• 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]

LOL, "radical thinking." In any case, the beliefs aren't the issue. It's the donating to campaigns to hurt other citizens.

Would you still be rather neutral if Rahm said the same thing and substituted "unions"? Being willing to block a business license because a company used union labor? Probably not. I'm seeing that as a pretty good parallel. You?
 
Like Nabisco and Target?

Yes. Shame on Nabisco for their support of gay pride, which is nonpolitical. Shame on Target for their radical societal position that gay people exist and may want to buy greeting cards.
 
First Sir, I need my question answered. What did Target and Nabisco declare? Then, I will answer your question. OK?


So if a business owner has a religious viewpoint, it's wrong, but if not, it's right?

Let's be fair. Either it's alright for all businesses to have any non-violent political view, or admit that you're not being objective.
 
Μολὼν λαβέ;1060726476 said:
Don't forget "homophobia" and "fear," the libs favorite disparaging terms for those who disagree with them.

If opposing equal rights for gays and lesbians isn't homophobia, what is? If I told you that I'm not a racist, but miscegenation is an abomination and will happen only over my dead body, what would you think of me?
 
Would you still be rather neutral if Rahm said the same thing and substituted "unions"? Being willing to block a business license because a company used union labor? Probably not. I'm seeing that as a pretty good parallel. You?
As I said before, "If you feel like a business is doing things that are going to hurt some of your citizens or your city, you shouldn't have to let it set up shop." This statement applies to everybody, including people who think unions are going to hurt their citizens.
 
Yes. Shame on Nabisco for their support of gay pride, which is nonpolitical. Shame on Target for their radical societal position that gay people exist and may want to buy greeting cards.

and shame on chik-fil-a for their radical societal position that christians exist and may want to buy a chicken sandwich.

I fail to see the difference....other than you support one position and not the other
 
How, precisely, will homosexuals be discriminated against?

They donate money to groups that the Southern Poverty Law Center has deemed "hate groups" due to spreading false and misleading information about gays, such as the Family Research Counsel, and they also donate money to organizations that push unethical and highly discredited "reparative therapy" that seeks to cure gays of their homosexuality.

Honestly, the whole, "how are they discriminating?" thing is getting old. In this day and age, you don't discriminate directly. You fund people to do your discriminating for you.
 
44 years of annual revenue increases, more than 1,600 restaurants in 39 states and Washington, D.C. and will open 77 stand-alone restaurants and 15 licensee locations in 2012. 600 plus professional staff employees with one of the industry leading minority hiring programs. 95 percent rate with many of their employees becoming franchise owners. Education benefits and insurance benefits. Im guessing in their 44 years more than a few employees have even been gay.

(yes...I read their marketing page).

Emanuel should DEFINITELY ram a stick in his citizens eye and drive that company out of their city. That will show em...
 
First Sir, I need my question answered. What did Target and Nabisco declare? Then, I will answer your question. OK?

I understand that you think it's alright to punish business owners who merely hold a stance not in favor of gay marriage. With a stance like that, I see no reason to answer that "question."
 
I wonder if the people who support trying to ban Chick Fil A from cities over the owner's beliefs would also support other cities banning Target for supporting gay marriage and selling pro-homosexual merchandise.

It's one thing to boycott, it's another for the government to say "no, you can't open your doors in this city because your owner has the wrong view (in our opinion) on an issue."
 
and shame on chik-fil-a for their radical societal position that christians exist and may want to buy a chicken sandwich.

I fail to see the difference....other than you support one position and not the other

You don't see a difference between people who are trying to prevent others from marrying, and those who are taking pride in themselves for being themselves? That's the difference. Gay pride parades don't take away anyone's rights or liberties. People who want to prevent gays from marrying are either taking away someone else's rights, or trying to prevent them from getting them (depending upon which state you live in.

I assume you would see the difference between a supporters of a black pride parade, and those who want to take away blacks' rights to marry whites.

EDIT: I also find interesting your assumption that all Christians oppose SSM, and all those who oppose SSM are Christian.
 
Last edited:
I wonder if the people who support trying to ban Chick Fil A from cities over the owners beliefs would also support other cities banning Target for supporting gay marriage and selling pro-homosexual merchandise.

It's one thing to boycott, it's another for the government to say "no, you can't open your doors in this city because your owner has the wrong view (in our opinion) on an issue."

This. You hit the nail on the head.
 
I wonder if the people who support trying to ban Chick Fil A from cities over the owner's beliefs would also support other cities banning Target for supporting gay marriage and selling pro-homosexual merchandise.

It's one thing to boycott, it's another for the government to say "no, you can't open your doors in this city because your owner has the wrong view (in our opinion) on an issue."

Let me get this right...you are comparing an organization supporting hate groups with money to organizations supporting same sex marriage?

Yeah...I don't think you get it.
 
If opposing equal rights for gays and lesbians isn't homophobia, what is? If I told you that I'm not a racist, but miscegenation is an abomination and will happen only over my dead body, what would you think of me?

ho·mo·pho·bi·a   [hoh-muh-foh-bee-uh] Show IPA
noun
unreasoning fear of or antipathy toward homosexuals and homosexuality.



but, of course, to you and yours any fear or antipathy towards homosexuals is unreasoning :shrug:
 
I wonder if the people who support trying to ban Chick Fil A from cities over the owner's beliefs would also support other cities banning Target for supporting gay marriage and selling pro-homosexual merchandise.

It's one thing to boycott, it's another for the government to say "no, you can't open your doors in this city because your owner has the wrong view (in our opinion) on an issue."
I don't support Rahm banning Chik-fil-a because I like it. However, I don't think there's anything wrong with governments doing so including those who would ban target. If you think a business is going to hurt your citizens or your area, then you don't need to let them set up shop there.
 
44 years of annual revenue increases, more than 1,600 restaurants in 39 states and Washington, D.C. and will open 77 stand-alone restaurants and 15 licensee locations in 2012. 600 plus professional staff employees with one of the industry leading minority hiring programs. 95 percent rate with many of their employees becoming franchise owners. Education benefits and insurance benefits. Im guessing in their 44 years more than a few employees have even been gay.

(yes...I read their marketing page).

Emanuel should DEFINITELY ram a stick in his citizens eye and drive that company out of their city. That will show em...

And the best service I've ever experienced in a fast food restaurant. There are no dumbasses behind the counter in the stores I've visited.
 
Let me get this right...you are comparing an organization supporting hate groups with money to organizations supporting same sex marriage?

Yeah...I don't think you get it.

Let me guess "There are some groups that I think spread misinformation about homosexuality and therefore they are a hate group. Group X also defines them as a hate group."

Like I compared earlier, would you support a city banning Target solely because Target supports SSM and sells pro-homosexual merchandise? From what I see they want to keep Chick Fil A out because they do not represent a city's "values" and not that they support "hate groups."
 
Last edited:
ho·mo·pho·bi·a   [hoh-muh-foh-bee-uh] Show IPA
noun
unreasoning fear of or antipathy toward homosexuals and homosexuality.



but, of course, to you and yours any fear or antipathy towards homosexuals is unreasoning :shrug:

I don't buy the whole "homophobia" thing. People who dislike gay people for no other reason than they are gay can be summed up by a much better word. Stupid!
 
ho·mo·pho·bi·a   [hoh-muh-foh-bee-uh] Show IPA
noun
unreasoning fear of or antipathy toward homosexuals and homosexuality.



but, of course, to you and yours any fear or antipathy towards homosexuals is unreasoning :shrug:

I'm sorry, but is there a rational reason for fear or antipathy towards homosexuals? I don't understand the qualifier. No one would call racism "the unreasoning fear or antipathy towards other races".
 
Jesus H. ****ing Christ On A Crutch. I asked you a simple question and you evade answering it. Who are you to tell me what I think? Answer the question and I'll answer your question. If you can't demonstrate that much common courtesy then I agree - we have nothing to discuss.

<<specklebang shakes his fist at wake>>

I understand that you think it's alright to punish business owners who merely hold a stance not in favor of gay marriage. With a stance like that, I see no reason to answer that "question."
 
I don't buy the whole "homophobia" thing. People who dislike gay people for no other reason than they are gay can be summed up by a much better word. Stupid!

Do you think people who don't support gay marriage are stupid?
 
Since when are business licenses covered under freedom of speech? Chick-fil-A could be denied a license under any excuse and it wouldn't make one bit of a difference. It's really funny that all the usual suspects are coming out to swing for unapologetically bigoted people with their usual excuse of political correctness. It's the right's own little version of the race card.
 
Last edited:
Do you think people who don't support gay marriage are stupid?

I can't speak for him, but I can tell you that in 23 years of living on this planet, I have never once encountered a rational justification for denying marriage equality that could stand up on moral and constitutional grounds.
 
Back
Top Bottom