Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
He donates money to an organization that, among other things, supports only heterosexual marriage. Big deal. Everyone that drops a dollar into their church collection plate does the same thing.
The churches actually go further in supporting heterosexual marriage, as they often perform marriages for people who were previously married to someone else but got a divorce, without even asking why they got a divorce in the first place. More of that picking and choosing which sin to support and which sin to oppose
No, you are morally responsible and will answer for whatever you choose to fund. That was the original point of the boycott itself, as a matter of fact.
So wait -- he says he legally can't stop them but now you're saying he legally can stop them with zoning laws? Nobody was threatening anyone's freedom of speech but now he was threatening them as a show of solidarity? It's fun watching you tie yourself in knots.
You don't get to zone opinions.
I don't think you read the same post. I stated he couldn't. I also stated that he showed solidarity, rather than threatening.
From the post, the implication is painfully clear he isn't in total control of zoning.
Please read the posts. Instead of wasting people's time, it's more polite when you actually read and then comment.
I don't think you read the same post. I stated he couldn't. I also stated that he showed solidarity, rather than threatening.
Let's review:
Quote:
Originally Posted by unounehana
His threat was more for political purposes of showing solidarity.
So when you say "I stated that he showed solidarity rather than threatening" what you actually mean is "I stated that he showed solidaridty by threatening."
Quote:
Originally Posted by unounehana
From the post, the implication is painfully clear he isn't in total control of zoning.
From his own words and your own admission, the implication is painfully clear that he was threatening Chick-Fil-A's freedom to conduct business over a viewpoint disagreement, not a zoning issue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by unounehana
Please read the posts. Instead of wasting people's time, it's more polite when you actually read and then comment.
I read your posts and I responded to what you said even though you now want to pretend like you didn't say those things. Instead of wasting people's time, it's more polite when you not try to backpedal on everything you say.
So when you say "I stated that he showed solidarity rather than threatening" what you actually mean is "I stated that he showed solidaridty by threatening."
From his own words and your own admission, the implication is painfully clear that he was threatening Chick-Fil-A's freedom to conduct business over a viewpoint disagreement, not a zoning issue.
I read your posts and I responded to what you said even though you now want to pretend like you didn't say those things. Instead of wasting people's time, it's more polite when you not try to backpedal on everything you say.
Sure, people who showed disdain towards a bigot were showing censorship by expressing their own views.
Yes, the mayor who came out and said he can't legally stop a Chick-Fil-A was "threatening" them by stating that they are allowed to open a shop in Boston. Right.
Despite the fact that I've mentioned the same thing over and over and over in the posts, I'm now somehow trying to retread back, even though I explained (included words verbatim).
Nice logic there...
If you truly think it was about "free speech" and not an anti-gay protest, I'm completely at a loss for words as to the sheer point that you missed somewhere. Boston's mayor even stated that he could not evoke censorship, a fact I pointed out three times now. Yet, somehow I'm backpedaling? How is it possible for a person to backpedal on something that they're currently saying when they're standing by their own comments? That's not the definition of backpedaling.
If you like to believe that there was CENSORSHIP, go ahead. Some people believe in nutty things like gays ruining marriage or a vengeful god who had a distaste for shrimp, clothes with mixed fabrics, and homosexual.
Sure, people who showed disdain towards a bigot were showing censorship by expressing their own views.
Yes, the mayor who came out and said he can't legally stop a Chick-Fil-A was "threatening" them by stating that they are allowed to open a shop in Boston. Right.
Despite the fact that I've mentioned the same thing over and over and over in the posts, I'm now somehow trying to retread back, even though I explained (included words verbatim).
Nice logic there...
If you truly think it was about "free speech" and not an anti-gay protest, I'm completely at a loss for words as to the sheer point that you missed somewhere. Boston's mayor even stated that he could not evoke censorship, a fact I pointed out three times now. Yet, somehow I'm backpedaling? How is it possible for a person to backpedal on something that they're currently saying when they're standing by their own comments? That's not the definition of backpedaling.
If you like to believe that there was CENSORSHIP, go ahead. Some people believe in nutty things like gays ruining marriage or a vengeful god who had a distaste for shrimp, clothes with mixed fabrics, and homosexual.
WTF? Look, all I'm saying is that you should please read the posts and avoid undue sarcasm while you make inane claims that show you don't know the fundamentals of a) definitions, b) the nature of the conversation and c) reading comprehension.
WTF? Look, all I'm saying is that you should please read the posts and avoid undue sarcasm while you make inane claims that show you don't know the fundamentals of a) definitions, b) the nature of the conversation and c) reading comprehension.
Pretty basic stuff...
Sage advice from someone whose first post to me concluded with a gratuitously sarcastic comment and who can't even keep track of what he says in his own posts.
Sage advice from someone whose first post to me concluded with a gratuitously sarcastic comment and who can't even keep track of what he says in his own posts.
I've been consistent in every post. Yeah, so it is sage advice. Here's more...emoticons show a certain depth of intelligence. Esp. for people who actually read the events that transpired and understand the true nature of the protests and counter protests. Emoticon usage, esp. for those that use them even after people post their posts multiple time verbatim yet still attack another poster for "backpedaling" then "loosing track" is telling.
I can only conclude you think the protests were about freedom of speech and not showing solidarity against homosexuals. While the mayor of Boston's comments, shallow as they were given the situation, were about censorship (despite the inability for him to do anything). Isn't it possible that his comments were an attempt of solidarity. Him showing his support ceremoniously to homosexuals.
To be honest, when I first read his statement I thought that he could not outright ban a Chick-Fil-A. A friend of mine WORKING for the city of Boston, in zoning, confirmed my suspicions. Realizing this, as MANY people had, I figured that it was more a show of solidarity than an ACTUAL threat. I've written this before. However, you missed the point and proceeded to act as if I derailed somehow. It's the internet, it's all there.
I've been consistent in every post. Yeah, so it is sage advice. Here's more...emoticons show a certain depth of intelligence. Esp. for people who actually read the events that transpired and understand the true nature of the protests and counter protests. Emoticon usage, esp. for those that use them even after people post their posts multiple time verbatim yet still attack another poster for "backpedaling" then "loosing track" is telling.
I can only conclude you think the protests were about freedom of speech and not showing solidarity against homosexuals. While the mayor of Boston's comments, shallow as they were given the situation, were about censorship (despite the inability for him to do anything). Isn't it possible that his comments were an attempt of solidarity. Him showing his support ceremoniously to homosexuals.
To be honest, when I first read his statement I thought that he could not outright ban a Chick-Fil-A. A friend of mine WORKING for the city of Boston, in zoning, confirmed my suspicions. Realizing this, as MANY people had, I figured that it was more a show of solidarity than an ACTUAL threat. I've written this before. However, you missed the point and proceeded to act as if I derailed somehow. It's the internet, it's all there.
Like most of America, I had no dog in this fight until a couple weeks ago. Some time back, the culture warriors on the left observed that the founder of Chick-Fil-A used the resources gleaned from his business success to support causes they find offensive, and they launched a boycott against Chick-Fil-A. That is their right. Shortly thereafter, the culture warriors on the right launched a "support Chick-Fil-A" counter-movement. That too is their right. Each side waged their war with their own resources using Chick-Fil-A as a proxy battlefield; and everyone else who is not interested in having their every business transaction scrutinized for underlying sociopolitical messages carried on with life by ignoring the fight.
It was only after politicians invoked the power and resources of government to threaten CFA's right to conduct business in their fiefdoms that the general public got involved to remind the would-be dictators that government does not have the power to silence unpopular opinions. That included people on the right, in the middle, and on the left -- even the ACLU for crying out loud. So yes, it was about freedom of speech. If it were just about showing contempt for gay people, the general public would have joined the culture warriors on the right long before the politicians threatened to block CFA from doing business in their jurisdictions.
You can pretend all day and night like this was a zoning issue even as the politicians who lit this fire were unambiguous in their viewpoint-based pledges to block CFA. The rest of America recognized their authoritarian streak for what it was and smacked them down long before the courts ever had to. This whole affair has been an incredibly instructive lesson in the value of free speech for everyone:
Cathy gets to exercise his free speech to oppose gay marriage;
Gay marriage advocates get to exercise their free speech to oppose Cathy's message and his business;
Gay marriage opponents get to exercise their free speech to support Cathy and his business;
And most importantly, elected would-be fascists are on notice that their whims are subject to the checks and balances of our democratic system.
In short, this episode has been a win for everyone except the would-be fascists who most deliciously deserved to lose.
I've been consistent in every post. Yeah, so it is sage advice. Here's more...emoticons show a certain depth of intelligence. Esp. for people who actually read the events that transpired and understand the true nature of the protests and counter protests. Emoticon usage, esp. for those that use them even after people post their posts multiple time verbatim yet still attack another poster for "backpedaling" then "loosing track" is telling.
I can only conclude you think the protests were about freedom of speech and not showing solidarity against homosexuals. While the mayor of Boston's comments, shallow as they were given the situation, were about censorship (despite the inability for him to do anything). Isn't it possible that his comments were an attempt of solidarity. Him showing his support ceremoniously to homosexuals.
To be honest, when I first read his statement I thought that he could not outright ban a Chick-Fil-A. A friend of mine WORKING for the city of Boston, in zoning, confirmed my suspicions. Realizing this, as MANY people had, I figured that it was more a show of solidarity than an ACTUAL threat. I've written this before. However, you missed the point and proceeded to act as if I derailed somehow. It's the internet, it's all there.
"If they need licenses in the city, it will be very difficult, Menino said. "Unless they open up their policies."
There's more to it than existing zoning laws. Dozens of specific permits and licenses. If you don't think the mayor and his political appointees who head local agencies don't have the power to delay, obstruct, and punish, you're politically naive.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
