• 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]

Thorgasm said:
This isn't a freedom of speech issue. His speech was not abridged.
Click to expand...

Looks to me like it's the epitome of government taking action against someone specifically because of something they spoke.
 
KevinKohler said:
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?
Click to expand...

No, I wouldn't feel like it was a violation of my free speech. I don't work for the government. There is nothing in the First Amendment that says anything about my employer not being able to fire me for exercising my right to free speech.

Can you point out where there are not supposed to be consequences for things I may say?
 
KevinKohler said:
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?
Click to expand...

That is perfectly legal. Your employer certainly can fire you for things that you say outside of work if while doing so you are associated with your company. For example, if I said I Joe Blow that work's at Acme believe that the civil rights act was a mistake. My employer could legally fire me for saying that in a public forum and it would be perfectly constitutional.

Freedom of speech / expression only protects you from the government restricting what you say, not from the public consequences of what you say.
 
Thorgasm said:
No, I wouldn't feel like it was a violation of my free speech. I don't work for the government. There is nothing in the First Amendment that says anything about my employer not being able to fire me for exercising my right to free speech.

Can you point out where there are not supposed to be consequences for things I may say?
Click to expand...

The case of the op the government seems stirred to action directly based on the content of an individuals, and organizations political/religious position and speech
 
Miguel17 said:
Before you call names, you should go back and actually read my posts. I'm not defending what the mayor of Boston wants to do on moral ground. I haven't been saying it's a great thing. I've been discussing it's legality, which is hardly an indisputable point.
Click to expand...

Thorgasm said:
This isn't a freedom of speech issue. His speech was not abridged.
Click to expand...

We've been trying to explain that concept to people for several hours now. With poor results.
 
Phoenix said:
Looks to me like it's the epitome of government taking action against someone specifically because of something they spoke.
Click to expand...

And they are still free to express that opinion. The government hasn't silenced Chick Fil-A.
 
Thorgasm said:
This isn't a freedom of speech issue. His speech was not abridged.
Click to expand...

if the govt punishes you because of your speech...it is abridged. free speech isn't really free if you get punished for speaking it
 
CriticalThought said:
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.
Click to expand...
What groups do they give to that want to criminalize homosexuality? Even if groups did want to do that, they Supreme Court has already struck that notion down.
 
Thorgasm said:
And they are still free to express that opinion. The government hasn't silenced Chick Fil-A.
Click to expand...

they are attempting to deny them a license based on the content of their speech. That's taking punitive action, and the govt attempting to abridge their first amendment right
 
Dr. Chuckles said:
and isn't this exactly what is being attempted here?
Click to expand...

I don't know I think its something of a gray area. For example, could a city not grant a business license to a white supremacist group? Cities typically have a good deal worth of leeway in determining what businesses set up shop in their municipality.
 
Thorgasm said:
And they are still free to express that opinion. The government hasn't silenced Chick Fil-A.
Click to expand...

He could still express it from a jail cell also. The concept is "without fear of reprisal from the government"
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
I do understand where you're coming from, but in the current legal environment a private business should be free to donate money to whatever charitable or political organizations they choose without fear that local governments will bar them from doing business or opening new locations in response.
Click to expand...


By the same notion, not the rule of law, shouldn't a politician be able to say what they want.
 
winston53660 said:
By the same notion, not the rule of law, shouldn't a politician be able to say what they want.
Click to expand...

as long as they don't tap their foot in an airport restroom while saying it
 
KevinKohler said:
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?
Click to expand...


Not a good example because your example uses two private parties. The 1st amendment is only protection from the government.
 
Dr. Chuckles said:
The case of the op the government seems stirred to action directly based on the content of an individuals, and organizations political/religious position and speech
Click to expand...

Cathy is still free to speak his mind. Cathy isn't a registered voter in Chicago so Rahm Emanuel isn't obligated to represent him.
 
There is a very good reason everyone in the upper midwest refers to chicago as "****cago".

Rahm is just a living testament to it.
 
Miguel17 said:
We've been trying to explain that concept to people for several hours now. With poor results.
Click to expand...

thorgasm-albums-piquechures-picture67111172-welcome-debate-politics.gif
 
OscarB63 said:
if the govt punishes you because of your speech...it is abridged. free speech isn't really free if you get punished for speaking it
Click to expand...

So by that logic, if I am a federal government employee, and I make some racist public statements, then the government agency I work for can't fire me? I think this is much more nuanced than you think it is.
 
Dr. Chuckles said:
they are attempting to deny them a license based on the content of their speech. That's taking punitive action, and the govt attempting to abridge their first amendment right
Click to expand...

No, Cathy is still free to speak his mind. The leaders of communities don't believe Chick Fil-A's values would be a good fit for their community.

If Cathy ran a strip club no one would think twice about a permit being denied based on that freedom of expression.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
So by that logic, if I am a federal government employee, and I make some racist public statements, then the government agency I work for can't fire me? I think this is much more nuanced than you think it is.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't Juan Williams being fired from NPR be a good example? Technically it's private, but its funding and organization is public. Many supporters of his said that it was biased or partisan, but I don't know of anyone who said firing him was illegal.
 
Phoenix said:
He could still express it from a jail cell also. The concept is "without fear of reprisal from the government"
Click to expand...

And can you point me to the amendment where it says you have a right to a business permit anywhere you want?
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
So by that logic, if I am a federal government employee, and I make some racist public statements, then the government agency I work for can't fire me? I think this is much more nuanced than you think it is.
Click to expand...

last I checked...chik-fil-a was not a govt employee, so your comparison is invalid. as a member of the military, my free speech is limited in certain circumstances...none of which apply to the average citizen.
 
The whole concept is complete bull**** and hypocrisy. Any person on he supporting Boston's Mayor would be SCREAMING till their head exploded if a southern state specifically claim that homosexuality is an abomination and were going to not allow a Target to be built in their city. But as is typical liberal style, in this case it supports their agenda so it's okay. No wonder our country is so ****ed up.
Speaking of Target, They are touted as a gay friendly company but they also support anti gay politicians. That however gets overlooked with a wink and a nod so long as [big corporate] Target keeps the benjamins flowing to the groups that support the gay cause.

...and I think it should be noted the mayor did not say he wouldn't allow Chick-Fil-A in his city. He suggested they not build there.
 
Last edited:
Thorgasm said:
No, Cathy is still free to speak his mind. The leaders of communities don't believe Chick Fil-A's values would be a good fit for their community.

If Cathy ran a strip club no one would think twice about a permit being denied based on that freedom of expression.
Click to expand...

Cathy isn't running a strip club, so your analogy fails. It would only be accurate if Cathy ran a christian strip-club, and Joe ran a Jewish strip-club...then Cathy runs her mouth about gays so you close her down, yet leave Joe alone because he left his mouth shut.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom