Similar Tactics for Fighting Chick-fil-A and Abortion?
Freddie deBoer makes an observation:
[W]hen local politicians in Boston and Chicago use zoning or licensure or similar to ban Chick-Fil-A, they’re using tactics that conservatives have used for decades in the abortion fight. Not able (yet) to muster sweeping reform at the national level, they have taken to bending the rules and pushing the envelope at the local level, in thousands of discrete steps. Abortion rights, I’m very sorry to say, have been severely curtailed for thousands of American women, despite the fact that Roe is still the law of the land. Pro-life activists have gotten there not through large-scale national legislation or litigation but through a thousand little cuts.
I see the Chick-Fil-A thing as a similar set of tactics: absent widespread reform, you take a few stabs at it in friendly confines peppered across the country.
He concludes by saying, “If you’re a pro-life conservative, you should recognize that your compatriots have opened this door. If you’re a liberal, you should recognize that, when people say that we need to adopt more of conservatism’s methods if we want to win, this is what they’re talking about. For good or for ill.” I see what Freddie’s saying, but there’s a distinction to be made that may amount to a relevant difference.
The mayors of Boston and Chicago overstepped their authority by threatening to bar Chick-fil-A from opening restaurants because of the CEO’s opinions and the company’s political activism. Following through on their fightin words would be a blatant violation of First Amendment rights.
Anti-abortion activists, as of yet unable to overturn Roe and not in any position to prohibit abortion nationally, have made efforts at the local level to eliminate government funding of abortion providers, to close down their centers of operation, and to pass laws limiting the conditions under which abortions can be obtained. From the perspective of the current law of the land, these stabs and cuts curtail a constitutional right, but this perspective is precisely what pro-lifers oppose. They argue that Roe was wrongly decided and that there shouldn’t be any right to abortion. Their tactics (usually) follow the spirit of their philosophy.
As far as I know, no mayor in the United States wants to overturn the First Amendment. The stupidity of Menino and Emmanuel rests on their willingness to sacrifice the fundamental freedom of speech–a right I assume they really believe in–so as to make their respective cities even more gay-friendly and punish a business whose head espouses his belief in a “traditional, biblical” understanding of marriage. These mayors are doing more than taking “a few stabs at” reform “in friendly confines peppered across the country.” They’re doing more than implementing the tactics of the opposition. They’re raising their swords, seemingly ready to conduct a siege of their own castle.
I won’t concede moral equivalence until there are websites publishing the home addresses of Chik-fil-A fry cooks.
Anti-abortion activists, as of yet unable to overturn Roe and not in any position to prohibit abortion nationally, have made efforts at the local level to eliminate government funding of abortion providers, to close down their centers of operation, and to pass laws limiting the conditions under which abortions can be obtained. From the perspective of the current law of the land, these stabs and cuts curtail a constitutional right…
Roe does not establish abortion as an absolute right. A number of quite legal legislative efforts to inhabit and curtail it have been found by the courts to be entirely constitutional. That abortion should be safe legal and rare is a cliche used by both Bill Clinton and Barack Obama: efforts to make it “rare” are not necessarily unconstitutional.
There can be no effort to defend the threats directed at Chick-fil-A as constitutional. This one doesn’t hold. The only thing comparable would be the mayor of Boston unilaterally refusing to recognize gay marriages performed in Massachusetts. That’s apples and apples.
Basically, Boston mayor Thomas Menino allowed #Occupy all the rope in the world because he agreed with them. Chick-fil-A gets a different set of standards, another set of laws.
http://bostonherald.com/news/regional/view/2011_1118greenway_asks_menino_to_oust_occupy_boston
Roe does not establish abortion as an absolute right. A number of quite legal legislative efforts to inhabit and curtail it have been found by the courts to be entirely constitutional.
True, but beside the point.
How so, Kyle? Using legal means to further one’s position is how we do things. Where is the equivalent of the government threatening the businesses of gay marriage opponents?
There are no equivalency here between
http://www.nbcchicago.com/blogs/ward-room/Rahm-Chick-fil-A-Chicago-164043916.html
and
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/07/24/12930591-south-dakota-abortion-suicide-advisory-upheld-by-federal-appeals-court?lite
The point is that local cut and stab efforts by pro-lifers to curtail abortion rights fit with the pro-life philosophy, which is that there is no right to an abortion. Whether the Constitution grants an absolute or limited right to abortion is irrelevant to this. Pro-lifers reject* both interpretations.
*I realize that there are self-described pro-lifers who would see abortion legal in some circumstances, but this fact doesn’t take away from the point I’m making.
Kyle, did opponents accept Plessy? Stare decisis is for suckas, and Roe is bad law—even Justice Ginsburg and other lefty lights admit it.
http://washingtonexaminer.com/article/1080661
Working within the law, tooth and nail to oppose injustice until the Supreme Court corrects itself? Regardless of the issue, that should be admired by the left, who fancy themselves the agents of all human progress. The pro-life victory in the South Dakota—requiring disclosure of the increased risk of suicide for abortion “patients”—was not letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. The law might save some babies, save some mothers too.
Dred Scott upheld the Fugitive Slave Act. Did that mean that the Underground Railroad should cease operations? Of course not; they doubled their efforts. C’mon, let’s get back on track here. I’m not a Muslim or a fundie or a lefty, but I’m tolerant enough to admire people when they live their principles.
Who knows? They just might be right, y’know? Including lefties! [Once in awhile.]
“We are here to enter our indignant protest against the Dred Scott decision-against the infamous Fugitive Slave Law-against all unjust and oppressive enactments, with reference to complexional distinctions-against the alarming aggressions of the Slave Power upon the rights of the people of the North-and especially against the existence of the slave system at the South, from which all these have naturally sprung, as streams of lava from a burning volcano. We are here to reiterate the self-evident truths of the Declaration of Independence, and to call for their practical enforcement throughout our land. ”
William Lloyd Garrison
March 12, 1858
Even if this was no obvious first amendment conflict, I would and do find these tactics bothersome, regardless of which side employs them. When the leaders we elect to uphold and enforce laws do so in such blatantly discriminatory ways… Well, trouble is a-brewin’.
I don’t get Freddie’s point. Abortion providers perform the service that pro-lifers intend to stop. Chick-fil-A sells a product that has nothing to do with same-sex “marriage.” Do pro-life politicians attempt to ban (rather than boycott) companies whose CEOs are pro-choice?
And what does he mean by “conservatism’s tactics”? He always pretends the Left has a really hard time convincing itself to play dirty. BS.
The comments are even more laughable.
It’s been a longstanding observation of mine that conservatives and liberals switch sides – and even the same exact talking points – on the subject of ‘regulation’ when it comes to abortion services.
There’s no reasonable tu quoque here.
I belive Kolohe’s point was that Conservatives tend to be against regulation except in the case of abortion clinics. Liberals tend to believe in regulation except in the case of abortion clinics. Do I have that right, K?
Yep. And I usually make it in the direction of “Liberals intuitively understand the job-killing, freedom-squelching aspects of regulation when it comes to abortion, but little else”.
Liberals aren’t opposed to regulation in abortion practices. What makes you think they are? They’re opposed to conservative’s attempts to restrict access to those procedures.
Apples and oranges. Abortion regulations in general have the declared intent of eliminating abortion: e.g, if local abortion providers are driven outs, so all that’s left are doctors who come in from out-of-state, require them to have local hospital privileges. There’s no medical reason for that. It’s intended purely to drive them out too.
OSHA regulations aren’t intended to eliminate industry, just to reduce the number of employees that it harms. If extra costs result, that’s a side effect, not the purpose.
I understand him fine, thank you. Saving innocent life is not the same as altering societal institutions. The equivalency between abortion and gay marriage has always been a facile one.
There is some legitimacy to comparing sodomy bans to abortion bans, but only if one concedes the central abortion argument that it’s a matter of “privacy.” Since the pro-life position does not concede it’s a matter of privacy because there’s another human life [the baby] involved, there is no common language. But there is no contradiction in “regulating” the unjust taking of human life while opposing the regulation of most everything else.
Now, if DeBoer wants to talk tactics, that’s fine, but we need to divorce them from the underlying issues and see how the argument holds. In this case, there is no true equivalency since the issue is freedom of speech and of conscience; at the moment, gay marriage advocates are not being silenced or retaliated against by the government.
There is still a logic error though. If abortion is as pro-life advocates describe it (murder, basically), then regulations nibbling at its practice don’t go far enough and they should simply try to ban it outright. They’re using a scalpel when their own words suggest they need an axe. If the point of the regulations is to roundabout ban it because they can’t get through an honest ban, then…well, then they should consider why they can’t.
BTW, a related question: it seems whenever some legislator wants to challenge Roe v Wade head on their pet bill always punishes the doctor and omits the pregnant woman. Why is that?
Now pro-life’s use of “legal means only” is under attack? My, how these things drift—it was not the Right who screwed the pooch here.
As for your related question and I think it’s a good one—it’s far easier to argue there’s no constitutional right for doctors to perform abortions. I’d liken it to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_Integrity_Identity_Disorder
Do we legalize doctors amputating healthy limbs because the person makes a “choice’ to do so? We could say the person has a right to do whatever they want with their body, but is this crossing some line?
Since the pro-life position does not concede it’s a matter of privacy because there’s another human life [the baby] involved, there is no common language.
How would a pro-lifer characterize the dispute then? Surely we’re not disagreeing about nothing in these debates.
I’m not saying they can’t do it, clearly they can and are. But it’s a tactic built on duplicity. They want to ban abortion, but can’t get enough support to ban abortion, so they’re “regulating” an activity they think should be illegal.
Didn’t we not too long ago discuss this w/r/t transsexuals? I don’t remember you saying to ban that, only that you didn’t like it.
That applies to cigarettes, b-psycho. In spades; we have far more laws inhibiting tobacco than we do abortion.
But it’s a tactic built on duplicity. They want to ban abortion, but can’t get enough support to ban abortion, so they’re “regulating” an activity they think should be illegal.
