Boston mayor sends letter to Chick-fil-A: There’s no place for you here

posted at 8:35 pm on July 25, 2012 by Allahpundit

Two sure signs that we’re past the “earnest debate” stage of this story and firmly into “people milking it for advantage” territory. One: Menino sent his letter to Chick-fil-A fully five days ago but only today, apparently, did a copy turn up on Boston’s official community Facebook page. Sounds like somebody’s enjoying their star turn as new SSM hero and is looking to stretch the grandstanding a bit. Two: I’m doing my second post on this topic in less than four hours. What can I say? I whiffed traffic-wise on the Ted Cruz post and the Scott Walker post. If you guys want to take batting practice on Menino and Chick-fil-A instead, I’ll pitch.

Here is Menino’s letter to Cathy:

To Mr. Cathy,

In recent days, you said Chick-fil-A opposes same-sex marriage and said the generation that supports it has an “arrogant attitude.”

Now — incredibly — your company says you are backing out of the same-sex marriage debate. I urge you to back out of your plans to locate in Boston.

You called supporters of gay marriage “prideful.” Here in Boston, to borrow your own words, we are “guilty as charged.” We are indeed full of pride for our support of same sex marriage and our work to expand freedom to all people. We are proud that our state and our city have led the way for the country on equal marriage rights.

I was angry to learn on the heels of your prejudiced statements about your search for a site to locate in Boston. There is no place for discrimination on Boston’s Freedom Trail and no place for your company alongside it. When Massachusetts became the first state in the country to recognize equal marriage rights, I personally stood on City Hall Plaza to greet same sex couples coming here to be married. It would be an insult to them and to our city’s long history of expanding freedom to have a Chick-fil-A across the street from that spot.

Sincerely,

Thomas M. Menino
Mayor, City of Boston

There’s no place for freedom to disagree on the Freedom Trail?

I wonder if he knows that barring Chick-fil-A would be unconstitutional. There’s just enough ambiguity in that letter to suggest that he does — he’s telling them they’re not welcome, not warning them that he’ll challenge them legally — but who knows. Would any Boston liberals object if he did file suit to try to stop them, full in the knowledge that he’s doomed to fail?

Actually, the Boston Globe editorial board would:

[W]hich part of the First Amendment does Menino not understand? A business owner’s political or religious beliefs should not be a test for the worthiness of his or her application for a business license.

Chick-fil-A must follow all state and city laws. If the restaurant chain denied service to gay patrons or refused to hire gay employees, Menino’s outrage would be fitting. And the company should be held to its statement that it strives to “treat every person with honor, dignity and respect — regardless of their belief, race, creed, sexual orientation, or gender.” But beyond the fact that Chick-fil-A is closed on Sundays, the religious beliefs of the company’s top executive don’t appear to control its operations…

If the mayor of a conservative town tried to keep out gay-friendly Starbucks or Apple, it would be an outrage.

Ironically, Menino is citing the specific location along the Freedom Trail as a reason to block Chick-fil-A. A city in which business owners must pass a political litmus test is the antithesis of what the Freedom Trail represents. History will render judgment on the views of Chick-fil-A executives. City Hall doesn’t have to.

Is the Globe editorial page normally that righteous or did it take an unusual expression of schmuckery from Mayor Mumbles to drive them to it? I think I know the answer, but I figured I should put that out there for Bostonians. Exit question: Tom Menino, the worst big-city mayor in America? Exit answer: Not on your life.

Update: From Cuffy Meigs:


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

IF you go on Chik Fil A’s website the ignorance demonstated there is phenomenal. You have people hating them and calling them fascist. People don’t even understand what that word means. The fact that you are commenting on their open facebook post opposition to their company means by nature that aren’t fascist. Someone tried to point that out and the idiots shot back that they are fascist because they are bigots..

melle1228 on July 26, 2012 at 2:43 AM

Don’t let this get you people confused though. The anti-gay marriage stance is not what bothers these liberals, it is the Christians they have a problem with.

We all know damn well if Chik-fil-A was owned by Muslims not a word would be mentioned of their anti-gay stance.

This is pure fascism. And liberals are supporting the fascist attempts lock step as they always do.

Liberals are the most intolerant group on the planet…yes, even more so than Muslim extremists. We only view Muslim extremists in a harsher light because they kill people….well, I should say more people. If OWS was still going on liberals might have matched the death count of terrorists for this year.

How great would it be if a Conservative mayor somewhere went in and shut down every business that has made any donation to a gay advocacy group, just to make a point.

The Notorious G.O.P on July 26, 2012 at 3:37 AM

“We are indeed full of pride for … our work to expand freedom to all people. ”

As someone who went through the gun licensing system in your city, Mr. Mayor, I call bullshot on that one. You don’t have the first clue what the word “freedom” means.

Also, this is the same guy who gave millions in taxpayer dollars to a group who believes in stoning homosexuals to death, so that they could build a massive mosque in Boston.

Bruce MacMahon on July 26, 2012 at 4:20 AM

I am gay. The mayor needs to keep his own opinions to himself.

SC.Charlie on July 26, 2012 at 4:58 AM

But the letter’s a parody, right?

fraterjim on July 26, 2012 at 5:35 AM

Guess what Boston? My family and I won’t be visiting you anytime soon till this jerk is out of office.

No money for you.

gdonovan on July 26, 2012 at 6:12 AM

How great would it be if a Conservative mayor somewhere went in and shut down every business that has made any donation to a gay advocacy group, just to make a point.

The Notorious G.O.P on July 26, 2012 at 3:37 AM

The lawsuits would be flying fast…..

*Dr. Evil pinky to lip*

…and furious.

Personally, I would ^#$*#!^*ing love it.

98ZJUSMC on July 26, 2012 at 6:14 AM

I am gay. The mayor needs to keep his own opinions to himself.

SC.Charlie on July 26, 2012 at 4:58 AM

Thank you, for a dose of sane.

98ZJUSMC on July 26, 2012 at 6:15 AM

The Democrat Party has been radicalized and I don’t know if that trend can be reversed. Do you really want these people deciding what is right and just on your behalf? And what will you do when they finally turn on you? Ask yourself, is this what freedom means to you or is freedom now a distant and vague concept when weighed against allegiance to the state?

swinia sutki on July 26, 2012 at 6:16 AM

crazy person yelling at a chicken sandwich.

+100

petefrt on July 26, 2012 at 6:37 AM

the Republican strategy of screwing the country over through hyper-partisan obstinance
 
urban elitist on May 8, 2012 at 9:05 PM

rogerb on July 26, 2012 at 6:40 AM

I love Chik-fil-A salads and milkshakes….yum!

Pragmatic on July 26, 2012 at 6:45 AM

So the right of a person to speak their opinion, as guaranteed by our constitution, within the vicinity of where our freedom was bought and paid for with blood and sacrifice…is no longer welcome?

One of the underlying principles of our republic is to speak our minds and debate the merits of such arguments. Whether we agree or disagree, it is a fundamental right.

Furthermore, that freedom and ability to pursue our way of life is enshrined in our history and has produced the greatest country this planet has ever known.

If you disagree with their opinion, don’t patronize their place of business. If you do agree support them.

But talk of banning, promoting physical confrontation and nefariously using the law to accomplish a de facto ban is is about as far away from principled democracy one can get.

These types of actions combined with others of the last few years will doom liberalism to the dust heap of history. It is clear its supporters largely don’t believe in the American concept of freedom.

Marcus Traianus on July 26, 2012 at 6:51 AM

I love Chik-fil-A salads and milkshakes….yum!

Pragmatic on July 26, 2012 at 6:45 AM

I love their sandwiches but I haven’t tried their milkshakes or their salads. I’ve grown somewhat lactose intolerant with age but a really good milkshake would be worth the pain. The stuff they serve in most fast food joints is chocolate-flavored phlegm.

swinia sutki on July 26, 2012 at 6:58 AM

It is clear its supporters largely don’t believe in the American concept of freedom.

Marcus Traianus on July 26, 2012 at 6:51 AM

But what if they win?

Extrafishy on July 26, 2012 at 7:00 AM

Boston has a “long history of expanding freedom”? Depends on who you are, right mayor? Hmm, would that include the race riots (busing) in the 1970′s? And what about that little embrassment of a couple of witch trials lurking in your historic closet. And what of your tolerance of a US senator who so objectified women he actually left one for dead in a cold canal? I guess it proves that when you’re so open minded sometimes your brains fall out. What an upside down world we live in.

stop2think on July 26, 2012 at 7:01 AM

Chick-fil-A has always been a favorite of mine — the employees are always polite, cheerful and helpful; and the food is so much better than at most other fast-food places –and now it will be the only place I go for a quick meal.

When a relative of mine worked in a kindergarten for kids with Down syndrome and other developmental delays, the teachers sometimes took the kids on a walk through the nearby mall. The Chick-fil-A in the food court always gave them all free meals whenever they stopped by.

Nine out of ten babies who are even suspected of having Down syndrome are killed before birth — but to Chick-fil-A, they are God’s children and deserve to be treated with respect and kindness.

God bless the kids and everyone at Chick-fil-A.

KyMouse on July 26, 2012 at 7:05 AM

I have strong feelings on both sides of this issue. It’s like this issue is at my political center of gravity and I can’t really say anything without fear of falling over. Can post about my neutrality? What if my neutrality is considered and not apathetic?

thuja on July 25, 2012 at 9:51 PM

No, you don’t get to post about your neutrality. Or explain it, even though it is considered and not apathetic.

My closest online friend – of over ten years – is gay, and a very wonderful person, very very smart, and always quite reasonable.

Except when he discovered my (complex and considered) neutrality on this issue. He ran off and didn’t speak to me for a week. He eventually got over it, and came to terms with it, and we have sort of avoided the issue ever since.

But no, you don’t get to be neutral.

Alana on July 26, 2012 at 7:23 AM

Saying that if a person is for traditional marriage that he must hate gay people is like saying that a person who thinks “animals are friends, not food” hates meat eaters. I’m sick of this “Oh, you go by your religous belief that an originally religous rite is between a man and a woman? HOMOPHOBE!! STOPE TEH H8!!!”.

DethMetalCookieMonst on July 26, 2012 at 7:23 AM

Can liberals really be this stupid?

jan3 on July 26, 2012 at 7:27 AM

Scratch that post. You’re a buffoon and really, I don’t care what you have to say because you argue for the sake of argument and you’re a complete waste of bandwidth.

CherryBombsBigBrownBeaver on July 25, 2012 at 10:55 PM

Have you never read the Constitution? The first five words of the First Amendment are:

Congress shall make no law”

Not states, not mayors, not local government, but the federal government. The Framers knew, and the sovereign people who ratified the Constitution knew, and Jefferson himself argued, that the states had the right to restrict speech, restrict the press, etc.

This is not a First Amendment, and not an unconstitutional, issue.

Dante on July 26, 2012 at 7:36 AM

I haven’t even been to a Chick-fil-A and now I’m getting hungry for one of their sandwiches. A side salad, too.

Really when will the Left stop attacking people for simply holding a different opinion and viewpoint? Oh, yeah, never. Mind you they are the ones that are ‘tolerant’ of any view. So long as it is theirs.

ajacksonian on July 26, 2012 at 7:44 AM

So, the best way to fight non-discrimination is with more discrimination?

FIFY

DethMetalCookieMonst on July 26, 2012 at 7:45 AM

Here’s hoping CFA doesn’t gave like that one christian-owned dating site did.

DethMetalCookieMonst on July 26, 2012 at 7:46 AM

Isn’t it funny how those who claim to be the most tolerant of Americans are actually the least tolerant of all?

kingsjester on July 26, 2012 at 7:48 AM

Dante on July 26, 2012 at 7:36 AM

I’m guessing you’ve never heard of the Supremecy Clause.

“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.”

Keep blathering, you bigoted ball of ignorance.

DRayRaven on July 26, 2012 at 7:50 AM

Not states, not mayors, not local government, but the federal government. The Framers knew, and the sovereign people who ratified the Constitution knew, and Jefferson himself argued, that the states had the right to restrict speech, restrict the press, etc.

This is not a First Amendment, and not an unconstitutional, issue.

Dante on July 26, 2012 at 7:36 AM

You would be correct, except for the fact that the Supreme Court long ago held that most of the rights, including all first amendment rights, guaranteed by the US Constitution is “reverse incorporated” to apply to the States.

that fight is long over and the First Amendment applies to States and their local gov’ts.

Monkeytoe on July 26, 2012 at 7:59 AM

I’m guessing you’ve never heard of the Supremecy Clause.

“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.”

Keep blathering, you bigoted ball of ignorance.

DRayRaven on July 26, 2012 at 7:50 AM

I have. Have you ever paid attention to the part that says, “in pursuance thereof”? Have you ever heard how the Supremacy Clause was described to the people during the Virginia Ratification, and how the citizens were duty bound to resist when the federal government violated the Constitution.

Regardless, what does that have to do with the fact that the First Amendment is restricting the federal government? Are you confused as to whom the word CONGRESS refers?

So what’s your point?

Dante on July 26, 2012 at 7:59 AM

You would be correct, except for the fact that the Supreme Court long ago held that most of the rights, including all first amendment rights, guaranteed by the US Constitution is “reverse incorporated” to apply to the States.

that fight is long over and the First Amendment applies to States and their local gov’ts.

Monkeytoe on July 26, 2012 at 7:59 AM

I am still correct, regardless of the incorrect ruling of SCOTUS. That the federal government made an unconstitutional power grab does not make it law.

Dante on July 26, 2012 at 8:00 AM

I live in Massachusetts and I am truly embarrassed but not surprised that this idiot continues to win re-election overwhelmingly. My fellow conservatives and I are trying hard everyday but I’m afraid it’s a lost cause.

bsinc1962 on July 26, 2012 at 8:01 AM

All i want to know is if it is part of “family values” to lie to your customers by claiming that you are discontinuing Henson toys because of a unilateral decision based on child-safety. That is low down dirty and, apparently, Jesus-centered management.

libfreeordie on July 26, 2012 at 8:12 AM

libfreeordie on July 26, 2012 at 8:12 AM

They could have said, “We are discontinuing our alliance with the Muppets because Ms. Henson is an intolerant Liberal, and we choose to stand for our Christian beliefs.” How’s that? They were trying to be nice.

kingsjester on July 26, 2012 at 8:17 AM

regardless of their belief, race, creed, sexual orientation, or gender.” But beyond the fact that Chick-fil-A is closed on Sundays, the religious beliefs of the company’s top executive don’t appear to control its operations

This is one thing I hate about liberalism. If you are religious it can’t affect anything outside what you do inside your own home or the walls of your church. Your faith cannot have any expression outside utter privacy (unless it conforms to dogmatic liberal ideals) – see the Catholic church v Sebelius for example.

Also, this quote is stupid because it implies that an expression of Christian faith is that gay people should not eat. The owner of Chick-fil-A is against gay marriage, not gay people eating food (even together ~gasp~) and I’ve never been to a Chick-fil-A but I don’t believe they perform marriages.

gwelf on July 26, 2012 at 8:20 AM

I’ll just have to stop off at every Chik-Fil-A I can for lunch. And stay out of Bah-ston as much as possible.

GoodAg77 on July 26, 2012 at 8:20 AM

All i want to know is if it is part of “family values” to lie to your customers by claiming that you are discontinuing Henson toys because of a unilateral decision based on child-safety. That is low down dirty and, apparently, Jesus-centered management.

libfreeordie on July 26, 2012 at 8:12 AM

I’ve seen the picture of one franchise that had that sign – is it widespread? Was it the local manager or is it company policy?

gwelf on July 26, 2012 at 8:21 AM

Dante on July 26, 2012 at 7:59 AM

You don’t know what you’re talking about. Aside from the fact that SCOTUS specifically ruled in Gitlow v. New York that the First Amendment applies to the states through the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment, the clear language of the Supremacy Clause clearly states that the US Constitution is the supreme law of the land. If the power of Congress is restricted by the First Amendment, the states must be also – otherwise, those protections are of little value.

BTW – the 14th Amendment also states that “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.”

There are too many Constitutional angles that support my point of view on this, while you have to rely on what a legislator may have said while he was attempting to persuade others into voting for or against the Constitution as a whole – which is the very definition of spin, and that can cut both ways.

After all, do you seriously think anyone would argue that states being free to violate the rights bestowed upon us by God as a feature, rather than a flaw, of the Constitution – or that the Founders would intend it to be so?

But I suppose you need to rely on sources like that when the plain language of the document itself undercuts your argument.

DRayRaven on July 26, 2012 at 8:22 AM

They could have said, “We are discontinuing our alliance with the Muppets because Ms. Henson is an intolerant Liberal, and we choose to stand for our Christian beliefs.” How’s that? They were trying to be nice.

kingsjester on July 26, 2012 at 8:17 AM

But that would also be dishonest, because they didn’t make that choice. An honest announcement would have been “Chick Fil-A and the Henson company have severed our professional relationship. We apologize and blah blah blah.” But instead they slandered the Henson toys and lied to their customers in order to keep them from knowing why Henson and co made the decision they did. This is Godly?

libfreeordie on July 26, 2012 at 8:23 AM

Can liberals really be this stupid?

jan3 on July 26, 2012 at 7:27 AM

Have you seen something that suggests otherwise? Anything? Anyplace?

MikeA on July 26, 2012 at 8:24 AM

gwelf, it seems it was ordered by Chik-Fil-A’s PR firm. Along with some other poor decisions.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterhimler/2012/07/25/chick-filleted-on-facebook/

For the record, the Chik-Fil-A controversy bugs me to no end. I learned about their anti-gay activism back during Prop 8, where were liberals then? And, as I’ve said to anyone who’ll listen, liberals contentedly eat at Burger King or Qdoba when their tomatoes are grown on what are essentially labor camps for Mexican immigrants. My whole feeling on it is one big “meh.”

libfreeordie on July 26, 2012 at 8:28 AM

I would really hate to think that, by eating at a particular restaurant, I am endorsing all the political views of the people who own it.

morganfrost on July 26, 2012 at 8:30 AM

You don’t know what you’re talking about. Aside from the fact that SCOTUS specifically ruled in Gitlow v. New York that the First Amendment applies to the states through the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment, the clear language of the Supremacy Clause clearly states that the US Constitution is the supreme law of the land. If the power of Congress is restricted by the First Amendment, the states must be also – otherwise, those protections are of little value.

BTW – the 14th Amendment also states that “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.”

There are too many Constitutional angles that support my point of view on this, while you have to rely on what a legislator may have said while he was attempting to persuade others into voting for or against the Constitution as a whole – which is the very definition of spin, and that can cut both ways.

After all, do you seriously think anyone would argue that states being free to violate the rights bestowed upon us by God as a feature, rather than a flaw, of the Constitution – or that the Founders would intend it to be so?

But I suppose you need to rely on sources like that when the plain language of the document itself undercuts your argument.

DRayRaven on July 26, 2012 at 8:22 AM

I know exactly what I’m talking about. You have no Constitutional standing, despite your delusion that you do. You are not citing the important part of the Supremacy Clause:

“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; ”

Look, it’s not difficult to open a book, to read about the ratification conventions and debates, to read how the various clauses were explained to the people, especially when the Supremacy Clause was specifically discussed and explained to the people in these conventions.

“Nullification violates the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause.”

This may be the most foolish, ill-informed argument against nullification of all. It is the reply we often hear from law school graduates and professors, who are taught only the nationalist version of American history and constitutionalism. It is yet another reason, as a colleague of mine says, never to confuse legal training with an education.

Thus we read in a recent AP article, “The efforts are completely unconstitutional in the eyes of most legal scholars because the U.S. Constitution deems federal laws ‘the supreme law of the land.’” (Note, by the way, the reporter’s use of the unnecessary word “completely,” betraying his bias.)

What the Supremacy Clause actually says is: “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof…shall be the supreme law of the land.”

In other words, the standard law-school response deletes the most significant words of the whole clause. Thomas Jefferson was not unaware of, and did not deny, the Supremacy Clause. His point was that only the Constitution and laws which shall be made in pursuance thereof shall be the supreme law of the land. Citing the Supremacy Clause merely begs the question. A nullifying state maintains that a given law is not “in pursuance thereof” and therefore that the Supremacy Clause does not apply in the first place.

Such critics are expecting us to believe that the states would have ratified a Constitution with a Supremacy Clause that said, in effect, “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, plus any old laws we may choose to pass, whether constitutional or not, shall be the supreme law of the land.”

Nullification is unconstitutional; it nowhere appears in the Constitution.”

This is an odd complaint, coming as it usually does from those who in any other circumstance do not seem especially concerned to find express constitutional sanction for particular government policies.

The mere fact that a state’s reserved right to obstruct the enforcement of an unconstitutional law is not expressly stated in the Constitution does not mean the right does not exist. The Constitution is supposed to establish a federal government of enumerated powers, with the remainder reserved to the states or the people. Essentially nothing the states do is authorized in the federal Constitution, since enumerating the states’ powers is not the purpose, and is alien to the structure of, that document.

James Madison urged that the true meaning of the Constitution was to be found in the state ratifying conventions, for it was there that the people, assembled in convention, were instructed with regard to what the new document meant. Jefferson spoke likewise: should you wish to know the meaning of the Constitution, consult the words of its friends.

Federalist supporters of the Constitution at the Virginia ratifying convention of 1788 assured Virginians that they would be “exonerated” should the federal government attempt to impose “any supplementary condition” upon them – in other words, if it tried to exercise a power over and above the ones the states had delegated to it. Virginians were given this interpretation of the Constitution by members of the five-man commission that was to draft Virginia’s ratification instrument. Patrick Henry, John Taylor, and later Jefferson himself elaborated on these safeguards that Virginians had been assured of at their ratifying convention.

Nullification derives from the (surely correct) “compact theory” of the Union, to which no full-fledged alternative appears to have been offered until as late as the 1830s. That compact theory, in turn, derives from and implies the following:

1) The states preceded the Union. The Declaration of Independence speaks of “free and independent states” that “have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do.” The British acknowledged the independence not of a single blob, but of 13 states, which they proceeded to list one by one. Article II of the Articles of Confederation says the states “retain their sovereignty, freedom, and independence”; they must have enjoyed that sovereignty in the past in order for them to “retain” it in 1781 when the Articles were officially adopted. The ratification of the Constitution was accomplished not by a single, national vote, but by the individual ratifications of the various states, each assembled in convention.

2) In the American system no government is sovereign, not the federal government and not the states. The peoples of the states are the sovereigns. It is they who apportion powers between themselves, their state governments, and the federal government. In doing so they are not impairing their sovereignty in any way. To the contrary, they are exercising it.

3) Since the peoples of the states are the sovereigns, then when the federal government exercises a power of dubious constitutionality on a matter of great importance, it is they themselves who are the proper disputants, as they review whether their agent was intended to hold such a power. No other arrangement makes sense. No one asks his agent whether the agent has or should have such-and-such power. In other words, the very nature of sovereignty, and of the American system itself, is such that the sovereigns must retain the power to restrain the agent they themselves created. James Madison explains this clearly in the famous Virginia Report of 1800:

The resolution [of 1798] of the General Assembly [of Virginia] relates to those great and extraordinary cases, in which all the forms of the Constitution may prove ineffectual against infractions dangerous to the essential right of the parties to it. The resolution supposes that dangerous powers not delegated, may not only be usurped and executed by the other departments, but that the Judicial Department also may exercise or sanction dangerous powers beyond the grant of the Constitution; and consequently that the ultimate right of the parties to the Constitution, to judge whether the compact has been dangerously violated, must extend to violations by one delegated authority, as well as by another, by the judiciary, as well as by the executive, or the legislature.

Link

Dante on July 26, 2012 at 8:30 AM

But I suppose you need to rely on sources like that when the plain language of the document itself undercuts your argument.

DRayRaven on July 26, 2012 at 8:22 AM

Here’s some plain language found in the Constitution:

“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; ”

Congress shall make no law …”

Now, in what plain language of the Constitution does it say that the states do not have the power to restrict speech, the press, etc.?

Cite it word for word. Not interpretations, not some court ruling that has twisted the Constitution into something it isn’t, but the actual, “plain language of the document itself.”

Do it.

Dante on July 26, 2012 at 8:33 AM

http://youtu.be/2UHutvqFLp0

What’s really unusual here is that you can actually tell what he’s saying, usuallay there’s no way to know what Mumbles Menino is saying. So we should be grateful, or maybe Chik-fil-A should be glad, he wrote it down.

I know that’s a long clip, but the comedy/tragedy value that voters voted for this guy are pretty priceless. Every clip of him in there is true, and there are thousands more examples over the years. The man is incoherent and pretty much stupid.

WashingtonsWake on July 26, 2012 at 8:39 AM

libfreeordie on July 26, 2012 at 8:23 AM

Liberal hypocrite.

hawkdriver on July 26, 2012 at 8:40 AM

Guess what Boston? My family and I won’t be visiting you anytime soon till this jerk is out of office.

No money for you.

gdonovan on July 26, 2012 at 6:12 AM

You’ll be waiting a long time. They don’t elect mayors in Boston, they coronate them.

J.H. on July 26, 2012 at 8:46 AM

I’ve never paid much attention to Chick-fil-A, but I think I’m going to have to start going there now. Thank’s Boston for helping me set my priorities.

littleguy on July 26, 2012 at 8:46 AM

rogerb on July 26, 2012 at 6:40 AM

Thanks for holding their keyboards to the fire.

mankai on July 26, 2012 at 8:48 AM

So the Walt Disney Company which owns the muppets is basically saying that if management of a privately held company has different political beliefs from management at the Walt Disney Company then the Walt Disney Company doesn’t want to be associated with them. I guess what’s next is those companies won’t be allowed to sell Disney products. That’s perfectly fine and dandy in liberal la la land because leftist ideology is the only ideology allowed. Anything else is not tolerated from the so called tolerant left.

bgibbs1000 on July 26, 2012 at 8:53 AM

Here’s some plain language found in the Constitution:

“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; ”

“Congress shall make no law …”

Now, in what plain language of the Constitution does it say that the states do not have the power to restrict speech, the press, etc.?

Cite it word for word. Not interpretations, not some court ruling that has twisted the Constitution into something it isn’t, but the actual, “plain language of the document itself.”

Do it.

Dante on July 26, 2012 at 8:33 AM

Sorry to jump in at the end, but doesn’t this language answer your question:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States

Nick_Angel on July 26, 2012 at 8:53 AM

I was at last night’s Liverpool-Roma match at Fenway Park. Menino was there to distribute a trophy to the winner.

I joined the rest of the crowd in booing him lustily.

Red Cloud on July 26, 2012 at 8:54 AM

Nothing new for liberal politicians to try to censor those who disagree with them. Its called communism and that is the way liberals think. Of course the ownwer of Chick-fil-A built his business on hard work, integrity and a personal code of conduct, something liberals do not have a clue about.

volsense on July 26, 2012 at 8:57 AM

Nothing new for liberal politicians to try to censor those who disagree with them. Its called communism and that is the way liberals think. Of course the ownwer of Chick-fil-A built his business on hard work, integrity and a personal code of conduct, something liberals do not have a clue about.

volsense on July 26, 2012 at 8:57 AM

He didn’t build that business.

I went to CFA the other night and there was a road in front of it.

Game, set, match.

/

mankai on July 26, 2012 at 8:59 AM

Dante on July 26, 2012 at 8:33 AM

It says “the Constitution AND the laws,” dumbass.
Reading comprehension. Try it sometime.

DRayRaven on July 26, 2012 at 9:00 AM

Hope the Boston voters say “There is no place in Boston for you mayor crapweasel”

Wade on July 26, 2012 at 9:01 AM

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States

Nick_Angel on July 26, 2012 at 8:53 AM

It does not.

Dante on July 26, 2012 at 9:02 AM

Folks this “Chick-Fil-A” is a good thing for us. The majority of people in the country are against Gay Marriage as proven in every referendum taken at the actual polls in dozens of states… So let the stupid liberals attack and attempt to destroy a company because of their stance on the Gay Marriage issue… They will only appeal to the left wing lunatics in their party but lose many more in the general electorate. Please liberals continue the stupidity…

mnjg on July 26, 2012 at 9:03 AM

It says “the Constitution AND the laws,” dumbass.
Reading comprehension. Try it sometime.

DRayRaven on July 26, 2012 at 9:00 AM

You should stop with the name calling and put-down attempts, especially when you are incorrect, and have been proved incorrect repeatedly. Try reading the entire sentence, at least twice I’ve highlighted the relevant part of the clause, and have even supported it with facts from the conventions and how the SC was explained to the sovereign people.

Dante on July 26, 2012 at 9:04 AM

Hope the Boston voters say “There is no place in Boston for you mayor crapweasel”

Wade on July 26, 2012 at 9:01 AM

Boston voters are hopless and majority of them are left wing lunatics and/or parasites living on the producers expense.

mnjg on July 26, 2012 at 9:04 AM

We’re just about to get our first stand-alone Chick-Fil-A restaurant here in the Omaha Metro, (Mutual of Omaha has on such as you might find at a mall inside their building, but it’s only open M-F, and is inconvenient to access), and I hope it’s the first franchise of many here.

I will be there on their opening day, and plan to be one of their regular patrons, because it’s a delicious alternative to burgers.

Nebraska enjoys an unemployment rate that usually hovers around half the national average, as does our tolerance for asinine Leftist shenanigans, and I don’t think the two are unrelated.

Solly on July 26, 2012 at 9:05 AM

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States

Nick_Angel on July 26, 2012 at 8:53 AM

It was to ensure the recent freedmen that the states would not interfere with their ability to sue, own property, and enter contracts.

Dante on July 26, 2012 at 9:05 AM

Endgame for Leftists to Christians: “There’s no place for you here”

faraway on July 26, 2012 at 9:10 AM

Where I live, we’ve yet to see our first Chick Fil-A. The closest one is about 392 miles from where I live. That’s a long ways to drive for a sandwich. However, if they ever get one in my neck of the woods, you can bet your booties I’ll patronize it. Also, my family’s considering a trip to Virginia next year (if Teh Won doesn’t get reelected and destroy the country). There are tons of them in Virginia. I may insist we stop at every one and buy at least a soda.

theotherone on July 26, 2012 at 9:23 AM

Word is spreading that next Wednesday, August 1, should be celebrated as Chick-fil-A Day by buying food at their restaurants.

No, I don’t think Chick-fil-A came up with the idea to boost sales.

I’ll stop by on August 1, but on other days as well. Their Southwestern Grilled Chicken Salad is yummy and better for me than a lot of other fast-food stuff. I do like their nuggets with buffalo sauce, too, but try to stick with the salady stuff more often.

They also do trays for parties and meetings. Check it out.

KyMouse on July 26, 2012 at 9:23 AM

Better than 50% of Californians voted for keeping traditional marriage defined as between a man and woman.
Suddenly any one or any business that agrees with the majority of voters is a bigot?
Free speech is suppressed when opinion can be run over by the political set and carried forward by their cooperating press.

I will eat at Chick-fil-A often because I support unfairly treated underdogs.

FireBlogger on July 26, 2012 at 9:24 AM

What would one expect from an ignorant ‘Guinea’ like Menino? For those of you who don’t know the meaning, a Guinea is a low-class Italian. I’m ashamed to know that Menino is of Italian heritage! He is a typical Libtard following orders from the chief Mutant. He follows like a little puppy with his tail between his legs and doing what he is told!! I am going to have lunch today at Chick-fil-A and will go there as often as I can. I’m sure there are many other decent Americans who will do the same!We will remember this disgraceful treatment at the ballot box in November!!!

Jersey Dan on July 26, 2012 at 9:28 AM

What can I say? I whiffed traffic-wise on the Ted Cruz post and the Scott Walker post. If you guys want to take batting practice on Menino and Chick-fil-A instead, I’ll pitch.

Pitch us a post about the official law enforcement investigation that found that the “Birth Certificate” posted on the White House web site is “UNDOUBTEDLY A FRAUD”.

ITguy on July 26, 2012 at 9:30 AM

Sorry to jump in at the end, but doesn’t this language answer your question:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States

Nick_Angel on July 26, 2012 at 8:53 AM

And, to further clarify, our inalienable rights are neither privileges nor immunities.

Dante on July 26, 2012 at 9:31 AM

This freedom to say and believe what you actually believe is so yesterday. Like Winston we need to learn not just to say we see what the Party says we should see, we need to learn to believe it as well.

claudius on July 26, 2012 at 9:33 AM

Had Chick-fil-A for dinner last night on purpose as a result of all of this stupidity. MMMMMMM good.

Southgirl on July 26, 2012 at 9:35 AM

That the federal government made an unconstitutional power grab does not make it law.

Dante on July 26, 2012 at 8:00 AM

I’m a little confused on how you think a ruling that increases individual liberty and decreases government intrusion is a power grab.

This is Godly?

libfreeordie on July 26, 2012 at 8:23 AM

Yes, that’s a very convenient bludgeon to use against people who proclaim a faith in God, isn’t it? Except, it’s the president’s godly views that are the reason people are raging against CFA in the first place.

That’s on the same lines as another popular attack against Christians on the gay marriage issue (or ANY marriage issue, really): Christians live together and have out of wedlock babies and get divorced and all the other fun stuff at a comparable rate to non-Christians, therefore making them hypocrites whenever they express support for a traditional family unit. But when they put their money where their mouth is, and start nationwide initiatives to PROMOTE marriage and RE-ASSERT the concept of the nuclear family in our culture, then it’s rampant hatemongering and bring on the pitchforks and so on.

So what action would satisfy you as being godly, if playing by the world’s rules makes you a hypocrite but actively working to live up to your own standards is equally subject to ridicule and derision?

The Schaef on July 26, 2012 at 9:36 AM

What can I say? I whiffed traffic-wise on the Ted Cruz post and the Scott Walker post. If you guys want to take batting practice on Menino and Chick-fil-A instead, I’ll pitch.

Allahpundit, do you ever write posts in such a way so as to purposefully encourage in-fighting, thereby possibly increasing traffic? E.g., writing a post about how Sarah Palin is possibly being victimized, or writing a post about supposed conservative discontent with Romney. I hope not.

bluegill on July 26, 2012 at 9:45 AM

listens2glenn on July 25, 2012 at 10:25 PM

And here’s the thing. I don’t remember any of these homosexuals walking around with their homosexuality on their sleeve. Demanding everybody bow to their lifestyles while spouting ” I’m gay! I’m gay! I’m gay! Love me! You better worship me, blast it! I’m gay!”

JellyToast on July 26, 2012 at 9:45 AM

I’m a little confused on how you think a ruling that increases individual liberty and decreases government intrusion is a power grab.

The Schaef on July 26, 2012 at 9:36 AM

Because it doesn’t increase individual liberty, nor does it decrease government. It grows the federal government at the expense of the states. It is anti-republican, and anti-federalism, pushing us away from a confederated republic toward a more consolidated republic. The states – the people – formed the federal government, which was to be subservient to the states, not the other way around.

Dante on July 26, 2012 at 9:47 AM

JellyToast on July 26, 2012 at 9:45 AM

You know, I don’t ever remember Charles Nelson Reilly or Paul Lynde ever behaving in that manner…and they were two very successful, well-liked gentlemen, who happened to be gay.

kingsjester on July 26, 2012 at 9:51 AM

I am still correct, regardless of the incorrect ruling of SCOTUS. That the federal government made an unconstitutional power grab does not make it law.

Dante on July 26, 2012 at 8:00 AM

Perhaps yes, perhaps no on you being correct. I’m not 100% in favor of reverse incorporation. But, as to whether or not it is the law – it is until it is changed. You saying it is not law does not change the fact that it is currently the law of the land. there are a ton of SCOTUS decisions I disagree with (Obamacare, for a recent one) and think are wrongly decided, but they are the law of the land.

As to your, and other liberals, belief that it is perfectly acceptable for a local or state gov’t to decide issues like whether a business gets a permit on the business owner’s political belief demonstrates that the left is, and always has been, communist/fascist at heart. It is very typical of leftist thought to believe that is what gov’t should be doing.

Monkeytoe on July 26, 2012 at 10:05 AM

kingsjester on July 26, 2012 at 9:51 AM

Exactly!

If they are going to illegally block a restaurant from doing business because their owners are Christians, why not just stop them because their owners are Republicans? It’s not that much of a leap. One is giving money and the other is accepting the money. One has religious convictions and the other has political positions that align with the religious convictions. What really is the difference?

This is sinister and it is clearly illegal. It’s just as evil as anything else is. I am sick of the intolerance and hate being spewed by those who point their fingers accusing others of intolerance and hate! These people are despicably evil! The country they would push us into is as evil as any communist or Fascist dictatorship ever has been!

JellyToast on July 26, 2012 at 10:06 AM

All i want to know is if it is part of “family values” to lie to your customers by claiming that you are discontinuing Henson toys because of a unilateral decision based on child-safety. That is low down dirty and, apparently, Jesus-centered management.

libfreeordie on July 26, 2012 at 8:12 AM

There are some pretty strong words in the New Testament about not becoming a stumbling block for others in coming to the faith. Focusing on political in-fighting, is a stumbling block… period.

“Jesus-centered management” would turn the other cheek, and absorb the slap from the Henson’s, rather than turning it into a political ideology slap-fest.

dominigan on July 26, 2012 at 10:10 AM

Perhaps yes, perhaps no on you being correct. I’m not 100% in favor of reverse incorporation. But, as to whether or not it is the law – it is until it is changed. You saying it is not law does not change the fact that it is currently the law of the land. there are a ton of SCOTUS decisions I disagree with (Obamacare, for a recent one) and think are wrongly decided, but they are the law of the land.

As to your, and other liberals, belief that it is perfectly acceptable for a local or state gov’t to decide issues like whether a business gets a permit on the business owner’s political belief demonstrates that the left is, and always has been, communist/fascist at heart. It is very typical of leftist thought to believe that is what gov’t should be doing.

Monkeytoe on July 26, 2012 at 10:05 AM

What if SCOTUS rulings aren’t, in fact, the law of the land? The whole idea of judicial review comes from a SCOTUS ruling. You will find it absolutely nowhere within the constitution. Don’t you find it in the least bit galling that SCOTUS, which is a branch of the federal government, is the supposed arbiter of which of the government’s actions are constitutional? That doesn’t bug you in the least? It bugs me, and I like to think I have good reason to be bothered.

gryphon202 on July 26, 2012 at 10:12 AM

You saying it is not law does not change the fact that it is currently the law of the land. there are a ton of SCOTUS decisions I disagree with (Obamacare, for a recent one) and think are wrongly decided, but they are the law of the land.

Monkeytoe on July 26, 2012 at 10:05 AM

Obamacare is not the law of the land. No unconstitutional law is the law of the land. The people get to decide what is unconstitutional, not the Supreme Court. Read my posts just above which discusses the Supremacy Clause and nullification.

Dante on July 26, 2012 at 10:13 AM

As to your, and other liberals, belief that it is perfectly acceptable for a local or state gov’t to decide issues like whether a business gets a permit on the business owner’s political belief demonstrates that the left is, and always has been, communist/fascist at heart. It is very typical of leftist thought to believe that is what gov’t should be doing.

Monkeytoe on July 26, 2012 at 10:05 AM

When you say “other liberals,” are you referring to classical liberals?

Dante on July 26, 2012 at 10:14 AM

It was to ensure the recent freedmen that the states would not interfere with their ability to sue, own property, and enter contracts.

Dante on July 26, 2012 at 9:05 AM

You mean like buying land and contracting with builders, suppliers and employees to produce a product for paying customers?

I think you just undermined your own argument.

dominigan on July 26, 2012 at 10:15 AM

Dadgummit. Got cut off.

As to your, and other liberals, belief that it is perfectly acceptable for a local or state gov’t to decide issues like whether a business gets a permit on the business owner’s political belief demonstrates that the left is, and always has been, communist/fascist at heart. It is very typical of leftist thought to believe that is what gov’t should be doing.

Monkeytoe on July 26, 2012 at 10:05 AM

When you say “other liberals,” are you referring to classical liberals?

I don’t think government should be giving licenses or permits to businesses at all.

Dante on July 26, 2012 at 10:16 AM

Obamacare is not the law of the land. No unconstitutional law is the law of the land. The people get to decide what is unconstitutional, not the Supreme Court. Read my posts just above which discusses the Supremacy Clause and nullification.

Dante on July 26, 2012 at 10:13 AM

Amen, Dante.

NULLIFY THE BASTARD.

gryphon202 on July 26, 2012 at 10:16 AM

You mean like buying land and contracting with builders, suppliers and employees to produce a product for paying customers?

I think you just undermined your own argument.

dominigan on July 26, 2012 at 10:15 AM

No.

Dante on July 26, 2012 at 10:22 AM

I don’t think government should be giving licenses or permits to businesses at all.

Dante on July 26, 2012 at 10:16 AM

I have to pay for sign permits all the time (passed on to customer). Just another form of taxation under the guise of “maintaining standards”.

SKYFOX on July 26, 2012 at 10:29 AM

So, when will we have an official proclamation from the Congress for a Gay Day?

What shall we call it? Celebrate Sodomy? Muslims and Gays really do have a lot in common: freedom for me but not thee and no Christians allowed.

Gays have closed Catholic adoptions services in Mass. They’ve now suceeded in banning any business owned by a Christian. They have co-opted “marriage” as their own little province regardless of common-sense and social history since the beginning of recorded history.

Since HGTV and the Food Network have only homosexuals stars, someone needs to put a warning up before each show: No Christians welcome. All gay stores need to do that too. No Christians and if your gay guys, you need to ban women.

So be it. Sandusky is all yours.

Portia46 on July 26, 2012 at 10:30 AM

These lefty idiots (but I repeat myself) have plenty of time to object about Olympic uniforms being made in China, 32oz sodas being sold in NY, happy meals being sold by Mickey D’s etc… They have NO problem with putting a Mosque at Ground Zero but heaven forbid that a Christian owner of a very popular fast food chain expresses his objection to gay marriage then its Katy bar the door! Wow, what amazing priorities these fools on the left have.

Mmm I’m hungry think I’ll get me a big ol Chick-Fil-A sandwich and wash it down with a big ol 32oz coke while buying a happy meal for the kiddos. I live in Texas and we can do that…oh and GO CRUZ!

neyney on July 26, 2012 at 10:36 AM

I am still correct, regardless of the incorrect ruling of SCOTUS. That the federal government made an unconstitutional power grab does not make it law.

Dante on July 26, 2012 at 8:00 AM

Translated: “I don’t believe the Judges, so their Legal Rulings are Illegal to me.”

