| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Azzur
Australia6260 Posts
On July 26 2012 15:44 Courthead wrote: 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. So, if the converse happens and another mayor easily and legally gives some other reason to block a pro-gay company that will be all well-and-good for you? | ||
|
TOloseGT
United States1145 Posts
On July 26 2012 15:41 dvorakftw wrote: 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. First, you're using the same ad-hominem bullshit. I'm not gonna argue with you until you lose your political rhetoric and get back down to brass facts here. You pulled the article yourself, the numbers were in there, now you're retracting it? Get some numbers then talk. Second, who the fuck kind of conservatives have you talked to, and please show them to me. Every conservative that makes the news does not love the free market and hates efficiency. If there are so many market loving conservatives out there, why aren't they being put into office? In the 2010 election, they were given seats on a platter and they gave us people like Bachmann. | ||
|
Courthead
United States246 Posts
On July 26 2012 15:46 Azzur wrote: So, if the converse happens and another mayor easily and legally gives some other reason to block a pro-gay company that will be all well-and-good for you? Obviously not. Nobody is defending the mayor's choice because they think all mayor's should block everything they disagree with. We're defending the mayor's choice because we think bigotry is an abomination that should be stamped out wherever possible. I don't know why this is so hard for people to understand. It's like people never heard of the Civil Rights Movement. You're basically saying that if I supported Rosa Parks for not giving up her seat, then I have to support skinheads for being racist. Bullshit. I support justice, and I abhor injustice. Period. | ||
|
dvorakftw
681 Posts
On July 26 2012 15:46 Ryuu314 wrote: 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. Also, when business owners doesn't want to hire or promote someone because of their skin color or sexual preference, they can easily find any other, non skin color or sexual preference related reason and they are free to do so. Wait, what? | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10574 Posts
On July 26 2012 15:06 overt wrote: 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. Do you have anything I can look at to back this up, e.g. some SCOTUS decisions or something. I've read articles saying that Chick-fil-A would win in court. Of course we are also entitled to hold opinions other than the ones that SCOTUS dictates to us. For example, there are a lot of people that believe unlimited campaign contributions does not constitute free speech even though they would be wrong according to SCOTUS. | ||
|
Ryuu314
United States12679 Posts
On July 26 2012 15:46 Azzur wrote: So, if the converse happens and another mayor easily and legally gives some other reason to block a pro-gay company that will be all well-and-good for you? I can't speak for Courthead, but personally, if that happened. If another mayor legally finds a reason to block a pro-gay company, then it's completely within his right to do so. He will, of course, have to face the political backlash of his actions as well as potential legal action. But, if his reasons are legitimate, then I see no reason why he can't. People are acting like this is the first time a city's banned a company for whatever reason. It's not. Cities have banned companies from entering their cities before for political reasons. Biggest example I can think of off the top of my head would be Walmart. Cities don't like Walmart's practices and philosophy, especially because there have been numerous cases where the entrance of Walmart caused small businesses to go out of business. You can, and Walmart has, argued that their business practices and philosophies are completely legal, "free enterprise," and protected. What's the difference? | ||
|
Courthead
United States246 Posts
On July 26 2012 15:57 BlackJack wrote: Do you have anything I can look at to back this up, e.g. some SCOTUS decisions or something. I've read articles saying that Chick-fil-A would win in court. Of course we are also entitled to hold opinions other than the ones that SCOTUS dictates to us. For example, there are a lot of people that believe unlimited campaign contributions does not constitute free speech even though they would be wrong according to SCOTUS. If it went to court, the city most definitely wouldn't cite, "We did it because they're anti-gay," as the primary reason. Chicago, for example, has already been blocking the proposed Chick-Fil-A for almost a year due to traffic congestion. | ||
|
Diglett
600 Posts
it's surprising how so many ppl support discrimination. discrimination against a group that themselves discriminates is still discrimination...don't be a bigot the issue should solve itself without the government. if enough ppl hate chickfila then they won't eat there and they will actively campaign against them. we've already seen good things happen like ppl pulling funding from chickfila. if not enough ppl hate chickfila enough then cool, they have succeeded as a business and i congratulate them for succeeding even while holding such controversial views. about the role of the mayor...if his role is to represent the city and public opinion, then he shouldn't do anything. see above. im pretty sure the mayor can't take any legal action to do this without risking lawsuits. but im fine with him publicly saying chickfila are dicks and bigots and IF i had the power i would block them. im not fine with him blocking them. im pretty sure that's illegal. btw, not liking the mayor's statements and supporting chickfila's right to start businesses anywhere DOES NOT mean you hate all gays and want to kill them. geez | ||
|
Ryuu314
United States12679 Posts
On July 26 2012 15:54 dvorakftw wrote: Also, when business owners doesn't want to hire or promote someone because of their skin color or sexual preference, they can easily find any other, non skin color or sexual preference related reason and they are free to do so. Wait, what? Yep. They do that all the time. That's a very common, well-documented phenomenon. There have been tons of studies on the impact of race, gender, creed on hiring prospects. While there are anti-discrimination laws in place to help curb obviously discriminatory practices, this stuff happens on a regular basis and is completely legal. You can look it up. Freakanomics has a bunch of stuff on this. On July 26 2012 15:57 BlackJack wrote: Do you have anything I can look at to back this up, e.g. some SCOTUS decisions or something. I've read articles saying that Chick-fil-A would win in court. Of course we are also entitled to hold opinions other than the ones that SCOTUS dictates to us. For example, there are a lot of people that believe unlimited campaign contributions does not constitute free speech even though they would be wrong according to SCOTUS. SCOTUS has made rulings in the past that says a city cannot prohibit any company from doing business on the grounds of the company's speech/opinions. However, there's nothing stopping Chicago and/or Boston from prohibiting Chick fil-A from doing business on completely separate grounds. | ||
|
Courthead
United States246 Posts
On July 26 2012 16:00 Diglett wrote:btw, not liking the mayor's statements and supporting chickfila's right to start businesses anywhere DOES NOT mean you hate all gays and want to kill them. geez There's no such thing as a "right to start businesses anywhere." | ||
|
dvorakftw
681 Posts
On July 26 2012 15:50 TOloseGT wrote: First, you're using the same ad-hominem bullshit. I'm not gonna argue with you until you lose your political rhetoric and get back down to brass facts here. You pulled the article yourself, the numbers were in there, now you're retracting it? Get some numbers then talk. God I hate insomnia. At least when GSL isn't on. The article was to show Wal Mart is not "banned" in Seattle. You want numbers? http://www2.newsadvance.com/business/2011/jan/24/appomattox-economy-boosted-walmart-hurt-upcoming-l-ar-790871/ The Walmart undoubtedly played a role in the county’s overall sales increase, he said. The county had $23.5 million in taxable sales in the third quarter of 2010, a report from the Virginia Department of Taxation shows. That was a 24 percent increase over the $18.9 million sales in the third quarter of 2009. Monthly tax records show that the county’s sales tax receipts jumped $20,000 when Walmart opened in May. http://articles.marketwatch.com/2005-11-04/news/30748393_1_wal-mart-stores-grocery-store-industry-lower-prices "Yes there is disruption in the retail sector," he said. "Wal-Mart does displace other employment, but overall has a stimulative effect on overall county employment. ... Wal-Mart's growth over the 1985 to 2004 period was related to a cumulative decline of 9.1% in food prices, a 4.2% drop in prices of commodities and a 3.1% decrease in overall consumer prices as measured by the consumer price index, the study found. The cumulative savings from lower prices amounted to $895 per person by 2004 for a total of $263 billion, Holling said. ... Efficiency gains in the economy totaled 0.75% in the 20 years studied. ... Wal-Mart has been a plus for job creation, according to the study, generating 210,000 jobs by 2004, a 0.15% increase that would not have existed but for Wal-Mart. http://jamesdshaw.wordpress.com/2012/06/22/does-living-near-a-walmart-boost-your-homes-value/ [T]wo University economists (Devin Pope at University of Chicago and Jaren Pope at BYU) looked at 1 million real estate sales near 159 new WalMart stores that opened between 2000 and 2006. They found that homes within a half mile saw a $7,000 increase in value and that homes a half mile to a mile away saw a $4,000 increase after the store opened. | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10574 Posts
On July 26 2012 16:00 Courthead wrote: If it went to court, the city most definitely wouldn't cite, "We did it because they're anti-gay," as the primary reason. Chicago, for example, has already been blocking the proposed Chick-Fil-A for almost a year due to traffic congestion. So in other words they don't have the right to block them for being anti-gay but they could lie and say it's for other reasons? In other words, you don't support the mayor's "right" to block bigots from operating in the city, you support the mayor's decision to sidestep the constitution to get what he wants. I'm sorry, if what they are doing is so legit why can't they cite the real reason they are doing it? | ||
|
Azzur
Australia6260 Posts
On July 26 2012 15:59 Ryuu314 wrote: I can't speak for Courthead, but personally, if that happened. If another mayor legally finds a reason to block a pro-gay company, then it's completely within his right to do so. He will, of course, have to face the political backlash of his actions as well as potential legal action. But, if his reasons are legitimate, then I see no reason why he can't. People are acting like this is the first time a city's banned a company for whatever reason. It's not. Cities have banned companies from entering their cities before for political reasons. Biggest example I can think of off the top of my head would be Walmart. Cities don't like Walmart's practices and philosophy, especially because there have been numerous cases where the entrance of Walmart caused small businesses to go out of business. You can, and Walmart has, argued that their business practices and philosophies are completely legal, "free enterprise," and protected. What's the difference? I can accept this viewpoint but not Courthead's double standards. | ||
|
Courthead
United States246 Posts
On July 26 2012 16:05 Azzur wrote: I can accept this viewpoint but not Courthead's double standards. If you think there's a double-standard in my viewpoint, then point it out. I think you'll have trouble doing it. Like I said, just because I support Rosa Park's decision and MLK's marches and sit-ins doesn't mean I have to support some skinhead's demonstration. Both are legal, but one I support, and one I detest. | ||
|
Ryuu314
United States12679 Posts
On July 26 2012 16:04 BlackJack wrote: So in other words they don't have the right to block them for being anti-gay but they could lie and say it's for other reasons? In other words, you don't support the mayor's "right" to block bigots from operating in the city, you support the mayor's decision to sidestep the constitution to get what he wants. I'm sorry, if what they are doing is so legit why can't they cite the real reason they are doing it? It's technically not lying. It doesn't make it right, but honestly, this kind of side-stepping happens all the freaking time. You want a more blatant example? Bribery in Congress. Technically, the United States ranks among the least corrupt nations in the world. Why? Because all bribery done in our government is through stuff like "lobbying" and "campaign financing." Even though it's bribery plain and simple, it's completely legal and corporations and politicians (white) lie through their teeth when justifying it. On July 26 2012 16:07 Courthead wrote: If you think there's a double-standard in my viewpoint, then point it out. I think you'll have trouble doing it. Like I said, just because I support Rosa Park's decision and MLK's marches and sit-ins doesn't mean I have to support some skinhead's demonstration. Both are legal, but one I support, and one I detest. The double standard is that you hold one form of speech as "more protected" than another. While I agree with you that discrimination against homosexuality is incredibly wrong, our Constitution provides protection for (almost) all speech, anti-gay speech included. Why? Because slippery slope and all that. | ||
|
Cel.erity
United States4890 Posts
On July 26 2012 16:00 Diglett wrote: wow...going to ramble on here... it's surprising how so many ppl support discrimination. discrimination against a group that themselves discriminates is still discrimination...don't be a bigot These types of arguments are not even slightly intelligent. It is not discriminatory (in any way other than semantically) to abhor the decisions and opinions that other people have. It is discriminatory to abhor a person for something that is natural for them, like their skin color, mental deficiencies, or sexuality. If you want to argue the semantic definition of discrimination, then fine, saying that I hate homophobes and racists is discrimination. But it is a positive discrimination and not a negative one. | ||
|
Courthead
United States246 Posts
On July 26 2012 16:04 BlackJack wrote: So in other words they don't have the right to block them for being anti-gay but they could lie and say it's for other reasons? In other words, you don't support the mayor's "right" to block bigots from operating in the city, you support the mayor's decision to sidestep the constitution to get what he wants. I'm sorry, if what they are doing is so legit why can't they cite the real reason they are doing it? In the moral contest between lying and discrimination, I'll favor lying any day. | ||
|
Ryuu314
United States12679 Posts
On July 26 2012 16:07 Cel.erity wrote: These types of arguments are not even slightly intelligent. It is not discriminatory (in any way other than semantically) to abhor the decisions and opinions that other people have. It is discriminatory to abhor a person for something that is natural for them, like their skin color, mental deficiencies, or sexuality. If you want to argue the semantic definition of discrimination, then fine, saying that I hate homophobes and racists is discrimination. But it is a positive discrimination and not a negative one. Unless I'm mistaken and have missed a critical recent SCOTUS case, sexuality is not a "protected class" like race, creed, etc... Things are only considered (illegal) discrimination in the eyes of the law if they're targeting a protected class, of which sexuality is not one (yet). This is done so that people can't sue based on stupid things like discrimination against stupidity, lack of skill, etc... The lack of sexuality's status as a protected class is why we even have the whole gay marriage debate in the first place. If speech against homosexuality was considered discrimination in the eyes of the law, gay marriage would be legal throughout the United States. IIRC, SCOTUS is purposefully avoiding taking any cases that may impact sexuality's status as a protected class because they believe it's up to the states, which is code for "we don't want to deal with the political shitstorm that would occur if we did vote one way or another on this." | ||
|
Azzur
Australia6260 Posts
On July 26 2012 16:07 Courthead wrote: If you think there's a double-standard in my viewpoint, then point it out. I think you'll have trouble doing it. Like I said, just because I support Rosa Park's decision and MLK's marches and sit-ins doesn't mean I have to support some skinhead's demonstration. Both are legal, but one I support, and one I detest. It's double standards to be in favour of one-form of discrimination but to be against another | ||
|
flavorless
United States59 Posts
On July 26 2012 15:25 Whitewing wrote: 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? This is about one group believing that marriage is a civil union between a man and a woman, and another group believing that it's a civil union between two people. Also, there is little consensus among the scientific community as to whether or not homosexuality is caused genetically or environmentally. I think that it's wrong to deny Chick-Fil-A the opportunity to open restaurants based on political opinions, but I can totally see how it must feel to be on the other side of the issue. Just imagine some pro neo-nazi supporting garden gnome emporium opening in your hometown. | ||
| ||
|
|
CranKy Ducklings
RSL Revival
herO vs Gerald
ByuN vs SHIN
Kung Fu Cup
Cure vs Reynor
Classic vs herO
IPSL
ZZZero vs rasowy
Napoleon vs KameZerg
OSC
BSL 21
Tarson vs Julia
Doodle vs OldBoy
eOnzErG vs WolFix
StRyKeR vs Aeternum
Sparkling Tuna Cup
RSL Revival
Reynor vs sOs
Maru vs Ryung
Kung Fu Cup
WardiTV Korean Royale
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
