patrick.net

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

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....

typo...Mumbles has been mayor for 19 years, not 29....

It's called Chick-fil-A not Dude-fil-A

Honest Abe says

Liberal 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.

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.

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.

Dan8267 says

However, it would be wrong to let the KKK open a whites-only restaurant

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.