The owners, the Truitt family, close all stores on Sunday so that employees can be with families and worship God on Sunday.
The heathen libs in NYC tell them to get screwed and open up. Sonhouse, does this appear to exhibit a penchant for control and power? Can you people leave other people the hell alone?
Why can’t libs stop trying to take our freedom, trying to usurp that which is ours?
If a lib takes something that is mine, is it logical that the lib can say that he can refer to the taken stuff as ‘mine’. Did it stop being ‘mine’ of his victim? Can it be mine for each person at the same time.
You are the crappiest people. I hope crappiest is a word.
https://www.ksat.com/business/2023/12/24/new-york-bill-could-force-some-chick-fil-a-to-open-on-sundays/
@averagejoe1 saidThe proposed new law would not apply to existing businesses, and is only relevant at highway rest stops. In other words, it changes almost nothing.
The owners, the Truitt family, close all stores on Sunday so that employees can be with families and worship God on Sunday.
The heathen libs in NYC tell them to get screwed and open up. Sonhouse, does this appear to exhibit a penchant for control and power? Can you people leave other people the hell alone?
Why can’t libs stop trying to take our freedom, trying ...[text shortened]... ps://www.ksat.com/business/2023/12/24/new-york-bill-could-force-some-chick-fil-a-to-open-on-sundays/
You get really worked up about really inane things.
351d
@wildgrass saidReally? So you think that since it changes ‘almost nothing’ , that for the government to force a private business to OPEN their doors, when they have what Marauder calls natural rights to do their private business privately, is not relevant??!
The proposed new law would not apply to existing businesses, and is only relevant at highway rest stops. In other words, it changes almost nothing.
You get really worked up about really inane things.
…Because this dictatorship action of the govt only affects (forces) a few stores, that we should tell owners to kiss ass?
Nirvana would be Chik-Fil-A leave the city entirely. It could turn the parasite libs in NY into republicans. They love Chik-Fil-A. Had a chicken sandwich at their original store (East Point, Ga) last week on way to airport
@AverageJoe1
Lib reasoning amazes. ‘Only a few stores’. When holocaust started, only a few Jews were killed.
No big deal? God, Wildgrass, lib to the core. When y’all take over, which you will, what will your govt dictate be?
351d
@AverageJoe1
Oh , you didn’t answer,,,,,, how can you take a man’s store, his livelihood, like it is nothing…His freedom.
351d
@averagejoe1 saidA) "Private property" did not exist in the Natural State; thus there is no "Natural Right" to it. Therefore, the State, which created the concept by force, can place whatever reasonable regulations it desires on it.
Really? So you think that since it changes ‘almost nothing’ , that for the government to force a private business to OPEN their doors, when they have what Marauder calls natural rights to do their private business privately, is not relevant??!
…Because this dictatorship action of the govt only affects (forces) a few stores, that we should tell owners to kiss ass? ...[text shortened]... k-Fil-A. Had a chicken sandwich at their original store (East Point, Ga) last week on way to airport
B) In this case, New York State, assuming the law passes, would place a regulation on businesses on land owned by the State. The idea being that it allows these companies to operate their businesses on State owned highway rest areas for the convenience of travellers. It is surely not convenient to have one business which occupies such land with the State's permission to not be open on one of the busiest travel days of the week. If the business finds that intolerable, it can buy or lease other land.
@averagejoe1 saidWhat hyperdramatic BS. No existing stores would even be effected:
@AverageJoe1
Oh , you didn’t answer,,,,,, how can you take a man’s store, his livelihood, like it is nothing…His freedom.
"The bill wouldn't immediately apply to restaurants currently operating — meaning the impact on existing Chick-fil-A locations would be limited — but would affect all future contracts for food concessions at transportation facilities owned by the state and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey."
That's from your link which you probably didn't read.
351d
@no1marauder saidLove your natural rights dictum. Who knew?
A) "Private property" did not exist in the Natural State; thus there is no "Natural Right" to it. Therefore, the State, which created the concept by force, can place whatever reasonable regulations it desires on it.
B) In this case, New York State, assuming the law passes, would place a regulation on businesses on land owned by the State. The idea being that it ...[text shortened]... est travel days of the week. If the business finds that intolerable, it can buy or lease other land.
In your usual style, you dodge that a government will tell a business to change it’s biz model and its creed. This is despicable. ESP given that it is to let employees have Sunday with families. Have you no scruples ?
Sickening as are most of your twisted posts. Do feel a bit alone in crowds?
@averagejoe1 saidThe opinion of an idiot like yourself makes no difference to me.
Love your natural rights dictum. Who knew?
In your usual style, you dodge that a government will tell a business to change it’s biz model and its creed. This is despicable. ESP given that it is to let employees have Sunday with families. Have you no scruples ?
Sickening as are most of your twisted posts. Do feel a bit alone in crowds?
What's "despicable" about the owner of land putting regulations on its use even if you're the biggest defender of private property "rights" on Earth? IF New York State wants the businesses on the highway stops it owns to be open 7 days a week for the convenience of the users of the highway, what exactly is the problem? Those businesses don't have to use NY State land, do they?
Stop being such a brainwashed, emotional moron dancing to whatever tune right wing propaganda feeds you. Think for yourself (if you are able to) for a change.
351d
@no1marauder saidThe general concept remains, nipicking notwithstanding. The govt is pushing the limits.
What hyperdramatic BS. No existing stores would even be effected:
"The bill wouldn't immediately apply to restaurants currently operating — meaning the impact on existing Chick-fil-A locations would be limited — but would affect all future contracts for food concessions at transportation facilities owned by the state and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey."
That's from your link which you probably didn't read.
Marauder, what if such overreaching continues forever? Can you tell us that the govt will stick within the boundaries, under our constitution, that are their purview, and nothing more? Or will they own it all, as is communism?
Asking for a scared person .
@no1marauder saidI will give you this. But, I simply see a bigger picture. Govt venturing into private business that is none of their business.
The opinion of an idiot like yourself makes no difference to me.
What's "despicable" about the owner of land putting regulations on its use even if you're the biggest defender of private property "rights" on Earth? IF New York State wants the businesses on the highway stops it owns to be open 7 days a week for the convenience of the users of the highway, what exactly i ...[text shortened]... whatever tune right wing propaganda feeds you. Think for yourself (if you are able to) for a change.
I do hope ChikFil will remove their stores from consideration. Maybe the lib NY will finally get the hell of lib government
351d
@averagejoe1 saidIt's none of the government's business what is done on land owned by the State?
I will give you this. But, I simply see a bigger picture. Govt venturing into private business that is none of their business.
@averagejoe1 saidReagan started this "us v. them" mentality about government and it's sad to see that Republicans still aren't over it.
The general concept remains, nipicking notwithstanding. The govt is pushing the limits.
Marauder, what if such overreaching continues forever? Can you tell us that the govt will stick within the boundaries, under our constitution, that are their purview, and nothing more? Or will they own it all, as is communism?
Asking for a scared person .
Stop electing businessmen to the White House.
@no1marauder saidExactly, No.1 went right to the root of the problem. It's not a question of un-natural rights theory. The question is: What is the goobermint doing in this business i.e. possessing and leasing property for commercial enterprise. That's not the role of goobermint, they should sell all rest stop property and let owners decide how to run their businesses. These are the grotesqueries we get into when the state ventures into areas it doesn't belong. The question is not: What right does the state have to force people to work on Sunday (literally slavery) but: Why are they involved in businesses they should not be.
It's none of the government's business what is done on land owned by the State?
And this leads to other ugliness, the State/Corporation incest, where corporations try to get goobermint to hobble their competition in return for who knows what perversions. For eg only one burger seller permitted in X area, only one Taco seller in X area which stifles the little guy looking for a break and favors the huge corporation.
350d
@wajoma saidThere wouldn't be any highways like the ones in New York without government intervention. Why should it be turned over to private owners who had nothing to do with the building of the highway for them to profit from public toil?
Exactly, No.1 went right to the root of the problem. It's not a question of un-natural rights theory. The question is: What is the goobermint doing in this business i.e. possessing and leasing property for commercial enterprise. That's not the role of goobermint, they should sell all rest stop property and let owners decide how to run their businesses. These are the grotes ...[text shortened]... o seller in X area which stifles the little guy looking for a break and favors the huge corporation.
But this is the essence of private property; the arbitrary seizure of that which belongs to all so that a favored few can benefit at their expense.