|
On July 26 2012 06:28 SabreUK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 06:05 KwarK wrote:
If someone openly politicises their company by taking a corporate stance on issues like this then they invite a broader social referendum on their operation. Whether or not it is the prerogative of the mayor to make that decision is another question but I have no problem with a company going "this is what we stand for" and a city going "we don't want what you stand for". If they stood just for good chicken then they wouldn't be having this problem. yup, any company's figureheads that publically come out and make such controversial statements should be able to be open to political backlash as a result of that statement
that's more than that, if the company directly donates to anti gay organization (which some ppl implies) then it has a political agenda and should no longer be treated as a simple business.
On July 26 2012 06:28 setzer wrote:
Should take it one step further and block all fast food chains from opening new restaurants. Set a precedent others may follow in a quest to tackle our obesity epidemic from crippling our nation.
it'd be just a little step /w a huge eco backslash, educating ppl is way more important imo
|
On July 26 2012 06:10 Praetorial wrote:
Let me introduce you to McDonald's, which is equally unhealthy, maybe more so, and still delicious.
It's actually not even close in terms of health. McDonald's is by far the more unhealthy chain. Chick-fil-A's meat is actually chicken. The ratio of protein to fat is also way in favor of Chick-fil-A because they use chicken instead of beef. In this regard, it's hard to compare the two because one serves beef and the other chicken. I can't actually argue which is more delicious, since that is subjective. Personally, I love my occasional Chick-fil-A sandwich, and can't walk within 20 yards of a McD's because of the smell.
|
I think this will just give them more power. Hell, even talking about banning a religiously related organization is enough to drive some overly sensitive Christians crazy -
AND for that reason alone they should ban them.
|
On July 26 2012 06:05 KwarK wrote:
If someone openly politicises their company by taking a corporate stance on issues like this then they invite a broader social referendum on their operation. Whether or not it is the prerogative of the mayor to make that decision is another question but I have no problem with a company going "this is what we stand for" and a city going "we don't want what you stand for". If they stood just for good chicken then they wouldn't be having this problem.
This. The city has taken a side on this issue and clearly disagrees Chic-fil-a and its vehement position. I think they should be allowed to do this.
|
On July 26 2012 06:26 MethodSC wrote:
Do we really want to go down that slippery slope?
The free market will punish them if it so decides to, and it has. If they were telling their employees to not serve gay people that would be a different thing, but as it stands, most gay people will just probably not go to that establishment anymore. It's that simple. Most of the time government is best left to do nothing, especially in this kind of situation.
Sure, why not?
After all, we only ban things we don't like, and the current mayor is very open to ideas.
On July 26 2012 06:29 Edahspmal wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 06:10 Praetorial wrote:
Let me introduce you to McDonald's, which is equally unhealthy, maybe more so, and still delicious.
It's actually not even close in terms of health. McDonald's is by far the more unhealthy chain. Chick-fil-A's meat is actually chicken. The ratio of protein to fat is also way in favor of Chick-fil-A because they use chicken instead of beef. In this regard, it's hard to compare the two because one serves beef and the other chicken. I can't actually argue which is more delicious, since that is subjective. Personally, I love my occasional Chick-fil-A sandwich, and can't walk within 20 yards of a McD's because of the smell.
And the money I pay goes partly to the company.
The company supports a hateful agenda.
McDonalds>Chic-fil-a on moral grounds.
|
On July 26 2012 06:28 SabreUK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 06:05 KwarK wrote:
If someone openly politicises their company by taking a corporate stance on issues like this then they invite a broader social referendum on their operation. Whether or not it is the prerogative of the mayor to make that decision is another question but I have no problem with a company going "this is what we stand for" and a city going "we don't want what you stand for". If they stood just for good chicken then they wouldn't be having this problem. yup, any company's figureheads that publically come out and make such controversial statements should be able to be open to political backlash as a result of that statement
I agree.....but that backlash should not take the form of discriminating against them in the legal arena. Encourage your citizens to boycott? Sure, whatever. Say you're going to outright ban them from the city? Screw you, move to China with that crap.
|
If someone openly politicises their company by taking a corporate stance on issues like this then they invite a broader social referendum on their operation. Whether or not it is the prerogative of the mayor to make that decision is another question but I have no problem with a company going "this is what we stand for" and a city going "we don't want what you stand for". If they stood just for good chicken then they wouldn't be having this problem.
Politics and the law are not the same thing. A company can go "this is what we stand for" and a city government can express disapproval and urge a social response, but that disapproval cannot be the basis for legal decisions.
http://www.volokh.com/2012/07/25/no-building-permits-for-opponent-of-same-sex-marriage/
But denying a private business permits because of such speech by its owner is a blatant First Amendment violation. Even when it comes to government contracting — where the government is choosing how to spend government money — the government generally may not discriminate based on the contractor’s speech, see Board of County Commissioners v. Umbehr (1996). It is even clearer that the government may not make decisions about how people will be allowed to use their own property based on the speaker’s past speech.
It is authoritarian at best for a government to deny permission for anything based on political speech. And what the governments of Chicago and Boston are doing is not what you are saying you support, it goes beyond that.
Sure, why not?
After all, we only ban things we don't like, and the current mayor is very open to ideas.
You don't get to do that. Not in a free country anyway.
In a fascist one, yes. It's disheartening but not surprising to see how many people turn into little fascists when it comes to things like this.
|
On July 26 2012 06:29 YODA_ wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 06:24 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:On July 26 2012 06:20 YODA_ wrote:On July 26 2012 06:14 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:On July 26 2012 05:57 Zaqwert wrote:
I wonder how everyone would feel if the mayor of Birmingham, AL said he was going to use zoning laws to force out all the Muslim and Jewish owned business.
Would you be cheering that?
Probably not.
You shouldn't base what should and shouldn't be allowed in society based on your own personal beliefs and agenda.
Clearly mayors should not have the power to ban legit businesses from their city just 'cuz they disagree with their beliefs.
50 years ago the talk would have been to drive the gays out and that would have been wrong too.
This thought police crap has to end. Let people live their own lives. If you don't wanna give Chic Fil A your business because you disagree with their policies, then don't. It's not the governments job to sanction what is acceptable beliefs. They're not been closed because they're a Christian organisation. They're been closed because they are openly been bigoted to another subsection of society. If my local curry house put posters up encouraging the destruction is Israel and suggesting Jews shouldn't be able to marry then I don't think they should be able to stay open either. See, here is where you are wrong. Chick Fil-A does NOT discriminate against gays. Their owner does, but he doesn't force his personal beliefs into his business policy. If his company policy was, "no gays allowed to work here", or "we don't serve gays", then I agree 100%, kick the idiots out. This is not the case, and has been stated as such by the owner himself. The Boston Mayor is a bigoted idiot himself, setting a very dangerous precedent. I really don't think you can draw the line so easily. Let's pretend that the current ruler of Syria decides to open a restaurant in your town, would you approve of that, do you think your Mayor should let him? No business is 100% separate from the actions of those who own it. Wait what? I wouldn't give a crap about him opening a restaurant, but I sure wouldn't give him any business. Vote with your money, keep big politics like this out of it.
This x1000
You don't like the business and their stand point, don't give them your money. Banning things for personal beliefs is never a good thing!
|
On July 26 2012 06:05 Zaqwert wrote:
The intellectually honest question is:
You either believe a mayor should have the power to ban a business because he disagrees with the owners religion or you don't.
You can't pick and choose which religions are "ok" to legally discriminate against and which ones aren't.
It would also be the same thing if a religious mayor wanted to ban atheist businesses.
It's not the government's job to punish businesses for their beliefs, individuals should have the power to support/not support them.
Exactly. Anyone who thinks this is ok must be insane.
|
On July 26 2012 06:29 McFeser wrote:
I think this will just give them more power. Hell, even talking about banning a religiously related organization is enough to drive some overly sensitive Christians crazy -
AND for that reason alone they should ban them.
