• 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!

Muppets owner Lisa Henson severs ties with Chick-Fil-A over SSM

Except no one actually believed that Obama didn't support same-sex marriage in the first place. This Chick-Fil-A guy clearly supports discrimination. **** him.

SO when he said inhis own words that he didn't support SSM, he was lying? Is that your opinion?
 
And you can go right on doing that. And I'll continue to think your argument is rather hollow when you're complaining about people being inconsistent because in their opinion their inconsistency is justified.

Muciti was saying that the boycott was divisive. Yet he was stunningly silent about the company being boycotted suggesting that God will punish everyone (as if there wasn't a New Covenant like Christians are supposed to believe) because gay people would get married. If you can point out his rationale for that I am all ears. I gave you my rationale. You are free to dismiss it as you like.

Tell me. Does your stance against bigotry extend to the government being allowed to circumvent the law to defacto violate the 1st amendment when bigots like Westboro speak, or is it only the 14th amendment that you have no problem with the government circumventing? Or do you pick and choose when bigotry warrants an end around for the government?

If your religion dehumanizes and works to oppress people, I have no problem with your religion waiving their right to protection.

Tell me, do you think that the government should stop prosecuting tax evasion and tax fraud as it violates the 5th Amendment right against self incrimination? ;)

Now, there's no problem with being inconsistent strictly based on ones opinion of whether something is right or wrong....which is really what you're doing comes down to. A lot of people, actually I dare say most people probably myself included at some points, probably try to clarify why things are "DIFFERENT" in situations where we're being inconsistent. However, the issue here is that you're trying to belittle someone's argument for "damning" one thing and giving another a pass on a topic that you yourself are doing that same very thing.

He hasn't explained the difference in his double standard. Would you like to explain his double standard? I at least did explain why I saw it as different. Not everything is black and white. There are nuances depending on various circumstances.

It's one thing to be inconsistent on an issue occasoinally but point out someones inconsistency on a totally unrelated issue. You're inconsistent due to your opinion on a related issue and yet you're wanting to try to counter someone's point by suggesting they're inconsistent in action.

When you or anyone else can explain what is different in his point about divisiveness then your objection will hold more weight with me.
 
See^^^ Stupid gay Muppets. :)

That's how it always starts, that whole liberal thingy..


Tim-

That's right, the biggest kid should get all the toys!
 
They even employ homosexuals and treat them exactly the same. But that doesnt matter to some.

Good for them. I have doubts as to whether they would have this policy if the government didn't force them to.

People hate Chick Fil A because the ownership has religious beliefs and some people don't think it is proper for a person to have beliefs that are different from their own.

It's probably because those people only had one parent and therefor are "emotionally handicapped".
 
Well, well, well well well! Looks like Chick-Fil-A wants to pick and choose which parts of "God's principles" they espouse!

Chickfila.png-large


Read that notice carefully. Really, a safety concern? And this just happened within a couple days of the big announcement?

Exodus 20:16 said:
Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.

Way to go, Chick-Fil-A. You preached "God's principles"...and then broke one of the Ten Commandments!
 
Business owners have the right to hold opinions, and shouldn't be punished by fools like Rahm. Also, businesses can be boycotted and business owners can severe ties if they wish, whether over opinions or not. It's a free country.
 
You know, I've heard that one before ("Usually, our constitutions expand liberties, they don't contract them"). It seems to fall flat considering the changes and interpretations made to the federal Constitution since the beginning. Most I think have been restrictions on ennumerated rights, especially SCOTUS interpretations. Is there a right listed in the Bill of Rights that hasn't been further restricted over the course of time?

I don't think describing it as "expanding" liberties is the best explanation.

However, I would say that the majority of new amendments, and all the old amendments, were aimed at protecting people from the GOVERNMENT intervening IN their lives.

1st - Limits government intervention into speech, religion, etc
2nd - Limits government intervention into bearing arms
3rd - Limits government use of ones home
4th - Limits government invading your property/person
5th - 8th - Limits the government in how they can legally judge and punish youyou
9th - Limits the government in general from infringing upon other rights not stated
10th - Limits the government in what powers it can do

The entire bill of rights generally is limiting what the government can do to it's people through variou fashions

11th - First one limiting citizens instead of the government. Limits individuals ability to file suit against a state
12th - Changes the structure of how the government is formed, which is inherently a limiting nature on the government (limiting it to being done in a certain rules oriented way rather than simply whoever can take control gets control)
13th - Limiting the rights of people to own other people
14th - Limit's the government from discriminating against classes of people and can classify people as citizens
15th - Limits how government can deny voting rights to people OR bestows rights upon individuals who previously didn't have any
16th - Ding Ding Ding, first one that really bestows additional power unto the federal government
17th - Re-arranges the rules of the constitution, which again are inherently limiting of government
18th - Third one that is unquestionably removing rights from individuals with no other argument that can be made regarding it
19th - Again, either limiting the governments ability to discriminate OR bestowing a new right to a group that didn't have it prevoiusly
20th - Another limit of government by tweaking how government works
21st - Removal of the 18th, bringing us back to only two amendment clearly denying rights to citizens as a whole.
22nd - Limits government by limiting how long a President can remain in power
23rd - Changes the way the government constitutional works
24th - Limiting of government in restricting peoples vote
25th - Another governmental structure amendment
26th - Like the other voting ones...either limits discrimination regarding voting or bestows upon a group a right they previously didn't enjoy
27th - Government structure again

There are only two amendments that clearly aim at doing nothing but removing the rights of individuals, and one of those got repealed. There is one, the slavery amendment, which can be argued simultaneously gave people right and took rights away from others.

By and large, Constitutional Amendments are used to limit the government or structure the govenrment.

The gay marriage amendment would be like a quasi mix of the 13th and the voting amendments.

It's similar to the 13th in the sense that it's removing the possability of doing something under the law from a group of individuals. For the 13th, it was removing the ability for them to legally own another human being. For the proposed amendment, it would be removing the ability of homosexuals to marry someone else. In terms of the similarity to the voting amendment....the new amendment, in terms of defining it JUST as a man or woman...would be bestowing a new right upon an particular group of people.
 
You know, I've heard that one before ("Usually, our constitutions expand liberties, they don't contract them"). It seems to fall flat considering the changes and interpretations made to the federal Constitution since the beginning. Most I think have been restrictions on ennumerated rights, especially SCOTUS interpretations. Is there a right listed in the Bill of Rights that hasn't been further restricted over the course of time?

Not to mention things like the Patriot Act.
 
Well I am off work and going to go round up the kids and invite some friends and go support my local chick fil a. i think i'll even get some breakfast tomorrow morning.

What about the kids' mom?
 
Well I am off work and going to go round up the kids and invite some friends and go support my local chick fil a. i think i'll even get some breakfast tomorrow morning.

You're gonna go support a chain that openly and knowingly lies?
 
SO when he said inhis own words that he didn't support SSM, he was lying? Is that your opinion?

Of course he was. Did anyone seriously believe that Obama objected to gay marriage in 2008? :roll:
 
Why don't you give an example of what you are tlking about?

A couple quickies off the top of my head. The Brady Bill, which restricts Second Amendment rights has been upheld by the courts as constitutional. That's a contraction of the second. The First Amendment has been restricted in all sorts of ways since the Constitution had been signed.

Once again, I don't see where any amendment has been free from some contraction. The Tenth definitely.
 
Last edited:
The reality here is that chick fil a has done nothing as a business to discriminate against gays. They even employ homosexuals and treat them exactly the same. But that doesnt matter to some. People hate Chick Fil A because the ownership has religious beliefs and some people don't think it is proper for a person to have beliefs that are different from their own.

The outrage is because of their position on SSM and the fact that they donate to anti-gay groups and not because they are Christian.
 
Except no one actually believed that Obama didn't support same-sex marriage in the first place. This Chick-Fil-A guy clearly supports discrimination. **** him.

To make the point: I always assumed he was honest as I had no reason to doubt his stance. I just thought he had a ****ed up stance on the issue, and it is far from the only issue I disagree with him on. Apparently some people think that if you vote for some one that means you have to agree with them on every issue, which is painfully stupid.
 
The reality here is that chick fil a has done nothing as a business to discriminate against gays. They even employ homosexuals and treat them exactly the same. But that doesnt matter to some. People hate Chick Fil A because the ownership has religious beliefs and some people don't think it is proper for a person to have beliefs that are different from their own.

Ummm..what Chic-Fil-A does is take money they take in and give it to some very vile groups. There is nothing wrong with saying I do not want my money being used for that purpose and doing business elsewhere, nor is it wrong to condemn them for donating to those groups.
 
i dont know about that but holy crap is it packed in here. it makes me feel good to see so many support free speech and not be influenced by the bigots attempting to hurt their business.

When you get home, check out post #230.

Oh, and if you could, bring me back a chicken caesar wrap. I'll repay you. That is one thing I am gonna miss...
 
When you get home, check out post #230.

Oh, and if you could, bring me back a chicken caesar wrap. I'll repay you. That is one thing I am gonna miss...

I am home. I saw post 230. I dont know the actual reasons behind the fallout of the muppets and chick fil a. For all i know chick fil a threatened to pull their toys and muppets reacted this way. Or for all i know some anti chick fil a person put that up and took the picture. in either case i dont care honestly. It worked out for the better. My kids got kids meals from there and in place of some dumbass muppet they got Berenstein Bear books. I'd much rather my kids get books, good books that instill good values, than a muppet. Chick Fil A should be applauded for helping educate children especially when so many kids today dont have many books at home.

Furthermore that place was packed. Almost to the point I left. They had employees directing traffic it was so busy at that store. So many people inside I have never seen it that busy. Going back tomorrow morning to continue my support of the right to free speech.

Funny thing is I dont even agree with what he said lol. BUt those attempting to suppress his right to say it cannot win this. I am encouraging everyone who can via every forum, and social media outlet I can to go support Chick Fil A. Also last year my sons school had 4 separate fundraisers with chick fil a. As vice president of the PTA i am going to do what I can to double that amount rather than splitting it up with them and other restaurants. I doubt I'll get 4 more but every little bit helps.
 
I am home. I saw post 230. I dont know the actual reasons behind the fallout of the muppets and chick fil a. For all i know chick fil a threatened to pull their toys and muppets reacted this way. Or for all i know some anti chick fil a person put that up and took the picture. in either case i dont care honestly. It worked out for the better. My kids got kids meals from there and in place of some dumbass muppet they got Berenstein Bear books. I'd much rather my kids get books, good books that instill good values, than a muppet. Chick Fil A should be applauded for helping educate children especially when so many kids today dont have many books at home.

Furthermore that place was packed. Almost to the point I left. They had employees directing traffic it was so busy at that store. So many people inside I have never seen it that busy. Going back tomorrow morning to continue my support of the right to free speech.

Funny thing is I dont even agree with what he said lol. BUt those attempting to suppress his right to say it cannot win this. I am encouraging everyone who can via every forum, and social media outlet I can to go support Chick Fil A. Also last year my sons school had 4 separate fundraisers with chick fil a. As vice president of the PTA i am going to do what I can to double that amount rather than splitting it up with them and other restaurants. I doubt I'll get 4 more but every little bit helps.

How is anyone's right to say anything being suppressed? The government is not hauling him off to jail or closing down his restaurants for his comments. No one is being sued. There are no Muppet police coming to take him away and do bad things to him for what he said. There are simply some people who now have decided that they no longer want to spend money at his business. There are other companies who were associated with his business who have decided they no longer want to be associated with it because of his stand and who he donates some his business's profits to. Heck, the Hensons haven't even actually called for a boycott, they just distanced themselves.

On a personal level, it is no different to me than when I decided to longer support the Dixie Chicks with my money because of their comments. I don't encourage anyone else to do join me, that is their business, but I won't give money to people I don't agree with if I have a choice. That is really how everyone should deal with this situation. If you don't like what Chik-Fil-A said or do to the point where you don't want your money to become their profits and pay for things you don't agree with, then don't do it. If you feel the same way about the Hensons or Oreos or Starbucks or any of the other companies that support same sex marriage or even who have just did something you don't agree with then don't give money to them. And if you feel the opposite, where you want to give extra money to those organizations you do agree with, then do so. But honestly, that should be a personal decision by everyone. Why do we need public boycotts or public eat-ins announced?
 
This is what happens when the top 10% have 80% to 90% of stocks, bonds, trust funds, and business equity, and over 75% of non-home real estate. Right conservatives?
 
Back
Top Bottom