And yeah, the more I think about it the more pissed off I get that those mayors have said what they've said. It compromises our moral high ground, and makes it seem more like a grey area. Which it is, I guess. On the one hand you have some mayors trying to suppress a business that isn't doing anything illegal, and on the other hand you have a business that's spending some serious cash on anti-gay rights.
Fuck those mayors, seriously. They're not helping.
I'm sorry, that's bullshit.
Elected representatives have every right to speak their minds, certainly as much as a CEO. Until a permit gets denied "fuck the mayors" is ridiculous.
And even then I think there's a discussion to be had.
Mayors have the right to speak their minds as private citizens, as do Aldermen, but when they start doing things like using city stationary it shades into an inappropriate use of state power.
Posters in this thread are right that de facto it is often possible to creatively use zoning restrictions in order to punish or block certain undesirables from entering town; they are wrong in thinking that this is de jure legal. This is just as it is often possible to design facially neutral hiring and retention policies--policies which never explicitly mention race--but which are nonetheless jury-rigged so as to retain and promote whites over minorities; or, perhaps better yet, to deliberately place polling locations and install voter registration procedures such that the minority vote will be suppressed. These things are all illegal, although often difficult to catch. If you're arguing that creative zoning as a way to punish Chick-Fil-A is kosher here, then you should realize that similar maneuvering would vitiate a great deal of civil rights legislation.
Cities taking retaliatory action against a corporation--by, say, blocking its establishment of franchises, or terminating its leases in state university cafeterias--on the basis of the political views it espouses strikes me as an exceptionally clear cut violation of the freedom of speech. Which, I think, is why at least most of these mayors have been careful not to explicitly say that they will, in their role as mayor, take this form of retaliatory action, preferring nasty letters to concrete promises of action. Which, as above, is fine and all, right up until the point where the nasty letters themselves begin to be such that a reasonable person would interpret them as more than just a personal expression of disapproval, but a veiled threat of retaliation by state agencies.
So, in other words, I'm with Melkster.
What if the University Student Unions or Students At Large ask for the business to be removed? Not a challenge, just trying to parse the ethics.
0
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
And yeah, the more I think about it the more pissed off I get that those mayors have said what they've said. It compromises our moral high ground, and makes it seem more like a grey area. Which it is, I guess. On the one hand you have some mayors trying to suppress a business that isn't doing anything illegal, and on the other hand you have a business that's spending some serious cash on anti-gay rights.
Fuck those mayors, seriously. They're not helping.
I'm sorry, that's bullshit.
Elected representatives have every right to speak their minds, certainly as much as a CEO. Until a permit gets denied "fuck the mayors" is ridiculous.
And even then I think there's a discussion to be had.
Mayors have the right to speak their minds as private citizens, as do Aldermen, but when they start doing things like using city stationary it shades into an inappropriate use of state power.
Posters in this thread are right that de facto it is often possible to creatively use zoning restrictions in order to punish or block certain undesirables from entering town; they are wrong in thinking that this is de jure legal. This is just as it is often possible to design facially neutral hiring and retention policies--policies which never explicitly mention race--but which are nonetheless jury-rigged so as to retain and promote whites over minorities; or, perhaps better yet, to deliberately place polling locations and install voter registration procedures such that the minority vote will be suppressed. These things are all illegal, although often difficult to catch. If you're arguing that creative zoning as a way to punish Chick-Fil-A is kosher here, then you should realize that similar maneuvering would vitiate a great deal of civil rights legislation.
Cities taking retaliatory action against a corporation--by, say, blocking its establishment of franchises, or terminating its leases in state university cafeterias--on the basis of the political views it espouses strikes me as an exceptionally clear cut violation of the freedom of speech. Which, I think, is why at least most of these mayors have been careful not to explicitly say that they will, in their role as mayor, take this form of retaliatory action, preferring nasty letters to concrete promises of action. Which, as above, is fine and all, right up until the point where the nasty letters themselves begin to be such that a reasonable person would interpret them as more than just a personal expression of disapproval, but a veiled threat of retaliation by state agencies.
So, in other words, I'm with Melkster.
What if the University Student Unions or Students At Large ask for the business to be removed? Not a challenge, just trying to parse the ethics.
Honestly, I don't really know the law there ( @soitgoes ?); in terms of the ethics, if the Students At Large were asking particularly because they wanted to run a politically undesirable business out of town, then I would think that a dean or whatnot ought not honor that request.
And yeah, the more I think about it the more pissed off I get that those mayors have said what they've said. It compromises our moral high ground, and makes it seem more like a grey area. Which it is, I guess. On the one hand you have some mayors trying to suppress a business that isn't doing anything illegal, and on the other hand you have a business that's spending some serious cash on anti-gay rights.
Fuck those mayors, seriously. They're not helping.
I'm sorry, that's bullshit.
Elected representatives have every right to speak their minds, certainly as much as a CEO. Until a permit gets denied "fuck the mayors" is ridiculous.
And even then I think there's a discussion to be had.
Mayors have the right to speak their minds as private citizens, as do Aldermen, but when they start doing things like using city stationary it shades into an inappropriate use of state power.
Posters in this thread are right that de facto it is often possible to creatively use zoning restrictions in order to punish or block certain undesirables from entering town; they are wrong in thinking that this is de jure legal. This is just as it is often possible to design facially neutral hiring and retention policies--policies which never explicitly mention race--but which are nonetheless jury-rigged so as to retain and promote whites over minorities; or, perhaps better yet, to deliberately place polling locations and install voter registration procedures such that the minority vote will be suppressed. These things are all illegal, although often difficult to catch. If you're arguing that creative zoning as a way to punish Chick-Fil-A is kosher here, then you should realize that similar maneuvering would vitiate a great deal of civil rights legislation.
Cities taking retaliatory action against a corporation--by, say, blocking its establishment of franchises, or terminating its leases in state university cafeterias--on the basis of the political views it espouses strikes me as an exceptionally clear cut violation of the freedom of speech. Which, I think, is why at least most of these mayors have been careful not to explicitly say that they will, in their role as mayor, take this form of retaliatory action, preferring nasty letters to concrete promises of action. Which, as above, is fine and all, right up until the point where the nasty letters themselves begin to be such that a reasonable person would interpret them as more than just a personal expression of disapproval, but a veiled threat of retaliation by state agencies.
So, in other words, I'm with Melkster.
What if the University Student Unions or Students At Large ask for the business to be removed? Not a challenge, just trying to parse the ethics.
Honestly, I don't really know the law there ( @soitgoes ?); in terms of the ethics, if the Students At Large were asking particularly because they wanted to run a politically undesirable business out of town, then I would think that a dean or whatnot ought not honor that request.
Interesting. I did not expect that answer.
0
MortiousThe Nightmare BeginsMove to New ZealandRegistered Userregular
And yeah, the more I think about it the more pissed off I get that those mayors have said what they've said. It compromises our moral high ground, and makes it seem more like a grey area. Which it is, I guess. On the one hand you have some mayors trying to suppress a business that isn't doing anything illegal, and on the other hand you have a business that's spending some serious cash on anti-gay rights.
Fuck those mayors, seriously. They're not helping.
I'm sorry, that's bullshit.
Elected representatives have every right to speak their minds, certainly as much as a CEO. Until a permit gets denied "fuck the mayors" is ridiculous.
And even then I think there's a discussion to be had.
Mayors have the right to speak their minds as private citizens, as do Aldermen, but when they start doing things like using city stationary it shades into an inappropriate use of state power.
Posters in this thread are right that de facto it is often possible to creatively use zoning restrictions in order to punish or block certain undesirables from entering town; they are wrong in thinking that this is de jure legal. This is just as it is often possible to design facially neutral hiring and retention policies--policies which never explicitly mention race--but which are nonetheless jury-rigged so as to retain and promote whites over minorities; or, perhaps better yet, to deliberately place polling locations and install voter registration procedures such that the minority vote will be suppressed. These things are all illegal, although often difficult to catch. If you're arguing that creative zoning as a way to punish Chick-Fil-A is kosher here, then you should realize that similar maneuvering would vitiate a great deal of civil rights legislation.
Cities taking retaliatory action against a corporation--by, say, blocking its establishment of franchises, or terminating its leases in state university cafeterias--on the basis of the political views it espouses strikes me as an exceptionally clear cut violation of the freedom of speech. Which, I think, is why at least most of these mayors have been careful not to explicitly say that they will, in their role as mayor, take this form of retaliatory action, preferring nasty letters to concrete promises of action. Which, as above, is fine and all, right up until the point where the nasty letters themselves begin to be such that a reasonable person would interpret them as more than just a personal expression of disapproval, but a veiled threat of retaliation by state agencies.
So, in other words, I'm with Melkster.
What if the University Student Unions or Students At Large ask for the business to be removed? Not a challenge, just trying to parse the ethics.
Honestly, I don't really know the law there ( @soitgoes ?); in terms of the ethics, if the Students At Large were asking particularly because they wanted to run a politically undesirable business out of town, then I would think that a dean or whatnot ought not honor that request.
What if it was effecting the experience of some of the students? I'm sure the Klu Klux Kanteen might be off putting to some of the minority students. Even if the behaviour of the business on campus is fine.
Do companies have freedom of speech rights? That's what I wonder about.
If not, is it possible for us to separate the rights of company from those of the person?
