|
On July 26 2012 08:43 itkovian wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 07:43 WeeKeong wrote:
To the open bostonian: You keep saying "the people of Boston" like they are a whole and have the same opinions. You talk like everyone, and by everyone i mean EVERYONE, in Boston doesn't want Chic-Fil-A.
Let's assume 80% don't want Chick-Fil-A and 20% do. Does it make it right for the 80% to vote on policies which will harm the 20%? Yes I mean harm. Banning Chick-Fil-A would mean less goods Boston, less jobs, less competition etc.
Is it ok for 80% to vote to force the remainding 20% to suffer? Democracy should not be the end goal, a democracy does not mean that the policies it makes is justified just because the majority votes on it. Any democracy where the majority can and does vote on policies which harms the minority directly or indirectly is bad.
I can only imagine the suffering the people have to endure without chick-fil-a ready to grease up their fingertips. There is NO policy that has been passed that has not harmed someone, somewhere. Every policy has a victim. At least indirectly, as you indicated would be unacceptable. If your raise taxes on the rich, the rich are harmed. If you lower taxes on the rich, the lower-class being aided by the benefits from the taxes are harmed. If you enforce strict environment regulations, corporations have to pay more to meet standards. If you don't enforce environmental regulations, people suffer from pollution. If you go to war, people are killed. If you pull out of a war, people in the military-industrial-complex lose jobs. EVERY policy that is passed by a majority hurts some minority. The real issue is weighing the suffering on each side, and deciding what hurts the least amount of people. Personally, I think the suffering endured by your theoretical "20%" lacking chic-fil-a is pretty insignificant. There are a lot of other issues raised by this scenario. People losing out on their chance to get a fast food chicken sandwich should be one of the smallest concerns. The bigger question is whether or not it should be within the mayor's rights to make such an action, and there are a lot of good arguments for both sides.
If you raise the taxes on the rich, more money is being taken from the rich by force without their concent, their rights are being broken. Yes they are being harmed.
If you lower taxes on the rich, less money is being taken from the rich by force, without their concent, and given to the people who did not earn this money. So no, you can't say the lower class are being harmed, they just receive less undeserved benefits, no rights are being broken here.
If you enforce "strict government regulation" regarding pollution, firms are allowed to break their quota and simply pay a fine, which actually benefits the firm and harms the environment, contary to what these regulations are supposed to acheive. Why is that the case? Due to the presence of these fines, those whom are being directly harmed by the pollution are not allowed to sue the polluting companies as said companies are already being taxed by the government and are immune from any other legal action regarding how much they pollute. Not really linked, but it shows that environmental policies is a bad example to support your points.
If you go to war, people are killed. People are being directly harmed, their rights are being broken, this is bad.
If you do not go to war, people lose jobs. Let me ask you something, what is the point of jobs in the first place? Why do people work? Without the government, companies have only one purpose, to earn money by producing a good or service. Why do these companies hire people? They need employee's in order to aid in teh production of goods and services. Each and every indivdual in such a company contributes to producing a portion of what the company produces.
We now understand why companies hire people. Why do people want to work? They want to consume as much as possible. Combining these points, people produce goods in order to consume other goods. People want to produce as much as possible (better jobs) in order to consume as much as possible (more goods and services).
In comes the government, which creates/allows jobs which allow employee's to consume without producing. How is that possible? How do people who work in jobs that do not produce anything consume goods and services? Simple, they take the profits from firms that produce more than they consume by force (government polcies) or generosity (donations by individuals).
So, to not go to war, people from the army and weapon companies lose jobs. Less money is being taken by force from firms that produce to give to such institutions that do not produce. No rights are being broken, it is fine. Besides, it will increase the available resources in which businessmen can use in order to produce goods and services, increasing the quality and quantity of goods and services produced in the country.
As for Chic-Fil-A themselves, when the majority votes to ban them, they take away the rights of the minority who want to consume the goods produced by Chick-Fil-A or work for them, this is bad.
If they are not banned, Chic-Fil-A continues to provide voluntary financial support for groups which do not break the rights of members of society, that is ok, no one's rights are broken.
TLDR: Sort of out of topic post which undermines the argument of someone many pages back.
|
On July 27 2012 01:23 ImAbstracT wrote:
Apparently those mayors, who preach tolerance, can't be tolerant of companies who's views are different than theirs. It is a two way street.
Imagine if this was the other way away. A pro-traditional marriage city blocking a company with different views. Do you really think the reaction would be the same?
Nope the reaction would not be same at all. Which is a good sign for this country.
|
On July 27 2012 01:29 Felnarion wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 01:26 NeMeSiS3 wrote:The idea that people still discriminate against gay people in 2012 is such a fucking joke, to many simple minded imbeciles roaming around this earth... If you ask me, I'd be completely content with purging it out of the system. On July 27 2012 01:23 ImAbstracT wrote:
Apparently those mayors, who preach tolerance, can't be tolerant of companies who's views are different than theirs. It is a two way street. Ok I'm opening up a bar, it's call "niggers'r'out" and no black person can enter my Bar... HOPEFULLY the mayor will respect my views even though I publicly shit on other peoples rights on a daily basis, what a load of shit. And if you're going to argue "homosexuality is not similar to racism" than you're an idiot frankly. Yeah that analogy makes sense. If the circumstances are completely different. If Chick Fil A said they would not serve gays. Then you'd have something approaching a point to make. If Chick Fil A even openly said "We see gays as sub-human." then, again, a point to make. So far, the expression has been in regards to the institution of marriage. This is not the same as the bar you mention. This is like opening a bar, calling it Ted's, and allowing anyone in. If you go into a Chick Fil A right now, walk up to the front and say "I'm gay and I'd like a number 1." You'll get a number 1 with a smile. You won't be charged extra, told to leave, spat on, fought...You'll simply be served, just like everyone else.
"I don't think of you as different, I just don't want you having the same rights I have" -.-
On July 27 2012 01:36 Trainrunnef wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 01:26 NeMeSiS3 wrote:The idea that people still discriminate against gay people in 2012 is such a fucking joke, to many simple minded imbeciles roaming around this earth... If you ask me, I'd be completely content with purging it out of the system. On July 27 2012 01:23 ImAbstracT wrote:
Apparently those mayors, who preach tolerance, can't be tolerant of companies who's views are different than theirs. It is a two way street. Ok I'm opening up a bar, it's call "niggers'r'out" and no black person can enter my Bar... HOPEFULLY the mayor will respect my views even though I publicly shit on other peoples rights on a daily basis, what a load of shit. And if you're going to argue "homosexuality is not similar to racism" than you're an idiot frankly. If you want to go with an anti-black analogy i think interracial marriage might be a little closer to what your looking for. I'm sure there are still plenty of people against that.
Yes that's true, but you won't see a company publicly say "we don't mind blacks, we'll serve blacks, but we just don't appreciate blacks and whites getting married" because it is racially prejudice.
Now take every time I said black or white and replace it with gay (gets a little odd at gays and gays getting married) but you'll understand the similarity.
|
On July 27 2012 01:30 GreEny K wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 01:28 Revelatus wrote:On July 27 2012 01:25 U_G_L_Y wrote:On July 27 2012 01:20 Praetorial wrote:On July 27 2012 01:16 Revelatus wrote:
And for the record, as much as I dislike the views of the Chick-Fil-A chain/owner/whatever, my opinions about gay rights are entirely separate from their right to do business, as are the opinions of the Mayor of Boston. Anything else would just seem wrong, and I think that if the position of the Mayor being able to make a decision about Chick's right to open restaurants in Boston would create a horrible precedent. Should he also be able to refuse the right of a church to exist in his jurisdiction based on differences in their political and religious beliefs? No. Well, evidently his opinions about gay rights and business are not separate. On July 27 2012 01:19 U_G_L_Y wrote:On July 27 2012 01:08 Praetorial wrote:On July 27 2012 01:07 U_G_L_Y wrote:On July 27 2012 00:50 Praetorial wrote:On July 27 2012 00:40 U_G_L_Y wrote:On July 27 2012 00:22 ayaz2810 wrote:
[quote]
Your name made me laugh. Good show. I believe in liberty and free speech for those that don't promote hate against any group of people. I guess I'm not a true American. I hate the mayor of Boston. I hate the mayor of New York. Because these individuals want to take away my liberties just the same as a bigoted business owner. But only two of the three actually have any power to do so. The Constitution protects atheists who want to take away religious liberty and promote hate against Christians the same as it protects Christians who want to take away the religious liberties of atheists. I would sacrifice my own life to protect the Constitution. America kicks so much ass because it protects speech and religion. Even speech and religions that we might not like so much. 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. Oops. Heh heh. Are you a business? I am a human; the only humans that I can think of that that also qualify as businesses are prostitutes. I am not a prostitute. I have owned businesses in the past. Currently I am employed by a corporation. So...has any legislation or threat been made against your rights as a human in those cities? I can no longer purchase Soda in a large cup in NYC. I believe that I have the right as a human and as an american to put my beverage in any size cup that I choose. When I heard about this legislation a month or so ago, I facepalmed really hard. It honestly hurts my brain to think about how this actually passed. It's insane. Lol didn't know about that law. I like it though, I think portions are getting too large in the US.
Liberty is getting too small. Don't tell me how much I am allowed to eat or which gender I can sleep with.
|
On July 27 2012 01:39 U_G_L_Y wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 01:30 GreEny K wrote:On July 27 2012 01:28 Revelatus wrote:On July 27 2012 01:25 U_G_L_Y wrote:On July 27 2012 01:20 Praetorial wrote:On July 27 2012 01:16 Revelatus wrote:
And for the record, as much as I dislike the views of the Chick-Fil-A chain/owner/whatever, my opinions about gay rights are entirely separate from their right to do business, as are the opinions of the Mayor of Boston. Anything else would just seem wrong, and I think that if the position of the Mayor being able to make a decision about Chick's right to open restaurants in Boston would create a horrible precedent. Should he also be able to refuse the right of a church to exist in his jurisdiction based on differences in their political and religious beliefs? No. Well, evidently his opinions about gay rights and business are not separate. On July 27 2012 01:19 U_G_L_Y wrote:On July 27 2012 01:08 Praetorial wrote:On July 27 2012 01:07 U_G_L_Y wrote:On July 27 2012 00:50 Praetorial wrote:On July 27 2012 00:40 U_G_L_Y wrote:
[quote]
I hate the mayor of Boston. I hate the mayor of New York. Because these individuals want to take away my liberties just the same as a bigoted business owner. But only two of the three actually have any power to do so.
The Constitution protects atheists who want to take away religious liberty and promote hate against Christians the same as it protects Christians who want to take away the religious liberties of atheists. I would sacrifice my own life to protect the Constitution. America kicks so much ass because it protects speech and religion. Even speech and religions that we might not like so much. 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. Oops. Heh heh. Are you a business? I am a human; the only humans that I can think of that that also qualify as businesses are prostitutes. I am not a prostitute. I have owned businesses in the past. Currently I am employed by a corporation. So...has any legislation or threat been made against your rights as a human in those cities? I can no longer purchase Soda in a large cup in NYC. I believe that I have the right as a human and as an american to put my beverage in any size cup that I choose. When I heard about this legislation a month or so ago, I facepalmed really hard. It honestly hurts my brain to think about how this actually passed. It's insane. Lol didn't know about that law. I like it though, I think portions are getting too large in the US. Liberty is getting too small. Don't tell me how much I am allowed to eat or which gender I can sleep with.
Covincing other people that homosexuality is good/bad is not against the idea of liberty, no one's rights are being broken, people still have the freedom of choice.
Banning a company removes choice, people no longer have the ability to choose whether they want to consume goods from that company, that goes against the idea of liberty.
|
On July 27 2012 01:22 Aro wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 01:11 meadbert wrote: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. Financially backing groups whose agendas are in direct opposition with state laws affirming the rights of same-sex couples to marry goes far beyond political and religious freedom of speech.
That's idiotic.
This is a democracy.
|
On July 27 2012 01:36 Smat wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 01:21 U_G_L_Y wrote:On July 27 2012 01:18 Smat wrote:On July 27 2012 01:14 U_G_L_Y wrote:On July 27 2012 01:04 Praetorial wrote: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. 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. And what if they are doing more than saying discriminatory things? Contrary to popular belief, we actually have laws in America to address that sort of thing, and those laws should be enforced. Eh, I was talking about the fact that Chick-fila funds discrimination directly with company money.
If they are funding firebombing people's homes, that is different than paying for an advertisement to share their political views. They are very different things. (One is murder, one is free speech. One is illegal, one is the basis for democracy...)
|
On July 27 2012 01:29 Felnarion wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 01:26 NeMeSiS3 wrote:The idea that people still discriminate against gay people in 2012 is such a fucking joke, to many simple minded imbeciles roaming around this earth... If you ask me, I'd be completely content with purging it out of the system. On July 27 2012 01:23 ImAbstracT wrote:
Apparently those mayors, who preach tolerance, can't be tolerant of companies who's views are different than theirs. It is a two way street. Ok I'm opening up a bar, it's call "niggers'r'out" and no black person can enter my Bar... HOPEFULLY the mayor will respect my views even though I publicly shit on other peoples rights on a daily basis, what a load of shit. And if you're going to argue "homosexuality is not similar to racism" than you're an idiot frankly. Yeah that analogy makes sense. If the circumstances are completely different. If Chick Fil A said they would not serve gays. Then you'd have something approaching a point to make. If Chick Fil A even openly said "We see gays as sub-human." then, again, a point to make. So far, the expression has been in regards to the institution of marriage. This is not the same as the bar you mention. This is like opening a bar, calling it Ted's, and allowing anyone in. If you go into a Chick Fil A right now, walk up to the front and say "I'm gay and I'd like a number 1." You'll get a number 1 with a smile. You won't be charged extra, told to leave, spat on, fought...You'll simply be served, just like everyone else.
Problem is, you get your stuff and the smile not because of the companies owner, but that poor fella that works his ass off there. His analogy is wrong, you are right there - but picture this.
I'll open a club, lets call it "Chicks on Filet". I state, that i "dislike" black people, and i give money to people who are active in trying to get the laws back, so you can hold black slaves on plantages. I employ normal people (which are not racist, or may be - does not matter to me as owner), which also serve black peoples.
Would that be completely fine to you? You cant put in an official agenda for your employees to not serve gays (you could for black people, but no one would want to insure you), by law. So you just hope they dont come.
|
I'm removing my self from the conversation to go take care of my sick kids. But remember:
First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.
Stand up for the rights of ALL those with whom you disagree. Whether they don't want you to be married to a boy or they want to make you drive a compact car or whether they want to stop you from eating tasty food or whether they want you to keep your business closed on Sunday. We should all protect each-other's right to free speech, whether we agree with said speech or not.
|
On July 27 2012 01:42 WeeKeong wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 01:39 U_G_L_Y wrote:On July 27 2012 01:30 GreEny K wrote:On July 27 2012 01:28 Revelatus wrote:On July 27 2012 01:25 U_G_L_Y wrote:On July 27 2012 01:20 Praetorial wrote:On July 27 2012 01:16 Revelatus wrote:
And for the record, as much as I dislike the views of the Chick-Fil-A chain/owner/whatever, my opinions about gay rights are entirely separate from their right to do business, as are the opinions of the Mayor of Boston. Anything else would just seem wrong, and I think that if the position of the Mayor being able to make a decision about Chick's right to open restaurants in Boston would create a horrible precedent. Should he also be able to refuse the right of a church to exist in his jurisdiction based on differences in their political and religious beliefs? No. Well, evidently his opinions about gay rights and business are not separate. On July 27 2012 01:19 U_G_L_Y wrote:On July 27 2012 01:08 Praetorial wrote:On July 27 2012 01:07 U_G_L_Y wrote:On July 27 2012 00:50 Praetorial wrote:
[quote]
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. Oops. Heh heh. Are you a business? I am a human; the only humans that I can think of that that also qualify as businesses are prostitutes. I am not a prostitute. I have owned businesses in the past. Currently I am employed by a corporation. So...has any legislation or threat been made against your rights as a human in those cities? I can no longer purchase Soda in a large cup in NYC. I believe that I have the right as a human and as an american to put my beverage in any size cup that I choose. When I heard about this legislation a month or so ago, I facepalmed really hard. It honestly hurts my brain to think about how this actually passed. It's insane. Lol didn't know about that law. I like it though, I think portions are getting too large in the US. Liberty is getting too small. Don't tell me how much I am allowed to eat or which gender I can sleep with. Covincing other people that homosexuality is good/bad is not against the idea of liberty, no one's rights are being broken, people still have the freedom of choice. Banning a company removes choice, people no longer have the ability to choose whether they want to consume goods from that company, that goes against the idea of liberty.
That's weird.... I wonder what other socially and government constructed "ban" is also getting in the way of liberty?
I wonder....
|
On July 27 2012 01:44 m4inbrain wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 01:29 Felnarion wrote:On July 27 2012 01:26 NeMeSiS3 wrote:The idea that people still discriminate against gay people in 2012 is such a fucking joke, to many simple minded imbeciles roaming around this earth... If you ask me, I'd be completely content with purging it out of the system. On July 27 2012 01:23 ImAbstracT wrote:
Apparently those mayors, who preach tolerance, can't be tolerant of companies who's views are different than theirs. It is a two way street. Ok I'm opening up a bar, it's call "niggers'r'out" and no black person can enter my Bar... HOPEFULLY the mayor will respect my views even though I publicly shit on other peoples rights on a daily basis, what a load of shit. And if you're going to argue "homosexuality is not similar to racism" than you're an idiot frankly. Yeah that analogy makes sense. If the circumstances are completely different. If Chick Fil A said they would not serve gays. Then you'd have something approaching a point to make. If Chick Fil A even openly said "We see gays as sub-human." then, again, a point to make. So far, the expression has been in regards to the institution of marriage. This is not the same as the bar you mention. This is like opening a bar, calling it Ted's, and allowing anyone in. If you go into a Chick Fil A right now, walk up to the front and say "I'm gay and I'd like a number 1." You'll get a number 1 with a smile. You won't be charged extra, told to leave, spat on, fought...You'll simply be served, just like everyone else. Problem is, you get your stuff and the smile not because of the companies owner, but that poor fella that works his ass off there. His analogy is wrong, you are right there - but picture this. I'll open a club, lets call it "Chicks on Filet". I state, that i "dislike" black people, and i give money to people who are active in trying to get the laws back, so you can hold black slaves on plantages. I employ normal people (which are not racist, or may be - does not matter to me as owner), which also serve black peoples. Would that be completely fine to you? You cant put in an official agenda for your employees to not serve gays (you could for black people, but no one would want to insure you), by law. So you just hope they dont come.
Of course not, that's even more ridiculous. Comparing slavery to anti-gay marriage is ridiculous. Chick Fil A isn't against gays, it's against gay marriage. They don't want gays to be excluded (don't even attempt a policy of exclusive based on sexual preference, whether hiring, or serving) they just don't agree with the marriage aspect of it.
And to those who say "They don't get the same rights as everyone else" that's ridiculous. They have exactly the same rights. In places where gay marriage is banned, no one can marry a same sex partner, including straight people. Now, they also don't have a desire to, but the rights are the same, regardless. What you're trying to say is "Gay people should be allowed to call their relationship a marriage as well" and that's a wholly different and debatable topic. But we all share the same rights, and the law treats us equally. It just affects some more than others.
|
On July 27 2012 01:43 Praetorial wrote:
That's idiotic.
This is a democracy.
Democracy is also an elected official enforcing the will of the people who don't want bigots in their town.
|
On July 27 2012 01:44 m4inbrain wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 01:29 Felnarion wrote:On July 27 2012 01:26 NeMeSiS3 wrote:The idea that people still discriminate against gay people in 2012 is such a fucking joke, to many simple minded imbeciles roaming around this earth... If you ask me, I'd be completely content with purging it out of the system. On July 27 2012 01:23 ImAbstracT wrote:
Apparently those mayors, who preach tolerance, can't be tolerant of companies who's views are different than theirs. It is a two way street. Ok I'm opening up a bar, it's call "niggers'r'out" and no black person can enter my Bar... HOPEFULLY the mayor will respect my views even though I publicly shit on other peoples rights on a daily basis, what a load of shit. And if you're going to argue "homosexuality is not similar to racism" than you're an idiot frankly. Yeah that analogy makes sense. If the circumstances are completely different. If Chick Fil A said they would not serve gays. Then you'd have something approaching a point to make. If Chick Fil A even openly said "We see gays as sub-human." then, again, a point to make. So far, the expression has been in regards to the institution of marriage. This is not the same as the bar you mention. This is like opening a bar, calling it Ted's, and allowing anyone in. If you go into a Chick Fil A right now, walk up to the front and say "I'm gay and I'd like a number 1." You'll get a number 1 with a smile. You won't be charged extra, told to leave, spat on, fought...You'll simply be served, just like everyone else. Problem is, you get your stuff and the smile not because of the companies owner, but that poor fella that works his ass off there. His analogy is wrong, you are right there - but picture this. I'll open a club, lets call it "Chicks on Filet". I state, that i "dislike" black people, and i give money to people who are active in trying to get the laws back, so you can hold black slaves on plantages. I employ normal people (which are not racist, or may be - does not matter to me as owner), which also serve black peoples. Would that be completely fine to you? You cant put in an official agenda for your employees to not serve gays (you could for black people, but no one would want to insure you), by law. So you just hope they dont come.
Well, supporting kidnapping (slavery) is not really the correct logical leap here, but I will take your bait anyway: Yes, I support their right to say "we should segregate schools." I would not support the government shutting down the establishment, because that sets a dangerous precedent.
2 wrongs don't make a right.
Hell, why don't we just execute that business owner on the spot? He has no respect for blacks so we should have no respect for his, right?
There is a right and a wrong way to deal with problems.
Okay, I'm done for real now.
|
United States5162 Posts
On July 27 2012 01:51 Butterednuts wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 01:42 WeeKeong wrote:On July 27 2012 01:39 U_G_L_Y wrote:On July 27 2012 01:30 GreEny K wrote:On July 27 2012 01:28 Revelatus wrote:On July 27 2012 01:25 U_G_L_Y wrote:On July 27 2012 01:20 Praetorial wrote:On July 27 2012 01:16 Revelatus wrote:
And for the record, as much as I dislike the views of the Chick-Fil-A chain/owner/whatever, my opinions about gay rights are entirely separate from their right to do business, as are the opinions of the Mayor of Boston. Anything else would just seem wrong, and I think that if the position of the Mayor being able to make a decision about Chick's right to open restaurants in Boston would create a horrible precedent. Should he also be able to refuse the right of a church to exist in his jurisdiction based on differences in their political and religious beliefs? No. Well, evidently his opinions about gay rights and business are not separate. On July 27 2012 01:19 U_G_L_Y wrote:On July 27 2012 01:08 Praetorial wrote:On July 27 2012 01:07 U_G_L_Y wrote:
[quote]
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? I am a human; the only humans that I can think of that that also qualify as businesses are prostitutes. I am not a prostitute. I have owned businesses in the past. Currently I am employed by a corporation. So...has any legislation or threat been made against your rights as a human in those cities? I can no longer purchase Soda in a large cup in NYC. I believe that I have the right as a human and as an american to put my beverage in any size cup that I choose. When I heard about this legislation a month or so ago, I facepalmed really hard. It honestly hurts my brain to think about how this actually passed. It's insane. Lol didn't know about that law. I like it though, I think portions are getting too large in the US. Liberty is getting too small. Don't tell me how much I am allowed to eat or which gender I can sleep with. Covincing other people that homosexuality is good/bad is not against the idea of liberty, no one's rights are being broken, people still have the freedom of choice. Banning a company removes choice, people no longer have the ability to choose whether they want to consume goods from that company, that goes against the idea of liberty. That's weird.... I wonder what other socially and government constructed "ban" is also getting in the way of liberty? I wonder....
If you're alluding to the push in some areas to ban gay marriage, I would hope everyone who is opposed to this is against that as well. I'm wholly against this, not because I support Chick-Fil-A being bigots, but because I don't want the government deciding who is a bigot and who isn't and enacting laws to punish those they consider less desirable.
|
On July 27 2012 01:50 U_G_L_Y wrote:
I'm removing my self from the conversation to go take care of my sick kids. But remember:
First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.
Stand up for the rights of ALL those with whom you disagree. Whether they don't want you to be married to a boy or they want to make you drive a compact car or whether they want to stop you from eating tasty food or whether they want you to keep your business closed on Sunday. We should all protect each-other's right to free speech, whether we agree with said speech or not.
bigotry isnt protected by free speech.
|
On July 27 2012 01:51 Butterednuts wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 01:42 WeeKeong wrote:On July 27 2012 01:39 U_G_L_Y wrote:On July 27 2012 01:30 GreEny K wrote:On July 27 2012 01:28 Revelatus wrote:On July 27 2012 01:25 U_G_L_Y wrote:On July 27 2012 01:20 Praetorial wrote:On July 27 2012 01:16 Revelatus wrote:
And for the record, as much as I dislike the views of the Chick-Fil-A chain/owner/whatever, my opinions about gay rights are entirely separate from their right to do business, as are the opinions of the Mayor of Boston. Anything else would just seem wrong, and I think that if the position of the Mayor being able to make a decision about Chick's right to open restaurants in Boston would create a horrible precedent. Should he also be able to refuse the right of a church to exist in his jurisdiction based on differences in their political and religious beliefs? No. Well, evidently his opinions about gay rights and business are not separate. On July 27 2012 01:19 U_G_L_Y wrote:On July 27 2012 01:08 Praetorial wrote:On July 27 2012 01:07 U_G_L_Y wrote:
[quote]
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? I am a human; the only humans that I can think of that that also qualify as businesses are prostitutes. I am not a prostitute. I have owned businesses in the past. Currently I am employed by a corporation. So...has any legislation or threat been made against your rights as a human in those cities? I can no longer purchase Soda in a large cup in NYC. I believe that I have the right as a human and as an american to put my beverage in any size cup that I choose. When I heard about this legislation a month or so ago, I facepalmed really hard. It honestly hurts my brain to think about how this actually passed. It's insane. Lol didn't know about that law. I like it though, I think portions are getting too large in the US. Liberty is getting too small. Don't tell me how much I am allowed to eat or which gender I can sleep with. Covincing other people that homosexuality is good/bad is not against the idea of liberty, no one's rights are being broken, people still have the freedom of choice. Banning a company removes choice, people no longer have the ability to choose whether they want to consume goods from that company, that goes against the idea of liberty. That's weird.... I wonder what other socially and government constructed "ban" is also getting in the way of liberty? I wonder....
Banning drugs. Banning businessment from entering an industry. Banning protests. Banning people from working for a company in which government allied trade unions are striking against. Basically, any bans that infringe the rights of the people. Taking a company's resources to fund other companies which lobby more. Taking the resources of the few to benefit the majority with the greater voting power. All these get in the way of liberty.
|
this guy cant even say his towns sports heros names right... any of them. "kj and hondo."
|
The company's values extend to the way it's run. From a NYT article last year (1/29/2011): The company’s Christian culture and its strict hiring practices, which require potential operators to discuss their marital status and civic and church involvement, have attracted controversy before, including a 2002 lawsuit brought by a Muslim restaurant owner in Houston who said he was fired because he did not pray to Jesus with other employees at a training session. Furthermore, some people have argued that Chick-fil-A's "Christian" values extend only to conservative American political idee fixes, and that Christian problems related to goodness and altruism (such as homelessness, factory farming/animal cruelty, etc.) fall by the wayside.
|
On July 27 2012 01:52 Plague1503 wrote:Democracy is also an elected official enforcing the will of the people who don't want bigots in their town.
LEARN TO READ, FOOL
I'm all for that.
If you had bothered to read the comment that you so neatly cut out here, let me provide it for you,
On July 27 2012 01:22 Aro wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 01:11 meadbert wrote: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. Financially backing groups whose agendas are in direct opposition with state laws affirming the rights of same-sex couples to marry goes far beyond political and religious freedom of speech.
You'd see that it is, in fact, rather nonsensical and deserving of a mark of idiocy.
Instead, you didn't read it and assumed I was arguing against the ban.
TLDR: L2read
|
On July 27 2012 01:50 U_G_L_Y wrote:
I'm removing my self from the conversation to go take care of my sick kids. But remember:
First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.
Stand up for the rights of ALL those with whom you disagree. Whether they don't want you to be married to a boy or they want to make you drive a compact car or whether they want to stop you from eating tasty food or whether they want you to keep your business closed on Sunday. We should all protect each-other's right to free speech, whether we agree with said speech or not.
The First Amendment doesn't give you the right to say anything anywhere at any time without repercussions. There are many restrictions on speech; it is not a complete pass on anything you say. The most used example is the shouting of "FIRE" in a crowded theater when there is none, but you also can't start protests in front of most city halls/goverment buildings without a permit and even then not within a certain radius, and there are many slander and libel laws that restrict speech as well. "Your right to swing your fist ends where the other person's face begins", meaning you have rights so long as those rights don't restrict, impede, or threaten the rights of others.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
