(August 2, 2012 at 12:15 am)padraic Wrote:

Quote:Dude. I thought this was a family forum.

Oh please. You might get away with that if you were a newbie*,but you ain't, so you fucking well can't.

Oh lighten up mate. I was being facetious.

You know, ever since the whole "buycott" bit was brought up, and since you made the quip about dinner at Chick-Fil-A A T, I have to suggest something here.

The population of Boston is roughly 625k. While Boston apparently spends far less on fast food than the national average, I'd be willing to wager that the amount is still significant. For some odd reason, being that C-F-A is in the business of cornering themselves a share of that market, and those dollars -and not the business of printing bible tracts-, it seems to me that Chick Fil A's interests here are more along the lines of eliminating any impediment to their expansion and potential profits than they are about freedom of speech in the first place. My personal opinion here, is that their legal team advised PR to invoke the first amendment to lay the grounds for any legal action that might be taken. Seed the clouds, so to speak. That other organizations have seized upon this manufactured opportunity to further their own agendas is unsurprising. I definitely wouldn't have participated in any "buycott", because that almost seems like someone might be leveraging my beliefs or views in order to turn profit. I'd probably use my free speech, rather than my currency, to voice my opinion. It always seems to come back to money though, doesn't it?

(If the bastards would stop charging me so much for the same shit offered by anyone else I might eat there more often - I do loves me some yardbird)

The thing is, while you see a lot of fast food restaurants in Boston, like any city, you don't see them as much at all. Chick-fil-A would have a bitch of a time getting in anyone. Most of our restaurants are independent. Of course, we have the must-haves like McDonalds, but go to the best area to eat in Boston and you won't see a single fried chicken place.

(August 2, 2012 at 12:10 pm)Shell B Wrote: ... but go to the best area to eat in Boston and you won't see a single fried chicken place.

i knew they were racists up there. /joke

(August 2, 2012 at 1:00 pm)jackman Wrote:

(August 2, 2012 at 12:10 pm)Shell B Wrote: ... but go to the best area to eat in Boston and you won't see a single fried chicken place.

i knew they were racists up there. /joke

They need a Zaxby's at least

You see why I couldn't stay in Boston, no fried chicken...and don't even get me started on the preponderance of mayonnaise and relative lack of watermelons or hotsauce.

(August 2, 2012 at 1:00 pm)jackman Wrote:

(August 2, 2012 at 12:10 pm)Shell B Wrote: ... but go to the best area to eat in Boston and you won't see a single fried chicken place.

i knew they were racists up there. /joke

Blahaha, only the Micks are racist around here.

---

(August 2, 2012 at 1:06 pm)Rhythm Wrote: You see why I couldn't stay in Boston, no fried chicken...and don't even get me started on the preponderance of mayonnaise and relative lack of watermelons or hotsauce.

It's called the market. We have those. Just because hotsauce and watermelon isn't on everyone's front porch doesn't mean you can't find it.

(August 2, 2012 at 1:28 pm)Shell B Wrote: Blahaha, only the Micks are racist around here.

I see what you did there, Shell.

Here is exactly how Boston, Chicago, etc could ban Chik-fil-a legally if they really wanted to go that route.

These "secondary adverse affects" rulings have been upheld several times by the SCOTUS.

Quote:The law was not, the (US Supreme) Court said, aimed a suppressing the erotic message of dancers but rather was an attempt, as the city declared, to prevent the sort of "atmosphere conducive to violence, sexual harassment, public intoxication, prostitution, the spread of sexually transmitted diseases and other deleterious effects."

I can see it now.

The law was not, the Court said, aimed a suppressing the political message of Chik-fil-a but rather was an attempt, as the city declared, to prevent the sort of "atmosphere conducive to bigotry, LGBT harassment, obesity, poor public health, increased traffic and other deleterious effects."