Support NeoGAF

[metalslimer]

Yeah, I don't think the government should be the ones deciding where Chick Filet can open shop. I appreciate the sentiments of the mayor but it would actually be worse to forcibly stop them. Let the people who run their ads on television and the customers decide to not do business with them. Unless they actually start discrimiating in their hiring practices ( i dont think theres evidence of this) thats when the government can step in.

 

[Hitokage]

Hot damn at the comments on that Herald article.

My head hurts now.

 

[Milchjon]

My head hurts now.

96 upvotes, 10 down.

 

[red13th]

Hot damn at the comments on that Herald article.

Wow, just... wow.

 

[notworksafe]

Boston Mayor Vows To Block Chick-Fil-A From Opening Restaurant After Anti-Gay Remarks



Good for Boston.

Disgusting. Banning a restaurant because you don't agree with the views of the company is despicable. Not to mention it hurts excellent potential sources of employment and tax revenue. Let the shop open and people can decide on their own if they want to spend their money.

 

[Dead Man]

Hot damn at the comments on that Herald article.

Jesus.

 

[trineo_feo]

Disgusting. Banning a restaurant because you don't agree with the views of the company is despicable. Not to mention it hurts excellent potential sources of employment and tax revenue. Let the shop open and people can decide on their own if they want to spend their money.

I will never get this "we should tolerate bigotry" argument. And for money, no less.

 

[Kapura]

I will never get this "we should tolerate bigotry" argument. And for money, no less.

The free market isn't bigotry.

 

[Cyan]

I will never get this "we should tolerate bigotry" argument.

We don't have to tolerate bigotry, but the government trying to block or ban a business because of their views seems like a pretty clear violation of freedom of speech.

 

[Count Dookkake]

There may be some wiggle room if they try to frame it as an organization funding an anti-civil rights group.

 

[johnsmith]

Disgusting. Banning a restaurant because you don't agree with the views of the company is despicable. Not to mention it hurts excellent potential sources of employment and tax revenue. Let the shop open and people can decide on their own if they want to spend their money.

Fast food jobs are excellent sources of employment? Really? You think Boston's really going to suffer economically because it has a few less minimum wage jobs?

Anyway, if the people of Boston don't like it, they can decide to vote out this mayor and vote in a pro-chick-fil-a, pro-homophobia mayor.

 

[Dead Man]

We don't have to tolerate bigotry, but the government trying to block or ban a business because of their views seems like a pretty clear violation of freedom of speech.

Only if corporations are people, my friend.

 

[Cloudy]

Disgusting. Banning a restaurant because you don't agree with the views of the company is despicable. Not to mention it hurts excellent potential sources of employment and tax revenue. Let the shop open and people can decide on their own if they want to spend their money.

Why should they welcome a company that promotes bigotry?

 

[xavi42]

Chick-Fil-A is delicious. Wish there was one around here.

 

[Cyan]

Only if corporations are people, my friend.

Ha! Excuse me, perhaps I should've said "because of the views of their executives."

 

[Yaboosh]

Chick-Fil-A is delicious. Wish there was one around here.

Hope you didn't have to wait too long for your account to activate.

 

[RDreamer]

Yep, I would definitely boycott these scuzzbags if there was one of these around here. Thankfully, there isn't. I wouldn't hesitate to boycott any of my favorite restaurants if they sponsored crap like this one. There are plenty of other places to go eat.

 

[Emitan]

Chick-Fil-A is delicious. Wish there was one around here.

Account suicide used to be more entertaining. Now it's just sad.

 

[xavi42]

Account suicide used to be more entertaining. Now it's just sad.

Can't say I like Chick-Fil-A on NeoGaf? Is there a rule somewhere I missed?

 

[Dead Man]

Ha! Excuse me, perhaps I should've said "because of the views of their executives."

Well, it depends where the $2 million came from. The OP says they came from the companies charity organisation. I don't think that should be considered the same as the personal speech of the executives. Is it a private company though? It can be a bit harder to separate the two then.

 

[Bay Maximus]

Disgusting. Banning a restaurant because you don't agree with the views of the company is despicable. Not to mention it hurts excellent potential sources of employment and tax revenue. Let the shop open and people can decide on their own if they want to spend their money.

That's how I see it. They are fucking bigots but trying to prevent them from opening up shop is crossing the line.

 

[Dead Man]

Can't say I like Chick-Fil-A on NeoGaf? Is there a rule somewhere I missed?

No, but a lot of flippant remarks of that nature seemed to result in bans earlier in the thread.

 

[CurlySaysX]

Can't say I like Chick-Fil-A on NeoGaf? Is there a rule somewhere I missed?

This is neogaf dude! how dare you have an opinion.

 

[Chumly]

That is fucked up. The government has no business doing something like that.

The government has no business promoting equality for all?

 

[MIMIC]

The government has no business promoting equality for all?

