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

Originally posted by Kali74I 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.

This issue is not a new one it has been around since governments have. The American government is only involved in the marriage industry for one reason - revenue. The sale of marriage licenses.

Dates back to English common law when you had to pay a tax to your "Lord" for the right to marry.

Most poor people at the time just got married by so stating in the public square. The "marriages"; however, were not legal in the eye of the church (which at the time was the same as the state) and the children were legally considered bastards. So there were often two classes of marriage. However, in a society where class was everything it really wasn't a social stigma unless one was wealthy enough to pay the tax. Peasants regularly ignored the marriage tax. They usually had no property for their children to inherit anyway so the point was moot.

I would like to see a system in which the government was not involved in marriage at all. One in which there was no difference under the law in standing for a person to be married or unmarried when it came to taxation, property ownership, or any other thing. It is really not necessary today when everyone has the ability to give another a POA or to will property to someone besides their wife upon death.

Get the government completely out of the marriage question all together. However, then the masses would scream when business owners were able to decide what if any benefits or advantages to whom and under what circumstances with regards to marriage.

It is a tricky issue IMO. I guess a lot of people want it both ways - they want the government out of their business as to who they can marry but they want to government to protect them when it comes to equality of recognition by thier employer for benifits. A private corperation should be able to decide it's own policy - period.

reply to post by benrl


Oh.. ok, but until that amendment comes you are going to recognize them as people and even argue on their side in this case.

LOL. Don't get all fiery to try to flip this around. You were the one taking the side of "corporations are people" which would also lead me to believe you haven't written any politicians.

Treating them as people is what's wrong with the country and you are treating corporations as people. I refuse to recognize it AND THAT is the ultimate stance.

Originally posted by Kali74
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.

I'm assuming that this comment is directed at me. I was doing nothing more than playing Devil's Advocate. How does this speak to my mentality exactly?

Originally posted by EvilSadamClone
reply to post by nenothtu

 

Huh? What Amendment banned homosexual marriage?

This one

You may have missed this post which sparked the one you are referring to, and specified that it was North Carolina where the Constitutional Amendment was passed - not the national level. That was what the phrase "I thought it was legal there" was referring to.

Originally posted by Kali74

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?

Yes, they should. As long as that doesn't infringe on some cleric's right somewhere to NOT perform the marriage if his religion does not allow it, they should absolutely be allowed to request GOVERNMENT permission for sanction of their union. That's why I prefer the term "Civil Union" to specify that it is a government arrangement, rather than a religious one. for what it's worth, I think the same term should apply to heterosexual couple who prefer to go the wholly civil route as well.

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.

I stand corrected. I've never been in a purely civil arrangement, and presumptuously assumed that rights under the law were rights under the law. I'm not sure what you mean by a failsafe against a greedy or vengeful family. When my wife died, I got nothing, nor did I want anything. Her kids took it all, and that was a full blown, bona fide and government approved marriage, with all the bells and whistles. It didn't bother me that her kids took everything - I wasn't in it for the money, anyhow, and once she was gone, what use did I have for any of her inanimate "stuff"? That's not why I married her to begin with.

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

difficult to put much commentary into this - except good for him!

I'm going to "celebrate" free speech tomorrow and bring my kids to Chik-fil-A. And I'm an athiest, so go figure. They deserve our business and hopefully will find several good spots in Boston to open up. I'm really sick of this type of crap -- it's just thought control on a mass scale.

reply to post by nenothtu


Again I agree with your idealism, you are much like myself in how I view a romantic partnership of any standing. I just know that many gay couples that had civil unions could still be shut out in the decision making process of a health crisis or death and then left out in the cold should the worst happen. I know that it does indeed happen with hetero married couples but it seems to be a common tragic theme for gay couples. A Last Will, power of attorney etc... should count, but often they do not.

Meh. I'm still going to eat there.

He is entitled to his opinions. I am as well. I am not going to have GLAAD try to program me into redefining what is "normal".

Don't like it? Too bad. Don't eat there. Go take your homosexual self somewhere else to eat. He is entitled to his opinion just as much as the gay propaganda machine is.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


The point remains is that Chik whatever, is a business.
They have a policy that stands against the rights of another group of society, and they are trying to hide behind freedom of religion in defending it.
Why do christians feel that that is ok?
You speak out of both sides of your mouth.
KKK is not a business, (but they are actually a christian group as well are they not?), they aren't applying for license to do anything.
The mayor and the council have a legal right to grant or not grant permits to operate businesses within city limits based on policy.
That is the deal, plain and simple.
Lets put it another way....if McDonald's came out and said they would no longer support christian children at their Ronald McDonald House, because they feel they are a non religious organisation?
Should they not be skewered for that?
What if they decided the same thing about children from same sex couples?
That would be fine with you I guess, right?

Originally posted by Rockpuck
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

All I saw here was: "Damn your freedom of speech, we don't like your opinions so you cannot do business in our city"

Perhaps Boston should try and revoke rights of opponents to gay marriage to live in the city as well?

Agreed. I'm bisexual myself and I have been disturbed by the behavior of gay rights advocates during these episodes. I don't think you go about advocating for one person's rights by trying to take away someone else's. I guess it's typical liberalism.

Most of the people who are getting all high and mighty about this are not even gay.

reply to post by ViktorHaze

You speak out of both sides of your mouth.

Me? Not sure why you are saying that.

KKK Christian? Well I wouldn't know that but Dodds Byrd was a Democrat when he was KKK.
What wikipedia says is:

The first Klan was founded in 1865 in Pulaski, Tennessee, by six veterans of the Confederate Army.[15] The name is probably from the Greek word kuklos (κύκλος) which means circle, suggesting a circle or band of brothers.[16]

en.wikipedia.org...

Soooo, I'm guessing Southern former slave owners or people who advocated slavery.

Wiki states further:

Although there was no organizational structure above the local level, similar groups arose across the South, adopting the name and methods.[17] Klan groups spread throughout the South as an insurgent movement during the Reconstruction era in the United States. As a secret vigilante group, the Klan targeted freedmen and their allies; it sought to restore white supremacy by threats and violence, including murder, against black and white Republicans.

So Christian or not, it appears to have been Southern Democrat and against Northern Republicans. That would be consistent with the history of the civil war wouldn't it? Democrats were also Progressive during the Wilson presidency and embraced eugenics.
According to wiki, the second KKK involved disputes between Catholics and Protestants

The second KKK preached "One Hundred Percent Americanism" and demanded the purification of politics, calling for strict morality and better enforcement of prohibition. Its official rhetoric focused on the threat of the Catholic Church, using anti-Catholicism and nativism.[19] Its appeal was directed exclusively at white Protestants

I would point out that Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are both "Catholic" and both pro Choice, so I cannot say I agree with someone just because they pretend affiliation with one group or another, and certainly there have been many Democrat Catholics.
Dick Gephardt of 3rd district in my hometown is Baptist and was pro Life then switched to pro Choice, presumably when it became a party agenda.

I don't agree with everyone just because they have an affiliation with a Christian church. I happen to be Republican who supports Ron Paul.

Another wiki entry states thus

Historian Eric Foner observed:
In effect, the Klan was a military force serving the interests of the Democratic party, the planter class, and all those who desired restoration of white supremacy. Its purposes were political, but political in the broadest sense, for it sought to affect power relations, both public and private, throughout Southern society. It aimed to reverse the interlocking changes sweeping over the South during Reconstruction: to destroy the Republican party's infrastructure, undermine the Reconstruction state, reestablish control of the black labor force, and restore racial subordination in every aspect of Southern life.[42]

So I guess that's where we are today, the Democrat Party now has the black vote, ironically.

Sooo which would you prefer to attack first, Southern Democrats or Republicans?

Remember you brought up the KKK in this thread first. If you considered KKK to be rite wing, then why did it start with Southern Democrats?

Oh, I might add that Marxism has been infiltrating the Church in recent years.

reply to post by ViktorHaze

if McDonald's came out and said they would no longer support christian children at their Ronald McDonald House, because they feel they are a non religious organisation?

Again, Starbucks actively supports La Voz de la Raza(The voice of the Race) which is entirely to promote a particular segment of society and la Raza promotes illegal immigration, so tell me when did anyone not allow a Starbucks due to their specific ideals?

While we are on the subject of businesses which have opinions on hot button issues, let's take the example of the liberal owned Whole Foods store which opposed Obamacare and the liberal left staged a boycott of Whole Foods, and who came to the rescue of Whole Foods, but the Tea Party.
Strange things happen.
www.huffingtonpost.com...

yea mumbles menino is an idiot !!!! who care if they are agianst mo's tieing the knot i love their food,

If he is planning on banning Chick-Fil-A, it's just a waste of time considering that it will probably not gain much business in Boston (given it's current public image). I can understand why he would want to do it, but still.

Originally posted by thomas81z
yea mumbles menino is an idiot !!!! who care if they are agianst mo's tieing the knot i love their food,

What a stupid comment. There's more to it than the spokesman's silly, childish views on gay marraige-They also donate their money to anti-gay groups, which is a slap to the face to the rational people who eat there.

Originally posted by Rockpuck
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

All I saw here was: "Damn your freedom of speech, we don't like your opinions so you cannot do business in our city"

Perhaps Boston should try and revoke rights of opponents to gay marriage to live in the city as well?

Agreed.

The irony here is that the city of Boston was labelling someone "prejudicial" while at the same time slamming the door on their right to free speech.

Way to talk out of both sides of your face.

FAIL

Originally posted by HIWATT

Originally posted by Rockpuck
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

All I saw here was: "Damn your freedom of speech, we don't like your opinions so you cannot do business in our city"

Agreed.

The irony here is that the city of Boston was labelling someone "prejudicial" while at the same time slamming the door on their right to free speech.

Way to talk out of both sides of your face.

FAIL

Why do peole keep spouting this BS?

the letter doesnt' stop CFA saying what hety want or holding whatever opinion they ant - it says "We don't like your opinion, and so we don't want you hav ing any shops here"

1/ the mayor has NOT stoped CFA saying what they like
2/ the Mayor ALSO has a right to say what he likes (funny how you're not defending HIS right to free speech!)
3/ the Mayor (and anyone else) also has a right to object to whatever processes are erquiref should CFA want to set up shop in Boston, according to the appropraite legal provisions.

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by HIWATT

Originally posted by Rockpuck
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

All I saw here was: "Damn your freedom of speech, we don't like your opinions so you cannot do business in our city"

Agreed.

The irony here is that the city of Boston was labelling someone "prejudicial" while at the same time slamming the door on their right to free speech.

Way to talk out of both sides of your face.

FAIL

Why do peole keep spouting this BS?

the letter doesnt' stop CFA saying what hety want or holding whatever opinion they ant - it says "We don't like your opinion, and so we don't want you hav ing any shops here"

1/ the mayor has NOT stoped CFA saying what they like
2/ the Mayor ALSO has a right to say what he likes (funny how you're not defending HIS right to free speech!)
3/ the Mayor (and anyone else) also has a right to object to whatever processes are erquiref should CFA want to set up shop in Boston, according to the appropraite legal provisions.

I think you misunderstood me. I wasn't implying that the city of Boston had any real power to actually strip the right to free speech from anyone, rather my comment about "slamming the door" was with regards to their attitude towards CFA and their right to say anything they want.... yes the Mayor has the right to say what he wants as well... hence the word IRONY at the beginning of my last comment, and that being the entire point of my post


btw, when i said "way to talk out of both sides of your face" I was not speaking/responding to you, rather the Mayor... again: irony = my point

(just making sure you didn't think I was attacking you there)

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

History is written by the victors. If I may add to your post from a more intimate perspective...

The Klan actually existed well before the Civil War, although it was much more secretive. It was not racist in those days, at least no more than society in general. Its purpose was to address wrongs which the local law would not or could not, including severe wife-beating, theft which had not been formally proven, laziness, etc. In those early days law was pretty much for those who were in the right circles, and looked the other way when someone else needed them.

It began as Christian secret vigilante groups who would single out those who were committing the wrongs. The burning cross in the yard was a clear warning: shape up or else. If ignored, the wrongdoer would be beaten severely and in some cases hung if he didn't change his ways. Since these groups operated outside (and often in opposition to) the law, members on a mission wore white hoods; white symbolized purity of faith and the hoods allowed anonymity.

Attacks against blacks were rare, although part of this rarity could be attributed to the fact so few blacks at that time were free.

The KKK became more official after the war. It's purpose came to be to protect the population from carpetbaggers, increasing the need for such a group and increasing membership greatly. It wasn't long until the focus shifted from carpetbaggers who generally were not in the local area for very long anyway, to blacks who served as a reminder of what was happening to Southern culture at the hands of Reconstruction.

The history books get a lot more accurate after that. And no, I have never been a member, although I was invited to join twice. I don't need help to hate, especially from what they became.

It is also true that the major supporters of the KKK after the war were Democrats, since it was the first Republican President, Abraham Lincoln, who started the war. It was difficult to find a Southern Republican not in a graveyard. I still find it a bit confusing how sides have shifted since then... today most Southern states vote Republican, and Democrats who once supported slavery routinely court the "black vote"... although local politics still revolves around the Democratic party.

TheRedneck

Although these city leaders, mayors, etc. cannot legally prevent Chick-fil-A from doing business there if they want to solely because of the companies beliefs, what can be done is to diminish the companies' value in moving to the area. And that is what is happening here. You are not welcome here is basically what is being said. And they aren't welcome in the Northeast, by and large. CFA is a Southern store, with (quite frankly) Southern conservative values. So that won't play in Boston. And it won't play in Chicago. CFA should get the message and stick to where they are wanted.

Fast food is gross, anyway. So the way I see it, if people want to shave years off their lives to make a mostly insignificant stand against homosexuality, be my guest.