[Neuromancer]

This was a troll, he gave himself up a few comments down.

[CornBurrito]

I'm on my phone and can't make a decent new thread, but CFA has agreed to stop donating to anti-gay organizations, supposedly: http://chicagophoenix.com/2012/09/18...tment-of-gays/ Just want to give a quick shout out to everyone that was willing to make the difficult sacrifice of not eating a specific sandwich in order to take a stand against a wrongdoing. I understand if it was too hard for some of you to do, but I'm sure your hearts were in the right place.

BBBBBBbbbbutttttt!!!!!

BBbbut! But the people who continued to buy it said a boycott wouldn't do anything!

[daw840]

Well that's good news. I guess I can eat there again, meh...

[Devolution]

GET DON'T BE SUPPORTING THEM

We really need to turn this into a meme when it comes to gay threads.

GET DON'T BE SUPPOSTING THEM

[Eric C]

reading the facebook comments is so amusing to me.

[jaxword]

reading the facebook comments is so amusing to me.

Does anyone really want James "I can rock the Hitler haircut" Economidis reproducing?

[EatinOlives]

I love this veil of "family values" and "traditional marriage". Just stop lying to yourselves and admit you're fucking homophobes.

[Ri'Orius]

While this is a nice outcome, is anyone else uneasy about the fact that it came about due to political shenanigans from a Chicago Alderman? I know "free speech" was just an excuse for the vast majority of the Freedom Eaters to hide their bigotry, but at the same time, I'm not sure I like the idea that the Chicago government is denying equal access based on political views...

[squidyj]

While this is a nice outcome, is anyone else uneasy about the fact that it came about due to political shenanigans from a Chicago Alderman? I know "free speech" was just an excuse for the vast majority of the Freedom Eaters to hide their bigotry, but at the same time, I'm not sure I like the idea that the Chicago government is denying equal access based on political views...

mmmm.... moreso for the practice of advocating for the suppression of rights which isn't so much a political view as it is a reprehensible action.

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

BBBBBBbbbbutttttt!!!!! BBbbut! But the people who continued to buy it said a boycott wouldn't do anything!

It didn't effect me, I ate there then and I'll eat there now.

That said are any of the people who said CFA was nasty food and EVERYONE who ate there was fat or opposed to gay rights now going to eat there?

[Loxley]

I love this veil of "family values" and "traditional marriage". Just stop lying to yourselves and admit you're fucking homophobes.

While I agree about the 'family values' excuses that these people constantly use, they're not homophobes; they're just assholes. I know the term "homophobe" has pretty much been adopted to refer to anyone who has anti-LGBT sentiments no matter what the reason, but I would actually argue that calling them homophobes is letting them off easy. These people are not afraid of gays like severe arachnophobes are afraid of spiders or mysophobes are afraid of germs/bacteria.

Arachnophobes don't hate spiders because the Bible says spiders are abominations.

Although I admit it would be funny if it did.

[Timedog]

I'm on my phone and can't make a decent new thread, but CFA has agreed to stop donating to anti-gay organizations, supposedly: http://chicagophoenix.com/2012/09/18...tment-of-gays/ Just want to give a quick shout out to everyone that was willing to make the difficult sacrifice of not eating a specific sandwich in order to take a stand against a wrongdoing. I understand if it was too hard for some of you to do, but I'm sure your hearts were in the right place.

Yeeeeaaahhhhhh, I can eat dat delicious, delicious chikkun again.

[lethial]

Everytime I read the topic all I can hear is this.

[Pimpwerx]

I never ate there anyway. Serves them right. I hope people continue their boycott.

That said, why can't we do shit like this to the oil companies? I've been boycotting Exxon/Mobil for over a decade now. PEACE.

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

I never ate there anyway. Serves them right. I hope people continue their boycott. .

Meaning you had no leverage and could be ignored.

[Blackace]

Does anyone really want James "I can rock the Hitler haircut" Economidis reproducing?

lol!

[Copernicus]

Why did the thread title get changed to CFA BTW?

[Mr. Enigma]

Why did the thread title get changed to CFA BTW?

Character limits.

[Battersea Power Station]

It didn't effect me, I ate there then and I'll eat there now.

Why do you think anyone wants this to have an effect on you? This was about stopping a large corporation's hateful practices, or at least slowing them down. I don't understand your viewpoint on the matter.

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

Why do you think anyone wants this to have an effect on you? This was about stopping a large corporation's hateful practices, or at least slowing them down. I don't understand your viewpoint on the matter.

Because the implication that if people did something they were special and if people didn't they did something wrong.

[Rayis]

Lol at those facebook comments, bigots gonna bigot

[SoulPlaya]

What a smart fucking company. Start a major controversy and get people to eat there like it's some kind of moral stance. Then, when the hype dies down, give up the nonsense and act like nothing happened.

Genius.

[Flynn]

Now we just have to boycott the assholes who went to Chick-Fil-A that day.

[ReBurn]

Lol at those facebook comments, bigots gonna bigot

I look and see that people are still posting stuff like "tastes like hate" and others just ignore them now.

[Mr. Enigma]

Facebook Reacts: Chick-Fil-A Pulls Anti-Gay Funding

[Hitokage]

Please remind me that this was a freedom of speech issue and not a bigotry issue. Homophobes showing their true colors.

I'm shocked, SHOCKED that they would hide their hatred under a more innocuous banner.

[GoldenEye 007]

I'm shocked, SHOCKED that they would hide their hatred under a more innocuous banner.

Hey is it still bannable for expressing passion for dead fried chicken?

[Hitokage]

Hey is it still bannable for expressing passion for dead fried chicken?

Not the point.

[Dead Man]

It didn't effect me, I ate there then and I'll eat there now. That said are any of the people who said CFA was nasty food and EVERYONE who ate there was fat or opposed to gay rights now going to eat there?

It wasn't about you.

[IrishNinja]

awesome news, now i can finally eat there too

Hey is it still bannable for expressing passion for dead fried chicken?

hey was that what you thought was going on in this thread?

[DR2K]

Doesn't look like a guy that parts easily with food.

[Jason Raize '75 - '04]

Not all the supporters of Chick-fil-A advocated their stance/comments on the basis of themselves being opposed to same sex marriage, at least that isn't what they said. There was several, including public figures like Huckabee, who defended the company on the basis of freedom of speech. In fact they emphasised this. Now that the decision has been reversed, I wonder if they will criticise it

[DR2K]

Not all the supporters of Chick-fil-A advocated their stance/comments on the basis of themselves being opposed to same sex marriage, at least that isn't what they said. There was several, including public figures like Huckabee, who defended the company on the basis of freedom of speech. In fact they emphasised this. Now that the decision has been reversed, I wonder if they will criticise it

Backing down to the liberal agenda! Free speech is dead!

[Mr. Enigma]

Backing down to the liberal agenda! Free speech is dead!

There have been a ton of comments like this on the FB page all day. lol

[Open Source]

mmmm.... moreso for the practice of advocating for the suppression of rights which isn't so much a political view as it is a reprehensible action.

Does this apply to gun control, which is currently a Constitutionally protected right? (as opposed to rights enshrined in regular laws or non-Supreme court decisions, or rights that haven't been officially recognized yet)

FWIW, I'm a gay marriage supporter. But also an anti-gay marriage free speech supporter.

[remnant]

Does this apply to gun control, which is currently a Constitutionally protected right? (as opposed to rights enshrined in regular laws or non-Supreme court decisions, or rights that haven't been officially recognized yet) FWIW, I'm a gay marriage supporter. But also an anti-gay marriage free speech supporter.

Shhhhh....don't say things like that

[IrishNinja]

Does this apply to gun control, which is currently a Constitutionally protected right? (as opposed to rights enshrined in regular laws or non-Supreme court decisions, or rights that haven't been officially recognized yet).

how exactly is marriage not constitutionally defined as a right? cant cite the exact case but this has been established prior. more to the point though: gun control =/= civil liberties of gays, for reasons that should be pretty obvious.

also, anti-gay marriage/hateful speech is still pretty free, as this was never actually about that.

[remnant]

how exactly is marriage not constitutionally defined as a right? cant cite the exact case but this has been established prior. more to the point though: gun control =/= civil liberties of gays, for reasons that should be pretty obvious. a.k.a i can't explain why but it just isn't okay also, anti-gay marriage/hateful speech is still pretty free, as this was never actually about that.

Well considering this alderman oposed CFA not based off of of public safety but purely personal objection to protected speech, yeah it is.

[FyreWulff]

While this is a nice outcome, is anyone else uneasy about the fact that it came about due to political shenanigans from a Chicago Alderman? I know "free speech" was just an excuse for the vast majority of the Freedom Eaters to hide their bigotry, but at the same time, I'm not sure I like the idea that the Chicago government is denying equal access based on political views...

Companies are not people and do not deserve the rights a person enjoys, because they're a piece of fucking paper in a filing cabinet in Delaware.

Despite what Republicans believe, companies aren't people, don't have free speech, and cities are well within their rights to control their zoning.

"Free Speech" isn't a skeleton key to do whatever you want.

[IrishNinja]

a.k.a i can't explain why but it just isn't okay.

are you serious with this mess? you're actually asking why gun control isn't the same thing as gays being treated as second-class citizens here.

aka that argument doesn't seem fundamentally valid in a way worth addressing, and if you're not being intellectually dishonest here and genuinely can't see why, i don't know if a proper combination of words + logic can actually reach you

[Open Source]

how exactly is marriage not constitutionally defined as a right? cant cite the exact case but this has been established prior. more to the point though: gun control =/= civil liberties of gays, for reasons that should be pretty obvious. also, anti-gay marriage/hateful speech is still pretty free, as this was never actually about that.

Same-sex marriage isn't a federal right and in fact is explicitly prohibited in some state constitutions.

Gun ownership has been a constitutionally protected right for over two centuries. Same-sex marriage hasn't even been significantly debated for more than a couple decades.

If someone is going to say that speech should be penalized or curtailed by government for advocating against a right that is only recognized in a few places (and only recently) and is explicitly not recognized in more places, then you should apply that same standard even more rigorously to rights that are enshrined in the national constitution (in a section called "the Bill of Rights", no less) and have been for a long time.

But you should really do neither, is my point.

[remnant]

but the employee's and owners do have rights, and the city blocking them on the grounds they did was an obvious overstep of their power.

The free speech defense only became popular becuase it was threatened. In the end that argument was proved right. It doesn't really matter though because nothing CFA agreed to is legally enforceable, which just reinforces how stupid Chicago is in the first place

[Open Source]

Companies are not people and do not deserve the rights a person enjoys, because they're a piece of fucking paper in a filing cabinet in Delaware. Despite what Republicans believe, companies aren't people, don't have free speech, and cities are well within their rights to control their zoning. "Free Speech" isn't a skeleton key to do whatever you want.

OK, so the CEO of Progressive Auto Insurance donates to Democrats (this is regarded as speech). Texas says, OK, Progressive Auto Insurance can no longer sell insurance in Texas.

You're cool with that?

[remnant]

are you serious with this mess? you're actually asking why gun control isn't the same thing as gays being treated as second-class citizens here. aka that argument doesn't seem fundamentally valid in a way worth addressing, and if you're not being intellectually dishonest here and genuinely can't see why, i don't know if a proper combination of words + logic can actually reach you

So you don't actually have an argument here.

Gun rights and gay rights are just not similar because they aren't the same, reasons why be damned. Nevermind that both are arguing for the same thing, protection from government overreach. So it's okay to argue suppression of one right and not the other.

[IrishNinja]

Same-sex marriage isn't a federal right and in fact is explicitly prohibited in some state constitutions.

i believe you misunderstand - obviously same-sex marriage isn't a federal right (yet), but marriage itself is, according to loving v virgina. that was what i was saying in the point you're addressing.

Gun rights and gay rights are just not similar because they aren't the same, reasons why be damned. Nevermind that both are arguing for the same thing, protection from government overreach. So it's okay to argue suppression of one right and not the other.

sure, this is about free speech, and gay rights are now somehow about gov't overreach, not a group discriminated against because of their orientation vs owners of firearms. that's an excellent way to frame things.

if you're actually going to pretend context doesn't exist and these things are the same merely for the sake of your argument, no, i don't have an argument to present to you. if my lack of a desire to indulge sophistry strikes you as a win in your column, feel free to stick that feather in your cap and find someone who enjoys that sort've thing. i'll not partake in such crimes against logic, for it has not wronged me.

[maharg]

FWIW, I'm a gay marriage supporter. But also an anti-gay marriage free speech supporter.

Was someone's free speech abridged somewhere or somehow?

[remnant]

sure, this is about free speech, and gay rights are now about gov't overreach, not a group discriminated against because of their orientation vs owners of firearms. that's an excellent way to frame things. if you're actually going to pretend context doesn't exist and these things are the same merely for the sake of your argument, no, i don't have an argument to present to you. if my lack of a desire to indulge sophistry strikes you as a win in your column, feel free to stick that feather in your cap and find someone who enjoys that sort've thing.

I'm sorry but are private companies banning you from getting married, or the govt? If a state said i couldn't get married, that would sound like govt overreach to me. It's exactly what happened in the supreme court case you cited. Loving vs Virginia, have you actually studied it?

Was someone's free speech abridged somewhere or somehow?

Not allowing them to open a buisness simply due to a gov bureaucratic disagreeing with your protected speech? Yeah i can't see how a judge would say that isn't a free speech issue.

[Dead Man]

OK, so the CEO of Progressive Auto Insurance donates to Democrats (this is regarded as speech). Texas says, OK, Progressive Auto Insurance can no longer sell insurance in Texas. You're cool with that?

Are you saying the CEO makes a personal donation, or the company makes one?

[maharg]

I'm sorry but are private companies banning you from getting married, or the govt? If a state said i couldn't get married, that would sound like govt overreach to me. It's exactly what happened in the supreme court case you cited. Loving vs Virginia, have you actually studied it?

Richard Loving and Mildred Loving weren't banned from getting married. They were just banned from getting married to each other. Just like gay men are allowed to get married... to a woman, amirite?

Not allowing them to open a buisness simply due to a gov bureaucratic disagreeing with your protected speech? Yeah i can't see how a judge would say that isn't a free speech issue.

I'm not sure aldermen are actually bureaucrats in any sense, but whatever. Did Chicago actually do anything legally to prevent Chick-fil-a from opening there or did an elected official just exercise his free speech to say that he'd like to prevent them from doing so?

Always funny when one person's free speech is more valuable than another's. Especially when that person isn't even a person.

And just to be a little less snarky, businesses are denied permits for moral reasons all the time. Ever wonder why there aren't strip clubs in a nice residential neighbourhood? Hint: it's not really about safety. You may think that's wrong, but in the end business licensing is an established part of the law and there's a lot that's arbitrary about it.

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

It wasn't about you.

They made it about me.