Students vote to ban Chick-fil-A from Johns Hopkins campus


Please consider donating to Behind the Black, by giving either a one-time contribution or a regular subscription, as outlined in the tip jar to the right. Your support will allow me to continue covering science and culture as I have for the past twenty years, independent and free from any outside influence.

Fascists: In an 18-8 vote, the Student Government Association at Johns Hopkins has voted to ban Chick-fil-A from opening a franchise on campus because of the conservative opinion of its CEO towards same-sex marriage.

Most of the news reports on this story have focused on the reasons the students voted for the ban. Having such a restaurant on campus will cause students to experience “microaggressions” that will make them feel uncomfortable. We can’t have that!

I want to focus on the vote itself. That such a large majority of the student government body supports the idea that it is okay to squelch someone’s business merely because of a political disagreement speaks volumes about our future, and it is not good. These are the people that will be running society in a few years, and it is clear that they believe oppression and the use of force against their opponents is appropriate. The cultural norm for them is not to debate their opponents but to smash a boot into their face.

Based on this, if you think modern American culture is getting oppressive now, just wait. You ain’t seen nothing yet.

Share

6 comments

  • pzatchok

    This means very little to Chick-fil-a.

    All they need do is set up a just off campus establishment with a lot of outside seating for walk up customers.

    Off campus they are then free to arrest anyone who comes on their property to do any protesting. Which quickly shuts up little collage punks who end up missing a few classes while in jail waiting for bail.

  • Cotour

    I agree with your business plan if that is what Chik fil A might want to execute, but disagree with the assumption that they are “free” to have anyone arrested and that the fear of arrest is what will discourage protesters. You of course are assuming that the police would proceed with those arrest requests from the company and that they will be fulfilled. I doubt it unless violence or a severe degree of vandalism were to happen.

    I think a better strategy might be if there were any protesters would be while the protests were under way to offer them free sandwiches and drinks. While not protesting we can probably be confident that many of the student / protesters are actually their very good customers and love their product.

  • wodun

    So now you can’t remove people from private property? In another post you spoke of freedoms trumping other freedoms but I think you have it all wrong. Just because someone is protesting, doesn’t mean they have the right to do so in someone’s business or on someone else’s property.

  • pzatchok

    Unions can not protest on company property and those people are at least removed if not arrested when it happens around here. And this is a VERY pro union area.
    Why do political action groups get the opportunity to do even more?

    I’ll tell you why. Politics. Simply politics.
    The targeted group either does not want to look bad and so just lives with it or the prosecutor doesn’t want to look bad.
    The police do and will arrest the protesters.

    As soon as Daddy has to bail his little punk out of jail for something this stupid then so does his funding for school and the students housing.
    As soon as the kids need to find jobs and work for a living they very soon forget all about silly little things like caring about some Chicken shacks private thoughts on gay people.
    And yes they are private even though the public found out about them. The Chicken shack is not doing anything at their store fronts about it. They are serving everyone equally.

    As long as the local owners are willing to install cameras for evidence and push for prosecutions.

  • Edward

    If you were to speak to today’s graduating class, what would you say?

    Here is what Bill Whittle has to say:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDNMglEA2oQ (14 minutes)

  • Cotour

    I was wrong, they are now given space to do their violence and destruction.

    http://fusion.net/story/126587/the-odd-tactic-of-giving-baltimore-protesters-space-to-destroy-property/

    My point was that just because the company may request the protesters to be removed the police may be ordered not to do so based in politics and not in reason or what is “just”.

    ” Just because someone is protesting, doesn’t mean they have the right to do so in someone’s business or on someone else’s property.”

    I am not saying that at all.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *