• 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

Should business owners hold opinions/donate towards them without fear of punishment?


  • Total voters
    43

Wake

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 31, 2010
Messages
18,536
Reaction score
2,438
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
This whole issue about Chick-fil-A has imo boiled down to whether or not business owners have the right to hold an opinion/donate in favor of their beliefs, without being punished. The ACLU has even stepped up to defend Chick-fil-A's rights. I think that so long as the ACLU, which is typically left-leaning, supports the rights of businesses with vastly differing beliefs, America's freedoms are preserved. My simple yes/no question is this:

"Do you think a business owner should be able to hold an opinion and/or donate in favor of certain beliefs, without being punished by politicians/government?"

 
This whole issue about Chick-fil-A has imo boiled down to whether or not business owners have the right to hold an opinion/donate in favor of their beliefs, without being punished. The ACLU has even stepped up to defend Chick-fil-A's rights. I think that so long as the ACLU, which is typically left-leaning, supports the rights of businesses with vastly differing beliefs, America's freedoms are preserved. My simple yes/no question is this:

"Do you think a business owner should be able to hold an opinion and/or donate in favor of certain beliefs, without being punished by politicians/government?"


If by punished, you mean bad press? No, I don't think they have that right. If by punished, you mean using government rules, regulations and red tape to restrict their right to do business, my opinion is the exact opposite.

ChickFilA and every other corporation is foolish to make donations to questionable organizations through their company. Those records are public. They do it because, by giving their their companies, they can donate with before tax dollars.

I'd bet dollars to donuts that there are a whole bunch of other organizations where the CEO (when he controls these donations like Cathy does) is setting whole new policy. If Cathy had donated this money personally instead of through his corporation? No one would be the wiser. His personal returns are private.
 
Can there be an option

"Let's stop talking about this stupid subject".

And by the way the Poll doesn't make sense, no one was or is being punished. OP wreaks of Christian Persecution Complex.

Here's what I think, CEO's can say what they want, it shouldn't make a difference for their chicken sandwiches... the whole boycott, Kiss in and reverse boycott was stupid.

But if a CEO says something that they have the right to, we also have the right in turn to criticize them.
 
1) And by the way the Poll doesn't make sense, no one was or is being punished. OP wreaks of Christian Persecution Complex.

2) Here's what I think, CEO's can say what they want, it shouldn't make a difference for their chicken sandwiches... the whole boycott, Kiss in and reverse boycott was stupid.

3) But if a CEO says something that they have the right to, we also have the right in turn to criticize them.

1) If that were true then why would the ACLU have ever gotten involved to assure us that Chick-fil-A has the right to an opinion free from bullying from politicians like Rahm?

2) 100% agreed.

3) 100% agreed.
 
1) If that were true then why would the ACLU have ever gotten involved to assure us that Chick-fil-A has the right to an opinion free from bullying from politicians like Rahm?

Punishment is a strong word.

So a couple of mayors said something stupid Wake... no one got "punished".
 
It depends, if they are donating money to illegal things then they should be punished.

Other than that the government shouldn't do anything, but they should be well aware that their customer base may shrink.
 
It depends, if they are donating money to illegal things then they should be punished.

Other than that the government shouldn't do anything, but they should be well aware that their customer base may shrink.

You voted that no they shouldn't hold opinions/donate towards them without fear of punishment.

Donating towards what organizations Dan Cathy has done isn't illegal, iirc.
 
You voted that no they shouldn't hold opinions/donate towards them without fear of punishment.

Donating towards what organizations Dan Cathy has done isn't illegal, iirc.

I voted before I read your question, and thought you meant punishment from people, and not government. Because that is the only "punishment" they have received.
 
This whole issue about Chick-fil-A has imo boiled down to whether or not business owners have the right to hold an opinion/donate in favor of their beliefs, without being punished. The ACLU has even stepped up to defend Chick-fil-A's rights. I think that so long as the ACLU, which is typically left-leaning, supports the rights of businesses with vastly differing beliefs, America's freedoms are preserved. My simple yes/no question is this:

"Do you think a business owner should be able to hold an opinion and/or donate in favor of certain beliefs, without being punished by politicians/government?"


