|
On July 26 2012 08:47 mechavoc wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 08:45 fellcrow wrote:
Seems legit. City is pro gay marriage, so gets rid of companies that are anti gay marriage. Hopefully in my city we can ban any restaurant that is pro gay marriage and given money to gay rights groups cause my city is generally anti gay. Now we have what the mayor of boston is doing to rationalize our agenda. Awesome! :D Perhaps cities can have a quick multiple choice test on hot topic issues in the future so you can see if you are allowed to stop there and if you need to move on to the next town.
Hey, you should be allowed to stop anywhere! We aren't trying to opress anyone, obviously the US government feels it has the right to control private companies existence based solely on a moral value that differs from them and is non violently supported organizations to express their views. You can stop in Boston and be anti gay, you just can't own a business if you do.
|
Hahaha I live in Boston, our Mayor is such an awesome guy.
|
On July 26 2012 08:55 Arghmyliver wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 08:48 BlazeFury01 wrote:On July 26 2012 08:44 KwarK wrote: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. It predates Christianity? Realistically, we do not know that because of how far back the history is. Yeah man - totes. Christianity totes dates way before Judaism or that shit those Sumerians were doing. As we all know, Jesus came down to Africa in a magic spaceship at the dawn of time to instill the values of marriage, not eating pork, and hating the gays.
Lol, nicely done.
|
On July 26 2012 08:51 KwarK wrote:
Just because you never learned anything about history doesn't mean that nobody else did. Please don't confuse your ignorance with actual ignorance. We know marriage predates Christianity. Like there are literally tens of thousands of accounts of pre-Christian marriages. There is a vast quantity of preserved material from over two thousand years ago. I mean seriously man. Think about what you're saying. Do you think Joseph and Mary got married in a Christian ceremony?
The more interesting topic here is the power of an elected official, not the pros and cons of letting people get married IMO
And of course blond hair blue eyed Mary and Joseph got married at a christian church by the pope.
|
Lmao. This is getting brutal.
|
On July 26 2012 08:49 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 08:46 BlazeFury01 wrote:On July 26 2012 08:44 APurpleCow wrote: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. 1) Marriage was invented to transfer property and cement alliances. 2) Atheists can get married. 3) Marriage is a legal contract that religious organizations have no say in. 4) Many religions have no issue with gay marriage. What's the point of homosexuals getting married in a church then? It's either that they like the stained glass windows and the cultural legacy and significance of the church or they enjoy the proximity to good honest Christian boys and girls who they can turn gay. Pick whichever you prefer.
Kwark... toeing a fine line here...
@Blaze - they don't need to do it in a church. Let the city give them a marriage license. Or are you opposed to that too?
|
On July 26 2012 08:25 1Eris1 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 08:16 Excludos wrote:On July 26 2012 07:56 ThreeAcross wrote: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? 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: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? 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: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) 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)
If the majority in Norway suddenly decided to approve of legalizing murder, I would move to a country where this is not legal..and then Norway would probably get invaded by other countries who does not approve.
The world isn't fair, it never has been, and can never completely be. There will always be someone for something that others are against. This is why democracy is the best form of government right now.
edit: Last sentence might be up for discussion. But not here in this thread. Whetever its the best or not, its what we have.
|
On July 26 2012 08:58 fellcrow wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 08:47 mechavoc wrote:On July 26 2012 08:45 fellcrow wrote:
Seems legit. City is pro gay marriage, so gets rid of companies that are anti gay marriage. Hopefully in my city we can ban any restaurant that is pro gay marriage and given money to gay rights groups cause my city is generally anti gay. Now we have what the mayor of boston is doing to rationalize our agenda. Awesome! :D Perhaps cities can have a quick multiple choice test on hot topic issues in the future so you can see if you are allowed to stop there and if you need to move on to the next town. Hey, you should be allowed to stop anywhere! We aren't trying to opress anyone, obviously the US government feels it has the right to control private companies existence based solely on a moral value that differs from them and is non violently supported organizations to express their views. You can stop in Boston and be anti gay, you just can't own a business if you do.
