Prick-fil-a banned in Boston

[Revs]

Nothing to do with the Boston stuff, but CFA was just caught using a fake facebook profile to try and quell criticism about the company and their Muppet toy "safety recall".

http://gizmodo.com/5928926/chick+fil...rl-on-facebook

[hatesfreedom]

Their chicken is fucking delicious.

[redtail]

A coworker found & read the mayor's letter to me; I don't have a link, sorry.

The letter didn't say anything about actually legally banning CFA from Boston. It basically said "you're not welcome, we don't want your kind here, please go away and don't bother us anymore".

I think that's well within the purview of a mayor.

At least ours seemed to think so, when he did the same thing with lingerie football.

[Uthrecht]

I came in here with a link. I just saw a copy online and so went to find an article about it. I agree, he's basically telling them to fuck the horse they rode in on, and didn't say that he was going to use the mayor's office to ban them.

In other news, it looks like CHICAGO POLITICS are in force as well.

[Slate]

Originally Posted by hatesfreedom

Their chicken is fucking delicious.

I've had it. It tasted like chicken.

[mothedrine]

Originally Posted by Slate

I've had it. It tasted like chicken.

chicken, cock, who can tell?

[SisterCoyote]

Chik-Fil-A (scroll down past the Amway stuff) has kind of a dodgy history for those of us who watch those things.

Also, the Chik-fil-a corporation is not an individual. And does the First Amendment apply to State Government, or National Government? (Serious question: I am not only not a constitutional lawyer I have no idea how to apply any of the Amendments to Law.)

[SisterCoyote]

Originally Posted by Scuba Ben

Better random thought: I seem to recall that the Christian Bible has a few things to say about being good to everybody. Maybe Chick-Fil-A should read up on those passages. (And serve roast lamb.)

And with regard to the "safety concern" signs: Doesn't one of those pesky commandments say something along the lines of DON'T LIE?

[mwm]

Originally Posted by redtail

I think that's well within the purview of a mayor.

At least ours seemed to think so, when he did the same thing with lingerie football.

Yours is no town I'd want to live in.

[redtail]

I know, right?

[Pere]

Originally Posted by redtail

The letter didn't say anything about actually legally banning CFA from Boston. It basically said "you're not welcome, we don't want your kind here, please go away and don't bother us anymore".

I think that's well within the purview of a mayor.

His quote to the newspaper, OTOH, comes across as a pretty direct threat to misuse the power of his office.

[Uthrecht]

Yeah, even without him saying that he's explicitly going to ban them, getting a letter from the office of the mayor telling you Don't Do This, that feels like it's a misuse.

[Fish]

Originally Posted by Revs

Nothing to do with the Boston stuff, but CFA was just caught using a fake facebook profile ...

Somebody was caught using a fake Facebook profile. It's too early yet to say whom.

Originally Posted by redtail

The letter didn't say anything about actually legally banning CFA from Boston.

Talk is cheap. The CEO of Chick-Fil-A blathers on about the Bible and how he runs his business. The mayor blathers on about how C-F-A isn't welcome. When either of the two actually breaks a law worth mentioning, I'll be the first to ask for some charges, but until then: if one of them gets First Amendment rights, so does the other.

[redtail]

Mileage varies, I guess.

You have a city and state that explicitly embrace non-discrimination for sexual orientation.

You have a franchise that is known for discrimination and that publicly avows such.

I got no real problem with them yapping at each other. The mayor can fight to keep CFA out of his city, just like he's probably fought to bring businesses he does like into the city.

Any citizen (or group thereof) can do the same.

Or what Fish said.

[Pere]

Originally Posted by Fish

Talk is cheap. The CEO of Chick-Fil-A blathers on about the Bible and how he runs his business. The mayor blathers on about how C-F-A isn't welcome. When either of the two actually breaks a law worth mentioning, I'll be the first to ask for some charges, but until then: if one of them gets First Amendment rights, so does the other.

Yeah, but the difference is that one of them is not speaking just for himself. To my mind, Menino can say he disagrees, doesn't like them, would prefer they not set up shop in his town--but when he says, or even veers close to saying, that he will, as mayor, direct his people to be discriminatory in the application of laws and procedures so as to make it impossible for them to set up shop... that's not really acceptable in a public official.

