what do anda think about this scenario?

He's entitled to his opinion. And those who disagree with his opinion, are lebih than entitled to not partake in his services.

'Freedom' goes both ways. Cathy is allowed his freedom of speech. But that freedom of speech also means that people are allowed to argue against what Cathy is saying.

I know a lot of people who aren't okay with gay marriages. They know my stance on the issue, and I know theirs. Depending on the person, we either have a calm, rational discussion about it, atau it's a topic we cannot discuss because neither one of us can stay calm.

I, personally, never understood the whole "I don't hate gays" side of this. The LGBTQ community's rights are being oppressed because a specific group of people don't care for their lifestyle, that doesn't even effect that specific group. That's not something people do to people they "don't care" about atau "have no problem with." Actions speak louder than words.

/end rant.

I don't think that's right at all. If his restaurant is in America and he lives there then has freedom of speech. Every American is untitled to their own opinion and can say what ever they want.

I think that man should have dozens of restaurants wherever he wants ~

1does this violate the freedom of speech?
The store owners?, well yes it does. People have the freedom of speech and expression (given that they are in America) so I think yes he right of speech was violated. People have a right to object a person's beliefs but to say they can't build a restaurant there because of it I think is wrong.

2.what if someone anda knew did not agree with gay relationships (not that they were mean to them atau anything), how would anda react?

I don't personally support gay marriage but even if I did, I would really not care if someone supports atau doesn't support it because people do have that right to object. If I knew someone personally who did atau didn't I would try and get an understanding of their viewpoint.

I think to be honest it is hard to have an opinion on anything because even if we say we can be tolerant atau open minded about things, if someone opposes that believe we think they are being close minded atau even hateful. But I am sure things will work out for the best


does this answer your question

There's no doubt that the store owner is entitled to his opinion, and can actively state it in a public forum. There's also no doubt that any response he receives, as long as it doesn't threaten his person, is just as allowable.

anda make the situation sound quite a bit worse than it actually is (we are, after all, talking about a very large chain that exists in a tremendous amount of locations, not one that would disappear from being removed), but no matter the situation, a city can set standards that do not allow certain companies to be open there. In fact, many do. There are many dry counties out there where no alcoholic beverages are allowed at all. We have local, state and federal laws that tell companies that certain practices are not allowed, and that they must hold to certain moral standards.

I don't think it's necessarily right. I think the idea of banning a company from a city, country, state, etc. simply because their CEO has an opinion anda disagree with is a bit flippant. I'm pro-gay marriage, but I think the uproar surrounding this particular is excessive. Nonetheless, the mayor and his constituents are also expressing their freedom of speech, even if it's through action, just as much as the CEO.

I just telah diposkan this in response to link but I wanted to answer here, too, despite my strong agreement with bri-marie (and the realization that I will be repeating her a little).

If anda want to criticize the left for boycotting corporations that support stances they don't believe in, anda can't go and pick up your pen and clipboard and ask people not to kedai at JC Penney because they hired and endorse Ellen Degeneres, atau Starbucks because of their public support for gay marriage. Even though this is exactly what's happening sejak many conservatives - who, sejak the way, also boycotted TLC in response to their reality show, American Muslim. Yet another instance of one side (in this case, the right) calling the kettle black - though both sides do it.

People - even heads of corporations - are allowed to state their opinion, political, moral atau otherwise. They can even make their opinion the official opinion atau stance of their corporation. However, whether that's a wise business decision atau not is debatable, because people also have the right not to support atau endorse corporations that offend them.

The reason people don't "picket" the president - atau any other politician for that matter - is because it is their job to deal with these issues and Debat them. They take a stance on such issues for political purposes, and their positions are scrutinized, criticized, and debated sejak the public. But that's their job. It's not a corporation's job to enter into the political Debat on either side in my opinion, but if they do, they have to be prepared to face the consequences of such an action, which is exactly what Chick-Fil-A is doing now, and what JCP did six months ago.

EDIT: The mayor, you'll note, is not a CEO. He is a political public figure. As stated - it's his job to take stances, even controversial stances - on political issues because he is a politician. anda can disagree with him. Don't visit his town. But he was just doing his job in response to someone who stepped outside of their own job huraian to enter into the public square.

As they say, if anda can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen.

I think that the store owner has his own opinion and is not wrong about anything he said. He did not act like hitler and try to kill them all he simply berkata he does not agree with gay marriage. Personally I agree with him but if people are gay atau lesbian I'm not going to run up to them and say something that's really mean atau nasty instead I would just leave them alone. And the store owner does have freedom of speech and can say what he wants to say because it's the first amendment in the constitution. Technically the mayor is violating the first amendment sejak taking away his privilege of making restaurants. He should file a court case and get a good lawyer and get his privilege back and sue for all the discrimination against him and throw in emotional distress.

I think it was hypocritical of the people to stop going to his restaurants.

Some say the actions around Chick-Fill-A(protesting, not going there anymore) were morally correct.

But if it was the other way around, (someone saying he agreed with gay marriage), there would be some major riots.


So yeah, I do think this is a violation of freedom of speech. I support gay rights and gay marriage, but I still think people have the right to be against it.

Now if the owner had banned gays from entering his restaurant then it would be different. But he just berkata he didn't agree with someone.