|
On July 27 2012 04:18 Zahir wrote:
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.
I agree with you. The problem is that the government's recognition of "marriage" gives special legal powers to those who are married.
|
On July 27 2012 04:18 Zahir wrote:
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.
Agreed.
People of other religions get married so it's not a Christian thing. Hell, atheists get married so it can't be a religious thing.
Can't be the ability to conceive either, otherwise why should infertile couples be allowed to wed?
Marriage is a legal, societal construct that has implications depending on where you are, be it in the situation where your partner dies / decides to leave you or in home co-ownership protection schemes.
|
On July 27 2012 01:36 WeeKeong wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 08:43 itkovian wrote: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. + Show Spoiler +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 .
This was not a matter of "rights" in the first place, which you are trying to make it now. Rather, it was a matter of hurt and harm. I was addressing the fact that you said a democracy should not be allowed to vote on a policy that hurts someone directly or indirectly. Regardless of what someone's "rights" are, "does a policy harm them?" is what the heart of the matter is.
Any democracy where the majority can and does vote on policies which harms the minority directly or indirectly is bad.
That is your original quote, and thats what I was attempting to discuss.
By nature, I would think that any policy which has a split vote, must have a minority group that is being harmed, in some way, shape, or form. No matter how trivial the suffering is, some group is being harmed. Otherwise, there would be no minority vote. If no one was being harmed by a policy, if everyone benefited, then it would pass with a 100% vote.
|
On July 27 2012 04:20 coverpunch wrote:For all the people who say Boston's mayor can block Chick-Fil-A, here's the mayor admitting he can't.Show nested quote +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.
If chick-fil-a is open in Boston, I feel it will end up like krispy kreme basically fizzle out. There is to many restaurants and fast food joint to compete with, and now that there is attention to this controversy many people just wont go.
|
On July 27 2012 02:00 turdburgler wrote:Show nested quote +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.
It is in America.
Those damn communists and unionists...
|
On July 27 2012 02:18 Ryalnos wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 02:03 gorbonic wrote: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. In argument against your last comment: http://www.chick-fil-a.com/Company/WinshapeFactor farming/animal cruelty is not as simple or not as clearly/universally a prominent issue as you portray it anyway?
The factory farming issue, though complicated (and I am certainly no expert) is one that any food organization with humanitarian pretensions would take an interest in.
You refer to their WinShape program as evidence against worrying that the company's values, as I put it, "extend only to conservative American political idee fixes." The WinShape program is actually a case in point. To receive a scholarship to Berry College, according to Wikipedia, "the current contract specifies weekly meeting attendance, leadership discussion group participation, community service, and a fundamentalist Christian lifestyle...Beginning in 2006, freshmen and transfer students were required to attend a week-long orientation camp known as FreshThing." The program only gives scholarships to Berry College, partly because it places premium importance on "a fundamentalist Christian lifestyle" and attendance to an "orientation camp" that presumably fills students in on the doctrines they will conform to in order to receive the altruism of Chick-fil-A. (Berry College itself has been a stronghold of the the American fundamentalist Christian movement; it only started allowing Unitarian and Muslim groups to form last year.) Winshape also hosts "marriage retreats" where couples are treated to sermons and foster care programs that admittedly indoctrinate children to fundamentalist Christian beliefs.
Most importantly, Winshape is at the center of many of these public relations problems. "WinShape has donated an estimated $5 million to conservative groups including Eagle Forum, Focus on the Family, Fellowship of Christian Athletes, Family Research Council, Exodus International and the Marriage & Family Legacy Fund since 2003. Approximately $2 million was given in 2009 and almost the same amount in 2010." [Wikipedia]
Ryalnos, you say there is nothing homophobic about arguing "that it is wasteful to apply monetary government benefits (which cost taxpayers somewhere down the line) to support [homosexual] relationships." Homosexual couples raise children all the time, successfully "protecting the stability/protection of children." Denying those families the same benefits as heterosexual parents is by definition homophobic. The it-aint-homophobic argument also obscures the far more common arguments against "protecting families from homosexual parents," which is that the parents will turn the children gay, and that such families fail to accord with ancient religious doctrine.
|
![[image loading]](http://img209.imageshack.us/img209/7899/39136910151133419454414.jpg)
User was warned for this post
|
On July 27 2012 03:27 Praetorial 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. 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.
That's why we have a constitution, to prevent mob rule. Pure democracy is when two wolves and a sheep vote on where to go to lunch.
I believe inthe constitutional democracy that founded America: individuals have certain unalienable rights, regardless of what some of the wolves in this forum may think.
