Discussion topic "A"
Wow, the backlash against Chik-Fil-A. I honestly feel like that LGBTQ rights have become THE issue in civil rights more so over the last 12 months than ever before. I read and see more about it than I can ever remember in all my life. I also recognize that the next generation will not understand what the big deal was, much in the way I can't figure out or comprehend what it was like to have "colored" and "white" drinking fountains at one point in time. My husbands' grandmother was telling me about how she almost got fired from a drugstore she worked at in Washington D.C. from spending too much time "talking to colored people," as she explained it to me. She said that where she was from (Washington state), they did not have that kind of separation, so when she moved out to the nation's capital, she couldn't believe what she saw and didn't agree with it. It was a really interesting conversation and I told her I just couldn't imagine. And I can't.
So now we have the Chick-Fil-A controversy, with its CEO taking his stance on "traditional" marriage. And I get why so many people are prickly about it.
But here's where I honestly feel it crosses the line. When governments want to restrict a business owners right to open a business solely because of a business owners' personal beliefs [Chik-Fil-A has stated that it does not discriminate against employees or customers, and as a business, it would be bad business for them to do so]. We as customers have the right NOT to give anyone our business. And in a capitalist society, if a business isn't making money, they go OUT of business. It is not the government's right to say who should and shouldn't own a business, if they are are not breaking any laws.
This issue comes up because an alderman in Chicago is refusing a Chik-Fil-A to open up in his district due to the CEO's stance on gay marriage, and he has stated as such.
My point is, what if we flipped the bill. Let's say an alderman refused to allow a business in their district because that person was gay and that alderman disagreed with their orientation? We would say that the alderman was being bigoted, wouldn't we?
However you actually FEEL about their personal stance, unless the business is actually discriminating against customers, there is no reason they should be banned from setting up shop. Let the public make or break them. Let the court of public opinion break them. It is not the government's right to tell us how to live our lives. Just as you do not feel the government should not ban LGBTQ marriages, then they should not ban business owners for having (public) personal opinions, even if you do not agree with them.
Going on this opinion, are you going to ban churches from the city? If you don't agree with OUR viewpoint, you're not allowed to exist in our district, or our city?
I just feel it's setting a bad precedent for what the government can and can't tell us to do.
I am not saying I agree with Dan Cathy. I just don't agree with the government getting in my business and telling me what I need to think in order to run a business in the city. This is supposed to be a country with free speech, both good AND bad.
Probably unpopular opinion, but yep.
So now we have the Chick-Fil-A controversy, with its CEO taking his stance on "traditional" marriage. And I get why so many people are prickly about it.
But here's where I honestly feel it crosses the line. When governments want to restrict a business owners right to open a business solely because of a business owners' personal beliefs [Chik-Fil-A has stated that it does not discriminate against employees or customers, and as a business, it would be bad business for them to do so]. We as customers have the right NOT to give anyone our business. And in a capitalist society, if a business isn't making money, they go OUT of business. It is not the government's right to say who should and shouldn't own a business, if they are are not breaking any laws.
This issue comes up because an alderman in Chicago is refusing a Chik-Fil-A to open up in his district due to the CEO's stance on gay marriage, and he has stated as such.
My point is, what if we flipped the bill. Let's say an alderman refused to allow a business in their district because that person was gay and that alderman disagreed with their orientation? We would say that the alderman was being bigoted, wouldn't we?
However you actually FEEL about their personal stance, unless the business is actually discriminating against customers, there is no reason they should be banned from setting up shop. Let the public make or break them. Let the court of public opinion break them. It is not the government's right to tell us how to live our lives. Just as you do not feel the government should not ban LGBTQ marriages, then they should not ban business owners for having (public) personal opinions, even if you do not agree with them.
Going on this opinion, are you going to ban churches from the city? If you don't agree with OUR viewpoint, you're not allowed to exist in our district, or our city?
I just feel it's setting a bad precedent for what the government can and can't tell us to do.
I am not saying I agree with Dan Cathy. I just don't agree with the government getting in my business and telling me what I need to think in order to run a business in the city. This is supposed to be a country with free speech, both good AND bad.
Probably unpopular opinion, but yep.