• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Rahm: “Chick-fil-A Values Are Not Chicago Values” [W:698]

The Civil Rights Act keeps a local government from doing that. There is no similar act that is specific to supporting a political or ideological movement.

The equal protection clause does however protect Religious discrimination at an equal level as Racial discrimination, and at the very least an argument can be made here that the issue is at least in part motivated due to a desire to punish for a RELIGIOUS belief (for example, note the outrage over the fact he suggested it'd cause "god's wrath").

As fun as it is for some people, such as in this thread, to degrade and deride those that believe in a "sky-fairy"....being discriminated against for religious beliefs is no more lawful than discriminating against one for the color of their skin.

Now, you could say that "Well, they may have issues with his religious views, but it's ultimately his stance on a political issue / support of a group that's a problem".

In which case, change the other individuals statement from "because he's black" to "because he supports affirmative action laws" or "because he supports the naacp" or something else that's not DIRECTLY because of his race but rather because of his political view / support for a group.

Now, I agree with your latter post abou tnot knowing how it'd be ruled in court. I can see the argument. And I think on a technicality you could easily work it where the government could do a work around where their motivation is to punish due to political/religious views but does so through legitimate means. That doesn't change the fact that I would find that unethical, regardless if it was Chick-Fil-A in Chicago/Boston or the Mosque near ground zero.

Pressure by people is one thing....the use of government force, to me, is something entirely different
 
Last edited:
If you mean "good" in terms of healthy for you...by and large you're correct

If you mean "good" as in tasty...that's a matter of opinion. One I dare say a number of people disagree with you on.

Can't speak to some of the West Coast fast food joints that we don't have back here in the east/south. However....compared to the McDonalds, Wendy's, Burger Kings, Arbys, Sonics, Taco Bells, KFC's, Popeye's, BoJangles, Hardees, and Checker's that are in my general area Chick-Fil-A is easily at the top of the heap.
I would place Popeyes above Chick fil-A. (I've tried all the others, except Bojangles.)

I always find it interesting and humorous that I almost never hear anybody do anything but sing Chick fil-A's praises (food wise) until this issue comes up, then suddenly people... coincidentally of the same general political bent... start proclaiming how bad their food is. Yeah, ok, people, if that makes you feel better. :rolleyes:
 
If you mean "good" in terms of healthy for you...by and large you're correct

If you mean "good" as in tasty...that's a matter of opinion. One I dare say a number of people disagree with you on.

Can't speak to some of the West Coast fast food joints that we don't have back here in the east/south. However....compared to the McDonalds, Wendy's, Burger Kings, Arbys, Sonics, Taco Bells, KFC's, Popeye's, BoJangles, Hardees, and Checker's that are in my general area Chick-Fil-A is easily at the top of the heap.

I imagine it depends on which location you are at. Each restaurant is different. We have a Taco Bell here that is busy as hell, but their quality is crap. Here, Hardee's has the best quality. It may be the opposite in other towns. The Chick Fil-A's I have eaten at were not impressive. I'm sure some locations may be better.
 
Farrakhan has made more public anti-gay statements than the Chik-fil-A CEO has.

Maybe not being Christian has something to do with it.
 
I would place Popeyes above Chick fil-A. (I've tried all the others, except Bojangles.)

I always find it interesting and humorous that I almost never hear anybody do anything but sing Chick fil-A's praises (food wise) until this issue comes up, then suddenly people... coincidentally of the same general political bent... start proclaiming how bad their food is. Yeah, ok, people, if that makes you feel better. :rolleyes:

actually in another thread an openly gay forum member was singing their praises, I do believe.

PS she's also liberal
 
I always find it interesting and humorous that I almost never hear anybody do anything but sing Chick fil-A's praises (food wise) until this issue comes up, then suddenly people... coincidentally of the same general political bent... start proclaiming how bad their food is. Yeah, ok, people, if that makes you feel better. :rolleyes:

That's because some people cannot go a second of their lives without attaching political import to everything around them. And if someone/something does something they don't agree with, absolutely everything about that someone/something instantly becomes the worst kind of vile and evil in every possible respect.

That's a recipe for a sad, frustrating life.
 
I would place Popeyes above Chick fil-A. (I've tried all the others, except Bojangles.)

I always find it interesting and humorous that I almost never hear anybody do anything but sing Chick fil-A's praises (food wise) until this issue comes up, then suddenly people... coincidentally of the same general political bent... start proclaiming how bad their food is. Yeah, ok, people, if that makes you feel better. :rolleyes:

I like Popeye's better. It's not much better though. Most fast food across the board has gone down in quality.
 
I would place Popeyes above Chick fil-A. (I've tried all the others, except Bojangles.)

