EPTBoston Mayor vows to ban Chick-Fil-A from his city - Page 35
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Ballack
Norway821 Posts
| ||
|
ODKStevez
Ireland1225 Posts
I can't stand people who try to stop other people from being happy. They are not harming anyone. | ||
|
Praetorial
United States4241 Posts
On July 27 2012 00:52 ODKStevez wrote: Letting someone else tell you how to live your life should be a sin. Live happy and screw what other people think. Be good to yourself. I can't stand people who try to stop other people from being happy. They are not harming anyone. Exactly, gay people shouldn't have to live with organizations funded by corporations harassing them, on the basis that their choice for life is a sin. See how easily your words can be turned against your argument? | ||
|
Cutlery
Norway565 Posts
On July 27 2012 00:47 U_G_L_Y wrote: "Progressive moves" are to shut down legitimate and legal businesses because the owner of the parent company (not the individual franchises that are owned and run by local citizens and create jobs for the community) disagrees with you politically? That sounds like a "fascist move" It is "moral" to put a franchise owner out of business after he invested hundreds of thousands of dollars of his own money into building his business because the person that licences him to use the corporate franchise name doesn't want gays to marry? I seriously want to throw up right now. This is a nightmare. I'm not suggesting you're wrong, but can you justify why *he* has a greater claim to open business in Boston than the mayor has to choose someone else to open business there instead? Why do you show emotion towards the franchise owner, and only see his needs to open shop wherever he wants, else he might go broke. I see your logic, I just don't see it as the only logic, as there are more parties than just the owner involved; and more than simply his needs to do whatever he wants. Maybe Boston can decide that they're better off without the franchise, and so they have to look elsewhere to set up shop. If that's what Boston wants, isn't it their freedom to decide whom to sell their property and invite into their community (probably a bad way to phrase it legally, but this is not a challenge I'm undertaking at this point)? See, I'm not saying my arguement is correct or better, I just had to consider it. Not that I will be the one making any decisions based upon everything that can be considered; it should still be considered. | ||
|
Revelatus
United States183 Posts
On July 27 2012 00:41 Cutlery wrote: Nope. I was not against the opening of McD. And either way, I still have the freedom to enjoy fastfood whenever I want. I pass fast food venues every day on my way to work or uni. But elementary school kids do not. And I'm ok with that. Liberty is *not* allowing anyone pass your doorstep based on how much cash they put out. Freedom is to be able to choose how to live. This is what my community did. McD has no more inherent right to freedom than do we. And specially what concerns our lives. This is, if anything, a misconception of freedom. I really don't get why people need to categorize this, and that I have to go out of my way to explain the layouts of my town and day-to-day eating habbits of school-kids. They are still not your kids, and it is still not your decision what food they put into their bodies. If the presence of a fast food restaurant near an elementary school is that serious of an issue, I think one should question not the store, but the damn school. Why isn't the school keeping better tabs on the kids? Surely the store is not IN the school, and the school should not be allowing children to have free reign of the surrounding town during school hours. The second thing we should question is the parents and their lack of proper parenting. If the parents are providing funds and transportation to the children, and allowing them to eat unhealthy proportions of fast food, the problem isn't the store, it's the parent. You seem perfectly content trying to fix a stained sofa by putting a pillow over it. The sofa is still stained, but nobody has to think about it or look at it for a while. The only way to fix the REASON why you think there should be no restaurant near the school, is to educate the children and parents about the health implications of the food served there. Based on facts, not fear mongering. The truth is, the health implications are pretty close to non existent until you have Auntie Derpface buying her 9 year old nephew a large double quarter pounder meal every night on the way home from middle school. Stop blaming the restaurant for problems caused by MORONIC PEOPLE. | ||
|
dvorakftw
681 Posts
| ||
|
Trainrunnef
United States599 Posts
If he wants to ban CFA from his city because of their anti-gay stance, why not bar all anti-gay organizations from setting up shop in boston? would it be wrong then? The mayor's opinion (no matter how morally laudable or reprehensible) shouldn't be enough to outright ban any institution, future or present. | ||
|
U_G_L_Y
United States516 Posts
On July 27 2012 00:47 Revelatus wrote: At least the atheists who are beginning to stand their moral ground against oppressive fundamentalist nutjobs have their arguements based in logic. If the only support for your argument to discriminate against an entire group of people is "religious tradition," you should have the right to say it (freedom of speech), but the way things are going (1% decline per year Chrisians/capita in the US) nobody is going to listen to you (ie, your religious rights mean nothing). Hint: This is the right direction. I refuse to engage in a debate over whether their views are correct or logical because it is not relevant. There are many other parallel debates but that would only derail the conversation. I do however, have to state that I know people opposed to gay marriage for secular reasons. They are not religious and have nothing against gay people. Please do not put words in the mouths of an entire group of people. Don't tell other people what they believe and why. It's really really offensive. Religious rights and freedom of speech mean everything. I have the right to believe and say things that I can't support by fact. I think K-Pop sucks balls and is the worst kind of music man has ever created. I believe that 2 reactor openings are superior to 2 tech lab openings in TvP. I support your right to say that I should have less liberty to speak my mind. In my view, it is far more offensive than telling me who the government should allow me to say I am married to on legal documents. But I support your right to say I should have less freedom of religion and less freedom of speech anyway, because I love liberty, and I hate hypocrites. | ||
|
S_SienZ
1878 Posts
On July 27 2012 01:00 Trainrunnef wrote: For those of you who think the ban is right, would it also be right for a anti-gay mayor to ban a pro gay institution in his city? If he wants to ban CFA from his city because of their anti-gay stance, why not bar all anti-gay organizations from setting up shop in boston? would it be wrong then? The mayor's opinion (no matter how morally laudable or reprehensible) shouldn't be enough to outright ban any institution, future or present. Actually if he was a mayor with a known anti-gay stance, presumably the majority of the people there are anti-gay, and it would probably happen. | ||
|
Praetorial
United States4241 Posts
On July 27 2012 01:00 Trainrunnef wrote: For those of you who think the ban is right, would it also be right for a anti-gay mayor to ban a pro gay institution in his city? If he wants to ban CFA from his city because of their anti-gay stance, why not bar all anti-gay organizations from setting up shop in boston? would it be wrong then? The mayor's opinion (no matter how morally laudable or reprehensible) shouldn't be enough to outright ban any institution, future or present. Anti-gay marriage is a hateful position, because its explicit goal is the restriction of the freedoms of an individual. Anti-anti-gay marriage is not a hateful position because it does not restrict the freedom of individuals, it merely protects their right to personal freedoms. Thus, any anti-gay position is always hateful, any pro-gay marriage position is inherently unhateful. This is the opinion of most of Boston. | ||
|
U_G_L_Y
United States516 Posts
On July 27 2012 00:50 Praetorial wrote: Can I ask you a perfectly hypothetical question? Do you live in New York City or Boston? Haha, Hypothetically, yes. Literally no. But more to the point of what you are asking, I go to NYC on business from time to time and order soda in restaurants located there. | ||
|
Revelatus
United States183 Posts
On July 27 2012 01:01 U_G_L_Y wrote: I refuse to engage in a debate over whether their views are correct or logical because it is not relevant. There are many other parallel debates but that would only derail the conversation. I do however, have to state that I know people opposed to gay marriage for secular reasons. They are not religious and have nothing against gay people. Please do not put words in the mouths of an entire group of people. Don't tell other people what they believe and why. It's really really offensive. Religious rights and freedom of speech mean everything. I have the right to believe and say things that I can't support by fact. I think K-Pop sucks balls and is the worst kind of music man has ever created. I believe that 2 reactor openings are superior to 2 tech lab openings in TvP. I support your right to say that I should have less liberty to speak my mind. In my view, it is far more offensive than telling me who the government should allow me to say I am married to on legal documents. But I support your right to say I should have less freedom of religion and less freedom of speech anyway, because I love liberty, and I hate hypocrites. I didn't say that I think you should have less liberties. I said that some things that come out of peoples' mouths, and some things that fuel peoples' agendas are disgusting, morally wrong, based in fairy tales, etc. However, freedom of speech dictates that they should be allowed to say and think these things. This part, I agree with you on. My point was only to say that I am optimistic and hopeful for the future of humanity based on the slow yet promising decline of bronze-age beliefs in favor of logic and reason. | ||
|
Praetorial
United States4241 Posts
On July 27 2012 01:07 U_G_L_Y wrote: Haha, Hypothetically, yes. Literally no. But more to the point of what you are asking, I go to NYC on business from time to time and order soda in restaurants located there. Oops. Heh heh. Are you a business? | ||
|
meadbert
United States681 Posts
On July 27 2012 00:59 Cutlery wrote: I'm not suggesting you're wrong, but can you justify why *he* has a greater claim to open business in Boston than the mayor has to choose someone else to open business there instead? In America individuals cannot be prevented from opening a business because their religious or political beliefs differ from the mayor. The mayor cannot prevent individuals or corporations for opening businesses on those grounds. Americans are entitled to equal protection under the law. Political and religious speech is not a valid reason for abridging the rights of anyone in America. | ||
|
Cutlery
Norway565 Posts
On July 27 2012 01:00 Revelatus wrote: They are still not your kids, and it is still not your decision what food they put into their bodies. If the presence of a fast food restaurant near an elementary school is that serious of an issue, I think one should question not the store, but the damn school. Why isn't the school keeping better tabs on the kids? Surely the store is not IN the school, and the school should not be allowing children to have free reign of the surrounding town during school hours. The second thing we should question is the parents and their lack of, for the lack of better term, parenting. If the parents are providing funds and transportation to the children, and allowing them to eat unhealthy proportions of fast food, the problem isn't the store, it's the parent. You seem perfectly content trying to fix a stained sofa by putting a pillow over it. The sofa is still stained, but nobody has to think about it or look at it for a while. The only way to fix the REASON why you think there should be no restaurant near the school, is to educate the children and parents about the health implications of the food served there. Based on facts, not fear mongering. The truth is, the health implications are pretty close to non existent until you have Auntie Derpface buying her 9 year old nephew a large double quarter pounder meal every night on the way home from middle school. Stop blaming the restaurant for problems caused by MORONIC PEOPLE. The older kids have freedom to leave the school grounds in lunch hour. See, they have more freedom than you think, even without fast food available next door. They're not my kids, and I never told them to not open McD. The parents of this community did. I'm not a parent so I did not care. However, my freedom to have fast food accessible 4 minutes away instead of 10 does not inherently trump the freedoms of democracy, and that is how it went down here. Nothing more to it. We made a "collective" descision. If democracy is freedom, then we excercised this freedom. I never thought about this in these terms before, but what you're saying isn't inherently based upon more sound logic than what I'm presenting you. Also, your couch analogy, I'm pretty sure we got rid of the damn stained couch entirely. Maybe it was based on fear; but so what? People still didn't want it. "We" don't see fast food chains as restaurants. "We" think it is too unhealthy to be considered every day food. "We" didn't allow McD to make it accessible to school kids. Fin. I'm not touching this topic again. As for parenting. Lunch money is not an issue. We're rich enough that kids have access to alot of things, and parents don't micromanage their habbits. This is correct if you ask me. Every child and teenager must learn to make their own choices; we just took away one trap. Now if they want fast food they have to go to it, rather than having it come to them. I'm not gonna rephrase myself. You enjoy keeping trackers on your kids phones to yell at them whenever they stop by some place they're not supposed to, then I won't offer my 2 cents on that. But you cannot claim we're parenting all wrong, when we reduce the accessibility of fast food. Nuh uh. I don't see how the parents are being moronic. | ||
|
Trainrunnef
United States599 Posts
On July 27 2012 01:04 Praetorial wrote: Anti-gay marriage is a hateful position, because its explicit goal is the restriction of the freedoms of an individual. Anti-anti-gay marriage is not a hateful position because it does not restrict the freedom of individuals, it merely protects their right to personal freedoms. Thus, any anti-gay position is always hateful, any pro-gay marriage position is inherently unhateful. This is the opinion of most of Boston. Forgive my lack of clarity, my issue is not with moral "right and wrong". It has more to do with the fact that I don't think any mayor should have that kind of authority. If you allow this sort of action for an inherently un-hateful position, then you are also allowing it for an inherently hateful position as well. (if you dont want to be a hypocrite and discriminatory based on other's beliefs) | ||
|
U_G_L_Y
United States516 Posts
On July 27 2012 01:04 Praetorial wrote: Anti-gay marriage is a hateful position, because its explicit goal is the restriction of the freedoms of an individual. Anti-anti-gay marriage is not a hateful position because it does not restrict the freedom of individuals, it merely protects their right to personal freedoms. Thus, any anti-gay position is always hateful, any pro-gay marriage position is inherently unhateful. This is the opinion of most of Boston. Some people believe that children are better off with a mom and a dad. They have no hate in their hearts. They have a political belief perhaps based on the love of their own parents and a concern for children. I FEEL like we should put people in prison who tell others what they believe. But I know that fascism is wrong, so I will hold strong and continue to support the rights of people to say ridiculous and offensive things, even things that are not true, even things that are discriminatory and rude. | ||
|
Praetorial
United States4241 Posts
On July 27 2012 01:14 Trainrunnef wrote: Forgive my lack of clarity, my issue is not with moral "right and wrong". It has more to do with the fact that I don't think any mayor should have that kind of authority. If you allow this sort of action for an inherently un-hateful position, then you are also allowing it for an inherently hateful position as well. (if you dont want to be a hypocrite and discriminatory based on other's beliefs) What do you mean? Of course the mayor has the power to shut down a business. He can call constant inspections, have taxes inspected, make it hell for them. He can't just wave his hand and have them banned. But-he does have the legal power to take action against a business with very little justification. If that's a problem for you, go talk to the state government, they'll be very receptive. On July 27 2012 01:14 U_G_L_Y wrote: Some people believe that children are better off with a mom and a dad. They have no hate in their hearts. They have a political belief perhaps based on the love of their own parents and a concern for children. I FEEL like we should put people in prison who tell others what they believe. But I know that fascism is wrong, so I will hold strong and continue to support the rights of people to say ridiculous and offensive things, even things that are not true, even things that are discriminatory and rude. Telling others what they believe is a non-issue. It's telling others that your beliefs are supremely correct and have a divine stamp on them. I have no problem with the (religiously motivated) mommies and daddies wanting to raise their children in a traditional family. I have problems with those who begin to tell others that God has condemned them. | ||
|
Revelatus
United States183 Posts
| ||
|
Nathris
16 Posts
On July 27 2012 01:00 Trainrunnef wrote: For those of you who think the ban is right, would it also be right for a anti-gay mayor to ban a pro gay institution in his city? If he wants to ban CFA from his city because of their anti-gay stance, why not bar all anti-gay organizations from setting up shop in boston? would it be wrong then? The mayor's opinion (no matter how morally laudable or reprehensible) shouldn't be enough to outright ban any institution, future or present. This. I really can't believe that so many people think this is a good thing. Letting the mayor do things like this at completely his own discretion is such a bad idea. It doesn't matter if you agree with him or not. The proper way to go about this is with a community effort to protest or boycott the chain. | ||
| ||
