|
On July 26 2012 05:53 Praetorial wrote:Baller! I live in Boston, and I for one would love to see that bastion of Southern bigotry get out of my city! Heck, use eminent domain, zoning laws, whatever. Just get them gone! Just look at this: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/17/dan-cathy-chick-fil-a-president-anti-gay_n_1680984.htmlShow nested quote +
I think we are inviting God's judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at Him and say, 'We know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage,' and I pray God's mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we have the audacity to define what marriage is about
Disgusting.
Southern bigotry? Well screw you too guy. Get that northern bigotry outta here.
|
@ cLAN.Anax: LOL unichan is such a bad poster hahahaha but I still found that funny.
Personally I think this sort of ban is counterproductive and will only invite more argument without too much principle, though it does bring up beliefs/interests on a corporate level with regard to religion. I hope this ban doesn't go through, because imho it's not much better than gay bashers etc. It's hard to say though. Is being untolerant of an untolerant orgainization toleration? I don't really think so.
|
Does being pro-gay marriage make you "anti-Christian"?
Because if it doesn't, then the OP's post is full of a tremendous amount of bullshit.
|
On July 26 2012 11:34 Yuriegh wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 05:53 Praetorial wrote:Baller! I live in Boston, and I for one would love to see that bastion of Southern bigotry get out of my city! Heck, use eminent domain, zoning laws, whatever. Just get them gone! Just look at this: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/17/dan-cathy-chick-fil-a-president-anti-gay_n_1680984.html
I think we are inviting God's judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at Him and say, 'We know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage,' and I pray God's mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we have the audacity to define what marriage is about
Disgusting. Southern bigotry? Well screw you too guy. Get that northern bigotry outta here.
You can't call anything you want bigotry, it's a word with a definition.
On July 26 2012 11:36 ppgButtercup wrote:
Does being pro-gay marriage make you "anti-Christian"?
Because if it doesn't, then the OP's post is full of a tremendous amount of bullshit.
How? He uses the word "Christians" once to refer to the beliefs of the owners of the chain.
|
Here's a question, banning a business because it practices intolerance is not OK, even at the city-level, but the institutionalized discrimination of homosexuals is A-OK?
|
I haven't read all 20 pages, but for those of you arguing against the ban, consider this:
If a company (let's say Walmart) came out and declared that they refuse to acknowledge blacks and Mexicans as equals, and they were donating money to the KKK and other white power groups, wouldn't the city have the right to keep them out? Would you still be defending Walmart in that case?
To me, there is literally no difference between discriminating against homosexuality and discriminating against skin color. Yet somehow, we as a society are okay with one and not the other. Bottom line, the city council has the right to refuse any company from doing business in its city if they have a bigoted agenda or are otherwise shady, and that is what they've decided here. Thank god someone in a position of power is stepping up to help advance our civilization into the 21st century.
|
On July 26 2012 11:39 TOloseGT wrote:
Here's a question, banning a business because it practices intolerance is not OK, even at the city-level, but the institutionalized discrimination of homosexuals is A-OK?
Neither is OK. Thus banning the business isn't a solution. Create a pro gay rally where donations go to parties for gay marriage to try to 'off-set' the donations made by Chik-fil-a for instance.
Banning businesses because you don't agree with your views isn't an acceptable action and opens the gate to so many other issues. Can mayors ban other businesses whose views don't agree with their own (seperate from the gay marriage issue)?
|
This isn't even right. People should be able to think the way the want. Just because he is against gay marriage and stated his opinion doesn't mean he should be the one being judged. People really need a thicker skin these days...
|
On July 26 2012 11:30 Aveng3r wrote:
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?
Mmmmm, Boston's pretty pro-gay, bro.... ('¬_¬) Doooon't think they're changing their position on Chic-Fil-A anytime soon, haha!
On July 26 2012 11:35 Aerisky wrote:
@ cLAN.Anax: LOL unichan is such a bad poster hahahaha but I still found that funny.
I think he was merely trying to add a little comic relief to a sensitive topic. 
|
It's ridiculous that mayor could do it, or even council. They should have to have a civil vote or successful petition before doing something like that.
Personally I think restaurants and other businesses should have the freedom to do stuff like that.
The issue I have is with any government funding or subsidies (including tax exceptions) going towards any organizations which expresses religion and/or intolerance to certain groups.
|
On July 26 2012 11:39 TOloseGT wrote:
Here's a question, banning a business because it practices intolerance is not OK, even at the city-level, but the institutionalized discrimination of homosexuals is A-OK?
What does "intitutionalized discrimination of homosexuals" have to do with anything? If you want to convince the government the groups Chick-fil-a donates to should be banned, fine, but that's beside the point. The US laws considers those organizations legal, therefore what's the problem with Chick-fil-a donating money to them? Why should the Chick-fil-a owners and patrons (whether they are anti-gay-marriage activists or not) be discriminated against for the political opinion the owners choose to attribute to their brand?
To me, this makes it pretty clear they want to appeal to a conservative clientelle, and as much as I find that ridiculous, I see no reason why they should be kept from it.
|
On July 26 2012 11:52 Xapti wrote:
It's ridiculous that mayor could do it, or even council. They should have to have a civil vote or successful petition before doing something like that.
Personally I think restaurants and other businesses should have the freedom to do stuff like that.
The issue I have is with any government funding or subsidies (including tax exceptions) going towards any organizations which expresses religion and/or intolerance to certain groups.
I agree. It also isn't right that the mayor has enough power to simply ban a restaurant or any other business.
|
As much as I despise Chic-Fil-A, you simply can't ban them because you find their views grotesque. If the people of Boston dislike them so much then let them find out the hard way; going out of business.
TBH it's pretty stupid for any business to promote a political agenda though. Customers get alienated, you lose money and no one's mind gets changed cause you decided to plant your flag on an issue through a guise entirely irrelevant to politics.
On July 26 2012 11:43 Cel.erity wrote:
I haven't read all 20 pages, but for those of you arguing against the ban, consider this:
If a company (let's say Walmart) came out and declared that they refuse to acknowledge blacks and Mexicans as equals, and they were donating money to the KKK and other white power groups, wouldn't the city have the right to keep them out? Would you still be defending Walmart in that case?
To me, there is literally no difference between discriminating against homosexuality and discriminating against skin color. Yet somehow, we as a society are okay with one and not the other. Bottom line, the city council has the right to refuse any company from doing business in its city if they have a bigoted agenda or are otherwise shady, and that is what they've decided here. Thank god someone in a position of power is stepping up to help advance our civilization into the 21st century.
No one (or few people) is actually supporting Chic-Fil-A. We're supporting their right to have an opinion, no matter how much we disagree with it. As long as Walmart in your hypothetical scenario wasn't barring African-Americans and Mexicans from entering their stores/employment they can say whatever the hell they want.
|
Let the company have its own beliefs and support the groups it chooses. A lot of the gay activism is live-and-let live, which I agree with. Its my own personal business who I love and marry. But... its also my own personal business if I were against gay marriage. Unless they ban gay couples from eating at one of their fast food places I hardly see the problem.
It just so happens that the founder of the company is strongly against gay marriage, and that's okay. He believes it is wrong, and he is entitled to his belief, just like you're entitled to yours.
|
On July 26 2012 11:43 Cel.erity wrote:
I haven't read all 20 pages, but for those of you arguing against the ban, consider this:
If a company (let's say Walmart) came out and declared that they refuse to acknowledge blacks and Mexicans as equals, and they were donating money to the KKK and other white power groups, wouldn't the city have the right to keep them out? Would you still be defending Walmart in that case?
To me, there is literally no difference between discriminating against homosexuality and discriminating against skin color. Yet somehow, we as a society are okay with one and not the other. Bottom line, the city council has the right to refuse any company from doing business in its city if they have a bigoted agenda or are otherwise shady, and that is what they've decided here. Thank god someone in a position of power is stepping up to help advance our civilization into the 21st century.
That argument sounds very subjective, as it requires the person in power to BE in the right (to be correct, not necessarily the political right, lol). That often is not the case; history's proven that time and again.... I wouldn't put so much trust in the government to choose from right and wrong, even if it's very local like this. Honestly, what would you do if your town Mayor refused his/her city's stores to sell Oreos, because the company gives to pro-same-sex-marriage organizations, which the Mayor doesn't agree with? You'd probably say that it's wrong for the city to deny a company to sell its goods or services for such a reason. That's the problem I see with that argument, and that's the point we're trying to make here. :-\
To be honest, if a company wants to discriminate its customers based on skin color, or sponsors organizations that did, I believe it should have the right to do that. Granted, there's no way in heck I'll be caught giving any of my money to said company, and I guarantee you they'll go out of business within a year after rampant public outrage and massive boycotting.
|
Don’t let your mouth write checks your body can’t cash
|
On July 26 2012 11:57 Sbrubbles wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 11:39 TOloseGT wrote:
Here's a question, banning a business because it practices intolerance is not OK, even at the city-level, but the institutionalized discrimination of homosexuals is A-OK? What does "intitutionalized discrimination of homosexuals" have to do with anything? If you want to convince the government the groups Chick-fil-a donates to should be banned, fine, but that's beside the point. The US laws considers those organizations legal, therefore what's the problem with Chick-fil-a donating money to them? Why should the Chick-fil-a owners and patrons (whether they are anti-gay-marriage activists or not) be discriminated against for the political opinion the owners choose to attribute to their brand? To me, this makes it pretty clear they want to appeal to a conservative clientelle, and as much as I find that ridiculous, I see no reason why they should be kept from it.
