Response to responses
So, I knew that this Chick-Fil-A issue was gripping the nation and everything, but my last entry still got a much larger response than I expected. This being so, I devote this entire entry to responding to the responses. If I didn’t respond to yours, then it’s probably because you just agreed with me and there was nothing contrary to say. If you want a response, you have to fight with me!
“yeah, so elected conservatives actively block same-sex marriage and attempt to block the construction of mosques, but liberals give sternly worded statements about the things they don’t like so really both sides are the same” – Anonymous
First, I reject the notion that liberals are only “giving stern worded statements” on the Chick-Fil-A issue when there were literal threats to block Chick-Fil-A from opening stores. I’ll concede that the actual blocking may not happen (unconstitutionality?), but then you could say the same thing about conservatives attempting to block the mosques. I agree that a lot of what goes on is posturing and politicking, but just the fact that taking away rights from others is successful politicking is depressing to me.
All that said, I also don’t think both sides are literally the same so much as I think they both sometimes use the same flawed logic when it comes to certain issues, specifically the elimination of individual liberties. It often just depends on which liberties are being removed as to which side they are on.
There was a letter to the editor in the ‘Opinion’ section of my newspaper today. The writer stated that upon learning of Chick-Fil-A’s new stance on gays, that they’d now make it a point to frequent the establishment, in support of the resteraunts staunch proclaimation. I honestly could’nt tell if it was serious or good trolling. [MrMaverick]
It could be trolling, but then there are plenty of people I know who would support a restaurant precisely because they are anti-gay marriage. It’s not too surprising as plenty of people support companies because they support what they stand for, just more often it’s for causes that I personally find more worthwhile. But certainly anyone has a right to eat there more often if they want, just as anyone else has a right to boycott the restaurant because of the issue.
I appreciated this entry. I just honestly don’t understand why its necessary for us to know of any company’s political views. Their job is to provide us with products, not their opinions. [anythingbutlove]
I generally agree, though I’ll admit I’m sympathetic to the argument that, due to the way our political system is controlled by money, giving a business money could result in giving power to the political causes the business owners supports. In my ideal world this would not be true, but given that it is, I suppose a business’s political stances are something to consider on some level, especially if it is well-known that the business regularly contributes money to the political cause (such as in the case of Chick-Fil-A).
Cities block corporations all the time. Look up how many cities have blocked Walmart from building in their town. I don’t see any difference about Chick Fil A and their practices. [Miss Adia]
Fair point, but I think blocking Chick-Fil-A is different because it is very overtly because of their political stances, whereas the blocking of Wal-Mart isn’t (although there is certainly some political motivations there). That said, I think it’s also absurd that Wal-Mart is blocked from coming into cities. I know there’s this whole argument about how Wal-Mart kills “main street” and hurts communities, but here’s the thing, if people really don’t prefer Wal-Mart then they won’t shop there and thus Wal-Mart will fail. There’s no reason for the politicians to decide for us that Wal-Mart is a bad thing – the public at large can make that decision for themselves. If people prefer the convenience and lower prices of Wal-Mart, then they deserve the right to benefit from them.
Besides, the internet is also guilty of hurting “Main Street” and there doesn’t seem to be this clamor to shut down the internet. People accept that, generally, shopping online provides certain advantages and it is an acceptable cost that “Main Street” type stores suffer. Why can’t they accept the same thing about Wal-Mart?
But surely you also agree that the city in question has the right to refuse any buisness it sees fit to trade within the city? [williamthebloody]
This very nearly seems reasonable, but only if you’re presuming that a city government has the same rights as an individual. I reject that – what is a city, but a collection of individuals? A city government should exist to enforce individual rights, not so as to develop rights of its own.
And there really isn’t any sacrifice of any individual liberties by allowing Chick-Fil-A to open a store. By blocking Chick-Fil-A you deny people the choice of eating there and the individuals at the company from making a profit, but by allowing them you aren’t denying anyone any rights. The people who don’t want to eat there don’t have to eat there to begin with. Supposing there really is a universal “we” that comprises the city and no one actually wants to eat there, then the business will fail immediately and there is no need to block them from entering the city to begin with.
I don’t think your banning smoking in bars is a very good counter example. Otherwise I enjoyed the read. [kittenCorn]
I think they’re both examples of infringements on individual liberties. Ok, what’s the argument for banning smoking from bars? If the argument is to protect children from inhaling the smoke, then I can understand that, but that argument doesn’t hold when we’re talking about a bar where no children are allowed to enter. If only adults are involved, then why shouldn’t the adults be allowed to make their own decisions on the matter? If someone hates smoking in bars, then they don’t have to go to bars. If enough people hate smoking in bars and won’t go in them, then bars will start to disallow smoking on their own. The point is I don’t believe it’s the government jobs to “protect people because we know what’s better for their own safety than they do.” Isn’t that precisely the same argument that’s used to rationalize the Patriot Act? That the government needs to protect us from dangers that we can’t?
I mean, at least the Patriot Act has the argument that it is actually protecting us from an outside force that we couldn’t protect ourselves from. We all have the choice of whether we enter a bar that allows smoking or not. There is no rationalization for the regulation other than “government knows better than the masses what is good for them.”
Hmm, that was fun. Now with any luck I can do a response to responses to responses entry and we can continue this tradition indefinitely!
Response-ception.
Warning Comment
Nothing to say other than I love the UK’s smoking ban. It’s truly a lovely thing, watching shivering smokers huddled underneath outdoor heaters on a Saturday night. Poor things.
Warning Comment
hm. i swear i thought i responded to your previous entry. i probably talked about it somewhere else on the internet. =P anyways. you bring up some good points and mostly i have been bored/unopinioned on the matter. however: the walmart thing is interesting. i have not done much research in the topic, so i don’t have very strong ideas about it. but – if studies show that a particular thing
Warning Comment
(whether it be a walmart, smoking, whatever) hurts a community in the long-term, even though in the short term, people would benefit from it, how much responsibility do city planners and zoning law policy people have in preventing it? given that zoning policy makers are The Government, do you believe that we should even HAVE zoning policy?
Warning Comment
(i feel that my tone didn’t come across well. it wasn’t a shocked/outraged why-do-you-dislike-zoning tone. i’m really honestly interested, because one of the careers i think i’d love is being a city planner, but i morally struggle with the concept that basically i’d (want to) be a social engineer…)
Warning Comment
I thought the smoking ban was to protect bar staff, not children. I loved the smoking ban – made it extraordinarily easy to pull
Warning Comment
Hi, Matt: This might be pretty long so hold on to your hat!!! HA!!! Seriously, the Chick-Fil-A and what he said…he didn’t do anything wrong. He was exercising his first amendment, BUT there is a consequence to what you say to folks in public. More than ever, people have to watch what they say…even though it may not be illegal wrong…to a group of people, it is.
Warning Comment
People, if there is enough of them, can protest in their community in not wanting a business establishment…and yes, the reasons matter…but…if you are are savvy enough, there are many reasons you may not want that business there besides it being Christian. Also, if you can make a good argument and evidential support, one could say that since the owner is against gay marriage…the community
Warning Comment
members may feel threaten because they think that Christians may harass members and such in the community. If these arguments are held up, then, a business may not come there. YET…sometimes, community members may not need to provide evidential support. They may just not want a business there for all the reasons that have been given in the past by other community members…too much built up…
Warning Comment
This established may bring crime, etc. Whatever the case maybe, I believe that the owner should have kept quiet. Again, there is a slow acceptance of people’s sexuality now. There are more open homosexual, bisexual, transsexuals, etc. in our society than 100 to 200 years ago. You can’t just say stuff like that if you still want the dough to flow in. Legal or not, he is going to at least take a
Warning Comment
small hit to his profits.
Warning Comment
RYN – I’ve never been to either place, nonetheless I feel confident that the answer is yes. ~I’ll be
Warning Comment
I think it’s unfair to say that if people don’t like smoking in bars, then they shouldn’t go to bars. I like going to bars, I don’t want to come out smelling like cigarettes. I have a hard time with smoking bans and seat belt laws too, but I agree with both of them. ~I’ll be
Warning Comment
RYN – I wouldn’t be able to afford a “nicer” bar, and I don’t think we have any of those anyway… Also, those places may be close on the map, but I’m sure there’s no reason to visit them. Sorry you’ll be stuck there… ~I’ll be
Warning Comment
Matt, I think you need to be more clear that your argument is not that you disagree with having non smoking bars, it’s that you disagree that the government should be passing laws about it. Then again, what about smoking in public in general? Why do they get any say? I mean, maybe all horrible thing should be allowed by everyone, illegal drugs, prostitution, etc. Doesn’t mean we’re all going to..
Warning Comment
ryn: do you disagree with Public Health as a concept then? Banning public smoking is I think one of the few measures that’s been shown to have a very definitive impact on respiratory illnesses. Lots of government interference is stupid (or protecting vested interests) I agree (e.g. telling people to eat less to curb obesity instead of targeting the companies producing such unhealthy food) but I
Warning Comment
…go out and do them, right? Who says Government knows best? Also, I disagree that there are more gay people today than there have been in the past. And I’m glad that people stand up for what they believe, even if it leads to cities making silly laws. I mean, what about not being able to keep a donkey in the bathtub? And do you own a rake? Because you’d have to if you lived in Ackworth!
Warning Comment
believe the evidence is pretty good on that one. That quote makes no sense at all. I couldn’t count the number of times I job hunted for ages and only found work in a pub. How many job offers do you get at any one time? I can (and do) still choose to smoke of course… pubs have beer gardens. It did encourage a hell of a lot of people to quit, though.
Warning Comment
RYN: You know there’s actually talk of about football possibly not being a sport anymore in the future because it’s been discovered to have such serious health issues. Though I don’t see that happening very soon. As for sitting all day, technically you’re required to take breaks at certain jobs after a period of time. So I mean, they’ve nearly banned that too. Haha. But yeah…
Warning Comment
…I never said I disagreed with your idea that the government should play less of a role in what they regulate. Yes, you should have mentioned how in California, there are places that were trying to ban toys from the happy meal, because it encourages kids to want unhealthy food. Apparently parents can’t say “no” these days. Ridiculous. Though McDonald’s is pretty disgusting.
Warning Comment
P.S. I think you should write an entry about your bromance with Chris. People need to know!
Warning Comment
Heather, I don’t know if you were talking to me about my comment about there being more gay people now than in the past…I should have specified. There are more individuals from the GLBT community than it was, in making an educated guess, a hundred/two years ago. There have always been people whose sexuality is not heterosexual, but many of those people a few hundred years ago were in the closetand could not say anything about it. There are more people now open about their sexuality compared to then. However, there are others who are still in the closet because they feel like they won’t be accepted.
Warning Comment
Hiya! Ryn, my perspective about spanish economical situation… Hum… Well, I think we spend too much PUBLIC money in things/events that are unnecessary. There’s actually a river of waste… I am against our monarchy, against our polititians but mostly against spanish people. They complain but do nothing. They are the guilty ones for what’s happening in our country. If it wasn’t for their
Warning Comment
…consumerism, I think spain would be directed easily to the good way. Also it’s the influence of Germany in our situation. More and more we’re being buried by them and their rules. Our polititians, instead of trying to help our people, they are just interested in looking good in the EU picture. The truth is, I don’t know anything anymore. This world confuses me.
Warning Comment