HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » The Chick Fellatio: stuck...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Thu Aug 2, 2012, 06:30 AM

The Chick Fellatio: stuck in the craw

http://www.owldolatrous.com/?p=288

It’s definitely strange to have days-long Facebook debates flare up everywhere over a chicken sandwich. The anger, sarcasm, and hurt feelings on display seem strange or even laughable because most people have seen Chick-Fil-A as just a restaurant with a funny ad campaign. I’ll get into some of the whys and wherefores of that later. But, for now, let’s just say that, yes. It can seem ridiculous to get all worked up over fast-food chicken.

Let’s also agree that this isn’t about curtailing anyone’s rights under First Amendment. The Constitution is a legal document. This is not a legal argument. No one is arguing that Chik-fil-A CEO Dan Cathy should be put in prison, or silenced, or censored by the government. This has nothing to do with government censorship or government abridgment of Freedom of Speech. So don’t worry: the ability of this millionaire to legally spend his millions as he sees fit is not in jeopardy. You need not defend it.



91 replies, 17825 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 91 replies Author Time Post
Reply The Chick Fellatio: stuck in the craw (Original post)
RockaFowler Aug 2012 OP
joeybee12 Aug 2012 #1
hack89 Aug 2012 #5
HuckleB Aug 2012 #8
marble falls Aug 2012 #10
joeybee12 Aug 2012 #16
marble falls Aug 2012 #19
marble falls Aug 2012 #22
MADem Aug 2012 #56
joeybee12 Aug 2012 #11
hack89 Aug 2012 #37
yardwork Aug 2012 #26
niceguy Aug 2012 #30
yardwork Aug 2012 #33
niceguy Aug 2012 #39
yardwork Aug 2012 #40
zzaapp Aug 2012 #58
hack89 Aug 2012 #38
TalkingDog Aug 2012 #46
liberallibral Aug 2012 #44
Bluerthanblue Aug 2012 #48
hack89 Aug 2012 #52
Bluerthanblue Aug 2012 #62
hack89 Aug 2012 #64
Eddie Haskell Aug 2012 #27
nxylas Aug 2012 #2
Travis_0004 Aug 2012 #3
lame54 Aug 2012 #6
marble falls Aug 2012 #18
lame54 Aug 2012 #42
marble falls Aug 2012 #68
uncle ray Aug 2012 #55
niceguy Aug 2012 #31
lame54 Aug 2012 #43
joeybee12 Aug 2012 #14
RantinRavin Aug 2012 #23
TalkingDog Aug 2012 #25
meaculpa2011 Aug 2012 #50
MADem Aug 2012 #57
meaculpa2011 Aug 2012 #69
MADem Aug 2012 #70
meaculpa2011 Aug 2012 #71
MADem Aug 2012 #72
meaculpa2011 Aug 2012 #73
MADem Aug 2012 #74
meaculpa2011 Aug 2012 #77
MADem Aug 2012 #78
meaculpa2011 Aug 2012 #79
MADem Aug 2012 #80
meaculpa2011 Aug 2012 #81
MADem Aug 2012 #82
meaculpa2011 Aug 2012 #83
MADem Aug 2012 #85
meaculpa2011 Aug 2012 #86
MADem Aug 2012 #88
meaculpa2011 Aug 2012 #89
MADem Aug 2012 #90
meaculpa2011 Aug 2012 #91
Jawja Aug 2012 #4
HuckleB Aug 2012 #9
groundloop Aug 2012 #24
HuckleB Aug 2012 #67
joeybee12 Aug 2012 #12
niceguy Aug 2012 #32
AlinPA Aug 2012 #21
yardwork Aug 2012 #34
Bluerthanblue Aug 2012 #49
MADem Aug 2012 #75
mmonk Aug 2012 #7
DearAbby Aug 2012 #13
Genghis_Sean Aug 2012 #15
DaveJ Aug 2012 #41
LittleGirl Aug 2012 #17
YellaDog1950 Aug 2012 #20
zeemike Aug 2012 #28
LittleGirl Aug 2012 #35
zeemike Aug 2012 #36
zzaapp Aug 2012 #61
zeemike Aug 2012 #63
zzaapp Aug 2012 #65
zzaapp Aug 2012 #66
TalkingDog Aug 2012 #45
zeemike Aug 2012 #47
TalkingDog Aug 2012 #51
zzaapp Aug 2012 #59
zeemike Aug 2012 #60
DaveJ Aug 2012 #29
DCKit Aug 2012 #53
Lint Head Aug 2012 #54
annabanana Aug 2012 #76
RockaFowler Aug 2012 #84
JHB Aug 2012 #87

Response to RockaFowler (Original post)

Thu Aug 2, 2012, 06:38 AM

1. Amazing how some people--EVEN HERE--seem to think a boycott

and highlighting of this asshat CEO and his restaurant is making the Founding Fathers roll over in their graves. Yeesh!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joeybee12 (Reply #1)

Thu Aug 2, 2012, 07:43 AM

5. It is not the boycott. It is elected officials threatening to deny business permits

that is wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #5)

Thu Aug 2, 2012, 08:11 AM

8. Yes, that is wrong.

Still, Chick-fil-A is working to using government institutions to deny basic rights to a huge portion of the citizenry. Thus, it seems odd that Chick-fil-A would be unhappy that it, too, faces problems with government institutions denying it something.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #5)

Thu Aug 2, 2012, 08:13 AM

10. That's too fine a distinction for some folks. I'll react with my wallet - no more chic-fil-a for me.

Build as many franchises as they want, litmus tests for building permits would make the founding fathers spin.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marble falls (Reply #10)

Thu Aug 2, 2012, 08:18 AM

16. Show me where they have said they would deny permits...

You can't, because in your zest to try and justify this hate, you are making things up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joeybee12 (Reply #16)

Thu Aug 2, 2012, 08:39 AM

19. So what other means would they use to "discourage" building of more Chic-Fil-a shops?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joeybee12 (Reply #16)

Thu Aug 2, 2012, 08:47 AM

22. Who said that Boston or Chicago is denying permits. There are those here who want that.....

but other than grandstanding, what are the statements of the mayors of these cities about if there isn't some sort of official threat implicit? I resent your accusation of my alleged zest to justify hate because I don't buy into your nuance. I have reported you fro a personal attack.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joeybee12 (Reply #16)

Thu Aug 2, 2012, 11:50 AM

56. +1,000 nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #5)

Thu Aug 2, 2012, 08:15 AM

11. No it's not, and it's pissing me off that you're deliberately trying

to say they are...they're just saying they're not welcome...that's it...no one has said we won't let you, they've said we don't want you...so let me repeat....CUT THIS SHIT OUT!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joeybee12 (Reply #11)

Thu Aug 2, 2012, 09:51 AM

37. This Chicago alderman has said "we won't let you" twice.

Moreno is relying on a rarely violated Chicago tradition known as aldermanic privilege, which dictates that City Council members defer to the opinion of the ward alderman on local issues. Last year Moreno wielded that weapon to block plans for a Wal-Mart in his ward, saying he had issues with the property owner and that Wal-Mart was not "a perfect fit for the area."

Chick-fil-A already has obtained zoning for a restaurant in the 2500 block of North Elston Avenue, but it must seek council approval to divide the land so it can purchase an out lot near Home Depot, Moreno said.


http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-07-25/news/ct-met-chicago-chick-fil-a-20120725_1_1st-ward-gay-marriage-ward-alderman

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #5)

Thu Aug 2, 2012, 09:05 AM

26. Has anybody actually threatened to deny a business permit? I hadn't heard that.

Some mayors said things like, "Bigoted businesses aren't welcome in our town" but that is a long way from actually denying a business permit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yardwork (Reply #26)

Thu Aug 2, 2012, 09:26 AM

30. Three have verbally threatened to

 

Stop current projects and one councilwoman sent an official letter trying to oust a franchise without the consent of her fellow council members. She later walked it back claiming that it was a personal letter despite the letter head and her using her official title . Some people were just acting without thinking it through first.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to niceguy (Reply #30)

Thu Aug 2, 2012, 09:32 AM

33. Goddess forbid that somebody would verbally suggest that a bigoted company isn't welcome.

Towns and cities decide which businesses to welcome and which not to welcome all the time. For some reason Chick-Fil-A deserves special consideration?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yardwork (Reply #33)

Thu Aug 2, 2012, 09:54 AM

39. The decision is made on the class of business

 

For example they can't say no to burger king for a specific location but then allow Carl's junior to build there.

The only legal way is to prohibit all fast food franchises there. Treating all business owners equally.... Equality

I am not defending CFLA ... It is just a bad percent to start one the can be easily turned against those supporting it

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to niceguy (Reply #39)

Thu Aug 2, 2012, 10:05 AM

40. I think there is starting to be recognition that this is a civil rights issue.

Today nobody would be surprised if a town said that a restaurant refusing to serve black people was not welcome in town. In fact, there are laws against discriminating in that way. There are no laws protecting the right of gay people to be married except in a few states. It's still legal at the federal level and in most states to discriminate against gay people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to niceguy (Reply #39)

Thu Aug 2, 2012, 11:53 AM

58. absolutley 100% correct

 

No matter which side of the core controversy you are on, (I've never been in a CFLA restaurant for my own personal reasons),there are huge questions of Freedom of Speech involved with this issue. Sometimes we have to pay a price for Democracy. If people don't want a CFLA restaurant in their
town, let them show their displeasure with their wallets.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to yardwork (Reply #26)

Thu Aug 2, 2012, 10:43 AM

46. Yes. It was a Chicago Alderman, who has the power to do so. See post #25.

n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #5)

Thu Aug 2, 2012, 10:40 AM

44. Bingo!!!

 

Boycotts are very AMERICAN! Denying business permits and threatening a business' ability to operate within a city, based upon the religious beliefs of the owner? Very UN-AMERICAN!!!

Should conservative mayors threaten and badmouth businesses like Ben and Jerry's or Starbucks???

You don't agree with Dan Cathy, don't give Chick-Fil-A your business. I support gay marriage, but I will definitely continue to give them MY business, because I support religious TOLERANCE!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #5)

Thu Aug 2, 2012, 11:23 AM

48. saying they weren't welcome in their cities isn't the same as

actually denying permits though.

If and when that actually happened, a case could be made, but as far as I know, it was all only talk-

The mayors have first ammendment rights as well no?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluerthanblue (Reply #48)

Thu Aug 2, 2012, 11:36 AM

52. This Chicago Alderman has done it before for Walmart and intends to it for Chick-fil-A

Moreno is relying on a rarely violated Chicago tradition known as aldermanic privilege, which dictates that City Council members defer to the opinion of the ward alderman on local issues. Last year Moreno wielded that weapon to block plans for a Wal-Mart in his ward, saying he had issues with the property owner and that Wal-Mart was not "a perfect fit for the area."

Chick-fil-A already has obtained zoning for a restaurant in the 2500 block of North Elston Avenue, but it must seek council approval to divide the land so it can purchase an out lot near Home Depot, Moreno said.


http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-07-25/news/ct-met-chicago-chick-fil-a-20120725_1_1st-ward-gay-marriage-ward-alderman

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #52)

Thu Aug 2, 2012, 12:16 PM

62. doesn't sound to me that the alderman was prohibiting Walmart because of what it "said"

but rather because of the company.

Those who are raging about Chick Fil A being unwelcome in a city because of the very public stand the owner takes against the civil rights of an oppressed segement of our society- and the funding of groups which seek to deny the civil rights of others -have jumped the gun when they cry "free speech violation". If and when a Chick Fil A was denied permission to open a business within a community, they might have a reason to bitch- but the fact is, the mayors have a right to speak out just as much as mr. cathy does- and all the 'outrage' over what the mayors have said is pretty ironic.

Chick Fill A actively promotes bigotry when they use company funds AND provide free food to orginizations which work to deprive fellow citizens of their equal rights-

Until any of the mayors take direct action to prevent the establishment of a Chick Fil A based soley on their homophobic activities, they are just blowing smoke imo.

I'm well aware of how businesses can be kept out of towns based on the 'politics' of the local government. It isn't new or rare. Chick Fil A isn't an oppressed minority- that meme is something fundementalist christians have been trained to shove down the throats of everyone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluerthanblue (Reply #62)

Thu Aug 2, 2012, 12:32 PM

64. "He had issues with the property owner" - sounds pretty personal to me

not that Walmart violated the law or any zoning ordnance - he simply didn't like the property owner.

You can split hairs all you want - he wants to stop Chic Fil A "because of the company".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joeybee12 (Reply #1)

Thu Aug 2, 2012, 09:09 AM

27. Read the Patriot Act

It's illegal!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RockaFowler (Original post)

Thu Aug 2, 2012, 07:16 AM

2. Except when mayors threaten to banish Chick-Fil-A from their cities

How is that not government curtailment of free speech?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nxylas (Reply #2)

Thu Aug 2, 2012, 07:29 AM

3. Exactly.

I think everybody who wants to boycott them has every right to do so, but I do not think the government should have the right to tell them where they can an can not open a business. If the land is zoned commercial, and then they have every right to open up there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Travis_0004 (Reply #3)

Thu Aug 2, 2012, 07:46 AM

6. strip clubs, liquor stores and porn shops...

