Page 72 of 97 FirstFirst ... 2262707172737482 ... LastLast
Results 711 to 720 of 962

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

  1. #711
    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 Wake View Post
    Staying on topic, it looks like the ACLU has supported Chick-fil-A, and that this Rahm schmuck was in the wrong for trying to hinder this business.
    Well its obvious that if the restaurant is denied a location/license and the ONLY reason is the bigoted views of the CEO/President its unfair discrimination. DOesnt matter how ignorant and bigoted the views/statements are of the CEO/President are he has rights just like we all do and as long as the actual business conducts itself in a lawful manner they are fine.
    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

  2. #712
    Phonetic Mnemonic ©
    radcen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Look to your right... I'm that guy.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:11 AM
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    33,413

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Objective-J View Post
    Well its obvious that if the restaurant is denied a location/license and the ONLY reason is the bigoted views of the CEO/President its unfair discrimination. DOesnt matter how ignorant and bigoted the views/statements are of the CEO/President are he has rights just like we all do and as long as the actual business conducts itself in a lawful manner they are fine.
    Even if there are legitimate concerns, i.e. parking, traffic, etc., CfA can now legitimately question whether those are just ruses for an underlying ulterior motive (political correctness regarding SSM). The Mayor and the Alderman are on record as saying they don't want CfA in their town, and that they have the power to do it, regardless any subsequent backtracking.
    If you claim sexual harassment to be wrong, yet you defend anyone on your side for any reason,
    then you are a hypocrite and everything you say on the matter is just babble.

  3. #713
    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 radcen View Post
    Even if there are legitimate concerns, i.e. parking, traffic, etc., CfA can now legitimately question whether those are just ruses for an underlying ulterior motive (political correctness regarding SSM). The Mayor and the Alderman are on record as saying they don't want CfA in their town, and that they have the power to do it, regardless any subsequent backtracking.
    Oh I agree 100% if there are other reasons they say later it will be questioned and rightfully so. They did it backwards and now made it harder for themselves.

    My GUESS is though they already knew this and they had no real intentions of stopping CFA because legally they know they can't. I think they just wanted to expose CFA's bigoted stance and get press showing they are against these types of bigoted stances.
    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

  4. #714
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Last Seen
    02-13-13 @ 12:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    18,536
    Blog Entries
    4

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Objective-J View Post
    Well its obvious that if the restaurant is denied a location/license and the ONLY reason is the bigoted views of the CEO/President its unfair discrimination. He has rights just like we all do and as long as the actual business conducts itself in a lawful manner they are fine.
    Correct. ......

  5. #715
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Naperville, IL
    Last Seen
    09-24-12 @ 02:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    11,963

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

    Quote Originally Posted by radcen View Post
    Even if there are legitimate concerns, i.e. parking, traffic, etc., CfA can now legitimately question whether those are just ruses for an underlying ulterior motive (political correctness regarding SSM). The Mayor and the Alderman are on record as saying they don't want CfA in their town, and that they have the power to do it, regardless any subsequent backtracking.
    Why would you want to open a business where you are not welcome?

    There's plenty of red stated where people have no clue of healthy eating.

  6. #716
    Phonetic Mnemonic ©
    radcen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Look to your right... I'm that guy.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:11 AM
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    33,413

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Objective-J View Post
    Oh I agree 100% if there are other reasons they say later it will be questioned and rightfully so. They did it backwards and now made it harder for themselves.

    My GUESS is though they already knew this and they had no real intentions of stopping CFA because legally they know they can't. I think they just wanted to expose CFA's bigoted stance and get press showing they are against these types of bigoted stances.
    And this is a big reason why I now believe it was never anything more than political grandstanding.

    Note that the initial announcement was made in front of tv cameras. Splashed all over the news. Everybody saw and heard it. Mission accomplished, so to speak.

    Note also that any subsequent debate... with a few editorials here and there added, but not too common... was places like here at DP between relatively few politically-geeky people such as ourselves... hidden away from the masses. The vast majority pf people for whom the original message was intended aren't hearing the rational, Constitutional, and legal objections. No, they just heard the grandstanding, and that was pretty much it.

    Note again that the subsequent backtracking regarding legal issues and the actual issuing of permits was done quietly and via relatively obscure press releases. No tv cameras for this. Oh no.

    Essentially, they inflamed public opinion to their desired end result, then backtracked just enough to probably cover their butts in a potential future lawsuit, but left public opinion inflamed in their desired favor.


    Quote Originally Posted by hazlnut View Post
    Why would you want to open a business where you are not welcome?
    I'm not sure you understand that most businesses really don't care.

    I worked for a company where Walmart was our primary client for over twenty years. This was a civil engineering firm, so we were intimately involved with their expansion process, not sales. We were directly involved with planning and approval processes, negotiating with cities, etc. Walmart has indeed been thwarted here and there, but it is rare. As a general rule, if only a city council objected, they'd ignore it and push through anyway. If "the masses" objected, there was a better chance that they'd actually cancel the store.

    City councils are just 5/7/9 people, and contrary to intent, do not always represent the will of the people. Large businesses know this. Once the store is open, the city's opinion is pretty much irrelevant, and you don't get big by always being nice. "The masses" are actual potential customers, and are a better gauge of the community and potential sales base. If "the masses" object, then they take that as a sign that the store may not be profitable... which is really the only criteria.
    If you claim sexual harassment to be wrong, yet you defend anyone on your side for any reason,
    then you are a hypocrite and everything you say on the matter is just babble.

  7. #717
    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 radcen View Post
    And this is a big reason why I now believe it was never anything more than political grandstanding.

    Note that the initial announcement was made in front of tv cameras. Splashed all over the news. Everybody saw and heard it. Mission accomplished, so to speak.

    Note also that any subsequent debate... with a few editorials here and there added, but not too common... was places like here at DP between relatively few politically-geeky people such as ourselves... hidden away from the masses. The vast majority pf people for whom the original message was intended aren't hearing the rational, Constitutional, and legal objections. No, they just heard the grandstanding, and that was pretty much it.

    Note again that the subsequent backtracking regarding legal issues and the actual issuing of permits was done quietly and via relatively obscure press releases. No tv cameras for this. Oh no.

    Essentially, they inflamed public opinion to their desired end result, then backtracked just enough to probably cover their butts in a potential future lawsuit, but left public opinion inflamed in their desired favor.
    well I dont know if its that dramatic but I agree, it is my guess its was just to expose the president for being a bigot and to show people they will expose future bigots because they had to know, or at least you HOPE they knew, they couldnt really win in this matter and stop CFA from opening etc. Just expose him for what he is

    also largely the american public arent swayed to much by this stuff and when they are its typically temporary, thats why I am for laws that protect us and not total libertarian anarchy when it comes to "matters like these". The key is though the law has to protect us all and in this case it will. CFA will be able to open if it wants and pushes too.
    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

  8. #718
    Phonetic Mnemonic ©
    radcen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Look to your right... I'm that guy.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:11 AM
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    33,413

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Objective-J View Post
    well I dont know if its that dramatic but I agree, it is my guess its was just to expose the president for being a bigot and to show people they will expose future bigots because they had to know, or at least you HOPE they knew, they couldnt really win in this matter and stop CFA from opening etc. Just expose him for what he is

    also largely the american public arent swayed to much by this stuff and when they are its typically temporary, thats why I am for laws that protect us and not total libertarian anarchy when it comes to "matters like these". The key is though the law has to protect us all and in this case it will. CFA will be able to open if it wants and pushes too.
    Yeah, the scenario how it played out was probably more reaction than planned action.
    If you claim sexual harassment to be wrong, yet you defend anyone on your side for any reason,
    then you are a hypocrite and everything you say on the matter is just babble.

  9. #719
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Last Seen
    07-19-14 @ 03:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    1,109

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

    Quote Originally Posted by HoongLoong View Post
    Critical thought's observation that: "Yeah, your posts don't show much interest in basic logic. " is one of the typical all-embracing lefty negations of Reality that instead of saying "I disagree with you, because of thisa and thata" these bozos accuse one of lack of "logic", or some other deficiency without being able to be specific about it.


    The LIEberrhoidal posts attacking me with retorts like: "I'm not sure how I'm suppose to respond to something that makes absolutely no sense." And, "I just want to see what type of BS you would post so I could prove it wrong then laugh" ......are meaningless petards when they don't have a valid response, as in the first example. And the same with the second example feigning mental ineptitude as in not understanding the obvious, then using one's mental deficiency as an excuse to call the obvious "BS". Pathetic.

    FYI, when the Supreme Court, or any court considers a concept UNCONSTITUTIONAL ,as with the Same Sex Marriage, it simply means that the concept involved does not meet the criteria to be valid for acceptance in the usage it is petitioned for. When something is not valid for accepting it for the usage it was petitioned for it is rejected as a BOGUS proposition.

    If that is something you want to parse, weasel, and rationalize your way out of because it does not suit your bogus line of thinking then go ahead. You might consider using a chair as an apple and not consider that a BOGUS endeavor......I say, go ahead, flaunt your BOGUS activities, make yourself known for what you are.

    And, BTW, it is presumptuous to the point of being ridiculous to assume that every time a person leaves the Forum he is "skedaddling" because the person fears the nonsense he is inundated with.

    Gottago.

    CRITICALTHOUGHT'S RESPONSE:
    Ooooookay. I'm not sure how to respond to your posts because most of the things you say make little if any sense. They just tend to be ramblings where you try to ridicule people who hold opposing views to your own and that just makes you look silly and childish. You don't actually address the arguments. I'll make it simple for you.

    At what point has the current sitting Supreme Court found same sex marriage to be unconstitutional?

    MY RESPONSE TO CRITICALTHOUGHT:
    With reference to your first paragraph:You're modus operandi has been exposed in great detail in my original abovementioned post to you. REREAD IT.

    With reference to your second paragraph: You are desperately trying to obfuscate and deflect the fact that: SCOTUS ruled that Same Sex Marriage is UNCONSTITUTIONAL by asking a ridiculous question such as at what point did they make their decision.

    The important and relevant fact is that SCOTUS ruled that Same Sex Marriage is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. PERIOD !!! As to "at what point has the current sitting Supreme Court found the same sex marriage unconstitutional ?" Answer: When Scalia was tying his shoelaces, Ginsberg was considering a replacement for her douche bag, Kennedy was 1/2 way thru eating his ham sandwich.....you want me to go on ?
    Last edited by HoongLoong; 07-28-12 at 07:57 PM.

  10. #720
    Doesn't go below juicy
    tacomancer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Cleveland
    Last Seen
    05-20-16 @ 02:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    31,781

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

    What was the case where the SCOTUS made this ruling?

Page 72 of 97 FirstFirst ... 2262707172737482 ... 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
  •