Boards.ie

floggg · 07-08-2012, 23:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephen_n

So if the catholic church has pickets outside the outhouse you wouldn't see a problem with it?

I wouldn't be pleased but I would recognise they have the right to. I might show up for a counter protest.

Speech is either free or it isn't.

Hence I can't understand people claiming LGBT protesters are attacking free speech. No they're nor, they're exercising it!

stephen_n · 08-08-2012, 01:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by floggg

I wouldn't be pleased but I would recognise they have the right to. I might show up for a counter protest.

Speech is either free or it isn't.

Hence I can't understand people claiming LGBT protesters are attacking free speech. No they're nor, they're exercising it!

Yeah I get and agree but don't think this case is that simple. Is it chick fil a making these donations or is it private donations made by the owner?

Conor30 · 08-08-2012, 04:43

She really is white trailer trash, isn't she!

http://www.thehollywoodgossip.com/20...she-hates-gay/

floggg · 08-08-2012, 08:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephen_n

Yeah I get and agree but don't think this case is that simple. Is it chick fil a making these donations or is it private donations made by the owner?

From what I've heard, it's the company itself.

Even if it's not, it's a privately owned company who's owners use the profits to fund anti-gay causes (not just anti-marriage equality, the would be happy to jail or "cure" us all). So if the profits of every chicken sandwich are being used to find hate groups, it's legitimate to protest the sandwich and the owner.

Heck, if you believe in free speech you should believe to protest for no good reason or justification whatsoever Westboro baptist style! The rights or wrongs of the cause shouldn't come into it.

If it's about free speech, why aren't the "free speech" defenders concerned by the anti-equality groups calling for s boycott of Amazon for Jeff Bezoz donating money to marriage equality groups in Washington. Or the boycotts of Pepsi, General Mills, JC Penny?

Because it has nothing to do with free speech. Somehow some right Wong pundits managed to reframe it that way though and the masses either fall for it, or are just happy to have a reason to jump on an anti-gay bandwagon without sounding too much like bigots.

stephen_n · 08-08-2012, 09:56

Free speech is one thing, costing people there jobs is another. The issue about funding anti gay marriage campaigns is not so straight forward, some LGBT people may decide their votes on singal issues but to say supporting a politician who is anti gay marriage, who happens to also support business and profiteering dilutes the issue greatly.

Free speech and the right to protest are not the same things, yes there is the right and indeed the necessity to inform and talk about this, but to protest outside the shops is a completely different issue which can only serve to harden attitudes in the middle ground. If the employees took the stance to protest as the Dunnes workers did, that would be a different issue but as it stands,the actions of these protestors, is no different than youth defence here, protesting outside the well woman clinics!

floggg · 08-08-2012, 11:36

Sorry, but if you believe in free speech then you believe the in the right of youth defence to protest if they wish - even if you font agree with them.

If you don't believe in the right to peacefully and lawfully protest then you don't really believe in free speech.

"Speech" in this context is more than words - its making any form of public statement.

And I think the jobs issue is a red herring. It's Chick-fil-a and Dan Cathy who politicised this by donating their profits to anti-gay causes. The LGBT community did not pick this fight.

If as a matter of conscience you disagree with that you have a right to boycott and protest that business. If jobs are lost, it's not because the protesters, it's because the company publicly took a stance which many find abhorrent and which means they cannot conscientiously spend their money there.

And yes, comparisons to blacks or other minority groups are relevant in any civil rights debate. Because its not a debate about who has it worse, it's a debate about civil rights, tolerance and equality. The same principles underpin their struggles as ours - equality.

So that being said, if jobs were lost at restaurants which were subject if sit-ins during the American civil rights movements, whose fault was it - the protesters or the restaurant managers who imposed segregation in the restaurant?

floggg · 08-08-2012, 11:53

It is also irrelevant whether or not marriage equality is a simple or complex issue. They have the right to protest and make their views known. And hopefully through their protests they can persuade others.

Of course, while many LGBT voters are not single issue voters (myself included) that doesn't stop you taking a stand when one of the issues you believe in presents itself.

Now, if it is a "complex" issue you may not agree with them on the issue, in which case you can criticise their reasoning. And you are free to join or oppose them at will.

bonniebede · 08-08-2012, 15:37

Perhaps i'm missing the point here?

this guy is using his own money or the money from his own business, which is the same thing, to support causes he believes in.

If you don't like the causes, then you are free to boycott his business. you are free to set up your own business. You are free to give your money to groups who support the opposite causes. you are free to protest outside his business.

The reason this stroy got coverage was because various mayors said they would use their power to prevent him doing business.

This is the state, saying you cannot participate in a lawful business, which does not discriminate against anyone (chick fil a serves everyone) bacuse we don't like the views of the owner, nor how he spends his money, even though nothing he spends his money on is illegal.

That is state sponsored discrimination. Surely every liberal should be opposed to that. otherwise you are not against discrimination per se, only against discrimination against you. When you take that position, you are actually saying it is fine to unjustly discriminate, your only protest is that the discrimination directed against you is unpleasant to you.

floggg · 08-08-2012, 18:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by bonniebede

Perhaps i'm missing the point here?

this guy is using his own money or the money from his own business, which is the same thing, to support causes he believes in.

If you don't like the causes, then you are free to boycott his business. you are free to set up your own business. You are free to give your money to groups who support the opposite causes. you are free to protest outside his business.

The reason this stroy got coverage was because various mayors said they would use their power to prevent him doing business.

This is the state, saying you cannot participate in a lawful business, which does not discriminate against anyone (chick fil a serves everyone) bacuse we don't like the views of the owner, nor how he spends his money, even though nothing he spends his money on is illegal.

That is state sponsored discrimination. Surely every liberal should be opposed to that. otherwise you are not against discrimination per se, only against discrimination against you. When you take that position, you are actually saying it is fine to unjustly discriminate, your only protest is that the discrimination directed against you is unpleasant to you.

Many liberals did indeed criticise it.

The debate isn't really about that though - it's been reframed by many conservative commentators to be about a perceived attack by the LGBT community/liberals against his freedom of speech and religion (the mayors comments seem to be seen as part only of that perceived attack).

Which is misguided for the reasons stated in my earlier posts.

stephen_n · 08-08-2012, 20:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by floggg

It is also irrelevant whether or not marriage equality is a simple or complex issue. They have the right to protest and make their views known. And hopefully through their protests they can persuade others.

Of course, while many LGBT voters are not single issue voters (myself included) that doesn't stop you taking a stand when one of the issues you believe in presents itself.

Now, if it is a "complex" issue you may not agree with them on the issue, in which case you can criticise their reasoning. And you are free to join or oppose them at will.

I meant the reason for the contributions to politicians who stand for more than single issues! It is assumed his money is supporting the stance against gay marriage by supporting these politicians, it is not a fact!

stephen_n · 08-08-2012, 20:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by floggg

Sorry, but if you believe in free speech then you believe the in the right of youth defence to protest if they wish - even if you font agree with them.

If you don't believe in the right to peacefully and lawfully protest then you don't really believe in free speech.

"Speech" in this context is more than words - its making any form of public statement.

And I think the jobs issue is a red herring. It's Chick-fil-a and Dan Cathy who politicised this by donating their profits to anti-gay causes. The LGBT community did not pick this fight.

If as a matter of conscience you disagree with that you have a right to boycott and protest that business. If jobs are lost, it's not because the protesters, it's because the company publicly took a stance which many find abhorrent and which means they cannot conscientiously spend their money there.

And yes, comparisons to blacks or other minority groups are relevant in any civil rights debate. Because its not a debate about who has it worse, it's a debate about civil rights, tolerance and equality. The same principles underpin their struggles as ours - equality.

So that being said, if jobs were lost at restaurants which were subject if sit-ins during the American civil rights movements, whose fault was it - the protesters or the restaurant managers who imposed segregation in the restaurant?

It's nice to have high handed morals when it's not your job being put on the line. The company did not make a public stance it made donations, the organisations protesting it took the public stance and they are therefore liable for any loss of jobs.

Not really sure where your going with the comparisons to blacks comment in your reply as it is completely out of context with anything previously mentioned in the thread.

floggg · 08-08-2012, 22:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephen_n

I meant the reason for the contributions to politicians who stand for more than single issues! It is assumed his money is supporting the stance against gay marriage by supporting these politicians, it is not a fact!

When you finance a political or other group, you fund all it's activities, not just the ones you agree with. So even if they only support some of the issues, they are responsible for advancing all of thm.

But just from looking at the website of one of the groups involved, Exodus international, it doesn't really seem like they are multi issue. The first line of their "About" section reads

Quote:

Mobilizing the body of Christ to minister grace and truth to a world impacted by homosexuality.

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephen_n

It's nice to have high handed morals when it's not your job being put on the line. The company did not make a public stance it made donations, the organisations protesting it took the public stance and they are therefore liable for any loss of jobs.

That's ludicrous. The company's management chose to take a course of action which they knew would likely alienate many. It was the company's decision to make these donations, and the president (or whatever his title is) who chose to discuss the donations on radio.

If customers find a companys actions unpalatable thy are allowed voice their opinion. The outrage is in direct response to the company's actions. It is managemnt who are responsible for those actions and thus responsible for the consequences.

On your reasoning, if people protested a clothing company which used child labour, it would be the protesters fault if lost sales meant job cuts, not the morally reprehensible decision to choose child labour. Are you for real?

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephen_n

Not really sure where your going with the comparisons to blacks comment in your reply as it is completely out of context with anything previously mentioned in the thread.

My comparison to civil rights restaurant sit-ins is entirely relevant to a present day protest of a restaurant chain on civil rights and equality grounds. I thought that would be obvious. Again, are you suggesting in that context the protesters were at fault if any restaurant staff lost jobs?

Noting your first few comments on this thread about such comprising being lazy and pointless, I included a pre-emptive rebuttal to any such response.

Azure_sky · 09-08-2012, 13:36

Only in America...

It's hard to believe that this is the same country that put a man on the moon. Oh well I welcome our Chinese, new overlords!

Conor30 · 09-08-2012, 13:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by Azure_sky

Only in America...

It's hard to believe that this is the same country that put a man on the moon. Oh well I welcome our Chinese, new overlords!

America is everything, from the deeply arch-conservative/borderline fascist to the off-their-head liberal...
The Chinese have a worse track record on human rights!!

stephen_n · 09-08-2012, 14:34

The company made behind the scenes donations they didn't make any public statement. So the support for any political candidates is impossible unless you support each and every issue they do?? That is truely ludicrous! Linking gay rights to race rights is not an issue, saying "would you say that if they were black" is completely different! As is the difference between the right to free speach and the right to protest as protesting is a far more aggressive and intimidating act! This campaign is counter productive to LGBT issues due to its point of focus!

09-08-2012, 13:36	#43
Azure_sky Registered User Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 1,102 Adverts \| Friends	Only in America... It's hard to believe that this is the same country that put a man on the moon. Oh well I welcome our Chinese, new overlords! Last edited by Azure_sky; 09-08-2012 at 13:38.

08-08-2012, 04:43	#33
Conor30 Registered User Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 516 Adverts \| Friends	She really is white trailer trash, isn't she! http://www.thehollywoodgossip.com/20...she-hates-gay/

08-08-2012, 09:56	#35
stephen_n Registered User Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Tallaght Posts: 2,345 Adverts \| Friends	Free speech is one thing, costing people there jobs is another. The issue about funding anti gay marriage campaigns is not so straight forward, some LGBT people may decide their votes on singal issues but to say supporting a politician who is anti gay marriage, who happens to also support business and profiteering dilutes the issue greatly. Free speech and the right to protest are not the same things, yes there is the right and indeed the necessity to inform and talk about this, but to protest outside the shops is a completely different issue which can only serve to harden attitudes in the middle ground. If the employees took the stance to protest as the Dunnes workers did, that would be a different issue but as it stands,the actions of these protestors, is no different than youth defence here, protesting outside the well woman clinics!

08-08-2012, 11:36	#36
floggg Registered User Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 2,189 Adverts \| Friends	Sorry, but if you believe in free speech then you believe the in the right of youth defence to protest if they wish - even if you font agree with them. If you don't believe in the right to peacefully and lawfully protest then you don't really believe in free speech. "Speech" in this context is more than words - its making any form of public statement. And I think the jobs issue is a red herring. It's Chick-fil-a and Dan Cathy who politicised this by donating their profits to anti-gay causes. The LGBT community did not pick this fight. If as a matter of conscience you disagree with that you have a right to boycott and protest that business. If jobs are lost, it's not because the protesters, it's because the company publicly took a stance which many find abhorrent and which means they cannot conscientiously spend their money there. And yes, comparisons to blacks or other minority groups are relevant in any civil rights debate. Because its not a debate about who has it worse, it's a debate about civil rights, tolerance and equality. The same principles underpin their struggles as ours - equality. So that being said, if jobs were lost at restaurants which were subject if sit-ins during the American civil rights movements, whose fault was it - the protesters or the restaurant managers who imposed segregation in the restaurant?

08-08-2012, 11:53	#37
floggg Registered User Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 2,189 Adverts \| Friends	It is also irrelevant whether or not marriage equality is a simple or complex issue. They have the right to protest and make their views known. And hopefully through their protests they can persuade others. Of course, while many LGBT voters are not single issue voters (myself included) that doesn't stop you taking a stand when one of the issues you believe in presents itself. Now, if it is a "complex" issue you may not agree with them on the issue, in which case you can criticise their reasoning. And you are free to join or oppose them at will.

08-08-2012, 15:37	#38
bonniebede Registered User Join Date: Dec 2011 Posts: 559 Adverts \| Friends	Perhaps i'm missing the point here? this guy is using his own money or the money from his own business, which is the same thing, to support causes he believes in. If you don't like the causes, then you are free to boycott his business. you are free to set up your own business. You are free to give your money to groups who support the opposite causes. you are free to protest outside his business. The reason this stroy got coverage was because various mayors said they would use their power to prevent him doing business. This is the state, saying you cannot participate in a lawful business, which does not discriminate against anyone (chick fil a serves everyone) bacuse we don't like the views of the owner, nor how he spends his money, even though nothing he spends his money on is illegal. That is state sponsored discrimination. Surely every liberal should be opposed to that. otherwise you are not against discrimination per se, only against discrimination against you. When you take that position, you are actually saying it is fine to unjustly discriminate, your only protest is that the discrimination directed against you is unpleasant to you.

09-08-2012, 14:34	#45
stephen_n Registered User Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Tallaght Posts: 2,345 Adverts \| Friends	The company made behind the scenes donations they didn't make any public statement. So the support for any political candidates is impossible unless you support each and every issue they do?? That is truely ludicrous! Linking gay rights to race rights is not an issue, saying "would you say that if they were black" is completely different! As is the difference between the right to free speach and the right to protest as protesting is a far more aggressive and intimidating act! This campaign is counter productive to LGBT issues due to its point of focus!