When political correctness runs amok, it will look like the Mayor of Boston

[JG55]

When political correctness runs amok, it will look like the Mayor of Boston

Posted by William A. Jacobson Saturday, July 21, 2012 at 12:36pm

The Mayor of Boston thinks he has the right to deny business permits to a business if he doesn’t like the views of the owners of the business on gay marriage.

From The Boston Herald:

Mayor Thomas M. Menino is vowing to block Chick-fil-A from bringing its Southern-fried fast-food empire to Boston — possibly to a popular tourist spot just steps from the Freedom Trail — after the family-owned firm’s president suggested gay marriage is “inviting God’s judgment on our nation.â€

“Chick-fil-A doesn’t belong in Boston. You can’t have a business in the city of Boston that discriminates against a population. We’re an open city, we’re a city that’s at the forefront of inclusion,†Menino told the Herald yesterday.

“That’s the Freedom Trail. That’s where it all started right here. And we’re not going to have a company, Chick-fil-A or whatever the hell the name is, on our Freedom Trail.â€

Read the whole article. There is no allegation that Chick-fil-A discriminates either in employment or in servicing customers on the basis of sexual orientation. In fact, Chick-fil-A affirms that it does not discriminate, but that’s not good enough for the Mayor:

“The Chick-fil-A culture and service tradition in our restaurants is to treat every person with honor, dignity and respect — regardless of their belief, race, creed, sexual orientation or gender,†the statement [from Chick-fil-A] read. “Going forward, our intent is to leave the policy debate over same-sex marriage to the government and political arena.â€

But that isn’t cutting the mustard with Menino. He said he plans to fire off a letter to the company’s Atlanta headquarters “telling them my feelings on the matter.â€

“If they need licenses in the city, it will be very difficult — unless they open up their policies,†he warned.

While a governmental entity may be able to regulate employment and business conduct as regards various groups, what gives the Mayor of Boston the right to punish a business because of what its owners think or the views they express?

There is a pernicious side to the political correctness which is being enforced on the issue of gay marriage. The topic has been manipulated so that support for the unique status of traditional marriage in society has been equated with being “anti-gay.â€

A writer at Mediaite plays the card:

Because, hey, who doesn’t love their chicken seasoned with delicious, unrepentant bigotry.

Once the issue was so formulated in the media and academia, it has become unacceptable on campuses and now in the City of Boston to express a view that traditional marriage is unique and worthy of a special status.

Regardless of your view on private boycotts of Chick-fil-A, such private boycotts are qualitatively different from a government official threatening the power of the state not because of the conduct of a company, but because of the thoughts expressed by its owners.

When we involve government as thought police we are in dangerous territory which supporters of the Mayor of Boston’s threats ignore.

If it is acceptable for the Mayor of Boston to deny business permits to a business whose owners express support for traditional marriage, would it also be acceptable for the Governors of and Mayors in the 30 states which have passed legislation or constitutional amendments rejecting gay marriage to deny business permits to companies whose owners support gay marriage?

Edited July 22, 2012 by JG55

[daddyo]

Political correctness ran amok a long time ago. But, I agree - this is ultimately what the gay activists want: thought control.

How is this any different from what they accuse the evangelical Christians of, i.e., claiming that they want to tell everyone else what to do? Isn't that what they want?

Edited July 22, 2012 by DaddyO

[Glenn]

"our freedom trail"?????? Where the ____ does he get off calling it that. It is "The" freedom trail. It doesn't belong to him or his city. Obviously he doesn't understand freedom. I am going to have to quit reading anything related to politics or get my Dr. to up the dose on my antidepressants.

Glenn

[greenego]

Just another example of government forcing it's will on us. From trying to regulate what we eat and drink to what we think, believe and accept.

[daddyo]

"our freedom trail"?????? Where the ____ does he get off calling it that. It is "The" freedom trail. It doesn't belong to him or his city. Obviously he doesn't understand freedom. I am going to have to quit reading anything related to politics or get my Dr. to up the dose on my antidepressants.

Glenn

Of course he does. He just doesn't want anyone else to have it.

Edited July 22, 2012 by DaddyO

[kieefer]

I like that Chik-Filet closes on Sunday. I'm almost tired of their chicken since I've been supporting them since this moronic subject came up.

PC gone wild, another more serious example -

http://weaselzippers...-terror-attack/

http://www.mainjustice.com/2012/07/19/did-political-correctness-derail-investigation-of-fort-hood-suspect/

.

Edited July 22, 2012 by kieefer

[Guest TankerHC]

I have taken the 2 mile walk down the Freedom Trail many times. The Freedom Trail represents the fight our Founding Fathers put up to win our independence. Considering that they (The Founding Fathers) were Judeo-Christians for the most part, and based the founding of the Country on those principles, I think they would welcome Chik-Fil-A. On the other hand, the place where "It all started" wouldn't seem to me, that the Founders would have meant for it to be representative of a small fringe minority who base their lives and principles on the act of sodomy.

[greenego]

Just had breakfast at the new Chik-Fil-A on Emery RD. Don't think there was one Bostonian in the place.

[hornett22]

Sounds like Chik-fil-a turned PC and gave in. Guess I can't eat there any more.

[daddyo]

Sounds like Chik-fil-a turned PC and gave in. Guess I can't eat there any more.

How did they turn PC? I didn't get that at all from the article.

[hornett22]

I heard the President of the company announced he is leaving and donating part of his severence package to a pro Gay cause.

It was on the radio here last night. Not finding a link today.

Edited July 24, 2012 by hornett22

[daddyo]

I heard the President of the company announced he is leaving and donating part of his severence package to a pro Gay cause.

It was on the radio here last night. Not finding a link today.

If he is leaving, then he is free to do whatever he wishes with his severance. I don't understand how that makes the company PC since, if he is leaving, he does not represent them any longer.

[TMF]

Where is the ACLU on this one? A business to be denied a permit to operate based on its religious beliefs? Sounds like a legitimate civil liberty issue.

[Jonnin]

I fully support both sides here. The city has the right to say who can open a business inside it and a business is free to stick its nose into politics or religion or whatever else if it wants to go there (this is bad for business unless you run something affiliated like a bible bookshop or something!). I cannot get mad at the mayor for that --- if a business came to ME for permission to set up shop after saying something like "our company feels the south is full of uneducated morons" I would probably tell them they have my permission to set up shop in hades. This is the same thing, when you consider he is the mayor of a major gay mecca (boston often makes the top 10-20 most gay friendly city listings).

[sbroomheadsr]

The city of Boston gets its charter from the state. The state gets their charter from the U.S. government. So ultimately the Constitution come into play and not allow the city to discriminate.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[daddyo]

I fully support both sides here. The city has the right to say who can open a business inside it and a business is free to stick its nose into politics or religion or whatever else if it wants to go there (this is bad for business unless you run something affiliated like a bible bookshop or something!). I cannot get mad at the mayor for that --- if a business came to ME for permission to set up shop after saying something like "our company feels the south is full of uneducated morons" I would probably tell them they have my permission to set up shop in hades. This is the same thing, when you consider he is the mayor of a major gay mecca (boston often makes the top 10-20 most gay friendly city listings).

Bad for business? Doesn't seem to have hurt Chik-Fil-A too much.

Calling someone an uneducated moron is not the same as stating your beliefs about gay marriage. Oh, I realize that you can't do that anymore because someone will get all butt hurt because you stood up for something.

Never mind the jobs that would be available if they set up shop there... not that many, of course, but there would be some.

The mayor is a moron.

[Glenn]

Yep, those gays are butt hurt alright.

[TMF]

Yep, those gays are butt hurt alright.

ZZZIINGG!

[Guest Springfield1911guy]

It's none of that damned Mayor's business what anyone thinks about anything, period!

[Jonnin]

Bad for business? Doesn't seem to have hurt Chik-Fil-A too much.

Calling someone an uneducated moron is not the same as stating your beliefs about gay marriage. Oh, I realize that you can't do that anymore because someone will get all butt hurt because you stood up for something.

Never mind the jobs that would be available if they set up shop there... not that many, of course, but there would be some.

The mayor is a moron.

It is the same. It is a statement against the citizens of the city in question in both cases. They are both random statements that someone may think to be true, but cannot defend with logic or proof, they are just opinions.

The charter can take it back to the constitution that way, yes. But the constitution has no commentary on what a city may choose to allow or disallow inside its borders --- or even at the state level. What in the constitution are you reading that allows someone to operate a business in an area where it is not wanted? I think its a wash: you have a city discriminating against a business that discriminates. Who wins that ??? Chick could have said "we are a christian based company" and left it there, they would have been granted a liscense. Its not discrimination against them for being a christian company, its a reaction to the statement. I note that there are 2 pages of results for bible book stores in boston, as well as 2+ pages of "christian store boston". If they banned all christian stores, that would be a clear cut case of discrimination by the city/state for sure, and that would be an issue. One store that made a controversial statement? Not discrimination.

[TMF]

I think its a wash: you have a city discriminating against a business that discriminates. Who wins that ???

When did Chick fil A discriminate against gays? I thought they just donated money to anti-gay marriage causes. They were very clear that they do not discriminate against gay employees. Besides, that would be illegal.

[gjohnsoniv]

I'm having the same argument with several people on Fb about Chick-Fil-A. It is interesting to say the least.

[Jonnin]

When did Chick fil A discriminate against gays? I thought they just donated money to anti-gay marriage causes. They were very clear that they do not discriminate against gay employees. Besides, that would be illegal.

Verbally. The donation was sort of an apology to that event, IMHO.

Its right there in the eary links...

---gay marriage is “inviting God’s judgment on our nation.â€

Again, take this from the perspective of if YOU were the mayor of a major gay city. Would you invite in a business that insulted a large % of your voters? I would not.

[daddyo]

Verbally. The donation was sort of an apology to that event, IMHO.

Its right there in the eary links...

---gay marriage is “inviting God’s judgment on our nation.â€

Again, take this from the perspective of if YOU were the mayor of a major gay city. Would you invite in a business that insulted a large % of your voters? I would not.

I would hardly consider 5% a "large" percentage.

[daddyo]

It is the same. It is a statement against the citizens of the city in question in both cases. They are both random statements that someone may think to be true, but cannot defend with logic or proof, they are just opinions.on.

One is a direct insult. The other is not. It's about intent. If you look for something to be offended about, you'll find it.

They are not the same.