WatchLiberal politicians have finally come out of the closet with public displays of political tyranny. The liberal bastions of Boston and Chicago are using politics in an attempt to squash, censure and punish Chick-fil-A by preventing the company from opening outlets in their towns.
Its an open display of hostility, intolerance and government sponsored tyranny. Its glaringly obvious liberals are anti-business, anti-capitalism, anti-job creation and anti-constitution.
With liberal politicians headed down tyranny road, is it any wonder America is headed toward the cliff at wide open throttle?
Follow
Befriend
19 threads
1,534 comments
Los Angeles, CA
Its a cheap trick to win votes so the libs can show how anti corporate they are while simutaneosly being pro gay. How could they stay out of this one? lol
Follow
Befriend (1)
12 threads
334 comments
Boston, MA
I work in Boston, and live outside Boston (thank God), and "Mumbles" Menino (for anyone that doesn't know) was the driver boy for a previous politician decades ago. He somehow got into the 'political machine', and somehow got elected. So we are dealing w/ a spaz who can't talk, and somehow has garnered the votes of Boston for the past 29 years(!)... Who is more ignorant: Mumbles or the voters?
That being said, what I find disgusting more than anything, is how the media seems to hide the fact that he has 'given' a piece of property to a Muslim group who thinks that all homosexuals should be killed. Menino let them buy the property for $175K. Properly valued, it should have gotten at least 1.5 million. So taxpayer $$ was used to subsidize this mosque. Fine. What's not so fine, is that the Imam running the joint has openly said (verbally and on a website) that all Homosexual should be killed? Sooooo, Chick-fil-A's CEO gets crucified over his belief, and publically dared to try and run his business here in Boston as a Pro-Marriage guy, but homosexual-killing is OK in Menino's (and the media's) world? How F'd up is that? Oh yeah, I forgot. Muslims are 'hands off', while Catholics (which Menino is) are 'happy hunting'.....Talk about discrimination....
Follow
Befriend (1)
12 threads
334 comments
Boston, MA
typo...Mumbles has been mayor for 19 years, not 29....
Follow
Befriend (1)
247 threads
4,704 comments
It's called Chick-fil-A not Dude-fil-A
Follow
Befriend (16)
763 threads
7,702 comments
Boca Raton, FL
Premium
Honest Abe says
As they should. There's a thing called zoning laws. Now perhaps you disagree with the philosophy or implementation of zoning laws, but in some form or another they are a necessity. No one wants a nightclub to be opened right next door to their residents. As a result of noise laws no nightclub could ever open if it weren't for zoning.
Restaurants operate on land that is zoned commercial. In exchange for getting to use the surface area, a very limited resource in any city, commercial enterprises must serve the community at large, not just an arbitrary subset they like. This is the cost of using what is essentially a public resource (land) created by nature not man.
Sure, we have "private ownership" of land to a certain degree as it's impractical to do otherwise, but no claim on absolute ownership of land could ever be justified as no "original owner" can have a legitimate claim on land. See the Georgism link on the front page of patrick.net.
As such, the collective society through the state must ensure that the land and other public/natural resources like the EM spectrum are used to the full benefit of society, not just a few individuals. This is exactly why restaurants can't refuse to serve customers on the basis of race, gender, sexual orientation, nationality, age, and other protected attributes.
Now, on the Internet, you are free to be as bigoted as you want because there is no limit to the number of domains and websites that can be created. Harry opening a website does not prevent Joe from opening his own website. However, as land is limited, Harry opening a bar or restaurant does prevent Joe from doing the same because there is only so much commercial land available for bars and restaurants.
Thus it would be wrong for states to block the KKK's website or any other. However, it would be wrong to let the KKK open a whites-only restaurant. In the Chick-fil-A conflict, the state has taken this one step further and adopted the position that even if a restaurant doesn’t actively refuse to serve a customer based on illegal discrimination, they cannot have use of commercial land if they have the mission statement of promoting that illegal discrimination.
