-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
CFA response to anti-gay alleg. "Guilty as charged." Do NOT gloat about eating at CFA
- Thread starter RBH
- Start date
- Status
This is where tolerating hateful shit comes into it for me. That would be a thing that must be tolerated. Many people make an argument for states rights in the terms of being able to move, or being able to vote to change them. I feel this is the same.
metalslimer
Member
I don't see why they should get props for being openly hateful. There are plenty of despicable organizations that I wouldn't donate money to just because they were open about their hatred. I certainly wouldn't buy anything from the local KKK burger joint even if they had the best meals in town.
Edit: I don't see the issue now in Boston's mayor denying CFA permits since it's well within his rights. I don't think it violates free speech at all. Boston police isn't arresting the head of CFA for his comments. He can say whatever he wants. They also have the right not to do business with them. On the other hand, they better be ready for the same kind of actions coming from the other side.
EatinOlives
Member
The letter and the statement both make it pretty dang clear that he strongly believes his constituents wouldn't go anywhere near it.
He's not acting solely independently. He's acting in a way he believes will be in the best interests of the majority of his constituents. Y'know, kind of like what a mayor is elected for.
This is solely about Tom Menino's letter and the implication of what he's saying there. I don't see how you can argue straight faced this isn't based on the content, that is, the beliefs and decisions of the corporation in broader matters. If you want to say that NO business that donates to political causes ever gets a permit in Boston that's one thing. I'm pretty sure that Menino is saying they're singling them out because of their choice of causes.
I have to admit though, this is frustrating for me. I believe free speech (which is a term that is often overused but ABSOLUTELY applicable in this case), it's a fundamental principle. I also despise bigotry. But let me just briefly address something else you said. You said
And I let it go but I really shouldn't have because this situation is specifically the wrong one for that position. I agree with the sentiment you expressed there 99% of the time because 99% of the time you're talking about EXTERNAL consequences. For example, you have a right to be a racist if you want, but your boss can fire you and your friends can abandon you and your family can even decide to disown you. You have a right to voice unpopular opinions and not be arrested for it (short of obvious idiocies like threats against individuals or their families).
But then, that's the problem. What we're talking about is that Freedom of speech protects you from intrusion on your free ability to speak without interference from GOVERNMENT. plenty of case law incorporates that and applies it at the state level too (and cities are basically corporations owned by states so the same would apply to them). Therefore the government, through Boston is NOT allowed to restrict Chick Fil A or it's owners ability to set up shop in Boston purely because they don't like what they say because that is directly violating their first amendment right because that is one entity that CAN'T punish you for your opinion legally.
Mercury Fred
Banned
I'd like to see this answered as well.
Fantastical
Death Prophet
I'm just going to translate what you are saying for you: It doesn't matter what someone's beliefs are about as long as they stay true to them you will support them.
If you want to eat there, that's your decision and I personally wouldn't look down upon you for doing that, but don't try to make Chick-Fil-A sound like some sort of hero or at the very least brave.
So in other words, who cares if CFA's head has gone from just holding a personal viewpoint to be exposed as someone who donates to organizations oppose same sex marriage and homosexuality in general. Or more appropriately in this case, mad props to them.
Also, correction on atheist's part: They don't believe in the existence of an all powerful god because of lack of tangible evidence. Personally, I am nearly in the same boat as I must say that if God existed then surely it'd not be as petty as religion makes it out to be. And this pettiness is bane of our society today.
I don't care if you like their food because objectively their cooking skills aren't in question. It's an ideal people are trying to uphold either by siding with Dan Cathy or people who oppose his actions and are acting out by forgoing eating at CFA.
All I can say is many of you are treading on dangerous territory when you so gladly give up rights that should not be given up. A popular view may not always be the right one. The correct thing to do would be to follow the laws on proper zoning and let the people decide.
For example, say a governor is anti gay and a business that donates pro gay wants to open. The gov denies the permits because of the pro gay stance of the business. Would you be ok with waiting two years to vote the gov out? Ofcourse not. You would be screaming to the high heavens about freedoms etc.
For example, say a governor is anti gay and a business that donates pro gay wants to open. The gov denies the permits because of the pro gay stance of the business. Would you be ok with waiting two years to vote the gov out? Ofcourse not. You would be screaming to the high heavens about freedoms etc.
metalslimer
Member
There's plenty of speech that is not protected by the first amendment. Like I said, I don't see how this impedes on anyone's freedom of speech rights. No one is saying they can't say all the hateful shit they want. That doesn't mean people have to do business with them. You can make the argument the government shouldn't be involved in making morality calls like this, but I don't think this is a 1st amendment issue at all.
I would say it was well within his rights and the outrage it would cause would probably force a reversal anyway. Are the people of Boston outraged about this? I doubt it.
if he strongly believes that why not let it open then? Why not follow the principles this country was founded on?
metalslimer
Member
What principles? I may be way off on this, and the Supreme Court may have ruled on this at some point but my understanding of the first amendment is that your right to speech will not be impeded upon. You can say all the nasty and vile shit you want without being arrested (unless it puts someone else's life at risk).
I wonder, would we be having the same debate today arguing that both sides of the argument may be equally credible if it were about segregating blacks (and other minorities) from the whites....
Dude Abides
Banned
Indeed, the whole point of freedom of speech is to protect unpopular views and those who hold them from a government acting out the popular will. It is unpopular views that need protecting, not popular ones. That is why the argument that if Bostonians don't like what Memino is doing, they can just vote him out is so poorly thought out.
GoingGreen
Banned
This thread is encouraging me to go to Walmart and buy some signs to write on to protest again this horrible corporation
Anyone have any ideas what I should write on these posters that I can hold outside the restaurant?
Anyone have any ideas what I should write on these posters that I can hold outside the restaurant?
Freedom.
A business owner should be able to open a business as long as he follows the laws. It's discrimination IMO what is happening and you guys are applauding it.
Zoning codes I dunno. Doesnt even apply to this argument since in this case you can open a porn shop thats bright neon pink but another porn shop is being blocked because it disagrees with bright pink.
metalslimer
Member
People argued back then that the government forcing things on people was a bad decision. I really don't see the issue with what the mayor is doing, especially if the community supports it. Now if the Supreme Court or a higher law has a different view on things I would happily change my stance.
Daydream Sequence
Banned
The people decided when they voted for their mayors. The mayors are representing their constituents. The people of Boston/Mass are staunchly pro-Gay Marriage. By rejecting CFA the mayors are representing the will of the people. Good for them too.
That is true of any business outside of the government. Someone mentioned the Westboro Baptist Church earlier and actually that's a good example for this. Very few people are going to want to hire these people to a normal job. That's why they (and other hate groups) often work for the government or for themselves (a lot of the Phelps are lawyers for example). They can get government jobs though because the government can't refuse to hire a person based on that person's view no matter how despicable it is. Similarly, a mayor can't make a content based restriction for a business's approval. I'm sure there are OTHER reasons to deny a permit which they could find if they looked hard enough but it's problematic for them and opens them up to a lawsuit rejecting them for that reason as the government.
that's totally different. A proper example would be if CFA was donating to a legal org for segregation.
Exactly this.
EatinOlives
Member
Did you miss the part where I said he's acting in the best interest of his constituents, as per the job description of a city mayor?
You should also probably stop believing that opening a business anywhere you want is some sort of unalienable right ingrained in the foundations of the country. It isn't.
If it was the other way. A southern mayor in a southern town it would be called oppression(tyranny?) of the majority.
TheNatural
My Member!
I haven't been to one in years, since my early college years at the student activities center.
What a stupid thing to say though, even though they may believe it, why would anyone in the company comment on it?
Also, there's probably some irony in their handbook and HR as well. I mean it probably says 'we dont discriminate hiring based on sex, race, orientation, etc.' And they don't refuse to serve customers for those reasons. What now?
And I'm sure somewhere in the company there are many openly gay employees - do they just get shit on now?
Really fucking stupid.
What a stupid thing to say though, even though they may believe it, why would anyone in the company comment on it?
Also, there's probably some irony in their handbook and HR as well. I mean it probably says 'we dont discriminate hiring based on sex, race, orientation, etc.' And they don't refuse to serve customers for those reasons. What now?
And I'm sure somewhere in the company there are many openly gay employees - do they just get shit on now?
Really fucking stupid.
Dude Abides
Banned
Opening a business without the government discriminating against you because it, or the people it represents, don't like your political views is an inalienable right, though. That so many people can't seem to grasp this is baffling.
If it was a single person or a group of people, you'd have a point, but this is a corporation and the donations to the anti-gay groups are being made by the corporation, which is not entitled to any constitutional rights like an individual.
If I was personally anti-gay and wanted open a restaurant in my own name in Boston and the mayor denied me, then I'd have a case.
EatinOlives
Member
Do I really have to repeat myself a third time?
Zoning codes? So moral judgments are fine provided they are codified explicitly?
metalslimer
Member
Uh, I'm pretty sure the governemnt can easily deny a job to someone who say would express views that are staunchly against the area they are applying for. For example, I doubt the CIA would hire a person who believes that the United States should not be interfering in other countries because it would be detrimental to other people working there. In the same way, the mayor is making a judgment call based on his constituents. Now if there is a Supreme Court precedent on something like this I would like to see it.
Like I said I don't know what's legally wrong about this, but the I did say that people on this issue better be prepared for the other side to be able to do the same thing.
Eh....
Dude Abides
Banned
Not if you're just going to post the same thing and reconfirm that you don't grasp the point.
On the food they serve, probably.
What you wrote is exactly what I meant.
Point is, this is the 21st century. And if in this day and age we can't have equal rights regardless a person's sexual orientation at least in the first world countries then we ought to do ourselves a favour by not calling ourselves the most intelligent of all creatures on this planet.
As a straight person I can only imagine sometimes what a gay person feels like when they are openly mocked or discriminated against. The closest I can come is when someone would make fun of my height which makes me feel shitty at times since I have absolutely no control over it.
Someone hasn't been paying attention for a LONG time legally. Not since Buckley v Valeo was decided apparently. Although regardless we're actually talking most likely about a franchisee with a manager or even some other investor/owner's name on the title of the business. It's not like CFA itself is likely to apply for the permit.
TheNatural
My Member!
Probably posted a while back but props here:
EatinOlives
Member
I guess I do have to repeat myself.
It's not "the government" acting independently. You keep pretending like it's a "big bad government" just swooping in and vetoing a poor little business trying to set up camp. You do know what a government is established to do, don't you? You do know city governments have every right to prevent businesses from setting up shop in particular areas as per the wishes of their constituents, don't you?
This is true because it would directly interfere with the mission statement of that agency and it's not exactly a civil service job like I was referring to.
Also, yeah, no. The mayor is acting as an agent of the state and he can't do it. I'm not sure of the specific precedents right now (it's 1 am and I'm tired) but I'll look tomorrow or someone else can.
EatinOlives - only on the same terms as any other business consistent with city ordinance and state and federal law. Rejecting a permit because you don't like the political views of the company is not a valid reason.
TheNatural
My Member!
If the property Chick Fil A is opening on is city property, I'm pretty sure they can issue contracts or leases to anyone they see fit.
If the people of Boston don't like what he did, they can speak with their votes next election.
metalslimer
Member
The issue is not whether fit can include companies who political stances they disagree with. I'm interested in a precedent for this kind of thing. If so, than it opens up the possibility that super conservative mayors can deny permits to any "pro gay" establishments they see fit.
Dude Abides
Banned
Yes, it's the government acting out the wishes of its constituents. Why do you think this banal observation matters? It doesn't. The point of the First Amendment, once again, is to protect people from the government discriminating against them because it doesn't like their political views or activities. It doesn't matter if the government officials in question are doing so because they personally don't like those views, or if they are acting on the wishes of their constituents.
TheNatural
My Member!
City and states issue contracts and leases to whoever they want for the property.
If its private property then its a different matter.
It's one thing to say 'dont build' its another to say 'we denied your lease offer and are taking the lease of so and so because its more condusive to the culture of our citizens.'
I think there's a pretty good reason you don't go to a major city and a main road and see a KKK headquarters next to a McDonald's. I'm pretty sure any city can tell whoever it wants to fuck off with its business plans and redevelopment of city property. It happens constantly just in general with contractors and developers.
Yes and no. Just like in Ocean Grove NJ (just so you know that's an anti-gay site but again, I'm tired you can find other sources though that are more balanced on your own) a church that opposed same sex marriage rented a pavilion from the city. A lesbian couple wanted to use it for their commitment ceremony, the church refused, the couple sued, and voila, they won because of course the government cannot restrict someone's viewpoint whether or not they intended to do so with their choice of renter in the first place.
it would be a perverse world indeed if the government was making moral judgments about the fitness of an applicant based on their personal views. I'd much rather have it be based on codified laws and ordinances that wouldn't change with the whims and standards of new administrations with new opinions on the fitness of a viewpoint.
What if the KKK owned the McDonalds?(franchise store)
metalslimer
Member
Or because whatever is left of the KKK doesn't want to set up shop in the middle of everyone. Just for reference considering how many churches are anti gay could city potentially deny a church a permit?
How is it really company policy? As far as I can tell they aren't resticting gay people from working there or eating there.
Are you saying the government has the right to treat corporations differently based on their philosophy? I don't honestly see the relevance of the point here unless it's mere dicta and a shot at Buckley v Valeo, but then you're usually a more cogent poster than that (however I may or may not stay awake for your response, I'm just surprised to see you take that stance)
EatinOlives
Member
What if I told you there was once a rural area in Anytown, USA where Wal-Mart submitted all appropriate paperwork and completed the necessary procedures for setting up a Supercenter right next to a quiet neighborhood, and that the residents of said neighborhood organized several meetings with the local government and the Wal-Mart representative to lay their case detailing exactly why they didn't want the Wal-Mart there? What if I told you that, despite this "First Amendment" that somehow applies to businesses but actually doesn't, this Wal-Mart was banned from building their Supercenter in the field they had already bought and cleared the area for, forcing them to sell the land and scrap the project entirely?
Because that has happened, word for word, countless times, with one of said cases happening exactly where I live. A business prevented by the government from setting up shop in the location they wanted because the constituents living in that area did not want it there. Now tell me, what does this remind you of?
Donations are made by the corporation.
- Status