|
On July 26 2012 05:57 whatevername wrote:
Self evidently it is not baller for the Government to openly [or discreetly] favour one business over another for whatever reason. This is an abuse of power, and for that matter its basically an attempt by local Government to bully businesses politically. Anyone who supports this is basically a fascist.
Actually, that's how this nation is supposed to work. If the people think that something is wrong, it's up to the people to make sure that wrong thing is ousted.
The people are represented by the people they elect, may that be their representative in the House, their seats in the Senate, the govenor of their state, mayor of their town, etc etc etc.
If you have a problem with the way our country works, then speak more accurately about the issue you're trying to argue rather than calling democratic republicans "fascists".
|
It that company didn't want politics to affect their business, they shouldn't have taken political positions in the first place. Simple.
|
On July 26 2012 17:18 Shinta) wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 05:57 whatevername wrote:
Self evidently it is not baller for the Government to openly [or discreetly] favour one business over another for whatever reason. This is an abuse of power, and for that matter its basically an attempt by local Government to bully businesses politically. Anyone who supports this is basically a fascist. Actually, that's how this nation is supposed to work. If the people think that something is wrong, it's up to the people to make sure that wrong thing is ousted. The people are represented by the people they elect, may that be their representative in the House, their seats in the Senate, the govenor of their state, mayor of their town, etc etc etc. If you have a problem with the way our country works, then speak more accurately about the issue you're trying to argue rather than calling democratic republicans "fascists".
Exactly. It's up to the people to decide if this is justified or abuse of power.
If you think this is wrong, then don't vote them in the next election.
|
On July 26 2012 17:27 Ryhzuo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 17:18 Shinta) wrote:On July 26 2012 05:57 whatevername wrote:
Self evidently it is not baller for the Government to openly [or discreetly] favour one business over another for whatever reason. This is an abuse of power, and for that matter its basically an attempt by local Government to bully businesses politically. Anyone who supports this is basically a fascist. Actually, that's how this nation is supposed to work. If the people think that something is wrong, it's up to the people to make sure that wrong thing is ousted. The people are represented by the people they elect, may that be their representative in the House, their seats in the Senate, the govenor of their state, mayor of their town, etc etc etc. If you have a problem with the way our country works, then speak more accurately about the issue you're trying to argue rather than calling democratic republicans "fascists". Exactly. It's up to the people to decide if this is justified or abuse of power. If you think this is wrong, then don't vote them in the next election.
"The people" can much more accurately represent their own wishes by either giving the place their business or not. The elected government is not meant to repress certain beliefs just because the majority that elected them agrees it is ok to do. Government is elected to represent and act according to the beliefs/opinions of those who elected them, but that does not by any means give them absolute power to "oust" anything the majority believes to be wrong. That is just ridiculous.
|
|
|
On July 26 2012 16:54 Evangelist wrote:
Freedom of speech is fine provided it doesn't intervene with someone's basic rights under the law. Gay marriage has significant tax benefits and legal rights which are denied on the basis of a persons sexuality.
That is bigotry. When you defend their free speech, you defend the right of racists to state they want a white only state AND their right to ensure it remains law.
Think for a second, people.
"Freedom of speech is fine provided it doesn't intervene with someone's basic rights under the law"?
If people went by your logic, no laws would ever be changed because it is apparently not okay to disagree with a law.
If murder was legal would it be bad to disagree with someone's "basic rights" to murder because it is law?
The whole topic is kinda weird. I understand the whole point of view about the people voting in the government and the government representing them etc. but this is just weird. I assume churches are legal in Boston? I wouldn't vote for a mayor that bans a specific business (rather than a type of business) just because he doesn't like the worldview by which the business is being run.
|
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.”
Apparently the city government is justified to use their zoning powers to ban chik-fil-a from their city because chik-fil-a's head honcho exercised his right to free speech, free speech that strangely enough only happens come from actual law.
You're completely right of course. If you ever look at someone and want to punish them for voicing their opinion, you don't really believe in free speech. You only believe in speech that doesn't offend you. Being racist or a homophobe or a straight up Nazi isn't illegal, it's the acting upon those beliefs part that gets you in trouble. And in this case, even if the guy is a homophobe, he's giving money to religious organizations. Not exactly high treason here.
And really, I don't even care if Boston never lets a chain of any sort into their city, that's fine. I would think twice about letting a walmart into my city if it had any semblance of class. What's wrong is going on national stage and admitting the reason is because of someone's opinion that's backed up by law. Then you're blatantly engaging in a moral issue, and you're blatantly denying a company access to your city because of a moral issue. Government has no place doing that. They can deny chik-fil-a without making a moral statement.
|
I don't see how it is proper for an ELECTED GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL to prevent a company from setting up shop in their town because they advocate against changes in the law regarding marriage, donate to anti-gay groups and say nasty things about gay people.
As a private citizen, you have the right to picket Chick-Fil-A, run ad campaigns telling everyone about how terrible they are, send them mean letters, tell everyone not to eat there, refuse to associate with the people who work there, swear at them, post fliers around town telling people not to eat there, and generally make life miserable for them.
Should we tell bigots they are bigots? Should we make life difficult for them? Should we shout it from the rooftops? Yes, yes and hell yes.
Is it the role of Government to prevent the business activities of any person or company because they are bigots, who advocate changing the law to discriminate against others, but are doing nothing illegal? Certainly not.
Sure they could make up some BS excuse to ban them from Boston, as has previously been said, but it's still the same thing.
|
I noticed a lot of people were saying that it wasn't necessarily legal for the mayor to ban Chic Fil A from the town because of their anti-gay marriage statements, but that it would be ok to do it for any other reason instead to (I guess) cover up the real reason for keeping Chic Fil a from doing business and it would be completely legal and there couldn't be no repercussions. I feel like, at least from what I've attained from the sources posted in the OP, that it has been clearly stated that the mayor is highly against Chic Fil A PURELY due to the fact they are against gay marriage, which would make it very tough to defend in the court of law that that isn't the real intent for the ban, which would constitute as discriminate since many Christian religions have the belief that marriage is to only be between a man and a woman.
|
Give this mayor a medal.
People/companies with medieval ways of thinking shouldn't be allowed to spread that way of thinking.
|
On July 26 2012 17:18 Shinta) wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 05:57 whatevername wrote:
Self evidently it is not baller for the Government to openly [or discreetly] favour one business over another for whatever reason. This is an abuse of power, and for that matter its basically an attempt by local Government to bully businesses politically. Anyone who supports this is basically a fascist. Actually, that's how this nation is supposed to work. If the people think that something is wrong, it's up to the people to make sure that wrong thing is ousted. The people are represented by the people they elect, may that be their representative in the House, their seats in the Senate, the govenor of their state, mayor of their town, etc etc etc. If you have a problem with the way our country works, then speak more accurately about the issue you're trying to argue rather than calling democratic republicans "fascists".
Ironically this tyranny of the majority is exactly what gay rights advocates have been arguing against for the past few years. The rights in the constitution are inalienable. It's not up to the current elected officials to determine which speech is protected and which speech is worthy of reprisal in the form of denying permits.
|
On July 26 2012 18:18 Witten wrote:
I noticed a lot of people were saying that it wasn't necessarily legal for the mayor to ban Chic Fil A from the town because of their anti-gay marriage statements, but that it would be ok to do it for any other reason instead to (I guess) cover up the real reason for keeping Chic Fil a from doing business and it would be completely legal and there couldn't be no repercussions. I feel like, at least from what I've attained from the sources posted in the OP, that it has been clearly stated that the mayor is highly against Chic Fil A PURELY due to the fact they are against gay marriage, which would make it very tough to defend in the court of law that that isn't the real intent for the ban, which would constitute as discriminate since many Christian religions have the belief that marriage is to only be between a man and a woman.
What you need to realize is this is win-win for the mayor. Even if he fails to get the company closed down this political move will increase his reputation, and strengthen his supporters. It's a smart move, really. Regardless of whether or not it's constitutional. This is why I find people advocating this as a step forward toward progressiveness laughable. This wasn't done to increase any agenda. It was done as a political move to gain supporters and make the gay marriage crowd love him. Any step forward it allows for in the equalization of rights.. is just a cherry on top.
|
If a big time organization as Google can come out for gay marriage then a much smaller company in comparison should be allowed to come out against it without politicians butting in. It's up to the people if they want this to influence their choice to go there to eat or not.
|
On July 26 2012 18:31 gruff wrote:
If a big time organization as Google can come out for gay marriage then a much smaller company in comparison should be allowed to come out against it without politicians butting in. It's up to the people if they want this to influence their choice to go there to eat or not.
They're allowed to, but they should't expect no repercussions on them as a company taking such a stance. Just like people/cities could retaliate against google for taking their stance. Though I don't think anyone has done that yet ( that I know of) aside from the 'I won't be buying google products anymore'.
|
On July 26 2012 18:40 solidbebe wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 18:31 gruff wrote:
If a big time organization as Google can come out for gay marriage then a much smaller company in comparison should be allowed to come out against it without politicians butting in. It's up to the people if they want this to influence their choice to go there to eat or not. They're allowed to, but they should't expect no repercussions on them as a company taking such a stance. Just like people/cities could retaliate against google for taking their stance. Though I don't think anyone has done that yet ( that I know of) aside from the 'I won't be buying google products anymore'.
I did say people are free to react the way they like but you don't see how there's a difference between a person and a politician (a "city")? If people care enough they will get what's coming to them, there's no reason why a city should react to something like this.
|
Isn't it great watching the "free markets" in the United States at work?
Government has no business banning any company based on who they do or do not support. This shows the depravity which has bred through the educational system and media of the United States (can't speak for other countries) that this is even being discussed seriously by politicians and they are not being vilified by the public.
|
On July 26 2012 18:40 solidbebe wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 18:31 gruff wrote:
If a big time organization as Google can come out for gay marriage then a much smaller company in comparison should be allowed to come out against it without politicians butting in. It's up to the people if they want this to influence their choice to go there to eat or not. They're allowed to, but they should't expect no repercussions on them as a company taking such a stance. Just like people/cities could retaliate against google for taking their stance. Though I don't think anyone has done that yet ( that I know of) aside from the 'I won't be buying google products anymore'.
They do receive repercussions, they receive less sales from people who support gay marriage. The government should not get involved in free speech of a business. If he is allowed to ban a company that says, "gays are bad" then what is to stop him from banning a company that says, "I don't like our mayor." or "I think our government is behaving too much like a dictator and stripping freedoms from us." If he is exercising a power to limit free speech and other rights then he is slowly going to lead to more abusive powers. He should not be allowed to do any of this.
Let me finish by saying I support the rights of people and that includes everyone being treated like people regardless of sexual orientation, race, or gender.
|
If he can do this what's to stop another mayor from banning companies like Oreo's that are pro gay marriage? I don't like it at all. This is not the way you further an agenda and bring attention to a topic. You shouldn't have to violate basic rights of a person in order to get a message across, no matter how good that message is.
|
Anti-gay marriage organisations? You mean to say that there are people being idiots on a proffesional level and being financially supported for it? -.-
|
On July 26 2012 16:54 Evangelist wrote:
Freedom of speech is fine provided it doesn't intervene with someone's basic rights under the law. Gay marriage has significant tax benefits and legal rights which are denied on the basis of a persons sexuality.
There is no basic rights for tax benefits. Many groups of people, who enjoy advantages of some sort (some are fiscal advantages) which are granted to them by law. There are plenty of good reason why to legalize gay marriage, but to tax benefits ain't one, it's just an additional bonus which comes along with it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
