Chic-Fil-A whats going on here?

SVreX wrote:

Otto Maddox wrote: Isn't it routine to block strip clubs, bars, etc. based on nothing more than "family values"?

No. It is routine to block such adult businesses based on zoning ordinances. Most business licenses specifically ask if the business will be selling adult products. Would you want an adult business next to a school? There are no zoning ordinances that allow one type of chicken restaurant but prohibit anti-gay chicken restaurants.

Why would I care if they sell dildos and emotion lotion next to a school?

spitfirebill wrote:

N Sperlo wrote:

spitfirebill wrote: I'm just glad that next time I go to CFA I won't have to put up with the LBGT crowd and whiney pandering liberals.

This was a perfectly fine conversion for three pages with no name calling. What the berkeley?

It was typed with tongue in cheek. You just didn't hear it.

I thought your tongue was somewherel else.

Find that damn sarcasm font wouldja?

scardeal wrote: ...The law discriminates about who can marry whom. You're not allowed to marry your siblings, your parent, or your own child. In most states, you're not allowed to marry an heir, adopted child, stepchild, etc. that is not of blood relation. You're not allowed to marry more than one person at the same time. You're not allowed to marry someone below a certain age. You're not allowed to marry someone who is incapable of understanding what marriage is..

Sorry to pick on your posts, but you provide the best reasonable "other side" to this argument, so I thank you for that.

I think (as I think is a HUGE issue in this debate) you are confusing "marriage" with "having sex". Marriage, in the context we are talking about, is a legal contract between two people. There really is not reason why you should not legally be able to legally marry someone you are related to, or even a pet, but it is also generally unnecessary. The legal protections provided by marriage are already present in most of those situations (and you are not getting your dog on your medical plan even if you do marry it ).

There are already laws in place about having sex with relative, pets etc, so there really is no need to overlap that into marriage contracts.

Additionally, and probably an even bigger issue here. We are talking about legal marriage, not religious marriage. It is a huge problem that they are used interchangeably, they really shouldn't, they are two completely different things.

DoctorBlade wrote: He can advise against it, but considering the Mayor of Boston didn't oppose a Mosque being built along the same "Freedom Trail" he's got issues already. That Mosque is used by islamic worshippers who do believe it's fine to stone homosexuals to death. Christianity simply calls the lifestyle a sin. So if Menino goes all out against CFA, he's pretty much toast legally.

This is exactly what my previous statement was about. People are using this to rail against Christians but leave Muslims alone while having the same beliefs. Its very hip to criticize Christians and sweep other people's ignorance or intolerance under the rug if they are not tied to the Republican party. If people are ignorant and do/say ignorant things and own a business, just don't patronize them.

Too many people follow exactly what their party says instead of stepping out of line and looking at the situation without political blinders on. I am so glad I do not have my FB account up right now so I don't have to read the stupid remarks my friends are probably saying about this situation.

FYI - I tiptoe on the Agnostic and Atheist line and I support gay rights.

We over-use the word "discrimination".

Federal hiring laws do not offer any protections for LGBT individuals. To be more specific, NONE of the following Federal laws offer ANY protection for Gay individuals:

• The Civil Rights Act of 1964
• The Equal Pay Act of 1963
• The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967
• The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
• The Rehabilitation Act of 1973
• The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008
• The Civil Rights Act of 1991

Read that non-discrimination statement on the wall at your workplace. It doesn't say "sexual orientation".

There are no "rights" in this matter, only people's opinions. Discrimination laws do not define this as a right.

In reply to aircooled:

amen! I mean.. Err...

To completely derail the thread, this line of conversation about marriage reminds me of this -

scardeal wrote: Legally, they have every right that a non-LGBT person has: they can vote, own a business, marry a person of the opposite sex, travel freely, etc. There are no legal or economic restrictions specific to being a member of that community.

Unfortunately, this is just incorrect. If you care to research it, it will be plain to see.

So by actively denying LGBT EQUAL marriage rights your protecting people and society?

Please do not equate gay marriage with pedophilia or incest.

SVreX wrote: We over-use the word "discrimination". Federal hiring laws do not offer any protections for LGBT individuals. To be more specific, NONE of the following Federal laws offer ANY protection for Gay individuals: - The Civil Rights Act of 1964 - The Equal Pay Act of 1963 - The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 - The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 - The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 - The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 - The Civil Rights Act of 1991 Read that non-discrimination statement on the wall at your workplace. It doesn't say "sexual orientation". There are no "rights" in this matter, only people's opinions. Discrimination laws do not define this as a right.

