Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest seicer

Gay / Transgender Rights

Recommended Posts

I don't know, Thomas is enough of a libertarian that there's a slight chance he might go along with the liberals on this one. Scalia is safely conservative though.

 

I personally adhere to the Thomas dissent in the Lawrence case.

 

Dissent (Thomas)

 

If I were a member of the Texas Legislature I would vote to repeal this law. Punishing someone for expressing his sexual preference through noncommercial consensual conduct with another adult does not appear to be a worthy way to expend valuable law enforcement resources. But I am not empowered to help petitioners and others similarly situated. My duty is to decide cases agreeably to the Constitution and laws of the United States. I can find neither in the Bill of Rights nor any other part of the Constitution a general right of privacy, or as the Court terms it today, the liberty of the person both in its spatial and more transcendent dimensions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With that logic he's fine with states banning contraception and interracial marriages too. The guy is a loon with no respect for common sense, evolving cultures, and Supreme Court decisions pertaining to privacy matters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With that logic he's fine with states banning contraception and interracial marriages too. The guy is a loon with no respect for common sense, evolving cultures, and Supreme Court decisions pertaining to privacy matters.

 

Not "fine" with it. The logic behind it is judicial restraint. From a judges standpoint, it doesn't mean that he or she is endorsing a "bad" state law. Only that the proper means of disposing of that bad law is through the legislative process.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know, Thomas is enough of a libertarian that there's a slight chance he might go along with the liberals on this one. Scalia is safely conservative though.

 

I don't think Thomas is a libertarian at all.  From everything I've read and heard, he's as much of an activist conservative justice as anyone currently on the court.  Just because he famously doesn't ask questions and often takes the role of a follower/nitwit, doesn't mean that he's not dead-red conservative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With that logic he's fine with states banning contraception and interracial marriages too. The guy is a loon with no respect for common sense, evolving cultures, and Supreme Court decisions pertaining to privacy matters.

 

Not "fine" with it. The logic behind it is judicial restraint. From a judges standpoint, it doesn't mean that he or she is endorsing a "bad" state law. Only that the proper means of disposing of that bad law is through the legislative process.

 

The problem is that he and the other conservatives on the bench only use judicial restraint in a manner that preserves conservative ideals.  Reading about the Citizens United vs. FEC case that, with a helping hand from Roberts and Kennedy, went from a limited case about election material in movies to a widespread declaration of corporations' ability to give campaign donations, ignoring numerous precedents along the way, and you'll see that these jokers only use "judicial restraint" when it suits the agenda they're trying to push.  I have little doubt that in cases of gay rights like the one that they'll see next year, they will use and twist the Constitution in whatever manner they can to stifle progress and freedom. 

 

As a side note, maybe we need a Supreme Court thread to discuss cases and outcomes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I should clarify that by libertarian I meant that there is a chance that he feels the federal government should mind its own business and stay out of states rights. (I'm aware that libertarian is the wrong word there, but I'm using the word that he has used to describe himself.) With that in mind I think there is a chance that he'll go along with the idea that if MA or VT or whereever says that two men (or women) are married, the federal government should accept the state's definition of marriage and not seek to define what should be (in his opinion) a state issue.

 

As a side note, maybe we need a Supreme Court thread to discuss cases and outcomes?

As long as we're discussing cases dealing with gay rights, why not leave the discussion here?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As long as we're discussing cases dealing with gay rights, why not leave the discussion here?

 

Yeah, but I'm just anticipating the need to discuss some of the important looming Supreme Court decisions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I personally adhere to the Thomas dissent in the Lawrence case.

 

If you do, then you must also believe it would be costitutional, even if horrible policy, for Texas to ban nonmarital sexual relations?  Or interracial sexual relations?  Or what about a law banning contraceptives?  Or a law requiring contraceptives in all sexual relations, married or not?  If there is no right to privacy, then the government would have much greater reign over our personal choices.  If you are not a strong advocate for the right to privacy, not simply a legislative grant of privacy, then you are not a true libertarian.  (Yes, I know several conservative leaning libertarian groups would disagree with that).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm still waiting to find out if Scalia sodomizes his wife. If he feels that states can ban homosexual conduct and contact, then mr privacy-does-not-exist-constititionally should have grown a pair and answer the kid's question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I personally adhere to the Thomas dissent in the Lawrence case.

 

If you do, then you must also believe it would be costitutional, even if horrible policy, for Texas to ban nonmarital sexual relations?  Or interracial sexual relations?  Or what about a law banning contraceptives?  Or a law requiring contraceptives in all sexual relations, married or not?  If there is no right to privacy, then the government would have much greater reign over our personal choices.  If you are not a strong advocate for the right to privacy, not simply a legislative grant of privacy, then you are not a true libertarian.  (Yes, I know several conservative leaning libertarian groups would disagree with that).

 

The Constitution isn't written in stone. I want all of those privacy rights enumerated in plain english through the amendment process.

 

But, for some reason we like to forget we can do this. Wouldn't you agree that this would be the best result?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I personally adhere to the Thomas dissent in the Lawrence case.

 

If you do, then you must also believe it would be costitutional, even if horrible policy, for Texas to ban nonmarital sexual relations?  Or interracial sexual relations?  Or what about a law banning contraceptives?  Or a law requiring contraceptives in all sexual relations, married or not?  If there is no right to privacy, then the government would have much greater reign over our personal choices.  If you are not a strong advocate for the right to privacy, not simply a legislative grant of privacy, then you are not a true libertarian.  (Yes, I know several conservative leaning libertarian groups would disagree with that).

 

The Constitution isn't written in stone. I want all of those privacy rights enumerated in plain english through the amendment process.

 

But, for some reason we like to forget we can do this. Wouldn't you agree that this would be the best result?

 

No, I wouldn't.  The constitution is not written in stone and, where I disagree with your line of thought, it wasn't meant to be interpreted in stone.  We can't be forced to amend the constitution each and every time the verbiage chosen hundreds of years ago does not clearly and explicitly address modern situations.  And it's not supposed to be easy to amend (can you imagine trying to get through the ratification process in today's political climate?).  It can't ebb and flow at the whims of the mob.  That allows for the types of abuses we see in our state constitutions.  We might as well just rip it up and go to a pure statutory system if that's what you want, where majority rules all of the time and the minority (at the time) just has to live with it.

 

Your approach would go against hundreds of years of American jurisprudence on the subject of constitutional interpretation.  There is a plethora of rights not explicitly spelled out in the constitution.  The right to vote, the right to travel, the right to privacy, the right to a fair trial, the right to a jury of your peers, the right to be treated as innocent until proven guilty, THE RIGHT TO MARRY, the right to judicial review, the right to have children/procreate.  Show me where the constitution explicitly grants any of those rights.  Does that mean we don't possess these rights in your view?

 

It's the hypocrisy which irks me.  Let's say Massachussetts passes a law which bans heterosexual marriages...... do you honesly think Thomas would submit the same dissent?  Of course not.  He only pulls that crap when it forwards some conservative agenda.  That's not judicial restraint...... it's judicial activism in its worst form.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that California anti-gay-marriage constitutinal amenedement  is going to be decided this month?

 

We should be seeing some good opinions from Scalia & Thomas on this, when it happens.  I figure the court will uphold the California referendum so we will get to see how the fit the legal logic to the decision. Could be either one or the other gets to write the majority opinion? 

 

The funnly thing about the gay marriage debate is that public opinion in the polls shows a swing towards acceptance, but the actual votes on the issue go the other way. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^That's because most of the public opinion polls lump together people who wholly support gay marriage and those who support 'civil unions' but when it comes to use of the word marriage, their take is "IT'S MINE!!!!!  MINE!!!  YOU CAN'T HAVE IT!!!!  MINE!!!  MINE!!!!  MOMMY!!!!  MOMMY!!!!  HE'S TRYING TO STEAL MY WORD!!!"

 

I believe that when you take out those with Obama's earlier 'evolving' state of mind, then support is not as strong as the polling suggests...... although it is definitely improving.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I personally adhere to the Thomas dissent in the Lawrence case.

 

If you do, then you must also believe it would be constitutional, even if horrible policy, for Texas to ban nonmarital sexual relations?  Or interracial sexual relations?  Or what about a law banning contraceptives?  Or a law requiring contraceptives in all sexual relations, married or not?  If there is no right to privacy, then the government would have much greater reign over our personal choices.  If you are not a strong advocate for the right to privacy, not simply a legislative grant of privacy, then you are not a true libertarian.  (Yes, I know several conservative leaning libertarian groups would disagree with that).

