|
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.
Actually thats incorrect, Corporations are in fact legal entities or "people" if you will and are viewed under the law as such, and therefor inherit some basic rights as a natural born citizen would.
|
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.
I strongly disagree with this reasoning. If their ability to do business is destroyed by official action, as the result of taking a political stance, then clearly taking this political stance has been outlawed. If a government tells you that you cannot do a things, or otherwise they will make you pay, you are clearly not free to do that thing. So they are definitely saying that they can't take this political stance. I judge this action to be a violation of basic human rights, that a constitution usually protects, it is not at all obvious that a simple majority opinion of the people of Boston carries much weight at all in this case.
|
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? 
What a throwaway statement if I ever saw it. There are many awful directions to go in to mock this statement but it would just be too easy.
|
I think the mayor is overreaching. If a company's leadership wants to make idiotic comments, let them. It's their loss. As long as they don't actually discriminate against gays and all they're doing is giving money to other idiots, I say let them. They are only hurting their own business. It would be pretty interesting to see how they treat a gay employee though. Would they mistreat him/her and just take the lawsuit? or be coldly polite and try to avoid it?
But yeah. The fight for equal rights should not take place in the lobby of a chick Fil a. There's nothing illegal about being obnoxious and politically charged. They are a legit business in spite of their foibles, and it should be up to individual consumers to determine their fate.
My friend tells me they make decent chicken.
|
Hmm, not entirely sure about this. At first I thought it was really cool to see the people through politicians get to shape their society through their opinions and shit.
Then I considered why not just leave them open and surely they'll fail if the people disagree with them?
I'll need to think more about this.
|
On July 26 2012 07:20 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 07:10 DeepElemBlues wrote: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? 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. 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.
It is quite a stretch to assume that a vote for a mayor is simultaneously a vote to have a chicken company banned from your city. I would not call the Mayor's actions "democracy," not only because the people have not voted their agreement, but also because the policy in question is antithetical to an ideal of democracy, namely, freedom of speech.
|
United States43250 Posts
On July 26 2012 07:20 CajunMan wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 07:13 KwarK wrote: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. Show nested quote +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
I said "grounds other than religion" to which you replied "but Muslims can open a Mosque". Please try again.
|
On July 26 2012 07:21 Sermokala wrote:
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.
Seems like something a Liberal would think of 99% of black people LOVE chicken!!! Right is that what your saying?
On July 26 2012 07:24 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 07:20 CajunMan wrote:On July 26 2012 07:13 KwarK wrote: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:
[quote]
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 I said "grounds other than religion" to which you replied "but Muslims can open a Mosque". Please try again.
You can't separate the 2 discrimination in any form is discrimination please try again.
|
On July 26 2012 07:23 Ryalnos wrote:Show nested quote +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? What a throwaway statement if I ever saw it. There are many awful directions to go in to mock this statement but it would just be too easy.
I find it to be a great statement. Please attempt to mock it.
|
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.
If you actually believe this nonsense I feel sorry for you.
This has not always been a thing and it has not always been allowed. Let's try this again: what you're saying is against the law.
It is not about as far from fascism as you can go, it is fascism. Straight-up. Don't hold an opinion the government disagrees with or the government will hurt you.
The government can't punish me or my business for me or my business's speech unless it violates the incitement standard.
http://www.volokh.com/2012/07/25/no-building-permits-for-opponent-of-same-sex-marriage/
But denying a private business permits because of such speech by its owner is a blatant First Amendment violation. Even when it comes to government contracting — where the government is choosing how to spend government money — the government generally may not discriminate based on the contractor’s speech, see Board of County Commissioners v. Umbehr (1996). It is even clearer that the government may not make decisions about how people will be allowed to use their own property based on the speaker’s past speech.
Also, what you're saying is exactly what Jim Crow segregationists said to defend not allowing blacks to open or own businesses in the South. So when it was allowed, it was used as a justification for discrimination.
What you're supporting is fascism and tyranny of the majority, not a society of laws.
The government, even if 99.9% of the people want it to, cannot force you out of business or keep you from starting just because of a disagreement over things you've said or supported. That is not freedom. It is illegal under American law. It goes against everything this country stands for. The holders of unpopular opinions aren't free game because their opinions are unpopular.
|
On July 26 2012 07:21 Sermokala wrote:
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.
I live in Charlotte, NC. Majority of people here are black. (I am white) Black people do not like gays at all from what I have seen.
|
On July 26 2012 07:24 CajunMan wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 07:21 Sermokala wrote:
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. Seems like something a Liberal would think of 99% of black people LOVE chicken!!! Right is that what your saying?
From personal experience and from those that I've talked to this is right. I'm not saying them being black is what makes them like chicken but a large portion of black people like chicken in cities.
|
United States43250 Posts
On July 26 2012 07:24 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 07:20 KwarK wrote:On July 26 2012 07:10 DeepElemBlues wrote: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? 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. 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. It is quite a stretch to assume that a vote for a mayor is simultaneously a vote to have a chicken company banned from your city. I would not call the Mayor's actions "democracy," not only because the people have not voted their agreement, but also because the policy in question is antithetical to an ideal of democracy, namely, freedom of speech.
I don't disagree on the question of his mandate.
On the subject of the power of the mayor to speak for the people on this specific issue I would need to see the extent to which pursuing an aggressively tolerant attitude to homosexuality in the building of the society under his stewardship featured in his election manifesto. I haven't and I addressed the questionable nature of his democratic mandate to do so in my first post of the topic. I'm arguing the right of the society to shape itself and choose whom it associates with (without discrimination on the aforementioned grounds), the right of the Mayor to speak for them is another matter.
|
On July 26 2012 07:20 CajunMan wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 07:13 KwarK wrote: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. Show nested quote +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
Did you seriously just state those 2 things as comparable? -.-
|
On July 26 2012 07:23 Ryalnos wrote:Show nested quote +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? What a throwaway statement if I ever saw it. There are many awful directions to go in to mock this statement but it would just be too easy.
Oh yeah, owning another human being is TOTALLY comparable to allowing two people to get married. Stay smart TL.
|
On July 26 2012 07:25 Crushinator wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 07:23 Ryalnos wrote: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? What a throwaway statement if I ever saw it. There are many awful directions to go in to mock this statement but it would just be too easy. I find it to be a great statement. Please attempt to mock it.
Iirc, it is against the law to do this.
It is not against the law to ban gay marriage.
I attempted and succeeded
|
I'm arguing the right of the society to shape itself and choose whom it associates with
That's different from what you've been saying for three posts prior to this.
|
On July 26 2012 07:28 Wafflelisk wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 07:20 CajunMan wrote:On July 26 2012 07:13 KwarK wrote: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:
[quote]
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 Did you seriously just state those 2 things as comparable? -.-
In the eyes of the constitution yes they are 100% comparable.
|
On July 26 2012 07:27 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 07:24 CajunMan wrote:On July 26 2012 07:21 Sermokala wrote:
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. Seems like something a Liberal would think of 99% of black people LOVE chicken!!! Right is that what your saying? From personal experience and from those that I've talked to this is right. I'm not saying them being black is what makes them like chicken but a large portion of black people like chicken in cities.
Well that's kind of stupid lol because probably 90% of people in the US like chicken. I'm just saying your jumping through a lot of hoops to get to our original point.
On July 26 2012 07:28 Wafflelisk wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 07:20 CajunMan wrote:On July 26 2012 07:13 KwarK wrote: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:
[quote]
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 Did you seriously just state those 2 things as comparable? -.-
How are they not comparable? Both of which were HARSHLY criticized way more than this and both are perfectly legal the subject of why they were criticized matter not only that they were under unjust grounds.
|
On July 26 2012 07:25 Crushinator wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 07:23 Ryalnos wrote: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? What a throwaway statement if I ever saw it. There are many awful directions to go in to mock this statement but it would just be too easy. I find it to be a great statement. Please attempt to mock it.
It's ambiguous as hell. You could say the same statement about theft, pedophilia, etc. with such imprecise wording. I just didn't want to go there.
A punchy-but-flimsy/fallacious argument which supports/agrees with your point of view should not be applauded but rather cast aside.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
