Cities Have a Right to Ban Chik fil-A

I keep hearing these retarded arguments in defense of Chik fil-A claiming that they have the right to say whatever they want to and cities, and even individuals, cannot respond with an organized boycott of them, lest poor, poor Chik fil-A's First Amendment right to freedom of speech be violated.

Well first let me say that I don't eat meat or meat byproducts (moral issue for me), so I've been on a de facto boycott of Chik fil-A for about two years now anyway. My participation in a formal boycott hence will make no real-world difference since I don't buy from them, so my PERSONAL investment in this issue is minimal, to say the least.

But how do I respond to claims that people, and even whole cities, don't have a right to boycott Chik fil-A in response to their anti-gay tirades and actual support of anti-gay groups? Like this:

I don't care what people or cities do regarding the issue. As far as I'm concerned, corporations are not people and should not be treated as if they were. They should have no legal rights. Corporate existence should be viewed and approached as a privilege that society bestows conditionally, based on whatever conditions society determines are acceptable at any given point, just like it used to in this country before the 1871 Supreme Court ruling. Should the given community determine that it is unacceptable for corporations to flagrantly discriminate against gay people, more power to them I say.

 

So people lose their Constitutional rights once they form a corporation?

So the City of New York could censor the New York Times and that should be constitutional?

Because that's what you're saying.

 

Well, it was Dan Cathy and he is a person and fortunately for America and the Constitution groups like the ACLU disagree with people like you who want to use the force of government to tell us all how to think. I hope you never know what that feels like to only be allowed to say government and state approved ideas.

Moreover, ChikFilA didn't discriminate in employement or in service. You just stated that they did. If they had the government would have been appropriate in its use of force.

 

The mayor of the city of Boston told Chik-Fil-A they aren't welcome

http://boston.cbslocal.com/2012/07/26/meninos-letter-to-chik-fil-a-president-fuels-national-debate/
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?...36030020751.189466.64266725751&type=1&theater

 

I rarely agree with you, but you are 100% correct in the analogy.

 

People have a right to boycott it as individuals, however, government has no right to interfere.

 

Government officials should not have gotten involved past stating a personal opinion unless there was a breach of law, and as far as I'm aware, there wasn't.

 

A government permitted to prohibit commerce based on the beliefs of those who endeavor to engage in it...
is a government that can prohibit commerce based on the religion, race, ethnicity, gender, or sexual orientation of those who would endeavor to engage in it.

To acheive their collectivist agenda, myopic leftists will ignore this slippery slope precedent towards unlimited government authority...
apparently trusting those who believe as they...

will always hold the reigns of power.

 

Sounds to me like the OP would be just fine going back to the government laws separating the races.

 

And that is what I have been telling people since they were clamoring for the Patriot Act, that at some point they would no longer have a Republican in charge and they would find themselves on the receiving end of the "terrorist" charge, which is exactly what has happened to the Tea Party. They've been accused of everything, even gotten themselves on watch lists.

How do they know their homes haven't been invaded in sneak and peeks? Especially after the affiliation of both Loughner and Holmes were first dishonestly pinned on them.

Think of all laws, case law, and political precedence in terms of your "nightmare" political situation in office and then ask if you want it.

 

No he is not. Individuals continue to have the same rights as always. I just mean that the corporate entity itself does not deserve rights on top of those that its individual members possess.

 

The state doesn't have any "rights". The state is not a person; it's a collective entity, just like a corporation. Saying the state has rights is identical to saying a collective entity can have rights. Like a corporation. By saying that the state (the "community") has the "right" to do something, you're ascribing personhood status to a collective entity, which is exactly what you're railing against. You've been so blinded by your Collectivist thinking that you don't even realize the hypocrisy you just made.

Also, when did Chick-Fil-A discriminate against gay people? Can you prove this assertion?

 

If a state shuts down my company because of my views, they are violating my rights as an individual to conduct business under the laws laid out. Do you mean to say that I'm not allowed to hold an opinion simply because I decided to form a corporation?

 

The corporation did not speak. The individual member Dan Cathy spoke and the corporation, franchise owners, and employees were almost victims of the state's use of force in order to make individuals submit to the type of speech that the state considers favorable.

 

Consistency check time!

Would anyone here support a ban of a Satanist Church from a city? How about a Mosque? Gay Bar?

 

Of course individuals can respond with a boycott. I don't know of anyone who says otherwise. Who are you talking about, SPECIFICALLY?

What we normal Americans are talking about are ELECTED OFFICIALS using their ELECTED OFFICE to deny a business permit to a business because they disagree with said business's political views.

You're welcome.

 

As I've aged, found soberness, and hopefully gotten wiser, I've begun to see this "government" that has veered completely away from Constitutional guidlines to satisfy our herder's agendas under the auspicies of populism...

as more and more susceptible to what I like to think of as "Newton's Third Law of Politics".....that for every major ideological shift, there is an equal and opposite ideological dynamic waiting to push back.

These far left progressive collectivists cannot seem to conceptualize the very real possibility of fundamental evangelicalism... and a move back towards "puritanicalism"... being the equal and opposite force to their moral relativism, "War on Christianity" secularism, hedonism, dependency pimping and vote harvesting, and outright feeling of entitlement....of lust for the fruits of another's inventiveness and industriousness.

To this, I would ask them if it would be OK for an elected consortium of fundamentalist evangelicals in some municipality
to prohibit an outspoken atheist from hanging out their shingle within the city limits?

 

Municipalities can prevent certain businesses from establishing themselves if they do not adhere to proper zoning codes. Personally, I think any city should be able to determine what businesses they want in the vicinity for whatever reason. Additionally, I think any business has the right to discriminate based on their own personal views, and further I think this ability to discriminate is innate in liberty, and unaffected by what government may claim as areas in which they deem the practice illegal.

Any individual or business should reserve the right to not hire, sell to, rent to, or otherwise engage in trade with whomever they choose not to. Homosexual, White, Black, crippled, fat ugly, skinny, stupid, smart, brown eyes, blue eyes, blind, American, African, German, Italian, etc...

Laws of "equal opportunity" and other such bull(*)(*)(*)(*) government intrusion are anti freedom, and you can get away with discrimination pretty easily so long as you keep your opinions to yourself.

 

So you're not saying that cities do have a right to ban corporations, but that you believe that they should. I'll just warn you of the loophole in this - 45% of the people in Chicago oppose gay marriage. Banning Chick-fil-a for what one of it's employees says opens the door to a backlash. If you can ban one organization, what is to stop the other side from banning any organization that supports gay rights? If you can ban a private corporation for it's views, you could ban a private corporation that supports gay marriage - or even a private nonprofit organization that supports it. The only difference between Chick-fil-a and a pro-gay-rights group is that they're on different sides of an issue, and one is non-profit. Being non-profit will not protect a group from such a ban.

But, I find this typical of liberals. They tend to believe in double standards. They tend to believe that Chick-fil-a should be banned from their area, but that a pro-gay-rights organization is protected from such a banning.

 

Well....let's see...corporations are people..right? Well then, government is people too. What is it right wingers are always saying? Let the "market" handle it. If a corporation has the right to do whatever it wants, allowed to say anything it wants, and choose what groups of people are "acceptable" and who are not, then government has the right to do the same with these corporate "people".

 

No, as much as the government has abused its purpose in recent years it still remains harnessed to the prohibitions of the Bill of Rights, something we ought to protect with our very lives, if necessary. Without free speech, if we set the precedence now that it's okay to do this...what happens when it is Republicans and its a gay business?

 

So then you support denying a business license if an elected official with political influence enough to deny the license doesn't like the politics of the license applicant? You sure you want to go down that road? I hope not.

 

So I take it that its OK with you if a mayor of a city doesn't agree with blacks owning business, he can ban them. How about if a person is gay and his business is banned because of it? You think governments should be able to stop commerce based on the owner's beliefs, race, or who they sleep with?

 

Nope....I am REAL American.