They aren't preventing anyone from getting married where it is legal. There is no force involved, so no.
On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 2:34 PM, Larry C. Lyons <[email protected]>wrote: > > So in this case, isn't that just what Cathy did, funding groups > outside the firm that impacted on the rights of others? > > On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 2:30 PM, LRS Scout <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > I don't believe in zoning laws at all personally. > > > > I should be able to do whatever I want with my private property so long > as > > it doesn't leave my property and impact the rights of others outside of > my > > property. > > > > On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 2:27 PM, Larry C. Lyons <[email protected] > >wrote: > > > >> > >> In a lot of cases that is what has happened with such things as > >> stripper clubs, abortion clinics, certain political party offices, and > >> anything not necessarily mainstream or popular. If we condone one > >> practice do we condone it all? Its one of those "wedge" issues so to > >> speak. > >> > >> On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 2:05 PM, Judah McAuley <[email protected]> > >> wrote: > >> > > >> > Ah, I missed that. I went back and re-read the article. I really doubt > >> > that the whole organization would change it's philosophy based on one > >> > restaurant siting decision in Chicago, so I think this is just an > >> > Alderman trying to make himself look bigger than he is. However, I > >> > agree with you, it is wrong for a city official to be telling a > >> > company to change a legal activity if they want to do business in your > >> > town. Decisions on a business being allowed in a certain area should > >> > be based entirely on zoning rules already in place. You should not > >> > ever have a city official be able to say yes or no on the basis of "I > >> > don't like you". > >> > > >> > Thanks for pointing that out, Tim. > >> > > >> > Cheers, > >> > Judah > >> > > >> > On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 10:57 AM, LRS Scout <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> >> > >> >> It wasn't the protests that got him to back down though. According > to > >> that > >> >> article it was the government. > >> >> On Sep 19, 2012 1:56 PM, "Judah McAuley" <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> >> > >> >>> > >> >>> Isn't that the point of boycotts and social pressure in general? > >> >>> > >> >>> Extortion, to my mind, happens when you threaten to make something > >> >>> illegal or unsavory public unless they give you money. In cases like > >> >>> this and with boycotts and public pressure on companies like Apple > and > >> >>> Nike for conditions in overseas manufacturing, it isn't extortion > >> >>> because the fundamental goal is to bring the information to light > and > >> >>> change the behavior rather than ask for money to let the behavior > >> >>> continue and remain secret. > >> >>> > >> >>> Cheers, > >> >>> Judah > >> >>> > >> >>> On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 10:48 AM, Scott Stroz <[email protected]> > >> wrote: > >> >>> > > >> >>> > I have to say...I am torn by this. > >> >>> > > >> >>> > While I appreciate the fact that CFA will no longer donate money > to > >> >>> > anti-gay groups, it kind of feels like...extortion - for lack of a > >> >>> > better word. > >> >>> > > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >> > >> >> > >> > > >> > > >> > >> > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:355396 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
