zoning laws used to keep out fundamentalist chicken.

[Avatar4321]

Banning a chain of businesses because the CEO is a dimwit is wrong, these businesses create jobs. Jobs are a necessity.

How is encouraging people to honor their marriage vows dimwit?

 

[koshergrl]

Banning a chain of businesses because the CEO is a dimwit is wrong, these businesses create jobs. Jobs are a necessity.

The CEO isn't a dimwit. He's a Mormon. And THAT'S why he's being blackballed.

And that is appalling. Particularly since they're rolling the red carpet out for Farrakhan, and letting him put thugs on the street to fully Islam-ize Chicago.

 

[JoeB131]

Banning a chain of businesses because the CEO is a dimwit is wrong, these businesses create jobs. Jobs are a necessity.

The CEO isn't a dimwit. He's a Mormon. And THAT'S why he's being blackballed.

And that is appalling. Particularly since they're rolling the red carpet out for Farrakhan, and letting him put thugs on the street to fully Islam-ize Chicago.

I think the CEO is a funditard, not a MormTard.

Not that it matters.

Fact is, the right tried to ban a mosque in NYC because it was two miles away from the site of the WTC.

So they really are on thin ice whining when a city says you can take your gay-bashing chicken somewhere else.

 

[hjmick]

Fight prejudice with prejudice...

 

[Avatar4321]

Banning a chain of businesses because the CEO is a dimwit is wrong, these businesses create jobs. Jobs are a necessity.

The CEO isn't a dimwit. He's a Mormon. And THAT'S why he's being blackballed.

And that is appalling. Particularly since they're rolling the red carpet out for Farrakhan, and letting him put thugs on the street to fully Islam-ize Chicago.

Actually, he's a Baptist.

 

[koshergrl]

Banning a chain of businesses because the CEO is a dimwit is wrong, these businesses create jobs. Jobs are a necessity.

The CEO isn't a dimwit. He's a Mormon. And THAT'S why he's being blackballed.

And that is appalling. Particularly since they're rolling the red carpet out for Farrakhan, and letting him put thugs on the street to fully Islam-ize Chicago.

I think the CEO is a funditard, not a MormTard.

Not that it matters.

Fact is, the right tried to ban a mosque in NYC because it was two miles away from the site of the WTC.

So they really are on thin ice whining when a city says you can take your gay-bashing chicken somewhere else.

I wasn't aware that believing that marriage was between a man and a woman indicated you're a fundamentalist.

And it doesn't.
the
They aren't on thin ice at all. Nobody said the Mosque couldn't be built in NYC. What they said is they didn't want it built so it lurked over the fucking 911 memorial.

BTW, if I haven't told you you're a piece of shit today, it's time. You're a piece of shit.

 

[GuyPinestra]

So they should allow lap dancing establishments wherever they want? Fuck that. If a company states a discriminatory aim, and puts money behind it, why shouldn't local jurisdictions decide to raise the bar? Are you now against state and local rights? I fully support your right to eat the foods that make you obese. Support the local planning and zoning board's right to keep enterprise that supports bigotry and spits in the face of equal employment opportunity out of communities that might be offended.

Ah Dick Suck, you'd be hard pressed to PROVE your allegation that Chick-Fil-A "spits in the face of equal employment opportunity". In fact, I think you'll find that task impossible. As for 'supporting bigotry', where do you see the company doing anything of the sort?

The CEO made a statement as to his PERSONAL beliefs. Either prove your assertions against the company or stuff a hand grenade up your dumb ass!

 

[JoeB131]

The CEO isn't a dimwit. He's a Mormon. And THAT'S why he's being blackballed.

And that is appalling. Particularly since they're rolling the red carpet out for Farrakhan, and letting him put thugs on the street to fully Islam-ize Chicago.

I think the CEO is a funditard, not a MormTard.

Not that it matters.

Fact is, the right tried to ban a mosque in NYC because it was two miles away from the site of the WTC.

So they really are on thin ice whining when a city says you can take your gay-bashing chicken somewhere else.

