|
On July 27 2012 00:18 U_G_L_Y wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 00:12 ayaz2810 wrote:
I feel like there is a misunderstanding here. A lot of people are saying you shouldn't ban a business from an area because of its stance on an issue. I disagree. A business having an anti-gay agenda is not the same as a business that has a pro choice/life agenda or something where there is a point you can argue with logic and/or science. A company is against rights for a group of people. Whether that be gays, blacks, jews, or plain old vanilla whitey, IT IS WRONG. I don't care what your lolreligious beliefs are, in the 21st century, you do not try to keep people from having basic rights. It's fucking stupid that this is even still an issue in this day and age. I'll break it down simply:
Business A has a "whites only" section at every location.
Business B has a sign that says "no Jews allowed" in every store.
Business C has an openly anti-gay stance and gives money to anti-gay organizations.
Business D blatantly treats Hispanic customers poorly and admits to it.
3 of these are laughable in the year 2012. They would never happen. Why does the other get a free pass? Religion? Is that really an excuse? At the risk of turning this ugly, issues like this really make me happy I'm an Atheist. Disgusting. This is a poor analogy unless Chick Fil A does not allow gas to eat there. At the risk of turning this ugly, issues like this make me happy I believe in liberty for all, not just some.
Your name made me laugh. Good show. I believe in liberty and free speech for those that don't promote hate against any group of people. I guess I'm not a true American.
|
Terrible, terrible analogy as stated. They will serve whoever whenever with a smile and have no qualms about it. It's not as if they are asking you if you are gay before they serve you.
|
On July 27 2012 00:12 ayaz2810 wrote:
I feel like there is a misunderstanding here. A lot of people are saying you shouldn't ban a business from an area because of its stance on an issue. I disagree. A business having an anti-gay agenda is not the same as a business that has a pro choice/life agenda or something where there is a point you can argue with logic and/or science. A company is against rights for a group of people. Whether that be gays, blacks, jews, or plain old vanilla whitey, IT IS WRONG.
Came here to say this. Fucking thank you.
I believe in liberty and free speech for those that don't promote hate against any group of people. I guess I'm not a true American.
Love this.
|
On July 27 2012 00:17 Cutlery wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 00:04 Felnarion wrote:On July 27 2012 00:00 Cutlery wrote:
Looking at their menu, I don't see why any mayor would want that stuff easily accessible to schoolkids in their town or district. There is a way to fight obesity you know, on a bigger scale. We did it here, basically blocked McD from opening shop. Considering only myself I wouldn't mind, but I can understand that people living here do not want mcD to be THAT accessible to thousands of schoolkids in lunch hours and after school. It's the responsible thing to do. It takes a village to raise a kid. Question is, how do you want to raise it/them?
That wasn't the issue here, but I feel it should be. Political agenda or not; being responsible towards your community should be priority. There's a place for fast food, and it's up to the local community to be responsible enough to decide where that is and isn't. Because surely fast food chains won't police themselves; they even offer kid's meals.
Oh sweet Jesus, are you kidding me. They offer kids meals! How atrocious! With smaller portions and everything! The horror! What's that? A large portion of chick fil a's menu is salads and warps? One of my favorite snacks when I was a kid was their carrot raisin salad? There's nothing better than a bowl of their soup when you're sick? Stop trying to be the police of everyone's digestive tract and let it go. What's the horror? I'm just saying... Why do you think malls are created? Who do you think sells the space to open shops?  Salad and wraps, filled with fried meat; I don't see your point. It's still not healthy food, and we simply didn't want that in the middle of our school district. I'm saying we can decide, sometimes, what we want or not. And I also said that this wasn't the issue of this thread, just a tangent of how things can work out, and I don't even know the area in question, I just said that I don't see it as a big issue for smaller communities; but it shouldn't be acted upon politically. Also there are other ways to get food, and that's basically what people wanted to teach their kids, and that's what went down. Sorry you don't see other options? But my story isn't a horror story, sorry you misunderstood. You can say we're policing the digestive trackts of "our" ten year olds. Sorry it infringes on your right to poison yourself in public.
You telling me what I can eat or what I can feed my children is a horror story indeed.
And whose children leave school in the middle of the school day to go to McDonald's for lunch? Do these children have jobs? How are they paying for it exactly? Why are teachers allowing them to leave? Silly.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
meh. legalism etc but i like this move by the mayor.
|
On July 27 2012 00:22 ayaz2810 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 00:18 U_G_L_Y wrote:On July 27 2012 00:12 ayaz2810 wrote:
I feel like there is a misunderstanding here. A lot of people are saying you shouldn't ban a business from an area because of its stance on an issue. I disagree. A business having an anti-gay agenda is not the same as a business that has a pro choice/life agenda or something where there is a point you can argue with logic and/or science. A company is against rights for a group of people. Whether that be gays, blacks, jews, or plain old vanilla whitey, IT IS WRONG. I don't care what your lolreligious beliefs are, in the 21st century, you do not try to keep people from having basic rights. It's fucking stupid that this is even still an issue in this day and age. I'll break it down simply:
Business A has a "whites only" section at every location.
Business B has a sign that says "no Jews allowed" in every store.
Business C has an openly anti-gay stance and gives money to anti-gay organizations.
Business D blatantly treats Hispanic customers poorly and admits to it.
3 of these are laughable in the year 2012. They would never happen. Why does the other get a free pass? Religion? Is that really an excuse? At the risk of turning this ugly, issues like this really make me happy I'm an Atheist. Disgusting. This is a poor analogy unless Chick Fil A does not allow gas to eat there. At the risk of turning this ugly, issues like this make me happy I believe in liberty for all, not just some. Your name made me laugh. Good show. I believe in liberty and free speech for those that don't promote hate against any group of people. I guess I'm not a true American.
The problem is, where do you draw the line at criticism or hate? Or anger or hate? Once you start banning certain concepts it becomes incredibly murky and can easily lead to sanctions that are much worse then you intended.
By all means, educate and embaress those that are racist/sexist/etc, so that they can see how wrong they are, but don't ban then from speaking.
|
Another reason to avoid fast food chains
|
I don't really care, I know it's shitty of the company to openly support anti-gay marriage groups but then again all it is to me is a place to eat... And that's what it will stay as, they won't change my mind about anything, so I'm still eating there because their food is delicious.
|
This is like not watching a movie just because you don't like the actor for his personal beliefs. If the food is good (or the movie) I will still want to go there even if I disagree with them. You can't agree with everyone in the world...
|
Well, us Americans certainly have politics down. Maybe soon we will learn to play Starcraft as well.
|
Probably bad for the business of Boston, but incredibly good for human morality. Makes me smile that a person of political power is willing to make such a progressive move. I'm sure he's calculated the risks involved in the backlash, and has weighed the pros and cons.
Good for him. Go Boston!
|
On July 27 2012 00:27 U_G_L_Y wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 00:17 Cutlery wrote:On July 27 2012 00:04 Felnarion wrote:On July 27 2012 00:00 Cutlery wrote:
Looking at their menu, I don't see why any mayor would want that stuff easily accessible to schoolkids in their town or district. There is a way to fight obesity you know, on a bigger scale. We did it here, basically blocked McD from opening shop. Considering only myself I wouldn't mind, but I can understand that people living here do not want mcD to be THAT accessible to thousands of schoolkids in lunch hours and after school. It's the responsible thing to do. It takes a village to raise a kid. Question is, how do you want to raise it/them?
That wasn't the issue here, but I feel it should be. Political agenda or not; being responsible towards your community should be priority. There's a place for fast food, and it's up to the local community to be responsible enough to decide where that is and isn't. Because surely fast food chains won't police themselves; they even offer kid's meals.
Oh sweet Jesus, are you kidding me. They offer kids meals! How atrocious! With smaller portions and everything! The horror! What's that? A large portion of chick fil a's menu is salads and warps? One of my favorite snacks when I was a kid was their carrot raisin salad? There's nothing better than a bowl of their soup when you're sick? Stop trying to be the police of everyone's digestive tract and let it go. What's the horror? I'm just saying... Why do you think malls are created? Who do you think sells the space to open shops? Salad and wraps, filled with fried meat; I don't see your point. It's still not healthy food, and we simply didn't want that in the middle of our school district. I'm saying we can decide, sometimes, what we want or not. And I also said that this wasn't the issue of this thread, just a tangent of how things can work out, and I don't even know the area in question, I just said that I don't see it as a big issue for smaller communities; but it shouldn't be acted upon politically. Also there are other ways to get food, and that's basically what people wanted to teach their kids, and that's what went down. Sorry you don't see other options? But my story isn't a horror story, sorry you misunderstood. You can say we're policing the digestive trackts of "our" ten year olds. Sorry it infringes on your right to poison yourself in public. You telling me what I can eat or what I can feed my children is a horror story indeed. And whose children leave school in the middle of the school day to go to McDonald's for lunch? Do these children have jobs? How are they paying for it exactly? Why are teachers allowing them to leave? Silly.
Nope it's not. I'm not telling you jack about what you can or can't eat; but look around and you will see what is available for you to eat. There's a market for food, and where I live we had a say in how we wanted that market filled. And McD was not a part of that. They were denied space to open shop. It was ours to sell and so it was our decision.
They don't leave school, they got lunch breaks (this is what I said in my initial post, to avoid fast food being common lunch food). They pay for it with their lunch money, simple enough. We don't have school-meals. It's up to everyone to bring their own or buy their own. The current norm is to hit the local grocery store and buy sandwiches or cooked food. There's enough places with a hot dish section; and cooking etiquette is slightly different here.
No one telling anyone what they can or can't eat. Our dietary needs were just approached differently. If you wanted to eat something that your community cannot offer, you don't see it as someone telling you what you can or can't eat; you simply choose from what is available and maybe if your need is great enough, you travel slightly further to get it and stock up so you don't have to take that trip too often.
In a way it is our choice how our community is run, and not McD's. and this is not a horrible standpoint, atleast not to me.
|
On July 27 2012 00:17 Cutlery wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 00:04 Felnarion wrote:On July 27 2012 00:00 Cutlery wrote:
Looking at their menu, I don't see why any mayor would want that stuff easily accessible to schoolkids in their town or district. There is a way to fight obesity you know, on a bigger scale. We did it here, basically blocked McD from opening shop. Considering only myself I wouldn't mind, but I can understand that people living here do not want mcD to be THAT accessible to thousands of schoolkids in lunch hours and after school. It's the responsible thing to do. It takes a village to raise a kid. Question is, how do you want to raise it/them?
That wasn't the issue here, but I feel it should be. Political agenda or not; being responsible towards your community should be priority. There's a place for fast food, and it's up to the local community to be responsible enough to decide where that is and isn't. Because surely fast food chains won't police themselves; they even offer kid's meals.
Oh sweet Jesus, are you kidding me. They offer kids meals! How atrocious! With smaller portions and everything! The horror! What's that? A large portion of chick fil a's menu is salads and warps? One of my favorite snacks when I was a kid was their carrot raisin salad? There's nothing better than a bowl of their soup when you're sick? Stop trying to be the police of everyone's digestive tract and let it go. What's the horror? I'm just saying... Why do you think malls are created? Who do you think sells the space to open shops? Salad and wraps, filled with fried meat; I don't see your point. It's still not healthy food, and we simply didn't want that in the middle of our school district. I'm saying we can decide, sometimes, what we want or not. And I also said that this wasn't the issue of this thread, just a tangent of how things can work out, and I don't even know the area in question, I just said that I don't see it as a big issue for smaller communities; but it shouldn't be acted upon politically. Also there are other ways to get food, and that's basically what people wanted to teach their kids, and that's what went down. Sorry you don't see other options? But my story isn't a horror story, sorry you misunderstood. You can say we're policing the digestive trackts of "our" ten year olds. Sorry it infringes on your right to 'poison' yourself in public. It's just being responsible; not political. And it's only a small community, so we had the power to decide. I barely even heard about it, it wasn't a big issue. I don't see what is wrong with it. I really don't. But I still don't think these decisions should be political in nature. But if the uproar is big enough, I'm not gonna tell them what businesses to allow into their town ^^
Your mindset sounds a lot like this:
"I don't want to eat X food or Y food, because I have an unrealistic perception of how these foods will impact my health based on information from the media. I also think that it is within the scope of my rights to impose my opinion about these foods on everyone around me by removing their opportunity to purchase this food; which is completely legal and passes FDA regulations, etc."
Just stop bro. "I think the food is unhealthy compared to the hippy organic section at the store" is not a justification for removing other peoples' rights to buy the food they want, nor is it a proper justification for removing a business's right to operate where they should legally be allowed to, assuming they follow local regulation.
McD's is a lot more healthy than some of the shit people are forced to eat in less fortunate countries. The problem isn't the fact that fast food companies are allowed to operate in this country, it's that a lot of the people in this country have no self control. We need better parenting, not stricter laws that impact everyone, including the responsible people who might want to enjoy a hamburger every now and then.
|
On July 27 2012 00:22 ayaz2810 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 00:18 U_G_L_Y wrote:On July 27 2012 00:12 ayaz2810 wrote:
I feel like there is a misunderstanding here. A lot of people are saying you shouldn't ban a business from an area because of its stance on an issue. I disagree. A business having an anti-gay agenda is not the same as a business that has a pro choice/life agenda or something where there is a point you can argue with logic and/or science. A company is against rights for a group of people. Whether that be gays, blacks, jews, or plain old vanilla whitey, IT IS WRONG. I don't care what your lolreligious beliefs are, in the 21st century, you do not try to keep people from having basic rights. It's fucking stupid that this is even still an issue in this day and age. I'll break it down simply:
Business A has a "whites only" section at every location.
Business B has a sign that says "no Jews allowed" in every store.
Business C has an openly anti-gay stance and gives money to anti-gay organizations.
Business D blatantly treats Hispanic customers poorly and admits to it.
3 of these are laughable in the year 2012. They would never happen. Why does the other get a free pass? Religion? Is that really an excuse? At the risk of turning this ugly, issues like this really make me happy I'm an Atheist. Disgusting. This is a poor analogy unless Chick Fil A does not allow gas to eat there. At the risk of turning this ugly, issues like this make me happy I believe in liberty for all, not just some. Your name made me laugh. Good show. I believe in liberty and free speech for those that don't promote hate against any group of people. I guess I'm not a true American.
I hate the mayor of Boston. I hate the mayor of New York. Because these individuals want to take away my liberties just the same as a bigoted business owner. But only two of the three actually have any power to do so.
The Constitution protects atheists who want to take away religious liberty and promote hate against Christians the same as it protects Christians who want to take away the religious liberties of atheists. I would sacrifice my own life to protect the Constitution. America kicks so much ass because it protects speech and religion. Even speech and religions that we might not like so much.
|
On July 27 2012 00:38 Revelatus wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 00:17 Cutlery wrote:On July 27 2012 00:04 Felnarion wrote:On July 27 2012 00:00 Cutlery wrote:
Looking at their menu, I don't see why any mayor would want that stuff easily accessible to schoolkids in their town or district. There is a way to fight obesity you know, on a bigger scale. We did it here, basically blocked McD from opening shop. Considering only myself I wouldn't mind, but I can understand that people living here do not want mcD to be THAT accessible to thousands of schoolkids in lunch hours and after school. It's the responsible thing to do. It takes a village to raise a kid. Question is, how do you want to raise it/them?
That wasn't the issue here, but I feel it should be. Political agenda or not; being responsible towards your community should be priority. There's a place for fast food, and it's up to the local community to be responsible enough to decide where that is and isn't. Because surely fast food chains won't police themselves; they even offer kid's meals.
Oh sweet Jesus, are you kidding me. They offer kids meals! How atrocious! With smaller portions and everything! The horror! What's that? A large portion of chick fil a's menu is salads and warps? One of my favorite snacks when I was a kid was their carrot raisin salad? There's nothing better than a bowl of their soup when you're sick? Stop trying to be the police of everyone's digestive tract and let it go. What's the horror? I'm just saying... Why do you think malls are created? Who do you think sells the space to open shops? Salad and wraps, filled with fried meat; I don't see your point. It's still not healthy food, and we simply didn't want that in the middle of our school district. I'm saying we can decide, sometimes, what we want or not. And I also said that this wasn't the issue of this thread, just a tangent of how things can work out, and I don't even know the area in question, I just said that I don't see it as a big issue for smaller communities; but it shouldn't be acted upon politically. Also there are other ways to get food, and that's basically what people wanted to teach their kids, and that's what went down. Sorry you don't see other options? But my story isn't a horror story, sorry you misunderstood. You can say we're policing the digestive trackts of "our" ten year olds. Sorry it infringes on your right to 'poison' yourself in public. It's just being responsible; not political. And it's only a small community, so we had the power to decide. I barely even heard about it, it wasn't a big issue. I don't see what is wrong with it. I really don't. But I still don't think these decisions should be political in nature. But if the uproar is big enough, I'm not gonna tell them what businesses to allow into their town ^^ Your mindset sounds a lot like this: "I don't want to eat X food or Y food, because I have an unrealistic perception of how these foods will impact my health based on information from the media. I also think that it is within the scope of my rights to impose my opinion about these foods on everyone around me by removing their opportunity to purchase this food; which is completely legal and passes FDA regulations, etc." Just stop bro. "I think the food is unhealthy compared to the hippy organic section at the store" is not a justification for removing other peoples' rights to buy the food they want, nor is it a proper justification for removing a business's right to operate where they should legally be allowed to, assuming they follow local regulation.
Nope. I was not against the opening of McD. And either way, I still have the freedom to enjoy fastfood whenever I want. I pass fast food venues every day on my way to work or uni. But elementary school kids do not. And I'm ok with that.
Liberty is *not* allowing anyone pass your doorstep based on how much cash they put out. Freedom is to be able to choose how to live. This is what my community did. McD has no more inherent right to freedom than do we. And specially what concerns our lives. This is, if anything, a misconception of freedom.
I really don't get why people need to categorize this, and that I have to go out of my way to explain the layouts of my town and day-to-day eating habbits of school-kids. This is simply how some parts of the world work. And I feel it is the responsible thing to do, and it was done in the name of freedom, our freedom, so don't come with that anti-hippie speech that coorporations and those supporting them have a greater claim to freedom. To be allowed to place themselves next to elementary schools, and expect us to waiver our freedom due to carelessness and inaction
|
Democracy, bitches. It goes both ways. If the official ELECTED BY THE PEOPLE, so vicariously > the people say(s) so, it's their will and is to be obeyed. I for one am very glad, I have always considered Boston and generally Massachusetts as one of the most politically and socially advanced states in the Union and this only confirms my beliefs.
|
completely disagree with banning the chain on those grounds.
Banning them on discriminatory policies towards gays would be better i think.
Seems today we tolerate everything except intolerance.
The way I see it, they did nothing that justifies a ban (based on OP). Things like refusing to hire an openly gay person purely on that ground would justify a ban for me.
The way it is now it's seems to me that their opinions rub some people the wrong way and they are being punished for that. I find that just as wrong the thing they are trying to stop.
Not saying that the attention the issue is getting this way is wrong.
|
On July 27 2012 00:37 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Probably bad for the business of Boston, but incredibly good for human morality. Makes me smile that a person of political power is willing to make such a progressive move. I'm sure he's calculated the risks involved in the backlash, and has weighed the pros and cons.
Good for him. Go Boston!
"Progressive moves" are to shut down legitimate and legal businesses because the owner of the parent company (not the individual franchises that are owned and run by local citizens and create jobs for the community) disagrees with you politically?
That sounds like a "fascist move"
It is "moral" to put a franchise owner out of business after he invested hundreds of thousands of dollars of his own money into building his business because the person that licences him to use the corporate franchise name doesn't want gays to marry?
I seriously want to throw up right now. This is a nightmare.
|
On July 27 2012 00:40 U_G_L_Y wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 00:22 ayaz2810 wrote:On July 27 2012 00:18 U_G_L_Y wrote:On July 27 2012 00:12 ayaz2810 wrote:
I feel like there is a misunderstanding here. A lot of people are saying you shouldn't ban a business from an area because of its stance on an issue. I disagree. A business having an anti-gay agenda is not the same as a business that has a pro choice/life agenda or something where there is a point you can argue with logic and/or science. A company is against rights for a group of people. Whether that be gays, blacks, jews, or plain old vanilla whitey, IT IS WRONG. I don't care what your lolreligious beliefs are, in the 21st century, you do not try to keep people from having basic rights. It's fucking stupid that this is even still an issue in this day and age. I'll break it down simply:
Business A has a "whites only" section at every location.
Business B has a sign that says "no Jews allowed" in every store.
Business C has an openly anti-gay stance and gives money to anti-gay organizations.
Business D blatantly treats Hispanic customers poorly and admits to it.
3 of these are laughable in the year 2012. They would never happen. Why does the other get a free pass? Religion? Is that really an excuse? At the risk of turning this ugly, issues like this really make me happy I'm an Atheist. Disgusting. This is a poor analogy unless Chick Fil A does not allow gas to eat there. At the risk of turning this ugly, issues like this make me happy I believe in liberty for all, not just some. Your name made me laugh. Good show. I believe in liberty and free speech for those that don't promote hate against any group of people. I guess I'm not a true American. I hate the mayor of Boston. I hate the mayor of New York. Because these individuals want to take away my liberties just the same as a bigoted business owner. But only two of the three actually have any power to do so. The Constitution protects atheists who want to take away religious liberty and promote hate against Christians the same as it protects Christians who want to take away the religious liberties of atheists. I would sacrifice my own life to protect the Constitution. America kicks so much ass because it protects speech and religion. Even speech and religions that we might not like so much.
At least the atheists who are beginning to stand their moral ground against oppressive fundamentalist nutjobs have their arguements based in logic. If the only support for your argument to discriminate against an entire group of people is "religious tradition," you should have the right to say it (freedom of speech), but the way things are going (1% decline per year Chrisians/capita in the US) nobody is going to listen to you (ie, your religious rights mean nothing).
Hint: This is the right direction.
|
On July 27 2012 00:40 U_G_L_Y wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 00:22 ayaz2810 wrote:On July 27 2012 00:18 U_G_L_Y wrote:On July 27 2012 00:12 ayaz2810 wrote:
I feel like there is a misunderstanding here. A lot of people are saying you shouldn't ban a business from an area because of its stance on an issue. I disagree. A business having an anti-gay agenda is not the same as a business that has a pro choice/life agenda or something where there is a point you can argue with logic and/or science. A company is against rights for a group of people. Whether that be gays, blacks, jews, or plain old vanilla whitey, IT IS WRONG. I don't care what your lolreligious beliefs are, in the 21st century, you do not try to keep people from having basic rights. It's fucking stupid that this is even still an issue in this day and age. I'll break it down simply:
Business A has a "whites only" section at every location.
Business B has a sign that says "no Jews allowed" in every store.
Business C has an openly anti-gay stance and gives money to anti-gay organizations.
Business D blatantly treats Hispanic customers poorly and admits to it.
3 of these are laughable in the year 2012. They would never happen. Why does the other get a free pass? Religion? Is that really an excuse? At the risk of turning this ugly, issues like this really make me happy I'm an Atheist. Disgusting. This is a poor analogy unless Chick Fil A does not allow gas to eat there. At the risk of turning this ugly, issues like this make me happy I believe in liberty for all, not just some. Your name made me laugh. Good show. I believe in liberty and free speech for those that don't promote hate against any group of people. I guess I'm not a true American. I hate the mayor of Boston. I hate the mayor of New York. Because these individuals want to take away my liberties just the same as a bigoted business owner. But only two of the three actually have any power to do so. The Constitution protects atheists who want to take away religious liberty and promote hate against Christians the same as it protects Christians who want to take away the religious liberties of atheists. I would sacrifice my own life to protect the Constitution. America kicks so much ass because it protects speech and religion. Even speech and religions that we might not like so much.
Can I ask you a perfectly hypothetical question?
Do you live in New York City or Boston?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
