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.

(Huffington Post)   Mississippi congressional candidate: "Oppose Chick-fil-A? That's a shootin'"   (huffingtonpost.com) divider line 270
    More: Stupid, Sun Herald, Mississippi, Tom Emmer, Boston's Tom Menino, Baptist Press, NOM, Betty Crocker, Quaker Oats  
•       •       •

7562 clicks; posted to Politics » on 02 Aug 2012 at 4:01 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-08-02 04:41:53 PM

skullkrusher: Guy A says X.
Mayor B threatens to block Guy A's company from doing business in his town because of X thereby punishing Guy A for exercising his right to speak his mind without fear of government reprisal.


As far as I can tell, neither mayor threatened to block anything. Granted, I haven't followed this that closely, on account of it all being so very ridiculous. But it seems like Rahm said "CFA's values are not Chicago values. Blablablavaluesbla." Then he presumably added some profanity off-mike. And the Boston guy wrote CFA a letter urging them not to come to Boston. Then, again I'm assuming, went out into the yahhd, not to fahh from da cahh.

I sort of don't get how any of this is trampling anybody's First Amendment rights.
 
2012-08-02 04:43:06 PM

Emposter: "The Constitution is very clear. When government restricts and punishes the people for exercising their First Amendment rights, then we are to default to the Second Amendment (right to keep and bear arms). These two mayors need to be introduced to the Second Amendment ASAP."


I always love people (usually Republican dumbfarks) who believe that the Second Amendment only applies to them because libby libs are too pussy to own and operate their own firearms.

I don't much care for guns, but if it comes right down to it, I will be happy to demonstrate that it's a poor Amendment that doesn't point both ways.
 
2012-08-02 04:43:56 PM
There is legal precedent for banning certain kinds of businesses from certain neighborhoods. In towns across America, zoning has been used to clean out strip bars and porn palaces for quality-of-life purposes. Religious leaders have often led the charge, hand in hand with families in the affected neighborhoods.
Conservatives are OK with the premise, so long as long as the execution is against something they want. However, if someone uses the same tactic for something they are against, it's wrong. Actually, I am pretty sure that is textbook hypocrisy.
 
2012-08-02 04:44:20 PM

someonelse: skullkrusher: Guy A says X.
Mayor B threatens to block Guy A's company from doing business in his town because of X thereby punishing Guy A for exercising his right to speak his mind without fear of government reprisal.

As far as I can tell, neither mayor threatened to block anything. Granted, I haven't followed this that closely, on account of it all being so very ridiculous. But it seems like Rahm said "CFA's values are not Chicago values. Blablablavaluesbla." Then he presumably added some profanity off-mike. And the Boston guy wrote CFA a letter urging them not to come to Boston. Then, again I'm assuming, went out into the yahhd, not to fahh from da cahh.

I sort of don't get how any of this is trampling anybody's First Amendment rights.


Menino implied that they would not be able to get a license to operate because of the CEO's comments. That was verbal. His letter wasn't quite as direct in the threat.
The Chicago bit was some Alderman IIRC. Not sure how Rahm got involved.
 
2012-08-02 04:45:19 PM
another good christian walking in the footsteps of Jesus himself...god bless 'em.
 
2012-08-02 04:45:22 PM

sprawl15: ChimpMitten: I agree with what you are saying, but was one of these restaurants actually trying to open in Boston or Chicago and denied a permit?

No. What happened was the mayor of Boston wrote a public letter vaguely threatening to deny them a location in the city. He realized his mistake and apologized/retracted the letter.

Warlordtrooper is asserting that such an act is perfectly kosher. I'm saying it's not.

___----====*
TMYK


Is "vaguely threatening to deny them a location" a violation if they were not actually attempting to get a location? I won't disagree that it was a stupid thing for him to do, but I do not think it would actually be a First Amendment violation unless he did more than vaguely threaten.

I mean the guy in the article "vaguely threatened" to have the mayor shot, but I don't think anything will come from that either.

I am also fairly sure that Chik-Fil-A is not Kosher.
 
2012-08-02 04:45:26 PM

someonelse: Then, again I'm assuming, went out into the yahhd, not to fahh from da cahh.


With Mumbles Menino it would be more like "Mhhmhgrgrhhmh mrmmgrrrmrmgrm mrmg mmrmrmgrrgrrmrm mmgrgrmrrmmr."
 
2012-08-02 04:45:52 PM

Robespierre: There is legal precedent for banning certain kinds of businesses from certain neighborhoods. In towns across America, zoning has been used to clean out strip bars and porn palaces for quality-of-life purposes. Religious leaders have often led the charge, hand in hand with families in the affected neighborhoods.
Conservatives are OK with the premise, so long as long as the execution is against something they want. However, if someone uses the same tactic for something they are against, it's wrong. Actually, I am pretty sure that is textbook hypocrisy.


Hypocrisy is the main pillar of conservatism.
 
2012-08-02 04:46:05 PM
We can ban bars, strip clubs, and smoking from cities but not Chick-Fil-A? How does banning those establishments not infringe on first amendment rights?

Oh that's right. That's because those other places are deemed immoral by Christian standards. But when liberals want to ban something based on their morality then the right screams first amendment rights.

Ok, got it.

/Double-standard
 
2012-08-02 04:46:09 PM

Counter_Intelligent: I really wish there were things in the South I could be proud of.


Austinite Hilah Johnson's deconstruction of said chicken sandwich, the Chick-Fil-Gay ("'cuz it'll make you feel happy!"). As someone who used to make a mad dash to have the original every time I visited my hometown, I found it startlingly like, provided you fry in peanut oil and remember to let it dry for a few minutes before frying. In my previous attempts to recreate it, I had completely overlooked the sugar in the breading.

But yes, there are thoughtful, creative people in the South.
 
2012-08-02 04:46:11 PM

sugardave: Mrtraveler01: sugardave: WizardofToast: You'd think a Libertarian, which is defined as being fiscally conservative and socially liberal, would support the rights of gays.

You WOULD think that. That's the basic premise I use when I tell people that I'm a Libertarian. However, it seems my party of choice has been infiltrated by the enemy and is slowly turning to rot. Sadness.

Wait, you mean to tell me that libertarians aren't corporatist bootlickers who are actually ok with big government as long as it's done on a state level?

What happened?

Not sure. I turned to the Libertarian Party back when they were all about running for local government positions for the sole purpose of eliminating those positions.


www.parksandrecstuff.com

Approves.
 
2012-08-02 04:46:16 PM

Mikey1969: This douchebag is just a doody-head.


A fartyface, if you will
 
2012-08-02 04:46:22 PM

rumpelstiltskin: I was a Libertarian when the head of the local party had just gotten out of jail for burning down a BoA branch during some riots in Isla Vista. That was a long time ago.


We could use that kind of libertarian today.
 
2012-08-02 04:46:33 PM

Robespierre: There is legal precedent for banning certain kinds of businesses from certain neighborhoods.


yep, that's the key point. Zoning laws do that all that time with no issue. You can't open a mosque on a residential street because it is only zoned for residential buildings, for example. This is ok. Not allowing you to open a mosque where it IS permitted solely because you're the Mayor and don't like Islam, not kosher... err... halal.
 
2012-08-02 04:46:41 PM

sprawl15: Philip Francis Queeg: Corporations are federally protected classes now?

Corporations are people, my friend.

Seriously, if a corporation was banned from Biloxi because its owners support and donated to the NAACP - and no other reason - would you consider that a Constitutional violation?


I'm not denying that there are legal issues involved, but it a very big stretch to claim that corporations are federally protected classes.

In reality the legal picture may be quite muddy. A great deal depend on whether the business in question requires certain types of zoning or special use permits. In most municipalities, the Zoning code set standards by which such requests must be analyzed.

In Chicago for example the Zoning code specifies that a project applying for a Special Use permit must, amongst other criteria:

is in the interest of the public convenience and will not have a significant adverse impact on the general welfare of the neighborhood or community;

If a Special Use or similar Zoning variance or approval is required, the Municipality actually has a fairly wide leeway in denying such requests. They are under no obligation to grant such a variance.

If it could be proven that the ONLY reason that the variance or special use was denied was because of the religious views of the ownership their MIGHT be cause to challenge the decision to deny. It would likely be a tough case to win.
 
2012-08-02 04:47:05 PM
Calling someone out as a bigot that picks and chooses from the Bible to justify their intolerance is not violating their First Amendment rights. I thought that the fundies were generally against all that picking and choosing business, but apparently they needed a reminder. Not taking it so well, as expected.

i.imgur.com

i.imgur.com
 
2012-08-02 04:47:08 PM
Sounds like a perfectly reasonable application of the Second Amendment.

