I like the attitude, the way Menino doesn't pull his punches in this letter, and I like the none too subtle threat about interfering with the permitting process. This is Boston, that's how we roll. But realistically, the fact of a fuckwad wanting to open a legal business is something that only the market should prevent. http://www.wbur.org/2012/07/25/menino-boston-memo-gay-marriage-chick-fil-a Oh, and DISCUSS!
It is rather disgusting that he would say no to an injection of money into the area. It is also rather telling that he thinks it is necessary for th government to interfere. Maybe he doesn't think Bostonians feel the way he does. Hopefully Chick-Fil-A will sue Boston. And Him personally. He certainly isn't a Christian, so there wouldn't be a scriptural issue with the suit.
I see you checked out the "I hate Bush" facebook page for talking points. You may be mistaken about the letter, though -- no ban hammer is in evidence.
An injection of "money" isn't worth an injection of hate and high cholesterol. If they don't like zoning laws, move to Texas. Interesting you think chickfila should sue god. Thou shalt not sue a fellow Christian?
Just because the CEO said some retarded shit doesn't mean the whole company is anti-gay, or that any individual restaurant is going to deny gays service. Chick-fil-A brings in money and it's stupid to ask them to leave.
What does gay marriage have to do with selling chicken? And if Boston "doesn't want" the Chick-fil-a there, then surely the market will communicate that message. The reality is that this just a local government official trying to control the thoughts of others. As long as Chick-fil-a meets the (legitimate) standards all businesses have to meet, they should absolutely be allowed to set up shop without undue hassle from this clown.
A single shop won't bring much, and let's be honest, the Boston economy is kind of the opposite of the rest of the world, which is to say it's on fire. One shop serving chicken and hate won't make a difference. This is all just politics. The citizens of Boston don't want it, and we will vote with our feet, but why not spare Shit-Fil-A the trouble of opening to fail. The mayor is doing them a favor.
Chick-fil-A is franchised. On top of that I'd bet Chick-fil-A would make a shit load of money even in Boston. The Mayor can say what he wants but as long as he makes no move to actually prevent them from opening it's none of his concern.
Well, it's more than just saying some stupid shit. The corporate side of Chick-Fil-A actively pours a shit-ton of money into anti-gay legislation. They're vesting capital into denying rights to same sex couples. In a pro same-sex marriage town like Boston, that leaves the chance for some serious shit to go down, especially on the ballot (though I believe rights shouldn't be voted upon in some kind of popular election). The problem with the market forces idea is that Chick-Fil-A is fucking huge, and this is becoming more of an ideological face off between them and civil rights organizations, which I could see as a reason for the company to keep a foothold in that area even if the revenue wouldn't support it.
Meh. I don't eat there, but let them open the fucking store. If it is unpopular, that location will go out of business. They can always up another one in Tulsa. They are all over the place. As long as they don't refuse to sell to certain customers, I don't see the problem. I disagree with their views but but they can waste their corporate profits on whatever they want. The chicken isn't even that good. Tastes about the same as chicken anywhere else IMO.
There's another element to this location. It's proximate to an area that's a huge tourist draw. Potentially not a single Bostonian could eat there and yet all the folks from Iowa would keep it going. The market might fail to correct the abomination. Perhaps heavy handed tactics are the better approach.
Nothing at all until the people selling the chicken start using the money to deny rights to another group of people. Just replace "gay" with "interracial" and if what's being said still sounds fine to you then by all means, go buy more chicken. What sucks is that there are a lot of individual franchise owners being caught up in this. Hopefully other restaurants are taking notes and will keep their politics quiet. I'm out on Chick-fil-a in the mean time.
Meh... This isn't some po-dunk down and out town we're talking about. This is Boston. There's probably a deli on every other corner that would give you better prepared chicken at a competitive price. So yeah... Jesus boy can take his chicken and shove it and no one in Boston would hardly notice.
There's a huge difference between my choosing to not buy a Chick-Fil-A sandwich and a thuggish government not allowing Chick-Fil-A to sell me a sandwich.
Typical leftism...... Heavy handed tactics..... Even the Boston Globe is against the Mayor on this issue even though they support Gay Marriage.
Only to a screaming princess liberal does, "We do not agree" sound like, "ah-HAAAAAYYYYYYYYYYYTE!" Because, see, that's how they roll. You must fall in line, you must agree and you must obey. Otherwise, you're a villain. A villainous villain.
He should not interfere in any way with the permitting process, but as far as the rest of the letter goes ... well, Boston is not a town that needs to desperately scramble for any business willing to locate there. If Hate-Fil-A doesn't occupy whatever space is in question, somebody else will.
I think some of you might not realize just how corrupt local politics are in Boston. This letter pretty much means there won't be a dick-fill-it in Boston. The fix is in. But I'm having trouble figuring out what's wrong with that. True, I gave lip service to the market in my first post, but what of democracy? Shouldn't the legally constituted voice of the people be able to act on behalf of the citizenry to oppose a business not in keeping with local community values?
And the lawsuits will fly. And what of those who support the other side? They don't matter? And if you're going to play the "Shouldn't the legally constituted voice of the people be able to act in heralding the citizenry to oppose a business not in keeping with local community values?" card will you say that when a city leader opposes a gay business or a business that supports gay rights as not in keeping with city values?
No more than the local community should use the legally constituted voice of the people be able act on behalf of the citizenry to oppose people whose beliefs and/or lifestyle are not in keeping with local community values.
If you start banning Chick-fil-A from putting up shops, what is to stop another group from banning a strip club or a Hooters for a similar reason?
