• 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]

Lokiate said:
Yeah, if there was a liquor store open on Sunday, the only people showing up to shut it down would be the ****ing feds.
Click to expand...

Hell, there's a porn shop about 20 miles away from me, and in the 24 years that I have lived in the same place, many businesses have come and gone in that specific location around the porn shop, but no matter what time of the day or night, that you pass by, there's always customers. :lol:
 
American said:
You'd think a jew like Emanuel would know better then to try and isolate someone on religious grounds for persecution.
Click to expand...

why are you using jew like an insult? You, sir, deserve a major smack in the face.
 
Boo Radley said:
I agree it's not acceptable. But it is also not to the level of them having actually acted on it. Politicians say stupid **** as much as Chick fil a owners do.
Click to expand...

It may not be at the level of actually "acting", but this is government not the individual we're talking about here. The government is restricted, the People are not. Politicians say many stupid things, but they cannot threaten government force against the free exercise of rights. That's right out.
 
Boo Radley said:
I agree it's not acceptable. But it is also not to the level of them having actually acted on it. Politicians say stupid **** as much as Chick fil a owners do.
Click to expand...

But the difference is, politicians and mayors should know better than to make veiled threats to private business owners.
 
Lokiate said:
Profits. Ever since all this bull**** started, they have been packed full of customers day and night.
Click to expand...

Yup. Mayors of Boston and Chicago should have kept their fat mouths shut.
 
lizzie said:
But the difference is, politicians and mayors should know better than to make veiled threats to private business owners.
Click to expand...

Should doesn't mean they do. Have you listened to Obama and Romney? As an example.
 
Boo Radley said:
Always have been no matter who supported them. If you discriminate, you discriminate. There must be some just cause for the discrominate other than your own bias, be it SSM or polygamy or any other red herring you want to try to throw in (each has to stand or fall on it's own merit). Whether a discriminationis valid or not depends on the reasoning, or just cause ot that discrmination. When you deny an entire group rights because you don't like them, or think your right is superior, and have no just cause, that discimrination is wrong.
Click to expand...


What nonesense...total nonsense...when two men can procreate or two women naturally, come back and post this again and Ill agree with you...
 
Ikari said:
It shall be for sure. I don't think that what you saw here was 100% everyone against SSM, I do believe that because of government involvement and their threat of force against the free exercise of rights, that the response was exacerbated.
Click to expand...

That is the issue for most of the people involved, from what I'm gathering, in talking to friends, family, and associates.
 
Ikari said:
It may not be at the level of actually "acting", but this is government not the individual we're talking about here. The government is restricted, the People are not. Politicians say many stupid things, but they cannot threaten government force against the free exercise of rights. That's right out.
Click to expand...

If it's a real threat, of which I see no evidence of yet, legal action will be the next step, and I'll join the protest (just don't ask me to eat the food). But until then, this is largely blown out of proportion.
 
Boo Radley said:
Should doesn't mean they do. Have you listened to Obama and Romney? As an example.
Click to expand...

Sure it doesn't mean they have to, but they are stupid to do otherwise. Personally, I find it hilarious that their stupidity backfired, and showed them for the jerks they are.
 
lizzie said:
Hell, there's a porn shop about 20 miles away from me, and in the 24 years that I have lived in the same place, many businesses have come and gone in that specific location around the porn shop, but no matter what time of the day or night, that you pass by, there's always customers. :lol:
Click to expand...

Yep, even in the days of internet and free porn, there's always that one porn shop that never goes away and nobody ever questions its existence. Only time I ever heard of a porn shop being protested was because the dumbass set up shop too close to an elementary school.
 
MaggieD said:
When I read that, I didn't think it was an insult. Just sayin'...
Click to expand...

Interpret it as you like?

I'd think a caucasian like you would understand this better.
 
Boo Radley said:
If it's a real threat, of which I see no evidence of yet, legal action will be the next step, and I'll join the protest (just don't ask me to eat the food). But until then, this is largely blown out of proportion.
Click to expand...

I doesn't need to be a "real threat", it just needs to be functionally accomplishable by government. The threat is force. Were they likely running their mouths for political gain? Likely, yes, I can agree to that. But they made the threat and that is something which we cannot allow. For any or our rights, this **** is too important to get bogged down in partisan BS. The government is limited, it must act accordingly, when it does not then it must be punished. Politicians cannot be given free reign, they accepted the contract when they took office, and they must abide by it.
 
Ikari said:
But they still made the threat. They still used the position of office to put stress upon a free individual for having exercised rights. I'm sorry, but that's not acceptable. Neither in the reality that played out nor in the hypothetical I laid out.

It's not acceptable.
Click to expand...

Yes, it's not acceptable. But "putting stress on a free individual" for a few days until they walked their comments back (and not taking any action anyway) is pretty minor...certainly compared to the ongoing, institutionalized discrimination that homosexuals face. Your priorities are quite out of whack if you believe in going out of your way to support an openly bigoted business just because a mayor "put stress on him" for a week or so. You know what else puts stress upon free individuals wanting to exercise their rights? Being discriminated against. And unlike Rahm Emanuel's petty threat, bans on same-sex marriage have NOT been reversed in most states...and if Chick-Fil-A has their way, they won't be.
 
Last edited:
Lokiate said:
It's coercion, which is unacceptable.
Click to expand...

Did you read the first four words in the post to which you responded?

So on the one hand, we have a mayor being mean to a business owner and making some empty threats, which he promptly walked back. On the other hand, we have ongoing discrimination against homosexuals, fostered by pro-discrimination lobbyists and hate groups which Chick-Fil-A funds. If your priorities are such that you find the former more unacceptable than the latter, then there is something wrong with you.

You guys are just dying to make this all about Rahm Emanuel rather than the hateful comments and actions of Chick-Fil-A. Anything to make the world safe for bigotry and discrimination. :roll:
 
Last edited:
Kandahar said:
Did you read the first four words in the post to which you responded?

So on the one hand, we have a mayor being mean to a business owner and making some empty threats, which he promptly walked back. On the other hand, we have ongoing discrimination against homosexuals, fostered by pro-discrimination lobbyists and hate groups which Chick-Fil-A funds. If your priorities are such that you find the former more unacceptable than the latter, then there is something wrong with you.

You guys are just dying to make this all about Rahm Emanuel rather than the hateful comments and actions of Chick-Fil-A. Anything to make the world safe for bigotry and discrimination. :roll:
Click to expand...

Because for so many, it IS about Rahm Emanuel. The reactionary wing of Conservatism is very strong. To them, it's all about doing the exact opposite of a Liberal. Since Liberals are boycotting Chick-fil-A, that means that Chick-fil-A is the single greatest restaurant in history of cuisine.

It's not about bigotry, it's just about being the opposite of Libbos.
 
Last edited:
rocket88 said:
Because for so many, it IS about Rahm Emanuel. The reactionary wing of Conservatism is very strong. To them, it's all about doing the exact opposite of a Liberal. Since Liberals are boycotting Chick-fil-A, that means that Chick-fil-A is the single greatest restaurant in history of cuisine.

It's not about bigotry, it's just about being the opposite of Libbos.
Click to expand...

Exactly. If Rahm Emanuel hadn't opened his mouth on this issue at all, they'd just find another bull**** justification for why they had to go out of their way to support a bigoted business on "Chick-Fil-A Appreciation Day," even though THEY of course would never support bigotry.
 
Kandahar said:
Did you read the first four words in the post to which you responded?
Click to expand...
Yep, and everything that followed was a piss poor excuse.

So on the one hand, we have a mayor being mean to a business owner and making some empty threats, which he promptly walked back. On the other hand, we have ongoing discrimination against homosexuals, fostered by pro-discrimination lobbyists and hate groups which Chick-Fil-A funds. If your priorities are such that you find the former more unacceptable than the latter, then there is something wrong with you.
Click to expand...
I don't care what a private citizen does with his time or money. He has the right to express his views, Rahm does not have the right to threaten private citizens. If you can't see that, then there is clearly something wrong with you.

You guys are just dying to make this all about Rahm Emanuel rather than the hateful comments and actions of Chick-Fil-A. Anything to make the world safe for bigotry and discrimination. :roll:
Click to expand...
I don't care about Chick-Fil-A's stance. I care about not allowing government thugs to step way over its boundaries to coerce others just because they can. You don't have a right to not be offended by others speech.
 
rocket88 said:
Because for so many, it IS about Rahm Emanuel. The reactionary wing of Conservatism is very strong. To them, it's all about doing the exact opposite of a Liberal. Since Liberals are boycotting Chick-fil-A, that means that Chick-fil-A is the single greatest restaurant in history of cuisine.

It's not about bigotry, it's just about being the opposite of Libbos.
Click to expand...

I'm actually very liberal on societal issues. The government threatening a private citizen because he exercised his right to freedom of speech is reprehensible, and should not only be exposed for the unconstitutional, and criminal act that it is, but punished heavily.
 
Lokiate said:
Yep, and everything that followed was a piss poor excuse.

I don't care what a private citizen does with his time or money. He has the right to express his views, Rahm does not have the right to threaten private citizens. If you can't see that, then there is clearly something wrong with you.

I don't care about Chick-Fil-A's stance. I care about not allowing government thugs to step way over its boundaries to coerce others just because they can. You don't have a right to not be offended by others speech.
Click to expand...

Your last sentence just crystallizes that you don't even understand why people are angry with Chick-Fil-A. It's not just that their CEO doesn't like gay people; who gives a ****? It's because he is actively participating in trying to deny them civil rights and funding hate groups. And yes, I absolutely do have a right to be offended by the government discriminating against its citizens, or for that matter, anything else I might care to be offended about.
 
Last edited:
Lokiate said:
I'm actually very liberal on societal issues. The government threatening a private citizen because he exercised his right to freedom of speech is reprehensible,
Click to expand...

An empty threat against Chick-Fil-A < Ongoing discrimination against homosexuals.

and should not only be exposed for the unconstitutional, and criminal act that it is, but punished heavily.
Click to expand...

Give it a rest. Rahm Emanuel was just blowing off steam and said something dumb. Do you also think that Rick Perry should be thrown in prison for treason and insurrection when he half-heartedly suggested that Texas should secede from the union again? The phony political outrage meter is truly off the charts. :roll:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom