Post a New Topic
Original post made
on Jul 26, 2012
Talk about hypocritical! They are subjecting a business to different rules and selective enforcement levels because they don't like the company politics. How is this different than racial profiling, when police stop some selected group of people but not others?
If they really think more restaurants and drive-thru on El Camino is bad, make this apply to ALL businesses, and to existing ones as well (with some 2-3 year transition period for the business).
Please treat everyone equally. When we don't treat people and businesses equally, it undermines the rationale for equal treatment and marriage rights for gays.
Don't get all upset with Chick-fil-A, they aren't the only ones against homosexuals, gays, lesbians, transgender funding. What about:
Wake up America! Read your Bible...and you'll find real joy.
There was a time when a company might have used some of its profits to fund efforts to maintain racial segregation or to keep black people or women from being able to vote, for instance. If a group of people fought to keep that company from coming to town, they would have been ridiculed at the time, and it would have been a risk for them to take. But in hindsight, we would all now agree that they did the right thing, and that their small effort helped to promote equality in general. In light of that, maybe our need for chicken isn't so important after all. Whatever happened to that Pollo Loco place anyway?
The city recently denied an application to open a gym on Castro st. So, if the city can deny a business opening up that promotes peoples health, why cannot they also deny an application from a company that is actively promoting discrimination against homosexuals?
Sorry Christians and other haters, it is the 21st century and intolerance will no longer be tolerated! :)
"Sorry Christians and other haters, it is the 21st century and intolerance will no longer be tolerated! :)"
Except for the falafel shop on Castro St where the owners require their wives to be covered up.
What I like about 'open-minded' people like David Speakman is their total intolerance to any view that doesn't match their own thinking. We should probably stop the President from using Moffett Field since up to about two months ago he held the same belief. Maybe we should ban the Catholic Church and most other religions because of their views.
Borrowed this from the Armstrong and Getty radio program. Enjoy
Subject: Opening a business in Mountain View
Hello: I'm very interested in opening a business in your beautiful city and have a couple of questions and requests.
If it's not too much trouble, could you please send me the official list of political and social opinions that I must hold in order to open a business in Mountain View.
It's recently become clear that merely expressing an "incorrect" opinion could lead to me being barred from doing business there...or at least having to fight David Speakman's lawsuit and disapproval every step of the way. It's hard enough to start a business and create jobs without that kind of resistance!
I'm sure you understand. I would just try to guess which opinions the government requires that I hold, but in a recent case, you folks made clear that an opinion held by half of Americans was completely unacceptable. Guessing which other opinions the government doesn't permit would be tough! In the case I alluded to (involving the folks from Chick-fil-A) the "illegal" opinion was the same one held by the President of the United States until very recently.
Perhaps you could put out a "government-approved beliefs" newsletter on a regular basis so no one engaged in unacceptable speech or thought. Those who repeatedly expressed views contrary to the government could be given special training and re-education so that they wouldn't make silly mistakes anymore!
Again, thanks for your assistance. I look forward to being in compliance with all acceptable beliefs so that I will be permitted to earn a living.
Read more: Web Link
Hi Phil, hope you don't mind but I cut-n-pasted your reply verbatim in the "other" Chick-Fil-A story comment area. Seems to be the same but with a slightly earlier publishing date.
I also find it surprising how many people who claim to be against intolerance are so fast to label any differing opinion as "hate speech". As I stated in the other thread the intent is to shut down debate. It's a deplorable tactic I wish many in the LGBT community would abandon it. Minus that I don't believe we'll never be able to have a rational discussion about the issue.
The author of this particular article starting off with "It appears that Chick-Fil-A's chickens have come home to roost" is surely not helping. Was anyone really expecting an objective piece to follow that opening? Nope.. it's full on advocacy littered with uncontested emotionalism. I expect very little from the journalist profession of late and they continually fail to meet my already low expectations. The story much like the responses to it, shows opposing views are simply not welcome. Not a single opposing opinion represented in the entire bit. That's quite a feat keeping in mind Proposition 8 passed in CA with a majority vote. You'd think scaring up an opposing view would not be terribly hard.
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that there are many forms of "speech" that are legally protected and constitutional under the First Amendment: everything from sincerely held religious beliefs to burning a flag. The founding family of CFA has sincerely held religious beliefs (believing in a Biblical form of marriage, having their restaurants closed on Sundays to observe a "day of rest", donating millions of dollars to care for foster children & orphans (also Biblically mandated), not having debt to run their business (another Biblical belief) are all protected by law. CFA obeys federal and state anti-discrimination laws, hires gays, and their founders haven't used "hate" speech (even if you disagree with them. Somebody who burns a flag is just a legally entitled to open a business as anybody else who practices a form of protected speech. Mountain View even has a porn store a few blocks away on El Camino, and their speech is protected and they're allowed to be in business. First Amendment lawyers have already promised to litigate Mountain View if they put a stop to CFA over a protected speech issue.
Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.
La Boulange Palo Alto set to close Sept. 3
By Elena Kadvany | 19 comments | 3,819 views
By Laura Stec | 19 comments | 2,086 views
The U.S. Economy, China and the Stock Market
By Steve Levy | 7 comments | 1,041 views
Have You Ever Had a Dog?
By Chandrama Anderson | 2 comments | 892 views
Home & Real Estate
Shop Mountain View
Send News Tips
Circulation & Delivery
Palo Alto Online
© 2015 Mountain View Online
All rights reserved.