I wasn't aware that believing that marriage was between a man and a woman indicated you're a fundamentalist.

And it doesn't.
the
They aren't on thin ice at all. Nobody said the Mosque couldn't be built in NYC. What they said is they didn't want it built so it lurked over the fucking 911 memorial.

BTW, if I haven't told you you're a piece of shit today, it's time. You're a piece of shit.

I wasn't aware buildings were capable of "lurking". Frankly, the right was being pretty hypocriticl on the whole issue. It was their property, they should be able to do what they wanted with it.

And, yes, all idiotic arguments against gay marriage are based on either 1) It'll make Baby Jesus Cry or 2) I think it's icky. Neither argument is really compelling.

 

[koshergrl]

Liar. My arguments for real marriage have nothing to do with religion or the ick factor. I don't find homosexuals icky at all. My circle of friends includes gay people, gay couples, and always has.

So try again, you lying sack of shit.

And yes, building can lurk.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Banning a chain of businesses because the CEO is a dimwit is wrong, these businesses create jobs. Jobs are a necessity.

The CEO isn't a dimwit. He's a Mormon. And THAT'S why he's being blackballed.

And that is appalling. Particularly since they're rolling the red carpet out for Farrakhan, and letting him put thugs on the street to fully Islam-ize Chicago.

Actually, he's a Baptist.

 

[JoeB131]

Liar. My arguments for real marriage have nothing to do with religion or the ick factor. I don't find homosexuals icky at all. My circle of friends includes gay people, gay couples, and always has.

So try again, you lying sack of shit.

And yes, building can lurk.

Besides your bizarre anthromorphic attribution to static buildings, please give me an argument against gay marriage that doesn't include anything religious or "icky".

Thanks.

Because we know you don't have one that's rational.

 

[Inthemiddle]

The problem is the stuff you want is NASTY. Sure we dont want strip joints. liquor stores, and adult video stores in areas with kids and families, NOPE we dont, but how is that like Chik Fil A?

Both have alot of breasts....

 

[Si modo]

As many people are aware, US zoning laws have been an area where prejudice and bigotry can be used to keep out legitimate business and organizations. Fundamentalist christian forces have been using zoning to keep legitimate gay establishments, and other religions from entering their town. No complaint has really come from the republicans and churches as zoning laws have allowed people to vote against things in their neighborhood, and allow prejudice a foothold in our government.

It seems that some people are now getting smart and using the loophole that allows religion and prejudice to influence our neighborhoods to deny christians from entering neighborhoods. Some may have read about the local pastor who had his home church group banned for blocking the streets of a residential neighborhood and violating local zoning ordinances against using residential property for religious worship by large groups. Well now 2 cities have used their laws to ban the presence of bigoted homophopbic activist chicken sales by chick fillet from entering their markets. I wonder how the right will react?

Of course there will be protests and whining because their loopholes for prejudice will be used against them to deny their businesses from using big markets to get money to fund their fundie ideals and harass others. Perhaps we will get lucky and they will pass some laws that prevent prejudice from hindering business and legitimate places like mosques based on zoning laws that are applied with prejudice on organizations that are legitimate and should not be pe3rsecuted by neighborhoods.

So what do you think, are chicago and boston right in not allowing businesses that don't represent their ideals just like towns are allowed to ban gay establishments and other places, or are the zoning laws in need of a change to disallow the law to be applied differently depending on which groups are found to be offensive? Will the right wing propaganda people agree that they are out of line in using these laws to discriminate, or will they whine because their own loophole was used against them like the hypocrites we know they are?

Nice try, but no cigar.

There is a major difference between citizens or citizens groups trying to use zoning laws to stop certain establishments (for good reasons or bad) and an elected official using his or her public office to ban a certain establishment. The first is citizens exercising their rights (wisely or stupidly) and the second is the exercise of arbitrary rule by the government.

It's a denial a due process, so it's unconstitutional.

The OP thinks the Constitution only should apply the those with whom s/he agrees.

Typical attitude of partisan morons.