all have to meet certain criteria before they can enter a society

so maybe chicken shacks that raise money to promote discrimination should as well

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lame54 (Reply #6)

Thu Aug 2, 2012, 08:21 AM

18. and they still get built. Whatever hoops they jump have nothig to do with politics......

it has to do with law. No other industries has had the Constitutional scrutiny the porn and liquor industry has had and there are liquor stores and porn shops all over this country including Boston and Chicago. Porn is all over the internet and for free. Stopping the building of more Chic-Fil-A shops seems way out of proportion. I am boycotting one of the best fast food items available because they represent some values I don't like. And the teabillies who swarmed the place yesterday probably never paid so much for a sandwich before in their lives outside an airport and won't be buying another one for a long while.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marble falls (Reply #18)

Thu Aug 2, 2012, 10:19 AM

42. not always...

they sometimes get denied if they are deemed to be unfit for the neighborhood

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lame54 (Reply #42)

Thu Aug 2, 2012, 09:46 PM

68. Pretty much the high bar is not build too close to a church or school, no overt to children aimed ..

advertizing, at least thats how it is here in the Tea Party belt of Central Texas. There still are some 'dry' jurisdiction with a bar/liquor store at most 15 or 20 miles away, but 99% of the time porn and liquor are readily available within a short drive. I don't know anybody personally that doesn't hate porn and drinking but it hasn't stopped the porn and liquor industry. (And rightfully so, they are protected by amendment according to the laws of the land and the Supreme Court). We all know who they are and what they believe and we can stop buying from them. I know I bought my last delicious Chic-Fil-A for a long while.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marble falls (Reply #18)

Thu Aug 2, 2012, 11:48 AM

55. no they don't.

it is 2012 and there are still dry cities and counties in this country. here in colorado where MMJ is legal, cities ban dispensaries. the precedent has been well established, right or wrong, that local gov'ts can regulate what businesses locate there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lame54 (Reply #6)

Thu Aug 2, 2012, 09:28 AM

31. The difference is

 

That you are singling out an individual . The only way to exclude legally would be to apply whatever rule to all business of the same class. That wasn't the case with the threats

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to niceguy (Reply #31)

Thu Aug 2, 2012, 10:21 AM

43. that's why most CEO's...

are smart enough to keep their mouths shut and not reveal their prejudices

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Travis_0004 (Reply #3)

Thu Aug 2, 2012, 08:18 AM

14. Let me repeat...stop the buillshit...

Mayors etc are saying they wouldn't be welcome...no one has said they would deny premits...got that...why are you so quick to try and make things up? It's simply saying they're not welcome, if and when it gets to the permit stage, then that discussion can take place, not befroe, unless you're an enabler of hate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joeybee12 (Reply #14)

Thu Aug 2, 2012, 08:52 AM

23. And we’re not going to have a company, Chick-fil-A or whatever the hell the name is.......



But that isn’t cutting the mustard with Menino. He said he plans to fire off a letter to the company’s Atlanta headquarters “telling them my feelings on the matter.”

“If they need licenses in the city, it will be very difficult — unless they open up their policies,” he warned.



http://bostonherald.com/news/regional/view/20120720menino_on_chick-fil-a_stuff_it_vows_to_block_eatery_over_anti-gay_attitude

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joeybee12 (Reply #14)

Thu Aug 2, 2012, 09:01 AM

25. A: Yes, a govt. official did say permits would be denied. (not a mayor)

B: It's often more effective is you take the time to rebut an argument with anything other than a childish UH-UUUHHH and intimations that anyone who offers alternate facts is "an enabler of hate."

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

Moreno stated his position in strong terms, referring to Cathy's "bigoted, homophobic comments" in a proposed opinion page piece that an aide also sent to Tribune reporters. "Because of this man's ignorance, I will now be denying Chick-fil-A's permit to open a restaurant in the 1st Ward."

/snip

But he's just an alderman you say:

Chicago Alderman: No Building Permits For Chick-Fil-A
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/chicago-alderman-no-building-permits-for-chick-fil-a/

Chicago Alderman have extraordinary power over the issuance of building permits in their wards because they must sign off on all building permits that are issued. While this sounds like its essentially a pro forma function, in reality the Alderman have essentially unlimited discretion in whether to sign off on a permit or not, and can apparently base their decision on anything they wish.

