|
On July 26 2012 05:53 Praetorial wrote:Baller! I live in Boston, and I for one would love to see that bastion of Southern bigotry get out of my city! Heck, use eminent domain, zoning laws, whatever. Just get them gone! Just look at this: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/17/dan-cathy-chick-fil-a-president-anti-gay_n_1680984.htmlShow nested quote +
I think we are inviting God's judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at Him and say, 'We know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage,' and I pray God's mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we have the audacity to define what marriage is about
Disgusting.
how is it disgusting? Or do you just not like people talking about religion
|
This is the typical left totalitarianism agree with us or we will dispose of you. If there were bigoted statements made that is a problem but do go the extent to ban from a city is completely asinine. perhaps boycott them and shut them out of business. It sicking that in todays-day-in-age people are so closed minded and will not have anything to do with a difference of opinion. I dont believe they can actually ban them because of their beliefs and oppositon to gay marriage. but who knows now a days.
Self evidently it is not baller for the Government to openly [or discreetly] favour one business over another for whatever reason. This is an abuse of power, and for that matter its basically an attempt by local Government to bully businesses politically. Anyone who supports this is basically a fascist.
pretty much supports my position.
Also, what is next? are they going to go after In and out burger for having john 316 on the bottom of their cups?
"If you disagree with the Left, you are one or all of the following -- Sexist, intolerant, xenophobic, homophobic, Islamophobic, racist, bigoted.)" -Dennis Prager
|
Did anyone else get a "chick fil-a" coupon add at the top of their screen when they opened this thread...spooky.
|
On July 26 2012 06:45 TheBatman wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 05:53 Praetorial wrote:Baller! I live in Boston, and I for one would love to see that bastion of Southern bigotry get out of my city! Heck, use eminent domain, zoning laws, whatever. Just get them gone! Just look at this: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/17/dan-cathy-chick-fil-a-president-anti-gay_n_1680984.html
I think we are inviting God's judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at Him and say, 'We know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage,' and I pray God's mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we have the audacity to define what marriage is about
Disgusting. how is it disgusting? Or do you just not like people talking about religion
I know many religious people who would still call that disgusting. That a scriptural originalist, one who uses his narrow-minded interpretation of the Bible to justify his bigotry, is being held accountable for what he says should be expected and embraced. All we need is for one flamboyant homosexual to be thrown out of a Chik-fil-a for civil rights case to ensue, and I'd bet on whose gonna win.
|
On July 26 2012 06:44 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 06:40 danl9rm wrote: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'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.
Edit: Nevermind, reread the quotes
|
On July 26 2012 06:48 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 06:45 TheBatman wrote:On July 26 2012 05:53 Praetorial wrote:Baller! I live in Boston, and I for one would love to see that bastion of Southern bigotry get out of my city! Heck, use eminent domain, zoning laws, whatever. Just get them gone! Just look at this: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/17/dan-cathy-chick-fil-a-president-anti-gay_n_1680984.html
I think we are inviting God's judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at Him and say, 'We know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage,' and I pray God's mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we have the audacity to define what marriage is about
Disgusting. how is it disgusting? Or do you just not like people talking about religion I know many religious people who would still call that disgusting. That a scriptural originalist, one who uses his narrow-minded interpretation of the Bible to justify his bigotry, is being held accountable for what he says should be expected and embraced.
I'm fine with Chick-Fil-A being open about their religion. I'm also fine with them closing on Sunday. Hell, if they wanted to put Bible verses all over their restaurant I'd be cool with that too.
I'm not cool with their company trying to stop gay marriage though. I don't care if it's religiously motivated or not, it's disgusting.
|
Poor Boston now they will have to commute to get chickfila
|
On July 26 2012 06:44 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 06:40 danl9rm wrote: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'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.
And isn't it the same as businesses being turned down for selling porn/sex toys, because the local government does not agree with the opinion that porn/sex toys should be something to be sold in their area. And for all we know Chick-Fill_A has been turned down for their views before under the guise that the Zoning committee didn't want their business there.
|
United States43739 Posts
On July 26 2012 06:48 GwSC wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 06:44 KwarK wrote:On July 26 2012 06:40 danl9rm wrote: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'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. I don't understand, are you saying that this being a corporate stance, it is ok for the business to be banned? What is wrong with having a corporate stance that some people disagree with? Is it normal for government to be able to force out corporations with unpopular beliefs? If that is not what you meant, disregard.
I'm saying it's okay for a city to decide what happens within that city as long as it doesn't discriminate against people on the grounds of race, gender, religion, disability etc. It'd be wrong for a city to say "no Mosques" but not wrong to say "no fast food". People deciding what kind of society they want to live in and trying to shape their society to improve it in their eyes is a good thing and they have the democratic right to do so. Chic-Fil-A has a corporate stance on the issue, they have stated what they believe in, the people of the city have a right to reject them based upon it.
|
On July 26 2012 06:42 Necro)Phagist( wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Honestly, while I support gay marriage, I wouldn't say that anyone who doesn't is a bigot. It's not like Cathy is treating them with hatred and disrespect, and he has said they would treat people with honor, dignity, and respect regardless of sexual orientation, race, gender, etc.
|
On July 26 2012 06:45 TheBatman wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 05:53 Praetorial wrote:Baller! I live in Boston, and I for one would love to see that bastion of Southern bigotry get out of my city! Heck, use eminent domain, zoning laws, whatever. Just get them gone! Just look at this: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/17/dan-cathy-chick-fil-a-president-anti-gay_n_1680984.html
I think we are inviting God's judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at Him and say, 'We know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage,' and I pray God's mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we have the audacity to define what marriage is about
Disgusting. how is it disgusting? Or do you just not like people talking about religion
Allow me to clarify, as the only open Bostonian here.
The position of Boston is, as you have all correctly pointed out, very liberal. We do indeed believe that gay marriage is justifiable and should be legal, and we've legalized it. We believe that some amount of marijuana can be carried on a person, so it was allowed. We base policy on what the current political feeling of the city is.
Does that sound familiar?
I bet it does, since all of your cities regardless of where you live in the states do the same. If the people want something, they can elect officials or petition that something be done.
We DO NOT LIKE people giving money to anti-gay organizations. Those people are ostracized, confined to the company of people like themselves if they make it publicly known that that is how they feel.
When a person at the top of an organization gives money to a political agenda, conservative or otherwise, we don't care at all.
WHEN A COMPANY gives money to an organization, even by the direction of the people at the top, you know what happens?
People get pissed off and angry about it. And then they start petitions, get all flustered about it.
Eventually, the mayor gets that and bans the organization-not because he has a penchant for violating freedom of speech, but because the people of boston don't want it.
And let me be very very clear.
THE PEOPLE OF BOSTON DON'T WANT A RESTAURANT CHAIN DONATING TO AN ANTI-GAY AGENDA, and that is why it is being banned.
|
On July 26 2012 06:11 meadbert wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigotrybigot: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices Banning a company from your city because you disagree with it is bigotry.
Bigots complaining about bigotry always seems a bit odd.
Kind of like someone complaining about his free speech being threatened when you know they adhere to a political doctrine that would take yours away a thousand times over.
It is perfectly fine to lash out (not physically) at homophobic groups and companies that portray themselves as in support of such positions. Much like racism, we will chase them till the end of the earth and then throw them off.
Playing semantics over human rights is a waste of time. Propagate a society of equals. Let the racists and homophobes fall under the grinding wheels of progress.
|
On July 26 2012 05:57 Zaqwert wrote:
I wonder how everyone would feel if the mayor of Birmingham, AL said he was going to use zoning laws to force out all the Muslim and Jewish owned business.
Would you be cheering that?
Probably not.
You shouldn't base what should and shouldn't be allowed in society based on your own personal beliefs and agenda.
Clearly mayors should not have the power to ban legit businesses from their city just 'cuz they disagree with their beliefs.
50 years ago the talk would have been to drive the gays out and that would have been wrong too.
This thought police crap has to end. Let people live their own lives. If you don't wanna give Chic Fil A your business because you disagree with their policies, then don't. It's not the governments job to sanction what is acceptable beliefs.
You have a very misconstrued vision.
I would be cheering if the Muslim and Jewish owned businesses said that they hate a certain group of individuals and don't think they should have equal rights.
|
On July 26 2012 06:53 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 06:48 GwSC wrote:On July 26 2012 06:44 KwarK wrote:On July 26 2012 06:40 danl9rm wrote: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'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. I don't understand, are you saying that this being a corporate stance, it is ok for the business to be banned? What is wrong with having a corporate stance that some people disagree with? Is it normal for government to be able to force out corporations with unpopular beliefs? If that is not what you meant, disregard. I'm saying it's okay for a city to decide what happens within that city as long as it doesn't discriminate against people on the grounds of race, gender, religion, disability etc. It'd be wrong for a city to say "no Mosques" but not wrong to say "no fast food". People deciding what kind of society they want to live in and trying to shape their society to improve it in their eyes is a good thing and they have the democratic right to do so. Chic-Fil-A has a corporate stance on the issue, they have stated what they believe in, the people of the city have a right to reject them based upon it.
But if they state that their stance on gay marriage is dictated by religion, then the city IS effectively discriminating against a religious belief. You could say that the religion is discriminating against gays to begin with, but people are allowed to discriminate, government institutions are not.
|
United States43739 Posts
On July 26 2012 06:44 whatevername wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 06:41 KwarK wrote:On July 26 2012 06:33 whatevername wrote: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. 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. 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.
I have literally no clue what point you're trying to make here. You seem to be appealing to some strange system of objective rights that officials have and saying "HE HASN'T GOT THE RIGHT" and I'm not quite sure how to respond to that. My point was that the degree to which someone has a democratic mandate to do something is based upon the degree to which the people who gave him that mandate did so knowing and desiring the course of action he would take.
|
On July 26 2012 06:50 overt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 06:48 farvacola wrote:On July 26 2012 06:45 TheBatman wrote:On July 26 2012 05:53 Praetorial wrote:Baller! I live in Boston, and I for one would love to see that bastion of Southern bigotry get out of my city! Heck, use eminent domain, zoning laws, whatever. Just get them gone! Just look at this: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/17/dan-cathy-chick-fil-a-president-anti-gay_n_1680984.html
I think we are inviting God's judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at Him and say, 'We know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage,' and I pray God's mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we have the audacity to define what marriage is about
Disgusting. how is it disgusting? Or do you just not like people talking about religion I know many religious people who would still call that disgusting. That a scriptural originalist, one who uses his narrow-minded interpretation of the Bible to justify his bigotry, is being held accountable for what he says should be expected and embraced. I'm fine with Chick-Fil-A being open about their religion. I'm also fine with them closing on Sunday. Hell, if they wanted to put Bible verses all over their restaurant I'd be cool with that too. I'm not cool with their company trying to stop gay marriage though. I don't care if it's religiously motivated or not, it's disgusting.
I am not cool with them being religious, or closing on sunday, and their stance on gay marriage disgusts me. I do not wish to eat in an establishment that propagates religion. But I also strongly believe a government should not ban organizations with disgusting beliefs, aslong as they do not support criminal activities.
|
On July 26 2012 06:48 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 06:45 TheBatman wrote:On July 26 2012 05:53 Praetorial wrote:Baller! I live in Boston, and I for one would love to see that bastion of Southern bigotry get out of my city! Heck, use eminent domain, zoning laws, whatever. Just get them gone! Just look at this: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/17/dan-cathy-chick-fil-a-president-anti-gay_n_1680984.html
I think we are inviting God's judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at Him and say, 'We know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage,' and I pray God's mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we have the audacity to define what marriage is about
Disgusting. how is it disgusting? Or do you just not like people talking about religion I know many religious people who would still call that disgusting. That a scriptural originalist, one who uses his narrow-minded interpretation of the Bible to justify his bigotry, is being held accountable for what he says should be expected and embraced. All we need is for one flamboyant homosexual to be thrown out of a Chik-fil-a for civil rights case to ensue, and I'd bet on whose gonna win.
It's pretty hard for anyone to interpret what the Bible says about homosexuality any other way than what that guy has interpreted it :/ it's very clear and plainly laid out that any forms of sex outside of hetereosexual marriage is sin, including homosexuality, adultery, rape, pedophilia, masturbation, pornography, polygamy, etc.
Now, you'd have a much better argument if you argued that Christian marriage isn't the only kind of marriage and went from there.
I don't understand why people are calling this bigotry; he's just standing up for what he believes in. He can't easily change what he believes in any more than homosexuals can easily change their sexuality; beliefs are much stronger than, say, what kind of burger you like.
|
On July 26 2012 06:55 zalz wrote:Bigots complaining about bigotry always seems a bit odd. Kind of like someone complaining about his free speech being threatened when you know they adhere to a political doctrine that would take yours away a thousand times over. It is perfectly fine to lash out (not physically) at homophobic groups and companies that portray themselves as in support of such positions. Much like racism, we will chase them till the end of the earth and then throw them off. Playing semantics over human rights is a waste of time. Propagate a society of equals. Let the racists and homophobes fall under the grinding wheels of progress.
I completely support gay marriage and such but the ban is a huge abuse of power and incredibly wrong. Why not just stop visiting Chic-fil-A if you don't agree with it? You are only going to put people out of a job. It also sets a terrible precedent to ban plenty of other places just because we don't agree with its views.
|
So, when a company donates money to an anti-gay organization its heiracy
But when a company donates money to a pro-gay organization similar to what google or Nike done its acceptable
Got it, silly for me to believe double standards exist.
|
United States43739 Posts
On July 26 2012 06:57 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 06:53 KwarK wrote:On July 26 2012 06:48 GwSC wrote:On July 26 2012 06:44 KwarK wrote:On July 26 2012 06:40 danl9rm wrote: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'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. I don't understand, are you saying that this being a corporate stance, it is ok for the business to be banned? What is wrong with having a corporate stance that some people disagree with? Is it normal for government to be able to force out corporations with unpopular beliefs? If that is not what you meant, disregard. I'm saying it's okay for a city to decide what happens within that city as long as it doesn't discriminate against people on the grounds of race, gender, religion, disability etc. It'd be wrong for a city to say "no Mosques" but not wrong to say "no fast food". People deciding what kind of society they want to live in and trying to shape their society to improve it in their eyes is a good thing and they have the democratic right to do so. Chic-Fil-A has a corporate stance on the issue, they have stated what they believe in, the people of the city have a right to reject them based upon it. But if they state that their stance on gay marriage is dictated by religion, then the city IS effectively discriminating against a religious belief. You could say that the religion is discriminating against gays to begin with, but people are allowed to discriminate, government institutions are not.
I'm pretty sure freedom of worship ends the same place all the other freedoms end, when you start impacting upon other people. Christianity doesn't require its members to use their corporations to further anti-gay agendas but even if you came up with a religion that did and then claimed discrimination was exercising your religious freedom it'd get struck down. You have the right to the private exercising of your beliefs, what Chic-Fil-A did was take a public corporate stance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
