[Iminicus]

QUOTE (El_Diablo @ Thursday, Aug 2 2012, 16:21)

dude it's Fox News. you can't be too surprised

It is these sorts of posts I was trying to avoid in this topic. Thanks Robiniski for bring them here. We are debating and discussing whether a Mayor can ban a business on the words of a CEO. Not whether one source is more reliable than another or if one source is filled with idiots. And knowing about the rabid hatred of Fox News on this forum, I, refrained from using them as much as possible.

El Diablo, please remove yourself from this discussion if you aren't going to add anything.

This post has been edited by Iminicus on Friday, Aug 3 2012, 05:07

[El_Diablo]

QUOTE (Iminicus @ Thursday, Aug 2 2012, 20:41)

El Diablo, please remove yourself from this discussion if you aren't going to add anything.

lol.

also it's "mayor" not "major."

This post has been edited by El_Diablo on Friday, Aug 3 2012, 08:45

[lil weasel]

It's been some 25 years or so, but I seem to remember that there is a statute that is supposed to prevent Laws against a particular business. Any such law enacted would have to apply generally to business, not a specific one. (Maybe someone can find it, maybe not.)

[Otter]

Imi, you say that, but I hasten to remark upon the lack of response to the points I raised earlier.

It's not a "rabid hatred" of Fox News that has been provoked here (aside from El_diablo's untimely remarks.... poor form in banning him, probably the only thing he's posted in the past while that's made me laugh) rather the sheer idiocy of the notion that fighting against Chik-Fil-A's bigoted, hateful, and yes murderous donations is somehow... reverse bigotry? That decrying hatred is somehow... hatred?

Free speech does not protect bigotry from governmental interference.

[El_Diablo]

just a small misunderstanding.
I was only trying to make fun of Iminicus for being ironic (calling me out for adding nothing... which is adding nothing himself).

in the spirit of adding something to the discussion I'm gonna' have to say that I've made up my mind.
a city mayor has no right to ban a private company from operating within their city just because he or she disagrees with the personal beliefs of the CEO of that company.

I'm pretty sure the 1st Amendment applies here.
if Chick-Fil-A felt like challenging the mayors of these cities I'm sure they would win their case.
Chick-Fil-A is a reputable company in good standing. it abides by all state and federal regulations concerning employment practices and safety standards. they can't discriminate against homosexuals openly and in their restaurants. it's not like they're refusing to serve homosexuals their food or firing them if/when they figure out that they're gay.

while I agree with the mayor of Boston and Chicago in spirit, I believe that (legally speaking) they're completely wrong.

[sivispacem]

Imi, how would you respond to the idea that "freedom of speech" as a very concept is fluid and impure, and in almost every nation on the planet is caveated in such a way that it ceases to become truly free? I mean, the same basic principle which allows you to defend (albeit grudgingly) a public-facing organisation forcing fundamentalist Christian values on it's consumers; in fact, as others have said, actively encouraging the destruction of homosexuality is outright illegal in many nations that are considered more "free" than the United States. The United States already sends people to federal prison for threatening the state verbally or in writing- arguably as good an expression of "free speech" as any, so it isn't as if these same caveats don't exist there, is it? And whilst I can't speak at any length on the political aspects of the decision, whether it is technically justifiable or whether local authorities and political figures are overstepping their remit by trying to penalise Chick-Fil-A, I firmly believe that they are morally correct in doing so. No public organisation, regardless of the religious persuasion of their senior management, should be funding any organisation which engages in fundamentalist activity, and the only reason it's vaguely acceptable is because the separation of church and state in the US is an absolute joke. If Chick-Fil-A was pledging its support to a radical Islamist organisation with a similar message (destroy homosexuality) they'd have the FBI black-bagging the board of directors and carting them off to lengthy interrogations as terrorist sympathisers faster than you can say "First Amendment".

The First Amendment defends speech and congregation. It does not defend the active participation in hate crime- which, after all, supporting violence against any denomination is- and it most certainly does not defend organisations (who, lets not forget, are not individuals and are not actually mentioned in the First Amendment and arguably are therefore not protected under its provisions unless they are part of the press) from repercussions from their involvement in what is arguably already illegal in the US, and only not properly enforced because of the over-cosy relationship between church and state.

[Iminicus]

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Friday, Aug 3 2012, 01:15)

Imi, how would you respond to the idea that "freedom of speech" as a very concept is fluid and impure, and in almost every nation on the planet is caveated in such a way that it ceases to become truly free? I mean, the same basic principle which allows you to defend (albeit grudgingly) a public-facing organisation forcing fundamentalist Christian values on it's consumers; in fact, as others have said, actively encouraging the destruction of homosexuality is outright illegal in many nations that are considered more "free" than the United States. The United States already sends people to federal prison for threatening the state verbally or in writing- arguably as good an expression of "free speech" as any, so it isn't as if these same caveats don't exist there, is it? And whilst I can't speak at any length on the political aspects of the decision, whether it is technically justifiable or whether local authorities and political figures are overstepping their remit by trying to penalise Chick-Fil-A, I firmly believe that they are morally correct in doing so. No public organisation, regardless of the religious persuasion of their senior management, should be funding any organisation which engages in fundamentalist activity, and the only reason it's vaguely acceptable is because the separation of church and state in the US is an absolute joke. If Chick-Fil-A was pledging its support to a radical Islamist organisation with a similar message (destroy homosexuality) they'd have the FBI black-bagging the board of directors and carting them off to lengthy interrogations as terrorist sympathisers faster than you can say "First Amendment". The First Amendment defends speech and congregation. It does not defend the active participation in hate crime- which, after all, supporting violence against any denomination is- and it most certainly does not defend organisations (who, lets not forget, are not individuals and are not actually mentioned in the First Amendment and arguably are therefore not protected under its provisions unless they are part of the press) from repercussions from their involvement in what is arguably already illegal in the US, and only not properly enforced because of the over-cosy relationship between church and state.

Sivis, what do you mean public organization? Chick- fil- A is a privately held company. And it isn't forcing Christian values on anyone.

I agree with you that Freedom of Speech as a concept is fluid and impure, but at least in America they don't have any anti-blasphemy laws concerning religions or any laws stating you can't talk about the Holocaust, yet.

As an extension of Freedom of Speech, isn't Dan Cathy and his family allowed to donate to organizations with similar beliefs or are they suppose to support organizations they disagree with? Also, I can't find any information saying they support organizations that are 'actively encouraging the destruction of homosexuality'

Yes, I know they support Exodus but that seems to be, from what I can gleam, a organization for the rehabilitation of gay people. Also, do remember that they type of person to use Exodus might be there under parental control or because they themselves believe homosexuality is wrong. I don't care for their reasons why but do consider that.

Why are they morally correct? Chick- fil- A isn't discriminating in serving or employing gays. The CEO is simply saying he believes in the Biblical idea of marriage. Therefore, this isn't a moral issue. I could understand if Chick- fil- A, the corporation not the CEO, was saying that they will demand verification of sexuality before employing, serving, talking to or dealing with people but they aren't.

The separation of state and anything is a joke in the US not just church and state. Once again, Chick- fil- A isn't a public organization.

Sivis, have you heard of CAIR? They support radical Islamist organizations and yet, the top advisers go to the White House and hang with Obama.

Where is the hate crime? Dan Cathy said he supports the Biblical idea of marriage. That in itself isn't a hate crime.

[Iminicus]

I feel I need to say something.

Do I support Dan Cathy?

I support Dan Cathy in as much that I support his right to have an opinion on whatever he wants. I don't mind if he is wrong or right, I support him in being allowed to express that opinion without fear of such a public backlash. I also support anyone's right to express an opinion without public backlash. I don't like Rosanne Barr but I wouldn't want her to shut up. I hate The View but I don't want it off the air. There are many people I agree with and many I don't. The ones I don't agree with shouldn't be stifled or banned when voicing an opinion.

Am I Christian?

I am not Christian. My parents are and tried to raise me as such, however, I am not a Christian. I don't believe in a God.

Am I against Gay Marriage

I am not against Gay Marriage, they should be allowed to be as miserable as everyone else. What I am against is Marriage as seen by the Government. I don't support the Government being involved with marriage in any capacity. If I had my way, I'd remove Government from marriage and let anyone marry whoever they wanted.

[Irviding]

QUOTE

Sivis, have you heard of CAIR? They support radical Islamist organizations and yet, the top advisers go to the White House and hang with Obama.

That is a load of f*cking bullsh*t. My comment about you being a xenophobe still stands. The Obama comment stands to prove this.

QUOTE

Federal prosecutors violated the rights of a major American Islamic organization by including it in a list of unindicted co-conspirators in a terrorism-support case, a federal judge ruled in an opinion ordered disclosed Wednesday by a federal appeals court.

source: http://www.politico.com/blogs/joshgerstein...ups_rights.html

[Iminicus]

QUOTE (Irviding @ Friday, Aug 3 2012, 07:39)

QUOTE Sivis, have you heard of CAIR? They support radical Islamist organizations and yet, the top advisers go to the White House and hang with Obama. That is a load of f*cking bullsh*t. My comment about you being a xenophobe still stands. The Obama comment stands to prove this. QUOTE Federal prosecutors violated the rights of a major American Islamic organization by including it in a list of unindicted co-conspirators in a terrorism-support case, a federal judge ruled in an opinion ordered disclosed Wednesday by a federal appeals court. source: http://www.politico.com/blogs/joshgerstein...ups_rights.html

That doesn't make me xenophobic. That is the first time I have mentioned anything like that.

Irviding, you have a lot of hate built up inside you towards me and conservatives. As such, I don't take what you say as 100% accurate or truthful. Your narrow minded view of the world is sad for someone doing Poli Sci and Economics ( a quick aside, who abbreviates political to poly? ). I know you will say I am a narrow minded, racist who only watches Fox News ( ignoring the fact it is a pay channel in NZ and I don't have pay TV ) and that is fine. I still don't knock someone's views because I don't agree with them, like yourself.

[sivispacem]

QUOTE (Iminicus @ Friday, Aug 3 2012, 10:40)

Sivis, what do you mean public organization? Chick- fil- A is a privately held company. And it isn't forcing Christian values on anyone.

Privately held companies that operate in the public sphere are still public. In my view, any organisation which has an active public presence is "public". I would argue that they are at least covertly forcing Christian values on their customers- before all of this exploded into a media frenzy, they were quietly funding fundamentalist Christian groups without the knowledge of (I would hazard a guess at) the majority of their customers. In most parts of the civilised world, if the end consumer is asked to donate to a particular cause, they have the option of deciding to do so rather than being arbitrarily forced into doing so. Or are at least made aware of the activity.

QUOTE (Iminicus @ Friday, Aug 3 2012, 10:40)

I agree with you that Freedom of Speech as a concept is fluid and impure, but at least in America they don't have any anti-blasphemy laws concerning religions or any laws stating you can't talk about the Holocaust, yet.

Why is that an "at least"? Other kinds of hate speech are outlawed in the US, as are slander, restrictions on fighting worlds and incitement to violence, and even obscenity to varying degrees. What's more, whilst there may be no laws on the statute books actively outlawing blasphemy, in some areas it's as good as outlawed anyway, such is the prevalence and strength of religious belief. Also, I don't think many, if any, liberal European countries outlaw blasphemy or discussion of the holocaust. Holocaust denial is an entirely different kettle of fish and usually accompanied with anti-Semitic or aggressively racist ideologies which would fall under existing hate-crime legislation anyway.

QUOTE (Iminicus @ Friday, Aug 3 2012, 10:40)

As an extension of Freedom of Speech, isn't Dan Cathy and his family allowed to donate to organizations with similar beliefs or are they suppose to support organizations they disagree with?

Oh, I'm a firm believer that Dan Cathy is able to donate to whatever cooky, vile, questionable or downright idiotic cause he wants. But I draw a distinction between the actions of a publicly-facing corporate body whose activities (at least should) come under public scrutiny, and the actions of a private individual who is free to act however he wishes within the confines of the law, and is not bound by the spirit of business ethics. If a corporation wishes to fund an organisation, they should be up-front and transparent about it and give consumers the choice over whether they fund a charitable organisation affiliated with a company. Is it even Dan Cathy's money to spend? Is he the majority shareholder in the company? I know they aren't publicly traded but decisions such as this that have such wide-ranging consequences need to be agreed by the board and by shareholders in most corporate bodies, so I would be interested to see if there had been any direct input from the individuals whose money he's actually spending funding these organisations.

QUOTE (Iminicus @ Friday, Aug 3 2012, 10:40)

Also, I can't find any information saying they support organizations that are 'actively encouraging the destruction of homosexuality'. Yes, I know they support Exodus but that seems to be, from what I can gleam, a organization for the rehabilitation of gay people.

A number of Exodus International executives attended a conference in Uganda in 2009, giving their support to the Ugandan bill which threatens the death penalty for "repeat homosexuality". Of course, when this became public they quickly began opposing the legislation but as this was already being viewed with contempt and disgust across most of the world by the time, why did they voluntarily choose to go to an event in support of it?

QUOTE (Iminicus @ Friday, Aug 3 2012, 10:40)

Why are they morally correct? Chick- fil- A isn't discriminating in serving or employing gays. The CEO is simply saying he believes in the Biblical idea of marriage. Therefore, this isn't a moral issue. I could understand if Chick- fil- A, the corporation not the CEO, was saying that they will demand verification of sexuality before employing, serving, talking to or dealing with people but they aren't.

As an individual, he is entitled to believe whatever he wants. I object to the idea that the heads of corporations can use their company's public image to raise funds covertly (or now not so covertly) for organisations who encourage discrimination on the grounds of any non-determinable statistic. Imagine the uproar if he was funding one of those shady organisations for the "advancement of white people"? I also feel you are underselling the culpability of Chick-Fil-A in funding some organisations who have less than savoury views when it comes to homosexuality. For instance, they co-sponsored events with the PFI, who lobbied against anti-discrimination (on the basis of sexuality or gender identity) laws in Pennsylvania. You say that Chick-Fil-A don't discriminate against homosexuals by refusing to employ them- how do you know? Some of the states in which they operate have not outlawed discrimination on the basis of gender identity or sexuality, and those that have don't necessarily enforce the legislation, so they may well be discriminating actively against potential employees who don't "meet the company's rigorous ethical standards" or whatever other nonsense they would use to sell such ideas to the hapless public or potential employees.

QUOTE (Iminicus @ Friday, Aug 3 2012, 10:40)

Once again, Chick- fil- A isn't a public organization.

Once again, any organisation with a public face is a public organisation. Any organisation that voluntarily wades into issues of religion and ethics that are none of its technical concern is most definitely a public organisation. Just because their shares are not available for the general public to buy does not mean they have no public image.

QUOTE (Iminicus @ Friday, Aug 3 2012, 10:40)

Sivis, have you heard of CAIR? They support radical Islamist organizations and yet, the top advisers go to the White House and hang with Obama.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but was the funding restrictions placed on CAIR in the wake of the closing of the Holy Land Foundation not rescinded, along with an apology from the FBI and prosecutors saying that as far as they were aware CAIR was not actively involved in funding Hamas or any other militant organisation during the time at which they were declared terrorist organisations by the US government?

QUOTE (Iminicus @ Friday, Aug 3 2012, 10:40)

Where is the hate crime? Dan Cathy said he supports the Biblical idea of marriage. That in itself isn't a hate crime.

Funding organisations who send delegates to conferences supporting legislation to kill homosexuals is complicity in hate crime. As, I would argue, is support an organisation who campaigns against equality in the eyes of the law for individuals of sexuality other than heterosexual. Such beliefs are not defended under the mantle of "free speech" in other democratic, liberal countries- countries that are by all measures more "free" than the United States.

[GroveStRoamer]

Chick Fil a Served people no matter sexuallity. I dont agree with gays either, But ill still serve them because they are humans

-User was warned for this post.-

This post has been edited by sivispacem on Monday, Sep 10 2012, 16:04