OK, now you can start calling me nasty names.

Del Dolemonte on July 26, 2012 at 10:37 AM

Link to Lew Rockwell. Lew is God.

Dante on July 26, 2012 at 8:30 AM

Fixed.

Cindy Sheehan wants to know where her Waffles are.

Del Dolemonte on July 26, 2012 at 10:39 AM

But that would also be dishonest, because they didn’t make that choice. An honest announcement would have been “Chick Fil-A and the Henson company have severed our professional relationship. We apologize and blah blah blah.” But instead they slandered the Henson toys and lied to their customers in order to keep them from knowing why Henson and co made the decision they did. This is Godly?

libfreeordie on July 26, 2012 at 8:23 AM

They wouldn’t have to have done one single thing. I’m fairly certain there was a contract and I’ll bet my next paycheck that no-where in that contract did it specify that Chick-Fil-A had to tow the Jim Henson political line or the contract was null and void. And I’m also PDS that the Henson puppets that were in line to be delivered would be delivered in accordance with that contract. Disney said there would be no “future” contracts so what’s going on now is not affected.

Maybe Chick-Fil-A was just being kind and abiding by Disney’s anti-Christian wish (Magic Kingdom—no Christians Please!) or MAYBE kids fingers were getting stuck in the puppets. Does this mean Disney won’t be decorating for Christmas this year? I’ll have to ask since my husband made reservations and we’ll now have to cancel.

Portia46 on July 26, 2012 at 10:45 AM

The people get to decide what is unconstitutional, not the Supreme Court.

Dante on July 26, 2012 at 10:13 AM

Was the 2000 SCOTUS ruling in Bush V Gore legal? Using your “logic”, Bush’s first term was thus illegal and he was never President.

Del Dolemonte on July 26, 2012 at 10:45 AM

“Boston mayor sends letter to Chick-fil-A”

A Letter? Wow, the Mayor thinks he is the U.N., or something?

socalcon on July 26, 2012 at 10:46 AM

Obamacare is not the law of the land. No unconstitutional law is the law of the land. The people get to decide what is unconstitutional, not the Supreme Court. Read my posts just above which discusses the Supremacy Clause and nullification.

Dante on July 26, 2012 at 10:13 AM

that’s silly nonsense. In your delusional world maybe what the Courts and Congress state aren’t “law of the land”, but out here in reality, they are.

You are either a delusional person who thinks that the law is whatever you believe it is, or you are playing semantics and saying something is “not the law of the land because it is unconstitutional” even though it is being enforced as the law of the land by our gov’t, courts, etc. You can say it isn’t the law of the land until you are blue in the face and it will still be treated as the law of the land by the police, federal authorities, congress, courts, news media, etc., etc.

So, sure, as long as you say it is unconstitutional, it isn’t the law of the land and “the people” can decide. That’ll serve you well when you violate various laws and end up in prison. Then you will be illegally imprisoned because you didn’t violate any “laws”.

Such silliness. “It’s not a law because I say it isn’t a law.” Well, I hate to break it to you, but more than 50% of the voting populace would agree that it is a law. Even people who disagree with it will admit it is the law of the land. So, if a majority agrees it is the law of the land, “the people” will have made it law?

Or, when you say “the people will decide” do you mean each individual gets to decide what is and isn’t a law that applies to him/her?

Don’t you see how delusional/illogical your rants are?

Monkeytoe on July 26, 2012 at 11:00 AM

It has nothing to do with their stance in reference to gays as much as it has to do with advancing the Mayor’s agenda and condemning Christian groups. I guarantee you there are Mooslum businesses and many blhack businesses in that city and I think we all know what they believe. I think it is time for a discrimination lawsuit to be filed by Chik-Fil-A.
It is probably also a good time to stop eating lobster.

j bo on July 26, 2012 at 11:00 AM

that’s silly nonsense. In your delusional world maybe what the Courts and Congress state aren’t “law of the land”, but out here in reality, they are.

You are either a delusional person who thinks that the law is whatever you believe it is, or you are playing semantics and saying something is “not the law of the land because it is unconstitutional” even though it is being enforced as the law of the land by our gov’t, courts, etc. You can say it isn’t the law of the land until you are blue in the face and it will still be treated as the law of the land by the police, federal authorities, congress, courts, news media, etc., etc.

So, sure, as long as you say it is unconstitutional, it isn’t the law of the land and “the people” can decide. That’ll serve you well when you violate various laws and end up in prison. Then you will be illegally imprisoned because you didn’t violate any “laws”.

Such silliness. “It’s not a law because I say it isn’t a law.” Well, I hate to break it to you, but more than 50% of the voting populace would agree that it is a law. Even people who disagree with it will admit it is the law of the land. So, if a majority agrees it is the law of the land, “the people” will have made it law?

Or, when you say “the people will decide” do you mean each individual gets to decide what is and isn’t a law that applies to him/her?

Don’t you see how delusional/illogical your rants are?

Monkeytoe on July 26, 2012 at 11:00 AM

Ok. You have every right to choose to be willfully ignorant. Have a nice day.

Dante on July 26, 2012 at 11:02 AM

This is Godly?

libfreeordie on July 26, 2012 at 8:23 AM

I haven’t seen your whole debate here about the godliness of Chick-Fil-A, so don’t know what started it.

Thus, this question – what relevance does the godliness or ungodliness of Chick-fil-a have to do with anything? If you judge Chick-fil-a ungodly, does that mean the gov’t can punish Chick-fil-a for it’s owner’s speech?

Monkeytoe on July 26, 2012 at 11:03 AM

Ok. You have every right to choose to be willfully ignorant. Have a nice day.

Dante on July 26, 2012 at 11:02 AM

Such willful ignorance will be the death of America. If there’s anything left worth saving.

gryphon202 on July 26, 2012 at 11:05 AM

Because it doesn’t increase individual liberty, nor does it decrease government.

Dante on July 26, 2012 at 9:47 AM

Preventing local governments from usurping rights enshrined at the federal level does not increase individual liberty?

So in your view, a local government can totally and permanently ban all firearms, and that is more individual freedom and less government, but to say a local government cannot do that because it violates our constitutional right to keep and bear arms, that decreases liberty and increases government?

The Schaef on July 26, 2012 at 11:06 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4