... uhm... yh i gues... is there any point to this post though?Tekkawarrior said:I disagree with his views. But if the man doesn't like something he should be able to say it...
Don't you agree?
... uhm... yh i gues... is there any point to this post though?Tekkawarrior said:I disagree with his views. But if the man doesn't like something he should be able to say it...
Don't you agree?
That's capitalism. If you dislike a company for any reason, you have the right to refuse to use their products/services and avoid giving them money.Mick Golden Blood said:Seriously this.omicron1 said:Conservative stands up for conservative views, news at 11.
Honestly, has it really come to this? Forcing public acceptance or agreement to one side of an unresolved argument by boycotting anyone who disagrees?
It is not wrong to hold anti-homosexuality views, gentlemen. Nor is it wrong to express them. What, exactly, is the problem here?
I mean, you should be buying shit from this guy's company cus you life the food it serves.
His opinion on a controversial issue shouldn't determine whether or not you eat from certain restaurants. Jebus guys...
Actually being a neo-nazi isn't a crime. They're free to gather and voice their views -- they're just considered a hate group. And we may not draw the comparison so readily between the anti-gay lobby and neo-nazi groups, but I don't see much of a difference. Even if one is more extreme than the other, they both come from the same place of hatred and ignorance.Casual Shinji said:I think there's a difference between funding neo-nazis and lobbying against gay marriages though. In my opinion people have the right to lobby against whatever they want; it's their money. If they use their money to support criminal organizations however, like neo-nazis, then that's a no-no.teknoarcanist said:Right, but if Disney were funding Neo-Nazi organizations, would you still be giving them money?Casual Shinji said:If I were to avoid everything made by people with controversial opinions, I might as well not leave the house anymore.
Walt Disney hated jews but I still like his movies.
Off-topic for just a moment: Walt Disney didn't hate jews. This myth stems from his involvement with the Motion Picture Alliance for the Preservation of American Ideals, which was an anti-communist and anti-semite organization. This was in the time of McCarthyism, so he likely joined because it protected him from ever being accused of being a communist; an instant movie industry blacklist at the time. In fact, over the course of his life, he donated to several Jewish organizations such as the Hebrew Orphan Asylum and The American League for a Free Palestine. In 1955, he was voted man of the year by the B'nai B'rith chapter in Beverly Hills. While there were some Jewish stereotypes in his early animations, he ended up stereotyping every ethnic group, oftentimes when it was politically "required" to protect his career.Casual Shinji said:If I were to avoid everything made by people with controversial opinions, I might as well not leave the house anymore.
Walt Disney hated jews but I still like his movies.
No shit, I didn't know that. But then most cartoons were racist back then. Looney Tunes and Tin Tin weren't too shy about it neither.goldenjester said:Off-topic for just a moment: Walt Disney didn't hate jews. This myth stems from his involvement with the Motion Picture Alliance for the Preservation of American Ideals, which was an anti-communist and anti-semite organization. This was in the time of McCarthyism, so he likely joined because it protected him from ever being accused of being a communist; an instant movie industry blacklist at the time. In fact, over the course of his life, he donated to several Jewish organizations such as the Hebrew Orphan Asylum and The American League for a Free Palestine. In 1955, he was voted man of the year by the B'nai B'rith chapter in Beverly Hills. While there were some Jewish stereotypes in his early animations, he ended up stereotyping every ethnic group, oftentimes when it was politically "required" to protect his career.Casual Shinji said:If I were to avoid everything made by people with controversial opinions, I might as well not leave the house anymore.
Walt Disney hated jews but I still like his movies.
They always look like cosplayers to me on their way to a convention.Suki_ said:
That may seem like a shitty reason to you, but to others it isn't. There are tons of people who are either gay or have a friend/relative who is and wants to support them in the fight for equality. To those people, boycotting an establishment with opposing views (and one who gives money to organizations for the sole purpose of furthering those views) is the best and easiest way to protest. To them, $1 that Chick-Fil-A doesn't get is one that nti-gay rights advocates are denied.Mick Golden Blood said:I am not saying it is not, I am saying it seems like a really shitty reason TO boycott him just because of his views.newdarkcloud said:That's capitalism. If you dislike a company for any reason, you have the right to refuse to use their products/services and avoid giving them money.Mick Golden Blood said:Seriously this.omicron1 said:Conservative stands up for conservative views, news at 11.
Honestly, has it really come to this? Forcing public acceptance or agreement to one side of an unresolved argument by boycotting anyone who disagrees?
It is not wrong to hold anti-homosexuality views, gentlemen. Nor is it wrong to express them. What, exactly, is the problem here?
I mean, you should be buying shit from this guy's company cus you life the food it serves.
His opinion on a controversial issue shouldn't determine whether or not you eat from certain restaurants. Jebus guys...
It's a perfectly legitimate tactic. That's how the system works.
And not because of something more important, like how unsanitary his food might be, or something like that.
I suppose I should elaborate. I meant that people who base their political decisions entirely (100%) on their religious doctrine without even considering what's moral to them personally should not be able to vote. And, in my and many other people's opinion, the anti-gay stance is a stance that is immoral. And, like I said, all that I see who oppose gay marriage are people either following a religious doctrine, homophobic, or often both. I just can't grasp the concept of a person who honestly believes opposing gay rights is the moral thing to do. I guess I simply think differently.Andropov4 said:snip
You really need to learn logical argument my friend. Having and opinion is not bigotry, discriminating against people based on something which really says nothing about how good that person is, is. Voting horses and gay marriage are not equivalent.omicron1 said:So, that Oreo boycott and all the Million Moms stuff is A-OK with you, right?Dragonclaw said:It may not be wrong to hold views like his, but neither is it wrong to decide not to support someone who's views differ so sharply from mine, and who makes it clear that large portions of any money given to him will be used for a cause I cannot support. As a business owner I CHOSE to carry books like Earth-2, Life With Archie and Astonishing X-Men with their gay story lines...some customers voted with their wallet and went elsewhere those weeks out of protest and that's their right. Meanwhile I also got some new customers, as I'm sure Chick Fil A will lose some patrons, but also get some new ones because of their views.omicron1 said:Conservative stands up for conservative views, news at 11.
Honestly, has it really come to this? Forcing public acceptance or agreement to one side of an unresolved argument by boycotting anyone who disagrees?
It is not wrong to hold anti-homosexuality views, gentlemen. Nor is it wrong to express them. What, exactly, is the problem here?
As for me, I like knowing where my money goes, it's impoortant to me. To that end I prefer to shop locally and at smaller mom & pop stores whenever I can because I know that the money will stay local helping my community. Just like online shopping is my absolute last resort because it takes away from the area I live in.
And by "discrimination" you mean "lack of public agreement, not voting for "civil rights" you disagree with, and not wanting your kids indoctrinated by "being gay is a-ok" rhetoric in school?The Unworthy Gentleman said:Now usually I'd agree on the 'let them have their opinion' thing but this person's opinion is wrong so we can't let them keep it. Seriously, these Christian family value ideas that get mixed with homophobia are unacceptable and shouldn't be passed on any further so we can actually progress.
It is, it's very wrong. You don't necessarily have to like homosexuality but you can't go around enforcing discrimination against gays.omicron1 said:It is not wrong to hold anti-homosexuality views, gentlemen. Nor is it wrong to express them.
There is no anti-gay discrimination here. You have manufactured what you perceive as a civil right (the "right" for gays to marry, and by extension for all public entities to be forced to consider said marriage valid) and are outraged that anyone would have the audacity to speak against that "right." It's roughly analogous to PETA deciding to campaign to give all horses voting rights - no matter how much PETA may think it's normal, not everyone agrees (in this case, fully half the nation, despite the unrelenting one-sided media barrage) and PETA has no right to enforce their "right" on the rest of us.
that was my point. i understand how discrimination laws work, what i'm saying is that i disagree with them. if he as an employer cannot legally discriminate against gays, why should you as a customer be able to discriminate against homophobes. if you look at it as an outside observer, people cannot discriminate against people pro-gays because of their beliefs, but the can discriminate against people anti-gay based on their beliefs. its a double standard.The Unworthy Gentleman said:You clearly have no idea how discrimination laws work or you wouldn't have made that crappy argument. He legally cannot discriminate against homosexuals or political stances in the workplace. He can say that he doesn't agree with gay marriage but he can't do jack shit about it after he's made his opinion.mathsisfun said:by definition, an opinion cannot be wrong, it can only be different.The Unworthy Gentleman said:this person's opinion is wrong
boycotting someone because they are against gay marriage is no different to boycotting someone who is for gay marriage. whether or not boycotting is wrong is a matter of opinion, but you cannot argue that it depends on whether you disagree with the person being boycotted, because your opinions are not central to morality.
if you have the right to boycott him because of his political views, then he has the right to boycott others because of their political views, and only hire people who are against gay marriage.
since he, as the owner of a large company, does not have the right to discriminate on employees based on their political views, what right do you have to discriminate against him because of his opinions.
to answer you so called wrong opinions:The Unworthy Gentleman said:Also, this guys making a homophobic statement based on age old religious views, eventually his opinion will be proved conclusively wrong.
Here are some common opinions that have been wrong:
1. The world is flat
2. Right wing > left wing
3. Any opinion on religion that isn't "it's fucking ridiculous"
4. I am not the objective idol this world needs to guide it to progress and glory
5. I have been wrong before
6. Opinions cannot be wrong
7. The big particle collidor-majig was going to create a black hole
8. The world will end in 2012