CFA - is the punishment valid or illegal?

[Andara Bledin]

Some government officials try doing that - using their elected office's letterhead to add weight to their personal statements.

It's worth noting that he does this pretty much all the time. The citizens must not mind, because he's the longest-running mayor Boston has ever had.

They're not suppose to write personal opinion essays and then slap the city letter head on top as if their personal views are now being echoed by the government.

It implies that the government is backing the personal opinions - which then becomes a Freedom of Speech issue since he is criticizing CFA & the owner on the owner's personal beliefs and donations.[/quote]
Bullshit. If that letter were declaring any intent to do anything at all, you might have a point. But since it's merely a notice of disapproval, there's not Speech issue at all. Particularly seeing as how he didn't say or do jack shit about suppressing anyone's speech.

Facing consequences for speaking is not the same as being prevented from speaking.

However the letter doesn't mean that he never said it. Even the Huffington Post stated that "The mayor of Boston is vowing to block Chick-fil-A from opening a restaurant in the city after the company's president spoke out publicly against gay marriage."

I think you'd have to be dead to not be aware that he said things he shouldn't have and that if he acted on those things he said he'd do, he would definitely be abusing his power.

I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that anybody is saying he didn't overstep his bounds and say things that he shouldn't have said.

I totally agreed that it would be going too far. He has also publicly agreed that he was trying to go too far.

^-.-^

[PepperElf]

doing it all the time ... that makes him sound worse now.

and no it's not bullshit. It is NOT the government's place to approve or disapprove of the free speech of private citizens.

Remember - even the ACLU agreed that this was wrong.

and hey if you want to call the HP wrong, go for it.
I've been doing that for a long time.



Or let's put it on another side. Let's say the mayor was publicly disapproving of a Muslim-owned company for supporting the Muslim Brotherhood. Do you think everyone would be so forgiving of him using his elected office to condemn or disapprove of a private citizen's actions?

Or the Mayor lashed out against someone for supporting gay rights. Would you still say it was his right to do so on official government letterheads?



If the answer is "no" for either one - that's the problem. You want to have one set of rules for everyone... that's going to apply to how the government treats people over their free speech too.

Which means if a Mayor can't publicly disapprove of other religions, or sexual-orientation ideas... then he can't publicly disapprove of ANY of them. At least not from his office, using official letterheads as if it was the city that voices his own opinion.


and again... remember, the ACLU agreed on this. That's a big factor right there.

[Andara Bledin]

So... which part of him admitting that he was wrong are you not getting?

^-.-^

[PepperElf]

So... which part of him admitting that he was wrong are you not getting?

^-.-^

So... you then agree that he was wrong to do this.
Thank you!

[Andara Bledin]

So... you then agree that he was wrong to do this.
Thank you!

Yeah, I've only said that in Every. Single. Post.

Which is why I wonder why you keep running over the same old tired ground without actually answering, well, any other issue.

^-.-^

[PepperElf]

Yeah, I've only said that in Every. Single. Post.

Which is why I wonder why you keep running over the same old tired ground without actually answering, well, any other issue.

^-.-^

O_o o joy. back to this again.

There's nothing left to answer.

We both agree that the mayor was wrong to do what he did against a private citizen's company and that no government official should ever use his or her office to voice a disapproval - or even punish - any citizen or their company over a free speech or donation issue.

so there's nothing left to answer on it.

[Draco]

This is the same reason we threw Japanese people into internment camps, but Germans and Italians got a pass; we could spot Japanese on sight but the other two were much more difficult.

Wrong. Wrong, wrong wrong.

http://www.foitimes.com/internment/history.htm
http://www.italianhistorical.org/page19a.html
http://www.issuesandalibis.org/campsa.html

Just a few sites you seem to need to read to actually get your facts straight.

[LewisLegion]

You are comparing apples to oranges. The right for someone to marry someone else of the same sex exists for no one. Or is it the argument that you have to be gay to marry someone of the same sex? Because if you want to ask for equality, you need not. You have it. I, as a straight female, cannot marry another female, regardless of their sexual orientation. Thus our rights are the same. To to call it 'equal rights' is an invalid argument to begin with.

It's the same argument they used for mixed race or mixed faith couples. A person from group A cannot marry a person from group B, but since they can still get married (so long as its someone from the preapproved group) then it's correct and equal rights. Why would someone want to get married outside their race/faith/nationality anyway? That's just wrong. Says so in the bible.

Sounds kind of ridiculous, doesn't it?

Our rights are not the same. You as a straight female, cannot marry another female, regardless of orientation...that is true. However, that's only half the story. You as a straight female can find a suitable and appropriate mate that you are attracted romantically, spiritually, affectionately and sexually to (which, being a straight female, would be a male)...fall in love, and get married.

I, as a gay female, cannot marry another female. Which means, I CANNOT find a suitable, appropriate mate that I am attracted romantically, spiritually, affectionately, and sexually to...fall in love, and marry. Period.

Sure, I could pick a random straight male and get married, living a lie with someone I'm not even remotely attracted to, harming both myself and him- not to mention any possible children that came along. We would likely end up divorced with much depression and bitter, horrible feelings all around.

Perhaps it would be clearer to give you a what-if. Answer it honestly.

What if the majority of women were attracted to 90 year old hairy obese men with bad teeth and horrible personal hygeine? What if you were told you could only get married so long as your partner was a 90 year old hairy obese man with bad teeth and horrible personal hygeine? You are not attracted to this person on any level, but someone who fits this description is your only option.

Or how about this? What if homosexuality was the norm and not heterosexuality? What if you could ONLY marry another woman and not a man? Imagine that for a moment. Try and picture yourself marrying and building a life with another woman, having that affectionate, romatic, spiritual and sexual bond with her. As a straight woman, I'm sure you'll find that extremely difficult to imagine and picture yourself as any real shade of happy, fulfilled, or content. But it doesn't matter, right? No one's stopping you from getting married, just so long as its with another woman. Why are you complaining?

Are you being discriminated against in these scenarios? What does it matter if its not someone you're remotely attracted to, and with whom you'll be utterly miserable? You have the same rights, don't you?

No. The truth is, you do not. They have the right to have a true partner, someone they're attracted to, someone they love, who completes them. They have a right to enter into a contract with this person, which gives them over a thousand different benefits including tax breaks, social security, joint ownership of property, adoption rights, rights to see one another in the hospital if injured or ill, right not to testify against their spouse in a trial...the list goes on. All given by signing a single document.

You don't have ANY of those rights. You must either live a lie and marry someone you're not attracted to, someone you don't love completely, someone who fundamentally misses deep emotional needs, leaving you unfulfilled in the end - remain alone for the rest of your life- or jump through dozens of expensive legal loopholes to get even a tenth of the same amount of rights (power of attorneys, etc), sacrificing a good portion of the benefits you cannot get AT ALL without being married, just in order to live with the person you're in love with and have dedicated your life to.

Add onto that having your car windows smashed, your house broken into, rocks thrown at you, being beating in parking lots, being told you're going to hell, being told your the cause of the country's problems, having your property vandalized, your children harrassed or bullied, or even being murdered...just for BEING.

I would like the right to live my life in safety with the person I love and dedicate myself to. Right now, I don't have that right. If same-sex marriage was approved, then the rights would be the same:

You, as a straight female, would have the right to marry a woman if you so desired- though being a straight female you likely wouldn't. You'd have the right to choose your mate.

Me, as a gay female, would have the right to marry a woman if I so desired- being gay, I likely would. I would have the right to choose my mate.

My marriage would in no way harm yours. Your marriage would in no way harm mine. Everyone wins.

[HYHYBT]

It's a disengenuously superficial sort of equality there. A gay man with a woman or a lesbian with a man is not similarly situated to a straight, opposite-sex couple. A pair of gay men or women is.

[Hyena Dandy]

You have it. I, as a straight female, cannot marry another female, regardless of their sexual orientation.

"The law in its majesty makes no distinction between rich and poor; both are forbidden to sleep under the bridges of Paris."