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

[Jonnin]

Intent is a slippery slope. Romney has good intentions to ban ARs too, or so he says. The words have to stand alone after being put out there. Looking to be offended? He all but blames all bad things that happen in the country on gays via "god's wrath". If I see a lightning storm over san-francisco that somehow manages to hit every gay man and turn them into a pillar of salt, we might have something here. The comment was over the top. Keeping them out of the city over it is also over the top, by the way.

5% with an awful lot of sympathy. Count the votes, not the gays --- something this small could well give him an edge, or ruin him, next election. And that is what it is really all about. Probably, he does not personally give a rats rear about the issue, but is just using this for free publicity and votes --- politics as usual.

Edited July 24, 2012 by Jonnin

[TMF]

That isn't discrimination anymore than a company taking a stance in support of gay marriage and calling Christians who believe that homosexuality is a sin are automatically homophobes. Both are opinions, but not discrimination by definition. What would be discrimination is the government refusing to allow that business to operate based solely on those opinions. Besides, I'm certain there are more Catholics in Boston than gays.

I'm not condoning or condemning Chick Fil A's stance. I'm merely pointing out that believing in a religion isn't grounds to deny business permission to operate. If this were the reverse, such as a southern town not allowing a gay business to operate based on principles of he community there'd be national outrage with people marching in the streets chanting "we shall overcome" and making a spectacle out of it. Why are there two different acceptable reactions to the same injustice? Objectively.

[Jonnin]

I'm not condoning or condemning Chick Fil A's stance. I'm merely pointing out that believing in a religion isn't grounds to deny business permission to operate.

Well, that was my point. Its not about the religion ----- clearly, many, many christian based businesses operate in boston. Its about the one guy's personal opinions. Whether that is grounds to disallow them entry? No, I do not agree. But, at the same time, I support the city being able to choose who can operate there.

Basically, I think it was dumb to make that statement, and I think it is dumb to get worked up over the statement.

[daddyo]

Yes, because it's always "dumb" to voice your convictions....

[TMF]

Well I agree on both accounts there, but in regard to religion that is the reason this company has this stance. According to the Old Testament homosexuality is a sin. This company bases itself in Christian ideals. It is not the place of the government to punish such an organization for their beliefs. It is fine for folks to boycott, or even politicians to publicly denounce it, but to use government powers to discriminate is wrong and should be challenged in court.

[Jonnin]

Yes, because it's always "dumb" to voice your convictions....

No. But if you do that, there will be consequences. From a business standpoint, in terms of what is best for his company, it was a risky move -- no gain, but something to lose. If he has the convictions to do it anyway, good for him, but he now has to deal with the consequences.

[Jonnin]

Well I agree on both accounts there, but in regard to religion that is the reason this company has this stance. According to the Old Testament homosexuality is a sin. This company bases itself in Christian ideals. It is not the place of the government to punish such an organization for their beliefs. It is fine for folks to boycott, or even politicians to publicly denounce it, but to use government powers to discriminate is wrong and should be challenged in court.

For governemnt to support a business that makes these statements is just as bad (are they agreeing with the statement? Are they supporting christians now?). Government can't win this one, because all the answers are wrong.

Edited July 24, 2012 by Jonnin

[vontar]

A City government should not be allowed to DICTATE what legal business is allowed to Buy or Rent property and setup a legal business. That is on the edge of a dictatorship. If a business is not asking for a hand out from the local government and they rent/buy the property the city should have no choice but to give them a business license.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

That isn't discrimination anymore than a company taking a stance in support of gay marriage and calling Christians who believe that homosexuality is a sin are automatically homophobes. Both are opinions, but not discrimination by definition. What would be discrimination is the government refusing to allow that business to operate based solely on those opinions. Besides, I'm certain there are more Catholics in Boston than gays.

I'm not condoning or condemning Chick Fil A's stance. I'm merely pointing out that believing in a religion isn't grounds to deny business permission to operate. If this were the reverse, such as a southern town not allowing a gay business to operate based on principles of he community there'd be national outrage with people marching in the streets chanting "we shall overcome" and making a spectacle out of it. Why are there two different acceptable reactions to the same injustice? Objectively.

I knew we agreed on a few things. Well said.

[TMF]

For governemnt to support a business that makes these statements is just as bad (are they agreeing with the statement? Are they supporting christians now?). Government can't win this one, because all the answers are wrong.

A government granting a business license isn't "supporting" it. To suggest that you would have to assume that every abortion clinic is supported by government, when they are clearly not. You would have to assume that somehow governments support titty bars, Bible stores, sex shops, gun stores and so on. The government shouldn't be supporting or not supporting any business beyond the possibility of creating jobs for their citizens. This is a just a restaurant with owners that believe in the Bible more literally than many Americans. If this was a Muslim owned business that happened to make a public statement regarding their beliefs and a local government refused to grant them a business license based solely on that belief people would be outraged. I know I would be. This is America and folks are entitled to their beliefs without prejudice or punishment from the government. The free market gets to decide whether or not such a business is patronized.

[Glenn]

That isn't discrimination anymore than a company taking a stance in support of gay marriage and calling Christians who believe that homosexuality is a sin are automatically homophobes. Both are opinions, but not discrimination by definition. What would be discrimination is the government refusing to allow that business to operate based solely on those opinions. Besides, I'm certain there are more Catholics in Boston than gays.

I'm not condoning or condemning Chick Fil A's stance. I'm merely pointing out that believing in a religion isn't grounds to deny business permission to operate. If this were the reverse, such as a southern town not allowing a gay business to operate based on principles of he community there'd be national outrage with people marching in the streets chanting "we shall overcome" and making a spectacle out of it. Why are there two different acceptable reactions to the same injustice? Objectively.

^^^THIS^^^

God I miss Freedom!!!!

The thought police are here and many people think it's a good thing.

Glenn

[daddyo]

The day is coming when you will be punished for voicing your views if they conflict with what is politically correct. This is what they want.

"Sir, what are your views on homosexuality?"

"What's that? You don't think it's natural?"

"Well, then, no building permit/driver's license renewal/HCP renewal/<insert government issued permit for whatever you can think of here> for you!!"

Edited July 25, 2012 by DaddyO

[vontar]

You know what, everyone that is unemployed in Boston should take that as a view of the Mayor and job creating. I don't know if Chick Fil A was wanting in Boston or not but if they where and the Mayor is opposed to it, he just cost the city X number of jobs due to his views.

[wipfel]

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.

I can't find anything that supports this. Seems like unsubstantiated rumor.

[jtmaze]

The big thing is that gay marriage is not about anything but money. I like Chick-fil-a. The whole gay marriage debate is about having to pay benefits to people. Big business doesn't want it because of insurance benefits. I seriously doubt that Chick-fil-a cares who is gay or straight or married or not as long as they eat chicken. What someone does behind closed doors is their business. I think the people of Boston who like chicken should crucify the mayor at the next election.

JTM

Sent from my iPhone

[Guest seawolf138]

No. But if you do that, there will be consequences. From a business standpoint, in terms of what is best for his company, it was a risky move -- no gain, but something to lose. If he has the convictions to do it anyway, good for him, but he now has to deal with the consequences.

I don't know that I agree with you. Taking this particular stance wasn't a huge risk to his company. It wasn't new information, everyone knew that Chik-Fil-A was a christian company that supports several anti-gay programs, all he effectively did was bring Chik-Fil-A back into the media strongly. Whether you're talking bad about them or talking good about them it's all the same at this point. Good press or bad press, they're getting their name out there even more than normal, and I would wager that business is booming.

[gjohnsoniv]

I don't know that I agree with you. Taking this particular stance wasn't a huge risk to his company. It wasn't new information, everyone knew that Chik-Fil-A was a christian company that supports several anti-gay programs, all he effectively did was bring Chik-Fil-A back into the media strongly. Whether you're talking bad about them or talking good about them it's all the same at this point. Good press or bad press, they're getting their name out there even more than normal, and I would wager that business is booming.

Gotta agree with you. No, it may not be great for the company name, but it's sure a heck of a lot of free advertising.

[Jonnin]

A government granting a business license isn't "supporting" it. To suggest that you would have to assume that every abortion clinic is supported by government, when they are clearly not. You would have to assume that somehow governments support titty bars, Bible stores, sex shops, gun stores and so on. The government shouldn't be supporting or not supporting any business beyond the possibility of creating jobs for their citizens. This is a just a restaurant with owners that believe in the Bible more literally than many Americans. If this was a Muslim owned business that happened to make a public statement regarding their beliefs and a local government refused to grant them a business license based solely on that belief people would be outraged. I know I would be. This is America and folks are entitled to their beliefs without prejudice or punishment from the government. The free market gets to decide whether or not such a business is patronized.

Depends. The government here (local, state?) draw new business into the area by direct support: they cut deals to the incoming business to get them to come here --- tax breaks, for example, is one way to pay a business without paying them directly. Not typical of a fast food chain (this sort of thing is usually for larger employeers!) but it happens.

I have also watched out local government change zone rules to allow or disallow a business to set up shop. I have seen places granted access roads and denied them (we lost an entire mall to lack of an access road, direct connection, remember that place?). Government can support or stifle a business by doing ordinary things that it already does in a seemingly harmless manner. Granting or denying a liscense is just one of those. I remember several fights here in chattanooga where the powers that be denied a place a renewal of a beer liscense or similar in an underhanded but direct approach to destroying the place (to be fair, this has been done to troublesome places, high crime / violent bar type establishments).

At the end of it all, I cannot see a discrimination suit against a single business since there are other businesses up there with christian backgrounds. Abuse of power? maybe I can see that one and agree to it. Letting his personal opinons cloud his judgement? Yes, if that is a crime. Every which way you look at it, the only "group" that one could claim he is agains would be "homophobes" --- not exactly a good place to be standing to start a discrimination suit.

Edited July 26, 2012 by Jonnin

[Guest 6.8 AR]

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.

One person's speech is just as important as another's. You just picked sides with your argument.

Besides, who the Hell gave the mayor of Boston the right to "invite" one business over another by using

a municipal entity like Codes or some permits office to decide which business is suited for Boston? There

could really be a Supreme Court hearing in waiting for that with even a liberal agreeing with the majority.

I don't think he has the the rest of the voters support for that.

I guess what I don't understand is why would Chik-fil-A want to go there in the first place, if it wasn't for

market share. I doubt they really care if a gay buys their chicken or not. I guess if a gay can "feel"

discriminated against, why not a company?

More cake, please!

[strickj]

Depends. The government here (local, state?) draw new business into the area by direct support: they cut deals to the incoming business to get them to come here --- tax breaks, for example, is one way to pay a business without paying them directly. Not typical of a fast food chain (this sort of thing is usually for larger employeers!) but it happens.

I have also watched out local government change zone rules to allow or disallow a business to set up shop. I have seen places granted access roads and denied them (we lost an entire mall to lack of an access road, direct connection, remember that place?). Government can support or stifle a business by doing ordinary things that it already does in a seemingly harmless manner. Granting or denying a liscense is just one of those. I remember several fights here in chattanooga where the powers that be denied a place a renewal of a beer liscense or similar in an underhanded but direct approach to destroying the place (to be fair, this has been done to troublesome places, high crime / violent bar type establishments).

At the end of it all, I cannot see a discrimination suit against a single business since there are other businesses up there with christian backgrounds. Abuse of power? maybe I can see that one and agree to it. Letting his personal opinons cloud his judgement? Yes, if that is a crime. Every which way you look at it, the only "group" that one could claim he is agains would be "homophobes" --- not exactly a good place to be standing to start a discrimination suit.

Happens a lot in Chattanooga. Most recently with Benson and IHop.

A politician's opinion about a business or it's owner should not be a prerequisite to that business opening.

The city is there to get new businesses to come to town with tax incentives and other perks, and to make sure they're legal and safe by issuing permits.

The city is not there to deny new business because of a personal opinion of the person currently holding office.

[daddyo]

Yet that's exactly what the Nashville Metro Council did when they voted to withhold government contracts from any business who doesn't have a non-discrimination policy to their liking.

Talk about forcing your views on others.

[Jonnin]

One person's speech is just as important as another's. You just picked sides with your argument.

Besides, who the Hell gave the mayor of Boston the right to "invite" one business over another by using

a municipal entity like Codes or some permits office to decide which business is suited for Boston? There

could really be a Supreme Court hearing in waiting for that with even a liberal agreeing with the majority.

I don't think he has the the rest of the voters support for that.

I guess what I don't understand is why would Chik-fil-A want to go there in the first place, if it wasn't for

market share. I doubt they really care if a gay buys their chicken or not. I guess if a gay can "feel"

discriminated against, why not a company?

More cake, please!

Take sides? Not really. The CFA manager guy can say whatever he likes. The mayor, like it or no, is able to abuse his powers granted by being in that position to either help or hurt a business that wants to set up shop: this is legal and common practice at least where I live (though here its the city council I think? or both combined?). It pretty much ends there.... neither side did anything "wrong" that I can see, certainly not a worthy of supreme court (perhaps the state SC, but not the national one). If there is a wrongdoing here, most of the mayors/council members of most cities are equally guilty of whatever it is (picking and choosing who can operate on their whims).

I would be all for not allowing the city to do the pick & choose thing, and that would be a great outcome of a court case, but I do not see that happening.

Edited July 27, 2012 by Jonnin

[strickj]

Yet that's exactly what the Nashville Metro Council did when they voted to withhold government contracts from any business who doesn't have a non-discrimination policy to their liking.

Talk about forcing your views on others.

Well, I'm not sure what you're referring to... but discrimination laws are federal.

http://www.dol.gov/ofccp/regs/compliance/fs11246.htm

[TMF]

Yet that's exactly what the Nashville Metro Council did when they voted to withhold government contracts from any business who doesn't have a non-discrimination policy to their liking.

Talk about forcing your views on others.

I wouldn't go so far as to say that it "forces" an opinion on another, as technically any contract company that is conducting work on behalf of the government is working for the government. If a company doesn't want to adhere to those policies they don't have to use the government as a customer. The government is the customer in this equation and has the right to seek services elsewhere if they don't like the service provider. Kinda like if you don't like Chick-Fil-A's stance on gay marriage you don't have to eat there.

However, a government saying that a business can't operate because of the CEO's opinions on gay marriage and religion is forcing his opinion on others because the customer is the free market, not the Mayor. Now, if the Mayor said "I don't want a Chick-Fil-A stand operating in the city employee food court because of their stance on gay marriage that would be different. It would be ethical and legal, yet not exactly fair. But life isn't fair.

Well, I'm not sure what you're referring to... but discrimination laws are federal.

http://www.dol.gov/o...nce/fs11246.htm

Yes, but local, state and fed governments can require contracted companies to have stricter anti-discrimination policies.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

If the company, through one of its officers states

an opinion, how is it "forcing an opinion"? That's

quite the reach compared to a company policy.

If the company had a policy against something

that by law is illegal, the company is wrong.

This was allegedly by an individual stating an

opinion, but is not a policy, and the company

never made it an official policy, or am I missing

something?

strickj, we had this discussion somewhere else

and if it is forcing an opinion by stating an opinion,

we would never get to even have a conversation

without fear of someone coming in and crying

discrimination or some other garbage, would we?

You, in fact told me to not force my opinion on anyone.

Of course that made me laugh, because I know the

difference. It doesn't work that way. How could you

or I force our beliefs on another if we think and have

the ability to reject an argument from another? I

think it's called reasoning. I know I'm not some

expert, but that doesn't preclude you or I from

having an opinion, okay? The same goes for

anyone else I "think". So maybe there was a

misunderstanding. Politeness would go a long

way, and the mayor should lead by example

instead of pandering to a particular class for

votes.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Edited July 27, 2012 by 6.8 AR