I have never seen a Chick-Fil-A north of the Mason-Dixon (I'm not saying there aren't any, because I haven't been to any states west of Connecticut north of it). My only experiences with the franchise are the recent controversey and eating at one in Florida 5 or 6 years ago. I'm having trouble giving a damn.
There's supposedly two in Massachusetts, and I've been told there's one in Nassua, NH.
Tolerate everything except intolerance.
But fight it with even worse intolerance? Chick-fil-A isn't denying openly gay people food, or charging them double for it.
If I make some kick-ass... I dunno, let's New England-up this thread, if I make some kick-ass Coffee Milk, and the money goes directly toward beating my wife, would it be "intolerance" to not buy my stuff? At a certain point, you have to say "This far, sir, and no farther". If your line is farther than mine, fine, but that's all you, bro.
That's apples to oranges. The president of Chick-Fil-A hasn't claimed to have beaten and suppressed homosexuals. I can understand citizens boycotting the restaurants (I haven't eaten at one in four years but I've had their sandwiches working at Zappos), but economic sanctions purely because of statements is going off the deep end.
Let's say I go on a public television show and say I think the Nazis had the right idea about racial purity. The next day the mayor of Louisville publicly states that I can no longer find work in his city, and then the governor of Montana says I better not come looking for work in his state. Is that a sufficient punishment for me expressing my views?
edit: And to take it from the absurd to the sublime, activist groups around the country are holding fake funerals in my honor and the WBC are protesting at ALL of them.
Man, posting the old "If you post your password it turns into *'s" works surprisingly well. Some people think they're smart by posting and deleting it right away just to see if it works, but my email saves every comment so I have their passwords. Most of them aren't smart enough to change it either. I haven't done anything with them, and I don't intend to but man just the fact that its this easy is entertaining.
That's apples to oranges. The president of Chick-Fil-A hasn't claimed to have beaten and suppressed homosexuals. I can understand citizens boycotting the restaurants (I haven't eaten at one in four years but I've had their sandwiches working at Zappos), but economic sanctions purely because of statements is going off the deep end.
Except that it's not purely statements. Chik-Fil-A donates millions of dollars to painfully regressive causes. If I shop there, a not insignificant amount of my money would end up in those coffers.
And yes, before you ask, I do find those causes so painfully regressive that I, on a personal human level, do not think that anyone should buy food from there.
Let's say I go on a public television show and say I think the Nazis had the right idea about racial purity. The next day the mayor of Louisville publicly states that I can no longer find work in his city, and then the governor of Montana says I better not come looking for work in his state. Is that a sufficient punishment for me expressing my views?
You're a citizen. You (at least in my opinion, deserve more protection than a corporation. Chik-Fil-A, AS A CORPORATE POLICY, supports, monetarily, causes that I find repulsive in the extreme.
But fight it with even worse intolerance? Chick-fil-A isn't denying openly gay people food, or charging them double for it.
Read about Popper and the Paradox of Tolerance. The only thing fit to crush wIth blinding malice is intolerance and cruelty, otherwise the act of tolerance becomes immoral by being permissive to evil.
Additionally, Chick-Fil-A itself isn't a hate group, but they spent millions of dollars donating to them, and have a record of firing Islamic and openly gay employees without any decent reason. Imagine a restaurant fired some black people under suspicious circumstances, and then the public discovered that they were donating money to the KKK and white supremacist faction political arms. Would you still eat there?
By all means we need to fight intolerance, but if we stoop to their level to remove intolerance are we really any better than them?
Is someone who is racist/sexist/homophobic/etc. worse than a person who is none of those things, except they do not tolerate racists/sexists/homophobes/etc.?
By all means we need to fight intolerance, but if we stoop to their level to remove intolerance are we really any better than them?
Yes. If you want, I can go into a detailed discussion of why intolerance towards oppressed groups in discrimination and intolerance towards oppressive groups is not, and thus how reverse racism doesn't actually happen.
It is okay to be intolerant towards people who take part in discrimination because that kind of socioeconomic pressure is the only effective way to try to convince them to stop.
My latest view is this: If its okay for the conservatives to fight against and defund Planned Parenthood because ~3% of their non government funded services is super evil abortion, then it should be okay for us to not eat at Chik-fil-a for not agreeing with their numerous large donations to anti-gay organizations. Yes, Chik-fil-a does a lot of good things like donating to other non-hateful organizations and giving away free food for good causes, etc. etc. 97% of Planned Parenthood is really good things, too.
By all means we need to fight intolerance, but if we stoop to their level to remove intolerance are we really any better than them?
Yes. If you want, I can go into a detailed discussion of why intolerance towards oppressed groups in discrimination and intolerance towards oppressive groups is not, and thus how reverse racism doesn't actually happen.
It is okay to be intolerant towards people who take part in discrimination because that kind of socioeconomic pressure is the only effective way to try to convince them to stop.
By all means we need to fight intolerance, but if we stoop to their level to remove intolerance are we really any better than them?
Yes. If you want, I can go into a detailed discussion of why intolerance towards oppressed groups in discrimination and intolerance towards oppressive groups is not, and thus how reverse racism doesn't actually happen.
It is okay to be intolerant towards people who take part in discrimination because that kind of socioeconomic pressure is the only effective way to try to convince them to stop.
So I'm justified in kneecapping KKK members?
There's a difference between not tolerating racism and using violence against racists.
By all means we need to fight intolerance, but if we stoop to their level to remove intolerance are we really any better than them?
Yes. If you want, I can go into a detailed discussion of why intolerance towards oppressed groups in discrimination and intolerance towards oppressive groups is not, and thus how reverse racism doesn't actually happen.
It is okay to be intolerant towards people who take part in discrimination because that kind of socioeconomic pressure is the only effective way to try to convince them to stop.
So I'm justified in kneecapping KKK members?
There's a difference between not tolerating racism and using violence against racists.
If intent is 9 points of the law, then where does hate speech advocating violence and oppression end and hate crime begin?
By all means we need to fight intolerance, but if we stoop to their level to remove intolerance are we really any better than them?
Yes. If you want, I can go into a detailed discussion of why intolerance towards oppressed groups in discrimination and intolerance towards oppressive groups is not, and thus how reverse racism doesn't actually happen.
It is okay to be intolerant towards people who take part in discrimination because that kind of socioeconomic pressure is the only effective way to try to convince them to stop.
So I'm justified in kneecapping KKK members?
There's a difference between not tolerating racism and using violence against racists.
If intent is 9 points of the law, then where does hate speech advocating violence and oppression end and hate crime begin?
I'm pretty sure it's when, you know, you commit a crime.
By all means we need to fight intolerance, but if we stoop to their level to remove intolerance are we really any better than them?
Yes. If you want, I can go into a detailed discussion of why intolerance towards oppressed groups in discrimination and intolerance towards oppressive groups is not, and thus how reverse racism doesn't actually happen.
It is okay to be intolerant towards people who take part in discrimination because that kind of socioeconomic pressure is the only effective way to try to convince them to stop.
So I'm justified in kneecapping KKK members?
There's a difference between not tolerating racism and using violence against racists.
If intent is 9 points of the law, then where does hate speech advocating violence and oppression end and hate crime begin?
I'm pretty sure it's when, you know, you commit a crime.
But they can charge you for conspiracy to commit a crime.
Looks like there needs to be an intent on the part of the person making the hate speech for someone to actually commit the crime. Also, someone has to commit or attempt to commit a hate crime in order for the speaker to have committed conspiracy.
Anyways, what's your point with this sidebar? I'm not seeing how it relates.
But they can charge you for conspiracy to commit a crime.Not really. For that to happen, there needs to be demonstrable unambiguous intent and likelihood of imminent followthrough.
Devil's advocate I suppose. I'm mostly pissed that government agencies are trying to punish Chick-Fil-A for their philosophy. It's a rather meh restaurant and I don't eat there to begin with, but to slap sanctions on an American company trying to operate in America seems way too harsh compared to the severity of their advocacy.
But hell what do I know? I'm Conservative and therefore obviously stupid and unenlightened.
Honestly, I was slightly leery of governmental bans on Chick-Fil-A when I thought it was just the President donating money, but given that the company itself donates to avowed anti-gay-marriage organization like the Family Research Council, I think it is more acceptable for those local governments to publicly disapprove of the company on the basis of it financially supporting discrimination.
And like I said disapproval and strongly-worded letters are all well and good but instead of slapping sanctions on them let the market bear it out. If the people in your city/town/state feel the same way they won't eat there, and the money flow will dry up.
Okay, perhaps what I said needs some explanation: I'm sick and tired of these laissez-faire conservatives who talk like these invisible but perfect "market forces" are the solution to every single fucking problem. The fact is that behind those "market forces" are people, who tend to be irrational, unpredictable, misinformed, and usually apathetic.
Moreover, this idolization of the "invisible hand" effectively makes money the most protected and most influential form of speech, because only with money can you afford to disseminate your speech.
The effect of this is that "market forces" become the ultimate tyranny of oppressive groups (i.e. rich straight cis white people) and the tyranny of the majority, because it's just the rich who can afford to publish speech and it's the majority that will generally pay the most for it.
The thing about oppression is that the majority of people are either a) actively discriminatory or more likely b) unaffected and apathetic, which means that you can't rely on market forces to fight oppression, because that only works when you wait on the timescale of "letting the less privileged kids" grow up, and I find that unacceptable.
Yes, because it's so easy to inform and anger enough consumers to meaningfully impact the sales of a national restaurant chain for any extended period of time.
Comments
Let's say I go on a public television show and say I think the Nazis had the right idea about racial purity. The next day the mayor of Louisville publicly states that I can no longer find work in his city, and then the governor of Montana says I better not come looking for work in his state. Is that a sufficient punishment for me expressing my views?
edit: And to take it from the absurd to the sublime, activist groups around the country are holding fake funerals in my honor and the WBC are protesting at ALL of them.
And yes, before you ask, I do find those causes so painfully regressive that I, on a personal human level, do not think that anyone should buy food from there. You're a citizen. You (at least in my opinion, deserve more protection than a corporation. Chik-Fil-A, AS A CORPORATE POLICY, supports, monetarily, causes that I find repulsive in the extreme.
Additionally, Chick-Fil-A itself isn't a hate group, but they spent millions of dollars donating to them, and have a record of firing Islamic and openly gay employees without any decent reason. Imagine a restaurant fired some black people under suspicious circumstances, and then the public discovered that they were donating money to the KKK and white supremacist faction political arms. Would you still eat there?
Yes.
It is okay to be intolerant towards people who take part in discrimination because that kind of socioeconomic pressure is the only effective way to try to convince them to stop.
If its okay for the conservatives to fight against and defund Planned Parenthood because ~3% of their non government funded services is super evil abortion, then it should be okay for us to not eat at Chik-fil-a for not agreeing with their numerous large donations to anti-gay organizations. Yes, Chik-fil-a does a lot of good things like donating to other non-hateful organizations and giving away free food for good causes, etc. etc. 97% of Planned Parenthood is really good things, too.
So, Nyeh.
Looks like there needs to be an intent on the part of the person making the hate speech for someone to actually commit the crime. Also, someone has to commit or attempt to commit a hate crime in order for the speaker to have committed conspiracy.
Anyways, what's your point with this sidebar? I'm not seeing how it relates.
But hell what do I know? I'm Conservative and therefore obviously stupid and unenlightened.
I'm sick and tired of these laissez-faire conservatives who talk like these invisible but perfect "market forces" are the solution to every single fucking problem. The fact is that behind those "market forces" are people, who tend to be irrational, unpredictable, misinformed, and usually apathetic.
Moreover, this idolization of the "invisible hand" effectively makes money the most protected and most influential form of speech, because only with money can you afford to disseminate your speech.
The effect of this is that "market forces" become the ultimate tyranny of oppressive groups (i.e. rich straight cis white people) and the tyranny of the majority, because it's just the rich who can afford to publish speech and it's the majority that will generally pay the most for it.
The thing about oppression is that the majority of people are either a) actively discriminatory or more likely b) unaffected and apathetic, which means that you can't rely on market forces to fight oppression, because that only works when you wait on the timescale of "letting the less privileged kids" grow up, and I find that unacceptable.