|
On August 02 2012 07:16 Felnarion wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2012 07:12 ChinaRestaurant wrote:On August 02 2012 07:05 Felnarion wrote:On August 02 2012 06:54 ChinaRestaurant wrote:On August 02 2012 06:38 Jisall wrote:On August 02 2012 06:30 ChinaRestaurant wrote:On August 02 2012 06:21 Chewbacca. wrote:On August 02 2012 05:52 Papulatus wrote:On August 02 2012 04:38 Joedaddy wrote:
My family and I went to our local Chik-fil-A today. It was crazy how many people came out to show their support. They filled up 2 different parking lots and had a line that stretched out of the door and 1/2 way around the building. The drive through was a grid locked traffic jam lol. Everyone was really up beat and polite despite having to stand outside in the 100 degree heat waiting on their turn to give their money to Chik-fil-A. And this was just between 11:30 and 12:00. I'd love to know just how long it stayed that busy.
Most everybody was well wishing the workers and each other while we waited. A truly inspiring experience, and I'm very glad we made the trip out to show our support. Sad to hear reports like this and shows how far this nation has to go before we have equal rights for all. :/ Just because the owner of a company may not share the same opinion as you doesn't mean that the entire company is some evil thing that should be ruined. I'd wager the vast majority of the people at Chik-fil-A were there not because they necessarily agree with the owners opinion, but because they agree that the mayor of boston is greatly overstepping his duty as mayor. Except the mayor didn't abuse jack shit. He just voiced his opinion in a letter as far as I know. Lol voicing his opinion that he would use his power to prevent a business from entering his city is an abuse of power and office, which is why he retracted his opinion later. He knew he overstepped his bounds. Yeah, I work for a company and lets say a person who wasn't affiliated with our company but shared a last name with our company said some things that offended people. I was the person answering all the hate-mail that came in. Got to remember that the company is made up of people just like you. Besides that. It is always a load of fun to say fuck you to the government. Its an american tradition, like july 4th when we did the same thing lmao. http://consumerist.com/2012/07/heres-the-letter-where-boston-mayor-tells-chick-fil-a-to-stay-the-cluck-out-of-his-town.htmlThis is the letter I'm referring to and I don't really see any direct abuse of power (as I would understand the term anyways). I dont really see what's so bad about this letter. If I was the mayor of a town that tries to do as much as possible for equality I'd probably be at least tempted to do the same. That's probably because you've never run a business. While Chick Fil A may have been looking to expand to Boston, they certainly aren't now. Saying that someone isn't welcome, or that you recommend they look elsewhere is a thinly veiled threat that things will not be easy for you. Permits won't go through, red tape everywhere. There is a lot that goes into opening a store, even beyond permitting and building it. There are usually market studies done, as well as a number of other steps...Why would Chick Fil A or any potential franchisee ever take the chance of opening a business the mayor has publically spoken out against? It's a horrible business decision. Question is for me, why would be the mayor speaking out against them be any worse (in terms of freedom of speech) than any citizen. And yeah, you're right, I've never run a business and don't intend to ever run one because I'm too much of a 'bleeding heart' so to speak to make the hard decisions. I realize those choices have to be made, but if I was the person in charge I'd drive the business to ruin in a very short time, I'm sure of that. On the other hand human rights and equality are very important to me on a personal level so I try to support behaviour that fights discrimination whenever I can. Why is he different? Because if I speak out against Chick Fil A, it doesn't mean shit except one lost customer. A mayor has the power to make my permits go away, to do random safety inspections every day, to do a number of things that would make running a business hell, or worse. And while I'm not saying he would do that, you can't open a business on "Well, I hope he doesn't" If my boss, tomorrow, tells me I'm not welcome...I mean, it's not like he's firing me, but I'm sure as shit not staying around either.
So by this logic, the more influential a person is, the less rights they have to voice their opinion? Seems kinda lame to me. If for instance I was some kind of youtube 'celebrity' or whatever and got a few thousand people to boycott chick fil a I'm abusing my powers as a public figure?
Edit: Oh, you know, the mayor could do those things without voicing his opinion in a public form anyways, so I don't see how him voicing his opinion matters if all that counts is his power to make random inspections and make permits get lost in bureaucracy.
Edit2: poorly worded post, but I'm too lazy to go over it again.
|
On August 02 2012 07:23 ChinaRestaurant wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2012 07:16 Felnarion wrote:On August 02 2012 07:12 ChinaRestaurant wrote:On August 02 2012 07:05 Felnarion wrote:On August 02 2012 06:54 ChinaRestaurant wrote:On August 02 2012 06:38 Jisall wrote:On August 02 2012 06:30 ChinaRestaurant wrote:On August 02 2012 06:21 Chewbacca. wrote:On August 02 2012 05:52 Papulatus wrote:On August 02 2012 04:38 Joedaddy wrote:
My family and I went to our local Chik-fil-A today. It was crazy how many people came out to show their support. They filled up 2 different parking lots and had a line that stretched out of the door and 1/2 way around the building. The drive through was a grid locked traffic jam lol. Everyone was really up beat and polite despite having to stand outside in the 100 degree heat waiting on their turn to give their money to Chik-fil-A. And this was just between 11:30 and 12:00. I'd love to know just how long it stayed that busy.
Most everybody was well wishing the workers and each other while we waited. A truly inspiring experience, and I'm very glad we made the trip out to show our support. Sad to hear reports like this and shows how far this nation has to go before we have equal rights for all. :/ Just because the owner of a company may not share the same opinion as you doesn't mean that the entire company is some evil thing that should be ruined. I'd wager the vast majority of the people at Chik-fil-A were there not because they necessarily agree with the owners opinion, but because they agree that the mayor of boston is greatly overstepping his duty as mayor. Except the mayor didn't abuse jack shit. He just voiced his opinion in a letter as far as I know. Lol voicing his opinion that he would use his power to prevent a business from entering his city is an abuse of power and office, which is why he retracted his opinion later. He knew he overstepped his bounds. Yeah, I work for a company and lets say a person who wasn't affiliated with our company but shared a last name with our company said some things that offended people. I was the person answering all the hate-mail that came in. Got to remember that the company is made up of people just like you. Besides that. It is always a load of fun to say fuck you to the government. Its an american tradition, like july 4th when we did the same thing lmao. http://consumerist.com/2012/07/heres-the-letter-where-boston-mayor-tells-chick-fil-a-to-stay-the-cluck-out-of-his-town.htmlThis is the letter I'm referring to and I don't really see any direct abuse of power (as I would understand the term anyways). I dont really see what's so bad about this letter. If I was the mayor of a town that tries to do as much as possible for equality I'd probably be at least tempted to do the same. That's probably because you've never run a business. While Chick Fil A may have been looking to expand to Boston, they certainly aren't now. Saying that someone isn't welcome, or that you recommend they look elsewhere is a thinly veiled threat that things will not be easy for you. Permits won't go through, red tape everywhere. There is a lot that goes into opening a store, even beyond permitting and building it. There are usually market studies done, as well as a number of other steps...Why would Chick Fil A or any potential franchisee ever take the chance of opening a business the mayor has publically spoken out against? It's a horrible business decision. Question is for me, why would be the mayor speaking out against them be any worse (in terms of freedom of speech) than any citizen. And yeah, you're right, I've never run a business and don't intend to ever run one because I'm too much of a 'bleeding heart' so to speak to make the hard decisions. I realize those choices have to be made, but if I was the person in charge I'd drive the business to ruin in a very short time, I'm sure of that. On the other hand human rights and equality are very important to me on a personal level so I try to support behaviour that fights discrimination whenever I can. Why is he different? Because if I speak out against Chick Fil A, it doesn't mean shit except one lost customer. A mayor has the power to make my permits go away, to do random safety inspections every day, to do a number of things that would make running a business hell, or worse. And while I'm not saying he would do that, you can't open a business on "Well, I hope he doesn't" If my boss, tomorrow, tells me I'm not welcome...I mean, it's not like he's firing me, but I'm sure as shit not staying around either. So by this logic, the more influential a person is, the less rights they have to voice their opinion? Seems kinda lame to me. If for instance I was some kind of youtube 'celebrity' or whatever and got a few thousand people to boycott chick fil a I'm abusing my powers as a public figure? Edit: Oh, you know, the mayor could do those things without voicing his opinion in a public form anyways, so I don't see how him voicing his opinion matters if all that counts is his power to make random inspections and make permits get lost in bureaucracy. Edit2: poorly worded post, but I'm too lazy to go over it again.
If et. all anything votes... take a stance like he did and try to get a few more check marks going his way. November is only three months away (For those that don't know, November is USA's election month). If I'm a homosexual, I know to at the very least consider to vote for this guy because I know this mayor will be more willing to do more for gays than other politicians.
|
On August 02 2012 07:23 TheFrankOne wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2012 07:15 Jisall wrote:On August 02 2012 07:13 Logo wrote:On August 02 2012 07:09 Jisall wrote:On August 02 2012 07:01 Logo wrote:On August 02 2012 06:59 ChinaRestaurant wrote:On August 02 2012 06:56 Ryalnos wrote:On August 02 2012 06:54 ChinaRestaurant wrote:On August 02 2012 06:38 Jisall wrote:On August 02 2012 06:30 ChinaRestaurant wrote:
[quote]
Except the mayor didn't abuse jack shit. He just voiced his opinion in a letter as far as I know. Lol voicing his opinion that he would use his power to prevent a business from entering his city is an abuse of power and office, which is why he retracted his opinion later. He knew he overstepped his bounds. Yeah, I work for a company and lets say a person who wasn't affiliated with our company but shared a last name with our company said some things that offended people. I was the person answering all the hate-mail that came in. Got to remember that the company is made up of people just like you. Besides that. It is always a load of fun to say fuck you to the government. Its an american tradition, like july 4th when we did the same thing lmao. http://consumerist.com/2012/07/heres-the-letter-where-boston-mayor-tells-chick-fil-a-to-stay-the-cluck-out-of-his-town.htmlThis is the letter I'm referring to and I don't really see any direct abuse of power (as I would understand the term anyways). I dont really see what's so bad about this letter. If I was the mayor of a town that tries to do as much as possible for equality I'd probably be at least tempted to do the same. Since the original letter the Mayor has retracted at least some of his stronger comments, admitting that he went too far or that he couldn't actually do what he threatened. Alright, I didn't know that. Any idea what he actually said in the original letter (or threatened) specifically? I mean sure, if he threatened to throw them out or actually keep them from opening a joint in Boston he overstepped, but the edited version looks fine to me. The linked article has the text, there's no edits, that's what was said in the original letter. This whole thing is way overblown except for how not ok it is to discriminate against gay people and how screwed up the US media is by the way they twist and alter the story to sensationalize it one way or the other. Lol the ad on this page is pure gold. + Show Spoiler [Google Ads at Their Best] +The whole thing would have never been an issue if the mayor didn't make a political power play. By that regard this whole thing would never have been an issue if people don't try and oppress gays and lesbians because their valid lifestyle offends them. Following that trail of logic back, no-one would care about a persons sexual-orientation if they didn't try and take the religion out of marriage when there is a identical substitute available. But there isn't actually an identical substitute available... I agree with the idea of the mayor just making Chick-Fil-A's attempt to open a store hell and not mentioning it in public. Would of been much easier for him.
Far as I know demestic partnership is available. and you sir would be asking for an impeachment.
|
On August 02 2012 08:56 Jisall wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2012 07:23 TheFrankOne wrote:On August 02 2012 07:15 Jisall wrote:On August 02 2012 07:13 Logo wrote:On August 02 2012 07:09 Jisall wrote:On August 02 2012 07:01 Logo wrote:On August 02 2012 06:59 ChinaRestaurant wrote:On August 02 2012 06:56 Ryalnos wrote:On August 02 2012 06:54 ChinaRestaurant wrote:On August 02 2012 06:38 Jisall wrote:
[quote]
Lol voicing his opinion that he would use his power to prevent a business from entering his city is an abuse of power and office, which is why he retracted his opinion later. He knew he overstepped his bounds.
Yeah, I work for a company and lets say a person who wasn't affiliated with our company but shared a last name with our company said some things that offended people. I was the person answering all the hate-mail that came in. Got to remember that the company is made up of people just like you.
Besides that. It is always a load of fun to say fuck you to the government. Its an american tradition, like july 4th when we did the same thing lmao. http://consumerist.com/2012/07/heres-the-letter-where-boston-mayor-tells-chick-fil-a-to-stay-the-cluck-out-of-his-town.htmlThis is the letter I'm referring to and I don't really see any direct abuse of power (as I would understand the term anyways). I dont really see what's so bad about this letter. If I was the mayor of a town that tries to do as much as possible for equality I'd probably be at least tempted to do the same. Since the original letter the Mayor has retracted at least some of his stronger comments, admitting that he went too far or that he couldn't actually do what he threatened. Alright, I didn't know that. Any idea what he actually said in the original letter (or threatened) specifically? I mean sure, if he threatened to throw them out or actually keep them from opening a joint in Boston he overstepped, but the edited version looks fine to me. The linked article has the text, there's no edits, that's what was said in the original letter. This whole thing is way overblown except for how not ok it is to discriminate against gay people and how screwed up the US media is by the way they twist and alter the story to sensationalize it one way or the other. Lol the ad on this page is pure gold. + Show Spoiler [Google Ads at Their Best] +The whole thing would have never been an issue if the mayor didn't make a political power play. By that regard this whole thing would never have been an issue if people don't try and oppress gays and lesbians because their valid lifestyle offends them. Following that trail of logic back, no-one would care about a persons sexual-orientation if they didn't try and take the religion out of marriage when there is a identical substitute available. But there isn't actually an identical substitute available... I agree with the idea of the mayor just making Chick-Fil-A's attempt to open a store hell and not mentioning it in public. Would of been much easier for him. Far as I know demestic partnership is available. and you sir would be asking for an impeachment.
I suggest you research domestic partnerships before claiming they're identical.
|
On August 02 2012 07:23 ChinaRestaurant wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2012 07:16 Felnarion wrote:On August 02 2012 07:12 ChinaRestaurant wrote:On August 02 2012 07:05 Felnarion wrote:On August 02 2012 06:54 ChinaRestaurant wrote:On August 02 2012 06:38 Jisall wrote:On August 02 2012 06:30 ChinaRestaurant wrote:On August 02 2012 06:21 Chewbacca. wrote:On August 02 2012 05:52 Papulatus wrote:On August 02 2012 04:38 Joedaddy wrote:
My family and I went to our local Chik-fil-A today. It was crazy how many people came out to show their support. They filled up 2 different parking lots and had a line that stretched out of the door and 1/2 way around the building. The drive through was a grid locked traffic jam lol. Everyone was really up beat and polite despite having to stand outside in the 100 degree heat waiting on their turn to give their money to Chik-fil-A. And this was just between 11:30 and 12:00. I'd love to know just how long it stayed that busy.
Most everybody was well wishing the workers and each other while we waited. A truly inspiring experience, and I'm very glad we made the trip out to show our support. Sad to hear reports like this and shows how far this nation has to go before we have equal rights for all. :/ Just because the owner of a company may not share the same opinion as you doesn't mean that the entire company is some evil thing that should be ruined. I'd wager the vast majority of the people at Chik-fil-A were there not because they necessarily agree with the owners opinion, but because they agree that the mayor of boston is greatly overstepping his duty as mayor. Except the mayor didn't abuse jack shit. He just voiced his opinion in a letter as far as I know. Lol voicing his opinion that he would use his power to prevent a business from entering his city is an abuse of power and office, which is why he retracted his opinion later. He knew he overstepped his bounds. Yeah, I work for a company and lets say a person who wasn't affiliated with our company but shared a last name with our company said some things that offended people. I was the person answering all the hate-mail that came in. Got to remember that the company is made up of people just like you. Besides that. It is always a load of fun to say fuck you to the government. Its an american tradition, like july 4th when we did the same thing lmao. http://consumerist.com/2012/07/heres-the-letter-where-boston-mayor-tells-chick-fil-a-to-stay-the-cluck-out-of-his-town.htmlThis is the letter I'm referring to and I don't really see any direct abuse of power (as I would understand the term anyways). I dont really see what's so bad about this letter. If I was the mayor of a town that tries to do as much as possible for equality I'd probably be at least tempted to do the same. That's probably because you've never run a business. While Chick Fil A may have been looking to expand to Boston, they certainly aren't now. Saying that someone isn't welcome, or that you recommend they look elsewhere is a thinly veiled threat that things will not be easy for you. Permits won't go through, red tape everywhere. There is a lot that goes into opening a store, even beyond permitting and building it. There are usually market studies done, as well as a number of other steps...Why would Chick Fil A or any potential franchisee ever take the chance of opening a business the mayor has publically spoken out against? It's a horrible business decision. Question is for me, why would be the mayor speaking out against them be any worse (in terms of freedom of speech) than any citizen. And yeah, you're right, I've never run a business and don't intend to ever run one because I'm too much of a 'bleeding heart' so to speak to make the hard decisions. I realize those choices have to be made, but if I was the person in charge I'd drive the business to ruin in a very short time, I'm sure of that. On the other hand human rights and equality are very important to me on a personal level so I try to support behaviour that fights discrimination whenever I can. Why is he different? Because if I speak out against Chick Fil A, it doesn't mean shit except one lost customer. A mayor has the power to make my permits go away, to do random safety inspections every day, to do a number of things that would make running a business hell, or worse. And while I'm not saying he would do that, you can't open a business on "Well, I hope he doesn't" If my boss, tomorrow, tells me I'm not welcome...I mean, it's not like he's firing me, but I'm sure as shit not staying around either. So by this logic, the more influential a person is, the less rights they have to voice their opinion? Seems kinda lame to me. If for instance I was some kind of youtube 'celebrity' or whatever and got a few thousand people to boycott chick fil a I'm abusing my powers as a public figure? Edit: Oh, you know, the mayor could do those things without voicing his opinion in a public form anyways, so I don't see how him voicing his opinion matters if all that counts is his power to make random inspections and make permits get lost in bureaucracy. Edit2: poorly worded post, but I'm too lazy to go over it again.
No, thats by your logic, not by my logic, my logic didn't have anything to do with that.
My logic is that he's different because he is in government, he is the head of his (local) government. He's the executive. It was strictly laid out, at the founding of the country, that the government could not impede your right to freedom of speech. Now, we have curtailed that a bit with harmful speech, but this isn't that. He is a government official. This is significantly different from a youtube personality. If you can't grasp that intuitively, I have nothing else to say.
You just can't threaten, or hint at, shutting someone down because you disagree. Just can't do it. And the fact of the matter is, if he meant it or not, he has no doubt affected someone's business decisions based solely on his disagreement.
If he had written something saying "I support gay marriage, I urge you to reconsider your position." or something to a similar effect, that's one thing, but saying "You aren't welcome here" is, effectively, telling them they can't come. He only mentioned in retrospect that he didn't mean it.
There's a reason a lot of us interpreted the letter this way. I support gay marriage and I'm still livid about this letter. If it were my business, it would not be coming to Boston for the same fears I've outlined previously.
|
On August 02 2012 07:23 ChinaRestaurant wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2012 07:16 Felnarion wrote:On August 02 2012 07:12 ChinaRestaurant wrote:On August 02 2012 07:05 Felnarion wrote:On August 02 2012 06:54 ChinaRestaurant wrote:On August 02 2012 06:38 Jisall wrote:On August 02 2012 06:30 ChinaRestaurant wrote:On August 02 2012 06:21 Chewbacca. wrote:On August 02 2012 05:52 Papulatus wrote:On August 02 2012 04:38 Joedaddy wrote:
My family and I went to our local Chik-fil-A today. It was crazy how many people came out to show their support. They filled up 2 different parking lots and had a line that stretched out of the door and 1/2 way around the building. The drive through was a grid locked traffic jam lol. Everyone was really up beat and polite despite having to stand outside in the 100 degree heat waiting on their turn to give their money to Chik-fil-A. And this was just between 11:30 and 12:00. I'd love to know just how long it stayed that busy.
Most everybody was well wishing the workers and each other while we waited. A truly inspiring experience, and I'm very glad we made the trip out to show our support. Sad to hear reports like this and shows how far this nation has to go before we have equal rights for all. :/ Just because the owner of a company may not share the same opinion as you doesn't mean that the entire company is some evil thing that should be ruined. I'd wager the vast majority of the people at Chik-fil-A were there not because they necessarily agree with the owners opinion, but because they agree that the mayor of boston is greatly overstepping his duty as mayor. Except the mayor didn't abuse jack shit. He just voiced his opinion in a letter as far as I know. Lol voicing his opinion that he would use his power to prevent a business from entering his city is an abuse of power and office, which is why he retracted his opinion later. He knew he overstepped his bounds. Yeah, I work for a company and lets say a person who wasn't affiliated with our company but shared a last name with our company said some things that offended people. I was the person answering all the hate-mail that came in. Got to remember that the company is made up of people just like you. Besides that. It is always a load of fun to say fuck you to the government. Its an american tradition, like july 4th when we did the same thing lmao. http://consumerist.com/2012/07/heres-the-letter-where-boston-mayor-tells-chick-fil-a-to-stay-the-cluck-out-of-his-town.htmlThis is the letter I'm referring to and I don't really see any direct abuse of power (as I would understand the term anyways). I dont really see what's so bad about this letter. If I was the mayor of a town that tries to do as much as possible for equality I'd probably be at least tempted to do the same. That's probably because you've never run a business. While Chick Fil A may have been looking to expand to Boston, they certainly aren't now. Saying that someone isn't welcome, or that you recommend they look elsewhere is a thinly veiled threat that things will not be easy for you. Permits won't go through, red tape everywhere. There is a lot that goes into opening a store, even beyond permitting and building it. There are usually market studies done, as well as a number of other steps...Why would Chick Fil A or any potential franchisee ever take the chance of opening a business the mayor has publically spoken out against? It's a horrible business decision. Question is for me, why would be the mayor speaking out against them be any worse (in terms of freedom of speech) than any citizen. And yeah, you're right, I've never run a business and don't intend to ever run one because I'm too much of a 'bleeding heart' so to speak to make the hard decisions. I realize those choices have to be made, but if I was the person in charge I'd drive the business to ruin in a very short time, I'm sure of that. On the other hand human rights and equality are very important to me on a personal level so I try to support behaviour that fights discrimination whenever I can. Why is he different? Because if I speak out against Chick Fil A, it doesn't mean shit except one lost customer. A mayor has the power to make my permits go away, to do random safety inspections every day, to do a number of things that would make running a business hell, or worse. And while I'm not saying he would do that, you can't open a business on "Well, I hope he doesn't" If my boss, tomorrow, tells me I'm not welcome...I mean, it's not like he's firing me, but I'm sure as shit not staying around either. So by this logic, the more influential a person is, the less rights they have to voice their opinion? Seems kinda lame to me. If for instance I was some kind of youtube 'celebrity' or whatever and got a few thousand people to boycott chick fil a I'm abusing my powers as a public figure? Edit: Oh, you know, the mayor could do those things without voicing his opinion in a public form anyways, so I don't see how him voicing his opinion matters if all that counts is his power to make random inspections and make permits get lost in bureaucracy. Edit2: poorly worded post, but I'm too lazy to go over it again.
It is a weird view, one that is not encoded into law. Mayors can say whatever they want just like any other citizen. This guy is just mad because the mayor spoke out against a business that he perceives as a conservative ally.
|
On August 02 2012 10:17 Felnarion wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2012 07:23 ChinaRestaurant wrote:On August 02 2012 07:16 Felnarion wrote:On August 02 2012 07:12 ChinaRestaurant wrote:On August 02 2012 07:05 Felnarion wrote:On August 02 2012 06:54 ChinaRestaurant wrote:On August 02 2012 06:38 Jisall wrote:On August 02 2012 06:30 ChinaRestaurant wrote:On August 02 2012 06:21 Chewbacca. wrote:On August 02 2012 05:52 Papulatus wrote:
[quote]
Sad to hear reports like this and shows how far this nation has to go before we have equal rights for all. :/ Just because the owner of a company may not share the same opinion as you doesn't mean that the entire company is some evil thing that should be ruined. I'd wager the vast majority of the people at Chik-fil-A were there not because they necessarily agree with the owners opinion, but because they agree that the mayor of boston is greatly overstepping his duty as mayor. Except the mayor didn't abuse jack shit. He just voiced his opinion in a letter as far as I know. Lol voicing his opinion that he would use his power to prevent a business from entering his city is an abuse of power and office, which is why he retracted his opinion later. He knew he overstepped his bounds. Yeah, I work for a company and lets say a person who wasn't affiliated with our company but shared a last name with our company said some things that offended people. I was the person answering all the hate-mail that came in. Got to remember that the company is made up of people just like you. Besides that. It is always a load of fun to say fuck you to the government. Its an american tradition, like july 4th when we did the same thing lmao. http://consumerist.com/2012/07/heres-the-letter-where-boston-mayor-tells-chick-fil-a-to-stay-the-cluck-out-of-his-town.htmlThis is the letter I'm referring to and I don't really see any direct abuse of power (as I would understand the term anyways). I dont really see what's so bad about this letter. If I was the mayor of a town that tries to do as much as possible for equality I'd probably be at least tempted to do the same. That's probably because you've never run a business. While Chick Fil A may have been looking to expand to Boston, they certainly aren't now. Saying that someone isn't welcome, or that you recommend they look elsewhere is a thinly veiled threat that things will not be easy for you. Permits won't go through, red tape everywhere. There is a lot that goes into opening a store, even beyond permitting and building it. There are usually market studies done, as well as a number of other steps...Why would Chick Fil A or any potential franchisee ever take the chance of opening a business the mayor has publically spoken out against? It's a horrible business decision. Question is for me, why would be the mayor speaking out against them be any worse (in terms of freedom of speech) than any citizen. And yeah, you're right, I've never run a business and don't intend to ever run one because I'm too much of a 'bleeding heart' so to speak to make the hard decisions. I realize those choices have to be made, but if I was the person in charge I'd drive the business to ruin in a very short time, I'm sure of that. On the other hand human rights and equality are very important to me on a personal level so I try to support behaviour that fights discrimination whenever I can. Why is he different? Because if I speak out against Chick Fil A, it doesn't mean shit except one lost customer. A mayor has the power to make my permits go away, to do random safety inspections every day, to do a number of things that would make running a business hell, or worse. And while I'm not saying he would do that, you can't open a business on "Well, I hope he doesn't" If my boss, tomorrow, tells me I'm not welcome...I mean, it's not like he's firing me, but I'm sure as shit not staying around either. So by this logic, the more influential a person is, the less rights they have to voice their opinion? Seems kinda lame to me. If for instance I was some kind of youtube 'celebrity' or whatever and got a few thousand people to boycott chick fil a I'm abusing my powers as a public figure? Edit: Oh, you know, the mayor could do those things without voicing his opinion in a public form anyways, so I don't see how him voicing his opinion matters if all that counts is his power to make random inspections and make permits get lost in bureaucracy. Edit2: poorly worded post, but I'm too lazy to go over it again. No, thats by your logic, not by my logic, my logic didn't have anything to do with that. My logic is that he's different because he is in government, he is the head of his (local) government. He's the executive. It was strictly laid out, at the founding of the country, that the government could not impede your right to freedom of speech. Now, we have curtailed that a bit with harmful speech, but this isn't that. He is a government official. This is significantly different from a youtube personality. If you can't grasp that intuitively, I have nothing else to say. You just can't threaten, or hint at, shutting someone down because you disagree. Just can't do it. And the fact of the matter is, if he meant it or not, he has no doubt affected someone's business decisions based solely on his disagreement. If he had written something saying "I support gay marriage, I urge you to reconsider your position." or something to a similar effect, that's one thing, but saying "You aren't welcome here" is, effectively, telling them they can't come. He only mentioned in retrospect that he didn't mean it. There's a reason a lot of us interpreted the letter this way. I support gay marriage and I'm still livid about this letter. If it were my business, it would not be coming to Boston for the same fears I've outlined previously.
Yeah sorry, I know my comparison was a rather bad one, hence my edit. But I think he didnt really threaten anything in that letter. To me it was pretty clear that it was just his personal opinion in the letter, not anything that might indicate he will do whatever it takes to keep the company out of his city. Of course as a government official he has more power than your average joe when it comes to acting on your opinion, but he's also more regulated. If it came to light that he abused his power in order to keep chick fil a out of Boston I'd say definitely abuses his power and should be punished for it. Ultimately, if they decided to open some joints in Boston and were having trouble with getting their permits or whatever they could go to the press with the issue. There'd most likely be a court ruling if they pursued that as well, so in the end the mayor alone cant really keep them out anyways (I guess, I dont really know much about laws in the US so take this as you will). But if a mayor cant voice his opinion on anything how would voters know who to give their vote?
|
On August 02 2012 08:56 Jisall wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2012 07:23 TheFrankOne wrote:On August 02 2012 07:15 Jisall wrote:On August 02 2012 07:13 Logo wrote:On August 02 2012 07:09 Jisall wrote:On August 02 2012 07:01 Logo wrote:On August 02 2012 06:59 ChinaRestaurant wrote:On August 02 2012 06:56 Ryalnos wrote:On August 02 2012 06:54 ChinaRestaurant wrote:On August 02 2012 06:38 Jisall wrote:
[quote]
Lol voicing his opinion that he would use his power to prevent a business from entering his city is an abuse of power and office, which is why he retracted his opinion later. He knew he overstepped his bounds.
Yeah, I work for a company and lets say a person who wasn't affiliated with our company but shared a last name with our company said some things that offended people. I was the person answering all the hate-mail that came in. Got to remember that the company is made up of people just like you.
Besides that. It is always a load of fun to say fuck you to the government. Its an american tradition, like july 4th when we did the same thing lmao. http://consumerist.com/2012/07/heres-the-letter-where-boston-mayor-tells-chick-fil-a-to-stay-the-cluck-out-of-his-town.htmlThis is the letter I'm referring to and I don't really see any direct abuse of power (as I would understand the term anyways). I dont really see what's so bad about this letter. If I was the mayor of a town that tries to do as much as possible for equality I'd probably be at least tempted to do the same. Since the original letter the Mayor has retracted at least some of his stronger comments, admitting that he went too far or that he couldn't actually do what he threatened. Alright, I didn't know that. Any idea what he actually said in the original letter (or threatened) specifically? I mean sure, if he threatened to throw them out or actually keep them from opening a joint in Boston he overstepped, but the edited version looks fine to me. The linked article has the text, there's no edits, that's what was said in the original letter. This whole thing is way overblown except for how not ok it is to discriminate against gay people and how screwed up the US media is by the way they twist and alter the story to sensationalize it one way or the other. Lol the ad on this page is pure gold. + Show Spoiler [Google Ads at Their Best] +The whole thing would have never been an issue if the mayor didn't make a political power play. By that regard this whole thing would never have been an issue if people don't try and oppress gays and lesbians because their valid lifestyle offends them. Following that trail of logic back, no-one would care about a persons sexual-orientation if they didn't try and take the religion out of marriage when there is a identical substitute available. But there isn't actually an identical substitute available... I agree with the idea of the mayor just making Chick-Fil-A's attempt to open a store hell and not mentioning it in public. Would of been much easier for him. Far as I know demestic partnership is available. and you sir would be asking for an impeachment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_partnership_in_the_United_States
That's the classic "separate but equal" American Way right there.
Meh, I really don't think a few extra inspections and unreasonable wait times on permits would get anyone impeached, as long as you don't send angry letters all over the place, mayors just don't get that much attention. Do you think that American municipalities are completely free of corruption and mayors are incapable/unwilling to pressure employees if they need/want to? This isn't bribery or anything, just leaving a file in a drawer or doing work very similar to what you would be doing anyways but in a way you know the boss approves of by selecting certain companies for pain in the ass "random" activities. Good luck proving anything sinister is going on and since that's what the mayor declared he would do in public, I doubt its that bad of an offense anyways.
|
Couldn't get to a Chic-Fil-A today; closest one is ~6 hours away roundtrip, and I have work, soooo... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Ah well. These microwaveable buffalo chicken bites will have to suffice, haha.
As far as the "kiss staging" everyone and their dog is planning this Friday is concerned, so long as they actually buy something, they can do that in their building or on their property. If Chic-Fil-A is gonna do something about it, they'll have to do the same to heterosexual couples kissing too. (which I wouldn't be totally opposed to, to be honest.... ('¬_¬) ) I pray the most people do about it is "shrug" and look away.
|
Its very funny how people take it as their life goal to stamp out people who ar against gay marriage. I personally don't care, I said it, I am fine with anyone getting married, but this entire thing of just bashing this ahead of things that are matters of life and death are frankly over the top. This Chik-fil-a thing has gotten too far IMHO, did people do this when urban outfitters said anything? NOPE. Its like being conservative and believing in a certain way of life is now unbelievable, the idea that homosexual people would like to get married in the christian manner is kind of backwards in the first place. There is plenty of bigotry in other places and yet this Chik-fil-a thing is the highest priority? I am not conservative, nor am I against gay right to marriage, but at this point its hard for me to feel any kind of sympathy when people start going crazy and blaming people for having a thought. This idea that stifling free speech when its not even hate speech, when its a legitimate point of view, whether or not its popular is counter intuitive. This is kind of getting sickening, people pick and choose when they get angry and they jump on the hate train without knowing anything else.
If people truly cared about this cause then they would not shop at these retailers
1. Urban outfiters
2. Walmart
3. Exxon Mobile
all of these companies have donated to anti-gay companies, political candidates, etc. and yet I bet anyone on here can say that they shop at 1 or more of those places. Hypocrisy is fun.
|
|
|
On August 02 2012 09:53 TOloseGT wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2012 08:56 Jisall wrote:On August 02 2012 07:23 TheFrankOne wrote:On August 02 2012 07:15 Jisall wrote:On August 02 2012 07:13 Logo wrote:On August 02 2012 07:09 Jisall wrote:On August 02 2012 07:01 Logo wrote:On August 02 2012 06:59 ChinaRestaurant wrote:On August 02 2012 06:56 Ryalnos wrote:Since the original letter the Mayor has retracted at least some of his stronger comments, admitting that he went too far or that he couldn't actually do what he threatened. Alright, I didn't know that. Any idea what he actually said in the original letter (or threatened) specifically? I mean sure, if he threatened to throw them out or actually keep them from opening a joint in Boston he overstepped, but the edited version looks fine to me. The linked article has the text, there's no edits, that's what was said in the original letter. This whole thing is way overblown except for how not ok it is to discriminate against gay people and how screwed up the US media is by the way they twist and alter the story to sensationalize it one way or the other. Lol the ad on this page is pure gold. + Show Spoiler [Google Ads at Their Best] +The whole thing would have never been an issue if the mayor didn't make a political power play. By that regard this whole thing would never have been an issue if people don't try and oppress gays and lesbians because their valid lifestyle offends them. Following that trail of logic back, no-one would care about a persons sexual-orientation if they didn't try and take the religion out of marriage when there is a identical substitute available. But there isn't actually an identical substitute available... I agree with the idea of the mayor just making Chick-Fil-A's attempt to open a store hell and not mentioning it in public. Would of been much easier for him. Far as I know demestic partnership is available. and you sir would be asking for an impeachment. I suggest you research domestic partnerships before claiming they're identical.
Change your message to "Equal rights for Demestic relationships" and pooof you got 99% public support. People could give less then a shit about who you choose to have relations with, they care when you try and change an establishment.
|
Lol. 'Least this one's better and less blatant (if really that biased at all) than the "Prop 8" vid they did awhile back.
|
On August 02 2012 11:10 Jisall wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2012 09:53 TOloseGT wrote:On August 02 2012 08:56 Jisall wrote:On August 02 2012 07:23 TheFrankOne wrote:On August 02 2012 07:15 Jisall wrote:On August 02 2012 07:13 Logo wrote:On August 02 2012 07:09 Jisall wrote:On August 02 2012 07:01 Logo wrote:On August 02 2012 06:59 ChinaRestaurant wrote:On August 02 2012 06:56 Ryalnos wrote:
[quote]
Since the original letter the Mayor has retracted at least some of his stronger comments, admitting that he went too far or that he couldn't actually do what he threatened.
Alright, I didn't know that. Any idea what he actually said in the original letter (or threatened) specifically? I mean sure, if he threatened to throw them out or actually keep them from opening a joint in Boston he overstepped, but the edited version looks fine to me. The linked article has the text, there's no edits, that's what was said in the original letter. This whole thing is way overblown except for how not ok it is to discriminate against gay people and how screwed up the US media is by the way they twist and alter the story to sensationalize it one way or the other. Lol the ad on this page is pure gold. + Show Spoiler [Google Ads at Their Best] +The whole thing would have never been an issue if the mayor didn't make a political power play. By that regard this whole thing would never have been an issue if people don't try and oppress gays and lesbians because their valid lifestyle offends them. Following that trail of logic back, no-one would care about a persons sexual-orientation if they didn't try and take the religion out of marriage when there is a identical substitute available. But there isn't actually an identical substitute available... I agree with the idea of the mayor just making Chick-Fil-A's attempt to open a store hell and not mentioning it in public. Would of been much easier for him. Far as I know demestic partnership is available. and you sir would be asking for an impeachment. I suggest you research domestic partnerships before claiming they're identical. Change your message to "Equal rights for Demestic relationships" and pooof you got 99% public support. People could give less then a shit about who you choose to have relations with, they care when you try and change an establishment.
Why the fuck should they? It's marriage, plain and simple. People who are against gay marriage are bigoted assholes, and they'll feel it in a couple years time when the world passes them by.
|
On August 02 2012 11:25 TOloseGT wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2012 11:10 Jisall wrote:On August 02 2012 09:53 TOloseGT wrote:On August 02 2012 08:56 Jisall wrote:On August 02 2012 07:23 TheFrankOne wrote:On August 02 2012 07:15 Jisall wrote:On August 02 2012 07:13 Logo wrote:On August 02 2012 07:09 Jisall wrote:On August 02 2012 07:01 Logo wrote:On August 02 2012 06:59 ChinaRestaurant wrote:
[quote]
Alright, I didn't know that. Any idea what he actually said in the original letter (or threatened) specifically? I mean sure, if he threatened to throw them out or actually keep them from opening a joint in Boston he overstepped, but the edited version looks fine to me. The linked article has the text, there's no edits, that's what was said in the original letter. This whole thing is way overblown except for how not ok it is to discriminate against gay people and how screwed up the US media is by the way they twist and alter the story to sensationalize it one way or the other. Lol the ad on this page is pure gold. + Show Spoiler [Google Ads at Their Best] +The whole thing would have never been an issue if the mayor didn't make a political power play. By that regard this whole thing would never have been an issue if people don't try and oppress gays and lesbians because their valid lifestyle offends them. Following that trail of logic back, no-one would care about a persons sexual-orientation if they didn't try and take the religion out of marriage when there is a identical substitute available. But there isn't actually an identical substitute available... I agree with the idea of the mayor just making Chick-Fil-A's attempt to open a store hell and not mentioning it in public. Would of been much easier for him. Far as I know demestic partnership is available. and you sir would be asking for an impeachment. I suggest you research domestic partnerships before claiming they're identical. Change your message to "Equal rights for Demestic relationships" and pooof you got 99% public support. People could give less then a shit about who you choose to have relations with, they care when you try and change an establishment. Why the fuck should they? It's marriage, plain and simple. People who are against gay marriage are bigoted assholes, and they'll feel it in a couple years time when the world passes them by.
Sadly, I will have to disagree here. Although I am understanding of why one may believe so, resorting to fallacious claim just goes against who I am. I will just express my personal feeling of why I think it is not such a simple topic.
Now, there is the problem I see. There are two types of debates going on. There is the debate regarding the essence of marriage, and the debate regarding ones right. The dilemma I am seeing is that, we have those who are opposed to gay-marriage debating on the former, whereas those in support are arguing the latter (yes, there are exceptions and I acknowledge them). When you have two opposing sides debating on a topic and even the topics themselves are not the same, there is little chance of resolve.
So here is the issue regarding the essence of marriage. It originated and was focused on a religious foundation. One for which had changed due to economics, housing, land ownership, etc. But the term itself was/is defined between a man and a woman. One of the arguments from the anti-marriage is the government stepping in and changing the definition of something that is grounded in religion. Which for myself, I disagree with.
Now, I am probably making enemies out of saying that but it is the truth. But this is where I have issues as a whole. I believe the religious aspect and government control is flat out idiotic. We have a separation of church and state, and yet the government gives benefits to something that is based in religion. It comes off as a contradiciton, which I disagree with. Marriage should be restricted to religious aspect, and not turned into what it is today. Now, this is where I agree with the gay-marriage side.
Because of the role the government has gone with regards to giving benefits, they should not be exluding the freedom of others. So, those who are wanting to be together with one of the same sex should and ought to have the very same right to benefits as any other. Which as of right now, they do not. Often those in relationships cannot see their lovers in hospital because they are not recognized, they are not given all of the same benefits.
This is why I see the debate over these situations are often never successful since what it is they are debating are not the same. One side is trying to keep the concept of marriage the same, whereas the other is trying to have the same rights. With the baggage of what marriage means to people, I also understand that there are those who wish to have that connection. For myself, wishing for all sides to at least come to some agreement. The only way I see it is if marriage stayed between a man and woman, but have (as an example) a civil union give all of the same rights and benefits as marriage. Granted, I think it should have a better name than civil union (since sounds so unpersonal), but it is the only compromise I see. Either that, or we give in to the notion that regardless of beliefs, an essence of a word of belief can be controlled by the government.
Anyway, there is more to it than that. But that is the most simplistic way I see it. I do not agree with how thngs have been handled. Chick-Fil-A situation I think is just stupid. I think they should not be upset or angry with the response they have gotten. It goes for anyone that looks down on those who are angry. Just like Chick-Fil-A has a right to support what they want, people have a right to be angry and boycott establishments. You can't defend your own personal right to support X and be angry because people expressing their support for Y. I do think the mayor went too far with the threat though. It becomes a slippery slope if willing to intervene in directly with business for personal beliefs. Although I did chuckle when reading the article because of how one can preach tolerance for the right to preach, while not being tolerant to other beliefs.
So yeah, that is my long post. Felt the need to finally get this off my chest because this whole situation has been bugging me.
|
Hundreds of people jammed into the Burlington Mall’s food court Wednesday at the Chick-fil-A to protest, make a statement, and dine at the controversial fast-food chain, joining thousands across the nation. Dubbed “Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day” by former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, scores waited in a line that spilled outside the court’s perimeter, with an attendance so high that mall security maintained a constant watch.
Boston.com
Glad to see people turning out. Definitely inappropriate to attempt to ban something from the city because of religious beliefs. Simply put, its not the governments job to try and pressure this.
|
On August 02 2012 11:25 TOloseGT wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2012 11:10 Jisall wrote:On August 02 2012 09:53 TOloseGT wrote:On August 02 2012 08:56 Jisall wrote:On August 02 2012 07:23 TheFrankOne wrote:On August 02 2012 07:15 Jisall wrote:On August 02 2012 07:13 Logo wrote:On August 02 2012 07:09 Jisall wrote:On August 02 2012 07:01 Logo wrote:On August 02 2012 06:59 ChinaRestaurant wrote:
[quote]
Alright, I didn't know that. Any idea what he actually said in the original letter (or threatened) specifically? I mean sure, if he threatened to throw them out or actually keep them from opening a joint in Boston he overstepped, but the edited version looks fine to me. The linked article has the text, there's no edits, that's what was said in the original letter. This whole thing is way overblown except for how not ok it is to discriminate against gay people and how screwed up the US media is by the way they twist and alter the story to sensationalize it one way or the other. Lol the ad on this page is pure gold. + Show Spoiler [Google Ads at Their Best] +The whole thing would have never been an issue if the mayor didn't make a political power play. By that regard this whole thing would never have been an issue if people don't try and oppress gays and lesbians because their valid lifestyle offends them. Following that trail of logic back, no-one would care about a persons sexual-orientation if they didn't try and take the religion out of marriage when there is a identical substitute available. But there isn't actually an identical substitute available... I agree with the idea of the mayor just making Chick-Fil-A's attempt to open a store hell and not mentioning it in public. Would of been much easier for him. Far as I know demestic partnership is available. and you sir would be asking for an impeachment. I suggest you research domestic partnerships before claiming they're identical. Change your message to "Equal rights for Demestic relationships" and pooof you got 99% public support. People could give less then a shit about who you choose to have relations with, they care when you try and change an establishment. Why the fuck should they? It's marriage, plain and simple. People who are against gay marriage are bigoted assholes, and they'll feel it in a couple years time when the world passes them by.
Maybe the "bigoted asshole" is you for trying to force it on people who believe otherwise. the argument goes round and round. just more insults get added. I said my peace, screw the mayor of boston. I'm outro.
|
On July 26 2012 06:46 logikly wrote:
This is the typical left totalitarianism agree with us or we will dispose of you. If there were bigoted statements made that is a problem but do go the extent to ban from a city is completely asinine. perhaps boycott them and shut them out of business. It sicking that in todays-day-in-age people are so closed minded and will not have anything to do with a difference of opinion. I dont believe they can actually ban them because of their beliefs and oppositon to gay marriage. but who knows now a days.
There's absolutely nothing asinine about it. There are dry towns. There are zoning laws. Local governments can do whatever the fuck they want as far as allowing or disallowing commerce goes. If the Ku Klux Klan buys out Krispy Kreme and starts making donuts in the shape of burning crosses, no city should have to put up with their bullshit.
Also, what is next? are they going to go after In and out burger for having john 316 on the bottom of their cups?
No, because John 3:16 is not a bigoted hate screed. If they start printing Leviticus 18:22 on there, get back to me with that particular dumb argument.
"If you disagree with the Left, you are one or all of the following -- Sexist, intolerant, xenophobic, homophobic, Islamophobic, racist, bigoted.)" -Dennis Prager
(emphasis added)
This seems to imply that "the Left" is unfairly calling people who are openly antagonistic towards gay marriage "homophobic".
This is NOT a matter of the owner's personal beliefs. This is a matter of the owner choosing to make his chicken joint a platform for anti-gay campaigning. Boston and Massachusetts don't have to put up with that particular business decision any more than [INSERT RED STATE] has to put up with strip clubs or casinos.
It's rather funny that the American right is all gung ho about "state's rights" and "no federal meddling" when it aligns with their personal shibboleths, but the second a local government does something they don't like, it's "left totalitarianism".
|
On August 02 2012 16:40 Jisall wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2012 11:25 TOloseGT wrote:On August 02 2012 11:10 Jisall wrote:On August 02 2012 09:53 TOloseGT wrote:On August 02 2012 08:56 Jisall wrote:On August 02 2012 07:23 TheFrankOne wrote:On August 02 2012 07:15 Jisall wrote:On August 02 2012 07:13 Logo wrote:On August 02 2012 07:09 Jisall wrote:On August 02 2012 07:01 Logo wrote:
[quote]
The linked article has the text, there's no edits, that's what was said in the original letter.
This whole thing is way overblown except for how not ok it is to discriminate against gay people and how screwed up the US media is by the way they twist and alter the story to sensationalize it one way or the other. Lol the ad on this page is pure gold. + Show Spoiler [Google Ads at Their Best] +The whole thing would have never been an issue if the mayor didn't make a political power play. By that regard this whole thing would never have been an issue if people don't try and oppress gays and lesbians because their valid lifestyle offends them. Following that trail of logic back, no-one would care about a persons sexual-orientation if they didn't try and take the religion out of marriage when there is a identical substitute available. But there isn't actually an identical substitute available... I agree with the idea of the mayor just making Chick-Fil-A's attempt to open a store hell and not mentioning it in public. Would of been much easier for him. Far as I know demestic partnership is available. and you sir would be asking for an impeachment. I suggest you research domestic partnerships before claiming they're identical. Change your message to "Equal rights for Demestic relationships" and pooof you got 99% public support. People could give less then a shit about who you choose to have relations with, they care when you try and change an establishment. Why the fuck should they? It's marriage, plain and simple. People who are against gay marriage are bigoted assholes, and they'll feel it in a couple years time when the world passes them by. Maybe the "bigoted asshole" is you for trying to force it on people who believe otherwise. the argument goes round and round. just more insults get added. I said my peace, screw the mayor of boston. I'm outro.
Legalizing gay marriage does not force you to marry a dude, any more than legalizing interracial marriage forced you to marry someone with a different epidermal shade than you prefer. Your argument is completely and utterly invalid.
Freedom of speech means you are free to speak your mind. It does not mean other people are forced to grant you a pulpit from which to do it.
|
It's rather funny that the American right is all gung ho about "state's rights" and "no federal meddling" when it aligns with their personal shibboleths, but the second a local government does something they don't like, it's "left totalitarianism".
Even the ACLU, one of the largest supporters of gay rights is siding with Chick Fil A in this situation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/5Vcts.png)
