Should cities be allowed to ban businesses, based on their beliefs? That is what is happening to Chick-fil-A in Chicago and Boston.
My confusion comes from this: where does it begin and end? If they are against gay marriage but not against homosexuals per se does that matter? What if a business owner is racist? Sexist? If a business owner does or does not support a war, does or does not support an expansion of the welfare system? If a business owner is socialist, or libertarian?
What about if a business owner is a Muslim? Hindu? Atheist?
Do citizens have the right to oppose gay marriage or [insert political subject here] without being attacked by the government? What if it was something more mundane? At what point does government shutting out businesses based on their owner's beliefs become a violation of the 1st amendment? Do business owner's have more restrictions to their freedom of speech than non-business owners?
A Chicago politician said he will block Chick-fil-A from opening a restaurant in his ward, following anti-gay marriage remarks by the fast food chain's president.
Alderman Joe Moreno, who represents Chicago's Logan Square neighborhood, plans to use his aldermanic privilege, a Chicago tradition in which City Council members defer to aldermen on local matters, to block the restaurant's permit.
"It's a very diverse ward-- economically, racially, and diverse in sexual orientation," Moreno told ABCNews.com. "We've got thriving businesses and we want more but at the very least don't discriminate against our LGBTQ folks."
Moreno is not alone in standing up to the fast food restaurant, whose president Dan Cathy came under scrutiny after he told the Baptist Press he was "guilty as charged" when it came to supporting "the biblical definition of the family unit."
Boston Mayor Thomas Menino sent Cathy a letter informing him "There is no place for discrimination on Boston's Freedom Trail and no place for your company alongside it."
The Jim Henson Company also severed ties with the establishment and have donated their earnings from making toys for the chain's kids' meals to the gay support organization GLAAD.
The personal beliefs of the owners, whether spoken or not, should have no impact on whether or not the business is allowed to operate as long as the business itself does not discriminate.
Chick-fil-A's owner may support "traditional" marriage, but the business itself does not discriminate against anyone in any way in it's hiring or serving practices. Plus, their chicken sandwiches are insanely good. The only "religious" practice that Chick-fil-A does that I do not agree with is being closed on Sundays because it's the Sabbath. What if I want a delicious Chick-fil-A chicken sandwich on Sunday?!
What makes this even murkier is that Rahm Emanuel supports the actions of Louis Farrakhan and his Nation of Islam members in Chicago - an Louis Farrakhan has gone on record of saying that all homosexuals should be put to death. A bit more extreme than Dan Cathy saying he supports traditional marriage.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I was driven from this once-great site by abusive mods and admins, who create rules out of thin air to punish people for breaking them (meaning the rule does not exist under forum rules) and selectively enforce the rules that are written on the forum rules. I am currently lurking while deleting 6 years and 2 months of posting history. I will return when ExpiredRascals, Teia Rabishu and Blinking Spirit are no longer in power.
I think the population might get to have that sway, but def. not the government. Let the individuals privately boycott a business.
I personally don't eat at Chick-fil-a due to where they put their profits, but I don't want my mayor making that decision for his city.
A tangent on this: I am part of my campus GSA and we are considering trying to remove the Chick-fil-a off of our campus.
Do you see this as the same situation or different since the campus is a private entity and what is on campus is a reflection of the university's values?
The personal beliefs of the owners, whether spoken or not, should have no impact on whether or not the business is allowed to operate as long as the business itself does not discriminate.
Well I know that I would not feel comfortable if I was a homosexual working in such a place.
But I do think it is murky, I don't feel comfortable as an anarchist working with the government either.
At the end of the day, people are entitled to believe whatever it is that they believe. We just have to figure out the point at which acting in such a way crosses a certain line that it becomes unacceptable.
I have to say that I'm a little nervous if we're going to say that one can cross that line with speech that is not directed specifically at anyone.
Quote from Sun_shine_dan »
Do you see this as the same situation or different since the campus is a private entity and what is on campus is a reflection of the university's values?
Personally, I see that as being different. We have the right to refuse doing business with someone whose values we do not respect, and the same should hold true for a group of private individuals. I would say it's different if it's one group of individuals (politicians) refusing to let you make your own decision as to what to do with that which you own.
Should cities be allowed to ban businesses, based on their beliefs? That is what is happening to Chick-fil-A in Chicago and Boston.
My confusion comes from this: where does it begin and end? If they are against gay marriage but not against homosexuals per se does that matter? What if a business owner is racist? Sexist? If a business owner does or does not support a war, does or does not support an expansion of the welfare system? If a business owner is socialist, or libertarian?
What about if a business owner is a Muslim? Hindu? Atheist?
Do citizens have the right to oppose gay marriage or [insert political subject here] without being attacked by the government? What if it was something more mundane? At what point does government shutting out businesses based on their owner's beliefs become a violation of the 1st amendment? Do business owner's have more restrictions to their freedom of speech than non-business owners?
A Chicago politician said he will block Chick-fil-A from opening a restaurant in his ward, following anti-gay marriage remarks by the fast food chain's president.
Alderman Joe Moreno, who represents Chicago's Logan Square neighborhood, plans to use his aldermanic privilege, a Chicago tradition in which City Council members defer to aldermen on local matters, to block the restaurant's permit.
"It's a very diverse ward-- economically, racially, and diverse in sexual orientation," Moreno told ABCNews.com. "We've got thriving businesses and we want more but at the very least don't discriminate against our LGBTQ folks."
Moreno is not alone in standing up to the fast food restaurant, whose president Dan Cathy came under scrutiny after he told the Baptist Press he was "guilty as charged" when it came to supporting "the biblical definition of the family unit."
Boston Mayor Thomas Menino sent Cathy a letter informing him "There is no place for discrimination on Boston's Freedom Trail and no place for your company alongside it."
The Jim Henson Company also severed ties with the establishment and have donated their earnings from making toys for the chain's kids' meals to the gay support organization GLAAD.
I'm going to take the Libertarian approach here and actually say no, they should not be allowed to dictate what businesses operate within their borders. It is unnecessary government intervention insofar as if the population disagrees with the business they would opt to show their (non)support through non-support of the business itself. Other than that the government has no right to regulate what industry acts where outside of concerns that affect the general populace (such as environmental concerns, etc.)
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Asking people to remove quotes in their signatures is tyranny! If I can't say something just because someone's feelings are hurt then no one would ever be able to say anything! Political correctness is stupid.
I have to say that I'm a little nervous if we're going to say that one can cross that line with speech that is not directed specifically at anyone.
But why should a business that employs a very large amount of people be punished for the beliefs of it's owner?
EDIT: Alright there _...this needs to stop. We aren't allowed to have similar view points on this many topics in one week.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I was driven from this once-great site by abusive mods and admins, who create rules out of thin air to punish people for breaking them (meaning the rule does not exist under forum rules) and selectively enforce the rules that are written on the forum rules. I am currently lurking while deleting 6 years and 2 months of posting history. I will return when ExpiredRascals, Teia Rabishu and Blinking Spirit are no longer in power.
I think the linked article doesn't tell the whole story here. As I understand it, the Chicago alderman is just requesting that they establish an anti-discrimination policy before approving their construction.
Similarly, the Boston mayor is not stopping them from building, he's just expressing his view that he doesn't want them to.
The big push against Chick-fil-a comes from the fact that the profits are funneled into anti-gay activities.
So while the company doesn't ban gay individuals from entering, the money earned their essentially goes to oppress a segment of the population.
A lot of companies funnel profits into activities people disagree with. It still isn't a reason to attempt to ban a company from opening a store in a city - especially in a ****ty economy when a brand new restaurant means jobs.
Do you think if I found out Popeyes was funneling profits into black supremacy activities, I would stop eating their delicious chicken and biscuits? Hell no.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I was driven from this once-great site by abusive mods and admins, who create rules out of thin air to punish people for breaking them (meaning the rule does not exist under forum rules) and selectively enforce the rules that are written on the forum rules. I am currently lurking while deleting 6 years and 2 months of posting history. I will return when ExpiredRascals, Teia Rabishu and Blinking Spirit are no longer in power.
A lot of companies funnel profits into activities people disagree with. It still isn't a reason to attempt to ban a company from opening a store in a city - especially in a ****ty economy when a brand new restaurant means jobs.
Do you think if I found out Popeyes was funneling profits into black supremacy activities, I would stop eating their delicious chicken and biscuits? Hell no.
Personally I think there is a big difference between funneling money into helping a minority group and and oppressing a minority group, but I do agree that individuals should make that decision, not government.
Now if Boston put it to a vote, then I'd be a lot more ok with that. Still not approving (probably) but much better than the mayor says no.
Also as to you and Popeyes, Al Copeland was a white guy, but thank you for reminding me of your bias. I almost forgot.
Should cities be allowed to ban businesses, based on their beliefs? That is what is happening to Chick-fil-A in Chicago and Boston.
From the part you excerpted, that's not exactly what's happening. Or at least, I thought Boston and Chicago were actually kicking Chik-Fil-A out. It's just that one local alderman who's not letting them get a building permit because of the wishes of his constituency. I don't see a problem with that; after all, local governments can decide what businesses they want to attract.
Also, it's not the beliefs so much as the practices. If the owner was merely an outspoken homophobe then it'd be worthy of a boycott (I mean, no business isn't, if people want to), but they've taken political action, so it's tit for tat at this point.
What makes this even murkier is that Rahm Emanuel supports the actions of Louis Farrakhan and his Nation of Islam members in Chicago - an Louis Farrakhan has gone on record of saying that all homosexuals should be put to death. A bit more extreme than Dan Cathy saying he supports traditional marriage.
Farrakhan is nuts. That's rather sketchy of Emanuel.
A lot of companies funnel profits into activities people disagree with. It still isn't a reason to attempt to ban a company from opening a store in a city - especially in a ****ty economy when a brand new restaurant means jobs.
It's a matter of priorities. What if, instead of Chik-Fil-A, it was a bank known to give money to terrorist groups? Or drug cartels?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Do I Contradict Myself? Very Well Then I Contradict Myself.
Personally I think there is a big difference between funneling money into helping a minority group and and oppressing a minority group, but I do agree that individuals should make that decision, not government.
I wouldn't say groups like the NBPP or NoI help minorities groups...but a discussion of black hate groups is for another thread.
Also as to you and Popeyes, Al Copeland was a white guy, but thank you for reminding me of your bias. I almost forgot.
You say that like it's a bad thing. Every single person in this world is biased in one way or another - including you. Bias is human nature, some people hide it and repress it and end up miserable for it, others control it and live happy lives. And as I always say, you don't know me. You've never met me. And you most likely will never meet me and never know me. Basing an opinion of me off of some words I wrote on the Internet is the height of ignorance. Go ahead and keep forming opinions of me and wallow in your ignorance. No skin off my back if you have a wrong opinion of who and what I am.
Me? I'm a very happy person with a lot of friends across all races, ages, genders and sexual orientations. Call me a racist. Call me a homophobe. Call me whatever you want. They're just words you're using in ignorance, and mean nothing to me and to those who know me.
It's a matter of priorities. What if, instead of Chik-Fil-A, it was a bank known to give money to terrorist groups? Or drug cartels?
At that point, that company is in direct violation of Federal laws regarding the material support of terrorist organizations. They can and should be shut down immediately.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I was driven from this once-great site by abusive mods and admins, who create rules out of thin air to punish people for breaking them (meaning the rule does not exist under forum rules) and selectively enforce the rules that are written on the forum rules. I am currently lurking while deleting 6 years and 2 months of posting history. I will return when ExpiredRascals, Teia Rabishu and Blinking Spirit are no longer in power.
If they are against gay marriage but not against homosexuals per se does that matter?
I don't see how it's possible to be against equality and not be against the marginalized group. It's like saying you oppose women's right to vote but aren't against women per se, or that you support anti-miscegenation but you aren't against black people per se. It's just a silly mental contortion to avoid labeling oneself a bigot for their beliefs.
The Jim Henson Company also severed ties with the establishment and have donated their earnings from making toys for the chain's kids' meals to the gay support organization GLAAD.
And then Chick-Fil-A, a company placing such emphasis on adherence to religious principles, decides to go and bear false witness by lying about the Jim Henson recall and making up a story about some potential safety risk being the reason.
The big push against Chick-fil-a comes from the fact that the profits are funneled into anti-gay activities.
To hate groups, actually (I know the FRC was in there, at least). It's not just donating to anti-gay activities. It's like a company owned by white supremists actively donating to the KKK.
I don't see how it's possible to be against equality and not be against the marginalized group. It's like saying you oppose women's right to vote but aren't against women per se, or that you support anti-miscegenation but you aren't against black people per se. It's just a silly mental contortion to avoid labeling oneself a bigot for their beliefs.
It can be achieved easily. I am very pro-gay rights, but am anti-gay marriage because of my views on marriage as a whole (I want all forms of marriage abolished as an outdated construct, or at least regulated to a purely religious joining that confers no benefits on the married couple from the government). Am I bigoted against gays because I am against gay marriage by virtue of being against marriage as an institution?
And then Chick-Fil-A, a company placing such emphasis on adherence to religious principles, decides to go and bear false witness by lying about the Jim Henson recall and making up a story about some potential safety risk being the reason.
I'd have to read both sides of the story before passing any judgment on this.
To hate groups, actually (I know the FRC was in there, at least). It's not just donating to anti-gay activities. It's like a company owned by white supremists actively donating to the KKK.
FRC? And do you have documentation that this group is a verified hate group and received donations from Chick-fil-A? Or are you claiming they are a hate group because they run contrary to your beliefs on a subject? And you do realize that the term "hate group" is tossed around with almost as much indifference in the United States today as the word "racist" is, right? The value the terms holds today is a lot less than what it held 10 years ago.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I was driven from this once-great site by abusive mods and admins, who create rules out of thin air to punish people for breaking them (meaning the rule does not exist under forum rules) and selectively enforce the rules that are written on the forum rules. I am currently lurking while deleting 6 years and 2 months of posting history. I will return when ExpiredRascals, Teia Rabishu and Blinking Spirit are no longer in power.
If people disagree with what the Mayor of Boston did, they will vote him out. If the folks who make relevant decisions disagree, then they would veto the ban.
I'm sure astute political opponents will be able to twist the thing into what people are worrying about and more.
Boycott would've been better that had a larger impact on their business model. The permit issue, the issue I have is that it's a franchise company so that while the franchise may very well have a gay problem the specific franchisee may very well be gay. Which can be decisive, and at points does happen with business and conflicting beliefs.
Now this doesn't mean that Emanuel can't speak out against or be an activist against the franchise's stance. I have zero issue with that.
To hate groups, actually (I know the FRC was in there, at least). It's not just donating to anti-gay activities. It's like a company owned by white supremists actively donating to the KKK.
The KKK used to be an after church activity, not just a terrorist group. It's weird, it's whackey, but that's Amerika for you. These dual identities often crop up with people like Ratzinger who used to be a Hitler youth, which in part the organization he belonged to was an after school social program in large part. They were finally killed off using the IRS that finally broke them down into smaller organizations and splinter cells.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
FRC? And do you have documentation that this group is a verified hate group and received donations from Chick-fil-A? Or are you claiming they are a hate group because they run contrary to your beliefs on a subject? And you do realize that the term "hate group" is tossed around with almost as much indifference in the United States today as the word "racist" is, right? The value the terms holds today is a lot less than what it held 10 years ago.
The FRC is identified as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center.
Probably not. Then again, politicians should be allowed to voice their opinions just as freely as CEOs of corporations should.
As a citizen of Massachusetts, I'm proud of Menino's stance on this, and I'm proud to live in a state where the kind of nonsense that Chic-Fil-A is spouting simply doesn't fly. As long as Menino doesn't violate any laws, he has my full support.
At the risk of a slight derailment of the thread, Solaran:
It can be achieved easily. I am very pro-gay rights, but am anti-gay marriage because of my views on marriage as a whole (I want all forms of marriage abolished as an outdated construct, or at least regulated to a purely religious joining that confers no benefits on the married couple from the government). Am I bigoted against gays because I am against gay marriage by virtue of being against marriage as an institution?
If it were absolutely assured that legal marriage benefits would not be abolished within the next 50 years, would you still oppose gay marriage for that time period?
It seems to me that your position is defensible so long as abolishing marriage benefits is an achievable goal; if it's pie in the sky, it's just another way to pretend you're not a bigot while actually advocating unequal rights.
The FRC is identified as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center.
I've never heard of the FRC, who are they? And is there proof Chick-fil-A donated money to them?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I was driven from this once-great site by abusive mods and admins, who create rules out of thin air to punish people for breaking them (meaning the rule does not exist under forum rules) and selectively enforce the rules that are written on the forum rules. I am currently lurking while deleting 6 years and 2 months of posting history. I will return when ExpiredRascals, Teia Rabishu and Blinking Spirit are no longer in power.
It can be achieved easily. I am very pro-gay rights, but am anti-gay marriage because of my views on marriage as a whole (I want all forms of marriage abolished as an outdated construct, or at least regulated to a purely religious joining that confers no benefits on the married couple from the government).
Functionally speaking, you'd be against gay rights/equal rights for gay people if you, say, voted against gay marriage as a result of your beliefs, despite that straight marriage would ultimately be left alone.
I'd have to read both sides of the story before passing any judgment on this.
I have, and suffice to say, it's a really flimsy, transparent lie on CFA's part.
FRC? And do you have documentation that this group is a verified hate group and received donations from Chick-fil-A?
Family Research Council. Here's a breakdown of who CFA donated to and what they do. Suffice to say, I'm not simply saying "hate group" merely because I disagree with them (as the link says, "The Family Research Council has been labeled a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center"), but because, well, groups like the FRC really are hate groups.
If it were absolutely assured that legal marriage benefits would not be abolished within the next 50 years, would you still oppose gay marriage for that time period?
I don't oppose gay marriage. I oppose marriage as a whole. But the addendum to this position directly relating to gay marriage is also well known: I support gay marriage for as long as marriage remains a functional government benefit granting institution. But I still do not support marriage as a whole, and would gladly give time and monetary support to any organizations that were pushing for complete abolishment of ALL marriage from the government.
I support the noble end goal of every person being equal in life and having the same chances to success or fail, regardless of gender, race, age, sexual orientation or the income bracket of their parents. But I do not agree with the methods a lot of people preach to achieve that goal.
Functionally speaking, you'd be against gay rights/equal rights for gay people if you, say, voted against gay marriage as a result of your beliefs, despite that straight marriage would ultimately be left alone.
With a choice like that, I would abstain that vote. I would vote in support of anything that would result in the complete abolishment of all forms of benefit granting marriage under the government.
Family Research Council. Here's a breakdown of who CFA donated to and what they do. Suffice to say, I'm not simply saying "hate group" merely because I disagree with them (as the link says, "The Family Research Council has been labeled a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center"), but because, well, groups like the FRC really are hate groups.
I'll look into this and see why they were labeled as a hate group. But coming from the SPLC, I am inclined to believe it is a legitimate labeling. The SPLC does a pretty good job of being impartial in labeling hate groups.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I was driven from this once-great site by abusive mods and admins, who create rules out of thin air to punish people for breaking them (meaning the rule does not exist under forum rules) and selectively enforce the rules that are written on the forum rules. I am currently lurking while deleting 6 years and 2 months of posting history. I will return when ExpiredRascals, Teia Rabishu and Blinking Spirit are no longer in power.
I have added chick fil a to my list of boycotted businesses because of this. I think this is the only recourse to be taken against companies like this.
I've been perusing the link provided to me by Teia, and I've noticed a few things that irk me and lead me to believe this is being made into a bigger issue than it really is.
Using the 2009 data that is given in that link, I've noticed a few things.
1) According to the 2009 data, WinShape gave out $1,733,699 (22.184% of their 2009 funds) to anti-gay groups. That is out of a total of $7,814,788 than WinShape received directly from Chick-fil-A. Where did the other $6,081,089 (77.815% of their 2009 funds) go to?
2) Of the seven anti-gay groups, only two are one is classified as a "hate groups" by the Southern Poverty Law Center - and they received a total contribution of $13,500 $1,000 ($12,500 to Focus on the Family and $1,000 to Family Research Center). That $13,500 $1,000 turns out to be either 0.77% 0.000576% of the total contributed amount going to the anti-gay groups was going to hate groups, or 0.17% 0.000127% of the total 2009 contributions to everything going to hate groups.
