Chick-Fil-A protester fired from job - Page 5

TheAnachronism · 5th August 2012, 02:49 PM

Originally Posted by WildCat

Wasn't this guy trying to take away Cathy's livelihood over comments he made to a church group? Isn't that the goal of the boycotts, to hurt Chik-Fil-A financially, costing many people their jobs in the process.

I can't claim to know this particular guy's motivations (whatever they are, I don't support his method of protest), but it does bother me that many people assume that (1) people who are opposed to Chick-Fil-A or Cathy are motivated solely by comments he made or opinions he expressed, instead of his documented funding of anti-gay propaganda organizations; and (2) that the goal of boycotting Cathy's establishment is simply to hurt Chick-Fil-A financially, instead of refusing to fund these propaganda groups.

As much as I disagree with Cathy's comments, and as outrageous as I find them, I would have no problem enjoying a CFA sandwich now and again, if I knew that my money was not enriching organizations that have absolutely no shame in outright lying and the manufacturing propaganda that would make even Goebbels blush.

NoahFence · 5th August 2012, 02:52 PM

Originally Posted by Axiom_Blade

Because I would like to be able to say whatever I want, without worrying about getting fired?

Start your own company.

TragicMonkey · 5th August 2012, 02:57 PM

Personally, I don't really care what the politics of a company owner are. I just don't think it's smart for business to get involved in social issues. Businesses exist to make money. They're not meant to take sides on social controversies. Making waves is simply not a good idea -- it can lead to serious loss of profits.

And Chick-fil-a's own website now includes this:

Quote:

Going forward, our intent is to leave the policy debate over same-sex marriage to the government and political arena.

Which they should have known to do from the start. Don't piss off the public. Don't piss off investors (if they have any, I couldn't find out). Don't piss off customers. Just do business. Why is that so hard? Target's been giving money to the same homophobic organizations for years, but you don't see them being stupid enough to go around blabbing about it. First rule of PR: keep your yapper shut.

Neally · 5th August 2012, 03:31 PM

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

PFirst rule of PR: keep your yapper shut.

It could also be, bad PR is better than no PR. The full fallout is yet to be seen. It may also never be determined. They had a record sales day when the supporters showed up. On the other hand, the long term may result in lower sales.

000063 · 5th August 2012, 03:35 PM

Originally Posted by Axiom_Blade

Firing someone has nothing to do with Freedom of Speech or Association.

So this jerk getting fired didn't violate his first amendment rights?

Glad that's settled. Who wants lunch?

Originally Posted by Kaosium

...
Lemme put it this way: just how far are we away from some clown taking 'offense' to someone's post here and digging through their posts to find what they need and twittering about it to the blogosphere until their employer is bombarded with hundreds of messages about their employee 'spewing hate-speech (under a 'fake name!) on the internet?' ...

It's almost as if internet mob mentality is inherently flawed or something. How 'bout that?

You know that UC Davis pepper spray video? Yeah, it's pretty much entirely a lie. In fact, five minutes trying to reconcile the various accounts of events should've made people go "wait a second", but apparently thousands of people didn't, nor did the students in the crowd who threatened and actively hindered cops. Everyone who's part of a mob likes to think they're doing the right thing, whether they are or not.

quadraginta · 5th August 2012, 03:36 PM

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

Personally, I don't really care what the politics of a company owner are. I just don't think it's smart for business to get involved in social issues. Businesses exist to make money. They're not meant to take sides on social controversies. Making waves is simply not a good idea -- it can lead to serious loss of profits.

<snip>

And the American Family Association agrees with you. At least, they did two years ago when they were encouraging people to boycott Home Depot for being too openly pro-gay rights.

Randy Sharp of the American Family Association;

"You know, it's very simple," Sharp offers. "Home Depot should be like a lot of Fortune 500 companies and simply remain neutral in the culture war -- don't give money, don't give vehicles, don't lend employee support to homosexual activities on Main Street USA."

I guess it's different somehow when the shoe is on the other foot.

TheAnachronism · 5th August 2012, 03:52 PM

Originally Posted by quadraginta

I guess it's different somehow when the shoe is on the other foot.

Or when there's showers of money to be had!

Chick-Fil-A owner Dan Cathy financially supports AFA.

TragicMonkey · 5th August 2012, 04:05 PM

Originally Posted by quadraginta

And the American Family Association agrees with you. At least, they did two years ago when they were encouraging people to boycott Home Depot for being too openly pro-gay rights.

Randy Sharp of the American Family Association;

"You know, it's very simple," Sharp offers. "Home Depot should be like a lot of Fortune 500 companies and simply remain neutral in the culture war -- don't give money, don't give vehicles, don't lend employee support to homosexual activities on Main Street USA."

I guess it's different somehow when the shoe is on the other foot.

I'm not sure if this is an "you agree with Hitler!" jab at me, or suggesting I'm a hypocrite. Neither applies because I don't change my thinking: I still think it's a bad idea for a business to get involved in social issues. Any gains can be matched by losses, and the risk of igniting a ridiculous crap-storm is everpresent. I don't care whether the cause is good or I agree with it or not--I just don't think it's a good business idea. That's from a strictly business viewpoint, by which I mean, if I had a financial stake in the company. As a citizen without a stake, I can applaud or decry any company's actions on any topic. But I wouldn't invest my money in a company involved in social good any more than I would invest in a company involved in social evil; I'd invest my money in companies involved in keeping quiet and making some damn money.

quadraginta · 5th August 2012, 04:16 PM

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

I'm not sure if this is an "you agree with Hitler!" jab at me, or suggesting I'm a hypocrite.

<snip>

My apologies, TM, if it came across that way. It wasn't meant to be a jab of any sort, and I certainly don't consider you to be a hypocrite.

I was making the comment because I thought that it was amusing that the words of a virulent anti-gay activist were so similar to yours when it was to their advantage to adopt such an attitude. The hypocrisy being theirs, not yours.

When it's their ox they organize public displays of support.

theprestige · 5th August 2012, 04:18 PM

Originally Posted by Axiom_Blade

Yes, and yes. (Not sure about the whole "corporations are people" thing, but I'm gonna just say "yes" anyway.)

What the **** do "corporations as people" have to do with it? I'm talking about people as people. What, you think that when a person incorporates their business, they vanish as a person, and all their rights vanish too?

Quote:

However, "Freedom of association is the individual right to come together with other individuals and collectively express, promote, pursue and defend common interests."

Common interests like running a succesful company, and paying people who add value to the common interest, and aren't jerkasses? Common interests like that?

Quote:

It sounds like you're confusing individual rights with group rights.

It sounds like you're struggling to come up with a moral principle that explains why people don't have a right to not pay jerkasses if they don't want to.

CORed · 5th August 2012, 05:17 PM

Originally Posted by Axiom_Blade

I must've been too vague or something earlier, so I'll try to keep it clear and concise. Two questions:

1) Is Freedom of Speech a human right? (Yes or No.) (This is not a question about the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the US government, or the First Amendment. This is about Freedom of Speech.)

2) An employer should respect their employees' human rights? (Yes or No.)

If you answer "No" to either one of these, then we don't have any common ground to talk about this.

Okay, here's some hypotheticals, to see just how far you think an employer has to go in respecting the "human right" of free speech.

All of these assume that I am an employee, in some capacity of Acme Widgets, Inc.

I put up a web page, prominently identifying myself as an employee of Acme Widgets, and state on it that all Jews should be killed.

I put up a web site, stating that the CEO of Acme Widgets is a criminal.

I put up a web site stating that all the widgets that Acme makes are absolute crap, and will fall apart within a month of purchase.

Would Acme Widgets be justified in firing me for any of these actions? Because if your answer is no, I don't think there is any common ground for us to discuss this.

Sam.I.Am · 5th August 2012, 05:40 PM

Well to be honest Acme Widgets does put out totally crappy products in general, but Excelsior Widgets on the other hand... That's a quality operation right there.

000063 · 5th August 2012, 07:15 PM

It's always so much trouble to get them out of the box.

No, wait, that's Excalibur Widgets.

Malcolm Kirkpatrick · 5th August 2012, 07:31 PM

Ace has an unsourced profile of Mr. Smith. Sounds like a lot of people who hang out around here. Yeah, I know: unsourced. Like some guy told Sen. Reid about Romney's taxes and some guy told me about Sen. Reid's ejection from NAMBLA for excessive zeal in pursuit of pre-teen boys. So, take it for what it's worth.

TragicMonkey · 5th August 2012, 07:35 PM

Originally Posted by 000063

It's always so much trouble to get them out of the box.

No, wait, that's Excalibur Widgets.

Dear Tech Support, Excalibur Widgets: if your product is not actually waterproof, why do you advertise it as lake-friendly? My lady friend is most distraught. We spent good money on your product and I expect a refund.

Caper · 5th August 2012, 08:46 PM

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

Personally, I don't really care what the politics of a company owner are. I just don't think it's smart for business to get involved in social issues. Businesses exist to make money. They're not meant to take sides on social controversies. Making waves is simply not a good idea -- it can lead to serious loss of profits.

In most cases I would agree. Here...this company rode this issue all the way to the bank. You can't buy this kind of advertising. I'm sure he has made an absolute fortune these past weeks. As for long term..... child labour never stopped anyone from buying cheap clothes.... animal cruelty has never stopped people from buying burgers.... someones stance on gay marriage isn't going to stop people from eating chicken.... you can argue that it should.... but it won't.

Also... think Mecca Cola

shuize · 5th August 2012, 08:53 PM

Originally Posted by Neally

It could also be, bad PR is better than no PR. The full fallout is yet to be seen. It may also never be determined. They had a record sales day when the supporters showed up. On the other hand, the long term may result in lower sales.

Well, I'm going back to the U.S. for a few months and while I never made a point of eating at Chick-Fil-A, I certainly will now.

Mike! · 5th August 2012, 09:29 PM

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

Dear Tech Support, Excalibur Widgets: if your product is not actually waterproof, why do you advertise it as lake-friendly? My lady friend is most distraught. We spent good money on your product and I expect a refund.

Some watery tart distributing widgets in a farcical aquatic ceremony is no basis for a refund argument. If we went and gave a refund to every moistened bit who lobbed a defective widget at us, why, we'd be out of business quicker than you could snatch a sword from a stone.

Ziggurat · 5th August 2012, 10:54 PM

Originally Posted by Mike!

snatch a sword from a stone.

Is that a euphemism?

OnlyTellsTruths · 5th August 2012, 11:04 PM

Originally Posted by theprestige

3) Freedom of Association is a human right? (Yes or No.)

4) An employee should respect their employer's human rights? (Yes or No.)

If you answer "No" to either of these, then we still don't have any common ground to talk about this.

Couldn't you use that argument to endorse housing discrimination and segregation? Or am I missing something here....

Irony · 5th August 2012, 11:13 PM

Originally Posted by OnlyTellsTruths

Couldn't you use that argument to endorse housing discrimination and segregation? Or am I missing something here....

Sure. One could also use freedom of movement to support kicking people in the head. That doesn't mean the argument would be particularly good.

OnlyTellsTruths · 6th August 2012, 02:40 AM

Originally Posted by Irony

Sure. One could also use freedom of movement to support kicking people in the head. That doesn't mean the argument would be particularly good.

Yeah, but isn't an employer discriminating against certain qualified employees the same as a landlord discriminating against certain qualified tenants?

halides1 · 6th August 2012, 03:27 AM

Originally Posted by shuize

Well, I'm going back to the U.S. for a few months and while I never made a point of eating at Chick-Fil-A, I certainly will now.

Why?

Matthew Best · 6th August 2012, 06:26 AM

Exactly what I was going to ask.

Silly Green Monkey · 6th August 2012, 07:34 AM

Probably because it's damn good tasting stuff? They're never open when I'm nearby though.

boooeee · 6th August 2012, 08:05 AM

Originally Posted by Silly Green Monkey

Probably because it's damn good tasting stuff? They're never open when I'm nearby though.

I find I crave it most on Sundays. Really annoying.

Silly Green Monkey · 6th August 2012, 08:10 AM

Nothing like being hungry and heading for the college foodcenter, only to have to settle for non-tasty food because the chickenbits place is closed for the day. My stomach's not closed on Sundays!

Wolrab · 6th August 2012, 10:07 AM

Cripes, the guy was a corporate officer and was subject to their code of conduct. He freely signed agreements that spelled out what constitutes a firing offense. He had plenty of time to cool off before he posted it to youtube. Tough luck.

Malcolm Kirkpatrick · 6th August 2012, 10:46 AM

Originally Posted by OnlyTellsTruths

Yeah, but isn't an employer discriminating against certain qualified employees the same as a landlord discriminating against certain qualified tenants?

And what if it is? I declined to rent to six billion people yesterday. I must be really evil.

fuelair · 6th August 2012, 12:27 PM

Originally Posted by Axiom_Blade

You don't regard losing your job as a punishment?

But it is not a punishment by the government. The free speech thing is JUST THE GOVERNMENT.

CORed · 6th August 2012, 12:33 PM

Originally Posted by Sam.I.Am

Well to be honest Acme Widgets does put out totally crappy products in general, but Excelsior Widgets on the other hand... That's a quality operation right there.

Good point. If only Wile E. Coyote had ordered from Excelsior, he would have gotten that damn roadrunner.

Ziggurat · 6th August 2012, 01:23 PM

Originally Posted by Axiom_Blade

You don't regard losing your job as a punishment?

Even using an expansive conception of free speech as applying to more than government, it plainly cannot mean freedom from any negative consequences for speech. The most you can coherently claim is that freedom of speech means nobody can infringe upon your rights in response to your speech. But you have no right to your job, so getting fired for speech isn't a violation of any of your rights.

theprestige · 6th August 2012, 01:58 PM

Originally Posted by OnlyTellsTruths

Couldn't you use that argument to endorse housing discrimination and segregation? Or am I missing something here....

I think you're missing a lot. For one, I'm not making an argument. Instead, I'm trying to establish a common basis of agreement about fundamental rights, upon which AB and I can (hopefully) build coherent arguments and maybe even reach a mutual agreement.

For another, you're missing that it's a non-sequitur to use the right to freedom of association as an endorsement of segregation. I can certainly agree that a right exists, without having to agree that all uses and abuses of that right are desireable--or that all uses and abuses should therefore be permitted.

The reality is much more complicated and awkward. I think that, except in commonly-accepted cases of dire need, the government should not interfere with people's rights, nor should anyone else.

AB seems to think that freedom of speech is a magical privilege that entitles jerkasses to keep their jobs even if their speech is at odds with their employer's values, but that freedom of association is just a convenience easily swept aside whenever it enters into conflict with his idea of employers-as-faceless-evil.

rwguinn · 6th August 2012, 05:46 PM

Originally Posted by theprestige

I think you're missing a lot. For one, I'm not making an argument. Instead, I'm trying to establish a common basis of agreement about fundamental rights, upon which AB and I can (hopefully) build coherent arguments and maybe even reach a mutual agreement.

For another, you're missing that it's a non-sequitur to use the right to freedom of association as an endorsement of segregation. I can certainly agree that a right exists, without having to agree that all uses and abuses of that right are desireable--or that all uses and abuses should therefore be permitted.

The reality is much more complicated and awkward. I think that, except in commonly-accepted cases of dire need, the government should not interfere with people's rights, nor should anyone else.

AB seems to think that freedom of speech is a magical privilege that entitles jerkasses to keep their jobs even if their speech is at odds with their employer's values, but that freedom of association is just a convenience easily swept aside whenever it enters into conflict with his idea of employers-as-faceless-evil.

It all boils down to the fact that if one wishes to keep one's job, one should avoid pissing off one's employer...

Irony · 6th August 2012, 08:12 PM

Originally Posted by OnlyTellsTruths

Yeah, but isn't an employer discriminating against certain qualified employees the same as a landlord discriminating against certain qualified tenants?

More or less. Both could be punished for it under existing laws. Arguing that a right exists is not the same as arguing that a right is unlimited. Essentially, your point is exactly what the poster you quoted is arguing, that "rights" put forth is an simplistic style like that can always be countered with other "rights" that they come in conflict with.

shuize · 7th August 2012, 02:05 AM

Originally Posted by halides1

Why?

Originally Posted by Matthew Best

Exactly what I was going to ask.

Why do you care where I buy fast food?

Matthew Best · 7th August 2012, 04:18 AM

Originally Posted by shuize

Why do you care where I buy fast food?

Just because you made a point of mentioning it. Otherwise, I wouldn't.

halides1 · 7th August 2012, 05:36 AM

Originally Posted by Wolrab

Cripes, the guy was a corporate officer and was subject to their code of conduct. He freely signed agreements that spelled out what constitutes a firing offense. He had plenty of time to cool off before he posted it to youtube. Tough luck.

I have not seen their code of conduct, have you? I think that the company got fooled into believing that an organized campaign against this guy was from people who acted independently of one another.

triforcharity · 7th August 2012, 06:14 AM

Originally Posted by halides1

I think that the company got fooled into believing that an organized campaign against this guy was from people who acted independently of one another.

Does that matter?

halides1 · 7th August 2012, 06:24 AM

Originally Posted by triforcharity

Does that matter?

To me it does. I would not write some guy's employer because he posted a YouTube video where he acted like a jerk. The people who wrote may have thought that they were striking a blow against gay marriage or secular humanism or what not. They are entitled to their opinion, but contacting his employer (when he did not identify himself as a representative of a company is out of bound, IMO.

5th August 2012, 02:49 PM	#161
TheAnachronism Critical Thinker Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: USA Posts: 441	Originally Posted by WildCat Wasn't this guy trying to take away Cathy's livelihood over comments he made to a church group? Isn't that the goal of the boycotts, to hurt Chik-Fil-A financially, costing many people their jobs in the process. I can't claim to know this particular guy's motivations (whatever they are, I don't support his method of protest), but it does bother me that many people assume that (1) people who are opposed to Chick-Fil-A or Cathy are motivated solely by comments he made or opinions he expressed, instead of his documented funding of anti-gay propaganda organizations; and (2) that the goal of boycotting Cathy's establishment is simply to hurt Chick-Fil-A financially, instead of refusing to fund these propaganda groups. As much as I disagree with Cathy's comments, and as outrageous as I find them, I would have no problem enjoying a CFA sandwich now and again, if I knew that my money was not enriching organizations that have absolutely no shame in outright lying and the manufacturing propaganda that would make even Goebbels blush.
	__________________ "Even a long human life adds up to only about 650,000 hours. And when that modest milestone flashes past, or at some other point thereabouts, for reasons unknown your atoms will shut you down, silently disassemble, and go off to be other things. And that's it for you....Still, you may rejoice that it happens at all." Bill Bryson, A Short History of Nearly Everything

5th August 2012, 02:52 PM	#162
NoahFence Psycho Kitty Join Date: Mar 2011 Location: Patriot Nation Posts: 9,323	Originally Posted by Axiom_Blade Because I would like to be able to say whatever I want, without worrying about getting fired? Start your own company.
	__________________ Our truest life is when we are in our dreams awake. -Henry David Thoreau

