Have you heard of the supremacy clause? BTW, no I have no problem with any of the things you mentioned in the last paragraph provided they aren't breaking the law or doing anything to people. Again, you can think and say what the hell you want. It's not just for people yu agree with.
On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 4:01 PM, Larry C. Lyons <[email protected]>wrote: > > Its a restriction against the federal government restricting speech. > Where is the speech restriction in this case. Despite what Mittens > says businesses are not people. The community in this case mostly did > not want the business there, that's what the alderman was doing > representing the community. > > Cathy can say what he wants to. The community can say he cannot build > his chain restaurant there using a legitimate process here. Cathy > could have taken it to court, rather he also used part of the process > to negotiate with the community representatives. > > > Iin the end would you have no problem if for instance the KKK bought > the building across from MLK's birth place and used it for a hate > center? Or for a neo-nazi group setting up a meeting hall beside a > synagogue? Or Code pink setting up shop next door to you? OR some very > vocal anti-war group setting up their offices across the street from > the American Legion or VFW Hall? Its an all or nothing thing in your > eyes. > > > On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 2:46 PM, LRS Scout <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Honestly, Eric and Larry. > > > > What is it you guys don't seem to get about free speech? > > > > It's not about protecting popular speech. It's about protecting dissent, > > the small voice. > > > > Often that will include things that we find offensive and hateful. > > > > We cannot allow mob rule or we've lost already. > > > > On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 2:43 PM, LRS Scout <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> 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:355426 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
