|
The government should not have the power to shut down businesses that donate to causes the government disagrees with. The power to block a business from opening is the same as the power to shut them down. And yes, I'd say the same thing about some jackass that donated to the KKK. There's no evidence that Chik-Fil-A discriminates against gay people or anyone else; it just donates/has donated to anti-gay organizations. Sure, the president's an idiot, but it's not like I care about his opinion.
Incidentally, neither Boston nor Chicago has the power to block the company anyway, but who knows how long they could drag it out in court.
Personally, I don't understand the problem with Marriage vs Civil Union. As long as one contains all the rights of the other, who cares what we call it. It should be the rights that are the contentious point here? I wish we could just settle and say "Man and woman: Marriage. Gay or Lesbain: Union" And give each the same rights as the other. Seems like the best outcome for everyone. But some ultra religious say that it's a slippery slope, and some gay/lesbian say it isn't good enough.
If civil unions actually worked as equal then they'd have more support. But they don't (they haven't in NJ in all accounts I've seen).
|
On July 27 2012 03:05 Praetorial wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 03:00 saocyn wrote:On July 27 2012 02:54 Praetorial wrote:On July 27 2012 02:50 saocyn wrote: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 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" It's not discrimination based on the fact that some people are Christian; It's discrimination based on the fact that the chain donates money to hateful causes. Call it what you will, it's justified. laughable at best, and the typical ban wagon response. "yeah they're hateful bro, you're wrong because i say so" you clearly have no basis for your argument, not even going to attempt to reply to you after this. And you seem quite uninformed, willfully neutral to the point of being obnoxious. Now that that's settled: Show nested quote +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. We will vote him in again, as we have for a while now, because he's a nice guy. Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 03:03 meadbert wrote: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. 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. That analogy is kinda flawed, since there's no way to hate an unborn child unless you're crazy... And our mayor has the power, a majority of the city supports him and this cause, so why not?
so, It's the majority making the rules? I thought we had a republic to stop this sort of thing... for people to stand up for the small voices.
|
On July 27 2012 03:16 meadbert wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 03:14 S_SienZ wrote:On July 27 2012 03:13 meadbert wrote:On July 27 2012 03:09 Fyrewolf wrote:On July 27 2012 03:03 meadbert wrote: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. 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. 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. Donating to planned parenthood (which I have done in the past) helps to deny the right of unborn children to live. I hope I am never persecuted or kicked out of a city because I made that donation. You can't have rights when you're not born yet. And gays do not have the "right to marry" in my state. Many of us (including me, but sadly not including our president) tried hard to prevent a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage from passing, but unfortunately it passed. Thus I live in a state where gay marriage is banned because a majority voted for it to be that way. I would hate to have a mayor kick me out of town because I publicly supported gay marriage. We should be able to engage in unpopular political activity without fear of reprisals from our elected leaders.
But there are so many differences to your situation:
1. Chick-fil-A is not a Boston based business, none of its owners live there and voted for the Boston mayor. In fact, I don't believe there is a franchise in Boston as of now.
2. It's one thing to have an opinion or support a cause, it's another to contribute millions to it as a company. I don't believe Cathy is doing it in his own personal capacity, which would have been a much smarter decision.
|
On July 27 2012 03:07 S_SienZ wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 03:03 meadbert wrote: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. 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. Slippery slope my friend. E.g. I don't hate women, but I don't believe they should be able to work, or vote. DISCLAIMER: HYPOTHETICAL If everyone back in the day thought like this, imagine how much progress would have been held back.
I don't think how a person thinks or feels should be punished by law. I don't feel gay couples should be denied the legal rights of heterosexual couples, but I don't feel you should be punished if you disagree. The question here is role of government not opinions of people, I think there will be people that disagree and hate gay marriage for a long time no matter what the law is. I think that those people may donate a lot of money to support their beliefs. I feel that in this case the "money is speech" ruling is properly applied and they should not be denied that right.
Your example of "I don't hate women, but I don't believe they should be able to work, or vote" seems to only show some self delusion, but I don't see this as something illegal. I may not like a person who says this, but I wouldn't jail him or fine him or expel him from the city. I would simply disagree with him.
Similarly I feel the Boston mayor's reaction is a bit overboard because he is setting a precedent that says companies which disagrees with his personal beliefs will be financially punished.
|
On July 27 2012 03:16 radscorpion9 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 03:12 S_SienZ wrote:On July 27 2012 03:10 radscorpion9 wrote: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. No one is being oppressed. People are allowed to hold different opinions on gay marriage, and even to fund campaigns trying to end it; oppression would consist of actively discriminating against them. Its part of free speech, which is the fundamental basis of democracy (hopefully?). How can you casually throw that away? What happens when a mayor decides to do this for bad reasons? Wait 4-5 or more years to elect someone else? In the mean time, I guess you're screwed right. How about this: Just let people decide whether they support the company or not. What could be more democratic than that? People have a right to shop where they want to, the mayor has no business taking that away. America was based on giving as much freedom to the individual as possible. There is absolutely no reason for the mayor to do this, as the company is not doing anything illegal except expressing an unpopular view. If you think the bar that entitles you to a permit is "being legal" I'm afraid you live in a fantasy world my friend. Maybe so, but I still would fight for that world to be a reality. I know earlier in the thread a lot of people have pointed out that similar things have happened before and that this isn't really setting a precedent. But still...I would have to argue that the mayor or any other level of government has no business denying a company simply based on their beliefs, which may be offensive to some. That role should be explicitly reserved for the public. Its a slippery slope; and I know that generally isn't a good argument but in this case freedom of speech is the cornerstone of a democracy and bears defending. Who is going to decide what hate speech is, what discriminatory language is? The majority? History is filled with examples of societies that thought they knew it all, and silenced people who they thought had horrible ideas that would destroy society; but now we come to revere many of them (aka Socrates). So called "free speech" that bars extreme opinions isn't any kind of free speech at all, true free speech is what marks a civilized society
thank you, and thank you. this is the reason why i still come visit team liquid threads. the problem ISN"T about religion or no religion, it isn't about allowing gay marriage or not allowing it, the core problem is the fact, it goes against free speech of 1 side whether that side's belief is unpopular or not.
|
On July 27 2012 03:22 VPCursed wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 03:05 Praetorial wrote:On July 27 2012 03:00 saocyn wrote:On July 27 2012 02:54 Praetorial wrote:On July 27 2012 02:50 saocyn wrote: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 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" It's not discrimination based on the fact that some people are Christian; It's discrimination based on the fact that the chain donates money to hateful causes. Call it what you will, it's justified. laughable at best, and the typical ban wagon response. "yeah they're hateful bro, you're wrong because i say so" you clearly have no basis for your argument, not even going to attempt to reply to you after this. And you seem quite uninformed, willfully neutral to the point of being obnoxious. Now that that's settled: 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. We will vote him in again, as we have for a while now, because he's a nice guy. On July 27 2012 03:03 meadbert wrote: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. 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. That analogy is kinda flawed, since there's no way to hate an unborn child unless you're crazy... And our mayor has the power, a majority of the city supports him and this cause, so why not? so, It's the majority making the rules? I thought we had a republic to stop this sort of thing... for people to stand up for the small voices.
Quite. That's why we elected a mayor, who can use his power.
Instead of a castrated figurehead like some people in this thread think government ought to work.
|
On July 27 2012 03:14 S_SienZ wrote:
You can't have rights when you're not born yet.
What a terrible thing it must be to be alive, capable of feeling pain, yet still without rights because you haven't been "born" yet, and then ripped apart, literally, limb by limb.
|
Orwell's dystopian 1984 is going to come true sooner or later, its just a matter of time. Anyone who thinks this is a good thing is absolutely crazy.
|
On July 27 2012 03:10 radscorpion9 wrote:Show nested quote +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. No one is being oppressed. People are allowed to hold different opinions on gay marriage, and even to fund campaigns trying to end it; oppression would consist of actively discriminating against them. Its part of free speech, which is the fundamental basis of democracy (hopefully?). How can you casually throw that away? What happens when a mayor decides to do something like this for bad reasons? Wait 4-5 or more years to elect someone else? In the mean time, I guess you're screwed right. How about this: Just let people decide whether they support the company or not. What could be more democratic than that? People have a right to shop where they want to, the mayor has no business taking that away. America was based on giving as much freedom to the individual as possible. There is absolutely no reason for the mayor to do this, as the company is not doing anything illegal except expressing an unpopular view.
Yeah, I agree with you for the most part.
I do think Gays are being oppressed by the government because same-sex marriage is not legal, however Chick Fil A isn't doing anything that is actively oppressing anyone. So I'd say this is not a case of Boston needing to put a stop to the oppression of minorities caused by chick-fil-a.
In terms of maintaining individuality, there's a limit to his powers, and for good reason as this ban may not even be within his powers. But if it is apparently he'll try to stop it and that's okay with the people so I really don't see the problem with it. Essentially similar to what you said, if what he wants to do is legal then there's really nothing wrong with this if his constituents want him to do it. In the end hopefully the people still decide and that's what's really important.
Just to speak practically though, this guy is a 5 term mayor. People in Boston probably like him a lot. So this getting stuck with a guy for 4 years is probably not the case for the majority.
TLDR, Is what they're doing oppressing someone? --> Is it legal? --> Do the majority of people want it? Yes yes yes? Then go for it.
|
On July 27 2012 03:27 dvorakftw wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 03:14 S_SienZ wrote:
You can't have rights when you're not born yet. What a terrible thing it must be to be alive, capable of feeling pain, yet still without rights because you haven't been "born" yet, and then ripped apart, literally, limb by limb.
Well, I can't really phrase this in a way that would sound nice, but unborn foetuses aren't exactly in a position to negotiate anything. The matter of their life or death is completely out of their hands.
That's why rights are ideally enforced by the people who stand to gain from it. otherwise it doesn't exactly work.
|
On July 27 2012 03:22 VPCursed wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 03:05 Praetorial wrote:On July 27 2012 03:00 saocyn wrote:On July 27 2012 02:54 Praetorial wrote:On July 27 2012 02:50 saocyn wrote: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 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" It's not discrimination based on the fact that some people are Christian; It's discrimination based on the fact that the chain donates money to hateful causes. Call it what you will, it's justified. laughable at best, and the typical ban wagon response. "yeah they're hateful bro, you're wrong because i say so" you clearly have no basis for your argument, not even going to attempt to reply to you after this. And you seem quite uninformed, willfully neutral to the point of being obnoxious. Now that that's settled: 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. We will vote him in again, as we have for a while now, because he's a nice guy. On July 27 2012 03:03 meadbert wrote: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. 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. That analogy is kinda flawed, since there's no way to hate an unborn child unless you're crazy... And our mayor has the power, a majority of the city supports him and this cause, so why not? so, It's the majority making the rules? I thought we had a republic to stop this sort of thing... for people to stand up for the small voices.
Poor choice of words... Wouldn't the small voices be the gays and the lesbians rather than the multinational corporation?
|
On July 27 2012 03:37 Fyrewolf wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 03:22 VPCursed wrote:On July 27 2012 03:05 Praetorial wrote:On July 27 2012 03:00 saocyn wrote:On July 27 2012 02:54 Praetorial wrote:On July 27 2012 02:50 saocyn wrote: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 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" It's not discrimination based on the fact that some people are Christian; It's discrimination based on the fact that the chain donates money to hateful causes. Call it what you will, it's justified. laughable at best, and the typical ban wagon response. "yeah they're hateful bro, you're wrong because i say so" you clearly have no basis for your argument, not even going to attempt to reply to you after this. And you seem quite uninformed, willfully neutral to the point of being obnoxious. Now that that's settled: 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. We will vote him in again, as we have for a while now, because he's a nice guy. On July 27 2012 03:03 meadbert wrote: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. 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. That analogy is kinda flawed, since there's no way to hate an unborn child unless you're crazy... And our mayor has the power, a majority of the city supports him and this cause, so why not? so, It's the majority making the rules? I thought we had a republic to stop this sort of thing... for people to stand up for the small voices. Poor choice of words... Wouldn't the small voices be the gays and the lesbians rather than the multinational corporation?
The small voices are those in the minority, thus they are gays and lesbians in my state, North Carolina, but they those against gay marriage in Boston.
|
On July 27 2012 02:35 Felnarion wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 02:25 Fyrewolf wrote: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. 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. Personally, I don't understand the problem with Marriage vs Civil Union. As long as one contains all the rights of the other, who cares what we call it. It should be the rights that are the contentious point here? I wish we could just settle and say "Man and woman: Marriage. Gay or Lesbain: Union" And give each the same rights as the other. Seems like the best outcome for everyone. But some ultra religious say that it's a slippery slope, and some gay/lesbian say it isn't good enough.
+ Show Spoiler +
This explains it pretty well. Civil unions doesn't have the cultural implications that marriage does.
|
On July 27 2012 03:46 APurpleCow wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 02:35 Felnarion wrote:On July 27 2012 02:25 Fyrewolf wrote: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. 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. Personally, I don't understand the problem with Marriage vs Civil Union. As long as one contains all the rights of the other, who cares what we call it. It should be the rights that are the contentious point here? I wish we could just settle and say "Man and woman: Marriage. Gay or Lesbain: Union" And give each the same rights as the other. Seems like the best outcome for everyone. But some ultra religious say that it's a slippery slope, and some gay/lesbian say it isn't good enough. + Show Spoiler +http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47cJSou-6JQ This explains it pretty well. Civil unions doesn't have the cultural implications that marriage does.
doesn't really matter in all honesty...anything inherently new is going to sound strange in the beginning and awkward. heck, i'm sure in the time of the slavery reform, it felt 100x more awkward for the masters to see slaves as equals, but it DID inevitably change. the bigger picture here is equality for all, and if it means stepping on less toes doing so, with the same outcome, what's to fight over?
|
On July 27 2012 03:25 saocyn wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 03:16 radscorpion9 wrote:On July 27 2012 03:12 S_SienZ wrote:On July 27 2012 03:10 radscorpion9 wrote: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. No one is being oppressed. People are allowed to hold different opinions on gay marriage, and even to fund campaigns trying to end it; oppression would consist of actively discriminating against them. Its part of free speech, which is the fundamental basis of democracy (hopefully?). How can you casually throw that away? What happens when a mayor decides to do this for bad reasons? Wait 4-5 or more years to elect someone else? In the mean time, I guess you're screwed right. How about this: Just let people decide whether they support the company or not. What could be more democratic than that? People have a right to shop where they want to, the mayor has no business taking that away. America was based on giving as much freedom to the individual as possible. There is absolutely no reason for the mayor to do this, as the company is not doing anything illegal except expressing an unpopular view. If you think the bar that entitles you to a permit is "being legal" I'm afraid you live in a fantasy world my friend. Maybe so, but I still would fight for that world to be a reality. I know earlier in the thread a lot of people have pointed out that similar things have happened before and that this isn't really setting a precedent. But still...I would have to argue that the mayor or any other level of government has no business denying a company simply based on their beliefs, which may be offensive to some. That role should be explicitly reserved for the public. Its a slippery slope; and I know that generally isn't a good argument but in this case freedom of speech is the cornerstone of a democracy and bears defending. Who is going to decide what hate speech is, what discriminatory language is? The majority? History is filled with examples of societies that thought they knew it all, and silenced people who they thought had horrible ideas that would destroy society; but now we come to revere many of them (aka Socrates). So called "free speech" that bars extreme opinions isn't any kind of free speech at all, true free speech is what marks a civilized society thank you, and thank you. this is the reason why i still come visit team liquid threads. the problem ISN"T about religion or no religion, it isn't about allowing gay marriage or not allowing it, the core problem is the fact, it goes against free speech of 1 side whether that side's belief is unpopular or not.
agreed. this is what i was trying to get at earlier in the thread. i dont want my government telling people what they can and cant do based on their beliefs. in my opinion, the moves the mayor is making here represent a step in that direction. its an attempt to use public opinion, threats and the prestige of his office to make a company gtfo, just because of what their owners happen to believe. i have no love for the company, its culture, its donations or its activities, but they should not be interfered with by the government because they havent DONE anything illegal.
its still a free country.
|
On July 27 2012 01:37 Smat wrote:Show nested quote +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.
So you are free to believe and support whatever you want, as long as it agrees with the progressives. Freedom.
|
On July 27 2012 03:46 APurpleCow wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 02:35 Felnarion wrote:On July 27 2012 02:25 Fyrewolf wrote: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. 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. Personally, I don't understand the problem with Marriage vs Civil Union. As long as one contains all the rights of the other, who cares what we call it. It should be the rights that are the contentious point here? I wish we could just settle and say "Man and woman: Marriage. Gay or Lesbain: Union" And give each the same rights as the other. Seems like the best outcome for everyone. But some ultra religious say that it's a slippery slope, and some gay/lesbian say it isn't good enough. + Show Spoiler +http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47cJSou-6JQ This explains it pretty well. Civil unions doesn't have the cultural implications that marriage does.
Welp, that's ridiculous. What, I'm supposed to not pick the compromise because it sounds weird when a youtube video purposefully distorts it?
Civil Unionized. What. If this is the biggest complaint, then what the hell is there a debate for? If your argument is that its a "cultural" thing that they should be able to participate in, then why is the other side's argument so distasteful? For them, it's a cultural/religious ceremony for a man and woman.
|
On July 27 2012 04:09 ImAbstracT wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 01:37 Smat wrote: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. So you are free to believe and support whatever you want, as long as it agrees with the progressives. Freedom.
/Agree
I'm always amazed that because you believe something different makes you a bigot or a homophobe as if you hate gays or discriminate against them.
|
also, as for the gay marriage debate... if two people want to get married, i see no reason to have the government interfere. if they want to discriminate against gay people due to their inability to reproduce, or something incredibly stupid like that, they should just call it like it is. pass a 'anti gay people' act, and just treat different married couples differently. a really honest person who had a problem with giving funding to gays, or whatever, would be willing to come out and say so. only a coward needs to try and create some false distinction where gay marriages somehow DONT COUNT to justify his discriminating between the two.
seriously, why should the government get to decide what a marriage is? marriage is a societal construct, interpreted differently by various cultures, and embraced by individual couples (or polygamist groupings) using whatever cultural trappings they prefer. a couple is not married because the government says so, they're married because they decide to be, they make that serious life decision to be committed to each other. to assert that somehow gay people are somehow incapable of making the same types of decisions and commitments, or that their doing so somehow does not count as marriage, is simply moronic.
and it is a shallow argument to say that gay marriage goes against tradition, because traditions in themselves have no value. it was once traditional to own slaves, burn witches, stone divorcees to death and force people to marry against their will, but times change. some churches have already embraced gay marriage, just goes to show how ideas adapt over time.
|
For all the people who say Boston's mayor can block Chick-Fil-A, here's the mayor admitting he can't.
Boston Mayor Thomas M. Menino repeated today that he doesn’t want Chick-fil-A in Boston, but he backed away from a threat to actively block the fast-food chain from setting up shop in the city.
“I can’t do that. That would be interference to his rights to go there,” Menino said, referring to company president Dan Cathy, who drew the mayor’s wrath by going public with his views against same-sex marriage.
The mayor added: “I make mistakes all the time. That’s a Menino-ism.”
So that's the end of this controversy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
