>Market pressure to get rid of incorrect social views is the only alternative to legislative action to force such change.
Thank you.
This is why it infuriates me when you see lolbertarians going about how you shouldn't care. Of all people they should be the ones to recognize why this sort of stuff… matters.
libertarians do believe that market pressure should be used instead of government coercion. You'll definitely find plenty of them who do support a boycott of chick-fil-a.
At the same time there are other libertarians who don't support a boycott because they believe that people are entitled to hold opinions that differ from their own.
> At the same time there are other libertarians who don't support a boycott because they believe that people are entitled to hold opinions that differ from their own.
There is a difference between boycotting people because they have different opinions, and refusing to give money to a company who turns around and uses it to actively support anti-gay legislation.
The CEO of Chick-fil-A is like 90. If he was just homophobic, sexist, etc, in private, it wouldn't make news anywhere.
>There is a difference between boycotting people because they have different opinions, and refusing to give money to a company who turns around and uses it to actively support anti-gay legislation.
I respect anyone's choice to do so.
However, for me personally I see trying to convince other people to share your opinion as just an extension of having an opinion in the first place.
I wouldn't vote for a law to ban gay marriage, but I'd still patronize a business who's owner did.
Unless that owner was doing something more than peacefully trying to coerce people to vote for said law.
There is a difference between "I can't work with you" and "I'm not giving money to you, which you turn around and use to try to take rights away from a minority group."
If the gay community would just leave this company alone he wouldn't be forced to stand up for his views (in public) in the first place. I've known this family for years. They are good people and don't wish any ill will on anyone regardless of their views. The gay community just won't accept the fact that Chick-fil-A will never agree with their moral stance. BTW, this has been going on for years.
Oh those mean gays, why won't they just leave this poor family alone and let this family continue to pour millions of dollars into keeping them a permanent underclass who will never enjoy the same rights as straight people in peace??
Obviously being a massive funder of a campaign against equal rights for the gay community is totally a neutral position which in no way harms gay people, but pointing out the fact that they've been doing it? Why, that makes gay people big meanies who are attacking this nice family for no reason.
Gay activists is a more appropriate term. And many people might agree with you they are "big meanies" looking for a fight.
As far as funding campaigns that support their moral views as a "private" company, why is that so bothersome? They don't get out in front of a microphone in the public media and state this fact every time they get the chance. Although Bezos seems to think this is a good idea.
What is Focus on the Family? Or the Family Research Council? Eagle Forum?
>>> And many people might agree with you they are "big meanies" looking for a fight.
They are "looking for a fight" to be fought in the public square, in legislatures and courts, over what many of them consider to be a legal injustice. Is this not the intended form of democracy?
>>> As far as funding campaigns that support their moral views as a "private" company, why is that so bothersome?
Why is it so bothersome to point this fact out? If they do not wish to be injured by the information, then they have the power to make it false.
>>> They don't get out in front of a microphone in the public media and state this fact every time they get the chance.
The fact they were (previously) not very vocal about their views negates them how?
>>> Although Bezos seems to think this is a good idea.
As is his right? Just like the Cathy family has the same right?
>>> Gay right=Civil right=Yeah right
Disagreement does not require a dismissive attitude. I could just as easily denigrate your opinions and your position, but that benefits no one.
For what it's worth, I was not at the time aware of the mayors of Boston and Chicago saying they would oppose the expansion of Chik-fil-A in their cities. I wholeheartedly disagree with those actions, and I support Chik-fil-A in their business goal of selling tasty chicken to whomever will buy it. I still disagree with their political goals, but their freedoms as an enterprise should not be taken away because of them.
> As far as funding campaigns that support their moral views as a "private" company, why is that so bothersome?
When you bring your views into the public square by funding public campaigns to espouse those views, you can't complain when people react to those views.
Chick-fil-A did something far stronger than simply get on a microphone in the public media and argue a particular viewpoint. It spent millions of dollars trying to affect legislation.
There are a variety of phrases that come to mind to describe someone who wants to withhold basic privileges from other people because they believe a man in the sky commands it.
"good people" is not among them.
> Chick-fil-A will never agree with their moral stance
There's the problem. Morals are neither here nor there. You can believe that homosexuality is wrong and still recognize that allowing homosexuals to enter into a civil marriage contract is just and right. I think lying is wrong, but I wouldn't try to advance legislation that prevents liars from getting married.
Can you be more specific about what the gay community has done to this person that forced him to stand up for his views in public? I am genuinely ignorant here and would like some information.
OK, I want to hear you out, but I have major problems with this evidence. First, in what way are the mayor of Boston and the Jim Henson company emissaries from the gay community? Second, this article references things that happened after Dan Cathy's remarks. You indicated that there were incidents prior to (indeed causing) those remarks to be made. I'm aware of all the stuff going on now, but you led me to believe there was some history I was unaware of. Can you explain?
As marriages are (generally) not arranged in this country, all marriages are about personal preferences. Mildred Loving, a black woman, chose a white man to marry. She was as free to marry a black man as any gay person is free to marry a straight person of the opposite sex. The case is completely relevant, and saying that "race is not a choice" is immaterial to the matter; the trial was not about race, it was about the freedom to marry the person of one's choosing.
I question how good they can be given their donations to anti-gay groups. It's one thing to disagree morally with someone's stance on something like gay marriage. It's something else entirely to fund campaigns to take away other peoples' rights. That's a morally bad act.
Nobody is mad at Chick-fil-A for being bigoted in the privacy of their own home. They're mad at Chick-fil-A for their actions and for how they spend their money on bigoted campaigns.
Technically they never had that right and won't until the Supreme Court rules on it. So they aren't taking away anything at all. Currently in the majority of States "marriage equality" is one man can marry one woman and that applies to everyone.
The big deal is that someone that is "famous" said publicly that he doesn't support gay marriage. The LGBT movement, "tolerant" as they are, just can't have that.
"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... "
There is also a significant difference between "not supporting" something and campaigning to prevent anyone from doing it. I "don't support" tax-exempt religion, but I'm not giving money to a lobbying group to try to end it.
Insofar as the discussion remains civil, either both sides are guilty of "intolerance" or neither are. When one side makes unreasonable demands, and carries them into action, then we can begin to discuss an imbalance of tolerance.
>At the same time there are other libertarians who don't support a boycott because they believe that people are entitled to hold opinions that differ from their own.
Whereas I, a progressive libertarian (free-market progressive?) believe that worldview to be inconsistent with libertarianism, hence lolbertarian.
Companies, governments, organizations, institutions at large all exert and respond to their own social pressures and cannot be considered in isolation thereof.
Thank you.
This is why it infuriates me when you see lolbertarians going about how you shouldn't care. Of all people they should be the ones to recognize why this sort of stuff… matters.