Personally I think the anthromorphisation of companies in capitalist cultures is so half-assed and mired in contradictions that there isn't going to be any rational solution to these kind of dilemmas until that is sorted out. For example, the idea that giving company money to politicians is 'speech' and not 'bribery'. Or that companies can speak at all, that this is about the rights of the company, rather than Bill Cooper's rights to speech. Companies can't speak - that's dismissed as facile, but I've never seen an intelligent refutation of that rather than repeated dismissal as an inconvenient fact.
It's just a morass of strange ideas. How do you extract ethical actions from that?
Do I want freedom of speech to be limited? No, not at all. But this company, for example, has been explicitly limiting the free speech of its employees. Because in capitalist societies, the right of capital to be heard is more protected than those of an individual person.
Some groups are actually trying to remove CFA from our campus and I hope we do.
We are forced to buy meal plans, so you can't even effectively boycott unless you spend every penny at different campus restaurants, because they take a cut of the remainder.
Corporations have MORE rights than people. If they thought it was worth the effort there would probably be a move to give corporations the right to vote.
Which is odd, since corporations, being wholly-owned by other people, are essentially slaves.
Personally I like the zinger, "I'll believe that corporations are people when Texas executes one."
I think that the Mayors were being dicks because there are just too many degrees of separation.
It's one thing to tell a KKK member that he can't do business in your town.
It's quite another thing to tell a franchise owner that he can't do business because the CEO (who he probably has never even met in person) has donated to a KKK-like organization that he doesn't actually run himself.
Now, you can nitpick this all you want. But the mayors in question invited controversy upon themselves when they could have kept the controversy on CFA. It was a stupid, stupid move politically.
And yeah, the more I think about it the more pissed off I get that those mayors have said what they've said. It compromises our moral high ground, and makes it seem more like a grey area. Which it is, I guess. On the one hand you have some mayors trying to suppress a business that isn't doing anything illegal, and on the other hand you have a business that's spending some serious cash on anti-gay rights.
Fuck those mayors, seriously. They're not helping.
I'm sorry, that's bullshit.
Elected representatives have every right to speak their minds, certainly as much as a CEO. Until a permit gets denied "fuck the mayors" is ridiculous.
And even then I think there's a discussion to be had.
Mayors have the right to speak their minds as private citizens, as do Aldermen, but when they start doing things like using city stationary it shades into an inappropriate use of state power.
Posters in this thread are right that de facto it is often possible to creatively use zoning restrictions in order to punish or block certain undesirables from entering town; they are wrong in thinking that this is de jure legal. This is just as it is often possible to design facially neutral hiring and retention policies--policies which never explicitly mention race--but which are nonetheless jury-rigged so as to retain and promote whites over minorities; or, perhaps better yet, to deliberately place polling locations and install voter registration procedures such that the minority vote will be suppressed. These things are all illegal, although often difficult to catch. If you're arguing that creative zoning as a way to punish Chick-Fil-A is kosher here, then you should realize that similar maneuvering would vitiate a great deal of civil rights legislation.
Cities taking retaliatory action against a corporation--by, say, blocking its establishment of franchises, or terminating its leases in state university cafeterias--on the basis of the political views it espouses strikes me as an exceptionally clear cut violation of the freedom of speech. Which, I think, is why at least most of these mayors have been careful not to explicitly say that they will, in their role as mayor, take this form of retaliatory action, preferring nasty letters to concrete promises of action. Which, as above, is fine and all, right up until the point where the nasty letters themselves begin to be such that a reasonable person would interpret them as more than just a personal expression of disapproval, but a veiled threat of retaliation by state agencies.
So, in other words, I'm with Melkster.
More thoughts on this issue from the ACLU, which is pretty much saying what we both have been saying:
Everybody has a right to spout off about same-sex marriage and equal rights. Mr. Cathy and those who share his views can have their shout, even if their views are bigoted. Likewise, the Mayor and others who reject Mr. Cathy’s backwards views on marriage equality have a right publicly to denounce prejudice. That’s the American way.
Of course, there are limits. Chick-fil-A and other restaurants must abide by Massachusetts nondiscrimination laws in employment and public accommodations. Similarly, government officials who engage in state action – such as refusing a permit – based on viewpoint discrimination are subject to strict scrutiny by the Courts for potentially violating the First Amendment.
Looks like that’s what happened in Chicago, where a local alderman threatened to use his “aldermanic privilege” to actually deny Chick-fil-A a building permit. There, Mr. Cathy may have a pretty strong claim under the First Amendment that he is a victim of viewpoint discrimination by a government official.
And yeah, the more I think about it the more pissed off I get that those mayors have said what they've said. It compromises our moral high ground, and makes it seem more like a grey area. Which it is, I guess. On the one hand you have some mayors trying to suppress a business that isn't doing anything illegal, and on the other hand you have a business that's spending some serious cash on anti-gay rights.
Fuck those mayors, seriously. They're not helping.
I'm sorry, that's bullshit.
Elected representatives have every right to speak their minds, certainly as much as a CEO. Until a permit gets denied "fuck the mayors" is ridiculous.
And even then I think there's a discussion to be had.
Mayors have the right to speak their minds as private citizens, as do Aldermen, but when they start doing things like using city stationary it shades into an inappropriate use of state power.
Posters in this thread are right that de facto it is often possible to creatively use zoning restrictions in order to punish or block certain undesirables from entering town; they are wrong in thinking that this is de jure legal. This is just as it is often possible to design facially neutral hiring and retention policies--policies which never explicitly mention race--but which are nonetheless jury-rigged so as to retain and promote whites over minorities; or, perhaps better yet, to deliberately place polling locations and install voter registration procedures such that the minority vote will be suppressed. These things are all illegal, although often difficult to catch. If you're arguing that creative zoning as a way to punish Chick-Fil-A is kosher here, then you should realize that similar maneuvering would vitiate a great deal of civil rights legislation.
Cities taking retaliatory action against a corporation--by, say, blocking its establishment of franchises, or terminating its leases in state university cafeterias--on the basis of the political views it espouses strikes me as an exceptionally clear cut violation of the freedom of speech. Which, I think, is why at least most of these mayors have been careful not to explicitly say that they will, in their role as mayor, take this form of retaliatory action, preferring nasty letters to concrete promises of action. Which, as above, is fine and all, right up until the point where the nasty letters themselves begin to be such that a reasonable person would interpret them as more than just a personal expression of disapproval, but a veiled threat of retaliation by state agencies.
So, in other words, I'm with Melkster.
More thoughts on this issue from the ACLU, which is pretty much saying what we both have been saying:
Everybody has a right to spout off about same-sex marriage and equal rights. Mr. Cathy and those who share his views can have their shout, even if their views are bigoted. Likewise, the Mayor and others who reject Mr. Cathy’s backwards views on marriage equality have a right publicly to denounce prejudice. That’s the American way.
Of course, there are limits. Chick-fil-A and other restaurants must abide by Massachusetts nondiscrimination laws in employment and public accommodations. Similarly, government officials who engage in state action – such as refusing a permit – based on viewpoint discrimination are subject to strict scrutiny by the Courts for potentially violating the First Amendment.
Looks like that’s what happened in Chicago, where a local alderman threatened to use his “aldermanic privilege” to actually deny Chick-fil-A a building permit. There, Mr. Cathy may have a pretty strong claim under the First Amendment that he is a victim of viewpoint discrimination by a government official.
The ACLU quote is what most of us who are saying they shouldn't be forced out are really saying. When a business is forced out only on the ideological views of the corporation by a zoning board that is openly saying that they are doing it only for ideological/political/religious reasons, they are violating their rights of free speech. Now if share holders and the like want to bail on Chik-Fil-A, if people stop buying there forcing restaurants to close, then that is different.
The shithead CEO has free speech rights and that's what they're reacting to.
And private companies get to restrict the speech of their employees, yes.
And you don't see any contradictions in that? Why does he have more rights than the other employees? He is an employee too.
No.
A mayor deciding government business is different than a CEO deciding business practice.
Freedom of speech is freedom from the government restricting your speech (or pushing consequences upon you as a result of your speech), not freedom from private action. It's why it's bullshit when Sarah Palin whines all the god damn time.
Now if you want to say a Chick-Fil-A wants to expand into an area not zoned for restaurants, or restrict them because they violate your city's labor laws, or unfairly compete with local businesses, harming the local economy, that's a government interest and you can restrict them all you want based on those things. Can't do it based on what their CEO says.
And I am totally pro-telling them to fuck off on those grounds, even if it's just an excuse because they're run by assholes. My principles are weird.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
So I heard someone say a word today that just sounded so fucking horrible.
"Heterophobic."
This is like people thinking "Reverse racism" is a bigger problem than racism.
I'm not sure it's a problem, but it sure is funny. I mean, hetros are a majority. A massive majority. It would be odd if things *weren't* slanted that way. Thus, I find the bashing a little odd (that robot thing earlier being a prime example).
...but seriously, those damn hetros.
Frankiedarling on
0
ElldrenIs a woman dammitceterum censeoRegistered Userregular
I just wish this chic-fil-a thing would go away
this was the consensus in my class tonight as well
People want it all to shut up and go away at this point
fuck gendered marketing
0
Deebaseron my way to work in a suit and a tieAhhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered Userregular
The shithead CEO has free speech rights and that's what they're reacting to.
And private companies get to restrict the speech of their employees, yes.
And you don't see any contradictions in that? Why does he have more rights than the other employees? He is an employee too.
Incorrect. He's the owner. He has the right to restrict his employees from talking to the media as his employees (if they want to remain his employees.)
this was the consensus in my class tonight as well
People want it all to shut up and go away at this point
You know how things are.
The instant a tragedy or celebrity death occurs, it'll leave the public's mind.
I love how this implies that a celebrity death isn't a tragedy.
Well, I guess it depends on which celebrity.
Also depends on what happened.
For example, if Charlie Sheen died tomorrow of a drug overdose, would anybody truly be surprised and say, "oh, this is such a tragic thing that nobody saw coming!"
And yeah, the more I think about it the more pissed off I get that those mayors have said what they've said. It compromises our moral high ground, and makes it seem more like a grey area. Which it is, I guess. On the one hand you have some mayors trying to suppress a business that isn't doing anything illegal, and on the other hand you have a business that's spending some serious cash on anti-gay rights.
Fuck those mayors, seriously. They're not helping.
I'm sorry, that's bullshit.
Elected representatives have every right to speak their minds, certainly as much as a CEO. Until a permit gets denied "fuck the mayors" is ridiculous.
And even then I think there's a discussion to be had.
Mayors have the right to speak their minds as private citizens, as do Aldermen, but when they start doing things like using city stationary it shades into an inappropriate use of state power.
Posters in this thread are right that de facto it is often possible to creatively use zoning restrictions in order to punish or block certain undesirables from entering town; they are wrong in thinking that this is de jure legal. This is just as it is often possible to design facially neutral hiring and retention policies--policies which never explicitly mention race--but which are nonetheless jury-rigged so as to retain and promote whites over minorities; or, perhaps better yet, to deliberately place polling locations and install voter registration procedures such that the minority vote will be suppressed. These things are all illegal, although often difficult to catch. If you're arguing that creative zoning as a way to punish Chick-Fil-A is kosher here, then you should realize that similar maneuvering would vitiate a great deal of civil rights legislation.
Cities taking retaliatory action against a corporation--by, say, blocking its establishment of franchises, or terminating its leases in state university cafeterias--on the basis of the political views it espouses strikes me as an exceptionally clear cut violation of the freedom of speech. Which, I think, is why at least most of these mayors have been careful not to explicitly say that they will, in their role as mayor, take this form of retaliatory action, preferring nasty letters to concrete promises of action. Which, as above, is fine and all, right up until the point where the nasty letters themselves begin to be such that a reasonable person would interpret them as more than just a personal expression of disapproval, but a veiled threat of retaliation by state agencies.
So, in other words, I'm with Melkster.
I'm aware of this, and the fact that it is regularly and consistently used against minorities, the young, homosexuals, and other "undesirables."
I'm not proposing it's Constitutional; I'm merely proposing that since they do it to us, the way to get the behavior to stop is not to roll over and ask really nicely; the way to get the behavior to stop is to do it to them. I'm not saying it's nice, Constitutional, or legal; I'm just saying that they can't actually prove it's not okay, and they regularly screw us with it, so fuck them and the horse they rode in on.
The shithead CEO has free speech rights and that's what they're reacting to.
And private companies get to restrict the speech of their employees, yes.
And you don't see any contradictions in that? Why does he have more rights than the other employees? He is an employee too.
Incorrect. He's the owner. He has the right to restrict his employees from talking to the media as his employees (if they want to remain his employees.)
It's totally reasonable.
It's conventional, I'd agree. But I've yet to see any reason why it should be reasonable.
Is free speech a fundamental right? Are other private citizens able to restrict my rights in this way, for example my right to procreate? Would it be OK if my employer told me I cannot marry someone of a different race?
You guys want it to be simple. It just isn't.
I figure I could take a bear.
+1
Deebaseron my way to work in a suit and a tieAhhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered Userregular
Freedom of speech doesn't mean speech is free from all consequences.
Play with the roles a little. Say you own a nail factory. It's super successful. One of your employees talks to the media AS AN EMPLOYEE OF YOURS and says something like "As a foreman of Poshniallo's Nail Foundry, I find blacks and gays to be lazy".
Or hell, let's take controversy out of it completely. A journalist contacts Foreman chucklefuck about a story he's writing on nails. The foreman says something that puts your company in a bad light.
It isn't violating his free speech to shitcan him.
I imagine that speech for employees works similar to speech for servicemen, only the civilian employee probably has a greater degree of freedom because people misconstruing things is far less of an issue if it's a business and huge headache if it's the government. So if someone who works for Chick-Fil-A dresses up in the tacky outfit and says something that their employer finds damning, then Chick-Fil-A probably has reasonable grounds for dismissing that individual. Now if an employee of the company says something they don't like, say along the lines of "Chick-Fil-A is lame for being closed on Sundays and telling gays they can't marry," while appearing to have no ties to the company to outsiders and Chick-Fil-A fires him/her for that remark. Then that employee probably has just grounds to sue Chick-Fil-A for violating their freedom of speech.
In any case, I'm going to need more info on these places being accused of preventing Chick-Fil-A from opening. I'm seeing lots of spinning with the story and I wouldn't put it past the right to just flat out lie about something to gain points. It looks like a gov't official in Chicago might have committed a foul but that doesn't confirm the accusation leveled at the other two cities.
AbsalonLands of Always WinterRegistered Userregular
If you can use your political power against verminous business owners, why not come up with a non-political reason to hurt them rather than admit that you are punishing them for being evil?
Essentially, saying Dumbledore can't be gay because he wasnt explicitly gay just assumes heterosexuality for every character. By making Dumbledore explicitly gay, Rowling would have accepted that assumption. While a lot of people probably do assume that, you can't start to diffuse the assumption unless you work without it.
For another example, look at Neil Gaiman's "Anansi Boys." The main cast is predominantly black, but he leaves that out when describing them. The assumption is that characters in Britain and the US are white unless we're told otherwise. Gaiman turns the assumption around, and only describes the non-black characters' race (as "white"). People don't notice the assumption until it's broken. It's harder to do with a non-obvious trait like homosexuality, but the practice of dispensing with the assumption by refusing to explicitly describe how a character isn't the norm works the same way.
I guarantee you that if Grindelwald was a woman, the books would've explicitly stated that Dumbledore was in love with her.
The shithead CEO has free speech rights and that's what they're reacting to.
Not really, the reaction is more about the fact he donates profits from his business to hate groups. I could care less about what he personally thinks about gay marriage.
0
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Essentially, saying Dumbledore can't be gay because he wasnt explicitly gay just assumes heterosexuality for every character. By making Dumbledore explicitly gay, Rowling would have accepted that assumption. While a lot of people probably do assume that, you can't start to diffuse the assumption unless you work without it.
For another example, look at Neil Gaiman's "Anansi Boys." The main cast is predominantly black, but he leaves that out when describing them. The assumption is that characters in Britain and the US are white unless we're told otherwise. Gaiman turns the assumption around, and only describes the non-black characters' race (as "white"). People don't notice the assumption until it's broken. It's harder to do with a non-obvious trait like homosexuality, but the practice of dispensing with the assumption by refusing to explicitly describe how a character isn't the norm works the same way.
I guarantee you that if Grindelwald was a woman, the books would've explicitly stated that Dumbledore was in love with her.
I guarantee you that you can't guarantee that.
Personally I don't give a shit if Dumbledore is gay or not. I was a little put off by what seemed like the ridiculous pandering at the time by Rowling, but it changes nothing about the books.
Maybe someday we can have a kid's book with an openly gay character. Until then authors coming in after the fact and saying that the completely non-sexual character is gay seems like a pointless, if well meaning, gesture.
So I heard someone say a word today that just sounded so fucking horrible.
"Heterophobic."
This is like people thinking "Reverse racism" is a bigger problem than racism.
The closest term I could come up with is 'cis-privilage' that gets tossed around by Social Justice Warriors in blogs. (Granted, it's a tiny minority) Are you a white, heterosexual, male? Congratulations, your opinions mean nothing, since everything you say is going to be homophobic, racist, and misogynistic.
Now, personally that's the only 'Heterophobia' I've seriously ever heard of. Most of the non-internet world has never even heard of it.
The data for that chart ended 4 years ago, those estimates probably grew 60% each!
But seriously, I'm kinda surprised by that data.
Seriously, the amount of progress that has been made on the public support for gay marriage in the last few years is incredible. This is an issue where the public opinion is changing at the cultural equivalent of warp 9.
So some dude videotaped himself going through the drive thru at Chick-fil-a yesterday, ordering a "free water", and having a conversation with the Chick-fil-a employee at the window.
Apparently he posted it, got lambasted and took it down hours later.
The data for that chart ended 4 years ago, those estimates probably grew 60% each!
But seriously, I'm kinda surprised by that data.
Seriously, the amount of progress that has been made on the public support for gay marriage in the last few years is incredible. This is an issue where the public opinion is changing at the cultural equivalent of warp 9.
Right, but the point to note is the wide spread between states, even if the trend between age groups is basically the same.
And yeah, the more I think about it the more pissed off I get that those mayors have said what they've said. It compromises our moral high ground, and makes it seem more like a grey area. Which it is, I guess. On the one hand you have some mayors trying to suppress a business that isn't doing anything illegal, and on the other hand you have a business that's spending some serious cash on anti-gay rights.
Fuck those mayors, seriously. They're not helping.
I'm sorry, that's bullshit.
Elected representatives have every right to speak their minds, certainly as much as a CEO. Until a permit gets denied "fuck the mayors" is ridiculous.
And even then I think there's a discussion to be had.
Mayors have the right to speak their minds as private citizens, as do Aldermen, but when they start doing things like using city stationary it shades into an inappropriate use of state power.
Posters in this thread are right that de facto it is often possible to creatively use zoning restrictions in order to punish or block certain undesirables from entering town; they are wrong in thinking that this is de jure legal. This is just as it is often possible to design facially neutral hiring and retention policies--policies which never explicitly mention race--but which are nonetheless jury-rigged so as to retain and promote whites over minorities; or, perhaps better yet, to deliberately place polling locations and install voter registration procedures such that the minority vote will be suppressed. These things are all illegal, although often difficult to catch. If you're arguing that creative zoning as a way to punish Chick-Fil-A is kosher here, then you should realize that similar maneuvering would vitiate a great deal of civil rights legislation.
Cities taking retaliatory action against a corporation--by, say, blocking its establishment of franchises, or terminating its leases in state university cafeterias--on the basis of the political views it espouses strikes me as an exceptionally clear cut violation of the freedom of speech. Which, I think, is why at least most of these mayors have been careful not to explicitly say that they will, in their role as mayor, take this form of retaliatory action, preferring nasty letters to concrete promises of action. Which, as above, is fine and all, right up until the point where the nasty letters themselves begin to be such that a reasonable person would interpret them as more than just a personal expression of disapproval, but a veiled threat of retaliation by state agencies.
So, in other words, I'm with Melkster.
I'm aware of this, and the fact that it is regularly and consistently used against minorities, the young, homosexuals, and other "undesirables."
I'm not proposing it's Constitutional; I'm merely proposing that since they do it to us, the way to get the behavior to stop is not to roll over and ask really nicely; the way to get the behavior to stop is to do it to them. I'm not saying it's nice, Constitutional, or legal; I'm just saying that they can't actually prove it's not okay, and they regularly screw us with it, so fuck them and the horse they rode in on.
It might feel good to hurt them as bad as we've been hurt, but it isn't right.
Posts
Honestly, I don't really know the law there ( @soitgoes ?); in terms of the ethics, if the Students At Large were asking particularly because they wanted to run a politically undesirable business out of town, then I would think that a dean or whatnot ought not honor that request.
What if it was effecting the experience of some of the students? I'm sure the Klu Klux Kanteen might be off putting to some of the minority students. Even if the behaviour of the business on campus is fine.
It’s not a very important country most of the time
http://steamcommunity.com/id/mortious
If not, is it possible for us to separate the rights of company from those of the person?
Personally I think the anthromorphisation of companies in capitalist cultures is so half-assed and mired in contradictions that there isn't going to be any rational solution to these kind of dilemmas until that is sorted out. For example, the idea that giving company money to politicians is 'speech' and not 'bribery'. Or that companies can speak at all, that this is about the rights of the company, rather than Bill Cooper's rights to speech. Companies can't speak - that's dismissed as facile, but I've never seen an intelligent refutation of that rather than repeated dismissal as an inconvenient fact.
It's just a morass of strange ideas. How do you extract ethical actions from that?
Do I want freedom of speech to be limited? No, not at all. But this company, for example, has been explicitly limiting the free speech of its employees. Because in capitalist societies, the right of capital to be heard is more protected than those of an individual person.
And private companies get to restrict the speech of their employees, yes.
We are forced to buy meal plans, so you can't even effectively boycott unless you spend every penny at different campus restaurants, because they take a cut of the remainder.
And you don't see any contradictions in that? Why does he have more rights than the other employees? He is an employee too.
Citizens United says "yyyyyyyup."
Which is odd, since corporations, being wholly-owned by other people, are essentially slaves.
Personally I like the zinger, "I'll believe that corporations are people when Texas executes one."
It's one thing to tell a KKK member that he can't do business in your town.
It's quite another thing to tell a franchise owner that he can't do business because the CEO (who he probably has never even met in person) has donated to a KKK-like organization that he doesn't actually run himself.
Now, you can nitpick this all you want. But the mayors in question invited controversy upon themselves when they could have kept the controversy on CFA. It was a stupid, stupid move politically.
More thoughts on this issue from the ACLU, which is pretty much saying what we both have been saying:
http://www.aclu.org/blog/free-speech-lgbt-rights/menino-v-chick-fil
http://equalitymatters.org/factcheck/201207020001
This is just in 2010 though...
The ACLU quote is what most of us who are saying they shouldn't be forced out are really saying. When a business is forced out only on the ideological views of the corporation by a zoning board that is openly saying that they are doing it only for ideological/political/religious reasons, they are violating their rights of free speech. Now if share holders and the like want to bail on Chik-Fil-A, if people stop buying there forcing restaurants to close, then that is different.
"Heterophobic."
This is like people thinking "Reverse racism" is a bigger problem than racism.
No.
A mayor deciding government business is different than a CEO deciding business practice.
Freedom of speech is freedom from the government restricting your speech (or pushing consequences upon you as a result of your speech), not freedom from private action. It's why it's bullshit when Sarah Palin whines all the god damn time.
Now if you want to say a Chick-Fil-A wants to expand into an area not zoned for restaurants, or restrict them because they violate your city's labor laws, or unfairly compete with local businesses, harming the local economy, that's a government interest and you can restrict them all you want based on those things. Can't do it based on what their CEO says.
And I am totally pro-telling them to fuck off on those grounds, even if it's just an excuse because they're run by assholes. My principles are weird.
I'm not sure it's a problem, but it sure is funny. I mean, hetros are a majority. A massive majority. It would be odd if things *weren't* slanted that way. Thus, I find the bashing a little odd (that robot thing earlier being a prime example).
...but seriously, those damn hetros.
this was the consensus in my class tonight as well
People want it all to shut up and go away at this point
Incorrect. He's the owner. He has the right to restrict his employees from talking to the media as his employees (if they want to remain his employees.)
It's totally reasonable.
You know how things are.
The instant a tragedy or celebrity death occurs, it'll leave the public's mind.
Steam
I love how this implies that a celebrity death isn't a tragedy.
Well, I guess it depends on which celebrity.
Also depends on what happened.
For example, if Charlie Sheen died tomorrow of a drug overdose, would anybody truly be surprised and say, "oh, this is such a tragic thing that nobody saw coming!"
Steam
I'm not proposing it's Constitutional; I'm merely proposing that since they do it to us, the way to get the behavior to stop is not to roll over and ask really nicely; the way to get the behavior to stop is to do it to them. I'm not saying it's nice, Constitutional, or legal; I'm just saying that they can't actually prove it's not okay, and they regularly screw us with it, so fuck them and the horse they rode in on.
It's conventional, I'd agree. But I've yet to see any reason why it should be reasonable.
Is free speech a fundamental right? Are other private citizens able to restrict my rights in this way, for example my right to procreate? Would it be OK if my employer told me I cannot marry someone of a different race?
You guys want it to be simple. It just isn't.
Play with the roles a little. Say you own a nail factory. It's super successful. One of your employees talks to the media AS AN EMPLOYEE OF YOURS and says something like "As a foreman of Poshniallo's Nail Foundry, I find blacks and gays to be lazy".
Or hell, let's take controversy out of it completely. A journalist contacts Foreman chucklefuck about a story he's writing on nails. The foreman says something that puts your company in a bad light.
It isn't violating his free speech to shitcan him.
In any case, I'm going to need more info on these places being accused of preventing Chick-Fil-A from opening. I'm seeing lots of spinning with the story and I wouldn't put it past the right to just flat out lie about something to gain points. It looks like a gov't official in Chicago might have committed a foul but that doesn't confirm the accusation leveled at the other two cities.
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.
Not really, the reaction is more about the fact he donates profits from his business to hate groups. I could care less about what he personally thinks about gay marriage.
I guarantee you that you can't guarantee that.
Personally I don't give a shit if Dumbledore is gay or not. I was a little put off by what seemed like the ridiculous pandering at the time by Rowling, but it changes nothing about the books.
Maybe someday we can have a kid's book with an openly gay character. Until then authors coming in after the fact and saying that the completely non-sexual character is gay seems like a pointless, if well meaning, gesture.
The closest term I could come up with is 'cis-privilage' that gets tossed around by Social Justice Warriors in blogs. (Granted, it's a tiny minority) Are you a white, heterosexual, male? Congratulations, your opinions mean nothing, since everything you say is going to be homophobic, racist, and misogynistic.
Now, personally that's the only 'Heterophobia' I've seriously ever heard of. Most of the non-internet world has never even heard of it.
WoW
Dear Satan.....
Reality must be collapsing.
Seriously, the amount of progress that has been made on the public support for gay marriage in the last few years is incredible. This is an issue where the public opinion is changing at the cultural equivalent of warp 9.
Apparently he posted it, got lambasted and took it down hours later.
Right, but the point to note is the wide spread between states, even if the trend between age groups is basically the same.
It might feel good to hurt them as bad as we've been hurt, but it isn't right.