• 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

So, IYO, if this DC mayor had the power he'd do nothing, right?

Okay.

The DC Mayor? Yes, if he had the power to do it, I don't think he would. Like I said before, I oppose Chik-Fil-A 100% but I wouldn't use government to fight them. People boycotting them is perfectly fine.
 
The DC Mayor? Yes, if he had the power to do it, I don't think he would. Like I said before, I oppose Chik-Fil-A 100% but I wouldn't use government to fight them. People boycotting them is perfectly fine.

So, IYO, what does the quote from the Mayor mean: "I would not support #hatechicken." ? Is he saying the opposite, that he would support "hatechicken"?
 
So, IYO, what does the quote from the Mayor mean: "I would not support #hatechicken." ? Is he saying the opposite, that he would support "hatechicken"?

Not supporting something does not mean that you would use government power to oppose it. I don't support Chik-Fil-A expanding, but I wouldn't want to use government power to stop it.

He doesn't support Chik-Fil-A expanding but he is letting people know that you cannot use government power to stop something like this just because you don't like where their money is legally going.
 
Not supporting something does not mean that you would use government power to oppose it. I don't support Chik-Fil-A expanding, but I wouldn't want to use government power to stop it.

He doesn't support Chik-Fil-A expanding but he is letting people know that you cannot use government power to stop something like this just because you don't like where their money is legally going.


IMO, if he had the power to ban the business, he would. :peace
 
http://www.towleroad.com/

Washington D.C. Mayor Vincent Gray has made his views about Chick-fil-A known, on Twitter:

"Given my longstanding strong support for LGBT rights & marriage equality, I would not support #hatechicken."

Gray later responded to Twitter users about his statement, adding: "What's embarrassing about supporting equal rights for your gay fellow Americans?...This is about more than their CEO's personal opinions. They also give hundreds of thousands of dollars to anti-gay groups...I said I oppose them, but cannot legally bar them...Because they give significant amounts of $$ to organizations that actively oppose equal rights for gay people."

Read more: Washington D.C. Mayor Vincent Gray Calls Chick-fil-A 'Hate Chicken'| News | Towleroad


Sounds like the DC mayor would, if he could, ban this business BECAUSE he doesn't like where the guy gives his money.

You have failed to read correctly, and thus have not responded at all to the statement I made. To remind you, my statement was:

cmakaioz said:
Try as I might, I still don't see any actual examples of someone (mayor or otherwise) telling the business owner where he can or can't donate money to political causes.

I DO see one or more mayors expressing outrage at the Chick-Fil-A owner's financial support of harmful causes.

I DON'T see anyone being told to whom/what they can or cannot donate money.

You DO get that expressing outrage over something != telling someone what they can/can't do, right?
(bolding mine)

Speculation about what a given official might LIKE to do if it was within his or her power, or what they or anyone WISHES to be done...is not the same thing as ACTUALLY telling someone who or what they can't donate money to...let alone backing up that telling with the force of law.

Do you acknowledge the fact that expressing outrage over something is not telling someone what they can and can't do?
 
Whatever makes you feel better I suppose.

Doesn't make me feel good that someone in a political position/bully pulpit would act/react this way.

IMO the business owner has the right to give his money to anyone he pleases or he can flush it down the toliet. It's his money and using a political position/bully pulpit against a citizen is wrong. Anyway you cut it.
 
You have failed to read correctly, and thus have not responded at all to the statement I made. To remind you, my statement was:


(bolding mine)

Speculation about what a given official might LIKE to do if it was within his or her power, or what they or anyone WISHES to be done...is not the same thing as ACTUALLY telling someone who or what they can't donate money to...let alone backing up that telling with the force of law.

Do you acknowledge the fact that expressing outrage over something is not telling someone what they can and can't do?


The mayor is using his position to bully this guy, IMO.
 
Same-sex couple denied wedding cake by bakery - CBS News

This makes sense to boycott. His business is treating gay couples differently. Quite different from Chick Fil A. Many wont see the difference but there is one.

Do you think that Chik-Fil-A would hire homosexuals who are legally married to a person of the same sex in states where it is legal? Would they treat homosexual employees differently if married to someone of the same sex than they would employees who are married to someone of the opposite sex?

I think it is more than possible that this company will go out of its way to not hire people with same sex partners or who are homosexual because same sex marriage will soon be legal across the country and as a business, they would be required to treat same sex spouses the same way they do opposite sex spouses.
 
Do you think that Chik-Fil-A would hire homosexuals who are legally married to a person of the same sex in states where it is legal? Would they treat homosexual employees differently if married to someone of the same sex than they would employees who are married to someone of the opposite sex?

yes I do. I have posted many times in this thread that I know a gay couple who work at Chick Fil A here. They are hired. Chick Fil A has shown no sign of discrimination in their restaurants. Not toward employees and not toward guests.

I think it is more than possible that this company will go out of its way to not hire people with same sex partners or who are homosexual because same sex marriage will soon be legal across the country and as a business, they would be required to treat same sex spouses the same way they do opposite sex spouses.

