marriage.

On July 26 2012 16:33 Tachion wrote:

If I say black people can't get married I'm a racist bigot.
If I say gay people can't get married it's a "political view".
disgusting.

On July 26 2012 16:04 dvorakftw wrote:

God I hate insomnia. At least when GSL isn't on.

The article was to show Wal Mart is not "banned" in Seattle.

You want numbers?

http://www2.newsadvance.com/business/2011/jan/24/appomattox-economy-boosted-walmart-hurt-upcoming-l-ar-790871/
The Walmart undoubtedly played a role in the county’s overall sales increase, he said.

The county had $23.5 million in taxable sales in the third quarter of 2010, a report from the Virginia Department of Taxation shows. That was a 24 percent increase over the $18.9 million sales in the third quarter of 2009.

Monthly tax records show that the county’s sales tax receipts jumped $20,000 when Walmart opened in May.

http://articles.marketwatch.com/2005-11-04/news/30748393_1_wal-mart-stores-grocery-store-industry-lower-prices
"Yes there is disruption in the retail sector," he said. "Wal-Mart does displace other employment, but overall has a stimulative effect on overall county employment.
...

Wal-Mart's growth over the 1985 to 2004 period was related to a cumulative decline of 9.1% in food prices, a 4.2% drop in prices of commodities and a 3.1% decrease in overall consumer prices as measured by the consumer price index, the study found.

The cumulative savings from lower prices amounted to $895 per person by 2004 for a total of $263 billion, Holling said.
...

Efficiency gains in the economy totaled 0.75% in the 20 years studied.

...

Wal-Mart has been a plus for job creation, according to the study, generating 210,000 jobs by 2004, a 0.15% increase that would not have existed but for Wal-Mart.

http://jamesdshaw.wordpress.com/2012/06/22/does-living-near-a-walmart-boost-your-homes-value/

[T]wo University economists (Devin Pope at University of Chicago and Jaren Pope at BYU) looked at 1 million real estate sales near 159 new WalMart stores that opened between 2000 and 2006. They found that homes within a half mile saw a $7,000 increase in value and that homes a half mile to a mile away saw a $4,000 increase after the store opened.

On July 26 2012 17:06 Kaiyotic wrote:
I feel like the courts would be a better place to bring this up, though you'd have to see what you'd bring against them; shouldn't be hard considering their social stance is incorporated into their corporate policy

Failing that, gay sit-ins at Chick-Fil-A, a la Greensboro sit-ins ^^

On July 26 2012 17:14 DrTJEckleburg wrote:
As a business man I've always been taught that you can believe whatever you want but no matter what business and politics/religion need to be separated. Pretty basic.

On July 26 2012 16:54 Evangelist wrote:
Freedom of speech is fine provided it doesn't intervene with someone's basic rights under the law. Gay marriage has significant tax benefits and legal rights which are denied on the basis of a persons sexuality.

That is bigotry. When you defend their free speech, you defend the right of racists to state they want a white only state AND their right to ensure it remains law.

Think for a second, people.