• 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]

The government isn't denying all Christians a business license. You want to try your comparison again champ?

Yep -- he's indulging in turnspeak.

The correct analogy would be drawn with other hate groups who target certain people and not those certain people thus targeted. He is trying to switch the role of persecuted and persecutor here, and doing so to draw specious equivalencies between being the perpetrator of hatred and the victim thereof.
 
The underlined part is the important part. A homophobic establishment puts at stake the political interests of the state. :shrug:

so again, if the govt decides it is in the political interest of the state to deny blacks business licenses you'd be OK with that?
 
that's what I find absolutely hilarious. considering that many of the same people in this thread who are denying that this is a violation of chik-fil-a's rights are the same people who squeal that voter ID laws violate the rights of minorities and the poor.


apparently it only violates someone's rights if you agree with that person's or group's opinion :shrug:

Red herring. This thread has nothing to do with voter ID laws. Good for you trying to change the subject. Let me know how that works out. So far, you got people defending hate groups..so I don't think you are winning this debate.
 
so again, if the govt decides it is in the political interest of the state to deny blacks business licenses you'd be OK with that?

What the **** does being black have to do with anything? If an establishment puts at stake the interests of the state - REGARDLESS of whether race baiters like you think - the state has all the right to shut them down by denying them a business license. I stay consistent. Do you?
 
Last edited:
The underlined part is the important part. A homophobic establishment puts at stake the political interests of the state. :shrug:

so your saying it isnt politically motivated unless you say so.

once again pushing the stereotype that liberals believe in equality only if they agree with it.the state in this instance denied an application for the political interest.


TRY AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
so your saying it isnt politically motivated unless you say so.

once again pushing the stereotype that liberals believe in equality only if they agree with it.the state in this instance denied an application for the political interest.

TRY AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Translation: beeftw can't come up with a logical rebutal to the very information which shut down his own argument. So he's running off screaming non sequiturs.
 
Translation: beeftw can't come up with a logical rebutal to the very information which shut down his own argument. So he's running off screaming non sequiturs.

you didnt shut down my argument in any way.

you claimed it did by ways im assuming by your simply quoting that you believe supporting or opposing ssm isnt in political interests of anyone.

again keep trying because you have failed thus fsar.

A homophobic establishment puts at stake the political interests of the state

this proves fascism in the fact liberals feel it right to dictate business for political reasons,not for any legitimate reasons.
 
I have said it about twice now. I disagree with the FRC's conclusions and have said that their research is biased, and me calling it research doesn't mean that I somehow claim that gays are child molesters. I'm not defending the views of the FRC, I'm just saying that they aren't a hate group comparable with NeoNazis or the KKK.

I'm sorry that you find me sickening because I don't support your belief that the FRC is a hate group on par with the KKK and NeoNazis. I don't think you're being rational on this issue, and I would encourage you to reflect on the possibility that you may have some bias. But regardless, I'm done. I have better things to do than try and defend myself against false accusations, straw men attacks and illogically derived conclusions about my beliefs.

Your wrong digs, they are a hate group.
 
What the **** does being black have to do with anything? If an establishment puts at stake the interests of the state - REGARDLESS of whether race baiters like you think - the state has all the right to shut them down by denying them a business license. I stay consistent. Do you?

yes. I don't think the govt should be able to deny ANYONE who wants to run a legal business a licenses based on their legally expressed opinion.
 
Last edited:
question:

your answer:

sounds like a "yes" to me.

It can sound like whatever you want it to sound as long as you don't make **** up like you normally do. The government can deny a business license to whomever it wants. I made zero mention of christian bookstores - I included the entire populace. Christian, atheist or otherwise. You just seem to be complaining about a local decision being made to deny a homophobic business the privilege of conducting business. Not much I can do about that. :shrug:
 
yes. I don't think the govt should be able to deny ANYONE who wants to run a legal business a licenses based on their legally expressed opinion.

Meh. The constitution very clearly states that a state may do so if its political interests are in jeopardy. Don't like? Change the constitution. :)
 
you didnt shut down my argument in any way.

you claimed it did by ways im assuming by your simply quoting that you believe supporting or opposing ssm isnt in political interests of anyone.

again keep trying because you have failed thus fsar.

A homophobic establishment puts at stake the political interests of the state

this proves fascism in the fact liberals feel it right to dictate business for political reasons,not for any legitimate reasons.

Lmao. Your hyperbole is making me laugh. Yes yes, acceptance of homophobia is fascism. You must be from that same school of thought that tells people that charity leads to the holocaust.
 
Meh. The constitution very clearly states that a state may do so if its political interests are in jeopardy. Don't like? Change the constitution. :)


how would the political interests of the state be put at jeopardy by selling chicken?
 
Red herring. This thread has nothing to do with voter ID laws. Good for you trying to change the subject. Let me know how that works out. So far, you got people defending hate groups..so I don't think you are winning this debate.

and you claim to HATE those who refuse to acknowledge their hypocrisy... :lamo
 
Meh. The constitution very clearly states that a state may do so if its political interests are in jeopardy. Don't like? Change the constitution. :)

where does it state that???????????????????
 
how would the political interests of the state be put at jeopardy by selling chicken?

The political positions of Chick-Fil-A are what put the stakes of the state in jeopardy. Try and keep up? :)
 
Probably not, but they are a hate group.

but he never said... "they are not a hate group" the phrase "comparable to..." makes a difference
 
Lmao. Your hyperbole is making me laugh. Yes yes, acceptance of homophobia is fascism. You must be from that same school of thought that tells people that charity leads to the holocaust.

and again you are stating not only do you support breaking constitutional rule,and fascism.

but you also point out your extreme bigotry and prejudice by trying to mandate morality in the same way people like you demonize,but on amuch grander level than conservatives have.
 
BTW it's a pity I don't like Chik-Fil-A's food, else I would switch all my fast food consumption to them exclusively.

BLASPHEMER!!!! Chik-Fil-A's awesome!
 
Meh. The constitution very clearly states that a state may do so if its political interests are in jeopardy. Don't like? Change the constitution. :)

so again... if the state decides that having blacks own businesses puts its political interests in jeopardy, you'd be OK with that? if not...change the constitution :lamo
 
where does it state that???????????????????

I think hes confused on where your earlier quote came from, the one concerning the 27 labor charter
 
Back
Top Bottom