It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 15
30
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 05:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 

Dear Kali74,

Good to see you around and kicking (and more important, questioning).

Unfortunately, the Mayor has been issuing threats, threats which he has made good on in the past. There is a post about three-quarters of the way down page 2 of this thread. It refers to a Boston Herald article on this subject in which the Mayor makes, what to me, are fairly clear threats.

With respect,
Charles1952




posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 06:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by ViktorHaze
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 ...


I can't speak for anyone else, but yes, I'm an "ignorant, stupid primitive" - but I'm not anti gay rights. I believe in equality under the law. I don't believe anyone should be "more equal" than anyone else. gay or straight, Chik-Fil-A CEO or Mayor.

I believe that if you beg the government's permission to marry - and it matters nary a bit who you intend to apply that permission to - that you are also begging for them to regulate your marriage. I don't beg government permission, imprimatur, or licensing to be married. I can figure out who I love and want to be with without their permission or interference at all.



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 06:03 PM
link   
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 

Why would I send him a letter?
I would imagine the neo nazi group operate out of one of the losers houses.
They don't require a license to operate, they aren't a public company....
If on the other hand they wanted to set up a recruiting office next door to the church, I'm sure the mayor would have something to say about it, and he should.
Are you saying he shouldn't, or is it only ok when christians are doing the hate rhetoric?



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 06:11 PM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


What I got from that was that it would indeed be difficult for Chik fil a to conform to our anti discrimination requirements. Even so, though it is strong worded... I don't think the Mayor has stepped out of his role, I believe that mayors do have a responsibility for the commerce in their city.

On a personal note, I would like to say that it is just way passed time to allow discrimination. This nation has no God therefor it was completely out of line for the CEO to publicly state that allowing gay marriage invites God's wrath... he is free to say so, but totally out of line.



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 06:11 PM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 


Agreed.
Regardless of the rationality of having to have government or faith based approval for marriage, it doesn't give either one the right to be biased about it and base their official decisions on it.
The whole issue of the mayor discriminating against the Religulons is a non starter.
He is basing his decision to oppose their permit approval on the fact that he finds a company that promotes hate to be undesirable in a tolerant community.
You can bleat "Lordy, lordy, da man is tryin' hold me and my god down", all you want, but it's a bogus claim.
It's also the default perpetual victim card Religulons play more than anyone on the planet...
Usually while hating on someone else.
It's no wonder places like Westboro Baptist church still exist and they haven't been forced into hiding.
I firmly believe that everyone of you gentle christians are quietly cheering under your breath for them.



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 06:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

I wonder... If a mayor decided that he didn't want a gay bar across the street from a church, I wonder how the responses would differ here...


Well, you know they would. Same as if it was a Mosque. People so often cherry pick who has rights and who doesn't in this country.



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 06:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by ViktorHaze
reply to post by nenothtu
 


Agreed.
Regardless of the rationality of having to have government or faith based approval for marriage, it doesn't give either one the right to be biased about it and base their official decisions on it.
The whole issue of the mayor discriminating against the Religulons is a non starter.
He is basing his decision to oppose their permit approval on the fact that he finds a company that promotes hate to be undesirable in a tolerant community.
You can bleat "Lordy, lordy, da man is tryin' hold me and my god down", all you want, but it's a bogus claim.
It's also the default perpetual victim card Religulons play more than anyone on the planet...
Usually while hating on someone else.
It's no wonder places like Westboro Baptist church still exist and they haven't been forced into hiding.
I firmly believe that everyone of you gentle christians are quietly cheering under your breath for them.


You seem to have mistaken me for a Christian. I am not. I'm not that "good", and cannot lay claim to the title with a clear conscience. My religion is my own, and no one else's business. If anyone asks, I will tell them what I think in private, but it's not a matter for public consumption in a forum. If they don't ask, I have to assume they don't want to know, and so don't generally bother them with the niggling details.

My God can fight his own battles. He doesn't need puny old me to stick up for him. It's supposed to work quite the other way around, if he's truly a God, nuh?

I don't believe religion of any sort has any place in government - neither for nor against. that's a matter for your home, or your house of worship, not public display. I think the authors of the Constitution would back me in that contention, The First Amendment of the Constitution, the very FIRST one, says in part :



"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"


It says, plainly, NO LAW. They can neither say yea or nay, for or against. Government has NO say in that fight at all, and that is as it should be. They can neither endorse nor prohibit.

Christians, if they truly believed their book, would have to agree as well. Jesus said the same thing himself, in different words - "Ἀπόδοτε οὖν τὰ Καίσαρος Καίσαρι καὶ τὰ τοῦ Θεοῦ τῷ Θεῷ" - "Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's", a clear statement of the separation of Church and State in Matthew 22:21. So the authorities on both sides seem to agree, there is a line there not to be crossed or confused.

As I've said before, God doesn't want your government - he has other things to take care of. The sooner the Christians figure that out, AND the sooner the Government figures that out, the happier folks will be.

That is where this mayor erred - discriminating against Christians in a political matter, when they were not discriminating against his pet projects. Merely stating an opinion is insufficient cause for action. ACTION is a sufficient cause for action. The mayor crossed the line, not Chik-Fil-A.



edit on 2012/7/26 by nenothtu because: Spelling, because I suck at it.



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 06:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu
That is where this mayor erred - discriminating against Christians in a political matter, when they were not discriminating against his pet projects. Merely stating an opinion is insufficient cause for action. ACTION is a sufficient cause for action. the mayor crossed the line, not Chik-Fil-A.


The Mayor is not discriminating against religion since he has not "come out" against religion but against bigotry - non-bigoted religious have not earned his ire.

If the bigotry is dressed up as a religious matter than that is a problem for the religious, not for the Mayor.

And if religous choose to participate in a political matter and express political opinions, then opposing those political opinions is also not discriminating against het religion.



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 06:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by kosmicjack
 


You could be right. We'll see how it comes out or if it turns into anything more.

I wonder... If a mayor decided that he didn't want a gay bar across the street from a church, I wonder how the responses would differ here...


As long as there were no pre existing laws banning any bar being next to a church, then a gay bar, provided it followed all regulations, should be allowed there.

What exactly has the franchisee of the Chick-Fil-A in Boston done to the city of Boston to warrant such harrassment? It hasn't been shown that Chick-Fil-A's discriminate against any customers or employee's in any systemic way.In fact they hold many local fundraising events, sometimes even for Gay and Lesbian Causes.

This is from the Chicago Franchisee, but I'm sure it applies to the Boston one too. Everybody needs to eat and everybody has money....why would a business owner discriminate against any segment of the population....it's not good for business. At the same time.... people should be able to support causes they believe in as long as they are legal.


The owner of the city's only Chick-fil-A restaurant today asked Mayor Rahm Emanuel to meet with her after Emanuel said the anti-gay marriage views of the fast-food chain's president don't mesh with Chicago values. Lauren Silich, who owns a Chick-fil-A franchise just off the Magnificent Mile that opened last year, wrote in a press release that she is dedicated to "serving all of our guests with honor, dignity and respect. ... We alone created 97 jobs this past year and our passion is building leaders for future generations, regardless of sexual orientation or beliefs." She invited Emanuel to meet her, her husband and management staff at her restaurant. The mayor's office had no immediate response. In an interview today, Silich addressed Emanuel's comments. "I get it,” Silich said in an interview. “I’m from here as well.” “I just want people to know there’s a local face to this controversy,” she added. “We’re not a corporate face. We love our city.” Silich said she would never discriminate against anyone and has gay employees working at her restaurant. Silich said she has deep Chicago roots and her husband Steve works for the city. City records indicate he's a police sergeant. "We hold fundraisers for hospitals, schools, fallen police, and we donate to a wide variety of causes, including everything from churches to gay and lesbian organizations," Silich wrote.


Link



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



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 07:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by pavil

What exactly has the franchisee of the Chick-Fil-A in Boston done to the city of Boston to warrant such harrassment? It hasn't been shown that Chick-Fil-A's discriminate against any customers or employee's in any systemic way.In fact they hold many local fundraising events, sometimes even for Gay and Lesbian Causes.



Maybe the local franchisee hasn't, but the corporate office of Chick-Fil-A has donated lots and lots of money to anti-gay groups that are working very hard to keep gays from having equal rights. It's more than just a personal belief - it IS action against a group.



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 07:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

The Mayor is not discriminating against religion since he has not "come out" against religion but against bigotry - non-bigoted religious have not earned his ire.


No, he's not discriminating against religion, he's discriminating against a business BECAUSE of a religious statement.



If the bigotry is dressed up as a religious matter than that is a problem for the religious, not for the Mayor.


You're right - it's not a matter for the Mayor at all, and he should not have brought the force of government to bear in the matter. it's none of his business what people think. He doesn't have to eat their chicken - I don't.



And if religous choose to participate in a political matter and express political opinions, then opposing those political opinions is also not discriminating against het religion.


Offering an opposing opinion to an expressed opinion is not discrimination. Offering violence to their livelihood under color of law IS, unless he offers the same exact means and level of opposition to all other restaurants, without prejudice.



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 07:16 PM
link   
reply to post by kaylaluv
 


True, but it is no different than Starbucks financially supporting the murder and displacement of innocent people...

Many business support causes, this is where responsible consumerism comes to play in your personal life. You investigate the businesses you might like to patron and decide if they deserve your money and your business... where your money is going is a good thing to know, this way you only support causes through your patronage that you want supported.

So long as that cause is legal to support in this country, then they can and most the time are supporting causes, some you may agree with, and some you may not....

But this is our personal responsibility, not the governments. The government simply decides what causes are legal to support.
edit on 26-7-2012 by OpinionatedB because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 07:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by yadda333

Originally posted by Chai_An

Originally posted by OpinionatedB
reply to post by faint1993
 


Nope, he just stated Chik fil A cannot open any business in his town....


thats railroading someone for holding a belief and having a political stance

it is unconstitutional

They are Discriminating openly against christians for their faith
edit on 25-7-2012 by OpinionatedB because: (no reason given)


Yep Boston sure did. He also cut off revenue for the city with that stand, a personal stand at that. How's Boston's economy? Chik Fil would've brought jobs (construction and store workers) not to mention tax dollars to the city as well as monetary support to other businesses in the area. I wonder do the citizens think it was a good idea for the city official to turn away a source of money in a crumbling economy to take a ideology stand?
edit on 26-7-2012 by Chai_An because: (no reason given)


Some things are more important than money. Equal rights for all and eliminating discrimination should be held above monetary gains.


Oh yah, some things are more important than money, like votes. Although votes translates into jobs and money. I think the mayor of Boston is counting on a certain demographic vote.



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 07:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


The chickens that they serve are most likely confined animal feed lot...yuck.



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 07:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by nenothtu
That is where this mayor erred - discriminating against Christians in a political matter, when they were not discriminating against his pet projects. Merely stating an opinion is insufficient cause for action. ACTION is a sufficient cause for action. the mayor crossed the line, not Chik-Fil-A.


The Mayor is not discriminating against religion since he has not "come out" against religion but against bigotry - non-bigoted religious have not earned his ire.

If the bigotry is dressed up as a religious matter than that is a problem for the religious, not for the Mayor.

And if religous choose to participate in a political matter and express political opinions, then opposing those political opinions is also not discriminating against het religion.


The mayor is acting as a bloodhound for gay rights. It's just that simple.



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 07:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by grey580

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.


I don't say these groups are my cup of tea, but they hardly advocate violence towards homosexuals. Inflammatory words, that's for sure, but violent actions.....no. Last I heard Exodus International, not that I researched them much, but they have distanced themselves from "curing" gay people. Exodus, as far as I know doesn't kidnap gays to "convert" them nor for people against their will. Again, not the kinds of groups I would give money to but not violent groups either. If they were, there would be Federal action coming down on them.

I'm sure these groups and others don't particularly like homosexuality, but they don't advocate violence towards them. You can oppose something with words (even not very nice words) and ideas last time I checked with our Founding documents.



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 07:25 PM
link   
Gay people wouldn't have to eat there if they didn't want to.



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 07:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by kaylaluv

Maybe the local franchisee hasn't, but the corporate office of Chick-Fil-A has donated lots and lots of money to anti-gay groups that are working very hard to keep gays from having equal rights. It's more than just a personal belief - it IS action against a group.


Again, is that illegal to do? I am pro-Life. Can I have my company donate money to causes I deem worthy, or is that not allowed?



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 07:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by ViktorHaze
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 

Why would I send him a letter?
I would imagine the neo nazi group operate out of one of the losers houses.
They don't require a license to operate, they aren't a public company....
If on the other hand they wanted to set up a recruiting office next door to the church, I'm sure the mayor would have something to say about it, and he should.
Are you saying he shouldn't, or is it only ok when christians are doing the hate rhetoric?


You brought up the KKK like somehow the Mayor really cared about keeping racism and bigotry out of the city. You also implied there wasn't such an organization operating within the city... that's how I read your post...and I just showed you that a neo nazi group did indeed exist in Boston. I wanted to know if you felt that strongly about keeping the city clean that you would send the Mayor a letter about it as you seem to feel about the Chik Fil A operating there.
Would you send a letter to the Mayor about that group operating in the city? Or is your scope of things you really care about limited to gay rights and other liberal groups?

But as a frame of reference you asked if KKK would be allowed to operate just because of it's ideas, and the answer is yes groups like that have been allowed to operate and even within Boston.
edit on 26-7-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 07:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by pavil

Originally posted by kaylaluv

Maybe the local franchisee hasn't, but the corporate office of Chick-Fil-A has donated lots and lots of money to anti-gay groups that are working very hard to keep gays from having equal rights. It's more than just a personal belief - it IS action against a group.


Again, is that illegal to do? I am pro-Life. Can I have my company donate money to causes I deem worthy, or is that not allowed?


I'm sure that Chick-Fil-A has very good lawyers to keep everything legal. I'm also sure the mayor of Boston has some pretty good lawyers too, so I suspect he won't do anything outside of the law. We'll just have to see what happens...




top topics



 
30
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join