/snip

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joeybee12 (Reply #14)

Thu Aug 2, 2012, 11:31 AM

50. Let me repeat. Mayor Menino said the he would deny...

a permit based on the opinion of the CEO. He then wrote a letter to the landlord stating that he would bring the full force of the city government down on him if he rented to Chick-fil-A. Just because he later backtracked, doesn't erase the fact that he used the power of his office to practice viewpoint discrimination.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to meaculpa2011 (Reply #50)

Thu Aug 2, 2012, 11:52 AM

57. Wow--you are misrepresenting what the Mayor said completely, and you got the letter wrong, too. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #57)

Sat Aug 4, 2012, 03:24 PM

69. How's that?

Menino said he would ban Chick-fil-A and wrote to the landlord threatening to make his life hell.

In his retraction he said, "I guess I can't ban them."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to meaculpa2011 (Reply #69)

Sat Aug 4, 2012, 03:28 PM

70. No he did not. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #70)

Sun Aug 5, 2012, 08:58 AM

71. Then why did he retract?

And why did the ACLU issue a smackdown?

"I made a mistake. I make a lot of mistakes. That's called a Meninoism."

You can cook up any excuse you want, but if the mayor of a redstate town used the same tactics against J.C. Penney you'd be foaming at the mouth in two seconds.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to meaculpa2011 (Reply #71)

Sun Aug 5, 2012, 09:23 AM

72. He didn't retract. He said he was expressing HIS OPINION.

Nice try, no cigar.

It's an opinion shared by the people who vote him in, term after term.

The ACLU gets involved whenever there's a controversy--how do you think they generate donations?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #72)

Sun Aug 5, 2012, 10:40 AM

73. In what language is "I can't do that"...

not a retraction?

“I can’t do that. That would be interference to his rights to go there. I make mistakes all the time. That’s a Menino-ism.”

The ACLU gets involved whenever First Amendment rights are threatened. When a government official says that he will deny a business license to a company because of the viewpoint of the CEO and threatens make life a living hell for the landlord, it chills free speech for all.

Just took out the cigar. I'll light it up after lunch.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to meaculpa2011 (Reply #73)

Sun Aug 5, 2012, 10:58 AM

74. It means what he said it means--that he cannot do that. D'oh!

You seem to be one of the few who thinks the Mayor isn't allowed any First Amendment rights of his own. He's allowed to express his opinions, and he did.

No sense of IRONY there, with your First Amendment drama, I see!



Whatever. Don't light yourself on fire trying to light up that cigar.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #74)

Sun Aug 5, 2012, 11:14 AM

77. Speech is protected...

government intimidation is not. As with many on these boards, you favor free speech for those with correct ideas.

No sense of irony here. Just simple reading comprehension.

Absent that day?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to meaculpa2011 (Reply #77)

Sun Aug 5, 2012, 11:41 AM

78. Government intimidation would consist of a rejection of an application for a victualer's permit.

For no good reason.

Saying "You suck" is not against the law. Even if someone in government says it.

Nice try, though. Keep struggling along. Your defense of the Chick Fil Haters is truly touching. You're all about the fairness, of course!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #78)

Sun Aug 5, 2012, 11:51 AM

79. Still comprehension challenged...

I see.

Try this: See Spot run.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to meaculpa2011 (Reply #79)

Sun Aug 5, 2012, 11:56 AM

80. Oh please--when you fling personal insults like loose poop, you've lost the argument.

Your problem is that you don't like being challenged on a nonsensical and inaccurate assertion.

Too doggone bad for you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #80)

Sun Aug 5, 2012, 12:06 PM

81. Not a personal insult...

just an observation.

Challenge me all you want. I've been dealing with intolerant sycophants all my life, as well as government bureaucrats who think that an official title gives them extra-legal authority. Just because I agree with the core argument, doesn't mean that I'm willing to stand by idly while a government official threatens constitutionally-protected speech.

Menino used the power of his office to threaten a local property owner and "make life hell" if he rented to a legal business entity. His threat was based upon the viewpoint of the CEO. That's not freedom of speech, it's abuse of power.

If Chick-fil-A discriminates in hiring or service, slap them down hard.

Wow! I was able to light my cigar without setting myself on fire!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to meaculpa2011 (Reply #81)

Sun Aug 5, 2012, 12:13 PM

82. It was a personal insult. No backtracking, now.

I see where you're coming from--a country mile away, too.

You've been dealing with "intolerant sycophants" eh? As their defenders, I assume!

You're doing a bang-up job championing Chick-Fil-Hate, here. It's quite special and you should not be at all surprised when people notice.

Menino used no "power of his office." If you knew anything about him, and plainly you do not, he 'waxes eloquent' on any number of issues of the day. He is not shy about sharing his opinions with the citizens of the city, and he's beloved for that reason.

