Chik-Fil-A and tolerance

Does it matter legally speaking if the funding for anti-gay groups came from Cathy or from the company itself?

pointman7a said:

Interesting to see our country going this way. Big retailers now either red or blue. Small businesses force to close. Heated elections fueled by the bully liberal media. What's next...

Click to expand...

I don't buy into the "liberal media" myth. The "media" is a business, and like most business is biased only in favor of making money hand over fist. The way media makes money is by providing a product that the pool of available consumers want to consume. If there is an apparent liberal slant (I sure haven't seen it, and I am not a terribly liberal guy), then logic would tell me that that is because the majority of potential media consumers want media with a liberal slant. Considering that a sizable portion of media's potential consumers are also voters, it would seem that such a demand would also influence elections, because presumably these same consumers that demand a liberal slanted in their media would demand a liberal slant in their politicians. Hence, if the myth were true, it would not be the "bully liberal media" fueling the "heated elections", it would be that portion of the electorate that consumes the product offered by the media. "Heated elections" and the "bully liberal media" would be merely two responses to the same consumer demand.

OllieFranz said:

MZ --

The "But...But..." at the beginning of Ben's post indicates that he is sarcastically adopting a "liberal" version of a conservative position he disagrees with, in this case the idea that it is not only permissible, but praiseworthy to use the politics of majority rule to disenfranchise a minority population from established human rights.

I'm glad to see his approach worked in so far as you now realize that that kind of position is immoral. Now go and tell your fellow-travelers who supported just that in California during the Prop 8 debacle.

Click to expand...

I'm not so certain of that, but I'm unaware of a conservative mayor trying to ban a business from his city based on the business owner's political positions

stamperben said:

Actually it has to do with the Constitutionality of the issue. Deciding a business has no place in a community (see Walmarts being denied for example) and infringing on the civil rights of a portion of the population are two different matters. One can be legal, the other not.

Click to expand...

It seems the attempt to infringe on rights is being done by the mayors.

dies-l said:

I don't buy into the "liberal media" myth. The "media" is a business, and like most business is biased only in favor of making money hand over fist. The way media makes money is by providing a product that the pool of available consumers want to consume. If there is an apparent liberal slant (I sure haven't seen it, and I am not a terribly liberal guy), then logic would tell me that that is because the majority of potential media consumers want media with a liberal slant. Considering that a sizable portion of media's potential consumers are also voters, it would seem that such a demand would also influence elections, because presumably these same consumers that demand a liberal slanted in their media would demand a liberal slant in their politicians. Hence, if the myth were true, it would not be the "bully liberal media" fueling the "heated elections", it would be that portion of the electorate that consumes the product offered by the media. "Heated elections" and the "bully liberal media" would be merely two responses to the same consumer demand.

Click to expand...

True..media will cater to viewers or consumers by feeding or providing what they want to hear. Some networks bend more to one side or the other. How can you not see it? Fox favors conservative views and msnbc favors liberal. The slant is there. Objective reporting doesn't exist in politics.

pointman7a said:

True..media will cater to viewers or consumers by feeding or providing what they want to hear. Some networks bend more to one side or the other. How can you not see it? Fox favors conservative views and msnbc favors liberal. The slant is there. Objective reporting doesn't exist in politics.

Click to expand...

I agree that some specific media outlets are slanted, and you provide a good example. But, I don't agree that there is some overwhelming bias in the media as a whole, which is what the phrase "liberal media" generally implies.

dies-l said:

I agree that some specific media outlets are slanted, and you provide a good example. But, I don't agree that there is some overwhelming bias in the media as a whole, which is what the phrase "liberal media" generally implies.

Click to expand...

True...depending on where you live. When I lived near San Francisco local news went liberal..living in East Texas it goes conservative. Big difference ...my wife and I are now headed to chick fil a.

MachZer0 said:

It seems the attempt to infringe on rights is being done by the mayors.

Click to expand...

Elected officials are representatives of their constituencies. If you don't like the their actions, vote them out.

stamperben said:

Elected officials are representatives of their constituencies. If you don't like the their actions, vote them out.

Click to expand...

That is a valid statement when we are not talking about constitutional liberties.

RedPaddy said:

true. and if their actions potentially constitute crimes they should be prosecuted.

Click to expand...

No, prosecution can't be based on potentials, it has to be based on an actual crime.

Unless of course you are in Congress and want to harass the current administration.

I can't help but feel that most of this lies in the fact that people in general seem to always want to get in other people's business.

I'm conservative, but honestly I don't care if someone is gay or not. I don't really care if they want to get "married" or not. If they want to go down to the city or county offices and take out a marriage certificate, have at it. That is a legal issue. If the guy that owns a business doesn't believe in same sex marriage and even contributes to things that are perceived to be "anti-gay" by those who hold a different view on the subject, again, I just don't care. If the idea is that people who wish to have a same sex marriage, should have the same "constitutional rights" as those in traditional marriages (such as beneficiaries to insurance policies, retirement accounts, Social Security benefits, etc) I have no problem with it. If my religious beliefs prohibit this practice, that's my own business too. I am not the State or Federal government and if these entities recognize these marriages, as long as it doesn't affect my ability to believe the way I do, I don't care if they do it.

This is a two way street. If someone wants to boycott any business for any particular reason, it is up to them, individually. Boycotts, in my opinion, are rather silly. An individual's right to decide that they don't wish to patronize a business for any reason they may have, is their business. An organized boycott by collective groups of people, hurts the population at large, not just the business being boycotted. It has the potential of taking options away from everyone else. For government officials to call for boycotts or refusal of permits based on the personal opinions of those seeking permits, or inhibiting their ability to run that business, is tyranny. I don't care who does it, nor do I care for their reasoning that is used to justify it. It's wrong. As long as no law is being violated and all proper zoning or other legal requirements have been met, popular opinion should not be a factor.

We must be careful what government actions we accept as "appropriate" because someday, that same acceptance of an issue that we agree with, will result in another later on that we do not agree with. This is an example of a government getting too powerful. Sometimes in our zeal to see political "justice", we surrender freedom. Little bit by little bit, our liberties are being taken away or "conditionalized". This is an example of big government. All of us, at one time or other, have fallen into the 'trap' of getting behind some legal or political position that would seek to limit freedoms.

Prop 8 here in California is an example of this kind of thing coming from a political viewpoint that most conservatives like myself would support. The way that it was presented, I saw Prop 8 as a means of limiting freedom as much as I saw it as limiting governments ability to "legitimize" a lifestyle that was contrary to my own belief system. A very difficult decision had to be made, but I have to come down on the side of freedom. I took a lot of flack from those who supported the proposition, especially friends from church. Many understood, but a few were less than kind about my decision. There will be times when "freedoms" for one group affects the freedom of others. It's a hard balance. The Chic-Fil-A boycott is a personal decision. Government needs to stay out of it.

stamperben said:

Elected officials are representatives of their constituencies. If you don't like the their actions, vote them out.

Click to expand...

Being elected is not a free pass to deny others their rights

stamperben said:

Elected officials are representatives of their constituencies. If you don't like the their actions, vote them out.

Click to expand...

The Bill of Rights is only pertinent if the majority in a given jurisdictoin agree with it? I wonder why they never taught me that in law school.

MachZer0 said:

It seems the attempt to infringe on rights is being done by the mayors.

Click to expand...

In Boston and Chicago over Chic-Fil-A, perhaps. But in California over Prop 8....

MachZer0 said:

Being elected is not a free pass to deny others their rights

Click to expand...

Exactly! And it cuts both ways.

explodingboy said:

So if he makes a racist comment we have to overlook its content so long as it was said among friends who agree?

Why shouldn't liberals and supporters of gay rights boycott a company that says in private or public that they are the summoning gods wrath?

Click to expand...

We overlook the racism spewed by black pastors daily...how is this different?