Chic-Fil-A whats going on here?

A man with money speaking his mind? What kinda Commie is he? oh wait, money has no place in politics...... citizen legislators and all that

T.J. wrote: For the government to block a permit based on not liking someone's personal beliefs is idiotic and illegal.

Hasn't happened. The Mayor stated CFA ideals don't match Boston ideals.

Nothing more, nothing less. Well within the Mayor's rights also.

Sending a letter as a sitting mayor? no coercion their.

Datsun1500 wrote: You seemed to be more worried about a joke about racist cows than what I really thought on the subject, so I will re-post it.

What's even funnier is that it's painfully obvious he isn't familiar with the proper definition of racist.

He's confusing bigot and racist.

rac·ist  [rey-sist] Show IPA noun 1. a person who believes in racism, the doctrine that a certain human race is superior to any or all others.

Hitler was a racist, but few others than the KKK and groups like them are racist.

SVreX wrote:

Datsun1500 wrote: But a 10 page thread calling the owner of chick fil a a a bigot is fine, ok. Now I know the rules.

You sure didn't hear me say that. But it does beg the question...Why is it so necessary to call him names at all? Why not just answer the OP's original question and state the facts, that the Mayor of Boston is out of line. Oh yeah... I forgot. He's a Christian who stands on his beliefs. That makes him a perfectly opportune target for any vile name calling and inflammatory accusation. How could I be so foolish?

Freedom of speech does not guarantee freedom from the consequences of that speech, whether they be financial or just name calling.

The whole "Christians are discriminated against" is kind of a large exaggeration don't you think? Vocal christians might be called names, but I would guess that the name calling is at no greater a rate than the name calling visited upon the muslims, jews, mormons, gays, minorities of any color, felons, lawyers, used car salesmen, etc etc. The thing about being a christian is that nobody can tell unless you inform them.

A summary of the situation:

A person with money makes a statement as head of a company that many people disagree with. A person with power makes a statement back that he disagrees and believes his constituents disagree and will not appreciate that company moving to their city.

Nothing else has happened yet.

If the person of power attempts to block the person with money from doing something legal for differences of belief, that will be wrong. If the constituents of the person with power think he overstepped his bounds in representing their interests they can write disapproving letters and/or vote for someone else. If the person of power starts a business in that community and the people genuinely don't want it there, they don't have to spend their money at it.

SVreX wrote: Oh yeah... I forgot. He's a Christian who stands on his beliefs. That makes him a perfectly opportune target for any vile name calling and inflammatory accusation.

You know, Paul, I have great respect for you, but this really gets to be a tired argument. "Christians" are no more persecuted than anybody else. And, frankly, at the risk of sounding immature (and speaking in the broadest of generalizations), Christians have earned a lot of it over the centuries. Try being told that you're a sinner and are going to be damned for things that you may find personally very reasonable and that aren't harming anyone - then see how happy you are about being told that, and how much it makes you cherish and respect the people who tell it to you.

You're clearly already salty about how people are treating this person, and by extension Christians in general, and by extension (I assume) yourself.

Welcome to the club.

I'm an atheist who stands up for my beliefs. That makes me a a perfectly opportune target for any vile name calling and inflammatory accusation. I've been called a sinner, a heathen, damned, immoral, anti-American, liberal, godless (and that one was clearly intended as an insult, though I chose to accept it as a compliment), and many other far worse things.

I have a strong moral system despite my godless heathenhood. In fact, it's stronger than many self-professed "Christians" I've known - but the very fiber of my being has been insulted and questioned more times than I can count. And I don't try to stop believers from believing - I just try to stop them from inflicting their beliefs on others.

So, frankly, it's time for you and your brethren to put on your big-boy pants and reap what you've been sowing for the last 700 years or so.

Duke, you are right. There has certainly been a lot of bad communication from Christians over the years, and we have earned much of what we reap.

I intended no generalizations about Christians.

I intended a very specific observation about 11 pages worth of drivel that is a long distance from the subject at hand, where many people have made issue of his belief system, and few seem to be willing to recognize his right to believe so. Name calling is the best they've got to offer, and apparently only because of his faith.

You are assuming very incorrectly that I am attaching any of it to myself based on my faith.

I worked very hard to stick very specifically to the subject and original question for many pages, in spite of the floundering. When the words racist, homophobe, and bigot entered the conversation I thought it had gone much too far. Not because I am a Christian, but because I have spent a lot of my life working for Civil Rights and living in minority communities, and have witnessed and experienced first hand what happens when bigotry is considered humorous.

I'd have said the same thing if he was a Muslim, an Atheist, or a Hare Krishna.

Nocones, I apologize for contributing to the floundering of your thread. I'll be staying out of it from now on, because it is clear that I am a lightning rod for off subject comments, and can no longer contribute anything of value.

Yeah, speaking from personal experience it's sorta tough being an overt atheist in the Bible Belt, if you are a leper you have a better chance of social acceptance.

But as far as the CFA situation if the guy running it were an atheist or Muslim voicing his viewpoint, then under our Constitution he'd still have every right to do so as long as his company does not discriminate against them. Yeah, screwy but that's how it works. So that still means (going back to the OP) that these two grandstanding mayors need to STFU and quit pandering for votes.

z31maniac wrote:

T.J. wrote: For the government to block a permit based on not liking someone's personal beliefs is idiotic and illegal.

Hasn't happened. The Mayor stated CFA ideals don't match Boston ideals. Nothing more, nothing less. Well within the Mayor's rights also.

Huffington Post wrote: CHICAGO -- A Chicago alderman, angered by the president of Chick-fil-A's comments that he is against gay marriage, said he will block the company from building a restaurant in his ward.

