|
On July 27 2012 01:14 U_G_L_Y wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 01:04 Praetorial wrote:On July 27 2012 01:00 Trainrunnef wrote:
For those of you who think the ban is right, would it also be right for a anti-gay mayor to ban a pro gay institution in his city?
If he wants to ban CFA from his city because of their anti-gay stance, why not bar all anti-gay organizations from setting up shop in boston? would it be wrong then? The mayor's opinion (no matter how morally laudable or reprehensible) shouldn't be enough to outright ban any institution, future or present. Anti-gay marriage is a hateful position, because its explicit goal is the restriction of the freedoms of an individual. Anti-anti-gay marriage is not a hateful position because it does not restrict the freedom of individuals, it merely protects their right to personal freedoms. Thus, any anti-gay position is always hateful, any pro-gay marriage position is inherently unhateful. This is the opinion of most of Boston. Some people believe that children are better off with a mom and a dad. They have no hate in their hearts. They have a political belief perhaps based on the love of their own parents and a concern for children. I FEEL like we should put people in prison who tell others what they believe. But I know that fascism is wrong, so I will hold strong and continue to support the rights of people to say ridiculous and offensive things, even things that are not true, even things that are discriminatory and rude.
And what if they are doing more than saying discriminatory things?
|
On July 27 2012 01:08 Praetorial wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 01:07 U_G_L_Y wrote:On July 27 2012 00:50 Praetorial wrote:On July 27 2012 00:40 U_G_L_Y wrote: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? Haha, Hypothetically, yes. Literally no. But more to the point of what you are asking, I go to NYC on business from time to time and order soda in restaurants located there. Oops. Heh heh. Are you a business?
I am a human; the only humans that I can think of that that also qualify as businesses are prostitutes. I am not a prostitute. I have owned businesses in the past. Currently I am employed by a corporation.
|
On July 27 2012 01:16 Revelatus wrote:
And for the record, as much as I dislike the views of the Chick-Fil-A chain/owner/whatever, my opinions about gay rights are entirely separate from their right to do business, as are the opinions of the Mayor of Boston. Anything else would just seem wrong, and I think that if the position of the Mayor being able to make a decision about Chick's right to open restaurants in Boston would create a horrible precedent. Should he also be able to refuse the right of a church to exist in his jurisdiction based on differences in their political and religious beliefs? No.
Well, evidently his opinions about gay rights and business are not separate.
On July 27 2012 01:19 U_G_L_Y wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 01:08 Praetorial wrote:On July 27 2012 01:07 U_G_L_Y wrote:On July 27 2012 00:50 Praetorial wrote:On July 27 2012 00:40 U_G_L_Y wrote: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? Haha, Hypothetically, yes. Literally no. But more to the point of what you are asking, I go to NYC on business from time to time and order soda in restaurants located there. Oops. Heh heh. Are you a business? I am a human; the only humans that I can think of that that also qualify as businesses are prostitutes. I am not a prostitute. I have owned businesses in the past. Currently I am employed by a corporation.
So...has any legislation or threat been made against your rights as a human in those cities?
|
On July 27 2012 01:17 Nathris wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 01:00 Trainrunnef wrote:
For those of you who think the ban is right, would it also be right for a anti-gay mayor to ban a pro gay institution in his city?
If he wants to ban CFA from his city because of their anti-gay stance, why not bar all anti-gay organizations from setting up shop in boston? would it be wrong then? The mayor's opinion (no matter how morally laudable or reprehensible) shouldn't be enough to outright ban any institution, future or present. This. I really can't believe that so many people think this is a good thing. Letting the mayor do things like this at completely his own discretion is such a bad idea. It doesn't matter if you agree with him or not. The proper way to go about this is with a community effort to protest or boycott the chain.
How would you justify pro-gay-marriage as discrimination? Or do you not think that anything on topic is discrimination anyway?
|
On July 27 2012 01:18 Smat wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 01:14 U_G_L_Y wrote:On July 27 2012 01:04 Praetorial wrote:On July 27 2012 01:00 Trainrunnef wrote:
For those of you who think the ban is right, would it also be right for a anti-gay mayor to ban a pro gay institution in his city?
If he wants to ban CFA from his city because of their anti-gay stance, why not bar all anti-gay organizations from setting up shop in boston? would it be wrong then? The mayor's opinion (no matter how morally laudable or reprehensible) shouldn't be enough to outright ban any institution, future or present. Anti-gay marriage is a hateful position, because its explicit goal is the restriction of the freedoms of an individual. Anti-anti-gay marriage is not a hateful position because it does not restrict the freedom of individuals, it merely protects their right to personal freedoms. Thus, any anti-gay position is always hateful, any pro-gay marriage position is inherently unhateful. This is the opinion of most of Boston. Some people believe that children are better off with a mom and a dad. They have no hate in their hearts. They have a political belief perhaps based on the love of their own parents and a concern for children. I FEEL like we should put people in prison who tell others what they believe. But I know that fascism is wrong, so I will hold strong and continue to support the rights of people to say ridiculous and offensive things, even things that are not true, even things that are discriminatory and rude. And what if they are doing more than saying discriminatory things?
Contrary to popular belief, we actually have laws in America to address that sort of thing, and those laws should be enforced.
|
On July 27 2012 01:11 meadbert wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 00:59 Cutlery wrote:
I'm not suggesting you're wrong, but can you justify why *he* has a greater claim to open business in Boston than the mayor has to choose someone else to open business there instead? In America individuals cannot be prevented from opening a business because their religious or political beliefs differ from the mayor. The mayor cannot prevent individuals or corporations for opening businesses on those grounds. Americans are entitled to equal protection under the law. Political and religious speech is not a valid reason for abridging the rights of anyone in America.
Financially backing groups whose agendas are in direct opposition with state laws affirming the rights of same-sex couples to marry goes far beyond political and religious freedom of speech.
|
On July 27 2012 01:12 Cutlery wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 01:00 Revelatus wrote:On July 27 2012 00:41 Cutlery wrote:On July 27 2012 00:38 Revelatus wrote: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. They are still not your kids, and it is still not your decision what food they put into their bodies. If the presence of a fast food restaurant near an elementary school is that serious of an issue, I think one should question not the store, but the damn school. Why isn't the school keeping better tabs on the kids? Surely the store is not IN the school, and the school should not be allowing children to have free reign of the surrounding town during school hours. The second thing we should question is the parents and their lack of, for the lack of better term, parenting. If the parents are providing funds and transportation to the children, and allowing them to eat unhealthy proportions of fast food, the problem isn't the store, it's the parent. You seem perfectly content trying to fix a stained sofa by putting a pillow over it. The sofa is still stained, but nobody has to think about it or look at it for a while. The only way to fix the REASON why you think there should be no restaurant near the school, is to educate the children and parents about the health implications of the food served there. Based on facts, not fear mongering. The truth is, the health implications are pretty close to non existent until you have Auntie Derpface buying her 9 year old nephew a large double quarter pounder meal every night on the way home from middle school. Stop blaming the restaurant for problems caused by MORONIC PEOPLE. The older kids have freedom to leave the school grounds in lunch hour. See, they have more freedom than you think, even without fast food available next door. They're not my kids, and I never told them to not open McD. The parents of this community did. I'm not a parent so I did not care. However, my freedom to have fast food accessible 4 minutes away instead of 10 does not inherently trump the freedoms of democracy, and that is how it went down here. Nothing more to it. We made a "collective" descision. If democracy is freedom, then we excercised this freedom. I never thought about this in these terms before, but what you're saying isn't inherently based upon more sound logic than what I'm presenting you. Also, your couch analogy, I'm pretty sure we got rid of the damn stained couch entirely. Maybe it was based on fear; but so what? People still didn't want it. "We" don't see fast food chains as restaurants. "We" think it is too unhealthy to be considered every day food. "We" didn't allow McD to make it accessible to school kids. Fin. I'm not touching this topic again. As for parenting. Lunch money is not an issue. We're rich enough that kids have access to alot of things, and parents don't micromanage their habbits. This is correct if you ask me. Every child and teenager must learn to make their own choices; we just took away one trap. Now if they want fast food they have to go to it, rather than having it come to them. I'm not gonna rephrase myself. You enjoy keeping trackers on your kids phones to yell at them whenever they stop by some place they're not supposed to, then I won't offer my 2 cents on that. But you cannot claim we're parenting all wrong, when we reduce the accessibility of fast food. Nuh uh. I don't see how the parents are being moronic.
I'll just close this out then, by saying that post in the quote above seems a lot more rational than the ones before it. The fact that you were stating the existence of this situation as an observer rather than a partaker changes things. Lack of conviction to backwards problem solving, for one thing, is a good thing.
|
Apparently those mayors, who preach tolerance, can't be tolerant of companies who's views are different than theirs. It is a two way street.
Imagine if this was the other way away. A pro-traditional marriage city blocking a company with different views. Do you really think the reaction would be the same?
|
On July 27 2012 01:20 Cutlery wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 01:17 Nathris wrote:On July 27 2012 01:00 Trainrunnef wrote:
For those of you who think the ban is right, would it also be right for a anti-gay mayor to ban a pro gay institution in his city?
If he wants to ban CFA from his city because of their anti-gay stance, why not bar all anti-gay organizations from setting up shop in boston? would it be wrong then? The mayor's opinion (no matter how morally laudable or reprehensible) shouldn't be enough to outright ban any institution, future or present. This. I really can't believe that so many people think this is a good thing. Letting the mayor do things like this at completely his own discretion is such a bad idea. It doesn't matter if you agree with him or not. The proper way to go about this is with a community effort to protest or boycott the chain. How would you justify pro-gay-marriage as discrimination? Or do you not think that anything on topic is discrimination anyway?
Discrimination is a word thrown around a lot with not a lot of focus on its meaning.
When a girl is not allowed to join boy scouts, this is discrimination. You are not allowing her specifically on the idea that she is a girl. But we don't mind, because boys and girls are different, different needs, different traditions. The same would be true for gay marriage and those opposed.
Just because it is "discrimination" does not make it "wrong." Sometimes certain groups are excluded from certain other groups based on certain things. This is discrimination. It exists throughout society and should not go away.
Further, on your off-topic rant about the health qualities. You're clearly just picking and choosing the specific fried foods you don't agree with. Every sandwich and salad they have has a grilled chicken variety which is clearly displayed on the menu. Wraps too. One of my favorite things there is a spicy chicken wrap, which contains grilled chicken.
|
On July 27 2012 01:20 Praetorial wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 01:16 Revelatus wrote:
And for the record, as much as I dislike the views of the Chick-Fil-A chain/owner/whatever, my opinions about gay rights are entirely separate from their right to do business, as are the opinions of the Mayor of Boston. Anything else would just seem wrong, and I think that if the position of the Mayor being able to make a decision about Chick's right to open restaurants in Boston would create a horrible precedent. Should he also be able to refuse the right of a church to exist in his jurisdiction based on differences in their political and religious beliefs? No. Well, evidently his opinions about gay rights and business are not separate. Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 01:19 U_G_L_Y wrote:On July 27 2012 01:08 Praetorial wrote:On July 27 2012 01:07 U_G_L_Y wrote:On July 27 2012 00:50 Praetorial wrote:On July 27 2012 00:40 U_G_L_Y wrote: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? Haha, Hypothetically, yes. Literally no. But more to the point of what you are asking, I go to NYC on business from time to time and order soda in restaurants located there. Oops. Heh heh. Are you a business? I am a human; the only humans that I can think of that that also qualify as businesses are prostitutes. I am not a prostitute. I have owned businesses in the past. Currently I am employed by a corporation. So...has any legislation or threat been made against your rights as a human in those cities?
I can no longer purchase Soda in a large cup in NYC. I believe that I have the right as a human and as an american to put my beverage in any size cup that I choose.
|
The idea that people still discriminate against gay people in 2012 is such a fucking joke, to many simple minded imbeciles roaming around this earth... If you ask me, I'd be completely content with purging it out of the system.
On July 27 2012 01:23 ImAbstracT wrote:
Apparently those mayors, who preach tolerance, can't be tolerant of companies who's views are different than theirs. It is a two way street.
Ok I'm opening up a bar, it's call "niggers'r'out" and no black person can enter my Bar... HOPEFULLY the mayor will respect my views even though I publicly shit on other peoples rights on a daily basis, what a load of shit. And if you're going to argue "homosexuality is not similar to racism" than you're an idiot frankly.
|
On July 27 2012 01:25 U_G_L_Y wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 01:20 Praetorial wrote:On July 27 2012 01:16 Revelatus wrote:
And for the record, as much as I dislike the views of the Chick-Fil-A chain/owner/whatever, my opinions about gay rights are entirely separate from their right to do business, as are the opinions of the Mayor of Boston. Anything else would just seem wrong, and I think that if the position of the Mayor being able to make a decision about Chick's right to open restaurants in Boston would create a horrible precedent. Should he also be able to refuse the right of a church to exist in his jurisdiction based on differences in their political and religious beliefs? No. Well, evidently his opinions about gay rights and business are not separate. On July 27 2012 01:19 U_G_L_Y wrote:On July 27 2012 01:08 Praetorial wrote:On July 27 2012 01:07 U_G_L_Y wrote:On July 27 2012 00:50 Praetorial wrote:On July 27 2012 00:40 U_G_L_Y wrote: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? Haha, Hypothetically, yes. Literally no. But more to the point of what you are asking, I go to NYC on business from time to time and order soda in restaurants located there. Oops. Heh heh. Are you a business? I am a human; the only humans that I can think of that that also qualify as businesses are prostitutes. I am not a prostitute. I have owned businesses in the past. Currently I am employed by a corporation. So...has any legislation or threat been made against your rights as a human in those cities? I can no longer purchase Soda in a large cup in NYC. I believe that I have the right as a human and as an american to put my beverage in any size cup that I choose.
Isn't it more that the business cannot carry large cups?
Your rights are not being infringed upon, the rights of the business are are being restricted, as is within the purview of any city government to restrict commerce.
|
On July 27 2012 01:25 U_G_L_Y wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 01:20 Praetorial wrote:On July 27 2012 01:16 Revelatus wrote:
And for the record, as much as I dislike the views of the Chick-Fil-A chain/owner/whatever, my opinions about gay rights are entirely separate from their right to do business, as are the opinions of the Mayor of Boston. Anything else would just seem wrong, and I think that if the position of the Mayor being able to make a decision about Chick's right to open restaurants in Boston would create a horrible precedent. Should he also be able to refuse the right of a church to exist in his jurisdiction based on differences in their political and religious beliefs? No. Well, evidently his opinions about gay rights and business are not separate. On July 27 2012 01:19 U_G_L_Y wrote:On July 27 2012 01:08 Praetorial wrote:On July 27 2012 01:07 U_G_L_Y wrote:On July 27 2012 00:50 Praetorial wrote:On July 27 2012 00:40 U_G_L_Y wrote: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? Haha, Hypothetically, yes. Literally no. But more to the point of what you are asking, I go to NYC on business from time to time and order soda in restaurants located there. Oops. Heh heh. Are you a business? I am a human; the only humans that I can think of that that also qualify as businesses are prostitutes. I am not a prostitute. I have owned businesses in the past. Currently I am employed by a corporation. So...has any legislation or threat been made against your rights as a human in those cities? I can no longer purchase Soda in a large cup in NYC. I believe that I have the right as a human and as an american to put my beverage in any size cup that I choose.
When I heard about this legislation a month or so ago, I facepalmed really hard. It honestly hurts my brain to think about how this actually passed. It's insane.
|
On July 27 2012 01:26 NeMeSiS3 wrote:The idea that people still discriminate against gay people in 2012 is such a fucking joke, to many simple minded imbeciles roaming around this earth... If you ask me, I'd be completely content with purging it out of the system. Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 01:23 ImAbstracT wrote:
Apparently those mayors, who preach tolerance, can't be tolerant of companies who's views are different than theirs. It is a two way street. Ok I'm opening up a bar, it's call "niggers'r'out" and no black person can enter my Bar... HOPEFULLY the mayor will respect my views even though I publicly shit on other peoples rights on a daily basis, what a load of shit. And if you're going to argue "homosexuality is not similar to racism" than you're an idiot frankly.
Yeah that analogy makes sense.
If the circumstances are completely different. If Chick Fil A said they would not serve gays. Then you'd have something approaching a point to make. If Chick Fil A even openly said "We see gays as sub-human." then, again, a point to make. So far, the expression has been in regards to the institution of marriage. This is not the same as the bar you mention. This is like opening a bar, calling it Ted's, and allowing anyone in.
If you go into a Chick Fil A right now, walk up to the front and say "I'm gay and I'd like a number 1." You'll get a number 1 with a smile. You won't be charged extra, told to leave, spat on, fought...You'll simply be served, just like everyone else.
|
On July 27 2012 01:28 Revelatus wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 01:25 U_G_L_Y wrote:On July 27 2012 01:20 Praetorial wrote:On July 27 2012 01:16 Revelatus wrote:
And for the record, as much as I dislike the views of the Chick-Fil-A chain/owner/whatever, my opinions about gay rights are entirely separate from their right to do business, as are the opinions of the Mayor of Boston. Anything else would just seem wrong, and I think that if the position of the Mayor being able to make a decision about Chick's right to open restaurants in Boston would create a horrible precedent. Should he also be able to refuse the right of a church to exist in his jurisdiction based on differences in their political and religious beliefs? No. Well, evidently his opinions about gay rights and business are not separate. On July 27 2012 01:19 U_G_L_Y wrote:On July 27 2012 01:08 Praetorial wrote:On July 27 2012 01:07 U_G_L_Y wrote:On July 27 2012 00:50 Praetorial wrote:On July 27 2012 00:40 U_G_L_Y wrote:On July 27 2012 00:22 ayaz2810 wrote:On July 27 2012 00:18 U_G_L_Y wrote:
[quote]
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? Haha, Hypothetically, yes. Literally no. But more to the point of what you are asking, I go to NYC on business from time to time and order soda in restaurants located there. Oops. Heh heh. Are you a business? I am a human; the only humans that I can think of that that also qualify as businesses are prostitutes. I am not a prostitute. I have owned businesses in the past. Currently I am employed by a corporation. So...has any legislation or threat been made against your rights as a human in those cities? I can no longer purchase Soda in a large cup in NYC. I believe that I have the right as a human and as an american to put my beverage in any size cup that I choose. When I heard about this legislation a month or so ago, I facepalmed really hard. It honestly hurts my brain to think about how this actually passed. It's insane.
Lol didn't know about that law. I like it though, I think portions are getting too large in the US.
|
And if you're going to argue "homosexuality is not similar to racism" than you're an idiot frankly.
I hope you meant homophobia 
|
On July 27 2012 01:30 Revelatus wrote:Show nested quote +And if you're going to argue "homosexuality is not similar to racism" than you're an idiot frankly. I hope you meant homophobia
lol, I hope so.
|
On July 27 2012 01:22 Aro wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 01:11 meadbert wrote:On July 27 2012 00:59 Cutlery wrote:
I'm not suggesting you're wrong, but can you justify why *he* has a greater claim to open business in Boston than the mayor has to choose someone else to open business there instead? In America individuals cannot be prevented from opening a business because their religious or political beliefs differ from the mayor. The mayor cannot prevent individuals or corporations for opening businesses on those grounds. Americans are entitled to equal protection under the law. Political and religious speech is not a valid reason for abridging the rights of anyone in America. Financially backing groups whose agendas are in direct opposition with state laws affirming the rights of same-sex couples to marry goes far beyond political and religious freedom of speech.
Financially backing groups whose agendas are in direct opposition with state laws banning same-sex marriage does not go far beyond political and religious freedom of speech, you silly goose. That is the basic premise of Democracy.
*facepalm*
|
United States601 Posts
On July 27 2012 01:26 NeMeSiS3 wrote:The idea that people still discriminate against gay people in 2012 is such a fucking joke, to many simple minded imbeciles roaming around this earth... If you ask me, I'd be completely content with purging it out of the system. Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 01:23 ImAbstracT wrote:
Apparently those mayors, who preach tolerance, can't be tolerant of companies who's views are different than theirs. It is a two way street. Ok I'm opening up a bar, it's call "niggers'r'out" and no black person can enter my Bar... HOPEFULLY the mayor will respect my views even though I publicly shit on other peoples rights on a daily basis, what a load of shit. And if you're going to argue "homosexuality is not similar to racism" than you're an idiot frankly.
If you want to go with an anti-black analogy i think interracial marriage might be a little closer to what your looking for. I'm sure there are still plenty of people against that.
|
On July 27 2012 01:21 U_G_L_Y wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 01:18 Smat wrote:On July 27 2012 01:14 U_G_L_Y wrote:On July 27 2012 01:04 Praetorial wrote:On July 27 2012 01:00 Trainrunnef wrote:
For those of you who think the ban is right, would it also be right for a anti-gay mayor to ban a pro gay institution in his city?
If he wants to ban CFA from his city because of their anti-gay stance, why not bar all anti-gay organizations from setting up shop in boston? would it be wrong then? The mayor's opinion (no matter how morally laudable or reprehensible) shouldn't be enough to outright ban any institution, future or present. Anti-gay marriage is a hateful position, because its explicit goal is the restriction of the freedoms of an individual. Anti-anti-gay marriage is not a hateful position because it does not restrict the freedom of individuals, it merely protects their right to personal freedoms. Thus, any anti-gay position is always hateful, any pro-gay marriage position is inherently unhateful. This is the opinion of most of Boston. Some people believe that children are better off with a mom and a dad. They have no hate in their hearts. They have a political belief perhaps based on the love of their own parents and a concern for children. I FEEL like we should put people in prison who tell others what they believe. But I know that fascism is wrong, so I will hold strong and continue to support the rights of people to say ridiculous and offensive things, even things that are not true, even things that are discriminatory and rude. And what if they are doing more than saying discriminatory things? Contrary to popular belief, we actually have laws in America to address that sort of thing, and those laws should be enforced.
Eh, I was talking about the fact that Chick-fila funds discrimination directly with company money.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