|
On July 27 2012 04:38 gorbonic wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 02:18 Ryalnos wrote:On July 27 2012 02:03 gorbonic wrote: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. In argument against your last comment: http://www.chick-fil-a.com/Company/WinshapeFactor farming/animal cruelty is not as simple or not as clearly/universally a prominent issue as you portray it anyway? The factory farming issue, though complicated (and I am certainly no expert) is one that any food organization with humanitarian pretensions would take an interest in. You refer to their WinShape program as evidence against worrying that the company's values, as I put it, "extend only to conservative American political idee fixes." The WinShape program is actually a case in point. To receive a scholarship to Berry College, according to Wikipedia, "the current contract specifies weekly meeting attendance, leadership discussion group participation, community service, and a fundamentalist Christian lifestyle...Beginning in 2006, freshmen and transfer students were required to attend a week-long orientation camp known as FreshThing." The program only gives scholarships to Berry College, partly because it places premium importance on "a fundamentalist Christian lifestyle" and attendance to an "orientation camp" that presumably fills students in on the doctrines they will conform to in order to receive the altruism of Chick-fil-A. (Berry College itself has been a stronghold of the the American fundamentalist Christian movement; it only started allowing Unitarian and Muslim groups to form last year.) Winshape also hosts "marriage retreats" where couples are treated to sermons and foster care programs that admittedly indoctrinate children to fundamentalist Christian beliefs. Most importantly, Winshape is at the center of many of these public relations problems. "WinShape has donated an estimated $5 million to conservative groups including Eagle Forum, Focus on the Family, Fellowship of Christian Athletes, Family Research Council, Exodus International and the Marriage & Family Legacy Fund since 2003. Approximately $2 million was given in 2009 and almost the same amount in 2010." [Wikipedia] Ryalnos, you say there is nothing homophobic about arguing "that it is wasteful to apply monetary government benefits (which cost taxpayers somewhere down the line) to support [homosexual] relationships." Homosexual couples raise children all the time, successfully "protecting the stability/protection of children." Denying those families the same benefits as heterosexual parents is by definition homophobic. The it-aint-homophobic argument also obscures the far more common arguments against "protecting families from homosexual parents," which is that the parents will turn the children gay, and that such families fail to accord with ancient religious doctrine.
On a reread of your earlier statement, you didn't present factory farming/animal cruelty issues as anything more than examples of what you would consider 'good/altruistic' - my comments were based on what well could have been a misread of your intent/emphasis on those two issues in particular.
I think we're talking past each other on the other issue and I may well be too interested in the word/logic play involved in making an esoteric point (that there exists a non-homophobic argument against gay marriage - not the more difficult argument that there exists a logically sound non-homophobic argument against gay marriage).
|
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?
And you have just proven my point. Nobody should ahve their freedom of speech repressed. Otherwise, we ahve mob rule.
|
On July 27 2012 04:50 U_G_L_Y wrote:
And you have just proven my point. Nobody should ahve their freedom of speech repressed. Otherwise, we ahve mob rule.
...and what is democracy but "mob rule", or rather, the will of the MAJORITY?
|
On July 27 2012 03:09 Fyrewolf 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. 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.
Some might argue that these groups deny the unborn the right to live. Or to a lesser extent, children who are placed into adoption the right to have a mom and a dad.
You are on ridiculously shaky logical ground. The rights you believe in are the only ones that matter?
|
On July 27 2012 04:53 Plague1503 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 04:50 U_G_L_Y wrote:
And you have just proven my point. Nobody should ahve their freedom of speech repressed. Otherwise, we ahve mob rule. ...and what is democracy but "mob rule", or rather, the will of the MAJORITY?
Thats exactly what I said. That is why the US constitution is amazing. It allows democracy while (mostly) preventing mob rule.
|
to be honest, chick fila put themselves in a tough position. a business should be about running a business, adding non-sequiter politics into said business makes them vulnerable to a variety of stuff.
as far as action of the Mayor to try and kick them out, it's more of a political stunt imo.
But as a business they should've seen this kind of shit coming.
|
On July 27 2012 04:53 Plague1503 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 04:50 U_G_L_Y wrote:
And you have just proven my point. Nobody should ahve their freedom of speech repressed. Otherwise, we ahve mob rule. ...and what is democracy but "mob rule", or rather, the will of the MAJORITY?
The bill of rights was voted in, and has never been voted out. By your own logic, freedom of speech should be preserved.
|
I get your point, man, but you better edit your post and say it in a constructive way... before someone with power (not me) sees this.
|
I'm cool with the gays but I love chik fil a (raised as a southern boy). :/
|
On July 27 2012 04:57 U_G_L_Y wrote:Show nested quote +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. Some might argue that these groups deny the unborn the right to live. Or to a lesser extent, children who are placed into adoption the right to have a mom and a dad. You are on ridiculously shaky logical ground. The rights you believe in are the only ones that matter?
Mhm, you only have legal ground to stand on when the rights you are addressing have been granted legally.
In this case, it is still up in the air legally across most of the country what set of people have the legal right to be declared married under US law. You can make all the arguments you want about whether it is morally correct or how ridiculous it is that it isn't already a right, but until then the preference of one position or the other is ambiguous in the eyes of the government. Until it is coded into law, neither position has been declared 'correct' in the eyes of the government, so both are equivalent in how they should be treated.
Maybe there should be leeway for government to behave in more 'human' ways, but that's another issue - I don't think there is legal grounds for distinction.
|
On July 27 2012 05:16 Avtonikov wrote:
I'm cool with the gays but I love chik fil a (raised as a southern boy). :/
Chik-fil-a is about as tasty as you can get for fast food. Price is the problem for me. I'm cheap as crap.
|
On July 27 2012 04:57 U_G_L_Y wrote:Show nested quote +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. Some might argue that these groups deny the unborn the right to live. Or to a lesser extent, children who are placed into adoption the right to have a mom and a dad. You are on ridiculously shaky logical ground. The rights you believe in are the only ones that matter?
Rights that are not enforceable are meaningless. Right to have a mom and dad? There are orphans everywhere. Who are they gonna enforce that right against? God?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
