|
On July 26 2012 13:10 KJSharp wrote:
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.
Woah, hold up there fella, are you saying the views of the CEO of Chick-fil-A aren't his own. He doesn't have his own views. I thought the words coming out of his mouth were entirely his, but I guess I'm mistaken. Someone must be forcing him to say things. I don't think anyone here is shoving new views into his head.
Oh wait, you meant consequences.
|
United States7483 Posts
On July 26 2012 13:10 KJSharp wrote:
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.
Churches are protected by the constitution, so he isn't able to do that. On the other hand, nowhere in the constitution does it say anything about private enterprise.
|
USA the land where gay marriage is illeagal, but thinking that gay marriage should be illeagal is also illeagal.
-.-
What?
Anyway, I have nothing against gays, but has chick fil a done anything else wrong than their support that the current gay marriage laws stay as they are? Why does the mayor want to ban a company from the city for having an opinion?
|
United States7483 Posts
On July 26 2012 13:15 Sea_Food wrote:
USA the land where gay marriage is illeagal, but thinking that gay marriage should be illeagal is also illeagal.
-.-
What?
Anyway, I have nothing against gays, but has chick fil a done anything else wrong than their support that the current gay marriage laws stay as they are? Why does the major want to ban a company from the city for having an opinion?
Read the OP, I'll quote the relevant section:
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. Just because they allow gays to eat at their restaurant doesn't mean they aren't opposed to gay rights as a company.
And their opinion is, frankly, evil. There, I said it. Horrific bigotry should not be considered 'just an opinion'. I doubt very many people today would consider being against interracial marriage just an opinion, or being racist just an opinion. Hell, I bet if someone was advocating taking away the right of women to request a divorce from their husband, the outrage would be of epic proportions.
|
I think it's really dumb to have the government try to screw with ppl because they dont enjoy their viewpoints. It's bullying and its disgusting.
|
On July 26 2012 13:17 Whitewing wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 13:15 Sea_Food wrote:
USA the land where gay marriage is illeagal, but thinking that gay marriage should be illeagal is also illeagal.
-.-
What?
Anyway, I have nothing against gays, but has chick fil a done anything else wrong than their support that the current gay marriage laws stay as they are? Why does the major want to ban a company from the city for having an opinion? Read the OP, I'll quote the relevant section: Show nested quote +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. Just because they allow gays to eat at their restaurant doesn't mean they aren't opposed to gay rights as a company. And their opinion is, frankly, evil. There, I said it. Horrific bigotry should not be considered 'just an opinion'.
If you think that opinion is evil then in my opinion:
Step 1. Make gay marriage leagal.
Step 2. Start the tought police that enforces that thinking gays shouldnt marry is illeagal.
Its compleatly rediculous to do the steps backwards.
|
It's almost amusing how ingrained moralism/social authoritarianism is in the states. I think its a distinctly American conception to actually HATE the other side politically or religiously. In Canada we actually respect ethical beliefs of others, even if we disagree or even outright think they're on the "other" side of justice; we dont pretend they're evil for being morally mistaken, we dont try to hound their business and we dont attempt to socially isolate them or attach hyperbolic denigration on their character for a position. I dont know how Europe is, but I'm sure its relatively similar. Your views can be disagreed with or even considered weird but no body, basically, wants to see you dead.
It's a distinctly poor trait.
|
On July 26 2012 13:15 Sea_Food wrote:
USA the land where gay marriage is illeagal, but thinking that gay marriage should be illeagal is also illeagal.
-.-
What?
Anyway, I have nothing against gays, but has chick fil a done anything else wrong than their support that the current gay marriage laws stay as they are? Why does the mayor want to ban a company from the city for having an opinion?
thinking gay marriage should be illegal isn't illegal.
people have banned companies from cities before for far less
|
On July 26 2012 13:17 Whitewing wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 13:15 Sea_Food wrote:
USA the land where gay marriage is illeagal, but thinking that gay marriage should be illeagal is also illeagal.
-.-
What?
Anyway, I have nothing against gays, but has chick fil a done anything else wrong than their support that the current gay marriage laws stay as they are? Why does the major want to ban a company from the city for having an opinion? Read the OP, I'll quote the relevant section: Show nested quote +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. Just because they allow gays to eat at their restaurant doesn't mean they aren't opposed to gay rights as a company. And their opinion is, frankly, evil. There, I said it. Horrific bigotry should not be considered 'just an opinion'. I doubt very many people today would consider being against interracial marriage just an opinion, or being racist just an opinion. Hell, I bet if someone was advocating taking away the right of women to request a divorce from their husband, the outrage would be of epic proportions.
Wait, so are we saying that bigotry is ok as long as it's against bigots? Because I'm sensing a little bigotry in your posts.
|
United States7483 Posts
On July 26 2012 13:21 whatevername wrote:
It's almost amusing how ingrained moralism/social authoritarianism is in the states. I think its a distinctly American conception to actually HATE the other side politically or religiously. In Canada we actually respect ethical beliefs of others, even if we disagree or even outright think they're on the "other" side of justice; we dont pretend they're evil for being morally mistaken, we dont try to hound their business and we dont attempt to socially isolate them or attach hyperbolic denigration on their character for a position. I dont know how Europe is, but I'm sure its relatively similar. Your views can be disagreed with or even considered weird but no body, basically, wants to see you dead.
It's a distinctly poor trait.
I don't hate people who have differing political opinions from me. Believing that the government should support neoliberal economic policies is a position I disagree with, but I would never hate someone who feels that way, I would just disagree with them.
I do, however, have a serious problem with certain sides on issues. Would you not feel there is something seriously wrong with someone who held the position that murdering adults who reach the age of 50 should be a legal necessity? How about someone who holds the position that women should not be allowed to attend school? Beating your children with blunt instruments for not being quiet at dinner? Wanting to own slaves?
It's a question of what the position is. I can't stand people who genuinely want to prevent people from having civil liberties that everyone else enjoys because they don't like it.
|
United States7483 Posts
On July 26 2012 13:26 starfries wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 13:17 Whitewing wrote:On July 26 2012 13:15 Sea_Food wrote:
USA the land where gay marriage is illeagal, but thinking that gay marriage should be illeagal is also illeagal.
-.-
What?
Anyway, I have nothing against gays, but has chick fil a done anything else wrong than their support that the current gay marriage laws stay as they are? Why does the major want to ban a company from the city for having an opinion? Read the OP, I'll quote the relevant section: 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. Just because they allow gays to eat at their restaurant doesn't mean they aren't opposed to gay rights as a company. And their opinion is, frankly, evil. There, I said it. Horrific bigotry should not be considered 'just an opinion'. I doubt very many people today would consider being against interracial marriage just an opinion, or being racist just an opinion. Hell, I bet if someone was advocating taking away the right of women to request a divorce from their husband, the outrage would be of epic proportions. Wait, so are we saying that bigotry is ok as long as it's against bigots? Because I'm sensing a little bigotry in your posts.
Are you seriously going to try to make the 'you can't be tolerant without tolerating intolerance argument?' This is just silly.
|
On July 26 2012 13:26 starfries wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 13:17 Whitewing wrote:On July 26 2012 13:15 Sea_Food wrote:
USA the land where gay marriage is illeagal, but thinking that gay marriage should be illeagal is also illeagal.
-.-
What?
Anyway, I have nothing against gays, but has chick fil a done anything else wrong than their support that the current gay marriage laws stay as they are? Why does the major want to ban a company from the city for having an opinion? Read the OP, I'll quote the relevant section: 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. Just because they allow gays to eat at their restaurant doesn't mean they aren't opposed to gay rights as a company. And their opinion is, frankly, evil. There, I said it. Horrific bigotry should not be considered 'just an opinion'. I doubt very many people today would consider being against interracial marriage just an opinion, or being racist just an opinion. Hell, I bet if someone was advocating taking away the right of women to request a divorce from their husband, the outrage would be of epic proportions. Wait, so are we saying that bigotry is ok as long as it's against bigots? Because I'm sensing a little bigotry in your posts.
Would you mind defining bigotry in your sense?
|
On July 26 2012 13:28 Whitewing wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 13:26 starfries wrote:On July 26 2012 13:17 Whitewing wrote:On July 26 2012 13:15 Sea_Food wrote:
USA the land where gay marriage is illeagal, but thinking that gay marriage should be illeagal is also illeagal.
-.-
What?
Anyway, I have nothing against gays, but has chick fil a done anything else wrong than their support that the current gay marriage laws stay as they are? Why does the major want to ban a company from the city for having an opinion? Read the OP, I'll quote the relevant section: 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. Just because they allow gays to eat at their restaurant doesn't mean they aren't opposed to gay rights as a company. And their opinion is, frankly, evil. There, I said it. Horrific bigotry should not be considered 'just an opinion'. I doubt very many people today would consider being against interracial marriage just an opinion, or being racist just an opinion. Hell, I bet if someone was advocating taking away the right of women to request a divorce from their husband, the outrage would be of epic proportions. Wait, so are we saying that bigotry is ok as long as it's against bigots? Because I'm sensing a little bigotry in your posts. Are you seriously going to try to make the 'you can't be tolerant without tolerating intolerance argument?' This is just silly.
No, I'm asking you to clarify. I'm not making any judgments on whether it's good or bad and I think it's a perfectly defensible position. I just want to know how you draw the lines.
|
It is hard to consider Chick-Fil-A's opinion out of the mainstream. At least half of states have laws banning gay marriage. Just because you disagree doesn't mean that they shouldn't be able to express their opinion in civil discourse, especially since it is such a prevalent one. I find it strange that liberals claim to be so open-minded when they are so intolerant of any belief that isn't liberal. At least have some respect for the opposite viewpoint. Good grief.
I think the church example is a good counter, but here is perhaps an even better counter. I am from Houston, Texas. Let us say that I want to start a chain restaurant called "More Veggies," and my belief that killing animals is immoral governs the ethos of my company. Additionally, I am very vocal about this belief, and I really ruffle the feathers of the beef-loving Houston community. Between 1-3% of Houstonians agree with my belief (whereas I imagine that 30-40% of Bostonians believe that gay marriage is immoral). Should the Houston mayor ban my company from obtaining building permits for holding an unpopular view? After all, it deeply offends the sensibilities of the majority, just like Chick Fil A's opposition to same sex marriage offends the majority of those in Boston (though a much slimmer majority).
|
On July 26 2012 13:15 Sea_Food wrote:
USA the land where gay marriage is illeagal, but thinking that gay marriage should be illeagal is also illeagal.
-.-
What?
Anyway, I have nothing against gays, but has chick fil a done anything else wrong than their support that the current gay marriage laws stay as they are? Why does the mayor want to ban a company from the city for having an opinion?
I believe this issue is firing up because the public are tired of religious influences in anything pertaining to money/power/political/demostic-foreign policy/ect. It seems like a class-culture war inside of the U.S is inevitable, the Occupy movement was a mere sign of the underlying growing problem.
|
On July 26 2012 06:05 Praetorial wrote:
Maybe.
In Boston, though, Menino and his predecessors have been known for loving Boston and doing anything in their power to make a nicer place, including using their positions to push over people they don't like.
It's made us one of the most educated and tolerant hubs of the world.
This is just funny.
My thoughts on the situation is this: Let the Mayor try. Let it go to court if it has to. If it ends up where there's no more chic in Boston, cool. They used the system. But if he is underhanded or schemes to get it done, from outside of the system. He should be tried for breaking the laws, and stripped of his Mayor title.
If the Mayors is perfectly allowed to shut down business for whatever reason they like, then that's the issue that should be addressed, not this one specific case.
|
I don't know how you can defend Chick-Fil-A's right to have an opinion, but not defend a mayor's right to influence what happens in his city due to his political views.
Stop being hypocrites.
|
15 Posts
It's a shame that tolerance is becoming so mainstream. It's all about "fairness" anymore. Gay marriage isn't marriage at all.
|
On July 26 2012 05:58 R3DT1D3 wrote:
For people who are in favor of this just because they agree with the position, what happens when another town does the same thing to say Starbucks for giving money to pro-gay marriage organizations?
Do we really want politics deciding business decisions as well.
I see no problem with this because there is no difference between being racist and being homophobic, and we have plenty of government action against racist business practices.
It is hard to consider Chick-Fil-A's opinion out of the mainstream. At least half of states have laws banning gay marriage. Just because you disagree doesn't mean that they shouldn't be able to express their opinion in civil discourse, especially since it is such a prevalent one. I find it strange that liberals claim to be so open-minded when they are so intolerant of any belief that isn't liberal. At least have some respect for the opposite viewpoint. Good grief.
Homophobic opinions don't deserve any respect. Those are the only kinds of opinions liberals are intolerant of; those that promote things like hate and anti-intellectualism on completely baseless and irrational grounds.
|
It's not about tolerating intolerance. It's about respecting the opinions of others, regardless of if you agree with them or not. Constitutionally you are allowed to believe anything you want without facing repercussions. Getting your companies closed for speaking out about your belief is not constitutional.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
