Boston Mayor to Outlaw Chick-Fil-A

[specsaregood]

I'm not religious and I don't eat at chik whatever the hell it is called; but I do enjoy how the owners drive douchebags crazy mad.

 

[cstarace]

so any of y'all heard about chik-fil-a removing the muppet toys from their children's meal due to possible safety issues? i read it on reddit, but people are making comments that its not really about a safety issue but something else...but I don't know what...

Jim Henson Co., which makes the Muppet toys, said it was their decision to no longer do business with Chick-Fil-A as consequence of Chick-Fil-A's stance on this whole gay thing. So either Chick-Fil-A is lying to avoid more bad publicity from this controversy or Jim Henson Co. is lying to cover up potential safety hazards/liabilities.

 

[TonySutton]

so any of y'all heard about chik-fil-a removing the muppet toys from their children's meal due to possible safety issues? i read it on reddit, but people are making comments that its not really about a safety issue but something else...but I don't know what...

The Jim Henson Company has celebrated and embraced diversity and inclusiveness for over fifty years and we have notified Chick-Fil-A that we do not wish to partner with them on any future endeavors. Lisa Henson, our CEO is personally a strong supporter of gay marriage and has directed us to donate the payment we received from Chick-Fil-A to GLAAD.

https://www.facebook.com/notes/the-jim-henson-company/july-20-2012/10150928864755563

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Trying to get people to focus on what you want is likely a waste of time. Especially if you do so by telling them that their focus is wrong - without a lick of evidence no less. I welcome you to focus exactly as stated ("getting the government out of it").

Evidence? The evidence is plain as day. Government doesn't belong in marriage according to the Constitution. Fact. Furthermore, it would solve the same problems that this supposed "equality via more government" option would. You may be right that I'm wasting time, but then, so is everyone else on this thread.

It mattered to "Jim and Jill" and it matters to some "Jim and John". That you don't care might* be a fact. But it is a fact that it matters to some people ("52 percent of Americans support the legalization of same-sex marriage").

Fifty-two percent of Americans do not know what "same-sex marriage" really means. They think that, in order to be married at all, you have to get the government's permission. That's not true. You can still get married without a government license, but most people just take the old washed-out "it doesn't matter what two people do" and completely forget about the angle of whether government should be regulating marriage at all because from decades of indoctrination, they don't even know that marriage exists apart from government.

Also, I didn't say it didn't matter to some people. Perhaps it does, but many of those, first of all, do not really know what they are talking about. That's not to say they are stupid, but they just don't have a firm grasp on the concept because all they've heard about it, they heard from Faux News or some other entertainment-based news source. I'm saying it doesn't matter, not that it doesn't matter to some people. The reason I say it doesn't matter isn't because I don't care about things being fair, but because getting government out of marriage achieves the same thing as giving licenses to gays in terms of equalities, but it hurts the American people by taxing us more and inviting the government into our private lives instead of just stopping all government regulation of marriage. This is the opposite of what many gays truly want, but they don't realize it yet because they aren't educated on the terms and concepts of the debate.

In other words, you are factually incorrect. Now I am focusing not on your goal - "getting the government out of it" - but your lie - "It doesn't make the least bit of difference and it doesn't achieve anything to let them both have it".

I didn't lie. In terms of the desired outcome, it really doesn't matter. If you get the government out of it, you have marriage equality. If you get the government involved, surprise, you still don't have equality because there are many other groups that are discriminated against, even by the gays because they don't want to be associated with "those freaks" (think polygamists, etc.) I guess you could argue that it would make a difference because of the taxes and such, but I wasn't speaking in those terms. I'm speaking in terms of equality within the law. The government doesn't have the authority to regulate marriage in the first place, so that is out of the question. What I am saying is, why not try to get the government out of it when you get the same equality? Are you, as a supposed libertarian on this majority libertartian website, going to tell me that every marriage deserves government benefits and more government regulation?

For the record, I don't think anybody should willingly submit themselves to the family law or divorce court system without damn good reason. Why? Because it matters - big time! Divorce and separation costs are huge. Alimony and child support can cripple you financially.

I agree.

Great plan.

I agree. Who needs complicated plans when things can be solved in a simple manner? It's like the Republicans arguing over nuances in their foreign policy. Ron Paul correctly points out that we shouldn't be there to begin with. Keep it simple, stupid (not you). Follow the Constitution.

You are insensitive for lying - the issue matters to some people. Divorce court is real, not imaginary. Just as you can't avoid the estate tax as effectively without marriage, you can't replicate divorce court with civil contracts.

Again, I never said it didn't matter to some people, but to some people is much different than whether it really makes an objective difference. Some people want the government "benefits" and regulation, but the government doesn't have the authority to give it to them. If they want to take other people's money, they should set up a gay charity or something where people can give voluntarily and not have it forced on them through more laws and regulations. It's hard to believe I have to explain this to someone on this site.

I - like Ron Paul - believe our health care spending should be with pre-tax dollars ("tax credits and deductions for all medical expenses"). Marriage helps accomplish that as more people get under the umbrella of employee-provided tax benefits.

I - like Ron Paul - believe there should be NO estate tax ("abolish the income and death taxes"). Marriage helps accomplish that by allowing estate transfer without tax to your significant other.

Bravo on no estate tax, but marriage doesn't need the government in order to accomplish that. If you want, sign a prenup agreement. There are all kinds of things that can be sorted out with a little bit of forethought and contractual agreements rather than government oversight.

Should we focus on getting as much of our spending with pre-tax dollars (thus reducing our tax burden)? HELL YES!

Should we eliminate the perverse incentive that ties health care to our employers? HELL YES!
["Make all Americans eligible for Health Savings Accounts"]

Should we focus on eliminating the estate tax? HELL YES!

Rock on.

Should we focus on telling people to change their focus and thus reveal our bigotry as we implicitly accept the status quo to tilt at a larger windmill (recall the focus can only be on getting government out of marriage specifically in the PaulConventionWV way not anybody else's way)?

What bigotry? I'm not biased against anybody. I just believe we should enforce the law as found in the Constitution and get rid of unnecessary government regulation. I am NOT accepting the status quo. I am trying to radically change it, perhaps even more so than if I wanted to ADD government regulation by taxing people more to support gay couples. I have nothing against gay couples, but getting rid of government regulation can achieve the same kind of equality, and probably more. In the end, there are only two choices. You can either support more government involvement, or less. I am for the latter. You, it would seem, are for the former.

Should we cockblock people trying to avoid estate and income taxes via marriage? No. MAXIMUM FREEDOM!!! If you don't stand up for others, others are less likely to stand up for you.

What does cockblocking have to do with any of this? If you get rid of government involvement in marriage, gays and straights are on equal grounds. If you want freedom, get the government out of it. Since when does more government regulation of marriage equal more freedom? Your priorities are messed up. Maximum freedom means minimal government.

One step in getting government out of marriage, is keeping government from determining who we marry. Is this a first step or a necessary step? Maybe - I don't know. But it is a step in the direction of "getting the government out of it" w.r.t. the decision making process. If you believe the institution of government marriage is so evil - and it is - that you wish to save as many people from it is possible, then that would be a valid perspective. Pretending it doesn't matter? Not so much as the Kafkaesque evil of divorce/family court does not gel with "doesn't make the least bit of difference".

I agree that that is a step in getting government out of marriage, but that can be achieved with less government just as well as it can with more government regulation. If you support the government getting involved in more people's lives, then you are NOT supporting "getting the government out of it." You are heading in the opposite direction if you support that. I'm not saying it doesn't "make a difference" to "some people." I'm saying it achieves just as much equality just as effectively if we eliminate the government regulation. Trying to achieve equality by adding more government regulation of marriage doesn't make sense when you can try to get the government out of it to achieve the same ends.

Ask a tax attorney and they will tell you, married versus non-married makes a difference. Pretending otherwise is a lie. Everybody here ought to know better.

I know that it makes a difference now in terms of family court and taxes. What I'm saying is that we can solve the same problems that we would by letting gays get licenses as we would by taking the government licenses away from heterosexuals. Not that we're depriving heterosexuals of anything. We just take the power of the government to enforce those away and then people can decide how to regulate their own marriage. That is much better than trying to achieve equality through more government because then we would have to fight for marriage licenses for all the other groups who are currently discriminated against. Stop adding government and start subtracting. That is the ONLY reliable way to reduce government dependence because adding government has NEVER resulted in less government.

I am OK if somebody is intolerant of a position whether due to bigotry, homophobia, electoral strategy, or a well justified hatred of government marriage. What I would like, is arguments that are worthy and will not detract from the liberty movement.

You got it. A liberty-oriented view is less government, not more. If it's liberty you want, then there is no other way. Any liberty-minded person should know that.

I hope you or someone else knocks that windmill of government marriage down. I'll take a tilt myself! In the meantime, I will be on the correct side of history:

Whatever. I'm just the guy with facts and graphs.

View attachment 1502

*If you didn't care, I suspect but cannot prove, you would have no objection to the same-sex marriages.

I don't have an objection to same-sex "marriages." If they want to have a ceremony and have five witnesses agree that they are married, more power to them. I don't think it's valid because I see the definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman, but that is just a personal view. I care about the government regulation. That's ALL that I care about. I don't see why gays would want to get married without the government benefits, but that's none of my business.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

So it IS pointless according to you. If it's a false dichotomy, you must be able to tell me what the 3rd option is.

The third option besides pointless or not pointless is that the piece of paper matters for now, but it wouldn't if we eliminated the governmen regulation that creates the dilemma of "is it worth something or not." We really don't need to answer that question if we get rid of government marriages.

Let's see every person who says this unregister their marriage if they have one.

I have a better idea. Let's take away the government authority to regulate marriage, thereby making registration of marriages null and void. The difference between my view and yours is that I strike at the root, the government involvement. You tend to strike out at the people who are simply taking advantage (or disadvantage) of something they have been led to believe they need. Don't attack the people who have government marriages just like you shouldn't attack people who are on welfare. Attack the government involvement for usurping its power to regulate.

Except he doesn't want to get rid of his own.

You can't eliminate the problem by convincing every single person who has a government certificate of marriage to get rid of it. Instead, strike at the tree, not the branches. Get rid of the government and you don't have the dilemma in the first place.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Jim Henson Co., which makes the Muppet toys, said it was their decision to no longer do business with Chick-Fil-A as consequence of Chick-Fil-A's stance on this whole gay thing. So either Chick-Fil-A is lying to avoid more bad publicity from this controversy or Jim Henson Co. is lying to cover up potential safety hazards/liabilities.

I don't see why Chik-Fil-A would try to avoid the controversy. They've already stated that they are guilty as charged when it comes to supporting traditional family.

 

[KingNothing]

Wow. Liberty under assault. What an idiot. So you can basically shut down people you don' agree with according to Menino? Wow.

Menino is certainly an idiot. Anyone who tries to use government as a tool to correct human stupidity, moral failings, or logical inconsistency is off base.

 

[KingNothing]

Step 1.) Get government out of marriage altogether.
Step 2.) Convince bigots to not be so bigoted and idiots to not be so idiotic.
Step 3.) Arrive at Utopia


Wouldn't it be nice if we could get religious people to not giving a damn about who other people are sleeping with and forming loving relationships with, and convince liberals to stop advocating for the state to do something about non-violent bigots?

Why on Earth do we have such a hard time leaving each other alone?

 

[Anti Federalist]

Chicago ward boss jumps on the bandwagon.


Chicago alderman says he’ll block Chick-fil-A expansion in northwest part of the city

http://www.washingtonpost.com/busin...-of-the-city/2012/07/25/gJQAnPIt9W_story.html

Wednesday, July 25, 6:02 PMAP 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.

Alderman Joe Moreno said Wednesday that unless the company comes up with a written anti-discrimination policy, Chick-fil-A will not open its first free-standing restaurant in the city as it plans to do.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Step 1.) Get government out of marriage altogether.
Step 2.) Convince bigots to not be so bigoted and idiots to not be so idiotic.
Step 3.) Arrive at Utopia


Wouldn't it be nice if we could get religious people to not giving a damn about who other people are sleeping with and forming loving relationships with, and convince liberals to stop advocating for the state to do something about non-violent bigots?

Why on Earth do we have such a hard time leaving each other alone?

Why do you have such a hard time not calling us bigots?

 

[papitosabe]

Jim Henson Co., which makes the Muppet toys, said it was their decision to no longer do business with Chick-Fil-A as consequence of Chick-Fil-A's stance on this whole gay thing. So either Chick-Fil-A is lying to avoid more bad publicity from this controversy or Jim Henson Co. is lying to cover up potential safety hazards/liabilities.

https://www.facebook.com/notes/the-jim-henson-company/july-20-2012/10150928864755563

ahhhh....thanks guys

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Chicago ward boss jumps on the bandwagon.


Chicago alderman says he’ll block Chick-fil-A expansion in northwest part of the city

http://www.washingtonpost.com/busin...-of-the-city/2012/07/25/gJQAnPIt9W_story.html

Wednesday, July 25, 6:02 PMAP 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.

Alderman Joe Moreno said Wednesday that unless the company comes up with a written anti-discrimination policy, Chick-fil-A will not open its first free-standing restaurant in the city as it plans to do.

This is comical. Chick-Fil-A doesn't discriminate. They simply have personal views and are being ruthlessly persecuted for it by government force. How can anyone justify this?

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Menino is certainly an idiot. Anyone who tries to use government as a tool to correct human stupidity, moral failings, or logical inconsistency is off base.

Would you call Menino a bigot?

Why do people care what someone's personal views on homosexuality are as long as they don't advocate the use of force? The president of Chick-Fil-A is not a bigot. He just has different moral standings than you. If someone is a bigot for speaking out against gay marriage or the homosexual lifestyle, then I say someone is a bigot for judging people who have different moral views.

 

[The Free Hornet]

This is comical. Chick-Fil-A doesn't discriminate. They simply have personal views and are being ruthlessly persecuted for it by government force. How can anyone justify this?

You are correct. Shall we

a) focus on ending the need for business licenses and all that bullshit (Chick-Fil-A can wait!)?
or
b) grant Chick-Fil-A a government-granted business license?
or
c) all of the above?

 

[PaulConventionWV]

You are correct. Shall we

a) focus on ending the need for business licenses and all that bullshit (Chick-Fil-A can wait!)?
or
b) grant Chick-Fil-A a government-granted business license?
or
c) all of the above?

A.

 

[cstarace]

Would you call Menino a bigot?

Why do people care what someone's personal views on homosexuality are as long as they don't advocate the use of force? The president of Chick-Fil-A is not a bigot. He just has different moral standings than you. If someone is a bigot for speaking out against gay marriage or the homosexual lifestyle, then I say someone is a bigot for judging people who have different moral views.

This is what a bigot says, man. Do you call heterosexuality a lifestyle? Do you call being black a lifestyle? The use of the word 'lifestyle' assumes choice (at least that's how it comes off to me). I try to stress this to people as much as I can when discussing the topic of homosexuality -- trust me, there is no choice. At all. Through extreme mental and physical deprivation, could somebody renounce their sexuality? Sure, but that's true for just about every emotion/desire human beings feel. If a heterosexual individual hated being heterosexual enough, I'm sure they could internally train themselves to abhor sex with the opposite gender. The mind is a very, very powerful tool.

When I was as young as seven or eight years old and going through that gender identification phase, I remember quite clearly playing 'doctor' with a male neighbor of mine. I had absolutely no idea what homosexuality was. None. I was simply doing what felt natural to me. I can only draw one conclusion from that.

All this being said, yes, Menino is a bigot if you define bigotry as being intolerant of other opinions. And he's a bigger bigot than this Dan Cathy fellow, because regardless of Cathy's individual beliefs, he still serves any individual who comes into one of his restaurants and does so with respect. Menino is essentially refusing to 'serve' Chick-Fil-A. Hell, even if Shirley Phelps-Roper herself came into the Pizza Hut I work at, it would be bigoted of me not to serve her. Can't say I'd serve her with a smile, but I'd serve her.

I'm curious, though. Let's say Cathy instituted a policy of not serving known homosexuals in his restaurants (assuming the Civil Rights Act never existed). Now, I'd support his right to do this based upon private property rights, as I assume you would, as well. But would you support his decision on an individual level? And even if you did, would you consider such an action to be an example of bigotry?

 

[James Madison]

There's no reason to obsess over calling someone a bigot or being called a bigot. All humans are bigoted. It's just some forms of bigotry are socially acceptable and others are not.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

This is what a bigot says, man. Do you call heterosexuality a lifestyle? Do you call being black a lifestyle? The use of the word 'lifestyle' assumes choice (at least that's how it comes off to me). I try to stress this to people as much as I can when discussing the topic of homosexuality -- trust me, there is no choice. At all. Through extreme mental and physical deprivation, could somebody renounce their sexuality? Sure, but that's true for just about every emotion/desire human beings feel. If a heterosexual individual hated being heterosexual enough, I'm sure they could internally train themselves to abhor sex with the opposite gender. The mind is a very, very powerful tool.

When I was as young as seven or eight years old and going through that gender identification phase, I remember quite clearly playing 'doctor' with a male neighbor of mine. I had absolutely no idea what homosexuality was. None. I was simply doing what felt natural to me. I can only draw one conclusion from that.

All this being said, yes, Menino is a bigot if you define bigotry as being intolerant of other opinions. And he's a bigger bigot than this Dan Cathy fellow, because regardless of Cathy's individual beliefs, he still serves any individual who comes into one of his restaurants and does so with respect. Menino is essentially refusing to 'serve' Chick-Fil-A. Hell, even if Shirley Phelps-Roper herself came into the Pizza Hut I work at, it would be bigoted of me not to serve her. Can't say I'd serve her with a smile, but I'd serve her.

I'm curious, though. Let's say Cathy instituted a policy of not serving known homosexuals in his restaurants (assuming the Civil Rights Act never existed). Now, I'd support his right to do this based upon private property rights, as I assume you would, as well. But would you support his decision on an individual level? And even if you did, would you consider such an action to be an example of bigotry?

I'm going to stop you at the first sentence. Heterosexuality, by definition, is a lifestyle. Being black is not.

 

[specsaregood]

I'm going to stop you at the first sentence. Heterosexuality, by definition, is a lifestyle. Being black is not.

I'd say it is more of a behavior by definition, not a lifestyle

 

[cstarace]

I'm going to stop you at the first sentence. Heterosexuality, by definition, is a lifestyle. Being black is not.

The way it's used in regards to homosexuality is questionable. When we're referencing a lifestyle we're talking about the way somebody lives in accordance with their values and their attitudes. This is the definition that is most widely accepted. Values and attitudes towards life can change. For example, going out to nightclubs, excessively consuming alcohol, and engaging in unprotected sex with random strangers is a lifestyle, and that lifestyle has been chosen, reflecting upon the values of those engaged in that lifestyle. Conversely, abstaining from the usage of alcohol/drugs, practicing abstinence, and maintaining faithful monogamous relationships is another lifestyle which has been chosen. These are what I'd consider 'lifestyles'.

I don't consider the state of being heterosexual or homosexual a lifestyle. Are you straight because you're a Christian and it's Biblically acceptable to be straight, thus reflecting your values? Or are you straight because you have a natural preference towards women?