"Anti-gay" is about as valid a moral value as "anti-Hispanic" or "anti-woman." If "God" intended to make a homogeneous blob when he created man - he sure fucked up pretty bad. To quote Saved! "Why would God make us all so different if he wanted us to be the same?"
|
Ban Chic-fil-A? From an entire city? Wow, that's quite drastic of a step, and I wonder if maybe it is an overreaction. You may not agree with Chic-fil-A's stance, but to ban it from an entire city seems excessive to me personally.
|
Russian Federation3631 Posts
On July 26 2012 08:58 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 08:55 Arghmyliver wrote:On July 26 2012 08:48 BlazeFury01 wrote:On July 26 2012 08:44 KwarK wrote: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. It predates Christianity? Realistically, we do not know that because of how far back the history is. Yeah man - totes. Christianity totes dates way before Judaism or that shit those Sumerians were doing. As we all know, Jesus came down to Africa in a magic spaceship at the dawn of time to instill the values of marriage, not eating pork, and hating the gays. Realistically we do not know where Africa is because of how far away the geography is.
Realistically we cannot measure the size of an atom because the units are too small.
|
On July 26 2012 09:10 Excludos wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 08:25 1Eris1 wrote:On July 26 2012 08:16 Excludos wrote:On July 26 2012 07:56 ThreeAcross wrote: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? 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: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? 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: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) 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) If the majority in Norway suddenly decided to approve of legalizing murder, I would move to a country where this is not legal..and then Norway would probably get invaded by other countries who does not approve. The world isn't fair, it never has been, and can never completely be. There will always be someone for something that others are against. This is why democracy is the best form of government right now. edit: Last sentence might be up for discussion. But not here in this thread. Whetever its the best or not, its what we have.
There is a distinction to be made here, there was not a law passed, there was no majority vote. This is one man dictating that a company (which has every legal right to open a business) can not open a business because a view their CEO expressed.
|
Walmart isn't allowed to open any stores in Seattle, so barring stores from a city isn't anything new.
|
On July 26 2012 09:14 mechavoc wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 09:10 Excludos wrote:On July 26 2012 08:25 1Eris1 wrote:On July 26 2012 08:16 Excludos wrote:On July 26 2012 07:56 ThreeAcross wrote: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? 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: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? 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: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) 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) If the majority in Norway suddenly decided to approve of legalizing murder, I would move to a country where this is not legal..and then Norway would probably get invaded by other countries who does not approve. The world isn't fair, it never has been, and can never completely be. There will always be someone for something that others are against. This is why democracy is the best form of government right now. edit: Last sentence might be up for discussion. But not here in this thread. Whetever its the best or not, its what we have. There is a distinction to be made here, there was not a law passed, there was no majority vote. This is one man dictating that a company (which has every legal right to open a business) can not open a business because a view their CEO expressed.
You have not been reading the thread.
|
The government should not get involved it should be up to the citizens to decide if they want to ban a food chain, not one man. Even thought I personally stand for their their right as a private company to say whatever they want, even if it looses customers. I also believe if the Boston public wants to get Chik-Fl-A out of their city they should form a boycott against it and cause them to close their doors without government getting in the way.
|
United States43430 Posts
On July 26 2012 09:14 mechavoc wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 09:10 Excludos wrote:On July 26 2012 08:25 1Eris1 wrote:On July 26 2012 08:16 Excludos wrote:On July 26 2012 07:56 ThreeAcross wrote: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? 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: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? 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: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) 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) If the majority in Norway suddenly decided to approve of legalizing murder, I would move to a country where this is not legal..and then Norway would probably get invaded by other countries who does not approve. The world isn't fair, it never has been, and can never completely be. There will always be someone for something that others are against. This is why democracy is the best form of government right now. edit: Last sentence might be up for discussion. But not here in this thread. Whetever its the best or not, its what we have. There is a distinction to be made here, there was not a law passed, there was no majority vote. This is one man dictating that a company (which has every legal right to open a business) can not open a business because a view their CEO expressed.
Read the topic again. It is not a view their CEO expressed. It is a political stance taken by the company which sponsored anti-gay marriage events and donated money to groups opposing gay marriage. This is not an individual stance, it is a corporate one.
|
I was born in Boston, and plan to go back after I've finished my PhD. I'm torn by this because on one hand I enjoy Chic-Fil-A. However I don't approve of their recent actions. I just hope they can do something to redeem themselves so there might be some Beantown stores in the future.
|
On July 26 2012 09:10 Excludos wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 08:25 1Eris1 wrote:On July 26 2012 08:16 Excludos wrote:On July 26 2012 07:56 ThreeAcross wrote: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? 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: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? 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: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) 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) If the majority in Norway suddenly decided to approve of legalizing murder, I would move to a country where this is not legal..and then Norway would probably get invaded by other countries who does not approve. The world isn't fair, it never has been, and can never completely be. There will always be someone for something that others are against. This is why democracy is the best form of government right now. edit: Last sentence might be up for discussion. But not here in this thread. Whetever its the best or not, its what we have.
No one's arguing against democracy, we just don't want power to be abused. Society can not function if the majority can dictate certain things, which is why they are considered un-alienable, free speech being one of them. And just because stuff is bad does not mean we shouldn't try and fix it.
|
On July 26 2012 09:16 Yergidy wrote:
The government should not get involved it should be up to the citizens to decide if they want to ban a food chain, not one man. Even thought I personally stand for their their right as a private company to say whatever they want, even if it looses customers. I also believe if the Boston public wants to get Chik-Fl-A out of their city they should form a boycott against it and cause them to close their doors without government getting in the way.
People in Boston voted for that "one man". In essence, they voted for the ban by voting for the man that is passing it. If they don't agree, then they vote for someone else next time. What you're suggesting is instead of the government butting in, the town should rile up in anger and drive them out? How is that in any way better?
|
On July 26 2012 09:16 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 09:14 mechavoc wrote:On July 26 2012 09:10 Excludos wrote:On July 26 2012 08:25 1Eris1 wrote:On July 26 2012 08:16 Excludos wrote:On July 26 2012 07:56 ThreeAcross wrote: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? 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: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? 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: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) 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) If the majority in Norway suddenly decided to approve of legalizing murder, I would move to a country where this is not legal..and then Norway would probably get invaded by other countries who does not approve. The world isn't fair, it never has been, and can never completely be. There will always be someone for something that others are against. This is why democracy is the best form of government right now. edit: Last sentence might be up for discussion. But not here in this thread. Whetever its the best or not, its what we have. There is a distinction to be made here, there was not a law passed, there was no majority vote. This is one man dictating that a company (which has every legal right to open a business) can not open a business because a view their CEO expressed. Read the topic again. It is not a view their CEO expressed. It is a political stance taken by the company which sponsored anti-gay marriage events and donated money to groups opposing gay marriage. This is not an individual stance, it is a corporate one.
Yah you are right I did not read it all, I read the beginning and the end, but doesn't make a big difference point still remains the question is about the power of the mayor here not the views of the company.
We can have an example of a mayor opposed to an abortion clinic , or a mayor opposed to an army recruiting station in his city on moral grounds. The precedent set here would be their moral authority gives them the justification to ignore legal rights.
|
On July 26 2012 09:20 Excludos wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 09:16 Yergidy wrote:
The government should not get involved it should be up to the citizens to decide if they want to ban a food chain, not one man. Even thought I personally stand for their their right as a private company to say whatever they want, even if it looses customers. I also believe if the Boston public wants to get Chik-Fl-A out of their city they should form a boycott against it and cause them to close their doors without government getting in the way. People in Boston voted for that "one man". In essence, they voted for the ban by voting for the man that is passing it. If they don't agree, then they vote for someone else next time. What you're suggesting is instead of the government butting in, the town should rile up in anger and drive them out? How is that in any way better?
A simple boycott would suffice. With no profit the company will be forced to close down unprofitable restaurants. Simple and government free if the majority of the public actually wants to remove the restaurant chain from the town.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