When that fast food joint is denied a victualer's permit, then you'll have something to cry about. Until then, you're just blowing smoke on the internet.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #82)

Wed Aug 8, 2012, 08:13 AM

83. How silly of me to not...

grasp your impeccable logic.

So... hot off the presses.

A gay rights group has decided to hold their annual meeting in Doofusville. The mayor, Dudley Doofus, announced that "those people" will not be welcome. However, if they do come he will deny them the permits required to hold their picnic in the town park. When asked what justification he can use to deny them the right to assemble, he said that the community of Doofus won't allow such behavior. "They just don't belong here," said the mayor, "It's an insult to our collective values."

Mayor Doofus then dashed off a letter, on his official letterhead, urging the local motel owner to cancel their reservations or he will make his life a living hell.

The ACLU then brought suit against the mayor, defending the group's right to assemble.

Faced with a lawsuit, the mayor admitted that he had no legal authority to deny permits or make anyone's life a living hell.

"I guess I can't do that," said the mayor. "I say a lot of stupid things. They're called them Doofus-isms. After all, I never stood in front of the motel with armed police and actually denied them entry. When I shoot a couple of them, then they'll have something to cry about."

The townsfolk of Doofusville defended the mayor. "He's not shy about sharing his opinions with the citizens of the city, and he's beloved for that reason."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to meaculpa2011 (Reply #83)

Wed Aug 8, 2012, 11:55 AM

85. Yes, quite. How silly of you, indeed.

Your attempt at equivalence is, yet again, a major fail.

No one said anything about denying anyone a permit for anything.

Of course, you probably knew that, but that fact would ruin your "gay hating" example of supposed "equivalence."

People do have a right to speak out about intolerance, you know--or maybe you don't. Not all views -- particularly those of organizations that donate heavily to agencies that support killing gay people *--have equal validity.

Your logic is everything but impeccable, and I can see you coming a mile away. I am entirely sure I'm not the only one who has a clear view of you, either.

*http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/08/01/1115751/-What-really-makes-the-gays-mad-about-Chick-fil-A

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #85)

Wed Aug 8, 2012, 05:25 PM

86. I'm curious. Since I am not...

the only one on these boards to have taken a free-speech position on this issue, are all of us hate-filled slugs?

Or is it something specific I've said that has your thong in a knot?

No one is saying that all speech has equal validity, just equal protection.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to meaculpa2011 (Reply #86)

Wed Aug 8, 2012, 05:52 PM

88. You have your facts wrong.

The First Amendment is for everyone--even Mayors.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #88)

Wed Aug 8, 2012, 10:16 PM

89. Absolutely true.

Until speech becomes official intimidation.

The unmistakable sign of the misinformed windbag:

"You have your facts wrong."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to meaculpa2011 (Reply #89)

Wed Aug 8, 2012, 11:22 PM

90. Keep digging. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #90)

Thu Aug 9, 2012, 06:29 AM

91. Thanks.

That's the best advice I've received in a very long time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nxylas (Reply #2)

Thu Aug 2, 2012, 07:32 AM

4. Yes, I agree.

Cathy nas a right to be a jackass and throw some hateful religion in with his chick and waffle fries. I have a right not to buy any. But I don't agree with banning business opportunities.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nxylas (Reply #2)

Thu Aug 2, 2012, 08:12 AM

9. The problem is with focusing only on that side of the equation.

Still, Chick-fil-A is working to using government institutions to deny basic rights to a huge portion of the citizenry. It is advocating for institutional bigotry. Thus, it seems slightly odd that Chick-fil-A would be unhappy that it, too, faces problems with government institutions denying it something it wants.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HuckleB (Reply #9)

Thu Aug 2, 2012, 08:58 AM

24. How is Chick-fil-A using government to deny rights?

I'm not arguing the point, just asking. I guess I'm not totally up to speed on all of this.

Oh, I'll add that I haven't been inside a Chick-fil-A since this started.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to groundloop (Reply #24)

Thu Aug 2, 2012, 02:20 PM

67. Chick-fil-A is advocating against gay rights, with money and support for anti-gay advocacy groups.

Thus, it's a bit odd to see a company that supports institutional bigotry suddenly become upset because it faces institutional bigotry.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nxylas (Reply #2)

Thu Aug 2, 2012, 08:16 AM

12. Bullshit...

They're saying they're not welcome to come there...and saying banish implies they are throwing them out ...how is that possible when they're not even there....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joeybee12 (Reply #12)

Thu Aug 2, 2012, 09:31 AM

32. There is one case

 

Of a franchise in a college that a councilwoman is trying to have their contract cancelled

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nxylas (Reply #2)

Thu Aug 2, 2012, 08:44 AM

21. I have not heard any mayor threatening to banish a Chick-Fil-A nor deny permits to open one.

What I hear is simply that they are not welcome .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nxylas (Reply #2)

Thu Aug 2, 2012, 09:33 AM

34. Isn't it the mayors' right of free speech to say what they think about a business?

Or is Chick-Fil-A deserving of special consideration? Elected officials say negative things about WalMart all the time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nxylas (Reply #2)

Thu Aug 2, 2012, 11:30 AM

49. so mayors don't have free speech?

telling a company they aren't welcome in a city is speech.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluerthanblue (Reply #49)

Sun Aug 5, 2012, 11:00 AM

75. Some folks think only HATERS have a right to free speech. It's the most curious thing! nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RockaFowler (Original post)

Thu Aug 2, 2012, 07:55 AM

7. Recommended.

When it comes to active hate and the repercussions to people in society, which side are you on? What does it say about your character? Ignoring it becomes a defacto stance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mmonk (Reply #7)

Thu Aug 2, 2012, 08:17 AM

13. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RockaFowler (Original post)

Thu Aug 2, 2012, 08:18 AM

15. Regarding businessess...

I've been struggling with this. If the KKK wanted to open a lemonade stand in my neighborhood, would it be illegal for a mayoral town council to decide not to grant building privileges? Don't they make this kind of determination with strip clubs and such? It's one thing to force a profitable business out, but another not to grant a discriminatory one access.

Perhaps we should put the shoe on the other foot. Are we willing to grant closed-minded, intolerant communities the ability to deny a JC Penny if they so wish because they disapprove of their embrace of gay equality?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Genghis_Sean (Reply #15)

Thu Aug 2, 2012, 10:18 AM

41. My opinion -- Yes we can.

Yes we can. We're living in a Democracy. Businesses are not people. It's not illegal to discriminate against a business. If the majority decides they don't want a business, for any reason, in their community that's fine. As long as it doesn't violate individual rights. For example, communities decide not to allow porn shops, Walmart, and Sedona, AZ forced McDonald's to change their sign turquoise.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RockaFowler (Original post)

Thu Aug 2, 2012, 08:20 AM

17. I disagree

I will boycott and will encourage others to as well. I have several members in my family that are gay and one is still in the closet because of shit like this. I would do the same to another business that decided that they didn't want to serve others that they didn't like. He (the CEO) waded into this shit and doubled down on his hate speech and I will do as much as I can to show people that discrimination is not only bad for society, it's illegal.

Stop the hate and take a stand people. The only way to change society is to push back.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LittleGirl (Reply #17)

Thu Aug 2, 2012, 08:39 AM

20. No matter how much I like their product...

after this, no more Schtick-fil-A for me.

At the expense of a large number of our citizens, this company got massive, free advertising.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LittleGirl (Reply #17)

Thu Aug 2, 2012, 09:15 AM

28. Yep push back.

And then they push back too...and soon everyone is choosing up sides to fight...meanwhile our side must overlook some basic principles of fairness to support government officials who seek to deny the chicken sandwich from their city cause of the hate of the CEO...and the slide towards insanity begins and in the end progressives lose.

Yep let's keep it up...it worked so well this time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #28)

Thu Aug 2, 2012, 09:38 AM

35. We can't back down

ever. Civil Rights for EVERYONE.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LittleGirl (Reply #35)

Thu Aug 2, 2012, 09:50 AM

36. No we can't back down...just keep making the same mistake and it will all work out.

like this.

@RickWarren
@dancathy just called me. #ChickFilA has already set a world record today, with 7 more hrs to go in the West. #OutOfChicken

1 Aug 12

We can win by unifying the fundies ....get them all unified and we can destroy them all in one place.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #36)

Thu Aug 2, 2012, 12:04 PM

61. Destroy them!!!??? Wow.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zzaapp (Reply #61)

Thu Aug 2, 2012, 12:31 PM

63. I forgot that some don't get sarcasm.

Sorry

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #63)

Thu Aug 2, 2012, 12:36 PM

65. No worries mate, I figured as much.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zzaapp (Reply #65)

Thu Aug 2, 2012, 12:37 PM

66. BTW, you don't happen to be the Mike Z that owns

 

Dr. Z guitar amps, are you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #28)

Thu Aug 2, 2012, 10:41 AM

45. Some people might "hate" the CEO, but that's not what the push back is about

RTFA

It's about him using his business to funnel dollars into organizations that promote discrimination and violence against gays.

