This behavior by the mayor of Boston is appalling:
Mayor Thomas M. Menino is vowing to block Chick-fil-A from bringing its Southern-fried fast-food empire to Boston — possibly to a popular tourist spot just steps from the Freedom Trail — after the family-owned firm’s president suggested gay marriage is “inviting God’s judgment on our nation.”
“Chick-fil-A doesn’t belong in Boston. You can’t have a business in the city of Boston that discriminates against a population. We’re an open city, we’re a city that’s at the forefront of inclusion,” Menino told the Herald yesterday.
. . .
If they need licenses in the city, it will be very difficult — unless they open up their policies,” he warned.
Ken at Popehat comments:
…the government doesn’t get to pick and choose what social causes are permissible, and any government actor who aspires to that power is a lowlife thug. What’s particularly alarming about Menino’s thuggery is how openly his referencing to licensing “difficulties” reveals how things really work in government: whatever rights you think that you have, practically speaking some bureaucrat can punish you for exercising them on a whim, and there’s very little you can do about it. Menino represents the ethos of government actors who think quite frankly that this is right and just and how it should be — that they, our masters, should be able to dictate what we think and do and say if we want to do business in their fiefdom.
Freedom of speech requires that the government not discriminate against or punish people for the expression of their political views1 – even those views I most strongly disagree with. Leave that sort of thing to private citizens acting in a private capacity.
- If the business has a history of breaking laws against discrimination, I think that would be a different matter — that’s a pattern of lawbreaking behavior, not just an expression of political views. [↩]
Totally agree. It sounds from the Mayor’s comments like he thinks (or wishes to imply) that Chik-Fil-A *as a business* discriminates against gay employees (or customers), rather than that the issue is their support of organizations pushing to maintain and expand legal discrimination. The first is illegal, while the second is not just legal but should be protected (even if it’s assholish).
Because of the way prejudice works, I would not be even a little bit surprised to hear about legal discrimination against LGBT or non-Christian employees at Chik-Fil-A. I’d honestly be surprised if it never happens. *But* denying a business a license should not be based on things you think they’re probably doing, but on actual violations of relevant policies. And as far as I’ve heard, there aren’t any actual allegations of employment or customer discrimination.
I’d much rather have heard the Mayor of Boston say that he disapproves of their stance but they’re more than welcome to open up franchises in Boston, just the same as Starbucks can do business in Georgia.
I dispute a whole lot of what I see here, and I thought the article was going someplace else, but I absolutely agree with the author.
As a side note, I don’t have a problem with gay marriage – I just wonder why they want to get married, just the same as heterosexual people. It’s usually one person pulling the cart, and one person riding in it, and at the end the person pulling the cart gets to pay more.
In most of the US, discriminating against gay employees is not illegal.
The mayor specifically says: “unless they open up their policies.”
Chick-Fil-A denies that they discriminate against gay employees, and has a policy of non-discrimination. So that’s not the issue here, as far as I can tell.
Of course, even if they don’t explicitly discriminate, they do in effect discriminate against gay employees (and, mainly, against hiring gay people in the first place) through their general company culture, which would be about as attractive to the average openly gay person as the dog kennel is to a housecat. But that’s not illegal, I don’t think.
It’s possible that I’m reading way too much into the Mayor’s comments. But phrases like “a business…that discriminates against a population” and “open up their policies” gave me the impression that he was talking about discriminating in the actual practice of their business.
“In effect” discrimination isn’t illegal because pretty much every entity is going to engage in it; some few might not happen to discriminate against protected classes, but every workplace culture is going to have traits that are displeasing to some group or another.
The mayor’s comments to me seem exquisitely tuned to come just short of saying, per KellyK, that CFA actively discriminates against gays, while signaling that exact meaning to the many low-information voters who are going to hear his words. Like Amp, I find it objectionable – not that the mayor of a city should not feel free to condemn a corporate (or other) culture s/he finds problematic, but the veiled and not-so-veiled threat of using state power to keep that culture out. Don’t like hearing conservative politicos promise to abuse their zoning discretion to keep MMJ dispensaries out, don’t like hearing liberal politicos doing the equivalent.
State power, whenever it is possible, ought to be used in a ministerial, administrative fashion. The city may decline to approve zoning for a restaurant they have reason to believe will pour raw chicken guts into the city streets; they ought not decline to approve zoning for a restaurant whose philosophy they find unappealing, be it Hooters, CFA, Ampersand’s Communist Delicatessen and Incendiary Pamphlet Shoppe, or whatever.
KellyK:
That’s because you are making the mistake (understandable in someone not familiar with Boston politics) that Mayor Thomas Menino cares whether or not what he’s saying is factually accurate. Menino is not making this speech to announce he is going to take action against a corporation that illegally discriminates. He’s making a speech to pander to an important Boston voting bloc with no particular regard as to whether what he’s saying is accurate or whether what he proposes to do is legal or Constitutional. Enforcing political correctness by illicitly using the power of the State is far more important to him than obeying or enforcing the law.
We see this a lot in Chicago, too – witness our gun laws. Mayors Daley and now Emanuel would far rather spend millions passing and defending anti-civil rights laws than actually defending and enforcing the citizenry’s civil rights.
Well, I did say “thinks (or wishes to imply).” And despite being unfamiliar with Boston politics in particular, I’ve paid enough attention to politics in general to know that you can tell politicians are lying because their lips are moving.
Who knew that a company’s stated policy of not discriminating ended the question of whether they engage in unlawful discrimination?
It looks like they’ve actually been sued several times for discrimination.
Firing a Muslim employee for not participating in a Christian prayer
Sued 12 times since 88 and Cathy says he’d probably fire an employee who “did something sinful.”
12 suits in 1300 stores over 24 years is not much of an indicator.
No, it isn’t tons, though I’m curious how it compares to other similarly sized chains. The fact that they’re franchises also means that it’s hard to say how much, if any of it, the company itself was aware of or could control.
Sure, though it’s complicated by being the kind of shitty, low-wage, low-commitment job that many employees wouldn’t bother suing over. I mean, if your boss at the burger-flipping job is a jerk to you, just spit in the tartar sauce and go home, you know?
What concerns me more is:
—Myca
Pretty much every boss in history will and has fired people for being “sinful” – they just don’t use that language. “Doing something your boss disapproves of”, at the burger-flipper level, means you get to go home early. Would I fire one of my subcontractors if I found out that they cheated on their wife? Probably not. Would I blame someone else who did? No.
Per the Forbes article, they have been sued 12 times since 1988 according to federal court records, meaning that we have no idea how many EEOC complaints or state-level complaints or state lawsuits have been filed against them. The article also suggests that they are very upfront about what employees are getting into, so it’s likely that most people who would suffer discrimination under such a regime (say, female franchisees) are not going to apply in the first place and won’t be hired if they do.
“Sinful” can encompass perfectly legal grounds for termination as well as illegal grounds. Apparently refusing to participate in public prayer to Jesus as the Christ is “sinful”.
Good point re: the suits we don’t know about. Minor point of order regarding franchisees: franchisees are not employees and are not hired.
12 suits in 1300 stores over 24 years is so low that I have difficulty believing it to be an accurate representation of the problems.
In the employment arena, most claims are resolved without the filing of a court case at all: an attorney sends a demand letter and the employer settles.
Of the claims which proceed to court, almost all of them are settled before trial. But it’s important to understand that settlements happen in a manner which results in the case being dismissed without a judgment on record, and which involves no admission of wrongdoing. Usually that also involves a mutual confidentiality agreement. Therefore, from public records, there’s no way to distinguish between “settled with a $100,000 out-of-court payment to the employee” and “dropped by the employee because there was no claim.”
For example, I just won a client settlement. From the public records, you’d probably think my client lost. But he didn’t.
Only a very, VERY, few claims proceed to trial and eventual judgment.
It’s spreading – the presumption that city officials have the right to grant or withhold city services, permits, etc. based on the social stances of the people seeking them. From the Chicago Tribune:
There’s a lot of gays in Chicago’s 1st Ward. Understand that while an alderman or alderwoman has no formal role in approving or denying zoning changes, business permits, etc. in their ward (Chicago is divided up into 50 wards), the practice is that if an alderman objects to something in their own ward the Mayor, the rest of the City Council and the various Chicago bureaucracies will back him or her up and hold things up until the alderman blesses it. Usually cash is involved, or buying insurance or legal services through a company owned by or employing the alderman or hiring the alderman’s spouse, cousin or in-law for a do-nothing job. Knuckling under to ideological purity is a more recent development – especially in the 1st ward, whose alderman for a great many years up until fairly recently was known as the Mafia’s representative on the City Council (although not Moreno to my knowledge).
Whereas using the power of the State to suppress expressions of political or social viewpoints its rulers don’t like definitely is part of Chicago’s values, and damn the First Amendment. Kind of like their attitude towards the Second Amendment, come to think of it. This is the man who until a while ago was President Obama’s Chief of Staff, remember.
Zoning is not a right. But I should think that access to it on an equal basis regardless of your social or political stances is.
So it’s not just because this all hit the news out of Boston – apparently double-checking the political and social stances of business owners is routine for Alderman Moreno.
As long as it’s the right free speech.
Or, they could try a fat damn lawsuit, where millions of taxpayers dollars will be handed over to lawyers in a losing cause so that politicians can pander to a pressure group. Which do you think is more likely at this point?
There’s a treatment of the legal issues here at The Volokh Conspiracy. Basically he figures that the City of Chicago doesn’t have a leg to stand on here.
Political posturing like this goes on all the time – though usually against a sex-related business! I absolutely agree that the company shouldn’t be denied an otherwise legitimate place to run their business based on their political stances, but it’s a convenient target for politicians, who almost certainly don’t have the power to do anything about it. Adult shops will open in approved zones, so will chicken restaurants, regardless of who is this week’s morality target.
Adult shops will open in approved zones, so will chicken restaurants, regardless of who is this week’s morality target.
If a Chicago alderman decides that someone is not going to get a zoning variance in their ward the odds are quite good that, absent a lawsuit, they’re not going to get that zoning variance regardless of whatever else that someone does. And if they decide to file a lawsuit, the odds are quite good that the court – whose judge very likely owes his or her seat on the bench to the Democratic party – will take a very long time to decide the case even if the case is decided in the business’ favor, which is no given. It will be a long and expensive process for the business.
Note that the alderman has clearly stated that he intends to withhold the zoning variance based on the political stances of the business’ owners. He makes no allegation and gives no evidence that the business itself discriminates against gay employees or gay customers. According to the Chicago Tribune,
You can bet that “traffic issues” are a smokescreen. His concern is not that Chick-fil-A’s corporate practices are discriminatory – his concern is that their owners have contributed to organizations whose ends he disapproves of. Here are the alderman’s own words on the subject:
Alderman Moreno intends to use the power of the State to suppress a business based on their speech. This is government thuggery. And he’s proud of it!
I had an interesting conversation in the fitness center with a colleague. The Chick-fil-A story was on the TV there. She said “Of course the city can do that. They ban porn stores in some areas, don’t they?” I tried to explain the difference between objecting to a particular kind of business and objecting to the social viewpoints of the business’ owner, but the distinction was lost on her.
Mayor Menino wakes up to reality:
No $h!t. I guess one of the City Corporation’s counsels finally got through to you on your cell phone, eh?
That’s Mayor Menino acting like a liberal fascist. I can’t imagine that someone who gets elected Mayor doesn’t know what the First Amendment says, so it’s got to be a deliberate act in defiance of the law.
A letter from the Mayor – who can send the health and building inspectors over to your property anytime he wants to – isn’t pressure? Gee. How stupid do you think people are, Mayor? What did that letter say?
No, you got elected to ensure that the laws are enforced and city services are provided while keeping the budget balanced. Making your opinions known on social issues is WAY down on the list. And using the city bureaucracy to enforce them is off the list completely.
I prefer good, old-fashioned, conservative communists to these newfangled liberal fascists.
Here’s a link to the letter that the Mayor sent to Chick-fil-A and to the landlord of the building they are looking to open their store in. Mayor Merino must think his title is “Dictator”, not “Mayor”.
Hm. I’ve been looking at definitions of facsism. From Merriam-Webster online:
Well, I can’t say that the Mayor is exalting the nation here. I imagine he’d describe himself as patriotic. And he certainly isn’t exalting race over anything – but that’s optional in the definition. OTOH, by exercising the power to tell a business it cannot open because it’s owners don’t hold a particular social viewpoint, he seems to fulfill “centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.” Looking at descriptions of the rise of Facsism in Italy, et. al. in Wikipedia and other sources, they all talk about how the Facists combined left- and right-wing ideas – it’s not a “right-wing” or “left-wing” philosophy.
As an editorial in that noted right-wing propaganda vehicle The Boston Globe says
On a practical level, I wonder what these politicians (at least two of whom are backpedaling, presumably after they got the memo from Legal) were thinking would happen. I mean, those remarks piss everyone off. Libertarians are angry about the use of coercive government power; conservatives are angry that coercive government power is being used against good Christian businessmen instead of queers or atheists, and liberals are angry because they know that if this were permitted, the number of government entities that would use it in the name of ‘equality’ as opposed to ‘punishing unpopular viewpoints’ is extremely tiny.
I’ve had Facebook friends post approvingly of the comments – all gay-rights activists. I think the politicians got positive feedback/encouragement from activists on their staffs, but didn’t realize what the level of pushback from non-single-issue members of the polity would be.
I’ve had Facebook friends post disapprovingly of the comments – all gay-rights activists. (I’ve also had Facebook friends post approvingly of the anti-Chick-Fil-A sentiment, while disapproving of the elected officials’ actions.) Certainly outside of the hotbed of QUILTBAG thinktankery that is your Facebook circle, there seems to be pretty strong opposition from activists.
So after all the fuss I found out that there’s a Chick-fil-A just about a mile from where I work. Neither I nor as it turns out most of the people I work with had ever had their food before, so a bunch of the guys went over there. I had a bad cold and deemed myself unfit company for lunch, but I had them pick me up a sandwich.
Turns out Chick-fil-A makes a pretty good chicken sandwich. Meh on the waffle fries, but then I find that fast food fries rarely travel well so that’s not a fair review. I find the sandwich superior to any other fast-food chicken sandwich I’ve had, though. I’ll probably eat there again.
Maybe in November. The Episcopal Diocese of Chicago’s annual convention is in a hotel quite nearby. I’m a delegate. We get a break for lunch and people generally leave the hotel to pick up food. Maybe I’ll bring a Chick-fil-A bag back in to the convention. I can eat while they debate whether to create a rite to bless same-sex unions (a measure that will surely pass).
mythago:
“conservatives are angry that coercive government power is being used against good Christian businessmen instead of queers or atheists,”
If someone is in favor of using coercive government power against any group on the basis of their religious beliefs or sexual practices – whatever they are – they’re not conservatives.
Why would you do that?
I hope you’ll be voting in favor of the measure.
Why would you do that?
As a fuck-you to the people who want to support the blessing of same-sex unions.
Wow, yeah, that (eating Chik-Fil-A during the debate on same-sex unions) would be in incredibly poor taste.
Okay, so they’re not true Scotsmen; that doesn’t make their political philosophy any less prevalent in the political party that calls itself conservative.
RonF:
Of course not. True Conservatives are in favor of using coercive private power against groups on the basis of their religious beliefs or sexual practices. Coercive government power should only be used to ensure that private power remains unfettered. That’s Justice.
Grace
Elusis:
As a political statement. Which it now is, whether Ron wants it to be or not, now that Chick-fil-A’s CEO has made his brand political in this way.
Grace
I have to admit, I kind of don’t care about if someone eats at CFA or not.
It’s a purely symbolic issue. If Ron eats a CFA sandwich, that won’t slow down the coming of marriage equality by even a minute; nor will abstaining from CFA speed it up at all.
I’m not going to be eating at CFA, because the only one in Portland is right next to a cajun chicken place, and as far as I’m concerned that’s no competition at all. But even if that wasn’t the case, I personally won’t eat at CFA, because the chain’s done too much to make it clear that they don’t like people with my beliefs and don’t want my money.
But if someone else eats there? It’s just not an issue that I can make myself care about. It just doesn’t matter.
Your lack of moral purity is noted. Come the purge, you will be the first against the wall, accommodationist running dog.
An individual choosing to eat at Chick-Fil-A probably isn’t going to matter from a practical perspective, that’s true. But the same could be said of almost every political act, including voting.
And in some instances, for some people, eating at Chick-Fil-A is an unabashedly political act.
But I think I understand where you’re coming from. If I learn that a person doesn’t support legal same-sex marriage, I lose a huge amount of respect for that person–or potential respect, if it’s a person I don’t particularly know. But once I’ve lost that respect, then it doesn’t really matter to me when you act accordingly. Eating Chick-Fil-A doesn’t equal bigotry; opposing SSM does.
I think we’re mostly in agreement, Phil, but I’d point out that voting is an act that can make a difference when hundreds of thousands of people do it.
In contrast, even when there’s a mass action of eating at CFA (such as the one that happened last month), I’m not convinced that matters. They felt a lot of unity and made each other very happy and ate a lot of chicken, but did they actually slow down same-sex marriage?
Amp @36: Eating at Chick-Fil-A is not the be-all and end-all of one’s opinion on QUILTBAG issues.
But if someone says ‘hey, the social group I’m a part of is dealing with QUILTBAG issues, so not only am I going to get a Chick-Fil-A sandwich, I’m going to show up at a meeting about those issues with a Chick-Fil-A bag,’ they’re making a statement.
I agree, that would certainly seem like a statement to me, if I were at the meeting.
Ron, what say you?
I’d quibble about Chick-fil-A’s CEO having made his brand political. Seems to me it was the people who publicized his political contributions and tied it to his business that made his brand political – he certainly didn’t advertise it that I know of. Unless I’m missing something here.
Oh, yeah. Me having a CFA sandwich at work isn’t a political statement, but in the context of that meeting it certainly would be.
In fact, what it would probably do is result in some people there flying into an absolutely apopletic state to the point that they’d come over to my table and start making a scene. This will be my 5th Diocesean annual meeting, and judging from the reactions I got when I introduced (and got passed, BTW) a resolution at a previous annual meeting congratulating the Boy Scouts of America on their centennial I don’t think I’m far off.
And yeah, who wants that, so I’m not going to be an asshole and actually do it. It would add a lot of noise but shed no actual light. But it was briefly amusing to think of. It’s across a divided route, too, so I’ll probably just go over to the Italian deli in the mall for a sub (much, much better than Subway or those other franchised places).
I’ll be voting against. I don’t think it’s in accordance with Christian Scripture or tradition. There are people at my parish that would support me in doing this and there are people who would oppose me in doing this (the latter likely including the 2 gay and 1 lesbian couples who have been showing up on Sunday the last few months). But no records are kept of who votes how, so it’s unlikely anyone will know – unless they ask me, in which case I’ll tell them. As a parish we are eligible to have 3 lay votes (clergy vote separately), but only once in the last 5 years has anyone other than me actually shown up to participate and vote.
Wow. A slap in the face to fellow believers isn’t my idea of “amusing.” I’m very glad you’re not planning on actually doing it.
I think you are missing something, Ron. First, you characterize the political contributions as “his,” implied that they were made as private donations by Dan Cathy instead of donations directly from Chick-Fil-A. Obviously, the line between a personal donation and a corporate donation is a little murky when you’re talking about a private, family-owned corporation, but multiple news sources reported that the donations in question were made by “the charitable arm of Chick-Fil-A,” the WinShape foundation. The foundation has a page on Chick-Fil-A’s corporate web site, and has been described as a part of Chick-Fil-A by major news organizations. Additionally, tax disclosures from 2010 indicate that the WinShape Foundation received more than $8 million directly from Chick-Fil-A, and another $11 million from CFA Properties, a Chick-Fil-A affiliate company. (I can link you to sources for that if you’re skeptical.)
For those reasons, it seems pretty fair to describe the contributions in question not just as the personal political behavior of the owner of a corporation, but as the actions of the corporation itself.
But just in case you’re still wanting to draw a line that says that Chick-Fil-A is not a company that can fairly be described as advocating for particular political causes based on Biblical beliefs, know that your opinion differs from that of Dan Cathy himself, who said in a published interview that the company is “guilty as charged.” The headline in the newspaper that interviewed Dan Cathy, in fact, is: ‘Guilty as charged,’ Cathy says of Chick-fil-A’s stand on biblical & family values.
So, I would say, yes, the owner and CEO of Chick-Fil-A has unquestionably made his brand political.
And, not that you or anyone here has said it, but in case anyone is lurking, I’d like to point out that Cathy’s actions, and the actions of Chick-Fil-A, are not the flip side of companies that donate money in support of legal same-sex marriage.
The political stance of “We support equal rights for all of our employees and customers” is very very different from the political stance of “Because of our religious beliefs, we use our resources to influence the government to forcefully strip a minority from enjoying equal rights.”
I’d also like to point out (not that you asked) that I think you have every right to vote within your religious organization as you see fit, and I don’t even think that it’s inherently bigoted to interpret the Bible as you do. If anything, I think you have a moral obligation to vote as you honestly believe, when it comes to the private rules of your own personal religion. Others within your faith tradition might want to quibble with your interpretation, but I’ve got no dog in that fight.
Since Amp has pointed out that the CFA controversy, while being a signal of where people’s beliefs are, is also very very unimportant, this is probably a good place to engage in a pointless semantic debate.
I agree, Phil, that the CFA corporation is responsible and has made itself responsible for the donations, etc. It’s not just Mr. Cathy’s personal preference and political giving that are at issue.
However, your statement:
The political stance of “We support equal rights for all of our employees and customers” is very very different from the political stance of “Because of our religious beliefs, we use our resources to influence the government to forcefully strip a minority from enjoying equal rights.”
is logically problematic in a fundamental way, because I posit that either
a) You don’t actually support ‘equal rights’ in marriage in the broad sense of ‘equal rights’, and very few other people do either,
OR
b) If you mean to support equal rights in only the narrow sense, then gays have those equal rights now.
Equal rights in the broad sense would mean that every adult person has the right to marry any other adult person with whom there is a mutual desire to marry. Other marriages, gender, consanguinity, non-blood ties that still are considered incestuous (stepparent-stepchild, for example) – all of those are irrelevant. Equal rights means equal rights. However, very few campaigners for SSM want to legalize polygamy or deregulate incest; they want the same restrictive, rules-based marriage regime that we have now but with a specific rules change to take gender off of the qualifications checklist.
Equal rights in the narrow sense means that everyone is permitted the same access to the same set of rules. I can marry a woman, you can marry a woman, Al Johnson can marry a woman. Doesn’t matter if Al Johnson is black or Jewish or gay or sterile or 95 years old – no matter what, he’s allowed to marry an otherwise-qualified woman. Gays have access to this level of civil rights. Gay men are completely free to marry any woman who will marry them (and plenty do). Gay women are completely free any man who wants to (and plenty do). People have equal access to the institution, on the exact same terms. Some people might not WANT that access or might not find it valuable, but tough cookies; if Six Flags lets anyone ride the rollercoaster, the fact that you hate rollercoasters does not mean that you don’t have equal rights to the rollercoaster; it means you have a different preference, which the institution is not caring about.
“Marriage rights for gays” as a proposition is perfectly coherent: extend a right to cross-gender marriage so that gay people can ENJOY their equal right of access to marriage. “Equal rights for all” as a proposition is (almost always) either intentionally dishonest or just unthoughtfully clueless.
So, that said, your statement about the relative virtues of the two stances depends very strongly on which sense of ‘equal rights’ is being deployed. I would agree that people saying, and meaning, that every adult should have equal marriage rights are making a different TYPE of stand than people who are arguing for a continued or restored restriction on marriage rights for one particular group.
But people who say ‘equal rights for all’ while in fact meaning ‘clone the special right that heterosexuals have and give it to homosexuals too’, and people arguing against that, are on basically the same plane. They each accept a restrictive, permissions-based model of marriage partnership; the only argument is on is In and who is Out. (/heidiklumvoice) Although it is probably more noble to argue for an expansion of rights to another group than it is to argue for a continuation of status quo ante, the rhetorical claim to be seeking after universal rights is not proof that such universality is actually being sought. People tussling over where the fence should be are on the same playing field; one group saying that really they don’t believe in fences (while fighting hard to have the fence in a particular place) isn’t really credible.
Robert,
I have said elsewhere on the Internet that anyone who brings up the argument “gay men have equal rights because they can marry women!”, etc., deserves to be slapped in the face, open palm. It’s really fucking annoying, and it keeps popping up.
Note that I’m not threatening to slap you; I’m just pointing out that you deserve it.
A woman has the right to marry a man. I am denied this right solely on the basis of my gender (meaning sex). The only difference between me and a no fertile woman, with regard to the law, is my genitals. I am being denied equal rights on the sole basis of my gender.
On the other hand, all citizens are prohibited from marrying two people simultaneously; that is an _actual_ example of a legal restriction that does not violate the concept of equal rights.
Can you see how your argument was both wrong and annoying?
Under your logic, Robert, no conceivable marriage restriction could ever be called a violation of equal rights, as long as there is one conceivable type of marriage that isn’t legal. We could ban all Jews from marriage, but it wouldn’t be a violation of equal rights if we also 50-partner cannibalistic marriages.
Your argument only works if we accept the notion that “equal rights” is a meaningless concept, one that can never be argued for. Do you accept that notion?
You don’t understand what I wrote and I don’t have time today to go over it again. I provide TWO workable definitions of what “equal rights” could mean; tell me which one you’re using, or provide your own, and we might be able to advance the conversation.
Robert,
Both of your definitions render the notion of “equal rights” into a meaningless concept.
Except with the examples you list, it’s not the right to marry “any” other adult person; you’re saying that every adult person must have the right to marry every other adult person, since you include polygamous marriages.
In short, “equal rights” under this definition means that no restriction on marriage (or any other restriction on any other legal arrangement) can ever be valid, which means that the concept of “equal rights” means that only anarchy is acceptable.
Except that, as your examples illustrate, “the same set of rules” can involve restricting people from access to a right based solely on gender. So this, too, renders “equal rights” a meaningless concept.
Can you see how at least one of your definitions renders the concept as meaningless, and how neither of your definitions is actually workable?
It is fair to note that I am intentionally not engaging you on the subject of incest, because I have no interest in debating about whether incestuous marriages ought to be legal unless I am debating with someone who is actually arguing in favor of them. If we both support the status quo, then there is no need for the massive distraction and timesuck of justifying incest provisions. (Not unlike Robert’s Rules of Order, I don’t believe a motion should be discussed until it is on the table.)
You’re misunderstanding most everything I wrote. Let’s step it back to square one.
What’s YOUR definition of “equal rights”?
Robert, your last couple of comments really seem like you’re refusing to engage with criticism of what you wrote. It seems odd that you’re expecting Phil to answer your questions when you refuse to answer his.
If he’s misunderstanding what you wrote, than so am I. Do you think it’s possible we’re reading what you wrote correctly, but what you wrote doesn’t actually convey what you intended?
It seems to me that when people refer to “equal rights,” or “equality before the law,” what they’re usually referring to is not absolute equality (as you seem to be assuming), but equality before the law without regard to [fill in the blank].
If someone says “it’s wrong for the sheriff to lock me up just because I’m Jewish! I should have equal rights!,” it’s not responsive to say “so are you against locking up murderers? If not, you’re not really for equal rights.” In that context, it’s obvious that the jailbird is referring to equal rights without regard to [religion], not equal rights without regard to [having committed murder].
Similarly, what’s being talked about in same-sex marriage is either equality without regard to sex, or equality without regard to sexual orientation.
Now, you could also respond “well, gays do have equal rights – they have the equal right to marry someone of the opposite sex.” But that’s formal equality, not substantive equality. It’s the equivalent of telling the Jewish jailbird in my previous example that he has an equal right to stay out of jail, as long as he stops celebrating Passover and starts celebrating Easter instead.
Yes, formal equality is exactly what I am getting at. There is formal equality, and there is substantive equality, and they aren’t the same, and many/nearly all of the people claiming substantive equality are in fact looking for a formal equality but with new terms added. That’s not kosher. (I mean, it’s kosher to want to expand the formal equality, but not to make the “substantive” claim while doing so.)
Can somebody remind me which of our local conservative gentlemen has actually acknowledged that same-sex marriage should probably be legal? I can never keep them straight.
No pun intended.
And yes, you all look alike to me. We’re on the Internet. You both start with “R”. It’s very confusing.
(I know one is handsome and one’s a scoutmaster but I can’t keep that straight either.)
Also, RonF: jokes are supposed to be funny.
That would be me.
Sorry, to clarify, that would be me, pro-SSM (well, anti-state-discrimination-in-the-execution-of-its-administrative-duties), handsome. Achingly handsome.
Do you really think that’s the case? Or is that just something you say to people who disagree with you?
In this context, “equal rights” is a principle that relates to values. Other principles like this include freedom, religious liberty, and perhaps even the pursuit of happiness. These are concepts that societies should generally hold as preferable to their opposite. Specifically, Robert, the term “equal rights” refers to the officially recognized equality of citizens before the state, the law, and the courts. (I’m borrowing some phrasing from other online sources here. I like the phrasing, and I’m not here to reinvent the wheel.)
Ampersand provided a more clear, and more polite, explanation than me of just where your argument goes off the rails. But perhaps you can see, reading his comment, how your argument is annoying?
Here’s what I think: I think that you perceive yourself to be correct because your argument is logical. But your logic is so ludicrously extreme that it renders the principle at stake (in this case, “equal rights”) meaningless. I’ve said that three times now. I don’t think you misunderstand what I wrote. I think you’re choosing to ignore it.
Here’s my suggestion: an argument can be logical, but also be stupid and really annoying.
Here’s an example dialog:
Person A: I should have the right to use medical marijuana. I am arguing for freedom, and human beings have the right to live as they see fit.
Person B: Ah, but if you’re arguing for freedom then that means human beings should have the right to do anything they want, including skull-fucking unsuspecting victims! BAHAHA!
Can you see how Person B is acting in a way that is logical, but is also acting in a way that is really fucking annoying?
I pointed out, very reasonably, that an argument in favor of equal rights is very different from an argument against equal rights.
And you responded, “BAHAHA! If you’re arguing for equal rights, you are a hypocrite unless you also support state-sanctioned brother-sister fucking!”
Do you disagree with my characterization of our exchange? Because it’s pretty much spot-on.
Robert – thanks for clarifying. You guys should wear t-shirts or something.
Robert @52, in what way is expanding marriage to same-sex couples “formal equality but with new terms added.” Equality before the law without regard to sex, gender, or orientation sounds like substantive equality to me.
Elusis @53: the funny part, from RonF’s point of view, is upsetting people in favor of marriage equality. The Chick-Fil-A bag isn’t a joke, it’s a ‘fuck you’.
Equality before the law without regard to sex, gender, or orientation IS substantive equality… with respect to sex, gender, or orientation, not necessarily with anything else. Substantive equality always has some sort of qualifier attached. Not that there’s anything wrong with that.
I think Robert’s point is that he distinguishes between
1) “we don’t think the government should control or limit the relationships of consensual adults unless absolutely necessary”
and
2) “we don’t think the government should control or limit the relationships of consensual adults on the limited bases of race, sex, gender, or orientation; it’s OK to do it for other reasons.”
The first one is an argument for relationship freedom generally, unless there’s some compelling government interest otherwise. This would imply that polygamy should probably be legal. It would also imply that certain relationships currently classified as incest (first cousins by marriage, etc.) should probably be legal. It would retain the “compelling” issue, so it still wouldn’t permit stuff such as bestiality, parent/child incest, etc.
The second one is an implicit acknowledgement of the government’s general right to restrict relationships, with a push for adding a particular segment to the “unrestricted” category.
I grok Robert as feeling that it’s improper (wrong word perhaps?) to use #1 rhetoric when you mean #2.
I don’t personally know whether I believe #1 or #2, though I personally support gay marriage either way.