Letters to the Editor

Your views in 200 words or less

MARRIAGE: Media shouldn’t be taking sides

Letter by Jenn Bosworth, Tacoma on Aug. 3, 2012 at 11:30 am with 77 Comments »
August 3, 2012 11:30 am

Re: “Chick-fil-A controversy odious – and so too is some of the reaction” (TNT, 8-1).

I was and remain bothered by Lane Filler’s commentary about Chick-fil-A’s financial support of a particular social agenda. Apparently that was just the one of the fronts taken by a member of the news media. Now Chick-fil-A protesters are receiving additional media attention in a variety of formats.

What about corporations that have supported the other side of this issue? It seems to be OK with the news media that Starbucks, Microsoft, Amazon, Nike and others have financially supported a social agenda from one position, yet when a position is taken by a company with a differing opinion that company is lambasted by the media.

Personally, I would prefer that companies keep their finances and views private. However, since that isn’t the case then how about some equality about how these things are presented? It takes courage to take a public stand – regardless of one’s personal outlook.

Leave a comment Comments → 77
  1. I have found that the “Party of Tolerance” consists of people who are only tolerant of people and positions with whom they agree… Just ask any black conservative who’s been called an Uncle Tom or a “house n-word” because s/he follows their beliefs and speaks their mind.

    Along those same lines, only those individuals with whom they agree are allowed to stand for what they believe in… All others are shouted down, labeled as homophobes, racists, or uneducated red-necks.

    By the way, a liberal friend of mine once told me that she had determined that it was more disruptive to “hiss” at speakers with whom she disagreed than to attempt to shout them down… Some insight into the mind of a member of the “Party of Tolerance” and a supposed upholder of the right of freedom of speech.

  2. “Party of Tolerance”? Never heard of it. Must be one of those strawmen internet warriors like to build.

  3. Let’s be crystal clear here – demanding equal protection under the law for all American citizens has nothing to do with tolerance – just respect for the Constitution.

  4. As for the media, there’s a reason why conservative talk radio and FOX News are the ratings leaders… Those are the only places one can go to get a conservative viewpoint… Meanwhile, liberals can go to NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, and any newspaper in America and hear “news” as viewed through the filter of the left-wing national media.

  5. I agree, let’s be crystal clear:

    The issue of gay marriage–the issue at hand in the Chick-fil-A debate–has nothing to do with equal protection or the Constitution. But the right to free speech that the President of Chick-fil-A was expressing has everything to do about equal protection and the Constitution.

    Thanks for clarifying your own mistaken position. Better luck next time.

  6. Jean – as long as Chick-fil-a continues to receive media attention, the owner will be laughing all the way to the bank.

    Air84 – go tell it to those assaulted and killed because the Party of Intolerance.

    Air84 – the issue of gay marriage has everything to do with equal protection under the Constitution and to date no one has denied, or even attempted to deny, Mr Chick-fil-a his right to free speech.

  7. “…there’s a reason why conservative talk radio and FOX News are the ratings leaders… Those are the only places one can go to get a conservative viewpoint… Meanwhile, liberals can go to NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN…”

    Chalk up another air-wave success by Fox News & conservative talk radio in their attempts to move the conservative/liberal center-line farther to the right, making it appear that all news sources on the other side of their redrawn lines are liberal.

    And I haven’t heard of the “Party of Tolerance” either. Would that be the same party as the “Party of Morality and Family Values?” heh, heh.

  8. alindasue says:

    Lane Filler’s commentary is just that: a commentary. It is an editorial column and, by its very nature, slanted in the direction of the author’s opinion just as all editorial columns are.

    What’s the big deal? He is just as entitled to his opinion as the CEO of that chicken place I’d never heard of prior to this week or so is. The letter writer and the rest of us are entitled to agree or disagree according to our own biases and experiences.

    If that’s evil “media bias”, then so be it. However, I have to wonder, if the commentaries that a media source publishes are proof of its bias… how show should TNT be judged by the comments published here? Is TNT biased towards Air84’s comments or beerBoy’s? Perhaps it’s equally “biased” in both directions, eh?

  9. Don’t worry, Jenn, Fox came to your rescue when they and the Christian right recently attacked the Muppets for being “heterophobic, anti-diversity, anti-inclusive bigots,” for cancelling their Chic-fil-et contract as well as being against family and Christian values in their last movie for having diversity as one of their themes.

    And, btw, I learned about it through the reporting of both sides in the so-called “librul press”

  10. Huh….this is listed at the top of the piece the letetr writer wrote.

    “Lane Filler Opinion > Columnists”

    This isn’t rocket science.

  11. Clamat0 says:

    Let’s be crystal clear here – demanding equal protection under the law for all American citizens has nothing to do with tolerance – just respect for the Constitution.

    Clarity is one thing, bB, facts are quite another. And the fact is Mr. Cathey said nothing in his overblown comments that would indicate he wishes to deny anyone their constitutionally-guaranteed right to “Equal Protection”, nor has he ever shown disrespect for the Constitution.

    And the writer is quite right, “tolerance” seems much more lacking on the left, as evidenced by the outrage and overreaction to Mr. Cathey’s expression of another Constitutionally-guaranteed right; the right to freedom of speech.

    So what’s your point?

  12. lylelaws says:

    I don’t have a problem with news outlets taking sides. They have that right,

    All serious viewers know that Fox News leans to the right, CNN leans to the left and that MSNBC is pathetic.

  13. beerBoy says:

    My point is that the whole “tolerance” meme is absurd. Left wing stances aren’t based in “tolerance” – that is a claim made by Right wingers in order to claim that the Left isn’t meeting their own standards.

    And your claim that the Right is more tolerant than the Left is just baseless boosterism. “Go team, rah, rah, rah!” The Right, like the Left, is tolerant of those who agree with them.

  14. beerBoy says:

    And – you folks should learn what Freedom of Speech is. City mayors attempting to prevent Chick-fil-A from moving into their city based upon the political stances IS a breach of Free Speech because it is a government action. Private citizens organizing/participating in a boycott is not an infringement upon Free Speech – it is an exercise of “voting with your feet” in the “free” Market.

  15. Spot on Beer Boy!

  16. dstraits says:

    And this whole flap redirects ones attention from the real problems unemployment, unending war, massive debt and an economy thats in the dumps. Lets all not eat chicken sandwiches, that will make everything better. God what idiots.

  17. Clamat0 says:

    Speaking of memes, bB, your insertion of 14th Amendment rights into this discussion is an extension of your interpretation of it – slightly influenced, I’m sure, by a gay judge (Walker) and the 9th Circus’ opinions vis-a-vis California Prop 8.

    Personally, I have no qualms with states deciding on issues like gay marriage, socialized healthcare, gambling, etc. These are states-rights issues which shouldn’t cross state lines. But the decisions in CA are both clear (there’s that clarity thing again) cases of judicial activism in overturning a law that was instituted by overwhelming popular vote. This may yet be decided in the SCOTUS. Until then, it’s the law in Cali, not the rest of the land. You’re entitled to your opinion, but it’s not the law.

  18. Clamat0 says:

    And – you folks should learn what Freedom of Speech is.

    Exactly.

    And attempting to obstruct a companies operations in response to an expression of free speech by it’s owner would be an example of attempting to stifle free speech. Otherwise we have a neat little straw man argument here since no one is speaking out against “private citizens organizing/participating in a boycott”.

    But I find it hard to believe you don’t see… at a minimum hypocrisy in the left’s attempts to defame a business for its owner having exercised his Constitutionally-guaranteed right to freedom of expression. Sorry, but the examples are endless; the left has their very own special definition of “tolerance” – it only applies to anyone who thinks, speaks, and acts like they do. Anyone else is a “hater”, a “racist”, a “bigot”, a “homophobe”, a “xenophobe”, etc, etc, etc…

    But then, the left doesn’t see the hypocrisy in a president who, prior to election in ’08, was in favor of traditional marriage, only to flip-flop on the issue this election cycle because he needs money from gay interests.

  19. Clamat0 says:

    end emph

  20. “As for the media, there’s a reason why conservative talk radio and FOX News are the ratings leaders”

    Yes there is. Conservatives can’t think for themselves so they need talk radio and Fox news to tell them what to say.

  21. “attempting to obstruct a companies operations in response to an expression of free speech by it’s owner would be an example of attempting to stifle free speech.”

    You’re confusing “freedom of speech” with “speech without consequences”. The two aren’t the same. For example, if you work at McDonald’s you have the “freedom of speech” to tell your customers that the food is better across the street at some other restaurant, but be prepared to pay the consequence by losing your job. Did you lose your freedom of speech? Nope, you can continue to claim that the food elsewhere is better than at McDonald’s. But you can’t do it while working at McDonald’s.

    If you work for a prominent radio network, you have the “freedom of speech” to call some female athletes “nappy-headed ho’s”, but your employer also has the right to make you suffer the consequence by firing you. Did you lose your freedom of speech? Nope, you can continue to claim that some female athletes are “nappy-headed ho’s”, but you can’t do it while working at at that network.

    If you are the president of a fast food company, you have every right to say you oppose same-sex marriage, but your customers also have the right to demonstrate their disagreement by taking their business elsewhere. Did you lose your freedom of speech? Nope, you can continue to publicly oppose same-sex marriage, but you can’t do it without the consequence of losing some business.

    “Freedom of speech” is NOT the same thing as “speech without consequences”. Speech has consequences.

  22. You’re confusing “freedom of speech” with “speech without consequences”

    No, you’re introducing a completely different context; deliberately misleading – a red herring, if you will.

    But we’re all impressed with your explanation of “speech without consequences”, I’m sure. (Only left wondering why you didn’t mention the “fire in the theater” scenario.)

    Nowhere have I stated that anyone has the right to say anything without consequence. The point is that anyone wishing to boycott a business because of that business’ beliefs – political, religious, or other – is entirely free to do so in a peaceful manner, so long as it does not involve slander, trespass, loiter, vandalism, or interference with other peoples right to patronize the business in question.

    But the point is that there have been efforts, by certain members of the left, to go beyond a mere boycott and to step over the “attempt to stifle free speech” line with both feet.

  23. Conservatives can’t think for themselves so they need talk radio and Fox news to tell them what to say.

    You’re a platitude a minute – a veritable mocking insult machine. It’s obvious by the important and relevant content you bring that you would never rely on loony-left talking points to originate your drum-beat leftist drivel.

  24. “loony-left talking points to originate your drum-beat leftist drivel.”

    Thanks for taking the high road again.

  25. “there have been efforts, by certain members of the left, to go beyond a mere boycott and to step over the “attempt to stifle free speech” line with both feet.”

    Then you should have no problem documenting them. And documenting exactly where they said what they were “attempting” to do.

    Or you could hurl more insults, thus demonstrating your inability to do so.

  26. Thanks for taking the high road again.

    Hmmm.

    Conservatives can’t think for themselves…

    Thanks for defining hypocrisy again.

  27. Then you should have no problem documenting them. And documenting exactly where they said what they were “attempting” to do.

    I hope you’re being disingenuous here, because otherwise continuing with such a pretentious, uniformed individual would be absurd.

    How ’bout I let John Stewart do it for me:

    http://washingtonexaminer.com/jon-stewart-ridicules-democrat-mayors-for-opposing-chick-fil-a/article/2503929

    HTH

  28. Nope, nothing about interfering with free speech there. There were definitely consequences for exercising said freedom, but nothing about attempting to stop it.

    As I said, you fail to discern the difference between “freedom of speech” and “speech without consequences”.

  29. Clearly, you wouldn’t know the 1st Amendment if it gave birth to you.

    The fast food chicken sandwich chain was reportedly looking at property near Faneuil Hall at the location where the Purple Shamrock currently operates. Then company president Dan Cathy stirred national controversy when he said in an interview that “we’re inviting God’s judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at him and say we know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage.” In response, Menino told the Boston Herald, “Chick-fil-A doesn’t belong in Boston. You can’t have a business in the City of Boston that discriminates against a population. We’re an open city, we’re a city that’s at the forefront of inclusion.”

    But which part of the First Amendment does Menino not understand? A business owner’s political or religious beliefs should not be a test for the worthiness of his or her application for a business license.

    http://articles.boston.com/2012-07-25/editorials/32831191_1_gay-marriage-business-license-freedom-trail

    Ald. Joe Moreno wants to stop a fast-food chain, Chick-fil-A, from opening a restaurant in Chicago’s Logan Square neighborhood because he doesn’t like the company president’s opposition to gay marriage.

    Moreno — and Mayor Rahm Emanuel, who’s thinking along the same lines — should back off. Government has no business withholding zoning permits and licenses just because it objects to a businessman’s religious or political views.

    http://www.suntimes.com/opinions/13994657-474/editorial-chick-fil-a-boss-has-right-to-his-opinion.html

    The people of Boston will have to purchase their chicken sandwiches elsewhere: Mayor Thomas M. Menino has sworn that the franchise will have to fight city hall to bring its fast-food empire to Boston after Chick-fil-A’s president, Dan Cathy, said gay marriage is “inviting God’s judgment on our nation.” The Atlanta-based chain is hoping to open a restaurant in a popular tourist spot near the Freedom Trail…

    http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/07/23/boston-mayor-blocks-chick-fil-a-franchise-from-city-over-homophobic-attitude/#ixzz22dxSIX2D

    San Francisco mayor, Ed Lee, has joined fellow mayors Menino and Emanuel in the fight. Mayor Lee had perhaps the harshest words for Chick-fil-A, tweeting a warning on Friday not to open an outlet in his city, either.

    “Closest #ChickFilA to San Francisco is 40 miles away & I strongly recommend that they not try to come any closer.”

    http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/07/27/politicians-coast-to-coast-take-sides-on-chick-fil-as-gay-marriage-controversy/#ixzz22dxr1SnS

    Consumers have every right to patronize or boycott any restaurant they choose for any reason. But a government’s responsibility is different. It is one thing for big-city politicians to voice their own views. It is another thing for them to threaten businesses with the power of their elected office for not sharing those views.

    http://swampland.time.com/2012/07/26/chick-fil-a-meets-a-first-amendment-buzzsaw-in-chicago/#ixzz22dzAdluP

    The list is seemingly endless.

    But you’re right, speech has consequences. Take your case, for instance; your “speech”, here, reveals a conspicuous ignorance of the basic principle and right of free speech in this republic. You should work on that.

  30. Clamat0,
    Private Citizens boycotting a business is not obstruction or interfering with that business’s operation.

    Is it hypocrisy or stupidity that prevents you from seeing Romney:

    Considered HIS health care mandate one of his major achievements is now opposed to the very idea of a mandate.

    Claimed to be more pro-chose that Ted Kennedy but now opposes all abortion.

    When it comes to changing positions Mitt is the flip-flopper-in-chief having supported all sides of just about all issues.

    All speech is protected, BUT all speech has consequences.

    The owner of that chicken place has the right to say he does not believe in gay-marriage. He even has the right to doante to others who share is beliefs.

    And I have the right to say I do agree with you and believe I will not eat your chicken.

    Now just suppose Chicken Man had said he believed in gay marriage and on-demand abortions.

    Wound there have been no consequences?

    You bet your bippy there would have been, and the actions would have been more violent than anything the pro-gay side has come up with.

    I agree with Ehill – Show us the attempts.

  31. “Clearly, you wouldn’t know the 1st Amendment if it gave birth to you.”

    Clearly, you know that when you can’t refute the message, you attack the messenger.

    “Menino told the Boston Herald, “Chick-fil-A doesn’t belong in Boston. You can’t have a business in the City of Boston that discriminates against a population. We’re an open city, we’re a city that’s at the forefront of inclusion.”

    The mayor didn’t say one word about restricting Cathy’s right to free speech. And even if the City was able to stop Chick-fil-A from building in that spot, would it prevent Cathy from stating his opinion? No. Fail. Try again.

    “Mayor Lee had perhaps the harshest words for Chick-fil-A, tweeting a warning on Friday not to open an outlet in his city, either.”

    Once again, stopping the company from opening new outlets in SF wouldn’t stop its president from stating his opinion. Fail. Try again.

    These are consequences to what Cathy said, not attempts to stop him from saying whatever he wants. For the third time, you’re confusing “freedom of speech” with “speech without consequences”, and the two aren’t the same.

  32. I have noted that the controversy involving the placement of a mosque near ground zero met with support from the city’s mayor. Why would not an American fast food business enjoy similar approval from the mayor’s of four large US cities?

    I can’t be sure but I don’t believe that Islam is overly tolerant of gay unions.

  33. LeePHill says:

    The new definition of First Amendment is “eat here, regardless of if you like the owner’s politics”

    I remember when it was “this church doesn’t have to follow the rules of being an employer in the United States”

    Amazing how things change so frequently.

  34. LeePHill says:

    “I can’t be sure but I don’t believe that Islam is overly tolerant of gay unions.”

    I haven’t ever heard an Islamic organization in America speak out against gay marriage. In fact here is one individual that supports it:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ibrahim-abdulmatin/muslim-americans-gay-marriage_b_884759.html

  35. SandHills says:

    Love how posters take more effort to pursue personal values rather than comment on the orignal letter itself.

    The reason Jenn there was a huge difference of coverage is that there was no call for a boycott or, more serious, threats to impede business development of Chick-fil-A by elected governement officials (including needed job creation) from those opposed to same-sex marriage to the personal views of the executives of those other businesses you mentioned.

    Now had anyone started a boycott of Starbucks or Amazon, or, again, more serious, had elected officials that actually have specific state laws opposing same-sex marriage in their state constitution made statements about “values” like the Mayor of Chicago….well it would have been just as newsworthy, if not moreso.