I always find it interesting and humorous that I almost never hear anybody do anything but sing Chick fil-A's praises (food wise) until this issue comes up, then suddenly people... coincidentally of the same general political bent... start proclaiming how bad their food is. Yeah, ok, people, if that makes you feel better. :rolleyes:

Yeah, when is Rahm going to shutdown Popeyes who promote their product stereotypically with a black woman as their spokesperson?
 
I'm not a fan of Farrakahn, but what exactly are the Jewish community and Chick Fil-A doing about the violence in Chicago?

why should they be doing anything about it? what is the mayor and the police force doing about it? what are black community leaders (organizers) doing about it? What are the public schools doing about it?

to think that a fast food company is responsible for curing violence is just foolish.
 
Even if it is grandstanding... which it probably is... is this the type of politician you want? Really?

Having an opinion is one thing. Expressing an opinion is fine. Saying that you would (if given the opportunity) use your opinion to over-rule the overwhelmingly accepted rule-of-law and concept that people are allowed to believe and think independently, and deny an otherwise law-abiding business simply because you disagree with what the business owner THINKS, is quite another.

No wonder we're so screwed up. We've lost any sense of objectivity. In our inner desire to promote what we feel is right, we are willing to be apologists for opposite actions that are actually worse than the actions and/or thoughts that we are opposing. I'm sorry, but these responses (and defending them) is actually more repugnant than the original controversy.
 
Yeah, when is Rahm going to shutdown Popeyes who promote their product stereotypically with a black woman as their spokesperson?

It balances out White Castle.
 
why should they be doing anything about it? what is the mayor and the police force doing about it? what are black community leaders (organizers) doing about it? What are the public schools doing about it?

to think that a fast food company is responsible for curing violence is just foolish.

Well, if you read the link, that is why Rahm was welcoming him. I didn't bring it into this conversation. Why don't you ask why Farrakahn isn't making chicken for everyone? :lol:
 
I like Popeye's better. It's not much better though. Most fast food across the board has gone down in quality.

I like Chick fil-A, food-wise, but I don't think it's anything special. More run-of-the mill. I would never go out of my way to eat at one, though I have made a 40 mile trip just to take myself and my nephew to the closest Popeyes. :2razz:

I do know many people... primarily women, for reasons that I cannot explain... that think Chick fil-A is the greatest*.

*- Again, food-wise. I know several women who love their food but hate their religion/religious stances. Some of them still eat there, however, while some do not based on their disagreements of principle.
 
Last edited:
Even if it is grandstanding... which it probably is... is this the type of politician you want? Really?

Having an opinion is one thing. Expressing an opinion is fine. Saying that you would (if given the opportunity) use your opinion to over-rule the overwhelmingly accepted rule-of-law and concept that people are allowed to believe and think independently, and deny an otherwise law-abiding business simply because you disagree with what the business owner THINKS, is quite another.

No wonder we're so screwed up. We've lost any sense of objectivity. In our inner desire to promote what we feel is right, we are willing to be apologists for opposite actions that are actually worse than the actions and/or thoughts that we are opposing. I'm sorry, but these responses (and defending them) is actually more repugnant than the original controversy.

IMO, Cathy went from being a Christian just stating their opinion to a Falwell/Robertson radical intimating that natural disasters will strike us if gays get married. This is the same crap that was brought up about interracial marriage decades ago. For many people, it's disgusting.
 
Rahm Emanuel is not good for Chicago in my opinion. The economy is already down, he should be supporting business's, especially business's that have a semblence of moral values.:shrug:
 
Rahm Emanuel is not good for Chicago in my opinion. The economy is already down, he should be supporting business's, especially business's that have a semblence of moral values.:shrug:

I get my moral values from the Hamburglar. Is that bad?
 
I wonder how Rahm will explain it to all the blacks that lose their jobs now after he closes the Chic-fil-a stores.
 
I wonder how Rahm will explain it to all the blacks that lose their jobs now after he closes the Chic-fil-a stores.

I guess there are 14 locations in Illinois. I had no idea. There is even one here in town that I didn't know about. Of course, it's at the State Farm headquarters which I don't work at. :lol:

I would imagine more hispanics work in fast food that black people in Chicago.
 
IMO, Cathy went from being a Christian just stating their opinion to a Falwell/Robertson radical intimating that natural disasters will strike us if gays get married. This is the same crap that was brought up about interracial marriage decades ago. For many people, it's disgusting.

1) it's still completely legal to disagree with miscegenation

2) spouting stupid, religious fueled, bigotry is still protected by the first, just like outdated views on miscegenation. In fact, it's often argued that these offensive, and unpopular, ideas are the very ones that such legislation is meant to protect. And going by your current standard, views like those those supporting civil rights, gay marriage, and atheism would have been repressed long ago, being that they challenged the very foundations of how society viewed itself, and were originally deeply offensive to the majority
 
Back
Top Bottom