/you're not helping
 
2012-08-02 04:48:08 PM

skullkrusher: Menino implied that they would not be able to get a license to operate because of the CEO's comments. That was verbal.


Ah. Didn't know that part. Well, that's stupid. You can't deny a business a proper license just because you don't like their politics. Unless it's a mosque, of course.
 
2012-08-02 04:48:42 PM

sprawl15: nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


Right! Everyone is subject to the zoning laws.

Ergo, "Equal Protection".

Does it hurt to be so dim-witted?

sprawl15: Chik-Fil-A being banned from a city because of the personal opinions of the leadership doesn't do any of that.


Good thing that's never happened, anywhere, huh?

(Guess it doesn't hurt, then.)
 
2012-08-02 04:48:50 PM
This Chick-fil-A issue has got to be one of the stupidest controversies of 2012.


If not, please explain.
 
2012-08-02 04:49:44 PM
At work today, I heard someone saying that it wasn't right to boycott Chick-Fil-A just because you disagree with the owner's views.

But when she heard about the "gay Oreo" ad a few weeks ago, she swore off Nabisco products. Of course, she thought it was an actual product rather than symbolic.
 
2012-08-02 04:50:35 PM

Wooly Bully: HawgWild: Aarontology: HawgWild: Aarontology: You libs are just violating his right to make specific threats on the lives of elected officials.

No, no, no, no, no. He said he was exaggerating. So, it's like he never said it!

When he said introduced to the Second Amendment, he meant take a class at the local community college.

Matriculate, not eliminate, amirite?

I'd micturate on this assclown.

Always wanted to use that word, not many opportunities to do so.


I wouldn't micturate on that assclown if his heart was on fire.
 
2012-08-02 04:51:11 PM
>skullkrusher: yep, that's the key point. Zoning laws do that all that time with no issue. You can't open a mosque on a residential street because it is only zoned for residential buildings, for example. This is ok. Not allowing you to open a mosque where it IS permitted solely because you're the Mayor and don't like Islam, not kosher... err... halal.

So, the mayor can;t name a certain category? Like chicken based fast food establishments? With permits only going to those who's names do not start with the letter c? Its a limited category, but still a category.
 
2012-08-02 04:51:37 PM

someonelse: skullkrusher: Menino implied that they would not be able to get a license to operate because of the CEO's comments. That was verbal.

Ah. Didn't know that part. Well, that's stupid. You can't deny a business a proper license just because you don't like their politics. Unless it's a mosque, of course.


well those people are prone to violence and jihad so it's different
 
2012-08-02 04:52:22 PM

sprawl15: Warlordtrooper: sprawl15: without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

I'm glad to see you support my right to open a strip club near a school or bars or any other type of entertainment venue that generally aren't allowed to be zoned in such areas.

Banning - or restricting - based on categorical functions is legal. You can say 'no adult entertainment within X of a school'. Those are not protected classes. They are denied permits/etc via due process, and are afforded equal protection. They can say, for example, no dining establishment can be placed within 100 feet of a public toilet.

Chik-Fil-A being banned from a city because of the personal opinions of the leadership doesn't do any of that. It simply calls out a specific business and denies them permits/etc 'just because'. It is not in accordance with any given law. That it's discrimination against both religion and general free speech also makes it discrimination against Federally protected classes.

That you even think these two are in the same ballpark means that you're either a barely functional moron or a particularly intelligent root vegetable.


Actually cities can't create zoning requirements that would prohibit a Strip Club from operating anywhere within its boundaries. They are within their rights to zone them, just not to zone them out of existence. Cities have tried in the past and gotten slapped down by the courts.
 
2012-08-02 04:52:40 PM

Robespierre: >skullkrusher: yep, that's the key point. Zoning laws do that all that time with no issue. You can't open a mosque on a residential street because it is only zoned for residential buildings, for example. This is ok. Not allowing you to open a mosque where it IS permitted solely because you're the Mayor and don't like Islam, not kosher... err... halal.

So, the mayor can;t name a certain category? Like chicken based fast food establishments? With permits only going to those who's names do not start with the letter c? Its a limited category, but still a category.


He could. But, he didn't. And now, due to the public comments, it will probably be harder to a) deny Chick-Fil-A a permit if they do want to open a franchise and b) win the resulting lawsuit if the permit is denied.
 
