Welcome to the new Sinister Design forums!

Main Menu

Chick Fil-A Appreciation Day

Started by SmartyPants, August 01, 2012, 10:29:42 PM

Previous topic - Next topic


Quote from: SmartyPants on August 04, 2012, 01:58:22 PM
Quote from: Duckling on August 03, 2012, 11:21:36 PMIf the views of the official do align with those of the people, then it is more likely the organisation will be denied permission to locate in the area governed -- after all, it's just as much a matter of zoning rights and licenses as it is of buying or renting space.
Does this mean that you do think it is okay for the government to deny an organisation the right to operate in an area as long as that organisation has the minority political opinion?  Senator Joseph McCarthy would agree with that.

No. No, it does not.

It means that I think that when a government official who speaks for the people of the area he or she governs points out that an organisation holds views contrary to those held by many in said area, it is likely that the owners of the spaces said organisation would like to rent will not be receptive to the organisation's efforts to locate in the area -- this would be a choice of the people, and not of the government.


Statistically, gay marriage is more popular in American than traditional marriage.  So why is Chick Fil-A Appreciation Day so much more popular than National Starbucks Appreciation Day?  The major difference is that Chick Fil-A was bullied by liberal government officials, while Starbucks was allowed to do business without harassment by conservatives government officials.  This Chick Fil-A Appreciation Day has less to do with gay marriage and more to do with people protesting against big government trying to attack those with different political beliefs.


Quote from: SmartyPants on August 07, 2012, 03:39:45 PMThe major difference is that Chick Fil-A was bullied by liberal government officiels, while Starbucks was allowed to do business without harassment by conservatives.


Like I said many times before, boycotts by private individuals are okay, while the government bullying businesses isn't.  The example you gave me is about a non-government conservative organization boycotting Starbucks.  That is a much different situation from having liberal government officials trying to prevent Chick-Fil-A from running their business.


Sure. I'm just pointing out that Starbucks was, in fact, targeted by conservatives--just not conservative elected officials.


People felt more sympathetic to Chick-Fil-A because they were being victimised by the big, bad government, while Starbucks is being boycotted by some organization that few people take seriously. 


Ah, yes. The poor, poor faceless corporation representing senseless bigotry and hatred in this country was just being victimised by the big, scary, mean government officials suggesting they take their outdated discrimination elsewhere.

I mean, if we're going to be intolerant of one thing, it ought to be intolerance.


I still have nothing else to say, that I don't feel like the government was really bullying Chic-Fil-A at all. Just one person raising an opinion with his power as a governmental person.
If you seek it, you can find it. Freedom can be attained.