• 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]

Erod

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 28, 2008
Messages
15,483
Reaction score
8,227
Location
North Texas
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
Rahm: “Chick-fil-A Values Are Not Chicago Values” | FOX News & Commentary: Todd Starnes

Officials in at least three cities have vowed to block efforts to open Chick-fil-A restaurants after the company’s president told reporters that he supported the traditional definition of marriage – and warned that redefining marriage might bring God’s judgment on the nation.
FOLLOW TODD ON FACEBOOK FOR CULTURE WAR NEWS. CLICK HERE.
“Chick-fil-A values are not Chicago values,” said Mayor Rahm Emanuel in a statement to the Chicago Tribune. “They disrespect our fellow neighbors and residents.”
Emanuel was vowing his support for Alderman Proco Moreno’s announcement that he would block construction of a Chick-fil-A restaurant in his district.

Once again, freedom of speech only matters if you agree with liberal indoctrination.
 
Rahm: “Chick-fil-A Values Are Not Chicago Values” | FOX News & Commentary: Todd Starnes



Once again, freedom of speech only matters if you agree with liberal indoctrination.

What does any of this have to do with freedom of speech? As far as I know, the Supreme Court has not included opening restaurants as expressions of constitutionally protected speech. Although, you never know after Citizens United. City officials are well within their rights to block a private company from opening locations within their cities. The fact that its concerned with the Chick-fil-A's guy's imbecilic comments about marriage is immaterial.
 
Boston Mayor Tom Menino was the first to announce that the Atlanta-based company would not be welcomed in his city.
“You can’t have a business in the City of Boston that discriminates against a population,” he told the Boston Globe.


Does Chik-Fil-A not serve homosexual customers? How, precisely, will homosexuals be discriminated against? Will the officials of these cities deny building permits to churches that espouse traditional marriage? Will new businesses be required to sign pledges to support whatever basket of social initiatives that the local city council espouses before being able to set up shop?

The Boston Globe wondered “which part of the First Amendment does Menino not understand? A business owner’s political or religious beliefs should not be a test for the worthiness of his or her application for a business license.

Political correctness run amok.
 
What does any of this have to do with freedom of speech? As far as I know, the Supreme Court has not included opening restaurants as expressions of constitutionally protected speech. Although, you never know after Citizens United. City officials are well within their rights to block a private company from opening locations within their cities. The fact that its concerned with the Chick-fil-A's guy's imbecilic comments about marriage is immaterial.

thats what I was wondering, then after i thought about it, it came to me. This has NOTHING to do with freedom of speech LMAO
 
The term "traditional marriage" always makes me chuckle a bit. A sense of historicity is indispensable when theorizing about politics.
 
BTW it's a pity I don't like Chik-Fil-A's food, else I would switch all my fast food consumption to them exclusively.
 
The term "traditional marriage" always makes me chuckle a bit. A sense of historicity is indispensable when talking about politics.

I laugh at that phrase to, its propaganda since that word is totally subjective
 
thats what I was wondering, then after i thought about it, it came to me. This has NOTHING to do with freedom of speech LMAO

Yeah. When the Boston Globe puts out the article:

Chick-fil-A Owner Arrested, Executed for Thought-Crimes Against Gay Agenda

let me know.
 
This is just Chicago being stupid. It's discriminatory to punish a business because the owner disagrees with gay marriage. It would be like cities banning Target for supporting them. It hurts business owners and is wrong.
 
I laugh at that phrase to, its propaganda since that word is totally subjective

Yeah, and the worst part is that some people actually think it's been static for all of human history, Western civilization, or whatever parameters you want. When of course the definition of marriage has changed many, many, many times over the centuries, and almost always for the better.
 
Last edited:
thats what I was wondering, then after i thought about it, it came to me. This has NOTHING to do with freedom of speech LMAO
When a business owner is being prevented by government from opening a business because of his opinion on a subject, that certainly is meant to have a chilling effect on similar speech. Instead of pointing out the opinion and letting the market decide for themselves if they want to support the business, government seeks to prevent the business from ever opening. It's a dirty trick.
 
Last edited:
What does any of this have to do with freedom of speech? As far as I know, the Supreme Court has not included opening restaurants as expressions of constitutionally protected speech. Although, you never know after Citizens United. City officials are well within their rights to block a private company from opening locations within their cities. The fact that its concerned with the Chick-fil-A's guy's imbecilic comments about marriage is immaterial.

Are you kidding me? What, other than expressing a political viewpoint, has this BUSINESS done wrong? Did they refuse to hire gays? Did they refuse to serve gays? You want no discrimination against gays (which was not even alleged) yet CHEER discriminating against those that choose to support traditional marraige, the current law? I suppose if a restaurant owner wanted polygamy or SSM that it would be welcomed, or if they simply said nothing at all on the subject; but say that you like the CURRENT definition of marriage and you should be banned? No, that could not POSSIBLY have anything to do with protected politcal speech. LOL
 
The term "traditional marriage" always makes me chuckle a bit. A sense of historicity is indispensable when theorizing about politics.

Yo, dude, it's a chicken sandwich. And if you and you're gay husband want to eat one, guess what, YOU CAN!
 
thats what I was wondering, then after i thought about it, it came to me. This has NOTHING to do with freedom of speech LMAO

Actually, it does. This is the government saying that this business, these people, will be adversely impacted in government licensing because of the views they've expressed (legal, non-violent views). If this were just a case of a public boycott, then you'd be correct. But when the government does it - that's when the constitutional rights come into the picture.

And Chicago has values? I know about their traditional "value" of the dead voting and voting democratic. I know their "value" of having ward bosses determine elections.
 
Last edited:
When a business owner is being prevented by government from opening a business because of his opinion on a subject, that certainly is meant to have a chilling effect on similar speech. Instead of pointing out the opinion and letting the market decide for themselves if they want to support the business, government seeks to prevent the business from ever opening. It's a dirty trick.

effect? so what
doesnt stop his freedom of saying what ever he wants
I could go to Cleveland open a store and always wear steeler gear and say I love the steelers, that could effect my buisness too, or people could decided to boycott me because Im a steeler fan, again so what

my right to say I love the steelers hasnt been infringed on

now as far as if I think its the right move or not, well Id need more info currently it doesnt seem like it but my original point stands, this has nothing to do with the freedom of speech

lots fo things can happen because of what one might say, the right and freedom to do so is still there
 
Are you kidding me? What, other than expressing a political viewpoint, has this BUSINESS done wrong? Did they refuse to hire gays? Did they refuse to serve gays? You want no discrimination against gays (which was not even alleged) yet CHEER discriminating against those that choose to support traditional marraige, the current law? I suppose if a restaurant owner wanted polygamy or SSM that it would be welcomed, or if they simply said nothing at all on the subject; but say that you like the CURRENT definition of marriage and you should be banned? No, that could not POSSIBLY have anything to do with protected politcal speech. LOL

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. Do you understand how that is different from First Amendment rights? If he chooses not to give it to Chick-fil-A, for whatever reason, there is nothing wrong with that. He hasn't broken the law, and he hasn't violated anybody's rights. You seem to think a bureaucrat deciding which fast food joint to give a license to is analogous to a judge deciding a murder case. There are no constitutional rights involved, no discrimination involved.
 
Last edited:
I may not like Chik-Fil-As stance on SSM but I dont agree with blocking them from opening restaurants.
 
Yo, dude, it's a chicken sandwich. And if you and you're gay husband want to eat one, guess what, YOU CAN!

Let me know when you have something to contribute.
 
Actually, it does. This is the government saying that this business, these people, will be adversely impacted in government licensing because of the views they've expressed (legal, non-violent views). If this were just a case of a public boycott, then you'd be correct. But when the government does it - that's when the constitutional rights come into the picture.

And Chicago has values? I know about their traditional "value" of the dead voting and voting democratic. I know their "value" of having ward bosses determine elections.

actually it doesnt because he still has his freedom of speech :shrug: it hasnt been impacted or taken away LMAO

just like the day he said it, tomorrow he can still say he is against equal gay rights, nothing has changed
 
I may not like Chik-Fil-As stance on SSM but I dont agree with blocking them from opening restaurants.

now this is a point I can agree on as long as the actual stores arent doing anything wrong but his freedom of speech hasnt been infringed
 
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. If he chooses not to give it to Chick-fil-A, there is nothing wrong with that. You act as though that decision-making process entails cutting the Gordian knot. What sort of things do you think goes into that decision?

I bet you'd be singing a different tune if it was a minority or gay owned business that was being denied the license. there would be shrill shrieks of "racism" and or "bigotry" coming form every rooftop in town.
 
now this is a point I can agree on as long as the actual stores arent doing anything wrong but his freedom of speech hasnt been infringed

It has if the government is saying "we will punish your business because of your personal views."
 
effect? so what
doesnt stop his freedom of saying what ever he wants
I could go to Cleveland open a store and always wear steeler gear and say I love the steelers, that could effect my buisness too, or people could decided to boycott me because Im a steeler fan, again so what

my right to say I love the steelers hasnt been infringed on

now as far as if I think its the right move or not, well Id need more info currently it doesnt seem like it but my original point stands, this has nothing to do with the freedom of speech

lots fo things can happen because of what one might say, the right and freedom to do so is still there

Nonsense. The difference is that a boycott is a private sector action. This is government doing this.
 
Yeah, and the worst part is that some people actually think it's been static for all of human history, Western civilization, or whatever parameters you want. When of course the definition of marriage has changed many, many, many times over the centuries, and almost always for the better.

Show me ONE time that marriage has changed in the U.S. if not by a state law change. Something as basically "wrong" as slavery, racial voting laws, gender voting laws and even the voting age differences required constitutional amendments to change them. The idea that SSM (or polygamy) is a some new found "right" because of other "traditions" (hopes or wants) ignores both reality, state and constitutional law. Get the state law changed or get a constitutional amendment passed or simply face reality and keep squacking about it to irritate even more people.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom