Boston Mayor vows to ban Chick-Fil-A from his city - Page 39

On July 27 2012 02:16 Ryalnos wrote:
There seems to be this assumption that opposition to gay marriage is necessarily homophobic, etc.

Some among those opposed to gay marriage take a 'separate but equal' approach to the 'government-codified coupling of sexual partners' issue.

Here are, roughly, two ways this concept of 'separate but equal' could be understood:

A) "Separate but equal" segregation of black Americans in the early half of last century - real baaad and false in practice.
B) The "separate but equal" male & female restrooms in many businesses and establishments throughout this country - different physical makeups require different facilities, + privacy - deemed acceptable.

If marriage is understood to be legally protected for a purpose related protecting the stability/protection of children (the next generation of citizens) produced by sexual coupling, then it is not extremely difficult how an argument could be made for B) as homosexual coupling cannot physically produce children (adoption complicates this of course etc.). It could be argued that it is wasteful to apply monetary government benefits (which cost taxpayers somewhere down the line) to support these relationships.

Now an easy common sense argument is that the small cost to taxpayers would be meaningless compared to the impact of unequivocating, "identically equal" treatment of homosexual couples by the government. So the other position may seem heartless (or truly motivated by other reasons that the 'philosophical ones presented') but need not necessarily come from a homophobic/gay-hating position.

This may well be philosophical minutiae but, whatever.

On July 27 2012 02:36 Ecrilon wrote:
I've always assumed
Discrimination->Bad
Discriminating against people that discriminate->Fine
Kind of like
killing people->Bad
Killing people that are killing people->Fine

On July 27 2012 02:50 saocyn wrote:


if you want a never ending cycle of hatred and problems that will never be solved, sure.
2 wrongs don't make a right.

as my man MLK once said "Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that"

and your analogy is quite incomparable to the situation at hand, especially killing the people who kill.
in the majority of cases we have absolutely no choice but to take a life due to the threat of that person taking more and has consistently proven to take more and more.

in this case you're trying to eliminate people of making a basic living based on an "assumption" and even more laughable, a rumor. yeah let's throw everyone who has jobs under the bus cause the majority of the chain is christian, NOT ALL, some.
even then the moment you start to discriminate against someone because of their own rights to their own PERSONAL beliefs, only shows how much of a bigot you are.

i will end on the quote
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"

On July 27 2012 02:25 Fyrewolf wrote:


Marriage isn't understood that way by the government though. Even Heterosexual couples could be incapable of producing children because they are infertile, yet they can adopt children and they get the benefits government provides for having children via taxes and the like. People join themselves together in life and the government is trying to facilitate and accomodate for the natural grouping that people do, rather than government protecting marriage for a purpose. The effects of the grouping that are beneficial to society the government helps facilitate like education, but it starts with the people joining their lives together, the people are the ones who define their joining, and not the governments or religions job to define what that joining is and isn't but to accomodate for it in society.

On July 27 2012 02:54 Praetorial wrote:
It's discrimination based on the fact that the chain donates money to hateful causes.
Call it what you will, it's justified.

On July 27 2012 03:03 meadbert wrote:

Is the killing of hundreds of thousands of unborn children a hateful cause?
Plenty of people would say so, but that does not mean that mayors can kick any company out of town that donates to planned parenthood.

NOTE: Do not derail into pro-life/pro-choice thread. I am actually pro-choice anyway, so you would only be preaching to choir.

My point is that what seems hateful to one person may not seem that way to another.
Also, just because a policy you support hurts someone does not mean you hate.
Cathy may be against Gay marriage without hating gay people just as many people are pro-choice without hating unborn children.

On July 27 2012 03:09 Fyrewolf wrote:


It's one thing to have an opinion, it's quite another to actively try to enforce that opinion on others when it includes denying others their rights. Donating to planned parenthood doesn't deny anybody rights, merely helps some who chose to excersice their right to an abortion(among the many many other services they offer). Donating to groups that fight to keep gays from getting married helps deny rights to people who should have them.

On July 27 2012 03:02 YokaY wrote:
Role of democracy, I hope, is to represent the interests of the people and prevent the oppression of minority groups. If this is what the city wants, then this is great, if it isn't want the city wants, then he won't get re-elected.