Happy birthday, Kat!

They are friends! It's grooming!

He's deciding on a seasoning. Don't be naive.

There's a guy on IO9 calling me names because I keep asking him how the pre-1913 change of the word "actor" to be gender-neutral is a reflection of political correctness gone amok, and he's just furious with me. Some people are peculiar. Unfortunately for him, he's also funny.

When I woke up this morning, I was really pissed that my alarm went off. Every bone I had was convinced it was Saturday. It took me a good ten minutes to not be mad anymore.

And I'm so exhausted during the days. I did work late yesterday, but not so late that falling asleep at my desk made sense. And I stopped on my way home to wake myself up more for safer driving.

Does that help my insomnia? Not a whit.

Am I falling asleep again? Even earlier today.

I just emailed HR for a meeting.

I mean I get I am not bringing in the healthiest emotional state to any day of work, but I should not be scared of losing my job at any moment. I am not that bad of an admin.

What kind of asshole wants his employees to cry? The kind msbelle needs to get the F away from, ASAP.

Glen Greenwald on Chic-Fil-A and free speech. [link]

From the article:

Obviously , it’s perfectly legitimate for private citizens to decide not to patronize a business with executives who have such views (I’d likely refrain from doing so in this case). Beyond that, if a business is engaging in discriminatory hiring or service practices in violation of the law — refusing to hire gay employ ees or serve gay patrons in cities which have made sexual orientation discrimination illegal — then it is perfectly legitimate to take action against them.

But that is not the case here; the actions are purely in retribution against the views of the business’ top executive on the desirability of same-sex marriage:

After reading the following, I think keeping Chick-fil-A out of Boston and preventing more from opening in Chicago is a good thing:

Memo To The Media And The Ambivalent: Chick-fil-A Condemns, Discriminates, And Campaigns Against LGBT People

One quote:

Chick-fil-A has given at least $5 million to anti-gay organizations, including known hate groups and proponents of ex-gay therapy, since 2003, including almost $2 million in both 2009 and 2010.

If a community is opposed to discrimination, isn't that enough reason to keep Chick-fil-A out?

Yuck msbelle. Sending you many hugs.

I have no motivation to do anything. There are things to be done, mind you, I just have no motivation.

Sorry your day is Clusterfucky, msbelle.

You should declare it the Clusterfuckiest and take a detached but focused attitude to fix what you can when you can. Get Zen, baby! 'Cuz it's the Clusterfuckiest.

Happy birthday, Kat! Cupcakes!

Maker Faire Detroit: The Girl Who Plays with Fieros Interview

So cool. I had to share that with certain Rookie editors, and Matilda's Aunt Angela who got burned out doing counseling with at-risk teens so took a training course and worked as a car mechanic for a couple years.

Happy birthday, Kat!!!

______________

And msbelle, I'm sorry your day is the clusterfuckysuckiest. DO NOT WANT.

If a community is opposed to discrimination, isn't that enough reason to keep Chick-fil-A out?

Only if there's a legal mechanism. A government entity is bound by the constitutional guarantees of free speech, and cannot punish a business for exercising that right, no matter how much the local community may disagree with the content of the speech.

IIRC, San Francisco requires all its vendors to provide domestic partner benefits, but could not cancel a contract with a vendor if the board helped fund Prop 8, unless they'd done something else to run afoul of their laws and regs.

Boston will have to approve Chik-Fil-A's applications for opening a store, and grant permits to them, and they may be more strict and difficult than they would otherwise be, but I don't think there's a legal mechanism for forbidding them outright to operate in the city.

Boston will have to approve Chik-Fil-A's applications for opening a store, and grant permits to them, and they may be more strict and difficult than they would otherwise be, but I don't think there's a legal mechanism for forbidding them outright to operate in the city.

Hmmm, I'm not familiar enough with Boston to know if the mayor legally can prevent Chik-Fil-A from opening.

OK, say we're talking about Chicago, where the elected alderman has considerable latitude in granting or denying permits. AFAIK the alderman can legally deny Chik-Fil-A's application for opening a store. Then I would agree with the decision to keep Chik-Fil-A from opening a store in the alderman's ward.

Say it's the reverse situation, and a conservative community doesn't want a business that's known for its advocacy of gay rights to open a store. Assume it's like Chicago and an elected official has enough leeway to legally prevent the company from opening the store. Let's say that does happen. While I would not like the outcome, democracy often results in outcomes I don't like.

To what extent could keeping Chik-Fil-A out of a city be comparable to legislation in certain states (Mississippi comes to mind) imposing such stringent (and, as I understand, unnecessary to health and safety) restrictions on clinics that perform abortions as to effectively close them down? In that context, I note that there is a U.S. Supreme Court decision expressly finding a Constitutional right to obtain an abortion (agree with it or disagree with it -- it is out there) but none to sell chicken sandwiches.