Mostly, I want to know where the other $6M in donations went. For all we know, Chick-fil-A donated more to pro-gay groups than they donated to anti-gay groups, but the anti-gay donations are being used to villainize Chick-fil-A while the pro-gay donations are ignored. (This is pure speculation on my part, and I am in no way presenting this as an argument)
I was driven from this once-great site by abusive mods and admins, who create rules out of thin air to punish people for breaking them (meaning the rule does not exist under forum rules) and selectively enforce the rules that are written on the forum rules. I am currently lurking while deleting 6 years and 2 months of posting history. I will return when ExpiredRascals, Teia Rabishu and Blinking Spirit are no longer in power.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
My confusion comes from this: where does it begin and end? If they are against gay marriage but not against homosexuals per se does that matter? What if a business owner is racist? Sexist? If a business owner does or does not support a war, does or does not support an expansion of the welfare system? If a business owner is socialist, or libertarian?
What about if a business owner is a Muslim? Hindu? Atheist?
Do citizens have the right to oppose gay marriage or [insert political subject here] without being attacked by the government? What if it was something more mundane? At what point does government shutting out businesses based on their owner's beliefs become a violation of the 1st amendment? Do business owner's have more restrictions to their freedom of speech than non-business owners?
A Chicago politician said he will block Chick-fil-A from opening a restaurant in his ward, following anti-gay marriage remarks by the fast food chain's president.
Alderman Joe Moreno, who represents Chicago's Logan Square neighborhood, plans to use his aldermanic privilege, a Chicago tradition in which City Council members defer to aldermen on local matters, to block the restaurant's permit.
"It's a very diverse ward-- economically, racially, and diverse in sexual orientation," Moreno told ABCNews.com. "We've got thriving businesses and we want more but at the very least don't discriminate against our LGBTQ folks."
Moreno is not alone in standing up to the fast food restaurant, whose president Dan Cathy came under scrutiny after he told the Baptist Press he was "guilty as charged" when it came to supporting "the biblical definition of the family unit."
Boston Mayor Thomas Menino sent Cathy a letter informing him "There is no place for discrimination on Boston's Freedom Trail and no place for your company alongside it."
The Jim Henson Company also severed ties with the establishment and have donated their earnings from making toys for the chain's kids' meals to the gay support organization GLAAD.
Full story here.
Chick-fil-A's owner may support "traditional" marriage, but the business itself does not discriminate against anyone in any way in it's hiring or serving practices. Plus, their chicken sandwiches are insanely good. The only "religious" practice that Chick-fil-A does that I do not agree with is being closed on Sundays because it's the Sabbath. What if I want a delicious Chick-fil-A chicken sandwich on Sunday?!
What makes this even murkier is that Rahm Emanuel supports the actions of Louis Farrakhan and his Nation of Islam members in Chicago - an Louis Farrakhan has gone on record of saying that all homosexuals should be put to death. A bit more extreme than Dan Cathy saying he supports traditional marriage.
I personally don't eat at Chick-fil-a due to where they put their profits, but I don't want my mayor making that decision for his city.
A tangent on this: I am part of my campus GSA and we are considering trying to remove the Chick-fil-a off of our campus.
Do you see this as the same situation or different since the campus is a private entity and what is on campus is a reflection of the university's values?
So Pro I have an alpha Volcanic Island
Well I know that I would not feel comfortable if I was a homosexual working in such a place.
But I do think it is murky, I don't feel comfortable as an anarchist working with the government either.
At the end of the day, people are entitled to believe whatever it is that they believe. We just have to figure out the point at which acting in such a way crosses a certain line that it becomes unacceptable.
I have to say that I'm a little nervous if we're going to say that one can cross that line with speech that is not directed specifically at anyone.
Personally, I see that as being different. We have the right to refuse doing business with someone whose values we do not respect, and the same should hold true for a group of private individuals. I would say it's different if it's one group of individuals (politicians) refusing to let you make your own decision as to what to do with that which you own.
I'm going to take the Libertarian approach here and actually say no, they should not be allowed to dictate what businesses operate within their borders. It is unnecessary government intervention insofar as if the population disagrees with the business they would opt to show their (non)support through non-support of the business itself. Other than that the government has no right to regulate what industry acts where outside of concerns that affect the general populace (such as environmental concerns, etc.)
