a few honest liberals

Have any here spoken up?


http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/31 ... el-potemra

" It’s clear to me that the bullying tactics being threatened against the Chick-fil-A restaurants are wrong and illiberal, and I want to praise some liberals who are being vocal in agreement on this point. Here is Adam Serwer in Mother Jones:


"Menino and Moreno have it wrong. Blocking construction of Chick-fil-a restaurants over Cathy’s views is a violation of Cathy’s First Amendment rights. Boston and Chicago have no more right to stop construction of Chick-fil-As based on an executive’s anti-gay views than New York City would have had the right to block construction of an Islamic community center blocks away from Ground Zero. The government blocking a business from opening based on the owner’s political views is a clear threat to everyone’s freedom of speech—being unpopular doesn’t mean you don’t have rights. It’s only by protecting the rights of those whose views we find odious that we can hope to secure them for ourselves.""

I am pro-homosexual rights and am fine with people boycotting a company when they know some of their money will go to support organizations they don't believe in. But I think it is wrong for goverments to supress businesses that aren't doing anything illegal.

Let the consumers decide, businesses that align themselves with one opinion or the other are going to flourish or suffer at the hands of consumerism.

FredHayek wrote: I am pro-homosexual rights and am fine with people boycotting a company when they know some of their money will go to support organizations they don't believe in. But I think it is wrong for goverments to supress businesses that aren't doing anything illegal.

I agree. Businesses should rise or fall on their own merits. Governments have to business blocking them.

I have mixed feelings on this...yes, consumers have the right to boycott any business they want for whatever reason they want either individually or collectively. When it comes to government taking a stand on what businesses they want in their city or state or where ever, it gets murky. Governments do it all the time....blocking porn shops form certain parts of a city, or altogether, towns blocking big box stores or Walmart, not allowing factories that create large amounts of pollution. How do we determine what is an acceptable excuse for blocking a business from locating in your city and what is an unacceptable excuse. In this particular case I wish the gov't would stay out of it....let the consumers cause them to fail if that is what the people decide they want to do.

Like Archer says, this issue is pretty complex. I can see why a community would want to outlaw strip clubs, but ban all strip clubs. If you want to ban the Chick, then ban all fast food in the area to be fair.
Or ban all Wal-Mart style stores including Target which has the same business model, but for some reason doesn't get the same hate as Wally World.

The strip club thing is a VERY bad comparison. It's the actions of the business that matter not the owner or the ceo's opinion on social issues. Rahm is as clueless as they come. What if some mayor or governor wanted to ban a business from their city or state because the ceo was pro-abortion but polls say that most people think abortion is wrong? Majority opinion wins ... right? Let the people vote with their pocketboooks.

This shouldn't even be a close call, no slimey politician should ever be able to dictate what businesses are acceptable based on the owner or ceo's personal beliefs, especially if the business is working within the zoning laws.

Ryt_Rick wrote: The strip club thing is a VERY bad comparison. It's the actions of the business that matter not the owner or the ceo's opinion on social issues. Rahm is as clueless as they come. What if some mayor or governor wanted to ban a business from their city or state because the ceo was pro-abortion but polls say that most people think abortion is wrong? Majority opinion wins ... right? Let the people vote with their pocketboooks.

This shouldn't even be a close call, no slimey politician should ever be able to dictate what businesses are acceptable based on the owner or ceo's personal beliefs, especially if the business is working within the zoning laws.

And Target/Wal-Mart is a great example of this. Wal-Mart is attacked because they don't support the right charities and the correct PC groups. Target does play the public relations game so it is hands off.

Apple is another good example, when Mitt sends jobs overseas, it is evil. But when Apple does, no one raises a fuss. They are media darlings.

I don't know about the Walmart/Target thing....when Walmart wanted to build in Evergreen it was hotly debated, and it would have been the same with Target, or really any other retailer....Kmart etc......we didn't want a big store like that in our community.....I do believe that communities have the right to decide what the nature of their community will be........to a point. What I have a problem with is where is the line that determines what type of business citizens can keep out of their community and what they can't, and does local government have the right to make those decisions without citizen input/votes?

FredHayek wrote:
Apple is another good example, when Mitt sends jobs overseas, it is evil. But when Apple does, no one raises a fuss. They are media darlings.

Bad analogy, Apple isn't running for president.