Jul 29, 2012 12:11 PM GMT
Alan Dershowitz on Chick Fil a
-
Jul 29, 2012 12:11 PM GMT -
Jul 29, 2012 12:20 PM GMThe is 100% right.
The mayors cant discriminate.
If you disagree with Chickfila politics eat somewhere else. Personally they get what they deserve if they are a chicken place and they get involved in politics.
-
Jul 29, 2012 12:33 PM GMTfreedomisntfree saidhttp://www.newsmax.com/Headline/Dershowitz-chick-intolerance-mayors/2012/07/28/id/446872
“If you don’t like their principles, go to McDonald’s,” said Dershowitz.
But that is if you know their principles.
Unless Chick-fil-A has very prominent signs telling customers that the profits from the sales go to deny gays their civil and human rights, then customers can unwittingly be supporting onerous principles they dont like. Maybe even support their own oppression.
I didnt know they were an uber-christian business...in the business of promoting the "biblical definition of marriage." I wouldnt expect a business to be doing that with its profits.
Therefore, without prominent declarations in all their outlets, the mayors are correct in keeping Chick-fil-A out.
After all, keeping them out is just freedom of speech for the other side. -
Jul 29, 2012 12:53 PM GMT -
Jul 29, 2012 5:51 PM GMTCaslon20000 said
freedomisntfree saidhttp://www.newsmax.com/Headline/Dershowitz-chick-intolerance-mayors/2012/07/28/id/446872
“If you don’t like their principles, go to McDonald’s,” said Dershowitz.
But that is if you know their principles.
Unless Chick-fil-A has very prominent signs telling customers that the profits from the sales go to deny gays their civil and human rights, then customers can unwittingly be supporting onerous principles they dont like. Maybe even support their own oppression.
I didnt know they were an uber-christian business...in the business of promoting the "biblical definition of marriage." I wouldnt expect a business to be doing that with its profits.
Therefore, without prominent declarations in all their outlets, the mayors are correct in keeping Chick-fil-A out.
After all, keeping them out is just freedom of speech for the other side.
As much as I agree that freedom of expression should be tolerated as much as possible, I have to agree with his comment about how Chick Fil A is investing a big chunk of its profit to organizations such as Christian Family Foundation that do what they can to prohibit practice of equal rights and freedom for homosexuals. To express an opinion is one thing, but to support a group that would impose on the freedom of a specific group of people is another. This example may seem extreme, but would you allow a company to open in your city that sends part of its profit to a terrorist group? I certainly don't think I would. -
Jul 29, 2012 5:55 PM GMTstevee90 said
Caslon20000 said
freedomisntfree saidhttp://www.newsmax.com/Headline/Dershowitz-chick-intolerance-mayors/2012/07/28/id/446872
“If you don’t like their principles, go to McDonald’s,” said Dershowitz.
But that is if you know their principles.
Unless Chick-fil-A has very prominent signs telling customers that the profits from the sales go to deny gays their civil and human rights, then customers can unwittingly be supporting onerous principles they dont like. Maybe even support their own oppression.
I didnt know they were an uber-christian business...in the business of promoting the "biblical definition of marriage." I wouldnt expect a business to be doing that with its profits.
Therefore, without prominent declarations in all their outlets, the mayors are correct in keeping Chick-fil-A out.
After all, keeping them out is just freedom of speech for the other side.
As much as I agree that freedom of expression should be tolerated as much as possible, I have to agree with his comment about how Chick Fil A is investing a big chunk of its profit to organizations such as Christian Family Foundation that do what they can to prohibit practice of equal rights and freedom for homosexuals. To express an opinion is one thing, but to support a group that would impose on the freedom of a specific group of people is another. This example may seem extreme, but would you allow a company to open in your city that sends part of its profit to a terrorist group? I certainly don't think I would.
For as much as I applaud the mayors for taking a symbolic stance, I do agree they shouldnt stop them via law or attempt to stop them. Chic is very public about what they do. Everyone I know is aware of it and the vast majority of straight people I know are ok with it.
I have an issue with the government inserting themselves in to what this business does. Let people speak with their dollars. If this were a gay friendly company being opposed by a southern city....we would be outraged. -
Jul 29, 2012 6:05 PM GMTCaslon20000 said
freedomisntfree said
I didnt know they were an uber-christian business...in the business of promoting the "biblical definition of marriage." I wouldnt expect a business to be doing that with its profits.
You mean like Poligamy? Concubines? how kinky. -
Jul 29, 2012 6:06 PM GMTObscure said
Dallasfan824 said
stevee90 said
Caslon20000 said
freedomisntfree saidhttp://www.newsmax.com/Headline/Dershowitz-chick-intolerance-mayors/2012/07/28/id/446872
“If you don’t like their principles, go to McDonald’s,” said Dershowitz.
But that is if you know their principles.
Unless Chick-fil-A has very prominent signs telling customers that the profits from the sales go to deny gays their civil and human rights, then customers can unwittingly be supporting onerous principles they dont like. Maybe even support their own oppression.
I didnt know they were an uber-christian business...in the business of promoting the "biblical definition of marriage." I wouldnt expect a business to be doing that with its profits.
Therefore, without prominent declarations in all their outlets, the mayors are correct in keeping Chick-fil-A out.
After all, keeping them out is just freedom of speech for the other side.
As much as I agree that freedom of expression should be tolerated as much as possible, I have to agree with his comment about how Chick Fil A is investing a big chunk of its profit to organizations such as Christian Family Foundation that do what they can to prohibit practice of equal rights and freedom for homosexuals. To express an opinion is one thing, but to support a group that would impose on the freedom of a specific group of people is another. This example may seem extreme, but would you allow a company to open in your city that sends part of its profit to a terrorist group? I certainly don't think I would.
For as much as I applaud the mayors for taking a symbolic stance, I do agree they shouldnt stop them via law or attempt to stop them. Chic is very public about what they do. Everyone I know is aware of it and the vast majority of straight people I know are ok with it.
I have an issue with the government inserting themselves in to what this business does. Let people speak with their dollars. If this were a gay friendly company being opposed by a southern city....we would be outraged.
Im not saying im disagreeing, im saying that people's dollars(and votes- but thats another story) clearly show that they not only agree but support the opposition of full gay rights. In a way, you are basically putting your future in the hands of someone else's non-necessities budget.
.
Oh I agree. And that cant happen. Thats why the legal system is the best way to go. I just cant understand how people can eat there and say "Oh I support gay marriage and equality but I love their waffle fries" -
Jul 29, 2012 6:20 PM GMTObscure said
Dallasfan824 said
Obscure said
Dallasfan824 said
stevee90 said
Caslon20000 said
freedomisntfree saidhttp://www.newsmax.com/Headline/Dershowitz-chick-intolerance-mayors/2012/07/28/id/446872
“If you don’t like their principles, go to McDonald’s,” said Dershowitz.
But that is if you know their principles.
Unless Chick-fil-A has very prominent signs telling customers that the profits from the sales go to deny gays their civil and human rights, then customers can unwittingly be supporting onerous principles they dont like. Maybe even support their own oppression.
I didnt know they were an uber-christian business...in the business of promoting the "biblical definition of marriage." I wouldnt expect a business to be doing that with its profits.
Therefore, without prominent declarations in all their outlets, the mayors are correct in keeping Chick-fil-A out.
After all, keeping them out is just freedom of speech for the other side.
As much as I agree that freedom of expression should be tolerated as much as possible, I have to agree with his comment about how Chick Fil A is investing a big chunk of its profit to organizations such as Christian Family Foundation that do what they can to prohibit practice of equal rights and freedom for homosexuals. To express an opinion is one thing, but to support a group that would impose on the freedom of a specific group of people is another. This example may seem extreme, but would you allow a company to open in your city that sends part of its profit to a terrorist group? I certainly don't think I would.
For as much as I applaud the mayors for taking a symbolic stance, I do agree they shouldnt stop them via law or attempt to stop them. Chic is very public about what they do. Everyone I know is aware of it and the vast majority of straight people I know are ok with it.
I have an issue with the government inserting themselves in to what this business does. Let people speak with their dollars. If this were a gay friendly company being opposed by a southern city....we would be outraged.
Im not saying im disagreeing, im saying that people's dollars(and votes- but thats another story) clearly show that they not only agree but support the opposition of full gay rights. In a way, you are basically putting your future in the hands of someone else's non-necessities budget.
.
Oh I agree. And that cant happen. Thats why the legal system is the best way to go. I just cant understand how people can eat there and say "Oh I support gay marriage and equality but I love their waffle fries"
I think metta8 will tell you how good the legal system is doing, and Barack too(states rights and all). I guess gay marriage is damned.
Nah, eventually SCOTUS will have to decide it. When is the issue. -
Jul 29, 2012 6:23 PM GMT"No city is free to discriminate against a company based on the views of its owners, the renowned criminal appeals attorney said."
hmmm...
Not sure how it works in the US, but I work in property development in Canada. Municipalities can reject an application for a business license, re-zoning application or building permit for whatever arbitrary reason.
For example the City of Vancouver has rejected applications from Walmart for years and not for any principled reason (they always come up with some sort of contrived justification like traffic, etc.). The voting base of the party that controls city hall just doesnt want it, and that's that.
There are no "rights" in this instance as far as I know. -
Jul 29, 2012 6:34 PM GMTCaslon20000 said
freedomisntfree saidhttp://www.newsmax.com/Headline/Dershowitz-chick-intolerance-mayors/2012/07/28/id/446872
“If you don’t like their principles, go to McDonald’s,” said Dershowitz.
But that is if you know their principles.
Unless Chick-fil-A has very prominent signs telling customers that the profits from the sales go to deny gays their civil and human rights, then customers can unwittingly be supporting onerous principles they dont like. Maybe even support their own oppression.
I didnt know they were an uber-christian business...in the business of promoting the "biblical definition of marriage." I wouldnt expect a business to be doing that with its profits.
Therefore, without prominent declarations in all their outlets, the mayors are correct in keeping Chick-fil-A out.
After all, keeping them out is just freedom of speech for the other side.
Get a life dude. Start thinking with your head and not with where you stick your dick. -
Jul 29, 2012 6:52 PM GMTMuscles25 said
Caslon20000 said
freedomisntfree saidhttp://www.newsmax.com/Headline/Dershowitz-chick-intolerance-mayors/2012/07/28/id/446872
“If you don’t like their principles, go to McDonald’s,” said Dershowitz.
But that is if you know their principles.
Unless Chick-fil-A has very prominent signs telling customers that the profits from the sales go to deny gays their civil and human rights, then customers can unwittingly be supporting onerous principles they dont like. Maybe even support their own oppression.
I didnt know they were an uber-christian business...in the business of promoting the "biblical definition of marriage." I wouldnt expect a business to be doing that with its profits.
Therefore, without prominent declarations in all their outlets, the mayors are correct in keeping Chick-fil-A out.
After all, keeping them out is just freedom of speech for the other side.
Get a life dude. Start thinking with your head and not with where you stick your dick.
Am I reading your post correctly? Do you think anybody with an objection to an organization that discriminates against homosexuals is thinking with their cock?
If that's the case, then the executives at Chick-fil-A are only thinking with theirs, too.
WTF, "dude"? -
Jul 29, 2012 7:09 PM GMTDershowitz only has it partially correct. Well-meaning but lavish literal allegiance to nice-sounding shibboleths, wherever they might be found, can have quite adverse unintended consequences.
Unfortunately, the word "discrimination" has been given a negative connotation in the last sixty years that is totally undeserved, largely because of a misreading of the law of the land. Discrimination is NOT prohibited by law. Discrimination is necessary in many cases for the production of a civilized society. What IS prohibited by law is "invidious discrimination," as distinct from discriminations which are permissible. Unfortunately, the all-important adjective "invidious" is left out of most pronouncements, and boy! has this omission led to a lot of adverse unintended consequences in society! Is the mayor's discriminatory action "permissible" or "invidious" discrimination? "That is the question," to quote The Immortal Bard. -
Jul 29, 2012 7:14 PM GMTI'm perfectly fine with the opponent supporting Chickfila. If they want obesity, heart disease, a shorter lifespan and diabetes, who am I to argue? -
Jul 29, 2012 7:17 PM GMTmusclmed saidhe is 100% right. The mayors cant discriminate.
They cannot legally discriminate based on views, but in many locales, a development such as a proposed chik-afil requires some permit (such as in Menlo Park, CA, where it requires a zoning variance) to which it is not entitled to by right. Since it is not entitled to the permit as a matter of right, but is asking for special treatment (a right to operate contrary to existing zoning regulations), it is easy for the governments to deny them the permits. And I hope they do. Not because the owner of chik-afil has anti-gay views, but because he contributed large amounts of money to organizations working to prevent gay citizens from having equal rights.
BTW, Derschowitz is no saint - he just happens to be a law professor. He just happens to be a professor that says torture is OK. So it's is OK for governments to torture, but not OK for governments to have policies to advance equal rights? Excuse me, but governments have been discriminating against gay citizens forever. I would welcome a change. -
Jul 29, 2012 7:32 PM GMTSuetonius> Derschowitz is no saint - he just happens to be a law professor... that says torture is OK.
For the record, Dershowitz supported torture only in cases of a "ticking time-bomb".
And only with a warrant, thus regulating this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Dershowitz#Views_on_torture
-
Jul 29, 2012 7:32 PM GMTIf this was in any way shape or form related to anti-Israel bigotry, he would be sucking Menino's cock right about now.