2012-08-02 04:52:51 PM

Robespierre: >skullkrusher: yep, that's the key point. Zoning laws do that all that time with no issue. You can't open a mosque on a residential street because it is only zoned for residential buildings, for example. This is ok. Not allowing you to open a mosque where it IS permitted solely because you're the Mayor and don't like Islam, not kosher... err... halal.

So, the mayor can;t name a certain category? Like chicken based fast food establishments? With permits only going to those who's names do not start with the letter c? Its a limited category, but still a category.


Just say they're too unhealthy to be in your city. Problem solved. Lets be honest, there's no rights being infringed upon. Just one really dumb CEO who permanently damaged his company and is now really butthurt that people are expressing THEIR FIRST ammendment rights.
 
2012-08-02 04:53:27 PM

Marshal805: This Chick-fil-A issue has got to be one of the stupidest controversies of 2012.


If not, please explain.


Rafalcagate is stupider since it doesn't have any bearing on anything. Dancing horses are funnier though.
 
2012-08-02 04:54:05 PM

Robespierre: >skullkrusher: yep, that's the key point. Zoning laws do that all that time with no issue. You can't open a mosque on a residential street because it is only zoned for residential buildings, for example. This is ok. Not allowing you to open a mosque where it IS permitted solely because you're the Mayor and don't like Islam, not kosher... err... halal.

So, the mayor can;t name a certain category? Like chicken based fast food establishments? With permits only going to those who's names do not start with the letter c? Its a limited category, but still a category.


the Mayor can absolutely ban fast food restaurants based on zoning laws. He cannot ban them because of the politics of the owner, however, which is what Menino threatened before he backed off his stupid statements.

As for "certain categories"? Probably not but that's something different. Even if it were the case, it would have been pretty clear why chicken based fast food establishments starting with the letter 'c' were being prevented from obtaining a license to operate because the Mayor came out and said it
 
2012-08-02 04:54:10 PM
When you are on the losing side of an argument, threaten violence.

/this is who we elect to lead us?
 
2012-08-02 04:54:28 PM

what_now: Dear Asshole,

The President of Chick-Fil-A has the right to say whatever he wants.

Mayor Menino has the right to say whatever *HE* wants, although it's more difficult to understand him.

If Menino starts denying permits, then you can whine.


Thank you.
 
2012-08-02 04:54:31 PM

Counter_Intelligent: I really wish there were things in the South I could be proud of.


Tasty food, beautiful women, and those useful second-person plural pronouns.
 
2012-08-02 04:54:40 PM

Robespierre: >skullkrusher: yep, that's the key point. Zoning laws do that all that time with no issue. You can't open a mosque on a residential street because it is only zoned for residential buildings, for example. This is ok. Not allowing you to open a mosque where it IS permitted solely because you're the Mayor and don't like Islam, not kosher... err... halal.

So, the mayor can;t name a certain category? Like chicken based fast food establishments? With permits only going to those who's names do not start with the letter c? Its a limited category, but still a category.


You can still have Raising Cane's, which means everybody wins.
 
2012-08-02 04:54:51 PM

justtray: Robespierre: >skullkrusher: yep, that's the key point. Zoning laws do that all that time with no issue. You can't open a mosque on a residential street because it is only zoned for residential buildings, for example. This is ok. Not allowing you to open a mosque where it IS permitted solely because you're the Mayor and don't like Islam, not kosher... err... halal.

So, the mayor can;t name a certain category? Like chicken based fast food establishments? With permits only going to those who's names do not start with the letter c? Its a limited category, but still a category.

Just say they're too unhealthy to be in your city. Problem solved. Lets be honest, there's no rights being infringed upon. Just one really dumb CEO who permanently damaged his company and is now really butthurt that people are expressing THEIR FIRST ammendment rights.


I honestly care more about the hypocrisy of the whole thing more than anything else. I want a strip club on every corner.
 
2012-08-02 04:55:12 PM

Marshal805: This Chick-fil-A issue has got to be one of the stupidest controversies of 2012.


If not, please explain.


What's not to love? It's got gay rights, free speech, corporate douchebaggery, and big-city liberal elites all in one package!
 
2012-08-02 04:55:30 PM

Robespierre: justtray: Robespierre: >skullkrusher: yep, that's the key point. Zoning laws do that all that time with no issue. You can't open a mosque on a residential street because it is only zoned for residential buildings, for example. This is ok. Not allowing you to open a mosque where it IS permitted solely because you're the Mayor and don't like Islam, not kosher... err... halal.