    But I can fully agree with beerboy on this one about the constitutional right of free speech – but even that can get misconstrued and twisted by leehill, who stated that threats of repercussions for free speech by elected officials compliments the meaning of free speech in the Constitution.

  36. Clamat0 says:

    These are consequences to what Cathy said, not attempts to stop him from saying whatever he wants.

    LMAO, there are at least 100 current and aspiring despots who’d love to have you as their minister of propaganda. No brains required, just bring your own megaphone with which to shout down the obvious, and instead spew the party line. But even you should know you’re on very thin ice when “x” agrees with you (and only “x”, I might add).

    So… in your cloistered little world, overt, public threats made by numerous elected public officials (cited above) to use governmental machinery as a means to block expansion of a business into their municipality simply because of comments made by the owner of the business in question, does not constitute a violation of that same business owner’s right to free speech? Retaliation by the government, against any citizen’s free expression of protected rights is not an attempt to stifle, but rather a mere “consequence” of such protected speech?

    I guess you’d say that those fire hoses and dogs were “just a consequence” of what Martin Luther King Jr said too.

    The pink paint’s dry, no need to watch it any more. Get out and get yourself an American Government textbook – I can’t help you.

  37. Come in Hill, one individual? Huffpo could have done better.

    Do YOU think Islam, in America and abroad, supports gay anything? As a collective. Try a straight answer and no spin.

  38. LeePHill wrote: I haven’t ever heard an Islamic organization in America speak out against gay marriage. In fact here is one individual that supports it:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ibrahim-abdulmatin/muslim-americans-gay-marriage_b_884759.html
    __________________________________________________________________

    Well LeeP, read the following and get up to date. Shariah Law has its roots in the Quran and Hadiths. Homosexuality is viewed as not only a sin but a punishabled crime against Allah.

    http://www.icna.org/icnas-stance-on-president-obamas-support-for-same-sex-marriage/

  39. “there are at least 100 current and aspiring despots who’d love to have you as their minister of propaganda.”

    One more time. When you can’t refute the message, attack the messenger.

    “public threats made by numerous elected public officials (cited above) to use governmental machinery as a means to block expansion of a business into their municipality simply because of comments made by the owner of the business in question, does not constitute a violation of that same business owner’s right to free speech?”

    Do said “threats” prevent the speaker from speaking his mind? No. So they aren’t an infringement on his freedom of speech.

    Were advertiser boycotts of Rush Limbo and Glenn Beck infringements on their “freedom of speech”? No, because they didn’t affect their right to say what they wanted to.

    “I guess you’d say that those fire hoses and dogs were “just a consequence” of what Martin Luther King Jr said too.”

    You’d guess wrong. Hardly surprising.

    “The pink paint’s dry, no need to watch it any more. Get out and get yourself an American Government textbook – I can’t help you.”

    Ahem. Message. Messenger. Ring any bells?

  40. “Do YOU think Islam, in America and abroad, supports gay anything? As a collective.”

    Oh, good grief. There is no more “collective” Islam any more than there’s a “collective” Christianity or a “collective” any other faith.

  41. CT, what???? You take the word of the Islamic Circle of North America over a huffpo piece featuring the opinions of the esteemed author of “Green Deen: What Islam Teaches About Protecting the Planet”?

    LOL, maybe Mr. Abdul-Matin missed the top four cities on this list:

    http://piccano.com/10-most-polluted-cities-of-all-time-in-the-world/

  42. So… then in your cloistered little world, stifling of free speech is only perpetrated when duct tape (or eq.) has been successfully applied by the perpetrator, upon the mouth of the victim. Threatening one’s livelihood from a position of governmental authority in retaliation for having previously expressed ones opinion in a Constitutionally-guaranteed manner, with the intent of stifling further speech which may offend the perpetrator, does not count as violating ones right to protected speech in your book.

    Okey-dokey.

    Still half a straw left, ehill, don’t miss your chance to grab it!

  43. “in your cloistered little world, stifling of free speech is only perpetrated when duct tape (or eq.) has been successfully applied by the perpetrator, upon the mouth of the victim.” — Nice strawman. I didn’t say anything of the kind. Try again.

    “Threatening one’s livelihood” — Where exactly did that happen? I don’t recall seeing anyone say anything about shutting down an entire company. Try again.

    “with the intent of stifling further speech” — News flash: disagreeing with someone’s statement is not the same thing as wanting to stifle free speech.

    “Still half a straw left” — I’m surprised you’ve left that many with all the strawman arguments you’ve created.

  44. Clamat0 says:

    Try again.

    Okay, I’ll dispense with the facetiousness (I forgot you’re not appreciative of humor – especially when the subject is you.). Kindly present your definition of exactly what constitutes a violation of protected speech, and why this case doesn’t meet the standard (despite the opinions to the contrary of multiple left-leaning sources I’ve already cited for you). You seem full of one-syllable dismissals, give us a valid reason. Supportive case history, rather than your own narrow opinion, would be appreciated.

    Where exactly did that happen? I don’t recall seeing anyone say anything about shutting down an entire company.

    So… in your cloistered little world, a threat by elected officials to deny a company’s expansion into a market for purely idealogical reasons is not only not a violation of 1st Amendment rights, but it isn’t a threat to the livelihood of its owner and employees.

    Okey-dokey.

    NEWS FLASH:
    Threatening an individual or business’ with governmental sanctions for legally expressing their opinion is both violating that individual or business’ rights to protected speech, and simultaneously attempting to stifle further protected speech with the threat of such action(s).

    I’m surprised you’ve left that many with all the strawman arguments you’ve created.

    “When you can’t refute the message, attack the messenger.”

    Or be a hypocrite.

    Of course, if you can cite one single example of my use of straw man fallacy in this thread… but you can’t… so it’s easier to toss out red herrings.

  45. “in your cloistered little world, a threat by elected officials to deny a company’s expansion into a market”

    … is moving the goalposts. Remember? You originally said it was “Threatening one’s livelihood” and trying to stifle free speech.

    “if you can cite one single example of my use of straw man fallacy in this thread… but you can’t”

    I already did. Remember this? “in your cloistered little world, stifling of free speech is only perpetrated when duct tape (or eq.) has been successfully applied by the perpetrator, upon the mouth of the victim.”

  46. Clamat0 says:

    … “in your cloistered little world, a threat by elected officials to deny a company’s expansion into a market”
    … is moving the goalposts. Remember? You originally said it was “Threatening one’s livelihood”

    LMAO, “move the goal posts”? Can you possibly think of another false fallacy cliché to introduce. Oh, did I say “false fallacy”? I meant lie – as in leaving out the rest of that very paragraph – you know, the part where I said (continued) “for purely idealogical reasons is not only not a violation of 1st Amendment rights, but it isn’t a threat to the livelihood of its owner and employees.”

    You’re entirely welcomed to think me stupid but, really, insulting the intelligence of the casual observer by taking a quote out of context thinking no one would bother to look up-thread two posts… tsk, tsk.

    (Okay, I’ll ‘fess-up to blundering by making it a rhetorical statement, rather than a rhtorical question by adding the proper punctuation, but you know exactly what I meant.)

    As to your red herring allusions to a straw man argument, your best position has been so thoroughly refuted through the preponderance of fact and citations I’ve presented that all you have left is to change the subject.
    The officials I cited did not merely express an opposite point of view to that of Mr Cathey. They threatened to use their political power to punish a man, and those who work for him, for saying something they disagree with. The message this sent is crystal-clear: Conform to the “accepted” view, or else.

    I’ve requested of you more than your standard one-syllable, one-line dismissals of… well anything, but this subject in particular. You’ve provided nothing. You’ve proved nothing. So seizing on an otherwise obviously comedic interpretation of your view becomes a vehicle with which to make your get-away by introducing a red herring fallacy.

    Sorry, not gonna’ work.

    Try again.

  47. “really, insulting the intelligence of the casual observer by taking a quote out of context”

    I didn’t take anything out of context. Try again.

    “move the goal posts”? Can you possibly think of another false fallacy cliché to introduce. Oh, did I say “false fallacy”? I meant lie”

    *sigh* First you claimed that the mayors were trying to “Threaten one’s livelihood”, clearly claiming that the owner’s livelihood (and company) would be destroyed. Then, when you couldn’t back that up, you moved the goalposts and said it was only “deny[ing] a company’s expansion into a market”. The two aren’t the same, just like “freedom of speech” and “speech without consequences” aren’t the same. You’re welcome for the schooling.

    “As to your red herring allusions to a straw man argument, your best position has been so thoroughly refuted through the preponderance of fact and citations I’ve presented that all you have left is to change the subject.”

    1. I didn’t “change the subject”. You used a strawman argument, and I called you on it.
    2. You used a strawman argument by attacking a position that I didn’t take.

    “They threatened to use their political power to punish a man, and those who work for him”

    Oh, good lord. Mr. Cathy’s freedom to express his view wasn’t threatened. And none of Cathy’s employees’ jobs were threatened.

  48. Clamat0 says:

    I didn’t take anything out of context.

    Really??? Leaving out two-thirds of a sentence – and specifically the exact language you claimed I didn’t say is not leaving out context?

    Okey-dokey.

    First you claimed that the mayors were trying to “Threaten one’s livelihood”, clearly claiming that the owner’s livelihood (and company) would be destroyed. Then, when you couldn’t back that up, you moved the goalposts and said it was only “deny[ing] a company’s expansion into a market”. The two aren’t the same, just like “freedom of speech” and “speech without consequences” aren’t the same. You’re welcome for the schooling.

    Oh… so now we’re splitting hairs – another loser’s tactic, and complete BS. Nowhere have I backed off the obvious conclusion that authorities threatening to prevent a business’ expansion into a market as a result of protected speech is a clear violation of 1st Amendment rights and, by extension, a threat to the livelihood of the business owners and employees.

    Hell, you can’t even get the chronology right. In fact, I first stated the following:

    Clamat0
    AUG. 5, 2012 AT 8:49 AM

    So… in your cloistered little world, overt, public threats made by numerous elected public officials (cited above) to use governmental machinery as a means to block expansion of a business into their municipality simply because of comments made by the owner of the business in question, does not constitute a violation of that same business owner’s right to free speech?

    So… in what world does threatening to illegally use public machinery to block expansion of a business not constitute a threat to the livelihoods of that business’ owner and employees? And kindly notice that I said “illegally”. That would be a reference to this instance in which threatening action which would result in violating 1st Amendment rights in an attempt to stifle protected speech through the use of retaliatory consequences by public officials is, by extension, unquestionably a threat to the livelihoods of owners and employees – present and future – of Chick-fil-a. In this case, the two are patently not mutually exclusive, no matter how badly you may wish it not so.

    You used a strawman argument by attacking a position that I didn’t take.

    ROTFLMFAO! How would anyone know since the only “position” you ever take is a knee-jerk, one-syllable, on-line defense of every far left talking point, or similarly-formatted contrarian “argue-for-the-sake-of-argument” attacks against the obvious (as in this case) which you aim solely at conservative commenters.

    Well, there’s also your current butt-hurt position.

  49. LeePHill says:

    oldoc – you won. I’m retroactively starting my boycott of Islam in light of the information you’ve provided.

    Now I’m treating the chicken place just like I’m treating Islam.

  50. LeePHill says:

    “Threaten one’s livelihood”

    Isn’t that what happens when right wing extremists seek to eliminate funding for Planned Parenthood or NPR?

  51. “so now we’re splitting hairs – another loser’s tactic”

    Ahem. Message. Messenger. Ring any bells? By the way, I only quoted part of your statement. Was that “taking it out of context”?

    “authorities threatening to prevent a business’ expansion into a market as a result of protected speech is a clear violation of 1st Amendment rights”

    Since not allowing a location to open hasn’t actually happened, the only thing you’re attacking is what the mayors said. So much for their freedom of speech. By the way, I only quoted part of your statement. Was that “taking it out of context”?

    “in what world does threatening to illegally use public machinery to block expansion of a business not constitute a threat to the livelihoods of that business’ owner and employees?”

    Nice use of empty hyperbole. The company now has about 1,000 locations. Not opening one or two locations will have no affect on the company’s bottom line or the owner’s livelihood. And since no existing location is shutting down, no employee’s job is in danger. By the way, I only quoted part of your statement. Was that “taking it out of context”?

    “the only “position” you ever take is a knee-jerk, one-syllable, on-line defense of every far left talking point, or similarly-formatted contrarian “argue-for-the-sake-of-argument” attacks against the obvious (as in this case) which you aim solely at conservative commenters.”

    Message. Messenger. Remember? Also a great example of projection. By the way, I only quoted part of your statement. Was that “taking it out of context”?

  52. I only quoted part of your statement. Was that “taking it out of context”?

    LMAO, do I really have to answer that?

    Geez.

    … the only thing you’re attacking is what the mayors said.

    LMAOX2, well we’re making progress since you now agree it was “said”. Let’s refresh here:

    ehill
    AUG. 4, 2012 AT 12:12 PM

    “there have been efforts, by certain members of the left, to go beyond a mere boycott and to step over the “attempt to stifle free speech” line with both feet.”

    Then you should have no problem documenting them.

    Talk about moving the goal posts.

    Geez.

    And here’s the definition of an operative verb which, apparently, dyslexic symptoms may be (conveniently) causing you to miss, or mis-comprehend:

    threaten (ˈTHretn)
    Verb:
    1) State one’s intention to take hostile action against someone in retribution for something done or not done.
    2) Express one’s intention to cause harm (to someone).

    Nice use of empty hyperbole.

    What? You mean as opposed to your being full of it?

    Not opening one or two locations will have no affect on the company’s bottom line or the owner’s livelihood.

    Convenient how you leave out present and future employees, but never mind that. Setting aside the fact you could even make such an uninformed, cavalier comment, here’s another (apparently) new word for you:

    precedent.

    I’ll let you look that one up. Then you can decide whether this kind of intimidation would be a good thing for businesses in general, irrespective of their social, religious, or political philosophy. Something tells me your view on this would be the polar opposite if a gay-owned business were to receive similar threats from… say, the mayor of Oklahoma City.

    Also a great example of projection.

    Why thank you, I always like starting the week with an Alinskiism thrown at me.

  53. “well we’re making progress since you now agree it was “said”

    Here’s a clue. “it was said” is not the same thing as “there have been efforts” (your original words). Given your failure to understand the difference between “freedom of speech” and “speech without consequences”< that's hardly surprising.

    “Convenient how you leave out present and future employees, but never mind that.”

    Guess you missed this: “since no existing location is shutting down, no employee’s job is in danger.” Fail. Try again.

    “I always like starting the week with an Alinskiism thrown at me”

    When you can’t refute the message, attack the messenger using guilt by association.

  54. Hill Sr, a few jobs for many lives. Seems the moral answer is staring you right in the face.

  55. Clamat0 says:

    Here’s a clue. “it was said” is not the same thing as “there have been efforts”

    Oh great, more hair splitting. Do you even have any hair left? Lord knows there are no more straws to grasp.

    So… in your cloistered little world, a publicly made threat (in this case, both spoken and written) is not the same as an effort.

    Okey-dokey.

    Guess you missed this: “since no existing location is shutting down, no employee’s job is in danger.”

    LMAO, once again demonstrating an incredible ignorance of business. First of all, nowhere did I say any employee’s “job is in danger” I said “… threatening action which would result in violating 1st Amendment rights in an attempt to stifle protected speech through the use of retaliatory consequences by public officials is, by extension, unquestionably a threat to the livelihoods of owners and employees – present and future – of Chick-fil-a. Perhaps you could try convincing the present employees who would not advance without expansion that this is not the case. Then there are the future employees who would not fill the new jobs created by expansion. Good luck, and get back to me on that one.

    You know, your cloistered little world is getting smaller and smaller. Might be time to ask for a lifeline… or a shout-out… or whatever.

  56. “in your cloistered little world, a publicly made threat (in this case, both spoken and written) is not the same as an effort.”

    That’s right. In my logical world, saying you’re going to do something isn’t the same as actually trying to do it. Perhaps you can provide some examples of where saying something is the same. For an example that you’ve already used, saying you oppose integration isn’t the same thing as using fire hoses on those who are demonstrating for integration.

    “nowhere did I say any employee’s “job is in danger” I said “… the use of retaliatory consequences by public officials is, by extension, unquestionably a threat to the livelihoods of owners and employees – present and future”

    live·li·hood/ˈlīvlēˌho͝od/
    Noun: A means of securing the necessities of life.

    So now you’re claiming that a threat to employees’ “livelihoods” isn’t the same as saying their “jobs are in danger”? Wow, and you accuse me of splitting hairs? LOL – Mr. Pot, may I introduce you to Mr. Kettle?

    “the present employees who would not advance without expansion”

    There’s no evidence to suppose that’s anything more than an extremely unlikely possibility. And it has nothing to do with Cathy’s “freedom of speech”. Try again.

    “the future employees who would not fill the new jobs created by expansion.”

    Once again, that has nothing to do with Cathy’s “freedom of speech”. Try again.

  57. Clamat0 says:

    saying you’re going to do something isn’t the same as actually trying to do it.

    So… in your shrinking little cloistered world, blackmail, conspiracy, and criminal threatening are not prosecutable offenses.

    Okey-dokey.

    So now you’re claiming that a threat to employees’ “livelihoods” isn’t the same as saying their “jobs are in danger”?

    Actually, that would be your claim. I’ve stated how using threats and intimidation can affect a person’s livelihood. Reaching, and putting words in my mouth doesn’t alter anything, but it is, nevertheless, your so, so stale style.

    There’s no evidence to suppose that’s anything more than an extremely unlikely possibility. And it has nothing to do with Cathy’s “freedom of speech”

    Just about every legal expert out there – including the ACLU – disagrees with you. But don’t let that stop you.
    You have a friend in Chicago Alderman Joe Moreno:

    … Moreno’s basis for denying the permit are the comments recently made by Cathy defending his opposition to same-sex marriage. Unlike a pattern of discrimination, however, Cathy’s comments are not a legitimate reason to deny Chick-fil-A a permit. It crosses the line into the kind of viewpoint discrimination forbidden by the First Amendment, which Moreno, in this case acting as a state actor, is failing to comply with.

    http://prospect.org/article/dont-fil-first-amendment

    The essence of free speech is freedom from government interference. Try to remember that simple guiding principle before further embarrassing yourself.

  58. Clamat0 – did the mayors threaten hostile action or did they express concern that hostile action might occure.

    CT7 – I don’t usually correct another blogger’s English but ‘a few jobs for many lives’ can mean either:

    One is willing to give up a few jobs so many will live.

    Or

    One is willing to accept a few jobs if many were to die.

    Neither sounds like you.

  59. ClamatO, I see you are engaging ehill. Good luck. Be prepared to defend against his inevitable “messenger. messenger” and “Pot meet kettle” attack. Predictable as the daily rising of the sun.

  60. Clamat0 says:

    Predictable as the daily rising of the sun.

    Great, od, now you’ve opened the door to yet another philosophical argument from the unenlightened prominence.

    I can see it now; “How can you say the sun has risen? Prove the sun has risen – provide a link. Even though it is clearly light outside and my sunrise time chart says the sun has risen, it’s cloudy this morning, therefore you cannot verify the sun is up, ergo the sun is not up…. blah, blah, blah, blah, blah… ∞ “

  61. “So… in your shrinking little cloistered world, blackmail, conspiracy, and criminal threatening are not prosecutable offenses.”

    I didn’t say that or anything remotely like it. Thanks for yet another great example of a strawman argument.

  62. Actually, you said “saying you’re going to do something isn’t the same as actually trying to do it.” But in fact, I’ve presented three very broad based examples of where “saying” something is the same as doing it, and is prosecutable.

    Further, going back to alderman Moreno, while the three mayors in question have seemingly backed-off their threats to prevent expansion by Chick-fil-a because they have miraculously become aware that the 1st Amendment applies to EVERYONE, Moreno fully intends to use the power of his office to prevent their expansion in Chicago. That would be taking action on his threat.

    Please try to keep up. Maybe you like chasing your tail, but I’m getting realllllly bored with your incessant contrarianism. It would be incumbent upon you to read and understand facts the first time I present them, and not necessary for me to have to keep circling back.

  63. LeePHill wrote: “oldoc – you won. I’m retroactively starting my boycott of Islam in light of the information you’ve provided.

    Now I’m treating the chicken place just like I’m treating Islam.”
    ____________________________________________________

    Another blow struck against progressive hypocrisy. My congratulations.

  64. “Actually, you said “saying you’re going to do something isn’t the same as actually trying to do it.” But in fact, I’ve presented three very broad based examples of where “saying” something is the same as doing it, and is prosecutable.”

    Oh good lord. You seriously think that saying that you’re going to blackmail someone is the same thing as actually blackmailing them? ROFL – wow, dude, you’re just digging that hole deeper and deeper, aren’t you?

    “It would be incumbent upon you to read and understand facts the first time I present them”

    When do you plan to start?

  65. Clamat0 says:

    You seriously think that saying that you’re going to blackmail someone is the same thing as actually blackmailing them?

    LMFAO, hey genius, what do you think criminal threat or criminal conspiracy means?

    Never mind, obviously it means whatever you want it to mean.

    Tell you what, you talk to a snitch – tell them you’re going to blackmail 0bama – spill the beans on his real scholastic record unless he pays you 999K. You think you wouldn’t be prosecuted?

    Or would you rather argue that the sun won’t rise.

    Like I said; blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah… ∞

  66. “LMFAO, hey genius, what do you think criminal threat or criminal conspiracy means?”

    Doesn’t matter what I think. Here’s what the state of Washington thinks, “genius”.

    Here’s the legal definition of Harrassment (the closest thing in our state to “criminal threat”). http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9a.46&full=true#9A.46.020. Nothing any of the mayors said rose to that level.

    Here’s the legal definition of criminal conspiracy. http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.28.040 Nothing the mayors said rose to that level either.

    “Like I said; blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah… “

    Exactly. Thanks for the excellent summary of your comments in this thread so far. You’re still batting .000, but feel free keep on trying. It’s your freedom of speech, so use it.

    I can always use another good laugh.

    The fact is that nothing the mayors said prevented Cathy from speaking his mind, and continuing to speak it. Nobody tried to silence him, so this was not a violation of his 1st Amendment right to freedom of speech. The mayors’ reactions were a consequence of Cathy’s usage of his freedom of speech. It’s kinda hard to silence someone after the fact.

  67. I want to go back to something Clammie said earlier: “Government has no business withholding zoning permits and licenses just because it objects to a businessman’s religious or political views.

    So, based on that statement, Clammie and the other conservatives in here supported the mosque that was planned for near ground zero in New York City, right?

  68. beerBoy says:

    Actually ehill – that was an Islamic community center (mosques don’t usually come equipped with swimming pools) – but good catch.

  69. beerBoy says:

    LMFAO,

    I’m thinking, given the subject matter of this, you might have omitted the information that you A is F…..

    :-)

  70. “that was an Islamic community center (mosques don’t usually come equipped with swimming pools)”

    You’re right about that. My mistake.

  71. Clamat0 says:

    So, based on that statement, Clammie and the other conservatives in here supported the mosque that was planned for near ground zero in New York City, right?

    A home run; straw man and red herring – not to mention gratuitous mangling of the moniker.

    Congratulations on remaining a monumental hypocrite.

    But I’ll play along just to squash your outsized ego – you know, the ego that simply won’t allow anyone but you to have the last word.

    The answer is no.

    But then I’m not an elected official in New York either, molehill. So… you see, that doesn’t make me a hypocrite – proprietorship of that moniker is exclusively reserved for you.

  72. “But I’ll play along just to squash your outsized ego – you know, the ego that simply won’t allow anyone but you to have the last word.”

    … he said, desperately trying to get in the last word. ROFL

    “A home run; straw man and red herring – not to mention gratuitous mangling of the moniker.”

    It isn’t a strawman because I quoted you directly and responded to exactly what you said. I suggest you look up strawman, because it’s readily apparent that you have no idea what it means.

    It isn’t a “red herring” either, because you brought it up in the first place. So if there’s a red herring here, it’s yours.

    As for “mangling of the moniker”, grow up. You love to hurl insults, so put on your big boy pants and be prepared to get them back.

    “The answer is no.”

    So you didn’t support an Islamic cultural center near ground zero? I’m not surprised.

    “that doesn’t make me a hypocrite”

    Hmmmm. One has to wonder why you thought it necessary to defend yourself, since nobody had mentioned hypocrisy with regard to that. Could it be you’re feeling guilty?

    Hypocrisy: the act of pretending to have beliefs, opinions, virtues, feelings, qualities, or standards that one does not actually have. Hypocrisy involves the deception of others and is thus a kind of lie. — Wikipedia

    You said: “Government has no business withholding zoning permits and licenses just because it objects to a businessman’s religious or political views.”

    But when asked if you supported an Islamic cultural center near Ground Zero, your answer was unequivocally “no.”

    Looks to me like you were feeling guilty for good reason: your hypocrisy is showing for everyone to see.

  73. “But I’ll play along just to squash your outsized ego – you know, the ego that simply won’t allow anyone but you to have the last word.”

    … he said, desperately trying to get in the last word. ROFL

    … he said, desperately trying to get in the last word. LMAO

    It isn’t a strawman because I quoted you directly.

    ROTFLMFAO, yeah, you quoted me directly, and then presented a straw man argument. You know what a straw man fallacy is, doncha’ mole? Here, this’ll help:

    Fallacy: Straw Man

    The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person’s actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position.

    My statement (directly quoted):
    “Government has no business withholding zoning permits and licenses just because it objects to a businessman’s religious or political views.”

    So… kindly tell us what substituting a false position (I did not support the mosque at Ground Zero) on the red herring subject of the Ground Zero mosque has to do with the statement you (directly) quoted? You should recall that “government”, in this case New York City, has permitted the use of that property for the Islamic Community Center – which, by the way does in fact include a mosque. That is the polar opposite of the situation in Chicago, and a complete red herring and fits one definition of a straw man argument.

    HTH

    You love to hurl insults

    Ahhh, thank you for your latest authentic example of projecting.

    Message? Messenger? Sound familiar?

    You love to criticize others for insults, hypocrite, how about an example of one mine – pre-AUG. 8, 2012 AT 7:52 PM. I wouldn’t have to look very far to find plenty of examples from you.

    Here’s the legal definition of Harrassment

    Yeah, that Criminal Threat, that’s a tough one to find; only 61,000,000 hits on Google. Heres an easy one for ya':

    http://chestofbooks.com/society/law/Popular-Law-10/Section-147-Criminal-Threat-Defined.html

    But the fact is you’ve alowed this one to sail right over your size 6 hat… again. The point isn’t what the law says, the point is – in response to your absurd proclamation (““saying you’re going to do something isn’t the same as actually trying to do it.”), obviously one can be prosecuted for threats.

    Again, please try to keep up.

    It’s kinda hard to silence someone after the fact.

    Scary that I have to live in the same country as you. You really have no concept of the act of stifling protected speech. You seriously do not consider threats of governmental interference with a private entity based on that entity’s owners’ having exercised his right to protected speech, to be a threat to that same owner’s exercise thereof in the future?

    Wow.

  74. Ask and ye shall receive:


    Aug 4, 8:48AM: “the left has their very own special definition of “tolerance” – it only applies to anyone who thinks, speaks, and acts like they do. Anyone else is a “hater”, a “racist”, a “bigot”, a “homophobe”, a “xenophobe”, etc, etc, etc…”

    Aug 4, 11:51AM: “You’re a platitude a minute – a veritable mocking insult machine. It’s obvious by the important and relevant content you bring that you would never rely on loony-left talking points to originate your drum-beat leftist drivel.”

    Aug 4, 12:28PM: “Thanks for defining hypocrisy again.”

    Aug 4, 12:36PM: “continuing with such a pretentious, uniformed individual would be absurd.”

    Aug 4, 10:03PM: “Clearly, you wouldn’t know the 1st Amendment if it gave birth to you.”

    Aug 4, 10:03PM: “Take your case, for instance; your “speech”, here, reveals a conspicuous ignorance of the basic principle and right of free speech in this republic. You should work on that.”

    Aug 5, 8:49AM: “there are at least 100 current and aspiring despots who’d love to have you as their minister of propaganda. No brains required, just bring your own megaphone with which to shout down the obvious, and instead spew the party line.”

    Aug 5, 8:49AM: “The pink paint’s dry, no need to watch it any more. Get out and get yourself an American Government textbook – I can’t help you.”

    Aug 5, 12:28PM: “Still half a straw left, ehill, don’t miss your chance to grab it!”

    Aug 5, 1:37PM: “‘When you can’t refute the message, attack the messenger.’ Or be a hypocrite.”

    Aug 5, 3:37PM: “LMAO, “move the goal posts”? Can you possibly think of another false fallacy cliché to introduce. Oh, did I say “false fallacy”? I meant lie”

    Shall I continue?

  75. end italics

  76. Clamat0 says:

    Please do. You’re doing a great job… of underscoring the fact you also don’t know the difference between truth and insult.

  77. ROFLMAO – thanks for such a great laugh!

*
We welcome comments. Please keep them civil, short and to the point. ALL CAPS, spam, obscene, profane, abusive and off topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked. Thanks for taking part and abiding by these simple rules.

JavaScript is required to post comments.

Follow the comments on this post with RSS 2.0