• 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]

There is some truth to it. Overstated, but some truth. There is no war against Christianity, but some political entertainers and TV reachers have some believing there is.

chickfila.png
 
Chick-fil-A and Gay Marriage: Bloomberg Won't Support Boycott of Chain in New York - Metropolis - WSJ

This is failing in New York too, Bloomberg doesn't support a boycott which means it will fail nationally. Good bye Mrs Henson, you stupid cow.

Cow....

chickFilA.jpg


:lamo
As much as I think Mayor Bloomberg is wrong on the soda issue, he is right on the CfA issue. I have zero problem with him stating his personal opinion and disagreement. Then, he clearly and correctly states that it is not official government prerogative to make thwarting the company as city policy. Kudos to him!


What a total moron! He single-handedly damaged the anti-Chic-fil-A sided the argument. No doubt many in that group are steaming over what this idiot did.
No kidding. When I first heard of this my first thought was, "Is this an example of that vaunted liberal 'tolerance' I've heard so much about?"
 
I don't mind harmless opinions. The moment even a hint of force/preventions is implied against Chick-fil-A or any other business is when discussion must take place to stop it. I would rather we not remain silent and wait until we awake some day... and find that government has been punishing businesses with varying views for quite some time. Opinions are alright. Bullying and what could be seen as the very beginning steps of some sort of pseudo-fascism isn't.
 
I don't mind harmless opinions. The moment even a hint of force/preventions is implied against Chick-fil-A or any other business is when discussion must take place to stop it. I would rather we not remain silent and wait until we awake some day... and find that government has been punishing businesses with varying views for quite some time. Opinions are alright. Bullying and what could be seen as the very beginning steps of some sort of pseudo-fascism isn't.
In a capitalist economy money speaks louder than words. So when words and opinions fall on deaf ears then boycotting is an effective non-violent tool for people to use to send a message to those with more money than sense.
 
In a capitalist economy money speaks louder than words. So when words and opinions fall on deaf ears then boycotting is an effective non-violent tool for people to use to send a message to those with more money than sense.

Because this is a free country, boycotting is acceptable. Trying to use politicians with power to bully businesses with differing views is not.
 
Liberals are opposed to bullying, unless of course it's government doing the bullying.

Liberals are fine with being told they "must" purchase something. I hope Romney wins and gets a bill passed that says that a person "must" purchase a Bible, because Bible's are pretty good for one's health as well. I wonder how that would fly with liberals? lol, I don't have to wonder, I know.

As long as the government is bullying Christians, the left is perfectly ok with that. Oh, bullying the Catholic Church into covering contraception which violates their religious beliefs is ok, and bullying Chick fil A because their CEO is a Christian who supports the Biblical definition of marriage is ok too. Bullying Americans into purchasing health insurance or facing a "tax" is ok too. But you bully a fat kid on a playground over some lunch money, and the Hollywood starlets come out to make their public service announcements that bullying must stop. Or if you use the term "gay" to describe something, you are going to have to get an appointment with the school counselor. Or if you tell a Muslim group that the city doesn't agree with their Islamic views and therefore they aren't welcome in that city, let's see what the Left has to say about that. Imagine the backlash if Rahm had told a Muslim CEO that "Muslim values are not Chicago values" and that he wouldn't support that Muslim business in Chicago. Imagine that for one second.

You liberals are full of it. You are not tolerant. Liberals, by and large, are the most intollerant people in this country. They do not tolerate different view points. In fact, they protest them, they riot against them, they seek legal action against them, they vandalize the property of people with different beliefs and view points. Instead of accepting the fact that another American may oppose gay marriage, what do they do? Call for boycotts, stage demonstrations, call on others to boycott, spray paint local chick fil a stores with "tastes like hate". Ya, these are supposed to be the actions of the party of tolerance??? Please. Liberals are far more intollerant than bigots, racists, and sexists. A racist is intollerant of another race. Liberals are intollerant of ANYONE who doesn't agree with their liberal philosophies. And I mean ANYONE. It is liberals who call conservative black people "uncle toms" and "porch negros". I could go on and on. They aren't tolerant. They are the opposite.
 
Liberals are opposed to bullying, unless of course it's government doing the bullying.

You ought to qualify that to make it more reasonable.
 
The term "traditional marriage" always makes me chuckle a bit. A sense of historicity is indispensable when theorizing about politics.
I can see why you would chuckle a bit, as the term never would have surfaced in the first place had it not been for non-traditional anti-Christians rattling their sabers. It's quite an accomplishment to topple one of the greatest institutions this country has ever known, and God knows you people are close to achieving that.
 
Liberals are opposed to bullying, unless of course it's government doing the bullying.

Liberals are fine with being told they "must" purchase something. I hope Romney wins and gets a bill passed that says that a person "must" purchase a Bible, because Bible's are pretty good for one's health as well. I wonder how that would fly with liberals? lol, I don't have to wonder, I know.

As long as the government is bullying Christians, the left is perfectly ok with that. Oh, bullying the Catholic Church into covering contraception which violates their religious beliefs is ok, and bullying Chick fil A because their CEO is a Christian who supports the Biblical definition of marriage is ok too. Bullying Americans into purchasing health insurance or facing a "tax" is ok too. But you bully a fat kid on a playground over some lunch money, and the Hollywood starlets come out to make their public service announcements that bullying must stop. Or if you use the term "gay" to describe something, you are going to have to get an appointment with the school counselor. Or if you tell a Muslim group that the city doesn't agree with their Islamic views and therefore they aren't welcome in that city, let's see what the Left has to say about that. Imagine the backlash if Rahm had told a Muslim CEO that "Muslim values are not Chicago values" and that he wouldn't support that Muslim business in Chicago. Imagine that for one second.

You liberals are full of it. You are not tolerant. Liberals, by and large, are the most intollerant people in this country. They do not tolerate different view points. In fact, they protest them, they riot against them, they seek legal action against them, they vandalize the property of people with different beliefs and view points. Instead of accepting the fact that another American may oppose gay marriage, what do they do? Call for boycotts, stage demonstrations, call on others to boycott, spray paint local chick fil a stores with "tastes like hate". Ya, these are supposed to be the actions of the party of tolerance??? Please. Liberals are far more intollerant than bigots, racists, and sexists. A racist is intollerant of another race. Liberals are intollerant of ANYONE who doesn't agree with their liberal philosophies. And I mean ANYONE. It is liberals who call conservative black people "uncle toms" and "porch negros". I could go on and on. They aren't tolerant. They are the opposite.

So people that support the FMA are some how tolerant right?
 
In a capitalist economy money speaks louder than words. So when words and opinions fall on deaf ears then boycotting is an effective non-violent tool for people to use to send a message to those with more money than sense.

Right here. This is a prime example. You wanna boycott Chick Fil A? More power to ya, vote with your own money. But when mayors of cities get involved and tell a person "your values aren't my city's values", or "we wont allow your business here" because of your values, you are crossing even a legal line.

You want to send a message to people "with more money than sense". Right here. A condescending way of saying, "if you oppose gay marriage, you are dumb". You have more money than sense. It's the clever way in which these sentiments are implied. I'm not a dumb person, I understand language quite well. What I'm sick of are these liberals who demand that we live in a "tolerant" society, but a society that doesn't tolerate certain view points. It's patently absurd, and frankly, it's an offense to one's intelligence.

How many comments on this board have started like this: "personally, I think the CEO is flat out wrong and stupid....." Again, the condescention from the left is nauseating. Like somehow, if I oppose gay marriage, it's because I'm uneducated, or that I'm a bigot. I personally oppose gay marriage as well, and I'm fairly highly educated. What if I were to say something like this, "homosexuality is attributed to a low IQ", or "if you are gay, you are stupid"? Is that a tolerant belief? No, it isnt. Yet, it seems perfectly fine for liberals to run around and call anyone who opposes same sex marriage "stupid", "intollerant", "dumb", "biggoted", "haters", "rednecks". Wanna have that honest conversation liberals? Then stop calling the kettle black, and realize that liberals, by and large, are far more intollerant than anyone else in America. Period.
 
A condescending way of saying, "if you oppose gay marriage, you are dumb".

True. Intelligence has no bearing on beliefs. Intelligence is solely the acquisition and application of knowledge and skills. It is unbelievable how so many misuse its meaning.
 
True. Intelligence has no bearing on beliefs. Intelligence is solely the acquisition and application of knowledge and skills. It is unbelievable how so many misuse its meaning.

Yet another condescending response. Basically saying, "true, no matter how intelligent a bigot is, he's still a bigot." Also implying that real intelligence leads a person to support same sex marriage. lol...also absurd and an insult to intelligence.
 
Yet another condescending response. Basically saying, "true, no matter how intelligent a bigot is, he's still a bigot." Also implying that real intelligence leads a person to support same sex marriage. lol...also absurd and an insult to intelligence.

I think you misunderstand my post.

I'm agreeing with your excerpt, Masada, in that those who think people who don't support SSM are dumb... are wrong themselves.
 
I think you misunderstand my post.

I'm agreeing with your excerpt, Masada, in that those who think people who don't support SSM are dumb... are wrong themselves.

They're ignorant of the biological side of homosexuality aka .... dumb.
 
They're ignorant of the biological side of homosexuality aka .... dumb.

If that is so would you please present the exact components/matter that determine homosexuality? This would exclude absolutely any sort of subjectivity and theorization.
 
Right here. This is a prime example. You wanna boycott Chick Fil A? More power to ya, vote with your own money. But when mayors of cities get involved and tell a person "your values aren't my city's values", or "we wont allow your business here" because of your values, you are crossing even a legal line.

You want to send a message to people "with more money than sense". Right here. A condescending way of saying, "if you oppose gay marriage, you are dumb". You have more money than sense. It's the clever way in which these sentiments are implied. I'm not a dumb person, I understand language quite well. What I'm sick of are these liberals who demand that we live in a "tolerant" society, but a society that doesn't tolerate certain view points. It's patently absurd, and frankly, it's an offense to one's intelligence.

How many comments on this board have started like this: "personally, I think the CEO is flat out wrong and stupid....." Again, the condescention from the left is nauseating. Like somehow, if I oppose gay marriage, it's because I'm uneducated, or that I'm a bigot. I personally oppose gay marriage as well, and I'm fairly highly educated. What if I were to say something like this, "homosexuality is attributed to a low IQ", or "if you are gay, you are stupid"? Is that a tolerant belief? No, it isnt. Yet, it seems perfectly fine for liberals to run around and call anyone who opposes same sex marriage "stupid", "intollerant", "dumb", "biggoted", "haters", "rednecks". Wanna have that honest conversation liberals? Then stop calling the kettle black, and realize that liberals, by and large, are far more intollerant than anyone else in America. Period.
Mayors are elected to represent their constituents values and there are many, many mayors all across the country who refuse to allow certain companies to do business in their communities. Porn shops, liquor stores, bars, pawn shops, or businesses that just don't fit in the neighborhood. They aren't always successful as in the case Walmart but that is part of a mayors job to help bring in the right kind of business that will improve and benefit their community. So if a business is openly discriminatory against tax paying citizens in that community then why should they be allowed to do business there? Most businesses are tolerant and accept diversity, but Chick-fil-a shown has shown that it is not willing to accept a certain segment of society. So why should a diverse society accept them?


What I'm sick of are conservative's double standards. Why should Liberals be expected to live up to a Conservatives definition of tolerance when conservatives don't live up to it themselves? Case in point.....


June 1999
Conservative Christian Boycott of the U.S. Army | religoustolerance

Religious tolerance, what a joke.

September 28th 2010
Boycott Home Depot (a.k.a. PC Depot) | Conservative Heritage Times

September 13, 2010
Boycott Progressive Insurance

January 27, 2011
Divisions on the Right Over Gays in Its Ranks - NYTimes

September 22, 2011
Conservative Group Calls for Boycott of Ben & Jerry's 'Schweddy Balls' Flavor | Fox News

April 11, 2012
Don't do business with Progressive appeasers

Jun 26, 2012
Oreo Pride: Rainbow-Stuffed Cookie Sparks Threats of Boycott - ABC News
 
Last edited:
Moot, do you think government should punish certain businesses based on the opinions/legal actions of their owners?
 
Moot, do you think government should punish certain businesses based on the opinions/legal actions of their owners?
Do you think a business has a right to discriminate against the people that live in the community it does business in? I don't. Especially, if they intend to profit off that community. Who pays for the police, roads, sidewalks and street lamps that make it convenient and secure for the customers to go to that business? The people in a community have a vested interest in the kind of companies they want in their community and if that businesses values don't fit....then they don't belong there.
 
Last edited:
Mayors are elected to represent their constituents values and there are many, many mayors all across the country who refuse to allow certain companies to do business in their communities. Porn shops, liquor stores, bars, pawn shops, or businesses that just don't fit in the neighborhood. They aren't always successful as in the case Walmart but that is part of a mayors job to help bring in the right kind of business that will improve and benefit their community. So if a business is openly discriminatory against tax paying citizens in that community then why should they be allowed to do business there? Most businesses are tolerant and accept diversity, but Chick-fil-a shown has shown that it is not willing to accept a certain segment of society. So why should a diverse society accept them?

No one has accused chick-fil-A of any discriminatory practices.

And the idea that an elected official ought to have veto power over every business within his/her jurisdiction is horrifying.
 
Do you think a business has a right to discriminate against the people that live in the community it does business in? I don't. Especially, if they intend to profit off that community. Who pays for the police, roads, sidewalks and street lamps that make it convenient and secure for the customers to go to that business? The people in a community have a vested interest in the kind of companies they want in their community and if that businesses values don't fit....then they don't belong there.

In your opinion, whom has chick-fil-A discriminated against?
 
No one has accused chick-fil-A of any discriminatory practices.

And the idea that an elected official ought to have veto power over every business within his/her jurisdiction is horrifying.
If you think thats horrifying then imagine how Gays feel when Chick-fil-a's owner, Dan Cathy uses the profits from his business to lobby government officials to pass anti-gay legislation.
 
Right here. This is a prime example. You wanna boycott Chick Fil A? More power to ya, vote with your own money. But when mayors of cities get involved and tell a person "your values aren't my city's values", or "we wont allow your business here" because of your values, you are crossing even a legal line.

You want to send a message to people "with more money than sense". Right here. A condescending way of saying, "if you oppose gay marriage, you are dumb". You have more money than sense. It's the clever way in which these sentiments are implied. I'm not a dumb person, I understand language quite well. What I'm sick of are these liberals who demand that we live in a "tolerant" society, but a society that doesn't tolerate certain view points. It's patently absurd, and frankly, it's an offense to one's intelligence.

How many comments on this board have started like this: "personally, I think the CEO is flat out wrong and stupid....." Again, the condescention from the left is nauseating. Like somehow, if I oppose gay marriage, it's because I'm uneducated, or that I'm a bigot. I personally oppose gay marriage as well, and I'm fairly highly educated. What if I were to say something like this, "homosexuality is attributed to a low IQ", or "if you are gay, you are stupid"? Is that a tolerant belief? No, it isnt. Yet, it seems perfectly fine for liberals to run around and call anyone who opposes same sex marriage "stupid", "intollerant", "dumb", "biggoted", "haters", "rednecks". Wanna have that honest conversation liberals? Then stop calling the kettle black, and realize that liberals, by and large, are far more intollerant than anyone else in America. Period.

Your last line demonstrates the hypocrisy of your entire post.
 
If you think thats horrifying then imagine how Gays feel when Chick-fil-a's owner, Dan Cathy uses the profits from his business to lobby government officials to pass anti-gay legislation.

And in this country, that is completely legal. I don't support Dan Cathy's position, but I support his right to HAVE his position.
 
Back
Top Bottom