It is questionable whether or not this one step further is valid, but it is certainly keeping in line with the principle that land usage must serve the whole community, not just one bigoted group. I hope you understand this conflict better now and why the actions of the cities in question have been taken.
Follow
Befriend (41)
91 threads
1,806 comments
Dan, does Chick-Fil-A really have "a mission statement promoting illegal discrimination", or did you just make that up? From what I've read, the owners simply stated their OPINION that "marriage" is between a man and a women".
To use political power to squash someones opinion is practically the definition of tyranny - "absolute power, arbitrarily or unjustly administered". I thought liberals were all about tolerance. I guess that's simply more of the liberal double standard.
You indicate that its a zoning law issue. Let me ask you this: if any branch of the LGBT wanted to start a restaurant in the same location that CFA wanted to - would they be allowed to...or not? A simple yes or no will suffice.
BTW, if you want to be intellectually honest, a restaurant owned by any branch of the LGBT would NOT "serve the whole community", because a percentage of the religious right wouldn't patronize it. The real issue here is the glaring INTOLERANCE of the LGBT community and liberal democrats. They are the INTOLERANT ones, AND by utilizing unjust POLITICAL TYRANNY, want to crush, censure and destroy it.
I rest my case.
Follow
Befriend (3)
12 threads
3,097 comments
Dan8267 says
why?
how?
who says?
how many "black" churches can you name?
This issue is the common intollerant militant left demanding tollerance of whatever immoral behavior they dream up. So disgusting and funny if it were not so sad.
Follow
Befriend (16)
763 threads
7,702 comments
Boca Raton, FL
Premium
Honest Abe says
Bap33 says
You can walk into a "black" church. However, I would argue that Churches should not get zoning permits. If people want church services, they can hold them in their own residency. But that's another story.
In any case, Churches should not get any tax exceptions.
Bap33 says
Just because you consider homosexuality to be immoral doesn't make it so. I consider faith to be immoral. I can justify faith being immoral as it has caused irrational violence, death, and destruction throughout history. I've asked you to justify why homosexuality is immoral and you never have been able to do so. That should be a hint that homosexuality isn't immoral.
Just because you find something disgusting doesn't make it immoral. I think it's disgusting when old people have sex, but that doesn't make it morally wrong.
In any case, gay marriage is about one and only one thing as far as the state is concerned: equality under law. If religious institutions don't want to perform or recognized gay marriages, fine. But the state cannot discriminate against people based on gender without violating the equal protection clause of the Constitution.
In terms of marriage, if it is legal for Sam and Christine to get married, then it's still legal if Sam is also a woman. Otherwise the genders of the couple is being used to discriminate in the application of marriage laws.
I really don't get why conservatives have such a hard time with such a simple and clear concept.
Of course, the real problem is that marriage should never have been a secular institution. It is a religious and social institution and thus should not be a secular one. The whole reason the state is in a quagmire over gay marriage is that the state is doing something that is should not have the responsibility or the power to do: to decide which relationships are legally valid and which are not!
Marriage should be desecularized. All marriage laws should be dropped or replaced with laws agnostic of marriage, and that includes laws regarding parent's rights as parents are not always married anyway. There should only be one filing status for income taxes as well. Any dependents should be based solely on financial dependency, not relationships.
If the government stayed out of the marriage business like it should, gay marriage would not even be an issue.
Follow
Befriend (3)
12 threads
3,097 comments
do you agree with sex based public toilets?
Follow
Befriend (12)
140 threads
1,355 comments
Emeryville, CA
Honest Abe says
Do you consider the ACLU to be liberal?
http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2012/July/Pro-Gay-Marriage-ACLU-Defends-Chick-fil-A/
And again, the founder didn't merely express his beliefs. They contributed company money to anti-gay groups.
http://equalitymatters.org/factcheck/201207020001
Honest Abe says
That's okay. That would be the citizen's choice not to patronize the business. Just like those of us who don't want Truett to use our money to discriminate against gays won't buy his sandwiches. That's voting with your dollars.
I think I agree with Bloomberg though. The Mayors shouldn't get involved. In a buycott/boycott area like SF, we'll punish them the old fashioned way, replete with picket signs, protests, and dirty hippies.
They'll leave town on a rail, still stinking of patchouli! :)
Follow
Befriend (16)
763 threads
7,702 comments
Boca Raton, FL
Premium
Bap33 says
So let me get this straight. The existence of separation of bathrooms in your mind is justification for any gender-based discrimination. After all, if we don't shit in the same stall, we're not equal under law. Hey, that rhymes.
Nice attempt. I appreciate that you are trying. However, the separation of public bathrooms does not constitute inequality under law like segregation did.
As stated by the Supreme Court in Brown vs. the Board of Education
Clearly, this analysis does not apply to separation of the men's room and the women's room, which is done to prevent teenage boys from peeking at girls while they pee.
The Supreme Court's analysis does however apply aptly to the question of same sex marriages. Since marriage affects many legal statuses including federal income taxes and benefits, the equal protection clause clearly demands that all adults can marry whomever they want regardless of their or that person's gender.
Again, why is this a difficult concept for a conservative, who claims to be for small, unintrusive government, to understand? The government should not have the right, power, or responsibility to decide which personal relationships are valid and which are not.
Disregard your personal and religious beliefs. From a purely secularist perspective, any ban on gay marriage while hetrosexual marriage is recognized by the state is clearly a violation of equality under law and the Fourteenth Amendment.
Ok, I added the part in lavender.
The point is that as an American you should believe in gay marriage even if you don't like it or believe in it religiously. The gay marriage issue is absolutely no different than the interracial marriage issue of fifty years ago. The arguments being made against gay marriage today are the same as those made against interracial marriages in the 1960s.
And you don't want people 30 years from now looking back at your comments and seeing you on the wrong side of this issue. Trust me, you'll look the fool when society finally accepts gay marriage, which is inevitable just like the acceptance of interracial marriage was inevitable.
Follow
Befriend (4)
117 threads
17,655 comments
Premium
Bap33 says
I think all single-stall toilets should be unisex.
Follow
Befriend (16)
763 threads
7,702 comments
Boca Raton, FL
Premium
Honest Abe says
The TSA, the Patriot Act, the NDAA, and the arrest of civilians who video the police are far more tyrannical than a municipality refusing to grant commercial zoning to a corporation that is actively trying to suppress an already suppress minority. Granted, what the municipalities are doing may very well be wrong, as I stated, but clearly the intent is not nearly tyrannical like the intent of the acts and agency I just mentioned.
However, I would agree that preventing the CEO of Chick-fil-A from speaking on his beliefs would be tyrannical, un-Constitutional, and downright wrong. But that's not what the municipalities are doing. The blue laws of many states is clearly a much better example of municipalities violating people's rights to express their opinions and be free to reject other people's opinions. Just because you're religious belief prohibits alcohol consumption on Sunday, doesn't mean I shouldn't be able to buy alcohol on that day.
Most importantly, the municipals actions are directed against commerce performed by a corporation, and contrary to Citizen's United, corporations aren't people. And no, I don't care what the corrupt Supreme Court says, it's retarded to consider corporations equal under law to human beings. The best arguments you can make against the municipals is that they don't have the legal authority to block this commerce and in doing so they are depriving the people of the choice to eat shitty food. Of course, why then can a city prevent auto dealerships from operating within its limits as Boca Raton, FL does?
In any case, the municipalities may be wrong, but they aren't nearly as wrong as the TSA, the Patriot Act, the NDAA, Gitmo, the Bush-Iraq War, Obama's drone strikes against civilians including children. There's a lot more tyrannical things going on right now.
Honest Abe says
A simple yes or no never suffices because the reason why always matters.
To clarify your question, you are asking "if a LGBT organization wanted to open a gay-only restaurant, would this be legal?". If that is your question, then the answer is no. A restaurant that prohibits heterosexuals from entering would violate federal anti-discrimination laws just like a restaurant that prohibits whites from entering would. There is no such thing as "reverse discrimination", it's all just plain discrimination.
However, gay and lesbian bars don't prohibit straights from entering and drinking just like nudie bars don't prevent female customers from entering. These establishments may cater to their intended customer base, but not prohibit others from using the services. Moreover none of these establishments ever advocate passing laws preventing straight people from marrying or preventing people from wearing clothes in public. So it's not really the same thing.
Come to think of it, if municipalities can ban strip clubs, which they do, then they can ban CFA. Personally, I don't think municipalities should be able to ban strip clubs, gay bars, underground fight clubs, Satanic churches, etc. But that's just my opinion.
Honest Abe says
Which I always do…
Honest Abe says
In the same way that McDonalds or CFA don't serve the whole community because a percentage of health-minded individuals wouldn't patronize it? Or the same way that a golf store doesn't serve the whole community because most people don't golf?
There is a huge difference between having your doors open to all people and appealing to all people. The state is only concerned with the former. The free market is concerned with the later.
Honest Abe says
Gays have been horrifically discriminated against throughout history. The word "faggot" comes from a Medieval joke that the thing homosexuals are good for is burning alive at the stake like a kindling of faggots.
Up to the mid-20th century even in America and the U.K. homosexual behavior was a felony. This is clear, systematic, state-sponsored discrimination and dehumanization of homosexuals. The smartest man in all of human history, with the (slightly) possible exception of Karl Friedrich Gauss, was a homosexual by the name of Alan Turing. He was driven to suicide by the anti-homosexual persecutions by the British government.
The loss of this one man changed all of human history. I do not exaggerate when I say that had Turing lived, he would have probably figured out a cure for cancer using computers. That's a bold claim, but I'm pretty damn sure of it because he was that smart. So, every person who dies from cancer does so because of the anti-homosexual bigotry of the 20th century. The lost of him alone impoverishes the world more than all of religion could, even in principle, enrich the world.
To claim that the LGBT community is being intolerant for not tolerating legislative discrimination against them is hardly a justifiable position.
Now, I will agree that political correctness is evil and is a road to tyranny. However, a liberal, by definition, is against political correctness. Like many conservatives, you confuse the terms "liberal" and "leftist". The left was known for political correctness during the 1990s -- although today the right seems just as if not more guilty of it. Liberals, however, were always against it.
For example, the leftists wanted to ban "hate speech" from college campuses but all the liberals opposed that. The liberals believed that
1. All speech is protected, even hateful speech.
2. There should be no thought crimes.
3. All of America is a free-speech zone.
4. Colleges especially are places where controversial issues and opinions should be discussed.
5. Silencing racism, etc. only does bad. The bad ideas fester silently whereas if free speech is tolerated, bad ideas can be shown to be bad in an open forum. Without such a forum, bad ideas grow in the dark.
So clearly, the concept of liberal is independent of left-vs-right. That said, over the past 15 years or so, the republicans have become so anti-liberty that no liberal would be a part of that party. This wasn't the case in the 1980s and early 1990s.
Also, liberalism is not the opposite of fiscal conservatism. For example, I am a fiscally conservative liberal. I believe in small government, eliminating the national debt, balancing the budge, and greatly reducing both spending and taxes for the middle class. I also believe that there should be no such thing as a victimless crime.
However, liberalism is pretty much the opposite of social conservatism because social conservatism and "family values" are basically code for accepting racism, homophobia, xenophobia, and being for a theocracy that imposes classes on people at birth. Unfortunate, but true.
Anyway, I think that I've addressed all of your issues. If not, let me know.
Follow
Befriend (3)
12 threads
3,097 comments
but Dan, wait, you are now making a blanket call that says sexual difference matters when it suits the needs of the liberal adgenda.
What potty should a queer use?
You are a smart guy, so you already know my next step .. like chess .. but do me the favor of following along so I can make my point once you hit the end of the logic used to grant special laws based of unfounded privet personal assertians. Thanks.
Follow
Befriend (16)
763 threads
7,702 comments
Boca Raton, FL
Premium
Bap33 says
Since when is keeping tween perverts from looking at your daughter taking a dump a "liberal agenda"?
Bap33 says
Gay men use the men's room. Sure, it would be nice if we all got individual, self-cleaning bathrooms, but that's not economical with today's technology.
Bap33 says
Go ahead, make your next move, but remember to address the point I made above. You know, how single-sex bathrooms don't degrade men or women or make them unequal under law, whereas white and black segregated bathrooms and schools do.
Twisting sex-separated bathrooms into justifying a ban on gay marriages is completely unattainable. You'd be better off trying to use sex-segregation as a justification for banning opposite sexed marriages as the analogy is much more of a fit.
Furthermore, the fact that I use the men's room doesn't impact my federal income taxes. Whether or not I'm married (gay or not) does. If heterosexual couples can reduce their net taxes via marriage, than equal protection demands the same for homosexual couples. Now, as I said before, one could argue against the married filed status, but that's another story. As long as there are heterosexual marriages, equality under law demands equal standing for homosexual marriages.
Follow
Befriend (4)
117 threads
17,655 comments
Premium
Again, I am all for individual unisex toilets. I am against the abolition of urinals because it saves men at least 7 seconds every time.
Follow
Befriend
4 threads
342 comments
Phoenix, AZ
The Original Bankster's website
"that's like saying Hilter !@#$ werfasded the Concentration Camps and Guantanamo BAY!!!!!!! ARGHHHH!!!"
-example of liberal nonsense argument.
Follow
Befriend
4 threads
342 comments
Phoenix, AZ
The Original Bankster's website
"Now hold on here, 4 out 5 professors said the KKK and Palestinian Date Rape and !#@$ed my !&&&%goofer uh huh? ARGHHHH!"
-another example of liberal nonsense argument
Follow
Befriend (4)
117 threads
17,655 comments
Premium
WTF?
Follow
Befriend (3)
16 threads
1,371 comments
Victorville, CA
Premium
Dan8267 says
Disagree. This would not only be more hygienic, but would create jobs.
Follow
Befriend
4 threads
342 comments
Phoenix, AZ
The Original Bankster's website
some visuals for this thread:
http://www.zombietime.com/hall_of_shame/
Follow
Befriend (16)
763 threads
7,702 comments
Boca Raton, FL
Premium
JodyChunder says
Self-cleaning bathrooms don't create jobs. They eliminate them.
Follow
Befriend (4)
117 threads
17,655 comments
Premium
Dan8267 says
Not if you are a bathroom engineer!
Follow
Befriend (3)
16 threads
1,371 comments
Victorville, CA
Premium
Dan8267 says
Someone has to install them!
Follow
Befriend (16)
763 threads
7,702 comments
Boca Raton, FL
Premium
JodyChunder says
Something has to install them. Robots!
Follow
Befriend (16)
763 threads
7,702 comments
Boca Raton, FL
Premium
Bap33 says
It's still your move.
Follow
Befriend (3)
12 threads
3,097 comments
Dan8267 says
a lezbo in a ladie's room is different than a male in a ladies room???
Follow
Befriend (3)
12 threads
3,097 comments
Dan8267 says
the republic is better served by supporting normal coupling. maybe that is the reason for the tax difference? The benefit should increase with time served.
Follow
Befriend (16)
763 threads
7,702 comments
Boca Raton, FL
Premium
Bap33 says
No. Tax law is not determined by what is best for society or the republic. Tax law is determined by what is best for those writing the tax law.
More to the point, you are going off on a tangent. Our discussion was about why gay marriage should be legalized or banned. I've presented my thesis, reiterated below, present yours.
Marriage should not exist as a secular institution since it is not the right or the responsibility of government to intervene or judge personal relationships. All laws regarding marriage should be repealed or replaced with marriage agnostic laws.
That said, if America does recognize marriage as a legal institution, then the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as well as the philosophy of equality under law demands equal recognition of gay marriage.
See, my thesis is quite simple, easy to understand, easy to defend, and specific. What's your anti-thesis?
Follow
Befriend (28)
171 threads
4,191 comments
Premium
Chikfilet sandwiches are used in gay rituals. Guys shove them into their assholes and go to bars and pick up congressmen to eat them out of their assholes.
Follow
Befriend (16)
763 threads
7,702 comments
Boca Raton, FL
Premium
APOCALYPSEFUCK is Shostakovich says
Um, that's actually how Chikfilet sandwiches are made.
Follow
Befriend (4)
2 threads
787 comments
And you know that how??......Oh, I see...
Dan8267 says
Follow
Befriend (1)
117 threads
971 comments
Hey, those mayors are just expressing their opinions, you know, like the chick-fil-a CEO.
Oh no, wait, you're right, those two comments by random mayors expressing dislike for bigotry and discrimination is exactly the correct example of the complete liberal plot to take over and destroy the country.
Follow
Befriend (16)
763 threads
7,702 comments
Boca Raton, FL
Premium
Cross-posting from another thread because it's relevant to this one...
xrpb11a says
Actually, according to the Supreme Court it is. In the 1967 case Loving v. Virginia, the Supreme Court ruled that states could not ban or restrict interracial marriages, a common practice at the time that was called miscegenation, as it was a violation of the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment.
As I argue in this thread, the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applies exactly the same way to the issue of gay marriages.
Ultimately the people twenty years from now are going to look back at this debate in the exact same way we look back at the 1960s debate over interracial marriages. And those who oppose gay marriage will look as bigoted and stupid as those who opposed interracial marriages. It's the natural progression of liberty and equality.
Follow
Befriend (16)
763 threads
7,702 comments
Boca Raton, FL
Premium
§259 of the Virginia Code
As repugnant as that text is, the prohibition of gay marriage is just as repugnant and for exactly the same reasons.
Follow
Befriend (16)
763 threads
7,702 comments
Boca Raton, FL
Premium
Dan8267 says
...an ironic name for the case. It seems that sometimes history has a sense of humor.
Follow
Befriend (3)
12 threads
3,097 comments
@Dan,
I say your assertion that "marriage" is a generic term for coupling, and does not soley mean male coupling with female, is wrong. The word has meaning. It means what it means. What you want is something-other-than-marriage, and needs a name. Sexual deviants pulled "gay" out of their behinds and made it "mean" something it never ment. Maybe the same needs to be done for the unnatural coupling that you suggest be recognized.
Your demands for special consideration for non-productive, unnatural coupling, could be very bad for the republic. If you were to take all of those whom you represent and create your own republic, how might you plan to reproduce?
The act of sex and marriage are not allowed with a person that is not of sound mind, or not of age. There are laws preventing these things. I submit that having sex with a person who is suffering from uncontrollable deviant desires, or from a birth defect that has rendered them a sexual deviant, is sexual abuse. Having sex with such a person is against the law. Just as having sex with a low functioning downs person that is of age is not legal. It is disgusting the way the mentally challenged and/or physically handicapped are being targeted by sexual deviants. Shameful. ANd you suggest the Gov sanction such abuse?? Why?
Follow
Befriend (48)
274 threads
12,534 comments
47 male
Lafayette, CA
Premium
I don't care what anyone wants to believe about gay marriage. I don't care if he's a homophobe. I don't think that Chickie-flick should be kept out of any city just because someone has an opinion.
I don't share the opinion of SOME of the liberals on this issue, but there are many other liberals who are quite reasonable. Jon Stewart thought the controversy was stupid and I agree.
Follow
Befriend (4)
2 threads
787 comments
You're just relieved because they don't serve dick...errrrrr.....Duck.
iwog says
Follow
Befriend (48)
274 threads
12,534 comments
47 male
Lafayette, CA
Premium
xrpb11a says
I think sex as a political issue in any form is about as vile and hurtful to democracy as anything.
Caring if someone "does" another of the same sex, or caring of someone is grossed out by it is a complete waste of time.
I do have sympathy for the equal protection argument, however civil unions eliminated those issues and now it's just a lot of bitching back and forth over the definition of the word marriage.