Chick-fil-a Support Day and Free Speech

[sigmadiva]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

Homosexuality and same-sex partnerships are by no means a "condition" but....

Would there be an (insert company) appreciation day and would the ACLU get involved if the (insert company) CEO said that her/his traditional religious views regarding the family support the notion that people with a diagnosed mental or physical condition should not be allowed to be married or have children?

Freedom of speech, indeed.

Yes, free speech indeed. Its just that, speech. The CEO expressed his views.

As far as I have read, the CEO did not ban gay people from working and eating at his restaurants. He just spoke his mind.

Its how I feel about the KKK - I don't like what they say and what they stand for, but as long as they are talking, then they can talk all they want. Now, when they get physical, I'll take action.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by sigmadiva

Yes, free speech indeed. Its just that, speech. The CEO expressed his views.

As far as I have read, the CEO did not ban gay people from working and eating at his restaurants. He just spoke his mind.

And nobody is closing down any CFA stores, or issuing bans - the mayors also utilized speech to condemn the CEO's bigotry.

The mayor is, of course, a state actor - but until an agency or actor takes action against CFA based on speech, no rights have been violated. Weird that the Religious Right would choose to posture on this event by decrying the posturing of others. Absurdity abounds.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

And nobody is closing down any CFA stores, or issuing bans - the mayors also utilized speech to condemn the CEO's bigotry.

The mayor is, of course, a state actor - but until an agency or actor takes action against CFA based on speech, no rights have been violated. Weird that the Religious Right would choose to posture on this event by decrying the posturing of others. Absurdity abounds.

Menino, in a letter on City of Boston letterhead addressed to Dan Cathy, said that he was angry they were looking for a location in Boston, there was no place for Chik-Fil-A on Boston's "Freedom Trail," that it would be an insult for them to be across from City Hall, and that Chik-Fil-A should back out of plans to locate there. No, it's not going as far as specifically saying he will block them from locating there, but I can see how many thought it was over the line for the mayor and comes uncomfortably close to such a suggestion on his part.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

Menino, in a letter on City of Boston letterhead addressed to Dan Cathy, said that he was angry they were looking for a location in Boston, there was no place for Chik-Fil-A on Boston's "Freedom Trail," that it would be an insult for them to be across from City Hall, and that Chik-Fil-A should back out of plans to locate there. No, it's not going as far as specifically saying he will block them from locating there, but I can see how many thought it was over the line for the mayor and comes uncomfortably close to such a suggestion on his part.

I think it was pretty dumb (par for the course for Menino), but the statement seemed very particularly crafted to dodge any specific threats of agency action - I'll be first in line to drive the ACLU to file against him should [the City of Boston] actually take any action. I can't imagine that will happen though, there's zero way to justify that.

//edited for clarity

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

I think it was pretty dumb (par for the course for Menino), but the statement seemed very particularly crafted to dodge any specific threats of agency action - I'll be first in line to drive the ACLU to file against him should they actually take any action. I can't imagine that will happen though, there's zero way to justify that.

I don't think it will happen either; they surely know there's no way to justify it. But I can see how many (including the ACLU) thought it was uncomfortably close to the line.

And just in case I haven't been clear about it, the statements from mayors like Menino are the only conceivable ways that freedom of speech comes close to being at issue here. The idea that boycotts or criticisms somehow violate freedom of speech is ludicrous. (But not as ludicrous as Huckabee's "hate speech" allegation.)

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

I don't think it will happen either; they surely know there's no way to justify it. But I can see how many (including the ACLU) thought it was uncomfortably close to the line.

Agreed - I think there's a "taste" element (or maybe even risk tolerance), and there's definitely a range of reasonable reactions to it (all of which think it's varying degrees of bad/silly).

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by sigmadiva

Yes, free speech indeed. Its just that, speech. The CEO expressed his views.

As far as I have read, the CEO did not ban gay people from working and eating at his restaurants. He just spoke his mind.

Until views are expressed that offend those in power. It is okay to offend power minorities.

Originally Posted by sigmadiva

Its how I feel about the KKK - I don't like what they say and what they stand for, but as long as they are talking, then they can talk all they want. Now, when they get physical, I'll take action.

Then I am sure you would patronize a company with a CEO who is in the KKK or is a KKK sympathizer.

Originally Posted by KSig RC

First, "Free Speech" as outlined in the First Amendment doesn't apply to this issue at all.

Second, you know who would probably love to freely express their love for their partners, shouting from the rooftops their commitment to each other through legal marriage, freely and in a manner protected from government interference?

Gay people.

"They can do whatever they want! I just don't want to see it! Don't do it where I can see it!! Which is everywhere outside of your house."

I have to add this constant use of "freedom of speech" to my list of inapplicable yet overused phrases and words. Right up there with "politically correct" and "race card."

[sigmadiva]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

Until views are expressed that offend those in power. It is okay to offend power minorities.

I personally do not consider gay people a minority in the same context as Blacks and Hispanics. But, I'm sure you will come through with some social-ethnic-cultural diatribe, so I'm going to sit back and let you do your thing.

Then I am sure you would patronize a company with a CEO who is in the KKK or is a KKK sympathizer.

I would not patronize an open and known KKK sympathizer. Trust me, I live in an area of Texas that is full of them.

But, that is not to say if the KKK want to march down the street and say whatever they want, I'll step back and let them say it.

Suffice it to say, if the CEO came out in support of gay marriage then I'm sure there would be those who would applaud him for what he is saying, and no one would care about the true definition of free speech. But because he said he does not support gay marriage, then people are having issues over the actual definition of free speech.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by sigmadiva

I personally do not consider gay people a minority in the same context as Blacks and Hispanics. But, I'm sure you will come through with some social-ethnic-cultural diatribe, so I'm going to sit back and let you do your thing.

Look at you.

It is not the same context. Anyone who has ever read my posts would know that I do not place all power dynamics within the same context. Yet and still, homosexuals are still a power minority group because heterosexuals are a power majority.

DUH. Was my simplistic response too much for your brain?

Originally Posted by sigmadiva

I would not patronize an open and known KKK sympathizer.

Right so stop pretending that you only care if they get physical. Your action would be in the form of boycott or protest--if you deemed necessary.

[AGDee]

Originally Posted by sigmadiva

I personally do not consider gay people a minority in the same context as Blacks and Hispanics. But, I'm sure you will come through with some social-ethnic-cultural diatribe, so I'm going to sit back and let you do your thing.

I don't either. Blacks and Hispanics are allowed to get married in every state. Unless they are also gay.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by AGDee

I don't either. Blacks and Hispanics are allowed to get married in every state. Unless they are also gay.

White homosexual men and white lesbians have always been able to use white privilege which includes socioeconomic status, education, hiring, wages, and salary. In certain environments, one's sexual orientation and sexuality can be "hidden" whereas race, ethnicity, and gender are darn near impossible to hide.

Do you see how dumb it is to attempt to rank oppressions? Inequalities do not have to be the exact same in order for them to coexist and for all of them to be legitimate.