Hey hey hey, Timmay's got something to say!

[dare2be]

Very good points, Sabresfan.

If told to leave, customers will have to invoke Proverbs 25:21

 

[SLY]

So this freedom only applies when the CEO of Chick-fil-a espouses his views? I shouldn't get the freedom to choose what to do with my money? That's all people are doing. It's like people think this is the first boycott for a social issue in the history of the world. This is not a new concept.

People personally boycott shit ALL the time for various reasons when businesses piss them off. This business just pissed a lot of people off in one fell swoop.

If I want to organize a Facebook event rallying around how much I hate Olive Garden because I think their logo is stupid, I am perfectly within my rights to do that and encourage a boycott. Of course, I'm unlikely to gather a fuckton of support for such a cause. If profits are "gangbanged", then that just means a lot of people find this cause worthwhile.

Have you read about boycotts before? You seem to think this is some tragedy; it's the goddamn point. I don't have to spend at a business for whatever arbitrary reason I decide. There's a purpose to why companies pour millions upon millions of dollars into their reputations. There are infinite reasons why people choose where to buy things - price, quality, atmosphere, customer service, and a lot of people want to feel good about where they spend their money. It's not the top reason most consumers buy, but it's not exactly difficult for people to go to one of the hundred other fastfood chains within a 20 mile radius.

I'm curious as to how you think you I should spend my money. Design a wheel with every fastfood place listed near me and spin every time so it's nice and fair for all those poor struggling CEO's?


Ps. I have no problem with Olive Garden's logo. I don't eat there because I hate the food (another consumer option that I get to exercise).

HOLY FUCK!!! WHERE THE FUCK DID I SAY THAT YOU GAY PEOPLE SHOULD HAVE TO SPEND YOUR MONEY AT FUCKING CHICK-FIL-FUCKING-A?

Please, quote my post, find it, I fucking want to see this. Piss the fuck off.

 

[SLY]

lol at anyone thinking anyone of any race, creed or gender HAS to spend money somewhere. I fucking said people should not be causing a scene outside of the establishments. I specifically said the correct way to boycott the place is by not spending money there. Read.

 

[loki604]

HOLY FUCK!!! WHERE THE FUCK DID I SAY THAT YOU GAY PEOPLE SHOULD HAVE TO SPEND YOUR MONEY AT FUCKING CHICK-FIL-FUCKING-A?

Please, quote my post, find it, I fucking want to see this. Piss the fuck off.

You said this:

I feel a company shouldn't have its business profits gang banged for the CEO of the company expressing his beliefs. I am not really for or against it.

In what other way am I supposed to read that other than you don't think it's right for "profits" being "gangbanged"? This applies in most situations, but if there is "gangbanging" here than gay people are the ones doing it. So if you feel that this "gangbanging" of "profits" is wrong, then you were saying that gay people shouldn't boycott and take profits for something the CEO said.

You can offer another intepretation, though I may respond with, "Simple! Wait, no it isn't. That's needlessly complicated."

 

[SLY]

That means blocking business, deterring customers that still want to eat there. You have every right in the world to not eat there. Perhaps I have this all wrong, but from the pics I have seen, people were crowded all over the business' property with signs proclaiming their sexual orientation. Creating "Kiss Days" or whatever the hell it is they are doing today (or yesterday). Business should not be blocked. That is what I was trying to say. Again, I am going by pics that I saw on TV the other day. That should not be allowed. If they want to be across the street, so be it, but people should not be on the property.

 

[loki604]

That means blocking business, deterring customers that still want to eat there. You have every right in the world to not eat there. Perhaps I have this all wrong, but from the pics I have seen, people were crowded all over the business' property with signs proclaiming their sexual orientation. Creating "Kiss Days" or whatever the hell it is they are doing today (or yesterday). Business should not be blocked. That is what I was trying to say. Again, I am going by pics that I saw on TV the other day. That should not be allowed. If they want to be across the street, so be it, but people should not be on the property.

I'll have to see some links or something about this actually disrupting business (beyond ew gross homos are around). I'm not saying it hasn't happened, but I'm not informed enough right now to comment on it.

