Assault On Free Speech

[Reforged]

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.

Like you said, it'll be left to the people to decide what they'll tolerate. If anyone's offended that Mr. Cathy voiced his support for traditional marriage, it's not like their arms are being twisted to buy from Chick-fil-A. For that matter, I can just as easily claim that businesses like Progressive Auto Insurance or Ben and Jerry's Ice Cream contribute money to hate groups like Move On.org.

I made it very clear that the issue wasn't offence, it was business ethics. It is one thing to contribute money it is quite another to use your business as a vocal platform for your own views as you well know. Regardless of any other factors that is not acceptable conduct regardless of the views being presented or the business presenting them.
Someone who wasn't an elected official and using his business to vocally enforce liberal views would be unethical too and you'd be the first one to say so.
Lets keep it unbiased shall we?

[Zen Badger]

Is Mr Cathy's view on "traditional marriage" based on the bible?

If so, that is an extremely scary thought.

[znk666]

They directly support christian hate groups that oppose equal rights and force gay people to undergo ''cure the gay'' therapies and camps where they teach them to hate themselves.

[A Theist]

Like you said, it'll be left to the people to decide what they'll tolerate. If anyone's offended that Mr. Cathy voiced his support for traditional marriage, it's not like their arms are being twisted to buy from Chick-fil-A. For that matter, I can just as easily claim that businesses like Progressive Auto Insurance or Ben and Jerry's Ice Cream contribute money to hate groups like Move On.org.

I made it very clear that the issue wasn't offence, it was business ethics. It is one thing to contribute money it is quite another to use your business as a vocal platform for your own views as you well know. Regardless of any other factors that is not acceptable conduct regardless of the views being presented or the business presenting them.
Someone who wasn't an elected official and using his business to vocally enforce liberal views would be unethical too and you'd be the first one to say so.
Lets keep it unbiased shall we?

Those are only your opinions which bear no weight over another opinion. All opinions are biased, even yours. Dan Cathy stated his personal views. He did not use his business to enforce them. If you believe what he said was an unethical business practice then don't spend your money at Chick-fil-A. But no elected public official like mayors Rahm Emmanuel and Tom Menino have the right to use the authority of an elected office to dictate their personal and political views.

[The Grand Nudger]

Yeah...actually they do. It's precisely why their office exists in the first place. It's called writing/engforcing policy......wtf? I'm gonna go out on a limb here, this probably only bothers you when you don't share their party platform, eh?

[A Theist]

Yeah...actually they do. It's precisely why their office exists in the first place. It's called writing/engforcing policy......wtf? I'm gonna go out on a limb here, this probably only bothers you when you don't share their party platform, eh?

That's not what they were doing. They're elected to write and enforce legislation, not to use the authority of their office to dictate their own personal and political views. Otherwise, Menino and Emmanuel would not have backed off their threats to ban Chick-fil-A from Boston and Chicago.

http://bostonherald.com/business/general...1061148712

Boston Mayor Thomas M. Menino repeated today that he doesn’t want Chick-fil-A in Boston, but he backed away from a threat to actively block the fast-food chain from setting up shop in the city.
“I can’t do that. That would be interference to his rights to go there,” Menino said, referring to company president Dan Cathy, who drew the mayor’s wrath by going public with his views against same-sex marriage.
The mayor added: “I make mistakes all the time. That’s a Menino-ism.”

http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2012/July/...ick-fil-A/

...the ACLU warned other government leaders not to join in the type of threats the mayors made.
"The government can regulate discrimination in employment or against customers, but what the government cannot do is to punish someone for their words," said Adam Schwartz, senior attorney for the ACLU of Illinois.
He added that the ACLU "strongly supports" same-sex marriage, but explained that "if a government can exclude a business for being against same-sex marriage, it can also exclude a business for being in support of same-sex marriage."

[The Grand Nudger]

Again, political expediency. Just what precisely do you think a politician's platform is (if not their personal political views)? Upon what are they elected, and what are they expected to do -if elected- amigo?

Let's try this another way. Suppose you elected an official that ran on a platform of "traditional family values". Suppose that this guy gained control of the office. If he then, as a publicly elected official -who explicitly stated his intentions to create and enforce policies based on "traditional family values"-attempted to do exactly what he said he would during the campaign........... would you consider that beyond the scope of his office? Would you consider that beyond the scope of those who voted for him?

---

You seem to think that their backing down is in some way meaningful, it isn't, allow me to explain. This particular issue is very simply an issue of whether or not a municipality is going to/has to allow a business to operate within its limits that stands in stark opposition to what the city has determined are it's own interests. It is not an issue of Chick-Fil-A's CEO's opinions, it ceased to be so when the charitable arm of their corporation was tasked with making these donations (The CEO could have donated the money himself, he didn't). Rather than address this for what it is, business, it was decided that it should probably be turned into an issue of "freedom of speech". Very clever.

"Free speech" is the political equivalent of holding somebody at bloody knife-point and telling them that you have HIV. No politician in their right mind wants there to be even an implication that they are opposed to free speech, and doubly so anything that could in any way be spun to be religious. Whether or not a politician finds themselves on any given side of legislation is, generally speaking, secondary to public opinion. Mostly because their office allows them to modify, create, or eliminate legislation/ordinances if they perceive it to be in their interests to pursue whatever pet project they happen to be pursuing. The politicians in question probably want to continue their careers in politics. Does this surprise you?

[downbeatplumb]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tMQpIFBhdP8

[KichigaiNeko]

[Lion IRC]

Mark 12 does not say a widowed woman MUST remarry
Nor does it say she MUST have intercourse until....