How does this happen? Chick-fil-A branded as anti-gay?

[Asher]

Query: If I went to a Texas church to rant about the evil pedophile nature of Christians, would the police be restricting my freedom of speech when they remove me from the premises?

[Hauldren Collider]

But not preventing it. To impose government penalties on speech is to restrict speech.

[The Mad Monk]

Yes, it comes down to a document, because we are not in favor of mob rule.

[Wezil]

Yes, it comes down to a document, because we are not in favor of mob rule.

Have you tried it? It really can be quite liberating.

[Asher]

But not preventing it.

Huh?
What's the difference?
The government is forcibly removing me, and in all likelihood threatening me with a criminal record for trespassing.

To impose government penalties on speech is to restrict speech.

Only the government can restrict speech? A city government where a business has no locations is restricting free speech of that business?

It seems to me like we're fast in the theatre of the absurd and arbitrary again. Which is entirely the point.

[Asher]

Yes, it comes down to a document, because we are not in favor of mob rule.

So you are conceding that the concepts of freedom and the constitution are conflated by Americans?

I'll say it again. Americans don't understand freedom. No one who understands freedom would not be outraged by states voting to remove the freedom for a minority group to marry their loved ones. No one.

[Elok]

A pastor describing the "homosexual menace" that is "after your children" and calling for the community to oppose them is pretty much inciting action against them.

In much the same sense that a man who voices support for the Iranian government is "pretty much" committing treason. "Pretty much" is not an acceptable legal standard, some nutter babbling nutty things doesn't infringe on anybody else's rights, and violent teens should be held entirely and solely accountable for their own actions unless somebody is demonstrably advising them directly to do so.

EDIT: Of course it doesn't have to be personal communication--I'm not sure why I typed that. I just subbed in "directly," which makes more sense.

[Asher]

In much the same sense that a man who voices support for the Iranian government is "pretty much" committing treason. "Pretty much" is not an acceptable legal standard, some nutter babbling nutty things doesn't infringe on anybody else's rights

It certainly does. It contributes to the alienation and ostracization of a minority group with the highest rate of suicide. It makes it socially acceptable to treat homosexuals like scum or criminals, which then infringes on countless numbers of other rights.

I understand you cannot comprehend this. You've been raised in a country where what I'm saying is heresey. Goddamnit, you live in a beautiful country, the greatest in the world. What other countries can you openly stand on a pulpit and call all jews Pedophiles we must unite against?

Other countries look at freedom as more than a document. Are we truly free if we live in fear?

[The Mad Monk]

Have you tried it? It really can be quite liberating.

I've seen your parliment in action, yes.

[Hauldren Collider]

Huh?

Cross-post. sorry.

[Wezil]

I've seen your parliment in action, yes.

Nice.

[Elok]

How dare the Boston major exercise his freedom of speech and thereby violate Chick-Fil-A's freedom of speech. Or are we outraged about something less stupid?

I'm not outraged or anything, but Asher did suggest that the Mayor or citizens or someone prevent CFA from opening a branch there, which would violate free speech. The argument metamorphosed, as arguments here tend to. Also Asher seems to think the government being unreasonably restrictive in granting certain legal privileges is somehow comparable to the government actively punishing business owners who express the wrong opinions. I think there's a certain amount of trolling going on here and he doesn't actually believe this gibberish 100%, but it's hard to tell how it breaks down.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Furthermore, there is no difference between regulating businesses based on what they say and regulating what they say. Your failure to understand this is puzzling.

Is it actually regulating the business, or just a mayor blowing off steam? I've not yet seen any evidence of business regulation.

Maybe that's another part of the issue that these epically professional news outlets have chosen not to share.

[onodera]

Being against gay marriage is bigoted. You're denying someone their rights, enjoyed by others, because of their sexual orientation.

What rights? Recognition of your cohabitation by the state as something special is a privilege, not a right. Prosecuting gays for sodomy is denying them their rights, this is not.

[Hauldren Collider]

Is it actually regulating the business, or just a mayor blowing off steam? I've not yet seen any evidence of business regulation.

Maybe that's another part of the issue that these epically professional news outlets have chosen not to share.

That's happening in Chicago, not Boston or Philadelphia.