The “duplicity” bit is out of line. There’s no dishonesty in taking half a loaf. many or most smoking opponents are not opposed to an outright ban if they could get one.
As for the constitutional right for doctors to mutilate the bodies of willing people, it should give us a lot more pause than it does, I’ll tellya that much.
…and I’d say the same thing about their tactics too.
Opposition to abortion and to tobacco have more in common than other pairs of issues, perhaps? Interesting thought.
All I know is that unlike the ‘Smoking’ area, the ‘Abortion’ area outside my building at work is a real mess.
There is just *no* number of ashtrays you could add that would make that place look any better.
Having to pass it on the way to the cafeteria for lunch really sucks like a vacuum.
There is some legitimacy to comparing sodomy bans to abortion bans, but only if one concedes the central abortion argument that it’s a matter of “privacy.” Since the pro-life position does not concede it’s a matter of privacy because there’s another human life [the baby] involved, there is no common language.
I’ve never read Roe and, not being a lawyer, wouldn’t be competent to judge the merits of the argument in any case. But it’s always seemed to me the “privacy” argument is something of a red herring. It should be no surprise that the constitution doesn’t guarantee a right to “privacy” as such. At the time (18th century) the word “privacy” meant going to the bathroom. A guarantee of such would have simply been silly, as it would have amounted to a guarantee to the right to have a door on your outhouse. Now the meaning of the word has changed over time as words are wont to do. If you were to sum up the gist of the 4th amendment in one word in contemporary language, you could do a lot worse than “privacy.”
I agree that, in principle, there’s no Constitutional right to abortion. On the other hand, I see huge constitutional problems with enforcement of such a ban. As an experiment sometime, find yourself a nice spot–in a shopping mall, a park, a town square on a nice day, maybe the beach–and engage in that eternal sport of red-blooded males the world over, girl-watching. Sit there and watch women of child-bearing age walk by and count to 100. Now, how many of them were pregnant? A couple of them were probably obviously carrying a child, but based on visual evidence alone you undoubtedly missed anywhere from half to two-thirds of the preggers. It just isn’t going to start showing until a woman is around 4 to 5 months along, and with “heftier” girls it can be even longer.
The simple fact is that unless she tells you, a casual observer has no way of knowing that a given woman is pregnant until at least half-way through the pregnancy. And if you saw such a woman one day and then again two days hence, you would have no way of knowing if she had aborted any such pregnancy in the intervening day.
So even if we stipulate that aborting an early-stage pregnancy is murder, you have a huge problem with probable cause. Not only do you not have a dead body to point to, you don’t even have a missing person to wonder about. And then there’s the fact that a great number–estimates are as high as 50 – 60%–of all pregnancies are naturally terminated, i.e. miscarried. My niece suffered that heartbreak twice before finally carrying to term. Is any natural miscarriage then to be criminally investigated to make sure Mom didn’t just change her mind?
I just don’t see how you can effectively ban abortion without doing unacceptable violence to the fourth amendment rights of women. Expect a resurgence in the wire coat-hanger industry and not a few dead women as a result.
Google “coat hanger” and “Bernard Nathanson.” Amazing, but then again, not.
Well, Tom, you can choose to focus on the “throw-away” line (as usual) or you can engage in the substantive argument.
I guess the choice depends on whether you have a substantive argument to make.
Rod – can I then suggest throwing away the throwaway line when making an argument that I otherwise substantially agree with? Particularly when 1.) that line is, to put it kindly, known hyperbolic propaganda and 2.) irrelevant to the argument (that is, if abortion is in fact murder, then the fact that some or even many murder perpetrators get injured or die during the act’s commission is hardly much to get exercised over).
Like I said, I have come in recent years to reluctantly embrace your argument regardless of the fact that I think the act itself, in many or even most cases, is wrong. But unfortunately I just can’t think of any way to enforce that without vesting the state with enormous power/discretion, and I do not trust the state not to muck that up.
A Right to Privacy, you may recall, was found in an emanation from a penumbra. Not from anywhere else, mind… but from there.
As such, it’s not surprising to find that it protects whatever whoever is arguing for it wants to protect or that it’s non-existent if the arguer wants it to go ‘way.
If you come at it from the philosophy that “everything is our business”, it’s always frustrating when someone else says “butt out, this is none of your beeswax.”
Rod, googling “coat hanger” and “Bernard Nathanson” is really something you should have done*, since it was a partial reply to your argument. The rest was uncalled for, esp since in this very thread, we discussed [and I questioned] the constitutional right of doctors to perform abortions, rather than concentrate on the question of the mother’s legal jeopardy.
Y’know deBoer’s question about tactics and Lib60’s “knife fight” lament are brought into high relief here. By whatever means necessary, eh?
“In his classic 1979 book Aborting America, Dr. [Bernard] Nathanson wrote, “How many deaths were we talking about when abortion was illegal? In NARAL, we generally emphasized the frame of the individual case, not the mass statistics, but when we spoke of the latter it was always 5,000 to 10,000 deaths a year. I confess that I knew that the figures were totally false and I suppose that others did too if they stopped to think of it. But in the ‘morality’ of our revolution, it was a useful figure, widely accepted, so why go out of our way to correct it with honest statistics? The overriding concern was to get the laws eliminated, and anything within reason that had to be done was permissible.”
http://www.sodahead.com/living/chilean-study-proves-that-outlawing-abortion-does-not-lead-to-coat-hanger-deaths/question-2645367/
Rod, googling “coat hanger” and “Bernard Nathanson” is really something you should have done*, since it was a partial reply to your argument.
How do you know I didn’t? FTR, I was in a hurry when I replied earlier, but I have since read your linked material.
I HEREBY RETRACT AND REPUDIATE MY EARLIER COMMENT REGARDING COAT-HANGER ABORTIONS AND THE POSSIBLE DEATHS OF WOMEN RESULTING FROM ILLEGAL ABORTIONS. IT WAS WRITTEN IN HASTE AND WAS UNNECESSARILY COMBATIVE AND PROVOCATIVE.
Happy now?
The rest was uncalled for, esp since in this very thread, we discussed [and I questioned] the constitutional right of doctors to perform abortions, rather than concentrate on the question of the mother’s legal jeopardy.
Not so damn fast, pardner. My argument wasn’t about the mother’s legal jeopardy, although that’s an interesting question in its own right. It was about establishing probable cause that a crime had been committed. I’ve watched enough episodes of Law and Order to grok that, in general, a murder investigation is launched upon the discovery of a dead body or, at the very least, a missing person under suspicious circumstances.
I have yet to see any pro-life activist willing to honestly acknowledge these issues , much less address them. And so far you’re no exception.
So we’re jumping ahead to the logistical argument? How could we ever devote resources to the prevention of something that requires a *LOT* of resources into researching?
There are entire departments of the police devoted to shutting down massage parlors, botany hobbyists, and god knows what else. The whole “do you really want government big enough to know about the deepest/darkest parts of your life and to enforce laws that deal with them?” horse has been stolen from the barn already.
There is no door to lock since the barn has since burned down.
The land has been sold and there is a business park there now.
Ironically, the business park has a Chick-fil-A on it.
Rod, I wasn’t and am not prepared for the entire moral calculus on the abortion question in this comment box, when volumes upon volumes have been written on it. The subject was tactics.
I’m also attempting to be respectful of the subjectivity in these matters and stay at arm’s length from asserting what is moral right and wrong, and simply seeking necessary distinctions—for instance that sodomy comes under a right of privacy whereas gay marriage is a matter of public policy—two different things.
Then there’s the question of moral necessity, which abortion carries but I opine gay issues do not, since the latter, although important, isn’t a matter of life and death.
In fact, the coathanger argument was and is the strongest if not only pro-choice argument from moral necessity—to save the lives of the women accidentally killing themselves with illegal abortions! This took it out of the realm of theory and rightstalk to immediate and grave necessity, a much higher tier of moral argument.
[That the coathanger argument turned out to be exponentially exaggerated to the point of being a lie—as the co-founder of NARAL admitted—is a key counterargument. And frankly, the reason i presented it was not to “win” an argument with you in a combox, but to put that fact out there for whoever’s reading this.
I don’t know about you, but I didn’t know what a lie that was until rather recently, and I’d be surprised if you or many of our readers are aware of it either. it;’s one of those unpleasant facts they don’t tell us about, because it screws up the agenda and the narrative.
As for abortion being murder, it’s not really the argument—I used “babykiller” facilely, and it was unfair. I was just impatient with the question “who is Hitler in all this,” as though that requires an answer.
Abortion is sui generis, a thing to itself, unique. Analogies only get us so far. As a consensus type, I think an outright and total ban on abortion would be tyrannical, since the majority of Americans believe it should be permitted at the early stages, far fewer as the baby/fetus gets closer to his or her birthdate. Is there a point before birth where abortion is indeed murder? I think we might find a majority who think, yes, it is.
On the philosophical level about killing our countrymen out of “moral necessity,” well, we cannot go there. I can only point to the very difficult case of John Brown, whose truth is marching on.
C’mon, JB, it’s not just a logistical argument. It’s a Fourth Amendment, probable-cause-for-search-and-seizure argument.
Not that I would deny that that’s also been pretty much shredded already, too. That doesn’t seem to be among the right-wing’s favorite amendments, huh?
Rod, I can understand that you’re interested in “The Right Is Worse” and you should feel free to write an essay explaining how much worse they are and then use that essay as a jumping off point to a conclusion about why you’re so proud to be a member of the left that, seriously, is a lot better when it comes to issues raised by the various Amendments in the Bill of Rights.
I’m less interested in that conversation. Feel free to have it without me.
I’m more interested in the Rights protected by the stupid piece of paper that nobody reads anymore because it’s like a hundred years old.
You put it perfectly here, Kyle.
People will differ, there’s no inherent reason anybody should have political views as a factor when they make a dining choice. Why they come up at all is due to the scale of modern business, and a perceived political power slant favoring large-scale business owners*, the fear being that their preferences are much more likely than anyone else to become law. Yet to approach their social views by trying to hurt them economically via government is to assume into legitimacy the idea that government force should mold the culture — which is what the real problem is.
To the extent that personally conservative businessfolk already care about backing up their cultural beliefs via government, this type of tactic says they’re correct to do so, since that’s what liberals are doing.
(* – there’s a locally owned sandwich shop I frequent here. I’ve never even thought about the personal politics of the guy running it…whose face I see every time I walk in. )
Fried chicken stops a beating heart.
If you eat enough of it.
I recall back int he 70’s when radical anti-nuclear activists would break into government buildings and sldeghammer warheads or something similar, based on the “moral necessity” logic.
I recall thinking what a Pandora’s box that opened- that once you make that argument legitimate, everyone can use it- animal rights activists, environmentalists, anyone.
For the record, denying permits to Chik-Fil-A seeems like an unwise extension of this trend, in my view. But as I mentioned in the comments that TVD found comical, I am tired of bringing a knife to a gunfight.
American conservatives haven’t shied away from using whatever means necessary to deny mosques or abortion clinics the ability to operate.
Boycotts and targeted support, on the other hand, are a very good tactic, one that needs more emphasis.
I hesitate to explicate your comment @ Balloon Juice, Lib60. Perhaps you’ll be kind enough to.
>>>>I think it’s a really bad idea for Liberal local pols to bend the rules for things like this, for two reasons. First, it undercuts any moral high ground we might have when THEY do it, and at the same time allows them to say, “You see? Liberals don’t believe in free speech!”<<<<
Traditionally that has been my viewpoint as well.
However, I have noticed that the conservative movement has not paid any price for their abortion rule-bending, and their curtailment of free speech hasn’t ever resulted in them losing an election.
As other mention, I am tired of showing up at a gunfight with a rubber knife.
Not sure what needs explication but I will, at the risk of being redundant.
The previous commenter fretted about being seen as the Bad Guys for infringing the free speech rights of Chick-Fil-A.
I am generally wary of losing the messaging war, but have noticed that strong arm tactics have not resulted in any electoral losses for conservatives.
neither group is principled beyond desires for their own power, no. such is the sports bar.
You open up interesting doors here, Lib60. Rahm Emmanuel is the former WH Chief of Staff. You are the Bad Guys here for threatening the rights of free speech and of conscience. We’re talking major elected officials here, not to mention the daily leftish routine of alleging bigotry, racism.
Like Jonathan Chait, a not-bad lefty commentator, one of the best of your lot, alleging racism for Obama’s “you didn’t build that” gaffe.
This is getting out of hand.
It’s the left who have brought knives to a boxing match, Queensberry, the laws of civility, the law of civilization be damned. The administration has declared war on freedom of conscience, and this one’s going to the mattresses.
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2012/0727/Obamacare-US-judge-lets-Catholic-owned-firm-cut-contraception-from-coverage
Out of courtesy for your anticipated sincere reply, Lib60—which yours is—I din’t even take the opportunity to score some easy mockery points on you for your orig comment. But this is a godamm problem. You wonder if it’s righteous that you should cheat because you’re on the side of the angels.
Exactly.
You have righteous grounds for counterattack about that mosque thing in Murfreesboro.
But it’s similar to the claim that blacks can’t be racist because they have no power—the American right has no power to shut down the left’s free speech. They don’t control the media, they don’t control the academy, they don’t control the major cities [Boston, SF and Chicago mayors took a shot at this one]. They certainly don’t control the LoOG. 😉
Murfreesboro is not a media or academic center, nor is it likely to become one. The Founding Fathers recognized that the “free exercise” of religion would mean Islam too, even if the Founders din’t know very much about it. Couldn’t be any worse than Roman Catholicism, which to a man they hated.
As for
the “moral necessity” logic…
I recall thinking what a Pandora’s box that opened- that once you make that argument legitimate, everyone can use it- animal rights activists, environmentalists, anyone.
this is something that can only be discussed away from the madding crowd, by philosophical types of good will, and certainly not in the grenade toss of partisan politics. “Moral necessity” and “by any means necessary” is necessarily the end of civilization as we currently know it.
Slavery and race issues are in my view corollaries to Godwin’s Law—they detonate the discussion. One could not defend racial inequality any more than one could defend Nazism. I felt I was cheating by bringing up Plessy v. Ferguson, which established Jim Crow and “separate but equal” as constitutional—but which we now consider moral obscenities.
[And I won’t claim the moral certainty for the pro-life position that we now consider as self-evident when it comes to race. There are fundamental differences that defy lumping it all together in a morass of analogies.]
But what of John Brown? What do you do in matters of life and death, when it’s legal to kill innocents? We 21st century Americans cannot discuss John Brown’s moral imperative cogently; in 1859, all they could do with him was hang him.
The von Stauffenberg Plot to blow up Hitler’s ass was illegal, of course. It is believed by many that Dietrich Bonhoeffer, whose name I am unworthy to type, took part.
