|
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.
Yeah like most dogmatic participants in conversations like this, they're better at amateur level rhetoric than they ever will be at even lower level logic. It's that whole lack of giving two shits about being intellectually honest or comprehensive, or hell, even just intellectual that keeps them perpetuating mentalities and views on life that have been around since the dark ages. It's really quite savage, when you think about it.
|
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.
What if the city wanted to prevent someone from setting up a coffee shop because they are pro gay?
Just because you agree with the reasoning behind him banning them, does not mean he is right to ban them.
|
It was a stupid move by the mayor, firstly if there wasn't a Chick-Fil-A in boston did he really need to stick his neck into this business and get involved? If he was really against having one in Boston he could of constantly denyed them without publicising it. Also I'm no expert on American freedoms but isn't it denying someone's freedom to say "you cant build your resturant here." I mean it seems pretty simple to me, that's not freedom. I mean isn't this the country that said you take all people and all beliefs, I understand that I can't go around killing all the Asian people just because I believe that they are infultrators from Neptune planing on exterminating humans. But don't American's have the right to say and believe these things as long as they don't act upon them and still live and work normally.
I guess in the states gay people can't get married and that's a violation of their freedom, but that's something for the courts to decide. Gay people want to marry and feel like thats a violation of their freedom, christians think allowing gay marriage is a violation of their religion. That whole debate is just noise when your talking about weather there should be a resturant chain in Boston.
|
What if the city wanted to prevent someone from setting up a coffee shop because they are pro gay?
Just because you agree with the reasoning behind him banning them, does not mean he is right to ban them.
Maybe you're just taking the issue too lightly. You're treating the whole "stance" thing as though its some trivial thing that shouldn't be enforced. Reality check, oppressing people isn't cool and using your business to fund oppression is pretty obviously bullshit. It's not like we're going to start banning businesses for supporting freedoms - that's a fast way to lose in todays world, and especially in tomorrows. This would-be comparison that people are throwing around and becoming offended by is more rhetoric than sense. As a species, we've been good about forcing the issue when it comes to liberation. It's what gets the job done. If you think we're going to experience that while supporting oppression, you're sorely mistaken.
|
On July 27 2012 10:53 Lumi wrote:Show nested quote +What if the city wanted to prevent someone from setting up a coffee shop because they are pro gay?
Just because you agree with the reasoning behind him banning them, does not mean he is right to ban them. Maybe you're just taking the issue too lightly. You're treating the whole "stance" thing as though its some trivial thing that shouldn't be enforced. Reality check, oppressing people isn't cool and using your business to fund oppression is pretty obviously bullshit. It's not like we're going to start banning businesses for supporting freedoms - that's a fast way to lose in todays world, and especially in tomorrows. This would-be comparison that people are throwing around and becoming offended by is more rhetoric than sense. As a species, we've been good about forcing the issue when it comes to liberation. It's what gets the job done. If you think we're going to experience that while supporting oppression, you're sorely mistaken.
maybe you're taking freedom of speech too lightly. you talk a good talk about 'supporting' freedoms, but that doesn't mean support them only when you agree with someone. either people and companies have rights or they don't.
i think that as a species, we've been good about preserving individual rights even for those we don't agree with. if you think we're going to experience that while tearing them down for bigots, or anyone else we find unpleasant, you're sorely mistaken.
|
On July 27 2012 10:23 Lumi wrote:Show nested quote +
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.
Yeah like most dogmatic participants in conversations like this, they're better at amateur level rhetoric than they ever will be at even lower level logic. It's that whole lack of giving two shits about being intellectually honest or comprehensive, or hell, even just intellectual that keeps them perpetuating mentalities and views on life that have been around since the dark ages. It's really quite savage, when you think about it.
What's truly awesome is that you get to insult people all you want and it's cool and you're cool and your mom must be so proud.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
He's not banning it judging by anything in that letter or his own words. He's saying that an anti-gay company is not welcome in these parts (which is true).
Menino admitted yesterday that his rant against the anti-gay marriage views espoused by company CEO Dan Cathy was not an indication that the city would deny permits to the chain.
Just an old rooster crowing his ‘opinion,’ he said. As for any impression that the city would act to block Chik-fil-A from opening in the city, that was a mistake. “I make mistakes all the time. That’s a Menino-ism,” he told the Herald.
You can tell someone they're not welcome, that you hate their messages and they should go f themselves, but still treat them fairly on any matters of the law.
Chick-fil-a are probably a bunch of dicks and aren't worth thinking about.
|
Hmm what Kwark says is true but idk if the Mayor should be able to ban them simply for their political views differing from his own. I'd have thought free speech legislation of some sort would make it hard for them to be outright banned.
|
On July 27 2012 11:13 dvorakftw wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 10:23 Lumi wrote:
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.
Yeah like most dogmatic participants in conversations like this, they're better at amateur level rhetoric than they ever will be at even lower level logic. It's that whole lack of giving two shits about being intellectually honest or comprehensive, or hell, even just intellectual that keeps them perpetuating mentalities and views on life that have been around since the dark ages. It's really quite savage, when you think about it. What's truly awesome is that you get to insult people all you want and it's cool and you're cool and your mom must be so proud.
I'm sorry t hat the truth, in this instance, is unfortunate for you. I put things bluntly, and it's how I see them. And now you're just being offended, which I guess is understandable. But what I said was right. I commented on the g eneral impotence in matters like this, and that's all I've seen from you and the other dogmatists present. It's pretty much all that can be expected out of people whose minds work that way. Nice cliche @ trying to make me feel guilty.
|
On July 27 2012 10:53 Lumi wrote:Show nested quote +What if the city wanted to prevent someone from setting up a coffee shop because they are pro gay?
Just because you agree with the reasoning behind him banning them, does not mean he is right to ban them. Maybe you're just taking the issue too lightly. You're treating the whole "stance" thing as though its some trivial thing that shouldn't be enforced. Reality check, oppressing people isn't cool and using your business to fund oppression is pretty obviously bullshit. It's not like we're going to start banning businesses for supporting freedoms - that's a fast way to lose in todays world, and especially in tomorrows. This would-be comparison that people are throwing around and becoming offended by is more rhetoric than sense. As a species, we've been good about forcing the issue when it comes to liberation. It's what gets the job done. If you think we're going to experience that while supporting oppression, you're sorely mistaken.
Cool. Just so I understand, you are saying that the government should restrict the freedom of speech of people if they are advocating changing the law to restrict the freedom of others?
Not flame baiting or trolling, trying to make sure I understand.
|
On July 27 2012 10:57 Zahir wrote:
maybe you're taking freedom of speech too lightly. you talk a good talk about 'supporting' freedoms, but that doesn't mean support them only when you agree with someone. either people and companies have rights or they don't.
i think that as a species, we've been good about preserving individual rights even for those we don't agree with. if you think we're going to experience that while tearing them down for bigots, or anyone else we find unpleasant, you're sorely mistaken.
Tearing people down for being bigots who seek to oppress others (and it's more than just things they've said, it's actions, and their business is pretty socially involved and a part of t hese actions, which are oppressive) sounds like a great idea to me. I think you're getting a little gung-ho with the individual rights thing, like that's just it, the be all end all to making the right choice. You're basically advocating that we tolerate acts of oppression. Nothing i n your post explains how that is a smart or a forward idea. Nothing you'll e ver say can explain t hat, because it's obviously crap. We've made progress by getting rid of oppression, and yeah, we've also done well at supporting individual rights, but we've never d one well by supporting individuals rights to strip others of theirs. And I swear I will poop my pants and cry if you're the five billionth person to respond to this by saying it's hypocritical while you continue to think that it's a point of virtue to condone the freedom to oppress. You should read through the thread, or even just the OP more if you're not sure what I'm talking about when connecting their business to their actions.
On July 27 2012 11:45 ControlMonkey wrote:
Cool. Just so I understand, you are saying that the government should restrict the freedom of speech of people if they are advocating changing the law to restrict the freedom of others?
Not flame baiting or trolling, trying to make sure I understand.
I'm not even talking about freedom of speech. I guess refer to the above part of this post.
|
On July 27 2012 11:47 Lumi wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 10:57 Zahir wrote:
maybe you're taking freedom of speech too lightly. you talk a good talk about 'supporting' freedoms, but that doesn't mean support them only when you agree with someone. either people and companies have rights or they don't.
i think that as a species, we've been good about preserving individual rights even for those we don't agree with. if you think we're going to experience that while tearing them down for bigots, or anyone else we find unpleasant, you're sorely mistaken. Tearing people down for being bigots who seek to oppress others (and it's more than just things they've said, it's actions, and their business is pretty socially involved and a part of t hese actions, which are oppressive) sounds like a great idea to me. I think you're getting a little gung-ho with the individual rights thing, like that's just it, the be all end all to making the right choice. You're basically advocating that we tolerate acts of oppression. Nothing i n your post explains how that is a smart or a forward idea. Nothing you'll e ver say can explain t hat, because it's obviously crap. We've made progress by getting rid of oppression, and yeah, we've also done well at supporting individual rights, but we've never d one well by supporting individuals rights to strip others of theirs. And I swear I will poop my pants and cry if you're the five billionth person to respond to this by saying it's hypocritical while you continue to think that it's a point of virtue to condone the freedom to oppress. You should read through the thread, or even just the OP more if you're not sure what I'm talking about when connecting their business to their actions. Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 11:45 ControlMonkey wrote:
Cool. Just so I understand, you are saying that the government should restrict the freedom of speech of people if they are advocating changing the law to restrict the freedom of others?
