• 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]

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.

no, he isn't free to speak his mind, if the govt took any type of punitive action against him, based on that speech (being free to speak such would necessitate no such punitive action).
 
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.


it's not OK to deny a business because it is gay. but it is OK to deny a business because it doesn't like gays
it's not OK to deny a business because it is minority. but it is OK to deny a business because it does not like minorities

hypocrisy...what a concept
 
And can you point me to the amendment where it says you have a right to a business permit anywhere you want?

Point me the the amendment that states person has a right to be gay. Then realize how silly that statement is.
 
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.

Your analogy fails because not all Christians are anti-gay. I know a gay pastor of two Christian churches.
 
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.

My point was that freedom of expression simply means that you can state your beliefs publicly without fear of government prosecution. It doesn't mean that you cant be fired for it. It doesn't mean that you cant be boycotted for it. It doesn't mean that you can then open a business in a community that does not share your views. As someone else pointed out, communities routinely ban strip clubs and adult video stores. This is despite the fact that both industries are engaging in constitutionally protected freedom of expression.

Since I am arguing both sides of this to a degree, it would be interesting to see how many posters on here that are all up in arms over Chick Fil A not having "Chicago Values", were against the so called "ground zero mosque".
 
Last edited:
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?

based on their political beliefs? Absolutely not. Such would infringe on the free exercise of speech, with doesn't distinguish between offensive speech and that which is popular
 
it's not OK to deny a business because it is gay. but it is OK to deny a business because it doesn't like gays
it's not OK to deny a business because it is minority. but it is OK to deny a business because it does not like minorities

hypocrisy...what a concept

Despite what that idiot Romney says, corporations aren't people. A Corporation can't be gay. Only people can.

The point you people are missing is that a local government has a right to deny a business permit if they feel that the business does not fit in with their values.
 
My point was that freedom of expression simply means that you can state your beliefs publicly without fear of government prosecution. It doesn't mean that you cant be fired for it. It doesn't mean that you cant be boycotted for it. It doesn't mean that you can then open a business in a community that does not share your views. As someone else pointed out, communities routinely ban strip clubs and adult video stores. This is despite the fact that both industries are engaging in constitutionally protected freedom of expression.

the govt would be doing exactly that: looking to punish the company for it's adoption of unpopular ideas
 
My point was that freedom of expression simply means that you can state your beliefs publicly without fear of government prosecution. It doesn't mean that you cant be fired for it. It doesn't mean that you cant be boycotted for it. It doesn't mean that you can then open a business in a community that does not share your views. As someone else pointed out, communities routinely ban strip clubs and adult video stores. This is despite the fact that both industries are engaging in constitutionally protected freedom of expression.

the govt denying you a business license is, in essence, prosecuting you for it
 
My point was that freedom of expression simply means that you can state your beliefs publicly without fear of government prosecution. It doesn't mean that you cant be fired for it. It doesn't mean that you cant be boycotted for it. It doesn't mean that you can then open a business in a community that does not share your views. As someone else pointed out, communities routinely ban strip clubs and adult video stores. This is despite the fact that both industries are engaging in constitutionally protected freedom of expression.

Since I am arguing both sides of this to a degree, it would be interesting to see how many posters on here that are all up in arms of Chick Fil A not having "Chicago Values", were against the so called "ground zero mosque".

This is what I was saying.

Good point about the Ground Zero Muslim Community Center.
 
Despite what that idiot Romney says, corporations aren't people. A Corporation can't be gay. Only people can.

The point you people are missing is that a local government has a right to deny a business permit if they feel that the business does not fit in with their values.

Wouldn't it be great if they got rid of Hooters too?

Edit: I guess Hooters is gone from Boston, but because of bankruptcy.
 
Last edited:
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.
Do you know how many communities wouldn't think a gay night club would be a good fit for the community?

If Cathy ran a strip club no one would think twice about a permit being denied based on that freedom of expression.
Sure they would and I have seen a strip club (well a "novelty" store actually) challenge a denial and win specifically because the city couldn't prove any grounds not to allow the business. Meh, we don't want those here, is evidently not a valid reason to deny a legal business the ability to operate.
 
the govt would be doing exactly that: looking to punish the company for it's adoption of unpopular ideas

It's only punishment if they had revoked a previously granted business permit. You don't have an automatic right to a business permit.

This is like saying that every woman you haven't slept with is punishing you by withholding sex.
 
Despite what that idiot Romney says, corporations aren't people. A Corporation can't be gay. Only people can.

The point you people are missing is that a local government has a right to deny a business permit if they feel that the business does not fit in with their values.

what about selling chicken do you think clashes with the values of chicago? Again, we are not talking about an attempt to to limit the type of commercial activity someone participates in here (selling booze), but taking punitive measures against a company for the political speech of it's owners
 
Despite what that idiot Romney says, corporations aren't people. A Corporation can't be gay. Only people can.

The point you people are missing is that a local government has a right to deny a business permit if they feel that the business does not fit in with their values.

so maybe you would be willing to answer the question hatuey avoids....

so a local govt has a right to deny a black man a business license because their values state blacks should not own businesses?
 
Wouldn't it be great if they got rid of Hooters too?

Edit: I guess Hooters is gone from Boston, but because of bankruptcy.

Hooters has better crab legs than Red Lobster at least.
 
You don't understand. You are mistakenly conflating two separate things. Businesses do not have inalienable rights to open locations within cities. They have to apply for the license. Whichever city official makes that decision is not constitutionally bound to give the license to certain people, he can give it whomever he pleases.

In the case of Chicago, you would be wrong.

http://www.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/Illinois/chicago_il/municipalcodeofchicago?f=templates$fn=default.htm$3.0$vid=amlegal:chicago_il

The mayor shall issue the license unless the business doesn't meet the requirements for a business of that type. There's nothing the requirements for a restaurant that it "share Chicago's values."

I would hope that's the same in most municipalities. It's rather totalitarian for one guy to disallow you from opening a business just because he feels like it. Is that a construct you'd approve of?
 
Last edited:
Your analogy fails because not all Christians are anti-gay. I know a gay pastor of two Christian churches.

Well of course, not all people who work for this chicken joint in question joint are anti-gay either. Regardless, you're punishing Cathy because of her speech, not because of any action she has taken. A municipality can close a strip-club down because its location is inappropriate, doesn't fit in with the values of a community etc., sure...I agree. But you can't shut a chicken joint down because they verbally oppose or support gays, or strip clubs, or chicken or pork or whatever. Some sort of discriminatory action would have to take place on the part of the chicken joint, not just posing an idea for which you disagree.

The fact manly leftists think this is OK betrays their propensity towards totalitarianism.
 
It's only punishment if they had revoked a previously granted business permit. You don't have an automatic right to a business permit.

nope, it would be punishment if it was denied on the basis of their political views.

This is like saying that every woman you haven't slept with is punishing you by withholding sex.

we are talking about the state, not private entities. there is no alternative to the state
 
so maybe you would be willing to answer the question hatuey avoids....

so a local govt has a right to deny a black man a business license because their values state blacks should not own businesses?

The Civil Rights Act keeps a local government from doing that. There is no similar act that is specific to supporting a political or ideological movement.
 
Do you know how many communities wouldn't think a gay night club would be a good fit for the community?

I'm sure lots of communities feel that way. This straw man won't work on me.

Sure they would and I have seen a strip club (well a "novelty" store actually) challenge a denial and win specifically because the city couldn't prove any grounds not to allow the business. Meh, we don't want those here, is evidently not a valid reason to deny a legal business the ability to operate.

And who is the judge of a valid reason to deny a business permit?
 
what about selling chicken do you think clashes with the values of chicago? Again, we are not talking about an attempt to to limit the type of commercial activity someone participates in here (selling booze), but taking punitive measures against a company for the political speech of it's owners

Despite the victim mentality, it's not punitive if they never had a business license there to begin with.
 
I'm sure lots of communities feel that way. This straw man won't work on me.



And who is the judge of a valid reason to deny a business permit?

already pointed it out in earlier posts,the 14th amendment prevents discrimination without due process of law,and denying a company for not conforming to a political ideology isnot only fascism but not due process of law.

corporations are still considered people,through personhood,therefore they areprotected until changed otherwise under the 14th amendment,making any actions against them for political views 100% illegal.
 
And who is the judge of a valid reason to deny a business permit?

and there is the 64,000 dollar question.

a racist would feel that "because he is black" is a valid reason

an atheist might feel that "because he is a christian" is a valid reason

which is why I feel that, unless the business is conducting illegal activity, they should not be denied a license.
 
Back
Top Bottom