City of Boston`s Letter To Chick-Fil-A [Pic]

Submitted by: Britta99 4 years ago

Mayor of Boston tell Chick-fil-A they aren"t wanted. Wicked pissah.
There are 113 comments:
Male 2,357
@patchgrabber: This is where you went wrong - "Lastly, if you think about why laws are made, it is assumed they are meant to represent the prevailing attitudes in that society." Our framers did not have this belief.

"A wise and frugal government which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government." – Thomas Jefferson (1801)

"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." – Thomas Jefferson

0
Reply
Male 2,357
@patchgrabber: So it`s fine to limit liberties as long as we do it to minority groups? So, race and gender discrimination was fine in the past, because, at that time, it was deemed appropriate by the majority?

"Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government`s purposes are beneficial … the greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding." – Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis, 1928

@Lillian: "Free speech is not the same as the right to say anything you want without disagreement or consequence (and no, I don`t mean legal consequence)" + "I`m not a libertarian" ... How are both of these statements simultaneously possible? :-O Hehe, I couldn`t help myself =P.
0
Reply
Female 2,674
I`m not surprised that McGovern is one of the people who fail to realize that it`s possible to exercise your right to free speech to counter what someone else has said, without wanting to restrict their right to free speech. Free speech is not the same as the right to say anything you want without disagreement or consequence (and no, I don`t mean legal consequence).
0
Reply
Female 2,674
patchgrabber, the vast amount of discussed poly relationships are polygamous, 1 man many women marriages, but other types of poly relationships exist and are becoming increasingly popular and more common as people`s views of loving relationships are changing, whether or not they are discussed as often. I cannot justify banning or demonizing poly relationships just because a few may be harmful to women, when there are many that aren`t harmful to anyone involved. Three people loving each other isn`t any different from two people loving each other imo, but you`re lumping the three people loving each other into the same group as 1 man with many women who "love" and are married him and are in a possibly harmful relationship. There are harmful 2-person marriages too, but that`s not a reason to ban 2-person marriages. You can`t just ignore the perfectly healthy and loving poly relationships or justify denying them rights for things they haven`t done.
0
Reply
Male 14,330
The far left....
0
Reply
Male 58
In other words Boston is very accepting of people they agree with, yet will not accept people they don`t agree with (chickfila)? Sounds like discrimination...
0
Reply
Male 5,811
@Lillian: No, not all relationships are 1 man many women, and if you use the strictest sense of the word "polygamy" it doesn`t refer specifically to that definition. However, you have to consider a few things. Like how the overwhelming majority of polygamous marriages are 1 man and multiple women, so that form of it would be the standard. Second, this type of marriage has been shown to produce the types of harm I discussed earlier. Lastly, if you think about why laws are made, it is assumed they are meant to represent the prevailing attitudes in that society. There are orders of magnitude more gay couples than polygamous relationships, and is it worth the potential harm to women in these relationships to allow a paltry number of ones that will actually do no harm?
0
Reply
Male 10,440
well all right Boston! Catching up to the rest of the world, I see. Good on you.
0
Reply
Female 2,674
@5Cats - I don`t mind you cutting down quotes for space. It`s cutting down quotes in order to make it look like it`s in agreement with you, and ignoring the overall meaning of the actual quote, that I have a problem with. And you`ve done that multiple times.

HumanAction, I`m not a libertarian, I just don`t see anything wrong with poly relationships in general and, if we can figure out how to work out those marriages legally, I`d be fine with it. They aren`t inherently bad just because there`s been some bad poly marriages in history. Thanks though :3

"If the incestuous couple (or incestuous polygamous group!) doesn`t make babies, it`s OK then?"
As long as everyone`s over 18, I`m fine with it.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@LillianDulci: A well stated-argument. Perhaps you are more libertarian that I thought =P.

@5Cats: Eh, that`s fair. My statement - "and is rightfully made illegal (by the states)" - was overly biased (let`s see if a liberal would ever admit that, hehe); just because I am against it does not give me the right to infringe on the actions of others. I still stand by my argument that it would be fine to introduce that type of legislation at a state level though.
0
Reply
Male 36,509
@patchy & @HumanAction: If the incestuous couple (or incestuous polygamous group!) doesn`t make babies, it`s OK then>? Great! Modern technology can easily take care of that!
Lolz!

[quote]but one cannot argue that these problems DO happen[/quote]
Because others have problems with polygamy, it should be illegal for EVERYONE?
Sorry, but of both Allah and Muhammed say it`s OK? You`re not likely to convince the entirety of Islam to change their laws/minds about it.

@LillianDulci: Chopping up quotes is a neccessary evil at IAB! That darn charecter count! I even shorten peoples` names! If someone reading it is concerned or confused, they can simply scroll down and read the whole thing, eh?
0
Reply
Female 2,674
patchgrabber, not all multiple marriages are polygamous marriages (involving 1 man with many women who aren`t married to each other) so the arguments against poly marriages (even if the arguments are against polygamy alone, such arguments are still restricting rights of other poly relationships) doesn`t really hold. There`s polygamy where a bunch of women are married to 1 man. There`s also many men being married to 1 woman. There`s also a bunch of people, a mixture of both men and women, who are married to each other equally. There`s also 1 man married to women who are married to each other. There`s also 1 woman married to men who are married to each other. There`s also groups of people who are married to each other but not necessarily to everyone in the group. etc. Are all of these wrong just because 1 situation is wrong? My only issue is figuring out how to treat these in the law.
0
Reply
Female 2,674
I would respond to what 5cats responded to me, but instead I`m just gonna say you REALLY need to stop cutting statements in half and pretending they agree with your position and ignoring what the person was actually saying. I`ve seen you do it multiple times, not just to me, in this discussion alone. It`s annoying and dishonest and discourages replies.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@patchgrabber: "the liberties of women in polygamous societies ARE threatened"

Fair enough. I`ll counter that by saying, if we have legislation preventing polygamous societies, then the liberties of ALL PEOPLE are also threatened. People in general would not be FREE to marry however many others they wish to.

My entire point is simply that, as is in most cases, culture and morality will dictate actions, not laws. Without morality (as a specific culture sees it), laws will have no effect.

Prohibition is a widespread example of this.

How many laws would it take, and how many liberties would be destroyed to save everyone? Is it worth it? I say no, though that is my opinion.
0
Reply
Male 5,811
@HA: My incest example was not so much a comparison to polygamy but rather an example of the typical slippery-slope argument presented by opponents of same-sex marriage. If you are saying that your personal liberties aren`t harmed, that may be the case, but the liberties of women in polygamous societies ARE threatened through coercion and the other harms which I have already stated.
0
Reply
Male 2,737
The only person that the mayor of bean town is hurting is the people of Boston.What an ass.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@patchgrabber: Well now, I don`t necessarily concede that the logical endpoint of polygamy is incest; perhaps I`ve misunderstood your comparison.

While incest can directly be linked to genetic consequences - and is rightfully made illegal (by the states) - polygamy has no such evidence.

That being said, the actions of multiple consenting adults do not directly infringe upon any of my individual liberties, so I have no place telling them not to do it.

However, if a state government decides to outlaw it, then so be it.
0
Reply
Male 5,811
cont`d:

If you want to continue with your logic and say that incest should be legal, it is clear that permitting these relationships will lead to power imbalances, psychological damage, sexual abuse, and a high rate of genetic diseases. Again, the basis for society`s objection is not a religious one based on "family values" but one based on provable harm to society.
0
Reply
Male 5,811
[quote]The EXACT same reasons for allowing Gay Marriage apply EXACTLY the same to polygamy for Muslims.[/quote]
No. No they don`t, you`re oversimplifying polygamy. There are specific dangers with polygamy, which is inherently conducive to power imbalances, sexual subjugation, and other abuses that do not inherently exist in the case of same-sex marriage. Now I`m not saying ALL polygamous marriages result in these problems, but one cannot argue that these problems DO happen and are quite pervasive in societies that engage in polygamy. Show me one peer-reviewed, modern, mainstream study demonstrating the inherent dangers of gay marriage. You will not find it.
0
Reply
Male 5,811
I don`t think he can stop them from setting up a business, although since I have no experience with opening a franchise restaurant I could be mistaken.

That being said I couldn`t believe that the guy said those comments, I just read them on perezhilton.com and I want to tell all of you to leave him alone, it`s his own personal business.
0
Reply
Male 14,330
Does this mean mumbles will be demolishing all churches in The peoples republic of Boston/Massachusetts??
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@patchgrabber: Touche 8-) - I touched that in an earlier comment, but yes, it is certainly not free.
0
Reply
Male 14,330
Check this site for hilarous Mumbles quotes.

I don`t see him calling Rayjon Rondo Hondo though that`s a good one.

Or the bruins speech BWUAHAHAHAH!!
0
Reply
Male 5,811
[quote]This is something the free market can figure out[/quote]
You say that like it`s actually free.
0
Reply
Male 1,010
I am seriously considering crapping in a shoebox and mail it to netetrader.com.

Seriously I picture my self crouching over that shoe box and I`m all serious about it too, not even smiling just giving them a huge dump of "i smoked pot yesterday and went to KFC and this morning i drank a triple espresso- proportions- s*it", put it in the real- life mailbox and write "stop advertising, we hate you", with regards from The Internet.
0
Reply
Male 5,568
@5Cats,
Personally, I don`t care about the personal opinion of the Chick-fil-A CEO regarding gays and gay marriage, for or against. I am "for", he has the right to be "against". Reports, however, are that the corporation, through its charitable arm, actively supports anti-gay groups. This is significantly well beyond personal opinion. Assuming these reports are correct, this IS active corporate bigotry and boycotting is NOT, therefore, anti-Christian, as you ignorantly state, it is anti-bigotry.
0
Reply
Male 37,889

GhettoNinja, [quote]"Chick Fil A is not a person, freedom of speech does not apply." [/quote]
The CEO of C-F-A is a person. He`s donating C.F.A.`s money so the company get`s boycotted.

And besides, according to Mitt Romney & the Supremes...

0
Reply
Male 1,010
Freedom of speech extends to corporations as well as people in all countries all over the world, who have implemented basic human rights.

Media corporations, newspapers etc. are good examples.

The corporate person-hood is about being able to sue/ get sued in court.
0
Reply
Male 14,330
Ahhh mayor mumbels being the usual moron he is. I don`t support the chains views but that dosen`t mean you can not allow it to open a business. If you don`t like them don`t go there and they will fail but to not allow them to open a shop is violation their rights. Mumbles also wants to ban large sodas.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@TruTenrMan: Exactly.

I wonder if we would be having this discussion in this situation:

A successful black business owner states that he does not care for white people; or, a successful business-woman declares that she does not care for men... Would we care as much, or do we only care because "gay-rights" are the "in" thing now?

Why is it that we only care when minorities are discriminated against?

Also, by forcing PRIVATE BUSINESS OWNERS not to discriminate, we limit their freedoms. For example, is Chick-Fil-A allowed to withhold sales from white people if they so choose? No; well I beg the question again, why not? Do we not, as individuals have the right to discriminate, and since we are discussing private business, should they not have the same protections?

This is something the free market can figure out; government does not need to be involved.
0
Reply
Male 12
http://www.netetrader.com ---

free shipping
competitive price
any size available
accept the paypal

Air jordan(1-24)shoes $33

Nike shox(R4,NZ,OZ,TL1,TL 2,TL3) $35

Handbags(Coach lv fendi d&g) $35

Tshirts (ed hardy,lacoste) $16

Jean(True Religion,ed hardy,coogi) $30

Sunglasses(Oakey, coach,gucci,Armaini) $16

New era cap $15

Bikini (Ed hardy) $25

--- http://www.mineokmalls.com


[0p9=-
0
Reply
Male 452
I would agree with you GhettoNinja but unfortunately the Supreme Court doesn`t. Free speech extends to corporations as it would towards any association of individuals. Look up Corporate Personhood or United Citizens v. Federal Election Commision.
0
Reply
Male 2,552
This is so stupid.

Fact: The statement made by the CEO of Chick-Fil-A was NOT an official press release from the company. It was an answer to a question asked by a reporter.

Fact: The Mayor can bitch all he wants, if Chick-Fil-A followed the law, and legally obtained property, permits, etc., then they are here to stay.

Fact: If you disagree with what one person in the company says, you have the freedom to stop going there and giving them money.

Simple. End of story. God, drop it already.
0
Reply
Male 500
You are missing the main point: Lillian was damn cute in her dark side days. :P
0
Reply
Male 886
Chick Fil A is not a person, freedom of speech does not apply.

When I hear of a mother giving birth to a corporation, then I will begin to think of them as individuals.

0
Reply
Male 621
What the hell is Chick-fil-a?
0
Reply
Male 440
It`s not Chick-fil-a that`s biased, it`s the doofus CEO that`s biased.
0
Reply
Male 452
As if refusing business licenses as a means to stifle free speech is not the epitome of discrimination? Seriously, It`s not like they hand out anti-gay propaganda with every combo. Let the people of Boston choose for themselves whether they would rather fight with their wallets or consume delicious chicken.
0
Reply
Male 642
[quote]I don`t understand why the government is allowed to have an opinion about marriage. It`s none of their business.[/quote]

You can either get married by church (haha... good luck with same sex marriage there) or by the state/country. Only those 2 recognize marriages. So if you want to get married you seek approval of your status. You can`t just go around and say "oops I`m married" and think that counts.

So it really is all of their business to have an opinion about something that they conduct. It`s like you saying the state shouldn`t have an opinion on laws.. they make the laws, they should very well have an opinion about it.

Not sayin anything about which opinion is the right one, but yes, they should have one.
0
Reply
Male 10,339
@onoffonoffon: Marriage is a legal contract for tax purposes.

That`s the definition for those of us who do not believe in God anyway.
0
Reply
Male 36,509
[quote]since our current system only allows for 2 people.[/quote]
AND THUS discriminates against Muslims, which is EXACTLY what I said!
The EXACT same reasons for allowing Gay Marriage apply EXACTLY the same to polygamy for Muslims.

Sure: not ALL Muslims engage in polgamy, it`s their choice to have "only" one wife.

BUT: it`s both the the word of Allah AND the word of the Prophet (who had 10 wives) that polygamy IS LAW for Islam.

[quote]Being anti-gay is wrong no matter what religion...[/quote]
HAHAHAAhahahaha! Oh so funny!
0
Reply
Male 36,509
[quote]So I`M not allowed to boycott a company as a form of protest because YOU don`t agree with my reasons? What happened to free speech, 5Cats?[/quote]
@LilianDulci: WHERE EXACTLY did I even suggest you "cannot boycot"? Hummm? I`m simply pointing out that BY boycotting you`re being MORE bigoted than the "bigot" you object to.
I have never ONCE said or even suggested you cannot choose to boycot! No matter how stupid it may be.
So there!

@paperduck: nice one!

[quote]and not Muslims who want to get married want to have polygamous marriages[/quote]
ALL MUSLIMS support polygamy or they aren`t "Muslims" ok? It`s the word of Allah! Just because they hide it in countries where polygamy is "illegal" doesn`t mean they oppose polygamy!

Talk about "lapse" of logic!!! srsly!

0
Reply
Male 37,889

continued:

Just becaue you don`t like how someone lives their life you do not have the moral authority to dictate by what terms they must live their life. "I don`t like Jugaloos so I can ban face painting"...that`s the anti-gay marriage mentality.
0
Reply
Male 10,339
@buiadh: [quote]Why is a company making political statements anyway?[/quote]

That`s the thing. THEY AREN`T!

Dan Cathy made an off handed comment on how he feels PERSONALLY about gay marriage, and now there`s an uproar and threats to boycott his company, even though the thoughts of a man do not represents the policy of a company.

Less than 2 months ago, Barack Obama was against gay marriage, but not a drat was given.
0
Reply
Male 37,889

MitchDaComic, [/quote]"Should we let homosexuals get married? Next is people with animals and then people with robots. Once you allow the door opened it flies wide open." [/quote]
You make two points.
The first: animals and robots. Rediculous arguements that having nothing to do with the topic. Same Sex marriages involve consenting, informed adults. By comparing that union with animals is both ignorant and insulting. The same arguement was made for allowing blacks to marry whites.

Second - the Wide Open Door arguement. I think that is the real heart of the opposition. If gays could marry, then Cody Brown would be free to marry all 4 of his wives. While I`m not looking for a plural marriage, I would not impose my belief on those 5 consenting adults. My beliefs cannot be imposed on their lives. Their religion and morality say it`s okay and their union(s) have zero impact on mine so let`s let them, and me, get married.

to be continued
0
Reply
Male 6,737
Why is a company making political statements anyway? I certainly wouldn`t buy anything from such a backward militant brand.
0
Reply
Male 1,397
If that`s their outlook, then that`s their business. Good for them standing up for what they believe. Of course, it won`t suit the Gay Mafia. Well boo hoo for you! Don`t know what the hoo ha about gay marriage is in the US anyway. Who gives a poo?
0
Reply
Male 10,339
I don`t care who they donate to.

They don`t make those donations with your money, they make them with their money.

You exchanged your money, for one of their sandwiches. It then becomes their money.

I am a consumer based on products. Not touchy feely whaa whaa. They have good chicken sandwiches, so I buy them.

I also like Starbucks, and their president is one of the most liberal non-nice individuals on the planet. I don`t give a crap. I give them money for their coffee, not their politics.
0
Reply
Male 19
@Gerry101: Would you advocate for a business that doesn`t hire jews? Or blacks can only be janitors not executives? Married women must retire to the home? Once you allow the door opened it flies wide open.

Should we let homosexuals get married? Next is people with animals and then people with robots. Once you allow the door opened it flies wide open.
0
Reply
Female 2,674
" donated to an anti gay whatever. "

They`ve donated millions of dollars to anti-gay organizations. That means, if I buy food from them, they`re spending a portion of the money I give them to donate to causes I don`t support. Just because they do good sometimes doesn`t mean the bad should be excused. There are other companies that donate to good causes too, and don`t donate to anti-gay causes.
0
Reply
Male 10,339
Also, so what if they catered or donated to an anti gay whatever.

They cater any event asked, and they donate food to many homeless organizations, missions, and other good works.
0
Reply
Male 10,339
Oh good lord. Chik-fil-A shouldn`t suffer for the PERSONAL feelings of the management.

I will bet you $100 that if a married gay couple walked into one of their restaurants, not only would they be served, it would be with great service, and a smile, because that`s what Chick-fil-A is known for.

Freedom. Of. Speech. By the owner, not the company at large.
0
Reply
Male 2,545
@LillianDulci

i never said you were bad. i have my own opinions on all types of marriage. im not saying whats right or wrong. im saying its hypocritical.

