Oppression or Rightous Use of Government Power?

[gzt]

Ah, Kimbark Liquors and Harolds... that was many a Friday night. Well, and Monday, Tuesday... actually, that might explain why I did so poorly in college...

So you're a Maroon, too?

[jgalak]

Yes. The statements of its president- who is the primary vision and voice behind the company.. The financial support to anti gay causes. Is this a trick question? In terms of in store experience- Im sure there is a consistent friendly and efficient manner of doing business. I dont think you get a pass based on that if you are donating millions of dollars behind the scenes to causes which seek to harm the community.

Legally, that makes all the difference in the world - as it should, IMHO. Advocate, legally, for what you want. Donate, legally, to whatever cause you want. Say whatever you want. But don't break the federal, state, or local laws having to do with employment, treating customers fairly, etc.

Apple is know for being gay-friendly. Is it ok for a local town in rural red country to prohibit them from opening a store?

Both liberals and conservatives in local governments pulling numbers like this is common fare

--snip--

but I also support the right of representatives- whether I agree with them or not- to speak loudly on behalf of the communities they represent. Enforcing "Moral Standards" is in the job description- and moral standards of a community are often non concomitant with the law.

--snip--

Like Ive been saying- things like this are regrettable

--snip--

There is no reason to be concerned about people like Cather or that Alderman

I couldn't care less about Cather and his narrow-mindedness - that's his own problem, and if customers boycott CFA and it goes out of business, I won't shed a tear.

I do care, very deeply, about the actions, or even proposed actions, of the alderman. I agree that it happens all the time, but that makes it outrageous, not regrettable, in my book. The alderman is an elected official, and I hold them (perhaps naively ) to a higher standard. When one threatens to break the law, even if he honestly believes that it's what his constituents want, he should be slapped down, hard, whether by media, courts, or electorate.

There is a reason we are a constitutional republic with limited government, not a pure democracy. Tyranny by the majority is still tyranny, whether you happen to agree with today's whims of the mob or not.

[JM3]

I do care, very deeply, about the actions, or even proposed actions, of the alderman. I agree that it happens all the time, but that makes it outrageous, not regrettable, in my book. The alderman is an elected official, and I hold them (perhaps naively ) to a higher standard. When one threatens to break the law, even if he honestly believes that it's what his constituents want, he should be slapped down, hard, whether by media, courts, or electorate.
.

I think it is naive. I should care more I suppose. Im glad someone finds it outrageous- since you're right and all..

Apple opening a store in a community that doesnt like gay people:
if enough people in that community feel strongly about it- I dont see why they should be allowed to open. Its kind of a weird comparison.

You know New Orleans kept Starbucks almost completely out of that town until around 97-89. They tried to open a few stores and neighborhood groups just kept shutting them down. They finally made inroads with a shop at Tulane and another in a Corporate Hotel. That was based on the belief that they werent cool. Pretty unconstitutional for less reason. I kind of enjoyed it.

I am definitely going to Chik File Appreciation day Aug 1 to eat and not to protest. I feel sorry for the owner operators- they must be having a bad few weeks.

[ColoWayno]

I think it is naive. I should care more I suppose. Im glad someone finds it outrageous- since you're right and all..

Apple opening a store in a community that doesnt like gay people:
if enough people in that community feel strongly about it- I dont see why they should be allowed to open. Its kind of a weird comparison.

This is what I really don't get. If they were opening a porn store near an elementary school that's a completely different thing from what we are talking about. But an Apple store? If they came out in support of porn and supported porn shops and donated to the Sisters of Porn charity and wanted to open an Apple store, what business is that of anyone in that community? If they did all that and yet came out and said they are for protecting the children in the community from exposure to that stuff, if they were sincere, I'd really be impressed and I would have a lot of respect for them. They would be welcome as my neighbor.
That's the land I want to live in.

I feel sorry for the owner operators- they must be having a bad few weeks.

I really doubt it.

[JM3]

and wanted to open an Apple store [in that community], what business is that of anyone in that community?

My answer in Brackets. But its a matter of degree I guess.

You doubt what- that they are having bad weeks? A few places might be. That I feel supportive of them? I do. I can't imagine taking the already shitty job of owning a franchise and having to show up to obnoxious protesters and earnest supporters.. I dont feel sorry for Cathy or the alderman.

[ColoWayno]

My answer in Brackets. But its a matter of degree I guess. I would give to the Sisters of Porn.

You doubt what- that they are having bad weeks? A few places might be. That I feel supportive of them? I do. They didn't say all that stupid shit. The one store in Chicago had a good statement in response.

So the community should base its support or lack of support on the supposed beliefs or private behavior of whoever is opening a store, and not on the merits of the business they are intending to open?
A lot of people voted for Barrack Obama because he's black. I'd say the vast majority of people in Colorado Springs don't support voting for a candidate on the basis of their race. I actually feel strongly so and yet there doesn't seem to be enough outrage here to stop anyone from opening stores. Maybe we could get a local official to help gin some outrage up and we could get the ball rolling.

Edited to add: and if you think such ugly examples are hyperbole it can get a lot uglier just looking at some actual historical examples.

[matclone]

So the community should base its support or lack of support on the supposed beliefs or private behavior of whoever is opening a store, and not on the merits of the business they are intending to open?

Umm, these are not always so easily separated.

A lot of people voted for Barrack Obama because he's black. I'd say the vast majority of people in Colorado Springs don't support voting for a candidate on the basis of their race.

No. This is Incredibly Stupid Talk Radio Argument #347. I voted for Ronald Reagan because he was white.

[matclone]

At least they made up a plausible case for firing Churchill, the guys in Boston and Chicago didn't even really try.

The reason I mentioned Churchill is that a whole lot of people here were talking like they were free speech warriors. The fact that CU made a "plausible case" for his firing is irrelevant. Indeed, you seem to be conceding that they needed a plausible case because (the real reason) is they didn't like his speech.

They came right out and gave their unconstitutional reason and they thought it would buy them points somehow. Tertius just said it was bad precedent to deny CFA on the basis of what the owner said or believes and, though it gives him some satisfaction to see the guy pay for what he said, it isn't right. (paraphrased from memory).

To which you agreed. I don't disagree. For the nth time, I don't think we have all the facts, or the context of the matter.

[Mark E. Hurling]

The reason I mentioned Churchill is that a whole lot of people here were talking like they were free speech warriors. The fact that CU made a "plausible case" for his firing is irrelevant. Indeed, you seem to be conceding that they needed a plausible case because (the real reason) is they didn't like his speech.

All of which goes to prove if one is going to speak indiscriminantly and without due thought or integrity, one should be certain their own integrity and veracity is in order. Massive fail on WC's part for that.

[matclone]

All of which goes to prove if one is going to speak indiscriminantly and without due thought or integrity, one should be certain their own integrity and veracity is in order. Massive fail on WC's part for that.

So much for free speech. As for his integrity and veracity, I suspect a number of professors would not withstand the same scrutiny that was applied to him, but I don't know.