But why should a business that employs a very large amount of people be punished for the beliefs of it's owner?
EDIT: Alright there _...this needs to stop. We aren't allowed to have similar view points on this many topics in one week.
The big push against Chick-fil-a comes from the fact that the profits are funneled into anti-gay activities.
So while the company doesn't ban gay individuals from entering, the money earned their essentially goes to oppress a segment of the population.
So Pro I have an alpha Volcanic Island
Similarly, the Boston mayor is not stopping them from building, he's just expressing his view that he doesn't want them to.
A lot of companies funnel profits into activities people disagree with. It still isn't a reason to attempt to ban a company from opening a store in a city - especially in a ****ty economy when a brand new restaurant means jobs.
Do you think if I found out Popeyes was funneling profits into black supremacy activities, I would stop eating their delicious chicken and biscuits? Hell no.
Personally I think there is a big difference between funneling money into helping a minority group and and oppressing a minority group, but I do agree that individuals should make that decision, not government.
Now if Boston put it to a vote, then I'd be a lot more ok with that. Still not approving (probably) but much better than the mayor says no.
Also as to you and Popeyes, Al Copeland was a white guy, but thank you for reminding me of your bias. I almost forgot.
So Pro I have an alpha Volcanic Island
From the part you excerpted, that's not exactly what's happening. Or at least, I thought Boston and Chicago were actually kicking Chik-Fil-A out. It's just that one local alderman who's not letting them get a building permit because of the wishes of his constituency. I don't see a problem with that; after all, local governments can decide what businesses they want to attract.
Also, it's not the beliefs so much as the practices. If the owner was merely an outspoken homophobe then it'd be worthy of a boycott (I mean, no business isn't, if people want to), but they've taken political action, so it's tit for tat at this point.
Farrakhan is nuts. That's rather sketchy of Emanuel.
It's a matter of priorities. What if, instead of Chik-Fil-A, it was a bank known to give money to terrorist groups? Or drug cartels?
Very Well Then I Contradict Myself.
I wouldn't say groups like the NBPP or NoI help minorities groups...but a discussion of black hate groups is for another thread.
You say that like it's a bad thing. Every single person in this world is biased in one way or another - including you. Bias is human nature, some people hide it and repress it and end up miserable for it, others control it and live happy lives. And as I always say, you don't know me. You've never met me. And you most likely will never meet me and never know me. Basing an opinion of me off of some words I wrote on the Internet is the height of ignorance. Go ahead and keep forming opinions of me and wallow in your ignorance. No skin off my back if you have a wrong opinion of who and what I am.
Me? I'm a very happy person with a lot of friends across all races, ages, genders and sexual orientations. Call me a racist. Call me a homophobe. Call me whatever you want. They're just words you're using in ignorance, and mean nothing to me and to those who know me.
At that point, that company is in direct violation of Federal laws regarding the material support of terrorist organizations. They can and should be shut down immediately.
I don't see how it's possible to be against equality and not be against the marginalized group. It's like saying you oppose women's right to vote but aren't against women per se, or that you support anti-miscegenation but you aren't against black people per se. It's just a silly mental contortion to avoid labeling oneself a bigot for their beliefs.
And then Chick-Fil-A, a company placing such emphasis on adherence to religious principles, decides to go and bear false witness by lying about the Jim Henson recall and making up a story about some potential safety risk being the reason.
To hate groups, actually (I know the FRC was in there, at least). It's not just donating to anti-gay activities. It's like a company owned by white supremists actively donating to the KKK.
It can be achieved easily. I am very pro-gay rights, but am anti-gay marriage because of my views on marriage as a whole (I want all forms of marriage abolished as an outdated construct, or at least regulated to a purely religious joining that confers no benefits on the married couple from the government). Am I bigoted against gays because I am against gay marriage by virtue of being against marriage as an institution?
I'd have to read both sides of the story before passing any judgment on this.
FRC? And do you have documentation that this group is a verified hate group and received donations from Chick-fil-A? Or are you claiming they are a hate group because they run contrary to your beliefs on a subject? And you do realize that the term "hate group" is tossed around with almost as much indifference in the United States today as the word "racist" is, right? The value the terms holds today is a lot less than what it held 10 years ago.
I'm sure astute political opponents will be able to twist the thing into what people are worrying about and more.
Now this doesn't mean that Emanuel can't speak out against or be an activist against the franchise's stance. I have zero issue with that.
The KKK used to be an after church activity, not just a terrorist group. It's weird, it's whackey, but that's Amerika for you. These dual identities often crop up with people like Ratzinger who used to be a Hitler youth, which in part the organization he belonged to was an after school social program in large part. They were finally killed off using the IRS that finally broke them down into smaller organizations and splinter cells.
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
The FRC is identified as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center.
As a citizen of Massachusetts, I'm proud of Menino's stance on this, and I'm proud to live in a state where the kind of nonsense that Chic-Fil-A is spouting simply doesn't fly. As long as Menino doesn't violate any laws, he has my full support.
At the risk of a slight derailment of the thread, Solaran:
If it were absolutely assured that legal marriage benefits would not be abolished within the next 50 years, would you still oppose gay marriage for that time period?
It seems to me that your position is defensible so long as abolishing marriage benefits is an achievable goal; if it's pie in the sky, it's just another way to pretend you're not a bigot while actually advocating unequal rights.
I've never heard of the FRC, who are they? And is there proof Chick-fil-A donated money to them?
Functionally speaking, you'd be against gay rights/equal rights for gay people if you, say, voted against gay marriage as a result of your beliefs, despite that straight marriage would ultimately be left alone.
I have, and suffice to say, it's a really flimsy, transparent lie on CFA's part.
Family Research Council. Here's a breakdown of who CFA donated to and what they do. Suffice to say, I'm not simply saying "hate group" merely because I disagree with them (as the link says, "The Family Research Council has been labeled a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center"), but because, well, groups like the FRC really are hate groups.
Family Research Council
http://www.frc.org/
I don't oppose gay marriage. I oppose marriage as a whole. But the addendum to this position directly relating to gay marriage is also well known: I support gay marriage for as long as marriage remains a functional government benefit granting institution. But I still do not support marriage as a whole, and would gladly give time and monetary support to any organizations that were pushing for complete abolishment of ALL marriage from the government.
I support the noble end goal of every person being equal in life and having the same chances to success or fail, regardless of gender, race, age, sexual orientation or the income bracket of their parents. But I do not agree with the methods a lot of people preach to achieve that goal.
With a choice like that, I would abstain that vote. I would vote in support of anything that would result in the complete abolishment of all forms of benefit granting marriage under the government.
I'll look into this and see why they were labeled as a hate group. But coming from the SPLC, I am inclined to believe it is a legitimate labeling. The SPLC does a pretty good job of being impartial in labeling hate groups.
Fair enough. I'm not sure that abstaining would be entirely consistent with your stated position, though.
Using the 2009 data that is given in that link, I've noticed a few things.
1) According to the 2009 data, WinShape gave out $1,733,699 (22.184% of their 2009 funds) to anti-gay groups. That is out of a total of $7,814,788 than WinShape received directly from Chick-fil-A. Where did the other $6,081,089 (77.815% of their 2009 funds) go to?
2) Of the seven anti-gay groups, only
two areone is classified as a "hate groups" by the Southern Poverty Law Center - and they received a total contribution of$13,500$1,000 ($12,500 to Focus on the Family and$1,000 to Family Research Center). That$13,500$1,000 turns out to be either0.77%0.000576% of the total contributed amount going to the anti-gay groups was going to hate groups, or0.17%0.000127% of the total 2009 contributions to everything going to hate groups.EDIT: According to the most current list of anti-gay hate groups on the SPLC's webpage, only the Family Research Center is still classified as a hate group. I have adjusted my numbers appropriately. http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/ideology/anti-gay/active_hate_groups
Mostly, I want to know where the other $6M in donations went. For all we know, Chick-fil-A donated more to pro-gay groups than they donated to anti-gay groups, but the anti-gay donations are being used to villainize Chick-fil-A while the pro-gay donations are ignored. (This is pure speculation on my part, and I am in no way presenting this as an argument)