• 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]

if anything it shows chicago supports fascism.

If you got a penny for every time you used fascism, you'd be able to afford colour pictures for your avatar and signature.
 
Can you tell us all what is illegal about denying a business license?

again, the issue isn't simply denying a business license, but denying based on the adoption of unpopular political ideas.
 
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.

There are religious groups who interpret the story of Cain and Abel to mean that black people are cursed by God. If those people donated large sums of money to the KKK, I wouldn't distinguish between what they believe and what they are doing. It doesn't matter. They are providing money to a hate group.

This is no different. It's a business that is providing money to a group that disseminates false information about gays in hopes of inspiring enough fear to bring about policy changes and throw gays behind bars. What they believe is irrelevant to what they are doing.
 
If you got a penny for every time you used fascism, you'd be able to afford colour pictures for your avatar and signature.

if only you had a penny for every time you ignored the fact you are supporting fascism.
 
There are religious groups who interpret the story of Cain and Abel to mean that black people are cursed by God. If those people donated large sums of money to the KKK, I wouldn't distinguish between what they believe and what they are doing. It doesn't matter. They are providing money to a hate group.

This is no different. It's a business that is providing money to a group that disseminates false information about gays in hopes of inspiring enough fear to bring about policy changes and throw gays behind bars. What they believe is irrelevant to what they are doing.

and hate groups are completely protected under the first, as long as they stick to advocacy.


<<< Statutes affecting the right of assembly, like those touching on freedom of speech, must observe the established distinctions between mere advocacy and incitement to imminent lawless action, for, as Chief Justice Hughes wrote in De Jonge v. Oregon, supra, at 364: "The right of peaceable assembly is a right cognate to those of free speech and free press, and is equally fundamental." See also United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 552 (1876); Hague v. CIO, 307 U.S. 496, 513, 519 (1939); NAACP v. Alabama ex rel. Patterson, 357 U.S. 449, 460-461 (1958).>>>

Brandenburg v. Ohio
 
No, I'm saying you made no analogy or sense.

so your saying you cant connect dots unless they agree with your viewpoint?????????????


i guarantee everyone else can look at the anology and figure it out.
 
again, the issue isn't simply denying a business license, but denying based on the adoption of unpopular political ideas.

Again and for the last time because I have to get up early tomorrow:

1. The alderman can publicly state that he will fight to deny Chik-fil-a a business license.
2. The people reviewing the application can provide any legal excuse available to them in order to deny them.
3. There isn't a thing which you could do in order to change the legality of their decision aside from taking them to court by suing.
4. As unethical as you think it may be, the local authorities are fully within their right to make this decision.

-------

Alright. I'm done.
 
so your saying you cant connect dots unless they agree with your viewpoint?????????????

Follow along:

You.
Made.
No.
Analogy.
Or.
Point.
 
Ah look at that.....so good.

6a00d8341e061253ef00e54f1767be8834-640wi.jpg
 
if only you had a penny for every time you ignored the fact you are supporting fascism.

Lmao. Sure. We'll be coming after people who go to dress up saloons next. Better load up them muskets!
 
Can you tell us all what is illegal about denying a business license?

Where did I say specifically that "denying a business license" is illegal.

I stated the government discriminating on the basis of religion or religious views is illegal.

Thus you can't go "We're denying your business license because we disagree with your religious views on gay marriage". You can, as you said, go about backdoor ways to find technicalities or make up other reasons to go about denying the business license. As I said, I view that as unethical due to it being done to circumvent the actual reason motivating the action, which is an unconstitutional motivation. Similar to if it was done to the Mosque.

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.

So then you'd have no issue with New York City taking action to assure that mosque could not be built anywhere near ground zero by utilizing zoning laws, building laws, and other such things as a means to make it impossible for them to do so...despite the actual motivation and reason for it is because they don't want a muslim holy place near there? Because you know....the actual TECHNICAL reason they would not be allowed to build is not due to their religion.
 
Again and for the last time because I have to get up early tomorrow:

1. The alderman can publicly state that he will fight to deny Chik-fil-a a business license.
2. The people reviewing the application can provide any legal excuse available to them in order to deny them.
3. There isn't a thing which you could do in order to change the legality of their decision aside from taking them to court by suing.
4. As unethical as you think it may be, the local authorities are fully within their right to make this decision.

-------

Alright. I'm done.

and if they could show no legitimate reason for denying any license, or permit, any decision they made would be overturned by the courts
 
There are religious groups who interpret the story of Cain and Abel to mean that black people are cursed by God. If those people donated large sums of money to the KKK, I wouldn't distinguish between what they believe and what they are doing. It doesn't matter. They are providing money to a hate group.

This is no different. It's a business that is providing money to a group that disseminates false information about gays in hopes of inspiring enough fear to bring about policy changes and throw gays behind bars. What they believe is irrelevant to what they are doing.

There is a difference though. Blacks have the civil rights act. Chick-fil-A was giving money to groups that essentially support current law. I could see where Vermont, Massachusetts, Iowa and other states that allow same sex couples to marry would argue that Chick-fil-A is a discriminatory company because of the groups it has chosen to give money to. However, in Illinois, same sex marriage is illegal. So really, Rahm's problem should be with the state government of Illinois.
 
Follow along:

You.
Made.
No.
Analogy.
Or.
Point.

government discriminating business compared to government discriminating against business of race.

that is a logical comparison,you are just in utter denial.
 
Where did I say specifically that "denying a business license" is illegal.

I stated the government discriminating on the basis of religion or religious views is illegal.

Who says the government will deny them based on religion? You seen the application and the decision made on it? I haven't maybe you can show it to us.

So then you'd have no issue ....

I don't have a problem with any government taking legal recourses to deny anyone of anything. I welcome it. If I don't agree with the decision rendered, I also welcomed the disgruntled citizens to take the legal recourses available to them to overturn said decisions. :shrug:
 
Lmao. Sure. We'll be coming after people who go to dress up saloons next. Better load up them muskets!

ok so now you resort to logical fallacies,i see.

you know its considered ectremely unintelligent to use major fallacies like that in a debate right??????????
 
There is a difference though. Blacks have the civil rights act. Chick-fil-A was giving money to groups that essentially support current law. I could see where Vermont, Massachusetts, Iowa and other states that allow same sex couples to marry would argue that Chick-fil-A is a discriminatory company because of the groups it has chosen to give money to. However, in Illinois, same sex marriage is illegal. So really, Rahm's problem should be with the state government of Illinois.

Chick-fil-A gives money to groups that want to criminalize homosexuality and other groups that treat homosexuality like a mental illness. That is not current law.
 
Chick-fil-A gives money to groups that want to criminalize homosexuality and other groups that treat homosexuality like a mental illness. That is not current law.

see citation on advocacy vs action
 
Chick-fil-A gives money to groups that want to criminalize homosexuality and other groups that treat homosexuality like a mental illness. That is not current law.

That is a good point there.
 
Does no one understand the concept of free speech?
 
Can you tell us all what is illegal about denying a business license?

So denying business licenses to stores that openly support gay causes, specifically because they openly support and sell gay themed merchandise is equally legal correct?
 
This isn't a freedom of speech issue. His speech was not abridged.

Yes it was, and is.

If I told you that, as a result of things you said on this forum, you were no longer employed, and able to make money at your job...would you feel that was a violation of your free speech?
 
Back
Top Bottom