EPTBoston Mayor vows to ban Chick-Fil-A from his city - Page 13
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Ryalnos
United States1946 Posts
| ||
|
OuchyDathurts
United States4588 Posts
On July 26 2012 07:52 Crushinator wrote: 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. In the US to propose a constitutional amendment you need 2/3 of the house and the senate OR 2/3 of state legislators ask the national congress to propose an amendment. To ratify the amendment you need 3/4 of the state legislature approval or 3/4 of the states to approve. It's a hell of a process but in no way does it need 100% voter approval. Almost any law you can imagine can be argued that is "hurts" someone or other. It ruins someones business model, it screws over so and so. But at the end of the day absolutely NOTHING would EVER be accomplished if you needed 100% approval, regardless of who may or may not be hurt. | ||
|
WeeKeong
United States282 Posts
| ||
|
lordofsoup
United States159 Posts
| ||
|
Wegandi
United States2455 Posts
On July 26 2012 08:01 APurpleCow wrote: 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. Sticks and Stones...blah blah. Sure, I don't approve of remarks that actively seek to demean other's, but I at least understand it their right. The last thing I want is either the mobocracy deciding what I can say or do, or some dictatorial psychopath (read: politician), having such a power. There's a reason you don't see Sectarian Christian fighting in America because we have liberty in this area. If we removed the Government from licensing marriage, and all it's attendant monetary benefits, and restored marriage to what it is - a contract between consenting parties (of which any number is perfectly fine), then we wouldn't have this dumb ass conflict, but no, one group wants to use the Government to their advantage, and the other groups wants to do the same. Meanwhile out here outside this dumbass dialectic I stand, being the reasonable one, pointing out that if both groups weren't authoritarian asses we wouldn't be in this situation. As my Psychology Professor would always say: you choose how you are going to feel and live, not others. If you let the words of others bother or hurt you, you've chosen to do so, not them. Words by themselves contribute no harm. You've not been aggressed upon. | ||
|
Zahir
United States947 Posts
On July 26 2012 07:59 Tachion wrote: 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. I was just about to post on this. This company is presently walking a very fine line, and I think if their political activism involved an even less savory set of ideals, such as those expressed by the kkk, the company would actually find itself in some legal trouble. Perhaps not from the government itself, but they would likely be swamped in lawsuits from people believing they were being discriminated against or even harmed. Certainly, their business would be the Target of protests and pickets and be unable to operate at a profit. But I believe the principle stands. We would not seek to use the law to exile a man for expressing opinions we disagree with. We would censure him socially and economically, not buy at his store, and persuade others to do the same. The same goes for a corporation. Still I find it a legally ambiguous area how an employee or customer could possibly not feel discriminated against in the culture that this company has created. But technically I guess its possible if the company absolutely held to the policy of not expressing political opinions during or at work. | ||
|
Excludos
Norway8179 Posts
On July 26 2012 07:56 ThreeAcross wrote: So I assume you agree with the states that haven't allowed gay marriage because the majority still doesn't want it? While I'm personally pro gay marriage, if an entire state doesn't want it then thats something they are choosing. I choose whetever I want to live there and who to vote on come election time. On July 26 2012 08:05 WeeKeong wrote: 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? This goes back to what Kwark has been trying to say through the entire thread. The population shapes their own way. if the majority want something, whetever or not I'm personally for or against it, then thats the way it will be. This is how a democracy works. On July 26 2012 07:57 1Eris1 wrote: 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) And this is how it was until the majority decided that african americans should have the right to vote.. Whetever something is right or wrong in your personal opinion is irrelevant. | ||
|
FallDownMarigold
United States3710 Posts
| ||
KwarK
United States43255 Posts
On July 26 2012 08:09 lordofsoup wrote: I just dont see why this effects whether Chick-Fila-a should be allowed into Boston or not. The owner might be a bigot, but the owner's views should have nothing to do with whether a company should be allowed to open stores in a specific area. Seems to me Menino just wants to get on the front of a newspaper. You've not read the topic. They donated money as a corporation. | ||
|
HowitZer
United States1610 Posts
| ||
|
CajunMan
United States823 Posts
On July 26 2012 08:04 KwarK wrote: 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. The second one you posted is not discrimination first off I think as long as a feature of someone does not affect a there ability to work at a job then they should always be considered for hire. If you start not accepting applicants based on nonwork prohibiting issues that's where the problem comes in. That said that has nothing to do with the issue at hand because this is stopping someone from running a business based on beliefs alone. Seriously is it that hard to process? Oppressing an individuals right as an American citizen/business to be a citizen or be a business anywhere is wrong. You can't stop people from thinking away or running a business anywhere based on your beliefs on anything that is why I brought up religion and the KKK or left handed people it's all wrong no matter the reason for oppression. But sir, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this thread is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul. | ||
|
OuchyDathurts
United States4588 Posts
On July 26 2012 08:05 Zahir wrote: 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. It's carefully worded because he's smart. You'd be amazed what you can get away with when you carefully wordsmith something up =) It's a beautiful thing. He didn't threaten anything though, that's the point. You're construing it that way. You want to take it that he's trying to ban something when there's literally no indication that's the case. This seriously comes up like all the god damn time. People read or hear something and their minds take it to a certain place even if that isn't what was said. It's a pet peeve of mine where someone will say "generally I hate blahblah" and someone will hear/read that and their mind says "He hates blahblah!!!!!!!! Holy shit! Hang him!!!" People don't actually pay attention to qualifiers anymore and in this world of black and white it HAS to be one extreme or the other. There is no middle ground. He in no way banned or threatened to ban anything. He didn't vow a single thing. It's being taken the sensationalist route. To think it any other way is to completely give up on understanding of the English language. This is pretty much dead in the water anyway you take it. Even if he wanted to follow through on these threats that don't exist but people want to believe in it'd get struck down. If they decide to go the zoning route to block them they've already played their hand and it'll be stopped because he'd obviously be trying to sand bag through other means. People can get their panties out of a wad. | ||
|
KwarK
United States43255 Posts
On July 26 2012 08:09 Wegandi wrote: As my Psychology Professor would always say: you choose how you are going to feel and live, not others. If you let the words of others bother or hurt you, you've chosen to do so, not them. Words by themselves contribute no harm. You've not been aggressed upon. I'm sure bullying victims everywhere will be pleased to know that their suffering is something they've chosen. Sometimes even professors who we respect say things that are completely retarded. | ||
|
WeeKeong
United States282 Posts
On July 26 2012 08:16 Excludos wrote: This goes back to what Kwark has been trying to say through the entire thread. The population shapes their own way. if the majority want something, whetever or not I'm personally for or against it, then thats the way it will be. This is how a democracy works That's how a democracy works but is it right? Is it the best way? Is it ok for the majority to force the minority to be slaves? | ||
|
Myles
United States5162 Posts
On July 26 2012 08:24 WeeKeong wrote: That's how a democracy works but is it right? Is it the best way? Is it ok for the majority to force the minority to be slaves? No, that's why were supposed to have basic guaranteed rights, even as a business. One of those being freedom of speech, which political donations falls under if said organization is legal. | ||
|
1Eris1
United States5797 Posts
On July 26 2012 08:16 Excludos wrote: While I'm personally pro gay marriage, if an entire state doesn't want it then thats something they are choosing. I choose whetever I want to live there and who to vote on come election time. This goes back to what Kwark has been trying to say through the entire thread. The population shapes their own way. if the majority want something, whetever or not I'm personally for or against it, then thats the way it will be. This is how a democracy works. And this is how it was until the majority decided that african americans should have the right to vote.. Whetever something is right or wrong in your personal opinion is irrelevant. This is a very dangerous way of thinking. What if Norway launched a referendum legalizing murder and the majority approved it? Would you support such a thing? Just because the "majority" agree on something does not make it right. You might think that the majority would never in this day and age vote for something outrageous, but it has happened before and could very easily happen again, especially given how easily people are manipulated in our current era. There's a reason nearly evey sucessful society has unalienable rights and sanctions against majority decision making. (Actually, I'm pretty sure every sucessful society does, but I'm not familar with all the constitutions floating around out there) | ||
|
fishjie
United States1519 Posts
therefore, to me, its open and shut case this is the right move. if the government had blocked a company from moving in because they hired blacks, then they'd be in the wrong. you have to look at it on a case by case basis. | ||
|
imre
France9263 Posts
On July 26 2012 08:23 OuchyDathurts wrote: It's carefully worded because he's smart. You'd be amazed what you can get away with when you carefully wordsmith something up =) It's a beautiful thing. He didn't threaten anything though, that's the point. You're construing it that way. You want to take it that he's trying to ban something when there's literally no indication that's the case. This seriously comes up like all the god damn time. People read or hear something and their minds take it to a certain place even if that isn't what was said. It's a pet peeve of mine where someone will say "generally I hate blahblah" and someone will hear/read that and their mind says "He hates blahblah!!!!!!!! Holy shit! Hang him!!!" People don't actually pay attention to qualifiers anymore and in this world of black and white it HAS to be one extreme or the other. There is no middle ground. He in no way banned or threatened to ban anything. He didn't vow a single thing. It's being taken the sensationalist route. To think it any other way is to completely give up on understanding of the English language. This is pretty much dead in the water anyway you take it. Even if he wanted to follow through on these threats that don't exist but people want to believe in it'd get struck down. If they decide to go the zoning route to block them they've already played their hand and it'll be stopped because he'd obviously be trying to sand bag through other means. People can get their panties out of a wad. just read the letter, indeed it's really well done, just saying that they don't belong in Boston and implying than getting a location is going to be pretty hard  | ||
|
BlazeFury01
United States1460 Posts
| ||
|
sikeTM
United States37 Posts
I don't think it's a political officials place to do this. The company is within it's legal rights to support any organization. Their beliefs do not matter. no matter how stone-age the thought process is. I doubt this is legal for him to do. Honestly part of me did cheer but it's still not a good enough reason to say, "we don't take your kind around here." That makes it seem that he is no better than them and anyone who supports it as well. At least in my eyes. | ||
| ||
