Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Some Chick Fil A)   "Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views" - William F Buckley   (dennyburk.com ) divider line
    More: Obvious, Baptist Press, policy debate, rights movement, liberals  
•       •       •

2315 clicks; posted to Politics » on 23 Jul 2012 at 11:17 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



594 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-07-23 01:40:30 PM  
this thread is bigoted against christians, it is offensive

we should boycott this website
 
2012-07-23 01:42:11 PM  

I drunk what: this thread is bigoted against christians, it is offensive

we should boycott this website


Please do.
 
2012-07-23 01:44:17 PM  

Pocket Ninja: In other news, dark age bigots who use religion to justify small-minded provinciality and cultural ignorance are surprised when others call them out on their idiocy.


in yet other news, modern age bigots who use anti-religion to justify small-minded provinciality and cultural ignorance are surprised when others call them out on their idiocy.

/dark age is too subtle, needs moar butt-hurt

8/10
 
2012-07-23 01:45:44 PM  

DarwiOdrade: Please do.


everyone take a pic, this is the first time IDW agrees with an IB

/cherish it
//thanks for arguing my point for me, carry on
 
2012-07-23 01:47:28 PM  

I drunk what: DarwiOdrade: Please do.

everyone take a pic, this is the first time IDW agrees with an IB

/cherish it
//thanks for arguing my point for me, carry on


Aw - you think you represent all Christians. How cute. Here in reality, however, my problem is only with you.
 
2012-07-23 01:47:30 PM  

skullkrusher: Menino's asshattery aside, it WOULD be nice to see a large, successful business whose leadership does advocate emulating the life of Christ and does stuff to give back to the community, organizes charity events for their employees to take part in, provides day care for their employees who need it, etc without giving a shiat about 2 dudes getting married.

I'll continue to hold my breath.


Nabisco?
 
2012-07-23 01:48:27 PM  
To play devil's (Jesus's) advocate here, while there are no biblical utterances by Jesus regarding homosexuality, there are several NT verses that some biblical scholars cite as evidence of homosexuality being a sinful act under the New Covenant. I will not bother quoting them but here they are:

Romans 1:26-27
1 Corinthians 6:9-10
1 Timothy 1:9-10

Note that the usual "That's Paul not Jesus" argument doesn't hops water when arguing with Christians since they hold that the words of Paul were in fact the words of the Holy Spirit.

/not a Christian
 
2012-07-23 01:48:52 PM  
It's not that you're a Christian.

It's that you're a dick, and justifying being a dick by saying you're a Christian.
 
2012-07-23 01:49:05 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: skullkrusher: Menino's asshattery aside, it WOULD be nice to see a large, successful business whose leadership does advocate emulating the life of Christ and does stuff to give back to the community, organizes charity events for their employees to take part in, provides day care for their employees who need it, etc without giving a shiat about 2 dudes getting married.

I'll continue to hold my breath.

Nabisco?


what do they do?
 
2012-07-23 01:49:33 PM  

pdee: kingoomieiii: Rincewind53: But I'm horrified to agree with Buckley about what Mayor Menino said. It's actually not okay for the mayor of Boston to say that (essentially) any business that publically opposes gay marriage will not be allowed to open in the city.

Nope. F*ck Chick-fil-A, f*ck their leadership, f*ck their morals, f*ck their backwards-ass "philanthropy" and f*ck their stupid name. I will legally prevent the opening of such businesses wherever it is under my power to do so.

Right now that's nowhere but my own car, but you get the idea.

So you are as ignorant and intolerant as the people you hate.

I hear that the taliban are needing some recruits you should look into that. You sound like their kind of guy.


Because the Taliban were really into gay rights issues?
 
2012-07-23 01:49:40 PM  

pdee: So if the mayor says no black people in my town thats just fine with you and we should wait until the mayor is voted out?


Take it to court. This isn't even close to the same thing.

pdee: I hear that the taliban are needing some recruits you should look into that. You sound like their kind of guy.


Your argument is literally that I'm intolerant of their intolerance.

www.dailyhaha.com
 
2012-07-23 01:51:45 PM  
i.imgur.com
 
2012-07-23 01:52:16 PM  
We did let the guy exercise his first amendment right to be a bigot. We did not give up our first amendment rights to express our own views in response.

So all you pro-bigot pieces of sh*t out there can stop whining now. The right to express your views does not mean people don't get to say they think you are wrong.
 
2012-07-23 01:53:19 PM  

miscreant: cameroncrazy1984: Would it be OK for a mayor to ban any business that would not serve black customers?

Yes, because that's the law. However, as lots of people have pointed out in this thread repeatedly, the business itself is NOT discriminating as far as anyone can tell. Instead, what is happening is that the owner of the business is using some of the money he makes selling chicken sandwiches to support groups that fight against gay marriage.


See above:
1. The company asks about marital status in employment interviews and only hires married people
2. Under the Mass. Fair Employment Practices Law... Employers may not ask questions regarding marital status that are not related to a bona fide occupational qualification.
 
2012-07-23 01:54:05 PM  

Rincewind53: I'm 100% okay with boycotting Chick-fil-A

But I'm horrified to agree with Buckley about what Mayor Menino said. It's actually not okay for the mayor of Boston to say that (essentially) any business that publically opposes gay marriage will not be allowed to open in the city.

To recap: private opposition to private corporation's political use of funds = great, public opposition to private corporation's political use of funds = censorship.


Isn't that an example of local government doing what's best for that community? I thought the small government types were good with local-level decisions.
 
2012-07-23 01:54:24 PM  

Blue_Blazer: Note that the usual "That's Paul not Jesus" argument doesn't hops water when arguing with Christians since they hold that the words of Paul were in fact the words of the Holy Spirit.


I'll go one step further and say that I don't give a fark who said what in the Bible. People taking lessons from books is great. Running society based on the rules of a fictional universe is beyond stupid.

...Though it would cool if our constitution was adopted from the Ferengi Rules of Acquisition. Actually, come to think of it, not sure how it would be different.
 
2012-07-23 01:58:25 PM  

Kittypie070: Gods damn it you fools, Buckley is still dead.


Yes but once I open the Gate of Karash, the Unholy One will return!!
 
2012-07-23 01:59:21 PM  

I drunk what: this thread is bigoted against christians, it is offensive

we should boycott this website


Have fun on this new, Christian-friendly website called "Reddit." You should post in the politics tab. Have fun!
 
2012-07-23 02:04:44 PM  

qorkfiend: Why is the mayor required to show evidence of illegal activity to deny the license? All the cities that deny stores like Wal-Mart are under no similar burden.


Because if the Mayor is denying the license for expressing religous or political viewpoints it is a violation of constitutional rights. If you deny license because you don't like business policies or you want to have only small business in a certain zone or for a slew of other reasons, you are not violating constitutional rights.
 
2012-07-23 02:06:21 PM  
This is actually fairly typical far-right logic. "Listen to my viewpoint" has been conflated with "Follow my viewpoint." They view disagreement of their views as censorship and people expressing views they disagree with as suppression.
 
2012-07-23 02:09:39 PM  

kingoomieiii: I'll go one step further and say that I don't give a fark who said what in the Bible. People taking lessons from books is great. Running society based on the rules of a fictional universe is beyond stupid.

...Though it would cool if our constitution was adopted from the Ferengi Rules of Acquisition. Actually, come to think of it, not sure how it would be different.


The Republicon trend of "Fark you, I got mine already" pretty much falls in line with that.
 
2012-07-23 02:11:32 PM  

ToxicMunkee: exick: Just because I'm willing to hear your other viewpoint and respect your right to have one, doesn't mean I think your viewpoint is valid or worth respecting. Go cry somewhere else.

No shiat. I'm tired of the belief that liberals are granola-eating stupid dogs who will just roll over and bare their bellies to whoever walks by. We're not lumbering pacifists.


Yeppers. I'll listen all day, if you can keep it in words of more than one syllable, but at the end of the day I'll still tell you you're full of shiat.
 
2012-07-23 02:13:04 PM  

Aldon: qorkfiend: Why is the mayor required to show evidence of illegal activity to deny the license? All the cities that deny stores like Wal-Mart are under no similar burden.

Because if the Mayor is denying the license for expressing religous or political viewpoints it is a violation of constitutional rights. If you deny license because you don't like business policies or you want to have only small business in a certain zone or for a slew of other reasons, you are not violating constitutional rights.


But if the Mayor says he will make it difficult for a company with ties to anti-rights groups then I would say that such a Mayor is acting lawfully. I see this as the same as cities denying the KKK the right to march through their cities.
 
2012-07-23 02:13:39 PM  
Fine, Buckley, point taken.

Now, who is it that says "The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it!"?

Surely someone who is open to hearing other views.
 
2012-07-23 02:18:54 PM  

Aldon: If you deny license because you don't like business policies or you want to have only small business in a certain zone or for a slew of other reasons, you are not violating constitutional rights.


How about I don't like the business policy of donating money to hate groups?
 
2012-07-23 02:19:22 PM  
Ah yes, the Holy Grail of quotes that make conservatives out to be the dishonest backwards clueless idiots we've always expected them to be.

Once again: we aren't "surprised" or "offended" that you tend to reject perfectly rational ideas and cling to your outdated traditional bullshiat way of looking at things.
 
2012-07-23 02:20:51 PM  

Earguy: Fine, Buckley, point taken.

Now, who is it that says "The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it!"?

Surely someone who is open to hearing other views.


That's one of the biatches of most major religions - they pretty much say our view is right and anyone who says otherwise is a heretic or apostate.

Combine that with a tendency to cherry-pick parts of your holy book that you like and ignore that parts you don't like and we're pretty much left with the shiatstorm we have currently in the world over religion.
 
2012-07-23 02:20:56 PM  

kingoomieiii: Aldon: If you deny license because you don't like business policies or you want to have only small business in a certain zone or for a slew of other reasons, you are not violating constitutional rights.

How about I don't like the business policy of donating money to hate groups?


then you don't go to Chick-Fil-A?
 
2012-07-23 02:22:07 PM  

Bob16: If you want to see Buckley getting his ass kicked the YouTube video of his debate with a young Chomsky is a good example. Chomsky doesn't even seem to be exerting the slightest effort. He almost seems bored. Buckley was a really stupid man. He was basically an idiot right wing talk show host with a slightly better vocabulary than the Neanderthals that conservatives listen to today. Buckleys words were different but the logic is exactly the same as the current losers on old fart radio.


http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=870106744163006454
 
2012-07-23 02:26:42 PM  

DarwiOdrade: Aw - you think you represent all Christians.


did you have someone else in mind?

DarwiOdrade: Here in reality, however, my problem is only with you.


very well, what's the problem?
 
2012-07-23 02:26:51 PM  

whidbey: Ah yes, the Holy Grail of quotes that make conservatives out to be the dishonest backwards clueless idiots we've always expected them to be.


They see the world differently than everyone else. It is meant to serve them.

Once again: we aren't "surprised" or "offended" that you tend to reject perfectly rational ideas and cling to your outdated traditional bullshiat way of looking at things.

Correct.
 
2012-07-23 02:28:39 PM  

I drunk what: DarwiOdrade: Here in reality, however, my problem is only with you.

very well, what's the problem?


You're smug, you think you're terribly clever, and you never add anything of substance to any discussion you participate in.
 
2012-07-23 02:29:21 PM  

Blue_Blazer: Aldon: qorkfiend: Why is the mayor required to show evidence of illegal activity to deny the license? All the cities that deny stores like Wal-Mart are under no similar burden.

Because if the Mayor is denying the license for expressing religous or political viewpoints it is a violation of constitutional rights. If you deny license because you don't like business policies or you want to have only small business in a certain zone or for a slew of other reasons, you are not violating constitutional rights.

But if the Mayor says he will make it difficult for a company with ties to anti-rights groups then I would say that such a Mayor is acting lawfully. I see this as the same as cities denying the KKK the right to march through their cities.


Cities cannot deny the KKK the right to march through their cities. National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie, 432 U.S. 43 (1977) They CAN restrict the location or manner of the march, but they can't issue a blanket injunction against them.

So denying a business a business license based solely on the fact that they sponsor anti-rights groups is going to run afoul of the same regulations; plus the Commerce Clause, I'd imagine. The courts take a dim view of restraint of trade.
 
2012-07-23 02:35:39 PM  
If all the guy did was to express his opinion, or donate personal monies to whatever hate groups he supports, I'd have no problem with it. As it turns out, he is donating money to anti-gay groups in the name of his corporation, and as such a portion of every sandwich you buy from them goes towards supporting something I consider distasteful.

I love Chick-Fil_a sandwiches (especially the pickle) but won't buy one ever again. He made his choice, and I'm making mine.
 
2012-07-23 02:36:01 PM  

Gyrfalcon: Blue_Blazer: Aldon: qorkfiend: Why is the mayor required to show evidence of illegal activity to deny the license? All the cities that deny stores like Wal-Mart are under no similar burden.

Because if the Mayor is denying the license for expressing religous or political viewpoints it is a violation of constitutional rights. If you deny license because you don't like business policies or you want to have only small business in a certain zone or for a slew of other reasons, you are not violating constitutional rights.

But if the Mayor says he will make it difficult for a company with ties to anti-rights groups then I would say that such a Mayor is acting lawfully. I see this as the same as cities denying the KKK the right to march through their cities.

Cities cannot deny the KKK the right to march through their cities. National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie, 432 U.S. 43 (1977) They CAN restrict the location or manner of the march, but they can't issue a blanket injunction against them.

So denying a business a business license based solely on the fact that they sponsor anti-rights groups is going to run afoul of the same regulations; plus the Commerce Clause, I'd imagine. The courts take a dim view of restraint of trade.


IANAL, so I will take you at your word regarding KKK marches.
However I am still fairly sure that the 14th Amendment would cover a mayor who decided not to give a business license to an openly anti-rights business.
 
2012-07-23 02:41:43 PM  

Blue_Blazer: Gyrfalcon: Blue_Blazer: Aldon: qorkfiend: Why is the mayor required to show evidence of illegal activity to deny the license? All the cities that deny stores like Wal-Mart are under no similar burden.

Because if the Mayor is denying the license for expressing religous or political viewpoints it is a violation of constitutional rights. If you deny license because you don't like business policies or you want to have only small business in a certain zone or for a slew of other reasons, you are not violating constitutional rights.

But if the Mayor says he will make it difficult for a company with ties to anti-rights groups then I would say that such a Mayor is acting lawfully. I see this as the same as cities denying the KKK the right to march through their cities.

Cities cannot deny the KKK the right to march through their cities. National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie, 432 U.S. 43 (1977) They CAN restrict the location or manner of the march, but they can't issue a blanket injunction against them.

So denying a business a business license based solely on the fact that they sponsor anti-rights groups is going to run afoul of the same regulations; plus the Commerce Clause, I'd imagine. The courts take a dim view of restraint of trade.

IANAL, so I will take you at your word regarding KKK marches.
However I am still fairly sure that the 14th Amendment would cover a mayor who decided not to give a business license to an openly anti-rights business.


It's an interesting question, and I'm not sure it's been tested. I'd look it up, but I've got this pesky bar exam tomorrow and I don't really have time. However, I know that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits businesses from refusing customers on the basis of their race/religion/etc., and I don't know if refusing businesses on the same basis would fall into the same category.

Public boycotts are better.
 
2012-07-23 02:41:47 PM  

whatsupchuck: If all the guy did was to express his opinion, or donate personal monies to whatever hate groups he supports, I'd have no problem with it. As it turns out, he is donating money to anti-gay groups in the name of his corporation, and as such a portion of every sandwich you buy from them goes towards supporting something I consider distasteful.

I love Chick-Fil_a sandwiches (especially the pickle) but won't buy one ever again. He made his choice, and I'm making mine.


NTTAWWT
 
2012-07-23 02:44:45 PM  

Blue_Blazer: However I am still fairly sure that the 14th Amendment would cover a mayor who decided not to give a business license to an openly anti-rights business.


I'm fairly sure that the 14th Amendment would prohibit an anti-rights mayor from violating the free speech and free exercise rights of a business owner.
 
2012-07-23 02:44:48 PM  
"We frown on any effort of the Negroes to attain social equality by bending the instrument of the state to their purposes," Buckley wrote in 1960.

Like the liberals of the 1960s who didn't condone riots in Watts and Detroit but always understood them, Buckley regularly coupled the obligatory criticism of Southern whites' violent acts with a longer and more fervent denunciation of the provocations that elicited them. Thus, "the nation cannot get away with feigning surprise" when a mob of white students attacks a black woman admitted to the University of Alabama by federal court order in 1956. "For in defiance of constitutional practice, with a total disregard of custom and tradition, the Supreme Court, a year ago, illegalized a whole set of deeply-rooted folkways and mores; and now we are engaged in attempting to enforce our law." Thus, the Freedom Riders went into the South to "challenge with language of unconditional surrender" the whites' "deeply felt" beliefs, and were "met, inevitably, by a spastic response. By violence."

Link

So he was tolerant of the Freedom Riders' right to challenge segregation, and he was also tolerant of the use of violence against them. How classy.

He sympathized with the Southern position writing, "In much of the South, what is so greatly feared is irresponsible, mobocratic rule, and it is a fear not easily dissipated, because it is well-grounded that if the entire Negro population in the South were suddenly given the vote, and were to use it as a bloc, and pursuant to directives handed down by some of the more demagogic leaders, chaos would ensue." He also warned of "a suddenly enfranchised, violently embittered Negro population which will take the vote and wield it as an instrument of vengeance, shaking down the walls of Jericho even to their foundations, and reawakening the terrible genocidal antagonisms that scarred the Southern psyche during the days of Reconstruction."

Link

Hmm. . . That doesn't sound very tolerant.
 
2012-07-23 02:46:01 PM  

BunkoSquad: "I don't hate gay people! I'm just supporting traditional families!" is a pretty stupid goddamn view.


Pretty much akin to someone saying "I don't hate Jewish People, I'm just supporting a pro Hitler view of society. Yup goddamn stupid.
 
2012-07-23 02:48:48 PM  

Blue_Blazer: Note that the usual "That's Paul not Jesus" argument doesn't hops water when arguing with Christians since they hold that the words of Paul were in fact the words of the Holy Spirit.


what do you suppose would happen if we took out all the verses in the Bible that are not direct quotations from Jesus?

it's hard enough for people to figure out God's Word with all that evidence...

oh and btw concerning your Jesus never said anything blurb:

Blue_Blazer: while there are no biblical utterances by Jesus regarding homosexuality


you're right there are also no biblical utterances by Jesus regarding pedophilia, bestiality, incest, etc..

4 And He answered and said, "Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, 5 and said, ' For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate." ~The Word

so according to your logic, He must be okey dokey with that stuff as well, eh?

because when Jesus gives the positive claim of what IS acceptable, He must then list EVERY single negative situation that is not permissible...? otherwise it's fair game, amirite??

because if you actually followed His teachings (in context), the only acceptable case of marriage (and therefore sexual relations) is between One Man and One Woman. {---- period

/no argument
//no discussion

but, what does an iron age carpenter know about culture? or religion...
 
2012-07-23 02:49:38 PM  

Gyrfalcon: Public boycotts are better.


If they were, we wouldn't have had the need for a Civil Rights Act.

People really don't vote with their wallets, no matter how much we like to consider the possibilities.
 
2012-07-23 02:51:02 PM  
Chick-fil-A is completely within their rights to say they do not like gay people, and do not support homosexuality.

And I am completely within my right to not give them any of my money.

/already said like eight times in this thread
//but it bears repeating
 
2012-07-23 02:51:43 PM  

skullkrusher: odinsposse: Is it really though? Obtaining a business license isn't part of the right to free speech. As numerous people have pointed out municipalities can block businesses for any number of reasons. They've blocked big box stores, fast food restaurants, and liquor. It seems like cities have a lot of latitude in allowing or blocking businesses and it isn't about Constitutionality at all.

of course. People are also jailed for all sorts of reasons. You can't block someone from getting a business license because they are gay, straight, atheist, 7th Day Adventist, Democrat, Republican, etc.

Menino basically came out and said "I am going to make it really hard for you to get a license because I don't like your politics" - that sort of shiat can't be allowed regardless of what political position is impacted.


A florist in Canada had their business license revoked because they refused to supply flower arrangements to a gay wedding.

They simply stated stated it was against their beliefs and they didn't want their money. Annnnd then business license revoked.

/Canada you piss me off.
 
2012-07-23 02:52:04 PM  

DarwiOdrade: You're smug, you think you're terribly clever, and you never add anything of substance to any discussion you participate in.


i've added Morality to this thread, and therefore the basis of any/all arguments for this topic

what hast thou added?

having knowledge-wisdom =/= being smug

try again lad
 
2012-07-23 02:52:31 PM  

whidbey: Gyrfalcon: Public boycotts are better.

If they were, we wouldn't have had the need for a Civil Rights Act.

People really don't vote with their wallets, no matter how much we like to consider the possibilities.


so let us punish people for unpopular speech...
 
2012-07-23 02:53:16 PM  

tomWright: WFB was one of the few, and probably one of the last, truly class acts in U.S. political discourse on any side of the spectrum, agree or disagree with him.


"The axiom on which many of the arguments supporting the original version of the Civil Rights bill were based was Universal Suffrage. Everyone in America is entitled to the vote, period. No right is prior to that, no obligation subordinate to it; from this premise all else proceeds.

That, of course, is demagogy. Twenty-year-olds do not generally have the vote, and it is not seriously argued that the difference between 20 and 21-year-olds is the difference between slavery and freedom. The residents of the District of Columbia do not vote: and the population of D.C. increases by geometric proportion. Millions who have the vote do not care to exercise it; millions who have it do not know how to exercise it and do not care to learn. The great majority of the Negroes of the South who do not vote do not care to vote, and would not know for what to vote if they could. Overwhelming numbers of White people in the South do not vote. Universal suffrage is not the beginning of wisdom or the beginning of freedom. Reasonable limitations upon the vote are not exclusively the recommendations of tyrants or oligarchists (was Jefferson either?)."

/Very classy!
 
2012-07-23 02:54:35 PM  
I'm sorry but this diddy really chuffed me to bits: "Chick-fil-A doesn't belong in Boston. You can't have a business in the city of Boston that discriminates against a 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... If they need licenses in the city, it will be very difficult - unless they open up their policies."

Yes, Boston--an open city. A city at the forefront of inclusion. A city all about freedom!

And then there's...you know...this:

www.harvardsquarelibrary.org

But remember, inclusion!
 
2012-07-23 02:55:14 PM  

Blairr: skullkrusher: odinsposse: Is it really though? Obtaining a business license isn't part of the right to free speech. As numerous people have pointed out municipalities can block businesses for any number of reasons. They've blocked big box stores, fast food restaurants, and liquor. It seems like cities have a lot of latitude in allowing or blocking businesses and it isn't about Constitutionality at all.

of course. People are also jailed for all sorts of reasons. You can't block someone from getting a business license because they are gay, straight, atheist, 7th Day Adventist, Democrat, Republican, etc.

Menino basically came out and said "I am going to make it really hard for you to get a license because I don't like your politics" - that sort of shiat can't be allowed regardless of what political position is impacted.

A florist in Canada had their business license revoked because they refused to supply flower arrangements to a gay wedding.

They simply stated stated it was against their beliefs and they didn't want their money. Annnnd then business license revoked.

/Canada you piss me off.


that's a different issue - I don't know anything about Canadian discrimination law but I can see that as a legal exercise of power. Right or wrong to revoke their license is another story - but that is different that what is going on here.
 
2012-07-23 02:56:10 PM  

Blairr: skullkrusher: odinsposse: Is it really though? Obtaining a business license isn't part of the right to free speech. As numerous people have pointed out municipalities can block businesses for any number of reasons. They've blocked big box stores, fast food restaurants, and liquor. It seems like cities have a lot of latitude in allowing or blocking businesses and it isn't about Constitutionality at all.

of course. People are also jailed for all sorts of reasons. You can't block someone from getting a business license because they are gay, straight, atheist, 7th Day Adventist, Democrat, Republican, etc.

Menino basically came out and said "I am going to make it really hard for you to get a license because I don't like your politics" - that sort of shiat can't be allowed regardless of what political position is impacted.

A florist in Canada had their business license revoked because they refused to supply flower arrangements to a gay wedding.

They simply stated stated it was against their beliefs and they didn't want their money. Annnnd then business license revoked.

/Canada you piss me off.


This is the law and they didn't follow it:

According to the New Brunswick Human Rights Act, anyone doing business in the province cannot refuse customers based on race, religion or sexual orientation.
 
Displayed 50 of 594 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report