NationStates

Soheran wrote:

Wa no Kuni wrote:Exactly! I was neutral on gay marriage, but after this, I am less likely to support it after these douchebags....

I know this is supposed to make me annoyed at the counterproductiveness of the protesters or something, but, actually, it just makes me astonished at the silliness of this reasoning.

What on Earth does this have to do with the merits of same-sex marriage?

if i acted like a douchebag while promoting my cause, would you support it?

Zephie wrote:

Farnhamia wrote:

Zephie wrote:

Haiz wrote:The AFA does the same thing.

So? Does that justify the LGBT people being obnoxious, yelling profanities at shoppers in a store, saying they are fueling hatred and discrimination?

So your point is that people should just behave better, stage their protests in a polite, civilized fashion, preferably far away from the people or organization they are protesting against, so as not to disturb anyone?

To be taken seriously. If you were neutral on the issue and a bunch of gay people starting yelling profanities and acting downright immature and annoying, would you support them?

I wouldnt support Westboro or the AFA either because of that. They could have done better, but ultimately its the same fundamental issue that denies anything related to "special treatment" in First Amendment rights or rights. A protest doesnt mean that its being dictated that a company can't.

Wa no Kuni wrote:

Dododecapod wrote:

Zephie wrote:

Wa no Kuni wrote:

Zephie wrote:

Farnhamia wrote:

Zephie wrote:

Haiz wrote:The AFA does the same thing.

So? Does that justify the LGBT people being obnoxious, yelling profanities at shoppers in a store, saying they are fueling hatred and discrimination?

So your point is that people should just behave better, stage their protests in a polite, civilized fashion, preferably far away from the people or organization they are protesting against, so as not to disturb anyone?

To be taken seriously. If you were neutral on the issue and a bunch of gay people starting yelling profanities and acting downright immature and annoying, would you support them?

Exactly! I was neutral on gay marriage, but after this, I am less likely to support it after these douchebags....

The right way to go about it is to convince people that it is the right thing to do, not tell them they are hatred fueling discriminatory bigots by not supporting gays.

It's working on people's shame and guilt. Good propaganda, provided your target feels that way (and most people in the West do).

So, I'm supposed to have shame to shop at Target now because they supported an anti-gay candidate. Because of it, I am now going to shop more at Target. Not going to feel any shame and guilt.

Good for you. Stand up for what you believe.

Wa no Kuni wrote:

Dododecapod wrote:

Zephie wrote:

Wa no Kuni wrote:

Zephie wrote:

Farnhamia wrote:

Zephie wrote:

Haiz wrote:The AFA does the same thing.

So? Does that justify the LGBT people being obnoxious, yelling profanities at shoppers in a store, saying they are fueling hatred and discrimination?

So your point is that people should just behave better, stage their protests in a polite, civilized fashion, preferably far away from the people or organization they are protesting against, so as not to disturb anyone?

To be taken seriously. If you were neutral on the issue and a bunch of gay people starting yelling profanities and acting downright immature and annoying, would you support them?

Exactly! I was neutral on gay marriage, but after this, I am less likely to support it after these douchebags....

The right way to go about it is to convince people that it is the right thing to do, not tell them they are hatred fueling discriminatory bigots by not supporting gays.

It's working on people's shame and guilt. Good propaganda, provided your target feels that way (and most people in the West do).

So, I'm supposed to have shame to shop at Target now because they supported an anti-gay candidate. Because of it, I am now going to shop more at Target. Not going to feel any shame and guilt.

Same. I think I'm going to go to target to do my food shopping from now on.

Dododecapod wrote:

Blouman Empire wrote:

Dododecapod wrote:

Wa no Kuni wrote:Well, it seems that the minority has the right to harrass the majority.

ABSOLUTELY! It's called free speech.

But only in public or with the permission of the private holders

Nope. As I said before, provided you're willing to move on when asked, or to be arrested, privately-owned publically accessible areas are fair game.

So if they can be arrested and stopped and moved on from saying whatever they want the first amendment doesn't give them that right.

I can go on a killing spree provided I am willing to be arrested, doesn't mean I'm allowed to do it.

Soheran wrote:

Wa no Kuni wrote:Exactly! I was neutral on gay marriage, but after this, I am less likely to support it after these douchebags....

I know this is supposed to make me annoyed at the counterproductiveness of the protesters or something, but, actually, it just makes me astonished at the silliness of this reasoning.

What on Earth does this have to do with the merits of same-sex marriage?

"They" want special treatment.

Tungookska wrote:

Soheran wrote:

Wa no Kuni wrote:Exactly! I was neutral on gay marriage, but after this, I am less likely to support it after these douchebags....

I know this is supposed to make me annoyed at the counterproductiveness of the protesters or something, but, actually, it just makes me astonished at the silliness of this reasoning.

What on Earth does this have to do with the merits of same-sex marriage?

if i acted like a douchebag while promoting my cause, would you support it?

No, I would tell you to f off and go about my business, and the next time I see someone obnoxiously supporting that cause, I would be even more hostile.

Blouman Empire wrote:

Dododecapod wrote:

Blouman Empire wrote:

Dododecapod wrote:

Wa no Kuni wrote:Well, it seems that the minority has the right to harrass the majority.

ABSOLUTELY! It's called free speech.

But only in public or with the permission of the private holders

Nope. As I said before, provided you're willing to move on when asked, or to be arrested, privately-owned publically accessible areas are fair game.

So if they can be arrested and stopped and moved on from saying whatever they want the first amendment doesn't give them that right.

I can go on a killing spree provided I am willing to be arrested, doesn't mean I'm allowed to do it.

There are laws against murder, there are no laws against protest.

Zephie wrote:Exactly. Is target promoting that candidate because of legislation he would support that benefits target? Most likely. Is target promoting him because he is anti-gay? Doubtful.

Hell no. Businesses really don't care about social issues unless they impact the bottom line...I can't blame them either, because they're in it to make money and that comes first within the confines of the law. Now, if Target were actively backing anti-LGBT legislation things might be different, but right now they're interested in making money.

Zephie wrote:

Tungookska wrote:

Soheran wrote:

Wa no Kuni wrote:Exactly! I was neutral on gay marriage, but after this, I am less likely to support it after these douchebags....

I know this is supposed to make me annoyed at the counterproductiveness of the protesters or something, but, actually, it just makes me astonished at the silliness of this reasoning.

What on Earth does this have to do with the merits of same-sex marriage?

if i acted like a douchebag while promoting my cause, would you support it?

No, I would tell you to f off and go about my business, and the next time I see someone obnoxiously supporting that cause, I would be even more hostile.

The irony in this conversation just reached critical point.

Blouman Empire wrote:

Dododecapod wrote:

Blouman Empire wrote:

Dododecapod wrote:

Wa no Kuni wrote:Well, it seems that the minority has the right to harrass the majority.

ABSOLUTELY! It's called free speech.

But only in public or with the permission of the private holders

Nope. As I said before, provided you're willing to move on when asked, or to be arrested, privately-owned publically accessible areas are fair game.

So if they can be arrested and stopped and moved on from saying whatever they want the first amendment doesn't give them that right.

I can go on a killing spree provided I am willing to be arrested, doesn't mean I'm allowed to do it.

That was a poor comparison.

You can protest and speak against things, and provided you dont destroy property or assault someone, and are willing to move, you are allowed to speak, just as its within the private property's right to ask a person to leave based on such actions. The crime is assaulting,destroying property, or being disorderly in not leaving.

Tungookska wrote:if i acted like a douchebag while promoting my cause, would you support it?

You acting or not acting like a douchebag wouldn't have anything to do with it. I mean, that's almost a paradigmatic case of an ad hominem fallacy.

Dododecapod wrote:

Gun Manufacturers wrote:

Dododecapod wrote:

Zephie wrote:

Haiz wrote:The AFA does the same thing.

So? Does that justify the LGBT people being obnoxious, yelling profanities at shoppers in a store, saying they are fueling hatred and discrimination?

No, the first Amendment does that.

Maybe on public property, but Target is private property.

Which is open to public access. They can withdraw your right to be there, but they can't force you to shut up.

Target's solicitation policy is very easy to find on the internet, and it clearly says that Target does not allow solicitation or petitioning at their stores (this group was engaging in both). This group planned this out, and intentionally broke Target's policies. They weren't justified in being obnoxious, yelling profanities at shoppers in a store, and/or saying they are fueling hatred and discrimination.

Vetalia wrote:

Zephie wrote:Exactly. Is target promoting that candidate because of legislation he would support that benefits target? Most likely. Is target promoting him because he is anti-gay? Doubtful.

Hell no. Businesses really don't care about social issues unless they impact the bottom line...I can't blame them either, because they're in it to make money and that comes first within the confines of the law. Now, if Target were actively backing anti-LGBT legislation things might be different, but right now they're interested in making money.

Exactly, and gay-marriage isn't going to increase sales at target, so why should they care?

Vetalia wrote:Businesses really don't care about social issues unless they impact the bottom line...

So boycotters decide to impact their bottom line.

So?

Blouman Empire wrote:

Sith Korriban wrote:

Gun Manufacturers wrote:Personally, I'd consider the repeated shouting of slogans by the person with the bullhorn harassment, if I was attempting to shop in that area of the store.

It's less annoying than horrendous shrieking children, and you don't see those being banned.

They are complained about.

But I do like the childish sentiment behind your post "If he doesn't have to then I don't either waaaaaahhhhhh"

Oh, for fuck's sake...

I don't consider either to be harassment, but I was mostly joking.

Soheran wrote:

Tungookska wrote:if i acted like a douchebag while promoting my cause, would you support it?

You acting or not acting like a douchebag wouldn't have anything to do with it. I mean, that's almost a paradigmatic case of an ad hominem fallacy.

i guess youre theo nly one to think that

Dododecapod wrote:

Blouman Empire wrote:

Dododecapod wrote:

Blouman Empire wrote:

Dododecapod wrote:

Wa no Kuni wrote:Well, it seems that the minority has the right to harrass the majority.

ABSOLUTELY! It's called free speech.

But only in public or with the permission of the private holders

Nope. As I said before, provided you're willing to move on when asked, or to be arrested, privately-owned publically accessible areas are fair game.

So if they can be arrested and stopped and moved on from saying whatever they want the first amendment doesn't give them that right.

I can go on a killing spree provided I am willing to be arrested, doesn't mean I'm allowed to do it.

There are laws against murder, there are no laws against protest.

Then how can they be arrested?

Again it isn't protected by the first admendment, if they can be stopped by the holders or by the government (through the police) then the first admendment doesn't give them that right

Gun Manufacturers wrote:

Dododecapod wrote:

Gun Manufacturers wrote:

Dododecapod wrote:

Zephie wrote:

Haiz wrote:The AFA does the same thing.

So? Does that justify the LGBT people being obnoxious, yelling profanities at shoppers in a store, saying they are fueling hatred and discrimination?

No, the first Amendment does that.

Maybe on public property, but Target is private property.

Which is open to public access. They can withdraw your right to be there, but they can't force you to shut up.

Target's solicitation policy is very easy to find on the internet, and it clearly says that Target does not allow solicitation or petitioning at their stores (this group was engaging in both). This group planned this out, and intentionally broke Target's policies. They weren't justified in being obnoxious, yelling profanities at shoppers in a store, and/or saying they are fueling hatred and discrimination.

Target's policies are irrelevant. Justification is irrelevant. What they did remains legal, and that's the only important aspect. Well, that and whether they got their point across.

Zephie wrote:

Gun Manufacturers wrote:Harassing shoppers, handing out soliciting material, causing a disturbance, and filming people against their wishes: Why weren't these people arrested?

Because it's not politically correct to arrest gay people for trying to promote their culture.

Oh god, not this again. If its like that, then Id assume all the other arrests of gay persons arguably unequal to that of others are just purely coincidental then?

Not to mention in this case no crime was committed.

Soheran wrote:

Vetalia wrote:Businesses really don't care about social issues unless they impact the bottom line...

So boycotters decide to impact their bottom line.

So?

They are slandering target in order to try to get people to stop shopping there. They should be charged with something. It's the equivalent of me trying to tell people to stop shopping at walmart because they burn babies, when they really don't.

Sith Korriban wrote:

Blouman Empire wrote:

Sith Korriban wrote:

Gun Manufacturers wrote:Personally, I'd consider the repeated shouting of slogans by the person with the bullhorn harassment, if I was attempting to shop in that area of the store.

It's less annoying than horrendous shrieking children, and you don't see those being banned.

They are complained about.

But I do like the childish sentiment behind your post "If he doesn't have to then I don't either waaaaaahhhhhh"

Oh, for fuck's sake...

I don't consider either to be harassment, but I was mostly joking.

It's hard to tell with you sometimes.

Plus I am very bored this Sunday afternoon

Zephie wrote:

Soheran wrote:

Vetalia wrote:Businesses really don't care about social issues unless they impact the bottom line...

So boycotters decide to impact their bottom line.

So?

They are slandering target in order to try to get people to stop shopping there. They should be charged with something. It's the equivalent of me trying to tell people to stop shopping at walmart because they burn babies, when they really don't.

It isnt slander to say that they are promoting a candidate and informing them. It is arguably slander to totally make up something and spread it everywhere. But this was not that.

Haiz wrote:

Gun Manufacturers wrote:

Dododecapod wrote:

Zephie wrote:

Haiz wrote:The AFA does the same thing.

So? Does that justify the LGBT people being obnoxious, yelling profanities at shoppers in a store, saying they are fueling hatred and discrimination?

No, the first Amendment does that.

Maybe on public property, but Target is private property.

Its their first amendment right to peacefully assemble. They did not destroy anything, and the store could request that they move or leave.

It's not a first amendment right to cause a public disturbance, harass others, film/photograph people against their stated wishes, and solicit on private property in violation of company policy.

Dododecapod wrote:

Gun Manufacturers wrote:

Dododecapod wrote:

Gun Manufacturers wrote:

Dododecapod wrote:

Zephie wrote:

Haiz wrote:The AFA does the same thing.

So? Does that justify the LGBT people being obnoxious, yelling profanities at shoppers in a store, saying they are fueling hatred and discrimination?

No, the first Amendment does that.

Maybe on public property, but Target is private property.

Which is open to public access. They can withdraw your right to be there, but they can't force you to shut up.

Target's solicitation policy is very easy to find on the internet, and it clearly says that Target does not allow solicitation or petitioning at their stores (this group was engaging in both). This group planned this out, and intentionally broke Target's policies. They weren't justified in being obnoxious, yelling profanities at shoppers in a store, and/or saying they are fueling hatred and discrimination.

Target's policies are irrelevant. Justification is irrelevant. What they did remains legal, and that's the only important aspect. Well, that and whether they got their point across.

So I can bring a megaphone and say "gay people are cocksuckers that need to be put in their place," and that wouldn't be considered hate speech and get me taken away in handcuffs?