Liberals explain this

[buckeye45_73]

Radical imam OK but not Chick-fil-A - BostonHerald.com

He wanted to deny Chick Fil A because of marriage, but is ok with an imam that wants to kill homos......Do liberals ever think, at all? Nah......he's anti american I bet....which is awesome to liberals.....

 

[Black_Label]

Try the search button. This right wing propaganda piece has been parroted in at least 5 different threads already,...

 

[Si modo]

Try the search button. This right wing propaganda piece has been parroted in at least 5 different threads already,...

Yeah, cuz everyone knows the Boston Herald is a right wing rag.


Do you enjoy looking like a moron or does it come naturally to you?

 

[Black_Label]

Try the search button. This right wing propaganda piece has been parroted in at least 5 different threads already,...

Yeah, cuz everyone knows the Boston Herald is a right wing rag.


Do you enjoy looking like a moron or does it come naturally to you?

Stupidity and being a completely brainwashed idiot is a natural trait of the right wing pieces of shit. You should that off proudly with every post

 

[JoeB131]

Radical imam OK but not Chick-fil-A - BostonHerald.com

He wanted to deny Chick Fil A because of marriage, but is ok with an imam that wants to kill homos......Do liberals ever think, at all? Nah......he's anti american I bet....which is awesome to liberals.....

Places of worship are protected by the first Amendment.

Businesses are not.

 

[RDD_1210]

Try the search button. This right wing propaganda piece has been parroted in at least 5 different threads already,...

Yeah, cuz everyone knows the Boston Herald is a right wing rag.


Do you enjoy looking like a moron or does it come naturally to you?

Do you understand what an opinion, op-ed article is?

 

[Si modo]

Radical imam OK but not Chick-fil-A - BostonHerald.com

He wanted to deny Chick Fil A because of marriage, but is ok with an imam that wants to kill homos......Do liberals ever think, at all? Nah......he's anti american I bet....which is awesome to liberals.....

Places of worship are protected by the first Amendment.

Businesses are not.

PERSONS are. Free speech. Grownups know about that right.

The business is doing NOTHING that is illegal or unconstitutional. The government officials are, though.

 

[JoeB131]

Radical imam OK but not Chick-fil-A - BostonHerald.com

He wanted to deny Chick Fil A because of marriage, but is ok with an imam that wants to kill homos......Do liberals ever think, at all? Nah......he's anti american I bet....which is awesome to liberals.....

Places of worship are protected by the first Amendment.

Businesses are not.

PERSONS are. Free speech. Grownups know about that right.

The business is doing NOTHING that is illegal or unconstitutional. The government officials are, though.

Possibly. But here's the thing. They are in charge of the zoning laws, and they have the discretion.

The Chik-Fil-A bigots have a redress. It's called "supporting the other guy for election". I think Rahm's up again in 2015.

Incidently, I think that these are real abuses of the zoning laws. It's just I can't get weepy for bigots who hide behind bibles.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Possibly. But here's the thing. They are in charge of the zoning laws, and they have the discretion.

Here is the thing. Zoning laws are codified and not subjective or discretionary.

Meeting the sitpulated provisions of the code = permits for you.

 

[Sarah G]

Try the search button. This right wing propaganda piece has been parroted in at least 5 different threads already,...

Yeah, cuz everyone knows the Boston Herald is a right wing rag.


Do you enjoy looking like a moron or does it come naturally to you?

They can be quite conservative just like the NYT can be. Some of the extreme right around here think anyone left of World Nut Daily is Liberal.

 

[Si modo]

Places of worship are protected by the first Amendment.

Businesses are not.

PERSONS are. Free speech. Grownups know about that right.

The business is doing NOTHING that is illegal or unconstitutional. The government officials are, though.

Possibly. But here's the thing. They are in charge of the zoning laws, and they have the discretion.

The Chik-Fil-A bigots have a redress. It's called "supporting the other guy for election". I think Rahm's up again in 2015.

Incidently, I think that these are real abuses of the zoning laws. It's just I can't get weepy for bigots who hide behind bibles.

I had a brother who was gay, so I'm not a big fan of bigots against gays, either.

However, I am more a fan of freedom of speech and due process - both in our Bill of Rights - than I am against bigots.

And, as I said, grownups know that defending speech that offends us personally ensures freedom of speech for all of us.

 

[RDD_1210]

Try the search button. This right wing propaganda piece has been parroted in at least 5 different threads already,...

Yeah, cuz everyone knows the Boston Herald is a right wing rag.


Do you enjoy looking like a moron or does it come naturally to you?

Do you understand what an opinion, op-ed article is?

I'll assume that the fact that Si Modo ignored my question is her way of saying "Whoops I was wrong".

Let me ask you something.

