Mayor Bloomberg Standing Against Goosestepping Insanity...

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Liberty -vs- Tyranny



Kudos to Mayor Bloomberg. With all the political uproar over Chick-fil-A president Dan Cathy's support for traditional marriage values and spending heavily to thwart gay marriage efforts, Mayor Bloomberg will not prevent the company from doing business in NYC. Unlike the Mayor's of Boston, Chicago, and San Francisco who have all went on record as supporting efforts to keep the company from doing business in "their" cities.

Politicker - Despite Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s advocacy for a healthier diet and strong support for gay marriage, he’s cold on the idea of banning Chick-fil-A within the five boroughs.

As mayors around the country — including Boston’s, Chicago’s and San Francisco’s — are backing efforts to keep the fast food chain out of their cities due to the company’s president, Dan Cathy, spending millions to push back against gay marriage, Mr. Bloomberg said it’s “a bad idea and it’s not going to happen” on John Gambling’s radio show this morning.

“They’re all friends but I disagree with them really strongly on this one,” Mr. Bloomberg said of his mayoral colleagues. “You can’t have a test for what the owners’ personal views are before you decide to give a permit to do something in the city. You really don’t want to ask political beliefs or religious beliefs before you issue a permit, that’s just not government’s job.”

Mr. Bloomberg went on to argue that blocking a business based on their political beliefs opens a potential slippery slope where liberal cities block conservative establishments and vice versa with conservative cities.

“Freedom of speech — everybody’s in favor of it as long as it’s what they want to hear,” he explained. “Well the only way that you have your freedom of speech is if you give other people freedom of speech. … This is just a bad idea and it’s not going to happen in New York City.” {Read More}

Meanwhile over in Bean Town, as Boston is affectionately called by it's inhabitants, Mayor Menino, like the good goose stepper he is has decided to take the left's approved "political correct" approach to keeping a legitimate business from operating in "his city" because he disapproves of the views of it's management. Even though there exists no evidence the business operate in a discriminatory manner against the gay community.

However it is no problem, at least for Mayor Menino anyway, to give away land (valued at 1.8 million) at under market value to an organization who had in its leadership ranks a man who is on record as saying homosexuality is a “crime that must be punished” by death?

Details as reported by the The Boston Herald.com

Given his stance on Chick-fil-A, would Mayor Tom Menino grant permits to a group that has counted among its leaders a man who has repeatedly called homosexuality a “crime that must be punished” by death?

Actually, he has done that  . . . and more! Menino effectively gave away city land valued at $1.8 million to the organization, and he gave a speech at its ribbon-cutting ceremony.

It’s the Islamic Society of Boston’s mosque, and when it comes to anti-gay sentiment, one of its early supporters makes Chick-fil-A look like the Provincetown Men’s Chorus.

During the (understandable) controversy over the city selling land for a house of worship at a below-market rate a decade ago, reporters discovered that the Islamic Society of Boston counted imam Yusef al-Qaradawi as one of its spiritual guides. As the Weekly Standard reported at the time:

“The ISB does not dispute the fact that they have repeatedly used al-Qaradawi as a tool to raise funds for the Boston mosque, printing a brochure that highlighted al-Qaradawi’s enthusiastic support of the mosque and playing a videotaped message of support from him at a 2002 gathering.”

Also in attendance at the gathering, listening to al-Qaradawi’s message: Mayor Tom Menino.

Skip

OK, Mr. Mayor. But when you gave all that land to the ISB at a song, here’s what imam al-Qaradawi was teaching:

“[A homosexual should be given] the same punishment as any sexual pervert  . . . Some say we should throw them from a high place, like God did with the people of Sodom. Some say we should burn them.”

According to the Anti-Defamation League, “In 2003 Qaradawi stated on IslamOnline that the punishment of homosexuality is the death penalty.”

In the end, says the anti-Islamist organization MEMRI, al-Qaradawi came down on the side of stoning.

Hey — say what you want about Chick-fil-A, but they aren’t trying to kill anyone. Other than, perhaps, via hardening of the arteries.

Chick-fil-A wants to come to Boston, pay taxes and put people to work. Menino says “no” because the CEO thinks same-sex marriage is wrong. {Read More}

Liberal Mayor Bloomberg made the decision he did because? I suppose it is because it is the only rational one. More importantly however he made his decision because it is the right one, on every level.

Mayor Menino and his counterparts in Chicago and San Francisco are making the wrong decision because? I'd like to believe it's because they don't know any better. But really, I think it's because they owe their political existence to the goosestepping politically correct intolerant left.

That's my take, what's yours?

Via: Memeorandum
Via: Memeorandum

Comments

  1. it was inevitable. this is the outcome when governments marries themselves to the religious beliefs of secularism.i guarantee that you'll see more of this in the coming years.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Governments should merely sanction the union of two individuals so as to bestow upon all the legal benefits/responsibilities the law provides/requires equally to ad from all. Regardless os sexual orientation or preference. Depending on how one looks at the issue Griper.

      Religious dogma and ideology is as responsible for this impasse (problem) as is the government. The line was drawn in the sand long ago by those on both sides who are intolerant and expect everyone to lead their personal life as prescribed and ordained by them.

      Delete
  2. A business should be free to locate wherever it wants (within reason - a strip club shouldn't be allowed to open next to a pre-school) and the public should be free to boycott it if they want to. The Boston mayor here is being way too heavy-handed.

    ReplyDelete
  3. To fight for the right of those who would scream at the top of their lungs, that which you have spent a lifetime opposing.

    People around the world, different cultures, different religions, get married in the eyes of their God, not their government.

    I see marriage as a religious ceremony and institution, that the government should have no part of. I should not have to have my marriage sanctioned (licensed) by the government, or have to pay a fee to the government just to get married. The government should not give tax breaks to married people, that single people do not get. Government should not be able to say you cannot have more than one wife. Government should have no say at all in marriage.

    Free choice is the gauge of how free a society is. Make something illegal, take away a free choice for someone else, even if you despise their choice. Make guns illegal, and take away someones choice to own one. Make abortions illegal, and take away a choice for someone to have one. Making legislation based on religious, moral doctrine, takes away the choice of those who do not believe in that ideology. Churches have the right to not marry any union that is unacceptable to their God, or their holy teachings and beliefs. Churches have a right to support politicians that agree with their ideology, but; religion should not be a consideration when lawmakers pass laws.

    ReplyDelete
  4. its not the laws in regards to marriage that is the determinant of who the benefits are bestowed. it is the laws in regards to the entitlements that does.

    a better way is to change the laws in regards to the entitlements so as to allow each person by free will determine who benefits instead of the government determining it for them.

    i would think this idea would be more appealing to you since you are an advocate of "free will"
    all this issue brought out is the fact that government "determination" is very selective and may not be in accordance to a person's will or desire.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Les, I wish you'd take it easy on "the left" when it comes to this. The left is seriously split about things like this. Many, who knows, maybe most, would agree with me that a private company like Chick-fil-A can spend it's profits as it chooses, especially a company like Cathy's, which is a conscientious employer and business in the public realm. If those positions really bother someone, well, then it's good that they be made known, and then people can decide for themselves if they still want some "chikin."

    Funny enough, this reminds me of Antonin Scalia's interesting critique of the federal election laws as they might change things after Citizens United ostensibly would, in that he said we have to have transparency, we have to know where speech is coming from. It makes a difference. Sure, that opens up big spending speakers to shots on the messenger, but the messenger always affects the message. That's just basic physics.

    So, while I do not believe we should, or constitutionally can, stop a private business like Cathy's from spending it's profits on perfectly legal activities, I do think it's good that we're talking about all this. Maybe these "liberal" mayors are just trying to make a point, and don't expect to enforce their stated ideal strictures. I hope so, but at the same time I wish they'd find another way to do it. Fair point/bad way to go about it.

    JMJ

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 1) We agree. A boycott of Chick-fil-A by the LGBT community (as weelas any others who would wish to participate) is certainly fine, and a proper response.

      2) Fair point, when made in proper context and format. These goons are nothing more than goosestepping leftist ideologues who left their brain (assuming they have one) in idle while attempting to score cheap political points with a certain constituency. THEY HAVE NO SHAME.

      Delete
    2. Well, I can't say I like that whole "goosestepping" reference, as I don't see any Nazi-esque victimization of wealthy ideologues in America today, but again I don't think it's legal or right to ban private businesses from doing as they please within the law.

      JMJ

      Delete
    3. News flash jmj, Anytime an individual marches in lockstep with any particular ideology or dogma it is, in my mid goosestepping. Something Emmanuel and Menino do superbly. Of course that just the opinion of one who also thinks Limbaugh, Hannity, Palin and a host of others on the other side do just as superbly.

      Delete
  6. Oh, and Les, did you catch Ron Paul's huge victory in the House this week???

    I know it won't get passed in the senate, but it had a huge impact on pending legislation that will pass and be signed, and it builds on Paul's significant contributions to the Wall Street reforms of 2010.

    It's always good to see points of agreement between people like you and I, fellow Americans. It's also good to see that sometimes when we do agree we actually get it done, the way Ron Paul has, many times. I'm so sad to see him retire.

    JMJ

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes jmj, Ron Paul will be missed by all truE liberty minded individuals. He had (has) it right in so many ways. Certainly not perfect mind you, but closer than most all other pols.

      Yeah jmj, it is good on those rare occasions the left finally sees it the liberty (right) way! Sorry, couldn't help myself ;)

      Now, if only enough Americans would "get it done" by electing Gary Johnson President of the U.S.A. in 2012.

      Delete
  7. I'll drink a 64-oz Big Gulp to that.

    ReplyDelete
  8. "...those on both sides who are intolerant and expect everyone to lead their personal life as prescribed and ordained by them.

    Exactly where did you get the information that gays want "everyone to lead their personal life as prescribed and ordained by them?"

    What you've described is what anti-gay marriage advocates want. They want marriage to be between only one man and one woman. They repeat that--and so does Romney--all the time.

    And to the Anon who says government should stay out of the business of marriage? Government favors married people by allowing deductions to married couples, and not singles, or same sex marriages.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Shaw, you miss read me again... I'll explain later, my 3 1/2 year old grandson is calling and I simply must take care of important issues first.

      Thanks for stopping in.

      Delete
  9. I know, that's why government should stay out of it. I believe I made myself clear, there should be no tax deductions because of marriage. I'll give you another shocker, there should be no tax deductions because of children. Marriage, children, this is none of governments business and should not be promoted (tax deductions) by government.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'll give you a shocker, that is why I presented a tax plan that would do just that here at RN USA. Neither side was terribly excited about it.You can search the archives if you would like.

      Delete
  10. I'll give you another shocker, Churches should pay taxes.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Never gave this one a thought. Being a non religious sort (atheist) it really never hit my radar scope. Maybe it is because of the many charitable and admirable things the modern Christian and Jewish churches do for their communities. I cannot comment with respect to the Muslim community and their Mosques because I am not familiar with their outreach efforts. But I suspect the same may hold true.

      Delete
  11. I was addressing Shaw, sorry must have hit the wrong reply button.
    Glad to get your replies.
    I can see (given our current tax structure) keeping charitable deductions, which includes Churches. If their feeding the poor, fine. If they are buying new land, or building a church, tax them like anyone else.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for the clarification. That aside, agree with your position on this reply.

      Delete
  12. I could see if this was a discrimination case but there doesn't seem to any evidence of that, correct, Les?......And, yes, M. Bloomberg rocks on this.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I completely disagree that churches should pay taxes. No corporation, church, or union should pay taxes. Only people should pay taxes on their transactions.

    Of course, if we did that, we'd have to make the income tax far more progressive than it is today, and since that isn't going to happen, don't ever expect "conservative" and/or "Republican" elected officials to recognize only real live human beings tax payers, what they actually are. We are today just "human resources."

    JMJ

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

RN USA is a No Judgement Zone (to steal from Planet Fitness), so please, No Judgement of others. We reserve the right to delete any such comment immediately upon detection.

All views are welcome. As long as the comment is on topic and respectful of others.



Top Posts

The Ignorance and Arrogance of Obama...

Spoken Like a True Dyed In the Blue Statist...

The "Scandal" That Won't Go Away...

It's Going To Be Close, Brace Yourself For Continued Polarization of America, Especially if Obama Loses...

2015 Could Be a Bad Year for Liberals...

Small Businesses Can Improve the Health of a Community...

Is Our Democratic Republic At Risk From Forces Both Foreign and Within?...

April Job Numbers Appear Improved... Are They Really?

Jon Stewart and the Babbling Nancy Pelosi...