[Fish]

He's close to saying he will (maybe in the future), direct his people to maybe look for reasons not to allow a company to set up?

Yeah, get back to me when there's a crime. This is still just talk.

And yes, the same goes for the CEO of Chick-Fil-A, because your dire warnings go equally for him ("he's close to saying he will direct his employees to discriminate against gays," oh noes). If he's broken any laws with the running of his company, then let's see some charges. Until then, he can run his mouth all he likes.

[Komnenos]

I'm sure Chick-Fil-A discriminates but there is a difference between "discriminates" and "legally discriminates." I imagine as a moderately sized company CFA's legal team at least tries to keep the corporate discrimination on the side of the law. I don't believe they explicitly refuse to hire people based on religious belief, for example. In States where sexual orientation is a protected class I also suspect they don't explicitly refuse to hire people of that class or discriminate against employees in that class.

Are there plenty of ways to de facto discriminate such that you don't do anything that can be proven as de jure illegal discrimination? Sure.

So yeah, CFA sucks dick or whatever but we don't have any actual proof they break employment laws on a regular basis. Or rather, any more than an average company of their size. I believe companies of a certain size pretty much always have some violations out there, but the way to rectify those is supposed to be through fines and penalties for each violation not blanket banning them from a geographic area.

I don't really know that I buy that a Mayor has the legal authority in Boston to blanket ban a specific business in the entire corporation limits. But it seems like he's really just making a political statement anyway, so CFA hasn't been banned from anywhere.

[Eats Crayons]

Originally Posted by Mustard Stain

Had to re-read that. Da-amn, you've gotta step away from the keyboard until you've got some serious caffeine in you!

Yeah, I have to apologize for garbling that ups so badly. I was multi-tasking and it came out a mess on the Giraffe Board end. *Didn't we get a toilet paper smiley?*

[redtail]

So then, y'all are saying that those towns that didn't want Walmarts and took various steps to fight the stores from opening in their town - they've got no right to make those sorts of decisions?

The mayor/city council/zoning committee/citizens/whomever don't have the right to decide that a particular business/development/whatever isn't appropriate for their town?

Wow, I guess the corporate overlords really have won.

[eleanorigby]

Originally Posted by Uthrecht

In other news, it looks like CHICAGO POLITICS are in force as well.

Seriously? This isn't Chicago Politics as usual. If you go by the city's rep (true or not), it would be more like someone got a payoff to not build in a ward or gave a kickback to build in one. Or there's a body buried in the foundation. This sounds to me like the Alderman just wants to do a mini-Boston Mayor act.

If anything, this posturing should TELL the company something about its PR and its policies. I've never had CFA and won't support it due to this, but if someone gave me a piece of its chicken, I wouldn't take umbrage. It's a private company--it gets to be a douchebag and I as a consumer, get to not buy its product.

I bet CFA opens in Chicago, but delayed.

[Mateomasfeo]

What a bunch of hypocrites! It's OK for "gays" to have their opinions, marches, cram penis into butt, but if anyone is against gay marriage, then - OMG.

I am gonna go eat Chick Fillet tonight...

[Pere]

Originally Posted by redtail

So then, y'all are saying that those towns that didn't want Walmarts and took various steps to fight the stores from opening in their town - they've got no right to make those sorts of decisions?

The mayor/city council/zoning committee/citizens/whomever don't have the right to decide that a particular business/development/whatever isn't appropriate for their town?

Wow, I guess the corporate overlords really have won.

Of course I'm not saying any such thing.

There's nothing wrong with zoning and code standards that block certain kinds of development, based on what the development is. (Or rather, there are often things wrong with how zoning and code are implemented, but there isn't anything necessarily wrong with the mechanism as such.)

There is definitely something very wrong with telling someone that "if they need licenses in the city, it will be very difficult," as the Boston mayor did, based on their religious or political statements, or who they are.

Originally Posted by Fish

He's close to saying he will (maybe in the future), direct his people to maybe look for reasons not to allow a company to set up?

No. He said "if they need licenses in the city, it will be very difficult." If a mayor somewhere had said that about the prospective office of a political party or charitable organization you supported, or a business owned by a minority, you wouldn't have a problem with that? That doesn't have the ring of threat to you, from the mouth of a big-city mayor?