"Do you enjoy looking like a moron or does it come naturally to you?"

 

[JoeB131]

Possibly. But here's the thing. They are in charge of the zoning laws, and they have the discretion.

Here is the thing. Zoning laws are codified and not subjective or discretionary.

Meeting the sitpulated provisions of the code = permits for you.

You know what, Chik-Fil-A could probably win, but it would cost them more than it's worth.

That's the problem with litigating business arrangements. It's like wrestling with a pig, you both get shit on you but the pig likes it.

The smart thing for Chik-Fil-A to do is stop promoting bigotry and back off, which by the way, they are already doing.

 

[JoeB131]

PERSONS are. Free speech. Grownups know about that right.

The business is doing NOTHING that is illegal or unconstitutional. The government officials are, though.

Possibly. But here's the thing. They are in charge of the zoning laws, and they have the discretion.

The Chik-Fil-A bigots have a redress. It's called "supporting the other guy for election". I think Rahm's up again in 2015.

Incidently, I think that these are real abuses of the zoning laws. It's just I can't get weepy for bigots who hide behind bibles.

I had a brother who was gay, so I'm not a big fan of bigots against gays, either.

However, I am more a fan of freedom of speech and due process - both in our Bill of Rights - than I am against bigots.

And, as I said, grownups know that defending speech that offends us personally ensures freedom of speech for all of us.

If someone was breaking into the Chik-Fil-A guys house and dragging him off to the Death Camp of Tolerance until he got it right, you might have a point.

Not letting them set up a store when they could set up a store down the block in someone else's jurisdiction, not so much.

Incidently, I don't think the zoning laws are the place to correct this. The place to correct this is for fair minded people not to eat their artery clogging shit.

But again, can't get all weepy when those with power use it. I see enough businesses who abuse their power or the system every day to feel really bad to pick up one turd in a sea of shit and say, "This turd really pisses me off!"

 

[OODA_Loop]

You know what, Chik-Fil-A could probably win, but it would cost them more than it's worth.

A decent volume metro / suburban CFL does $3-4 mil annual.

Zoning entitilement determination by the courts - $100-150k or less

It would cost the City of Boston more to defend denial of a right to permit zoning entitlement with no eventual or potential upside

 

[JoeB131]

You know what, Chik-Fil-A could probably win, but it would cost them more than it's worth.

A decent volume metro / suburban CFL does $3-4 mil annual.

Zoning entitilement determination by the courts - $100-150k or less

It would cost the City of Boston more to defend denial of a right to permit zoning entitlement with no eventual or potential upside

The difference is, Chik-Fil-A's stockholders aren't up for the fight.

The folks in Boston who think that Christian Bigots shouldn't push people around are.

Again, guy, Cathy is already backing down from this fight. He knows he stepped in it.

 

[jillian]

Radical imam OK but not Chick-fil-A - BostonHerald.com

He wanted to deny Chick Fil A because of marriage, but is ok with an imam that wants to kill homos......Do liberals ever think, at all? Nah......he's anti american I bet....which is awesome to liberals.....

does the imam run a corporation that wants money from me?

are you really that dense?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Radical imam OK but not Chick-fil-A - BostonHerald.com

He wanted to deny Chick Fil A because of marriage, but is ok with an imam that wants to kill homos......Do liberals ever think, at all? Nah......he's anti american I bet....which is awesome to liberals.....

Why should liberals be required to explain anything.

There are no liberals advocating Chick-fil-A be denied its First Amendment rights with regard to either religion or speech.

Now, there are some ignorant conservatives attempting to contrive the zoning issue into some sort of free expression controversy, which it’s clearly not.

Otherwise, religious entities can’t be restricted because of the controversial statements or criminal actions of members or leaders – if that were the case Catholic churches could be shut down.

 

[OODA_Loop]

The difference is, Chik-Fil-A's stockholders aren't up for the fight.

Chik-Fil-A doesn't have "stockholders".

 

[buckeye45_73]

Radical imam OK but not Chick-fil-A - BostonHerald.com

He wanted to deny Chick Fil A because of marriage, but is ok with an imam that wants to kill homos......Do liberals ever think, at all? Nah......he's anti american I bet....which is awesome to liberals.....

Why should liberals be required to explain anything.

There are no liberals advocating Chick-fil-A be denied its First Amendment rights with regard to either religion or speech.

Now, there are some ignorant conservatives attempting to contrive the zoning issue into some sort of free expression controversy, which it’s clearly not.

Otherwise, religious entities can’t be restricted because of the controversial statements or criminal actions of members or leaders – if that were the case Catholic churches could be shut down.

Liberals arent trying to restrict speechs. Bullying people with boycots is not an attempt to restrict speech? Why boycott or refuse to take a busines?