Assault On Free Speech

[downbeatplumb]

I'd prefer the porn and sex toys myself but my wife loves the crystals.

[The Grand Nudger]

On the other hand, I'm sure the crystals can be dual purpose, and ergo lead to porn.

[A Theist]

Actually no. They don't have the right to stop that business from locating in their city. Boston's mayor, Tom Menino is backing off his threat to ban Chick-fil-A from entering the city. He said that would be an infringement on their rights. The same case holds true for the Alderman in Chicago who at first threatened to ban Chick-fil-A from entering there as well. No public official has the right to abuse his position in office to threaten or bully someone because that person's opinions differs from theirs.....
http://www.bostonherald.com/business/gen...position=0

And yet Chick-fil-A have a right to abuse their position by forcing their religious and political positions on their customers.
This seems right to you, does it?
Because as someone who studied applied business I can tell you this qualifies as extremely unethical.

I'm opposed to vindictive elected officials who abuse their office to harass and undermine people with whom they disagree. Mr. Cathy simply stated his personal opinion which is protected by our Constitution. Whether or not his vocal support for traditional marriage is ethical or unethical is for his customers to decide not our elected office holders...and that applies to all protected speech.

[The Grand Nudger]

I'm sorry, aren't we discussing a business here? Is anyone being silenced, you know, a human being? Is anyone being barred from entering a city, you know, a human being? That the mayor's (apparently now retracted) comments on this matter were a bit ridiculous doesn't alter the fact that characterizing this as an issue of free speech is equally ridiculous. Last I checked, anybody who wants to hop up on top of a box in the middle of a square with a sign expressing their pov is free to do so. I also don't see anything -even in the mayors absurd response- that indicates that anyone was looking to legislate what anyone at chick-fil-a (or, even chick-fil-a itself, as a business, as hilarious as that is to me) could say.

If someone told me that I could not open a business in their city due to some difference of opinion I had with them, they wouldn't have a leg to stand on, not because they are infringing upon my free speech, but because there is no legislation that allows them to bar me from conducting business based upon a difference of opinion. If our "difference of opinion" was instead related to something illegal, say I wanted to set up a whorehouse, and I was barred from doing so -it wouldn't be because I was expressing my right to free speech in championing the virtues of my whorehouse- it would be an issue of the product I was offering being illegal. People can have opinions, people can run businesses, these two issues are not always related, and personally, I fail to see why this particular issue is being handled as such, except (imho) to perpetuate the persecution narrative that has become so common from one specific segment of our population.

Change the channel.

[KichigaiNeko]

On the other hand, I'm sure the crystals can be dual purpose, and ergo lead to porn.

I love being rubbed down by hematite http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hematite

[Darth]

Who? The owners of said business.

No, but these people would be (under that proposal) prevented from opening a store based on their political/religious views and contributions.

You can say what you want, but if you do, we, the various forms of government, will take other actions against you, up to the point of preventing your business from being allowed to expand? That's not free speech.

Free speech means so much more than speaking your mind on top of boxes with signs.

Even if there were a law saying that they could ban your business form the city based on your stated opinions, that law wouldn't be valid.

I'm not saying that not being able to opens stores with illegal products is a necessarily a free speech issue (depends on the product =P), but it would be if they wanted to shut down/shut out your fast food chain based on your stated support for whorehouses being legal, legislative reform to that effect, and financial contributions to such causes, as is the case with chick-a-fil-a, then it most certainly is.

[The Grand Nudger]

Sure, it means plenty, but even if our principle of free speech may be absolute our laws protecting it are not.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

If actions were being taken or proposed to silence someone (or something), I'd be on-board completely. I don't even agree with hate speech laws. I just think it's important to approach a legal issue from the most direct route, instead of turning every little thing into a constitutional case. There are better laws, much more pertinent and applicable, as to why a mayor cannot prevent a lawfully established business from opening, on a whim (any whim). We could trudge through the State of Mass's statutes in this regard and turn up a pile of precedent and legislation that is much more relevant than the first amendment.

[Jaysyn]

Mr. Cathy simply stated his personal opinion which is protected by our Constitution.

That's not the issue I have with Chik-fil-a. If it was just the owner making ignorant, bigoted comments, that would be fine. The fact that they are donating millions of dollars to causes & groups that are actively advancing Christian Dominionist & Anti-LGBT causes is why I now take issue with them.

Unlike our Supreme Court I fully reject the notion that money = free speech & that corporations = people.

I'd feel the same if they were donating millions to PETA, the ELF or an Al-Qaeda front.

[The Grand Nudger]

Businesses can donate to whomever they wish (given that the donations and recipients are within the limitations imposed by law). Anti-LGBT organizations and Al-Qaeda fall under two widely different headers in that regard. If Chick-Fil-A had been donating to Al-Qaeda, they would have been shut down/barred from establishment, and legally so.

[KichigaiNeko]

The Internet..... where the gods go to die