|
On July 27 2012 09:24 Myles wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 09:18 NotAPro wrote:On July 27 2012 09:14 Myles wrote:On July 27 2012 09:09 NotAPro wrote:On July 27 2012 09:03 Myles wrote:On July 27 2012 09:01 NotAPro wrote:On July 27 2012 08:56 Myles wrote:On July 27 2012 08:52 NotAPro wrote:On July 27 2012 08:47 Myles wrote:On July 27 2012 08:46 NotAPro wrote:
[quote]
I guess we'll see about that. It hasn't actually happened, and should it go through I'd be willing to bet a large amount of money that it would be ruled unconstitutional in court. Actually, from what I understand, they wouldn't be making it a law per-say, just using zoning regulation and other red tape to make it a nightmare. So it might be technically legal, but certainly against the spirit of the 1st amendment. And denying Gay rights is in the spirit of the 1st amendment? I'm not sure it's related to the 1st amendment, but being able to say you support denying gay rights is, just the same as saying those who don't support gay rights are bigots and should be punished. I don't support the government enacting either, but people are 100% free the believe what they want. The Government keeps Gay marriage illegal (on the back of religion, so i'd say that applies to the first amendment), so I think it's fair game that the Government can suppress Anti-Homosexuality if they think Gays have equal rights to the rest of us. Like I said, I don't think the government should be doing either. And what you've said is basically 'they did it so I can do it, too' which is horrible reasoning imo. If that was the only reason for doing it, yeah it would be shitty. In my eyes it's exactly the same as boycotting an openly racist organization which no one would have a problem with. Anything anyone can do to fuck over intolerant people who suppress the rights of others is pretty much obligated to do so in my eyes. As long as you do it without the use of government monopoly, more power to you. Boycott, protest, send angry letters, that all sounds great. But when you start passing Jim Crow laws, except aimed at bigots instead of blacks, that's where I have a problem. Being an intolerant bigot is a choice and a detriment to society, being black, gay, a woman etc is not. That's where the difference is in my opinion. I agree there's a difference, but only in the sense that one is an opinion while the other is a state of being. And I think I've made it pretty clear I think all opinions should be protected, the same as all people should be treated equally. There was a time those in power thought the idea of equality and freedom for everyone was reprehensible, so they oppressed and persecuted those people for having an unpopular opinion. I won't do the same; even to an opinion I consider reprehensible today. It's a matter of principle that we obviously disagree on.
If Gays could marry, I would agree with you. As it is now the bigots are being aloud to suppress a group of people and that in unacceptable in my eyes. Once your opinion doesn't actually effect anyone then i'm fine with you having it.
Something needs to be done and support needs to be gained for LGBT rights. The people you are defending are the people who you say you don't want to be like. They are the ones that don't want others to be equal, not the other way around. I'd suppress an opinion in the name of rights any day.
|
United States5162 Posts
On July 27 2012 09:29 NotAPro wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 09:24 Myles wrote:On July 27 2012 09:18 NotAPro wrote:On July 27 2012 09:14 Myles wrote:On July 27 2012 09:09 NotAPro wrote:On July 27 2012 09:03 Myles wrote:On July 27 2012 09:01 NotAPro wrote:On July 27 2012 08:56 Myles wrote:On July 27 2012 08:52 NotAPro wrote:On July 27 2012 08:47 Myles wrote:
[quote]
It hasn't actually happened, and should it go through I'd be willing to bet a large amount of money that it would be ruled unconstitutional in court.
Actually, from what I understand, they wouldn't be making it a law per-say, just using zoning regulation and other red tape to make it a nightmare. So it might be technically legal, but certainly against the spirit of the 1st amendment. And denying Gay rights is in the spirit of the 1st amendment? I'm not sure it's related to the 1st amendment, but being able to say you support denying gay rights is, just the same as saying those who don't support gay rights are bigots and should be punished. I don't support the government enacting either, but people are 100% free the believe what they want. The Government keeps Gay marriage illegal (on the back of religion, so i'd say that applies to the first amendment), so I think it's fair game that the Government can suppress Anti-Homosexuality if they think Gays have equal rights to the rest of us. Like I said, I don't think the government should be doing either. And what you've said is basically 'they did it so I can do it, too' which is horrible reasoning imo. If that was the only reason for doing it, yeah it would be shitty. In my eyes it's exactly the same as boycotting an openly racist organization which no one would have a problem with. Anything anyone can do to fuck over intolerant people who suppress the rights of others is pretty much obligated to do so in my eyes. As long as you do it without the use of government monopoly, more power to you. Boycott, protest, send angry letters, that all sounds great. But when you start passing Jim Crow laws, except aimed at bigots instead of blacks, that's where I have a problem. Being an intolerant bigot is a choice and a detriment to society, being black, gay, a woman etc is not. That's where the difference is in my opinion. I agree there's a difference, but only in the sense that one is an opinion while the other is a state of being. And I think I've made it pretty clear I think all opinions should be protected, the same as all people should be treated equally. There was a time those in power thought the idea of equality and freedom for everyone was reprehensible, so they oppressed and persecuted those people for having an unpopular opinion. I won't do the same; even to an opinion I consider reprehensible today. It's a matter of principle that we obviously disagree on. If Gays could marry, I would agree with you. As it is now the bigots are being aloud to suppress a group of people and that in unacceptable in my eyes. Once your opinion doesn't actually effect anyone then i'm fine with you having it.
Well I don't think two wrongs make a right, even if it makes you feel better.
|
Chick-Fil-A sure does make good fast food. I don't see a problem with supporting someone who supports a little intolerance so long as the service they provide is worth it.
But most of the food businesses in Boston are already awesome, so letting in another chain wouldn't really do anything good. All in all, I say let it stand.
|
On July 27 2012 09:24 Myles wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 09:18 NotAPro wrote:On July 27 2012 09:14 Myles wrote:On July 27 2012 09:09 NotAPro wrote:On July 27 2012 09:03 Myles wrote:On July 27 2012 09:01 NotAPro wrote:On July 27 2012 08:56 Myles wrote:On July 27 2012 08:52 NotAPro wrote:On July 27 2012 08:47 Myles wrote:On July 27 2012 08:46 NotAPro wrote:
[quote]
I guess we'll see about that. It hasn't actually happened, and should it go through I'd be willing to bet a large amount of money that it would be ruled unconstitutional in court. Actually, from what I understand, they wouldn't be making it a law per-say, just using zoning regulation and other red tape to make it a nightmare. So it might be technically legal, but certainly against the spirit of the 1st amendment. And denying Gay rights is in the spirit of the 1st amendment? I'm not sure it's related to the 1st amendment, but being able to say you support denying gay rights is, just the same as saying those who don't support gay rights are bigots and should be punished. I don't support the government enacting either, but people are 100% free the believe what they want. The Government keeps Gay marriage illegal (on the back of religion, so i'd say that applies to the first amendment), so I think it's fair game that the Government can suppress Anti-Homosexuality if they think Gays have equal rights to the rest of us. Like I said, I don't think the government should be doing either. And what you've said is basically 'they did it so I can do it, too' which is horrible reasoning imo. If that was the only reason for doing it, yeah it would be shitty. In my eyes it's exactly the same as boycotting an openly racist organization which no one would have a problem with. Anything anyone can do to fuck over intolerant people who suppress the rights of others is pretty much obligated to do so in my eyes. As long as you do it without the use of government monopoly, more power to you. Boycott, protest, send angry letters, that all sounds great. But when you start passing Jim Crow laws, except aimed at bigots instead of blacks, that's where I have a problem. Being an intolerant bigot is a choice and a detriment to society, being black, gay, a woman etc is not. That's where the difference is in my opinion. I agree there's a difference, but only in the sense that one is an opinion while the other is a state of being. And I think I've made it pretty clear I think all opinions should be protected, the same as all people should be treated equally. There was a time those in power thought the idea of equality and freedom for everyone was reprehensible, so they oppressed and persecuted those people for having an unpopular opinion. I won't do the same; even to an opinion I consider reprehensible today. It's a matter of principle that we obviously disagree on.
Nobody is saying that the opinions of Chick-Fil-A execs shouldn't be protected.
We're simply saying that if a city doesn't want to grant their business a permit, they don't have to any more than they have to grant me a permit to open up a porn shop.
|
On July 27 2012 09:14 Myles wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 09:09 NotAPro wrote:On July 27 2012 09:03 Myles wrote:On July 27 2012 09:01 NotAPro wrote:On July 27 2012 08:56 Myles wrote:On July 27 2012 08:52 NotAPro wrote:On July 27 2012 08:47 Myles wrote:On July 27 2012 08:46 NotAPro wrote:On July 27 2012 08:45 Myles wrote:On July 27 2012 08:36 NotAPro wrote:
What a lot of you don't seem to understand is that Chic-Fil-A Uses its profits to donate to organisations actively suppressing gay rights in addition to being bigoted towards gays. The mayor doesn't want an organisation who supports anti-gay groups in his town and I respect him for that. That's cool, but you can't ban a business for supporting legal groups. I guess we'll see about that. It hasn't actually happened, and should it go through I'd be willing to bet a large amount of money that it would be ruled unconstitutional in court. Actually, from what I understand, they wouldn't be making it a law per-say, just using zoning regulation and other red tape to make it a nightmare. So it might be technically legal, but certainly against the spirit of the 1st amendment. And denying Gay rights is in the spirit of the 1st amendment? I'm not sure it's related to the 1st amendment, but being able to say you support denying gay rights is, just the same as saying those who don't support gay rights are bigots and should be punished. I don't support the government enacting either, but people are 100% free the believe what they want. The Government keeps Gay marriage illegal (on the back of religion, so i'd say that applies to the first amendment), so I think it's fair game that the Government can suppress Anti-Homosexuality if they think Gays have equal rights to the rest of us. Like I said, I don't think the government should be doing either. And what you've said is basically 'they did it so I can do it, too' which is horrible reasoning imo. If that was the only reason for doing it, yeah it would be shitty. In my eyes it's exactly the same as boycotting an openly racist organization which no one would have a problem with. Anything anyone can do to fuck over intolerant people who suppress the rights of others is pretty much obligated to do so in my eyes. As long as you do it without the use of government monopoly, more power to you. Boycott, protest, send angry letters, that all sounds great. But when you start passing Jim Crow laws, except aimed at bigots instead of blacks, that's where I have a problem.
Bigots tend to do things that get their rights curtailed, like having a history of suspicious and seemingly discriminatory employment practices. A company whose employment policy says they don't discriminate on any basis that would be illegal in the area a store operates in and has engaged in such political activity deserves to have red tape thrown up in its face and extra scrutiny to ensure they follow the spirit of anti discrimination law.
Also the anti-gay marriage argument is unconstitutional in that the rationale is ultimately religious (1st ammendment problems) and it discriminates on the liberties of citizens (14th ammendment) so it really is on shaky grounds constitutionally.
|
On July 27 2012 09:30 Myles wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 09:29 NotAPro wrote:On July 27 2012 09:24 Myles wrote:On July 27 2012 09:18 NotAPro wrote:On July 27 2012 09:14 Myles wrote:On July 27 2012 09:09 NotAPro wrote:On July 27 2012 09:03 Myles wrote:On July 27 2012 09:01 NotAPro wrote:On July 27 2012 08:56 Myles wrote:On July 27 2012 08:52 NotAPro wrote:
[quote]
And denying Gay rights is in the spirit of the 1st amendment? I'm not sure it's related to the 1st amendment, but being able to say you support denying gay rights is, just the same as saying those who don't support gay rights are bigots and should be punished. I don't support the government enacting either, but people are 100% free the believe what they want. The Government keeps Gay marriage illegal (on the back of religion, so i'd say that applies to the first amendment), so I think it's fair game that the Government can suppress Anti-Homosexuality if they think Gays have equal rights to the rest of us. Like I said, I don't think the government should be doing either. And what you've said is basically 'they did it so I can do it, too' which is horrible reasoning imo. If that was the only reason for doing it, yeah it would be shitty. In my eyes it's exactly the same as boycotting an openly racist organization which no one would have a problem with. Anything anyone can do to fuck over intolerant people who suppress the rights of others is pretty much obligated to do so in my eyes. As long as you do it without the use of government monopoly, more power to you. Boycott, protest, send angry letters, that all sounds great. But when you start passing Jim Crow laws, except aimed at bigots instead of blacks, that's where I have a problem. Being an intolerant bigot is a choice and a detriment to society, being black, gay, a woman etc is not. That's where the difference is in my opinion. I agree there's a difference, but only in the sense that one is an opinion while the other is a state of being. And I think I've made it pretty clear I think all opinions should be protected, the same as all people should be treated equally. There was a time those in power thought the idea of equality and freedom for everyone was reprehensible, so they oppressed and persecuted those people for having an unpopular opinion. I won't do the same; even to an opinion I consider reprehensible today. It's a matter of principle that we obviously disagree on. If Gays could marry, I would agree with you. As it is now the bigots are being aloud to suppress a group of people and that in unacceptable in my eyes. Once your opinion doesn't actually effect anyone then i'm fine with you having it. Well I don't think two wrongs make a right, even if it makes you feel better.
Basically what you're saying is a groups of bigots opinions are more important than a group of peoples rights. You're on the wrong side of the discussion based off what you said in your last post.
On July 27 2012 09:24 Myles wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 09:18 NotAPro wrote:On July 27 2012 09:14 Myles wrote:On July 27 2012 09:09 NotAPro wrote:On July 27 2012 09:03 Myles wrote:On July 27 2012 09:01 NotAPro wrote:On July 27 2012 08:56 Myles wrote:On July 27 2012 08:52 NotAPro wrote:On July 27 2012 08:47 Myles wrote:On July 27 2012 08:46 NotAPro wrote:
[quote]
I guess we'll see about that. It hasn't actually happened, and should it go through I'd be willing to bet a large amount of money that it would be ruled unconstitutional in court. Actually, from what I understand, they wouldn't be making it a law per-say, just using zoning regulation and other red tape to make it a nightmare. So it might be technically legal, but certainly against the spirit of the 1st amendment. And denying Gay rights is in the spirit of the 1st amendment? I'm not sure it's related to the 1st amendment, but being able to say you support denying gay rights is, just the same as saying those who don't support gay rights are bigots and should be punished. I don't support the government enacting either, but people are 100% free the believe what they want. The Government keeps Gay marriage illegal (on the back of religion, so i'd say that applies to the first amendment), so I think it's fair game that the Government can suppress Anti-Homosexuality if they think Gays have equal rights to the rest of us. Like I said, I don't think the government should be doing either. And what you've said is basically 'they did it so I can do it, too' which is horrible reasoning imo. If that was the only reason for doing it, yeah it would be shitty. In my eyes it's exactly the same as boycotting an openly racist organization which no one would have a problem with. Anything anyone can do to fuck over intolerant people who suppress the rights of others is pretty much obligated to do so in my eyes. As long as you do it without the use of government monopoly, more power to you. Boycott, protest, send angry letters, that all sounds great. But when you start passing Jim Crow laws, except aimed at bigots instead of blacks, that's where I have a problem. Being an intolerant bigot is a choice and a detriment to society, being black, gay, a woman etc is not. That's where the difference is in my opinion. I agree there's a difference, but only in the sense that one is an opinion while the other is a state of being. And I think I've made it pretty clear I think all opinions should be protected, the same as all people should be treated equally. There was a time those in power thought the idea of equality and freedom for everyone was reprehensible, so they oppressed and persecuted those people for having an unpopular opinion. I won't do the same; even to an opinion I consider reprehensible today. It's a matter of principle that we obviously disagree on.
By supporting Chic-Fil-A and the people they support you are helping deny people freedom and equality.
|
United States5162 Posts
On July 27 2012 09:32 Courthead wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 09:24 Myles wrote:On July 27 2012 09:18 NotAPro wrote:On July 27 2012 09:14 Myles wrote:On July 27 2012 09:09 NotAPro wrote:On July 27 2012 09:03 Myles wrote:On July 27 2012 09:01 NotAPro wrote:On July 27 2012 08:56 Myles wrote:On July 27 2012 08:52 NotAPro wrote:On July 27 2012 08:47 Myles wrote:
[quote]
It hasn't actually happened, and should it go through I'd be willing to bet a large amount of money that it would be ruled unconstitutional in court.
Actually, from what I understand, they wouldn't be making it a law per-say, just using zoning regulation and other red tape to make it a nightmare. So it might be technically legal, but certainly against the spirit of the 1st amendment. And denying Gay rights is in the spirit of the 1st amendment? I'm not sure it's related to the 1st amendment, but being able to say you support denying gay rights is, just the same as saying those who don't support gay rights are bigots and should be punished. I don't support the government enacting either, but people are 100% free the believe what they want. The Government keeps Gay marriage illegal (on the back of religion, so i'd say that applies to the first amendment), so I think it's fair game that the Government can suppress Anti-Homosexuality if they think Gays have equal rights to the rest of us. Like I said, I don't think the government should be doing either. And what you've said is basically 'they did it so I can do it, too' which is horrible reasoning imo. If that was the only reason for doing it, yeah it would be shitty. In my eyes it's exactly the same as boycotting an openly racist organization which no one would have a problem with. Anything anyone can do to fuck over intolerant people who suppress the rights of others is pretty much obligated to do so in my eyes. As long as you do it without the use of government monopoly, more power to you. Boycott, protest, send angry letters, that all sounds great. But when you start passing Jim Crow laws, except aimed at bigots instead of blacks, that's where I have a problem. Being an intolerant bigot is a choice and a detriment to society, being black, gay, a woman etc is not. That's where the difference is in my opinion. I agree there's a difference, but only in the sense that one is an opinion while the other is a state of being. And I think I've made it pretty clear I think all opinions should be protected, the same as all people should be treated equally. There was a time those in power thought the idea of equality and freedom for everyone was reprehensible, so they oppressed and persecuted those people for having an unpopular opinion. I won't do the same; even to an opinion I consider reprehensible today. It's a matter of principle that we obviously disagree on. Nobody is saying that the opinions of Chick-Fil-A execs shouldn't be protected. We're simply saying that if a city doesn't want to grant their business a permit, they don't have to any more than they have to grant me a permit to open up a porn shop.
Some people have been.
And I'm not really opposed to regulations like not within 1000 ft of a school, church, ect(even though I think there pretty useless and kind of silly) since local areas are supposed to be more autonomous and able to wield more authority since it more reflective of the people. But I do think it's a bit excessive to be to outright refuse a permit based on (legal) occupation and/or other legal actions.
|
United States5162 Posts
On July 27 2012 09:34 NotAPro wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 09:30 Myles wrote:On July 27 2012 09:29 NotAPro wrote:On July 27 2012 09:24 Myles wrote:On July 27 2012 09:18 NotAPro wrote:On July 27 2012 09:14 Myles wrote:On July 27 2012 09:09 NotAPro wrote:On July 27 2012 09:03 Myles wrote:On July 27 2012 09:01 NotAPro wrote:On July 27 2012 08:56 Myles wrote:
[quote]
I'm not sure it's related to the 1st amendment, but being able to say you support denying gay rights is, just the same as saying those who don't support gay rights are bigots and should be punished. I don't support the government enacting either, but people are 100% free the believe what they want. The Government keeps Gay marriage illegal (on the back of religion, so i'd say that applies to the first amendment), so I think it's fair game that the Government can suppress Anti-Homosexuality if they think Gays have equal rights to the rest of us. Like I said, I don't think the government should be doing either. And what you've said is basically 'they did it so I can do it, too' which is horrible reasoning imo. If that was the only reason for doing it, yeah it would be shitty. In my eyes it's exactly the same as boycotting an openly racist organization which no one would have a problem with. Anything anyone can do to fuck over intolerant people who suppress the rights of others is pretty much obligated to do so in my eyes. As long as you do it without the use of government monopoly, more power to you. Boycott, protest, send angry letters, that all sounds great. But when you start passing Jim Crow laws, except aimed at bigots instead of blacks, that's where I have a problem. Being an intolerant bigot is a choice and a detriment to society, being black, gay, a woman etc is not. That's where the difference is in my opinion. I agree there's a difference, but only in the sense that one is an opinion while the other is a state of being. And I think I've made it pretty clear I think all opinions should be protected, the same as all people should be treated equally. There was a time those in power thought the idea of equality and freedom for everyone was reprehensible, so they oppressed and persecuted those people for having an unpopular opinion. I won't do the same; even to an opinion I consider reprehensible today. It's a matter of principle that we obviously disagree on. If Gays could marry, I would agree with you. As it is now the bigots are being aloud to suppress a group of people and that in unacceptable in my eyes. Once your opinion doesn't actually effect anyone then i'm fine with you having it. Well I don't think two wrongs make a right, even if it makes you feel better. Basically what you're saying is a groups of bigots opinions are more important than a group of peoples rights. You're on the wrong side of the discussion based off what you said in your last post.
No, I don't think either groups opinion is more important than the other groups rights, and I'm not going to compromise my principles because one group has been/is currently being oppressed.
|
On July 27 2012 09:43 Myles wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 09:34 NotAPro wrote:On July 27 2012 09:30 Myles wrote:On July 27 2012 09:29 NotAPro wrote:On July 27 2012 09:24 Myles wrote:On July 27 2012 09:18 NotAPro wrote:On July 27 2012 09:14 Myles wrote:On July 27 2012 09:09 NotAPro wrote:On July 27 2012 09:03 Myles wrote:On July 27 2012 09:01 NotAPro wrote:
[quote]
The Government keeps Gay marriage illegal (on the back of religion, so i'd say that applies to the first amendment), so I think it's fair game that the Government can suppress Anti-Homosexuality if they think Gays have equal rights to the rest of us. Like I said, I don't think the government should be doing either. And what you've said is basically 'they did it so I can do it, too' which is horrible reasoning imo. If that was the only reason for doing it, yeah it would be shitty. In my eyes it's exactly the same as boycotting an openly racist organization which no one would have a problem with. Anything anyone can do to fuck over intolerant people who suppress the rights of others is pretty much obligated to do so in my eyes. As long as you do it without the use of government monopoly, more power to you. Boycott, protest, send angry letters, that all sounds great. But when you start passing Jim Crow laws, except aimed at bigots instead of blacks, that's where I have a problem. Being an intolerant bigot is a choice and a detriment to society, being black, gay, a woman etc is not. That's where the difference is in my opinion. I agree there's a difference, but only in the sense that one is an opinion while the other is a state of being. And I think I've made it pretty clear I think all opinions should be protected, the same as all people should be treated equally. There was a time those in power thought the idea of equality and freedom for everyone was reprehensible, so they oppressed and persecuted those people for having an unpopular opinion. I won't do the same; even to an opinion I consider reprehensible today. It's a matter of principle that we obviously disagree on. If Gays could marry, I would agree with you. As it is now the bigots are being aloud to suppress a group of people and that in unacceptable in my eyes. Once your opinion doesn't actually effect anyone then i'm fine with you having it. Well I don't think two wrongs make a right, even if it makes you feel better. Basically what you're saying is a groups of bigots opinions are more important than a group of peoples rights. You're on the wrong side of the discussion based off what you said in your last post. No, I don't think either groups opinion is more important than the other groups rights, and I'm not going to compromise my principles because one group has been/is currently being oppressed.
So you think it's bad that people are being oppressed but you propose we do nothing about it?
|
United States5162 Posts
On July 27 2012 09:45 NotAPro wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 09:43 Myles wrote:On July 27 2012 09:34 NotAPro wrote:On July 27 2012 09:30 Myles wrote:On July 27 2012 09:29 NotAPro wrote:On July 27 2012 09:24 Myles wrote:On July 27 2012 09:18 NotAPro wrote:On July 27 2012 09:14 Myles wrote:On July 27 2012 09:09 NotAPro wrote:On July 27 2012 09:03 Myles wrote:
[quote]
Like I said, I don't think the government should be doing either. And what you've said is basically 'they did it so I can do it, too' which is horrible reasoning imo.
If that was the only reason for doing it, yeah it would be shitty. In my eyes it's exactly the same as boycotting an openly racist organization which no one would have a problem with. Anything anyone can do to fuck over intolerant people who suppress the rights of others is pretty much obligated to do so in my eyes. As long as you do it without the use of government monopoly, more power to you. Boycott, protest, send angry letters, that all sounds great. But when you start passing Jim Crow laws, except aimed at bigots instead of blacks, that's where I have a problem. Being an intolerant bigot is a choice and a detriment to society, being black, gay, a woman etc is not. That's where the difference is in my opinion. I agree there's a difference, but only in the sense that one is an opinion while the other is a state of being. And I think I've made it pretty clear I think all opinions should be protected, the same as all people should be treated equally. There was a time those in power thought the idea of equality and freedom for everyone was reprehensible, so they oppressed and persecuted those people for having an unpopular opinion. I won't do the same; even to an opinion I consider reprehensible today. It's a matter of principle that we obviously disagree on. If Gays could marry, I would agree with you. As it is now the bigots are being aloud to suppress a group of people and that in unacceptable in my eyes. Once your opinion doesn't actually effect anyone then i'm fine with you having it. Well I don't think two wrongs make a right, even if it makes you feel better. Basically what you're saying is a groups of bigots opinions are more important than a group of peoples rights. You're on the wrong side of the discussion based off what you said in your last post. No, I don't think either groups opinion is more important than the other groups rights, and I'm not going to compromise my principles because one group has been/is currently being oppressed. So you think it's bad that people are being oppressed but you propose we do nothing about it?
When did I say do nothing about it? I've just said don't oppress one group to raise up another.
|
On July 27 2012 09:34 NotAPro wrote:
By supporting Chic-Fil-A and the people they support you are helping deny people freedom and equality.
Marriage is not freedom and nothing will change the fact that two men are not the same as two women are not the same as one man and one woman.
|
I don't think gay rights is the issue here.
There is a very slippery slope to run with this though. When you set the precedent that yes, for ideological reasons the mayor can ban or do everything in his power to ban out an organization, it totally screws things up in multiple ways.
Then comes the issue that the corporation HAS the right to free speech as well as has the right to distribute its money in different ways. It can be prosecuted for hate speech if it comes to that, but prosecuted for hate speech through established means and methods. When a corporation, a private one at that, gives out an ideological statement which may seem morally unpalatable but in actuality legal, there is no precedent or reason for it to be barred.
Consider this again: If the mayor removes Chick-Fil-A it is actually an limitation of free speech, and again its not just in the gay rights issue. Remember: morality is shades of grey. In this issue I heartily agree that Chick-Fil-A's statements ain't so hot.
There are so many, SO MANY, hotly contested moral issues and when you are on the winning side it feels good. However, does the mayor of city XYZ have the right to kick out WalMart for not treating its employees like chums? No, it is no the place of the city mayor to do that. There are established methods through lawsuits and trials to force corporations violating laws to change their ways.
The example is that a store advocates people not wear orange pants as they are distasteful. However the mayor thinks that orange pants are ok. However, until the store discriminates against orange-pant-wearers, it is allowed to go about advocating that orange pants not be worn. It cannot commit hate crimes against orange-pants-wearers, but again to force the company out on ideological grounds no matter how "right" is simply a wrong precedent.
Businesses of America are not judged nor run, nor regulated by "morality." There is no simple "morality metric" to use and hence it would be difficult to establish one and to use one. Indeed Chick-Fil-A is definitely not even among the top of the unsavory corporations. However should we evict all of our banks for being greedy bastards with avarice to match none, insurance agents for being assholes, Comcast for not providing adequate internet ever? Indeed the equally god-fearing Goldman Sachs ("We are doing god's work") who managed to disappear billions of dollars deserves the boot far more than a intolerant Chick-Fil-A.
Like it or not, the precedent set if the Bostonian mayor got his way is not a good one. You can't limit precedent just to one case; if it goes through then you can get rid of businesses for perceived unethical practice.
Cynicism in me: mayor wants votes and did something popular with the pro-gay citizens of Boston.
I am even hesitant to say that the mayor issuing a verbal warning is in the right. He can as an individual judge a corporation to be morally corrupt but should not as a government official representing an area discourage business based on ideological grounds.
If he actually does something thats actually reprehensible.
|
On July 27 2012 09:49 dvorakftw wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 09:34 NotAPro wrote:
By supporting Chic-Fil-A and the people they support you are helping deny people freedom and equality. Marriage is not freedom and nothing will change the fact that two men are not the same as two women are not the same as one man and one woman.
Saying someone can't do something is a denial of freedom. Marriage offers significant benefits that are being denied to a group of people.
Just like how the definition of who can vote had to change so too does the definition of marriage.
|
On July 27 2012 09:47 Myles wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 09:45 NotAPro wrote:On July 27 2012 09:43 Myles wrote:On July 27 2012 09:34 NotAPro wrote:On July 27 2012 09:30 Myles wrote:On July 27 2012 09:29 NotAPro wrote:On July 27 2012 09:24 Myles wrote:On July 27 2012 09:18 NotAPro wrote:On July 27 2012 09:14 Myles wrote:On July 27 2012 09:09 NotAPro wrote:
[quote]
If that was the only reason for doing it, yeah it would be shitty. In my eyes it's exactly the same as boycotting an openly racist organization which no one would have a problem with. Anything anyone can do to fuck over intolerant people who suppress the rights of others is pretty much obligated to do so in my eyes. As long as you do it without the use of government monopoly, more power to you. Boycott, protest, send angry letters, that all sounds great. But when you start passing Jim Crow laws, except aimed at bigots instead of blacks, that's where I have a problem. Being an intolerant bigot is a choice and a detriment to society, being black, gay, a woman etc is not. That's where the difference is in my opinion. I agree there's a difference, but only in the sense that one is an opinion while the other is a state of being. And I think I've made it pretty clear I think all opinions should be protected, the same as all people should be treated equally. There was a time those in power thought the idea of equality and freedom for everyone was reprehensible, so they oppressed and persecuted those people for having an unpopular opinion. I won't do the same; even to an opinion I consider reprehensible today. It's a matter of principle that we obviously disagree on. If Gays could marry, I would agree with you. As it is now the bigots are being aloud to suppress a group of people and that in unacceptable in my eyes. Once your opinion doesn't actually effect anyone then i'm fine with you having it. Well I don't think two wrongs make a right, even if it makes you feel better. Basically what you're saying is a groups of bigots opinions are more important than a group of peoples rights. You're on the wrong side of the discussion based off what you said in your last post. No, I don't think either groups opinion is more important than the other groups rights, and I'm not going to compromise my principles because one group has been/is currently being oppressed. So you think it's bad that people are being oppressed but you propose we do nothing about it? When did I say do nothing about it? I've just said don't oppress one group to raise up another.
Sometimes you have to fight fire with fire. When you suppress the rights of others you deserve to have yours suppressed imo. This is a situation where two "wrongs" can help make a right.
|
United States5162 Posts
On July 27 2012 09:56 NotAPro wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 09:47 Myles wrote:On July 27 2012 09:45 NotAPro wrote:On July 27 2012 09:43 Myles wrote:On July 27 2012 09:34 NotAPro wrote:On July 27 2012 09:30 Myles wrote:On July 27 2012 09:29 NotAPro wrote:On July 27 2012 09:24 Myles wrote:On July 27 2012 09:18 NotAPro wrote:On July 27 2012 09:14 Myles wrote:
[quote]
As long as you do it without the use of government monopoly, more power to you. Boycott, protest, send angry letters, that all sounds great. But when you start passing Jim Crow laws, except aimed at bigots instead of blacks, that's where I have a problem. Being an intolerant bigot is a choice and a detriment to society, being black, gay, a woman etc is not. That's where the difference is in my opinion. I agree there's a difference, but only in the sense that one is an opinion while the other is a state of being. And I think I've made it pretty clear I think all opinions should be protected, the same as all people should be treated equally. There was a time those in power thought the idea of equality and freedom for everyone was reprehensible, so they oppressed and persecuted those people for having an unpopular opinion. I won't do the same; even to an opinion I consider reprehensible today. It's a matter of principle that we obviously disagree on. If Gays could marry, I would agree with you. As it is now the bigots are being aloud to suppress a group of people and that in unacceptable in my eyes. Once your opinion doesn't actually effect anyone then i'm fine with you having it. Well I don't think two wrongs make a right, even if it makes you feel better. Basically what you're saying is a groups of bigots opinions are more important than a group of peoples rights. You're on the wrong side of the discussion based off what you said in your last post. No, I don't think either groups opinion is more important than the other groups rights, and I'm not going to compromise my principles because one group has been/is currently being oppressed. So you think it's bad that people are being oppressed but you propose we do nothing about it? When did I say do nothing about it? I've just said don't oppress one group to raise up another. Sometimes you have to fight fire with fire. When you suppress the rights of others you deserve to have yours suppressed imo. This is a situation where two "wrongs" can help make a right.
Martin Luther King Jr. would disagree; he never fought hate with hate, and I agree with him.
|
NINA was a sordid part of Boston's history. Sometimes you need to make (often a seemingly unnecessary) stand, to break the "silent majority", but people that react negatively to political correctness usually have a very libertarian reaction to this.
|
Well I don't think two wrongs make a right, even if it makes you feel better.
So one wrong does? hahaha. Sorry I lost you back there - didn't check in for a while, but it looks like other people responded to you well enough. You're really being stubborn here and it seems like you're simply incapable of understanding or agreeing with us, which is not at all to say that our points are unsound. So I'm going to transition my participation away from you because you seem to be sapping the energy out of everyone that tries to get through to your broken record behavior of "o but ur no different than me or the ppl ur talking about" which people have time and time again pointed out to you as being untrue. It's so obvious, and has additionally been so well represented by now that it's clear that you're just being dogmatic. Surprise. Let me guess, so am i? lolol
|
On July 27 2012 09:54 NotAPro wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 09:49 dvorakftw wrote:On July 27 2012 09:34 NotAPro wrote:
By supporting Chic-Fil-A and the people they support you are helping deny people freedom and equality. Marriage is not freedom and nothing will change the fact that two men are not the same as two women are not the same as one man and one woman. Saying someone can't do something is a denial of freedom.
You can't be starting quarterback of the New England Patriots. You should sue the government for denying you freedom.
|
On July 27 2012 10:18 dvorakftw wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 09:54 NotAPro wrote:On July 27 2012 09:49 dvorakftw wrote:On July 27 2012 09:34 NotAPro wrote:
By supporting Chic-Fil-A and the people they support you are helping deny people freedom and equality. Marriage is not freedom and nothing will change the fact that two men are not the same as two women are not the same as one man and one woman. Saying someone can't do something is a denial of freedom. You can't be starting quarterback of the New England Patriots. You should sue the government for denying you freedom.
Are you dense?
If he can't be a quarterback it is because there are better options than him. Be it stronger or taller or faster.
If he can't be a quarterback because he was say a Muslim or gay, then yes, he could in fact sue and win.
|
The better protest would've been for the people of Boston to boycott the franchise once it opens there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