"The government" is the one that makes gay marriage illegal, not Chick-Fil-A.

 

[Yaboosh]

The government has no business promoting equality for all?

I don't even know what to say to this ridiculous question.

 

[Gotchaye]

The government has no business promoting equality for all?

It's a free speech thing, and I don't mean that it's constitutionally protected. We don't want to open the door to local governments deciding which businesses to allow in the area. Think for a second about what a government that you disagree with could do with the ability to block businesses whose public stands you agree with.

There's also not much of a collective action problem here; the individual contributions are pretty much just additive.

Edit: Planned Parenthood provides abortions, and this is constitutionally protected. But they also promote the political view that access to abortion is important. It's awfully hard to write a defensible rule that allows the Boston mayor to do what he wants to do without allowing pro-life governments to backdoor ban Planned Parenthood for reasons that technically have nothing to do with the constitutionally protected business they actually engage in.

 

[Chumly]

Can't say I like Chick-Fil-A on NeoGaf? Is there a rule somewhere I missed?

Then make a thread about it. We have one at least once a month. The mods probably considered everyone else trolling which is why they got banned since this isn't a thread about how awesome their food is.

 

[Chumly]

It's a free speech thing, and I don't mean that it's constitutionally protected. We don't want to open the door to local governments deciding which businesses to allow in the area. Think for a second about what a government that you disagree with could do with the ability to block businesses whose public stands you agree with.

There's also not much of a collective action problem here; the individual contributions are pretty much just additive.

Local governments block businesses all the time for a variety of reasons. Don't see the big deal with this one being blocked.

 

[Mgoblue201]

Local governments block businesses all the time for a variety of reasons. Don't see the big deal with this one being blocked.

Probably because this is a matter of free speech, not economic regulation.

 

[faceless007]

Probably because this is a matter of free speech, not economic regulation.

Who's infringing on Chick Fil A's right to speak?

 

[Plasticine]

Only if corporations are people, my friend.

The US Supreme Court certainly thinks they are..

 

[Chumly]

Probably because this is a matter of free speech, not economic regulation.

They aren't blocking their right to free speech. Chick fila can do all the anti gay stuff they want. Just not build in Boston. Is blocking a stripper joint a violation of free speech?

 

[harSon]

Goddamnit! I've been wanting to try Chic-Fil-A forever, and they're finally opening one in San Jose next month, and now I morally can't bring myself to eat their food :|

 

[GhaleonEB]

Boston Mayor Vows To Block Chick-Fil-A From Opening Restaurant After Anti-Gay Remarks

Good for Boston.

Good to hear. I'd like to see a lot more of this.

 

[Cyan]

Is blocking a stripper joint a violation of free speech?

Well, are you blocking it because of local laws/ordinances against that type of business establishment? Or because of politically incorrect statements made in an interview by the owner?

 

[Mgoblue201]

I would assume that the right to free speech also extends to the right to avoid specific government action being levied against you in this manner because of something you said. However, I admit that I'm rather hazy on the traditional interpretation of the right to free speech, and I could be wrong. My main point, though, is that this situation is categorically different than the usual reasons why government regulate business, so blocking the establishment of a business in a city for commercial reasons does not necessarily imply that it can do so in this situation.

 

[outunderthestars]

Good to hear. I'd like to see a lot more of this.

Until a Republican Mayor blocks a business from opening for donating to Moveon.org or Greenpeace.

They aren't blocking their right to free speech. Chick fila can do all the anti gay stuff they want. Just not build in Boston. Is blocking a stripper joint a violation of free speech?

zoning laws only restrict where a business can exist, not its right to exist .

 

[Gaborn]

Can't say I like Chick-Fil-A on NeoGaf? Is there a rule somewhere I missed?

Without further clarification I would speculate that the mods took umbrage at the idea of people praising the company in this thread given the context that they're being criticized for supporting discrimination, so the appearance is that you're supporting their attitude of supporting discriminatory policies as well.

At least, that's how I interpreted the bans.

Personally though I think whatever any individual does or thinks about CFA the company is probably going to find the country less and less supportive of businesses who support such causes. It's just no longer NEARLY as pervasive and acceptable to support discrimination as it once was and I suspect the trend will continue. Threads like this always remind me of this video clip and really, that's NOT that long ago. That's only around 20 years before I was born and it's unimaginable such a talk would be officially supported today.

 

[Captain Sparrow]

I'm sooooo tired of seing the world "Bigot" EVERYWHERE when this topic comes up. It bugs me when you see everyone always rehashing the same words and statements that they read elsewhere. Opinions mean more when they are with your own words.

The real "bigots" are those who think their opinion is law when it comes to being pro gay marriage. Your opinion is just as "right" as anyone elses. Homophobe is another word that is used extremely too often. You don't have to be a homophobe to not want gay marriage.

 

[Eric C]

That is fucked up. The government has no business doing something like that.

Well that depends. I don't know the exact details about Chick-Fil-A in Boston.

The government certainly can decide which businesses can or can not operate in for example a school or other government owned buildings.

If a business is accepting public money to build the restaurant or tax breaks for creating jobs, the government certainly has a responsibility to insure that business is non discriminatory. ...with that said I don't think Chick-Fil-A's donations have LEGALLY made them discriminatory... Chick-Fil-A past hiring practices probably do make them discriminatory in the eyes of the law though... but I would've expected Chick-Fil-A would've changed how they hire people by now.

And as was already said, cities can and do regulate strip joints... perhaps something Chick-Fil-A did violated an obscure ordinance that the city of Boston has.

 

[Admiral Bone to Pick]

Without further clarification I would speculate that the mods took umbrage at the idea of people praising the company in this thread given the context that they're being criticized for supporting discrimination, so the appearance is that you're supporting their attitude of supporting discriminatory policies as well.

At least, that's how I interpreted the bans.

Personally though I think whatever any individual does or thinks about CFA the company is probably going to find the country less and less supportive of businesses who support such causes. It's just no longer NEARLY as pervasive and acceptable to support discrimination as it once was and I suspect the trend will continue. Threads like this always remind me of this video clip and really, that's NOT that long ago. That's only around 20 years before I was born and it's unimaginable such a talk would be officially supported today.

I'm confused. Are we not allowed to even say we just like the restaurant in general? So does that also rule out the Boy Scouts and the Republican party? Does praising the spicy chicken sandwich really violate the TOS?

 

[Yaboosh]

I'm confused. Are we not allowed to even say we just like the restaurant in general? So does that also rule out the Boy Scouts and the Republican party? Does praising the spicy chicken sandwich really violate the TOS?

No it seems like the people who got banned for saying they liked it were going beyond that and just clearly trolling and trying to piss people off.

 

[FyreWulff]

It's not violating free speech. Chik Fil A requires permits and proper zoning to build restaurants. The city is under no obligation to grant them the zone or permits. These permits are usually granted through the city council or mayor's office.

 

[Loudninja]

I'm confused. Are we not allowed to even say we just like the restaurant in general? So does that also rule out the Boy Scouts and the Republican party? Does praising the spicy chicken sandwich really violate the TOS?

No we had several people in here doing it in inappropriate way.

Not just saying you enjoy the food.

 

[Count Dookkake]

I'm confused. Are we not allowed to even say we just like the restaurant in general? So does that also rule out the Boy Scouts and the Republican party? Does praising the spicy chicken sandwich really violate the TOS?

Is it really so confusing?

There is a difference between expressing an opinion and trolling.

 

[Gaborn]

I'm confused. Are we not allowed to even say we just like the restaurant in general? So does that also rule out the Boy Scouts and the Republican party? Does praising the spicy chicken sandwich really violate the TOS?

I'm not a mod so I wouldn't like to speculate too much. I will say that personally I may not have made the same choice. HOWEVER it's hard to believe people would have the same positive responses if the donations were to an active white supremacist organization as well. Personally I did think the almost fetishistic posts about the food in this context was a bit in bad taste too.

 

[Kikujiro]

I'm confused. Are we not allowed to even say we just like the restaurant in general? So does that also rule out the Boy Scouts and the Republican party? Does praising the spicy chicken sandwich really violate the TOS?

I asked it before, but none of the mods answered. And the user I asked about only posted two comments about their chicken, nothing more.

 

[Admiral Bone to Pick]

I'm not a mod so I wouldn't like to speculate too much. I will say that personally I may not have made the same choice. HOWEVER it's hard to believe people would have the same positive responses if the donations were to an active white supremacist organization as well. Personally I did think the almost fetishistic posts about the food in this context was a bit in bad taste too.

Alright, just wondering if people were out of hand or if this was a general crackdown.

Also four quotes is plenty. Thanks all.

 

[Gotchaye]

It's not violating free speech. Chik Fil A requires permits and proper zoning to build restaurants. The city is under no obligation to grant them the zone or permits. These permits are usually granted through the city council or mayor's office.

But why would the city deny a permit to CFA? Reasonable people, and especially liberals in today's US, should be on the look-out for misused discretion of this sort.

You don't have to be crazy to worry about voter fraud. You don't have to be evil to want people to have to show ID in order to vote. But when it's clear that you don't actually care about voter fraud and are just trying to prevent people who disagree with you from voting, there's a problem.

It's perfectly reasonable to worry about the safety of women at abortion clinics. It's sensible to require that abortion clinics abide by certain regulations. But when you're writing these regulations only in order to reduce the number of abortions, there's a problem.

It's vitally important that public officials who are given discretion use that discretion only in permissible ways. The point of allowing a city to exercise discretion in what it allows different businesses to do is not to allow the city to punish businesses whose speech the city disagrees with.