• 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]

Erod said:
One day, gay people are going to realize that they are their own worst enemy.
Click to expand...


One day video of the bigots showing up at Chick-Fil-A yesterday will show up in a documentary about homophobia and backwards thinking in the year 2012 -- like the black and white news reels from the 1960s showing KKK and police with firehouses, we'll look back on the bigots misusing the bible to justify their own hatred and think: "Look at those people. How disgusting. Thank God we're not like that any more."
 
ttwtt78640 said:
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?
Click to expand...

Your Star answered you pretty well. It wasn't judicial activism. It was proper judicial review. You can't break laws because you don't like something. If the Constitution says you can't discriminate, then you can't. Frankly, it's none of your buisness who I marry. And only I can define and honor my marriage. The majority has no role in it.
 
Last edited:
ThePlayDrive said:
It's not a stretch to say that a lot of those who went out yesterday were doing so specifically to support their anti-SSM stance.
Click to expand...

stretch it a bit more and you can probably surmise that ALL of us are anti SSM......:2razz:
 
UtahBill said:
stretch it a bit more and you can probably surmise that ALL of us are anti SSM......:2razz:
Click to expand...
I only stretch things to reasonable lengths which is to say, I don't stretch them at all. :)
 
Kandahar said:
Why is any of that a problem?
Click to expand...

Because laws can only be made by legislation or constitutional amendment, not merely by the current "feelings" of the SCOTUS. What is the use of having laws if they may change without any legislative acton? If the courts and the executive are free to "interpret" them AS THEY PLEASE then they have no real weight at all. There are well defined prodecures for making laws and amending the constitution for good reason, and those procedures/laws should be respected as well.
 
Last edited:
ttwtt78640 said:
Because laws can only be made by legislation or constitutional amendment, not merely by the current "feelings" of the SCOTUS. What is the use of haovng laws if they may chage without any legislative acton? If the courts and the executive are free to "interpret" them AS THEY PLEASE then they have no real weight at all. There are defined prodecures for making laws and amending the constitution for good reasons and those prcedures/laws should be respected as well.
Click to expand...

They looked at the law and not feelings.
 
Boo Radley said:
Your Star answered you pretty well. It wasn't judicial activism. It was proper judicial review. You can't break laws because you don't like something. If the Constitution says you can't discriminate, then you can't. Frankly, it's none of your buisness who I marry. And only I can define and honor my marriage. The majority has no role in it.
Click to expand...

So, in other words, SSM was legal for a long, long time in Iowa, they just did not know it. If the U.S. Constitution says that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" then it means UNLESS the state wants to make you take a class, pass a test and charge a fee to keep (rent?) that right. Is it not amazing that laws, that we thought were quite clear, must be "interpreted", possibly many decades later, to become what they were REALLY meant to say? ;-)
 
Last edited:
ttwtt78640 said:
So, in other words, SSM was legal for a long, long time in Iowa, they just did not know it. If the U.S. Constitution says that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" then it means UNLESS the state wants to make you take a class, pass a test and charge you a fee. Is it not amazing that laws, that we thought were quite clear, must be "interpreted", possibly many decades later, to say what they REALLY meant to say? ;-)
Click to expand...

It should have been, and likely would have been had it been brought before the court. Both sides look at the law and make arguments. The court listens, looks at the alw and decides. You lose, make a better argument. Don't whine. Don't pretend that it was activism.
 
Boo Radley said:
Your Star answered you pretty well. It wasn't judicial activism. It was proper judicial review. You can't break laws because you don't like something. If the Constitution says you can't discriminate, then you can't. Frankly, it's none of your buisness who I marry. And only I can define and honor my marriage. The majority has no role in it.
Click to expand...

Great post!!

Meanwhile droves of people are patting themselves on the back because they went out for chicken yesterday. Do they really understand what they are supporting?
 
It boggles my mind that so many people give a rat's ass what causes the owner of a fast food chain believes in. That is so far down the list of reasons why I would or wouldn't go to a restaurant that it has never once come into consideration.
 
Boo Radley said:
They looked at the law and not feelings.
Click to expand...

Since the SAME words were used to justify BOTH SCOTUS decisions on "separate but equal", as no change to the Constitution occurred between the two OPPOSITE rulings, then what, other than feelings, made the difference?
 
Last edited:
molten_dragon said:
It boggles my mind that so many people give a rat's ass what causes the owner of a fast food chain believes in. That is so far down the list of reasons why I would or wouldn't go to a restaurant that it has never once come into consideration.
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure that hardly anyone cares what the owner of a fast food chain believes in which is the mayors of Boston and Chicago were supported by hardly anyone.
 
hazlnut said:
Great post!!

Meanwhile droves of people are patting themselves on the back because they went out for chicken yesterday. Do they really understand what they are supporting?
Click to expand...

Um, that was an Iowa constitional decision, not the SCOTUS and the U.S. Constitution. Eat mor chick'n!
 
molten_dragon said:
It boggles my mind that so many people give a rat's ass what causes the owner of a fast food chain believes in. That is so far down the list of reasons why I would or wouldn't go to a restaurant that it has never once come into consideration.
Click to expand...

The profits from the business go to negative bigoted lobby groups that further a twisted and anti-American version of Christianity.

If you believe in the philosophy and teachings of Christ you defend it by not engaging in or supporting intolerance.

I don't like that Dan Cathy is just a watered-down Fred Phelps -- "God will smite us for being tolerant toward gays"-- that is the notion he put forward.

If you find Fred Phelps and WBC disgusting, then how do you feel about the people only a notch down on the bigot ladder?
 
Last edited:
ttwtt78640 said:
Since the SAME words were used to justify BOTH SCOTUS decisions on "separate but equal", as no change to the Constitution occurred between the two OPPOSITE rulings, then what, other than feelings, made the difference?
Click to expand...

Again, people make arguments. Someone made a better argument. If words we so concrete that we all compeltely understood their meaning, there would be no need for judicial review. Sadly, they are not.
 
Boo Radley said:
It should have been, and likely would have been had it been brought before the court. Both sides look at the law and make arguments. The court listens, looks at the alw and decides. You lose, make a better argument. Don't whine. Don't pretend that it was activism.
Click to expand...

LOL. As I have pointed out in another thread branch, that simply means that the NEXT group of judges may decide the exact oppostie or that the constitution of Iowa must be amended to clarify a different position on SSM. I have no interest either way what the fine folks in Iowa decide to do. If the Iowa legisalture was unaware of the meaning of the Iowa state constitution that is of no concern to me, perhaps not even to the voters in Iowa. Striking down a law as unconstitutional is not "activism" yet I do find it strange when a court makes a ruling in the exact opposite direction based on the same laws. ;-)
 
Last edited:
God forbid a CEO states he/she supports the unborn's/fetus's right to live.

There'd probably be violence. :roll:
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Um, that was an Iowa constitional decision, not the SCOTUS and the U.S. Constitution. Eat mor chick'n!
Click to expand...

I liked his post about a positive advance, but reminded him that we still have a ways to go.
 
Wake said:
God forbid a CEO states he/she supports the unborn's/fetus's right to live.

There'd probably be violence. :roll:
Click to expand...

As long as he doesn't force rape victims to have a vaginal probe before they can get a morning after pill.

Or as long as he doesn't prevent his female employees from getting private medical advice from their OBGYN's.
 
hazlnut said:
Great post!!

Meanwhile droves of people are patting themselves on the back because they went out for chicken yesterday. Do they really understand what they are supporting?
Click to expand...

I don't know, but you're really making me want to eat there. And I don't even necessarily like the place.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
LOL. As I have pointed out in another thread branch, that simply means that the NEXT group of judges may decide the exact oppostie or that the constitution of Iowa must be amended to clarify a different position on SSM. I have no interest either way what the fine folks in Iowa decide to do. If the Iowa legisalture was unaware of the meaning of the Iowa state constitution that is of no concern to me, perhaps not even to the voters in Iowa. Striking down a law as unconstitutional is not "activism" yet I do find it strange when a court makes a ruling in the exact opposite direction based on the same laws. ;-)
Click to expand...

Maybe, if they get a better argument. Again, it simply isn't always a clear as some think. But it's not emotion. It's arguing what the law actually means. However, these rulings set a precedence, which makes it hard for the next group to say differently.

And it works the same way with the federal Constitution.
 
Last edited:
hazlnut said:
Do so at your own risk.
Click to expand...

Yeah I know, you've posted that dumb ass link as much as you possibly could. How many people eat at Chick-Fil-A every day? How many of those do you have getting sick every day? It's called statistics, perchance it's time to learn it.
 
Ikari said:
I don't know, but you're really making me want to eat there. And I don't even necessarily like the place.
Click to expand...

Their waffle fries rock with their buttermilk ranch dressing! lol
 
hazlnut said:
The profits from the business go to negative bigoted lobby groups that further a twisted and anti-American version of Christianity.
Click to expand...

So? If you really dig into it, most companies out there probably do something with at least part of their money that I would find distasteful. I'm not going to spend hours researching what every company in America does with all of their profits before I decide to shop there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom