|
On July 26 2012 06:54 Praetorial 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 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.
Just so we are clear you are ok with banning anything you don't agree with?
I sure every single person in Boston agrees with you I sure since the Mayor received 57% of the vote every single person agrees with you.
|
On July 26 2012 07:09 Praetorial wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 07:07 jdseemoreglass wrote:On July 26 2012 07:03 Praetorial wrote:On July 26 2012 07:01 Energizer wrote:On July 26 2012 06:54 Praetorial 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 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. So, when a company donates money to an anti-gay organization its heiracy But when a company donates money to a pro-gay organization like google or Nike its acceptable Got it, Thought I was confused in thinking you were a hypocrite, silly me. Should of known double standards are nonexistant. As I've said, double standards form the basis of policy. When people don't like something, they vote against or petition against it. This is fine no matter what it is. When the MAJORITY(which is true in this case)-find something objectionable, it get's landed with a policy slap. The funny thing is, nearly every single time the issue of gay marriage has been put to a vote, the majority have voted it down. Has there been a single vote anywhere where the people have passed it? I am not aware of any. WELCOME TO MASSACHUSETTS! Gay marriage is legal here!
I said where it was voted by a majority. Gay marriage was passed in Mass. by judicial action.
|
United States41938 Posts
On July 26 2012 07:07 Crushinator wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 07:01 KwarK wrote:On July 26 2012 06:57 jdseemoreglass wrote: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. A private company has the same right a private individual does to take a political stance.
But not the right to do business wherever they want regardless of the wishes of the society where they wish to do business. Nobody is saying they can't take a political stance, they have taken one and it has been judged as conflicting with the wishes of the people of the city who are therefore rejecting them on the basis of it. As they are rejecting them on grounds other than race, disability or religion (which as a company they don't actually have) then it's all fine.
|
On July 26 2012 07:11 Crushinator wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 07:07 jdseemoreglass wrote:On July 26 2012 07:03 Praetorial wrote:On July 26 2012 07:01 Energizer wrote:On July 26 2012 06:54 Praetorial 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 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. So, when a company donates money to an anti-gay organization its heiracy But when a company donates money to a pro-gay organization like google or Nike its acceptable Got it, Thought I was confused in thinking you were a hypocrite, silly me. Should of known double standards are nonexistant. As I've said, double standards form the basis of policy. When people don't like something, they vote against or petition against it. This is fine no matter what it is. When the MAJORITY(which is true in this case)-find something objectionable, it get's landed with a policy slap. The funny thing is, nearly every single time the issue of gay marriage has been put to a vote, the majority have voted it down. Has there been a single vote anywhere where the people have passed it? I am not aware of any. Are you claiming that nowhere in the world a democratic majority supports gay-marriage? Because you would be very wrong, an overwhelming majority of Dutch citizens and politcians support gay marriage, and this hold true of several other European countries, I'm sure.
He did not phrase it precisely, but clearly refers to issues within the United States, which would be most relevant to the topic at hand since it is the American legal system we are looking at.
|
*cough* First Amendment *cough*
|
On July 26 2012 07:05 Klyberess wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 06:35 DeepElemBlues wrote:On July 26 2012 06:33 TheYango 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. 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 isn't a different matter. It's still political speech. It's not a legal basis to do anything. Again, in a free country. But an awful lot of people in this thread seem to only want to live in a free country when that suits them. Surely donating money to political organizations is not speech. Why are you upset that, for some people, complete and utter freedom does not take precedence to all other valuable things? I see several of you are going on about "thought police" this and "freedom of speech" that, but in reality disallowing businesses that donate to certain political agendas is not thought-policing by any means. If you've read 1984, as I assume you have, you'd know that thought-policing involves (and the name is indeed a clue) charging people for their thoughts, not their speech or donations. Nor would disallowing Chic-fil-a curtail anybody's freedom of speech: it is not an utterance by their owner that is the cited reason, but the fact that they donate to political agendas the city disagrees with. Even if Chic-fil-a were to be banned today, every person would still be free to say the same things they were free to say yesterday. As for whether it is within the mayor's rights to do this, I don't find the matter especially interesting.
Its a very modern idea in America but a recent supreme court ruling deemed it speech. This is a super controversial ruling which I think most people expect to be significantly altered in time but for now we have to live with it. Even so though, local power structures have always had a ton of discretion in dealing with these matters. Pretty much every town in America has gone through this with one chain or another depending on the local flavor (Walmart killing local business, Safeway killing local grocers, Fast Food ubiquity).
