Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    26 Jul '12 13:55 / 2 edits
    This week, Boston Mayor Thomas Menino declared, "Chick-fil-A doesn't belong in Boston." He recklessly slandered the company by accusing it of "discriminat(ing) against the population." And he warned ominously: "If they need licenses in the city, it will be very difficult — unless they open up their policies."

    http://news.yahoo.com/hey-boston-leave-chick-fil-alone-070000819.html

    While I don't agree with Mr. Cathy's positions, for an elected official to use his office to punish a private person for his unrelated political beliefs is outrageous. I hope he brings a civil rights action against that clown and wins big.

    James Peron on Huff Post, while strongly against Cathy's position, puts it very well:

    This is what bothers me about some actions being taken against Chick-fil-A. Boycott the hell out of them; even drive them into liquidation by popular refusal to support the company, if you wish, but when the law is used selectively to punish a business because of the owner's opinions and donations, then the law is overstepping its bounds.

    If anything, the moral case against Chick-fil-A is tainted by such actions. The Big Springs School District should not use regulatory powers to deny a club's right to exist due to the opinions of its members. Neither should local cities deny permits solely on the basis of the opinions of a business owner.

    In Chicago, Alderman Joe Moreno wants the city to deny a permit to build a Chick-fil-A restaurant in his district, because of "bigoted, homophobic comments" by the owner of the chain. Moreno is quite clear: "Because of this man's ignorance, I will now be denying Chick-fil-A's permit to open a restaurant in the 1st Ward."

    Of course, I happen to think Moreno's opinion about the owner is correct. I also think that the owner is immoral, but, the Christians in Pennsylvania think Christianity is correct and that LGBT people are immoral.

    However, the state is not there to arbitrate opinions, but to protect rights -- even rights of people we dislike.

    Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel claims the restaurant would "be a bad investment, since it would be empty." Great, isn't that precisely what would do the most harm -- allow them to pour capital into a restaurant where no one will eat? It is not Mayor Emanuel's job to decide what investments are wise or not. It's not his land; it's not his capital.

    Similarly, Boston's Mayor Thomas Menino, has threatened to use zoning to keep the restaurant chain out of Boston.

    When government power is used to punish speech, and speech alone, as is the case here, there are grave First Amendment concerns. It is wrong when zoning is used to regulate adult bookstores and wrong when zoning is used to deny permits, solely because an owner has wrong-headed and stupid opinions.

    Chick-fil-A owner Don Cathy may deny me equality of rights, but I cannot lower myself to his level and deny him equality of rights. He has the right to ignorant opinions, and the right to run restaurants.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-peron/shut-down-chickfila-prope_b_1703781.html
  2. 26 Jul '12 14:02
    Originally posted by sh76
    This week, Boston Mayor Thomas Menino declared, "Chick-fil-A doesn't belong in Boston." He recklessly slandered the company by accusing it of "discriminat(ing) against the population." And he warned ominously: "If they need licenses in the city, it will be very difficult — unless they open up their policies."

    http://news.yahoo.com/hey-boston-lea ...[text shortened]... uffingtonpost.com/james-peron/shut-down-chickfila-prope_b_1703781.html
    If Bostonians agree with their mayor, simply refusing to patronize the offending business will do the trick.

    In spite of repeated and continual political attacks, Walmart thrives all over the US. The consumer is king.
  3. 26 Jul '12 16:12
    I don't know anything about the controversy, but this sock-puppet incident in which one of the company's flacks tried to pretend to be a teenage girl cracked me up.

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/07/25/1113549/-What-s-fatty-and-greasy-and-pretends-to-be-a-teenage-girl-on-the-internet
  4. 26 Jul '12 16:31
    After looking at the one-sided reaction to the Penn State controversy, punishing large institutes for the isolated actions of some seems to be very popular at the moment.
  5. 26 Jul '12 19:25
    Originally posted by quackquack
    After looking at the one-sided reaction to the Penn State controversy, punishing large institutes for the isolated actions of some seems to be very popular at the moment.
    Punishing institutions is an example of what Thomas Sowell calls looking at people as intertemporal abstractions. The flesh and blood individuals in Boston, or Penn State did nothing wrong. Paterno is dead, and Sandusky is going to prison.

    Current students, business owners around the campus, athletes in the program are being punished for something they had no ability to control.
  6. 26 Jul '12 19:32 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by normbenign
    Punishing institutions is an example of what Thomas Sowell calls looking at people as intertemporal abstractions. The flesh and blood individuals in Boston, or Penn State did nothing wrong. Paterno is dead, and Sandusky is going to prison.

    Current students, business owners around the campus, athletes in the program are being punished for something they had no ability to control.
    Students and athletes are free to go to a different school. It is as simple as that.

    The institution covered up for Sandusky, the institution needs to be punished.

    They should have wiped away all references to Joe Pa from college football altogether. Those games simply did not exist, the Penn State football program did not exist under Joe Pa's tenure. No mention of wins or losses should be mentioned and all games should be erased. Wipe him from existance. That is the fitting punishment and would scare all other football coaches into doing the right thing should they want to cover stuff up.

    Give Joe a postumous death penalty!

    As for Chick-Fil-A, people are free to buy the food or not. Political activists can try to bully their way around if they wish, but they are just loud bullies. They are really rather pathetic people.
  7. 26 Jul '12 19:44
    Originally posted by Eladar
    Students and athletes are free to go to a different school. It is as simple as that.

    The institution covered up for Sandusky, the institution needs to be punished.

    They should have wiped away all references to Joe Pa from college football altogether. Those games simply did not exist, the Penn State football program did not exist under Joe Pa's tenure. ...[text shortened]... y around if they wish, but they are just loud bullies. They are really rather pathetic people.
    "The institution covered up for Sandusky, the institution needs to be punished."

    The institution is an intertemporal abstraction. People are part of it that had no part in Sandusky's disgusting behavior or Paterno's coverup.

    What do the current business owners or taxpayers of Pennsylvania have to do with Sandusky's crimes?
  8. 26 Jul '12 19:46 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by normbenign
    "The institution covered up for Sandusky, the institution needs to be punished."

    The institution is an intertemporal abstraction. People are part of it that had no part in Sandusky's disgusting behavior or Paterno's coverup.

    What do the current business owners or taxpayers of Pennsylvania have to do with Sandusky's crimes?
    The institution suffers the consequences of its leadership. Such is life and that is the way it should be. You live by Joe Pa and the Penn State football program, you die by it.

    Screw the business people, they can uproot and go somewhere else. As for the institution, it should be interested in education, not some sporting event.
  9. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    26 Jul '12 19:49
    Originally posted by Kunsoo
    I don't know anything about the controversy, but this sock-puppet incident in which one of the company's flacks tried to pretend to be a teenage girl cracked me up.

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/07/25/1113549/-What-s-fatty-and-greasy-and-pretends-to-be-a-teenage-girl-on-the-internet
    As partisan as Dailykos is, is anyone so blinded by partisanship as to think a background non-issue like that is going to distract from the flagrant unconstitutional abuses of power being undertaken by these thug elected officials?
  10. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    26 Jul '12 19:50
    Originally posted by normbenign
    "The institution covered up for Sandusky, the institution needs to be punished."

    The institution is an intertemporal abstraction. People are part of it that had no part in Sandusky's disgusting behavior or Paterno's coverup.

    What do the current business owners or taxpayers of Pennsylvania have to do with Sandusky's crimes?
    Penn State as an institution benefited from the cover up. Sandusky was allowed to continue to coach at the football program and his services were adjudged by those in charge to be sufficiently valuable to look the other way on his continued sexual assaults on young boys. Therefore, sanctions against the institution are warranted.
  11. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    26 Jul '12 19:51
    Originally posted by sh76
    As partisan as Dailykos is, is anyone so blinded by partisanship as to think a background non-issue like that is going to distract from the flagrant unconstitutional abuses of power being undertaken by these thug elected officials?
    Could you be a little more hysterical, Whodey the Second?
  12. 26 Jul '12 19:53
    Originally posted by Eladar
    The institution suffers the consequences of its leadership. Such is life and that is the way it should be. You live by Joe Pa and the Penn State football program, you die by it.

    Screw the business people, they can uproot and go somewhere else. As for the institution, it should be interested in education, not some sporting event.
    So everyone ought to just up and leave Pennsylvania because of on creepy pervert?
  13. 26 Jul '12 19:57
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    Penn State as an institution benefited from the cover up. Sandusky was allowed to continue to coach at the football program and his services were adjudged by those in charge to be sufficiently valuable to look the other way on his continued sexual assaults on young boys. Therefore, sanctions against the institution are warranted.
    The institution is an intertemporal abstraction. The people are real flesh and blood humans. If there are any of those still unpunished, let the flogging begin, but don't beat up people over what an abstraction did.
  14. 26 Jul '12 20:05
    Originally posted by normbenign
    So everyone ought to just up and leave Pennsylvania because of on creepy pervert?
    No, not everyone, just those who love Penn State for their football program.

    Those who love the school for the school have other things to hang their hats on. It is rather sad that you are linking the entire school to the football program.

    How is it that punishing the football program is punishing the entire school? Is there nothing more to Penn State than football?
  15. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    26 Jul '12 20:05
    Originally posted by normbenign
    The institution is an intertemporal abstraction. The people are real flesh and blood humans. If there are any of those still unpunished, let the flogging begin, but don't beat up people over what an abstraction did.
    If you think that continually parroting the words "intertemporal abstraction" is going to show anything but that you can memorize dubious concepts stated by an intellectual lightweight like Sowell, you are mistaken.

    The real flesh and blood people going to Penn State NOW are benefiting from the past misdeeds of the institution. The institution made a lot more money and had prestige it didn't deserve for years. If they are dissatisfied with justice being meted out to Penn State to remove these ill-gotten benefits, they may leave.