In Reply: Individuals Responsible For Their Individual Acts

In reply to the following comment at Chick-fil-A 'Kiss in' protest small compared to appreciation day - latimes.com

"The LGBT wants people to think that they have been unfairly mistreated. Two lesbian women decided to present themselves as victims of hate. "kill the gays" was painted on the front of their house. They claimed to police that their neighbors had done it and they were in fear for their lives because they had recieved death threats. The different LGBT "activists" were getting ready for a pitty party and i can bet the media was giddy with glee at another chance to report on all the supposed "bigots" that are hurting innocent poor gay people. The police started their investigation and it did not take long to find the truth that the two women had done it themselves. They were so selfish and focused on promoting their agenda to silence all the "bigots" that they did not even care that one of their innocent neighbors would not only face charges for vandalism and death threats but would be hate by everybody because the Liberal media would be sure to plaster their "hateful" face all over the news for a very long time. Needless to say we all know the Liberal media kept the story hush hush when the truth was found out and it barely made a splash and could only be read about by the lucky person to accidently come accross it. This sort of thing makes me wonder if the LGBT does this all the time. It sure does make it harder to believe any of their other claims. Now they have painted on a Chick-Fil-A and it just shows me the ones presenting themselves as victims of hate are the very thing they accuse others of being."
---

Not so crazy to think this vandalism might've happened the other way then, based on what you're saying.

Of course, your whole thinking only goes one way; Two lesbians do something stupid for propaganda, you place the blame on all gay folks. A message against bigotry spray-painted onto a Chick-fil-A building--for which there are no suspects, but for which the propaganda value AGAINST the marriage equality movement is obvious--and you still blame the whole of the gay rights movement. It probably was a person in favor of marriage equality who committed that act of vandalism, but whether that or an agent provocataur from the "traditional marriage" side manufacturing a controversy to exploit, the only person(s) responsible for that vandalism is (are) the vandal(s), not the whole movement from which they came.
---

Posted 6:30 PM (or so)
---

Turns out it was a marriage equality supporter who vandalized the building:
Chick-Fil-A In Torrance, Calif., Graffitied With 'Tastes Like Hate'

Manny Castro

In Reply: "Collective blame for individual action is a non-starter." (Chick-fil-A, Religion, Bad Thinkin')

In reply to Conservatives blast Chick-fil-A 'Tastes like hate' vandalism - latimes.com

Generalizing about whole groups based on the bad behavior of individual members (allegedly, anyway--I'm not saying that graffiti was planted, but it sure makes for a convenient meme) is the very building block of bigotry, whether the group is based on religious belief, sexual orientation, or political belief. Gay folks (or liberals) are no more responsible for that graffiti than folks opposed to abortion (or conservatives) are responsible for clinic bombings. Collective blame for individual action is a non-starter.
--
Posted 8/3/12, 9:00 PM (or so)
===

I will say this, though... Like the idiot(s) who did the vandalism, the people beating up on the faithful in these comments and claiming to do so in the name of marriage equality are not doing anyone any good, and are not speaking for me, at all. The God I worship sees the inherent worth and dignity of all persons, including the ones who think He would ever condone treating anyone as less than perfect creations...or who don't believe in Him, at all.
---
Posted 8/3/12, 9:10 PM (or so)

UPDATED: In Reply: The Wendy's Nontroversy: Machiavelli in the modern age

In reply to The Wendy’s social media saga | VentureBeat
---

Wendy's handled it poorly, and made the situation far, far worse...

But there's a lot left unanswered on the merits of the thing. Did the franchisee have the right to "speak" on Wendy's signpost? (I'm guessing the franchise contract speaks to this.) When you work for someone else--or in someone else's name--your right to free speech in the workplace isn't absolute.

In saying " We proudly serve ALL customers!,"did the Wendy's PR person really say anything different than what the Chick-fil-A PR person said in their 7/31 press release?: "The Chick-fil-A culture and service tradition in our restaurants is to treat every person with honor, dignity and respect –regardless of their belief, race, creed, sexual orientation or gender."

Is Chick-fil-A implying other fast food restaurants DON'T treat everyone with honor, dignity, and respect?!? Should people be sending them hundreds (thousands?) of angry tweets in response to their "obvious insinuation" about their competition?

No, because there's nothing offensive in either restaurant saying they proudly serve everyone...except to folks looking to create more faux controversy and gin up that cohesive anger that brings (the right kind of) folks together against a common "enemy." Machiavelli still gets results in this modern age.
---

Posted 8/2/12, 'round noon or so

Also blogging:
The Bullshit Manufactured Wendy’s Controversy | JimSwift.net

UPDATE, 8/3/12, 6:00 PM: Found the following while searching for more information last night. While this policy is for employees, and it says elsewhere in this policy statement that franchisees are not employees, I can't imagine that the policies on political / community participation in the workplace are all that much different. Two sections of the 'Wendy's Company' employee manual:

Code of Conduct | COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT | About Wendy's

As concerned and responsible citizens, employees of Wendy's are encouraged to participate in community activities. Wendy's will strive to:

Function as an integral part of the local communities in which it conducts its business operations; and
Remain keenly aware of the benefits it and its employees receive from participating in any activities that improve the health, well-being, education and culture of the community.
Being partners with our communities, we have a responsibility to support and share in the development of social and civic activities to enhance our quality of life.

When the Company elects to participate in a community project and utilize limited employee time and Company resources, management will communicate to affected employees in advance that the effort is a Company sponsored project. Be sure to separate your personal community activities from your work. Pursue community activities on your own time, with your own resources and as an individual private citizen, not as a representative of Wendy's. Do not claim to represent, or imply representation of, the Company to the public or in any public process or forum unless specifically requested to do so by management.

Code of Conduct | POLITICAL ACTIVITIES AND CONTRIBUTIONS | About Wendy's

Employees are encouraged to participate in the political process and vote for the candidates or issues of their choice. Active political participation is the personal choice of each employee and should be conducted on your own time in your role as a private citizen and not on behalf of the Company.

It is strictly prohibited for individual employees to use the funds of Wendy's or its name, assets or property for political purposes or endorsement, whether directly or indirectly. It is also against Company policy to include, directly or indirectly, any political contribution on your expense account or in any other way that causes the Company to reimburse you for that expense. In general, the cost of fund-raising tickets for political functions is considered a political contribution. Therefore, including the cost of any such fund-raising dinner on an expense account, even if business is in fact discussed, is against Company policy and in some cases illegal.

From time to time, Wendy's may, within the limits of the law and through the Wendy's Political Action Committee, support a particular candidate, or support or criticize proposed legislation, regulations or rulings that might impact the business environment in which the Company operates. Our employees are welcome, though not obligated or expected, to participate in such activities.

The political process has become highly regulated, and anyone who has any question about what is or is not proper should consult with the Legal Department before agreeing to do anything that could be construed as involving Wendy's in any political activity at either the federal, state or local level in the United States or in any foreign country.

If anyone can provide any more information, like the actual text from a franchisee agreement, perhaps, I really think they oughtta, whether via comment here or on their own blog. (This goes DOUBLE for "The Wendy's Company," which was so entirely too aggressive when this story began, but has since folded like a cheap suit. If all Wendy's did was adhere to company policy in the interest of remaining neutral as a company and making everyone who works for, is a customer of, or otherwise deals with them feel welcome--a policy that the franchisee who put up the signs should've been aware of--they really, really, REALLY ought to say so, and rebut this nonsense about their opposing free speech. Flame off.)

X-Post: Dishonest Donald Douglas: Fascist First Amendment Fail

Three stories, common theme:

American Power: Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day

"MY free speech rights are sacrosanct. YOUR free speech rights are fascist*."
(*Donald Douglas epithet / misused word of the week, apparently.)
((Also, dig the side order of "Might Money makes right."))
---

Palin: Calling For Chick-Fil-A Boycott "Has A Chilling Effect On Our First Amendment Rights" | Video | Media Matters for America



"MY free speech is sacrosanct. YOUR free speech chills free speech."
(And by the way, how DARE you use your free speech to expose mine for the bigoted tripe that it is.)
---

May I present "conservative, heterosexual, white male" John Rocker:

"Over recent years, it seems the term “free speech” has become more of an oxymoron than an absolute in our society. Technically, as our Founding Fathers intended, we are all given the undeniable right to voice our thoughts and opinions freely without fear of scorn and/or ridicule derived from non-agreement. I supposedly have the same right to express myself as you do. In a perfect world, my rights should be no different from yours. I’m quite certain that given the current stage of the world’s social climate, however, anyone ascribing to the ridiculous notion that our world is perfect is kidding himself. Our “perfect” world was replaced many moons ago by the defective reality in which we are all forced to reside – and one of the most blatant areas to view the erosion of perfection is seen in the lack of ability many in this great country have to speak freely without fear of chastisement."

"MY free speech is socra.. sicru... ... the gooddest. YOUR free speech hurts my conservative, heterosexual, white male feelings."

Best post on Rocker, bar none: The Right Not To Be Criticized: John Rocker Edition | Popehat. Read it, but protect your screen from beverage / bodily fluid spray...


Links:
American Power: Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day

Palin: Calling For Chick-Fil-A Boycott "Has A Chilling Effect On Our First Amendment Rights" | Video | Media Matters for America

The Right Not To Be Criticized: John Rocker Edition | Popehat
---

An American Nihilist X-post

In Recognition of Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day

I don't support either the restaurant or the reason some folks are eating there today, but their free speech--while wrong in content, in my humble, and in spite of whiners who only appreciate the free speech of those who agree with 'em--is just as valuable as mine.

So, with that in mind, a Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day playlist, suitable for those eating at the place, and those protesting there, too...

Ain't Nobody Here But Us Chickens - The Stargazers
All Birds Look Like Chicken To Me - Sweet Papa Stovepipe
Back In The Chicken Shack (Live) - Phish
Betting Better Fake Chicken Meat Will Be As Good As The Real Thing - NPR Story of the Day Podcast
Chick Habit - April March
Chick Singers - Dan Bern - Fifty Eggs
Chick-A-Boom (Don't Ya Jes' Love It) - Daddy Dewdrop
The Chicken - Bill Williams
A Chicken Ain't Nothin' But a Bird - Cab Calloway
Chicken ain't nothing but a bird - Duck Baker
A Chicken Ain't Nothing But A Bird - Louis Jordan
Chicken And The Hawk - Cousin Joe, aka Joe Pleasant
Chicken blues - Mississippi John Hurt
Chicken Boy Polka - Those Darn Accordions! - Vongole Fisarmonica
The Chicken Dance - Lawrence Welk
Chicken Dog - John Scofield
Chicken Half - Sugarman 3
Chicken Heart - Arch Oboler - Drop Dead!
Chicken Heart - Bill Cosby
CHICKEN HUNTIN - FROGTHEDAWG - TEXAS CHAINSAW MASHACRE
Chicken In The Kitchen - The Robert Cray Band
Chicken Little - Push Down & Turn - H.O.R.D.E. Band To Band Combat
Chicken Outlaw - Wide Boy Awake
Chicken Roost Blues - Cliff Carlisle
Chicken Shack - Pinetop Perkins
Chicken Shack Boogie - Amos Milburn
Chicken Stuff - Hop Wilson
Chicken Stuff - Steve James
Chicken Town - James Mathus & His Knockdown Society
Chicken Wing Ft. The Demigodz [Explicit] - Eric Bobo
Chicken You Can Roost Behind The Moon - Stokes And Sane
Chickens - Junip
Chicklet Learns to Surf - Ben Vaughn - Psycho Beach Party OST
Chicklet Meets Surfers - Ben Vaughn - Psycho Beach Party OST
Chicklet Wipes Out - Ben Vaughn - Psycho Beach Party OST
The Chicks I Pick Are Slender And Tender - Louis Jordan
Chicky-Mo, Craney-Cro - Louis Jordan
Chips - Chicken - Banana Split (From Jamaica To Toronto: Soul Funk & Reggae 1967-1974) - Jo Jo & The Fugitives
Coop D'Etat: Farmers, Humane Society Partner On Chicken-Cage Revolution - NPR Story of the Day Podcast
Cotton Pickin' Chicken (Lost in Paradise) - Angel Baby
Congress Passes Amendment Guaranteeing Right To Chicken Done Right - The Onion Radio News
Slate's Explainer Podcast - Funky Chicken: Do American birds taste funny because we chlorinate them? By Nina Shen Rastogi
In New Orleans, A Fried Chicken Institution Revived - NPR: Story of the Day Podcast
Kitty's Rambles/Dowd's 9 Lives/Jenny's Chickens - Marc Gunn - MarcSONGS Podcast
Pregnant Circus Geek Now Biting Heads Off Chicken For Two - The Onion Radio News
Savoring The Spice In Kung Pao Chicken - NPR: Story of the Day Podcast
Slate: The Chick-fil-A Church - Dale Willman, Slate Magazine Daily Podcast
Swinging Chicken Ritual Divides Orthodox Jews - NPR: Story of the Day Podcast
Dig That Crazy Chick - Sam Butera & The Witnesses
Dixie Chicken - Little Feat
Do These Frogs Really Taste Like Chicken - Budweiser Lizards
Fried Chicken - Steve Vai
Funky Chicken - Marcus Miller, Steve Gadd, Eric Clapton, David Sanborn & Joe Sample Funky Chicken - The New York Jets
The Funky Chicken - Rufus Thomas
Funky Chicken Song [Techno] - Fast Food Rockers
Funky Chicken Stew - The Dayton Sidewinders
The Ghost And Mr. Chicken - The Tiki Tones
Grab a Chicken (Put It Back) - Peter Frampton - Fingerprints
The Greasy Chicken - Andre Williams & The Don Juans
Hippie Chick - SoHo
Huddled Chickens - Phillips, U. Utah - I've Got To Know
CHICKENS & OTHER CLUCKERS... - Intoxica Radio w/Howie Pyro
Kicks & Chicks - The Zipps
Marque-son's Chicken - Frank Zappa
Mr. Chicken Shit (alternate take) - The Soul Seven
Quarter Chicken Dark - Stuart Duncan; Chris Thile; Edgar Meyer; Yo-Yo Ma - The Goat Rodeo Sessions
Refried Funky Chicken - The Dregs 1
Robot Chicken - Les Claypool
Run Chicken Run - The Felice Brothers
Running With Chicken - Garfunkel and Oates - All Over Your Face
The Sad Chicken - Leroy & The Drivers
Shoo That Chicken - Bo Carter
Stay Away From My Chicken House - Gene Autry
Superchicken - Sheldon Allman & Stan Worth - Television's Greatest Hits Vol. 5 - In Living Color
That Chick's Too Young To Fry - Louis Jordan
Thunder Chicken - The Mighty Imperials
VLR 04 - How to be a Chicken - Rev. Davdson Loehr - Voices of Liberal Religion
Wasted Chicks - Chicks On Speed vs Kings Of Leon
Y'all Chickenhawks to Me - Elmo and the Monsters
5-Piece Chicken Dinner - The Beastie Boys
Pepito Chickeeto - Woody Woodpecker Presents

In Reply: Reading Into Speech, And Finding Exactly What You're Looking For

In reply to Allergic to Bull: It’s about Fascism: Why Everyone Should Eat At Chick-Fil-A On Wednesday

I'm with you on the Boston and Chicago incidents, but I think that to lump Mayor Lee in with them, one has to read too much into what he says. Whatever meaning he intended--and I agree that he might've intended to be threatening official Mayoral action to block Chick-fil-A from locating in San Francisco, and even that if he was intending to threaten the use of Mayoral power, he likely intentionally chose his words carefully so as not to be held accountable for the threat he was making--he did not make a threat clear enough to warrant lumping him in with the other two officials in the other two cities. There are other possible meanings, and you're choosing the most damning one, and attacking him for what you think he meant, probably.

Mostly this is a disagreement of opinion--you read one thing into his tweet, and I read another, and neither of us has any definitive proof--or will ever have any, unless the Mayor says something more to clarify the meaning of that original tweet (and even then, he could be walking back his original statement, right?)--but you're also suggesting that what he said--what you believe he said--is a violation of law.

I don't think so. I don't believe there is any law under which one can be prosecuted for what folks think a person meant in a statement as unclear as his. (And even if there were some way to prove he actually meant he would take official government action, I question whether there would need to be some overt act--or some showing that Chick-fil-A suffered some quantifiable damage, at least--before a case could be brought against Mayor Lee.) But I'm not a lawyer, so what do I know...

And while we're on the subject of law, I'm still perplexed by your cite of Virginia v Black, and your suggestion that one can find "the law of what counts as a threat" as a part of that decision. As you may've read, all I found when I perused the thing was the cite about "true threats," which involve clear expressions of the intent to commit unlawful violent acts. And if you're reading THAT into what Mayor Lee said, well, I'd be very surprised.

I'm a little worried about the accusation of Mayor Lee in terms of free speech, as well. If your interpretation of his meaning is wrong, you're defining down what an attack on free speech actually is--and chilling the speech of those who would disagree with Dan Cathy, or with those who would defend him (I'm sure you recognize how being casually accused of a crime can put a crimp in one's speech)--and I think that's very dangerous.

Finally, I'm certainly not going to agree that the verbal overreach of a couple of elected officials--which they already backed off from, in the face of a whole lotta pressure from, well, almost everyone--constitutes an attack on free speech that would cause me to advocate for eating at a Chick-fil-A restaurant in the name of striking a blow for the first amendment.

I'm pretty sure that Chick-fil-A will see a good size bump in their business for a little while (and on Wednesday, for sure). The thing is, buycotts tend to be short-term. People do their duty and make a point of making those purchases for a little while, then life sets in, and the McDonalds is a half a block closer, and... people in the buycott start purchasing like usual, again.
The customers Chick-fil-A gains over this issue will almost certainly give the company a bump, short term. The customers they lose will likely never come back.

That said, I sincerely hope you enjoy your chicken, sir. I hear it's dee-lish. (The whole boycott/buycott thing is academic for me... The nearest Chick-fil-A location for me to eat at or protest is like 50 miles away... ...and at this stage, I'm not willing to make a day of it, however strong my beliefs...)
---

Submitted for "Allergic to Bull" moderator approval Posted July 31, 2012 2:59 PM (Actual post time, 8/1/12, 7:15 AM)

X-Post: Donald Douglas Lashes Out and Lies, 7/29/12 - Chick-fil-A, Free Speech, Right of Conscience

In the post Mayor Edwin Lee Warns Chick-fil-A on Coming to San Francisco — Lying Fascist Repsac3 Denies It, Shills for Left's Anti-Free Speech Thugs Donald Douglas rants and rages about supposed opinions of mine that I do not in fact have. He attributes beliefs and motivations to me that exist only in his eternally angry imagination, and periodically hops up on his little soapbox and screams them at whatever people are within earshot. I'd like to say this is a new low for Dr. Douglas, but sadly, it really isn't.

On the menu today are the various elected officials who have made verbal threats of official executive or legislative action to block new Chick-fil-A locations in their cities, in response to comments made by their CEO, Dan Cathy, and donations made to groups and organizations opposing marriage equality and homosexuality itself, both by members of the Cathy family personally and by the Chick-fil-A corporation.

In the first instance, Dr Douglas is upset by a tweet between me and Aaron Worthing, discussing something The Mayor of San Francisco, Ed Lee, tweeted. Here's Donald's version of the story:

So far all the reports out indicate that San Francisco Mayor Edwin Lee has warned Chick-fil-A about opening a store in the city.

See the San Franscisco Chronicle, "Mayor Ed Lee warns Chick-fil-A against coming to San Francisco":

San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee has joined in the growing chorus condemning Chick-fil-A for the national chicken chain’s much-publicized anti-gay views.

After mayors in Boston and Chicago recently expressed their disapproval with Chick-fil-A and its intolerance, Lee followed suit and took to his Twitter account late yesterday, firing off two successive tweets. The first one conveys his disappointment with the chain’s lack of values, and the second one takes it up a notch, suggesting that Chick-fil-A don’t even think about opening in San Francisco.

The mayor's tweets are embedded at the report.

It's clearly threatening. And the Los Angeles Times agrees, "San Francisco is the third city to tell Chick-fil-A: Keep out":

First Boston. Then Chicago.

The next city to tell Chick-fil-A to keep out? San Francisco.

Edwin M. Lee, mayor of the progressive city, tweeted Thursday night: "Very disappointed #ChickFilA doesn't share San Francisco's values & strong commitment to equality for everyone."

He also added a warning to his subsequent tweet: "Closest #ChickFilA to San Francisco is 40 miles away & I strongly recommend that they not try to come any closer."

Until Thursday, San Francisco had stayed mum on the debate, which began when Chick-fil-A's president, Dan Cathy, went on the record as saying his Atlanta-based chicken chain operated on biblical values and opposed same-sex marriage.

Pretty straightforward, obviously.

But not for fascist hate-blogger Walter James Casper III, a.k.a Repsac3, who attacks Aaron Worthing on Twitter with denials of the threat:

There's a whole lot there.

First off, if Donald Douglas believes that this tweet (or indeed any of the ones Dr. Douglas failed to include between Aaron and I, which I'll get to below) constitutes an "attack" on Aaron Worthing, it's obvious why he runs to legal and political authorities to protect him from unwanted blog comments, rather than deleting them and moving on, which is what most bloggers do. And obviously, the other characterizations of me are just as unsubstantiated and therefore nonsensical as they always are. No surprise there, either.

While we're on the subject of words, I note that both of the articles Dr. Douglas cites characterize the Mayor's second tweet as a "warning," rather than a threat.

I definitely concur that it was a warning. And, contrary to the way Donald Douglas is relating the difference of opinion between Aaron and I (whether because he did not read all the tweets, and shot off, uninformed and angry, or read them all, but did not understand the dispute, which once again calls his reading comprehension into question), it could be considered a threat, as well.

Here's the conversation in full. See if you can spot the parts that Donald Douglas failed to grasp:

AaronWorthing: The mayor of San Fran, the latest fascist to use official power to stifle unpopular speech ----> @mayoredlee pic.twitter.com/HodPQ6Ay (Picture link is to Mayor Lee's tweets--and particular to our purposes, the second one, where he says "Closest #ChickFilA to San Francisco is 40 miles away & I strongly recommend that they not try to come any closer.".)

repsac3: @AaronWorthing @mayoredlee Those there are just words, Aaron...and they don't even contain a threat of official action, far as I see

Up to now, Aaron has made an allegation that the Mayor has threatened to us "official power" to stifle unpopular speech, and I replied by questioning his allegation that there was any threat of "official action" by the Mayor. I thought at the time that Aaron's next tweet was continuing the discussion of threats in the context of "official power" or "action," but reading it over now, maybe he wasn't...

AaronWorthing: no, that is a clear threat as understood in ordinary English. @repsac3 @mayoredlee pic.twitter.com/NGgaWBpT

Whatever Aaron was thinking though, it's obvious what I was talking about:

repsac3: @AaronWorthing @mayoredlee We disagree. I'm opposed to those who ARE issuing threats of govt action--like anti-abortion TRAP laws, 2me...
repsac3: ...but saying stay out of this city isn't a threat of govt action. It's just speech

(I was limited by the 140 characters (or 280, I guess). But in case it was in any way unclear, my intent in the first tweet was to say that I saw the threats to use legal/political power against Chick-fil-A as the same as those conservative legislators and governors who have enacted TRAP laws -- impossible / costly to meet regulations about the size of janitor closets, hallway widths, staffing requirements, etc, that are COMPLETELY unrelated to the care or safety of anyone involved with the clinic, targeted at abortion clinics exclusively --that are designed to run clinics out of town via excessive regulation, thereby accomplishing what they cannot accomplish by outlawing abortion directly. Whether it's clinics or fast food chicken, government officials should not be employing excessive regulation to stop those businesses they morally oppose. The intent of the second tweet was to say that Mayor Lee hadn't made a threat to use such government action.)

AaronWorthing: Don't be naive. The law isn't. @repsac3 @mayoredlee

repsac3: @AaronWorthing I'll have to wait for the blog post, because that tweet says nothing to me. What threat, and what law?

AaronWorthing: @repsac3 the law of what counts as a threat. Read, e.g. Virginia v black.

(Needless to say, I did look it up, reading (or at least skimming) several sources. All I found concerning "what counts as a threat" was a citation defining “true threats" as "those statements where the speaker means to communicate a serious expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence to a particular individual or group of individuals"

repsac3: @AaronWorthing not seeing the def of threat (other than cite of "true threat" which is about bodily harm). More of a pointer?

And finally in that last link, we get to the single exchange that Dr. Douglas highlighted. Did he read the rest, and either "willingly" or actually not understand them? Or did he just not read them, and think he had some kinda evidence that I was denying that anyone anywhere made any threats at all, and was defending, knee-jerk, everyone on my side of the political spectrum, whether right or wrong. (Y'know... like he does...) We may never know what facts he did and didn't bother to learn, but regardless, he was wrong.

My intent was clear throughout. I wasn't saying the Mayor did not issue a warning or threat of any kind, and never expressed any agreement with what he said, either. But there was no threat of "official action;" no indication that he intended to use or abuse his "official power" as Mayor to keep Chick-fil-A out of his town. Elected officials in other cities made such threats, and I spoke out against them. Often. I did not hear the same kind of threat to abuse his power from Mayor Lee. And that's what I said.

The despicable hater Repsac3 is lying again, no surprise.

A threat does not have to warn of physical harm. "Threat" could be financial injury, for example. In other words, a threat is any kind of caution, as Dictionary.com points out:

threat   [thret]
noun
1. a declaration of an intention or determination to inflict punishment, injury, etc., in retaliation for, or conditionally upon, some action or course; menace: He confessed under the threat of imprisonment.
2. an indication or warning of probable trouble: The threat of a storm was in the air.
3. a person or thing that threatens.

There's nothing there about a threat requiring violence. But that doesn't matter to Walter James Casper III. He lies about everything.

I did not lie.

I also did not claim that a threat required violence. If anyone did that at all, it was Aaron, in citing Virginia v Black and saying that a definition of "the law of what counts as a threat" could be found in that decision. ...though honestly, I'm pretty sure that Aaron was not suggesting that a threat requires violence, either. For one thing, it would weaken rather than strengthen his assertion that what Mayor Lee said was a threat.

I don't know what Aaron was trying to say in citing that decision. (Maybe he cited the wrong case, or maybe he just didn't think I'd bother to look, figuring that only one of us went to law school, and it wasn't me... or maybe there really is something in there in support of his claims, and I'm just not seeing it, not being a lawyer n'all...) I don't know, because Aaron never answered my tweet requesting more information. (If anyone else wishes to read the opinion and figure out what it is I'm missing within, the link follows: Supreme Court opinion, Virginia v. Black)

One can certainly read a threat to abuse official power into what Mayor Lee tweeted if one is so inclined, but it isn't a foregone conclusion or "Pretty straightforward, obviously" that use or abuse of official power is exactly what Mayor Lee intended. He could just as easily mean that the location would be a ghost town given the make-up of his city, and it wouldn't be worth their while to come. One thing I'm sure of, is that compared to the threats made by the people in Boston and Chicago--which far more clearly threatened the use and abuse of official power to stifle speech--what Mayor Lee said was pretty weak, no matter what his intent.

In any case, it isn't a lie to have a different opinion.

And if that wasn't bad enough, Donald's second accusation is downright preposterous:

And he organizes his hate campaigns with others online:

According to Donald, this tweet is evidence of my organizing a hate campaign with someone else online--in this case, this gentleman, Evan Hurst.

Ready for the truth?

Evan Hurst writes for Truth Wins Out which yes, is an organization that advocates for gay causes. He recently wrote a post OPPOSING the threats against Chick-fil-A by the Democratic politicians in Boston, Chicago (and maybe San Francisco, too... I cannot recall.) I was one of several people who commented at the post AGREEING with him, saying:

"I see the chick-fil-a issue regarding these government officials as being akin to the government officials passing immpossible/extremely costly-to-comply-with regulations on medical providers in the business of providing a service to which these government officials are opposed--abortions--and thus closing them down, or keeping them from opening. (And unlike the Chick-fil-a threats, these regulations against abortion providers are already in place in several cities and states...)

I'm all for protesting, and for the free speech and right of religious and moral conscience of all involved... ...but I cannot support targeting businesses with legally unnecessary regulations and restrictions because you oppose the business on moral grounds, whether it's anti-abortion legislators targeting clinics or pro-marriage equality legislators targeting fast food chicken."

When I went back a day or two later to read what others had said in the comments, the post and all commentary had completely disappeared. I tweeted the author, replying to his tweet "advertising" the post initially:

repsac3: @EvanHurst What became of this honest post about the Boston and Chicago elected officials bad response to chickfila? #disappeardapointed

EvanHurst: @repsac3 It went away. Not by my decision. Sorry. :( If you want a copy, I'll gladly send it, as I did save it.

repsac3: @EvanHurst Would love a copy, thanks. Reader commentary below--both 4 & against--was good, too. Pulling it was BAD, imo. Tell the bosses.
repsac3: @EvanHurst Just occurred to me you may need an e-mail address to pass along the Chickfila article: repsac3blogs@gmail.com Thanks again...

There's a saying that "if you're looking for hate (or bigotry, or racism, or other examples of bad behavior), you'll find it."

Donald Douglas is proof that even when you're looking for it, you don't always find it, however hard you try. That's some kinda hate, there, talking to an author that wrote a post that largely AGREES with Dr. Douglas' position, complimenting him on it--and expressing my disagreement with the idiots that removed it--and accepting his offer to get a copy of the post.

When you insist on behaving as dumb as a bag of hammers in furtherance of your paranoid attacks on those who disagree with you, everything looks like a nail, I guess. Hate and persecution, even in complimentary tweets to an author. Yeesh.

That's something I've mentioned previously, regarding Repsac's intimidation and stalking campaign against this blog.

That Dr. Douglas actually believes and so often repeats this in public says far more about him than me.

He's a liar and an Internet predator. People should avoid him, block him on Twitter, and report him to the proper authorities.

That, too...

My conduct toward Donald Douglas and pretty much everyone else is posted for the world to see and to judge.

I quote and cite what others have to say, and then respond with what I think and believe. I'm not perfect by any means, but I seldom call folks names or make allegations about their inter-species parentage. Most of my comments are respectful and on-topic.

Given the skewering Dr. Douglas so often gets--the result of fact-challenged attack posts like the one I'm responding to here, generally--I can understand why he doesn't like me. What is less clear is why he keeps lashing out at me unprovoked, in the first place.

I may never know...

UPDATE 7/30/12, 12:25 PM:
Quick addendum to this. After I posted it, I sent Aaron Worthing a tweet letting him know I had posted about our discussion, in case he wanted to clarify or take issue with anything I wrote:

repsac3: @AaronWorthing Blogged about a twitter exchange we had the other day. Read, respond, or ignore, as you wish: http://americannihilistblog.blogspot.com/2012/07/donald-douglas-lashes-out-and-lies.html …

There's been no response from him so far, but when I checked his twitter feed, I noticed that he had uncritically retweeted Donald's dishonest post yesterday:

While it was long before this response went live, I'm still very disappointed in him. He struck me as more honest--or at least less knee-jerk partisan--than that...

Even still, I hope he comes by to discuss it with me and show me where I'm wrong...


Links:
American Power: Mayor Edwin Lee Warns Chick-fil-A on Coming to San Francisco — Lying Fascist Repsac3 Denies It, Shills for Left's Anti-Free Speech Thugs

Inside Scoop SF � Mayor Ed Lee warns Chick-fil-A against coming to San Francisco

San Francisco is the third city to tell Chick-fil-A: Keep out - latimes.com

American Power: California Penal Code Section 646.9 on Criminal Harassment and Cyberstalking: Statement of Warning to Hate-Blogger Walter James Casper III

American Nihilist: Donald Douglas - Reading Comprehension

virginia v black - Google Search

VIRGINIA V. BLACK

Supreme Court opinion, Virginia v. Black
---

An American Nihilist X-post

In Reply: If money is Speech, Shouldn't Yours Say What You Want it to Say?

In reply to The Freedom Not To Participate | Popehat

I start with the premise that if money is speech, I want as many of my measly dollars as possible to be lifting their voices in accord with my values. The way I see it, individual citizens don't have enough ways to influence the world as it is, and I'm certainly not going to willingly fail to use an agent of change I have at my disposal.

Beyond that, I think a whole lot of what we do in this world speaks to and in effect casts a vote for one's values regardless–whether one does or doesn't purchase Chick-fil-A over the company's social stands or because they love (or hate) the food, the advertising, the way the drive-thru's work, or for any other reason, that person is speaking up for their values.

To me, paying attention to both the value of the products and the sociopolitical values of the people who create them are important. I prefer to reward those who agree with me and ignore (if not outright punish) those who don't, including via my wallet–another way I express myself, money being speech, n'all….

Some folks just like chicken (or prefer pizza).

That's America, in a nutshell.

Some folks will consume all the news they can, learning about all the issues and carefully weighing the strengths and weaknesses of each candidate. Other folks will vote for the one who looks a lot like their favorite movie actor or whose mother was born just two towns over. Values, either way.
---

Posted Jul 28, 2012 @3:35 pm

In Reply: Legally Unnecessary Regulations and Restrictions as a Way to Legislate Morality

In reply to Truth Wins Out -

Note: This link used to lead to a post by Evan Hurst--"As good as it feels to have politicians telling Chick-Fil-A to get lost, it's actually not okay http://bit.ly/MMeAUo #p2 #lgbt"-- but the post, as well as some powerful back and forth by the readers in the comment section, was disappeared by some person or persons at Truth Wins Out, which yes, is pretty ironic. (Those persons do not include the author, who said the decision was out of his hands--but offered to send me a copy, which yes, I intend to repost here, under the "sometimes it's better to ask forgiveness than permission" theory. I did not ask Evan whether it would be ok, and thus did not put him in the position of letting me down or going against the wishes of the site he writes for, either. If/when I get a copy, it will appear below--unless the author includes a request that I not share it when he sends the post, of course, in which case I will report that.

Either way, my reply to the disappeared Truth Wins Out post and reader commentary appears below:
---

I see the chick-fil-a issue regarding these government officials as being akin to the government officials passing immpossible/extremely costly-to-comply-with regulations on medical providers in the business of providing a service to which these government officials are opposed--abortions--and thus closing them down, or keeping them from opening. (And unlike the Chick-fil-a threats, these regulations against abortion providers are already in place in several cities and states...)

I'm all for protesting, and for the free speech and right of religious and moral conscience of all involved... ...but I cannot support targeting businesses with legally unnecessary regulations and restrictions because you oppose the business on moral grounds, whether it's anti-abortion legislators targeting clinics or pro-marriage equality legislators targeting fast food chicken.
---

Posted July 26, 2012 10:27:14 PM EDT

In Reply: The Answer to Speech is More Speech

Revised and extended, in reply to No More Mister Nice Blog: WHAT WOULD BE THE OUTCOME OF THE WAR WE MAY BE STARTING HERE?, about Chick-fil-A, and the aldermen and mayors making threats to use their political power and legal means to keep them out of their area:

It's one thing to say "don't eat there" (or even to say "I'm opposed to your setting up shop in my city," though that's right on the line). It's another to use political/legal might to forbid them from doing business in a particular city/town...

If they were stopping gay folks from eating or working there--which I'm pretty sure is ALREADY against the law--I could see trying to run them out of town unless they stopped doing that.

But really, all the guy did was express the opinion of his faith which, like it or not, sees homosexuality as a sin. While I don't share that opinion myself, and will do all I can to avoid financially or otherwise rewarding those who believe and express it, religious freedom and the right of conscience allow him his beliefs, just as they allow me mine.

One has to meet speech with speech and action with action, which is to say, as long as Chick-fil-A and their CEO is using speech--talking about his beliefs, donating to political and religious organizations in furtherance of his beliefs--political figures should respond the same way; speaking out, and donating/urging donations to organizations and groups in favor of his/her goals. Chick-fil-A has every right to speak, and should not face official government punishment for what they say.

If Chick-fil-A were violating anti-discrimination laws, THAT would be the time for government action. I am aware of no evidence that they are, though the company must be aware that many eyes will be on them and that it isn't only the right who engages in video stings.

Nothing prevents citizens (including elected officials) from speaking out or protesting in favor of or against marriage equality or any other issue. Companies who take a stand on controversial issues--even if they do nothing more than send out a press release--have to know they're going to gain some customers and lose others, whatever stands they take. There is nothing wrong with "voting your values" by spending more money with companies who share your values and less with those who do not. If money is speech, there's no reason yours shouldn't help you say the things you think need saying.

As an exit question, though... How is what these mayors are threatening to do ANY DIFFERENT from what certain republican legislators and governors are doing as regards abortion providers, setting up trap laws that regulate every aspect of the clinics and providers in such a way that they cannot meet them, and thus will have no choice but to close... The answer, of course, is that there's ZERO difference, except that these Republican governors and legislators have actually done what these anti-chickfila mayors are only threatening to do, even if some people choose to stick their fingers in their ears in a desperate attempt at willful misunderstanding and denial...

Finally, there is a line between religious beliefs and bigotry, on both sides of this issue.

As I said above, the interviews Dan Cathy gave expressed his support for the religious tenets of his faith. While my faith and my personal moral compass don't agree with those tenets, he didn't say anything hateful or bigoted. (I have since learned about donations Cathy and the Chick-fil-A corporation have made to more extreme anti-homosexual causes, whose stated beliefs and concrete actions go further than much of Cathy's religion has chosen to go, and yes, I do find those donations more problematic.)

On the other hand, not every person who speaks out against Chick-fil-A is an anti-Judeo-Christian bigot, either. It is possible to say "I disagree with the church on this issue" without actually hating God and everything Jesus stood for. Even being an atheist isn't an expression of hate. (Some folks claim it's another kind of faith, and thus should be protected by religious freedom.)

As I've said elsewhere, I have no problem with 99% of what faiths other than mine preach and teach. People can believe as they wish, and live according to the customs of their faith, with my blessings. The tolerance stops when you try to legislate aspects of your faith into secular law, forcing those to don't share your church's understanding of God and morality to nevertheless live as though they do. It's fine for individuals to choose to live according to what their Bible and preacher tells them. It's also fine for individuals--especially individuals who don't go to your church--to reject the teachings of your Bible and preacher, whether in favor of what their preacher teaches, or in favor of their own moral code. Religious freedom goes both ways.
---

Posted THURSDAY, JULY 26, 2012, 7:23 PM