• 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]

Dr. Chuckles said:
In Brandenburg vs Ohio the court upheld the right of an individual to preach about, and promote, armed insurrection against the state, but you think the courts would allow the state to infringe on those very same right, due to anti-gay sentiment?
Click to expand...

The government isn't sending Chik-a-Fil to jail or fining them. Your comparison is invalid. Seriously, read these cases before you speak on them.
 
VanceMack said:
Let's see...did he advocate for hunting down the gay menace? Why no! In fact he has stated that his faith in God directs that he be opposed to gay marriage. That's....that's...well...actually up until 2 months ago the exact same opinion the president held. And shockingly not too far out of line with a significant number of democrats still.
Click to expand...

but...but...but.... :2bigcry: THAT'S DIFFERENT!!!!!!!!
 
Hatuey said:
The government isn't sending Chik-a-Fil to jail or fining them. Your comparison is invalid. Seriously, read these cases before you speak on them.
Click to expand...

they are still denying them under the 14th amendment without due process of law,which is illegal.
 
Masada said:
Uhhh, any punishment or action that would work to silence or limit a person's speech or opinion is literally blocking freedom of speech. If you will look at several Supreme Court Cases, you will find this to be true. Government cannot punish a person or a company because of statements or opinions of that person. By not allowing the business to enter this community, the government has punished a person for an opposing opinion.
Click to expand...
The thing is none of that is happening.


Chik fil A could easily sue, and win. But because the owner seems like a moral man, I doubt he will. Ya see, people like him aren't into "forcing" their opinions on people, and they aren't into punishing anyone else who thinks gay marriage is super cool. I agree with his opinion, and I think I'll stop by CFA on my way home this evening and show my support.
Click to expand...
Cool but there is no basis to sue.
And good for you go there and have a sandwich.

I do business every single day with liberals.
Click to expand...
Well there are a good amount of them in America....

I know it's shocking, but there are a few liberal business owners.
Click to expand...
Actually there area a lot......

Despite their messed up social views on a lot of things, they should not be punished for their views and opinions.
Click to expand...
Ok.
I dont think anyone is advocating that...

Boycotting over opinions has to be one of the most childish things I've ever heard of.
Click to expand...
Uhhh????
No.... Its a form of protest. Its actually pretty unchildish...
I mean boycotting against companies whose companies you disagree with is not "childish"... I mean is boycotting a company who used sweat shops and slave labor "childish"?

I don't do business with liberals concerning political and social issues, we simply conduct business, and that's great.
Click to expand...
Cool...

You don't have to agree with me to do business with me, and I don't have to agree with you to do business with you.
Click to expand...
Cool

It's business. But with liberals.....everything is personal, which is why they are so intollerant to anyone who disagrees with their social values.
Click to expand...
:doh
So your saying all liberals arent gong to eat at Chick Filla anymore?
 
zgoldsmith23 said:
Nope, but the DoI says "all men are created equal."
Click to expand...

it does,infact many founding fathers wanted to end slavery under that belief too,however it ended up being slavery was a luxory they couldnt afford to let go(meaning even though many of them opposed it,it was still needed for the economy of the day)
 
Redress said:
The OP and 5 people need to learn what freedom of speech means....
Click to expand...

yeah I pointed that fact out to them earlier, hopefully they got now.
 
Hatuey said:
The government isn't sending Chik-a-Fil to jail or fining them.
Click to expand...

denying them proper licensing, due to their political views, would be a clear instance of the state trying to punish them. That's a clear violation of the first amendment on it's face


Hatuey said:
Your comparison is invalid. Seriously, read these cases before you speak on them.
Click to expand...

sorry, champ, merely declaring something isn't an argument
 
zgoldsmith23 said:
Nope, but the DoI says "all men are created equal."
Click to expand...

is the DOI a binding legal document? and "all men created equal" is a LIE> if it were true then no one would be taller or stronger or smarter than anyone else. there would be no birth defects.....

it's a utopian pipe dream
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Except blacks. But we changed that.
Now its gays. They aint equal anymore!
Click to expand...

Funny, I don't remember seeing an asterisk in the DoI! Maybe I need a closer look! ;)

35y9kq.jpg
 
beerftw said:
they are still denying them under the 14th amendment without due process of law,which is illegal.
Click to expand...

Lmao. Show us where? The government can actually carry out due process of the law and still deny them the application to set up shop. That you don't seem to get that little fact is beyond me. Actually, they could say this:

Sir, we've reviewed your application and have decided to deny it for:

XYZ

Thank you, have a good day.

