And yeah, the more I think about it the more pissed off I get that those mayors have said what they've said. It compromises our moral high ground, and makes it seem more like a grey area. Which it is, I guess. On the one hand you have some mayors trying to suppress a business that isn't doing anything illegal, and on the other hand you have a business that's spending some serious cash on anti-gay rights.
Fuck those mayors, seriously. They're not helping.
I'm sorry, that's bullshit.
Elected representatives have every right to speak their minds, certainly as much as a CEO. Until a permit gets denied "fuck the mayors" is ridiculous.
And even then I think there's a discussion to be had.
Mayors have the right to speak their minds as private citizens, as do Aldermen, but when they start doing things like using city stationary it shades into an inappropriate use of state power.
Posters in this thread are right that de facto it is often possible to creatively use zoning restrictions in order to punish or block certain undesirables from entering town; they are wrong in thinking that this is de jure legal. This is just as it is often possible to design facially neutral hiring and retention policies--policies which never explicitly mention race--but which are nonetheless jury-rigged so as to retain and promote whites over minorities; or, perhaps better yet, to deliberately place polling locations and install voter registration procedures such that the minority vote will be suppressed. These things are all illegal, although often difficult to catch. If you're arguing that creative zoning as a way to punish Chick-Fil-A is kosher here, then you should realize that similar maneuvering would vitiate a great deal of civil rights legislation.
Cities taking retaliatory action against a corporation--by, say, blocking its establishment of franchises, or terminating its leases in state university cafeterias--on the basis of the political views it espouses strikes me as an exceptionally clear cut violation of the freedom of speech. Which, I think, is why at least most of these mayors have been careful not to explicitly say that they will, in their role as mayor, take this form of retaliatory action, preferring nasty letters to concrete promises of action. Which, as above, is fine and all, right up until the point where the nasty letters themselves begin to be such that a reasonable person would interpret them as more than just a personal expression of disapproval, but a veiled threat of retaliation by state agencies.
So, in other words, I'm with Melkster.
I'm aware of this, and the fact that it is regularly and consistently used against minorities, the young, homosexuals, and other "undesirables."
I'm not proposing it's Constitutional; I'm merely proposing that since they do it to us, the way to get the behavior to stop is not to roll over and ask really nicely; the way to get the behavior to stop is to do it to them. I'm not saying it's nice, Constitutional, or legal; I'm just saying that they can't actually prove it's not okay, and they regularly screw us with it, so fuck them and the horse they rode in on.
It might feel good to hurt them as bad as we've been hurt, but it isn't right.
In an ideal world one would convince those who disagree by doing morally, ethically, legally and all other forms of right things, and showing them the better way.
We don't live in an ideal world. I'm not sure I'm quite as on board with Thanatos' 'ends justify the means' approach to politics, but I don't think it's entirely unreasonable to shy away from fighting back with whatever tools are available. Is it risky? Of couse. There's always the chance that whatever tools you use to overcome those who oppose you will also turn away some who already sided with you. "Those who fight monsters, etc", but when one side is perfectly happy ruling from tyranny of the majority, sometimes you have to use whatever works to make progress.
Civil rights for blacks, for women, for gays, all of these have had those who politely and passionately followed the rules and worked for change from within, and there were those who rebelled, started shit (figuratively and literally) and picked fights loudly and publically to garner attention. Was every single movement made positive? No, but it's complex enough that I have a hard time villifying those who took action. Was it right to start a riot and apparently threaten the safety or even lives of dozens of policemen during the Stonewall Riots? Was it right for Rosa Parks to ignore the status quo in choosing her seat? I'm not drawing a direct equivocation here, but there is a massive grey area between what is 'appropriate' and what is 'necessary'.
Am I uncomfortable with these declarations by various mayors? A bit, but I'm also glad to see someone in an official role standing against intolerance, even if it's just in a strongly worded letter that may not actually matter. Deeds are greater than words, and it will be by their actions that we really see how firmly these politicians stand by their convictions.
And let's keep something else in mind; in the current economic situation, they are turning away money and jobs to local economies. CFA is (according to Wiki) a 4 BILLION dollar a year company. They're not McDonalds, but it's nothing to sneeze at either. And no, I doubt that we'll see Republican led forces kicking away corporations and businesses left and right. There would be massive diminishing returns on trying to turn away untold jobs and millions or billions of dollars in industry and taxes just to stand on ones convictions.
I highly doubt we'll see GOPple and Republicamazon rising up because there have to be seperate services to cater to ~1/2 the US apiece.
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
0
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
I'm a bit flabbergasted at the idea that people should have no recourse to business moving in other than "vote with their wallets."
Surely the people should have the right to control their towns.
And beyond that what Menino said is in no way the same as "I will use my magic alderman powers to stop you". So "fuck the mayors" is just stupid bullshit.
0
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
I'm a bit flabbergasted at the idea that people should have no recourse to business moving in other than "vote with their wallets."
Surely the people should have the right to control their towns.
And beyond that what Menino said is in no way the same as "I will use my magic alderman powers to stop you". So "fuck the mayors" is just stupid bullshit.
But what's the flipside to that?
A overly-religious town council that refuses businesses because their CEO is Jewish/female/gay/brown?
I'm cool with zoning codes that won't allow for discriminatory practices, but line-item refusals should be a big no-no.
And yeah, the more I think about it the more pissed off I get that those mayors have said what they've said. It compromises our moral high ground, and makes it seem more like a grey area. Which it is, I guess. On the one hand you have some mayors trying to suppress a business that isn't doing anything illegal, and on the other hand you have a business that's spending some serious cash on anti-gay rights.
Fuck those mayors, seriously. They're not helping.
I'm sorry, that's bullshit.
Elected representatives have every right to speak their minds, certainly as much as a CEO. Until a permit gets denied "fuck the mayors" is ridiculous.
And even then I think there's a discussion to be had.
Mayors have the right to speak their minds as private citizens, as do Aldermen, but when they start doing things like using city stationary it shades into an inappropriate use of state power.
Posters in this thread are right that de facto it is often possible to creatively use zoning restrictions in order to punish or block certain undesirables from entering town; they are wrong in thinking that this is de jure legal. This is just as it is often possible to design facially neutral hiring and retention policies--policies which never explicitly mention race--but which are nonetheless jury-rigged so as to retain and promote whites over minorities; or, perhaps better yet, to deliberately place polling locations and install voter registration procedures such that the minority vote will be suppressed. These things are all illegal, although often difficult to catch. If you're arguing that creative zoning as a way to punish Chick-Fil-A is kosher here, then you should realize that similar maneuvering would vitiate a great deal of civil rights legislation.
Cities taking retaliatory action against a corporation--by, say, blocking its establishment of franchises, or terminating its leases in state university cafeterias--on the basis of the political views it espouses strikes me as an exceptionally clear cut violation of the freedom of speech. Which, I think, is why at least most of these mayors have been careful not to explicitly say that they will, in their role as mayor, take this form of retaliatory action, preferring nasty letters to concrete promises of action. Which, as above, is fine and all, right up until the point where the nasty letters themselves begin to be such that a reasonable person would interpret them as more than just a personal expression of disapproval, but a veiled threat of retaliation by state agencies.
So, in other words, I'm with Melkster.
I'm aware of this, and the fact that it is regularly and consistently used against minorities, the young, homosexuals, and other "undesirables."
I'm not proposing it's Constitutional; I'm merely proposing that since they do it to us, the way to get the behavior to stop is not to roll over and ask really nicely; the way to get the behavior to stop is to do it to them. I'm not saying it's nice, Constitutional, or legal; I'm just saying that they can't actually prove it's not okay, and they regularly screw us with it, so fuck them and the horse they rode in on.
It might feel good to hurt them as bad as we've been hurt, but it isn't right.
Why not?
Moving forward on social issues while respecting the law, including the civil rights of the other side, has allowed transformational change in civil rights over the last sixty years, and I see no reason to believe that we need to change how we operate now.
And yeah, the more I think about it the more pissed off I get that those mayors have said what they've said. It compromises our moral high ground, and makes it seem more like a grey area. Which it is, I guess. On the one hand you have some mayors trying to suppress a business that isn't doing anything illegal, and on the other hand you have a business that's spending some serious cash on anti-gay rights.
Fuck those mayors, seriously. They're not helping.
I'm sorry, that's bullshit.
Elected representatives have every right to speak their minds, certainly as much as a CEO. Until a permit gets denied "fuck the mayors" is ridiculous.
And even then I think there's a discussion to be had.
Mayors have the right to speak their minds as private citizens, as do Aldermen, but when they start doing things like using city stationary it shades into an inappropriate use of state power.
Posters in this thread are right that de facto it is often possible to creatively use zoning restrictions in order to punish or block certain undesirables from entering town; they are wrong in thinking that this is de jure legal. This is just as it is often possible to design facially neutral hiring and retention policies--policies which never explicitly mention race--but which are nonetheless jury-rigged so as to retain and promote whites over minorities; or, perhaps better yet, to deliberately place polling locations and install voter registration procedures such that the minority vote will be suppressed. These things are all illegal, although often difficult to catch. If you're arguing that creative zoning as a way to punish Chick-Fil-A is kosher here, then you should realize that similar maneuvering would vitiate a great deal of civil rights legislation.
Cities taking retaliatory action against a corporation--by, say, blocking its establishment of franchises, or terminating its leases in state university cafeterias--on the basis of the political views it espouses strikes me as an exceptionally clear cut violation of the freedom of speech. Which, I think, is why at least most of these mayors have been careful not to explicitly say that they will, in their role as mayor, take this form of retaliatory action, preferring nasty letters to concrete promises of action. Which, as above, is fine and all, right up until the point where the nasty letters themselves begin to be such that a reasonable person would interpret them as more than just a personal expression of disapproval, but a veiled threat of retaliation by state agencies.
So, in other words, I'm with Melkster.
I'm aware of this, and the fact that it is regularly and consistently used against minorities, the young, homosexuals, and other "undesirables."
I'm not proposing it's Constitutional; I'm merely proposing that since they do it to us, the way to get the behavior to stop is not to roll over and ask really nicely; the way to get the behavior to stop is to do it to them. I'm not saying it's nice, Constitutional, or legal; I'm just saying that they can't actually prove it's not okay, and they regularly screw us with it, so fuck them and the horse they rode in on.
It might feel good to hurt them as bad as we've been hurt, but it isn't right.
Why not?
Moving forward on social issues while respecting the law, including the civil rights of the other side, has allowed transformational change in civil rights over the last sixty years, and I see no reason to believe that we need to change how we operate now.
Uh, the civil rights movement involved a shit-ton of disrespecting the law.
And yeah, the more I think about it the more pissed off I get that those mayors have said what they've said. It compromises our moral high ground, and makes it seem more like a grey area. Which it is, I guess. On the one hand you have some mayors trying to suppress a business that isn't doing anything illegal, and on the other hand you have a business that's spending some serious cash on anti-gay rights.
Fuck those mayors, seriously. They're not helping.
I'm sorry, that's bullshit.
Elected representatives have every right to speak their minds, certainly as much as a CEO. Until a permit gets denied "fuck the mayors" is ridiculous.
And even then I think there's a discussion to be had.
Mayors have the right to speak their minds as private citizens, as do Aldermen, but when they start doing things like using city stationary it shades into an inappropriate use of state power.
Posters in this thread are right that de facto it is often possible to creatively use zoning restrictions in order to punish or block certain undesirables from entering town; they are wrong in thinking that this is de jure legal. This is just as it is often possible to design facially neutral hiring and retention policies--policies which never explicitly mention race--but which are nonetheless jury-rigged so as to retain and promote whites over minorities; or, perhaps better yet, to deliberately place polling locations and install voter registration procedures such that the minority vote will be suppressed. These things are all illegal, although often difficult to catch. If you're arguing that creative zoning as a way to punish Chick-Fil-A is kosher here, then you should realize that similar maneuvering would vitiate a great deal of civil rights legislation.
Cities taking retaliatory action against a corporation--by, say, blocking its establishment of franchises, or terminating its leases in state university cafeterias--on the basis of the political views it espouses strikes me as an exceptionally clear cut violation of the freedom of speech. Which, I think, is why at least most of these mayors have been careful not to explicitly say that they will, in their role as mayor, take this form of retaliatory action, preferring nasty letters to concrete promises of action. Which, as above, is fine and all, right up until the point where the nasty letters themselves begin to be such that a reasonable person would interpret them as more than just a personal expression of disapproval, but a veiled threat of retaliation by state agencies.
So, in other words, I'm with Melkster.
I'm aware of this, and the fact that it is regularly and consistently used against minorities, the young, homosexuals, and other "undesirables."
I'm not proposing it's Constitutional; I'm merely proposing that since they do it to us, the way to get the behavior to stop is not to roll over and ask really nicely; the way to get the behavior to stop is to do it to them. I'm not saying it's nice, Constitutional, or legal; I'm just saying that they can't actually prove it's not okay, and they regularly screw us with it, so fuck them and the horse they rode in on.
It might feel good to hurt them as bad as we've been hurt, but it isn't right.
Why not?
Moving forward on social issues while respecting the law, including the civil rights of the other side, has allowed transformational change in civil rights over the last sixty years, and I see no reason to believe that we need to change how we operate now.
Uh, the civil rights movement involved a shit-ton of disrespecting the law.
Not to mention that there's a solid argument to be made that success in the civil rights movement was due in part to Malcolm X and other radicals playing the stick to MLK's carrot.
And yeah, the more I think about it the more pissed off I get that those mayors have said what they've said. It compromises our moral high ground, and makes it seem more like a grey area. Which it is, I guess. On the one hand you have some mayors trying to suppress a business that isn't doing anything illegal, and on the other hand you have a business that's spending some serious cash on anti-gay rights.
Fuck those mayors, seriously. They're not helping.
I'm sorry, that's bullshit.
Elected representatives have every right to speak their minds, certainly as much as a CEO. Until a permit gets denied "fuck the mayors" is ridiculous.
And even then I think there's a discussion to be had.
Mayors have the right to speak their minds as private citizens, as do Aldermen, but when they start doing things like using city stationary it shades into an inappropriate use of state power.
Posters in this thread are right that de facto it is often possible to creatively use zoning restrictions in order to punish or block certain undesirables from entering town; they are wrong in thinking that this is de jure legal. This is just as it is often possible to design facially neutral hiring and retention policies--policies which never explicitly mention race--but which are nonetheless jury-rigged so as to retain and promote whites over minorities; or, perhaps better yet, to deliberately place polling locations and install voter registration procedures such that the minority vote will be suppressed. These things are all illegal, although often difficult to catch. If you're arguing that creative zoning as a way to punish Chick-Fil-A is kosher here, then you should realize that similar maneuvering would vitiate a great deal of civil rights legislation.
Cities taking retaliatory action against a corporation--by, say, blocking its establishment of franchises, or terminating its leases in state university cafeterias--on the basis of the political views it espouses strikes me as an exceptionally clear cut violation of the freedom of speech. Which, I think, is why at least most of these mayors have been careful not to explicitly say that they will, in their role as mayor, take this form of retaliatory action, preferring nasty letters to concrete promises of action. Which, as above, is fine and all, right up until the point where the nasty letters themselves begin to be such that a reasonable person would interpret them as more than just a personal expression of disapproval, but a veiled threat of retaliation by state agencies.
So, in other words, I'm with Melkster.
I'm aware of this, and the fact that it is regularly and consistently used against minorities, the young, homosexuals, and other "undesirables."
I'm not proposing it's Constitutional; I'm merely proposing that since they do it to us, the way to get the behavior to stop is not to roll over and ask really nicely; the way to get the behavior to stop is to do it to them. I'm not saying it's nice, Constitutional, or legal; I'm just saying that they can't actually prove it's not okay, and they regularly screw us with it, so fuck them and the horse they rode in on.
It might feel good to hurt them as bad as we've been hurt, but it isn't right.
Why not?
Moving forward on social issues while respecting the law, including the civil rights of the other side, has allowed transformational change in civil rights over the last sixty years, and I see no reason to believe that we need to change how we operate now.
The reason we change how we operate now is that historically, the oppressed involved in civil rights legislation haven't had the clout to push back from a position of power. Now, progressive interests control huge enclaves of America, and we have the power to punish reactionary interests in those enclaves in the same way they punish progressive interests in the areas they control. Legally, this forces the courts into a position where they either stop everyone from doing it--which is a net good--or they don't, in which case we're no longer fighting with one hand tied behind our backs.
And yeah, the more I think about it the more pissed off I get that those mayors have said what they've said. It compromises our moral high ground, and makes it seem more like a grey area. Which it is, I guess. On the one hand you have some mayors trying to suppress a business that isn't doing anything illegal, and on the other hand you have a business that's spending some serious cash on anti-gay rights.
Fuck those mayors, seriously. They're not helping.
I'm sorry, that's bullshit.
Elected representatives have every right to speak their minds, certainly as much as a CEO. Until a permit gets denied "fuck the mayors" is ridiculous.
And even then I think there's a discussion to be had.
Mayors have the right to speak their minds as private citizens, as do Aldermen, but when they start doing things like using city stationary it shades into an inappropriate use of state power.
Posters in this thread are right that de facto it is often possible to creatively use zoning restrictions in order to punish or block certain undesirables from entering town; they are wrong in thinking that this is de jure legal. This is just as it is often possible to design facially neutral hiring and retention policies--policies which never explicitly mention race--but which are nonetheless jury-rigged so as to retain and promote whites over minorities; or, perhaps better yet, to deliberately place polling locations and install voter registration procedures such that the minority vote will be suppressed. These things are all illegal, although often difficult to catch. If you're arguing that creative zoning as a way to punish Chick-Fil-A is kosher here, then you should realize that similar maneuvering would vitiate a great deal of civil rights legislation.
Cities taking retaliatory action against a corporation--by, say, blocking its establishment of franchises, or terminating its leases in state university cafeterias--on the basis of the political views it espouses strikes me as an exceptionally clear cut violation of the freedom of speech. Which, I think, is why at least most of these mayors have been careful not to explicitly say that they will, in their role as mayor, take this form of retaliatory action, preferring nasty letters to concrete promises of action. Which, as above, is fine and all, right up until the point where the nasty letters themselves begin to be such that a reasonable person would interpret them as more than just a personal expression of disapproval, but a veiled threat of retaliation by state agencies.
So, in other words, I'm with Melkster.
I'm aware of this, and the fact that it is regularly and consistently used against minorities, the young, homosexuals, and other "undesirables."
I'm not proposing it's Constitutional; I'm merely proposing that since they do it to us, the way to get the behavior to stop is not to roll over and ask really nicely; the way to get the behavior to stop is to do it to them. I'm not saying it's nice, Constitutional, or legal; I'm just saying that they can't actually prove it's not okay, and they regularly screw us with it, so fuck them and the horse they rode in on.
It might feel good to hurt them as bad as we've been hurt, but it isn't right.
Why not?
Moving forward on social issues while respecting the law, including the civil rights of the other side, has allowed transformational change in civil rights over the last sixty years, and I see no reason to believe that we need to change how we operate now.
Uh, the civil rights movement involved a shit-ton of disrespecting the law.
Okay, so obviously I wasn't saying that Rosa Parks should have kept her head down and sat in the back of the bus. If there are unjust laws that violate the bill of rights, then yeah, protest those laws. Break them. But let's respect and uphold the just ones, even if the other side won't.
Melkster on
0
Deebaseron my way to work in a suit and a tieAhhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered Userregular
So those in elected office should push ignore the law in pursuit of their ideology. That's chilling.
Those dumb bigoted chucklefucks that showed up for Chick Fil A day also have the right to vote and do so in places that are a bit more backwards than Boston and Chicago.
So those in elected office should push ignore the law in pursuit of their ideology. That's chilling.
Those dumb bigoted chucklefucks that showed up for Chick Fil A day also have the right to vote and do so in places that are a bit more backwards than Boston and Chicago.
And we should work on passing laws that "fight voter fraud" that help prevent that, too.
Again, I see no reason to unilaterally disarm.
0
adventfallsWhy would you wish to know?Registered Userregular
Because if there's one thing the average American needs, it's more fast food in their diet.
I joked before about this potentially being a self-correcting problem, but seriously, the juxtaposition here is really hitting me. Older, overweight, quite possibly not eating incredibly healthily to begin with... let's add a giant heaping dose of fat and sodium!
CFA supporters have a vested interest in the ACA being as successful as possible.
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
So some dude videotaped himself going through the drive thru at Chick-fil-a yesterday, ordering a "free water", and having a conversation with the Chick-fil-a employee at the window.
Apparently he posted it, got lambasted and took it down hours later.
So I heard someone say a word today that just sounded so fucking horrible.
"Heterophobic."
This is like people thinking "Reverse racism" is a bigger problem than racism.
The closest term I could come up with is 'cis-privilage' that gets tossed around by Social Justice Warriors in blogs. (Granted, it's a tiny minority) Are you a white, heterosexual, male? Congratulations, your opinions mean nothing, since everything you say is going to be homophobic, racist, and misogynistic.
Now, personally that's the only 'Heterophobia' I've seriously ever heard of. Most of the non-internet world has never even heard of it.
Man let's have like 20 or 30 threads discussing how hypothetically if there were enough people doing this it might make men feel bad so basically everyone is on equal footing.
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
I certainly don't advocate breaking the law to ban companies.
I still contend that there is fuck all wrong with what Menino and the guy from PA said. The alderman thing is all second hand info for me, but I would be against using magic alderman powers to stop CFA from opening.
Remember a month ago, when Mark Jimenez and Beau Chandler were arrested for performing a sit-in at the Texas county office until they were granted their marriage license?
So some dude videotaped himself going through the drive thru at Chick-fil-a yesterday, ordering a "free water", and having a conversation with the Chick-fil-a employee at the window.
Apparently he posted it, got lambasted and took it down hours later.
I am on a diet right now and craving ANYTHING deep friend and covered in gravy but would make the sacrifice to not give that silly goose a red cent. I have a 10 year old and have taught her from a young age that doing what makes you happy is much more important then any label and I want her to live in a time when who someone is sleeping with/marrying is not something that shapes political discourse.
PSN: Canadian_llama
0
syndalisGetting ClassyOn the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Productsregular
Yeah, that guy was a dumb in that video. The girl at the window? What should she do in response to him? Say "you're right" and quit her job in this economy?
That video is shit and does nothing to further his cause.
SW-4158-3990-6116
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
So I heard someone say a word today that just sounded so fucking horrible.
"Heterophobic."
This is like people thinking "Reverse racism" is a bigger problem than racism.
The closest term I could come up with is 'cis-privilage' that gets tossed around by Social Justice Warriors in blogs. (Granted, it's a tiny minority) Are you a white, heterosexual, male? Congratulations, your opinions mean nothing, since everything you say is going to be homophobic, racist, and misogynistic.
Now, personally that's the only 'Heterophobia' I've seriously ever heard of. Most of the non-internet world has never even heard of it.
I see someone has been reading Shakespeare's Sister.
I am on a diet right now and craving ANYTHING deep friend and covered in gravy but would make the sacrifice to not give that silly goose a red cent. I have a 10 year old and have taught her from a young age that doing what makes you happy is much more important then any label and I want her to live in a time when who someone is sleeping with/marrying is not something that shapes political discourse.
I'm not sure that's entirely ideal. Stealing all the candy would make a ten year old happy, damn the "naughty" labels.
