Mayor of Boston attacks Chick-fil-a...

usafpilot07 wrote: choopie911 wrote: As cliche as it is, this is simply true: It's going to be pretty embarrassing to have family so heavily on the wrong side of history. You have family that's staunchly against it? I'm in the south, and I barely know anyone who even really cares about the issue.

I work with people that are VERY against it. I still don't understand the objections to it every time it gets brought up their reasons make no sense to me. I usually just ask how does it affect you and why do you deserve it more than they do and I usually get no response or they go straight to religion and ignore the law which is the real issue.

mbro wrote: usafpilot07 wrote: choopie911 wrote: As cliche as it is, this is simply true: It's going to be pretty embarrassing to have family so heavily on the wrong side of history. You have family that's staunchly against it? I'm in the south, and I barely know anyone who even really cares about the issue. I work with people that are VERY against it. I still don't understand the objections to it every time it gets brought up their reasons make no sense to me. I usually just ask how does it affect you and why do you deserve it more than they do and I usually get no response or they go straight to religion and ignore the law which is the real issue.

brihard wrote: Don't like it? Too bad. You don't get to impose what your book says on the rest of us.

FreeEnterprise wrote: brihard wrote: Don't like it? Too bad. You don't get to impose what your book says on the rest of us. And there it is... In black and white for all to see.  In Brihards world there should be no freedom of religion, everyone has to believe what HE believes, or you will be attacked as a "hate" person.

He didn't say that. Not at all.

If anyone's saying that- its YOU with your "If everyone doesn't do as MY religion dictates, then you're discriminating against us, and the morality is falling apart."

Bri's comment allows for much more 'freedom' than you are. he saying "You can't force yourself on me, and I can't force myself on you." If someon's free from religious impositions by others, well....that's pretty much religious freedom right there.

What we say: "everyone should have equal rights and be allowed to marry"

What FE reads: "everyone is going to be forced to have gay sex and marry regardless of orientation or religion"

At least that's the only way to read it that makes him say brihard is forcing beliefs on people.

And yes homosexuals may be 2% of the people. Does that sound like it may make sense why it's not voted into law? It's called majority oppressing the minority.

Edited by jmac3 - 17 August 2012 at 2:51pm

FreeEnterprise wrote:  all "negative" aspects to their sexual deviance

I was going to stay out of this but what the heck.

Chicken-Dude has a right to express his opinion.  Customers have a right to express their opinions by either patronizing or not patronizing the chicken place based on both their agreement/disagreement with Chicken-Dude's opinion and the level of their feeling involved with that disagreement/agreement.

Mr. Mayor, as a citizen/potential customer has the right to express his personal opinion regarding Chicken-Dude's opinion.  Mr. Mayor doesn't have the right as an elected representative to take the threatened actions against Chicken-Dude.

Why do I think this?

Simple.  We have numerous freedoms and equalities in this nation and among those are the rights of freedom of speech and religion as well as equal treatment under the law.  This means that someone who wishes to practice/promote an alternate lifestyle has every right to do so* if they so desire.  It also means that anyone who disagrees with that lifestyle for whatever reason, including religion, also has the right to state that disagreement.*

Where I have a problem with Mr. Mayor preventing Chicken-Dude from opening a store is that this is no longer a case of a private individual taking a stand with an individual decision not to patronize an establishment which I have no problem with.  This is now a case of a government agency enacting an economic punishment upon a business because someone in the agency (Mr. Mayor) doesn't agree with Chicken-Dude's religiously-based belief and statement of that belief.  It is actually very akin to what FE is calling discrimination based on religion and limiting free speech. 

Furthermore, unlike what FE claimed a few posts above, we are not a nation of the rule of the masses; that would be the same as mob rule.  We are a representational democracy with constitutional safeguards in place to protect the rights of the minority.  The problem with Mr. Mayor's action, as locally popular as it may be, is by making a political decision on this matter he is denying everyone of his constituents the right to make their own choice whether it be to boycott Chicken-Dude in protest, go have some chicken as a form of protest or to just not give a darn about the whole issue and have some chicken or not depending on whether or not they like chicken.


