|
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.
Absolutely correct, "speaking" for the city in this case amounts to sending angry letters to the company president, I think that's all he's actually done. Please correct me if he's taken any other real action, then it might be something to get riled up over.
|
Hmm everyone seems to have switched over from the opinion that this was a good move (first page) to saying that it was a bad one (this page) I've noticed this trend in many controversial TL topics and I find it quite interesting. I personally agree with banning (or asking not to open a store or whatever) this fast food chain from Boston. I honestly don't care if it's legal or not and I don't hate religion but when it turns people to hate it has to go one way or another.
|
Okay, a word about "banning":
From what I understand, as mayor he already has veto power, and he can stop Chic-Fil-A or any other restaurant from moving into his city (or at least make it difficult), just because he feels like it. He doesn't need to have a good reason, and he doesn't have to explain himself. Whether this sort of behaviour will help his chances for reelection is an exercise for the reader.
All that happened here is that he told Chic-Fil-A that he intended to do this. It's not like he passed a new law saying "all Chic-Fil-As are hereby banned from Boston, and Dan Cathy will have rotten vegetables thrown at him upon entering the city limits." He could have kept it secret and just foiled their attempts to move in at every turn without explaining anything, but instead (in what I believe is a PR move) he decided to call them out first.
|
On July 26 2012 10:27 Whitewing wrote:Show nested quote +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.
I guess that all depends on how you view the city/federal relationship, and whether you consider gay marriage to be a federal right, and whether you think that intolerance in 1 city is also intolerance in another. If you assume that rights, in terms of rights given to all people (marriage is considered a borderline natural right by some), are given by the federal government, and you assume that gay marriage should be a right just like straight marriage is a right, and you assume that what is right for the city of Boston is also right for the city of New York, then actually, it's not a non sequitur. A non sequitur must violate its own premise or have a disconnect between premise and conclusion, and my argument, as I'm theoretically presenting it from someone else's point of view, contains neither.
So no.
|
Legally it most likely means nothing...I think its just the mayor using his position of power to point out bigotry. The statement alone will likely have enough of an effect.
I didn't know Chic-fil-a owners had such stance, and I will not eat at one in the future now that I do. I imagine the same will be true for many people. (Being familiar with Boston...probably a large percentage of the population). Mission accomplished...no legal action required.
I assume the owners wouldn't loudly advertise their own gifts to anti gay-marriage groups. If the knowledge causes a backlash perhaps a wealthy corporation pulls their support for such groups....yet another victory.
This is the reason for such a statement.
Edit: Also why he doesn't just impede them from setting up shop without a statement.
|
Mayors and politics is fucking dumb. I am pro gay marry but if states started throwing out companies because they were pro gay marry i would be outraged. So i do not see how banning an antigay company is justified.
|
On July 26 2012 11:00 sheaRZerg wrote:
Edit: Also why he doesn't just impede them from setting up shop without a statement.
Because he's making a statement about Boston as much as he is Chik-fil-a. He wants everyone to know that Boston is a tolerant city.
|
On July 26 2012 11:04 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 11:00 sheaRZerg wrote:
Edit: Also why he doesn't just impede them from setting up shop without a statement. Because he's making a statement about Boston as much as he is Chik-fil-a. He wants everyone to know that Boston is a tolerant city.
I'd go easy on the "tolerant" phrase there, gay bashers will point out some sort of irony with that statement.
|
On July 26 2012 10:29 TsoBadGuy wrote:Show nested quote +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.
The argument I made was completely objective, it was a legal argument speaking about the role of a mayor, and in general the role of government. I did then kindof rant a bit and attempted to predict the future, and I guess in the sense that predicting something isn't factual, that's inherently subjective, but I guess I assumed that the reader could separate the argument from the discourse that followed. To claim that my post was the polar oppositve of objective, no. To be clear as to what I mean by no, I think any argument that takes an unmodified legal stance on an issue can be considered objective, at least on a high level.
And when did I claim to be speaking for anyone at all on the issue of anything other than affirmative action, where I was clearly speaking for myself.
|
It's too bad.
Chic Fil A has some of the absolute best service of any fast food chain, EVER.
They're always super nice, friendly, outgoing, polite, and they almost never make mistakes :D
Kinda sad to hear that they're evangelists. I knew they were Christian, but I didn't think they were the Neanderthal kind ;\
|
On July 26 2012 11:04 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 11:00 sheaRZerg wrote:
Edit: Also why he doesn't just impede them from setting up shop without a statement. Because he's making a statement about Boston as much as he is Chik-fil-a. He wants everyone to know that Boston is a tolerant city.
Tolerant of homosexuality. Intolerant of believing marriage is a sacred relationship between one man and one woman.
|
On July 26 2012 11:12 TOloseGT wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 11:04 Klondikebar wrote:On July 26 2012 11:00 sheaRZerg wrote:
Edit: Also why he doesn't just impede them from setting up shop without a statement. Because he's making a statement about Boston as much as he is Chik-fil-a. He wants everyone to know that Boston is a tolerant city. I'd go easy on the "tolerant" phrase there, gay bashers will point out some sort of irony with that statement.
Good call.
edit to add: Not that I am affiliating myself with "gay bashers".
|
Now I'm tempted to go to Chick-Fil-A and order a spicy cock sandwich.
|
On July 26 2012 11:17 dvorakftw wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 11:04 Klondikebar wrote:On July 26 2012 11:00 sheaRZerg wrote:
Edit: Also why he doesn't just impede them from setting up shop without a statement. Because he's making a statement about Boston as much as he is Chik-fil-a. He wants everyone to know that Boston is a tolerant city. Tolerant of homosexuality. Intolerant of believing marriage is a sacred relationship between one man and one woman.
WHAAA! Why won't you guys tolerate my intolerance?! Gay bashers can use whatever words they like but it all sounds the same and it's been addressed in this thread already.
|
You are no longer able to sell your daughter, sanctity of marriage has long since gone out the window.
how dare gay marriage make straight marriage look bad by having a much higher success rate.
but seriously, being tolerant of intolerance is worse than intolerance, it is apathy. for you christains, that is amongst your deadly sins.
|
Saw this today and was surprised it was brand-new. TL, I am disappoint, haha!
On July 26 2012 06:20 unichan wrote:
mcdonalds doesnt serve waffle fries
Lol! GG. (╯°□°）╯︵ ┻━┻ THREAD WON!! X-D
Hrmph. I don't often like it when a company donates to any-thing that is so divisive, even if I do happen to agree with the organizations donated to. If this were the Cathy family, or even all the employees, individually sponsoring these groups with their own money, I'd say the most one could do is shrug. However, company money is being used and so they've charged the ire of people on both sides of this topic.
It's true that the Mayor is elected by the populace, and that he/she is there to enforce the law. I'm all for cities and counties and even states becoming independent of each other with laws catered to the wants of the people that specifically live there. As one who does not live in Boston, I shrug nonchalantly at you.
However, as of now, I know of no law that prohibits companies from donating funds to organizations that the people don't want. If the people don't like that, then they can make a law for their city that reflects their opinion. Until then, Chic-Fil-A has a right to purchase property and start a franchise in Boston. Since the people won't eat there, Chic-Fil-A will have to close that shop down due to lack of profits; that'd be the best case scenario at least, lol.
The Mayor's words alone are not enough to stop a business from going up. If we're going to use the government as the system represented by the people, we should use all of it. Make it a bill to be passed by the legislative branch of the city, and make sure the judicial branch doesn't find it unconstitutional. Then, one would have an argument for allowing the executive branch this enforcement.
Otherwise, all I see are words and threats to boycott. :-\
|
On July 26 2012 10:48 TheFrankOne wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 10:15 fellcrow wrote: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. Absolutely correct, "speaking" for the city in this case amounts to sending angry letters to the company president, I think that's all he's actually done. Please correct me if he's taken any other real action, then it might be something to get riled up over. He vowed not to give them permits as far as I know. Which is banning-but-not-explicitly, it should be illegal.
|
This is pretty interesting considering that mayor or city should not have the right from letting a fast food chain from opening its doors to the public regardless of there views in life. And personally i love Chic-Fil-A i wish they had a close one by my house best place to eat hehe
|
Seems a little over the top. If you disagree with somebody's views than that is fine, but does one person really have the power to prevent an entire city from eating Chick fil-a? What if the people of Boston have no problem with Chick fil'as position? shouldnt it be up to them whether or not they want to patronize a company that has such views?
|
btw, is the Chik-fil-a owner refusing to sell anything to gays? Is he calling for them to be expelled from the country or put to death? People in this thread keep using the word intolerance but it does not mean what they seem to think it means.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
