Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

When political correctness runs amok, it will look like the Mayor of Boston

When political correctness runs amok, it will look like the Mayor of Boston

The Mayor of Boston thinks he has the right to deny business permits to a business if he doesn’t like the views of the owners of the business on gay marriage.

From The Boston Herald:

Mayor Thomas M. Menino is vowing to block Chick-fil-A from bringing its Southern-fried fast-food empire to Boston — possibly to a popular tourist spot just steps from the Freedom Trail — after the family-owned firm’s president suggested gay marriage is “inviting God’s judgment on our nation.”

“Chick-fil-A doesn’t belong in Boston. You can’t have a business in the city of Boston that discriminates against a population. We’re an open city, we’re a city that’s at the forefront of inclusion,” Menino told the Herald yesterday.

“That’s the Freedom Trail. That’s where it all started right here. And we’re not going to have a company, Chick-fil-A or whatever the hell the name is, on our Freedom Trail.”

Read the whole article.  There is no allegation that Chick-fil-A discriminates either in employment or in servicing customers on the basis of sexual orientation.  In fact, Chick-fil-A affirms that it does not discriminate, but that’s not good enough for the Mayor:

“The Chick-fil-A culture and service tradition in our restaurants is to treat every person with honor, dignity and respect — regardless of their belief, race, creed, sexual orientation or gender,” the statement [from Chick-fil-A] read. “Going forward, our intent is to leave the policy debate over same-sex marriage to the government and political arena.”

But that isn’t cutting the mustard with Menino. He said he plans to fire off a letter to the company’s Atlanta headquarters “telling them my feelings on the matter.”

“If they need licenses in the city, it will be very difficult — unless they open up their policies,” he warned.

While a governmental entity may be able to regulate employment and business conduct as regards various groups, what gives the Mayor of Boston the right to punish a business because of what its owners think or the views they express?

There is a pernicious side to the political correctness which is being enforced on the issue of gay marriage.  The topic has been manipulated so that support for the unique status of traditional marriage in society has been equated with being “anti-gay.”

A writer at Mediaite plays the card:

Because, hey, who doesn’t love their chicken seasoned with delicious, unrepentant bigotry.

Once the issue was so formulated in the media and academia, it has become unacceptable on campuses and now in the City of Boston to express a view that traditional marriage is unique and worthy of a special status.

Regardless of your view on private boycotts of Chick-fil-A, such private boycotts are qualitatively different from a government official threatening the power of the state not because of the conduct of a company, but because of the thoughts expressed by its owners.

When we involve government as thought police we are in dangerous territory which supporters of the Mayor of Boston’s threats ignore.

If it is acceptable for the Mayor of Boston to deny business permits to a business whose owners express support for traditional marriage, would it also be acceptable for the Governors of and Mayors in the 30 states which have passed legislation or constitutional amendments rejecting gay marriage to deny business permits to companies whose owners support gay marriage?

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

LukeHandCool | July 21, 2012 at 12:49 pm

To paraphrase President Obama,

“Why can’t I just eat my chicken?”

How can it be discrimination when homosexuals have entered into marriage since the dawn of marriage?

How can it be discrimination when heterosexuals are not permitted to enter into marriage with a person of the same-sex?

Words matter.

And because progressive Left ideology has no respect for words and their meaning their abuse of the word bigotry is now as meaningless as the word racist.

For as long as I am alive I will continue to defend the meaning of marriage as a union between a man and a woman (the sperm and the egg, the yang and the yin, the masculine and the feminine) because words built upon God’s nature cannot be defied.

    scooby509 in reply to syn. | July 21, 2012 at 1:40 pm

    Look, I know the left is incapable of making an argument in any substantive debate without impugning the motives of the other side.

    But yours is still a specious argument, since the question is whether you can marry who you want to. Homosexuals did and do in fact marry the opposite sex to fulfill social obligations, but not having to have a marriage for those reasons would be the whole point of campaigning for social acceptance.

    But I think the gay rights people have missed that point as much as you did. After all, if they realized they were campaigning for social acceptance, they probably wouldn’t go to the courts to have marriage handed down by judicial fiat, and there wouldn’t be the gay pride marches that disgust and dismay the people they’re seeking acceptance from.

    Going back to the article, the question is whether being against gay marriage is inherently anti-gay. Given that there is a significant minority of gays who don’t want it, there are clearly anti-gay marriage arguments that are not anti-gay.

    But it’s not just a tiny minority that has a defensible argument against it. The left, having no coherent concept of rights, assumes that gay marriage is an inalienable right like speech. But there simply can’t be an inalienable right to something that requires social acceptance, since such acceptance is tied to your being a part of society. For example, the right to vote is alienable since it is contingent on your being a citizen, renounce your citizenship and you’re separated from the right to vote in that country.

    And social acceptance is a quid pro quo, so society is allowed to demand certain standards before it accepts people. We simply aren’t denigrating people by trying to work out what standards they should live up to, in fact, it’s quite the opposite. Accepting people without any standards treats them as though they’re children, which is denigrating.

      syn in reply to scooby509. | July 21, 2012 at 6:26 pm

      If social acceptance requires altering meaning then what is the point of defining anything?

      If meaning it allowed to be altered in order to accomodiate acceptance, then what happens to the meaning of Father and Mother?

      FOr example, if in achieving social acceptance the word ‘Parent’ is altered to ‘mean people who raise children’ then the natural course would be that the words Father and Mother are meaningless.

      Words have meaning and if we continue to abuse meaning then all that will remain is a society of nonsense.

      And a society of nonsense is the goal of political correctness. In a politically correct society everything can be then defined by those who hold all the power and authority over life. Case in point, the meaning of ‘racism’ has come to mean ‘anyone who disagrees with the Progressive Left’. And just so happens that the word ‘bigotry’ now means the exact same thing ‘anyone who disagrees with the Progressive Left’ which of course, is nonsense.

      Unfortunately because so many are fearful they might be offending the Progressive Left’s insanity this is where we are headed, towards a society of nonsense controlled by a collective groupthink redefining meaning for the purpose of social acceptance.

      And by the way; no, you cannot marry who you want to marry because sometimes the person you want to marry does not want to marry you, or is already married or is completely uninterested in marriage.

      At some point we all must enter adulthood and realize that we cannot have everything we want, the way we want and in the moment we want.

      And legally speaking, the fact remains that a homoseuxal can enter into marriage.

      Juba Doobai! in reply to scooby509. | July 21, 2012 at 10:23 pm

      “if they realized they were campaigning for social acceptance, they probably wouldn’t go to the courts to have marriage handed down by judicial fiat, and there wouldn’t be the gay pride marches that disgust and dismay the people they’re seeking acceptance from.”

      They realize that they want to cram their agenda down our throats. Go look at the Stonewall agenda. The nose in the tent was “tolerance”; now the elephant is within the tent, the demand is the delegitimization of traditional marriage. Their demand for tolerance for them hid their active disdain and hatred of the Church and heterosexuals, or “breeders” as they call us. The homosexuals know exactly what they are doing, and when they are done the whole social order will be reversed with them and their unnatural wants as primary.

      stefan in reply to scooby509. | July 25, 2012 at 3:17 pm

      I don’t assume that “gay marriage is an inalienable right, like free speech.” First, free speech is not inalienable. It is not a natural right, but rather a legal right flowing from the Bill of Rights and our own legal structure. It is socially constructed, and can be limited by regulation. To the extent that marriage is about an expression of one’s inherent personality, it is arguably much closer to an inalienable right than speech.

      Certainly the matter of what is inalienable is far from settled, but I will agree that “there simply can’t be an inalienable right to something that requires social acceptance” like marriage. The problem with your argument is that the proscriptions we place on alienable rights as a society are those that rationally relate to the exercise of the right If you give up citizenship, we can rationally argue that you are no longer part of our social contract and are obviously excluded from voting (and everything else). If you have your license taken away, it’s due to a behavior that demonstrates you cannot safely operate a vehicle. If you are too young or otherwise deemed unable to consent, then you are limited in your ability to make enforceable contracts (including marriage, in many states). If you are brother and sister, we rationally don’t allow marriage because we don’t want to bear the risk of socially supporting defective offspring (which are scientifically shown to be much more likely in such unions). I could go on.

      I’ve yet to hear a substantive argument as to how having opposite genders is part of a rational requirement that attaches to marriage. The very nature of the institution as defined by heterosexual behavior is enough to refute any such arguments. I’ve yet to hear enunciated a public interest argument against same sex marriage. It is part of the social contract of America that the rights and privileges we bestow can have limits but only when these limits align with a social interest beyond simple tyranny of the majority or tradition.

    Donald Douglas in reply to syn. | July 21, 2012 at 4:22 pm

    Great comments. This is something I’ve specialized in since Prop. 8 passed in 2008. The left, particularly on gay rights, is the most destructive force in society today. It’s more than political correctness. It’s the complete obliteration of anything that remotely stands in the way of gay hegemony in society. I wrote last night on the new assault on the Boy Scouts: ‘Twelve Years After Boy Scouts v. Dale, Homosexuals Escalate Extremist Attacks on Traditional Organization’. And from the post:

    “In fact, the radical homosexuals don’t want “parallel institutions” [of equal gay and straight]. They want to take over and fundamentally transform, as the president pledged, America’s traditional institutions. And the leftist’s couldn’t care less about constitutional niceties such as freedom of speech or freedom of association. Once the homosexual extremists start to tighten their grip — as they are now all over the nation with their hate-filled agenda — they just tighten until their targets are near death and frankly give up. In our upside-down world the so-called oppressed have become the oppressors, and they’ve got an Oppressor-in-Chief in the White House. Thank goodness O’s days are numbered. Soon people of values and decency can start rolling back the tide against the homosexual bigots and their disgusting Democrat allies.”

It’s unreal here in my state. Menino, Patrick and all in between pander to the homo lobby. The sad part is the assault on children. The homo teachers have special access to recruit kids at school and events out of school; see massresistance.org

It’s nice to try to be civil, but that has failed. It comes down to this: It’s us, or them. That vice has to go back in the closet. And Menino and Patrick need to be retired to places where they can’t cause any more damage.

    William A. Jacobson in reply to JerryB. | July 21, 2012 at 1:05 pm

    Unfortunately, comments like this one make it impossible to have a rational discussion, and play into the claim that being pro-traditional marriage means being anti-gay. You are just as bad a Menino, just on the other side of the issue.

      That is correct Professor. Words matter. On both sides. People can disagree without being disagreeable.

      casualobserver in reply to William A. Jacobson. | July 21, 2012 at 3:44 pm

      Professor, JerryB seems to be suffering from the same “fear of the other” syndrome that is so often used to explain all the polarizing political speech. Sadly even some of the brightest folks and others such as elected officials too easily fall into the same trap. It’s one thing to disagree with forcing cultural change/acceptance. To suggest a conspiracy to convert kids goes beyond reason and fact and into nearly pure emotion. Same with “vast right/left wing” conspiracies. Both sides speak and behave in ways to tease out these reactions in my experience. It’s a game with too many willing participants. And many frantically search for and find the next example, routinely – check out Alex Jones’ reaction to the Aurora mass murder, e.g.

I believe the problem isn’t that the mayor of Boston is a statist, self-righteous bully. The problem is that the people of Boston elected a statist, self-righteous bully to represent them. Unfortunately, this problem isn’t isolated to Boston.

    scott0317 in reply to Miata Shinsen. | July 22, 2012 at 2:07 pm

    I think you’re right. I do not believe there will be more than a whimper or two from Boston’s voters opposing this.

Support the ones in your area by eating there. I took my family there this week after I heard about the CEO coming out in support of traditional marriage.

http://bluecollarphilosophy.com/2012/07/eating-at-chick-fil-a-in-support-of-traditional-marriage-picture/

TrooperJohnSmith | July 21, 2012 at 1:01 pm

If you disagree with gay-marriage, you’re anti-gay? That’s a narrow box to put people in, you know?

These idiots and their camels keep getting further and further under my damn tent. It’s about time to get a rolled-up newspaper and whacking some camel nose!

(I know it rhymes! Don’t even go there!) 🙄

    Problem is one of set and subset. There is a subset of “anti-gay” within the larger set that is “anti-same-sex-marriage”.

    “If you disagree with gay-marriage, you’re anti-gay? That’s a narrow box to put people in, you know? ”

    If you disagree with a particular federal welfare program, you’re anti-poor. If you disagree with an instance of government-instituted racial preferences, you’re anti-black. If you disagree with forcing employers to pay for their employees’ birth control pills, you’re anti-woman. If you disagree with federal funding of government schools, you’re anti-education. If you disagree with federal funding of a particular kind of scientific research, you’re anti-science.

    And so on.

      pfg in reply to J. W.. | July 21, 2012 at 2:31 pm

      Similarly, if you fail to go to the local Walk for the Cure, then you’re for breast cancer. Don’t go the endless Anti-Violence Rallies. Then you must be for gun use against our children.

      Not willing to pay even more taxes? Then you’re anti-government. Not anti-big government, or anti-corrupt government. Meaning you don’t want any government. So you’re for anarchy in the streets. What kind of person are you?

      And very quickly will your position be turned into “You hate poor people,” “you hate cancer victims,”

      All of this knows no end.

    PhillyGuy in reply to TrooperJohnSmith. | July 21, 2012 at 3:19 pm

    If you disagree with Obama, you’re racist. If you don’t support gay marriage and support traditional marriage, you’re homophobic.

    And I thought I was a good person. I guess I’m wrong.

It just illustrates what some of us have known all along: despite their rhetoric about being strongly supportive of the 1st Amendment and of freedom of expression generally, in reality leftists/liberals/progressives are anything but that, and they really only support speech and expression that they agree with, and would proscribe and otherwise squelch by any means speech and expression they disagree with. And what good is that? It’s no freedom at all.

And the libs don’t get it, or at least choose not to.

    Conservative Beaner in reply to G Joubert. | July 21, 2012 at 1:36 pm

    I do find it ironic that the Mayor is banning Chick-Fil-A from the Freedom Trail for practicing their first amendment rights.

    Observer in reply to G Joubert. | July 21, 2012 at 2:28 pm

    “If they need licenses in the city, it will be very difficult — unless they open up their policies,” he warned.

    ______________

    That sound like a threat to me. The mayor is saying that a business that wants to obtain operating licenses from the city government will be denied those licenses (or unduly delayed or harrassed in obtaining the licenses) unless the owner of the business conforms his beliefs to the mayor’s, or stops expressing his beliefs in public.

    Perhaps someone should inform the mayor that what he is threatening is illegal and unconstitutional, and could subject the city of Boston to some very expensive lawsuits and legal judgments.

VetHusbandFather | July 21, 2012 at 1:03 pm

Great post Professor, my wife and I were explaining this same concept to a liberal relative. We treat homosexuals with the same dignity and respect as any other person, but we also believe that homosexuality is not right in the eyes of God. Instead many of the left hates us for our views, and call us bigots. I think this post is a fantastic example of just what my wife and I were trying to explain to this relative, hopefully we can get her to read it and see what we were talking about.

http://necsi.edu/projects/redsox/?p=3
Mumbles is dumb as a box of rocks. In 2004 when the Red Sox finally won the World Series, Mumbles came up with a parade plan that literally would have crushed people, I was afraid to take my kids. People spent the afternoon prior calling the police, then Governot Romney and any other outlet thought to be helpful. Romney jumped in and added three miles to the Parade route, knowing Mumbles plan might have killed people. I will always blame Mumbles for making me miss that parade, by the time Romney fixed it it was too late for me to make the trip.

John Roberts will find a way for them to deny permits based on the taxing power.

1. A writer at Mediaite plays the card:

Because, hey, who doesn’t love their chicken seasoned with delicious, unrepentant bigotry.

At the Leftist site I monitor, this kind of thing is applauded as insightful and devastating wit. It’s (supposedly) cool. Only a knuckledragger would refuse to be cool.

2. If it is acceptable for the Mayor of Boston to deny business permits to a business whose owners express support for traditional marriage, would it also be acceptable for the Governors of and Mayors in the 30 states which have passed legislation or constitutional amendments rejecting gay marriage to deny business permits to companies whose owners support gay marriage?

Of course not, because that’s the wrong kind of bigotry, equivalent to supporting slavery and Jim Crow.

You’ve never heard of the right kind of bigotry, you say? Sure you have: the Left calls it tolerance or inclusiveness (mandatory of course).

The homosexual behavior has no redeeming value to either society or humanity. However, until it reaches critical mass in a population, it can likely be tolerated. The behavior should not define the individual or the value of their dignity.

On the other hand, there is no legitimate reason to normalize a behavior which constitutes evolutionary dysfunction. It seems the owners of Chick-fil-A have a superior appreciation of reality than does the Mayor. The Mayor would do well to distinguish between the individual and their behavior, between normalization and tolerance.

Anyway, since homosexual behavior is not the only or most threatening dysfunctional behavior, I would imagine that many people who engage in similarly dysfunctional behaviors (e.g. promiscuity, pro-choice, etc.) would cooperate to protect their selfish interests.

Progressive Corruption is not about enabling but suppressing expression of competing interests.

The Police Chief of Aurora thanked Chic fil et among others for the free food they have provided to his officers over the past few days. What an insensitive bigot!

Politcal correctness is bullying with a smirk.

So now some kids won’t have entry level jobs that will give them skills that they can use to advance themselves. Way to go, jackass.

I still don’t understand why it’s fine for leftists to spew venom and hate and then yell at people across the fence for being bigots. Why do WE tolerate THEIR hate?

Drago’s First Law: No value the Collective seeks to impose on us applies to them.

Shaidle’s Law: When we do it, it is different.

Tolerance is an unknown to the Collective. What they really mean is APPROBATION (i.e., approval), and only on their terms.

Screw that.

Looks like I’ll be trying chick-fli-a.

I believe that God convicts people in their hearts of whatever sin they are guilty of. There are two main reactions people have in response. They either repent or they double down in their sin in defiance of God. Those who chose what the New Testament refers to as Darkness as opposed to the Light often lash out at people trying to live by Biblical principles because the very presence of any serious followers of God only increases the guilt they already internally feel before a Holy God. You don’t even have to say or do anything directed toward this lover of darkness for them to strike out in a ferocious manner against God fearing people. Because of their internal conflict, these people who often claim to be the epitome of tolerance cannot tolerate others who try to live Godly (holy) lives. I believe Mayor Menino is an example of this even though he probably would deny that he even believes in God.

theduchessofkitty | July 21, 2012 at 1:47 pm

By the same token, why doesn’t he order any Marriot hotels and inns within the Boston city limits to close immediately?

Well, the founder was a Mormon, as his family, and of course, many Mormons donated in favor of CA’s Prop 8…

Follow this logic to its conclusion, and lots of people will lose their jobs and careers.

Besides, is it a crime to be a Southern Baptist in Boston? Maybe he would like to clarify that…

MaggotAtBroadAndWall | July 21, 2012 at 1:52 pm

Great post. I have a couple of unrelated comments.

While extolling the virtues of the Freedom Trail, the irony that the mayor wants to deprive Chik-Fil-A and the people of Boston economic freedom seems to escape him. Why is he so afraid to let the people of Boston decide whether they want to patronize the business or not? As I always say, individuals vote with their dollars every day and by doing so they have the ultimate power, collectively, to decide which industries, companies, and products fail and which succeed. The liberal press will inform the public about the Chik-Fil-A owner’s views. The public can then decide whether the owner’s stand for traditional marriage is so repugnant and offensive to their own values that they can then choose not to spend their dollars on Chik-Fil-A’s delicious chicken. Let the wisdom of the market sort it out, instead of a wannabe dictator who wants to impose his values on everybody else and deprive Bostonians of economic freedom.

My second comment is to relay a post from the most pro-traditional marriage intellectual out there today, and that is Princeton professor Robert P. George. He gives me hope that we can preserve this sacred institution of traditional marriage. It’s kinda long, and it made its way to Memeorandum yesterday, so some people have probably already read it. But if not, it’s worth your time:

http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2012/07/5884?utm_source=RTA+George+Marriage&utm_campaign=winstorg&utm_medium=email

    MaggotAtBroadAndWall in reply to MaggotAtBroadAndWall. | July 21, 2012 at 1:54 pm

    Sorry about the misspelling of the company’s name. I thought they spelled chick without the “c”. Should have double checked before posting.

Menino has become an OBOZO mini-me DICTATOR and, like his doppelganger, he will ideologically select which laws and regulations he chooses to enforce and how he will enforce them. The current leftists who cheer such behavior are IDENTICAL to the crowds that yelled their support for Adolf and his brown shirts at the beginning of his rise, while those that sit passively by and don’t speak out against this atrocious behavior better think about Auschwitz.

I see this kind of thing, and I wonder if we’re just too polite, even now. Buycotts are all well and good, but what we are fighting is malicious (dictating who can have a business and who can’t because you like or don’t like what they THINK, their fundamental religious values and morals?). Unreal abuse of power, thought policing, and general nastiness (even evil).

Luckily, I no longer live in MA and can get a tasty Chick-Fil-A quite easily here, but is that really enough to combat what we face?

    Browndog in reply to Fuzzy. | July 21, 2012 at 2:55 pm

    No.

    I’ll say it again, and again, and again.

    Lawrence v Texas opened us up wide to have the full thrust of the deviant sex agenda shoved up our backsides.

    “Acceptance” turns to “preference” turns to “mandatory”.

    Let’s be clear what we are dealing with: A perverse, unnatural, voluntary sex act

    Further, the repulsiveness towards homosexual acts is hardly confined to those who quote scripture:

    hey, the Bible says it’s wrong. Other than that, I’m cool with it

    Get real.

    Not saying it’s not justified, but it seems to me that some are just looking for an “acceptable” reason to oppose the homo agenda without confronting the underlying issue.

    Same thing on the other side. All the fluffy, flowery reasons why homosexuals are “normal….fabulous”, all the while glossing over the disgusting act itself.

    I’ll tell you what-gay sex people. We don’t care about your sex life.

    Make the same deal with us that we made with you in the ’70’s.

    LEAVE US ALONE.

    That should just about fix it.

casualobserver | July 21, 2012 at 2:22 pm

Menino is always looking for his next 15 minutes. Even though it is excruciating to listen to him speak for any length of time, he never shies away from any time he can get in front of a camera.

And the progressive definition of bigotry is simply any attitude that doesn’t meet their view of “fair”, “correct (PC)”, or “acceptable”. More importantly, bigoted actions against those whom they deem bigots is appropriate. In this case, progressives have once again demonstrated that words that are offensive CAN and SHOULD be met with a more severe reverse action. If you speak, we will go after your wallet and your livelihood. Nevermind that you you may not have taken any action but only spoke. See, their actions are “honorable” even if based on their dislike (hate?) of you. No matter what the consequences of their reaction, it is righteous in their minds. No debate. Just punishment.

I seem to recall something, somewhere, about equal protection of the laws. That seems relevant here. Maybe the mayor should have someone look it up for him. He doesn’t seem familiar with it at all.

    Browndog in reply to JayDick. | July 21, 2012 at 3:13 pm

    No, he’ about got it.

    Equal protection of the gay agenda.

    There will be no waivers for traditional customs and values in Boston.

    Not on his watch.

So is the next step to discriminate against the population of Bible Thumpers (like me), who take scripture at its Word? But that would be ok. Seeing as it is the gov’ doing it.

With respect, Prof, I may understand where JerryB is coming from. On this, and multiple other issues, we traditionally minded folks have for decades had liberal crap crammed down our throats. We The People in California stated our views on the gay marriage issue, only to have our views declared unconstitutional by a gay federal judge. Attempting to maintain our way of life, even in the once protected area of our own minds, is becoming impossible. Our country is on the brink of losing its once beloved nature. Not everyone will just sit back and say: “Oh well, maybe we can stop this through elections.” It is hard to regain lost ground by always playing defense.

Agreed, most of what drives Menino is political correctness run amok, but traditional values, i.e. corruption, may also play a role.

Are Chick-fil-A’s competitors lobbying to keep the company out of Boston?

Who does he think he is, Mayor Bloomberg?

The mayor opens up Boston to a lawsuit, I think. After a rejection or two, Chick-fil-A can charge a violation of its speech rights, and they’ll have public statements of the mayor as proof of intent. Ordinarily, businesses prefer to stay out of court, but this one looks so easy that they should be able to win without diverting much management time.

What am I missing?

It might be worthwhile to ask the mayor where he got his information. My 17-year-old comes up with some of the absolute damnedest things, and he is convinced that the Chick-Fil-A and the Salvation Army think gays should die (!) and that Mitt Romney has promised that if he is elected, every computer will have a porn filter.

His major news connection is Reddit, and 4chan is known for creating stampedes.

    Moe4 in reply to Valerie. | July 21, 2012 at 9:20 pm

    You need to take responsibilty for teaching your kid the Constitution. I threw this by my seventeen year old he said it was cenorship.

      stefan in reply to Moe4. | July 25, 2012 at 3:31 pm

      You might need to also re-teach your son the Constitution. It’s not censorship. My son and I were discussing this and he pointed out that until a restaurant applies for a permit and is denied, this is just political rhetoric. Even if permits are denied and a lawsuit is brought, the constitutional issues brought up would not have to do with freedom of speech being abridged.

The world according to enlightened progressives:

You didn’t are not allow to build that yourself. Someplace along the way you had will be forced to get some help (or a permit or something) from me [so you had better not mess up by saying anything with which I might disagree].

I’ve always fancied the fantasy of dividing the country in half-

I’d even give the libs their choice on which half.

They can build their own roads and bridges. Their own government. Their own industries.

And we will have ours.

In short order, theirs will be a scene straight out of Idiocracy. Ours will be a scene straight out of….um..America.

“Political correctness” was the opening salvo in an internal fascist movement in our country. People are jumping on movements on an immature emotional basis, blinding themselves to the fact they are aiding in the destruction of their own freedoms. This is exactly what the left has planned for years. People not on the left using the term “political correctness” have become unwitting stooges, and are part of the problem.

It’s as bad as stooging for the left by referring to conservative states “red.”

Stop it.

Mayors in Boston, New York, and Chicago are stalwarts of rule by elite. Menino should have no say in who opens a business. If the gas bill is paid, open the door and sell your chicken.

Yesterday the Daily Caller quoted Rham Emanuel in Chicago ..’But I can, I do, create the atmosphere and the environment where they can succeed or not’

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/#ixzz21IO4iS4D

Too much power.

1. Whatever happened to the First Amendment?
2. How did we come to this point — where are our “conservative leaders?” Why is our side such a bunch of lily-livered cowards?
3. Why are all the traditional-faith churches (the ones who haven’t officially sold out to “modernism” yet)? The clergy have been as silent as the grave ever since the legislature rammed through gay “marriage.” Doubtless these ecclesiastical “leaders” are worried about offending their leftist wacko buddies down at the Democrat Party hall.

If it is acceptable for the Mayor of Boston to deny business permits to a business whose owners express support for traditional marriage, would it also be acceptable for the Governors of and Mayors in the 30 states which have passed legislation or constitutional amendments rejecting gay marriage to deny business permits to companies whose owners support gay marriage?

In my opinion, yes, it would. In my opinion, however, neither is acceptable. Nor, in my opinion, is either constitutional. I believe that both the first and fourteenth amendments to the US Constitution mean that a person’s opinions cannot be taken into account in deciding whether to grant a license for that person’s business. Methinks that the city of Boston could be looking at a suit under the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment if they stick with this position.

    Browndog in reply to Iowa Jim. | July 21, 2012 at 8:29 pm

    You can’t honestly sit here and say that we are still a nation of laws…in your opinion.

    You, an Iowan, that provided the spark that ignited “hope & change”.

    Remember, the day before the election, when Obama was leading heavily in the polls, and announced to a cheering crowd “We are on the eve of fundamentally changing America..”

    What the hell did you think he meant?

    ’bout time you you started dealing with the world you live in–post Constitutional America

I wasn’t an Iowan in 2008. I was born in Illinois, but have lived most of my life to date in Silicon Valley (including 2008).

In 2008, I thought that Obama was an empty suit. I may have been the first person to refer to him on the web in those terms. I will readily admit that Obama has turned out to be even worse than that; he’s been an empty suit who wants to ruin the USA (and, I must admit, has been doing quite an effective job of that). I voted for John McCain, and, while he wasn’t my idea of a good choice for President, there was no question in my mind that he would be a better President than Obama; there still isn’t.

I’ve been dealing with the world that I live in. I left California because state and, to a lesser extent, local government was irresponsible and corrupt. I’ve been investigating what it takes to move to a different country in the event that Obama is re-elected.

    Browndog in reply to Iowa Jim. | July 21, 2012 at 10:58 pm

    I appreciate that you responded, given I was a tad harsh.

    That said, where are you going to run to, Jim?

    As the sub-header on Canada Free Press says..

    “Without America there is no free World”

    ..Kinda the point of the entire exercise, if you know what I mean.

    No place to run.

    Having spent time in other “free” nations (Australia, England, etc), I can tell you that despite the damage done by the Obama Administration, you are still in the best country where freedom is concerned. The problem with the majority of people of other nations is that they see government as a positive force, much like our liberal brethren here in the US. At least here there is still a significant portion of the population that see government as a necessary evil, that needs to be limited and not glorified.

    Stay here Iowa Jim. It literally is the world’s only hope for true freedom and we need you.

IMHO, Chick-filet should just sell chicken and keep their mouths shut about personal politics and beliefs. These idiots, like all of Hollywood, sports figures, etc. spout off their beliefs and lose half or more of their customers and/or fans. I don’t care which side of the aisle these people sit on, democrat or republican. To say anything like this is stupid. I understand there is such a thing as free speech but what’s the use of turning off your customers and/or fans?We are a divided country and it doesn’t take much to make people angry.

L.N. Smithee | July 21, 2012 at 10:43 pm

This anti-Chick-Fil-A stuff is a virus spreading across the country, spread by a concurring, compliant news media.

Here in Northern California, a gay activist solicited donations for the cost to challenge an already-approved permit for a Chick-Fil-A drive-thru in the Silicon Valley town of Mountain View. He openly admits that nobody can legally keep Chick-Fil-A out of town on the basis of its President’s personal or political beliefs, so he’s providing a fig leaf argument that there is a some danger to bicycle riders in approving a new drive-thru (bold mine):

This is not just a restaurant: They also fund hate. In particular, they fund hate of the gay members of our town and their families.

Is Chick-Fil-A anti-gay? Its president, Dan Cathy, happily assures its customers: “Guilty as charged!” (Los Angeles Times article: http://www.latimes.com/business/money/la-fi-mo-chick-fil-a-gay-20120718,0,3020372.story )

But being a bunch of hateful bigots is no crime in America where the First Amendment protects the rights of bigots to be evil.

We cannot win on any claim based upon this evil company’s hateful actions against minorities.

But, we can fight the land use change and the increased danger to our population from cars diving up and over the sidewalks to get to fast food – a danger that is not worth the risk to our otherwise bicycle and pedestrian friendly city.

How fair has news coverage of the Mountain View situation been? This fair: The San Jose Mercury-News, on the webpage containing its “news” story about the anti-Chick campaign, posted apropos of nothing a recipe posted by a YouTube user about how to make a copycat Chick-Fil-A sandwich (“The Chick-Fil-Gay”).

Also: For people that had any reason to doubt that Mike Huckabee’s “more conversation, less confrontation” approach to talk radio produces an end result with the substance of soap bubbles, listen to him allow Fred Sainz, a Chick-Fil-A-bashing rep from the so-called Human Rights Campaign, to first butter him up and then to eat his lunch. The link to the hour is here, via KSFO.com; the interview begins at 34:00.

Insurrection readers might enjoy hearing the wisdom of Mayor Menino from this website of audio clips, provided courtesy of talk host and Herald columnist Howie Carr: http://www.mumblesmenino.us/

Homosexuality goes against nature….plain and simple. If not, there would be no “male” nor “female”.

Midwest Rhino | July 22, 2012 at 11:29 am

A main problem is the Orwellian changing of the word “marriage”, and the public school’s instruction that basically states, Christians are bigots for not accepting the state “religion”.

The word is as old as the hills, and is fundamental to essential understanding of family. Of course Obama just told us we are an “American family”. But this whole notion that the government is a parent is destructive and coercive. We do not have one set of family beliefs dictated to us by our (fascist) government. (though the left is trying to program our kids in the leftist ways)

One gay couple that I used to hang with in my little bar sports league (I’m not gay, just a regular bar, where being gay was not an issue), moved out of town after both were wounded by some black kid, in their front yard, right on St. Charles (where the street cars go). They weren’t shot for being gay, but because this kid was a punk wanting money.

That couple would not have benefitted much if they could legally be deemed “married”. But it seems to me a key bonding agent in the black community is the church. Does this kid really need to learn from government that the fundamental beliefs of his church are wrong, that his mother and grandmother are bigots? Considering Trayvon’s texting, I think more church and a family unit would have been helpful. But the radical left is systematically tearing down the church, and/or marginalizing it, block by block.

