|
On July 26 2012 12:09 TOloseGT wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 11:57 Sbrubbles wrote: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.
Hmm, I see. I had found it strange that they would give money in the name of Chick-fil-a instead of the owning family's name, so I assumed it had advertisement purposes.
|
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.
KKK and other white power groups are not illegal, just to clarify. When they hurt someone that is what's illegal.
|
If you don't think something's wrong, don't let the government get in the way of you fighting for what's right.
P.S. I'm a Bostonian, and it'd be a shitty idea for them to open up here. We're extremely tolerant of all people, with the exceptions of rival athletes, red necks, and anyone/anything that stands in the way of Bostonians and alcohol.
|
I actually support Chik-fil-A in this, and I'm not against gay marriage (I honestly dont care one way or the other). I hate people being hated for voicing an unpopular opinion.
What I hate is that if you are against gay marriage, you are automatically a bad person. If that is your belief, more power to you. I find it ironic that a lot of the pro gay marriage sentiment is "let them do whatever they want" but somehow it does not apply to the opposition.
|
On July 26 2012 12:13 Ryuu314 wrote:
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.
Not true, actually. The Mayor can prevent Chik-fil-A from getting the permits they need to do business in Boston, effectively barring them from the city (ditto for Chicago and any other city whose mayor wants to take this stance).
Whether or not gay marriage should be legal (it should be) and whether or not homosexuals should have the same rights as heterosexuals (they should), the mayors of Boston and Chicago are going about this the wrong way. They are abusing their political authority to punish a company who they do not agree with, and that is wrong.
What should they do? Speak out against it, give Chik-fil-A all the permits they need to do business and let your activists organize a general boycott of Chik-fil-A, or do it yourself as a private citizen. Don't like the way they do business? Don't like their social or political views? Don't buy from them and encourage others to do the same. Organize protests, fundraisers for gay rights groups, things that you can and should do without using the political authority of the mayor's office to do it the wrong way.
|
On July 26 2012 12:26 Saraf wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 12:13 Ryuu314 wrote:
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.
Not true, actually. The Mayor can prevent Chik-fil-A from getting the permits they need to do business in Boston, effectively barring them from the city (ditto for Chicago and any other city whose mayor wants to take this stance). Whether or not gay marriage should be legal (it should be) and whether or not homosexuals should have the same rights as heterosexuals (they should), the mayors of Boston and Chicago are going about this the wrong way. They are abusing their political authority to punish a company who they do not agree with, and that is wrong. What should they do? Speak out against it, give Chik-fil-A all the permits they need to do business and let your activists organize a general boycott of Chik-fil-A, or do it yourself as a private citizen. Don't like the way they do business? Don't like their social or political views? Don't buy from them and encourage others to do the same. Organize protests, fundraisers for gay rights groups, things that you can and should do without using the political authority of the mayor's office to do it the wrong way.
From the looks of the letter, it doesn't seem like the mayor will move to truly ban or prevent Chick fil-A from setting up shop in Boston. Even if he does, Chick fil-A can still get the permits if they get enough support via the population to effectively override the Mayor's actions via political and/or legal pressure. At the end of the day, the Mayor of Boston really can't do shit to stop Chick fil-A from setting up shop in Boston without public support. The most he can do is be an annoyance. Because Chick fil-A does not, to my knowledge at the very least, have discriminatory practices, the Mayor has no grounds on which to prevent Chick fil-A from obtaining permits.
In either case, even if we assume the Mayor can 100% ban Chick fil-A from Boston I still don't buy the slippery slope argument against the ban. Cities have, and always will, ban or prevent a particular franchise from setting up shop in their town whether it be for economic, social, or political reasons.
On July 26 2012 12:26 Blurry wrote:
I actually support Chik-fil-A in this, and I'm not against gay marriage (I honestly dont care one way or the other). I hate people being hated for voicing an unpopular opinion.
What I hate is that if you are against gay marriage, you are automatically a bad person. If that is your belief, more power to you. I find it ironic that a lot of the pro gay marriage sentiment is "let them do whatever they want" but somehow it does not apply to the opposition.
People are being hated for voicing this opinion because this opinion is discriminatory, prejudiced, and bigoted. There are plenty of beliefs that are not socially accepted. Discrimination is one such beliefs.
Would you hold the same opinion if these people were against interracial marriage? Minority rights? Because that's the parallel being drawn here. People equate discrimination against homosexuality with discrimination against race.
|
On July 26 2012 12:26 Blurry wrote:
I actually support Chik-fil-A in this, and I'm not against gay marriage (I honestly dont care one way or the other). I hate people being hated for voicing an unpopular opinion.
What I hate is that if you are against gay marriage, you are automatically a bad person. If that is your belief, more power to you. I find it ironic that a lot of the pro gay marriage sentiment is "let them do whatever they want" but somehow it does not apply to the opposition.
It would be ironic if all views hold equal weight, which I don't believe is true.
|
On July 26 2012 12:36 TOloseGT wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 12:26 Blurry wrote:
I actually support Chik-fil-A in this, and I'm not against gay marriage (I honestly dont care one way or the other). I hate people being hated for voicing an unpopular opinion.
What I hate is that if you are against gay marriage, you are automatically a bad person. If that is your belief, more power to you. I find it ironic that a lot of the pro gay marriage sentiment is "let them do whatever they want" but somehow it does not apply to the opposition. It would be ironic if all views hold equal weight, which I don't believe is true.
And why does yours hold more? Because its more popular? Because its right? Well what makes it right, and the other view wrong. Who decides which one holds more weight?
|
On July 26 2012 12:42 Blurry wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 12:36 TOloseGT wrote:On July 26 2012 12:26 Blurry wrote:
I actually support Chik-fil-A in this, and I'm not against gay marriage (I honestly dont care one way or the other). I hate people being hated for voicing an unpopular opinion.
What I hate is that if you are against gay marriage, you are automatically a bad person. If that is your belief, more power to you. I find it ironic that a lot of the pro gay marriage sentiment is "let them do whatever they want" but somehow it does not apply to the opposition. It would be ironic if all views hold equal weight, which I don't believe is true. And why does yours hold more? Because its more popular? Because its right? Well what makes it right, and the other view wrong. Who decides which one holds more weight?
The consensus of the people and societal norms determine what is considered "right" You also didn't address my post at all.
Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 12:26 Blurry wrote:
I actually support Chik-fil-A in this, and I'm not against gay marriage (I honestly dont care one way or the other). I hate people being hated for voicing an unpopular opinion.
What I hate is that if you are against gay marriage, you are automatically a bad person. If that is your belief, more power to you. I find it ironic that a lot of the pro gay marriage sentiment is "let them do whatever they want" but somehow it does not apply to the opposition. People are being hated for voicing this opinion because this opinion is discriminatory, prejudiced, and bigoted. There are plenty of beliefs that are not socially accepted. Discrimination is one such beliefs. Would you hold the same opinion if these people were against interracial marriage? Minority rights? Because that's the parallel being drawn here. People equate discrimination against homosexuality with discrimination against race.
|
On July 26 2012 12:26 Blurry wrote:
I actually support Chik-fil-A in this, and I'm not against gay marriage (I honestly dont care one way or the other). I hate people being hated for voicing an unpopular opinion.
What I hate is that if you are against gay marriage, you are automatically a bad person. If that is your belief, more power to you. I find it ironic that a lot of the pro gay marriage sentiment is "let them do whatever they want" but somehow it does not apply to the opposition.
I see your point that people should be able to think what they want but this is a matter of freedom to live as you want (gay+married or whatever situation) and people who think otherwise are limiting others freedom (directly or indirectly) in a way they have no business doing.
I honestly have no problem with people who hate gays, being with plenty of ignorant friends who don't know better, but at the same time being related to a couple of gay men I find myself easily tolerating both sides of the argument. I can understand that people can be ignorant or have beliefs that prevent them from thinking otherwise but I believe that these are cases where if you have nothing nice to say, don't say anything at all; meaning that it's rude to think you can try and prevent another human being from living the way they want to.
People are free to think as they want but do not impose you're thoughts on others.
These are just my general musings on the topic and cloud nine is recalling me it seems as soon as I managed to get here so perhaps wrong thread but take it as you wish 
|
On July 26 2012 12:42 Blurry wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 12:36 TOloseGT wrote:On July 26 2012 12:26 Blurry wrote:
I actually support Chik-fil-A in this, and I'm not against gay marriage (I honestly dont care one way or the other). I hate people being hated for voicing an unpopular opinion.
What I hate is that if you are against gay marriage, you are automatically a bad person. If that is your belief, more power to you. I find it ironic that a lot of the pro gay marriage sentiment is "let them do whatever they want" but somehow it does not apply to the opposition. It would be ironic if all views hold equal weight, which I don't believe is true. And why does yours hold more? Because its more popular? Because its right? Well what makes it right, and the other view wrong. Who decides which one holds more weight?
One view causes many young people to become depressed and suicidal because they are homosexual, something that they are born with, causes no harm, and cannot be changed.
The other view tells these young people that they are accepted and normal.
|
United States7483 Posts
On July 26 2012 10:53 Porteroso wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 10:27 Whitewing wrote: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.
Rights and privileges are not the same thing. Marriage is a civil liberty that should be considered a right in my opinion. The power of a mayor to ban something in his city that he knows the people of the city would not like would be a privilege, not a right. Accepting that the mayor of a city has that power is not the same as saying that the federal government should have it. So yes, it's a non sequitur.
|
On July 26 2012 12:42 Blurry wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 12:36 TOloseGT wrote:On July 26 2012 12:26 Blurry wrote:
I actually support Chik-fil-A in this, and I'm not against gay marriage (I honestly dont care one way or the other). I hate people being hated for voicing an unpopular opinion.
What I hate is that if you are against gay marriage, you are automatically a bad person. If that is your belief, more power to you. I find it ironic that a lot of the pro gay marriage sentiment is "let them do whatever they want" but somehow it does not apply to the opposition. It would be ironic if all views hold equal weight, which I don't believe is true. And why does yours hold more? Because its more popular? Because its right? Well what makes it right, and the other view wrong. Who decides which one holds more weight?
My views don't infringe on anyone's rights. There's do. If that doesn't hold more weight with the morality crowd, their ethics are fucked.
|
Is no one concerned that this is a blatant misuse of the city's zoning power? Regardless of politics. If you can ban Chick-Fil-A you can ban any company for any reason. A principled man sees this as a blatant Due Process and Eminent Domain abuse, if not a violation.
|
United States7483 Posts
On July 26 2012 12:26 Blurry wrote:
I actually support Chik-fil-A in this, and I'm not against gay marriage (I honestly dont care one way or the other). I hate people being hated for voicing an unpopular opinion.
What I hate is that if you are against gay marriage, you are automatically a bad person. If that is your belief, more power to you. I find it ironic that a lot of the pro gay marriage sentiment is "let them do whatever they want" but somehow it does not apply to the opposition.
See, you're automatically a bad person for being against gay marriage because of all of the following:
A: allowing gay people to marry hurts nobody, only the sensibilities of some people who feel that their right to their religious expression should trump the values of others
B: people are born gay, it's not a choice or a decision, they can't help it
C: Banning gay marriage does hurt people
D: there is no advantage to banning gay marriage
E: People should have the right to marry the person they love if it is completely consensual
So yeah, you're not a bad person if you simply voice an unpopular opinion, you are however a bad person if you honestly feel that other people shouldn't have rights because you don't like them.
What determines what a bad person is? I lay the claim that a bad person is someone who believes in ideas that only hurt others.
So yeah, if you're opposed to gay marriage, you are a bad person, at least with respect to this issue.
If you want to take someone's liberties away from them, you'd better damn well have a bloody good reason to do so, and it had better be backed up by science, reason, logic, and strong arguments based in similar subjects. Religion has none of the above, and I don't believe I've ever heard a non-religious reason other than "it doesn't feel right to me."
Someone below me said it very well too, so I'll quote him here:
Let's make one thing clear: denying gays the right to marry each other is unethical and should be unlawful. There is no conceivable way to justify marriage inequality without religion or bigotry, neither of which should have any place in our government, especially when it comes to granting rights. There is absolutely no relevant difference between people and institutions who would deny gays the right to marry, and people and institutions who supported segregation.
No difference whatsoever.
It's funny how almost everyone in this day and age would agree with the changes that took place as a result of the Civil Rights movements of the 60s... almost everyone today would look at institutionalized racism as ridiculous... and almost everyone today would applaud those who broke unjust laws in order to create a world with just laws. But when it comes to nearly-identical issues happening in our own time period, people completely neglect ideals of equality. Seriously, about half of you need to actually go read the the words of Martin Luther King some time.
|
United States7483 Posts
On July 26 2012 12:57 cLutZ wrote:
Is no one concerned that this is a blatant misuse of the city's zoning power? Regardless of politics. If you can ban Chick-Fil-A you can ban any company for any reason. A principled man sees this as a blatant Due Process and Eminent Domain abuse, if not a violation.
Is it any more of an abuse than a town deciding to be a dry town and banning all businesses that serve alcohol? Towns already can ban any company for any reason, what holds them back usually is fear of losing votes in the next election.
|
What the CFA people have been spouting is trash in my opinion. That said, I'm hesitant to endorse any government banning a business for ideological reasons. They were truly awful comments though, so hateful...I won't be buying anything from them
|
As a Bostonian, I am perfectly OK with the decision to ban it. I find their food pretty fucking bad and could think of better places to eat. However, I'm sure many people would be pissed off about this.
Also, with this + moshing trying to get banned, Boston is looking pretty weak right now.
|
Let's make one thing clear: denying gays the right to marry each other is unethical and should be unlawful. There is no conceivable way to justify marriage inequality without religion or bigotry, neither of which should have any place in our government, especially when it comes to granting rights. There is absolutely no relevant difference between people and institutions who would deny gays the right to marry, and people and institutions who supported segregation.
No difference whatsoever.
It's funny how almost everyone in this day and age would agree with the changes that took place as a result of the Civil Rights movements of the 60s... almost everyone today would look at institutionalized racism as ridiculous... and almost everyone today would applaud those who broke unjust laws in order to create a world with just laws. But when it comes to nearly-identical issues happening in our own time period, people completely neglect ideals of equality. Seriously, about half of you need to actually go read the the words of Martin Luther King some time.
|
I suppose the Boston mayor should prevent the Catholic Church from acquiring building permits? After all, the Catholic Church does not allow women to be priests, nor does it support gay marriage. I find it bizarre that so many people are supporting the mayor in this endeavor. A business, like a church, is a private enterprise, and its leadership should be able to have its own political views.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
