Board index › General Discussion › News and Current Events

Chick-fil-a and the homophobic sandwich

Page 8 of 17 [ 272 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 ... 17  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

08 Aug 2012, 12:05 pm

Vigilans wrote:

You are being unintentionally disingenuous if you think this is just about beliefs and statements. As I have stated before Cathy puts his money where his mouth is and donates to causes opposed to human rights. Politicians are threatening his business because a portion of the profits go to causes that are not humane or dignified in the least bit, not because he has an opinion. There is a difference between expressing an opinion and acting on it, expression can be responded to with criticism or praise but action begets action.




What a bad evil man he is. He supports causes (in a perfectly legal manner) that you disapprove of. How awful! The Horror! The Horror!

The government has no right or power (according to the First Amendment) to prevent someone from doing legal business because of opinions he holds or expresses. That is censorship, plain and simple which is against our Constitution.

ruveyn

ruveyn



Vigilans
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,181
Location: Montreal

08 Aug 2012, 12:09 pm

ruveyn wrote:
Vigilans wrote:

You are being unintentionally disingenuous if you think this is just about beliefs and statements. As I have stated before Cathy puts his money where his mouth is and donates to causes opposed to human rights. Politicians are threatening his business because a portion of the profits go to causes that are not humane or dignified in the least bit, not because he has an opinion. There is a difference between expressing an opinion and acting on it, expression can be responded to with criticism or praise but action begets action.




What a bad evil man he is. He supports causes (in a perfectly legal manner) that you disapprove of. How awful! The Horror! The Horror!

The government has no right or power (according to the First Amendment) to prevent someone from doing legal business because of opinions he holds or expresses. That is censorship, plain and simple which is against our Constitution.

ruveyn


Just in case you did not notice anything I wrote in the paragraph you quoted, this is not about opinion, this is about funding inhumane causes and being held responsible for this.


_________________
Opportunities multiply as they are seized. -Sun Tzu
Nature creates few men brave, industry and training makes many -Machiavelli
You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 48,446
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

08 Aug 2012, 12:17 pm

Dox47 wrote:
Sylkat wrote:
Not to be off-topic, but I thought that avatars, like posts, must meet the standards or rules of WP.
If an avatar violated WP's limits of acceptability,it would not be shown, would it?
I guess that I am saying that WP would censor or edit or delete an unacceptable avatar just like an unacceptable post....right?

Sylkat


The rules about what is and is not acceptable as an avatar are fuzzy at best and highly subjective. I know people have complained about my avatars because they feature guns, even though there is no "no guns in avatars" rules, and those complaints have usually followed debates with the complainers. I've managed to successfully argue that there is no rule or precedent at WP surrounding guns in avatars, and as I'm a gunsmith that me with a gun is a good personal representation.

In the referenced case, the removed avatar had been used by that poster off and on for years without issue, and was only brought up for review after an ongoing feud between the two posters, with the reporting poster continuing to reference the incident in a taunting manner. I think that is pretty fair grounds to declare the whole thing vindictive rather than being a legitimate issue for involving moderators, but that's my opinion.


While I have nothing against your current avatar pic, I actually much prefer the one showcasing yourself and your very lovely wife. 8)

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

08 Aug 2012, 12:42 pm

Vigilans wrote:
[

Just in case you did not notice anything I wrote in the paragraph you quoted, this is not about opinion, this is about funding inhumane causes and being held responsible for this.


That is expressing and advocating opinion. And it is -legal-. A person has a constitutional right to express ugly, unpleasant, hateful and inhumane opinions and to fund those who do likewise. If you find this too hard to take, shut your eyes and ears.

ruveyn



Vigilans
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,181
Location: Montreal

08 Aug 2012, 12:55 pm

ruveyn wrote:
Vigilans wrote:
[

Just in case you did not notice anything I wrote in the paragraph you quoted, this is not about opinion, this is about funding inhumane causes and being held responsible for this.


That is expressing and advocating opinion. And it is -legal-. A person has a constitutional right to express ugly, unpleasant, hateful and inhumane opinions and to fund those who do likewise. If you find this too hard to take, shut your eyes and ears.

ruveyn


I think you misunderstand me. I am not saying he should not be allowed to express an opinion. I am saying that when an opinion is acted on there is such a thing as accountability. Should you not be free to choose who you do business with? Your country has no problem boycotting countries that disagree with it. Why should Americans not be allowed to exercise this practice? Is it not an expression of freedom as well?


_________________
Opportunities multiply as they are seized. -Sun Tzu
Nature creates few men brave, industry and training makes many -Machiavelli
You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do


Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

08 Aug 2012, 1:00 pm

I'd love to jump in here but I've been officially forbidden from teasing a certain individual.This and a few other threads are proving very entertaining even from a spectators view, though.
:D


_________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson


Ancalagon
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Dec 2007
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,302

08 Aug 2012, 1:48 pm

Dox47 wrote:
In the referenced case, the removed avatar had been used by that poster off and on for years without issue, and was only brought up for review after an ongoing feud between the two posters, with the reporting poster continuing to reference the incident in a taunting manner. I think that is pretty fair grounds to declare the whole thing vindictive rather than being a legitimate issue for involving moderators, but that's my opinion.

I'm not familiar with this incident, so I can't really have an opinion on it. But even if it were strictly vindictive, I think it does make sense for the mods to do something about it anyway (assuming that the avatar really was a problem).

The mods shouldn't be deciding whether to help someone based on whether or not they think the person asking for help has pure motives, they should be deciding it based only on the rules. Similarly, mayors of cities should not be deciding whether to let Chick-Fil-A into their cities based on whether they like the CEO's politics but based on whether Chick-Fil-A complies with their laws.


_________________
"A dead thing can go with the stream, but only a living thing can go against it." --G. K. Chesterton


visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Vancouver, BC

08 Aug 2012, 1:57 pm

ruveyn wrote:
That is expressing and advocating opinion. And it is -legal-. A person has a constitutional right to express ugly, unpleasant, hateful and inhumane opinions and to fund those who do likewise. If you find this too hard to take, shut your eyes and ears.

ruveyn


No one is suggesting that his actions are not legal. But that's not the relevant question.

The relevant questions are: 1) whether his actions are in the best interests of his company, and the shareholders who have invested in it, and 2) whether people who oppose the aims of his--pefectly legal--actions are entitled to express their dissatisfaction and attempt to persuade others to boycott his business for that reason.

The boycott is a perfectly legal response to businesses that behave in ways that the people who are boycotting find odious.


_________________
--James


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

08 Aug 2012, 8:55 pm

visagrunt wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
That is expressing and advocating opinion. And it is -legal-. A person has a constitutional right to express ugly, unpleasant, hateful and inhumane opinions and to fund those who do likewise. If you find this too hard to take, shut your eyes and ears.

ruveyn


No one is suggesting that his actions are not legal. But that's not the relevant question.

The relevant questions are: 1) whether his actions are in the best interests of his company, and the shareholders who have invested in it, and 2) whether people who oppose the aims of his--pefectly legal--actions are entitled to express their dissatisfaction and attempt to persuade others to boycott his business for that reason.

The boycott is a perfectly legal response to businesses that behave in ways that the people who are boycotting find odious.


Non-violent boycotts are always legal.

Legality is the only issue. Morality is mere opinion and has not standing in law.

ruveyn



Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,577
Location: Seattle-ish

09 Aug 2012, 1:10 am

@ Vigilans:

So, if a Democratic mayor publicly states that he's going to discriminate against any businesses that have donated to the GOP because some GOP members are ant-gay marriage and anti-abortion and he considers those things to be against human rights, you think that should be legal? Dance around it all you want, that's what your statements amount to, legal discrimination against people and businesses because of their completely legal political activity that you happen to personally disagree with. If a Christian mayor said he was going to keep businesses that donated to pro-gay groups out of his city because it conflicted with the values he'd been elected to enforce, you'd be calling for his head on a pike, don't even try to deny it.

Also, I'm not supporting Raptor, I'm letting Visagrunt, who I normally like and respect, know in no uncertain terms that I disapprove of his involvement of the moderation team in settling a personal dispute, and that I feel that continuing to refer to something that doesn't reflect well on him in the first place isn't exactly the best course of action. That it happened to be a dispute involving Raptor is completely incidental, as a victim of attempted power trips involving complaints about my avatar it's a bit of a pet peeve for me.

I should also add that I was not criticizing the mods in any way, I think their hands were pretty much tied on the issue, I just object to someone using them as a shank in a personal dispute in that way.


_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.

- Rick Sanchez


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 48,446
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

09 Aug 2012, 1:23 am

Dox47 wrote:
@ Vigilans:

So, if a Democratic mayor publicly states that he's going to discriminate against any businesses that have donated to the GOP because some GOP members are ant-gay marriage and anti-abortion and he considers those things to be against human rights, you think that should be legal? Dance around it all you want, that's what your statements amount to, legal discrimination against people and businesses because of their completely legal political activity that you happen to personally disagree with. If a Christian mayor said he was going to keep businesses that donated to pro-gay groups out of his city because it conflicted with the values he'd been elected to enforce, you'd be calling for his head on a pike, don't even try to deny it.

Also, I'm not supporting Raptor, I'm letting Visagrunt, who I normally like and respect, know in no uncertain terms that I disapprove of his involvement of the moderation team in settling a personal dispute, and that I feel that continuing to refer to something that doesn't reflect well on him in the first place isn't exactly the best course of action. That it happened to be a dispute involving Raptor is completely incidental, as a victim of attempted power trips involving complaints about my avatar it's a bit of a pet peeve for me.

I should also add that I was not criticizing the mods in any way, I think their hands were pretty much tied on the issue, I just object to someone using them as a shank in a personal dispute in that way.


It should be remembered that during the civil rights era, there had been plenty of boycotts against businesses practicing racial discrimination. I really don't know if any mayors of that period had forbidden such businesses from locating in their cities, but if they had, I believe they today would be heralded for their courage. In the matter of gay civil rights, the mayors of Chicago and San Francisco very well may be recalled as heroes for taking a stand someday in the future.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,577
Location: Seattle-ish

09 Aug 2012, 1:51 am

Kraichgauer wrote:
It should be remembered that during the civil rights era, there had been plenty of boycotts against businesses practicing racial discrimination. I really don't know if any mayors of that period had forbidden such businesses from locating in their cities, but if they had, I believe they today would be heralded for their courage. In the matter of gay civil rights, the mayors of Chicago and San Francisco very well may be recalled as heroes for taking a stand someday in the future.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


If what they did is OK, than it's also OK for religious conservative mayors to bar businesses that support causes they find immoral from "their" towns. Just because you agree with it and think it's the right thing to do does not make it OK, read the line in my signature about powers granted the government and how they're inevitably used.


_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.

- Rick Sanchez


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 48,446
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

09 Aug 2012, 2:08 am

Dox47 wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
It should be remembered that during the civil rights era, there had been plenty of boycotts against businesses practicing racial discrimination. I really don't know if any mayors of that period had forbidden such businesses from locating in their cities, but if they had, I believe they today would be heralded for their courage. In the matter of gay civil rights, the mayors of Chicago and San Francisco very well may be recalled as heroes for taking a stand someday in the future.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


If what they did is OK, than it's also OK for religious conservative mayors to bar businesses that support causes they find immoral from "their" towns. Just because you agree with it and think it's the right thing to do does not make it OK, read the line in my signature about powers granted the government and how they're inevitably used.


It's not me that's making the judgements of who was right or wrong in the matter of moral stands shaping policy, but history.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,577
Location: Seattle-ish

09 Aug 2012, 2:21 am

Kraichgauer wrote:
It's not me that's making the judgements of who was right or wrong in the matter of moral stands shaping policy, but history.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


That may be well and good, but the point stands that you can't condone an action you'd normally condemn just because it was done for a cause you agree with, at least not while remaining ethically consistent.


_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.

- Rick Sanchez


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 48,446
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

09 Aug 2012, 2:47 am

Dox47 wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
It's not me that's making the judgements of who was right or wrong in the matter of moral stands shaping policy, but history.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


That may be well and good, but the point stands that you can't condone an action you'd normally condemn just because it was done for a cause you agree with, at least not while remaining ethically consistent.


I am ethically consistent, as I'm taking the side of civil rights, as I always do.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,577
Location: Seattle-ish

09 Aug 2012, 2:54 am

Kraichgauer wrote:
I am ethically consistent, as I'm taking the side of civil rights, as I always do.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


So you think it's right to act illegally if you feel the cause is just? More importantly, you feel it's right for the government to act illegally if you think they're doing the right thing? Dick Cheney thought he was doing the right thing by having people tortured because it might save lives, was he right?


_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.

- Rick Sanchez