• 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!

Rahm: “Chick-fil-A Values Are Not Chicago Values” [W:698]

VanceMack said:
Riiiiight. People that you agree with should be able to contribute to their causes but people that dont shouldnt.
Click to expand...

The "cause" that I agree with isn't aiming to take anyone else's rights away and harm anyone. The same can't be said of the opposition. It's about as foolish as attempting to draw some type of moral equivalence between racists and anti-racists. If someone's religious belief includes the belief that blacks are inferior, political action in favor of legitimization of anti-black discrimination and preventing blacks from voting must be okay, right? :roll:

The rule of law that has been in existence since we have been a country and the religious standards for people throughout time...they really 'piss you off'...as long as they are republicans. If they are democrats...well...gawsh...they really really really in their HEARTS dont mean what they say...

:lamo
Click to expand...

Hmm, wonder what all that fuss about the Democrats (aka Fred Phelps) in the WBC was about then...:roll:
 
Last edited:
StillBallin75 said:
The "cause" that I agree with isn't aiming to take anyone else's rights away and harm anyone. The same can't be said of the opposition. It's about as foolish as attempting to draw some type of moral equivalence between racists and anti-racists. If someone's religious belief includes the belief that blacks are inferior, political action in favor of legitimization of anti-black discrimination and preventing blacks from voting must be okay, right? :roll:



Hmm, wonder what all that fuss about the Democrats (aka Fred Phelps) in the WBC was about then...:roll:
Click to expand...
It was all about the 'words'...right up until the blatant hypocrisy was pointed out. Then its 'oh noes...he actually contributes money to charities (a LOT of money to charities) and some of those charities (GASP) support his religious beliefs (thats right...the same beliefs espoused by Obama right up until two months ago when he whored those beliefs out for campaign contributions and votes). Oh...and some of those charities donate to an organization that helps gay men that WANT help to find ways to live a different lifestyle.

Meanwhile...your 'values' just got shat on AGAIN when a week ago the mayor (you remember...the guy in the OP) rolled out the red carpet for...who? Oh yeah...a guy that has a long history of equation homosexuals to pigs.

Your values are laughable...not because of the 'values' but because how little you actually care about them.
 
Thorgasm said:
Maybe they'll put him in one of the prisons they are closing.
Click to expand...

I don't know if he's any more of a gangster than they've had before, and eventually he'll back off of Chic-fil-A. He has to, it's bad for revenue and puts blacks out of work. Too bad the black population hasn't spoken up yet.
 
Meanwhile...as in California following the vast majority of hispanic and black votes against legalizing gay marriage, the liberal outrage to this group has been...non-existent....

The Beaufort Observer
 
VanceMack said:
Meanwhile...as in California following the vast majority of hispanic and black votes against legalizing gay marriage, the liberal outrage to this group has been...non-existent....

The Beaufort Observer
Click to expand...

Chick-fil-A and Gay Marriage: Bloomberg Won't Support Boycott of Chain in New York - Metropolis - WSJ

This is failing in New York too, Bloomberg doesn't support a boycott which means it will fail nationally. Good bye Mrs Henson, you stupid cow.

Cow....

chickFilA.jpg


:lamo
 
Last edited:
StillBallin75 said:
People have a right to be bigots (and others have the right to call em out as such). I disagree with folks who are racists and homophobes and I'll gladly admit it, but I recognize that that is their right - right up until they engage in actions of discrimination and and political activities that actively harms others. That's when I start to get real pissed.

It's one thing to say and believe something (one is entitled to their own beliefs and nobody can change that fact). It's quite another to put bigotry in action.
Click to expand...
In what way did Chick-fil-A put "bigotry in action?" The point of this whole issue is the idea that the state--in this case, in the form of city mayors--stepping in and promising to deny or obstruct an individual from doing business in the area the 'rule' because they disagree with their position on a specific issue. Many business owners have spoken out in favor of gay marriage. Would it be OK for a mayor to bar them from operating in their cities? Is that the way a free society should be run? Of course it isnt. If you dont like the owners position on the issue, dont eat at his restaurant. So long as he is not actively discriminating against customers or employees in violation of the law, then the state, and power hungry politicians, should stay out of it.
 
zgoldsmith23 said:
I'm not surprised. Hey Oscar - did I not tell you this would happen?
Click to expand...

not exactly in the way you meant it. most of these people are not supporting CFA just because of the mgts position (which is what you claimed). much of it is an anti-protest showing support against the boycott. not the same as what you originally said.
 
OscarB63 said:
not exactly in the way you meant it. most of these people are not supporting CFA just because of the mgts position (which is what you claimed). much of it is an anti-protest showing support against the boycott. not the same as what you originally said.
Click to expand...

exactly......most of the USA population doesn't care that one old man expressed his opinion near as much as they care about the incredibly arrogant stance of a few politicians hoping to score a few votes from a minority voting bloc....
Politicians think we are all mindless idiots who can be impressed by their antics....and sadly some are, but most of us are smarter than that.
 
OscarB63 said:
not exactly in the way you meant it. most of these people are not supporting CFA just because of the mgts position (which is what you claimed). much of it is an anti-protest showing support against the boycott. not the same as what you originally said.
Click to expand...

Support against the boycott because of their "Christian values," right?
 
If it were not for Emmanuel's comments this would be a non issue.

As far as I know chic-fil-a does not refuse to serve gays. The owners or members of their organization can have whatever personal opinions they want and gays can boycott them if they want.

Politicians should have stayed out of this.
 
Paratrooper said:
If it were not for Emmanuel's comments this would be a non issue.

As far as I know chic-fil-a does not refuse to serve gays. The owners or members of their organization can have whatever personal opinions they want and gays can boycott them if they want.

Politicians should have stayed out of this.
Click to expand...

That may be, but comments, by both ad either, are nothing. Actions are something. If the state acts, they should sue and and the state leaders shoudl be roundly slapped. But let's not pretend silly **** talking is equal to actions.
 
Boo Radley said:
That may be, but comments, by both ad either, are nothing. Actions are something. If the state acts, they should sue and and the state leaders shoudl be roundly slapped. But let's not pretend silly **** talking is equal to actions.
Click to expand...

Talk means they don't support the 1st Amendment, which means they ought to be run out on a rail. I don't like Emanuel anyhow, ****ing gangster.
 
American said:
Talk means they don't support the 1st Amendment, which means they ought to be run out on a rail. I don't like Emanuel anyhow, ****ing gangster.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. They ahve the same right to talk back as the owner did. Everyone ahs the right to **** talk. Now, to act, to ban, that would be different, and I'd join calling for them to answer for that. And I think the law would be brought into that. Otherwise, this is just one more non-issue to keep anyone from talking any real issue.
 
Boo Radley said:
That may be, but comments, by both ad either, are nothing. Actions are something. If the state acts, they should sue and and the state leaders shoudl be roundly slapped. But let's not pretend silly **** talking is equal to actions.
Click to expand...

LOL, that is EXACTLY what I have been saying about Obama since he took office. Obama TALKS of the evil Bush policies yet keeps 99% of them, Obama talks of open gov't yet hides EVERYTHING that he can. Obama TALKS of a "recovery" yet can not point to what, if anything, has caused it. Obama has been campaigning nearly endlessly has yet done very little actual governing. No he can't!
 
disneydude said:
A better example would be something like....McDonalds comes out and says that they are in favor of gay marriage....and thousands of right-wing Christians boycott McDonalds.
Click to expand...
An even better example would be if McDonalds comes out and says that they are in favor of gay marriage, and then President Romney pledges to ban McDonald's from America. Would that be okay? I think it would be about the furthest thing from okay, Constitutionally speaking, but that's just me.

As for the OP, did Rahm pledge to ban Muslim businesses from Chicago as well? They're aginst gay marriage too, in fact their "tolerance" towards homosexuality is about as intolerant as it gets, in many Muslim nations they just throw rocks at gays until they're dead. Do those values line up with Chicago values, Rahm?

Is it different because the Muslims didn't get on the radio and say that they follow their religious beliefs? Because I think they have.

It's the jaw dropping hypocrisy that really, well, drops my jaw. It seems like racism and bigotry are bigger sins than murder these days, unless the racism is directed at whites and the bigotry directed at Christians. This sword has a double edge, remember, and liberals won't be in charge forever. If we allow one group to demonize another, and use their elected positions as representatives of We The People to do so, who is to say that some Bible-thumping redneck Mayor won't do the same thing later? Will it be okay then? If not, we should nip this in the bud right here and now.

If I were COO of Chic-Fil-A, I would be applying for business licenses all over Chicago and San Francisco. Then, after they denied the applications, I'd sue them back to the stone age. And I'd win without ever seeing the inside of a courtroom.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
LOL, that is EXACTLY what I have been saying about Obama since he took office. Obama TALKS of the evil Bush policies yet keeps 99% of them, Obama talks of open gov't yet hides EVERYTHING that he can. Obama TALKS of a "recovery" yet can not point to what, if anything, has caused it. Obama has been campaigning nearly endlessly has yet done very little actual governing. No he can't!
Click to expand...

That's not exactly true. I know naunce isn't big in these circles, but 99% is a lot of hyperbole. He hasn't occupied any country on a pretext. He has honored the Iraqi timetable as he said he would before he was elected. He has concentrated in Afghanistan like he said he would. He doesn't try to call torture inhanced interrogation techniques, so at least there is some honesty there. So, while disappointing and not as far removed as I'd like, he was and is an improvement.
 
zgoldsmith23 said:
Support against the boycott because of their "Christian values," right?
Click to expand...

Some yes, most...not really. Most of the people I know (and i live in the bible belt) saw it as a protest for free speech and not support of religious beliefs.

But hey, if you want to keep thinking this is about religion and gay marriage....knock yourself out
 
OscarB63 said:
Some yes, most...not really. Most of the people I know (and i live in the bible belt) saw it as a protest for free speech and not support of religious beliefs.

But hey, if you want to keep thinking this is about religion and gay marriage....knock yourself out
Click to expand...

I live in the Bible belt, too. Even our local news stations showed interviews with the "locals" which often referenced something along the lines of "supporting their family values."
 
zgoldsmith23 said:
I live in the Bible belt, too. Even our local news stations showed interviews with the "locals" which often referenced something along the lines of "supporting their family values."
Click to expand...

whatever dude. Did you see a single interview with anyone who said "I don't like their food but I am here to show support for family values"?
 
OscarB63 said:
whatever dude. Did you see a single interview with anyone who said "I don't like their food but I am here to show support for family values"?
Click to expand...

Whether they like the food is irrelevant. My point was more of the Conservative base will frequent it more because of their silly stance.
 
chick food bank.jpg

............
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom