Chicago alderman to block Chick-fil-A expansion

downhill246 wrote:

<quoted text>
The only reason there were alcohol restrictions on Sundays in New York in the first place was because of Christian Blue laws.
"Blue laws have been part of U.S. Legal History since the colonial period. These laws, which today are usually referred to as Sunday closing laws, prohibit certain types of commercial activity on Sundays. Originally these laws were directed at personal activities regarded as moral offenses, such as gambling or the consumption of alcohol. In the nineteenth century, however, state and local governments passed laws that forbade businesses from operating on Sunday. Although these laws were clearly based on Christian beliefs, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that they do not violate the First Amendment's Establishment Clause. Many blue laws have been repealed since the 1960s, but some laws that ban the sale of alcohol on Sunday remain in force.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...

I'm well aware of that. New York's Blue Laws were first written in the mid-1600's and were not ruled unconstitutional until 1976.

downhill246 wrote:

<quoted text>
I believe the potential to procreate via the natural union is the key,at least according to a NY judge in 2004.
"Same-sex marriage is not a fundamental right protected by the due-process clause of the New York state Constitution. The institution of marriage is a fundamental right founded on the distinction of sex and the potential for procreation. Homosexual marriages do not fall within those guideposts or serve such ends."
NY State Justice Alfred Weiner(2004)

I disagree very strongly with Justice Weiner. If a right is 'fundamental', it is applicable to ALL. It cannot be predicated on 'distinctions'. JMO

OkieDarren wrote:

<quoted text>
Sick, stupid lies. Nobody is attacked for believing in God, you are criticized for hate and bigotry, for racism and gutter politics, our American president is far more a follower of Christ than you.

And you are a deviant gay.

WMCOL wrote:

<quoted text>
==========
Gay is normal? Up the rear is normal? No wonder you folks are having so much consternation. You are living a lie. But that is your business. I just don't want it called marriage.

There was a time that Americans could be arrested for sodomy for participating in anal or oral sex even if it was with the opposite sex. Over 70% of all heterosexual women and men participate in oral sex today and 12% of woman participate in anal sex. So the idea that anal and oral sex is exclusively a homosexual activity is erroneous to say the least.

Did you know that Thomas Jefferson wrote in "A Bill for Proportioning Crimes and Punishments", that women caught committing acts of sodomy should be facially disfigured, and this punishment was recommended for oral and anal sex with the opposite sex.

Thomas Jefferson- " Whosoever shall be guilty of Rape, Polygamy, or Sodomy with man or woman shall be punished, if a man, by castration, if a woman, by cutting thro' the cartilage of her nose a hole of one half inch diameter at the least."

Sister Kathryn Lust wrote:

<quoted text>I'm guessing you'd remove the right of a company to open further ventures until they'd proved they were economically and ecologically sound for the good of the communities in which they build?
I feel the opposite. In concept, I support that idea (at least somewhat) but in practice, a free market is best left as free as possible if communities are going to succeed. I do propose one caveat to that however.
In the case of utility (power/water) companies, and the public airwaves, I think all of the above should be owned, governed, and operated by the communities they serve, and not any one individual, groups outside the community, or other interest. And I definitely don't believe our national natural resources should be sold outside of the United States.
That's probably 'leftist' of me though.....

" ... I'm called a 'leftist' because I believe that hurricanes are caused by high barometric pressure and NOT gay marriage ..." - James McAvoy, "The Newsroom"

I believe that a community should have absolute authority over any incursion into their jusrisdiction by ANY outside business.

A lot of case law disagrees with my perspective.

The "free market" works best when it's on a well-handled leash.

snyper wrote:

<quoted text>
" ... I'm called a 'leftist' because I believe that hurricanes are caused by high barometric pressure and NOT gay marriage ..." - James McAvoy, "The Newsroom"
I believe that a community should have absolute authority over any incursion into their jusrisdiction by ANY outside business.
A lot of case law disagrees with my perspective.
The "free market" works best when it's on a well-handled leash.

And who's to do the handling?

I missed The Newsroom tonight - will have to catch the replay.

Funny- I missed Weeds, too..........

Sister Kathryn Lust wrote:

<quoted text>And who's to do the handling?
I missed The Newsroom tonight - will have to catch the replay.
Funny- I missed Weeds, too..........

Reinstituting the provisions of the Glass-Steagall Act would be a fine start. It would keep commercial banks from gambling with depositor's funds like investment banks do.

Getting rid of this notion that corporations are a person, would be another.

Well I'm really beat. Looooooooooooooooooong day tomorrow.

Toby wrote:

<quoted text>
There was a time that Americans could be arrested for sodomy for participating in anal or oral sex even if it was with the opposite sex. Over 70% of all heterosexual women and men participate in oral sex today and 12% of woman participate in anal sex. So the idea that anal and oral sex is exclusively a homosexual activity is erroneous to say the least.
Did you know that Thomas Jefferson wrote in "A Bill for Proportioning Crimes and Punishments", that women caught committing acts of sodomy should be facially disfigured, and this punishment was recommended for oral and anal sex with the opposite sex.
Thomas Jefferson- " Whosoever shall be guilty of Rape, Polygamy, or Sodomy with man or woman shall be punished, if a man, by castration, if a woman, by cutting thro' the cartilage of her nose a hole of one half inch diameter at the least."

George Washington enforced anti-sodomy laws as the Commander in Chief, during the Revolutionary War. On March 10, 1778, Commander Washington issued this order regarding a homosexual soldier:“Lieutenant Enslin of Colonel Malcolm’s Regiment was tried for attempting to commit sodomy, with John Monhort…[We] do sentence him to be dismissed from the service with infamy. His Excellency, the Commander in Chief, approves the sentence and with abhorrence and detestation of such infamous crimes orders Lieutenant Enslin to be drummed out of camp tomorrow morning by all the drummers and fifers in the Army -- never to return.”

FaFoxy wrote:

<quoted text>
I'm well aware of that. New York's Blue Laws were first written in the mid-1600's and were not ruled unconstitutional until 1976.

Yet alcohol blue laws exist even today in parts of NYS.

Sister Kathryn Lust wrote:

<quoted text>I disagree very strongly with Justice Weiner. If a right is 'fundamental', it is applicable to ALL. It cannot be predicated on 'distinctions'. JMO

Of course you disagree and in spite of the claims to the contrary marriage is not a fundamental right since it takes the state to legalize it and the state to dissolve it.

"Judges like to pretend that their decisions are dictated by 'logic,' or by an authoritative text or precedent because it downplays the element of judicial discretion, which worries people.The pretense wears particularly thin in constitutional cases about marriage and sex, because the Constitution does not say anything about these subjects, and the framers of the Constitution, and of the major amendments, in particular the Fourteenth Amendment, which is the principal source of constitutional rights against the states, were not thinking about marriage, sex, homosexuality, or related topics when they drafted these founding documents."

Richard Posner,United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit


Posner, who has been called "the world’s most distinguished legal scholar," believes if marriage no longer means uniting a man and a woman, it can mean virtually anything -- and will.

Posner states if marriage is defined as a fundamental right, all persons must be granted that right unless the state offers a genuinely compelling argument that would support its denial.


“He might be a man who wanted to marry his sister (both being sterile), or a very mature twelve-year-old boy who wanted to marry his twelve-year-old girlfriend, or a married man who wanted additional wives so that they might help out his current wife around the house, or a busy professional woman who wanted two husbands, the better to take care of the house and the kids, or a homosexual male who wanted three male spouses. If marriage is a fundamental right, then it is a fundamental right for everyone–not only for heterosexual and homosexual couples. If the right to marry, irrespective of the conventional limitations on number, object, and so on, is fundamental in the portentous sense of putting on the state the burden of showing that the recognition of the right in the particular case would work some serious social harm then it is doubtful that a marriage license could be refused in any of the cases that I have described. For what harm does polygamy do, exactly, and what harm does incest do when there is no possibility of children?.."

Richard Posner

Sister Kathryn Lust wrote:

<quoted text>I disagree very strongly with Justice Weiner. If a right is 'fundamental', it is applicable to ALL. It cannot be predicated on 'distinctions'. JMO

The three dissenting judges in Goodridge v Massachusetts argued that they would not have required the state to recognize such unions because the state legislature enjoys broad discretion when regulating nonfundamental rights, such as the right to same-sex marriage. The Goodridges are now divorced, apparently the chase was more exciting for these gay role models than the capture.

downhill246 wrote:

<quoted text>
George Washington enforced anti-sodomy laws as the Commander in Chief, during the Revolutionary War. On March 10, 1778, Commander Washington issued this order regarding a homosexual soldier:“Lieutenant Enslin of Colonel Malcolm’s Regiment was tried for attempting to commit sodomy, with John Monhort…[We] do sentence him to be dismissed from the service with infamy. His Excellency, the Commander in Chief, approves the sentence and with abhorrence and detestation of such infamous crimes orders Lieutenant Enslin to be drummed out of camp tomorrow morning by all the drummers and fifers in the Army -- never to return.”

Yet one of General Washington's most important and valued generls was General Baron von Steuben for whom many places in the U.S. annually hold a Steuben Day Parade. General von Steuben's training and drilling of teh troops was essential in our victory over the British. General von Steuben wrote teh first U.S. Army Drill Manual which was used for almost 50 years.

General von Steuben was openly gay, and had 4 gayboys live with him while he trained the fledgling U.S. troops. After we had won The Revolutionary War, Congress was so greatful to General von Steuben that they granted him a large tract of land upstate New York, and a sizable lifetime pension.

"He left his estate to General Benjamin Walker and Captain William North, who had served as his aides-de-camp during the war, and with whom he had had an "extraordinarily intense emotional relationship ..." (William B. Skelton. "North, William"; American National Biography Online, February 2000.)

About 2 years ago, I made it a point to drive nearly 200 miles after church one Sunday to visit the grave of this GREAT AMERICAN.

downhill246 wrote:

<quoted text>
I believe the potential to procreate via the natural union is the key,at least according to a NY judge in 2004.
"Same-sex marriage is not a fundamental right protected by the due-process clause of the New York state Constitution. The institution of marriage is a fundamental right founded on the distinction of sex and the potential for procreation. Homosexual marriages do not fall within those guideposts or serve such ends."
NY State Justice Alfred Weiner(2004)

This open an obvious fact of nature is to much for them. Rare is a gay advocacte who can confront it rationally. They actually tell themselves things like.."it not mandatory to procreate" or "not every couple does procreate" is somehow negating the point, or makes the law illogical.

Its really rather sad...like sin makes you stupid or something.

Sister Kathryn Lust wrote:

<quoted text>I disagree very strongly with Justice Weiner. If a right is 'fundamental', it is applicable to ALL. It cannot be predicated on 'distinctions'. JMO

I noticed you ignored my post as well... Your approach is all feelings and no thought. Such an approach is unsuportable in law and unworkable in reality. All laws "discriminate" the question is Justly or unjustly?

Children need Both their Mothers & Fathers. The appaling lackf standards you uphold are directly responsible for the breakdown and sestemic poverty of the black & hispanic underclass in this country.

Toby wrote:

<quoted text>
There was a time that Americans could be arrested for sodomy for participating in anal or oral sex even if it was with the opposite sex. Over 70% of all heterosexual women and men participate in oral sex today and 12% of woman participate in anal sex. So the idea that anal and oral sex is exclusively a homosexual activity is erroneous to say the least.
Did you know that Thomas Jefferson wrote in "A Bill for Proportioning Crimes and Punishments", that women caught committing acts of sodomy should be facially disfigured, and this punishment was recommended for oral and anal sex with the opposite sex.
Thomas Jefferson- " Whosoever shall be guilty of Rape, Polygamy, or Sodomy with man or woman shall be punished, if a man, by castration, if a woman, by cutting thro' the cartilage of her nose a hole of one half inch diameter at the least."

==========
Doesn't change the fact that the abnormality and unnaturalness spoken of is still male marrying male and female marrying female.

What people do in private is mostly their business, what they do in public is my business. Marriage is public.

All the above does not change the fact that the Alderman wants to punish Chik Fl A for because the Chairman used his right to FREEDOM OF SPEECH..

for those who support the Alderman in this. how would you feel if a City in say, Georgia told a company they could not operate in their town because of their pro gay policies? Would you support that city?

Fitz wrote:

<quoted text>
I noticed you ignored my post as well... Your approach is all feelings and no thought. Such an approach is unsuportable in law and unworkable in reality. All laws "discriminate" the question is Justly or unjustly?
Children need Both their Mothers & Fathers. The appaling lackf standards you uphold are directly responsible for the breakdown and sestemic poverty of the black & hispanic underclass in this country.

Tell your precious heteros to STOP getting divorced and stop having babies out of wedlock and maybe that will produce more moms and dads.

Fifty percent divorce rate of heteros. Tsk tsk. How SHOCKING and cavalier they take the holy sacrament of marriage!

Fitz wrote:

<quoted text>
I noticed you ignored my post as well... Your approach is all feelings and no thought. Such an approach is unsuportable in law and unworkable in reality. All laws "discriminate" the question is Justly or unjustly?
Children need Both their Mothers & Fathers. The appaling lackf standards you uphold are directly responsible for the breakdown and sestemic poverty of the black & hispanic underclass in this country.

Maybe more people should emulate the Palin family!

Now THEY are fine upstanding Christians and NEVER would have a one parent family and boast about it on TV and...oh, oh, yeah, Bristol. Oops! My mistake!

FaFoxy wrote:

<quoted text>

General von Steuben was openly gay, and had 4 gayboys live with him while he trained the fledgling U.S. troops.

Was he gay, or merely European?

It can be hard to tell the difference.......

Now the mayor of Wash. D.C. has joined the Neo-Marxists as to ban any biz licenses to Chick-fil-A.

This in a city where his large black base of voters are also in favor of banning Gay marriage.

Many times the LEFTIES on here piss n' moan about GOP'ers being againist the desired interests of the voters. Do they mention it when LEFTY pols favor Gay marriage over the beliefs of the black majority ?