(04-24-2019 03:32 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: (04-24-2019 03:28 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: (04-24-2019 03:13 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: (04-24-2019 03:03 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: (04-24-2019 02:58 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: You know why they find Chick-fil-A objectionable - it is the historical corporate support for groups that opposed same sex marriage, as well as the public statements from corporate leaders. However, I don't believe they donate to those orgs anymore and I don't see any comments entering the public realm.
So I am at a loss for why the students are making the change now. Chick-fil-A has been very silent for a while.
yeah, if the Hoot s making the point that students shouldn't eat food from a place that opposed same sex marriage, I think they are out of line. Let the students decide.
Of course, maybe President Buttigieg will ban them from the USA. Along with all other companies that do not toe the PC line. (J/K)
Even if the Hoot is making that point (which they are), their business model is based upon buying food from vendors X, Y, and Z and then making a profit off the markup associated with providing a service that brings the food to campus.
The only way for them to affect that change, is to stop selling it themselves...
And not sure why you made the comment about Mayor Pete - has he been outspoken about Chick-fil-A?
Mayor Pete has been pretty forthcoming that in a Mayor Pete administration one will be forced by law to bake the cake for the marriage, since he is an ardent opponent of various religious freedom laws.
Has he said he will ban those businesses? Or are you extrapolating from his position that a business can't discriminate on who it serves?
He has voiced his explicit opposition to a state version of the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and been an ardent critic of the Federal RFRA act and various other religious freedom acts over the last number of years.
Buttigieg is also an outspoken advocate of the Equality Act.
It would strike down religious freedom protections for private citizens if they exercised their consciences in running their own businesses. It is seemingly designed to explicitly trump Religious Freedom Restoration Acts at the state and federal level, and also to explicitly overturn Hobby Lobby and a raft of other court cases on RFRA.
So yes, Mayor Pete is seemingly on the 'force the bakers to bake a cake' train.
The comment including Mayor Pete in this discussion is fairly on point, especially considering the San Antonio city council decision to bar CFA from the airport solely on grounds wholly at odds with the 1st Amendment.
The Hoot is a ostensibly a private entity, not subject to the First Amendment restrictions on their conduct and speech, and can (and should) be able to do business with whomever they wish on whatever terms they wish.
You know, those same principles not afforded to Masterpiece Bakery. Or the New Mexico photographer..... etc., etc., etc.
And I too wish to stop the virtue signalling/ deplorable train in its tracks by noting that I am probably one of the very few people on this board to actually have a chance to vote on gay marriage provision, and voted against a state constitutional amendment to bar it. But probably for far too nuanced of a rationale.....