[finn4life]

I am not part of this debate but Irviding you need sources to prove what you're saying, how do we know what you are saying isn't just hearsay about laws you heard of.

[Iminicus]

QUOTE (finn4life @ Sunday, Jul 29 2012, 20:24)

I am not part of this debate but Irviding you need sources to prove what you're saying, how do we know what you are saying isn't just hearsay about laws you heard of.

Irividing can't support his claims, which is why he hasn't returned to this debate. He was talking hearsay from the beginning.

[Irviding]

Can you stop being a stuck up, homophobic, xenophobic reactionary asshole for once in your life? Your attitude is so blood boiling and frankly unnecessary it makes me want to jump through the screen at you. In large cities in the US (population over 500 thousand usually though there are some exceptions) the government is run in what is called a mayor-council system. In NY, Chicago, and especially Boston, the mayor is the ultimate authority. The only thing he cannot do without the permission of the council is pass a budget. He appoints every head of city departments, which of course would include building/permitting departments. As the mayor, he can use his authority over those individuals he appointed to decide who is and is not issued permits. The council can do that as well though it would be softer influence. Also keep in mind that council members in all three cities (Especially san francisco) the councils are going to be just as liberal, if not more, than the mayors in most cases. How about instead of reading WND and Fox News all day you find other ways to educate yourself, rather than getting into a debate with a polysci/economics major over the intricacies of how a mayoral system works by using wikihow articles as your backup.

[Iminicus]

QUOTE (Irviding @ Sunday, Jul 29 2012, 22:31)

Can you stop being a stuck up, homophobic, xenophobic reactionary asshole for once in your life? Your attitude is so blood boiling and frankly unnecessary it makes me want to jump through the screen at you. In large cities in the US (population over 500 thousand usually though there are some exceptions) the government is run in what is called a mayor-council system. In NY, Chicago, and especially Boston, the mayor is the ultimate authority. The only thing he cannot do without the permission of the council is pass a budget. He appoints every head of city departments, which of course would include building/permitting departments. As the mayor, he can use his authority over those individuals he appointed to decide who is and is not issued permits. The council can do that as well though it would be softer influence. Also keep in mind that council members in all three cities (Especially san francisco) the councils are going to be just as liberal, if not more, than the mayors in most cases. How about instead of reading WND and Fox News all day you find other ways to educate yourself, rather than getting into a debate with a polysci/economics major over the intricacies of how a mayoral system works by using wikihow articles as your backup.

All I want from you is SOURCES to back up your claim. Nothing more nothing less. But you can't seem to grasp that simple little thing. Instead, you resort to naming calling and political attacks, things that I am refraining from.

So, Irviding, WHERE ARE YOUR SOURCES? If you are a poly sci/ economics major you should be able to quote from your texts with evidence. But you seem incapable of such an act.

Now, on to the personal attacks. Very mature Mister Poly Sci/ Economics Major. Is that what they teach you? If you can't support your argument attack the other person? Or do you just lack basic comprehension of what I am asking?

I'll make it easy.

Imi want you to put up support for arguments. Imi want you to show him where he is wrong with evidence. Imi don't care for anything else.

Do you understand that?

If not, please kindly remove yourself from this thread.

Oh, and nowhere have I said I am against gays, lesbians, transgendered people or anything. Way to assume.

Just so you know. I support gay marriage. I don't support the Government being involved in Marriage at all. But, you know, assuming sh*t is sooooooo much easier.

@Irividng: I quoted the same Fox article twice. Most of my articles are the Boston Hearld, CNN, and other sites. I quoted EHow cause I couldn't find other sites with information. I have tried my hardest to refrain from using Fox and conservative sites because of YOUR bias against them. Especially, since you don't consider them real people. You however, still can't show me a SINGLE LINK backing up your claims or even help me find the relevant information.

This post has been edited by Iminicus on Monday, Jul 30 2012, 09:21

[sivispacem]

QUOTE (Irviding @ Monday, Jul 30 2012, 07:31)

Can you stop being a stuck up, homophobic, xenophobic reactionary asshole for once in your life?

Please refrain from ad Hominem attacks, and keep this civil. Whilst it has been a long time since I studies US domestic politics, I have to say that Imi has presented a veritable wealth of information; of sources substantiating his views. You are rather weakening your position in the debate by not providing those of your own, and by attacking the veracity of his sources (a perfectly legitimate way of debating I may add) without explaining or demonstrating why they are unreliable.

[Irviding]

I apologize for the ad hominem attacks. Please enjoy these sources.

QUOTE

In the strong-mayor form the elected mayor is given almost total administrative authority and a clear, wide range of political independence, with the power to appoint and dismiss department heads without council approval and little, or no public input. In this system, the strong-mayor prepares and administers the city budget, although that budget often must be approved by the council. Abuses in this form led to the development of the council–manager form of local government and its adoption widely throughout the United States.

QUOTE

Most major and large American cities use the strong-mayor form of the mayor–council system, whereas middle-sized and small American cities tend to use the council-manager system

Source: Edwards III, George C.; Robert L. Lineberry; and Martin P. Wattenberg (2006). Government in America. Pearson Education. pp. 677–678

Here is a scholarly document on mayoralty in Los Angeles. Note that the mayor of los angeles is no where near as strong as those in NY, Chicago, and Boston. The article makes a point of this:

QUOTE

However, the Los Angeles mayor does not have the even greater formal authority of mayors in some traditional big cities such as New York City and Chicago. In New York City, the mayor dominates a weak city council, has unilateral authority to appoint and fire key city officials, and now has considerable control over the schools. In Chicago, the mayor is bolstered by a strong party organization and has broad formal authority over the city government and the schools.

An article on the broad power of the Chicago mayor (http://www.chicagodgap.org/pom) this will be interesting to you, who believes a mayor cannot decide what buildings do and do not go up.

QUOTE

Decided to demolish Meigs Field (a small airport next to Lake Michigan) on March 30, 2005, without notifying City Council or Federal Aviation Administration.

Another article on the power of a mayor in a large city.

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:...qtEvdJNwGkZf9pA

[El_Diablo]

this topic is funny.
I was making fun of my brother the other day because he lives in Boston and now he'll never be able to eat Chick-Fil-A unless he drives way outside the city.

as for the issue itself, I honestly don't know if this is right or wrong.
I don't know enough about State's rights versus a private company versus Free Speech to say whether or not this is injustice.
the only thing I know is that I don't care.

while it sucks that Chick-Fil-A is anti-gay (I certainly don't approve of discrimination), unfortunately their chicken sandwiches are SO GOOD that I'll let it slide.
Chick-Fil-A won't lose my business over something like that.

in fact, their sandwiches (and waffle fries) are SO GOOD that they would have to like... I dunno... punch a baby in the face before I would even consider boycotting them

[Irviding]

I agree with all of what you said diablo... I love chick fil a.. once I moved down here it's the only fast food I'll eat. I don't support these ridiculous bans of it over anti gay remarks, but it doesn't change the fact that the mayors and the city council are fully within their authority to do it.

[finn4life]

QUOTE (Irviding @ Tuesday, Jul 31 2012, 14:09)

I agree with all of what you said diablo... I love chick fil a.. once I moved down here it's the only fast food I'll eat. I don't support these ridiculous bans of it over anti gay remarks, but it doesn't change the fact that the mayors and the city council are fully within their authority to do it.

Are they? Source please, I don't quite believe that.

