Customers may shop, of course, wherever they wish and make their purchases based on the store or restaurant’s prices, practices, products or the owner’s beliefs. And if business owners want to use their positions of power to advocate for or against same-sex marriage, no one should stop them. We all enjoy the right of free speech.
Just as people have the right to speak out, they should be prepared for opponents to speak out against them. People or organizations have the right to boycott businesses because of their statements about a social issue.
We encourage people to look deeper, though, beyond what the heads of companies say or to what cause they donate. Put their words in the context of their larger operations and policies. If you’re considering no longer buying coffee at Starbucks, which supports same-sex marriage, or no longer buying chicken at Chick-Fil-A, which opposes same-sex marriage, it would be prudent to first answer some larger questions.
Are you trying to hurt a business only because of the owners’ beliefs? What if that business employs your neighbors? Businesses are made up of people in your community who have a variety of views, and your boycott may unintentionally affect people you didn’t mean to harm.
Take the example of T-Mobile. The National Organization for Marriage — a Washington, D.C.-based group that has given money to a Maine political action committee working to defeat the Nov. 6 ballot question to legalize same-sex marriage — has called for a boycott of T-Mobile in Washington state, where voters will decide whether to uphold a gay marriage law.
In case you were interested in canceling your contract and signing a petition to let T-Mobile know you don’t support the company’s efforts “to tell our society that moms and dads are interchangeable,” you might first consider that T-Mobile employs tens of thousands of people. T-Mobile is even planning to hire new full-time workers in Maine by the end of the year. Undoubtedly those workers hold views that differ from company leadership.
The same thought should be given to Chick-fil-A, whose CEO Dan Cathy unsurprisingly affirmed his company’s opposition to same-sex marriage in July. Gay-rights groups called for a boycott, and mayors in Boston and Chicago said the fast-food restaurant was not welcome in their cities. But, within a debate that finds broad acceptance on both sides of the argument, did they really want to prevent a business from expanding if it was able to do so? Don’t city officials have an obligation to apply development rules fairly and not discriminate against an owner based on his widely supported beliefs?
You don’t have to agree with someone’s political stance to understand that they have a right to express their views. But the expression of a company’s leader is only a part of the business’ operations. Spend your money where you wish; just make sure you understand the potential effect.
I think it’s absurd to suggest that a person or group choosing to spend or not spend their money somewhere is tantamount to silencing another. Obviously everyone has a right to their own opinion, but this isn’t about free speech, it’s about business. If you want use the profits from your fried chicken to fund hate campaigns, go ahead, but don’t start crying victim when people choose to spend their money elsewhere. You have the right to spend where you want and as do consumers — they don’t have hand their money over to groups working against their ideals.
I agree, if Sean Penn (or other Hollywood and musical elites) want to use their fame and funds from marginally successful movies or cds to fund their misguided, intolerant visions of utopia, we should be able to say no to their latest efforts. Although more likely, we’ll be saying no because it’s just a lousy film and he’s not that good an actor…
It isn’t enough to attack their point of view, you have to attack their professional work? Sheesh…
Is it fair to block a business from opening up in a city? Is that showing tolerance?
The primary reason for the boycot against Chick Fil A is not just because the owner said he was against same sex marriage. The big reason for many people, myself included, is the owner’s donation practises. The owner, through the company charity, has donated to many anti-gay groups, including the Family Research Council and Exodus International. I want to make sure that my money won’t be used to take away my rights, and the best way to do that is to not spend money at businesses that donate to anti-gay groups.
You are free to do so just as Mr. Cathy is free to support his own causes. The stink over this was not his support of same-sex marriage opponents or the resulting boycott. It was when municipalities began to exert government pressure on Chick Fil A to change their policy. That’s government suppression of speech.
I’m sorry, but I don’t believe for a second that the majority of people who went for the Appreciation Day went because of “free speech”. When the Westboro Baptist Church was sued for their speech, I don’t remember all of the protesters supporting their right to free speech.
When politicians threaten a business because
an owner expresses his/her views then even
you should be upset over that. And yes, many people
did support this business just for that reason. I guess
you wouldn’t have a problem with a politician threatening
a business whose owner was in support of gay rights then?
And you compare a sicko group of a few disrupting funerals
to some owner giving his/her opinion on an issue? I guess
that says it all.
When a group promotes Hate, which the Group against Gay Marriage clearly does, and supports Descrimination, which this group clearly does, and support Inequality, which this group clearly does, then YES, i wholeheartedly want my government to get involved. We are a free people that are supposed to be considered EQUAL…..If a company supported the KKK, or anti-semitism, or any other number of Hate groups out there, i would also want them to get involved.
