• 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]

Hatuey said:
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:
Click to expand...

by your selective quoting its clear your denying facts because they dont agree with you.

due process of law does not mean due process of law unless they disciminate in words and write it different in paper.
 
CriticalThought said:
You can be a fundamentalist Christian and not donate large sums of money to hate groups. Just sayin...
Click to expand...

Funny, I thought that was why I said numerous times in my post that it was regarding individuals who were expressing their outrage and surprise at the owners individual opinion...NOT at the donation of money to "hate groups"
 
Zyphlin said:
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?
Click to expand...

Oversimplification. This business donates lots and lots of money to hate groups. Let's start there.
 
Zyphlin said:
Funny, I thought that was why I said numerous times in my post that it was regarding individuals who were expressing their outrage and surprise at the owners individual opinion...NOT at the donation of money to "hate groups"
Click to expand...

Oh. My bad. :3oops:
 
zgoldsmith23 said:
Funny, I don't remember seeing an asterisk in the DoI! Maybe I need a closer look! ;)

35y9kq.jpg
Click to expand...

That's the trouble language. Sometimes it means more than intended, different than intended. I'm not sure the founding fathers considered the ramifications of their words, but those words are guiding all the same.
 
Zyphlin said:
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.
Click to expand...

What is unethical about this? Unethical are the positions of homophobic Chik-Fil-A owners.

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?
Click to expand...

Why are you comparing infringement of the 1st amendment to infringement of the non-existent right to a business license?
 
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...

And this is why free markets won't work.
 
beerftw said:
by your selective quoting its clear your denying facts because they dont agree with you.

due process of law does not mean due process of law unless they disciminate in words and write it different in paper.
Click to expand...

Try writing that in a way that makes sense. The state can respect all of the rights guaranteed to Chik-Fil-A and still deny them a business license. Happens every day to hundreds of business owners.
 
Hatuey said:
Try writing that in a way that makes sense. The state can respect all of the rights guaranteed to Chik-Fil-A and still deny them a business license. Happens every day to hundreds of business owners.
Click to expand...

And you feel that's a good thing?
 
CriticalThought said:
You can be a fundamentalist Christian and not donate large sums of money to hate groups. Just sayin...
Click to expand...

The owners of Chick-fil-A are Southern Baptist. Southern Baptist's believe in a literal interpretation of scripture. A literal interpretation of scripture states that homosexuality is a sin, and the marriage is between a man and a woman. The owners of Chick-fil-A gave money to groups that like them believe in a literal interpretation of scripture and all the bigotry that such a belief begets in a modern society. I certainly don't agree with them. I believe that same sex marriage will one day be ruled as constitutional. I believe that not allowing same sex couples the same rights and privileges under the law that the rest of us enjoy is discriminatory. However, I am not religious. Scripture does not dictate my beliefs. So I am not going to fault someone that honestly believes that the Bible is the literal word of God and thus support organizations that share the same view and promote the same ideology. Then again, its neither here nor there with me because I don't eat fast food because its bad for you.

There is a huge difference between the owners of a company supporting organizations that share their religious views, and the owners of a company using their money to weaken environmental or labor laws. The owners of Chick-fil-A were not doing this to enrich themselves, they were doing this because that's what they believe.
 
Last edited:
CriticalThought said:
Oh. My bad. :3oops:
Click to expand...

Yeah, I get people going "Wow, we just found out they donate to [x] group. I'm going to boycott"

It's the people going "Wow, that head of Chick-Fil-A is dislikes gay marriage. Screw him. I'm going to boycott"

I understand not making a reasonable assumption on the first part. The second part....yeah, bit harder for me to reconcile as a huge surprise.
 
KevinKohler said:
And you feel that's a good thing?
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter if I think it's good or not. This isn't some draconian decision that will destroy the fiber of the community. If anything it shows that Chicago is welcoming of business which are inclusive of gays. Places like Chik-Fil-A will either have to adapt or piss off to homophobic havens like Alabama and Oklahoma.
 
Hatuey said:
Try writing that in a way that makes sense. The state can respect all of the rights guaranteed to Chik-Fil-A and still deny them a business license. Happens every day to hundreds of business owners.
Click to expand...

no they do not,denying based off of discrimination based on political affiliation is not in the interest of the sate and is not allowed under the 14th amendment.


writing it down as something else doesnt matter when politicians already stated they plan to block them on political reasons.this is textbook discrimination.you are saying despite oh well we denied it based upon having too many retaurants,it has already been said it wil be denied due to political affiliation.

once again this is the same as me denying a black man from starting a business while putting it on paper as too much business,while publicly telling everyone i wont allow black business in the area.

if you cant understand that analogy you should return to 3 grade english.
 
beerftw said:
no they do not,denying based off of discrimination based on political affiliation is not in the interest of the sate and is not allowed under the 14th amendment.


writing it down as something else doesnt matter when politicians already stated they plan to block them on political reasons.this is textbook discrimination.you are saying despite oh well we denied it based upon having too many retaurants,it has already been said it wil be denied due to political affiliation.

once again this is the same as me denying a black man from starting a business while putting it on paper as too much business,while publicly telling everyone i wont allow black business in the area.

if you cant understand that analogy you should return to 3 grade english.
Click to expand...

