Page 82 of 97 FirstFirst ... 3272808182838492 ... LastLast
Results 811 to 820 of 962

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

  1. #811
    Sage


    MaggieD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Chicago Area
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    43,242
    Blog Entries
    43

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

    Quote Originally Posted by TheNextEra View Post
    I would change "I fervently support SSM because I'm gay" to "I fervently support SSM". There are many heterosexuals out there that aren't gay and support strongly SSM. I'm one of them.
    I can't imagine why anyone who wasn't gay would feel so strongly about it. There are so many issues to weigh in on . . . why so fervently on this particular one? No offense. I'm one of those who couldn't care less, by the way; though, maybe I'd have to say I feel a bit stronger than that. I think they have the same rights to happiness as the rest of us...and if this helps? *shrug*
    The devil whispered in my ear, "You cannot withstand the storm." I whispered back, "I am ​the storm."

  2. #812
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Last Seen
    11-08-13 @ 12:55 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    3,142

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

    Quote Originally Posted by disneydude View Post
    Oh PUH-LEASE.....stop it with the persecuted Christian Martyr routine. No one is restricting his speech. What you fanatics fail to recognize is that you ABSOLUTELY have the right to your free speech....what you don't have the right to is to be free from the repurcussions that follow.

    If you want to be a bigot....that is your right......however, expect to live with the consequences of your bigotry...there is a price to pay.
    So, you want people like me to have the freedom to say whatever I want, but you do not want me to be protected from consequences. Is that right?

    Ok, let's flip that philosophy. I do not want to "ban" homosexuality. People should be free to express their sexual desires for the same sex if they choose to. But they should be prepared for the societal consequence of a business owner not wanting to hire homosexuals.

    I do not want to "ban" abortion either. Women can maintain their "freedom" to have an abortion, but how about we punish them afterwards? Ya know, making them deal with the "repurcussions that follow". If you want to have an abortion, that is your right......however, expect to live with the consequences of your actions....there is a price to pay.

    See how your ideology works? lol...it's absurd. I am simply choosing to use YOUR LOGIC against you.

    They weren't attempting to curb his speech, but to punish him for his speech? lol... The Supreme Court has decided, more than once, that that is the same thing. Punishing speech is literally CURBING speech. You liberals and your double standards. What happened in liberals' cognitive development?

  3. #813
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Last Seen
    08-29-17 @ 09:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    16,575

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

    Quote Originally Posted by MaggieD View Post
    I can't imagine why anyone who wasn't gay would feel so strongly about it. There are so many issues to weigh in on . . . why so fervently on this particular one? No offense. I'm one of those who couldn't care less, by the way; though, maybe I'd have to say I feel a bit stronger than that. I think they have the same rights to happiness as the rest of us...and if this helps? *shrug*
    My brother was gay and had a very loving partner. He spent his life being ridiculed and denied the one thing he wanted. He died without ever knowing that. I also have friends that are gay and in that same boat of being denied the benefits and rights of marriage. That's why. I don't care if you don't think it is important, it's important to me and many other heterosexuals.

  4. #814
    Professor
    Phoenix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    04-27-17 @ 10:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,782

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

    Quote Originally Posted by TheNextEra View Post
    I can't speak for everyone else, but when I say it's ok to boycott a company, I don't mean using government power to do it. I mean it's ok for individuals to boycott the company.
    And I would agree. DD however stated no one was restricting his free speech. These mayors stating that because of his speech he will no longer be able to operate his business in their towns is a completely different story. That is exactly the type of government behavior the 1st amendment is designed to protect.
    From the ashes.

  5. #815
    Professor
    Phoenix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    04-27-17 @ 10:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,782

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

    Quote Originally Posted by TheNextEra View Post
    My brother was gay and had a very loving partner. He spent his life being ridiculed and denied the one thing he wanted. He died without ever knowing that. I also have friends that are gay and in that same boat of being denied the benefits and rights of marriage. That's why. I don't care if you don't think it is important, it's important to me and many other heterosexuals.
    What was the one thing he wanted?
    From the ashes.

  6. #816
    Sage
    VanceMack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:12 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    54,600

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

    Quote Originally Posted by TheNextEra View Post
    Not really. Some ABC company says something stupid and people protest the ABC company.

    I seem to recall Walmart or target (some store) selling rainbow oreas that got the Anti-SSM all in a tizzy and they boycotted that store. Don't remember conservatives rallying saying how stupid that was. Or boycotting stores for not saying "Merry Christmas".

    I'm not outraged, however, I will not support Chick-Fil-A. That's my right and it's their right to say whatever stupid **** they want.
    Oh come now...we have pretty fairly established how rapidly you and others have tripped over yourselves defending Obama, even though up until two months ago, when out of political need and expediency he changed his views, he held the same 'bigoted' position as the owner of ChickFilA.

    When you sell out your values in the name of politics, the faux outrage thing looks...well..sad...

  7. #817
    Sage
    Hicup's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Last Seen
    12-07-17 @ 03:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    7,846

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

    Quote Originally Posted by VanceMack View Post
    Oh come now...we have pretty fairly established how rapidly you and others have tripped over yourselves defending Obama, even though up until two months ago, when out of political need and expediency he changed his views, he held the same 'bigoted' position as the owner of ChickFilA.

    When you sell out your values in the name of politics, the faux outrage thing looks...well..sad...
    And I made the same point early in this thread. Not to mention that guys like Emanuel openly ambrace guys like Farrakahn.. LOL

    It's comical, if not entirely sad that mainstream liberals fail to notice blatant hypocrisy.


    Tim-
    “When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators.” - P. J. O’Rourke
    “Socialism is great until you run out of someone elses money” Margaret Thatcher

  8. #818
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Last Seen
    09-24-17 @ 04:38 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    29,261

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

    For the record I would most likey not vote for Emanuel

  9. #819
    Sage
    VanceMack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:12 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    54,600

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Hicup View Post
    And I made the same point early in this thread. Not to mention that guys like Emanuel openly ambrace guys like Farrakahn.. LOL

    It's comical, if not entirely sad that mainstream liberals fail to notice blatant hypocrisy.


    Tim-
    Comical at least. Pathetic works as well.

  10. #820
    Sometimes wrong

    ttwtt78640's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Uhland, Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:44 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    34,544

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

    Quote Originally Posted by TheNextEra View Post
    I would change "I fervently support SSM because I'm gay" to "I fervently support SSM". There are many heterosexuals out there that aren't gay and support strongly SSM. I'm one of them.
    Do you also support polygamy and making recreational drugs, gambling and prostitution legal? Banning the sale of alcohol on Sunday and celebrating Christmas as a national holiday (holy day?) is a wonder as well, yet we survive these religious based "traditions" too even if they too have clear basis ONLY in religion (tradition?), not for any "compelling state interest". The idea that a "loud and proud" minority need only focus on ONE thing, and thereby invent a new right, by convincing some "historic" judge to make it so, without need for a majority vote or constitutional amendment is getting WAY out of hand.

    It took a constitutional amendment to ban the recreational drug alcohol (and another to restore it), yet merely adding something to a "controlled and dangerous" sunstances list now makes marijuana, heroine, cocaine, meth, ecstasy and bath salts illegal nationwide. Gambling is banned in some state, legal in others and only allowed by the state in others - just like SSM yet that "freedom" of states is OK since the "loud and proud" don't seem to mind that yet. Prostitution as a voluntary transaction between consenting adults harms nobody yet is taboo, mainly based on religious objections, just as SSM and polygamy are. I am amazed that "principle" only seems to be an issue for the "loud and proud" SOMETIMES.

    Personal feelings of the majority are not INVALID simply because a minority CLAIMS to be a victim for not being allowed to "do their thing" UNLESS that "thing" is a constitutional right. Note that the 14th amendment did NOT make racial/gender/age restrictive voting laws invalid, so why should it make the "only TWO of DIFFERENT genders" being the "correct" legal definition of a STATE marriage contract invalid?
    Last edited by ttwtt78640; 08-01-12 at 01:58 PM.
    “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

Page 82 of 97 FirstFirst ... 3272808182838492 ... 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
  •