• 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!

Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day brings out supporters, protesters [W:529]

Yes really. "Seriously stop trying to be offended by things, or get upset at people for not agreeing with you on every exact little thing, for not bowing down to your opinions" can be said to all of those who are attacking him and Chick-fil-A because of his opinion. Fair is fair, correct? I don't think his opinion is vile, either. I acknowledge that not everyone is in lock-step, supporting GM.

There is a huge difference between being offended by someone not agreeing with your stance, and having someone say that your relationships makes God angry, and is going to destroy the country.
 
Gender discrimination is technically legal within certain bounds. The only way the gender discrimination argument would hold legal clout is of the Equal Rights Amendment was amended, and that Amendment failed.

It is legal within certain bounds, but there has to be a clear state interest to do so, and with denying SSM there isn't.

And you didn't answer my question.
 
There is a huge difference between being offended by someone not agreeing with your stance, and having someone say that your relationships makes God angry, and is going to destroy the country.

That "difference" is a result of personal bias. Yeah, the CEO's religious and he has a differing view on GM. Now, is he going to start the rapture or attempt to kill homosexuals? We don't know and can only speculate/insinuate. Is the man entitled to an opinion without being punished by narrow-sighted mayors? Yes, he does. Am I tolerant enough to allow people to have their opinions without attacking them, yes. Understandably the man's views contrast sharply with yours. That's what makes America great, because everyone has the right to an opinion without being punished. You wouldn't like it if people punished you for holding your opinions either, I'd imagine. We should tolerate all opinions. Actions are what we should not tolerate if they are actually intended to harm others. I think people have gotten so sensitive that they can't resist being nasty and vicious towards those with sharply differing views.
 
That "difference" is a result of personal bias. Yeah, the CEO's religious and he has a differing view on GM. Now, is he going to start the rapture or attempt to kill homosexuals? We don't know and can only speculate/insinuate. Is the man entitled to an opinion without being punished by narrow-sighted mayors? Yes, he does. Am I tolerant enough to allow people to have their opinions without attacking them, yes. Understandably the man's views contrast sharply with yours. That's what makes America great, because everyone has the right to an opinion without being punished. You wouldn't like it if people punished you for holding your opinions either, I'd imagine. We should tolerate all opinions. Actions are what we should not tolerate if they are actually intended to harm others. I think people have gotten so sensitive that they can't resist being nasty and vicious towards those with sharply differing views.

Not being tolerant of intolerance is not itself intolerance.
 
It is legal within certain bounds, but there has to be a clear state interest to do so, and with denying SSM there isn't.

And you didn't answer my question.

I've cited the landmark case where MA took DOMA to court and the judge ruled that DOMA violates the 10th Amendment and affirms that states can define marriage for themselves.

There is nothing that would prevent SSM fro being legal, it's up to the states. Marriage is regulated by the states and legal definition of marriage is a societal thing, society can legally approve of polygamy or abolish marriage altogether. It is within legal bounds for a state to define marriage either for or against SSM.
 
Read the 14th amendment and you will realize that SSM is a constitutional right.

Under what part? Equal protection of the law does not mean MAN = WOMAN or BLACK = WHITE or there would have been no need for the 15th or 19th amendments. What many seek to do is to "tweek" the constitution to inlcude federal jurisdiction over SSM, polygamy, prostitution and recreational drug use simply because they do not like their state laws. Is it not curious that TWO constitutional actions were required for ONLY the recreational use of the alcohol, yet NONE was required for the nationawide banning of marijuana, herione, cocain, meth, LSD, ecstasy or bath salts?
 
I've cited the landmark case where MA took DOMA to court and the judge ruled that DOMA violates the 10th Amendment and affirms that states can define marriage for themselves.

There is nothing that would prevent SSM fro being legal, it's up to the states. Marriage is regulated by the states and legal definition of marriage is a societal thing, society can legally approve of polygamy or abolish marriage altogether. It is within legal bounds for a state to define marriage either for or against SSM.

No it's not, this is going to be like Loving v Virginia, where the SCOTUS is going to rule and SSM will be legal throughout the whole country, probably within the next 5 years I imagine.

It is against the constitution to discriminate without a clear state interest, and there is none here. I shouldn't be punished for living in Georgia because my state is ass backwards on this issue.
 
No, I mean Iowa's law against it was struck down by the courts. They are not the only state this has happened in.

I am confused since SSM is now LEGAL in six states: Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont and in DC. Are you saying that the courts CREATED (via judicial activism) a SSM law in Iowa?
 
Both mayors walked those threats back. And buying a chicken sandwich does not do anything to prevent government officials from doing this in the future, if that is the concern. I'm calling bull**** on ANYONE who claims that they attended "Chick-Fil-A Appreciation Day" not because they support discrimination, but because they were just so horrified by Rahm Emanuel making a silly remark.

And I'm calling bull**** on you as you cannot possibly know what all those people were thinking. It's not a silly remark my Emanuel either, it's a serious threat of government force against our free exercise of rights. That sort of behavior cannot be tolerated from government. If people want to boycott or buy, that's their business; but the government cannot get involved. And his little remarks did constitute government involvement, he laid credible threat against an individual who had merely spoken his mind. It is not tolerable.
 
No it's not, this is going to be like Loving v Virginia, where the SCOTUS is going to rule and SSM will be legal throughout the whole country, probably within the next 5 years I imagine.

It is against the constitution to discriminate without a clear state interest, and there is none here. I shouldn't be punished for living in Georgia because my state is ass backwards on this issue.

I doubt it, but we'll have to wait and see. Is there a clear state interest in encouraging the nuclear family? That'll be up for argument. Again, no one has a crystal ball that's worth anything on this. We'll see.

And we are a union of states, if you don't like Georgia, you're plenty free to move to a state you might like better. People of all income levels and financial circumstances do just that every single day.
 
No it's not, this is going to be like Loving v Virginia, where the SCOTUS is going to rule and SSM will be legal throughout the whole country, probably within the next 5 years I imagine.

It is against the constitution to discriminate without a clear state interest, and there is none here. I shouldn't be punished for living in Georgia because my state is ass backwards on this issue.

Yes it is, the court (at least in MA) has affirmed that it is a state right. The majority of states have banned gay marriage with a Constitutional amendment. It violates the 10th Amendment for the feds to tell the states that they are wrong when there isn't a Constitutional basis for it.

The problem with "clear state interest" is that it's an ambiguous term. I could say that there is no clear state interest behind allowing the unborn to be killed through legalized abortion because I don't recognize that some people think that fetuses aren't people/human and thus don't deserve the legal right to life (just as some who oppose SSM can do so based on their religious/personal opinions regarding what is and is not a marriage). Abortions and SSM aren't the same issue nor am I trying to link them, but what I am saying is that "clear state interest" could be anything, the people of the state could believe that homosexual marriages destroy society or the sanctity of marriage (which is stupid reasoning) but in the eyes of a state putting the measure to ban or legalize gay marriage on the ballot, that can qualify as state interest (especially when it is approved by a majority vote by people in a state).

If gay marriage is to be legalized federally a constitutional Amendment must be ratified that does so in my opinion. I don't think it's within the US constitution to give the federal government the power to overturn the majority of state Constitutions on the issue when the US Constitution isn't clear regarding sexuality and marriage. I would love to use the Constitution to say that abortion should be illegal because it violates the constitutional right of human persons, but the concept of "person-hood" is too vague in the Constitution for me to definitively say that with a legal sense and thus legally ban abortions under how the Constitution currently stands.
 
No it's not, this is going to be like Loving v Virginia, where the SCOTUS is going to rule and SSM will be legal throughout the whole country, probably within the next 5 years I imagine.

It is against the constitution to discriminate without a clear state interest, and there is none here. I shouldn't be punished for living in Georgia because my state is ass backwards on this issue.

What "clear state interest" bans polygamy, buying alcohol on Sunday, walking about naked, prostitution or recreational drug use? The constitution DOES NOT SAY everything is an individual right if the state can not show a "clear state interest" in banning it. Many states have different ages of consent and different rules on juvenile justice and MANY other things that are NOT specific individual rights or federal powers.
 
Last edited:
No it's not, this is going to be like Loving v Virginia, where the SCOTUS is going to rule and SSM will be legal throughout the whole country, probably within the next 5 years I imagine.

It is against the constitution to discriminate without a clear state interest, and there is none here. I shouldn't be punished for living in Georgia because my state is ass backwards on this issue.

I don't think that being unwilling to expand the definition of "marriage" to include homosexual unions is necessarily discrimination.
 
I am confused since SSM is now LEGAL in six states: Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont and in DC. Are you saying that the courts CREATED (via judicial activism) a SSM law in Iowa?

No, they ruled that a ban on SSM was unconstitutional according to their state constitution.
 
I don't think that being unwilling to expand the definition of "marriage" to include homosexual unions is necessarily discrimination.

Yes it is, you can accept that or not, that's up to you, but it doesn't change the facts.
 
What "clear state interest" bans polygamy, buying alcohol on Sunday, walking about naked, prostitution or recreational drug use?

Those things aren't protected under the 14th amendment like gender is, and sexuality for that matter.
 
What "clear state interest" bans polygamy, buying alcohol on Sunday, walking about naked, prostitution or recreational drug use?

Actually the aggregate dynamics of polygamy make it unstable on large levels. Furthermore if you look at any culture or subculture that has endorsed polygamy (and we still have some sects of crazies in this country who do), the most common application is exceedingly sexist and leads to whole hosts of problems including the ejection of members of the society so that polygamist families can exist on some whole. Polygamy in practice has dynamics which infringe upon the rights of others and we have seen this in any sufficiently "large scale" (which for polygamy doesn't have to be a high absolute value) of aggregation. Monogamy, two people making the "core" of the family, we do know to be very stable over time.
 
Yes it is, the court (at least in MA) has affirmed that it is a state right. The majority of states have banned gay marriage with a Constitutional amendment. It violates the 10th Amendment for the feds to tell the states that they are wrong when there isn't a Constitutional basis for it.

The problem with "clear state interest" is that it's an ambiguous term. I could say that there is no clear state interest behind allowing the unborn to be killed through legalized abortion because I don't recognize that some people think that fetuses aren't people/human and thus don't deserve the legal right to life (just as some who oppose SSM can do so based on their religious/personal opinions regarding what is and is not a marriage). Abortions and SSM aren't the same issue nor am I trying to link them, but what I am saying is that "clear state interest" could be anything, the people of the state could believe that homosexual marriages destroy society or the sanctity of marriage (which is stupid reasoning) but in the eyes of a state putting the measure to ban or legalize gay marriage on the ballot, that can qualify as state interest (especially when it is approved by a majority vote by people in a state).

If gay marriage is to be legalized federally a constitutional Amendment must be ratified that does so in my opinion. I don't think it's within the US constitution to give the federal government the power to overturn the majority of state Constitutions on the issue when the US Constitution isn't clear regarding sexuality and marriage. I would love to use the Constitution to say that abortion should be illegal because it violates the constitutional right of human persons, but the concept of "person-hood" is too vague in the Constitution for me to definitively say that with a legal sense and thus legally ban abortions under how the Constitution currently stands.

First off, this isn't about abortion. Start a thread on abortion if you want to talk about abortion, it's nothing but a straw-man.

And secondly all of those arguments you posted could easily be applied to inter-racial marriage which is actually connected to this issue(unlike abortion) and the SCOTUS has clear precedence on how to handle this. It will be legal through SCOTUs decision within the next 5 years, that is my prediction. And it makes the most sense.
 
That "difference" is a result of personal bias. Yeah, the CEO's religious and he has a differing view on GM. Now, is he going to start the rapture or attempt to kill homosexuals? We don't know and can only speculate/insinuate. Is the man entitled to an opinion without being punished by narrow-sighted mayors? Yes, he does. Am I tolerant enough to allow people to have their opinions without attacking them, yes. Understandably the man's views contrast sharply with yours. That's what makes America great, because everyone has the right to an opinion without being punished. You wouldn't like it if people punished you for holding your opinions either, I'd imagine. We should tolerate all opinions. Actions are what we should not tolerate if they are actually intended to harm others. I think people have gotten so sensitive that they can't resist being nasty and vicious towards those with sharply differing views.
When are you going to understand the difference between expressing an opinion and supporting legislation that discriminates against people unfairly? Put another way, when are you going to understand the difference between words and actions? Jesus Christ.
 
Those things aren't protected under the 14th amendment like gender is, and sexuality for that matter.

If EITHER race or gender was "absolutely protected" by the 14th amendment then why did we need the 15th or 19th amendments?
 
If EITHER race or gender was "absolutely protected" by the 14th amendment then why did we need the 15th or 19th amendments?

Because the legislature decided to fix the problem instead of the SCOTUS having to rule upon it.
 
To those supporting Chick-Fil-A --> please be advised of small potential risk.

:lamo

You run that risk everytime you eat out. Chick-Fil-A is probably one of the cleanest fast food joints out there. On par with In-and-Out and Five Guys. Funny though, that link shows just about every restaurant has someone complaining about food poisoning.

Do you actually have stats if the food-poisoning risk is greater at Chick-Fil-A compared to other fast food joints or are you just defaming because you don't like them?
 
And I'm calling bull**** on you as you cannot possibly know what all those people were thinking. It's not a silly remark my Emanuel either, it's a serious threat of government force against our free exercise of rights. That sort of behavior cannot be tolerated from government. If people want to boycott or buy, that's their business; but the government cannot get involved. And his little remarks did constitute government involvement, he laid credible threat against an individual who had merely spoken his mind. It is not tolerable.

His threat was NOT credible, he already walked it back, and he never took any legal action toward blocking them in the first place. Of all the reasons why people might have gone to Chick-Fil-A yesterday, Rahm Emanuel probably doesn't even crack the top 10. Just who do you think you're kidding? Trying to make this all about Rahm Emanuel, rather than the CEO's hateful comments and pro-discrimination advocacy, is incredibly transparent.
 
His threat was NOT credible

The threat was MADE. "Not credible" who do you think YOU'RE kidding. They could at any point do that, they could let Chick-Fil-A take them to court, drag out the proceedings, and in the intern not allow them to open businesses or other actions they could have otherwise done. Not credible? You're just saying that because you want to make a hack point that no one could possibly be upset over the government threatening action through the use of government force against an individual who exercised their rights. No, it must be because they all hate gay people and don't want same sex marriage! While that is likely the largest demographic, there is nothing to suggest it is the only one. And being upset at government for threatening someone over the exercise of right is acceptable and rational.

The only thing transparent here is your desire to make a political point at all costs.
 
Back
Top Bottom