|
On July 26 2012 13:42 Courthead wrote:
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.
I don't think you know what the word hypocrite means because those 2 concepts you listed are not contradictory at all...
|
On July 26 2012 13:44 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Exactly. How can people justify their position that anti-gay marriage policies are just an "opinion" but pro-segregation policies are a violation of rights?
|
My first major thought was: What kind of dumb fucking name is Chick-Fil-A?
My second thought was: Why is a company pushing social/political views that aren't even related to their business? What the fuck do their shareholders think about company money being spent on pushing certain agendas that aren't going to improve their bottom line, either directly or through good will?
Finally I feel pretty reluctant to allow elected officials to make decisions to completely restrict trade on the basis of the company's said views alone. Leave it to the consumer to vote with their feet...
|
On July 26 2012 13:45 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 13:42 Courthead wrote:
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. I don't think you know what the word hypocrite means because those 2 concepts you listed are not contradictory at all...
Of course they are. You cannot support one group for exercising its rights, but then denounce another party for exercising its rights. You either support rights or you don't.
|
Poor Boston. Now they have to eat at McDonalds instead of Chic Fil A, only because the mayor of the city disagrees with the views of the Chic Fil A owner. I don't see how anyone actually wins in this situation.
|
On July 26 2012 13:46 Courthead wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 13:44 Stratos_speAr wrote: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. Exactly. How can people justify their position that anti-gay marriage policies are just an "opinion" but pro-segregation policies are a violation of rights?
Racist practices are not the same thing as being a racist. You can hate black people and still treat them fairly. You can speak out about the things you dislike but still adhere to the laws surrounding them. Voicing an opinion is not grounds to shut down a business. And for good reason.
|
I lived in Boston for 5 years. There already are no Chick-Fil-A's in Boston.
|
On July 26 2012 13:48 Uncultured wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 13:46 Courthead wrote:On July 26 2012 13:44 Stratos_speAr wrote: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. Exactly. How can people justify their position that anti-gay marriage policies are just an "opinion" but pro-segregation policies are a violation of rights? Racist practices are not the same thing as being a racist. You can hate black people and still treat them fairly. You can speak out about the things you dislike but still adhere to the laws surrounding them. Voicing an opinion is not grounds to shut down a business. And for good reason.
Arbitrarily deciding that all laws should be adhered to is short-sighted. You forget that 99% of everything that's been accomplished in any Civil Rights Movement has been accomplished by breaking unjust laws.
|
No gutless half measures. Either its okay for people to act seriously on the convictions of their moral code, or it isn't. It's not enough to say I respect your right to act in accordance with faith provided it doesn't step on any toes or upset anybody. Either let them execrate homosexuals as they wish until it violates actual laws, or go the full step and execrate them for believing in fairies and unicorns: only tolerating moderate lukewarm religionists is hypocrisy. Fundies may be insane but at least they take it seriously, rather than at their convenience to pick and choose.
|
On July 26 2012 13:47 Courthead wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 13:45 BlackJack wrote:On July 26 2012 13:42 Courthead wrote:
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. I don't think you know what the word hypocrite means because those 2 concepts you listed are not contradictory at all... Of course they are. You cannot support one group for exercising its rights, but then denounce another party for exercising its rights. You either support rights or you don't.
It's not the Mayors right to ban companies to doesn't like. He has to use the law, and the system. IF he does it legitimately than it's fine. If he's underhanded it's not. That's where the line is drawn. Having an unpopular opinion is not grounds for getting a company shut down. However if the Mayor finds other methods to shut down the business that are legitimate then his reasons for finding them don't matter.
|
What I think is bigoted is not that the city of boston did this, its that the mayor did it to appease the growing statement of gay marriage is ok, and even though I agree that it should be legal, what he has done is not a social contract good its an absolutist kind of morality statement that I find quite bigoted. If people enjoy the food, I know I do, then thats that. Chik-fil-e is not their statements, they are represented by the food they put out to their customers. We have had supreme court cases about freedom of speech, and the only time speech may be declared un-free or a person may face criminal trial is when the speech presents no positive benefit to society in this case, the establishment does bring something obvious to society. This is completely illegal. If you do not like the statements made my the company, fine, don't eat there; however, banning them for having an opinion contrary to your own, even if you vehemently disagree is being just as bigoted as anyone of you say Chik-fil-e is.
|
On July 26 2012 13:50 Uncultured wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 13:47 Courthead wrote:On July 26 2012 13:45 BlackJack wrote:On July 26 2012 13:42 Courthead wrote:
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. I don't think you know what the word hypocrite means because those 2 concepts you listed are not contradictory at all... Of course they are. You cannot support one group for exercising its rights, but then denounce another party for exercising its rights. You either support rights or you don't. It's not the Mayors right to ban companies to doesn't like. He has to use the law, and the system. IF he does it legitimately than it's fine. If he's underhanded it's not. That's where the line is drawn. Having an unpopular opinion is not grounds for getting a company shut down. However if the Mayor finds other methods to shut down the business that are legitimate then his reasons for finding them don't matter.
I think the obvious assumption is that he's going to find a way to do it within the bounds of the law.
But even assuming he didn't, I would support him. The same way I hope everyone here would have supported MLK and his followers who consistently broke laws in order to achieve justice and equal rights for all. As St Augustin said and MLK quoted, "An unjust law is no law at all."
|
On July 26 2012 13:49 Courthead wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 13:48 Uncultured wrote:On July 26 2012 13:46 Courthead wrote:On July 26 2012 13:44 Stratos_speAr wrote: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. Exactly. How can people justify their position that anti-gay marriage policies are just an "opinion" but pro-segregation policies are a violation of rights? Racist practices are not the same thing as being a racist. You can hate black people and still treat them fairly. You can speak out about the things you dislike but still adhere to the laws surrounding them. Voicing an opinion is not grounds to shut down a business. And for good reason. Arbitrarily deciding that all laws should be adhered to is short-sighted. You forget that 99% of everything that's been accomplished in any Civil Rights Movement has been accomplished by breaking unjust laws.
Not breaking the laws. Changing them. Civil Rights has moved forward by changing the laws. If those laws were not changed nothing would have been done. You must address the issues at the source, not fly off the handle at completely legal practices.
And if you call the freedom to voice your own opinions as unjust... Then you're trekking into totalitarian lands my friend. We wouldn't have the Gay Movement at all if there were no way to voice that right.
|
This is such a hard topic to take a stance on. The mayor is abusing his power to fight a company that holds a different opinion than his. But I share the mayor's (and probably most of TL's) pro-gay marriage opinion, even though I feel that he should not be able to ban a company from an entire city just because of differing opinions. If it were the other way around, ie mayor banning a company for being pro-gay rights, then I can see problems arising out of that too. Nobody would be completely happy in either situation, so therefore I think the mayor shouldn't have made the ban.
|
On July 26 2012 13:52 Uncultured wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 13:49 Courthead wrote:On July 26 2012 13:48 Uncultured wrote:On July 26 2012 13:46 Courthead wrote:On July 26 2012 13:44 Stratos_speAr wrote: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. Exactly. How can people justify their position that anti-gay marriage policies are just an "opinion" but pro-segregation policies are a violation of rights? Racist practices are not the same thing as being a racist. You can hate black people and still treat them fairly. You can speak out about the things you dislike but still adhere to the laws surrounding them. Voicing an opinion is not grounds to shut down a business. And for good reason. Arbitrarily deciding that all laws should be adhered to is short-sighted. You forget that 99% of everything that's been accomplished in any Civil Rights Movement has been accomplished by breaking unjust laws. Not breaking the laws. Changing them. Civil Rights has moved forward by changing the laws. If those laws were not changed nothing would have been done. You must address the issues at the source, not fly off the handle at completely legal practices. And if you call the freedom to voice your own opinions as unjust... Then you're trekking into totalitarian lands my friend.
You don't really know what you're talking about. Go read MLK's letter from a Birmingham jail, or go read a history book, and then come back and tell me that the Civil Rights Movement wasn't about breaking laws. MLK wrote extensively about how it was necessary to break unjust laws in order to change them.
My favorite MLK quote: "We should never forget that everything Adolf Hitler did in Germany was 'legal'."
|
On July 26 2012 13:47 Courthead wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 13:45 BlackJack wrote:On July 26 2012 13:42 Courthead wrote:
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. I don't think you know what the word hypocrite means because those 2 concepts you listed are not contradictory at all... Of course they are. You cannot support one group for exercising its rights, but then denounce another party for exercising its rights. You either support rights or you don't.
That's probably the most ridiculous logic I have ever heard of. So obviously if I support free speech I can't also be pro gun control because if I am for one person's speech rights I HAVE to be for another person's gun rights? Unless I move to the UK where they don't have a right to bear arms, then I am magically not a hypocrite again, right?
|
On July 26 2012 13:52 Courthead wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 13:50 Uncultured wrote:On July 26 2012 13:47 Courthead wrote:On July 26 2012 13:45 BlackJack wrote:On July 26 2012 13:42 Courthead wrote:
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. I don't think you know what the word hypocrite means because those 2 concepts you listed are not contradictory at all... Of course they are. You cannot support one group for exercising its rights, but then denounce another party for exercising its rights. You either support rights or you don't. It's not the Mayors right to ban companies to doesn't like. He has to use the law, and the system. IF he does it legitimately than it's fine. If he's underhanded it's not. That's where the line is drawn. Having an unpopular opinion is not grounds for getting a company shut down. However if the Mayor finds other methods to shut down the business that are legitimate then his reasons for finding them don't matter. I think the obvious assumption is that he's going to find a way to do it within the bounds of the law. But even assuming he didn't, I would support him. The same way I hope everyone here would have supported MLK and his followers who consistently broke laws in order to achieve justice and equal rights for all. As St Augustin said and MLK quoted, "An unjust law is no law at all."
You can support someone you agree with all you like. But I'll not stop supporting the constitution ever. Good luck to the Mayor finding grounds to close the business down. It's not as easy as just squeezing the right people till they agree. It needs to be done in business court. Where the million dollar chic-fil-a lawyers are probably going to know a lot more than the local DA.
|
On July 26 2012 13:55 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 13:47 Courthead wrote:On July 26 2012 13:45 BlackJack wrote:On July 26 2012 13:42 Courthead wrote:
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. I don't think you know what the word hypocrite means because those 2 concepts you listed are not contradictory at all... Of course they are. You cannot support one group for exercising its rights, but then denounce another party for exercising its rights. You either support rights or you don't. That's probably the most ridiculous logic I have ever heard of. So obviously if I support free speech I can't also be pro gun control because if I am for one person's speech rights I HAVE to be for another person's gun rights? Unless I move to the UK where they don't have a right to bear arms, then I am magically not a hypocrite again, right?
You're a hypocrite if you say, "Chick-Fil-A's CEO has a right to free speech, so he should exercise it. But mayors shouldn't be able to exercise their rights as mayors."
What you should say is, "Even though the mayor has this right, I think the law should be changed so he doesn't."
|
On July 26 2012 13:51 docvoc wrote:What I think is bigoted is not that the city of boston did this, its that the mayor did it to appease the growing statement of gay marriage is ok, and even though I agree that it should be legal, what he has done is not a social contract good its an absolutist kind of morality statement that I find quite bigoted. If people enjoy the food, I know I do, then thats that. Chik-fil-e is not their statements, they are represented by the food they put out to their customers. We have had supreme court cases about freedom of speech, and the only time speech may be declared un-free or a person may face criminal trial is when the speech presents no positive benefit to society in this case, the establishment does bring something obvious to society. This is completely illegal. If you do not like the statements made my the company, fine, don't eat there; however, banning them for having an opinion contrary to your own, even if you vehemently disagree is being just as bigoted as anyone of you say Chik-fil-e is.
Why do you think the company only makes "statements"? They do a lot more pal.
|
I think there should be a ban on all companies that want to, or support, infringe on other people's rights.
If someone said, "You can't do business here because you believe in God," that's one thing... But this mayor is saying, "You can't do business here because you believe in a god that tells you to deny other people happiness."
One seems a little worse than the other, and I support the mayor's decision.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