Yeah, that guy was a dumb in that video. The girl at the window? What should she do in response to him? Say "you're right" and quit her job in this economy?
That video is shit and does nothing to further his cause.
Not to mention how he lashes out at her at the end asking her how she sleeps at night? Who the fuck does he think he is? I feel bad for the girl because this is a clear example of how what one man says should not be forced onto other people. Boycott is fine, but anything like this is just idiotic in nature and that guy should be ashamed.
Yeah, that guy was a dumb in that video. The girl at the window? What should she do in response to him? Say "you're right" and quit her job in this economy?
That video is shit and does nothing to further his cause.
Not to mention how he lashes out at her at the end asking her how she sleeps at night? Who the fuck does he think he is? I feel bad for the girl because this is a clear example of how what one man says should not be forced onto other people. Boycott is fine, but anything like this is just idiotic in nature and that guy should be ashamed.
I thought the video did more to put her in a great light, and him in a pretty poor one. I wonder what his thought process was when he uploaded it.
Yeah, that guy was a dumb in that video. The girl at the window? What should she do in response to him? Say "you're right" and quit her job in this economy?
That video is shit and does nothing to further his cause.
He's a liberal version of James O'Keefe. Masquerading as a paying customer and hoping to film some Gotcha! footage rich in shock reactions. I bet he was hoping he'd get a rude GET THE FUCK OFF OUR PROPERTY! response on film when he called Chick-Fil-A a hate-filled corporation.
Yeah, that guy was a dumb in that video. The girl at the window? What should she do in response to him? Say "you're right" and quit her job in this economy?
That video is shit and does nothing to further his cause.
He directly impacted the company's wallet. Water, the cup, the lid, the straw, the time to put it together, and the woman at the windows paid time. It doesn't matter if her mind changes (it costs the company more to hire a new dreg), it matters that he took their time. If everyone who was protesting instead did something like this, you would see a pretty big change in the company. Instead we have the striesand effect and more people support the company then ever.
Posts
It absolutely is a bigger problem.
Why not?
We don't live in an ideal world. I'm not sure I'm quite as on board with Thanatos' 'ends justify the means' approach to politics, but I don't think it's entirely unreasonable to shy away from fighting back with whatever tools are available. Is it risky? Of couse. There's always the chance that whatever tools you use to overcome those who oppose you will also turn away some who already sided with you. "Those who fight monsters, etc", but when one side is perfectly happy ruling from tyranny of the majority, sometimes you have to use whatever works to make progress.
Civil rights for blacks, for women, for gays, all of these have had those who politely and passionately followed the rules and worked for change from within, and there were those who rebelled, started shit (figuratively and literally) and picked fights loudly and publically to garner attention. Was every single movement made positive? No, but it's complex enough that I have a hard time villifying those who took action. Was it right to start a riot and apparently threaten the safety or even lives of dozens of policemen during the Stonewall Riots? Was it right for Rosa Parks to ignore the status quo in choosing her seat? I'm not drawing a direct equivocation here, but there is a massive grey area between what is 'appropriate' and what is 'necessary'.
Am I uncomfortable with these declarations by various mayors? A bit, but I'm also glad to see someone in an official role standing against intolerance, even if it's just in a strongly worded letter that may not actually matter. Deeds are greater than words, and it will be by their actions that we really see how firmly these politicians stand by their convictions.
And let's keep something else in mind; in the current economic situation, they are turning away money and jobs to local economies. CFA is (according to Wiki) a 4 BILLION dollar a year company. They're not McDonalds, but it's nothing to sneeze at either. And no, I doubt that we'll see Republican led forces kicking away corporations and businesses left and right. There would be massive diminishing returns on trying to turn away untold jobs and millions or billions of dollars in industry and taxes just to stand on ones convictions.
I highly doubt we'll see GOPple and Republicamazon rising up because there have to be seperate services to cater to ~1/2 the US apiece.
Surely the people should have the right to control their towns.
And beyond that what Menino said is in no way the same as "I will use my magic alderman powers to stop you". So "fuck the mayors" is just stupid bullshit.
But what's the flipside to that?
A overly-religious town council that refuses businesses because their CEO is Jewish/female/gay/brown?
I'm cool with zoning codes that won't allow for discriminatory practices, but line-item refusals should be a big no-no.
Moving forward on social issues while respecting the law, including the civil rights of the other side, has allowed transformational change in civil rights over the last sixty years, and I see no reason to believe that we need to change how we operate now.
Uh, the civil rights movement involved a shit-ton of disrespecting the law.
Not to mention that there's a solid argument to be made that success in the civil rights movement was due in part to Malcolm X and other radicals playing the stick to MLK's carrot.
Win-win.
Okay, so obviously I wasn't saying that Rosa Parks should have kept her head down and sat in the back of the bus. If there are unjust laws that violate the bill of rights, then yeah, protest those laws. Break them. But let's respect and uphold the just ones, even if the other side won't.
Those dumb bigoted chucklefucks that showed up for Chick Fil A day also have the right to vote and do so in places that are a bit more backwards than Boston and Chicago.
The biggest shit-eating grin you've ever seen.
Switch: 6200-8149-0919 / Wii U: maximumzero / 3DS: 0860-3352-3335 / eBay Shop
Again, I see no reason to unilaterally disarm.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
I joked before about this potentially being a self-correcting problem, but seriously, the juxtaposition here is really hitting me. Older, overweight, quite possibly not eating incredibly healthily to begin with... let's add a giant heaping dose of fat and sodium!
CFA supporters have a vested interest in the ACA being as successful as possible.
Can't watch as I am at work, but this sounds like it's in line with what I was suggesting.
Man let's have like 20 or 30 threads discussing how hypothetically if there were enough people doing this it might make men feel bad so basically everyone is on equal footing.
Chick-fil-a is the new duckface or what.
I still contend that there is fuck all wrong with what Menino and the guy from PA said. The alderman thing is all second hand info for me, but I would be against using magic alderman powers to stop CFA from opening.
They're doing it again right now. With friends.
Steam
You haven't eaten their food.
You don't know the sirens' call of their waffle fries dipped in your leftover BBQ sauce.
That makes sense, given where he got his lunch from.
This guy is a piece of shit.
I am on a diet right now and craving ANYTHING deep friend and covered in gravy but would make the sacrifice to not give that silly goose a red cent. I have a 10 year old and have taught her from a young age that doing what makes you happy is much more important then any label and I want her to live in a time when who someone is sleeping with/marrying is not something that shapes political discourse.
That video is shit and does nothing to further his cause.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
I see someone has been reading Shakespeare's Sister.
I'm not sure that's entirely ideal. Stealing all the candy would make a ten year old happy, damn the "naughty" labels.
Not to mention how he lashes out at her at the end asking her how she sleeps at night? Who the fuck does he think he is? I feel bad for the girl because this is a clear example of how what one man says should not be forced onto other people. Boycott is fine, but anything like this is just idiotic in nature and that guy should be ashamed.
I thought the video did more to put her in a great light, and him in a pretty poor one. I wonder what his thought process was when he uploaded it.
He's a liberal version of James O'Keefe. Masquerading as a paying customer and hoping to film some Gotcha! footage rich in shock reactions. I bet he was hoping he'd get a rude GET THE FUCK OFF OUR PROPERTY! response on film when he called Chick-Fil-A a hate-filled corporation.
But yeah, I felt bad for the poor underpaid girl who basically just had to stand there and take it, looking uncomfortable the whole time.
On the plus side the guy took down the video. The asshole who re-uploaded it on his account just to pick on the guy is just as bad as the guy himself.
Steam
He directly impacted the company's wallet. Water, the cup, the lid, the straw, the time to put it together, and the woman at the windows paid time. It doesn't matter if her mind changes (it costs the company more to hire a new dreg), it matters that he took their time. If everyone who was protesting instead did something like this, you would see a pretty big change in the company. Instead we have the striesand effect and more people support the company then ever.