So when government officials announced they were going to go after cigarette companies they were wrong? Need to wait for them to break laws publicly before you can even investigate?
When people show up at town hall meeting to object to a strip club going in they are being un-American?
What’s the point of even having elected officials if they aren’t going to be allowed to use the power we’ve given them. We have an entire legal system to determine if the elected officials are acting within the law. If they break the law by all means go after them.
So far all we have is a few elected officials grand standing. Now that they’ve announced their intentions it should be incredibly easy to prove they are doing so in effort to block someones first amendment rights. All they’ve done so far is appealed to their voters, something I expect elected officials to do.
Really if their intent was to block Chick fil A, they would have said nothing and used the power of a silent bureaucracy to grind to a halt any new chick fil a restaurants.
If their behavior is so abhorrent and Un-American then we need not worry about them in the future because no American would vote for them.
Perhaps you should go back and read what I wrote out again, because that’s precisely what Emmanuel, Menino and Christine Quinn-- among others-- have virtually stated. But I’m sure you knew this.
BTW> “Supporting the rights of their own gay citizens”? What’s that supposed to mean? How does refusing to let a company who’s CEO holds a different viewpoint than your own constitution “supporting the rights of their own gay citizens”?
It’s precisely what they virtually stated? That sounds a lot like “that’s not what they said.” Anyway: I reread your post again and it’s still non-responsive. I said several times that the cities shouldn’t deny Chik-fil-A licenses but that Cathy’s comments and the company’s position are crap. I’m not sure why you’re intent on asking me to repeat myself.
I mean they are right to denounce Cathy’s anti-gay stance. As I said, they called his views what they are:
Menino: “There is no place for discrimination on Boston’s Freedom Trail.”
Emanuel: “Chick-fil-A’s values are not Chicago values […] They’re not respectful of our neighbors, our residents and our backgrounds.”
No one is saying he doesn’t have a right to his beliefs. What people ARE saying is that his beliefs are hateful and bigoted. HE is the one telling people that they should should abide by his moral code, which calls for treating gays as second-class citizens.
Right. Ummmm… I thimk we’re on the same page here.
Just to be clear: Everybody, believe what you want, and be content. Your belief is for you only. The reason you get to believe what you want, is because you allow anyone else to believe whatever they want.
And I couldn’t agree more. If Mayor Menino hadn’t spouted off so quickly this would have been the path I would have suggested. People like Mr. Cathy are such true believers in their view of the world that they wouldn’t even stop long enough to consider the implications for their company by expanding into states that recognize SSM. If Chik Fil A is serious about national expansion they are going to eventually run into plenty of employment situations that will conflict with the religious views of the owners.
As for the question in the OP, I think a big part of the media reaction (and the quick reaction on the part of LGBT activists) to Mr. Cathy’s remarks are due to a couple of things.
First, as has been mentioned, the phrase “traditional marriage” is code for being anti-SSM. Anyone who isn’t aware of that simply hasn’t been paying attention.
Second, the “boycott Chik Fil A” movement has been building in LGBT circles for a while. I can’t provide an exact date but this NSFW (but hilarious) video was produced in mid-March of 2012.
So it would appear this has been brewing for a few months. Mr. Cathy’s recent remarks may have been the straw that broke the camel’s back. Combined with the company’s recent expansion into markets more comfortable with LGBT rights and this was in many ways inevitable.
A couple that already has a franchise in Chicago wanted to meet with Emmanual after his comments. They seemed like decent people. They already had gay employees and did other things to contribute to the local community. That’s the problem with a boycott. In a national chain I imagine you get some decent owners and some assholes.
I just think a gay married couple applying to own a franchise would really put the spotlight on the home office.
Again, I agree. New Hampshire, Iowa, Massachusetts or New York would be good places to test this since they are the only ones with SSM on the books where CFA already has stores. The other point I was trying to make is that I seriously doubt the execs at CFA have considered how to handle a situation like this. They live in a world where SSM doesn’t exist so I doubt it was on their radar when they expanded into those markets. I imagine it may bite them in the ass sooner rather than later.
The home office is still in a state that offers no legal protections to gays. They can sit back and tolerate gays working in states they can not legally fire them in for being gay, knowing if those people ever moved up to corporate they can fire them without issue.
If you are gay and looking for a career with a glass ceiling, Chick Fil A would be a great company to be discriminated against in.
I can believe that people would actually support these kinds of tactics even if they did work. Apparently you are comfortable with taking away a person’s freedom to operate a business based upon political beliefs unrelated to that business. That is shocking in a society that values free speech. Feel free to boycott Chik-Fil-A with your money, but to bring the power of the state to bear on someone simply for their own opinion on a political issue, one that was shared by the President of the United States less than a year ago, is absurd to me.
Yes, if a city has zoning ordinances that restrict chain restaurants to a certain area, fine. But to deny a permit because the CEO states that he is against SSM is ridiculous.
I hear people keep saying that this is just an opinion on a political issue. No, it’s more than that, especially tom those seeking equality and the people that support them. CFA did more than have an opinion. They donated millions to groups that actively opposed marriage equality. If the CEO was simply expressing a personal opinion that’s one thing. Millions in corporate dollars are another. He can if he likes and people have every right to react.
Along with agreeing with RKATB, I would also note that you could phrase any political issue this way. The St. Louis Cardinals donated money to keep concealed carry illegal in Missouri. Isn’t it my right to protect my family? Could I view that as a reason why the Cardinals should not be allowed to play baseball? They want to deny my family the right to live! This isn’t a simple political issue, but involves the life of a 9 year old child.
See, when you start down the slope, it’s easy to go all the way down. Every political issue affects someone. We can’t start carving out issues that are Undebatable lest they all be.
Actually, I think the Cardinals one is a better example. The team carries the city’s name, and is the beneficiary of significant public funding, and thus the people of St. Louis have more of an interest in regulating their operations.
By the same token, if a local government wants to refuse Chick-fil-A its business - catering for high school functions, or whatever - then it has the right to do so.
Oh, I agree. In a non-governmental function, these cities should have the right/power to not have CFA cater its events. That’s a private business decision. Not allowing them to operate at all is a governmental function that is antithetical to the first amendment.
I would disagree about the Cardinals. Even if CFA was named…(pulling out of my ass) Memphis’ Best Chicken, the city of Memphis doesn’t have the power to infringe on free speech.
I agree that is your right. However, I was watching one of the news channels last night and a conservative commentator mentioned that he still buys Ben and Jerry’s Ice Cream because he loves the product, even though he knows that they contribute to many liberal causes he disagrees with.
The idea is that business owners shouldn’t be required, in a free society, to keep their yaps shut to keep from offending their customers. Businesses should be judged on the quality of their product, not what the CEO thinks about abortion, gay marriage, or the ACA.
As a general matter, I agree, but CFA contributes directly to FOTF and similar organizations. It’s not just the money the Cathys pay themselves that goes there.
You might then have to ask yourself how reasonable and probable that is.
Of course every political issue affects someone, so it’s not merely a political issue for someone. That’s kinda my point. Calling it a purely political issue as if it doesn’t really mater is disingenuous at best.