Manos: The Hans of Fate
Banned
Because the implication that if people did something they were special and if people didn't they did something wrong.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
CFA response to anti-gay alleg. "Guilty as charged." Do NOT gloat about eating at CFA
- Thread starter RBH
- Start date
- Status
ReBurn
Gold Member
I look and see that people are still posting stuff like "tastes like hate" and others just ignore them now.
I'm shocked, SHOCKED that they would hide their hatred under a more innocuous banner.
GoldenEye 007
Member
Hey is it still bannable for expressing passion for dead fried chicken?
Not the point.
It wasn't about you.
IrishNinja
Member
awesome news, now i can finally eat there too
hey was that what you thought was going on in this thread?
hey was that what you thought was going on in this thread?
DR2K
Banned
Doesn't look like a guy that parts easily with food.
Meus Renaissance
Member
Not all the supporters of Chick-fil-A advocated their stance/comments on the basis of themselves being opposed to same sex marriage, at least that isn't what they said. There was several, including public figures like Huckabee, who defended the company on the basis of freedom of speech. In fact they emphasised this. Now that the decision has been reversed, I wonder if they will criticise it
DR2K
Banned
Backing down to the liberal agenda! Free speech is dead!
Mr. Enigma
Member
There have been a ton of comments like this on the FB page all day. lol
Open Source
Banned
Does this apply to gun control, which is currently a Constitutionally protected right? (as opposed to rights enshrined in regular laws or non-Supreme court decisions, or rights that haven't been officially recognized yet)
FWIW, I'm a gay marriage supporter. But also an anti-gay marriage free speech supporter.
Shhhhh....don't say things like that
IrishNinja
Member
how exactly is marriage not constitutionally defined as a right? cant cite the exact case but this has been established prior. more to the point though: gun control =/= civil liberties of gays, for reasons that should be pretty obvious.
also, anti-gay marriage/hateful speech is still pretty free, as this was never actually about that.
Well considering this alderman oposed CFA not based off of of public safety but purely personal objection to protected speech, yeah it is.
Companies are not people and do not deserve the rights a person enjoys, because they're a piece of fucking paper in a filing cabinet in Delaware.
Despite what Republicans believe, companies aren't people, don't have free speech, and cities are well within their rights to control their zoning.
"Free Speech" isn't a skeleton key to do whatever you want.
IrishNinja
Member
are you serious with this mess? you're actually asking why gun control isn't the same thing as gays being treated as second-class citizens here.
aka that argument doesn't seem fundamentally valid in a way worth addressing, and if you're not being intellectually dishonest here and genuinely can't see why, i don't know if a proper combination of words + logic can actually reach you
Open Source
Banned
Same-sex marriage isn't a federal right and in fact is explicitly prohibited in some state constitutions.
Gun ownership has been a constitutionally protected right for over two centuries. Same-sex marriage hasn't even been significantly debated for more than a couple decades.
If someone is going to say that speech should be penalized or curtailed by government for advocating against a right that is only recognized in a few places (and only recently) and is explicitly not recognized in more places, then you should apply that same standard even more rigorously to rights that are enshrined in the national constitution (in a section called "the Bill of Rights", no less) and have been for a long time.
But you should really do neither, is my point.
but the employee's and owners do have rights, and the city blocking them on the grounds they did was an obvious overstep of their power.
The free speech defense only became popular becuase it was threatened. In the end that argument was proved right. It doesn't really matter though because nothing CFA agreed to is legally enforceable, which just reinforces how stupid Chicago is in the first place
The free speech defense only became popular becuase it was threatened. In the end that argument was proved right. It doesn't really matter though because nothing CFA agreed to is legally enforceable, which just reinforces how stupid Chicago is in the first place
Open Source
Banned
OK, so the CEO of Progressive Auto Insurance donates to Democrats (this is regarded as speech). Texas says, OK, Progressive Auto Insurance can no longer sell insurance in Texas.
You're cool with that?
So you don't actually have an argument here.
Gun rights and gay rights are just not similar because they aren't the same, reasons why be damned. Nevermind that both are arguing for the same thing, protection from government overreach. So it's okay to argue suppression of one right and not the other.
IrishNinja
Member
i believe you misunderstand - obviously same-sex marriage isn't a federal right (yet), but marriage itself is, according to loving v virgina. that was what i was saying in the point you're addressing.
sure, this is about free speech, and gay rights are now somehow about gov't overreach, not a group discriminated against because of their orientation vs owners of firearms. that's an excellent way to frame things.
if you're actually going to pretend context doesn't exist and these things are the same merely for the sake of your argument, no, i don't have an argument to present to you. if my lack of a desire to indulge sophistry strikes you as a win in your column, feel free to stick that feather in your cap and find someone who enjoys that sort've thing. i'll not partake in such crimes against logic, for it has not wronged me.
Was someone's free speech abridged somewhere or somehow?
I'm sorry but are private companies banning you from getting married, or the govt? If a state said i couldn't get married, that would sound like govt overreach to me. It's exactly what happened in the supreme court case you cited. Loving vs Virginia, have you actually studied it?
Not allowing them to open a buisness simply due to a gov bureaucratic disagreeing with your protected speech? Yeah i can't see how a judge would say that isn't a free speech issue.
Are you saying the CEO makes a personal donation, or the company makes one?
Richard Loving and Mildred Loving weren't banned from getting married. They were just banned from getting married to each other. Just like gay men are allowed to get married... to a woman, amirite?
I'm not sure aldermen are actually bureaucrats in any sense, but whatever. Did Chicago actually do anything legally to prevent Chick-fil-a from opening there or did an elected official just exercise his free speech to say that he'd like to prevent them from doing so?
Always funny when one person's free speech is more valuable than another's. Especially when that person isn't even a person.
And just to be a little less snarky, businesses are denied permits for moral reasons all the time. Ever wonder why there aren't strip clubs in a nice residential neighbourhood? Hint: it's not really about safety. You may think that's wrong, but in the end business licensing is an established part of the law and there's a lot that's arbitrary about it.
Manos: The Hans of Fate
Banned
They made it about me.
Your post was without any meaning at all. ' I ate there before and I eat there now, I don't care so much I am posting to how you how much I don't care'. It's not a great look. You were replying to someone who was satirising those who said a boycott would have no effect. Your post seems to imply because it had no effect on you you feel it had no effect. Poor form.
How are alderman, or a more common term council members not bureaucratic. They approve what is allowed to open in certain areas.
Strip club are banned in certain areas because of the clientele they attract, and how loose alcohol tends to flow there. It is 100% argued in a case of public safety and it's okay by the first amendment. Chick fil A has none of those problems and none of those arguments would hold up. Not that he would try. The aldermann has been vocal about his opposition to CFA because of this controversy for months.
Manos: The Hans of Fate
Banned
Why? It points out that they didn't have the ability to force me to politicize my eating, and that no one did, and I never stopped supporting gay rights. It had no effect despite attempts to slander me.
That's fine, but it was total non sequitur from the post you were replying too. It looks like you were just taking an opportunity to say 'I told you so' when no one was saying otherwise. No one said you would not eat there or not. No one was saying it would have any efect on your eating habits one way or the other.
People said you shouldn't eat there, but no on said you wouldn't, so your statement of defiance is... noise and fury, really.
Aldermen/council members are elected officials. Bureaucrats are career administrators. Aldermen represent the people and appoint bureaucrats.
And maybe things are weird in Chicago, but in most cities I know of city councillors don't directly approve anything. They direct administration and establish law.
At any rate, so you admit the government of Chicago did not in fact impede anyone's freedom of speech? I'm glad we agree.
If using government power to coerce someone into stopping their speech is okay by you, than sure.
Manos: The Hans of Fate
Banned
Yeah, it was early in the morning and I was being cranky.
Government power, it's Chicago.
Fair enough.
poppabk
Cheeks Spread for Digital Only Future
Business types are banned or more accurately only allowed in specific zones not a particular strip club is not allowed to open because the company gives money to Republicans.
Omegasquash
Member
So, the CFA nonprofit side isn't going to donate to anti marriage equality organizations anymore, which is good, but it won't stop board members and higher ups within the organization from making personal donations.
Still choosing not to eat there, though I recognize that it's a positive step.
Still choosing not to eat there, though I recognize that it's a positive step.
Manos: The Hans of Fate
Banned
This is pretty much exactly what I expected to read. The language most used to refer to the food or anyone who ate there by boycotters indicated most were disingenuous in acting like they would change.
IrishNinja
Member
glad you found a post or two to fit your preconceived notion, then? i just said i was gonna eat there (but understand those who feel differently), don't think i was the only one.
Manos: The Hans of Fate
Banned
I've found more than a post or two at the moment your view is more the outlier.
IrishNinja
Member
some gaffers had other goals, and are merely staying consistent with them though. some want mea cupa's, some want to see them undo some of the damage their support caused.
me, i just wanted to see them cease that action. no hearts or minds were going to be changed here, and i wasn't interested in such (the CEO could feel just as some of those facebook winners did), my end was met so i'm satisfied.
but again i'd not think others were disingenuous for feeling that way. are you rather saying that some in this thread stated they would patronize CFA again if they simply ceased their support, and have since moved goalposts? cause i think that'd fit what you're pushing here, but i'd prolly need some specific examples, personally.
me, i just wanted to see them cease that action. no hearts or minds were going to be changed here, and i wasn't interested in such (the CEO could feel just as some of those facebook winners did), my end was met so i'm satisfied.
but again i'd not think others were disingenuous for feeling that way. are you rather saying that some in this thread stated they would patronize CFA again if they simply ceased their support, and have since moved goalposts? cause i think that'd fit what you're pushing here, but i'd prolly need some specific examples, personally.
Keru_Shiri
Member
It's all anecdotal, regardless. FWIW, I plan to resume eating there as well, should they make good on their statement.
CornBurrito
Member
So the boycott had no effect on chicfila donating to anti gay organizations... because you continued to eat there? I am confused. How is your post related to mine at all?
Also why is Open Source saying that not buying a product is anti free speech?
Manos: The Hans of Fate
Banned
It wasnt as I said before it was early in the morning and I was cranky.
- Status