 

[SLY]

Like I said, my comments are only coming from still shots I saw on one of the news channels I was watching at the time.

 

[elocomotive]

I didn't say that. That IS how the people should be protesting the company. Not creating "Kiss Days" outside the establishment or whatever the fuck they're doing.

Again, free speech (as long as it's decent).

 

[SLY]

Again, free speech (as long as it's decent).

You are ok with people protesting on the business' property?

 

[elocomotive]

lol at anyone thinking anyone of any race, creed or gender HAS to spend money somewhere. I fucking said people should not be causing a scene outside of the establishments. I specifically said the correct way to boycott the place is by not spending money there. Read.

I did, you said...

I feel a company shouldn't have its business profits gang banged for the CEO of the company expressing his beliefs.

Your being kind of inconsistent.

 

[SLY]

I did, you said...



Your being kind of inconsistent.

Not at all. That was referring to people blocking business outside of the establishment that I am pretty sure I had seen on TV. That should be, and I am pretty sure is, illegal. I was not talking about people having to spend their money there, that is just fucking retarded.

 

[elocomotive]

You are ok with people protesting on the business' property?

Depends on the manner. If they have 80 people jammed into a restaurant with protest signs, that's not legal. They'd need a permit to "assemble" and protest nearby. If a gay couple goes into a Chick-Fil-A and makes out, they aren't violating any laws I'm aware of. They could run afowl of local laws against loitering and again, I support the enforcement of those laws. Well shit, I took an oath to.

 

[SLY]

Depends on the manner. If they have 80 people jammed into a restaurant with protest signs, that's not legal. They'd need a permit to "assemble" and protest nearby. If a gay couple goes into a Chick-Fil-A and makes out, they aren't violating any laws I'm aware of. They could run afowl of local laws against loitering and again, I support the enforcement of those laws. Well shit, I took an oath to.

lol, I'm pretty sure the pics I saw people were gathered in the parking lots and around the building with protest signs and shit. I am pretty sure that is illegal, no?

 

[dash]

They could run afowl of local laws against loitering and again, I support the enforcement of those laws. Well shit, I took an oath to.

Running afowl in Chick-Fil-A?!? That's pretty good, eloco...

 

[elocomotive]

lol, I'm pretty sure the pics I saw people were gathered in the parking lots and around the building with protest signs and shit. I am pretty sure that is illegal, no?

Depends where they were. There have been a number of Supreme Court cases on what land is public, quasi-public, and private. In some cases, the parking lots and areas near a private businesses are considered public areas for the purposes of free speech. Basically, the courts have tried to balance the issues of allowing businesses to continue to operate, the public's right to effectively protest (in other words, not having to protest 100s of yards away from the business or whatever they object to), and public safety (not really at issue here).

Here is one. I read a case that addresses it more directly, but can't remember the name or find it right now.

 

[elocomotive]

Running afowl in Chick-Fil-A?!? That's pretty good, eloco...

I was hoping someone would pick that up! Haha.

 

[Comeds]

A mayor, acting as a mayor, should not be openly saying this though. That is a problem. Given the state of our economy, and unemployment rates being pretty shitty, business should not be turned away because someone is exercising their rights. Had the mayor been in casual clothes, and not acting as a government official, then fine... But that wasn't/isn't the case. The government should have no say in this matter. While I disagree with the LBGT community "occupying" (the new planking?) Chick-Fil-A's in protest, that is their right.

Planking is here forever, and there will be no need for a 'new' one. Ever.

 

[elocomotive]

Planking is here forever, and there will be no need for a 'new' one. Ever.

kbvhlj bj,fihhjkuhvkuuuuuuuuuuufdghdkljklop[olkljkjk

 

[Comeds]

I am constantly and consistently amazed how often 'free speech' is interpreted as being able to say whatever one wants with no repercussions at all.
Cathy says this, and some people do not like it and do not want to go there anymore and some say those are against free speech. Gilbert Gottfried makes stupid jokes at a bad time, gets fired from Aflac and I keep reading how we do not have free speech in this country "anymore".

 

[elocomotive]

Sorry, I was planking and it's hard to type with the back of your hand while doing so.