July 24, 2012
-
Homophobic or Hypocritical?
The Mayor of Boston isn’t happy with the fact that the owners of Chick-fil-A do not approve of gay marriage. He has vowed to block them from entering his city. LINK
His statement: “You can’t have a business in the city of Boston that discriminates against the population. We’re an open city, we’re a city that’s at the forefront of inclusion. That’s the Freedom Trail. That’s where it all started right here. And we’re not going to have a company, Chick-fil-A or whatever the hell the name is, on our Freedom Trail.”
Translation: You don’t see things the way I’d like you to see them, so your not allowed to sell shit in my city
Is that not the most intolerant statement you’ve ever heard?
He’s supporting freedom by limiting freedom. Promoting “inclusion” by blocking those who disagree.
Am I the crazy one here? Seriously! Am I the only one that see’s the ass-backwardness of this entire idiotic debacle? Since when is it OK for the government to try and force businesses out because of their point of view?
Isn’t that what this whole progressive movement has been trying to get rid of? People who are intolerant of another persons beliefs or ways of life??
*disclaimer, I’m not a “homophobe” I just think that it doesn’t matter at all what you believe, you can’t put other people out because of their beliefs. If you are gay, you should be protesting this idiocy yourself. Equality and freedom is something you have fought for and celebrate and this idiot mayor is trampling all over it.
Comments (55)
As a gay man, I will protest this Mayor.
hahaha. well, this should be interesting!!!
I should think if all the citizens of Boston really felt that way, there would be no need for their mayor to ban the restaurant. They would have to close up from lack of business.
Gay rights, by it’s very nature is about raw tyranny and prejudice, not tolerance and human rights.
Philosophically people have trouble believing that and in practice people seem to ignore it.
If a GOP politician made such a statement as Boston’s mayor, he would be drummed out of office for being an intolerant bigot.
If people disagree with Chick-Fil-A then they won’t buy from them and they’ll go out of business if they try to run a restaurant in that city. That’s how the free market works. The mayor is being a hypocrite.
@firetyger - This is not a free market issue. This is the opposite of a free market issue. City Hall is taking a stand against a private business whose politics it does not agree with.
Boston’s mayor has no intention of letting things play out in the free market.
It is his intention to destroy that business in the city of Boston.
That is raw tyranny.
@PrisonerxOfxLove - You do get that I agree with you. My comment was about how the free market would work if the mayor didn’t interfere. He is an example of how government interfering in the market is wrong.
@firetyger - It is critically important to point out that Democrats hate the free market. They want government to call the shots not free people engaged in commerce. So saying that the free market could handle this situation completely misses the point and misses the reality of what we are up against in winning back America from the Progressive freaks who have stolen it from us.
Chick-Fil-A is also closed on Sundays because the owners are religious and respect the Lord’s day… If it isn’t one thing it can be another.
Yes, both of them are idiots.
@Thatslifekid - The lord’s day is saturday, jesus never mentioned homosexuality and leviticus says gay men are to be put to death (and also says trimming your beard is an abomination). In no way are they even close to following the bible.
I’m surprised the mayor of a large city is concerning himself with what restaurants come to town. Doesn’t he have anything better to do?
@whyzat - It’s an election year for boston mayors too I’m guessing.
@Thatslifekid - Yeah! What my wifey said.
I understand where you are coming from, but I can also see that he is hoping to deny business to them in order to make them change the things they support. Its kind of like not allowing places to offer plastic bags because they destroy the environment.
I don’t really have an opinion on the matter.
There is no reason to ban the company from the city. This reminds me of a town near me who tried to prevent a mosque from opening in their community (they failed). Sad state when people try to legislate there beliefs on others.
I agree with you. It isn’t a good thing to take away freedom of belief.
I would completely understand if Chick-Fil-A didn’t allow gay people to buy their food, work for them, etc. But they are expressing an opinion. It’s not the same thing and is being taken way too seriously. I agree with you.
?@PrisonerxOfxLove - huh?
@xXrEMmUsXx - If you could be more specific please.
@PrisonerxOfxLove -
“Gay rights, by it’s very nature is about raw tyranny and prejudice, not tolerance and human rights.”
this just doesn’t make sense to me, maybe I’m being dense?
“Philosophically people have trouble believing that and in practice people seem to ignore it.” ???
“taking away rights from others so i can have my rights”.
Ultimately, the people can start a movement if they care.
@PrisonerxOfxLove - there are well founded arguments that the government does not have the constitutional authority to block chick-fil-a. a well grounded argument would balance first amendment implications (i.e., donating to anti-gay causes is speech and not discrimination in accommodation) and the government’s authority to regulate business under equal protection and the commerce clause. your statement that “gay rights, its very nature is about raw tyranny and prejudice, not tolerance and human rights” is not premised on a logical theory of constitution interpretation and is stupid and idiotic.
@xXrEMmUsXx - Gay marriage denies human nature by demanding that gender not be important. Gay marriage means that a same sex marriage is the same as a male-female marriage. That is obviously not true. For it to be true one must deny the reality that men and women are different.
We say that “all men are created equal,” precisely because of human nature. If all men possess the same human nature then by definition they are all equal to one another.
But gay marriage denies human nature as I have already shown. And in denying human nature, gay marriage also denies the equality of man since the equality of man depends on human nature.
Fundamental to tyranny is the denial that all men are created equal. Therefore it is self evident that gay marriage is by nature tyrannical and as such is an assault on human rights.
@south_of_14th_street - The Constitution is based on natural law as is my argument against gay marriage. So you can’t rationally attack my argument using the Constitution.
Hating a hater is a double negative, so it’s okay.
Absolutely agree.
Me ? Chicken is chicken. I’ll go to Church’s, which oddly enough – isn’t about religion.
It’s a business or a corporation or a whatever, not a person! People have rights in these countries, not corporations. So, if a corporation is bent on denying people their freedoms, so be it if a city doesn’t want them there because they are helping to deny people their rights. I think the real question is, “Is Chick-fil-A really actively working against gay marriage?”
@xXrEMmUsXx - Just ignore him. Nonsensical anti-gay rants are apparently his thing.
@TiredSoVeryTired - I’m not sure if I follow your logic. Why should a company, which is run by people, not be able to open up shop in a specific city (a city made up of people) because of what the PEOPLE who run the company believe?
@justfinethanku - Because it is a company. Yeah, I know it’s owned and run by people. But we’re not talking about a white mayor not letting a black owner operate a business in his town. We’re talking about a huge corporation that probably doesn’t even have restaurants in Massachusetts yet, in some fashion, opposes gay marriage. The right to marry is about the rights of people. The corporation has no rights to operate there, the people don’t even live there either, so I’m pretty sure Boston gets to make some rules of its own. Besides it is not legal discrimination to not allow homophobic people to do business.
Bottom line, it is one old white guy not allowing a large corporation owned by another old white guy to do business in his city. It may not increase the company’s profits, but it also won’t destroy the company’s livelihood. It’s not the mayor telling some Bostonian she can’t set up a barber shop in town because women can’t cut men’s hair. And Boston practically invented boycotting, you don’t want to see Boston Harbor full of sweet tea and chicken patties, do ya?
@TiredSoVeryTired -
“The corporation has no rights to operate there”
The company, legally and constitutionally, has exactly the same right to open up shop as every other restaurant in Boston.
“It’s not the mayor telling some Bostonian she can’t set up a barber shop in town because women can’t cut men’s hair.”
-thats actually exactly what it is.
“And Boston practically invented boycotting, you don’t want to see Boston Harbor full of sweet tea and chicken patties, do ya?”
-I’d go ahead and let the people decide. If they don’t like what the owners of Chick-Fill-A believe and don’t want to patronize the restaurant then don’t go.
@justfinethanku - A corporation doesn’t have Constitutional Rights. Where does it say that in Constitution? I bet lots of corporations don’t get approval to operate a business in Boston. It’s not like they have unlimited space.
Discrimination against women is real. You can’t legally discriminate against women. Being homophobic isn’t a protected right, you may speak your mind of course, but if someone fires you for being homophobic, you have no legal case. You do if you’re a woman being fired for being a woman.
I understand your point, why fight discrimination with discrimination, but that’s what happens when people are dumb. Some people draw a line. I wouldn’t hire a registered sex offender who as an adult molested children. That may be discrimination, but justifiably so if I own a daycare.
@justfinethanku - i agree with what @TiredSoVeryTired - has to say. and i’d expand on that further by pointing out that an elected official DOES have the right to refuse businesses based on the possibility of harm coming to the community. i doubt anyone would throw a fit about a business being refused license if the CEO openly stated that they support child prostitution, the re-enslavement of blacks, or terrorist attacks against the government. i trust a company led by a homophobe to treat homosexual, bisexual, or transgender customers and employees tolerantly as much as i’d trust a KKK-owned company to continue offering service to black people.
@TiredSoVeryTired - Corporations do have constitutional rights. According to the Supreme Court that is. Liberals are going ape shit because the High Court ruled that corporations have the Constitutionally protected right to free speech and as such may contribute unlimited money to political campaigns.
He has a 74% approval rating.
@xXrEMmUsXx - Does his explanation make sense to you??? LOL
@LadyboyRevolution - no kidding? people don’t see through this?
Governments have banned various business from their communities or state all throughout the history of this country. There are states that ban casinos and local communities that ban alcohol (which in turn means they ban liquor stores) and adult entertainment stores. These businesses are usually banned for the same reasons that Chick-fil-A is banned from Boston, so Boston banning Chick-fil-A isn’t exactly a new thing.
@Rob_of_the_Sky - That’s fine, but how does that mesh with this statement made by the mayor: “We’re an open city, we’re a city that’s at the forefront of inclusion.”
@justfinethanku - Nope. The LGBT community have been getting kicked around for years. Why would they care if the ones kicking them around reap what they sow and feel there pain??? They moved to Massachusetts because finally someone would listen.
@Rob_of_the_Sky - Exactly! These same people would not allow the business they didn’t “approve” of to operate. Karma (sowing and reaping) is a big surprise now???
@LadyboyRevolution - not really…
@xXrEMmUsXx - It would if you were trippin on LSD!
@PrisonerxOfxLove - i can’t use rational logic to attack your lack of education, insight, or intellectual honesty? you are the perfect example of why universal suffrage is wasted in this country.
@LadyboyRevolution - Oh my. It just doesn’t make sense, the logic is not computing. and I doubt its going to at any point.
@south_of_14th_street - You have yet to make an argument. Insults and self righteous proclamations are not an argument.
In fact, you are committing the classic logical fallacy called Argumentum Trollicum.
@PrisonerxOfxLove - i was insulting you, not arguing with you. i don’t know why i’m bothering since its clear by your attempt to shield your position with a “natural law” argument you don’t understand the Constitution. however, let me educate you.
the Constitution has “natural law” elements. the framers believed that individuals had certain God given inalienable rights or “fundamental rights” which could not be encroached upon by the state (i.e., freedom of religion). however, the framers were aware that they needed to form a functioning government which balanced the competing interests of a diverse population of people. the framers were also aware of the danger created when competing interpretations of “natural law” (i.e., God’s law, divine law, normative law, etc. etc.) vied for dominance. it is for this reason, among others, that the framers in an unqualified manner, separated church from the functions of state. the framers knew that if the state adopted a single interpretation of “natural law” all other interpretations, in addition to the faith’s from which these interpretations are derived from, would be marginalized. in addition, it is for this reason, among others, that “natural law” plays such a limited role in the Constitution. the vast majority of the Constitution is an allocation of power between the individual, the various states, and the federal government. the Constitution is a masterful series of checks and balances which BALANCES the rights and interests of the individual against the rights and interests of
other
individuals and the needs of various levels of government. what your bigoted little brain fails to accept is that a gay person has the same fundamental rights that you do, and that the Constitution protects a gay person’s interpretation of “natural law” from being marginalized by your interpretation.
I don’t think very many understand what human rights and discrimination actually are.
Chick-Fil-A isn’t banning gay people from working or eating there. What’s with the mayors? Austin’s mayor is pretty simple, too. :/
@south_of_14th_street - There is nothing in your comment that even comes close to addressing my case against gay marriage. All you did was change the subject a few times.
If you are going to do that you are better off not wasting your time. For even incoherent verbose gibberish takes time and energy to produce. Much like passing wind.
And you can be sure that I’m not going to waste my time trying to get you back on track.
@PrisonerxOfxLove - let me spoon feed you. the constitution is not based on natural law. the fact that the framers separated church and state is evidence that they did not intend natural law to play a role in a functioning government. your evocation of “natural law” is not based on a cognizable theory of constitutional interpretation. you should really read a book every once in a while. but you seem more like the type that would burn them.
@TiredSoVeryTired - Corporations do indeed have Constitutional rights. The Court just ruled that since the corporation is a person it is protected by the 1st Amendment.
@south_of_14th_street - The Constitution is based on the Declaration of Independence. If you were to ever read the first sentence of the Declaration of Independence you will see the phrase, “the laws of nature and nature’s God…”
This categorically proves that you don’t know what you are talking about.
You are babbling like a troll who is lost in the woods. Goodbye. Farewell.
@PrisonerxOfxLove - sigh. it makes me sad that your beliefs are representative of such a large voting block. let me educate you again in constitutional theory and nuance. ”the laws of nature and nature’s God” is in reference to the unalienable rights which are shared among all men. the framers believed that “natural law” gave all men (including gay men) the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. the declaration of independence, being a declaration of war, provides no guidance on how to best shape a government that provides for the welfare of its people and protects the individual’s god given rights against the government. the constitution is the document which lays out how to balance these sometimes competing interests in a functioning government. nothing in either the constitution or declaration of independence suggests that the founding fathers intended a gay man’s right “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” to be limited by your sense of christian morality.