Skip to main content

View Diary: Chick-Fil-A : Bye-Bye (76 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  It obviously is. Look at whether abortion clinics (0+ / 0-)

    can get a license from authorities in Kansas.

    Or look at whether the NSA is going to hire someone if they're outspoken in favor of medical marijuana.

    •  Wow, those are two pretty extreme examples (0+ / 0-)

      Hard to put that on par with denying a license to a restaurant company.  But, for sure, both of those examples are unacceptable uses of government power as well.

      I guess the question is, if you are bothered by your two examples above, why are you not equally bothered by the implied discrimination against Chik-Fil-A?

      We should be outraged against ALL government discrimination, not just the ones that discriminate against people who support causes we believe in.

      A right is only secure if it is freely enjoyed by all.

      •  I'm not saying it's a good thing. Rather, (0+ / 0-)

        I'm saying it's legal.  

        If you want to know how I feel about it...well...I just don't care.  On the range of moral outrages this falls so far below my radar that it might as well be a fart on a greyhound bus.  My outrage ran out somewhere between the kids killed abroad by drone bombs and people in this country dying because they don't have what plenty of people here have in plenty to give.  

        •  It's not legal. (0+ / 0-)

          If the exclusion of Chik-Fil-A is based on exercise of free speech then it is illegal.  And the First Amendment must be zealously guarded, for if we lose that we lose one of the essential tools for speaking out against the things you list above that do cause you moral outrage.

          There is absolutely no reason you cannot be upset by more than one thing at once.  As Obama tells us, "We can walk and chew gum at the same time".

          But I will grant you that your items certainly carry greater import than the singular issue of CHIk-Fil-A opening a restaurant.  Which is why I am confused that you started this conversation with something as inconsequential as the NSA not hiring people who support medical marijuana laws.  It's not like there's any great issue at stake there.

          Anyway, essentially we're on the same side here.  We both want to eliminate illegal discrimination (whether by individuals or companies against gay folks or by government agianst a company exercising its first amendment rights).  I don't have any argument with you fighting to do that in the areas where you have passion, just as I hope you would support me in the areas where I have it.  For the record, I stopped my frequent visits to CFA as a result of their stance, which I find reprehensible.  But that doesn't mean I want government to be able to act against them.

          •  I actually don't support corporate speech at all. (0+ / 0-)

            I feel it does a disservice to democracy as a process and institution by giving an out-sized voice to management.  Every dollar management spends directly on some political cause is another dollar the employees can't donate to the cause of their choice.  

            Entities like The Sierra Club, or Focus on the Family for that matter, which were founded based on membership and whose entire mission is geared towards advocacy, I consider fundamentally different and thus legitimate.

            And if you want me to lay my freedom on the line to protest these so called 'free speech zones' I'm on board.  

            I consider free speech a more nuanced subject when capitalism comes to play a strong role in its expression.  In the case of corporate speech in the form of donations to advocacy groups, every dollar spent by the company literally deprives their employees as a group of that same dollar's worth of speech.  Same goes for campaign finance.  When one party can outspend the other, it's not just a matter of being able to afford more commercials.  The richer entity can actually drive up the cost of commercials with their business, literally depriving the other party of speech they'd otherwise be able to afford.  You can easily have free speech where a vast majority of people have no voice at all.  So when I decide free speech is a concern as a necessary part of a democratic political process I must also decide equal speech is a concern, and a balance that tries to maximize each in the context of maximizing the other is an ideal.  And as far as I'm concerned that means removing capitalism from the equation, as best we are able.

            •  Picking winners and losers (0+ / 0-)

              Let's not broaden this discussion.  It's really pretty simple.  Government officials should not be picking winners and losers based upon the political positions of those that come before them (whether companies, individuals, or any other entity they exercise authority over).  Not much else to say beyond that.

              •  Nor should they on gender or sexual orientation. (0+ / 0-)

                I don't feel I was broadening the discussion by talking about the context, nor do I think we have an audience's just you and me.  If you choose to disengage, that's your prerogative.  I consider context very important.  One right taken often serves to deprive those of another.  By applying rules rigidly in isolation of context, we can easily do a disservice to the principle behind the rule, or to another we hold dearly.

                So no.  Not simple.  Never ever simple.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site