Cities Have a Right to Ban Chik fil-A

Absolutely. You can say what you want, and people can punch you in the mouth (or the wallet) for saying it.

I wish that the politicians hadn't gotten involved. I think eventually the boycott would have had some traction.

 

I agree with you, actually.

 

Thanks for the videos. So many Republicans on here have been screaming "cities have been banning Chik-Fil-A, that is against freedom" Your video's prove however the mayors are only expressing their opinions. Just another myth attack.

 

I was taught to research things the old-school way; also I listen to and corroborate evidence over time.

I came across info on Chic-fil-A some time ago; but Google helps in finding it again later.

 

What many people continue to overlook, is that C-f-A is VERY involved in anti-gay causes; they have a part in financing those organizations.

Those organizations are in many ways involved in "politics". I'm not shocked that things are panning out in this manner. Or, it is kind of typical that where mega-bucks are involved... politicians can be found there.

 

People actually cannot punch you in the mouth. That would of course be an assault.

 

It is only a crime if you're caught.

 

You are unbelievable...I would love to know your age. So, let's just say that you wanted to open one of those trendy new vegan restaurants in a city near you. And let's just say that the politicians have decided that they are aginst people who DO NOT EAT MEAT....you know that (moral issue) that you've got going on.

Even though it has taken you a year to come up with a business plan, researched and finally found the product you need and where the best place is to get it and the cost involved, saved and saved, finally got that business loan you needed to obtain....and you have researched and researched on your spread sheets the best area's you could put a business and you have met with a realtor and spent countless hours looking for properties, and you have finally found that perfect building in the right area, right size, right price (because all of that, and more, is what it takes to start a buisness, but you knew that right?) and then ALL OF A SUDDEN the major decides that he will speak for all those in that entire city by saying that he eats meat and no one in his city likes people who don't eat meat....so you cannot open that business.

So then you go and see some ya hoo on a blog somewhere who says this....(even though you live in THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, a free market, capitailist country where EVERYONE has a right to start a business)

And you just want to scream at them in there face "WTF, ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR MIND?"

 

Wrong again. We are not just talking about the statements of individuals here, but about actual company donations to actual anti-gay groups.

 

The ACLU disagrees with you Patty and rather vehemently. And by the way your boycott would have never gained traction. For one thing for every gay person in the country there are 95 straight people and of the straight people who are in sympthy with gay marriage the overwhelming majority don't give enough of a (*)(*)(*)(*) to change their eating habits.

Oh and for what it's worth no one is saying you have to eat there. If you want to do your own personal boycott and ask your friends to do so be my guest but don't expect any of your straight friends to stick to it for more than a week or two.

 

So..if the mayor of "somewhere" decides that, say... a black run business... doesn't meet their "community standards" they could prohibit them from opening?

Then the mayor of the next town over decides that a vietnamese run business doesn't reflect THEIR "community standards"...

Now the black mayor of the next town over decides that white run businesses don't reflect HIS "community standards"....

Maybe this ISN'T such a bad idea after all.
Forced desegregation hasn't worked so far anyway...

 

That's because you are not a hypersensitive unreasonable knowitall. Unlike every person I know who gets hot fisted over this issue. It's just stupid and gays and those whom sympathize with the Gay Marriage stuff ought to just feel retarded about this. Like some kid who starts crying because his mom told him to shut up.

 

You do realize that that money was actually EARNED, right? It's a new concept maybe to you, but that is not taxpayer money....that man can do whatever the hell he wants to do with that money! I'm sure that if he were giving money to support groups who are all for gay marriage....you would have no problem at all. So just stop the BS, this has nothing to do with his actual donations, and everything to do with his beliefs. Cut the crap.

 

They are well within their rights to donate money to the National Socialist Movement if they wanted to. Seriously, get over it. Gays are probably still eating at Chik Fil A and I doubt anyone who eats at Chik Fil A is gonna stop because the leadership of the company has an issue with gay marriage.

It's ok sugartits. Life goes on and sometimes you all just need to realize that it doesn't matter.

 

well the problem with allowing the state to ban businesses with a viewpoint that they dislike is that it effectively kills free speech. If I can prevent you from earning a living, then it's just as bad as jail or execution. You won't risk not being able to support your family for the right to express an opinion -- the cost is to risk your family's security. So you do exactly as the state really wants -- you shut up. Even then, the state probably won't stop there. What about all of the people who work for said company that is now afraid of the PC police? Do you think they'll risk hiring someone with "out of mainstream" beliefs? Not likely -- and with Facebook and Twitter, yes they can find out what you think about hot-button topics. So those who have the gall to be outspoken and have unpopular beliefs are now in a very scary position -- they are disqualified from any job above entry level. Not because they cannot do the work, but because the company is AFRAID to be seen as supporting a person with those opinions. Talk about a chilling effect on free speech. Telling someone that he must never challenge the status quo or be socially sentenced to a minimum wage existance will kill free speech. And that's the issue here -- if we can keep a man with unpopular opinions out of business, we don't even have to label the speech 'hate speech' anymore. we just don't let them earn a living.

 

In a nutshell. Very well put.

 

I'm guessing you're okay with a society that has some citizens classified as better than others due to immutable circumstances. Hiding behind the skirts of "Liberty" does not validate segregation. Not today, not during Jim Crow, not at any time since societies proclaimed Liberty.

 

You are spot-on correct!!

 

Are you? The donations folks have objected to came from a separate charitable foundation Dan's parents setup in 1984. A foundation that did $14.3 million in charity last year, the bulk of it to foster homes and boys & girls camps. If a few of the long list of charities that foundation donated to have taken a position against same sex marriage, it doesn't mean that foundation, or by extension the company, are anti-gay.​

 

I think that "hiding behind the skirts of Liberty" is very patronizing and overly cynical because ounce upon a time those "skirts" as you call them sheltered those who said that blacks shouldn't be held back by bigotry, that women should have the right to vote--both unpopular opinions for a time.

Those skirts also shielded pro-gay speech when the world was blaming them for everything from disease to the destruction of morality.

All progress started with people making unpopular speech and it is for this reason and this reason alone that our free speech is protected. What you want is to have made your particular destination and pull the ladder up behind you. I'm sorry, as harsh as it may be for you to deal with, but you can't do that. We have to protect Nazis, Satanists, bigots, and other antidisestablishmentarianists right to speak freely.

 

Than that would mean there is nothing to worry about?

That's another issue here, going out of your way to find something to start a "cause" or circle jerk thinking to get people to protest this or that. I thought gay people had active social lives and didn't have time for stupid stuff?

 

Laws don't prevent crime, they just punish you for it afterwards...or if you have a good attorney, not at all.

 

Specifically, who are "classified" as "better than others" and why? Can you provide a link to this "classification" process and who is in charge?

Can you compare and contrast the benefits of desegregation versus segregation?

 

True, but citing "Liberty" as a reason to segregate is not understanding the meaning of "Liberty". "Liberty" does not mean the liberty to discriminate and hate.

 

I agree.