|
On July 26 2012 13:56 Uncultured wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 13:52 Courthead wrote: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.
Wrong. Chick-Fil-A's attorneys have absolutely no power over zoning laws, especially not in a city as big and crowded as Boston. And it would take an act of God for them to be able to successfully prove their case in court that what the mayor is doing is unconstitutional. Mayors have quite a lot of power as elected officials. They can do things as arbitrary as require that all restaurants cut down on saturated fat, for example, and get away with it. Mayor Bloomberg in NYC is famous for his proposed rule that nobody serve soft drinks over a certain size.
|
On July 26 2012 13:54 Courthead wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 13:52 Uncultured wrote: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'."
Speaking an opinion is not the same as being discriminatory. Freedom of Speech is not a law that needs to be changed to further the agenda you're pushing. It's the only dog you've got in the fight. If you can't even speak your own opinions what in the world would allow anyone else to come up and change unjust laws? The fact that you're trying to argue that speaking an opinion is unjust and should be changed is incredibly ironic, giving you want to be progressive and move forward ethically.
|
On July 26 2012 14:02 Uncultured wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 13:54 Courthead wrote:On July 26 2012 13:52 Uncultured wrote: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'." Speaking an opinion is not the same as being discriminatory. Freedom of Speech is not a law that needs to be changed to further the agenda you're pushing. It's the only dog you've got in the fight. If you can't even speak your own opinions what in the world would allow anyone else to come up and change unjust laws? The fact that you're trying to argue that speaking an opinion is unjust and should be changed is incredibly ironic, giving you want to be progressive and move forward ethically.
I never said that speaking an opinion is unjust. I'm not even criticizing Chick-Fil-A, even though they're doing a whole lot more than speaking opinions (they're donating revenue to anti-gay rights groups and lobbyists).
All I'm saying is that the mayor has every right to try and ban them from his city. Even if he was breaking the law (which he isn't), we should encourage people to follow MLK's example and do every non-violent thing they can in order to ensure that all Americans have equal rights. An unjust law is no law at all.
|
On July 26 2012 14:00 Courthead wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 13:56 Uncultured wrote:On July 26 2012 13:52 Courthead wrote: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. Wrong. Chick-Fil-A's attorneys have absolutely no power over zoning laws, especially not in a city as big and crowded as Boston. And it would take an act of God for them to be able to successfully prove their case in court that what the mayor is doing is unconstitutional. Mayors have quite a lot of power as elected officials. They can do things as arbitrary as require that all restaurants cut down on saturated fat, for example, and get away with it. Mayor Bloomberg in NYC is famous for his proposed rule that nobody serve soft drinks over a certain size.
You're naming situations that can easily be addressed as health issues. You tell me the zoning law that says you can be closed down for voicing an opinion and i'll concede to the point that this can be done legally for simply that reason. I doubt it is possible though. The mayor has to find something else wrong with the company to close them down. Something other than voicing an opinion. IF he does, good for him. But being able to go to a judge and say "I just don't like their beliefs they should be shut down" should never work in court.
|
On July 26 2012 13:57 Courthead wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 13:55 BlackJack 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. 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."
There's still nothing hypocritical at all about that. You can't just cover everything with an umbrella of "rights" (which are pretty arbitrary themselves) and call anyone a hypocrite unless they support every right and every law that currently exists. It's just illogical.
Chick-Fil-A has a right to free speech, so they should not have to fear the local government punishing them for their opinion.
You're the hypocrite if you think Chick-Fil-A should have free speech and the local government should also be able to punish them for their opinions.
|
On July 26 2012 14:08 BlackJack wrote:
You're the hypocrite if you think Chick-Fil-A should have free speech and the local government should also be able to punish them for their opinions.
Exactly this. There's no way you can justify stifling someones opinion while trying to advocate for equal rights for everyone without being contradictory.
|
You guys don't understand the difference between local governments and the federal governments.
Cities and states can do almost anything. That includes doing everything in their power in order to ban certain businesses from operating there. Whether it's Wal-Mart, because they don't like big chains, or Chick-Fil-A, because they don't like supporting bigotry. Then they can just say they're doing for some other reason, and get away with it easily. It happens all the time. It's even easier and less controversial than gerrymandering districts in order to ensure that your party stays in power, which happens all the time.
Sorry but you guys just don't understand law.
|
People need to stop saying this is an attack on Freedom of Speech. It clearly isn't. If the chic-fil-a CEO's freedom of speech were impeded, he would have been silenced for voicing his opinion. He wasn't. He was fully within his rights to spout whatever bigoted shit he fancied.
All that's going on here is the mayor deciding that it would be unjust to allow a business which donates large portions of its profits to organizations which are against the freedoms of a subset of the population, freedoms this man has already fought to uphold, to do business in his city.
|
On July 26 2012 08:57 holy_war wrote:
I could care less about their politcal/social stance but gimee my waffle fries and Honey Butter Chicken Biscuits and I'm happy.
I was reading a lot of this thread.. This guy sums up my thoughts! :D
|
|
|
On July 26 2012 14:12 Courthead wrote:
You guys don't understand the difference between local governments and the federal governments.
Cities and states can do almost anything for almost any reason. That includes doing everything in their power in order to ban certain businesses from operating there. Whether it's Wal-Mart, because they don't like big chains, or Chick-Fil-A, because they don't like supporting bigotry.
Sorry but you guys just don't understand law.
You're responding to a moral argument with a legal argument?
|
On July 26 2012 14:12 Courthead wrote:
You guys don't understand the difference between local governments and the federal governments.
Cities and states can do almost anything for almost any reason. That includes doing everything in their power in order to ban certain businesses from operating there. Whether it's Wal-Mart, because they don't like big chains, or Chick-Fil-A, because they don't like supporting bigotry.
Sorry but you guys just don't understand law.
... So you've changed your argument from a "human rights" topic to a "well it's okay to discriminate because state law says so"
I guess so man. Laws are always right, regardless of if the break the constitution. State law totally always trumps Federal law, they can do whatever they want as unjustly as they like... Yes, you clearly know more about the laws... lol.
|
On July 26 2012 14:18 EGLzGaMeR wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 08:57 holy_war wrote:
I could care less about their politcal/social stance but gimee my waffle fries and Honey Butter Chicken Biscuits and I'm happy. I was reading a lot of this thread.. This guy sums up my thoughts! :D
That's kind of like when German citizens didn't care that minorities were being killed, enslaved, and deported, so long as kept their own personal security.
It's obviously not as bad, but the point is the same. Silence is consent.
|
On July 26 2012 14:12 Courthead wrote:
You guys don't understand the difference between local governments and the federal governments.
Cities and states can do almost anything for almost any reason. That includes doing everything in their power in order to ban certain businesses from operating there. Whether it's Wal-Mart, because they don't like big chains, or Chick-Fil-A, because they don't like supporting bigotry.
Sorry but you guys just don't understand law.
I'm no lawyer but I am positive that a City cannot ban a company from its limits without a legitimate reason. A Political stance is nothing more than 1st amendment right. They are not denying gays entry to the business; they are merely speaking on an issue. I always laugh how the leftest try to silence anyone who disagrees with them yet say they are the party of open minds.
|
On July 26 2012 14:19 Uncultured wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 14:12 Courthead wrote:
You guys don't understand the difference between local governments and the federal governments.
Cities and states can do almost anything for almost any reason. That includes doing everything in their power in order to ban certain businesses from operating there. Whether it's Wal-Mart, because they don't like big chains, or Chick-Fil-A, because they don't like supporting bigotry.
Sorry but you guys just don't understand law. ... So you've changed your argument from a "human rights" topic to a "well it's okay to discriminate because state law says so" I guess so man. Laws are always right, regardless of if the break the constitution. State law totally always trumps Federal law, they can do whatever they want as unjustly as they like... Yes, you clearly know more about the laws... lol.
You haven't provided a single argument why it's unjust. All you've said is that they shouldn't be able to do it.
And it's really funny. Here we are talking about a bigoted company that donates money to funds designed to keep bigotry legal. And you don't give a shit about that. But then a mayor uses legal means to hinder this company, and now you suddenly care about what's "just." LOL.
|
On July 26 2012 14:10 Uncultured wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 14:08 BlackJack wrote:
You're the hypocrite if you think Chick-Fil-A should have free speech and the local government should also be able to punish them for their opinions.
Exactly this. There's no way you can justify stifling someones opinion while trying to advocate for equal rights for everyone without being contradictory.
Except no one's opinion is being stifled. They can say anything they want to. However when one side is not actually campaigning for equal rights, but to take away the rights of others which in no way affect them, then there is absolutely no contradiction in taking a stand against their agenda while supporting equality. It is in fact precisely the opposite.
|
On July 26 2012 14:21 logikly wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 14:12 Courthead wrote:
You guys don't understand the difference between local governments and the federal governments.
Cities and states can do almost anything for almost any reason. That includes doing everything in their power in order to ban certain businesses from operating there. Whether it's Wal-Mart, because they don't like big chains, or Chick-Fil-A, because they don't like supporting bigotry.
Sorry but you guys just don't understand law. I'm no lawyer but I am positive that a City cannot ban a company from its limits without a legitimate reason. A Political stance is nothing more than 1st amendment right. They are not denying gays entry to the business; they are merely speaking on an issue. I always laugh how the leftest try to silence anyone who disagrees with them yet say they are the party of open minds.
You're right, but they can easily make up a reason.
"Chick-Fil-A application for a permit to build a store on 15th street is denied because we're going to use that space for a public park, which we think our citizens will enjoy more." Case closed.
|
On July 26 2012 14:21 logikly wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 14:12 Courthead wrote:
You guys don't understand the difference between local governments and the federal governments.
Cities and states can do almost anything for almost any reason. That includes doing everything in their power in order to ban certain businesses from operating there. Whether it's Wal-Mart, because they don't like big chains, or Chick-Fil-A, because they don't like supporting bigotry.
Sorry but you guys just don't understand law. I'm no lawyer but I am positive that a City cannot ban a company from its limits without a legitimate reason. A Political stance is nothing more than 1st amendment right. They are not denying gays entry to the business; they are merely speaking on an issue. I always laugh how the leftest try to silence anyone who disagrees with them yet say they are the party of open minds.
Yea, but the right disenfranchising whole voter blocks is not silencing one bit. Come on you partisan hack, do better next time.
|
On July 26 2012 14:10 Uncultured wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 14:08 BlackJack wrote:
You're the hypocrite if you think Chick-Fil-A should have free speech and the local government should also be able to punish them for their opinions.
Exactly this. There's no way you can justify stifling someones opinion while trying to advocate for equal rights for everyone without being contradictory.
Chick-Fil-A can take a stand against gay marriage and I can find that appalling. But they can't take a stand, donate money to stopping gay marriage, and then expect cities and towns to want their business operating in the place they live.
If the people of Boston don't want Chick-Fil-A in their city that's their right as Americans. If the people of Boston do want Chick-Fil-A in their city I'm pretty confident that you'll see the mayor and the city council voted out of office next election.
It's exactly the same as cities that don't want abortion clinics in their city or Republicans cutting funding to Planned Parenthood. If you don't like this decision then make it known. If you live in Boston than vote out your mayor and city councilmen. This is how democracy works in America.
And of course cities can ban businesses from operating in their city lol. It happens to Wal-Mart all the time. It happens to Starbucks too. And countless other businesses.
Equal rights doesn't mean you have to do business with a homophobe or a racist. The mayor of Boston isn't saying Chick-Fil-A should be shut down, he's saying he doesn't want it in his city.
|
On July 26 2012 14:28 overt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 14:10 Uncultured wrote:On July 26 2012 14:08 BlackJack wrote:
You're the hypocrite if you think Chick-Fil-A should have free speech and the local government should also be able to punish them for their opinions.
Exactly this. There's no way you can justify stifling someones opinion while trying to advocate for equal rights for everyone without being contradictory. Chick-Fil-A can take a stand against gay marriage and I can find that appalling. But they can't take a stand, donate money to stopping gay marriage, and then expect cities and towns to want their business operating in the place they live. If the people of Boston don't want Chick-Fil-A in their city that's their right as Americans. If the people of Boston do want Chick-Fil-A in their city I'm pretty confident that you'll see the mayor and the city council voted out of office next election. It's exactly the same as cities that don't want abortion clinics in their city or Republicans cutting funding to Planned Parenthood. If you don't like this decision then make it known. If you live in Boston than vote out your mayor and city councilmen. This is how democracy works in America. And of course cities can ban businesses from operating in their city lol. It happens to Wal-Mart all the time. It happens to Starbucks too. And countless other businesses. Equal rights doesn't mean you have to do business with a homophobe or a racist. The mayor of Boston isn't saying Chick-Fil-A should be shut down, he's saying he doesn't want it in his city.
Thank you, Mr. Voice of Reason.
Mayors and city councils have lots of power. That includes the power to help shape what kinds of businesses operate in their cities, how many parks their cities have, new construction projects, etc. If the people don't like their decisions, they can vote them out next time.
This issue has nothing to do with freedom of speech. People saying that are just spewing bullshit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
