Thinking.......

Having both would be better... :yep:

AH, but i wasnt exactly referring to the video, more as a generality. I thought the video was misplaced and harsh, seeing as how she is simply an employee that is working hard and who happens to be working at a restaurant whos president somewhat recently announced his stance openly.

i understand that it is mainly the views of the president of chic-fil-a that supports bans on gay marriage, not necessarily an employee

All I know is, I had some darn good chicken on Wednesday, and I know I'll be having a heck of a lot more good chicken when I get back to school. If people want to boycott it, well, good for them. That just means shorter lines for me :yeah:

Maybe Zaxbys who is the direct competitor to Chick-Fil-A will come out saying
something pro or anti gay and jump on the band wagon.

I think the entire thing was a gimmick to get people to show up at Chick-Fil-A stores.

Funny how no one seems to want to deal with the real issue.

Its about free speech. For mayors to come out and threaten - for a city official to write a letter - on official letterhead and as speaker of the council - trying to harm the legitimate free enterprise of a business based on one executive's personal view and morals - is despicable. The same would be the case if government officials were trying to hamper a gay friendly company.

Free speech is the issue - not gay marriage. Government officials should not be trying to punish or hamper free enterprise because the official holds a personal opinion that differs with the businessman.

Free speech means you get to say stuff. It doesn't mean there are no consequences to what gets said.

He exercised his right to free speech when he opened his mouth, and since he successfully expressed his opinion it's pretty clear that his right to say what he wanted to say wasn't violated. He doesn't have the right to be free of the consequences of his own actions.

I'm sorry, but if you say something in public that you know is going to be controversial, it's kinda pathetic to act all butthurt about it when some people are offended.

frau - I don't have a problem with people being offended and choosing to boycott if if they want. My issue is with government officials doing so in an OFFICIAL capacity - meaning government will determine if your personal morals are acceptable.

Are you ok with government deciding what is and is not acceptable for you - or someone else - to have as a personal belief?

When a mayor says that a business should not be allowed to open or expand in their city based on the personal belief of one executive - that is governmental discrimination.

When the Speaker of the NY City Council sends a letter on official letterhead urging NYU to boot C-F-A because of the personal view of the COO, its government interfering in free enterprise.

Those actions by governmental officials - in their official roles of representing government itself - are disgraceful. People can be offended - fine. But government should not be trying to penalize a business based on a personal moral belief. If a business was discriminating against people - that is one thing. But its not - yet some in government are trying to discriminate against a business based on personal beliefs. That is disgraceful.

Oh, horse crap. Those mayors are expressing the very same right to free speech that you seem to want to bang the drum about, but only if it's your side doing the free speaking. Frau's right. Free speech doesn't mean that you're immune to someone else telling you that your freely spoken opinion is bigoted and not welcome.

Saying you don't want them in your city and urging other to cut ties with them is not the same as denying someone a business permit. The right wing persecution complex strikes again.

You mean like deciding who you can marry and who you can't? You're right; so long as no harm or legal disadvantage is given to another, government has no place in personal belief or behavior.

Last I checked, the COO of CFA doesn't get to decide who marries or not. He has an opinion.

To equate that with a Speaker of the City Council sending out a letter on official stationary trying to get NYU to cancel a business contract is hardly the same. Having a mayor say that a business should not try to come closer to his city is not the same.

That would be causing legal disadvantage and harm - using the force of government. Your saying you have no problem with that?

Do government officials have a right to free speech? Sure they do. But not on government letterhead or referencings their office in doing so. So what your saying is that if I was an anti-gay mayor of Charlotte, NC - I could hold a press conference and make a public statement that Ben and Jerry's or Amazon is not welcome in the city because they are supportive of gay rights if I wanted to? Your saying that if UNCC had a contract with Apple computers it would be ok for me to write a letter on official letterhead to remind them of my office and urge them to cancel it because of Apple's history of gay friendly policies? All of that would be perfectly acceptable to you? Really? I call bullcrap on that one.

You're right. And you're right that governement has no right to censor this man's right to that expression. What you are missing is that this right and the right to marry who you wish are the same issue. Government should not be involved in either. It's all about people's basic rights.

Just so we can all discuss this from the same data, do you have a citation for these events? It might help set a framework for discussion.

You can find the letter here:

http://politicker.com/2012/07/quinn-...elcome-in-nyc/

Note that it is in fact on official stationary and the first thing the writer mentions is her official governmentary post. Note how she states "I do not want establishments in my city that hold such discriminitory views". In other words - she disagrees so she wants to have their legal right to do business in "her" city ended. Also note her signature - again referencing her position as Speaker of the NY City Counsel.

Is that government enough for you?

How about Mayor Menino?
http://www.towleroad.com/2012/07/bos...ove-along.html
His letter - again on official stationary and signed as Mayor - telling Chik-fil-a not to come to Boston...
http://hrc.org/files/assets/resources/menino-letter.pdf

Mayor Lee of SF? Stating "ChickFilA to San Francisco is 40 miles away & I strongly recommend that they not try to come any closer." At least he did his via twitter....
http://www.latimes.com/business/mone...,4169780.story

Need I even mention the Chicago Mayor?

I don't care what the issue is - I would be defending Ben and Jerry's for their right to do business regardless of their personal views. Government discriminiation for personal morals (when no illegal action such as discrimination against employees or customers has occured) is a very dangerous and real attempt for government - through the use of the government stick - to define what is an acceptable or unacceptable PERSONAL moral ethic.

I can't believe ya'll don't see that. I guarantee had this been some hick arkansas councilperson blasting a gay friendly business - many here would be singing a different tune.