[quote]Actually prohibiting gay people from getting married and supporting organizations that fight to prohibit gay people from getting married is another[/quote]

so, if you dont want to support the chicken place, then you should stop paying the federal government as-well...its not like sandwiches make laws. or hell, maybe they do these days

0
Reply
Female 2,674
Andrew155, OldOllie isn`t a liberal. He was using sarcasm as a way of insulting liberals rather than contributing to the discussion.
0
Reply
Female 2,674
"YOU SAID that to object to (or oppose) "gay marriage" is defacto "anti-gay"
I SAID that to oppose polygamy is defacto "anti-Muslim" "

You made a giant lapse in logic here, 5Cats. Anti gay marriage is anti-gay because it`s restricting the rights of gay people. All gay people who want to get married would want to get "gay married". And all people wanting to get "gay married" would be gay.

The same is not true for polygamy. Not all people who want to have a polygamous marriage are Muslim, and not Muslims who want to get married want to have polygamous marriages, so you can`t call it anti-Muslim. The issue of polygamy or multiple marriages in general is irrelevant to the religions involved (if any are at all). My only problem with it personally is that I don`t know how such marriages will be dealt with legally, since our current system only allows for 2 people.
0
Reply
Female 2,674
" how can you be open minded and not accept the fact that some people dont like gay marriage?"
Ah, the tired old "you oppose us restricting others rights so you`re the bad guys and we`re the victims" argument. Not liking gay marriage is one thing. Actually prohibiting gay people from getting married and supporting organizations that fight to prohibit gay people from getting married is another. You can have your own opinions, just like people can think that interracial marriage is gross if they want to. But just like with interracial marriage being legal now, gay marriage should be to, despite the dissenting opinions.
0
Reply
Male 1,745
Hey Chic-Fil-A, you have freedom of speech as long as you don`t say something I disagree with.
0
Reply
Female 2,674
"Last time I checked, having a "Minority Opinion" was allowed under US laws, yes?
OK then! Until Cathy actually BREAKS A LAW then boycotting his business is indeed BIGOTRY and Anti-Christian Discrimination.
Plain and simple. "
So I`M not allowed to boycott a company as a form of protest because YOU don`t agree with my reasons? What happened to free speech, 5Cats? I can`t have it cause I`m not a corporation? The statements aren`t the only reasons. They also send a portion of their money to anti-gay causes. Sounds like a pretty good reason to boycott a company to me. It`s not discrimination to boycott a company who both supports and advocates for discriminatory legislation.

"Goto a Muslim resteraunt and ask..."
Why do you think I care what religion the person is? Being anti-gay is wrong no matter what religion or gender or race or age or nationality the person is.
0
Reply
Female 470
Andrew155, I agree with you.

The laws will get passed or they won`t get passed. If they get passed, I`ll be glad, but I`m not going to stop living my life the way I please because someone doesn`t agree with the way I live. If I want to have a chicken sandwich at Chic Fil A, then damnit, I`m going to. Is it really going to make a difference if I continue to eat there? Probably about as much as if Chic-Fil-A didn`t exist at all.

It`s not like Chic-Fil-A is keeping gay marriage from becoming legal. Chic-fil-a has no control over that. Sure, they can vote, but not everyone that eats at or is associated with Chic-Fil-A is going to vote the same way and you can`t really predict how something like that is going to turn out, anyway. So why worry about it? Shut up and eat your damn sandwich.
0
Reply
Male 37,889

5Cats - you`re confusing me. I stand by what I think I didn`t say!
0
Reply
Male 2,578
When people like you say that, that`s why Liberals get the stereotype of being up their own ass and liking the smell of their own farts.
0
Reply
Male 15,832
Liberals are so much more tolerant than conservatives.
0
Reply
Male 36,509
@Andrew155: Greyhound Bus Lines not only supports a woman`s right to choose, they actively encourage women to have abortions BEFORE they ride!
Ever since that song Ramblin Man came out...
0
Reply
Male 36,509
@Gerry1: Now I`m confused:

"I do not think institutionalized discrimination is good for society as a whole."
= Inst Disc IS NOT GOOD. We should avoid it.

"I do not think institutionalized discrimination is NOT good for society as a whole."
= Inst Disc IS GOOD. We should have it!

Not hiring blacks or Jews IS illegal, but Chick-Fil-A hasn`t done that to gays at all! Ever!
0
Reply
Male 2,578
I still don`t care. Why is it anyone`s business what individual companies think about various political issues. I wonder if McDonald`s is pro War on Terror. I wonder if Walmart supports the death penalty. I wonder if Delta Airlines approves of illegal immigration.

Most importantly, does Greyhound support a woman`s right to choose???? I have to know before I can use their service. This is most urgent.
0
Reply
Male 36,509
[quote]And the starting point is basic f*cking human rights.[/quote]
Like the right to follow the Laws of Allah and have 4 wives! Oh wait, YOU don`t agree so it`s NOT their right...

Gays have marriage rights, but Muslims do not. ic!
/sarc

Yes, Deist is the correct answer!
0
Reply
Male 61
poo skypirate is right...
0
Reply
Male 36,509
[quote]Ah the old "slippery slope" logical fallacy.[/quote]
NOT in the slightest @davymid!
YOU SAID that to object to (or oppose) "gay marriage" is defacto "anti-gay"
I SAID that to oppose polygamy is defacto "anti-Muslim"

No slopes involved: just YOUR "logic" applied in a logical fashion!
HINT: It`s your "logic" that is F*cking Bullcum, eh?
For Example: I oppose(d) the notion of changing the legal definition of marriage PERIOD. The "gay" part had NOTHING to do with it!

I frequently DO USE the slippery slope, but not here!

@skypirate Well said!

@talon325: IT IS ILLEGAL for a gov`t official (Mayor in this case) to discriminate against ANYONE based on 1st Amendment rights. Period! Link below!
PLUS: Cathy never said it.
0
Reply
Male 382
And it really boils down to Truett Cathy`s religious beliefs, and he believes that everyone should believe what he has been brought up on. The mayor of Boston simply stated that they would not like them in their city. And the paperwork by all the gays in city hall could take years to complete. Hey Truett, go to church and praise this ..I.,
0
Reply
Male 2,545
you know what really bothers me about people who claim to be open minded. its that they`re not in most cases. how can you be open minded and not accept the fact that some people dont like gay marriage? its literally saying [quote] we want to expand freedom, but in your case we can`t oblige because we feel your opinion is wrong. we only support the freedom to let gays marry, not the freedom to disagree with us.[/quote] people like to smoke, people like to shoot and own firearms...you have to open your minds both ways. you can disagree but treating someone because they believe something is kinda ignorant right? and hell, if you really think that not buying that chicken sandwich is supporting your beliefs then go for it.
0
Reply
Male 3,061
Still makes great chicken sandwiches.
0
Reply
Male 37,889

Woops! I said [quote]" I do not think institutionalized discrimination is good for society as a whole." [/quote]
I meant "not good" ... NOT. lol
0
Reply
Male 12,138
If that`s what they do in other parts of the world then that`s up to them. We`re supposed to be the shining light of civilisation, here in the "west". Let`s act like it. And the starting point is basic f*cking human rights.

Don`t point the finger at group X (in your case, Muslims, gays, whatever you`re fed), and point out how they`re horrible people. What is it you Christians say (or Deists in your case, whatever, I lose track after a while) - take the log out of your own eye before taking the splinter out of etc etc?

Dude, we`re not in Saudi Arabia. We`re in North America. Let`s act like it.
0
Reply
Male 12,138
[quote]@davymid: Being anti-polygamy (1 man, 4 women) is ANTI-MUSLIM!
Right?
Obviously!
So banhammer your Anti-Islamist butt this very instant![/quote]
Ah the old "slippery slope" logical fallacy. If we legalise gay marriage, then everyone will be f*cking horses up the bum and having 15 wives, children are fair game, and fire and brimstone will start raining down from the skies. Etc etc.

F*cking bullcum.
0
Reply
Female 3,562
I`m so proud of Menino, and my state of Massachusetts. It may be expensive as hell to live here, but the quality of life is absolutely superior to the rest of the country.
Also, Avatar John, your post made less sense than a screen door on a submarine. If Chic-a-fila was made of "people of conscience" they wouldn`t be discriminating to begin with.
Also, while we`re at it, can we ban the Boy Scouts? They do the same poo.
0
Reply
Male 382
Gerry, Did you read what you wrote? What rock did you crawl out from? Individuals are not "forced" to hang out with anyone. And if YOU join a private club, then do they not have certain rules that you ageed to before joining? You have a non white president and several other people of power in your country that may not fall into your perfect world , but they all got there on their ability, NOT on their religion or sexual desires, get used to people having the right to choose. Maybe , just grab your dog and old lady and get in your pickup and head back in the bush until it`s all over.
0
Reply
Male 1,059
It should be no wonder to anyone why Americans are fleeing the Northeast aNd California in droves. Discrimination against people of conscience, anti-business, complete insanity. Sad how Boston, a former bastion of freedom and American individualism has fallen into moral decay, European socialism and, to quote our beloved leader, "antipathy towards people different from them". So sad.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@Gerry1of1: Fair enough; I was just curious what your view was.

I certainly wouldn`t "advocate" any type of discrimination, however, I still think it is the right of the individual business owner to set their own policies - no matter how ridiculous. A free market will determine whether or not their policies are moral (ahem - if we had a free market that is).

Of course, this line of thought ONLY applies to private business; no public institution should be allowed to discriminate against ANYONE based on race, gender, sexual preference, etc.

Just my libertarian sense I guess =P.
0
Reply
Male 36,509
[quote]If the issue being discussed is gay rights, then yes.[/quote]
@LillianDulci: The question was: Do you support Christian Family Values. The answer was Yes!
Last time I checked, having a "Minority Opinion" was allowed under US laws, yes?
OK then! Until Cathy actually BREAKS A LAW then boycotting his business is indeed BIGOTRY and Anti-Christian Discrimination.
Plain and simple.
Goto a Muslim resteraunt and ask the owner what HE thinks of open gay marriage... I have! (accidentally) and guess what? He opposed it vigorously! Also blamed the Jews for it...

[quote]Way to go Nazi Mayor of BeanTown[/quote]
Thank goodness for @Gerry1! Restores my hope in IABer intelligence!

I point out, again, that it`s ILLEGAL for the Government to discriminate based on 1st Amendment rights.
0
Reply
Male 36,509
"Yes, being anti-gay marriage is the same thing as being anti-gay."

@davymid: Being anti-polygamy (1 man, 4 women) is ANTI-MUSLIM!
Right?
Obviously!
So banhammer your Anti-Islamist butt this very instant! (j/k! about the banhammer I mean).

@HolyGod: Because it`s ILLEGAL for the Government to discriminate based on 1st Amendment rights, that`s why!
Here`s An Article with THREE legal refrences.

I expect more of the same from the rest of the comments *sigh*

Supporting "Christian Marriage" is LEGAL in the USA yes? Has he broken any laws? NO! So get over it, YOU are the ones who are being bigots.
0
Reply
Female 470
They need to come up with another chicken place besides Zaxby`s. Zaxby`s is terrible for you. Chic-fil-a can fit into my diet plan. That`s why I still eat there. Guilt free fast food!
0
Reply
Female 357
The food is badass, you gotta admit.
Anybody else see Clerks II?
"You can`t taste racism."
0
Reply
Female 470
Am I a terrible person because I still eat there? I can`t get enough of the wraps.
0
Reply
Male 37,889

@ HumanAction - I am in favor of discrimination on a personal level. Individuals shouldn`t be foreced to hang with people they don`t want to, such as at private clubs etc. However I do not think institutionalized discrimination is good for society as a whole.

Would you advocate for a business that doesn`t hire jews? Or blacks can only be janitors not executives? Married women must retire to the home? Once you allow the door opened it flies wide open.
0
Reply
Female 31
BOO chick fil a-holes!!
0
Reply
Male 37,889

@ HolyGod - The Mayor is representing the city government and gov`ment should NEVER tell people what they can or cannot think.

0
Reply
Male 12,138
I wonder if we`d all be as supportive of their right to discriminate if they were anti-jew, or anti-black, instead of anti-gay?

And heading off you conservative right-wing christians at the pass: Yes, being anti-gay marriage is the same thing as being anti-gay. You would deny that (minority) group of people the same rights as the rest of us enjoy. Simple as that.
0
Reply
Male 7,922
Gerry1of1, DromEd, handyman0205,

You are complaining about Cathy not having freedom of speech. Of course he does. But why doesn`t the mayor of Boston have free speech? He didn`t say they wren`t allowed to come. He just said he doesn`t want them here and he hopes they don`t come.

Read before b.itching.
0
Reply
Male 1,444
The truly sad part is the things that Dan was blasted for he didn`t even say. It was from a blogger instead.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@Gerry1of1: Well put, although I believe that I differ from your opinion somewhat; I am curious to see what you think.

I suggest that Chick-Fil-A, a private organization, SHOULD be allowed to discriminate, and that laws should never have been put into place that stopped them.

As the consumer, we all of course have the ultimate power here - if we stop buying there products, they go out of business. As such, once society (on the average) truely feels that the way they are discriminating is wrong, then they will be forced out of business.

I know it`s a controversial stance, but I am a huge supporter of business owners rights; I feel that they have the right to accept whichever customers (or employees) they please, for whichever reason. I believe it is their right to discriminate - it just makes them an ass.
0
Reply
Female 357
I worked at Chick-fil-A alongside an (very)out young man. I don`t agree with their stance on this issue, just saying that I know of at least one instance to the contrary.
0
Reply
Male 37,889

Aparently the Mayor of Boston, cradle of liberty, does not believe in freedom of speech or freedom of thought. Although Dick-fil-A works against my own freedoms and believes, they do have the right to hold whatever belief they choose. They cannot break any descrimination laws, but so far they haven`t.

Way to go Nazi Mayor of BeanTown
0
Reply
Female 2,674
"Let me see if I am understanding this, gay advocates are always right and anyone that opposes them is not?"
If the issue being discussed is gay rights, then yes. If they`re just randomly discussing, for example, whether chicken or beef is better, then not necessarily.

"They have the right to thier opinions and free speech, but no one else does?"
No, they have rights. Everyone else has the right to disagree with them too though. Free speech isn`t the freedom to do and say whatever you want without disagreement.

"If you don`t agree with thm then you are evil and villified?"
If by "don`t agree with them" you mean you`re against them having equal rights, then basically yeah.

"And all this time I thought I lived in a free country."
Funny you`d say this, when you seem to be in support of restricting rights of others.
0
Reply
Male 2,370
So the 1st amendment doesn`t apply to Dan Cathy? Humm.

It`s has not been proven that Cathy`s company has discriminated against anybody. Are gays denied employment or service? If yes, where`s the evidence?

0
Reply
Female 2,674
"You`re as bad as people that oppose homosexuals when they are "open and prideful" about their life."
Poor argument. I`m not okay with them being anti-gay and open and prideful of it. It`s the exact same as people being racist and open and prideful of it. It`s simply wrong and shouldn`t be tolerated like it isn`t with racists. They are purposefully using their money (and thus, my money if I choose to eat there) to harm gay rights. That`s different from being against gay people for something they can`t control.
0
Reply
Female 2,674
Liquidglass, it was easier to ignore before. I`m not saying I was right for eating there before, and I felt bad every time I did, but I can`t teleport into the past and change where I chose to eat just because I decided recently that I`m not going to support them any longer.

"You simply won`t eat their because of peer pressure and you don`t want it to "look bad" "
Me boycotting alone isn`t going to do anything, so it has nothing to do with me looking bad. No ones going to notice that I choose to eat at other places instead.
0
Reply
Male 134
Let me see if I am understanding this, gay advocates are always right and anyone that opposes them is not? They have the right to thier opinions and free speech, but no one else does? If you don`t agree with thm then you are evil and villified? And all this time I thought I lived in a free country.
0
Reply
Male 501
I will probably start eating there now. I never have before, but now seems like a good time to start.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
Glad to see things working the way they should for once (as in, without the government making laws).

As a libertarian conservative, I believe it is the right of the business owners to discriminate if they choose so. In fact, I encourage the racist and bigoted business owners to do so. In this way, the free market can rout them out and stop buying their products. Wouldn`t you want to know who these people are anyways so you don`t buy their products?

See, we don`t need governmental intervention to dictate morality.

Libertarianism makes sense.

0
Reply
Male 1,111
@LillianDulci

So you can`t eat at Chic Fil A because they are NOW openly stating their own beliefs, but you could before even though you knew it was there.

Just some food for thought:
(take your pick)

A) You simply won`t eat their because of peer pressure and you don`t want it to "look bad"

or

B) You`re as bad as people that oppose homosexuals when they are "open and prideful" about their life.
0
Reply
Male 546
.... don`t step on the machine. It fights back!
0
Reply
Male 434
This better be real. Yay for people standing up and doing the right thing. I`d be almost willing to bet money he won`t be mayor for much longer, sadly. That`s just the conspiracy theorist in me though.
0
Reply
Male 531
got em
0
Reply
Female 2,674
As much as I love their chicken nuggets and their ranch sauce and especially their lemonade, I can`t eat there anymore. I`ve always known they don`t support gay rights but it`s different now that they`re so open and prideful about it.
0
Reply
Male 4,793
Hah, chick-fil-a done goofed.
0
Reply
Male 187
Yeah Korahn, it`s strange, I wouldn`t call them the most obviously homophobic organisation to go after but I like it. At first I was like "why aren`t they going after Walmart and Exxon too?" but then I realised that when things change, they often start small so I`m happy the outrage is growing.
0
Reply
Male 163
"Why Chick-fil-A as a company even has an opinion on marriage, I`ll never know"

The same reason why you can`t buy one of their sandwiches on Sunday.
0
Reply
Female 674
Because the younger generations are becoming the new standard in morals and what is socially acceptable, as the older generations die off. Why Chick-fil-A as a company even has an opinion on marriage, I`ll never know... But they dug their own grave.
0
Reply
Male 7,922
This is real. And awesome. You can feel the tides officially turn when the establishment gets on board. Sorry mouth breathers and bigots. You lost this battle.
0
Reply
Male 1,418
Though, good on the mayor, and the Muppets :)
0
Reply
Male 1,418
Kind of amazed at all the Chick-Fil-A bashing recently. They`ve had their anti-gay stance since the first location ever opened. Not sure why this all seems to be coming out now.
0
Reply
Male 5,568
Well written. Well said. Kudos to Mayor Menino!
0
Reply
Female 35
Link: City of Boston`s Letter To Chick-Fil-A [Pic] [Rate Link] - Mayor of Boston tell Chick-fil-A they aren`t wanted. Wicked pissah.
0
Reply