• 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]

I thought the important thing this week was what Israel's Capital was.

Frankly I don't think this is all that important, so I'm wondering what all the hoopla is for. I'm sure there are companies all over the political spectrum, don't you? No worthy of the attention of mayors; who are wrong btw.
 
I thought the first amendment protectected free speech in this country at least it use to.....People on the left are persecuting people with religeous beliefs and it has to stop.

Oh PUH-LEASE.....stop it with the persecuted Christian Martyr routine. No one is restricting his speech. What you fanatics fail to recognize is that you ABSOLUTELY have the right to your free speech....what you don't have the right to is to be free from the repurcussions that follow.

If you want to be a bigot....that is your right......however, expect to live with the consequences of your bigotry...there is a price to pay.
 
Oh PUH-LEASE.....stop it with the persecuted Christian Martyr routine. No one is restricting his speech. What you fanatics fail to recognize is that you ABSOLUTELY have the right to your free speech....what you don't have the right to is to be free from the repurcussions that follow.

If you want to be a bigot....that is your right......however, expect to live with the consequences of your bigotry...there is a price to pay.
Except...you and people like you practice selective outrage with regard to all those 'bigots' that disagree with gay marriage...so...you kinda prove yourself to be a dumbass when you say things like that, dont you.
 
Oh PUH-LEASE.....stop it with the persecuted Christian Martyr routine. No one is restricting his speech. What you fanatics fail to recognize is that you ABSOLUTELY have the right to your free speech....what you don't have the right to is to be free from the repurcussions that follow.

If you want to be a bigot....that is your right......however, expect to live with the consequences of your bigotry...there is a price to pay.

If the repercussions are from the government, they absolutely have a right to be free of them.
 
What would happen if a mayor of a city denied a business an operation license
because they supported SSM? Would you still be ok with the mayor exercising
his power when it is not in favor of your cause?
 
Except...you and people like you practice selective outrage with regard to all those 'bigots' that disagree with gay marriage...so...you kinda prove yourself to be a dumbass when you say things like that, dont you.

Not really. Some ABC company says something stupid and people protest the ABC company.

I seem to recall Walmart or target (some store) selling rainbow oreas that got the Anti-SSM all in a tizzy and they boycotted that store. Don't remember conservatives rallying saying how stupid that was. Or boycotting stores for not saying "Merry Christmas".

I'm not outraged, however, I will not support Chick-Fil-A. That's my right and it's their right to say whatever stupid **** they want.
 
What would happen if a mayor of a city denied a business an operation license
because they supported SSM? Would you still be ok with the mayor exercising
his power when it is not in favor of your cause?

I think you will be hard pressed to find more than 3 people on this thread that believe the mayor is in the irght for this. The rest believe the mayor should not use his power in this fashion.
 
If the repercussions are from the government, they absolutely have a right to be free of them.

I can't speak for everyone else, but when I say it's ok to boycott a company, I don't mean using government power to do it. I mean it's ok for individuals to boycott the company.
 
Thinking that he's speaking for Chicago on this is arrogant on its face. I would expect there are three camps on this issue:

I don't give a damn.
I fervently support SSM because I'm gay.
I think it's an abomination.
 
Thinking that he's speaking for Chicago on this is arrogant on its face. I would expect there are three camps on this issue:

I don't give a damn.
I fervently support SSM because I'm gay.
I think it's an abomination.

I would change "I fervently support SSM because I'm gay" to "I fervently support SSM". There are many heterosexuals out there that aren't gay and support strongly SSM. I'm one of them.
 
I would change "I fervently support SSM because I'm gay" to "I fervently support SSM". There are many heterosexuals out there that aren't gay and support strongly SSM. I'm one of them.

I can't imagine why anyone who wasn't gay would feel so strongly about it. There are so many issues to weigh in on . . . why so fervently on this particular one? No offense. I'm one of those who couldn't care less, by the way; though, maybe I'd have to say I feel a bit stronger than that. I think they have the same rights to happiness as the rest of us...and if this helps? *shrug*
 
Oh PUH-LEASE.....stop it with the persecuted Christian Martyr routine. No one is restricting his speech. What you fanatics fail to recognize is that you ABSOLUTELY have the right to your free speech....what you don't have the right to is to be free from the repurcussions that follow.

If you want to be a bigot....that is your right......however, expect to live with the consequences of your bigotry...there is a price to pay.

So, you want people like me to have the freedom to say whatever I want, but you do not want me to be protected from consequences. Is that right?

Ok, let's flip that philosophy. I do not want to "ban" homosexuality. People should be free to express their sexual desires for the same sex if they choose to. But they should be prepared for the societal consequence of a business owner not wanting to hire homosexuals.

I do not want to "ban" abortion either. Women can maintain their "freedom" to have an abortion, but how about we punish them afterwards? Ya know, making them deal with the "repurcussions that follow". If you want to have an abortion, that is your right......however, expect to live with the consequences of your actions....there is a price to pay.

See how your ideology works? lol...it's absurd. I am simply choosing to use YOUR LOGIC against you.

They weren't attempting to curb his speech, but to punish him for his speech? lol... The Supreme Court has decided, more than once, that that is the same thing. Punishing speech is literally CURBING speech. You liberals and your double standards. What happened in liberals' cognitive development?
 
I can't imagine why anyone who wasn't gay would feel so strongly about it. There are so many issues to weigh in on . . . why so fervently on this particular one? No offense. I'm one of those who couldn't care less, by the way; though, maybe I'd have to say I feel a bit stronger than that. I think they have the same rights to happiness as the rest of us...and if this helps? *shrug*

My brother was gay and had a very loving partner. He spent his life being ridiculed and denied the one thing he wanted. He died without ever knowing that. I also have friends that are gay and in that same boat of being denied the benefits and rights of marriage. That's why. I don't care if you don't think it is important, it's important to me and many other heterosexuals.
 
I can't speak for everyone else, but when I say it's ok to boycott a company, I don't mean using government power to do it. I mean it's ok for individuals to boycott the company.

And I would agree. DD however stated no one was restricting his free speech. These mayors stating that because of his speech he will no longer be able to operate his business in their towns is a completely different story. That is exactly the type of government behavior the 1st amendment is designed to protect.
 
My brother was gay and had a very loving partner. He spent his life being ridiculed and denied the one thing he wanted. He died without ever knowing that. I also have friends that are gay and in that same boat of being denied the benefits and rights of marriage. That's why. I don't care if you don't think it is important, it's important to me and many other heterosexuals.

What was the one thing he wanted?
 
Not really. Some ABC company says something stupid and people protest the ABC company.

I seem to recall Walmart or target (some store) selling rainbow oreas that got the Anti-SSM all in a tizzy and they boycotted that store. Don't remember conservatives rallying saying how stupid that was. Or boycotting stores for not saying "Merry Christmas".

I'm not outraged, however, I will not support Chick-Fil-A. That's my right and it's their right to say whatever stupid **** they want.
Oh come now...we have pretty fairly established how rapidly you and others have tripped over yourselves defending Obama, even though up until two months ago, when out of political need and expediency he changed his views, he held the same 'bigoted' position as the owner of ChickFilA. :lamo

When you sell out your values in the name of politics, the faux outrage thing looks...well..sad...
 
Oh come now...we have pretty fairly established how rapidly you and others have tripped over yourselves defending Obama, even though up until two months ago, when out of political need and expediency he changed his views, he held the same 'bigoted' position as the owner of ChickFilA. :lamo

When you sell out your values in the name of politics, the faux outrage thing looks...well..sad...

And I made the same point early in this thread. Not to mention that guys like Emanuel openly ambrace guys like Farrakahn.. LOL

It's comical, if not entirely sad that mainstream liberals fail to notice blatant hypocrisy.


Tim-
 
For the record I would most likey not vote for Emanuel
 
And I made the same point early in this thread. Not to mention that guys like Emanuel openly ambrace guys like Farrakahn.. LOL

It's comical, if not entirely sad that mainstream liberals fail to notice blatant hypocrisy.


Tim-
Comical at least. Pathetic works as well.
 
I would change "I fervently support SSM because I'm gay" to "I fervently support SSM". There are many heterosexuals out there that aren't gay and support strongly SSM. I'm one of them.

Do you also support polygamy and making recreational drugs, gambling and prostitution legal? Banning the sale of alcohol on Sunday and celebrating Christmas as a national holiday (holy day?) is a wonder as well, yet we survive these religious based "traditions" too even if they too have clear basis ONLY in religion (tradition?), not for any "compelling state interest". The idea that a "loud and proud" minority need only focus on ONE thing, and thereby invent a new right, by convincing some "historic" judge to make it so, without need for a majority vote or constitutional amendment is getting WAY out of hand.

It took a constitutional amendment to ban the recreational drug alcohol (and another to restore it), yet merely adding something to a "controlled and dangerous" sunstances list now makes marijuana, heroine, cocaine, meth, ecstasy and bath salts illegal nationwide. Gambling is banned in some state, legal in others and only allowed by the state in others - just like SSM yet that "freedom" of states is OK since the "loud and proud" don't seem to mind that yet. Prostitution as a voluntary transaction between consenting adults harms nobody yet is taboo, mainly based on religious objections, just as SSM and polygamy are. I am amazed that "principle" only seems to be an issue for the "loud and proud" SOMETIMES.

Personal feelings of the majority are not INVALID simply because a minority CLAIMS to be a victim for not being allowed to "do their thing" UNLESS that "thing" is a constitutional right. Note that the 14th amendment did NOT make racial/gender/age restrictive voting laws invalid, so why should it make the "only TWO of DIFFERENT genders" being the "correct" legal definition of a STATE marriage contract invalid?
 
Last edited:
Oh come now...we have pretty fairly established how rapidly you and others have tripped over yourselves defending Obama, even though up until two months ago, when out of political need and expediency he changed his views, he held the same 'bigoted' position as the owner of ChickFilA. :lamo

When you sell out your values in the name of politics, the faux outrage thing looks...well..sad...

It appears that the race card trumps the bigot card. Yes they can!
 
Oh come now...we have pretty fairly established how rapidly you and others have tripped over yourselves defending Obama, even though up until two months ago, when out of political need and expediency he changed his views, he held the same 'bigoted' position as the owner of ChickFilA. :lamo

When you sell out your values in the name of politics, the faux outrage thing looks...well..sad...

So you agree 100% with every candidate you voted for? If not you sold out your values in the name of politics.
 
So, you want people like me to have the freedom to say whatever I want, but you do not want me to be protected from consequences. Is that right?

Ok, let's flip that philosophy. I do not want to "ban" homosexuality. People should be free to express their sexual desires for the same sex if they choose to. But they should be prepared for the societal consequence of a business owner not wanting to hire homosexuals.

I do not want to "ban" abortion either. Women can maintain their "freedom" to have an abortion, but how about we punish them afterwards? Ya know, making them deal with the "repurcussions that follow". If you want to have an abortion, that is your right......however, expect to live with the consequences of your actions....there is a price to pay.

See how your ideology works? lol...it's absurd. I am simply choosing to use YOUR LOGIC against you.

They weren't attempting to curb his speech, but to punish him for his speech? lol... The Supreme Court has decided, more than once, that that is the same thing. Punishing speech is literally CURBING speech. You liberals and your double standards. What happened in liberals' cognitive development?

What DD is saying about consequences is that while you have the freedom of speech to say that "Marriage should be between a man and a woman", the consequence of that speech is that some that are for SSM might use their freedom of speech to boycott you.

This is not any different than how some conservatives boycott stores that don't say "Merry Christmas".
 
Do you also support polygamy and making recreational drugs, gambling and prostitution legal? Banning the sale of alcohol on Sunday and celebrating Christmas as a national holiday (holy day?) is a wonder as well, yet we survive these religious based "traditions" too even if they too have clear basis ONLY in religion (tradition?), not for any "compelling state interest". The idea that a "loud and proud" minority need only focus on ONE thing, and thereby invent a new right, by convincing some "historic" judge to make it so, without need for a majority vote or constitutional amendment is getting WAY out of hand.

It took a constitutional amendment to ban the recreational drug alcohol (and another to restore it), yet merely adding something to a "controlled and dangerous" sunstances list now makes marijuana, heroine, cocaine, meth, ecstasy and bath salts illegal nationwide. Gambling is banned in some state, legal in others and only allowed by the state in others - just like SSM yet that "freedom" of states is OK since the "loud and proud" don't seem to mind that yet. Prostitution as a voluntary transaction between consenting adults harms nobody yet is taboo, mainly based on religious objections, just as SSM and polygamy are. I am amazed that "principle" only seems to be an issue for the "loud and proud" SOMETIMES.

If a law like banning SSM is deemed unconsitutional, the judge has EVERY right to overthrow it.

And Christmas is far from a national "holy" day it is more like a capitalist holiday. You see more people trying to "buy" jesus rather than following Jesus. Talk about your hypocrites.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom