EPTLiberals are just full of idealistic garbage because they have nothing better to do.
Boston Mayor vows to ban Chick-Fil-A from his city - Page 5
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
StormShield24
United States32 Posts
Liberals are just full of idealistic garbage because they have nothing better to do. | ||
|
0neder
United States3733 Posts
Just as Apple's support of gay marriage doesn't affect my patronage of their product, Chic-Fil-A's owners' opposition does not either. We can disagree without being silly. I am morally against gay marriage but I will not try to put pro gay businesses out of business to 'punish' them. | ||
|
Gunther
Germany139 Posts
On July 26 2012 06:33 TheYango wrote: This post needs more acknowledgement. It's one thing to pass judgement on a company for something said by the owner. But if the company as an organization has donated money to anti-gay rights organizations, that's a completely different matter. It's no longer just an issue of the owner's personal beliefs. No, it's really a pretty moot point because you can make that against any organization/company/business that donates to poltical campaigns as well ( particuarly those condidates who will implement anti-gay marriage legislation) Also this is going to put the young employees ( who are probably liberal) working at Chic-fil-a out of a job. So who are you really going to hurt here? | ||
|
mastergriggy
United States1312 Posts
| ||
|
overt
United States9006 Posts
On July 26 2012 06:33 TheYango wrote: This post needs more acknowledgement. It's one thing to pass judgement on a company for something said by the owner. But if the company as an organization has donated money to anti-gay rights organizations, that's a completely different matter. It's no longer just an issue of the owner's personal beliefs. I agree. And actually added that post to the OP as well as the wikipedia page about Chick-Fil-A's support of gay rights as I don't want to hear anymore, "the company isn't against gays, just the owner's are." On July 26 2012 06:36 unteqair wrote: Chicago mayor doesn't want it either: http://www.latimes.com/business/money/la-fi-mo-chick-fil-a-chicago-20120725,0,4158667.story Thanks, I'll add that story to the OP as well. | ||
|
XenOmega
Canada2822 Posts
| ||
|
Xayvier
United States387 Posts
| ||
|
Megaliskuu
United States5123 Posts
| ||
|
danl9rm
United States3111 Posts
On July 26 2012 06:05 KwarK wrote: If someone openly politicises their company by taking a corporate stance on issues like this then they invite a broader social referendum on their operation. Whether or not it is the prerogative of the mayor to make that decision is another question but I have no problem with a company going "this is what we stand for" and a city going "we don't want what you stand for". If they stood just for good chicken then they wouldn't be having this problem. At the head of every company is a person. Every person has beliefs, specifically about, let's just say it, gay marriage. I suppose we should interrogate every company in the U.S. as to what the owner or CEO of that company believes about gay marriage and then decide whether they get business licenses or not because of that belief? You can't say, "If they stood just for good chicken..." because that's not even a legitimate question. It's an impossibility. It would require a robot, not a human, to be the head of the company. As far as I know, this guy didn't say "Chic-Fil-A exists to further the pro-family movement." He, I'm going to assume here, because I really have to leave, that he was inquired, or had a question related to, his beliefs, and he stated them. This is craziness, people. | ||
|
Crushinator
Netherlands2138 Posts
| ||
|
DeepElemBlues
United States5079 Posts
On July 26 2012 06:36 0neder wrote: A private moral position will not affect which product I purchase. Chic-Fil-A's policy clearly doesn't discriminate against gay customers or employees as just a few months ago I had a gay employee give me my food. Just as Apple's support of gay marriage doesn't affect my patronage of their product, Chic-Fil-A's owners' opposition does not either. We can disagree without being silly. I am morally against gay marriage but I will not try to put pro gay businesses out of business to 'punish' them. That's because you aren't a fascist, wanting the government to act in a fascist manner towards people and organizations you disagree with is the new fad in the West. | ||
|
Spiffeh
United States830 Posts
If I had customers who disagreed and didn't buy from my establishment then so be it, I may have made a mistake. But it isn't up to the mayor, or whomever, to impede my right to run a business if I am not doing anything wrong. | ||
KwarK
United States41937 Posts
On July 26 2012 06:33 whatevername wrote: You said it was another question between whether the mayor should make that decision and within a second of that said it was totally fine for "the city" to make said decision. What is "the city" if not the mayor? What, if the mayor didnt make the decision but the councilors did it would suddenly be valid; the only question in your mind is whether its the duty of the executive office for a municipality to bully and harass business? Certainly open statements invite criticism or refusal from your patrons, but there is simply no question that it isnt the Governments job to legislate morality -- which is effectively what this is. Its barbaric and its the antithesis of a constitutionally restrained Government, nevermind freedom as a whole. The city is the people within it and the degree to which the mayor can speak for them is dictated by the circumstances of his election and the degree to which he has a democratic mandate to do this. If he was elected based upon a stated intent to do this then his actions would be speaking for the people for example. I was making a broad point and did not state that the actions in this case were invalid. | ||
|
blubbdavid
Switzerland2412 Posts
Look in Germany, there is the so called "thing house" which is basically a headquarter for the NPD, a far, far right nazi party, where skins and nazis are going in and out, hateful message is created and spread etc etc. Why is the state of Germany allowing this? Because of free speech, liberal thinking (and observation hehe) etc. Liberal thinking in Boston? Ban something you don't like. One cannot (and should not) cover "progress" with the cloth of liberal thinking when it is actually "regress". Oh man I so want to add something passive-aggressive because this is the General Forum. Wait that was actually passive-aggro. | ||
|
Necro)Phagist(
Canada6518 Posts
On July 26 2012 06:39 Xayvier wrote: I would think that I would be able to speak my mind on what I think about marriage without getting my business kicked out of a big city. How was Cathy being a bigot, and if he was, why does that mean he can be banned from an entire city? He was being a bigot, donating to anti gay marriage funds etc. plus his statements. That being said bigot or not he shouldn't be banned from opening a store in any city. People seem to get so swept up "Omg that politically incorrect, his views are bad and he a bigot" that they forgot about personal rights and freedoms the pillars of any good society. It's a good thing that people hate this guy and his bigotry, but it's a bad thing when they let that cloud their judgement. | ||
|
FuzzyJAM
Scotland9300 Posts
| ||
|
Skilledblob
Germany3392 Posts
On July 26 2012 06:40 danl9rm wrote: You can't say, "If they stood just for good chicken..." because that's not even a legitimate question. It's an impossibility. It would require a robot, not a human, to be the head of the company. This is craziness, people. no it would require someone who is able to keep his personal beliefs to himself. It's that easy. | ||
|
McFeser
United States2458 Posts
On July 26 2012 06:32 YODA_ wrote: OH YEAH!!! FIGHT BIGOTRY WITH BIGOTRY!!! GOGOGO BRAVE NEW WORLD!! I don't particular care for Boston or if some city somewhere decides to take a silly initiative. Modern Christian are desperately looking for a spot when the government has spit in their face and for that I should say Boston should give it to them. Let them be offended, for once it blows over and Christian's realize that they are on their own as far policy goes then two things will hopefully happen; (One) the Church will start coming up with better arguments than it says no in the Bible so don't do it, and (Two) government will stop being bullied by the opinions of the church. I'm a christian (And certainly conservative by Teamliquid standards), but sometimes you need the occasional fight to get all that tension out of the way. | ||
|
KwarK
United States41937 Posts
On July 26 2012 06:40 danl9rm wrote: At the head of every company is a person. Every person has beliefs, specifically about, let's just say it, gay marriage. I suppose we should interrogate every company in the U.S. as to what the owner or CEO of that company believes about gay marriage and then decide whether they get business licenses or not because of that belief? You're missing the point where the owner merged his own personal views on it with the company and gave his company a corporate stance on the matter. Saying "individuals have views" doesn't mean anything in this case. You've entirely misunderstood what happened here and then attempted to make an odd straw man where people in favour of it want to force everyone into interrogation chambers. Please try not to do that again. | ||
|
whatevername
471 Posts
On July 26 2012 06:41 KwarK wrote: So you only have mandate for an action as long as you ran specifically on that? I guess politicians really only have a mandate to do or not do one or two things then in your mind, kwark? No, politicians are given a mandate to pass or deny legislation based upon their best beliefs, within constitutional limit; the man has a mandate to act, but no amount of support or even legal permission gives him the right to do this.The city is the people within it and the degree to which the mayor can speak for them is dictated by the circumstances of his election and the degree to which he has a democratic mandate to do this. If he was elected based upon a stated intent to do this then his actions would be speaking for the people for example. I was making a broad point and did not state that the actions in this case were invalid. | ||
| ||