Then you, my friend, are not a propenent of free speech. Letting the government decide whose political speech is worth protecting does not preserve equality of speech.
Sorry, aiding and abetting vote fraud is NOT a matter of “free speech.”
Vote fraud?? That subject is not even mentioned here.
It’s mentioned in another article in the same edition of the paper, where the US Supreme Court rejected the appeal of the anti-gay Hate Cult that committed vote fraud.
By those free speech standards, one would not be free to donate money to gay rights organizations that advocated sit-ins at CFA or black civil rights organizations in the 1960’s because their members were inciting civil disobediance. And if he had aided and abetted, wouldn’t he be under indictement? He’s given them money already. That’s not the issue.
Free speech does not mean verbal anarchy. There is a line defined by law. You cannot use speech to incite hatred, to promote discrimination, to abuse or oppress others. Women understand this all too well. No, you do not get to say whatever you want. There are consequences if you decide to cross that line.
But it seems that YOU can.
No, I cannot. But I can disagree.
You’re mistaken. Last I checked Brandenburg was still good law. “The state may not forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing IMMANENT lawless action AND is likely to incite or produce such action”
Also, opposition to gay marriage does not necessarily mean hate, abuse, and oppression. That’s a bit much.
If you have ever been subjected to language that suggests you are ‘less than’ you indeed understand that hate, abuse, and oppression is at work. Keeping people “in their place” is what oppression is all about and hate, call it dislike if you want, is the motivating factor. We will just have to agree to disagree on this one.
Please understand that I am not condoning the content, just the act.
And just WHo or WHAT business promoted hate?
Because a person doesn’t agree with gay marriage now
they are haters? Besides, it WAS NOT a business promoting
anything, a person expressed his OPINION and you are saying
some politiican who just happens to disagree can threaten that
business? Some of you people are really way out there.
Anti-gays deny they are anti-gay all the time nowadays. No surprise they are also trying to deny Dan Cathy aided and abetted vote fraud.
Did Cathy knowingly register Mickey Mouse or people that now reside in cemetaries to vote? Others have done it.
Please spare us the GOP Talking Point about vote fraud. The Maine Ethics Commission caught anti-gays red-handed, and as we can see in the same day’s paper, anti-gays are STILL in VIOLATION of the law from 2009.
Homer, CFA has a very long history of actively supporting organizations that have always sought to do harm gay and lesbian people, going back to the 80’s.
The marriage issue is just their latest foray into politics.
So the argument that CFA doesn’t promote hate, that’s based on ignorance and amnesia. CFA has fought against laws that prevent gay and lesbian people from being fired, from being denied housing, the history of CFA’s contributions to hate campaigns is well established.
So no, you don’t get to claim CFA is in any way immune to political repercussions or innocent from advocating for hate and harm – because it’s never been true int he past, and isn’t true now.
The public has just as much a right to tell their local representatives “no, not here” as CFA has to pour money into the political process to deny people their most basic rights and protections.
“Haters” is the buzz word which is intended to stop all conversation, and achieve the moral high ground.
Personally I have no dog in this hunt, but I sure appriciate people who say the rhetoric (on both sides) has gotten extreme.
There is no genuine comparison between LGBT Americans, who, like ALL Americans, will fight for equality, to the anti-gays who are trying to SUBVERT the Constitution, and who are committing vote fraud to try to force that with their anti-gay Hate Votes. Just WHEN did LGBT Americans cook up a Hate Vote to deprive anti-gays of legal marriage?
please point out ANYWHERE in the Constitution of the US where marriage is mentioned at all.
The 14th Amendment states that:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
The Supreme Court Ruled in 1967 that:
The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal
rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.
By denying same sex couples their right to marry, same sex couple’s 14th amendment rights are being violated.
That 1967 ruling, “Loving vs. Virginia” created what we call “Constitutional Law” in the Proper Rule of Law, larry, and “Loving” has been cited as precedent by every court that has ruled in favor of marriage equality.
CFA has promoted violence against people?? WHEN?
Stop making specious claims. There are groups out there that have and are promoting violence, please save your vitriol for them. A lot of the real hate comes from those on the left so clean up your own house first.
Really now? Which groups on the left are activly trying to take away a specific groups rights? Because I can point to plenty of groups on the right who are trying to take away my rights…
Almost every group on the left are trying to take rights away from people. The right to speak, the right to keep and bear arms, the right to freely assemble, the right to have an opinion … but only for those that do not march to the drum of the left.
Many on the left have said that they want to kill people or have people killed, even on the floor of legislative bodies. The President has even talked about bringing guns into political “discourse”.
I believe I asked for specific examples, not the paranoid delusions of some random person on the internet…
How about I give you the answer I’ve gotten many times … google it.
But I know you wont you don’t want to get any information that might screw up your pathetic beliefs.
You make the claim, you gotta provide the proof. Don’t like it, tough. If you can’t actually prove your claim, don’t expect me to take you seriously.
Anti-gays make wild claims all the time, and then insist we do their research–fully aware their wild claims are nothing more than wild claims and cannot be documented.
Do yo really support Dan Cathy aiding and abetting vote fraud, larry? REALLY?????
I DO NOT support anyone involved with any form of vote fraud be that ACORN, the Democrats, the Republicans, any business or individual. But where did you get information linking Dan cathy or Chick Fil A to voter fraud? I did a search and did not find such allegations.
He donated to anti-gay Hate Cults which in turn committed those criminal acts to throw anti-gay Hate Votes. He knew what they would do with his slush fund.
Is Hate Cults a group or just sh!t you throw around?
Get real, anti-gays whine and cry and scream about the Southern Poverty Law Center certifying them anti-gay Hate Cults all the time. Here’s the SPLC’s criteria:
“Even as some well-known anti-gay groups like Focus on the Family
moderate their views, a hard core of smaller groups, most of them
religiously motivated, have continued to pump out demonizing propaganda aimed at homosexuals and other sexual minorities. These groups’ influence reaches far beyond what their size would suggest, because the “facts” they disseminate about homosexuality
are often amplified by certain politicians, other groups and even news
organizations. Of the 18 groups profiled below, the Southern Poverty Law
Center (SPLC) will be listing 13 next year as hate groups, reflecting
further research into their views; those are each marked with an
asterisk. Generally, the SPLC’s listings of these groups is based on their propagation of known falsehoods
— claims about LGBT people that have been thoroughly discredited by
scientific authorities — and repeated, groundless name-calling. Viewing
homosexuality as unbiblical does not qualify organizations for listing
as hate groups.”
http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2010/winter/the-hard-liners
Southern Poverty Law Center?? Why dont you just ask “Rev.” Wright or Jackson to name hate groups.
Anti-gays routinely attack anyone who won’t help them HURT gay and lesbian Americans. Neither of those individuals was responsible for documenting the misdeeds of the anti-gay Hate Cults. But thanks for acknowledging you knew all along what I meant.
Nor will you…it’s slanderous really.
Even the anti-gay website CatholicPost confirms those donations, they simply refuse to report the FACT that those organizations are anti-gay Hate Cults.
Remember it aint slander unless it is against liberals, otherwise it is just mis speaking.
Shame on me ; )
Again, if you flip your argument on it’s head you may not like the results. Say a municipality or state has a fervently anti-gay administration supported by a majority of the population. This is not outside the realm of possibility. Say you contribute money to gay rights organization that promotes picketing, sit-ins and referenda petitions against anti-gay laws. What’s to prevent local representatives from saying “no, not here” and bringing the forces of government against you? A: the first amendmant.
“referenda petitions against anti-gay organizations.”
You mean like if LGBT Americans got up referenda petitions for a Hate Vote to deprive anti-gays of their right to legal marriage? When did that happen?
It’s a hypothetical. Read the edit.
Okay.
In your pretending to be against “Hate” you promote hate too. Take a step back and see that you use hate to fight a preceved hatred. One is as bad as the other.
Just WHY shouldn’t we HATE the anti-gays, who commit criminal acts to throw these Hate Votes which are an attempt to subvert the US Constitution? ALL real Americans should HATE anti-gays for trying to poison our political process and trash “Equal Protection Under the Law.”
I never said that I suppored the politicians who threatened the business. But if this issue really was about free speech, why was there no uproar when someone tried to silence the WBC with a lawsuit? I didn’t see waves of people defending the WBC’s right to free speech, which includes the right to protest. In the same post, you claim to be upset over a politician threatening a business because of their views but you have no problem with a group being sued for exercising their free speech? I guess that says it all.
The fact that another government suppression of free speech does not garner the same “uproar” as another does not make this government action less intrusive. Try and seperate the boycott from the government’s action and you’ll get the point.
But it does make me think that people just used “free speech” as an excuse to hide their true motives.
No amount of whining “government suppression of free speech” will make that lie become factual.
Respectfully, I understand you feel as strongly on this as I do about the First Amendment. I support the boycott. I do not support the government involvement.
Trust me, I feel strongly about the First Amendment issue also. When speaking about First Amendment issues in regards to marriage equality, it’s always important to remember it isn’t just a matter of those denominations who lie that they’d be forced to perform same gender marriages. The major Christian, Jewish and other denominations that are marrying same gender couples now are being denied their right to practice their religion freely in 44 US States. These denominations have married same gender couples in 7 US States and the District of Columbia:
The Episcopal Church
Evangelical Lutheran Church in America
Metropolitan Community Church
Reform Judaism
Religious Society of Friends (Quakers)
Unitarian Universalist Church
United Church of Christ
I’m sorry, but I don’t believe for a second that the majority of people who went for the Appreciation Day went because of “free speech”.
And you know this for sure? And you are upset because someone
does not agree with you? And you are so positive that people
weren’t upset with Menino, Emmanual..etc? And you compare
this to wierdos? Yep…like I said..says it all.
Then why was there no outcry from Sarah Palin and Mike Huckabee when a politician tried to silence a supporter of same sex marriage? Why was there no outcry when the WBC’s freedom of speech was under attack? Could if possibly be because they agreed with Mr. Cathy’s message? Could if be that “free speech” was just an excuse? Considering that they only seem to care about “free speech” in certain instances, especially when they actually agree with what is being said, I’d say that, not all, but a good number of the people who showed up on “Appreciation Day” were a bunch of hypocrites who love playing the victim. After all, they support people’s free speech, when they actually agree with the message, but when they don’t their silence says it all.
As for you, you seem to be bending over backwards to “defend free speech” for Mr. Cathy, but ignore the WBC’s right to free speech. Hmmm, I wonder why that is? Don’t bother answering, I already know the answer…
Most of the people there that day were dragged there by an elderly relative. It was easier to let Gramps buy 25 lunches and shoot his entire month’s food budget than to tell Gramps they don’t support these attacks on LGBT Americans. They were being kind to Gramps, especially since they were in turn going to have to feed Gramps for a month after his foolish waste of money on that overpriced grease.
This isn’t about Dan Cathy’s opinion, it’s about Dan Cathy aiding and abetting vote fraud.
He’s not under indictment and he’s already given them money. Wouldn’t he already be under indictment if vote fraud were the issue? You’re clouding the free speech issue with hyperbole.
Oh, no, I would be happy to have my government ‘threaten’ ….. what is the threat anyway? Oh, anti-discrimination laws being violated? What else? I sure do hope that if any laws are being broken or any taxpayer money is being taken that they are indeed threatened.
Yeah, i would have liked to ask all those people how many had been divorced considering being divorced is worse than being gay according to Christ.
That’s not my point. If you can divorce yourself from the emotion of the issue, the government intrusion with regard to Chick Fil A’s speech rights is the only point of contention.
The anti-gay owner DOES NOT have a right to aid and abet vote fraud, that’s the issue.
If that were the issue, wouldn’t Mr. Cathy be under indictment for aiding and abetting vote fraud. He’s given to the organization already. They’ve evidently been convicted. I’m guessing that’s NOT the issue.
We all know these Hate Votes intended to deprive LGBT Americans of the same right to legal marriage everyone else takes for granted were first cooked up by Karl Rove as a GOP Dirty Trick® to get his boss, Bush, elected and re-elected. We know Bush then told the IRS to ignore the churches that violated their IRS 503c3 regulations by cheating on these Hate Votes. GOP officials in those states looked the other way. That doesn’t absolve him of aiding and abetting campaign fraud and helping to poison our p0litical process, which is why Americans increasingly won’t buy his food or support him, since he is still supporting anti-gay cults.
I understand you’re upset at GOP administrations for not indicting Mr. Cathy for aiding and abetting vote fraud, but he wasn’t. Your heartfelt belief that he has commiitted these offenses with his contributions should not disallow them in the future. If those contributions are legally offensive, not just personally offensive, you may have a point.
Thank you.
No matter how much anti-gays whine, each and every city has the right to regulate businesses, especially nuisance businesses like fast food joints.
Otherwise there would be a porn shop next to every church, every school, and your home, seamus.
To use your own argument; I’m interested to know why you are so interested in “regulating nuiscance businesses” now when they have for years been responsible for 90% of roadside litter?
Maybe because now they are a nuisance to your issue?
We’re talking about Chicago regulating this nuisance; they’ve been doing it for many, many years. The first McDonald’s only opened there in the late 1970s.
And I’d say Dan Cathy’s aiding and abetting criminal activity is much worse than a mere nuisance.
Your assumption that I’m some religious nut is ill founded. The free speech issue is what draws my comments. Step back and look at what you’ve just written. Government use of nuisance laws as a pretext to limit free speech has been a hallmark of First Amendment caselaw. Flip the parties in the current scenario or apply your strictures to the 1960’s civil rights disobediances in the South and you’ll get where I’m coming from.
I didn’t suggest you are a religious nut, I suggested you are anti-gay. While it’s true many anti-gays are religious nuts, there is that fine line.
And fat chance of Dan Cathy suing the City of Chicago, he already doesn’t have the big bucks to waste on the attorneys for something he knows he will lose. Remember, the whole point is his sales are crashing because of his aiding and abetting campaign fraud.
I’m not anti-gay for supporting Mr. Cathy’s First Amendment rights anymore than I’m pro-gay for supporting yours.
Thank you for supporting the boycott. If I am incorrect about you, I apologize. Please understand that anti-gays constantly claim they are not anti-gay, and that their “gay friends” “don’t want equality.” This overarching deception coming from anti-gays is designed to divide Americans.
Oh please. Let me ask you this? When a regulated business is told it must post calories on the menu is this government supression of free speech? When General Mills is told by the government that Cheerios can no longer advertise that if makes healthy hearts is that supression of free speech? When Tobacco Companies are told that they can no longer advertise on billboards or electronic media is that a violation of first amendment protection?
How about this; If Mr Cathy tells his employees they may not wear pro gay buttons during work hours is that supression of free speech?
But it’s no longer your money…
And when it comes to Chick Fil A, I’d actually like to make sure that is stays MY money, as opposed to giving them anything that could go to an anti-gay organization.
CEO’s, especially at publicly held companies, can’t have it both ways. On the one hand they depend on their employees and the general public to earn their keep and on the other hand some want to take a visible stance in controversial political matters, offending some of their workers and customers in the process. As a stockholder I would take a dim view of mixing business with politics and as a consumer I am happy to take my business to companies run by smarter CEO’s.
I just want a chicken sandwich and some waffle fries!
And thus your name.
Oh man, you don’t know the half of it.
You know where to go.
There has been business boycotts in the past.
My father told us of a time in the early 20th century when the KKK was expanding all over the place. They set up a claven in the Pennsylvania coal region. In the town where my father grew up, Nesquahoning, the locals found out who the KKK members were. Apparently they were the owners of several businesses in town. They were soon out of business. The KKK not only hates blacks they also hate Roman Catholics and Jews.
I remember the boycott of non-union lettuce after C.B.S. news documented the plight of fruit and vegetable pickers in “Crop of Shame” I also remember the boycott of Dow Chemical during the Vietnam War. I remember the boycott of Woolworth’s during the civil rights struggle.
Boycotts have helped accomplish some worthy goals. Business men (some of whom own BDN’s notes) have always hated them.
Remember Anita Bryant? That was the very first boycott LGBT Americans organized.
That may be the first “official” boycott organized by the LGBT folks, BUT I grew up in New York, and clearly remember a gay boycott of any business which posted a P.B.A. sticker on their door. This was right after Stonewall, and the police were not in good favor with gay men at the time.
Someday if you like I’ll tell the real Stonewall history. The one you won’t see in history books.
It also happens to be a better tale.
WRITE IT DOWN NOW. Even in manuscript form, numerous LGBT archives would want it. Yes, I want to read that too!
My father’s family was “attacked” by the KKK in 1919 because Gram and the children were Catholics. Gram took care of them, and they never returned. As my Grampa told them later, “Nest time, I’m really gonna turn my wife loose on you!”
LOL, most of these hate groups are made up of cowards who are brave when they think they have the advantage.
Like any bully…
Thank you.
This is one of the sillier Op-Ed pieces I have ever read.
The burden the author is placing on a boycot is ridiculous.
Markets are very competitive places. Very Very few people say “I am going to boycot Chick Fil A therefore I am going to go without lunch.” They simply choose a different establishment to get lunch.
No one says, ” I want a cell phone but those CEOs at T-Moble are jerks so I will go without.” No, they just goto a different provider.
Boycotts are just one of many factors that weigh on us consumers every day. If we put the burden this author expects us to think about we would have to eat lunch at every restaurant in town every day for lunch just to keep our neighbors employed.
Should I worry about every employee because I like the product at McDonalds more than Burger King? Should I force myself to eat at BurgerKing out of “fairness?”
The money is going to be spent and help employee someone either way. The premis behind this article is not well thought out and a little stupid.
You (of course) are speaking for yourself and your experience. Many of my aquaintances have gone for long periords without eating grapes, lettuce, or patronizing businesses which demean and degrade their employees. The mass produced chicken business comes to mind. Personally I boycott chain restaurants simply because I hate eating cr@p
I asked my foodie friends if I was missing anything, not going to the anti-gay chicken chain. The response? “Meh, overpriced and tasteless.”
I feel the exact same way about Starbuck’s over priced low quality coffee. BUT this ahs nothing to do with their political pronouncements.
I applaud their donations but don’t buy their products either, for the same reasons. $3 for a large iced tea, right? For $3 I can make 100 quarts of iced tea at home.
Your friends are doing it in an effort not to support an industry that demeans and degrades their employees. However, they do have to eat some other food product to stay alive. Hopefully, a local farmer / shop with better labor practices.
Your doing it because you dislike the product, but you need to eat something. So, you support a different establishment with a product, you feel is superior, or you support some sort of grocer and make your own food. Either way you are still spending money on a resource or product of some kind and that supports someones employment.
These are the types of choices that we need to make on a daily basis every single time we spend a dollar.
That is how our free market is supposed to work. It is silly to draw an arbitrary line and say “Well that is a political view. So, I am going to ignore it in my decisioning about what to buy.”
Also, if Chck-fil-a is like most other fast food places we may just want to stop eating there because those employees the author asks us to worry about are probably being taken advantage of and underpaid.
I guess Mr. Dan Cathy was not given the same “right to express his personal views” under freedom of speech. He also has the right to donate his earned money to the charities of his choice.
After all, Obama’s “he gave us a phone” lady is expressing the right of the government to spend our taxpayer money on the “voting charities” of his choice–that would be 1 million people in Ohio alone. We as taxpayers should be outraged by this.
Mr. Dan Cathy’s right to express his personal views is the same right that allows everyone else to criticize those views. If he doesn’t like it, tough. That’s what you get mixing business and politics.
I don’t understand your comparison to “Obama’s ‘he gave us a phone’ lady.” After all, it was Presidents Reagan and Bush who initiated the process of giving free phones to impoverished people, so they could call 911 if necessary and contact potential employers.
“There is, in fact, a government program that will provide low-income people with a free or low cost cell phone. It was started in 2008 under George W. Bush. The idea of providing low-income individuals with subsidized phone service was originated in the Reagan administration following the break-up of AT&T in 1984. (It was expanded and formalized by the Telecommunications Act of 1996.) The program is paid for by telecommunications companies through an independent non-profit, not through tax revenue.” [http://thinkprogress.org/election/2012/09/27/924011/the-truth-about-the-obama-phone/]
Yeah, “he gave us a phone” lady was referencing a program started under Reagan. Love that guy!
You really do just make it up as you go along.
I don’t make things up.
http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/Monitor/mr98-2.pdf
You can apologize to me now.
Without actually looking at this specific incident, the phone was more than likely associated with the 1996 Telecommunications act signed by Clinton. There’s your apology.
It was started under Reagan. I cited my source and I didn’t make anything up. Guess you’re not a big enough person to admit when you’re wrong.
Oh, I’m big enough. You’re just not smart enough to know when you’re wrong. Under the 1996 Telecommunications Act was when they addressed cell phones (similar to what Reagan did for land lines). Yeah, there was such a huge proliferation of cell phones in 1984. You’re a sharp one buddy boy.
The same program. You’re not big enough.
You just keep winging it, I’ll keep calling you out, and we’ll get along just fine. Peace.
You can keep calling the grass blue but it doesn’t make it so. The program started under Reagan. But even if you want to lie and talk about 1996, it still means that it wasn’t Obama’s program. You and the one you are defending are the ones who are winging it.
You’re not big enough to admit that.
It it was the same program, they wouldn’t have started a new one. Never said it was Obama’s. I’ll treat you like I did my son when he was little. Gotcha last, I quit!
It’s the same program.
Dan Cathy DID NOT just “express his views,” he aided and abetted criminal activities.
The Obama phone lady video is hillarious, she doesnt sound like the sharpest tool in the shed…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpAOwJvTOio
Just as businesses have long held that they have the right to refuse to serve anyone, so consumers have the right not to spend money at businesses when they do not agree with the political stand of the business owner.
Note that Chick-Fil+A recently stopped suporting an anti-gay organization. Result of the protests? Who knows.
However, I agree that boycotts are usually counter productive and affect, adversely, those not really associated with the disagreement.
They actually didn’t stop.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/22/chick-fil-a-president-no-concessions-same-sex-marriage-supporters_n_1905885.html
Dan Cathy told Chicago officials lies, saying he would do so, but was caught that same week donating to an anti-gay group. I suspect he will steer well clear of Chicago the rest of his life.
But he DID PROVE that his business is hurting by even pretending to negotiate.
It wasn’t just that Dan Cathy, the anti-gay chicken chain owner, attacked the millions of Americans who support marriage equality–not just LGBT Americans but all the non-gays who want their family members, friends, neighbors and coworkers who are LGBT to have the SAME RIGHTS they have. Dan Cathy told this MAJORITY of Americans he does NOT want our business.
But there’s worse. Dan Cathy donated MILLIONS in corporate funds every year to anti-gay Hate Cults which, like the anti-gay Hate Cult, NOM, that violated Maine laws in 2009 and is STILL VIOLATING OUR LAWS, these Hate Cults that received Dan Cathy’s sleazy slush fund committed criminal acts to THROW ELECTIONS to hurt LGBT Americans.
