=====================
Attacking people who choose to boycott Chick-Fil-A is an attack on the FoS too, so it balances out nicely :).
I don't patronize ChickFil-A, but the point of the article is summed up here:
Once again, in America everyone has the right to say whatever they want to about Chick-fil-A. However, when politicians try to ban a company from doing business in their areas because one of the company executives does not hold the "correct" political view about an issue that is a major problem.
I tend to agree with that. A diversity of opinion is a good thing, even when some of that opinion is, in my opinion, backward.
"Political correctness" and "speech codes" are contrary to the American tradition.
My chicken puts theirs to shame! Hugs, Devlyn
I think there's a sliding scale, with "political correctness" at one end, and opposing genuine discrimination at the other. I'll admit I was surprised to see politicians saying "we don't want you in our town", though - I think it should be up to individuals to decide whether they want to boycott.
Quote from: Jamie D on July 27, 2012, 11:18:21 AM
I tend to agree with that. A diversity of opinion is a good thing, even when some of that opinion is, in my opinion, backward.
"Political correctness" and "speech codes" are contrary to the American tradition.
Is there any limit on speech. Are all of these acceptable?:
1. "You should vote to prevent gay people from having the right to marry each other."
2. "You should shun any gay person who wants to get married."
3. "You should be ready to commit violence if necessary to prevent gay people from getting married."
4. "Come with me to the church. We gonna' bust up a gay wedding."
I have to disagree with the author. If a CEO said the same thing against Blacks, Hispanics, or Muslims: There would be a uproar among the people.
A CEO's attitudes do get reflected in the company policies. It is well within the rights of the people to boycott, they are voting with their $$$. And a city can decide who is allowed within the city boundaries. If a company was owned by the Klan, you better bet they would not be allowed within the city limits.
Quote from: Padma on July 27, 2012, 10:54:54 AM
Attacking people who choose to boycott Chick-Fil-A is an attack on the FoS too, so it balances out nicely :).
Yeah I've seen this too. I don't agree with people cities who want to keep the Chick-Fil-A out. But then again, I see nothing wrong with conferences and so on choosing not to let them cater (if they do that sort of thing) or leaving them off a list of near by restaurants when there is a convention (even some city training program). That's totally freedom of speech.
AG, I think all the things that you mention would be limits on the speech (and life) of others.
BTW, did anyone else think the sandwich in the article looked disgusting?
People can say what they want but, that doesn't protect them from retailiation. Sure neo-Nazis might have the right to do a speech in public but the counter demonstration will also be legal, you reap what you sow.
Also, what freedom of speech? Yell fire in a theatre, or hes got a bomb in the airport see how free you are then. There are some pretty good reasons to limit free speech, and we do it is not some inalienable right, and more and more in the information age what you say has consequences.
That is a sad looking sandwich, mine are much better! Hugs, Devlyn
I agree. I don't care for the CEO's view of this particula item nor do I like his product. But his company has good benefits and closes on Sunday. There are other chain companies that are not open on Sundays while their competition are open. They are being attacked because of the religious bent of the upper management and the same-sex unions aversion of some of them. Nobody is complainig that NYC is virtually closed on Saturdays for the shop owners to observe the Shabat.
Joelene
The mayor seems to be abusing his power, IMHO. When I see things like this, I can't help but feel kind of pleased that A-holes like that Chik-fil-a COO are being stopped, but then I think about when some politician will abuse their power in a direction that I don't like. City planning boards make arbitrary decisions about who gets to do business on their turf all the time and it's usually about kissing the right butts of the right powerful people, donating to campaigns, even greasing the right palms. These things usually help out the big powerful chains and work against the little startups, the mom & pops. This is one case where it seems to be the other way around, but that won't last.
Don't Tempt Me Frodo! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00Jjj6oI5fg#)
I'm a big fan of everyone using their own freedom of speech to speak out against the company though. And of course I'm joining the boycott.
While I think Chick-Filet's ideology is disgusting, they have a right to believe and support whatever they want. The city has no right to deny them business permits because they don't like them and I find those sort of threats by politicians to be magnitudes more deplorable. I like the food but I won't do business with them because I don't want to support their pet causes. Freedom of speech goes both ways and I will "speak" with my wallet!
I have been long thinking about this and at the end of the day I think it's wrong to deny establishments in certain places because the founder of the buisness is against gay marriage. It is his opinion and he has a right to it. It's not like he's putting up a sign that says "no gays allowed" and he certainly doesn't have a "gaydar" established in every one of his restaraunts that will vanish every non-conforming person. Let the people decide if they want to eat there or not.
For me personally I'm not going to eat there unless someone is paying or I get a free coupon. It's not because the founder is against gay marriage but it's because they are expensive and the portions are small. I can get more full from a piece of bubble gum then there. They do have great food though.
What bothered me the most is the CEO's statement that all he was doing was supporting traditional marriage.
I am so sick of people saying that gay marriage threatens "traditional marriage" without giving even one shred of evidence.
Quote from: Jamie D on July 27, 2012, 11:18:21 AM
However, when politicians try to ban a company from doing business in their areas because one of the company executives does not hold the "correct" political view about an issue that is a major problem.
This is the kind of rhetoric that was used to try to keep segregation against black people alive back in the early 60's; now it is directed against the LGBT community.
Nobody wants to impose any view in any lonely rich CEO, what we do not want is a Corporation discriminating against a minority
Nah, the only real threat to marriage is spouses ;D.
Quote from: Ms. OBrien on July 27, 2012, 11:55:16 AM
I have to disagree with the author. If a CEO said the same thing against Blacks, Hispanics, or Muslims: There would be a uproar among the people.
A CEO's attitudes do get reflected in the company policies. It is well within the rights of the people to boycott, they are voting with their $$$. And a city can decide who is allowed within the city boundaries. If a company was owned by the Klan, you better bet they would not be allowed within the city limits.
I agree with the above.
Quote from: JessicaH on July 27, 2012, 04:08:25 PM
While I think Chick-Filet's ideology is disgusting, they have a right to believe and support whatever they want. The city has no right to deny them business permits because they don't like them and I find those sort of threats by politicians to be magnitudes more deplorable. I like the food but I won't do business with them because I don't want to support their pet causes. Freedom of speech goes both ways and I will "speak" with my wallet!
WHAT PEKY SAID:
This is the kind of rhetoric that was used to try to keep segregation against black people alive back in the early 60's; now it is directed against the LGBT community.
Nobody wants to impose any view in any lonely rich CEO, what we do not want is a Corporation discriminating against a minority
"Personally, I think all marriage is bad" Robert Freeman
m.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-19017526 (http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-19017526)
Looks like Chick-fil-a isn't the only one in the mix now...
Edit:
Amazon and Microsoft are on the side of gay marriage...
Quote from: agfrommd on July 27, 2012, 11:51:15 AM
Is there any limit on speech. Are all of these acceptable?:
1. "You should vote to prevent gay people from having the right to marry each other."
2. "You should shun any gay person who wants to get married."
3. "You should be ready to commit violence if necessary to prevent gay people from getting married."
4. "Come with me to the church. We gonna' bust up a gay wedding."
You ask good questions. The (civil) libertarian point of view is the should be no limit on (political) speech. Keep in mind, however, that one must be responsible for the consequences of that speech. Inciting a riot is fundamentally different from expressing an political opinion.
Quote from: Amazon D on July 27, 2012, 05:00:39 PM
WHAT PEKY SAID:
This is the kind of rhetoric that was used to try to keep segregation against black people alive back in the early 60's; now it is directed against the LGBT community.
Nobody wants to impose any view in any lonely rich CEO, what we do not want is a Corporation discriminating against a minority
And all the civil rights legislation did not create one fewer bigot. Changing hearts and minds was the result of the robust conversation and the exposure of how groups were unfairly treated. Consensus is better than coersion.
Change is an on-going function of society. Government works poorly as a change agent.
Quote from: Laura91 on July 27, 2012, 05:46:00 PM
I think if they want to keep marriages as a ceremonial thing that would be fine. Removing all of the legal crap would be best.
AGREED
OTOH, if there is ANY evidence of any sort of discrimination against gay workers or customers, I think they ought to throw the book at them.
--Jay Jay
Quote from: Laura91 on July 27, 2012, 11:23:47 AM
True, but most of the people on that site only go against it when it is something they are in favor of.
Not just on that site, but everywhere. If someone doesn't agree with the "Left's" party line", the liberals are just as quick to silence the opposition as any on the right...whether that silencing is shouting them down, firing them, cancelling contracts, or writing/publishing negative articles in the media...
Tyranny can be found anywhere, if those who think "they know best" are given any power.
imho
Quote from: Hikari on July 27, 2012, 02:05:22 PM
People can say what they want but, that doesn't protect them from retailiation. Sure neo-Nazis might have the right to do a speech in public but the counter demonstration will also be legal, you reap what you sow.
Also, what freedom of speech? Yell fire in a theatre, or hes got a bomb in the airport see how free you are then. There are some pretty good reasons to limit free speech, and we do it is not some inalienable right, and more and more in the information age what you say has consequences.
The difference here is that the protestors (anti-Nazis) are known to get violent during counter-demonstrations. The Nazis are generally full of hot air, doing everything they can to alienate (and not "rally") the audience, while the anti-racists, gay "pink battalions", etc are throwing rocks and breaking windows of stores that just happen to be on the same street the Nazis picked to demonstrate on...
Don't talk about "consequences" unless you apply them equally to all.
Quote from: Jamie D on July 27, 2012, 07:31:33 PM
And all the civil rights legislation did not create one fewer bigot. Changing hearts and minds was the result of the robust conversation and the exposure of how groups were unfairly treated. Consensus is better than coersion.
Change is an on-going function of society. Government works poorly as a change agent.
But has put a few of them on jail, and had deter many more
I think these right wing groups are REALLY worried right now. There is, as they say, a generational cliff, because they know that even conservative young people mostly are for gay rights. Certainly not all of them. And then there are just fewer conservative young people. There is also the cliff having to do when basically there are going to be tons of states (US politics) where there are more brown people than white people. They are going to be working extra hard in the next few years, because these things just will happen. But they are not, meanwhile, going to become nicer.
--Jay Jay
Quote from: peky on July 28, 2012, 12:35:41 PM
But has put a few of them on jail, and had deter many more
How did jailing work with Gandhi, ML King,or Nelson Mandala?
Quote from: Jamie D on July 29, 2012, 02:37:21 AM
How did jailing work with Gandhi, ML King,or Nelson Mandala?
Mr. Gandhi, Dr. King, Mr. Mandela, and many more where the people who opposed the right-wing corporation driven oppression against the disenfranchised; and were imprisoned by governments that were directly or indirectly influenced and manipulated by people the like of the ChickFil-A CEO.
The laws that protect minorities have put people who beat up, kill, or otherwise infringe in the human rights of other people in jail, these folks are the proverbial bigots, racist, and male chauvinist pigs.
If you look at the top 500 companies you will notice that most if not all support and protect transgender, homosexual, female, and minority folks by their company polices; and more important and seminal to our conversation is that their CEO's voice their support and lead by example keeping their personal and private belief where they should be "in their closet."
Why do they do this? Out of enlightenment and good will to fellow human beings? Perhaps, but I think they do it mainly because it is good for their "bottom line," money.
Quote from: peky on July 29, 2012, 08:44:52 AM
Why do they do this? Out of enlightenment and good will to fellow human beings? Perhaps, but I think they do it mainly because it is good for their "bottom line," money.
And they're way ahead of government with those policies. I think this is the way to make change rather than with decrees and laws. The bigots just get more subtle and go into hiding or even feel resentful and fuel counter-movements when they feel they're being forced to do something they don't want to do.
I don't feel I have a right to force someone to do something they don't want to do with their own property, like hire someone or keep them from firing someone. At the same time, I don't want to end up supporting a bigot's company by taking a job for them or buying their products simply because they've pushed their bigotry into hiding to avoid being sued. I'd rather avoid such companies altogether and watch them go into a death spiral as the rest of the civilized world moves on into the future without them.
Peky, I think you missed my point. I could have easily listed lesser-known political dissidents in communist China, Burmah, or Cambodia.
Political dissidents are not swayed by legislation.
Quote from: Jamie D on July 29, 2012, 09:38:42 AM
Political dissidents are not swayed by legislation.
Ok, then I am assuming that your statement above is your point! If so, I fail to see the connection to the title of the thread, or to mine and Janet's argument that a CEO public words set the tone of a corporation. Chikfil-A and his CEO have turned anti-LGBT, a position indefensible in our modern.
The public is not trying to take the CEO freedom of speech, the public is rather spanking him and his corporation for being a "Neanderthal" out of touch with reality.
Peky, you stated:
But [legislation] has put a few of them on jail, and had deter[ed] many more.
I don't think that is the case, or ever has been the case.
Quote from: Jamie D on July 29, 2012, 06:25:31 PM
Peky, you stated:
But [legislation] has put a few of them on jail, and had deter[ed] many more.
I don't think that is the case, or ever has been the case.
Really? See below for a few.
ASSAULT CONVICTIONS
Indian bully convicted of homophobic bias crime (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLhOE-9n_Vk#)
http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/DC-Man-to-Serve-15-Years-for-Transgender-Assault-138621324.html (http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/DC-Man-to-Serve-15-Years-for-Transgender-Assault-138621324.html)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1686781/posts (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1686781/posts)
DISCRIMINATION
http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/Health/story?id=5843396&page=1#.UBXMyKO_uuI (http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/Health/story?id=5843396&page=1#.UBXMyKO_uuI)
http://www.thevillage.org.uk/transgender.htm (http://www.thevillage.org.uk/transgender.htm)
Please read the link below, and tell me we do not need laws protecting transsexuals
http://www.liminalis.de/2009_03/TMM/tmm-englisch/Liminalis-2009-TMM-report2008-2009-en.pdf (http://www.liminalis.de/2009_03/TMM/tmm-englisch/Liminalis-2009-TMM-report2008-2009-en.pdf)
At this point I am glad we are not quite so hung up on free speech trumping bigotry.
Peky, none of the examples you gave were about "free speech" rights. The prosecutions were based on other circumstances. The issues in this topic is whether one can legislate or act in an official capacity because you don't like what someone said.
That directly runs contrary to the 1st Amendment.
A picture I saw on Facebook making its rounds.
(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FAWi4Q.jpg&hash=a74f3a726deb36c12eed054d1be22058e621420f)
And my comment:
"I don't like what the mayor's doing and I think he's abusing his power. I also don't like what Chick-fil-A is doing. They're bigots. Is this really an either/or choice? I have to support one or the other? Bulls**t. I choose neither."
ChickFil-A has the constitutional right to express their opinion.
You have your personal right not to patronize their establishment.
The mayor has the right to disagree with ChickFil-A's position, but does not have the legal right to say they can not build in his town because of their stand on this issue.
In my opinion.
He's certainly in a position to make his stance known publicly, though I don't know whether he has real clout in putting his stance into action.
In my opinion, again, I think a big deal is being made of nothing.
Its his opinion, so what. Its not like they are refusing to serve gay people, that would be something else all together.
Quote from: Sarah Louise on July 30, 2012, 10:45:02 AM
In my opinion, again, I think a big deal is being made of nothing.
Its his opinion, so what. Its not like they are refusing to serve gay people, that would be something else all together.
Actually I think it is a whole lot worse. I'd rather someone telling me they won't give me a sandwich than spending millions to make sure I never marry the person I love.
I have only one real comment on this to say. Have any of you ever been to Ohio? You know the state were politically correct BS rules all the people and everything they try to do? If you can say yes to this question then you know what these people are trying to do against ChickFil-A is going doing a nasty road that only leads to your own state becoming an outhouse. If you have not and believe in taking extreme measures in all fronts to fight those that disagree with you then you should be forced to live there till your mind is changed in one of the major cities.
What people are trying to do to them is wrong and can only end badly. I agree with the article in that it is pushing us toward the road of horrible countries such as North Korea or Iran where they ruin entire lives over a few words. That CEO has the right to say whatever they want and to put their money where they want as well. Just like you have the choice not the invest in that company at all. Which is the proper protest these people should be doing in truth and not going out on the overzealous road of fools.
Truth be told I'd rather support an idiot like that CEO serving me good food then ever support the idiots on the other side of the flank going to extremes. As I fear those fools a hell of alot more then a silly CEO who voiced a few you disagree with. At least the CEO took their actions in a much more civil way then the other side ever has.
----
You know this is part of why I stay away from any LGBT movements or really any so called -gay- movement. They almost always end up taking the wrong road in the long run and become just as bad or worse then what they were fighting against. They always talk about all the wrongs done to them and how they still go on today. How these wrongs should never happen to anyone and humanity should be above this kinda BS but... Then they turn around and do it to others in the name of their cause on the road to get rights for themselves. All under the banner of being better people then those that once caused them harm when in the long run they've become exactly the same.
Heck, thanks to these kinds of movements on both sides you can't say Jesus with things like Christmas anymore. Yet, people of other religions are allowed to shove their stuff in the Christians faces in mass at work, in schools, and more. How is that maintaining fair ground on the freedom of speech front? These kinds of actions and thought patterns done here are just toxic to everyone and always will be.
I for one will be inviting them here as I love their food and in part to spite these people. I know there is a fine space to build in right across from the brand spanking new Wal-Mart 'n' near the new chain gas station right off the highway in waiting. You know up till I learned they donated money against the marriage stuff a good while ago? I really respected them anyways for sticking to their beliefs regardless of pressure to stay closed on Sundays. As it really annoyed me that so many people that held the day sacred were forced to work that day due to others not sharing their beliefs that wanted X product but yet those others always got their day off when their -holy- day came. So many double standards in America these days due to PC fools. They need to be drug out in the street and shot for the good of us all before it is to late.
I believe in the right of free speech. If politicians don't say things I like, I vote against them. If companies say things I don't like, I don't buy their products. If my neighbors say things I don't like, I convince them otherwise ;) Really.
I met a new neighbor a couple weeks ago and he started with the racist BS that has become so common. I told him upfront: "Look, don't be a racist and I'll be a good neighbor. I don't tolerate that sort of thing." Usually I'm not so blunt. I'm fairly soft spoken and work my way around an issue. But this neighbor shut his trap and we've been very sociable ever since.
Quote from: Cindi Jones on July 31, 2012, 02:47:06 AM
"Look, don't be a racist and I'll be a good neighbor. I don't tolerate that sort of thing."
Oh, SNAP!
Quote from: Cindi Jones on July 31, 2012, 02:47:06 AM
I believe in the right of free speech. If politicians don't say things I like, I vote against them. If companies say things I don't like, I don't buy their products. If my neighbors say things I don't like, I convince them otherwise ;) Really.
I met a new neighbor a couple weeks ago and he started with the racist BS that has become so common. I told him upfront: "Look, don't be a racist and I'll be a good neighbor. I don't tolerate that sort of thing." Usually I'm not so blunt. I'm fairly soft spoken and work my way around an issue. But this neighbor shut his trap and we've been very sociable ever since.
Well Said Cindi! By the way I just happened to run across your book at Amazon last winter and it really helped me read about your experiences, knowing there were others in this world I could relate to, and gain insight on the local culture in UT.
Thank you,
Davina
This headline really cracked me up. And here is a place where the comments are actually quite funny.
http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2012/08/02/13087249-headline-of-the-day-special-poultry-edition?lite (http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2012/08/02/13087249-headline-of-the-day-special-poultry-edition?lite)
BTW, the problem is that this company has spent a lot of money (is money speech, according to the Supreme Court it is) on various causes and candidates. This is not quite a case of a poor innocent company saying what they think and getting flack for it.
--Jay Jay
As in all things, it is always good to go to the source and get the facts. In the above picture going the rounds on Facebook, the mayor is accused of preventing a restaurant from locating in Boston. If you find the actual letter the mayor wrote (It's not hard to find), the mayor says that the city is proud of its equal rights positions and that in his opinion, this restaurant is welcome to look elsewhere. I did not see that the mayor 'prevented' the establishment of a restaurant from this franchise.
It's really interesting to see how these things get altered and tweaked a bit so that the hate machine can be engaged in full gear. I'm quite tired of the hate machine these days. We should all be aware of it and how it works. It is the classical exampl of 'divide and conquer.'
Cindi
Looking at the title of this post I would say that it is not, just on the freedom of speech of bigoted Americans.
If they apply to open a restaurant there, I assume they will have to go through the usual planning boards and appeals that are a part of establishing a business anywhere. The Mayor was just stating the City's ethical position. I really can't see what the fuss is.
Quote from: justmeinoz on August 04, 2012, 06:58:57 AM
Looking at the title of this post I would say that it is not, just on the freedom of speech of bigoted Americans.
If they apply to open a restaurant there, I assume they will have to go through the usual planning boards and appeals that are a part of establishing a business anywhere. The Mayor was just stating the City's ethical position. I really can't see what the fuss is.
Yup. We have to blow everything out of proportion and get everyone upset. That's how we have been hijacked. I'm quite disgusted with it all. I hope someday we can move beyond this sort of juvenile behaviour.
Hi Cindi.
The TV news here showed long queues outside their shops. All I can say is they would have to make a brilliant sandwich for me to wait in the hot sun for ages.
Karen.
Quote from: Cindi Jones on August 04, 2012, 06:01:28 AM
If you find the actual letter the mayor wrote (It's not hard to find), the mayor says that the city is proud of its equal rights positions and that in his opinion, this restaurant is welcome to look elsewhere. I did not see that the mayor 'prevented' the establishment of a restaurant from this franchise.
You're right. That COMPLETELY changes the discussion.