|
On July 26 2012 09:20 1Eris1 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. 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.
I agree, completely. There are rules in place to stop abuse of the system, and this is obviously a good thing. But there doesn't seem to be any rules against this. If something is bad, you can and should try to fix it. You do this by either entering politics, or voting for someone else come next election.
On July 26 2012 09:26 Yergidy wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 09:20 Excludos wrote: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.
That is also a valid solution. I honestly think the major is saving everyone a lot of time and money by just simply banning it in the first place.
|
On July 26 2012 09:26 Yergidy wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 09:20 Excludos wrote: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.
A "simple boycott" means that the business would be a gathering place for anti-gay sentiment, which raises even more issues.
|
On July 26 2012 09:29 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 09:26 Yergidy wrote:On July 26 2012 09:20 Excludos wrote: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. A "simple boycott" means that the business would be a gathering place for anti-gay sentiment, which raises even more issues.
That makes no sense what-so-ever. Just because pro-gay customers would stop going to Chick-Fl-A doesn't mean they would start having Anti-Gay rallies inside the store...
|
Glad to see this. Still find it amazing people are still against gay marriage.
|
On July 26 2012 09:29 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 09:26 Yergidy wrote:On July 26 2012 09:20 Excludos wrote: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. A "simple boycott" means that the business would be a gathering place for anti-gay sentiment, which raises even more issues.
I'm confused about your line of thought.
|
MUH FEELINGS
User was warned for this post
|
On July 26 2012 09:36 Firesilver wrote:
Glad to see this. Still find it amazing people are still against gay marriage.
You are glad to see the people wanting to ban something because they don't agree with their view? I'm sure glad most people don't follow your train of thought.
|
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.
When your corporations can bribe politicians to legislate corporate written laws straight from their offices I think it's fine that the public can fight back against them.
|
On July 26 2012 09:39 Gunther wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 09:36 Firesilver wrote:
Glad to see this. Still find it amazing people are still against gay marriage. You are glad to see the people wanting to ban something because they don't agree with their view? I'm sure glad most people don't follow your train of thought.
That's ironic, because isn't it banned in the first place because people didn't agree with that view? e.g they followed the "morals" set in place by religion in some cases and stuck with it. Gay marriage doesn't even effect them so they shouldn't get involved at all in my opinion, but they chose to and they chose to be against it, they pay the price for denying what in my opinion is a basic human right.
|
On July 26 2012 09:42 Firesilver wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 09:39 Gunther wrote:On July 26 2012 09:36 Firesilver wrote:
Glad to see this. Still find it amazing people are still against gay marriage. You are glad to see the people wanting to ban something because they don't agree with their view? I'm sure glad most people don't follow your train of thought. That's ironic, because isn't it banned in the first place because people didn't agree with that view? e.g they followed the "morals" set in place by religion in some cases and stuck with it. Gay marriage doesn't even effect them so they shouldn't get involved at all in my opinion, but they chose to and they chose to be against it, they pay the price for denying what in my opinion is a basic human right.
First off, it's not banned in Boston. Secondly, it is incredibly wrong that gay marriage banned elsewhere. That does not justify doing another wrong of also banning it.
|
On July 26 2012 09:37 RoosterSamurai wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 09:29 WolfintheSheep wrote:On July 26 2012 09:26 Yergidy wrote:On July 26 2012 09:20 Excludos wrote: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. A "simple boycott" means that the business would be a gathering place for anti-gay sentiment, which raises even more issues. I'm confused about your line of thought.
I think he means people would naturally polarize. If there is a group boycotting the restaurant because of its anti-gay stance, there will be a group of people inclined to support them because of it.
|
On July 26 2012 09:46 Gunther wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 09:42 Firesilver wrote:On July 26 2012 09:39 Gunther wrote:On July 26 2012 09:36 Firesilver wrote:
Glad to see this. Still find it amazing people are still against gay marriage. You are glad to see the people wanting to ban something because they don't agree with their view? I'm sure glad most people don't follow your train of thought. That's ironic, because isn't it banned in the first place because people didn't agree with that view? e.g they followed the "morals" set in place by religion in some cases and stuck with it. Gay marriage doesn't even effect them so they shouldn't get involved at all in my opinion, but they chose to and they chose to be against it, they pay the price for denying what in my opinion is a basic human right. First off, it's not banned in Boston. Secondly, it is incredibly wrong that gay marriage banned elsewhere. That does not justify doing another wrong of also banning it.
Whilst I agree banning it may not be the best approach, it's still another step towards it being accepted, plus the company themselves hardly helped themselves in this situation.
|
Honestly one would hope that the supposed bastion of freedom of speech, the internet, would take an objective stance on the issue, but one would be very disappointed.
A guy even laid out the intellectually honest question on the first page, and we still have people saying the chicken company is getting what they deserve. As if all of chi fil a is against gay marriage, as if supporting anti gay groups is corporate policy, this whole argument of politicizing the restaraunt is completely retarded. You guys really need to get a grip on reality. A guy that owns a chicken chain said some stuff based upon his personal beliefs, regardless of their validity, and regardless of their place on a national stage, and a mayor from Boston said nobody can open a chick fil a franchise in his city because he disagreed with the comments that the 1 guy made based upon his personal beliefs.
Get it now? The mayor from Boston is a regular politician, and he's somehow gotten so many people on his side who supposedly stand up for equality. Ha. First it was minorities that got put ahead because they were treated so wrong for so long, then it was feminism that through politics and the legal system put women ahead of men in some cases because for so long they weren't treated as equals, and I can see it now. 25 years from now, there will be scholarships available to gays only, and schools receiving state funds will be forced to allow a certain percentage of gays in.
It's only a matter of time before it happens, it's this whole thing. America is wrong for so long, then suddenly gets it right, and blasts away freedom and actual equality in its, or our, efforts to right the wrong. Anyone from chick fil a should be able to say just about anything, and no backwards mayor should think twice of it. That's what free speech is. That's what equality is.
It's sad that so many people are too stupid to look at problems objectively. People go to the extremes, it's the whole bandwagon effect.
User was warned for an inability to read the OP before making the same incorrect assumption that has already been addressed a dozen times over including clearly in the OP.
On July 26 2012 05:51 overt wrote:Also wanted to point out that it isn't just the owner's. Chick-Fil-A is an anti-gay company. They donated money to and have brazenly supported anti-gay rights groups. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chick-fil-A#Support_of_anti-gay_organizationsSo please, stop saying that it's "just the owner's of Chick-Fil-A" or that the company isn't anti-gay. Because you're wrong.
If you would refrain from deleting my text, I would appreciate it, mod. This is completely and wholly incorrect, what you quoted in my post. I admittedly skimmed through it and didn't read the last 2 sentences, because the whole thing is just ridiculous.
Traditionally, the corporation, has given money to special interest groups who promote religion, but that does not mean that the whole company is any-gay. They're not, and to claim that an entire corporation that has hired hundreds of thousands of people is anti-gay, is wrong. I know gays who have actually worked there. And if someone was to open a franchise in Boston, I bet you money it would be a liberal, I bet you money the liberal would support gay marriage, I would bet the purpose of opening the franchise would be to serve tasty chicken sammiches, and I would hope that the franchise would not use itself to promote any sort of political agenda. You see, franchises are actually owned by people who want to start a restaurant, they decide what kind, then they usually try to attach themselves to some sort of franchise, such as chik-fil-a, for the sole purpose of name recognition, continuity, standardization, and a clientele that has already been established. When you try to describe the company, therefore, as "anti-gay," or try to put any sort of political agenda on the company, you're bound to not really be accurate at all. If you wish to say that anyone that makes anti-gay statements is gay, that's fine, but you cannot call the entire franchise anti-gay, when its business scheme is based upon franchises that may look the same and operate the same way, but are owned and operated by people who have loose affiliations, at most, if any affiliation at all, to the owners of the chik-fil-a brand.
It's different from calling focus on the family anti-gay, because that would be accurate. They all are hired by people to promote a certain mindset, promote religion, and their own religious beliefs. Chik-fil-a employees are all hired to run registers and serve chicken. Nobody screens potential owners of franchises for their religious beliefs, they're in it for the money. Owners of individual franchises pay money to the few people who run the franchise, and they decide where to spend the money. One day, they could be supporting anti-gay rights, the next they could be supporting gay marriage.
And I've just realized my time is up for now, and it would take forever to type out the argument in its whole, but the end point becomes the fact that an entire corporation cannot be defined by what its leaders believe, and certainly not by what its leaders give money to, when the tens of thousands of people under those very few leaders have really no connection at all, beyond the day to day workings of serving people food. You may say that someone supporting equality should never work at chik-fil-a, but that's pretty terrible, because then you've got to go and hold employees of every business responsible in some way for what their leaders do. Working at chik-fil-a is just a job for most people, just like being an accountant is. An accountant shouldn't be held responsible for what his boss does with his money, and certainly, nobody in any level of government should ban an accounting firm because the leader guy is openly against abortion, or openly pro nazi, or whatever. That's not the government's job, because for some people, what is a right or restriction given/placed by the government, is a moral issue for others. Government can only enforce its own laws, and stay out of the rest.
Punishing chik-fil-a for the words and actions of the leaders is effectively punishing anyone who works for them, and that would be considered "wrong."
In short, really, I'd rather not have my comments be moderated by someone intent upon forcing his political opinions on me. We actually agree about the heart of the issue, gay marriage, but we disagree about whether the mayor of Boston should spend his time trying to ban a franchise for the remarks and actions of a few. If you cannot be fair in your moderation, you should probably just not moderate the thread. I say this having modded forums as well, and it's tempting to bludgeon people with your opinion, but you should stay away from it.
|
On July 26 2012 09:40 Roe wrote: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. When your corporations can bribe politicians to legislate corporate written laws straight from their offices I think it's fine that the public can fight back against them.
The bottom line is that the public can do something against them. They can choose not to eat there and essentially vote with their dollar. How is that not a far superior thing than 1 person trying to banish them from an entire city? Which is more democratic?
|
On July 26 2012 10:02 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 09:40 Roe wrote: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. When your corporations can bribe politicians to legislate corporate written laws straight from their offices I think it's fine that the public can fight back against them. The bottom line is that the public can do something against them. They can choose not to eat there and essentially vote with their dollar. How is that not a far superior thing than 1 person trying to banish them from an entire city? Which is more democratic?
The mayor is elected democratically isn't he? It's basically just faster and more democratic to do it this way. As long as your politicians actually are representatives of the populace that is.
|
United States7483 Posts
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.
Not a reasonable analogy. On the one hand, one group is using their power and money to actively engage in politics and supporting political organizations, while simultaneously attacking a groups civil rights. On the other, they simply belong to an organization of some kind (in this case a religious one). You see the difference between passive and active behavior?
Now, if they were jewish and muslim businesses that were speaking out against non-jews and non-muslims and giving money to such corporations, then I would agree with the analogy, and I would also agree a city would have the right to say no.
If Boston has a problem with their mayor doing this, he won't get re-elected. I for one am quite proud of my state's capital for this stance, I cannot abide bigots.
|
On July 26 2012 10:04 Roe wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 10:02 BlackJack wrote:On July 26 2012 09:40 Roe wrote: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. When your corporations can bribe politicians to legislate corporate written laws straight from their offices I think it's fine that the public can fight back against them. The bottom line is that the public can do something against them. They can choose not to eat there and essentially vote with their dollar. How is that not a far superior thing than 1 person trying to banish them from an entire city? Which is more democratic? The mayor is elected democratically isn't he? It's basically just faster and more democratic to do it this way. As long as your politicians actually are representatives of the populace that is.
It's more democratic to do it this way than for everyone to choose if they want to eat there? I don't think that makes sense.
|
On July 26 2012 10:04 Roe wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 10:02 BlackJack wrote:On July 26 2012 09:40 Roe wrote: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. When your corporations can bribe politicians to legislate corporate written laws straight from their offices I think it's fine that the public can fight back against them. The bottom line is that the public can do something against them. They can choose not to eat there and essentially vote with their dollar. How is that not a far superior thing than 1 person trying to banish them from an entire city? Which is more democratic? The mayor is elected democratically isn't he? It's basically just faster and more democratic to do it this way. As long as your politicians actually are representatives of the populace that is.
He isn't democratically elected every time a restaurant tries to open though. Politicians can easily run on certain things and end up doing others.
At least in this case, the politician is acting on the general view of the people he represents (although in all honesty I'm sure they would prefer the jobs and economic boost that would come with this, it's not like every chic-fil-a employee is homophobic, especially considering the employees would be Boston citizens), but what happens when he doesn't? Oh well, they can just vote him out...two years from now. Better to make it so that the people of the city can decide on things like these with their wallets/voices/whatever, then to let a politician who may or may not represent their wishes..
|
United States7483 Posts
On July 26 2012 10:10 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 10:04 Roe wrote:On July 26 2012 10:02 BlackJack wrote:On July 26 2012 09:40 Roe wrote: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. When your corporations can bribe politicians to legislate corporate written laws straight from their offices I think it's fine that the public can fight back against them. The bottom line is that the public can do something against them. They can choose not to eat there and essentially vote with their dollar. How is that not a far superior thing than 1 person trying to banish them from an entire city? Which is more democratic? The mayor is elected democratically isn't he? It's basically just faster and more democratic to do it this way. As long as your politicians actually are representatives of the populace that is. It's more democratic to do it this way than for everyone to choose if they want to eat there? I don't think that makes sense.
Many people are ignorant as to the stances of their companies and their practices, and if they knew, would do business with different companies than the ones they do. This is a cheaper way of getting people to pay attention to the companies behavior then to spam advertisements everywhere informing them, as people will pay attention to why the mayor is doing this. Further, the mayor doesn't have an actual say on this alone, but he does have a lot of leverage with the groups that do decide on what businesses can move in and zoning laws, etc. This isn't an unusual practice (heads of towns and cities making decisions on what businesses can come in or can't), but it is unusual for the mayor to actually say something about it in an open letter rather than just doing it.
In an ideal world I would completely agree with you, because people would actually inform themselves as to the practices and behaviors of the companies they do business with.
|
People keep using the world "Democracy" as though that describes our government. America is not a democracy, in a democracy every single person votes on every issue. We are a republic. You vote for your representative and then that representative speaks for you. The mayor is well within his job description to speak for the people of the city.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
