Thread: 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.

Originally Posted by Polly Minx

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.

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/2012/07/2...tional-debate/
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?f...type=1&theater

Originally Posted by Blackrook

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.

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.