Some people are boycotting the food chain Chick-fil-A in its attempt to come to Boston because Chick-fil-A has given money to organizations opposing gay marriage and its ownership has publicly affirmed its support for “the biblical definition of the family unit.”
In a story about Boston Mayor Thomas M. Menino’s position on this topic, the Boston Herald reports: “‘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.”
I must be missing something, since it sure looks to me as if Mayor Menino is contradicting himself in those comments. Boston is “an open city,” “at the forefront of inclusion,” and will not tolerate discrimination—and yet at the same time will not be open to, include, or tolerate Chick-fil-A?
Completely aside from the issue of gay marriage itself, is it not self-contradictory to claim, on the one hand, that one is inclusive and nondiscriminatory, and yet, on the other hand, that one is excluding organizations with views different from one’s own? It would seem that Chick-fil-A is attempting to exercise exactly the same freedom to associate (or dissociate) that Mayor Menino is claiming on his own behalf: Both of them wish not to associate with people with whom they disagree. The only difference is that Chick-fil-A is not claiming to be open, inclusive, and tolerant, while Mayor Menino—seemingly inconsistently—is.
Or am I missing something?
Jim, you must know that it is completely acceptable to discriminate against politically incorrect opinions. Tolerance for everything, except those who are intolerant. Wait a minute….
Tolerance for me, not for thee.
It’s not just hypocrisy, of course, but in addition the mayor is claiming the right to force other residents of his city not to associate with Chik-Fil-A, while the restaurant is claiming nothing of the kind.
i hate people who are intolerant of other cultures and the dutch
Mumbles comes through again (that is the Mayor’s nickname, which you would understand if you ever heard him speak). Near as I can tell, Chick-fil-A isn’t planning to ask potential patrons whether they support gay marriage or not, isn’t going to deny service if they do, so what the heck is Mumbles talking about! Volokh has a nice post up explaining the non-legality of denying a business a permit or otherwise preventing them from opening their business because of their political views – the First Amendment, and all that. So if the City of Boston denies Chick-fil-A a permit, good luck explaining that it was NOT because of the ownership’s political views. D’oh!
Yeah, Rahm Emanuel basically said the same thing w/r/t Chick-fil-A in Chicago. Pretty bad attack on free speech tbqh.
People need to score their political points, though.
I think it depends on how you feel about Chick-fil-A’s position. If you see it as a legitimate political or religious stance, then it would be intolerant to exclude them. If you see it as thinly veiled bigotry, then it represents the only thing that tolerance cannot tolerate.