Well, there were none of those before 1963, so maybe its time it did.

Cone_Junky wrote: So by actively denying LGBT EQUAL marriage rights your protecting people and society? Please do not equate gay marriage with pedophilia or incest.

I'd like to see one non-religious based reason for being against it.

I suspect I won't.

Otto Maddox wrote: To completely derail the thread, this line of conversation about marriage reminds me of this -

I bet if you look, you'll also find some of teh gays in the family bloodline. How is either relevant?

PHeller wrote:

SVreX wrote:

PHeller wrote: Boston could require that all Boston based business cannot base hiring decision on sexual orientation or marriage status.

Probably won't work. Communities that have tried it quickly realize that is would requiring churches and religious organizations to hire contrary to their Constitutionally protected religious freedoms. It is illegal, and wildly unpopular at the voting booths.

Then it should be required that they label themselves as "Religiously Based Hiring Process" where being a good member of said religion is part of the resume. Also, they shouldn't get government incentives for their programs because that would defy separation of church and state. But that would make a lot of very large organizations very under-funded, and probably hurt lots of people until non-religious organizations were able to pick up the slack.

Irrelevant.

The laws do not require that.

And don't forget, governments WANT the social programs of religious institutions. That's why they fund them. If religious institutions didn't exist to shoulder some of the load for social programs, the burden on government would be crushing.

But that doesn't change the subject at hand. The City of Boston (and other municipalities across the country) are waaay over stepping their authority.

In reply to DILYSI Dave:

They aren't relevant. Mitt can't control what happened in the past. But when you use history as your defense, people tend to start googling...

Back on topic - CFA has the right to think and say whatever they want and locate wherever they want, just as long as they aren't breaking any laws. And I think the people who say their chicken is awful are just wrong.

Otto Maddox wrote:

SVreX wrote:

Otto Maddox wrote: Isn't it routine to block strip clubs, bars, etc. based on nothing more than "family values"?

No. It is routine to block such adult businesses based on zoning ordinances. Most business licenses specifically ask if the business will be selling adult products. Would you want an adult business next to a school? There are no zoning ordinances that allow one type of chicken restaurant but prohibit anti-gay chicken restaurants.

Why would I care if they sell dildos and emotion lotion next to a school?

Then you are free to petition your local Zoning Commission.

Good luck.

legal rights lgbt people should have but dont. 1: the right to marry the person we love and enjoy the legal benefits of such a marriage 2: legal protection from discrimination and harasment in the workplace and for housing 3: The legal protection to not be denyed medical care. personally i dont think we are asking for anything extravagant.

carguy123 wrote:

N Sperlo wrote: In reply to carguy123: Equal rights. Rights to get married etc. CFA supports anti-gay groups by donating fat stacks of cash.

Unless I'm missing something Gays & Lesbians don't have the RIGHT to get married in many places so they can't be trampling them by telling people they don't agree with that RIGHT and selling tasteless chicken sandwiches. Now I understand that they want that right, but it's not a right as of yet.

It is a right for gay folks to get married in Massachusetts.

SVreX wrote:

Otto Maddox wrote:

SVreX wrote:

Otto Maddox wrote: Isn't it routine to block strip clubs, bars, etc. based on nothing more than "family values"?

No. It is routine to block such adult businesses based on zoning ordinances. Most business licenses specifically ask if the business will be selling adult products. Would you want an adult business next to a school? There are no zoning ordinances that allow one type of chicken restaurant but prohibit anti-gay chicken restaurants.

Why would I care if they sell dildos and emotion lotion next to a school?

Then you are free to petition your local Zoning Commission. Good luck.

That's just it. I don't care one way or another. Same as if CFA wants to put a store next to a school. People can get angry, protest, complain, try to block it, whatever against adult businesses or CFA. I'll just vote with my wallet.

KATYB wrote: legal rights lgbt people should have but dont. 1: the right to marry the person we love and enjoy the legal benefits of such a marriage 2: legal protection from discrimination and harasment in the workplace and for housing 3: The legal protection to not be denyed medical care. personally i dont think we are asking for anything extravagant.

THAT is equality.