[Icarus]

QUOTE (Irviding @ Monday, Jul 30 2012, 12:35)

QUOTE In the strong-mayor form the elected mayor is given almost total administrative authority and a clear, wide range of political independence, with the power to appoint and dismiss department heads without council approval and little, or no public input. In this system, the strong-mayor prepares and administers the city budget, although that budget often must be approved by the council. Abuses in this form led to the development of the council–manager form of local government and its adoption widely throughout the United States. QUOTE Most major and large American cities use the strong-mayor form of the mayor–council system, whereas middle-sized and small American cities tend to use the council-manager system Source: Edwards III, George C.; Robert L. Lineberry; and Martin P. Wattenberg (2006). Government in America. Pearson Education. pp. 677–678 Here is a scholarly document on mayoralty in Los Angeles. Note that the mayor of los angeles is no where near as strong as those in NY, Chicago, and Boston. The article makes a point of this: QUOTE However, the Los Angeles mayor does not have the even greater formal authority of mayors in some traditional big cities such as New York City and Chicago. In New York City, the mayor dominates a weak city council, has unilateral authority to appoint and fire key city officials, and now has considerable control over the schools. In Chicago, the mayor is bolstered by a strong party organization and has broad formal authority over the city government and the schools. An article on the broad power of the Chicago mayor (http://www.chicagodgap.org/pom) this will be interesting to you, who believes a mayor cannot decide what buildings do and do not go up. QUOTE Decided to demolish Meigs Field (a small airport next to Lake Michigan) on March 30, 2005, without notifying City Council or Federal Aviation Administration. Another article on the power of a mayor in a large city. https://docs.google.com /viewer?a=v&q=ca...qtEvdJNwGkZf9pA

Three posts above you, son (citations are bolded).

As for my opinion on this, I'll have to review more of the facts, although I would have never expected a mayor to have as much power as Irviding pointed out.

[Tyler]

If only more fast food owners would release irrelevant opinions on social issues. I mean, if we could get them all to do that, they'd lose a bit of traffic, maybe not open new stores, maybe they'd even get shut down in the best case scenario. I'm telling you right now, the best way to stop Americans from becoming fat is to have the owner of McDonald's say he thinks Apartheid wasn't "all that bad, really".

In honesty, though, I can't decide if I'm disgusted at the fact that these guys are pro-nuclear family or that people are outraged enough to not let them open new stores. Part of me knows that the whole "being gay is wrong" mentality isn't too uncommon in America, and that kind of lessens the blow of these guys' opinions. Especially given the context. But another part of me hopes this stuff is rooted out, because it's really a win/win to have an anti-homosexual company owner lose business, and simultaneously stop pushing disgusting food into American's faces. I honestly don't know.

[Otter]

I suppose the question in my mind is, really, if the government on a municipal level is within their right to bar a company whose values oppose their own. And I'm fairly certain they do - if not expressly legally, than at the very least practically. This is why the KKK do not operate a chain of fried chicken joints (at least publicly!) or why Satanists will have trouble finding a permit to build a church.

I also, however, have no doubt in my mind that the politics involved are self-serving and pandering; meant to make an open and bold statement rather than implement any sort of real ban or embargo.

So back to my question. Why is this a question of the First Amendment? The late Mr. Cathy (too many chick-fil-a's, I'd venture?) has a right to express himself, sure. But the First Amendment, while guaranteeing one's right to have, hold, and share these opinions, does not guarantee the right to preferential treatment. Nor, unless I'm mistaken, does it guarantee protection from preferential treatment of other viewpoints.

Do you think a business that supports radical islamic views would find it easy to set up shop in New York? (To say nothing of a tame, moderate mosque, that we may all remember in Manhattan) The government, especially on the scale of a city, is a very direct implementation of the specific will of a specific group of people. Boycott shouldn't be the only way that people can shut down a business they morally disagree with, especially when there are city planners and boards of directors who effectively make these decisions. Is is wrong for them to consider the will of their constituents?

@K^2: if only we should be so lucky. The separation of church and state is a smokescreen, especially in the USA.

[finn4life]

QUOTE (Icarus @ Wednesday, Aug 1 2012, 04:19)

Three posts above you, son (citations are bolded). As for my opinion on this, I'll have to review more of the facts, although I would have never expected a mayor to have as much power as Irviding pointed out.

Ah must have missed it somehow...my bad, thanks for pointing that out! I saw the citation but not the source.

