Thread: What happened to free speech???
July 31st, 2012, 04:46 AM #1
What happened to free speech???
July 31st, 2012, 04:54 AM #2
July 31st, 2012, 09:05 AM #3
Free speech comes at a price however this should not be one of the prices.
I am all for you not going to chick-fil-a if you don't agree with their political postion.
That is what free speech is all about.
Personally I will not boycott them for their political view. I will boycott them because they charge too much for chicken (the worlds cheapest meat)
This guy is simply following his religious beliefs and being that he does not hire, fire, or discriminate against the LGBT community I think these mayors are way way way off the mark.
The Mayors should be chastized for trying to ban a business that meets all the legal requirements to exist in their communities.
July 31st, 2012, 09:26 AM #4
Editorial in today's New York Times:The Chick-fil-A Business
Dan Cathy, the president and chief operating officer of Chick-fil-A, the fast-food chain based in Atlanta, recently dragged his company into the middle of the same-sex marriage debate. He told one interviewer that the country is “inviting God’s judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at him and say, ‘We know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage.’ ” Antigay remarks like these are offensive. But they are not a reason to kick the company out of town, as the officials in Boston and Chicago have threatened to do.
Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York City has the correct take on the matter. Mr. Cathy and his family have long supported efforts to deny same-sex couples the right to marry. Mr. Bloomberg worked hard for marriage equality in New York State. But, said Mr. Bloomberg, “You can’t have a test for what the owners’ personal views are before you decide to give a permit to do something in the city.”
Other officials were considerably less sensitive to the fact that controversial, even hurtful, political views are protected by the First Amendment. One Chicago alderman unwisely threatened to try to use his powers over city businesses to shut out future Chick-fil-A franchises.
Speaker Christine Quinn of the New York City Council also overreached when she sent a letter, on Council stationery, calling for the president of New York University to “sever your relationship” with a Chick-fil-A eatery on campus. “Let me be clear,” she wrote, “I do not want establishments in my city that hold such discriminatory views.”
As a gay woman who recently got married, Ms. Quinn’s anger about Mr. Cathy’s comments is understandable. And she stressed on Monday that the letter was “solely my own opinion.” But, as a powerful city leader and a leading candidate for mayor, she and others in city governments should take care not to be seen muscling aside businesses whose owners don’t agree with their views. That won’t work, especially in a city as big, diverse and opinionated as New York.
He has freedom of speech, which means that he's protected from governmental punishment for his views. But he doesn't have freedom from consequences. If I don't like what he's doing, I'll be damned if I'll support those actions with my money.In judging a two-person singing contest, never award the prize to the second soprano having heard only the first.
-- Francis Bator
July 31st, 2012, 09:37 AM #5
I don't know why people are boycotting this time but I think it has more to do with the stance than anything else. Comments I have seen have not been about how he spends his money only the perceived disgusting nature of his comments.
Maybe you are right and this is all about the "actual harm" But anecdotally I have seen evidence that this mostly a stance subject.
July 31st, 2012, 10:00 AM #6
- Join Date
- Oct 2001
- Blog Entries
July 31st, 2012, 10:07 AM #7I have no objection to boycotting Chick-fil-A, not because its owner holds repellent views and maintains them publicly, but because he uses the money he makes from the business to do actual harm to actual people.
Why do you choose Mr. Cathy as being so offensive and you still buy computers with chinese parts in them
July 31st, 2012, 10:27 AM #8
What is wrong is the government, in this case Chicago, denying Chik-Fil-A the ability to operate their business. Why? The alderman didn't like their politics.
I'm sure that can be changed with an envelope full of cash. That is probably the origin of the problem in the first place.Obama doesn't need an "enemies list"... He sees half the country as his enemy.
July 31st, 2012, 10:48 AM #9
(If they wanted to freeze Chick-fil-A out, the city council could pass a law requiring fast-food joints to be open seven days a week. Chick-fil-A being hyper-RTC, it remains proudly closed on The Lord's Day.)In judging a two-person singing contest, never award the prize to the second soprano having heard only the first.
-- Francis Bator
July 31st, 2012, 11:07 AM #10
July 31st, 2012, 12:02 PM #11
I bet they're doing better business now than they were before all this hubbub.
July 31st, 2012, 12:39 PM #12
July 31st, 2012, 12:53 PM #13
July 31st, 2012, 03:46 PM #14
Fred Clark has a really good analysis of what Chick-fil-A did wrong and why it deserves to pay for it. (Clark, by the way, is an Evangelical Christian, but a liberal one.) Here's part of it:Now, this isn’t up to me and no one has any reason to seek or to heed my advice. But I’m a blogger, after all — tossing out unbidden and unwarranted advice is my job. So below the jump is a hasty sketch of what I would do if I were organizing a boycott against Chik-fil-A.
1. Set aside the comments made by executives and focus on the financial support the corporation is providing to anti-gay political efforts. Two reasons for that. First, comments made by executives don’t really work as the focus of a boycott. “The CEO must stop saying stupid things!” isn’t the kind of specific, measurable demand that a boycott can effectively address. A boycott could demand that a CEO resign, but that’s unlikely to inspire broad public support unless the CEO in question is guilty of something seriously criminal. (Plus, keeping a chastened CEO in his post is sometimes more effective than scalp-collecting.) And second, it’s Chik-fil-A’s financial support for anti-gay lobbying groups that is the real, tangible harm here. So I would focus the boycott on stopping that tangible harm.
2. Some of the groups Chik-fil-A supports hold anti-gay beliefs. Others are dedicated to an anti-gay agenda. This distinction matters quite a bit. It undermines the argument against Chik-fil-A to confuse the two groups. The Family Research Council is a hateful, pervasively political group dedicated to denying civil rights and legal protections for LGBT people.
The Fellowship of Christian Athletes is not like that. FCA is not a political organization or a lobbying group. It’s something more like Campus Crusade for Christ. It’s run by conservative evangelicals who all seem to believe the weird set of urban legends about sexuality that most conservative evangelicals believe, but that’s not the group’s focus. It’s focus is on proselytizing and on putting a Tebow in every huddle, not on using power politics to do others harm.
Don’t misunderstand me. If the question were “Is FCA anti-gay?” then then answer would be a clear yes. And God have mercy on any LGBT young person who gets caught up in that “ministry.” But that’s not the primary or secondary focus of either the group itself or of its supporters. Donors to the Fellowship of Christian Athletes — including Chik-fil-A — contribute to the group in order to support its “muscular Christianity” and its proselytizing. If you want to promote an anti-gay legal agenda you don’t give money to the FCA, you give it to the Family Research Council. Which leads us to my next point.
3. The Family Research Council hates LGBT people. It hates them and it works hard to hurt them at every turn. The Family Research Council is a far, far bigger threat to the LGBT community than Chik-fil-A will ever be.
FRC’s crimes against its neighbors include telling hateful lies about LGBT people every day, 24/7, in every media outlet and every media platform it can find. It tells those lies to promote hate — to stir up anti-gay sentiment and spread it as widely as possible so that they can solicit funds from anti-gay donors and so that they can use those funds, in turn, to influence legislation. The legislation FRC supports denies civil rights and legal protections to LGBT people. It hurts them. It changes the law so that the law will hurt them. That makes the Family Research Council a much worse enemy of LGBT people than Chik-fil-A. So let’s put the focus on them. Let’s go upstream and use this boycott opportunity to make the corner boys roll over on the bosses.
4. Given all the above, the specific goals I would set for this boycott would be: 1) A public apology for supporting the Family Research Council and its affiliates, because financial support for a hate group is unacceptable; and 2) A corporate policy restricting charitable contributions from going to political lobby groups.
The apology is necessary because an apology is called for, but it’s also an effective reminder that the Family Research Council is shameful and that even associating with the FRC is shameful. Decent people do not give money to the Liar Tony Perkins.
The change in policy would prevent Chik-fil-A from using its foundation to funnel money to political groups and to political action against its neighbors. It’s a post-Citizens United world, of course, so Dan Cathy could simply turn around and create a “super pac” that he could use to secretly pour company profits into whatever anti-gay political efforts he saw fit to support. But the change in policy would deal a blow to the idea that anti-gay politics somehow counts as “charity.” And it would deal another blow to the FRC by setting a precedent against their claim to be philanthropic.
5. I think Chik-fil-A could be persuaded to take that deal as one of the few options they have for damage control at this point. They don’t seem to be interested in such options right now, but a few more weeks of doubling-down and seeing how much worse that makes things for them will likely persuade them otherwise.
It may seem that this bargain let’s Chik-fil-A off too easy. Frankly, I’d accept letting Chik-fil-A off easy if that also meant shifting the pressure onto the Family Research Council. But here’s the thing about boycotts — they linger. Back in the 1990s, one activist nun told me that her congregation still avoided California table-grapes. If a boycott is based on a legitimate grievance, then the negative associations with the product will endure long after the organizers’ demands are met.In judging a two-person singing contest, never award the prize to the second soprano having heard only the first.
-- Francis Bator
July 31st, 2012, 05:34 PM #15
July 31st, 2012, 07:22 PM #16
Chick fillet , Mc D's nuggets, Capt. D's, Le Colonel, POPeye's.... YUK!!!!!!!!!
Organic chicken cooked in a Dutch Oven....Priceless.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iE9TN...eature=related
The Nation which forgets it's defenders will itself be forgotten
You cannot make peace with dictators. You have to destroy them–wipe them out!
July 31st, 2012, 08:59 PM #17
Don't like the fried stuff? Don't like the CEO's personal views? Don't patronize the establishment. Problem solved. Let the market decide and let it die. The slop is bad for you anyways(Liberal-speak)
Carl Karcher(Carl's Jr/Hardee's burger chain founder) had this same problem in the 80's in his commercial jingles by saying "remember Jesus is the reason for the season" Funny that no one really got their panties in a twist over it then, isn't it?
Of course, that was before the commercial Pamela Anderson slopped ketchup on herself being hosed down on the hood of a red corvette hood in slow motion when Carl kicked the bucket.
Last edited by Toadman; July 31st, 2012 at 09:03 PM.
July 31st, 2012, 09:14 PM #18
- Join Date
- Sep 2011
- The Villa Straylight
- Blog Entries
What comes next? It is a slippery slope which can easily be turned against those in support of riding them out of town. What if it was a gay-owned restaurant and that was the majority view? Should they be allowed to stop heterosexual businesses from doing business simply because people don't like their private views? Where does it end? We don't need thought police monitoring businesses on these types of issues.
Personal opinions and a business's right to operate should be kept strictly apart.“Arguing with anonymous strangers on the Internet is a sucker's game because they almost always turn out to be—or to be indistinguishable from—self-righteous sixteen-year-olds possessing infinite amounts of free time.” ― Cryptonomicon
August 1st, 2012, 04:49 AM #19
August 1st, 2012, 08:53 PM #20
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
By Taxmancometh in forum DebateIMO: Politics, Religion, ControversyReplies: 22Last Post: October 7th, 2011, 02:39 PM
By draboo in forum DebateIMO: Politics, Religion, ControversyReplies: 4Last Post: January 5th, 2011, 05:19 PM
By outlaw2001it in forum DebateIMO: Politics, Religion, ControversyReplies: 18Last Post: March 21st, 2007, 12:26 PM
By no1_vern in forum DebateIMO: Politics, Religion, ControversyReplies: 7Last Post: March 17th, 2007, 11:37 AM
By no1_vern in forum DebateIMO: Politics, Religion, ControversyReplies: 14Last Post: December 18th, 2006, 10:24 AM