Chick-fil-A obviously doesn't want to appeal to the conservative clientelle when the majority of their clients are young adults. Their backpedaling and damage control speaks to this.
Also, this issue doesn't exist in a vacuum and can't exist like that in this country, where city and state governments and religious/conservative groups actively discriminate against homosexuals. We have a conservative candidate for the presidency who vowed to keep marriage between man and woman. While the Constitution is the law of the land, amendments are there for a reason. Laws change with passing generations, and marriage equality is one of the bigger social issues of this generation.
I also don't like the fact that the mayor wants to ban Chick-fil-A from doing business. It just doesn't sit right with the whole giving everyone a chance schtick. Gay bashers are mentally ill, and I mean that with disrespect, but bans are not the way to go. As more baby boomer conservatives die off, the slides will move.
|
On July 26 2012 11:43 Cel.erity wrote:
I haven't read all 20 pages, but for those of you arguing against the ban, consider this:
If a company (let's say Walmart) came out and declared that they refuse to acknowledge blacks and Mexicans as equals, and they were donating money to the KKK and other white power groups, wouldn't the city have the right to keep them out? Would you still be defending Walmart in that case?
To me, there is literally no difference between discriminating against homosexuality and discriminating against skin color. Yet somehow, we as a society are okay with one and not the other. Bottom line, the city council has the right to refuse any company from doing business in its city if they have a bigoted agenda or are otherwise shady, and that is what they've decided here. Thank god someone in a position of power is stepping up to help advance our civilization into the 21st century.
"KKK and other white power groups" are illegal, but the anti-gay-marriage groups Chick-fil-a dones money to are legal. If Chick-fil-a was arming skinhead groups to beat on gays, not only should they be banned from every city in the country, but the owners should also be arrested. This is not the case, though, therefore your argument is invalid.
|
If you want to voice your opinion you better be prepared to suffer the consequences. No one is stopping Chick-fil-A from voicing their opinion. The mayor of Boston is simply voicing his opinion that Chick-Fil-A doesn't belong in Boston.
Side note, the mayor of Boston doesn't actually have the right to ban a particular store from being built. He can't actually do that. This is a PR move more than anything, but it can definitely be successful at keeping Chick-Fil-A out of Boston if enough of the public agrees.
I want to highlight that the mayor of Boston CAN'T ACTUALLY DO ANYTHING without the majority of the public's support. If you actually read the letter, he "urges [Chick-Fil-A] to back out of [their] plans to locate in Boston." Nowhere does he actually ban them. The use of the word/term "ban" is 100% media sensationalism.
On July 26 2012 12:13 Sbrubbles wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 11:43 Cel.erity wrote:
I haven't read all 20 pages, but for those of you arguing against the ban, consider this:
If a company (let's say Walmart) came out and declared that they refuse to acknowledge blacks and Mexicans as equals, and they were donating money to the KKK and other white power groups, wouldn't the city have the right to keep them out? Would you still be defending Walmart in that case?
To me, there is literally no difference between discriminating against homosexuality and discriminating against skin color. Yet somehow, we as a society are okay with one and not the other. Bottom line, the city council has the right to refuse any company from doing business in its city if they have a bigoted agenda or are otherwise shady, and that is what they've decided here. Thank god someone in a position of power is stepping up to help advance our civilization into the 21st century. "KKK and other white power groups" are illegal, but the anti-gay-marriage groups Chick-fil-a dones money to are legal. If Chick-fil-a was arming skinhead groups to beat on gays, not only should they be banned from every city in the country, but the owners should also be arrested. This is not the case, though, therefore your argument is invalid.
Actually, that's not entirely true. KKK and SOME white power groups are illegal not because of their racism, but because of their advocacy of imminent violence. If a white power group (or any group) doesn't pose or advocate an imminent violent threat to others, they are perfectly legal regardless of their message or beliefs.
|
On July 26 2012 11:44 Charger wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 11:39 TOloseGT wrote:
Here's a question, banning a business because it practices intolerance is not OK, even at the city-level, but the institutionalized discrimination of homosexuals is A-OK? Neither is OK. Thus banning the business isn't a solution. Create a pro gay rally where donations go to parties for gay marriage to try to 'off-set' the donations made by Chik-fil-a for instance. Banning businesses because you don't agree with your views isn't an acceptable action and opens the gate to so many other issues. Can mayors ban other businesses whose views don't agree with their own (seperate from the gay marriage issue)? Yep. If this action is met with some kind of substantial backlash it really could be legal/cultural precedent required for some extremely unpleasant future actions by Government, on any institutional level. Its fucking scary is what it is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
