|
On July 26 2012 08:19 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Do you think Starbucks should be banned from Georgia because they donate to groups that promote gay marriage, something illegal in Georgia?
Who cares.
|
While I don't advocate homophobia, I don't think the government should take affirmative action towards anti-homophobic attitudes in businesses. Either way, this is a lose-lose situation for Chick-fil-A especially in areas that support homosexuality. It really sucks too because I enjoy eating their sandwiches and now I feel morally inclined not to buy their food due to their stance towards homosexuals.
|
On July 26 2012 05:53 Praetorial wrote:Baller! I live in Boston, and I for one would love to see that bastion of Southern bigotry get out of my city! Heck, use eminent domain, zoning laws, whatever. Just get them gone! Just look at this: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/17/dan-cathy-chick-fil-a-president-anti-gay_n_1680984.htmlShow nested quote +
I think we are inviting God's judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at Him and say, 'We know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage,' and I pray God's mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we have the audacity to define what marriage is about
Disgusting.
I agree completely that this guy has obviously misinterpreted the underlying message of Christianity as a religion.
I would like to register my disagreement with part of your first sentence though. I live in North Carolina on one of the islands of blue in a sea of red. While a great deal of the radical conservatives and racist/homophobic bigots come from the South, I do believe that they exist in all parts of the country. I would like to think there is hope for the South yet. NC voted Blue in 2008 :D, I was out in the cold registering voters with my friend, we got two people (out of a list of hundreds with most being "not home," "already registered" and "get off my lawn you long-haired hippies.") and they were voting Obama. My friend and I were 17 so we felt like we voted in a roundabout way!
The point being - I stand for the TRUE southern traditions - cold lemonade, BBQ, camping trips to the Appalachians, pulling the seine in the creek behind my Grandparents' beach-house and strangling cougars with my bare hands (jk - I support the preservation of wildlife). Believe it or not, I grew up eating ice cream from the local farm's shop on a rocking chair on their porch overlooking amber waves of grain - and not on lynching non-whites and gays. Ah don' speek lahk thee-is and I've never fired a hunting rifle (if you eat it though, I don't have a problem with it). I would like to distance myself, and those who grew up like I did, as much as possible from the bigoted filth that I hesitate to call human cohabitants of our state.
|
Ouchy: we will have to agree to disagree. To me, the letter read like "if you try and set up here I will be making life hard on you" and I feel that is legitimate to question his actions and Intentions, given that the only reason he as mayor is trying to intimidate this group, is because of something they believe. What a government official writes in his official capacity matters a lot.
Again, If he had written what he did because of a stupider reason, like "this city does not like blacks" then there would not be so much debate over whether his actions constitute illegal discrimination. But because people are getting caught up in the gay marriage debate they overlook the fact that a governor should not be trying to intimidate companies without warrant in the first place... To allow such activity is to open the door for more officials to use their public positions to pursue personal agendas, agendas which may in fact be contrary to the laws of this country.
|
On July 26 2012 08:30 FairForever wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 08:19 KwarK wrote: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. Do you think Starbucks should be banned from Georgia because they donate to groups that promote gay marriage, something illegal in Georgia? Who cares.
There's a big difference between promoting discrimination and promoting equality.
|
If the mayor can somehow keep the chain out of Boston that sets a dangerous precedent. I don't think that could even be done legally anyway. His letter doesn't even suggest that he would make sure they stay out of Boston, he just takes a stand against their anti-gay values. I applaud Menino for doing what he did but hope he doesn't try to do anything drastic or illegal. This is a situation where people should boycott if they don't want the chain around. Money talks.
|
Gotta be a freedom of speech issue. I can't imagine this not ending up in court. Just because it isn't the federal government doesn't mean it has no requirement to protect freedom of speech. Chick fil A has not endorsed harming gay people, they don't endorse killing or lynching. They just don't agree with gay marriage. This is a flawed stance, but a stance they are allowed to have nonetheless.
Now. If local strip malls, and local real estate companies don't want to give Chick Fil A land, then that's fine, that is their protected free speech to do so. However, legally, I don't believe a government can do it. I don't even think it's a matter of opinion on if they should be able to do it...I just think it could not be upheld constitutionally.
|
On July 26 2012 06:05 Praetorial wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 05:58 unichan wrote:
looks like a good reason never to go to boston No, Boston's actually a really nice place. We have good schools too I hear. Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 05:58 R3DT1D3 wrote:
For people who are in favor of this just because they agree with the position, what happens when another town does the same thing to say Starbucks for giving money to pro-gay marriage organizations?
Do we really want politics deciding business decisions as well. Condemn them? Politics have influenced business decisions forever. Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 05:57 Zaqwert wrote:
I wonder how everyone would feel if the mayor of Birmingham, AL said he was going to use zoning laws to force out all the Muslim and Jewish owned business.
Would you be cheering that?
Probably not.
You shouldn't base what should and shouldn't be allowed in society based on your own personal beliefs and agenda.
Clearly mayors should not have the power to ban legit businesses from their city just 'cuz they disagree with their beliefs.
50 years ago the talk would have been to drive the gays out and that would have been wrong too.
This thought police crap has to end. Let people live their own lives. If you don't wanna give Chic Fil A your business because you disagree with their policies, then don't. It's not the governments job to sanction what is acceptable beliefs. Well, gay marriage isn't inherently a religious position. So, yes, I'd be unhappy with Muslims or Jews being banned. But I'm perfectly happy with someone advocating for a hateful agenda(admittedly for religious purposes) be banned. Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 05:57 whatevername wrote:
Self evidently it is not baller for the Government to openly [or discreetly] favour one business over another for whatever reason. This is an abuse of power, and for that matter its basically an attempt by local Government to bully businesses politically. Anyone who supports this is basically a fascist. Maybe. In Boston, though, Menino and his predecessors have been known for loving Boston and doing anything in their power to make a nicer place, including using their positions to push over people they don't like. It's made us one of the most educated and tolerant hubs of the world.
Gay marriage stands in direct defiance of the principles of marriage. This is the thing that bugs the fuck out of me.
Marriage is a religious institution. It is defined specifically within religious texts. It is promoted by them. Cultures adopted the practice of marriage because of them. They are the roots of marriage. By promoting "gay" marriage, you are actually standing in defiance of EVERYTHING that marriage stands for. It's hypocrisy.
I have no problem with gays recieving benefits under "domestic partnerships" or some shit like that, but gays getting married is just wrong. I guess for me it's just an issue of semantics, although - actually - it is more than that.
|
On July 26 2012 08:35 Qwyn wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 06:05 Praetorial wrote:On July 26 2012 05:58 unichan wrote:
looks like a good reason never to go to boston No, Boston's actually a really nice place. We have good schools too I hear. On July 26 2012 05:58 R3DT1D3 wrote:
For people who are in favor of this just because they agree with the position, what happens when another town does the same thing to say Starbucks for giving money to pro-gay marriage organizations?
Do we really want politics deciding business decisions as well. Condemn them? Politics have influenced business decisions forever. On July 26 2012 05:57 Zaqwert wrote:
I wonder how everyone would feel if the mayor of Birmingham, AL said he was going to use zoning laws to force out all the Muslim and Jewish owned business.
Would you be cheering that?
Probably not.
You shouldn't base what should and shouldn't be allowed in society based on your own personal beliefs and agenda.
Clearly mayors should not have the power to ban legit businesses from their city just 'cuz they disagree with their beliefs.
50 years ago the talk would have been to drive the gays out and that would have been wrong too.
This thought police crap has to end. Let people live their own lives. If you don't wanna give Chic Fil A your business because you disagree with their policies, then don't. It's not the governments job to sanction what is acceptable beliefs. Well, gay marriage isn't inherently a religious position. So, yes, I'd be unhappy with Muslims or Jews being banned. But I'm perfectly happy with someone advocating for a hateful agenda(admittedly for religious purposes) be banned. On July 26 2012 05:57 whatevername wrote:
Self evidently it is not baller for the Government to openly [or discreetly] favour one business over another for whatever reason. This is an abuse of power, and for that matter its basically an attempt by local Government to bully businesses politically. Anyone who supports this is basically a fascist. Maybe. In Boston, though, Menino and his predecessors have been known for loving Boston and doing anything in their power to make a nicer place, including using their positions to push over people they don't like. It's made us one of the most educated and tolerant hubs of the world. Gay marriage stands in direct defiance of the principles of marriage. This is the thing that bugs the fuck out of me. Marriage is a religious institution. It is defined specifically within religious texts. It is promoted by them. Cultures adopted the practice of marriage because of them. They are the roots of marriage. By promoting "gay" marriage, you are actually standing in defiance of EVERYTHING that marriage stands for. It's hypocrisy. I have no problem with gays recieving benefits under "domestic partnerships" or some shit like that, but gays getting married is just wrong. I guess for me it's just an issue of semantics, although - actually - it is more than that.
marriage is a civil contract endorsed by the state. Then you've religious marriage things or whatever they call it which has 0 legal value. Might send you to heaven tho.
|
I'm sure all the businesses in Boston are headed by "moral" folks who do "moral" things and think "moral" things... this is a slippery slope indeed and a huge publicity stunt for anyone trying to make a case of it...
|
On July 26 2012 06:59 Birdie wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 06:48 farvacola wrote:On July 26 2012 06:45 TheBatman wrote:On July 26 2012 05:53 Praetorial wrote:Baller! I live in Boston, and I for one would love to see that bastion of Southern bigotry get out of my city! Heck, use eminent domain, zoning laws, whatever. Just get them gone! Just look at this: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/17/dan-cathy-chick-fil-a-president-anti-gay_n_1680984.html
I think we are inviting God's judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at Him and say, 'We know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage,' and I pray God's mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we have the audacity to define what marriage is about
Disgusting. how is it disgusting? Or do you just not like people talking about religion I know many religious people who would still call that disgusting. That a scriptural originalist, one who uses his narrow-minded interpretation of the Bible to justify his bigotry, is being held accountable for what he says should be expected and embraced. All we need is for one flamboyant homosexual to be thrown out of a Chik-fil-a for civil rights case to ensue, and I'd bet on whose gonna win. It's pretty hard for anyone to interpret what the Bible says about homosexuality any other way than what that guy has interpreted it :/ it's very clear and plainly laid out that any forms of sex outside of hetereosexual marriage is sin, including homosexuality, adultery, rape, pedophilia, masturbation, pornography, polygamy, etc. Now, you'd have a much better argument if you argued that Christian marriage isn't the only kind of marriage and went from there. I don't understand why people are calling this bigotry; he's just standing up for what he believes in. He can't easily change what he believes in any more than homosexuals can easily change their sexuality; beliefs are much stronger than, say, what kind of burger you like.
Actually, it's very easy to interpret the what the Bible says about homosexuality that way.
The laws against homosexuality are in the Old Testament (the jewish parts), which isn't followed as precise word of God because the New Testament(the christian part) came to replace it, and many Christians follow Lutheran ideals, which may include "salvation by faith alone".
If we were still following the Old Testament, then rape would actually not be a sin(nor does it say anything about lesbian homosexuality), you would just have to pay her father fifty pieces of silver and marry her, though you would not be able to divorce her.
Also, thank you OuchyDathurts for actually posting the letter Mayor Menino wrote, as so few in the thread seem to have actually read it.
|
On July 26 2012 08:35 Qwyn wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 06:05 Praetorial wrote:On July 26 2012 05:58 unichan wrote:
looks like a good reason never to go to boston No, Boston's actually a really nice place. We have good schools too I hear. On July 26 2012 05:58 R3DT1D3 wrote:
For people who are in favor of this just because they agree with the position, what happens when another town does the same thing to say Starbucks for giving money to pro-gay marriage organizations?
Do we really want politics deciding business decisions as well. Condemn them? Politics have influenced business decisions forever. On July 26 2012 05:57 Zaqwert wrote:
I wonder how everyone would feel if the mayor of Birmingham, AL said he was going to use zoning laws to force out all the Muslim and Jewish owned business.
Would you be cheering that?
Probably not.
You shouldn't base what should and shouldn't be allowed in society based on your own personal beliefs and agenda.
Clearly mayors should not have the power to ban legit businesses from their city just 'cuz they disagree with their beliefs.
50 years ago the talk would have been to drive the gays out and that would have been wrong too.
This thought police crap has to end. Let people live their own lives. If you don't wanna give Chic Fil A your business because you disagree with their policies, then don't. It's not the governments job to sanction what is acceptable beliefs. Well, gay marriage isn't inherently a religious position. So, yes, I'd be unhappy with Muslims or Jews being banned. But I'm perfectly happy with someone advocating for a hateful agenda(admittedly for religious purposes) be banned. On July 26 2012 05:57 whatevername wrote:
Self evidently it is not baller for the Government to openly [or discreetly] favour one business over another for whatever reason. This is an abuse of power, and for that matter its basically an attempt by local Government to bully businesses politically. Anyone who supports this is basically a fascist. Maybe. In Boston, though, Menino and his predecessors have been known for loving Boston and doing anything in their power to make a nicer place, including using their positions to push over people they don't like. It's made us one of the most educated and tolerant hubs of the world. Gay marriage stands in direct defiance of the principles of marriage. This is the thing that bugs the fuck out of me. Marriage is a religious institution. It is defined specifically within religious texts. It is promoted by them. Cultures adopted the practice of marriage because of them. They are the roots of marriage. By promoting "gay" marriage, you are actually standing in defiance of EVERYTHING that marriage stands for. It's hypocrisy. I have no problem with gays recieving benefits under "domestic partnerships" or some shit like that, but gays getting married is just wrong. I guess for me it's just an issue of semantics, although - actually - it is more than that.
How many times must this point be labored. Religion does not have a monopoly on marriage. So no gay marriage is as normal as straight marriage.
|
On July 26 2012 08:33 L3gendary wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 08:30 FairForever wrote:On July 26 2012 08:19 KwarK wrote: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. Do you think Starbucks should be banned from Georgia because they donate to groups that promote gay marriage, something illegal in Georgia? Who cares. There's a big difference between promoting discrimination and promoting equality.
Doesn't matter. This instance is problematic not because of the issue at hand but because it creates a very bad precedent, in which a government official can block/ban something simply because he disagrees with it.
|
On July 26 2012 08:33 L3gendary wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 08:30 FairForever wrote:On July 26 2012 08:19 KwarK wrote: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. Do you think Starbucks should be banned from Georgia because they donate to groups that promote gay marriage, something illegal in Georgia? Who cares. There's a big difference between promoting discrimination and promoting equality.
This statement could be construed easily as saying "but one is right, and the other is not!".
Opposition to gay marriage has not been ruled to be criminal discrimination (clearly, as gay marriage has not been passed nationwide) so the difference here lies in the eye of the beholder. You may consider the 'beholder' who holds the opposite opinion to be ridiculous or disgusting, but that holds no legal weight.
|
On July 26 2012 08:38 Elsid wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 08:35 Qwyn wrote:On July 26 2012 06:05 Praetorial wrote:On July 26 2012 05:58 unichan wrote:
looks like a good reason never to go to boston No, Boston's actually a really nice place. We have good schools too I hear. On July 26 2012 05:58 R3DT1D3 wrote:
For people who are in favor of this just because they agree with the position, what happens when another town does the same thing to say Starbucks for giving money to pro-gay marriage organizations?
Do we really want politics deciding business decisions as well. Condemn them? Politics have influenced business decisions forever. On July 26 2012 05:57 Zaqwert wrote:
I wonder how everyone would feel if the mayor of Birmingham, AL said he was going to use zoning laws to force out all the Muslim and Jewish owned business.
Would you be cheering that?
Probably not.
You shouldn't base what should and shouldn't be allowed in society based on your own personal beliefs and agenda.
Clearly mayors should not have the power to ban legit businesses from their city just 'cuz they disagree with their beliefs.
50 years ago the talk would have been to drive the gays out and that would have been wrong too.
This thought police crap has to end. Let people live their own lives. If you don't wanna give Chic Fil A your business because you disagree with their policies, then don't. It's not the governments job to sanction what is acceptable beliefs. Well, gay marriage isn't inherently a religious position. So, yes, I'd be unhappy with Muslims or Jews being banned. But I'm perfectly happy with someone advocating for a hateful agenda(admittedly for religious purposes) be banned. On July 26 2012 05:57 whatevername wrote:
Self evidently it is not baller for the Government to openly [or discreetly] favour one business over another for whatever reason. This is an abuse of power, and for that matter its basically an attempt by local Government to bully businesses politically. Anyone who supports this is basically a fascist. Maybe. In Boston, though, Menino and his predecessors have been known for loving Boston and doing anything in their power to make a nicer place, including using their positions to push over people they don't like. It's made us one of the most educated and tolerant hubs of the world. Gay marriage stands in direct defiance of the principles of marriage. This is the thing that bugs the fuck out of me. Marriage is a religious institution. It is defined specifically within religious texts. It is promoted by them. Cultures adopted the practice of marriage because of them. They are the roots of marriage. By promoting "gay" marriage, you are actually standing in defiance of EVERYTHING that marriage stands for. It's hypocrisy. I have no problem with gays recieving benefits under "domestic partnerships" or some shit like that, but gays getting married is just wrong. I guess for me it's just an issue of semantics, although - actually - it is more than that. How many times must this point be labored. Religion does not have a monopoly on marriage. So no gay marriage is as normal as straight marriage.
lol show me some facts that it doesn't.
|
This is actually a very tough call in my book.
I'm all for gay people being able to get married get divorced whatever you want to do that makes you happy, and that doesn't harm anyone else.
edit: But it is important to keep in mind this isn't a question about marriage it is a question about the power of government.
So while I don't personally agree with the company's position, there are rules and there are laws and mayors and presidents are not kings. They must live by the rule of law and are not there to rule by their personal feelings so in this case even though I agree with the intention I disagree with the method here.
In addition this touches on free speech and it troubles me a bit that because people (myself included) don't agree with a view we ignore the precedent and establish laws.
To give an elected official this power is a very dangerous precedent. Perhaps next time it will be used for a not so noble purpose.
|
On July 26 2012 08:32 Zahir wrote:
Ouchy: we will have to agree to disagree. To me, the letter read like "if you try and set up here I will be making life hard on you" and I feel that is legitimate to question his actions and Intentions, given that the only reason he as mayor is trying to intimidate this group, is because of something they believe. What a government official writes in his official capacity matters a lot.
People in the government say truly retarded stuff all the time. Not sort of kind of imply in a very grey area if you want to take it that way. But actually state emphatically some really stupid stuff.
Honestly, what would you prefer he wrote? I've literally got no problem with him writing a letter that said nothing but.
Mr Chic-fil-a,
Kiss my ass.
Mr. Boston Mayor.
He's got every right to as an American. There's no logical reason to hide behind some regal smoke and mirrors.
He'd also be well within his rights to have just said "by and large the people of Boston don't agree with your companies ideals and the citizens are well within their rights to picket every location you open."
I'm sure people would take that as "He told everyone to picket every location!" No, he was just making you aware of your right to do so, he never told you to do it. Just as he's not saying he'll make their life hard. He couldn't even if he wanted to, ESPECIALLY because he's already showed his hand. If he was truly smart and devious he'd have said nothing and cockblocked them through zoning. It'd be 100% legal and no one could prove anything, little late for that now.
On July 26 2012 08:32 Zahir wrote:
Again, If he had written what he did because of a stupider reason, like "this city does not like blacks" then there would not be so much debate over whether his actions constitute illegal discrimination. But because people are getting caught up in the gay marriage debate they overlook the fact that a governor should not be trying to intimidate companies without warrant in the first place... To allow such activity is to open the door for more officials to use their public positions to pursue personal agendas, agendas which may in fact be contrary to the laws of this country.
Apparently there was an addition.
First of all people promote personal agendas all over this country whether or not it has anything to do with the law. How many shady backroom deals do you think are made on a daily basis? Ok, multiply that number by a billion and you're on track =P
Again, he didn't actually intimidate anyone. If a half sternly worded letter if enough to intimidate people need to nut up. He didn't state a single way in which he would do anything. He didn't state what he'd do. He basically told them this probably isn't the friendliest place for you to come. If they want they can try and open a store there tomorrow. If they wanted to make a point and troll the mayor they would!
If you hate asian people and an asian family is looking at the house next door you can say "your kind isn't welcome here!". There's not a damn thing they can do about that. They can move in and legally you can't do anything to harm them. You've made them aware they're probably not going to be invited to your daughter's graduation open house but that's about it.
|
On July 26 2012 08:41 BlazeFury01 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 08:38 Elsid wrote:On July 26 2012 08:35 Qwyn wrote:On July 26 2012 06:05 Praetorial wrote:On July 26 2012 05:58 unichan wrote:
looks like a good reason never to go to boston No, Boston's actually a really nice place. We have good schools too I hear. On July 26 2012 05:58 R3DT1D3 wrote:
For people who are in favor of this just because they agree with the position, what happens when another town does the same thing to say Starbucks for giving money to pro-gay marriage organizations?
Do we really want politics deciding business decisions as well. Condemn them? Politics have influenced business decisions forever. On July 26 2012 05:57 Zaqwert wrote:
I wonder how everyone would feel if the mayor of Birmingham, AL said he was going to use zoning laws to force out all the Muslim and Jewish owned business.
Would you be cheering that?
Probably not.
You shouldn't base what should and shouldn't be allowed in society based on your own personal beliefs and agenda.
Clearly mayors should not have the power to ban legit businesses from their city just 'cuz they disagree with their beliefs.
50 years ago the talk would have been to drive the gays out and that would have been wrong too.
This thought police crap has to end. Let people live their own lives. If you don't wanna give Chic Fil A your business because you disagree with their policies, then don't. It's not the governments job to sanction what is acceptable beliefs. Well, gay marriage isn't inherently a religious position. So, yes, I'd be unhappy with Muslims or Jews being banned. But I'm perfectly happy with someone advocating for a hateful agenda(admittedly for religious purposes) be banned. On July 26 2012 05:57 whatevername wrote:
Self evidently it is not baller for the Government to openly [or discreetly] favour one business over another for whatever reason. This is an abuse of power, and for that matter its basically an attempt by local Government to bully businesses politically. Anyone who supports this is basically a fascist. Maybe. In Boston, though, Menino and his predecessors have been known for loving Boston and doing anything in their power to make a nicer place, including using their positions to push over people they don't like. It's made us one of the most educated and tolerant hubs of the world. Gay marriage stands in direct defiance of the principles of marriage. This is the thing that bugs the fuck out of me. Marriage is a religious institution. It is defined specifically within religious texts. It is promoted by them. Cultures adopted the practice of marriage because of them. They are the roots of marriage. By promoting "gay" marriage, you are actually standing in defiance of EVERYTHING that marriage stands for. It's hypocrisy. I have no problem with gays recieving benefits under "domestic partnerships" or some shit like that, but gays getting married is just wrong. I guess for me it's just an issue of semantics, although - actually - it is more than that. How many times must this point be labored. Religion does not have a monopoly on marriage. So no gay marriage is as normal as straight marriage. lol show me some facts that it doesn't.
Read what is a marriage nowadays: a legal contract.
Historically it was the case in Roma and some parts of Classice Greece.
|
On July 26 2012 08:42 sAsImre wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 08:41 BlazeFury01 wrote:On July 26 2012 08:38 Elsid wrote:On July 26 2012 08:35 Qwyn wrote:On July 26 2012 06:05 Praetorial wrote:On July 26 2012 05:58 unichan wrote:
looks like a good reason never to go to boston No, Boston's actually a really nice place. We have good schools too I hear. On July 26 2012 05:58 R3DT1D3 wrote:
For people who are in favor of this just because they agree with the position, what happens when another town does the same thing to say Starbucks for giving money to pro-gay marriage organizations?
Do we really want politics deciding business decisions as well. Condemn them? Politics have influenced business decisions forever. On July 26 2012 05:57 Zaqwert wrote:
I wonder how everyone would feel if the mayor of Birmingham, AL said he was going to use zoning laws to force out all the Muslim and Jewish owned business.
Would you be cheering that?
Probably not.
You shouldn't base what should and shouldn't be allowed in society based on your own personal beliefs and agenda.
Clearly mayors should not have the power to ban legit businesses from their city just 'cuz they disagree with their beliefs.
50 years ago the talk would have been to drive the gays out and that would have been wrong too.
This thought police crap has to end. Let people live their own lives. If you don't wanna give Chic Fil A your business because you disagree with their policies, then don't. It's not the governments job to sanction what is acceptable beliefs. Well, gay marriage isn't inherently a religious position. So, yes, I'd be unhappy with Muslims or Jews being banned. But I'm perfectly happy with someone advocating for a hateful agenda(admittedly for religious purposes) be banned. On July 26 2012 05:57 whatevername wrote:
Self evidently it is not baller for the Government to openly [or discreetly] favour one business over another for whatever reason. This is an abuse of power, and for that matter its basically an attempt by local Government to bully businesses politically. Anyone who supports this is basically a fascist. Maybe. In Boston, though, Menino and his predecessors have been known for loving Boston and doing anything in their power to make a nicer place, including using their positions to push over people they don't like. It's made us one of the most educated and tolerant hubs of the world. Gay marriage stands in direct defiance of the principles of marriage. This is the thing that bugs the fuck out of me. Marriage is a religious institution. It is defined specifically within religious texts. It is promoted by them. Cultures adopted the practice of marriage because of them. They are the roots of marriage. By promoting "gay" marriage, you are actually standing in defiance of EVERYTHING that marriage stands for. It's hypocrisy. I have no problem with gays recieving benefits under "domestic partnerships" or some shit like that, but gays getting married is just wrong. I guess for me it's just an issue of semantics, although - actually - it is more than that. How many times must this point be labored. Religion does not have a monopoly on marriage. So no gay marriage is as normal as straight marriage. lol show me some facts that it doesn't. Read what is a marriage nowadays: a legal contract.
Read your post.
|
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.
I can only imagine the suffering the people have to endure without chick-fil-a ready to grease up their fingertips.
There is NO policy that has been passed that has not harmed someone, somewhere. Every policy has a victim. At least indirectly, as you indicated would be unacceptable.
If your raise taxes on the rich, the rich are harmed.
If you lower taxes on the rich, the lower-class being aided by the benefits from the taxes are harmed.
If you enforce strict environment regulations, corporations have to pay more to meet standards.
If you don't enforce environmental regulations, people suffer from pollution.
If you go to war, people are killed.
If you pull out of a war, people in the military-industrial-complex lose jobs.
EVERY policy that is passed by a majority hurts some minority. The real issue is weighing the suffering on each side, and deciding what hurts the least amount of people.
Personally, I think the suffering endured by your theoretical "20%" lacking chic-fil-a is pretty insignificant. There are a lot of other issues raised by this scenario. People losing out on their chance to get a fast food chicken sandwich should be one of the smallest concerns. The bigger question is whether or not it should be within the mayor's rights to make such an action, and there are a lot of good arguments for both sides.
|
|
|
|
|
|
114
EPT