There’s just no comparison of Dan Cathy aiding and abetting criminal activity with a company like Starbuck’s that donates to LGBT community organizations which abide by the law.
You are missing the point. It is the money that these businesses rake in probably at employees expense because many of them do not even earn a living wage making those profits blood money and they use it to push their own agenda. It is so blatantly obvious that I find it difficult to imagine anyone that is swayed by anything that comes out mouths such as these. Boycott on America! Until employers do right by their employees and their customers.
You’re a real bright one. How much is a living wage? If all of the employees at Chic-Fil-A deserve this mythical living wage you speak of, then that same principle must apply to every low skill level job that can be learned in a day, thereby elevating these people to the same wage level as those with a higher skill level and who have put in some time, money, and effort to get to that skill level.
Don’t you know? All employers are exploiters and all their workers are victims.
Now that is a rather large over-generalization. Do I hear sarcasm dripping? My retail employer pays me a very good wage. Seasonal workers at LLBean earn better than a living wage. There are employers who do the right thing and still make a tidy profit. Just to clear the picture.
It was an obvious over-generalization. I didn’t make the immediate assumption about employers raking in profits at their employees expense and using such “blood money” to push some nefarious agenda. I won’t boycott LL Bean, tho, since they treat you well.
Not me they treat well. Seasonal workers. I work elsewhere. Semi-retired and did not lose my pay grade when I went part-time. Another employer that does the right thing by employees.
You’re a real bright one. A living wage is well above what minimum wage now stands at. We have a Rep. from Washington County that introduced legislation that said teens should only get 2/3 rds of minimum wage as a training wage for 180 working days. He now is running for State Senator.
Living wage is just that, a wage that allows you to pay your bills. If a person has to drive 10 miles to work at Chic-Fil-A or 10 miles to work at a place that pays $15 per hour. The cost of transportaion remains the same. The costs of groceries remains the same. etc. There are no special lines in stores that sell neccessities of living for those who are making minimum wage.
The “living wage” argument seems to be so black and white to some, but IMHO is played up too much as being applicable to all people in all demographics…..I know of people living locally who’s salaries are varied and who each are able to pay their costs of living…..but, other non-essentials of life (i.e. eating out, traveling, having toys, extra entertainment etc.) are based on whether these can be afforded after paying the necessary bills first…..then there are those that put priority on having and enjoying the non-essentials and get behind on the necessaries thus they claim they don’t make a living wage and end up with unpaid bills and/or credit card debts….plus, the costs of living varies between the coasts of America so distinctly that saying a particular profession should pay accordingly means a job in Maine may demand $15 an hour when the same job and company in California should pay $35 per hour because of the greater costs of living……some people seem to be better at determining what it takes to pay for the essentials and live on less of a wage than others…..
You are exactly right. A living wage, according to Maine’s Livable Wage report, is significantly different for Bangor and Portland. So what is your point? We subsidize wages for many employers because the low wages qualify those employees for public assistance.
My main point is that one family making a “living wage” according to the numbers pays their bills and provides for the needs of their family because of being more conscious and accountable with their monies…..in an exact same scenario another family of equal size and wage is irresponsible with their monies spending recklessly and needlessly on non-essentials thus crying they do not make a living wage while going into unnecessary debt thus going to the Gov’t for assistance and causing folks as yourself to be ranting that their employer should pay higher living wages….elementary really…..
Thank you for making my case. Assigning a dollar value to a “living wage” is next to impossible due to the needs/wants/family size of different people. The bottom line is that most jobs at Chic-Fil-A or Walmart aren’t worth much more than minimum wage.
Do you understand what a living wage is? It is a just get by wage. Granted some will not pay their bills and use paycheck money another way, but there is no room for non-essentials in a living wage budget. If they are not making a living wage in many cases they qualify for public assistance and it is not because they are in debt. And, if I remember correctly when serving on several boards all public assistance is based on that paycheck….. not on how the money received is spent. But things could have changed. Have you ever looked at an application for public assistance? Pretty detailed accounting of finances is required. It is not those who ‘cry’ about a living wage that get to say what a living wage is. That is figured by places like MIT and our own Dept of Labor.
I fully understand what a living wage is and have heard you banter about it for months …..you infer in your rants that hypothetically McDonalds should be paying their employees $25 an hour, all employers that make a dollar profit are evil and that Corporations are a satanic plague on America…..the only way you would be happy is if anyone who made more money than you would automatically pay the difference back into the pockets of others so everyone’s income is equal…..I begrudge no person or employer who makes more money than I as long as they are doing it lawfully….in fact, if employers & corporations are not yielding profits then we are in worse shape economically than if they operate in the red…….IMHO, the worker bears much responsibility to live frugally with what is earned and I see many who do well with less because of making conscious choices…..on the other hand I see many who struggle with more $$ because of choices, so be it….
