Religion = voluntary (and sometimes involuntary) SLAVERY.
None for me, thanks.
Hypocrisy over the Chick-Fil-A debate
rustex782
2012/08/03 16:37:05
|
|
|||||
|
6 votes
|
|
26% | ||
|
17 votes
|
|
74% | ||
Think Banning a chick-fil-a is wrong?
Although the 21st Amendment repealed the prohibition of alcohol on the federal level,
that Amendment also specifically prohibits the selling or production of
alcohol in violation of state laws. Some states after the repeal passed
local option
laws granting counties and municipalities, either by popular vote or
ordinance, the ability to decide for themselves whether to allow
alcohol.
Many dry communities do not prohibit the mere consumption of alcohol,
which could potentially cause a loss of profits and taxes from the sale
of alcohol to their residents in "wet" (non-prohibition) areas. The
rationale for maintaining prohibition on the local level often is
religious in nature, as many Protestant Christian denominations discourage the consumption of alcohol by their followers (see Christianity and alcohol, sumptuary law, and Baptists and Bootleggers).
While state law does not allow for dry counties, similar laws designed
to restrict the sale and consumption of alcohol also are common in the
mostly LDS (Mormon) state of Utah.
Utah state law prohibits local jurisdictions from exercising control
over liquor laws. An additional, more pragmatic intent of these laws
often is to reduce alcohol consumption in that particular county (and
the potential health, safety, and public order issues that can accompany
it) by limiting the ease of acquiring it.
Sumptuary laws (from Latin sumptuariae leges) are laws that attempt to regulate habits of consumption. Black's Law Dictionary
defines them as "Laws made for the purpose of restraining luxury or
extravagance, particularly against inordinate expenditures in the matter
of apparel, food, furniture, etc."[1] Traditionally, they were laws that regulated and reinforced social hierarchies and morals through restrictions on clothing, food, and luxury expenditures.
Throughout history, societies have used sumptuary laws for a variety
of purposes. They attempted to regulate the balance of trade by limiting
the market for expensive imported goods. They were also an easy way to
identify social rank and privilege and often were used for social discrimination.[2]
This frequently meant preventing commoners from imitating the appearance of aristocrats and sometimes also to stigmatize disfavored groups. In the Late Middle Ages, sumptuary laws were instituted as a way for the nobility to cap the conspicuous consumption of the prosperous bourgeoisie of medieval cities, and they continued to be used for these purposes well into the 17th century.[2]
Top Opinion
-
Doc. J 2012/08/03 17:21:31
Please.
The issue of local latitude over issues of a controlled substance is hardly comparable to the redefinition of marriage to something it has never been anywhere at any time in history.
Not even Classical Greece of the 5th Century BCE, which had the most tolerant view of gay relationships in the western world, had same sex marriages.
Not even the Conservatives.
So your objection is pointless.
LOL
I read your response to dallasjoe and I suggest you go read through some of the threads on other polls. Gay slurs abound.
You have nothing against boycotts and don't use gay slurs? That's great. Glad to hear it. We can agree to disagree on this issue which is how civilized people behave.
When did justice or sanity start working this way?
This is the type of things that makes Liberals look like whackos.
If you have proof, just link to it. Otherwise, don't bother me.
DallasJoe has already shown himself to be a liar, you going for it too?
I won't bother you anymore.
Now all you have to do to make your argument have any validity is to find someone who says it's wrong to boycott Chic-Fil-A.
Good luck with that.
I did a word search on all three pages for 'fag' and the only match was yours.
good bye and enjoy your chicken at Church
NOT the same thing.
when liquor is prohibited in a jurisdiction the prohibition applies to ALL establishments that serve liquor. so, by your logic, no restaurants in the areas that are promoting getting rid of Chick-fil-A would be allowed to serve chicken sandwiches. KFC and Popeyes would just be sol.
meanwhile, I'm happily boycotting CFA and I gave to the ACLU and to The Human Rights Campaign on 8/1,
the appropriate venues ARE boycott and donations to good causes - - not legislating against free speech. or - where does it end? will I be prohibited from supporting my LGBTQ friends? or espousing my liberal values? I certainly hope not.
we don't need a Constitution to protect speech we agree with.
but the other points were the more important ones. if we only allow speech we agree with in this country, why bother having a Constitution in the first place?
Prohibited speech
Fighting words—speech that would incite hatred or violence has been constitutionally prohibited for nearly 60 years.
Advocating illegal activity—speech that would encourage others to engage in illegal activity is not afforded any protection.
Limitations Placed on Speech
Commercial speech—a specific type of speech afforded First Amendment protections.
Obscenity—is regulated, and depending on the context, can be prohibited.
Defamation—publishing a statement that is false, although proffered as fact, that is harmful to the reputation of another person or organization.
Profanity—different from obscenity, profanity can be regulated if it is integrated into speech that is clearly prohibited.
Copyright, trademark and patent—regulated by law and giving owners exclusive rights, others are pr...
Prohibited speech
Fighting words—speech that would incite hatred or violence has been constitutionally prohibited for nearly 60 years.
Advocating illegal activity—speech that would encourage others to engage in illegal activity is not afforded any protection.
Limitations Placed on Speech
Commercial speech—a specific type of speech afforded First Amendment protections.
Obscenity—is regulated, and depending on the context, can be prohibited.
Defamation—publishing a statement that is false, although proffered as fact, that is harmful to the reputation of another person or organization.
Profanity—different from obscenity, profanity can be regulated if it is integrated into speech that is clearly prohibited.
Copyright, trademark and patent—regulated by law and giving owners exclusive rights, others are prohibited from speech or expression that infringes on an owner’s rights.
and yet we fight for dan cathys "freedom of speech" but we wont defend gay marriage which is also a form of freedom of expression.
that's the difference, here. the people who are proposing banning CFA are representing our government when they do so. and by making that proposal they are specifically NOT preserving, protecting and defending the Constitution of the United States which they swore an oath to do.
I can agree with their sentiments while simultaneously disagreeing with their actions just as I can agree with your sentiments while disagreeing with your conclusions as to proper action by our government officials.
as to the idea that 'hatred or violence has been constitutionally prohibited for nearly 60 years' - - ummmmmmm - - were you present during the 2008 election process by chance? did you listen to Sarah Palin's and Sharon Engle's speeches? I didn't hear anyone calling them out for their calls for violence at the time.
so what is different now? the fact that Cathy isn't a member of a government entity?
"Chick-Fil-A's perception with fast food eaters nationwide has taken a significant hit in most regions of the US, including the South where most of its restaurants are located, since president and COO Dan Cathy's perceived anti-gay remarks on July 16th.
"In the Midwest, Chick-Fil-A's perception jumped up for a week and has tapered off to where it was before the interview was published.
As the controversy has snowballed, the company's overall consumer brand health with fast food eaters has dropped to its lowest levels since at least mid-August 2010."
http://www.brandindex.com/art...
~~~
in purely practical terms, government bans could backfire. if the big, bad government is perceived as a bully, the trend could reverse while allowing people to simply make up their own minds unfettered by government intervention seems to be making quite a difference.
sometimes following the Constitution even results in positive outcomes. how 'bout that?