N Sperlo wrote:

SVreX wrote: We over-use the word "discrimination". Federal hiring laws do not offer any protections for LGBT individuals. To be more specific, NONE of the following Federal laws offer ANY protection for Gay individuals: - The Civil Rights Act of 1964 - The Equal Pay Act of 1963 - The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 - The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 - The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 - The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 - The Civil Rights Act of 1991 Read that non-discrimination statement on the wall at your workplace. It doesn't say "sexual orientation". There are no "rights" in this matter, only people's opinions. Discrimination laws do not define this as a right.

Well, there were none of those before 1963, so maybe its time it did.

Maybe so.

I'm not taking a side on this. My point is there is a lot of free use of the word "discrimination", but no law supporting it whatsoever.

They can't be breaking a law that doesn't exist.

Joe Gearin wrote: It is a right for gay folks to get married in Massachusetts.

True.

It's also a right for Christians to sell chicken.

BTW, it is NOT legal for gay folks who do not live in MA to get married in MA.

dculberson wrote:

Bobzilla wrote: Let's put this another way...... If the mayors of Boston, chicago and councilmen from San Fran were blocking a restraunt owned by a LBGT person, what would we say? Its the same thing, buton the other shoe. They are discriminating based on sexual preference and that is just as wrong legally and morally as it is the other way.

It's not the same thing. The "same thing" would be if the CEO of a national scale gay-owned business came out in opposition to straight marriage and refused to hire openly straight people. If that happened, you can bet there would be a lot of whining.

It is the same thing. It's still discriminating on a person's sexual preference. I believe this would have been referred to as "reverse discrimination" in the past.

I find it interesting that some dude, for whatever the reason, is promoting/stating a type of intolerance. In response to that, city/state/local officials are responding in-kind with their own type of intolerance.........isn't this an eye for an eye like the good book tells us about?

Also -- some dude has a business and says that he is not really down with the whole LGBT thing.........but I'm pretty sure he doesn't turn any of those folks away and is more than happy to exchange a few sheckels for a chicken sammie.........it seems a little hypocritical to me. And we as a society are okay with this, but if this was was a whitePride Castle burger joint, we'd be all up in arms.

Is selling chicken sammiches not enough for this guy? If it were me and I were in charge of a sammich empire, I'd focus on the things I was good at......like making more sammiches. Being closed on Sunday is cool, they do that, Hobby Lobby does it, Franklin Covey used to do it.....no problem there. But when you use your business to push an agenda down on an unwilling population, yeah, I might have a problem with that....and I don't think it should be surprising if others do and retaliate in their own way.

PS. -- I like Babe's chicken. Come on over to Foat Wurth and get ya some

Otto Maddox wrote:

SVreX wrote:

Otto Maddox wrote:

SVreX wrote:

Otto Maddox wrote: Isn't it routine to block strip clubs, bars, etc. based on nothing more than "family values"?

No. It is routine to block such adult businesses based on zoning ordinances. Most business licenses specifically ask if the business will be selling adult products. Would you want an adult business next to a school? There are no zoning ordinances that allow one type of chicken restaurant but prohibit anti-gay chicken restaurants.

Why would I care if they sell dildos and emotion lotion next to a school?

Then you are free to petition your local Zoning Commission. Good luck.

That's just it. I don't care one way or another. Same as if CFA wants to put a store next to a school. People can get angry, protest, complain, try to block it, whatever against adult businesses or CFA. I'll just vote with my wallet.

So you wouldn't buy the dildos and emotion lotion?

SVreX wrote: But that doesn't change the subject at hand. The City of Boston (and other municipalities across the country) are waaay over stepping their authority.

And this is the crux of the matter. A permit can be denied only for just cause which must be demonstrated. Disagreeing with the opinions of the owner (however disagreeable they may be) is not cause to deny a permit. That's why the rabidly racist Maurice Bessinger is still in business here in Columbia.

That does not stop private individuals from boycotting or patronizing a business based on that same opinion. Bessinger again: he had a good thing goin' selling BBQ sauce through several grocery store chains until his racism came to light. They dropped his product like a hot potato. He sued and lost. Now he's back to a few local stores which don't really do so well.

But at no point did he have a permit for a restaraunt denied over those opinions. Does thast mean that perhaps the city government of Columbia, SC, heart of the intolerant Bible Belt, is actually more progressive (gasp) than the governments of such progressive cities as Boston and Chicago? Oh, say it ain't so!