Mayor of Boston to Chick-Fil-A: Get Lost!!!!

Originally posted by Kali74
Chik-a-fil exercised it's freedom of speech and have taken a vocal stance against equal rights for gays. Mayor Menino exercised his freedom of speech by stating that Boston (proudly) is a city that supports Gay marriage and equal rights for all... why would they want to business in a city that supports something they oppose. He probably saved them the cost of starting up a failure. We Bostonians don't take kindly to such utter nonsense as denying gay people the right to marry their partners. I'm not a fan of Menino but I applaud him for this.

The CEO of chik-fil-a has the right of free speech to say whatever he wants as does Mayor Menino BUT
when Mayor Menino put his freedom of speech on the official letterhead of the city of Boston, It no longer is his freedom of speech but a statement by the duly elected head of the city of Boston.

That is the problem, if Mayor Menino had not put his statement on his official letterhead it would just be his freedom of speech but he did and now the City of Boston could be liable for his statement.

]

They are Discriminating openly against christians for their faith

edit on 25-7-2012 by OpinionatedB because: (no reason given)

Actually there is nothing in those myths that is against homosexuality, other than Paul's opinions.

Saying that the zombie worship cult isn't allowed to practice its faith is a little circumspect as no one is shutting down their cult house.

Derek

Originally posted by ViktorHaze
So, let me see if I got this straight....
If the head of a corporation that says he is against certain rights being available to a certain sector of society with a history of persecution and discrimination, because his faith (that is a strong or unshakeable belief in something, esp without proof or evidence, by definition), says he must, and by proxy his company as well, that is perfectly ok.

Buuut, if the mayor of a major city that has gone to great lengths to prevent further discrimination of this community, calls said corporation and it's sadly misguided leader on their bigotry (you can call it doctrine or scripture, but I have no such illusion), he is somehow stifling their free speech and discriminating against them?

Further, his efforts to legally block, what under normal circumstance would be considered an undesirable business (like it or not, civil governments not only have a right, but an obligation to do so, and like it or not, this chicken plucker is a bigot and thus undesirable) is discrimination?
I'd like one of you poor persecuted Religulons (that's my name for people of all faiths. I tried Religanista's, but it's not sinister enough, and yes, I do in fact lump you all together), to explain how you can say stuff like this with a straight face.

How about the KKK?
Can they just go ahead and set up a lodge beside city hall too?
What if they just practiced their form of faith in the privacy of the lodge?
Would the mayor be justified in preventing that?
Why not, because it's not discriminating unless its a christian getting called on their hypocrisy?
Did you have your testicles in a twist when that mosque was going to go up by the World Trade Center?
I guess they had every right to be there too, right?
No?
I'm not kidding either.
I want an honest to your god answer, if you can manage to come down off the cross for a minute...

edit on 26-7-2012 by ViktorHaze because: clarification of thought

As it happens, there IS a Neo-Nazi group in Boston Massachusetts. I can't wait to see the letter you are now deciding to send to the Mayor of Boston protesting.

www.splcenter.org...

Originally posted by yadda333
Please stop yelling about free speech. Free speech does not entitle you to discriminate against an entire class of people.

Sometimes government (which is the people) must stand up and say enough is enough. This society should not accept the outright discrimination of homosexuals, period.

Discrimination is an ACTION - like what the mayor has stated he will do to Chick Fil A. Freedom of speech involves expression of OPINION - without fear of discriminatory reprisals.

See the difference there? I bet you don't.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

As it happens, there IS a Neo-Nazi group in Boston Massachusetts. I can't wait to see the letter you are now deciding to send to the Mayor of Boston protesting.

www.splcenter.org...

Not any more. Maybe the mayor had something to do with it??

In September 2011, Roper shut down White Revolution. “As the leader of the organization, I am solely responsible and accept full responsibility for White Revolution’s lack of success as a membership organization,” Roper wrote in “an open letter to the white nationalist movement.”

www.splcenter.org...

Originally posted by kaylaluv

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

As it happens, there IS a Neo-Nazi group in Boston Massachusetts. I can't wait to see the letter you are now deciding to send to the Mayor of Boston protesting.

www.splcenter.org...

Not any more. Maybe the mayor had something to do with it??

In September 2011, Roper shut down White Revolution. “As the leader of the organization, I am solely responsible and accept full responsibility for White Revolution’s lack of success as a membership organization,” Roper wrote in “an open letter to the white nationalist movement.”

www.splcenter.org...

The website was still listed on that site. I bet that other poster would not be sending a letter anyway. Just a wild guess.

Originally posted by OpinionatedB
reply to post by grey580

 

Since when does Chick fil A discriminate or do any illegal activity?

Until a group is deemed illegal to donate money to, then the business owners have a right to do whatever they want under the law with their own money.

It is your right as a consumer to decide if you want any portion of your money to go to said groups.... if you do not like where money is being donated, then you do not do business with them.

Very simple concept, its called responsible consumerism.


I have never once in my life tasted a starbucks coffee.... I do not want my money to go where I do not agree with.

No one is forcing you to eat a chicken sandwich from that restraunt.

edit on 26-7-2012 by OpinionatedB because: (no reason given)

I never said they did. I said they support hate groups.
And they have an anti gay marriage stance coming directly from the company head.

They can certainly donate to whoever they wish. However distasteful the group might be.

And you're absolutely correct. We have the right to choose in this country.

I know I will personally choose not to a company that supports hate.

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by yadda333
Please stop yelling about free speech. Free speech does not entitle you to discriminate against an entire class of people.

Sometimes government (which is the people) must stand up and say enough is enough. This society should not accept the outright discrimination of homosexuals, period.

Discrimination is an ACTION - like what the mayor has stated he will do to Chick Fil A. Freedom of speech involves expression of OPINION - without fear of discriminatory reprisals.

See the difference there? I bet you don't.

Err...maybe you should read all of my posts in this thread.

Originally posted by pavil

Originally posted by grey580

Y
Chic-fil-A supports hate groups by donating money to them. Nearly 2 million to anti gay hate groups.

Please prove your claim. Hate Group is a very strong word. I have glanced at the groups Chick-Fil-A supports, I don't think they fit the Hate Group category. They are against Gay Marriage that's for sure.

A hate group is an organized group or movement that advocates and practices hatred, hostility, or violence towards members of a race, ethnicity, religion, gender, sexual orientation or other designated sector of society. According to the US Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), hate groups' "primary purpose is to promote animosity, hostility, and malice against persons belonging to a race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, or ethnicity/national origin which differs from that of the members of the organization."

.

Here ya go.
linky

Family Research Council

Family Research Council Is Designated As An Anti-Gay Hate Group By the SPLC. The Family Research Council has been labeled a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) for its propagation of known falsehoods about the LGBT community. For example, president Tony Perkins has a long history of false and inflammatory attacks, such as claiming that pedophilia is a "homosexual problem."

Exodus International

Exodus International Promotes “Ex-Gay” Therapy. Exodus International is one of the world’s largest promoters of “ex-gay” therapy, the practice of trying to change a person’s sexual orientation from gay to straight. The organization refers to being LGBT as “perverse” and a form of “sexual brokenness.”

Sounds to me like it fits into the Hatred category of your description.

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
Since my visit to Boston in 1999 I have to say I would rather weed my garden than except an All Expenses Paid trip to Boston. My dislike of Boston having been expressed, I hope the owner of Chick-Fil-A sues the hell out of Boston. I have never been a customer of Chick-Fil-A, although I pass one all the time on my way in from home but now, I am going to make a point of stopping in and buying some of their food simply to show my support. This should also state clear enough what I think of Gay Marriage and the Gay Agendas.

In the US we have freedom of speech.

No politician can prevent a store from opening a new location because they don't like the viewpoint of the president of the company.

The politicians can huff and puff, but if they actually act to prevent a them from opening a store, they will be sued for all their worth.

It would be humorous to watch.

Originally posted by grey580

Originally posted by OpinionatedB
reply to post by grey580

 

Since when does Chick fil A discriminate or do any illegal activity?

Until a group is deemed illegal to donate money to, then the business owners have a right to do whatever they want under the law with their own money.

It is your right as a consumer to decide if you want any portion of your money to go to said groups.... if you do not like where money is being donated, then you do not do business with them.

