[larkin]

	Originally Posted by AnaK To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Larkin, it was not an "off-hand comment" by.the mayor of Boston. He wrote Chick-fil-A a letter.

Oh, a letter? Which totally makes it worse, legally.

He said it was said in anger and immediately walked away from it. For you to claim that's what this issue is all about - one mayor and the comment that he rescinded - is absurd. Hat tip: gays would have been angry at Cathy, and provoked Huckabee's "Chick Fil-A Appreciation Day" and all the Facebook vile that goes along with it, with or without Menino. He's a footnote in this story at best.

	Originally Posted by AnaK To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I for one think protecting the first amendment is worth protesting for, why does no one else see the danger in what the mayor did?

Everyone on the planet sees the danger in what the mayor said, not did. Which is why he apologized. There's only several pages of it on this thread alone. Sorry to inform you that you're not Diogenes, looking for an honest man.

[INTJRyan]

	Originally Posted by AnaK To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	If a Chick-fil-A is not allowed under zoning laws, then deny the license.

Thank you for understanding that regulation of business has nothing to do with free speech.

	Originally Posted by AnaK To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Cite the law where the mayor could legally deny a business license for the chain based on an interview the CEO gave. This might help from CNN.

Old news and I know what Menino said. I've never asserted not one single time that Menino could block Chik fil a on the basis of an interview. Maybe stop assuming shit you don't know about.

[AnaK]

Originally Posted by larkin To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Oh, a letter? Which totally makes it worse, legally. He said it was said in anger and immediately walked away from it. For you to claim that's what this issue is all about - one mayor and the comment that he rescinded - is absurd. Hat tip: gays would have been angry at Cathy, and provoked Huckabee's "Chick Fil-A Appreciation Day" and all the Facebook vile that goes along with it, with or without Menino. He's a footnote in this story at best. Everyone on the planet sees the danger in what the mayor said, not did. Which is why he apologized. There's only several pages of it on this thread alone. Sorry to inform you that you're not Diogenes, looking for an honest man.

From what I have read, people were angered by the mayor's attempt to illegally restrict free speech. Gays boycott businesses all of the time and no one cares all that much.

It is the FIRST amendment - that makes me think it is fairly important. It is important to me. Maybe some people won't care till someone tries to illegally restrict their speech. Sad that.

[larkin]

	Originally Posted by AnaK To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	And I read every day comments on INTJforum about how women are terrible because of XYZ reason. So what? People are allowed to hate women, even though I'm a woman I will say that. Now, if they deny me service or a job, that is bad.

Again, not comparable. I have a much greater tolerance for comments I read here because I am seeking out alternate opinions, or simply trying to understand the perspective of the person I disagree with. On top of that, I'm more or less anonymous here, as are you.

In real life, or even on Facebook, for better or worse, it's personal. I'm friends with my parents' friends, or kids from my high school, or coworkers. I of course knew we didn't always see eye to eye, and of course they're entitled to their opinions. (Although out of courtesy I generally spare them mine, which is why I'm here.) But what kind of person goes out of their way to give such a special fuck you? To say they support "mutual" tolerance, when their version of "tolerance" pretends I should nod my head at any appalling thing that's said about me? Whose version of "tolerance" means they get to exist with all the privileges that go along with it, and I don't? Fuck that, and fuck them. They're entitled to their opinion, and I'm entitled to say that they may not be a fat, backward, pathetic sack of shit, but they're acting like one.

[INTJRyan]

	Originally Posted by AnaK To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	From what I have read, people were angered by the mayor's attempt to illegally restrict free speech. Gays boycott businesses all of the time and no one cares all that much. It is the FIRST amendment - that makes me think it is fairly important. It is important to me. Maybe some people won't care till someone tries to illegally restrict their speech. Sad that.

And the "Way to Miss the Point" award goes to...

[larkin]

	Originally Posted by AnaK To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	From what I have read, people were angered by the mayor's attempt to illegally restrict free speech. Gays boycott businesses all of the time and no one cares all that much. [...] It is the FIRST amendment - that makes me think it is fairly important. It is important to me. Maybe some people won't care till someone tries to illegally restrict their speech. Sad that.

Good god, there is nothing illegal about a boycott. Using the power of your office to sanction opinion without the power of law is illegal. The public choosing to consume or not most certainly isn't. Thinking otherwise shows a stunning lack of understanding of the first amendment. (Hint: there's more to it than the order of appearance.)

[Ray9]

<=======Giggles, chuckles and finally lets loose with a great big belly laugh. What a moronic dolt Menino is. And of course the chorus of sour grapes from the PC crowd on this forum is especially hilarious. It's too much. My sides are splitting.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
;
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[larkin]

Originally Posted by Ray9 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

<=======Giggles, chuckles and finally lets loose with a great big belly laugh. What a moronic dolt Menino is. And of course the chorus of sour grapes from the PC crowd on this forum is especially hilarious. It's too much. My sides are splitting. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. ; To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

This is exactly what I mean when I say pathetic.

[AnaK]

	Originally Posted by larkin To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Good god, there is nothing illegal about a boycott. Using the power of your office to sanction opinion without the power of law is illegal. The public choosing to consume or not most certainly isn't. Thinking otherwise shows a stunning lack of understanding of the first amendment. (Hint: there's more to it than the order of appearance.)

Boycott all you want. I don't think anyone is saying people don't have a right to boycott. And lose you loser friends on Facebook too. What the Mayor threatened though is wrong, and that is why people are angry.

(And if you can boycott, surely others can show support?

[larkin]

	Originally Posted by AnaK To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	What the Mayor threatened though is wrong, and that is why people are angry.

Again: really not about Menino. Cathy's comments made the stir, and gays responded on a national scale. Choosing to make it about Menino - when he immediately retracted the statements in the letter, and didn't do anything - just shows either a near-total lack of perspective or a rather purposeful one.

	Originally Posted by AnaK To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	(And if you can boycott, surely others can show support?)

Sure. I would boycott because I want to be able to get married. They "show support" because they're acting like fat, backward, pathetic sacks of shit who have nothing better to do with their time than to pretend their life has anything to do with mine.

[AnaK]

Why do you let a bunch of "fat, backward, pathetic sacks of shit" bother you then?

[larkin]

	Originally Posted by AnaK To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Why do you let a bunch of "fat, backward, pathetic sacks of shit" bother you then?

Because apparently, I have to run whether or not I choose to get married by them.

Why on earth would anyone show support for them, since we've already established it has nothing to do with free speech? If not to put the gays in their place?

[Arcanist]

	Originally Posted by AnaK To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Why do you let a bunch of "fat, backward, pathetic sacks of shit" bother you then?

Because these Dominionist retards need to be shouted down and put in their place, unless one wants some sort of twisted theocracy?

[mieu]

	Originally Posted by AnaK To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I for one think protecting the first amendment is worth protesting for, why does no one else see the danger in what the mayor did?

Maybe it'd be dangerous if the mayor had absolute power and shit like zoning and licenses weren't voted on by a group of people. He made a statement that obviously didn't hold any water, but because he felt strongly enough about the subject to do so. And so did Chick.

It would still be amusing to see if a Chick restaurant is blocked for the purpose of 'preserving the aesthetic/character' of the area. They do that to porn stores and strip joints all the time. I work in a town where you're not allowed to open any chain restaurant/store. Then again they'll probably be watching that shit like a hawk. Should be interesting to see how it plays out.

---------- Post added 08-02-2012 at 04:56 PM ----------

	Originally Posted by AnaK To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Why do you let a bunch of "fat, backward, pathetic sacks of shit" bother you then?

Because oppressing other people is disgusting. Complacency in the face of hateful actions is also disgusting (and Cathy most certainly did act upon his hate by funding anti-gay groups). Who are you if not part of the solution? The person who turns their head when a hate crime actually takes place--"None of my business!"--can get in line with the rest of the chicken-shit mediocrity. What the world most certainly does not need is another person who wants the world to lift them up but does nothing to help those who need it more than them.

They can say whatever they want, but I'm allowed to think them repulsive wastes of space.

[deconspire]

	Originally Posted by AnaK To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Why do you let a bunch of "fat, backward, pathetic sacks of shit" bother you then?

Because there are more of them than of us, and if those fuckers had their way, intolerance would rule us. Gotta stay steady vigilant when that door even gets cracked open an inch.

[INTJRyan]

How do you go from this:

	Originally Posted by AnaK To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	It is the FIRST amendment - that makes me think it is fairly important. It is important to me. Maybe some people won't care till someone tries to illegally restrict their speech. Sad that.

To this:

	Originally Posted by AnaK To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Why do you let a bunch of "fat, backward, pathetic sacks of shit" bother you then?

It's the exact same thing. Gay people are being denied equal protection of the law, not to mention flat out discrimination actually written into the law. Oh I forgot. Equal protection is rooted in the 13th Amendment which is 13 times less important as the First Amendment.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

	Originally Posted by Arcanist To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Because these Dominionist retards need to be shouted down and put in their place, unless one wants some sort of twisted theocracy?

I agree with this. I applaud Menino for actually speaking out about the subject (free speech!) even though his hands are tied legally.

Somebody needs to get Cathy's views on Planned Parenthood on record and Chik fil a would know a REAL shitstorm then.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[AnaK]

Originally Posted by mieu To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Maybe it'd be dangerous if the mayor had absolute power and shit like zoning and licenses weren't voted on by a group of people. He made a statement that obviously didn't hold any water, but because he felt strongly enough about the subject to do so. And so did Chick. It would still be amusing to see if a Chick restaurant is blocked for the purpose of 'preserving the aesthetic/character' of the area. They do that to porn stores and strip joints all the time. I work in a town where you're not allowed to open any chain restaurant/store. Then again they'll probably be watching that shit like a hawk. Should be interesting to see how it plays out. ---------- Post added 08-02-2012 at 04:56 PM ---------- Because oppressing other people is disgusting. Complacency in the face of hateful actions is also disgusting (and Cathy most certainly did act upon his hate by funding anti-gay groups). Who are you if not part of the solution? The person who turns their head when a hate crime actually takes place--"None of my business!"--can get in line with the rest of the chicken-shit mediocrity. What the world most certainly does not need is another person who wants the world to lift them up but does nothing to help those who need it more than them. They can say whatever they want, but I'm allowed to think them repulsive wastes of space.

I think mayors trying to illegally use the power of their office to suppress opposing viewpoints is disgusting.

As I quoted before, I may not agree with what people say, but I will defend their right to say it.

---------- Post added 08-02-2012 at 07:04 PM ----------

Originally Posted by INTJRyan To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

How do you go from this: To this: It's the exact same thing. Gay people are being denied equal protection of the law, not to mention flat out discrimination actually written into the law. Oh I forgot. Equal protection is rooted in the 13th Amendment which is 13 times less important as the First Amendment. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. I agree with this. I applaud Menino for actually speaking out about the subject (free speech!) even though his hands are tied legally. Somebody needs to get Cathy's views on Planned Parenthood on record and Chik fil a would know a REAL shitstorm then. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Great. If the 13th ammendment so clearly states that gays should be allowed to marry, there is no issue. The supreme court can simply make a ruling and we can all stop arguing.

[Ray9]

	Originally Posted by larkin To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	This is exactly what I mean when I say pathetic.

1) Scott Walker recall fails

2) Chick-Fil-A appreciation day

Yes, it's pathetic that the people just don't get that political correctness is so important that legal elections and freedom of speech must be swept aside so a tiny minority of self-annointed illuminati can build a perfect world that the people, lacking sufficient enlightenment, could never build for themselves.

[newtome]

	Originally Posted by larkin To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Because apparently, I have to run whether or not I choose to get married by them. Why on earth would anyone show support for them, since we've already established it has nothing to do with free speech? If not to put the gays in their place?

Who is the intolerant one here? We talk often about an entitlement mentaility, well it sounds a lot like you have one right there, it is the first time I have heard anyone here just say point blank that they want marriage, not equal rights etc etc but want marriage.

Someone supports the laws of most of the States in the USA and he is seen as intolerant. Someone expresses his love for his Wife and his marriage and is seen as intolerant. The interview that sparked this wasn't anti-gay but rather an expression of his love for his Wife, family and marriage. If you have been divorced and remarried then you should take offence. Everyone could take offence on many levels but a civil society discusses the issues, works them through and then writes or re-writes the laws. Various parties decided to raise this interview to national hieghts and all that happened was that the community was polarised and people got so worked up that they voted through their wallets and actions.

If the Gay community wanted to hold a referendum on Gay Marriage then they just had one. Did anyone do a count? How many customers and how many protestors? Any good lobby group knows when to pick a fight and in which forum to pick it. From what you saw would you ask any government to seek a binding referendum (maybe with the next presidential election) to settle Gay marriage once and for all?

I would suggest that you guys stop bitching, regroup, lick your wounds and go back to working on achieving marriage but leave the intolerance behind.

Boycotts are fine but eventually they cross a line. There are groups around the world including in Australia who continually boycott Jewish businesses. They mass outside, stop customers entering and bring attention to as many people as they can that no-one should support Jews. Hitler encouraged the same thing and went a step further by marking the businesses, and then the Jews, and calling on all Germans to stop doing business with them.

I don't hear any groups calling for boycotts of Gay owned business but if they did I guess that WOULD be intolerant wouldn't it.

[INTelliJent]

So now CFA and Scott Walker are anti-illuminati warriors?

[INTJRyan]

	Originally Posted by AnaK To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Great. If the 13th ammendment so clearly states that gays should be allowed to marry, there is no issue. The supreme court can simply make a ruling and we can all stop arguing.

Our state supreme court already has. So you can go ahead and stop.

[AnaK]

	Originally Posted by INTJRyan To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Our state supreme court already has. So you can go ahead and stop.

For it to be the law of the entire country, it needs to be the US Supreme Court. Correct me if I am wrong, but I didn't think STATE Supreme Courts made decisions on the US Constitution, but the State Constitution.

[newtome]

	Originally Posted by INTJRyan To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Our state supreme court already has. So you can go ahead and stop.

So if it already has then why doesn't Gay Marriage exist across America? I'm just an ignorant Australian so maybe you can explkain it to me? And as you know the law maybe explain in legal terms why the States are beuing sued or held accountable for ignoring a judgement?

As an aside, does it bother you that so many people expressed their support for Marriage and their love of their Wives and families? Is that something that hurts Gays or is it something they themselves could also support?

[INTJRyan]

	Originally Posted by AnaK To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	For it to be the law of the entire country, it needs to be the US Supreme Court. Correct me if I am wrong, but I didn't think STATE Supreme Courts made decisions on the US Constitution, but the State Constitution.

In general, yes, but that seems obvious enough. Marriage has been a state issue traditionally. Does being married in one state but not another seem like a workable solution to you though? In CA, both Fed and State rights were violated.

[AnaK]

	Originally Posted by INTJRyan To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	In general, yes, but that seems obvious enough. Marriage has been a state issue traditionally. Does being married in one state but not another seem like a workable solution to you though? In CA, both Fed and State rights were violated.

You mentioned the 13th amendment, so it should be a clear case for the entire country, yes?