I hate to say I told you so....

[Mott the Hoople]

THat would be a Federal Crime, its called mail fraud. I had a friend who got in trouble in HS for doing that.

Oh....good point. I'll stick to punking telemarketers then.

 

[Damocles]

You're just verifying my point Tinkerbell. His comments we're bad for business.

Only if you believe that governmental punishment for speech is appropriate. This is bad precedent, even if you support gay rights.

 

[Althea]

Sort of. But do we really want to live in a country where everyone is making their purchasing decisions based on political beliefs?

Oh you applaud it now because you support the cause. But Chick Fil A has no more bearing on queer marriage than I do. This is nothing more than bullying and an effort to suppress speech.

3.2 million in donations to anti gay groups gives them quite a bit of bearing.

 

[Timshel]

THat would be a Federal Crime, its called mail fraud. I had a friend who got in trouble in HS for doing that.

For returning their mail? How could they possibly charge you with a crime for that? Did they just threaten?

I think, he should have hired a good lawyer, kept licking the tyrants and sticking it to the man! lol

http://www.lysanderspooner.org/

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Only if you believe that governmental punishment for speech is appropriate. This is bad precedent, even if you support gay rights.

Dude....saying ANYTHING, when you represent a business, to piss off the Government is not good for business. The fact that some government official may abuse power to play pay backs is irrrelevent and a totally different issue. IT'S STILL BAD FOR BUSINESS!

You piss off the government at you and right or wrong, they will take a pound of flesh. That's a fact.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Dude....saying ANYTHING, when you represent a business, to piss off the Government is not good for business. The fact that some government official may abuse power to play pay backs is irrrelevent and a totally different issue. IT'S STILL BAD FOR BUSINESS!

You piss off the government at you and right or wrong, they will take a pound of flesh. That's a fact.

Wow... you truly are an idiot.

 

[Airstrip One]

Jesse Jackson can do what he wants. Bill O'Reilly can boycott the French and anybody who cares to can buy American organic, cage free or whatever they choose.

This Alderman had no right to use state force as he did. Just as some redneck jerk should not be able to stop someone from building a Mosque.

Mosque building is a safe investment in this country, because the Muslims don't blow up their own religious houses...

 

[zappasguitar]

Wow... you truly are an idiot.

No...it just seems that way since he's always having to reign in his intellect in order to communicate with you in words you might understand.

 

[Airstrip One]

 

[Billy the Great Khan]

The fact that some government official may abuse power to play pay backs is irrrelevent

I couldn't think of anything more relevant. It's possibly the MOST relevant thing in the entirety of our nation. He should be in jail.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

No...it just seems that way since he's always having to reign in his intellect in order to communicate with you in words you might understand.

As I stated before, you don't really offer much to this board do you?

Mutt is making excuses for the abuse of political power. He is essentially stating that business owners should expect political retribution if they dare speak their religious or political views. It is a pathetic attitude to take and quite idiotic, as I stated.

I know this is hard for you to comprehend as you really don't care what is being discussed, you just pipe in with more of your own ignorance. I understand that compared to you Mutt is quite intelligent. But compared to the average person, Mutt is still an idiot from Ohio.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

rome salting the earth is actually a myth fyi

I know, but it's a useful cultural meme.

 

[blackascoal]

So you would have the Supreme Court overturn NAACP vs Alabama? If not then how would you explain your position.

Jurist on the left often think they can avoid case law and the constraints of legal precedent. But doing so would leave citizens at the complete whim of whatever judge they were put in front of. The nation would be COMPLETELY sectioned into fiefdoms at war with one anohter. One might be ruled by Arpaio, another by Roy Moore, another by the idiot that would not marry interracial couples and another by this Alderman.

Our union would not stand. This is what Lincoln told us and why we have the 14th amendment. You may be at open war with those principles, but not me (Rockwell and Rothbard be damned). I support the division of powers between the feds, states and municipal governments for strategic purposes only. Individual rights must ALWAYS be first and foremost.

I've already very clearly explained my position .. history explains my position.

I have no doubt that there are legal arguments that can be made. I alluded to those legal arguments, and stated that in spite of the legal arguments, I still strongly support the action, because the action often achieves the goal when there is no other recourse to do so .. just as has been achieved in the very case we're talking about .. just as was achieved with the sit-ins .. just as was achieved throughout American history from the Boston Tea Party forward.

Again, would the alderman have lost his case in court?

Absolutely he would have. There is recent legal precedent that determines he would have lost. But I'm betting that Chik Fila has lawyers, and I bet those lawyers knew that he would have lost .. but Chik Fila backed down and agreed to alter their practices. Why would they do that?

They did it because that practice was abhorrent to a lot of people who buy their products. Not just people in that particular ward, but aborrent to people everywhere they do business.

Was the goal and excecution of the alderman's plan successful?

Absolutely they were .. but the plan is not new. It has been done successfully many times the struggles for people in this country. None of the outcomes and total collapse of the legal system that you suggest has occurred, nor are they likely to.

Perhaps you've never been involved in direct action movements, but going against the system IS THE POINT.

 

[blackascoal]

There is no problem with those who chose not to eat there. The problem, which has been pointed out to you repeatedly, is with the Alderman deciding to withhold permits due to the exercise of free speech by the CEO of Chik. THAT is the problem. He does not have that right, in fact it is a violation of the Constitutional protections that the CEO has.

Let me know what problem you are having comprehending that.



AGAIN... NO ONE HAS A PROBLEM WITH THE ABOVE. NO ONE HAS A PROBLEM WITH PEOPLE DECIDING NOT TO DO BUSINESS WITH CHIK. THE PROBLEM IS WITH A POLITICIAN ABUSING HIS POWER.



How is it that you are having such a problem comprehending that I have stated (as have others) that NONE OF US HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE ABOVE.

How is it that you continue to IGNORE what we DO have a problem with?



AGAIN, you don't seem to want to stop creating this same straw man over and over and over and over and over and over again.



So you think it is ok for an alderman to punish people for expressing their religious beliefs? I don't think you understand our Constitutional rights. You many want to read up on them.



Do you understand the difference between CITIZENS protesting/taking direct action and a POLITICIAN penalizing someone for free speech? I don't think you do.

I understand the difference and I still support the action.

 

[Timshel]

I've already very clearly explained my position .. history explains my position.

I have no doubt that there are legal arguments that can be made. I alluded to those legal arguments, and stated that in spite of the legal arguments, I still strongly support the action, because the action often achieves the goal when there is no other recourse to do so .. just as has been achieved in the very case we're talking about .. just as was achieved with the sit-ins .. just as was achieved throughout American history from the Boston Tea Party forward.

Again, would the alderman have lost his case in court?

Absolutely he would have. There is recent legal precedent that determines he would have lost. But I'm betting that Chik Fila has lawyers, and I bet those lawyers knew that he would have lost .. but Chik Fila backed down and agreed to alter their practices. Why would they do that?

They did it because that practice was abhorrent to a lot of people who buy their products. Not just people in that particular ward, but aborrent to people everywhere they do business.

Was the goal and excecution of the alderman's plan successful?

Absolutely they were .. but the plan is not new. It has been done successfully many times the struggles for people in this country. None of the outcomes and total collapse of the legal system that you suggest has occurred, nor are they likely to.

Perhaps you've never been involved in direct action movements, but going against the system IS THE POINT.

The Alderman backed down and achieved nothing, but some positive press coverage for himself. I seriously doubt they will stop funding whatever they choose to and if they do it will have nothing at all to do with this. In fact, part of this charade may be just to take the heat off of themselves.

I say don't let up. Keep boycotting and press on with the pee-ins.

That will be far more effective.

 

[blackascoal]

The Alderman backed down and achieved nothing, but some positive press coverage for himself. I seriously doubt they will stop funding whatever they choose to and if they do it will have nothing at all to do with this. In fact, part of this charade may be just to take the heat off of themselves.

I say don't let up. Keep boycotting and press on with the pee-ins.

That will be far more effective.

Frankly, it doesn't matter if you don't get it. They accomplished exactly what they set out to. You just don't get it.

