Hmm...someone consulted their City Attorney, I guess.
Menino says he can’t actively block Chick-fil-A
No , Sherlock.
Now, we'll see if Emmanuel will walk back his nonsense or, at least explain the hypocrisy of enlisting the help of the sexual-hating Nation of Islam while bashing anti-same sex marriage stance of the President of a Corporation that does not discriminate against sexuals in their hiring or customer service.
Last paragraph in the article linked...
Except to their First Amendment right to free speech, I guess.“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.”
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.
When phobes realize that it isn't the government's place to be the marriage police (in fact, marriage isn't dealt with in the Cons ution) and stop obstructing the inevitable, then they can start talking about a mere difference of opinion, tbh....
In the context of this thread, who's being phobic? Chick-fil-A does not discriminate against sexuals in their hiring practices or in deciding who is served in their stores.
Couldn't agree more. The law should not even discuss marriage, afford benefits based on marital status, or withhold benefits for the same.
What's inevitable?
The differences on same-sex marriage are more than just opinions.
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 ing chicken. No one gives a that the founder was religious, they just want a chicken sandwich. In turn, the city leaders who are ing about it need to shut up as well. If people don't like Chic-Fil-A's bigoted opinions, they won't eat there.
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-Cons ution...
Supporting their definition of a traditional family unit <> hating sexuals.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."
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...
Perhaps Cathy refuses to be intimidated by the gay rights groups that have been nattering since then.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.
Agreed. Government should shut the up on the matter and just do their job.
"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?
that chicken eatery. I'm boycotting.
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.
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.
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.
I don't think Christians should have to compromise their beliefs for any political issue.
How is what Cathy said bigotry?
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.
Liberals and Democrats can be hateful ignorant bigots especially if they're fighting evil Republicans and neo-cons. That's what the hipsters say.
I simply don't recall the details, that nay be uncons utional. 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 uncons utional 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 cons ution though.
LOL...
Forget the blue by chance?
Ahhh seditious slander... there's a rich history on that one, look it up
(not surprised to see WC straining to justify making it a crime to criticize the government in a disagreeable way)
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.
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...
I wouldn't do that, but intentional lies that are harmful should be criminal in my view.
Why are you twisting my intent?
I doubt I was.
You resent me perceiving it clearly. God knows why you think you'll get away with everything you say here.
One man's lie is another man's truth. There's two sides to every story.
Or so the song says...
sure, but WC won't own his own obvious claim that political speech should be justiciable if the government has hurt feelings.
Now that's what I would call dictatorship... and we've come full circle!
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.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
