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

Originally posted by OpinionatedB
reply to post by nenothtu

 

True!

except was gay marriage banned there or made legal? I thought it was legal there? Or am I confused?

No, it was banned, by a Constitutional Amendment.

And I do not think anyone would want to deny you your rights.... they know about the lawn

They CAN'T deny me my rights - but that doesn't keep them from trying to convince me they can, and trying to curtail them. I just don't allow it, and we all get along pretty well - so long as they stay offa my lawn!

I made it pink floyd... it was in the 70's rock category...

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

I'm nor even going to ask "which one is Pink?", but "Comfortably Numb" has a particularly pointed application in MY world at the moment!

NICE!

This guy rocks, even though he is not from NY....lo....J/K

Really though.....awsome. My kind of politics.

reply to post by BIHOTZ


You probably ought to check out this post. It seems he got tightened up a bit.

reply to post by charles1952


damn it....never mind. That's what inferior base ball does to you...makes you lose testicular fortitude.

What a wimp. My mayor breaks the law openly and calls for mass illegal police strikes to support his political ideas. He has balls, and that's why the country is turning the way it is. We are so scared to offend anyone that we act like cowards when it comes to defending our citizens from criminal government controlled from abroad.

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


I am glad you are for the government censoring speach they do not agree with. When you lose your freedom of speach do not complain, you have just given the government your approval.

reply to post by OccamsRazor04

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
I am glad you are for the government censoring speach they do not agree with. When you lose your freedom of speach do not complain, you have just given the government your approval.

Gosh, I must have read a different OP than you did... The mayor wasn't "censoring free speech", he was exercising HIS right to free speech. They both were. I have seen many occasions where a government official speaking his mind is seen as some sort of oppression of the people. Those people are citizens, who have all the same rights we do. People seem to forget that (as illustrated by people's disregard of Obama's privacy rights).

Using your logic here, I could say "I'm glad to see you only support free speech rights for certain people". They both spoke their minds. And as I said on page 13, here,

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
It is illegal for the mayor to prohibit Chick-Fil-A from setting up shop in Boston because the owner expressed his opinion, so if push comes to shove, Chick-Fil-A will win.

Both parties expressed their opinions. This is how free speech works in America. This is free speech at work! It's a beautiful thing!

Originally posted by yadda333

Originally posted by votan
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

And within his/her own memo/lette he/she/they is/are committing discrimination

kettle meet pot

Oppressors must be shown oppression to understand. They must see what it's like to not have equal rights, then maybe they will make a change.

so you stop a behavior by the same behavior.... christianity was oppressed under the romans now they oppress.... yeah that showed them. oh wait NO

Originally posted by faint1993
reply to post by benrl

 

I don't think the government is "stepping in". The mayor is just voicing his opinion. Using his right to free speech. Just like Chik Fil-A. He didn't say that they will not be allowed to obtain a permit. He was just saying that he disagreed with their stance and thinks that gays and gay supporters in Boston won't appreciate them being there.

There is a huge difference between the statements made by the two men.

The difference between the two is that one side of the issue spoken by the Chik Fil A CEO is clearly a freedom of religion one. The company is clearly founded by a person who is a staunch Christian - they even give up all business on Sunday, one of the more busy days for shopping and therefore fast food consumption because they believe their employees should have the day off for worship.

Part of that belief is that gay marriage is wrong. It is a private corporation lead by a citizen who has no authority or ability to change the laws or enforce any policy regarding taxation or zoning in the City of Boston other than his individual vote should he reside there. (Which I don’t think is the case.)

The other; however, is the Chief Executive of the City of Boston who has the authority to greatly affect the business in question through the use of aggressive zoning rules, to implement and enforce "equal rights" laws perhaps giving Chik Fil A special attention when conducting routine checks or inspections for compliance regarding health issues etc. He is supposed to be fair and impartial in dealing with all individuals and entities within his constituency.

It gives the perception of impropriety or bias towards this entity for statements that while indeed inflammatory are not illegal.

This perception should be avoided by public officials in the execution of their office.

Now if he'd have written a letter to the company and not used official letter head of his office and signed it "mayor of Boston i might buy it as his right to free speech. However, he is in effect abusing the authority of his office in an attempt to bully a private entity to conform to his personal view of morality. Thus the impropriety of his act....

reply to post by Golf66


I agree with you 100% Golf. I still wonder if the Mayor of Boston had used official letterhead to tell a business that does support gays :that they should strongly reconsider opening a store in Boston" if it would still be considered his right to free speech by the majority of this thread. I very sincerely doubt it.

reply to post by Cabalis

Originally posted by Cabalis
I still wonder if the Mayor of Boston had used official letterhead to tell a business that does support gays :that they should strongly reconsider opening a store in Boston" if it would still be considered his right to free speech by the majority of this thread.

I can't speak for the rest of the thread, but I have staunchly supported the free speech rights of Fred Phelps and his gang of misfits, so I think I would have supported the mayor's free speech rights in either case. But I agree with you. If the shoe had been on the other foot, many here would be on the other side of the fence. (Sorry for the mixed metaphor!)

Originally posted by charles1952
YES!!!!! SANITY PREVAILS!!!!

Boston Mayor Thomas Menino has stepped back from his threat to block Chick-Fil-A from opening a new store in the city.

His announcement comes a day after Antoine Dodson shared his definitive opinion about the controversy via YouTube.

According to the Boston Herald, Menino said, “I can’t do that. That would be interference to his rights to go there,” referring to company president Dan Cathy, who drew the mayor’s wrath by going public with his views against same-sex marriage.

The mayor added: “I make mistakes all the time. That’s a Menino-ism.”

dailycaller.com...

What prevailed was his attorneys telling him what kind of can of worms he was opening with his "official" letter threat, that's what prevailed.

reply to post by nenothtu


Huh? What Amendment banned homosexual marriage?

reply to post by EvilSadamClone

State Constitutional amendment. Thirty-one states have them now.

A friend turned me onto this article from 2007 regarding the Chick-Fil-A work environment...

The Cult of Chick-Fil-A

The fast-food purveyor seeks loyal employees and operators who believe serving chicken is God's work. Careful screening of new hires keeps it out of trouble.

"We tell applicants, 'If you don't intend to be here for life, you needn't apply,'" says Cathy, who opened his first restaurant in 1946.
...
That's not the only company mandate. Chick-fil-A's corporate mission, as stated on a plaque at company headquarters (and by Cathy), is to "glorify God."
...
They screen prospective operators for their loyalty, wholesome values and willingness to buy into Chick-fil-A's in-your-face Christian credo, espoused often by Cathy, an evangelical Southern Baptist who says "the Lord has never spoken to me, but I feel Chick-fil-A has been His gift."

There is a lot more in the article. It's worth the read. Like...

Loyalty to the company isn't the only thing that matters to Cathy, who wants married workers...

Hmmm... I wonder if gay married workers even have a chance! If all the franchises operate like this, I see some lawsuits ahead for the Chicken Man.

So, he doesn't discriminate, huh?

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

Their policies have been known for years (at least five, if your article is anything to go by), they are hated by a powerful segment of the "people who matter," and they haven't been sued or charged? (Ooops, I take that back, I know of one lawsuit filed by a Muslim worker a few years back. Something about mentioning Jesus.) Their poliicy remains untouched.

Why do you think that is?

reply to post by charles1952


Who are the "people who matter"?

reply to post by EvilSadamClone

Dear EvilSadamClone,

Thanks for catching that, I'm not surprised. I worried about it when I put it in. May I say that the supporters of gay marriage have a lot of money and influence, and that many Washington politicians support them?

If they filed suit and put on pressure it wouldn't be like if a member of the sovereign citizen movement tried to shut down a national company or change it's policies.

I was wondering, what would prevent a powerful group from bringing legal action against Chick-Fil-A? Especially since they've had more than enough time to prepare a case. (I don't expect you to know, or speak for them, just asking what you thought some possibilities might be.)

By the way, have I thanked you recently for being a sharp and fair poster? If not, shame on me. I do so thank you.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by charles1952


That is a better way to put it.

I have a strong dislike of that term "people who matter" because it strongly insinuates that only certain people matter in society, and only the right people matter in society, and they aren't Christians.

I'm tired of both groups doing what they can to exclude groups they don't want to include.

America is supposed to be for EVERYBODY, not just a few select people.

And i'd love to be part of a society where I'd matter to some people. As it is I don't matter to any of these two groups because I don't believe the right things, what everybody else in those groups think.

My motto is pretty much "Do what thou wilt at no harm to others".

And there's a lot of bigotry flying around this entire subject.

Which there shouldn't be.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Pretty much. It really speaks to the mentality of people that say such things, doesn't it? If it had been opposite my perception of both sides using their freedom of speech would remain, I just wouldn't be applauding the mayor in that scenario.

reply to post by charles1952

Thanks for catching that, I'm not surprised. I worried about it when I put it in. May I say that the supporters of gay marriage have a lot of money and influence, and that many Washington politicians support them?

Obviously not enough or the anti crowd has more money to inflate our pigs with. The thing is, gay marriage shouldn't be an issue anymore. Our "laws" are not supposed to based in religious dogma, doctrine or morality. The foundation of our nation is supposed to be liberty and equality for everyone, not just those 'we' find acceptable.

nenothtu-

I agree with your idealism that no one need ask the government for a damned thing, however, that is not reality at the moment, not en masse anyway. My point of contention with your stance though is that requesting permission, however foolish you may think it, to marry the adult that you love is only an option for heterosexual couples. Should not everyone have the freedom to foolishly ask the government to sanction their marriage?

I've also seen you state that civil unions grant the same 'benefits' as marriage. They do not. I hope that you never have to find out why, first hand, that a legal marriage is the only fail safe against greedy or vengeful immediate family.