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.

Honest Abe says

Dan, does Chick-Fil-A really have "a mission statement promoting illegal discrimination", or did you just make that up?

http://www.Y1s1BA0xSnM

Bap33 says

why?
how?
who says?
how many "black" churches can you name?

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

This issue is the common intollerant militant left demanding tollerance of whatever immoral behavior they dream up.

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.

The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment of the U.S. Constitution prohibits states from denying any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. See U.S. Const. amend. XIV. In other words, the laws of a state must treat an individual in the same manner as others in similar conditions and circumstances. A violation would occur, for example, if a state prohibited an individual from entering into an employment contract because he or she was a member of a particular race. The equal protection clause is not intended to provide "equality" among individuals or classes but only "equal application" of the laws. The result, therefore, of a law is not relevant so long as there is no discrimination in its application. By denying states the ability to discriminate, the equal protection clause of the Constitution is crucial to the protection of civil rights.

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.

do you agree with sex based public toilets?

Honest Abe says

Its glaringly obvious liberals are anti-business, anti-capitalism, anti-job creation and anti-constitution.

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

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

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! :)

Bap33 says

do you agree with sex based public toilets?

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

Segregation of children in the public schools solely on the basis of race denies to black children the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment, even though the physical facilities and other may be equal. Education in public schools is a right which must be made available to all on equal terms.

The question presented in these cases must be determined not on the basis of conditions existing when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted, but in the light of the role of public education in American life today. The separate but equal doctrine adopted in Plessy v. Ferguson, which applied to transportation, has no place in the field of public education.

Separating black children from others solely because of their race generates a feeling of inferiority as to their status in the community that may affect their hearts and minds in a way unlikely ever to be undone. The impact of segregation is greater when it has the sanction of law. A sense of inferiority affects the motivation of a child to learn. Segregation with the sanction of law tends to impede the educational and mental development of black children and deprives them of some of the benefits they would receive in an integrated school system. Whatever may have been the extent of psychological knowledge at the time of Plessy v. Ferguson, this finding is amply supported by modern authority and any language to the contrary in Plessy v. Ferguson is rejected.

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.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws not even gays.

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.

Bap33 says

do you agree with sex based public toilets?

I think all single-stall toilets should be unisex.