| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
ragz_gt
9172 Posts
On July 26 2012 23:19 Praetorial wrote: I don't agree with that. As would most people I know. I guess you never met him or hear him speak in person, especially Q&A. He spoke once at the company I'm working for, and it was not very impressive to say the least. He did post for some nice pictures though. | ||
|
S_SienZ
1878 Posts
On July 26 2012 23:23 ragz_gt wrote: I guess you never met him or hear him speak in person, especially Q&A. He spoke once at the company I'm working for, and it was not very impressive to say the least. He did post for some nice pictures though. Being a good speaker and being smart are different qualities though. | ||
|
ragz_gt
9172 Posts
On July 26 2012 23:25 S_SienZ wrote: Being a good speaker and being smart are different qualities though. I'd agree normally, but it is job #1 for politicians so it is less excusable. | ||
|
Praetorial
United States4241 Posts
On July 26 2012 23:29 ragz_gt wrote: I'd agree normally, but it is job #1 for politicians so it is less excusable. Taft was a terrible speaker, but was feared and respected as a political genius. | ||
|
Nothingtosay
United States875 Posts
On July 26 2012 16:38 hpty603 wrote: Man, imagine the riots if this was the mayor of Detroit or Oakland Thinly veiled attempt at a racist joke? | ||
|
farvacola
United States18832 Posts
A very stupid one at that, as there are no Chik-Fil-A restaurants in Detroit at all. Sad but true. | ||
|
NEEDZMOAR
Sweden1277 Posts
On July 26 2012 16:41 Tewks44 wrote: I wouldn't say that. Oreos has come out as being pro-gay. Does this mean if you have a city which sells oreos you support gay marriage? What if the city sells Oreos and has a Chik Fila? You can't simply say an individual "supports" a movement because a business with a particular stance is active in his/her city. Fine if one uses their product I'd say they support it, although what pisses me off is what somebody mentioned earlier, lets say that "wieners and hamburgers" (madeup restaurant) profiled themselves as anti-black people marriage. People wouldnt think of it as wrong if some mayor kicked that restaurant out from his city, so why are different discriminations treated differently? | ||
|
meadbert
United States681 Posts
On July 26 2012 23:48 NEEDZMOAR wrote: Fine if one uses their product I'd say they support it, although what pisses me off is what somebody mentioned earlier, lets say that "wieners and hamburgers" (madeup restaurant) profiled themselves as anti-black people marriage. People wouldnt think of it as wrong if some mayor kicked that restaurant out from his city, so why are different discriminations treated differently? This is America we are talking about. Americans get to have weird and wrong opinions and not get persecuted for them. What you cannot do is discriminate. Chick-Fil-A cannot ban gay people from their restaurant and your hypothetical racist person cannot ban black people from their restaurant. It does not matter whether they believe sodomy should be legal or what their personal opinions are regarding the age or consent or plural marriage. All of that is irrelevant so long as they do not exclude anyone. A city that bans those who disagree with it from the city is being bigoted itself. It used to be that churches were notorious about forcing everyone to adopt universal opinions, while universities and university towns were where ideas could be discussed openly without fear of retribution. Unfortunately is seems that in Boston this is not longer true since one University has banned Chick-Fil-A and now the whole city seems set to. | ||
|
Ryhzuo
New Zealand198 Posts
On July 26 2012 23:48 NEEDZMOAR wrote: Fine if one uses their product I'd say they support it, although what pisses me off is what somebody mentioned earlier, lets say that "wieners and hamburgers" (madeup restaurant) profiled themselves as anti-black people marriage. People wouldnt think of it as wrong if some mayor kicked that restaurant out from his city, so why are different discriminations treated differently? If any restaurant had a public stance of anti-interracial marriage with blacks, I'm pretty sure they'd be kicked out of a LOT of cities. (Depending where in America) | ||
|
Felnarion
442 Posts
On July 26 2012 23:48 NEEDZMOAR wrote: Fine if one uses their product I'd say they support it, although what pisses me off is what somebody mentioned earlier, lets say that "wieners and hamburgers" (madeup restaurant) profiled themselves as anti-black people marriage. People wouldnt think of it as wrong if some mayor kicked that restaurant out from his city, so why are different discriminations treated differently? Well, the idea is that anti-black marriage wouldn't be the same thing. If marriage is between a man and a woman, which is debatable, but the contentious point: then it shouldn't matter if they're black, or asian, white, whatever. Anti-black marriage would be appalling because it would be considering blacks as not "man and woman." Gay and lesbian marriage, however, is different. Most people against gay marriage who I speak to (from Georgia) would be perfectly okay with another type of union between them, provided it isn't called marriage. So in this case, it's simply trying to get exclusivity over the term. Not that lesbian and gays aren't "men and women" just that they don't fit the traditional model of "marriage" specifically. Whether this is wrong or not is to personal opinion. I just don't like the comparisons between blacks and gays in this way. Their fights are different. | ||
|
Cutlery
Norway565 Posts
That wasn't the issue of this banning (in Boston), but I feel it should be. Political agenda or not; being responsible towards your community should be priority. There's a place for fast food, and it's up to the local community to be responsible enough to decide where that is and isn't. Because surely fast food chains won't police themselves; they even offer kid's meals. | ||
|
JoelE
United States112 Posts
On July 26 2012 23:55 Ryhzuo wrote: If any restaurant had a public stance of anti-interracial marriage with blacks, I'm pretty sure they'd be kicked out of a LOT of cities. (Depending where in America) Just because something would happen doesn't mean its the right thing to do. Banning a company from operating because of political movements they donate to, no matter how wrong, still makes me really uncomfortable. | ||
|
Felnarion
442 Posts
On July 27 2012 00:00 Cutlery wrote: Looking at their menu, I don't see why any mayor would want that stuff easily accessible to schoolkids in their town or district. There is a way to fight obesity you know, on a bigger scale. We did it here, basically blocked McD from opening shop. Considering only myself I wouldn't mind, but I can understand that people living here do not want mcD to be THAT accessible to thousands of schoolkids in lunch hours and after school. It's the responsible thing to do. It takes a village to raise a kid. Question is, how do you want to raise it/them? That wasn't the issue here, but I feel it should be. Political agenda or not; being responsible towards your community should be priority. There's a place for fast food, and it's up to the local community to be responsible enough to decide where that is and isn't. Because surely fast food chains won't police themselves; they even offer kid's meals. Oh sweet Jesus, are you kidding me. They offer kids meals! How atrocious! With smaller portions and everything! The horror! What's that? A large portion of chick fil a's menu is salads and warps? One of my favorite snacks when I was a kid was their carrot raisin salad? There's nothing better than a bowl of their soup when you're sick? Stop trying to be the police of everyone's digestive tract and let it go. | ||
|
Nizaris
Belgium2230 Posts
On July 27 2012 00:00 Cutlery wrote: Looking at their menu, I don't see why any mayor would want that stuff easily accessible to schoolkids in their town or district. There is a way to fight obesity you know, on a bigger scale. We did it here, basically blocked McD from opening shop. Considering only myself I wouldn't mind, but I can understand that people living here do not want mcD to be THAT accessible to thousands of schoolkids in lunch hours and after school. It's the responsible thing to do. It takes a village to raise a kid. Question is, how do you want to raise it/them? That wasn't the issue here, but I feel it should be. Political agenda or not; being responsible towards your community should be priority. There's a place for fast food, and it's up to the local community to be responsible enough to decide where that is and isn't. Because surely fast food chains won't police themselves; they even offer kid's meals. This is america we're talking about. Where common sense is thrown out of the window for the sake of Capitalism. Chick-fil-A just needs better lobby-ist so they can bend the rules their ways, isn't that how it works? | ||
|
U_G_L_Y
United States516 Posts
If you would be okay with the government shutting down Rachel Maddow or Glenn Beck's broadcasts because you disagree with their views, then you do not belong in America. | ||
|
Ayaz2810
United States2763 Posts
Business A has a "whites only" section at every location. Business B has a sign that says "no Jews allowed" in every store. Business C has an openly anti-gay stance and gives money to anti-gay organizations. Business D blatantly treats Hispanic customers poorly and admits to it. 3 of these are laughable in the year 2012. They would never happen. Why does the other get a free pass? Religion? Is that really an excuse? At the risk of turning this ugly, issues like this really make me happy I'm an Atheist. Disgusting. | ||
|
JoelE
United States112 Posts
On July 27 2012 00:12 ayaz2810 wrote: I feel like there is a misunderstanding here. A lot of people are saying you shouldn't ban a business from an area because of its stance on an issue. I disagree. A business having an anti-gay agenda is not the same as a business that has a pro choice/life agenda or something where there is a point you can argue with logic and/or science. A company is against rights for a group of people. Whether that be gays, blacks, jews, or plain old vanilla whitey, IT IS WRONG. I don't care what your lolreligious beliefs are, in the 21st century, you do not try to keep people from having basic rights. It's fucking stupid that this is even still an issue in this day and age. I'll break it down simply: Business A has a "whites only" section at every location. Business B has a sign that says "no Jews allowed" in every store. Business C has an openly anti-gay stance and gives money to anti-gay organizations. Business D blatantly treats Hispanic customers poorly and admits to it. 3 of these are laughable in the year 2012. They would never happen. Why does the other get a free pass? Religion? Is that really an excuse? At the risk of turning this ugly, issues like this really make me happy I'm an Atheist. Disgusting. Yes but who decides what is wrong? Also your examples are different from what Chic is doing. You can't discriminate against customers. They can't ban gay people from entering. But they can donate to groups that try to convince other people that gay people shouldn't enter or marry or whatever silly things they are saying. | ||
|
Ryhzuo
New Zealand198 Posts
On July 27 2012 00:12 ayaz2810 wrote: I feel like there is a misunderstanding here. A lot of people are saying you shouldn't ban a business from an area because of its stance on an issue. I disagree. A business having an anti-gay agenda is not the same as a business that has a pro choice/life agenda or something where there is a point you can argue with logic and/or science. A company is against rights for a group of people. Whether that be gays, blacks, jews, or plain old vanilla whitey, IT IS WRONG. I don't care what your lolreligious beliefs are, in the 21st century, you do not try to keep people from having basic rights. It's fucking stupid that this is even still an issue in this day and age. I'll break it down simply: Business A has a "whites only" section at every location. Business B has a sign that says "no Jews allowed" in every store. Business C has an openly anti-gay stance and gives money to anti-gay organizations. Business D blatantly treats Hispanic customers poorly and admits to it. 3 of these are laughable in the year 2012. They would never happen. Why does the other get a free pass? Religion? Is that really an excuse? At the risk of turning this ugly, issues like this really make me happy I'm an Atheist. Disgusting. None of them are OK. Why would the 4th one be acceptable at all? The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, for a start. | ||
|
Cutlery
Norway565 Posts
On July 27 2012 00:04 Felnarion wrote: Oh sweet Jesus, are you kidding me. They offer kids meals! How atrocious! With smaller portions and everything! The horror! What's that? A large portion of chick fil a's menu is salads and warps? One of my favorite snacks when I was a kid was their carrot raisin salad? There's nothing better than a bowl of their soup when you're sick? Stop trying to be the police of everyone's digestive tract and let it go. What's the horror? I'm just saying... Why do you think malls are created? Who do you think sells the space to open shops?  Salad and wraps, filled with fried meat; I don't see your point. It's still not healthy food, and we simply didn't want that in the middle of our school district. I'm saying we can decide, sometimes, what we want or not. And I also said that this wasn't the issue of this thread, just a tangent of how things can work out, and I don't even know the area in question, I just said that I don't see it as a big issue for smaller communities; but it shouldn't be acted upon politically. Also there are other ways to get food, and that's basically what people wanted to teach their kids, and that's what went down. Sorry you don't see other options? But my story isn't a horror story, sorry you misunderstood. You can say we're policing the digestive trackts of "our" ten year olds. Sorry it infringes on your right to 'poison' yourself in public. It's just being responsible; not political. And it's only a small community, so we had the power to decide. I barely even heard about it, it wasn't a big issue. I don't see what is wrong with it. I really don't. But I still don't think these decisions should be political in nature. But if the uproar is big enough, I'm not gonna tell them what businesses to allow into their town ^^ | ||
|
U_G_L_Y
United States516 Posts
On July 27 2012 00:12 ayaz2810 wrote: I feel like there is a misunderstanding here. A lot of people are saying you shouldn't ban a business from an area because of its stance on an issue. I disagree. A business having an anti-gay agenda is not the same as a business that has a pro choice/life agenda or something where there is a point you can argue with logic and/or science. A company is against rights for a group of people. Whether that be gays, blacks, jews, or plain old vanilla whitey, IT IS WRONG. I don't care what your lolreligious beliefs are, in the 21st century, you do not try to keep people from having basic rights. It's fucking stupid that this is even still an issue in this day and age. I'll break it down simply: Business A has a "whites only" section at every location. Business B has a sign that says "no Jews allowed" in every store. Business C has an openly anti-gay stance and gives money to anti-gay organizations. Business D blatantly treats Hispanic customers poorly and admits to it. 3 of these are laughable in the year 2012. They would never happen. Why does the other get a free pass? Religion? Is that really an excuse? At the risk of turning this ugly, issues like this really make me happy I'm an Atheist. Disgusting. This is a poor analogy unless Chick Fil A does not allow gas to eat there. At the risk of turning this ugly, issues like this make me happy I believe in liberty for all, not just some. | ||
| ||
|
|
Afreeca Starleague
Soma vs BeSt
Wardi Open
OSC
Sparkling Tuna Cup
Afreeca Starleague
Bisu vs Larva
LiuLi Cup
OSC
The PondCast
Wardi Open
[BSL 2025] Weekly
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