Not flame baiting or trolling, trying to make sure I understand. I'm not even talking about freedom of speech. I guess refer to the above part of this post.
I get it, even though I disagree. You believe we should suppress the rights of individuals if they advocate supressing the rights of others.
|
On July 27 2012 11:52 ControlMonkey wrote:
I get it, even though I disagree. You believe we should suppress the rights of individuals if they advocate supressing the rights of others.
Yeah, I guess I am saying that. It doesn't sound very pretty in the end, but supporting peoples rights to shit on other peoples rights sounds at least doubly worse. Either you do something about it or it happens. The whole "can't make a wrong t o make a right" dilemma is a moot point that has often been trampled over to great effects in the history of our species. I want to live in a bigot free world, and kicking peoples suppression engine companies out of town sounds like a great idea. Really, when did we draw the line where every oppressive asshole on the planet has the right to cultivate their heinous activities next door to us? I think it's more likely that somewhere along the way we got confused and have now mistaken things so badly that we actually think it's still the right choice to do this just because it complies with one, singular concern, rather than the greater picture, which, in turn, violates the first concern just as badly, if not worse. All things equal, I'm gonna defend freedom over oppression, and not worry too much about the mostly semantical point that the oppression is a freedom as well. That's most like a joke than a worthwhile point, imo. Not that I'm saying you've said this ;o Just further representing myself to you.
|
Cool. I guess my position, to protect the rights of those who advocate the oppression of others, sounds just as bad when you say it like that.
Life is hard 
|
Lumi: I understand where youre coming from. Believe me, I have no liking for this company and the way they try to be all gung Ho anti gay either. It wouldn't surprise me if they actively discriminate against gay employees. They are probably subtle about it, and I doubt many gay people would even stoop to working there, but if one did I would be completely unsurprised to hear him or her winning a discrimination suit against chikfilA. Nor would it surprise me if some of the groups they had been donating too were eventually found guilty of some crime, like incitement to violence, intimidation tactics, etc.
Thing is, until the government says it is unlawful to donate to those groups, it is senseless to try and block a company for exercising its right to give money for some cause, which is covered under free speech. the governments job is to uphold laws. It is wrong to bring the force of government to bear against a company that has, in the eyes of the law, merely expressed an opinion, no matter how reprehensible you or I may find that opinion. People can picket, protest, boycott etc, that is the RIGHT way to deal with someone who verbally supports oppression.
The day they actually go and oppress someone, like refusing to serve a gay couple, or giving money to an illegal or terrorist organization, I'll relish seeing them get slammed in the courts. Until then, one should not meet words with force.
|
On July 27 2012 10:30 ControlMonkey wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 09:32 Courthead 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. 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. What if the city wanted to prevent someone from setting up a coffee shop because they are pro gay? Just because you agree with the reasoning behind him banning them, does not mean he is right to ban them.
Those are two completely different things. If CNN fired someone for being gay, that would be wrong. If they fired someone for being a racist, that would be okay. Would you agree? Probably. Okay, now swap "racist" with "anti-gay", and you get the point.
|
On July 27 2012 12:08 Courthead wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 10:30 ControlMonkey wrote:On July 27 2012 09:32 Courthead 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. 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. What if the city wanted to prevent someone from setting up a coffee shop because they are pro gay? Just because you agree with the reasoning behind him banning them, does not mean he is right to ban them. Those are two completely different things. If CNN fired someone for being gay, that would be wrong. If they fired someone for being a racist, that would be okay. Would you agree? Probably. Okay, now swap "racist" with "anti-gay", and you get the point.
If a company fired someone for advocating that the civil rights act should be repealed, that would not be ok with me.
|
On July 27 2012 12:08 Courthead wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 10:30 ControlMonkey wrote:On July 27 2012 09:32 Courthead 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. 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. What if the city wanted to prevent someone from setting up a coffee shop because they are pro gay? Just because you agree with the reasoning behind him banning them, does not mean he is right to ban them. Those are two completely different things. If CNN fired someone for being gay, that would be wrong. If they fired someone for being a racist, that would be okay. Would you agree? Probably. Okay, now swap "racist" with "anti-gay", and you get the point.
You can't fire someone for "being a racist", only for making racist comments or acting in a racist manner, either at the workplace or in a way that violates their terms of employment. Subtle but important difference.
|
On July 27 2012 12:04 ControlMonkey wrote:
Cool. I guess my position, to protect the rights of those who advocate the oppression of others, sounds just as bad when you say it like that.
Of course it sounds bad. That's exactly why they use that ridiculous language. Spoiled kids don't know the first damned thing about oppression.
|
He's clearly just using the whole intolerance for bigotry thing as a pretense for banning delicious food and furthering the fascist leftist agenda.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