You can think that but you would appear to be wrong. Also I am not sure if you are aware of this but Mr. Cathy does not go to each store and do the hiring. That is done by each store manager. Not everyone at Chick Fil A shares Mr Cathy's views not as a business do they act on them if they do. The above statement is based on nothing.
 
yes I do. I have posted many times in this thread that I know a gay couple who work at Chick Fil A here. They are hired. Chick Fil A has shown no sign of discrimination in their restaurants. Not toward employees and not toward guests.

Do their partners get covered under the company medical, dental, vision insurance as a dependent (if the person is eligible)?

You can think that but you would appear to be wrong. Also I am not sure if you are aware of this but Mr. Cathy does not go to each store and do the hiring. That is done by each store manager. Not everyone at Chick Fil A shares Mr Cathy's views not as a business do they act on them if they do. The above statement is based on nothing.

It's based on the fact that the guy is telling the world that he is against same sex marriages and he is sending money to people who are working to spread lies about homosexuality and same sex couples. The perception of the situation is all it takes. Just like in the military when it comes to fraternization laws. They are in place to prevent the perception of favoritism, which is why people will be charged with fraternization by just hanging out with someone they shouldn't be because it could be perceived that they are not going to follow the rules and treat people well.

On a personal level, I don't want money I spend going to causes that lie and promote hate and bigotry, so when I find out about businesses giving their profits to such organizations, I will choose not to spend my money at those businesses. I'm not going to picket or even expect anyone else to do so also, but I will do it. It should be a personal choice by everyone based on their own values. And no one should be told they are wrong for doing it.

Even the example you gave should just be based on personal values. Should people that would continue to shop at that bakery be yelled at for making that decision, whether they agree with what the bakery did or not?
 
Do their partners get covered under the company medical, dental, vision insurance as a dependent (if the person is eligible)?

I

I would have to assume yes or there would be a rash of lawsuits.

It's based on the fact that the guy is telling the world that he is against same sex marriages and he is sending money to people who are working to spread lies about homosexuality and same sex couples. The perception of the situation is all it takes.

His business has no track record of discriminating against gay people at all.

And no one should be told they are wrong for doing it.

yes they should. Boycotting a business based on the owners or employees religion, sexual orientation, race, gender or creed is wrong. Encouraging others to do the same is even more wrong. It is bigoted.

Even the example you gave should just be based on personal values. Should people that would continue to shop at that bakery be yelled at for making that decision, whether they agree with what the bakery did or not?

The difference between this bakery and chick fil a is this man's business is actually discriminating against this couple because of their sexual orientation. It is one thing to be against ssm but treat all customers and employees the same, it is quite another to actually refuse service to homosexuals.
 
Doesn't make me feel good that someone in a political position/bully pulpit would act/react this way.

IMO the business owner has the right to give his money to anyone he pleases or he can flush it down the toliet. It's his money and using a political position/bully pulpit against a citizen is wrong. Anyway you cut it.


I agree with you that someone in a government position shouldn't abuse their power just because they don't like where they are spending their money legally. Where I disagree with you is that I don't think the DC mayor would do this. Hence my "Whatever makes you feel better I suppose" comment when you said you think the DC mayor would abuse his power if he could.
 
I would have to assume yes or there would be a rash of lawsuits.

Colorado doesn't have legal same sex marriage, so if the couple that you know live there, then they actually couldn't sue for not being recognized as a legally married couple, since they can't be legally married where they live.

His business has no track record of discriminating against gay people at all.

Which would be almost impossible to prove in this case just due to the fact that very few states offer legal same sex union recognition to begin with and the company doesn't offer spouse benefits to all its employees either, regardless of their sexuality.

yes they should. Boycotting a business based on the owners or employees religion, sexual orientation, race, gender or creed is wrong. Encouraging others to do the same is even more wrong. It is bigoted.

To each their own.

And your own example was not "boycotting a business based on owners' employees religion, sexual orientation, race, gender, or creed" and neither are any of those things the reasons why people are boycotting Chick-Fil-A. It is bigoted to boycott for those reasons, except creed. If someone's creed told them to treat others differently, then why is it wrong to boycott them? Those are beliefs. If someone believed that women should not be allowed in public outside the company of a man, but they had no choice but to allow those people in their store, would it be wrong to boycott that person's store because you believe that if otherwise not required by law, they would not allow unaccompanied women into their store?

The difference between this bakery and chick fil a is this man's business is actually discriminating against this couple because of their sexual orientation. It is one thing to be against ssm but treat all customers and employees the same, it is quite another to actually refuse service to homosexuals.

To me, it isn't. Especially since it is likely that if not for either laws that prevent discrimination or knowing that they would receive a backlash for doing such a thing, they would do it.
 
Colorado doesn't have legal same sex marriage, so if the couple that you know live there, then they actually couldn't sue for not being recognized as a legally married couple, since they can't be legally married where they live.

I am fairly certain Chick Fil A has stores in states that do and we still dont know of any instances of discrimination. Certainly not more than any other company if they do.