This is just highlighted because it is such a clear-cut case beyond the abstract freedom arguments.
|
Fascism is supreme governmental power.
I'm advocating for democratic process.
Where are you getting crypto-fascist?
You don't get to ban a business from operating or starting from operating based on the speech of that business or its executives. It's illegal. As has been pointed out many times. It's also fascist.
But not the right to do business wherever they want regardless of the wishes of the society where they wish to do business. Nobody is saying they can't take a political stance, they have taken one and it has been judged as conflicting with the wishes of the people of the city who are therefore rejecting them on the basis of it. As they are rejecting them on grounds other than race, disability or religion (which as a company they don't actually have) then it's all fine.
You can keep pushing this line all you want but the First Amendment, case law all the way up to and including the Supreme Court, and the principles of a free society totally disagree with you 100%. The wishes of the people - and no one has proven that "the people" actually wish for this - matter not one bit, because we live in a society of law, not of mob rule.
A private business does have the right to do business wherever it wants regardless of the wishes of the society where they wish to do business. Where did you get any other idea? That's the law. As long as Chik-Fil-A isn't violating the law, this "wish of the society" business is total nonsense.
|
On July 26 2012 07:03 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 07:01 Energizer wrote:On July 26 2012 06:54 Praetorial 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 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. So, when a company donates money to an anti-gay organization its heiracy But when a company donates money to a pro-gay organization like google or Nike its acceptable Got it, Thought I was confused in thinking you were a hypocrite, silly me. Should of known double standards are nonexistant. What you have identified is that someone has a single stance on the same issue. He's not against a company taking a corporate stance. He's in favour of companies which take a corporate stance on issues he agrees with and not in favour of those which take a stance on issues he disagrees with. There is no hypocrisy there.
your correct and I altered my original post to reflect that, was still reading over his post when I hit submit  .
I just fail to understand how government can justify in regulating commerce when this is clearly an issue of freedom of speech, not so much on the grounds if people find Chik-Fil-A's attitude on policy agreeable or not. If however this is a case of government being able to regulate this kind of behavior from companies, whats there to stop regulation from other issues that company made public? Personally I feel if this was a serious enough issue people would be more inclined to just refuse to eat there.
What completely scares me however is that people are actually willing to ban what they dont believe in similar to the poster I originally quoted...
|
That's fucking cool....
I still love their sandwiches though..
|
United States5162 Posts
On July 26 2012 07:10 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 07:05 Myles wrote:
This is clearly a violation of the first amendment and unconstitutional. However, it's also clear that a significant amount of people are fine with censoring free speech they don't agree with. The fact that the company has a anti-gay stance means nothing as long as they don't actively discriminate.
Firstly, it's a business and businesses don't get the same rights citizens do because they're not people. Secondly, nobody is saying Chic-Fil-A can't say what they like. They're not saying they're not allowed to donate money to anti-gay organisations or suing them or anything. They're saying that if the society democratically decides that a corporation with that stance conflicts with the society that they are trying to build and the values it embodies then they can deny them the right to do business within their society. This isn't a new thing. It's the same thing people use in towns where all the buildings have the same old style and someone wants to knock one down and build new concrete monstrosity.
The government is making a law that says if you disagree with our views you can't do business here, and it's aimed directly at one company. If that's not a violation of free speech I don't know what is. And I don't care if it's supported by the people; a nationwide ban on gay marriage is probably supported by the people, too, and I would be vehemently oppose that as well. This is the government overstepping their grounds, even if it's supported, it's tyranny of the majority. If the people don't support Chick-Fil-A then they won't be profitable, but because they apparently are(or else they wouldn't still be there) they're deciding everyone has to agree with the majority.
|
can't have tolerance without intolerance ~~
|
So, the people here who say you shouldn't ban something just because you don't agree with it. That means you're all supporting gay marriage, right? 
|
So the mayor basically wants to ban Chic-Fil-A just because of their beliefs ? How is that right, even if some people dont agree with them ?
Maybe I misunderstood something.
|
United States5162 Posts
On July 26 2012 07:19 Sandtrout wrote:So, the people here who say you shouldn't ban something just because you don't agree with it. That means you're all supporting gay marriage, right?
Yes, 100%.
|
United States41938 Posts
On July 26 2012 07:10 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +Surely donating money to political organizations is not speech. Why are you upset that, for some people, complete and utter freedom does not take precedence to all other valuable things?] It is speech. Disseminating views takes money. That is just an opinion and a controversial one, but it is the opinion of the US Supreme Court as far as American law goes and I think it is a correct opinion. Why are you so upset that people are free to speak and behave in ways you don't like? Show nested quote +I see several of you are going on about "thought police" this and "freedom of speech" that, but in reality disallowing businesses that donate to certain political agendas is not thought-policing by any means. If you've read 1984, as I assume you have, you'd know that thought-policing involves (and the name is indeed a clue) charging people for their thoughts, not their speech or donations. Nor would disallowing Chick-fil-a curtail anybody's freedom of speech: it is not an utterance by their owner that is the cited reason, but the fact that they donate to political agendas the city disagrees with. Even if Chick-fil-a were to be banned today, every person would still be free to say the same things they were free to say yesterday. You're splitting hairs to defend fascism. If you support denying a business a permit based on opinions held and distributed by its executives personally or through the company, you're supporting fascism. Simple as that. Show nested quote +As I've said, double standards form the basis of policy.
When people don't like something, they vote against or petition against it.
This is fine no matter what it is.
When the MAJORITY(which is true in this case)-find something objectionable, it get's landed with a policy slap. Dunno if you're trolling or really a crypto-fascist, it's pretty disturbing that you think it's acceptable for the government to hand a "policy slap" out based on such a flimsy justification.
This isn't the government telling people what is acceptable to think. This is the people exercising their right to shape their society. It's pretty much as far from fascism as you can go. People have always been able to exercise their right to associate or not associate with whoever they want, in this case the people (assuming the Mayor speaks for them) are stating that they do not wish a business that they morally disagree with to do business within their city. This has always been a thing and has always been allowed, quaint towns oppose the construction of giant stores, homeowners associations oppose people who they think would conflict with the area from moving in, it's democracy and as long as nobody is being discriminated against, it's a good thing. I'd much rather this than total apathy, I'm glad people want to actively participate and shape the society they live in and I'm glad they're empowered to do so.
|
On July 26 2012 07:13 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 07:07 Crushinator wrote:On July 26 2012 07:01 KwarK wrote:On July 26 2012 06:57 jdseemoreglass wrote: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. A private company has the same right a private individual does to take a political stance. But not the right to do business wherever they want regardless of the wishes of the society where they wish to do business. Nobody is saying they can't take a political stance, they have taken one and it has been judged as conflicting with the wishes of the people of the city who are therefore rejecting them on the basis of it. As they are rejecting them on grounds other than race, disability or religion (which as a company they don't actually have) then it's all fine.
Actually they do its for the same reason the KKK can rally or march anywhere in the USA and the same reason Muslims can open a Mosque next to the twin tower memorial. If you don't like the business you don't have to buy anything but you cannot deny them access based on there beliefs.
On July 26 2012 07:19 Sandtrout wrote:So, the people here who say you shouldn't ban something just because you don't agree with it. That means you're all supporting gay marriage, right?
Yes
|
wouldn't it be slightly ironic, if by doing this, chick-fil-a creates enough of a rally behind gay marriage rights, that it finally does get passed in states where it either didn't pass (cough cough california -_-' i'm ashamed to live here sometimes) or start movement in states that have chosen not to vote on it yet.
better yet, generations later, when they look back and see the history books of how gay marriage finally gained ground it was on the backs of a chicken fast food chain.
|
I'm glad I've never eaten at chic-fil-a before. If a company wants to openly discriminate against people, then I see no problem with discrimination going back against their business.
|
Its weird to see a company have religious views and be public about supporting their beliefs. It'll score them a ton of points in the bible belt and in Idaho but they shouldn't be surprised when they get run out of more liberal mined cities. granted the koch brothers have done a ton more then chic but they keep their private opinions out of their corporate life.
I don't think it really matters at this point what the government does in Boston. the publicity from this has probably done enough to kill them in the city. If anything this is all going to their plan. I hear black people like the company and the food they sell. Making the company take away what black people like might connect black people to not liking the gay rights movement. From a meta gaming point of view its a pretty good move you got to say.
On July 26 2012 07:20 Ryps wrote:
So the mayor basically wants to ban Chic-Fil-A just because of their beliefs ? How is that right, even if some people dont agree with them ?
Maybe I misunderstood something.
Corporations aren't people and don't deserve the same rights people do.
|
There's a difference between tolerance and acceptance: "tolerance" implies that something is wrong or harmful. There is no double standard when liberals are intolerant of bigotry--liberals do not tolerate homosexuality, they accept it.
That said, I'm not sure if I agree with this ban. Donating to these hate groups IS discrimination, but...
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
