Mayor of Boston is opposed to Chick-Fil-A in his City

[Formaldehyde]

Dan Cathy can't get any more presumptive that his god will wreak vengeance on others than this:


Link to video.

I think we are inviting God's judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at Him and say 'we know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage', and I pray God's mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude. To think that we would have the audacity to redefine what marriage is all about.

If we don't want another Hurricane Katrina incident to punish us for supporting "teh gay", we had better change our evil ways.

 

[Farm Boy]

I understand the immediate practicalities differ, but I am really more interested in hearing what makes the power of the Chick-fil-A President any fundamentally different from that of the Mayor. I would argue that, in a certain sense, the type of power that each wields is identical, if capable of being exercised through differing mechanisms. They both, for example, wield some command over hierarchic social structures; to this end I would hasten to propose that the actions of both the Mayor and the President merit an equal level of scrutiny.

The justification for their power varies due to the structure they represent. One leads a privately held business and represents, at the end of the day, his own financial interests. His level of appropriate scrutiny revolves around said business and its compliance with relevant laws pertaining to the conduct of his business including anti-discrimination statutes. The other leads a city and represents, at the end of the day, all citizens of said city. His level of appropriate scrutiny revolves around the governmental functioning of that city and its compliance with all laws that pertain to government including prohibitions on putative action for personal expressions of religion. I don't have to agree with the Chikken guy. I don't agree with him. I think his viewpoint is going to lose out on SSM and equal legal protections for homosexuality in general. I hope it happens sooner than later. I still don't like heads of governmental bodies threatening putative action for personal religious expression even if they back off it later or lack the official power to get anything done in that regard.

Thoughts?

 

[kramerfan86]

Why do you think defining an action as sin, that in committing that sin makes one inferior?

I'm not sure you get the fact that Christians believe that everyone sins and no one is inferior to another simply because they engage in sin X.

You arent targeting other sinners though, preventing them from having families, from seeing each other in a hospital, deeming their relationships abominations. There are many sins in the world yet for whatever reason homosexuals are deemed to be some easy to target punching bag.

 

[Formaldehyde]

The justification for their power varies due to the structure they represent. One leads a privately held business and represents, at the end of the day, his own financial interests. His level of appropriate scrutiny revolves around said business and its compliance with relevant laws pertaining to the conduct of his business including anti-discrimination statutes. The other leads a city and represents, at the end of the day, all citizens of said city. His level of appropriate scrutiny revolves around the governmental functioning of that city and its compliance with all laws that pertain to government including prohibitions on putative action for personal expressions of religion. I don't have to agree with the Chikken guy. I don't agree with him. I think his viewpoint is going to lose out on SSM and equal legal protections for homosexuality in general. I hope it happens sooner than later. I still don't like heads of governmental bodies threatening putative action for personal religious expression even if they back off it later or lack the official power to get anything done in that regard.

Thoughts?

Emphasis mine.

Only yet again, you, nor anybody else, has shown that "heads of governmental bodies" are "threatening putative action for personal religious expression", much less that they have "back off it later". Please do so.

 

[Farm Boy]

Of course Formy. You are right. I'm merely speculating on the possibilities. There is no issue at all.

 

[Lord Gay]

Has anyone shown any significant proof of anti gay demonstrations at these locations? Cat calls? Signs? Internet rants (of the caliber that now unemployed idiot anti Chick-Fila-A dude did, but from the other side)?

Nobody here has posted any,

Formal gave an example in post 877:

there is the customer who came in and said he supported Dan Cathy and then "continues to say something truly homophobic, e.g. 'I'm so glad you don't support the queers, I can eat in peace,

Gabriel Aguiniga, a gay employee at a Chick-fil-A in Colorado, also said the hardest part hasn't been hearing Cathy's comments. Instead, "[it's] constantly having people come up to you and say, 'I support your company, because your company hates the gays,'" Aguiniga, 18, wrote in an email. "It really takes a toll on me."

You arent targeting other sinners though, preventing them from having families, from seeing each other in a hospital, deeming their relationships abominations. There are many sins in the world yet for whatever reason homosexuals are deemed to be some easy to target punching bag.

Which is why I generally disregard claims by Christians when they say that all sins are equal. Clearly they aren't in the eyes of Christians, who not only care tremendously more about a sin that they never have to worry about committing themselves, but also feel fine about condemning and legislating against non-Christians for doing.

Yet there are all these blue laws written by Christians to enforce just that.

CT has only JUST gotten rid of its blue law on alcohol sales. We can now buy alcohol on Sundays, though the hours are still limited.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Of course Formy. You are right. I'm merely speculating on the possibilities. There is no issue at all.

"Of course, Farmy". That certainly isn't an issue unless you can actually show it is. Nobody has yet.

 

[AlpsStranger]

I don't agree with him. I think his viewpoint is going to lose out on SSM and equal legal protections for homosexuality in general.

I don't know. I feel it 'in the air' for lack of a better description. This country is about to take a big plunge into good old-fashioned suck. Gays will not be one of the groups that fare well. I've honestly considered NOT voting for Obama simply because I fear his re-election will cause a wingnut apocalypse, whereas a moderate Republican like Romney might put some water on the whole thing. If the supreme court weren't so likely to be stacked this term I would probably stay home.

I hope I'm just being paranoid.

Granted, attempting to graft 19th century public morality on 21st century America might just be the kind of epic disaster it requires to get more people to appreciate a neutral public sphere. Sure, it's comforting to see a big old cross on your town hall(and it scares the Muzzies you betcha!,) but the large number of nominal (at best) Christians in this country are going to be less than pleased when RedTube ( 87th Ranked US Site on Alexa! Jesus would be so proud! ) is suddenly blocked.

 

[Lord Gay]

I fear his re-election will cause a wingnut apocalypse, whereas a moderate Republican like Romney might put some water on the whole thing.

Better a short, sharp pain so that healing can begin than a slow, lingering pain that never goes away, and may get worse.

 

[AlpsStranger]

Better a short, sharp pain so that healing can begin than a slow, lingering pain that never goes away, and may get worse.

Quite possibly true.

Either that or the relatively tolerant America I grew up in was a bubble that's receding back into tribalism.

 

[Crezth]

The justification for their power varies due to the structure they represent. One leads a privately held business and represents, at the end of the day, his own financial interests. His level of appropriate scrutiny revolves around said business and its compliance with relevant laws pertaining to the conduct of his business including anti-discrimination statutes. The other leads a city and represents, at the end of the day, all citizens of said city. His level of appropriate scrutiny revolves around the governmental functioning of that city and its compliance with all laws that pertain to government including prohibitions on putative action for personal expressions of religion.

I'm not convinced. Large businesses often have power that goes beyond what we are commonly exhorted to believe is their private sphere, and this is especially relevant today when they have disproportionate representation in government. So long as they have this power, it is upon them to use it responsibly, in the same sense that we expect government officials to use their power responsibility. There is a certain asymmetry in this case, especially to the extent that either body is postured against the other differently (the mayor targeting Chick-fil-A on behalf of a minority group, and Chick-fil-A implicitly targeting a minority group via other agents), but I do not feel obliged to believe that the Chick-fil-A President's only obligation is to his business' financial interests. When you have the power, money, and influence that comes with running a big business, you have to use that power responsibly, even if you are not an elected official. I might say especially if for the same reason we are typically scrutinizing of people who have lots of power with little to no accountability.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Indeed. You must use that power responsibly or face quite warranted criticism as a result, just as those mayors who have taken a heroic stand on these issues face possible criticism from their own electorate.

Many conservatives keep claiming that corporations are people, even though it is clear they are nothing but artificial legal entities so that personal liability is limited. But when we try to hold them accountable for homophobic and bigoted practices as we do individuals, and which we should do whether they are actually people or not, many of these same conservatives suddenly take an about face and think corporations should for some reason be excluded from criticism.

That is patently absord. AIG can never outlive the shame of being a major factor in the last recession. Bear Stearns had to be acquired for the same reason. Union Carbide will always be remembered for Bhopal, even though it finally had to stop doing business under its own name as a result. Monsanto is now a dirty word for many for causing so much economic hardship in developing countries, and rightly so.

If the mayor of Jackson, Mississippi, came out in opposition to a Kraft, Betty Crocker, Levis, General Mills, or Proctor and Gamble decision to build a new factory in his town due to their support of LGBT issues, much less a Starbucks franchise, they wouldn't say a word about it. And if anybody complained about his decision to do so, many of them would falsely claim that we were violating his First Amendment rights by doing so.

This goes far beyond support of SSM. But those who support CFA despite its donations to reprehensible causes which also go far beyond that single issue can't very well admit it.

 

[LucyDuke]

They won't answer because they are posting to make a point rather than have a discussion. Only answers that can be worded to forward the poster's original position will be given a direct response rather than a sidestep.

Apparently in this thread downtown is just about the only person who has been able to articulate a position of desiring freedom of speech for both those he agrees with and those he does not while making any sort of distinction between speech that originates from a private citizen and speech that originates from an individual in an official governmental capacity. Everyone else is seeking to score rhetorical points on the greater issue of homosexuality in America.

Is that how this how this has been reading to you Lucy?

Not everyone is guilty of that, but yeah, the first interpretation was that it was an attack. I feel like I'd have to make a DL to be able to simultaneously disagree with people and ask sincere questions.

We could probably talk about the free speech chicken sandwich zoning regulation issue more easily if it weren't framed with the easier one where useless can say "they're obviously a front for a hate group" and classical_hero can say "they're obviously doing god's work" and everyone forgets everything other than I THINK SAME SEX MARRIAGE IS

 

[JollyRoger]

Commercial privilege is a bit more limited than traditional free speech.

 

[MobBoss]

You arent targeting other sinners though, preventing them from having families, from seeing each other in a hospital, deeming their relationships abominations. There are many sins in the world yet for whatever reason homosexuals are deemed to be some easy to target punching bag.

Huge overhype on your part. No one is preventing families, and i'm all for people in a hospital seeing those they love (i'm sure the vast majority of christians wouldnt have a problem with that either).

The reason homosexuality is a hot button topic is because homosexuals make it so.

 

[Ailedhoo]

A article and cartoon on the matter by FilibusterCartoons.

The end takes on the Republican's attitude to the matter in a honest form.

The inescapable, easy-going niceness of Americans is one of the country’s greatest strengths, and something Republican politicians desperately need to learn to exploit for the sake of their own electoral future. A party that is mean just because it can, and revels in the expression of pointless, reactionary gestures of meanness — not just towards homosexuals, but other minorities too — does not strike me as one likely to lead a sunny Reaganesque revival anytime soon.

A observive notion.

Huge overhype on your part. No one is preventing families, and i'm all for people in a hospital seeing those they love (i'm sure the vast majority of christians wouldnt have a problem with that either).

The reason homosexuality is a hot button topic is because homosexuals make it so.

Forgive me but it is not to not make a case when oppressions comes. This could all have gone quietly if not for the spite of many. Homosexuals are not the ones who picket the funerals of troopers.

 

[JollyRoger]

No one is preventing families

What the hell do you think a same sex marriage is?

 

[MobBoss]

What the hell do you think a same sex marriage is?

Dont need to be married in order to have a family bro.

 

[JollyRoger]

Dont need to be married in order to have a family bro.

You are right, but that is a family relationship that you all are out to prevent.

 

[Ailedhoo]

Dont need to be married in order to have a family bro.

I will just link to a article I suggest you read and suggest you read FilibusterCartoons' recent work.