No, they should fear no retribution by government or its officials. But people perpetuating this Chik-Fil-A nonsense should. Not really, but this is getting really old.
 
Punishment is a strong word.

So a couple of mayors said something stupid Wake... no one got "punished".

No, they threatened use of government force against an individual exercising his rights.
 
This whole issue about Chick-fil-A has imo boiled down to whether or not business owners have the right to hold an opinion/donate in favor of their beliefs, without being punished. The ACLU has even stepped up to defend Chick-fil-A's rights. I think that so long as the ACLU, which is typically left-leaning, supports the rights of businesses with vastly differing beliefs, America's freedoms are preserved. My simple yes/no question is this:

"Do you think a business owner should be able to hold an opinion and/or donate in favor of certain beliefs, without being punished by politicians/government?"


Depends on whether these beliefs fall against a protect class or not, for example.
 
Depends on whether these beliefs fall against a protect class or not, for example.

I don't know, if they are not actively discriminating or breaking laws, I don't think there is anything the government can or should do about it. It just needs to keep it's big trap shut instead of trying to score cheap political points.
 
I don't know, if they are not actively discriminating or breaking laws, I don't think there is anything the government can or should do about it. It just needs to keep it's big trap shut instead of trying to score cheap political points.

The question was phrased very open ended, because of that, protect classes was a point to be brought up.
 
The question was phrased very open ended, because of that, protect classes was a point to be brought up.

That's fine, I wasn't saying not to raise the point. I was clarifying on what I thought to be the original intent, and that would be holding an opinion or donating to certain organizations. Perchance that can be done illegally (though likely not with merely holding or expressing an opinion), but for nominal usages in which we are saying the individual is obeying the law and not infringing upon the rights of others.
 
The question was phrased very open ended, because of that, protect classes was a point to be brought up.

Nitpicking at semantics is a classic detraction and avoidance method. Why do you wish to avoid the issue here?
 
Without fear of punishment.

Thank you for the clarification. I voted "no," and here is why:

If a CEO wants to make a comment that he knows full and well will be divisive and controversial, it is his right to do so.

And it is NOT his right to believe that he is somehow immune from the consequences.
 
Nitpicking at semantics is a classic detraction and avoidance method. Why do you wish to avoid the issue here?

I don't. I very clearly stated that the government has a good reason to do this when dealing with protected classes, from a constitutional standpoint.

Another case would be if a business donates towards a terrorist or criminal organization.
 
I know this totally, doesn't answer the poll, but I never really saw the appeal of the food Chick-Fil-A serves.
It's always been kinda bland to me.

You need to get your tongue checked. Its yummy.
 
Thank you for the clarification. I voted "no," and here is why:

If a CEO wants to make a comment that he knows full and well will be divisive and controversial, it is his right to do so.

And it is NOT his right to believe that he is somehow immune from the consequences.

What consequences are you talking about?

The OP is referencing the "punishment" of using governmental powers to limit their business because the owner has a particular political belief and those trusted to donate money on behalf of the company to "charity" organizations donate to organizations that focus on a particular political/religious issue.
 
Another case would be if a business donates towards a terrorist or criminal organization.

Well that one may just be straight up illegal. And yes in that case, the government will not only threaten force, but exercise force. Depending on what they are calling "terrorist" or "criminal" organizations, it could be just.
 
I know this totally, doesn't answer the poll, but I never really saw the appeal of the food Chick-Fil-A serves.
It's always been kinda bland to me.

I'm in the same boat on this one. I think it's...ok fast food; but that's as good as it gets.
 
What consequences are you talking about?

The OP is referencing the "punishment" of using governmental powers to limit their business because the owner has a particular political belief and those trusted to donate money on behalf of the company to "charity" organizations donate to organizations that focus on a particular political/religious issue.

The OP is kind of vague in that regard. But if that's true, then this discussion isn't even relevant, as has already been explained.
 
Back
Top Bottom