Gents,


I have an issue on my hands that I don't know how to handle with class. Let's dive in.

As many of you remember, Chick-Fil-A was a trending theme over the summer. Dan Cathy (the COO of Chick-Fil-A) made some questionable remarks about gay people and gay marriage. Many on the left reacted quite negatively and many on the right stood up for his First Amendment rights.


Fast forward three months. The issue is still brewing in the only place it can survive- academia. I'm on a college campus and there are some students within student government who want to sit down with the ownership of the local Chick-Fil-A and they have some demands. They want to present a letter to the ownership, and get them to sign it, that calls for Dan Cathy to apologize for his remarks, retract his remarks, and promise to stop funding anti-gay "hate groups" (I'm not saying Chick-Fil-A is completely innocent but they aren't as bad as some people make them out to be). They are also demanding that a "pride" flag be placed in the Chick-Fil-A store.

As far as I'm concerned the issue over Dan Cathy's remarks are a First Amendment issue. If this case were to go to court the petitioners would get laughed out. Thus, I think their demands are not only completely unrealistic, I think they should be called out on them. I understand that they are offended but there is absolutely no reason they should demand what they are demanding. How can I politely point out the problem here without sounding like a homophobe? I think they need to be taken down a notch. How can I put them in their place with class?

Views: 3486

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Ask them what laws were broken by chick-fil-a?  Remind them that it is not part of academia nor is Parr of the campus and they have no basis to make any demands.  They do have a right to protest the company, as customers.  But anything else is an infringement on the owner's rights (each store is individually owned I believe).  They can ask (not demand) to meet with management but management is within its right to refuse their demands, or even entertain their point of view.  You may just have to bite the bullet and take a stand.  They may not like it, but of they are true student leaders then they'll at least respect you.  Good luck.

The school, and its leadership, have a right to impose whatever restrictions they want on the Chick Fil-A if the store is on their property.

That's true, but that's not the issue here. The issue is that some students are demanding that Dan Cathy retract his statements, apologize for his statements, and stop funding anti-gay "hate groups." The government doesn't even have jurisdiction over speech, let alone a school.

Actually a school would have jurisdiction over such speech, much more so than the government. Congress shall make no law... blah blah blah. But the New York Times con inhibit your "free" expression if it wants, because it is a private entity and can control what goes on its pages. So too the school.

You're kidding me, right? The school is one entity. The business is another. Dan Cathy is yet a third. And you're trying to tell me that my school has jurisdiction over what comes out of Dan Cathy's mouth? Go take that to court and tell me how it goes.

The school has jurisdiction over what businesses it chooses to work with - for whatever criteria they decide to use within the law and nature of their contracts. The words that come out of the owners mouth, and the reaction their students have to them, may or may not be a factor (if they think students are going to boycott the business, that may mean a lack of revenue for the school per the terms of their contract - a good reason to work with someone else).

They are not saying Dan cannot say what he chooses - but they are free to no longer associate with him or his businesses as a result. 

 

The student's "demands" are the conditions under which they would be happy to embrace the business and their relationship with the school. The business is free to ignore them. The only punishment would be student boycott - but the school may take their own action to protect their own interests financially, public relations wise, and internally to maintain their relationship with the students. None of this infringes on Cathy's right to say what he wants. Just that there is no guarantee people will want to be around you and work with you if you spout off like a jackass, and support causes that are unpopular. That is to say, there is no protection from market consequences for your freedom of speech.

Thank you Liam.

I agree, but that's not what is going on here. These students are demanding that Dan Cathy apologize for utilizing his First Amendment rights. No one has the right to do that plain and simple.


They don't have to associate with any corporation that they don't want to associate with. But to demand that someone apologize for an inalienable right... well, that's insanity.

From what you have shared here, that sounds like a mischaracterization. Nobody is saying he doesn't have the right to say what he did. You are free to say the most hurtful things in the world.

But the freedom to say something does not necessarily mean protection from the consequences of having said them. 

I agree Liam. Total mischaracterization. Not a first amendment issue at all. If it were, then DJ would be forced to argue that his SC has equal right to freedom of speech to censure Cathy as Cathy does to spew whatever idiocy he regurgitated in order to start this fiasco in the first place.

You guys are as ignorant as the SC members!
Dan Cathy never made disparaging remarks against 'gay' people. he said:

Some have opposed the company's support of the traditional family. "Well, guilty as charged," said Cathy when asked about the company's position. "We are very much supportive of the family -- the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that. "We operate as a family business ... our restaurants are typically led by families; some are single. We want to do anything we possibly can to strengthen families. We are very much committed to that," Cathy emphasized

Not really. One can demand an apology for insulting or stupid statements. Like if someone mocked your family members or something like that. If that person hid behind his first amendment rights, that would be insanity.

Elevating anything someone says to sacred first amendment rights and therefore beyond reproach is cowardice. It postulates that there can be no criticism or exchange because such dialogue is verboten. It's tyrannical. Furthermore, your student government doesn't have the force of legal, American political government and therefore cannot violate anyone's first amendment rights. Only the Government can do that because only the Congress shall pass no law... not the student council at XYZ university...

RSS

Latest Activity

Will replied to PSharikov's discussion Anyone else sick to death of MANLY-discussions?
"Totally."
7 minutes ago
Milo Morris replied to John's discussion Sweetness... in a man
"I agree with what others here have said so far about what comprises "sweetness," and would add empathy to that list. Men and women both need empathy--or emotional confirmation as I like to define it--to varying degrees. But I think the…"
10 minutes ago
Lucius Artorius Castus replied to PSharikov's discussion Anyone else sick to death of MANLY-discussions?
"It would be interesting to find out that a few trolls here have taken it to a new level...."
12 minutes ago
Jack Bauer replied to John's discussion Sweetness... in a man
"I think we're talking about two different things here. There's "sweet", meaning 'thoughtful', as in "that was sweet" or "you're sweet for doing that".  Typically used by women to refer to…"
30 minutes ago
Bob Brower replied to PSharikov's discussion Anyone else sick to death of MANLY-discussions?
"Get over yourself . my opinion is just as valid as yours . Do you want me to follow you around and pick apart your posts? because i wouldn't , you have  a right to what you believe. you don't agree with me , fine , block me then you…"
42 minutes ago
Sal Ali replied to Brett McKay's discussion 30 Days to a Better Man Day 2: Shine Your Shoes in the group 30 Days to a Better Man 2009
"wow, lol I was not expecting this on day 2 I have a pair of shoes that I wear when I go out casually, very comfortable but dirty, time to polish them"
44 minutes ago
J. R. Thompson replied to Tim the Enforcer's discussion Ammo shortage or manufactured crisis?
"The responses are all very interesting. Most of these ideas about the shortage are new to me. You learn something new every day, huh? As for the most ridiculous price for ammo, I can get a 20 round box of decent 308 ammo for 20 bucks. I came across…"
1 hour ago
Bob Brower replied to Will's discussion What's going on in those heads in the group The Great Debate
"No dis -respect  to you or your lifestyle but you don't have a clue .  the fact that you have friends that are officers tell me your more like them than me . birds of a feather flock together.  I have no more in common to an…"
1 hour ago

© 2014   Created by Brett McKay.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service