 

The Constitution isn't written in stone. I want all of those privacy rights enumerated in plain english through the amendment process.

 

But, for some reason we like to forget we can do this. Wouldn't you agree that this would be the best result?

 

No, I wouldn't.  The constitution is not written in stone and, where I disagree with your line of thought, it wasn't meant to be interpreted in stone.  We can't be forced to amend the constitution each and every time the verbiage chosen hundreds of years ago does not clearly and explicitly address modern situations.  And it's not supposed to be easy to amend (can you imagine trying to get through the ratification process in today's political climate?).  It can't ebb and flow at the whims of the mob.  That allows for the types of abuses we see in our state constitutions.  We might as well just rip it up and go to a pure statutory system if that's what you want, where majority rules all of the time and the minority (at the time) just has to live with it.

 

Your approach would go against hundreds of years of American jurisprudence on the subject of constitutional interpretation.  There is a plethora of rights not explicitly spelled out in the constitution.  The right to vote, the right to travel, the right to privacy, the right to a fair trial, the right to a jury of your peers, the right to be treated as innocent until proven guilty, THE RIGHT TO MARRY, the right to judicial review, the right to have children/procreate.  Show me where the constitution explicitly grants any of those rights.  Does that mean we don't possess these rights in your view?

 

It's the hypocrisy which irks me.  Let's say Massachussetts passes a law which bans heterosexual marriages...... do you honesly think Thomas would submit the same dissent?  Of course not.  He only pulls that crap when it forwards some conservative agenda.  That's not judicial restraint...... it's judicial activism in its worst form.

 

Hts. I apologize I don't have the time this conversation deserves to go into good detail. But I think the issue is important enough to keep the dialogue going. First, I am not defending Thomas across the board, but rather narrowly in this particular dissent. Second, I don't subscribe to the Constitution being a "living, breathing document." I agree most with the writings of Scalia in principle, yet I acknowledge he is absolutely a hypocrite who, like the other Justices, is wrongly treating the Supreme Court just like a quasi-legislature. Believe me, if it were me on the bench, and I thought my vote could make life easier for millions I would be very tempted to legislate from the bench against my principles; it's human nature. Third I don't believe rights arise out of the Constitution.  Re: your hypothetical, we are always in danger of terrible laws and that is why we need to be vigilant, active. Fourth, if our elected officials don't have the stomach for political controversy, we can vote them out.

 

By the way, I apologize in advance if you're already familiar, but you might be interested in a book by Professor Wilson Huhn. It's a pretty cool reference. You can definitely envision a Justice telling his clerks "here's my decision, now provide support for it."

 

The Five Types of Legal Argument succeeds both as a work of legal theory and as a practical guide to legal reasoning for law students, lawyers and judges. Huhn shows readers how to identify, create, attack, and evaluate the five types of legal arguments (text, intent, precedent, tradition and policy) and how to weave the different types of arguments to get the theoretical and practical themes of the work.

 

http://www.amazon.com/Types-Legal-Argument-Second-Edition/dp/1594605165

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Third I don't believe rights arise out of the Constitution.

 

Please explain (when you have the time) 

 

 

You can definitely envision a Justice telling his clerks "here's my decision, now provide support for it."

 

I have no problem with that.  I had a boss once that was always right for all of the wrong reasons that would give me the same direction.  Drove me nuts.  He always knew what the correct end result was even if he had no idea how to get there...... a weird instinct he had for "the way it should be"  Very, very successful guy in the legal field.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This guy is a friend of mine.  It's yet another example of why religious institutions should not be exempt when it comes to discrimination. 

 

Teacher claims he didn't get job because he's gay

 

A music teacher said Tuesday that Cincinnati Hills Christian Academy changed its mind about hiring him because he is gay.

 

The case is the latest in a string of local and national conflicts involving religious institutions firing employees based on what they say are religious reasons but what some critics say are discriminatory reasons.

 

Jonathan Zeng, a music teacher and singer who lives in downtown Cincinnati, says Cincinnati Hills, a nondenominational Christian school, offered him a teaching job there Friday after several days of interviews and observing him leading a third-grade class.

 

 

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20120605/NEWS0102/306050100/Teacher-claims-he-didn-t-get-job-because-he-s-gay

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This guy is a friend of mine.  It's yet another example of why religious institutions should not be exempt when it comes to discrimination. 

 

Teacher claims he didn't get job because he's gay

 

A music teacher said Tuesday that Cincinnati Hills Christian Academy changed its mind about hiring him because he is gay.

 

The case is the latest in a string of local and national conflicts involving religious institutions firing employees based on what they say are religious reasons but what some critics say are discriminatory reasons.

 

Jonathan Zeng, a music teacher and singer who lives in downtown Cincinnati, says Cincinnati Hills, a nondenominational Christian school, offered him a teaching job there Friday after several days of interviews and observing him leading a third-grade class.

 

 

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20120605/NEWS0102/306050100/Teacher-claims-he-didn-t-get-job-because-he-s-gay

 

They should not be able to hide behind the First Amendment on issues such as these.  If you operate in the public sphere, you should play by the same rules as everyone else. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting that he currently teaches part time at a Catholic School

 

Well he is a self proclaimed Christian, so it isn't surprising he wants to continue teaching at religious organizations.  This is what boggles my mind about the religious right sometimes - it is as if no gay people are religious.  Gay people want to praise Jesus just as much as straight people do.  Myself not included, but you get my point. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the same reason a devout Jew probably wouldn't be well received to teach at an Islamist school. Hatred towards gays is fairly deeply rooted within religious communities, and by extension schools, and I'm conflicted whether or not the government has any busines getting involved in these private matters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But isn't the government (atleast in theory)  just an expression of our values and beliefs?  As a society we have deemed it illegal to discriminate based on a number of reasonings.  This does not, but will include sexual orientation.  If a society deems this unacceptable, then it is fair game for the government to enforce what the society believes.  That is what the government is for.  Thus, in this case, the government has every right to intervene. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But isn't the government (atleast in theory)  just an expression of our values and beliefs?  As a society we have deemed it illegal to discriminate based on a number of reasonings.  This does not, but will include sexual orientation.  If a society deems this unacceptable, then it is fair game for the government to enforce what the society believes.  That is what the government is for.  Thus, in this case, the government has every right to intervene. 

 

That isn't really compatible with the argument that human rights are not in fact given to us by referendum, but are inalienable in the constitutional sense, AKA, they are "given to us by God" or simply exist outside of human law.

 

I'm not saying I agree with an interpretation of that argument that would ban gay rights, but it is a bit...presumptuous to just declare that whatever the government wants to grant us, or take away from us, is valid. But it is a bit strange to think about. To me the whole gay rights argument, just like the racial equality argument, is not really even that interesting. It's really just someone saying:

 

Step 1: I like me for who I am, but you don't

Step 2: I'm going to get enough people on my side to protect me from you

 

To me, that's really all that is going on, despite what one wants to decorate the argument with...be it government, constitutionality, inalienable rights, religion, etc, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the same reason a devout Jew probably wouldn't be well received to teach at an Islamist school. Hatred towards gays is fairly deeply rooted within religious communities, and by extension schools, and I'm conflicted whether or not the government has any busines getting involved in these private matters.

You might have a point if the school only taught Christians who were members of that singular church and only received funding from those members. However, that is not the case. Also, the example you cited (of a Jew working at an Islamist school) is not a fair comparison because in this case it is a Christian teaching at a Christian school. Lastly, there are many Christian Churches that do not harbor a deep seeded hatred of gays, and since students are allowed at that school from all types of different religious and spiritual backgrounds, I don't think that they can make the case for adopting a policy that adheres to just one Christian sects views.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the same reason a devout Jew probably wouldn't be well received to teach at an Islamist school. Hatred towards gays is fairly deeply rooted within religious communities, and by extension schools, and I'm conflicted whether or not the government has any busines getting involved in these private matters.

You might have a point if the school only taught Christians who were members of that singular church and only received funding from those members. However, that is not the case. Also, the example you cited (of a Jew working at an Islamist school) is not a fair comparison because in this case it is a Christian teaching at a Christian school. Lastly, there are many Christian Churches that do not harbor a deep seeded hatred of gays, and since students are allowed at that school from all types of different religious and spiritual backgrounds, I don't think that they can make the case for adopting a policy that adheres to just one Christian sects views.

 

My biggest issue here is the public money.  If you're going to use the First Amendment as a means to discriminate, then you shouldn't be receiving public money at all.  Additionally, I'm not sure if I'd be entirely opposed to such organizations even losing their non-profit status.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The G.O.P.’s Gay Trajectory

 

OVER the past year, the main story line in the push for marriage equality has been the ardor and success with which leading Democratic politicians have taken up the fight. The Democratic governors of New York, Maryland and Washington all promoted and signed same-sex marriage laws, for which President Obama expressed his support last month.

 

But the progress within Republican ranks has also been pivotal, not to mention fascinating. And a compelling character in that subplot just added a new twist to the narrative, one that suggests the rapidly changing political dynamics of this issue and its potential import to a party dogged by an image of being culturally out of touch.

 

That character is Paul E. Singer, 67, a billionaire hedge fund manager who is among the most important Republican donors nationwide. In just one Manhattan fund-raiser last month, he helped to collect more than $5 million for Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/10/opinion/sunday/the-gops-gay-trajectory.html?_r=1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

“There’s a feeling among some people that the Republican party is harsh on some things,” acknowledged Singer

 

CaptainObvious.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Published: June 27, 2012 3:00 a.m.

 

Group to end ex-gay therapy

 

Associated Press

 

MINNEAPOLIS – The president of the country’s best-known Christian ministry dedicated to helping people repress same-sex attraction is trying to distance the group from the idea that gay people’s sexual orientation can be permanently changed or “cured.”

 

That’s a significant shift for Exodus International, the Orlando-based group that boasts 260 member ministries worldwide ...

 

Full article here: http://journalgazette.net/article/20120627/NEWS03/306279970/0/SEARCH

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We had a very sucessfull Chick-Fil-A Appreciation Day here in Dayton:

 

Local Chick-fil-A restaurants packed over recent controversy

 

Customers inundated local Chick-fil-A restaurants Wednesday as part of a nationwide call for support of the company’s president and his published and broadcast views on marriage.

 

The strong turnout was urged by conservative former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee and spurred by supporters through social media.

 

...this article talks about the location in the northern suburbs, but one near me on SR 725 was just packed!...I neve saw anything lke it....there was a line of cars all the way down SR 725 waiting to turn into the drive through (I was on my way home and was wondering why the traffic tie-up) and people were parking at the nearby Walgreens, an office park, and a shopping center and walking to the place.  People driving by were blowing there horns.  It was like an impromptu political ralley.

 

Since I live within walking distance of this place I took my bike out to this mess, and just leisurly tooled around the waiting cars just to see the faces of the people, to see what they looked like.  They looked like everyone else.  Which is kind of scary in its own way...the average Joe and Jane...comes out of the woodwork and show what they REALLY think of you.  That these people would go through so much hassle just to show they support discrimination and prejudice.

 

Makes you realize how far we have to go.  I felt pretty alone out there.

 

And I thought about my recent trip to Chicago, and how their mayor said that opening a new Chick-Fil-A might not be a good business decision since Chicagoans don't support their values and the place would be empty.

 

(it would be empty anyway because there's a lot of good street food in Chicago and you dont need this kind of stuff...there is excatley one Chick-fil-a in the city, and the franchise owners or manager went out of their way to distance themselves from corporate)

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Too bad about the company's position as stated through its President.  I will respect its rights as a. Private business to hold such views and will exercise my right as a private citizen to not patronize any business which takes such a stance against societal progress.  I wish nothing but the worst for them moving forward.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

And I thought about my recent trip to Chicago, and how their mayor said that opening a new Chick-Fil-A might not be a good business decision since Chicagoans don't support their values and the place would be empty.

 

 

I wonder how many people were motivated by Chicago Alderman Moreno and the mayor of Boston's comments to stop them from opening. In my opinion that kind of response was an abuse of power, and ultimately counterproductive.   

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It might be an abuse of power if their statements had any legal effect. As they do not, it is hard to see the statements as an assault on free speech.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It might be an abuse of power if their statements had any legal effect. As they do not, it is hard to see the statements as an assault on free speech.

 

I didn't say anything about free speech. But come on....Chicago...an Alderman says "you're not opening here."  We both know what that means.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The stated point by many of the people participating was about free speech being threatened, which I just don't see a legitimate case for.

 

It's hard to watch a massive call to arms which at its core is about affirming the second class status of relationships like mine. I hope all reasonable people can recognize that. It really is hurtful. Not only do these people hold the opinion, but they are willing to go out of their way to make it clear, or to convince themselves that they are making some broader point (i.e. about free speech) in demonstrating their support. They are so moved as if the issue has some profound a affect on them, which of course it doesn't, but it does have a profound affect on me and my life. And for that they are willing to spend time and money to lash out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think in the long run they will only be hurting themselves. College kids, teens and mall rats are the core focus groups of these types of food joints and they want to get them hooked early and have a life long customer.  Now they just look like a stodgy old fashioned company, not hip and cool.  It will ultimately hurt the brands "cool factor" in the end IMO.

 

Not to mention that growth for most of these companies that used to be suburban and mall oriented has turned to urban areas.  This won't go over well in most progressive urban areas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The stated point by many of the people participating was about free speech being threatened, which I just don't see a legitimate case for.

 

Oh I see what you're saying. Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been really frustrated by this extremely odd Chick-Fil-A movement.  I simply cannot understand how so many people can openly support a company based on their stance against gay rights.  It does not compute in my brain.  Sure, most of the people said they were there to support "free speech", but that's just nonsense.  No one's right to free speech is in jeopardy.  Gay marriage / equality is such a clear cut civil rights issue in my eyes that I look at these people like they're in Alabama in the 60s protesting the integration of the schools.  I just don't get it.  How can they be so proud of their bigotry?  It's like they're not even embarrassed...

 

I thought this blog was a really good response to this issue from a gay man.

 

This isn’t about mutual tolerance because there’s nothing mutual about it. If we agree to disagree on this issue, you walk away a full member of this society and I don’t. There is no “live and let live” on this issue because Dan Cathy is spending millions to very specifically NOT let me live. I’m not trying to do that to him.

http://www.owldolatrous.com/?p=288

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just came across this quote and it kinda sums up my stance on this.

 

My solution is to defend the right of Chick-Fil-A's owner to hold ANY opinion he wishes, condemn the moves made by certain governments to kick them out of town, and criticize anyone who speaks against complete equality regardless of sexuality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see no difference in the owner of a large company using his/her power to influence public policy by donating to anti gay groups (or anti anything groups), and elected officials using their power to also influence public policy on behalf of the constituents they represent.  To me it is a level playing field.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see no difference in the owner of a large company using his power to influence public policy by donating to anti gay groups, and elected officials using their power to also influence public policy on behalf of the constituents they represent.  To me it is a level playing field.

 

It's not the same, and seeing it as a level playing field doesn't justify it.

 

Listen, if a majority of churchy constituents didn't like a business because the owner donated to gay rights causes and the mayor says "I'll throw them out of town," you know that's just completely wrong. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^^ and ^^^^

 

I think their point is that, by preventing a business from opening because of political speech (contributions to what I will call hate groups), "the other side" (rather than a couple local politicians around the country) is intent on not "letting live" or intent on shutting down political speech they disagree with.

 

The logic is then to symbolically and indirectly contribute money to hate groups, in defiance of "the other side", punishing gays for the behavior of the mayor of Boston and an alderman in Chicago.

 

It's a primal scream in the culture war, with no regard for the true meaning or collateral damage to innocent victims (gay people who just want equal rights).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see no difference in the owner of a large company using his power to influence public policy by donating to anti gay groups, and elected officials using their power to also influence public policy on behalf of the constituents they represent.  To me it is a level playing field.

 

It's not the same, and seeing it as a level playing field doesn't justify it.

 

Listen, if a majority of churchy constituents didn't like a business because the owner donated to gay rights causes and the mayor says "I'll throw them out of town," you know that's just completely wrong.

 

Can you point out the "throw them out of town" part, because that is what I'm not seeing. I see rhetoric, which is fine, not policy, which would not be fine.

 

Just how are these businesses going to be prevented from opening?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been really frustrated by this extremely odd Chick-Fil-A movement.  I simply cannot understand how so many people can openly support a company based on their stance against gay rights.  It does not compute in my brain.  Sure, most of the people said they were there to support "free speech", but that's just nonsense.  No one's right to free speech is in jeopardy.  Gay marriage / equality is such a clear cut civil rights issue in my eyes that I look at these people like they're in Alabama in the 60s protesting the integration of the schools.  I just don't get it.  How can they be so proud of their bigotry?  It's like they're not even embarrassed...

 

I thought this blog was a really good response to this issue from a gay man.

 

This isn’t about mutual tolerance because there’s nothing mutual about it. If we agree to disagree on this issue, you walk away a full member of this society and I don’t. There is no “live and let live” on this issue because Dan Cathy is spending millions to very specifically NOT let me live. I’m not trying to do that to him.

http://www.owldolatrous.com/?p=288

 

I’m pretty sure most people support the company because they think the boycott is stupid; that’s my general stance.  The owner of the company believes marriage, as it is currently defined by the laws of 44 states, should remain as is, and donates a small percentage of his profits to a group who has the same belief. It’s not like they’re discriminating against homosexuals in their restaurants. 

 

If people are going to start boycotting every company who has shareholders that take political stances different than theirs, then our entire economy is going to be a shitshow.

 

For someone like me, who isn’t religious at all, supports every state’s right to set their own marriage laws (btw I voted against Ohio’s ban in 2004 was it?), all this “boycott” is doing is making me crave Chik-Fil-A.  It’s been almost a year since the last time I had it, when Tower Place Mall in Cincy all but closed, but I’ve been dying for a spicy chicken and waffle fries all week.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^A "boycott" of any business because that business donates significant amounts to causes that you strongly disagree with is one of the least stupid things I can think of.  It's the only way to have any kind of impact. 

 

People have a right and in some ways an obligation to vote with their dollars.  People that support Chick-Fil-A's stated causes will buy mor chikin.  People like myself will not frequent their restaurants for the time being.  I don't understand how this is "stupid"...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^ I don't boycott every company whose management/ ownership have beliefs different from my own...but in most cases I don't know what those beliefs are as they keep them to themselves. When one publicly comes out and proclaims their stand, particularly on what is a strongly polarizing issue, they open themselves up to this type of reaction.

 

Frankly, his stance doesn't surprise me given the company's strong religious underpinnings, but his decision to flaunt this one position, and do so, candidly, in an arrogant and smug manner, was the tipping point for me. As much as I love(d) Chik-fil-a, I can't in good conscience support an organization that promotes the suppression of a basic right on a subset of our population.

 

He's entitled to his opinion, and to run his company as he sees fit. I'm entitled to start eating KFC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let it be a sh!tshow, it is what "money as speech" is about, which is a central topic in this debate and in the country right now (e.g. Citizens United). Really not sure how you would criticize the boycott but downplay the significance of Cathy's political donation. Definitely inconsistent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^ I don't boycott every company whose management/ ownership have beliefs different from my own...but in most cases I don't know what those beliefs are as they keep them to themselves. When one publicly comes out and proclaims their stand, particularly on what is a strongly polarizing issue, they open themselves up to this type of reaction.

 

Frankly, his stance doesn't surprise me given the company's strong religious underpinnings, but his decision to flaunt this one position, and do so, candidly, in an arrogant and smug manner, was the tipping point for me. As much as I love(d) Chik-fil-a, I can't in good conscience support an organization that promotes the suppression of a basic right on a subset of our population.

 

He's entitled to his opinion, and to run his company as he sees fit. I'm entitled to start eating KFC.

 

It's not really his stating the position, IMO, it's the political donation. It means a portion of the money you spend at the restaurant is going to the cause supported financially by the owner. If more people would participate in these boycotts, our political system would be more democratic. In an ideal capitalist (representative) democracy, this is how things function. It is the possibility of these boycotts which backs the logic behind the Citizens United ruling (which I disagree with in part because we do not live in an ideal/perfect market situation).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I’m pretty sure most people support the company because they think the boycott is stupid...

 

Bullshit.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interestingly this is what Rahm said:

 

“Chick-fil-A values are not Chicago values,” Emanuel said earlier this week, agreeing with a local alderman’s opposition to the opening of a Chick-fil-A in the city’s 1st Ward. “They disrespect our fellow neighbors and residents… This would be a bad investment, since it would be empty.”

 

...so he sort of hinted that the locals wouldnt patronize it that much due to the prejudicial nature of the CEOs comments.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...