Well then i suppose chick-a-fil starting this thing with the mayor was probably a bad idea, and it looks like they won't be doing business in the area.

[Iminicus]

QUOTE (finn4life @ Tuesday, Jul 31 2012, 14:31)

QUOTE (Icarus @ Wednesday, Aug 1 2012, 04:19) Three posts above you, son (citations are bolded). As for my opinion on this, I'll have to review more of the facts, although I would have never expected a mayor to have as much power as Irviding pointed out. Ah must have missed it somehow...my bad, thanks for pointing that out! I saw the citation but not the source. Well then i suppose chick-a-fil starting this thing with the mayor was probably a bad idea, and it looks like they won't be doing business in the area.

Chick- Fil- A didn't start anything with the Mayors. Go back and read what I wrote in the first post.

[finn4life]

QUOTE (Iminicus @ Wednesday, Aug 1 2012, 09:51)

QUOTE (finn4life @ Tuesday, Jul 31 2012, 14:31) QUOTE (Icarus @ Wednesday, Aug 1 2012, 04:19) Three posts above you, son (citations are bolded). As for my opinion on this, I'll have to review more of the facts, although I would have never expected a mayor to have as much power as Irviding pointed out. Ah must have missed it somehow...my bad, thanks for pointing that out! I saw the citation but not the source. Well then i suppose chick-a-fil starting this thing with the mayor was probably a bad idea, and it looks like they won't be doing business in the area. Chick- Fil- A didn't start anything with the Mayors. Go back and read what I wrote in the first post.

Yeah i did, i made sure of that before posting in the first place, i worded my response incorrectly, the whole blow-up with chick-a-fil and their beliefs concerning gays is not a good thing for chick-a-fil and them opening store in Boston and Chicago was pretty much what i was getting at.

But i don't have anything substantial to add and managed to make myself look like an idiot so i am removing myself from here.

[Robinski]

QUOTE (Tyler @ Tuesday, Jul 31 2012, 18:09)

If only more fast food owners would release irrelevant opinions on social issues. I mean, if we could get them all to do that, they'd lose a bit of traffic, maybe not open new stores, maybe they'd even get shut down in the best case scenario. I'm telling you right now, the best way to stop Americans from becoming fat is to have the owner of McDonald's say he thinks Apartheid wasn't "all that bad, really".

It's not just that the owners hold these opinions , they're perfectly entitled to their (in my opinion, wrong) views, but they are actively donating to organisations that are actively homophobic e.g. the WinShape Foundation and the Pennsylvania Family Institute. That crosses the line from honestly holding your beliefs to attempting to enforce them on wider society.

Anyway, I only really wanted to weigh in here because I'd been rather disinterested in this whole thing until I saw this comment piece title featured on FOX News' website:


Apparently heterophobia is now a thing. A thing that FOX is happy to endorse as a worry on their website. I saw that screencap on another site and had to track down the original page just to make sure it wasn't a piss take. Just, wow.

[Otter]

Who is this "Starnes" idiot?

And how is boycotting a chain that actively donates to organizations that support the murder of homosexuals 'bigoted' in any warped and twisted sense of the word?


Edit - oh, wait. Is that a spoof?

Edit x2 - I just read some of his other stuff. He's a f*cking idiot.

This post has been edited by Otter on Friday, Aug 3 2012, 00:10

[El_Diablo]

dude it's Fox News.

you can't be too surprised

[Icarus]

I like how illegal immigration and the economy are right next to each other on that page.

Seriously, heterophobia? Give me a goddamn break.

[Adept]

I find that you are going to have a difficult time persuading a homophobic person to see that his views are ill-conceived much like trying to convince a "heterophobic" person to think otherwise. But using the same tactics the opposition uses doesn't seem to bring about the desired results. Fighting fire with fire only seems to inflame the other side to fight harder. We haven't learned this lesson yet. A higher order of perception and action is needed to teach closed minds. We are not there yet.