“The WinShape Foundations is now taking a much closer look at the organizations it considers helping, and in that process will remain true to its stated philosophy of not supporting organizations with political agendas,” Chick-fil-A’s senior director of real estate said in a letter to Moreno.

---

Along with re-evaluating funding to anti-gay marriage activist groups, Moreno said, Chick-fil-A has agreed to amend its corporate policy to include sexual orientation in its anti-discrimination policy.

“The company today has put into writing, for the first time, that its employees are to ‘treat every person with honor, dignity and respect — regardless of their beliefs, race, creed, sexual orientation and gender. .. our intent is not to engage in political or social debates,” Moreno said in a statement.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politic...aluates-funding-for-anti-gay-marriage-groups/

The alderman has ensured that the homophobic mindset of its CEO does not show up in its hiring practices .. AND, that's not just going to be watched in his district, it's going to be watched everywhere Chick Fila does business or hires people.

But you claim nothing was accomplished.

You don't know what you're talking about.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

I understand the difference and I still support the action.

So instead of allowing consumers to make their own choices, you support a single politician violating the rights of free speech and freedom of religion of an individual?

Not a very good slope to head down.

You also mentioned in a previous post the 'practice was abhorrent'... What practice?

Chik-Fil-A did not discriminate on who it served nor on who worked for the company. The CEO, in an interview, expressed his personal views on gay marriage. He has that right. He also has the right to do so without Mutt's proclaimed expectation of politicians who disagree trying to punish his business for his views. No matter how much we may disagree with his stance on gay marriage, he maintains those rights.

 

[christiefan915]

Not surprising....its not the first time the left wing fascists have used extortion against a perceived political enemy. Jesse Jackson was successful in extorting money from
various businesses with the threat of boycotts in the past....I'm sure we'll see it again in the future.
Here, instead of a boycott, it was the threat to disallow the business to expand.....

Someday, the shoe may be on the other foot as the saying goes.....and I'll ignore the crime and injustice as Mott does and say, I told you so....

It's not extortion to exercise your right to spend your money as you see fit. For me that means not patronizing businesses that discriminate against race, such as Denny's. Also includes those that don't support gay marriage, or a woman's right to choose.

I'll bet you weren't squawking back in 2003 when war hawks were boycotting French products and calling us traitors if we didn't go along with them.

 

[christiefan915]

I ordered a new book, Christian Jihad by Colonel Doner. He is the one who helped Falwell launch the Moral Majority. He has now done. 180 and has seen the changes the Dominionist are bring to the USA and is warning against the Rick Perry's nd Sarah Palin's. Can't wit to read it!

I just finished reading Thy Kingdom Come: How the Religious Right Distorts the Faith and Threatens America. I think you recommended it? Someone here did, that's how I heard about it. The writer identifies as a fundamentalist yet is still highly critical about the so-called Moral Majority and its preachers.

 

[blackascoal]

So instead of allowing consumers to make their own choices, you support a single politician violating the rights of free speech and freedom of religion of an individual?

Not a very good slope to head down.

You also mentioned in a previous post the 'practice was abhorrent'... What practice?

Chik-Fil-A did not discriminate on who it served nor on who worked for the company. The CEO, in an interview, expressed his personal views on gay marriage. He has that right. He also has the right to do so without Mutt's proclaimed expectation of politicians who disagree trying to punish his business for his views. No matter how much we may disagree with his stance on gay marriage, he maintains those rights.

It might help you understand better if you follow my reasoning instead of creating one for me.

Free speech and freedom of religion don't have anything to do with it.

The CEO freely spoke about what and who he doesn't like. Nobody stopped him from doing that.

What you don't like are the business consequences of his freely-spoken opinion. You'd like to pretend that he should get to say whatever the Hell he wants, and no matter how offensive it may be, no consequences should come from what he said.

That's a fairly naive view of the world.

I FULLY support a politician ensuring that the homophobic comments of a CEO does not trickle down to company hiring practices in his district, and I FULLY support a politician taking a stand for the citizens in his district.

You don't support that .. I get that. But you present a false argument .. that the CEO was somehow kept from free speech. He wasn't.

Frre speech ain't always free .. especially when it comes to business.