Democrats as dictators

[Yonivore]

The Mayor of Boston is denying permits to Chick-fil-A, and the Mayor of Chicago threatening the same, over a lawful position held by the restaurant's owner and President. Ironically, one held by the current President, whom they both supported, until earlier this year.

No Building Permits for Opponent of Same-Sex Marriage (http://www.volokh.com/2012/07/25/no-building-permits-for-opponent-of-same-sex-marriage/)


...denying a private business permits because of such speech by its owner is a blatant First Amendment violation. Even when it comes to government contracting — where the government is choosing how to spend government money — the government generally may not discriminate based on the contractor’s speech, see Board of County Commissioners v. Umbehr (1996) (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1420742315640734083). It is even clearer that the government may not make decisions about how people will be allowed to use their own property based on the speaker’s past speech.

And this is so even if there is no statutory right to a particular kind of building permit (and I don’t know what the rule is under Illinois law). Even if the government may deny permits to people based on various reasons, it may not deny permits to people based on their exercise of his First Amendment rights. It doesn’t matter if the applicant expresses speech that doesn’t share the government officials’ values, or even the values of the majority of local citizens. It doesn’t matter if the applicant’s speech is seen as “disrespect[ful]” of certain groups. The First Amendment generally protects people’s rights to express such views without worrying that the government will deny them business permits as a result. That’s basic First Amendment law — but Alderman Moreno, Mayor Menino, and, apparently, Mayor Emanuel (if his statement is quoted in context), seem to either not know or not care about the law.

Just what are Chicago values?

Alderman to Chick-fil-A: No deal (http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/breaking/ct-met-chicago-chick-fil-a-20120725,0,929023.story)


The alderman has the ideological support of Mayor Rahm Emanuel.

"Chick-fil-A values are not Chicago values," the mayor said in a statement when asked about Moreno's decision.

Rahm welcomes help from Farrakahn, ignores anti-Semitic remarks (http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/13996951-418/rahm-welcomes-help-from-farrakahn-ignores-anti-semitic-remarks.html)

I guess The Nation of Islam's values are Chicago values. I know Mayor Emmanuel is aware of the Nation's anti-Semitic stance but, considering his statement about Chick-fil-A, one has to wonder if he's aware of Islam's position on homosexuality.

Can we expect the Mayor of Chicago to start shutting down Muslim-owned businesses because they don't "share" Chicago's values on same-sex marriage?

[Wild Cobra]

Demonrats always find ways around the constitution.

Just proves, they are antiAmerican to me.

[TeyshaBlue]

Not Anti-American, just fucking stupid.

Yo Alderman Moreno, look up the meaning of the word "Franchise" you stupid fuck.

[MannyIsGod]

:lol Dictators

[Yonivore]

Not Anti-American, just fucking stupid.
I think Eugene Volokh just pointed out it is unconstitutional. If that's not Anti-American, I'm not sure what is.

[Yonivore]

:lol Dictators
It's certainly dictatorial to suggest that because a business doesn't agree with you personally, you're going to withhold government services to which they are entitled.

[TeyshaBlue]

I think Eugene Volokh just pointed out it is unconstitutional. If that's not Anti-American, I'm not sure what is.

lol @ unconstitutional = Anti-American.


The 15th amendment called and says shut the fuck up already.

[TeyshaBlue]

No, this action by Moreno and Rahm are simply fucking retarded. However, it's Chicago politics. This is pretty much the norm.

[Wild Cobra]

Not Anti-American, just fucking stupid.

Yo Alderman Moreno, look up the meaning of the word "Franchise" you stupid fuck.
Yes, it is stupid. However, that is my choice of opinion when someone circumvents the constitution.

[Winehole23]

superlegality: when allegedly overpowering "moral concerns" trump the law. bandwaggoning can be dangerous.

[TeyshaBlue]

You guyz need to read the Trib's take on this.
"Silich said she would never discriminate against anyone and has gay employees working at her restaurant."
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-chicago-chickfila-owner-wants-to-talk-with-emanuel-20120726,0,7136734.story

[Yonivore]

You guyz need to read the Trib's take on this.
"Silich said she would never discriminate against anyone and has gay employees working at her restaurant."
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-chicago-chickfila-owner-wants-to-talk-with-emanuel-20120726,0,7136734.story
Chick-fil-A doesn't discriminate in it's hiring or to whom they serve; I know. Which makes Emmanuel's comments even more bizarre, un-American, and -- should he take action on his words -- unconstitutional.


lol @ unconstitutional = Anti-American.

The 15th amendment called and says shut the fuck up already.
Violating the 15th amendment would be Anti-American, as well. Your point?

Unconstitutional = Anti-American since the Constitution is, uh, America's constituting document.

[vy65]

lol Alien Sedition Act

[Wild Cobra]

lol Alien Sedition Act
Are you suggesting the government never violates the constitution?

[vy65]

I'm suggesting that incredibly unconstitutional laws have and can be very "pro-American."

[vy65]

I also find it odd that the constitution protects "Anti-American" speech, ideology, values, etc...

[TeyshaBlue]

Chick-fil-A doesn't discriminate in it's hiring or to whom they serve; I know. Which makes Emmanuel's comments even more bizarre, un-American, and -- should he take action on his words -- unconstitutional.


Violating the 15th amendment would be Anti-American, as well. Your point?

Unconstitutional = Anti-American since the Constitution is, uh, America's constituting document.

Apparently, prior to the 15th amendment, unconstitutional did not equal Anti-American.

[Wild Cobra]

I'm suggesting that incredibly unconstitutional laws have and can be very "pro-American."
I don't see anything pro American about some aspects of it. Sometimes, the greatest harm come from good intent. Intent is not a proper reason to circumvent the constitution.

[vy65]

Intentions and harm are irrelevant to the issue.

lol some aspects

[DarrinS]

It's strange that in 2012, the phrase

"I believe that marriage is a union between a man and a woman"

is hate speech.

[Wild Cobra]

Intentions and harm are irrelevant to the issue.

lol some aspects

I wasn't going to commit myself without familiarizing myself with the details.

[vy65]

Ever think about familiarizing yourself with the details before commenting?

[TeyshaBlue]

Ever think about familiarizing yourself with the details before commenting?
Why start now?:lol

[boutons_deux]

Hitting the corporate owner where it hurts, in his bank account.

So Yoni is against local zoning regulations? If the cities don't like the mayors "discriminating" against (LGBT) haters, they can elect other mayors and/or remove the mayor's power to regulate his city's business developments.

I suppose Yoni is also for Rand Paul's idea of allowing public-serving businesses to refuse service based on skin color, etc?

[ElNono]

:lol Dictators

[Yonivore]

Apparently, prior to the 15th amendment, unconstitutional did not equal Anti-American.
Well, we're not living in a pre-15th amendment world. Thank God for the amendment process.

[Yonivore]

I also find it odd that the constitution protects "Anti-American" speech, ideology, values, etc...
But, it doesn't protect Anti-American activities -- if we're construing Anti-American to mean undermining our system of laws and government.

[vy65]

Giving speeches about how much you hate America, writing books and pamphleting about how much America blows and socialism is great -- all that isn't an anti-american activity that undermines law and government?

[vy65]

And I have no idea how you're construing "Anti-American." That term is so generic and overbroad that its fucking worthless

[Yonivore]

Giving speeches about how much you hate America, writing books and pamphleting about how much America blows and socialism is great -- all that isn't an anti-american activity that undermines law and government?
Only if it incites action to undermine our system of laws and government.

[Yonivore]

And I have no idea how you're construing "Anti-American." That term is so generic and overbroad that its fucking worthless
Maybe you should watch the context of the discussion.

[vy65]

Only if it incites action to undermine our system of laws and government.

How is that not an incitement to undermine our system of laws and government?

[vy65]

Maybe you should watch the context of the discussion.

I did, and all I saw was you being made a fool of.

[boutons_deux]

Only if it incites action to undermine our system of laws and government.

How is denying a business permit against "our sytem of laws and government", which sounds much like paranoid right-winger's dog whistle.

titty bars are forbidden within some distance of schools, and sometimes within city limits, as are fireworks stands.

[TeyshaBlue]

Chick Fil-A is not a titty bar, boutons. :facepalm

[TeyshaBlue]

Also: Franchises.

Look into it.

[TeyshaBlue]

Read and learn something on your own.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-chicago-chickfila-owner-wants-to-talk-with-emanuel-20120726,0,7136734.story

[TeyshaBlue]

Short version:

Alderman Moreno wants to deny a franchise who hires gay workers the ability to open a restaurant because they discriminate against teh gays!

[Clipper Nation]

It's strange that in 2012, the phrase

"I believe that marriage is a union between a man and a woman"

is hate speech.
It's not hate speech per se, but it is ignorant, tbh.....

[TeyshaBlue]

It's not hate speech per se, but it is ignorant, tbh.....

Not really. It's an opinion. It's also an extension of what has been a societal norm for the last couple of hundred years.

Doesn't make it right. It also doesn't make it ignorant.

[Clipper Nation]

Not really. It's an opinion.
Opinions and ignorance aren't mutually exclusive....


It's also an extension of what has been a societal norm for the last couple of hundred years.
Slavery, male-only elections, and Jim Crow laws were also all societal norms in the past....

[TeyshaBlue]

Opinions and ignorance aren't mutually exclusive....


Slavery, male-only elections, and Jim Crow laws were also all societal norms in the past....

Hence the caveat I offered. And an opinion is exactly that: An opinion. It can be based in ignorance, but it's not ignorant in and of itself.

[Yonivore]

How is that not an incitement to undermine our system of laws and government?
Because people bloviate.

But, to be honest, I think some people tow the line pretty close...Malik Shabazz's offer of a bounty on George Zimmerman probably crossed that line.

[vy65]

anti-american =|= violating laws and undermining government

[Clipper Nation]

Hence the caveat I offered. And an opinion is exactly that: An opinion. It can be based in ignorance, but it's not ignorant in and of itself.
If the opinion is based in ignorance, then it's ignorant... you're just arguing semantics, tbh...

[DarrinS]

It's not hate speech per se, but it is ignorant, tbh.....


Then probably no need for boycotts or city mayors trying to interfere with their business.

[TeyshaBlue]

If the opinion is based in ignorance, then it's ignorant... you're just arguing semantics, tbh...

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y64/teyshablue/fillion1.gif

[TeyshaBlue]

Sometimes I'll argue just for the hell of it.:lol

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y64/teyshablue/arguing2.gif

[Sense]

:lol Dictators

[Yonivore]

Read and learn something on your own.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-chicago-chickfila-owner-wants-to-talk-with-emanuel-20120726,0,7136734.story
That does raise the question of whether or not Emmanuel will revoke the existing Chick-fil-A's permit and require them to vacate...because they don't share Chicago's values.

[Yonivore]

Hmm...someone consulted their City Attorney, I guess.

Menino says he can’t actively block Chick-fil-A (http://bostonherald.com/business/general/view.bg?articleid=1061148712)
No shit, Sherlock.

Now, we'll see if Emmanuel will walk back his nonsense or, at least explain the hypocrisy of enlisting the help of the homosexual-hating Nation of Islam while bashing anti-same sex marriage stance of the President of a Corporation that does not discriminate against homosexuals in their hiring or customer service.

[Yonivore]

Last paragraph in the article linked...


“Some people might not like these positions, but as mayor of the city of Boston, you can’t run and hide, and I’ll always protect people’s rights,” Menino said. “I’m right out front there and if people don’t like it, I feel sorry for them. But I’m the mayor of Boston and I get elected to make my opinions known.”
Except to their First Amendment right to free speech, I guess.

[Yonivore]

crofl "ill always protect people's rights"

is preventing someone from opening a business protecting his rights? i dont care what the dude said or what his positions are, he has a right to his own opinions and freedom to express them. gays and gay defenders shouldn't be so thin skinned and should just accept that people are going to have their opinions on the subject one way or the other just like with everything else. restaurants, movies, sports, politics, no matter the subject people feel differently about different things and trying to restrict that is unamerican.
And, mind you, the permitting process is part of that narrative that says "you didn't build that business yourself, someone else made that happen."

In this case it's Mayor Menino, if he deigns to make it so.

[Clipper Nation]

When homophobes realize that it isn't the government's place to be the marriage police (in fact, marriage isn't dealt with in the Constitution) and stop obstructing the inevitable, then they can start talking about a mere difference of opinion, tbh....

[Yonivore]

When homophobes...
In the context of this thread, who's being homophobic? Chick-fil-A does not discriminate against homosexuals in their hiring practices or in deciding who is served in their stores.


...realize that it isn't the government's place to be the marriage police (in fact, marriage isn't dealt with in the Constitution)
Couldn't agree more. The law should not even discuss marriage, afford benefits based on marital status, or withhold benefits for the same.


...and stop obstructing the inevitable,
What's inevitable?


...then they can start talking about a mere difference of opinion, tbh....
The differences on same-sex marriage are more than just opinions.

[mercos]

The whole Chic-Fil-A fiasco wreaks of stupidity on both sides. Chic-Fil-A is stupid for jumping into moral issues when their sole concern should be frying fucking chicken. No one gives a shit that the founder was religious, they just want a chicken sandwich. In turn, the city leaders who are bitching about it need to shut up as well. If people don't like Chic-Fil-A's bigoted opinions, they won't eat there.

[Yonivore]

The whole Chic-Fil-A fiasco wreaks of stupidity on both sides. Chic-Fil-A is stupid for jumping into moral issues when their sole concern should be frying fucking chicken. No one gives a shit that the founder was religious, they just want a chicken sandwich.
To be fair, the President of Chick-fil-A didn't just take to the airwaves and start ranting against same-sex marriages. He was responding to a question posed in an interview done for a Baptist website. Here is how it was reported by The Atlanta Journal-Constitution (http://www.ajc.com/news/chick-fil-a-president-1481215.html)...


Company president Dan Cathy told a Baptist website the Atlanta-based restaurant chain is "guilty as charged" in its support of traditional marriage.

"We are very much supportive of the family — the biblical definition of the family unit," Cathy said in article published Monday by the Baptist Press. "We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that."
Supporting their definition of a traditional family unit <> hating homosexuals.

Besides, if you've eaten at Chic-fil-A and you weren't aware they are a conservative Christian company, you haven't been paying attention. They're closed on Sundays and they say why on their door...because they want they employees to enjoy the Sabbath with their families.

Just below the above paragraph, you'll find...


Chick-fil-A has been under fire from gay rights groups since early 2011, when it was revealed that an independent operator in Pennsylvania supplied food to an event sponsored by a group formed to defeat same-sex marriage initiatives.
Perhaps Cathy refuses to be intimidated by the gay rights groups that have been nattering since then.


In turn, the city leaders who are bitching about it need to shut up as well. If people don't like Chic-Fil-A's bigoted opinions, they won't eat there.
Agreed. Government should shut the fuck up on the matter and just do their job.

[DarrinS]

"We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that."




Does he have something against single people? Or, those that have been divorced and are now on our 2nd marriage?

Fuck that chicken eatery. I'm boycotting.

[mercos]

To be fair, the President of Chick-fil-A didn't just take to the airwaves and start ranting against same-sex marriages. He was responding to a question posed in an interview done for a Baptist website. Here is how it was reported by The Atlanta Journal-Constitution (http://www.ajc.com/news/chick-fil-a-president-1481215.html)...



That is a fair point, but I believe as others have mentioned they donate to a bunch of groups that are actively fighting gay marriage. If the dude is just doing that out of his own pocket, its one thing, but if they are donating corporate money I believe it is a stupid business decision and they deserve the ridicule they are now receiving.

The churchers are going to have to accept the new status quo. You can no longer hide your bigotry behind the excuse of religion. Gay marriage is going to end up legal nationwide whether they like it or not. All they are doing is giving our history another black eye to go along with slavery, the Jim Crow era, and other moral screw ups.

[Yonivore]

That is a fair point, but I believe as others have mentioned they donate to a bunch of groups that are actively fighting gay marriage.
The story only mentions a local franchise providing food to such an organization. Even then, it doesn't say whether or not it was donated or if the organization had to pay for it.


If the dude is just doing that out of his own pocket, its one thing, but if they are donating corporate money I believe it is a stupid business decision and they deserve the ridicule they are now receiving.
I don't know that that is the issue. There was nothing revealed about to who Chick-fil-A contributes. From what I read, gay activists got their panties in a wad over Chick-fil-A providing food to an anti-same-sex marriage organization and that they've been chewing that bone ever since.


The churchers are going to have to accept the new status quo.
I don't think Christians should have to compromise their beliefs for any political issue.


You can no longer hide your bigotry behind the excuse of religion.
How is what Cathy said bigotry?


Gay marriage is going to end up legal nationwide whether they like it or not. All they are doing is giving our history another black eye to go along with slavery, the Jim Crow era, and other moral screw ups.
Many Christians are not opposed to same-sex marriage. Many of us are, however, opposed to our denominations being forced to conduct, sanction, and recognize them in the framework of our religion.

I'm personally not opposed to same-sex marriage. I'm opposed to my church performing them because my reading of scripture -- the canon on which my faith is based -- doesn't recognize it.

I'm also opposed to government being involved, in any way, in the relationships of people.

But, I say people should be allowed to spend their lives with whomever they wish.

[Jacob1983]

Liberals and Democrats can be hateful ignorant bigots especially if they're fighting evil Republicans and neo-cons. That's what the hipsters say.

[Wild Cobra]

Ever think about familiarizing yourself with the details before commenting?
I simply don't recall the details, that nay be unconstitutional. Since you used it as an example, I assume there must be. I don't disagree with the nature of the four pieces of it. What detail would be unconstitutional in your view? It could be argued that the slander against the government could be a violation of free speech, but I really don't know if it would be or not. I personally think slander is slander, and should be dealt with by legal force if necessary. That doesn't make it right by the constitution though.

[Wild Cobra]

Does he have something against single people? Or, those that have been divorced and are now on our 2nd marriage?

Fuck that chicken eatery. I'm boycotting.
LOL...

Forget the blue by chance?

[ElNono]

It could be argued that the slander against the government could be a violation of free speech, but I really don't know if it would be or not.

Ahhh seditious slander... there's a rich history on that one, look it up

[Winehole23]

(not surprised to see WC straining to justify making it a crime to criticize the government in a disagreeable way)

[Wild Cobra]

Ahhh seditious slander... there's a rich history on that one, look it up

Not that interested to do so.

Again, I believe slander should be civilly or criminally actionable when used against any individual, politicians, or the government. Be able to back a charge up, or STFU.

[Winehole23]

Americans are unused to having to prove their political convictions in court; our way is to use the ballot. Historically, LE in the USA does not catch at the harsh words of citizens for insults to majesty.

Britain, OTOH...

[Wild Cobra]

(not surprised to see WC straining to justify making it a crime to criticize the government in a disagreeable way)
I wouldn't do that, but intentional lies that are harmful should be criminal in my view.

[Wild Cobra]

Americans are unused to having to prove their political convictions in court; our way is to use the ballot. Historically, LE in the USA does not catch at the harsh words of citizens for insults to majesty.

Britain, OTOH...
Why are you twisting my intent?

[Winehole23]

I doubt I was.

[Winehole23]

You resent me perceiving it clearly. God knows why you think you'll get away with everything you say here.

[ElNono]

One man's lie is another man's truth. There's two sides to every story.

Or so the song says...

[Winehole23]

sure, but WC won't own his own obvious claim that political speech should be justiciable if the government has hurt feelings.

[ElNono]

sure, but WC won't own his own claim, that political speech should be justiciable if the government has hurt feelings over it.

Now that's what I would call dictatorship... and we've come full circle!

[Wild Cobra]

sure, but WC won't own his own claim, that political speech should be justiciable if the government has hurt feelings over it.
Why should I attempt to debate you when you aren't being honest in this debate? I have better things to do than waste my time like that.

[Winehole23]

what got misrepresented?

do you think the government ought to have civil and criminal actions against citizens for political speech, or not?

[Winehole23]

Now that's what I would call dictatorship... and we've come full circle!rich rich irony that the ultimate arbiter of truth in the proposed scenario is in effect, the government.

courts would ultimately decide which political truths are true and which are "pernicious lies"

[Wild Cobra]

what got misrepresented?

do you think the government ought to have civil and criminal actions against citizens for political speech, or not?
Political speech in general, no.

Political speed that is slander. Yes.

Look up the definition of slander before you continue please. Stop assigning it as hurt feeling.

[Capt Bringdown]

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-0yTOC8zp5QQ/UBGSr-d44JI/AAAAAAAABUs/ShgC_8fFqGg/s400/telnaes.png

Good article by Glenn Greenwald:
Rahm Emanuel’s dangerous free speech attack (http://www.salon.com/writer/glenn_greenwald/)
Interesting to peruse the comments, Greenwald's taking a lot of heat on this one, and responding to the uhm, confused with his usual aplomb:


Imagine a CEO that stated that Blacks or Jews or Catholics do not deserve equal rights. Imagine that said CEO gave money to hate groups dedicated to making life miserable for other, more "acceptable" minorities. Could a community say THAT is unwelcome??

GG:They can say it's "unwelcome." They can't use state power to punish people for the crime of believing it.

This is called "free speech".

But people like you so believe in your own Goodness that you think your views are entitled to be enshrined as official state positions and that anyone with different views shouldn't just be condemned, but punished.

