Chik-Fil-A and tolerance

[Nurbz]

How many times does it have to be explained - it's not about the sin - it's about the 1st Amendment. What they do with their bodies is no concern of mine - but when it gets to the point that we cannot speak our feelings - that is a concern.

Yes, and they're using it to support a fast food chain because of political reasons involving gay marriage.

It's not like thousands of people decided one day, all at once, on their own to buy a chicken sandwich at one particular fast food chain just out of appreciation for the first amendment.

 

[MachZer0]

Might it be an issue with certain filters?

It has to do with CF rules

 

[MachZer0]

Yes, and they're using it to support a fast food chain because of political reasons involving gay marriage.

And the kiss in doesn't do the reverse?

It's not like thousands of people decided one day, all at once, on their own to buy a chicken sandwich at one particular fast food chain just out of appreciation for the first amendment.

They responded to a call for support based on politicians threatening to ban them from their cities which would be a violation of rights

 

[QuiltAngel]

People ate there on Wednesday in support of the CEO's right to free speech.

 

[RedDead1981]

I dont think his free speech was ever in jeopardy.

 

[MachZer0]

I dont think his free speech was ever in jeopardy.

When on business can't operate in certain areas based on the owner's "speech", then our collective right to free speech is in jeopardy.

 

[acropolis]

When on business can't operate in certain areas based on the owner's "speech", then our collective right to free speech is in jeopardy.

Customers can do whatever they please. I'm not sure why you think free speech means that people are obligated to patronize an establish.

 

[MachZer0]

Customers can do whatever they please. I'm not sure why you think free speech means that people are obligated to patronize an establish.

Ignoring of course that 2 mayors and one New York city councilman have expressed their intent to deny Chick-fil-A the opportunity to operate in their municipalities.

 

[acropolis]

Ignoring of course that 2 mayors and one New York city councilman have expressed their intent to deny Chick-fil-A the opportunity to operate in their municipalities.

Yeah and Wal-mart gets routinely denied by municipalities who disagree with their business practices. Sometimes speech results in particular parts of the nation not tolerating you. There is legal precedent for this if you bother to look for it. Chick-fil-a is not being silenced, nor is the federal government making any attempt to censor them. Their greater problem is the increasing acceptance of gays in the general public, since that doesn't bode well for them long-term.

I've spent enough time in "Free Speech Zones" to have little sympathy for massive corporations that are so cruelly denied access to a few cities simply for have reprehensible beliefs and practices.

 

[SharonL]

Wal Mart is usually denied on the reasoning that they close up all the mom and pop businesses and cities try to protect their towns. I live in a town that denied Wal Mart the opportunity to build here, they went to the next town - 80% of all the small businesses in several small towns have closed their doors.

 

[acropolis]

Wal Mart is usually denied on the reasoning that they close up all the mom and pop businesses and cities try to protect their towns. I live in a town that denied Wal Mart the opportunity to build here, they went to the next town - 80% of all the small businesses in several small towns have closed their doors.

Yes Wal-mart is pretty terrible. They move into a small town then lower their prices below that of any local business. That particular Wal-mart loses money due to their very low prices, but that loss is absorbed by the corporation as a whole. Once their local competitors are forced out of business they raise their prices back to retail standard and clean up while many in town suffer unemployment.

Point of my post was: cities already have a legal right to deny businesses entry if they decide they don't want it. Chick-fil-a is no exception.

 

[Rion]

Even Barney disagrees with you.

PICKETAUDIO)REP. Barney Frank - Gov't shouldn't discriminate against Chick fil A - Washington Times

 

[Ukrainia]

Part of the problem, at least in Chicago mayor Rahm Emanuel's case was that his argument for not permiting Chik-Fil-A, was that Chik-Fil-A's values "are not Chicago values." He's trying to couch his own opinion in the language of democracy. That's, to put it frankly, bull. Does every person, church or business that also doesn't support gay marriage also not share Chicago values? I'm guessing that, at the very least, a large minority of Chicagoans don't support gay marriage. Is Rahm Emanuel really saying that he doesn't represent them?

Part of what makes a big city great is a vast realm of insight, opinion, and ways of life. Some people's opinions are not particularly accepting of certain ways of life. Usually however, such people can't prevent ways of life they disagree with. The best they can do is try to spread their own views through word of mouth and their pocket book. It takes the government acting in the bully pulpit to truly prevent differing opinions - what's ironic is that Emanuel is acting intolerant in the name of tolerance. What a hypocrite!

 

[MachZer0]

Yeah and Wal-mart gets routinely denied by municipalities who disagree with their business practices. Sometimes speech results in particular parts of the nation not tolerating you. There is legal precedent for this if you bother to look for it. Chick-fil-a is not being silenced, nor is the federal government making any attempt to censor them. Their greater problem is the increasing acceptance of gays in the general public, since that doesn't bode well for them long-term.

I've spent enough time in "Free Speech Zones" to have little sympathy for massive corporations that are so cruelly denied access to a few cities simply for have reprehensible beliefs and practices.

Maybe we could get the Supreme Court to judge that free speech only applies to "acceptable" free speech.

 

[OllieFranz]

Ignoring of course that 2 mayors and one New York city councilman have expressed their intent to deny Chick-fil-A the opportunity to operate in their municipalities.

So elected officials lose their right to say stupid things under Freedom of Speech?

That's all they did -- speak. They didn't give donations to further their cause, like the CEO of Chick-Fil-A did. They didn't introduce legislation to carry out the goals expressed in their speeches, nor do they intend to, and not even their most ardent constituents expect them to. They (both the mayors and their constituents) may fanasize about conditions where life is not an obstacle course, but they realize that freedom of speech is more important than their comfort. In the end, they are the same kind of person who recognized that even Nazis have a right to free speech (even if that "speech" is a march through a predominantly Jewish suburb), and to deny even the worst of people the right to speak freely is to trample on the rights of all citizens.

 

[MachZer0]

So elected officials lose their right to say stupid things under Freedom of Speech?

Attempting to ban a business based on ideology goes beyond speech when one has that power.

That's all they did -- speak. They didn't give donations to further their cause, like the CEO of Chick-Fil-A did. They didn't introduce legislation to carry out the goals expressed in their speeches, nor do they intend to, and not even their most ardent constituents expect them to. They (both the mayors and their constituents) may fanasize about conditions where life is not an obstacle course, but they realize that freedom of speech is more important than their comfort. In the end, they are the same kind of person who recognized that even Nazis have a right to free speech (even if that "speech" is a march through a predominantly Jewish suburb), and to deny even the worst of people the right to speak freely is to trample on the rights of all citizens.

The irony is the mayor of Chicago wanting to ban the evil Chick-fil-A and saying that Chick-fil-A doesn't share the same values as Chicago. Thank goodness they don't share the same values or else Chick-fil-A would be shooting customers as they walked in the door. That's bad for business.

 

[OllieFranz]

Attempting to ban a business based on ideology goes beyond speech when one has that power.

Where, other than in the quoted stump speeches, is there even any indication of an attempt to ban the business?

Again, it was just an off-the-cuff, wish-fulfullment reaction -- a speech that no one took as a serious attempt to legislate policy -- unlike Chick-Fil-A which has actively financed people actually trying to write discrimination into the laws.

 

[OllieFranz]

The irony is the mayor of Chicago wanting to ban the evil Chick-fil-A and saying that Chick-fil-A doesn't share the same values as Chicago. Thank goodness they don't share the same values or else Chick-fil-A would be shooting customers as they walked in the door. That's bad for business.

No, of course they are not shooting customers in the stores. It is bad for business. And it is unnecessary when it's just as easy to pay someone to do so (not literally, but just as effectively through laws that endorse persecution of citizens breaking no laws) out of sight of the company logo.

Hey, if you can claim a stupid speech is the same as shooting fast food representatives, I can claim that funding hate campaigns is shooting the victims of those campaigns.

 

[MachZer0]

Where, other than in the quoted stump speeches, is there even any indication of an attempt to ban the business?

New York, Boston and Chicago specifically.

Again, it was just an off-the-cuff, wish-fulfullment reaction -- a speech that no one took as a serious attempt to legislate policy -- unlike Chick-Fil-A which has actively financed people actually trying to write discrimination into the laws.

Off the cuff? I saw nothing off the cuff about it

 

[MachZer0]

No, of course they are not shooting customers in the stores. It is bad for business. And it is unnecessary when it's just as easy to pay someone to do so (not literally, but just as effectively through laws that endorse persecution of citizens breaking no laws) out of sight of the company logo.

Hey, if you can claim a stupid speech is the same as shooting fast food representatives, I can claim that funding hate campaigns is shooting the victims of those campaigns.

So now there's a moral equivalency between supporting traditional marriage and shooting people dead in the streets