Ban Chick-Fil-A?...

[Katzndogz]

The Mayors of San Francisco, Chicago and Boston have said that they would prevent a CFA franchise from opening in their cities. Is this the same thing as a ban? Go figure it out.

People should be allowed to make up their minds whether they want to patronize any business. This brings an inherent difficulty. When you permit people to decide for themselves, they might disagree with you. The only way to stop a record breaking sales day like CFA had on August 1st is to stop the business from opening. Take the ability to make a politically incorrect statement away from the people. Take the decision out of their hands.

Or, end up with crowds supporting a store and one person opposing the store.

What action have those stupid mayors taken to ban Chick-fil-A?

None. They were stopped. They were stopped by people telling them they couldn't do that. Had they not been stopped, they would certainly have withheld business licenses. As it is, all these cities will have to use is the permitting process. Red tape and permits have been used successfully in the past to keep businesses from opening.

 

[GoneBezerk]

So the mayor of Boston said he is going to block CFA from "his city" and now liberals are just claiming he said that, he isn't trying to do it....insane.

Liberals saying they're going to do something means they are going to try to do it until they fail.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The Mayors of San Francisco, Chicago and Boston have said that they would prevent a CFA franchise from opening in their cities. Is this the same thing as a ban? Go figure it out.

People should be allowed to make up their minds whether they want to patronize any business. This brings an inherent difficulty. When you permit people to decide for themselves, they might disagree with you. The only way to stop a record breaking sales day like CFA had on August 1st is to stop the business from opening. Take the ability to make a politically incorrect statement away from the people. Take the decision out of their hands.

Or, end up with crowds supporting a store and one person opposing the store.

What action have those stupid mayors taken to ban Chick-fil-A?

None. They were stopped. They were stopped by people telling them they couldn't do that. Had they not been stopped, they would certainly have withheld business licenses. As it is, all these cities will have to use is the permitting process. Red tape and permits have been used successfully in the past to keep businesses from opening.

Nonsense.

One can’t ‘stop’ something that never started, particularly when a mayor or other official is not authorized to alone take such steps to begin with.

Perhaps an example might help.

Republican lawmakers in Oklahoma enacted so-called ‘personhood’ legislation in violation of the Constitutional right to privacy, and that legislation was consequently invalidated by the Oklahoma Supreme Court this year:

OSCN Found Document:IN RE INITIATIVE PETITION NO. 395, STATE QUESTION NO. 761

Here we have a specific measure, clearly un-Constitutional, stopped by the people of Oklahoma via judicial review.

Please cite the particular measure from any of the jurisdictions in question proposing prohibiting a Chick-Fil-A franchise from opening in that jurisdiction.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Persecution complex....repubs bask in victimhood.

The media, the govt, blacks, gays etc are all out to get them. BOO!

 

[paulitician]

The Mayors of San Francisco, Chicago and Boston have said that they would prevent a CFA franchise from opening in their cities. Is this the same thing as a ban? Go figure it out.

People should be allowed to make up their minds whether they want to patronize any business. This brings an inherent difficulty. When you permit people to decide for themselves, they might disagree with you. The only way to stop a record breaking sales day like CFA had on August 1st is to stop the business from opening. Take the ability to make a politically incorrect statement away from the people. Take the decision out of their hands.

Or, end up with crowds supporting a store and one person opposing the store.

Don't bother, they're way too busy Goose Stepping to stop and listen to reason. Bot-Mode can't be turned off.

 

[paulitician]

The Mayors of San Francisco, Chicago and Boston have said that they would prevent a CFA franchise from opening in their cities. Is this the same thing as a ban? Go figure it out.

People should be allowed to make up their minds whether they want to patronize any business. This brings an inherent difficulty. When you permit people to decide for themselves, they might disagree with you. The only way to stop a record breaking sales day like CFA had on August 1st is to stop the business from opening. Take the ability to make a politically incorrect statement away from the people. Take the decision out of their hands.

Or, end up with crowds supporting a store and one person opposing the store.

What action have those stupid mayors taken to ban Chick-fil-A?

So they stated they will try and ban Chick-Fil-A, but they didn't really mean it? Is that what you're going with?

 

[Peach]

A couple of mayors make stupid statements....no city has banned Chick-fil-A. People are free to make whatever statements they like...and we are free to support those statements or not, with our business.

That is the core of this silliness....but it IS funny, in a way, watching people on both sides run around like (dare I say it) chickens with their heads cut off.

Your fellow Socialists/Progressives would very much like to ban Chick-Fil-A. Many have been crowing about that in recent days. Maybe you should pay attention to the News a bit more? Many of your fellow peeps are calling for banning Chick-Fil-A. It is what it is.

And the names of all of those liberals are?

Many on the extremist right are in lousy moods recently. Mitt's bizarre trip overseas got too much attention I guess.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Whats the matter dude are you to brainwashed to tell me where im going wrong or is it you haven't figured it out yourself.

Sorry. Looks like the other nutters here have left you to wallow in your stupidity.

Boycott has a different meaning than ban. You are arguing that they mean the same thing. This is the way an imbecile argues. You are clearly an imbecile.

Well nitwit why don't you watch what the three coward mayors made a speech of. No they didn't ban it because they finally back down. I bet its still in their empty heads though.

Well said. Very well said. I'd like to hire you to tutor my kids in writing.

 

[paulitician]

Some Socialist/Progressive buffoons say they want to ban Chick-Fil-A, and then some other Socialist/Progressive buffoons come along and claim they didn't really mean it. Such confused Bots. I recommend a Reboot.

 

[Too Tall]

But for the government to prevent someone from operating a business based on his personal or political opinions is a direct violation of free speech. It’s certainly anti-free market. I’m aghast at how many people can’t make this important distinction.

What government has ‘banned’ Chick-fil-A?

Given the fact Chick-fil-A has been ‘banned’ by no government, this isn’t a ‘free speech’ issue; indeed, if anything, it’s increased the company’s owner’s avenues of free expression.

And given the fact Chick-fil-A has been ‘banned’ by no government, this isn’t a ‘free market’ issue; indeed, if anything, this non-banning has increased the company’s exposure.

This is yet another example of yet another non-issue contrived by the right into yet another non-controversy for partisan reasons, and to hide the fact that conservatives have nothing of substance to contribute to the National political debate.

This Mayor sure does make noises like he wants to ban Chidk-fil-A from his city.

If Mayor Thomas Menino has his way, Chick-fil-A may be banned in Boston.

The fast-food chain, which has donated to antigay causes and whose executives this week admitted to antigay stances while saying the company doesn’t discriminate, is looking for locations in the city. One is near the famous Freedom Trail, a series of historic sites connected to the American Revolution. But Menino says that area, or any location in Boston, isn’t appropriate for a business with such policies.

“Chick-fil-A doesn’t belong in Boston,” Menino told the Boston Herald yesterday. “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.”

Menino said Chick-fil-A will find it “very difficult” to get licenses in Boston unless it changes its policies, and he plans to send a letter to the company’s headquarters in Atlanta “telling them my feelings on the matter.”

Chick fil A May Be Banned in Boston | Advocate.com

 

[Too Tall]

What action have those stupid mayors taken to ban Chick-fil-A?

None. They were stopped. They were stopped by people telling them they couldn't do that. Had they not been stopped, they would certainly have withheld business licenses. As it is, all these cities will have to use is the permitting process. Red tape and permits have been used successfully in the past to keep businesses from opening.

Nonsense.

One can’t ‘stop’ something that never started, particularly when a mayor or other official is not authorized to alone take such steps to begin with.

Perhaps an example might help.

Republican lawmakers in Oklahoma enacted so-called ‘personhood’ legislation in violation of the Constitutional right to privacy, and that legislation was consequently invalidated by the Oklahoma Supreme Court this year:

OSCN Found Document:IN RE INITIATIVE PETITION NO. 395, STATE QUESTION NO. 761

Here we have a specific measure, clearly un-Constitutional, stopped by the people of Oklahoma via judicial review.

Please cite the particular measure from any of the jurisdictions in question proposing prohibiting a Chick-Fil-A franchise from opening in that jurisdiction.

Here is another loud mouth pol making plans to ban CFA.

“Proco “Joe” Moreno, one of 50 Windy City aldermen who make up the City Council, told the Chicago Tribune that he plans to prevent Chick-fil-A from building its second Chicago restaurant in his trendy, hipster-filled ward.

“If you are discriminating against a segment of the community, I don't want you in the 1st Ward," Moreno told the Tribune this week. “Because of this man’s ignorance, I will now be denying Chick-fil-A’s permit to open a restaurant in the 1stWard.”

Chick-fil-A gay fallout: Chicago ban, Facebook gaffe, Malkin blog - latimes.com

 

[Too Tall]

The Mayors of San Francisco, Chicago and Boston have said that they would prevent a CFA franchise from opening in their cities. Is this the same thing as a ban? Go figure it out.

People should be allowed to make up their minds whether they want to patronize any business. This brings an inherent difficulty. When you permit people to decide for themselves, they might disagree with you. The only way to stop a record breaking sales day like CFA had on August 1st is to stop the business from opening. Take the ability to make a politically incorrect statement away from the people. Take the decision out of their hands.

Or, end up with crowds supporting a store and one person opposing the store.

What action have those stupid mayors taken to ban Chick-fil-A?

They have threatened to deny CFA a building permit, which is a very effective way to ban them from building any new restaurants.

 

[paulitician]

Yeah, Socialists/Progressives are on a banning-binge these days. I don't understand why so many Americans still support them. It's perplexing.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

The fast-food FAUX-Rage......

....goes ON!!!

 

[Too Tall]

Good article by Jack Hunter


In my early 20s, I was pro-choice and opposed to gay marriage. Now that I’m in my 30s, I’m pro-life and more supportive of gay marriage. Sometimes our views change. It happens all the time. The important thing is that we are free to have views and voice them.

When Chick-fil-A President Dan Cathy publicly denounced gay marriage last month, the mayors of two major American cities let everyone know that the fast food restaurant was not welcome in their towns. Boston Mayor Thomas Menino threatened to block the construction of a new Chick-fil-A. Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel made similar statements, echoing the sentiments of a local official.

Even many of those outraged by Cathy’s comments would agree that he was simply exercising his free speech rights. But some thought these mayors were also exercising their free speech rights. They were not. What they were attempting to do is the antithesis of free speech.

Individuals who are offended by Cathy’s comments are free to avoid Chick-fil-A. They are free to speak out against Chick-fil-A. This is how America’s system of government is supposed to work. This is how the First Amendment works. This is how free markets are supposed to work.

But for the government to prevent someone from operating a business based on his personal or political opinions is a direct violation of free speech. It’s certainly anti-free market. I’m aghast at how many people can’t make this important distinction.

Imagine that a Muslim man owns a convenience store. Now imagine that he, too, like Dan Cathy, has some rather unfavorable views of homosexuals. Does anyone think this Muslim man’s local government should prevent him from selling Doritos and cigarettes because of his views?

Imagine that a homosexual man opens a store in a small Southern town. Now imagine that the local government attempts to shut down his business simply because he is homosexual. This would be tragically wrong and un-American. Imagine this same storeowner publicly expressed pride in his sexuality. Does anyone — even the most conservative Christian — believe the government should be able to take away his right to do business just because he expressed his opinion?

There are few, if any, conservative Christians who would think this proper. However, after Dan Cathy made his comments, I discovered countless liberals who had no problem doing the same thing to Dan Cathy. Liberals who are trying to make Cathy out to be some sort of fascist need to take a good, hard look in the mirror...

Read more: Ban Chick-fil-A? | The Daily Caller

I can't find anyone who wishes to ban Chicki Poo (or whatever) If one wishes to go public with his beliefs then he must bear the results of his statements. He has the right to be anti gay, so long as he does not discriminate in his pubic business.

I have the right to disapprove. My disapproval extends to not buying any Chickie Poo. I can also organize like minded people.

That's life. Get over it.

Read the bolded paragraph and try and understand it this time.

 

[paulitician]

Good article by Jack Hunter


In my early 20s, I was pro-choice and opposed to gay marriage. Now that I’m in my 30s, I’m pro-life and more supportive of gay marriage. Sometimes our views change. It happens all the time. The important thing is that we are free to have views and voice them.

When Chick-fil-A President Dan Cathy publicly denounced gay marriage last month, the mayors of two major American cities let everyone know that the fast food restaurant was not welcome in their towns. Boston Mayor Thomas Menino threatened to block the construction of a new Chick-fil-A. Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel made similar statements, echoing the sentiments of a local official.

Even many of those outraged by Cathy’s comments would agree that he was simply exercising his free speech rights. But some thought these mayors were also exercising their free speech rights. They were not. What they were attempting to do is the antithesis of free speech.

Individuals who are offended by Cathy’s comments are free to avoid Chick-fil-A. They are free to speak out against Chick-fil-A. This is how America’s system of government is supposed to work. This is how the First Amendment works. This is how free markets are supposed to work.

But for the government to prevent someone from operating a business based on his personal or political opinions is a direct violation of free speech. It’s certainly anti-free market. I’m aghast at how many people can’t make this important distinction.

Imagine that a Muslim man owns a convenience store. Now imagine that he, too, like Dan Cathy, has some rather unfavorable views of homosexuals. Does anyone think this Muslim man’s local government should prevent him from selling Doritos and cigarettes because of his views?

Imagine that a homosexual man opens a store in a small Southern town. Now imagine that the local government attempts to shut down his business simply because he is homosexual. This would be tragically wrong and un-American. Imagine this same storeowner publicly expressed pride in his sexuality. Does anyone — even the most conservative Christian — believe the government should be able to take away his right to do business just because he expressed his opinion?

There are few, if any, conservative Christians who would think this proper. However, after Dan Cathy made his comments, I discovered countless liberals who had no problem doing the same thing to Dan Cathy. Liberals who are trying to make Cathy out to be some sort of fascist need to take a good, hard look in the mirror...

Read more: Ban Chick-fil-A? | The Daily Caller

I can't find anyone who wishes to ban Chicki Poo (or whatever) If one wishes to go public with his beliefs then he must bear the results of his statements. He has the right to be anti gay, so long as he does not discriminate in his pubic business.

I have the right to disapprove. My disapproval extends to not buying any Chickie Poo. I can also organize like minded people.

That's life. Get over it.

Read the bolded paragraph and try and understand it this time.

Not gonna happen. They're in full Bot-Denial Mode. They're still claiming none of their fellow Wingnuts are trying to ban Chick-Fil-A. They lie. It's as simple as that. So don't bother. Nice try though.