Bonhoeffer’s fellow prisoner, Payne Best, described what happened when the SS came to take him to Flossenberg prison where he was hanged:
He [Bonhoeffer] had hardly finished his last prayer when the door opened and two evil-looking men in civilian clothes came in and said,
“Prisoner Bonhoeffer. Get ready to come with us.” Those words “Come with us” – for all prisoners they had come to mean one thing only – the scaffold.
We bade him good-bye –he drew me aside –“This is the end,” he said. “For me the beginning of life.”
Moral necessity indeed. You open up a big door here—the biggest?
[Thx for yr sincere reply. I endeavor to reciprocate.]
Tom-
You’re talking often about liberals and leftists and what-have-you, but seem to be ignoring all those from that side of the aisle who are just as disgusted with the actions of these mayors as you are. Russell had a great post on the matter. I weighed in above and Rod below. There is a place to call on those from the left who support this tactic, but your refusal to even engage those who do not fit this stereotype make it harder to take your criticism seriously.
I don’t think the Mayors honestly think they can stop Chic-A-Filla from opening.
Rather, they are rallying the base. The base of the Democratic Party supports gay marriage very strongly. At least many young people (20s and 30-somethings do). Rahm and company are merely using their office to show this to the political right.
There is nothing wrong with Democratic politicians of Democratic cities telling right-wingers that we have our values, we are Americans, and don’t think you can come here and make a buck without respecting our values.
Most of my friends seem very happy about Democratic politicians standing up for gay rights instead of being wishy-washy.
As an activist, my sincere reply is that then the opposition complains about how unfair we are, it means we’re winning.
And I know that from having been on the other side many a time.
But honestly I am confused by your post- are you arguing a moral necessity for shutting down abortion clinics via zoning laws and health regulations? Or are you saying that is just as outrageous as denying apermit to Chik-Fil-A?
And is Rahm the Von Stauffenberg character? Or is he Hitler?
The argument Tom’s making is that moral necessity legitimizes legislation that restricts the legal permission (ie., right) to an abortion. Tom is, it seems to me, playing pretty fast and loose with the meaning of the law here. He’s essentially saying that abortion rights are the law of the land, but it’s an unjust law (he thinks this is the case, apparently, on both procedural as well substantive grounds). So restrictions on access to abortion at the state level is justified (on his view) even if it directly conflicts with federal law (by restricting a generally applicable right). His claim that the right to abortion is not an absolute right is specious: it’s absolute to the exact same degree as any other law.
His argument from moral necessity, if taken seriously, also legitimizes extra legal actions taken by abortion opponents, and that’s a dangerous road to go down. Taking that step in practice implies that the person so acting doesn’t think that the law applies to them (since it’s unjust and all).
But that leads to a problem for views like Tom is advocating here. If extra-legal action isn’t justified, then that means the rule of law obtains. And if the rule of law obtains, then laws permitting abortion ought to obtain as well. Given that abortion rights are the law of the land at the federal level, states don’t have – or ought not have – any recourse to limit the expression of that right unilaterally. In concert, of course they do: either via federal legislation or the amendment process. But abortion opponents reject these procedural measures since they think – incoherently, it seems to me – that abortion rights aren’t legitimate to begin with, since they’re not justified at the legal level. This strikes me as an argument of convenience, tho, since even if abortion rights were accorded to women by some other process, the anti- crowd would still argue and act as if those rights were illegitimate. Afterall, the actions entailed by those rights would remain fundamentally immoral, on their view.
So the legal argument, in my view, piggy-backs off the moral one, suggesting that a complete restriction on abortion services is the end game. One way or the other.
The opposition is complaining about Emmanuel, etc., Lib60. That means you’re winning?
The OP is about Freddie deBoer complaining about the opposition’s tactics* and you yourself complain about your knife in a gunfight, the BJ commenters complain that liberals aren’t nasty enough. Does this mean they’re winning?
As for ‘moral necessity,’ it’s a philosophical discussion, inappropriate for the adversarial partisan level. But yes, certainly the babykillers are Hitler. That would be a duh.
[I don’t believe gay issues—advocacy or opposition to gay marriage—rise to the level of moral necessity, as they are not a matter of life and death.]
*I also think deBoer’s equivalency is invalid, for reasons given. A comparison to the Murfreesboro mosque would be appropriate, however.
No, Mister Stillwater, I’m delineating extra-legal and legal explicitly. 2 different discussions.
The recently-upheld South Dakota law requiring abortionists to disclose the higher risk of the mother’s suicide is so far held to be legal. No different from warning labels on cigarette packs, I make it.
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/07/24/12930591-south-dakota-abortion-suicide-advisory-upheld-by-federal-appeals-court?lite
There is no equivalency to the proposed harassment of Chick-fil-A for its owner’s thoughtcrime.
Since I’m now at the “no, I didn’t say that” and “that’s not what I meant” stage, I’m gonna duck out here. The charitable reader has enough of my thoughts and words here to piece together my point. Peace.
I don’t think other people’s abuse of the constitutional rights (and I’ll assume arguendo that that’s what pro-lifers are doing) justifies our abuse of those rights. (I say “our” to refer to people who support ssm, because I’m one of the supporters.)
If Chick-fil-A could be shown to be actively discriminating against LGBT in its hiring practices then these mayors would have a moral leg to stand on. But just because they don’t like what the CEO said in an interview? As a liberal I just find that embarrassing.
Now if they wanted to do something closer to what the pro-life activist politicians are doing, they could require all restaurants in the city limits to be open to serve customers on Sunday. Sort of a reverse blue law.
I think that liberals have gone completely astray if they start advocating boycotts against anyone that doesn’t support their positions. It’s not like the CEO of Chick-fil-A was advocating for marching homosexuals into camps or anything: he is spending his own money to support a cause he believes in. I would feel much more comfortable with persuasion as a tactic rather than bullying ideological opponents into silence.
There are two kinds of boycotts and one is kinda iffy and one is, it seems to me, what boycotts are for.
The boycott of a company because they advertise with someone bad? That’s the wrong kind of boycott, if you ask me. While the whole “may not agree with what you say something something right to say it” bar is high to the point where it’s reasonable for most non-extremists to disagree with it, the bar of “I won’t push for your viewpoint to be squelched” seems to be much more reachable even for reasonable people… and that includes not boycotting companies that advertise on, say, MSNBC.
However, the whole “I disagree with what your company stands for” strikes me as a fundamentally reasonable reason to not buy the company’s product. Hell, even to tell other people “hey, don’t buy from company, this is what they stand for”.
I mean, *I* have stopped buying Chick-fil-A. It irritates me because they’ve got the best spicy chicken sandwich on the market and waffle fries that taste like little baked potatoes and they’re even good when they’re not hot anymore… but as much as I want to eat Chick-fil-A’s food, I don’t want to put my money in Cathy’s pockets.
“…waffle fries that [are] even good when they’re not hot anymore…”
There have been a lot of crazy things said here at the LoOG. This might be the craziest! A french fry still good when it’s not hot?!?!?! Impossible! I’ve long said that I would give all my riches if someone had a truly effective way to make French Fries delicious for more than five minutes. If Chick-fil-A has indeed accomplished this, maybe Jesus had a point all along…
They fry in peanut oil. It’s almost as good as beef tallow.
Almost.
I could be mistaken, but I thought I read that Chick-fil-A will deny benefits to same-sex partners that state law otherwise requires? Or something to that effect? If that is the case, I think boycotts are warranted, as this is discriminatory. Otherwise, if the case is as you say it is, it is a bit trickier. Yes, it is the CEOs ‘own money’, but he makes that money (or at least part of it) through the sale of delicious chicken sandwiches.
Think of it this way… Paul Newman’s products say (or at least used to say) that a portion of the proceeds of the sale of each bottle/jar/whatever went to Cause X. Folks who found Cause X laudable might be encouraged to buy the product. By making his stance public, Chick-fil-A’s owner is sort of saying that a portion of the proceeds of the sale of each delicious chicken sandwich go to Cause Y. If folks find Cause Y to be deplorable, is it really problematic for them to opt not to buy said delicious chicken sandwiches? If a boycott is evidence of having gone “astray”, than it seems as if you are saying folks are required to buy products regardless of what they know is done with the money from the sale if they previously bought the product.
I thought I read that Chick-fil-A will deny benefits to same-sex partners that state law otherwise requires?
I’d need a cite to believe that, because being in violation of the law is lot more serious than having unfortunate opinions. (Though I confess that I don’t know what “otherwise” means there. Under what circumstances does state law not require it?)
On the other hand, there are many companies that offer domestic partner benefits even where not required by law (Microsoft, Google, etc.) I’d certainly believe that Chick-Fil-A is not among them.
I was indeed wrong. I read this quote by Menino (“You can’t have a business in the city of Boston that discriminates against a population.”) and commentary surrounding it and misunderstood what Chick-fil-A was doing. Chick-fil-A, as a business, is not engaging in any discrimination. Menino’s statement there is pretty off-base.
It’s worth noting that Menino has since walked back his threats, acknowledging he has no authority to stop Chick-fil-A from setting up shop in Boston outside of using his “bully-pulpit” to influence public opinion. That is still a questionable tactic for the Mayor to take (especially in the manner in which he is taking it), but at least we know that Chick-fil-A will not face the formal political opposition they were threatened with:
http://articles.boston.com/2012-07-27/metro/32869124_1_political-science-gay-marriage-chick-fil-a-stance
Not true.
The issue is that Chick-fil-A donates money to Christian charities, some of which are opposed to gay marriage, like Focus on the Family I’m not crazy about Focus on the Family, and consider many of its views antithetical to my own. But it’s by no means primarily an “anti-homosexual” group. They are not donating to political organizations, and have no explicit political agenda.
Dan Cathy has made his views on same-sex marriage pretty public: that was tactically pretty stupid for a national company. But for liberals to spend their energy punishing the chain for giving money to Christian charities with no particular specific political agenda just reinforces the culture war, and makes it more–not less–likely that discrimination will continue.
There are a million, billion things that could be occupying the liberal attention span: business and evironmental regulation is under threat, global warming has the potential to disrupt the lives and food supplies of millions, civil rights are crumbling, and income inequality is greater than any time since the precipice of the Great Depression. That liberals choose to spend their efforts and good will punishing someone for publicly stating an opinion that they disagree with: that’s a foolish misappropriation of political capital. They are doing it to feel good about themselves, and morally superior to a chain of chicken sandwich restaurants.
Given everything that is happening in our politics and culture right now, you don’t think there might be better targets for concerted political action?
Eh, I don’t see a boycott as “action” as much as inaction. Instead of grabbing lunch at Chick-fil-A, I don’t. It’s just as easy to grab a meal from (somewhere else) if I don’t pack a lunch in the first place (HA!).
{pssst} JB. {off thread question} Is Gifts of Gab loading for you, and if so, do you have any idea why it won’t load for me?
{pssst} dude no it’s not loading for me either, I’ve changed browsers and everything
And now there’s comments in “Gift of Gab Around The League” that don’t appear on their parent page. I don’t want to put anyone off with technical jargon, but I think something’s messed up.
They are doing it to feel good about themselves, and morally superior to a chain of chicken sandwich restaurants.
My brother and his wife are very religious. When my sister-in-law, and later my niece, were looking for part-time employment, Chick-fil-A was the only place they would work, specifically because CfA has a strict “closed on Sundays” rule. (That was really all about my sis-in-law. My niece is “normal” now that she’s grown and out of that house.)
Now maybe Dan Cathy really is that devout, but in my experience that kind of thing is all about signalling. I see it a lot around here, signs and ads for a business that will have that little Xtian fishy thing in the corner. It’s saying, “We’re good Christians, so all you good Christians do business with us, cuz we’re… you know, good and all.”
I guess I just don’t see the big problem with turning it around on them. Or is it only Christians that are allowed to do that sort of thing?
Just seems like priorities are a bit misguided…
Snark-
Liberals waging a war on Chick-fil-A (if that is indeed really happening) is indeed misguided.
Individual liberals opting not to buy delicious Chick-fil-A chicken sandwiches is consumers exercising their rights and I have no problem with it. Other liberals deliberately misinforming those liberals to think Chick-fil-A is doing something they are not (“Psssst… the chicken sandwiches are so tasty because they are breaded in gay people.”) is wholly problematic.
There is a lot of nuance here.
I don’t agree with anything you just said.
My only point was that liberals don’t really have a tactically useful sense of proportion in fighting their battles…
Breaded in gay people? Intriguing…
Are they gluten-free?
Gluten-free? Yes. Glutes free? Lord no!
Why did you think they taste so FABULOUS?
I’d like to see Walmart get into the abortion business and just watch everyone’s head explode.
I think what is going on here is politics and playing to the base. And also the free speech rights of elected Democratic party politicians.
Yes, there is a first Amendment and it would be unconstitutional to prevent Chic-a-filla from opening restaurants because of the stance of the CEO. However, Rahm Emmanuel and Merrino are using the bully pulpit to show their democratic bona fides. The Democratic Party is now the party of gay marriage and it is more or less part of the party platform because of Biden and Obama’s actions last spring.
All Emmanuel and Merrino are doing is saying that Boston and Chicago are Democratic cities and this is what we believe. I am pretty sure they know they are unable to prevent the franchise from opening. This is a gesture to show they are standing up for part values and that is fine.
Why shouldn’t Democratic politicians say “these are our values and we don’t appreciate you wanting our business without respecting them?” This is what Conor Williams was talking about when he bemoans Democratic politicians and the left not using the language of morality. This is Democratic morality.
http://articles.boston.com/2012-07-27/metro/32869124_1_political-science-gay-marriage-chick-fil-a-stance
“Why shouldn’t Democratic politicians say “these are our values and we don’t appreciate you wanting our business without respecting them?” This is what Conor Williams was talking about when he bemoans Democratic politicians and the left not using the language of morality. This is Democratic morality.”
I see no problem with this… IF this is what Menino had said/done (I’m not familiar with what the Chicago mayor’s tact was). Menino said he would make it unduly hard for them to secure permits despite the fact that the permits have nothing to do with the owner’s stance. Not only did he not have this power but it was a serious breech of his role as the Mayor. If he had come out and said, “I am deeply bothered and in strong disagreement with Cathy’s position. I have no intention of giving him my business. If you feel as I do, I recommend you do the same,” we’d be having a very different conversation, if one at all.
It is worth noting that Menino is a lame duck mayor who has announced that this will be his last term. I wonder how much that factored into him sticking his foot in his mouth as he did here.
Punks. Darrow got a better welcome for the Monkey Trial.
http://www.doesgodexist.org/JanFeb00/TheMythOfTheScopesTrial.html
Liberals already ban freedom of speech……
If you say something bad about someone a liberal likes, they call that hate speech. But if you say something bad about someone a liberal does not like, they call that freedom of speech.
Show me a single hate speech law that has ever protected anyone or any group that is not a special interest group of the left……….
Show me a single hate speech law…