General Discussion

meaculpa2011

(918 posts)

84. I debated (internally) using the term...

Mon Jul 30, 2012, 11:33 AM

Jul 2012

public figure instead of public person.

I came to the conclusion that the terms were synonymous.

I am also in favor of a public reaction... meaning reaction by the public. I am not in favor of government power being used to suppress free speech.

Freedom of speech does not imply freedom from market consequences. I can say whatever I please. You can shun me, ridicule me, refuse to patronize my business. The First Amendment does, however, guarantee freedom from government retaliation.

The mayors made ill-conceived statements on the matter. The slap-down was instantaneous.

That's the bright line. And I don't think that we're going to test it anytime soon.

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