That is a lot different than just voicing an opinion that you don;t think a company shares you or your city's values.

SVreX wrote: Name calling is the best they've got to offer, and apparently only because of his faith. You are assuming very incorrectly that I am attaching any of it to myself based on my faith..

I am basing it on what I've read here, and in particular, the part of your post I quoted, which is of course why I quoted it. Regardless of what has been unfairly interpreted from the actual words in the interview with Mr. Cathy, he has contributed large sums of money to virulently anti-gay organizations, and has also professed to believe as his Christian faith directs him to.

So I do not think it the mere existence of Mr. Cathy's faith that is earning him scorn. He is of course welcome to believe as he wishes, but then he needs to accept the consequences of those beliefs.

Please also read (if you care) my original post in this thread where I fully supported Mr. Cathy's First Amendment rights, and criticized the possibility that Boston might abuse its powers by denying a legal permit.

I didn't say it was because of the existence of his faith. I said because of his faith. It's the particular tenants of his faith which apparently offend.

Which, as you note, he has the Constitutionally protected right to believe in.

There is a lot of noise in this thread about "rights" that do not exist, and a lot of willingness to ignore the rights (of Mr. Cathy) that do exist, or at least a large willingness to use name calling (and perhaps slander and liable) to undermine his position and his character when he expresses them.

I think he is perfectly willing to accept the consequences of his actions. I also think there are too many people in this thread who are taking the moral low road.

Whether we like it or not (and for the record, I do not), there is nothing wrong or illegal about donating large sums of money to virulently anti-gay organizations. It is also not wrong to donate large sums of money to virulently pro-gay organizations.

This thread is expressing a very biased form of ethics. It's OK to slam him for legally expressing his Constitutionally protected religious views if they happen to be ones folks don't like. Even if the methods of slamming cross legal lines.

The mayor crossed an ethical line with his letter using his bully pulpit to push his personal agenda. He has not crossed a legal line...yet. Slander, liable, trespass, etc. on the part of anyone else would also cross legal lines.

T.J. wrote:

z31maniac wrote:

T.J. wrote: For the government to block a permit based on not liking someone's personal beliefs is idiotic and illegal.

Hasn't happened. The Mayor stated CFA ideals don't match Boston ideals. Nothing more, nothing less. Well within the Mayor's rights also.

Huffington Post wrote: CHICAGO -- A Chicago alderman, angered by the president of Chick-fil-A's comments that he is against gay marriage, said he will block the company from building a restaurant in his ward.

That is a lot different than just voicing an opinion that you don;t think a company shares you or your city's values.

Notice the city I mentioned, vs the city you are mentioning.

T.J. wrote:

z31maniac wrote:

T.J. wrote: For the government to block a permit based on not liking someone's personal beliefs is idiotic and illegal.

Hasn't happened. The Mayor stated CFA ideals don't match Boston ideals. Nothing more, nothing less. Well within the Mayor's rights also.

Huffington Post wrote: CHICAGO -- A Chicago alderman, angered by the president of Chick-fil-A's comments that he is against gay marriage, said he will block the company from building a restaurant in his ward.

That is a lot different than just voicing an opinion that you don;t think a company shares you or your city's values.

Notice the city I mentioned, vs the city you are mentioning.

This got a laugh -

I'm pretty sure there's no "be nice to everyone unless they're a homo - Jesus" in the bible.

In reply to z31maniac:

I noticed. I was speaking of Chicago the entire time. Not Boston or San Francisco or whichever other city has a mayor that says Chi-Fil-A doesn't share the values of their cities.

I always think it odd when people use the bible to discriminate against homosexuals but don't follow hundreds of other things in the very same book. Read the "Year of Living Biblically" by A.J. Jacobs for many examples.

Not to derail this thread, since I do support the man having an opinion and being able to speak it and not have that affect whether or not he can get building or business permits from local governments, but I find that people like him are just hypocrites who pick and choose what to believe and what to ignore in their book and use that as a smokescreen to hate and discriminate that which they do not like.

CNN just released an article on this very topic:

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/07/30/opinion/randazza-first-amendment/

Fact: citizens of Chicago value most is a good pizza.

Datsun1500 wrote: No dead baby jokes then?

Wow, I forgot about those jokes. I lived through the Helen Keller jokes, DB jokes, Hitler jokes, Used Car Salesman jokes, lawyer jokes and most every other bad taste (racist) jokes.

I did laugh at some in the 1970;s but now that we are all "PC"; I am now offended at all of them and apologize that I laughed at those jokes. (Except the "reading the waffle iron" joke)

Has a spicy chicken sammich at Jack & the Box. It was delicious.

I am offically boycotting Chicago and Boston. I have no intentions of supporting such closed minded cities.

Trans_Maro wrote: I'm pretty sure there's no "be nice to everyone unless they're a homo - Jesus" in the bible.

This is something that is often mis-understood. The Bible teaches us to love one another, even our enemy's. That I believe would include gays.
Supporting gay marriage is another thing entirely. The Bible clearly states that marriage is between a man and a woman, and also that living a homosexual lifestyle (note the difference between this and "being" a homosexual) or committing a homosexual act is a sin. After all, the Bible invented marriage. Just sayin'.
Disclaimer - I could be incorrect about some of this, but this is my understanding.

In reply to bravenrace:

Not much about gay marriage in the bible but plenty about taking multiple wives. Concubines and whatnot seem to be acceptable too.

One other thing - the bible didn't exist until around 300 years after Jesus died. Not sure how it could have invented marriage.

Did you get that from a 30 second Google?