5th August 2012, 02:57 PM	#163
TragicMonkey Poisoned Waffles Pither Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Monkey Posts: 30,084	Personally, I don't really care what the politics of a company owner are. I just don't think it's smart for business to get involved in social issues. Businesses exist to make money. They're not meant to take sides on social controversies. Making waves is simply not a good idea -- it can lead to serious loss of profits. And Chick-fil-a's own website now includes this: Quote: Going forward, our intent is to leave the policy debate over same-sex marriage to the government and political arena. Which they should have known to do from the start. Don't piss off the public. Don't piss off investors (if they have any, I couldn't find out). Don't piss off customers. Just do business. Why is that so hard? Target's been giving money to the same homophobic organizations for years, but you don't see them being stupid enough to go around blabbing about it. First rule of PR: keep your yapper shut.
	__________________ One cannot expect wisdom to flow from a pumpkin.

5th August 2012, 03:31 PM	#164
Neally Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 3,100	Originally Posted by TragicMonkey PFirst rule of PR: keep your yapper shut. It could also be, bad PR is better than no PR. The full fallout is yet to be seen. It may also never be determined. They had a record sales day when the supporters showed up. On the other hand, the long term may result in lower sales.
Neally Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 3,100

5th August 2012, 03:35 PM	#165
000063 Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2011 Location: Not America. Posts: 4,735	Originally Posted by Axiom_Blade Firing someone has nothing to do with Freedom of Speech or Association. So this jerk getting fired didn't violate his first amendment rights? Glad that's settled. Who wants lunch? Originally Posted by Kaosium ... Lemme put it this way: just how far are we away from some clown taking 'offense' to someone's post here and digging through their posts to find what they need and twittering about it to the blogosphere until their employer is bombarded with hundreds of messages about their employee 'spewing hate-speech (under a 'fake name!) on the internet?' ... It's almost as if internet mob mentality is inherently flawed or something. How 'bout that? You know that UC Davis pepper spray video? Yeah, it's pretty much entirely a lie. In fact, five minutes trying to reconcile the various accounts of events should've made people go "wait a second", but apparently thousands of people didn't, nor did the students in the crowd who threatened and actively hindered cops. Everyone who's part of a mob likes to think they're doing the right thing, whether they are or not.
	__________________ No, I'd like you to answer the question in two, simple, coherent sentences. ... That's how you present credible arguments in written form. -ergo, on me giving him a 2 digit number I can think of two reasons why bedunkers are often so loathe to explain their theories using plain, concise language--words even. - ergo

5th August 2012, 03:36 PM	#166
quadraginta What was the question? Join Date: May 2009 Location: Central Vale of Humility Posts: 7,910	Originally Posted by TragicMonkey Personally, I don't really care what the politics of a company owner are. I just don't think it's smart for business to get involved in social issues. Businesses exist to make money. They're not meant to take sides on social controversies. Making waves is simply not a good idea -- it can lead to serious loss of profits. <snip> And the American Family Association agrees with you. At least, they did two years ago when they were encouraging people to boycott Home Depot for being too openly pro-gay rights. Randy Sharp of the American Family Association; "You know, it's very simple," Sharp offers. "Home Depot should be like a lot of Fortune 500 companies and simply remain neutral in the culture war -- don't give money, don't give vehicles, don't lend employee support to homosexual activities on Main Street USA." I guess it's different somehow when the shoe is on the other foot.
	Last edited by quadraginta; 5th August 2012 at 03:39 PM.

5th August 2012, 03:52 PM	#167
TheAnachronism Critical Thinker Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: USA Posts: 441	Originally Posted by quadraginta I guess it's different somehow when the shoe is on the other foot. Or when there's showers of money to be had! Chick-Fil-A owner Dan Cathy financially supports AFA.
	__________________ "Even a long human life adds up to only about 650,000 hours. And when that modest milestone flashes past, or at some other point thereabouts, for reasons unknown your atoms will shut you down, silently disassemble, and go off to be other things. And that's it for you....Still, you may rejoice that it happens at all." Bill Bryson, A Short History of Nearly Everything

5th August 2012, 04:05 PM	#168
TragicMonkey Poisoned Waffles Pither Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Monkey Posts: 30,084	Originally Posted by quadraginta And the American Family Association agrees with you. At least, they did two years ago when they were encouraging people to boycott Home Depot for being too openly pro-gay rights. Randy Sharp of the American Family Association; "You know, it's very simple," Sharp offers. "Home Depot should be like a lot of Fortune 500 companies and simply remain neutral in the culture war -- don't give money, don't give vehicles, don't lend employee support to homosexual activities on Main Street USA." I guess it's different somehow when the shoe is on the other foot. I'm not sure if this is an "you agree with Hitler!" jab at me, or suggesting I'm a hypocrite. Neither applies because I don't change my thinking: I still think it's a bad idea for a business to get involved in social issues. Any gains can be matched by losses, and the risk of igniting a ridiculous crap-storm is everpresent. I don't care whether the cause is good or I agree with it or not--I just don't think it's a good business idea. That's from a strictly business viewpoint, by which I mean, if I had a financial stake in the company. As a citizen without a stake, I can applaud or decry any company's actions on any topic. But I wouldn't invest my money in a company involved in social good any more than I would invest in a company involved in social evil; I'd invest my money in companies involved in keeping quiet and making some damn money.
	__________________ One cannot expect wisdom to flow from a pumpkin.

5th August 2012, 04:16 PM	#169
quadraginta What was the question? Join Date: May 2009 Location: Central Vale of Humility Posts: 7,910	Originally Posted by TragicMonkey I'm not sure if this is an "you agree with Hitler!" jab at me, or suggesting I'm a hypocrite. <snip> My apologies, TM, if it came across that way. It wasn't meant to be a jab of any sort, and I certainly don't consider you to be a hypocrite. I was making the comment because I thought that it was amusing that the words of a virulent anti-gay activist were so similar to yours when it was to their advantage to adopt such an attitude. The hypocrisy being theirs, not yours. When it's their ox they organize public displays of support.

5th August 2012, 04:18 PM	#170
theprestige Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 8,606	Originally Posted by Axiom_Blade Yes, and yes. (Not sure about the whole "corporations are people" thing, but I'm gonna just say "yes" anyway.) What the ** do "corporations as people" have to do with it? I'm talking about people as people. What, you think that when a person incorporates their business, they vanish as a person, and all their rights vanish too? Quote: However, "Freedom of association is the individual right** to come together with other individuals and collectively express, promote, pursue and defend common interests." Common interests like running a succesful company, and paying people who add value to the common interest, and aren't jerkasses? Common interests like that? Quote: It sounds like you're confusing individual rights with group rights. It sounds like you're struggling to come up with a moral principle that explains why people don't have a right to not pay jerkasses if they don't want to.
theprestige Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 8,606

5th August 2012, 05:17 PM	#171
CORed Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 4,293	Originally Posted by Axiom_Blade I must've been too vague or something earlier, so I'll try to keep it clear and concise. Two questions: 1) Is Freedom of Speech a human right? (Yes or No.) (This is not a question about the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the US government, or the First Amendment. This is about Freedom of Speech.) 2) An employer should respect their employees' human rights? (Yes or No.) If you answer "No" to either one of these, then we don't have any common ground to talk about this. Okay, here's some hypotheticals, to see just how far you think an employer has to go in respecting the "human right" of free speech. All of these assume that I am an employee, in some capacity of Acme Widgets, Inc. I put up a web page, prominently identifying myself as an employee of Acme Widgets, and state on it that all Jews should be killed. I put up a web site, stating that the CEO of Acme Widgets is a criminal. I put up a web site stating that all the widgets that Acme makes are absolute crap, and will fall apart within a month of purchase. Would Acme Widgets be justified in firing me for any of these actions? Because if your answer is no, I don't think there is any common ground for us to discuss this.
CORed Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 4,293	Last edited by CORed; 5th August 2012 at 05:20 PM.

5th August 2012, 05:40 PM	#172
Sam.I.Am Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Hunting Moose and Squirrel Posts: 4,154	Well to be honest Acme Widgets does put out totally crappy products in general, but Excelsior Widgets on the other hand... That's a quality operation right there.
	__________________ "Swift, silent and deadly" was a part of my job description Upon hearing me say that my friend asked me "So you're a fart?"... About my avatar.

5th August 2012, 07:15 PM	#173
000063 Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2011 Location: Not America. Posts: 4,735	It's always so much trouble to get them out of the box. No, wait, that's Excalibur Widgets.
	__________________ No, I'd like you to answer the question in two, simple, coherent sentences. ... That's how you present credible arguments in written form. -ergo, on me giving him a 2 digit number I can think of two reasons why bedunkers are often so loathe to explain their theories using plain, concise language--words even. - ergo

5th August 2012, 07:31 PM	#174
Malcolm Kirkpatrick Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 3,136	Ace has an unsourced profile of Mr. Smith. Sounds like a lot of people who hang out around here. Yeah, I know: unsourced. Like some guy told Sen. Reid about Romney's taxes and some guy told me about Sen. Reid's ejection from NAMBLA for excessive zeal in pursuit of pre-teen boys. So, take it for what it's worth.

5th August 2012, 07:35 PM	#175
TragicMonkey Poisoned Waffles Pither Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Monkey Posts: 30,084	Originally Posted by 000063 It's always so much trouble to get them out of the box. No, wait, that's Excalibur Widgets. Dear Tech Support, Excalibur Widgets: if your product is not actually waterproof, why do you advertise it as lake-friendly? My lady friend is most distraught. We spent good money on your product and I expect a refund.
	__________________ One cannot expect wisdom to flow from a pumpkin.

5th August 2012, 08:46 PM	#176
Caper Master Poster Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 2,950	Originally Posted by TragicMonkey Personally, I don't really care what the politics of a company owner are. I just don't think it's smart for business to get involved in social issues. Businesses exist to make money. They're not meant to take sides on social controversies. Making waves is simply not a good idea -- it can lead to serious loss of profits. In most cases I would agree. Here...this company rode this issue all the way to the bank. You can't buy this kind of advertising. I'm sure he has made an absolute fortune these past weeks. As for long term..... child labour never stopped anyone from buying cheap clothes.... animal cruelty has never stopped people from buying burgers.... someones stance on gay marriage isn't going to stop people from eating chicken.... you can argue that it should.... but it won't. Also... think Mecca Cola
Caper Master Poster Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 2,950	Last edited by Caper; 5th August 2012 at 08:49 PM.

5th August 2012, 08:53 PM	#177
shuize Master Poster Join Date: May 2002 Location: Japan Posts: 2,311	Originally Posted by Neally It could also be, bad PR is better than no PR. The full fallout is yet to be seen. It may also never be determined. They had a record sales day when the supporters showed up. On the other hand, the long term may result in lower sales. Well, I'm going back to the U.S. for a few months and while I never made a point of eating at Chick-Fil-A, I certainly will now.

5th August 2012, 09:29 PM	#178
Mike! Official Ponylandistanian National Treasure. Respect it! Join Date: May 2010 Location: Ponylandistan! Where the bacon grows on trees! Can it get any better than that? I submit it can not! Posts: 10,249	Originally Posted by TragicMonkey Dear Tech Support, Excalibur Widgets: if your product is not actually waterproof, why do you advertise it as lake-friendly? My lady friend is most distraught. We spent good money on your product and I expect a refund. Some watery tart distributing widgets in a farcical aquatic ceremony is no basis for a refund argument. If we went and gave a refund to every moistened bit who lobbed a defective widget at us, why, we'd be out of business quicker than you could snatch a sword from a stone.
	__________________ "Never judge a man until you’ve walked a mile in his shoes... Because then it won't really matter, you’ll be a mile away and have his shoes."

5th August 2012, 10:54 PM	#179
Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 26,199	Originally Posted by Mike! snatch a sword from a stone. Is that a euphemism?
	__________________ "As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law

5th August 2012, 11:04 PM	#180
OnlyTellsTruths Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 5,790	Originally Posted by theprestige 3) Freedom of Association is a human right? (Yes or No.) 4) An employee should respect their employer's human rights? (Yes or No.) If you answer "No" to either of these, then we still don't have any common ground to talk about this. Couldn't you use that argument to endorse housing discrimination and segregation? Or am I missing something here....
OnlyTellsTruths Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 5,790	__________________ ________________________

5th August 2012, 11:13 PM	#181
Irony Muse Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 872	Originally Posted by OnlyTellsTruths Couldn't you use that argument to endorse housing discrimination and segregation? Or am I missing something here.... Sure. One could also use freedom of movement to support kicking people in the head. That doesn't mean the argument would be particularly good.
Irony Muse Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 872

6th August 2012, 02:40 AM	#182
OnlyTellsTruths Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 5,790	Originally Posted by Irony Sure. One could also use freedom of movement to support kicking people in the head. That doesn't mean the argument would be particularly good. Yeah, but isn't an employer discriminating against certain qualified employees the same as a landlord discriminating against certain qualified tenants?
OnlyTellsTruths Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 5,790	__________________ ________________________

6th August 2012, 03:27 AM	#183
halides1 Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 5,526	Originally Posted by shuize Well, I'm going back to the U.S. for a few months and while I never made a point of eating at Chick-Fil-A, I certainly will now. Why?
halides1 Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 5,526	__________________ “Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened.” – Winston Churchill

6th August 2012, 06:26 AM	#184
Matthew Best Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Leicester Square, London Posts: 4,145	Exactly what I was going to ask.

6th August 2012, 07:34 AM	#185
Silly Green Monkey Cowardly Lurking in the Shadows of Greatness Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Colorado Posts: 3,047	Probably because it's damn good tasting stuff? They're never open when I'm nearby though.

6th August 2012, 08:05 AM	#186
boooeee Dart Fener Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: The Lando System Posts: 2,396	Originally Posted by Silly Green Monkey Probably because it's damn good tasting stuff? They're never open when I'm nearby though. I find I crave it most on Sundays. Really annoying.
	__________________ my nerdy sports blog: betting market analytics

6th August 2012, 08:10 AM	#187
Silly Green Monkey Cowardly Lurking in the Shadows of Greatness Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Colorado Posts: 3,047	Nothing like being hungry and heading for the college foodcenter, only to have to settle for non-tasty food because the chickenbits place is closed for the day. My stomach's not closed on Sundays!

6th August 2012, 10:07 AM	#188
Wolrab Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: The Beautiful Finger Lakes Posts: 1,713	Cripes, the guy was a corporate officer and was subject to their code of conduct. He freely signed agreements that spelled out what constitutes a firing offense. He had plenty of time to cool off before he posted it to youtube. Tough luck.
	__________________ "Such reports are usually based on the sighting of something the sighters cannot explain and that they (or someone else on their behalf) explain as representing an interstellar spaceship-often by saying "But what else can it be?" as though thier own ignorance is a decisive factor." Isaac Asimov

6th August 2012, 10:46 AM	#189
Malcolm Kirkpatrick Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 3,136	Originally Posted by OnlyTellsTruths Yeah, but isn't an employer discriminating against certain qualified employees the same as a landlord discriminating against certain qualified tenants? And what if it is? I declined to rent to six billion people yesterday. I must be really evil.

6th August 2012, 12:27 PM	#190
fuelair Cythraul Enfys Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 28,946	Originally Posted by Axiom_Blade You don't regard losing your job as a punishment? But it is not a punishment by the government. The free speech thing is JUST THE GOVERNMENT.
fuelair Cythraul Enfys Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 28,946	__________________ There is no problem so great that it cannot be fixed by small explosives carefully placed. Wash this space! We fight for the Lady Babylon!!!

6th August 2012, 12:33 PM	#191
CORed Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 4,293	Originally Posted by Sam.I.Am Well to be honest Acme Widgets does put out totally crappy products in general, but Excelsior Widgets on the other hand... That's a quality operation right there. Good point. If only Wile E. Coyote had ordered from Excelsior, he would have gotten that damn roadrunner.
CORed Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 4,293

6th August 2012, 01:23 PM	#192
Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 26,199	Originally Posted by Axiom_Blade You don't regard losing your job as a punishment? Even using an expansive conception of free speech as applying to more than government, it plainly cannot mean freedom from any negative consequences for speech. The most you can coherently claim is that freedom of speech means nobody can infringe upon your rights in response to your speech. But you have no right to your job, so getting fired for speech isn't a violation of any of your rights.
	__________________ "As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law

6th August 2012, 01:58 PM	#193
theprestige Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 8,606	Originally Posted by OnlyTellsTruths Couldn't you use that argument to endorse housing discrimination and segregation? Or am I missing something here.... I think you're missing a lot. For one, I'm not making an argument. Instead, I'm trying to establish a common basis of agreement about fundamental rights, upon which AB and I can (hopefully) build coherent arguments and maybe even reach a mutual agreement. For another, you're missing that it's a non-sequitur to use the right to freedom of association as an endorsement of segregation. I can certainly agree that a right exists, without having to agree that all uses and abuses of that right are desireable--or that all uses and abuses should therefore be permitted. The reality is much more complicated and awkward. I think that, except in commonly-accepted cases of dire need, the government should not interfere with people's rights, nor should anyone else. AB seems to think that freedom of speech is a magical privilege that entitles jerkasses to keep their jobs even if their speech is at odds with their employer's values, but that freedom of association is just a convenience easily swept aside whenever it enters into conflict with his idea of employers-as-faceless-evil.
theprestige Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 8,606

6th August 2012, 05:46 PM	#194
rwguinn Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: 16 miles from 7 lakes Posts: 8,443	Originally Posted by theprestige I think you're missing a lot. For one, I'm not making an argument. Instead, I'm trying to establish a common basis of agreement about fundamental rights, upon which AB and I can (hopefully) build coherent arguments and maybe even reach a mutual agreement. For another, you're missing that it's a non-sequitur to use the right to freedom of association as an endorsement of segregation. I can certainly agree that a right exists, without having to agree that all uses and abuses of that right are desireable--or that all uses and abuses should therefore be permitted. The reality is much more complicated and awkward. I think that, except in commonly-accepted cases of dire need, the government should not interfere with people's rights, nor should anyone else. AB seems to think that freedom of speech is a magical privilege that entitles jerkasses to keep their jobs even if their speech is at odds with their employer's values, but that freedom of association is just a convenience easily swept aside whenever it enters into conflict with his idea of employers-as-faceless-evil. It all boils down to the fact that if one wishes to keep one's job, one should avoid pissing off one's employer...
	__________________ "Political correctness is a doctrine,...,which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end." "I pointed out that his argument was wrong in every particular, but he rightfully took me to task for attacking only the weak points." Myriad http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6853275#post6853275

6th August 2012, 08:12 PM	#195
Irony Muse Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 872	Originally Posted by OnlyTellsTruths Yeah, but isn't an employer discriminating against certain qualified employees the same as a landlord discriminating against certain qualified tenants? More or less. Both could be punished for it under existing laws. Arguing that a right exists is not the same as arguing that a right is unlimited. Essentially, your point is exactly what the poster you quoted is arguing, that "rights" put forth is an simplistic style like that can always be countered with other "rights" that they come in conflict with.
Irony Muse Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 872