Assault On Free Speech

[Ryantology]

Bullsh*t!

Ok, gotta ask. Whats up with that?
Theres not a no swearing rule here.

You know how you're supposed to remove the vowels from God's name? He half-assed it.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

RaphielDrake Wrote:

(Today 19:28)A Theist Wrote: Bullsh*t!

Ok, gotta ask. Whats up with that?
Theres not a no swearing rule here.

The more literate may refer to such people as 'sanctimonious anal sphincters' or possibly ' repressed anal retentives who had poor potty training' .

Here in anti intellectual Australia we just call them 'wankers'

[Minimalist]

I call them much worse.

[A Theist]

Hehe, angry backwoods Republican much? As a citizen, I have the right to vote on whether a business can open up in my city or not. Towns and cities can and do block entry of certain businesses. At least my petty tyrant mayor isn't stymied by the idea of a cock in the ass, like you homegrown motherfuckers. People have butt sex. Fucking deal with it.

Enjoy your processed anger, battered and fried in sexual prudery.

Not me. I'm not angry. You're the one who's angry. As a citizen you have the right not to buy from a business if you don't like its politics or religion. But neither citizens or elected office holders have the right to stop a business from coming to their city based soley for that reason. Otherwise your petty tyrant mayor wouldn't have backed off his threat. He should have consulted his legal team before he shot off his big mouth.

[Shell B]

I'm angry? Look at your sig, dude and your manner of speaking. I'm naught but amused. You don't even live here. Keep your hate out of my politics. Until you can produce evidence that we cannot keep a business out of our city, which we absolutely can do, you should consider the difference between what you would like to be legal and what is actually legal.

I'm still not entirely sure you are not a troll parodying an angry crimson nape.

[A Theist]

Bullsh*t!

Ok, gotta ask. Whats up with that?
Theres not a no swearing rule here.

Dude. I thought this was a family forum.

---

I can oppose a lot of speech but that doesn't mean I have the right to stop it. It's not my call to tell a business owner what to do with his own business. But as a customer I have every right not to buy his goods if I don't find his political or religious speech acceptable.

Again, that was not an answer to the questions I was asking. If I was asking if you thought what the mayor did was right then it would be. If I asked if you have the right to order business owners around then alright. But those are not the questions I am asking.

"Is it not a severe violation of the obligation between supplier and consumer to provide an unbiased service to a market in demand of it?"
"Does this conduct not qualify as severely unethical?"
Its that simple, thats all I'm asking. Everything else in the paragraph I wrote is just an explanation of those questions.
If you don't want to answer those questions thats cool but at least tell me thats whats going on otherwise we're both wasting our time here.

What you're asking is not just a simple yes or no question. In the legal sense Chick-fil-A broke no laws. To your first question, the business owner is a private citizen who has every right to his opinions. If citizens don't like the business owners positions they can take their money elsewhere. Public office holders are entitled to their personal opinions as well but their first obligations are to provide equal protection under the law to everyone without bias. As far as what's ethical, it depends on which side of the issue you're on. Wouldn't you agree? No to both questions.

[Cato]

But neither citizens or elected office holders have the right to stop a business from coming to their city based soley for that reason.

I conclude that you don't hold the same view considering the 2004 amendment to the Ohio constitution banning any form of civil union, including marriage, between consenting adults of the same sex.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

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.

But neither citizens or elected office holders have the right to stop a business from coming to their city based soley for that reason.

In theory,probably not.In practice,bigotry lies behind a LOT of policy and law. EG The Patriot Act, and in Australia, ,our current,shameful treatment of Middle eastern boat people.

*248 posts,joined 18 November 2009.

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000



Here in Australia, several communities have blocked McDonalds and Hungry Jacks (Burger King) simply because they don't want them. Here a community has a legal right to object to any building or use of land. I would not object simply because I thought the owners were ignorant homophobes,but can understand why people would,and accept it is their right.

---

I call them much worse.

Yes, but you are a crude old cunt,and I'm not.

[A Theist]

I'm angry? Look at your sig, dude and your manner of speaking.

Well yeah, you sound angry. My manner of speaking? What specifically? I don't see what I've done wrong except to argue an opposing viewpoint. That doesn't make me a hater because I disagree with a particular position and I haven't personally attacked anybody here.

Until you can produce evidence that we cannot keep a business out of our city, which we absolutely can do, you should consider the difference between what you would like to be legal and what is actually legal.

Then why did your mayor back down? Menino was discriminating against the owner of a business based on a viewpoint he didn't agree with. That was illegal. Even he admitted that he was wrong. Rahm Emmanuel also backed off his threat to ban Chick-fil-A from Chicago. If Chick-fil-A is not violating some city ordinance then there's nothing you guys can do.

I'm still not entirely sure you are not a troll parodying an angry crimson nape.

No. I'm not doing that.

---

But neither citizens or elected office holders have the right to stop a business from coming to their city based soley for that reason.

I conclude that you don't hold the same view considering the 2004 amendment to the Ohio constitution banning any form of civil union, including marriage, between consenting adults of the same sex.

Should be an interesting topic for a new thread.

[The Grand Nudger]

Political expediency A T. Truth be told, they could bar, ban, stall, and just generally make life hell for Chick-Fil-A in numerous ways that are perfectly legal, but that would be political suicide. That's mho, anyway.

(been trudging through Bostons zoning, permit, and licensing ordinances- it's almost as if they were written to fuck with people in the first place...lol)