Boston Mayor vows to ban Chick-Fil-A from his city - Page 32

On July 26 2012 22:23 S_SienZ wrote:

I personally find it questionably evil tbh. Unless they make it explicit that they are funding anti-gay organisations I find it kinda shady that they "welcome" gays into their premises.

On July 26 2012 22:07 turdburgler wrote:


and the mayor believes that he doesnt want chic fil a in his city? why arent you letting him believe what he wants to believe?

On July 26 2012 22:28 Cel.erity wrote:



Why do people in this thread not understand that it's literally the mayor's job to decide who does/doesn't set up a business in his city? He has the RIGHT to deny them for whatever reason he desires. If the reason is deemed stupid, he will not be re-elected, or his decision will be overturned by the other checks and balances which are in place for the city. It completely baffles me that people are confused why an elected official is allowed to make decisions for the people he represents. Do you want them to open the polls and hold a vote every time somebody applies for a goddamn business license?

Bush and his administration decided to go to war in Iraq. Why? Who the hell knows. But still, that was his job, to decide when America goes to war and when it doesn't. This and many other decisions led to the republicans no longer being in power. You can argue the validity of the decision, but you cannot argue the man's right to make the decision; he was elected for a reason.

On July 26 2012 22:39 Felnarion wrote:


Because it is absolutely not the job of the mayor to decide who does and doesn't set up a business in his city. Now, at some points, does it come to his desk whether or not a a company should be allowed based on X, Y, or Z? Yes. But none of these reasons should be their political affiliations.

What is to stop, taking the next logical step, a democrat mayor from banning a Republican-supporting chain from a different town based on the exact same logic? Republicans donate, in fairly large numbers, to similar causes. Why not simply ban all Republicans? They also are, typically, anti-gay marriage.

Because you can't do that. You can't base policy decisions on your disagreement with someone's protected freedom of speech. As a citizen, you can base whatever you want on whoever you want. You can boycott to your hearts content. You can stand outside with signs and complain as much as you want. There should be consequences from society. These consequences, however, should not come from government. Cannot come from government. If it is accepted that they can, then any belief can be shut down for being unpopular.

On July 26 2012 22:17 meadbert wrote:

Just to be clear, Chick-Fill-A is not being intolerant. Gays are welcome at their restaurants. It is the city of Boston which is being intolerant by preventing Chick-Fill-A's expansion into the city.

On July 26 2012 22:46 turdburgler wrote:


maybe chick fil a is just running a dont ask dont tell policy

On July 26 2012 22:43 Cel.erity wrote:


In your example, he absolutely can do that, but he'll get overruled and smeared in the press, so he won't. In this case, however, everybody is going to love him for doing the right thing. It's a shrewd political move that he undoubtedly made after consulting his advisors, it's not some hare-brained whim.

On July 26 2012 22:48 Felnarion wrote:
We don't want our politicians doing the popular thing. We want them doing the right thing. These are not always the same.

On July 26 2012 21:44 Cel.erity wrote:


Nobody's restricting anybody's freedom. Why do people in this thread keep restating the same dumb thing? It's not your constitutional right to own a business and be granted a license to do business in any city you damn well please. Whether or not you're allowed to conduct business is UP TO THE CITY, which is led by the mayor. This is a case where the mayor has decided not to allow Chick-Fil-A to conduct business in his city, as he is elected to do, which is no more or less restrictive to American freedom than me being told I can't work at a high-class restaurant because I have a tattoo of a spider on my face.

On July 26 2012 17:54 Midori8 wrote:

"Freedom of speech is fine provided it doesn't intervene with someone's basic rights under the law"?

If people went by your logic, no laws would ever be changed because it is apparently not okay to disagree with a law.
If murder was legal would it be bad to disagree with someone's "basic rights" to murder because it is law?

The whole topic is kinda weird. I understand the whole point of view about the people voting in the government and the government representing them etc. but this is just weird. I assume churches are legal in Boston? I wouldn't vote for a mayor that bans a specific business (rather than a type of business) just because he doesn't like the worldview by which the business is being run.

On July 26 2012 16:01 Ryuu314 wrote:


Yep. They do that all the time. That's a very common, well-documented phenomenon. There have been tons of studies on the impact of race, gender, creed on hiring prospects. While there are anti-discrimination laws in place to help curb obviously discriminatory practices, this stuff happens on a regular basis and is completely legal. You can look it up. Freakanomics has a bunch of stuff on this.


SCOTUS has made rulings in the past that says a city cannot prohibit any company from doing business on the grounds of the company's speech/opinions.

However, there's nothing stopping Chicago and/or Boston from prohibiting Chick fil-A from doing business on completely separate grounds.

On July 26 2012 23:10 ragz_gt wrote:
Menino is kind of a duffus, I think everyone in Boston can agree on it. He generally means well, but... not very smart.