So, the mayor can;t name a certain category? Like chicken based fast food establishments? With permits only going to those who's names do not start with the letter c? Its a limited category, but still a category.

Just say they're too unhealthy to be in your city. Problem solved. Lets be honest, there's no rights being infringed upon. Just one really dumb CEO who permanently damaged his company and is now really butthurt that people are expressing THEIR FIRST ammendment rights.

I honestly care more about the hypocrisy of the whole thing more than anything else. I want a strip club on every corner.


Same. But this is Repubs here, so it's totally par for the course.
 
2012-08-02 04:55:58 PM

Marshal805: This Chick-fil-A issue has got to be one of the stupidest controversies of 2012.


We've got five more months to go.
 
2012-08-02 04:56:38 PM

RedTank: We can ban bars, strip clubs, and smoking from cities but not Chick-Fil-A? How does banning those establishments not infringe on first amendment rights?

Oh that's right. That's because those other places are deemed immoral by Christian standards. But when liberals want to ban something based on their morality then the right screams first amendment rights.

Ok, got it.

/Double-standard



And what are Blue Laws except for religious reasons? So I have to suffer alcohol withdrawals until noon on Sunday because...church!
 
2012-08-02 04:56:46 PM

FlashHarry: i'm guessing he has a tiny, tiny penis.


And he likes to rub it against the steel buns of strapping young males he meets on Craigslist.
 
2012-08-02 04:57:12 PM

Robespierre: justtray: Robespierre: >skullkrusher: yep, that's the key point. Zoning laws do that all that time with no issue. You can't open a mosque on a residential street because it is only zoned for residential buildings, for example. This is ok. Not allowing you to open a mosque where it IS permitted solely because you're the Mayor and don't like Islam, not kosher... err... halal.

So, the mayor can;t name a certain category? Like chicken based fast food establishments? With permits only going to those who's names do not start with the letter c? Its a limited category, but still a category.

Just say they're too unhealthy to be in your city. Problem solved. Lets be honest, there's no rights being infringed upon. Just one really dumb CEO who permanently damaged his company and is now really butthurt that people are expressing THEIR FIRST ammendment rights.

I honestly care more about the hypocrisy of the whole thing more than anything else. I want a strip club on every corner.


As long as it's alternate male and female, I'm in.
 
2012-08-02 04:57:27 PM

justtray: Just say they're too unhealthy to be in your city. Problem solved.


well, no. If you are banning them from your city because of the politics of their owner under the auspices of health concerns, the problem isn't solved. That IS the problem. Plus I don't think Boston is going to be banning all fast food restaurants any time soon.

justtray: Lets be honest, there's no rights being infringed upon. Just one really dumb CEO who permanently damaged his company and is now really butthurt that people are expressing THEIR FIRST ammendment rights.


there biatching about boycotts is something else entirely and I have no sympathy for farkwads who complain about people exercising their right to speech in response to other speech
 
2012-08-02 04:57:35 PM
I wouldn't want to be in Chick-fil-A's PR office if people start getting shot...

2-for-1 promos can only go so far.
 
2012-08-02 04:58:09 PM

Gyrfalcon: Robespierre: justtray: Robespierre: >skullkrusher: yep, that's the key point. Zoning laws do that all that time with no issue. You can't open a mosque on a residential street because it is only zoned for residential buildings, for example. This is ok. Not allowing you to open a mosque where it IS permitted solely because you're the Mayor and don't like Islam, not kosher... err... halal.

So, the mayor can;t name a certain category? Like chicken based fast food establishments? With permits only going to those who's names do not start with the letter c? Its a limited category, but still a category.

Just say they're too unhealthy to be in your city. Problem solved. Lets be honest, there's no rights being infringed upon. Just one really dumb CEO who permanently damaged his company and is now really butthurt that people are expressing THEIR FIRST ammendment rights.

I honestly care more about the hypocrisy of the whole thing more than anything else. I want a strip club on every corner.

As long as it's alternate male and female, I'm in.


A higher frequency than "every corner" is also acceptable.
 
2012-08-02 04:58:09 PM

Jairzinho: Deneb81: When do gay people have a right to take up 'Second Amendment solutions' to get the ability to be equal under the law?

Soon?

Probably...
[farm2.staticflickr.com image 500x333]


I love that logo.
 
2012-08-02 04:59:30 PM

ChimpMitten: Marshal805: This Chick-fil-A issue has got to be one of the stupidest controversies of 2012.

If not, please explain.

Rafalcagate is stupider since it doesn't have any bearing on anything. Dancing horses are funnier though.


It's kind of hard to relate to someone who sends his dancing horse to the Olympics.

Racehorse? Pretty elitist, sure. Dancing horse? You've got to be farking kidding me.

Besides, it's not really a controversy. It's more of a "Can you farking believe his campaign doesn't have a problem with this?" It's like he hired Mark "California Is Winner-Take-All, Right?" Penn.
 
2012-08-02 04:59:52 PM

sprawl15: Warlordtrooper: sprawl15: without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

I'm glad to see you support my right to open a strip club near a school or bars or any other type of entertainment venue that generally aren't allowed to be zoned in such areas.

Banning - or restricting - based on categorical functions is legal. You can say 'no adult entertainment within X of a school'. Those are not protected classes. They are denied permits/etc via due process, and are afforded equal protection. They can say, for example, no dining establishment can be placed within 100 feet of a public toilet.

Chik-Fil-A being banned from a city because of the personal opinions of the leadership doesn't do any of that. It simply calls out a specific business and denies them permits/etc 'just because'. It is not in accordance with any given law. That it's discrimination against both religion and general free speech also makes it discrimination against Federally protected classes.

That you even think these two are in the same ballpark means that you're either a barely functional moron or a particularly intelligent root vegetable.


However, the city can make a law that says "we don't give permits to any business that discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation. Problem solved!
 
2012-08-02 05:02:53 PM

ChimpMitten: I won't disagree that it was a stupid thing for him to do, but I do not think it would actually be a First Amendment violation unless he did more than vaguely threaten.


That's what we're talking about. WarlordTrooper is saying that he should have done more than vaguely threaten. I'm saying that would be unconstitutional. What actually happened is irrelevant, since we're already dealing with what-if's.

Fart_Machine: Actually cities can't create zoning requirements that would prohibit a Strip Club from operating anywhere within its boundaries. They are within their rights to zone them, just not to zone them out of existence.


True.

Philip Francis Queeg: I'm not denying that there are legal issues involved, but it a very big stretch to claim that corporations are federally protected classes.


Not that corporations are federally protected classes. That discrimination against corporations for the religious beliefs of their owners is an infringement of protected classes. A city like Murfreesboro refusing to (say) perform required inspections on a Mosque because the person who wants to get their permits is a Muslim is a pretty straightforward example of that kind of thing.

Philip Francis Queeg: If it could be proven that the ONLY reason that the variance or special use was denied was because of the religious views of the ownership their MIGHT be cause to challenge the decision to deny.


Which is a pretty easy case to make if the Mayor sends a letter to the world saying he's doing it for exactly that reason.
 
2012-08-02 05:03:37 PM

Citrate1007: /this is who we elect to lead us?


"We"?

The day I acknowledge any non-superficial similarity between me and much of the populace of the deep south who supports this sort of scumbag is the day pigs fly and rainbows start shooting out of my ass. As far as I'm concerned the country ought to be cut off at the Mason-Dixon line and these idiots can go wallow in their backwards ignorance and fling shiat at each other in their own third world shiathole until they all die of diptheria and starvation.
 
2012-08-02 05:03:50 PM

bujin: sprawl15: Warlordtrooper: sprawl15: without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

I'm glad to see you support my right to open a strip club near a school or bars or any other type of entertainment venue that generally aren't allowed to be zoned in such areas.

Banning - or restricting - based on categorical functions is legal. You can say 'no adult entertainment within X of a school'. Those are not protected classes. They are denied permits/etc via due process, and are afforded equal protection. They can say, for example, no dining establishment can be placed within 100 feet of a public toilet.

Chik-Fil-A being banned from a city because of the personal opinions of the leadership doesn't do any of that. It simply calls out a specific business and denies them permits/etc 'just because'. It is not in accordance with any given law. That it's discrimination against both religion and general free speech also makes it discrimination against Federally protected classes.

That you even think these two are in the same ballpark means that you're either a barely functional moron or a particularly intelligent root vegetable.

However, the city can make a law that says "we don't give permits to any business that discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation. Problem solved!


They would have to prove it was an actual practice by the company vs the corporate owner spouting off.
 
2012-08-02 05:04:27 PM

bujin: However, the city can make a law that says "we don't give permits to any business that discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation. Problem solved!


Does CFA openly discriminate in its hiring practices, though? I doubt it.
 
Displayed 50 of 270 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report