|
On July 26 2012 07:49 NEOtheONE wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Here.
|
On July 26 2012 07:45 APurpleCow wrote:Show nested quote +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.
That's the thing, Ive seen no evidence to support that theyve done anything harmful. Their corporate leaders have made offensive statements. That's it. I would say that's covered under free speech. If they were inciting people to discriminate or harm gays then that's a different matter, but so far they have only expressed an opinion, and donated money to some questionable groups. All covered under the First. Theyve been treading carefully, so I see no justification for the government to act against them. I'm fairly sure it's against the laws of my country to discriminate against someone for what they said or believe, unless what they said was straight up incitement to break laws. Who they donate to is also their business, it is not illegal to donate money unless the recipient is a terrorist or criminal organization.
|
I'm not entirely sure what to think. I live here, but don't follow the politics. He's being intolerant of an intolerant business which for an individual is fine. He's also an elected official so he has a duty to govern and do what is right for the city. But it has to something that the city wants.
Massachusetts is a pretty liberal place so I suspect they want bigoted companies to be barred from starting business here unless it's necessary for us. Almost all the students in my high school were as liberal as American get. We made fun of being gay, but that's just human nature.
But at the same time we only legalized gay marriage a few years ago, and there was some opposition for that.
I think to really bar a company from being allowed to do business here, he should make a poll.
I don't think barring business against the intolerant or even against a people's beliefs is anything new. Countries break off trades all the time during war.
|
On July 26 2012 07:51 Excludos wrote:
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?
So I assume you agree with the states that haven't allowed gay marriage because the majority still doesn't want it?
|
On July 26 2012 07:41 KwarK 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? 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.
Come on man now all you do is attack me? Seriously bro you've basically said as long as you agree with the discrimination it is ok. Any discrimination of this is wrong is the city of Boston banned left handed people from doing business in the city it'd be just as wrong as banning anti-gay companies.
EDIT- By the way you sound exactly like Austin Powers' dad from Goldmember
"There is only 2 things I can't stand in this world, People who are intorrent of other peoples' culture and The Dutch.
|
On July 26 2012 07:45 APurpleCow wrote:Show nested quote +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.
It's perfectly fine as long as your beliefs align with mine, and all dissenting opinions are hateful and harmful because I said so. Progressives are some of the most intolerant folks around, and it's hard to be more intolerant than Neo-Conservatives, but damn, you guys are quite persuasive.
Tolerance is not using the agents of the State to forcibly bar people from activities and actions which do not violate the equal liberties of another.
As far as the marriage issue goes, it's a whole non-sequitur. You have one group of people fighting to outlaw the other group of people from certain contractual arrangements, and vice versa. As a libertarian I can just stand here and shake my head at the absurdity of this dialectic where neither group can see what is smack dab in front of their faces. If we had any respect for contract and property rights in this country none of this shit would be happening, just like we have religious liberty. You don't see Sectarian Christian internecine fights and Christians fighting Jews, or Muslims fighting Mormons over who the Government is going to sanction as lawful observance and activity, because we have religious LIBERTY.
It's time to be sane people and stop promoting this bullshit AUTHORITARIANISM that both aisles love so much. Fuck. It's tiring.
|
On July 26 2012 07:51 Excludos wrote:
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?
A majority of people used to agree with african americans not having the right to vote. Would you have said the same thing then? Would you say the same thing now for the states that have outlawed gay marriage? (based on a majority vote)
|
On July 26 2012 07:50 autoexec wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 07:43 sAsImre wrote: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:
[quote]
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. 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...
you're ignorant, i'll bold a few things: since the constitution is the supreme law of America, false it's a norm not a law. You may use rule too even if it's not appropriate.
when the legality is about the Constitution being broken,
You broke the constitutionnality of the consitution, the legality of the law.
Then it's an administrative decision which is inferior to the law. If needed you'll examinate in a court if it breaks a law, and since early 19th the judge will be able to examinate the consitutionality of the law if needed (in both cases) (Madison vs ? don't exactly remember).
The constitution isn't the bottom line of what you can do, it's what Kelsen called the Grundernorm and since your consitution is vague and outdated (sorry for that it hurts ><) it's really more about what you think the founding fathers tought when they wrote it than the actual content. Which really sucks btw but it's another debate.
|
On July 26 2012 07:45 APurpleCow wrote:Show nested quote +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.
If that's his problem he doesn't state it in the letter.
Also people should keep in mind he doesn't actually say he's going to make any attempt to stop them.
To Mr. Cathy:
In recent days you said Chick fil-A opposes same-sex marriage and said the generation that supports it as an "arrogant attitude."
Now -- incredibly -- your company says you are backing out of the same-sex marriage debate. I urge you to back out of your plans to locate in Boston.
You called supporters of gay marriage "prideful." Here in Boston, to borrow your own words, we are "guilty as charged." We are indeed full of pride for our support of same sex marriage and our work to expand freedom to all people. We are proud that our state and our city have led the way for the country on equal marriage rights.
I was angry to learn on the heels of your prejudiced statements about your search for a site to locate in Boston. There is no place for discrimination on Boston's Freedom Trail and no place for your company alongside it. When Massachusetts became the first state in the country to recognize equal marriage rights, I personally stood on City Hall Plaza to greet same sex couples here to be married. It would be an insult to them and to our city's long history of expanding freedom to have a Chick fil-A across the street from that spot.
Sincerely,
Thomas M. Menino
"I urge you" IS NOT "you're only coming in over my dead body." It's merely stating you and people of your mind probably aren't going to love life here so much.
"There is no place for discrimination on Boston's Freedom Trail and no place for you company alongside it." is basically just a "go fuck yourself." But, by no means a barring of the company.
All the letter is is just telling them they're ass backwards and a we'd prefer you didn't come here. It says absolutely nothing about a "vow to ban" anything.
|
On July 26 2012 07:53 Zahir wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 07:45 APurpleCow wrote: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. That's the thing, Ive seen no evidence to support that theyve done anything harmful. Their corporate leaders have made offensive statements. That's it. I would say that's covered under free speech. If they were inciting people to discriminate or harm gays then that's a different matter, but so far they have only expressed an opinion, and donated money to some questionable groups. All covered under the First. Theyve been treading carefully, so I see no justification for the government to act against them. I'm fairly sure it's against the laws of my country to discriminate against someone for what they said or believe, unless what they said was straight up incitement to break laws. Who they donate to is also their business, it is not illegal to donate money unless the recipient is a terrorist or criminal organization.
The fact that people can support anti-gay marriage and not associate that with discrimination against a persons sexual orientation is disturbing. The US and it's population is so far behind the times it's just sad.
|
It looks like Chic-fil-a (better yet, the family who owns Chic-fil-a) wants to cater to a specific clientelle (anti-gay christians) and donates money publically for that end. As far as I understand, donating money to and supporting anti-gay-marriage institutions in Boston isn't ilegal, therefore there is absolutely nothing wrong with what they are doing.
The Boston mayor's actions are an attempt to indirectly discriminate against the Chic-fil-a owners and its patrons (be they politically active against gay marriage or not), based on a political issue. I'm a bit surprised the Boston mayor has the mandate to discriminate against a business based on its owner's ideology.
|
Russian Federation3631 Posts
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.
There's an assumption under the Constitution that the state should not deny any person equal protection under the law*.
Thus, there is an argument against using eminent domain / bureaucratic measures (as first reply advocates) in a partial way, even if it was endorsed by a majority vote.
*I lack the expertise to know whether there's an actual Equal Protection clause lawsuit possible in this, so take this as a "spirit of the law" thing
|
"Typical" gay right supporter: "I demand that you tolerate my tolerance of a certain lifestyle. However, I WILL NOT TOLERATE YOUR INTOLERANCE of said lifestyle!"
Street goes both ways, you can't demand that people agree with your opinion, and condemn them when they don't, crying out for justice in the name of "tolerance".
OT: This is bullshit. The owners of chick-fil-a have the right to donate to and support whoever they wish, provided it's a legal organization. The mayor of Boston has no right to, without a PUBLIC vote or petition, deny them from having a business in the city because he disproves of their beliefs.
|
It's perfectly fine as long as your beliefs align with mine, and all dissenting opinions are hateful and harmful because I said so. Progressives are some of the most intolerant folks around, and it's hard to be more intolerant than Neo-Conservatives, but damn, you guys are quite persuasive.