Living wage is the latest buzz word….
Dont you want to pay 20 bucks for your happy meal???
Don’t believe I said any of that actually. All for those who make a tidy profit. There are many that do AND treat their employees fairly. I have made that point many times. It is that simple. It can be done and it is the right thing to do.
Actually you don’t or you would know it is just over $10/hour. And I do not believe I said any of that. I applaud those who can run a business and make a tidy profit while treating their employees fairly. Many do. Like I said. Kick Walmart out. Bring Costco in.
Yes, actually I am quite bright. Maine itself produced a Livable Wage Report. Do you want to know what the living wage for Penobscot County is? For other counties across America you can go to the MIT site and find the information. Did you know LLBean pays its seasonal workers a living wage…. actually a bit better than? See, I do my homework. That is what makes people bright.
Like I just stated in my reply to PabMainer, a living wage is highly subjective depending on a person’s situation. I own my house, vehicles, don’t carry a balance on my credit card, and we’re empty nesters, so a living wage for me is going to look quite different than it would for somebody in their 30’s with kids and payments. I apologize for saying you’re not bright. Even though I don’t agree with most of your posts, it’s apparent that you put some thought into them.
You are correct that the figures are based on housing and transportation costs by county as well as other factors like food, health care and are usually figured for single adults, single parents, two adults-two children. And you know as I do that no mortgage does not mean no housing costs and no auto loan does not mean no transportation costs. But it would be interesting to see a figure for older workers in our situation. Most of us because of years worked make more than a living wage. Unless we lose our job and have to start over with whatever is available. And, it is very kind of you to offer an apology. I am okay with disagreement. Often it leads to new insight. Or further investigation.
Mr. PabMainer always hits the nail on the head, he has a plethora of knowledge…..
That is why you pay an arm and a leg for LLBean stuff that is made in China…LOL
Silly people will pay 3 times what the product is worth for the LLBean logo imprinted on it.
So that is how they can pay a living wage…Of course you get paid what you are worth in the real world, doesn’t take a rocket scientist to put chicken nuggets in a happy meal, so easy a caveman could do it..
Hey, I am more that willing to buy that logo if it means American workers will benefit. I think that might be part of what our President means by economic patriotism. Companies paying a living wage and consumers buying from those companies. But you can go ahead and buy at Walmart and continue to subsidize their public assistance wages. Every person who works deserves the dignity of receiving a living wage for the work they do.
You are right on the money….Keep up the great posts master Fuji….
This article is an indication of ONE thing…
NOM knows, because of the recent ruling, that they are going to have to abide by Maine’s disclosure laws, that they are going to have to release the names of their donors.
They know that this is going to happen, that the most they can do is try to delay it, possibly until AFTER the upcoming election, but that eventually those donors names will be made public.
We’ll know what businesses and individuals, who have been hiding, donated to the 2009 and the current NOM campaigns.
And everybody knows that there will be repercussions.
Myself, I’m looking forward to it. I want to know who to NOT do business with. It’s my right to choose, and I intend to exercise that right.
Not just because I support marriage equality in Maine, but because I want to send a loud and clear message to people and businesses that supported a campaign that relied upon breaking state disclosure laws to keep their donors secret, while donors to the opposing campaign were unfairly subjected to the scrutiny that they were not subjected to.
So, now that it’s VERY clear that there is no way that they can hide, like cowards, behind NOM’s lawyers and corruption of transparency, they’re afraid people are going to vote with their wallets and their feet.
NOM made this not just about the right to marriage equality, but also about the right to transparency, the right to know. They cheated, their donors took part in this cheating and corruption, all the while proclaiming how morally right they were.
You reap what you sew. It takes a while, but the seasons are changing, and you get no sympathy from me.
As usual this editorial makes no common sense.
People shop, vacation, and live where (if they can afford it) they are comfortable. Would your editorial writers suggest that we ignore your editorial opinion, cause after all it is the opinion of owners and management, not that of the janitor or copyboy. After all a relative might work
for the BDN or one of its jobbers.
Ridiculous you say? Same argument say I.
Should A Jew patronize a store with a swastika out front? Should a black shop where the restrooms are labeled “Colored and white?? Line staff don’t make these decisions so we
should let them pass, ignore them.
Not in my world.
The one on the right is a female….wow.
So is the lady on the left…
Matching haircuts it is hard to tell….
Your always good for a smile : )
This place is a whoot….
I just love apple-picking time!