Do you know what an analogy is? I'll give you a clue. You didn't make one.
 
Hatuey said:
What is unethical about this? Unethical are the positions of homophobic Chik-Fil-A owners.
Click to expand...

A government official using the government to discriminate against a group/entity/person specifically due to their stated religious beliefs is to me unconstitutional, and attempting to circumvent that doing such is not kosher legally by finding end arounds and creating alternative reasons to deny it as a technicality despite the actual motivation behind the action is what I see as unethical.

Simply because Chick-Fil-A's owner's views are unethical doesn't make the act of government officials to ban them from engaging in purely legal efforts simply due to their religious belief any less ethical.

Why are you comparing infringement of the 1st amendment to infringement of the non-existent right to a business license?
Click to expand...

The 1st amendment guarantee's one the right to build a house of worship wherever one wishes regardless of building permits, zoning laws, etc?

The same technicality and work arounds you're speaking of using to ban Chick-Fil-A are the same type of thing that was proposed/suggested to be used with the Mosque despite the inherent and unquestionable motivation being the desire to not allow them to be there due to their religious beliefs.
 
Last edited:
Hatuey said:
Doesn't matter if I think it's good or not. This isn't some draconian decision that will destroy the fiber of the community. If anything it shows that Chicago is welcoming of business which are inclusive of gays. Places like Chik-Fil-A will either have to adapt or piss off to homophobic havens like Alabama and Oklahoma.
Click to expand...

if anything it shows chicago supports fascism.
 
CriticalThought said:
Oversimplification. This business donates lots and lots of money to hate groups. Let's start there.
Click to expand...

are any of these groups engaged in illegal activity? Sorry, you don't have a right not to be offended
 
Zyphlin said:
A government official using the government to discriminate against a group/entity/person specifically due to their stated religious beliefs is to me unconstitutional, and attempting to circumvent that doing such is not kosher legally by finding end arounds and creating alternative reasons to deny it as a technicality despite the actual motivation behind the action is what I see as unethical.

Simply because Chick-Fil-A's owner's views are unethical doesn't make the act of government officials to ban them from engaging in purely legal efforts simply due to their religious belief any less ethical.



The 1st amendment guarantee's one the right to build a house of worship wherever one wishes regardless of building permits, zoning laws, etc?
Click to expand...

basically he is OK with denying someone their rights because you disagree with them...as long as your "stated" reason is politically correct and acceptable.
 
Last edited:
Hatuey said:
What is unethical about this? Unethical are the positions of homophobic Chik-Fil-A owners.



Why are you comparing infringement of the 1st amendment to infringement of the non-existent right to a business license?
Click to expand...

because the denial is based on their promotion of unpopular political ideas
 
Zyphlin said:
A government official using the government to discriminate against a group/entity/person specifically due to their stated religious beliefs is to me unconstitutional, and attempting to circumvent that doing such is not kosher legally by finding end arounds and creating alternative reasons to deny it as a technicality despite the actual motivation behind the action is what I see as unethical.

Simply because Chick-Fil-A's owner's views are unethical doesn't make the act of government officials to ban them from engaging in purely legal efforts simply due to their religious belief any less ethical.
Click to expand...

Can you tell us all what is illegal about denying a business license?

The 1st amendment guarantee's one the right to build a house of worship wherever one wishes regardless of building permits, zoning laws, etc?
Click to expand...

Uh - wha!?! Sorry - wait... You lost me in the gibberish. There is no such law. Actually, I've argued excessively before that the first amendment grants you the right to worship. It doesn't grant you the right to set up a church anywhere you want.
 
Hatuey said:
Doesn't matter if I think it's good or not. This isn't some draconian decision that will destroy the fiber of the community. If anything it shows that Chicago is welcoming of business which are inclusive of gays. Places like Chik-Fil-A will either have to adapt or piss off to homophobic havens like Alabama and Oklahoma.
Click to expand...

So, then, tyranny of the majority.


Gotcha.
 
Hatuey said:
Doesn't matter if I think it's good or not. This isn't some draconian decision that will destroy the fiber of the community. If anything it shows that Chicago is welcoming of business which are inclusive of gays. Places like Chik-Fil-A will either have to adapt or piss off to homophobic havens like Alabama and Oklahoma.
Click to expand...

uh, it's a direct attack on their first amendment rights.
 
Hatuey said:
Do you know what an analogy is? I'll give you a clue. You didn't make one.
Click to expand...

so your saying you cant refute this in any way but are so adamant on your belief you believe your right reguardless of evidence,constitutional law,and the 14th amendment.

btw an anology compares similiar situations through comparison,not similiar situations only if you agree with them,keep trying,but so far no cigar.

but i think ill light my kyrgistan cigar.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom