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.

I don't like bullies, even the ones in my political party.

Manchu wrote:I don't like bullies, even the ones in my political party.

True dat...

Those mayors (or any political office) are free to use the bully pulpit as they see fit...

Just as "we" voters are free NOT to vote for them come election time.

This discourse is necessary in a free society.

Manchu wrote:I don't like bullies, even the ones in my political party.

I believe that it's an elected official's duty to speak on behalf of those who elected them.

If what the official is saying is bad, they should elect someone else.

Ahtman wrote:

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.

It was definitely the political equivalent of such a statement.

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.

But they do that all the time via the police and city ordinances. The only difference is that things like theft, murder, and zoning aren't so divided as gay marriage.

Well, zoning might be.

Manchu wrote:
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.

How do you have an inclusive society when both sides of the battle are deliberately attempting to exclude the other? Some gay people want to get married, and their opponents want to live in a world in which they can't get married. There's no middle ground there, at least not any that extends beyond "feth, and be happy."

Manchu wrote:
Giving gay people a greater stake in civil society really does not have to come at the expense of diminishing anyone else's stake.

Its not just gay people though, its people that accept gay people (and are generally comfortable with sexuality). I hate to use the phrase "culture war" but its starting to look like that because there is a pretty massive disconnect between people like me, and people like Rubio.

Also, I disagree with you, I think giving gay people (and their supporters) a greater stake in civil society necessarily reduces the stake that others have. The social conservative crowd is right about that.

Whats really bad. "IF" the local state governments has the "power" to prevent CEO from expanding their business into their areas of responsibilites. The CEO's could turn it into their favor by "fine we build else where."

So all the CEO's have to say "We donate to anti gay lobbist"
Boeing
Lockheed Martin
Auto makers
etc etc
Get the reaction they want and build plants elsewhere that's more profitable to them. Thats a long legal battle for the Unions to fight.....OUCH

dogma wrote:How do you have an inclusive society when both sides of the battle are deliberately attempting to exclude the other?

I do not believe that is the necessary disposition of society but rather is promoted by certain parties to pursue interests that have nothing to do with either "traditional" values or gay "rights." As I understand it, support of homosexual marriage is a generational issue. Somehow, younger people -- even religious people like myself -- are not offended by the idea that the state might allow gay couples to get married. I do not conceive of myself, even considering my own sacramental understanding of marriage, losing any stake in society for that reason.

dogma wrote:I hate to use the phrase "culture war"

Then, in reference to what I wrote above, don't use it. Don't use it and don't enact it and don't promulgate it -- and don't participate in it.

dogma wrote:I think giving gay people (and their supporters) a greater stake in civil society necessarily reduces the stake that others have.

Again, see above.

Melissia wrote:

Akroma06 wrote:So where is he able to restrict rights?

By trying to deny the right to marry for homosexuals through funding political action groups, and through funding anti-homosexual organizations which actively go about trying to make the lives of homosexuals miserable.

I think the real problem here is political action groups and lobbyists. If you give someone a big enough lever -

Jihadin wrote:Time to......REINSTATE SPQR!!!


But I shall be AWSOMIST MAXIMIST


just because I'm watching the movie

Why god why? That movie was... fairly bad.

Is it not part of a Mayor's job to speak for their city? While it's inappropriate to misuse authority, unless they're actually denying permits or similar, is it really misuse of authority?

Manchu wrote:I don't like bullies, even the ones in my political party.

Is he the bully, or the guy standing up to the bully on behalf of his constituents? Maybe I watched too many 80s movies growing up, but I do find something appealing about seeing the bully get a punch in the eye from a kid his own size.

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.

I concur. If we're talking about action, in the sense of actually preventing the company from doing business. As opposed to expressing an opinion about that business/the owners of that business.

Ouze wrote:What I do care about is when they start to use their corporate funding to push their religious leanings via the monopolistic force of government onto other people, stealing their civil liberties, as happened with Prop. 8. The real mystery to me is why self-professed libertarian and small-government republicans would support this sort of government intrusion into private lives.

Because the vast majority of libertarians and small-government republicans are completely incapable of conceiving of the importance of rights outside of the ones they personally want to enjoy. It's why they've built an ideology nominally based around the idea of personal freedom and somehow ended up thinking the only freedoms that need protecting are property rights, gun laws, and sometimes drugs, and that everything else is up for grabs. Because in their little worlds the only time they ever feel infringed is when they don't get as much money as they wanted, when someone talks about them owning less guns, or (for some of them) when they want to smoke a joint.

They sometimes throw some lip service ideas out to people being able to follow their own religion, but only in the most superficial manner possible.

They personally don't want to be gay, because they're not gay, and so that isn't a freedom they worry about at all. The idea of liberties important to other people just don't matter at all. If they, they'd start sounding like a liberal.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:Its not intrusion. Its free speech on a topic that the majority of Americans agree with and the other side laughs at and generally screams BIGOT! at every opportunity.

Don't want to be called a bigot... then don't support a bigoted position.

I don't agree with the guy other than traditional marriage was indeed a tradition - a religious tradition. Government has no place in it.

I've explained to you many, many times that absolutely, 100% isn't true. The origin of marriage has far more of a place in inheritance and property law than it does in religious ceremony. But you just keep ignoring that, because you'd rather have a pretend reason to keep denying gay people equal rights.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

SlaveToDorkness wrote:And Dems have no history of jumping on an issue just to garner votes from a certain sector of the population.

Of course they do. Jumping onto an issue to garner votes is what politics is.

The difference, which should be very fething obvious to everyone, is whether the issue at hand is justifiable. Denying equal rights to a minority is not justifiable at all.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Akroma06 wrote:He did not say that he HATES gay marriage. Words need to be used as they were. He stated that he SUPPORTS traditional marriage.

Unless he wants to return to no divorce marriage, then he doesn't support traditional marriage. Or wants to return to marriage in which the wife is legally obligated to have sex with her husband when he wants, then he doesn't support traditional marriage.

What he does support is excluding one section of the population from marriage, because of their sexual preference. He uses made up nonsense to justify this, because he's stuck in a hard place, as he doesn't like thinking of himself as a bigot, but wants to side with the people he always sides with, who have chosen as a group to support a bigoted idea.

Mannahnin wrote:Is it not part of a Mayor's job to speak for their city? While it's inappropriate to misuse authority, unless they're actually denying permits or similar, is it really misuse of authority?

Well, yes, if he had a referendum and 100% of the returns were pro gay marriage and anti chicken, then yeah, but if people he is supposed to be representing either disagree with him or don't care on a significant level, then he isn't really speaking for his city.

He is, though. They can vote him out if they disagree, but despite the lines at the chicken stores, Bostonians in general are pro-gay marriage. The idea that he can only act or speak if 100% of constituants agree with the action or word is silly.

Manchu wrote:I do not believe that is the necessary disposition of society but rather is promoted by certain parties to pursue interests that have nothing to do with either "traditional" values or gay "rights." As I understand it, support of homosexual marriage is a generational issue. Somehow, younger people -- even religious people like myself -- are not offended by the idea that the state might allow gay couples to get married. I do not conceive of myself, even considering my own sacramental understanding of marriage, losing any stake in society for that reason.

I don't either, but many other people seemingly do. We're also not the people losing our stake in society , its the elderly and socially conservative that are.

Mannahnin wrote:He is, though. They can vote him out if they disagree, but despite the lines at the chicken stores, Bostonians in general are pro-gay marriage. The idea that he can only act or speak if 100% of constituants agree with the action or word is silly.

Whilst I was being slightly hyperbolic with the percentage, where is the cutoff point? How do you determine what percentage of the population is sufficient to where supporting them become supporting your city? 51%? Just because a population is 'generally pro-gay marriage', does that exact same percentage translate to being 'generally against chick fil a' ? You can't concretely defend a statement like this without evidence, based on generalities. Or do we assume the entire population is supporting him until they vote him out? Cause that would be silly.

If they don't think he's doing a good job of representing them, they vote him out. Lots of politicians have had long careers while still occasionally saying silly things.

I'd rather a politician make himself look silly standing up to bigotry than by being one himself (Strom Thurmond, anyone?).

Mannahnin wrote:If they don't think he's doing a good job of representing them, they vote him out. Lots of politicians have had long careers while still occasionally saying silly things.

I'd rather a politician make himself look silly standing up to bigotry than by being one himself (Strom Thurmond, anyone?).

Right, I get that, but if 52% of his city staunchly support him, 33% rabidly oppose, and the rest don't care, he can't exactly fall back behind the mantle of 'representing his city', unless he is using that as a euphemism for the far more honest 'representing those who voted for me'.
And yeah, bigotry bad (unless it's directed at bigots?! mindfeth), but that isn't really the issue here. The real issue is that political activity groups and lobbyists are bad, because they give power to bigots with money.

Well, if 52% of the city support him, and elect him, that's how representative democracy works, right? We as a community elect someone to represent us all, and to implement governmental policies and regulations for the collective weal.

Political activity and lobby groups give power to people with money, whether bigots or not. And that's kind of an unavoidable reality of politics and life. Ideally we limit how much they can do, so our politicians don't wind up bought by the highest bidder.

Maybe Menino's not so different in some ways from, say, George Wallace. In that both are/were guys not afraid to share their opinions or pander to their base. But I do see a material difference in the principles they stood up for.

Bromsy wrote:Whilst I was being slightly hyperbolic with the percentage, where is the cutoff point? How do you determine what percentage of the population is sufficient to where supporting them become supporting your city? 51%? Just because a population is 'generally pro-gay marriage', does that exact same percentage translate to being 'generally against chick fil a' ? You can't concretely defend a statement like this without evidence, based on generalities. Or do we assume the entire population is supporting him until they vote him out? Cause that would be silly.

Well, the percentage of the population needed to justify your action depends entirely on your action. For instance, if he was to say 'we will not tolerate you in our city and I will do every quasi-legal thing at my disposal to prevent you operating here' then the number would have to be pretty close to 100%.

On the other hand, writing a letter to say 'you're being a dick and in this city we don't like people who are being dicks in the way you're being a dick and nothing more than that'... well then you're probably justified with a broad majority of people happening to think that what the Chik-Fil-A CEO is doing is dickish.

Chik Fil-A is laughing all the way to the bank...

http://bottomline.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/08/02/13088211-chick-fil-a-protest-marks-rise-of-eat-in-movement?lite


The big takeaway.."Sam Hamadeh, CEO of research firm PrivCo, estimated that if the protest could have brought in $8 million in extra revenue for Chick-fil-A, assuming it got a 50 percent bump in daily sales."


GG

You know, calling marriage a religious thing means that marriage cannot be denied to homosexuals, because many religious sects would gladly marry homosexuals.

Not that the homophobes would ever listen to that kind of argument.

CT GAMER wrote:

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.

Utilizing your Fourth Amendment Rights against illegal search should also require an IQ test and a psychological screening.

Well whats good for the good is good for the gander.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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.

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.

Agreed. Houston once again must show away. The Mayor came out (pardon the pun) expressing her First A rights to not purchase CFA products, but is strongly against any official using their official capacity to influence CFA.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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.

He's not saying this. How are you getting that?

Freedom of speech is present. That doesn't mean the mayor or whoever can then say "you can't come here darkey er, CFA. I'll shut you down. "
Remember this stuff goes both ways.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Melissia wrote:You know, calling marriage a religious thing means that marriage cannot be denied to homosexuals, because many religious sects would gladly marry homosexuals.

.

EXACTLY!

Amusing story this. Homophobia from a manufacturer of crappy processed chicken.

A bit like those hotel owners who refuse to give homosexuals rooms. By which I mean unbelievably stupid.

generalgrog wrote:Chik Fil-A is laughing all the way to the bank...

http://bottomline.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/08/02/13088211-chick-fil-a-protest-marks-rise-of-eat-in-movement?lite


The big takeaway.."Sam Hamadeh, CEO of research firm PrivCo, estimated that if the protest could have brought in $8 million in extra revenue for Chick-fil-A, assuming it got a 50 percent bump in daily sales."

So your big takeaway is that Chik-Fil-A refused to comment on sales (which you intentionally omitted) and some essentially random guy, who isn't associated with the company, has absolutely no data on what specific sales were like that day (since, again, CFA didn't release any), made a wild-ass guess at a nice round number - 50% - and that's the moral of the story?

Unfortunately for you, I also run a market research firm. I have the same data about sales that day - none - and by my calculation, they actually lost eleventy billion dollars, and will likely go bankrupt soon.

I've seen people in this thread compare chic-fil-a unfavorably to KFC's chicken. Which, given the quality of KFCs chicken tells me all I need to know about them. The pathetic, backwards stance of the companies leadership and the pitiful groups they give their money to are just the goopey frosting on the gakky-ass dry cake. I for am certainly not enraged there won't be any opening near me.

I'

ve seen people in this thread compare chic-fil-a unfavorably to KFC's chicken. Which, given the quality of KFCs chicken tells me all I need to know about them. The pathetic, backwards stance of the companies leadership and the pitiful groups they give their money to are just the goopey frosting on the gakky-ass dry cake. I for am certainly not enraged there won't be any opening near me.

Whoa whoa slow down now. I believe no one mixed up chicken sandwich from CFA (yummy) the biscuits from KFC/Popeye (I choose both) and fried chicken from either KFC or Popeye...we still didn't cover everyone flavor of hot sauce with the mention fried chickens...I still refuse to click on the McNugget link

Individuals open up a franchise so maybe someone is already toying with the idea to open one up near you already

Herman Cain, the onetime GOP presidential frontrunner, weighed into the Chick-fil-A controversy during an appearance on Fox News on Friday and insisted that gay people are protesting the company’s opposition to equality for attention.
“This is simply an attempt on the part of the gay community to try and leverage their beliefs on another institution, a private company, since they can’t seem to get enough attention. That is what this is all about,” Cain told host Eric Bolling.

Cain, who claimed that he spoke with Chick-fil-A CEO Dan Cathy, said that the company’s sales exceeded $30 million during Wednesday’s “appreciation day,” “almost twice his previous high.” “They are going do take a lot of the excess profits they got on that day and contribute it to the charitable organizations they support in even bigger numbers,” Cain added.
The fast food chain has already donated millions of dollars to anti-gay organizations, including “reparative therapy” groups like Exodus International. Chick-fil-A is one of a very small number of major national companies that refuses to offer any employment protections to LGBT employees. In fact, the company received a 0 rating from the Human Rights Campaign and has a record of firing employees it believes engage in “sinful” behavior. Activists from across the country are protesting the company after its president condemned homosexuality in a recent radio interview.
On Thursday, Cain appeared on Fox News and praised Cathy for being “man enough and Christian enough” to oppose same-sex marriage.

So does reading the bible cause historical amnesia and the inability to draw parrallels between the experiences of one's own minority group and those of another?

Good thing Rosa Parks wasnt a lesbian...

Ouze wrote:
Unfortunately for you, I also run a market research firm. I have the same data about sales that day - none - and by my calculation, they actually lost eleventy billion dollars, and will likely go bankrupt soon.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Melissia wrote:You know, calling marriage a religious thing...

There's only one religion in the US Mel, Christianity*.



*The only Christians are conservative evangelicals, Baptists, and Catholics.