What if it was a notably gay-friendly business? As the Herald noted, such a statement would, rightly, bring instant and widespread condemnation. Hell, there might be an angry mob in front of that mayor's office right now.

But you think it's not worth commenting on... because it's your own political view which happens to be ascendant at the moment?

[ulfhjorr]

Originally Posted by Mateomasfeo

What a bunch of hypocrites! It's OK for "gays" to have their opinions, marches, cram penis into butt, but if anyone is against gay marriage, then - OMG.

Yep, it's okay for gays to have their opinions, marches, cram penis into butt, and you don't have to do a thing to support them.

And it's okay for Cock-Sandwich dude to have his opinion, marches, and cram penis into his own butt, and I don't have to do a thing to support him.

That's what makes America great. We can all have opinions, marches, and cram appendages into orifices and everyone else can care or not as they see fit.

[MissJeanLouise]

Now that KidV has amended me to not much of an asshole or whatever, I will say this:
If Mayor Menino wants something blocked in the city of Boston, it gets blocked in the city of Boston. His office will dig up an obscure zoning law or something . I have friends who own a bar who tried for over a decade to expand. The bar across the street, which happened to be a popular watering hole for politicians, didn't want them to. They were blocked every single time they appealed---until they managed to convince the other bar that there were enough mutual benefits and not much risk. And this was just expanding into a part of a building that they already owned.

[Komnenos]

Originally Posted by redtail

So then, y'all are saying that those towns that didn't want Walmarts and took various steps to fight the stores from opening in their town - they've got no right to make those sorts of decisions?

The mayor/city council/zoning committee/citizens/whomever don't have the right to decide that a particular business/development/whatever isn't appropriate for their town?

Wow, I guess the corporate overlords really have won.

I think they have the right to say "we don't want a big box sort in Lots 1500-2300 of Road 15", I don't believe they have the right to say "we don't want Wal-Mart here but we'd love to get K-Mart."

[hajario]

Originally Posted by Mateomasfeo

What a bunch of hypocrites! It's OK for "gays" to have their opinions, marches, cram penis into butt, but if anyone is against gay marriage, then - OMG.

I am gonna go eat Chick Fillet tonight...

Yeah well you enjoy your bigotry and your sandwich.

I don't see how anyone is being hypocritical. I wouldn't support a gay owned business where the owner was openly bigoted towards and spoke out against Christians and wanted to deny them rights. On the other hand, I would have nothing against a Christian business owner who went to Christian marches and rallies and had missionary sex with his wife only for procreation.

[Mateomasfeo]

Originally Posted by hajario

Yeah well you enjoy your bigotry and your sandwich.

I don't see how anyone is being hypocritical. I wouldn't support a gay owned business where the owner was openly bigoted towards and spoke out against Christians and wanted to deny them rights. On the other hand, I would have nothing against a Christian business owner who went to Christian marches and rallies and had missionary sex with his wife only for procreation.

I DON'T GIVE A SHIT ABOUT WHO FUCKS WHO! Reread the post and this time try not to move your mouth.

I love how the name calling starts when you hit a nerve with the PC crowd....

[mothedrine]

Isn't being against gay marriages just like being against interracial marriages?

[hajario]

Originally Posted by Mateomasfeo

I DON'T GIVE A SHIT ABOUT WHO FUCKS WHO! Reread the post and this time try not to move your mouth.

I love how the name calling starts when you hit a nerve with the PC crowd....

I didn't call you a name. I said that you exhibited bigotry. I then explained how my point of view wasn't hypocritical which is what you claimed. Would you care to address my main point? It's the big paragraph at the end.

[Chacoguy]

Originally Posted by mothedrine

Isn't being against gay marriages just like being against interracial marriages?

No, because Halle Berry and lesbians are HOT! But, ya know, Dudity is .

[Fish]

Originally Posted by Peremensoe

If a mayor somewhere had said that about the prospective office of a political party or charitable organization you supported, or a business owned by a minority, you wouldn't have a problem with that?

You don't know me very well. I don't care what people say, I care what they do. As anybody who followed the breaking-news thread on the Penn State business would know, I don't go ballistic on the basis of allegations, nor do I advocate people get strung up for what somebody says. By and large, there are few crimes you can commit with your voice, and I don't see evidence that this is one of them.

[Uthrecht]

Originally Posted by eleanorigby

Seriously?

No.

Originally Posted by Mateomasfeo

hypocrites!

Originally Posted by Mateomasfeo

I love how the name calling starts when you hit a nerve

Yes.

[Anacanapuna]

Actually, Mateomasfeo didn't say anything in support of the Chick-fil-A CEO, or against gays. All he said was that it appears hypocritical for gays to exercise their First Amendment right, and in some of the most bizarre and flamboyant ways they have done so, and no one even raises an eyebrow anymore; but when a businessman who sincerely objects to homosexuality exercises that same right, we (meaning most members of this board) rain down condemnation on that man.

Of course, Mateo knows this is not really hypocrisy, since our condemnation is simply us exercising that self-same First Amendment right, and so on and so forth, but the word does express his apparent objection to the "politically correct" piling-on demonstrated in this thread.

Having said all of that, of course, I wouldn't care if Chick-fil-A sold the finest poultry cuisine to be had in the Americas, my foot will never cross its threshhold again. I've never liked Dan Cathy's smug, holier-than-thou attitude, and my visits to his stores were reluctant, at best.

[mothedrine]

Not directed at you puna.

It seems to me that just on principal you have to object to bigots. I mean any sort of mindless prejudice is really just that isn't it? The issue of whether or not someone has a right to be a bigot or not seems like nothing more than a red herring. Yeah, of course they have a right, and your point is what exactly? That being a bigot is ok? No? Then what, because I don't get it.

The people who protest against bigotry are the ones you should support regardless of how you feel about them personally - again, just on principal. You can't be anti-bigot on the issue of say race or religion but then start mocking people who are anti-bigot on the issue of sexual orientation. Well, of course you CAN. That IS your right after all.

[KidVermicious]

Originally Posted by mothedrine

Isn't being against gay marriages just like being against interracial marriages?

Naw, cause race ain't contagious.

[Clothahump]

Originally Posted by SisterCoyote

Also, the Chik-fil-a corporation is not an individual. And does the First Amendment apply to State Government, or National Government? (Serious question: I am not only not a constitutional lawyer I have no idea how to apply any of the Amendments to Law.)

IANAL either, but I do know that the Constitution was originally intended to apply to the Federal Government. However, the 14th Amendment made it apply to the states as well.

This is why I said earlier that the mayor was stepping all over the First Amendment if he tried to run them out of town. If all he's gonna do is posture and say they aren't welcome, then he'll get a few more votes next election and that's all that will happen.

[Eats Crayons]

Originally Posted by Peremensoe

Of course I'm not saying any such thing.

There's nothing wrong with zoning and code standards that block certain kinds of development, based on what the development is. (Or rather, there are often things wrong with how zoning and code are implemented, but there isn't anything necessarily wrong with the mechanism as such.)

There is definitely something very wrong with telling someone that "if they need licenses in the city, it will be very difficult," as the Boston mayor did, based on their religious or political statements, or who they are.

I agree. If KFC could come in and would be allowed to set up a fried chicken restaurant on a plot of land, I'm not comfortable with the idea that Chik-Fil-A would be barred from doing so on the same plot of land, assuming they plan on operating in full compliance of labour/discrimination laws. If the town really hates the business, the business will fail in any case.

Issues like Walmart are about changing lands for miles. Our neighbourhood is one of the only ones to successfully ward off Walmart, and it was because their developments are huge, and the surrounding, old, narrow residential neighbourhood streets and infrastructure made the plan ridiculous. No doubt some people hate Walmart as a corporation, but the objections were primarily to the nature of the building development and the impact it would have on the core elements of the community. WHAT store didn't matter as much as WHAT KIND of development project.

Originally Posted by Mateomasfe

What a bunch of hypocrites! It's OK for "gays" to have their opinions, marches, cram penis into butt, but if anyone is against gay marriage, then - OMG.

I think an important distinction to make is the word "against". There is a huge difference in perception between someone saying "I love Jesus! I'm a proud Christian who lives for my one true God and Savior!" and very different perception that comes from someone who points at gays or Jews, tells them they are going to burn for eternity, and says they should be denied secular rights. Saying "I'm against gay marriage" may be an expression of Cathy's faith, but we live in a world now were GLBT Christians get married in Christian churches, so whether it's truly a part of his faith or not, it makes him look like an intolerant jerk. "I love Jesus!" is something that is to be celebrated, "I hate you" is a tougher pill to swallow, even if it's couched in religious overtones.

FWIW, I wouldn't care if he opened a CFA in my neighbourhood. I wouldn't shop there, but I don't shop at the little store that sells the plastic Jesus statues either - I'm not boycotting the Jesus shop, it's simply not relevant to me or my interests, and CFA is irrelevant to me because I don't eat meat.

[Doyle]

Originally Posted by Uthrecht

In other news, it looks like CHICAGO POLITICS are in force as well.

But yet Rahm welcomes help from Farrakahn.

Now ask me why I hate politics.

[Uthrecht]

Rahm should send Farrakahn a letter on Office of the Mayor stationary saying that his kind of intolerance is unwelcome in Chicago. I hear that's legal.

[MissJeanLouise]

Let's lighten things up in here with some quality journalism from The Onion.

"The Queer-Hatin' Cordon Bleu is our company's way of showing our firm commitment to strong, Christian family values," said Chick-fil-A spokesman Robert Gary, before adding that the vehemently anti-gay rights sandwich comes served in a combo with waffle fries and a medium soda for just $6.95. "From the very first morsel of this savory meal to the very last bite, customers can envision gays burning in hell with their sodomizing cohorts, and know that our sandwich is on their side.”

Come on. It's funny.

[bufftabby]

What's really funny is how many friends of a friend believed the hell out of it. One had actually posted that link on CFA's Facebook page, demanding an explanation.

[Argyle Sock]

Originally Posted by KidVermicious

Naw, cause race ain't contagious.

Sure it is. Children will catch the black from the one parent, despite the other being lily white.

[MissJeanLouise]

Originally Posted by bufftabby

What's really funny is how many friends of a friend believed the hell out of it. One had actually posted that link on CFA's Facebook page, demanding an explanation.

So, your friends have dumb friends is what you're saying.

I've seen some Onion articles that take a few minutes figure out (real vs. satire), but No Homo Ham and Fag Punching sauce are pretty big clues, IMO.

[bufftabby]

Well, yes.

[ulfhjorr]

Originally Posted by Eats Crayons

"I love Jesus!" is something that is to be celebrated

It is?

Originally Posted by Argyle Sock

Children will catch the black from the one parent, despite the other being lily white.

So you're saying that blackness is an STD?

[SisterCoyote]

Originally Posted by Clothahump

IANAL either, but I do know that the Constitution was originally intended to apply to the Federal Government. However, the 14th Amendment made it apply to the states as well.

This is why I said earlier that the mayor was stepping all over the First Amendment if he tried to run them out of town. If all he's gonna do is posture and say they aren't welcome, then he'll get a few more votes next election and that's all that will happen.

Cool, Humpy, thank you for the clarification.

[SisterCoyote]

Originally Posted by ulfhjorr

So you're saying that blackness is an STD?

Life in general is an STD: you catch it at birth and eventually die from it.

[hajario]

There are no Chick-fil-a restaurants in my town. If they tried to open one, I would have no objection but I sure as hell wouldn't spend any money there.

I don't see how, in any universe, I am hypocritical for condemning an opinion that I do not support and not one that I do. I am in no way advocating for censorship of opinions that I do not personally like.

Mateomasfeo: Do you think that my views in this thread are in any way hypocritical?

[Flying Saucerian]

Re: Contagious Blackness. Oh yeah. That was a common theme in older books and such in the 'Anti-race mixing' South when it was literally illegal for people of different races to marry. There'd be a subplot or somesuch where the young lovers are kept apart because the bride has an octoroon uncle or somesuch and the groom gets around it by maybe swallowing a drop of another race's blood or the like.

There was also concern about blood transfusions between races, meaning blood from donors of different races had to be kept segregated despite being identical.

[Argyle Sock]

Originally Posted by ulfhjorr

So you're saying that blackness is an STD?

No, I'm saying children are an STD.