*Within limits that don't infringe on the rights of others.  These limitations can be simply described as your right to swing you fist freely ends just short of the point where it would impact my nose.  Obviously I am not getting into the subject of protected classes or illegal hate speech, but that isn't a part of this discussion anyway.

usafpilot07 wrote: choopie911 wrote: As cliche as it is, this is simply true: It's going to be pretty embarrassing to have family so heavily on the wrong side of history. You have family that's staunchly against it? I'm in the south, and I barely know anyone who even really cares about the issue.

No my family is incredibly supportive. My aunt is a lesbian and I didn't put the pieces together as a kid for a while because I just had two aunts and that was cool by me. I'm referring to FE or any other discriminating individual who is directly opposed to gay marriage. It wont be long before it's viewed as being against interracial marriage, which I'm positive FE would have been extremely opposed to if he lived in those times.

FreeEnterprise wrote: Actually, I stand with the American society. Here in America we take the will of the people into consideration. And clearly based on the voting in EVERY state where it has been on the ballot, Marriage is between a man and a woman.    Yeah, slavery was cool with the majority too until the 1800's. That's not still around. Period.  Homosexuals represent around 2% of our population, and yet, the liberals make them out to be this huge group, as they have to be represented in the majority of our TV programming, and all "negative" aspects to their sexual deviance is hidden from the public, to instead frame them as different from reality. Sure there are great people who are homosexual, but statistics will show you that a larger than normal percentage of homosexuals are sexual predators.    Reliable citation needed immediately.   The studies are in, homosexuality who have kids, harms their family units. So if I hold the position that I want to keep marriage between a man and a woman, it doesn't have to do with sexual deviance it has to do with what is good for society. And more importantly what is good for the children...   You're bordering on unbridled hate speech here. Explain to me HOW it harms family units. How does it harm your family unit, how does it harm mine? All its doing for me and mine is teaching us that there are people out there different than us who should be respected and their rights protected, similar in case to people of different races and creeds. They may be different than us, but they're not worse. The REAL harm that's being done is teaching our kids that there are people out there who don't deserve to be happy based on their personal lives. Maybe there IS harm being done to our children. But not by the homosexual community. By what we're TEACHING them about the homosexual community. But regardless of my personal beliefs, in our system of government, the will of the people matters, and like I said before, the public has spoken EVERY time this comes up, and the will of the people is to leave marriage as it is.    Majority isn't always right. How long did this country exist before the abolition of slavery became an issue, how long before women were granted the right to vote? The majority in this nation have a great history of denying rights to a minority group. In order to keep pushing something the public doesn't want, the next stage is to label anyone who disagrees as a "hate" group or "bigot".    Lets call a spade a spade. If you're demanding that the rights of a people be repressed no matter the basis- yeah. pretty much. But again, the majority of America was 'bigoted' on the subject of segregation until fairly recently in our history. We've proven that we CAN grow and change for the better. Yes. The better. While demeaning Christianity of course...   Nope, nope, and nope. Christianity is NOT under attack here. FACTIONS of Christianity are attacking a minority based on their belief system and demanding that the entire nation conform its policies to said belief system. Not everyone is a Christian, and not every Christian is doing this. Because labeling people as "hate groups" clearly makes some wacko liberals go shoot people... Just like labeling abortion providers as "baby killers" will cause wacko right wing nuts to shoot people...   So.....basically.....if I read this right, people who support the granting of rights and equality to the homosexual community are trying to incite the murder of people who disagree with them? So maybe we as a forum could tone down the "hate" and "bigotry" stuff as a group?   I'm in complete awe over the fact that you can tell us without citation that a large percentage of the homosexual community are sexual predators and demand that they have some basic rights denied to them based on your religious beliefs, and call people who disagree with you bigoted. How in the hell did you make Christianity the victim here?

evillepaintball wrote: I'm not sure it's entirely fair to speculate like that.

I'm not really speculating, it's an observation based on his logic and stream of thought, and where he gets his values and how strongly he sticks to those values despite their obvious negative impact, plus his willful ignorance of fact.

I know it's a harsh thing to say, but I absolutely believe it would be the case, simply by what he blinbly bases his opinions on.