Of course, many people who oppose same-sex marriage believe exactly the same thing. When they succeed in getting their local officials to ban any supporters of same-sex marriage from opening businesses -- on the ground that Christian values are Deeply Important -- you will have no ground whatsoever to object to this.

[Winehole23]

Political speech in general, no.

Political speed that is slander. Yes.

Look up the definition of slander before you continue please. Stop assigning it as hurt feeling.the sound of you crying about this is my lullaby.

nighty nite, WC :toast

[Wild Cobra]

the sound of you crying about this is my lullaby.

nighty nite, WC :toast
Not crying at all. Just not worth arguing a point when the word itself has a different meaning to you than it does me.

Did you look up the word slander I wonder? Maybe that's why you are withdrawing.

[Wild Cobra]

One man's lie is another man's truth. There's two sides to every story.

Or so the song says...
I am speaking of slander. Not a song. If it's true, then it's not slander. No matter how harmful the truth may be, to be slander requires that it is a lie.

[Winehole23]

the government can't sue citizens for slander. nor should it be able to. that's a terrible idea, WC. it's one of your all time worst, tbh.

[Wild Cobra]

the government can't sue citizens for slander. nor should it be able to. that's a terrible idea, WC. it's one of your all time worst, tbh.
So we differ in opinion. Agree with that? I agree the government cannot, by current law, do so. What I don't know, is if it would be unconstitutional or not. If it isn't unconstitutional, then I say we should prosecute for slander.

What about political races? Don't you hate the flat out lies that each sides uses against one another? Wouldn't elections be so much cleaner of any negative campaigning had to be honest, with no slander?

[Winehole23]

it's untraditional to prosecute that in the USA. that's a good enough reason for me.



(if politics is too mendacious and nasty for you, tough shit: politics ain't beanbag.)

[Winehole23]

http://reason.com/blog/2012/07/26/city-shuts-down-kids-hot-dog-stand-befor

[Clipper Nation]

What about political races? Don't you hate the flat out lies that each sides uses against one another? Wouldn't elections be so much cleaner of any negative campaigning had to be honest, with no slander?
I love the attack ads, tbh, they're hilarious..... I still get a kick out of Willard's horrible rendition of "America the Beautiful"....

[Winehole23]

face it WC, lies and slander are the norm not the exception in politics. abolish them and you abolish politics as we know it. the idea that the government policing truth in political campaigns would be some kind of improvement on the existing state of affairs, would be risible if it weren't so harshly and obviously authoritarian.

[Spurminator]

Good article by Glenn Greenwald:
Rahm Emanuel’s dangerous free speech attack (http://www.salon.com/writer/glenn_greenwald/)

:tu :tu

This is why Greenwald is among the best and most important writers going right now.

[Yonivore]

How bad has the hatred gotten?

In Defense of Chick-Fil-A (http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/07/chik-fil-a-homophobes-have-rights-too)

Mother Jones is defending Chick-Fil-A. :lmao

[vy65]

Not that interested to do so.

Again, I believe slander should be civilly or criminally actionable when used against any individual, politicians, or the government. Be able to back a charge up, or STFU.

Here's the thing buddy. If you don't want to be the personification of the holocaust -- and be taken remotely seriously -- you shouldn't wildly pontificate about shit you don't know and then refuse to familiarize yourself with the details when you get called out.

[Yonivore]

Here's the thing buddy. If you don't want to be the personification of the holocaust -- and be remotely taken seriously -- you shouldn't wildly pontificate about shit you don't know and then refuse to familiarize yourself with the details when you get called out.
You know that little silly practice of adding "...in bed" to the fortunes you get at Chinese restaurants.

Every time I read something like this from you or the other trolls in this forum, I just add, "...by trolls."

Makes me smile.

Thought I'd share.

Try it with me, if it helps.

[clambake]

yep, calling fwdt useless because of his views was definitely troll worthy.

[z0sa]

So we differ in opinion. Agree with that? I agree the government cannot, by current law, do so. What I don't know, is if it would be unconstitutional or not. If it isn't unconstitutional, then I say we should prosecute for slander.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-AQjXrQj1LdE/TdsTINwZODI/AAAAAAAAAIo/S0PwJAKWCmM/s1600/Barney%2BFife.jpg

[boutons_deux]

Primary reason why Repugs and corps want to keep all Super PAC (corporate) donors secret, to avoid, in Bitch McConnell's anti-DISCLOSE reasoning: threats, violence, retaliation from Human-Americans.


Chick-Fil-A's Brand Approval Rating Plummets After Anti-Gay Controversy


http://i.huffpost.com/gen/707624/thumbs/o-QSR-RATING-570.jpg?4

Chick-fil-A's anti-gay marriage stance has gotten some high-profile support by way of Mike Huckabee, Rick Santorum, Sarah Palin and other conservative lawmakers. But among their longtime customers, it's a much different story.

Polling organization YouGov found that the Atlanta-based chain's brand approval ratings have plummeted in the wake of Chick-fil-A President Dan Cathy's controversial remarks earlier this month. YouGov also reports that the company's overall consumer brand health among fast food eaters has dropped to its lowest levels since mid-August 2010 in the wake of the media firestorm.

Just before Cathy's interview was published, Chick-fil-A's Index score was 65, well above the Top National Quick Service Restaurant (QSR) Sector average score of 46. Just four days later, however, Chick-fil-A's score had fallen to 47, while last week, the chain had a score of 39, compared to the Top National QSR Sector average score of 43.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/30/chick-fil-a-brand-approval-rating-anti-gay-controversy_n_1719359.html?view=print&comm_ref=false

[TeyshaBlue]

"Franchise". Look it up.

[TeyshaBlue]

Cathy; ".......we know that it might not be popular with everyone, but thank the Lord, we live in a country where we can share our values and operate on biblical principles."

Well, not so much.

[scott]

Teysha, I apologize I'm not really up-to-date on this thread. Can you elaborate on your point in regards to franchises?

While most stores might be independent franchises, they are leasing rights to the brand, and with the brand comes anything positive or negative that the brand may do.

I'd be curious to see if any franchisees file suit against Chick-Fil-A if they see a big drop in sales (not saying such a suit has or doesn't have merit).

[scott]

And I agree with the notion that being bigoted against bigots still means you are a bigot.

[boutons_deux]

I'm pretty sure a franchisee contracts to, and pays for, the franchisor to keep the brand's image up.

[ChumpDumper]

Pretty dumb of the president of the company to spout off in the first place. Looks like the market is taking care of it without the "help" of politicians.

[TeyshaBlue]

Teysha, I apologize I'm not really up-to-date on this thread. Can you elaborate on your point in regards to franchises?

While most stores might be independent franchises, they are leasing rights to the brand, and with the brand comes anything positive or negative that the brand may do.

I'd be curious to see if any franchisees file suit against Chick-Fil-A if they see a big drop in sales (not saying such a suit has or doesn't have merit).

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-07-26/news/chi-chicago-chickfila-owner-wants-to-talk-with-emanuel-20120726_1_police-sergeant-deep-chicago-roots-restaurant

The franchise in this particular story employs gay workers. She's a bit pissed at Mayor Emanuel for villifying her by proxy.

[TeyshaBlue]

I'm pretty sure a franchisee contracts to, and pays for, the franchisor to keep the brand's image up.
I'm pretty sure you have no idea what you're talking about since the franchise apparently supports gay workers, in the example I posted. :facepalm.


lol @ content-free.

[scott]

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-07-26/news/chi-chicago-chickfila-owner-wants-to-talk-with-emanuel-20120726_1_police-sergeant-deep-chicago-roots-restaurant

The franchise in this particular story employs gay workers. She's a bit pissed at Mayor Emanuel for villifying her by proxy.

She has the right to be pissed, but if she didn't want to associated with all of the positives and negatives of a brand, she shouldn't have franchised under that brand.

I think any political figure is in their right to criticize the Mr. Cathy's opinions, but that is where they should stop. Any talk of restricting the access to permits is pure absurdity.

[Wild Cobra]

Any talk of restricting the access to permits is pure absurdity.
Yet politicians destroy the economy end businesses all the time by talk of taxing them more.

[scott]

Yet politicians destroy the economy end businesses all the time by talk of taxing them more.

Not really, good try though.

[TeyshaBlue]

Yet politicians destroy the economy end businesses all the time by talk of taxing them more.

smh

[Homeland Security]

Of course the filthy child-bloodsucking kike boutons supports oppressions. How the hell did Hitler miss his ancestors?

[LnGrrrR]

This seems pretty stupid of Menino. The only thing that pisses me off about Chick-Fil-A is that they're closed on Sundays. Damn these religious nuts and their Sabbaths! I'm an atheist and I want chicken 7 days a week!