Very simple concept, its called responsible consumerism.


I have never once in my life tasted a starbucks coffee.... I do not want my money to go where I do not agree with.

No one is forcing you to eat a chicken sandwich from that restraunt.

edit on 26-7-2012 by OpinionatedB because: (no reason given)

I never said they did. I said they support hate groups.
And they have an anti gay marriage stance coming directly from the company head.

They can certainly donate to whoever they wish. However distasteful the group might be.

And you're absolutely correct. We have the right to choose in this country.

I know I will personally choose not to a company that supports hate.

Do some homework then, because Starbucks supports La Voz de La Raza which translated exactly as "The Voice of THE RACE". So while La Raza has every liberal convinced it is not a hate group, it still is only for promoting hispanic and many individuals involved do indeed get involved in some rather shady things involving promoting illegal immigration and even connections with communist leaning groups such as MEChA.

"La Raza" (The Race) is a broad term which refers to those whose ancestry is indigenous to the area of Mexico (or "Aztlan"). MEChA members refer to themselves as "La Raza" or "Raza," but the term itself is used to indicate camaraderie among those in different organizations with the same objectives. There are a number of organizations who consider themselves to be La Raza.

The most visible of these groups are MEChA, The Brown Berets de Aztlan, OLA (Organization for the Liberation of Aztlan), La Raza Unida Party, and the "Nation of Aztlan" to name a few. Although the activism of these organizations vary from somewhat radical to extremely radical, they share the same objectives, the "liberation of Aztlan." Each follows the Raza manifesto "El Plan de Aztlan (sometimes called "El Plan Espiritual de Aztlan"). The Nation of Aztlan, tied to La Voz de Aztlan disseminates the exact same propaganda that MEChA spreads including antisemitic propaganda. Believers in the Aztlan legend insist upon the indivisibility of "La Raza" and their common goals, one of them being the need to abolish the border between the U.S. and Mexico. There is a myriad of Raza college newspaper. Some are El Popo, Aztlan News, Chispas, Gente de Aztlan (UCLA), Voz Fronteriza (U.C. San Diego), La Voz Mestiza (U.C. Irvine) and La Voz Berkeley. It is not uncommon for the writers of these publications to refer to the U.S., as "AmeriKKKa."

Rhetoric by some Chicano educators strongly suggest Communist or Socialist leanings. In May, 2000, more than 1,200 students gathered at UCLA for the seventh annual Raza Youth Conference, which the members say promotes higher education and recognition of the Aztlan culture. Sponsored by MEChA, the year's theme was "Reclaiming Our Razas through education, resistance, and promoting the idea of remembering the historical struggles of Raza" said Erika Ramirez, co-chair of the conference. The conference drew students from 80 middle and high schools and community colleges; featured speeches by those actively involved with the Chicano community.

www.mayorno.com...

These groups also support reconquista of the Southwest for Mexico. Reclaiming razas through education eh.whatever happened to "we are all Americans"?

Originally posted by Wildbob77
In the US we have freedom of speech.

No politician can prevent a store from opening a new location because they don't like the viewpoint of the president of the company.

The politicians can huff and puff, but if they actually act to prevent a them from opening a store, they will be sued for all their worth.

It would be humorous to watch.

I don't know how humorous it'll be because it'll be the citizens of that city footing the legal bill win or lose. If this matter goes beyond the bucking stage the city will have an unnecessary expense which will be passed down to the citizens due to two people bumping heads of two different ideologies.

Originally posted by yadda333

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by yadda333
Please stop yelling about free speech. Free speech does not entitle you to discriminate against an entire class of people.

Sometimes government (which is the people) must stand up and say enough is enough. This society should not accept the outright discrimination of homosexuals, period.

Discrimination is an ACTION - like what the mayor has stated he will do to Chick Fil A. Freedom of speech involves expression of OPINION - without fear of discriminatory reprisals.

See the difference there? I bet you don't.

Err...maybe you should read all of my posts in this thread.

I did.

I see that you oppose free speech. and support discrimination, as long as it's a discrimination that you support - in your world, that discrimination is "good", and should be forced by government, and the other sort is "bad" and should be eliminated, again by government. Of course, YOU are the arbiter of what is "good" discrimination, and what is "bad" discrimination, and the rest of us should just march to your drum, and let the government ride roughshod over whomever you deem to be "bad".

