|
United States43729 Posts
On July 26 2012 07:37 CajunMan wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 07:31 KwarK wrote:On July 26 2012 07:24 CajunMan wrote:On July 26 2012 07:21 Sermokala wrote:
Its weird to see a company have religious views and be public about supporting their beliefs. It'll score them a ton of points in the bible belt and in Idaho but they shouldn't be surprised when they get run out of more liberal mined cities. granted the koch brothers have done a ton more then chic but they keep their private opinions out of their corporate life.
I don't think it really matters at this point what the government does in Boston. the publicity from this has probably done enough to kill them in the city. If anything this is all going to their plan. I hear black people like the company and the food they sell. Making the company take away what black people like might connect black people to not liking the gay rights movement. From a meta gaming point of view its a pretty good move you got to say. Seems like something a Liberal would think of 99% of black people LOVE chicken!!! Right is that what your saying? On July 26 2012 07:24 KwarK wrote:On July 26 2012 07:20 CajunMan wrote:On July 26 2012 07:13 KwarK wrote:On July 26 2012 07:07 Crushinator wrote:On July 26 2012 07:01 KwarK wrote:On July 26 2012 06:57 jdseemoreglass wrote:On July 26 2012 06:53 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
I'm saying it's okay for a city to decide what happens within that city as long as it doesn't discriminate against people on the grounds of race, gender, religion, disability etc. It'd be wrong for a city to say "no Mosques" but not wrong to say "no fast food". People deciding what kind of society they want to live in and trying to shape their society to improve it in their eyes is a good thing and they have the democratic right to do so. Chic-Fil-A has a corporate stance on the issue, they have stated what they believe in, the people of the city have a right to reject them based upon it. But if they state that their stance on gay marriage is dictated by religion, then the city IS effectively discriminating against a religious belief. You could say that the religion is discriminating against gays to begin with, but people are allowed to discriminate, government institutions are not. I'm pretty sure freedom of worship ends the same place all the other freedoms end, when you start impacting upon other people. Christianity doesn't require its members to use their corporations to further anti-gay agendas but even if you came up with a religion that did and then claimed discrimination was exercising your religious freedom it'd get struck down. You have the right to the private exercising of your beliefs, what Chic-Fil-A did was take a public corporate stance. A private company has the same right a private individual does to take a political stance. But not the right to do business wherever they want regardless of the wishes of the society where they wish to do business. Nobody is saying they can't take a political stance, they have taken one and it has been judged as conflicting with the wishes of the people of the city who are therefore rejecting them on the basis of it. As they are rejecting them on grounds other than race, disability or religion (which as a company they don't actually have) then it's all fine. Actually they do its for the same reason the KKK can rally or march anywhere in the USA and the same reason Muslims can open a Mosque next to the twin tower memorial. If you don't like the business you don't have to buy anything but you cannot deny them access based on there beliefs. On July 26 2012 07:19 Sandtrout wrote:So, the people here who say you shouldn't ban something just because you don't agree with it. That means you're all supporting gay marriage, right?  Yes I said "grounds other than religion" to which you replied "but Muslims can open a Mosque". Please try again. You can't separate the 2 discrimination in any form is discrimination please try again. Discrimination simply means choosing rejecting something on some grounds. I could discriminate against a job applicant on the basis that he showed up late to the interview and I thought he wasn't punctual. That would be discrimination against lateness. I could discriminate against poor dressers. People can and do discriminate and it is not a bad thing, it is just another word for selection. Discrimination on the grounds of race or religion have been judged as bad things but this is not a judgement on discrimination as a whole. It defiantly is what if everyone who was late for work ever got banned from Boston would that be acceptable?
You're being absurd, probably to try and cover the fact that you said all selection on any basis is always bad and always comparable to discrimination on the grounds of religion.
|
On July 26 2012 07:35 Praetorial wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 07:32 Crushinator wrote:On July 26 2012 07:29 autoexec wrote:On July 26 2012 07:25 Crushinator wrote:On July 26 2012 07:23 Ryalnos wrote:On July 26 2012 07:19 Sandtrout wrote:So, the people here who say you shouldn't ban something just because you don't agree with it. That means you're all supporting gay marriage, right? What a throwaway statement if I ever saw it. There are many awful directions to go in to mock this statement but it would just be too easy. I find it to be a great statement. Please attempt to mock it. Iirc, it is against the law to do this. It is not against the law to ban gay marriage. I attempted and succeeded I'm pretty sure banning gay marraige is against the law here dummy. Here is not Netherlands dummy, here is the US, where it is legal. Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 07:19 Sandtrout wrote:So, the people here who say you shouldn't ban something just because you don't agree with it. That means you're all supporting gay marriage, right? This is funny. Honestly, if I were to agree with the first sentence, how the hell could I react to the weirder things you could replace gay marriage with? I couldn't. I don't know what this means.
I won't continue the legality discussion because it would get stupid quickly, but obviously the ''it is legal/illegal, therefore it is right/wrong'' kind of reasoning is fallacious.
|
On July 26 2012 07:41 autoexec wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 07:39 sAsImre wrote:On July 26 2012 07:38 autoexec wrote:On July 26 2012 07:35 sAsImre wrote:On July 26 2012 07:34 autoexec wrote:On July 26 2012 07:32 Crushinator wrote:On July 26 2012 07:29 autoexec wrote:On July 26 2012 07:25 Crushinator wrote:On July 26 2012 07:23 Ryalnos wrote:On July 26 2012 07:19 Sandtrout wrote:So, the people here who say you shouldn't ban something just because you don't agree with it. That means you're all supporting gay marriage, right? What a throwaway statement if I ever saw it. There are many awful directions to go in to mock this statement but it would just be too easy. I find it to be a great statement. Please attempt to mock it. Iirc, it is against the law to do this. It is not against the law to ban gay marriage. I attempted and succeeded I'm pretty sure banning gay marraige is against the law here dummy. I live in North Carolina. It actually is the law! Whether it is right or wrong is a different discussion. reading comprehension is a useful skil tho have (we're talking about boston) same as studying facism for sometimes it prevents to appear as a total idiot :D Actually we are talking about the United States as a whole. When discussing the American Constitution, we are usually talking about America. And for the most part, it is legal to ban gay marriage in America. you discussed about legality not constitutionnality First of all, if constitutionality is a word, then that is awesome :D Second, when the legality is about the Constitution being broken, since the constitution is the supreme law of America, then yes, it is about constitutionality. Man I love that word...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutionality
you don't know what you're talking about, go take some law lessons about the consitution and Kelsen and come back.
On July 26 2012 07:42 Crushinator wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 07:35 Praetorial wrote:On July 26 2012 07:32 Crushinator wrote:On July 26 2012 07:29 autoexec wrote:On July 26 2012 07:25 Crushinator wrote:On July 26 2012 07:23 Ryalnos wrote:On July 26 2012 07:19 Sandtrout wrote:So, the people here who say you shouldn't ban something just because you don't agree with it. That means you're all supporting gay marriage, right? What a throwaway statement if I ever saw it. There are many awful directions to go in to mock this statement but it would just be too easy. I find it to be a great statement. Please attempt to mock it. Iirc, it is against the law to do this. It is not against the law to ban gay marriage. I attempted and succeeded I'm pretty sure banning gay marraige is against the law here dummy. Here is not Netherlands dummy, here is the US, where it is legal. On July 26 2012 07:19 Sandtrout wrote:So, the people here who say you shouldn't ban something just because you don't agree with it. That means you're all supporting gay marriage, right? This is funny. Honestly, if I were to agree with the first sentence, how the hell could I react to the weirder things you could replace gay marriage with? I couldn't. I don't know what this means. I won't continue the legality discussion because it would get stupid quickly, but obviously the ''it is legal/illegal, therefore it is right/wrong'' kind of reasoning is fallacious.
laws and morale have been seperated from quite sometimes nowadays (still not so much and not for every law sadly)
|
I don't think it's fair for the government to do something like this because a person has different beliefs. No matter what they are.
|
To the open bostonian: You keep saying "the people of Boston" like they are a whole and have the same opinions. You talk like everyone, and by everyone i mean EVERYONE, in Boston doesn't want Chic-Fil-A.
Let's assume 80% don't want Chick-Fil-A and 20% do. Does it make it right for the 80% to vote on policies which will harm the 20%? Yes I mean harm. Banning Chick-Fil-A would mean less goods Boston, less jobs, less competition etc.
Is it ok for 80% to vote to force the remainding 20% to suffer? Democracy should not be the end goal, a democracy does not mean that the policies it makes is justified just because the majority votes on it. Any democracy where the majority can and does vote on policies which harms the minority directly or indirectly is bad.
|
On July 26 2012 07:37 CajunMan wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 07:31 KwarK wrote:On July 26 2012 07:24 CajunMan wrote:On July 26 2012 07:21 Sermokala wrote:
Its weird to see a company have religious views and be public about supporting their beliefs. It'll score them a ton of points in the bible belt and in Idaho but they shouldn't be surprised when they get run out of more liberal mined cities. granted the koch brothers have done a ton more then chic but they keep their private opinions out of their corporate life.
I don't think it really matters at this point what the government does in Boston. the publicity from this has probably done enough to kill them in the city. If anything this is all going to their plan. I hear black people like the company and the food they sell. Making the company take away what black people like might connect black people to not liking the gay rights movement. From a meta gaming point of view its a pretty good move you got to say. Seems like something a Liberal would think of 99% of black people LOVE chicken!!! Right is that what your saying? On July 26 2012 07:24 KwarK wrote:On July 26 2012 07:20 CajunMan wrote:On July 26 2012 07:13 KwarK wrote:On July 26 2012 07:07 Crushinator wrote:On July 26 2012 07:01 KwarK wrote:On July 26 2012 06:57 jdseemoreglass wrote:On July 26 2012 06:53 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
I'm saying it's okay for a city to decide what happens within that city as long as it doesn't discriminate against people on the grounds of race, gender, religion, disability etc. It'd be wrong for a city to say "no Mosques" but not wrong to say "no fast food". People deciding what kind of society they want to live in and trying to shape their society to improve it in their eyes is a good thing and they have the democratic right to do so. Chic-Fil-A has a corporate stance on the issue, they have stated what they believe in, the people of the city have a right to reject them based upon it. But if they state that their stance on gay marriage is dictated by religion, then the city IS effectively discriminating against a religious belief. You could say that the religion is discriminating against gays to begin with, but people are allowed to discriminate, government institutions are not. I'm pretty sure freedom of worship ends the same place all the other freedoms end, when you start impacting upon other people. Christianity doesn't require its members to use their corporations to further anti-gay agendas but even if you came up with a religion that did and then claimed discrimination was exercising your religious freedom it'd get struck down. You have the right to the private exercising of your beliefs, what Chic-Fil-A did was take a public corporate stance. A private company has the same right a private individual does to take a political stance. But not the right to do business wherever they want regardless of the wishes of the society where they wish to do business. Nobody is saying they can't take a political stance, they have taken one and it has been judged as conflicting with the wishes of the people of the city who are therefore rejecting them on the basis of it. As they are rejecting them on grounds other than race, disability or religion (which as a company they don't actually have) then it's all fine. Actually they do its for the same reason the KKK can rally or march anywhere in the USA and the same reason Muslims can open a Mosque next to the twin tower memorial. If you don't like the business you don't have to buy anything but you cannot deny them access based on there beliefs. On July 26 2012 07:19 Sandtrout wrote:So, the people here who say you shouldn't ban something just because you don't agree with it. That means you're all supporting gay marriage, right? Yes I said "grounds other than religion" to which you replied "but Muslims can open a Mosque". Please try again. You can't separate the 2 discrimination in any form is discrimination please try again. Discrimination simply means choosing rejecting something on some grounds. I could discriminate against a job applicant on the basis that he showed up late to the interview and I thought he wasn't punctual. That would be discrimination against lateness. I could discriminate against poor dressers. People can and do discriminate and it is not a bad thing, it is just another word for selection. Discrimination on the grounds of race or religion have been judged as bad things but this is not a judgement on discrimination as a whole. It defiantly is what if everyone who was late for work ever got banned from Boston would that be acceptable? Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 07:27 autoexec wrote:On July 26 2012 07:21 Sermokala wrote:
I hear black people like the company and the food they sell. Making the company take away what black people like might connect black people to not liking the gay rights movement. From a meta gaming point of view its a pretty good move you got to say.
I live in Charlotte, NC. Majority of people here are black. (I am white) Black people do not like gays at all from what I have seen. This has to do with the area you live in NC has a very christian/Baptist population of Blacks which would explain that. With Atlanta being the capital of Gays in the USA now with more gays per square foot than anywhere else lol you almost don't notice people could careless here 99% of the time regardless of Religion. Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 07:36 OuchyDathurts wrote:
It's a cute note but don't think it'll hold up legally. I may wholeheartedly agree with his sentiment I don't think he can make this call.
As long as the fucking retarded "corporations are people!" thing stands there's literally no way you can tell them where or where they can't go through these means. You can use the zoning argument to stop them if you want.
I'm cool with the mayor saying "go fuck yourself". I'm cool with people picketing the places and making it known they're not welcome within the law. You just can't tell them where they can or can't go based on their beliefs, regardless of how backwards and retarded they might be.
You can love em or hate em, you can love or hate the KKK, you can love or hate the Westboro Baptist Church. But they're within their rights saying what they want.
"I do not agree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Amen
Regrettably I don't have explicit sources to back this up, but I seem to recall a recent election where officials were surprised that they were voting heavily against gay marriage even as they were mostly voting liberal.
Granted, the NAACP has recently voiced its support for gay marriage, but that doesn't mean that it necessarily represents the dominant opinion of 'black America'.
|
On July 26 2012 07:43 Lorken wrote:
I don't think it's fair for the government to do something like this because a person has different beliefs. No matter what they are.
It's not about having different beliefs, that's absolutely fine and not what the mayor has a problem with. The mayor's issue is with supporting and donating to hateful and harmful groups.
|
On July 26 2012 07:44 Ryalnos wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 07:37 CajunMan wrote:On July 26 2012 07:31 KwarK wrote:On July 26 2012 07:24 CajunMan wrote:On July 26 2012 07:21 Sermokala wrote:
Its weird to see a company have religious views and be public about supporting their beliefs. It'll score them a ton of points in the bible belt and in Idaho but they shouldn't be surprised when they get run out of more liberal mined cities. granted the koch brothers have done a ton more then chic but they keep their private opinions out of their corporate life.
I don't think it really matters at this point what the government does in Boston. the publicity from this has probably done enough to kill them in the city. If anything this is all going to their plan. I hear black people like the company and the food they sell. Making the company take away what black people like might connect black people to not liking the gay rights movement. From a meta gaming point of view its a pretty good move you got to say. Seems like something a Liberal would think of 99% of black people LOVE chicken!!! Right is that what your saying? On July 26 2012 07:24 KwarK wrote:On July 26 2012 07:20 CajunMan wrote:On July 26 2012 07:13 KwarK wrote:On July 26 2012 07:07 Crushinator wrote:On July 26 2012 07:01 KwarK wrote:On July 26 2012 06:57 jdseemoreglass wrote:
[quote]
But if they state that their stance on gay marriage is dictated by religion, then the city IS effectively discriminating against a religious belief. You could say that the religion is discriminating against gays to begin with, but people are allowed to discriminate, government institutions are not. I'm pretty sure freedom of worship ends the same place all the other freedoms end, when you start impacting upon other people. Christianity doesn't require its members to use their corporations to further anti-gay agendas but even if you came up with a religion that did and then claimed discrimination was exercising your religious freedom it'd get struck down. You have the right to the private exercising of your beliefs, what Chic-Fil-A did was take a public corporate stance. A private company has the same right a private individual does to take a political stance. But not the right to do business wherever they want regardless of the wishes of the society where they wish to do business. Nobody is saying they can't take a political stance, they have taken one and it has been judged as conflicting with the wishes of the people of the city who are therefore rejecting them on the basis of it. As they are rejecting them on grounds other than race, disability or religion (which as a company they don't actually have) then it's all fine. Actually they do its for the same reason the KKK can rally or march anywhere in the USA and the same reason Muslims can open a Mosque next to the twin tower memorial. If you don't like the business you don't have to buy anything but you cannot deny them access based on there beliefs. On July 26 2012 07:19 Sandtrout wrote:So, the people here who say you shouldn't ban something just because you don't agree with it. That means you're all supporting gay marriage, right? Yes I said "grounds other than religion" to which you replied "but Muslims can open a Mosque". Please try again. You can't separate the 2 discrimination in any form is discrimination please try again. Discrimination simply means choosing rejecting something on some grounds. I could discriminate against a job applicant on the basis that he showed up late to the interview and I thought he wasn't punctual. That would be discrimination against lateness. I could discriminate against poor dressers. People can and do discriminate and it is not a bad thing, it is just another word for selection. Discrimination on the grounds of race or religion have been judged as bad things but this is not a judgement on discrimination as a whole. It defiantly is what if everyone who was late for work ever got banned from Boston would that be acceptable? On July 26 2012 07:27 autoexec wrote:On July 26 2012 07:21 Sermokala wrote:
I hear black people like the company and the food they sell. Making the company take away what black people like might connect black people to not liking the gay rights movement. From a meta gaming point of view its a pretty good move you got to say.
I live in Charlotte, NC. Majority of people here are black. (I am white) Black people do not like gays at all from what I have seen. This has to do with the area you live in NC has a very christian/Baptist population of Blacks which would explain that. With Atlanta being the capital of Gays in the USA now with more gays per square foot than anywhere else lol you almost don't notice people could careless here 99% of the time regardless of Religion. On July 26 2012 07:36 OuchyDathurts wrote:
It's a cute note but don't think it'll hold up legally. I may wholeheartedly agree with his sentiment I don't think he can make this call.
As long as the fucking retarded "corporations are people!" thing stands there's literally no way you can tell them where or where they can't go through these means. You can use the zoning argument to stop them if you want.
I'm cool with the mayor saying "go fuck yourself". I'm cool with people picketing the places and making it known they're not welcome within the law. You just can't tell them where they can or can't go based on their beliefs, regardless of how backwards and retarded they might be.
You can love em or hate em, you can love or hate the KKK, you can love or hate the Westboro Baptist Church. But they're within their rights saying what they want.
"I do not agree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Amen Regrettably I don't have explicit sources to back this up, but I seem to recall a recent election where officials were surprised that they were voting heavily against gay marriage even as they were mostly voting liberal. Granted, the NAACP has recently voiced its support for gay marriage, but that doesn't mean that it necessarily represents the dominant opinion of 'black America'.
if you find reliable sources i'd be interested
|
On July 26 2012 07:43 WeeKeong wrote:
To the open bostonian: You keep saying "the people of Boston" like they are a whole and have the same opinions. You talk like everyone, and by everyone i mean EVERYONE, in Boston doesn't want Chic-Fil-A.
Let's assume 80% don't want Chick-Fil-A and 20% do. Does it make it right for the 80% to vote on policies which will harm the 20%? Yes I mean harm. Banning Chick-Fil-A would mean less goods Boston, less jobs, less competition etc.
Is it ok for 80% to vote to force the remainding 20% to suffer? Democracy should not be the end goal, a democracy does not mean that the policies it makes is justified just because the majority votes on it. Any democracy where the majority can and does vote on policies which harms the minority directly or indirectly is bad.
To be fair things are voted on all the time (like literally everything ever) by majority vote. Whether or not it "harms" 49% of people. To think otherwise is silly.
Yeah, the guy didn't word things in the greatest way, obviously he's passionate. But doesn't change the fact you don't need a 100% vote for anything.
|
Russian Federation3631 Posts
On July 26 2012 07:38 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 07:29 DeepElemBlues wrote:I'm arguing the right of the society to shape itself and choose whom it associates with That's different from what you've been saying for three posts prior to this. I've consistently been arguing that if the society says "we don't want to associate with a business which contradicts our civic ethos" then they have the right to do so.
Do you think that the ability of people to freely choose not to patronize a business they view is bigoted is somehow insufficient in this regard?
|
On July 26 2012 07:43 WeeKeong wrote:
To the open bostonian: You keep saying "the people of Boston" like they are a whole and have the same opinions. You talk like everyone, and by everyone i mean EVERYONE, in Boston doesn't want Chic-Fil-A.
Let's assume 80% don't want Chick-Fil-A and 20% do. Does it make it right for the 80% to vote on policies which will harm the 20%? Yes I mean harm. Banning Chick-Fil-A would mean less goods Boston, less jobs, less competition etc.
Is it ok for 80% to vote to force the remainding 20% to suffer? Democracy should not be the end goal, a democracy does not mean that the policies it makes is justified just because the majority votes on it. Any democracy where the majority can and does vote on policies which harms the minority directly or indirectly is bad.
They way I read it, when I reread his post, was that he was presenting why it was happening, not that it was a just action.
Namely: the Mayor is doing it because he perceives that it is what the people want.
|
why don't he try to ban assault rifles first instead of chicken sandwiches bros
|
On July 26 2012 07:22 APurpleCow wrote:
There's a difference between tolerance and acceptance: "tolerance" implies that something is wrong or harmful. There is no double standard when liberals are intolerant of bigotry--liberals do not tolerate homosexuality, they accept it.
That said, I'm not sure if I agree with this ban. Donating to these hate groups IS discrimination, but...
tol·er·ance [tol-er-uhns]
noun
1.
a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, etc., differ from one's own; freedom from bigotry.
2.
a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward opinions and practices that differ from one's own.
3.
interest in and concern for ideas, opinions, practices, etc., foreign to one's own; a liberal, undogmatic viewpoint.
4.
the act or capacity of enduring; endurance: My tolerance of noise is limited.
Yeah, I'm not seeing tolerance implying something is wrong or harmful. I have no clue where you are getting that from.
ac·cept·ance [ak-sep-tuhns]
noun
1.
the act of taking or receiving something offered.
2.
favorable reception; approval; favor.
3.
the act of assenting or believing: acceptance of a theory.
4.
the fact or state of being accepted or acceptable.
|
United States5162 Posts
To people who support this - What happens when a southern city decides that a business who is pro-gay marriage isn't allowed to do be there? Is that fine, or discrimination?
|
On July 26 2012 07:43 sAsImre wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 07:41 autoexec wrote:On July 26 2012 07:39 sAsImre wrote:On July 26 2012 07:38 autoexec wrote:On July 26 2012 07:35 sAsImre wrote:On July 26 2012 07:34 autoexec wrote:On July 26 2012 07:32 Crushinator wrote:On July 26 2012 07:29 autoexec wrote:On July 26 2012 07:25 Crushinator wrote:On July 26 2012 07:23 Ryalnos wrote:
[quote]
What a throwaway statement if I ever saw it. There are many awful directions to go in to mock this statement but it would just be too easy. I find it to be a great statement. Please attempt to mock it. Iirc, it is against the law to do this. It is not against the law to ban gay marriage. I attempted and succeeded I'm pretty sure banning gay marraige is against the law here dummy. I live in North Carolina. It actually is the law! Whether it is right or wrong is a different discussion. reading comprehension is a useful skil tho have (we're talking about boston) same as studying facism for sometimes it prevents to appear as a total idiot :D Actually we are talking about the United States as a whole. When discussing the American Constitution, we are usually talking about America. And for the most part, it is legal to ban gay marriage in America. you discussed about legality not constitutionnality First of all, if constitutionality is a word, then that is awesome :D Second, when the legality is about the Constitution being broken, since the constitution is the supreme law of America, then yes, it is about constitutionality. Man I love that word... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutionalityyou don't know what you're talking about, go take some law lessons about the consitution and Kelsen and come back. Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 07:42 Crushinator wrote:On July 26 2012 07:35 Praetorial wrote:On July 26 2012 07:32 Crushinator wrote:On July 26 2012 07:29 autoexec wrote:On July 26 2012 07:25 Crushinator wrote:On July 26 2012 07:23 Ryalnos wrote:On July 26 2012 07:19 Sandtrout wrote:So, the people here who say you shouldn't ban something just because you don't agree with it. That means you're all supporting gay marriage, right? What a throwaway statement if I ever saw it. There are many awful directions to go in to mock this statement but it would just be too easy. I find it to be a great statement. Please attempt to mock it. Iirc, it is against the law to do this. It is not against the law to ban gay marriage. I attempted and succeeded I'm pretty sure banning gay marraige is against the law here dummy. Here is not Netherlands dummy, here is the US, where it is legal. On July 26 2012 07:19 Sandtrout wrote:So, the people here who say you shouldn't ban something just because you don't agree with it. That means you're all supporting gay marriage, right? This is funny. Honestly, if I were to agree with the first sentence, how the hell could I react to the weirder things you could replace gay marriage with? I couldn't. I don't know what this means. I won't continue the legality discussion because it would get stupid quickly, but obviously the ''it is legal/illegal, therefore it is right/wrong'' kind of reasoning is fallacious. laws and morale have been seperated from quite sometimes nowadays (still not so much and not for every law sadly)
So you didn't argue, you just told me to get lessons about law when you don't respond to my argument? If you make a counter-argument, then I will listen to you. If the Constitution isn't the supreme law (or whatever you want to call it. Just know it is the bottom line of what you can and can't do in America) then I don't know what is...
|
On July 26 2012 07:45 sAsImre wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 07:44 Ryalnos wrote:On July 26 2012 07:37 CajunMan wrote:On July 26 2012 07:31 KwarK wrote:On July 26 2012 07:24 CajunMan wrote:On July 26 2012 07:21 Sermokala wrote:
Its weird to see a company have religious views and be public about supporting their beliefs. It'll score them a ton of points in the bible belt and in Idaho but they shouldn't be surprised when they get run out of more liberal mined cities. granted the koch brothers have done a ton more then chic but they keep their private opinions out of their corporate life.
I don't think it really matters at this point what the government does in Boston. the publicity from this has probably done enough to kill them in the city. If anything this is all going to their plan. I hear black people like the company and the food they sell. Making the company take away what black people like might connect black people to not liking the gay rights movement. From a meta gaming point of view its a pretty good move you got to say. Seems like something a Liberal would think of 99% of black people LOVE chicken!!! Right is that what your saying? On July 26 2012 07:24 KwarK wrote:On July 26 2012 07:20 CajunMan wrote:On July 26 2012 07:13 KwarK wrote:On July 26 2012 07:07 Crushinator wrote:On July 26 2012 07:01 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
I'm pretty sure freedom of worship ends the same place all the other freedoms end, when you start impacting upon other people. Christianity doesn't require its members to use their corporations to further anti-gay agendas but even if you came up with a religion that did and then claimed discrimination was exercising your religious freedom it'd get struck down. You have the right to the private exercising of your beliefs, what Chic-Fil-A did was take a public corporate stance. A private company has the same right a private individual does to take a political stance. But not the right to do business wherever they want regardless of the wishes of the society where they wish to do business. Nobody is saying they can't take a political stance, they have taken one and it has been judged as conflicting with the wishes of the people of the city who are therefore rejecting them on the basis of it. As they are rejecting them on grounds other than race, disability or religion (which as a company they don't actually have) then it's all fine. Actually they do its for the same reason the KKK can rally or march anywhere in the USA and the same reason Muslims can open a Mosque next to the twin tower memorial. If you don't like the business you don't have to buy anything but you cannot deny them access based on there beliefs. On July 26 2012 07:19 Sandtrout wrote:So, the people here who say you shouldn't ban something just because you don't agree with it. That means you're all supporting gay marriage, right? Yes I said "grounds other than religion" to which you replied "but Muslims can open a Mosque". Please try again. You can't separate the 2 discrimination in any form is discrimination please try again. Discrimination simply means choosing rejecting something on some grounds. I could discriminate against a job applicant on the basis that he showed up late to the interview and I thought he wasn't punctual. That would be discrimination against lateness. I could discriminate against poor dressers. People can and do discriminate and it is not a bad thing, it is just another word for selection. Discrimination on the grounds of race or religion have been judged as bad things but this is not a judgement on discrimination as a whole. It defiantly is what if everyone who was late for work ever got banned from Boston would that be acceptable? On July 26 2012 07:27 autoexec wrote:On July 26 2012 07:21 Sermokala wrote:
I hear black people like the company and the food they sell. Making the company take away what black people like might connect black people to not liking the gay rights movement. From a meta gaming point of view its a pretty good move you got to say.
I live in Charlotte, NC. Majority of people here are black. (I am white) Black people do not like gays at all from what I have seen. This has to do with the area you live in NC has a very christian/Baptist population of Blacks which would explain that. With Atlanta being the capital of Gays in the USA now with more gays per square foot than anywhere else lol you almost don't notice people could careless here 99% of the time regardless of Religion. On July 26 2012 07:36 OuchyDathurts wrote:
It's a cute note but don't think it'll hold up legally. I may wholeheartedly agree with his sentiment I don't think he can make this call.
As long as the fucking retarded "corporations are people!" thing stands there's literally no way you can tell them where or where they can't go through these means. You can use the zoning argument to stop them if you want.
I'm cool with the mayor saying "go fuck yourself". I'm cool with people picketing the places and making it known they're not welcome within the law. You just can't tell them where they can or can't go based on their beliefs, regardless of how backwards and retarded they might be.
You can love em or hate em, you can love or hate the KKK, you can love or hate the Westboro Baptist Church. But they're within their rights saying what they want.
"I do not agree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Amen Regrettably I don't have explicit sources to back this up, but I seem to recall a recent election where officials were surprised that they were voting heavily against gay marriage even as they were mostly voting liberal. Granted, the NAACP has recently voiced its support for gay marriage, but that doesn't mean that it necessarily represents the dominant opinion of 'black America'. if you find reliable sources i'd be interested
It turns out it was Proposition 8 (a ban on gay marriage voted on in California).
Here's one for starters:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/06/AR2008110603880.html?sid=ST2008110604053
Here's a more direct source, exit polling:
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#CAI01p1
I guess this is limited to California after all, so it may vary by state.
|
If the majority of a population doesn't want something, why is it a bad thing for a selective of that majority to ban it?
|
On July 26 2012 07:43 WeeKeong wrote:
To the open bostonian: You keep saying "the people of Boston" like they are a whole and have the same opinions. You talk like everyone, and by everyone i mean EVERYONE, in Boston doesn't want Chic-Fil-A.
Let's assume 80% don't want Chick-Fil-A and 20% do. Does it make it right for the 80% to vote on policies which will harm the 20%? Yes I mean harm. Banning Chick-Fil-A would mean less goods Boston, less jobs, less competition etc.
Is it ok for 80% to vote to force the remainding 20% to suffer? Democracy should not be the end goal, a democracy does not mean that the policies it makes is justified just because the majority votes on it. Any democracy where the majority can and does vote on policies which harms the minority directly or indirectly is bad.
As someone from Boston, I assure you nobody is particularly distraught about no Chic-Fil-A. The net harm is tiny.
Any democracy where the majority can and does vote on policies which harms the minority directly or indirectly is bad. Welp, that describes every democracy on earth.
Your argument is insane. Say 80% of people want a policy that will harm 20% but benefit the 80%. You're saying they can't pursue those policies? You want unanimous consent for policies?
a democracy does not mean that the policies it makes is justified just because the majority votes on it.
It does mean that the policies were arrived at at a legitimate manner provided people had equal opportunity to affect the outcome though, so that's about as good as we can do.
Edit - Also, I expect their is a fair bit of political grandstanding going on on Menino's part, "taking a stand" in the easiest way possible on an easy political issue.
|
United States43729 Posts
On July 26 2012 07:47 419 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 07:38 KwarK wrote:On July 26 2012 07:29 DeepElemBlues wrote:I'm arguing the right of the society to shape itself and choose whom it associates with That's different from what you've been saying for three posts prior to this. I've consistently been arguing that if the society says "we don't want to associate with a business which contradicts our civic ethos" then they have the right to do so. Do you think that the ability of people to freely choose not to patronize a business they view is bigoted is somehow insufficient in this regard?
No, I feel a public (in terms of exposure, not funding) campaign for a boycott would function just as well. I just don't see why a public rejection should be limited just to economic activity.
|
On July 26 2012 07:46 OuchyDathurts wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 07:43 WeeKeong wrote:
To the open bostonian: You keep saying "the people of Boston" like they are a whole and have the same opinions. You talk like everyone, and by everyone i mean EVERYONE, in Boston doesn't want Chic-Fil-A.
Let's assume 80% don't want Chick-Fil-A and 20% do. Does it make it right for the 80% to vote on policies which will harm the 20%? Yes I mean harm. Banning Chick-Fil-A would mean less goods Boston, less jobs, less competition etc.
Is it ok for 80% to vote to force the remainding 20% to suffer? Democracy should not be the end goal, a democracy does not mean that the policies it makes is justified just because the majority votes on it. Any democracy where the majority can and does vote on policies which harms the minority directly or indirectly is bad.
To be fair things are voted on all the time (like literally everything ever) by majority vote. Whether or not it "harms" 49% of people. To think otherwise is silly. Yeah, the guy didn't word things in the greatest way, obviously he's passionate. But doesn't change the fact you don't need a 100% vote for anything.
I don't know exactly how it works in the US, but usually you can't do something that violates a constitutional rright, even if you have a majority. In order to do that you would need to change the constitution, for which you would need much more than a 50% local majority.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
