patrick.net

I thought PETA was either 1) the name of that dude with the hungry games, or perhaps 2) an acronym for People Eating Tasty Animals.
I'm ok with it either way. That movie was pretty good and my chicken/kitten sandwich totally rocks!

curious2 says

Ack! A food fight devolves into name calling, to the surprise of no one.

Yeah, this thread has deteriorate into meaningless ranting. The original point of the thread was that Boston and Chicago don't have the right to ban CFA. The only refutation of that point was an argument I proposed that cities do ban business like strip clubs, auto dealerships, etc. and cities do prohibit the sale of legal goods like alcohol on Sundays (so-called blue laws). If cities have the right to do that, then a CFA ban is no different.

Yet, the original point and counter-point were dropped as the conversation took off on the question of whether or not gay marriage should be a secular right. Since that's an important issue, I don't mind that. Last I checked, the two sides of that debate were left with the arguments:

For legal gay marriages
----------------------
The equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment requires state recognization of gay marriages just as it does the recognization of interracial marriages as shown in the Supreme Court decision of Loving vs. Virginia.

Against gay marriages
---------------------
Gays are retards and rapists who cannot consent to sex. Therefore, gay sex and pedophilia are exactly the same thing.

Finally Meccos hijacked the thread and turned it into “all liberals hate all republicans” and then further deteriorated it into a meaningless argument about spelling and grammar. Granted I did contribute to his tirade by demanding complaining about all the incoherent postings that the social conservatives have made. But come on, if you want to discuss an issue, especially a controversial one, it’s useful to avoid misinterpreting what the opposition is saying, and that’s a hell of lot easier if they write coherently.

I say it’s time to get this thread back on track. The two real issues being discussed here are
1. Whether or not gay marriage should be recognized equally under laws.
2. Whether or not municipalities have the right to ban or restrict legal businesses.

On issue one, I stand by my thesis:

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.

One issue two, I propose that if the blue laws are legal, so would attempts by Chicago and Boston to ban CFA. Conversely, if Chicago and Boston have no legal right to ban CFA, then no state or municipality has the right to ban other legal businesses including strip bars, auto dealerships, and alcohol sales (even on Sundays).

Intelligent counter-arguments welcomed.

divingengineer says

So the gay community is all butt-hurt about one rich cracker having a personal opinion?!

Last time I checked, it was still legal to have an opinion.
End of story, live with it boyz.

I have yet to hear anyone state that the CFA CEO is not entitled to his opinion or to express that opinion. What I have seen is people expressing their opinions contrary to his. Furthermore, boycotting is a perfectly legitimate way to exercise one's freedom of speech, whether or not a boycott has ever been successful.