I think that about sums it up. What point were you trying to make by asking me to read your posts in their entirety? That "good" discrimination is "good", because you say it is?

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


I can't verify your claims.
I've searched google and do not see any claim to support Starbucks supporting La Voz de La Raza.

In any case let's stick to the Topic.
Chic-fil-A and the Mayor of Boston.

Originally posted by Chai_An

Originally posted by Wildbob77
In the US we have freedom of speech.

No politician can prevent a store from opening a new location because they don't like the viewpoint of the president of the company.

The politicians can huff and puff, but if they actually act to prevent a them from opening a store, they will be sued for all their worth.

It would be humorous to watch.

I don't know how humorous it'll be because it'll be the citizens of that city footing the legal bill win or lose. If this matter goes beyond the bucking stage the city will have an unnecessary expense which will be passed down to the citizens due to two people bumping heads of two different ideologies.

And they SHOULD foot the bill. After all, THEY elected their very own dictator, and when the time comes, it should be THEM who pays the piper for that decision. If all Bostonians truly believe in his dictatorial policy, then they ought not to even mind footing the bill to fight the good fight.

Freedom ain't "free", in more ways than one.

reply to post by CynicalWabbit

when Mayor Menino put his freedom of speech on the official letterhead of the city of Boston, It no longer is his freedom of speech but a statement by the duly elected head of the city of Boston.

And?

It is still a statement, one in which Boston supports, it is not a law or a threat to ban, or deny permits etc... Boston is a pro gay marriage city and we're very proud of that.

That is the problem, if Mayor Menino had not put his statement on his official letterhead it would just be his freedom of speech but he did and now the City of Boston could be liable for his statement.

How would Boston be liable for that statement? Again it isn't a law or a threat. Isn't this what politicians are supposed to do? Especially Mayors? When the constituents want or don't want something it is supposed to be reflected in the actions of the elected officials that represent them.

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by Chai_An

Originally posted by Wildbob77
In the US we have freedom of speech.

No politician can prevent a store from opening a new location because they don't like the viewpoint of the president of the company.

The politicians can huff and puff, but if they actually act to prevent a them from opening a store, they will be sued for all their worth.

It would be humorous to watch.

I don't know how humorous it'll be because it'll be the citizens of that city footing the legal bill win or lose. If this matter goes beyond the bucking stage the city will have an unnecessary expense which will be passed down to the citizens due to two people bumping heads of two different ideologies.

And they SHOULD foot the bill. After all, THEY elected their very own dictator, and when the time comes, it should be THEM who pays the piper for that decision. If all Bostonians truly believe in his dictatorial policy, then they ought not to even mind footing the bill to fight the good fight.

Freedom ain't "free", in more ways than one.

You're correct!!

reply to post by resoe26

What's with all the anti gay right's people on here, are you all ignorant stupid primitives or something?
What a ...
Since when do you have to be a part of something to agree or disagree with it?
I think it's fine you Religulons get to spew your vile garbage every day.
Guess what, not religious.
Don't have to be gay to be for their right to enjoy anything straight people do.
You so called christians make me sick. You talk about your loving god who teaches you morality and values, and in the same breath you desecrate the very idea's you espouse by opening your big yap and puking out the most offensive, hateful crap.
I'm beginning to think it's not such a bad idea to ban public religion altogether and force you hateful primitives underground...the only saving grace is at least out in the open, you can't be subversive in your attempts to undermine humanity with your mental slavery.

reply to post by CynicalWabbit


I would like to point out a little something.
Freedom of speech is not always protected.

Especially when we get into the gray area of imminent lawless action.

The city can always deny Chic-fil-A an occupational license if they feel that the opening of the store could cause too much of a disruption if it opened.

And certainly it's the cities responsibility to provide a safe and stable environment for it's citizens.

I would add that this would be a weak excuse for the city. But a reasonably valid one.

And anyways the Mayor didn't say they couldn't setup shop in Boston. He said we rather not have you here.
There is a difference. And Chic-fil-A can certainly ignore the letter and keep on going with it's plans.