Chick-fil-a Support Day and Free Speech

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by Greek_or_Geek?

Again, like I said for me personally, it wasn't about the message at all. It was about a bunch of political goons telling a company that their company was not welcome in their fair burgs because their religious/political views differed from the powers that be there.

I am not talking about personally. I asked about group dynamics of whether there would even be an appreciation day and the ACLU involved.

As for personally:
I still believe that almost everyone has a viewpoint that they absolutely cannot and will not tolerate, freedom of speech be damned, and if a person or company expouses such a viewpoint they would have no problem boycotting that company and having the company banned from the vicinity if possible.

Originally Posted by MysticCat

Given that the ACLU has defended the free speech rights of Neo-Nazis and the KKK, then yeah, I can imagine them getting involved if government officials suggested that a company should stay out of that official's city based on the speech of the company's CEO, regardless of what that speech was.

Thanks for reminding me about the ACLU.

[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.

[agzg]

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.

Stop making me want to straight marry you. It's disgusting. Also Chick-fil-A will corporate person free speech me and try to get my marriage rights blocked.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

I still believe that almost everyone has a viewpoint that they absolutely cannot and will not tolerate, freedom of speech be damned, and if a person or company expouses such a viewpoint they would have no problem boycotting that company and having the company banned from the vicinity.

As you alluded to earlier, freedom of speech does not mean that you can say whatever you want to without criticism (or boycotts of your business). It means that, absent something like endangering people (like shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater), the government cannot censor your speech or punish you for your speech.

People in a city signing a petition or letter to the company CEO saying we don't like your position and we don't want to see you come to our town = those people exercising their own free speech rights.

But the mayor of the city saying the same thing in his capacity as mayor (rather than his capacity as just another citizen) does get a bit too close to government censorship of speech.

[barbino]

In response to thetaj's question on how this event was Mike Huckabee-supported, Huckabee started this whole thing as a response to the boycott issue. Supposedly more than 20 million people looked at his Facebook page and people began to show support for the event even before it occured. Huckabee is quoted as saying that "the success of Chick-fil-A is a great American story that is being smeared by vicious hate speech and intolerant bigotry from the left." (newsmax)

Huckabee then suggested the Appreciation Day to support Don Cathy and the company.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by barbino

Huckabee is quoted as saying that "the success of Chick-fil-A is a great American story that is being smeared by vicious hate speech and intolerant bigotry from the left." (newsmax)

This is so shitty brilliant I can barely deal ... any reasonable reading of any of most of those words (especially "hate" and "bigotry") renders it completely false, yet we're loading up buses to buy fast food chicken from inordinately wealthy people. Poor, poor straight white rich guys.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

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?

Given that the ACLU has defended the free speech rights of Neo-Nazis and the KKK, then yeah, I can imagine them getting involved if government officials suggested that a company should stay out of that official's city based on the speech of the company's CEO, regardless of what that speech was.

[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

[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.