---------

Happens every single day to hundreds if not thousands of people.
 
beerftw said:
it does,infact many founding fathers wanted to end slavery under that belief too,however it ended up being slavery was a luxory they couldnt afford to let go(meaning even though many of them opposed it,it was still needed for the economy of the day)
Click to expand...

IOW...slavery was in the best political interest of the state at the time.
 
Hatuey said:
Lmao. Show us where? The government can actually carry out due process of the law and still deny them the application to set up shop. That you don't seem to get that little fact is beyond me. Actually, they could say this:

Sir, we've reviewed your application and have decided to deny it for:

XYZ

Thank you, have a good day.

---------

Happens every single day to hundreds if not thousands of people.
Click to expand...

denying a business for political affiliation is not due process of law,once again fasil.

at this rate you are heading for king fail.
 
Personally I am kind of sick of both sides boycotting and ginning up a bunch of faux outrage every time a business owner supports a cause that they don't agree with. I don't agree with Chick-fil-A. However, I would imagine that many of the people that are all up in arms over Chick-fil-A funding religious right efforts to "protect traditional marriage", are wearing clothes made by 3rd world sweat shop labor and frequent businesses with questionable at best labor practices.
 
I would have “liked” the OP had it not been for the partisan adhom in the last sentence.

I hate Chik-fil-A for multiple reasons, not the least of which is their stand on homosexuality and SSM. I’m vegan so obviously I’m no fan of their food either. But their political/religious stance does NOT mean they discriminate. It just means they are bigots. Discriminating against a protected class is illegal. Being a bigot is not. Having a particular political or religious belief does not justify sanctions. It is flat out wrong for the government to try and stop the opening of their restaurants based on their BELIEFS. If they DO something that is illegal or that is against pre-existing zoning laws in a particular community fine, otherwise don’t stand in their way.

That said, I also have no problem with politicians verbally criticizing a company for bigotry. If the people don’t like the politician for doing it they can vote them out. If they don’t like the bigoted business, they can vote with their dollars.
 
OscarB63 said:
is the DOI a binding legal document? and "all men created equal" is a LIE> if it were true then no one would be taller or stronger or smarter than anyone else. there would be no birth defects.....

it's a utopian pipe dream
Click to expand...

So you are saying our DoI is a lie? So if I am taller than you, I am better than you? Taller, stronger, smarter, etc. are not birth defects (neither is being gay). They are products of your genes. Then again, you may not understand evolution and genetics, so why would I waste my time.

Yeah. That whole "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" thing is a croc. America should be the way I intend it to be: white, Christian, Conservative!
 
MarineTpartier said:
I think it makes sense. Marriage is traditionally between a man and woman. Hence, traditional marriage. Its just been demonized by the LBGT community and mis-used by rights infringers (if thats a word) in the legislature. Its like the word zealot. Nothing wrong with the word. But the media has made it a bad word by attaching "left wing" or "right wing" to it.
Click to expand...

you are allowed to THINK it makes sense but that point is thats your OPINION and nothing more :shrug:

the definition of "traditional marriage" is totally subjective and what one makes it, its propaganda to push it on others
 
beerftw said:
denying a business for political affiliation is not due process of law,once again fasil.

at this rate you are heading for king fail.
Click to expand...

What political affiliation are they denying them for? They could say this: Too many restaurants in X area. Sorry, denying you the application. Again, Chik-Fil-A is within its legal right to apply and the government is within its legal right to deny them the license. That you don't seem to understand that is the only massive failure here.
 
I'm still enjoying the fun of watching some people on facebook and others act so shocked and outraged not specifically at the group they gave money to, but that the lead guy came out against Gay Marriage.

The head of a company who proudly closes its doors every sunday, despite significant likely revenue loss, because they feel it's that important to respect that day and to give their employees an opportunity to attend church without worrying about a job. A position they proudly display and explain in many stores, directly mentioning their deep christian beliefs. Deep Christian beliefs held by a family born and bred in the deep heart of evangelical southern baptist country.

And people are somehow "surprised" that the owner doesn't like gay marriage and has a very stereotypical offensive evangelical christian view of it? REALLY?

So is the problem that he thinks those things or that he actually SPOKE his feelings? Cause seriously...it'd take about 3 seconds of critical thinking to go "Wow, Chick-Fil-A is ran by a fundamentalist christian family". If the typical views of a fundamentalist christian person, when spoken, is enough to get you to not eat their food then why in the world were you eating it in the first place.

For me personally...I don't agree with the guy. I think the opinions rather dumb. But you know what else I think? That Chick-Fil-A is tasty and by far the best fast food restaurant in the local area I live. When picking what food establishment I want to eat at, the political beliefs of the man at the top is about number #87 on the list of "Things that matter". Which chain has better sauces ranks significantly higher on the list than that. It's the same reason I don't forgo going to Citgo gas because it has ties to Venezuela. Great, I don't like Chavez. Know what I do like? Cheap gas that is close to my house on the side of the road I'm going so I can quickly grab gas in the morning if I'm low and running late to work.

I don't blame people who want to boycott them, especially for the actual donation things. But I do question their potential self delusion or lack of any critical thought if the reason they're boycotting is due to the distaste for the top guys personal view.
 
Hatuey said:
What political affiliation are they denying them for? They could say this: Too many restaurants in X area. Sorry, denying you the application. Again, Chik-Fil-A is within its legal right to apply and the government is within its legal right to deny them the license. That you don't seem to understand that is the only massive failure here.
Click to expand...

oops was it not stated that chick fil a will be blocked for their stance????????

oh wait it was now your denying your own statement.its the same as saying you denied a black man because he didnt meet requirements but 2 days before came out and said i wont hire that n***er.denying for political affiliation after blatantly being pushed is still valid,reguardless of the means used to block them.


again fail,now your just running around law in a hope that no one will be smart enough to actually look it up.
 
beerftw said:
oops was it not stated that chick fil a will be blocked for their stance????????
Click to expand...

Sure. And the people reviewing the application can place on the rejection letters whatever reason it wants. Regardless of what the alderman says publicly and there wouldn't be a damn thing a Glenn Beck fan with Fascism Tourette's Syndrome could do about it. :shrug:
 
Last edited:
Zyphlin said:
I'm still enjoying the fun of watching some people on facebook and others act so shocked and outraged not specifically at the group they gave money to, but that the lead guy came out against Gay Marriage.

The head of a company who proudly closes its doors every sunday, despite significant likely revenue loss, because they feel it's that important to respect that day and to give their employees an opportunity to attend church without worrying about a job. A position they proudly display and explain in many stores, directly mentioning their deep christian beliefs. Deep Christian beliefs held by a family born and bred in the deep heart of evangelical southern baptist country.

And people are somehow "surprised" that the owner doesn't like gay marriage and has a very stereotypical offensive evangelical christian view of it? REALLY?

So is the problem that he thinks those things or that he actually SPOKE his feelings? Cause seriously...it'd take about 3 seconds of critical thinking to go "Wow, Chick-Fil-A is ran by a fundamentalist christian family". If the typical views of a fundamentalist christian person, when spoken, is enough to get you to not eat their food then why in the world were you eating it in the first place.

For me personally...I don't agree with the guy. I think the opinions rather dumb. But you know what else I think? That Chick-Fil-A is tasty and by far the best fast food restaurant in the local area I live. When picking what food establishment I want to eat at, the political beliefs of the man at the top is about number #87 on the list of "Things that matter". Which chain has better sauces ranks significantly higher on the list than that. It's the same reason I don't forgo going to Citgo gas because it has ties to Venezuela. Great, I don't like Chavez. Know what I do like? Cheap gas that is close to my house on the side of the road I'm going so I can quickly grab gas in the morning if I'm low and running late to work.

I don't blame people who want to boycott them, especially for the actual donation things. But I do question their potential self delusion or lack of any critical thought if the reason they're boycotting is due to the distaste for the top guys personal view.
Click to expand...

You can be a fundamentalist Christian and not donate large sums of money to hate groups. Just sayin...
 
Hatuey said:
What political affiliation are they denying them for? They could say this: Too many restaurants in X area. Sorry, denying you the application. Again, Chik-Fil-A is within its legal right to apply and the government is within its legal right to deny them the license. That you don't seem to understand that is the only massive failure here.
Click to expand...

So basically you're fine with unethical behavior of a politician/the government wishing to ban a company/entity that is acting in full compliance with the law singularly because of their political/religious views, and thus finds some technicality or legal loophole or manufactures such a thing to go about doing it.

Did you have similar feelings in regards to those clamoring for New York to take similar style action to prevent the Ground Zero Mosque from being built?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom