Skip to main content

View Diary: Glenn Greenwald and Chick-Fil-A (46 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Intolerance is intolerable. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Mike Stark

    Any person or organization advocating for prejudice is misusing its right of free speech and deserves to lose it. If someone made the false statement that Gleen Greenwald is a pedophile, that person would be liable to a lawsuit and a hefty judgement against them, at the very least. If someone makes the false statement that same-sex attraction is perverted or deviant, in the face of all the evidence that it isn't, they are doing exactly the same thing and deserve to face exactly the same penalties.

    "They smash your face in, and say you were always ugly." (Solzhenitsyn)

    by sagesource on Thu Aug 02, 2012 at 12:39:47 PM PDT

    •  That's insane. (8+ / 0-)

      People should "lose" their free speech?  Eesh.

    •  that's really interesting (0+ / 0-)

      i never really considered the law of libel and slander as applied to sex-bigots.

      Was never very good at math. Oddly, though, I can count by twos if I start at the number 1.

      by Mike Stark on Thu Aug 02, 2012 at 01:01:30 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I think there is a false equivalence here (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      soros, aliasalias, pico

      If someone made a statement that Glenn Greenwald were a pedophile (or had committed some other act, both reprehensible and illegal), such a statement is either true or false and is subject to rebuttal. If the statement is false then the person who made it would undoubtedly be liable for slandering or libeling him.

      I'm a gay man and I naturally DO NOT believe that same-sex attraction is perverted or deviant. However, that is my opinion. Apart from the fact that believing my own sexual orientation to be immoral would be pointless, there is of course ample evidence of same-sex sexual behavior not only throughout human history and among countless other species of animals. It thus presumably serves some purpose in the scheme of evolutionary biology and for that reason I see no reason why any sane person ought to view homosexuality as either deviant or immoral. I believe it was Gore Vidal who noted that, were homosexual acts TRULY unnatural they would in fact be impossible to perform.

      If, on the other hand, someone chooses to take the opposite view and insist that homosexual feelings and behavior is either deviant or immoral or both, they may be foolish and bigoted but it is simply their opinion. They are entitled to it, all evidence to the contrary and they are likewise entitled to express it. They will undoubtedly subject themselves to public derision and rightfully so but they are still entitled to hold their opinion and to express it in public.

      What aggravates me in this whole discussion is a couple of things:

      First, whatever various elected officials have stated with regard to how they'd view Chick-Fil-A's application for a permit to do business in their jurisdiction, no concrete action has been taken or refused based upon those statements. It's likely for example that were they to attempt to open a franchise adjacent to the Freedom Trail, unless there were some specific zoning ordinance prohibiting them from being there or some public policy initiative allowing citizens to vote on their application, they'd probably end up prevailing. The fact is that, having opened up a store, they would not be protected from picketing, boycotts and other sorts of protest (including adverse reviews in the food columns of local newspapers) and were all of that to result in their failure as a business well...too bad for them. San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee recently made a statement that, in his opinion, there's no place for a Chick-Fil-A franchise in San Francisco. He's entitled to make that statement. Getting the permits to open a restaurant in San Francisco is a pretty grueling process, in part at least because of the degree of neighborhood involvement in the approval process. Even were the organization to succeed in obtaining permission to operate in San Francisco however, such a venture would almost certainly fail for one simple reason: very few people would patronize it.
      Meanwhile no such application has actually been made and Mayor Lee is entitled to say whatever he pleases.

      Secondly, what is objectionable about Chick-Fil-A, apart from the very real possibility that they may have illegally discriminated in refusing to hire certain sorts of individuals is not the voicing of their prejudiced views. What's repugnant is that the money going into Don Cathy's pockets ends up paying for lobbying and that lobbying goes towards preventing the enactment of anti-discrimination measures in the US and, as a very specific example, preventing Congress from passing an ordinance calling for the government of Uganda NOT to make homosexuality and homosexual behavior capital offenses. It is not the voicing of personal opinions that is the problem. It is the support (or lack of support) for specific kinds of laws that is objectionable.

      •  false equivalence? (0+ / 0-)
        First, whatever various elected officials have stated with regard to how they'd view Chick-Fil-A's application for a permit to do business in their jurisdiction, no concrete action has been taken or refused based upon those statements.
        The reason "no concrete action has been taken" appears to be that the officials in question have backed down from their original statements, probably under legal advice that what they wanted and threatened to do was illegal.  I've seen a number of people conveniently overlook this.
        What's repugnant is that the money going into Don Cathy's pockets ends up paying for lobbying and that lobbying goes towards preventing the enactment of anti-discrimination measures in the US and, as a very specific example, preventing Congress from passing an ordinance calling for the government of Uganda NOT to make homosexuality and homosexual behavior capital offenses.
        So I take it you accept Greenwald's hypothetical that Texas, say, could block Amazon from doing business there because Jeff Bezos has used the money that went into his pockets to support organizations that advocate for same-sex marriage?  Because that's the principle you're using: that if a position is unacceptable and "unwelcome" in a given locale, the government can act against the companies of individuals who donate their money to advocate for that position.

        You do, realize, don't you, that Glenn Greenwald is gay, and a vocal advocate of same-sex marriage?  I'm gay too, and while I'm not a big supporter of the issue, I'm a vocal opponent of antigay bigotry.  It doesn't follow from our sexual orientation that we want the state to stomp on our opponents.

        •  The state is not stomping our opponents (0+ / 0-)

          In fact I do NOT accept Greenwald's hypothetical that Texas could prevent Amazon from doing business there because of Jeff Bezos' support of marriage equality. It's a red herring.

          People who happen to be elected officials have expressed what essentially is their personal opinion backed up by absolutely nothing. Not a single concrete official act. They know full well that they don't even begin to have the power to effect a decision like that other than through persuasion.  I don't claim to know the workings of Boston's government if it's anything like the way things work in SF, I can tell you that, by and large, the mayor of San Francisco has little to no power to prevent a specific business from opening up here. If it were to be blocked it would be blocked based on administrative processes that elected officials in general have little to no direct influence over. Big projects involving wholesale rezoning and massive tax breaks quite possibly but a single store almost certainly not. And they know it.

          The owners of Chick-Fil-A not only do not support our rights the actively support organizations that want to criminalize our very existence. I don't live anywhere near a Chick-Fil-A and it's not the sort of business I'd patronize anyway but if things were otherwise I'd make damned sure to avoid spending money at one.

    •  NO, intoleranece is the American way (0+ / 0-)

      The radical Republican party is the party of oppression, fear, loathing and above all more money and power for the people who robbed us.

      by a2nite on Thu Aug 02, 2012 at 04:12:18 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site