FA+
Shop
Why do I even know people that support Chick-Fil-A?
13 years ago
*Cross posted from facebook*
I am truly bothered by the fact that even a few of my FB friends are making posts in support of Chick-Fil-A. More so that they are claiming that it is about freedom of speech and not that other, much darker reason that some people are shamelessly trying to pretend this is not about.
The right is always complaining about the left, extremists, activists, or the government persecuting them and their beliefs, very simply mistaking not being able to do whatever they want, whenever they want for censorship. For once they actually have a point, when several cities in the US told Chick-Fil-A that they were not welcome as long as they, as a company, maintained their repugnant and hateful ideals, following renewed remarks by the CEO of the company. The CEO is allowed to feel how he wants about whatever he wants, and believe whatever he wants.
The thing to remember about free speech is that it is also a two way street. So when you open your mouth and make shameful public statements, adding the tag of "free speech" to homophobic comments, combined with a long standing homophobic agenda, and millions donated to anti gay causes, you can expect a verbal slap back. The whole point to free speech is the invitation of praise or criticism when you make very public declarations. It is not, a term to be bandied about like a shield, so that you can say whatever you want, then quickly yell "FREE SPEECH!" to shut down people any time somebody doesn't like or agree with what you say. You can also very much expect that push back when you shamelessly use the window dressing of free speech for rampant public homophobia.
If you really believe in first amendment rights, great, but it is hard to believe that is truly the reason that everybody came out on the 1st. When bible verses are being chanted, and someone brings a (no joke) 8 foot cross to CFA. This doesn't look like people protesting for freedom of speech, but a simple us vs "them" flocking to flaunt bigotry. If it was just about the first amendment, you guys couldn't find a better first amendment rights case to stand up for than the rich homophobe that's being picked on by those evil gays and their agenda that he so publicly bashes?
I won't even get into the pathetic hypocrisy of this entire gay marriage battle, but suffice to say cherry picking the bible so profoundly cheapens its overall message and thoroughly disrespects your God.
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7026/.....4c35d7ac79.jpg
I am truly bothered by the fact that even a few of my FB friends are making posts in support of Chick-Fil-A. More so that they are claiming that it is about freedom of speech and not that other, much darker reason that some people are shamelessly trying to pretend this is not about.
The right is always complaining about the left, extremists, activists, or the government persecuting them and their beliefs, very simply mistaking not being able to do whatever they want, whenever they want for censorship. For once they actually have a point, when several cities in the US told Chick-Fil-A that they were not welcome as long as they, as a company, maintained their repugnant and hateful ideals, following renewed remarks by the CEO of the company. The CEO is allowed to feel how he wants about whatever he wants, and believe whatever he wants.
The thing to remember about free speech is that it is also a two way street. So when you open your mouth and make shameful public statements, adding the tag of "free speech" to homophobic comments, combined with a long standing homophobic agenda, and millions donated to anti gay causes, you can expect a verbal slap back. The whole point to free speech is the invitation of praise or criticism when you make very public declarations. It is not, a term to be bandied about like a shield, so that you can say whatever you want, then quickly yell "FREE SPEECH!" to shut down people any time somebody doesn't like or agree with what you say. You can also very much expect that push back when you shamelessly use the window dressing of free speech for rampant public homophobia.
If you really believe in first amendment rights, great, but it is hard to believe that is truly the reason that everybody came out on the 1st. When bible verses are being chanted, and someone brings a (no joke) 8 foot cross to CFA. This doesn't look like people protesting for freedom of speech, but a simple us vs "them" flocking to flaunt bigotry. If it was just about the first amendment, you guys couldn't find a better first amendment rights case to stand up for than the rich homophobe that's being picked on by those evil gays and their agenda that he so publicly bashes?
I won't even get into the pathetic hypocrisy of this entire gay marriage battle, but suffice to say cherry picking the bible so profoundly cheapens its overall message and thoroughly disrespects your God.
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7026/.....4c35d7ac79.jpg
Despite the personal leanings of a coperate owner, it is illegal to the government to discriminate against them without a clear violation of the law.
So yeah, despite the gravity of the issues being debated, a city threatening to oust Chick-Fil-A based solely on their personal policy without any legal trespass is a first amendment issue.
So, boycott Chick-Fil-A, speak out against them, and use the freedom of speech guaranteed in this country to raise issue with their social leanings but understand that the ability to have an open an frank discourse about these issues of social policy is important. Despite one's own position that system must not be allowed to become inherently biased against those not in the majority party's favor lest we lose our ability to enact any discourse on unpopular issues labeled double-plus-ungood by the powers that be.
"
GIACHINO: Along those lines then, have you ever taken a case simply because you felt compelled because it was best for the First Amendment — maybe you didn’t care too much for the party you were representing or the facts of the case, but the First Amendment needed an advocate?
ABRAMS: Yes, I have done that. I can’t — I still owe a duty of loyalty to my clients and former clients, so I cannot specify which clients I did not especially find congenial, but the cause was the same. I think that it is important for people to understand that whether a good-guy or a bad-guy wins a case is less important than what the law is that the case results in. So sometimes the facts are good and sometimes the facts are bad, the important thing from the point of view of a principle as broad and important as freedom of speech is that the courts articulate and set forth in a very protective way what those principles are. And that is done regardless of whether or not a particular client behaved well or badly.
"
This is a quotation from a 2005 interview with Floyd Abrams, who is a leading expert on constitutional law who represented the New York Times in the federal grand jury investigation into the Plame affair, and i believe his sentiment should be taken into consideration. (full text here: http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/freedoml.....yd-abrams.html )
In the end, i find the issue of freedom of speech something which i personally must always fight for, specifically because it allows large scale discussions on controversial issues that may or may not result in social reform. Taking that away or otherwise imposing governmental restrictions on unpopular positions can only result in a worse system with less freedoms and an overall less informed and less socially conscious voting populous.
As a libertarian I find that an unacceptable situation.
i apologize :P i was up far too early when i responded.