General Discussion

randome

(34,845 posts)

73. Inclusiveness versus exclusiveness.

Reply to meaculpa2011 (Reply #72)

Mon Jul 30, 2012, 09:41 AM

Jul 2012

The American ideal falls squarely on the side of inclusiveness. Obama's stated opinion is an example of advocating for inclusiveness, not exclusiveness.

Thoughts have nothing to do with this discussion, IMO. But when a public official uses his public prestige and position to state opinions in the public arena that express exclusiveness, then I think the public has the right to come down hard on the public corporation he manages.

I'm willing to be convinced otherwise but I think this is no different from all the other judgements society does each and every day. 'Voluntary' manslaughter. 'Cruel and unusual'. Pornography. What constitutes spousal abuse? Child abuse?

We draw lines in society all the time and they are not always bright and clear.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

85 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Why would anyone argue that Chick-Fil-A should be immune to consequences for bigotry? [View all] gollygee Jul 2012 OP

What you said ^^^ lunatica Jul 2012 #1

Because the only thing there should be consequences for is when kestrel91316 Jul 2012 #2

If the CEO said he was a white supremacist because it's a part Lex Jul 2012 #3

Is anyone making that argument? LARED Jul 2012 #4

Define "consequences"? -..__... Jul 2012 #5

No one ever said that. Curtland1015 Jul 2012 #6

As if "we" don't do that already. 99Forever Jul 2012 #7

But those examples are all based on age restricted or illegal things. Curtland1015 Jul 2012 #8

a group home, a homeless shelter, ?? Bluerthanblue Jul 2012 #9

Hear hear! tortoise1956 Jul 2012 #12

Thanks for the assist. 99Forever Jul 2012 #36

how about the Islamic Center in NYC??? Bluerthanblue Jul 2012 #10

Which I agree they were wrong in denying. Very wrong. Curtland1015 Jul 2012 #14

his "moral beliefs" aren't "it"- His using his business and its profits to publicly promote Bluerthanblue Jul 2012 #19

Yes, he is saying what he believes publicly and he is spending his money on that. Curtland1015 Jul 2012 #23

that fast food joint IS keeping gay and lesbian citizens from getting married, by publicly stating Bluerthanblue Jul 2012 #35

Excuse me? 99Forever Jul 2012 #24

Depends on how far a community wants to push the envelope... -..__... Jul 2012 #13

This is not about a category of business cthulu2016 Jul 2012 #18

So you're suggesting we enact zoning law LARED Jul 2012 #43

Congratulations. 99Forever Jul 2012 #65

It was you that said LARED Jul 2012 #70

Agree--- Keefer Jul 2012 #32

You said it perfectly. I won't eat there, but the company should be able to open IndyJones Jul 2012 #57

The truth is that tortoise1956 Jul 2012 #11

your post is vague. what do you mean immune to the consequences of bigotry? cali Jul 2012 #15

Please link to anyone arguing that. cthulu2016 Jul 2012 #16

Freedom of speech does work both ways, so does freedom of religion. Initech Jul 2012 #17

Wow. People are really arguing that? Nye Bevan Jul 2012 #20

Imaginary people do all sorts of dreadful things cthulu2016 Jul 2012 #21

These consequences should only be coming from consumers tritsofme Jul 2012 #22

I disagree. randome Jul 2012 #25

Amen and Amen. n/t liberalmuse Jul 2012 #28

Do you support government reprisals for pro-choice companies, for example hack89 Jul 2012 #31

Exclusion versus inclusion. randome Jul 2012 #39

But you are leaving it up to the local officials hack89 Jul 2012 #46

I think if there is anything we can genuinely call 'American'... randome Jul 2012 #47

You are missing my point hack89 Jul 2012 #52

Being against marriage or gay rights is a clear example of exclusivity. randome Jul 2012 #55

"Appropriate" is a relative term hack89 Jul 2012 #61

Value judgments take place in the law all the time. randome Jul 2012 #62

Except those officials stepped outside of their laws and regulations hack89 Jul 2012 #63

Yeah, well, that's another matter, I suppose. randome Jul 2012 #64

I don't trust government which could very well be a right-wing government controlling the expression Douglas Carpenter Jul 2012 #53

I don't think it quite works that way. 'Unconditional', I mean. randome Jul 2012 #54

It is far more likely that a government will decide that it is un-American to oppose a war than for Douglas Carpenter Jul 2012 #58

I don't think government dictating opinions to the people is right, either. randome Jul 2012 #59

Free speech exist specifically to protect opinions we loathe Douglas Carpenter Jul 2012 #33

You are indistinguishable from Dick Cheney. cthulu2016 Jul 2012 #34

Cheney has always been fair game. He is a public official. randome Jul 2012 #38

It is tragic living in a world with people like you and Cathay. cthulu2016 Jul 2012 #42

Sorry to ruin your day. randome Jul 2012 #49

I expect the public to react... meaculpa2011 Jul 2012 #67

As I've stated many times in this thread... randome Jul 2012 #71

But if I have the temerity... meaculpa2011 Jul 2012 #72

Inclusiveness versus exclusiveness. randome Jul 2012 #73

Candidate Obama expressed views... meaculpa2011 Jul 2012 #74

My bad. randome Jul 2012 #75

Thankfully, that's a line that we will never... meaculpa2011 Jul 2012 #77

You're misreading me. randome Jul 2012 #78

I'm not misreading you. meaculpa2011 Jul 2012 #79

Are CEOs not considered public officials -at least when they are being interviewed in that capacity? randome Jul 2012 #80

"Are CEOs not considered public officials... meaculpa2011 Jul 2012 #81

Okay. But I could see defining CEOs as public figures as a check on corporate power and influence. randome Jul 2012 #83

I debated (internally) using the term... meaculpa2011 Jul 2012 #84

Who gets to define "American values"? You? tritsofme Jul 2012 #85

The consequence is to never go there. Just don't buy anything from them. mnhtnbb Jul 2012 #26

I don't know. No one is trying to stifle them... liberalmuse Jul 2012 #27

I suppose people that REALLY like their food Aerows Jul 2012 #29

I have not seen one single post of anyone arguing that. Douglas Carpenter Jul 2012 #30

sadly, there's been a slew of them. cali Jul 2012 #37

Posts that say we are Required to eat at chick-fil-a? cthulu2016 Jul 2012 #40

no, no. just whacky posts about how we should crush the constitution cali Jul 2012 #44

They don't say one is required to eat it, they say it is wrong to boycott it. Bluenorthwest Jul 2012 #56

I have seen people say they would not boycott, but not that I shouldn't cthulu2016 Jul 2012 #60

Posters have said that obamanut2012 Jul 2012 #69

You aren't looking hard enough. Curtland1015 Jul 2012 #41

I was under the impression that the OP was suggesting that there were people here who are arguing Douglas Carpenter Jul 2012 #48

I can't speak for the OP, and certainly wouldn't want to put words in anyone's mouth. Curtland1015 Jul 2012 #51

There have been some. Quantess Jul 2012 #45

When you buy food at Chick-Fil-A William769 Jul 2012 #50

Because they don't have a problem with what UnrepentantLiberal Jul 2012 #66

bullshit of the first order, dear. cali Jul 2012 #68

The definition of a bigot: Not Me Jul 2012 #76

WHY? kctim Jul 2012 #82