Page 2 of 97 FirstFirst 12341252 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 962

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

  1. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    08-07-12 @ 12:02 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    216

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Objective-J View Post
    I laugh at that phrase to, its propaganda since that word is totally subjective
    Yeah, and the worst part is that some people actually think it's been static for all of human history, Western civilization, or whatever parameters you want. When of course the definition of marriage has changed many, many, many times over the centuries, and almost always for the better.
    Last edited by Miguel17; 07-25-12 at 05:36 PM.

  2. #12
    Guru
    ChuckBerry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Lafayette, Louisiana
    Last Seen
    10-28-13 @ 01:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    3,491

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Objective-J View Post
    thats what I was wondering, then after i thought about it, it came to me. This has NOTHING to do with freedom of speech LMAO
    When a business owner is being prevented by government from opening a business because of his opinion on a subject, that certainly is meant to have a chilling effect on similar speech. Instead of pointing out the opinion and letting the market decide for themselves if they want to support the business, government seeks to prevent the business from ever opening. It's a dirty trick.
    Last edited by ChuckBerry; 07-25-12 at 05:36 PM. Reason: typo
    The morality of abortion is not a religious belief, any more than the morality of slavery, apartheid, rape, larceny, murder or arson is a religious belief. These are norms of the natural law of mankind and can be legislated even in a completely religionless society.

  3. #13
    Sometimes wrong

    ttwtt78640's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Uhland, Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:55 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    34,601

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Miguel17 View Post
    What does any of this have to do with freedom of speech? As far as I know, the Supreme Court has not included opening restaurants as expressions of constitutionally protected speech. Although, you never know after Citizens United. City officials are well within their rights to block a private company from opening locations within their cities. The fact that its concerned with the Chick-fil-A's guy's imbecilic comments about marriage is immaterial.
    Are you kidding me? What, other than expressing a political viewpoint, has this BUSINESS done wrong? Did they refuse to hire gays? Did they refuse to serve gays? You want no discrimination against gays (which was not even alleged) yet CHEER discriminating against those that choose to support traditional marraige, the current law? I suppose if a restaurant owner wanted polygamy or SSM that it would be welcomed, or if they simply said nothing at all on the subject; but say that you like the CURRENT definition of marriage and you should be banned? No, that could not POSSIBLY have anything to do with protected politcal speech. LOL
    “The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists to adapt the world to himself.
    Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” ― George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman

  4. #14
    Sage
    Erod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    North Texas
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 03:30 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    13,071

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Miguel17 View Post
    The term "traditional marriage" always makes me chuckle a bit. A sense of historicity is indispensable when theorizing about politics.
    Yo, dude, it's a chicken sandwich. And if you and you're gay husband want to eat one, guess what, YOU CAN!

  5. #15
    Sage
    clownboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Oregon
    Last Seen
    08-17-16 @ 10:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    26,087

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Objective-J View Post
    thats what I was wondering, then after i thought about it, it came to me. This has NOTHING to do with freedom of speech LMAO
    Actually, it does. This is the government saying that this business, these people, will be adversely impacted in government licensing because of the views they've expressed (legal, non-violent views). If this were just a case of a public boycott, then you'd be correct. But when the government does it - that's when the constitutional rights come into the picture.

    And Chicago has values? I know about their traditional "value" of the dead voting and voting democratic. I know their "value" of having ward bosses determine elections.
    Last edited by clownboy; 07-25-12 at 05:39 PM.

  6. #16
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:08 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,808

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ChuckBerry View Post
    When a business owner is being prevented by government from opening a business because of his opinion on a subject, that certainly is meant to have a chilling effect on similar speech. Instead of pointing out the opinion and letting the market decide for themselves if they want to support the business, government seeks to prevent the business from ever opening. It's a dirty trick.
    effect? so what
    doesnt stop his freedom of saying what ever he wants
    I could go to Cleveland open a store and always wear steeler gear and say I love the steelers, that could effect my buisness too, or people could decided to boycott me because Im a steeler fan, again so what

    my right to say I love the steelers hasnt been infringed on

    now as far as if I think its the right move or not, well Id need more info currently it doesnt seem like it but my original point stands, this has nothing to do with the freedom of speech

    lots fo things can happen because of what one might say, the right and freedom to do so is still there
    This space is currently owned by The Great Winchester, stay tuned for future messages!
    Make America Great Again!
    Pro-Equal Rights / Pro-Gun Rights / Pro-Human Rights / Pro-Choice

  7. #17
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    08-07-12 @ 12:02 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    216

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ttwtt78640 View Post
    Are you kidding me? What, other than expressing a political viewpoint, has this BUSINESS done wrong? Did they refuse to hire gays? Did they refuse to serve gays? You want no discrimination against gays (which was not even alleged) yet CHEER discriminating against those that choose to support traditional marraige, the current law? I suppose if a restaurant owner wanted polygamy or SSM that it would be welcomed, or if they simply said nothing at all on the subject; but say that you like the CURRENT definition of marriage and you should be banned? No, that could not POSSIBLY have anything to do with protected politcal speech. LOL
    You don't understand. You are mistakenly conflating two separate things. Businesses do not have inalienable rights to open locations within cities. They have to apply for the license. Whichever city official makes that decision is not constitutionally bound to give the license to certain people, he can give it whomever he pleases. Do you understand how that is different from First Amendment rights? If he chooses not to give it to Chick-fil-A, for whatever reason, there is nothing wrong with that. He hasn't broken the law, and he hasn't violated anybody's rights. You seem to think a bureaucrat deciding which fast food joint to give a license to is analogous to a judge deciding a murder case. There are no constitutional rights involved, no discrimination involved.
    Last edited by Miguel17; 07-25-12 at 05:44 PM.

  8. #18
    Guru

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Illinois
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:29 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    3,335
    Blog Entries
    2

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

    I may not like Chik-Fil-As stance on SSM but I dont agree with blocking them from opening restaurants.

  9. #19
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    08-07-12 @ 12:02 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    216

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Erod View Post
    Yo, dude, it's a chicken sandwich. And if you and you're gay husband want to eat one, guess what, YOU CAN!
    Let me know when you have something to contribute.

  10. #20
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:08 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,808

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

    Quote Originally Posted by clownboy View Post
    Actually, it does. This is the government saying that this business, these people, will be adversely impacted in government licensing because of the views they've expressed (legal, non-violent views). If this were just a case of a public boycott, then you'd be correct. But when the government does it - that's when the constitutional rights come into the picture.

    And Chicago has values? I know about their traditional "value" of the dead voting and voting democratic. I know their "value" of having ward bosses determine elections.
    actually it doesnt because he still has his freedom of speech it hasnt been impacted or taken away LMAO

    just like the day he said it, tomorrow he can still say he is against equal gay rights, nothing has changed
    This space is currently owned by The Great Winchester, stay tuned for future messages!
    Make America Great Again!
    Pro-Equal Rights / Pro-Gun Rights / Pro-Human Rights / Pro-Choice

Page 2 of 97 FirstFirst 12341252 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •