(August 1, 2012 at 11:33 pm)A Theist Wrote:

(August 1, 2012 at 7:57 pm)RaphielDrake Wrote: Dude. I thought this was a family forum.

---

Again, that was not an answer to the questions I was asking. If I was asking if you thought what the mayor did was right then it would be. If I asked if you have the right to order business owners around then alright. But those are not the questions I am asking.

"Is it not a severe violation of the obligation between supplier and consumer to provide an unbiased service to a market in demand of it?"
"Does this conduct not qualify as severely unethical?"
Its that simple, thats all I'm asking. Everything else in the paragraph I wrote is just an explanation of those questions.
If you don't want to answer those questions thats cool but at least tell me thats whats going on otherwise we're both wasting our time here.

What you're asking is not just a simple yes or no question. In the legal sense Chick-fil-A broke no laws. To your first question, the business owner is a private citizen who has every right to his opinions. If citizens don't like the business owners positions they can take their money elsewhere. Public office holders are entitled to their personal opinions as well but their first obligations are to provide equal protection under the law to everyone without bias. As far as what's ethical, it depends on which side of the issue you're on. Wouldn't you agree? No to both questions.

I did not ask if any laws were broken. I did not ask what the customers can do in response. I did not ask what the obligations of public office holders are.
None of these have anything to do with the business ethics of Chick-fil-A in its conduct.

"Is it not a severe violation of the obligation between supplier and consumer to provide an unbiased service to a market in demand of it?"
"Does this conduct not qualify as severely unethical?"

Your answer to both questions is no. This implies you do not believe their actions to have been biased, a violation of trust or unethical.
Fair enough, by that logic I assume you wouldn't mind a privately owned business very vocally promoting homosexuality moving into your neighbourhood then?

Honestly, had the mayor said nothing, instead simply exerting all the pressure of codes and zoning that are built into their city ordinances......

"Sorry, expansion has been put on a hold in this district"
"Sorry, your restaurant plans conflict with previously zoned city development"

Meanwhile, you send the code and health inspectors daily...Health inspectors alone could cripple any food-service business they choose to. The amount of labor that gets diverted from operations to "preparing for the health dept" is staggering. You couldn't even get a damned sandwich off the grill for the amount of effort it takes to get the place ready for show.

(August 2, 2012 at 1:45 pm)RaphielDrake Wrote:

(August 1, 2012 at 11:33 pm)A Theist Wrote: What you're asking is not just a simple yes or no question. In the legal sense Chick-fil-A broke no laws. To your first question, the business owner is a private citizen who has every right to his opinions. If citizens don't like the business owners positions they can take their money elsewhere. Public office holders are entitled to their personal opinions as well but their first obligations are to provide equal protection under the law to everyone without bias. As far as what's ethical, it depends on which side of the issue you're on. Wouldn't you agree? No to both questions.

I did not ask if any laws were broken. I did not ask what the customers can do in response. I did not ask what the obligations of public office holders are.
None of these have anything to do with the business ethics of Chick-fil-A in its conduct.

"Is it not a severe violation of the obligation between supplier and consumer to provide an unbiased service to a market in demand of it?"
"Does this conduct not qualify as severely unethical?"

Your answer to both questions is no. This implies you do not believe their actions to have been biased, a violation of trust or unethical.
Fair enough, by that logic I assume you wouldn't mind a privately owned business very vocally promoting homosexuality moving into your neighbourhood then?

I lived in a Urban inner city neighborhood for the most of my lifetime. There were a lot of gay bookstores and gay businesses which pandered to the gay lifestyle that moved in to our area over the course of some years. They weren't breaking any city ordinances as far as I could see and there wasn't an effort by our mayor and other elected office holders to ban gay businesses from our city like Chicago and Boston tried to do Chick-fil-A.
Do you think the mayors of Boston and Chicago severely violated the trust of their office when they tried to deny a businessowner his rights because of political and religious differences? Doesn't their conduct also qualify as severely unethical?

(August 2, 2012 at 3:03 pm)A Theist Wrote: Do you think the mayors of Boston and Chicago severely violated the trust of their office when they tried to deny a businessowner his rights because of political and religious differences? Doesn't their conduct also qualify as severely unethical?

No more than a dry county or strip club-free city does. Doesn't feel so good being on the other side of a "moral issue" does it?

As an interesting aside, neither car dealerships nor billboards are allowed in Boca Raton, FL.

(August 2, 2012 at 3:23 pm)Jaysyn Wrote: As an interesting aside, neither car dealerships nor billboards are allowed in Boca Raton, FL.

I officially want to move to Boca Raton. Just kidding, no car dealerships means I have to take my subie farther to get her oil changed and routine maintenance and I just can't be bothered.

I do like the idea of the SCOTA thing though. The company is conducive to the creating of an atmosphere of hate and discrimination towards those who are not of the same religious and sexual opinion as them. Perhaps someone needs to seriously look into this idea.

I am not usually one to champion someone being told they can't say something, but when you turn you personal opinions into business policy based at discrimination against any group of people I feel you deserve the legal smack down.

(August 2, 2012 at 3:23 pm)Jaysyn Wrote: Doesn't feel so good being on the other side of a "moral issue" does it?

We're already used to those worn out double standard rants from the left.

(August 2, 2012 at 4:49 pm)A Theist Wrote: We're already used to those worn out double standard rants from the left.

Do you see what you did there? Dividing people by left and right is so ludicrous.

(August 2, 2012 at 3:03 pm)A Theist Wrote:

(August 2, 2012 at 1:45 pm)RaphielDrake Wrote: I did not ask if any laws were broken. I did not ask what the customers can do in response. I did not ask what the obligations of public office holders are.
None of these have anything to do with the business ethics of Chick-fil-A in its conduct.

"Is it not a severe violation of the obligation between supplier and consumer to provide an unbiased service to a market in demand of it?"
"Does this conduct not qualify as severely unethical?"

Your answer to both questions is no. This implies you do not believe their actions to have been biased, a violation of trust or unethical.
Fair enough, by that logic I assume you wouldn't mind a privately owned business very vocally promoting homosexuality moving into your neighbourhood then?

I lived in a Urban inner city neighborhood for the most of my lifetime. There were a lot of gay bookstores and gay businesses which pandered to the gay lifestyle that moved in to our area over the course of some years. They weren't breaking any city ordinances as far as I could see and there wasn't an effort by our mayor and other elected office holders to ban gay businesses from our city like Chicago and Boston tried to do Chick-fil-A.
Do you think the mayors of Boston and Chicago severely violated the trust of their office when they tried to deny a businessowner his rights because of political and religious differences? Doesn't their conduct also qualify as severely unethical?

Did any of them ever release statements that amounted to "We promote the gay lifestyle. We believe those who do not follow this lifestyle to be immoral."
That would be unethical but I think you'd struggle to find even one statement such as that. Until you do I don't think you can draw any serious comparison.

Perhaps, I think if they seriously consider this business to be harmful to the welfare and happiness of their cities then they would be remiss not to attempt to block it. The reason they attempted to block the business is because Chick-fil-a attempted to combine religion, politics, intolerance and business together to gain further influence over a population that neither wanted nor asked for it.
Every other successful business has understood they must remain religiously and politically neutral. Chick-fil-a has broken this commitment.
I am not entirely sure as to the legality of such a move, I don't think you are either.

Ultimately I think all of this is a moot point. Its the market who will decide and I think the majority of the market will not tolerate the brazen audacity it takes to attempt to jam views down a customers throat. I think they will look at McDonalds, Burger King, Pizza Hut and the other fast food joints who have clearly understood it is not their place to enforce any kind of agenda upon the public. Chick-fil-a have cost themselves a large source of revenue through this misguided move and I think it will present them with great difficulties when attempting to keep up with competitors.

(August 2, 2012 at 6:36 pm)Shell B Wrote: Do you see what you did there? Dividing people by left and right is so ludicrous.

Right / Left, Republican / Democrat, Liberal / Conservative, Theist / Atheist and so on....It's a fact. That's just the way things are. People are divided.

(August 2, 2012 at 11:46 am)A Theist Wrote: Oh lighten up mate. I was being facetious.

Really? I honestly didn't know you had a sense of humour. Such a thing is rare among right wing wowsers (see what I did there?)