Government can treat gay unions equally, without changing our language to comply with a radical political agenda. But if the goal of special rights for marriage (pension or medicare sharing) is somehow to protect the family, and to protect the Mother that has raised children, is a gay couple really equal? Maybe the whole survivor benefit thing should be revisited, and we should quit transferring pension and Medicare payments to the surviving spouse, except for parents that actually fulfill that role.

I still appreciate the Bible and the wisdom of the ages, despite recognizing some fallibility. But perhaps that wisdom recognizes a tendency for looser sexual norms to eventually translate into open “lasciviousness”. I suppose the gay pride parades and public nudity issues in San Fran might be an example. But in society as a whole, the sexualization of even young kids does not seems healthy.

There are many reasons to oppose laws that standardize terminology that changes our language, to equate gay marriage with all marriage that results in birthing and child rearing, with certain gender roles. As I understand it, even most gay couples mimic these roles to some extent, yet want to devalue the real thing for political ends.

TLDNR version: government mandated religion is bad 🙂

    stefan in reply to Midwest Rhino. | July 25, 2012 at 3:57 pm

    I don’t agree completely with your reasoning, but I do appreciate that you at least make a distinction between a couple that has no offspring (natural or adopted) and a couple that does. To me, this seems to be the more rational and legally defensible position, and one that would not be that difficult to implement and govern.

pilgrim1949 | July 23, 2012 at 9:42 am

I seem to remember some loquacious (easily confused with eloquent) orator during the last Presidential campaign clearly stating that he himself personally believed that marriage was something that should be reserved for being between a man and a woman.

Ozymandias-on-the-Potomac (who currently occupies the People’s Outhouse) might remember who said those rather clear and unambiguous (a rare and unintended-for-sure anomaly for him) words…

Nah, that was then, this is now in more desperate vote-grubbing times.

First point: what Mayor Menino did is profoundly stupid and is political correctness run amok. The article is spot on. Many of the comments in this thread, though, seem to be grounded in some grand delusions about gays, gay marriage, and what it means to be American.

This might surprise you, but many gay couples (including me and my partner) are very traditional and very conservative. We adopt and raise children, are Christian and attend church every week, are involved in our community, and don’t take “pride” in anything except hard work, charity, and how our children behave. We don’t march in parades. Maybe we should; perhaps our invisibility has caused you to think we don’t exist. We don’t want to have three way marriages, we don’t have orgies, and we don’t obsess about sex. We care about young kids because they’re the future, just like you do. And we try to be careful about where we spend our money but don’t need the government to be a watchdog for us. We’re often pretty libertarian and distrusting of government and politicians (can’t imagine why!). Certainly we care that we spend our time and money on a society and government that still regularly treat us pretty shabbily, but that’s just because we don’t like hypocrisy.

When I look at our family, I have a hard time figuring out what is not traditionally American or Christian about us. But the law almost everywhere says we aren’t. I know of marriages in which there is spousal abuse, child abuse, drug abuse, and known mutual infidelity. I know married couples who have no interest in having kids and ensured this through surgery; they simply got married because it made good business sense. But, somehow, those relationships are socially superior and mine is inferior. My family probably looks a lot more like yours, and maybe even a lot more traditional, than you’d be comfortable admitting. You might have trouble admitting just how much more qualified for special status my family is than yours. You’re always arguing about how important traditional marriage is for its societal benefits, but when it comes time to define its boundaries you seem quite preoccupied with bedroom activities.

Yes, marriage is an institution that can bring a lot of benefits–important society building benefits–to this country. That should be rewarded. But it is also an institution that can be abused and denigrated. Having two people be opposite sex or same sex is not what is going to determine whether a society has an interest in giving benefits to that relationship. There are very easy ways to set up a system in which we can decide if two people should get access to marriage, but it would probably involve a lot of you never having that right or having a very limited ability to divorce. But you’re the majority, so you make the rules.

Honestly, I’m tired–as an American and as a human being–of having my sexual orientation used as a proxy for what my marriage and my family contributes to this society and how we should be rewarded. Many of you like to fancy yourselves as proud conservatives and true Americans fighting against a “gay-stapo” (however inappropriate that reference is, as many of my veteran relatives would point out) and a progressive agenda. In reality, your position is the one progressing away from what is truly American.

I’m already waiting for the irrational, boilerplate counter-arguments and ad hominem attacks.

beanyncecil | July 26, 2012 at 1:56 pm

I haven’t heard a word about either of the mayors blocking Muslim-owned businesses from locating in their cities even though it’s well-known how women and gays are considered by most persons in that religion. Therefore, I can only conclude that the mayors have not taken a pro-gay position–no, what they have actually done is taken an anti-Christian stance. And if you actually study message boards where most of the posts are by gays, you will find there is almost never a word about the Muslim treatment of gays on them, even though executions of gays are known to occur in Muslim nations. It appears that either many gays are more anti-Christian than anything else, or they are afraid to say anything about Islam. I guess their willingness to stand up for their rights goes only as far as their ability to find someone they believe they can easily bully–usually a Christian.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend