EPTI don't know how this turned into a free speech issue. No one's freedom of speech has been infringed here.
Boston Mayor vows to ban Chick-Fil-A from his city - Page 25
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
overt
United States9006 Posts
I don't know how this turned into a free speech issue. No one's freedom of speech has been infringed here. | ||
|
Cubu
1171 Posts
On July 26 2012 06:11 meadbert wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigotry bigot: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices Banning a company from your city because you disagree with it is bigotry. | ||
Whitewing
United States7483 Posts
On July 26 2012 13:45 Uncultured wrote: 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. Constitutionally you are allowed to believe whatever you want without facing LEGAL repercussions. You still have to deal with all of the other consequences, like being called a bigoted asshole and having your business blacklisted. | ||
|
coverpunch
United States2093 Posts
| ||
|
dvorakftw
681 Posts
| ||
|
cHaNg-sTa
United States1058 Posts
| ||
|
dvorakftw
681 Posts
On July 26 2012 14:45 coverpunch wrote: Whatever happened to “I do not agree with what you have to say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it.” It's just another one of those things liberals say that they never mean, like judging people by the content of their character instead of the color of their skin. | ||
|
Whitewing
United States7483 Posts
On July 26 2012 14:45 coverpunch wrote: Whatever happened to “I do not agree with what you have to say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it.” See, they have the right to say whatever they like, nobody is telling them to shut the hell up. On the other hand, people need to stop taking the stance that this is just a differing opinion. It isn't. This is hateful bigotry that should not be respected as an opinion on an equal playing field. Not all opinions are equal, and when you can actually have good arguments for one and can't for the other, I'm sorry to say but that other opinion doesn't have to be respected. | ||
|
SoLaR[i.C]
United States2969 Posts
Boston mayor needs to worry about taking care of the hundreds of issues facing his city. Chick-Fil-A needs to focus on continuing to make the best chicken strips and to stop going out of their way to comment on issues that have no bearing on their products. | ||
|
Courthead
United States246 Posts
On July 26 2012 14:47 dvorakftw wrote: Denying business permits to people just because you don't like them or their opinions is anti-American and unconstitutional. You can protest it and boycott it but people in this thread applauding government officials making such decisions really need to think about how good an idea it is to have business owners dependent on the favor of mayors and local boards and such. Denying rights to gay people just because your religion doesn't support homosexuality is anti-American and unconstitutional. However, standing up against injustice, even if that means starting a revolution or breaking the law, is about as American as it gets. You need to buy a history book. On July 26 2012 14:50 SoLaR[i.C] wrote: I just want both to do their damn jobs and stop this inane shit-flinging contest. Boston mayor needs to worry about taking care of the hundreds of issues facing his city. Chick-Fil-A needs to focus on continuing to make the best chicken strips and to stop going out of their way to comment on issues that have no bearing on their products. The main problem with Chik-Fil-A is not their comments. It's the fact that they donate money to anti-gay organizations that lobby against gay rights. Therefore, buy shopping there, you're indirectly supporting their stance. If the people of Boston are pro-gay marriage, they have every right to elect a mayor and a city council who will block anti-gay marriage organizations from taking up some of the very limited space in the city. | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10574 Posts
On July 26 2012 14:45 Whitewing wrote: Constitutionally you are allowed to believe whatever you want without facing LEGAL repercussions. You still have to deal with all of the other consequences, like being called a bigoted asshole and having your business blacklisted. When people are the ones dealing the consequences for your unfavorable speech that's called them also expressing their right to free speech. When it's the government doling out the consequences that's called tyranny. | ||
|
Courthead
United States246 Posts
On July 26 2012 14:51 BlackJack wrote: When people are the ones dealing the consequences for your unfavorable speech that's called them also expressing their right to free speech. When it's the government doling out the consequences that's called tyranny. The government is elected by the people to do the bidding of the people. And the people of Boston don't like anti-gay bigots. Similarly, I doubt the people who Boston would like some skinhead pro-Nazi group opening a restaurant where there could instead be a park. Or a statue. Or a different restaurant. | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10574 Posts
On July 26 2012 14:39 overt wrote: I was more or less hoping this thread would be more about the discussion of corporations using money to support political stances and whether or not mayors/city councils should have this kind of power. I don't know how this turned into a free speech issue. No one's freedom of speech has been infringed here. I think it's fascinating that so many are saying that a government choosing to punish/intimidate a company for its speech/actions is not an infringement of free speech. | ||
|
GertHeart
United States631 Posts
| ||
|
Courthead
United States246 Posts
On July 26 2012 14:57 BlackJack wrote: I think it's fascinating that so many are saying that a government choosing to punish/intimidate a company for its speech/actions is not an infringement of free speech. You've ignored the 283942 arguments people have given you. The government is not attempting to stop Chick-Fil-A from operating. It is not attempting to stop them from speaking. It's not even attempting to stop them from donating money from to bigoted causes. It's simply refusing to support them in their endeavors. There are no Chick-Fil-A's in Boston. There never have been. I agree that it would be totally illegal + wrong to shut them down if they already existed. But they don't exist in Boston. And if they want to exist there, they have to ask the city for permission. And it is totally within the city's right to say, "No. We care about our image a lot, and we don't want you here." | ||
|
overt
United States9006 Posts
On July 26 2012 14:57 BlackJack wrote: I think it's fascinating that so many are saying that a government choosing to punish/intimidate a company for its speech/actions is not an infringement of free speech. But Chick-Fil-A hasn't had their freedom of speech infringed upon. The people of Boston's elected representative doesn't want a company that funds hate groups operating in his city. Neither does the mayor of Chicago. If the people of those cities disagree they will vote them out of office. That's how free speech works. That's how democracy works. Let's say that Burger King was funding money to the Ku Klux Klan. A city has the right to say that they don't want Burger King operating in their city. That's not an infringement of free speech. That's a city saying they do not want to do business with that company. The constitution protects your rights to say whatever you want. It doesn't require you to do business with anyone. And that's what this is about. Whether or not the city of Boston or Chicago should do buisness with an openly anti-gay company. They don't want to do business with them. That's all. If Chick-Fil-A doesn't like it they can take it to court but they most definitely won't because they'll definitely lose. | ||
|
Lumi
United States1616 Posts
So what if we didn't play right by your skewed sense of wanting to afford people their own freedom to deny other peoples freedom. As a species, we've made a ton of crucial progress by doing exactly that. I'm hopeful that a lot of the people trying to come at it from that angle would know better than to voice such styles of thought in the real life presence of homosexuals. You'd probably know better. I hope! | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10574 Posts
On July 26 2012 15:05 Courthead wrote: You've ignored the 283942 arguments people have given you. The government is not attempting to stop Chick-Fil-A from operating. It is not attempting to stop them from speaking. It's not even attempting to stop them from donating money from to bigoted causes. It's simply refusing to support them in their endeavors. There are no Chick-Fil-A's in Boston. There never have been. I agree that it would be totally illegal + wrong to shut them down if they already existed. But they don't exist in Boston. And if they want to exist there, they have to ask the city for permission. And it is totally within the city's right to say, "No. We care about our image a lot, and we don't want you here." They're not trying to stop them from operating but they may refuse them a permit to operate? | ||
|
dvorakftw
681 Posts
On July 26 2012 15:01 GertHeart wrote: Also for those who don't remember Wal-Mart is banned from Seattle city limits. Hence why you won't find one within it's city limits. There doesn't seem ot be one but it doesn't sound like it's because of a ban: http://www.realchangenews.org/index.php/site/archives/6544/ Good ol' liberals. So smart about economics they prefer an empty building to a profitable store offering lots of stuff for low prices. | ||
Azzur
Australia6267 Posts
On July 26 2012 15:05 Courthead wrote: You've ignored the 283942 arguments people have given you. The government is not attempting to stop Chick-Fil-A from operating. It is not attempting to stop them from speaking. It's not even attempting to stop them from donating money from to bigoted causes. It's simply refusing to support them in their endeavors. There are no Chick-Fil-A's in Boston. There never have been. I agree that it would be totally illegal + wrong to shut them down if they already existed. But they don't exist in Boston. And if they want to exist there, they have to ask the city for permission. And it is totally within the city's right to say, "No. We care about our image a lot, and we don't want you here." To the liberals it's like this - "I'll defend the right for free speech, until it disagress with my opinion". If the roles were reversed and the city banned a pro-gay restaurant, I bet TL (and the liberals) is going to be up in arms about it. If you want to apply liberal principles, then the restaurant should be evaluated only on "restaurant criteria" (e.g. type of food, etc). If another restaurant (e.g. KFC) were allowed to operate where Chick-Fil-A were not, then it's clear discrimination since Chick-Fil-A was excluded solely for their political views. But of course, to the liberals, discrimination doesn't apply for anti-gay companies. | ||
| ||
