CrushDance
Banned
Reasoning please.
CFA response to anti-gay alleg. "Guilty as charged." Do NOT gloat about eating at CFA
- Thread starter RBH
- Start date
- Status
Reasoning please.
elrechazado
Banned
This is clearly wrong. The government can place reasonable restrictions on location based on zoning. They cannot wholesale ban based on the political views of an executive of a corporation. Read some law.
Anti bigot bigotry all up in here!
Explain.
Count Dookkake
Member
lol at all of this.
The issue of civil rights has little to do with opinion, but nice effort.
No, a bigot is someone who believes that THEIR opinion should affect how OTHER people live their life. I think you're perfectly free to believe two women or two men should not be married... but when you implement that as a policy against others THAT'S when you become a problem.
Spehornoob
Member
Bigotception.
CrushDance
Banned
Agreed. The mayor shouldn't step into this. In a ideal world, people and companies like this should be outright expelled. But that's a very dangerous road to go down on. People should take time and come to realize for themselves whether they want to support such people/groups or not. that is real change, not throwing bans and laws around. Telling people to accept and not tolerate has never worked. They must be able make the conscious decision to accept others by themselves. That is a true sign of an enlightened and growing society.
lmao.
ShockingAlberto
Member
Nope.
Trampling on human rights is bigotry, being pro-human rights is not.
Your attempts to redefine the word have been noted for the irony, though.
Count Dookkake
Member
Bu-bu-bu-but opinions!
metalslimer
Member
I seriously want to drop kick anyone who ever pulls fucking shit like we're being bigoted against bigoted people for laughing at their outdated views. Is it bigotry to look down on organizations like the KKK? "Oh but we might hurt their feelings" Who gives a flying shit.
Anti bigot bigotry is the biggest crock of shit false equivalency I've ever seen. Well there was that guy in the Sandusky thread blaming children for not speaking up and comparing them to Paterno, but besides that....
Anti bigot bigotry is the biggest crock of shit false equivalency I've ever seen. Well there was that guy in the Sandusky thread blaming children for not speaking up and comparing them to Paterno, but besides that....
Devolution
Member
The people who got banned were saying "oh I'm going to get a sandwich now cause 'you mad'" or variations of that. Openly flaunting their purchase even after being told about the discriminatory practices. It was basically a finger in the eye to gays and those in support of gay marriage.
outunderthestars
Banned
This. There were people openly mocking other peoples' concerns, which will get you banned just about every time.
D
Deleted member 1235
Unconfirmed Member
is it though? the thing with being free to say shit, is that you are free to say it, but actions have consequences.
looks like a consequence of these people being cunts is that they aren't wanted in boston. And the mayor appears to have some leverage keeping dickheads out, which is admirable.
This response generally applies when the government isn't involved.
elrechazado
Banned
Words and actions and beliefs do have consequences. The constitution and over 200 years of legal precedent limit the government in its application of such consequences. The mayor can and should personally say these guys shouldn't come to boston and aren't welcome. When the mayor uses the power of the state to deny generally applicable government permits, it doesn't legally.
Acerac
Banned
You haven't read the rest of the thread, have you? =/
Yup. The government can't limit your access because they don't like what you believe. Otherwise you could get all sorts of results such as, for example discrimination against businesses applying for permits because they're not Christian owned.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
CFA isn't a church..
or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;
Not speech and they're not the press..
or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
CFA employees and executives can assemble for a protest. We are under no obligation to allow them to build a building though. They can also petition, but they'd actually have to work inside the existing petition laws.
Historically, the government has done this before, is currently doing it right now, and will continue to do it in the future. It's called governance. Strange how I don't see people running to defend Wal Mart when their buildings are blocked from certain cities for purely political reasons.
Spehornoob
Member
I don't think calling out bigotry is a bad thing at all. That said (and I'm sure I'll get torn apart for this), I think using that bigotry to look down on whoever is displaying it, hating them for it, and declaring them subhuman scum is a mistake. I think it's important to remember that these are people with actual thoughts and brains, not mustache twirling cartoon villains (though even I'll admit it can seem close to that sometimes). However misguided, these people believe these things for a reason. You can't change a viewpoint without understanding why it's there in the first place, and mocking/hating those with the opposing viewpoint certainly won't help matters.
Someone mentioned "tolerating the KKK" earlier, and it reminded me of this video that was linked on GAF once. Give it a watch if ya feel like it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldWf5Yj-RnI
I'm sure I'll get bombarded for this post, but, hey, I never do shutup when it would be smart to.
Someone mentioned "tolerating the KKK" earlier, and it reminded me of this video that was linked on GAF once. Give it a watch if ya feel like it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldWf5Yj-RnI
I'm sure I'll get bombarded for this post, but, hey, I never do shutup when it would be smart to.
elrechazado
Banned
It's fun to pretend you know what you're talking about I guess. Unfortunately for you, there are a few centuries of established law on this topic which clearly shows how wrong you are.
Wanting it to not be that way is one thing, pretending that it is is delusional.
outunderthestars
Banned
Cities block Walmart's because of the demonstrable negative impact their stores can have on local wages, employment, and the environment. Banning a business because you don't like their politics is something completely different.
Again, would you defend a Republican Mayor for say, banning REI for donating to Greenpeace?
Sadly these days, money is speech.
Cool. When you come up with a rebuttal instead of just saying "you're wrong" over and over again, I'll listen. Until then, cities are going to use the powers granted to them by their constituents and by the state.
CFA has a demonstrable negative impact on the morale of the local non-Christian and non-straight population and their executives views are toxic to a modern society.
But it's not the corporation applying for access. It'd be the owner of the corporation, or the franchisee in question. It is not permissible to deny equal access to a business because of the personal beliefs of the management. They're allowed to have regulations on the WAY a business operates as long as it's equally applied but no, I really don't see this form of regulation being permitted.
outunderthestars
Banned
I know the whole corporations having rights thing is a popular whipping boy these days, but I have to ask. Why should a business pay taxes as if they were an individual, but not have any of the rights that come with being an individual?
elrechazado
Banned
Indeed, we could do the examples all day long. I'm sure this guy would be just fine with some town in alabama banning planned parenthood or a regional office of greenpeace. Or hey, to make it apply to the thread - what if Salt Lake City utah allowed building permits for the NRA and some major pro life organizations, but denied the same permit for GLAAD?
Guess he wouldn't be doing that facile "analysis" of the constitution then....
Oh boy. I did mention it, but I'll ask again - have you ever read a single court case that actually interprets the constitution, or do you prefer to just make up your own based on what you like?
Mgoblue201
Won't stop picking the right nation
If there are consequences to your actions, as such that it involves reproach from the government, then it isn't really free speech. Maybe this kind of speech isn't outright banned, but there is still some kind of coercive element at work here. Usually, the consequences we are speaking of involve the capacity of fellow citizens to exercise their power to change the actions of a business, as within their rights to do so.
Devolution
Member
Yeah no. They aren't taxed as if they are an individual.
They don't pay taxes as if they were an individual. But even if they did, they benefit from public spending in a myriad of ways.
outunderthestars
Banned
They are taxed based on income and assets, same as citizens. The rates differ, but they are still taxed.
They aren't.
And at least in the US, people aren't taxed based on assets (with a few exceptions such as property tax).
outunderthestars
Banned
Funny, I pay a tax on my house, car, and the money I earn from investments.
Some systems (e.g., Canada and the United States) tax corporations under the same framework of tax law as individuals. In such systems, there are normally taxation differences related to differences between the inherent natures of corporations and individuals or unincorporated entities.
So, if we're going to tax them like individuals, they are due the same rights as individuals. This is why the courts have supported corporations' rights for over a century now.
Houses and cars fall under property taxes, which as I mentioned, are one of the exceptions. Capital gains tax is not an asset tax, and neither is tax on investment income.
Edit:
Thanks for the wiki c/p, but no, they are not taxed the same as individuals. Individuals don't get to subtract cogs, etc.
Again, we don't. Even if we did, that justification wouldn't make sense. And as far as I recall, that corporations pay taxes is not generally the reason courts have cited for supporting corporate personhood.
People getting married and the people themselves are two completely different things. What you are implying is a false dichotomy.
He's asking for a non-homophobic reason to be against gay marriage.
CrushDance
Banned
Okay. And the question still remains: What reason does one have to not want gay marriage to on the same level as any "other" type? I get what you're saying but the reasoning for the gay marriage "debate" almost invariably ties into two issues. Marriage=For straight people or Marriage=Faith. But both those reasons still come down to: "I'm immature and can't live my life without having everything my way" and "Teh gays are taking over". They're quite connected.
What logical reason does one have to be against gay marriage?
blame space
Banned
FALSE DICHOTOMY!!!!!!!!!!!
Devolution
Member
There isn't one.
There is no logical reason. There never has been. It's always been rooted in bigotry, religious or otherwise.
CrushDance
Banned
I'll give an example:
Yesterday on GAF I read about the gene therapy issue in Europe and while intrigued by it, I also was immediately taken by a sense of worry and took a "Don't meddle with nature" mantra. Maybe it would lead to some horrific genetic breakdown in our species? Maybe it could create a new superbug? Maybe, maybe. Yet I know very well that "meddling" with nature happens everyday and has happened for a long time. We are a part of nature. And my scientific mind simply said: "So what? We fix many others issues? Just because this is on a molecular level doesn't mean it's some magic or anything sinister. It's just the advancement of technology. Sure it's new, never before seen, scary; but there's nothing wrong with it. People used to be against operating on cadavers out of fear of God, people have and always will be afraid of new things because it forces them to adapt."
Now if tomorrow legislation was suddenly put through to allow gene therapy and or modification in my home country, I'd be confused to say the least. Because I'd honestly feel that I'd be surpassed and no longer be "up to standard" as people who can afford such treatments go for so called upgrades beyond health reasons. But you know what? I wouldn't deny them the ability to do it. Sure it's quite different from the freaking HUMAN RIGHTS ISSUE OF MARRIAGE! But it's close enough.
You don't just up and deny people the right to live a life of their own choosing because you're afraid of something that is not even a serious issue. So what if gay people can marry. Does that mean that you can't marry any more? Does that make your marriage and the supposed love in it worth anything less? Will gay people rape you in the middle of the night?
What will happen to you if gay people are allowed to marry?
Edit: Omg this shit pisses me off so much! Why is this even an issue?!
Yesterday on GAF I read about the gene therapy issue in Europe and while intrigued by it, I also was immediately taken by a sense of worry and took a "Don't meddle with nature" mantra. Maybe it would lead to some horrific genetic breakdown in our species? Maybe it could create a new superbug? Maybe, maybe. Yet I know very well that "meddling" with nature happens everyday and has happened for a long time. We are a part of nature. And my scientific mind simply said: "So what? We fix many others issues? Just because this is on a molecular level doesn't mean it's some magic or anything sinister. It's just the advancement of technology. Sure it's new, never before seen, scary; but there's nothing wrong with it. People used to be against operating on cadavers out of fear of God, people have and always will be afraid of new things because it forces them to adapt."
Now if tomorrow legislation was suddenly put through to allow gene therapy and or modification in my home country, I'd be confused to say the least. Because I'd honestly feel that I'd be surpassed and no longer be "up to standard" as people who can afford such treatments go for so called upgrades beyond health reasons. But you know what? I wouldn't deny them the ability to do it. Sure it's quite different from the freaking HUMAN RIGHTS ISSUE OF MARRIAGE! But it's close enough.
You don't just up and deny people the right to live a life of their own choosing because you're afraid of something that is not even a serious issue. So what if gay people can marry. Does that mean that you can't marry any more? Does that make your marriage and the supposed love in it worth anything less? Will gay people rape you in the middle of the night?
What will happen to you if gay people are allowed to marry?
Edit: Omg this shit pisses me off so much! Why is this even an issue?!
RawkHawk2010
Member
When it comes to this topic, I just don't understand why you guys are overlooking Chick-Fil-A's generally excellent service, respect for employees/customers, and contributions to local communities. I really don't see this as an issue of "one rotten apple spoils the whole bunch."
There are plenty of prominent companies that do EVERYTHING wrong, including exploiting overseas workers and half the time likely being anti-gay as well - yet many of the posters choosing to boycott Chick-Fil-A in this thread wouldn't dare divorce themselves from some of their more precious goods and services.
In a world filled with rude workers, unsanitary conditions, and a gaggle of other problems, Chick-Fil-A feels like a glimmer of hope in a sea of darkness. And from the perspective of a customer and not a social activist, it breaks my heart that people want to see that destroyed.
There are plenty of prominent companies that do EVERYTHING wrong, including exploiting overseas workers and half the time likely being anti-gay as well - yet many of the posters choosing to boycott Chick-Fil-A in this thread wouldn't dare divorce themselves from some of their more precious goods and services.
In a world filled with rude workers, unsanitary conditions, and a gaggle of other problems, Chick-Fil-A feels like a glimmer of hope in a sea of darkness. And from the perspective of a customer and not a social activist, it breaks my heart that people want to see that destroyed.
People aren't overlooking that. It seems to me that people are simply saying this is a deal breaker for them. Put it like this. Suppose you had an IDENTICAL company in their service etc with the list of things you mentioned. Suppose that company was owned by an avowed Neo-Nazi that supported ant-Jewish works and white Supremacist causes, as well as funding Holocaust denial. Would you eat there? Would you REALLY blame someone who couldn't bring themselves to?
I think a lot of people are more forgiving of anti-gay bigotry because it's still an accepted excuse in our society that support for anti-gay POLICIES is simply someone following their religious teachings. In reality of course religious teachings have been used to justify a lot of horrible things that our society came to reject and I think the same thing is beginning to happen with anti-gay causes.
So persecuting gay people and divorcees is okay as long as you smile when I buy a sandwich from them. Got it. This isn't a rogue exec or manager, this is the entire company's thing. They close on Sunday specifically because they expect their employees to use the day to go to church.
Anyone want odds of him coming back to explain this?
Vicetrailia
Banned
Made me dismiss your whole post. That's so rude.
This has been addressed repeatedly in this thread.
Um, they don't? They want them to stop funding anti-gay groups, and to at the very least stop making openly anti-gay statements.
CrushDance
Banned
I honestly just think people like fucking with others for fun. There has to be no other explanation. I mean, here we are on GAF, GAF of all places. The most sensible and nicest place I've ever seen on the internet, and there are still some jaw dropping things being said on a ton of topics. I used to blame religion, status, etc for all these problems. But now I seriously just think that people love to be contrarian in all areas of life because they can.
While I would never doubt that some people are doing it just to troll, I think the bulk of it is really people's opinions. Bigotry doesn't mean someone isn't a nice person, it means that someone believes (for whatever reason) that another human being, because they have a certain characteristic is LESSER and deserving of scorn, insult, and marginalization. You can have the nicest, most pleasant and friendly conversation in the world with someone, think they're great... and then set them off by bringing up a group of people they've grown up to oppose, hate, or fear.
Acerac
Banned
Based on what I've seen from other posters he might still be reading the thread and may make a smarmy remark down the line.
To answer your question, it's not gonna happen.
That's pretty much all it is, yes.
- Status