Page 4 of 97 FirstFirst ... 234561454 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 962

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

  1. #31
    Cynical Optimist
    jambalaya's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Columbia, SC
    Last Seen
    11-28-12 @ 05:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    2,481

    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
    No it is not really subjective. We wouldn't be having this argument about SSM if there weren't such thing as a traditional marriage. Traditional just means predominately practiced and accepted. I doesn't matter if you can point out examples of SSM elsewhere we have to deal with our tradition like it or not. Traditional marriage is real in the U.S. but now many disagree with the traditional definition of marriage. I respect that argument if not the exact way to change things. This guy expressed an opinion with which some people disagree. I would bet a lot of Chicago residents have the same opinion on the matter so it really isn't Chicago values so to speak. Not a free speech matter though.
    Last edited by jambalaya; 07-25-12 at 05:55 PM.
    It may be that your sole purpose in life is simply to serve as a warning to others.

  2. #32
    Educator
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Last Seen
    05-24-14 @ 11:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    912

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Objective-J View Post
    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
    If Cleveland forbidded the wearing of any NFL gear other than the Brown's, would you consider your rights violated? Because that is basically what Emanuel is doing. Only one opinion is allowed. Either recite the proper script or be punished economically.

  3. #33
    Sometimes wrong

    ttwtt78640's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Uhland, Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:33 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    34,698

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Miguel17 View Post
    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.
    And you would say the same for a business that would not hire or serve a "gay" person? They have a right to refuse service to anyone, the right to associate with only who they choose? You are a hypocrit of the most extreme variety. You would squeal if you and your boyfriend were asked politely to leave a restaurant or bar, simply because the owner did not "like" you.
    “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. #34
    cookies crumble
    ARealConservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    04-21-17 @ 09:41 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    14,518

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

    as an Atheist, I stand in solidarity of the 1st Amendment rights of chic-fil-a owners. They should not be punished by government for stating their beliefs.

    liberal whack jobs are going way, way too far on this.

    plus, they have great food for being fast food!

  5. #35
    Sage
    Mach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:51 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    11,521

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

    I think religion should, and usually does, lose similar arguments.

    But in this case, Chick-fil-a stores don't discriminate as far as I can tell, and if they do not, I don't see how you can prohibit them from opening, as government.
    People, can boycott them sure. Other business can pull their adds, etc. But government can refuse their economic freedom, on the basis of the owners personal views? I don't think so.

    Granted, I think religion in general is absurd, and certainly the whole chick-fil-a christian crap is annoying and silly, but if it's about defending their economic freedom, I feel like they deserve that protection IN SPITE OF their religious views. That's the whole point of justice, fairness, ethics.

    The claim that a business is bigoted or discriminatory, because one of the owners is, seems absurd and trivially a bad thing.

  6. #36
    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
    And you would say the same for a business that would not hire or serve a "gay" person? They have a right to refuse service to anyone, the right to associate with only who they choose? You are a hypocrit of the most extreme variety. You would squeal if you and your boyfriend were asked politely to leave a restaurant or bar, simply because the owner did not "like" you.
    In my experience, ad hominem attacks usually come out when the interlocutor realizes they have no case. Not that it's relevant to what we're talking about or any of your business, but I'm not gay. What does anything you just wrote have to do with what we're talking about? Your unfounded and irrelevant assertion contributes nothing. I am a hypocrit [sic] of the most extreme variety because I (whom you don't know) would hypothetically squeal if I and someone who doesn't exist were asked to leave a hypothetical bar or hypothetical restaurant? That's your devastating rebuttal to my argument? Even if it were true, it would still be irrelevant. If you don't have anything constructive to say, you don't have to type anything at all. You can just sit back and watch the action.
    Last edited by Miguel17; 07-25-12 at 06:02 PM.

  7. #37
    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 Miguel17 View Post
    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.
    I bolded where you've really gone off the tracks on this. The reason a business is denied a license does indeed matter, very much so. If they are denied license by government because of what they said, that is a clear First Amendment violation.

    You disagree with what they said, so you see no problem with them being punished by government, and that's no surprise - but it is shallow.
    Last edited by clownboy; 07-25-12 at 06:05 PM.

  8. #38
    Sage


    MaggieD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Chicago Area
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    43,243
    Blog Entries
    43

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Miguel17 View Post
    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.
    It is morally wrong ( and should be legally wrong as well) to use your power as an elected official to impede commerce in order to espouse your own political or religious views. I hope the guy takes them to court. When it comes to issuing business licenses, if all zoning regulations (and whatever others apply) are adhered to, a politician has no earthly business denying the license on the basis of, "I don't like the way you think." First-come-first-served. This is just more bull**** and shouldn't be tolerated.
    The devil whispered in my ear, "You cannot withstand the storm." I whispered back, "I am ​the storm."

  9. #39
    Cynical Optimist
    jambalaya's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Columbia, SC
    Last Seen
    11-28-12 @ 05:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    2,481

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

    Quote Originally Posted by clownboy View Post
    I bolded where you've really gone off the tracks on this. The reason a business is denied a license does indeed matter, very much so. If they are denied license by government because of what they said, that is a clear First Amendment violation.
    You do have a point here. In the case where advertisers pull their support for what a private enterprise says or does is quite different from what a government body is allowed to do.
    It may be that your sole purpose in life is simply to serve as a warning to others.

  10. #40
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:33 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,835

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

    Quote Originally Posted by digsbe View Post
    It has if the government is saying "we will punish your business because of your personal views."
    nope it certainly hasnt, OTHER rights would be infringed on
    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 4 of 97 FirstFirst ... 234561454 ... 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
  •