|
On July 26 2012 10:13 Klondikebar wrote:
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.
The mayor may be able to speak for the people of his city, but he still has boundaries. Just cause he was elected doesn't mean he has the right to do anything he wants.
|
On July 26 2012 10:15 fellcrow wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 10:13 Klondikebar wrote:
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. The mayor may be able to speak for the people of his city, but he still has boundaries. Just cause he was elected doesn't mean he has the right to do anything he wants.
And he's not DOING anything. He issued a statement telling Chick-Fil-A that they were not welcome in Boston. They are still more than welcome to open a location there.
There is a separate issue where opening a store at that particular location would make an already awful traffic situation even worse so it's possibly the location won't be zoned for a restaurant but that's a completely separate issue.
|
On July 26 2012 10:13 Klondikebar wrote:
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.
Republic is a form of democracy.
|
What happened to letting people have an entitlement to their own opinion? Chick-fil-A does not wanna open on Sundays? Good for them let them do as the owners of the company pleases. A Mayor banning a fast food chain from entering his city just because of their religious beliefs is kinda ignorant in itself to me. If the people of Boston don't wanna support Chick-Fil-A they will not go buy food from their and it will go out of business, simple economics.
Disgusting.
|
On July 26 2012 06:20 KwarK wrote:This is basically a rehashing of the old "hah, how can you claim to be tolerant if you don't tolerate intolerance!!!" argument. The answer has always been the same, "quite easily and you're not as clever as you think you are".
This is incredibly shortsighted, because government of any form never really enters any argument of tolerance or intolerance. Government is not meant to promote tolerance, nor is it meant to punish those who are intolerant. Really, if you think that 1 government official is right to attempt to ban Chik-fil-a from his city, you must by default take up the argument that the federal government should attempt to ban Chik-fil-a from the country. Are you willing to do that, over 1 person's comments on his personal beliefs? I think not, and if you are, you're simply on a bandwagon. Chik-fil-a has been super right wing for all of time, but it's only now that everyone hops on and blasts them for being anti-gay.
I should also mention that they're not really anti-gay as much as they are anti-gay marriage. The left in general correctly thinks that the ability to marry must be a right given to all people, regardless of sex, but the left and the right have a misunderstanding on the subject that prevents any sort of widespread progress on the issue, and results in slow ponderous politicking. Also assuming the right all thinks the same is stupid, so let's just limit this to christians.
Christians don't really view the right to get married as a right, because for them, it's not. If you go back through time, the christian marriage had really nothing to do with the government, and everything to do with the church. Christianity mostly defined the tradition of modern marriage. For them, it's a tradition that humanity practices and god honors. What christians fail to realize is that the second they allowed the government to become involved, to recognize marriage, to let married people get better insurance, all that, they opened up marriage from being a church tradition, to a government practice.
Christianity simply needs to realize that they can be content thinking that god does not honor gay marriage, and the left needs to make the argument that the government must be fair with marriage the same way it's fair with everything else. If you could convince the left to not call christians names because they don't want their tradition forcefully changed by the government, and convince the right that it doesn't matter who gets married, all that matters is that their god will only honor marriage by good, honest, straight people, you'd legalize same sex marriage overnight.
|
United States7483 Posts
On July 26 2012 10:21 Moonling wrote:
What happened to letting people have an entitlement to their own opinion? Chick-fil-A does not wanna open on Sundays? Good for them let them do as the owners of the company pleases. A Mayor banning a fast food chain from entering his city just because of their religious beliefs is kinda ignorant in itself to me. If the people of Boston don't wanna support Chick-Fil-A they will not go buy food from their and it will go out of business, simple economics.
Disgusting.
It's not ignorant, ignorant is a lack of knowledge about a subject. It might be intolerant, but in that case it is intolerant of intolerance. Keep in mind that Massachusetts, and Boston in particular, is very strongly pro gay rights, and it is a very important issue to a lot of the population here. Here we have a business that is very openly anti-gay, I don't think the population of Massachusetts is going to have a problem with the Mayor's behavior, and that is ultimately the question that really matters.
|
The new kids' meals toy at Chick-Fil-A is a posable Anita Bryant doll and now my kids are crying. — Ken Jennings (@KenJennings) July 25, 2012
In reference to the refusal on the part of Jim Henson Studios to allow Chik-Fil-A to sell Muppet kid's meal toys.
|
United States7483 Posts
This is incredibly shortsighted, because government of any form never really enters any argument of tolerance or intolerance. Government is not meant to promote tolerance, nor is it meant to punish those who are intolerant. Really, if you think that 1 government official is right to attempt to ban Chik-fil-a from his city, you must by default take up the argument that the federal government should attempt to ban Chik-fil-a from the country. Are you willing to do that, over 1 person's comments on his personal beliefs? I think not, and if you are, you're simply on a bandwagon. Chik-fil-a has been super right wing for all of time, but it's only now that everyone hops on and blasts them for being anti-gay.
I'm gonna stop you here, your leap of logic is incorrect. One is not required to agree that it is okay for a federal government to ban something just because they agree that it is okay for a local (city) government to ban it. This is a non sequitur.
|
On July 26 2012 09:55 Porteroso wrote:
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.
Ya I went back and read the thing again, and the title of the thread is "mayor vows to ban chik-fil-a in his city." I haven't really done any research, I only read the OP. I do not have an inability to read the OP, and the last edit is "Chicago is also joining on this ban." I can only assume that your incorrect assumption that I cannot read stems from your equally incorrect assumption that I've implied that the OP says anything other than what it actually says. I do understand that chik-fil-a is not banned currently, but I took the OP at his word when he said the mayor vowed to ban it.
If it was a different point of my post that you were addressing in your cliche "inability to read" warning, let me know about it. I think more likely you didn't like my "uninformed rant" as you described it in your cute PM, but I may be proven wrong. It has happened before. Thanks.
Your post was the polar opposite of objective, quite literally. To be clear as to what I mean by literally, I think 51% of people disagree with what you have said. You do not realize the bandwagon effect involves going along with the majority, which you claimed to be speaking for. So you're completely wrong in saying anything, and the point you're defending would've been stronger had you said nothing. I had originally typed out a lot more, but realized I might derail the thread some if I do. Just know that you started out subjective, and became gradually more so, until peaking at your 25 year plan.
To the point, I agree with the Mayor's decision so long as it's entirely because of the anti-gay marriage stance. While being an abuse of power to an extent, I genuinely think gay marriage is progression. Politics move slow until Mayors like Boston's start having a contestable opinion. Power to the guy for having such a pointed opinion in a place where pointed opinions generally get you fired in the political field.
However, it seems like an abuse of power, while towards something I personally consider progressive, it strikes me as a blunt move for lack of a more well thought out one. I can't propose a better idea, but I know this current one may be too abrassive for some to get behind.
Gotta quit posting while waiting on DOTA games. Post requires freshness.
|
After looking into this, I'm surprised at how much freedom mayors have to push their own agendas. I guess I'm used to the government having to push everything through miles of red tape to get stuff done. Definitely going to start paying attention to mayoral elections from now on.
But it honestly doesn't bother me to eat at a Chic-Fil-A, even though I'm now aware of their anti-gay stance. If I refused to buy anything from companies who held views I disagree with, I probably wouldn't have any clothes.
edit: and yeah the title is a bit strongly worded which is causing way more drama than necessary.
|
On July 26 2012 10:13 Klondikebar wrote:
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.
The US is a representative democracy
|
How is it that there is talk of banning a business from your state before it has been established that the kinds of political activities that business supports, and the kinds of opinions it publicly espouses are already in themselves illegal? In other words the business has done nothing illegal. How can it therefore be legal to ban the business? This is very, very, very bad.
|
Some guy working at my local taco bell called me a "faggot ass queer" the other day. They have been there for over 20 years!
|
this is just a spark to ignite a fire
|
I'm a liberal, and I think this banning thing is completely ridiculous.
|
On July 26 2012 10:08 Whitewing wrote: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. 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.
If it were actually discriminating against people in terms of hiring practices or who they serve then I think you would have a point. But just supporting a position, or even organizations that support the same position, is not the same thing; what you are effectively saying is that if someone supports a point of view that you find intolerant, then the mayor of your city should have a right to intimidate them or ban them from the city - but this obviously infringes on the whole principle of free speech. People should have a right to express their opinion without fear of reprisal from their government. What would John Stuart Mill say about this if he were alive today...free speech is the most fundamental right you can have, breaking it is a dangerous slippery slope.
The mayor also isn't elected to make people's day to day decisions about where to spend their money. Obviously there must be some clear limit to his power so that it doesn't infringe on people's own rights to make their own decisions. The idea that you can just elect a new mayor after 4 or 5 years to fix a mistake the old one made is troubling. Why not just allow people to decide for themselves instead of giving all your power away? What happens when you elect a poor mayor, who may have seemed promising at first but turned out to have some pretty bad ideas?
|
how does a mayor proclaiming a company is not welcome prevent people from having their own opinion?why is a fast food restaurant a person with rights? silly how legally a chick-fil-a has the same amount of rights as a gay person, and they use those to bash gay people. i would hope the person i voted to represent me, told them to fuck off too.
|
On July 26 2012 10:40 LeSioN wrote:
how does a mayor proclaiming a company is not welcome prevent people from having their own opinion?why is a fast food restaurant a person with rights? silly how legally a chick-fil-a has the same amount of rights as a gay person, and they use those to bash gay people. i would hope the person i voted to represent me, told them to fuck off too.
It doesn't prevent people from having an opinion, it prevents them from having a choice.
|
its funny because religious people rate gays as a much higher sin some other one yet god their god doesnt really rate any sin higher than the other. ate at chic fil a once. didnt like it never ate there again.
that being said they can stand up for what they believe in as long as they dont discriminate against other people at the resturant and the mayor shouldnt abuse his power.
|
To be completely fair, there are still a number of people who are strongly against gay marriage and gay marriage is still a heated debate topic.
I don't think it is wise for a Mayor to just point out his standground for this debate and reject a whole fastfood chain for his city.
People should be made aware the Chic-Fil-A is an anti-gay organisation and some amount of the profit would support anti-gay movement and then decide whether they should visit the fastfood chain stores or not.
It seems to me the Mayor was especially upset about the statement and wants to punish it heavily.
I feel like how this should had been treated is similar to the apple case:
Apple, a few weeks ago,removed the green certification from its product lines (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CFwQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fmashable.com%2F2012%2F07%2F09%2Fapple-removes-green-certification%2F&ei=-p8QUOiAJaiciAfZv4GoDQ&usg=AFQjCNEFkyLy1SpmuE2B3lxMWr7iF__mRA&sig2=LqJByRqQ-ybRH3CAMawhjA)
the fans plus some organisation openly and strongly expressed their opinion on this matter.
Apple went back to green certification again.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