OH YEAH!!! FIGHT BIGOTRY WITH BIGOTRY!!! GOGOGO BRAVE NEW WORLD!!
|
On July 26 2012 06:31 YODA_ wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 06:28 SabreUK wrote:On July 26 2012 06:05 KwarK wrote:
If someone openly politicises their company by taking a corporate stance on issues like this then they invite a broader social referendum on their operation. Whether or not it is the prerogative of the mayor to make that decision is another question but I have no problem with a company going "this is what we stand for" and a city going "we don't want what you stand for". If they stood just for good chicken then they wouldn't be having this problem. yup, any company's figureheads that publically come out and make such controversial statements should be able to be open to political backlash as a result of that statement I agree.....but that backlash should not take the form of discriminating against them publicly. Encourage your citizens to boycott? Sure, whatever. Say you're going to outright ban them from the city? Screw you, move to China with that crap.
I went to china once. It was very smoggy, air filled with soot.
And sure, we already hate anyone who speaks out against gay marriage enough to tell them to get the fuck out.
Our mayor is simply enforcing the will of the city.
On July 26 2012 06:32 YODA_ wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 06:29 McFeser wrote:
I think this will just give them more power. Hell, even talking about banning a religiously related organization is enough to drive some overly sensitive Christians crazy -
AND for that reason alone they should ban them. OH YEAH!!! FIGHT BIGOTRY WITH BIGOTRY!!! GOGOGO BRAVE NEW WORLD!!
Yup. It's a double standard, but one that is 99% supported by us.
|
On July 26 2012 06:05 KwarK wrote:
If someone openly politicises their company by taking a corporate stance on issues like this then they invite a broader social referendum on their operation. Whether or not it is the prerogative of the mayor to make that decision is another question but I have no problem with a company going "this is what we stand for" and a city going "we don't want what you stand for". If they stood just for good chicken then they wouldn't be having this problem. You said it was another question between whether the mayor should make that decision and within a second of that said it was totally fine for "the city" to make said decision. What is "the city" if not the mayor? What, if the mayor didnt make the decision but the councilors did it would suddenly be valid; the only question in your mind is whether its the duty of the executive office for a municipality to bully and harass business?
Certainly open statements invite criticism or refusal from your patrons, but there is simply no question that it isnt the Governments job to legislate morality -- which is effectively what this is. Its barbaric and its the antithesis of a constitutionally restrained Government, nevermind freedom as a whole.
|
United States47024 Posts
On July 26 2012 06:05 KwarK wrote:
If someone openly politicises their company by taking a corporate stance on issues like this then they invite a broader social referendum on their operation. Whether or not it is the prerogative of the mayor to make that decision is another question but I have no problem with a company going "this is what we stand for" and a city going "we don't want what you stand for". If they stood just for good chicken then they wouldn't be having this problem.
This post needs more acknowledgement.
It's one thing to pass judgement on a company for something said by the owner. But if the company as an organization has donated money to anti-gay rights organizations, that's a completely different matter. It's no longer just an issue of the owner's personal beliefs.
|
On July 26 2012 06:29 Praetorial wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 06:26 MethodSC wrote:
Do we really want to go down that slippery slope?
The free market will punish them if it so decides to, and it has. If they were telling their employees to not serve gay people that would be a different thing, but as it stands, most gay people will just probably not go to that establishment anymore. It's that simple. Most of the time government is best left to do nothing, especially in this kind of situation. Sure, why not? After all, we only ban things we don't like, and the current mayor is very open to ideas. Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 06:29 Edahspmal wrote:On July 26 2012 06:10 Praetorial wrote:
Let me introduce you to McDonald's, which is equally unhealthy, maybe more so, and still delicious.
It's actually not even close in terms of health. McDonald's is by far the more unhealthy chain. Chick-fil-A's meat is actually chicken. The ratio of protein to fat is also way in favor of Chick-fil-A because they use chicken instead of beef. In this regard, it's hard to compare the two because one serves beef and the other chicken. I can't actually argue which is more delicious, since that is subjective. Personally, I love my occasional Chick-fil-A sandwich, and can't walk within 20 yards of a McD's because of the smell. And the money I pay goes partly to the company. The company supports a hateful agenda. McDonalds>Chic-fil-a on moral grounds.
"Only ban things we don't like" "Current mayor is very open to ideas" Are extremely subjective. What happens if you let this stuff go by, a new mayor comes along and starts banning things HE doesn't like? Then you're screwed if you happen to like those things.
Politicians banning things is rarely EVER a good thing.
|
I'm gay myself, but I still think this is America and people should have the right to voice their opinion without getting dogpiled...
So it's ok to discriminate against people with views different than yours? What makes you better than the anti-gay marriage people then?
And I didn't take it that the mayor is "banning" Chic Filet, it seemed more of a "please don't come to our city because you aren't welcomed."
|
As someone who lives in Atlanta I eat at Chick-fil-a All the time. It is not the government's place to support any business that complete horse shit you know what stops Chick-fil-a from doing this? people do If you don't like what they support don't eat there but to tell you the truth they make a damn good chick sandwich and as also a former employee at a chick-fil-a I can tell you they run a tight business(other businesses know it I have gotten interviews ant the Hyatt just for having Chick-fil-a on my Resume) and they are not some kind of gay Nazi company. They serve everyone equal and are equal opportunity employer and one hell of a company. Again if you don't like what they support don't buy from there simple as that. This is one step away from the government being able to force out any business they want based on there position on the government yay!!!
|
On July 26 2012 06:29 Praetorial wrote:
And the money I pay goes partly to the company.
The company supports a hateful agenda.
McDonalds>Chic-fil-a on moral grounds.
I'm not forcing you to eat at Chick-fil-A; I'm saying you have no basis to argue for the equivalent health values of McDonalds in comparison to Chick-fil-A. Also, morals are subjective so you can't make the claim that one is better than the other in terms of that. YOU believe that McDonald's is better morally, a lot of other people might not.
|
On July 26 2012 06:33 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 06:05 KwarK wrote:
If someone openly politicises their company by taking a corporate stance on issues like this then they invite a broader social referendum on their operation. Whether or not it is the prerogative of the mayor to make that decision is another question but I have no problem with a company going "this is what we stand for" and a city going "we don't want what you stand for". If they stood just for good chicken then they wouldn't be having this problem. This post needs more acknowledgement. It's one thing to pass judgement on a company for something said by the owner. But if the company as an organization has donated money to anti-gay rights organizations, that's a completely different matter. It's no longer just an issue of the owner's personal beliefs.
No, it isn't a different matter. It's still political speech. It's not a legal basis to do anything.
Again, in a free country. But an awful lot of people in this thread seem to only want to live in a free country when that suits them.
|
On July 26 2012 06:34 Necro)Phagist( wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 06:29 Praetorial wrote:On July 26 2012 06:26 MethodSC wrote:
Do we really want to go down that slippery slope?
The free market will punish them if it so decides to, and it has. If they were telling their employees to not serve gay people that would be a different thing, but as it stands, most gay people will just probably not go to that establishment anymore. It's that simple. Most of the time government is best left to do nothing, especially in this kind of situation. Sure, why not? After all, we only ban things we don't like, and the current mayor is very open to ideas. On July 26 2012 06:29 Edahspmal wrote:On July 26 2012 06:10 Praetorial wrote:
Let me introduce you to McDonald's, which is equally unhealthy, maybe more so, and still delicious.
It's actually not even close in terms of health. McDonald's is by far the more unhealthy chain. Chick-fil-A's meat is actually chicken. The ratio of protein to fat is also way in favor of Chick-fil-A because they use chicken instead of beef. In this regard, it's hard to compare the two because one serves beef and the other chicken. I can't actually argue which is more delicious, since that is subjective. Personally, I love my occasional Chick-fil-A sandwich, and can't walk within 20 yards of a McD's because of the smell. And the money I pay goes partly to the company. The company supports a hateful agenda. McDonalds>Chic-fil-a on moral grounds. "Only ban things we don't like" "Current mayor is very open to ideas" Are extremely subjective. What happens if you let this stuff go by, a new mayor comes along and starts banning things HE doesn't like? Then you're screwed if you happen to like those things. Politicians banning things is rarely EVER a good thing.
Boston has very nice mayors, and very harsh punishments for that sort of thing.
Our city has a defined political position. I'm not sure how this works in Canada, but we would never elect someone who doesn't fit certain criteria. That criteria is near universal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