That's completely ridiculous. It's not hard to see why anti-gay rhetoric is harmful, and I personally know young gay people who became depressed and suicidal because of it.
|
I really hate agreeing with Wegandi posts, but he's right this time.
|
On July 26 2012 07:57 sAsImre wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 07:50 autoexec wrote:On July 26 2012 07:43 sAsImre wrote: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:[quote] 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. 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... you're ignorant, i'll bold a few things: since the constitution is the supreme law of America, false it's a norm not a law. You may use rule too even if it's not appropriate. when the legality is about the Constitution being broken, You broke the constitutionnality of the consitution, the legality of the law. Then it's an administrative decision which is inferior to the law. If needed you'll examinate in a court if it breaks a law, and since early 19th the judge will be able to examinate the consitutionality of the law if needed (in both cases) (Madison vs ? don't exactly remember). The constitution isn't the bottom line of what you can do, it's what Kelsen called the Grundernorm and since your consitution is vague and outdated (sorry for that it hurts ><) it's really more about what you think the founding fathers tought when they wrote it than the actual content. Which really sucks btw but it's another debate.
Alright. I will admit that I have never taken a government class in my life. I really could care less for polotics as they never actually get anywhere (due to arguing) because there is no fact as there is in science. So all that I really got out of this is that you are using law terms that don't make any sense to the average person reading this. All that I'm trying to say that this is wrong based on the constitution, whereas the banning of gay marriage isn't because it was never a right that the constitution gave. That's all that I'm trying to say, and I think that makes sense.
|
On July 26 2012 08:02 autoexec wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 07:57 sAsImre wrote:On July 26 2012 07:50 autoexec wrote:On July 26 2012 07:43 sAsImre wrote: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:
[quote]
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. 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:
[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. 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... you're ignorant, i'll bold a few things: since the constitution is the supreme law of America, false it's a norm not a law. You may use rule too even if it's not appropriate. when the legality is about the Constitution being broken, You broke the constitutionnality of the consitution, the legality of the law. Then it's an administrative decision which is inferior to the law. If needed you'll examinate in a court if it breaks a law, and since early 19th the judge will be able to examinate the consitutionality of the law if needed (in both cases) (Madison vs ? don't exactly remember). The constitution isn't the bottom line of what you can do, it's what Kelsen called the Grundernorm and since your consitution is vague and outdated (sorry for that it hurts ><) it's really more about what you think the founding fathers tought when they wrote it than the actual content. Which really sucks btw but it's another debate. Alright. I will admit that I have never taken a government class in my life. I really could care less for polotics as they never actually get anywhere (due to arguing) because there is no fact as there is in science. So all that I really got out of this is that you are using law terms that don't make any sense to the average person reading this. All that I'm trying to say that this is wrong based on the constitution, whereas the banning of gay marriage isn't because it was never a right that the constitution gave. That's all that I'm trying to say, and I think that makes sense.
making sense isn't relevant when you deal with law and your 18th century consitution isn't adapted for modern social problems so you don't use you use the spirit of it which is just the position of the supreme court in the end.
Positive law is exact such as mathematics because it's an abstraction. you're just ignorant and misjudge what you don't know while being happy of it.
|
United States41942 Posts
On July 26 2012 07:56 CajunMan wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 07:41 KwarK 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? 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. Come on man now all you do is attack me? Seriously bro you've basically said as long as you agree with the discrimination it is ok. Any discrimination of this is wrong is the city of Boston banned left handed people from doing business in the city it'd be just as wrong as banning anti-gay companies.
I can't believe I have to go to this extent to explain this really basic point but okay. Example time. Two men go for to interview for a job. The first man is asked if he's a Christian, he says he is and is promptly informed that because of the companies strong anti-Christian stance he will not get the job. The second man comes in to interview but takes a piss all over the manager's chair and is informed that because of the companies strong "don't take a piss on my chair" stance he won't be getting the job. Both have been discriminated against but only one has a legal case because as a society we have decided that some grounds for discrimination are acceptable and some are not. This is basic, basic stuff. Discrimination is a word for selection. We judge discrimination on some grounds to be unethical and have made it unlawful. This does not however mean that all discrimination in which you select against something on some grounds is always unethical.
|
On July 26 2012 07:51 Excludos wrote:
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?
Because not banning it does not really harm the majority. On the other hand, banning it harms the minority.
Let's look at it from the other way, if the majoritiy of a population are againt homosexuals, wouldn't you agree that it is a bad thing for a selective of that majority to ban homosexuality?
|
Ouchy: The letter was carefully worded to give the governor an out if the debate happened to turn against him. But that barely matters. If a governor was sending such letters over a less ambiguous issue, like telling chick Fil a they are unwelcome because Boston does not like Christians, everyone would be pissed.
What an official Says or threatens in his official capacity is a good indicator of policy, and scaring off a business has a similar moral impact as banning them. Therefore this debate over his implied policy is still valid, whether he "vowed" or merely threatened.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