Which would be almost impossible to prove in this case just due to the fact that very few states offer legal same sex union recognition to begin with and the company doesn't offer spouse benefits to all its employees either, regardless of their sexuality.

Many companies offer benefits that include spouse or significant other whether the states allow marriage or not. I know the company I work for does. But I also dont work in fast food. No idea if he does or if it is the norm.
And your own example was not "boycotting a business based on owners' employees religion, sexual orientation, race, gender, or creed" and neither are any of those things the reasons why people are boycotting Chick-Fil-A.

That is where we differ. The belief that marriage is between a man and a woman (for most people) is one of their religious beliefs.

If someone believed that women should not be allowed in public outside the company of a man, but they had no choice but to allow those people in their store, would it be wrong to boycott that person's store because you believe that if otherwise not required by law, they would not allow unaccompanied women into their store?

That store is in the wrong because they are discriminating based on a persons sex. Again, regardless of Mr. Cathy's personal beliefs, his restaurants in no way have a track record for discrimination.

To me, it isn't. Especially since it is likely that if not for either laws that prevent discrimination or knowing that they would receive a backlash for doing such a thing, they would do it.

You have no way to know that. There is no law that says Mr. Cathy has to serve gay people. In fact, he can refuse service to anyone and chooses not to.
 
I am fairly certain Chick Fil A has stores in states that do and we still dont know of any instances of discrimination. Certainly not more than any other company if they do.

Many companies offer benefits that include spouse or significant other whether the states allow marriage or not. I know the company I work for does. But I also dont work in fast food. No idea if he does or if it is the norm.

That is where we differ. The belief that marriage is between a man and a woman (for most people) is one of their religious beliefs.

That store is in the wrong because they are discriminating based on a persons sex. Again, regardless of Mr. Cathy's personal beliefs, his restaurants in no way have a track record for discrimination.

You have no way to know that. There is no law that says Mr. Cathy has to serve gay people. In fact, he can refuse service to anyone and chooses not to.

You still aren't getting what I'm saying. Would he still hire same sex couples if he were not required by law to do so? Would he treat same sex spouses equally to opposite sex spouses if not required to do so by law? These are what is important to me and from his own comments, it does not appear that he would. We won't truly know since he is required to treat them equally if they are in a state that recognizes same sex marriage and we don't know enough about the benefits he offers and to which of his employees get those benefits and whether he does have same sex spouses that he knows about getting those benefits.

We do know that he gives money to organizations that lie about homosexuality or twist facts to try to make homosexuality, same sex marriage, and adoption by same sex parents or same sex parents who raise children look bad and wrong. This is not where I want my money to go and I have alternatives when it comes to my food choices which I will base on where they might send my money to. It is the same reason that I try to buy American made products, because I want my money to be recirculated in America, more than in other countries.
 
You still aren't getting what I'm saying. Would he still hire same sex couples if he were not required by law to do so? Would he treat same sex spouses equally to opposite sex spouses if not required to do so by law? These are what is important to me and from his own comments, it does not appear that he would. We won't truly know since he is required to treat them equally if they are in a state that recognizes same sex marriage and we don't know enough about the benefits he offers and to which of his employees get those benefits and whether he does have same sex spouses that he knows about getting those benefits.

We do know that he gives money to organizations that lie about homosexuality or twist facts to try to make homosexuality, same sex marriage, and adoption by same sex parents or same sex parents who raise children look bad and wrong. This is not where I want my money to go and I have alternatives when it comes to my food choices which I will base on where they might send my money to. It is the same reason that I try to buy American made products, because I want my money to be recirculated in America, more than in other countries.

The only thing you can take from his comments is that he feels marriage should be between a man and a woman. I dont think he has ever come out and said he thinks that gay couple should not be hired or anything else. Just because a person feels as though marriage should be between a man and a woman does not mean there is anything more to it than that. By that logic since you don't know what any company would do if not lawfully required you shouldnt shop anywhere. Its flawed. Do you know how Walmart would treat their employees (which they teeter on discrimination and unlawful all the time) if not required? Or mcdonalds? JC Penney? Nabisco? Kraft? We don't know. We know these companies care about $$$$ and that is it.
 
Doesn't make me feel good that someone in a political position/bully pulpit would act/react this way.

IMO the business owner has the right to give his money to anyone he pleases or he can flush it down the toliet. It's his money and using a political position/bully pulpit against a citizen is wrong. Anyway you cut it.

God damn people actually having opinions....HOW DARE THEY EXPRESS THEIR FEELINGS!

Well, unloess they own a business, then they can say what they want.
 
The mayor is using his position to bully this guy, IMO.

Did you read what you quoted? He specifically said he could do nothing to stop his business. Expressing an opinion is not bullying. If it was, you would be bulying the mayor right in this post.
 
how dare he express himself. lol noone is saying that anyone can't say what they want. but dont try to be objective or see the whole picture. closed mindedness works for some people.

Huh? Could you rephrase that please cuz I got no idea what you are saying.
 
Back
Top Bottom