|
On July 26 2012 15:09 dvorakftw wrote:Show nested quote +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.
A building that isn't a Chick-fil-A would likely be another business that is equally profitable. Your point is moot. And what do liberals have anything to do with this?
|
On July 26 2012 15:05 Courthead wrote:
The government is not attempting to stop Chick-Fil-A from operating.
...
But... 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..."
This is what jackboot government-loving thugs actually believe.
User was warned for this post
|
On July 26 2012 15:13 dvorakftw wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 15:05 Courthead wrote:
The government is not attempting to stop Chick-Fil-A from operating.
...
But... 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..." This is what jackboot government-loving thugs actually believe.
Do you actually have any intellectual arguments? Or are you just going to sling ad-hominem attacks and pat yourself on the back?
I honestly hate when dumb people who don't understand logic come into a thread and start making it a liberal vs conservative thing instead of, you know, discussing the actual facts themselves.
|
On July 26 2012 15:11 Azzur wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 15:05 Courthead wrote:On July 26 2012 14:57 BlackJack wrote: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. 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.
I already gave you a reason why this has nothing to do with free speech. If you can't address my reason, then admit defeat. Or you can just continue to make your opinion irrelevant by beginning every sentence with, "Liberals blah blah blah."
|
On July 26 2012 15:09 dvorakftw wrote:Show nested quote +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.
That article said the city would lose money adding Wal-Mart there. I mean, it's been established that Wal-Mart forces out mom and pop stores. I thought conservatives love their small businesses.
On July 26 2012 15:11 Azzur wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 15:05 Courthead wrote:On July 26 2012 14:57 BlackJack wrote: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. 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
It's really unfortunate for you that it'll never happen. Times are a-changing bro, get with it.
|
On July 26 2012 15:19 TOloseGT wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 15:09 dvorakftw wrote: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. That article said the city would lose money adding Wal-Mart there. I mean, it's been established that Wal-Mart forces out mom and pop stores. I thought conservatives love their small businesses.
Old Conservatives did. Neo-Conservatives are all for corporations and corporate rights. It's actually kind of absurd that the most Liberal cities in America are the ones that have more local businesses. I honestly don't understand it.
On July 26 2012 15:19 TOloseGT wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 15:11 Azzur wrote:On July 26 2012 15:05 Courthead wrote:On July 26 2012 14:57 BlackJack wrote: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. 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 It's really unfortunate for you that it'll never happen. Times are a-changing bro, get with it.
Pretty much. There isn't a single major city in America or Europe or Canada that has a population that would be okay with a pro-gay restaurant being banned simply because they were pro-gay. In like, fifty years, the people who opposed gay marriage will be viewed the same way racists opposed interracial marriage.
|
What justification does the mayor actually, legally have to provide in order to ban a business from their city? Does the city council really have the power to stop a company operating there simply because they do not like the company?
Those are the root questions here. I'm unfamiliar with state law in the US, let alone Boston itself, so I can't say.
Free speech etc is only relevant if the mayor does not have that kind of power, and has to provide a legitimate reason. If he can simply ban whatever he likes, the question is moot.
|
On July 26 2012 15:19 Courthead wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 15:11 Azzur wrote:On July 26 2012 15:05 Courthead wrote:On July 26 2012 14:57 BlackJack wrote: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. 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. I already gave you a reason why this has nothing to do with free speech. If you can't address my reason, then admit defeat. Or you can just continue to make your opinion irrelevant by beginning every sentence with, "Liberals blah blah blah."
It's descrimination because you can't use political views as a justification for denying something. If a completely identical store were allowed (the only difference is that they are pro-gay) to operate then it's clear discrimination.
|
United States7483 Posts
On July 26 2012 15:11 Azzur wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 15:05 Courthead wrote:On July 26 2012 14:57 BlackJack wrote: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. 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.
No, to liberals it's like "stop being an oppressive asshole and attempting to deny people the rights they deserve, you horrible person." Why? Because people who oppose gay marriage without a non-religious, non-personal reason (good luck finding a reason that isn't one of those two things) are doing exactly that.
This isn't a debate between two reasonable positions that differ, this is one group trying to deny people freedoms and the other rightfully being upset about it.
Seriously, take any right you have that you feel is important to you, and imagine for a moment that there was an absurdly loud and powerful group of people who wanted to take that right away from you because of some trait you were born with. Don't you think you'd be royally pissed off about that? Wouldn't you want other people to be royally pissed off about that?
|
On July 26 2012 15:16 Courthead wrote:
Do you actually have any intellectual arguments? Or are you just going to sling ad-hominem attacks and pat yourself on the back?
I honestly hate when dumb people who don't understand logic come into a thread....
The time from you complaining about ad-hominem to attacking me with ad-hominems is 10 words. You are going to have to train much harder if you are going to go for the Gold!
edit to add: Funny how all the talk about bigotry and Southern hicks and haters and gay bashing is so very, very common but wow they certainly can't take a fraction of what they love to dish out.
|
On July 26 2012 15:24 Belisarius wrote:
What justification does the mayor actually, legally have to provide in order to ban a business from their city? Does the city council really have the power to stop a company operating there simply because they do not like the company?
Those are the root questions here. I'm unfamiliar with state law in the US, let alone Boston itself, so I can't say.
Free speech etc is only relevant if the mayor does not have that kind of power, and has to provide a legitimate reason. If he can simply ban whatever he likes, the question is moot.
The city has a lot of latitude when it comes to approving or disapproving of construction projects and zoning regulations. Citizens hold them responsible for building and maintaining they kind of city they want. Consequently, cities typically reflect the demeanor of their citizens. That's why cities like SF, for example, have a lot more parks than they have fast food restaurants.
That said, I doubt the mayor could get away with blocking a new Chick-Fil-A restaurant by saying, "They're bigots." But it would be trivial for him to come up with another reason.
|
On July 26 2012 15:28 dvorakftw wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 15:16 Courthead wrote:
Do you actually have any intellectual arguments? Or are you just going to sling ad-hominem attacks and pat yourself on the back?
I honestly hate when dumb people who don't understand logic come into a thread.... The time from you complaining about ad-hominem to attacking me with ad-hominems is 10 words. You are going to have to train much harder if you are going to go for the Gold!
The difference between me and you is that I provide actual arguments and facts. Whereas 100% of your posts are ad hominems. And I'm going to stop responding to you until you prove you're smart enough to actually come up with some arguments.
|
|
|
On July 26 2012 15:25 Whitewing wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 15:11 Azzur wrote:On July 26 2012 15:05 Courthead wrote:On July 26 2012 14:57 BlackJack wrote: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. 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. No, to liberals it's like "stop being an oppressive asshole and attempting to deny people the rights they deserve, you horrible person." Why? Because people who oppose gay marriage without a non-religious, non-personal reason (good luck finding a reason that isn't one of those two things) are doing exactly that. This isn't a debate between two reasonable positions that differ, this is one group trying to deny people freedoms and the other rightfully being upset about it. Seriously, take any right you have that you feel is important to you, and imagine for a moment that there was an absurdly loud and powerful group of people who wanted to take that right away from you because of some trait you were born with. Don't you think you'd be royally pissed off about that? Wouldn't you want other people to be royally pissed off about that?
It's not a reasonable debate because neither side is willing to position it that way. Actual votes have shown that some states are for and some are against and as long as this is true, there is no unilateral stance in the federal government on one side or the other. Therefore, there should be no interference or censorship on businesses within the legal realm. Just because you personally feel passionate about an issue does not make it lawful or just.
|
On July 26 2012 15:29 Courthead wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 15:28 dvorakftw wrote:On July 26 2012 15:16 Courthead wrote:
Do you actually have any intellectual arguments? Or are you just going to sling ad-hominem attacks and pat yourself on the back?
I honestly hate when dumb people who don't understand logic come into a thread.... The time from you complaining about ad-hominem to attacking me with ad-hominems is 10 words. You are going to have to train much harder if you are going to go for the Gold! The difference between me and you is that I provide actual arguments and facts. Whereas 100% of your posts are ad hominems. And I'm going to stop responding to you until you prove you're smart enough to actually come up with some arguments.
No, you state your opinion as fact that government can do anything it wants that you agree with already and it's all good.
You are wrong about that and you are wrong about me.
I do confess to really not taking the pro-"government can demand business owners share their every belief and that's a great thing" side seriously at all because you all are just being silly.
Here ya go: http://www.volokh.com/2012/07/25/no-building-permits-for-opponent-of-same-sex-marriage/
Of course you won't believe him either since y'all got your minds made up already but look at them facts. So sweet and ad-hominem free!
|
On July 26 2012 15:25 Whitewing wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 15:11 Azzur wrote:On July 26 2012 15:05 Courthead wrote:On July 26 2012 14:57 BlackJack wrote: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. 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. No, to liberals it's like "stop being an oppressive asshole and attempting to deny people the rights they deserve, you horrible person." Why? Because people who oppose gay marriage without a non-religious, non-personal reason (good luck finding a reason that isn't one of those two things) are doing exactly that. This isn't a debate between two reasonable positions that differ, this is one group trying to deny people freedoms and the other rightfully being upset about it. Seriously, take any right you have that you feel is important to you, and imagine for a moment that there was an absurdly loud and powerful group of people who wanted to take that right away from you because of some trait you were born with. Don't you think you'd be royally pissed off about that? Wouldn't you want other people to be royally pissed off about that?
Last time I checked:
- I'm free to hold any poticial viewpoint I want.
- I'm free to support any organisation I want and to do donate to any cause I want
- I'm free to compaign to the politicians to advance any cause I want.
- The only thing I'm not free to is to cause harm to others.
Last time I checked about discrimination:
- I'm not allowed to use any "non-relevant" factors (e.g. race, religion, political viewpoints, etc) as a basis for any judgements I made.
- I wonder on what basis is the mayor basing his decision on???
If you're a citizen of Boston and you don't like this:
- Don't eat in the restaurant.
- Campaign to let others know what Chick-Fil-A stands for.
- But what's not acceptable is for the government to make this decision.
|
On July 26 2012 15:19 TOloseGT wrote:
That article said the city would lose money adding Wal-Mart there. I mean, it's been established that Wal-Mart forces out mom and pop stores. I thought conservatives love their small businesses.
First, the article quotes a union-leader or some pro-union group study claiming it will cause a lose of money. Saying things don't make them true. I mean you can find plenty of examples of politicians for example saying raising taxes on the rich will bring in billions more and then they do it and they actually collect less money than they did before they raised the rate.
Second, conservatives love the free market and efficiency. Supporting small business and small business only for the sake of populism is a liberal tactic. Go read up on creative destruction. It's not fun and boom-bust cycles are unfortunate but the alternatives turn out to be worse.
|
On July 26 2012 15:12 Ryhzuo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 15:09 dvorakftw wrote: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. A building that isn't a Chick-fil-A would likely be another business that is equally profitable. Your point is moot. And what do liberals have anything to do with this?
For the Wal-Mart example I dont think liberal/conservative is the divide but it is for this (and hence the controversy) for one reason. Conservatives view being anti-gay as equal to any other opinion (cheese is delicious=God is real=gays are evil). For liberals, lobbying against gays is the same as trying to take the vote from women or making African Americans 3/5 of a person (clearly wrong by any reasonable standard).
These two ideas can not be reconciled and so the sides will never agree.
|
And, as has been pointed out 29348273 times, the mayor can easily and legally give some other reason when he blocks Chick-Fil-A's permit.
|
On July 26 2012 15:41 dvorakftw wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 15:19 TOloseGT wrote:
That article said the city would lose money adding Wal-Mart there. I mean, it's been established that Wal-Mart forces out mom and pop stores. I thought conservatives love their small businesses. First, the article quotes a union-leader or some pro-union group study claiming it will cause a lose of money. Saying things don't make them true. I mean you can find plenty of examples of politicians for example saying raising taxes on the rich will bring in billions more and then they do it and they actually collect less money than they did before they raised the rate. Second, conservatives love the free market and efficiency. Supporting small business and small business only for the sake of populism is a liberal tactic. Go read up on creative destruction. It's not fun and boom-bust cycles are unfortunate but the alternatives turn out to be worse.
There have been plenty of studies and cases where the entrance Walmart is followed by economic downturn in a city. Look it up.
Conservatives have historically always made "small businesses" a cornerstone of their political campaigning. Granted, it's basically lip service whenever they say that, their message has changed in recent years, and the right wing have never really done much in support for small businesses. Look up any of the pre-Romney campaigns by Republicans. They always pay lip service to "helping small business."
On July 26 2012 15:35 Azzur wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 15:25 Whitewing wrote:On July 26 2012 15:11 Azzur wrote:On July 26 2012 15:05 Courthead wrote:On July 26 2012 14:57 BlackJack wrote: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. 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. No, to liberals it's like "stop being an oppressive asshole and attempting to deny people the rights they deserve, you horrible person." Why? Because people who oppose gay marriage without a non-religious, non-personal reason (good luck finding a reason that isn't one of those two things) are doing exactly that. This isn't a debate between two reasonable positions that differ, this is one group trying to deny people freedoms and the other rightfully being upset about it. Seriously, take any right you have that you feel is important to you, and imagine for a moment that there was an absurdly loud and powerful group of people who wanted to take that right away from you because of some trait you were born with. Don't you think you'd be royally pissed off about that? Wouldn't you want other people to be royally pissed off about that? Last time I checked: - I'm free to hold any poticial viewpoint I want. - I'm free to support any organisation I want and to do donate to any cause I want - I'm free to compaign to the politicians to advance any cause I want. - The only thing I'm not free to is to cause harm to others. Last time I checked about discrimination: - I'm not allowed to use any "non-relevant" factors (e.g. race, religion, political viewpoints, etc) as a basis for any judgements I made. - I wonder on what basis is the mayor basing his decision on??? If you're a citizen of Boston and you don't like this: - Don't eat in the restaurant. - Campaign to let others know what Chick-Fil-A stands for. - But what's not acceptable is for the government to make this decision.
Historical and judicial precedent actually, absolutely prevents the Mayor of both Chicago and Boston from banning Chick fil-A on the grounds of their discriminatory opinions AS LONG AS Chick fil-A doesn't have discriminatory practices, which, to the best of my knowledge, they don't.
However, if the mayor of either city can find any other, non-speech related reason for prohibiting Chick fil-A from obtaining a permit, they are free to do so and Chick fil-A's free speech is not infringed. Just because dislike of Chick fil-A's message is one motivator to preventing Chick fil-A from obtaining a permit does not mean it's the only possible justification. If the mayor can find a legal justification, then it's completely within his grounds to do so.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