If african americans hadn't pushed back against the businesses that discriminated against them, they'd still be 2nd class citizens. And white people joined the fray because they saw how wrong it was.

Push back does work. You just have to be patient and stand your ground (except without guns, TYVM)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TalkingDog (Reply #45)

Thu Aug 2, 2012, 11:18 AM

47. The goals of the civil rights movement were different.

They were seeking access to public places and did not go after the ideas that those businesses expressed.
For instance Lester Maddox an his chicken restaurant handed out ax handles to his customers as an open sign of violence against black people...they called those ax handles nigger knockers....so it don't get much worse than that...but the NAACP or any one in the civil rights movement sought to have his licence pulled or otherwise use the governemnt to punish him with.
They were not about to create white victim of the black man.

And they understood that to achieve their goal they had to build bridges not destroy them....they only sought to be treated like others not to eliminate the idea of racism through the power of government...which would have played right in to the charges against them that they were communist...because that is what Stalinist Russia did.

If your response to things is emotional then it instills an emotional response on the other side of the issue....and you can manipulate that for your own purposes...it is the best way to divide and conquer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #47)

Thu Aug 2, 2012, 11:31 AM

51. Money is not speech. Businesses cannot express ideas. They are not people.


The civil rights movement "did not go after the ideas that those businesses expressed. " Really? You seriously think that's a valid, cogent argument?

If that's true why weren't they allowed access to businesses and public places? Because the businesses and public places (owned and maintained by people) were promoting the IDEA that blacks were 2nd class citizens. And as such were not worthy of equal treatment under the law or in civil society.

"they only sought to be treated like others"
Which is what gay people are seeking.

"... not to eliminate the idea of racism through the power of government"
Nobody I know is pushing for this. Show me where this is happening. An intelligent person knows they (or the government) can't eliminate bigotry or prejudice. It is impossible.

What they (or the government) can do is to mediate the effects of the bigotry or prejudice. Protecting the minority from the tyranny of the majority; which is a bedrock concept of our Democratic Republic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TalkingDog (Reply #51)

Thu Aug 2, 2012, 11:59 AM

59. with all respect, doesn't that open a very wide door

 

for others (far right)to misuse the intent of any such decree?
For instance, permits for abortion clinics? head shops? etc.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TalkingDog (Reply #51)

Thu Aug 2, 2012, 11:59 AM

60. No I don't think it I know it.

I was alive then and was in Mississippi in 1965.
Probably the whole of the black community understood they could not win going after ideas...but focusing on actual rights like the right to eat at a public place and ride anywhere they wanted on the buss....

But I guess I dreamed I read here several times about mayors or councils saying something about denying the licence to the chicken place...that never happened...and that is not what started the thing to begin with?
Had they just stuck to the boycott it would have hurt them...but instead they were made the dictum's of government intrusion which fits nicely with the tea party narrative.

But don't worry I know I can never talk you out of it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RockaFowler (Original post)

Thu Aug 2, 2012, 09:18 AM

29. They can't talk about their Dark Lord anymore

This is obviously being used to divert attention away from the fact that they have the most vile candidate imaginable. Romney has become their Dark Lord who's name cannot be spoken. The fascist wingnuts on my FB page will NOT utter his name anymore, but they're fine talking about Chicken, Guns, God, posting the most nonsensical signs, etc.

Ok, also.... When it comes to this crappy company's issue, though (LOL), I would be equally upset if someone who runs a company said "I really don't like people with bald spots, I think they're disgusting, just my opinion." I'd say F*CK YOU. So I certainly think the GLBT community reaction is more than appropriate as well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RockaFowler (Original post)

Thu Aug 2, 2012, 11:39 AM

53. I'd like two of your sammiches, and a side of hate. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RockaFowler (Original post)

Thu Aug 2, 2012, 11:48 AM

54. Oops!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RockaFowler (Original post)

Sun Aug 5, 2012, 11:04 AM

76. PLEASE go to this link, if you haven't.

It is an excellent article.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to annabanana (Reply #76)

Wed Aug 8, 2012, 08:34 AM

84. I agree

I'm glad it's still being sent around.

Thanks for kicking it

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RockaFowler (Original post)

Wed Aug 8, 2012, 05:31 PM

87. Didn't DU have a huge feud that hid behind chicken?

I'm not in a place I can search back.

Lots of nastiness veiled behind chicken (or some other mundane thing) references.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread