Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

In that sense, donating money to a pro-gay political action group that lobbies to shut down the business of people with certain religious views is just like donating money to the KKK. After all, they both repress and aim to eliminate the freedoms of a minority group.

azazel the cat wrote:

Manchu wrote:No that doesn't adequately capture the issue. That's just the same tired assumptions and sentiments trotted out once again.

Then please explain to me how Hollywood giving money to the Brady Center for Prevention of Gun Violence is any different than donating money to the Ku Klux Klan. Because outside of some minor semantics, the comparison is apt. Both organizations have the goal of repressing or eliminating the freedoms of a minority group (gun owners).

Corrected your typo.

Frazzled wrote:

azazel the cat wrote:

Manchu wrote:No that doesn't adequately capture the issue. That's just the same tired assumptions and sentiments trotted out once again.

Then please explain to me how Hollywood giving money to the Brady Center for Prevention of Gun Violence is any different than donating money to the Ku Klux Klan. Because outside of some minor semantics, the comparison is apt. Both organizations have the goal of repressing or eliminating the freedoms of a minority group (gun owners).

Corrected your typo.

Are gun owners really a minority?

Manchu wrote:In that sense, donating money to a pro-gay political action group that lobbies to shut down the business of people with certain religious views is just like donating money to the KKK. After all, they both repress and aim to eliminate the freedoms of a minority group.

You're not considering the concept in the depth that it requires. The hyperbolic example you have used really translates more like this:

"the government is taking away my freedom to take away this smaller guy's freedom! I want to have the freedom to oppress that little guy!"

For your reading pleasure, I recommend Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan

No, what I am saying is that political expression is necessary in a democracy and that the government should not step in to give the advantage to either side of a debate.

d-usa wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

azazel the cat wrote:

Manchu wrote:No that doesn't adequately capture the issue. That's just the same tired assumptions and sentiments trotted out once again.

Then please explain to me how Hollywood giving money to the Brady Center for Prevention of Gun Violence is any different than donating money to the Ku Klux Klan. Because outside of some minor semantics, the comparison is apt. Both organizations have the goal of repressing or eliminating the freedoms of a minority group (gun owners).

Corrected your typo.

Are gun owners really a minority?

In New York and Illinois they are.

Frazzled wrote:

d-usa wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

azazel the cat wrote:

Manchu wrote:No that doesn't adequately capture the issue. That's just the same tired assumptions and sentiments trotted out once again.

Then please explain to me how Hollywood giving money to the Brady Center for Prevention of Gun Violence is any different than donating money to the Ku Klux Klan. Because outside of some minor semantics, the comparison is apt. Both organizations have the goal of repressing or eliminating the freedoms of a minority group (gun owners).

Corrected your typo.

Are gun owners really a minority?

In New York and Illinois they are.

Well if we are talking about some of those cities, then legal gun owners might be a minority, but not gun owners (counting the criminal folk)

Are responsible gun owners really a minority?

Fixed

To a few on here. I do believe so

Jihadin wrote:

Are responsible gun owners really a minority?

Fixed

To a few on here. I do believe so

From listening to the comments made on the gun forums I frequent, I can almost believe that though.

There are so many facepalm moments on them I don't even know where to start. Sometimes gun owners are our own worst enemy.

Frazzled wrote:

azazel the cat wrote:

Manchu wrote:No that doesn't adequately capture the issue. That's just the same tired assumptions and sentiments trotted out once again.

Then please explain to me how Hollywood giving money to the Brady Center for Prevention of Gun Violence is any different than donating money to the Ku Klux Klan. Because outside of some minor semantics, the comparison is apt. Both organizations have the goal of repressing or eliminating the freedoms of a minority group (gun owners).

Corrected your typo.

This is why I love you Frazzled...just so much win.

d-usa wrote:

Jihadin wrote:

Are responsible gun owners really a minority?

Fixed

To a few on here. I do believe so

From listening to the comments made on the gun forums I frequent, I can almost believe that though.

There are so many facepalm moments on them I don't even know where to start. Sometimes gun owners are our own worst enemy.

Purchasing a gun should also require an IQ test and a psychological screening.

Purchasing a gun should also require an IQ test and a psychological screening.

I like that Gamer...but
todays education is not as good as our education in the pass (think your near 40....think)

Psycho screening needs to be paid by the individual attempting to purchase a fire arm

Manchu wrote:No, what I am saying is that political expression is necessary in a democracy and that the government should not step in to give the advantage to either side of a debate.

Sort of. Certain kinds of political expression are valuable to certain democracies, but all political expression is not valuable to all democracies.

For example, Latin democracies are quite happy to tolerate attempted revolutions because the military tends to protect the rich, and the history of the relevant countries involves lots of attempted revolutions. Another example is striking in France, which is not nearly so well tolerated elsewhere.

The state, and nation, give advantage to different sides by means of what they want, or how they're trying to achieve what they want.

Fair points, d. To be more specific, I am repulsed by the idea of any level of government in the United States taking action against a business owner because he donates to certain lobbyist groups.

Manchu wrote:Fair points, d. To be more specific, I am repulsed by the idea of any level of government in the United States taking action against a business owner because he donates to certain lobbyist groups.

So someone, lets say the Mayor of a city, is not allowed to express an opinion on a subject because they are in office? Of course, isn't the point of lobbyist groups to lobby the government, which means that people in government aren't allowed to have a say, or even any action, when dealing with people whose express purpose is to deal with them? The business gives money to people to get the government to do what they want, and in turn the people in government give the people who give the lobbyists certain concessions on behalf of their 'constituents'. It is a snake eating it's own tail; it isn't as if these are disconnected elements. I kind of feel like I know what you are trying to get at, but it still feels a bit to broad.



Also, pastor calls for the death penalty for the Muppets for supporting gay marriage. So, there is that.

Manchu wrote:In that sense, donating money to a pro-gay political action group that lobbies to shut down the business of people with certain religious views is just like donating money to the KKK. After all, they both repress and aim to eliminate the freedoms of a minority group.

Well spoken.

Ahtman wrote:So someone, lets say the Mayor of a city, is not allowed to express an opinion on a subject because they are in office?

Sure they are. I think they should not be allowed to use their office to obstruct lawful business transacted by people who disagree with them.

I think it says something depressing about our culture that it is so hard to explain or understand why a mayor shouldn't use his bully pulpit to shut out a business on these grounds.

Manchu wrote:I think it says something depressing about our culture that it is so hard to explain or understand why a mayor shouldn't use his bully pulpit to shut out a business on these grounds.

It's more depressing that you think that the mayor shouldn't. The bully pulpit isn't an actual ban. And if the words the mayor says about the company are true, then the people of the city have every right to know about the gak-fether business practices of the trashy, homophobic businesses like this.

Emperor knows that the bully pulpit has been used for far lesser things.

I guess what I am saying is that I don't think the bully pulpit should be used to bully at all -- whether it's bullying gays or people who disagree that anyone has the right to marry someone else of the same sex.

Manchu wrote:

Ahtman wrote:So someone, lets say the Mayor of a city, is not allowed to express an opinion on a subject because they are in office?

Sure they are. I think they should not be allowed to use their office to obstruct lawful business transacted by people who disagree with them.

Barring the fact that I don't believe that any government official has actually done any more than say they don't like the views expressed (though a few came close to be sure), are you saying it is ok when business uses it's massive buying power and influence to obstruct people who they disagree with them? When a business buys legislation that is ok, but if a elected government officials use their duly appointed powers granted to them by their office (not talking anything illegal here) to prevent a company from buying legislation that is bad? Seems a bit off.

What seems to be hard to understand, actually, is that other people besides the CEO of CFA are allowed to have an opinion on the subject as well; that people and business other than CFA can use their money to influence process and culture as well. It seems odd to attack those who are doing the same thing CFA is doing, expressing a political opinion and using their money to back it up, but somehow they are treated like they are the intolerant ones. One can't use the 'they are allowed to have an opinion' to counter someone else's opinion.

People took pictures of themselves at Chik-fil-a on cell phones manufactured by pro-gay companies and using OS's produced by pro-gay companies. They were probably uploaded to facebook, twitter, ect which are all pro-gay companies, and did so on cellular service provided by one of the four major operators (AY&T, Verizon, Sprint, T-Mobile) which are all pro-gay companies. While at CFA they probably got a beverage, which is supplied exclusively by Coca-cola, a pro-gay company. If they used a VISA, Mastercard, or Amercian Express to pay for their meal they again helped support a pro-gay company. If they drove there in a GM, Ford, Toyota, or Chryler car there, well, you get the point by now. Maybe this isn't so much about supporting CFA's anti-gay rights policies as it is giving more support to pro-gay rights companies.

Manchu wrote:I guess what I am saying is that I don't think the bully pulpit should be used to bully at all -- whether it's bullying gays or people who disagree that anyone has the right to marry someone else of the same sex.

If the mayor had said the same threatening things about a business that promoted gay marraige, then the other side would have accused him of misuse of his position.

Government officials do not get to use their offices to vent their personal opinions about whatever issues on the rest of us. This is exactly why Catholic politicians find themselves voting for pro-choice laws -- and the inability for some of the left to understand why the mayors' actions are repugnant is exactly like the inability of some of the right to understand how Catholic politicians could support pro-choice (or even pro-gay) laws. Business owners do not have the same constraints on their expression as government officials.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Relapse wrote:

Manchu wrote:I guess what I am saying is that I don't think the bully pulpit should be used to bully at all -- whether it's bullying gays or people who disagree that anyone has the right to marry someone else of the same sex.

If the mayor had said the same threatening things about a business that promoted gay marraige, then the other side would have accused him of misuse of his position.

And yet they are pretending not to understand how this is the same. It's mind-numbing.

If you're going to claim that the bully pulpit shouldn't be used at all-- that elected officials shouldn't speak out on any issue-- I don't really see how we can agree on this.

Ever.

My goal is not to get you to agree with me. And "speaking out" is one thing -- but I don't think that's what's going on here. What I see is the same old methods, hateful demagoguery, turned on new targets. Our society will never be safe for anyone -- even gay people -- as long as we try to address established social inequities by advocating novel ones.

Melissia wrote:If you're going to claim that the bully pulpit shouldn't be used at all-- that elected officials shouldn't speak out on any issue-- I don't really see how we can agree on this.

Ever.

It went far beyond just speaking out on a subject. When an elected official says something equivelant to, "Don't let the sun set on you in these parts.", as the mayor did, that is out and out wrong.

Manchu wrote:understand how this is the same. It's mind-numbing.

Pretending that all causes are somehow equally valid is what is mind numbing. Pretending that not giving a company money to fund it's pet political projects is somehow infringing on it's rights is mind numbing. Pretending that the CEO expressing his opinion and using his money to further his personal religious beliefs is sacrosanct, but other CEOs and non-CEOs expressing their opinion of him is somehow a violation is mind numbing.

I've worked at food banks and homeless shelters and I've never seen as many Christians there as I have as there were at CFA, and that is something Jesus actually advocated.

Manchu wrote:Government officials do not get to use their offices to vent their personal opinions about whatever issues on the rest of us. This is exactly why Catholic politicians find themselves voting for pro-choice laws -- and the inability for some of the left to understand why the mayors' actions are repugnant is exactly like the inability of some of the right to understand how Catholic politicians could support pro-choice (or even pro-gay) laws. Business owners do not have the same constraints on their expression as government officials.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Relapse wrote:

Manchu wrote:I guess what I am saying is that I don't think the bully pulpit should be used to bully at all -- whether it's bullying gays or people who disagree that anyone has the right to marry someone else of the same sex.

If the mayor had said the same threatening things about a business that promoted gay marraige, then the other side would have accused him of misuse of his position.

And yet they are pretending not to understand how this is the same. It's mind-numbing.

I see from this thread if your against what the mayor said, you're automatically a homophobic, card carrying member of the KKK.

Relapse wrote:It went far beyond just speaking out on a subject. When an elected official says something equivelant to, "Don't let the sun set on you in these parts.", as the mayor did, that is out and out wrong.

That isn't even close to what he said. The statement implied no violence whatsoever, whereas that is implicitly a call for violence. There is a difference between "we don't care for that kind of attitude" and "We'll kill you if you come here". I know creating fake martyrs and fake battles in the fake War on Christianity is part of the appeal for some, but this is ridiculous.

The issue at hand involves mayors (not CEOs) saying "your beliefs and practices mean you are unwelcome here." I have no issue with any of these mayors committing their personal wealth to lobbying a cause. What I find troubling is committing public resources to such campaigns. If one mayor can say "people who don't advocate gay marriage aren't welcome" then another can surely say "gay people are not welcome here." That's not the kind of battle that this should be. The goal should be to have an inclusive society. Using public office to issue statements fostering exclusivity is counterproductive.

In effect, I believe the appropriate mayoral response -- note response, not initiative -- would be to simply state that all are welcome. Giving gay people a greater stake in civil society really does not have to come at the expense of diminishing anyone else's stake. By their actions, these mayors have merely confirmed to both their ideological enemies and to people like myself who would not otherwise oppose them that their rhetoric about a better society is intrinsically empty. This is just more "eye for an eye" pandering -- this is not building a society premised on a commitment to the dignity of all its constituents.

The best society we can possibly build is not one that proceeds from the notion that "whoever is not with us is against us" but rather "whoever is not against us is with us." We can see that longstanding prejudices against homosexuals have largely drained away by this attitude: many Americans have noticed that homosexuals are not committed to destroying their communities simply because they want the same privileges or rights with regard to their significant others as heterosexuals enjoy. Changing tacks now and insisting that we must root out all who aren't yet on board is a sad and sinister development. The only future that can lead to is entrenchment of hostility.

Manchu wrote:The issue at hand involves mayors (not CEOs) saying "your beliefs and practices mean you are unwelcome here." I have no issue with any of these mayors committing their personal wealth to lobbying a cause. What I find troubling is committing public resources to such campaigns. If one mayor can say "people who don't advocate gay marriage aren't welcome" then another can surely say "gay people are not welcome here."

Expressing disapproval in the organization, and using the bully pulpit to point out that they are scummy trash who participate in gay-bashing through their political donations, is a perfectly valid use of political office.